It's against my ethics, but that doesn't mean that I don't snap at people or get impatient with them. I have no halo over my head: I'm very impatient with slowness, I can be bitchy. But I'm getting better, because it matters to me now. When I'm mean to others, I feel the negativity like a hangover afterwards; it's just not good for my psyche or my soul. I'm not prosyletizing. I'm describing parts of myself to you. Take it or leave it, it's cool with me.

I have no problem with it sounding boring to you: I'm not trying to convince you that you need to be like I am because I'm right. It's my ethics, and it's not boring: I get along much better with people. The better I get along with others without losing my patience or being supercilious with them, the better I feel.

irrelevant and ephimeral...

mean, you seem pretty removed from reality so I can't tell if YOU'RE trolling or not. Nobody would ever "DARE" to call you an idiot? You're the kind of guy — Judaka

For one thing, the "no one would dare" comment was meant to be a joke, but I guess people don't know me yet and my keen sense of irony. For another thing, I'm not any kind of guy: I'm some kind of gal. Thirdly, I don't have a clue as to how degenerate you are, so I won't be going there. Do you justify meanness on the basis of refusing to conform to phony social norms of politeness?

It's against my ethics to be mean, which means to me to hurt someone else's feelings frivolously or for the sake of my own amusement. I've been mean and said really nasty things to lots of people in the past, but my ethics have changed.

At least I understand now that you are guided by some kind of "meanness scale": if it's between 1-5, you'll be mean, but not if it's between 6-10.

Meanness is a part of me — Judaka

Is it an instinct? Is it part of everyone? Is there a significant difference between potential for meanness and practice of meanness? Is it in your genetic makeup, or your psyche, or both?

I think that sublimation--not repression--is very healthy for the progress of humankind. I don't think we should let our impulses fly like farts.

It can be, yeah, so long as you don't go overboard. There's a difference between, say, poking fun at someone and stabbing them in the liver. — S

I conclude that your understanding of "poking fun" includes being mean. Now I tease my friends, but we all know when we're teasing. For me poking fun is never the same as being mean.

Being "mean" to people is honest, if that's what someone is thinking. — Terrapin Station

So does anything go as long as someone's being honest, keepin it real? Verbal abuse and insult is fine as long as the abuser's being sincere? I can accept that we have different takes on this issue: for me, being mean is never justified. Oh oh. I just said "never."

Let's be honest, because it's fun. We're all old enough not to take it to heart, and if you do, then more fool you. — S

You find being mean to people fun? Are we talking about the same thing? I'm beginning to think we aren't.

No one would ever dare to call me an idiot.

And there's a huge difference between a comrade saying that and someone saying really nasty things to me online or to my face.

I'm actually exactly the same way in person as I am online . — Terrapin Station

But lots of people aren't: they do that Jeckyll and Hyde thing and only let their nastiness/cruelty come out in certain contexts.

Sometimes I'll troll people just because I don't like them. Trolling to me is a course of action that follows feeling no respect towards someone, thinking either they or their ideas are absurd. From my perspective, if you're being trolled by me, you deserved it for saying idiotic things. — Judaka

You're saying that you troll because you believe it's ok to be mean to people you don't like and who you think are stupid idiots? Do you have an ethical system, and is this part of it? That those who consider themselves superior should belittle those they consider inferior?

I'm sincerely wondering why you believe it's ok to be rude and nasty to those you consider your inferiors. Behavior learned at home?

This is a philosophy site: love of wisdom: willingness to learn and be corrected, and on the other side to be clear, patient, and an educator. And in the case of argument, to be clear, direct, and to the point. — tim wood

I think we need to examine why it is that so many people are terrified of learning about themselves and being corrected. Here's a snippet of what I researched about trolls:

"I began doing some troll research in online journals such as Journal of Politeness Research, Computers in Human Behavior, The Psychology of Cyberspace, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, and Psychology Today. I was amazed to discover how much current work is being done on the psychodynamics of online communication and relationships. I learned that when online anonymity is guaranteed, some people feel free to be cruel. They don't just disagree with others; they're cruel. It's called toxic disinhibition when online commenters insult or bully others, or otherwise behave in ways they would not if their identity were known (Suler). Anonymous commenters are significantly more likely to make vulgar or nasty comments (Suler). This is why many news outlets and other sites only allow comments on FB, where people can't hide behind anonymity.
I also learned that trolling can be contagious and can spread from person to person in a community (Cheng). It can alter forum members' perceptions of a given topic (Anderson). Social scientists have been studying mass psychology since the nineteenth century to understand how the presence of a calculating "agitator" can transform a group of rational people into a violent and destructive mob (Adorno). Of course, things are a little different in cyber space, but the agitators are there as well.
Trolls are unhappy people with deep-seated insecurities which they can't acknowledge to themselves. We all experiences unhappiness and insecurity: they're part of the human condition. But to inflict suffering on and cause harm to others is the most unhealthy way of avoiding or denying our own personal problems. Inflicting harm on others is guaranteed to make an emotionally-disturbed person worse; trolling hurts the troll worst of all. Because trolls won't face their inner demons, they behave hatefully to others in an attempt to ward off feelings of self-loathing."

