# If We Let Typism Continue in the NT-Spere



## dedosdepie (Jan 12, 2014)

The Story of Johnny Johnson

Scene: The United States of Intelligent Thinkers. Doctor's Office. November, 2043.

[Enter Doctor, Mrs. Johnson, and Young Johnny]

Doctor: I'm sorry to inform you, Mrs. Johnson, but your son... he's a _heavy sensor._

Mrs. Johnson: WHY GOD? HOW COULD HE DO THIS TO ME?

Doctor: Rather than blame the divine, we should work on fixing our problems.

Young Johnny: Mommy, why am I a problem?

Mrs. Johnson: No son, it's just that...you're a sensor!

Young Johnny: Sehnsuur? What does that mean?

Mrs. Johnson: I knew it, Doc! He's too stupid to figure things out for himself!

Doctor: On the bright side, ma'am, he's also a thinker. At least he has some capability of rational thought.

Johnny: Theen-kur? What does-

Doctor: Maybe my expectations were too high. After all, there has to be _some_ people working jobs at the bottom of the totem pole.

Mrs. Johnson: *HOW COULD YOU BE SO INSENSITIVE?! I MEAN...FORGET WHAT I JUST SAID!*

Doctor: Did you just say- :shocked:

Mrs. Johnson: *DON'T BRING IN THE COGNITIVE FUNCTION POLICE! I'M GOING THROUGH A HARD TIME RIGHT NOW! ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS A LITTLE BIT OF EMOTIONAL SUPPORT!*

Doctor: You've said enough, Mrs. Johnson. You'd better leave now for your own safety.

[Exit Doctor]

Scene: Dark, empty streets. Heavy rain and thunder.

Little Johnny: Mommy, do you love me?

Mrs. Johnson: You've caused me enough trouble. I don't want to hear you. 

[Exit Mrs. Johnson]

Little Johnny: I'll try and change, mommy! You can sign me up for those personality conversion classes uncle Jonathan signed up for before he...mommy? WHERE ARE YOU?

_...Johnny desperately searched for his mother, but it was too late- the function police took care of her. As for Johnny, nobody knows what happened to him. Let this be a warning. We must get past our differences, lest this dismal future take hold. _

Bonus if you can tell me the personality type of each character!


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

Problem?

(NTs are only like 10% of the population at best so I don't see how this crap would ever happen)


----------



## Pinion (Jul 31, 2013)

homosapiens said:


> Bonus if you can tell me the personality type of each character!


They're all NTs! What do I win?


----------



## HAL (May 10, 2014)

I've never wanted a dislike button on this forum until now.

I mean seriously what the fuck kind of a story is that. Trying to infer that NT types should not see themselves as superior, as if all NTs do apparently see themselves as superior, _and_ putting the message across in a mixture of annoying fonts and sizes.

I know what was trying to be said, but it comes across more like, "I know I'm better than you but I'll try to be nice about it." Kind of patronising.

For the record, and to all my non-NT brethren: Fuck anyone with an MBTI superiority complex. A world of NTs would be horrible. We need all types. The balance is perfect as is. Hence current humanity. You iz all awesome.


----------



## g_w (Apr 16, 2013)

homosapiens said:


> The Story of Johnny Johnson
> 
> Scene: The United States of Intelligent Thinkers. Doctor's Office. November, 2043.
> 
> ...


Well, *YOUR* personality type is "n00b." 

I mean, first post, really?


----------



## Tzara (Dec 21, 2013)

*In an alternate universe:
*
Doctor: I'm sorry your daughter is an intuitive.

Parent: What?!? How could this be.

Doctor: I'm so sorry but I must inform you she will grow up being an ass and will be bullied by some sensors in school. She will end up hating all sensors. And she will one day tell about his hate to a public forum or sth, trying to disguise her anger in her so called humour.

Parent: Its alright, I knew this day would come..

Oh wait.. I messed up again, this isnt an alternate universe LOL!

*Also, did you know, that strong bias towards a kind is actually an Si trait?* Which happens to be a sensory trait. 
Gotta love the irony.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Clearly you guys haven't been following this thread: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...chy-impacts-what-people-fake-their-types.html


----------



## MonogamyIsNice (Mar 21, 2012)

In the animal kingdom, there are weak and strong, slow and fast. Dumb, smart. We are animals. I'm so sick of people thoughtlessly rushing to some pseudo-ethical position where ambiguous equivocations are made, and expected to be taken seriously as though it's really a remotely critical perspective. "Nobody is dumb, they're just a different kind of smart." "They're not an asshole, they're just misunderstood."

Here's the real deal. We're the result of natural selection. There was never any divine command to make us all turn into special snowflakes that all have some merit according to this arbitrary sense of worth and equivocation that is passed around on these forums for the sake of some unscrutinizing feel-good inclusion. It's so blatantly at odds with the literal descriptions of the functions and types themselves. Trying to bend the truth. This is the animal kingdom and some people are stupid assholes. I bet a bunch of people are reading this right now and thinking that's exactly what I am. I'll agree with you if it means you're committing to something other than a mind-numbing sense of faultless equality. Anything but that.

Yes, we're all different. No, that doesn't mean we're equal. That's as much an arbitrary value judgement as it is to find us inequal. It all lacks specificity, anyway. If people have, say, "sensor hate" - and they do - it's a matter of personal values. If I say I'm more intelligent than most sensors, you should at least be able to understand that it's possible that I myself understand that I am referring to a specific sort of intelligence, rather than all possible forms of intelligence. It's rather obnoxious to deal with people who think it's intellectually or morally profound to make the inaccurate assumption that anyone who isn't constantly tailoring their speech to make a disclaimer to the tune of the last sentence, is an oblivious tool who can't comprehend the diversity of offerings and specialties afforded to us by virtue of our specific types, by contrast to each other.

Please just stop doing that. Nobody is actually going around and perpetuating this imagined offense; "Such and such type is completely worthless and has no place in the world"

It is also obnoxious to so regularly be given the suggestion that we should all appreciate all types and it's just a matter of understanding them. Since when was that ever the case between people on the planet? Typology itself includes the notion of distinct personalities, with distinct preferences for and against things.


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

HAL said:


> The balance is perfect as is.


Why is it "perfect"? What is it perfect for?


