Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Monday, March 2, 2026 18:11
VIEWED: 11865
PAGE 6 of 8
Hmmm... you feel I don't like you? I feel I don't grok you. I don't find you tedious and unlikeable, in fact I think you're interesting and (believe it or not) rather sweet. I just think you're uninterpretable at times.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte, I think you may be oversensitive at times...not a diss, so am I, so are most of us. But I don't get the impression Sig or anyone ELSE dislikes you here; we all disagree at times, but yours is one of the "gentler" voices here and I don't think what you write makes anyone dislike you. I certainly don't, and tho' I don't pay much attention, I've not seen it from anyone else either. And you're definitely not tedious! Just my opinion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's curious, I don't even like me.
But you're right, that's off-topic, and even if it weren't, either way there wouldn't be much point in trying to convince anyone who or what I am.
Quote:
I read another curious factoid - just one of those little studies that sticks to my mind like lint to a gumball- that says that people stay married the longest who match each other politically. This was part of a study of Facebook interactions, where people tend to reveal their political leanings LAST, even after their weight. So at some point... the author is not sure where... potential mates suss out each others' politics. Wherever and whenever it happens, it's very subtle- and certainly not on Facebook!
Anything that happens of nominal importance never really is on Facebook.
But, I'd imagine they reveal it last because it's such a hot button. If they go so far as to invest revealing other things about themselves to a potential match or even friends, they might not want to lose that investment.
As for how long the relationship lasts, probably it depends on how much dysfunction a person wants/invites/can take. Some people like dysfunction, and it can be versatile, whereas the advantage of agreement and compatibility is that it is stable.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I posted it. And I don't "believe" anything...
Given some of the stuff you post, I'd about come to that conclusion.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
GEEZER: Finally, we reach an understanding! 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BYTE: I think that you are a terribly insecure person who has had to construct a social persona in order to deal. Despite all that... or possibly because of that... I find that you're a rather sweet person. Sometimes, I just want to give you a hug... except I know that IRL you'd prolly hate it. I think I can describe pretty much everyone on the board in one or two sentences, even myself. You OTOH are harder to pin down... perhaps because your beliefs and feelings are still nascent and lightly formed. If you feel disliked, its due to my impatience and harshness, not because of anything on your end. And since you feel that way, I apologize.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Eh, there are too many definitions of "liberal" to make sense. Both the right AND the left have used it as a pejorative, so that the word no longer has any current meaning. The actual definition is
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.
yep, and to make matters worse, here in Australia the more conservative of the two parties is the Liberal Party, so people tend to talk about small 'l' or large 'L' liberals.
A bit like socialism, a word that is now used by right wingers to describe 'a government that is involved in funding infrastructure in any way'
btw what does grok mean? Only ever seen sig use it here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Uh, Byte: Pardon the "illegitimate" at the beginning of my last post. I had looked up the spelling and somehow the word stuck in my post--I just edited it out--wasn't directed at YOU, certainly! ;o)
Magons: I've used "grok" here, too--maybe it shows our age! It comes from Heinlen's "Stranger in a Strange Land" sci-fi novel, which for people our age, is kind of familiar. "Grok" can't be described easily, the quickest would be to say it means more than "understand". Oh, wait, Wikipedia to the rescue:Quote:
To grok ( /'gr?k/) is to intimately and completely share the same reality or line of thinking with another physical or conceptual entity. Author Robert A. Heinlein coined the term in his best-selling 1961 book Stranger in a Strange Land. In Heinlein's view, grokking is the intermingling of intelligence that necessarily affects both the observer and the observed. From the novel:Quote:
In an ideological context, a grokked concept becomes part of the person who contributes to its evolution by improving the doctrine, perpetuating the myth, espousing the belief, adding detail to the social plan, refining the idea or proving the theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok article in Wiki explains it further, if you're interested...numerous writers have used it, including Tom Wolfe, and it's popped up in places like an episode of Night Court and the song "Friends" by the Police, and sometimes used by programmers. I guess you could call it a "geek word" nowadays.
Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed-—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science—and it means as little to us (because of our Earthling assumptions) as color means to a blind man.
p.s. You should read Stranger. It's...there are no words, so I'll just say "great".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are two words I grabbed from scifi that don't exist in the English language, but should.
One is "grok", which comes from Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. It means to fully intuit, to understand so deeply that you feel it in your soul.
The other is "ghafla" which came from Frank Herbert's Dune. It's an actual Arabic word meaning "distraction", but the implication is that the distraction is deliberately being placed in front of people to keep them from seeing the important.
Of course, there are other words that should belong in the English language... one which describes me: I have to stick my feet our from under the covers to cool off. I'm a "pedaerator".
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Eh, Byte - FWIW I too believe you have a constructed personality for social interactions. Which makes interactions suck for you. I suspect the things that just came naturally to others - being comforted, having moments of security, reacting to the happiness of others - didn't happen with you. And so in their absence you had to work out your interactions by thinking. And since your interactions are intentional and intellectual, they feel false. Which is why you don't like you.
It would be nice to think that we are all internally equally poised for a happy life. But my conclusion is that, through no fault of their own, some people are born having to work harder for their equilibrium than others
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME