Dark Lord Potter Forums
Go Back   Dark Lord Potter Forums > Common Room > Politics
Donate Register Rules Library List IRC Chat FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Donate to DLP Scryer Banner

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-14-2017, 01:08 AM   #181
kinetique
Groundskeeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 341
I find it somewhat ironic that a computer programmer working in a job presumably dominated by people at least one standard deviation above average can go on to say the people at the top end of anything remotely intellectual comes from something predominantly other then intelligence. Even Donald Trump has displayed significant intellect even if I disagree with everything he's said.

More over, science (academics in general) tend to be dominated by geniuses at the top end. Someone like Neumann - who, were everyone who has ever lived be given an iq test, it is conceivable he'd score the highest - did not achieve what he achieved through connections and luck. Certainly passion.

I guess I just find it difficult to accept that because a few millionaires inherited wealth the vast majority of people who are successful aren't smart and hard working.
kinetique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 01:52 AM   #182
Solfege
Professor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: East Coast & the South
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinetique View Post
Someone like Neumann - who, were everyone who has ever lived be given an iq test, it is conceivable he'd score the highest - did not achieve what he achieved through connections and luck. Certainly passion.
von Neumann had the great good fortune of being born to a wealthy, acculturated Jewish Hungarian family. The success of prior generations enabled him to spend a career studying such useless subjects as mathematics and physics, although in his case sheer talent had something to do with the social recognition for others to guide and recommend him and hire private tutors for him.

I'm reminded of the joke that the greatest genius of human history was, statistically, a farmer who lived and died anonymously.

There's another pertinent remark that Einstein would've scored very, very highly in math competitions --- if he'd thought they were meaningful qualifications to practice for. Competitive programming does not alone make you a good programmer, after all. Nor does being a good programmer, or a good doctor, make you a good businessman. The contrary, actually. Product does not speak for itself; presentation, addressing how it(you?) is perceived takes up a majority of the effort.

But on to circumstance and luck, which have every bit to do with success. The only difference with those who do and don't is that those who do maintain preparedness, through hard work or/and smarts (usually the 'or,' not the 'and'), to capture the opportunities that pass by them and overcome the obstacles pertinent to their circumstances, whatever they might be. And sure, some people are more resourceful in that regard.

Alternately wealth and connections give many chances to incompetents --- or to those willing to dare the risk of failure. Whereas persons who live in poverty cannot usually bear the risk of failure well.



Edit: Even intellectual pursuits are still human endeavors in the end, with their attendant politics and interest gatekeepers. Scientific publication is full of it, as for instance Perspicacity has complained on this forum: when the careers of peer reviewers have been made on denying the possibility of your experimental(?) theoretical(?) outcomes, that's where your research goes to die. For a few decades, anyway. Another instance, ArXiv has drawn complaints recently over superficial flag-planting.

Obviously, when de facto cognitions disfavor certain groups, circumstances are made more bearing.

Last edited by Solfege; 07-14-2017 at 02:34 AM.
Solfege is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 02:24 AM   #183
kinetique
Groundskeeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 341
Einstein would have scored very highly in mathematical competitions because he was a mathematical prodigy the world very rarely sees.

I do not understand the fascination in people trying to remove "talent" as a key part of success. Neumanns "wealthy" family sure as shit didn't enable him to create game theory, or write foundations of quantum mechanics, or contribute more then probably anyone to modern computer science, the list goes on.

Was Ramanujan so prodigious at mathematics because he could read some books and had access to drinking water? How poor do the conditions have to be before we can attribute success in a field to a combination of talent and hard work?

More over the super intelligent farmer in a field who made no mark on the world is simply not backed up by any measurable example that I've ever heard of, on the other hand brilliant minds tend to trend up wards.

Is Bill Gates not a success story because his parents were middle class? Does every true success become invalidated via having access to an even slightly above average access to wealth at a young age?

Last edited by kinetique; 07-14-2017 at 02:30 AM.
kinetique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 02:36 AM   #184
Solfege
Professor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: East Coast & the South
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 455
Their successes aren't invalidated. But their good fortunes did in some way contribute to the seeds of their successes. People are poor statistical thinkers, as you've just demonstrated, so here's my warning not to confuse my pointing out the 5%, not a 40%, contribution in their successes.

