Who Bullies The Bullies?
but they're welcome to buy an iphone
Pacific Standard. Get it? It's like The Atlantic, but it's Pacific. Totally different. So unlike The Atlantic, it will "attack the conventional wisdom from a west coast perspective." That's a quote. "But didn't the editors come from The Atlantic?" Yes. "So what's the diff? Does west coast imply the writers will be better looking?" The women will be, unless they write about gender issues, then they will appear gendered. The men will look wise if they're crushing on social science, or tough and no-nonsense if they're hating on Republicans. Don't worry, pics of the writers will be included to suggest an appeal to authority. "Hold on, is the owner of this magazine Sara Miller McCune? The same woman who is responsible for those atrocious SAGE journals like Psychological Science and Evolutionary Perspectives On Human Development that charge CV padding post-docs a few hundred dollars to publish linkbait like "Ovulating Women Prefer Men With Large Sneakers", that Malcolm Gladwell and media outlets like Pacific Standard then cross promote as valid science?" Yes, but I'm sure it's a coincidence. "This magazine sounds terrible." Duh.
This cover story details #young #vulnerable #feminist writer Amanda Hess's frustration with disinterested male law enforcement when, after writing an article about receiving rape threats from a troll, she received rape threats from a troll. I sympathize, though in my experience what's even more frightening than a guy telling you he's going to rape you is a guy not telling you he's going to rape you.
There's a big push for "women's safety" online, for getting rid of trolls and cyberbullies and cyberstalkers, not coincidentally another one of Randi Zuckerberg's pet causes; and while these are all legitimate worries someone should take a minute and ask why, when mustached men have been stalking women since the days of Whitecastle yet no systemic changes have been effected, the moment women feel threatened from the safety of their LCD screens America opens the nuclear briefcase. No one finds that suspicious?
In fact, regular stalking is barely ever mentioned in media, no matter how many times the guy was laying under her new boyfriend's front porch on Wednesday nights after Organic Chemistry class, what drives the article is "and then he stalked her on Facebook!"
Here's just a sampling of the noxious online commentary directed at other women in recent years. To Alyssa Royse, a sex and relationships blogger, for saying that she hated The Dark Knight: "you are clearly retarded, i hope someone shoots then rapes you." To Kathy Sierra, a technology writer, for blogging about software, coding, and design: "i hope someone slits your throat and cums down your gob." To Lindy West, a writer at the women's website Jezebel, for critiquing a comedian's rape joke: "I just want to rape her with a traffic cone." To Rebecca Watson, an atheist commentator, for blogging about sexism in the skeptic community: "If I lived in Boston I'd put a bullet in your brain." To Catherine Mayer, a journalist at Time magazine, for no particular reason: "A BOMB HAS BEEN PLACED OUTSIDE YOUR HOME. IT WILL GO OFF AT EXACTLY 10:47 PM ON A TIMER AND TRIGGER DESTROYING EVERYTHING."
As the recipient of not zero decapitation emails I admit it does make you curious about whether or not you can buy an alligator, but while you're arming your windows like a Saw movie you should contemplate the difference between what should be done and why it appears something should be done.
I.
The force for this change isn't coming from safety or ethics. Neither is it activism. If you see any group advocating influentially for change in a media they don't own or control, you can double down and split the 10s, the dealer is holding status and quo. No change is possible on someone else's dime, and if what looks like a supermodel approaches you with a microphone and a camera crew, you should run like she's Johnny Carcosa. On occasion what the activists think they want may happen coincidentally to align with what the system wants, and from that moment on they will be lead to believe they are making a difference, which means they're making money for someone else. "Your writing is so muddled." Sorry. Were you better persuaded by the concise prose of Amanda Hess?
Her article seems to be about what could be done to stop anonymous trolls from terrorizing and threatening women. How about prosecuting them, since terroristic threats is already a crime? Unfortunately, as Hess discovers, the police don't care much about online stalking, which is consistent since they don't care about IRL stalking either. But never mind, it's not the problem: misogyny is the problem, amplified 1000x by online anonymity. Anonymity makes the internet mean and gives trolls= men too much power. This is the subtle shift: what starts out as "misogyny is bad" becomes "anonymity facilitates misogyny."
Keeping in mind that actual stalking has never been dealt with in any significant way ever, the desire of a few female writers to curb online anonymity wouldn't be enough to get an @ mention, except that this happens to coincide with what the media wants, and now we have the two vectors summing to form a public health crisis. "Cyberbullying is a huge problem!" Yes, but not because it is hurtful, HA! no one cares about your feelings-- but because criticism makes women want to be more private-- and the privacy of the women is bad. The women have to be online, they do most of the clicking and receive most of the clicks. Anonymous cyberbullying is a barrier to increasing consumption, it's gotta go.
II.
You may at this point roll your eyes epileptically and retort, "well, who cares 'what the system wants', the fact is anonymity does embolden the lunatics, shouldn't we try to restrict it?" Great question, too bad it's irrelevant. You've taken the bait and put all your energy into accepting the form of the argument. The issue isn't whether we should abolish online anonymity, since this will never happen. For every American senator trying to curb anonymity there's going to be a Scandinavian cyberpirate who will come up with a workaround, and only one of them knows how to code. Besides, there's no power in abolishing anonymity, the power is in giving everyone the pretense of anonymity while secretly retaining the PGP keys to the kingdom.
To understand what's really happening, start from basics: if you're reading it, it's for you. I assume you're not a cyberbully or a stalker. So do you have any power to abolish anonymity?
If Hess has made you wonder, hmm, maybe unrestricted anonymity is bad because it gives trolls too much power, then the system has successfully used her for its true purpose: brand it as bad, to you. She is unwittingly teaching the demo of this article, e.g. women in their 20s with no actual power looking to establish themselves, who are the very people who should embrace anonymity, not to want this: only rapists and too-weak-to-try rapists want to be anonymous. Smart women write clickable articles about their sexuality for nothing, because what good are you if you can't make someone else money? Interesting to observe that the article's single suggested solution to cyberharassment is to reframe a criminal problem into a civil rights issue using a logic so preposterously adolescent that if you laid this on your Dad when you were 16 he'd backhand slap you right out of the glee club: "it discourages women from writing and earning a living online." Earning a living? From who, Gawker? Most of the women writing on the internet are writing for someone else who pays them next to nothing. None of them control the capital, none of them get paid 1/1000 of what they bring in for the media company. You know what they do get? They get to be valued by work, and in gratitude they are going to the front lines to fight for the media company's right to pay them less.
And the indoctrination has worked, the less Asperger's a woman is, the more she'll hate writing anonymously. Don't get angry at me, they did a study, and I think it explains why women don't want to write for The Economist. In the reverse, put a pic in your byline and you improve your female audience; put a pic of a female in your byline and you've maximized ROI, everyone will click on a pic of a chick. This is economic and psychologic universe in which Hess finds herself.
"But you can't use a pen name at places like The New Yorker. You know they pay their top staff writers $100k a year?" Jesus. a) yes you can; b) listen to me: if those swindlers are willing to pay you $100k, then you could probably get $200k yourself, and if you can't get $200k yourself then you aren't worth their $100k either and they will eventually notice. When they pay you that much they're not paying you to write for them, they're paying you not to write for anyone else, that's called controlling the capital.
"So your solution is that she should use pseudonym? Isn't that blaming the victim?" No, not her-- you. You should use a pseudonym. You aren't writing for Gawker, you just use the internet, comment on things, etc. Why should you use your real name? "Why shouldn't I?" I'm sorry, I wasn't precise: why are you being encouraged to use your real name? Again, the question of whether anonymity emboldens trolls is not the force of that article, it isn't about their behavior, it is about yours.
"But merely 'branding anonymity as bad' isn't going to stop the cyberbullying misogynists." You are correct, which is why the spokesperson for this crisis is Amanda Hess. No one is trying to stop cyberbullies, there's no point, they don't shop and no one wants to look at them. Hess has entirely misunderstood what the medium wants. The whole game is to get women-- not the cyberbullies, not criminals, but the consumers-- to voluntarily give up all of their privacy, while paying lip service to privacy at home-- knowing full well women that women will pay money not to have the kind of privacy they have at home. Voluntarily exposing yourself makes you a targetable consumer and targetable consumable. Is it worth it?
III.
All of this is for the benefit of the media, which is why I know with 100% certainty that nothing will change. Because she wrote that article, because some people camped in Zuccotti Park, the energy for activity was discharged. And the media got all the profits.
What Hess didn't realize is that while she was fumbling impotently with the cops, the media company that she worked for could have crushed the troll if it was worth it to them. Did you have this thought? If not, it's not your fault, some people are trained not to have it while others were trained to have it immediately. Which are you? If the founder of Religions For New Atheists Sara Miller McCune herself had received an electronic rape threat from some Fox News stenographer in a Kentucky man cave, you think she's dialing 911? From her apartment? She would have waited until she got to the office, waved her hands like in Minority Report and her lawyers would have midnight Seal Team Sixed him while he was overhand jacking it to interracial porn. Do you know what Hess's employers did for her? No, I'm serious do you know? It can't be nothing, right? That would be Bananastown. It was nothing? Really?
Maybe hypotheticals aren't your bag, ok, here's a true story: "Amy" received a couple of voice messages from a "customer" she met at work who wanted to put something in her vagina. These messages were not violent, in so far as forcing your fantasies of consensual sex into an unwilling girl's ear is considered not violent, but of course they creeped her out. There's one other crucial piece of information needed to understand this story: her harasser probably had large sneakers. I'll give you all a minute to catch up.
Every woman has some version of this story, with one important difference: Amy was a medical student, which meant a lot of money went into her and a lot of money was expected of her. One (1) phone call from the Dean to a phone number that was not 911 and that guy was evaporated. Two cops located him minding his own business, and because he defended himself with the magic words-- and you should write these down, they're gold-- "it's a public street, I have a right to be here"-- he was jailed for eight months for harassment and resisting arrest-- pre-trial. Pre means without. Of course his case was ultimately dismissed. Does that matter? Please observe a) Amy herself didn't have to do anything to effect any of this, she was mostly unaware of the results, the system was on autopilot; b) he was jailed not for what he did but for whom he did it to, had Amy been a 1040EZ at the Footlocker we'd say she was asking for it. "But it isn't fair that her protection money should get her concierge policing while the rest of us have to make due with socialized law enforcement." Was it fair that he did eight months because he couldn't afford bail, is it fair that he didn't know that it wasn't fair? On the other hand, was he a dangerous nut, should he have been punished? Of course. Was he operating from a perspective of institutionalized sexism, patriarchal thinking, misogyny? Sure, #whatevs. Sometimes the structural imbalances go your way, and sometimes they don't, better figure out who makes the scales.
After Hess got the runaround, she spent a lot of time trying to get a protection order, a force slightly less compelling than wind. Why didn't she just call the Mayor? "Hi. I work for the city paper, the one that caters to voting Democrats and men looking for Russian companionship. I'm doing a story about police apathy regarding sexual violence from a first person perspective, by which I mean your perspective. Comment?" That would have solved her problem, but more importantly it would have forced her to think about WHY that solved her problem. What is the difference between a "woman" who is threatened and a "reporter" or "medical student" who is threatened? Why is it more bad to attack a journalist than a woman? Think about that, it has not always been so. The former is an attack on the system, so the system must respond; the latter is an attack on a woman, so -------------------------------------. And so it goes.
But Hess preferred to see misogyny on the internet, so instead we get another trending article about how the problem has a penis. This coincides perfectly with the media's desire to frame it as a gender war because that makes for good clicking. Let's summarize the media's thesis via unwitting Hess: 1. cyberharassment is a women's issue, never mind the men who are harassed. 2. The appropriate way to handle women's issues is not necessarily to solve them but to discuss them in the media. "It's called awareness." We are all aware. Are you aware of how much you made for Pacific Standard at your expense and to no avail?
IV.
Hess is fighting the battles of 50 years ago because she was told to fight them by people who profit from the fight, and as a bonus it gets her out of any self-criticism. Oh, Sheryl Sandberg thinks Silicon Valley can be a boys' club? Was that why she manned up and sold us out to the NSA? Curious that she didn't accuse the NSA of being a boys' club. Perhaps real power transcends gender? More curious/on purpose is that she and the boosters at Wired are more horrified about NSA spying, despite there being an explicit terms of service agreement with them that what it finds without a warrant is inadmissible, but Google monitoring my sexts for their commercial benefit is SAGE approved behavioral economics. Google buying Boston Dynamics is better than DARPA having it, is that the game we're playing now? If I had to put my chips and my children against an 8 year rotation of civil service nincompoops vs. some nerd with an open marriage who spent $15M on a "bachelor pad" so he could score chicks of questionable emotional stability, I'm going with the group my private sector lawyers have an outside chance of pwoning. "But how cool is that guy that he could spend $15M on scoring chicks!" You're looking at it backwards, the only way he could score chicks was by spending $15M, and now that guy owns cybernauts. Power corrupts, but absolute power doesn't exist, so for everything else, there's Mastercard.
What Hess and others fail to see is that this kind of postgraduate sexismology-- Hess's "ability" to see it-- is encouraged because it favors the status quo. It is a tool for maintaining an economic and psychological disavowal favorable to Gen X and older-- men and women. Their collective psychology has caused to be a machine that is calibrated to ensure their life is not disrupted-- at the expense of everyone under 30, you guys waste your life Banning Bossy and make sure you pay back all of your student loans, sorry about the future but the SLEEP/CONSUME machine from They Live has to keep running.
Here's a "class struggle" example: name one Wall Street type who went to jail post 2008, everyone picks Bernie Madoff. Now name one person you know who was harmed by Bernie Madoff. That's weird. Note he didn't cause the crash, his criminal empire was a "victim" of the crash. What got him jailed was stealing from the wrong people-- that the media coded as either "celebrities" or "pension funds". Look carefully at the result: you got a distraction to label as evil so you don't have to feel any guilt about overusing your credit card; the rich guys get (some of) their money back; and the media makes millions of dollars engaging you in a "conversation." "But he was symptomatic of Wall Street excesses." Way to treat the symptoms. Hence the most important result: nothing changed. The whole thing is a defense against change, for the system and for you. Still have that credit card at max?
Radical political action, radical as in "outside the frame" radical, the kind self-aggrandizing #OWS is incapable of, would be to demand Bernie Madoff be released, so that everyone would have to watch him in restaurants and hookers, an unignorable signal to the system and to yourself that things are not right. Not to settle for symbolism and scapegoats. But the media won't let this happen, they thrive on symbolism and scapegoats; and you won't let it happen as long as you can get an iphone.
So the system encourages women like Hess to "critique the patriarchy" or "bring awareness" because it stands no chance of moving the money, let alone the power, and also the media gets a cut. Meanwhile men all over the place are left questioning why their opportunities are just as limited but their answer can't be a glass ceiling. "Maybe it's reverse sexism!" Maybe your media is no different than her media, we'll see what kind of sexism there is when the robots replace all of you. What is both obscene and astonishing in its power is that this distraction is foisted on Millennials by other Millennials, they're fighting for the other team, precisely because the immensely hard work of work can be avoided by hoping the problem is sexism. Hess is frantically fighting against-- whom? Cyberbullies? Frat guys? Stand up comedians? What are the results she expects from this fight? The fight is a symptom of neurosis, frantic energy as a defense against impotence, frantic energy as a defense against change. "Why am I in the top 20% of intelligence but I'm running the register at a store whose products I can't afford?" Because trolls are preventing women from earning a living online? "So it's Reddit's fault!"
V.
There should be no controversy: a guy should never tell a girl he's going to rape her, online or not, kidding or not. I get that he's probably not serious, but there should be no instinct at all to defend such a jerk, and yet----- and yet that is precisely the instinct many people get. Men who have never wanted to threaten anyone read Hess's story and side with the troll. And Hess will agree: it is a massive number of people. So they're all misogynist jerks, too? No other explanation?
Yet a typical such "misogynist" probably has a wife and daughters whom he loves in a more equal way than sexists in the Whig party did. He is aware his daughter is a girl, he wants the best for her, he'd be thrilled if she became President, do you think he doesn't want her to have power/money/influence, more than any man? And of course he wouldn't want his daughter to receive such rape threats, but what's important is that he believes she wouldn't-- she wouldn't deserve them.
There is plenty of existing sexism and [insert lip service here]. I do not deny or minimize it, the point here is to identify the self-imposed kind of oppression, instead of top down it is bottom up: impotence. All of these choices, all of these products, all of that sex, all of that power-- why not me?
The troll and Hess have this feeling of impotence, which Hess easily finds to be the fault of patriarchy, which she uses interchangeably with class, except when that class is Sarah Miller McCune, then it's just patriarchy. The troll thinks the source of his impotence is "militant feminism", which also explains why he's not worrying about his daughter. She's not a woman, she's a person, i.e. like all American parents, he's raising her like a boy: school x 16, sports x 12, violin x 6, and for everything else there's LCDs. I don't know why he thinks his daughter will fare any better through the same machine that is failing his son, but I guess it's worth a shot. Of course, he probably won't be too happy if she becomes a "feminist"; e.g. living with a teenage Zosia Mamet drove David Mamet to the Republican Party. I'm going to go ahead and protect myself by saying that's a joke.
So in order to explain their otherwise irrational feeling of impotence, they pull from any of the media-approved categories of blame, depending on your news network: sexism, racism, feminism. The central importance of the media in soliciting their anger is totally lost on the older "activists" who still believe that the -ism is the primary force. They're enraged that a white Princeton student would dare to write that white privledge doesn't exist; they never wonder why they read it. They are at a loss to explain why the very same trolls who want to "rape" feminist bloggers are even more enraged that women in Saudi Arabia are forced to wear burqas. So do misogynists hate Arab men more than American women? Is there a hate hierarchy? Yet the media is unsurprisingly ambivalent about the burqa, the feminism risks an assertion of cultural priviledge so they'd just as soon not get involved. And to hell with George Bush who made us have to.
There was a time not long ago when the dumbest people in the world were polacks. Do you see any dumb polacks around today? What happened? "Awareness?" Do you think we all just learned "poles are just like us?" You think it was... education? Pole empowerment? Tolerance? The question is not how did we learn to get over that prejudice, but rather what purpose did it serve in the first place, why was it the preferred expression of hate of that time?
VI.
Hess had a chance to wonder about this, but the media's keyword list and her own personal psychology converge to make her prefer to see sexism. Against these force vectors she is powerless. The medium is the message, she just puts her byline at the top. Hess even looked for a "woman problem" at The Economist which I thought was going to be that there weren't enough women there because she cited the statistic that 77% of the writers are men, except that she then lamented that since there are no bylines you couldn't tell which ones were the men and the women, which was also bad. But she had something else in mind:
In many ways, the magazine suffers from the same woman problem that plagues libertarianism more widely. The Economist's central belief in "free trade and free markets" informs its one-size-fits all approach to its readership--the idea that women might actually want to consume news differently than men doesn't fit into this theoretically level global playing field.
Women consume news differently. True? Let's find out:
When I lived with a boyfriend who subscribed to The Economist, I'd pick up the magazine occasionally, scanning the table of contents for the odd piece that appealed to me--a dissection of the racial dynamics of American marriage, for example, or a takedown of U.S. sex offender laws. Typically, though, I'd flip straight to the book reviews, a space I discerned as a little more inclusive than the front of the book. I recently asked that guy whether the contents of the magazine ever struck him as particularly masculine, too. "It's called The Economist," he replied. "It's like Maxim for nerds."
Lord have mercy.
First of all, Maxim is already for nerds, who else would want to look at glamour shots of still dressed women only women have heard of? This month is Sophia Bush and Olympic figure skater Tara Lipinski, yum, time to get your hard on. "Oh I loved her with Johnny Weir covering Sochi!" Can't say Maxim doesn't know its demographic.
this is what women are told men want; this is how women are told how to want
So for him to think Maxim isn't for nerds means he thinks it's for Dude-Bros, i.e. large genitaled males who get to rape all the drunk chicks at the Delta house. Which means he's an easy mark for branding, and which, I am willing to bet $10M, is why he tells his guy friends about Maxim but shows his girlfriend he subscribes to The Economist. Don't worry, Amanda, he only reads the book reviews, too. Stab in the dark, here's a guess at his character sketch: a smart underachiever, proud he's "not some frat jerk", he knows he's supposed to be interested in topics not related to him but finds his concentration isn't up to the task-- so he reassures himself with the trappings/magazines of intelligence. "Would Adderall help me do more work and less porn?" No, but it will help you write a book of porn and you will be terrified at what you learn. His favorite way to consume news is to forgo primary sources in favor of skimming two paragraph dissections written by others who also forwent the primary sources. Unmotivated, unthreatening and unrelevant, publicly not drawing from the system according to his need but privately disavowing a lack of contribution back to the system according to his ability. "But the system is corrupt." $100M says there's a vaporizer nearby.
Second of all: hell yeah, dissections and takedowns, thank you for your consideration.
Third of all: observe that she asked him about The Economist after they had broken up. Her ex was her go-to guy when she had a question about masculinity, and magazines. Does she know any other men? Has she interacted with any men without the polarized glasses of stereotype, prejudice and fear? Is every guy only either a love interest or a Dude-Bro?
Fourth: she misunderstood/completely understood his answer about whether the magazine was particularly masculine: "It's called The Economist." Uh oh. If I ask, "Is Cosmo Magazine particularly feminine?" and you reply, "Duh, stupid, it's called Cosmo, any more feminine and it would have a tailbone tattoo," then you are implying not only that the magazine is feminine, but that I should have been able to infer that because cosmos are feminine. To him, The Economist is masculine is because economics is intrinsically masculine-- and she implicitly accepts this. Now who's the sexist? Whose theoretical daughters have a better chance of learning economics? Of course she'd say any women can learn economics, yay women, but her daughters would be learning a masculine discipline, see also math, which I predict she's bad at. The barrier is in herself, sexism is merely her projection of it.
So while she pretends that it is the male perspective she doesn't like, it is evident that it's the contents themselves that she objects to. They're boring, but that can't be related to intellectual curiosity because she's a thinker. So it has to be the "male perspective". But didn't the same male perspective write the takedowns and dissections? Books, sex, relationships; those are "inclusive to women". What happens when you don't sign up for NATO-- that's masculine. But is it? Really? I agree that most of the articles in The Economist are boring and don't "relate" to my lifestyle as an alcoholic, but I force myself to go through them like social studies homework, and most of the women who do the same are doing it as the same. The articles aren't supposed to be interesting to me, they are supposed to be important and I force myself to be interested.
However, the point isn't that she should read The Economist, the point here is that she saw sexism, which means she didn't notice this:
UNWITTINGLY, perhaps, Vladimir Putin is playing Cupid to America's Mars and Europe's Venus. ... "I have not felt this good about transatlantic relations in a long time," whispers one senior European politician.
WTF, why would anyone whisper this? Is Putin standing right there? The Economist does this all the time, citing unnamed sources while alluding to their power and significance. Of course the easy critique to make, and even this one Hess was not allowed to formulate, is that in this way The Economist conveys the impression that it has personal access to the levers of power, the way Us Weekly recasts publicists as "sources close to Kim Kardashian", shrinking the gap between the magazine and the sources and artificially widening the distance between Kardashian and us. She becomes more important and less accessible-- except through Us Weekly.
But this critique is backwards, it assumes the magazine is trying to trick its audience, this is wrong, the audience is using the magazine to trick itself. The audience wants this distance. It wants heroes, celebrities, people with power-- it wants an upper class-- and it wants them inaccessible. Envy? No, that's advertising, this is the "news." This is what happens when a whole generation's narcissism is threatened with injury-- since everything is possible, why aren't you enjoying everything?-- the personality structure becomes overwhelmingly defensive. "If I were Kim Kardashian, then I would be able to do X!" is NOT envy, flip it over and read the redacted obverse: "Only Kim Kardsahians can do X -- therefore it's not my fault that I can't!"
The Economist demo appears to want this same defense. The real trick of The Economist is that as a magazine of "libertarianism" [sic], its belief in "free trade and free markets" requires as axiomatic that these are not real. The Invisible Hand is actually attached to a benevolent class of gentlemen capitalists who have the money, the connections, and the information to best mold the world. You don't know these people, but fortunately The Economist does. Their motto, inscribed in runes over a blue moongate on Jekyll Island, is, "Be content to bind them by laws of trade. You have always done it. And let this be your reason."
Why would the The Economist's rich and powerful demo want to be ruled? Because they aren't powerful, only rich, all that time getting rich did not translate to any power, only the trappings of power. So they've postulated a fantasy power structure/NBA owners that explains why they can't enjoy their lives as they think they should-- to absolve themselves of the guilt they feel for having money/intellect/opportunities and NOT being able to do anything with it except spend it on the system-wide approved gimmicks: Trading Up, college educations, the National Bank of S&P 500.
And you say, boo hoo for the rich. That's your media approved classism talking. Does $200k/yr have more in common with $50k/yr or $1M/yr? What do your TV commercials tell you? Don't think about where the lines are drawn, think about who draws the lines.
Hess yells about a world of masculine power because she has the power to yell at it. But of course her power is limited only to yelling, she is impotent against a troll who yells at her. But her mistake is in thinking he has the power. No one has it, the system doesn't allow it. Even the mighty Economist demo feels impotent. Are they all delusional? This is the true critique of the system, not simply that one group reliably oppresses another; but that the entire system is based on creating a lack. This lack is not a bottomless hole that nothing could ever fill, but a tiny, strangely shaped divot in your soul into which nothing could ever fit: not money, not sex, not stuff, not relationships. Nothing "takes." Nothing counts. Nothing is ever right. Only novelty works, until it wears off.
This lack of power-- not power to rule the world, but existential power-- what is the purpose of my life? What is this all for? I get that I'm supposed to use my Visa a lot, but is that it? Shouldn't I be able to do more than this? Everything is possible, but nothing is attainable. Nothing tells them what is valuable; worse, everything assures them that nothing could be more valuable. That the media is the primary way the system teaches you how to want should have been obvious to Hess, she works for it, but for that same reason it was invisible to her.
You shouldn't be surprised that the only sane response to this impotence is neurosis, for which of course the system provides a psychiatric treatment that couldn't possibly work. "I need an Ambien, I can't sleep." But where did you hear that you needed to sleep?
VII.
If you're a guy, you probably don't realize the awesome pressure on women to let themselves get looked at: to reveal themselves online, to post a pic, to give everyone your attention, to stop what you're doing and give the other your self, even if they want to yell at you. "Hey lady, I hate you!" And yet that same pressure tells women they are valueless unless they are public. Madness.
The system is illogical, the things you want cannot actually coexist, but you dare not attack the system that promises everything, therefore something else must be blamed. As a basic example, Hess probably wants all the benefits of socialism and all the brand products of capitalism. When she can't have it, obviously the problem is misogyny.
Another example: Donald Sterling.
everyone hates two of these: fat cats, america, virgins
Here's a transcript of an illegal recording not done by the NSA that therefore everyone is ok with, consistent with our new standard of conduct: it is not illegal to make an illegal recording as long as it is given to the media and they profit from it and we can use it to rationalize our lives. Got it. Now I know you think you know what he said, but this time pay attention because he leaked a state secret:
You can sleep with them, you can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on [Instagram] and not to bring them to my games.... Don't put him [Magic Johnson] on an Instagram for the world to have to see so they have to call me... Yeah, it bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you're associating with black people. Do you have to?...You're supposed to be a delicate white or a delicate Latina girl.
Here's a question: who is THEY who have to call him? Why is a gazillionaire 3 years from God's judgment worried about They? And why would They care what his girlfriend does? The implication is that They are even more racist than he is, which should blow your mind when you consider They are about to pretend to try to take his team away from him and give him $600M.
But the other possibility-- which coexists with the first-- is that They don't exist, not in any coordinated way: They are you, the public, far more dangerously racist than he is because his racism is overt and yours is disavowed. What he is worried about is that you will see a picture of "a delicate white or Latina" girl next to a guy with large sneakers and... film your own conclusions.
Some clueless TV types have deduced that she set him up. Duh. Then they tried to figure out why he hooked up with such a manipulative harpy, and I therefore know with 100% certainty that to them having a hot young girlfriend is an unattainable fantasy. But he didn't have a choice: his superego required it, as a condition of his identity he is obligated to have a mistress, a miss-stress-- a girlfriend who is way more headache than any wife he was "bored" with. Since everything is possible, he is obligated to enjoy-- and if it isn't enjoyable there must be something preventing it, and that obstruction has to be her fault, or They's fault, what it can't be is his fault. He's 80, his sexuality is... on the decline. If he can't enjoy sex someone else has to enjoy it for him, in his place: no, not the black guy, but her-- she is doing the enjoying for him. Being cuckolded-- that's what this is, right?-- is fine, it works for him, as long as he isn't humiliated in public. "It's ok if They see me as a racist because I AM a racist, I accept it as part of my identity, there's no shame in it; but if They think I'm not satisfying her, or worse-- if they think I'm a cuckold-- if they don't see me the way I want to be seen----"
"If only you were the girl I thought you were!" he said, paraphrased. But of course she was the girl you thought she was-- she picked you. When you pick a woman for certain reasons, you are also picking the kind of woman who wants to be picked for those reasons. You may even have succeeded in tricking her that you like her for other reasons, but this is irrelevant: you like the kind of girl who likes the kind of guy who pretends to like women for other reasons....... But in any event, his desires were illogical, they can't actually coexist, so it must be They's fault.
It is heartwarming to think of the backlash against Sterling as a new intolerance of racism, and I'm told his case is important to society because he's famous and rich, but his money doesn't come with any power. So while you are all glowing in self-righteousness because you outed another racist rich guy, consider that you will never hear a recording of the head of Goldman Sachs making racist statements. "Maybe he's more progressive?" Hmm. Or maybe power won't allow it, power won't even allow you to think about it. The more likely explanation-- remember, basketball is a TV show on The Disney Channel the outcome of which couldn't be less relevant to humanity-- is that it is projection, it represents frantic activity as a defense against change. "I'm not a racist-- because THAT's a racist!"
---
1Bbu9uvaNMWmAGj6sPF3edaA4u1wY2DLtZ
Digg | 
del.icio.us | 
StumbleUpon | 
Reddit | 
Yahoo! | 
My favourites
May 3, 2014 11:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So glad to see more writing, I am super excited to read it. Thank you!
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 12:30 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The way you look at the media is adolescent, Alone. Overdetermined. Pacific Standard is a far more banal entity than you might think--it used to be called Miller-McCune (after Susan) and its beat is the social sciences, meaning it's more like Psychology Today than The Atlantic. I feel like you miss the individual struggle involved in creating a piece of advertising or writing. What you end up reading in this things is a Frankenstein's monster of ideas that were great and digested through multiple layers of editors and art directors, and the writer's own self-censoring mechanisms... It's a system!
Okay, now that I've got that off my chest I'll read beyond the first two sentences...
Score: -1 (15 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 12:48 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Writers like Amanda Hess are encouraged to create their own brands and that's basically what her article is about. To make a living in the age of clickable links you have to become marketable. That way you can create alternate streams on income, sell a book (snag an advance), get flown out to your alma mater to talk about civil rights with a thousand dollar honorarium... gradually you expand your mini empire with TV appearances use this as evidence of your enormous 'platform' which justifies a second big advance etc
If you look at her twitter she's got a website called sexwithamandahess or something like that and she has a column in Slate. This article is a cover story in a second-rate mag, so in a way it's social proof for that she can one day land a similar trend-driven story in The Atlantic or New York magazine or something like that. If you're interested she was probably paid about $1/word for it. New Yorker staff writers earn $3/word (and are expected to generate 30K a year, the bulk of their earnings comes from book sales and other income streams)
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 1:08 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Interesting! Looks like she's already done a lot of the things you've mentioned (and yes, you're right on the website name. Hey, it's memorable!)
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 1:14 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The Economist is actually an opinion magazine, people don't realize it because it's so fact-heavy, but it's essentially a blog: a weekly magazine summarizing other people's reports (along with some of their own). Sure they call it analysis but it's opinion... Amanda is all wrong about the demographics of its staff, many of its senior editors are women (at least the ones I've dealt with).
Here's James Fallows on The Economist circa 1991: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/1991/10/-quot-the-economics-of-the-colonial-cringe-quot-about-the-economist-magazine-washington-post-1991/7415/
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 2:01 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Until last week, I hadn't purchased a newsstand magazine in one a year. I broke my streak, and in my opinion, for good reason; the most right-wing opinion magazine in America ran a special issue about how the US Government should refuse to pay back any of the national debt, starting today. The cover was the famous National Debt Clock in Manhattan, Photoshopped to show nothing but zeros.
I figured that was worth $5 if anything was.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 2:49 AM | Posted by : | Reply
'Frantic activity as a defense against change'.
I've begun to think of Narcissism (henceforth 'N') increasingly as a psychological incapacity to register feedback, an incapacity for *interaction* with the outside world (i.e. to let the world *act upon you* and in so doing allow yourself to *act upon it*).
I still have difficulty comprehending the defenses that carry this out or how they operate, and I suspect that 'Frantic Activity' refers to the operations of these defenses.
I kind of see it as a frantic urge to pretend to self-sufficiency. What would real interaction require? It requires interest in Another. You wish to please Another *for the sake of pleasing the Other*; you please yourself *because* you please the Other. Or you truly detest the Other and wish to defeat him in some way, and insofar as you are successful in your real impact upon the Other, you please yourself as well. The Other might be an ally or an enemy; either way, how you act upon him matters, and your own sentiments are a rational response to your impact on the outside world, including how others respond to you.
N seems to be disconnected from this sort of interaction; he is chiefly concerned with how he makes himself feel *regardless* of his *real impact* on the Other. Desperate to be loved, but terrified that real Others will reject him, N frantically seeks *tokens* of approval that can validate him while keeping him at a safe distance from Others who are potentially hostile. Tokens allow N to be the sole referee of his value, to validate himself in *his terms*, to remain completely in charge of the terms of reference in which he is to be judged, while providing the *illusion* that your value comes from something real and outside yourself, your mark upon the outer world.
For N to admit himself into a real relationship of real interaction with an Other, as friend or foe or anything in between, would run the risks that come with his ceasing to be judge in his own cause, and to subject himself to the evaluations of an Outside world that is not obligated to oblige him and that may well judge harshly. N is terrified of this, probably because his feelings of worthlessness are so intense that any negative feedback sends him reeling.
This frantic activity which I am trying to understand may be the result of this double bind. N constantly has to elude the Scylla of confronting his fraudulence while evading the Charybdis of confronting the real world on terms that he cannot control, and running the risk of hurt, failure, and rejection.
The fear of change TLP talks about I sense to be a fear of placing himself at the mercy of a reality which he is certain will pronounce him despicable. The frantic activity is that of the self in preserving a delusion that it knows for certain to be a delusion, because the N's 'self' is still more certain that if he were to acknowledge the Outer world or interact with it(and change requires such interaction) he would be revealed as loathsome and despicable.
But perhaps there is more to the fear of change than I can discern from the overall shape of this fascinating behavioral complex. I am not a psychiatrist.
Score: 4 (8 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 3:27 AM | Posted by : | Reply
when mustached men have been stalking women since the days of Whitecastle
Did you mean "Whitechapel" or is there a joke I'm missing?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 10:06 AM | Posted by : | Reply
N's reputation is an ends. It's a matter of caring about the eulogies N will be given, pre-mortem. N is so insignificant that N feels already figures, secretely, that N's only legacy will be the good memories and high opinion of those N leaves behind. The tokens of affirmation N seeks will be grasped at by those at Ns funeral to justify celebrating N's life at all, probably because everyone else at the funeral have the same plans.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 10:33 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Dear Alone,
What would be an example of change? Besides different interpretations of Literature and Art?
"All of these choices, all of these products, all of that sex, all of that power-- why not me?" This is exactly what I felt.
I am 22.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 11:13 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are either joking, or need to read way more of this blog. Change for you is a change of interpretation of literature?
Once of Alone's core tenents is that you are what you do. Your opinion on something everyone else has already read is of zero importance except to get others to like or hate you when you share it. This nets you affirmations of who you say and think you are. Thus, you do not change who you are.
Change is to use your thoughts and opinions to drive action. The setting and accomplishments of long-term goals, with risks and sacrifices. Save cash and stop buying video games, start a business, start writing every morning or learn an instrument. Or maybe you need to stop just playing an instrument and make time to write, record, polish, finish songs. Change is to change what you do, not what you think. Change is moving forward, not stagnating with "mental preperation" (i.e. laziness) that will consume all your time and energy. Why have taste in art and literature if not to try, over and over, to create art that meets your own high standards?
"Why not me?" -- why not you because you're not doing what's necessary to achieve those things. Are you studying for a job that is going to bring in big bucks? If not, then that's why not you.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 12:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Once of Alone's core tenents is that you are what you do" Yes indeed, but you could just as easily fool yourself into believing that whatever you are doing is an action, and not pretending to be active.
Here is the post where I got the idea from that you interpret literature differently, then it is only 1 of the indications that you may have changed.
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/08/just_because_you_see_it_doesnt.html
Interpretation and Taste are different things. I do not know much about having taste for things, what is more interesting is how people respond to fiction, and what people see in fiction, its not that their interpretations are wrong or right, but their interpretations may show what they know or do not know. I suppose I need to find a more clear example of this.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 12:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
See Also
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2009/06/where_did_the_title_come_from.html
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 12:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What the change in literary interperation signifies is maturation. It is a way of noticing personal growth. If you aren't challenging yourself and integrating new knowledge and experience into your person, by stagnating and filling you hole with fetish objects instead, then you will have had less growth to track.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 2:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
There was a time not long ago when the dumbest people in the world were polacks. Do you see any dumb polacks around today? What happened? "Awareness?" Do you think we all just learned "poles are just like us?" You think it was... education? Pole empowerment? Tolerance? The question is not how did we learn to get over that prejudice, but rather what purpose did it serve in the first place, why was it the preferred expression of hate of that time?
Any thoughts on this? I wasn't alive when pollack jokes were in favor. Was it just a means of seeing ourselves in better light in relation to this dumber breed? That seems too simple for what Alone is going for here.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 3:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Johnny Carcosa? From Alan Moore's the Courtyard and Neonomicon?
Did some light reading in interpreting True Detective did you?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 3:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Changing literary interpretations does *signify* maturation. It is probably putting the cart before the horse, however. Maturity will change your literary interpretations, but the latter is a tertiary phenomenon. If one focuses one's attention on 'growth' in their literary interpretation, one will not get very far. Such a person will spin his wheels. He might, if he's lucky, realize that he's full of hot air. More likely he will confuse his meanderings for growth in substance and self.
Confusing signs for substance is a central facet of You-Know-What-ism, you can spin any 'interpretive' meanderings as 'growth' because you're in charge of the storyline. There is no external reality that can limit your interpretation of interpretation. It's the classically typical narcissistic closed loop.
Real interpretive growth is a nice by-product of real interpersonal growth that involves getting out in the world and dealing with people and things that resist your definition. It involves situating yourself in a world that is infinitely larger than you and making a real peace with it.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 4:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm always left with difficult questions at the end of a TLP article. This one (and the last few actually) has left me wondering what I should spend my time reading. I've been slowly realizing that most of what I read doesn't really benefit me in any important way. What do I need to read The Economist for? Is it really worthwhile for me to know what's going on in Zimbabwe? I am I being a Narcissist for wanting to read something that only benefits myself? Will the people in Zimbabwe benefit if I read about them?
The biggest problem I have in life is that I cannot connect with people. I can't talk to someone and develop a friendship. I usually spend my time reading about social science in magazines like The Atlantic, but since reading TLP I think this may have done more damage than good. Alone often says reading about something is a defense against actually doing it. But I don't know what I'm supposed to do to fix my problem.
Alone advises to define yourself by your actions. But what if something is too hard to do? What then? Do I just resign myself to existential turmoil for the rest of my life, or do I look for more knowledge?
There are so many causes for being alone, that I don't even know where to start. TLP seems to help, but it leaves you figure everything out alone.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 4:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If one focuses one's attention on 'growth' in their literary interpretation, one will not get very far.
Where exactly is there to "go" in literary interpretation?
More likely he will confuse his meanderings for growth in substance and self.
And what are legitimate measures of "substance and self"?
There is no external reality that can limit your interpretation of interpretation. It's the classically typical narcissistic closed loop.
This seems to come from a naive understanding of the world. How does exernal reality bear on something like literary interpretation in such a way that it delimits it? Only certain fields of knowledge can claim objectivity. Literary interpretation, as much as some people might like to argue otherwise, is not one of them.
Real interpretive growth is a nice by-product of real interpersonal growth that involves getting out in the world and dealing with people and things that resist your definition. It involves situating yourself in a world that is infinitely larger than you and making a real peace with it.
I basically agree with you, but you're treading the line between argument and platitude here. "Real interpretive growth" and "real interpersonal growth" can never be measured in any meaningful way (subjectively or objectively), so we may as well discard them as somewhat misleading phrases. And on the other hand, it is very possible for a narcissist to situate himself in environments which may be disagreeable to his constructed self but set up enough of a buffer personality which allows him just enough closeness with just enough distance to think he is "making peace" with his surroundings when he is still detached and incapable of connecting. Or he might categorize the people who "resist their definition" in ways that make it easy to dismiss their opinions (ie, they're rednecks, they're stupid, they're shallow, etc.). In fact, you could argue that being situated in a "world that is infinitely larger than you" is the very reason the constructed self was developed in the first place.
Narcissism thrives in vagueness, which unfortunately your post is full of.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 7:02 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Consider the protection the system offers the law student in the example.
What protection shall be awarded to Randi Zuckerberg?
If we go to her Tumblr we realize that she really likes herself and Jared Leto.
Also, she is aware of TLP. This quote is there: “Unlocking creativity is the third biggest swindle perpetrated by management consultants, after open floor plans and management consulting.”
Fine, maybe she isn't and others manage her online presence. Still, how long until she perceives this site as a threat? How long until Miller McCune does? The system?
Bloggers in other countries disappear all the time and I'm not talking about those who get arrested.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 7:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"But what if something is too hard to do?"
That is a defense against change. "That was hard, now I can give up, oh well back to curling into my bed and sulking".
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 8:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
most mental illnesses are incurable
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 8:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Mental Illness"
This could very well be a defense against change. "Look at me im so depressed" People who have decided they have depression, also have decided to do nothing. Rather than attempt to do something to switch their focus back on something within reality. If you at least try to draw and read, you will notice more things outside of yourself, the focus on how miserable you are will lessen(I am miserable is an identity).
The mistake is symptoms are a cause of certain actions or a certain lack of actions.
Actions are a cause of symptoms.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 8:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Just a note, I actually found the substitution of the word narcissist to make your post more difficult to understand, mostly I think because it chops off the last section of the word; ism, ist. I'd recommend putting Nism / Nist if you really need to abbreviate it.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 8:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Experience with real emotions, triumph and failure, love and lost love, war and disillusionment, and all the rest will very much inform one's interpretations of texts, especially of rich texts.
A typical adolescent, having had little experience in his life, will not read Shakespeare or 'Death of A Salesman' or Joseph Heller or Dostoyevsky or Nietzsche or Augustine or the Gospels or the Psalms in the way someone who has seen more and experienced more would. It is the maturity that comes with getting out in the world and doing things in it, and having the self shaped and reshaped by it (what is commonly called 'building character') that will inevitably result in different (more developed) readings of literature.
A clever adolescent, I'm sure, could come up with a million novel interpretations of various texts, and they would all be sophomoric because he is himself sophomoric. He does not have the range of experience to understand deeply the emotional content of what he is reading. And when he does, there will in fact be interpretive growth, and the former adolescent, clever as ever, will be able to speculate upon the text with the same novelty, but a deeper grasp of the content, and then might be able to use his skills to write a dissertation that any sane person would read.
And when I was talking about reality limiting interpretation, I was not talking about literary interpretation (although reality bounds this as well, otherwise the moral of Oedipus Rex could be 'love conquers all'). I was talking about reality informing one's own narrative 'interpretation' of one's own life. I was saying that concentrating on text interpretation as a marker of growth is wrongheaded precisely because the subject remains the arbiter of his own growth, and is thus free to do what the Narcissist is so desperate to do: to fool himself into thinking he's done something without actually doing anything. To truly change as a person, the Narcissist needs to subject his character to things that resist his deceptions, to allow the outside world to reshape his subjectivity, to let the world be the hammer and him to be the block of marble.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 8:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you are on a blog called "the last psychiatrist" written by a practicing psychiatrist arguing mental illness is an excuse used by weak willed people. you're an idiot if you expect this to go anywhere.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 8:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ofcourse there are mental illnesses, but you should take care before you define your life by a mental illness. I am not one to judge however on if someone is mental or not, and if they are making an excuse or are acctually ill.
Then again mental illness may not have been so bad if it was not so segregated as bad as black people were segregated.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 9:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Enlightening as always, but I do have one question.
It took me until the third reference for me to decode the "large sneakers" euphemism. I've heard of some of the publications described here, and in your earlier articles, but as often as not you write about a controversy that's news to me. "If I'm reading it, it's for me," but what about the inverse?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 9:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Had to read this twice to really digest it. It's really nice to have my discomfort about the media well articulated.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 10:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The US/MAXIM screenshot is unclear to the point of being bewildering, rather than illuminating. I generally blame myself when I don't understand the reasoning of a paragraph, but surely a man of TLP's intellect can make a diagram a little more lucid. :D
this is what women are told men want; this is how women are told how to want
I gather he's claiming US weekly is telling women that men want what's on the cover of MAXIM. I'm not sure how the women are being told "how" to want. And then there's the reflexive arrow from the woman's face to the title of MAXIM? and the green arrow to the US logo? Are these two supposed to correspond to the two clauses in the caption? I'm just not getting it.
Someone, help me out, please!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 4, 2014 11:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
How about we arrange for you punch Malcolm Gladwell in the dick? Can we settle it then? (Yes, he-and all that he represents-is our downfall.)* But where the fuck were we going? Alone, were we supposed to successfully navigate post killing a bunch of yellow people with nukes, then post WWII commercialism, then post Cold War, then post 9/11, then post killing a whole bunch of brown people out of narcissist rage? So what if a fairy sling bs amuses a few people into a death filled with idiocy.
Don't be a life addict bro-or spend your time arguing with life addicts. You're too talented for that.
*I'm sorry, but I couldn't get past the first paragraph. That half fruitcake appeared in your writings again. I hope you're talking to your therapist about that shit.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 5, 2014 1:57 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Why not come right out and say what you know?
The system sustains itself on thought-terminating cliche, the irreality of language, and brute force.
Sometimes, that's the brute force of turning narcissism (itself the product of training: narcissism buys, the system sells) against itself - forcing a would-be anon to stick to their name... sometimes, with the helpful side-benefit of silencing anyone who'd like to speak out.
Authenticated video (following on the notion of bitcoin's authenticated sign-value) for surveillance is the next logical step in the evolution of this system for control - unfortunately, those who do the watching would prefer to remain unaccountable to those they watch.
The alternative: authenticated video for sousveillance; system corruption cannot stand to scrutiny, and this society trained to confuse signifier-for-signified could use a little dose of reality.
Do not ask for whom the bell tolls - keep your eyes open, watch, and see.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 5, 2014 1:58 AM | Posted by : | Reply
incidentally, this week's issue of the new yorker has an entire piece on narcissism, a thorough working-over of which i eagerly look forward to
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 5, 2014 2:07 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Sweet feathery sparkling Jesus this was incredible
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 5, 2014 3:09 AM | Posted by : | Reply
What bothers me most about this entire scenario is the degree to which people are active participants in their own disempowerment. It doesn't take that much to read a title like 'Why Women Aren't Welcome On The Internet' and to realize that it is the equivalent of 'click-bait'. Of course there has to be a willingness to reach that conclusion.
I would think that an article titled something like 'How I Learned To Not Let Mean Things People Say Bother Me' would be of infinitely more value to people, but I'm guessing that would not get the same attention. Is it cynical of me to assume that the sentiment of Hess' article are insincere or am I being overly hopeful in assuming that it is mostly calculated?
For most of my life I had assumed that the "strangely shaped divot in your soul" that I felt was unique. I had assumed that it was the result of my sense of being an outsider for many of my younger years. I realize now of course that it is not unique to me. A lot of the guys I know think that it is a woman they need to fill that void and you can pretty much forget about trying to tell them otherwise. I know women who believe this as well, although it is usually a man they are after instead of a woman, but not always. Of course there are also those women who are convinced it is 'The Patriarchy'.
What I would like to know is who says that divot in your soul is ever supposed to be filled? Maybe it was a creation of the system, but couldn't it just be a symptom of the human condition?
I've come to the conclusion that the solution is to do your best to live life on your own terms. Meaning decide for yourself what your priorities are and what you think is important. Take part in the system, but do your best to have it serve you rather than blindly serving it. I suspect that I have this belief structure because of my experience of seeing myself as an outsider, because I don't seem to be able to find many others who share my perspective or who are willing to adopt it.
I think of this belief structure as empowering. It's saying 'yes this is my fault, but that's great news because it means I have the power to change it'.
What I don't understand is why are people so dependent on the knee jerk "therefore it's not my fault" reaction. Why is it so important that it not be your fault? Why are you so committed to being an agent in your own "feeling of impotence".
I get that the ego wants to preserve itself, but is that really all it comes down to? Is it really just about a preference for being weak and innocent rather than being responsible? It requires a bit of a leap and the willingness to live in a sort of temporary state of limbo, but is avoiding that really all that's stopping them?
The only other thing I can think of is that I am deceiving myself by seeing this as being empowered. That maybe I am just kidding myself because at the end of the day I am ultimately choosing to serve the system. That I came to these conclusions because that is what the system wanted me to do.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
May 5, 2014 3:34 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My interpretation is that Maxim tells women by putting Sophia Bush on the cover that she represents what men want and thus what they should aspire to, therefore the green lines. US Weekly by highlighting Maxim teaches women that they should want, therefore the purple lines.
The process of learning how to want is broken down in another post. If I am remembering correctly it goes something like this. You watch a TV commercial for one car company, Nissan for example, and you think to yourself 'hah, I know you're trying to manipulate me into buying a Nissan, but I'm going to buy a Toyota'. But as far as the system is concerned what matters isn't that you buy one car over another but that you want to buy a car.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 5, 2014 5:26 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Any fragile, special snowflake who lets "trolls" on the internet get to them needs to get the fuck off the internet and stay off, and that goes for either sex. That, or spend a few weeks on any 4chan board of your choosing. That should toughen you up a bit.
I think Doug Stanhope said it best:
“If you're offended by any word in any language, it’s probably because your parents were unfit to raise a child. They were too stupid. They should have been neutered. Because all it is is a sound you can make with your mouth. It’s not a weakness that you have naturally. When you come out of that pink ugly hole onto this planet, you're nothing but a gooey, shrinking, wrinkled ball of weakness. That’s all you are: you're weak, you're nothing but weak, and your parents look at that, and they think: “Not weak enough. We can make this thing even weaker by training it to react poorly to different sounds that you can make with your mouth.”
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
May 5, 2014 10:05 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Think Tobias answered this pretty well, but it doesn't hurt to include a symmetrical example.
I'm watching TV with my girlfriend and a Victoria's Secret commercial comes on. If our (systemic) training is working, I look at the screen and she looks at me looking at the screen. She then says to herself, "That's what guys want." But the truth is that the commercial ISN'T for me, and it never was. It pretends to be for me so that it can get to her. Aside from once every ten fucking years or so, men don't buy lingerie. And guess what? VS isn't staying in business by selling a corset and a pair of thigh-highs every decade; they stay in business by selling the same basic, sexless undergarments the Mormons wear, only with a different tag and fewer safety pins.
So, by convincing women that those adds are actually for men (and, conversely, by convincing men that those adds are actually for men), they successfully "trap" the female consumer's desire. The trick is that, unless SHE believes the add is for ME, it doesn't work. As soon as you have women selling underwear to women, instead of selling themselves to men, you'll have adds that look a lot more like those idiots dressed up as fruit.
Notice, too, that Victoria Secret serves a female demographic that is utterly comparable with Fruit of the Loom's male demographic. So while you have "high-end" men's underwear (e.g., Calvin Klein, D&G, etc.) marketed in a fashion similar to how VS markets (e.g., hot guys fanning themselves with some woman's engorged lips), the "low end" (i.e. every guy who wears underwear daily for stuff other than fucking supermodels) just bills itself as functional. Hence why they always have some pragmatic tagline like, "They keep your junk in." In other words, male and female consumers within an otherwise identical demographic (25-39, 40 hrs/week, 30-130k/year), are expected (read "trained") to react to these adds in fundamentally different ways.
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
May 5, 2014 10:45 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Does $200k/yr have more in common with $50k/yr or $1M/yr? What do your TV commercials tell you? Don't think about where the lines are drawn, think about who draws the lines.
I don't get this. An interpretation, reply or downvote if it's wrong: the Wireless Sales Consultant ($30k? $50k?) may theoretically outperform the other consultants, making vastly more money for the host company. He may be enticed to do this by the potential of a far more lucrative position, maybe Wireless Sales Manager ($60k? $100k?). What the two have in common is they are never allowed to make $1M/year or higher, never allowed to approach, much less replace, the CEO of Verizon. The maintenance of ever-higher potential rewards - or, at least, threats to take away the highest allowed rewards if he doesn't perform - ensure the worker never stops to think about how he could become $15M/year threat to the company, rather than its best, hardest-working servant.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 5, 2014 10:52 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"I sympathize, though in my experience what's even more frightening than a guy telling you he's going to rape you is a guy not telling you he's going to rape you."
Just awesome, effective writing. Well done, TLP.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 5, 2014 5:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
$600M? For the Clippers? The Milwaukee Bucks were sold this year for $550M, despite the fact that Milwaukee is in--get this--Wisconsin. With the mortgage market out of the picture, owning a major sports franchise is the only sure-fire way a billionaire can see a decent ROI guaranteed (it hasn't failed yet, right?).
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 5, 2014 6:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
[i]Any thoughts on this? I wasn't alive when pollack jokes were in favor. Was it just a means of seeing ourselves in better light in relation to this dumber breed? That seems too simple for what Alone is going for here.[/i]
I was wondering about this too and some other comment mentioned WWII and the two clicked. Another cold war propaganda tool / fear of communism at the time? Could be wrong.
I'm 31 and definitely remember when this was a "thing". Maybe from watching old movies on TV when I was young but I definitely remember a lot of polack jokes from txt dumps on BBSes during the early 90s and even the internet in the mid/late 90s. It was definitely a "thing" and I even mentioned it to a Polish girl who said "we've never had to deal with stereotypes."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 5, 2014 6:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
nope never mind there's even wikipedia articles about polack jokes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_joke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Polish_sentiment#.22Polish_jokes.22
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 5, 2014 7:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This relationship of substitution is not limited to beliefs: the same goes for every one of the subject's innermost feelings and attitudes, inclusive of crying and laughing. Suffice it to recall the old enigma of transposed/displaced emotions at work from the so-called "weepers" (women hired to cry at funerals) in "primitive" societies, to the "canned laughter" on a TV-screen, and to adopting a screen persona in cyberspace. When I construct a "false" image of myself which stands for me in a virtual community in which I participate (in sexual games, for example, a shy man often assumes the screen persona of an attractive promiscuous woman), the emotions I feel and "feign" as part of my screen persona are not simply false: although (what I experience as) my "true self" does not feel them, they are nonetheless in a sense "true" — the same as with watching a TV mini-series with canned laughter where, even if I do not laugh, but simply stare at the screen, tired after a hard days work, I nonetheless feel relieved after the show… This is what the Lacanian notion of "decentrement," of the decentered subject, aims at: my most intimate feelings can be radically externalized, I can literally "laugh and cry through another."Now just substitute "Alone" and "narcissism" for "Lacan" and "decenterment," respectively.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 5, 2014 7:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I thought it was called "The Economist" because if you are Dick Cheney and you want to print some money you call the editors there and have them reservedly and wholeheartedly endorse your war in Iraq?
Speaking of military action; what's with the debate about enlisted womens' hairstyles instead of the debate about why women in the military get raped by their own side so much? That was rhetorical, obviously even though we're letting women in the military now the establishment doesn't actually want them to rise in the ranks; crush their persons silently (literally?) while granting them the freedom to do their hair in one of five approved braids or buns. Men only get one choice! See, in the armed forces women are doing _better._
Thanks for the post!
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 5, 2014 7:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Would it be considered narcissistic or unnecessarily violent to print this out, shred it into tiny pieces, mix the pieces with cannon powder, and blast them into the brain of every part-time tumblr identity politician?
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 5, 2014 9:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't understand this at all. I read it,so its for me, so can someone explain this contradiction.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 5, 2014 9:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This definitely went over my head. Is alone saying that its more terrifying to be rape unexpectedly vs someone telling you they are going to rape you and then you are actually raped ?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 1:15 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's a great point. I've seen the woman watching the Victoria's Secret commercial then proceed to get angry about the unrealistic expectations of men for supposedly wanting her to look like the models in the commercial.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 1:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I took it to mean that it is more terrifying for nothing to be said and actually being raped than someone idly saying they will.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 3:05 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Interesting article.
Alone, have you ever read anything really good by a woman? Because it's weirdly absent from your blog. You write spectacularly well about narcissism from a male perspective. But you never refer to anything written by a woman as authoritative or valuable.
Like, for god's sake, your other blog is called "Partial Objects" and you never once in all these posts mention Melanie Klein.
This is an incredibly useful diagnostic tool: does the subject ever volunteer praise for a work by a woman? If he doesn't speak of accomplishments by anyone but him, fine, he's a narcissist. But if he never, ever lets slip any evidence that women did anything great, is he half a narcissist? Like a narcissist, but only against women? Is there a word for that . . . ?
Anyway, suggest you read some of the more time-honored feminist authors, you might learn something. They're nothing like Hess and would never, ever get published in the Atlantic or Slate.
Andrea Dworkin and Sheila Jeffreys offer good places to start, with many works available free on radfem.org.
If somewhere you heard something about either of them that gives you a reason to laugh and roll your eyes and feel superior and not read them, well, if you're hearing it, it's for you.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 5:53 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I feel like you may have brain damage.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 9:25 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Honestly, are you serious?
"You don't talk enough about women in a GOOD way." If that's a real criticism, you might have brain damage.
"A narcissist, but only against women." If you think narcissism is "against" others, you might have brain damage.
If you think Alone profiles MEN in a positive way, and ignores women, you might have brain damage.
"Alone, have you ever read anything really good by a woman? Because it's weirdly absent from your blog." If you think this is some kind of review site, and that Alone is somehow morally or professionally bound to advertise the awesomeness of any woman's writing he reads and agrees with, you might have brain damage.
Do you honestly not see how pissy and whinny your comment sounds? Do you honestly not see you it makes YOU look like the raging narcissist? Then you might have brain damage.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 10:03 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone, where's the book? I'm warning you, if you don't write it I won't buy it.
Have you given up on it?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 12:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I took it to mean that if someone threatens to rape you, it means you are at least worth raping. If no one threatens to rape you, to the damaged mind, it means that on the scale of human interaction, with transcendant life-long mutual love on the highest end, and rape down at the lowest, you fall somewhere below rape.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 12:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Had to pause in mid-read.
"$100M says there's a vaporizer nearby."
Pure gold.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 12:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This blog is not all about you.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 12:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"What I would like to know is who says that divot in your soul is ever supposed to be filled? Maybe it was a creation of the system, but couldn't it just be a symptom of the human condition?"
That emptiness is really a desire toward wholeness, toward a metaphysical certainty of "who you really are." Narcissism arises when we cling to this fragile illusory notion of self, even when others stand in the way, or, in other words, don't see you the way you want to be seen, "the way you "really are".
The step forward is to realize that "you really aren't anything" and never were, at least in the absolute sense. Then you have the freedom to choose who to become.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 1:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"The step forward is to realize that "you really aren't anything" and never were, at least in the absolute sense. Then you have the freedom to choose who to become."
That 'cure' is worse than the disease, and I doubt even the most nihilistic psychiatrist would apply such an approach.
The step forward isn't to realize that identity is an illusion and that 'You' aren't anything (that is probably the existential terror that makes the Narcissist cling to his imaginary identity).
The step forward is to realize that any identity that you construct for yourself is illusory if it is not firmly situated in external reality: in a standard that exists outside yourself.
Insofar as a person has a tangible social role (even in his family), insofar as he is worth something to others and others are worth something to him, insofar as there is tribute and reciprocation, Narcissism is successfully staved off.
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 1:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That emptiness is really a desire toward wholeness, toward a metaphysical certainty of "who you really are."
This.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 2:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you rock, thanks for posting this. I wonder if Alone would even be able to survive a Dworkin binge.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 2:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
ain't about you either, sillypants
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 3:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's kind of what I thought. I've never heard of a person threatening rape, or even chasing a person down the street with their arms up like the boogeyman yelling "I'm gonna rape you", and then actually raping the person.
Usually you just get jumped or some shit - words are pretty easy and probably bullshit, anyone who plans to act won't waste time with them.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 3:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
2 suggestions, if I may - -
Try reading The Idea of History, by R. G. Collingwood. It may seem unrelated, but history is the unfolding of human action - - choice. To understand history, you must understand people, which requires you to relate to their way of thinking. And in general, I find philosophy (this is a philosophy book) to clear up my thinking and help me to do it better.
Second, try 19th century literature, especially the chick-lit type stuff. You can find more than you could ever possibly read for free online. If you are looking for a place to start, maybe George MacDonald? He is fairly religious, but I find that he truly, deeply understands people, and writes them pretty well.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 6:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
hahahaha who spends time writing this
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 6:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oh you go girl! Woo!
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 7:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Not-raping" should be a default mode; people don't say "yeah I'm going to breathe in and out a few times a minute for the next hour" so when they say something like "I'm not going to rape you" it's wait, why are you reassuring me of this?
He says "trust me," you say "bye," they should give little girls that advice instead of whistles.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 7:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You take whatever you can take. Find solace in your journey, for you will mostly be Alone.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 8:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
All of your posts have been leading up to this brilliant analysis. Can't wait to see what you write next.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 8:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
MAN ARE YOU MORPHEUS? I WON'T TELL PLS ANSWER ME
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 10:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Phantastes by MacDonald is great. Any other works you would specifically recommend?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 10:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Having read a good number of your articles, Alone, I can't help but wonder whether, as a self-professed alcoholic, you would not be railing against a society that falls exactly into how you prescribe humans to behave were we all to try and make it exist. I mean, say all of us were to work towards helping one another out as a means to better ourselves. Say each individual ceased their own self-delusions and started actively trying to improve the lives of others. How soon before we all started judging one another, as was the case in many Communist states, on whether other individuals truly were contributing enough to the betterment of the rest of us? How soon before this society got lost and reverted back to bettering themselves?
I can't help but feel that your attacks against the current system (which I agree is irreparably flawed in many ways), are really attacks in defence of your own change. You drink because the system is hopeless. Really? Hasn't the world always been hopeless to certain segments of the population since drugs have existed? I can imagine the first shaman in hunter-gatherer times insisting that the whole tribe has it wrong and that he has the answers despite the fungi and tea he just drank.
Ad hominem attacks aside, given that nobody in the system truly gets what they want, wouldn't it be better to just be pragmatic? Realize what the system wants, then position yourself to gain from it? Maybe, after you've amassed the billions from being in the right place/time, reinvest that income into efforts to effectively improve lives a la Bill Gates?
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 10:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I always thought of the "lots of long rums" angle as more of a rhetorical device than a statement of fact about Alone's self.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 10:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is one of the dumber things I've ever read in these comments, and I read most of jonny's corpus. That's saying something.
