If you’re a “nice guy” to a girl up until you realize she doesn’t want to date you, then go on about how she’s a cold shrew that friendzoned you and how no girls date “nice guys,” like nah mate. Girls do date nice guys. You just aren’t a nice guy. You’re a passive-aggressive beta with internalized misogyny and a serious victim complex. —K. Walker
This article appears in Mar 12-18, 2015.
“You’re a passive-aggressive beta with internalized misogyny and a serious victim complex.”
That’s a long winded way of saying you think someone is a jerk. But I digress.
This guy sounds a lot like the type of guy who goes around saying that all women are gold diggers … or the women who go around saying that all men are pigs. They all have one thing in common – they need to take a long look in the mirror. The mirror never lies.
Dude, dating cold shrews who friendzone you then bitch about your frustration means they just aren’t a nice gal. They’re just passive-aggressive betas with internalized misandria and a serious victim complex. Thank your lucky stars and check out the blonde next to her…
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/748/133/755…
The concept of being friendzoned is bullshit, but all I can think of is Snake saying “Oh no, Beta!”
Of course, you may not want to date this guy either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-Q7Q_WlRS…
Dude, she’s just not that into you.
I’m a kinder gentler Mr. Nice Guy all around…. don’t need any wimmen to validate the point i already know. Any wimmen who fail to see that facet of me comes under one of my many categories. ” It’s your loss”.
THE PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE BETA
“You’re a passive aggressive beta with internalized misogyny and a serious victim complex.” K. Walker
The interesting thing about pop-psychology labels – or just psychology labels themselves for that matter – is their cognitive vacuity which can usually be identified by asking for contrasts. For example, what would someone who is NOT a “passive-aggressive beta” look like? Would it make sense to say that someone was NOT a passive-aggressive beta and if so, how would they be identified? Would they fail to satisfy the criteria on the “passive-aggressive beta” chart?
But the criteria are themselves constitutive of what it MEANS to be a passive-aggressive beta.” That’s called conceptual circularity and so is incoherent.
As with the psychological concept of “intelligence” which, in circular fashion, equates it with that which intelligence tests measure, so it is with the “passive-aggressive beta” which, also in circular fashion, equates it with the criteria by which it is to be identified. But this simply drives the question back one step: How did the psychologists know that the criteria are identical with the condition? From what higher perspective were they able to make the determination?
The answer, of course, is that there IS no such “higher perspective” with the consequence that the diagnosis of the “passive-aggressive beta” syndrome is vacuous. In academic language, we would say that the concept was not “perspicuous.” In fact we would say that the concept of the “passive-aggressive beta” wasn’t a real concept at all. The same can be said, of course, of “internalized misogyny” and a “serious victim complex.”
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
I find a lot of ‘nice guys’ who spout off about how nice they are and how women don’t want nice guys are either: a) assholes in disguise with entitlement issues or b) pushover wimps. Neither of which are exactly panty droppers.
I have mixed feelings about this one. As a male in the “dating pool” I have a pretty easy time dealing with the dreaded friend-zone. “I have enough friends”. Sounds dickish, but it’s true, and I’d be lying to you if I said “sure, we can hang out as friends”.
Montrealman may have been getting at this, but I can never understand his writing, too dense for The Coast, I’m sure it’s great for a PhD thesis. Being a “nice guy” and being passive-aggressive…are the two mutually exclusive? What does the “nice guy” label even mean? Are they dudes who aren’t just out for a fuck N chuck? Are they dudes who will call and text all the time? Are they dudes who aren’t full of themselves?
I’m well aware that I have passive-aggressive tendencies. I also consider myself to be nice, although try and avoid labelling myself anything as I don’t want to baggage that comes with labels that may or may not apply.
Calling someone a cold-shrew for not wanting to date you is a dick move, but plenty of good people do shitty things, especially when frustrated or are feeling rejected. You likely didn’t deserve that type of comment, and this dude should check himself next time.
Any bloke who calls himself a ‘nice guy’ rarely is. That’s only his opinion.
There’s no such thing as a nice guy, or a nice girl for that matter. It all depends on the situation. You might not be a giant asshole all the time but you shouldn’t really be applauded for that, it’s sort of expected that being a douchebag should not be the norm.