My points are twofold: many, many people work hard, to inconsistent and varying results. Hard work is generally a necessary but insufficient ingredient.

Second, there are a great many ingredients that go into success. I suggest a reading of Hamming's You and Your Research. He was there at the Golden Age of Bell Labs. And his reading is that people who have more of those ingredients, whether out of their own arranging or out of circumstance, will get much further with hard work than others will.




You can have the highest IQ, i.e. culturally based pattern recognition skills, but if you don't have the courage to ask the unconventional questions, i.e. Einstein's "what would I see if I were to travel alongside a photon" or Shannon's "what would an average code do?" you won't get shit.

Amongst other factors. And you see that in the reams of scientists who are symbolically very capable and intelligent but slave their lives away in career mediocrity.

Sorta like that poor 16-year old math "prodigy" who sits in on the graduate math classes but who lacks the maturity to solve problems in any way other than brute-forcing his way past them.

Last edited by Solfege; 07-14-2017 at 02:53 AM.
Solfege is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 02:46 AM   #185
kinetique
Groundskeeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 341
We aren't talking about the average persons success here though, we're talking about "top scientists" which implies a level of intellect far beyond the norm.

I honestly can't fathom attributing someone like Neumann's success to anything other then intelligence and hard work. You can't just inherit knowledge of brand new fields of maths, that's not how the world works.
kinetique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 02:51 AM   #186
Genghiz Khan
Auror
 
Genghiz Khan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Korriban
Gender: Male
Posts: 641
I agree with Solfege. It's not as easy as saying talent all the way. A host of other factors are required before talent can flourish. If I get into Harvard (I haven't, but let me dream in this post), a lot of it will be due to my inherent talent. But greater credit should be given to my parents, who supported me financially, opened doors for me which allowed me to pad my resume, drove me from piano class to basketball practice, etc. They worked hard enough in their lives so that we were able to live in a rich neighborhood, I could go to a good school, get career advice from people relatively high up in their professions, have the frame of mind to be able to focus beyond just earning enough money to be able to put food on the table, not become part of a gang, etc. It's inconcievable to think that my talent would have lead me to Harvard had these things not been true.

Talent needs support to flower. Some talent needs lesser support than other talent, but all of them need some support to be sure. Marx wouldn't have written as much as he did had Engles not supported him, Fermat was quite wealthy, Mendel had the church feeding him, Euler was supported by a pastor father (a man of some means), Sir Issac Newton wasn't born poor... We can go on. Yes, there are exceptions like Ramanujan, but that's what they are. Exceptions. There aren't many examples of the desperately poor becoming great in poverty without support. The more support you have, the more you can focus on nurturing your talent.

Edit: I would challenge you, @kinetique, to find me a good number of top scientists who started beggars and nurtured their talent without familial/state support.
__________________
You're no Shakespeare, and I'm no Keats,
Our writings will never equal their feats;
But let the world turn over, and the stars disappear,
The pen and sword will lie again at our feet.

Last edited by Genghiz Khan; 07-14-2017 at 02:55 AM. Reason: Brain fart - Wrote Mendeleev instead of Mendel
Genghiz Khan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 02:54 AM   #187
kinetique
Groundskeeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 341
But getting into a good school and going on to work from there is vastly different from being a top scientist or mathematician or what ever. Terrance Tao comes to mind, he graduated before most people even went to university.

And really, I.Q correlates heavily with creativity.
kinetique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 02:58 AM   #188
Genghiz Khan
Auror
 
Genghiz Khan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Korriban
Gender: Male
Posts: 641
Look up Tao's background and tell me he isn't privileged. His father is a doctor and his mother a scientist. Success in any field in which you require nurturing your talent requires some kind of familial/societal support. You say it doesn't. Give me examples.
__________________
You're no Shakespeare, and I'm no Keats,
Our writings will never equal their feats;
But let the world turn over, and the stars disappear,
The pen and sword will lie again at our feet.
Genghiz Khan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 03:25 AM   #189
kinetique
Groundskeeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 341
I'd believe that a lot more readily if having successful parents more consistently leads to prodigies teaching his street at the young age of 3 how to read.

