I think maybe I need to give some of my perspective on this subject, because believe it or not, I think it's important.
I am bipolar. I have a mental condition that colors my emotions towards the outside world in an irrational manner. Through the mentorship of some great people who went to great lengths to help me rehabilitate my life, and professional counseling, I have learned to cope with my condition, and function quite normally in society.
There was a time in my life where I fucking hated society and all it represents. Alot of really bad shit happend to me in my childhood, things most ( I stress MOST) people can't even imagine dealing with. I saw the external root of the problem as "Society" at large, and to be honest, with all the shit I had to shovel as a kid, I wasn't too far off base. But my individual worldview was small, and far to narrow to create an accurate picture of humanity as a whole.
I see both sides of this coin, I really do.
Here, as clearly as is possible for me to state, is my problem with the arguement that acting like a "man-child" is acceptable.
Usually, when mental instability is present, there are subtle outward signs that there is a much larger problem. This is not an opinion, it is a fact of mental illness. Even the average person can pick up on these indicators and make decisions based upon such observations.
In order to make such decisions (positive or negative) an assesment, or JUDGEMENT, must be made. Without forming and acting upon opinions of your current worldview, you are not living your life, simply observing it. Makes breathing kinda pointless doesn't it? Trust me, I know, I've been down that road.
In order to assert our own self identity, it is absolutely crucial to define the world we percieve. It is not morally wrong, it is vital to a healthy human psyche.
This is essentially the groundwork for what I've been trying to say, I guess ineptly.
Since we all start with a defacto drive to quantify our surroundings, and assuming that each perspective is equally valid, we must account for the idea that the same drives are built into our fellow human beings.
This is the critical point. If the above statement is true, as has been argued her very much along the same lines, then each human being should understand that they are continually being analyzed by every other human being they come in contact with.
Now, assuming contact with other human beings is inevitable, wouldn't a healthy psyche recognize such scrutiny and act accordingly? Wouldn't a lack of recognition be indicitive of an unsound reasoning process?
Now, in summation, here is my problem.
I'm not saying wearing cat ears in public means you have an unhealthy brain, or psychological makeup. I believe it is indicitive, but that is beside the point.
If it is socially acceptable to act psychologically abberent, then all we, collectively, as a society, are doing is masking a demographic that very much needs special attention. We trivialize the problems that they HAVE to deal with by making it seem OK to be dysfunctional. Who then can ever help them? How can those who SHOULD be on medications, not because they feel a little blue, or need something to "even" them out, BUT BECAUSE THEY HEAR VOICES THAT AREN'T THERE, how can those people ever be identified? How can they ever be enabled to live without being chained down by a crippling disability, if it's ok for normal healthy people to act psychologically unstable because that's how they "choose" to be, because it's fun, or "what they are into" or whatever rationalization you choose to put on it?
Now my own personal opinion:
You know what? If you choose to be a wacko, because you think there's no standard or obligation on your part to be healthy, I have only one thing to say to you.
FUCK YOU.
I was not given a choice. This is how I am. I did not choose it, and it certainly isn't fun.
It's the same thing as saying you're gonna get around in a wheelchair the rest of your life, even though you have a healthy pair of legs.
Being socially retarded IS a disability.
Imposing a disability on yourself doesn't make you a special snowflake, it makes you a moron.
I think maybe I need to give some of my perspective on this subject, because believe it or not, I think it's important.
I am bipolar. I have a mental condition that colors my emotions towards the outside world in an irrational manner. Through the mentorship of some great people who went to great lengths to help me rehabilitate my life, and professional counseling, I have learned to cope with my condition, and function quite normally in society.
There was a time in my life where I fucking hated society and all it represents. Alot of really bad shit happend to me in my childhood, things most ( I stress MOST) people can't even imagine dealing with. I saw the external root of the problem as "Society" at large, and to be honest, with all the shit I had to shovel as a kid, I wasn't too far off base. But my individual worldview was small, and far to narrow to create an accurate picture of humanity as a whole.
I see both sides of this coin, I really do.
Here, as clearly as is possible for me to state, is my problem with the arguement that acting like a "man-child" is acceptable.
Usually, when mental instability is present, there are subtle outward signs that there is a much larger problem. This is not an opinion, it is a fact of mental illness. Even the average person can pick up on these indicators and make decisions based upon such observations.
In order to make such decisions (positive or negative) an assesment, or JUDGEMENT, must be made. Without forming and acting upon opinions of your current worldview, you are not living your life, simply observing it. Makes breathing kinda pointless doesn't it? Trust me, I know, I've been down that road.
In order to assert our own self identity, it is absolutely crucial to define the world we percieve. It is not morally wrong, it is vital to a healthy human psyche.
This is essentially the groundwork for what I've been trying to say, I guess ineptly.
Since we all start with a defacto drive to quantify our surroundings, and assuming that each perspective is equally valid, we must account for the idea that the same drives are built into our fellow human beings.
This is the critical point. If the above statement is true, as has been argued her very much along the same lines, then each human being should understand that they are continually being analyzed by every other human being they come in contact with.
Now, assuming contact with other human beings is inevitable, wouldn't a healthy psyche recognize such scrutiny and act accordingly? Wouldn't a lack of recognition be indicitive of an unsound reasoning process?
Now, in summation, here is my problem.
I'm not saying wearing cat ears in public means you have an unhealthy brain, or psychological makeup. I believe it is indicitive, but that is beside the point.
