MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Emotional Intelligence >>>>>>>>>>>>> Boo...

Emotional Intelligence >>>>>>>>>>>>> Book Smarts

posted 2 years ago by HarveyManFredSin (4877)
28 replies | jump to latest

EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.

I see a particular poster who regards themself as a well-read, erudite 'big brain'. Sure, they do their research, and good for them. I commend them for doing what too many people are far too lazy and feckless to do (even a simple rudimentary Google check), and for arming themselves with facts rather than plucking arguments out of thin air (which doesn't mean their arguments are always correct, especially when they cherrypick their 'facts,' but at least they boost their credibility by referring to actual sources).

However, this poster seems to treat life as a show or a sports-game, whereby you pick a side, rather than a REALITY made up of living, breathing individuals, including a mother of two young children, and her boyfriend, who were SAVAGELY murdered by a physically-abusive and psychotic celebrity. Murder, rape, child molestation, domestic violence etc, are NOT there for your DAMN ENTERTAINMENT.

HOW DARE YOU!😠

And 'they' (i.e. the reductive gender-essentialist morons, both on the political right, including Jordan Petersen, and the faux-feminist/faux-left) say that men are book-smart and women are the emotionally intelligent ones... 🤦‍♂️🙄

[–] parkerbot (10724) 2 years ago

How dare you use "How dare you" in a non-funny way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUb4MovqcBY

[–] Keelai (36157) 2 years ago

Someone's a crybaby.

Boohoo!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In046cteJxk

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

You're mocking me for daring to question a poster for having the temerity to treat the brutal and bloody MURDER of a WOMAN and her boyfriend, as entertainment? Do you really think you're the 'good' person in all this?

[–] Keelai (36157) 2 years ago

You're online bullying!

You feared addressing the poster in the original post so you created a new one hoping to find supporters in order to create a mob-like atmosphere in order to attack the poster en masse.

That's cowardly behavior!

re: the case
It was widely referred to as "The Trial of the Century" for a reason. You should examine that reason instead of attacking the messenger.

BTW, Ron Goldman was NOT Nicole's boyfriend. It's clear that you don't know anything about the case nor the trial!

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

It wouldn't have mattered even if he had been Nicole's boyfriend. Murder is murder and domestic violence is domestic violence, and I don't see how it's 'bullying' to criticise an individual for treating the brutal murder of a woman, who left behind two young children, and her friend.

Emotional intelligence isn't the same as being 'nice'. I'm not a 'nice' person. FUCK *niceness*. I'm *just* and *moral*, and like I say, it's not right to make entertainment out of such a particularly nasty murder. I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm 'wrong' here.

And I didn't even cite your name here, so how can it be 'bullying'? Besides, I was genuinely moved to ask the above question following your OJ post, not to attack you, but to get a sense of everyone's values around here. Yes, you're an example of someone who has displayed, in *this* instance, a lack of EI, but, like I say, the thread is not about you per se. Also, it's because I respect your *overall* intelligence/booksmarts, that you make a helpful case-study in this instance. There seems to be a disconnect between your overall intelligence and progressive political allegiances, and your glib treatment of a truly horrible double-murder as an entertainment spectacle. If this was coming from a complete moron/troll, that would be one thing, but, to give you credit, I know you're not a moron/troll. You're clearly smart and *mostly* post in good faith, but, with all due respect, occasionally misguided.

[–] Keelai (36157) 2 years ago

"how can it be 'bullying'? I was genuinely moved to ask the above question following your OJ post"

No, you attempted to gather a mob to attack me en masse by starting this new thread berating me.

You could've replied to my comment in the original thread if you only wanted to ask a question.

"It wouldn't have mattered even if he had been Nicole's boyfriend."

The truth matters!

"it's not right to make entertainment out of such a particularly nasty murder."

You're confusing my observation to the truth with my personal opinion.

