On April 27 2017 01:52 beentheredonethat wrote:Show nested quote +I looked into your past 50 posts and I didn't understand a single thing you were saying. You keep spouting off things about trolls and what not, and now you're trying to start a new phrase of "beaning" or whatever.
You go around TL spamming nonsensical crap and it's incredibly annoying. I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish but I'm pretty sure that this account was solely made for the purpose of trolling. Or, in your words, "beaning".
If that is the case, then please leave. TL people shouldn't have to deal with these headaches...
Thank you so much, Seeker.
How is trying to make TL mafia great (what I was trying to do) consistent with the definition of beaning, I gave?
Rules:
1. Basic common sense, with regard to conduct and successful mafia game completion assurance. Don't be a - Hide Spoiler [bean] -
The most defining characteristic of a Bean post is its pointlessness, other than to invert the constructive flow of ideas and their transmission, to assert a form of dominance of its proprietor over the target post. Only by belittling the effort, value, relevance or purpose of the target post is the bean able to legitimize his or her lack of purpose, relevance, value and effort, and he or she does this via unwarranted assumptions of the proprietor of the target.
For you see, the more effort, value, relevance and purpose the targeted post has, the more of a rush a bean gets upon pressing 'Post' and awaiting its consequences, within the safe confines of his overflatulated dwelling -- psychologically speaking.
Beans who are going to make a new account and post the insult with that are funny because they're at least putting in the extra effort, and therefore cannot be beans, more on that later. A bean is going to try to first and foremost foster a history of pseudo-usefulness to the community that amounts in what others ought to perceive as a buffer of untouchability, because the more seemingly standard-abiding posts a bean accumulates the more impact he preemptively imbues his bean post with. That's why you see them commenting on the most mundane stuff saying shit just to seem helpful or, and this is the crux of this paragraph, integrated, as if to gather caliber for their opinion; carrying weight; representing; acting like they're at the forefront of this established army of freethinking but like-minded in their rejection spectrum people, the people who form the elite authorities on what is what.
A false paradox would be to assume that this is a way of making an effort. It's pre-target-post effort, and has no purpose other than to roll the persona snowball onward, until it's big enough to be thrown at someone's face, preferably someone engaged in doing something more useful than the bean could ever hope to have imagined himself doing, looking susceptible to sabotage, hopefully reducing him or her to the bean's level by making him or her want to return the favor, and abandon his or her constructive undertaking, so the he or she bean won't feel so alone. So he or she doesn't need to rethink his or her values either, upon having witnessed someone raising the bar far beyond his or her reach.
And that is why passing judgement as to whether it is in fact beaning, and determining its extent of gravity and calamity to the OP are inseparable from the target post, and the context of the medium, with all its dimensions like the bean's history on the site. Each post should therefore be scrutinized in establishing the true mentality of the bean -- whether its anchored in something genuinely substance-laden or a superficial disguise from where to strike from whenever he or she thinks he or she can get away with it, being left romanticizing his or her involvement in the psyche of everyone who read his or her bean post.. alas having achieved permanence -- for whatever the OP was building there there is thus incontestable proof of the bean having been involved in it, even if its just a bit of delay.
The worst that can come from misunderstanding what constitutes beaning is the putting on a pedestal -- reserved for those who are genuinely building circuits of awesomeness for all to benefit from, of people who are unable to however slowly, slightly advance towards, or even turn towards a direction remotely resembling that of the trajectory of awesomeness, because then people who don't know how to create value gain the ability to represent it and reap its primary perk: authority.
If there ever was such a thing as the perfect quantifiable reward for having caused something good or elegant to happen as a result of having done effort, or to a lesser degree at least attempting that finality, then it's the orgasm, the universal currency of base-level maximum joy. Whether we are conscious of it or not, every time we see someone do something awesome and enjoying the resulting empathy, we are imagining that we are giving out orgasms, a finite and valuable commodity we could have kept for our selves, but at one time or another one has to recognize that someone abided by a a high standard or even raised it, and every time that happens someone who is part of the solution -- not the problem, will go through this mental process of donating a gasm.
It is best to believe that there is an objective way of telling what is valuable -- as in deserving of being rewarded with a gasm -- and to a further extent of the beautification of the circumstances of achieving it, and to entask one's natural curiosity to mapping out that objectivity, and to profit from conforming and excelling at supplying it, accessible by the specific demand in an ever-changing environment. Beans either honestly fail to harmonize at this, by tuning their online or real life endeavors to serve selfish and infantile goals, falling short on dedicating effort to generate value with a noble purpose, and achieve a delivery with superlative relevance to the receivers, or even themselves before clicking Post, or they fail willfully by confining their intentions to a malicious spectrum ranging from sheer unwillingness to treat a singular post with the according respect to being a beaning fanatic.
In the case of the former, the bean has himself or herself to blame if that is the case, but a society is to blame if it happens on a regular basis, for it is surely the misallocation of authority, and its uninspired application that left room for the perversion of being convinced to deserve a gasm for posts like this one. Whether effort, noble purpose, relevance and value are tuned according to objective awesomeness evaluation or not can only be said for certain once a post has been emulated to be perceived the way the poster perceived it, and to insinuate a poster is insane is more often then not a declaration of refusal to do so.
