The Loveshack/SoSuave Discussion [Merged Threads]

[Señor Fingers]

is the fundamental philosophical difference of the two forums something other than the nature of truth?

If you peel away the many layers of preconceptions and dogmas, there really is not that huge of a difference. It usually becomes a matter of semantics where we are either both saying the same things or arguing over the proper use of a certain term... minutia really.

I can agree that trying to make everyone fit into your paradigm is not only a waste of energy, it's a lost cause! It all comes down to being level-headed and secure enough in your own beliefs to not feel threatened when they are challenged.

All you can really do is put your perceptions of the truth out there and hope that they resonate with someone else. On the occasions that they don't, we should all give thanks that there is something to disagree on. Nothing is more boring than a community of yes-men/women.

 

[scratch]

It is an attack that makes no sense whatsoever. Yes, "Your moderators delete dissenting viewpoints" =" Join my army of zombies." Those two things obviously mean the same thing. Bravo. Of course, it's not so much ad hominen as non-sequitor, I guess.

False dichotomy. I'm not comparing the relative levels of moderation. I'm speaking to someone on the internet currying people to "discover truths" and shedding social conventions.

 

[Purple-Haze]

I can agree that trying to make everyone fit into your paradigm is not only a waste of energy, it's a lost cause! It all comes down to being level-headed and secure enough in your own beliefs to not feel threatened when they are challenged.

All you can really do is put your perceptions of the truth out there and hope that they resonate with someone else. On the occasions that they don't, we should all give thanks that there is something to disagree on. Nothing is more boring than a community of yes-men/women.

Kudos to you! I totally agree with this.

And Rollo, not all of us LS/SS posters are necessarily here to defend. I am personally here to see what this site has to offer. I was intrigued by some of the comments made by Karma...

I initially came here to see what the fuss was all about. After Karma made some comments about male sexuality, my sincere interest was piqued.

 

[Phyzzle]

I'm speaking to someone on the internet currying people to "discover truths" and shedding social conventions.

. . . Which has nothing to do with any "army of any mindless zealots". It was inappropriate and nonsensical to have even mentioned any such thing.

 

[scratch]

Common, simple, binary response. Nowhere did I state SS was the "one true way." My argument up to this point is illustrating the differences between the forums and what I (and others) can easily observe as the mechanics used on LS to keep their members inured and comfortable.

Don't like the word 'Conventions"? How about we say "Social Contrivances" or "Psycho-Social Mechanics"? Semantics aside, no member of LS has yet to offer a real counter-point to what's been observed on that forum, nor has there been offered any rebuttal to my reasonings for it. What has been offered is simplistic binary responses, and attempts to discredit by association or straw men. Attack the argument dear, your avoiding to do so only proves my own.

Or we could always continue this cross-forum sharing over on LS if you prefer? How long would that thread last there do you suppose?

Binary response? Dude, you're the one who is trying to create a dichotomy. Perhaps I am not making myself clear. Point me to the place where I claim that loveshack is superior. This is a strawman ploy. You aren't disagreeing with my points, but assigning me a stance I'm not taking and then criticizing me for it.

In the previous post I explained why what you wrote equates to calling SS the "one true way."

In my opinion, Senor Fingers has accurately summarized why the culture of both fora is limiting.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I've gone on to elaborate that the area where this forum is no better, and perhaps even worse, is the extent to which there isn't an opposing viewpoint regarding gender superiority.

Dig deeper. You haven't explored nearly enough of SS to make this assessment. I can understand why you'd think there is an undercurrent of misogyny here, because you've been conditioned to see even the slightest critique of the feminine as an attack or a declaration of gender superiority.

Here, however, there just isn't an opposing viewpoint.

Again, dig deeper. The reason most AFCs come to this site is because they're seeking help. 90% of these guys initially rail against the ideology here. They are the opposing viewpoint. True, some guy's are more harsh in their advice than other's, but the difference is SS tolerates and discusses the opposing viewpoint.

In fact, by accusing me of poisoning the well instead of providing counterarguments addressing my points, are you not engaging in the very tactic of which you accuse me?

I made the assertions about this forum. The burden of any counterargument is on you.

 

[scratch]

. . . Which has nothing to do with any army of any mindless zealots. It was inappropriate to have mentioned any such thing.

We may have a fundamental disagreement on the language one uses when appealing to zealots. What would you consider an example of such language, and how is it distinguished from the above?

 

[Nighthawk]

PhD

Nighthawk, I think that the answer to your question is that we shouldn't generalize and assume that :
1) All women-djam actually want peace and mutual respect or
2) that peace and mutual respect means the same thing for all Djam-Bouis
3) that all women-djams get turned on when Bouis cut in line
4) that all Bouis need to use cutting in line as their technique to get a Djamboui's attention.

I addressed the issue of generalisations in my first post in this thread. Sure there are exceptions, but if you look at LS every single woman is apparently one of these exceptions. And again, if you dig a bit deeper it turns out they are not. The cutting in line reference was based on how you said your current boyfriend first met you. It was honest of you to present that when pushed on the subject of confident men, but I think it's unlikely you or another women would advise a man to be rude, even playfully, to get a woman's attention. But it (often) works. If I/we preface every with 'this may not work on every single woman' would this be better?

As for forcing our opinions on anyone, 'force' is hardly the word. Loveshack is supposedly an open forum. At least this one is more upfront about its paradigm.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Everything you wrote above the quoted part of this post was fascinating, thought-provoking and worthy of consideration.