More over, I'd consider the person who's personal lives are so over flowing with apparent geniuses that they've never met someone and thought "that person's just not smart enough to win a fields medal" to be the truly privileged.

More over, in the first world, why does privilege even matter? In Australia at least it's significantly more likely to have a comfortable child hood then not. Why are we not over flowing with von Neumanns?

How arrogant do you have to be to look at someone who's winning math olympiads after he's barely got two digits to his age and attribute it to successful parents?

I'll throw a bone, I'm predominantly talking about the modern first world, of which 99% of people living in it have access to success if talented and hard working.

Last edited by kinetique; 07-14-2017 at 03:33 AM.
kinetique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 03:40 AM   #190
Genghiz Khan
Auror
 
Genghiz Khan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Korriban
Gender: Male
Posts: 641
I don't understand your argument. Having a good childhood doesn't mean you turn out a prodigy. It merely means that you have a greater chance of working on and expressing your talents well. My argument isn't that talent doesn't matter. It is that one requires familial/social support to draw that talent out. Do you get the difference between these two things? If you have the potential to be a prodigy, you can only become one with the right kind of support. If you had the potential to be a mathematical prodigy but were born within the tribes of the Andaman and Nicobar islands, then well, God help you.

Secondly, you and I have a very different definition of privilege. Privilege, in this argument, doesn't mean being surrounded by the rich, powerful and geniuses. It means that you don't have to work your arse off to get food and/or survive. It means that your parents actively try to make sure you can be the best person possible, and not merely try to make sure you don't die in the next minor drought/famine. You don't have to be Rothschild in order to be privileged. A middle class person in any reasonably well-off country is privileged.

And lastly, are you really saying that? Try giving that argument to somone living in the still racially-segregated neighborhoods of Chicago. There's a reason why movements like "Black Lives Matter" and all started, because privilege actually does make a difference in first-world nations. Whites have the privilege of the police not shooting them for any minor thing, of living in richer neighborhoods, of having a more informed social circle, etc. Privilege actually does make a difference, man, how can you say it doesn't?

Edit: Alright, let me propose a thought experiment to get my point across. Take someone crazy smart. Take, say, this Terrence Tao person. Now make him an orphan and put him in an orphanage in say, Chicago. And now tell me, do you see him doing just as well as he is doing right now?
__________________
You're no Shakespeare, and I'm no Keats,
Our writings will never equal their feats;
But let the world turn over, and the stars disappear,
The pen and sword will lie again at our feet.

Last edited by Genghiz Khan; 07-14-2017 at 03:46 AM.
Genghiz Khan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 03:51 AM   #191
kinetique
Groundskeeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 341
Because outside of fringe cases in America, the rest of the first world doesn't have massive segregation issues like that? Including America, the first world still doesn't have massive issues like that. Black men and women clearly have it harder then the rest of the people in America but the average black man does not get held up daily on the way to work by the police and fear for his life.

And really, I think your second point is almost not worth bringing up. How many people in the first world have to worry primarily about not dying in the next famine? At this stage in the western world I'd be surprised if you could fill up an auditorium with all of them.

That said your bringing up his parents occupation, his parents could both be fork lift drivers and he'd still not be worried about dying in the next famine so to be honest I think you're moving the goalposts pretty significantly.

Matter of fact I thought this entire thread was talking about the first world, because I can't imagine anyone looking at the third world and not think that feminism is not desperately needed in those locations.

My mistake though, please forgive me for reading about someone attributing at least part of someones success to privilege and assuming they meant a wealthy child hood not a child hood not fearing of drought and famine.

