Grumble Thread

[french frank]

Taking up the last point in message 2875, maybe we need a new sub-forum ('The Wine Bar' perhaps) where we can speak more freely and say things that might be unaccepable elsewhere...) .

The problem with people using the Post view and mentioning message numbers is that those of us who use the Latest Activity view and change over to locate the message number find that the numbers don't correspond. No 2875 on my view is about Amazon delivery problems. It's better to use the quote facility so that you can show the precise point you are referring to.

My reference to wine bar discussions simply indicated that I don't think forums like this are the place to express one's personal opinions about other forum members based on what they post here.

[Serial_Apologist]

Does a desire, or perceived need, to join one or more such groups possibly indicate difficulty in establishing self-belief? As far as I'm aware, I'm not a member of any groups, but happy to meet friends and acquaintances in different circumstances in different places for different purposes. We don't have agendas, none of us feels threatened by other individuals or groups, and I'm pretty sure we don't pause a threat to anybody.

As to your opening sentence, it would be difficult establishing general defining principles. For many the advent of "social media" appears to have given permission to vent extreme prejudices they would otherwise for long have been expected to keep to themselves. In my own case I have had the opportunity to have long held views I had formed and evolved without endorsement from others corroborated on various radical left wing sites and broadcasts, having been out of active politics for reasons of circumstance and skepticism for several decades. To me this does indeed indicate my personal need for wider endorsement, in order to rid myself of the growing feeling that "all this" might be figments of a mind approaching the end of its tether! I don't think it's difficult to work out many reasons why many people are lacking in self-belief irrespective of "politics", when the grounds for establishing and maintaining self-belief, which have always been conditional on conformism to social norms, are constantly being shifted amid the glare of public opinion, courtesy said social media, thereby, often for the sake of reputation preservation, reinforcing mindset rigidities beyond issues of "personality type".

[french frank]

To take a mild example , groups of teenage girls who often say 'OmyGod' frequently.

Mere followers where men lead

There's a lady who walks her dog near my house , quite well-dressed, smiles ; you might expect her to be quiet and polite

And respectful too, I hope

[Serial_Apologist]

Quite so. When I say 'groups' I wasn't suggesting formal organisations with a membership list or an agenda, simpy 'the people we know and who tend to agree with us'. If we see and hear only (or largely) their views it can lead to narrowing horizons and distrust of outsiders . We can become disturbed by the language and opinions of others, which seem normal to them or to their 'group'.

To take a mild example , groups of teenage girls who often say 'OmyGod' frequently. Some poeple who don't use this term might be uncomfortable, even if they are not theists. There's a lady who walks her dog near my house , quite well-dressed, smiles ; you might expect her to be quiet and polite but when she opens her mouth it's raucous, and there's a 'bloody' in every sentence. Some might think that normal.

Self-awareness comes into this. We can be aware of how we "come across" to other people, but cannot be responsible for other's lack of this apparent capacity. Happily while it may irritate the extent to which it does can be relative to my capacity to accept the quirks and irritations of others, which is in turn a function of sensitivity - not only to their feelings, their feelings about my possible feelings (and what motivates them), and my feelings about their feelings about me. Simple Laingian phenomenology (c.f his "Knots") - all of which proceed within a mostly unacknowledged ideological frame. All societies evolve behavioural and attitudinal norms for belonging, they are needed to make human actions understandable, What (rhetorically speaking) are the underpinning values that make or break our society? Who do they benefit, who sticks to them or breaks them, and who in the end gains the most? In the end it all comes down to legitimacy, and that is an expression of class. Which raises other issues about power, empowerment, trickle-down (a misdiagnosis in effect of downward pressure), imbalances in representation, affordability, sustainability, all of which can be sorted in context and, thereby, the abovementioned problems seen and judged in proportion.

[LMcD]

Self-awareness comes into this. We can be aware of how we "come across" to other people, but cannot be responsible for other's lack of this apparent capacity. Happily while it may irritate the extent to which it does can be relative to my capacity to accept the quirks and irritations of others, which is in turn a function of sensitivity - not only to their feelings, their feelings about my possible feelings (and what motivates them), and my feelings about their feelings about me. Simple Laingian phenomenology (c.f his "Knots") - all of which proceed within a mostly unacknowledged ideological frame. All societies evolve behavioural and attitudinal norms for belonging, they are needed to make human actions understandable, What (rhetorically speaking) are the underpinning values that make or break our society? Who do they benefit, who sticks to them or breaks them, and who in the end gains the most? In the end it all comes down to legitimacy, and that is an expression of class. Which raises other issues about power, empowerment, trickle-down (a misdiagnosis in effect of downward pressure), imbalances in representation, affordability, sustainability, all of which can be sorted in context and, thereby, the abovementioned problems seen and judged in proportion.

What's the point of joining one of these online groups where you'll probably never meet any other members in person, and thus miss out on the many advantages of personal interactions? Talking in person to somebody who disagrees with you can sometimes be even more beneficial than talking to somebody who agrees with you all or most of the time. One of the people at our Thursday morning social gathering no longer irritates me as much as he used to (he sometimes intervenes in other peoples' games and effectively takes them over) because somebody else told me that he's autistic - something which I was not clever enough to recognize, but to which I can now react more positively and sensitively.