----------



## Tzara (Dec 21, 2013)

LostFavor said:


> Clearly you guys haven't been following this thread: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...chy-impacts-what-people-fake-their-types.html


*opens thread*
*sees its made by uglybetty*
*laughs*
*closes it*

I'm actually surprised she still rants about this.. 
And to think that the sole reason is just one stupid spiderman thread.


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

I saw the font size and was too embarrassed for you to read on. I'm sorry.

Also for @Tzara:


----------



## Tzara (Dec 21, 2013)

Pinion said:


> They're all NTs! What do I win?


If there was a "people you want to meet" list for perc, you would be on my top 3.


----------



## Tzara (Dec 21, 2013)

Emerson said:


> Also for @Tzara:
> 
> *Spodermon*


I did mention this before;
I would but this is the NT forum. Unlike the ENTP counterpart, this one is actually moderated


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

LostFavor said:


> Clearly you guys haven't been following this thread: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...chy-impacts-what-people-fake-their-types.html


Good link thanks


----------



## HltrSkltr (May 18, 2014)

What happened to oxytocin?


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Tzara said:


> *opens thread*
> *sees its made by uglybetty*
> *laughs*
> *closes it*
> ...


Oh man that made me chuckle so hard. 

I actually didn't make it thru the original thread post, but I am liking reading the rest of all this.


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)

Tzara said:


> I did mention this before;
> I would but this is the NT forum. Unlike the ENTP counterpart, this one is actually moderated



Burtmun nunu nunu nunu nu nu nu burtmun, burtmun BURTMUN


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

MonogamyIsLame said:


> In the animal kingdom, there are weak and strong, slow and fast. Dumb, smart. We are animals. I'm so sick of people thoughtlessly rushing to some pseudo-ethical position where ambiguous equivocations are made, and expected to be taken seriously as though it's really a remotely critical perspective. "Nobody is dumb, they're just a different kind of smart." "They're not an asshole, they're just misunderstood."
> 
> Here's the real deal. We're the result of natural selection. There was never any divine command to make us all turn into special snowflakes that all have some merit according to this arbitrary sense of worth and equivocation that is passed around on these forums for the sake of some unscrutinizing feel-good inclusion. It's so blatantly at odds with the literal descriptions of the functions and types themselves. Trying to bend the truth. This is the animal kingdom and some people are stupid assholes. I bet a bunch of people are reading this right now and thinking that's exactly what I am. I'll agree with you if it means you're committing to something other than a mind-numbing sense of faultless equality. Anything but that.
> 
> ...


Well said!

But yeah, all sensors should be killed. I agree OP, it would be a utopia. Thanks for showing this to us.


----------



## Moya (May 22, 2012)

It's astonishing to me how many people _completely missed the OP's point._
Like, you guys are off by _miles_. She's obviously making fun of typism, not advocating it.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

Tzara said:


> *opens thread*
> *sees its made by uglybetty*
> *laughs*
> *closes it*
> ...


I see you're no longer pretending to be an ENTP


be careful... don't want to run out of NT types and end up as an SJ! 
I don't think your fragile ego could take it </3


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

MonogamyIsLame said:


> In the animal kingdom, there are weak and strong, slow and fast. Dumb, smart. We are animals. I'm so sick of people thoughtlessly rushing to some pseudo-ethical position where ambiguous equivocations are made, and expected to be taken seriously as though it's really a remotely critical perspective. "Nobody is dumb, they're just a different kind of smart." "They're not an asshole, they're just misunderstood."
> 
> Here's the real deal. We're the result of natural selection. There was never any divine command to make us all turn into special snowflakes that all have some merit according to this arbitrary sense of worth and equivocation that is passed around on these forums for the sake of some unscrutinizing feel-good inclusion. It's so blatantly at odds with the literal descriptions of the functions and types themselves. Trying to bend the truth. This is the animal kingdom and some people are stupid assholes. I bet a bunch of people are reading this right now and thinking that's exactly what I am. I'll agree with you if it means you're committing to something other than a mind-numbing sense of faultless equality. Anything but that.
> 
> ...




*UglierBetty checks the personality type identified on this user's profile and sees it says "INFJ"*
*UglierBetty spits out his drink and rolls around on the floor laughing*



so predictable sometimes, <3


----------



## Tzara (Dec 21, 2013)

UglierBetty said:


> I see you're no longer pretending to be an ENTP
> 
> 
> be careful... don't want to run out of NT types and end up as an SJ!
> I don't think your fragile ego could take it </3


I'm still 100% ENTP. Dont believe everything you read on the internet INFJ.


----------



## Amacey (Mar 1, 2014)

This is what would probably happen if billions people find out about this personality system . there would be dividing among countries and a lot of fights more than ever. 
People will be against marriage from two same types like gay marriage . I know it sounds stupid but I can almost guarantee it can happen . if people divide themselves at school into groups of jocks and nerds they would definitely do the same with the personalities.

Ever since I discovered about my type as intp and changed it not long ago I stopped receiving notification for a long time but when had my type as enfp I would receive a lot of replies and thanks . typism is happening:frustrating:


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

It just really bugs me to see NT's complain about S's... *since the "perfect match" for all NT's is an SF*


INTJ - ESFP
ENTJ - ISFP
INTP - ESFJ
ENTP - ISFJ




so yea. 
You guys don't hate SF's. You hate the _idea_ of SF's that is perpetrated by typism on these forums.


----------



## MonogamyIsNice (Mar 21, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> *UglierBetty checks the personality type identified on this user's profile and sees it says "INFJ"*
> *UglierBetty spits out his drink and rolls around on the floor laughing*
> 
> 
> ...


I thought you'd be a fan of that post <3


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

MonogamyIsLame said:


> I thought you'd be a fan of that post <3


it must be convenient to be an """""""INFJ""""""" with that post you made, eh?


----------



## Sovereign (Aug 19, 2011)

UglierBetty said:


> It just really bugs me to see NT's complain about S's... *since the "perfect match" for all NT's is an SF*


I also dislike typism. But I dislike horrible dating advice perhaps even more. 

That "perfect match" is a bunch of BS.


----------



## Sevenblade (May 26, 2014)

UglierBetty said:


> It just really bugs me to see NT's complain about S's... *since the "perfect match" for all NT's is an SF*
> 
> 
> INTJ - ESFP
> ...


