RageFuel Complaining is called whining when people don't want to be a beneficiary to your injustices, or a witness to your personal reason relaying/ preaching.

[Pinpoint]

But in reality, sometimes whining is just reason preaching.

Two scenarios:
Is it whining to say that you can't light a fire with ashy wood? No. It's just reason preaching.
It is whining/ more understandable to say that someone is weak for not being able to light nice, fine wood because "it's too spiky/ cuts me too much".
It is better to state that it is unreasonable

Only through anger against the issues can we easily relay the injustice, and unfold the unreason.
Unreason unfolding is necessary.
When there is a clear issue at hand though, then people will conduit you to a whiner when they think that the istuation should be taken care of yourself.
WHich I don't personallyagree with. I am a person who lieks to believe we can build will/ deliberate for determination/ incite incentive, and amass advantage in union/ cooperation against the unreason I've unfolded.

Inciting incentive against injustice.
People do not act as sounding boards to rationalities htey don't want ot hear, and they create fake constraints (not enough time on my hands, have to do something), or call you out as a whiner when they don't want to be there WHEN A VERY RELEVANT INJUSTICE IS AT HAND.

 

[Herodion_Catriona]

A bad work man always blames his tools. But so do the good ones as well.

 

[Pinpoint]

A bad work man always blames his tools. But so do the good ones as well.

just depends on how excessively it's done, and the amount of work he's accomplished.

 

[Herodion_Catriona]

No I mean good work men will say 'use the right tool for the job'. So they are blaming their tools for the quality of their work too, it just happens to be good work.

But people are dismissive when they don't feel they are or will be personally affected, as much as people might drone that they are good and charitable, this will still hold true. Calling you whiny is simple name-calling, it is meant to be dismissive. A way of saying this issue either isn't real or is your fault.

To bring it into the realm of this forum. Men will show understanding towards women because they seek their affection, so they see it as an issue that will affect themselves, so women's issues become oppression. Women have their needs met, they don't need to seek affection from men, so men's issues become whining.
Lets not forget, it took a women facing injustice for the civil rights movement to give black men equal rights.

 

[Pinpoint]

No I mean good work men will say 'use the right tool for the job'. So they are blaming their tools for the quality of their work too, it just happens to be good work.

But people are dismissive when they don't feel they are or will be personally affected, as much as people might drone that they are good and charitable, this will still hold true. Calling you whiny is simple name-calling, it is meant to be dismissive. A way of saying this issue either isn't real or is your fault.

To bring it into the realm of this forum. Men will show understanding towards women because they seek their affection, so they see it as an issue that will affect themselves, so women's issues become oppression. Women have their needs met, they don't need to seek affection from men, so men's issues become whining.
Lets not forget, it took a women facing injustice for the civil rights movement to give black men equal rights.

So now you mean the bad work men will explicitly blame their tools, while the good ones, who have done a good job, will carry the blame to themselves.

Yes, you get my point.
Whining = Dismission on the basis of someone who is to blame for their weakness in the plight (And it's used as a veneering reason to just control the positions of physicals (which foids often do. WORDS/ ABSTRACTS are just a means to control the topography of the tangibles).
Words, meanings, etc. only the topography of the tangibles matter to women.

Valid complaining/ Uncovering unreason = seeing someones premise as valid. Which women don't want to do. They'd rather feign/ claim ignorance so they can't be accountable for not performing a deed/ action.

Valid complaining is where it is the situation and it is not yourself. That is an attestment. And if they agree then it is implied, by humanitarian aspect of personal decency that they should help you. Most won't want to and won't want to directly take the fall.

 

[Herodion_Catriona]

So now you mean the bad work men will explicitly blame their tools, while the good ones, who have done a good job, will carry the blame to themselves.

That wasn't what I was saying but I do agree in part.
The 'so do the good work men' is simply my reply to the 'bad work men comment', its dismissive, so I have a dismissive response.
And yes, I'd say often the difference between the good and the bad is being able to identify where the fault lies, and take responsibility for their ability to fix it or not.

But I wouldn't say this is something women don't want to do, but something they don't have to do. Necessity is the mother of invention as they say, and people are not want to do things they mustn't.
As women have social approval without criticism, and various quotas to benefit them.
Then they don't need to have sympathy and so dismiss other peoples issues as just whining. Men would do the same if they were in their same position.

