The "Gender Role" argument. My Position


studiodekadent

Recommended Posts

Btw, I recommend not arguing with Bob Mac, this forum allows you to block posts from users. He is a troll on this forum.

Translation: Arguing with somebody with basic logic skills and a decent education is far too much for him to handle and it hurts his feelings when his foolish ideas don't stand up to minimal scrutiny.

Bob

Argue, argue. Argue, argue, argue!

--Brant

Ah, now you've made me see Bob Mac's post. That is 5 wasted seconds I will never get back in my life. I quite enjoy debating with people who have basic logic skills and a decent education, I also enjoy discussing things with people who have a fundamental respect for a fellow human being, anyone familiar with my discussions here and on RoR would probably attest to that, however Bob is perpetually condescending, deragotory, outrageously arrogant, and lacks the conceptual understanding that allows us to extend a basic amount of courtesy and respect to another human being and the life he has lived and information he has processed; so he loses me as a potential audience for his ideas. If his goal is to communicate and spread ideas, he has failed at that, and ought to change his ways. I think we all know that is not his goal, If his goal is to try to make himself feel superior by insulting people on a silly web forum, well, to each their own. I don't waste time with trolls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But why is he wearing all that make up and black clothes in the first place, if he actually doesnt care what others think?

Because he likes how it looks on him.

Goth toutes independence and individuality and that they dont care what others think, but most of the behavior and culture is highly dependant on what others think.

You are thinking of poser goths, i.e. Marilyn Mansonites that sacrificed Mittens the cat to Satan in order to get attention. Real goths are genuinely individualistic. Having a common taste is not ipso facto conformity.

If he actually didnt care, he would wear only the minimal required to function, some robes and sandles perhaps.

You are again ruling out the possibility of personal taste in attire. I dress like how I do, and he dresses as he does, because both of us like our respective styles for personal reasons. Simple. Howard Roark did not care what others thought either, and he was never depicted in robes and sandals.

As for Bob_Mac, I agree that he does at times act in a condescending manner. Although I never heard him designated as a troll (although suspicion mounted after he came back after his 'last rant'). Thanks for the heads up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Bob_Mac, I agree that he does at times act in a condescending manner. Although I never heard him designated as a troll (although suspicion mounted after he came back after his 'last rant'). Thanks for the heads up.

Listen goth-boy, you know what you can do with your suspicion. Do you want to learn? Do you want people with some degree of intelligence to respect yours? Or do want to continue to spew nonsense?

Your argument from biology is completely false in every way. Do you care about learning the truth? Your drivel makes you look incredibly ignorant, almost as much as your buddy there. It's utter nonsense and hardly worthy of discussion. The best thing you can do is stay in school, read more, write less and put the bong down.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why is he wearing all that make up and black clothes in the first place, if he actually doesnt care what others think?

Because he likes how it looks on him.

Goth toutes independence and individuality and that they dont care what others think, but most of the behavior and culture is highly dependant on what others think.

and

You are again ruling out the possibility of personal taste in attire. I dress like how I do, and he dresses as he

does, because both of us like our respective styles for personal reasons.

Maybe, but when he is home alone does he put on all the makeup and black clothes? If you lived alone on island, with plenty of food and water and makeup, would you still don the goth outfit?

You are thinking of poser goths, i.e. Marilyn Mansonites that sacrificed Mittens the cat to Satan in order to get attention. Real goths are genuinely individualistic. Having a common taste is not ipso facto conformity.

No, of course it's not, but taste's born truly of individuality ought not to be so easily predictable and generally applicable. 'individuality' is not 'being different from everyone else' (because that is a form of dependance on everyone else) but just being yourself, regardless of others.

Simple. Howard Roark did not care what others thought either, and he was never depicted in robes and sandals.

No, but he pretty much just wore simple clothing, jeans and a plain shirt, etc. Was he doing this to 'conform' or because said clothing was plentiful, inexpensive, and durable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen goth-boy, you know what you can do with your suspicion. Do you want to learn? Do you want people with some degree of intelligence to respect yours? Or do want to continue to spew nonsense?

Your argument from biology is completely false in every way. Do you care about learning the truth? Your drivel makes you look incredibly ignorant, almost as much as your buddy there. It's utter nonsense and hardly worthy of discussion. The best thing you can do is stay in school, read more, write less and put the bong down.

By any standard this is abusive ad hominem. From now on I shall not interact with someone that is truly worthy of the designation "troll".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe, but when he is home alone does he put on all the makeup and black clothes? If you lived alone on island, with plenty of food and water and makeup, would you still don the goth outfit?

