Morlocks and Eloi

[UncleWolf]

Yesterday my brother pointed out to me that there are two kinds of people Morlocks and Eloi. For those of you who don't know Morlocks and eloi are from H.G. Wells "The Time Machine". At one time the human race split up into two groups which became two separate races at one time or another. The morlocks are the predators of the new society while the eloi are the prey.

Now after that talk first thing this morning when i'm going to class i automatically start categorizing people. you can tell the difference if you look closely enough.

Eloi usually try to avoid eye contact and try to stay in large groups so they don't get noticed by any morlocks that might be around (a.k.a herd mentality).

Morlocks usually try to make eye contact with others and keep their head up. they are also the ones to open up the other door when there is a large group of people trying to fit into one. We can also recognize each other almost instantly and usually give each other a nod of respect by reflex to tell each other that we aren't going to be causing any trouble.

Sometimes morlocks will imitate an eloi and start gaining their trust (this isn't bad it is usually a morlock trying to point out that those specific eloi are under it's protection and any hostile outside interference will be met quickly, violently, and all over the place). There are very few morlocks compared to eloi. My count for today is 6 morlocks (not counting my friends) an 200+ eloi.

I am a morlock.
Which one are you and how many have you seen?

[averagejoe]

The problem with predator/prey relationships is that the hunters almost always believe (falsely) that they are superior to the prey.

The problem with categorizing people is that one almost never has sufficient data to draw a correct conclusion, and the data that one does have is often misinterpreted. I've also noticed a (not so strange) trend in people who categorize; the ones categorizing always seem to put themselves at the top of the list, unless it's for science or some similar practice.

The other problem with predator and prey relationships is that they both tend to get outlasted by the sheer adaptability of scavengers. Plus they never seem to get taken into account, which is to their advantage. :smallamused:

For serious, though, what is this about? Is this just to let everyone know that you're a lone wolf type of guy, and that the sheep out there only live at your consent, and the consent of your fellow lone wolves? That's mindlessly self indulgent as it is silly as it is wrong.

[TeeEl]

I've also noticed a (not so strange) trend in people who categorize; the ones categorizing always seem to put themselves at the top of the list, unless it's for science or some similar practice.

There are two types of people: those that like to draw arbitrary distinctions between themselves and others to make themselves feel superior, and those that don't. Fortunately I'm one of the former. :smallbiggrin:

[Crow]

There are two types of people: those that like to draw arbitrary distinctions between themselves and others to make themselves feel superior, and those that don't.

I'm going to go with this one.

[Collin152]

Morlocks usually try to make eye contact with others and keep their head up. they are also the ones to open up the other door when there is a large group of people trying to fit into one. We can also recognize each other almost instantly and usually give each other a nod of respect by reflex to tell each other that we aren't going to be causing any trouble.


You started with "they" and ended with "we"...
That unnerves me, just a little, somehow, for some irrational reason.

[chiasaur11]

All I know is there are 10 kinds of people.

Those who understand bianary, and those that don't.

Nobody tell the thread starter the answer

[Lord Herman]

What about lone herbivores? And pack hunters? There's people like that too, you know. Also, there are hamsters. How does they fit into this theory?

[SurlySeraph]

I'm somewhat involved with survivalism. I've noticed that a lot of them divide people into "sheep" (people who don't prepare for breakdowns in everyday life), "wolves" (are prepared/tough, would hurt the "sheep") and "dogs" (prepared, protect the sheep). Every single person who subscribes to this theory sees himself as a dog.

Which brings me to my point: trying to categorize people usually gets you nowhere. People are individuals, and while it can be helpful to put them into categories it's never useful for determining anything beyond broad moral generalizations.

[Cubey]

Most people who organize other people put themselves as the "best" category, displaying their personal qualities as the best if not outright lying about possessing what traits they do not have. And therefore such categories are nothing but elitistic bullcrap. And the original post is proof.

[Lord Herman]

I'm somewhat involved with survivalism. I've noticed that a lot of them divide people into "sheep" (people who don't prepare for breakdowns in everyday life), "wolves" (are prepared/tough, would hurt the "sheep") and "dogs" (prepared, protect the sheep). Every single person who subscribes to this theory sees himself as a dog.