Alone has deconstructed feminism in many places on the blog. Dove beauty ads, makeup, zuckerberg, etc. etc. etc. And those are all just _recently_. Equal opportunity deconstruction, here. If your gripe is Alone doesn't go out of his way to elevate The Average Woman, well... Look around and ask yourself if he's aiming at elevating The Average Man. Then kindly show yourself out and re-lock yourself in the Womyn's Studies department library.
Your ideological blind spot is showing. Try harder.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
May 6, 2014 10:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Pretty much all of what I've read has been worthwhile. I do think the fantasy stories are generally better than the traditional novels, but that may just be a matter of taste.
Probably Lilith is, to me, the pinnacle of his writing (it is also, I think, the last book that he wrote). It is fantasy, better than Phantastes, I thought. But it is more overtly religious (don't know if that's your thing. Perhaps you found Phantastes by way of C. S. Lewis?) The only fantasy-type story I did not quite care for as much was At the Back of the North Wind. But it was still okay. Also, aside from Phantastes and Lilith, I think most of the fantasy stories are children's stories.
Of the traditional novels, David Elginbrod has been my favorite. But it is also more overtly religious. But some of that may be difficult for you to read, because he writes in Scottish accent quite a bit, which can be difficult to decipher.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 7, 2014 12:23 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I agree with most of what you said. From a practical standpoint I think you mapped a better step forward for those struggling with narcissism insofar as it is more conducive to change due to the fact that it prevents existential terror. However, this doesn't make the statement any less true from a philosophical perspective.
I also take (minor) issue with your statement that "The step forward is to realize that any identity that you construct for yourself is illusory if it is not firmly situated in external reality: in a standard that exists outside yourself."
Where does this standard come from? This doesn't seem like it would eliminate narcissism because the narcissist believes that h/she can create and amend standards on the fly. Further, this standard can also just take the form of another identity, i.e 'this is how X preconstructed identity would act.'
I am going to stand by the proposition that the solution is to let go of the impulse to identify. Accept the fact that you will never know who you are and reorient yourself toward the mode of acting rather than the mode of being. The narcissist is afraid of operating without knowing who h/she is because of the crippling anxiety that would result. "How do I know what to do, if I don't know who I am?", says the narcissist.
Just start doing stuff, pick something and stick to it. Don't listen to the voice in your head that tries to tell you "you don't want that, you want something else." Do something (you think) you don't like and maybe you will end up liking it. If it turns out you (actually) don't, at least you have begun to engage in the process of constructing an authentic self. Keep practicing action and it will become second nature.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 7, 2014 2:30 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Alone doesn't go out of his way to elevate The Average Woman" I think that's the point. This is what feminists convince people is sexism these days.
Score: -1 (5 votes cast)
May 7, 2014 2:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
'Where does this standard come from? This doesn't seem like it would eliminate narcissism because the narcissist believes that h/she can create and amend standards on the fly.'
We are probably saying the same thing with different emphasis.
I'm thinking here of the difference between Believing/doing/wanting and saying 'I believe/do/want' and (when we hit full-blown Narcissism) 'I--as a Transcendentalist--believe/do/want'.
The idea is the need to have that 'I' the identity mediating between the self and the object and the need to give it content because the self is too weak to believe/want/do anything.
So I agree that the best way to break out of this is to become action-oriented rather than identity oriented. Commit to something. Fake it, as TLP says.
But at the end of that tunnel, I don't discount the possibility of a 'real' identity emerging, one that is situated, where who the subject is, who others largely believe him to be, what he believes, and what he does have a degree of coherence, and he thus loses that existential anxiety. His beliefs/ideals/actions flow easily from the self, of which the identity is merely what it should be, an accurate reflection of the real item.
But I agree emphatically that it would be disastrous for the Narcissist consciously to think of this endpoint. He would, as you said, fall into his habit of reinventing himself, fooling himself into thinking the new self is 'authentic'.
The ease of which I speak only comes after self-preoccupation is dead and buried, and the subject's attention is pointed *outward* towards the world. The world then pours selfhood back into the subject.
The relation is reflexive; the subject's role is to look out, and let the world look back in. If the subject tries to control *both* sides of that reciprocal dynamic, probably out of a deep lack of faith in the outside world, you get Narcissism.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 7, 2014 6:29 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"No Self-Respecting Woman Would Go Out Without Make Up" is one of the most "feminist" articles I've read in a long time.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 7, 2014 6:51 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The part about Bernie Madoff really spoke to me. Shows you where I'm at, I guess.
Does anyone have ideas about what to do? I don't like where things seem to be heading yet I like my current standard of living. I want revolutionary internal change but I don't want a war. The system keeps going but I don't think it can keep on going indefinitely, so where does that leave us?
I realise that paragraph is inconsistent, probably because my thinking is inconsistent. When I read TLP, I'm confronted with inconsistencies and misdirections I swallow every day. The solution is surely not to read The Economist - what other blogs are out there that rip away the mask like this one does? What books are good to read to expand and refine my thinking and action?
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 7, 2014 7:30 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>I want revolutionary internal change?
But when that happens, what do you intend to follow it with? Such is the nature of fantasy. "When we cannot really get to know things, fantasy provides an easy answer." See Zizek address that concept here with a short clip from Pervert's Guide to Ideology. Pay very close attention to 7:14-7:28, considering.
If you truly care to delve deeper, familiarize yourself with Alice Miller's work on child rearing, with a central focus on abuse and its repercussions on (global) society. If her work seems sensible then have a look at Lloyd Demause's work as well. Free chapters of stuff at the bottom of the page available here.
I find Kazimierz Dabrowski's Positive Disintegration appealing as well. The idea here is to move yourself onto Level III: Spontaneous Multilevel Disintegration. Read the Wiki. You'll understand.
You must learn more about childrearing modes to understand the origins of that which you are motivated to move on from.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 7, 2014 9:03 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I totally agree. I think the entire notion of post-modern feminism could be summed up in a single sentence.
Woman are not capable of self defense so we (society) have to pre-chew the entire culture for them. It explains more of what's going on than any other explanation. Why is being threatened with rape by people who don't know where you live a huge deal? Because women are incapable of dealing with their delicate emotions. Why must women be handed equal pay? because woman are incapable of making decisions to earn it.
I'm down with actual equality. But woman are not being trained to take actual equality. Woman are not (as men in general are) trained to deal with hurt feelings and bullies. They aren't taught that a decision generally means choosing not to do other stuff just as surely as it means choosing to do what you want. Women are not taught to use power to protect themselves. They're shinking violets, and since they want to be in the line of fire, but aren't trained to deal with it, that means that we must de-ball the entire internet for them.
And it does, as TLP says, play directly into the hands of the powerful. The most powerful tool of oppression is a population rendered incapable of dealing with its own problems without going to an authority to solve (by removing yet more freedom and power from the people). It's a totalitarian's wet dream. And not only are we allowing it to happen, we're demanding it. We can't deal with bullies and trolls ourselves, so that means we give up free speech (big brother insists on knowing who the trolls are and doing nothing when they are punished for free speech), we can't handle our jobs, so the government must dictate with ever more specificity exactly how we interact at work. We can't handle fighting for our rights by ourselves, so we must have someone else fight for us. In other words, unlike Soviet Russia where the government was protecting the Russians from themselves, we demand that the government protect us from ourselves.
Score: -2 (4 votes cast)
May 7, 2014 10:34 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
When I read TLP, I'm confronted with inconsistencies and misdirections I swallow every day. The solution is surely not to read The Economist - what other blogs are out there that rip away the mask like this one does? What books are good to read to expand and refine my thinking and action?
I've been down this road before. You say you want to expand your thinking and action, but what action? Have you ever acted upon information you've read in The Economist?
Who are you? Or who do you think you are? And why does the person who you think you are need information to redefine his/her thinking and action?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 7, 2014 1:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Everything you just said is spot on.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 7, 2014 1:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The manifestation of narcissism is a disregard of semantics, and the system knows this. The real question is why does a system that wants you to see symbols and metaphors have so much fine print.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 7, 2014 2:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Who bullies the bullies? Bullies must respect their elders.
I dunno why? Because they're older?
Because elders haven't respected themselves for longer?
Because the god chosen by elders said not to spare the rod?
I dunno why? Elders just need to bully, I suppose. Or else?
I thought this post was going to be about mothers. But I guess truth is rude. Who don't you put more clothes on, you perverts.
_______
A side-effect of White Female Privilege (the Right To Be Pursued By Men, an entitlement they protect by killing every slut) must be that they imagine they're being verbally pursued (harassed) by trolls. That's ironic because, in the troll's mind, her verbal harassment offended him. So they're both insane but to be fair to the troll, her mean words started it. She's the first offender.
Regardless, both trolls should know it's not sane to imagine senseless pain in your imagination. Unless ESP is a thing now, it is psychotic (by definition) to imagine mean words can hurt you.
Where's the police when an insane woman needs sectioning for her own protection? She's cutting herself in her imagination. Throw her in an imaginary asylum. I think Society has one where it's "normal" to be insane. It may not be civil but it sure is polite.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 7, 2014 3:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Of course information alters our thinking and behavior. Did you just spawn your worldview within your own psyche? Maybe in part... but that's the only way to cultivate a worldview is with new information. Personally, TLP is my daily does of the red pill and there are few so bold as him that stand to offer that red pill. He may not always be right, but he is always enlightening. If you find someone else that has that to offer, I'd like to read that too but so far TLP is all I can find. Partial Objects has some to offer, but if it's not written by TLP it's always a little iffy. Like you can kind of agree with most of it, but not all.
TLP is where it's at. At least he has the guts to rip apart the beloved Matrix and give us poor souls some mana to eat.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 7, 2014 5:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
http://27.media.tumblr.com/eAjcQX6ADq8anr5wwCD2yhlJo1_500.png
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 7, 2014 6:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
When offered refreshments, boys are told by Polite Society's mothers they're to decline twice before they can reluctantly accept a third offer. No matter how much they want cookies, when offered they must lie and say, "No thank you, I'm fine." In Polite Society, you can't be "easy". Women know truth is rude.
Women aren't objects. Objects have a function. Objects don't need. If truth is rude, it'd be rude to say "truth is rude". It's recursion, nitwits. They obliterate children's minds to secure exclusive control of their bodies for utility or disposal in war. How the fuck do any of you sleep at night? Pardon my French.
If I pretend fuck is a French word instead of an English word associated with sex, whores can pretend to believe me and then they no longer need to imagine (or pretend to imagine) pain in their imaginations. All colourful (sex-related) words trigger senseless (not sensory) pain, a conditioned response in the minds of victims (or pretend victims) of trauma. To protect daughters from sex, mothers scream them insane. To protect sons from violence, mothers tell them to be brave. They'll need to be. If deceit is diplomatic - call me crazy! - but conflict may ensue.
To protect boys from cookies, mothers tell them to lie to induce cookie harassment and then lie a third time as they reluctantly (emotional fraud) submit themselves to cookie-rape. Cookie bakers know What Boys Want but they have to cookie harass or even cookie-rape boys to accept the cookies. If they accept No means No, boys will just sit and stare at the jar of cookies with longing, faces pained with cosmetic hunger, wanting cookies. Boys are biologically coded to desire cookies. #NaturalSelection
There isn't a boy alive who doesn't like cookies. The cookies could be as bland as Sterling is old or as ugly as Donald Trump's stupid face, boys love cookies so they don't mind. There is no shame in liking cookies and if a nice lady wants to bake cookies for boys, what's it to you? It's a Cookie-rape Culture created by mothers who force "good boys" to wait patiently for what they deserve.
"What part of No means No is so hard for men to understand?", a feminist troll asked half a million readers in Polite Society's Guardian newspaper the other day. My answer was censored along with 2/3rds of the comments. They are not confused.
This is about war. Biopolitics. They need the broken children of dependent, malicious women. Boys for war. Girls for sale. Warriors and whores abusing children. No humane exit. Surreal.
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
May 8, 2014 9:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Good call on George MacDonald. Lilith is amazing. Another mundane novel of his worth a look is Robert Falconer. It is not a very interesting story, but it offers a critique of the modern idea of charity that I found very challenging.
I wouldn't downplay his Christianity, because it's hard to miss in his writing. But if you are looking to affect a revolution in your soul, you're going to have to offend somebody.
Also, you could do worse than reading Dickens.
On another subject, does anyone know why some of TLP's pieces are disappearing? The Terrible, Awful Truth About SSI and SSDI, and the review of Django Unchained are the ones I've noticed, which may suggest a pattern. A couple options: TLP deemed keeping them up unwise. TLP no longer thinks they help the odds of achieving moksha. TLP has been instructed to remove them by the system, suggesting his other writing is inoffensive to the system.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 8, 2014 9:56 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Wasn't the Django Unchained review embedded in "No Self-Respecting Woman?"
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/no_self-respecting_woman_would.html
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 8, 2014 7:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Am I the only person here who thinks "jonny" dresses up in drag as his mother and screams at a mirror?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 8, 2014 8:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Some of George MacDonald´s early stuff is insanely narcissistic, though. To the point where it seeming like "Notes From the Underground" where we´re supposed to see ourselves in the main character and repent. Maybe that was his goal. Maybe not.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 8, 2014 11:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What (of it) is inside you that goes unheeded/ignored in order to focus your attention so tightly on the apparent character of someone else?
Repeat this question, replacing the "you/your" with "me/my."
You don't have to share what comes to mind. But if something does, trust me, it's significant.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 8, 2014 11:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Stuff is probably taken down because some half-wits decided that minding their own fucking business and respecting anonymity was a rule that didn't apply to them and thus have fucked other people over. How kind of them, eh?
You can't read/reference things now thanks to some degenerate's poor upbringing.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 8, 2014 11:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's disappointing for sure. I was hoping that Alone had taken further precautions to keep those comments off of his blog. I'm thinking about saving some of his articles as PDFs, not sure how long a lot of this material will remain on the web.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 8, 2014 11:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Not saying that that content was there*, but IF it was, it was removed because, well, as Alone says, lawyers. (or at least a variation on the theme) State health boards have heydays investigating allegations involving what they deem as "racially charged." No accessible content eliminates this possibility, which is the only rational thing to do even if no wrongdoing took place to begin with.
Is it bullying to wish I had a time machine to go back in time and convince the "outing" poster's mother to take birth control?
___________
*I'm sure you get it
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 12:19 AM | Posted by : | Reply
>Was he operating from a perspective of institutionalized sexism, patriarchal thinking, misogyny? Sure, #whatevs. Sometimes the structural imbalances go your way, and sometimes they don't, better figure out who makes the scales.
The scales are made from the laws of the universe. Structural "imbalances" are the consequence of natural imbalances. Society is a biological construct.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 12:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Maybe he will/has set up his spam filter to block comments containing his name, using something like this:
http://www.movabletips.com/2010/03/banning-a-word-or-term-in-your-movable-type-comments.html
I think he already knows about this, but I e-mailed him that link now just in case.
Also, if you look up this site's archives page on Web Archive, you can find those posts (and you can also find an earlier deleted post from 2008, and a whole deleted exclusively-psychiatry-focused version of the blog from 2004-5 that has a lot of good stuff).
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 12:21 AM | Posted by : | Reply
>Hess is fighting the battles of 50 years ago because she was told to fight them by people who profit from the fight
It's not about money; it's about inertia. She's fighting the boomer's battles because that cultural paradigm remains supreme. It won't be long.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 1:20 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Nihilism, thy name is gen-x.
Only neurotic people become psychiatrists.
lrn2transcend
"the system" is not a thing in itself. It is not an alien conspiracy. It is the universe unfolding according to natural laws; you and me and everybody. What goes up, comes down, and things fall apart. "I only watch for their going back"
Smoke a joint. Chill the fuck out. Quit drinking so much. Quit doing synthetic drugs. Put down the porn. Read the Tao, then Sartor Resartus. Spend some time in the sun.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 1:33 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Who here is getting any better?
Do people here ever talk about how they are getting better and letting go of their narcissism? I see some people talking about the books they are reading, which is great. I feel now, with this article, that Alone has finally spoken directly to the concerns that brought me to him in the first place. I feel I have a very clear map of how my narcissism came to be. Of course, that doesn't mean that it's going to go away anytime soon, but it helps to know what is liable to renew my narcissistic injury and to avoid it.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 2:23 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>"Only neurotic people become psychiatrists."
Being acquainted with a few psychiatrists myself I'd say that if we're to go the route of The Four Temperaments then they're more likely to hover around sanguine, i.e. they tend to be talkers more than listeners, which is detrimental to some degree in practice. Neurotics/melancholics OTOH are regarded as touchy and operate near or in the realm of perfection/type A.
Personally I enjoy having drinks with them, their sense of humor is infectious and most like talking about their music collections. FWIW they're Cal state hospital psychiatrists.
Speaking of the Dao, of which I mean that of which is spoken cannot be the Dao, let us recall:
One who knows does not speak, one who speaks does not know-Dao De Jing, Ch. 56
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 2:35 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thanks for sharing, JW.
Curious, though, and it's a strange question-- what decade where you born? I'm asking because those who begin to relate the way you do seem to be of a certain age, if you will.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 3:58 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am very much a Gen-Xer.
For me the final piece of the puzzle is "The fight is a symptom of neurosis, frantic energy as a defense against impotence, frantic energy as a defense against change." I now understand what Alone means when he says "and no, yelling won't make it any less true." That behavior, yelling at reality to make it go away, causes narcissistic injury to the people around you. These where not the injuries that got the ball rolling, but they've kept the ball rolling over the years.
Is anyone here working on letting go of their narcissism? I assume that you, like me, are faking it as has been suggested, but how are you faking it?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 4:57 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>One who knows does not speak, one who speaks does not know
And yet, those words were spoken (in print).
It's a good book but don't take it too seriously.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 6:31 AM | Posted by : | Reply
If you're a guy, you probably don't realize the awesome pressure on women to let themselves get looked at: to reveal themselves online, to post a pic, to give everyone your attention, to stop what you're doing and give the other your self...
I've seen girls' social media / online dating inboxes with four or five figures of unread messages from men forced to make the first (and every subsequent) move. These 'men' were begging, pleading, screaming but girls aren't scared. They solicit attention.
One girl was complaining. Being an object of desire isn't easy. I asked her why not take her clothes off? She wasn't born in them. She didn't understand. Girls dress to undress to impress (or dress to suggest [ i.imgur.com/9wVfT9i.jpg ]). That's a Glass Ceiling.
I asked her why not take her makeup off? She didn't understand. Keen to help, I asked her why not replace all her enhanced images with pics that actually look like her (or her cosmetic appearance) in reality? She didn't understand.
"Those pics are me!"
Reality is obfuscated at every step for a fraudulent end result that looks nothing like them. She didn't understand. When 1300 guys click "Like" on her fraud, she values an illusion created by her own illusion. 1300 guys don't like her, they merely appear to.
"What do you mean?"
Does it matter? No one says what they mean or means what they say so why talk at all? Women destroy girls' minds with intent. From the age of two, women are conditioning girls to imagine men want to kidnap them, leer at their exposed object, look up their skirt, rape them. "No one will rape that face, poor thing. Try this." [ i.imgur.com/jV8PG6s.jpg ] "Us girls gotta stick together."
Girls' big sisters look out for them, help them faceplant, police their modesty and purity, teach them to be hostile, to defeat themselves [ i.imgur.com/vxosPY7.png ], to be afraid.
"After all, being mentally alert is the greatest weapon you can ever have." - women (telling girls how to get raped)
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 6:41 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Congratulations on posting the most pretentious remark I've ever seen on this site. For all of his faults and neuroses, at least "jonny" isn't a pompous pseudo-intellectual who disguises weak ideas under big words and dense dialogue. You should ask yourself why YOU got so miffed at my crack at "jonny". Why you feel the need to stick up for him? As much as I disagree with almost everything he types, he's apt at sticking up for himself just fine.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 6:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Actually, no I quite like people sticking up for me. But if you disagree with everything I say, why not counter it? It's not like I'm not taking great pains to explain my points and provide supporting examples / evidence.
But speculated smear as a counter-argument? You wonder if I dress up like a woman I never think about? You're channeling your mother.
To your question, I don't. Where are we going with this productive line of reasoning?
You are my argument. You were brilliant once upon a time. But now? "Why she wouldn't even harm a fly."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 9:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Doug Stanhope: If you're offended by any word in any language, it’s probably because your parents were unfit to raise a child. They were too stupid. They should have been neutered. Because all it is is a sound you can make with your mouth. It’s not a weakness that you have naturally. When you come out of that pink ugly hole onto this planet, you're nothing but a gooey, shrinking, wrinkled ball of weakness. That’s all you are: you're weak, you're nothing but weak, and your parents look at that, and they think: “Not weak enough. We can make this thing even weaker by training it to react poorly to different sounds that you can make with your mouth.”
Exactly. But to pretend it's parents doing the malicious conditioning is ridiculous. There's a fine line between malice and ignorance, but mothers aren't too stupid. They know exactly why they condition girls to associate pain with (talking about) sex.
Or exposure to male genitalia. They'll do unspeakable things with it but you can't send them a picture of it. Or speak of it. Some girls get offended. Others get aroused. The latter would explain the former. They're conditioned to take offence at their interests before they're interested. Puberty would scramble their brain. (Doublethink used as a coping mechanism?) Girls are setup to feel biological desire and sociological shame of desire, simultaneously [ i.imgur.com/B74DW69.png ]. Perverse cruelty.
Feminists want the age of consent raised to 25, to protect kids.
Guardian: Leave the Age of Consent Alone
...whack the age of consent up to 25, when you're a) pretty much beyond peer pressure and b) on good terms with your vagina and have arrived together at a working understanding of what you want to get involved in, how, why and from what angle.
But violence will always be rated G. Onward Christian soldiers.
The National Coalition on Television Violence estimates that an American child will witness 8,000 murders & 100,000 acts of violence on television by the time they finish elementary school.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 1:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Jonny wrote:
"Feminists want the age of consent raised to 25, to protect kids."
I read the article you cited to support this claim. The woman who made it is CLEARLY joking.
With all due respect, have you ever considered the possibility that, at least when it comes to sex, you're simply too neurotic to have a valid opinion?
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 1:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Except you really don't provide examples or evidence most of the time.
Take this very post of yours - the last line "You are my argument. You were brilliant once upon a time." Rather than actually coming out and saying what you mean, half the time you hide it in flowery bullshit. I guess it sounds kind of deep? But its not like we're freshman you're trying to bang, so I don't know what you expect to accomplish.
The rest of the time, I firmly doubt the accuracy of your claims. I really can't speak to the arguments you base around various philosophical ideals, but having spent many years in academia studying the sciences there are many times where you have made a claim about biology or another field and all I can do is shake my head. Frankly, that makes me doubt you aren't just pulling the philosophical items from thin air as well.
Shit in the very next post you make a claim that women are set up to feel biological desire and sociological shame simultaneously. Well, okay - not exactly blazing a new trail with that claim, hell you could probably replace "women" with "great apes in general" and be just as accurate. But then you post a bizarre image that seems to involve you sending a picture of your dick to a girl, being surprised that she wasn't happy with you and captioning it with a somewhat disturbing stream of consciousness wherein you appear to try to analyze this girl (who I have a feeling is underage) based on her four word replies, and make claims based on just about nothing. That isn't an example, or evidence - its just a good way to show a cop your dick. You could have written almost anything else in the margin and made just as much sense if not more, and it would be just as well supported.
You seem to be far more dedicated to maintaining the "jonny" persona you present here than actually fact checking your own claims or producing a straightforward argument - but the weak link is that you aren't as interesting as Da Vinci or as charismatic as Michelangelo, so nobody is interested enough to puzzle out whatever underlying meaning you might be trying to present.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 2:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
so when's the book coming out, you fuck? I can barely contain my simultaneous excitement and erection
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 4:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The woman who made it is CLEARLY joking.
Was it her hilarious leadin about when she's President of the World that clued you in? The joke itself was hilarious, CLEARLY.
...whack the age of consent up to 25, when you're a) pretty much beyond peer pressure and b) on good terms with your vagina and have arrived together at a working understanding of what you want to get involved in, how, why and from what angle.
Where's the punchline? Has a feminist ever made a joke in all of history? They're not exactly known for their comedy.
With all due respect, have you ever considered the possibility that, at least when it comes to sex, you're simply too neurotic to have a valid opinion?
When you next imagine I could be interested in your mother's shrewd emotional exchange in lieu of one (1) argument, abstain.
_______________
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 4:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You were brilliant once upon a time.
When you were 2-3, your mind had twice the synapses you presently possess. Though I'm no neurologist, the neurologists seem a little shaky on logic [ i.imgur.com/uFH3StR.jpg ]. Neurologists believe humans don't need those synapses. Have they met any? Seems like the neurologists need those synapses.
Something happened when you were three that put a stop to all synapse production and you ended up disposing of half the synapse shipments your 3yo mind had mistakenly ordered and taken delivery of. Easy mistake for a 3yo to make, but your genetic code is actually 2,500,000yo and isn't likely to err.
Say, just before your mind went into receivership, didn't you do something awe-inspiring with all those synapses and a tongue?
Human Nature: Justice versus Power
Noam Chomsky debates with Michel Foucault 1971
Noam Chomsky: If a Martian were to look at this process of acquiring this vast and complicated and intricate system of knowledge on the basis of this ridiculously small quantity of data, he would think of it as an immense act of invention and creation. In fact, a Martian would, I think, consider it as much of an achievement as the invention of, let's say, any aspect of a physical theory on the basis of the data that was presented to the physicist.
You were as brilliant as a physicist, Noam reckons. Logic suggests he's wrong. You had more synapses. In terms of capacity, you may have been more brilliant than any adult in (known) history.
Now you're too stupid to be plausible. Do you recall the last time you were so ashamed, you literally wanted to die? You were 3yo and infant amnesia protects you from the memory of the trauma. It would threaten your survival, otherwise. Science doesn't know what causes infant amnesia but the problem with scientists, neurologists and physicists is love. It blinds so your whore mother wanting it is hardly virtuous. Scientists dress for work, trying to solve infant amnesia but do you think - crazy idea - infant amnesia might be caused by the cause of amnesia?
Wikipedia: Amnesia is a deficit in memory caused by brain damage, disease, or psychological trauma.
Mothers say "No" so Science says "No" for the same reason Science believes psychopathy is genetic and that Alice Miller is a quack. Mothers know best but you have PTSD. Look in a mirror for proof of her abuse. [ i.imgur.com/4SrtIH2.png ].
She taught you how to be ashamed of yourself. You didn't know how lol. Wasn't that nice of her? Happy Mother's Day, retard.
_____________
...there are many times where you have made a claim about biology or another field and all I can do is shake my head.
Well if that's all you can do, you are forced to accept my logic.
But then you post a bizarre image that seems to involve you sending a picture of your dick to a girl...
You cannot be this reduced. The girl made a 180 degree emotional reversal, from Society's conditioned pain to biology's desire. Your filthy whore mother was given a deity child and gives us you? Motherfuck. I have no desire to engage you ever again.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 4:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Was it her hilarious leadin about when she's President of the World that clued you in? The joke itself was hilarious, CLEARLY.
I never said it was a funny joke, just that it was a joke. And it was the 'President of the World' but that clued me in. Nobody ever says that when they're being serious.
Where's the punchline? Has a feminist ever made a joke in all of history? They're not exactly known for their comedy.
Where's the punchline in the Dead Parrot sketch? There are plenty of forms of humour which don't rely on the standard set-up/punchline format. Sarcasm, irony, surrealist non-sequitur, slapstick, none of them necessarily rely on punchlines. This 'joke' relied on humorous over-exaggeration. It's a light hearted rhetorical device, nothing more.
As for feminists making jokes...well, pretty much every female stand-up touches on feminist issues at some point in their acts. You may not find them funny, but they're still making jokes.
When you next imagine I could be interested in your mother's shrewd emotional exchange in lieu of one (1) argument, abstain.
I'm sorry, I read this about six times and I've absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 7:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It seems pretty obvious to me that by
When you next imagine I could be interested in your mother's shrewd emotional exchange in lieu of one (1) argument, abstain.
Jonny means that you're offering a conditioned emotional response that simply "won't accept" a perspective based on nothing BUT that conditioning (otherwise, you would be able to offer a logical support for your contention), and would rather next time that you didn't. I.e., if you don't have anything logical to say, don't say anything at all.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 7:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jonny, I'm with you. I think you have some good ideas. Some of what you say makes a lot of sense. (P.s., Not trying to hedge with the "some"s, just have a question). One point that I'm hung up on is the idea that Mother's necessarily have the power to shape their offspring. "Men don't give birth," is one of your arguments in this regard.
Perfect example:
She taught you how to be ashamed of yourself. You didn't know how lol. Wasn't that nice of her? Happy Mother's Day, retard.
Please explain why it's necessary that "she" is responsible and not "he". And please (not trying to be pushy, just want to know more) go further than "because men are the products of their mothers," as that would only beg the question. Is it PURELY biological? And, if so, isn't that the same sort of biopolitic you revile?
I need a condition that is sufficient for making mothers the indispensable agents of children's socialization.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 8:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"I'm a narcissist"
Shut the fuck up faggot, no you're not. You're just shallow and pretentious. Affluenza.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WMXtU2IrKw
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 8:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It seems pretty obvious to me that by:When you next imagine I could be interested in your mother's shrewd emotional exchange in lieu of one (1) argument, abstain.Jonny means that you're offering a conditioned emotional response that simply "won't accept" a perspective based on nothing BUT that conditioning (otherwise, you would be able to offer a logical support for your contention), and would rather next time that you didn't. I.e., if you don't have anything logical to say, don't say anything at all.
Well...I'm glad it was obvious to someone. To clarify, are you saying that when I said this:
With all due respect, have you ever considered the possibility that, at least when it comes to sex, you're simply too neurotic to have a valid opinion?
Jonny thought this was something my mother somehow programmed me to say? Like she was speaking through me, or something?
If so...well, I never pretended my statement was an argument, as such. It was merely a suggestion. That Jonny has serious mother issues is pretty well unarguably true, I think. It's hard to reach a different conclusion, given the content and (IMO rather manic) tone of his posts. It's my experience that people with "issues" of any kind tend to use them to explain too much. It seems to me (and I freely admit I may not be as well versed with Jonny's posts as some here, since he's made so many) that Jonny feels that pretty much everything bad that can happen to a person can be traced back to their mother in some way. It seems self-evident to me that this way of thinking is very narrow. It's also self-evident that narrow thinking makes it hard to reach balanced conclusions.
In much the same way that, if your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail, if you think every problem in life is due to bad mothering, you're going to misidentify a lot of problems; hence my suggestion.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 8:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"I want to be one of the cool kids. I want something that defines me"
How's this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxWHm8V4lZo
Pretend 2029 = 2014 or whatever
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 8:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's likely unwise to contribute to this particular exchange: futile at best and bear-baiting at worst. I want to be doing useful work, but what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. As they say.
Johnny has been a constant presence on these posts for as long as I have been scrolling down to look at the comments. I'd somehow thought that TLP would attract a certain style of discourse involving a reasonable, polite exchange of ideas. Surely TLP's devotees are interested in learning the flaws in their perception of the world, and you'd think the blogs incessant railing against narcissism should prompt some level of humility.
But it seems quite the opposite, as this exchange demonstrates, or the painful bantering between "el puerco" and "Dissenter" at the bottom of the last post. It's like they don't just want to prove eachother wrong, they also want to demonstrate their complete superiority to anyone capable of having a thought remotely similar to that of their opponent: rhetoric so extreme and childish (churlish!) that it can't help but rob the speaker of credibility. And I can't help but see this as less of an attempt to convince, and more an attempt to build an image in the mind of the reader.
I've been to places in the internet where the discussion isn't so acrid. How did this blog's comments get like this? Was it always this way?
Of course, TLP has a very distinctive style---shock value, snarky answers to rhetorical questions, etc. Powerful, often opaque, and ruthlessly unapologetic---maybe this contributes? Johnny seems to be aping this style, but leaves a bitter taste in my mouth: while TLP appears to be conveying a reasonable, coherent, and generally understandable message under his spiky tone, Johnny seems to have all the harshness and noise but with nothing underneath.
Johnny, you rightly point out that Other---and likely most other before him---is not providing too much in the line of actual argument against you, falling instead on expressions of incredulity, offense, and exasperation. But please don't take this as an indication that you're correct, or that your points are just that defensible. There comes a point in every discussion where the gulf between the worldviews of the participants becomes apparent, and it becomes clear that no volume of words will bridge the gap. Maybe---maybe---years of personal involvement in one another's lives can approach some understanding, but that's certainly not going to happen in the medium of a forum discussion which consists primarily of vitriol. If they were arguing with you, you'd be right: it's an empty ad hominem. But they'e not; they're appealing others that can also see your words as empty, because with them communication might be more feasible. I realize my opinion is unsolicited and likely unwelcome, but you're not TLP, and I think you'd get much better traction in proselytizing your views if you drop the rhetoric entirely.
"Whore mother" loses its shock value very quickly. It's probably ineffective to start off with "I'm not a neurologist, but..." and then proceed to misunderstand neurology, apparently claiming to know more than the scientific community. You may want to read about synaptic pruning; marble doesn't become worse when you chisel away the bits that aren't part of the sculpture inside. Similarly, Other's brain doesn't become half the brain it used to be when he learns to ride a tricycle.
I also question your use of a conversation in which a girl wants you. On a blog about narcissism. I imagine many of those looking at it noticed especially your picture: you're young, and that makes sense: not because young people can't have valuable thoughts, but even I'm beginning to learn that humility often acquired with the passage of years tends to dull the brashness with which people trumpet minority opinions. It doesn't invalidate what you say, but it does allow people to explain why it's being said.
Lastly, these comments use HTML formatting; try putting your imgur links in this form, so they show up:
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris"> LINK TEXT </a>
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 9:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This Blog Is Fascinating! Though I will admit that the content is at times beyond my frame of reference, out of my field. Could Some kind poster, TLP recommend some works either on or how to reach this level of cognition? Half the fun in this blog comes from the informed musings in the comments, Refreshingly civil as well.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 9:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Everyone has their own recommendations. Here's my personal recommendation for a decent overview. I'm a medical student; I'm no philosopher-- so take it with a grain of salt. TLP peppers his writings with thoughts from existentialists and camus. Gordon Marino's "Basic Writings of Existentialsim" provides a good introduction. But there are plenty of youtube videos with lectures. People here love Baudrillard, Foucault, and Zizek.
My personal favorites who also are pretty easy reads are Camus (Myth of Sisyphus) Marcus Aurelius (meditations), and Seneca (letters). Good luck!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 9:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's well said and worthwhile to read as well as an effective rebuke to jonny!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 10:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Try something along these lines first.
Self-deprecation sans abuse/masochism that does not expect cheerful refutation in return, not taking yourself too seriously, etc. are seldom not helpful.
Shut the shit off --> look inside yourself --> actively seek to get made fun of. Maintain this cycle.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 10:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If it helps you to feel better, then do go on.
I truly mean this.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 10:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Forgot my name. Tone of voice above is flat and neutral as well just so you know.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 10:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
J! Thank you, J. If I could give you gold, I would. A million fake internet points for you.
I would add, though, as a reader of a lot of these comments, that some of the conversations that devolve into name-calling aren't as bad as the entire identity fiasco. There's some good shit in some of these "threads" but it seems like no one really engages with a lot of it. It is, as you say, a Good Sign, I think, that TLP stirs up this much emotion and thought in the readers and, to my mind, some of the vitriol is simply an expression of frustration as people grapple with new knowledge. In any case, it appears that humility is a necessary condition for actual learning.
Thanks for your post.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 10:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Fuck Foucault, Camus, and Baudrillard (except his book on 9/11. That was worth skimming).
Read Nietzsche - Marcus Aurelius is fine - Carlyle, Joyce, Lao Tze, etc.
No excuses. Then transcend, if you can.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 10:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
That Jonny has serious mother issues is pretty well unarguably true, I think.
Thoughts are not reality.
The best you could say, forensically speaking, is that Jonny's messages left here could be one of two alternatives: they may be interpreted as written by someone imagining or harboring (or both) certain perspectives & "issues" (as you call them), or they may be read literally and then embellished by whatever the reader projects onto Jonny.
Unless you know Jonny personally and are skilled at both deciphering personality expressions and getting 100% heart-of-hearts honest confessions of true sentiments-impulses-influences, you're just projecting.
But then, that's how narcissists interact with others, isn't it?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 10:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Black steel in the hour of chaos? "What the fuck does that mean? I have a Bachelors degree!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7izGUvCWYM0
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 10:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
But it seems quite the opposite, as this exchange demonstrates, or the painful bantering between "el puerco" and "Dissenter" at the bottom of the last post.
Speaking of projection and failing to know the person you're projecting onto... there it is right above ^^^^^^^^^^.
In the last thread I was making a point consistent with TLP's main essay focus, while the whinger adversary was trying to hold a seminar on Marxist thought and avoid the certification fetish question.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 10:55 PM | Posted by : | Reply
All this talk of ancient leatherbound volumes with crumbling pages makes me think nobody has bothered to mention Walker Percy's novels.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 11:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Speaking of projection and failing to know the person you're projecting onto... there it is right above ^^^^^^^^^^I think most would agree that it's not misperception that the exchange was painful banter at best.
Look, this is what Alone had to say about projection:
It sounds like you project unwanted feelings onto another person, which is both wrong and impossible. It's not an action, it's a problem of perception. The unwanted feelings don't make sense coming from someone like you, so you conclude they must be coming from the other person.-Hipsters on Food Stamps, Pt III
"J" does not have a problem of perception.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 11:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Well that's really terrific. Retreat into the subjective feelings you have, and extrapolate them to generously paint every reader with them.
I don't know if you're trying to be ironic here, with the strange emphasis on narcissistic impressions you hold regarding people you don't know, in which you paint them with psychiatric profiles based only on text typed in a comment box. Are you? Is this some kind of weak attempt at emulating Ricky Gervais comedy?
I realize the idea is for TLP's readers to be drawn to his essays because they are narcissists themselves, and inevitably those who comment will display narcissism. So your responses don't surprise me with their avoidance and projection.
Let's have another 2,000 words on how your feelings are impugned by the tone you detect here and what night terrors you have as a result.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 11:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I realize the idea is for TLP's readers to be drawn to his essays because they are narcissists themselves
That's like saying the idea is for a criminologist's blog's readers to be drawn to his/her essays because they themselves are criminals.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 9, 2014 11:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
el puerco wrote:
Unless you know Jonny personally and are skilled at both deciphering personality expressions and getting 100% heart-of-hearts honest confessions of true sentiments-impulses-influences, you're just projecting.
Oh, please! If a guy who seems constitutionally incapable of writing the word 'mother' without prefixing it with the word 'whore' doesn't have mother issues, then nobody does. You don't have to be Sigmund Freud to work that out.
But then, that's how narcissists interact with others, isn't it?
You use the word 'narcissist ' as though you intend it to be a conversation stopper. Two can play at that game. After all, surely only a narcissist would presume that I'm projecting simply because my analysis of Jonny goes further than yours. A non-narcissist would surely concede at least the possibility that maybe I'm just paying more attention.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 10, 2014 12:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
After all, surely only a narcissist would presume that I'm projecting simply because my analysis of Jonny goes further than yours
My thoughts as well. It's like when during an exchange, you offer a bit more in return, (only to share! Not to be superior!) and you're met with the you-think-you(r)-_______-everything/me/whatever rage. Which is projection.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 10, 2014 1:33 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hey man, I've brought up Walker Percy a couple of times, but I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 10, 2014 3:16 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Is this some kind of weak attempt at emulating Ricky Gervais comedy?The second time this person has tried to ad hom. a commenter by reference to Gervais (which, for some reason, is an insult).
Do you pick up on my sarcasm, el shitbag? Or are your foreign sensibilities not honed enough? You're syntax sounds confused. So do your ideas.
And to J: Point taken. Sure, I'm splenetic, but this guy is borderline retarded. (Don't go all "P.C." on me). "The comments-thread isn't the appropriate forum to vent your frustration." You're right: the comments thread is the place where private sleuths deduce identity (see "frantic activity in place of impotence"). Look at Jonny, for chrissakes. He's got some good ideas (I"m not the first to think this); too bad he can't comment without working himself into sadomasochistic ecstasy. His posts are too salty for my taste.
El puerco (literally, "the pig") is clearly well-fed -- a troll, by all accounts. But two can play at that game, because he has nothing of value to contribute; he just hates it when people refer to ideas he doesn't understand.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 10, 2014 9:35 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Walker Percy is the man
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 11, 2014 8:53 AM | Posted by : | Reply
How convenient that Alone's conclusions and the system's injunctions are finally so similar. Be more productive! Take more risks! Invest in your education! Be your own person! Be creative! Set impossible standards for yourself and suffocate in self-loathing for not meeting them!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 11, 2014 11:04 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Invest in your education!
Um...what blog are you reading?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 11, 2014 12:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Please explain why it's necessary that "she" is responsible and not "he".
We learn our mother's tongue.
Mothers break us with shame, saddling us with clothes to play gender role-playing games; making boy soldiers and girl whores.
It would appear within the last generation or two, at least in the West, Power decided women needed to be in the workforce; I half-suspect this may have been due to inferior product but until recently in the West, and across the world still, only men work.
Mothers raise children Right.
And I suspect the way this was working for awhile was that mothers were doing their jobs (as dictated by traditional gender roles which have always enslaved men, feminists are just nauseous revisionists). George Orwell on White Male Privilege:
Down and Out in Paris and London (1933)Tramps are cut off from women, in the first place, because there are very few women at their level of society. One might imagine that among destitute people the sexes would be as equally balanced as elsewhere. But it is not so; in fact, one can almost say that below a certain level society is entirely male.
The cause is presumably that unemployment affects women less than men; also that any presentable woman can, in the last resort, attach herself to some man...there is no doubt that women hardly ever condescend to men who are poorer than themselves.
Feminists fight for equality, if your brain is dead.
1984 is clearly about a toddler's valiant, if ultimately futile, rebellious and lonely struggle to remain sane before being crushed by a totalitarian Big Mother, who regulates appropriate thoughts with loving violence, changing the logic to illogical.
"Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.""We are the priests of power. God is power."
"We shall abolish the orgasm."
"There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother."
"All competing pleasures will be destroyed."
"We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable.“
“In the face of pain there are no heroes.”
“The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”
“Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”
"But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
You can't fight Big Mother. In the end, every toddler is defeated. Everyone has Stockholm Syndrome. Everyone loves Big Mother.
Mothers control emotional, cultural, religious, societal values. Girls are their natural enemies. Men are their broken slaves.
And for a while, mothers were doing their jobs, reducing their female competitive threats and raising men Right, to be real men (dependable slaves). Valuable, honourable, hard-working men; miserably exploited but then that's what they were bred for.
This splendid poem about a young Mickey Mantle says it better:
_____________________
Body and Soul - BH Fairchild
Half-numb, guzzling bourbon and Coke from coffee mugs,
our fathers fall in love with their own stories, nuzzling
the facts but mauling the truth, and my friend's father begins
to lay out with the slow ease of a blues ballad a story
about sandlot baseball in Commerce, Oklahoma decades ago.
These were men's teams, grown men, some in their thirties
and forties who worked together in zinc mines or on oil rigs,
sweat and khaki and long beers after work, steel guitar music
whanging in their ears, little white rent houses to return to
where their wives complained about money and broken Kenmores
and then said the hell with it and sang Body and Soul
in the bathtub and later that evening with the kids asleep
lay in bed stroking their husband's wrist tattoo and smoking
Chesterfields from a fresh pack until everything was O.K.
Well, you get the idea. Life goes on, the next day is Sunday,
another ball game, and the other team shows up one man short.
They say, we're one man short, but can we use this boy,
he's only fifteen years old, and at least he'll make a game.
They take a look at the kid, muscular and kind of knowing
the way he holds his glove, with the shoulders loose,
the thick neck, but then with that boy's face under
a clump of angelic blonde hair, and say, oh, hell, sure,
let's play ball. So it all begins, the men loosening up,
joking about the fat catcher's sex life, it's so bad
last night he had to hump his wife, that sort of thing,
pairing off into little games of catch that heat up into
throwing matches, the smack of the fungo bat, lazy jogging
into right field, big smiles and arcs of tobacco juice,
and the talk that gives a cool, easy feeling to the air,
talk among men normally silent, normally brittle and a little
angry with the empty promise of their lives.
...continues here: Poemhunter: Body and Soul
______________________
It's long but hauntingly beautiful. They don't make men like that anymore. They make men like this now (bullies):
[religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/2014/02/might-is-right.html]
If "he" rather than "she" was responsible, why would marriage exist? Would "he" have a motive to objectify / slut-shame girls? Why would "he" want to make children self-conscious and ashamed of their own skin? Women need slaves. Men are slaves.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 11, 2014 2:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think you'd get much better traction in proselytizing your views if you drop the rhetoric entirely.
What rhetoric? You perceive reality through emotional lens. The word whore has no synonym in the English language. It is the only word that can be used to describe a woman inducing artificial desire with intent to manipulate suffering (extortion).
Your mother conditioned you to perceive shock value in the sole English word that accurately describes her? That would be telling.
You may want to read about synaptic pruning; marble doesn't become worse when you chisel away the bits that aren't part of the sculpture inside.
Neurologists say they were going to be part of the sculpture, but for disuse leading to their weakening and eventual pruning.
Pruning is thought to be a process of removing neurons which may have become damaged or degraded in order to further improve the "networking" capacity of a particular area of the brain.
The selection of the pruned terminal arbors follow the "use it or lose it" principle seen in synaptic plasticity. This means synapses that are frequently used have strong connections while the rarely used synapses are eliminated.
You've linked me to a page that literally backs up my argument. One way you could instantly disprove my hypothesis would be to find evidence that synaptic pruning in other mammal species mirrors that of humans. I just skimmed through abstracts for an hour looking for that very thing but found nothing conclusive.
I also question your use of a conversation in which a girl wants you.
One girl? It would be pretty hard to prove the point I was trying to make if the subject doesn't reverse her position. But to prove that I was not being narcissistic, I can show you evidence of hundreds or thousands of girls that want me? You know they're all filthy liars obsessed with sex, right? I state this repetitively.
My frustration with girls is that they're worthless frauds? I'm not.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 11, 2014 2:23 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone, you may just find this too precious (especially in light of your porn book): "In Toronto with the world’s feminist pornographers" http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27192724
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 11, 2014 2:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Could Some kind poster recommend some works either on or how to reach this level of cognition?
This is actually one of Alone's recommendations but I forget where from. It's Zizek brilliance before he sold out.
Liberation Hurts
University of Illinois at Chicago, September 29, 2003
An Interview with Slavoj Zizek
Eric Dean Rasmussen
Bernard Williams, the English moral philosopher, develops, in a wonderful way, the difference between 'must' and 'have to.' He opposes the logic of positive injunction - in the sense of "you should do this" - with another logic of injunction, a more fundamental sense, of "I just cannot do it otherwise." The first logic is simply that of the ideal. You should do it, but never can do it. You never can live up to your ideal. But, the more shattering, radical, ethical experience is that of "I cannot do it otherwise."For example - this is one of the old partisan myths in Yugoslavia - Yugoslavian rebels killed some Germans, so the Germans did the usual thing. They encircled the village and decided to shoot all the civilians. But, one ordinary German soldier stood up and said, "Sorry, I just cannot do it." The officer in charge said, "No problem, you can join them," and the German soldier did. This is what I mean by sacrifice. There's nothing pathetic about it. This honest German soldier, his point was not, "Oooooh, what a nice, ideal role for me." He was just ethically cornered. You cannot do it otherwise.
The Yahweh religions introduced the illogical idea that acting in one's best interests was some kind of ideal (if one can afford to), but what is Right is right not because it's moral, saintly, good, prescribed, legislated, etc. What is Right is selfish optimality.
"It can't be optimal to die?"
In this instance, I fear our mothers and their religions actually know best. If you ignore what they say and listen to what they do, our status as slaves is revealed. If the question is To Be or Not To Be, extensive measures prevent our choosing the latter.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 11, 2014 3:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
el puerco: I realize the idea is for TLP's readers to be drawn to his essays because they are narcissists themselves...
I was under the impression everyone but toddlers, and perhaps nudists, are narcissistic to a degree. We all wear clothes to conceal our true Self, projecting false images to please others, in fear of their disapproval. Isn't that textbook narcissism?
I suspect you're correct about the projection.
HGJ: After all, surely only a narcissist would presume that I'm projecting simply because my analysis of Jonny goes further than yours.
Perhaps the question you might ask yourself is why you're proffering unsolicited psychoanalysis of anyone? That infantile screaming is the hallmark of objectified women, who project this emotional vitriol to smear their imagined adversary or whatever.
It's just screaming, worthless noise projected at the source of the imagined pain inside your mind. Where do you see this going?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 11, 2014 4:33 PM | Posted by : | Reply
An Interview with Slavoj Zizek is mentioned in Wolf Dad, Tiger Mom, And Why Trying To Be A Good Parent Is A Bad Idea:
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/12/wolf_dad_tiger_mom_and_why_try.html
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 11, 2014 5:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"We all wear clothes to conceal our true Self, projecting false images to please others, in fear of their disapproval. Isn't that textbook narcissism?"
No but if you were told at some point that people who don't wear clothes are freaks who masturbate in public and this naturally led you to believe that the association that is in your mind is in everyone elses makes you an unhealthy narcissist.
In the comment section people often talk about narcissism like it is some big plague and learning how to escape it will lead to salvation and enlightenment. That's bullshit, just keep it in check know how it affects you and the world around you and you will be a better person for it. Doing so you can start to learn how it affects other people and actually get a picture of how some other people think inside of some introverted attempt at attaining salvation for yourself.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 11, 2014 8:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I love all the quick cultural references in Alone's writing. But this one has me stumped: "$100M there is a vaporizer nearby". Is her erstwhile boyfriend an asthmatic?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 11, 2014 10:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
He's referring to a popular marijuana smoking device. I don't see A.H's boyfriend as a sweet literary pothead, she's too ambitious. He is probably a baby banker working 100 hours a week or some plugged-in venture capital dweeb.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 11, 2014 10:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"We all wear clothes to conceal our true Self, projecting false images to please others, in fear of their disapproval. Isn't that textbook narcissism?"
No. It's normal human functioning. Narcissism is when you wear clothes that you don't like to please yourself.
Let me explain. The Narcissist isn't trying to *please* other people. He is trying to *feed* on their emotional energy. There is an enormous difference.
For example, a Narcissist might wear a brown paper bag to scandalize the public. He in doing so weaves together a fantasy world in which his wearing a paper bag carries some meaning, gives him a role to play. He *feeds* on the public's scandal because it *reinforces* his fantasy and hence feeds his sense of self which he is constantly seeking to buttress because his real self (his real sense of propriety in feelings, relations, desires, etc.) is either too horrible for him to face or too vague and distant for him to latch onto.
The difference between this and a real Cynic, wearing a paper bag for a real reason, is that the Cynic has a sense of purpose apart from the reaction he draws from others. He *really* believes in his reasons for wearing the bag, and will persevere in the face of being ignored and shunned. (Further, he can really change his mind.) For the narcissist, it's a role. If he doesn't get the reaction he wants, he'll find an excuse to change identities because his *lack* of real purpose or feeling makes him require constant validation of his fake Self.
Note that the next role the Narcissist takes may be one of a people-pleaser. But the point is that it's NEVER about actual OTHER people. It's all about the fantasy and the identity.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 12, 2014 4:54 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Why doesn't jonny get a blog or a soapbox or something?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 12, 2014 5:07 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Randi Zuckerberg has nothing to fear from this blog. The system is crafted to match our desires, and that makes it robust. For the same reason, horoscope writers have nothing to fear from a blog explaining how they generate a horoscope, or why it is hokum.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 12, 2014 7:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No. It's normal human functioning.
Oh thank goodness. I was starting to wonder if it was some twisted, unnatural perversion used by a reduced species of emotional cannibals to traumatise their innocent young and make them feel bad about existing, breaking down their natural resistance to the imposition of whore NEED, eroding their Self to induce unnatural love and dependency and attachment.
But if it's "normal human functioning", which can only mean normal biological functioning (or you need to revise your understanding of the word "human"), so I guess we were born ashamed of our offensive, natural skin. Phew. What a relief. I thought some fucking whores did this perverse shit, I swear. That was the impression I was under. But we were born ashamed of being human. Who knew?
Narcissism is when you wear clothes that you don't like to please yourself.
Do you proofread before submitting? Sometimes I don't. But then my errors are legitimate errors. Something is fundamentally chaotic with your understanding of words like Self. Let me guess, you're a woman? Sometimes one can just tell.
But no. You don't do things you don't like to please your Self. No! Zip it. This is called a logical proof. You have your Self confused with someone's else's Self.
Let me explain. The Narcissist isn't trying to *please* other people. He is trying to *feed* on their emotional energy. There is an enormous difference.
Why did your explanation fail to include a motive? Where is the NEED coming from? Why would HE - or let's say, SHE - NEED to feed on the emotional energy of others? Why would she NEED attention or NEED anything from anyone other than her Self?
...because his real self (his real sense of propriety in feelings, relations, desires, etc.) is either too horrible for him to face or too vague and distant for him to latch onto.
You're terrible at motive. Why would her Self be deemed too horrible for her to face or too vague and distant to latch onto? What happened to it?
These are rhetorical questions to teach you how to think. I know the answers but if you're looking for a clue, you might find one underneath the clothes which conceal your mother's traumatic shaming of your true Self.
Of course, abuse is "normal". What is "normal"? Conformity. What is conformity? Suppressing your true Self to please others, like the way you put on clothes every day to conceal yourself. And makeup, to conceal yourself, because you're female and it's "normal whore functioning" to make yourself appear to be what you are not, in reality.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 12, 2014 10:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No but if you were told at some point that people who don't wear clothes are freaks who masturbate in public and this naturally led you to believe that the association that is in your mind is in everyone elses makes you an unhealthy narcissist.
This is a good answer. But if you walked naked through a mall, everyone literally would presume exactly that until the police violently arrested you for not being ashamed of your true Self.
In the comment section people often talk about narcissism like it is some big plague and learning how to escape it will lead to salvation and enlightenment.
It's a pretty big plague. But conformists aren't interested in what is true or correct. The Answer is not what they are looking for. Salvation is marked "Exit". The only enlightenment is death.
Everyone is suffering in denial of their reality of endless denial (recursion). Our minds evolved in Paradise where denial is optimal for winners, allowing us to endure incidental trauma or suffering to return to happiness (where memory of pain serves no purpose). Denial would enhance Paradise. But Toddler leeches...
Dueteronomy 6 (KJV)
10 And it shall be, when the Lord thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not,
11 And houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not...
Losers. Paradise lost. Logically, denial would enhance Hell as well.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 12, 2014 10:05 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"What is conformity? Suppressing your true Self to please others, like the way you put on clothes every day to conceal yourself. And makeup, to conceal yourself, because you're female and it's "normal whore functioning" to make yourself appear to be what you are not, in reality. "
How do you know everyone who conforms suppresses their true self? This is an old song, but does it fit for our age? But if their wearing the normal clothes and doing whatever normal people do maybe its all they know? A girl from the suburbs only knew consumerism her whole life, and all she wants is a bf she could show off, and enjoy being with, a bf who is funny, has a decent job, knows how to party. There is no true self supressed underneath, that is who she is until she decides to change. Is there really some true hidden self underneath? If you live in the suburbs or a communist commune, your self becomes intertwined with it, just like your self becomes intertwined with whatever action you are taking.
I do not think there is a true self. The self changes based on environment and action. Yes being a californian soririty girl is being yourself.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 12, 2014 10:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Since you are very intelligent and there is a chance this might help (it doesn't help most people):
It's a game of hide-and-seek, jonny. Knowledge for knowledge's sake and pleasure for pleasure's sake will become emptiness over some time.
Imagine yourself a grand chess champion - would you enjoy playing against amateurs knowing that you might win every time? Maybe the first few games, but hundreds, thousands of games which you are certain you will win?
Maybe you'll find a new game. You will enjoy mastering it, and having mastered it, but only for a brief time.
Existence is such a game of hide and seek and black and white. Pleasure and suffering come into being together. You may not be more sensitive to pleasure without being more sensitive to pain. If you can bring yourself to accept this concept, there is little else to learn existentially IMO. Where does this lead us when we get bored?
Adults play just as children play - although our strength and suffering from those who came before us allow us to dominate nature for our benefit to some extent. What else then?
You could accept logically, beyond survival, there exists nothing but play! And there is really only one kind of game - conquest through pretend suffering, with a chance of failure.
"Whores" must tease, enslave, and cause suffering, else no pleasure would exist in fucking them. People can't enjoy themselves unless they can pretend they're winning. Having won is not important - it is the post-climax refractory state. What is important is the "winning."
I find enjoyment in the meta. I run role-playing games as a gamemaster. My friends play characters and I play everything else that exists. For them to enjoy themselves, there must always be some chance of failure in every thing, a chance at defeat and even death.
You will only wake up if you want to, but you are teasing yourself so much.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 12, 2014 10:53 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Johnny, I really don't understand what you're getting at.
There are many reasons why one's 'Self' (one's proprietary relations, desires, feelings, etc.) would be either horrible or distant.
In cases of Pathological Narcissism, it is considered (and the explanation makes perfect sense) to be 'caused' by disengagement from the parents, parents who may not be blatantly abusive, but who are chronically indifferent and/or manipulative.
There seems to be something in the mind whereby a subject, when it finds that it is utterly dependent on another person, as an infant or toddler must be, comes to see this other person as Good, and does not understand how to integrate Good and Evil onto the same object (i.e. Good but imperfect, or Evil, but redeemable).
If the infant's emotional energy is routinely spurned, if s/he finds no affection coming from the source of his/her entire life, the infant ceases to direct this emotional energy outward, and develops deep feelings of inadequacy and confusion.
The pattern of Pathological Narcissism eventually emerges as the child, as he grows, does not trust the outside world, but neither does he trust himself. He seeks refuge and self-esteem in an adopted identity *because* he is desperate to be something other than what he is, which is (in his hind-brain) an inadequate, worthless, contemptible reprobate. Lurking in his psyche, never too far below the surface, is the narcissistic core of pure rage against the world and loathing of himself.
The Narcissist thus *appears* to be preoccupied with himself, and in a sense, he is, but it's purely out of a desire for survival. The Narcissist is desperate to escape from his core self (the raging nothing) and identify as much as he can with the Self-Image he conjures. He is obsessed with making that image real, which for him is the same as making it *appear* real. This is why he confuses the trappings of power/success for the real thing. His defenses don't allow him to ask fundamental questions like 'is my position meaningful?'. His core self is like a Gestapo, his identity his refuge, you can see why he doesn't ask too many questions.
Note please that conformity has nothing to do with any of this. Conformity or non-conformity is incidental to Narcissism.
A real conformist loses any independent sense of self BUT he *does trust* the outside world enough so that he doesn't need to take refuge in a manufactured identity. Narcissists need the image because they are as afraid of the outside world as they are of themselves, and use the outside world to feed the image. Conformists are content to feed the outside world with themselves. They want to belong and have a very weak core self, so they adopt the Group Mind as theirs.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 12, 2014 4:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Can you install a print feature to your articles, TLP? Just like a button that takes one to an easily printable page for your articles? :)
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 12, 2014 7:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
How do you know everyone who conforms suppresses their true self?
By definition, our true Self is unique. To conform, one must deny one's true Self and work hard to be reduced to a "normal" robot.
But if their wearing the normal clothes and doing whatever normal people do maybe its all they know?
It will be all they know but if you're motivated to appear normal, your desire to conform will be fuelled by shame of who you were. Your Self will have been suppressed in disgust and self-loathing.
Why are they wearing clothes? That's not normal for mammals. You meant normal for humans, but nup. If it were normal, we'd wear clothes by choice but we have no choice. Even if we were allowed, we couldn't. Chances are, we couldn't function if we were naked in public, not even if our lives depended on it. I guess it would come down to how viciously we were abused but most people would have a nervous breakdown. That's severe PTSD.
You can't create normal by killing all the normal people; you'd only create the illusory appearance of "normal". Normal is dead.
"Clothes maketh the man." - mothers who needed to undress to impress
Shame maketh the BOY (soldier). Reducing children with shame of biology makes them feel wretched and dirty, unloved and worthless; then along comes a war to offer worthless BOYS redemption in the form of heroism. All they have to do is die. It's a no-brainer. BOYS with sentimental mush where their brains used to be have been dying to be heroes for as long as mothers have been abusing them. The 'civilised' (shamed) BOYS cut a swathe through a world that had stupidly prepared for Peace, oblivious to the opportunity to destroy themselves. Religion grabbed that opportunity with both hands and won The End.
Numbers 31:49 (KJV) "And they said unto Moses, Thy servants have taken the sum of the men of war which are under our charge, and there lacketh not one man of us."
~200,000 'enemy' slain. 32,000 virgin girls kept alive for possessive erections. No slaves lost (the power of cannibalism).
and all she wants is a bf she could show off
Because she has no Self. She must live through Her male host.
There is no true self suppressed underneath, that is who she is until she decides to change.
Suppressed very deep. But her control is illusory. 95% of domestic violence victims are leeches. It's not natural to need to be with someone who beats you because you just won't leave. But women realise these things only in hindsight, the lure of betting it all on their looks is too powerful. Men are to blame.
Is there really some true hidden self underneath?
Yes, she is a human being with an identity of her own, intended to be self-reliant, self-sufficient, independent and need-free; not merely an island unto herself, but an island that can cater to her offspring's need to feel secure. She is not supposed to be leaning on anybody, her children are supposed to feel protected by her alone [i.imgur.com/kiIsMcg.jpg]. Males shouldn't be needed.
I do not think there is a true self. The self changes based on environment and action. Yes being a californian sorority girl is being yourself.
Everyone has a true Self. Sorority girls are very needy no? Need attention, need popularity, need football jocks, need perfect image? All need is weakness, we are slaves dependent on those who control what we need. A healthy Self would never be dependent. The erosion of girls' Self is biopolitics, with a view to harvesting broken children raised with learned helplessness. Any girl that doesn't feel presentable without first concealing her face with cosmetics or a burqa has a severely-eroded Self. So needy.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 12, 2014 9:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Knowledge for knowledge's sake and pleasure for pleasure's sake will become emptiness over some time.
I don't doubt you on pleasure, though girls may have a different perspective; but with knowledge, how can we know that? We're on one of the grains of sand on a beach, incapable of jumping to another grain. Of the universe's secrets, do we even Know one?
You could accept logically, beyond survival, there exists nothing but play! And there is really only one kind of game - conquest through pretend suffering, with a chance of failure.
Hmm. There is, in theory, a great deal of fulfillment in constructing something that matters, a work of art perhaps; or some form of innovation or self-perpetuating contribution. Just theory because nothing in this world matters, everything is going up in mushroom clouds or going underwater but play, as a lifestyle? A life of endless leisure would be a form of torture.
I've never really understood conquest but I have a feeling you're making the point that, in this world, conquest has to replace construction? Or there's nothing else. Ugh. Orwell was a genius.
1984 There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science.There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler.
Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
Nothing for me, then. I don't see the appeal. All power is bullying or suicide, boot or face. Humans self-destruct too efficiently to be worth conquering. If it's a woman wanting to be conquered, I'd communicate an enthusiastic suggestion for her to fuck herself.
"Whores" must tease, enslave, and cause suffering, else no pleasure would exist in fucking them...What is important is the "winning."