What was most productive about the research I did was my own process of coming to terms with why I have sunk to the same level a few times online--not too many times, but I reacted as described above when I got trolled and wrote nasty stuff right back. It never ceases to amaze me how hard it is, even at times for self-reflexive and self-questioning intellectuals not to jump to the defensive and turn agressive.

I do agree that any trolling or impoliteness should be pointed out, and people online shouldn't be afraid to apologize if they write things they regret later.

You are both too kind to write what you have written!! I'm liking it more and more around here! I've been longing to find a place where we can go DEEP on the ideas, and this may be that place.

3017amen: Yes, the usa is an unhappy place right now, and expressing a lot of emotional anguish/dispair/hopelessness. Maybe that's where much of the anger comes from. I'm working hard on not "acting out."

PoeticUniverse: Normal!!! You are probably more normally Extraordinary than you are extraordinarily Normal.

We consider it a virtue for a man's reach to exceed his grasp. — Bitter Crank

Here's my take on that statement: Not all of us consider that a virtue. It's also recognized historically, psychologically and sociologically as extraordinarily destructive. Here's one example of what I'm thinking: While our species is technologically saavy as all get-out, we have not evolved emotionally/psychologically in, what?, the last five-ten thousand years? Freud, speaking of old polymorphous perversity himself, wrote some things in Civilization and Its Discontents that became, some decades ago, an essential part of my Weltanschaaung: the world is teeming with ambitious, power-hungry, greedy, agressive, violent beings who seem to be better at scrambling to the top of the heap and wreaking havoc on all those below.

One would think that the paragon of animals could figure out that texting while driving was stupid, but... no. — Bitter Crank

And that's another thing: My pops, who was an anthropologist, used to say, We ground apes never finish growing up, maturing. We're not like any other species except maybe gorillas. It takes humans a lifetime to mature, and I am not sure that the vast majority ever do. My definition of maturity: the ability to control the agressive impulses, to strive to truly know oneself by examining one's own darker motives or shadow side or evil impulses (cruelty to others) , and to practice kindness to all species and Mother Earth. And the ozone.

The first working steam engine had been patented in 1698 — Bitter Crank

I had no idea that it was invented that early! And yet you read Engels' Conditions of the Working Class written in 1845 and it's evident that some people did clearly perceive what was happening...Which ultimately led to that failed experiment called the Boshevick Revolution...

We are just not able to change behavior even though we know the threat. Our brains do not work in such a way — Bitter Crank

I hope I'm not manipulating that quote by truncating it, but it serves my purposes: Perhaps not everyone is capable of changing thinking, feeling and behavior. Perhaps all the greedy agressive sociopaths cannot, although for example in Relational Psychotherapy, they are beginning to approach working with sociopaths and psychopaths with a new approach which believes in and seeks out the possibility that even psychopaths can think, feel and behave differently.

Well, Bitter Crank, it's been a beautiful day down here in the dirty South: I have the entire week off from teaching because of the hurricane threat to the coastal communities from which many of my students come. I'm down for the road trip: do they make electric SUVs? :naughty:

Yes, unfortunately I've noticed a lot of nastiness and definsiveness on this forum; this makes me very sad. I was looking for a place to have a lively exchange of ideas with generous, curious intellectuals. I just don't understand why folks get so nasty. I did research on trolls a while back and I learned a lot. I will not stoop to that level. I'm just too generous and curious. ;-}

Are you saying that the majority, who don't really give a damn about the environment, is behaving unnaturally? — TheMadFool

Good question!!! That leaves me wondering, Is self-destruction natural or unnatural? Is destruction of the environment natural or unnatural? I'd use the word pathological rather than unnatural.

I wasn't referring to human behavior, which I still resist characterizing in "natural/unnatural" terms. Perhaps all activity performed by human beings is natural to them, so that nothing would be unnatural if it's done by someone. So natural human behavior includes a tremendous amount of destructive activity... Violence and all-consuming greed certainly appear to be natural to humans.
That still leaves me thinking that climate change is an unnatural process brought on by poisoning the environment, which would be included in natural, destructive human activity.