See? This theory doesn't have hamsters in it either. Therefore, it is a bad theory.

[Collin152]

I'm somewhat involved with survivalism. I've noticed that a lot of them divide people into "sheep" (people who don't prepare for breakdowns in everyday life), "wolves" (are prepared/tough, would hurt the "sheep") and "dogs" (prepared, protect the sheep). Every single person who subscribes to this theory sees himself as a dog.


But I'm a sheep.
I know I am.

[Renegade Paladin]

I'm somewhat involved with survivalism. I've noticed that a lot of them divide people into "sheep" (people who don't prepare for breakdowns in everyday life), "wolves" (are prepared/tough, would hurt the "sheep") and "dogs" (prepared, protect the sheep). Every single person who subscribes to this theory sees himself as a dog.
Of course. Everyone wants to see himself in the most positive light. You see it with the current thread on people's alignments; almost everyone's claiming lawful good, and those that aren't are doing so because they don't see lawful good as the best way to be. I guarantee that the majority of those claiming non-neutral alignments are wrong, since most people simply don't have the commitment necessary to be more than that.

Would you significantly sacrifice to help another person, even one you don't have personal attachment to? Would you run into a burning building to save someone, jump in front of a bus to get a child in the street out of its way, go hungry to feed a starving man, stand between a lynch mob and its intended victim? If not, then you're not Good as D&D defines the term. There's nothing especially wrong with that, but it's the truth. Conversely, if you have significant qualms about harming or killing other people for your own gain, then you're not Evil.

In the same way, making other categories of people and immediately putting yourself in the "best" one from your perspective is suspect at best. Incidentally, Morlocks universally killed and ate Eloi, so the OP's definitions of its categories are inherently flawed. :smallamused:

[chiasaur11]

See? This theory doesn't have hamsters in it either. Therefore, it is a bad theory.

No monkeys or penguins either. That theory has significant flaws.

And I'd like to hope I'd sacrifice my life if the need came, but I couldn't know until I was tried. And by that point, I probably would be too busy to post on a forum.

[Lord Herman]

Would you significantly sacrifice to help another person, even one you don't have personal attachment to? Would you run into a burning building to save someone, jump in front of a bus to get a child in the street out of its way, go hungry to feed a starving man, stand between a lynch mob and its intended victim? If not, then you're not Good as D&D defines the term. There's nothing especially wrong with that, but it's the truth.

I'd attribute most of that to bravery or cowardice, not good or evil.

[SurlySeraph]

Would you significantly sacrifice to help another person, even one you don't have personal attachment to? Would you run into a burning building to save someone, jump in front of a bus to get a child in the street out of its way, go hungry to feed a starving man, stand between a lynch mob and its intended victim?

Oh, I'd jump at the chance. Making a heroic sacrifice is quite honestly one of my highest ambitions, and has been for years. But I have a boring life, and none of these ever come up. I've helped clean up after a fire in a neighbor's apartment (I would have helped with the actual fire had I been around) and done a few similar minor things, but I rarely face any risk.

[averagejoe]

What about lone herbivores? And pack hunters? There's people like that too, you know. Also, there are hamsters. How does they fit into this theory?

How hamsters fit into any theory: controlling everyone from the background.

It's like with Snowflake on Pinky and the Brain.

[chiasaur11]

How hamsters fit into any theory: controlling everyone from the background.

It's like with Snowflake on Pinky and the Brain.

I could have sworn that was white lab mice.

[Alleine]

How hamsters fit into any theory: controlling everyone from the background.

Shhh! they'll hear you!


By the way, this seems kinda odd.
I wouldn't put myself in either category, really. They're too broad for my liking, and don't allow for much variation, which, unfortunately, many people will probably have.

I much prefer the three categories of alive, dead, and undead.

[chiasaur11]

Shhh! they'll hear you!


By the way, this seems kinda odd.
I wouldn't put myself in either category, really. They're too broad for my liking, and don't allow for much variation, which, unfortunately, many people will probably have.

I much prefer the three categories of alive, dead, and undead.

