# Are you a misanthrope?



## NurseCat (Jan 20, 2015)

When upset I err on the side of misanthropy sometimes, but otherwise I'm not. I just think people can be self-defeating.


----------



## Lexicon Devil (Mar 14, 2014)

Trying to be less of one everyday.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

I'm the ENTP. I'm supposed to be the hateful elitist creature but.. I'm not?

But... I have a weird relationship with value judgments. Depending on what it is that the value judgment should be about. Some people say they "love animals", but I don't see what's there to love. Not that I have anything against animals, but I don't see the point in the having any sort of opinion on "animals as a whole". If I'm making any sense/being clear.

So... I'm also not a misanthrope in the sense that... I just.. don't understand what the point of it would be. Whether I like or dislike humans, or humanity.. society will go on and do what it does anyway. And since there is no objective standard to measure the quality of humanity by, I really don't see anything worth having an opinion over.

Basically, you could say that I'm indifferent about society/humanity/people. Then there are people that I like/love, and I will like/love them. But for the most part, I'm just indifferent. I don't think there's people I actually "hate" or "dislike", I just "nothing" them instead.

Clearly, music and the arts are things that I have opinions on but, that's kinda what they're there for.


----------



## KevinHeaven (Apr 6, 2015)

I want to control people so I could save the world. Even my good causes are evil.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Tsubaki said:


> Well, I'm a little misanthrope-ish, but I wouldn't go as far as calling myself a misanthrope.
> It's a bit complicated, because although I like people, I don't really care for them. I just can't empathize with anyone, I don't know well and when I was younger, I even had a few friends, that I couldn't empathize with at all. I'm just that kind of person who walks past a beggar and thinks "Well, I'm glad, that I'm not you".
> 
> It's not like I hate people, maybe they are nice or something, but I just don't care about what happens to them. I like to be around people, but exept for a few, I'm not really emotionally attached to them. I constantly have to remind myself to be nice to people and respect them and I have to consciously count "points" for how much a person has given to me or supported me and I try to give them just as much "points" back.


People like you are part of the reason why I loathe humanity. 

You are not alone is this mild psychopathic behaviour, most of the humans are like you, you are just brave enough to admit it.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

No, I don't like cantaloupes. I self-identify as a watermelon.

In all seriousness though, absolutely not. I can't even conceptualize this. Why would you hate humankind? That would be like hating yourself. Or is this for people who think they're better than humankind? It seems pointless to me. You can find good and bad in people. If you choose to focus on the bad, then thats your choice to make.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Derange At 170 said:


> I'm the ENTP. I'm supposed to be the hateful elitist creature but.. I'm not?
> 
> But... I have a weird relationship with value judgments. Depending on what it is that the value judgment should be about. Some people say they "love animals", but I don't see what's there to love. Not that I have anything against animals, but I don't see the point in the having any sort of opinion on "animals as a whole". If I'm making any sense/being clear.
> 
> ...


Music and arts won't change or stop being there or develop overnight because of your opinions on it. The same way the world won't stop existing if we hate it. All opinions are subjective in nature and if we're to use the logic that "doesn't change anything so why bother" then we might as well seize expressing opinions in general, as most of them don't result in anything material.

I don't get why people (not only you, I'm the same way at times and so are lots of others) are so stuck in their own ways. They can't think outside of the box. Hell, they can't even find the damn box. Before dismissing anything try and think/test it in any way possible.

You say you don't understand how some people "love animals" because you yourself are only neutral to them. Well, guess what, not everybody is like you or me or the other posters and not trying to understand something because you have an entirely diffeent view is in my opinion mighty ignorant. 

People love animals for a myriad of reasons. Some do so because animals saved their lives or helped them in various ways (police dogs, seeing eye dogs etc). When an animal loves you (they are capable of afection) it's very clear (they lick your face, wiggle their tail, jump up and down, are all excited and happy and wants you to cuddle or pet them) and this gives a very positive emotional vibe. Animals do not know evilness. They are just as pure as infants are. Which make them so much easier to be loved than humans. Dogs will love their human forever. If there's a bond, it's until death. Humans love each other until they find no use out of each other anymore. Animals are cute and young ones remind us of human babies which creates a powerful "i want to protect you" feeling. 

There are just so many reasons for why people do/like/say the things they say. Before dismissing them as idiotic, weird, not understandable let's take them time to actually listen.


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

No. Despite my outward tendencies, I believe that at my core, I love our species. It is why I am so frequently disappointed.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

stiletto said:


> No. Despite my outward tendencies, I believe that at my core, I love our species. It is why I am so frequently disappointed.


Do you enjoy being disappointed?


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

I'm guessing Gen-Z will be over-represented in the yes category.


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

Convex said:


> Do you enjoy being disappointed?


Who does? But just because I am disappointed does that mean I inherently hate? No.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Yup, pretty much.

People suck.
.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Yomiel said:


> I'm guessing Gen-Z will be over-represented in the yes category.


The artificial will often be misrepresented, and accused of all, thus stereotyping the term, and make less of the sincere.



stiletto said:


> Who does?


Then why do you hold expectations that most people [you met] cannot meet? It wouldn't be surprising if you subconsciously [do not know], or consciously [do not want to admit]: actually enjoy being disappointed for various reasons, but usually to artificially create blame, which is thus less stress on you. [another example of a human taking the path of least resistance, which is all too common and natural]


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Convex said:


> The artificial will often be misrepresented, and accused of all, thus stereotyping the term, and make less of the sincere.


You want to write that more clearly, because I've got about three hours of sleep the past few nights and I'm not really in the mood to decipher it. If your point is simply that I'm generalizing, no shit.


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

Convex said:


> Then why do you hold expectations that most people [you met] cannot meet? It wouldn't be surprising if you subconsciously [do not know], or consciously [do not want to admit]: actually enjoy being disappointed for various reasons, but usually to artificially create blame, which is thus less stress on you. [another example of a human taking the path of least resistance, which is all too common and natural]


While I appreciate the arm-chair psychology you're attempting your hand at, my expectations are a reflection of my optimistic view of human potentials. The way I FEEL (disappointed) about some of the results are irrelevant to the overall evidence and progress we have achieved, that we are here, alive, thriving, existing, learning, experiencing. 

Human beings are neither absolute good nor absolute evil, I cannot say that I hate our species. I love us because we can be both.

I am externally pessimistic and usually right about being disappointed but that only serves to motivate the need for change. The is no need for condemnation.


----------



## Mair (Feb 17, 2014)

Only sometimes...


