For Kelly Jones

[cousinbasil]

Your gripe is only an indication that you resent someone telling things as they see it, without apology.

Wait until your apple-cart gets tipped over, girl. And I'll be sitting right here, laughing at you.

Laughng my fucking ass off.

How about now, Kelly? If I were to jump in and echo prince's sentiments, that would be two against one. It would seem like you were being ganged up upon, wouldn't it? (I am not, at my own peril, counting Dan here, since he would not really be defending you but the integrity of the forum.)

In fact, I am tempted to defend you against prince's vitriol. But I am learning that such a position would simply be reenacting the damsel-in-distress archetype.

(Can anyone recall hearing the word damsel without also hearing the word distress?)

[Tomas]

Bored yet? A light-hearted look at Deep Mud.

Good vid. Thanks

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Your gripe is only an indication that you resent someone telling things as they see it, without apology.

Wait until your apple-cart gets tipped over, girl. And I'll be sitting right here, laughing at you.

Laughng my fucking ass off.

Prince, you have never understood the difference between constructive confrontation and trolling.

I am tempted to defend you against prince's vitriol. But I am learning that such a position would simply be reenacting the damsel-in-distress archetype.

Glad you're learning :) There is a fine line between defending someone and standing up for something. I have given Kelly tons of what-for on other threads when and where I have disagreed with her, and even given up on her a time or two - but that in no way conflicts with my position against poor reasoning and poor technique. Defending someone would be defending that person whether they are right or wrong.

(Can anyone recall hearing the word damsel without also hearing the word distress?)

Yes, but it is rather archaic.

[Kelly Jones]

KJ: Your gripe is only an indication that you resent someone telling things as they see it, without apology.

P: Wait until your apple-cart gets tipped over, girl. And I'll be sitting right here, laughing at you. Laughng my fucking ass off.

CB: How about now, Kelly? If I were to jump in and echo prince's sentiments, that would be two against one. It would seem like you were being ganged up upon, wouldn't it? (I am not, at my own peril, counting Dan here, since he would not really be defending you but the integrity of the forum.)

I don't see your point. I have never seen "ganging-up" as something to be defended from. I frequently get a lot of objections to my views from many people, simultaneously. But I almost never perceive it as being "ganged-up-against". Rather, I see many different people raising their own individual concerns, and, as it just so happens, simultaneously.

If someone feels under fire from on all sides, and can't handle that situation, that's their problem. Give them a chance to learn to handle it. Don't remove the stumbling block, as they might just need that precise stumbling block, to develop greater character.

In fact, I am tempted to defend you against prince's vitriol. But I am learning that such a position would simply be reenacting the damsel-in-distress archetype.

Yes. You don't need to speak for anyone else except yourself. If you try to protect and/or support others' arguments, because you see they aren't capable of giving their reasoning "on-the-fly" while under fire, then it means you don't think they have sufficient faith in their views. So why defend them? It's a different matter if you happen to agree with them, but in that case, you're only speaking for yourself.

(Can anyone recall hearing the word damsel without also hearing the word distress?)

I hear the associated "plums" more often than distress, probably because the idea of men openly declaring that they're rescuing women is politically incorrect, but old male stone-fruit gardeners with florid, virginal faces, twinkly eyes and soft fluffy white hair is rather the opposite.


.

[Blair]

Your gripe is only an indication that you resent someone telling things as they see it, without apology.

Wait until your apple-cart gets tipped over, girl. And I'll be sitting right here, laughing at you.

Laughng my fucking ass off.

How about now, Kelly? If I were to jump in and echo prince's sentiments, that would be two against one. It would seem like you were being ganged up upon, wouldn't it? (I am not, at my own peril, counting Dan here, since he would not really be defending you but the integrity of the forum.)

In fact, I am tempted to defend you against prince's vitriol. But I am learning that such a position would simply be reenacting the damsel-in-distress archetype.

That's what's so amusing about Kelly Jones, your damned if you do, damned if you don't.

She's just a silly, troubled young woman, who has yet to hit the big icebergs.

Can't wait for her to get Cancer. Then she might look back at the patronisng nonsense she wrote on her website regarding thos who get dealt a short hand.