I think ya’ll should get onto the “fuck & chuck” train. It’s a lot less complicated and far more fun. Victoriana be damned!
ps: don’t forget to sign the petition!
RSVP
Take a Step Back (11:21AM)
“Mpntrealman may have been getting at this, but I can never understand his writing, too dense for The Coast, I’m sure it’s great for a PhD thesis.”
Well, I’ve already written one so there’s not much point in writing another. As far as getting at what you were saying, I couldn’t understand it. It’s probably too dense for The Coast anyway.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
I think that’s why MM’s account is still active after all these years: no one at The Coast understands his comments! Brilliant MM!
“Nice guys” are the guys who are easily manipulated. Those that aren’t are the smart ones…
And I dare any man to argue that point…
Nice guy’s and nice gal’s aren’t necessarily “stupid”I think a little naive and/or overly optimistic (at times) wanting to see the best in people.
You really don’t think the friendzone exists? Come on, you’ve never seen a woman take advantage of a man who has feelings for her or maybe just an attraction to her? Men do it to women too. Calling him when she needs something from him, ignoring him when she doesn’t, taking advantage of the fact that he has low self esteem and no backbone and either consciously or subconsciously doesn’t believe he can do any better than being friends with the girls he wants to be with. It definitely exists, it’s just not really anyone’s fault but your own if you happen to end up in it.
Now if you’re genuinely friends even though maybe it started out as an attraction that’s being friends. But friendzone-ing someone is taking advantage of their feelings for you.
That being said I’m on board with this bitch. The way I see it, anything you say about the people you date you’re also saying about yourself. If you think that all men or all women are a certain way it’s because you’re a certain way and you can’t do better than the losers you end up with.
“passive-aggressive” , “internalized misogyny” , “victim complex.”
OB, first of all, the guy sounds like he was out of bounds with his “cold shrew” criticism. He should have just accepted the rejection with dignity. So, your bitch is completely valid.
However, I also find it peculiar that many people like to bandy about, and often misuse, what I refer to as ‘therapy speak”. Such as:
Passive-aggressive behaviour is defined as the indirect expression of hostility, such as through procrastination, stubbornness, sullenness, or deliberate or repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is responsible. This guy in the bitch is just plain aggressive and is very direct in his hostility – there’s no passiveness.
Internalized mysogyny is a term that is only ever used to describe women who are regarded as exhibiting mysogynistic behaviour. So a male can’t have internalized misogyny.
Victim complex usually refers to someone who avoids personal responsibility or bad feelings by blaming others. This one might be accurate.
One out of three! For what it’s worth, I recommend avoiding therapy speak. It’s the language of the walking wounded and it’s too easy to misuse and, well, it’s only therapy speak!
The irony to all of this BS is that the term “nice guy” or “wimp” are all meant as abrasive labels to identify and exile those not considered acting within accepted dating norms, when it fact the common norm is made up of often abusive, selfish, self-loving jerks who see themselves as “what is normal”.
Since aggression and “what is in it for me” rationale are the conditioned female norm — it says very little good about the so called normals in this society. Men are becoming increasingly infected with the same mindset, as they feel they have to be narcissistic jerks in order to compete in the dating pool, just like many of the women who seek to label men as part of their elitist judgments. Being a “man” is more important then being a “nice guy”, but a man who does not practice kindness, compassion, decency, or “niceness” is not a man.
It is a growing symptom of our sick culture, and it merely shows that most of western culture needs a good matchstick to burn it all to the ground. That so we can start over rebuilding something that resembles a world where the people who are different are respected instead of used as hate fodder for drama queens of either gender.
Grown up pants are needed to make a relationship work. Self-serving behavior is just hook up culture, and that is a waste of human energy. The old ways are still the better way. Men had ethics, and women respected them for it. Now the only thing that garners respect is the men who steal and get away with it.
Sick.
Just call it what it is…
Nice guys are unfortunate-looking, homely mafuckas with small dicks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yyq8gtMcbe…
RSVP
Hing Frogg (03/19, 5:42PM)
Thank you for your kind thoughts. However, I must say it was a bit disheartening to hear that no one at The Coast understands my comments. Clearly, the issue turns on what it is to “understand” something.