----------



## you dont know what luv is (Sep 26, 2012)

Yes. Does that answer your question? I didn't think so.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> Music and arts won't change or stop being there or develop overnight because of your opinions on it. The same way the world won't stop existing if we hate it. All opinions are subjective in nature and if we're to use the logic that "doesn't change anything so why bother" then we might as well seize expressing opinions in general, as most of them don't result in anything material.
> 
> I don't get why people (not only you, I'm the same way at times and so are lots of others) are so stuck in their own ways. They can't think outside of the box. Hell, they can't even find the damn box. Before dismissing anything try and think/test it in any way possible.
> 
> ...


You misunderstand _everything_ I've said.

I've never said that I don't "get" why people "love animals". I loved my dog, but that's just one dog. There is a difference between loving a particular animal, and loving the of the entire category of "animals . But... having been "saved" by a St. Bernard after a ski accident would make me like the fact that I've been saved by that St. Bernard, not animals as a whole.

I've never said that that I don't "get" how other people function in the _literal_ sense. I was just saying that this type of thinking has absolutely no bearing on how _I_ think. And before you make the claim that the world doesn't revolve around _me_. This is also correct, but it's not the point I'm trying to make either; this thread is a poll asking if people are they're misanthropes. I have merely stated I personally am not and I explained _why_ I am not. I drew the analogy to say that to me being a "misanthrope" would be a lot like saying that I "love animals". Which is an odd concept to me, since I don't see how loving one animal in particular, should necessate me to love all animals. I'm an indifferent person. I'm indifferent to the animal kingdom or humanity. What I do like are some individual animals, or some inidividual people.

I think I will retract what I've said about the arts because actually, it's the same with that. I don't love "music" in the sense that I have any attachment to "music as a whole". But I do enjoy the music that I Like. But this would not prompt me to say that "I love music" any more like this would prompt me to say that I love or hate "humanity".


----------



## Tsubaki (Apr 14, 2015)

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> People like you are part of the reason why I loathe humanity.
> 
> You are not alone is this mild psychopathic behaviour, most of the humans are like you, you are just brave enough to admit it.


Well, there's nobody who could blame you for that attitude. It certaily is a way of dealing with people and if you're fine with being negative about humanity, it's actually an interesting option.
I know, that my way isn't ethical or anything, but when I get into a discussion, I'm usually convinced, that at least half of the people who are shocked, because of my harsh arguments, actually think quite similarly.


----------



## westlose (Oct 9, 2014)

Everything is relative. There are good people and bad people.

I can't hate humanity as a whole. But I guess that we can hate the dumb majority.

This world is like a sandbox, there is everything, and you can do everything. This is why this world is interesting.

There are so many aspects of the same thing. Talking in absolute is quite hard, when things are so everchanging and diversify.


----------



## The Doctor (May 29, 2015)

I don't think anyone here can truly hate people to the extent of not being able to stand talking to others. They're here on a forum, after all.

I generally dislike people (minus a handful of people, usually after I've gotten to know them), but I need people at the same time, and it annoys me. I don't need them as much as an extrovert needs people, but sometimes I need confirmation from others about myself- and I HATE that.
And that's basically what it's like to have inferior Fe.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

stiletto said:


> my expectations are a reflection of my optimistic view of human potentials. The way I FEEL (disappointed) about some of the results are irrelevant to the overall evidence and progress we have achieved, that we are here, alive, thriving, existing, learning, experiencing.


I am not criticizing the choice to hold impossible standards; I am criticizing how you don't expect failures when others try to reach them, which is usually an underlying, or ulterior motive. [that I presented last reply, in which you deflected]



> I am externally pessimistic and usually right about being disappointed but that only serves to motivate the need for change.


Being disappointed does not motivate you, failing motivates you; therefore, it is irrelevant to whether you are disappointed or not, though, why did you include it in the first response? I assume that indicates significance, which then brings me back to my theory last reply, again.



Yomiel said:


> You want to write that more clearly, because I've got about three hours of sleep the past few nights and I'm not really in the mood to decipher it. If your point is simply that I'm generalizing, no shit.


It's not a code, there is no need to decipher anything; lowering the significance of that term because of the artificial, makes less of the sincere.



The Doctor said:


> I don't think anyone here can truly hate people to the extent of not being able to stand talking to others. They're here on a forum, after all.


Socializing on a forum is different from socializing in real life.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

I fear the fool.


----------



## The Doctor (May 29, 2015)

Convex said:


> I am not criticizing the choice to hold impossible standards; I am criticizing how you don't expect failures when others try to reach them, which is usually an underlying, or ulterior motive. [that I presented last reply, in which you deflected]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True, but if you truly _hate_ people would you even want to interact on a forum with them?


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

The Doctor said:


> True, but if you truly _hate_ people would you even want to interact on a forum with them?


Misanthropes hate humankind, though, that does not mean they do not socialize [usually on the internet, you choose your discussions, when to reply, or even _if_ to reply] or have relationships with like-minded people.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Convex said:


> The artificial will often be misrepresented, and accused of all, thus stereotyping the term, and make less of the sincere.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you hold expectations that most people [you met] cannot meet? It wouldn't be surprising if you subconsciously [do not know], or consciously [do not want to admit]: actually enjoy being disappointed for various reasons, but usually to artificially create blame, which is thus less stress on you. [another example of a human taking the path of least resistance, which is all too common and natural]


Not expecting things from people is surely the best way of not getting disappointed, you're right. But for most people it takes a lot of practice. Expecting people to be one way or the other is only natural. Not expecting anything from anybody is liberating, but it comes with a price, it definitely makes you more of a cynic.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

I Was Defiled As A Child said:


> Yes. Does that answer your question? I didn't think so.


Why?


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Derange At 170 said:


> You misunderstand _everything_ I've said.
> 
> I've never said that I don't "get" why people "love animals". I loved my dog, but that's just one dog. There is a difference between loving a particular animal, and loving the of the entire category of "animals . But... having been "saved" by a St. Bernard after a ski accident would make me like the fact that I've been saved by that St. Bernard, not animals as a whole.
> 
> ...


Well, I completely misunderstood you then. Thanks for explaining it though, now it makes much more sense.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Tsubaki said:


> Well, there's nobody who could blame you for that attitude. It certaily is a way of dealing with people and if you're fine with being negative about humanity, it's actually an interesting option.
> I know, that my way isn't ethical or anything, but when I get into a discussion, I'm usually convinced, that at least half of the people who are shocked, because of my harsh arguments, actually think quite similarly.