But, this is a admittedly pessimistic outlook.
Humans are born with sympathy and my comment about the civil rights movement wasn't out of no where.
The issue we face in today's world is that this fetishism of woman's victim hood, which is what gives them this dominance, is enshrined in law. Which is why the law see's men as being as just whining.
They have done this by painting men, as a group, and as oppressor. And this is what they had to do this in order to dismiss our issues without sympathy.
And so you will always face people dismissing your issues. And saying your just a bad work man, or in other words a whiner. Because you are a man.

tl:dr I am agreeing with you, but am totally drunk and prone to ramble?!

 

[Pinpoint]

That wasn't what I was saying but I do agree in part.
The 'so do the good work men' is simply my reply to the 'bad work men comment', its dismissive, so I have a dismissive response.
And yes, I'd say often the difference between the good and the bad is being able to identify where the fault lies, and take responsibility for their ability to fix it or not.

But I wouldn't say this is something women don't want to do, but something they don't have to do. Necessity is the mother of invention as they say, and people are not want to do things they mustn't.
As women have social approval without criticism, and various quotas to benefit them.
Then they don't need to have sympathy and so dismiss other peoples issues as just whining. Men would do the same if they were in their same position.

But, this is a admittedly pessimistic outlook.
Humans are born with sympathy and my comment about the civil rights movement wasn't out of no where.
The issue we face in today's world is that this fetishism of woman's victim hood, which is what gives them this dominance, is enshrined in law. Which is why the law see's men as being as just whining.
They have done this by painting men, as a group, and as oppressor. And this is what they had to do this in order to dismiss our issues without sympathy.
And so you will always face people dismissing your issues. And saying your just a bad work man, or in other words a whiner. Because you are a man.

tl:dr I am agreeing with you, but am totally drunk and prone to ramble?!

Trust me, I don't have low mental resilience to look at tl:drs... unlike a lot of people here.

So essentially, I get it, but you didn't have proper prepositions for it to be discernible through someone who reads from a typically formal format.

I would say humans are born with empathy, but have a very self-centered sympathy that is predicated on ego. Those who obey/ comply get truths/ information/ better treatment. And those who resist human narcissism get manipulated/ treated disparagingly in some form/ implication/ passive way or another.

Tbh civil rights is born out of that conceive from need ideology. Human beings want communality, but they still want dominance within it. War/ conflict were born out of human beings trying to destroy civilization so they could find a power-spot in it rather than pure comic book villain sociopathy.
Civil rights is just another form of self-elevation through destruction. Saying that X system is wrong, and so Y must be instilled for it to be better, with the hidden Z of the people who are supporting it having underlying dominance. Politics is self interest.
I do not imply this is the absolute case, but it's a broad majority. Meaning that it is the prevailing force behind many of the actions of life.

For something to be a prevailing property/ thing/ forces... it requires evolutionary need/ necessity for things to congregate out of evolutionary need to make it abundant.
We are losing a lot of the abundance prevailing properties that had us survive in the jungle now because of insulation. But it was a prevailing property for us to be more violent. Not so anymore. It's why we see less chads every generation, and our genes find more purpose in being physically beta, but mentally strong than being physically chad.
Not to mention many chads were killed by jealous betas.

Pessimism is ideal because it's better to focus on the problem since that is the thing that can be the most effective in a negative way.
If you are alert to progress then you must make habit out of being on the highest peak of the mountain of power.
Being an optimist, or being fair minded means you don't make easy the way to constantly have dominance.

It's not us being bad work men.
But it's us being forced to work on bad tasks.
Can't treat people as disposable commodities. Defies the very underlying premise they have for their humanitarianism.

No I mean good work men will say 'use the right tool for the job'. So they are blaming their tools for the quality of their work too, it just happens to be good work.

Right.
Like how someone who builds a big fire out of shitty wood, who had to chop/ work at it for days will get rewarded with praise.
While many others do the same with the same shabby wet wood but get called whiners.
It's not the wood, or the people who chose the wood who are blamed. But the person who is tasked with the job.

 

[Herodion_Catriona]

So essentially, I get it, but you didn't have proper prepositions for it to be discernible through someone who reads from a typically formal format.

I do tend to say things in an indirect way. You’ll have to forgive me, its how I keep myself occupied?!

I would say humans are born with empathy, but have a very self-centered sympathy that is predicated on ego.

That is what I meant when I said people are dismissive if they don’t feel the issue will affect them.

Tbh civil rights is born out of that conceive from need ideology.