Doing a little “Ordinary Language Philosophy” we can see, according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, that to understand something entails “grasping mentally, perceiving the significance of, or explanation of, or cause or nature of, or to know how to deal with.” The difficulty, of course, is that dictionary definitions, by their very nature, are tautologies or circular. In other words, the definition presupposes a prior knowledge of what the word means in the first place.
That being so, to understand of what “understand” consists requires rising above the mundane first-order level of the word itself in order to engage its second-order reality, assuming of course that one is a philosophical realist and not a nominalist, one who maintains that there is no further reality to which the word corresponds. This will involve a close scrutiny of the various synonyms of “understand” given above.
I trust this will dissolve any “intellectual cramps” endured by those at The Coast.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
in my experience, nice guys never call themselves nice guys. only assholes call themselves nice guy, hoping, I guess, to convince everyone.
real nice guys get called that by others.
So I guess us men aren’t allowed to judge our own character? Please fuck off!!!
you think you’re special??? should women be allowed to judge their own looks when posting on po(dead) fish?
PEOPLE are very unreliable when judging their own _______insert thing here. (no froggy, this is not a glory hole – put it back)
Albert the sheep cat is not amused.
http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-conte…
Some nice guys say the meanest things.
Some nice guys are lying SOB’s.
Some lying SOB’s are really nice guys.
Some guys have all the trucks.
Some guys have all the planes.
Some guys just take the bus.
Some guys they have to take the train.
wah-oh-a-woa-a-o-woa-oh-oh.
le sigh….
if they are nice guys then they cannot be lying sobs.
and if they are lying sobs then they cannot be nice guys.
am I right MM?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y1iUyeK4f…
Incorrect, GDM – I’d like to direct you to exhibit A. The question “Does this dress make me look fat?” I rest my case.
No YOU’RE out of order!
My mirror makes me look fat 🙁
Mirror mirror on the wall…Does my hair look nice?
Hahaa. Man, I’m going to miss you all when we’re all banned and our IP addresses are all blocked.
All that’ll be left is Mo Fool talking to herself about mini pizzas and her unrequited love of melanin deficient degenerates.
SMH.
You sound like a woman with experience and brains. Who might take control so to speak.
I must admit, I’m turned on.
If that doesn’t make you uncomfortable;)
Eyebrows will have a go! He even plucked for ya!
MORE ON UNDERSTANDING
“Clearly, the issue turns on what it is to understand something.” (Montrealman, 03/20, 8:36AM)
We saw that engaging in Ordinary Language Philosophy (OLP) produced only dictionary definitions of “understanding” which simply gave synonyms for the term but did not explore the activity itself. So what is it to understand something? This will become clearer when we engage three different levels of understanding, those embodied in the rock, the face and the mind.
Does it make sense to ask how we can understand a rock? Of course not, but why? We do not understand a rock because it is not a comprehensive entity, something consisting of parts or particulars which jointly constitute a whole. The rock is just that, an object having only one dimension. It is just a rock. To ask how we can understand a rock is therefore incoherent.
However, this is not the case with the face of a friend. We recognize the face of a friend immediately even if he is in a crowd. We could call this visual understanding or visual comprehension. How do we do this? We do it by integrating the particulars of his face – his eyes, his nose, his hair and so on – into their comprehensive entity, his face. The “recognition of physiognomies” as it is called in philosophy is both immediate and tacit. Such recognition is immediate – it is not the outcome of an extended process of reasoning – and it is tacit – we are not explicitly conscious of our integrating the particulars onto that comprehensive entity, the face of a friend. This is not to say that the integration is unconscious or subconscious, merely that it is tacit. It is also irreversible. We cannot focus explicitly on the particulars of a tacit integration of the friend’s face – his nose, eyes and so on – since such a reversal would destroy that integration in the same way that a pianist explicitly focusing on the position of his fingers on the keyboard would destroy his performance.