You are right, most people (even the ones that seem shocked) will agree with you and have the same opinion. And I'm not judging you. Perhaps the words "mild psychopathic behaviour" were a bit exaggerated. However, this is why I fear for the future of humankind. Most of us grow more and more selfish, more and more obsessed with only ourselves and our families, too busy caring for the ego to even think of caring for a kind stranger.


----------



## an absurd man (Jul 22, 2012)

Nah, more likely the opposite.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> However, this is why I fear for the future of humankind.


Why ? The coexistence of **** and sapiens is a transitory issue. There are no Death Stars in the sky, wisdom already rules the universe. Only a few primitive fools secluded on a tiny planet still believe otherwise. Sapiens has a bright future.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

IDontThinkSo said:


> Why ? The coexistence of **** and sapiens is a transitory issue. There are no Death Stars in the sky, wisdom already rules the universe. Only a few primitive fools secluded on a tiny planet still believe otherwise. Sapiens has a bright future.


"Wisdom rules the universe" - really? Is this what the ToE physicists have always been looking for? "Wisdom rules the universe" is the most inaccurate piece of information I've seen all day. Maybe explain it to us "primitive fools" how you got to that conclusion? 

Humans will obviously continue to develop technologicaly and scientifically until one of the three results will happen : they will not be entirely human anymore, they will achieve enlightenment or they will destroy themselves.


----------



## Doktorin Zylinder (May 10, 2015)

I'm not so much an active misanthrope, but I don't really care for people and their dramatic idiocy, anymore. I've had too much and I'm not up for that kind of distress, anymore. Removing myself from most human contact, or at least contact that I can control, is what has become of me. The complete and utter stupidity on this planet is dumbfounding at times followed by an utterance of "idiot." At one point, I kind of moved towards hedonism because I figured the chances of me actually having any sort of lasting influence were nigh. I'm not much of a hedonist, though. Every day I watch the excrement that is humanity move ever closer to the rotating blades of reality soon to make a horrible mess. Very few things outside my personal interests concern me nowadays. I am looking forward to the bonfire when everything goes to hell one day. You can join me in my lawn chair whilst I sip my drink and watch everything burn.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

Misanthropy doesn't equate to an automatic hatred of all individual humans. The hate is big picture with small beginnings that can't ever be undone until one willingly chooses to forgo oneself and accept _human nature_; the ironies being that in all the hate of others, one has to hate the self regardless of how deluded they are in thinking they are above it because logically, they _are_ a part of it and in doing so(having the ability to set oneself aside) only opens their eyes further - while bringing them closer - to that which they detested to begin with. 

One can like, accept, need, want a person and still _dislike_ them because of their nature. i.e. I hate not the individual because of their actions; I hate their actions and because it is inherently human I - therefore hate humans, so by extension - hate the individual with their actions. 

Really though, how dare _I_ the individual _think_ to be greater than what genetic makeup, society dictates and evolution destines; _why_ would I possibly desire to become better?

Catch-22.


----------



## KevinHeaven (Apr 6, 2015)

BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Misanthropy doesn't equate to an automatic hatred of all individual humans. The hate is big picture with small beginnings that can't ever be undone until one willingly chooses to forgo oneself and accept _human nature_; the ironies being that in all the hate of others, one has to hate the self regardless of how deluded they are in thinking they are above it because logically, they _are_ a part of it and in doing so(having the ability to set oneself aside) only opens their eyes further - while bringing them closer - to that which they detested to begin with.
> 
> One can like, accept, need, want a person and still _dislike_ them because of their nature. i.e. I hate not the individual because of their actions; I hate their actions and because it is inherently human I - therefore hate humans, so by extension - hate the individual with their actions.
> 
> ...


I hate humans because I care about them so much. Thats how I feel. Ironic.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> Most of us grow more and more selfish, more and more obsessed with only ourselves and our families, too busy caring for the ego to even think of caring for a kind stranger.


And of the unkind strangers?


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> And of the unkind strangers?


I don't see why anyone should repay evilness with goodness. It depends on why they are unkind. Maybe it's because they're having a lousy day. Or maybe they're just assholes.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Convex said:


> It's not a code, there is no need to decipher anything; lowering the significance of that term because of the artificial, makes less of the sincere.


No, it's just a super vague (and grammatically incorrect) sentence. I don't know what "that term" is, or what "the artificial" is. Tip: if someone asks you to clarify what you mean, you probably shouldn't just repeat yourself.

Rereading the first comment with more sleep, I'm definitely getting the sense that you're saying (in the most bizarre way possible) that bad apples are over-represented in a group.


----------



## Trademark (Nov 13, 2014)

I still don't understand why this people have this kind of distrust towards human. This forum is a community, why are you here? this is not a zoo


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Trademark said:


> I still don't understand why this people have this kind of distrust towards human. This forum is a community, why are you here? this is not a zoo


I believe I am looking at a monkey.



Yomiel said:


> No, it's just a super vague (and grammatically incorrect) sentence. I don't know what "that term" is, or what "the artificial" is. Tip: if someone asks you to clarify what you mean, you probably shouldn't just repeat yourself.
> 
> Rereading the first comment with more sleep, I'm definitely getting the sense that you're saying (in the most bizarre way possible) that bad apples are over-represented in a group.


It's a vague statement on purpose, meant to be applied to every situation of this kind, not just this specific one. It's not grammatically incorrect [or at least not in a way that affects comprehension in any way]; artificial is insincerity, used in contrast with 'sincere' in my statement, and 'the term' i mentioned in my statement is a variable [vague on purpose], used in this context, it would be 'misanthropic'.

There's your [self-evident, or at least should be] code.


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

Convex said:


> I am not criticizing the choice to hold impossible standards; I am criticizing how you don't expect failures when others try to reach them, which is usually an underlying, or ulterior motive. [that I presented last reply, in which you deflected]
> 
> Being disappointed does not motivate you, failing motivates you; therefore, it is irrelevant to whether you are disappointed or not, though, why did you include it in the first response? I assume that indicates significance, which then brings me back to my theory last reply, again.


You're going to have to clarify and perhaps re-frame the meaning of your posts. I don't deflect, I'd be happy to answer. I don't like jumping back and forth between posts. I'd appreciate if you could gather all your thoughts and supports, presenting them in a format I can respond for efficiently to.

What exactly are you criticizing? That I even have expectations? Or that I may have an ulterior motive?


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> I don't see why anyone should repay evilness with goodness. It depends on why they are unkind. Maybe it's because they're having a lousy day. Or maybe they're just assholes.


_Evilness_ seems quite the jump; while also lurking behind kindness can also lie, wicked intentions. 

