Right, they mean “acting as if.” By the way, Silas summary of that advice is a tiny bit extreme.
Agree. “Give orders” is both a more accurate and useful advice and less provocative. That more balanced description would have saved rather a lot of hassle, even though there would still be disagreement.
The bit about the terrorists was also a little exaggerated. Amusing though.
Agree. “Give orders” is both a more accurate and useful advice and less provocative.
It’s not very precise, though. The part that actually makes the difference isn’t having the orders, it’s knowing what to “order”.
Which is one reason that I think leaving out, “knowing what you want” is actually losing an important piece. Without being sufficiently clear as to what you want and why—preferably a why that is good for the woman as well as you—you don’t have anything to “back up” your status bid.
I have seen much better ways of describing this than “give orders”, but they all take more than a couple of words.
And so I think it’s better, if we have to be imprecise in a discussion of this here, to err on the side of being imprecise in a way that doesn’t omit women’s goals and values, since that’s the whole bloody point of this comment thread… to discuss ways to avoid exclusionary language.
No pj. There is a difference between ‘not very precise’ and ‘saying something different to what I want him to be saying’.
‘Knowing what you want’ is important. But it is not what the subject of the expression is about. The advice “give orders” and applies even independently of knowing what you want.
That you are continuing to insist that Silas refine his words with words that don’t mean the same thing is both poor communication and outright rude. Desist.
It seems the Silas and PJ both think that 2 and 3 are the same or very close (the PUA’s are right), but they disagree on what that is.
So I don’t think PJ is trying to tell Silas to say the thing Silas believes 2 and 3 are in a different way, so much as disagreeing with Silas about what 2 and 3 are. It is a challenge to Silas’ assertion that the thing PUA’s say that provokes offense is actually right.
Actually, I’d say the four things to track (and this is actually simplifying a bit) are:
What the PUA’s say,
The specific behaviors meant, and
Women’s positive description of what perceiving those behaviors “feels like from the inside”
What’s actually “effective”, for some set of goals
Silas claims that #1 is “the truth” and #3 is “uninformative politician-speak”. I claim that omitting #3 from the discussion is (rightly) perceived as exclusionary and is therefore not a good idea.
AFAICT, we both agree that #3 is insufficient information for a man to understand #2 without #1, but Silas appears to claim that #3 is actively misleading and contradictory, as well as unnecessary.
I dispute this claim, however, since I found #3 to be of vital importance in translating #1 into #2, as well as being polite to include in a conversation for a general audience.
Of course, there is still the possibility that we actually disagree on #2 -- in particular, it may be that Silas is correct in saying that #3 is misleading relative to his perception of #2. (In which case, I think he has a mistaken understanding relative to #4 -- or at least, the version of #4 that relates to my goals for relationships.)
Whew. Complicated enough for you yet? ;-)
To the extent Silas and I disagree wrt goals for #4, or what’s actually meant by #2, the discussion is likely to be incoherent, so I suspect that may be the real problem. I’ve been attributing this incoherence to Silas being blinded by his emotions about the topic, but it’s certainly possible that it’s due to something else, such as a deeper disagreement on some premise we think we agree on.
or at least, the version of #4 that relates to my goals for relationships.
This is an interesting point. I think that a factor in whether or not a discussion of the venusian arts is perceived as offensive, is whether the goals it claims (or is perceived) to achieve aligns with the goals of the target.
The inclusion of your #3, while being inclusive in its own right, also serves to signal the alignment of goals.
Fairly straightforward, but also a reiteration of a straw man. Silas has repeatedly rejected the position you are ascribing to him and your continued misrepresentation is extremely poor form.
I imagine it would be, if I had any clue what you’re talking about.
You make assertions about what Silas claims (see grandparent). Silas has told you that this is not what he claims (and I have reiterated it in his defence). You engage in straw man fallacies. I dislike this behaviour.
You may disagree with the above, but to not have a clue what I’m talking about is motivated ignorance.