I cannot speak for him but I believe his answers would be similar to mine. I certainly would dress like I do if I lived on a desert island, including all the makeup.

No, of course it's not, but taste's born truly of individuality ought not to be so easily predictable and generally applicable. 'individuality' is not 'being different from everyone else' (because that is a form of dependance on everyone else) but just being yourself, regardless of others.

Im aware of the difference between individuality and reverse conformism. Also, not all goths dress identically. There are multiple different styles, hybridization and mixing it up is encouraged, etc. I certainly do not look like everyone else at a goth club, but technically speaking although there is similarity there is no identicality. In the end, I dress how I do because I like how I look in the mirror.

No, but he pretty much just wore simple clothing, jeans and a plain shirt, etc. Was he doing this to 'conform' or because said clothing was plentiful, inexpensive, and durable?

As such you realize that dress style x can be adopted for more than one reason. Same applies for every dress style, including my own. I adopted mine because I like how it looks. Simple really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Does Rand state that it is a moral imperative that women not be president? Or does she say that she suspects something is wrong with a woman who would want to psychologically and therefore would not trust her with the big red button that fires off the nukes?

On the subject of Goths, most of the ones I interact with...well, not many want to interact with me. I wear basketball shorts and Nike t-shirts, jeans if they're not too stiff or tight. Goths, as one of the few I talk to explaned, look at me and say "eww jock". I've never understood why anyone likes makeup anyway. I've never seen it as something that significantly makes people more aesthetically pleasing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Rand state that it is a moral imperative that women not be president? Or does she say that she suspects something is wrong with a woman who would want to psychologically and therefore would not trust her with the big red button that fires off the nukes?

Rand states that it is basically a moral imperative, i.e. any woman that is POTUS would endure horriffic psychological torture and hence it is against her interests.

Even so, "what Rand says" and the logical conclusions of the principles of Objectivism aren't in principle the same thing. Its been acknowleged, even by the orthodoxy, that Rand was wrong about the Woman President issue.

On the subject of Goths, most of the ones I interact with...well, not many want to interact with me. I wear basketball shorts and Nike t-shirts, jeans if they're not too stiff or tight. Goths, as one of the few I talk to explaned, look at me and say "eww jock".

Well the simple fact is that when one is picked on, abused and tormented by many people that dress like you (Im not implying you actually do this) then naturally one would associate that particular dress style with people whom one wants to avoid. You have to remember that school life is rarely easy for goths and that the main villains are often the sports-obsessives (again, Im not implying you are responsible for this).

I've never understood why anyone likes makeup anyway. I've never seen it as something that significantly makes people more aesthetically pleasing.

To your aesthetic taste, maybe. But they obviously have a different taste. Hence it probably gives them an appearance that they prefer.

Edited by studiodekadent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism and Gender Roles

Morality fundamentally derives from a choice to live on a level proper to the kind of being

one is, with the alternative being death.

No matter how moral or immoral we are we all end up dead. The 'verse does not care how we live.

Sometimes the wicked flourish. Sometimes the righteous perish young. There is no underlying moral law in the 'verse. There are no fundamental facts determining what is moral or immoral other than conformance to some moral doctrine, which is in itself an artifact and a construct.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the simple fact is that when one is picked on, abused and tormented by many people that dress like you (Im not implying you actually do this) then naturally one would associate that particular dress style with people whom one wants to avoid. You have to remember that school life is rarely easy for goths and that the main villains are often the sports-obsessives (again, Im not implying you are responsible for this).
I've never understood why anyone likes makeup anyway. I've never seen it as something that significantly makes people more aesthetically pleasing.

To your aesthetic taste, maybe. But they obviously have a different taste. Hence it probably gives them an appearance that they prefer.

Did you ever consider for a second that maybe your "villains", the "sports-obsessives" actually may be good (more Objectivist-like even) people and have it straight? Some of them at least strive to be good, better, or perhaps the "best" at something. Maybe they just don't have much respect for listless complaining angst-ridden slackers who dress, act, and apply gobs of makeup to intentionally make themselves look like raging lunatics in an attempt to non-conform in a surprisingly homogeneous way.

Did you ever consider that life, in a highly service-oriented economy, is indeed a popularity contest, and that one's prosperity is often directly related to personal relationships based on trust, admiration, and general good touchy-feely-ness? Ever consider that dressing and acting like an idiot will drastically increase the chances of living your life in squalour and poverty?