This brings us to understanding the mind, the most important comprehensive entity there is since a human being is constituted not by his body but by his mind. He is his mind. So we understand who he is, his mind, by attending FROM the particulars – his words, his phrasing, tone, thought processes and so on – TO his mind which is the joint meaning of those particulars. How do we do this? We do it by “indwelling.” We indwell tacitly in the particulars while directing focal attention to the comprehensive entity those particulars jointly constitute. In effect, we are talking about the structure of human consciousness itself.
Is this some esoteric activity vouchsafed only to the intellectual elite? On the contrary, it is a common possession. Indeed, I use it when listening to the minds of the bitchers at work among their words. It is on that basis that I attempt to structure a response.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
“IF P, THEN Q”
RSVP
Gooddog Molly (03/20, 5:45PM)
Sorry for missing you but I had the bit in my teeth as you can see above.
So the question is, “if they are nice guys then they cannot be lying sobs and if they are lying sobs then they cannot be nice guys.” What we have here is an instance of exclusionary logical reasoning premised on conditionals and usually set forth in the form, “If p, then Q.”
So, where “”p” is any proposition (“if they are nice guys”) and Q is the logically necessary consequent (“then they cannot be lying sobs”) then the full proposition – “if they are nice guys then they cannot be lying sobs” – is logically true given the truth of the premise (p).
On the other hand the same holds true for its exclusionary opposite, that is, where P is any proposition (“if they are lying sobs”) and Q is the logically necessary consequent (“then they cannot be nice guys”) then the full proposition – “if they are lying sobs then they cannot be nice guys” – is logically true given the truth of the premise (p). The second proposition is exclusionary in relation to the first, of course, because contrary premises cannot both be true at the same time and in respect to the same individual.
I hope that this has been helpful.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
mm said: “So we understand who he is, his mind, by attending FROM the particulars – his words, his phrasing, tone, thought processes and so on – TO his mind which is the joint meaning of those particulars.”
In our normal interactions with people we, as montrealman pointed out, rely heavily on their words to understand them but we also, to a degree, rely on tone of voice, facial expressions, body language, and any knowledge we have of the person’s background and current situation. In public forums such as this our understanding is reduced, for the most part, to nothing but an anonymous person’s words, and often those words are hastily written and ill-considered or we simply do not grasp the intent of the writer, so it isn’t surprising that mis-understandings are frequent.
^^^ HaHa!
I didn’t know someone could be so adept at reading between the lines.
Hear Hear Babyshambles… How is it that a certain commenter can call someone a “melanin deficient degenerate” that to me has no valid foundation to be said? It is derogatory in nature and unless you know that person personally, you cannot say that without it being a malicious attack on that person’s character. Yet there were no consequences to that statement other than an innocent person(s) Ivan/Chuck being barred and IP blocked. Something is terribly wrong with this forum when a person defends and stands up for their beliefs and they are the one(s) who get punished.
Mod, you forgot the fact that there are 2 sides to every coin, ok 3, you can’t treat one with selection over the other, It isn’t FAIR.
As BreakfastSandwich stated before, “It’s a very sad day when a longtime, well respected, fixture gets turfed to the curb like garbage. Very sad indeed.
On a talk show I listen to daily, people there speak their minds, if someone doesn’t like it, tough, everyone is entitled to their opinions.
I feel it’s too late for us as tyranny and censorship is upon us.
Damn, I need a coffee to cool down.
So true, Klyde. I can only conclude that the moderator has a ‘soft spot’ for No_Fool’s abuse. This kind of favouritism is disgusting on every level.
This forum harbours no free speech, only the taunts of bullying trolls like No_Fool & a trigger-happy Mod with her index finger hovering over the ‘Delete’ key.
No_Fool will be calling Mod ‘Eye-gore’ in no time.
haha I guess I hit a nerve.
MORE ON UNDERSTANDING (II)
RSVP Egghead (03/21, 11:02AM)
“In our normal interactions with people we, as montrealman pointed out, rely heavily on our words to understand them but we also, to a degree, rely on tone of voice, facial expressions, body language, and any knowledge we have of the person’s background and current situation.”
This is very true as all of those factors constitute the particulars on which we rely “in our normal interactions with people” but Bitch in particular and the Internet in general do not constitute such normal interactions. There is a one-dimensionality about both which precludes any fully rounded understanding.