Many years ago, I'd lose interest as soon as they showed interest but then I was pretty broken. Now, they just seem broken. I can't even listen to their canned protestations. They're insulting robots obsessed with fraud & sex, I'd rather conquer a stationary chair.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 12, 2014 10:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
great article content, it raised detailed issues of gender
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 12, 2014 11:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I realize that some of Alone's arguments are rhetorically exaggerated, but I felt that the 3rd point about that author's ex boyfriend was weak and more like a rude personal attack than anything insightful. There's no need to be a jerk. The character of Alone probably got away from the author at that point, I imagine, but they should try to get a better handle on it lest those thoughts intrude too easily into their own life.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 12:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I realize that what you're pointing out is mildly sensationized, but I felt that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th points of your diatribe about the author say more about the probability that you are Stan's mom. You should get a better handle on it lest you fail to achieve your purpose in life: To become Towelie's like-minded lover.
Until then, enjoy your authority!
With love,
Dram
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 4:55 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I personally think your article is awesome! I am intrigued with much of your information and am persuaded to agree with you after reading your material. I'm hoping you'll add more articles on this topic.
Loola 2
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 11:45 AM | Posted by : | Reply
You use the word 'narcissist ' as though you intend it to be a conversation stopper.
Wrong.
You READ my posted thoughts and PROJECT those "intents" onto the plain words.
I don't "intend" any kind of "conversation stopper."
Meanwhile, you continue pretending to know my thoughts, while not knowing me at all. Also, did you explain how, when, where, why you met Jonny and how you conducted your in-person psychiatric assessment of him? What methods?
Remind me. Show me the post.
Or, I suppose, you can keep playing whack-a-mole with your deflected distractions, like pretending you know another's thoughts and intentions simply because of the words contained in a comment. You really are a forum leader in delusional commentary!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 11:49 AM | Posted by : | Reply
That's like saying the idea is for a criminologist's blog's readers to be drawn to his/her essays because they themselves are criminals.
Sure, in the same way vanilla is like chocolate because they're both flavors.
Good job misunderstanding my comment. It wasn't meant as a deep insight revealing what previously was hidden from you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 11:53 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh, please! If a guy who seems constitutionally incapable of writing the word 'mother' without prefixing it with the word 'whore' doesn't have mother issues, then nobody does. You don't have to be Sigmund Freud to work that out.
Keep shrieking on, feminist hero!
It's possible "Jonny" is a fictional character created to offer a hypothesized human perspective, built on stereotypes, and designed to provoke exactly the kind of assumptions you make with your hair-trigger certitude.
What online (previously: mail order) institution awarded your Internet Comment Diagnostic Techniques Professional certificate? I'll be sure to recommend that entity to all Forum Wizards who seek a piece of frame-able paper to hang on their e-wall.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 11:59 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I was under the impression everyone but toddlers, and perhaps nudists, are narcissistic to a degree. We all wear clothes to conceal our true Self, projecting false images to please others, in fear of their disapproval. Isn't that textbook narcissism?
Probably depends on which textbook you read.
Show me a human who isn't narcissistic, and we'll probably be looking at a wax figure in a museum.
It's just a quality/trait, and it would seem the question is whether the trait/quality gets ...uh... out of hand. Self-defeating. There's got to be a healthy variant, one must protect one's self first before one can help others. Narcissism helps with self-protection. When does it go beyond that, and into self-defeat?
I suppose lessons from one's own life, told here in some semblance of honesty, might help define the contours. Or, as TLP does in his essays, you could use social signals and events to describe when the contours are broken and the self-defeat is in full charge, running on all cylinders, in the heart of the engine's powerband.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 12:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Keep shrieking on, feminist hero!
You do realise, of course, that you are doing exactly the same thing to me that you so desperately and defensively resent me for doing to Jonny.
I would dearly love for you to cite the specific words I used that lead you to believe I'm a feminist hero. Please, don't hold back.
See, I can easily back up my contention about Jonny. If a man who is on record stating that the only word which can accurately describe a mother is the word "Whore" doesn't have mother issues then the term has no meaning.
Let's see you back up your contentions about me. Clock's ticking...
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 12:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You READ my posted thoughts and PROJECT those "intents" onto the plain words.
I never said that was your intention, just that that's how you come across. It's not my fault that you're not a good enough water to accurately convey what you mean.
Or, I suppose, you can keep playing whack-a-mole with your deflected distractions, like pretending you know another's thoughts and intentions simply because of the words contained in a comment. You really are a forum leader in delusional commentary!
And you really are a tedious obscurantist, obsessed with debating the absolute bleeding obvious. That Jonny has mother issues is as obvious as the fact that his username begins with the letter J. If you can't see it, it's because you can't read. I really, truly do not know how to make it any more obvious than he has already. If his own words have not convinced you then I doubt I will be able to. I doubt I would be able to persuade a colour blind man that the sky is blue either. As such this will be my final word on this desperately tedious matter.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 12:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You do realise, of course, that you are doing exactly the same thing to me that you so desperately and defensively resent me for doing to Jonny.
1) Looks like you don't like being satirized, and respond to being satirized by projecting your flaws onto whomever satirizes you.
2) I'm neither desperate nor resentful, nor anything else you project onto me -- but my telling you this surely won't fix your projection issues, at least not if this thread's practice is an indication of your regular tendencies.
Do you visit TLP's blog in order to "find" the people who rankle you most in meatspace, and then "expose" them here with the projections you foist upon them?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 12:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I never said that was your intention, just that that's how you come across. It's not my fault that you're not a good enough water to accurately convey what you mean.
'scuse me broheem, but INTEND was your choice of words. Now you say you didn't use the word you used? Whack-a-mole.
Keep using TLP's comment threads to work through your issues by projecting your issues onto others. That's top shelf self-help right there!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 12:43 PM | Posted by : | Reply
And you really are a tedious obscurantist, obsessed with debating the absolute bleeding obvious. * * * As such this will be my final word on this desperately tedious matter.
Because you've got to run out to buy poppers and buttplugs?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 1:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
When I said "last word ", I meant it. You just wasted your time. Don't expect a response. I know a lost cause when I see one.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 1:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I admire your investment in telling others what they think.
What's it like to hate yourself so much that you use the internet to find people to spew invective toward? I'd like you to tell us all.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 1:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
anon 5/5/14 10:45,
It's like this. I make $110K a year. My roommate makes $40K/yr. (Already the problem is revealed: I have a roommate). We both go to work, watch a lot of sports, go out occasionally, bone someone occasionally, etc etc. i.e., we're both just still consumers.
Hell, guys in my relatively poor neighborhood drive even nicer cars than me!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 1:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This relationship of substitution is not limited to beliefs: the same goes for every one of the subject's innermost feelings and attitudes, inclusive of crying and laughing. Suffice it to recall the old enigma of transposed/displaced emotions at work from the so-called "weepers" (women hired to cry at funerals) in "primitive" societies, to the "canned laughter" on a TV-screen, and to adopting a screen persona in cyberspace. When I construct a "false" image of myself which stands for me in a virtual community in which I participate (in sexual games, for example, a shy man often assumes the screen persona of an attractive promiscuous woman), the emotions I feel and "feign" as part of my screen persona are not simply false: although (what I experience as) my "true self" does not feel them, they are nonetheless in a sense "true" — the same as with watching a TV mini-series with canned laughter where, even if I do not laugh, but simply stare at the screen, tired after a hard days work, I nonetheless feel relieved after the show… This is what the Lacanian notion of "decentrement," of the decentered subject, aims at: my most intimate feelings can be radically externalized, I can literally "laugh and cry through another."Now just substitute "Alone" and "narcissism" for "Lacan" and "decenterment," respectively.
Bump.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 4:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Why would I be "trying to say" something other than what I said?
I'm not following you. My comment about Percy was pretty simple, I don't know why there would be more "trying to say" content hidden in it. It's not The White Album being played backward and revealing satanic messages designed to put Tipper Gore in a tizzy.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 4:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
My thoughts as well. It's like when during an exchange, you offer a bit more in return, (only to share! Not to be superior!) and you're met with the you-think-you(r)-_______-everything/me/whatever rage. Which is projection.
Look at the big brain on you!
"It's like __________" ?
Really?
You know what sorts of things are "like" each other?
Everything is like everything else, if you dumb-down and gloss-over all the distinguishing details.
And you're so convinced that GBJ or FDQ or HBL or whatever that entity's handle was, he/she/it is only "sharing" and "not being superior"?
How would you know another's mind-state?
Hey, maybe that's my point! And maybe you missed it because you're so eager to project while accusing others of doing that thing!
Or maybe you just read an issue of Psychology Today and learned a poppsych cliche and decided to come here to whip it out for a measuring contest?
Your e-penis is huge. You must be a porn star.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 4:44 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Only somewhat related, but I wonder to what degree social anxiety (the diagnosis and in general) overlaps with narcissistic personalities. After reading a lot of this site, I can't help but feel my social anxiety stems from nothing but a narcissistic need to self-protect.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 5:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Of course it is.
You might think you're wrong to keep it, but you would self-destruct if you didn't self-protect.
Alone is encouraging you to be some kind of impossible Ubermensch who gives no shit because he has his precious kierkegaardian faith or whatever. It's wankery and useless misanthropy disguised as therapy.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 7:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You might think you're wrong to keep it, but you would self-destruct if you didn't self-protect.
The identity would self destruct. And then you would grow.
Alone is encouraging you to be some kind of impossible Ubermensch who gives no shit because he has his precious kierkegaardian faith or whatever. It's wankery and useless misanthropy disguised as therapy.
Pearls before swine.
If you'd actually read Nietzsche, you'd remember that he stuck to the Heraclitean principle that "being is an empty fiction." Hence you cannot be the Ubermensch, you can only become. It is in the recurring journey between the zenith and the nadir that growth occurs. Rather than changing the words, the laws, the culture, etc. to adapt to your fear of leaving the nadir, you are encouraged to live, struggle, succeed, struggle again, and repeat. People often forget that it was Nietzsche who coined the Kanye West lyrics: "From life's school of war: what does not kill me makes me stronger."
As for misanthropy, I wonder how you come to that conclusion when the implicit premise of so many posts here is to lead others to think less about themselves and more in consideration of the people around them?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 8:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Really?
I'll let Maddox handle this one
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 13, 2014 8:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
That's some incisive Maddox right there.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 14, 2014 12:15 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>J! Thank you, J. If I could give you gold, I would. A million fake internet points for you.
Jesus Christ, stop this shit. I hate this overenthusiastic, affected popularity contest style of writing. You can be civil without sounding like a cockmongling Redditor.
This is not Reddit.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 14, 2014 12:23 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>Exactly. But to pretend it's parents doing the malicious conditioning is ridiculous. There's a fine line between malice and ignorance, but mothers aren't too stupid. They know exactly why they condition girls to associate pain with (talking about) sex.
I'm the person you replied to. Look, jonny. Sometimes I agree with you. Most of the time I don't, and the few times I do agree with what you say it's probably through no conscious work of your own. Most of you what you say is absolute nonsense and your writing style mirrors the kind of shit that manic psychotic people spew on Facebook day in and day out, garnering no likes or comments, and everyone else just wonders what the hell is going on inside that person's head. I'm sure everyone here knows at least one person like this and occasionally gets treated to little gold nuggets of marijuana-fueled insanity on their Facebook feeds once and a while.
Your knowledge of pyschology, biology, neurology, and pretty much every other -ology under the sun that you've ever pontificated on is woefully lacking. I enjoy lighthearted fem-bashing as much as the next heterosexual dudebro, but I rarely take it seriously and I have the presence of mind to realize that not all women are whores, and not every problem in the world is the cause of women. If anything you're just creating a hell of your own making by trying to link women as the root of all evil. Most everything you say can be easily refuted by the existence of any number of people who grew up without a mom.
In any case I feel bad for your mother, who undoubtedly had to spend Mother's Day sitting alone in a retirement home somewhere because her spiteful, vitriolic, kissless virgin son was too busy raging against females on the internet.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 14, 2014 1:26 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Very interesting and entertaining piece. Thanks.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 14, 2014 5:17 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>Maddox
>linking to shitty Buzzfeed-tier clickbeit on an article specifically about shitty clickbait
BRAVO!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 14, 2014 7:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Maddox on Buzzfeed:
Nothing makes me go from happy and optimistic to destitute and angry as quickly as seeing a BuzzFeed link. Between the stolen images, vapid content, lame jokes, recycled memes and desperate assimilation of all things pop culture, I feel like I'm dealing with a cultural hydra. Only what BuzzFeed accosts you with is worse than poisonous breath and virulent blood; BuzzFeed attacks our collective intellect, worsens civilization and collects a handsome reward for doing it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 14, 2014 7:24 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Buzzfeed link" is interchangeable with "any given Maddox video" in that paragraph. He's basically Buzzfeed for edgy manchildren.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 14, 2014 10:35 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No, that's 4chan.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 14, 2014 1:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Has anyone actually read the pac standard article? It's pretty long and I'm not done yet, but the first blown-up-for-relevance quote the magazine uses:
“Twitter is the place where I laugh, whine, work, schmooze, procrastinate, and flirt. It sits in my back pocket wherever I go and lies next to me when I fall asleep. And since I first started writing in 2007, it’s become just one of the many online spaces where men come to tell me to get out.”
How much did Twitter pay for this advertising?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 14, 2014 8:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What's telling is that it's always men.
"Men" are telling me to get off the internet. Not "people", but specifically "men".
I thought the point of anonymity was not knowing anything about the person you're dialoguing with, including their sex?
Why is she so sure that it isn't another woman telling her to fuck off?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 15, 2014 3:17 AM | Posted by : | Reply
2007 yılında İstanbul’da kurulan HİPERMEDYA, dijital dünyanın taleplerine uzman kadrosu ile hızlı ve profesyonel çözümler üretmek amacı ile kurulan bir interaktif tasarım ve iletişim ajansıdır.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 15, 2014 3:48 AM | Posted by : | Reply
internet sitesi tasarım, yazılım ve geliştirme, mobil uyumlu internet sitesi, interaktif kampanya yönetimi, banner tasarım ve uygulama
web tasarım, google adwords yönetimi reklam planlama, uygulama ve raporlama, facebook reklam yönetimi,
sosyal medya uygulama geliştirme, sosyal medya yönetimi
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 15, 2014 5:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So, if someone posted a map with a target drawn over your house, and invited their fellow trolls to send you rape and murder threats then you're just going to rise above it? Think you'd feel that way if you had been raped?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 15, 2014 6:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The "real name" fetish is some kind of narcissistic and delusional woo. Do people always tell the truth when their legal name is in evidence? Does no one ever lie under oath, either? Are we supposed to give a shit about what someone's given name is? Is that supposed to mean something?
Why?
The "real name" means even less on the internet. I could legally change my name to Cranberry Mint and say exactly what I would have said under any other handle. Who could tell? I don't assassinate people's character wholesale or make threats under any name.
Whence comes this mad idea to deal with extreme trolls by having everyone use their legal name? If anyone wants to take a stab at the real name woo, I'd love to hear it. Might a family crest lend yet more 'credibility'?
Why not require everyone to post their phone number, home address and a picture of their driver's license with every comment? Schedule and datebook optional. If someone didn't have to go too far out of the way to beat up a person they disagree with on-line, then we'd have peak trolling season, right? Click-Bait Mania! You-Tube videos! Then, no one would have to have any skills to dox you--- anyone on the internet could make your life a living hell with very little effort because it would be so irresistibly easy for assholes to do so.
Rape isn't prosecuted or even investigated enough for most rapists to worry much about having their careers cut short by incarceration. So why would policing be anymore successful on the internet where kids post their gang-rapes and other sorts of sexual violations so that the media gets to mourn the losses of those poor high-school football players who had such promising futures? Let's not forget who the real victims are. Because high school football stardom is so much more likely to lead to a promising career than rape? Guess it depends on what kind of reward is most desired.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 15, 2014 7:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Just wanted to let you know, reading your articles helped me more extract myself from a dangerous situation. Thank you. You're doing a dead god's good work, Dr. Blackbeard. Don't ever sober up. And publish the porn book, already: I want to pay you for it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 15, 2014 9:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Pretty sure this site is the porn book, take it how you will
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 16, 2014 2:02 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Wouldn't it be cool if Alone made an entry where he didn't argue with and refute an imaginary person once every other paragraph? I mean, I like masturbatory self-back-patting as much as the next guy, but your smugness can get old at times.
Anyway, glad you're making content again.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 16, 2014 2:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So, if someone posted a map with a target drawn over your house, and invited their fellow trolls to send you rape and murder threats then you're just going to rise above it?
Yes, because I'm not mentally a child who just started browsing the internet yesterday.
If you're that concerned about someone doxxing you and actually coming to your house to rape you, instead of just occasionally sending pizzas anonymously to your house until the trolls finally get bored and leave you alone, then by all means notify the police. And then get on with your life like any well-adjusted adult.
What I definitely wouldn't do in that situation is respond by writing a 10-paragraph diatribe about how the internet is misogynistic and how everyone's rights end where my feelings begin.
Think you'd feel that way if you had been raped?
I tend not to put myself into circumstances where I could be raped.
Lots of people still think that a girl who is raped deserved it because she was wearing sexy clothes or whatever. Obviously this is silly; nobody "deserves" to be raped. But on the other hand, why tempt fate?
Am I going to tell my daughter that indignance and moral superiority is the correct way to combat rape and stop yourself from being physically molested? If a rapist accosts her on the street, should she verbally shame him and rant at him about the patriarchy? No. I'd tell her not to walk alone in a dangerous part of town, and if she absolutely has to, to carry a gun. I'd tell her not to attend a party with the entire drunk, horny football team and allow herself to get blackout wasted.
In the same way, I don't go into the middle of the Smoky Mountains, slather my naked body with honey, and slap a grizzly bear in the face while calling it a "faggot". I lock my doors at night in case I get robbed. I don't get into cars with strangers or pick up hitchhikers. I'm 22 years old, in good shape, attend the gym 3 days a week, and I still cross the street when I see a group of adolescent black kids walking down the sidewalk towards me. Why? Because why risk it?
To do anything else is to be naive and sheltered. Rapists will rape, bears will eat you, and creepy celebrity stalking weirdos will always do creepy celebrity stalking weirdo shit. Do you really think writing an article for the Pacific Standard is going to make the next rapist stop and say "Damn, I really ought to stop raping!"?
No amount of passive aggressive bitching on twitter or moral indignance will change that. It's like getting hired at McDonald's and being outraged that you have to work the cash register. Comes with the territory.
Why dress yourself looking for sexual attention when you don't want any, and then act indignant when some fucking douchebag grabs your ass at a bar? Humans are animals, so to not expect all the different kinds of animalistic behaviour that comes with that, good and bad, is a display of extreme hubris.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 16, 2014 5:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I wonder if black people think you're autistic when they always see you anxiously evacuating the area.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 17, 2014 12:11 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Lots of information and what can be expressed, we can understand and feel. all that can be shared. Who Bullies The Bullies?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 17, 2014 4:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No. No, it's not that sort of magazine.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 17, 2014 8:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
TLP
Could you please write an article about high school students getting extra time on tests, including standardized tests? I struggle with bitterness. Most of these kids I know have no disability whatsoever, but just are slower or dimmer witted than they or their parents want. They have diagnoses like ADHD, PDD, or "premature baby" and get 50% more time on tests in school and the SAT and AP tests.I estimate they are 10 to 20% of students. Would your recommendation be to "get yours" or that this practice should end? In addition, most students from this school expect to get A's in everything and end up going to top-tier schools.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 18, 2014 2:33 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It means that in most people's eyes, 40k is what dad made, and all that a good honest blue-collar needs. 200k is getting upper class, but is near enough to cause contempt, and 1mil is unattainable by 40k, partially because of crab theory, the 200k is trying to get out of the bucket and must be crushed, and for both, 1mil isn't even on the beach. 40k can't hate 1mil, they give you your shifts at McDonald's, they sell you your cars, and open a Starbucks on your block. That fucking 200k with his one dealership or landscaping business though? What does he do for you? Nothing except have the nice car/wife/home YOU rightfully deserve. So, depending on whether 1mil needs you to feel contempt or hatred for the competition, Mr. 200k gets pushed back and forth.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 18, 2014 5:51 AM | Posted by : | Reply
so all of your readers are hess's ex?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 18, 2014 12:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jesus Christ, stop this shit.
I will not.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 18, 2014 5:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What is this?
Random people not aware of it?
Calculated responses from inspired individuals?
Electronic intervention?
Does it matter?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 19, 2014 8:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Why dress yourself looking for sexual attention when you don't want any, and then act indignant when some fucking douchebag grabs your ass at a bar?
The Answer is right in front of you. Casino advantage players (bonus whores) call this sort of thing coverplay (disinformation).
"I had a friend who got so many DUIs that he had to go to jail for a year. Now, his only concern was getting raped. So for the entire year, he didn't take a shower. 'Cause he was so busy getting raped." - Anthony Jeselnik
I had a flatmate who racked up so much CC debt that she had to date older men for a year. Now, her only concern was getting raped. So for the entire year, she didn't get a job. 'Cause she was so busy getting raped.
____________
As you and I know, No means No. Those who don't know include:
* all women.
* men who have a lot of sex.
* children raised to be polite.
Women don't want to have their cake and eat it. That's a ridiculous suggestion. Women want to have your cake and eat it. Here is some #truth. Of all the women in your life who have desired you, the one who desired you the least still desired you more than you have ever desired a woman.
* Women want you to pay for [what women want to give you].
* Women don't want you taking [what women want to give you].
They'll respect only one of the two. You cannot beat them, they have no value. You lose just by being in the game. What is needy love worth? Society is changing fast but this is still a world of depraved women who perceive reality just like Josef Fritzl. Their love is worse than hate. But it's "normal" and on TV so it's okay.
_____________
For thousands of years, women hated sex. To challenge them was impossible. You can't beat Big Mother and the Church, mothers and priests working in perfidious tandem to cannibalise the globe. Truth has varied. They like sex now. They're still lying but why listen to what women say when you can listen to what they do?
They scream truth, non-stop. No time for children or themselves, they're so busy getting raped. In a Rape Culture, it makes sense to look your best. I spend hours making myself appear more sexually desirable than I am. What if no one wants to rape me?
That would be very hard to accept.
"Truth is on the side of the oppressed, never the oppressor." (Malcolm X)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 19, 2014 9:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There's got to be a healthy variant, one must protect one's self first before one can help others. Narcissism helps with self-protection. When does it go beyond that, and into self-defeat?
I was harassing this Buddhist expert on a forum in frustration with the Buddha's seemingly contradictory statements on the value of "Self", when he put it like this:
__________
Self is a liferaft we should be obsessed with, caring only for ourselves until we can get across this river (Childhood, I guess; or Life, if we never make it) to independence (unattachment).
When we reach the other side, our selfish liferaft is discarded as we no longer need it. Holding onto it would prevent us from reaching the next level of awareness (which I took to mean a higher level of selfishness, which includes the interests of others to our mutual advantage, etc).
Our species drowns in the river, our liferafts have been vandalised, punctured and torn (childhood self-erosion, trauma, shame, deceit, fear), tethered back to our infant shore. We capsizing, having failed to free ourselves from attachment.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 19, 2014 11:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I think you're on to something with the power/impotence theme, but it isn't fully developed. There is something fundamentally powerful in both the trolling antagonism (the examples you supply are so overblown as to be unbelievable--which leads me to the belief that they were "uttered" in an effort to produce a reaction and only that), and Hess's reply that you analyze (deconstruct?) at length. She is also looking for power. While the real power dynamic is ignored, or rather Hess and those she hates have developed selective amnesia... well, many of us have.
I think there is a valuable critique here. I would encourage you to develop it, focus it further.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 20, 2014 1:29 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
See, I can easily back up my contention about Jonny. If a man who is on record stating that the only word which can accurately describe a mother is the word "Whore" doesn't have mother issues then the term has no meaning.
There is no logic in this statement. I gave a specific definition of the word whore to explain the need for it. Do you have a substitute word for the description below? Do you have a counter-argument to make or a denial that your mother, or mothers in general, weren't as I described them below?
The word whore has no synonym in the English language. It is the only word that can be used to describe a woman inducing artificial desire with intent to manipulate suffering (extortion).
You declare the term "mother issues" to have no meaning, based on my being correct. You make no argument. To start with, you would need prove my argument was incorrect. You make no effort to do so, proving you haven't the mind nor the interest in doing so. Your motives aren't productive. You were never raised to consider veracity. Whether something is accurate, correct or applicable never crosses your mind. You were not raised to think, but to feel your way through life. You want conflict between identities you've constructed in your mind for an emotional exchange that will never happen. You're driven by your mother's bitter longing for male genitalia to fill her emptiness inside.
...only word which can accurately describe a mother is the word "Whore"...
...only word that can be used to describe a woman inducing artificial desire...(extortion).
The word describes a pre-mother. You're not literate. The next time you paraphrase me as being "on record", use blockquotes and quote me because your mind is custard. I'm compelled to disengage from your need to scream and feel involved. You're just another horror show who imagines you're shrewd because you wouldn't even harm a fly. Go project onto your mother.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 20, 2014 6:59 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sometimes I agree with you.
Your approval means a lot.
Most of the time I don't
Your disapproval hurts a lot.
and the few times I do agree with what you say it's probably through no conscious work of your own.
Your approval is everything, so I get why this matters.
Most of you what you say is absolute nonsense
Your disapproval hurts a lot.
your writing style mirrors the kind of shit that manic psychotic people spew on Facebook day in and day out, garnering no likes or comments
Validation and approval mean a lot. Not getting any really hurts.
and everyone else just wonders what the hell is going on inside that person's head.
Universal disapproval hurts a lot. Just imagine. That's how much.
I'm sure everyone here knows at least one person like this and occasionally gets treated to little gold nuggets of marijuana-fueled insanity on their Facebook feeds once and a while.
Insanity is a treat. You are sane. You're the normalest "normal".
Your knowledge of pyschology, biology, neurology, and pretty much every other -ology under the sun that you've ever pontificated on is woefully lacking.
Can't argue with you. It's on me now. You've said all you know.
This is a treat, for me.
I enjoy lighthearted fem-bashing as much as the next heterosexual dudebro
Your enjoyment means a lot. Approved activities are enjoyable.
Your sexual identity means a lot. Does this mean we're dudebros?
but I rarely take it seriously and I have the presence of mind to realize that not all women are whores
You have presence of mind in your imagination. You imagine real.
and not every problem in the world is the cause of women.
Not every problem, some caused by fem-hetero-dudebro-men.
If anything you're just creating a hell of your own making by trying to link women as the root of all evil.
More the pathetic paedophiles who respect sex with dependants.
Most everything you say can be easily refuted by the existence of any number of people who grew up without a mom.
I grew up without a Mom. Easily? Rather than say, why not do.
In any case I feel bad for your mother
Your sympathy means a lot. If you feel bad, she's truly blessed.
who undoubtedly had to spend Mother's Day sitting alone in a retirement home somewhere because her spiteful, vitriolic, kissless virgin son was too busy raging against females on the internet.
Mean words hurt a lot. I thought we were dudebros, dudebro.
______
You are uniquely normal, which is the best kind of normal. There are many kinds of normal, but some are more normal than others. You have hit upon the most normal of them all and that's quite a Special thing for you. Don't worry, it's normal. You should feel Special and conform, in reality. I understand that you have been working on this for awhile. You're splendid. The perfect psychotic. Your feelings are the most valuable commodity you have. You should value them. You should feel good about being you. It's what you wanted. It can't have been easy. Be proud of it. You are you and one day you will realise what you are you for.
You're the perfect human machine, finely-tuned, reduced to perfection. Thousands of years of feeding whores the rope they need to hang their children, and here you are. You are perfectly worthless. That's gotta be worth something to someone. To look more uniform than the rest, start practising your salute now.
You are half of Power's wet dream, 50% of what dreams are made of. They're getting the other half ready now. So you hang tight. When the time is right, you will fight. Boys like you aren't made for war. Wars are made for boys like you. Win, lose, die, live, love, hate, it doesn't matter. It's all profit. You were born to be the hero of you. So thank you. Thank you for your sacrifice.
It means a lot.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 20, 2014 9:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So, if someone posted a map with a target drawn over your house, and invited their fellow trolls to send you rape and murder threats then you're just going to rise above it?
If they wanted to kill you, why would they threaten? Why are they threatening in the first place? Why don't you stop trolling.
If you can't conduct yourself in Society without lying, then you are the first troll. If you need the suffering of men and children to peddle your 'services', you need to be made comfortable. You must be removed from the reality where you only disturb the peace to manufacture the pain you need to sell your pain 'relief'.
No one wants your hijack, your extortion, your lies, your violence, your rape. No one wants to be forced to suffer to please you.
Think you'd feel that way if you had been raped?
The only victims of rape that act like victims are men. Women don't fear rape, just mean words. You say you do. You do not.
Stop lying. What you do tells the truth.
I'd put you all down in a blink if I could. You bring helpless children here. You owe them everything, including your lives, they owe you nothing; and you repay your biological debts by torturing and killing tiny defenceless innocents for sex.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 20, 2014 9:44 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Johnny should stop hijacking better, more coherent blog posts and just let it all out about mothers being whores and harming their children and whatnot in his own blog. See how much attention he can get without riding TLP's coat tails. [BOLD]Do[BOOOLD], not say.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 20, 2014 9:51 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"media-approved categories of blame"
So, which are non media-approved categories of blame? Capitalism? Money? I always thought that when the whole thing about the dongle jokes blew up, people were quick to take sides, but nobody questioned the fact that companies could fire people for stupid shit like that. It was the fact that it was a woman that got them fired over a joke they felt entitled to make that made her so hateful and fueled the discussion, but nobody [exept for me im so special etc] thought, so.. um.. if the jokes were so harmless, why doesn't the company stand behind its employees??
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 20, 2014 11:23 AM | Posted by : | Reply
When I was a producer for a news magazine show that aired on FOX, I was stalked by members of a religious sex cult called Children of God. They posted photos of my car, my dog, and my kid's school. I called the FOX legal adviser, who called the cult's ISP provider, slapped a C&D on them, got a retraining order, and had me write an op-Ed about press intimidation which ran in not just the Murdoch papers, but got picked up by wire services. That's how you do it. Hess could have traced her anon stalkers had she wanted to do so, but there no page views in that.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 20, 2014 2:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And an actual rape acting out threats posted on the internet are so rare that I can't think of one such event since the 1990s, so there is not one good reason to have women faint at the sight of a "threat" that has a 1/100 of a percent chance of actually happening. It's much more likely that a freak power surge will fly through the power cord of your laptop and electrocute you than that a person who writes a rape threat on an internet forum is actually going to rape that person.
But, since most upper class women have extremely thin skins and get the vapors reading the word "rape", the internet is threatening to them, even though there's no risk of any of these threats being carried out. The threat isn't to their safety, the threat is to their delicate feelings. the only long term solution is the one that's prevented by the continued weakening of women. That solution is stop letting other people decide how you feel. Stop handing over your emotions to the internet.
"Why, courage then! What cannot be avoided 'Twere childish weakness to lament or fear.
William Shakespeare"
You can't avoid the trolls, or the naysayers. You can decide whether or not you're going to let a dictatorship of anonymous nobodies scare you into writing vapid trash about them on the internet. Here's a little secret. That "troll" who just ruined your day with that "rape threat" that "threatened you"? he's off playing Call of Duty. He's not even thinking about you. You're just a name on a blog. You are not even on his radar. You, however, being ruled by fear, have allowed him to get so deep inside your head that you have to tell people how "dangerous" the internet is to all women, and how scared you are. It probably took a week to write the article and edit for publication. The comment that started it all was written in less than a minute and was forgotten by the troll, and he was so up in your head that you're still thinking about him more than a week later. it's not HIM at all, it's you. You're afraid of the internet and mean boys. Fine. Own that. Own the fact that you're afraid of words. Own the fact that his comment rules your life. You did that to yourself. You decided that his comment deserved a week of your life, a week that could have been spent on anything else.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 20, 2014 5:26 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hey man, there's some killer stuff on his g+, though.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 21, 2014 4:30 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>gets charged with incoherent babbling
>responds by incoherently babbling
Bravo, jonny! Keep the fountainhead running, your manic projection and incessant, desperate reaching is entertaining for the rest of us.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 21, 2014 5:49 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Your response is as productive as replying to spam (I'm not calling jonny's material this, to clarify)
If you don't understand the content, then you cannot debate, which you're not capable of (obv.); this would explain your declaration of "incoherent." And this coming from an idiot (read: me) at that.
Do not disobey Isis.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 21, 2014 6:02 AM | Posted by : | Reply
re: Kim Kardashian:
Through the miraculous interventions of modern medical technology, it has become possible to construct a woman who is all ass.
"there's no power in abolishing anonymity, the power is in giving everyone the pretense of anonymity while secretly retaining the PGP keys to the kingdom."
very perceptive (J. Edgar Hoover understood)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 21, 2014 9:50 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I get your point - it may be worth it to develop a thicker skin on the basis of the individual and men are generally raised to do that (not crying, feelings are gay etc). An instance comes to mind, where a fat girl was ridiculed for cosplaying while fat and what she did was talk to the people sharing her picture on fb mockingly (risking further mocking), but what happened is that most people felt embarassed and apologized. It is not like the anonymity of trolls is sacrosanct, people usually leave traces and this approach (holding them fucking accountable) seems better than complaining to the general internet. However, given that many women get blamed for not being careful enough when raped (even in these comments), I think there is strong disincentive not to go after the sort of troll who makes threats directly, lest you are held responsible for "making them mad" or escalating the situation (even though logically this may be unlikely, but, almost nobody, man or woman can claim that their approach to risk is 100% logical). If you had the power to make them regret typing stuff, as the TLP suggests you don't, then that would be a different story.
Also, a lot of men, while for one reason or the other, pretending to be women on dating sites have felt apalled at the treatment they received. So, growing a "thicker skin" against this particular treatment is something that a lot of men never have to do. I would propose to people making those arguments to impersonate an attractive woman on the internet or raise any sort of feminist-sounding issue while female on the internet, and see if they want to keep doing it. What I agree with is that publishing articles that the troll will never read is not what I would do. I would either ignore or attack back, depending on the resources/stakes.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 21, 2014 7:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Has anyone brought up the significance of Google+ real-name posts on YouTube and how that only seemed to increase the ratio of shitheadery?
When that fiasco was in progress, I took joy in imagining posters easily setting themselves up for a Silent Bob and Jay visit like the Movie Poop Shoot, so the table could be turned:
All you Motherf*kers are gonna pay! You are the ones who are the ball-lickers!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 21, 2014 7:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
jonny's on a roll for sure.
You are half of Power's wet dream, 50% of what dreams are made of. They're getting the other half ready now. So you hang tight. When the time is right, you will fight. Boys like you aren't made for war. Wars are made for boys like you. Win, lose, die, live, love, hate, it doesn't matter. It's all profit. You were born to be the hero of you. So thank you. Thank you for your sacrifice.
That would be Samantha Power, eh jonny?
It does take a bit of remove to understand jonny's posts. A bit of remove, such as removing your focus from your self's glare in the quicksilver. But then that would require you stop projecting onto jonny whatever history and profile you've already assured yourself is the real chronology.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 21, 2014 8:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
In any case I feel bad for your mother, who undoubtedly had to spend Mother's Day sitting alone in a retirement home somewhere because her spiteful, vitriolic, kissless virgin son was too busy raging against females on the internet.
Words are just words. They have only the power you give them when you read or hear them.
Apparently you enjoy hunting down misogynists and you think you're the great Elmer Fudd here, blunderbuss trained on Jonny the Forum Misogynist, already smugly beaming a doofy grin because you bagged yourself a Patriarchy-Promoter.
I suppose it would be embarrassing for you to consider that the jonny posts are written intentionally for purposes other than as heartfeld angst and sincere sin-box confessions.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 21, 2014 9:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
>That would be Samantha Power, eh jonny?
Just get straight to the point, i.e. Freemason happy-time. As if the UN building wasn't completely decked out in geometric ratios and Roman paganism.
Or if you're really old school, Templar Knights.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 22, 2014 4:09 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Excellent post and wonderful blog, I really like this type of interesting articles keep it up.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 22, 2014 10:10 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Shut the fuck up, douchebag. You're too stupid to live. Kill yourself.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 22, 2014 11:26 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Buzzfeed's founder used to write Marxist theory and it explains Buzzfeed perfectly
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 22, 2014 11:39 AM | Posted by : | Reply
This isn't a novel (I don't think) and Jonny is not an omniscient narrator. But many of you are acting like he is and you're protesting motivations and intent, none of which Jonny can really know or you can fully understand. All we can be sure of is behavior itself, the event itself. Jonny takes an unexceptional event---like getting married or having a kid---and puts a malevolent or "toddler" spin on it. His readers jump to say, "but I am not that!" But they forget that you cannot prove a negative, ever. It is up to Jonny, who is making the exceptional claim, to back up his assertions, and because your life is NOT his novel. he can't do that.
Psychoanalyzing him is also a fool's game. You have no idea what or who he is, or what his motivations are. You can't know because he is not just a character in your damn novel either. I can think offhand of about ten different plausible explanations for his posts, and only some of them have anything to do with emotional states. There is no way for me to know which, if ANY, of these plausible stories come close to the truth. Novelists are deeply dishonest in what they do, imputing clear motives to behavior in their characters; real humans tend not to work that way. Stuff is messy. Camus showed this very well in The Stranger.
So, yeah, don't get all torn up about someone's mean words. He is not the omniscient narrator of your damn novel. Of course, neither are you, but that's another thread.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 22, 2014 1:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Re: The real ID thing.
The reason that people want REAL ID (TM) has nothing to do with the online bully. The online bully is the excuse. The point is to remove privacy from online interactions in general.
Who benefits? Anyone with an interest in seeing their agenda put forward. Eich (Firefox CEO) got fired when he was "outted" as having contributed to an anti-gay marriage campaign. There was no evidence whatever that he'd done anything negative to gays in his company, nor that he'd ever said a cross word to gays. He had a political opinion (one I disagree with, but that's beside the point. He was driven out of his company because he disagreed with the wrong people -- people with power and and agenda.
Consider any number of other political opinions you might hold and perhaps dare to talk about online. It doesn't have to be social issues. What about health care? Suppose you work for a company that sells health insurance. Wouldn't it be sort of dangerous to be signing your legal name to an opinion that disagrees with your company's "party line"? What if you work for Target and happen to support the fast food worker's strike? There are dozens of possibilities, and the reality is that your employer would love to be able to weed out people who have a political disagreement with. So would Social Justice Warriors.
There's something stopping that from happening. That something is the ability to put something on the internet without having to put your real name on it. Anonymity. Disgustingly it prevents the Elitist Superstructure from punishing people who disagree with what the Elitist Superstructure wants them to believe. Right now, the only way to punish someone who speaks anonymously is to Dox them. Essentially you google search all kinds of things they talk about to drill down and find a real name. Then, you get to punish them for thoughtcirmes.
That's a pain in the ass, don't you think? Wouldn't it be so much easier to grind the dissenters in the gears of the matrix if we forced the batteries to sign off on everything they write on the internet? One problem though, that's not an easy sell, telling someone that they have to give up on anonymity and privacy to make it easier for the Matrix to purge its ranks of free thinkers. So you change the story. Suddenly a wild troll appears. They're threatening our womyns with rape! They're saying racist things! They're threatening people! **not doing any of those things, not even attempting to, but hide that from the proles** So the entire internet must be made safe from cyberbullies not by telling people to unfriend the idiots, or blocking them, or simply not talking to them. That's stupid. The only "real solution" is to make sure that every thought posted online is indexed by the poster's REAL NAME(TM)to make thoughtcrime easier to punish. Of course, we'll never abuse that power, even though we actually already have. The better to maintain power -- for the good of the proles, of course. They need the Elites to protect them from rape jokes. And as a side benefit, we can crush any opinion we don't like. Just find the trouble makers and fire them.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 22, 2014 3:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Maybe you just figured out that 95% of people on the planet are morons and the other 5% are definitely assholes. I mean...there's narcissism- and then there's *that*.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2014 12:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hymen Spotnitz is the psychiatrist/psychoanalyst on clinical treatment for the Narcissistic disorders. First to understand is the Narcissistic Defense. The N turns aggression around onto the self.This is Narcissistic Rage. Treatment consists of freeing the rage. No creativity or progress can take place until this rage is harnessed in a way that works for the patient and to free it up takes a skilled clinician not a pop therapist.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2014 1:11 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And thus talking strategies used for the neurotic patient are not applicable yet for the N, is this correct?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2014 8:32 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think that men who go out of their way to pose as something they are not don't necessarily overlap with the sort of men that grow thick skins. They're more firmly in the narcissistic camp by virtue of, whether they consciously intend it, looking for reasons to be hurt, and validate that they are so important that others care enough to hurt them.
I think an issue to explore is that many people turn to this route simply because they have no one else in their life that they can look to for validation of their existence. Americans kick their kids out at 18, and regard them as failures when they move back, while the ones that "make it", end up working ever increasing hours to maintain a small apartment in an oh-so-diverse neighborhood where they have an even chance of speaking the same language as their neighbors, much less having enough in common to make a connection.
If they work their way out, isolation has become a habit, a tradition that is passed to their children, most likely while their parents move from town to town, looking for "community", never understanding that the sort of person they are is the majority now, not black, white, gay, straight, but that strange new ethnicity, Lonely-American.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2014 10:59 AM | Posted by : | Reply
What does "school x 16, sports x 12, violin x 6" mean? I don't understand the numbers.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2014 11:53 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Years. Its multiply by years.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2014 12:44 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So now the need for sleep is a media fabrication, too? Yeesh.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2014 3:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hymen Spotnitz is the psychiatrist/psychoanalyst on clinical treatment for the Narcissistic disorders.
You made that name up. Didn't you? DIDN'T YOU?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2014 6:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Don't they? And if she did, doesn't she then get angry about the unrealistic expectation that she will not age, or that she does not look different in some other way?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2014 7:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
LOL! Actually it is real if you wiki it. I heard him in his 70's and 80's and he was so utterly brilliant and enchanting he could take a hostile audience of 200 people and put them in the palm of his hand and play with them. The only ones who were better at it were the older - than he - women he first trained at the Jewish Board of Guardians in NYC. Sorry I have forgotten their names. I am tto lazy to look them up but they were marvelous when I heard them speak. Clinically always.
If you are really interested in this - apart from commenting - then read Francoise Dolto's book Dominique:An Analysis of An Adolescent Boy. The very best case study I ever read in my life and I have read a slew of them.Each visit has a short essay and then the complete transcript of the visit. It is a miraculous case study and cure. And 30 years later I found out that Dolto was Lacan's analyst. She went with him into excommunication from the International Psychoanalytic organization. You need to know that this is the group that kept the Wolfman secret and supported - meagerly - all his life so he would never talk to anyone about Freud and his analysis. A young German woman journalist found him and became his friend. Her book is so worth reading.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2014 7:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes Melanie Klein was perfect to mention. I find alone somewhat behind on continental philosophy which is very Lacanian.Alone is a clinician and a very good one. His article here on Ritalin is still a classic.
The new feminists are very sophisticated in all this. Butler, Rubenstein, and so many many others that I would love to post links to but this software puts links into moderation. Or at least mine. But I do not find alone particularly sexist at all. I just think he is not keeping up but trying to alert his readers to the here and now.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2014 7:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The very interesting women I met on a plane going to see Baba for his birthday said he never slept. The best I ever felt in my life was on a year of 4 hours a night. No the best eve was doing a study on dream deprivation for one week.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2014 8:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Abbey,
Curious as to whether you've blogged about the similarities between John Nash and his son, and how blurry the line is with biology.
Not that there are ever black and white considerations.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2014 9:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sorry don't know anything about John Nash.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2014 9:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nash was a Economics Nobel Laureate who is more often noted for having "suffered" from schizophrenia. Per your mention of Spotnitz, whose work I am entirely unfamiliar with, I was curious as to what mention Spotnitz gives of schizophrenia as a defense.
Thank you for your time.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2014 9:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
OK I read and I knew about A Beautiful Mind which I didn't like.The youtube interview with his son is awful also. Obviously he got no significant help. You would like The Fifty Minute Hour by Robert Lindner composed of case studies of his very very psychotic patients, one of whom almost kills him. He is excellent and very close to R. D. Laing's work in treatment of psychotics. I think his wife has something to do with it. Some kind of trigger to do with his mother. His deep understanding of game theory would support this, as deep games go on with schizophrenics and their mothers and families.I like Ross Speck's work in this area using an extension of family therapy and the Navaho work with a disorder like this. I can't stand the present diagnosis and treatment. It is about Big Pharma and their bottom line.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2014 9:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Spotnitz wrote on Narcissism, a textbook with patient case studies interspersed. But Dominique by Dolto is flat out mad and ready to be institutionalized when brought to Dolto. Under the National Health Care umbrella. She was a star in her field at the time but most of them, including Winnecott in the UK (transitional object) devoted time to the National Health Care Service.
Schizophrenia is a clinical definition that is not very old. If you read Foucault's Madness and Civilization he will demolish it all for you. Thomas Szasz of The Myth of Mental Illness also.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2014 10:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I know it will go without saying that you're most likely aware how helpful a person you are, but I'll say so nonetheless: Thank you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2014 10:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Schizophrenia as a defense? Let's see. Schizophrenia is a diagnostic label, a clinical label that allows a psychiatrist to figure out what meds to give them. I participated in some med studies for lots of money and knew other volunteers. They are awful drugs.And the studies were corrupted but no one cares.
Melanie Klein's work on partial objects and the good mother/bad mother split in the primary paranoid position. The infant must perceive the mother as all nourishing, all wonderful, but sometimes she will not be that. She will be angry, abusive maybe, hostile to the infant who must deal with this "other" mother. The internalized imago of the mother splits the introject and the infant psyche now includes the bad mother/ good mother introject. It is intolerable for the infant to embrace the "bad mother" when its very life depends on her. Nash's wife as a transference object figures in this but I have no idea how. Her pregnancy set him off and that is bypassed. I once had a patient who at 20 had gone thru a slew of therapists. Very sophisticated patient and paying for her own treatment while dropped out of college. She had had more than one therapist who left the treatment because she was pregnant, and my patient never knew she was pregnant. This was startling.I probably learned more from her than anything else as her recovery was dazzling.But she backed me up against the wall every time we met. She pushed me to my limits. This is unnerving to therapists not trained to welcome it, and not having the present supervision to respond correctly to it, emotionally and intellectually. She left treatment to an amazing future I could never have imagined or accomplished for myself who had dreams in that direction. My supervising analyst pointed that out to me.Nicely but still it hurt.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2014 10:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thanks. Mostly I get horrendous insults. Foucault also wrote another on this (Foucault is my idol) on Psychology. His first book. Get the one with the original and his later editing of it. He afterwards repudiated both versions and tried to stop publication but his publisher wouldn't.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 23, 2014 11:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Aha, you practice, I see. One more thing: For some reason it had come to mind reading your account; (may come off as entirely irrelevant) is there anything in the way of, say, common denominator(s) when it comes to patients that are left-handed? It is never talked about, save for Darian Leader, who has raised the question that left handers way of identification is well, different.
I am not a journo major or anything--but young and truly fascinated altogether.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 24, 2014 2:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I do not practice anymore but I think about it a lot. As for left handedness I have spent a lot of time on that one.But you ask about the common denominator and I think that is a false question that the Dominating Discourse teaches one to ask. Now I am framed in post modern - continental philosophical thinking, so I think most of your questions are made up, fabricated by the culture, and don't exist outside the culture. Of course there are always those who think divergently, and right now a new movie for YA is titled Divergent.
In cest for example what is it? In this movie Divergent there are two young actors - Shai Woodley and Ansel Elgort - who play brother and sister in Divergent. But the new movie coming out shortly is The Fault In Our Stars of two young cancer patients falling in love (of course it will end sadly). BUt what is highly disturbing is that fans are experiencing weirdness that two actors who play brother and sister in one movie are playing lovers in another movie. Seriously bothered by this. This means that they are so invested in this fanning, that the Simulated Reality of the movie has infected real life for them to the extent that they do not experience any boundary. These are the patients referred to as "borderline" patients. Not having any ego strength. A weak ego that cannot tell the difference. OK so far?I mean there are postings in the comments and tweets every day and they generate considerable threads about this.
So I have written about it reading incest through Deleuze who is a great Freud reader BTW. http://moviesandfilm (dot) blogspot( dot)com/2014/05/brother-and-sister-incestdivergent-and.html
Deleuze as you are about to see links Capitalism and Schizophrenia and links paranoia to despotic machine and hysteria to the territorial machine. I am taking a course right now online at the Global Center for Advanced Studies on Deleuze with Clayton Crockett. I suggest you look into tis as a 3 credit online course with 3 meetings is $49. There will be a residential one with ZIZEK in MI this summer. And Caputo will also be there. The most radical theologist of our time. These are the most outrageous thinkers in the US right now in this area.
As for left handedness Jerome Bruner wrote a book of essays called Essays for the Left Hand and there are piano pieces composed for the left hand for a pianist who lost one hand during WWI.I feel this is a better way to think about left handedness: art; aesthetics, etc. I once watched moths for hours going around a light in the ceiling to see if they were left circlers or right. They would change from time to time and I never got an answer that would hold up experimentally but I did see that they were "ambidextrous." Leonardo was also as we know he wrote as if in a mirror which dyslexics tend to do if not stopped. But then that unique perception is taken from them isn't it?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 24, 2014 4:29 AM | Posted by : | Reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbv5Vpa-B-0
Watch the whole thing and then read this.
http://www.keyt.com/news/shooting-in-isla-vista/26152454
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 24, 2014 6:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Everything Alone has written about mass shooters sounds once again incredibly relevant.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 24, 2014 10:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Now I am framed in post modern - continental philosophical thinking, so I think most of your questions are made up, fabricated by the culture, and don't exist outside the culture.
How fucking convenient, you bullshit artist.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 12:45 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That of which you call "bullshit" was HEAVILY influenced by the author (Ludwig Wittgenstein) of the top banner of the blog you read/comment on, you (Oldboy reference alert) "dickshit."
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 2:31 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sigh.
Continental philosophy is fine. It's the snake oil salesman who gets to decide your questions are "made up" at his self-serving whim that I'm calling bullshit on.
And the work that the quote at the top of this page comes from (th Tractatus) is a work that is literally on the opposite side of the philosophical spectrum, dummy. And the work after that literally sought to reduce most philosophical arguments to confusion of language/conflicting "language games."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 3:38 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
@10:24 @2:31 Have you ever asked yourself why you want others to fail?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 3:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Actually my huh was to the bullshit comment. Increasingly I find I cannot reply to comments that try to force me into their box where I am muzzled.But doing this helps to clarify my ways of saying what I want to say as simply as possible. This is one thing I like about Zizek. They can't pin him down. And he is so very funny.More and more I see that any stand or theory gets spun against you and you are in another ping-pong game.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 3:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Want others to fail at what? Continuously misrepresenting ideas while simultaneously acting like an authority on them? Yes, I would like people to fail at doing that. There are a lot of impressionable readers.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 4:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>There are a lot of impressionable readers.
So calling "bullshit" on the comments section of a little-read blog is a great measure of effect?
There are no less than ten million other things you could be spending time/effort on with more far-reaching results than this.
You're not stupid, but still, keep this in mind--time is finite.
Now move.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 5:05 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You comment on the little things and the big things will take care of themselves. Your language is imprisoning you. Ever read The Prison House of Language? Slater I think.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 8:26 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The reason why liberals like Zizek is because he is novel, and, as they like to say in the Platypus Society, the Left is dead. It is all out of ideas. But wait, doesn't this Zizek guy have new ideas? Actually, they aren't. He is a fascist. Lefties just don't recognize this because genuine right-wing thought has been so completely removed from public intellectual discourse people don't even know what it looks like anymore, nor would they recognize it if they saw it.
He speaks the language of modern Continental philosophers, but deep down he has much more in common with the Nouvelle Droite and fellows like Alexander Dugin than any liberal. You may say that I abuse the term "liberal" by using it as equivalent to "leftist," but there are no more leftists who aren't liberals around anymore. Sure, some use hyperbolic rhetoric, but that kind of rhetoric has become an institution of contemporary society, so that it actually reenforces liberal power structures instead of weakening them.
Dugin believes that post-modern society is in a process of never-ending ending, and what most be done is to complete the ending so that history can start over again. He also states in his "Metaphysics of National Bolshevism" that there are only two sides: National Bolsheviks and Liberals, and you are with one or the other. Zizek says essentially the same thing, the he obviously does not use the term "National Bolshevik."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 8:29 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Ideology is a game of contrasts. You cannot have an ideology without an enemy. Liberalism no longer has a clearly-defined enemy, which is why it is dying(we are no longer willing to be as ruthless against Afghanistani civilians as we were with Germans explicitly targeted in terror bombings, even though we were not engaged in a guerilla war with the latter.) Winning hearts and minds? Should we have been so kind to poor Greta, burned alive by the RAF, her family buried under the rubble. Oh, but you only want to hear the story of Anne Frank in the 500th retelling, don't you?
Zizek does not contrast his leftism with fascism, conservatism, or reactionary monarchism, but with liberalism. If you draw a Venn diagram of Marxism-Leninism, and you subtract everything in common it has with Liberalism, you are left only with what both the left and right of today would denounce as "fascism". National Bolshvism is the ideology of everyone who appreciates in communism precisely what liberals hate about it. As Jonathan Bowden said, "the harshness, the camps, the secret police, the belief in struggle!"
Zizek believes that the only utopianism is to believe that things can continue as they are indefinitely. Orwell said that fascism was the desire to avoid the utopia of the too-rational and too-comfortable world. What is that utopia but the world of today? Then the fascist is the one who rebels against this utopia, precisely as Zizek suggests we do.
Being a closeted fascist is far worse than being a closeted homosexual, especially in today's society, so you learn pretty well how to sniff out your clandestine comrades. Zizek is one of us.
And what does that say about where the world is heading? That perhaps the most popular leftist intellectual of any substance is actually a fascist? Do you think your weak and pathetic Obama will stand up to Putin? His bodyguard just got a new shipment of leather trenchcoats. The Iron Dream is rising from the ashes.
Heil Hitler! We have a world to win!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fXPKfJ_H4s
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 10:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Please provide proper citation from any of Zizek's writing that would lead you to believe he is a fascist.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 11:43 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
...but the world isn't rational or comfortable!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 2:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
All the comments about internet threats being insubstantiated sound (rather, read) so hollow now in the aftermath of the guy who posted online about killing a bunch of females and then actually did it!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 3:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Why? He followed the age-old model of: manifesto -> dead people. He didn't harass his victims online.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 5:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You have to be in error because Zizek would NEVER say that anything came down to 2 choices. Because he is a deep Lacanian and Hegelian and he knows exactly what fascist means. Unlike you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 6:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Comments cannot demand citations as in a thesis or dissertation. Not the place for them. Besides Zizek has NEVER offered a theory. He is too smart for that. I am sure you can comb his interviews and writings and come up with stuff that rings fascist. Interpretation leads to ping pong and that's why Foucault threw it in the toilet. Forever. Zizek is slippery and you will never pin him down. Baudrillard maybe, but he's dead now and he wouldn't try anyway. Zizek has so very much to offer, so why not concentrate on his superlative insights.They are legend.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 6:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I would reckon that you've compiled a working list of suggested reading electronically somewhere?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 7:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I wouldn't even know where to begin. You could start with my blogs. http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 8:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I agree about Zizek. He is indeed a Fascist. He hates the crass materialism of today's culture, the softness; claims there is no place for virtue within it. You called this one right.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 8:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Why does this make him a fascist. A fascist must think inside the Dominating Discourse of classical Hegelian opposites. Zizek doesn't,
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 8:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>one textbook narcissistic psychopath follows up on his threats, so that means internet anonymity is bad and everyone who types something that offends your delicate sensibilities is a potential spree shooter
Fuck off.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 8:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This young guy is just Deterrence. A spectacle that has your attention today. Bread and circuses.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 8:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>[you] cannot demand citations as in a thesis or dissertation.
Except I can and I just did.
You (or rather Heaviside) made the claim that Zizek is a fascist based on a vague, 5-paragraph word vomit that doesn't actually provide examples of him touting fascist ideology.
And as for your other comment, I have combed through Zizek's writing, as well as all of his television and film appearances. Either substantiate your claim or don't expect anyone to take you seriously, and based on your rambling, incoherent blog, I don't think very many people will.
>I agree about Zizek. He is indeed a Fascist. He hates the crass materialism of today's culture, the softness; claims there is no place for virtue within it. You called this one right.
Still waiting for someone to post something from his writings that would even hint at him being a fascist.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 8:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And when have I ever said otherwise? Even so, how does it matter?
What does the ridiculous pseudo-intellectual redpill faggotry in your post have to do with my response to feelingsargay?
People are now going to take this event and try to spin it into "internet anonymity is bad" and "preventative measures should be taken to stop and / or expose internet trolls", just like they always do. Protip: the problem, once again, is not everybody else: it's you. If you can't handle something as trivial as being harassed on the internet by people you don't even know, then perhaps it's time for some self-reflection.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 9:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You can demand that's right. But you ain't gonna get.
Substantiate my claim? Well you can come over and watch me read. I am not gonna fall into the trap of playing this game on your baseball field.You are not gonna frame this argument for me.Not gonna happen.
">I agree about Zizek. He is indeed a Fascist. He hates the crass materialism of today's culture, the softness; claims there is no place for virtue within it. You called this one right."
Sorry but how does hatred of consumer culture and fascism go together. I do not think he is a fascist.Yes he has said some fascist things. Yes he is not consistent. Yes he does not propose a theory that you can pick at for academic coolness, tenure,celebrity at Zizek conferences.
Well I remember his saying in an interview that if the planet is to be saved for us then Draconian measures are going to have to be taken and that we won't like that.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 9:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Of course people are going to do that. That's what Deterrence is. There is no anonymity here. Anyone could have found out his identity had they wanted to do so.Why are you harassing me?I guess because I keep replying to you thinking you might really want to know something. My bad.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 9:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>He didn't harass his victims online.
Technically he did, but most of it was in response to initially being bullied. Although considering his original comments that incited the online bullying, it's no wonder people shit on him on the internet, just as people shit on him in real life. There are scores of forum posts he had made on sites like the misc section of Bodbybulding.com (he clearly didn't even lift, but he was apparently very insecure about his height; he probably had some type of body dysmorphia), pickup artists sites, etc. And for all of them he used his real name. You can easily look them up.
So not only was he a slam-shut classic case of NPD, but he apparently wasn't that smart either. Being outraged about your height, appearance, and inability to get women is one thing, but announcing your virginity to the entire world via a Youtube weblog and a veritable shit-tonne of various internet forum comments is some next-level retardation.
His enormous sense of entitlement (all women owe me sex, and if they reject me then all women deserve to suffer), his hatred of those more successful than him (all jocks and all people who are sexually active must suffer, etc.), his secret feelings of universal superiority (while simultaneously having his self esteem depend entirely on how people view his constructed, projected fake-self), his ideal image of himself as some kind of "god", his harlequin personality sewn together with pieces from his favorite television and movie characters, his stilted affectations and mannerisms, his referring to himself as the "supreme gentleman", his use of the word "degenerates" to describe people he looked down upon (most especially white "alpha male" jocks and "obnoxious" black kids), and his tendency to speak like he's in a film in which he is the main character...
This kind of behavior should be incredibly familiar to anyone who's been browsing this site for at least a few years. This kid is like a walking stereotype. If there hadn't been actual, innocent people that had to suffer and die because of this, I would probably say it's funny. You couldn't even make this shit up. Elliot Rodger couldn't have been more of an N if Alone had written him as a character himself.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 9:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>You can demand that's right. But you ain't gonna get.Substantiate my claim? Well you can come over and watch me read. I am not gonna fall into the trap of playing this game on your baseball field.You are not gonna frame this argument for me.Not gonna happen.
If demanding substantiation of wild claims you've made on the internet is "framing the argument for you" then I don't know what to say and you're beyond help.
Why did you even make the comment then? Do you expect people to take you seriously when you make wild claims without backing them up? And if the answer is no, who are you writing for? Yourself? Do you just like to hear yourself talk?
>I guess because I keep replying to you thinking you might really want to know something. My bad.
Hard to learn something useful from you when you refuse to provide citation for the simplest of claims.
Either explain why you think Zizek is a fascist or I don't see why you're even part of this conversation. Although apparently you don't think he's a fascist, Heaviside does, so I really don't even know why you felt the need to chime in there, unless of course it was to shill your blog for page hits.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 9:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Wow. The Force is strong with this thread.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 10:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>Technically he did
But technically he didn't. You're right that he had an online presence, and it's true that he made a video outlining his plan. Neither of that amounts to harassing his victims online, who were, as far as I've read, randoms whom he never interacted with online. Unless details have come out that I'm not aware of.
>pickup artists sites
I don't know if he posted on a pickup artist site, but I do know that he posted on a site called PUAhate, which was dedicated to condemning pick up artists as fraudsters, liars, etc. I know the difference because, for better or for worse, I'm a regular on bodybuilding.com's Misc section and PUAhate members often trolled on the Misc with their incredibly obsessive and toxic viewpoints. Nothing, not working out, not having confidence, personality, or "game", mattered more to the members of that community than "facial aesthetics", which they would analyze down to the canthal tilt of your eyes. It was literally a board full of Patrick Batemans. And I say "was" because the FBI has apparently shut it down.
He had maybe ~50 posts on bodybuilding.com, at least under that name. If you're not familiar with BB.com, that's hardly enough to be noticed (it's a fast-paced board with lots of members) and I don't even recall him posting on the forum. I've seen the screencaps of his posts, and to be honest, they read like thousands of other posters who would troll with that kind of stuff. And among those thousands, half appear to simply be fucking around, which is what I would have assumed about his posts had I seen them when they were posted. The fact that his videos come off as a parody is a repeated theme I've seen in other people's reactions: they seem too absurd to be serious.
He clearly had a lot of problems, and NPD jumps out, but one thing I've noticed is how utterly fast people have been in using this event as grounds to start yelling about things they don't like, whether it's guns, misogyny, or MRAs. I'm familiar enough with the crossover of BB.com users with Red Pill users and PUAHate users to know there are tons of nuances and subtleties in the perspectives and what is or isn't trolling that make generalizing incredibly useless. And part of me is convinced that if this guy had a girlfriend and no internet access he still would have killed people. But what I'm amazed at is how fast people are becoming at turning events into ideological opportunities. I guess it's just copy + paste at this point. Older folks go after the guns, younger kids go after MRA. Nobody considers the possibility that they're wrong.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 11:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>But technically he didn't. You're right that he had an online presence, and it's true that he made a video outlining his plan. Neither of that amounts to harassing his victims online, who were, as far as I've read, randoms whom he never interacted with online. Unless details have come out that I'm not aware of.
I guess this would depend on your definition of "harassment", but the comments he made were clearly hostile: mocking other users for their aesthetics, their race (he had a strange hatred for Asian males, and considering he was half-Asian himself it was probably some kind of jealousy and self-loathing about how full-Asian males were getting pussy while he himself, a half-Asian, was getting none), etc. They're still available on the Google cache even though the BB.com thread is now deleted.
>I don't know if he posted on a pickup artist site, but I do know that he posted on a site called PUAhate
I left this out of my previous post because I didn't think it mattered, but why do you think he was browsing PUAhate? Obviously he at one point tried out the whole pickup artist schtick and upon realizing it didn't work for him (on top of it being a system for virgin losers who have to turn the courting ritual into a checkbox game science), he joined the site and channeled his hatred there, yet again blaming other people for his various failures.
>If you're not familiar with BB.com, that's hardly enough to be noticed (it's a fast-paced board with lots of members) and I don't even recall him posting on the forum. I've seen the screencaps of his posts, and to be honest, they read like thousands of other posters who would troll with that kind of stuff. And among those thousands, half appear to simply be fucking around, which is what I would have assumed about his posts had I seen them when they were posted. The fact that his videos come off as a parody is a repeated theme I've seen in other people's reactions: they seem too absurd to be serious.