You're not being honest with yourself when you deny that Americans (and others) have always made entertainment out of murder and turned killers into heroes. That's the reason they make movies out of Bonnie & Clyde, the Mafia, Lizzie Bordon, Jesse James, Boston Strangler, violent crime shows, movies, front page murder news headlines, etc..:

"... has been called "a great trash novel come to life"

"The O.J. Simpson trial gave viewers everything that a juicy soap storyline did — rich and famous and beautiful people caught up in crimes of passion — but with the added jolt of knowing that everything they saw unfolding on television was real life."

"It combined race, sex, lifestyle, whodunnit, celebrities and pop culture. It made previously unknown prosecutors household names, and an aging beach boy/wannabe actor America's houseguest. Defense lawyers became celebrities, signing autographs at Rolling Stones concerts and boxing matches. The judge became a staple of New York Times crossword puzzles. After all, how many three letter words have an I, a T and an O. It was the perfect storm, and in its wake it created a new partnership between law and television."

"more than 150 million viewers — 57% of the country — tuned in to watch the verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial at 10 a.m. on Oct. 3, 1995. The massive viewership of the verdict’s live broadcast was a fitting end to the saga that had captivated the entire nation"

"Trial of the century"

You're severely underestimating the cultural impact of the OJ trial which destroyed soap operas and created reality shows.

"the thread is not about you per se."

Of course, it is! "I see a particular poster..." It's all about me. It's online bullying.

"domestic violence..." "a woman"

You're ignoring the fact that she was a homewrecker who decided to continue a relationship with a man who raped her on their first date. No, she didn't deserve to be murdered, but you need to stop placing a halo on her head. And her family's behavior was slimy for exploiting her memory and her children.

You're ignoring Cato the dog. How can you not be impressed by him?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1995/02/09/nicole-simpsons-neighbors-describe-how-dog-led-them-to-slaying-scene/a71d972b-3b73-4170-8743-1869d9dc3f96/

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

I believe I did answer you on the other thread, and, with all due respect, you are incorrect to say I started this thread to bully you. I may be an asshole, but I am not a liar (what's the point?), and so I hope you'll take me at face-value when I say that was NOT the intent of this thread.

I don't know why you're going on about the damn dog. I'm an ethical vegan, but I'm not stupid enough to think that an animal's life equates to that of a human-being's, and it comes across as facetious when you keep talking about the dog (i.e. 'RIP' etc).

And you know me by now. I'm NO simp. I don't put ANY woman *or* man on a pedestal (in fact I've been criticised for not doing so), so I certainly don't regard Nicole Simpson Brown as a saint, although if you're right about her being raped by OJ, it only makes me feel even sorrier and sadder for her fate. Anyway, she doesn't have to be a saint for us to still be respectful with respect to her mistreatment, particularly her murder. I can say X was an asshole, without mocking X's rape, bloody murder or beating at the hands of a violent partner/spouse.

[–] Keelai (36157) 2 years ago

Everybody admired Kato the dog.
R.I.P. little buddy.

[–] db20db (17754) 2 years ago

"You feared addressing the original post so you created a new one hoping to find supporters in order to create a mob-like atmosphere in order to attack the poster en masse.

"That's cowardly behavior!"

It sure is! I've been addressing, criticizing that pattern here since the earliest days of the site. In my euphemistic style, I usually referred to it as, "being chickenshit."😉

We have one mod here who seems to be acutely aware of that pattern. I've seen him shut down several threads due to dog-piling, one most recently.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

But that's not what happened here.

I didn't make this thread to bully Keelai. Rightly or wrongly, I've been ruder about Keelai on other threads, where I've mentioned her by name, but on this occasion, I didn't mention anyone by name in my OP, and simply started the thread to address a concern/thought that was admittedly prompted by my interaction with Keelai on an OJ thread (obviously, I'm now admitting that I was thinking of Keelai when I started this thread, but that's because the cat is out of the bag. Has Keelai not made the charge against me, no-one else but Keelai and myself needed to be any the wiser). Still, like I say, this isn't about attacking/critiquing Keelai, even if Keelai's behaviour on the OJ thread is what prompted this thread. The issue doesn't exclusively apply to Keelai and she's by-no-means the epitome of what I'm talking about. There are FAR more accute examples elsewhere in the world of what I'm talking about.