That said however, it does not mean that inter-personal understanding is impossible but it does mean that single-sentence quips and purely personal anecdotes should be avoided unless they illuminate an objective point being made. That is why, when I write a comment on a bitch, I try to stick to the philosophical issue(s) underlying the conflict. There is always a philosophical issue underlying the conflict in any bitch since, by definition, a bitch embodies such a conflict. Such an analysis can even extend to criticizing another commenter as long as an attempt is made to support one’s reasons for one’s criticism. (In my own case I criticized Chuck Yeager/Ivan Sonofabitch for egomania but I supported my criticism with direct quotations. In any case it was never intended to have him barred from the site.)
Some might see this approach as being incomprehensible, irrelevant, remote and even priggish but it seems to me that it is the only way to transcend the limitations of Internet/Bitch interactions with other people. Anyway, nice talking.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
Being nice doesn’t mean being weak. If you’re empathetic and positive-minded, that’s a lack of strength? How so? In this Bitch, OP says the person in question uses his niceness for sort of entitlement, “I was nice to you so you should date me”. He used his positive qualities as leverage. I agree with that entirely but to generalize that being nice is a weakness is a prison mentality.
Free Speech in The Coast Forums – Replace the Moderator
Why should one person have the power to direct any discussion in whichever direction they so choose? Is that how fair and balanced reporting is done? Is that how free speech works? Is this what the coast is about now? Censorship? The Coast has clearly laid out ground rules for commenting and should be sticking to the rules they have outlined for their patrons to abide by and not be deleting posts/accounts that the moderator simply doesn’t like. Please sign this petition and have this person removed from the moderator position for abusing their authority.
It’s been said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I also think that ignoring someone is the sincerest form of insult. There are a couple of people who only ever post personal insults or who make comments that are so ridiculous that they can only be seen as trolling for reaction. I try to l ignore these people and not even dislike their posts because they may see a large number of dislikes as success of their provocation. Being totally ignored would be their well deserved insult.
http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs47/f/2009/224…
Babyshambles, so is it going to be free speech or censorship? Out of one side of your mouth you are preaching free speech while saying you want No_Fool’s account/comments removed out of the other so it’s hard to tell. Sounds lamely hypocritical to this old bag.
Dating tip for guys and gals: decency, honesty, kindness, and respect, combined with good judgement and recognition of quality people will bring multitudes more happiness than any kind of game-playing.
Truly “nice” people really are “nice” — they care about other people, they have self-respect and treat others with respect, and they live with integrity and resulting contentment. You can often judge their true “niceness” by the other people they hang out with. Truly “nice” people don’t just turn on a temporary fake “nice” persona when they are trying to impress, and turn it off again when they fail to make a connection with an incompatible person.
Stop worrying about the so-called “alphas” and “betas” — these are terms that pickup artists like to throw around, as if being a “player” with tons of conquests makes you “the winner” in their version of the mating game.
In real life there are only PEOPLE–who will connect or not connect with certain others depending on a gazillion different compatibility factors. Stop worrying about labels and just start seeing people for who they are, and they will see you for who you are. And if they are not compatible with who you are, just move on. If you’re a decent person, it’s their loss, and they are making way for someone who appreciates you.
I believe the term “friendzone” really refers to a FALSE kind of friend–the idea of using a person or “stringing them along” like they called it in grandma’s day.
It has nothing to do with a person who has made it clear that they are not interested in a dating relationship, but still treat a person with genuine politeness and courtesy (ie normal human interaction) when they happen to cross paths.
Some people claim to be “friendzoned” when they should really understand that they have just been turned down, or the person just doesn’t want to be in a relationship with them.
If a person has been honest about what they want or don’t want, and hasn’t been a jerk about anything, then give them some credit and don’t claim to have been put into the “friendzone” as a way of being nasty for no reason.
Taint, irrespective of babyshambles’ feelings about no_fool, the mod should not be deleting posts/accounts that she simply doesn’t like; that’s the bottom line here.
Arguing a counter-point by picking someone apart is trolling.
Please, if we are going to debate this topic, leave out the personality conflicts.