Speech is something different. At it's best, freedom of speech is a way to distribute power to those with less. Maybe one thing the cascade of information has done is to wash out and cover up those voices. Made it harder to be heard. I'm not sure about that. — T Clark

Or at least, it's a way to make the powerless feel as if they had power. I call this the trump mode: a lot of people now believe that they have the right to say whatever they want in public spaces.

I appreciate what you write about acquiring a "body of knowledge" or a world view before the age of computers; I'm in my 60s and therefore everything does indeed filter through the world view I've forged. I try not to be an old fogie about things, but I'm concluding that it's inevitable to feel a sense of alienation and wistfulness about various and sundry aspects of the past by the time one reaches my age. I'm not enjoying global warming at all...

Your post gives me lots of insights. People can "voice" whatever they want in so many ways now. So there is on the one hand, the explosion of media through which one can be heard/read, and on the other hand, there are so many new styles of expression. I have taught 18-22 year olds since the 1980s and I'm acutely aware of the distance separating my speech styles from theirs. Many of them express a preference for texting to face-to-face communication.

One thing I love about my cell phone: I can turn it off when I get home and sit in blissful silence. I don't own a television.

I didn't mean to sound pompous: sorry if I offended you. My point was that Cannabis is a very helpful medicine to lots of people. If your personal experience tells you to stay away, that's good enough.

I will drink to that!!!

My pops was gay, and we had many great discussions about queerness (in the army in the 1940s and after) before he died at age 91.

I'm using Bakhtin's concept of dialogic as my model. It's the opposite of an antagonistic exchange, a one-upmanship, a win or lose debate stance. It's meant to increase understanding between individuals.

And I do appreciate your invention of the term polymorphic: it's just not Freud's term.

I haven't seen that my philosophical skills have impressed anyone much. Luckily, at 67 I don't have to worry about that. — T Clark

I'm 66, and I don't really worry about impressing anyone either, but it's nice to know when others appreciate our intellectual prowess or the application of a bit of our knowledge... ;-}

Which is why I'm skeptical about their projections for 2100.

If things go well you:
Know how to express your ideas clearly
Understand what values are important to you
Know what ways of thinking about things are the most useful for you
Gain a better understanding about other people's values and beliefs
Understand the unexamined assumptions you use in your thinking
Learn to be more tolerant
Can impress chicks. Well... no... sorry. — T Clark

This is the same thing that occurs with rigorous, good therapy! The unexamined life...

Plus, philosophical discussions are very helpful in impressing the dudes. At least in my experience. I therefore conclude that it can impress chicks as well.

playing a game with words — Daniel C

The best game there is!! Is this distinction parallel to genotype/phenotype? Ontic as human genetics or the things that all humans do (eat, poop, sleep, etc.) and ontological as the "phenotypical" expression of my being vs. yours.

I vote we keep the distinction. "Meaning simplicity" is deceptive and very complex: I tend to assume that an authoritarian tendency is present whenever people want to simplify, or reduce meaning. Derrida said folks can get angry when we tamper with their language.

Freud's term is "polymorphous"--not polymorphic--perversity.

Yes. As opposed to "straight." But these terms tend to take on multiple and often contradictory meanings as they are used by different voices over time. To be "straight" can also mean to be boring, uptight and puritanical. "Queer" now refers to all sorts of different performances or stances inhabited by both hetero- and homosexuals.

It's dialogically liberating to listen to and understand the same word one uses being used by others in different contexts which generate different meanings. When someone takes a monologic stance on the meaning of some of these terms, they refuse to acknowledge differences in word use and intentionality, or they attempt to impose a single meaning as "correct." I think on forums it's very easy to forget that we all have many different associations and meanings for words and concepts.

Very interesting what you say about the negative impacts of the one child policy in China. I had never considered it.

I wonder what the demographers say about the impact of climate change on the world population, and I intend to see if I can find out. I certainly hope that it's been taken into consideration in their projected numbers. And at this point in time, I would have to express some skepticism about their projections precisely because global warming is impacting earth's inhabitants much faster than was anticipated 10 years ago.

Hi.

Unnatural compared to environmental conditions prior to the Industrial Revolution.

I am not sure how to answer the part of your question, "in what way"? Do you mean what are the unnatural impacts on the planet and the atmosphere?

I'm new too. If there are too many trolls baiting others on this forum, then I won't stick around. Because I'm not here to insult others or be insulted. I'm here for some stimulating and thought provoking dialogue and exchange.

You pose very interesting questions. What I understand the philosopher to be saying is that it would be a good idea to reduce the human population at this point, because life on earth is in the process of becoming disasterous for millions of people.