Making that kind of judgement towards unknowns based on a fraction of the whole picture and subsequently _only rewarding_ what we like or deem _good_ doesn't seem like going above or beyond our self interests or ego and - IMO - is still _selfish_.



L'Enfant Terrible said:


> However, this is why I fear for the future of humankind...


Or is it that I'm somehow misrepresenting your initial point?


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> _Evilness_ seems quite the jump; while also lurking behind kindness can also lie, wicked intentions.
> 
> Making that kind of judgement towards unknowns based on a fraction of the whole picture and subsequently _only rewarding_ what we like or deem _good_ doesn't seem like going above or beyond our self interests or ego and - IMO - is still _selfish_.
> 
> ...


By a stranger being kind to you I mean someone gives you their sit on a bus because you're feeling sick,or are old or pregnant. Or a waiter coming after you when you leave a cafe to tell you that you've forgotten your phone/umbrella/etc. I'm not talking about strangers who are suspiciously sweet to you for no apparent reason. 

If someone hits you with their car and doesn't stop to check on you than I think you are entitled to not be nice to that person. 

I fear for the future of humankind because there are more and more people showing psychopathic traits. People just don't care abut others. They barely care for their friends and family, even though they'd swear they love them more than anything if you asked them. 






there are tons of videos like these. At least in this one some people helped. I've witnessed with my own eyes how things like these happened and nobody cared.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Convex said:


> I believe I am looking at a monkey.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You've missed the point then.


----------



## Trademark (Nov 13, 2014)

People are not evil in nature, they just develop their wickedness. If there's a light, there's always a shadow. And so as the righteousness exist, there is always a contradicting forces - the evil. Are you not familiar with these. You can't just say you entirely hate the humanity, you will also come to disrespect and disgrace your family and your progenitor, because we are them. We can't just be pessimistic about the deeds of the people. People differs to each other. If you blame the destruction of your cornfield caused by the swarm of locusts, don't hate the entire insects. Just being a practical, just in case you already lost these.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Trademark said:


> People are not evil in nature, they just develop their wickedness. If there's a light, there's always a shadow. And so as the righteousness exist, there is always a contradicting forces - the evil. Are you not familiar with these. You can't just say you entirely hate the humanity, you will also come to disrespect and disgrace your family and your progenitor, because we are them. We can't just be pessimistic about the deeds of the people. People differs to each other. If you blame the destruction of your cornfield caused by the swarm of locusts, don't hate the entire insects. Just being a practical, just in case you already lost these.


A practical what? And lost what?

Well, I do agree with you to a point. Humans are both good and evil. But the amount of evilness greatly suppress the amount of goodness. If you don't see this you are blind. And if you see it but choose to stay in your happy little world you are limited.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Yomiel said:


> You've missed the point then.


Couldn't the same advice you gave to me, also similarly apply to you?


----------



## bkdjdnfbnne (Mar 8, 2015)

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Yes.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> By a stranger being kind to you I mean someone gives you their sit on a bus because you're feeling sick,or are old or pregnant. Or a waiter coming after you when you leave a cafe to tell you that you've forgotten your phone/umbrella/etc...
> 
> If someone hits you with their car and doesn't stop to check on you than I think you are entitled to not be nice to that person.
> 
> I fear for the future of humankind because there are more and more people showing psychopathic traits. People just don't care abut others.


Right, but being kind in your examples vs. their opposites is a big leap to someone running you over with their car.

The point I'm making - believe - is that in order to be truly selfless(as I thought that's what you were writing about), you can't pick and choose. Being nice only to those that are nice to us is out of self interest and makes us no different than what we loathe. It only becomes a when or how big before issue.

Also, I think this all ties in with what I was saying about misanthropy as well in that there's this expectation but by expecting we become part of the problem. i.e. you desire something(however good you believe the intent) and another desires something(however bad you believe their intent), we're still just two sides of the same coin and if you want one you have to accept the other. 

So you can hate human nature but with it comes all those things you love or idealize and that's where the frustration and the _feelings_ of a misanthrope stem from.

This isn't to say I'm better or always practice virtue; these are just my thoughts on the whole.


----------



## Trademark (Nov 13, 2014)

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> A practical what? And lost what?


See? you didn't even know what's missing on you.


> But the amount of evilness greatly suppress the amount of goodness. If you don't see this you are blind.


I'm not completely oblivious about this. Sin is easier to commit after all.


> And if you see it but choose to stay in your happy little world you are limited.


I'm not limited. And I'm not yet filled either. But to tell you, my life will never be affected or be influenced by the world. I don't bother if they all turn into evil; I don't even care, as long as I have my few dearest people around me, my relatives or loved ones. I wanted to protect them from the cruel world you hated. With this, I may become limitless.


----------



## Schizoid (Jan 31, 2015)

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> By a stranger being kind to you I mean someone gives you their sit on a bus because you're feeling sick,or are old or pregnant. Or a waiter coming after you when you leave a cafe to tell you that you've forgotten your phone/umbrella/etc. I'm not talking about strangers who are suspiciously sweet to you for no apparent reason.
> 
> If someone hits you with their car and doesn't stop to check on you than I think you are entitled to not be nice to that person.
> 
> ...


Well, there are actually all sorts of people in this world.

This world is like Yin/Yang. There are selfish people in this world. But there are also selfless people in this world.
There are people out there who hardly care about their own family and friends, but there are also people out there who are willing to sacrifice their own lives to save a stranger.

I have read news about how unwed mothers flush their own babies down the toilet and how fathers raped their own daughters. But I have also read news about how a heroic guy went over to save a stranger from danger but to end up sacrificing his own life in the process.

London girl, 5, saved by heroic stranger who lost his own life - London - News - London Evening Standard


Good people does exist in this world. They are rare, but they do exist. Let's not lose faith in humanity just because of a few bad eggs in this world.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

BenevolentBitterBleeding said:


> Right, but being kind in your examples vs. their opposites is a big leap to someone running you over with their car.
> 
> The point I'm making - believe - is that in order to be truly selfless(as I thought that's what you were writing about), you can't pick and choose. Being nice only to those that are nice to us is out of self interest and makes us no different than what we loathe. It only becomes a when or how big before issue.
> 
> ...


Ok. Let's be as simplistic as possible. Someone offering you a sit because you're pregnant and somebody running towards a sit and occupying it even though he/she saw you were heading towards it and you are pregnant. That's not a leap.

Being nice to those who are nice to us is being a nice human being. Being nice to assholes is imo incredibly stupid (but if you're truly a christian than it might be ok as god says to love our enemies... yeah right).

I don't care if you view that as selfish (there is no selflessness anyway). That's only fair. To behave towards people the exact same way they behave with us. 

