Sex

Posturing is important if you want to separate yourself from some people or behavior, otherwise you end up complicit. I would say it is the reverse of pathetic, but it can be if that is all you do to some degree. Mainly about image I suppose, but not necessarily, if you truly believe in something.

I was using posturing only to mean asserting yourself for internal gratification. If there are stakes on the table and you use something like virtue-signalling to achieve it, I find it agreeable.

My idea was based on, for instance, somebody who will humiliate another with no aim of external or 'objective' goal like the corporate jockeying we mentioned earlier. If there's nothing to play for, there's no need for it, and I see it as personal weakness. Telling somebody of your moral superiority when it does nothing but bolster your ego is useless.

I guess I relate it to utility. Your conviction, even if sincere, is meaningless in an environment where there is no change to affect. Middle managers who want to use their new found power over petty non-issues are an example of this. There was nothing to play for. What are you doing? Put it away

Contrast wrote:In response to that post, ^, that makes sense but I for some reason cant understand why that is attractive with no external gain

... it makes them feel good.

shock_the_monkey wrote:a quick word about 'daisy chaining', as i call it (i'm an ex-aerospace engineer, so the expression comes from connecting electronic devices in series). when you link together pieces of information about someone on a public forum, you don't have to identify that person yourself. you've thereby created a path for someone else to follow in order for them to do it for you, whether you meant to or not. effectively, it could be viewed as doxxing by proxy.

There is no link between my old username and my personal information. I just googled it. Led only to psychforum, collarchat (whose forum has been deep sixed), and a nonexistent account on Twitter.

I wish you would consider unbanning Will (I assume that's what happened). What he said put me at no risk at all, either from him or by proxy.

shock_the_monkey wrote:

Contrast wrote:In response to that post, ^, that makes sense but I for some reason cant understand why that is attractive with no external gain

... it makes them feel good.

How do you know there's no "external gain" /nothing positive accomplished, besides "feeling good" or superior?

perejil wrote:

shock_the_monkey wrote:a quick word about 'daisy chaining', as i call it (i'm an ex-aerospace engineer, so the expression comes from connecting electronic devices in series). when you link together pieces of information about someone on a public forum, you don't have to identify that person yourself. you've thereby created a path for someone else to follow in order for them to do it for you, whether you meant to or not. effectively, it could be viewed as doxxing by proxy.

There is no link between my old username and my personal information. I just googled it. Led only to psychforum, collarchat (whose forum has been deep sixed), and a nonexistent account on Twitter.

I wish you would consider unbanning Will (I assume that's what happened). What he said put me at no risk at all, either from him or by proxy.

... i reported the daisy chain. at the time you were questioning his motive for having done it. you certainly weren't saying it was false. as such, i had no choice but to take it seriously. i have neither the power to ban or un-ban a user. if what you say is true, what he did was very foolish indeed. i can't say more than that.

perejil wrote:

shock_the_monkey wrote:

Contrast wrote:In response to that post, ^, that makes sense but I for some reason cant understand why that is attractive with no external gain

... it makes them feel good.

How do you know there's no "external gain" /nothing positive accomplished, besides "feeling good" or superior?

... let me ask you this: what would it have been?

Each of the last three responses by you has opened with an ellipse. What do you think you're trying to indicate in your tone there?

shock_the_monkey wrote:... i reported the daisy chain. at the time you were questioning his motive for having done it. you certainly weren't saying it was false. as such, i had no choice but to take it seriously. i have neither the power to ban or un-ban a user. if what you say is true, what he did was very foolish indeed. i can't say more than that.

I'm sorry shock_the_monkey. I didn't mean to single you out. I didn't mean you personally, i meant, rather, the administration.

I did, and do, question Will's motives for posting what he did. There used to be a link between my old nic and my info. I thought there still was, since I didn't Google it right away. Will risked being banned in doing what he did, certainly. Banning him wasn't the wrong decision and I understand the reason for it.

I didn't mean to question or attack you. Whether or not my info was exposed, it was still a dumb thing for Will to do.

It's just that whoever made the decision may not have been aware that nothing was actually exposed. I don't know if that changes anything, but it's something to consider, if it hasn't been considered already. That's all I meant, and I'm sorry for the trouble.

perejil wrote:

shock_the_monkey wrote:... i reported the daisy chain. at the time you were questioning his motive for having done it. you certainly weren't saying it was false. as such, i had no choice but to take it seriously. i have neither the power to ban or un-ban a user. if what you say is true, what he did was very foolish indeed. i can't say more than that.

I'm sorry shock_the_monkey. I didn't mean to single you out. I didn't mean you personally, i meant, rather, the administration.

... you couldn't have know that i made that report. as such, you couldn't have meant to single me out. indeed, i didn't have to admit to having done it. however, i do personally believe in some degree of transparency. and i do have to say that, for better or worse, i am now a part of that administration. a decision that i took for what i believe is the greater good.

perejil wrote:I did, and do, question Will's motives for posting what he did. There used to be a link between my old nic and my info. I thought there still was, since I didn't Google it right away. Will risked being banned in doing what he did, certainly. Banning him wasn't the wrong decision and I understand the reason for it.

I didn't mean to question or attack you. Whether or not my info was exposed, it was still a dumb thing for Will to do.

It's just that whoever made the decision may not have been aware that nothing was actually exposed. I don't know if that changes anything, but it's something to consider, if it hasn't been considered already. That's all I meant, and I'm sorry for the trouble.

... that there was a link only serves to underline that this could have been a serious threat. i personally don't think that this being no longer the case makes any difference here. the threat of anyone exposing someone else's identity here could have serious consequences. anyone willing to do so is a serious risk to this community. a risk that must be mitigated.

solemnlysworn wrote:Each of the last three responses by you has opened with an ellipse. What do you think you're trying to indicate in your tone there?

... they indicate flow, as in i'm leading from or to something. it's style, not tone.