i'm at asahikawa! where's the red light district?
- Thread starter xenlong
- Start date
-
Throughout the month of April 2024, participate in the FileJoker Thread Contest OPEN TO EVERYONE!
From 1st to 30th of April 2024, members can earn cash rewards by posting Filejoker-Exclusive threads in the Direct-Downloads subforums.
There are $1000 in prizes, and the top prize is $450!
For the full rules and how to enter, check out the thread -
Akiba-Online is sponsored by FileJoker.
FileJoker is a required filehost for all new posts and content replies in the Direct Downloads subforums.
Failure to include FileJoker links for Direct Download posts will result in deletion of your posts or worse.
For more information see this thread.
So you're saying it's OK to cop-out on responding to a legitimate discussion when there's nothing to target (or prove) easily like you have in the last thread and this one? I'm not here to argue, nor have I. All I've done is presented the facts in an amiable manner as a response to the points you've brought up yourself. Do you realize how many questions I asked in my posts? That's supposed to provoke discussion, and answers. I'm just curious as to how you'll reply to the ideas I've brought up. If you're not looking for a discussion, then don't post in the first place. It's really unfortunate that you can't admit that you were wrong with your sweeping generalizations of Japanese culture. You certainly had time to call me out rudely in the first place, so you should have the time to admit your mistake.
What sort of work do you have where people live and die on your watch yet you have the time to write 600 words about social insecurities in pseudo-humanistic psychology? You're the one arguing the point in the first place that "insecurities in the real world translate the same way online." Do you have some sort of background information on me where you can base this claim, besides what I've posted here--which if you read carefully would suggest otherwise? Like I said before, if you're seeking validation of my legitimacy I'll show it to you. I've never assumed that you or Aqua are this sort of "insecure net" person, as it wasn't the topic being discussed, and my discussion is based entirely on the information posted by yourself and him. I don't have anything personal against you or him but I do find it irresponsible to go back on your words by pretending nothing happened in the first place.
No, me. Please write a suitable response to what I've said earlier today. Thanks for your time.
You're the first to call me a princess. I intend to reincarnate as one. I'm sure it will suit me.
I actually tried to google an answer but I can't read japanese, so I got nowhere. Also I know very little about brothels and prostitutes, I would not even be able to point out any brothels in my home town.
I think plenty of people have no problem being friends with severely shy people. I know I don't. This shyness though might very well stand in the way of a friendship ever starting and developing.
I watched the dorama and mostly just remember wanting to punch densha otoko in the face, so tell me, how is his friendship with Matsunaga and Kawamoto not genuine, or is it?
Also from Sabu's Drive is the friendship or even romance between Asakura Kenichi and Sakai Sumire not genuine?
Parties and social outings tend to suck the life out of super-super-introverted people, so I would call it even.
They most likely want to run run run from these socially-exuberant scenarios.
Friendship is about sharing, caring and closeness. It is not restricted to a extraverted form. Introverts can bring qualities to a friendship like depth, loyality, listening well.
I have no objections to stating harsh truth with consideration.
Lack of friendship is harsh reality for many overly shy people. The harsh truth is that their own fears are standing in the way of making friends. However that they are undeserving of friendship is a harsh condemnation.
I think getting an STD from fucking some prostitute might makes things even harder for them.
If I give you a plant, and you neglect to water it, and it dies, people would say of you, "He did not deserve that plant."
If I give you a car, and you neglect to maintain it, and it breaks down, people would say of you, "He did not deserve that car."
If I give you a job opportunity, and you fail to make the most of it, people would say of you, "He did not deserve that position."
If I give you a friend, and you fail to nurture that friendship, people would say of you, "He did not deserve that friend."
It's that Q, E, and D. Pure and simple. I'm not saying that introverts are sub-human creatures who do not deserve friends for their own happiness. I am saying that one can argue that introverts do not deserve friends on the basis that they fail to uphold their part of the bargain. By definition, an introvert is withdrawn. If you are withdrawn, it means you are not giving. If you are not giving, it means you are not partaking in what is commonly understood to be a human social relationship, whether it be marriage, friendship, whatever.
Suppose we have a scale that ranges from -100 to 0 to +100. 0 (Zero) is average. -100 is maximum introvert. +100 is maximum extrovert. Given this scale ...
I don't believe that aquamarine was suggesting that people who score -100 to -1 are undeserving of friends. I believe his main focus was on that -100 to -80 range of the graph. Sure, maybe -100 to -50. The point is, words like "introvert" and "extrovert" are too black and white to describe most people. Aqua's point was that a hard-core hikikkomori does not deserve to have any friends. By their very nature, they are not willing to be a good friend. And if you're not willing to be a friend, then you don't deserve to have a friend.
If that's harsh, fine, but I see nothing sadistic or icy about this view. I think he makes a solid, if cynical, argument. "People who are not willing to be friends are not deserving of friends." Sounds fair to me. Sounds like the Golden Rule, really: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." We can argue all day and all night long about whether hikikkomoris need friends or not, or whether we want for them to enjoy friendship or not; but in the end, these arguments are separate from the question of whether they deserve, i.e. have a right to friends or not.
Friends aren't a human right. They are an existential privilege. You earn friends: you aren't entitled to them.