This sentence exposes your agenda as the naked desire for an army of mindless zealots. I take it you fancy yourself something of a writer - need I break down your use of incendiary language?

Was this not your post? Who's using straw men now?

 

[Phyzzle]

Here, however, there just isn't an opposing viewpoint. When I questioned you, didn't someone post "uh-oh, now he's gonna get it?"

I had assumed you were a woman, and they tend to be comically offended by some of Rollo's quips. Right now, I would guess male. But surely you understand, with 4 or 6 female members joining in a day, it was easy to assume female, just from noticing at a strange name.

 

[Kamille]

Yeah, I'm not really interested in who has the last word and which forum won the war.

I don't know about you guys but the statement : men should never listen to women because (women are naturally irationnal or women have secret agendas or women are too emotional) is the perfect example of binary thinking. It's knowledge production based on a binary categorization of men=rational, women=irrational. When I was taught binary thinking, that's the exact example that was used.

Binary thinking is used all the time to justify "truths", establish lines of inclusion and exclusions and figth for one's position in the relations of power (which I believe aren't binary by the way).

You can believe that women are irrational if you want and if you find it helps you acheive your goals. Questionning your beliefs isn't the point of this post. What I want to outline is that binary thinking pervades any philosophy that is based on gender categories.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

I don't know about you guys but the statement : men should never listen to women because (women are naturally irationnal or women have secret agendas or women are too emotional) is the perfect example of binary thinking. It's knowledge production based on a binary categorization of men=rational, women=irrational. When I was taught binary thinking, that's the exact example that was used.

Give me a link to where you've seen this posted here.

 

[slowgold]

Bottom line is no single "technique" is going to work on ALL women. Smart women see through those tricks.

I don't know that I'm very different from most women or not but I do know that a rude man would sent me running in the opposite direction. That "trick" wouldn't work with me.

Scratch, I admire your persistence in getting your points across but if you don't watch it, you're going to end up being an outcast on here.

Also, I doubt Hombre, cares too much how "forgiving" you are.

But anyway, keep it up. Let's see if you get anywhere. I'm enjoying the show.

 

[MacAvoy]

I can understand why you'd think there is an undercurrent of misogyny here, because you've been conditioned to see even the slightest critique of the feminine as an attack or a declaration of gender superiority.

I've been here for a long time and only in the past year have I realized the amount of misogyny here. Its real and it exists by members of this site. It might not be the man hating dyke types that exist on the other end of the spectrum, but it exists.

 

[scratch]

Dig deeper. You haven't explored nearly enough of SS to make this assessment. I can understand why you'd think there is an undercurrent of misogyny here, because you've been conditioned to see even the slightest critique of the feminine as an attack or a declaration of gender superiority.

How much of the site must I explore before my opinion is valid? In conjunction with what I said to Nighthawk today, my suspicion is that my opinion will be valid right around the same time I agree with you.

Look over my stuff on either site, and then tell me about the extent to which I've been conditioned to be a knee-jerk feminist.

Again, dig deeper. The reason most AFCs come to this site is because they're seeking help. 90% of these guys initially rail against the ideology here. They are the opposing viewpoint. True, some guy's are more harsh in their advice than other's, but the difference is SS tolerates and discusses the opposing viewpoint.

I like the advice given out here, and find it to be generally effective and efficient for men to follow. Why am I repeating myself?

You're still discussing the fact that SS is more tolerant and better moderated than LS? There's a great African folk tale about the Rabbit and the Clay Man you'd enjoy mightily.

I made the assertions about this forum. The burden of any counterargument is on you.

This is a non-sequitor.

 

[Burrito Supreme]

Perfect example of why this type is rejected on the other site:

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=142135

 

[Kamille]

I addressed the issue of generalisations in my first post in this thread. Sure there are exceptions, but if you look at LS every single woman is apparently one of these exceptions. And again, if you dig a bit deeper it turns out they are not. The cutting in line reference was based on how you said your current boyfriend first met you. It was honest of you to present that when pushed on the subject of confident men,

but I think it's unlikely you or another women would advise a man to be rude, even playfully, to get a woman's attention.

But it (often) works. If I/we preface every with 'this may not work on every single woman' would this be better?

As for forcing our opinions on anyone, 'force' is hardly the word. Loveshack is supposedly an open forum. At least this one is more upfront about its paradigm.

:crackup: Yeah ok, you got me there. My bf is very suave. :crackup:

He sure knows how to get the ladies' attention and loves the ladies' attention.

Would I advise a person to be rude? No. Playful? Yes. In fact, you could say that I got him when I jokingly called him a "prime example of a patriarchal male professor" when he cut in line. Who was playing who? Doesn't matter, we both had fun and got what we wanted. And keep getting what we want because neither one of us is set on being the dominant one in the R.

 

[Kamille]

Give me a link to where you've seen this posted here.

I'll dig, but we both know that many of the attacks on LS had that exact statement, basically word for word, made into it.

 

[Nighthawk]

Bottom line is no single "technique" is going to work on ALL women. Smart women see through those tricks.

I don't know that I'm very different from most women or not but I do know that a rude man would sent me running in the opposite direction. That "trick" wouldn't work with me.

Are you saying Kamille's not smart? Because his 'trick' (he later admitted he did it on purpose to get her attention) worked on her.

 

[reset]

Ok I'm just as guilty of this as anyone.

But let me get this straight: we're here trying to convince women how great/important our site is. Do I have this right?

I'm leaning towards Francisco's meat is murder vs carnivore thing.