Randomness thread, part two.

[wufwugy]

I can go into some specific examples of how I teach math to women and how heading off anxiety before it gets out of hand is so important later.

do it

[spoonitnow]

On the specific topic of teaching women math:

The first thing I do is get an idea for how they feel about the relationship they have to math. I'll give a few examples of the type of profile I'm looking for here:

1. A teenage chick who is straight out of high school and moving into pre-calculus who might feel like it's something she's had to work disproportionately hard at to keep up compared to how much work she's had to put into other subjects.
2. A middle-aged woman who feels completely lost while learning the equivalent of Algebra 1 after being out of school for the past 20 years because she wants to go back to school to be a nurse.
3. A girl in her early-to-mid 20s who has been going through college part-time since she got out of high school since she couldn't afford to go full-time. She's always hated math classes and never felt like she "got it" even though she would study enough to make an ok grade on tests and homework so far in her math class career.

I want to know how anxious they are about learning math, how much they have internalized this idea that women just aren't as good at math, and what their experiences have been like with learning math so far in their lives. My first session with a new female student is usually about 20-30 minutes of us talking about these issues and me introducing her to the idea that I understand what they're feeling about math (whatever that happens to be) and that we're going to address the emotional side of the situation as well.

An Application Under Extreme Circumstances

So here's a true story that really gave me a lot of perspective on how I was approaching this. In the fall of 2003, a woman in her early 30s who we'll call Judy was taking the equivalent of pre-calculus. About two-thirds or three-fourths the way through the semester, she was in a really horrible car wreck where she was t-boned by a drunk driver. She was paralyzed from the waist down for a period of time and had to completely re-learn how to walk, among other things.

Judy had never really had a problem with anxiety before this wreck. However, after her months and months of rehab and getting back to the point of being able to live a relatively normal life, she had severe anxiety in general, frequent major panic attacks (to the point of throwing up and occasionally passing out), and a PTSD diagnosis.

She was given an incomplete in her pre-calculus class which meant that she could finish the course in a future semester. In the spring of 2005, she was put with me for one-hour sessions three times a week on Monday/Wednesday/Friday for about three months to prepare her to take her pre-calculus final example. Her instructor and the math department had come together to make her a deal where she could just take the final and get a grade for the class and be done with it if she met with me for X number of sessions to make up for missed classroom time.

We mostly had to start from the beginning in terms of course material, which is understandable since she hadn't really been studying pre-calculus for the past 12-15 months as she got her life together. However, the major problem was with her changed mental state: Any serious level of frustration over the math for her would drastically escalate her anxiety, and this would often bring our sessions to a screeching halt.

The first thing I did was teach her to breathe following a similar method as my most recent strategy article here on FTR that players have been raving about. We would literally work through basic algebra problems (eg: 3x/7 - 14 = 6x/5 + 29) in a step-by-step fashion with her practicing her breathing as she worked through each step, and she made a comment that I can still remember very vividly about that being the first time she "felt in control" since the accident.

It's worth noting that this idea of being "in control" has really guided my work towards helping people (but women especially) with anxiety in both the context of the learning process and other aspects of life.

My sessions with Judy, and in a larger sense my sessions with all women, were more controlled (along the above lines) because I was much more conscious of the pace and mood I was setting with how I was presenting the information. This pace and mood is how I kept their anxiety about math in check. I was constantly monitoring their anxiety and their confidence with the material, and if they started to get too far off-center, then we would stop and regroup to make sure I hadn't lost her in the emotional sense of the word.

Something else happened with this that I'm about to address, but Judy gained control of her anxiety inside of the three months I worked with her, and she was regularly going a week or more without a panic attack by the time she was ready to take her final. She made something in like the mid-90s and was beyond thrilled since he hadn't really been doing great in the class originally at the time of her accident.

Feminism Rears Its Ugly, Short-Haired Head

The following happened about two weeks before Judy had her final exam.

So in the part of the college where I worked, there were three supervisors. One was over the English/writing/humanities tutors, one was over the math/science tutors, and one was the department chair over the tutoring center and some other resource-oriented programs. The writing tutor supervisor (a woman) walked past during one of my sessions with Judy one day and apparently had a problem with the way I was handling the situation. This supervisor chided me for "talking to Judy like a child" because I was working with her differently than how I worked with men she had seen me tutor, and the supervisor suggested that I was treating Judy like she was stupid because she was a woman.

This supervisor put me in front of the department chair and read me the riot act. The department chair was an older woman who was a little more even-keel, and she told me that it was my turn to give my side of the story. I suggested that she call Judy and every other female I had ever tutored to see what they thought. She called Judy on speakerphone in front of the math supervisor and the cunt English supervisor after I left the room.

The result was that Judy really laid into the English supervisor over her bullshit and all but cussed her out on the phone. She sang my praises and talked about how much I had helped her anxiety after her wreck and all of this. One specific line that my math supervisor commented on and that really pleased him was that when the English supervisor said something about me treating Judy like she was stupid, Judy responded that I had given her more confidence in herself and her own intelligence than anyone probably ever had in her life. The English supervisor got pissed and walked out in the middle of the call at some point.

While I was surprised at the time that Judy thought so highly of me, I more or less heard the same sort of thing about increasing the confidence and general self-esteem of almost every single female I worked with because of my emotion-centric approach which also allowed me to be more effective with the actual material because they were able to be primarily engaged with the math instead of being primarily engaged with their internal emotional struggle.

[wufwugy]

The result was that Judy really laid into the English supervisor over her bullshit and all but cussed her out on the phone. She sang my praises and talked about how much I had helped her anxiety after her wreck and all of this. One specific line that my math supervisor commented on and that really pleased him was that when the English supervisor said something about me treating Judy like she was stupid, Judy responded that I had given her more confidence in herself and her own intelligence than anyone probably ever had in her life. The English supervisor got pissed and walked out in the middle of the call at some point.

r/justiceporn



I don't see how this method wouldn't apply to men if one had the same kind of anxiety.

[spoonitnow]

r/justiceporn



I don't see how this method wouldn't apply to men if one had the same kind of anxiety.

It will (and has), but a man having this level of anxiety is a special case, and a woman having this level of anxiety is normal. When men do report symptoms of anxiety, they are affected by it on a lot lower level as well and have a much easier time setting it aside and focusing than women do.

It's not so much that the least anxious woman is going to be more anxious than the most anxious man or anything like that. It's just the idea that we should treat the genders as equal as a default is a really stupid idea. It would be like only having one size of clothes or something.