You make assertions about what Silas claims (see grandparent). Silas has told you that this is not what he claims (and I have reiterated it in his defence)
And it is not at all clear to me which specific assertions about Silas’s claims you are talking about. Perhaps it would be helpful if you could quote the specific segments of my summary comnment which you are saying are inaccurate regarding what you believe to be Silas’s claims, along with what claim you believe he’s making instead.
The time at which this conversation stopped being useful (in my estimation) was about 20 comments ago. For all my progress in self awareness I am sometimes slow to remember my policy of non-engagement in dynamics I don’t consider desirable. But eventually I remember. ;)
ISTM that it’s a bit rude to lob an accusation of motivated ignorance, then decline to answer a request for information. Despite your accusation, I am indeed genuinely curious regarding how it is that you think I’ve misstated Silas’s claims, since if I actually have, it is due to misunderstanding them—and resolving that misunderstanding would be helpful in wrapping up the thread.
The scope of things that PUAs actually mean is large. There is (necessarily) a lot of depth to the field.
The nuances of what is actually effective is large. There are many dynamics at play. Many actions that give results for many different reasons.
The scope of pjeby’s model is far smaller and far more idealized than that of either all PUAs or reality.
In the context under contention Silas referred to advice that PUAs actually mean that is not fully represented by pjeby’s idealized model.
What Silas is trying to tell PJ is that he doesn’t wish to confine his expression to the set of expressions in pjeby offers, because he is referring to PUA advice and or elements of reality that pjeby’s model neglects.
Getting to any real disagreement on the immediate topic would require pjeby to acknowledge the actual claim made by Silas.
The advice “give orders” and applies even independently of knowing what you want.
If you don’t know the desired end result, how can you possibly modulate your “giving orders” in a way that will produce that result, vs. another way that will produce the result of “creepy”, “bossy”, “socially inept”, etc.? Merely saying to “give orders” without any indication of what you’re trying to accomplish doesn’t strike me as particularly informative.
If someone had told me to “give orders” without the other context, there is no way I could possibly have gotten it right—which is why I’m saying it’s imprecise, and missing important information. For me, it is.
Agree. “Give orders” is both a more accurate and useful advice and less provocative. That more balanced description would have saved rather a lot of hassle, even though there would still be disagreement.
The bit about the terrorists was also a little exaggerated. Amusing though.
It’s not very precise, though. The part that actually makes the difference isn’t having the orders, it’s knowing what to “order”.
Which is one reason that I think leaving out, “knowing what you want” is actually losing an important piece. Without being sufficiently clear as to what you want and why—preferably a why that is good for the woman as well as you—you don’t have anything to “back up” your status bid.
I have seen much better ways of describing this than “give orders”, but they all take more than a couple of words.
And so I think it’s better, if we have to be imprecise in a discussion of this here, to err on the side of being imprecise in a way that doesn’t omit women’s goals and values, since that’s the whole bloody point of this comment thread… to discuss ways to avoid exclusionary language.
No pj. There is a difference between ‘not very precise’ and ‘saying something different to what I want him to be saying’.
‘Knowing what you want’ is important. But it is not what the subject of the expression is about. The advice “give orders” and applies even independently of knowing what you want.
That you are continuing to insist that Silas refine his words with words that don’t mean the same thing is both poor communication and outright rude. Desist.
I see here three different concepts to track:
The literal thing the PUA’s say.
What the PUA’s actually mean.
What is actually effective.
It seems the Silas and PJ both think that 2 and 3 are the same or very close (the PUA’s are right), but they disagree on what that is.
So I don’t think PJ is trying to tell Silas to say the thing Silas believes 2 and 3 are in a different way, so much as disagreeing with Silas about what 2 and 3 are. It is a challenge to Silas’ assertion that the thing PUA’s say that provokes offense is actually right.
Actually, I’d say the four things to track (and this is actually simplifying a bit) are:
What the PUA’s say,
The specific behaviors meant, and
Women’s positive description of what perceiving those behaviors “feels like from the inside”
What’s actually “effective”, for some set of goals
Silas claims that #1 is “the truth” and #3 is “uninformative politician-speak”. I claim that omitting #3 from the discussion is (rightly) perceived as exclusionary and is therefore not a good idea.
