All ebearyone wants to talk about is quadrants and unspeakable things. Why does nobody ever want to engage in discourse of the economic and political state of the empire?
Show off? Unlike most Chittr users, I don't find pleasure in a false *gasconade.* I didn't go after anyone in particular. I opened up a thread, inviting *cosmopawlitan* exchange among academics. It's not my intention for the less cultured to come running in hopes of embarrassing themselves. That's hardly showing off. It's simply refusing to stoop to a level that would be beneath me.
It's not intentional, of course, but you invite discourse in a place in which it is uninvited. You've already noticed where you're 🗨ING TO ME, ✓? A place where everyone (⒈) wants to complain about quadrant problems, life qualms, the sort. The common denominator is that NO ONE IS TAKING THIS AS SERIOUSLY. That's what makes you the OUTLIER amidst it all. You're expecting intellectuals to attend your every academic Beck And Call but get even frustrated when it isn't responded to. You can't blame me for assuming you're taking an ACADEMIC HIGH GROUND when you seek the SCHOLARS in A CASUAL MEDIA.
Who decided that scholars weren't using Chittr? Clearly I was able to find one troll who takes their academic pursuits seriously, and my sentiment has been echoed by others. Just beclaws ebearyone you see is concerned with matters of the flesh doesn't mean it's ebearyone. Perhaps that just speaks to the community you are cultivating...
Sorry, had to duck (goose) out for a second. I admit that it's myopic to label the entire community as such. YES, INDEED there are some scholars HERE! But I am 🗨ing about the GENERAL PUBLIC. You and I know what this implies! It'd be a singlefaceted way of handling the majority of General People with the standard of the academe——with an expectant, perhaps derisive coldness. That isn't saying that your inputs are unwarranted, but the fact you respond to those who don't share your main intelligence/sentiment with a striking level of CONDESCENSION makes it hard to believe you're only here seeking for an academic conversation. B':oPc I'd really like to hear about the reason behind the original statement, if you DON'T MIND!
My original pawst? My reasoning was like any of the rest of this userbase. To speak my mind and air out my thoughts in a forum of discourse. Curious that you deem it unquestionable that one would be pawsting about carnal desire and mind-numbing substances, but the instant a barrister-to-be wants to discuss matters of the cerebral, it's means for an interrogation. How backwards is that?
Oh, don't worry. I do this to Like, EVERYONE (⒈) ELSE. You can tell me if you want to call it quits. Carnal desires are JUST THAT——DESIRES. Sure, they reveal some information about the person as a whole, but I wouldn't want to SHAME ANYONE for what their pusher beats for. *cough* It's noticeably a different ballgame with you. Your frustration is DIRECTED AT THE GENERAL USERBASE, a functional incendiary. I choose to interrogate you on the behalf of the people you share a space with, the same people you call 'PAN-ROTTED'. That and you have quite a bit of (albeit self-defensive) rhetoric to BACK YOU ↑. I would ♥ to know more about you.
I highly doubt anything I say could shame these people enough that I need to pull my *oratorical* punches. Evidently they lack it in the first place, and seem utterly incapable of acquiring it. *Opprobrium,* that is, if it wasn't obvious. No opinion exists in a vacuum, including opinions related to matters of the pail. Is it so abominable that I critique these structures? I believe it is the burden of the bearer to handle their own shame if my remarks spark any. And perhaps, if I'm lucky, I can be the inspiration for someone to pursue a more sagacious, meaningful way of interacting with the world.
OK, THROWING IN THE METAPHORICAL TOWEL. That's a very strong and fair argument, friend. You've exercised your → to FREE SPEECH, particularly in a way that gets people thinking. (Crowd applause!) (No seriously, I'm REALLY impressed. It isn't everynight you find someone who can stand their ground!) I do want to leave you with this: why do you put yourself in a position of criticizing these people when you evidently have more fortunate circumstances than the majority? Almost everyone here seeks reprieve from outside drudgery and their ↓trodden lives. It's a privilege to even HAVE a space to communicate their desires without judgement. You have, to some extent, disr↑ted that with a contrasting perspective---the outside logic of the world. Don't forget that, of the academic mind, sympathy (or even empathy) should be acknowledged. Even in the courtblock, the defendant's conduct is considered. It pervades our lives. It shouldn't be your job to confront those who frankly don't want to be confronted. Chittr is, in the end, a social space. People want to understand and BE understood, much like what we're doing here, even if it means showing off the most vulnerable organs. They don't want criticism. They want to be seen.
Of course I can stand my ground-- if I am to be a legislacerator in the coming years, I'd be a professional of *exiguous* repute without sufficient *obduracy.* My future profession will not be graded based on my "empathy", it will be based on cold, hard, performance-driven statistics. I must be sufficiently prepared to dispute any battles of the gab hurled my way. I appreciate the recognition though, of course. As for this remark on the nature of Chittr, if they are so sensitive to my words, they can come and debate me, but thus far, other than yourself, who (nobly, admittedly) argues as a proxy for these *hoi polloi*, I have seen no such attempts. They may wish for their vulnerable organs to be seen, but I most definitely do not want to see them, nor do most people, I'd imagine. Nevertheless, I fight a neverending army in a losing battle, this I must sadly admit. I can still try.