I believe that boys and girls should be taught separately in academic courses before college, but they should also have certain activities that overlap daily so that they have opportunities to be social and develop those skills too. Some people think this means that the women should have a "dumbed-down" curriculum, but that's not it at all. The most effective teaching methods, on average, are different for males and females, and the idea is to give them the best chance at the best education as possible. To make it clear: Teaching all kids together is hurting all kids, and this includes girls.

Anxiety is only one example of the differences in action. The whole ADHD clusterfuck is another topic of discussion. Boys are expected to act like girls (as in being calmer and less "hyperactive"). If they don't, then they get told to eat some pills.

[spoonitnow]

Men operate based on feel a lot more than they realize. This is mistaken as pure logic often because they can make sense of their decisions in terms of it "making sense," but the initial idea they have is based on feeling. The difference is that women don't typically have this need for their actions to "make sense" logically as long as the feeling is there.

Consider the scientific method, the last place anyone would expect to find the influence of feelings. The very first step is to choose a hypothesis that you want to test. How do you choose which hypothesis to test out of the potentially infinite number of available hypotheses? It's through the use of emotion-based thinking.

So you complete an experiment and gain new information. Now your job is to pick another hypothesis to test. You use previously-gained information to make your decision, but that actual choice is based on feel. Hypothesis X seems like the right way to go more than hypothesis Y. Call this feeling intuition for the sake of discussion.

We can improve the accuracy of our intuition through purposeful, conscious, intentional practice. Poker is a great example. I always recommend that players study in a lot of depth because this is what develops that feel at the table of what seems like the right play to make. You don't have 30 minutes to study a situation at the table before you make a decision, but you do have that amount of time during your study to dedicate to a single hand. This is essentially a tie-in to the notion that we can use our conscious mind to interface with our unconscious mind (which is much more powerful to a degree that most people don't really understand).

Jared Tendler has become popular in the poker world to some degree over the past several years. He has a model for the learning process that has four parts that go in the following order:

1. Unconscious Incompetence - We don't know that we don't know.
2. Conscious Incompetence - We realize we don't know.
3. Conscious Competence - We're able to do shit, but it requires conscious effort.
4. Unconscious Competence - We're able to do shit without conscious effort.

The textbook example he uses is a baby learning to walk. First it doesn't know it can't walk (UI), then it starts to realize it can stand but that it can't really move around from that point (CI). Next it's able to learn to walk in a really choppy way for short distances because it's hard to consciously think about all of the individual things your body has to do. Finally, it's able to walk smoothly for however long it needs to because everything has been learned on the unconscious level (aka on the level of feeling).

Let me re-iterate this point: When you walk, you are doing it based on feel.

[jackvance]

Anyone familiar with the Calhoun mice experiments? It has been repeated many times with always the same reliable results: when you let a small population of mice or rats boom in utopian conditions (no predators or hardships), they first thrive, then when it gets to too many of them the social structure breaks down and they die out. It's an eerie warning for humanity's fate.

The experiment:

http://www.physicsoflife.pl/dict/cal...xperiment.html

With all the crazy feminist stuff going on, is society already in its death throes like the mice population? Female aggression while taking over from males and males pulling out from society and sticking to themselves is eerily similar to what happened to the mice before extinction. Some connection to current day societies such as the bad shape japan is in:

http://www.returnofkings.com/36915/w...pia-experiment

[OngBonga]

How can we be sure that the social structure of the mice didn't begin to break down because they figured out that they existed purely to satisfy the curiosity of humans, and they decided to rebel?

[oskar]

n July 1968 four pairs of mice were introduced into the Utopian universe. The universe was a 9-foot (2.7 m) square metal pen with 54-inch-high (1.4 m) sides.

Utopia if all the mice are Kim Jong Un.

[aubreymcfate]

This whole Trevor Noah thing is retarded. Obviously his old Twitter jokes wouldn't be appropriate for The Daily Show -- what's the indication that he thinks they would be?? And honestly, as crude as they were, I would definitely laugh at them if they were told in a party atmosphere. Time and place for everything.

Thoughts?

[BooG690]

This whole Trevor Noah thing is retarded. Obviously his old Twitter jokes wouldn't be appropriate for The Daily Show -- what's the indication that he thinks they would be?? And honestly, as crude as they were, I would definitely laugh at them if they were told in a party atmosphere. Time and place for everything.

Thoughts?

This falls under everyone's way too goddamn sensitive. I don't know how fatter people fell under the "things you can't joke about" umbrella. Also, he's a comedian. How can you be offended by things a comedian said? Why is he held to this higher ground because he's soon to be on The Daily Show. I'm with you, Aubrey.

[rong]

Anyone familiar with the Calhoun mice experiments? It has been repeated many times with always the same reliable results: when you let a small population of mice or rats boom in utopian conditions (no predators or hardships), they first thrive, then when it gets to too many of them the social structure breaks down and they die out. It's an eerie warning for humanity's fate.

The experiment:

http://www.physicsoflife.pl/dict/cal...xperiment.html

With all the crazy feminist stuff going on, is society already in its death throes like the mice population? Female aggression while taking over from males and males pulling out from society and sticking to themselves is eerily similar to what happened to the mice before extinction. Some connection to current day societies such as the bad shape japan is in:

http://www.returnofkings.com/36915/w...pia-experiment

Odd that I was reading about those mice just last week. The "beautiful ones" bit was particularly weird.

[spoonitnow]

I currently have a man in my life who I'm not exactly dating, but who comes over about once a week to eat me out. The only thing I give him in return is a pat on the back for doing a good job. Some might think this arrangement is strange, but I prefer to think of it as pretty damn close to perfect. It was on our second date that I first gave him the opportunity to suck on my clitoris. After thanking him for giving me a ride home, I simply said, "Want to come up to my place and eat me out?" He gave me an enthusiastic yes, and we got to it. I sat on his face until I came, then sent him home. This has been our arrangement for a little over two months now. If you're wondering why we don't have sex, it's because I have made a promise to myself not to have sex until I'm in a relationship.

It's as if this dumb bitch doesn't understand the meaning of the word sex.

The real root of the problem seems to be that too many straight dudes are under the impression that women orgasm from penetration. The only thing a man has been able to give me during penetrative sex is HPV. I have never been able to come from penetration alone, and I am in the majority: Between 50 to 75 percent of women need clitoral stimulation to achieve orgasm. A small portion of women are fortunate to have their clitoris positioned close enough to their vagina that they can come from just sex. Sadly, while my clitoris is in the same region as my vagina, it is still too distant for me to not need oral sex. Think of my clitoris as Alaska, while my vagina is Russia. (If you need a less cold or oppressive analogy, replace Alaska with South Korea and Russia with North Korea.)