If it is socially acceptable to act psychologically abberent, then all we, collectively, as a society, are doing is masking a demographic that very much needs special attention. We trivialize the problems that they HAVE to deal with by making it seem OK to be dysfunctional. Who then can ever help them? How can those who SHOULD be on medications, not because they feel a little blue, or need something to "even" them out, BUT BECAUSE THEY HEAR VOICES THAT AREN'T THERE, how can those people ever be identified? How can they ever be enabled to live without being chained down by a crippling disability, if it's ok for normal healthy people to act psychologically unstable because that's how they "choose" to be, because it's fun, or "what they are into" or whatever rationalization you choose to put on it?
Now my own personal opinion:
You know what? If you choose to be a wacko, because you think there's no standard or obligation on your part to be healthy, I have only one thing to say to you.
FUCK YOU.
I was not given a choice. This is how I am. I did not choose it, and it certainly isn't fun.
It's the same thing as saying you're gonna get around in a wheelchair the rest of your life, even though you have a healthy pair of legs.
Being socially retarded IS a disability.
Imposing a disability on yourself doesn't make you a special snowflake, it makes you a moron.
Sorry, but rejecting the idea that you enjoy doing something like playing games or, god forbid, wearing cat ears on a bus somehow makes you socially retarded isn't choosing a disability - its being comfortable with who you are.
Which, based on the ridiculous amount of pages in this thread, poses a problem to some people.
Tough.
The truest sign of maturity is accepting yourself as a person.
You know what? If you choose to be a wacko, because you think there's no standard or obligation on your part to be healthy, I have only one thing to say to you.
FUCK YOU.
I was not given a choice. This is how I am. I did not choose it, and it certainly isn't fun.
It's the same thing as saying you're gonna get around in a wheelchair the rest of your life, even though you have a healthy pair of legs.
Being socially retarded IS a disability.
Imposing a disability on yourself doesn't make you a special snowflake, it makes you a moron.
Christ almighty. Way to misunderstand the topic, or at least jump to completely wrong conclusions.
(a) Wearing cat ears or a Naruto headband doesn't make you a "wacko." People like to say this, but it hasn't been shown to have any actual validity. (b) I can drive everywhere and never walk at all. Does that mean I'm mocking people who are paralyzed from the waist-down? (c) Having a mental disorder doesn't excuse your judgment of the cat ear wearing crowd either. Guess what? You're not a special snowflake either.
This is even worse than what people like legionofone and Nucker have been trying to assert. "I have a mental disorder, so people who don't and who don't take every opportunity to conform to society are cramping my style/making fun of my disability!!!" What the hell?
You know what? If you choose to be a wacko, because you think there's no standard or obligation on your part to be healthy, I have only one thing to say to you.
People don't choose to be 'wackos'. That's not how it works.
So, a couple pages back some posters were weighing in on whether being a man-child is specifically tied to certain hobbies--gaming, anime-watching, toy collecting, etc. I posit that it's not. On a forum I frequented, there was a girl who was into meerkats. Way into meerkats. She had Aspergers and meerkats was one of her obsessions--collecting meerkat toys, learning about meerkats, watching shows about meerkats, etc. Okay, that doesn't sound too bad so far, right?
But here is the kicker--she wanted a meerkat. Like, a live meerkat. Every couple of months she would post about how much she wanted a meerkat and rail about how unfair it was that they were illegal to own in the US and she would MOVE TO AFRICA and get a meerkat. Then everyone else on the forum would explain why it's stupid and selfish to take a social colony animal out of the wild and make it a pet and why a burrowing, undomesticated animal would make a shitty pet anyway. So then the girl would whine about how mean people were, crushing her dreams, and her meerkat would be perfectly happy being a housepet in a rhinestone collar.
She also wanted to be a vet, but (according to her), couldn't do basic math. So every couple of months there was ALSO a thread about vets, was it hard to become a vet, do vets need to do a lot of math, will college give me unlimited time on math tests, my mom doesn't think I can become a vet I hate her. The vets, pre-vet students, and biologists on the board would say, "Yes, it takes a lot of math and it's very hard to get into vet school." Well, you guessed it--this was also "so unfair" and how DARE anyone suggest she follow the less grueling path of becoming a veterinary technician instead, HOW DARE THEY. This girl was in her early 20s and still being homeschooled in high school.
The "man-child"-ness wasn't because she liked meerkats. It wasn't because she had a disability. It wasn't because she was in her twenties and living with mom. It was her shitty attitude of entitlement, her selfishness (who cares if my meerkat is unhappy, I want one), and her contentment to whine about how unfaaair life was instead of actually taking steps to achieve her goal (becoming a vet) OR to let go of that dream (which frankly was out of reach for her if she was telling the truth about the math) and find a new dream. For a long time I thought she was thirteen or so because that was the vibe I was getting from her posts.
People who wear cat ears on the bus know it's wrong to wear cat ears in public.
Is this serious? If so, is it genuinely a commonly held thought, that this is a bad thing to do in public? Wearing cat ears?
edit: I'm not trying to be a dick by asking whether you are serious. I really can't tell - you slip between jokes and serious posting a lot.