[–] db20db (17754) 2 years ago

Typically attention seeking verbose and convoluted post from you. Guys like you are the proverbial "dime a dozen" in internet forums. 🙄

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Whatever, white knight.

[–] db20db (17754) 2 years ago

Yeah, slap a convenient, dismissive, internet label on me when you've somehow, suddenly exhausted your verbosity. Keelai and I have always had a good rapport, unlike you when I first encountered you here: https://moviechat.org/tt1971352/Compliance/5d5b452607b5991d76953d30/people-cant-be-this-stupid There's definitely something to be said for "first impressions." I see "the handwriting on the wall" where you're concerned on this site. 🤨

[–] Keelai (36157) 2 years ago

"Has Keelai not made the charge against me, no-one else but Keelai and myself needed to be any the wiser"

That's an admittance it was about me.

"I've been ruder about Keelai on other threads"

And an admittance that the intent was an attack.

You're not American! I was clearly discussing what was happening within American society at that time.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

'"Has Keelai not made the charge against me, no-one else but Keelai and myself needed to be any the wiser"

That's an admittance it was about me.'

The thread isn't about you per se, but you drew attention to yourself by outing yourself as the example I was implicitly referring to in the OP.

'"I've been ruder about Keelai on other threads"

And an admittance that the intent was an attack.'

Not at all. I was being honest. Maybe you'd be in the right to call me out for other examples, but on this occasion I wasn't trying to elicit a pile-on against you (not that I've ever tried to elicit a pile-on against you, but perhaps on other occasions you'd be more within your rights to argue that I'm skirting close to doing so, even if that's not my intent).

'You're not American! I was clearly discussing what was happening within American society at that time.'

The trial was a big deal where I was based too. I've also seen the OJ documentary and the American Crime Story TV drama. If I misunderstood you, I apologise, but it certainly seemed that *you* were treating the trial, and the sordid and sad murders that triggered it, as glib entertainment, rather than saying 'This is how other Americans were treating it.'

Of course the trial holds an immense fascination to so many people, particularly in view of the racial dynamics. And I don't condemn anyone for being fascinated (I'd be a hypocrite to), but it's the glib way you spoke about it on the other thread that rubbed me the wrong way. Sorry, but it came across as callous.

[–] Keelai (36157) 2 years ago

You're forgetting that Americans watch 6-year-olds shot to death in elementary school and shrug.

The trial was about good-looking, rich people including a famous football star living the life of the rich and famous. It was treated like a great TV soap opera. It was much more than fascination in the U.S.. There was a huge obsession at the time.

I don't believe you're being honest with yourself about many things.

I think you're pro-Brown family because they're white. I don't like the Brown family because they're trashy. Never will. All sleazebags. The Goldmans have always had my condolences for the loss of Ron. Wrong place and time for him while attempting to do a nice thing.

Apology accepted.

[–] Keelai (36157) 2 years ago

I wrote cowardly because it usually happens to me after the other poster feels they've run out of debate or lost an argument. It's like they received a bloody nose and returning with friends.

MC should be about an exchange of ideas, thoughts and opinions especially in Generals. Not win or lose.

Anyway, I appreciate that you notice the pattern, too.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

"I wrote cowardly because it usually happens to me after the other poster feels they've run out of debate or lost an argument. It's like they received a bloody nose and returning with friends."

I get that. It happens. And I won't deny that I've never been a part of such behaviour, but I am sincere when I say that wasn't my intent *here*, and with all due respect, I never felt you'd 'won' our disagreement on the OJ trial. I'm not saying you 'lost' either (although I still maintain my point that you came across as glib), but I don't feel you'd somehow destroyed my argument/put me in my place on this matter.

"MC should be about an exchange of ideas, thoughts and opinions especially in Generals. Not win or lose."

100% agreed! And if I've been an asshole about this, when you've in fact been trying to push this good faith practice all the time, I apologise. Hopefully you will also accept that people can sometimes agree to disagree when it comes to various discussions, but I 100% appreciate and agree with your attitude here.

