Ace said:

XxAxX said:

Ace, first of all what a comer you are. one has to admire at least that.

second of all thanks but no. i'm not interested in your reading recommendations. i've formed my own opinion quite capably already and believe my opinion is accurate with respect to Ms. McGowan.

and lastly, you called Ms. McCowan a "wacko" above while simultaneously admonishing and advising me that only professionals can make a determination as to someone's mental status.

hypocrite much?

tell you what Ace, this topic might just be best left with the professionals.

No, I said that it should be left to professionals to determine if she's suffering from some kind of PTSD and (if so) whether or not that would explain away the inconsistencies in her statements and behavior. I will say that everything I know about the subject says that it would not.

We were asked here to give our (obviously non-professional) opinions as to whether Rose McGowan is "a wacko". Genesia and damo have posted things that have made me reconsider using these kinds of words. But I stand by my opinion that she's mentally unstable. And that opinion is not an uninformed one.

You seem to feel that my last post had ulterior motives. It didn't. I genuinely meant every word.

I wish you nothing but happiness. As I said, you seem like a very kind-hearted, well-intentioned person.

i am glad you realize your error in calling Ms. McGowan "wacko". such a statement is wrong on a number of obvious levels insofar as passing judgment on someone's mental state without the benefit of formal education and a degree in psychology.

not only have you never even met the gal but you are no more qualified to judge Ms. McGowan's mental state than anyone else here is. your opinion is only your opinion.

at the end of the day i still do not believe Ms. McCowan is "wacko". all these words, all of your *compliments* later and i have not changed my opinion one iota. nor will i.

XxAxX said:

i am glad you realize your error in calling Ms. McGowan "wacko". such a statement is wrong on a number of obvious levels insofar as passing judgment on someone's mental state without the benefit of formal education and a degree in psychology.

Then what qualified you to weigh in here?

not only have you never even met the gal

I have been in the same room with her, but point taken. I'm assuming you've never met her, either.

but you are no more qualified to judge Ms. McGowan's mental state than anyone else here is. your opinion is only your opinion.

I don't think I claimed to be more qualified than anyone else here (but I would venture that I probably have more knowledge about personality disorders than the average person) . And I would think it would go without saying that my opinion is only my opinion.

at the end of the day i still do not believe Ms. McCowan is "wacko". all these words, all of your *compliments* later and i have not changed my opinion one iota. nor will i.

I can't say that I'm surprised. Your writing on this site indicates to me a rigidity of thought that might fall under what psychology calls "splitting". For instance, your statement "i'm not interested in your reading recommendations"... One might ask why one would close oneself off to something completely sight-unseen. Your rationale seems to be ad-hominem ('I don't like what I've seen you post, ergo, anything you'd recommend is definitely worthless.').

I can say that everything I know about psychology tells me that you are a very loving person who's hurting, and (because of that) has allowed yourself to fall sway to a "social justice warrior" mindset. Peterson has what I believe to be some dead-on insight into that phenomenon, and I truly believe everyone could benefit from what he has to say on the subject. But it requires going in with an open mind.

jesus christ you fucking whacko. who else besides you would argue with someone else about their opinion??????

XxAxX said:

jesus christ you fucking whacko. who else besides you would argue with someone else about their opinion??????

Isn't that what you've done above?

Ace said:

XxAxX said:

jesus christ you fucking whacko. who else besides you would argue with someone else about their opinion??????

Isn't that what you've done above?

no. from my point of view this has been me, showing up to express my opinion on the topic, followed by you telling me why my opinion is wrong. (see above)

i feel this has been more of a situation whereby you are once again asserting what you wrongly perceive to be your right to tell me what i think.

the fact that you are obnoxiously tossing in bits of condescending commentary and making super personal remarks on what you believe to be my character and personality (having never actually met me) just makes it taste even more ick.

but since we're now analyzing each other here's a bit for you: i think in your case the problem you suffer from is one of inflated self-esteem, a/k/a a testosterone thing, but you really could just be wacko. i mean this in the nicest possible way because you know that underneath our many, many quarrels Ace, i really do heart you. you pompous twit

XxAxX said:

Ace said:

Isn't that what you've done above?

no. from my point of view this has been me, showing up to express my opinion on the topic, followed by you telling me why my opinion is wrong. (see above)

I've told you that, yes - I believe your opinion to be wrong here. How is this different from what you've done here?

i feel this has been more of a situation whereby you are once again asserting what you wrongly perceive to be your right to tell me what i think.