"you desire something(however good you believe the intent) and another desires something(however bad you believe their intent), we're still just two sides of the same coin and if you want one you have to accept the other. " - desiring to help a 3 year old that got beaten to death by a stranger and desire to beat a 3 year old to death are sides of some very,very different coins. If you think good and evil are sides of the same coin than that's your choice, but don't force your beliefs on me or anybody else. 

Don't give me the "no light without shadow" crap. Purely from a physics point of view light can exist in the absence of darkness as darkness is only lack of light and not a thing in itself. 

This can be said about good and evil as well. We don't need both. That's a really lame excuse for committing evil acts. Most humans (for the exception of people with grave mental issues, but these are rarely involved in acts of evilness) know what good and bad is, and whenever they do bad stuff it's just because they CHOOSE to do it. Nature's default is goodness. Animals kill each other to survive, they do not inflict pain for their own sick pleasure.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Schizoid said:


> Well, there are actually all sorts of people in this world.
> 
> This world is like Yin/Yang. There are selfish people in this world. But there are also selfless people in this world.
> There are people out there who hardly care about their own family and friends, but there are also people out there who are willing to sacrifice their own lives to save a stranger.
> ...


I really like your post, kudos for bringing some positivity to the table! But you contradict yourself a bit at the end "good people are rare but they do exist" and "because of a few bad eggs". If good people are scarce and bad people are scarce then who makes up the majority? Most people are actually much more similar than they think. Not many of us are serial killers and not many are willing to go into a house fire to save a child. Most are a blend of these two, I agree. But given the situation normal people will choose being evil over good. There is much more evilness in the average person than there is goodness. The milligram experiment for example was one of the many experiments that proved exactly that.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Trademark said:


> See? you didn't even know what's missing on you.I'm not completely oblivious about this. Sin is easier to commit after all. I'm not limited. And I'm not yet filled either. But to tell you, my life will never be affected or be influenced by the world. I don't bother if they all turn into evil; I don't even care, as long as I have my few dearest people around me, my relatives or loved ones. I wanted to protect them from the cruel world you hated. With this, I may become limitless.


Well if the whole world turns evil chances of you protecting your loved ones are fairly slim.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Convex said:


> Couldn't the same advice you gave to me, also similarly apply to you?


No.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

Yomiel said:


> No.


It was rhetorical, though, I appreciate the attempt.


----------



## Trademark (Nov 13, 2014)

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> Well if the whole world turns evil chances of you protecting your loved ones are fairly slim.


if the good ones are only 10 people left, and the world turn into inhabitable place where all vegetation and creature died, and the world suffers the ultimate starvation, are they going to hunt and eat us? for sure they'll never getting even fairly obese. i am low-fat less protien and more calcium


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Trademark said:


> if the good ones are only 10 people left, and the world turn into inhabitable place where all vegetation and creature died, and the world suffers the ultimate starvation, are they going to hunt and eat us? for sure they'll never getting even fairly obese. i am low-fat less protien and more calcium


1. Despite what Hollywood has taught you, in an apocalyptic situation the good guys would all be dead.

2. You are obviously oblivious about history. During famine acts of cannibalism were frequent. When it's a matter of life and death even the good people will choose to eat. Dying from starvation is not a walk in the park. It's slow,painful and agonising.

3. Fat, proteins and calcium aren't even in the same category. Calcium is a mineral. Lipids and proteins (alongside with carbohydrates) are macronutrients that fuel the body. Lipids are needed because they are part of the cellular membranes in the body and cholesterol is a vital component of the myelin (white matter) of the brain without which the brain cannot function properly. Low protein is one of the worst thing you can do to your body - it inhibits the immune system so you are frankly inviting all kinds of diseases in your body, it causes edema (low protein in diet is why you see all these african children with really big inflated abdomens), internal bleeding, brushing, blood clots, muscles will cramp and hurt like living hell and will atrophiate, you will become lethargic. 

Please eat some carbs. You need them bad. The brain cannot function properly without glucose as well.


----------



## BenevolentBitterBleeding (Mar 16, 2015)

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> Ok. Let's be as simplistic as possible. Someone offering you a sit because you're pregnant and somebody running towards a sit and occupying it even though he/she saw you were heading towards it and you are pregnant. That's not a leap.


Okay... What's your point that I haven't already made? i.e. there are people who do unkind things who _aren't_ evil.



> Being nice to those who are nice to us is being a nice human being. Being nice to assholes is imo incredibly stupid (but if you're truly a christian than it might be ok as god says to love our enemies... yeah right).


Okay... being nice is part of being a human being, as is being unkind. I have no idea why you're bringing religion into this either.



> I don't care if you view that as selfish (there is no selflessness anyway). That's only fair. To behave towards people the exact same way they behave with us.


Okay... then why bother writing that blurb about how people can't get over their own egos and selfishness? 

To put it simply if I'm understanding the original point you were making in the post that I quoted, it is: That people fail to acknowledge kind acts from strangers because they are too self involved to get over their own ego and so you lose hope in humanity.

*My criticism of your post is that even if one acknowledges the kindness of strangers and repays it - it is in itself self serving. Therefore, if it is beneficial to themselves(in whatever way) it doesn't achieve the desired outcome you alluded to about getting over one's ego and selfish nature of(mildly psychopathic) humans.*

Thus - as I thought I have been implying more than once now - *in order to actually get over your self and your ego(in this context) you can't pick and choose what furthers your own agenda(s). You have to treat the kind and the unkind equally without bias(it's all human nature i.e. the same coin).

If not, you're just being the same thing that you write about despising. i.e. hypocritical

Again, this is also why I said the branched topic ties into my original post of misanthropy, on its irony and Catch-22 logic.* 



> "you desire something(however good you believe the intent) and another desires something(however bad you believe their intent), we're still just two sides of the same coin and if you want one you have to accept the other. " - desiring to help a 3 year old that got beaten to death by a stranger and desire to beat a 3 year old to death are sides of some very,very different coins.


Obviously. Not wanting to get involved with helping a 3 year old kid being beaten to death out of fear or for personal safety or for being a coward or for not having the strength or wanting to stay out of others business etc... is not the same as committing the act of beating the 3 year old. 

I'm not sure why you're leaping to things again and implying that's what I was saying.



> If you think good and evil are sides of the same coin than that's your choice, but don't force your beliefs on me or anybody else.


I'm not trying to force my beliefs of _good and evil_ on anyone. You're just misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make. I have to just chalk it up to either reading comprehension, language barrier, personal bias or you not being able to get over your own ego.