Also this dumb bitch doesn't understand that clit stimulation isn't required to orgasm in all women. Example: Some women can orgasm from anal alone with no clit stimulation.

Her logic of denying giving men oral sex while maintaining that they must give her oral sex ensures that she'll be in relationships with a string of under-achieving losers for the rest of her life, and that seems like a just punishment for her stupid self being so fucking stupid.

[a500lbgorilla]

This whole Trevor Noah thing is retarded. Obviously his old Twitter jokes wouldn't be appropriate for The Daily Show -- what's the indication that he thinks they would be?? And honestly, as crude as they were, I would definitely laugh at them if they were told in a party atmosphere. Time and place for everything.

Thoughts?

My care wells have run dry. I've been without a drop of care for a while now. If this drought continues, my sunflowers will not bloom. It's the happiest flowers that need the most caring. I'm afraid it'll be nothing cynical daisies this Spring.

[a500lbgorilla]

Anyone familiar with the Calhoun mice experiments? It has been repeated many times with always the same reliable results: when you let a small population of mice or rats boom in utopian conditions (no predators or hardships), they first thrive, then when it gets to too many of them the social structure breaks down and they die out. It's an eerie warning for humanity's fate.

The experiment:

http://www.physicsoflife.pl/dict/cal...xperiment.html

It's doom on all sides, boys! Doomed if you do, doomed if you don't.

[a500lbgorilla]

Life has no meaning, it's all a struggle. Without the false hope of something better, it loses all its worth. A worse world is a better world. Fire! Only Fire can save us now! Sacrifice ALL to the Sun GOD who BURNS First and Brightest!

[spoonitnow]

Every matriarchal society still lives in fucking huts, if they've even figured out what a hut is, and their greatest inventions are the gangbang and arranging rocks like smiley faces.

Anyone who is against patriarchy can go fuck themselves.

[a500lbgorilla]

They worship rocks over fire? What dumb bitches.

[wufwugy]

Every matriarchal society still lives in fucking huts, if they've even figured out what a hut is, and their greatest inventions are the gangbang and arranging rocks like smiley faces.

Anyone who is against patriarchy can go fuck themselves.

this is the best unscientific argument ive ever seen.

[a500lbgorilla]

I still don't know what to think about these mice. It's like inspiration for the best ending to Humanity, the novel. Mankind achieves beyond all basic reason, then implodes. Way better than zombies.


edit I guess the take away is Life in moderation. Do enough to get by, but not too much. Success can kill.

[Renton]

It's an interesting study, but I just think overpopulation is the biggest load of horse shit in all of amateur economics.

[a500lbgorilla]

Tell that to the mountains of dead mice.

[a500lbgorilla]

With all the crazy feminist stuff going on, is society already in its death throes like the mice population? Female aggression while taking over from males and males pulling out from society and sticking to themselves is eerily similar to what happened to the mice before extinction. Some connection to current day societies such as the bad shape japan is in:

http://www.returnofkings.com/36915/w...pia-experiment

“The islanders then began to compete with each other more and more fiercely for an ever-declining volume of natural resources; vendettas multiplied, intertribal warfare flared, and a pall of hostility and fear descended on the island. As the trees vanished, the islanders were unable to build boats to escape to other islands: they became trapped in their own hell, doomed to fight each other in perpetuity for the last crumbs that the barren land could offer. Eventually the islanders began to starve, and feed—literally—off each other. As wild meats became unavailable, and escape off the island became impossible, the natural consequences followed. Cannibalism stalked the island, animating its folklore and infecting its archaeological sites. Perhaps the islanders compensated for their misery by focusing more and more on the empty ritual of building and raising statutes, as their means of sustenance melted away.”

[spoonitnow]

this is the best unscientific argument ive ever seen.

Okay remake Lord of the Flies to be about a bunch of girls. The first like three chapters would be the girls all starving to death, and the last like 20 chapters would be blank because that would be the end of the book.

[wufwugy]

Okay remake Lord of the Flies to be about a bunch of girls.

holy shit that's a fucking awesome idea.

only problem is it always turns into erotica. the writer either pedophiles it or finds a way to increase their age and experimental-sex's it up.

[spoonitnow]

holy shit that's a fucking awesome idea.

only problem is it always turns into erotica. the writer either pedophiles it or finds a way to increase their age and experimental-sex's it up.

How would that be awesome? That shit would be like a 20-minute cross between Flintstones and fucking Mean Girls.

[Renton]

Tell that to the mountains of dead mice.

Meh. Since when is it a utopia to have every want and need taken care of without having to do anything? The top of Maslow's pyramid is self-actualization. Humans (and maybe mice as well) have a strong need to strive toward and achieve goals. The experiment is extremely interesting in how it depicts a rodent society that doesn't have to obey economic constraints. I'm sure if you imprisoned 8 humans and provided them with food that wouldn't function well for very long. But that would not be a utopia, that would be hell, and the study in no way even hints at the future of the human race.

[wufwugy]

How would that be awesome? That shit would be like a 20-minute cross between Flintstones and fucking Mean Girls.

because it wouldn't be anything of the sort. being like "mean girls" is a luxury of entitlement of the plenty. take that away, and you'll find it becomes survival with far fewer mental gender differences than you'd expect.

what we think is definitively gender is mostly just adaptation to environments.

[jackvance]

The Eastern Island example is a famous example (saw this covered in a bunch of my old university courses) of how this does apply and has happened to people. It's not really about overpopulation, the mice never got there before their demise, just that enough space is taken so that most of the social roles are filled and that's when the decline starts. So let's see:

- alpha males stop being capable of defending their territory, that's when all goes to hell. (that's why TRP exists, this has happened already on a global scale, men aren't taught anymore how to be alpha due to societal role collapse)
- females become aggressive and take over male roles: check, we call this feminism and are proud of it.
- Deviancies like homosexuality start to occur: check, we're working hard to promote this.
- females stop reproducing: check, all western nation have sub-replacement birth-rates which are probably even exaggerated in the statistics due to immigrants having the majority of babies.
- the japanese Hikikimotori, about a million men who only come out at night to do grocery shopping - these are like "the beautiful".
- the japanese phenomenon of "grass eaters", basically people just stop having sex. Even in the US, 70% of men ages 20-35 are unmarried anymore. More "beautiful ones".

