Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My brother once recounted to me two American white women turning him down stating explicitly, "I want a real black man." He's racially mulatto like me but ethnically Black-American. This was prior to the Obama craze and probably slightly before Tiger Woods gained his peek fame.
Contra the American perception the American female view (or male view) is not some intrinsically objective truth held by all nations and cultures of the world. In my 20's it was quite common for Black-American women in their teens, 20's and 30's, to tell "light skinned" Black-American males approaching them, "I don't date light skinned men." As the women of that time said, and still do to some degree today, "light skinned went out of style in the '80s." And truth be told it did.
So, you have a prevailing American culture in which it's women perceive skin hues on men to be trendy fashion accessories paralleling designer handbags.
Let an American woman sitting high in her arrogance and judgmentalism tell a Brazilian woman some of this dumb sh*t she regards as sacred truth.
For example, while President Obama (raised by whites in Hawaii that has few ethnic Black-Americans) publicly claims and identifies to be "black" let me more accurately publicly state that I'm racially mulatto but ethnically Black-American and the American culturally developed ear will hear it as, "I want to be white and I'm ashamed of being black."
While I know logic is not the American's strongest suit, to this day I try to understand how the masses of dim wits in this country construe "mulatto" to mean "white absent of blackness"? The term mulatto necessarily acknowledges and indicates a pedigree of black stock, not the absence of it.
So, in the American mind (especially political liberals) they need to "teach me something." You dumba**es can't even teach yourselves how to properly construe English words or Spanish words adopted into the American English lexicon.
So, yeah, I know I'm right.
And no... Brazilian women will not agree with American women that I'm a piece of sh*t because I haven't come to realize the sacred, objective truth that I'm at bone marrow and DNA simply "black."
I've already inquired of Brazilian men and women about their cultural concepts of gayness and perceptions of men that have sex with other men. Contrary to the American view the Brazilians do not have the same perception as Americans. Theirs (Brazilians) is more ancient Roman or more 16th Century Italian. So, given I'm masculine and have no attraction to men, the American guess that I'll have an astronomically difficult time in Brazil is just incorrect or highly unlikely. I'll likely have an easier time there than here.
I use the term "likely" for those emotionally retarded that have a hard-on for all things related to the "scientific method" and its inductive logic.
And given I won't limit myself to Brazil and I'm open to Muslim women (already spoken face-to-face to a priest from Latin America about it) in the Middle East, I don't foresee much a problem. Additionally, I'm open to being sexually and romantically involved with a 70 year old woman in Asia that has one leg. Again, my lack of prejudice will expand my opportunities.
My point being here is that acrimony and disagreement are bound to happen online on discussion boards where taking a position is the primary form of socializing and discourse. One can't see faces and body language either, which is part of communication.
^ ^ Yeah, have even seen some posters here who've actually come out and said that in a social gathering, they really prefer it when some folks get agitated and upset, because a least they can tell how those people feel! BTW, isn't that kinda behavior also a lot of what drives online 'trolls'?
Are you trying to call the LGBT community "trolls"? Feminists are known to get agitated. Pushing for gay marriage intentionally disrupted the status quo in the USA per social norms or marriage.
The contemporary American fascination with the term "troll" and censoring is merely American hatred for freedom of speech, and an exceptional example of American intolerance. Western European intolerance as well.
There is no way in hell the United States of America in practice holds any claim to being the most free nation on earth in terms of speech (which covers expression), or anything else for that matter.
You can consider this post "trolling," I don't give a damn. I'll call a spade a spade. No bigger "troll" existed in the contemporary American mind than Jesus Christ himself. (With his words that he came not to bring peace but the sword, to turn members of the same household into enemies.)
You Americans will tolerate and grant police protection to gay people either naked or wearing only jock straps in gay bicycle parades that are on busy, public, Chicago streets. You'll call that "freedom of speech." You'll call them heroic and claim it's an example of gay people not wanting to obsess on their bodies, on sexuality, but demonstrates they are focused simply on "loooooove." Awwww how sweet.
OP, I have to agree with you...I know that some people just love attention whether it is negative or positive, to them it doesn't matter because they love being the center of attention and bask in it. I have a friend who always seems to be attracting negative energy wherever she goes. To be fair, she always goes a little too far, says a little too much and just provokes people....she finds it "fun". I for the life of me cannot understand her but she constantly tells she me loves all the attention she gets and feels empty if there isn't drama in her life. I also agree with the idea of hated than ignored, because at least that way you do know how someone feels and being ignored really wounds a persons pride because it is void of any sort of hatred or love which is what we thrive off of.