> Don't give me the "no light without shadow" crap. Purely from a physics point of view light can exist in the absence of darkness as darkness is only lack of light and not a thing in itself.


Okay... I don't know what this has to do with anything.



> This can be said about good and evil as well. We don't need both. That's a really lame excuse for committing evil acts.


Please quote me where I said it was _okay_ to do evil deeds and that's why we need both good and evil. 



> Most humans (for the exception of people with grave mental issues, but these are rarely involved in acts of evilness) know what good and bad is, and whenever they do bad stuff it's just because they CHOOSE to do it. Nature's default is goodness. Animals kill each other to survive, they do not inflict pain for their own sick pleasure.


I have no idea what you're rambling on about or how it relates to anything with what my initial thoughts were, what my criticism of your post is about, or the actual topic of *your* thread.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Convex said:


> It was rhetorical, though, I appreciate the attempt.


I know.


----------



## Mr. Demiurge (Jun 18, 2014)

I wish I could murder you all with my brain.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Mr. Demiurge said:


> I wish I could murder you all with my brain.


I hope your signature's some kind of joke.


----------



## Mr. Demiurge (Jun 18, 2014)

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> I hope your signature's some kind of joke.


I've been collecting stupid fundamentalist quotes and using them for my signature.


----------



## TTIOTBSAL (May 26, 2014)

No. 

But I'd rather be alone. And few people close.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> How do you know that other species are selfish or even understand the concept of selfishness?


They are, some for the same reasons as humans, some for different. I suppose I'll create a thread about it, if it interests me enough.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Convex said:


> They are, some for the same reasons as humans, some for different. I suppose I'll create a thread about it, if it interests me enough.


It's kind of stupid to be so sure about stuff without any actual proof. Do you have any scientifical proof that animals understand the concept of selfishness? You do realize there is instinctive behaviour and then there is selfishness. For one to be selfish one has to be self-aware. Science has proven that self-awareness exists in some primates (humans,chimpanzees,macaques,orangutans), dolphins and magpies. That is nowhere nearly enough proof in order to generalize that "animals are selfish".


----------



## .17485 (Jan 12, 2011)

How can you tell if a person is a misanthrope?


----------



## Highway Nights (Nov 26, 2014)

No. I don't think I've ever met a misanthrope who could live up to their own standards or ideals that they set for other people. I'd rather do something fun or productive over sitting in my room pity masturbating over how much everything apparently sucks and how evil other people are because they sometimes do things I don't like.



Tega1 said:


> How can you tell if a person is a misanthrope?


They usually smell like cat pee.


----------



## Schizoid (Jan 31, 2015)

Tega1 said:


> How can you tell if a person is a misanthrope?


Look for the ones with anger issues, the ones whom you constantly have to walk on eggshells around because you don't know when they might just end up exploding their anger on you. They usually have a misanthropic streak in them, the world is like their enemies, and their inner world is often as chaotic as their outer world, hence, the anger issues.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

A little bit...

Always feel as though I am fighting that urge to go completely angro on humanity, despite my feelings telling me that most of the time, I have every right to turn into a full-fledged world hater, I don't often think it's really the healthiest, or most well-rounded of world-views one could posses, and in fact is actually quite limiting, in-itself. 

I think I often try to paper-mache paste all over my misanthropy with poetry, spirituality, art, and the like, in hopes I don't notice it as much. I always seem to sense it's presence, and when I do, I imagine trying to cover up a ball made of pure-light, how could one even possibility go about achieving that? 

Or maybe balls of atomic-particles would be more appropriate.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Rebelgoatalliance said:


> No. I don't think I've ever met a misanthrope who could live up to their own standards or ideals that they set for other people. I'd rather do something fun or productive over sitting in my room pity masturbating over how much everything apparently sucks and how evil other people are because they sometimes do things I don't like.
> 
> 
> They usually smell like cat pee.


Yeah... Misanthropes don't sit all day in their room crying and eating a mcflurry, thinking about how the world sucks and how they are so perfect in every way. Just as philantropists don't have to go around holding babies and feeding homeless people 24/7 to be considered philantropists.

Also, there can be no improvements made unless there are people who recognize that things can be better. So basically, you will have to "pity masturbate" at least once in your life in order to change it for the best, unless you are a happy idiot who's perfectly content with everything and bothered by nothing. 

Derailed a bit from misanthropy itself, but just wanted to make the point that while misanthropy may be a tad extreme, unsatisfaction with the present is necesarry for growth in the future.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Schizoid said:


> Look for the ones with anger issues, the ones whom you constantly have to walk on eggshells around because you don't know when they might just end up exploding their anger on you. They usually have a misanthropic streak in them, the world is like their enemies, and their inner world is often as chaotic as their outer world, hence, the anger issues.


With a name like schizoid you don't seem to be that far from what you've described.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

stiletto said:


> No. Despite my outward tendencies, I believe that at my core, I love our species. It is why I am so frequently disappointed.


Scratch a cynic...


----------



## Schizoid (Jan 31, 2015)

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> With a name like schizoid you don't seem to be that far from what you've described.


Nah, being a schizoid is different from being misanthropic  I named myself as schizoid because I did some research on schizoids and I noticed that I have quite a bit of schizoid tendencies in myself.
Being a misanthrope is like hating the entire world, while being a schizoid means that I prefer being alone than being around people.
I think the main difference between a misanthrope and a schizoid is that I don't experience any negative emotions toward people like the way misanthropes do. In fact, I tend to feel apathetic most of the time.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

I think that often, I tell myself not to feel sad, and then I just feel angry, because it's only okay to be angry. So of course, I tell myself I hate the world, when really I've just been hurt by the world. The world has really hurt me, but you see, it hurts me all of the time, in so many different ways. I don't bother feeling sad anymore, when it's so easy to just get angry at everything, all of the time, and somehow convince myself that I'm still strong somehow, just the same. I'm angry, not sad. But then I guess that means I'm just both, if anything.

And I wish I could just throw things at people more often, but I'm sad that I can't. SAD//MAD


----------



## Highway Nights (Nov 26, 2014)

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> Yeah... Misanthropes don't sit all day in their room crying and eating a mcflurry, thinking about how the world sucks and how they are so perfect in every way. Just as philantropists don't have to go around holding babies and feeding homeless people 24/7 to be considered philantropists.
> 
> Also, there can be no improvements made unless there are people who recognize that things can be better. So basically, you will have to "pity masturbate" at least once in your life in order to change it for the best, unless you are a happy idiot who's perfectly content with everything and bothered by nothing.
> 
> Derailed a bit from misanthropy itself, but just wanted to make the point that while misanthropy may be a tad extreme, unsatisfaction with the present is necesarry for growth in the future.