In those matches, one partner or the other would probably commit suicide. Also, the usual "perfect matches" based on MBTI that I've seen don't reverse *all four functions.* Honestly, that's madness - you'd have no common ground. Usually, they flip the 1st, 3rd, and 4th letters, keeping the 2nd one the same. I think even that is BS, but it is supported by the fact that being able to communicate on a roughly similar level would be conducive to a happy relationship. Especially, I would think, for Ns.

By the way, where can I find this Spider Man thread? I'm going to do a search for it...


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Sevenblade said:


> In those matches, one partner or the other would probably commit suicide. Also, the usual "perfect matches" based on MBTI that I've seen don't reverse *all four functions.* Honestly, that's madness - you'd have no common ground. Usually, they flip the 1st, 3rd, and 4th letters, keeping the 2nd one the same. I think even that is BS, but it is supported by the fact that being able to communicate on a roughly similar level would be conducive to a happy relationship. Especially, I would think, for Ns.
> 
> By the way, where can I find this Spider Man thread? I'm going to do a search for it...


I would thank this 37 more times if I could.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

UglierBetty said:


> It just really bugs me to see NT's complain about S's... *since the "perfect match" for all NT's is an SF*
> 
> 
> INTJ - ESFP
> ...


ENTP with ISFJ lol , are you serious?


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

Bugs said:


> ENTP with ISFJ lol , are you serious?



I don't know about you but maybe a real ENTP would value that relationship.



Just because the theory invalidates *your personal* experiences, misunderstandings, and prejudices, doesn't make it untrue.


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

UglierBetty said:


> I don't know about you but maybe a real ENTP would value that relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the theory invalidates *your personal* experiences, misunderstandings, and prejudices, doesn't make it untrue.


Wow , you're such an expert on types yet you can't type yourself? What's the deal bro? No I don't even see how it works 'objectively'. Ne and Si are diametrically opposed and these are the dominant functions about perceiving the world. What the sensor and intuit get here are totally different. They are complete_ opposites._ Sure every now and then opposites attract but how many times did you hear about couples breaking up because they're 'similar ' versus ' too different'?


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

UglierBetty said:


> I don't know about you but maybe a real ENTP would value that relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the theory invalidates *your personal* experiences, misunderstandings, and prejudices, doesn't make it untrue.


And what exactly is this theory based on? Do you really expect people to mould their personal lives to a construct that isn't based on any evidence?
Also, you are invalidating his personal experience by saying he's not an an ENTP just because he doesn't fit your theory.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

Sevenblade said:


> In those matches, one partner or the other would probably commit suicide. Also, the usual "perfect matches" based on MBTI that I've seen don't reverse *all four functions.*


ISFJ: Si-Fe-Ti-Ne
ENTP: Ne-Ti-Fe-Si

100% of the same function
are you legitimately stupid or just trolling?




Sevenblade said:


> Honestly, that's madness - you'd have no common ground.


The ISFJ will help the ENTP with Fe and Si because that is what the ENTP needs strengthening
The ENTP will help the ISFJ with Ne and Ti because that is what the ISFJ needs strenghthing

100% of the functions are shared... 
can you link me to a description of your mental deficiency? I'd like to know the name of it 



Sevenblade said:


> Usually, they flip the 1st, 3rd, and 4th letters, keeping the 2nd one the same. I think even that is BS, but it is supported by the fact that being able to communicate on a roughly similar level would be conducive to a happy relationship.


Incorrect. 
An ENFP would be 100x happier with an ISTJ than an INTJ. 

And be careful when you switch 3/4 letters - for example, ISFP's and ENTP's will kill each other even though they have one letter in common.






Sevenblade said:


> Especially, I would think, for Ns.


Are you being intentionally stupid?


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

FlaviaGemina said:


> And what exactly is this theory based on? Do you really expect people to mould their personal lives to a construct that isn't based on any evidence?
> Also, you are invalidating his personal experience by saying he's not an an ENTP just because he doesn't fit your theory.


Meh it's kind of funny actually. Such a smart guy on types yet he can't even type himself.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

FlaviaGemina said:


> And what exactly is this theory based on? Do you really expect people to mould their personal lives to a construct that isn't based on any evidence?
> Also, you are invalidating his personal experience by saying he's not an an ENTP just because he doesn't fit your theory.


Socionics Forum
Stop replying to me if you don't know what you're talking about.... (or don't even have the patience to click your mouse 2 times)


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

UglierBetty said:


> ISFJ: Si-Fe-Ti-Ne
> ENTP: Ne-Ti-Fe-Si
> 
> 100% of the same function
> ...


Damn kid , you don't even know how to troll properly. No skills. Go type yourself then come back and learn something.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

Bugs said:


> Wow , you're such an expert on types yet you can't type yourself? What's the deal bro? No I don't even see how it works 'objectively'. Ne and Si are diametrically opposed and these are the dominant functions about perceiving the world. What the sensor and intuit get here are totally different. They are complete_ opposites._ Sure every now and then opposites attract but how many times did you hear about couples breaking up because they're 'similar ' versus ' too different'?



Your 4th function is the function that you try to be more like - SJ's aspire to be more spontaneous and creative, for example. 


This is why NP's are good matches for SJ's.



do you even have a brain?


----------



## Bugs (May 13, 2014)

Yo , stop being a little bitch. Go type yourself.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

Bugs said:


> Damn kid , you don't even know how to troll properly. No skills. Go type yourself then come back and learn something.


your lack of Ti is showing.
be careful.


----------



## dedosdepie (Jan 12, 2014)

Ha, this is a trainwreck :laughing:

I came up this story while daydreaming and thought it was hilarious. It's based on my own internal sense of humor (which everyone has their own version of) with references that 99% of people don't get. The sarcasm was way too subtle and it just didn't make much sense.

At least I find myself funny!!


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

HumanBeing said:


> You state there is a problem, without clearly explaining why there is a problem. The only clear statement is (1), and that on it's own is merely an observation.


Oh so dense... did you even read the comment before that? 

Jesus it's like I'm talking to a brick wall.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

homosapiens said:


> Ha, this is a trainwreck :laughing:
> 
> I came up this story while daydreaming and thought it was hilarious. It's based on my own internal sense of humor (which everyone has their own version of) with references that 99% of people don't get. The sarcasm was way too subtle and it just didn't make much sense.
> 
> At least I find myself funny!!