Ever think that you might do your mind and body some good if you put the drugs down and picked up a ball?

Bob

Edited by Bob_Mac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might consider many Goth bands to be not to my liking, but I would not consider them to be bad at what they do, or that they exhibit lack of prosperity. On the contrary, I see gobs of success, fame and money, makeup and all.

Some need is being serviced on the free marketplace with this. That is pure capitalism and that much money doesn't happen by accident. Mocking that need certainly will not change it or make it go away.

I suppose on the downside, you have the angst-ridden whiner in the Gothic culture just like you have the retarded meat-head in athletics. That doesn't mean that these stereotypes are typical of most members.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might consider many Goth bands to be not to my liking, but I would not consider them to be bad at what they do, or that they exhibit lack of prosperity. On the contrary, I see gobs of success, fame and money, makeup and all.

So everything will be just fine as long as I make it as a rock star? Not a great thing to pin one's hopes on in my opinion.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Goths" came about after my time in school, but I've had young relatives who have "rebelled," displayed their individuality, or otherwise expressed themselves by going goth or making other unconventional choices in dress and behavior, and I can understand it. Goth types are often more artsy than athletic, so it's natural that they'd prefer to craft a different look.

When I was in school, I was somewhat "sports-obsessive" -- I ruled at basketball -- but I was also artsy, so I wasn't like other jocks who really got a thrill out of picking on kids who they thought were "nerds" or "burn-outs" or whatever. It makes sense to me that certain kids would want to create an image for themselves in reaction to being abused regularly -- including physically sometimes -- by the "cool" kids.

Did you ever consider for a second that maybe your "villains", the "sports-obsessives" actually may be good (more Objectivist-like even) people and have it straight? Some of them at least strive to be good, better, or perhaps the "best" at something. Maybe they just don't have much respect for listless complaining angst-ridden slackers who dress, act, and apply gobs of makeup to intentionally make themselves look like raging lunatics in an attempt to non-conform in a surprisingly homogeneous way.

Did you ever consider that life, in a highly service-oriented economy, is indeed a popularity contest, and that one's prosperity is often directly related to personal relationships based on trust, admiration, and general good touchy-feely-ness?

If life is a popularity contest, why do you think that it's surprisingly homogeneous that kids who are unpopular and non-athletic, and have probably been picked on a lot by those who are popular and athletic, would try to find a way to redefine "cool," or to at least be popular amongst each other, or to create an image for themselves which might be scary to those who otherwise wouldn't hesitate to physically assault them? They're not going to win any popularity contests by any means other than rejecting the normal rules, and they might as well be somewhat similar in style so they can have a sense of acceptance or belonging with someone.

Ever consider that dressing and acting like an idiot will drastically increase the chances of living your life in squalour and poverty?

That's a good point. I've known some jocks who, after high school, never stopped acting like idiots or dressing like high school jocks, and their lives are most definitely shit now that they're "adults." Entry level jobs, beer league sports a few nights each week, beating their wives once in a while, and divorcing and remarrying again and again.

You're right, though, if you mean that most "goths" are probably not going to get hired as sales managers, but I've known some pretty bad-ass-looking people who have had a lot of success in life. Some of them have made more money than most "normal-dressing" people. They tend to more creative and passionate in life, and less likely to settle for the security of being an unhappy drone in a sales manager's suit.

Plus there is something of value in seeing how a potential employer will respond to someone who is different. Personally, I would be very hesitant to take a job with someone who was willing to pass up on a driven, talented worker because he or she looks a little different. Or a lot different. If the priorities are that fucked up, I'm probably not going to he happy working there.

Ever think that you might do your mind and body some good if you put the drugs down and picked up a ball?

Given the choice, I'd rather that a kid would wear weird clothes and makeup and get high than "pick up a ball" and slam other kids' heads into lockers.

Maybe things have changed. When I was in school, there were always a few of us jocks who would stop bully jocks from picking on the weak. Maybe that's not so common now, and the weak have had to find ways to survive on their own.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might consider many Goth bands to be not to my liking, but I would not consider them to be bad at what they do, or that they exhibit lack of prosperity. On the contrary, I see gobs of success, fame and money, makeup and all.

Some need is being serviced on the free marketplace with this. That is pure capitalism and that much money doesn't happen by accident. Mocking that need certainly will not change it or make it go away.