I agree. Mindless optimism isn't any better. You can't change anything if you don't recognize that there is a problem now. My point is that:
1. I've never met a self proclaimed misanthrope who could live up to their own ideals.
and
2. I've only met one self proclaimed misanthrope who did anything to try and improve the world (they worked with transgender youth). Usually just end up with a lot of complaining, a lot of self righteous posturing, and quotes from dead german philosophers. 

I'm sure productive misanthropes exist, but I don't think I've ever met one. People generally don't self-identify themselves with a philosophical label at all, so most people's encounters with a "misanthrope" is going to be with some faux-edgy 16 year old on the internet who thinks that wearing a fedora and using uncommon words like "implore" are going to make him seem smart. Are all or even most misanthropes going to be like that? Probably not; it's essentially a caricature. But it's what people associate with the word.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Schizoid said:


> Nah, being a schizoid is different from being misanthropic  I named myself as schizoid because I did some research on schizoids and I noticed that I have quite a bit of schizoid tendencies in myself.
> Being a misanthrope is like hating the entire world, while being a schizoid means that I prefer being alone than being around people.
> I think the main difference between a misanthrope and a schizoid is that I don't experience any negative emotions toward people like the way misanthropes do. In fact, I tend to feel apathetic most of the time.


It was supposed to be a joke. Oh well.

Yes, obviously misanthropes and schizoids are different. In fact, they are not even in the same category. Misanthropy isn't listen in dsm v. 

Dare I say, you are not schozoidal. I'm appaled at the easiness people label themselves with what are supposed to be serious personality disorders nowadays. 

They read somewhere that OCD affected people wash their hands a lot and are obsessed with cleanliness and they'll call every soccer mom an OCD. Same goes with everything from schizophrenia to depression. 

Schizoids aren't simply loners. They are basically schezophrenics without the hallucinations. Basically schizophrenics who are still in touch with reality.

If you however really believe and identify with schizoid personality disorder you should go as soon as possible for you to a psychiatrist. 
Being schizoid with no official diagnosis or monitoring is no laughing matter.


----------



## ShadowsRunner (Apr 24, 2013)

Rebelgoatalliance said:


> I agree. Mindless optimism isn't any better. You can't change anything if you don't recognize that there is a problem now. My point is that:
> 1. I've never met a self proclaimed misanthrope who could live up to their own ideals.
> and
> 2. I've only met one self proclaimed misanthrope who did anything to try and improve the world (they worked with transgender youth). Usually just end up with a lot of complaining, a lot of self righteous posturing, and quotes from dead german philosophers.
> ...


Many wouldn't outright identify, but I would also say that, many could still easily be labeled as such, if not by their thoughts, but their actions.

Not in general, only a concept, but also...being very hate-filled, bitter and angry towards the world.


----------



## Hei (Jul 8, 2014)

No. Just simultaneously extremely cynical and optimistic (a common INTJ thing I suppose)


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

No.


----------



## Metalize (Dec 18, 2014)

It's tempting, but it seems like a pointless and judgmental way of thinking that utilizes your limited mind as an all-encompassing reference point. (Which is inevitable to a point.) A rather deterministic perspective also seems to nullify the significance of that position. I don't understand or like most human tendencies, and act accordingly. But:

1) Being a misanthrope who doesn't also hate themselves, would mean arbitrarily judging oneself to be a superior individual, which isn't a mindset I can connect with (most of the time).

2) Even superficially "human" tendencies are not an isolated unique attribute of our species; they are the natural outcome of living organisms that have reached a certain complexity in their development (as far as we know of species' evolution). And living beings are (again, to our current scientific knowledge) fundamentally inorganic matter, or at least made of parts that lack consciousness. So it stands that a) it's pointless to feel strongly about something that is essentially matter and per its nature, moving through a fixed trajectory, and b) following that, I'd have to hate the nature of life and the known physical world that encapsulates it. Which is fine by me lol, but that goes beyond simple misanthropy.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> It's kind of stupid to be so sure about stuff without any actual proof.


I agree.



> Do you have any scientifical proof that animals understand the concept of selfishness?


They need not understand to act in that manner; I will create a thread soon, and then link it to you.



> You do realize there is instinctive behaviour and then there is selfishness.


Yes! 



> For one to be selfish one has to be self-aware.


I disagree; exhibiting traits of selfishness is all that is needed to be selfish.


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Convex said:


> I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In that logic, ehxibiting traits of motherhood (good with children, caring etc) is enough to be considered a mother, without the child. Or to show psychopathic traits is enough to be labeled as one. By this logic millions of people would be dying in hospitals treated for the wrong disease ( hey, he seems to have kidney stones, why do differential diagnosis, if he displays the physical symptoms of kidney stones). 

Selfishness - being concerned, sometimes excessively or exclusively, for oneself or one's own advantage, pleasure, or welfare, regardless of others. 

In order for one to consciously choose to be concerned exclusively for oneself, one has to know that "oneself" exists. I can't believe I have to explain such an obvious thing. 

I wouldn't be reading your thread if it is based on a " if frogs had hair " judgement.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> In that logic, ehxibiting traits of motherhood (good with children, caring etc) is enough to be considered a mother, without the child. Or to show psychopathic traits is enough to be labeled as one. By this logic millions of people would be dying in hospitals treated for the wrong disease ( hey, he seems to have kidney stones, why do differential diagnosis, if he displays the physical symptoms of kidney stones).
> 
> Selfishness - being concerned, sometimes excessively or exclusively, for oneself or one's own advantage, pleasure, or welfare, regardless of others.
> 
> ...


*Selfish*: _(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure_. 

You need not know your are selfish to be selfish, self-awareness is a different topic entirely, and ironically, is the first step of recovery.