With category three moving back to category two as quickly as reload times will allow.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Would you significantly sacrifice to help another person, even one you don't have personal attachment to?
Yes.

Would you run into a burning building to save someone,
I'd even run into a burning compartment to pull anybody out of the flames. I'm trained (minimally) to do this.

jump in front of a bus to get a child in the street out of its way
If I could run fast enough.
go hungry to feed a starving man,
No, but I'd certinly dip into my wallet to feed the poor guy. If thats not possible -Im would definatly share.
Also, if hes tarving to death and feeding him means I don't eat for a day or so, then yeah.
stand between a lynch mob and its intended victim?
Not unless I have a weapon to make the mob fear me to the point where their fear overrides their bling anger to lynch someone. I'm all for saving lives, but suicide is not a noble act.


In other news, I classify people into "Shipmates", "Civlians", and "Alive", "Room Temperature", or "Achieving room tempurature"

[bosssmiley]

There are two types of people: those that like to draw arbitrary distinctions between themselves and others to make themselves feel superior, and those that don't. Fortunately I'm one of the former. :smallbiggrin:

I'm one of the latter: which makes me better.

...

:smallconfused:

Morlocks = chavs (the savage lumpenproletariat)
Eloi = raahs (upper-middle class twits)

So much for Wells the great socialist champion of the common man, eh? :smallbiggrin:

[UncleWolf]

Would you significantly sacrifice to help another person, even one you don't have personal attachment to? Would you run into a burning building to save someone, jump in front of a bus to get a child in the street out of its way, go hungry to feed a starving man, stand between a lynch mob and its intended victim?


i would do all of these things in a heartbeat because that is the way i was raised and taught to believe is right. I wasn't intentionally trying to insult anybody but, if i did i am truly sorry.
i also wasn't trying to make it so people were either good or evil, or make it look like they are either strong or weak.

I was just saying something that others that i know have observed about myself and people that they walk past.


Again, from the responses from above, if i have offended you i apologize.

P.S. it would depend on what the person running from the mob did. :smallbiggrin:

[averagejoe]

I could have sworn that was white lab mice.

It was; Snowflake was a villain who showed up, a hamster as smart or smarter than Brain, but with the same goals. Bill Gates was actually a robot controlled by Snowflake, I believe, and he could turn into a butt-kicking mech.


I much prefer the three categories of alive, dead, and undead.

It being the duty of the first category to ensure all members of the third category become members of the second. :smalltongue:


i would do all of these things in a heartbeat because that is the way i was raised and taught to believe is right. I wasn't intentionally trying to insult anybody but, if i did i am truly sorry.
i also wasn't trying to make it so people were either good or evil, or make it look like they are either strong or weak.

I was just saying something that others that i know have observed about myself and people that they walk past.


Again, from the responses from above, if i have offended you i apologize.

You didn't really offend me, I was just pointing out that it's rather silly to look at the world that way, and the way you put things was pretty elitist. For example:



Morlocks usually try to make eye contact with others and keep their head up. they are also the ones to open up the other door when there is a large group of people trying to fit into one. We can also recognize each other almost instantly and usually give each other a nod of respect by reflex to tell each other that we aren't going to be causing any trouble.

Sometimes morlocks will imitate an eloi and start gaining their trust (this isn't bad it is usually a morlock trying to point out that those specific eloi are under it's protection and any hostile outside interference will be met quickly, violently, and all over the place). There are very few morlocks compared to eloi. My count for today is 6 morlocks (not counting my friends) an 200+ eloi.

Especially the sentences about causing any trouble, and the eloi being under the morlock's protection. It's pretty clear that you believe that the so-called morlocks have all the power, and any eloi that exist do so only on the good graces of morlocks, that despite this 200/6 ratio the morlocks would drive the eloi before them like, using the same metaphor as before, sheep before wolves. You say you didn't mean to be elitist, but it clearly reads that way. You're basically saying that you are better, more capable, than these 200+ people.