Serious. And I said it's wrong (drawing a horse with five legs), not bad (armed robbery). No, the girl with a dozen facial piercings plus tongue stud and the guy with the purple mohawk aren't bad people because of how they look. Again, I'm not insane, I promise. *pinky swear*
I still maintain that being a manchild has just about exactly 9/10ths of fuck-all to do with one's hobbies, and I am bewildered that you lot got 40 pages out of that.
Hobbies can be a symptom, but like I said, to me "man-child" is not the guy who is responsible, considerate of others, able to take care of himself and live independently, but who is totally into Naruto as his favorite anime. The "man-child" is the guy who accepts adult responsibilities reluctantly, expects others (like his wife or girlfriend) to pull more than their share of the load so that he has time to screw around, whines or gets angry when others don't bend themselves around his needs, etc.
Now, the second guy may well wear a Naruto headband around town because of his underlying attitude of 'it's all about me me me' and indifference towards what others think, while the first guy may wear a Naruto headband on his way to an anime convention, or because he's just feeling goofy and is secure enough to deal with the odd looks.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
So, a couple pages back some posters were weighing in on whether being a man-child is specifically tied to certain hobbies--gaming, anime-watching, toy collecting, etc. I posit that it's not. On a forum I frequented, there was a girl who was into meerkats. Way into meerkats. She had Aspergers and meerkats was one of her obsessions--collecting meerkat toys, learning about meerkats, watching shows about meerkats, etc. Okay, that doesn't sound too bad so far, right?
But here is the kicker--she wanted a meerkat. Like, a live meerkat. Every couple of months she would post about how much she wanted a meerkat and rail about how unfair it was that they were illegal to own in the US and she would MOVE TO AFRICA and get a meerkat. Then everyone else on the forum would explain why it's stupid and selfish to take a social colony animal out of the wild and make it a pet and why a burrowing, undomesticated animal would make a shitty pet anyway. So then the girl would whine about how mean people were, crushing her dreams, and her meerkat would be perfectly happy being a housepet in a rhinestone collar.
She also wanted to be a vet, but (according to her), couldn't do basic math. So every couple of months there was ALSO a thread about vets, was it hard to become a vet, do vets need to do a lot of math, will college give me unlimited time on math tests, my mom doesn't think I can become a vet I hate her. The vets, pre-vet students, and biologists on the board would say, "Yes, it takes a lot of math and it's very hard to get into vet school." Well, you guessed it--this was also "so unfair" and how DARE anyone suggest she follow the less grueling path of becoming a veterinary technician instead, HOW DARE THEY. This girl was in her early 20s and still being homeschooled in high school.
The "man-child"-ness wasn't because she liked meerkats. It wasn't because she had a disability. It wasn't because she was in her twenties and living with mom. It was her shitty attitude of entitlement, her selfishness (who cares if my meerkat is unhappy, I want one), and her contentment to whine about how unfaaair life was instead of actually taking steps to achieve her goal (becoming a vet) OR to let go of that dream (which frankly was out of reach for her if she was telling the truth about the math) and find a new dream. For a long time I thought she was thirteen or so because that was the vibe I was getting from her posts.
I think LadyM is getting toward the root of the whole issue. The man-child (and immature people in general) have a solipsistic conception of the world. This is childish, because pretty much every child does it before they gain a sense of group awareness. Losing this conception is recognized as a crucial stage of psychological development, one that the adult child does not actually go through.
The adult child is a person who thinks the rules should not apply to them, not because of any particular moral or philosophical problem with the rules (be they societal, social or simply the rules of common sense/reality, like "A meerkat is an extremely unrealistic pet for anyone but a zookeeper"), but simply because in their own mind, they're special and thus should be exempt from the rules everyone else has to follow.
You also commonly see this in people who have unreasonable expectations on appearance or behavior for their romantic interests while never seeming to apply those standards to themselves. So, the manchild leaves messes everywhere like a kid, and expects his woman to be as tolerant as his mother and look like a supermodel, oblivious to the fact that they themselves do not fulfill similarly high standards for their girlfriend/wife.
So, living in a basement is not necessarily manchild behavior, because there are a multitude of reasons that a person could be forced (money) or obligated (sick family member) into such a position. The "manchild" manifestation would be when the person has no real impediments to getting a job and being independent, but chooses not to anyway because they're happy the way they are and it doesn't concern them that they're being an unnecessary drain on their parents, who probably have their own lives that the want to be living.
Likewise, wearing some sort of hypothetical geeky clothing article is not manchildish if done in an appropriate venue. Wearing your mario shirt around your house, or to a college class, or whatever, is not a noticeably unusual behavior. The manchild behavior comes in when there comes a time when wearing such clothing is clearly inappropriate (wedding, class presentation, work with a dress code) and the person refuses to give up the behavior, because they want to wear their t-shirt and that's all they care about. Never thinking, of course, that everybody else who does those activities is also being put under the same stipulations.
It's also the reason that the guy from a few pages ago with depression problems can't be considered a man-child IMO - he recognizes that what he's doing right now isn't really what he wants, and is making efforts to change that; it's just difficult, because he has more obstacles than most people.
EDIT: Aaaand mythago said it much more succinctly than I did.
People who wear cat ears on the bus know it's wrong to wear cat ears in public.
Is this serious? If so, is it genuinely a commonly held thought, that this is a bad thing to do in public? Wearing cat ears?
edit: I'm not trying to be a dick by asking whether you are serious. I really can't tell - you slip between jokes and serious posting a lot.