I found it hilarious tbh


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> We need to change our types to Sensors because we are all secret sensors that just use intuition as a label to make us seem smarter. As if the sugarcoated type descriptions weren't enough for us.



You're being sarcastic but taking your comment as-is is a pretty accurate description of what's going on.


----------



## Sevenblade (May 26, 2014)

UglierBetty said:


> ISFJ: Si-Fe-Ti-Ne
> ENTP: Ne-Ti-Fe-Si
> 
> 100% of the same function
> ...


1. You're one of the funniest trolls I've seen on this forum so far! Thanks - this has been kind of a boring day at work.

2. The fact that they "help each other with what the other one needs strengthened" proves their strengths are opposite, because they have no common ground. 

3. Their functions are 100% opposite - same functions, ordered in ways that make them diametrically opposite in their thinking, values, and approach to life. 

4. So yes, I am correct. And your bizarrely aggressive, asinine assertions count for exactly jackshit in the way of proving an ENFP would be "100x happier with an ISTJ than an INTJ."

5. Lastly, your dyslexic reading skills might be tripping you up here. Or else you're too lazy to read people's posts, and prefer to skim them to pick up random details to rip apart like a starving hyena, making one funny fool of yourself in the process. Flipping 3/4 of the letters wasn't a random thing - the 2nd function was supposed to be shared, for the reasons I gave. 

But in a fight like that, I'd find it pretty hard to believe an ENTP wouldn't be able to take an ISFP. 

Now, will someone please direct me to the Spider Man thread? A search just brought up a bunch of random threads, some 100+ pages. Work is kind of a drag right now, and I could use a few more of this troll's performances to make me laugh.

I love trolls. They're better than comedians, because they take themselves so seriously. Or at least, pretend to. Either way. :laughing:


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

Sevenblade said:


> 2. The fact that they "help each other with what the other one needs strengthened" proves their strengths are opposite, because they have no common ground.


Ok yea Socionics doesn't exist

inb4
_"it's all hogwash"
"it's worse than horoscopes"
"it's not correct or accurate"_
...
...
all the same can be said about MBTI.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.



Sevenblade said:


> 3. Their functions are 100% opposite - same functions, ordered in ways that make them diametrically opposite in their thinking, values, and approach to life.


Again. You're acting as if the entire Socionics study doesn't exist... 



Sevenblade said:


> 4. So yes, I am correct.


lol 



Sevenblade said:


> 5. Lastly, your dyslexic reading skills might be tripping you up here. Or else you're too lazy to read people's posts, and prefer to skim them to pick up random details to rip apart like a starving hyena, making one funny fool of yourself in the process. Flipping 3/4 of the letters wasn't a random thing - the 2nd function was supposed to be shared, for the reasons I gave.


I can't make it through this without laughing.




Sevenblade said:


> But in a fight like that, I'd find it pretty hard to believe an ENTP wouldn't be able to take an ISFP.


Irrelevant


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Moya said:


> You're reading too far into it. The sensor in the OP is a very young child.


In order to get to that place in the future, adults would have made those decisions . It wouldn't be N children deciding S children were unworthy. It would be adults. Just because the OP used a child in the example for affect, doesn't change the reality of how they would have gotten there. Intuitive adults would have to decide S people are inferior and S people would have to sit back and be the victim and let it happen. That is not a realistic future.


----------



## Moya (May 22, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> In order to get to that place in the future, adults would have made those decisions . It wouldn't be N children deciding S children were unworthy. It would be adults. Just because the OP used a child in the example for affect, doesn't change the reality of how they would have gotten there. Intuitive adults would have to decide S people are inferior and S people would have to sit back and be the victim and let it happen. That is not a realistic future.


You're thinking too hard about this. The OP is making a statement about how ridiculous the way NTs treat sensors is.
Although, "sit back and be the victim and let it happen" is not the way people become victimized. Oppression as a result of a characteristic has nothing to do with the weakness of the person who is being oppressed. If one were to apply what you're saying to a larger scale...well, it would seem as if you are victim blaming.


----------



## Emerson (Mar 13, 2011)




----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Moya said:


> You're thinking too hard about this. The OP is making a statement about how ridiculous the way NTs treat sensors is.


You are changing the premise. You just said it was about the child. Now you're saying it's about the way NTs treat sensors. Which one is it?


> Although, "sit back and be the victim and let it happen" is not the way people become victimized. Oppression as a result of a characteristic has nothing to do with the weakness of the person who is being. If one were to apply what you're saying to a larger scale...well, it would seem as if you are victim blaming.


You have to actually have a victim to victim blame. I'm arguing that sensors are NOT victims. They are capable human beings and they can defend themselves against a few people who are being stupid. 

Plus, nothing is stopping sensors from bombarding this message board with comments about how intuitives are worthless daydreamers who don't live in reality and come up with hair brained ideas. 

If that were the case then we would have a ton of intuitive defender threads. It's all meaningless.


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

UglierBetty said:


> It just really bugs me to see NT's complain about S's... *since the "perfect match" for all NT's is an SF*


Oh my goodness, is that an indisputable fact?

The only humans I ever get along with are other Fe users, but xSFJs the least of all. SJs drive me fucking nuts.


----------



## Fern (Sep 2, 2012)

Tzara said:


> *Also, did you know, that strong bias towards a kind is actually an Si trait?* Which happens to be a sensory trait.


So, does that imply that the guys who rave about how they "Just love blondes oh my God" are likely predominant Si users? ... Or what?


----------



## Moya (May 22, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> You are changing the premise. You just said it was about the child. Now you're saying it's about the way NTs treat sensors. Which one is it?


I'm not changing the premise, I never said it was _about _the child. I'm saying that of course the child is "helpless", but that's not the OP saying that sensors are spineless, only exaggerating the treatment of sensors in that fictional society. The purpose of the script is to make a comment on how NTs treat sensors (specifically on this forum and other MBTI/Jung communities).



> You have to actually have a victim to victim blame. I'm arguing that sensors are NOT victims. They are capable human beings and they can defend themselves against a few people who are being stupid.