I'll just ignore this choice quote:

Quote:
Talent needs support to flower. Some talent needs lesser support than other talent, but all of them need some support to be sure. Marx wouldn't have written as much as he did had Engles not supported him, Fermat was quite wealthy, Mendel had the church feeding him, Euler was supported by a pastor father (a man of some means), Sir Issac Newton wasn't born poor... We can go on. Yes, there are exceptions like Ramanujan, but that's what they are. Exceptions. There aren't many examples of the desperately poor becoming great in poverty without support. The more support you have, the more you can focus on nurturing your talent.
As to your edit, I see him being incredibly successful in some field or another yes. He was smart enough for someone across the world to poach him to a talent school in America, I could even see a possibility of him having more of an impact.

Look up Marie Curie when you get an opportunity, as she truly had a horrible time pushing up against people determined to make sure she could not succeed, and in no possible way was privileged in the current sense of the word.

Last edited by kinetique; 07-14-2017 at 04:12 AM.
kinetique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 03:54 AM   #192
cucio
First Year
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by enembee View Post
Yeah, I mean if the only possible intention that you might have toward someone you find attractive is to fuck them, then that's probably what you should ask. Though I'm beginning to understand why you might think everyone is being perpetually sexually aggressive.
Well, it was you the one who opened up with "the sole intent of sleeping with them", hence my suggestion.

Since we are finding explanations, I guess misrepresenting tact as "bad faith" would explain Trump being elected.

To me the difference lies in purpose: if the reason for not stating your intentions outright is because you want to be careful with the other person's feelings and not hit them with a hard ball of feels too early in the game (out of genuine concern, not as a tactic to further your goals), I have a hard time to find that bad faith or creepy. But that's my opinion, too.

The "your skin is too thin, deal with it" argument doesn't really do it for me, it is a moving target that can be used to justify just about everything. And yes, the same can be said of the "if someone could possibly find something offensive, it should be classified as universally offensive" one.

Last edited by cucio; 07-14-2017 at 04:07 AM. Reason: Clarified a point
cucio is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 04:17 AM   #193
Solfege
Professor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: East Coast & the South
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 455
Quote:
Originally Posted by kinetique View Post
He was smart enough for someone across the world to poach him to a talent school in America, I could even see a possibility of him having more of an impact.
Terry's written on the cult of genius himself. It's notable when he points out (with sources) the general strokes of what parents ought and ought not to do in maximizing the talents of their gifted children. i.e. teach them the value of effort over intellect (obviously not to be taken for granted, but which households lacking the right cultural capital can and do neglect).

And there are some unconfirmed reports that Terry's parents provided elements of power-coaching and planning for his more "measurable" childhood successes that caught attention across the world. Naturally his achievements are still, and especially in later advanced stages, products of at least his own independent efforts and motivations.

Anyway, supposing your own admit that these are the .0001% for whom other variables are irrelevant (I do think there are those rare individuals so resourceful, circumstance need not matter except in determining their arena of inevitable greatness), isn't it disingenuous to continue regarding them in a thread originally meant for a larger population that includes "ordinary, run-of-the-mill 1+ stdev scientists"?

Last edited by Solfege; 07-14-2017 at 04:26 AM.
Solfege is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 04:21 AM   #194
kinetique
Groundskeeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 341
Terry can write on the cult of genius all he wants, I strongly believe that he knows a certain threshold of intelligence is required to understand algebraic geometry.

They were brought up because Lindsey was talking about "top scientists" - how is that ordinary, run-of-the-mill 1+ stdev scientists?

I guess I just find it ridiculous that that when privilege obviously has diminishing returns - the average poor person in Australia lives like royalty compared to a man on some remote island running away from tigers, on the other hand a child born to the Rothschilds is probably not going to achieve a whole lot more academically then a child born to some doctors - one of the things brought up is connections. We aren't in the 18th century, women can go to university and study (more then men even), it's immediately a circus event (and rightfully so) if a bigot in power takes umbrage at that.

So why then, when someone like Neumann is brought up, is the very first reply to that about his wealthy Jewish parents? Yes he's not running away from lions, neither is anyone else in the first world really.

Last edited by kinetique; 07-14-2017 at 04:30 AM.
kinetique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 04:35 AM   #195
Solfege
Professor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: East Coast & the South
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 455
No one doubts that a certain threshold of intelligence is required to understand algebraic geometry. The doubt is where that intelligence can be cultivated more fluently or not, some roots of which lie in reasons of cultural capital, and other forms of institutional capital passed on through intergenerational familia.