The constellation of these 4 cardinal elements that warrant a post being posted can be obscure, and builders might find joy in taking readers on a ride to explore its extent, easing into it at first, but the time spent exploring is time spent doing something other than asserting dominance or superiority, or in the most perverse cases parading having supposedly righteously decided -- for everyone who might see the target post and be influenced by it, that it's not worth their time, and genuinely believing to have done a service to oneself and the hive mind, by signaling it as such.
If a bean has all of the above negative characteristics, and doesn't mind being part of the problem and thus not attempting to redeem oneself by giving gasms, or if broke making it so as to replenish one's stash thereof and then giving some of them to those who build -- instead of those who can't and therefore risk devaluating one's brand with only oneself and to a lesser extent society to blame -- for making it too hard to pursue objective awesomeness research, the next step is to exercise subtlety and brevity. The former to extend longevity of haphazard masturbating at the expense of the universal value of a gasm, and the latter to insinuate common-sense, the twisting to suit the beans agenda of which is the most effective method to gasmblock someone, i.e. to not only abstain from rightfully donating a gasm to someone who deserves it, but also skewing or contesting the applicability of jurisdiction of the logic governing gasm distribution for the case in question, and furthermore claim it to be a measure rooted in common-sense -- that is it would be silly to beg to differ, and ultimately truly achieving to sabotage gasm income, resulting in a lackluster yield of gasms and destabilization of post value (effort, purpose and relevance) to gasm ratio.
If the bean succeeds, his deeds are unpunished, is left to rave unhinged while gasms are unaccounted for, why would anyone make quality posts? Given enough time people will even lose a sense of what a quality post is, and then suddenly a bean can get away with deluding himself that his posts truly deserve gasms, and pretty soon the only ones on the site are those who ceaselessly have to belittle others to stand strong in this belief. If you ignore the bean, the bean will win. If you ignore the builder because you got your values mixed up, and you somehow are left in the belief that a builder is a bean, the beans of the past have already won, and the builders of the future will be too frustrated to do what they do best -- deliver quality posts, because it feels like carrying the collective weight of a thousand beans' inadequacy upon having posted an adequate, not to mention excelling one, and instead of basking in morally awesome-abiding righteously handed out gasms, one perceives the poverty of gasm hyperinflation and misappropriation, and it's them who are sad, the bean not so much.
The assumption develops that beans exist in a separate value continuum. Their dwelling needs little ventilation, yet they refuse to do it. Perhaps it's because if they insinuate that the grandiose and glorious posting endeavors of their fellow forumites have an unpleasant odor to them, and bring it closer to resemble the way their fart cushion of an accommodation reeks like, they can tap into and level with the value continuum of builders, and stand as their equal, with little to no effort spent, which has to mean they are superior by natural law, because in their mind project magnitude, content hierarchy, difficulty and elegance do not compute.
Natural law states that for equal amount of success, the individual who invested less resources and energy to generate the same amount of assets that are relevant for quantification as the other, is the victor. As an extension of this people like to think that if they had spent the same time and energy someone else has, that they would've achieved superior results, and therefore like to make excuses, which is a sure way of not adding additional value to one's post and instead belittling that of others, and ultimately silly, common-sense-wise.
The object of forums cannot be to inflate the capacity and substance of a post to a degree one would otherwise not have achieved without referring to RL. As a valid extension of this logic it should be reproachable when someone makes unwarranted assumptions of a supposed insufficiency inherent in the post, pertaining to an alleged RL mental condition that should make it so as to disqualify the value remuneration of the post. Whether the alleged information is the truth or a lie, there is no sensible argument in favor of publishing the supposition, more so, as I've clearly stated, if the target post is one that could potentially harbor legitimacy for the effort brought about in its creation, if the effort shouldn't suffice to stand as a clear deterrent for making malicious assumptions all by itself.
Generally, further interaction between the proprietor of the target post and the person suspected of beaning him or her with his post in question is to be desired to weed out any possible misunderstanding, however, as stated, that may not be what the drive-by oneliner bean perceives as his or her best interest, and he or she has all the defenses that lack of collective intelligence, unfit reprisal of civilization's authorities -- i.e. failure to amalgamate value production and authority, and society's negligence leave at his disposal. Tools which he/she'll use by basically not doing anything, automatically upholding the problem, more so leaving it in a state in which it can potentially aggravate itself.
The problem is not lying to oneself, but the fact that it obstructs people to feel good about themselves when they produced something that deserves being dished out gasms for. There is really no sensible argument to bring up anything related to RL, because it can only do harm, and is therefore confirmed mafia.
##Vote: Insinuating spam
A lynch has been achieved.
Insinuating spam has died Day 0.
It was - Hide Spoiler [Flip] -
beany
and belongs on the TL Mafia subforum, exclusively in theme games with speakeasy-level degree of pointless bitching.
!
User was banned for this post.
EPT
)