I have a theory. I think a lot of people like to start fights and engage in drama online because they're not just bored but they're lonely and feel bereft of any real emotion, so even 'negative' emotions to them are better than nothing. In fact we thrive on drama, we enjoy hating others and thinking we're right, at least some of us and probably most of us at some time. If we didn't enjoy arguing so much that those controversial threads or posts wouldn't be so long would they? I'm distinguishing this from 'civilised' debate, mind you, but in that too there is an element of intellectual one-upmanship.
I also think that being angry with others is a sort of intimacy, because we're connected to that person, we're invested in them. That's why love/hate are two sides of the same coin, and why some people say that they'd rather be hated than just ignored.
One could call it 'seeking conflict to connect.' Your thoughts?
I would generally agree with this ^^^. I think what this displays, is the need for many people to seek validation in any way that provides them attention and discourse whether it amounts to anything worthwhile or not. For these type of people the exchange (via conflict /controversy) gives them that adrenaline rush of connectivity even though it is remote (online). I surmise many of these types are lonely / bored / curious to see what sort of response they will get.
I find it interesting because while I've been on CD, I probably only respond to others posts less than 10% of the time and rarely post more than twice on one thread (unless I'm in humor mode and something catches my attention). What is interesting is how certain forums on CD threads will have seemingly endless back and forth between posters that are reminiscent of an old 'couple' bickering back and forth, a la the classic radio couple the Bickersons.
The other funny part is the intellectual 'one up-manship' situations, where it appears to be more like Academia professor department wannabes (or perhaps some were / are) seeking a venue to display there magnificence . Or the strident partisan type who just won't let go of the 'online megaphone'.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,454,406 times
Reputation: 6670
True, and it's a very common reaction by anyone who somehow feels like an 'outsider' (and is maybe defensive about their edu-macation, communication ability, intelligence, social class, whatever)… so it's kinda like "F-it, I'll just throw a bomb instead!"
BTW, I actually think some political groups even encourage and exploit those 'resentments'!
True, and it's a very common reaction by anyone who somehow feels like an 'outsider' (and is maybe defensive about their edu-macation, communication ability, intelligence, social class, whatever)… so it's kinda like "F-it, I'll just throw a bomb instead!"
BTW, I actually think some political groups even encourage and exploit those 'resentments'!
Does anyone here post in the tripadvisor forums? I was there giving very good advice to people, and a couple of the regulars there, self-styled 'experts', started nit-picking everything I said, said I was giving inaccurate, bad advice blah blah, and just attacking me in general. My friend has also had bad experiences in forums with an established crowd of 'regulars'. I was tempted to get rather personal and nasty but refrained.
I find that the confrontation/ attention seeking type seem to pray on the laud back more polite ppl when it comes to online encounters. It becomes a challenge for argumentative ppl to pick out ppl who are generally polite and sincere and poke at them to get a rise. I guess it is like when we were younger and at school. The bully would pick on the quiet one . I generally ignore those types if ppl. They usually have nothing but negativity and mean spiritedness to bring to the discussion. It seems as though if you don't rise to the bait they call you a coward even if you are just taking the high road. Perhaps it is just attention seeking, my four yr old does it. I don't tolerate it from him , I certainly won't rise to it for an adult.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,454,406 times
Reputation: 6670
^ ^ Like trolls, the ones defending some sorta "territorial imperative" do seem to be a common source of conflict online, and yeah, have seen 'em in several C-D forums too. There are even some who apparently think they "own" some particular topic or interest (mormons, astrology, guns, race, travel, whatever), and they must set their Searches to continuously track down whenever it comes up, just so they can weigh in as an "authority"!
BTW, a few years ago, when I was still pretty naive and inexperienced with online forums, I stumbled onto one specializing in some arcane topic I was interested in, and so I posted a couple comments and replies. I believe the subject was basically about recent research in brain neurotransmitters, so how 'bad' could that be?
Well Holy Be-Jeebus! You wouldn't believe the flames, the hostility (and the cursing) I received back, and from what was obviously a small group of "regulars", likely pretty young, who had 'colonized' the site, and had clearly decided that I was an 'unwelcome' intruder! In fact to this day, if I Google my real name (I know, I know…), for some reason that site still pops up near the top of the list (along with all the "squatters" cursing flames)!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