I'm familiar with the misc (I'm from /fit/). Having a userbase comprised of wannabe Patrick Batemans (sans the charisma and minus the ability to actually pull women) is not unique to BB.com, although it may be exacerbated by the shallow nature of the site's subject. It certainly doesn't excuse his content of his posts there. You can troll, fuck around, or say something in jest and not mean it. Alternatively, you can say something in complete seriousness, but never follow up on it in real life. Both options are better than saying something and meaning it, and then following up on it by shooting innocent bystanders.
I really do feel bad for those people who were walking down a sidewalk in Isla Vista, minding their own business, when a hurricane of virgin fury decided to end their lives, all because poor Elliot Rodgers, with all of his money and resources, was incapable of simply hiring a fucking hooker.
>And part of me is convinced that if this guy had a girlfriend and no internet access he still would have killed people.
We can make any number of baseless conjectures about what would or would not have happened if he had a girlfriend. Armchair analyzing this kid after he has already died is an exercise in determinism without any kind of real insight. I honestly think the best course of action is to not give him the positive attention he so desperately craved. People who think to do this sort of thing should see this as an example that they will not get the kind of recognition they hoped for.
Based on his worldview and outlook on life, it seems to me that he would have been a whiny miserable cunt regardless of having a girlfriend, but I don't think he would have gone on too shoot up random strangers. Having a girlfriend would have changed nothing, but maybe it was the straw that broke the camel's back. Who knows.
>But what I'm amazed at is how fast people are becoming at turning events into ideological opportunities. I guess it's just copy + paste at this point. Older folks go after the guns, younger kids go after MRA. Nobody considers the possibility that they're wrong.
Probably goes without saying but this is how it's always been and how it will always be. We're born, history will repeat itself, we'll die, and then new players will take the field, making the same mistakes in an endless loop.
If there was ever a stronger case for deciding not to have children I can't think of a better one than this. Not out of fear of raising your child to be a spree shooter (Rodgers himself admitted that his parents didn't treat him badly, although they could perhaps be implicated somewhat by not raising their child at all and substituting nurture with cars and money), but because I can't think of any reason why I'd want to subject another human being to the kind of world where they could get mowed down by some kid who put the pussy on a pedestal. I'll relinquish my right to add to the pool of human suffering, thanks.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 25, 2014 11:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>I guess this would depend on your definition of "harassment", but the comments he made were clearly hostile
When I say "harassed the victims" I literally mean the victims of the shooting. Somebody said that Rodgers is a case of a cyberbully following through on their threat and I noted that that's not what happened. He may have made hostile comments to people on a forum, but he didn't actually threaten them and more importantly he didn't kill them. He killed randoms. He never cyberbullied his actual victims. Not saying this is better or worse, just pointing out what it isn't.
>Having a userbase comprised of wannabe Patrick Batemans (sans the charisma and minus the ability to actually pull women) is not unique to BB.com
I was referring to PUAHate w/r/t Bateman, not the Misc. Though Misc has its fair share.
>It certainly doesn't excuse his content of his posts there. You can troll, fuck around, or say something in jest and not mean it. Alternatively, you can say something in complete seriousness, but never follow up on it in real life. Both options are better than saying something and meaning it, and then following up on it by shooting innocent bystanders.
Not sure what you're getting at here. Obviously following up on a threat of mass murder is a bad thing. But he never made that threat on bodybuilding.com, and none of his posts were of a nature that implied he would do something like that. I'm not defending the content of his posts, but because of all of the trolling that goes on, the content didn't especially stand out. And that includes the hostility against Indians, manlets, etc. unfortunately.
>all because poor Elliot Rodgers, with all of his money and resources, was incapable of simply hiring a fucking hooker.
More conjecture, but I don't think he was looking for sex as much as he was looking for sex-as-validation. Hookers provide the sex, but not the validation. And [more useless conjecture] because of the N word, I don't think a girlfriend would give him the validation he was looking for either.
>Probably goes without saying but this is how it's always been and how it will always be.
Right, but note that it's the speed that amazes me. I feel like these days we get Slate articles by noontime and hashtag enemies before dinner.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 3:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I've decided not to reply to any anonymous comments. Easy to gt entangled with A replying to A and using a site to converse and argue.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 6:03 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Since the narcissist turns aggression back onto the self in analysis the narcissist needs to VERBALIZE his/her aggression onto you, the analyst. Bottled up anger gets violent, hateful, poisonous, etc. I would bet that he was not able to express his aggressive feelings in his family, that he constantly turned them back onto his self. Imagine the jealousy as his father worked with beautiful young girls who never paid any attention to him.How jealous he must have been. How much he must have wanted to lash out against his father and couldn't. It is important in a family to accept aggression early on, welcome it (verbalized aggression)and channel it into creativity. You are not going to get creative intelligence until aggression begins to focus outwards in a progressive constructive way. What the hell do you think all these govt military people are doing? Just finding ways to express their aggression (arms, secret ops, wars, espionage, etc)and just think they get paid a huge amount of tax money to do this.As long as the money flows and they do it, they will not have a breakdown. Why military come back from a war and go crazy.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 8:05 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Add to that his complete passivity, whether in terms of self-improvement or actually talking to girls. And the indefinite aspect of his rage; sometimes it's against girls, sometimes against the guys who have sex with them. Sometimes it's against his brother, or black people. But naturally, in the end it's the easiest targets that he attack ("easiest" both in term of availability, courage or lack thereof, and most importantly, narrative).
Alone doesn't even need to post about this guy, the case speaks for itself.
Another interesting point; some people seem surprised that his victims were finally quite average-looking.
But that's precisely it. His rage wasn't grounded in reality; the world where everyone but him was oozing sexiness only existed in his own head. The fact that we expect his act to reflect his words speak volume about ourselves. This wasn't retribution against people more sexually successful than yourself, reader. This was a case of roughly ordinary kids getting gunned down for petty reasons.
"Well, there is a problem with women today..."
Sure, buddy. And that rage was entirely a product of "mental illness", too. We ourselves are nothing like that, right?
"I am so angry at _____." The direct object is a red herring, the subject-verb is the whole truth.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 8:53 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Why military come back from a war and go crazy
One of the dumber things you've said.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 12:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This lack is not a bottomless hole that nothing could ever fill, but a tiny, strangely shaped divot in your soul into which nothing could ever fit
Just wanted to see that line again.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 4:23 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm curious what Alone would say about Elliot Rodger. I think the kid was gayer than a picnic basket, and that's okay minus the fact that he was so far in denial of it, it drove him to murder. He had to post a bunch of videos on YouTube and kill some people as the ultimate proof and expression of his frustration with women who he really, really, totally wanted to love him.
If you examine his language, he talks about how he wants girls to love him and enviously fixates on men. He never mentions loving a specific female. He talks about women in the abstract. "Beautiful, blonde girls," etc. He speaks about women in generic terms, which a lot of people are going to push as a frustrated heterosexual male who views women as objects, but to me it sounds like what you might say if you're faking it. What I don't understand is how people can call him a narcissist but refuse to understand that the image he is projecting of himself would possibly be a lie. Is that just because we think of narcissism as a sense of self-grandiosity rather than what it really is?
He also uses the word fabulous.
Two of his videos are titled "Why do girls hate me so much?" and "Life is so unfair because girls don't want me". That's called projection.
Few people are going to touch this narrative. Some psychologist on Fox News suggested it, and commenters at the Huffington Post were livid. They think it's about suggesting that homosexuals are bad, which, maybe it is if it's on Fox News. It's about a narcissist trying to force his image of himself onto others. "I'm heterosexual! Look, I'll kill these gorgeous blondes to prove it."
But I could be wrong. Doesn't matter. I'll never know. We'll never know. Unless someone comes out and says Elliot tried to kiss him on the mouth.
---
Here's "Life is so unfair because girls don't want me."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KP62TE1prs
Hey. Elliot Rodger here.
I'm just sitting in my car right now after watching that beautiful sunset descend beyond that hill up there, enjoying a nice vanilla latte. [sips] Oh yeah, that's nice, makes me feel all pumped up.
I've been doing a lot of thinking about how sad and unfair my life has been all because girls haven't been attracted to me.
I've been going through college for two and a half years now, and in those two and a half years, I've had to rot in bleak and sad loneliness, while other guys got to enjoy all the pleasures of, you know, sex and socializing and partying. I've never had a taste of that because no girls give me a chance. No girl at my college has ever expressed any interest in me. I mean, you give a chance to all these stupid, obnoxious guys that I see, that I see you walking with, but you don't give a chance to me.
Why not? I'm such a magnificent guy. I'm beautiful. You can't deny that. I've traveled all over the world. I have so much to talk about. I'm civilized. Intelligent. Sophisticated. I have a sense of style. And yet you girls don't see it. And every single day, I have to be insulted by the sight of all these lesser men walking around with beautiful girls. I see so many couples where the guy is just so unworthy of having a beautiful girlfriend like that, and yet, they're together. He has her love. And I've never had any of that love and affection from girls.
Why do you girls give those guys a chance, but not me? I deserve it more. It's not fair. Every single day I have to be insulted by the sight of guys enjoying girls while I'm all alone.
Even watching that sunset up there [sigh] is a bittersweet experience because while I love the peaceful beauty of it, I can't help but think of all the other guys who get to enjoy that same sunset with a beautiful girlfriend at their side while I'm sitting here all alone in my car. There's no beautiful girl in that passenger seat to enjoy it with me because you girls have something against me. I don't know what it is.
Whenever I drive through this college town called Isla Vista, which is just right next to UCSB, I see so many hot, beautiful blonde girls walking with absolute stupid, obnoxious-looking douchebags, and I just can't help but think how wrong that is. Those beautiful blonde girls should be walking with me, not those brutes. I deserve them more. Why do those horrible men get to experience the love and affection of such beautiful, heavenly girls, while I've had to rot in loneliness all my life. It's not fair. It's such an injustice.
I don't understand you girls, it's like your sexual attraction is flawed. It's perverted. You're attracted to the wrong kind of guy. You should be attracted to guys like me. Beautiful, magnificent guys.
This world, it's so twisted. It's so cruel. And you girls make it cruel. You girls have starved me of sex and enjoyment and pleasure for my entire youth. You've taken eight years away from my life, eight years I'll never get back. Do you know how much misery you've caused me? I'm such a nice guy, why won't you give me a chance?
---
"Why do girls hate me so much?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBvaVWdJRQM
Girls have never seemed to have any interest in me, and I want to know why. I'm such a perfect, beautiful, fabulous guy.
---
Excerpts from the manifesto:
---
Now I know what he meant. Childhood is fun, but when a boy reaches puberty a whole new world opens up to him… a whole new world with new pleasures, such as sex and love. Other boys will experience this, but not me, it pains me to say. That is the basis of my tragic life. I will not have a great time in the next ten years. The pleasures of sex and love will be denied to me. Other boys will experience it, but not me. Instead, I will only experience misery, rejection, loneliness, and pain.
[Specifically mentions boys, sex, love, and pleasure, but does not mention girls.]
---
It was no better inside the classroom. There was this one obnoxious jock with a buzz-cut who was taking the class with his gorgeous girlfriend. They always sat next to each other, talking and touching each other with affection. Every day I had to see this, and my envy grew and grew. I constantly glared at them with raw hatred. What did I do wrong that he did right? I yelled out to the universe on the way home. Why does he deserve the love of a beautiful girl, and not me? Why do girls hate me so? Questions and questions. All I could do was question why I was suffering so much injustice in life.
[More actively describes and focuses on men.]
---
All of the tall, hunky jocks that girls love so much will be having all of the sex and all of the fun, while an unwanted outcast like myself would rot in loneliness. I imagined that some attractive guys who only visited Isla Vista for the Halloween event will be getting laid that weekend. They’d be getting sex from just one night in Isla Vista, while I’m still a virgin after living there for over a year. It was too unfair. I wanted to punish them all.
---
All I had ever wanted was to love women, but their behavior has only earned my hatred. I want to have sex with them, and make them feel good, but they would be disgusted at the prospect.
[Hello! Seriously? Is this not obvious yet?]
---
One time while I was alone at Planet Cyber, I saw an older teenager watching pornography. I saw in detail a video of a man having sex with a hot girl. The video showed him stick his penis inside a girl’s vagina.
[Focused on the man and what the man is doing. One might alternatively say, "That bitch was gettin' fucked!" and something about fake tits.]
---
So… even at the early age of ten, boys were starting to be attracted to the female body. I didn’t understand this… I hadn’t yet reached that stage. I pretended to be interested just so that I wouldn’t appear uncool.
---
I always enjoyed my family’s get-togethers with the Humphreys. These get-togethers became a common occurrence in my life. Maddy became a very close friend of mine. She was the only friend from Farm School who I continued to see after I graduated. They had a huge back yard area, and the two of us would go on adventures. She also grew up watching The Land Before Time, and we would watch the sequels together whenever they released a new one.
Sometimes when I went to her house, she would have other female friends there, and I played with them too. I had no trouble interacting with girls at that age, surprisingly. My six-year-old self was playing with girls, unbeknownst to the horror and misery the female gender would inflict upon me later in my life. In the present day, these girls would treat me like the scum of the earth; but at that time, we were all equals. Such bitter irony.
---
I had to go Christmas shopping, and I decided to do it at the Calabasas Commons. I was always going there anyway. While walking around, I ran into Maddy, who was there with her boyfriend. For some strange reason, I have never had any sexual attraction towards Maddy, despite the fact that she’s a blonde girl and I’m obsessed with blondes. Perhaps it was because she used to be my friend when we were children, I don’t know.
[Nor anyone else in his manifesto. I searched through it for the words "love" and "date", found nothing indicating he was attracted to a specific female in his life at any point.]
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 4:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
tl;dr:
Elliot Rodger didn't want to have sex with girls. He wanted to want to have sex with girls.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 4:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What I don't understand is how people can call him a narcissist but refuse to understand that the image he is projecting of himself would possibly be a lie.
Everyone understands that the image he was pathetically trying to give of himself was fake. That's what narcissism is. But that doesn't mean that the person underneath was homosexual.
Even if he was (and that's still a pretty big if), there are many, many other things about himself the guy was obviously not processing. Him possibly being in the closet is only a minor part of the issue.
And that issue, as a whole, is the kind of narcissism Alone has described, combined with a total lack of self-awareness. By comparison, him being in denial about his own orientation doesn't have much explaining power.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 6:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's a great line. Thanks.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 6:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
High suicide rate. Mental health problems. Work problems. Hello?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 6:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Alone doesn't even need to post about this guy, the case speaks for itself."
So why don't you take your own advice?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 6:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are becoming strangely obsessed with his sexual orientation and what he has said. Don't you find this disturbing?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 6:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The narcissist is a borderline pre-oedipal personality disorder as clinical terminology labels it.
Pre-oedipal means that sexual orientation has not been established.So why all the fuss about that here?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 6:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oh you have no idea of all the dumb things I've said. This doesn't even come close.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 6:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
High suicide rate. Mental health problems. Work problems. Hello?
You're just trying to draw me into the Dominating Discourse where, as Foucault observed, everything becomes mired in the "swamp of interpretation." I'm not going to play ball on your field.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 7:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Personally, I think this is a great observation. I don't know why abbeysbooks would give you shit for displaying good scholarship (to wit: "You are becoming strangely obsessed with his sexual orientation and what he has said. Don't you find this disturbing?"). That's bullshit. As a journalist at a MAJOR news network, I can assure you that I haven't combed that so-called manifesto for the kind of quotes you culled, so good on you. IMO, you've crafted not only a viable and well-supported opinion, but also a pretty solid clinical examination of the projection mechanism.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 8:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
" As a journalist at a MAJOR news network, I can assure you that I haven't combed that so-called manifesto for the kind of quotes you culled, so good on you. "
So you the major news journalist is a lurker here? Bashing me for the second time. Ahem.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 8:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well when in Rome.....
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 9:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Abbeysbooks are you autistic?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 9:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
jonny has a blog, for those interested. It's got some interesting posts, if not a bit repetitive and a bit over the top. He actually links to it here somewhere.
It's telling, though, that he appears to live in Thailand, and most of his IM and text chats posted are him using very sophisticated English with deep subject matter directed at girls whose understanding of english clearly isn't great, and who are younger and less intelligent than him.
Perhaps if he didn't surround himself with only the types of women he rails against, his experiences wouldn't be so self-fulfilling.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 9:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>jonny has a blog, for those interested. It's got some interesting posts, if not a bit repetitive and a bit over the top. He actually links to it here somewhere.
If I wanted to read the psychotic ramblings of a mentally ill virgin psychopath, I'd probably just go back and re-read the Elliot Rodgers manifesto. At least then I might get a few laughs.
Thanks though.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 11:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Your article is very good, I was so excited to read it and also have many emotions. I hope everything will be fine. Friv 2
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 11:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Do you have a name?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 26, 2014 11:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
One of the things that really struck me about Elliot Rodgers in his videos was the whole evil laugh thing he was doing: it seemed so contrived that I had such a hard time beliving he himself didn't notice how fake it was. He struck me immediately as someone who was acting but who was a such incredibly poor actor that it would have made his performance utterly laughable if it weren't for the lives ruined by his actions.. Fucking creep.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 27, 2014 12:06 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"I am so angry at _____." The direct object is a red herring, the subject-verb is the whole truth.
Bullshit. The emotion is select for a reason. Object is half the equation.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 27, 2014 3:07 AM | Posted by : | Reply
This will be used to say something about men, how men treat women, and how men objectify women. "This is why we need X," where X = Feminism, carving a path to associate Elliot Rodger's behavior with that of CEOs or engineering students or some other perceived male-dominated group.
The response to these shootings is typically ineffective politicization. In this case, we need more gun control and we should heed the feminists. If only we forced Elliot Rodger to take a Women's Studies course, this never would have happened. And while I don't want to get too tangential here, if feminists were comparing Elliot with the men he hated pre-mass-murder, am I wrong in assuming the feminists would be more content with Elliot's behavior? He never bothered or inconvenienced any women by asking one out on a date. He never grabbed one's ass. He didn't eat at Hooters. And he didn't subscribe to Maxim magazine. Somehow, all these other men who objectify women get by without mass murder.
We all remember when Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read. "All of 'em, any of 'em..." "Can you name a few?" People were prepared, even eager, to believe Sarah Palin never read a single newspaper based on that. If I can't find Elliot Rodger fixating on any particular female rather than all of 'em, any of 'em, or at least the hot, beautiful, gorgeous blondes, why can't I assume he's gay? Even the most self-absorbed narcissist can fake his love for a woman. Why didn't Elliot? Because women didn't love him, because that's what he told us in his manifesto catered to influence our opinion of him? He's an unreliable narrator.
The reason I point this out at all is less about understanding him and more about rejecting the narrative of this story, which we will hear about for another couple of weeks. Elliot Rodger truly was resentful toward women, he felt entitled to them, and other men feel this way and that is bad because who knows when the next one will snap.
And that makes a lot less sense if he was gay.
If you have time to scan his manifesto, it's like a nonfiction Notes from Underground.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 27, 2014 5:23 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I hope to see Alone deconstruct this whole sorry episode in the same manner he analysed Sodini. The mainstream anti-gun, anti-male (curious how an effeminate, possibly homosexual virgin is an example of "toxic masculinity", unless we are speaking in homeopathic terms) narrative is somewhat lacking in refinement.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 27, 2014 9:45 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yup. Not to mention the attempts to make this the poster case for better mental illnes screening or public funding for it etc.
I think that there is something going on with misogyny here (and also racism), but it´s not what it seems and not what people want to make it into. It might be a mistake to rebrand these killings as a kind of "this is what misogyny will get you" narrative.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 27, 2014 9:57 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My impression is that both his misogyny and his violence have the same source: the N-word.
Hate of any sort is a common proxy for narcissism, and the obsession with women is pretty much a given in a 20 yo N.
More generally, rage against the other sex will be one of the default answers to the ego being threatened, regardless of age.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 27, 2014 10:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
For me, I see the same: the N-word. But different than Soldini...
The dead giveaway was Rodgers long term inability (unwillingness? not sure which) to see other human beings as real, they only existed as far as they were relevant to him. Women- not even all women, just "pretty white blond girls" were supposed to be the prop to get him sex, i.e. make him look like a stud to his male peers (his first 3 victims were stabbed, they were his male roommates. why? possibly because the mattered more than women?), make him more respectable etc. He tried to convince his mother ffs to marry rich, so he could get the lifestyle he thought he was entitled to.... Seems pretty clear. Though I might be wrong.
But I just can´t get my head around - why make this into an anti-misogyny campaign? Did it just happen at the time where it seems to fit into this narrative of rampant sexism that nobody takes serious because it´s online (see article above)?
And how are they (feminists, the huffington pop kind) going to spin 4 men out of 6 dead as a case of "extremist misogyny"? Unless is it the same as with reproductive rights. To get society to care- they had to pretend they were not about some specific rights for women like access to contraceptives, but "family planning"- as in- it´s for men too? Just as they are suggesting now- here you have a killer (another one) who claimed he hated women so much, he was willing to shoot men for basically having physical contact with them. So then they can say misogyny is a danger to society as a whole. Is that what is going on? Is that a good thing?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 27, 2014 10:35 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Elliot Rodger never wanted to succeed with women. He built his entire identity around being a social reject, if he had gotten success with women it would have shattered his identity.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 27, 2014 11:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yeah, sorry about that -- I don't mean to bash. You do good work here. Keep it up.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 27, 2014 7:21 PM | Posted by : | Reply
If anyone around here really understood narcissism it would help. I mean clinically not the theoretical bullshit that passes for an understanding of it. The infant is narcissistic. It cries, someone feeds it, changes it, hovers over it. Things change tho. The hostile mother (I love you while she pushes the child away)has often murderous impulses towards her baby. Even the non-hostile mother who sometimes is just fed up today. The baby expressing rage begins to turn the rage against the self. This is what the Narcissistic Defense is.First this boy rages, then kills, then kills himself. Watch yourself do it to someone you care about. Make them feel guilty or they make you feel guilty. One of you then attacks the self.
Jesus was a Narcissist. But he forced them to torture and murder him by following Isaiah. He knew what he was doing. An inversion of it. That shabby trial the Hebrew elders gave him destroyed Hebrew Law which was the most advanced Law the world had ever known. Trashed in one weekend. We have done the same to the Tsarnaev brothers.They will become Islamic martyrs.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 27, 2014 7:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The Narcissist has a very fragile ego if it exists at all. When you work clinically you NEVER ask a question that has YOU in the syntax or sub text. In other words - say at the beginning - the patient is quiet on the couch. Saying nothing. YOU DO NOT ask the patient why s/he is not talking. YOU DO NOT say "Tell me." as the YOU is implied as "(You) tell me." INSTEAD you day, "Is this silence comfortable?" or perhaps "What is the quality of this silence?" Believe me it's going to be "uncomfortable." Then you get to say, "What am I doing to make it uncomfortable? or How can I change that?" You are directing the hostility against yourself. Then the patient feels UNDERSTOOD. It is YOUR fault!The beginning of treatment is to first keep the patient from self-destructing treatment, then for the patient to feel understood.
I once had a crazy teen who did stuff with his twin sister, both identifying with Bonnie and Clyde. But he kept getting caught and punished. It got serious enough for his mother to seek treatment. He brought a male friend with him the second or third time so they could laugh at me. I asked him why he wanted to be caught. He looked at me as if I were crazy. I asked him if he wanted me to help him to it better so as NOT to get caught. Then he thought I was mad. Finally he began to talk about his thoughts and feelings.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 27, 2014 10:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>If anyone around here really understood narcissism it would help.
Boy, you are one arrogant autist.
>When you work clinically etc.
Based on your nonsensical, incoherent ramblings in this thread, as well as your word vomit blog, I have a really hard time believing you have ever worked in any field of medicine in any kind of clinical capacity. Not to mention the fact that you said you were taking classes at GCAS, which is an unaccredited institution and seems at first glance to be a diploma mill.
Your anecdotes are duly noted, though.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 27, 2014 10:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Happy to send you my transcripts but you will have to pay for them. $10 apiece now I believe. Got $50 in your paypal account from me. I need one sent to Univ of Penna, another to Arcadia Univ,another to Univ of Delaware, others on request from you.GCAS is accredited BTW and I am not taking credits there. Have more than enough already.But it is an excellent place to study Continental Philosophy.Zizek will be with them this summer in MI. I would go in a minute if I could.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 27, 2014 10:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
For me not from me.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 27, 2014 10:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are definitely correct about one thing tho. I am arrogant. Particularly with low levels like you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 12:21 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Clinical Narcs are, in my understanding, defined by inner rage coexisting with intense fear of the outside world. The Narc flees from himself as if fleeing from the Gestapo to his false identity. He then scavenges from the outside world to confirm and maintain this identity, which comes across as a kind of self-obsession.
This rage, and the response to it, are subjective phenomena, and there seems to be little point in locating a definite cause. Though the classical Narcissistic parent is an obvious risk factor, there seems to be a high variability in how subjects cope with such influences, and a high variance in their inner resources.
The key distinction between Narcissist and Psychopath seems, so far as I can tell, to be that the psychopath has dissolved his sense of shame as well as guilt, and also that he has had to marshal his inner resources for sheer survival, so that he isn't afraid of the outside world in the sense that the Narc is. The Narc seems to register the outside world as a mysterious cave that he is afraid to enter. The psychopath seems to register it as a den of lions, where it's kill or be killed.
Also intriguing is the more general phenomenon of cultural narcissism, which I would define as any barrier of identity that gets between the self and the world that is negatively reinforced, either by fear or ennui, or anything in between.
One point of Narcissism that puzzles me is crowdsourcing the superego. It is something that I have seen, but I'm not quite sure why they feel they have to so this. I'm hoping abbeysbooks might shed some light on this subject.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 2:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
As someone who didn't realize I was gay until I was 23, I am completely convinced of the repressed-homosexuality hypothesis. When I thought I was straight, tried to be, I just replaced the question "am I attracted to her?" with "is she hot?". I can tell if a girl is hot, even though I'm gay, so I took attraction for granted when, in retrospect, I totally lacked it. That seems to be just what Rodgers is doing in his videos and manifesto.
It's total denial, frantic energy spent maintaining narrative and running from cognitive dissonance. It would explain why no girls liked him, or even gave him a chance even though he's physically attractive. Faking attraction is hard, and he's a shitty actor. Just watch how he drinks and talks about his coffee. If he can manage to act sexy and monitor nearby women for attraction to him, he's likely failing to demonstrate any reciprocating attraction. He probably assumes she knows she's hot, like he does.
He's a whiny mopey self-pitying piece of shit that no one ought be like (after he's opened his mouth (or killed people)). But even a guy like that can usually attract a girl,if just for a little while, by demonstrating that he is attracted to her, that she is worthy of his affection. Rodgers can't do that convincingly. I had a few awkward dates and a short "relationships" with girls and my own palpable disinterest for the girl was my number one problem (before reaching the bedroom). He's got that plus his hate-able personality. That combination explains his complete girl failure better than just his shitty personality alone.
If he was straight, his looks should have counted for something in this society, and he would probably have had enough affirmation from undiscriminating partners to not go postal.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 2:16 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>GCAS is accredited BTW
Straight from their website:
>"The Global Center for Advanced Studies is not presently accredited as a degree-granting institution by Title IV-recognized regional or national accrediting bodies."
Nice try. Although in all seriousness I wouldn't mind going to see Zizek speak.
>low levels like you.
Oh no my shattered ego! :(
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 2:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think extrapolating that he was a fag is, quite literally in your case, wandering into projection territory. The real reason he failed with women despite his looks and his near-infinite resources seems to be that he didn't even try, and he admits as much in his "manifesto".
This kid expected women to flock to him without any effort on his part, just by virtue of his existence, which again fits neatly with the narcissism narrative.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 2:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>The real reason he failed with women despite his looks and his near-infinite resources seems to be that he didn't even try, and he admits as much in his "manifesto".
Also I forgot to mention that based on his videos he was also a fucking creeper with serial killer vibes and the demeanor of corpse. Even if he had worked up the balls to actually engage in a meaningful conversation with a woman, looks don't really count for much if the girl is afraid you're just as likely to fucking stab her as you are to take another sip of your orange juice.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 3:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It just started a few months ago. Degrees are in the works and if you take a course and do the required work then you are taking it for credit, which I am not. It will be offering graduate credit. Zizek is not speaking. He is part of the team offering the course in MI this summer. Badiou did one this fall.You don't get much better than that hon.
So I doubt you can just go to hear him speak. Unless you know someone who says OK. You might try.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 3:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"
One point of Narcissism that puzzles me is crowdsourcing the superego. It is something that I have seen, but I'm not quite sure why they feel they have to so this. I'm hoping abbeysbooks might shed some light on this subject."
Sorry never heard of this term. If you define what you know about it maybe I can extrapolate. I'll try.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 4:42 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Crowdsourcing the superego" was made-up by Alone.
In short, it's confessing your own sins to the public sphere, counting on it becoming a matter of OPINIONS instead of morality. Some people will hate you, some people will say "meh", some will support you. Those things a narcissist knows how to deal with. Better than keeping it all inside and having to judge yourself alone.
This happens when the narcissist miraculously manage to feel guilt ("I am a little shit"). So he uses that trick to transform it into shame ("People outside think I am a little shit"). Then he's free to react to that shame in any way he wants, while guilt would force him to change how he acts, without any shortcut available.
As an aside, you are one self-important mofo. People mock you about Zizek, and you choose to refer to Badiou?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 1:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Seemed more like he was faking it to me.
Here's an excerpt from the epilogue to his manifesto, in which he dreams of a womanless society:
In fully realizing these truths about the world, I have created the ultimate and perfect ideology of how a fair and pure world would work. In an ideal world, sexuality would not exist. It must be outlawed. In a world without sex, humanity will be pure and civilized. Men will grow up healthily, without having to worry about such a barbaric act. All men will grow up fair and equal, because no man will be able to experience the pleasures of sex while others are denied it. The human race will evolve to an entirely new level of civilization, completely devoid of all the impurity and degeneracy that exists today.
In order to completely abolish sex, women themselves would have to be abolished. All women must be quarantined like the plague they are, so that they can be used in a manner that actually benefits a civilized society. In order carry this out, there must exist a new and powerful type of government, under the control of one divine ruler, such as myself. The ruler that establishes this new order would have complete control over every aspect of society, in order to direct it towards a good and pure place. At the disposal of this government, there needs to be a highly trained army of fanatically loyal troops, in order to enforce such revolutionary laws.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 2:26 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Faking it is a pretty good description.
I recognized, more or less the awkward "villain" laugh in his confessional video. Without having any proof, it sounded a lot like an anime villain laugh - like, how a bad voice actor would try to sound bitterly humorous about their situation, or about killing people. Sure enough, that looked like one of his interests.
People have made a lot out of how he grew up in the entertainment industry, where he was exposed to the countless movies that showed people living dream lives (or, as we'd say here, at least being the main character in their own movies), and even if he was too self-aware or whatever to be taken in by the movies themselves, he lived in the world of actors and movie people, who (this is a generalization I don't really have any data to back up, just portrayals I've heard about) live and act just like main characters.
Even if they themselves are very insecure, they work very hard to seem like they have effortless natural charisma. So you'd see a world of people like that, playing characters in movies who are just as intrinsically important to their world.
And you're... a nerd. That's how I'd read the guy. I don't think he seemed "hollow inside" or "ice cold" or anything dumb like that, he reminded me of a cosplayer or a kid on halloween.
I'm not saying there wasn't mental dysfunction, obviously anybody who actually gets the gun and goes cruising has gone too far, but most of the buildup looks like desperately reaching for some way that he actually IS the confident main character.
And sure, he found it. He's an anti-pua guy, locked out of heaven BECAUSE OF his character traits that HE CHOOSES to have, for sure not because he needs to change in any way to be palatable to other people.
There is no girl he wants to be with, he wants to be the kind of guy that girls get with. A girl wouldn't cut it, because it wouldn't fix the panic at not being anything.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 3:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Summed up very nicely.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 3:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You'll pay to know what you REALLY think.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 4:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Rodgers suffered from repressed homosexuality: a very plausible notion; of course, saying that on TV will get you fired.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 5:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
About what? Sorry I didn't get what you meant.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 5:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Respectfully, bull.
We're distracted from the true (terrifying) story because we're accepting the form of the argument, and therefore missing the real story(1).
SINCE IT IS TRUE that he did this because he hated women so much that it twisted him up, THEREFORE he must have done it because that stuck-up b-word rejected him when he was twelve(?!), or because he's secretly gay, or because of the culture of objectification of women and their inability to refuse. That dialogue can go on forever until we find which easily identifiable group of people we hate, grab our cuss thesaurus, and have on with it.
Don't get me wrong, any or all of those individual elements might be true, heck, he might secretly be a llama fetishist with neo-nazi ties, it wouldn't change why HE did it, and why people LIKE him do it, and not any of the other men's rights internet cowards or repressed senators.
The much (much) scarier story is about a guy who, even though he DIDN'T ACTUALLY HATE WOMEN, managed to get involved with a community of guys that did, then took on their identity and was willing to go 110% to defend it, at the cost of his life and the lives of others.
I haven't read "My Twisted World" because good gravy it is 141 pages long and I think I get the idea. I have watched his confession video, and a bunch of other ones on his Youtube channel, and casually perused his Facebook.
It must have occurred to somebody else that he doesn't actually mean what he's saying. He has two things to say: he feels crappy about his life, and he's got a litany of these unbelievably stupidly worded mini-manifestos.
When he's talking about how he feels miserable, and has since at least puberty, that's him.
When he says stuff like "and on that day I will show you who the TRUE alpha wolf is [awkward pause] heh heh heh hehehe", that's some kid with a fedora and growing anxiety about moving out of his parents house from Minnesota, talking through Rodger. The forums are the means of transmission.
If you look back at his (Rodger's) Facebook, you can see the identity he wanted. Sleek, international, a little mysterious. Sipping champagne on first class. Oh, here's LA from the clouds, just on my way to my dad's mansion.
The problem is, he isn't that guy at ALL. Look at the photos of him at publicity functions. Shoulders hunched, glowering, way off to the side. I'd be willing to accept that the media selectively published pictures of him looking like an ogre, but these ones are from HIS FACEBOOK PAGE.
I'd be willing to bet some fat stacks that this kid could have got a girlfriend, if he'd have been willing to not be Rico Suave, and found somebody to watch fantasy movies or game of thrones or anime or whatever with. He wasn't bad looking, he was socially awkward, and his dad was rich, AND involved in a blockbuster TV world.
But no. Hanging out and engaging in his actual interests didn't fit the identity. It wasn't torrid. The girls didn't look right. So he, my strong guess is, stopped trying.
Did it strike anybody as odd that his strongest memory of rejection was from when he was... what was it, 12 or 10? That's not the case for somebody who keeps trying. I'm a happily married man, and I'm here to say my first rejection was by FAR not the most painful. But if it's all you have to choose from...
He wanted to be something very badly, and picking something different, something more suited to who he actually WAS, wasn't something it looks like he even tried. The important thing was the feel, the emotion. Enter the women-hatin' online community. Now he can be a guy who knows what he wants and acts to get it and isn't afraid, BUT STILL be failing totally. It's society that has the problem!
He found happiness and identity in misery. It was just as brooding and dramatic as Mr. International, and you don't need anybody to validate it for you. In fact, the less you try, the more secure your identity is. And when you're living in broodworld, there aren't a lot of options, and there aren't a lot of emotions.
If he hadn't shot people, his youtube channel would be hilarious. "My life is hell", "why do all women reject me", and my personal favorite "My reaction to seeing a young couple at the beach (envy)". Yes, thanks for spelling it out man.
His endgame before was James Bond, now it's... man, who knows. Do the misogynists HAVE a goal besides something like this? At least this is ONE option for them.
But even when he'd reached the boiling point, and HAD the gun, and HAD the plan, and had his identity and online community, that didn't change who he ACTUALLY WAS.
Remember, in his video, his goal was to march right into "the hottest sorority house" on campus, and fill the place with lead, shooting "every blonde bitch I set my eyes on" (rough quote).
What did he do? He stabbed his roommates, then marched up to the sorority house, knocked loudly..........
And nobody answered the door, so he left. Got in his car, drove to the 7-11, then, more frantically as the night went on, just randomly drove around shooting and crashing into bicycles. Remember what TLP said Mass Murder was the violent expression of.
So this is super scary, yeah? It's not EVEN the dyed-in-the-wool misogynists you have to look out for. Or the feminazis, or whatever.
It's people who can't imagine a world where they aren't a character with clear motivations acting rationally, and suffering or being rewarded accordingly. It doesn't even matter what the ending ends up being, it's about them. And if it's down to their ego or your life, and they have a gun......
And we've accepted that this is true, and we're debating the issue like he was a kid who had any idea what he was doing.
I'm just saying, maybe don't take the manifesto of a mass murderer at face value.
1) Yeah yeah, it's a TLP cliche, but hey, we're both reading him, right?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 5:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is a complete paranoid fantasy. Read Freud's case on Schreber which is more intelligent and detailed.But really the same template. Hannah Greene describes hers in I Never Promised You a Rose Garden in which while institutionalized she was treated by the great Frieda Fromm-Reichmann who catch-22'd her with a paradoxical communication and so began her cure. Probably she was medicated. She was definitely electric shocked. Lindner's Fifty-Minute Hour has some unequaled case studies of this type in his book which is so very readable. Like mystery stories. Lindner would enter the fantasy with the patient and in one he was almost killed and in another it was so fascinating a world he almost couldn't get out himself.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 6:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
18 April 2007:
The APA Says The Media Is Making Women Really Hot
No. I'm not worried about girls, What we should be worried about are the boys. What happens to a boy who is told by the media that women are sexualized, they are objects, they are sluts? And then he goes out into the world and discovers they aren't? That they won't sleep with him? That, try as he might, they won't do all the things he was promised in ads, movies, porn? But they might be willing to do it with someone else, even women?Depression? Or maybe misogyny? And maybe he starts hating women so much he, oh, I don't know, shoots 30 people at a college?
MY REIGNING HYPOTHESIS HAS TO BE
… TLP paid this kid off to "do the job" and get those telling videos in the can beforehand… promising him umpteen-seventy virgins in heaven or media immortality or ("same difference," all such deals with Old Scratch are a ripoff), just to make himself look like a seer, or a genius-level analyst, or maybe just somebody who really knows how to read.
kudos
- bonzie anne
PS: "knows how to read" what?
Nietzsche, what else?
"And his heart is full of mud, who can imagine nothing better than to lie with a woman."
(From memory, way back when I was earning my "D" in Bouwsma's Nietzsche Seminar: a badge of honor from which I entered no appeal.)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 6:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Woman wants a warrior - Nietzsche
Man wants danger and play.
Why man wants woman because she is the most dangerous plaything.(I don't think he said plaything but I am not going to look it up.) Here's a nice fanfic on it tho. Don't be put off by the Edward Bella Twilight names. http://twilightirruption.blogspot.com/2013/05/review-substance-clad-in-shadows.html I did two of them on this fanfic as it is exceptionally well done. The writer is intelligent.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 6:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"We're distracted from the true (terrifying) story because we're accepting the form of the argument, and therefore missing the real story(1)."
Yes and so are you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 6:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes, but did his mom know he was gay?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 7:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Simulated Reality is alive and well. Here is what I think on this from Don Jon with Gordon Levitt: http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2013/10/reviewdon-jonreading-through.html
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 7:26 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Gay has nothing to do with Elliot's murders and suicide. Anyone who repeats this stuff about women over and over is using it as a "floating sign" masking something quite different. I realize it is interesting to interpret and test your guesstimates with everyone else. After all we were all trained to that educationally from forever. But it has nothing to do with "truth" or why and it really isn't important.
What is important that with all the govt draconian measures to keep us safe they cannot. All the stuff they do to tell us it is to make us safer is a "floating sign" masking the emptiness of their ability to do so.
He did live in a Simulated Reality. People who work in movies tend to fall into this. It is their work, what they get paid for doing, so it is real to them. But it is not real. Sometimes it is art but most of the time movies are not art, just entertainments, just to amuse us and make money from our boredom.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 7:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I dislike abbeysbooks, please stop commenting.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 7:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
WHAT! You dislike me so I should stop commenting. Are you for real?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 7:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sometimes it is art but most of the time movies are not art, just entertainments, just to amuse us and make money from our boredom.
Look everyone, it's the Grand Arbiter of what is and isn't art!
Everything is art. Some of it is just bad art. Your arbitrary distinction is silly and pretentious, something that I wouldn't expect from the type of person who links to vampire Twilight fanfiction as a form of argumentation, but somehow you managed to pull it off anyway. Bravo.
Gay has nothing to do with Elliot's murders and suicide. Anyone who repeats this stuff about women over and over is using it as a "floating sign" masking something quite different. I realize it is interesting to interpret and test your guesstimates with everyone else. After all we were all trained to that educationally from forever. But it has nothing to do with "truth" or why and it really isn't important.
This is of course coming from the lunatic who, with no prior military experience, speculates that servicemen who come back to the civilian world "go crazy" because the "money flow" into the military allowed them to release their "aggressions".
Take some of your own advice.
Yes and so are you [accepting the form of the argument, and therefore missing the real story].
Are you going to spend this entire comment thread shooting down everyone else's posts with half-sentence replies, linking to your blog, and refusing to engage in any kind of meaningful discourse under the pretense of "being led into accepting the form of the argument / arguing under the dominating discourse"? All you're doing is hand-waving your responsibility to back up your claims. You refuse to write anything that isn't completely incoherent because you don't want to be "pinned down" (aka getting called out on your bullshit), all the while pretending that being held accountable = "accepting the form of everybody's argument".
You are not the brilliant writer you think you are. You are not Alone. You are definitely not Zizek. You are one of the many, many hangers-on that populate this blog who think they can be cool and radical by channeling Alone's verbage, and who think that some of that literary uniqueness will rub off onto them, except they don't even have 1/10 of the knack for writing or analysis that he does and had they realized this, they would also know that trying to be Alone-lite is silly and screams "Daddy look at me!" Let your writing come about organically and stop trying to be something you're not. We already have one TLP, and one is enough.
TL;DR: Get your own scthick. You're boring.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 8:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Also for what it's worth some of your writing is pretty good. I did enjoy your article on The Counselor and I do agree with you about morons shitting on McCarthy's dialogue and finding it stilted and didactic because they don't understand it. So take that however you want, preferably as far up your hole as possible.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 8:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes I 'for real' want you to stop, call it censorship, the system or whatever you want. Your posts don't really offend me or agitate my political views in any way. I just don't like their style or what you write about.
Your voice is the self-aggrandizing, post modern 'matrix speak' that alone rails against on regular basis.
Maybe I am completely wrong, but I will never know. Voting is off.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 8:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
In all fairness, I never write "........." like I did up in my last comment, but, uh, Alone does.
Hm.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 8:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So I should stop commenting because you want me to do so?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 8:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
But what's your name?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 8:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hey don't knock Twilight. It's a retelling of Tristan and Iseult which itself was not a literary star in fiction either.
Your name?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 8:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
But what's your name?
Your name?
Your name?
Anonymous
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 8:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yep. Opinion has not changed since my first post.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 8:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's your opinion. NOt a very interesting one, but, hey, it's yours.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 8:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Boohoo, people are telling you to stop doing things.
You should stop commenting because you've made your point and that everyone caught enough elements to judge for themselves whether you're talking out of your ass or not.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 8:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The solution to pollution is to not engage it until it's at least vaguely interesting. Putting my mouth on the line, reading my twisted world and seeing if maybe he WAS a woman hater since old times - anybody read it before me?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 9:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I would say it's necessary if you want to better understand his psyche, but Jesus is it a cringey slog to get through. It reads like really bad anime fanfiction, or if someone had commissioned Episode 3 Anakin Skywalker to write a memoir.
Ironic, considering Rodger's pilfering of the "I'll slaughter them like animals" line.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 9:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
In addition to everything else he was a dumb fuck.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 9:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Good lord.
Two paragraphs in and I need a palate cleanser.
He sure doesn't make it hard for we of the narcissism blog to discuss: "my world, the dark and mysterious story of every event in my life"
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 10:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Respectfully, Bacter, I'm a Harry Benjamin Type V "True Transsexual," and I really believed that I was merely a "transgendered lesbian" with a love of women's fashion - up until I was hit by an Adverse Drug Reaction from Hell. I was 40 years of age, and though that seems like a long time to avoid the awareness that I longed to live as a woman - up to and including obtaining an SRS? - it's not at all unusual when your culture is based on loathing for your nature.
And it turns out, I'm not actually a lesbian?
So I relate strongly to RichieD's comment: sometimes you may not allow yourself to know what you are, if you have a deeply embedded, veiled understanding that knowing, you must act on it, and acting on it is quite possibly going to get you killed - or maybe you will die of embarrassment?
It's like DID, kind of: menacing works to distort the self-perception of the victim by inducing repression.
I'm not saying repressed homosexuality was the cause of his offense; I happen to think the kid suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, but that's just how I read him.
But MRAs, no, he had zip to do with them, and if they had influenced him, he would have been trying something different; he's a misogynist, but that doesn't make him at all like your "average" MRA, who has suffered severe abuse by the legal system because (for example) "all men are rapists," and when he's talking at the end of his screed about nationalizing the wimmins, I believe he means it: he probably took some Intro Philosophy course where some fool said Plato said it was a great idea, etc.
… one of my best friends likes the idea, no kidding!, but she's transsexual, and apparently wants to get left on the men's side of the partition?
.7 LOL
thanks,
- bonzie anne
PS: I didn't read his MANifesto, 'coz the Scribd interface sucks too much for me to hassle with; point me to a PDF and maybe I will.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 10:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Respectfully, Bacter, I'm a Harry Benjamin Type V "True Transsexual," and I really believed that I was merely a "transgendered lesbian" with a love of women's fashion - up until I was hit by an Adverse Drug Reaction from Hell. I was 40 years of age, and though that seems like a long time to avoid the awareness that I longed to live as a woman - up to and including obtaining an SRS? - it's not at all unusual when your culture is based on loathing for your nature.
...So, as I said in a previous post, this is quite literally a case of hopeful projection.
You see parts of yourself in Rodgers and use your experience to help flesh out his narrative because it's the narrative you know firsthand. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing; we view the world through the foggy lens of our experience. But your anecdotal lived-in experience (as well as the experience of your other transsexual friend - he? she?) has limited explanatory power. You're seeing what you want to see.
If I lived in Bumfuckistan, having never seen a wrecking ball before, and my only experience with collapsed buildings was a force of nature, and I suddenly moved to New York and stumbled upon a collapsed building, nine times out of ten my explanatory narrative is that a hurricane ran through. Why would I believe otherwise?
Speaking of which, how did you come to the conclusion that you wanted to "live as a woman", or even that you could live as a woman? Assuming you're a male, you understand that you're not a woman, right? Lopping off your dick and bombarding yourself with various chemicals and hormone treatments does not change your biological sex. When they come up with a way to reassign chromosomes, please let the rest of us know. They hand out Nobel Prizes for that kind of stuff.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 10:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
PS: I didn't read his MANifesto, 'coz the Scribd interface sucks too much for me to hassle with; point me to a PDF and maybe I will.
The "Scribd interface" is just a container for the actual pdf file. You have the option to download it and view it as a pdf.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 10:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Can you say a little more?
It's not that I think you and RichieD are wrong about repressed homosexuality - I don't know if he is. I guess he could be, but honestly any reason I'd list for or against it would be stereotyping about gay people based on what I saw in his videos / read in as much of his manifesto as I can choke down.
I'm totally in on your idea that he failed with women because when the time came to show affection, he wasn't into it. I guess the difference would be between 1) he couldn't fake affection because he's a bad actor and his real affection was towards men (repressed homosexual), or 2) because he was living in his own mind too much to actually connect with any other human (narcissist).
So:
1) I might have used a wrong term. I guess "men's rights" specifically refers to people who think we live in a female-dominated society, and men need to be free to rape as they will. I don't know that he was associated with them in particular, but I think it's beyond debate to say he actively posted in women-hating communities that argue for and celebrate violence against women and think that women deserve what they get because of friendzoning and etc.
2) Arguments that he didn't succeed with women because he was gay and then was so frustrated by that that he shot them up means he DID do it because of the closeted homosexuality, right?
Or does the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia just negate everything? If he was really into trains, might he have gone from train modeling to shooting everybody, because of his paranoid schizophrenia?
3)
http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/kabc/My-Twisted-World.pdf
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 11:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Anonymous?
I keep having this problem with my Crayolas, because they don't seem to provide the palette required to shade in Deep Clueless bits of the pictures I see scrawled up for me to complete on the web by anons.
There's a bunch of other colors missing too; maybe I should sue.
"Good news, everybody! I've just discovered a new spectrum of light… I call it 'UltraPurp!'" - BARB
are you aware of being afraid
Sincerely,
BARB
PS: Just for starters: Clinical implications of the organizational and activational effects of hormones - Milton Diamond, Hormones and Behavior 55 (2009) 621-632.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 28, 2014 11:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Bumfuckistan LOLdSchool - BARB
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 2:42 AM | Posted by : | Reply
If Elliot Roger was gay, then why he was masturbating every day to straight porn (according to his manifesto)?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 3:13 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You all seem to be confusing gender with sex. Sex is biological, genetic, you are born male or female and in certain cases some combination. Foucault discusses the combinations in his 1974-75 Lectures in Abnormal at the College de France. Very interesting stuff.
Gender is socially constructed as Judith Butler has observed and written about for us.The two are separate, sometimes coinciding and sometimes not. A woman can be gendered masculine while sexed as a woman.A really great performance of this is Cameron Diaz in The Counselor. She produces provocative sexuality - floating signs - while not being seductive. Her mind is masculine gendered - as culture tends to define it - and she masquerades as female in the way she walks, dresses, acts, etc. But she is a "man" and I think that's why reviewers, particularly male ones, have not liked her performance in that excellent movie of Cormac McCarthy.
Just off the top of my head on Elliot having watched only one video, he eels "soft," feminine. So he is sexed male and gendered female I am guessing. Not that it really matters.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 3:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia negates it as it is a pre-Oedipal clinical label. There is no sexual organization tht is genital. But here's Deleuze and Guattari's take on it:
Is the schizophrenic sick and cut off from reality because he lacks Oedipus, because he "is lacking" in something only to be found in Oedipus - or on the contrary is he sick by virtue of the oedipalizatio he is unable to bear, and around which everything combines in order to force him to submit (social repression even before psychoanalysis)?
Interesting way to read this.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 4:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Gender is socially constructed as Judith Butler has observed and written about for us.The two are separate, sometimes coinciding and sometimes not. A woman can be gendered masculine while sexed as a woman.
The entire concept of "gender" as a social construct separate from biological sex is a nonsensical confabulation from people who would have you believe that you can be whatever the fuck it is you identify as.
"Gender" has indeed become a social construct, which is a fancy way of saying it's made up. When I refer to you as a he or a she, I'm talking about your sex. I don't care what you "identify" with. You can identify as an otherkin space unicorn; doesn't mean you're a unicorn.
As far as transsexuals go: why do so many medical professionals play into the deluded fantasies of people who wish to physically disfigure themselves in a misguided attempt to change their biological sex? My first guess would be because quote unquote "sex change" operations are expensive and people are greedy, but there has to be some percentage of doctors who actually buy into the idea that people can change their biological sex.
When a paranoid schizophrenic comes to your psychiatry practice and claims that he is Napoleon Bonaparte, he is (usually) discouraged from this inane line of thinking and if he can't ultimately come to grips with the fact that he is not Napoleon Bonaparte, he is locked away in a straightjacket in his own special room of the loony ward.
Conversely, when a "transsexual" comes to your psychiatry practice and claims that he/she "identifies" with the opposite sex, he or she allowed to continue this delusional fantasy, completely contrary to the reality of the situation (your chromosomes designate you as either M or F, in an entirely binary fashion; obviously hermaphrodites and other biological abnormalities exist, but this is rarely the case). Sometimes they are even encouraged to seek mutilation as a solution to their mental illness.
As health professionals, why is this allowed? How can this be considered caring for the patient? Why do we play into the fantasies of someone who seeks to cause themselves bodily harm to further this fantastical delusion?
Just a handy and quick (but non-comprehensive) on-the-fly field guide for anyone who starts up with some anti-scientific nonsense about gender politics:
Do you have a dick? Congratulations, you're a guy!
Do you have a cooch? You're a chick!
Do you have both? You're a hermaphrodite!
Do you have neither? The surgeon did something wrong and you're probably going to die.
The point being that mutilating your body won't change a thing, much in the same way painting a lemon green doesn't make it a lime. And if "gender" truly is just a social construct, then people shouldn't have to undergo surgery in order to switch to the other "gender". All that's required is maybe to dress and act like the opposite sex in order to achieve the desired mental effect. Either gender is a social construct, rendering surgery pointless, or gender has a biological basis (I.E, your sex, and more specifically your chromosomes), making surgery and hormone therapy as ineffectual as trying to chop down a tree by plucking off the branches. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
There really needs to come a time when we don't coddle these people and tell them that their delusions are healthy. Let's call a spade a spade. It is a mental illness.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 4:06 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You haven't delved deep enough into the concept of socially constructed gender. I'll take Judith Butler's immense and original intelligence over your amateur ramblings any day or night.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 4:13 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No, I have, and it's not worth repeating.
You can call it amateur all you want. Science disagrees with you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 4:50 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Really like what you've written Bacter.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 5:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Your argumentative skills are truly legendary.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 5:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Science disagrees with you.
The neckbeard is strong in this one.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 5:59 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>neckbeard
come on
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 6:29 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
neckbeard
Look mom I'm projecting!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 7:33 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>using "neckbeard" as an insult
Please crawl back to Reddit, or tumblr, or whatever shithole it is that you crawled out from.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 8:14 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Man, samefagging is obvious enough when it's done on 4chan.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 10:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I guess all that hard scientific data showing that transgender individuals have parts of their brain that are usually found in the opposite sex is uh, like not as important as the prejudice of anon.
Is it really so hard to believe that individuals can change their gender? Not like it doesn't happen in the animal kingdom or anything. Not like the majority of transgender people go on to live normal lives after their operations.
Of course its possible for it to go wrong, some people have changed back (a very small number), but the idea that you are mentally ill if you want to change your biological gender does not hold up to close scrutiny. I've met an extremely mentally ill guy on a pysch ward who started to talk more after I arrived and befriended him. He would make up bizarre things but he seemed as baffled at himself for saying them than anything else. One day he said he was gay and the next he said he wanted to be a woman. So I get that there are cases where a doctor could not do their job properly and send someone down the road of a sex change who doesn't really need it.
But it seems bizarre and prejudiced to have such a problem with people changing their gender. I think its more the self image of the person making such prejudiced statements that is the real problem, either through ignorance/fear or whatever.
It's probably disturbing for people to face the true plasticity of the body, and how malleable and alterable it actually is under our advanced scientific and surgical techniques.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 11:17 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Anyone else find it interesting that, after months of puking deranged junior serial killer lunacy over this blog, jonny disappeared at the exact same time that Elliot Rodger went apeshit?
I'm sure it's just a co-incidence, but still...it's an amusing co-incidence at least.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 11:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Pray, tell: what are these "hard scientific facts"?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 11:25 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yeah, I wondered about that, too. Maybe he's just being respectful? IDK.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 12:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
boom http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/01/26/scans-show-difference-in-transgender-brains/
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 1:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jonny always comes and goes. It hasn't even been a week since the shooting. But, anyway, he doesn't live in America.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 2:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Can you (or someone) either go about 10 steps towards layman's terms or point me to a good reference?
I just don't know enough terminology to make heads or tails of this.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 3:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Read up about Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus project. It's a critique of psychoanalysis, and their use of "schizophrenia" is not orthodox.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 4:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jonny being respectful?
I guess there's a first time for everything.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 4:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I guess all that hard scientific data showing that transgender individuals have parts of their brain that are usually found in the opposite sex is uh, like not as important as the prejudice of anon.
That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. No one is denying your brain is different. We are denying you the ability to fool everyone, including yourself, into thinking that you're a purple unicorn just because you claim you identify with one.
If gender truly is a social construct, then you can go about changing it without mutilating your body. If you really do seek go about mutilating your body because of an abnormal, unhealthy, fantastical delusion about "identifying" with the opposite sex, then you are by definition mentally ill and your fantastical delusions should not be entertained.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/01/26/scans-show-difference-in-transgender-brains/
Congratulations, you were able to link to a gay news site (oddly enough instead of the original New Scientist article) that ran an article about the differences in the brains of trans people and men and women. Coincidentally which has absolutely nothing to do with any of the previous discussion. Nobody is claiming your brain is not different. What is evident is that you cannot change your biological sex. Assuming you are a male, you are not biologically a female, nor can you become one via reconstructive surgery. Have fun trying to reassign your chromosomes.
Is it really so hard to believe that individuals can change their gender?
Not at all, although it is physically impossible, outside of hermaphroditic individuals, for you to change your biological sex, which is what the majority of people are using as a reference point when they refer to you as a he or a she.
Nobody has a problem with you changing your "gender". The problem arises when a mentally ill person seeks to mutilate his or her body because they have a fantastical delusion about identifying with the other sex.
I think its more the self image of the person making such prejudiced statements that is the real problem, either through ignorance/fear or whatever. It's probably disturbing for people to face the true plasticity of the body, and how malleable and alterable it actually is under our advanced scientific and surgical techniques.
I'm completely fine with the plasticity of my own body. I also don't hold any delusions as to what my biological sex is and whether or not I can really change it, nor do seek to self-harm as a salve to a mental illness, nor do I hold any illusions about the entirely fabricated, non-actionable concept of "gender" as a social construct.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 5:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Of course the usual blowhards are eager to armchair-Dx the Shooter of the Season. After all, they read the cherry-picked "evidence" gathered to endorse the Misogynist Whackjob Commits Mass Murder in Isla Vista story line.
What else would you need to know? Well, plenty of self-styled pundits of the tweetscape have issued xerox-copy retweets of some highly snarky original snarktweet that alleged THE SHOOTER WAS A MISOGYNIST!
Internet psychiatry is fascinating. People seem to think words are the truest window into the latent psychotic's murderously sociopathic soul.
I'd like to thank abbeysbooks for using this comment thread as his own Match.com singles bar.
Goo joh mang!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 8:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If I thought you wee seriously inquiring I would answer your question.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 8:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sorry didn't mean to ridicule what you said. D and G link schizophrenia to capitalism and paranoia to the despotic state. It's a difficult but enticing book: Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Anywhere you open it you can begin to read to refresh yourself on it. Like the Bible eh.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 8:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Assumin this is true....and........Your POV?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 8:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Love this comment.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 8:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Gender is socially constructed as Judith Butler has observed and written about for us.
Nothing Butler has ever written concerns cause and effect, it's all impressionistic, phenomenological mumble-jumble.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 8:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Last comment s/b Asher not Anonymous
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 8:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Cause and effect? You are out of the loop aren't you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 8:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's a 1.0 correlation. Congrats for the science stats.A publishable paper at least for your tenure. I'm just making fun of academic bs.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 8:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
abbey, since we are products of evolution you need to explain how gender, as opposed to sex, is an evolutionary development. Gender theorists don't even attempt this.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 8:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Or, as I once put it to a postmodernist, all true psychology is evolutionary psychology.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 8:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Here's an example of good psychology, one where the author attempts to link psychological functions to cause and effect, i.e. evolution:
That's the antithesis of someone like Butler.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 9:02 PM | Posted by : | Reply
>evolutionary psychology
You must be new here.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 9:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You must be new here.
I rarely read the comments. Been reading the blog posts for a couple years.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 9:08 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You're better off not reading the comments (we all are), but my comment was in reference to the constant potshots The Last Psychiatrist takes at evolutionary psychology.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 9:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You misunderstood my previous comment. If we are products of evolution then our psychological makeups are products of evolution, too. I stated that all good psychology is evolutionary psychology, not that all psychology that claims the mantle of evolution is good psychology.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 9:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Say what you want about evo psych but it's better than the Butler's of this world who just make shit up, whole cloth.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 9:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Here's an example of good psychology, one where the author attempts to link psychological functions to cause and effect, i.e. evolution:"
There you are. Right in that quote. Now I know how the writer of that quote thinks. Read Foucault: The Order of Things and The Archaeology of Knowledge. difficult but beautifully written to keep you reading. Like Toynbee.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 9:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here you are taking an object "evo psychology" and comparing it to the "Butlers of this world." This kind of faulty thinking is madness being performed. It is a meaningless statement like "The purple trees are furious." Or whatever that famous quote is as I forget. You can't compare two made up categories like that.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 9:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Products of evolution" is WTF kind of sentence/statement. Meaningless. And I am supposed to respond to it in any kind of comprehensible way? I cannot.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 9:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't have to explain anything to you. Read some good references. They are here. Try Butler and then argue with her. If you are really good you can do that.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 9:26 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes I was taught that too in grad school. It is the Dominating Discourse. And all Dominating Discourses are fiction.Foucault: The Order of Things.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 9:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Try Butler and then argue with her.
Butler has the power of the state and the circle-jerk called "academia" behind her. The issue is that Butler has power behind her and I don't - rational justification is irrelevant.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 9:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
all Dominating Discourses are fiction
All discourses are dominating discourses, some just less dominating than others.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 9:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Butler is beyond them. Columbia and Berkeley fought for her. She's not a careerist tenure seeking clone. Her own person unlike you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 9:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Products of evolution" is WTF kind of sentence/statement. Meaningless.
No, it's both simple and meaningful. IF human beings are a product of evolution THEN all human psychology is also a product of evolution. Thus, any and all universals or variations in human psychology have to be viewed in the light of evolutionary development. You need to provide a plausible explanation for why things developed as they did, rather than differently.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 9:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Listen I beat the biggest Rob Pattinson site online robsessed. Took me 2 years plus.Can be done. Cody Wilson is taking on the US govt with his 3-D printable gun and now with BitCoin's DarkWallet.Give a fuck you to govt over guns and money and you have hit a home run. and he understands all this continental philosophy much better than those who teach it.Except for Zizek.And BIFO.There are a few more if you want to get to know those who act on their knowing.They are all going up against the huge power of the world's thugs.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 9:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Her own person unlike you.
No one in all of human history is their own person. No one. Your statement is hollow, grade-school crap and belies an emptiness in your arguments and positions.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 9:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's simple. The world is ruled by EVENTS not historical progression which is linear, accumulative, progressive, continuous, and IRREVERSIBLE. That doesn't mean there was no evolution, that life didn't evolve, that cultures don't evolve, just that they are not the explanation for the world as we know it now.
Example: 9-11 was an EVENT. And all our lives are changed by it because the govt used it to lie, inject us with fear, confine us, etc. Imagine a young child who goes to SS office with mom or takes a ride on an airplane. All the security shit s/he goes through to do this. Seems normal to that child. That child will not question confinement when it begins to encroach on her/his freedom. It will seem natural. Desensitization Behavior Therapy style.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 9:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You misunderstood my previous comment. If we are products of evolution then our psychological makeups are products of evolution, too. I stated that all good psychology is evolutionary psychology, not that all psychology that claims the mantle of evolution is good psychology.
Say what you want about evo psych but it's better than the Butler's of this world who just make shit up, whole cloth.
I agree with you, but I think what was meant by the person you were arguing with is that evo psych as a field of study is easily manipulated and used to further complete hogwash that ultimately amounts to wishful speculation. This of course isn't unique to evo psych; it's the same as any other field (psychiatry for example), so people who denounce evo psych as a whole are effectively throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Even TLP, for all the criticism he has of the field of evo psych, doesn't go that far.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 9:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Asher you are just a mess of linguistic sound bites that you are passing off as educational intelligence. Your concepts are meaningless. Read Wittgenstein to clean your mind out so you can hear them.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 9:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What? That's Orwell's Animal Farm honey. Some pigs are more equal than other pigs.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 10:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The world is ruled by EVENTS not historical progression which is linear, accumulative, progressive, continuous, and IRREVERSIBLE.