Surprisingly accurate right?

But we have enough agency to fix this of course. I mean let's face it, even besides our evident social collapse our welfare and medicine has turned us into a sickling, old pathetic heap of dung population. Global IQ is also decreasing to boot. We need to find a natural predator which can kill at least 95% of us. Make we can make one or wait for some aliens to show up and whoop our asses back on track!

[spoonitnow]

The Eastern Island example is a famous example (saw this covered in a bunch of my old university courses) of how this does apply and has happened to people. It's not really about overpopulation, the mice never got there before their demise, just that enough space is taken so that most of the social roles are filled and that's when the decline starts. So let's see:

- alpha males stop being capable of defending their territory, that's when all goes to hell. (that's why TRP exists, this has happened already on a global scale, men aren't taught anymore how to be alpha due to societal role collapse)
- females become aggressive and take over male roles: check, we call this feminism and are proud of it.
- Deviancies like homosexuality start to occur: check, we're working hard to promote this.
- females stop reproducing: check, all western nation have sub-replacement birth-rates which are probably even exaggerated in the statistics due to immigrants having the majority of babies.
- the japanese Hikikimotori, about a million men who only come out at night to do grocery shopping - these are like "the beautiful".
- the japanese phenomenon of "grass eaters", basically people just stop having sex. Even in the US, 70% of men ages 20-35 are unmarried anymore. More "beautiful ones".

Surprisingly accurate right?

But we have enough agency to fix this of course. I mean let's face it, even besides our evident social collapse our welfare and medicine has turned us into a sickling, old pathetic heap of dung population. Global IQ is also decreasing to boot. We need to find a natural predator which can kill at least 95% of us. Make we can make one or wait for some aliens to show up and whoop our asses back on track!

+1, best post of yours I've ever seen

[rong]

I think that the most important thing in life is ambition. Doesn't matter what your goal is. You have to have something to work for. You need a purpose. It doesn't matter if it's some kind of struggle circumstance has thrust upon you or goals you set yourself. But of you have nothing to work for then life grows stale and unfulfilling.

[a500lbgorilla]

Meh. Since when is it a utopia to have every want and need taken care of without having to do anything? The top of Maslow's pyramid is self-actualization. Humans (and maybe mice as well) have a strong need to strive toward and achieve goals. The experiment is extremely interesting in how it depicts a rodent society that doesn't have to obey economic constraints. I'm sure if you imprisoned 8 humans and provided them with food that wouldn't function well for very long. But that would not be a utopia, that would be hell, and the study in no way even hints at the future of the human race.

Maslow's pyramid is pure bull.

[aubreymcfate]

It's as if this dumb bitch doesn't understand the meaning of the word sex.



Also this dumb bitch doesn't understand that clit stimulation isn't required to orgasm in all women. Example: Some women can orgasm from anal alone with no clit stimulation.

Her logic of denying giving men oral sex while maintaining that they must give her oral sex ensures that she'll be in relationships with a string of under-achieving losers for the rest of her life, and that seems like a just punishment for her stupid self being so fucking stupid.

lol! Nothing escapes you and your admin powers. I should start leaving you secret deleted love notes.

thoughts on gender roles:

One interesting thing I've noticed about hanging out with people that are more I guess like.. "libertine" for lack of a better word lol, free-thinking, zero shaming of overly sexual women, accepting of all alternative lifestyles, etc. etc. is that natural male/female dynamics still emerge with most men taking on the masculine roles and women taking on the feminine roles, so clearly those things are real and not societal structures. But when they manifest naturally and not in a forced way (men/women being shamed whenever they stray from their role, men being taught not to have emotions, women taught not to have manly ambitions, etc) there's something way more harmonious about it. I guess it's because no one is trying to force you to be one way or another, so you neither have to fake who you are, nor do you have to force yourself to be something just to prove a point. There's no forced egalitarianism, except in the sense that everyone is treated with equal respect, man or woman.

A great example of this would be Burning Man, because at Burning Man you really are living like a tribe. You're out in the desert and virtually nothing is provided for you. You absolutely run the risk of dying out there if you are not prepared properly, and people do die there. To prepare yourself for living out in the middle of the desert for a week is not a small feat. I was stuck in an insane dust storm there -- had I not had my waterpack I would have surely come close to dying -- and that was an incredibly humbling experience because when you're living in modern society, you don't feel that kind of primal and dangerous relationship to the elements.

So you have people that go together in camps, and it's a lot of work to get everything set up and there is a lot of different jobs to be done. So natural roles come into place -- the men do more of the heavy lifting, women are more around the kitchen, etc. Same thing with constructing the large art project, which involved a massive amount of really down and dirty work (metalworking, engineering, woodworking, etc. [i cant even properly describe it bc i suck at this stuff lol]). People think Burning Man is a "hippie" fest but it's actually really not. There's a reason Burning Man is associated with Silicon Valley. There's a strong DIY tech vibe, people that actually know how to get shit done and modify and invent things. You could not survive there long if you're just a "hey man peace & love" thumb up your ass indolent stoner hippie.

Anyway, so, of course, some women help out more with the manly stuff because they're just inclined to it, and vica versa. And it's ok, no one's doing it to prove a point, men don't feel threatened by "aggressive women" usurping their role or some shit, it just arises naturally. You help out in the best way you can. And being out in the desert where you're basically surviving together makes for a much different, more authentic dynamic than living in the city or a town. I think it's good for people to have an experience like that, being off the grid or in nature for an extended period of time and experiencing what it means to actually be this animal called human without the internet, skyscrapers, stock market, churches, temples, etc.

I get frustrated with feminists who don't think there is no difference between men and women. (This is why I really like Camille Paglia and Fran Lebowitz -- two motherfucking badass women who aren't tethered blindly to feminist ideology). I also get frustrated with people that conclusively essentialize a person based on their gender. It's a balance of not having a kneejerk reaction to traditional heteronormative roles but also letting people just be who they fucking are and not forcing those roles on them. The former kneejerk reaction would include what boog mentioned, women losing their shit about being called "your woman."

[OngBonga]

But of you have nothing to work for then life grows stale and unfulfilling.

I have nothing to work for. Life is not stale and unfulfilling for me. A life in a job I hate is stale and unfulfilling.

I have zero ambition. That's why I'm happy doing fuck all with my life. Ambition is for those who need to justify their existence to themselves. Ambition is for those who need to feel like they have a purpose. I don't need a purpose. It's a stupid word in the context of human existence. I'm happy to exist without purpose.