----------



## Noctis (Apr 4, 2012)

I don't know if I am a misanthrope, but I think many young people (young adults) are selfish and shallow. I am 26, however I feel most young adults around college age are extremely shallow and selfish. If they are extremely physically beautiful, they tend to over advertise it and become models or supermodels. I really dislike how most young adults choose not to behave like adults. I also dislike how culture promotes young adult male/female mesomorphs bodies as "the ideal male/female body" in almost every action/adventure/historical fantasy films, especially superhero films in which promotes similar philosophy as Ubermensch, where one body "athletic/mesomorphic/ripped" is seen as "strong, healthy and ideal" and excludes people less physically endowed from being a "superhero", such as extreme ectomorphs or extreme endomorphs, who excluded from being seen as "healthy" in society. Men and women are generally brainwashed by society to view "ideal bodies" as attractive early in their childhood, where being in shape, being physically in shape and tall equated with heroism and goodness, whereas characters who were physically weaker or had a deformity were not seen as heroic as those who fit the ideal physical traits, often portrayed as antiheroes or villains, such as Ephialtes from 300, Gollum from LOTR, Scar from Lion King, The Queen from Snow White, the Wicked Witch of the West from Wizard of Oz. Much like how the Nazis portrayed Jews in less flattering ways in order to promote Ubermensch as "ideal/heroic" and Jews as "inferior/unheroic". Not unlike today's media in which promotes mesomorphy as the "ultimate indicator of physical health and superior genes". Endomorphs, like ectomorphs are portrayed in media, like Game of Thrones (Samwell Tarly) as not as heroic as his more athletic male companions, such as Jon Snow and Jeor Mormont. Other endomorphs less flatteringly portrayed was initially Samwise Gamgee, Peregrin Took, Max from The Mighty, Neville Longbottom and Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland. Ectomorphs are similarly portrayed as less heroic/anti heroic, intelligent but fearful or straight out villain, such as Palpatine, Sauruman, Evil Queen from Snow White, Gollum/Smeagol, Peter Parker, Snape, Spivey (The Mummy Returns). This is a very generalized rant, but a rant nevertheless.

https://books.google.com/books?id=G...v=onepage&q=physically weak superhero&f=false


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

Yes, even if I have no right to be. It's not that I really blame anyone, at least not in some context, but I'm just generally really tired of certain behavioral patterns. Maybe I'll outgrow it, maybe not; maybe it says more about me than society, maybe not. I'm generally a kind and conscientious individual, so it shouldn't really matter, should it?


----------



## dracula (Apr 5, 2015)

I have a low tolerance for certain kinds of people, but I wouldn't call myself a misanthrope. I can deal with almost anyone if I absolutely have to and even manipulate myself into liking them. I need human contact and thus I can find something positive from almost any company, although there are days when I wonder if nearly everyone is in fact an idiot.


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

Not me but I can understand why misanthropes exist.


----------



## overlordofpizza (Jun 15, 2015)

Just a bit. More so from a lack of connection with people than thinking that people are inherently terrible.


----------



## Lunatics (Jun 20, 2015)

I have such moments when I'm deeply hurt and emotional. I have my bad and good days. The bad days are when I dwell on the cause of my emotional instability and I cannot think straight to prevent feeling hateful towards all human kind cos 'nobody' cares about me. I'm in general distrustful of people but I do not necessarily hate them and always give them the chance to prove me wrong and show off their good side.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Not a misanthrope, but I tend be suspicious of other people's deeds and question their motives, which frequently leads to rants on corruptible quality of human nature.

I don't see point in hating on human nature in and of itself, however despicable shapes it may acquire. We're all capable of doing ugly, nasty things as well as good and noble ones. Nobody is exempt form having both good and bad sides in themselves. It's just what way we choose that matters, and whether we choose to do something about it to make a change.


----------



## Glassland (Apr 19, 2014)

Not really. Life has made me very cynic about people, but I still am genuinely nice and kind when I interact with them most of the time, probably my Fe.
But I always expect the worst of them. Life has shown me that people can be cruel, selfish, illoyal, stupid and that on a regular basis.
I don't have many friends and those I do are on the internet (except one ENFJ and one IXFX friend), most people don't pass and those that do usually fuck up in some other way later on.

I incorporate integrity, loyalty, excellency and honor. And while we all fail in those pursuits from time to time, the intention is important. Most people don't even care for those things. They just want to selfishly gain things from others. Life has somewhat made me bitter at age 22.


----------



## The Dude (May 20, 2010)

Not really...I just get annoyed by idiots. Who isn't this way?


----------



## TheCosmicHeart (Jun 24, 2015)

No... But i have trouble trusting,only but a few select people actually have my trust


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

yes...dear gods, yes.


----------



## Doran Seth (Apr 4, 2015)

In a way I am.

The first definition of misanthropy I remember seeing was "an intense dislike of humanity", or at least something very similar to that. The one thing I distinctly remember about what I read was the word "humanity".

Humanity can be defined in several ways:

1. all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind.
2.the quality or condition of being human; human nature.

I read a discussion of misanthropy where some people indicated that they hate people but like certain people, such as significant others, family members, friends, and of course themselves. Others pointed out that misanthropy in this sense is based on association and that many people the misanthrope has not met could likely become close to the misanthrope if they did get to know each other. I agree that a blanket condemnation of all people with the exception of those close to the misanthrope is really nonsensical. This is really similar to any form of well-known bigotry. "People of *race A* do *bad thing*. However, my friend Bryan is a *race A* and he isn't like that so I like him."

The second definition, primarily "human nature", is where I would consider myself a misanthrope. I dislike much about human nature as a quality rather than the human race as a whole. 

First, we are animals but we think we are elevated above the animal kingdom due to our ability to reason and our achievements as a species. After all, a badger can't make an Intel Core i7-4960X processor. However, I am a proponent of the Great Man Theory. I believe our technological and social advancement throughout history is a result of a handful of individuals who possessed superior abilities. 

Exceptional people propel humankind and the rest of us merely benefit from their brilliance. There was an insurance company that had an ad campaign making fun of stupid things people do. One line was "Humans. One day we are coming up with the theory of relativity. The next day, not so much." No. WE did not come up with the theory of relativity. WE cannot collectively take credit for the genius of a select few. If it were up to most of us, we would still be drooling on ourselves in caves, bashing each others' brains out with rocks to determine who gets the best cut of the animal the tribe most recently slain.

Moreover, as animals, we are still slaves to our psychology and biology. We think our ability to reason negates our biological nature, when all it does is distract us from it. I believe humans take the worst of our biology and the worst of our reasoning, and mash them together which has resulted in this warped society we have today. I am frustrated because we could all be so much better as a species. I am guilty of some of the same things I condemn in others and I acknowledge it. I really think we could own our nature as animals and use our reasoning to rise above our limitations.

Our inability to do so makes me dislike human nature, in others and in myself, and forms the basis of what makes me a misanthrope in that context.


----------



## Nekomata (May 26, 2012)

I'd say I am, yes. Though most people wouldn't describe me as such until they truly get to know me better. Well, unless they know me a tiny bit better at least. It depends.


----------



## CasusBelli (Feb 25, 2015)

I can't tell if I like people. 
Never tasted any...


----------



## heavydirtysoul (Jan 13, 2012)

For a bit.


----------



## rainydeea (Nov 26, 2015)

Yes.


----------

