TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- **** couples that make you sick
Pages (5): « 1 [2] 3 4 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The source of your disgust is really that they are over-acting, and as a result the performance is not convincing enough to serve its social function

unless they love each other, then you're wrong, aren't you?

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey unless they love each other, then you're wrong, aren't you?

No, they are playing at the role of a romantic couple regardless of their state of emotion. There is nothing inherent to the emotion "love" that ties it to any of the behaviors associated with it (with the possible exception of coitus) - rather, these behaviors are a social construct for what it is "to be a couple in love" and that is the role that they are playing at (poorly, in this case).

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter No, they are playing at the role of a romantic couple regardless of their state of emotion. There is nothing inherent to the emotion "love" that ties it to any of the behaviors associated with it (with the possible exception of coitus) - rather, these behaviors are a social construct for what it is "to be a couple in love" and that is the role that they are playing at (poorly, in this case).

lol spoken like a true romantic

love has nothing to do with sex or "coitus"

and the smartest sounding people are the stupidest people alive sometimes. in fact, some insanely smart people are the stupidest people I know. 170, 180 IQ means shit. not that you have an IQ that high, but you clearly want to sound smart using words like coitus instead of sex, well guess what buddy, nobody cares that you've never loved anyone that certain way some people have. you know nothing. love is not an act, pretending to be wise and preaching about something you don't know is.

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey lol spoken like a true romantic love has nothing to do with sex or "coitus" and the smartest sounding people are the stupidest people alive sometimes. in fact, some insanely smart people are the stupidest people I know. 170, 180 IQ means shit. not that you have an IQ that high, but you clearly want to sound smart using words like coitus instead of sex, well guess what buddy, nobody cares that you've never loved anyone that certain way some people have. you know nothing. love is not an act, pretending to be wise and preaching about something you don't know is.

So many people have a lot of trouble with the concept of irony...

We should use your post in illustrating this concept to people who aren't quite certain of the meaning behind the word.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On So many people have a lot of trouble with the concept of irony... We should use your post in illustrating this concept to people who aren't quite certain of the meaning behind the word.

at least i'd never use the word coitus

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey lol spoken like a true romantic love has nothing to do with sex or "coitus" and the smartest sounding people are the stupidest people alive sometimes. in fact, some insanely smart people are the stupidest people I know. 170, 180 IQ means shit. not that yo have an IQ that high, but you clearly want to sound smart using words like coitus instead of sex, well guess what buddy, nobody cares that you've never loved anyone that certain way some people have. you know nothing. love is not an act, pretending to be wise and preaching about something you don't know is.

You're completely misunderstanding what I am saying. When I say they are acting I am not saying that their feelings aren't genuine.

I'll refer you to my original post:

quote:

Everybody (whether they know it or not) expects the people around them to play at the various roles they fill. It's just an act - but it's something we all do.

In the sense I am saying that they are acting, almost all behavior is also a form of acting. When you go to the grocery store, you'll see people acting in the role of cashiers, and people acting in the role of shoppers - that doesn't mean that they aren't really cashiers, or aren't really shoppers - it just means that their behavior is an act predicated on a general notion of what it is "to be a cashier" or "to be a shopper." Likewise, when I say that people who believe that they are in love are playing the role of a person in love, I am not saying "but they're not really in love." I am saying that their behavior is an act predicated on a general notion of what it is "to be in love."

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey at least i'd never use the word coitus

You've used it three times in this thread so far, which is three times more than Arbiter has.

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey at least i'd never use the word coitus

I'm not sure why you're hung up on this, but "coitus" and "sex" aren't perfectly interchangable. In particular, sex can be taken to include a much wider range of acts than coitus. I chose the word that most precisely described the intended meaning - imagine that.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Everybody (whether they know it or not) expects the people around them to play at the various roles they fill. It's just an act - but it's something we all do. The source of your disgust is really that they are over-acting, and as a result the performance is not convincing enough to serve its social function. Because we tend to interpret human behavior and human interactions in terms of generalities, a poor job of playing at that specific role creates friction between the general idea of romantic relationships and the image that is being presented by the actors involved in a specific relationship. Your "social intuition," so to speak, rejects that image because it is not consistent with expected generality - and the resulting feeling is quite naturally one of disgust or displeasure.

A most awesome post Arbiter.

I find that a LOT of disgust/displease comes, not necessarily, from the actions of people, but from their actions WHEN COMPARED WITH your expected actions of those people.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter You're completely misunderstanding what I am saying. When I say they are acting I am not saying that their feelings aren't genuine.