[aubreymcfate]

ambition is a quest for identity, which is a very western concept.

from Lawrence Durrell's Justine: "In a way she was not looking for life but for some integrating revelation which would give it point."

which basically sums up the angst of my navel-gazing 1st world artistically ambitious existence.

ambition feels like my birthright to me (keyword: "feels," i'm aware i'm a product of NY suburban upbringing), which is why i am fiercely sensitive to any perceived misogyny that i feel disrespects my intelligence or creative contribution, it makes my blood boil. i'm basically pretty full of myself, and the thought of some dumb guy thinking he's smarter than me just because he's a guy is like.. gahh. (That doesn't mean I assume that's the case every time a guy disagrees with me or criticizes me.) It all boils down to being primarily offended by delusional and arrogant stupidity that lazily uses sexism and other "isms" to feel superior. I could stand to have thicker skin though, I'm hyper-sensitive. Things don't roll off my back easily. So in reality my inflated ego masks a profound dearth of self-confidence, and so instead of coolly shrugging off men who can't engage me on equal footing and not giving a shit about things that need not be given a shit about, I get all ragey. The joy of knowing your shortcomings and not being able to do much about it.. lol.

[OngBonga]

I think the integrating revelation is there is no point. Who needs a point?

[aubreymcfate]

ong - Idk, i can't blow through life like an aimless tumble weed and feel content without some kind of passion, it's just not for me. i need a purpose and my purpose is the continual pursuance of aesthetic bliss through creation and attentive devotion to music and literature. it's not about status or job ranking, if that's the kind of "point" you mean. it's a purely experiential thing.

http://madamenoire.com/522664/what-h...ave-chappelle/

that white man in question is a good friend of my boyfriend's. was not a racist act at all (i can see why it seems like it though). interesting to see firsthand how things get reduced in news stories when you actually know the person involved. apparently he gave a good interview about it on tv, not aired yet tho. boyfriend also told me he's since been physically attacked by black people which is pretty fucked up. racist or not, physically attacking someone for throwing the skin of a fruit is not sympathetic in any way shape or form.

[a500lbgorilla]

The Eastern Island example is a famous example (saw this covered in a bunch of my old university courses) of how this does apply and has happened to people. It's not really about overpopulation, the mice never got there before their demise, just that enough space is taken so that most of the social roles are filled and that's when the decline starts. So let's see:

- alpha males stop being capable of defending their territory, that's when all goes to hell. (that's why TRP exists, this has happened already on a global scale, men aren't taught anymore how to be alpha due to societal role collapse)
- females become aggressive and take over male roles: check, we call this feminism and are proud of it.
- Deviancies like homosexuality start to occur: check, we're working hard to promote this.
- females stop reproducing: check, all western nation have sub-replacement birth-rates which are probably even exaggerated in the statistics due to immigrants having the majority of babies.
- the japanese Hikikimotori, about a million men who only come out at night to do grocery shopping - these are like "the beautiful".
- the japanese phenomenon of "grass eaters", basically people just stop having sex. Even in the US, 70% of men ages 20-35 are unmarried anymore. More "beautiful ones".

Surprisingly accurate right?

But we have enough agency to fix this of course. I mean let's face it, even besides our evident social collapse our welfare and medicine has turned us into a sickling, old pathetic heap of dung population. Global IQ is also decreasing to boot. We need to find a natural predator which can kill at least 95% of us. Make we can make one or wait for some aliens to show up and whoop our asses back on track!

Hahaha, yeah. Right after Climate Change.

[jackvance]

I definitely agree that these things are western constructs, other cultures dont even pretend to care about them. Theoretically and conceptually it sounds like a great idea but in practice and being honest, I dont have the impression it actually works that way for me and other people. Motivations seem to be a lot more.. just responding to whatever is coming at you. If you try to be objective, things like pride and self-actualisation only work in the framework of comparison to other people and what already exists anyway, so our root values are probably stuff like jealousy and envy and greed and such.

[a500lbgorilla]

I definitely agree that these things are western constructs, other cultures dont even pretend to care about them. Theoretically and conceptually it sounds like a great idea but in practice and being honest, I dont have the impression it actually works that way for me and other people. Motivations seem to be a lot more.. just responding to whatever is coming at you. If you try to be objective, things like pride and self-actualisation only work in the framework of comparison to other people and what already exists anyway, so our root values are probably stuff like jealousy and envy and greed and such.

Agreed. I think people have an automatic story-telling engine inside of them and it'll take all the real things that are driving you and mask them with stuff like "motivated to achieve/driven to pursue aesthetic beauty" as a psychological cover up. In the west, where things rise and fall based on popularity, these feel-good stories begin shaping everyone's concept of what drives them.

[aubreymcfate]

Agreed. I think people have an automatic story-telling engine inside of them and it'll take all the real things that are driving you and mask them with stuff like "motivated to achieve/driven to pursue aesthetic beauty" as a psychological cover up. In the west, where things rise and fall based on popularity, these feel-good stories begin shaping everyone's concept of what drives them.

I mean, yes and no. Archetypes and storytelling and myth have always been signifiers for innate truths of the human psyche. But I don't think being driven to pursue aesthetic beauty is masking some deeper truth. If anything it's comparable to the innate curiosity humans have to experience altered states of mind. Devotedly listening to Beethoven or Prokofiev for me is literally a change of consciousness (music that complex is a massive and dense overload of information that you are experiencing in a condensed and focused, uninterrupted time space, it's not something your mind is normally used to but it's rewarding and transcendent as fuck when you exercise that mental muscle), it's an insane natural high. I basically just like to overdose on the sublime. It's not unlike my penchant for doing all my drugs really fast when they're in my possession, except it's way more meaningful. It's a pure pursuit of pleasure, I think that's a pretty core "real thing" that drives people. But if you can manage to convince me otherwise I eagerly welcome it, I'm quite curious.

but anyway you're basically right, and if you want to probe that line of thought more you should check these articles out:

http://aeon.co/magazine/psychology/o...ts-and-brains/

The careers of many great novelists and filmmakers are built on the assumption, conscious or not, that stories can motivate us to re-evaluate the world and our place in it. New research is lending texture and credence to what generations of storytellers have known in their bones – that books, poems, movies, and real-life stories can affect the way we think and even, by extension, the way we act. As the late US poet laureate Stanley Kunitz put it in ‘The Layers’, ‘I have walked through many lives, some of them my own, and I am not who I was.’