Well, I should clarify that the more "mainstream" goth-oriented bands (the ones that do make all the money) are not usually considered the height of goth. The Cure is the only exception I can think of (since they have been around since the 80's). Marilyn Manson and NIN are not the height of it (although quite a lot of NIN is very very good). Indeed, the most respected bands in the 'hard core' of the scene do not make heaps of money. Johan van Roy of Suicide Commando still has his day job I believe.

Either way, Capitalism does allow this stuff to survive because of niche market economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say, my fondest memory of goths is when I was walking by a group of them in the hall and I walked up to my friend who was sitting in the circle and said, "Geeze, I hate cliques." To which I got resounding approval as I walked away laughing.

Seriously though, the only kids I have noticed getting picked on at my school a significant amount is the kid who gets picked on BECAUSE he has a persecution complex and the kid who has some sort of mental disorder which makes him be a complete jerk to everyone else. I personally don't pick on either of them (and have gained some measure of acceptance from both).

MSK,

I suppose on the downside, you have the angst-ridden whiner in the Gothic culture just like you have the retarded meat-head in athletics. That doesn't mean that these stereotypes are typical of most members.

The stereotypes are INCREDIBLY accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stereotypes are INCREDIBLY accurate.

Jeff,

Thats because many goths like to play the stereotype as a joke, especially around outsiders. To actually test whether they are angsty as hell you have to literally get to know them as people.

The reason most goths do this is to expose other's superficiality. Its a way of 'entrapping' other people into a situation where they show they do judge books by covers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, they decide to expose superficiality by provoking it? That's like saying, "you have drugs on you" after you slipped them into my coat pocket beforehand. I may have been carrying drugs before, you just made sure of it. Either way, why do they care to provoke others in such a way? What do they care if other people are superficial? Do they get some feeling of superiority out of it? If so, why compare?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism and Gender Roles

GOAL: To prove that the Objectivist philosophy logically entails rejection of gender roles.

DEFINITIONS:

Could you give specific examples of these roles or rules?

Are we talking about, for boys, "Thou shalt not play with Barbies" and for girls "Thou shalt not play with Tonkas?" It would be nice to have a list of top 10 gender roles/rules for both boys and girls.

In anticipation of a reply, and to move the ball forward, I'd like to focus on what really determines "gender roles" and what determines the large statistical differences between what men and women do and accomplish (women really haven't accomplished much, compared to men, and feminism has become not much more than making excuses for that).

It's all about high intelligence.

Almost all of the super smart people in the world are men. The disparity in intelligence between men and women explains why men run everything in the same way that the disparity between humans and tigers explains why tigers are on the run.

Yes, I'll gladly grant that the average woman is smarter than the average man. Neither the average woman nor the average man count for much in the big picture. Geniuses are what count.

The more standard deviations you get away from average intelligence, the lower the ratio of women to men. That applies in both the smarter and dumber directions. There are a lot more male idiots than female idiots. The important thing is that the ratios aren't 2 to 1--they're more like 100 to 1 by the time you're decelerating below the 60's or accelerating above the 160's in IQ.

I don't know why this is or how malleable it is. Maybe sending more women to junior college to major in Women's Studies and Feminist Literature will change it in a few years. Till then....

Here's the fundamental female gender role: to be what really really smart men will compete with each other to get. Ladies, if you blow that, you got nowhere to go. You're not smart enough to run the world. You better be smart enough to run the men who run the world.

Mike Lee

Girl's Best Friend

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And George W. Bush's IQ is -- ?

Statistically, since you brought it up, how many people have IQ above 160? Are they predominantly white, or black, or European, or perhaps Asian? What do all these supersmart (predominantly male) people do for a living? Working for government, building weapons?

Inquiring minds want to know.

W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And George W. Bush's IQ is -- ?

Statistically, since you brought it up, how many people have IQ above 160? Are they predominantly white, or black, or European, or perhaps Asian? What do all these supersmart (predominantly male) people do for a living? Working for government, building weapons?

Inquiring minds want to know.

W.

George Bush's IQ is probably higher than yours. Certainly, it's higher than John Kerry's. Bush beat Kerry's score on his college boards (a good enough proxy for IQ score that MENSA accepts the scores as proof of high IQ), and Bush got slightly better grades in college than did Kerry. Bush gets brain freeze much more often than not when speaking in public or when talking his way through a minefield, but that does not equate with stupidity.

I turned around on the subject of Bush's native intelligence several years ago after hearing him interviewed on some radio program where he was, for whatever reason, obviously completely at ease. He'd forgotten about the microphones and he seemed an entirely different person.