Back to the topic at hand:
SPERM WARS
Women are designed to procreate with the strongest possible gene. Unfortunately, nerds are not designed to procreate. That’s the unfortunate part because usually nerds tend to have weaker bodies. The Alpha ubermale is like the quarterback who has a combination of intelligence and athletic agility. Nature has designed women to seek out the successful athletic males so that they will produce better, healthier offspring. Bad boys are sending an unconscious message that they have great genes so they are not afriad of losing the women by misbehaving. Nice guys are sending the signal that they don’t think their genes are good enough so they won’t misbehave. Way back in time, the women had to choose the males that were the strongest in groups. After the ice age, people were starving and women needed the dominant hunters (strongest guys) to bring back the bacon and protect them. There were no nerds back then. Nerds only came out nowadays in the school environment, now there are weak brainiack types running around, they can become professors and have big momma take care of them. Bottom line: Don’t be so nice, nice guys. But have money. Dat helps.
THE RISE OF THE NERD
NO-FOOL (3/22, 7:18AM)
After the ice age, “There were no nerds back then. Nerds only came out nowadays in the school environment, now there are weak brainiac types running around, they can become professors and have big momma take care of them.”
While there have been a number of criticisms of the school, this is clearly the knockdown blow. Drawing upon both pre-historical anthropology as well as the crisis in current pedagogy, the author has indisputably established a cause-effect connection between the school and the rise of the nerd. However, possessing only weak bodies which are not designed to procreate, the ascendancy of the nerd may well be only short-lived. Let us hope that this shall indeed be the case.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
#freethebitchers, good morning brethren, in honour of our fallen comrades i’d like to play a very popular song from our hymnal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGRPFUYUUd…
No-Fuel appears to be confusing nice and nerd. There is some truth to what she says but empathy, dependability and pre-disposition to help with child-rearing would be equally as attractive to Pleistocene women. A “player” is the last thing a Pleistocene female would want as the energy and resources needed for child-rearing was, at that time in particular, exhaustive. Possibly the difference between life and death for the child.
Too much generalizing on No-Fuel’s part as well. I know some guys at the gym, friendly and easy to talk to, that bench-press 300 lbs. I can bench 200 and I am a quasi-nerd.
The topic at hand is about “nice” people who feel entitled to sex with a particular person simply because they weren’t jerks. I agree with the OP but I feel kindness is a strength not a weakness.
Back not too many generations ago, the most “successful” person was the one who could survive by relying on the skills needed for that time. Hunting, fishing, building one’s home, using tools, preparing food and making clothing, having many children so that a few might survive . . . if any of these things were missing, then chances of living to see another day were slim.
Today, most of us don’t do all of these things for ourselves (even though we may do *some* of them *sometimes*). Our survival is dependent on “someone” “somewhere” doing these things which we usually purchase, but most of us don’t spend entire days hunting, gathering, making, etc. just to survive.
So, the social scale has changed. Brute strength is not “enough” for a guy. And fertility is not “enough” for a gal. We are all expected to have many, many other attributes necessary for getting by and getting along and understanding the world in the modern technological age. We are expected to have quite sophisticated literacy and math skills that previous generations never needed, some knowledge of the broader world, and an ability to use and navigate all the different technologies that surround us. And we are also expected to cultivate at least a modicum of decent (non-violent) behaviour so that our large complicated cities can function in relative harmony.
So while the “scholarly nerd” may not have been at the top of the hierarchy of needs 100 years ago (when no one worried about their digital accounts being hacked), he/she is certainly much more valued and necessary today. For better or for worse, the scientist, the writer, the computer programmer, the surgeon, the lawyer, the teacher, the accountant are all seen as high-level “professionals”–and paid accordingly– while the traditional farmer, tradesperson, or craftsperson often has to struggle with unpredictable wages and difficult working conditions.
So, if Og the Barbarian and Miss Child-Bearing Hips want to get together and produce a bunch of descendents of themselves, they are certainly welcome to one another.
Most people are looking for a little bit more from a partner and from their life — if nothing else some decent conversation, some shared good times, and some mutual support through the tough times.