Our storytelling ability, a uniquely human trait, has been with us nearly as long as we’ve been able to speak. Whether it evolved for a particular purpose or was simply an outgrowth of our explosion in cognitive development, story is an inextricable part of our DNA. Across time and across cultures, stories have proved their worth not just as works of art or entertaining asides, but as agents of personal transformation.
...
For thousands of years, we’ve known intuitively that stories alter our thinking and, in turn, the way we engage with the world. But only recently has research begun to shed light on how this transformation takes place from inside. Using modern technology like functional MRI (fMRI) scanning, scientists are tackling age-old questions: What kind of effect do powerful narratives really have on our brains? And how might a story-inspired perspective translate into behavioural change?

http://aeon.co/magazine/psychology/h...form-the-self/

We live, moment to moment, in an emotional reality of love, hate, feuds, sorrows and dreams. We spin seductive, reductive narratives of heroism and villainy, struggle and victory, to parse reality and give ourselves esteem and our lives meaning. Rituals help. We use them to place ourselves at particular plot-points in the story of our lives. They reinforce our tales, making us seem important and our journeys comprehensible. In the chaos of the daily world and our irrational behaviour within it, our brains conjure the illusion of order; they wrench a plot from the chaos and then place us heroically at its centre. And what heroes we are! A symphony of optimism biases soothe us into believing we’re smarter, better looking, more morally upright than we are. Primitive tribal instincts turn our enemies into ruthless ignorant baddies while our allies are crowned with undeserved haloes. As we push through the minutes of our lives, we’re all Davids fighting our own personal Goliaths. We’re seduced into believing in the autonomy and moral behaviour of our coherent and comprehensible selves.

[Renton]

Well that's why it is a hierarchy of needs. People living in abject poverty usually are too preoccupied with trying to find food, shelter, and security that they don't even have the privilege of striving for something more. But I think there is still a very real need to strive that exists in all people. This need is probably a part of the higher consciousness that we have and that mice don't have.

I think a possible reason why you see shades of Calhoun's experiment evident in modern western civilization is because modern states attempt to create conditions for their citizens that are very much like those mice. States hand out free provisions, ensure reduced responsibility, and attempt to insulate people from the negative and positive consequences of their actions.

[surviva316]

http://madamenoire.com/522664/what-h...ave-chappelle/

Lol, why would the writer even assume that the person was racist? What we know about the situation is that a comedian heckled an audience member, and his drunk friend threw something at the comedian.

The good news is that Chappelle handled it hilariously, as always.

[spoonitnow]

Whoops. If that was a deleted post, then it wasn't deleted when I initially opened it in a new tab and came back to post that a good bit later. I apologize if that was the case; it wasn't intentional.

I get frustrated with feminists who don't think there is no difference between men and women. (This is why I really like Camille Paglia and Fran Lebowitz -- two motherfucking badass women who aren't tethered blindly to feminist ideology). I also get frustrated with people that conclusively essentialize a person based on their gender. It's a balance of not having a kneejerk reaction to traditional heteronormative roles but also letting people just be who they fucking are and not forcing those roles on them. The former kneejerk reaction would include what boog mentioned, women losing their shit about being called "your woman."

In response to the bold, I think that someone's gender is an important part of understanding them on a basic level in a short amount of time but only after you have seen their thought processes and seen them in action a time or two or three.

[a500lbgorilla]

I mean, yes and no. Archetypes and storytelling and myth have always been signifiers for innate truths of the human psyche. But I don't think being driven to pursue aesthetic beauty is masking some deeper truth. If anything it's comparable to the innate curiosity humans have to experience altered states of mind. Devotedly listening to Beethoven or Prokofiev for me is literally a change of consciousness (music that complex is a massive and dense overload of information that you are experiencing in a condensed and focused, uninterrupted time space, it's not something your mind is normally used to but it's rewarding and transcendent as fuck when you exercise that mental muscle), it's an insane natural high. I basically just like to overdose on the sublime. It's not unlike my penchant for doing all my drugs really fast when they're in my possession, except it's way more meaningful. It's a pure pursuit of pleasure, I think that's a pretty core "real thing" that drives people. But if you can manage to convince me otherwise I eagerly welcome it, I'm quite curious.

but anyway you're basically right, and if you want to probe that line of thought more you should check these articles out:

http://aeon.co/magazine/psychology/o...ts-and-brains/



http://aeon.co/magazine/psychology/h...form-the-self/

I know the feeling of being shaped by the media I've recently consumed. I've seen it in myself and others many times. I call it recency bias. And while the imprint of the media fades with time, I'll always have a bit of every story I've come across lurking inside to call upon when inspiration demands it.

Art is Theft, creativity is Theft. From the best scientists to the greatest artists, I see this trick time and again. And the best of them will admit it, from standing on the shoulders of giants to great artists steal, no one truly creates, you just find a quality combination of two other good works.

But the story-telling engine to me is part of what masks a persons true drivers from their conscious experience. Something completely different from the proper stories we hear or tell.

Long-time super drunks exhibit a behavior called 'confabulation'. Basically, with haphazardly functioning memory, they naturally invent stories about themselves and the world around them. I don't think the alcohol degenerates their brains to create this phenomenon but exposes it; I rather expect it's a part of us all. With better functioning memory, we confabulate coherently and without notice. And with most of our drivers outside of the conscious reach of the confabulation engine, or being influenced by other systems vigilant for emotional stressors, we tend to piece together pretty inaccurate stories about what we're really doing.

[jackvance]

Agreed. I think people have an automatic story-telling engine inside of them and it'll take all the real things that are driving you and mask them with stuff like "motivated to achieve/driven to pursue aesthetic beauty" as a psychological cover up. In the west, where things rise and fall based on popularity, these feel-good stories begin shaping everyone's concept of what drives them.

Yeah, what basically happens is that we do things for all sorts of reasons in the moment or just based on what we are exposed to and then afterwards rationalize all of that into one coherent story of how we are and why we do things. This rationalization is self-serving and as far as I can tell largely for social purposes and has surprisingly little to do with realiity.

So if we can not really trust our own judgment, what can we do to improve ourselves? Im pretty unimpressed with most traditional advice in this regard, one of the best things is probably hanging out with people who can inspire us. Or like ong says, does it even matter what opinion we hold on this? I am not sure it does.

[a500lbgorilla]

Well that's why it is a hierarchy of needs. People living in abject poverty usually are too preoccupied with trying to find food, shelter, and security that they don't even have the privilege of striving for something more. But I think there is still a very real need to strive that exists in all people. This need is probably a part of the higher consciousness that we have and that mice don't have.