I'm a university professor and I try to engage my students to consider how the planet will be for their children and grandchildren. I understand, however, having been through my late teens-early 20s some decades ago, that it isn't easy to get young people to have a "mature" sense of time and history. They have so little past, so little historical perspective, and I have also observed that the majority of them don't have much perspective on the future, either. They focus on the present. They couldn't possibly have the same perspective that I have in my 60s: accumulated experience and the capacity to evaluate it are two of the keen intellectual pleasures of aging.

And regarding what you say about people not wanting their child to hurt anyone or get hurt, that's fine. That's just part and parcel of life, and people can and do still value and enjoy their lives regardless. Virtually everyone concludes that it's much better for the child to live in the first place. — S

Well said. Getting hurt/hurting others: isn't this at the core of the art of being human? It is to me. I will not speak for anyone other than myself: the art of being human centers around the ways I've learned to to avoid being hurt and to avoid hurting others--i.e., avoiding certain types of people, not taking the bait when being bated, practicing patience and refraining from nastiness --in short, honing our discernment and acquiring knowledge about how to be my best self (in progress) and help bring out the best in others.

That is, if it matters to one not to hurt others. I don't think it's unethical to have kids: I think it's unethical to be an abusive parent.

What lies outside is the minority which can be described as "unnatural". — TheMadFool

I wonder what you mean by using the word "unnatural," and I'm trying to avoid jumping to conclusions about what you mean. When I responded to your initial post, I was thinking of completely different issues. Primarily, I was thinking about global warming, which I consider "unnatural" in that it's occurring because of human irresponsibility and unconcern. I definitely consider global warming "unnatural."

But as for deviations from the "norm" with regard to human sexuality, the word "unnatural" seems arbitrary and judgement-laden to me. I don't really get the point of attempting to apply a mathmatical theory to human sexuality. You can see that I'm not into the quantitative analysis of this issue.

Deception or self-deception is unethical, I agree. I'm primarily interested in the medicinal research that's being done with more freedom and funding these days. And as some medicines are indeed poison to some users, everyone is responsible for finding the meds that work best for them.

Cannabis does have negative effects on some people in some circumstances, but I'm not about to make a sweeping generalization about it based on that fact. In that sense your statment seems a bit irrational. Also, I don't understand what the problem is with people who like to get high. Please don't make another sweeping generalization, or I won't take you seriously.

I cultivate Cannabis and I make tinctures for various people, including a biology professor whose anxiety is markedly decreased and a few clients with ADHD whose focus is much better with Cannabis than with ritalin, and without the latter's side effects.

It is ethical to use home grown Cannabis. Not only is it infinitely superior to anything you can buy elsewhere, but it is also immensely rewarding to go through the entire process from germination to harvesting and curing it to perfection.

Knowledge of ethics? What they knew after they ate of the tree was that they were naked, and they felt shame. I wouldn't call that "ethics," but rather the knowledge of sexuality. Which is what I think the story is about: humans have very complex sexual instincts which wreak all sorts of havoc in our lives. I think God already know what A & E would do, knew that they wouldn't stay all perfect in the garden all their lives, because that isn't human nature. Human nature is all about screwing up. The majority doesn't seem to care of acknowledge their screw-ups, and there is a minority that recognizes when it screws up and seeks to remedy the situation.

God would have been so bored if A&E had stayed put, but as I wrote, he created a species that was bound and determined to try any- and everything.

I totally agree that if it's happening in the cosmos, then it's natural, but I've begun to perceive much of what human beings do as unnnatural. However, it's almost an exercise in futility for me to say that because human instincts do not compare to other animals' instinctive behavior. Their instincts--and I'd say the same of the plant kingdom--guarantee preservation, while human activity is currently guaranteeing global disasters.

Hello, and thanks for that great post. I like that you wrote that knowing "has a feeling to it": I agree with that statement. Knowledge for me brings with it many feelings--of expertise, self-confidence, relief (when I come to know something about myself that was unconscious previously), euphoria (when my knowledge produces the results I was seeking), and delight when I see that someone else has understood the knowledge I shared.

Knowledge for me has everything to do with feeling. They are inextricably bound together.

irrelevant and immaterial

I hope that we can start this discussion up again, because I'm fascinated from the inside. Cannabis has truly opened the doors of perception in ways that make my present experiences using it unlike any others at previous times in my life. I'm 66, I'm a scholar who loves to read and write and I grow my own Cannabis--an exercise that has changed my entire life.

To cut to the chase: at this point in my life, I have excellent concentration and focus on scholarly activities when I vape Cannabis, or take it as tincture. It has completely changed the way I think and feel, producing a kind of elder revolution in my life which is most welcome and invigorating.

I've done a lot of research on Cannabis in the areas of cultivation, ethnohistory, making concentrates and Cannabis as medicine and spirit plant (instead of animal). It deepens my insights every day; it's the best medicine I can imagine.