So being genuine and acting are coexistent in your world?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I'm not sure why you're hung up on this, but "coitus" and "sex" aren't perfectly interchangable. In particular, sex can be taken to include a much wider range of acts than coitus. I chose the word that most precisely described the intended meaning - imagine that.

if everyone went around doing that, we'd all be speaking Latin

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On You've used it three times in this thread so far, which is three times more than Arbiter has.

lol touche

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey So being genuine and acting are coexistent in your world?

It depends entirely on the sense in which the word is being used.

For example:

"He convinced me that he was a doctor, but he was just acting."

In this case, it's obviously not compatible.

Contrast with this:

"He was acting angry."

In this case, the person being described may have been genuinely angry - what is being expressed is that his behavior was consistent with the general notion of how an angry person behaves. Whether or not he was actually angry is left ambiguous and may be unknown to the speaker.

I predict an argument over semantics.

Wait...

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter It depends entirely on the sense in which the word is being used. For example: "He convinced me that he was a doctor, but he was just acting." In this case, it's obviously not compatible. Contrast with this: "He was acting angry." In this case, the person being described may have been genuinely angry - what is being expressed is that his behavior was consistent with the general notion of how an angry person behaves. Whether or not he was actually angry is left ambiguous and may be unknown to the speaker.

So acting has more than one definition? do like, other words have multiple definitions too?

You used the specific term "over-acting" ... how do you "over-act" exactly if you're acting angry?

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey You used the specific term "over-acting" ... how do you "over-act" exactly if you're acting angry?

The same way you would regardless of the sense in which the word "acting" is being used: by exhibiting behavior that is exaggerated compared with what is expected by the observer. This tends to have the effect of making it seem more like the deceptive type of act - but the fact that it gives that impression doesn't necessarily mean that the impression is true, it could just be that the person acting angry tends to behave a little differently than most people do when they are genuinely angry.

quote:

Originally posted by Caela oh man...this is a can of worms. i know better than to start. damn lets just say it fucking sucks getting your heart broken. but that's just growing up...right?

it's a part of growing up and experiences
but is it necessary to have all the pain and sufferring involved?

i guess it makes us stronger

quote:

Originally posted by CranberryJuice i guess it makes us stronger

That's what people say after their relationship. When they are in that relationship however, they have no desire to become stronger. I wonder why that is...

Possibly because it's not true? Perhaps it is just how people justify their feelings so that they can still feel a sense of pride and maintain a healthy level of self-esteem. At least until they find somebody else again and become weak once more.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The same way you would regardless of the sense in which the word "acting" is being used: by exhibiting behavior that is exaggerated compared with what is expected by the observer. This tends to have the effect of making it seem more like the deceptive type of act - but the fact that it gives that impression doesn't necessarily mean that the impression is true, it could just be that the person acting angry tends to behave a little differently than most people do when they are genuinely angry.

running for cover eh?

"the person acting angry tends to behave a little differently than most people do when they are genuinely angry"

if you act angry, you act angry. you cannot over-act angry. you are basing the "over-action" (or "exaggeration" now that you are backpedaling) on someone else's standard of that act.

at this point you have to separate the two forms of acting. acting on true emotion ie. "her emotional state made her act erratic"

and acting as performance ie. "the part of the play where she was acting as though she was angry was not convincing in the least"

since in your post you said "The source of your disgust is really that they are over-acting, and as a result the performance is not convincing enough..." you are implying the performance definition

just because the genuine standard of the observer does not match the performance they are seeing, does not mean that what they are seeing is in fact a performance. that would be a huge assumption since nobody in the world knows exactly what another is thinking at a given time.

anyways im tired man, maybe I misunderstood your first post, I will re-read it tomorrow. But you should be more specific in terms of true emotion and performance.

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey running for cover eh? "the person acting angry tends to behave a little differently than most people do when they are genuinely angry" if you act angry, you act angry. you cannot over-act angry. you are basing the "over-action" (or "exaggeration" now that you are backpedaling) on someone else's standard of that act. at this point you have to separate the two forms of acting. acting on true emotion ie. "her emotional state made her act erratic" and acting as performance ie. "the part of the play where she was acting as though she was angry was not convincing in the least" since in your post you said "The source of your disgust is really that they are over-acting, and as a result the performance is not convincing enough..." you are implying the performance definition just because the genuine standard of the observer does not match the performance they are seeing, does not mean that what they are seeing is in fact a performance. that would be a huge assumption since nobody in the world knows exactly what another is thinking at a given time.

You seem angry.

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk You seem angry.

i'm not sleepy though

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey But you should be more specific in terms of true emotion and performance.

Weren't you criticizing him for his specificity earlier in this thread?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Weren't you criticizing him for his specificity earlier in this thread?

weren't you criticizing my critique earlier in your podcast?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.