I think a possible reason why you see shades of Calhoun's experiment evident in modern western civilization is because modern states attempt to create conditions for their citizens that are very much like those mice. States hand out free provisions, ensure reduced responsibility, and attempt to insulate people from the negative and positive consequences of their actions.

The mouse experiment was a repeated and well recorded thing that actually happened. Maslow's pyramid was him studying other people and coming up with a pyramid to tie it all together. On basic evaluation, one of these is more likely to be a fount of information than the other.

[a500lbgorilla]

Yeah, what basically happens is that we do things for all sorts of reasons in the moment or just based on what we are exposed to and then afterwards rationalize all of that into one coherent story of how we are and why we do things. This rationalization is self-serving and as far as I can tell largely for social purposes and has surprisingly little to do with realiity.

So if we can not really trust our own judgment, what can we do to improve ourselves? Im pretty unimpressed with most traditional advice in this regard, one of the best things is probably hanging out with people who can inspire us. Or like ong says, does it even matter what opinion we hold on this? I am not sure it does.

Yes.

[OngBonga]

Lol, why would the writer even assume that the person was racist?

So you think this white guy just threw a banana skin at a black guy without being aware of the racist nature of such an act?

[aubreymcfate]

Lol, why would the writer even assume that the person was racist? What we know about the situation is that a comedian heckled an audience member, and his drunk friend threw something at the comedian.

The good news is that Chappelle handled it hilariously, as always.

Because banana peel is a racist trope (bananas --> monkeys). To the point where people were convinced this was an unequivocal and inherently racist action. Which is not entirely illogical.

He did an interview that's actually fairly in-depth, explaining what he did and why. I'm surprised that he didn't know about the banana trope but I believe him. I've only hung out with him a few times but he is a good friend of my boyfriend's and I trust his judgment.

http://www.latintimes.com/dave-chapp...logizes-307179

In response to the bold, I think that someone's gender is an important part of understanding them on a basic level in a short amount of time but only after you have seen their thought processes and seen them in action a time or two or three.

Yeah, I agree with this.



Boog, here is more on my thoughts from that last exchange:

I was reading this article on Camille Paglia and came upon this one part I liked that helps sort of explain what I posted a few days ago about being frustrated with feminists that try to suppress certain expressions of masculinity.

By her lights, things only get worse in higher education. "This PC gender politics thing—the way gender is being taught in the universities—in a very anti-male way, it's all about neutralization of maleness." The result: Upper-middle-class men who are "intimidated" and "can't say anything. . . . They understand the agenda." In other words: They avoid goring certain sacred cows by "never telling the truth to women" about sex, and by keeping "raunchy" thoughts and sexual fantasies to themselves and their laptops.

It's like that Louis CK skit where he talks about what men really think about when they see a beautiful women and it all pretty much comes down to drenching her face in cum. I don't find that sentiment to be irreconcilable with respect for women. I'm an equal opportunist when it comes to sexual expression. (much of what follows is just conjecture on my part, but w/e, it's always a work in progress.) I believe being in tune with your desires is essential to living a life true to one's self. I think that shame and oppression in one's sexuality will affect all avenues of your life. Our sexuality is not mutually exclusive from our personalities at large, and how we relate to people. And I think that when some women hear something like "your woman," which I view as something that signifies a certain primal dynamic between men and women, and get offended, they are taking it as a signal that he literally views her as his property and has decidedly stripped her of any personal agency or autonomy, and fundamentally disrespects her as an individual. (Don't get me wrong, some guys do actually mean this, see: Jersey Shore morons. You can usually tell when this is the case.) Certain dynamics aren't for every women, and some don't like to be called that. That's fine. It's the self-righteous policing of another couple's agreements, when none of the guy's actual actions indicate that he is sexist or psychologically manipulative, that bother me.

Look at major religions, like Christianity. What's the main thing they try to control and use as a vehicle for shaming? Your sexuality. If they can control your sexuality, they've got you controlled on all levels, because they have made you doubt yourself at at your most fundamental core. It instills a repetitive algorithm of shame and anxiety.

The Austrian psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich (one of the most radical figures in psychoanalysis) wrote a book called "The Mass Psychology of Fascism," which explores how the rise and success of fascism is correlated to sexual suppression. He argues that if you shame and suppress a child's exploration of their sexuality at a young age, it will keep them from being rebellious later on in life because that rebellion will be inextricably tied to anxiety. This suppression also stultifies their critical thinking faculties, producing someone who's been conditioned to submit despite their own unhappiness. Perfect for fascism.

from TMPoF:

To define freedom is the same as to define sexual health. But nobody will openly admit this. The advocacy of personal and social freedom is connected with anxiety and guilt feelings. As if to be free were a sin or at least not quite as it should be. Sex-economy makes this guilt feeling comprehensible: freedom without sexual self-determination is in itself a contradiction. But to be sexual means — according to the prevailing human structure — to be sinful or guilty. There are very few people who experience sexual love without guilt feeling. "Free love" has acquired a degrading meaning: it lost the meaning given it by the old fighters for freedom. In films and in books, to be genital and to be criminal are presented as the same thing.

[Renton]

LOL your boyfriend's friend is a fucking idiot, but probably not a racist idiot.

[aubreymcfate]

to be honest I'm not sure what I would think of him if I just read that either. It's shit like this that reminds me that it's really hard to judge someone based on an online interview. With some people it's hard to understand their communication unless you're in person with them. They don't translate well to print. He's a cool and very funny dude. -shrug- I don't know him well enough to say more on the matter.

[Renton]

Well I'm trying to be as easy on him as possible, but a lot of things from that article couldn't really be out of context, stuff like his absurd defense of the "tradition" of heckling. I guess I have way too much respect for the stand-up comedy medium not to hate on an unapologetic heckler.

[OngBonga]

It's obviously an offensive thing to do here in the UK, it would take an incredibly stupid person to throw a banana at a black man without a racist motive. I thought you guys had bigger problems than us when it comes to racism, so it's hard to believe that someone who isn't mentally retarded doesn't know that is racist. idk, survivor didn't seem to immediately recognise the deep inherent racism, maybe he's legit and just very unfortunate.

[aubreymcfate]

Well I'm trying to be as easy on him as possible, but a lot of things from that article couldn't really be out of context, stuff like his absurd defense of the "tradition" of heckling. I guess I have way too much respect for the stand-up comedy medium not to hate on an unapologetic heckler.