Serious. And I said it's wrong (drawing a horse with five legs), not bad (armed robbery). No, the girl with a dozen facial piercings plus tongue stud and the guy with the purple mohawk aren't bad people because of how they look. Again, I'm not insane, I promise. *pinky swear*
This is still nonsense.
First, there is nothing "wrong" with drawing a horse with five legs unless your goal is specifically "to draw an accurate or realistic horse." If that was your goal, and your horse has five legs, then yes, your horse is objectively "wrong."
In no other context, though, is drawing a horse with five legs wrong. In fact, I believe SE++ had a thread titled "draw an inaccurate horse" (to spoof Tube's old "draw an accurate horse" thread of yore). So in that case, drawing a horse with four legs could very well be wrong while drawing a horse with five legs is a far more correct action. (I know I'm being pedantic here, but the point is, you and others keep talking about the inherent "wrongness" of deviating from social norms when that isn't a given.)
There is no context in which wearing cat ears is objectively "wrong." Wearing them does deviate from the social norm, but deviating from the social norm is not "wrong," it is simply deviating from the social norm.
Sorry to misinterpret you. I'm still not exactly sure why it is "wrong" though.
Because I say so.
.... that's pretty much how prejudice works. The ick factor from neko-philia overrides my reasoning abilities.
...
And do you consider that a personal flaw on your part or not? Do you think the impetus should be on you to change your prejudices or for other people to conform to your perception of how people should act and dress so as to not trigger your prejudices?
I think LadyM is getting toward the root of the whole issue. The man-child (and immature people in general) have a solipsistic conception of the world. This is childish, because pretty much every child does it before they gain a sense of group awareness. Losing this conception is recognized as a crucial stage of psychological development, one that the adult child does not actually go through.
No, I think this sums it up very clearly. Though I'd suggest that the man-child (or woman-child) chooses not to go through that stage. Very young children do not yet understand others have feelings; the man-child does, on some level, but doesn't give a shit.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Sorry to misinterpret you. I'm still not exactly sure why it is "wrong" though.
Because I say so.
.... that's pretty much how prejudice works. The ick factor from neko-philia overrides my reasoning abilities.
...
And do you consider that a personal flaw on your part or not? Do you think the impetus should be on you to change your prejudices or for other people to conform to your perception of how people should act and dress so as to not trigger your prejudices?
I'm mildly insulted that you're asking that. But if you are really curious and not just pulling a Glenn-Beck-asking-questions, no, no one is required to act or dress a certain way just to please me. I am not the center of the universe and my opinions aren't law. I recognize that my prejudices are a personal failing but I'm not going to change them for something as minor as a grown man wearing cat-ears on the bus. They might look ridiculous but I'm not going to throw empty bottles at their heads!
Now that I've answered your mildly insulting question, could you please answer my mildly insulting question I asked a few pages back? Have you ever written off or shunned someone in your life and, if yes, what did they do to deserve it?
I think LadyM is getting toward the root of the whole issue. The man-child (and immature people in general) have a solipsistic conception of the world. This is childish, because pretty much every child does it before they gain a sense of group awareness. Losing this conception is recognized as a crucial stage of psychological development, one that the adult child does not actually go through.
No, I think this sums it up very clearly. Though I'd suggest that the man-child (or woman-child) chooses not to go through that stage. Very young children do not yet understand others have feelings; the man-child does, on some level, but doesn't give a shit.
Yes, exactly.
I think this also probably illuminates why the gaming world seems to have problems with this more than other sub-cultures, at least outwardly. It is not because playing video games (or whatever) somehow makes you a manchild, as a lot of people on this board can attest. However, there are certain things about gaming that make it very attractive for someone with that sort of self-centered mentality.
Video games are a solitary activity that can be played with near-total anonymity. They are poorly monitored and moderated because the sheer volume of people makes such a task nearly impossible, and as a result players can act in very disrespectful and antisocial ways without fearing any sort of repercussion. So, a manchild with few other goals than his own immediate self-gratification can log on to WoW (or whatever), grief with impunity if it makes him feel good, and if anybody tries to call him on it, all he has to say is lol n00b.
So, obviously games don't cause that sort of behavior. However, they do provide a venue for people with those sorts of tendency to congregate, because it allows them to behave in ways they couldn't get away with in real life without serious consequences. And then, the stereotype develops out of that.
Sorry to misinterpret you. I'm still not exactly sure why it is "wrong" though.
Because I say so.
.... that's pretty much how prejudice works. The ick factor from neko-philia overrides my reasoning abilities.
...
And do you consider that a personal flaw on your part or not? Do you think the impetus should be on you to change your prejudices or for other people to conform to your perception of how people should act and dress so as to not trigger your prejudices?
I'm mildly insulted that you're asking that. But if you are really curious and not just pulling a Glenn-Beck-asking-questions, no, no one is required to act or dress a certain way just to please me. I am not the center of the universe and my opinions aren't law. I recognize that my prejudices are a personal failing but I'm not going to change them for something as minor as a grown man wearing cat-ears on the bus. They might look ridiculous but I'm not going to throw empty bottles at their heads!
Now that I've answered your mildly insulting question, could you please answer my mildly insulting question I asked a few pages back? Have you ever written off or shunned someone in your life and, if yes, what did they do to deserve it?
So you recognize a flaw in yourself but you have no desire to try to overcome it. And yet you are insulted by my question?