[vinteuil]

What's the point of joining one of these online groups where you'll probably never meet any other members in person, and thus miss out on the many advantages of personal interactions?.

... wot, like this one???

[oddoneout]

What's the point of joining one of these online groups where you'll probably never meet any other members in person, and thus miss out on the many advantages of personal interactions? Talking in person to somebody who disagrees with you can sometimes be even more beneficial than talking to somebody who agrees with you all or most of the time. One of the people at our Thursday morning social gathering no longer irritates me as much as he used to (he sometimes intervenes in other peoples' games and effectively takes them over) because somebody else told me that he's autistic - something which I was not clever enough to recognize, but to which I can now react more positively and sensitively.

It doesn't have to be either/or though does it? Pursuing an interest can be done in a live group, via the internet, or a mixture of both, with inclination or circumstance determining which.
The virtual route does perhaps make it easier for the extreme views of some groups to reach larger audiences more quickly, but if inclination and driving factors are present such groups will exist even without the internet.

[LMcD]

... wot, like this one???

I look upon the Forum as a platform for the exchange of information and views rather than a group with a particular agenda.

[smittims]

Thank for that note about Jacky Fisher,ff. I didn't know that, and I suspect that the many girls who say it (I've honestly neevr heard a boy, an adult woman or man say it ) get it from the female characters in Friends who say it . I'd be surprised if they've heard of Jacky Fisher.

[french frank]

Thank for that note about Jacky Fisher,ff. I didn't know that, and I suspect that the many girls who say it (I've honestly neevr heard a boy, an adult woman or man say it ) get it from the female characters in Friends who say it .

Interesting: "While there is a common stereotype that girls say "OMG" more, studies and observations don't consistently support a definitive answer, and it's likely influenced by media portrayals and individual speech patterns. Historically, some research has found that females may use certain exclamations more than males, while other studies show no significant difference or that other factors are more influential.

Stereotypes and perception: Media portrayals have created a strong stereotype that young women are more likely to use "OMG" and similar phrases. This perception might lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy where people are more likely to notice and remember these instances when they are performed by females."

So there you have it - you've been watching Neighbours too much, smittims! Just as listening to Woman's Hour reinforces your perceptions about feminists. Does that make sense?

[LMcD]

[QUOTE=french frank;n1350094]

Media portrayals have created a strong stereotype that young women are more likely to use "OMG" [/B]and similar phrases./QUOTE]

I mentioned this to a female friend of mine, who replied 'Oh my God - you're right!'.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Interesting: "While there is a common stereotype that girls say "OMG" more, studies and observations don't consistently support a definitive answer, and it's likely influenced by media portrayals and individual speech patterns. Historically, some research has found that females may use certain exclamations more than males, while other studies show no significant difference or that other factors are more influential.

Stereotypes and perception: Media portrayals have created a strong stereotype that young women are more likely to use "OMG" and similar phrases. This perception might lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy where people are more likely to notice and remember these instances when they are performed by females."

So there you have it - you've been watching Neighbours too much, smittims! Just as listening to Woman's Hour reinforces your perceptions about feminists. Does that make sense?

Based on my times watching Real Housewives Of .., in its various global iterations I can say with a reasonable amount of confidence that American middle-aged women say OMG at every conceivable opportunity. Also “like” is used a great deal even when redundant as in “ she was…like …so rude to me.” Of course speech patterns on the media feeds back into real life. It’s thought that upspeak - prevalent amongst UK female teens started with the popularity of Neighbours in the ‘80’s. The latest trend is so called vocal fry which is now the subject of quite a lot of academic study,

[LMcD]

Based on my times watching Real Housewives Of .., in its various global iterations I can say with a reasonable amount of confidence that American middle-aged women say OMG at every conceivable opportunity. Also “like” is used a great deal even when redundant as in “ she was…like …so rude to me.” Of course speech patterns on the media feeds back into real life. It’s thought that upspeak - prevalent amongst UK female teens started with the popularity of Neighbours in the ‘80’s. The latest trend is so called vocal fry which is now the subject of quite a lot of academic study,

Would that be Stephen, by any chance?

[french frank]

Based on my times watching Real Housewives Of .., in its various global iterations

I honestly hadn't realised how much I've been missing by not having a television It may be that girls and women react more spontaneously than men, but OMG (which maye be considered a mild profanity by some) has simply replaced Gosh! Golly! Gordon Bennett! Gorblimey! Crikey! Cripes! Crumbs! Some are possibly used (if at all nowadays) more by men than women. I suspect the words more used by men are simply kept off the television screens and seldom encountered unless people frequent certain environments.

[oddoneout]

Based on my times watching Real Housewives Of .., in its various global iterations I can say with a reasonable amount of confidence that American middle-aged women say OMG at every conceivable opportunity. Also “like” is used a great deal even when redundant as in “ she was…like …so rude to me.” Of course speech patterns on the media feeds back into real life. It’s thought that upspeak - prevalent amongst UK female teens started with the popularity of Neighbours in the ‘80’s. The latest trend is so called vocal fry which is now the subject of quite a lot of academic study,

Whereas during the time I was watching the various American property based programmes(buying and make-over) I was struck by the fact that OMG was 'Oh my goodness' when expressing surprise at what they were seeing. That I suspect owed a lot to the locations, as some of the series were based in what I think are Bible belt areas.