Obviously. That's still not OP's point. In the society she imagined, NTs have long since gained power in a social and professional hierarchy and sensors are oppressed. Clearly this isn't the case in real life, it's a hyperbolic metaphor.



> Plus, nothing is stopping sensors from bombarding this message board with comments about how intuitives are worthless daydreamers who don't live in reality and come up with hair brained ideas.
> 
> If that were the case then we would have a ton of intuitive defender threads. It's all meaningless.


Nothing's stopping them...besides the fact that they'd get torn a new asshole if they did that. Complaining about sensors (especially xSFx) is practically a community pastime here.

I really don't see what's so hard for you to grasp about this. Seems like OP had a lighthearted Ne brainchild that she posted here to prove a point as well as for entertainment value. She's not actually saying that this is going to happen, she's considering what it would be like if it _did_ happen and basing it off of the bias against sensors on here. Do yourself a favor and take the joke.


----------



## Tzara (Dec 21, 2013)

Fern said:


> So, does that imply that the guys rave about how they "Just love blondes oh my God" are likely predominant Si users? ... Or what?


I wouldnt know, I'm into redheads. :kitteh:


----------



## Fern (Sep 2, 2012)

Tzara said:


> I wouldnt know, I'm into redheads. :kitteh:


...

So in other words, you're not going to answer my question.


----------



## Strelok (Aug 16, 2013)

HAL said:


> What I mean is that it has taken many millions of years of evolution for the human psyche to become what it is today - with all its specific variations between individuals, i.e. MBTI-style differences. There must be a reason for that. I think the reason is that the current distribution of personality types was optimal for our best chances of survival. If not... there would, for example, be more NTs now, or more SJs, or NFs, or whatever. That's why I said 'perfect'. Because it has taken hundreds of generations of refinement for our species to become what it is.


Yeah, so it was optimal for our survival in pre-agricultural society. Doesn't mean it's still perfect. Personally, I think we could stand SJs to be closer to 25% of the population.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Moya said:


> I'm not changing the premise, I never said it was _about _the child. I'm saying that of course the child is "helpless", but that's not the OP saying that sensors are spineless, only exaggerating the treatment of sensors in that fictional society. The purpose of the script is to make a comment on how NTs treat sensors (specifically on this forum and other MBTI/Jung communities).


The child is totally irrelevant to the actual discussion. Using a child is a ploy to gain sympathy. I'd rather ignore that part completely. And I can't imagine that someone read the OP and missed the blatant message about Ns treating Ss badly. 



> Obviously. That's still not OP's point. In the society she imagined, NTs have long since gained power in a social and professional hierarchy and sensors are oppressed. Clearly this isn't the case in real life, it's a hyperbolic metaphor.


One that someone who thinks Ss are victims would come up with. Those who know Sensors aren't all victims can see that it's a misguided notion. 



> Nothing's stopping them...besides the fact that they'd get torn a new asshole if they did that. Complaining about sensors (especially xSFx) is practically a community pastime here.


And Sensors are just as capable of tearing into anyone who disagrees with them. Why do you think they aren't? 



> I really don't see what's so hard for you to grasp about this. Seems like OP had a lighthearted Ne brainchild that she posted here to prove a point as well as for entertainment value. She's not actually saying that this is going to happen, she's considering what it would be like if it _did_ happen and basing it off of the bias against sensors on here. Do yourself a favor and take the joke.


There wasn't anything funny about it. I see people who start these threads as oppressing Sensors. Making them victims, talking down to them, and pointing out their inability to defend themselves. It's like they see them as handicapped children. They are the parents who want to coddle their children and never allow them to make it on their own. 

Sensors don't need anyone's defense. These people need to quit being so oppressive.


----------



## Tzara (Dec 21, 2013)

Fern said:


> ...
> 
> So in other words, you're not going to answer my question.


I didnt think it was a serious question :kitteh:

No that wouldnt be Si ^^.


----------



## Moya (May 22, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> The child is totally irrelevant to the actual discussion. Using a child is a ploy to gain sympathy. I'd rather ignore that part completely. And I can't imagine that someone read the OP and missed the blatant message about Ns treating Ss badly.


I didn't "miss the blatant message". If you'll notice, the OP is an intuitive - not playing the victim card. She's mocking the people that _do _act like this. Seriously. It's pretty easy to understand.



> One that someone who thinks Ss are victims would come up with. Those who know Sensors aren't all victims can see that it's a misguided notion.
> 
> And Sensors are just as capable of tearing into anyone who disagrees with them. Why do you think they aren't?


When did I say they aren't? You're all over the place here. The arguments you're making are completely irrelevant. I could just as easily flip this around on you and say that you're accusing sensors of being overly aggressive. Stop reading so far into this, you're doing it wrong.



> There wasn't anything funny about it. I see people who start these threads as oppressing Sensors. Making them victims, talking down to them, and pointing out their inability to defend themselves. It's like they see them as handicapped children. They are the parents who want to coddle their children and never allow them to make it on their own.
> 
> Sensors don't need anyone's defense. These people need to quit being so oppressive.


You are directly contradicting yourself. You just claimed that sensors _aren't_ victims, now you're saying that they're "oppressed". You previously said that it's harmful to imply that sensors are allowing themselves to be victims, now you're blaming people like OP for victimizing them. Furthermore, you're saying that sensors are oppressed and victimized, and you're considering the OP oppressive for defending them.

Good job on nailing pretty much every logical fallacy in the book all in one go. That takes quite a bit of effort.


----------



## ChocolateBunny (Aug 5, 2013)

UglierBetty said:


> ...


I'm sure that if you research other theories for best MBTI matches you could find some other ones that other people like and agree with and have experience with. Please take those into account. At the very least check to see how the best matches you support actually like each other.

Most other people won't follow what you're saying if you don't have any actual proof other than your personal musings to support you or have not researched sufficiently beforehand. You need proof such as experience (which isn't sufficient by itself), studies, statistics, or something like that. Please keep that in mind.

Personally, I could see how it would be nice to be in a relationship with an ESFJ who would take of me and my social situations as well as make me feel less emotional in comparison. However, I...just can't see actually dating an ESFJ (through no fault of their own). I would go for an easier relationship with someone that I could understand better. Then again, I might eventually like one of them. It depends on the person. There are probably some very happy INTP-ESFJ couples out there, but there might be some very grating ones as well, so I don't think "These types always go well together" is a good rule of thumb.

