AWKWARD CONVERSATIONS MEAN, “WE BETTER NOT TELL HIM”
Plus nobody is pidgeonholing anything. Everything is based on evidence shown in your posts
I was just saying it's rude to do what you're doing, especially by proxy. Any sort of typology isn't really useful to have on a videogame forum.
Jungian archetypes are not negative in any way - I suggest you look into it. If I were to categorize users as offensive terms (an example being you calling me moron and such earlier on) - then I can see how that would be rude. However - there is nothing offensive about the archetypes and I even proclaimed that they are not accurate only pasted on what I posted. You’re gaslighting by saying I’m rude - my thread was anything but.
Disagreed with the last part as well - Typology is essential to a growing community
I don’t think Jung (or Kant, or Gödel) was wrong about everything he said, but certainly time has tested and iterated on his work. It’s why you personally have to answer questions to get a MBPT.
DAD, I’VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS
I don’t think flaming someone is as “heinous” as giving someone a stereotype from the get go.
The common sense global assumption I projected whence crafting the thread was an umedically accurate archetype guess - a prediction or estimate of sorts. I think flaming someone as you did was a lot more “heinous” (why was that in quotations - I hadn’t used this term) than innocent and bonding archetypes. Some people got a laugh and a lot agreed that I was spot on and they also got a chance to learn more about Jungan psychology. You flaming me didn’t do much. Not trying to start an argument by the way just want to clear the air before causing more bad relations.
If I am calling you a moron, I am calling you a moron for some shitheaded thing you posted about. It carries no stereotype, no bearing of my opinion when you make a good post.
Typology is not necessary to a community- it divides it. People are bound to do what they want to do, not what you see fit for them.
for a thread that was supposed to be intellectual this is one of the dumbest ones here
1 Like
I thought it was fine, I just thought it was weird you can’t admit that pigeonholing people is a worthless practice.
Who issues the jurisdiction that stereotypes are worse than personal attacks? Typology is absolutely essential to the community. There is no argument to be made
Worthless is too dismissive. I think pigeon-holing is a subtle gaslight as what I did was not pigeon-hole - this thread did not bear the weight of a clinical diagnosis and I never claimed otherwise. Had I done so - Had I done so then perhaps some merits to your argument rewarded in hindsight retroactively
Stereotypes are worse that personal attacks: You are salting a person’s appearance to conform to some sort of imaginary person, and urging others to think the same way. You are not letting the individual be an individual.
If you were trying to decide in a comparison between two people, I’d understand. No point in throwing anyone into a compartment though.
sorry to derail the thread but can i have a psychoanalysis
1 Like
Shortly I will have another thread of the sorts. I will respond in more detail at a further time sorry am mid conversation right now.
Again, I just don’t think it’s OK. That is my opinion. I also think typology is preventing us from being us.
Personal attacks are salting a person’s appearance due to what the speaker deems a justified and evaluated - accurate defunct in the person - hitting very close to home. Stereotypes help us understand personalities to a higher consciousness.