And yes I have written one or two people off in my life. What they did to cause that was severe and none of your business. I also have no idea what me writing someone off has to do with the topic of this thread. I never said you couldn't judge people or that judgments were always wrong. Sometimes judgments are spot-on. The kind of judgment that is wrong is the snap judgment borne from bias. If you know someone well enough to judge them, by all means, judge away. If it's just some person on the bus, in the mall, walking around town, or whatever? No.
edit: No insult was intended by my question, and it wasn't Glenn Beck style rhetoric. There are people in this very thread that have explicitly stated that it is the duty of other people to conform to societal norms and that any prejudice levied against them is their own fault. So, uh, feel insulted all you like I suppose; I was just trying to figure out if you were one of those people or not. Sometimes I really cannot figure your opinion out.
I had this really close friend, once. We did everything together. Dude was like a brother to me. He was going to be my best man.
But then, the day before the wedding, he wore white shoes. And this was after Labor Day.
I kicked him in the nuts and wrote him out of my life right then and there. I chose this other guy to be my best man. He was kind of a dick, but at least the guy knew about appropriate social conventions.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I had this really close friend, once. We did everything together. Dude was like a brother to me. He was going to be my best man.
But then, the day before the wedding, he wore white shoes. And this was after Labor Day.
I kicked him in the nuts and wrote him out of my life right then and there. I chose this other guy to be my best man. He was kind of a dick, but at least the guy knew about appropriate social conventions.
you made the right call, jeff
you had reached the legal age to vote long before, but that day you were a man for the first time
I had this really close friend, once. We did everything together. Dude was like a brother to me. He was going to be my best man.
But then, the day before the wedding, he wore white shoes. And this was after Labor Day.
I kicked him in the nuts and wrote him out of my life right then and there. I chose this other guy to be my best man. He was kind of a dick, but at least the guy knew about appropriate social conventions.
Was your friend a prostitute? Wearing white after labor day is something whores do.
and the lesson of the movie is almost always that the man-child puts away the GI Joes and gets his shit together
Yes that is totally how School of Rock ended... oh wait no, I'm pretty sure the exact opposite of that happened.
It sorta was. He admitted that he wasn't really that good at rock himself, gave up on his dream of somehow making it big in a rock band, and became a kid's teacher instead.
Pi-r8 on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
and the lesson of the movie is almost always that the man-child puts away the GI Joes and gets his shit together
Yes that is totally how School of Rock ended... oh wait no, I'm pretty sure the exact opposite of that happened.
It sorta was. He admitted that he wasn't really that good at rock himself, gave up on his dream of somehow making it big in a rock band, and became a kid's teacher instead.
moved out of his buddy's apartment
got a grown-up job
started dressing in a way appropriate to a grown-up and professional
learned to sacrifice and compromise so that he could have an actual girlfriend
gave up his juvenile fantasies and engaged with the world
did we see the same movie? was there like a man-child directors cut where jack black's character went on to headline a world-famous metal band?
I seem to recall them using the apartment as their studio.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited September 2010
i admit to only seeing that movie once but i thought that a subplot was that sarah silverman decided to either kick jack black out or i guess move her boyfriend out
i admit to only seeing that movie once but i thought that a subplot was that sarah silverman decided to either kick jack black out or i guess move her boyfriend out
No, he broke up with her. Because he realized that Jack Black was right all along.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
The "man-child"-ness wasn't because she liked meerkats. It wasn't because she had a disability. It wasn't because she was in her twenties and living with mom. It was her shitty attitude of entitlement, her selfishness (who cares if my meerkat is unhappy, I want one), and her contentment to whine about how unfaaair life was instead of actually taking steps to achieve her goal (becoming a vet) OR to let go of that dream (which frankly was out of reach for her if she was telling the truth about the math) and find a new dream. For a long time I thought she was thirteen or so because that was the vibe I was getting from her posts.
I'd argue that it probably was because she was disabled (meerkats... mhmm I may have had this kid in the classroom). I've had more than one child as you have described, and they tend to fall into high-functioning lifeskills (low functioning aspergers/autism).
Alright Drez, consolidate you're position in this.
What EXACTLY are you trying to say?
Because while you posture like you want to have a legitimate discussion, you're talking in circles and derailing every single issue countering your arguement, instead of addressing them.
You've taken many peoples statements way out of context, and personally attacked many who are trying to discuss an open forum topic with you. Not AT you, with you.
YOUR position is not the neutral position in this discussion. The onus is on you to conclusively prove it is not counter-intuitive for society to allow people to do whatever the fuck they want, without any concequence.
Because the demographic we are talking about here, at its core, thinks that's exactly how the world should work. Any other demographic is NOT the topic of discussion.
So please, explain to me EXACTLY why it's wrong of me to think the grown ass man on the bus wearing cat ears for no apparent reason, deserves to be judged a little odd.
So please, explain to me EXACTLY why it's wrong of me to think the grown ass man on the bus wearing cat ears for no apparent reason, deserves to be judged a little odd.
Uh, I don't think Drez is worried about people being judged a little odd. He's worried about snubbing people who don't conform or discriminating people who don't deserve to be discriminated against.
The onus is on you to conclusively prove it is not counter-intuitive for society to allow people to do whatever the fuck they want, without any concequence.
I've barely skimmed over the thread and I know that nobody is arguing this position.
So please, explain to me EXACTLY why it's wrong of me to think the grown ass man on the bus wearing cat ears for no apparent reason, deserves to be judged a little odd.
I don't think anybody is really saying it's wrong to judge someone as 'a little odd'. That's what most of us do. Then we move on and don't give it a second thought. At least that's what would be reasonable. Assuming anymore about their lifestyle and who they are would be baseless as there just isn't enough information. It just seems pointless to get deeper into further concern.
There's only two small pieces of information. That there's a cat ear wearing person, and the seemingly large amount of people who have nerd hobbies and are dysfunctional in some way(s). Not enough to extrapolate any further as to who they are and what they're like.
Posts
Does he wear shorts? It's time to put away childish things, Jack. Like your knees.
I am bipolar. I have a mental condition that colors my emotions towards the outside world in an irrational manner. Through the mentorship of some great people who went to great lengths to help me rehabilitate my life, and professional counseling, I have learned to cope with my condition, and function quite normally in society.
There was a time in my life where I fucking hated society and all it represents. Alot of really bad shit happend to me in my childhood, things most ( I stress MOST) people can't even imagine dealing with. I saw the external root of the problem as "Society" at large, and to be honest, with all the shit I had to shovel as a kid, I wasn't too far off base. But my individual worldview was small, and far to narrow to create an accurate picture of humanity as a whole.
I see both sides of this coin, I really do.
Here, as clearly as is possible for me to state, is my problem with the arguement that acting like a "man-child" is acceptable.
Usually, when mental instability is present, there are subtle outward signs that there is a much larger problem. This is not an opinion, it is a fact of mental illness. Even the average person can pick up on these indicators and make decisions based upon such observations.
In order to make such decisions (positive or negative) an assesment, or JUDGEMENT, must be made. Without forming and acting upon opinions of your current worldview, you are not living your life, simply observing it. Makes breathing kinda pointless doesn't it? Trust me, I know, I've been down that road.
In order to assert our own self identity, it is absolutely crucial to define the world we percieve. It is not morally wrong, it is vital to a healthy human psyche.
This is essentially the groundwork for what I've been trying to say, I guess ineptly.
Since we all start with a defacto drive to quantify our surroundings, and assuming that each perspective is equally valid, we must account for the idea that the same drives are built into our fellow human beings.
This is the critical point. If the above statement is true, as has been argued her very much along the same lines, then each human being should understand that they are continually being analyzed by every other human being they come in contact with.
Now, assuming contact with other human beings is inevitable, wouldn't a healthy psyche recognize such scrutiny and act accordingly? Wouldn't a lack of recognition be indicitive of an unsound reasoning process?
Now, in summation, here is my problem.
I'm not saying wearing cat ears in public means you have an unhealthy brain, or psychological makeup. I believe it is indicitive, but that is beside the point.
If it is socially acceptable to act psychologically abberent, then all we, collectively, as a society, are doing is masking a demographic that very much needs special attention. We trivialize the problems that they HAVE to deal with by making it seem OK to be dysfunctional. Who then can ever help them? How can those who SHOULD be on medications, not because they feel a little blue, or need something to "even" them out, BUT BECAUSE THEY HEAR VOICES THAT AREN'T THERE, how can those people ever be identified? How can they ever be enabled to live without being chained down by a crippling disability, if it's ok for normal healthy people to act psychologically unstable because that's how they "choose" to be, because it's fun, or "what they are into" or whatever rationalization you choose to put on it?
Now my own personal opinion:
You know what? If you choose to be a wacko, because you think there's no standard or obligation on your part to be healthy, I have only one thing to say to you.
FUCK YOU.
I was not given a choice. This is how I am. I did not choose it, and it certainly isn't fun.
It's the same thing as saying you're gonna get around in a wheelchair the rest of your life, even though you have a healthy pair of legs.
Being socially retarded IS a disability.
Imposing a disability on yourself doesn't make you a special snowflake, it makes you a moron.
Sorry, but rejecting the idea that you enjoy doing something like playing games or, god forbid, wearing cat ears on a bus somehow makes you socially retarded isn't choosing a disability - its being comfortable with who you are.
Which, based on the ridiculous amount of pages in this thread, poses a problem to some people.
Tough.
The truest sign of maturity is accepting yourself as a person.
Christ almighty. Way to misunderstand the topic, or at least jump to completely wrong conclusions.
(a) Wearing cat ears or a Naruto headband doesn't make you a "wacko." People like to say this, but it hasn't been shown to have any actual validity. (b) I can drive everywhere and never walk at all. Does that mean I'm mocking people who are paralyzed from the waist-down? (c) Having a mental disorder doesn't excuse your judgment of the cat ear wearing crowd either. Guess what? You're not a special snowflake either.
This is even worse than what people like legionofone and Nucker have been trying to assert. "I have a mental disorder, so people who don't and who don't take every opportunity to conform to society are cramping my style/making fun of my disability!!!" What the hell?
Now wearing an empty KFC bucket over you're head? That takes balls.
Best part is when people ask you "is....is there chicken in there?" to which you answer "yes.....yes there is"
But here is the kicker--she wanted a meerkat. Like, a live meerkat. Every couple of months she would post about how much she wanted a meerkat and rail about how unfair it was that they were illegal to own in the US and she would MOVE TO AFRICA and get a meerkat. Then everyone else on the forum would explain why it's stupid and selfish to take a social colony animal out of the wild and make it a pet and why a burrowing, undomesticated animal would make a shitty pet anyway. So then the girl would whine about how mean people were, crushing her dreams, and her meerkat would be perfectly happy being a housepet in a rhinestone collar.