I’d agree that civil and basic human rights are born out of people attempting to put into writing the necessary rules that are needed for any group of people to function.
These rules are flawed, as the humans making them are. And they have yet to catch up to the rapidly changing environment that technology and agriculture has creating for us.

Civil rights is just another form of self-elevation through destruction. Saying that X system is wrong, and so Y must be instilled for it to be better, with the hidden Z of the people who are supporting it having underlying dominance. Politics is self interest.

Do you mean the people who will say things like “true” communism has never been tried, because their idea of “true” communism wouldn’t fail?
Or the people who support removing free speech, under the presumption that they would never have their speech impeded?

We are losing a lot of the abundance prevailing properties that had us survive in the jungle now because of insulation. But it was a prevailing property for us to be more violent. Not so anymore. It's why we see less chads every generation, and our genes find more purpose in being physically beta, but mentally strong than being physically chad.

But we do not know how this will effect us evolutionary speaking. Such rapid changes are completely unprecedented. It would be purely speculative to talk of sexual selection in relation to the traits that are more successful in our new world.
But we can be certain that evolution has not yet had such an effect, due to such rapid progression, amongst humans. Evolution requires many generations, and we are seeing advances within single generations.

Can't treat people as disposable commodities. Defies the very underlying premise they have for their humanitarianism.

But most peoples humanitarianism is established in a presumed imbalance between groups. And this will justify treated the group perceived as privileged as disposable.
But its for this reason that I believe a lot of people don’t identify as humanitarians. Because its compassion for humans, and not a group of humans. And so their response is “What! That stupid, we need to help womenz!!”

Like how someone who builds a big fire out of shitty wood, who had to chop/ work at it for days will get rewarded with praise.
While many others do the same with the same shabby wet wood but get called whiners.
It's not the wood, or the people who chose the wood who are blamed. But the person who is tasked with the job.

I think we agree, calling someone a whiner has nothing to do with the job, or quality there of. It is intended to dismiss the persons complaints, a review of them, not the work.
But in this example we have an objective means to access success. That the fire is lit. So from the perspective of others there is no difference between the skilled or unskilled as the fire still gets lit. But the success of the job is not what they are calling you a ‘whiner’ for.
And so I equally dismiss the 'you're just a whiner' for the ad hominem it is.

 

[Pinpoint]

That is what I meant when I said people are dismissive if they don’t feel the issue will affect them.

No duh.

Do you mean the people who will say things like “true” communism has never been tried, because their idea of “true” communism wouldn’t fail?
Or the people who support removing free speech, under the presumption that they would never have their speech impeded?

I mean that humanity makes fake ideologies in order to contextify their power taking actions as just. Or their imposition to dominate the power structure. It's the real reason people start religions, or forward almost any cause. Just to control the tangible elements/ materials with intangibles.
The answer to your question is acutally... both. Either one can be forwarding a personally elevating cause. And just be veneering virtue for their evil deeds. They would indeed want inequal favorable unfairness like the latter yu spoke of with their presumptions/ awareness it wouldn't apply to them in taking away freedom of speech.

But we do not know how this will effect us evolutionary speaking. Such rapid changes are completely unprecedented. It would be purely speculative to talk of sexual selection in relation to the traits that are more successful in our new world.
But we can be certain that evolution has not yet had such an effect, due to such rapid progression, amongst humans. Evolution requires many generations, and we are seeing advances within single generations.

Evolution takes time, and time doesn't move at the rate of the change which humanity makes critical situations decisive. But epigenetics still takes time. Relying on biological change won't help you in the dating game in time.

But most peoples humanitarianism is established in a presumed imbalance between groups. And this will justify treated the group perceived as privileged as disposable.
But its for this reason that I believe a lot of people don’t identify as humanitarians. Because its compassion for humans, and not a group of humans. And so their response is “What! That stupid, we need to help womenz!!”

Mankind always establishes a hierarchy, even of victimry.

I think we agree, calling someone a whiner has nothing to do with the job, or quality there of. It is intended to dismiss the persons complaints, a review of them, not the work.
But in this example we have an objective means to access success. That the fire is lit. So from the perspective of others there is no difference between the skilled or unskilled as the fire still gets lit. But the success of the job is not what they are calling you a ‘whiner’ for.
And so I equally dismiss the 'you're just a whiner' for the ad hominem it is.

Ad rem is the opposite of ad hominem.
Is it them? or is it the work?
most people will unjustly ad hominem to put pressure off themselves.