One of the best things about living today, rather than 100 years ago is that we all have more choices about how we spend our time, and who we spend it with. I, for one, would not care to have to go back and live during “Little House on the Prairie” times.
Nice Guys…. Don’t ever be a fool with wimmin to have to take life altering choices.
https://youtu.be/HLku4CcQaUI
free our friend or we release the dogs http://www.powellmastiffs.com/2200bc.jpg
Angle of the Tarsands: You raised some valid points in you’re last comment.
I suppose “nice” people can lie (ie: when protecting their family,to spare another persons feelings) and not be considered prickish people.
FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE
RSVP
Angel of the Tarsands (03/22, 10:36AM)
“For better or for worse the scientist, the writer, the computer programmer, the surgeon, the lawyer, the teacher, the accountant are seen as all high-level ‘professionals’ – and paid accordingly – while the traditional farmer, tradesperson, or craftsperson often has to struggle with unpredictable wages and working conditions.”
While it might initially be seen as a liberal, broadly-based and all-embracing vision of society, is it not in fact a narrow, functionalist, occupation-driven perspective in which man -I use the term generically – is reduced to the economic function he happens to perform? Is it not in fact a functionalist, technologically-driven account in which man is reduced to what he does without remainder?
But does the account not simultaneously intimate some basic misgivings? Why, for example, is “professionals” placed in quotation marks? What constitutes a professional and do some occupations fail to meet the standard? Why? What is going on? Has the worm of doubt made its way into the account?
But perhaps the most basic misgiving relates to the opening words, “For better or for worse.” What are we to understand by that? Does it mean that the entire functionalist, occupationally-driven social structure is itself open to doubt? Do the words gesture to some pervasive unease generated, perhaps, by another unspoken structure which is neither functionalist nor occupation-driven? Is Angel of the Tarsands taking an arm’s-length view suggestive of the contingency of her own technological criteria? Is she doing philosophy?
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
Angel has an insider view of certain industries . . . thus Angel feels that she is informed enough to add points she feels are interesting/relevant to the discussion at hand.
Angel may make lofty claims of having a certain ethereal nature, but she never claims to encroach on the territory of the philosopher. All comments are just musings on various points–highly dependent on mood and time of day.
(And actually, I don’t approve of the modern division between what is commonly called “white collar” — or “professional” — work and “blue collar” — physical — work. I personally believe that this denigrates the value of skilled and essential work. A society the devalues mechanics and carpenters and elevates bankers and currency traders has a serious case of misplaced priorities. Thus the liberal use of quotation marks (until such thing as a “sarcasm mark” is invented.)
That’s an amazing pic of our Ivan, PGSOB! I imagine that’s about when he was dissolved…
RSVP
Angel of the Tarsands (03/21, 6:33PM)
“Angel my make lofty claims having a certain ethereal nature, but she never claims to encroach on the territory of the philosopher.”
That’s good to hear but it was never my point. What was my point? My point was that no one, including Angel of the Tarsands, can avoid philosophizing, whether consciously or not. That being so, my initial intention was to tease out that unspoken perspective that served to de-stabilize your mundane, conventional, pedestrian and technologically-based functionalism purporting to serve as the basis of your account of man in society.
However, I see that my success was, if not completely lacking, at least minimal. This is so because you refer to “the territory of the philosopher,” suggesting once again a proprietary vision but this time of thought itself, not unlike your previous functionalist account which reduced man without remainder to his societal function. But is this true? Is man little more than a cog in the social machine?
Write back soon.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
So… what I got out of this is the OP is single?
Cog in the machine? Oh, no Montreal man. Humanity should aspire to much loftier ambitions.
But I do not disrespect meaningful work because it is one component in elevating ones self and being of genuine service to others.
Human beings have a mind, which should be cultivated, but we also have hands, thus we find satisfaction in the contemplative pursuits, as well as in the “craft” of living.
Unfortunately, our modern society deems that most people must be either a “physical” worker or a “knowledge” worker, when (in the realm of work) many people would find more satisfaction if they had the opportunity to incorporate both.
I am aware that there are many more realms in life than *just* the work realm, but it is an area of particular expertise to me because of *my* work. It is thus the prerogative of this “Angel” to reveal hidden truths to those willing to hear.