A few weeks ago, I read the best defense of Bush's intelligence that's ever been written, by Bill Whittle: http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/2006_11.html (Scroll down to "Seeing the Unseen"--and for a good time, go read some of his other stuff too)

What are all these super smart people doing? It's interesting that they're invisible to you. They're running big corporations (average Fortune 500 CEO IQ is above 150), writing complex software, and, yes, building weapons systems that, regardless of your politics, you must admit are technologically marvelous. They are responsible for nearly all the

I don't want to go down the rathole of arguing about racial or ethnic IQ disparities. They exist, I don't know why, and it doesn't change the power of IQ in explaining and predicting human achievement. IQ matters--that's a brute, very important fact that, to borrow a phrase, we blank out at great peril.

How many people have IQ's above 160? Not many, but they're predominantly male. It is possible to raise your own IQ a few points by mental exercise and active learning. If that kind of exercise is of interest to you, I suggest googling IQ standard deviation distribution and then doing the math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read 'Seeing The Unseen Part I' and coped this line:

Recent reports of the advanced state of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, and the confirmed presence of 700+ chemical shells...

Whittle is persuasive, except when wrong, and his point about George Bush successfully piloting a fighter jet is well-taken. I don't know what to say about graduating from an Ivy League school. I don't think a majority of Fortune 500 CEOs trained at Harvard or Yale, and I'll remind everyone of Enron, Tyco, and Worldcom.

My IQ as a kid was high, because I have a knack for analogy. It's been my great fortune to associate with much brighter men, most of whom were amoral. I accept that Henry Kissinger was a bright person in his prime and spoke for the Ruling Class of Natural Betters when he said: "The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer."

IQ is no substitute for constitutional government by We The (Ordinary) People.

:)

Edited by Wolf DeVoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, they decide to expose superficiality by provoking it?

The assumption is that the superficiality pre-exists within the person. You cannot 'provoke' something that is a character trait. In other words, what the technique assumes is that people who are characteristically superficial will take the bait and those people that are not characteristically superficial will not be 'provoked' into taking the bait (because they will not judge a book by its cover).

The assumptions may be false in some cases but they arent false in my general experience. I have consistently found that people with a brain will at the very least talk to me before forming a judgement, and stupid people will just take a look at my clothes and proceed to psychologize on the basis of arbitrary social standards.

Either way, why do they care to provoke others in such a way? What do they care if other people are superficial? Do they get some feeling of superiority out of it? If so, why compare?

Intelligence gathering. Helps spot potential enemies and disvalues quickly and efficiently and put them in the "avoid" box. Certainly some people get a feeling of superiority out of it, but that is not my prime motive at least. To turn your own argument around, it is well known certain sports-addicts are driven to be the best in their field, i.e. their prime motive is to be better than others. I do not assume that to be true of you merely because you are a self-proclaimed sports nut. I would be grateful if you returned the courtesy.

Now, to quote Mikelee99:

Could you give specific examples of these roles or rules?

FOR MEN

1. Boys shalt not wear makeup

2. Boys shalt not care about how they look or display vanity

3. Boys shalt not display emotions

4. Boys shalt prove themselves by demonstrating they are impervious to pain

5. Boys shalt generally act as a pack of wolves, especially in relation to the above commandment

6. When young, boys shalt hate girls, then when growing up will want to constantly fuck them, yet still not like them as company

7. Boys shalt not have a single female that is actually a friend

8. Boys shalt not like art

FOR WOMEN

1. Girls shalt not be sexual creatures

2. Girls shalt be the image of the submissive 50's housewife

3. Girls shalt not have deep and meaningful discussions unless they pertain to the latest issue of Cosmo

4. Girls shalt not show much interest in anything beyond being a mother

5. Girls shalt love pink obsessively

6. Girls shalt avoid logical thought at all costs

7. Girls shalt not display competence at integral calculus

8. Girls shalt be vapid, naive social metaphysicians (and yet not be able to spell it).

The roles for women have luckily been exposed as a demented fraud. The situation for men is much less liberated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The assumption is that the superficiality pre-exists within the person. You cannot 'provoke' something that is a character trait. In other words, what the technique assumes is that people who are characteristically superficial will take the bait and those people that are not characteristically superficial will not be 'provoked' into taking the bait (because they will not judge a book by its cover).

The assumptions may be false in some cases but they arent false in my general experience. I have consistently found that people with a brain will at the very least talk to me before forming a judgement, and stupid people will just take a look at my clothes and proceed to psychologize on the basis of arbitrary social standards.

