That was… unexpected. If this was anything other than LW, I’d be assigning ~10-30 percent probability to trolling. It… just seems to come too thickly, and with somewhat strange context. That this exact person exists is totally normal. That this exact person would write this doesn’t seem that way, because what they would write would probably be boring and this is not.
So… a woman who doesn’t complain and is optimistic, and is not ashamed to say it online, is suspicious to be a troll? What a strange society do we live in!
By the way, I don’t criticize you for writing that; I think you only said loudly what is already present in the atmosphere. If someone says: “Women, tell your opinions!” it is often a code for: “Women, tell your complaints about men!”. As if complaining about men was the only legitimate female opinion.
I suspect this atmosphere harms women, because honestly, who would want to be stereotyped as the complaining one? (With all the consequences, such as… if you want a new person in your team, would you want a creative one, or a complaining one? If you have to choose a leader, would you want a responsible one, or a complaining one? Etc.)
Focused? Seems like exactly the kind of writing and narrative I would expect if I were to imagine a random person of the described personality type writing a stream-of-consciousness-style narrative anonymously on a given subject that the person enjoys thinking and writing about and/or finds rather important enough to engage deeply into.
That this exact person exists is totally normal. That this exact person would write this doesn’t seem that way, because what they would write would probably be boring and this is not.
That’s an… odd take on it. I don’t think I’d expect gender-conformity to antipredict engaging writing very strongly, if at all, and the life experience the submitter alludes to would positively predict it if I’m reading between the lines at all correctly. And it’s being posted on LW, of course, which totally buggers up most conventional demographic analysis.
The submitter is using a pretty assertive and analytical style, which I wouldn’t have predicted from the paragraphs on emotionality; the bit about girl-game struck me as particularly unusual. And her ideas do tally well with the conventional wisdom among certain male-dominated metacontrarian subcultures. I might have considered a false flag option of some sort except that she seems to consider hers an exceptional opinion: most of those subcultures wouldn’t be satisfied with an existence proof, they’d be trying to frame this as the norm.
I think it’s most likely legit. Though I can’t rule out a small probability of someone trying to tell LW what it wants to hear for some reason, or to confirm a theory about how such a stance might be received.
(Should the submitter be reading this, please excuse the lack of charity.)
Hell I don’t know. All I know is that I am confused. I strongly doubt that anything dishonest is going on here. It’s possible that this lady is just being playfully self-indulgent.
The thing that is odd about the writing isn’t that it’s assertive and analytical, or that it is engaging. It’s the specific claims and especially the fact that she seemed to have touched all the bases.
It is worth noting that she didn’t do either of the following: try to frame as normal OR complain about more strongly feminist viewpoints.
That this exact person exists is totally normal. That this exact person would write this doesn’t seem that way, because what they would write would probably be boring and this is not.
I suggest you review your prejudices. A person with the traits indicated (self awareness, well integrated preferences and desires, healthy boundaries, developed but not unbalanced rational thought) is not necessarily (or even usually) boring merely because they happen to like to cook, look pretty and be socially successful.
Pretty sure “polyamory is boring” was meant as a reference to this post, not in a pejorative sense. (Of course, the phrase is misleading about the content if you haven’t read that post!)
I read that post, then re-read the thread root, and re-read E’s submission…
...and I still don’t see it. I don’t notice the supposed difference in “this got normal” or thickness or focus or whatever. To me, both Scott’s post and E’s submission have about the same level of underlying energy and motivation and “Here listen to this awesome thing I really want to talk about because it gets me intellectually excited!”-ness.
Help?
(or maybe ikrase is pattern-matching something that isn’t really there, but I try to disprove the hypothesis “I’m missing something.” first)
That was… unexpected. If this was anything other than LW, I’d be assigning ~10-30 percent probability to trolling. It… just seems to come too thickly, and with somewhat strange context. That this exact person exists is totally normal. That this exact person would write this doesn’t seem that way, because what they would write would probably be boring and this is not.
Are you up to something, Daenarys?
So… a woman who doesn’t complain and is optimistic, and is not ashamed to say it online, is suspicious to be a troll? What a strange society do we live in!
By the way, I don’t criticize you for writing that; I think you only said loudly what is already present in the atmosphere. If someone says: “Women, tell your opinions!” it is often a code for: “Women, tell your complaints about men!”. As if complaining about men was the only legitimate female opinion.
I suspect this atmosphere harms women, because honestly, who would want to be stereotyped as the complaining one? (With all the consequences, such as… if you want a new person in your team, would you want a creative one, or a complaining one? If you have to choose a leader, would you want a responsible one, or a complaining one? Etc.)
It’s all about just how focused her narrative was.
Focused? Seems like exactly the kind of writing and narrative I would expect if I were to imagine a random person of the described personality type writing a stream-of-consciousness-style narrative anonymously on a given subject that the person enjoys thinking and writing about and/or finds rather important enough to engage deeply into.
Damn. I fail at explaining.
That’s an… odd take on it. I don’t think I’d expect gender-conformity to antipredict engaging writing very strongly, if at all, and the life experience the submitter alludes to would positively predict it if I’m reading between the lines at all correctly. And it’s being posted on LW, of course, which totally buggers up most conventional demographic analysis.
The submitter is using a pretty assertive and analytical style, which I wouldn’t have predicted from the paragraphs on emotionality; the bit about girl-game struck me as particularly unusual. And her ideas do tally well with the conventional wisdom among certain male-dominated metacontrarian subcultures. I might have considered a false flag option of some sort except that she seems to consider hers an exceptional opinion: most of those subcultures wouldn’t be satisfied with an existence proof, they’d be trying to frame this as the norm.
I think it’s most likely legit. Though I can’t rule out a small probability of someone trying to tell LW what it wants to hear for some reason, or to confirm a theory about how such a stance might be received.
(Should the submitter be reading this, please excuse the lack of charity.)
Hell I don’t know. All I know is that I am confused. I strongly doubt that anything dishonest is going on here. It’s possible that this lady is just being playfully self-indulgent.
The thing that is odd about the writing isn’t that it’s assertive and analytical, or that it is engaging. It’s the specific claims and especially the fact that she seemed to have touched all the bases.
It is worth noting that she didn’t do either of the following: try to frame as normal OR complain about more strongly feminist viewpoints.
I suggest you review your prejudices. A person with the traits indicated (self awareness, well integrated preferences and desires, healthy boundaries, developed but not unbalanced rational thought) is not necessarily (or even usually) boring merely because they happen to like to cook, look pretty and be socially successful.
I mean boring in the ‘polyamory is boring’ or ‘it all adds up to normality’ thing. I read this and noticed that I was confused.
I think “boring” is an extremely unsuitable word for that. Learn to take joy in the merely real!
Pretty sure “polyamory is boring” was meant as a reference to this post, not in a pejorative sense. (Of course, the phrase is misleading about the content if you haven’t read that post!)
I read that post, then re-read the thread root, and re-read E’s submission…
...and I still don’t see it. I don’t notice the supposed difference in “this got normal” or thickness or focus or whatever. To me, both Scott’s post and E’s submission have about the same level of underlying energy and motivation and “Here listen to this awesome thing I really want to talk about because it gets me intellectually excited!”-ness.
Help?
(or maybe ikrase is pattern-matching something that isn’t really there, but I try to disprove the hypothesis “I’m missing something.” first)
I had read that post, and I didn’t realize ikrase meant “boring” to be a reference to “Polyamory Is Boring” until he/she mentioned it.