AFAICT, we both agree that #3 is insufficient information for a man to understand #2 without #1, but Silas appears to claim that #3 is actively misleading and contradictory, as well as unnecessary.
I dispute this claim, however, since I found #3 to be of vital importance in translating #1 into #2, as well as being polite to include in a conversation for a general audience.
Of course, there is still the possibility that we actually disagree on #2 -- in particular, it may be that Silas is correct in saying that #3 is misleading relative to his perception of #2. (In which case, I think he has a mistaken understanding relative to #4 -- or at least, the version of #4 that relates to my goals for relationships.)
Whew. Complicated enough for you yet? ;-)
To the extent Silas and I disagree wrt goals for #4, or what’s actually meant by #2, the discussion is likely to be incoherent, so I suspect that may be the real problem. I’ve been attributing this incoherence to Silas being blinded by his emotions about the topic, but it’s certainly possible that it’s due to something else, such as a deeper disagreement on some premise we think we agree on.
This is an interesting point. I think that a factor in whether or not a discussion of the venusian arts is perceived as offensive, is whether the goals it claims (or is perceived) to achieve aligns with the goals of the target.
The inclusion of your #3, while being inclusive in its own right, also serves to signal the alignment of goals.
I suppose the proper adjective “venereal” has been too tainted by association with disease for anything but giggle-worthy use.
My use of “venusian arts” was adopting PJEby’s vocabulary first? used here.
Yeah, I think it is good to stay away from the connotations of “venereal”.
OTOH “venusian” sounds like it’s about the planet.
Fairly straightforward, but also a reiteration of a straw man. Silas has repeatedly rejected the position you are ascribing to him and your continued misrepresentation is extremely poor form.
I imagine it would be, if I had any clue what you’re talking about. But I don’t.
You make assertions about what Silas claims (see grandparent). Silas has told you that this is not what he claims (and I have reiterated it in his defence). You engage in straw man fallacies. I dislike this behaviour.
You may disagree with the above, but to not have a clue what I’m talking about is motivated ignorance.
And it is not at all clear to me which specific assertions about Silas’s claims you are talking about. Perhaps it would be helpful if you could quote the specific segments of my summary comnment which you are saying are inaccurate regarding what you believe to be Silas’s claims, along with what claim you believe he’s making instead.
The time at which this conversation stopped being useful (in my estimation) was about 20 comments ago. For all my progress in self awareness I am sometimes slow to remember my policy of non-engagement in dynamics I don’t consider desirable. But eventually I remember. ;)
ISTM that it’s a bit rude to lob an accusation of motivated ignorance, then decline to answer a request for information. Despite your accusation, I am indeed genuinely curious regarding how it is that you think I’ve misstated Silas’s claims, since if I actually have, it is due to misunderstanding them—and resolving that misunderstanding would be helpful in wrapping up the thread.
Poor performance doesn’t imply bad motives (and dually).
I add:
The thing Silas means.
The thing PJ tells Silas he means.
I claim:
The scope of things that PUAs actually mean is large. There is (necessarily) a lot of depth to the field.
The nuances of what is actually effective is large. There are many dynamics at play. Many actions that give results for many different reasons.
The scope of pjeby’s model is far smaller and far more idealized than that of either all PUAs or reality.
In the context under contention Silas referred to advice that PUAs actually mean that is not fully represented by pjeby’s idealized model.
What Silas is trying to tell PJ is that he doesn’t wish to confine his expression to the set of expressions in pjeby offers, because he is referring to PUA advice and or elements of reality that pjeby’s model neglects.
Getting to any real disagreement on the immediate topic would require pjeby to acknowledge the actual claim made by Silas.
If I were Silas I would not hold my breath.
If you don’t know the desired end result, how can you possibly modulate your “giving orders” in a way that will produce that result, vs. another way that will produce the result of “creepy”, “bossy”, “socially inept”, etc.? Merely saying to “give orders” without any indication of what you’re trying to accomplish doesn’t strike me as particularly informative.
If someone had told me to “give orders” without the other context, there is no way I could possibly have gotten it right—which is why I’m saying it’s imprecise, and missing important information. For me, it is.