P.S. baiting others/insulting them won't convince them either. A good idea will speak for itself.


----------



## ChocolateBunny (Aug 5, 2013)

Haha well, NTs may take over the internet forums with their typism, but it's very unlikely that everyone in the world is going to adopt the MBTI as a way of life and force everyone to become an NT. 
I thought that story was funny though :laughing: .


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Moya said:


> I didn't "miss the blatant message". If you'll notice, the OP is an intuitive - not playing the victim card. She's mocking the people that _do _act like this. Seriously. It's pretty easy to understand.


That is your third premise change. First it's about the child, then it's about how intuitives treat sensors, now it's mocking people who act like that. You keep moving the argument away from your previous claim. 

I didn't say the OP was the victim, but that she was using the victim card on behalf of sensors. 



> When did I say they aren't?


 You said the poor sensors would get ripped into. As if they couldn't defend themselves as the idiotic intuitives who talk crap. When, in fact, they are more than capable of standing up for themselves. 



> You're all over the place here.


I'm not the one who keeps moving the goal post here. That's you. 



> The arguments you're making are completely irrelevant. I could just as easily flip this around on you and say that you're accusing sensors of being overly aggressive. Stop reading so far into this, you're doing it wrong.


You're trying to turn my argument against me, instead of responding to it. I never said they were MORE aggressive, though they aren't LESS aggressive, as some here want to pretend. 



> You are directly contradicting yourself. You just claimed that sensors _aren't_ victims, now you're saying that they're "oppressed".


No.  Just because these people are trying to oppress them, doesn't mean they are oppressed. I spoke about those attempting it, not that they have succeeded. 



> You previously said that it's harmful to imply that sensors are allowing themselves to be victims,


I never said any such thing. "Allowing themselves" I never said that. I've said repeatedly that sensors ARE NOT victims. Just because they find these threads too ridiculous to respond to, doesn't imply they are "allowing themselves to be victims." The OP and people like her are trying to MAKE Sensors into victims. 



> now you're blaming people like OP for victimizing them. Furthermore, you're saying that sensors are oppressed and victimized, and you're considering the OP oppressive for defending them.


I did not say they ARE oppressed or victimized. At least be accurate in your responses here. The OP assumes sensors need to be defended because they are incapable of doing it themselves. That is an attempt to oppress them. They are normal, healthy, and responsible adults, they don't need people coming to their perceived rescue. 



> Good job on nailing pretty much every logical fallacy in the book all in one go.


LOL. Quit projecting.


----------



## dedosdepie (Jan 12, 2014)

Is this argument still going on? I wasn't implying that sensors were victims, and I didn't think anyone would actually take this post seriously.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

homosapiens said:


> Is this argument still going on? I wasn't implying that sensors were victims, and I didn't think anyone would actually take this post seriously.


Whenever anybody suggests that an intuitive/anti-sensor bias exists on the forums (it CLEARLY does), we get legions of delusional people running in screeching and twisting everything around.



*What is written:* 
_"People on the forums act condescending against S types which leads to mistypes and type bias/stereotypes"_


*What they (apparently) see:* 
_"Sensors are worse than intuitives and need us to fight for them - they are victims of intuitive oppression!"_
or (even worse when they get the following impression)
_"Sensors deserve to be treated better than intuitives!"_




It's like they see the words on their screens but can't string together even the simplest conclusion from it.


----------



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

homosapiens said:


> Ha, this is a trainwreck :laughing:
> 
> I came up this story while daydreaming and thought it was hilarious. It's based on my own internal sense of humor (which everyone has their own version of) with references that 99% of people don't get. The sarcasm was way too subtle and it just didn't make much sense.
> 
> At least I find myself funny!!


Ssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Don't ruin it. This is a good thread to read.


----------



## Moya (May 22, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> That is your third premise change. First it's about the child, then it's about how intuitives treat sensors, now it's mocking people who act like that. You keep moving the argument away from your previous claim.


It was _never_ about the child. You're being impressively narrow minded here. The child was a plot device of the author. My point has been constant throughout this entire pointless argument: the OP was proving a point about the way NTs treat sensors. Saying that they were mocking the NTs who act that way is _not _a premise change, it's directly related to what I had been previously stating.



> I didn't say the OP was the victim, but that she was using the victim card on behalf of sensors.


That doesn't make sense. If she's not the victim, she _can't_ play the victim card. You're saying that she's playing the victim card even though she's not the victim card and that sensors aren't victimized even though you said in your last post that they are? I think you need to figure out what point you're actually trying to make before you post any more.



> You said the poor sensors would get ripped into. As if they couldn't defend themselves as the idiotic intuitives who talk crap. When, in fact, they are more than capable of standing up for themselves.


That's not what I said. I'm pretty sure most people would want to avoid stirring up shit that's going to get them "ripped into", that doesn't mean they're weak and can't defend themselves, that means they don't want to deal with other people's shit.



> I'm not the one who keeps moving the goal post here. That's you.














> You're trying to turn my argument against me, instead of responding to it. I never said they were MORE aggressive, though they aren't LESS aggressive, as some here want to pretend.


How did you manage to understand what I was doing yet still completely miss the point?
You honestly have a talent. Just like how you've picked up on the OP saying "NTs treat sensors badly" yet you manage to fail to grasp the big picture.



> No.  Just because these people are trying to oppress them, doesn't mean they are oppressed. I spoke about those attempting it, not that they have succeeded.


You said people need to stop being oppressive towards sensors. If you'll take a look at the dictionary definition for oppression, it is not something that you can fail at while still subjugating the object of the oppression.



> I never said any such thing. "Allowing themselves" I never said that. I've said repeatedly that sensors ARE NOT victims. Just because they find these threads too ridiculous to respond to, doesn't imply they are "allowing themselves to be victims." The OP and people like her are trying to MAKE Sensors into victims.





> Intuitive adults would have to decide S people are inferior and S people would have to sit back and be the victim and let it happen.