I'm not telling you what to think. I'm telling you that I think that what you think here is wrong and I'm suggesting that you investigate some material that I think might be helpful to your (and everyone's) well-being.

the fact that you are obnoxiously tossing in bits of condescending commentary and making super personal remarks on what you believe to be my character and personality (having never actually met me) just makes it taste even more ick.

It was not my intention to be condescending. If you took it that way, I'm sorry for that.

Re: "super personal remarks", what I stated was:

Your writing on this site indicates to me a rigidity of thought that might fall under what psychology calls "splitting". For instance, your statement "i'm not interested in your reading recommendations"... One might ask why one would close oneself off to something completely sight-unseen. Your rationale seems to be ad-hominem ('I don't like what I've seen you post, ergo, anything you'd recommend is definitely worthless.').

I can say that everything I know about psychology tells me that you are a very loving person who's hurting, and (because of that) has allowed yourself to fall sway to a "social justice warrior" mindset. Peterson has what I believe to be some dead-on insight into that phenomenon, and I truly believe everyone could benefit from what he has to say on the subject. But it requires going in with an open mind.

I took pains to word it in such a way so as to make it clear that I was only inferring based on what you've written on the site.

but since we're now analyzing each other here's a bit for you: i think in your case the problem you suffer from is one of inflated self-esteem, a/k/a a testosterone thing, but you really could just be wacko. i mean this in the nicest possible way because you know that underneath our many, many quarrels Ace, i really do heart you. you pompous twit

I wasn't aware that inflated self-esteem was "a testosterone thing". That sounds like a sexist remark, to me. But I can tell you that my self-esteem is very balanced and healthy. And weren't you cautioning against using the word "wacko"?

You take my replies to your replies in this thread to be some kind of trolling. I am telling you, with complete and utter sincerity, that I genuinely believe them to be true and that I really feel the material I'm pointing you to would ulimately be beneficial to you (if you would absorb it with an open mind).

Ace said: "You take my replies to your replies in this thread to be some kind of trolling . . the material I'm pointing you to would ulimately be beneficial to you (if you would absorb it with an open mind)." gracious. okay you got me and that one is truly funny Ace. i misread your earlier posts, i thought you were actually being serious. my apologies!

XxAxX said:

Ace said: "You take my replies to your replies in this thread to be some kind of trolling . . the material I'm pointing you to would ulimately be beneficial to you (if you would absorb it with an open mind)."

No. What I in fact said was:

You take my replies to your replies in this thread to be some kind of trolling. I am telling you, with complete and utter sincerity, that I genuinely believe them to be true and that I really feel the material I'm pointing you to would ulimately be beneficial to you (if you would absorb it with an open mind).

What you've omitted with your " . . " makes a big difference. Removing those words makes it seem as though I'm telling you that the material would be ultimately beneficial to you with absolute certainty. I don't know that. That is my hunch, but I can't know that for sure (of course).

Words are important. I feel that the above omission was intended to portray what I'd actually stated in a misleading way. So I just wanted to set the record straight.

I am not a judge, but I see a troubled woman who doesn't deserve to be cut down publicly, using terms like 'wacko'. She's a human being that made mistakes, like we all do, except her mistakes are put on display. It's okay to form an ill-judged opinion on those displays, but posting it as statement only points to your own short-comings.

I like her. I think she embraces her whackiness, which makes her stronger in my eyes.

HamsterHuey said:

I am not a judge, but I see a troubled woman who doesn't deserve to be cut down publicly, using terms like 'wacko'. She's a human being that made mistakes, like we all do, except her mistakes are put on display.

You're right, HH.

But I feel that her public mistakes are ongoing, and that they're hurting both other people and herself.

I like her. I think she embraces her whackiness, which makes her stronger in my eyes.

But, do you think it's ultimately a good idea to embrace "whackiness" of this kind? You don't think she'd be better off talking to a good professional?