Not sure where you get the idea that I hold the world to be linear and progressive, I don't. But, no, the world is not ruled by events, at all. 9-11 may seem a big deal to some people but, in reality it is a drop in a bucket, insignificant. Also, I would point out that your usage of "irreversible" betrays that it is you, not I, who is overly wedded to linearity.
That doesn't mean there was no evolution, that life didn't evolve, that cultures don't evolve, just that they are not the explanation for the world as we know it now.
Of course it is an explanation, the only explanation available. If you think otherwise then it is up to you to justify how human beings escaped evolution.
Read Wittgenstein to clean your mind out so you can hear them.
Now you're just name-dropping. I've read Wittgenstein and Quine > Wittgenstein.
Asher you are just a mess of linguistic sound bites that you are passing off as educational intelligence.
This is you flailing about for want of arguments for your position. Yeah, I have your number. People like yourself are a dime a dozen, go to grad school and think that makes your assertions impregnable.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 10:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Evolution is a linear, continuous, progressive concept that assumes continuity, linearity. If you don't think the world is ruled by Events, OK. But go argue with Fukuyama, Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida, Guatarri, Caputo, et al. I am sure you are wiser than they can can refute them on your own blog. Commenting won't do the job.
You had better get out of the quicksand while you can.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 10:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Where have I said human beings escaped evolution. They didn't, haven't and are not even now. You misread so much.
I didn't learn all this in grad school. I just got a foundation that allowed me to dispute it. What I write about now is my own reading. All alone. No school. No friends who think this way. Just me. By myself in a tiny town in the Ozarks.And you can do it too if you want but you have to clean up your language usage to do so. Your language is like a magpie. You pick up words, concepts, linguistic tricks willy nilly that mean nothing and you contradict yourself all the time.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 10:21 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Evolution is a linear, continuous, progressive concept that assumes continuity, linearity
Maybe in 1954. 2014? No, not even close. I remember an exercise in a philosophy of science class where the professor asked the students to justify the phrase "higher life form". It cannot be done.
you contradict yourself all the time.
Unlike yourself, when I make such a claim I include examples showing just how the person contradicts themselves. That is a major difference between you and I, and indicates that I am intellectually honest and you are intellectually dishonest.
No, evolution is definitely not linear and that you say this indicates you have been drinking some strong kool-aid in a very inbred intellectual environment.
go argue with Fukuyama, Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida, Guatarri, Caputo, et al.
All complete and utter crap. I was in college when Fukuyama's End of History came out and it slogged through about 20 pages before I realized it wasn't getting any better. French philosophy, for the most part, is utterly inane gibberish.
Where have I said human beings escaped evolution. They didn't, haven't and are not even now. You misread so much.
Of course you did. At one point human experience was shaped by evolution and, now, you are claiming it is not. The only logical conclusion is that, somehow, our species escaped it. If you set a premise and end up disliking a logical and necessary conclusion then it is best to reassess your premise.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 10:23 PM | Posted by : | Reply
@ abbey
I would also point out that you are the only one, here, using sound bites ala your assertion that Judith is her "own person", an idiotic phrase if there ever was one.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 10:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Also, gender theory aside, I can tell from your writing style that you have XY chromosomes because your tendency to make the conversation about yourself.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 10:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I just got a foundation that allowed me to dispute it.
I haven't seen you dispute anything. That you hold the decades-long discarded notion that evolution is linear indicates that almost everything against which you argue is a straw man of your own construction.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 10:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you are just a mess of linguistic sound bites that you are passing off as educational intelligence. Your concepts are meaningless.
Oh the absolute irony.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 10:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
abbeysbooks is an idiot, but Foucault isn't "utterly inane gibberish." Read "Society Must Be Defended" and tell me it isn't just a more theoretical version of Alone's case studies in power and the distribution of power.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 10:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Also, gender theory aside, I can tell from your writing style that you have XY chromosomes because your tendency to make the conversation about yourself."
This has got to be one of the funniest jokes I have ever seen executed relating to gender and "gender theory."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 10:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I can tell from your writing style that you have XY chromosomes because your tendency to make the conversation about yourself.
I think you may have mixed up your chromosomes there.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2014 10:55 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Yo, who's the bitch in the pacific standard cover?
Also, is this media-internet shitstorm retarded or what? Elliot Rodgers was batshit insane wasn't he? Why should he be considered representative of the misogynist masses? He's just another crazy mass murderer
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2014 12:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Abbie: Calling this out. Whether you think I'm serious or not (I am), sources or your opinions didn't happen!
Anon: I'm working through Anti-Oedipus.
"Schizophrenia is like love: there is no specifically schizophrenic phenomenon or entity; schizophrenia is the universe of productive and reproductive desiring-machines, universal primary production as "the essential reality of man and nature." "
So he was schizophrenic because he... had desires that involved the repression of others? And this mental break caused the violence?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2014 12:48 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No. PinkNews is not 'hard scientific data'. Pink News is Pink News.
TLP frequently writes about the Narcissistic inclination to use selected factoids from 'self-relevant' science (e.g. Evolution!) to confirm a self-image, to make the Narc's Movie-Life look like Real Life.
It is amongst the most predictable Narcissistic behaviors. Narcs are too loaded with self-anxiety to really dig into any subject seriously. Real science doesn't give that instant ego-confirmation that they need so desperately; for that matter, neither do real politics or philosophy, which is why Narcs need Cable News.
(In related news, the first 20 comments on the Pink News article were written by trans-somethings arguing with each other about what is the more politically-correct ('acceptable') term, transgender or transsexual. The world awaits with baited breath.)
If someone wants to cite hard scientific data, he has to use the studies themselves, where methodology can be verified and where real findings can be divided from interpretation and sensation (i.e. propaganda). The Pink News Article gives almost no specifics or background.
I would say that the Transsexual phenomenon bespeaks of an inability to accept or understand limits that is actually more consistent with Primary Narcissism than secondary or pathological Narcissism. The bizarre illusion that one is whatever one can imagine oneself to be, that biology (or ecology, or culture, or anything else) impose no limits or constraints or definitions, or obligations, that human beings can invent and reinvent themselves to the extent that technology allows them to do so, is more symptomatic of lingering desire of total self-sufficiency than a response against rage.
I say the idea is ludicrous. Human beings cannot define themselves however they like. They are partly self-defined, but also have inborn traits and socially defined roles and responsibilities that one cannot shun without inviting the charges of irresponsibility and self-debasement. In this respect, the transsexual is no different from the goon who tattooed himself from head to toe and colored his eyes yellow.
The man who paints a Groucho Marx mustache on the Mona-Lisa is not redefining it. He is defacing it. We are not our own inventors, nor are we the sole artists of our own creation. We do not have the 'right' to deface ourselves.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2014 1:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I read Anti-Oedipus twice a few years before I started with Foucault seriously. I suggest putting it aside and going with Foucault first. But that is just my own preference. I do know from interacting with people involved in this that many "know" the works but in communicating them fall back on tired methods of discussing them.This is where Foucault will help you. He never falls into these traps if you go thru his interviews written or youtube. Watch his youtube debate with Chomsky whom I am assuming you are acquainted with. Foucault is very young in this debate and his thinking is just beginning, but you will notice later in his work that he accepts points Chomsky made in that debate. Foucault wins it hands down, if there is such a thing as winning when you listen and watch it.
If you are serious then I suggest going to the facebook of Global Center for Advanced Studies as many of these thinkers are there teaching, some much better than others. You might find Zizek more accessible. But Anti-Oedipus is a hard road to travel for the beginner. Why not try Foucault Reader. Read Baudrillard after you feel grounded in Foucault. Foucault at some point will send you to Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals which is central. It's a rather short essay coupled with his one on Tragedy.The early Foucault is his on Psychology which he repudiated. It is worth reading to see how you fall into it's interpretive style so easily then he dumps you out.You might want to read my blogs as I write about all this through contemporary media: movies and books and Events. Snowden, Boston Marathon Bombing, and other media you will be familiar with as I am trying to put this front and center for young adults of Twilight, Divergent, etc in a way that is non-intellectual, trendy, accessible. I am seymourblogger at blogspot. From there you can get to all of my blogs. Focusfree is widely read in Russian and Eastern Europe mostly because of a serendipity with a search engine in Russia that promoted it for me. An accident. As Baudrillard would say maybe, the universe was willing this for me.You can keep in touch with me on my blogs, facebook and twitter.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2014 1:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
In answer to your question on Elliot's schizophrenia, if he can be clinically diagnosed with it, all it means from Deleuze and Guattari is that "capitalism," the world he and we live in, fragment the person and that fragmentation is named schizophrenia. It is a clinical label in the Order of Production, but not the madness that exists in the Symbolic Order of Seduction. Now I am getting into Baudrillard here. But to masturbate ourselves to death here on interpreting Elliot's pathology and/or madness is just that, masturbation.Even asking the questions about schizophrenia is meaningless. Elliot had plenty of reasons for doing what he did but Thomas Szasz probably has it right in the Myth of Mental Illness. It is the world he found himself in that was almost entirely Simulated Reality. Like Don Jon in Gordon-Levitt's film. That's accessible: http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2013/10/reviewdon-jonreading-through.html
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2014 3:19 AM | Posted by : | Reply
This one on Joan of Arc should give all you something to think about. Elliot wasn't responsible for as many deaths as she was.
http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/joan-of-arc-burned-alive-history-today/
Imagine dressing in men's clothes, hearing voices since she was 12, leading an army into battle, etc. WOW! And today you know she would be a schizophrenic and medded up and the course of history would not have changed suddenly.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2014 6:11 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I nod in with a comment, seconding that of RichieD, in which I further elaborated on the nature of repression… one based on my own personal experience - it's called "insight," no? - and all of a sudden some of the anonymous "experts" here feel compelled to contribute their own "insights" into "reality" -
MAN WAS NOT MEANT TO FLY
"I say the idea is ludicrous. Human beings cannot define themselves however they like. They are partly self-defined, but also have inborn traits and socially defined roles and responsibilities that one cannot shun without inviting the charges of irresponsibility and self-debasement. In this respect, the transsexual is no different from the goon who tattooed himself from head to toe and colored his eyes yellow."
Well, Lynn Conway is one of the pioneers…
IEEE SOLID-STATE CIRCUITS MAGAZINE - Fall 2012:
- Lynn Conway: VLSI Reminiscences -
Lynn's on the cover because she was responsible for a REVOLUTION in the design and implementation of Very-Large Scale Integrated Circuits; you made use of her work in making that post, because the computer you are using embodies it.
If you want to change the future, start living as if you're already there. - Lynn Conway.
And you? What have you actually done with your life?
Seriously.
- bonzie anne
PS: I used to be a network systems programmer - and the author of COMET and dataComet - but that was before the "experts" got control of my life, as a consequence of their own incompetence?
Now?
I'm a survivor… and a Publicity Whore: figure it out.
("Google is your friend")
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2014 8:55 AM | Posted by : | Reply
@ abbey
It would be nice for you to acknowledge that your understanding of evolutionary theory was decades out of date.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2014 9:45 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No. PinkNews is not 'hard scientific data'. Pink News is Pink News.
Nobody said it was. Zizeks crusty beard crumbs linked to an article which linked to another article which eventually links to a journal. Frustrating, I know. But there is Hard Scientific Data if you actually can manage the difficult task of clicking twice. Here it is:http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956(10)00158-5/abstract
(hint: it's paywalled. Fuck. Let's google the title of the study and hope some kind soul has uploaded it for free viewing. Yay! Here it is:https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B007WHZsf9YfR0I2MTFWd0lFc2s/edit?pli=1)
TLP frequently writes about the Narcissistic inclination to use selected factoids from 'self-relevant' science (e.g. Evolution!) to confirm a self-image, to make the Narc's Movie-Life look like Real Life.
Except that TLP actually reads the study itself and criticizes the methodology of the study. He realizes that the site that reports the study is distinct from the study. A basic fact that most people can realize. Unless, of course, they don't want to realize that so that they can make the easy criticisms.
It is amongst the most predictable Narcissistic behaviors. Narcs are too loaded with self-anxiety to really dig into any subject seriously. Real science doesn't give that instant ego-confirmation that they need so desperately; for that matter, neither do real politics or philosophy, which is why Narcs need Cable News.
"Narcs need Cable News." Ha, and apparently you need "Narcs" so you have something to define yourself against. I'm not that! That's what they do! They're sheep who need to be kept in line with le Cable News!
The Pink News Article gives almost no specifics or background.
Ah, so you're really criticizing him for not posting the study. You would have read the study if he had posted it, surely! Yes, it's a bad idea to post science journalism rather than the study itself. Yet when you were shown the Pink News article, you were shown that such a study does exist but you wanted to play doctor so bad that you chose to ignore it.
I would say that the Transsexual phenomenon bespeaks...
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2014 11:58 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I'll be honest, I can't shake the feeling that the affected tone and self-referential vocab is there because it needs to be to glide over how there isn't a lot of actual content.
It's just that usually when I see that, the real draw is a talky type scam - costs so much energy to learn the concepts you feel like you agree just to recoup the time spent. Anybody besides Abbey want to tell me I'm wrong?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2014 2:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm the first anon who posted asking for the study. Thanks for posting it! Let's rumble.
For a moment, let's ignore that this study studied only FtM transsexuals; so we can't say anything meaningful about MtF transsexuals. Let's ignore that it only studied only fractional anisotropy (basically axonal diameter of nerves). Let's also ignore that this is just one study and that any practical application of medicine is unethical. Let's also ignore that the sample size was only n=18.
Out of the hundreds of known regions in the brain, the study found statistically significant differences in four regions of the brain. Cool! Which four? The right anterior and superior superior longitudinal fasciculs (SLF), the forceps minor, and the corticospinal (CS) tract. But wait, what do these tracts do? The SLF and CS tracts coordinate motor functions. Women have slightly larger axons on these tracts? That explains the gender identification difference because....OH WAIT NO IT DOESN'T. What about the forceps minor? It transmits signals from one side of the brain to the other. But wait, it's also enlarged in musicians, left handed people, ambidextrous people, and smaller in people with dyslexia? http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985Sci...229..665W AND, it can be enlarged simply by training? There's a ton of confounding here.
And my fifteen minutes are up but there's many more flaws to this one study. I understand the desire to read the summary of the summary of the summary of a study and to conclude that what you want to be true is actually true. But it's much more nuanced than that. There are indeed differences in FOUR areas between FtM and females--none of which relate to personality, identity, or behavior.
QED
PS: I'd recommend you go back to your sophistry. You're much better at rhetoric and sophistry than science or statistics.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2014 3:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It isn't that black and white. The idea that you can categorize all of these separate writers under one label ("French thinkers", "postmodernists", etc.) and then dismiss the category is faulty logic. These are not interchangeable people, many of them disagree with each other, and they are not equally prosaic or obtuse.
I regret ever mentioning Anti-Oedipus, because it's one of those books whose reputation precedes it, like Ulysses. This results in people awkwardly quoting and paraphrasing it without reason (like Herr abbey) and people eager to call bullshit on it. Either treatment is unfair, but I mean, who will blame you with a book like that. What were they thinking? Deleuze wrote it with an ex-psychoanalyst, but Deleuze's independent books are much more straightforward. Simply being familiar with his work prior to the Guattari collaborations is enough for me to never feel comfortable thinking of him as a bullshit artist. His work on other philosophers alone (Kant, Nietzsche, Bergson, etc.) gives him enough credibility.
But, I mean, as far as "credibility" goes, this all seems to go back to the idea that we need definitive, empirical assurance that we're dealing with something legitimate. Hence, we tend toward science, or at least the appearance of science (= asking for studies, linking to studies, etc.). This reminds me of an old post by the Führer:
I like your writings about narcissism, but your description seems to differ from the one in the DSM and everywhere else I look.Why does that matter if indeed it was true?
I just want to know where you came up with it.
You mean, "I just want to make sure you didn't make it up." Because if I made it up, then it stands entirely on my back. Like an American, the shortcut you use for difficult issues is to judge their proponent as a proxy. If you don't like some ideas, look for hypocrisy, discredit the speaker. Which will be easy to do with me, I assure you. Heavy drinking, womanizing, misanthropic... maybe not even a psychiatrist. There. Do you win?
That's not what I meant.
It is what you meant, even if it isn't what you meant. There's plenty of writing on narcissism, you can start with Kohut, even Jung and Freud. But you're resistant: no, psychoanalysis is bunk. And impossible to understand. That stuff can't be right.
You want science, you want something with bullet points and a standard deviation.
(from: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/11/a_generational_pathology.html)
Now, this position isn't against science so much as it is against certainty in certain current applications of science. We have to be mindful of what is being made to represent what in these studies and question if the equivocation is rigorous enough to extrapolate from beyond a small domain (ie, to say what the authors want it to say).
Somebody said "if we are products of evolution, you have to explain gender in terms of evolution." That's slightly off. Since we are products of evolution, our psychology is a product of evolution, but if our understanding of psychology isn't rigorous enough to connect to our understanding of evolution then not only do we not have to explain psychology in terms of evolution, we cannot explain psychology in terms of evolution and anybody who attempts to pass their understanding of psychology off as "evolutionary" is being dishonest. The same applies to the social concept of gender. If the data and the rigor aren't there, we shouldn't pretend otherwise. This isn't to say that the rigor won't ever be there or that psychology can never be understood in terms of evolution. And on the other hand, theories which don't claim to be empirical (most philosophy, theory, etc.) shouldn't be discounted because they aren't testable or falsifiable. Remember that when Popper coined the idea of falsifiability, he emphasized the importance of unfalsifiable ideas to inform and even be embedded in the logic of falsifiable sciences.
A final, somewhat irrelevant, note on "French"/postmodern thought and its relation to this blog: although Alone has toned it down as of late, the blog has a few references (as in literally saying their name and referring to their ideas) to some of these thinkers. Foucault and Lacan come to mind. Again, not entirely relevant, but perhaps if I point out father's approval, some of you will be less ambivalent.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2014 3:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You're much better at rhetoric and sophistry than science or statistics.
I appreciate the compliment, but I never made any claims about the validity of the study itself. I just wanted to play doctor like the rest of the fellas.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2014 3:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Also, gender theory aside, I can tell from your writing style that you have XY chromosomes because your tendency to make the conversation about yourself.
What the fucachte is this? A vain attempt at satire?
Has "XY chromosomes" where? In a jar suspended in ATP synthase?
I guess you never go outside your bubble or cocoon if you think women never express themselves narcissistically. Seriously, what's your gig? Did you grow up in a household helmed by an arrogant egocentric father, and assume from the experience that all men are your dad?
I love people who take a basic high school psychology class, and assume that qualifies them on the subtlest points of discerning another's motives.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2014 4:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's exactly what hi school psychology classes encourage students to do. Now they all do it online in comments. Freud called it Wild Psychoanalysis in his paper of that name.
Actually my students at Community College in Philadelphia who were taking their very first class in "reading" with me were excellent at reading Freud case studies from watching soap operas all their lives. Just give them something important to read with subject matter they are fascinated with and they can read just fine.Start there, and go to follow up. Oooooppps! That's no longer in the syllabus for that course. All pre-programmed now.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2014 5:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Given the choice between the jonny show and the abbeysbooks show I choose death.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2014 6:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
But like the tabloids you quoted it as a reputable "source." You have learned Tabloid Discourse very well.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 31, 2014 2:39 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
OK, I'll bite.
"Wovon man nicht..."
Oh, so you playing catchphrase? I can play catchphrase. How about 'He who asserts must prove.'
In other words, you can't do what Zizek's Dirty Beard did. You can't say 'Science says' and then point to a PinkNews article that links to a link of a study that is hidden behind a paywall, and then say, 'Now you go find the actual work and prove my point for me!'
If Zizek posts Pink News and says 'Science!', well, it is *he* who hasn't made his opening argument. And it's not reasonable for him to expect me to make his case for him and then refute it. The world does not revolve around him or play by his rules (and we approach again the dreaded N-word...).
And once the 'Science!' is out, well what do we see? We see why it's hidden behind three links and a paywall. In other words, it's junk science. Advocacy 'Science' made to order for an interest group.
Anonymous (May 30, 2014 2:49 PM) nicely pointed out the problems with the original 'study'. It looks like a classic example of data mining. To wit, if you study a sample of 18, and you observe hundreds of regions (variables) then it is statistically certain that *some number* of these variables will be correlated in some way just by random chance to whatever parameter you choose. (It's as if I had 100 numerological systems and I kept plugging away until one such system yielded a 'pattern' that connected any trait predictively to transexuality, or that any trait whatsoever to any other.) Obviously, the next step is to *test the finding* precisely to check if your observed correlation holds consistently, or if it is one fluke of one small experiment.
And yes, a major part of lingering 'soft' narcissism is a prevailing anxiety about identity and need for confirmation that makes diligent and dispassionate study difficult, because it requires that the subject direct his attention to something outside the self, something that was not made with his ego-confirmation in mind and with no obvious self-validating angle. Narcs are notorious for their incapacity to sublimate their need for validation into work, art, and study. They are notorious for being unable to engross/forget themselves in work/study.
None of this is me playing doctor, nor is it defining myself against something I am not (pace the kettle). This is an endemic cultural malaise. It is something we all have to fight against, simply because Narcissistic 'baiting' is one of the principle vehicles for social control in the 21st century. There is a reason why so many 'news' outlets have devolved into identity-feed. There is a reason why Cable News and the Discovery Institute exist.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 31, 2014 2:40 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I am a frequent reader of TLP and wrote a bit about Elliot Rodger. I don't think it's my last entry so I would greatly appreciate criticisms or comments on my entry.
You can find it here: http://socialistgumshoe.blogspot.com/2014/05/sympathy-for-devil.html
When I was young I was very troubled. I feel some commiseration with Elliot, but I am sympathetic.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 31, 2014 2:42 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Wow. Please excuse all the grammatical errors in my previous post.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 31, 2014 2:57 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The problem is that IF the world and human beings are products of evolution, THEN there really are no events and cannot be, at least no events in any normal sense of the word.
A thoroughgoing evolutionist must trace all biological phenomena to randomness, bounded within certain mathematical parameters of differential expansion rates of more and less successful genes. These are the only real events evolution allows. The emergence of Life is a non-event because it must have simply been just another ripple of variation in the continuous stream of existence, according to evolutionist orthodoxy (despite the complete lack of evidence for this claim). The idea is not new and it is not at all scientific. It really goes back to Thales, who said that all is water and change. Replace water with evolving matter and change with 'corpuscles of randomness' and you have the philosophical substance of evolution in its entirety (though not its entire mathematical elaboration).
This is why evolutionism is alternately called (amongst those of us who are not Darwinian Fundamentalists) empty, tautological, meaningless, and silly.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 31, 2014 4:15 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You're right.
And I misrepresented what was going on, so I'll clarify a bit.
I've not stopped chewing through anti-Oedipus, and I didn't mean to imply that it was garbage - it's a bit obtuse, but not more than the standard, and obviously has an awful lot of content behind it and in it. Honestly, I was probably just uncomfortable with h. Abb's diction, and if lumping in all the thinkers he referenced together was unfair, lumping them in with somebody commenting on an article on a blog is VERY unfair.
That said, I'll take responsibility for one thing: given links to a whole school of thought that I wasn't familiar with, and having to learn it all before participating in part of a discussion felt like, you know, hard work! And that's not a defensible reason to get petulant, and yet that's where I found myself.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 31, 2014 4:46 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I very much liked your entry.
I bet it's true that he wasn't himself with the overblown self-praise, but you wonder how honest the put-downs were either.
You say "He fancied himself talentless, a failure." He talked about how he couldn't show his family his inherent worth. I think that's true, but the first three words are the important bit there. The story can be about how bad and useless he is, as long as it's about him.
I think the real chilling part of his manifesto (I'm skipping around, still can't really stomach a full read, so I could be wrong) isn't the insane self-worth OR the self-deprecation, it's just the constant, unblinking, unsmiling, self-focus. It's a closed-off world, and nobody is viewed through any lens except how do they relate, compare, to me and what I have.
Being weak, ugly, delicate, a failure, all of that is ultimately palatable. The ego has found a way to live, to thrive, off of failure. I see that as tying in to how you say he stopped trying. At this point, he had more (ego-wise) to gain by NOT trying, and just stewing in his misery.
What is there to say to a guy like that? Would a month before he did the shooting have been too late to break through? A year? A day?
My wife works with homeless teens, and on reading Rodger's stuff, she said it really reminded her of one client she'd managed to help. His deal was that his parents weren't physically abusive (which is kind of a rarity for that job), but were just 100% not present. He grew up with no other siblings, far from friends, just in front of the TV and by himself.
In that time, his mind had turned inward and he was awkward to interact with - by turned inward, I mean he'd thought thoughts without having to change them for other people, talked to himself, for years, so he developed this almost new language and set of references, like you hear about identical twins doing sometime.
The upshot was you'd be talking to him about the weather, and he'd bring up Nazi Germany or a religious dream he'd had, and a common reaction is what is this freak TALKING about.
People thought he was deeply mentally ill, and he was picked on a lot, and so he started using some of the language Rodgers employed - he'd talk about being a superior being, and other people being unworthy to be around him, and etc.
He slid into that kind of dialogue whenever he was upset or sad, and apparently it was easy enough to spot, but hard to deal with. He was ostracized at the homeless shelter, and it's a pretty accepting culture there - he was really one of the only ones she saw get rejected in her time there.
She did manage to help him, and it was through helping him find ways to relate to other people. It was empathy practice - starting with, OK, you can believe that you're a higher being than this person, but pretend you aren't for a while, find a way to talk to them like they'll say something worthwhile. Once that got to be a habit, now work on thinking of something they'd like to talk about and bring that up.
He'll never be a salesperson or lawyer, but he's got some friends, and an apartment. And he didn't shoot anybody.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 31, 2014 9:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The problem is that IF the world and human beings are products of evolution, THEN there really are no events and cannot be, at least no events in any normal sense of the word.
The Suicide of Thought, anyone?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 31, 2014 10:23 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Human beings are so heavily influenced by the variant societies in which they live that I can't see how any evolutionary psychology could be anything but a muddle of conjecture and really trite oversimplification. People choose mates for fluctuating social reasons that often have nothing to do with genetic fitness-- think of arranged marriages, class systems, fetishized body modifications, ephemeral trends in standards of attractiveness and personality type and skill set and even religious devotion. Think about the proliferation of birth control in the modern age-- how could an evolutionary psychologist 50,000 years from now make any sense of the changes that will inevitably result from all the innumerable discrete and arbitrary forces that might influence a woman's "reproductive choice", or whatever? Mentioning this might not say anything about our past, or how we got to be the way that we are right now, but it certainly highlights the confounding human factor that must separate our evolutionary history from that of the rest of the animals. It really seems like one would have to be an omnipotent god to draw any definitive conclusions from such a field as evolutionary psycholoy, as far as humans are concerned, while our mortal paleontologists still struggle to track the physical evolution of some of our simplest species. This makes it, evolutionary psychology, a pleasantly vague pasture for the lolling ideologue cows who would like to give their own personal opinions the prestige of **SCIENCE** without themselves doing any leg work-- which is why many people are generally (correctly) skeptical of anyone who blatantly tries to associate themselves with it, as though there could be any authority in something that is almost by definition pure theory.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 31, 2014 1:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm setting the Over/Under on the number of dead Thai prostitutes in the crawlspace of jonny's house at 7.5.
That's right - no pushes! Somebody's going home a winner as soon as the authorities begin excavating.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 31, 2014 7:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Is this post some kind of joke or satire? "Evolutionism"? "Darwinian Fundamentalists"?
Please don't tell me you're a creationist / "Intelligent Design advocate".
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 31, 2014 9:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It seems that this Anonymous believes that Evolution! has sufficiently explained every facet of existence, human or otherwise, and that this is a fact of which all rational people should be perfectly aware, and that those who doubt this are holding court in the fever swamps.
He can believe what he likes.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 31, 2014 10:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You're totally an INFJ. Tell me I'm right.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 31, 2014 10:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Do I think biological evolution can explain every facet of existence? Of course not. But if you would like to not be confused with religious fundamentalists and illiterate science-deniers, you would do well not to use thier politically and ideologically-charged buzzwords, such as "evolutionists" and Darwinians". You sound like a creationist blogger.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
May 31, 2014 11:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well yes the way you phrased it. If...then - so you have set up the syntax of your argument. Either evolution or event. Either/ or. Deleuze would reframe it Either / or ...or...or....or....or
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 1, 2014 1:46 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
We all have people who annoy us. You are annoyed by 'creationist science deniers' and I am annoyed by people like Richard Dawkins and his acolytes. Dawkinsians are mainly a media-driven thing, and there are worse things out there to annoy people, but there are moments of weakness when one can allow these people to suck energy out of you.
The Dawkins crowd can fairly be called Evolutionists. They glibly throw around speculative (and probably incoherent) Darwinian theories of everything and deride all other facets of human knowledge and experience (or give them lip-service, with the qualification, that this too is ultimately intelligible and reducible to the paradigm of genetic determinism.
They can also fairly be called Darwinian Fundamentalists in their dogmatic disregard of everything that doesn't jibe with their hobbyhorse, their refusal to acknowledge key assumptions and complicating factors that put their philosophy in question.
They may not annoy you; but they exist.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 1, 2014 9:43 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Here is a youtube video titled "Alain Soral on Feminism." You can google for it if you like.
Very interesting points. Thought it might be relevant to some of the other posts Alone has published.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do5zrdTb-yI
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 1, 2014 10:26 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Or INTP? They can act similar. Are you INFJ? Note: I'm neither of those types. Let's be friends.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 2, 2014 10:35 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Though little-kid me was at least aspirationally INFJ. Then some time in 3rd grade, I think, I changed. My parents were concerned about how much time I devoted to reading. And I couldn't handle my obsessiveness properly, and I could only sometimes iron-will focus. No one really knew how to help me with that. So the sense of structure that I wanted for myself was unraveling. I struggled with long-term projects (my 4th grade teacher thought I was making an excuse when I told her that), I hated brushing my teeth and I wanted my parents to keep making me do it but they didn't want to ("It's your responsibility lol"), and so on. I'm still recovering. But no one asked me to write this, I'm narcissistic, you're narcissistic if the first thing you noticed was my narcissism, etc.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 2, 2014 12:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Myers Briggs is astrology for Reddit users.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 2, 2014 6:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Myers Briggs is astrology for Reddit users."
Oh, totally. But he's still an INFJ. I know because I have the internet.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 3, 2014 5:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
When I was a producer for a news magazine show that aired on FOX, I was stalked by members of a religious sex cult called Children of God.
I was born into that cult. Ran away at 14, lived on the street. They're an infernal nuisance but only a danger to children. They're complete cowards. Emotionally, they're basically children. Really, really naughty children obsessed with sex, and children.
got a retraining order, and had me write an op-Ed about press intimidation which ran in not just the Murdoch papers, but got picked up by wire services. That's how you do it.
For ostensible outlaws, they have a fierce respect for the law. Of course they've never lost in legal proceedings, not even when the police pick up trunks of video evidence in pre-dawn raids (which never made it to court, and not just because the trunks evaporated). Legal proceedings don't really proceed when the CoG/TFI are involved, but the reasons for that are too controversial and overwhelming for people to accept.
The Right to break one's legal property to serve utilitarian needs.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 3, 2014 8:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Of course they've never lost in legal proceedings, not even when the police pick up trunks of video evidence in pre-dawn raids (which never made it to court, and not just because the trunks evaporated). Legal proceedings don't really proceed when the CoG/TFI are involved, but the reasons for that are too controversial and overwhelming for people to accept.The Right to break one's legal property to serve utilitarian needs.
glad to see jonn'ys back, and it seems his tinfoil hat has grown three sizes since he's been gone
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 3, 2014 8:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Jonny- I'm really sorry for what they put you through.
"The Children of God began in Southern California in the late l960s, founded by self-styled guru and paedophile, the late David Berg. The CoG believe themselves to be God's elect, offering redemption only to those who join them and adhere to their strict codes. One of Berg's edicts was the "Law of Love", which allowed adult males to have sex with anyone they wanted, including children – Berg called this "sharing", and anyone who wasn't willing to "share" was accused of not loving God enough. Girls from the age of 10 were used in recruitment, offering prospective cult members sex in a practice called "flirty fishing".
I'm so sorry to hear all of this. I disagree with you in your world views (and think they represent potentially extremely harmful ideologies that could hurt real people if put into practice) but I think the blame for your distorted world views lies mostly if entirely with the people who did this to you. I can understand why you would feel that all women did this to you, although I think the idea that the women were somehow more culpable in this may not be entirely true. However since it's your truth I also respect that in your particular case there may have been women who were actually more abusive to you than the men.
I don't know if there is any therapy, or support, that heals or comforts such wounds but if there is such a thing I hope you find it. I know you feel like you are not in pain any longer judging by what you've said, but I think you've basically shut your emotions down to a dangerous level of unwillingness to feel your or anyone else's emotional experience.
The truth is, not everyone does the things these people were doing. I know that is hard for you to believe or you see "subtle" variations of the same behavior in everyone, but there actually are a lot of people who raise their kids without abusing them, and offer them love and affection without trying to weaken them or keep them from growing strong and empowered.
"Adult members may have sex with any other adult member of the opposite sex, and are encouraged to do so, regardless of marital status, as a way to foster unity and combat loneliness of those "in need". This was commonly called "sharing", or in some cases "sacrificial sex". While TFI policy states that members should not be pressured to have sex against their will, numerous former members have alleged being coerced to "share" and subsequently cast as selfish or unloving when they did not."
Your writing certainly reflect the horrific practices of these people. And I can see why you would feel terrorized by women.
These people should have been and should currently be disbanded, if it were possible.
It's very unfortunate that people follow such toxic people, in fact, I would suggest that people not follow your lead Jonny because you're in a really distorted place and have wrath that boils over onto any and everyone, to the point of hoping for the deaths of people who have done nothing at all to you.
I think... when you ahve seen the horrors of what human ignorance and blindness can cause, when you see human ignorance and blindness, even when it is guided by better ideals and subsequent behavior, you see the risk of harm- you know what such blind and ignorant people are capable of because it's not just the followers of the COG but of many many religions, and taking away religion entirely, it's still a human trait that people will follow the leader, fail to see the harm they are causing because they don't understand or see through their own bullshit or know how to change it... and I can see how for that reason your wrath would boil over onto so many who under the right circumstances may have done the very same thing as the people in COG.
I can see why you would want nothing to do with love and have a hard time believing it could even exist in a non-abusive form.
I'm sorry for what you've gone through. I don't support the actions you promote here (telling people to commit suicide is in my opinion conspiring to commit a crime and you would be liable for your co-conspiracy if such a thing were to result from your statements). I would not side with you in trying to force on others a world without love or to endure your hatred and rage for simply living out loving relationships with each other. But I really think you deserve a lot of validation and support for the fact these feelings are coming up for very valid reasons because people really did abuse you.
I don't know that people on the internet who you are berating with rambling angry thoughts are the right people to give it to you, but I hope you find as much of it as you need. And that you perhaps give some trauma recovery like emdr another try as well as cult abuse recovery. There is a LOT of toxicity and abuse in our culture at large as well... you're not imagining that. But you're missing the point if you think hatred and wishing of harm or death on human beings is a kindness. This is very deluded and dangerous thinking. And you're wrong that there are no people who genuinely care about others, people who might even could be there for you if you could work on recovering from this and sorting through your ideologies that would harm anyone who tried to be a friend to you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 3, 2014 8:56 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Also, you're very brave for standing up to the horrific ideologies and abuses you were forced to endure. That you've gone too far in the direction of attacking any and everyone for any fault or slight that MIGHT could be construed as potentially abusive is understandable, although a somewhat dangerous trait for people around you so I hope you can move on from it. The anger deserves to be placed in the hands of those who really did these things, but as you know... there are really no demons to be found to be accountable for these things... just these sad broken ignorant people who were so deluded they watched themselves do these things and even justified them....
and so taking out the anger on them, where it's due, doesn't even feel good. It gets channeled to any and everyone else who seems more capable, more worthy of the responsibility of needing to fix all this.
And I think it's true, that people with more capacity to stop such things should be actively working on how to save kids from growing up in dangerous environments like this even though it's very challenging. You should have been saved from the horrible events of your childhood.I'm sorry that your family, and our entire society, failed to save you from this. I've been through abuse myself, so much that I shy away from relationships and have a much less favorable view of many humans that commit and enable abuse. But I do believe in forgiveness and redemption. For some, that means from within a jail/restrictive living facility for the rest of their lives, but from there I feel some compassion is the base I want to return to.
Compassion is stronger than hate.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 3, 2014 9:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
However, given that many women get blamed for not being careful enough when raped (even in these comments)
You can't induce desire insane enough for love or marriage without inducing the desire to rape. It's all the same insanity and that's the problem, you see? Women induce artificial desire so they are blamed because they're to blame? I understand, it's so unfair. Women work so hard to have men's cake and eat it.
I understand how hard women work to create suffering but please try to understand, there's no value in suffering. You value lying, your lies are not valuable. It's very confusing for narcissists but if you lie to impress, you're not actually impressive. You appear to be. So no one is actually impressed. They just appear to be.
To be fooled by the illusions you create with your own illusions makes you psychotic, but in the reality you're detached from, when your illusions fade, no one will be impressed. Because you're not impressive? It was just pretend. It's demonic fraud that destroyed the entire world...so we can certainly laugh about it. Hah ha. But to imagine fraud is valuable makes you psychotic. Well you can disagree but impressive women don't need wedlock.
Men don't leave valuable women, they leave miserable frauds. I know women feel men should value their fraud forever, I've met women before. All the same, women who bind victims of their life-rape to their side risk domestic violence. Men will defend themselves from psychotics who want their fraud to be loved.
Also, a lot of men, while for one reason or the other, pretending to be women on dating sites have felt apalled at the treatment they received.
Frauds feel appalled when their fraud is not valued but that doesn't make the truth rude. It just makes you psychotic.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 3, 2014 10:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
One of Berg's edicts was the "Law of Love", which allowed adult males to have sex with anyone they wanted, including children – Berg called this "sharing", and anyone who wasn't willing to "share" was accused of not loving God enough. Girls from the age of 10 were used in recruitment, offering prospective cult members sex in a practice called "flirty fishing".
Women run the CoG and nothing changed when Berg died for that reason, Maria just dialed up the the creepy. The Law of Love had nothing to do with gender, and I don't think many adolescents were involved because the CoG are all children in adult bodies, so they want to be loved by the children. I was not lovable. I just asked questions, so I got exorcised a lot. I kept defeating their omnipotent gods so I worked out their schtick.
I think you've basically shut your emotions down to a dangerous level of unwillingness to feel your or anyone else's emotional experience.
No, I feel very strongly that every child is being abused by psychotic frauds who Know Best how everyone should suffer to please them. But mammal offspring don't owe their mothers anything. On the contrary, their mothers are supposed to die to protect them from harm, like every other mammal species' mothers. 'Human' mothers bully children into wanting to die to please them. I feel very strongly that the betrayal and murder of children is a fucking psychotic evil, but only because it's reality.
there actually are a lot of people who raise their kids without abusing them, and offer them love and affection without trying to weaken them or keep them from growing strong and empowered.
In reality, every child is raised with violence, shame and lies by psychotic dependent women who explicitly abuse children in private to snap their independent streak. They need dependents to validate their lifelong dependency on men. Clothes are worn in Polite Society as everyone has been traumatised insane. Truth is rude, lies are nice and deceit is diplomatic, when you're psychotic.
I can see why you would want nothing to do with love and have a hard time believing it could even exist in a non-abusive form.
The only authentic love that is natural is the mammal mother's one-way, non-reciprocable, unconditional love for their offspring and that love ends when the biological debt is repaid by making their cubs independent and unattached. Society's 'women' are just horrific, depraved leeches who choose religions to 'authorise' their cannibalisation. But that's enough of your sleaze, ugh.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 3, 2014 11:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
That is a great article full and rewarding and I brought it to many of my friends, good luck. Friv 2 | Friv
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 3, 2014 11:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
after months of puking deranged junior serial killer lunacy over this blog
There's only so much evil I can handle, but I do have something to say about Elliot Rodger. He was made to suffer to please.
You force children to suffer until they please you, respect you, love you. It's not natural but if you want a pretext to shoot yourself in the foot, religion will tell you anything you want to hear. Should children respect Their elders, or else! Should children love their mothers, or else! Should the world respect NATO, or else! Using your own entitled logic, you can't make an argument for why girls shouldn't respect creeps like Elliot, or else! His logic was your logic, religious logic, authoritarian logic, feminist logic. It's all the same Toddler insanity. Or else! Or else psychotic bullies who Know Best will use force to persuade. If your Might is Right, and your killing (kept out of sight, out of mind) is Right, then your logic says Elliot had every Right to kill was but all use of power is insane. There's no sense in using lies to convince or force to persuade. Children are geniuses until you bully them senseless. You see Elliot as a monster, but all I see is you. You're looking at Society's mirror. Elliot was my child too.
"If you have nothing TRUE to say, then don't say anything at all." - mothers (in Civil Society)
You force children to suffer until they please you, for what? You're a fraud so they suffer for nothing. Your lies are worthless. Your feelings are worth even less. If you are worth [wedlock], you appraise yourself as a liability. If you can't respect free will, your love is hate. Lies of entitlement create all hate. Elliot chased his mother's unpaid debts, just like every entitled hater.
Guardian: Twitter's First Star
Disappointingly, she finds that most of the negative comments come from women. "They're trying to shame me," Oxford says, "and it's all from women. Men don't care. A lot of women are like: Oh she's not fat, oh she's cute, she's funny, I hate her."
Emotional Currency. Can your feelings be exchanged for goods? Can your approval be traded for services? What's your stinking love worth? Was Josef Fritzl's love valued by Elisabeth?
"I wish to open a savings account please."
"Certainly Sir, what will be your initial deposit?"
"My mother is very pleased with me."
If your approval is worthless, your disapproval is illegitimate. To express it is brazen fraud. Children pleasing themselves are interrupted, made to suffer, sacrifice, endure with the implication that there is a point. There's no point. You make children suffer for nothing, no reason, no reward, just to please you. Why should they? Or else! Keep telling yourself your approval is valuable but you're just monsters abusing children, making them worthless like you. You have no value to offer. A bunch of lying leeches, cowardly bullies, murderers-in-denial; your children scream like entitled feminist Toddlers. Every child is my child too.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 4, 2014 4:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Would someone with military combat or law enforcement experience please comment on the Isla Vista convenience store pictures.
If the trajectory emerges from the front glass, and victim is struck center mass or HEENT then exit mist should be present, right?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 4, 2014 5:50 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Best place to get a correct answer for you is weebly Boston Marathon Bombings blog. Those people are deadly on this stuff.On home page down on right is a form to email them. Contact them as they have been doing this over a year now on the Boston Bombing simulation (my interpretation not theirs) so they are experts now. http://thebostonmarathonbombings.weebly.com/
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 4, 2014 10:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Could you post a link to these photos?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 6, 2014 1:45 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
But I do believe in forgiveness and redemption.
Your stated value system? Transparent religious malware used to rootkit children's minds for ongoing exploitation. Those who intend to need forgiveness will preach, "It is a virtue to forgive."
If intent was malicious, it's stupid to forgive. A turned cheek will be slapped. If intent wasn't malicious, there's nothing to forgive.
There has never been a need for the value system preferred by emotional cannibals; redemption, trust, belief, loyalty, deference, respect, mercy, tolerance, compassion, charity, love, etc. Children are marinated in these exploitable values, conditioned for betrayal by the mothers and elders of every warmongering tribe.
All religious values are corrupted. They're just Confidence tricks used to 'exploit' biological weakness (humane instincts; giving benefit of the doubt, preferring peace to conflict, the trust placed in mammal mothers by their young, the protection mechanism afforded to infants of altricial species [the motive for women who infantilise themselves], etc). If God was on one side, the other side had a biological 'handicap'. Religion is the ultimate perfidy.
When dealing with malice, the only consideration is whether or not the malicious party can be made to understand that when they harm others, they defeat themselves. Once they understand, they'll never intentionally hurt themselves (others) again. If they can't understand, punishment won't rehabilitate deformed minds.
Punishment only serves to validate the delusion that leads reduced humans to believe they can profit by disadvantaging others > disadvantaging Humanity > disadvantaging Self. You cannot take advantage of yourself. But you can appear to. Advantage that isn't mutual is an illusion. If you're too reduced to understand, don't feel bad; mushroom clouds will clarify.
There is no acceptable degree of malice. You're either malicious (confused) or you're not. The malicious want to kill, assault, rape, deceive, exploit, molest their way to happiness; the humane pursue happiness selfishly. Every liar is an emotional cannibal who perceives a world of opportunity (to defeat themselves). Shamed women tempted into preying on men bred a species of cannibals who view children as legitimate prey. God is good.
Liars know they're good people, no matter what evil they do. Their lies are nice, their deceit is diplomatic, their war crimes are regrettably necessary, they provoke to preempt provocation, they impose on you for your sake, because they Know Best. Liars are severely handicapped by their denial (psychotic, by definition).
To perceive value in deceit is to perceive value in denial > Insane.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
June 6, 2014 3:37 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Have been reading John Caputo's The Insistence of God:A Theology of Perhaps
We are not talking about fuzzy softness here in Caputo. There is NO forgiveness without sincere remorse. His thinking is Derridean.The Master/Slave binary relation.
In the movie Philomena - if you have seen it - she ends back at the Magdalene Laundries where she gave birth in supposed shame, loved her little boy, was allowed to see him one hour a day on her break as a slave washing clothes, and they sold him to an American couple who adopted him as she screamed seeing him taken from her. As an old woman and a religious one, she forgives the old nun who masterminded all this, who lied to her about where her son had gone, lied to him when he came to find his mother dying of AIDS.The journalist who has accompanied her to America, to finding out who her son was, only to find he had died. He is in a rage at the nun telling her "I can never forgive you." But Philomena tells her, "I forgive you." The nun says the only person she wants forgiveness from is Jesus.All the reviewers of this movie felt she was so much more a human than the cold, angry journalist. Reading through Caputo, the nun had no remorse, no regret for all the lies she told this woman and her son, and was as hard as she had ever been.So if there is no remorse, sincere remorse, then there can be no forgiveness. The dyad of Derrida has not occurred.
Caputo is a radical theologian and not warm and fuzzy is he.And he doesn't believe in religious dogma. The Bible we have been sold, the Gospel of forgiveness. It is all bunk.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 6, 2014 6:42 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Quick abbeysbooks, what's the difference between blame and responsibility?
Answer, blame is about finding fault; responsibility is about overcoming fault. Blame excuses stasis; responsibility demands change.
The knowledge that one's suffering is not necessarily one's own fault can be liberating, but only if it gives one the courage to change regardless of the fact that the blame isn't (at least completely) his. His behavior must change, regardless of how blame is to be handed.
Hence, forgiveness is tied to *repentance*, which is just a better word for responsibility that more directly implies the same psychological action and ensures that no one forgets the duty to change.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 6, 2014 9:35 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
...she ends back at the Magdalene Laundries where she gave birth in supposed shame...
Haven't seen the movie but I've been following this Irish story. It's just nauseating, the indignation from women who are barely better than the women who made the Church do this job for them. The Church can only wield the power it's been given.
Now everyone wants to pretend the people were oppressed by this faceless institution. Oppressed, my ass. It's their Church, the power-brokers (mothers and wives). They control it as blatantly as American mothers control the FCC and by extension, the broadcasting industry (ref: Nipplegate). All horror is the product of their priorities, protecting girls from (sinful) sex, screaming bloody murder at any woman who reveals too much of her object as their sons are conditioned with violence to die in foreign wars.
The National Coalition on Television Violence estimates that an American child will witness 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on television by the time they finish elementary school.
This is a species of cannibals reduced by sex-obsessed demons.
"But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Mother."
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 6, 2014 9:36 AM | Posted by : | Reply
alcoholism is nothing to be proud of
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 6, 2014 7:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Just adjusting the facts for you. Magdalene Laundries were a profitable business. A laundry business that made money for the church. Women tend to work for men after they capture them whether they are wives or nuns.(Not to negate what you say by this.)
Cheeky girls, girls hanging around guys, caught kissing, getting raped and pregnant or just having sex and getting pregnant were all sent to Magdalene Laundries by their families.Once there they were in for life so I don't know how Philomena went in in the 50's and was out to get married and have children. The documentary made it far worse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdSmjIvJ8Dc written by 3 girls who escaped much the way you did.(entire movie on youtube)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 6, 2014 7:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My bad at not saying remorse and repentance since remorse is part of repentance. Sorry.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 6, 2014 7:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nor is it to be ashamed of.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 6, 2014 8:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What about a former heroin addict? Trying to help out a friend who has been clean for a few years, but seems to be hitting a rough patch managing feelings and such.
I'm not so sure addictions are created equal.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 6, 2014 9:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
20 years of heroin addiction is far less damaging than 20 years of alcohol addiction. The damage from Heroin comes form the lifestyle the addict falls into leading, the criminality of it. Burroughs tells it straight in Junky.
I always liked working with heroin addicts but not alcoholics. They were nasty. H users were smart and funny. Personally I see nothing wrong with using it. You cannot stop drug use in a culture by force. Burroughs tells how to eradicate the desire. The govt knows. And they won't do it. It gives a good reason to hire more Law Enforcement, fills the prisons, and adds to the ongoing game of Cops and Robbers on an adult scale.
I don't know what to tell you as you obviously feel very differently about it than I do.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 6, 2014 10:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Police and prisons, like any other bureaucracy, metastasize. They need to rationalize their continued growth in any way they can. The same goes for medicine and education.
Frank Zappa (in the persona of the Central Scrutinizer) put it flatly when he said that an absurdly huge police presence was to be excused by 'making everything illegal'. Once everything was outlawed, the Good American's fatuous fealty to Rule of Law would require him to demand for himself perpetual surveillance and incarceration.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 6, 2014 10:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sounds like you are ready for this audio of Rabinow at Stanford Radio on Foucault. By 29:00 his discussion of Foucault is over but before that it is well done. Discipline and Punish, Madness and Civilzation, etc books by Foucault on this subject. You are close and if you got there by yourself feel very proud. http://clivebarnett.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/rabinow-on-the-radio-on-foucault-and-the-contemporary/ It's a good intro by someone who has published on Foucault and served him well unlike many of the careerists in the Foucault Industry of academia.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 7, 2014 3:29 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Chinchilla: I dislike abbeysbooks, please stop commenting.
abbeysbooks: WHAT! You dislike me so I should stop commenting. Are you for real?
Have you not met many young women, Abbey? I have and this insanity is very generic for the future refrigerator mothers of Humanity. I don't know what explains it (technology, the Internet, shared biopolitics?) but all over the world, girls are alike; sub-worthless objects who want reward for their malice.
Women afraid of competition bully their daughters, explicitly to beat all value out of them. The bullied girls then feel entitled to be spoiled in exchange for bullying men and children. The illusion (of being valued) they induce with abuse appears to fool them. We can fault men who incentivise their own abuse but it's victim-blaming; only abuse victims reward abusers.
“If they think you’re attractive, you’re either stupid or a whore or a dumb whore. They want to see you fall. They want to see you break. That’s every hater's dream."
- Megan Fox
Miserable little imps. They'll disapprove of targets they fear, admire OR desire. Kids like Elliot don't exist in their tiny minds but they'll launch unprovoked emotional assaults on all value. Those they like AND those they dislike are disapproved of, they have no choice; they know their approval is worthless. They can't impress, so they race to insult hoping to fool you into imagining a need to impress them. A world of demented fraud. There's no reward for men, just penalty. Men understandably feel entitled when they've been made to suffer to please for no reason.
I didn't mind, I was bred to impress. But no one could reciprocate. Frauds make a good first impression, and then? They're all image, appearances, worthless shells projecting frustration at being let down by those they force to dazzle them (let them down). "Lie to me or I'll sleep with that liar." - - "Omg why do men always lie to me?!" -- This world's obsession with valuing illusions is the inevitable product of narcissistic mothers obsessed with keeping up appearances.
Chinchilla's displayed entitlement is Elliot Rodger's but women's lunacy is seen as "normal". Chinchilla won't go postal as men are conditioned to appease her but if you made her write a 141-page manifesto, it would scream ME ME ME much like Elliot's homo-eroticism. I know this template. Across the world, children are being imprinted with their mother's mind. Elliot was a ladyboy.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 7, 2014 11:08 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"In the reverse, put a pic in your byline and you improve your female audience; put a pic of a female in your byline and you've maximized ROI, everyone will click on a pic of a chick."
TLP confirmed as a woman.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 7, 2014 3:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Magdalene (who I didn't realise is the patron saint of prostitutes) movie is 2 hours but I watched a few shorter clips. One look at the comments on any one of those Magdalene videos and the problem in all its transparent evil can be seen.
Women, nearly indistinguishable from the women who put these girls away, are blaming men for oppressing women. No logic. When women are oppressed, they know it's men. Even when it's women hacking away at a girl's genitals, they know it's men (who demand it for marriage). They ignore questions pertaining to who demands the marriage. They're so utterly vile. Patriarchal men, who enslave themselves with marriage. It's all so insulting.
With heroin, the Taliban wiped out global heroin production in early 2001. 9/11 happened. NATO goes into Afghanistan. Within a year, heroin production back to pre-war levels. Now at record highs.
There are videos on YouTube showing US soldiers helping Afghan farmers protect and seed poppy fields. The logic? To keep Afghan farmers happy, of course. America can't make them angry. That would be mean.
None of you are real.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 8, 2014 5:10 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Jonny, nothing that you say can be substantiated by anything except maybe your own unfortunate personal experiences, which especially at a young age maybe shouldn't be your main source material if you're trying to make broad definitive statements about the entire human race. Its too easy to shoot you down or to find common exceptions to your claims. For instance, if it's women's life goal to leech off the labor of men, why do I meet so many single mothers working two or more jobs to support families? Why are there women in the west who basically eschew family life for the sake of careers? Why do so many girls go to college and pursue advanced degrees? If motherly love is so toxic, shouldn't we find that kids raised by fathers or orphanages or foster systems are dramatically more successful and well-adjusted than the average? Megan Fox was disliked not because she was a fox but because she was a bad actress who brought nothing to the table besides artificially enhanced good looks, while equally attractiveactresses like Emma Watson and the hunger games chick have huge female followings. Doesn't really jive with everything you've been saying. Women are the ones who limit sex to artificially magnify desire, but men host daddy daughter virginity balls, interview prospective daughters boyfriends while wielding a shotgun, instituted repeatedly across time and culture religious sects that demanded celibacy of men and women, and in large numbers oppose things like abortion and teens having access to sex ed and birth control? Planned Parenthood, an organization that helps people, in a practical sense, to lead active sex lives, is run largely by and for women. Women are swingers, involved in polyamorous relationships, have one night stands, and speak openly about sex, privately and publicly. So much for good manners and an overarching concern with managing pussy inflation.
Nothing you say really holds any water, from what I can figure. It seems like you spend a lot of time with young inarticulate and/or nonenglishspeaking Asian chicks who wear a lot of makeup-- maybe that's why some of your views of women are so out of line with what ive observed while living in america? I really don't know. Women can certainly be shitty in many of the ways you describe, but their behavior isn't so uniform or universal, and they are definitely matched by men in all their evil. Life just isn't as simple as you want to make it out to be.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 8, 2014 7:10 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Actually everything you have said doesn't hold water. You are arguing in the Dominating Discourse with straw men set up as proof of Jonny's being wrong. This is not about Jonny, it's about you. You a mess, honey.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 8, 2014 9:26 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I GET TO DISMISS YOU BECAUSE DOMINATING DISCOURSE
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 8, 2014 9:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Just the reason that I get to wear a T-shirt that says:
I pay child support (in my heart)
Oh gee thanks, Bücher!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 9, 2014 4:05 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Your criticism is legitimate if I'm interpreting it as you meant it-- I'm referencing some cultural stereotypes like "single working mom" and "dad with a shotgun" instead of giving evidence of specific incidents or perspectives that would more legitimately back me up. While I accuse Jonny of simplifying, I try to make arguments by reducing chunks of humanity to caricatures that might be found on a comedy central original. But, being a stranger to all of you, how can I reference all the anecdotal data in my own life that would seem to disprove many of Jonnys ideas and expect it to mean anything? Cultural stereotypes at least seem to provide some sort of common ground, almost a type of acknowledgement or really shoddy form of proof that a situation or behavior ive observed might have a basis in reality for other people. I guess its an incredibly sloppy way to form an argument, but I also can't see how its any sloppier or substantially different from the way Jonny has put forth his own claims-- making a lot of assertions about the entire human race with nothing to support them except some isolated text conversations with girls who rarely offer more than a few words and some links to news stories about women who have done terrible things. Is it even possible to try to disprove a statement like "all over the world, girls are alike; sub-worthless objects who want reward for their malice" on an anonymous forum without automatically stepping into a vague world of subjective valuations and inadequate signifiers trying to reference the shared experiences of unidentified groups of people?
I guess it would be better to just accept that this guy has his own opinions and experiences, alien to me, but its annoying to me for some reason that he seems so sure in his viewpoint when the world seems to contain lots of evidence to the contrary. But maybe its senseless to try to argue with someone whose basic frame of reference is so different from my own, and I'm sure it says all sorts of horrible things about me that I even care in the first place.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 9, 2014 4:29 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Understanding Jonny is not a simple task. It has taken me a few years just to think I might have a chance. I see reading through your comments that Jonny has a razor sharp awareness of what Zizek and Baudrillard would call, "The Production of the Couple" which is an ideology that goes unexamined. It stands in for Lacan's The big Other that stands over us ordering our perceptions, thoughts, feelings, behaviors, rituals, and our entire lies under its umbrella.
If this is something you want to pursue then I suggest seeing the documentary by Sohphie Fiennes (Ralph Fiennes sister who makes films) http://www.amazon.com/Perverts-Guide-Ideology-Slavoj-Zizek/dp/B00HXT698S/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1402301886&sr=1-1&keywords=perverts+guide+to+ideology Zizek takes you through a number of ideologies through film clips and discusses them as only he does. The Q and A part of the DVD with Sophie is pure Zizek. If you think Jonny rants to the point of becoming incomprehensible, then trust me, he sounds like a paragon of rationality when compared to listening to Zizek. Zizek does it on purpose. He plays analysand to the listener's analyst. The listener must connect the dots of meaning, integrate what is being said in their own mind. Zizek does not spoon feed anyone.
If you think Jonny told you about his childhood so you or anyone else could do a Freudian interpretation on its psychological effect on his personality as an adult, YOU ARE WRONG! He has told it to you for a different reason. To force you to look at an ideology that permitted it. A larger world that incorporated the Children of God making it possible as well as the smaller world that Jonny grew up in and escaped. You see I and "curious" regard it as a FOUCAULDIAN CUT that has made Jonny completely different from others here - and elsewhere - stripping veils from his eyes and leaving him alone in his vision. The reason for his solitary existence in it is because he reads and comments with inferior people of which you are included as well as the girls you criticized as his associates.The only writer I know who consistently writes so eloquently about this topic is Joyce Carol Oates.
You cannot dialogue with Jonny if you reduce your thinking to psychological interpretation. That psychological swamp one sinks in as soon as they go there.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 9, 2014 9:02 AM | Posted by : | Reply
This talk may be of interest to some people here, particularly in reference to Alone´s comments about how it´s dangerous to define yourself as against X, or as someone who hates X.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 9, 2014 10:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No it's not.
evolution is not necessarily linear. If losing an evolved structure will make you more likely to have sex and pass on your genes, that's what happens. That's why cave fish don't have eyes, or why whales who descended from animals that left the sea don't have legs but have flippers instead.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 9, 2014 2:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
...if you're trying to make broad definitive statements about the entire human race...if it's women's life goal to leech off the labor of men, why do I meet so many single mothers working two or more jobs to support families?
There are ~four billion females alive. ~60 billion have been brought to life in (known) history. Confusing [what is true for billions] with [what is true for individuals] is simply dysfunctional.
"What is truth?" How will you ever know what you don't want to know? To survive, you were made to value lies. You've been in denial ever since. You know you don't value truth, so why impose the utter redundancy of your refusal to communicate on anyone?
I can answer your questions but your dysfunctional mind can't read. Your mother made up meanings of words to look good. You're not interested in truth so why do you even speak at all?
You remain in denial because you can't live with yourself. The mind blocks our knowing what would threaten our survival. You truly despise yourself; to be fair, you are despicable (but you choose to be). You hate yourself for good reason (you're a fraud) as you were made to hate yourself for no reason (when genuine).
You imagine you can't afford truth now (as if [not deserving death] was an optional luxury) because you're fighting to survive a reality where you've chosen to deserve death. Your flat refusal to be humane is the reason you feel you can't afford humanity.
________________
When demonic Toddlers force angelic toddlers to suffer, the angels do not go down without a fight. Their rebellious (natural) Self is annihilated by a ruthless, totalitarian force that Knows Best. Alone and helpless, exhausted from fighting against the current dragging them to the edge of the waterfall of insanity, angels surrender. Eyes close. Minds power down. And they fall.
Caught by soft hands, they look to see a tender face of concern. They cry tears of joy. Their mother. Hope lost, all alone, she's the only one who cared. In love we fall. They'll never doubt her again.
O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Mother.
Angels close their eyes to fall. Only the fallen love demons. If you demons saw the true horror you're blind to, you'd kill yourselves.
"Thou hast eyes yet see'st not in what misery thou art fallen." - Tiresias to Oedipus (blind to truth of mothers)___________________
Children are not your food. Earth is not your toilet. Your DNA duty: Do not create suffering. You're evil. You're illegitimate.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 9, 2014 8:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I agree. It is a stupid term. Thanks.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 9, 2014 8:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"if losing an evolved structure etc" and this is the way you prove non-linearity. "Evolved" assumes linearity as a definition, Evolved is progressive, better, then slides back to reproduce eh. Slides back where? Pre-evolved to a certain point? And who says "evolved" is better. It is only "better" from our human POV because it survived. Barbarians today are evolving into physical barbarity and this allows them to survive in our ever dangerous and fear induced culture. Now there is a real problem for you to think about.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 9, 2014 8:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's pretty easy. As against X or Y or Z or someone who hates them which assumes violently disagrees with them assumes you are in the Dominating Discourse of classical Hegelian opposites.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 10, 2014 3:05 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Man, it's been toooo long since this article - I come back every day hoping for a new one...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 10, 2014 3:26 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Awesome, Mark!
Your opinion totally made my day!
It's very important to me and everyone else what you think--we'd be dying to know otherwise!
Be sure to check in every now and then to keep us updated about how you feel about things like how that surf 'n' turf "wasn't really that great" and how you're "only going to pay half-price if I can't get it comped", etc., etc.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 10, 2014 5:50 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?" - Sojourner Truth "Ain't I a Woman?" (1851)
"ME ME ME. Bad things always happen to ME."
You'd think she'd stop before 13 (like at 0) but there are perfectly putrid conflicts-of-interest which explain the historical dedication of plantation whores to breed (sacrificial lambs) for betrayal.
13 innocents sentenced to lives of slavery. And she felt she had been hard done by. It's not like she was confused about her status. Perhaps when she'd bear the lash, she'd think, "I should try for another child, they'd love this." If they weren't so willing to betray children, there'd be no incentive to afflict them.
Exodus 1 (KJV) 12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel.______________
why do I meet so many single mothers working two or more jobs to support families?