Your part asian aren't you Kelly? short in stature, weak in intellect, slanty little eyes. Butt-Ugly to boot. Stupid looking with your big dumb-ass phallic microphone. Ridiculed relentessly on your youtube channel.

Let's see what more I can conjure up from my bag of truth.

[Dan Rowden]

I suggest you give me a justification for a post like that. Do it publicly or privately, I don't care, but you really, really need to do it.

[Blair]

I don't appreciate an amateur, armchair psychologist like Kelly Jones labelling me as "mentally ill".

Enough said.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I don't appreciate an amateur, armchair psychologist like Kelly Jones labelling me as "mentally ill".

Hmm, what about mean drunk? It has in common with some types of mental illness that while it might for some deliver euphoria, balanced mood and self-confidence - sometimes resulting in a more fluent, brief but inhibited mode of expression, all the benefits are rendered useless because of the increased lack of clear judgement, stronger emotional motivators and all the lack of attention to detail and limited concentration available.

[cousinbasil]

I don't appreciate an amateur, armchair psychologist like Kelly Jones labelling me as "mentally ill".

Hmm, what about mean drunk? It has in common with some types of mental illness that while it might for some deliver euphoria, balanced mood and self-confidence - sometimes resulting in a more fluent, brief but inhibited mode of expression, all the benefits are rendered useless because of the increased lack of clear judgement, stronger emotional motivators and all the lack of attention to detail and limited concentration available.

It almost sounds as if you were coming to Kelly's defense, Diebert. Gotta watch that!

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Make no mistake, Prince is at least still worth reading, unlike yourself. His comments however, even if they'd hold some truth, seem pointless and ineffective if shaking up an ego is what he thinks he's doing. Only intoxicated ones think it works that way, beyond the occasional poke: shaking up only can happen effectively here through reason, the rest is just a matter of kidding oneself.

[cousinbasil]

Make no mistake, Prince is at least still worth reading, unlike yourself. His comments however, even if they'd hold some truth, seem pointless and ineffective if shaking up an ego is what he thinks he's doing. Only intoxicated ones think it works that way, beyond the occasional poke: shaking up only can happen effectively here through reason, the rest is just a matter of kidding oneself.

You claim my posts are not worth reading, yet you seem to do just that - if not, your claim would be meaningless on its face. But I quite understand why you do it. Your own are meandering and without merit, yet I occasionally find myself reading them.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I don't appreciate an amateur, armchair psychologist like Kelly Jones labelling me as "mentally ill".

Enough said.

I agree that playing armchair psychologist and publicly labeling someone with a specific mental disorder crosses the line really close to every time, and even coming close to that generally crosses the line - after a brief search for the incident in question, I don't see the post where Kelly did that. I would like to judge what she did for myself, so would you please provide a link?

Before you overreact to my position, recall that you once publicly stated that I needed a counselor, not Genius Forum, in response to my posting concrete, real-world examples of why another poster's abstract idea was wrong. Recall also that at the same general time, agents from another board were advocating full dismissal of every word I said, citing their armchair-psychologist labeling of me. Therefore by inference, you were also playing armchair-psychologist with an ad hominem rather than reading my examples as exactly what they were meant to be - concrete, real-world examples selected to put some reality into someone's philosophy.

Unless I see the original post, I can't be sure that Kelly did what you believe she did rather than say something that got misinterpreted, much less make any judgment about her statement.

[Tomas]

I don't appreciate an amateur, armchair psychologist like Kelly Jones labelling me as "mentally ill".

Enough said.

I agree that playing armchair psychologist and publicly labeling someone with a specific mental disorder crosses the line really close to every time, and even coming close to that generally crosses the line - after a brief search for the incident in question, I don't see the post where Kelly did that. I would like to judge what she did for myself, so would you please provide a link?

Unless I see the original post, I can't be sure that Kelly did what you believe she did rather than say something that got misinterpreted, much less make any judgment about her statement.

Kelly is a welcome addition to Genius Forums.

[Cahoot]

The other day in traffic I noticed a driver get caught in an intersection, caught by backed-up traffic so she could go no farther, and she was stuck there to block the cross traffic that now had the green light. She should have been more alert and not entered the intersection, true, but the deed was done. She was stuck, nowhere to go, and blocking traffic.