It isn't just that; you seem to base this entirely on supposition and false reasoning. In fact, your only criteria seems to be sticking to large groups and whether they make eye contact. The second one is more or less entirely meaningless; there can be many reasons for someone not to make eye contact. I, for example, tend to try to make eye contact with people on the street. However, sometimes I'm deep in thought, so I don't, either because I don't think of it, or because I don't want to lose my train of thought. Some days I'm just depressed (it's genetic) and can't bear the thought of unnecessary human contact. There are many reasons why I might not make eye contact with someone, but none of them have to do with me inherently being a prey or heard animal. It isn't a criteria that's useful, or that makes any sense.

[Edea]

All I know is there are 10 kinds of people.

Those who understand bianary, and those that don't.


This ends the thread. Win.

[Renegade Paladin]

For those saying they would: I'm not doubting it. I meant to illustrate the point: People will claim labels because they're seen as good, without actually putting thought into what it means to be what they claim. There are certainly people who will do those things and more, but they're not most people.

Incidentally, I never just give beggars money; I go buy food and give that to them. I'm perfectly willing to feed the hungry, but I'm not financing someone's alcoholism.

[Da Beast]

Can we please stop using the word "elitist?" It's a nonsense word meant to play on inferiority complexes. If you really need to communicate that someone is unfairly characterizing himself as better than everyone else a real word such as pompous or pretentious will work just fine.

[averagejoe]

Can we please stop using the word "elitist?" It's a nonsense word meant to play on inferiority complexes. If you really need to communicate that someone is unfairly characterizing himself as better than everyone else a real word such as pompous or pretentious will work just fine.

:smallconfused: But I don't mean pompous or pretentious. Why would I use those words? There's nothing wrong with the word elitist; it's a word like any other. Specifically it means (courtesy of dictionary.com) 1. practice of or belief in rule by an elite. 2. consciousness of or pride in belonging to a select or favored group. Neither of these means "pompous" or "pretentious." I didn't think that the OP was putting on airs, I was commenting on the fact that he seemed to believe (I thought, perhaps mistakenly) that there's a group of people that is better than a group of other people, and that he belongs to the former group. That's what elitist means, and that's why I used the word elitist. I'm not sure where inferiority complexes come in, or why you don't think it's a real word, but there's no reason not to use it.

[Myshlaevsky]

I honestly think it's pretty goddamn creepy when you walk past someone who stares at you full-on. I mean, sure, you don't look away - but eye contact? Not so much.

[Crow]

The ones you need to worry about are the ones that watch your hands.

[Artemician]

Lessee...

Eloi:
Avoids eye contact
Sticks as a group

Morlock:
Makes eye contact
Takes initiative
Can recognize each other

Fundementally speaking, the only difference between the two groups is the presence of eye contact. As averagejoe mentioned, people do or do not make eye contact for a variety of reasons. To use such a vague way of distinction is in essence, useless.

And as for the other "traits" of a group, they're hardly mutually exclusive. I myself both like to stick with the beaten path, but when the path abandons me, I do take iniative to beat another one down. Where does that put me?

In summary, I find the OP's "groupings" to be not only offensively elitist, but completely meaningless besides.

[Raiser Blade]

tl;dr version

People are either stupid or cool. I'm cool.


Uh huh suuuure mr. morlock. :smallsigh:

[chiasaur11]

The ones you need to worry about are the ones that watch your hands.

They have the sense to avoid eye contact because, while you're looking in someone's eyes, he probably has time to get another knife in his hands.

So much for eye contact.:smallbiggrin:

[averagejoe]

tl;dr

If someone could indulge me in a bit of a side track, what does that mean?

[SurlySeraph]

@^: "Too long; didn't read"

[Khanderas]

There are two types of people: those that like to draw arbitrary distinctions between themselves and others to make themselves feel superior, and those that don't. Fortunately I'm one of the former. :smallbiggrin:
Heh my thoughts as well. Great minds think alike I guess then :smallwink:
So, morlocks are the cool persons, who are individual and smarter/cooler/better by inbord trait then the herd-type eloi ? Well in that case I am also a Morlock and you can trust me, Im a guy on the internet.

All I know is there are 10 kinds of people.
Those who understand bianary, and those that don't.

Truer words are rarely written.