rigorousintuition.ca

JackRiddler » Mon Dec 07, 2015 7:20 pm wrote:Is it possible the pavlovian feminist bashing has become more degenerate since last year, or is it about the same?

You know the experiment with rats where they are subject to this electric shock and dropped in cold water if they so much as move at a female.
So they all become fruit rats and that's the way it is with the etiology.
And shall such a rat squeak out, 'I'm queah and I luuuuuuuuve it' or 'Who cut yours off, you two-holed freak?' 'twere a square rat so to squeak.

During my rather brief experience as a psychoanalyst -- spot of bother with the Society --
one patient ran amok in Grand Central with a flame thrower, two committed suicide and one died on the couch like a jungle rat ( jungle rats are subject to die if confronted suddenly with a hopeless situation).
So his relations beef and I tell them, 'It's all in the day's work. Get this stiff outa here. It's a bring down for my live patients’.

I noticed that all my homosexual patients manifested strong unconscious heterosex trends and all my hetero patients unconscious homosexual trends.

Makes the brain reel, don't it?"

Project Willow » Mon Dec 07, 2015 5:15 pm wrote:

JackRiddler » 07 Dec 2015 15:20 wrote:Is it possible the pavlovian feminist bashing has become more degenerate since last year, or is it about the same?

More virulent and normalized, I would say.

Luther Blissett » 07 Dec 2015 20:33 wrote:How can we come back from this and start making Rigorous Intuition less hostile towards and more attractive for women? What is the way forward?

JackRiddler » 07 Dec 2015 20:43 wrote:Careful, Luther. You may prompt the unleashing of MRA sock-puppets arriving as female personas.

How can we come back from this and start making Rigorous Intuition less hostile towards and more attractive for women? What is the way forward?

JackRiddler » 07 Dec 2015 21:05 wrote:I'm well aware you've been around here a long time, slomo. I also know you've turned especially self-referential. You seem convinced now that everything that isn't totally misrepresenting feminists (and women, and everything to do with sex and gender) in exactly the narrow vein you can tolerate, compounds your long persecution at the hands of the grand feminist coalition who have destroyed manhood, etc. But why should you think that my last comment meant you? Or should I better ask it like this: Why did you feel addressed by it? Are you saying you've been an MRA sock-puppet here since 2005?

backtoiam » Tue Dec 08, 2015 12:06 am wrote:

How can we come back from this and start making Rigorous Intuition less hostile towards and more attractive for women? What is the way forward?

Luther an attempt is being made to do that right now.

The ironic thing is that RI is not a "hostile place towards women" it is a place where people discuss the most tedious issues involving humanity.

RI is not a hostile environment towards women, however, if it becomes involved in the mistake of believing that equality for women equals bashing men it could evolve into that.

Making an attempt to squelch a narrative that was intentionally disguised as feminism and trotted in on a Trojan Horse that was intentionally designed to damage feminism is not hostile to women and it also serves the best interest of men too.

It creates cohesion.

An attempt is being made to rip the fabric of cohesive unity out of society and strip it down to its very roots of utter chaos. If that happens and apparently it may you won't want to part of the Phoenix that arises from those ashes.

You don't want the front page of RI to become a swamp littered with issues designed to be a destroyer of humanity do you? What would you do then? Watch FOX and CNN?

Luther Blissett » 07 Dec 2015 20:33 wrote:How can we come back from this and start making Rigorous Intuition less hostile towards and more attractive for women? What is the way forward?

winsomecowboy2 wrote about rigorous intuition:

It's a self referential semi intelligent farce but as farces go it's one of the better I've seen. Full of serious actors and rigoruous thinkers and obvious tribal chest beaters. It's tribal but also viewed anthropologically by a greater weight of lurkers,[myself included] because it has a higher signal to noise ratio than most and the ability to police itself and define sociopolitical skepticism over and above it's hardcore constituants. It collates thought and I've been lurking since it's genisis and don't think I'm unique so it's tribal only in that status and conflict is tribal but it's more than that. It's critical and apart from the obvious relationships and obvious new provocateurs over the last 15 years, 10 years, 5 years . It's a unique form of digestion of the western human condition. So yes it is tribal but it's also meta tribal and there's various neutral anthropologists who's hearts and minds appreciate the self diagnosis that is the lifeblood of the place.

I've never left. When I say it polices itself I'm mistaken. As a lurker I project policing simply by observing the standards kept. Arguments are parsed rather than emotionally bulldozed [for the most part with notable and sometimes short lived or long gamed exceptions.] That alone makes this place very selfishly interesting to me. I'm aware it's an ecosystem of thought or rather of digestion of thought. I watch it and admire both the clinical and the emotional, sometimes mixed, sometimes singular.I also admire a form of journalism that seems to be unavailable elsewhere, combined with that journalisms realtime defense against trolls. It's rare to see people much braver than myself and much more clinically intelligent than myself stand and deliver. Thanks for the flattery. Rhodes Scholar, try clown school and a global experiment wherein laughter I proved was a currency at street level. To be honest sharing in this community scares me. I fear roasting by intellectual betters or seduction by gibberers or wastage by ghosts. It's a deep site.