It's possible that he's big into stand-up because he is a nonstop joker, one of those people that seems to employ great improv skills in social situations, so I don't think it's about disrespect. I was curious too about this "tradition" of heckling. I googled it and found this. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...28/past.labour I didn't read it but there it is.

My guess based on nothing concrete is that it could be some kind of tradition of audience engagement/involvement that you see elsewhere too, like how call-and-response is a big part of traditional African music as well as African-American music. breaking barriers between performer and spectator.

[OngBonga]

I'm not sure this incident can be brushed off as heckling. Has he apologised?

[spoonitnow]

There is nothing inherently racist about throwing a banana at a black man. If you think so, then you are projecting your own racist bias onto the situation. This is not a joke.

[Renton]

I think I'll also chime in as an American and say that I'm not sure there's a strong banana trope. Maybe things are different in the U.K. where you have closer proximity to actual Africa than we do. Also, it's possible that our racism in America has developed to a much higher degree than U.K. racism. U.S. racism vs U.K. racism would be like comparing a stew that has been slow-cooked in herbs and spices for 13 hours to a tepid microwave noodle bowl. Mmm mmm good.

[BooG690]

Chiming in regarding banana. A banana was thrown at some soccer player in the summer and a big thing was made at how well the soccer player handled it. A lot of headlines read "Watch this soccer player handle racism awesomely," and bla bla bla. I watched the video and saw some dude eat a banana that was thrown at him. I didn't catch the racism. I actually watched the video repeatedly to see where I missed the racism. Then, it is dawned on me that the banana was the racist part.

Point being that I think the banana is manifested racism across the pond and not so much here.

[BooG690]

Also, the banana is proof God exists. Your move, atheists.

[OngBonga]

Also, the banana is proof God exists. Your move, atheists.

Behold, the Atheist's Nightmare... one of the finest things on the internet.

There is nothing inherently racist about throwing a banana at a black man. If you think so, then you are projecting your own racist bias onto the situation. This is not a joke.

Come on spoon, I know we don't see eye to eye but I know you're not this stupid. Can you stand in front of a black man and make monkey noises while jumping like a clown, without being racist? Of course not. Then how can you throw a banana at a black man without it being racist? I get that rarely, there will be an innocent explanation for banana chucking, such as "he asked me to throw it at him", or "it had a wasp on it and I just threw it without looking where". But, usually, the reason a banana is thrown at a black man is because the person who threw it is suggesting the black man is a monkey. That is inherently a racist thing to do.

[a500lbgorilla]

Guy A wants to piss off Guy B because Guy B is a dick. Guy A throws a banana knowing that Guy B is sensitive to the racial insult. Guy A achieves his end when Guy B flips out at the slight. Is it racist?

[OngBonga]

Is everyone drinking stupid juice today?

How can you do something that you know is a racist insult, with the intention of causing racial offence, without it being racist?

[a500lbgorilla]

Because racism is a belief that you have to have personally. Nothing you tell me about the things I do and how you perceive them changes what I believe about other races.

If you expose yourself to harassment by being sensitive to a banana being thrown your way and I want to harass you, I'll throw a banana your way and watch you flip out.

[a500lbgorilla]

NPR had a bit where some woman from real black Africa visited America and had a hard time appreciating that saying she liked watermellon and chicken was somehow racist. Because it's not.

http://www.npr.org/2014/03/07/286903...ack-in-the-u-s

"The learning process took some time and was episodic. Adichie recalls, for example, an undergraduate class in which the subject of watermelon came up. A student had said something about watermelon to an African-American classmate, who was offended by the comment.

"I remember sitting there thinking, 'But what's so bad about watermelons? Because I quite like watermelons,' " Adichie tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross."

[OngBonga]

Ok so you can throw a banana at a black man to amuse yourself, knowing full well he'll find it racist, but it's ok because you don't consider yourself racist, because you don't think you're superior to black people? Is that what you're saying?

I will flip out if you spit in my face. Does that mean that it's acceptable for you to spit in my face for personal amusement? Am I overreacting when I respond by attempting to punch you in the face?

[OngBonga]

Can you throw fried chicken at a black man without being a racist douche?

[a500lbgorilla]

Someone ran out of weed this morning.

[OngBonga]

Someone ran out of weed this morning.

Sick soulread.

[OngBonga]

I'm right though rilla. It's not often I'm right, but here I'm right. You can't throw a banana at a black man and claim to not be racist, unless you're admitting to being very fucking stupid.

[Renton]

apropos

[BooG690]

Is everyone drinking stupid juice today?

How can you do something that you know is a racist insult, with the intention of causing racial offence, without it being racist?

Hahha this made me chuckle.

I like rilla's reasoning here. Rilla's situation happens >0% of the time but it happens very rarely. From what I understand, rilla is just saying that there EXISTS a situation where throwing a banana at a black person ISN'T racist.

For the most part, throwing a banana at a black man (or its fried chicken, American equivalent) is racist a large percentage of the time.

[a500lbgorilla]

Because in your mind its some nameless guy throwing a banana at some innocent black man with the intention of playing on popular racism.

In my scenario, I'm trying to piss black you off, so I toss a banana at you and watch you ape. If the reason I'm choosing to be a douche to black you is because you're black and I need to vent, then I'm racist. If it's because you're being an impossible ass and I want to watch you blow a gasket, then I'm just a normal shade of douche.

[BooG690]

Is it racist if I compare Chris Rock to a 500lb. gorilla?

[a500lbgorilla]

Only because it's you

[OngBonga]

Because in your mind its some nameless guy throwing a banana at some innocent black man with the intention of playing on popular racism.

In my scenario, I'm trying to piss black you off, so I toss a banana at you and watch you ape. If the reason I'm choosing to be a douche to black you is because you're black and I need to vent, then I'm racist. If it's because you're being an impossible ass and I want to watch you blow a gasket, then I'm just a normal shade of douche.

I don't agree. By pressing those particular buttons, you are moving into racist douchebag territory. If you're not a racist person, if you have no racist intent, you will find appropriate means of pissing me off. Why would you want to induce a reaction like that if you're not trying to be racist? Would you throw a banana at a white guy to piss him off? No, because you know it won't piss him off. Your intent is to cause offence. You have identified him as black, and have recognised that throwing a banana at him will cause racial outrage. If you didn't want to be seen as racist, then the banana throwing plan would stay in your head.

On what planet is being racist to someone to piss them off not a racist thing to do?