If I give you a car, and you neglect to maintain it, and it breaks down, people would say of you, "He did not deserve that car."
If I give you a job opportunity, and you fail to make the most of it, people would say of you, "He did not deserve that position."
If I give you a friend, and you fail to nurture that friendship, people would say of you, "He did not deserve that friend."
It's that Q, E, and D. Pure and simple. I'm not saying that introverts are sub-human creatures who do not deserve friends for their own happiness. I am saying that one can argue that introverts do not deserve friends on the basis that they fail to uphold their part of the bargain. By definition, an introvert is withdrawn. If you are withdrawn, it means you are not giving. If you are not giving, it means you are not partaking in what is commonly understood to be a human social relationship, whether it be marriage, friendship, whatever.
Suppose we have a scale that ranges from -100 to 0 to +100. 0 (Zero) is average. -100 is maximum introvert. +100 is maximum extrovert. Given this scale ...
I don't believe that aquamarine was suggesting that people who score -100 to -1 are undeserving of friends. I believe his main focus was on that -100 to -80 range of the graph. Sure, maybe -100 to -50. The point is, words like "introvert" and "extrovert" are too black and white to describe most people. Aqua's point was that a hard-core hikikkomori does not deserve to have any friends. By their very nature, they are not willing to be a good friend. And if you're not willing to be a friend, then you don't deserve to have a friend.
If that's harsh, fine, but I see nothing sadistic or icy about this view. I think he makes a solid, if cynical, argument. "People who are not willing to be friends are not deserving of friends." Sounds fair to me. Sounds like the Golden Rule, really: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." We can argue all day and all night long about whether hikikkomoris need friends or not, or whether we want for them to enjoy friendship or not; but in the end, these arguments are separate from the question of whether they deserve, i.e. have a right to friends or not.
Friends aren't a human right. They are an existential privilege. You earn friends: you aren't entitled to them.
I dislike the word deserve in this context because of its connotation.
People who do not want to care, share and be close are unworthy to have a friend.
People who can not care, share and be close are incapable of having a friend.
I feel most of the time a lack of friendships is not caused by a lack of wanting but by a lack of inclination or ability.
Establishment of friendships is limited if one is not inclined to care, share and be close. But even if one is unfit for most friendships, it does not mean one is unworthy of all friendship.
Caring for a friend can be expressed very subtle and infrequent and be genuine.
Shared activities and experiences do not have to be common or follow social rules.
Closeness does not have to fit narrow parameters set outside a particular friendship.
As a personality type, introverts can be friends with introverts and demands of extroverts on friendships are inconsequential in this situation.
One is indeed not entitled to friendship; it simply exists when the parts come together. A friendship can be aquired by effort by bringing parts together and sometimes it requires no effort when it comes solely from the heart and circumstance does the rest.
People who do not want to care, share and be close are unworthy to have a friend.
People who can not care, share and be close are incapable of having a friend.
I feel most of the time a lack of friendships is not caused by a lack of wanting but by a lack of inclination or ability.
Establishment of friendships is limited if one is not inclined to care, share and be close. But even if one is unfit for most friendships, it does not mean one is unworthy of all friendship.
Caring for a friend can be expressed very subtle and infrequent and be genuine.
Shared activities and experiences do not have to be common or follow social rules.
Closeness does not have to fit narrow parameters set outside a particular friendship.
As a personality type, introverts can be friends with introverts and demands of extroverts on friendships are inconsequential in this situation.
One is indeed not entitled to friendship; it simply exists when the parts come together. A friendship can be aquired by effort by bringing parts together and sometimes it requires no effort when it comes solely from the heart and circumstance does the rest.
Strange… the user who started the thread hasn't said a thing since.
Well xenlong if you're indeed still in Asahikawa you're only a train ride away from me. I live in Sapporo. While I know nothing of or about you I'm willing to meet up and take you out on the town as it were. I'm sorry but I can't offer you a place to stay but will help you get one if you need it. Feel free to PM me if you're seriously interested. Unfortunately I've only been to Asahikawa for the zoo and can't comment on it's night life which I believe there to be none.
desioner
Well xenlong if you're indeed still in Asahikawa you're only a train ride away from me. I live in Sapporo. While I know nothing of or about you I'm willing to meet up and take you out on the town as it were. I'm sorry but I can't offer you a place to stay but will help you get one if you need it. Feel free to PM me if you're seriously interested. Unfortunately I've only been to Asahikawa for the zoo and can't comment on it's night life which I believe there to be none.
desioner
The mods here aren't very strict on the 'lesser' rules, like flaming.
A burn here and there is alright, just not in excess or posts solely containing flaming.
Generally, rules about user interaction are less rigid, because we prefer it if you deal with your own issues instead of 'telling' on each other all the time.
You know, like people do in the real world.
Not many people has actually gotten banned for flaming here.
It's mostly morality cops that gets banned, as most other people seem to 'adjust' according to our private 'advice'.
A burn here and there is alright, just not in excess or posts solely containing flaming.
Generally, rules about user interaction are less rigid, because we prefer it if you deal with your own issues instead of 'telling' on each other all the time.
You know, like people do in the real world.
Not many people has actually gotten banned for flaming here.
It's mostly morality cops that gets banned, as most other people seem to 'adjust' according to our private 'advice'.