...uh, yeah.
People have shitty attitudes about sensors on here. A large number of intuitives have already decided sensors are inferior. In the real world, intuitives can't exercise power over sensors, especially since MBTI is a theory that many consider to be pop psych or a pseudoscience and is not a facet of daily life outside of these forums. OP imagined a fictional world where intuitives _do _hold power over sensors, akin to a heteronormative society exercising power over queer people. Clearly they weren't actually envisioning that the future will play out this way.



> I did not say they ARE oppressed or victimized. At least be accurate in your responses here. The OP assumes sensors need to be defended because they are incapable of doing it themselves. That is an attempt to oppress them. They are normal, healthy, and responsible adults, they don't need people coming to their perceived rescue.


No. Seriously, so much no. I don't think you actually read the post because it sounds like you read the title of the thread and decided to throw a shit fit over it. If you did read the post, you must struggle heavily with reading comprehension because you're missing the point completely. If the script in the first post had centered around straight parents finding out their young son was gay, would you take it to mean that gay people are incapable of defending themselves? You're being selective about what you pay attention to and it completely skews the meaning.



> LOL. Quit projecting.


----------



## Ghostsoul (May 10, 2014)

homosapiens said:


> Ha, this is a trainwreck :laughing:
> 
> I came up this story while daydreaming and thought it was hilarious. It's based on my own internal sense of humor (which everyone has their own version of) with references that 99% of people don't get. The sarcasm was way too subtle and it just didn't make much sense.
> 
> At least I find myself funny!!


I could actually see how much it was dripping in sarcasm! Yes, you made a good, humorous post. I don't see what the big fuss is about!


----------



## Ghostsoul (May 10, 2014)

Did anyone actually take this post for what it was?
A hypothetical scenario created solely for the purpose of comedy?
No, we had to look at it from every angle and ponder what is wrong with this community.
Well done guys.


----------



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

Ghostsoul said:


> Did anyone actually take this post for what it was?
> A hypothetical scenario created solely for the purpose of comedy?
> No, we had to look at it from every angle and ponder what is wrong with this community.
> Well done guys.


Are you serious?

Is she serious?


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Moya said:


> It was _never_ about the child.


Your argument #1


Moya said:


> The sensor in the OP is a very young child.


 I responded to it, and then you changed the premise to argument #2


Moya said:


> The OP is making a statement about how ridiculous the way NTs treat sensors is.


 I responded and then you presented premise #3


Moya said:


> OP saying that sensors are spineless, only exaggerating the treatment of sensors in that fictional society. .


Now you’re back to stating it isn’t about the child. I can't keep up with all your premise changes. If you had kept it to one topic then you wouldn't be so confused. 


> The child was a plot device of the author.


Now you’re just using the statement I made already, several times. At least you are progressing. 


> That doesn't make sense. If she's not the victim, she _can't_ play the victim card.


 It happens all the time. Like the “war on women” is a statement made by a group of people using the victim card for poor helpless women.


> that sensors aren't victimized even though you said in your last post that they are?


I never said that. Please follow along. 


> That's not what I said. I'm pretty sure most people would want to avoid stirring up shit that's going to get them "ripped into", that doesn't mean they're weak and can't defend themselves, that means they don't want to deal with other people's shit.


 That’s how it sounded to me. If responding to idiotic comments against sensors isn’t worth the time of sensors, then I don’t see why so many people are trying to make it such a big deal. Sensors don’t take that crap seriously because they know it’s all BS and most likely being written by teens who are too immature to see past their own stupidity.


> How did you manage to understand what I was doing yet still completely miss the point?
> You honestly have a talent. Just like how you've picked up on the OP saying "NTs treat sensors badly" yet you manage to fail to grasp the big picture.


 I am not the one missing the big picture. There are many other threads with this exact same message. Essentially saying, “don’t be mean to the poor helpless sensors.” Your argument is grounded in this one thread. The SMALL picture. These threads are doing the opposite of what is intended. 


> You said people need to stop being oppressive towards sensors. If you'll take a look at the dictionary definition for oppression, it is not something that you can fail at while still subjugating the object of the oppression.


 Oppression doesn’t have to happen instantaneously. All these ridiculous threads are sending an oppressive message that sensors are unable to defend themselves and that they are victims. That doesn’t mean sensors give a crap about that message and act oppressed.


> ...uh, yeah.
> People have shitty attitudes about sensors on here. A large number of intuitives have already decided sensors are inferior. In the real world, intuitives can't exercise power over sensors, especially since MBTI is a theory that many consider to be pop psych or a pseudoscience and is not a facet of daily life outside of these forums. OP imagined a fictional world where intuitives _do _hold power over sensors, akin to a heteronormative society exercising power over queer people. Clearly they weren't actually envisioning that the future will play out this way.


 Threads like these only encourage that kind of attitude. It’s like telling the bullies who you think are the most wimpy kids. These threads are pointing to the sensors as being the wimpy kids and telling those bullies to leave them alone. It would be better to tell those bullies that they are the wimpy kids, as is the truth. 


> No. Seriously, so much no. I don't think you actually read the post because it sounds like you read the title of the thread and decided to throw a shit fit over it.


LOL. I cracked a joke and made one small comment. How is that deciding to “throw a shit fit?” You responded to me and made more out of what I said. You have progressed this to a point that is beyond necessary. 


> If you did read the post, you must struggle heavily with reading comprehension because you're missing the point completely. If the script in the first post had centered around straight parents finding out their young son was gay, would you take it to mean that gay people are incapable of defending themselves?


 Yes, I would have. It doesn’t matter who the subject is, the message is still the same.


----------



## Moya (May 22, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> It happens all the time. Like the “war on women” is a statement made by a group of people using the victim card for poor helpless women.


...wow, yeah, I'm done with you. Have fun.


----------



## gay (Jun 13, 2014)

"typism" lol calm the fuck down will ya
go outside
pick some flowers
grow the fuck up
welcome to the real world where there are _actual problems where people face actual discrimination_ not just a couple of loners getting pissy on the internet lmao


----------



## Tzara (Dec 21, 2013)

gay said:


> "typism" lol calm the fuck down will ya


Dat Name.


----------



## eleventhheart (Jun 11, 2013)

Haha I really don't understand this thread. OP was sort of funny, but the humour was a little forced. And then where did the rest of the thread come from?

