The False Tyranny of Words

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

it seems your OP neglected to elaborate on that point.

a reply to: TzarChasm

it seems your OP neglected to elaborate on that point.

Or you neglected to see that wasn't the point of the OP, one or the other.

perhaps that should have been the point. People generally don't respond well to pessimism.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
perhaps that should have been the point. People generally don't respond well to pessimism.

Optimism leads to disappointment, pessimism to pleasant surprises.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

it seems your OP neglected to elaborate on that point.

So here is a grand opportunity for a thread for you to make. Please elaborate on that point if you feel the need to discuss a different topic.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm
perhaps that should have been the point. People generally don't respond well to pessimism.

Optimism leads to disappointment, pessimism to pleasant surprises.

Your cynicism is on point, at least.

a reply to: diggindirt

It seems our dear LesMisanthrope has general philosophy well under thumb with such acerbically refreshing perspective. I wouldn't presume to turn that ideology on its head anymore than I would turn sandpaper into a hallmark card.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm
perhaps that should have been the point. People generally don't respond well to pessimism.

Optimism leads to disappointment, pessimism to pleasant surprises.

Your cynicism is on point, at least.

I have another in the works that will be more hopeful, hopefully.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm
perhaps that should have been the point. People generally don't respond well to pessimism.

Optimism leads to disappointment, pessimism to pleasant surprises.

Your cynicism is on point, at least.

I have another in the works that will be more hopeful, hopefully.

I look forward to reading it. Your thoughts are always very cogent and lucid, even if they are rather bleak.

a reply to: diggindirt
I don't know dude, knocking somebody out never usually shuts them up, or at least the ones that remember what happened. And event those that don't, tend to keep asking questions of why they just woke up there, it is annoying either way, and bad karma, or good karma, depending on the situation.

But anyways, I digress I was aiming for a finality to all this nonsense. But that was whenever I wrote that post, ages ago it seems, I have died, been reincarnated as a turtle, died again, and was reborn again, to this same live none the worse, then I went out got a puppy and calmed down since then. Now that I am more enlightened since the eons and eons of when I wrote that post.

I don't know, was thinking you know basically eliminating all these weirdos, but now I see weirdos are part and parcel of such, so you know that's not going to happen. I don't know why I thought all that, maybe I just wanted a legal reason to you know, shoot up all these people who make so much noise or look at you funny, or step on your sneakers. I mean the reasons are practically endless.

But that's gone, know I will merely tolerate them and you all. It is the thing to do in this age. While violence has solved many and all a problems in the past, why all you have to do is take a gander at a history book and see that all issues and problems they had were solved by violence, and the problems and issues solved by talking or writing are kind of minuscule when compared to the ones solved by violence. However it may not be the best course. Also its been tried before and did not work out all that well.

It is redundant and redundancy must be avoided.

Oh and by the ways. You should not take words so seriously. K...

a reply to: jjsr420

Ya you see. You get it, its not the physical aspect of the words that cause damage, but the fact that one can not react willingly or is not able to react to it be they unable or unwillingly. Both and all are situations, the words are just tact on. But to expect to not get smacked when somebody does something, now that is just wrong. I think the OP is arguing in a platonic viewpoint as words themselves have absolutely no power.

But put situations and different aspects of life into it, then they have power, not in and of themselves but purely by those situations. One should always back up what there saying physically, and when can not back up what there saying physically then one should not say it, or be brought to a point of and to were they can do so, and if they can not do so, then that is a messed up situation, we should ban all such situations instead of banning the words brought on by such situation.

The rest, is just chatter and small talk. But even that can be mistaken for something else, and taken seriously. I suppose I am not clear to most people, but I don't care to make myself any clearer.

a reply to: Specimen

Hey! What the hell? Arguing with yourself should be banned as well. And all sentences that could go into one post, should do so. We need to ban that as well. Or at least make it a crime or something, a capital crime, punishable by lots of fines or being bashed to death by a pillow or something. And what is with all those F U,'s. That could be mistaken for common spelling slang or just bad spelling. Which is it? Were is the grammar police when you need them. Jeez.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: InTheLight
True, so are we talking chaos?

Do you mean that we are chaos that talks or discussing chaos?

Both, as we as a species are not very good at communicating effectively and controlling emotion based on subjective perceptions and beliefs simply via words; chaos or fear of loss of control of their ingrained social programming or beliefs (religious). Why do they say, 'Never discuss politics, religion or sex"?

They say most communication is nonverbal for our species, so within the cyber realm, words with underlying intent is what is being analyzed. Imagine an activist with high emotion using body language, signs, and strong loud language putting forth their intent compared to a writer's words on a page or a forum page; a big difference in delivery and how the receiver may react (opposition groups may be triggered into violence).

What I noticed in the cyber realm is that intent can be delivered with high emotion (a bubbling up and explosion of sorts) and when that intent or opinion or idea is countered, that high emotion then turns anger and lashing out, which may lead to a tyrannical stance.

Tyrrany meaning: cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control

"The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug." –Mark Twain

a reply to: InTheLight

I guess we are since the outcome of both scenarios seems to be violence.

Humans are six times more likely to kill each other than the average mammal, but researchers stress that's no excuse for violence: 'Humans are moral animals and we cannot escape from that'

www.independent.co.uk...

Can we then, as humans with aggressive tendencies/nature, communicate tyranny/aggression via verbal communication? I say, absolutely.