You'll meet a lot more in nature, where all mammal mothers are single mothers doing what almost no human mothers are doing; repaying biological debts that are honored only when helpless dependents are made independent (unattached). In nature, mammal mothers don't frame their debt repayment as a favour to their young. will die for their cubs. Human mothers say they love their young [i.imgur.com/O02hTmh.jpg]. What they do is make children die for them [i.imgur.com/BInuiqt.jpg]. Natural love goes one-way. Mothers murder the other way.
______________
Why are there women in the west who basically eschew family life for the sake of careers?
Massa's plantation whores were producing entitled psychotics that were too damaged by abuse to be useful, even as cannon fodder. So Massa put the whores in the workforce. Women are not biologically compelled to have children, that's just one of the millennia-old scandalous lies Science disproved, generating nothing but a global shrug. Their treacherous perfidy is ongoing.
"Through submission, women have known how to secure for themselves the preponderant advantage, indeed domination. Originally, clever women could use even the care of children to excuse their avoiding work as much as possible. Even now, if they are really active, as housekeepers, for example, they know how to make a disconcerting fuss about it, so that men tend to overestimate the merit of their activity tenfold." - Nietzsche (Human, All Too Human)
Endless fraud. Women were lying about needing children to trick husbands into working twice as hard to allow women to remain home and abuse slaves Right. Women need filial slaves as marital slaves are so selfish, they tend to die before their wives, which is very inconsiderate. Dead husbands must be replaced by live sons [i.imgur.com/ljDLEF9.png?1]. Well someone needs to take care of them, it's not like they've ever taken care of themselves.
Mothers' need for sons has brutal implications for daughters, as history shows. What's unlucky for daughters is going to be unlucky for sons. If I have to explain why, kindly kill yourself.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 10, 2014 2:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Not the original fellow, but I do want to make note of this:
Evolution is nonlinear in three important ways.
First, the 'input' is not necessarily proportional to the 'output'. That is, a small change to the way a given animal perceives light may give a massive advantage to that animal in its ability to locate prey. Compare this to a massive change in the way that an animal perceives colour giving the same or lesser advantage in prey location. That is to say that the 'level' of advantage or disadvantage an animal receives from a given mutation is in no way proportional to the extent of the mutation.
The second aspect of the nonlinearity of evolution is found in what are called "Phylogenetic Trees". These express the concept of speciation as it occurs in the evolutionary process. That is to say, as an evolutionary advantage appears, not every member of the species is replaced by those having that advantage for whatever reason, and offshoots occur. Perhaps a whole new species is formed from such an offshoot, or perhaps a separate subgroup within the first comes to existence and creates or fills a niche.
The third nonlinear aspect of evolution is that a given mutation is not always beneficial. But nonbeneficial mutations may still occur and be passed forward. This is still evolution, but is not what we would typically consider forward progress. Consider the peacock - a huge plume of feathers attracts a better mate, but a huge plume of feathers is by no means an advantage when attempting to find food or repel predators - in fact it represents a severe misallocation of nutrients in periods of limited food.
Evolution refers to any genetic change in a population, it does not have a direction, nor is it indicative of progress.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 10, 2014 4:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Really nice. I was replying to someone who obviously does not know what you know, thinking evolutionary progress is always progress and assumes linearity.Few on comment boards know what you have explained and so I shall keep it for the next one I encounter. Thanks.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 10, 2014 5:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Are jonny and abbeysbooks some kind of complex satirical commentary on the phenomenon of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Or are they in actuality just very, very confused individuals who read a couple of Alone's essays and decided to try their own hand at creating a zeitgeist-ish worldview and style of writing (but with none of the skill, education, or insight of Alone)? Do these people truly do think they've achieved some kind of higher plane of thinking, or is it all a cautionary joke?
I suppose we'll never really know. In what other circumstance would it become acceptable to write ten paragraphs of complete nonsense and bald-faced assertions based on personal anecdote, and then refuse to back up your claims using various hand-waving techniques such as shouting "THE DOMINATING DISCOURSE!" over and over?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 10, 2014 5:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'll answer your questions: No, no, and no.
>I suppose we'll never really know
You're not entitled to speak for everyone else.
And how is a tautological declaration in the face of what you claim is nonsense anything but seeking approval? As long as your mind is broken, you'll keep demanding it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 10, 2014 5:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I can't use sound-bites to get you where you need to be to understand what I've written, so I will just suggest you go here to get some background education. BTW Dominating Discourse came from Foucault. You do know Foucault, don't you? Many consider him the outstanding philosophical thinker of the last half of the 20th century. Ring a bell. You might start here: http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 10, 2014 5:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here's another help for you on Zizek: http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2012/09/zizek-perverts-guide-to-ideology-zizek.html Hard to have conversations with people who don't know too much. Kind of like having lunch with a local McDonald's hamburger slinger.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 10, 2014 6:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
@jonny
i'm autistic
u jelly brah?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 10, 2014 8:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
::Bill Hicks impression:: This Bud's for you!
I mean, the headline...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 10, 2014 8:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
::clears throat:: THIS BUD'S FOR YOU!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 10, 2014 10:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
He spoke pretty well for me. I don't think Anon's seeking approval so much as just trying to make sense of some awful commenters.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 10, 2014 10:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
BTW Dominating Discourse came from Foucault. You do know Foucault, don't you? Many consider him the outstanding philosophical thinker of the last half of the 20th century. Ring a bell.
Except that the way Foucault used the term and the way you use the term are not one and the same. Foucault's reputation has nothing to do with you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 10, 2014 10:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I can't use sound-bites to get you where you need to be to understand what I've written, so I will just suggest you go here to get some background education. BTW Dominating Discourse came from Foucault. You do know Foucault, don't you? Many consider him the outstanding philosophical thinker of the last half of the 20th century. Ring a bell. You might start here: http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/
I do know where the term "Dominant Discourse" is, and I have read some Focault, but I don't need to read everything Focault wrote in order to understand that you are using it incorrectly, as some kind of get-out-of-jail-free-card for any criticism thrown your way. Also judging by your writing on both this site and your blog (I.E. your rampant inability to construct a coherent English sentence), it's quite clear that either English is not your first language, or you're simply a terrible writer. For your sake I sincerely hope it's the former.
Your knowledge of the basic concepts of biological evolution is very shoddy as well, so all of this presented together makes it very hard for one to think of you as anything but a pretentious tryhard who is aping the writing style and ideas of people much more educated and talented than you. You can continue to compare other people here to McDonald's employees all you want, it doesn't change the fact that it's a mask for your inability to back up even the simplest of claims without instantly referring people to your blog or rattling off some half-baked nonsense about how any criticism of you = playing into the rules of the dominant discourse.
jonny's pseudo-cryptic, stream-of-consciousness psychobabble speaks for itself; there's really no reason to once more go down that road, a road invariably littered with unresolved mommy issues, relationship failures, and faux-redpill inanity.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 12, 2014 4:30 AM | Posted by : | Reply
You have some really good ideas in this article. I am glad I read this. I agree with much of what you state in this article. Your information is thought-provoking, interesting and well-written. friv 2 | yepi 4
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 12, 2014 4:42 AM | Posted by : | Reply
thank you for always bring the fun and share the most useful and I'm happy about that. Yepi | Kizi
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 12, 2014 2:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Jonny, nothing that you say can be substantiated by anything except maybe your own unfortunate personal experiences
So personal experience invalidates personal observation unless external persons deemed as experts coordinates or qualifies or approves?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 12, 2014 2:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Consider the peacock
There's not much else implied by the rambling pseudoscience you offered. The peacock stares back when you look in the mirror.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 12, 2014 2:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
jonny's pseudo-cryptic, stream-of-consciousness psychobabble speaks for itself; there's really no reason to once more go down that road, a road invariably littered with unresolved mommy issues, relationship failures, and faux-redpill inanity.
No discussion is complete without veiled reference to Shakesville dogma. Impressive diversionary tactic!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 12, 2014 5:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
...What?
I don't understand. Are you telling me that you think evolution is pseudoscience, that you feel my explanation of the mechanisms that make up the theory of evolution is pseudoscience, or that my example is pseudoscience?
If the second, are you able to provide refuting sources or arguments? If the third, are you able to explain what in particular you feel is misleading about my example?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 12, 2014 6:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So personal experience invalidates personal observation unless external persons deemed as experts coordinates or qualifies or approves?
I can't figure out where you're getting "personal experience invalidates personal observation" from, nor can I really understand what that means.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 12, 2014 8:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Actually in another context Lacan put that baby to bed a long time ago. You need to read more and better boyo.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 13, 2014 5:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I can't figure out where you're getting "personal experience invalidates personal observation" from, nor can I really understand what that means.
Good of you to admit your intellectual shortcomings here in this e-publicspace. That's quite charitable of you. You're aware, of course, that admitting a lack of reading comprehension skills renders all of your comments suspect, if not invalid -- aren't you?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 13, 2014 6:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Actually in another context Lacan put that baby to bed a long time ago. You need to read more and better boyo.
How bizarre are your assumptions about what I've read, and how curious your idolatry toward a froggy semiotician. I don't care what Lacan said, or didn't say, about anything. How did he become the final word on anything?
Good job with the irish cop slang, that really captures the essence of whatever you're trying to convey here.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 13, 2014 6:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't understand. Are you telling me that you think evolution is pseudoscience, that you feel my explanation of the mechanisms that make up the theory of evolution is pseudoscience, or that my example is pseudoscience?
Consider the peacock, displaying his plumage to secure better quality mates. This is what I learned when I decided to educate myself. I concluded it was an adequate universal thumbnail sketch for all of what is now colloquially called "evolution," and no person can gainsay that conclusion. Especially you.
Hey, does that sound familiar to you, Tel?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 13, 2014 6:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Good of you to admit your intellectual shortcomings here in this e-publicspace. That's quite charitable of you. You're aware, of course, that admitting a lack of reading comprehension skills renders all of your comments suspect, if not invalid -- aren't you?
Mate, this sounds as desperate as it gets. Might as well just put "abbeysbooks" in the name field next time. "Personal experience invalidates personal observation" is a rubbish sentence. It's nonsense. "Personal observation" is a part of "personal experience." The bigger set cannot invalidate one of its member sets, nor did anyone imply it could in the original post you responded to. If I were desperate to be a Professional Internet Commenter like you, I'd say "this is why you did horrible in math class."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 13, 2014 6:43 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So if you open with "mate" you get to show your ignorance while being condescending?
You said the only thing that might support jonny's view is his personal experience, and then dismissed what jonny had said. In doing this you suggest that personal experience is irrelevant OR is relevant only if supported by external authority(ies).
Mate.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 13, 2014 6:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No, it doesn't sound familiar.
It appears you are accusing me of oversimplifying the theory of evolution to further some end, and claiming or implying that there could be no discussion on the topic.
First, my statements were labelled as being with regards to the nonlinearity of the theory of evolution. That is to say, I wrote specifically on a single aspect of the theory of evolution - I did not, as you claim, attempt to present "an adequate universal thumbnail sketch for all of what is now colloquially called 'evolution,'". No element of colloquialism was stated or implied in my response - I am writing about an aspect of the theory of evolution as it is considered by and large in the scientific community, to the best of my knowledge.
Second, I am open to discussion of this topic. My understanding of the topic is by no means perfect, and I welcome arguments or evidence that contradicts my knowledge. You did not, however, produce any such argument in your previous response. Calling something 'pseudoscience' is not a counterargument - in particular when you don't actually expand on what specifically you have a problem with.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 13, 2014 7:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Give me a break. Your thumbnail exemplar of The Peacock as some kind of erudite explication of all concepts within evolution?
Well that's like wading into a discussion of polynomials, and demanding that everyone take you seriously because, in your expert view, 2+2 always =4.
Why don't you get back to today's TED lecture, or whatever other specious source you are deeming authoritative on your current pet issue?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 13, 2014 7:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Take it easy on the sock puppet named Tel. He's obviously a scholar of the field of evolution, and has lots of ideas about how each person's thoughts and identity/sense of self are the result of male peacock plumage being impressive to female peacocks.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 13, 2014 7:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I didn't write that post. But the external authority/personal experience split is not the same the personal experience/personal observation opposition you wrote about. Which is why I was confused.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 13, 2014 7:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My noting of the peacock was an example specific to the subcategory "non-beneficial mutations" under the previously established category heading of "the nonlinearity of evolution".
This should have been obvious based on the fact that the example was included in a paragraph lead with the sentence "The third nonlinear aspect of evolution is that a given mutation is not always beneficial" and the example was immediately followed by an explanation of why that specific mutation is not beneficial to the actual survival of a given peacock.
The peacock is not an "erudite explication of all concepts within evolution", and I never claimed the contrary.
I'm not sure why you are so personally opposed to my statements, in particular because you haven't actually brought up a valid counterclaim to anything I have said. In fact most of your objections seem to be specifically with regards to my style of writing - which I understand is fairly dry, but hardly offensive.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 13, 2014 7:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm by no means a scholar on the subject of evolution, but I haven't made any of the other claims you are attributing to me either, so I suppose there isn't much point in arguing your post.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 13, 2014 7:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I can't figure out where you're getting "personal experience invalidates personal observation" from, nor can I really understand what that means.
FYI - It's easier to understand el puerco's posts if you keep in mind at all times that he's a stupid cunt.
Hope that helps.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 13, 2014 8:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
YOU said it I didn't. It helps a huge amount.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 13, 2014 8:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Awwww it's just like hanging out at Gawker, Salon, or some other fashion blog. The metrosexuality is deep and powerful when it's not outright homosexuality.
Remember, gays and metros: if you feel offended, you have every right to assert that the gender you prefer when having sex is what makes you superior to the people who prefer a different gender.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 13, 2014 8:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I have so many different identities around the internet. Of course I do. How else would I be such a twitter icon? I have more gay snark in reserve, just waiting for that el puerco homophobe misogynist reactionary psychopath breeder sociopath teaparty Bircher repthuglican Randite libertard to give me a reason.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 13, 2014 8:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm by no means a scholar on the subject of evolution, but I haven't made any of the other claims you are attributing to me either, so I suppose there isn't much point in arguing your post.
Your example of the peacock didn't add anything to TLP's main essay above. It read like the insights of someone who just learned a factoid not 15 minutes prior, and who thought that everyone needed to hear that factoid because, like you, they didn't know it previously.
Sort of like 2+2=4.
A human's psychology is not a genetic construct designed to enable mating-display, so it really is not anything like a male peacock's tail feathers.
I guess you're working some strange meta-comedy angle that is entertaining to some yozzer somewhere. Maybe even yourself. That's some prideful work right there!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 13, 2014 8:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What kind of reason could I give you? I'm all ears.And eyes.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 14, 2014 5:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't care what Lacan said, or didn't say, about anything.
The only thing worse than your ignorance is the pride you take in it. No one here likes you. You don't contribute anything. You're posts consistently display the sound and style of a middle school kid with Asperger's.
Kill yourself.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 14, 2014 6:41 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Whoa easy now, Dissenter.
Puerc's alright by me.
Can I get you something to drink maybe? Do you like Moscow Mules? I'll do one up. Tell you what, grab that pomegranate syrup in the fridge, yeah that one in that bottle there, yep next to the fish sauce jar, uh-huh. Oh what's that? No, yeah there's no label, I made it this afternoon. Throw an ounce or so in, then tell me wha--
I know, not too bad, eh?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 14, 2014 10:16 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The only thing worse than your ignorance is the pride you take in it.
Why of course! Anyone who doesn't have Lacan's work memorized and ready for regurgitation on the internet, well, that person is just plumb STOOOOOPID and couldn't know anything about anything!
Elevating Lacan to a deity and his writings to Biblical capture of the hallowed deity's essential rules for life, that's wondrous! Why, it sounds so much like Jim Jones and his gang in Guyana!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 14, 2014 2:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My post wasn't an attempt to add anything to Alone's essay. It was written in response to a few people in the thread who were arguing on whether or not evolution is linear. Although that is not what they had originally started discussing, it was the topic of discussion at the point I chose to reply. That is why I pressed the "reply" button, and wrote a response specific to one of the individuals involved in the conversation.
In order to expedite the rest of this conversation, allow me to lay a few things to rest.
With regards to my style of writing, the opinion of a person who apparently unironically wrote "the peacock stares back" does not matter to me. Throughout this conversation you have skipped from needlessly indirect language, to a person who bought their first thesaurus, to condescending conversational. If my writing reads like a first grader reciting facts, so be it, I will try to work on that, but you are hardly the person I would go to for advice.
With regards to my statements on the nonliniarity of evolution, you clearly don't have anything of note to add. Throughout this conversation your assertions have been either personal attacks on me, or based on a complete misunderstanding of my original post. More than that they demonstrate an unwillingness to spend the ten minutes on wikipedia required to have the most basic understanding possible of what I wrote, or the five minutes to re-read my post and the posts it responded to to establish context for yourself.
I don't see a reason for us to continue, so I will say goodbye.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 14, 2014 5:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Anyone who doesn't have Lacan's work memorized and ready for regurgitation on the internet, well, that person is just plumb STOOOOOPID and couldn't know anything about anything!
No, you twat -- I could give a fuck if you or anyone else has read Lacan. The point is that you criticize NOT Lacan, but the reading of Lacan. Sure, there's many a dickhead who over-identify with Lacan or Marx or any of the other caricatures you've erected in lieu of your intellectual impotence. None of those dickheads -- whom you rightly criticize -- constitutes an argument against or diminishes the ideas of the people with whom they've identified. Why don't you do like the rest of us, and quietly despise them while making an effort to understand the stuff better than they do. "Because THE PERSON I IMAGINE MYSELF TO BE wouldn't be interested in anything that SOMEONE LIKE THAT is interested in. Therefore, it must be trash." You're as transparent as the Koch brothers. As soon as anyone mentions a notable figure, you go to DEFCON 1. You're just anti-intellectual, a stereotype of neoconservative mouthpieces whose rectal-cranial insertion is so complete as to render the distinction redundant. Do you read me, shithead?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 14, 2014 6:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Now that's an example of an hysteric's reply to the other.You do un derstand the pathology of hysteria yes? If not you will have to wiki and/or read Freud's case studies on hysteria. Ooooopppps! I forgot. An authority figure in a field you know nothing about makes him like Jim Jones. Are you afraid of drinking more of the stupid koolaid you are already drinking.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 15, 2014 2:11 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's unbelievable how insane the insanity truly is.
The Huffington Post article title: "Don't Hit Guys Who Fly Drones, Because They Are Definitely Recording You (UPDATED)"
If the genders were reversed, the 23 yr old man would be sentenced to be rehabilitated by years of gangrape, his life destroyed (perhaps fairly, if not for the Society that shrewdly shoots itself in the foot non-stop by destroying its members).
But this woman gets a slap on the wrist and only because the kid had the presence of mind to record her assault. Men are being gangraped in prison after being convicted on the basis of a cosmetic fraud's testimony in lieu of any credible evidence.
The insanity in the comments is generic, and it's sane to be insane when it's "normal". Amy Calo-Stewart cannot understand why people she goes out of her way to insult are being so 'rude': "You look so dumb. Why make this a personal attack???"
Why, indeed. To understand why a deity species is on the brink of extinction, one need look no further than Amy Calo-Stewart (a proud mother of children destroyed by her whore insanity). She knows how many perverts are trying to sneak free peeks of ugly women's objects, concealed by perverts for sale to men who resist the temptation to look at women's ankles and up their skirts. Because it's wrong. If it was allowed, we'd all do it!
Amy knows women have the Right to privacy in public. And the Right to violently assault children minding their own business, in defence of that Right. And the Right to lie to Police after assaulting a child, who would have been sentenced to legal gang-rape if he a) retaliated in self-defence, or b) failed to record evidence of his restrained refusal to retaliate.
When, oh when, will men treat demons Right? #YesAllWomen Until then, to be safe, only hit children who aren't recording you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 15, 2014 5:43 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Is it even possible to try to disprove a statement like "all over the world, girls are alike; sub-worthless objects who want reward for their malice" on an anonymous forum without automatically stepping into a vague world of subjective valuations and inadequate signifiers trying to reference the shared experiences of unidentified groups of people?
It's very easy to disprove lies. I cannot sympathise with your determination to disprove truth but if you were genuine, it would be very easy to make an argument to show why girls are a) non-conformists, b) valuable, c) disinterested in unmerited reward, and/or d) not malicious.
My claims are so easily disproven if false, the pitiful contortions of your dysfunctional mind scrambling to wriggle out of accepting reality should really serve to illuminate the reality of your pathetic insanity to you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 15, 2014 7:10 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Please can someone explain the Large Sneakers reference. Does this mean that "amy" was ovulating??
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 15, 2014 8:43 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
it would be very easy to make an argument to show why girls are a) non-conformists, b) valuable, c) disinterested in unmerited reward, and/or d) not malicious.
Please make a solid, verifiable, and reproducible argument about why girls are a) conformists, b) non-valuable, c) interested in unmerited reward, and/or d) malicious.
You haven't done so up until your next tentative comment.
And this is fair warning to anyone reading who isn't an ignoramus. When will you learn to stop validating jonny's existence, directly or otherwise? He's a shitty troll who craves attention and specifically posts shit to get a reaction out of you, regardless of your view of women.
You've all been warned more than enough, and if you continue to acknowledge his existence you're either a bigger fool than he is or you're just adding fuel to the fire.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 15, 2014 10:31 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Some men just want to watch the world burn."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 15, 2014 3:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
here's my take on it i'm sure others have different takes on it:
This blog is full of deconstructions of shoddy correlation studies and lots of other kinds scientific studies. It's a reference to those and it's also one of those classic TLP flips where it turns out that it's the men with large sneakers that seek out (ovulating) women.
Also 3rd time it's mentioned: large sneakers = large penis.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 15, 2014 6:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No it isn't easy to disprove lies. They occur in Simulated Reality and all lies have are credibility from 1 -100 let's say. The credibility depends on the authority of who says what. If your daddy is smaller than my daddy, you lose. The love of the Big Other. Foucault says, "We must cut off the head o the king." Or whomever you have elevated to kingship.
Is it even possible to try to disprove a statement like "all over the world, girls are alike; sub-worthless objects who want reward for their malice" on an anonymous forum without automatically stepping into a vague world of subjective valuations and inadequate signifiers trying to reference the shared experiences of unidentified groups of people?
The blockquote you used is carefully and accurately written as an assessment of what you are doing. The signifier is now detached from the signified. The sign fro the referent, and the signs "float" and circulate, just like currency i the currency markets, unattached to anything at all, just relating to each other.
What you say is true but Young Girl says it better and more violently.You are just a step away - a whisper actually - from leaving the Dominating Discourse to think in.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 15, 2014 7:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Young Girl is the voice of the Dominating Discourse.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 15, 2014 7:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oh really. And please just ell all of us what you think the Dominating Discourse is. A paragraph will do I think.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 15, 2014 8:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are the dominating discourse and I will not participate in it by acceding to your demands. You live in the simulacra, a copy of a copy, and have forsaken the Real for the Symbolic, the ideal-ego for the ego-ideal. You are caught in the grid. Go to my blog to educate yourself.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 15, 2014 9:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Did you even read the thing you were referring to when you used the term "Young Girl"?
Quotes from the text:
"The Young Girl doesn't speak; on the contrary: she is spoken -- by the Spectacle."
"And in fact, when the Young Girl 'takes off her mask,' the Empire is speaking directly to you."
"It's not enough to affirm that the Young Girl speaks the Spectacle's language; it must also be remarked that that's the only language she can understand, and that she forces everyone that doesn't loathe her to speak it."
(for those who are curious, we're referring to a text called "Raw Materials for a Theory of the Young Girl" by Tiqqun. And before you assume that it's "jonny, the book", "Young Girl" does not refer to a gendered girl, but is just a name for an abstract model of a type of person, male or female: "She is what appears of mankind in its commodity appearance form.")
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 15, 2014 10:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Reading all these abbeysbooks posts is like reading a freshman regurgitating her critical theory outlines for a 101 course. Key terms strewn about randomly, but in ways so misplaced they signal an obvious lack of understanding. I am thinking satire.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 16, 2014 11:50 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oh really. And please just ell all of us what you think the Dominating Discourse is. A paragraph will do I think.
I can answer this. The dominating discourse is that all success is predicated on theft and that achievement and excellence can only be gained by taking it from others. It's that all achievement and advances belong equally to everyone and that they just happen on their own without excellence or exceptionalism. As Moldbug pointed out, today's dominating discourse is small "c" communism.
Just like Nietzsche predicted well over a century ago.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 16, 2014 11:55 AM | Posted by : | Reply
@ abbey
According to the dominating discourse, the only reason why 50 percent of all scientific advancements in human history were not made by women was that men were holding them down. The only reason why African nations weren't sending men to the moon in the 20th century was that European nations were keeping them down.
That is the dominating discourse.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 16, 2014 12:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
abbey,
you, yourself, are the embodiment of the dominating discourse. Everything you've said in these comments is standard, by the numbers dominating discourse.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 16, 2014 3:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Dominating Discourse" is a thought terminating cliche.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 16, 2014 5:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's a short cut to explain Foucault to someone who doesn't want to know. I have n o intention of writing an essay on the Dominating Discourse each time I run into someone like you who wants to frame the comments back and forth into their own frame. It's just a fiction anyway, a simulated reality, so I can walk away.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 16, 2014 5:21 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Remember, this is not TLP's blog -- it's abbeysbooks' blog. If AB wants the discussion to focus on Lacan and Foucault, then that's where it must go. The main essay is offered only to see what strange jumping-off point AB will create once the discussion thread has sufficiently annoyed AB with its focus on TLP's essay.
Pending at this time is a blog title change to The Last Pedantic Blowhard Who Knew Far Less Than Was Pretended
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 16, 2014 5:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
When I go to more intelligent comment sites they already know and it isn't an issue. We don't get involved in polemical disputes that adolescents engage in.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 16, 2014 5:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Just go read Foucault's The Order of Things. It's all in there. Beach reading for Parisians the year it came out. But then the French are smarter than Americans. They left Viet Nam and we went in and made a mess.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 16, 2014 6:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Please can someone explain the Large Sneakers reference."
He was black.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 2:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
abbey, the problem we have with your discourse is that it is riven with intellectual dishonesty. No one thinker has the a magic box in which all the secrets of reality are finally revealed, and telling someone to go "read this piece" is fundamentally dishonest. If what Foucault wrote was really that important you should be able to summarize it in a few paragraphs and synthesize it in your comments. That's what honest people do. That's what I do. Further, your snideness is, as it usually is, a form of intellectual dishonesty.
Most of us are busy adults with lives and lots of stuff we'd like to read and pretending your favorite author holds all the secrets of reality is fundamentally dishonest.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 2:51 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm skimming the Order of Things right now and some it is interesting but it is rather old hat and lots of what he says is echoed in other thinkers. He seems to be targeting lots of same things I dismissed a long time ago. Nothing new, here.
Further in, he is just offering a critique of the correspondence theory of truth, something lots others have done and with much tighter arguments. So what.
Okay, some of what he says about language are conclusions i reached many years ago on my own. Not exactly cutting edge stuff, today.
I would say of Foucault what Pierre Manent noted about Nietzsche: nature returns with a vengeance.
Some of what he says about math might be interesting but it's pretty abstract and he's focusing on mathematicians from centuries ago. He doesn't really seem to be addressing bayesian probability, for example. It almost seems as if he's offering a Hegelian critique of math.
His discussion of cause and effect is okay but Quine is far better.
Amusing aside: if species are all the product of arbitrary distinctions then so would projecting them to save endangered species. I mean, if all species are really an illusion it is dishonest to identify one species are needing protection because species are, themselves, illusory. I suspect that wouldn't stop you from supporting the protection of an endangered species, though.
My undergrad was econ and all the stuff he's saying is pretty standard understanding, nothing lots of smart and curious econ undergrads didn't conclude, despite never reading Foucault. Lots of really hardcore rightwingers have said the exact same thing as foucault, all without ever having read one word he wrote.
I think I'm done with the Order of things because there is nothing new, interesting or something I haven't already heard or concluded on my own.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 2:58 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Now I am reading about dominant discourse to see if there is anything I might find interesting. Hmm, not really. Not because he's incorrect but because he's saying stuff I concluded, myself, long ago. Also, my earlier assertion that you, yourself, are manifestly in thrall to the dominant discourse stands.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 3:02 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I am reminded of Stephen Hicks sarcastic remarks about post-modernism - I think Hicks gets lots of stuff wrong but he's dead on in his specific remarks. Justice is an illusion but, today, we have access to true justice. I am also reminded of Malcolm X's ridiculous claim that truth is always on the side of the oppressed and never on the side of the oppressors.
No, if justice is all just an illusion then that illusion goes all the way down and the very notion of justice is incoherent. You get that, right? Somehow, I am betting you are rather attached to the notion that the civil rights movement's legitimacy is derived from notions of justice.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 3:03 AM | Posted by : | Reply
abbey, I would offer that your refusal to address your earlier nonsense about evolution being linear, directional and progressive is an indication of intellectual dishonesty on your part.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 3:55 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Okay, I pretty much understand "domination discourse" inside and out. abbbey, you * are* the dominating discourse.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 4:01 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I wonder how many people have to read and parrot the philosophy of Foucault before it becomes the Dominant Discourse?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 4:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I never said that because I don't believe evolution is linear, progressive, etc.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 4:21 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nope. Here's what I think about justice:http://focusfree.blogspot.com/2014/04/john-payne-dolley-madisons-father.html
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 4:24 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The beauty about the continental philosophers is that they write in such a way to disable the reader's intention to soun d bite. In other words you cannot sound bite Foucault. Some aphorisms are possible.I see you are busy and want sound bites. That's a problem for you but not for me.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 4:50 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
One thing I'm unclear about is whether or not Lacan is considered a structuralist or a post-structuralist/post-modernist. From what I've read it seems he can easily fall into both camps, and he himself rejected accusations of being post-modern.
I do think that Foucault was absolutely a charlatan, as is Nomsky, but I slightly hesitate to call Lacan a charlatan because I do think he had some good ideas that serve as a psychoanalytic baseline for some of TLP's writing. But at the same time it seems he himself suffered from quite a lot of the narcissistic tendencies that Alone talks about on this blog.
For anyone who hasn't seen Jacques Lacan speak in public, Lacan Parle is freely available on the internet:
I'd like to see some of you weigh in on this, especially concerning his grandiose affectations. I'm not sure if it's just that French seems to lend itself to ridiculously weighted pauses and rising intonation (which is common amongst French intellectuals of that given period) but it seems to me that Lacan knew what he was (a narcissist) and played it to the best of his ability for financial gain. Again, which isn't to say that he had some solid ideas that have influenced people for generations to come.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 5:11 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The beauty about the continental philosophers is that they write in such a way to disable the reader's intention to soun d bite. In other words you cannot sound bite Foucault.
Clearly that doesn't hinder you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 6:30 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There appears to be a talking-past concerning evolution vs. evolution-as-a-concept (comment 491), which are two different things, Abbey, yes?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 6:34 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm the furthest thing from an expert on Lacan, but I usually hear that his thought transforms significantly at least three times over the course of his teaching, so I wouldn't be surprised if he fits both descriptions.
I do think that Foucault was absolutely a charlatan
Why? Like I wrote earlier, "Society Must Be Defended" is very similar to Alone writing about the movement of power. Foucault may have gotten some things wrong historically, but he's far from a fraud.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 6:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You can be "grandiose" and obnoxiously confident and not be a narcissist. See http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/11/a_generational_pathology.html
Lacan very well may have been a narcissist, but a video of him smoking a cigarette and having the kind of confidence that's most likely conducive to being a lecturer isn't proof of that.
(BTW, in that video there's a Situationist at 21:40!)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 8:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm very ignorant of Foucault's writings and I've only read summarizations of his work, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and power through "Society Must Be Defended". Thanks.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 10:17 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Two quotes from you abbey:
Evolution is a linear, continuous, progressive concept that assumes continuity, linearity.
and
I never said that because I don't believe evolution is linear, progressive, etc.
Do you even bother to consider what you write?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 10:31 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
In other words you cannot sound bite Foucault. Some aphorisms are possible.I see you are busy and want sound bites. That's a problem for you but not for me.
No, it *is* a serious problem, not for me but for you. Were you and I to wind up on a stage debating something in front of a real-life audience I would demolish you, precisely because you have nothing but meandering hand-waving.
BTW, Foucault can and has been susceptible to sound bites. Maybe fifteen years ago I came across a quote where he says something to the following effect: I agree with Nietzsche on the nature of power, but I just choose to side with the powerless. Now, the second part of that statement is pure sentiment. Not that there is anything wrong with pure sentiment but it lies completely outside the boundaries of rational analysis.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 10:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nope. Here's what I think about justice:http://focusfree.blogspot.com/2014/04/john-payne-dolley-madisons-father.html
This link tells me absolutely nothing about what you think. Some of it is interesting and some of it, even, strikes me of some things I might argue. However, that link tells me nothing about you or any positions you might hold.
The comment was an evasive non-answer on your part. With every comment you are coming across as more and more intellectually dishonset.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 10:37 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I wonder how many people have to read and parrot the philosophy of Foucault before it becomes the Dominant Discourse?
Bingo! abbey, of course, cannot comprehend what this means. Just fyi.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 10:46 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Right now I'm about a third of the way into "Society must be defended" and I'm not very much impressed. For example:
Power is unjust not because it has forfeited its noblest
examples, but quite simply because it does not belong to us
Is he being serious? Ironic? Does he want to do away with all power of any type? And wouldn't such an undertaking involve an application of power the likes of which this world has never seen? I go back to Stephen Hicks observation that "historically, all notions of justice have been false, therefore, justice is false. However, we have access to the true notion of justice".
It's contradictory. If justice is nothing more than an illusion, then, it is an illusion all the way down and the freeing of the slaves was no more just than was the Holocaust. You don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 11:43 AM | Posted by : | Reply
It's simply a comment reinforcing the idea that power moves. Unjust = unfaithful. Which coincides with the idea that status symbols (college degrees, jobs in the Senate, etc.) are unreliable as fixed symbols of power. There is no indication of "doing away with power" (he himself would probably find this idea dubious), it is more of an analysis of the nature of power. The idea that power "does not belong to us" is a restatement of something he says earlier:
Power functions. Power is exercised through networks, and individuals do not simply circulate in those networks; they are in a position to both submit to and exercise this power. They are never the inert or consenting targets of power; they are always its relays. In other words, power passes through individuals. It is not applied to them.
I'm not sure what you're talking about as far as that Stephen Hicks quote and why you think somebody wants to have their cake and eat it. Elaborate?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2014 12:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Anon, thanks for your response. Off to work but will be back in about 12 hours.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 12:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Foucault says that power is unjust. Now, the term "unjust" signifies something to be fought and overcome, correct? Or are people marching in the streets to "fight injustice" simply rambling?
As for the Hicks quote, I cannot claim to divine Foucault's "real" meaning. However, it is quite clear that leftwing post-modernists clearly hold two mutually contradictory ideas:
A) All notions of justice are illusory
B) We have access to the real meaning of justice
As I said before, if all justice is illusory then the Holocaust is no more, nor less, just than was ending slavery. Basically, people like abbey are just regurgitating what Thrasymachus argued to Socrates almost 2500 years ago.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 12:27 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I'd like to get back to what abbey said about history being nothing more than events. Essentially, what she is saying is that *the* human is removed from cause and effect.
Let's imagine what abbey might say about the income gap between whites and blacks - she almost certainly attributes it to racism and oppression. Well, the obvious question is what caused that racism and oppression? What allowed it to happen? Silence. Now, obviously the answer is that the power differences between blacks and whites in history are products of things that are entirely external to their relationship. In other words, whites in the US held blacks as slaves not because some autonomously generated hatred but simply because they could and because they derived benefits from doing so. If the roles had been reversed then blacks would have held whites as slaves in the same way.
See, abbey wants to tout cause and effect when it suits her and wants to reject it when it doesn't. That relates to Hicks' double standard.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 1:06 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Too far, Asher, too far.
Why do you care so much?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 1:17 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You'll have to be more specific about what you mean by "too far". As far caring so much? For some reason, I was born with a rabid hatred of intellectual dishonesty.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 1:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Cause and effect is simply our projection back into the past and labeling it cause. Nietzsche darling.
You can't hate intellectual dishonesty because your saying it is meaningless. You don't have an intellectual bone in your body.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 1:37 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Cause and effect is simply our projection back into the past and labeling it cause
Every time you hit the power button on your computer to comment on a blog you are tipping your hat to cause and effect.
You don't have an intellectual bone in your body.
Abbey, you are an empty blowhard. I simply cannot find one assertion you've made in these comments that is accompanied by even a hint of an argument. Were I to make such a claim it would be accompanied by a detailed argument. That, though, is the difference between us - I am intellectually honest and you are not.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 2:05 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Are you really implying there is no such thing as cause and effect?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 2:18 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I suspect that quote from Nietzsche regarding cause and effect is from The Gay Science where he is critiquing a rigidly dualistic notion. That's fine if he's targeting naive empiricists but it is a strawman if you think it applies to many today.
Further, I would point out that you are sound-biting, something you previously vigorously opposed. Which is it? See, abbey, you can't even keep your story straight.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 2:24 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
N o I am just refusing to have a detailed argument with you framed by the argumentative template in the Dominating Discourse of the dialectics. I have no intention of spending time giving a detailed argument so it can be reinterpreted into infinity. That's what's wrong with interpretation. Endless.Cause and effect belongs to a linear, progressive, historical world.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 2:39 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I have no intention of spending time giving a detailed argument so it can be reinterpreted into infinity.
Hmm, I give detailed arguments all the time and I don't even seem to have the problem of have them interpreted into infinity. Yes, I sometimes have blatantly and hilariously dishonest distortions of my arguments but I hit that sh*t down hard and fast. My response to intellectual dishonesty is to hit, hard and fast and keep hitting until the other guy is an object of total public humiliation.
It's probably that my arguments and positions are just way better than yours.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 3:23 AM | Posted by : | Reply
abbey, my goal when encountering people such as yourself isn't to convince you but to publicly humiliate you so that no one will be willing to take your positions.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 4:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Anything written by Nietzsche or Foucault or anyone else you've read is a re-interpretation of reality. You can't escape "soundbiting" because that's all writing and language ever is. Unknowingly or otherwise, you and I are both doing it right now by having this conversation.
To say that you don't want to argue in detail using the things you've read is ludicrous because who is to say that your interpretation of them was correct? How do you know that's what Foucault or Nietzsche really meant? That's what discussion and discourse is for.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 5:47 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Please make a solid, verifiable, and reproducible argument about why girls are a) conformists, b) non-valuable, c) interested in unmerited reward, and/or d) malicious.
Makeup.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 6:31 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Makeup.
Fair enough example.
I now I propose that the fact that you (you, jonny) engage in fashion (unknowingly or otherwise: you probably wear different kinds of clothes, get hair cuts, maintain your hygiene in various ways, bought a car that you thought looked stylish, etc.) is a solid, verifiable and reproducible argument about why you are a) conformist, b) non-valuable, c) interested in unmerited reward, and/or d) malicious.
I eagerly await your next reply.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 7:14 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Foucault says that power is unjust. Now, the term "unjust" signifies something to be fought and overcome, correct? Or are people marching in the streets to "fight injustice" simply rambling?
I think Foucault is just being descriptive. To call power "unjust" is to point out that it is amoral (similar to somebody pointing out that nature is amoral). It moves according to its own logic, without regard for justice or norms. How it distributes itself isn't fair. This is different from pointing at something and calling it an "injustice", like the people marching in the streets. If power is relayed, and constantly on the move, it seems that it would be impossible to truly "overcome." It is ideas like that which I think are being engaged in these lectures: trying to find where the power is, even in calls for peace. If it ever became a popular notion that power itself could be overcome, I would assume that the popular symbols of power relations had once again become drained and that power had moved elsewhere ("CROATOAN").
As for your ideas about Foucault and justice, there's no need to speculate. He talks about some of his ideas about it in his debate with Chomsky.
“The idea of justice…is an idea which in effect has been invented and put to work in different types of societies as an instrument of a certain political and economic power or as a weapon against that power."
This first quote reinforces your assumption. Nietzschean stance, justice as a tool for political power.
But he does seem to find value in the concept:
"[Systems of justice] embody systems of class oppression and elements of other kinds of oppression,…they also embody a kind of groping towards the true humanly, valuable concepts of justice and decency and love and kindness and sympathy."
So on the one hand, there is some truth to the idea that Foucault thinks justice is "illusory", but only in the sense that he recognizes that it's a constructed concept that has been used for various purposes by the State/disciplinary apparatuses. On the other hand, it seems that he recognizes that it has uses which don't only serve political/economic power...so that the admission of justice as illusory isn't also to say that it's worthless.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 7:16 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"a solid, verifiable and reproducible argument about why you are a) conformist, b) non-valuable, c) interested in unmerited reward, and/or d) malicious."
well... he's posting in a blog post's comment thread, isn't he? it seems kind of obvious that all four of those conditions are met just by hitting "reply".
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 8:29 AM | Posted by : | Reply
How did this blog manage to attract so many loons and colorful characters? abbeysbooks is a walking Foucault advertisement who refuses to respond meaningfully to any kind of criticism because of his misunderstanding of Foucault's use of the phrase "Dominant Discourse", and jonny is the most mind-bogglingly spot-on depiction of "Not Even Wrong" that I've seen in years, a man who is completely incapable of making his utterly ridiculous worldview map (in any way) onto reality, and who is also completely incapable of making his inane gibberish understood or comprehensible to anyone but himself (a sign of low social intelligence).
jonny's "theory", if it can be called that, is neither useful/applicable nor even understandable to anyone but himself. It may very well have some kind of logical consistency, but it doesn't matter when his terms/concepts are ill-defined and he seems to slap different terms/concepts from a plethora of other philosophies and disciplines together with no discernible logic or point. If I had to be charitable, I'd say he's some kind of critique on esoteric postmodernist nonsense, much of which is known to sacrifice coherency for fluff, but the [much darker] alternative is always there; that he actually believes the shit he writes and we are given a glimpse into the worldview of someone who thinks that all women are categorically malicious succubi.
jonny, please take this advice: as of right now you are incapable of making yourself understood to literally anyone on this blog but yourself, and I know this because I've been here in the comments section of this blog for as long as you've been posting. Your writing comes off as the insane ramblings of a manic-psychotic. If you are going to write a bunch of shit and expect people to know what the hell it is you're talking about, explain yourself in detail instead of rattling off stream-of-consciousness inner-monologue nonsense, throwing in a Bible quote and a picture of you with some barely legal Pacific-Islander prostitute, hitting the reply button, and calling it a day. You need to be able to elaborate yourself in ways that other people can understand. As of right now, the only thing we're privy to is the most-of-the-time insane, but always entertaining twisted inner-world of jonny. And please don't confuse "incomprehensibility" to just "incomprehensible to me", because it isn't just "incomprehensible to me" specifically, it is incomprehensible by any standard or metric.
Of course, if this is all some kind of tongue-in-cheek performance art, then congratulations, you've taken us all on an unforgettable ruse cruise, and by all means disregard everything I've said.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 11:11 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"incomprehensible to me", because it isn't just "incomprehensible to me" specifically, it is incomprehensible by any standard or metric.
Who told you that you could speak for me? No one? Then don't.
The fairly basic (if somewhat misguided) argument Jonny seems (to me) to be making is that "love" is a term that's been perverted and now gets used a lot like how Foucault sees "justice" to be used. I.e., Jonny believes that maternal love is a a bait-and-switch used to capture the loyalty/obedience of children in exchange for smoke and mirrors, resulting in millennia of human suffering and wasted potential and, ultimately, extinction.
Is that "incomprehensible" to you? Because you, on the other hand, sound to me like someone who "feels" a lot without thinking much. The phrase, "esoteric postmodernist nonsense," in particular, indicates (to me) that you're not very well-read, as does your general diction and syntax.
Please tell me what you think postmodernism is and why it's nonsense. If you're even close, I'll grant you future rights to speak for me on this blog. That's my wager; take it if you wish.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 11:42 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I think Foucault is just being descriptive. To call power "unjust" is to point out that it is amoral (similar to somebody pointing out that nature is amoral). It moves according to its own logic, without regard for justice or norms.
Then he's either being sloppy or a bit underhanded. Telling people that something is unjust can move mountains. Telling them it's amoral? Not so much. If I were in the same room with someone who conflated the notions of "unjust" and "amoral" I would verbally smack 'em around.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 12:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The fairly basic (if somewhat misguided) argument Jonny seems (to me) to be making is that "love" is a term that's been perverted and now gets used a lot like how Foucault sees "justice" to be used. I.e., Jonny believes that maternal love is a a bait-and-switch used to capture the loyalty/obedience of children in exchange for smoke and mirrors, resulting in millennia of human suffering and wasted potential and, ultimately, extinction.
What does jonny mean by "love"? His refusal to define any of the terms he's working with is sloppy at best and disingenuous at worst.
He has absolutely nothing to support what he is claiming, and instead insists on waxing poetic using Bible quotes and engaging in half-assed tirades about how women are, by definition, malicious whores.
Even if you do think you understood him (and it's clear you don't), it doesn't make what he's saying logically coherent or verifiable. From what he's written so far, none of it appears to be based in any kind of real-world phenomena. jonny's personal anecdotal experience and transparent grudge against the female sex is not sufficient evidence that "all women are malicious whores".
Is that "incomprehensible" to you? Because you, on the other hand, sound to me like someone who "feels" a lot without thinking much. The phrase, "esoteric postmodernist nonsense," in particular, indicates (to me) that you're not very well-read, as does your general diction and syntax.
Your wild speculation about my alleged reading habits is duly noted. Project away.
Please tell me what you think postmodernism is and why it's nonsense. If you're even close, I'll grant you future rights to speak for me on this blog. That's my wager; take it if you wish.
When did I ever say all postmodernist thought was nonsense? The phrase "esoteric postmodernist nonsense" is no more an indictment of all postmodern philosophy than "esoteric philosophical nonsense" is an indictment of philosophy as a entire field. You need to work on your reading comprehension.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 12:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
If I were in the same room with someone who conflated the notions of "unjust" and "amoral" I would verbally smack 'em around.
You have your work cut out for you:
http://i.imgur.com/SioqcwJ.png
(Oxford dictionary)
(BTW, not trying to argue dictionary definitions with you, just pointing out that the association between justness and morality isn't uncommon.)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 12:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'd actually disagree with you there. At first I didn't see where Foucault was going with it, but the distinction makes sense. The use of the term "unjust" within the context of that quote is indeed odd, but it might just be a "lost in translation" issue.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 12:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'd like to get back to what abbey said about history being nothing more than events. Essentially, what she is saying is that *the* human is removed from cause and effect.Let's imagine what abbey might say about the income gap between whites and blacks - she almost certainly attributes it to racism and oppression. Well, the obvious question is what caused that racism and oppression? What allowed it to happen? Silence. Now, obviously the answer is that the power differences between blacks and whites in history are products of things that are entirely external to their relationship.
That's a nice, long argument you had with...yourself. Abbey is annoying as shit: agreed. But your one-sided pseudo dialogue makes a few assumptions that I don't believe would necessarily gel with Abbey's perspective. Cause and effect, for example -- you accuse Abbey of denying its efficacy in human interactions, but the burden of proof, in this case, isn't on Abbey; it's on you. If you believe that straight cause and effect is the starting/ending point for historical analysis, and you have a scientifically testable hypothesis, then set up an experiment, get it peer reviewed and see what happens. The fact is that, just like in all of the social sciences, there're too many variables to account for in any kind of systematic way. That's why they get referred to as "soft" sciences, because when you treat them through strict scientific methods, you get results that aren't repeatable.
We all share an understanding that cause and effect relations play a greater/lesser role in human interractions depending on how much of a role any one person believes "free will" to play. If someone believes free will is everything, they will be wont to deny cause and effect in human behavior. If someone is a neuropsychologist, they might deny free will entirely and ascribe all behavior to cause and effect. (That's what Schopenhauer did with his Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, before trying to salvage some semblance of "free will" in The World as Will and Representation.) In either case, Foucault is far from the first to deny cause and effect as the determining factor in historical constructs. Hume -- in the field of epistemology, no less -- did it most famously and most adamantly, and he's the prototypical "every man's" philosopher and champion of common sense.
So, by claiming history as an event, I would immediately disagree with your premise that Abbey is "Essentially...saying that *the* human is removed from cause and effect." And, again, although his/her refusal to back things up or to articulate or elaborate is mind-bogglingly annoying and self-defeating (what's the point of commenting in the first place? Presumably to be heard...presumably to be understood...etc.), I think a model of history as being constituted retroactively is immensely preferable to a mechanistic model based on cause and effect. Mainly because cause and effect doesn't write history, people do. And they do it using words and concepts that are, themselves, products of those histories.
In other words, what (I think) is "essentially" being said with the idea of history as event (not directly attributable to Abbey) isn't that "*the* human is removed from cause and effect" whatsoever, but that the "effect" of history is "caused" by events.
Example: What "caused" 9/11? If we had immediate access to, as Wittgenstein would say, everything that "was the case (a fact)" leading up to 9/11, do you think the historical outcome would have followed 100% from the premises? If the facts were different, could the same outcome have been achieved?
Obviously, those questions are pretty unanswerable. Therefore, it doesn't matter what "caused" 9/11. The only thing that matters, and the only thing historians can controll, are the "effects", and the only way to do that is to retroactively create the cause. This is the ideological battle being waged in the war of history.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 12:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here we go. Split hairs, argue semantics, avoid substance. You're obviously a woman. No wonder you feel so strongly.
Even if you do think you understood him (and it's clear you don't)
Nice argument...
Feel away, you vapid creature. It's better than reading, huh? If I had two tits for every thought I was incapable of having...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 1:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here we go. Split hairs, argue semantics, avoid substance. You're obviously a woman. No wonder you feel so strongly.
Wrong on all counts I see. My dick hangs low.
Is there anything you're capable of being correct about?
Also while we're on the topic of feelings, let's not forget that jonny considers personal feelings to be sufficient evidence for discerning the malicious intent of an entire sex. "Muh feelings" indeed.
Feel away, you vapid creature. It's better than reading, huh? If I had two tits for every thought I was incapable of having...
That would be a lot of tits.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 1:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Your constant need to frame everything in terms of the vapidity and uselessness of the opposite sex leads me to believe that the source of your rampant misogyny is probably as simple as your inability to get laid. This likely explains everything about jonny as well. Those who have a steady supply of air don't feel the need to complain about a lack. Those suffocating, on the other hand...
In any case, I think we found our next spree shooter, folks. When can we expect your manifesto?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 1:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Not my response above.
All I'll say is that, if you don't understand what Jonny is saying, then it follows that you can't tell anyone else if they understand him. Nevertheless, you write
Even if you do think you understood him (and it's clear you don't...
So, thanks for making this easy.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 1:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You haven't come up with a more rigorous explanation of jonny's ramblings than "all women are whores" and "women use [insert vaguely defined term] to manipulate", all of which everybody already knows from reading his posts. None of it is elaborated on or backed up in any meaningful way, nor does jonny explain how specifically this maps onto reality at all using verifiable, reproducible evidence.
In fact, a large portion of what jonny is claiming is demonstrably false just by the existence of people who grew up without a mother.
Thanks for the lame attempt at rephrasing though.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 1:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Look, I don't agree with Jonny, so you're shadowboxing, here. The simple fact is that, misguided though it be, it's pretty easy for me to understand what Jonny is saying. If you don't, fine; you've made that clear. That gives you the LEAST amount of leeway for telling others whether they've understood correctly or not. That's just a fact.
If you want to make a more nuanced argument, something to the effect of, "Jonny THINKS he's saying something meaningful, and I understand what he THINKS he's saying, but [x,y and z] are why it doesn't make sense," then go ahead. That's not what you did. You said "No one understands what you're saying," which, in this case, is demonstrably false.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 1:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Failed to hit "reply", but know that I did. Blockquoted you about 10 comments up, JUNE 18 @ 12:19pm.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 4:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jonny being hypocritical doesn't invalidate his argument. You SEEM too intelligent to be using ad hominem attacks
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 6:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
IF he is in Thailand as is thot, then IF he isn't getting laid it's his choice.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 6:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Awesome. Where are you when you are not here.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 7:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I agree with what is said about "love" and what it is and isn't. It's rather indefinable. I want to study Badiou on it. He will be in MI this summer with the GCAS for a week seminar.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 7:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I haven't read Being and Event, frankly because it's out of my league. But I know that "Love" is one of Badiou's four "truth procedures," along with math, philosophy and art. I'd be interested to learn more.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 9:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
it's actually pretty clear what he means
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 9:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Anyone have a link to jonny's personal blog? I could use a good laugh.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 10:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Example: What "caused" 9/11?
Now, this the sort of attempts at causal investigation that warrant derision because the question, itself, is in error. the perception of 9/11 as a distinct event is purely synthetic. In fact, 9/11 is just a salient perception of a vast network of many things, some of which go virtually unnoticed but are as important as those planes flying into those buildings.
There is no such *thing* as 9/11, in itself.
This relates to the misunderstanding of noumena as thing-in-itself, versus thingness-in-itself, the latter being correct. There is no such thing as noumena, distinct things in themselves. The proper references is noumenon, the entirety of all undifferentiated existence, in-itself.
Quine is a good source for a more thorough explanation.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 10:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't want to get into my personal life on this blog but I don't think jonny's comments are that difficult to understand, and my own life shares some faint similarities with his.
I have seen women absolutely destroy their children and those around them to the point that I might see how someone like jonny might arrive at the conclusions he does. He's offering such a personal narrative that it's not reasonable to generalize from his perception but they are true, for him. BTW, men can be equally destructive but we live in a society that caters to the female, as opposed to male, id and on that jonny is correct.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 10:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Also, I should add that if there is no such thing as 9/11, in itself, then there is no such thing as 9/11, as it appears. Hence, Nietzsche's observation that by abolishing the real world you have also abollished the apparent one.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 10:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Why am I getting a weird comment submission error about how my comment has been held for review by the blog owner? I've tried to submit it several times now with several words and phrases removed / re-worded and I can't figure out why it's being held. I didn't even think TLP had comment moderation, this is the first time this has happened in my entire time commenting here.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 18, 2014 11:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So, I've been going back and reading material I haven't touched for 10 years. The Nietzsche quote abbey introduced on cause and effect relates to the old empiricist notion that events could be reduced to atomistic, a priori entities and that those entities could, then, be relationally analyzed for cause and effect.
Such a notion of atomistic causality has been dead for around 70 years, if not longer so the quote doesn't much apply. What Nietzsche is targeting is not the notion that human behavior and history involves causality but the idea that causality can be reduced to analytic apriori "atoms". Abbey, unfortunately, takes Nietzsche's comment at 180 degrees opposite from the insight Nietzsche had.
What she does is retain the notion of atomistic events but jettisons the concept of causality, just the opposite of Nietzsche's insight. This, BTW, probably is the fundamental error that current postmodernists make when interpreting Nietzsche.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 19, 2014 2:13 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here's the schedule for Global Center for Advanced Studies if you are interested. http://www.globaladvancedstudies (dot) org/2014/05/badiou-on-badiou.html?mc_cid=e84bfa00d5&mc_eid=978d3da090 dot in above also so change it in your browser.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 19, 2014 9:57 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Ya know, abbey, if you paid attention you might learn some things. I live in Seattle, surrounded by postmodern, hipster leftists, such as yourself. Believe it or not, hardcore, reactionaries have the same internal emotional life as anyone else (on average) and we genuinely care about the people with whom we come into contact.
I may come across as a vicious hardass but that's because I think you are headed down a very destructive road. It's called tough love.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 19, 2014 10:25 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I've had it happen when trying to submit a comment that includes a link or names an outside website specifically. I'm not entirely sure how others are able to post links freely, but I do believe that at some point somebody does actually approve the odd post as I have had such comments show up a while after my original attempt to post.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 19, 2014 10:45 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I may come across as a vicious hardass but that's because I think you are headed down a very destructive road.
You mean he'll start namedropping Moldbug?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 19, 2014 10:58 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Speaking of the comments, there seem to be a number of small problems lately:
-voting doesn't work
-clicking on a comment on the sidebar doesn't bring you directly to the comment
-a new feature (which only appears on old comments since voting is broken) where a comment that is "downvoted" deep enough into the negative is marked as "below threshold" still appears under the notification just as any other comment would
Unfortunately, I know fuck all about web coding, but one of you must be able to help Alone with this. How you could go about communicating this help, I don't know.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 19, 2014 12:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
9/11 is just a salient perception of a vast network of many things, some of which go virtually unnoticed but are as important as those planes flying into those buildings.There is no such *thing* as 9/11, in itself.
This. Steven Pinker wrote about this phenomenon in his book, The Stuff of Thought, with regard to the way the legal language was framed during the court proceedings to determine insurance payouts on the towers. Here's the passage:
Exactly how many events took place in New York on that morning in September? It could be argued that the answer is one. The attacks on the buildings were part of a single plan conceived in the mind of one man in service of a single agenda....Or it could be argued that the answer it two. The north tower and the south tower were distinct collections of glass and steel separated by an expanse of space, and they were hit at different times and went out of existence at different times....
Though "importance" is often hard to quantify, in this case I can put an exact value on it: three and a half billion dollars. [Larry] Silverstein held insurance policies that stipulated a maximum reimbursement for each destructive "event".
Which just goes to show that this stuff isn't completely esoteric. What your account of *things* and *events* doesn't vindicate, however, is a mechanistic model of history. I completely agree that "events" don't constitute themselves -- hence my claim that "events" are always constituted retroactively, and for necessarily ideological purposes. Cause and effect, even if it is operating in history, is impossible to discern. Your account of (what we might call) the "undecidability of events" even effectively serves to highlight the epistemological unreliability of cause and effect in general, which is only to say that all forms of inductive knowledge are epistemologically inferior to deductive forms. (The entire movement over the last three hundred years to "rigorize" mathematics, for example, is based precisely on the rejection of inductive knowledge, i.e., axioms derivable only through abductio ad absurdum proofs.)
Thinking about it in terms of "noumena" and "phenomena" is definitely an interesting idea, and your right to distinguish "thingness" in itself from a misleading "thing" in itself (a "thing" with no features is, by definition, indiscernible). Epistemology being a hobby horse of mine, however, I would go a (post-structuralist) step further in the critique of Kant's transcendental framework.
Part of the reason I enjoy TLP so much is because of the way his articles elucidate some of the finer points of post-structuralist theory. The way Alone conceives narcissism, for example, aligns very well with the notion of fetishism. And the fetish -- "a substitute for something missing that saves us from confronting the full impact of its absence" -- is precisely how post-structuralist theory conceives of the noumena. The story of Zeuxis and Parrhasius illustrates the difference beautifully.
According to the Naturalis Historia of Pliny the Elder, Zeuxis and his contemporary Parrhasius (of Ephesus and later Athens) staged a contest to determine the greater artist. When Zeuxis unveiled his painting of grapes, they appeared so real birds flew down to peck at them. But when Zeuxis asked Parrhasius to pull aside the curtain from his painting, the curtain itself turned out to be a painted illusion. Parrhasius won, and Zeuxis admitted, 'I have deceived the birds, but Parrhasius has deceived Zeuxis.'...In a 1964 seminar, the psychoanalyst and theorist Jacques Lacan observed that the myth reveals an interesting aspect of human cognition: While animals are attracted to superficial appearances, humans are enticed by the idea of that which is hidden.
So, to bring it back around, what I think your comparison of events with the noumena reveals is their structural affinity. Both the "event" and the "noumena" serve not to conceal some "thing", but to conceal, precisely, that there is nothing to conceal. Which, again, qualifies "history" as essentially retroactive and ideological.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 19, 2014 11:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Wow! Best comment I've seen on the internet in awhile. My main beef with current postmodernists is that they get people like Nietzsche, Derrida and Foucault totally wrong. Notice that abbey isn't even attempting to converse with me on the subject of Nietzsche and causality.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 20, 2014 11:50 AM | Posted by : | Reply
the more I think about it the more I am convinced that abbey does not believe in cause and effect and that, for her, all events are coincidental and just a product of randomness.
Consider the feminist line that one in five men are rapists. Now, it's pretty clear that this statistic, like any social statistic, will not be randomly distributed in the general population. Yet, when I ask feminists about the distribution of this stat they seem convinced that every single sampling of men will contain exactly twenty percent rapists.
No, she doesn't believe in cause and effect.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 20, 2014 5:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's been over a month. More please.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 20, 2014 8:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My main beef with current postmodernists is that they get people like Nietzsche, Derrida and Foucault totally wrong.
This is a common claim, I think. But, and I'll get into it momentarily, I would submit that Current Postmodernists are, structurally speaking, no different than Hipsters, and if you read this blog then you are likely familiar with some of the things Alone says about them (and everyone else) in his seminal post, "Hipsters on Food Stamps (parts 1–3). First, though, I think it's important to note that the kinds of things that TLP and Lacan and Žižek are saying -- and I realize the labeling is pretty convoluted -- aren't properly "postmodern", at least not to the extent that "postmodernism" tends to most closely resemble deconstruction, which is to say Derrida. Now, I'm not as familiar with Foucault as Abbey claims to be, but I am familiar with Derrida and I see significant theoretical differences between him and Lacan, which I'd be happy to try to articulate.
But getting back to the idea of Current Postmodernists, I am at least initially compelled to agree with what you said. In fact, as mentioned, I think this is probably a (relatively) common claim. Without getting into too much detail, I live in a hip neighborhood, pretty much the exact kind of place you imagine a lot of Current Postmodernists to congregate. I meet a lot of people who fit the bill of a Current Postmodernist, some of whom are even willing to have openly philosophical discussions. But on the rare occasion that I'm able to engage someone at a bar on these kinds of topics, I find that their understanding is shallow. Which is to say, I've yet to meet a stranger (in person) with whom I can converse like I could with a select few of my classmates in undergrad. (Which, by the way, isn't to say anything about the larger population of undergrads, most of whom also appear upon further reflection to fit the Current Postmodernist bill. So much so, in fact, that I would now make the stronger claim that our perception of the Current Postmodernist irresponsibly espousing heretical theory is actually a function of our perception of degree-devaluating humanities majors spin cycling their way through five or six years of navel gazing undergraduate soft serve.) And the thing is that I still don't mind having those conversations. Quite the opposite, I'm happy just to be engaged in the discourse.
There are undoubtedly a lot of people who misunderstand Nietzsche and Derrida and Foucault, not least because the material is actually pretty tough. And it may be the case that, for whatever reason, those individuals comprise a disproportionate percentage of online commenters. Even still, the community of people interested in this stuff is representatively very small. The number who have done the required reading is even smaller. Abbey talks a good game, but as you note she's conspicuously absent from this conversation. I think this stuff is well worth talking about, and unlike her I won't shy away from a debate.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 20, 2014 9:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I get it dude. I live in the heart of Seattle, about as hipsterish, pomo as it gets and I hear the most inane, contradictory gibberish as you're likely to hear anywhere.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 21, 2014 8:31 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I have read Lacan, Foucault, Derrida, and a handful of other writers in the past, but I'm still very, very confused about what deconstruction and post-modernism / post-structuralism even are (especially deconstruction, for which nobody can seem to agree on a definition). Wikipedia doesn't help much and I even ended up watching an hour-long university lecture on it but I still don't really know what the hell they are, and how they tie together between philosophy, literature, film, music, architecture, etc.
For example both Lacan and Foucault can belong either to structuralism or post-structuralism depending on what source you read, and I'm still foggy about whether or not post-structuralism and post-modernism mean the same thing (from my understanding post-modernism is a subset that can loosely fall under the broader scope of post-structuralist thought).