I watched how people punished her. Gave her the finger. Honked horns. Yelled. Made faces.

Punishment.

Observing the social flow in the light of punishment explains a lot of behavior. People just punish people. It’s human nature. It’s that simple and it explains a lot. There’s lots of methods, lots of intensities. Humor is a biggie. Sarcasm. Satire. Invalidation. Denigration. And so on. A lot of times the punishing bears little or no relationship to a particular situation, it comes from memory or fantasy.

But punishment seems to be the theme. The social lubricant. So much so that punishment becomes evidence of caring, or at least attentiveness.

Maintaining an awareness of this pinpoints where relationships are superficial and conditioned, tends to lessen instances of punishing, and heightens understanding of what’s actually going on when being punished by another.

*

Here’s a fascinating and controversial essay. Many here are probably already aware of it.

The Myth of Mental Illness
By Thomas S. Szasz (1960)
First published in American Psychologist

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Szasz/myth.htm

[cousinbasil]

Unless I see the original post, I can't be sure that Kelly did what you believe she did rather than say something that got misinterpreted, much less make any judgment about her statement.

I believe prince was referring to this. Whether or not Kelly intended this to imply she regards prince as mentally ill - which was how I remember reading it - this is another instance where "telling the truth in a compassionate attempt to improve" someone (in this case, prince) comes across as condescending. Again, I don't believe Kelly ever intends to sound arrogant. I think it is just a natural consequence of the philosophical viewpoint she chooses to espouse.

[Animus]

Hence thou mayst comprehend that love must be
The seed within yourselves of every virtue,
And every act that merits punishment.

Dante Alighieri, Divine Comedy, Purgatorio, Canto XVII

[Dennis Mahar]

Prince,

Kelly Jones labelling me as "mentally ill".

Normally you would treat that statement like this:
Kelly Jones labelling me as "mentally ill'' = Kelly Jones labelling me as "mentally ill''.

Thereby refuting the object.
realising it lacked inherent existence, is empty.

Why attach this time?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Thank you cousinbasil. Yes, I agree that she crossed the line there, and I also believe that she crossed the line in the post where she quoted herself making the ad hominem about psychological issues.

Whether or not Kelly intended this to imply she regards prince as mentally ill - which was how I remember reading it - this is another instance where "telling the truth in a compassionate attempt to improve" someone (in this case, prince) comes across as condescending.

I don't think that she said that for the purpose of improving prince.

Lumping everyone together is hardly a scientific method. Prince is himself, with rather deep admitted psychological issues, and cannot be taken as exemplary by anyone.

This is priceless irony that also points out what her true intent was. She was reacting to Alex's comparison of Kelly and prince... kind of "lumping" her with prince. If you take the above quote from Kelly, and exchange the phrase "Prince is himself" with "Kelly is herself" you actually get an even more true statement - as Kelly has a public website up admitting her rather deep psychological issues, but to my knowledge, prince not only does not have such an open admission, he won't even publicly admit his name.

Kelly's not wanting to be lumped with prince reminds me of the saying "there's something about you that I don't like about me."

It would have been more mature of prince to address her ad hominems directly in that thread as ad hominems rather than just spewed some of his usual caustic remarks starting then and continuing on until now - but perhaps that was the best he could do.

I agree that Kelly still has a lot more growth to do, and one area of growth seems to be in her recognition of and abstinance from ad hominems. It surprises me a little that she would choose this particular form of ad hominem, especially since this instance took place about a month after Kevin posted this video substantially addressing this particular form of ad hominem.

I don't believe Kelly ever intends to sound arrogant. I think it is just a natural consequence of the philosophical viewpoint she chooses to espouse.

Agreed. Additionally, some years ago, not sounding arrogant on this board was denounced as lacking "masculine" strength of conviction. It's good to see that now one does not have to blow so much hot air to be taken seriously here, though the habit may be hard to break.

[Animus]

Hence if, discriminating, I judge well,
The evil that one loves is of one's neighbour,
And this is born in three modes in your clay.

