The only constant throughout history is groups who're 'different' being invariably seen as 'evil', 'stupid' and/or 'crazy'. When it comes down to specifics (what makes somebody a 'deviant')--that's another story. The term 'loser' (and all its variations) is inextricably linked to and contingent on society's perception (and regulation) of 'normality'. If you've read Jacques Derrida's philosophy on deconstruction and différance, you'll see what I mean :tongue: So no--there's no inherent absolute 'truth' behind 'loser' as such.
the concept of 'loser'
do you think such concept necessarily have to be a reality ? and, an unavoidable reality, at that (like society often dictates, judges, or say)?
Or,
could it simply due to our (human's) mostly limited mind & perceptions & understanding only?
where is really the sharp fine line?
and what is the *real* truth?
Or,
could it simply due to our (human's) mostly limited mind & perceptions & understanding only?
where is really the sharp fine line?
and what is the *real* truth?
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
"Loser" tends to mean "one who does not follow and achieve the goals set by society". You haven't moved outta your folks' place by the designated time. You haven't lost your virginity by the designated age. You don't have sex the designated amount. You don't spend your weekends in the designated manner. You don't follow the designated fashions. You aren't into the designated things. Blah blah blah.
And more often than not, it's just a term used by actual losers to attempt to bring the cool, genuine, interesting people.
And more often than not, it's just a term used by actual losers to attempt to bring the cool, genuine, interesting people.
It's a relative term.
What constitutes a winner? It depends on criteria used. If your only criteria are the ones often invoked in the stereotypes for Western men - emotional stoicism, material wealth, sexual success - then sure, it's a reality. It's a reality because there are people who see the world in that way, and there always will be because that is human nature. By definition, there will always be winners and, in order for there to be winners, there will always be losers.
But are those the rules you play by? Is that what feels natural to you? Or is it just what you have allowed yourself to be convinced should be important? You can be a winner by your own estimation even as you seem like a loser to others (presuming that your rules don't constitute a favourable appraisal by most other people).
It may be something of a self-absorbed philosophy, but in my opinion it is more important to be a winner in your own estimation first before pandering to the expectations of others. Be clear on what is most important to you and don't stain your conscience with unnecessary regret.
What constitutes a winner? It depends on criteria used. If your only criteria are the ones often invoked in the stereotypes for Western men - emotional stoicism, material wealth, sexual success - then sure, it's a reality. It's a reality because there are people who see the world in that way, and there always will be because that is human nature. By definition, there will always be winners and, in order for there to be winners, there will always be losers.
But are those the rules you play by? Is that what feels natural to you? Or is it just what you have allowed yourself to be convinced should be important? You can be a winner by your own estimation even as you seem like a loser to others (presuming that your rules don't constitute a favourable appraisal by most other people).
It may be something of a self-absorbed philosophy, but in my opinion it is more important to be a winner in your own estimation first before pandering to the expectations of others. Be clear on what is most important to you and don't stain your conscience with unnecessary regret.
Hard to say. Calling someone a Loser is opinion. A person might be viewed as a Loser to one person, but might be a *Winner* to other friends and or society. It all depends on what the personal feelings of others is. The Life Lesson for me -- is to not ask for approval from others, to be what they want me to be -- I must continue on the path I feel is right for me. Hell hath no fury as The Majority scorned. Sometimes people will label others to gain control over them.
Pretty much this.
I would add though that being a loser is a reality, but only in limited circumstances. By this, I'm talking about competitive sports such as Baseball, Football, etc.
Of course, if you're a sportsman or Martial Artist, you don't take it so personal usually. You see your defeat (loss) as a lesson, and improve where possible.
Other than that though, or even in such sport situations as I described when you really think about it, you're only a loser if you accept such a concept.
Loser (much like many labels we ascribe to people) implies that's what we will always be. That there's no change.
Well, there is change. So basically, you can lose at something by all means, but does that make you a loser (one who ALWAYS loses)?
Of course not.
Whether or not someone is a 'loser' depends on the values of whichever social group they associate with. You can't be a loser as long as you're with people that have a similar definition of the term.
The majority influences 'cool' from 'lame', unfortunately. However, when the minority congregates, they have more of an influence, and I in particular am deemed an outcast even when amongst fellow outcasts, falling into the 'loser' category. If you have nobody to back you up, or nobody knows you personally and can vouch for your awesomeness, then the people observing from afar make inaccurate assumptions, which in their eyes, define you as a individual. (that's just my personal experience)
I'm too lazy to thank every post in this thread so far, but yeah--I think we generally agree on the same points 
It never ceases to piss me off when folks who're afraid of losing their 'coolness' rag on others just to preserve their own 'coolness'. We can't all be 'winners', can we? :tongue: For folks who study Psychology, does this topic have much to do with the in-group/out-group phenomenon?
It never ceases to piss me off when folks who're afraid of losing their 'coolness' rag on others just to preserve their own 'coolness'. We can't all be 'winners', can we? :tongue: For folks who study Psychology, does this topic have much to do with the in-group/out-group phenomenon?
Well it would... to a loser!
roud:Wait I get! If you change the real world to a fantasy world where you make all the rules to fit you, well then you are the winner!!"Well it would... to a loser!
Hehehe, I kiddy, I agree being a loser is relative to the one saying it, so the only way you can ever be a loser is if in your mind the person calling you a loser is a winner. Since, I run with the perception you all are total losers, well I have a pretty big trophy case. :wink:
What people see when I show them my trophy case is also relative, being a bunch of golden triumphs or a bunch of polished turds. :happy:
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