And no doubt she's a "strong" woman. But sometimes having this kind of "strength" can work against ourselves, no?

Ace said:

XxAxX said:

Ace, first of all what a comer you are. one has to admire at least that.

second of all thanks but no. i'm not interested in your reading recommendations. i've formed my own opinion quite capably already and believe my opinion is accurate with respect to Ms. McGowan.

and lastly, you called Ms. McCowan a "wacko" above while simultaneously admonishing and advising me that only professionals can make a determination as to someone's mental status.

hypocrite much?

tell you what Ace, this topic might just be best left with the professionals.

No, I said that it should be left to professionals to determine if she's suffering from some kind of PTSD and (if so) whether or not that would explain away the inconsistencies in her statements and behavior. I will say that everything I know about the subject says that it would not.

We were asked here to give our (obviously non-professional) opinions as to whether Rose McGowan is "a wacko". Genesia and damo have posted things that have made me reconsider using these kinds of words. But I stand by my opinion that she's mentally unstable. And that opinion is not an uninformed one.

You seem to feel that my last post had ulterior motives. It didn't. I genuinely meant every word.

I wish you nothing but happiness. As I said, you seem like a very kind-hearted, well-intentioned person.

& just to clarify, i definitely wasn't singling you out when i said that. not that you need me to say this here for all to see, but i've got the greatest respect for you.

i just think this is one of the areas where we need to raise our consciousness a bit, think of what it means to have a mental illness, & how really thoughtless & cruel it is to use those kinds of words to describe someone, regardless of whether they're ill or not.

btw, my first real introduction to peterson was on sam harris's podcast. they got bogged down in a dreary discussion on the meaning of truth, which both of them deemed a bit of a disaster, that left me thinking peterson was the most boring, pompous man alive. but they got back together & took another crack at it, & had quite a good conversation. worth a listen certainly, if you are up for its almost 2 hour run time. https://www.youtube.com/w...8TDbXO6dkk

the worst thing i'd say about peterson is that i find him sometimes just a bit mundane, even obvious at times, but only because i've been exposed to his line of thinking elsewhere, so it's not really new to me. but i certainly view him as mainly a force for good in the world & think it's quite interesting & mainly very positive that he's having this cultural moment. when he takes on pc culture, post-modern thought & so on, i think he shows a lot of solid insight.

damosuzuki said:

Ace said:

No, I said that it should be left to professionals to determine if she's suffering from some kind of PTSD and (if so) whether or not that would explain away the inconsistencies in her statements and behavior. I will say that everything I know about the subject says that it would not.

We were asked here to give our (obviously non-professional) opinions as to whether Rose McGowan is "a wacko". Genesia and damo have posted things that have made me reconsider using these kinds of words. But I stand by my opinion that she's mentally unstable. And that opinion is not an uninformed one.

You seem to feel that my last post had ulterior motives. It didn't. I genuinely meant every word.

I wish you nothing but happiness. As I said, you seem like a very kind-hearted, well-intentioned person.

& just to clarify, i definitely wasn't singling you out when i said that. not that you need me to say this here for all to see, but i've got the greatest respect for you.

Didn't take it that way at all, damo! And you know I've got the greatest respect for you, too!

i just think this is one of the areas where we need to raise our consciousness a bit, think of what it means to have a mental illness, & how really thoughtless & cruel it is to use those kinds of words to describe someone, regardless of whether they're ill or not.

You're right.

btw, my first real introduction to peterson was on sam harris's podcast. they got bogged down in a dreary discussion on the meaning of truth, which both of them deemed a bit of a disaster, that left me thinking peterson was the most boring, pompous man alive. but they got back together & took another crack at it, & had quite a good conversation. worth a listen certainly, if you are up for its almost 2 hour run time. https://www.youtube.com/w...8TDbXO6dkk

the worst thing i'd say about peterson is that i find him sometimes just a bit mundane, even obvious at times, but only because i've been exposed to his line of thinking elsewhere, so it's not really new to me. but i certainly view him as mainly a force for good in the world & think it's quite interesting & mainly very positive that he's having this cultural moment. when he takes on pc culture, post-modern thought & so on, i think he shows a lot of solid insight.