Hence wealthy Jewish parents. No, no one inherits new branches of math. But one can inherit frameworks, techniques, and attitudes, and what's more a lifestyle attuned to a mature digestion and, from that, extension. Did von Neumann? Only he knows. But I'm pretty sure Einstein picked up a couple of critical visualization tools at a summer camp of his. Each, little by little, building up through effort and circumstance to a critical mass we call "genius."

Last edited by Solfege; 07-14-2017 at 04:42 AM.
Solfege is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 04:40 AM   #196
kinetique
Groundskeeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 341
The man could enter a completely new field of academia and create entirely new fields in a year. I doubt wealthy Jewish parents had a huge impact on his ability to read a book, memorise after 1 reading and then translate it from memory to a different language at a speed that isn't a crawl. This is the type of genius that you'd expect in an Artemis Fowl novel, and I have a hard time swallowing that he couldn't have done it without a few tutors in calculus.

I suspect we won't see this on the same wavelength - I don't think it's possible that a few summer camps can push you to a level that influences physics arguably more than Newton, and you clearly do. This is probably the last post I'll have on this topic lest I waste even more of the threads time.

Last edited by kinetique; 07-14-2017 at 04:44 AM.
kinetique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 04:48 AM   #197
Solfege
Professor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: East Coast & the South
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 455
Indeed --- in the pattern of Samuel Johnson or Harold Bloom. Nevertheless, even if such factors are less relevant to him, they are not to the vast majority of people including professional scientists, mathematicians, and the like. And that is who I assume Lindsey was referring to when she mentioned "top scientists, politicians, etc."

People who've assumed positions of social prominence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kinetique View Post
I don't think it's possible that a few summer camps can push you to a level that influences physics arguably more than Newton, and you clearly do.
And still you insist on being reductionist, as if I said summer camps were the determinative factor. I suggest no such ridiculousness, else you would suspect his peers to produce similar results.

We are talking about advantages small and large (native talent, yes) that accumulate over time. The inverse would be the micro-aggressions that some individuals, women and black, experience on a day-to-day basis, that have appreciable effect on the steps of their journey.

Last edited by Solfege; 07-14-2017 at 05:10 AM.
Solfege is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 04:50 AM   #198
Genghiz Khan
Auror
 
Genghiz Khan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Korriban
Gender: Male
Posts: 641
America is the most populous first world country out there. Its population comprises of a fourth of the population of OECD countries. Even the fringe cases in America matter. Also, you ignored the rest of my argument. Black people have consistently been shown to live in poorer neighborhoods, go to worse schools, get involved in more cases of gang violence, have poorer financial conditions than white people. And this isn't even counting the historical bias against them. Brushing it aside by saying "black people have it worse off" does them a disservice.

Even in the context of the first world, though, I reckon privilege matters. Kids of doctors are more likely to be doctors than kids of non-doctors, for example. So the odds that the next great genius doctor would be the son/daughter of doctors is higher than being from a non-medicine family. The odds that a kid from a background where his/her parents have gone to college also goes to college are higher than those for a kid from a non-college background. The odds that a kid in college will be a genius academic are far greater than for a kid not in academia. Odds are the next great Fermi or Einstein will come from a family where the parents are educated and well-read.

None of this is to say that talent doesn't matter. You, @kinetique, and I seem to disagree on the degree to which it does. You say that it's enough for one to be in a first world country. After that, no matter what your circumstances, if you have the genetic potential to be a genius you can be one. I think nurture plays a far greater role in it than nature. Society and your family have a huge role in making you the genius you have the potential to be. You yourself agree with this to a degree, hence your condition that you're talking about the first world in modern times. Am I right about this?

Famine/drought comes from the third world, of course, where these things actually do matter in many areas.
__________________
You're no Shakespeare, and I'm no Keats,
Our writings will never equal their feats;
But let the world turn over, and the stars disappear,
The pen and sword will lie again at our feet.
Genghiz Khan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 05:02 AM   #199
kinetique
Groundskeeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 341
I didn't ignore the rest of your argument, and to continue down that road is going to lead to me invariably writing something I don't believe being interpreted in a way that isn't my intention, best to leave well enough alone. That said, I'm not giving myself lashes because I'm born white on the other side of the world and don't want to lay out my philosophy on why black men and women have it harder, you've already filled in the gaps.