Seems like they are taking a trait that exists in just about everyone and tries to blow it up and bring out the worst in people. I mean the entire thing is rooted in someone not wanting to be judged in one way or another for one reason or another. I am constantly open to being judged for every part of me. Why? Because I don't care what people judge. There are easier ways to tell if a person is worth befriending or not than by intentionally conforming to a stereotype. Why would a person allow another that power over them? That is, of course, all moot in your case because you dress that way because it is aesthetically pleasing to you.

Intelligence gathering. Helps spot potential enemies and disvalues quickly and efficiently and put them in the "avoid" box.

If I like a person the way they dress isn't going to make me like them less or more. Likewise, I would expect that the way I dress isn't the reason my friends do like me. It may for some, however, be the reason that a person doesn't like another. Honestly, when have you ever heard a person say, "I hate the person's guts, but they dress so well that I have to be friends with them." That might apply to a few of the worst one night stands ever, but not to any case where a prolonged friendship has any chance of resulting from it.

By dressing in order to expose someone's superficiality, you're basically getting rid of the people who would say something like that, a person who it wouldn't take long to figure out is a fraud anyway. You'll run into more frauds like that running into fake goths who are more inclined to accept you do to the way you dress. Doesn't make much sense does it? Seems like that test of character has a few holes.

I wear shorts and t-shirts year round due to the fact that my internal body temperature is higher than average (somewhere in the 99-100 degree average body temperature range) which makes everything seem a lot hotter. I can't stand it when my shorts go more than an inch onto my shins or when my shirt is tight. On especially cold days I wear my varsity jacket, a monument to myself, for myself (and something I have been criticized for by every social group ever to touch the earth including the jocks).

To turn your own argument around

On who are you turning it? I have pretty much established throughout that I don't identify with any social group.

I do not assume that to be true of you merely because you are a self-proclaimed sports nut. I would be grateful if you returned the courtesy.

When have I ever implied that you were one of them?

On a less serious note, MENSA, being one of the organizations that you subscribe into if your IQ is above x, has a name that bugs me because it's a latin word for table which has no apparent relation or reason behind it except for that it's latin. The metaphore probably isn't known by half the members. Why arbitrarily use latin? Apparently they have never heard the saying, "Never use a long word when a diminutive would suffice".

Someone should start a group like that but call it something like "Genius Club: Because we don't need big words to show we're smart."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like they are taking a trait that exists in just about everyone and tries to blow it up and bring out the worst in people. I mean the entire thing is rooted in someone not wanting to be judged in one way or another for one reason or another. I am constantly open to being judged for every part of me. Why? Because I don't care what people judge. There are easier ways to tell if a person is worth befriending or not than by intentionally conforming to a stereotype. Why would a person allow another that power over them? That is, of course, all moot in your case because you dress that way because it is aesthetically pleasing to you.

Does the trait of superficiality exist in everyone? I think not. I dont judge people by how they dress; taste in clothes and character traits are not related in a simple way. I think its fair to say you do not judge people by how they dress either. Therefore not everyone is superficial.

In addition, you would actually be surprised at how much diversity there is for clothing taste amongst goths. There are many many different 'subspecies' and hybridization and mixing things up is actually encouraged. Also, as stated before, although I can only speak for myself, I doubt that anyone would dress like a goth if they did not actually like the look themselves. Its not a cheap wardrobe and its not always the easiest thing to wear. Anyone that dressed this way to fit in with the weird kids would be pretty easy to spot (and since Im an Objectivist I can smell a secondhander from a mile away).

By dressing in order to expose someone's superficiality, you're basically getting rid of the people who would say something like that, a person who it wouldn't take long to figure out is a fraud anyway.

I would rather a test that took "one glance" of time to "five minutes of discussion" assuming they both have equal reliability. Time efficiency is an important factor.

When have I ever implied that you were one of them?

Apologies for my ambiguous phrasing. The implication I was asking you to not make (i.e. I did not assume you made it) was that I dressed for others as opposed to myself. You havent made that implication yet and I hope that is a standing policy you are planning to continue.

On a less serious note, MENSA, being one of the organizations that you subscribe into if your IQ is above x, has a name that bugs me because it's a latin word for table which has no apparent relation or reason behind it except for that it's latin. The metaphore probably isn't known by half the members. Why arbitrarily use latin?

Because apparently a dead language of some archaic, warlike and irrational civilization that was idolized by the fascists somehow possesses an aura of prestige and wisdom. (The Romans did make some good innovations in Jurisprudence however, but that is beyond the point).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now