There are, who, by abasement of their neighbour,
Hope to excel, and therefore only long
That from his greatness he may be cast down;

There are, who power, grace, honour, and renown
Fear they may lose because another rises,
Thence are so sad that the reverse they love;

And there are those whom injury seems to chafe,
So that it makes them greedy for revenge,
And such must needs shape out another's harm.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I believe prince was referring to this. Whether or not Kelly intended this to imply she regards prince as mentally ill - which was how I remember reading it.

but to my knowledge, prince not only does not have such an open admission

A bad example cousin raised as the post has Kelly actualy say : "Attacking him for being mentally ill is reprehensible, anyway."

I suspect this might go back to the discussion of his childhood traumas here where Prince does mention damage done to his psyche.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You claim my posts are not worth reading, yet you seem to do just that - if not, your claim would be meaningless on its face. But I quite understand why you do it. Your own are meandering and without merit, yet I occasionally find myself reading them.

They are not worth it because they contain too ofen too much stupidity to even start addressing. For example this time again, with somehow you implying the suggested low worth of your post would somehow mean I'd never even could read them or respond to any of it or else the claim would be "meaningless". As if life would ever be that black and white, so nicely arranged! When logged in you and many other posters who write too frequent and too irrelevant at this forum are filtered out by my settings. This doesn't mean you never ever say something clever and thoughtful but not often enough in my mind to make any effort to read you. Feel free to improve though! It's not a personal dislike, since I do like some cleverness in general but you need to reel it in a bit to prevent it ending up pointless.

[cousinbasil]

You claim my posts are not worth reading, yet you seem to do just that - if not, your claim would be meaningless on its face. But I quite understand why you do it. Your own are meandering and without merit, yet I occasionally find myself reading them.

They are not worth it because they contain too ofen too much stupidity to even start addressing. For example this time again, with somehow you implying the suggested low worth of your post would somehow mean I'd never even could read them or respond to any of it or else the claim would be "meaningless". As if life would ever be that black and white, so nicely arranged! When logged in you and many other posters who write too frequent and too irrelevant at this forum are filtered out by my settings. This doesn't mean you never ever say something clever and thoughtful but not often enough in my mind to make any effort to read you. Feel free to improve though! It's not a personal dislike, since I do like some cleverness in general but you need to reel it in a bit to prevent it ending up pointless.

You are one pompous, arrogant asshole. Have I reeled the cleverness in enough?

[cousinbasil]

As if life would ever be that black and white, so nicely arranged! When logged in you and many other posters who write too frequent and too irrelevant at this forum are filtered out by my settings.

Filtered out by your settings? Life isn't black and white enough for you, so you have your forum settings filter things for you. Listen to yourself, you anal-retentive phony.

[cousinbasil]

This doesn't mean you never ever say something clever and thoughtful but not often enough in my mind to make any effort to read you. Feel free to improve though!

This is an example of your trademark left-handed back-slap. It's like when you write "good luck with that." Try to write without using the same gimmicky devices over and over. I know English isn't your first language, but that's no excuse for mental laziness. Feel free to improve, though.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Here’s a fascinating and controversial essay. Many here are probably already aware of it.

The Myth of Mental Illness

It reminds me of "anti-psychiatrists" like R.D. Laing, John W. Perry, Jan Foudraine ("Messiah of the schizophrenics") and perhaps also Joseph Campbell. It's a complex subject and certainly psychiatry has won the argument for now but perhaps only because the increased instability of the modern mind.

One comment on something in the Szasz article:

Our only rational means for lightening it is more understanding, and appropriate action based on such understanding. The main alternative lies in acting as though the burden were not what in fact we perceive it to be and taking refuge in an outmoded theological view of man. In the latter view, man does not fashion his life and much of his world about him, but merely lives out his fate in a world created by superior beings.

This is a little bit in conflict with the rest of his article as he implies that our fate (mental order-disorder) is related to the presence of "personal, social, and ethical conflicts". But what is the difference between invoking super-structures and larger-than-human entities like the 'social' and the 'ethical' around us, and something like "superior beings". Only a name change?

One is still not having personal responsibility when we portray ourselves as victim of such circumstance. What is missing is understanding of the maximum response-ability coming with "no-self" and no "free" will.