[–] db20db (17754) 2 years ago

Like I said, I've been aware of the pattern since the earliest days of the site and have addressed it constantly. Words I've used have been, "scapegoating, dog-piling, rabble-rousing, demagoguery." They all pretty much fall under the umbrella of, "a mob mentality", something I've had an issue with for a long time.

As a weird, ironic parallel to this thread, I happened to rewatch Mean Girls (2004) due to insomnia in the middle of the night. I guess maybe that's what partially motivated me to respond here. 😁

[–] Keelai (36157) 2 years ago

I use the term "group-bonding" when I see it in Politics.

Great film. I never liked that Lindsay Lohan was bullied in real life. I wish her the best.

[–] db20db (17754) 2 years ago

While I've been an effective "team player" at times in my life when it was necessary, I've also been very independent, nonconformist, even rebellious from a very young age.

It's a great film in how it spoofs the cliquishness that exists during the high school years, preparing us for more of the same in adulthood.

[–] Keelai (36157) 2 years ago

I do my own thing, too.

My high school had no peer pressure. I hanged out with a friendly group, not cliquish.

[–] db20db (17754) 2 years ago

Also relevant, a Paul Harvey classic I listened to just yesterday: https://madlyodd.com/paul-harvey-tells-the-rest-of-the-story-about-elvis/

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

jordan petersen is batshit crazy

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

Agreed, as are any of his adherents both on the MRA (Mens Rights Activists) political right and the anti-trans faux-feminist 'left'. Gender essentialists are such morons. Alas, there are a good few on this site (some of whom have the NERVE to self-identify as 'progressives' and 'feminists'. They are NOTHING of the sort).

[–] Keelai (36157) 2 years ago

Nothing feministic about a woman who sleeps with another woman's husband and breaks-up their marriage.

[–] HarveyManFredSin (4877) 2 years ago

I neither agree nor disagree (although I actually appreciate the implication of your post, because you seem to quite rightly be rejecting the idea of gender essentialism/gender supremacy, by saying that people are defined by their actions, and not their identity, a point I've long championed).

But my above response to hownos had nothing to do with Nicole Simpson Brown nor you. It was simply a criticism of gender essentialism, as propagated by members of the MRA right, *and* some self-identifying feminists.

To your credit, you don't appear to be an example of what I'm talking about. On the contrary, if you're criticising Nicole Simpson Brown for breaking up a marriage, you seem to be acknowledging that not all women are innately virtuous (and that, like I say, we should be defined by our actions, and not our identity, including our sex/gender). That said, I'm not going to get into specifics with respect to Nicole Simpson Brown. This isn't an attack on you, but too often the blame for breaking up a marriage is exclusively and unfairly blamed on the woman, when BOTH parties are to blame (arguably the one who's already married/in a relationship to the greater degree).

Still, if we're going to refer to Nicole Simpson Brown, it should still be emphasised that none of her actions (and I've *never* regarded her as a 'saint'), should detract from the tragedy and horror of what was done to her.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7386) 2 years ago

This comes off as an argument from someone who was outwitted and made to feel their opinion was wrong simply because they couldn't back it up with facts on the situation. However, it's an opinion, it doesn't have to be informed by facts - but the less you know, the less credibility your opinion has, that's just how it works, it's not personal.

As for picking a side, we're all picking sides when it comes to news stories, that's just our natural bias at work. Your bias may be X, hers may be Z and the truth may actually be Y, or it may be another letter entirely. The point is, someone didn't agree with you and used facts they had on hand to demonstrate why your opinion was flawed. That doesn't make them wrong, and it doesn't make you wrong, because again it's all opinion. But don't feel wounded and nurse your ego by shitting on people for educating themselves. It's such an outdated method to treated someone who's smart and educated as an "egghead" as if that's an insult.

And books smarts often inform emotional intelligence. As you probably know, more women go to college than men and are also viewed as more emotionally intelligent, so it would make sense to assume there's correlation between the two.

In conclusion, I don't think someone disagreeing with you has to feel like a personal attack every time, you can just calmly agree to disagree as adults.