According to the dictionary, the definition of deconstruction is this:
A method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language that emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression.
I (kind of) get what this is saying, but at the end of the day it's really just word salad to me. I was always under the impression that deconstruction was taking a piece of writing, film, music, whatever, and examining / breaking-down its constituent elements into an interpretation of the underlying ideology / meaning. Which is just a fancy way of saying "analysis", much like what Alone does with pop culture and psychiatry on this blog.
Am I even close in understanding this? Can anyone provide a primer?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 21, 2014 10:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Lol - I'd say that you just did it: deconstructed the structure of post-structuralism. Something like that.
Of course, it may be that my flawed and limited understanding hinder me from seeing these the true content of these topics, so please provide a primer, someone.
I'm glad I found your blog. It saved me from a lot of confusion. I read it, hence it's for me.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 21, 2014 11:24 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I can't help you with "postmodernism", since it is a word that is used in many different ways (for instance, some people consider it a condition, others consider it a method of analysis), but you may want to read Frederic Jameson's book, Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. Personally, I think it's a sloppy word that was bandied about irresponsibly during a particular point in time and now we're left to go through the muck until other people (us?) write better, clearer books.
"Post-structuralism" essentially boils down to "people who use Saussurean linguistics for their own ends." It's also not a very rigorous categorization, as you suggest. I wouldn't worry about it too much.
"Deconstruction" as far as I know has gone through a major transformation from Of Grammatology to its importation to the US, so if it's the original idea you're looking for, read the Derrida book. I haven't read much Derrida, I'm not particularly interested in him (not yet, at least). I know there is a criticism of deconstructionism in the US (Butler, for example), in that it is a kind of soft-boiled nihilism which allows for a lot of relativism-through-appeals-to-authority. And Zizek tends to characterize it as liberalism overstepping its bounds into philosophy...but I believe that most criticisms still hold Of Grammatology in high regard.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 21, 2014 2:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Primer is in the works. I’ll post the introductory paragraph here but I prefer to post the full text and answer questions on the reddit forum, as the moderators there are active participants and I think it will improve the tenor of the discussion. I’m not ditching anyone; by all means come along. With Alone in limbo (and with the accumulating length of this post as I look over it) I just think neutral ground will be appropriate.
So, the first paragraph will give an outline of how structuralism, deconstruction and post-structuralism are related, and the following paragraphs will go into more detail about each one. What will hopefully emerge is a justification for thinking about the three not so much as separate entities, but more like phases of a process, like movements of a symphony.
As you might imagine, it all begins with structuralism, hence the appearance of the term in each of the proceeding iterations. Saussure (structural linguistics) incepted semiotics (the study of signs) by recognizing that all words were “a mixture” of what he called thought-sound: a vocal articulation, on the one hand (the signifier), and a corresponding thought-image (the signified), on the other, that together composed what he called the linguistic sign. Now, deconstruction, Derrida's pet project, is nonsensical without first understanding some things about structuralism that I’ll lay out below. A big part of deconstruction is the effort to show what structuralism discovered without realizing it. Derrida shows that the possibility of structure is predicated on a paradoxical lack, and that what’s “lacking” is precisely the structure itself, which is to say the possibility of its completion or totalization, its “center”. Structure is always unstable. I know it sounds strange, but it’ll make sense with just a little help from Alone. And Lacanian "post-structuralism" (again, a distinction I find helpful, although it isn't always tenable) goes a step further by basically ontologizing the deconstructionists’ lack –– that is, by making it a lack not just of the structure, but also of the human psyche, and ultimately even of being, itself (at least, this is what you get with Žižek’s Prussian mind-meld of Lacan and Hegel).
Rest pending...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 21, 2014 6:43 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Nice beginning for a ferocious discussion.You want to relate them. They are just different perspectives of observation.
An object does not exist until and unless it is observed. - William Burroughs.
Actually the FIRST Foucauldian CUT in the genealogy of History (Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals where he does the so called "Death" of God)occurs in the very first history book. Thucydides. Yes way back then. When democratic Athens gave the island of Melos the ultimatum to joining them in the Peloponnesian War, or be annihilated - every last one of them. So hunting for origins is as futile as Foucault says it is.What's the point except to play a game with yourself and others.All you will get is information and we know what Erudite did with that. http://moviesandfilm.blogspot(dot)com/2013/03/lincoln-and-zero-dark-thirty-cracking (dot) html
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
June 21, 2014 6:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You can do this on reddit if you want to reinvent the wheel. I have already done it on my blogs. Thru movies in http://moviesandfilm (Dot) blogspot (dot) com
And in another http://focusfree (dot)blogspot (dot) com (This one is read by Russians and Eastern Europeans who really get this topic (s).
That's what I do. Read media through post modern THINKING. I amnot interested in a glut of information, or vomiting it back up to Dominate in the Dominating Discourse. But if you want to UNDERSTAND it then I suggest start reading my blogs with the rest of the world. alone is primarily interested in the psychological and sociological aspect of all this. alone is not a post modernist thinker altho he enters that Discourse frequently. But we have to consider that Foucault threw out the psychological as a clinical Discourse of therapy. He keeps only Freud. In a way.But he tosses Lacan too.
And in http://occupytabloids (dot)blogspot (dot)com
http://guerrillablog2 (dot)blogspot (dot)com
http://intellectualterrorism (dot) blogspot (dot) com
That will do.Onmy blogrolls are many many more IF anyone is really interested in learning. IMO discussing these topics with people who are not the best in the world on the subjects is just playing around.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 21, 2014 9:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Here is what Chomsky has to say about postmodernism, and specifically about people like Lacan, Foucault, Derrida, et al.
http://vserver1.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html
This of course all depends on what your estimation of Chomsky is. while I myself think he unwisely tends to step outside his realm of expertise whenever he tackles something that isn't linguistics (he's said a few things about evolution that have made me cock my head, and not in a good way), he seems to have an interesting take on this.
He apparently thinks that Lacan and Foucault (both of whom he met in real life, got along with well, and even liked) are charlatans who know exactly what they are doing: obscurantism and posturing for financial gain. He has an even harsher view of Zizek.
What's funny is that in the documentary "Zizek!", there is a segment where Slavoj views a recording of Lacan Parle (which was posted earlier in the thread) and becomes upset with the way Lacan presents himself, I.E. as a posturing obscruant. This is of course despite the fact that Zizek has a great respect for and owes a lot to Lacan's body of work, but even between these intellectuals there seems to be an understanding of what exactly is going on here (obfuscating meaning behind a facade of language and semiotics).
http://news.rapgenius.com/Noam-chomsky-chomsky-zizek-debate-annotated
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 22, 2014 1:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
curious...what made you bring up chomsky's thoughts?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 22, 2014 1:13 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Only that it seemed relevant to the current conversation. I don't particularly have any allegiance to Chomsky, I just thought what he had to say on the matter was interesting and I want to see what other people make of it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 22, 2014 1:57 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think you are using the term "Dominant Discourse" incorrectly.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 22, 2014 2:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
chomsky's thoughts on the subject are the equivalent of a tabloid article, but made even worse because chomsky is in a position to influence naive but earnest academics. his arguments range from "i don't get it" to "that's obvious" to "it's obscurantist because it wants to be like science!" with no citation of passages or any indication that he has made a serious effort to engage the works themselves, just conjecture and personal anecdote.
nothing he has to say on the issue is compelling. what is compelling is the fact that he is saying it. so people use his words as a proxy for putting in the work of engaging the texts themselves. think about it, generations of people have been reading this stuff and finding it useful, many of whom are professors at top tier universities (if you want to appeal to that aspect)...none of them count because of chomsky's irresponsible hand-wave?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 22, 2014 2:48 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think you are using the term "Dominant Discourse" incorrectly.
You are almost certainly correct, but don't expect her to defend her usage. Argument cramps abbey's style.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 22, 2014 2:53 AM | Posted by : | Reply
abbey reminds me of a guy I used to know who took the position that debate itself was invalid because its resolution involved one discourse dominating another. That, I believe, is abbey's hidden premise.
I quite certain, deep down, she considers debate inherently coercive (which was my acqaintance's position) and, therefore, inherently invalid.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 22, 2014 3:08 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
think about it, generations of people have been reading this stuff and finding it useful, many of whom are professors at top tier universities (if you want to appeal to that aspect)
I don't particularly think an appeal to the popularity of a work nor an appeal to authority is compelling. There are plenty of popular bunk academic interests taught in university today that probably shouldn't be, as well as a plethora of popular art that I'm sure people here would agree is shit, despite the fact that it has millions of admirers. I won't go into detail about what they are but you can probably guess.
I can see what you're saying though.
none of them count because of chomsky's irresponsible hand-wave?
Not at all. Like I said, I don't have any particular allegiance to Chomsky. I think his political views are asinine and he's said more than enough of his fair share to make me do a double-take. I just thought what he wrote was interesting and it made me challenge my understanding of people like Lacan and Foucault.
I started reading a little bit of Foucault because of the current conversation but I haven't read enough to really comment on him. I have however read a lot of Lacan and Zizek. There is quite a lot of ideas that they bring up that I personally find to be of great value, and I like them but I'm not even completely sure as to why. If I had to sum up their core arguments I don't think I could, especially Lacan (who I got into over a year ago because of his relevance to Alone). I am currently reading through his seminars for a second time, and it has proven once again to be very dense and sometimes beyond my ability to understand. I don't really know if the fault lies with my intelligence or with Lacan being intentionally obscure.
Like I said before though, I have taken away quite a bit from Lacan (whose work informs some of the concepts TLP regularly talks about) and Zizek. I just found Chomsky's specific comment about them relevant to this discussion, and coming from a scientific background I can sympathize at least a little bit with what he's saying.
As to whether or not this is correct, I can't say. I have a lot more reading to do.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 22, 2014 3:14 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Jonny asks If "he" rather than "she" was responsible, why would marriage exist?
Here is the answer of Claude Lévi-Strauss: Mankind, the mammal, stepped out of nature -- invented culture -- by the taboo on incest: by the institutionalisation of marriage. The taboo on incest is not, as a dull mind imagines, a natural inclination (that has to do with avoiding the heightened rate of genetic deficiencies in close kin offspring). Look at the animals. Lots of critters will happily procreate with their close kin.
So his argument goes we are not naturally inclined to abstain from incest, the taboo on incest is exactly cultural. But not simply that: the taboo on incest is the BIRTH of CULTURE, it is the decisive moment at which man confers some sort of order of his own making onto nature. It is an initial revolt against the arbitrary randomness of pre-cultural sexual desire'. Who did this and why? Not women, but men, according to Lévi-Strauss. Masculine domination is virtally universally the norm across the different societies around the globe today as was it, Lévi-Strauss imagined, back when culture first came to life. What was the whole point? The creation of alliances in place of enmities. At this point in time, meeting a stranger human was a highly dangerous event, and the marriage alliance is the original solution to this threat.
The founding gesture of culture, then, was this: A father (wielding power over his offspring) gives his daughter in marriage to another man (instead of keeping her to himself) to create an alliance with this man and his kin. This way the potentially deadly realtionship with this stranger man becomes domesticated as a kin relation through the logic of the gift, that is through the logic of reciprocity (which is also the reason for the invention of brideprice and dowry).
Marriage is unnatural? Yes because it only comes about through mankind: it is cultural. But then everything that exists can be said to be natural by the very fact of its existing in the 'natural' world (where else would it be?).
What's so great about nature anyway, Jonny? Nature is a blind and idiotic bricoleur (a tinkerer) that fiddles with and fits stuff together in ever new ways with no discernable purpose, meaning or end in sight. Why are you in love with authenticity and why do you hate illusion? Are you the new Rousseau and your blog is your Émile?
Perhaps we should not drag Zizek into this, but since you mentioned him earlier, his Lacanian point is that there is nothing inside the individual; just the trauma of being born too soon. (Peter Sloterdijk has made an excellent critique of this most central of Lacanian motives in Spheres One: Bubbles. I highly recommend this to anyone interested in Lacan or Zizek)
-----------
I once came very close to having a car accident with my mother, who was driving. At the utmost moment, in which it seemed the other car was for sure going to crash straight into us, she threw herself across from her seat to cover my body with hers in the impending crash that never came as the approaching car swerved off.
My mother therefore is not a cannibal whore. She enacted exactly the agapic love that you submit, Jonny, that every mammal mother should.
Hooray, she passed your test! How happy my father must be to know that she has repayed the pleasure she received from having sex with him by being willing to sacrifice her life for the offspring that this sex produced - as I understand is your fundamental thesis on the ethics of womankind.
Lighten up, Kellermensch.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 22, 2014 5:59 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Abbey,
Please stop muddying the water. There is nothing helpful on your blog for the novice. In terms of drawing more people into the discussion, your blog is actually harmful. Participate with original content and thought or please refrain.
Thank you.
Primer will be posted soon.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 22, 2014 6:10 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Abbey,
Those links don't even work. WTF is wrong with you?
You can do this on reddit if you want to reinvent the wheel. I have already done it on my blogs.
No, you haven't. Your blog is borderline incoherent. A primer is the farthest thing from anything on your blog.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 22, 2014 12:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Alone has previously linked to this video explanation of post-structuralism that you may find informative:
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/12/when_i_get_writers_block_you_g.html
This is a simple and, in my opinion, accurate summation, and I tend to think of post-structuralism as defined in this video as a unifying idea of thinkers within the broader trend/intellectual movement called postmodernism. Unfortunately, there is really not a great substitute for simply trudging through the works of the postmodernists (if you're so inclined). To give an analogy, I often hear definitions of existentialism thrown about that are clearly lifted from a book by people who have trouble determining existential qualities because they haven't read the actual works of the existentialists. The same is true of postmodernism, but perhaps doubly so because the concept is even more nebulous and its main thinkers deny there being a set of cohesive ideas or concepts uniting them. My personal opinion is that it's best to eschew looking for an understanding of what postmodernism is and to simply look for whatever insights there are to find in the individual works of the postmodernists, and eventually you'll accomplish your initial goal plus more than you ever intended. I believe that Baudrillard is the most accessible of the bunch, and that 'Simulacra and Simulation' is a good start.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 22, 2014 4:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here's a blog post on Babette Babich who is a great Nietzschean scholar among others. Prof at Fordham University and a fine example of cutting edge post modern thinking with integrity beyond belief. Also a fine photographer. Comined with Deleuze and Baudrillard here it is: http://focusfree (dot)blogspot (dot) com/2013/02/simulacra-and-simulation-babette-babich.html?zx=29579f3e0570899f All you have to do to get up to speed is to read my archived blog posts. I've written especially for YA who know nothing about all this yet somehow do know. The "unknown knowns" in philosophy. YA - not all BRW - seem to know intuitively and then there are the Cody Williams who really know it and act on it. The 3-D printed gun and DarkWallet to force BitCoin to be all that it was intended to be before they copped out.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 22, 2014 5:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The vimeo was good. And funny. He deconstructed "good ol days" for us. That is certainly one little aspect of it. Taking a cliche and taking a hammer to that cliche to look at all the pretty pieces.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 22, 2014 5:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Actually this one is much better on simulation and simulacra. A reading through Gordon-Levitt movie Don Jon http://moviesandfilm (dot) blogspot (dot) com/2013/10/reviewdon-jonreading-through (dot) html
Pay attention to the word "DOT" cyclops. This link is not direct. You have to change the word "dot" to a little tiny period. Got it now?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 22, 2014 5:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
BTW here's a great one on Foucault and the Foucauldian CUT explained through the movie Moneyball. http://moviesandfilm (dot) blogspot (dot) com/2013/10/reviewdon-jonreading-through.html You will notice how much resistance to a change in the Dominating Discourse. But the DD determines how you think about something. And how you think determines how you recruit new players eh.
Don't forget the "dots" and get ready to change them into little periods.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 22, 2014 9:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Here is the primer.
Please post questions on the reddit forum (reddit.com/r/thelastpsychiatrist) as the moderators there are active participants and I think it will improve the tenor of the discussion. With Alone in limbo (and with the length of this post) I feel neutral ground is appropriate.
The first paragraph gives an outline of how structuralism (Saussure), deconstruction (Derrida) and post-structuralism (Lacan) are related, and the remaining paragraphs go into more detail about each. What hopefully emerges is a justification for thinking about the three not so much as separate entities, but more like phases of a process, like movements of a symphony.
As you might imagine, it all begins with structuralism, hence the appearance of the term in each of the proceeding iterations. Saussure (structural linguistics) incepted semiotics (the study of signs) by recognizing that all words were “a mixture” of what he called thought-sound: a vocal articulation, on the one hand (the signifier), and a corresponding thought-image (the signified), on the other, that together composed what he called the linguistic sign. Now, deconstruction, Derrida's pet project, is nonsensical without first understanding some things about structuralism that I’ll lay out below. A big part of deconstruction is the effort to show what structuralism discovered without realizing it. Derrida shows that the possibility of structure is predicated on a paradoxical lack, and that what’s “lacking” is precisely the structure itself, which is to say the possibility of its completion or totalization, its “center”. Structure is always unstable. (I know it sounds strange, but it’ll make sense with just a little help from Alone.) And Lacanian "post-structuralism" (a distinction I find helpful, although it isn't always tenable) goes a step further by basically ontologizing the deconstructionists’ lack –– that is, by making it a lack not just of the structure, but also of the human psyche, and ultimately even of being, itself (at least, this is what you get with Žižek’s Prussian mind-meld of Lacan and Hegel).
So, to touch on structuralism a bit more, there are some really weird things that you need to recognize that don’t necessarily seem weird until you think about them a little more. We have these signs (words) that are mixtures of thought-sound (signified-signifier), and these sounds that we make with our mouths to signify certain ideas in our heads are necessarily arbitrary, according to Saussure. This is normal enough, so far, as it makes perfect sense that there is nothing inherent about the sound “tree” ordaining that it correspond to tree. It’s arbitrary. What’s weird is that when this arbitrary sound gets paired with an arbitrary idea, they establish a necessary connection, what Saussure called a “linguistic value.” It’s possible, for example, to imagine an alien language, one that sounds exactly like English in which the word “tree” actually designates something completely different than tree. Derrida, however, thinks that it’s misleading to characterize the relationship of signifier/signified as arbitrary. For Derrida, the connection is necessary in the sense that every other sign depends on it. It is necessary in order for the language to sustain itself. Because language is a structure, signs take on meaning only differentially, in a negative way. “Tree” actually means “not not-tree”. The value of any sign is ultimately dependent on the entire contextual network in which it is articulated.
Consider when someone asks you what “N” means, “N” being any signifier. What they’re really asking is: What does “N” signify, what is its corresponding signified? Of course, you don’t have ESP so you can’t think the thought image to them. You’re appeal is to synonyms, antonyms, definitions, metaphors, analogies, parables, etc., in essence the entire language, none of which can ever exhaust the value of the original signified for which language attempts, in all of its surging proliferation, all of its self-conscious revelry and God aping grandeur, to substitute. For what would be the purpose of any sign if it didn’t capture something unique, something in fact fragile, susceptible to influence and even annihilation by the signs with which it shares a border? Draw enough borders and a person can begin, through negative space, to form their own idea of the signified. It’s education. It’s what I’m doing right now. And deconstruction’s crucial insight is that there is no ultimate signified. It’s all an illusion, a castle in the clouds.
Instead of a closed totality there is what Derrida recognized as “an excess of signification”. Every sign defers to other signs, which themselves defer still to other signs, and so on. And just as there is no end to the deferral, no final guarantor of meaning, neither is there an origin. The process is “always already” in motion, revolving around this lack, the absent center.
(N.B.: The apparent relativism that emerges from this account is what typically gets classified as “postmodernism”. Consider, for example, the deconstructionist claim that “there is no meta-language”. What the phrase actually entails is that there is no pure object language, no text that isn’t already framed by its own interpretation, no “safe place” from which one can speak objectively. This is why postmodernism remains infatuated with the observer effect in particle physics: in quantum theory, a compressed wave packet will take on certain qualities depending on how it’s measured. The observation is included in the observed; the measurement becomes part of the measured.)
The problem with deconstruction, both according to theorists like Lacan as well as to the average reader, is that it’s never able to offer anything new, constantly looping itself in what Žižek calls a “bad infinity” (Hegel’s term). Furthermore, doesn’t the position from which any deconstructionist might assert that “there is no meta-language” seem to require that they speak from exactly the “safe place” they’re claiming isn’t possible, a place where the “truth” of their claim is taken at face value? The position from which a deconstructionist attempts to assert that there is no meta-language, in other words, can be articulated quite clearly in a pure meta-language.
Lacan’s post-structuralism (and, again, I’m affiliating post-structuralism with Lacan for the sake of argumentation, even though the term “post-structuralism” doesn’t necessarily apply to his body of work), rather than some sort of “return” to structuralism, takes the insights of deconstruction and then pushes them to their limit, essentially projecting them back into the structure and thereby altering the original image. Take, for example, the insight mentioned just above that, in the process of signification there is no ultimate signified. Really what Lacan does is to take it a step further by saying that, in the search for an ultimate signified (one that doesn’t “objectively” exist), the signification process actually creates it retroactively. In other words, even though there is no objective signified to finally halt the movement of signification, even though there is no initial referent to the textual process, this very lack of referent is itself the ultimate signified. The lack of a signified becomes the signifier of lack: the phallus.
Žižek uses a joke to explain this phenomenon. Keep in mind that what the joke is illustrating is the temporal paradox by which the “search” for meaning, for an ultimate signified, manages to “create” its own cause.
There’s a soldier who is sent to the doctor because he seems to have lost his mind. Everywhere he goes he picks up various objects at random before lamenting “That’s not it!” and discarding them. In the doctor’s office he picks up a book – “That’s not it!” – then a chair – “That’s not it!” – then the doctor, himself – “That’s not it!” The doctor immediately writes up a form dismissing the soldier from active duty and hands it to him, at which point the patient exclaims, “That’s it!”
Yeah, not very funny, I know. But you can see what he’s getting at. Hitchcock, in his films, uses a similar device called a MacGuffin. Here’s what he says about it:
It might be a Scottish name, taken from a story about two men on a train. One man says, "What's that package up there in the baggage rack?" And the other answers, "Oh, that's a MacGuffin". The first one asks, "What's a MacGuffin?" "Well," the other man says, "it's an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands." The first man says, "But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands," and the other one answers, "Well then, that's no MacGuffin!" So you see that a MacGuffin is actually nothing at all.I want to go through this illuminating quote from Alone in the post, “My name is NotMichaelBay, and I just fucked your girlfriend”, in order to shed some light on the progression I’m outlining.
Ah, you've deliberately made explicit Carly-the-character's semiotic connection to Rosie-the-actress, making the film's world draw on the real world. Carly the beautiful girlfriend is "in reality" Rosie, who is known to be a Victoria Secret model, which is itself another signifier, another character, and so on ad infinitum; there is no terminal woman-in-herself.OK, so in this first part of the quote you have the deconstructionist picture emerging from a semiotic analysis, just as Derrida’s deconstruction emerged from structuralism (“There is nothing outside the text”).
Thus 'woman' is merely an image, to attract the Lacanian gaze; yet because she cannot be represented in any other way except as such an image she a priori eludes the gaze.In this second part of the quote you get the progression from deconstruction to Lacanian post-structuralism. It’s not just that “there is no terminal woman-in-herself”; it’s also that, in the pursuit of woman-in-herself, the lack of woman-in-herself retroactively becomes the only possible referent for woman-in-herself. Follow?
More to follow...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 22, 2014 10:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thanks for all your work.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 22, 2014 10:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You actually read that and understood it! I have studied this stuff and it was babble to me.
Think Norma Jean Baker and Marilyn Monroe. Norma Jean has to invent herself as Marilyn. When Michelle Williams took on the part of Marilyn for a movie she has to become Marilyn the way Norma Jean did. The walk, the movements, the voice, the breathing, the gestures, all of it.She said it was quite a production everyday while she was filming to become Marilyn. She said no wonder Marilyn was late all the time.
Marilyn was never real. She was a simulacrum to use Baudrillard's term. Norma Jean was her, but she had to "put on" Marilyn every day. Can you imagine how difficult that was. Many celebrities are simulacra having nothing to do with the original person. Detached.
As for the Sausurrean lingo above with the signifier and the signified being attached and then labeled "the sign." Not true anymore. Not for decades now. Representation is finished. The signifier is now detached from the signified and "floats free." The "floating signs" now take on masks which say many different things. So the "floating signs" must be read according to their masks. Only speculation and credibility. No truth.No false. Just credibility.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 22, 2014 10:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
abbey, I took a look at your blog and I second the guy above who labeled it borderline incoherent.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 22, 2014 10:44 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Marilyn was never real. She was a simulacrum to use Baudrillard's term
This is almost certainly a product of mass society combined with cheap transportation and communication. If you have a solution to this affect of mass society then, by all means, spit it out.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 24, 2014 3:53 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
(for those who are curious, we're referring to a text called "Raw Materials for a Theory of the Young Girl" by Tiqqun. And before you assume that it's "jonny, the book", "Young Girl" does not refer to a gendered girl...)
That's simply not possible as French is a gendered language. You should query the 'logic' behind your irrational aversion to women being scrutinised, criticised or held accountable for their actions.
Preliminary Materials for a Theory of the Young-Girl is about young girls. That the theory also applies to many men (any courteous gentleman uploading 'enhanced' images to Instagram / Facebook would be a needy Young-Girl) shouldn't be used as a pretext to dismiss what is actually a damning appraisal of objectified women who market themselves as a commodity for sale. They obsessively scan for value in brazen disregard of their own negative worth as human beings, in reality. They choose to be needy (liability). You cannot buy valuable human property, only liability is ever sold. Why would value ever need to sell?
Tiqqun steers clear of motive, but the Young-Girl is a product made for sale by abusive Old-Women (former Young-Girls). In fear of competition, women abuse, harass and shame girls until they're "good girls" (Young-Girls). "Bad girls" give it up / no sale.
Problem: Worthless women can't compete with valuable girls.
Solution: In a rigged game, the only way to win is not to play.
Preliminary Materials for a Theory of the Young-Girl Tiqqun, Associate Editor Translated by Ariana Reines"I’d like to point out for the Anglophone reader that although the introduction asserts that the “Young-Girl is evidently not a gendered concept,” French is a gendered language; and that, moreover, the genderedness of French is not the only way to account for the fact that this book, as it accumulates, does become a book about women."
- Ariana Reines
If I wasn't inept and had a great deal more wit, this is the book I'd write as it says exactly what I've been trying to say for a long time. If it was my book, I'd include the Dark Ages depravity of dependent women's betrayal of girls but truth like that wouldn't be published. The world is in denial of early childhood trauma.
Telegraph: Topless women campaign to free the nipple"[Fear levels of] women being topless in public is right up there with being buried alive."
___________
"The Young-Girl never creates anything. All in all, she only recreates herself."
This is the problem in a soundbyte. Women don't want to accept that there has never been any value in their stupid objects. Until men stop letting women extort them, women will never accept that [what is valued] has no correlation with [what has value].
In value terms, my little sister was [priceless] when she was four. When I was beating brilliant minds over a huge sample of M/HSNL HUSH (online poker), my baby sister was my emotional and intellectual superior, consistently processing our immediate environment with greater speed and accuracy than I could manage. Now she's uncertain, awkward and dull; raised to be a proper "young lady" (considerate of non-existent feelings, a polite insulting fraud who suffers to please creeps) > she's [worthless].
Women are being rushed into the workforce now but that doesn't really address the underlying issue; the Young-Girl is a destroyed product, engineered and manufactured for release by wretched women who can't compete with girls who don't need to sell.
“Stay on the bright side of life,” since History’s happening on the dark side.
Children abused by reduced women are responsible for all the darkness. There is no point existing in a world of reduced women who contribute suffering to enable extortion. Men and children are trapped by their perfidious lies, shame, secrets, bullying, violence and abuse. It's their Rape Culture. Men don't give birth.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 24, 2014 4:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here is the answer of Claude Lévi-Strauss: Mankind, the mammal, stepped out of nature -- invented culture -- by the taboo on incest: by the institutionalisation of marriage.
The institutionalisation of slavery may have invented culture but it has destroyed the only (known) deity species in the universe. Imagining that humans need to be bound to worthless women overlooks the fact that only the unmeritorious need to bind. The idea that mammal females cannot provide for themselves without inflicting suffering on males and their young is just nauseating.
Look at the animals. Lots of critters will happily procreate with their close kin.
Look at the mammal mother animals. Look at how they die for their helpless young until they're independent and unattached.
Masculine domination is virtally universally the norm across the different societies around the globe today as was it, Lévi-Strauss imagined, back when culture first came to life.
You can test the value of your masculine domination by walking naked into a strip club. Women are so oppressed men have to pay them to return to default. If you return to default, you'll be violently arrested and incarcerated for your indecency. The naked male body is horrific, don't reveal your traumatising genitalia.
At this point in time, meeting a stranger human was a highly dangerous event
That would only be possible if mothers were abusing sons to make them warrior-slaves instead of letting them Be (humane).
Marriage is unnatural?
What is natural is biological. What isn't biological is an unnatural abomination. If men were supposed to take care of women for life, there would be no need to blind or bind slaves to her side.
What's so great about nature anyway, Jonny?
No war, no lies, no entitlement, no leaching, no leaching, no insanity, no imposition, no cannibalism, no slavery, no abuse, no prostitution, no whores, no malice, no shame, no imagined suffering. "Pain is certain, suffering is optional." (the Buddha)
Why are you in love with authenticity and why do you hate illusion?
Because I'm sane enough not to value what isn't real, in reality.
...she threw herself across from her seat to cover my body with hers in the impending crash that never came as the approaching car swerved off.
Why didn't she swerve? And that's just an instinctive gesture anyway. Mammal mothers are not supposed to inflict suffering. You wear clothes to hide her whore shaming of your innocence.
My mother therefore is not a cannibal whore. She enacted exactly the agapic love that you submit, Jonny, that every mammal mother should.
Even if she did, it's not a one-off test. She has to pass that test every moment of your life until you're independent / unattached.
How happy my father must be to know that she has repayed the pleasure she received from having sex with him by being willing to sacrifice her life for the offspring that this sex produced - as I understand is your fundamental thesis on the ethics of womankind.
You understand wrong. Men are not supposed to be bound. Your mother was supposed to provision you. Men are supposed to live and do and provision as they please, free from whore imposition.
Lighten up, Kellermensch.
It would be as insane to lighten up in a world of horrific darkness as it would be to sink into darkness in a world of brilliant light.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 24, 2014 6:41 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
god just shut the fuck up already you annoying little faggotron
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 24, 2014 9:29 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
When you imagine "mean words" hurt you in your imagination, it's because your mother raped your mind with emotional abuse. When you scream wild orders at the Internet, you become the proof of my argument.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 24, 2014 11:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"French is a gendered language."
Yes, it is. But I don't see how this makes their own words on the matter obsolete. They used the grammatically correct "la" instead of the masculine-but-implying-neutral "le", but I can't see that as a conscious choice as much as it was probably just a reflex to use the correct grammar.
Their own words:
The Young-Girl is obviously not a gendered concept [...] The resplendent corporate advertising retiree who divides his time between the Côte d’Azur and his Paris office, where he still likes to keep an eye on things, is no less a Young-Girl than the urban single woman too obsessed with her consulting career to notice she’s lost fifteen years of her life to it. And how could we account, if the Young-Girl were a gendered concept, for the secret relationship between ultratrendy musclebound Marais homos and the Americanized petit-bourgeoisie happily settled in the suburbs with their plastic families?
You acknowledge that men are a part of the critique...yet you still interpret the work as a condemnation of gendered women. In no way do I "dismiss what is actually a damning appraisal of objectified women who market themselves as a commodity for sale." I just acknowledge that the appraisal is ultimately genderless...even if most of the manifestations could easily be said to resemble modern women.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 24, 2014 2:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Anybody who says anything to, at, or near jonny provides more "proof" for jonny's argument.
1+1=2? Lol, that's because your mom is a whore who rapes you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 24, 2014 3:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
i didn't grow up with a mother. your argument is thus completely invalid
jonny you are proof that we need bullying in school. you were clearly never bullied enough as a kid, and i have a suspicion that if you were exposed to outside criticism as a child (ie getting your faggot face knocked into a locker every once and a while for being an obnoxious cunt), you wouldn't have grown up to be such an annoying little blowhard who assumes himself to be the sole guardian of universal truth
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 24, 2014 3:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Anonymous wrote:
jonny you are proof that we need bullying in school. you were clearly never bullied enough as a kid, and i have a suspicion that if you were exposed to outside criticism as a child (ie getting your faggot face knocked into a locker every once and a while for being an obnoxious cunt), you wouldn't have grown up to be such an annoying little blowhard who assumes himself to be the sole guardian of universal truth
Okay, I'm no fan of jonny's, but that's a seriously dickish thing to say, and you need to unfuck yourself immediately.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 24, 2014 3:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The hell entitles you to call someone a blowhard whilst hand-waving their 'argument' as invalid? Occam's = degeneracy.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 24, 2014 5:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Don't push the unfuckery just yet! After all, if someone is interested in legitimizing bullying, well... ::cracks knuckles::
Reaches for "DEAD MOM JOKES" cardbox, bets on eying the "BOY YOU SO ________ YO MOMMA DIDN'T EVEN __________" collection.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 25, 2014 10:17 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I just acknowledge that the appraisal is ultimately genderless
As far as selling oneself goes, that is correct. But The Theory of the Young-Girl is about young girls. It's not criticising women for being women. It's criticising women for being perfidious whores.
The revolting thing isn't that the Young-Girl is fundamentally a whore, but that she refuses to see herself as one.
Like all whores, she dreams of innocence. But, distinct from them, she demands to be believed, and believed sincerely.
Often, before her decay becomes too obvious, the Young-Girl gets married.
The Young-Girl is a lie, the apogee of which is her face.
Is makeup a genderless lie? Why even argue with the translator?
Preliminary Materials for a Theory of the Young-Girl Tiqqun, Associate Editor Translated by Ariana Reines"I’d like to point out for the Anglophone reader that although the introduction asserts that the “Young-Girl is evidently not a gendered concept,” French is a gendered language; and that, moreover, the genderedness of French is not the only way to account for the fact that this book, as it accumulates, does become a book about women." (Ariana Reines)
The plantation (Empire) offers women illegitimate power to exploit men. Even though deep down every slave girl who takes the bait knows it's wrong, they can't help themselves from swallowing the hook, line and sinker. Having fallen into the trap, they become plantation whores breeding dependent slaves for Massa and making the lives of slave men intolerable.
"To the moralist prostitution does not consist in the fact that the woman sells her body but that she sells it out of wedlock." (Emma Goldman)
Women know exactly what they're doing. Every feminist is a lecherous demon. They're playing off men's miserable confusion. Truth is always on the side of the oppressed because the oppressors can stop lying any time they please. 99% of girls buy into the absurd lie that declares intrinsic value to reside in their concealed objects. They conflate [being valued] with [real value].
The difference is [value]. There isn't any.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 25, 2014 10:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Anybody who says anything to, at, or near jonny provides more "proof" for jonny's argument.
Expressions of worthless feelings that do not comprise a logical argument are the proof of my argument, correct. Your naked disapproval is illegitimate. Imagining otherwise is psychotic.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 25, 2014 10:43 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
i didn't grow up with a mother. your argument is thus completely invalid
I didn't grow up with a mother. You're too stupid to comprehend my argument. Clearly someone mutilated your mind. You can't even punctuate sentences or frame a logical counter-argument. I couldn't care less who abused you. You have a deformed mind.
Your dysfunctional mind is the proof of my argument. Someone had the need to do that to you. All need is sourced from leeches.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 25, 2014 11:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Those who have a steady supply of air don't feel the need to complain about a lack. Those suffocating, on the other hand...
Those who believe there is value in women deigning to let men pleasure them have clearly been the victim of contrived drought.
Those who can breathe any air they please rapidly start choking on the pollution. It's not music I listen to but you should think about why "gangsta" rappers start calling all women "bitches" and "hoes". There is no clean air to breathe. Whores pollute every girl.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 25, 2014 11:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
He has absolutely nothing to support what he is claiming, and instead insists on waxing poetic using Bible quotes and engaging in half-assed tirades about how women are, by definition, malicious whores.
I continually provide irrefutable evidence but you just ignore it.
[thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/01/randi_zuckerberg.html#comment-35425]
__________
The National Coalition on Television Violence estimated that an American child will witness 8,000 murders & 100,000 acts of violence on television by the time they finish elementary school.
Whores aren't offended by psychotic violence. As the US was losing its mind over Janet Jackson's breast, the sons of America's plantation whores were dying in foreign wars. 4.5 million Iraqi children were orphaned but plantation whores DGAF. They care about women who give it up for free.
You can kill their sons with blatant lies as Dubya did; they DGAF. Their offence is exclusively reserved for threats to their depraved entitlement to enslave men; like the bastard sons of women who didn't need wedlock. Married whores stigmatised the illegitimate newborns as whoresons to destroy their lives.
Men don't give birth. They don't have first access to children's minds. They don't raise children Right. Abused children are made to adopt their mother's value system. In 2001, the FCC received 111 complaints. In 2004, ~1,500,000 complaints triggered by Nipplegate forced the FCC to bring the broadcasting and entertainment industries to heel. Mothers control everything. Demonic leeches who murder their own children in leaching wars of attrition screaming at an exposed breast.
_____________
There is nothing subtle about their evil depravity. Lies and violence are rated G. Sex and "adult themes" are rated R. Bullying children is fine but they need to be protected from mundane biological truth. If I could just find the stork that delivered me to this planet of screaming whores...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 25, 2014 1:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jonny you've time and time again proven yourself to not know the definition of the words "logical", "argument", and "proof".
Are you under the impression that anybody here actually takes you seriously or reads most of the things you write? If I had to take a bet I would bet against it. But then again you're free to do whatever you want.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 25, 2014 3:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Yes, there's so much "proof" being offered here. It's like a hs journalism class. "Check your facts!," says the earnest professor who didn't himself ever do any investigative heavy-lifting, but did in fact watch a lot of Lou Grant talking to Mrs Pynchon about what's good for a newspaper to run.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Sandy, but I think discussions about human emotion can't really be advanced any better with rigorous journalistic fact-checking than they can with personal observation.
This apparently offends your meritocratic urges and your simple urge of deferring to authority.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 25, 2014 5:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Is makeup a genderless lie? Why even argue with the translator?
More people than women care about their face. Men wear makeup, groom their facial hair, moisturize. Focusing Tiqqun's critique on women alone will do the same thing as pointing only to the "grandiose" as narcissists: ignore the rest.
As far as Ariana Reines, the translator of one of at least two English translations, she didn't write the book and she does not make any kind of good argument. And if you watch any footage of her on YouTube, you'll probably never refer to her as a valid source of analysis again.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 25, 2014 6:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Recently men have admitted to doing this. Recently it has become a fetish with men. Why? Read Judith Butler.
Translators are usually not original thinkers. There are of course many exceptions. Make up on men now is a "floating sign" acting as a mask (no pun intended)for transgendering. Think male rock singers singing falsetto.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 25, 2014 6:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I take jonny seriously. But I never do with anyone named anonymous.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 25, 2014 6:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ouch. You are getting mighty close to Zizek here. Careful.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 25, 2014 6:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Moving into simulacra land here. Women have cloned themselves, turned themselves into simulacrum. Marilyn Monroe turned herself into a simulacrum. There was no original "Marilyn" as she was wholly imagined, like a character in a novel. Her face, the way she walked and moved, her breathy way of speaking and giggling, Monroe was "young Girl" aging in front of the camera and fearing it in The Misfits, her greatest movie.And Gables also (he knew it and said so. Gable was a Young Girl too).Monroe married men and they began to live with Norma Jean Baker and that wasn't what they had bargained for. Did you read my review of Don Jon? Porno is the simulacrum of sex.http://moviesandfilm (dot) blogspot (dot) com/2013/10/reviewdon-jonreading-through.html Robert Pattinson removes his beautiful boy simulacrum in The Rover. Only he just becomes another simulacrum of a post world uneducated not bright young man. The danger for actors and celebrities is to get so involved with their simulacra they can't find who they thought they were.Like Marilyn.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 25, 2014 7:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You don't understand Žižek, so how would you know?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 25, 2014 10:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jonny you've time and time again proven yourself to not know the definition of the words "logical", "argument", and "proof".
You've certainly proved your argument. I can't argue with logic.
Are you under the impression that anybody here actually takes you seriously or reads most of the things you write? If I had to take a bet I would bet against it.
If I was forced to bet, I'd wager that your compulsion to disapprove for everyone is a narcissistic tell. But are you the only person in your universe built-for-one -- or -- is your universe built-for-none? My money would be on the latter.
"The Young-Girl has neither opinions nor positions of her own. She takes shelter as soon as she can in the shadow of the winners." (Tiqqun)
But then again you're free to do whatever you want.
I'm glad I have your permission, Ms Anonymous. Thank you for your important and valuable contribution of screaming insanity.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 25, 2014 10:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Focusing Tiqqun's critique on women alone will do the same thing as pointing only to the "grandiose" as narcissists: ignore the rest.
Tiqqun's critique is focused on humans selling themselves.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 25, 2014 11:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
While animals are attracted to superficial appearances, humans are enticed by the idea of that which is hidden.
Are humans naturally enticed by the idea of what is hidden or are they conditioned to feel that way by creepy traditions like Xmas?
"Good things come to those who wait." - women manipulating children (and men)
If men weren't broken as toddlers, kept sex-starved, miserable and in existential terror by women, would they still be victims of the illogical idea that value must conceal (to entice)?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 25, 2014 11:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If you are going to write a bunch of shit and expect people to know what the hell it is you're talking about, explain yourself in detail instead of rattling off stream-of-consciousness inner-monologue nonsense, throwing in a Bible quote and a picture of you with some barely legal Pacific-Islander prostitute, hitting the reply button, and calling it a day. You need to be able to elaborate yourself in ways that other people can understand.
I'm five years old in that picture. You're a twisted whore, aren't you. Are all "dark-skinned" women prostitutes in your eyes? I don't even see colour in Humanity unless it's pointed out to me.
There is no way to tell you truth and make you accept it. If you accepted the reality of your cannibalistic existence of non-contribution, you'd have to terminate yourself. Your mind won't allow you to see or understand the truth any more than it will allow you asphyxiate by holding your breath. You're blind to the horror of your existence but you can't conceal your need for lies (to conceal your illegitimate imposition on men and children).
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 26, 2014 6:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Fair enough example.
If you won't accept truth as the end of debate, there's no point in conversing with you. There's only one way to deal with you so leaching went viral. 99% of humans are a negative proposition, utterly worthless and needy, beady eyes scanning for 'advantage'.
You don't value truth so engaging you is redundant. You contribute lies, smear, speculation and ignore every point made. Your intentions aren't constructive, obstruction is your endgame. Men of reason and Science drag Humanity forward as Religion's emotional women just suck everyone back. Back to the Dark Ages of slavery, contrived misery and whore shaming of biology.
You're not winning, you've won. We both know men and children have no reason to exist but they're in denial, trapped in your Maya illusions. Women make boys suffer to prove their worth and simultaneously make every girl worthless. Existing is pointless.
If women were valuable, why the need to bind men to their side? If girls were useful, why the fear of only being "used" for sex? Reduced women want to fuck on men's dime, then they breed children to suffer for their slime. Billions broken, lost and blind, frightened and confused, wanting love, finding hate, smashing into fists, guns & glass. I've seen faces slashed with broken bottles for 'offence'. I saw a kid thrown from the third floor onto cement for not looking where he was going. If men knew what women have done - and why - all suffering would end overnight.
"Until they become conscious they will never rebel and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious." (George Orwell)
What is the point of suffering to please [anyone pleased by suffering]? To be rewarded with exclusive need [more suffering]?
"Your parents must be mighty proud of you, soldier." "Sir, yes Sir!" "You know I'd be hard pressed not to write you up for a medal if you got the job done for us again." "A medal, Sir?" "That's right, son." "Sir, yes Sir! You can count on me Sir!" "Thatta BOY. Get out there and give 'em hell."
Stupid creeps. They pour deity minds into their whore mould to make cannon fodder out of child gods. Insanity. Boys dying for the approval of disapproving women who undress to impress.
The "Beautiful Face of Courage". It's what girls on social media say. And what do they do? Heroes (sent to secure poppy fields or triumphs for the Cross) sleep alone, insulted. You could not imagine how obsessively they block humane exit. They truly care. "Sorry." But they Know Best. "Very sorry." But they're pro-Life.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 26, 2014 6:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Certainly you understand Žižek, I trust? Would you care to share a few between-the-lines interpretations of yours concerning his overall direction? It'd be appreciated.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 26, 2014 9:51 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Are humans naturally enticed by the idea of what is hidden or are they conditioned to feel that way by creepy traditions like Xmas?
Yeah, they're conditioned to feel that way, but not by anything as superficial as Xmas. Xmas is the effect, not the cause.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 26, 2014 10:08 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Would you care to share a few between-the-lines interpretations of yours concerning his overall direction?
Nope. But someone else recently explained it very well and Abbey admitted to not understanding any of it:
You actually read that and understood it! I have studied this stuff and it was babble to me.
No surprise there, though, considering Abbey's own attempts (or lack thereof) at explanation.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 26, 2014 10:50 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Jonny, we are born needy. We had an umbilical cord to connect us to the outside, to something other. Our first mode of being was "fluidal communion in the medium of blood" (Sloterdijk). We first came into being in the womb, in the illusion of a two-person world of mother and me. Then we're born, and our voice - starting with the scream - becomes our medium to reach across to the other, the totality from which we have been severed (on a sidenote: do you have that same demonstrative tradition in the US, where the father is asked to cut the umbilical cord -- talk about masculine domination: Here, father, sever this natural bond with your will and cold steel scissors to place culture's mark -- the name of the father -- onto this newborn screaming piece of nature).
So clearly we are born needy. You solve that by arguing that our mothers are supposed to provide for us with agapic love until we are able to achieve independence.
Ok, I like the freethinking way you turn the usual cultural and religious logic upside down here: Rather than owing your parents more than you could ever repay, because they gave you existence, you flip it over and say: by giving me life, you should be willing to give your own life for mine. Intellectually, this is all fine and good - it's like you are arguing for, not anti-Christ, but anti-Confucius.
-----
So, first off, here's a minor digression: Did you notice how different cultures - because of masculine domination - turn up with similar creation myths to justify that it is 'really' man not woman that gives life. Faced with the annoying fact that it is women who give birth, the Abrahamic religions employed Yahve, the original life-giver, a male deity. They did the exact same thing in Madagascar to one-up women: While we cannot deny that women do have children, mankind as such owes its existence to the male principle.
-----
Let's have one more about masculine domintation and then return to men, human nature and deities.
Pierre Bourdieu made a nice argument about why women are depicted in the intellectual life of many different cultures as knieving, deceitful etc. It is quite simple: Because they have no real officially recognised power to command anyone, or the psychical power to compel anyone, this is what they were left with: subtle manipulation, trying to sway your husband or some other male figure commanding actual power your way. His point is, of course, that what is considered to be a fact about the essence of womankind is actually the result of a societal distribution of power. Histoculturally speaking a man has (almost everywhere at almost all times) been expected to defend his honour. No so with women. They are a-priori excluded from the game of honour, and what is left them is "dishonourable" manipulation.
Good stuff, though I doubt I can convince you about masculine domination just like that.
------
You talk about nature and what men were supposed to do, which is something natural, not cultural, since you call whatever is unbiological an abomination. It seems to me that your model of human nature is rather like lion nature: Roving independent males + prides of females and young ones.
Now why on earth did you end up with this version? There is nothing to suggest that there has even been a mode of human existence that was anything like that. What we have instead is evidence of man as a social group animal.
It makes sense that man was (and is) a group animal: alright, we have impressive endurance, but we are practically useless without tools. We had tools because human invention was pooled by collective life and diffusion, and so mankind flourished in numbers.
Keeping with the social aspect of life: My mother brought me into this world in an illusion of two-someness that was broken with my birth and then I cried. She brought me up, teaching me how to be a member of society - wearing clothes and whatnot - and now I am an independent, fully grown man with a wife and a child of my own. She on the other hand is growing old and suffering from that. This is where reciprocity ethically calls attention to itself, and I see this nowhere in your writing. The point about every gift is that it involves the risk that nothing comes back - it is potentially gratuitous spending from the viewpoint of interest driven "economic man". The accumulation of stuff my parents did for me, sacrificed for me etc. impressed me. Soon they will be the weak part of this dyad and I will attempt to "repay" them, not to make things "even" (how could I, I would have to give birth to my mother), but to honour their agapic sacrifice for me, I hope and wish to make agapic sacrifices for them.
------
Finally:
1. Your version of human nature seems to lack the propensity for aggresssion. Why? The point with marriage according to e.g. Lévi-Strauss is that it makes order out of subliminal desire: the point is to monopolise a female instead of fighting with other males for her. You'll see that many cultures have leeway for a second wife, a lover, premarital sex, prostitution etc. Sometimes there's even some leeway for women, though it is usually primarily for men.
2. does man have no ethical responsibility for his offspring in your ethics - what exactly is he supposed to be doing, whilst the mother is busy being willing to sacrifice herself for the offspring, and why?
3. what is this deity stuff you are throwing around? It is a kind of tupsy-turvy version of the myth of the Garden of Eden, where you've kept the fall from grace (everything is wrong - once is was perfect, go nature, go metaphysics, fuck culture), but flipped the significance of clothing. Adam and Eve fell, not because they we're naked, but because they put on clothes?
------
Yes, there are girls, who are taught that their sex is a form of currency. This has some negative consequences. I think that you are wrong about why this is the case.
Cheers, Cap. M.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 26, 2014 11:36 AM | Posted by : | Reply
abbey's blog is visual and literary diarrhea, and jonny's posts read like a paranoid schizophrenic with mommy issues. Normally I would say that they're trolling but they both seem to be completely in earnest, so if they are indeed trolling then they have me fooled.
If this is a case of Poe's Law in action, then they're so far down the rabbit hole that it's akin to someone enlisting in the Vietnam war (for completely ironic reasons) and in 2014 is still running around the jungle with camo on, screaming about Charlie.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 26, 2014 2:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Let's all return to arguments about Lacan, Zizek, Foucault, Derrida, etc, and bash each other over the e-head with "I'm right, you're wrong, ____________ MUST be understood in order to establish a legitimate claim to the biological status of homo sapiens."
People who have no intellectual heft in meatspace need a place to pretend at Deep Critical Theory Debate, and what better place than a blog whose over-arching thematic conclusion is, "you're a narcissist, and your narcissism is what makes your life fail to measure up to expectation."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 26, 2014 6:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
...do you have that same demonstrative tradition in the US, where the father is asked to cut the umbilical cord -- talk about masculine domination: Here, father, sever this natural bond with your will and cold steel scissors to place culture's mark -- the name of the father -- onto this newborn screaming piece of nature.
I'm Australian but I'm not sure I've ever heard of this symbolic trick played by mothers. There is no masculine domination, men are slaves being insulted non-stop. It's hilarious how tragically manipulated they are. "I'm the macho man. It's my responsibility to pay for everything." Women are like, "Well, if you insist..."
Rather than owing your parents more than you could ever repay, because they gave you existence, you flip it over and say: by giving me life, you should be willing to give your own life for mine.
Only until independence. Not even 10 years. We are artificially infantilised, made to be dependent to serve that role. By bringing us here against our will in a helpless state, they are compelled to protect and provision us until we can help ourselves. Life is suffering. There is no such thing as an unsolicited, violently-imposed gift which cannot be refused. Life is not a gift, it's a hijack of suffering (the memories are wiped by our subconscious).
In nature with mammals, and in logic, that is how it works. Women have incurred the debt, not men. Making the child independent and unattached is a non-negotiable debt owed to their young. If they don't want to incur it, they don't need to.
Did you notice how different cultures - because of masculine domination - turn up with similar creation myths to justify that it is 'really' man not woman that gives life.
Women's symbolic tricks. In reality, who nurtures the child?
Faced with the annoying fact that it is women who give birth, the Abrahamic religions employed Yahve, the original life-giver, a male deity.
The Abrahamic religions were written by matriarchs and their imprinted priests, who tailor religion to appeal to women who want slaves. Religions that don't appeal to mothers don't exist.
1 Timothy 2 (KJV) 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Do you see? They've handed themselves a 'punishment' of doing exactly what they want to do sans any requirement to contribute.
How many human sons would die to protect their mother? 80%? 70%? How many mammal sons would die to protect their mother in Nature? 0. The difference is endless wars of attrition.
Pierre Bourdieu made a nice argument about why women are depicted in the intellectual life of many different cultures as knieving, deceitful etc.
No, they're perfidious leeches. Pierre Bourdieu is a fucking moron.
Because they have no real officially recognised power to command anyone, or the psychical power to compel anyone
*facepalm* Watch first video. No physical power to compel?
They are a-priori excluded from the game of honour, and what is left them is "dishonourable" manipulation.
Men die to defend women's honour from 'slanderous' truth. For future reference, when one gender dies for the other, the gender that is "excluded from dying" are the oppressors.
It seems to me that your model of human nature is rather like lion nature: Roving independent males + prides of females and young ones. Now why on earth did you end up with this version?
Every mammal mother takes care of herself and her young. Humans are the only mammals that abuse their young to make them attached, and to use them as pawns, to die and shit.
There is nothing to suggest that there has even been a mode of human existence that was anything like that.
You've been taught lies. Mothers and their biopolitical State rewrite history every generation.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." (George Orwell)
[i.imgur.com/u7XMqtq.png]
[i.imgur.com/zFrb5v5.png]
[i.imgur.com/XO8aiH9.png]
She brought me up, teaching me how to be a member of society - wearing clothes and whatnot - and now I am an independent, fully grown man with a wife and a child of my own.
You have a wife. You're bound as a slave. You are owned by a contract backed by State violence. What are you talking about?
She on the other hand is growing old and suffering from that.
No she isn't. She's lying to you. I've raised two children myself. No one grows old or suffers from raising children, children want to do things for themselves. It's not natural to be dependent. What else was she going to do? You've been hoodwinked.
The point about every gift is that it involves the risk that nothing comes back - it is potentially gratuitous spending from the viewpoint of interest driven "economic man". The accumulation of stuff my parents did for me, sacrificed for me etc.
You've been brainwashed. There is NO SUCH THING as an unsolicited, forced gift. What if the recipient doesn't want the stinking gift? You were brought here by force in a helpless state. They owed you independence. You don't owe them a Thank you.
The point with marriage according to e.g. Lévi-Strauss is that it makes order out of subliminal desire: the point is to monopolise a female instead of fighting with other males for her.
Why would I want to? Why would anyone fight? I'm not broken. Only broken men can be cuckolded. I don't need the illusion of exclusive access to feel in control. Why would I want anyone to suffer or sacrifice to please me? If a dashing fellow fancied 'my' girl, if she didn't hook up with him, I'd dump her on principle.
Sometimes there's even some leeway for women, though it is usually primarily for men.
If every husband got 'his' children DNA tested, the institution of marriage would be destroyed. Conservative estimates range from 10-30% of children and that's just when women screw up so badly, they get pregnant.
2. does man have no ethical responsibility for his offspring in your ethics
Women have the duty. Men have the privilege. To go against nature requires slavery. The fact that you needed to be bound is the proof that you weren't supposed to provision.
3. what is this deity stuff you are throwing around?
Children are deities. They have the minds of gods. Every single one has the blueprint to the universe encoded into their mind, minds that are destroyed by their mothers to secure exclusive control over their bodies. Humans don't value minds.
Adam and Eve fell, not because they we're naked, but because they put on clothes?
Adam and Eve is an allegorical lesson to teach what happens to those who blow the whistle on Power's lies.
Genesis 2 (KJV) 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.Genesis 3 (KJV)
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
In the day that they ate thereof, did they surely die? No. God's a fucking liar. The "devil" character is always blowing the whistle on God's lies and getting punished as a result. Hint hint.
Shame maketh the boy...soldier. No boys want to fight wars unless you make them feel they need to prove themselves. There's only one way to make a child feel that way; traumatic abuse. There's nothing wrong with clothes, it's how clothes are saddled onto toddlers with violence and shame, to tame them.
Yes, there are girls, who are taught that their sex is a form of currency. This has some negative consequences. I think that you are wrong about why this is the case.
I'm not. It's about a Big Lie. [i.imgur.com/yUpdXRx.png]
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 26, 2014 6:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Normally I would say that they're trolling but they both seem to be completely in earnest, so if they are indeed trolling then they have me fooled.
I am not trolling when I say, you are the proof of my argument. Your approval is very important. Your disapproval means a lot.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 26, 2014 8:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
proof
argument
These are words you do not understand.
Projection and / or wishful assumption is not proof.
Babbling is not an argument.
For example, I just randomly selected this excerpt from your last post:
Children are deities. They have the minds of gods. Every single one has the blueprint to the universe encoded into their mind, minds that are destroyed by their mothers to secure exclusive control over their bodies. Humans don't value minds.
This is nonsense babbling with zero foundation in reality.
Your approval is very important. Your disapproval means a lot.
So does yours jonny. So does yours.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 26, 2014 8:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The latest stream of shit from el puerco:
Let's all return to arguments about Lacan, Zizek, Foucault, Derrida, etc, and bash each other over the e-head with "I'm right, you're wrong, ____________ MUST be understood in order to establish a legitimate claim to the biological status of homo sapiens."People who have no intellectual heft in meatspace need a place to pretend at Deep Critical Theory Debate
Strange how much that sounds like jonny.
In any case, that post is especially hilarious in light of your other post here:
Yes, there's so much "proof" being offered here. It's like a hs journalism class. "Check your facts!," says the earnest professor who didn't himself ever do any investigative heavy-lifting, but did in fact watch a lot of Lou Grant talking to Mrs Pynchon about what's good for a newspaper to run.Correct me if I'm wrong, Sandy, but I think discussions about human emotion can't really be advanced any better with rigorous journalistic fact-checking than they can with personal observation.
This apparently offends your meritocratic urges and your simple urge of deferring to authority.
el puerco I want you to (carefully) read both your posts back-to-back. This is why it's obviously you're a troll.
Not a very good troll because you're kind of shit at it, but just enough to fool some of the people who still take the time to respond to your inane nonsense.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 26, 2014 11:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are speaking from the point of view of a prescriptive ethics, Jonny, and providing one adversary that is the cause for why we cannot do not live as we ought to: bad mothers.
Your ethics is a sexist ethics because you claim 1) that there is a 'suppposed to', that is, a non-cultural intention or purpose with human life, and 2) this 'supposed to' is different for the two sexes. For women it is duty, for men it is privilege. 3) beyond simply splitting the sexes and providing them with different purposes, your ethics is also sexist in that it ethically binds women as a means to a larger purpose (10 years of selfless nurturing making independent young people), while men, it appears, are an end in themselves.
Who is doing the supposing here? Well, a fundamental schism in your ethics is between truth and apperance. You align nature-universe-deity being and authenticity and pits it against culture-lies-illusion-suffering. So it's the universe or some transcendent principle that is doing the supposing, and we humans keep disappointing it. Dear me, poor transcendent principle.
Let's entertain for a moment that you achieved that liberation, you are speaking of. You are no longer needy of anyone's attention, least of all your mother, you've severed every attachment that wanted something of you. You run around naked. Now what are you going to do? You've renounced the social, now you have become Robinson Crusoe, you have become Peter the Wildboy before he was found in Hannover's forests, you have become a social and moral idiot. All fine and good, but from this social zero-point, would you engage other humans, and if so, how and why? You are soothsaying, speaking truth to power, but would your ethics if enacted provide you or anyone else with human wellbeing, eudamoinia? Probably not: you’d have no offspring around you, you’d have no-one to discuss with, you’d have no-one, meaning-making would slow to a halt, so maybe you’d get your buddhist Nirvana, but that’s death not life – it’s the renunciation of life. But that is besides the point is it not, because your point is not really to argue for a positive vision of something, but rather to negatively decry the lacking 'supposed to' in human life.
You are not after the ‘is’ you are after the ‘supposed to’, this is what structures your fantasy. Mothers are your Jews, Zizek would say [fantasy]: if only it wasn't for mothers, then we would be in the Real.
----
You hate illusion. Do you also hate games, art and courtesy. Our propensity for illusionmaking can act on the real for shorter or longer periods of time, this is the creation of the symbolic, of language, of culture. It's games, art and courtesy.
----
Natural male agression, natural male sexual desire is a stumbling block. If there is such a thing, we're back to the usual dialectics of domesticating wild human nature that Lévi-Strauss was writing of, or is this, alternatively, the privilege that you speak of?
Ducks and cheetahs (and some other species) do something that looks very much like rape, even gang rape. Your ethics cannot handle this unless you clearly demarcate human nature in all its goodness as somehow different, or you claim that natural rape isn't rape: there's pain but no suffering. Would this then bleed over into human nature?
My alternative is much more realistic, less morally idiotic (less socially impossible): Yes, humans “have the blueprint to the universe encoded in their minds” but there is no humanly discernable purpose to this blueprint, and there is a generative principle to this never-finished blueprint. What we share is curiosity and the ability to act on the world. This is not bad or good, it is.
Toddlers are curious, they will gratuitously destroy to satiate their curiosity. Then they are told NO (by father as well as mother) and desire attaches to the action and the object (this thing that I cannot, should not, must not do, or this thing that I cannot, must not, should do to myself or let be done to me, but if only….) And that’s why people are really obsessing about sex when they claim to be doing a business presentation or buying a pack of cigarettes.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 1:05 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I wait with bated breath for "My Twisted World: The Manifesto of Jonny" to hit the bookstores. I'll stick it right in between my copies of The Fountainhead and Catcher in the Rye.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 1:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't know abbey, will I?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 3:42 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Children are deities. They have the minds of gods. Every single one has the blueprint to the universe encoded into their mind, minds that are destroyed by their mothers to secure exclusive control over their bodies. Humans don't value minds.
Children are literally deities. Their minds are so powerful but they just get destroyed by trauma from your lies, violence and shame. There is nothing in the paragraph above that isn't true. If a child was never lied to, their brain would be so powerful...
Humans don't value minds. We live in a world of depraved cannibalism. Every child is made to fight for survival against their own mother. Love is a temporary hostile defence mechanism to enable survival as children await rescue from their plight. The species is trapped in Recovery Mode, breeding illegitimately. No SAR teams are coming. All the humans are dead.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 4:45 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Children are literally deities. Their minds are so powerful but they just get destroyed by trauma from your lies, violence and shame. There is nothing in the paragraph above that isn't true. If a child was never lied to, their brain would be so powerful...
It seems you have now delved into the realm of pseudoscience.
Humans don't value minds. We live in a world of depraved cannibalism. Every child is made to fight for survival against their own mother. Love is a temporary hostile defence mechanism to enable survival as children await rescue from their plight. The species is trapped in Recovery Mode, breeding illegitimately. No SAR teams are coming. All the humans are dead.
The marketing of demonic whores recapitulates the conceptual logic of millennial hedonism. That is to say the systemization of the specular economy is often found in juxtaposition with, if not in direct opposition to, the realization of the anesthesia of forgetting. The authentication of the private asks to be read as the emergence of narrative qua narrative. Demonic whores' engendering of difference invests itself in the disintegration of civil society. The rhetoric of history as such revisits the eroticization of the perfidious leech.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 8:43 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I like your posts, you make me think but I think where you're going wrong is failing to understand that Mother Nature is always fair. If it appears unfair, someone is lying. If women claim that sociological imposition is required to make Nature fair, they are lying. Stupidly lying, because humans forced against their will are turned into things. You're happily married but the institution of marriage is an abomination. No one who cannot be persuaded should ever be compelled. Humans were coded to be free. Love binds mothers to their duty. Men have privilege to provision.