I tried listening to the first Harris/Peterson thing. The one thing I don't care for about Peterson is his (seeming) belief in religion, and I seem to recall that they got bogged down in that, too?

I see Peterson as a very important figure. He's very bravely standing up for truth in a world that's become increasingly confused with all manner of nonsense.

I was watching an interview with him recently, where he broke down in tears while describing an incident where he was directly thanked by a man who'd said that his words had helped him reconcile with his father. It was incredibly moving. I have no doubt that this is a deeply feeling man who knows that what he's saying is important and is under tremendous stress from dealing with all of the slings and arrows from the radical left (who fear him because he puts the lie to much of their ideology).

TrivialPursuit said:

I keep seeing ads for this documentary of hers on Netflix. There is something about it that just rubs me wrong. I'm all about MeToo etc etc., but it feels like Rose has crossed the line from activist to opportunist.

[Edited 3/20/18 18:26pm]

I felt that way toward Aziz Ansari's accuser. As for Rose, hmm I'll remain on the fence about it until the smoke clears.

Hamad said:

TrivialPursuit said:

I keep seeing ads for this documentary of hers on Netflix. There is something about it that just rubs me wrong. I'm all about MeToo etc etc., but it feels like Rose has crossed the line from activist to opportunist.

[Edited 3/20/18 18:26pm]

I felt that way toward Aziz Ansari's accuser.

I recall her stating that he was supposed to pick up on her "non-verbal cues"? As I would tell my nieces, "Use verbal cues. Clear and pointed. Including 'I'm going to be leaving now.'"

Ace said:

I tried listening to the first Harris/Peterson thing. The one thing I don't care for about Peterson is his (seeming) belief in religion, and I seem to recall that they got bogged down in that, too?

i haven't listened to the first podcast they did since it came out, and i remember it being such an unpleasant grind that i can't see much sense in going back to it again. they definitely went over religion during the 2nd show, and my take-away is that peterson has basically a fatalistic view of human nature, that there's only the thinnest sheen of civilization separating our current state from pure barbarism, and views religion as an integral part of the civilizing tool-kit.

without making this too p&r-ish, i'd say i somewhat agree with his pessimism, but think there's much to be said for the steven pinker argument laid out in better angels of our nature & his new book enlightenment now that modernism, cosmopolitinism, enlightenment values are the best arrows in our quiver for making more agreeable people.

btw, found this review of peterson's book yesterday that i thought was quite good, if you're interested.


http://slatestarcodex.com...-for-life/

damosuzuki said:

btw, found this review of peterson's book yesterday that i thought was quite good, if you're interested.


http://slatestarcodex.com...-for-life/

Thanks, damo!

damosuzuki said:

Ace said:

No, I said that it should be left to professionals to determine if she's suffering from some kind of PTSD and (if so) whether or not that would explain away the inconsistencies in her statements and behavior. I will say that everything I know about the subject says that it would not.

We were asked here to give our (obviously non-professional) opinions as to whether Rose McGowan is "a wacko". Genesia and damo have posted things that have made me reconsider using these kinds of words. But I stand by my opinion that she's mentally unstable. And that opinion is not an uninformed one.

You seem to feel that my last post had ulterior motives. It didn't. I genuinely meant every word.

I wish you nothing but happiness. As I said, you seem like a very kind-hearted, well-intentioned person.

& just to clarify, i definitely wasn't singling you out when i said that. [...]

Nor was I. I actually hadn't read the whole thread - but commented on the basis of the thread title.

Genesia said:

damosuzuki said:

& just to clarify, i definitely wasn't singling you out when i said that. [...]

Nor was I. I actually hadn't read the whole thread - but commented on the basis of the thread title.

Didn't take it that way at all, Genesia.

Ace said:

Genesia said:

Nor was I. I actually hadn't read the whole thread - but commented on the basis of the thread title.

Didn't take it that way at all, Genesia.

I'm glad. You're one of the few people left around here that I actually like.

Genesia said:

Ace said:

Didn't take it that way at all, Genesia.

I'm glad. You're one of the few people left around here that I actually like.