And yes, the third world is doubtlessly filled with people who in an ideal world would be running successful businesses, formulating new compound materials and paving the way for new programming paradigms. The first world, for the most part, including black America, is not based in the worst parts of Chicago.

Here's an article written in response to Trump about poverty, and how it affects black men and women.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...r-city/503744/

An interesting thought though, do you think that intelligence has a genetic component, and if so is it inheritable to a degree? Or is it just rolling the dice at birth as to how smart you are? Is it possible that two doctors giving birth are likely to pass on the doctor gene? I obviously have no idea, but I don't doubt that all things equal, children will tend to follow in their parents footsteps.

We will have to agree to disagree, because I gave my final response to Solfege, and this is my final response to you.
kinetique is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 05:14 AM   #200
enembee
Fifth Year
The Nicromancer
 
enembee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Murias
Gender: Male
Posts: 142
DLP Supporter Donor Star
High Score: 2,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by cucio View Post
Well, it was you the one who opened up with "the sole intent of sleeping with them", hence my suggestion.

Since we are finding explanations, I guess misrepresenting tact as "bad faith" would explain Trump being elected.

To me the difference lies in purpose: if the reason for not stating your intentions outright is because you want to be careful with the other person's feelings and not hit them with a hard ball of feels too early in the game (out of genuine concern, not as a tactic to further your goals), I have a hard time to find that bad faith or creepy. But that's my opinion, too.

The "your skin is too thin, deal with it" argument doesn't really do it for me, it is a moving target that can be used to justify just about everything. And yes, the same can be said of the "if someone could possibly find something offensive, it should be classified as universally offensive" one.
I should have been less vehement in my earlier statement, but I was working under the presumption that most romantic relationships between two adults will eventually become sexual.

And for fucks sake, can we start a new Godin's Law for Trump? I'm sick of people throwing his name around as some sort of trump card. Pun intended. In what world does advocating for forthright and clear communication lead to the presidential umpa lumpa?

The problem with offence and feels and behaving in a way that attempts to modulate your behaviour on your own preconceptions of what might upset or offend is that those are ever shifting goalposts. Offense is taken, rather than given. And what I might find offensive might make you laugh and vice versa.

You even acknowledge this, but don't offer a solution.

So here is one: we can act like grownups and discuss our feelings and attractions in an honest, decent and socially appropriate manner. If someone takes offense to that, then honestly their skin is too thin.

And for the record I'm not advocating rudeness or sexism or announcing your attraction to everyone in a room each time you find yourself in unfamiliar company. I'm suggesting that the next time you think someone is cute and wish that they'd touch your butt, that you tell them so in a tactful but clear manner. And if they also wish that they could touch your butt, that's gravy. And it they decline the offer, then both of you know where you stand and it can be awkward for a little while and then maybe you can be friends later without any of that muddying the water. And if they're offended by you asking, presumably they won't speak to you ever again and that's also okay, because nobody needs that level of nonsense in their lives.
__________________
I actually updated something. Go read it:

[ Harry Potter and the Vaults of Valbonë ]
enembee is offline   Reply With Quote
Thumbs Up 3 thumbs up


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 10 (8 members and 2 guests)
Lord Arrocha, Halt, Arthellion, Immet, The Great Pandemonium, civiulas, EsperJones
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
E3 2017 Hugplx Gaming and PC Discussion 195 06-15-2017 08:35 AM
Feminism Vir Politics 51 08-07-2009 02:08 AM
Anti-feminism: Kardikek Politics 9 03-28-2008 01:17 AM
Feminism and You. Darkmakr Real Life Discussion 97 03-24-2008 09:33 PM
Feminism Vir Politics 155 03-04-2008 10:25 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2005 - 2016 DLP Group. All rights reserved.
No personal intellectual property on this site may be used without the credit and express permission of the respective authors.