She also wanted to be a vet, but (according to her), couldn't do basic math. So every couple of months there was ALSO a thread about vets, was it hard to become a vet, do vets need to do a lot of math, will college give me unlimited time on math tests, my mom doesn't think I can become a vet I hate her. The vets, pre-vet students, and biologists on the board would say, "Yes, it takes a lot of math and it's very hard to get into vet school." Well, you guessed it--this was also "so unfair" and how DARE anyone suggest she follow the less grueling path of becoming a veterinary technician instead, HOW DARE THEY. This girl was in her early 20s and still being homeschooled in high school.
The "man-child"-ness wasn't because she liked meerkats. It wasn't because she had a disability. It wasn't because she was in her twenties and living with mom. It was her shitty attitude of entitlement, her selfishness (who cares if my meerkat is unhappy, I want one), and her contentment to whine about how unfaaair life was instead of actually taking steps to achieve her goal (becoming a vet) OR to let go of that dream (which frankly was out of reach for her if she was telling the truth about the math) and find a new dream. For a long time I thought she was thirteen or so because that was the vibe I was getting from her posts.
Serious. And I said it's wrong (drawing a horse with five legs), not bad (armed robbery). No, the girl with a dozen facial piercings plus tongue stud and the guy with the purple mohawk aren't bad people because of how they look. Again, I'm not insane, I promise. *pinky swear*
Hobbies can be a symptom, but like I said, to me "man-child" is not the guy who is responsible, considerate of others, able to take care of himself and live independently, but who is totally into Naruto as his favorite anime. The "man-child" is the guy who accepts adult responsibilities reluctantly, expects others (like his wife or girlfriend) to pull more than their share of the load so that he has time to screw around, whines or gets angry when others don't bend themselves around his needs, etc.
Now, the second guy may well wear a Naruto headband around town because of his underlying attitude of 'it's all about me me me' and indifference towards what others think, while the first guy may wear a Naruto headband on his way to an anime convention, or because he's just feeling goofy and is secure enough to deal with the odd looks.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Sorry to misinterpret you. I'm still not exactly sure why it is "wrong" though.
The adult child is a person who thinks the rules should not apply to them, not because of any particular moral or philosophical problem with the rules (be they societal, social or simply the rules of common sense/reality, like "A meerkat is an extremely unrealistic pet for anyone but a zookeeper"), but simply because in their own mind, they're special and thus should be exempt from the rules everyone else has to follow.
You also commonly see this in people who have unreasonable expectations on appearance or behavior for their romantic interests while never seeming to apply those standards to themselves. So, the manchild leaves messes everywhere like a kid, and expects his woman to be as tolerant as his mother and look like a supermodel, oblivious to the fact that they themselves do not fulfill similarly high standards for their girlfriend/wife.
So, living in a basement is not necessarily manchild behavior, because there are a multitude of reasons that a person could be forced (money) or obligated (sick family member) into such a position. The "manchild" manifestation would be when the person has no real impediments to getting a job and being independent, but chooses not to anyway because they're happy the way they are and it doesn't concern them that they're being an unnecessary drain on their parents, who probably have their own lives that the want to be living.
Likewise, wearing some sort of hypothetical geeky clothing article is not manchildish if done in an appropriate venue. Wearing your mario shirt around your house, or to a college class, or whatever, is not a noticeably unusual behavior. The manchild behavior comes in when there comes a time when wearing such clothing is clearly inappropriate (wedding, class presentation, work with a dress code) and the person refuses to give up the behavior, because they want to wear their t-shirt and that's all they care about. Never thinking, of course, that everybody else who does those activities is also being put under the same stipulations.
It's also the reason that the guy from a few pages ago with depression problems can't be considered a man-child IMO - he recognizes that what he's doing right now isn't really what he wants, and is making efforts to change that; it's just difficult, because he has more obstacles than most people.
EDIT: Aaaand mythago said it much more succinctly than I did.
This is still nonsense.
First, there is nothing "wrong" with drawing a horse with five legs unless your goal is specifically "to draw an accurate or realistic horse." If that was your goal, and your horse has five legs, then yes, your horse is objectively "wrong."
In no other context, though, is drawing a horse with five legs wrong. In fact, I believe SE++ had a thread titled "draw an inaccurate horse" (to spoof Tube's old "draw an accurate horse" thread of yore). So in that case, drawing a horse with four legs could very well be wrong while drawing a horse with five legs is a far more correct action. (I know I'm being pedantic here, but the point is, you and others keep talking about the inherent "wrongness" of deviating from social norms when that isn't a given.)
There is no context in which wearing cat ears is objectively "wrong." Wearing them does deviate from the social norm, but deviating from the social norm is not "wrong," it is simply deviating from the social norm.
Because I say so.
.... that's pretty much how prejudice works. The ick factor from neko-philia overrides my reasoning abilities.
...
And do you consider that a personal flaw on your part or not? Do you think the impetus should be on you to change your prejudices or for other people to conform to your perception of how people should act and dress so as to not trigger your prejudices?