@_UglierBetty_ obviously has some serious personal issues going on. I actually think that the reason he doesn't have a type listed yet is because he's afraid of being judged by all the rampant typism he thinks is going on. The fear is making him blow the problem completely out of proportion. Yeah, typism is a thing, just like racism and sexism are things. Also, just like those two forms of discrimination, people who are honestly typist are looked down upon. However, unlike racism and sexism, the damage done by typism is almost entirely limited to the internet. Stop being a goof and sit down, buddy. Typism is barely a problem if it's only words.

Based on the fact that he seems to get really hung up over "SJ hate", I reckon he's probably an SJ :tongue:. Maybe even with Fe somewhere up in that stack.

Which is fine, of course. xSFJs are usually really nice. But the way you're jumping straight to petty insults rather than actually engaging in any discussion is getting on everyone's nerves. If you're having issues on the forum, it seems to be mostly self-inflicted.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

eleventhheart said:


> Haha I really don't understand this thread. OP was sort of funny, but the humour was a little forced. And then where did the rest of the thread come from?
> 
> @_UglierBetty_ obviously has some serious personal issues going on. I actually think that the reason he doesn't have a type listed yet is because he's afraid of being judged by all the rampant typism he thinks is going on. The fear is making him blow the problem completely out of proportion. Yeah, typism is a thing, just like racism and sexism are things. Also, just like those two forms of discrimination, people who are honestly typist are looked down upon. However, unlike racism and sexism, the damage done by typism is almost entirely limited to the internet. Stop being a goof and sit down, buddy. Typism is barely a problem if it's only words.
> 
> ...


I'm freaking out and making an ass of myself on the forums - *SO I CLEARLY MUST BE A XSFJ*



thank you for proving my point


----------



## eleventhheart (Jun 11, 2013)

UglierBetty said:


> I'm freaking out and making an ass of myself on the forums - *SO I CLEARLY MUST BE A XSFJ*
> 
> 
> 
> thank you for proving my point


Haha but I totally gave you a pokey-tongue smiley. It was partly a joke, but in any case it was more that you were "freaking out and making an ass" of yourself over perceived typism against _specifically_ SJs, which would partially explain you not wanting to share your type. I thought that made sense, not conclusively obviously, but if you're not some sort of SJ then you can tell me right now, and I'll consider that line of reasoning void. What doesn't help anything is hiding behind sarcasm and pretending I didn't hit it right on. That's what I meant by failing to engage.

I'm not being malicious by calling you an xSFJ in any case. ISFJs are plenty awesome people. They're kind, selfless, peaceful, and can hold a decent conversation to boot. ESFJs are generally warm and welcoming, quick to make sure that everything is fair and equal. Personally, I think you instantly assuming I was somehow being typist speaks more about your views on type than mine. It shows that you think there's some reason people would look down on xSFJs.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

eleventhheart said:


> Haha but I totally gave you a pokey-tongue smiley. It was partly a joke, but in any case it was more that you were "freaking out and making an ass" of yourself over perceived typism against _specifically_ SJs, which would partially explain you not wanting to share your type. I thought that made sense, not conclusively obviously, but if you're not some sort of SJ then you can tell me right now, and I'll consider that line of reasoning void. What doesn't help anything is hiding behind sarcasm and pretending I didn't hit it right on. That's what I meant by failing to engage.


I was being satirical of myself
(Btw I have no idea what my type is, so I dunno). 



eleventhheart said:


> I'm not being malicious by calling you an xSFJ in any case. ISFJs are plenty awesome people. They're kind, selfless, peaceful, and can hold a decent conversation to boot. ESFJs are generally warm and welcoming, quick to make sure that everything is fair and equal.


We need more posts like this on these forums



eleventhheart said:


> Personally, I think you instantly assuming I was somehow being typist speaks more about your views on type than mine. It shows that you think there's some reason people would look down on xSFJs.


Again, I was being silly there.
But to assume that there is no anti-SJ bias on these forums is foolish. 

Me calling it out doesn't magically flip things around and make *me* the one saying those things... 





For an analogy:
*Me:* _"In some cases, minorities are not treated equally in America."_
*People:* _"OMG YOU THINK MINORITIES ARE WORSE THAN OTHER PEOPLE!?!?!? WHY ELSE WOULD YOU MENTION IT IF YOU DIDN'T THINK THAT THEY WERE WORSE IN SOME WAY?"_


----------



## eleventhheart (Jun 11, 2013)

UglierBetty said:


> I was being satirical of myself
> (Btw I have no idea what my type is, so I dunno).
> 
> 
> ...


Satire is the use of exaggeration and irony to highlight and criticise someone's stupidity, so I hope you can understand why satirising yourself to show your own failings might have confused me.

Anyway, like I said before, people here generally look down on explicitly typist comments. That sounds to me like the mark of an overall anti-typist community.

From my perspective your analogy is a little weak, because the conversation seemed to go like this:
*You: *"Minority groups are not treated fairly"
*Me:* "You seem really mad about mistreatment of minorities. Do you yourself belong to one? That's not a bad thing, they're usually really nice people"
*You:* "So I'm part of a minority group because I'm irrationally angry and overly sensitive? Thanks for proving my point, you racist"
*Me:* "I wasn't being racist, but you assuming I called you a minority because you're an ass might be"

Though apparently you were just kidding around the whole time, so whatever I guess.


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

I appreciate the OP's message (although, I'm not fond of the way it was conveyed, we should be highlighting the good things about SJs and clearing misconceptions rather than victimizing them and ironically promoting the stereotypes by attacking them, if that makes any sense, and just because someone's an NT or NF, it doesn't automatically make them a typist), but I find seriousness over the issue rather amusing when we take a bird's eye perspective (just imagine yourself as an outsider visiting this thread for the first time). It's almost like we have designed our own virtual world in this forum. Like an MMORPG.

Did I just type more words in parentheses than normally?

The best way, in my opinion, to remove misconceptions and fallacious stereotypes is to spread more knowledge. Right now, all you're doing is continually talking about how SJs are being victimized. That's not progression, that's stagnation.

For some reason, this reminds me of an incident where I posted a comment about how a Cameroon footballer reminded me of Jamie Foxx and people started accusing me of being a racist.


----------



## Derange At 170 (Nov 26, 2013)

After reading uglier betty's posts carefully in both this and the Spider-Man thread, I believe I can accurately type him as a bottle cap.


----------