No, I think this sums it up very clearly. Though I'd suggest that the man-child (or woman-child) chooses not to go through that stage. Very young children do not yet understand others have feelings; the man-child does, on some level, but doesn't give a shit.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I'm mildly insulted that you're asking that. But if you are really curious and not just pulling a Glenn-Beck-asking-questions, no, no one is required to act or dress a certain way just to please me. I am not the center of the universe and my opinions aren't law. I recognize that my prejudices are a personal failing but I'm not going to change them for something as minor as a grown man wearing cat-ears on the bus. They might look ridiculous but I'm not going to throw empty bottles at their heads!
Now that I've answered your mildly insulting question, could you please answer my mildly insulting question I asked a few pages back? Have you ever written off or shunned someone in your life and, if yes, what did they do to deserve it?
Yes, exactly.
I think this also probably illuminates why the gaming world seems to have problems with this more than other sub-cultures, at least outwardly. It is not because playing video games (or whatever) somehow makes you a manchild, as a lot of people on this board can attest. However, there are certain things about gaming that make it very attractive for someone with that sort of self-centered mentality.
Video games are a solitary activity that can be played with near-total anonymity. They are poorly monitored and moderated because the sheer volume of people makes such a task nearly impossible, and as a result players can act in very disrespectful and antisocial ways without fearing any sort of repercussion. So, a manchild with few other goals than his own immediate self-gratification can log on to WoW (or whatever), grief with impunity if it makes him feel good, and if anybody tries to call him on it, all he has to say is lol n00b.
So, obviously games don't cause that sort of behavior. However, they do provide a venue for people with those sorts of tendency to congregate, because it allows them to behave in ways they couldn't get away with in real life without serious consequences. And then, the stereotype develops out of that.
So you recognize a flaw in yourself but you have no desire to try to overcome it. And yet you are insulted by my question?
And yes I have written one or two people off in my life. What they did to cause that was severe and none of your business. I also have no idea what me writing someone off has to do with the topic of this thread. I never said you couldn't judge people or that judgments were always wrong. Sometimes judgments are spot-on. The kind of judgment that is wrong is the snap judgment borne from bias. If you know someone well enough to judge them, by all means, judge away. If it's just some person on the bus, in the mall, walking around town, or whatever? No.
edit: No insult was intended by my question, and it wasn't Glenn Beck style rhetoric. There are people in this very thread that have explicitly stated that it is the duty of other people to conform to societal norms and that any prejudice levied against them is their own fault. So, uh, feel insulted all you like I suppose; I was just trying to figure out if you were one of those people or not. Sometimes I really cannot figure your opinion out.
But then, the day before the wedding, he wore white shoes. And this was after Labor Day.
I kicked him in the nuts and wrote him out of my life right then and there. I chose this other guy to be my best man. He was kind of a dick, but at least the guy knew about appropriate social conventions.
you made the right call, jeff
you had reached the legal age to vote long before, but that day you were a man for the first time
Does Shawn count as a man-child?
probably to a degree
most jack black characters
the lead character in most apatow movies
basically they're generally portrayed as likable doofuses who other people get exasperated with because of their irresponsibility
and the lesson of the movie is almost always that the man-child puts away the GI Joes and gets his shit together
Yes that is totally how School of Rock ended... oh wait no, I'm pretty sure the exact opposite of that happened.
Was your friend a prostitute? Wearing white after labor day is something whores do.
I saw that in a Kathleen Turner movie.
It sorta was. He admitted that he wasn't really that good at rock himself, gave up on his dream of somehow making it big in a rock band, and became a kid's teacher instead.
moved out of his buddy's apartment
got a grown-up job
started dressing in a way appropriate to a grown-up and professional
learned to sacrifice and compromise so that he could have an actual girlfriend
gave up his juvenile fantasies and engaged with the world
did we see the same movie? was there like a man-child directors cut where jack black's character went on to headline a world-famous metal band?
I seem to recall them using the apartment as their studio.
See, this is wrong.
No, he broke up with her. Because he realized that Jack Black was right all along.
I'd argue that it probably was because she was disabled (meerkats... mhmm I may have had this kid in the classroom). I've had more than one child as you have described, and they tend to fall into high-functioning lifeskills (low functioning aspergers/autism).
I'm on Team What You See Is What You Get
You're on Team Don't Judge a Book By Its Cover
You should combine to make Team Don't Judge a Book By What You Get.
What EXACTLY are you trying to say?
Because while you posture like you want to have a legitimate discussion, you're talking in circles and derailing every single issue countering your arguement, instead of addressing them.
You've taken many peoples statements way out of context, and personally attacked many who are trying to discuss an open forum topic with you. Not AT you, with you.
YOUR position is not the neutral position in this discussion. The onus is on you to conclusively prove it is not counter-intuitive for society to allow people to do whatever the fuck they want, without any concequence.
Because the demographic we are talking about here, at its core, thinks that's exactly how the world should work. Any other demographic is NOT the topic of discussion.
So please, explain to me EXACTLY why it's wrong of me to think the grown ass man on the bus wearing cat ears for no apparent reason, deserves to be judged a little odd.
Uh, I don't think Drez is worried about people being judged a little odd. He's worried about snubbing people who don't conform or discriminating people who don't deserve to be discriminated against.
I've barely skimmed over the thread and I know that nobody is arguing this position.
There's only two small pieces of information. That there's a cat ear wearing person, and the seemingly large amount of people who have nerd hobbies and are dysfunctional in some way(s). Not enough to extrapolate any further as to who they are and what they're like.