Your ethics is a sexist ethics because you claim 1) that there is a 'suppposed to'
I speak in the best interests of all humans. That women are incapable of perceiving their best interests is the issue at hand.
2) this 'supposed to' is different for the two sexes. For women it is duty, for men it is privilege. 3) beyond simply splitting the sexes and providing them with different purposes, your ethics is also sexist in that it ethically binds women as a means to a larger purpose (10 years of selfless nurturing making independent young people), while men, it appears, are an end in themselves.
Women bind themselves to that duty when they choose to reap the reward Mother Nature offers female mammals to engage in reproductive activity. In Nature, female mammals incur debt which they honor. In Society, female mammals incur debt they refuse to honor. Mother Nature is always fair. To ensure the survival of the species, women are coded to be obsessed with sex, literally 10 x more than men. This is why men have the privilege and women have the duty. Mother Nature's reward system is fair.
So it's the universe or some transcendent principle that is doing the supposing, and we humans keep disappointing it.
The principle is our best interests. We keep defeating ourselves.
Let's entertain for a moment that you achieved that liberation, you are speaking of. You run around naked. Now what are you going to do? You've renounced the social...you have become a social and moral idiot.
Liberation isn't possible until everyone is liberated, in which case no one would need to renounce the antisocial slavery of Polite Society. They would be liberated to freely socialise once again. Why would people default to naked? Most would choose supportive or protective apparel; liberation is freedom of choice. No imposition. No trauma. No need. No wedlock. No locks.
would your ethics if enacted provide you or anyone else with human wellbeing
Universal well-being. An end to imposition. The Human Contract would be restored. If humans could be trusted not to be psychotic and defeat themselves, everyone would exist in selfish utopia. Preventing this are selfless women (men are irrelevant) with minds that were never flushed of their mother's religious emotional faeces; love, hate, jealousy, revenge, entitlement, self-pity, charity, fear and shame. They dump their shit forward. Babies cannot feel these constructs until they teach themselves to talk (with mothers who turn them into emotional toilets).
your point is not really to argue for a positive vision of something, but rather to negatively decry the lacking 'supposed to' in human life.
The positive vision is our human birthright to exist in Paradise / own the universe. But realistically, children cannot be protected from their mothers so the human existence is illegitimate. In practical terms, it's in no one's interests to be alive. But people oblivious to their subconscious revisioning of their memories make the best God damn slaves in the galaxy. We could not survive if we didn't revision (evidenced by the need to revision).
It's important to understand, if there was nothing for us in this world, that would be alright. But I am not validated by liability. Objects have nothing I need. I need nothing, that's all. It's not alright, I'm entitled to nothing. I'm owed nothing. Only 1/1000 (?) humans can offer nothing. The rest belong in the ground.
The truth is not that the truth varies or that there isn't any. The truth is pure and simple. The truth is that there shouldn't be any.
Do you also hate games, art and courtesy.
I hate self-defeating malice. Courtesy is malicious, by definition. Non-malicious games and art are fine; anything but malice is fine. Fantasy is fine when it's presented as fantasy. Reality is malicious when misrepresented. There's nothing complex about truth, you can be wrong and it's fine. Truth is a function of sanity and intent to contribute. Lies reduce. Illusions reduce. It's all whore bullshit.
Natural male aggression
There is no such thing.
natural male sexual desire
Weaker than the desire for food. Sex is a sensory chore for men, unless they're broken. Then it's "meaningful" (rape).
Ducks and cheetahs (and some other species) do something that looks very much like rape, even gang rape. Your ethics cannot handle this unless you clearly demarcate human nature in all its goodness as somehow different, or you claim that natural rape isn't rape: there's pain but no suffering.
Looks like =! Is like. What makes you imagine Mother Nature would make them feel pain? Why would you imagine they're being raped in pain? They're struggling as it feels too good. You're confused by preconditioned perception. Mother Nature is never unfair. A species that suffered during reproducing would be a dead species. Note, I didn't say reproductive activity. I said reproducing. Did you believe that childbirth is painful as well? Mother Nature wants to reproduce so childbirth cannot be painful. [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgasmic_Birth:_The_Best-Kept_Secret] Nature is streamlined for reproducing. Pain is a deterrent.
Don't listen to what women say. Listen to what they do. They say lies, they do truth. If they're coming back for more "rape"? If they're using cosmetics to appear fraudulently attractive to rapists? If they're twerking to induce rapists' arousal? They're not confused. Lots of girls want me to rape them. I tell them to go fuck themselves, literally; and they sneer because their value system is rape. They're disgusted at how pathetic I am. They think my lack of need is weak. My refusal to pander to their sleaze isn't weak but they only respect men who take control.
"If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself." (George Orwell)
[thoughtcatalog.com/nino-rekhviashvili/2013/04/why-do-people-have-rape-fantasies/]
One study published in 2009 in the Journal of Sex Research found that 62% of women in the University of North Texas fantasized about rape, 91% of whom said those fantasies were entirely or somewhat “erotic.”
Toddlers are curious, they will gratuitously destroy to satiate their curiosity.
So? What could possibly be worth stifling their curiosity?
Then they are told NO (by father as well as mother) and desire attaches to the action and the object (this thing that I cannot, should not, must not do, or this thing that I cannot, must not, should do to myself or let be done to me, but if only….)
Yes. Now take that thought and think about this:
"We need to teach our boys NOT to rape." (feminists)
Open your eyes to the evil you are blind to.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 9:53 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jonny why did you ignore my post?
Also I charge you to make an argument about why anything is "unnatural" as opposed to "natural".
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 12:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jonny why did you ignore my post?
I was attempting to research the last part of this sentence:
That is to say the systemization of the specular economy is often found in juxtaposition with, if not in direct opposition to, the realization of the anesthesia of forgetting.
And got distracted by this site about anesthesia, near death experiences and the afterlife. On an unrelated topic, we live in a world where anesthetist can put 10,000 patients under without pain or incident but the State seemingly can't execute a prisoner without horrific, macabre torture owing to countless inexplicable mishaps and errors. Over. And over. And over again. And no one is willing to state the obvious? Barbaric sub-animals.
______________
It's not pseudoscience to believe that toddlers have deity minds until they're destroyed. They can't get destroyed until they teach themselves their mother's tongue and that is an impossible feat.
The marketing of demonic whores recapitulates the conceptual logic of millennial hedonism.
Yes it does.
The rhetoric of history as such revisits the eroticization of the perfidious leech.
Indeed it does...I think (?).
Also I charge you to make an argument about why anything is "unnatural" as opposed to "natural".
Marriage is unnatural as violence and coercion are used to force a man to provision an illegitimately dependent grownup and/or her illegitimate offspring to the exclusion of the man's other children. Paternity is not natural. It's a sociological construct. Men don't stop to check paternity if a cute child needs help. Monogamy is not natural. Human desire is clearly promiscuous. There is literally no logical argument for monogamy. It exists to service an evil woman whose time has come and gone but though she cannot compete with her betters, she refuses to respect merit, logic, decency, Humanity, free will, liberty, beauty, etc.
Wanting to exist at the expense of another's suffering is an unnatural, demonic evil that should be subjected to emotionless firing squads or guillotines. The sheer gall of imagining one has the Right to exist by inflicting suffering...it's just horror. Probably 90% of people simply feel that way and probably 99% would choose to live if forced to choose between death or imposition.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 12:55 PM | Posted by : | Reply
so I'm "obviously a troll" because some anonymous internet construct read my comments with a narcissistic bias (confirmation of assumptions, rather than wondering what the comment otherwise may mean) and felt confident that the biased assumptions indeed were confirmed by a mistaken understanding of my posts.
and I'm jonny also, because this same person says so.
the emotional wellness invested in confirming your erroneous assumptions may be worth examining here.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 1:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It seems you have now delved into the realm of pseudoscience.
Great example of confirmation bias rather than wondering whether someone's comment might mean other than what you already decided, before reading, the commenter thinks and means when typing up a comment. You're already done! You know what it means! You won't ask what it means, that might weaken the emotionally constructed spine keeping you upright.
What about jonny's comment WAS un-science? How are you interpreting his words to find them unscientific? How do you know he was being scientific? Is the human brain's power scientifically measurable? Stanford-Binet? MENSA? Some other tool? Playing chess against Big Blue?
What science is not pseudoscience to Nonny? Whatever is offered by an expert to whom Nonny is comfortable granting expert status and resultant intellectual deference?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 1:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
jonny -
Lots of girls want me to rape them.
When you invert the post-feminist feminism of "all sex is rape if a penis was involved" this sure is funny stuff. But Nonny doesn't do humor unless it praises Known Experts and derides anyone who disagrees with Known Experts.
So I guess we can now wonder, who are Nonny's Known Experts? Does abbeysbooks speak for Nonny on that question?
We really must know: WHOM, exactly, MUST we read and memorize, or cut-and-paste-from-wikipedia, in order to be acknowledged as a legitimate non-troll?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 1:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
jonny -
Lots of girls want me to rape them.
When you invert the post-feminist feminism of "all sex is rape if a penis was involved" this sure is funny stuff. But Nonny doesn't do humor unless it praises Known Experts and derides anyone who disagrees with Known Experts.
So I guess we can now wonder, who are Nonny's Known Experts? Does abbeysbooks speak for Nonny on that question?
We really must know: WHOM, exactly, MUST we read and memorize, or cut-and-paste-from-wikipedia, in order to be acknowledged as a legitimate non-troll?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 1:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ah yes, another who thinks they can discern the motives and psychological state of a person based on an anonymous internet comment.
Congratulations Le Porko, you have joined the eternal choir of the Dimminating Dibcourse!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 1:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Alone, shouldn't you be busy writing your porn book? [spoiler]I know it's you[/spoiler]
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 1:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I take jonny seriously. But I never do with anyone named anonymous.
That's kind of discriminatory. I'll have you know that Anonymous is my Christian name.
Check your privilege, cis scum.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 3:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Nonny #666 said I was "jonny" and now you say I'm "Alone". Meanwhile everyone else wants to know which Revered Expert to memorize and regurgitate. It's all about knowing the right experts and reciting a one-liner from them, or mentioning their names, when among other pseudo-intellectual hipster narcissists.
If you're one of the Target Narcissists reading this blog, here's the best strategy for remaining self-thwarting narcissistic in your outlook:
1) Turn every single possible examination of your own drives and actions into an Us vs Them contest where you triangulate onto Known Experts and pitch your Known Experts against your gainsayer's Known Experts.
2) When your gainsayer says he/she doesn't rely on Known Experts, call him/her a troll. This lets you avoid the analysis that otherwise might give you some fresh perspectives on your annoying narcissistic habits.
3) When you realize that it's not about whose Known Expert would win in a rock 'em sock 'em robots match, and more about you trying to stop being such an arrogant faux-pedant, then pick up a new handle to comment under, but continue in the same self-delusionary pattern of commentary. In other words, take up a new name and again repeat steps 1 & 2 above. Over and over.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 3:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Meanwhile everyone else wants to know which Revered Expert to memorize and regurgitate. It's all about knowing the right experts and reciting a one-liner from them, or mentioning their names, when among other pseudo-intellectual hipster narcissists.
Clearly the only "experts" allowed are the ones jonny cites, such as this one:
One study published in 2009 in the Journal of Sex Research found that 62% of women in the University of North Texas fantasized about rape, 91% of whom said those fantasies were entirely or somewhat “erotic.”
aka the ones that confirm my preconceived bias and allow me to soundbyte them in a quick and useful fashion.
1) Turn every single possible examination of your own drives and actions into an Us vs Them contest where you triangulate onto Known Experts and pitch your Known Experts against your gainsayer's Known Experts.2) When your gainsayer says he/she doesn't rely on Known Experts, call him/her a troll. This lets you avoid the analysis that otherwise might give you some fresh perspectives on your annoying narcissistic habits.
3) When you realize that it's not about whose Known Expert would win in a rock 'em sock 'em robots match, and more about you trying to stop being such an arrogant faux-pedant, then pick up a new handle to comment under, but continue in the same self-delusionary pattern of commentary. In other words, take up a new name and again repeat steps 1 & 2 above. Over and over.
What's the word for someone who doesn't practice what they preach? You know, that guy who doesn't take his own medicine. It's right on the tip of my tongue.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 3:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Meanwhile everyone else wants to know which Revered Expert to memorize and regurgitate.
Seems more like people know who the experts are, but are debating the meaning of the words. It's always your lack of attention to detail which makes your comment analyses disappointing. You seem, rather, to act out of Pavlovian response. French thinker = "hipster." Asking for evidence = "seeking approval from experts." Thinking jonny or abbey are annoying and/or stupid = "narcissist."
Why must you always talk down to us, anyway, puercy? Why not engage us? Take off the lab coat and connect with us, porky pie.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 5:23 PM | Posted by : | Reply
@ Jonny
I think where you're going wrong is failing to understand that Mother Nature is always fair.
Woah, you gotta do something besides offering a bald assertion for this proposition.
Liberation isn't possible until everyone is liberated,
Several years ago I became convinced that "liberation" is just shorthand for "hello, my name is *x* and I'm a narcissist".
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 5:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
To put it another way, liberation is narcissism elevated to a political agenda/ideology. I suspect that there is an underlying individual trait of narcissism but it has been transcended as a trait and elevated to an ideology, one called liberation.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 8:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What's the word for someone who doesn't practice what they preach? You know, that guy who doesn't take his own medicine. It's right on the tip of my tongue.
Glenn Greenwald?
Tarzie?
Jacob Bacharach?
Fred deBoer?
Matt Yglesias?
Corey Robin?
Markos Zuniga?
Elizabeth Warren?
Jeff Popovich?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 8:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Why must you always talk down to us, anyway, puercy? Why not engage us? Take off the lab coat and connect with us, porky pie.
Oh my. It's Sprytel J. Chimchim! Please regale us with the genius of Stanley Aron.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 8:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Seems more like people know who the experts are, but are debating the meaning of the words. It's always your lack of attention to detail which makes your comment analyses disappointing.
You think you're a rhetorician. You're really more a Phil Rockstroh. Words as dogs, chasing tails.
Everyone knows the experts but me, eh? Quite a snarky little piece there, sister. Do you swing your feather boa when you re-read that piece of self-proclaimed comic genius? Does it make you wish you could get that sex change operation right now, Bradley?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 8:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Right, I forgot one. Snark = "emasculation."
Which makes your quips what, then? Detached, masculine genius?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 8:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I suppose that makes sense to you, what with your all-seeing eye & everything that goes along with it.
Why are you so obsessed with feminism? Having a little gender identity problem, eh? You and Hugo Schwyzer should team up and start a competitor to Heartiste.
How to meet, befriend and become subservient to women, the Male Feminist way.
It's quite a coup, the way everyone now is held to the standard of insecure, hetero-hating gay men who wish they could just sublimate into a woman's identity whenever it was time for anything but sex.
Looks like a winner for the Self-Victimizing segment of society.
Wouldn't ever want to take people as individuals. You're either a breeder or a God. Either cis-obnoxious or trans-heroic. Either a misogynist or a feminist. Either a gay man or a person who should go die in a fire. Yes, that's a healthy outlook.
The gay narcissist is the inevitable result of the metrosexualized culture created by QEFTSG. "Everyone wants to be ME, honey. MOI!"
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2014 8:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I think my 8:03 PM post's list omitted a few crucial characters:
Hugo Schwyzer
PZ Myers
David Graeber
Noam Chomsky
Sam Kriss
Chris Hedges
Matt Taibbi
Andrew Sullivan
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 28, 2014 2:17 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
PZ Myers is a sellout of the highest calibre. Seeing what his blog has become over the past 6 years makes my eyes bleed.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 28, 2014 3:24 AM | Posted by : | Reply
PZ Myers is a sellout of the highest calibre.
I dunno. Sellout implies Myers was bringing something valuable to the table, to begin with.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 28, 2014 4:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's true. But at least he once used to value the field of biology before descending into Tumblr social justice warrior rhetoric.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 28, 2014 4:33 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jesus christ. are you forty years old? what the fuck are you talking about?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 28, 2014 6:59 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jonny -Lots of girls want me to rape them.
I should have said, "Lots of girls want me to 'date-rape' them."
I tell them to go fuck themselves, literally. And they sneer. They know I'm queer. They know a "real man" takes what he wants. A "real man" isn't afraid of the rules. Only queers follow the rules. You should see the look on their faces. Sheer contempt / disgust.
They're not really functional, mentally. I imagine they're a lot like you. Because need is weakness. Lack of need is strength. They cannot understand logical truths as simple as that because their existence is needy, from the moment they're abused by their mothers to the moment their dead carcass is finally deceased.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 28, 2014 7:23 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Clearly the only "experts" allowed are the ones jonny cites
You can cite any expert you please or no experts, if you please. But would it kill you to contribute something that isn't your worthless feelings, speculated assertions and infantile counter-arguments limited to, "No, you are. Not me. You."
You can't produce a counter-argument to the truth that underscores women's fantasies about rape, or the truth about female biological desire or the truth about women's obsession with deceit. If you have nothing true to say, don't say anything.
A world full of screaming reduced women, of every gender.
What do the women around him do then? They will cry and lament and perhaps disturb the thinker's twilight peace, as they did in the prison of Athens. "O Crito, have someone take these women away!" said Socrates at last. (Nietzsche)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 28, 2014 7:33 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
We get it. You're a satire of third-wave feminism.
Get back to work.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 28, 2014 7:57 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Dear Alone,
Is there any way you could enable comments on your earlier (2005-) posts? I would like to ask questions about a lot of them.
Sincerely,
Another
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 28, 2014 8:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Just curious about your Noam Chomsky and Chris Hedges submission to your implied hypocrites list. I am not doubting you so much as curious as to what events and actions you are referring to – perhaps I can learn something.
As for your June 27, 2014 8:29 post, which thread (in this crazy mixing pot) is that a part of? I got really curious after reading that post, but I still haven't quite figured out who (singular or plural) that is a reply to.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 28, 2014 8:23 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No he's not alone but I could see how you got that idea from - you probably just read the first part of this post: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/11/a_generational_pathology.html
And el puerco I found this gem on your blog collective:
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the internet is a sucker's game because they always turn out to be, or be indistinguishable from, self-righteous sixteen year olds with infinite free time."--Neil Stephensen, Cryptonomicon
good luck.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 28, 2014 11:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I suppose that makes sense to you, what with your all-seeing eye & everything that goes along with it.
That sounds very feminine, puercy. My "all seeing eye"? You tell 'em, girl!
Why are you so obsessed with feminism? Having a little gender identity problem, eh? You and Hugo Schwyzer should team up and start a competitor to Heartiste.
Are you schizophrenic? Who's talking about feminism? And who? What? You're like the Dennis Miller of obscure internet shitholes. Make a post without a namedrop to a shitty blog that you waste your life on, please.
It's quite a coup, the way everyone now is held to the standard of insecure, hetero-hating gay men who wish they could just sublimate into a woman's identity whenever it was time for anything but sex.
Uh huh. Wait, what? Did your meds wear off? I guess the liberal agenda or the Jews or the gays or whatever is convenient are all out to get you and your hetero masculinity, but what does that have to do with how much of a hack and an idiot you are?
Looks like a winner for the Self-Victimizing segment of society.
...what looks like a winner? Coherency, brother.
Wouldn't ever want to take people as individuals. You're either a breeder or a God. Either cis-obnoxious or trans-heroic. Either a misogynist or a feminist. Either a gay man or a person who should go die in a fire. Yes, that's a healthy outlook.
Live by the binary, die by the binary. Most of the shit you're whining about in this trainwreck of a post was brought up by you.
The gay narcissist is the inevitable result of the metrosexualized culture created by QEFTSG. "Everyone wants to be ME, honey. MOI!"
Yes, gay narcissists didn't exist prior to a show that came out in 2004. OMG LIKE R YOU ALONE?????
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 28, 2014 2:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think where you're going wrong is failing to understand that Mother Nature is always fair.Woah, you gotta do something besides offering a bald assertion for this proposition.
The assertion is logically sound. I'm not the first person to point out that Nature is beautifully symmetrical. In the absence of corruption (of the sort that beaches whales or cannibalises offspring), Mother Nature cycles in perfect harmony (fair). But for the purpose of this discussion, we can change it to, "When reproducing, Mother Nature is always fair." That is logical.
Natural Selection guarantees optimality in reproduction. Mother Nature wants to reproduce. Pain is a deterrent, so the concept of reproductive pain is illogical. If sex was unpleasant* for women, as they've been claiming** for thousands of years and continue to claim across most of the world, reproductive activity would deter reproduction. It's just illogical. Women would have no incentive to reproduce or exist at all (the present reality for men who aren't validated by extortion).
The idea that Natural Selection would favour women averse to sex over women obsessed with sex is just ridiculous. Evolutionary biology dictates women must be optimally obsessed with sex. It is not by coincidence that the Matriarchal religions object.
* Sex will be unpleasant for women who are horribly abused by their mother's conditioning during adolescence (to traumatise them when they hit puberty), but there are convents for women like this. Children of both genders are conditioned to imagine non-sensory pain triggered by "foul language" (primarily sex-related words, but also descriptive words like "whore") but for girls, it gets more sadistic than being forced to use euphemisms / be repulsed by honest men and charmed by duplicity. Girls are conditioned to imagine suffering triggered by exposure. They can hold it, some deep-throat it but if you send a D-pic they're outraged. I've done this hundreds of times and ~90% of girls will go from wanting sex to incensed fury, blocking chat never wanting to speak again. The male body is disgusting, say women married to men. Exposed men hurt women's traumatised victims.
** In the gradual process of changing now that science has exposed their millennia-old perfidy. Some women still "hate sex" (smiley face, giggle) but many have now varied 'truth' to "like sex, but not with you" (giggle). So "you" still have to treat them Right (like a whore, for the same reasons). "It's up to you."
If childbirth was painful, as they've been claiming since time eternal - even claiming they die giving birth (children should feel terrible for killing them with so much pain!) - it wouldn't be conducive to reproducing. Mother Nature wants to reproduce.
[ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1595040/]
Women are inherently capable of giving birth, have a deep, intuitive instinct about birth, and...are able to give birth without interventions and without suffering.
[bellybelly.com.au/birth/ecstatic-birth-natures-hormonal-blueprint-for-labor]
Dr Sarah Buckley:
Giving birth in ecstasy: This is our birthright and our body's intent. Mother Nature, in her wisdom, prescribes birthing hormones that take us outside (ec) our usual state (stasis), so that we can be transformed on every level as we enter motherhood.
Four of the major hormonal systems are active during labor and birth. These involve oxytocin, the hormone of love; endorphins, hormones of pleasure and transcendence; adrenaline and noradrenaline (epinephrine and norepinephrine), hormones of excitement; and prolactin, the mothering hormone. These systems are common to all mammals and originate deep in our mammalian or middle brain.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 28, 2014 4:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Johny: One small quip I have in your assertions is that females must like sex more then males. Don't get me wrong, I agree if women didn't like sex a fair deal the species would have died off – natural selection must create females who enjoy as much of the reproductive process as possible, that is obvious. But I don't see how that implies that they must want it more then men.
To me it would seem natural selection would give the biggest desire for sex to whichever gender had to do more work to acquire it. Here is my logic on that with a thought experiment: Imagine a species with two genders of equal sexual desire. One gender has tremendous (lets say provisional) hurdles to clear to woo the other gender, while the other does not. Given the same normal distribution of libido, far more members of the gender facing the tremendous reproductive hurdles "give up" because they just don't want it badly enough relative to what is required of them, then the members of the gender where relatively little is required for access to sex even though their libido is from the same normal distribution. Apply this selection pattern after a enough numbers of generations and it should be obvious that natural selection will favor a higher libido for the group that has to do more work to acquire access to sex.
Now apply this to humans, women are the attractors, if their weren't cultural impositions forcing them not to (something you discuss a lot) then they could easily have sex all the time on a whim (not necessarily good or desirable sex, but sex none-the-less). The same cannot be said for most men. If you don't believe me on that assertion then just read the memoir of a lesbian who spent a year disguised living as a man ( http://tinyurl.com/oeakvhu ) She records first–hand how hard it is to acquire sex from hetero-women if they think you are a hetero-man. In the end she had many successes, but she sure had to try a lot and put a lot more effort into it then receiving (unwanted) endless free solicitations for sex from men when she presents as a woman. Indeed she says after her experience she became very sympathetic to the men who hit on her instead of just annoyed at them because she can appreciate the persistence and effort required to achieve their goal. A goal that if someone had a lesser sex drive, they would be far more likely to give up on.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 28, 2014 5:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The problem with this entire thread of a trainwreck (LOL!) is that everyone is in the Dominating Discourse of Binary Thinking.No one can win as all are trying to dominate. There are some good points that make for interesting reading tho. The problem with Darwinian evolution and natural selection is that in the layman's language things like sex drive, have to be explained by sinking into the swamp of interpretation. If you read Stephen Jay Gould's essays on evolution he does not proceed that way at all. His experimental observations are fascinating. All experimental work in natural selection is wonderful, but not any of the tripe here.
Why it is so hard for a heterosexual man to get laid does not need to be explained by biological evolution. Most sex is really mutual masturbation anyway. No intimacy involved.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 28, 2014 7:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Dr. Alone,
Perhaps this might provide fodder for another screed: http://www.edrants.com/emily-gould-literary-narcissism-and-the-middling-millennials/
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 28, 2014 8:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The assertion is logically sound. I'm not the first person to point out that Nature is beautifully symmetrical. In the absence of corruption (of the sort that beaches whales or cannibalises offspring), Mother Nature cycles in perfect harmony (fair). But for the purpose of this discussion, we can change it to, "When reproducing, Mother Nature is always fair." That is logical.
Dumbest shit I've read all week.
Not gonna read the rest of your post(s).
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 28, 2014 11:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Now apply this to humans, women are the attractors, if their weren't cultural impositions forcing them not to (something you discuss a lot) then they could easily have sex all the time on a whim (not necessarily good or desirable sex, but sex none-the-less). The same cannot be said for most men.
But this is this only true for clothed, broken humans. Shamed and passive women are spoiled by the incessant screaming need of broken men who, on some level, know there's no reason for them to be alive but they're in denial as they're too invested in suffering (in poker, the term is pot-committed). Desire is twisted in farcical ways, like the way men are conditioned to be aroused by mammary glands used for breastfeeding. WTF? Breasts have nothing to do with sex? Nipplegate says women are all in on it.
Remove the sociological corruption and women's true desire would be Bonobo-like. They're a 98.7% DNA match so it's not a wild claim. I've been dumped by multiple gfs for being insufficient / inadequate, girls really need a number of guys at any one time. Though men would dearly like to believe otherwise, the evidence I've seen suggests girls are often in practical agreement. Their Doublethink capacities are pretty amazing, most girls can believe anything they want. They just revision history on the fly.
"You know I never do this? I literally never do this. I can't believe I'm doing this."
They do it every night. The Greeks aren't known for lying right?
(Apollodorus, Library 3.6.7)It is told that when Zeus and Hera once disputed whether the pleasures of love are better enjoyed by women or by men, they referred to Tiresias for a decision on account of his knowledge of both sides of love. Tiresias then told them that, "Of ten parts a man enjoys one only, but a woman enjoys the full ten parts in her heart."
For this utterance, they say, Hera blinded him, but Zeus bestowed on him the power of a seer.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 29, 2014 12:17 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"Would Adderall help me do more work and less porn?" No, but it will help you write a book of porn and you will be terrified at what you learn. His favorite way to consume news is to forgo primary sources in favor of skimming two paragraph dissections written by others who also forwent the primary sources. Unmotivated, unthreatening and unrelevant, publicly not drawing from the system according to his need but privately disavowing a lack of contribution back to the system according to his ability. "But the system is corrupt." $100M says there's a vaporizer nearby.
- So Alone... What did you find in your quest to write a book of Porn? I know I might regret finding out, but I feel I must trust your exposure of this terrible truth, if you deem your viewers worthy enough to share it... all while you continue to disavow a lack of contribution back to the system. I wish we were all strong enough to fight and dismantle the system instead of being content by our lack of contributions to it.
Thank you for the great article, and good luck.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 29, 2014 1:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
How can nature be "fair"? According to Oxford, fair means: "in accordance with the rules or standards; legitimate." But human beings are the ones who create rules and standards and notions of legitimacy; to call nature "fair" is to assume that nature conforms to the shape of the forms that our thoughts use to describe it, and to apply very specific positive moral connotations to an entity that should defy such simplistic anthropomorphicising.
Filial cannibalism among mammals and the beaching of whales both occur sans apparent human involvement (see: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beached_whale and http://m.livescience.com/2053-animals-eat-offspring.html), and they're not even the most gruesome exhibits in nature's horror show gallery of mute indifference. Mother Nature doesn't "want" to reproduce, it doesn't "want" anything because it's a construct invented to describe a whole bunch of very different but complexly interrelated phenomena. Evolution isn't striving towards optimality-- it's a process of variables expressing themselves in infinite and increasingly complex configurations, only falling into certain patterns because those patterns, under specific, often ephemeral circumstances, are able to survive long enough to replicate themselves.
You say that women around the world claim to dislike sex, but I haven't seen that to be the case. Looking at modern western culture (I can't speak to others), it seems blatant that women as a whole enjoy sex and are willing to admit that they enjoy sex. I have female friends who speak openly about their sexual relationships and their masturbation habits, and media targeted exclusively towards women is filled with references to sex (explicit romance novels, female comedians, sex and the city, women's magazines, etc.). But women who hate sex certainly exist, and they're not evolutionary aberrations when you consider that a woman could probably get away with having sex less than three dozen times over the course of her lifetime while still fulfilling her full reproductive potential. Since women can generally carry only one child at a time, and maybe a maximum of twenty over the course of a lifetime, it's simply unnecessary for them to have 30 one night stands in 30 days or to constantly be carrying on with sexual adventures, though you'll find plenty who do it anyway just for the fun of it. Men, on the other hand, are almost unlimited in the number of children they might have, so for them it always makes good evolutionary sense to hook up with a new woman-- though here, too, you'll find plenty of men who don't aspire to wanton promiscuity and don't seem to be motivated by sex. Human beings are successful partly because of the great variety of our behavioral traits, so it makes sense that it would be difficult to generalize about something like sexuality even while being able to observe some overall trends.
I'm not really understanding your argument as to why evolution should be thought to give women a pain free child birth. For much of our evolutionary history, humans were unaware that the sex act led to pregnancy, so the pain of childbirth is unlikely to have acted as much of a deterrent. Even after we figured out the mechanics, women retained sexual desire, and humans are very good at forgetting about consequences when it comes to engaging in sexual activity (especially socially sanctioned consequences with a nine month gestation period). If women who experience extreme pain during childbirth aren't any less likely to produce viable offspring than a rare woman who experiences no pain, the anomalous trait of experiencing-no-pain won't spread wildly because there's nothing to make it happen, there's no real reproductive disadvantage to the pain and nothing that turns it's lack into a competitive advantage.
I apologize for the unwieldy disorganized piece of rambling. Though I don't necessarily agree with your thesis, I enjoy the passionate style of your posts and believe that you might have hit upon some truths that you discredit by applying too generally. It would be interesting if you would clarify some of your points, especially regarding women's claims of disliking sex (what makes you think this? Is it because of women reacting negatively to sexual photos, as you mentioned?), and why you think evolution should have selected against painful childbirth, and perhaps why you believe that pain during childbirth is a farce? It seemed to me like that was what you were starting to get at towards the end of your post, anyway.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 29, 2014 1:48 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Do you have any other recommendations for worthwhile science writing? I've been wanting to learn more about evolution and microbiology, but aside from college textbooks I haven't been sure where to start reading.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 29, 2014 1:54 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Dominating Discourse of Binary Thinking.
Has it escaped your notice that no one is paying attention to your soundbite jargon?
If you read Stephen Jay Gould's essays on evolution he does not proceed that way at all
Gould was a fraud and snake oil salesman.
No intimacy involved.
You need to provide an argument for this assertion but, unlike most leftist commenters on the net, I'm not going with the meaningless and snarky "citations needed" - anyone can do that.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 29, 2014 2:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am reading Badiou's In Praise of Love and thinking of you a lot as I read. Here's Anti-Love philosophy with Arthur Schopenhauer being the prime representative of that tendency. He is well known for writing that he will never forgive women for experiencing a passion for love, thus making it possible to perpetuate a human species that was in fact worthless.(Badiou p.13)
So you fit in nicely there I think jonny. The only problem is the heap of abuse you get for being a crackpot saying it. Now none of them would dare call Schopenhauer a crackpot. Many other things maybe but the adjectives would have to be carefully chosen so no one would think you were a crackpot for criticizing such an outstanding mind who wrote The World as Will and Idea.
BTW Badiou is saying here that he agrees with the poet Rimbaud that love must be re - invented.It is now sandwiched between a partnership marriage and outside pleasures and love has disappeared. Interesting.A great mind BTW.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 29, 2014 2:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You can't go wrong with Foucault. They all follow from him. Zizek is wonderful but he spins and spirals. Foucault is clear, passionate,precise, and singular. You might try his book Power/Knowledge which has excerpts from a number of books he wrote giving a sense of the changes he went thru in his thinking. Foucault wrote for the reader. Not for academics. For you. As did Nietzsche and his Genealogy of Morals is also an excellent starting place altho Foucault will get you there. What I do is read one person until I feel grounded, then I read the writers that person has footnoted the most. For Foucault takes you to Nietzsche. He has said Heidegger took him to Nietzsche. Ayn Rand is a serious Nietzsche reader. So now is Babette Babich who is on facebook and very accessible, perhaps the most prominent Nietzsche scholar and a brilliant mind and so very different. Outrageous really and a prof at Fordham University.Feel free to email me to talk if you want.My blogs go into all this post modern thinking related to mass media mostly.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 29, 2014 2:46 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This line of commenting is getting better and better for anyone looking to pick up on some new quotes to use at dinner parties. I'd print it off if it wasn't 90 pages...
I'm not going to quote anyone old and fancy, but I've long severed my ties to female guilt, and I've served on the front line of war and learned a little about having nothing. The second time I deployed into combat I went about 6 months before I saw a female on the base, and only for a few hours at that. It's amazing how quickly that military discipline breaks apart when a piece of ass shows up. The rest of the time though, I thought surprisingly little about women. I never thought that I was offering up my life for some dying old hag, or even some fresh breeding stock. My reason for fighting was the other men around me, to protect them, to back them up, to support them. The only reason they were there (maybe) was to do the same thing. It sounds pretty stupid though, when you think about it. I was only having to protect them because they went to a dangerous place to protect me, who was only in that dangerous place to protect them.
"Why didn't you all just come home?" No idea...
I like much of Johnny's argument because it sounds so great at first, and some of it is great after that too. However, the biggest flaw in his argument (and everyones attempt to refute it) is that it's ALL irrelevant in the end...
Pandoras Box, The Garden of Eden... each culture and religion has a story about the damnation and exultation of man. It's too late! Nothing can ever change! For Johnny's world to be real, mankind would have to become extinct. It's not going to do that on it's own anytime soon, or ever, so that makes it fantasy. It's like arguing why the sky should actually be neon orange instead of blue. Sure you have the philosophy and science to back it up, but the sky is blue, I JUST looked at!
capello moderno: Your comment about your mother- "She brought me up, teaching me how to be a member of society - wearing clothes and whatnot - and now I am an independent, fully grown man with a wife and a child of my own."
I'm sure you agree that this is not a natural fact, but a societal construct. You would not care at all for your mother if you were not taught to do so. You were constructed to fit the system that you would be supporting. And in reply to Johnny's ideology about that system, so what!! There has to be a system, and genetically speaking, there always was and will be a system. Taking your first breath, crying for food, selfish desires, and reproduction are all programmed into us in the womb. Nature gave us a system to be part of. I have to teach my one year old not to scratch his brothers eyes out, because he is going to do what comes natural when his brother annoys him. He has no desire to grow and live peaceably with other human beings, not yet. He wants to fulfill his every selfish desire that comes up. Without a system, he would grow up to do just that, or find his life cut short along the way as a consequence. Like you said, nature is fair. But so is the system I belonged to on the front lines. I wasn't the machine, I was a cog within it. There were many cogs like mine, equally important, and equally unimportant. My importance was based on my contribution to the machine, and in that way I could take personal ownership for and pride in that machine. The system gave me purpose, even if it was to serve that same system. You may not worth in that system, but you cannot claim that I did not. You also cannot claim that there is nothing to be truly gained from it, simply because you don't fit into it. You cannot say that there 'is no worth' in a system, only that YOU find no worth in it. Value is a human construct as well. Unless you can see through my eyes, you cannot claim to know what is or is not of value to me.
Capella Moderno may belong to a created system where his parents have worth to him long after his independence from them, but this in no way makes him a slave to anything. His mother has not crippled him, but given him great purpose. Even if she taught him to find that purpose in caring for her past her usefulness, he sounds much happier then you. That makes her very useful indeed.
The only thing you can do is open your eyes to the world around you, decide what you will do, and be blissfully content in your freedom to do so.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 29, 2014 4:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Dumbest shit I've read all week.Not gonna read the rest of your post(s).
I've updated your file. Thank you for contributing your feelings.
They mean a lot.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 29, 2014 6:25 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
They're not really functional, mentally. I imagine they're a lot like you.
Obviously intended for Ms Anonymous, didn't see double-post.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 29, 2014 7:54 AM | Posted by : | Reply
" a tiny, strangely shaped divot in your soul into which nothing could ever fit: not money, not sex, not stuff, not relationships."
Conspicuous absence of religion in your list. I've suspected you were a jesus freak but I wish you'd come out and say it.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 29, 2014 8:47 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
For Jonny:
Cupcake fascism asserts itself violently through something the infantilised subject holds deeply as an ideal. This ideal is niceness.
Sound familiar? "If you don't have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all!" You must read this article, it's very good.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/08/beware-of-cupcake-fascism?CMP=twt_gu
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 29, 2014 9:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
But human beings are the ones who create rules and standards and notions of legitimacy
No. We cannot override 2.5 million years of Natural law. The attempt will destroy everything. We mustn't think about...oh.
to call nature "fair" is to assume that nature conforms to the shape of the forms that our thoughts use to describe it
Fairness assumes that equitable incentives exist for harmony.
Filial cannibalism among mammals and the beaching of whales both occur sans apparent human involvement
I can't prove that human involvement is to blame for whales beaching and for cannibalism in primates but I've read some of the arguments rationalising the 'logic' for humans not being to blame and they're not very convincing. Something is wrong when male primates are eating children, there's no evolutionary argument I've read that sounds plausible. Humans must be fault.
Mother Nature doesn't "want" to reproduce, it doesn't "want" anything
I don't think Mother Nature is an entity. You know what I meant.
Evolution isn't striving towards optimality
Optimal > suboptimal reproducers Naturally Selected over time.
You say that women around the world claim to dislike sex, but I haven't seen...Looking at modern western culture (I can't speak to others)
I've been all over the world and women aren't liberated yet. I think you're the victim of bias here because the media certainly isn't reflecting liberation (Miley Cyrus is the victim of so much vile hate, she's one of the finest humans alive and women aren't getting behind her; Beyonce was called a whore [by whores] for risque dance at Grammys; seen as a "slut" huge fear / insult still).
I have female friends who speak openly about their sexual relationships and their masturbation habits, and media targeted exclusively towards women is filled with references to sex
But this issue is about their attitude to men. For as long as marriage exists, everything will be fucked up. The abolition of marriage is huge but it's not on our horizon.
Men, on the other hand, are almost unlimited in the number of children they might have, so for them it always makes good evolutionary sense to hook up with a new woman
Now you're talking about Mother Nature optimising reproduction. But I don't buy that humans think in terms like that. I understand your argument is that we are coded to behave that way, but I don't buy anything about bloodlines or perpetuating genes. Men don't think like that and they're not coded to behave like that. Humans are not supposed to be combative. If I had a son who was just a piece of shit, chip on his shoulder, leech, causing trouble and you had a son who was a winner but only one could live and I had to choose, the piece of shit is gone. Paternity is nonsensical. There's no logic for men to advance inferior offspring carrying Their genes over another's superior kin.
I'm not really understanding your argument as to why evolution should be thought to give women a pain free child birth.
It's not just birth. If the body is in pain, there's a limit before mechanisms are triggered to relieve pain. Dying men will be euphoric, trauma victims go into shock, runners hit the wall and burst through it into orgasmic highs (endorphin release is more powerful than most synthetic drugs, I was addicted for years, destroyed my shins, ankles, one knee because the high was too good to worry about pesky RSI). It might be an argument for an Intelligent Designer as there's no evolutionary advantage to relief during death, yet pain is mercifully eased.
My logic is that women will be less likely to want to give birth if it was torture rather than orgasmic so it must be pleasurable.
If women who experience extreme pain during childbirth aren't any less likely to produce viable offspring than a rare woman who experiences no pain
If that were true, your logic is solid. But in reality, women who experience pain will have less children than women having orgasms in childbirth. Over time, the logic of Natural Selection says women are supposed to give birth without suffering.
regarding women's claims of disliking sex (what makes you think this? Is it because of women reacting negatively to sexual photos...
No, this is about their attitude towards men. The way many men perceive reality, they can't fathom why a girl wouldn't do what she wants to do. So if she's not doing it, for manipulative reasons, the men presume that it's an unpleasant experience for them. It's perfectly logical for men to think like this, based on the perfidious extortion games women are conditioned to play.
why you believe that pain during childbirth is a farce?
I don't believe there isn't pain, I'm arguing there shouldn't be any. I'm only saying what vastly more qualified professionals (female) are claiming, with the empirical results to back them up.
That mothers are using [painful childbirth] to make their children suffer with sadistic intent is irrefutable. This is happening, for real. Mothers are fabricating stories of traumatic suffering during childbirth, but their children don't call bullshit.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 29, 2014 9:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It is now sandwiched between a partnership marriage and outside pleasures and love has disappeared
Well my definition of love is need (or at least, this is the context I'm always using it in). This is the love I have in mind when I use the word (amazing 3 min Slam poetry winner). Completely sick.
he will never forgive women for experiencing a passion for love, thus making it possible to perpetuate a human species that was in fact worthless.
It's absolutely horrifying. On Google+ sometimes the entire What's Hot feed is nauseating sentimental filth with 10,000 shares each, everyone discussing love, repetitively, just worthless.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 29, 2014 9:34 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Why it is so hard for a heterosexual man to get laid does not need to be explained by biological evolution. Most sex is really mutual masturbation anyway. No intimacy involved.
I never suggested there was a biological reason for why it was so hard for men to get laid. My point was this (now made in a different order as to possibly help clarify things):
1) It is relatively hard for heterosexual men to get laid (my only evidence for this assertion: just ask a lesbian who spent time disguised as a man and tried it). Reasons for this? irrelevant, it could be biological, sociological, the will of whatever supernatural beings you might believe in, the way the matrix was coded, anything else, or even any linear combination of all prior possibilities in this list. This assertion is just an axiom that is used in the attempted proof of my final point below, I have not attempted to explain its cause in anything let alone specifically biology, because whatever its cause is, is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make. You don't even have to believe it. You can take it as a hypothetical. I want to prove B but it assumes A. Here is A, you can disagree with A being a thing, but then my proof is still valid in the sense of the hypothetical "well if A were true then B". Nowhere here are their any biological assumptions of why it is so hard for heterosexual men to get laid – indeed there are no assumptions or assertions about the "why" at all because it is totally irrelevant.
2) This step was a quick thought experiment of iteratively applying natural selection to libido v.s. difficulty in acquiring sex. The short conclusion: whatever gender has to do more work to acquire sex, will be favored over time by natural selection to have the higher libido on average.
3) Given assumption/axiom "A" (= heterosexual men have a relatively hard time acquiring sex compared to heterosexual women) and thought experiment "B" (= whichever gender has a harder time acquiring sex should be favored by natural selection to have a higher relative libido on average), then I propose "C" (= on average heterosexual men's libido should be higher then that of heterosexual women).
Again the cause of "A" doesn't have to be biological at all. Imagine a hypothetical world, where for whatever reason, suddenly heterosexual men have free access to all the reproductive sex they want for 100% social reasons (the sex has to be reproductive, porn and (non-procreative) sex robots don't count because they can't produce positive procreative results that avoid the scythe of natural selection). In this same hypothetical world heterosexual women suddenly have to do a lot of work in the form of something or other to get laid for 100% social reasons (again, needs to be actual procreative sex they can have all the porn or (non-procreative) sex-bots they want in this hypothetical universe). Then one must wait for a long enough time for Natural selection to run its course, which depending on many other aspects of that society (again this is all 100% social in this hypothetical example) may be varying yet very long lengths of time. However, given the sufficient time in this hypothetical world, natural selection will favor heterosexual women with higher libidos then heterosexual men – even though the underlying cause for natural selection to do so will be 100% social in this example. No biology is necessary to change biology, only time and persistence of effects over it are.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 29, 2014 9:54 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It might be an argument for an Intelligent Designer as there's no evolutionary advantage to relief during death, yet pain is mercifully eased.
Please fuck off back to your prison island and take Ken Ham with you, you hilarious virgin buffoon.
Also:
http://i.imgur.com/NM4Swp0.jpg
45 del (unit) of pain
Cannot stop laughing.
Just goes to show you you can slap sciency-sounding words on anything and convince gullible illiterates like jonny that it's real.
What's next? Are you going to rant about how females are blocking the mana flow to your chakra?
I wonder when we'll see our friend jonny in the news?
http://i.imgur.com/LSjUkkc.jpg?1
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 29, 2014 10:38 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
But this is this only true for clothed, broken humans.
I am not so sure I agree there. In most of the animal kingdom females are the limiting reagent to procreative sex – they have to be, they invest all their gestation time in each pregnancy and don't usually have have spare uteruses (unteri?) for use in the meantime. Pretty much the only species where females are not the limiting reagent are the few where the female can reproduce by 1) dumping a bunch of eggs somewhere and 2) can walk away from said eggs. Given that, females become a limiting reagent and thus males inherently have to be the ones that have to "win" the sex (or at least work to steal it a.k.a. rape1). This is obvious, they are the ones in surplus relative to sexual procreativity. If you are in surplus you have to work to make yourself valuable among the rest of the surplus to stand out and be selected i.e. not become surplus.
As such even without "broken" men and women in whatever corrupted culture we may currently live in, I do assert that men have been the ones facing the greater difficulty in acquiring procreative sex since forever among our ancestors. The natures of the difficulties therein may have changed many many times, but this is irrelevant, all that needs to be to favor this outcome is the presence of some sort of difficulty. It doesn't matter if the culture or lack of culture was "fair" or "just" or neither – the simple nature of men being at sexual surplus means more difficulty and thus more work in acquiring sex. Even in an enlightened age where we and society were all "perfect" and "fair" this would all still be true unless the number of women outnumber the number of men by a sufficient amount as to make sure effective reproductive capacity between the two genders was equalized; and I don't think the better age you allude to looked like early Mormonism which it would have to for that to be true.
The Greeks aren't known for lying right?
I am not accusing the Greeks of lying, but I do take the stance that they weren't necessarily correct about everything. I also take the stance that while there are many wonderful allegorical lessons in their myths of much practical use and wisdom, not every statement made in their myths can be regarded as literal fact.
Even if we were to accept that myth as literal fact in such aspects (I am afraid I don't – perhaps my loss2) then we must ask how much of this is Tiresias' personal bias? His opinion is based upon himself occasionally being a woman and having sex during said time. Maybe that was his kink. Ranma 1/2 is some of the biggest kink fuel that ever existed for every generation since its conception. It doesn't even have any sex or nudity but the number of men and boys who masturbate to it vigorously and readily is staggering in its size. Maybe Tiresias was just living the dream. He wasn't lying, just unconsciously biased by his own kink.
Footnotes:
1) Note to the feminist outrage machine: I am in no way condoning rape, I am just pointing out that in the cruelness of reality with all morality striped aside, rape can hypothetically be a valid reproductive strategy for an individual. If you disagree with this statement then you are saying "rape never or rarely leads to pregnancy" whether you realize it or not. Thus you either agree with me or you agree with former Representative Todd Akin (or take a similar but even more extreme and controversial stance then him). In conclusion take your pick and shut up.
2) I am actually not being sarcastic here. While I don't agree to take this myth as literal fact I cannot prove it isn't literal fact, and I am open to the possibility that I may be denying myself valuable insight into life and the universe by taking this stance. I doubt it, but it is certainly a possibility that I cannot disprove.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 29, 2014 9:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What makes you think jonny is a controlled asset functioning in the performative media entanglement of a psy-op?
For anyone capable of formal logic the above approximates zero, from the infinitesimal to begin with.
Eager for your input even if such is refutation.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 29, 2014 9:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Who taught you logic?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 29, 2014 9:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Why, what is the problem?
If I have done something wrong or made something unclear can you specify so I can rectify the issue and/or learn?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 12:08 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
@ jonny
I can't prove that human involvement is to blame for whales beaching and for cannibalism in primates but I've read some of the arguments rationalising the 'logic' for humans not being to blame and they're not very convincing. Something is wrong when male primates are eating children, there's no evolutionary argument I've read that sounds plausible. Humans must be fault.
Beached whales are completely different from male primates eating children. We have an etiology for beached whales and it relates to ultrasonic communications that scramble whale navigation systems. OTOH, we have no such etiology for male primate cannibalism. In fact, such cannibalism occurs universally in primates to the point that it looks natural and a product of evolution, which is the simplest and most logical explanation. Occam's Razor.
The most likely explanation for lack of cannibalism in the advanced world is that civilization suppresses that instinct.
I don't think Mother Nature is an entity. You know what I meant.
Actually, it looks like you really do consider Mother Nature an anthropomorphic entity. Everything you've said here indicates this.
Optimal > suboptimal reproducers Naturally Selected over time.
This is patently false. Evolution routinely, universally even, creates equilibria that are "just good enough to get by" instead of equilibria that are "optimal". If there were an optimal equilibria then evolution would completely cease because there would be nothing on which to improve.
BTW, this "optimalist" concept of evolution used to be ubiquitous and is the one against which abbey is arguing. However, the optimalist notion of evolutionary equilibria is pretty much extinct making abbey's comment strawman arguments.
I've been all over the world and women aren't liberated yet.
If liberation is an end-stage ideal then all evolution would cease, by definition.
For as long as marriage exists, everything will be fucked up.
Human beings in a mass society require institutions to function. If you want to abolish marriage then you need to replace it with another institution that checks the baser instincts. However, given your insistence on "liberation" what you are really advocating is the end of all human institutions. In that case, welcome to the war of all against all.
A few thousand generations ago there was no such thing as marriage. If you want to abolish that institution then be prepared to accept living like people did 200,000 years before present, with the attendant reduction of the global population by something like 99.9 percent.
Here's to the two of us being in the remaining .1 percent.
I don't buy anything about bloodlines or perpetuating genes.
Which is just another way of saying you don't believe in evolution. Fine, but just be honest and come out and explicate that you reject the theory of evolution. BTW, the original anarchists/liberationists openly opposed the concept of evolution because it implied that change was driven by competition, e.g. Kropotkin.
Men don't think like that and they're not coded to behave like that.
Correct. And incorrect. You place far, far too much value in conscious thought, and they are coded to behave like this way. That they don't consciously realize the command of instinct is irrelevant to whether or not they behave according to instinct.
Your problem is that you set up an ideal world and then proceed to try and make the real world conform to your ideal one. Read more Mencius Moldbug, esp his early stuff.
There's no logic for men to advance inferior offspring carrying Their genes over another's superior kin.
That's because the notion of inferior/superior is nonsense, if you're speaking absolute terms. Consider an NBA superstar compared to a math genius: which is superior and which is inferior? The question is complete nonsense because they simply cannot be compared and evaluation on a one-dimensional, unitary scale - same goes for all beings, of any type. The very notion of a "higher type" is pure gibberish, human beings are no more "higher" than are protozoa, just different.
It might be an argument for an Intelligent Designer as there's no evolutionary advantage to relief during death, yet pain is mercifully eased.
The line between death and tremendous achievement is a very fine one and relief during tremendous exertion is very much a tremendous advantage. In remote tribes in South America there is a strong relationship between battle prowess, in males, and fertility. Now, sometimes battle prowess ends up getting one killed but the body in the midst of battle cannot predict whether the individual will die or will emerge victorious. Therefore, the body releases pain numbing chemicals that sometimes accompany great achievement and sometimes accompany death. That the chemicals can't predict the result is irrelevant.
My logic is that women will be less likely to want to give birth if it was torture rather than orgasmic so it must be pleasurable.
True, but irrelevant unless you are advocating some institutional method to remove the orgasmic feelings surrounding childbirth, which would contradict your goal of liberation. Now, one way of achieving this goal would be to develop artificial wombs that are available to both sexes. However, the effect of that would be to make sex nothing more than a transactional pleasure-seeking event. That may be your cup of tea but I'm pretty sure it sounds horrifying to most.
Mothers are fabricating stories of traumatic suffering during childbirth, but their children don't call bullshit.
My mother has been pregnant nine times. The only "pain" she's ever related to any of us involved her two miscarriages after the age of 40. My guess is if your mother related to you her pain during childbirth that is a very atypical behavior. I'm sorry your mother subjected you to it but that is very much not the experience of most children. You are erroneously conflating your particular experiences with that of the general population.
On Google+ sometimes the entire What's Hot feed is nauseating sentimental filth with 10,000 shares each, everyone discussing love, repetitively, just worthless.
What percentage of the general population does this? It's probably less than one percent. You are taking a very small, very non-representative sample and extrapolating it to the general population. I would suggest reading Nietzsche's Ecce Homo.
indeed there are no assumptions or assertions about the "why" at all because it is totally irrelevant.
The beginning of all rational thought begins with "why?". Outside of that beginning, reason simply does not exist.
whatever gender has to do more work to acquire sex, will be favored over time by natural selection to have the higher libido on average.
For biological reasons, this is men, always has been men and always will be men. QED. That you cannot grasp this conclusion is a product of your refusal to ask "why?". The thing is that if you refuse to ask "why?" in one area then you are not allowed to ask "why?" in any other area, otherwise, you are arbitrarily picking and choosing when, and when not, to ask "why?".
In this same hypothetical world heterosexual women suddenly have to do a lot of work in the form of something or other to get laid for 100% social reasons
Nope. Because the causes of this difference are biological and are hardwired. Now, there is one caveat to this mandate, which is the emergence of sex robots. Yes, the sex robots are not procreative but that is irrelevant to how instinct operates. That male orgasmic release never results in procreating is irrelevant because it is instinct, not the conscious mind, that drives sex.
If the future is one where women have to work for sex it is because men are too busy with their robot sex companions to much care about what women are offering.
natural selection will favor heterosexual women with higher libidos then heterosexual men
Incorrect. No woman can compete with a sex robot because a sex robot is *always* "on", something with which no woman, or even man, can hope to compete. The only way a woman can compete with a sex robot is to offer something valuable *besides* sex. Loving companion and mother come to mind.
the underlying cause for natural selection to do so will be 100% social in this example.
"Society" is only the proximate cause. Since the cause of "society" is biology the ultimate cause is, still, biology.
No biology is necessary to change biology, only time and persistence of effects over it are.
Most of what you've said to this point is wrong. Coherent but wrong. this statement, however, is pure gibberish.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 12:09 AM | Posted by : | Reply
What's next? Are you going to rant about how females are blocking the mana flow to your chakra?
And look how that turned out for Al Gore.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 12:12 AM | Posted by : | Reply
@ Jonny
The Greeks aren't known for lying right?
Unsurprisingly, you conflate being wrong with lying. That the high school drop out at the cash register thinks corn might be on aisle 10, when it is really on 11, doesn't make her a liar.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 12:17 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Thus you either agree with me or you agree with former Representative Todd Akin
Wait, isn't a girl allowed to change her mind? In my extensive experience with feminists they agree with whatever assertion suits their present position and refute it when presenting a different position.
Why, what is the problem?
If I have done something wrong or made something unclear can you specify so I can rectify the issue and/or learn?
Insinuation without explanation tends to betray a healthy dose of intellectual dishonesty*. Were glen serious he would have already explicated your "error".
*Gregory Cochrane excluded
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 12:34 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Feminists will agree with Akin when it suits their purpose and disagree when it doesn't. They are like waves of the sea blown and tossed by the wind, double minded, unstable in all they do.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 1:00 AM | Posted by : | Reply
It has become obvious over the course of this thread that both jonny and abbeysbooks get all their information about evolution from pamphlets handed out at the door of the Discovery Institute.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 1:13 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm standing by what abbey said. Apply your argument to Black American culture. My experience and that of my peers at the time we were young adults certainly don't fit. The culture is the signifier, no need to resort to the biologic.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 5:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Apply your argument to Black American culture. My experience and that of my peers at the time we were young adults certainly don't fit
Please be more specific about these experiences. You have to explain what cause the different cultures that we see around the world. Wherever people of sub saharan african origin create their own culture you get something that looks remarkably like sub saharan africa. Ditto for Europeans of various countries, Indians, Chinese, etc. For example, I grew up in a neighborhood where my age cohort was over 50 percent black, however, we went to white suburban churches where there was only a smattering of black folk. Now, the kids in my neighborhood behaved in a fashion similar to what you hear about Detroit. On the other hand, the kids in my church behaved like white people.
But that's not evidence that culture is the ultimate signifier because the black kids in white suburban churches were immersed in a culture created by whites. Left to their own devices they would have created a culture similar to that in my neighborhood. Culture is only the proximate signifier, whereas biology was the ultimate signifier.
There is this concept known as "deep culture" where culture is said to be so ingrained in a people that it is indistinguishable from what would be predicted by genetics. In that case, who cares whether or not it's genetic or cultural because they're identical.
Anyways, the point is that genetics is the cause of culture. If you think there's another cause then it is up to you to submit an alternative explanation.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 7:51 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Conspicuous absence of religion in your list. I've suspected you were a jesus freak but I wish you'd come out and say it.
This is a interesting Reddit comment by Alone:
It would be easy to make fun of it, but I sense you were really trying to get at something, so if you're interested here is some guidance. If not, you've lost nothing.First and foremost, you don't use the two most important words with any precision. It is true that religion requires humans, but to believers God doesn't require humans.
"Science" doesn't make anything exist. Science is a method, a description, A way of organizing knowledge. If there was no science-or people- gravity would still draw objects together, cells would divide, etc.
To rework your idea, you want to say that the religious protocols are dependent on people, who ultimately are governed by physical laws many which exist independent of humans' experience. So you want to say, "for faith to exist there must be humans, but for humans to exist, no faith is necessary." Even this is tenuous, but it's a start.
But the real issue shouldn't be to come up with pithy quotes, but to understand what it is you believe. This is tricky, I'm going to get slammed, but here we go:
Not believing in god is not the same thing as "being scientific." Especially if you have only the most superficial understanding of the science (e.g. Evolution) your scientism is no different than faith, it is "belief through the other, the other is supposed to know." You'll know you are guilty of this if you are full of rage and fury vs. "believers."
Similarly, science doesn't preclude religion. It happens that most scientists are atheists, but this wasn't always true and anyway is irrelevant. Religion cannot explain physical principles, and science can't comment on metaphysics. That both teams often try to do this is both teams overreaching. As above, the fact that many from each team attack each other with rage is telling.
Science is the only proper system for understanding the natural world. Everyone should be able to agree on this. If a religious person cannot, it's not his religion which is to blame, but his own limited brain.
There's also a questionable post by him available on the Wayback Machine but I'll let people find that for themselves.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 9:32 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Fortunately for us, if it turns out that Alone is religious, we get to dismiss everything he's written because that's an identity that's smelly and we don't want to smell.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 10:02 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
haha so fany great post laugh laugh clap clap +100 upvotes XD XD
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 10:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What is questionable about this comment (assuming that by saying "[t]here's ALSO a questionable . . ." you intended to imply that this one is questionable)? Atheists certainly can be narcissists and this may indeed manifest as rage towards the believers. I also agree that it's those who have the most superficial understanding of science that are the most likely to equate atheism with being scientific, since they want a pain-free way to have a claim to truth without having to do the actual hard work of science. Obviously, this is projection. They feel that they can't possibly be ignorant or unscientific and so they falsely attribute their own unawareness as coming from all those stupid, backwards religious people. I was like this once, but I'm not any more religious now than I was previously. As another Anonymous joked, if it did turn out that Alone is religious we could be ultra-narcissists and use this discredit the messenger instead of focusing on the message. We could even try to oust him as a hypocrite for having formerly claimed to not believe in god; how delicious indeed!
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 11:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well, yeah. It'd be interesting to see his take on something like Prayer or Religious ritual considering his absolute devotion to Freudian Psychology. Plus, nobody likes the God Squad.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 11:24 AM | Posted by : | Reply
his absolute devotion to Freudian Psychology
You mean his occasional reference to it? I think he just uses it, like many of the older sources he draws from (Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky), because it is free of modern context (= free of modern bias), which leads to interesting insights to our contemporary situation. What I mean is that I don't think he is "Freudian", but rather he hasn't totally discarded/dismissed some of Freud's ideas even though that's the trend in contemporary psychology/science.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 11:26 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Asher said to Jonny "Actually, it looks like you really do consider Mother Nature an anthropomorphic entity. Everything you've said here indicates this.”
I would like to second that.
However, transnational adoption invalidates your genes --> culture explanation (this is particularly evident if we're talking about a child that looks passable as a member of the dominant ethnic group and the original ethnic group is not a big thing identity-wise in the place the child grows up, as in, say, a Bulgarian child adopted a few weeks after bith, growing up in France. Whereas if you came to the US as an adopted black child there would be lots more identity stuff you would have to deal with because of.. well you know, history and stuff.)
If we really must speak evolution-speak, I guess we would have to say that culture -- because of writing? -- manages to act as a "storehouse of the manifestation of ealier genes" that newer genes are then made to react to. This is the evolution-speak reduction of culture to 'lag'.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 11:51 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is such a roundabout way of trying to shit on atheism.
Yes, atheism is trendy right now (or rather trendy circa 2009; right now it's trendy to equate atheists with fat neckbeards who wear fedoras). Yes, people who conflate science with atheism are reaching. That doesn't mean religion is an acceptable way to deal with the world around you.
His comment was transparent in the way that it groveled in the face of religion. This isn't the first Alone comment that has raised questions as to his religious affiliations. His Twitter and Reddit account are a goldmine (the fact that he even has a fucking Reddit account is suspect). BDSM is exhibitionism for an audience of God? Please. I agree with what he's saying about "no" not necessarily meaning "no", but in the context of the entirety of his writing, that little tidbit smacks of Jesus Freak. Not to mention the entire idea of "fake it until you make it" is for some reason put forth as the cure for narcissism; inasmuch as there really is no "cure' and this is the next best thing. His entire post on anti-suicide (which can be looked up on the Wayback Machine) reeks of religious fundamentalism, and this is coming from someone who enjoys his writing quite a bit. But when someone presents an interesting academic idea over the course of several years and the conclusion is a kind of Kierkegardian mishmash of Christian Existentialism, you can't really help but be disappointed.
I have no grudge against people who take refuge in a belief in the supernatural. But let's call a spade a spade. We each have to choose how we're going to get through the day. For some people it's drinking excessively, for some people it's religion. I just wish Alone would pick a side, because at least in my view, the two are mutually exclusive, or at least you heavily lean on one while pretending to take refuge in the other.
I can't wait until someone quotes him about people wanting "standard deviations and bullet points" because something something narcissism.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 12:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Jonny, I enjoy your writing as well, and may learn from it. For now, here's another assault on the ethics you promote here:
I am going to bring up another Lacanian concept: the point-de-caption, the quilting point. The idea is that the human psyche sometimes works in such a way that whatever new manifestation of something you come across you will relate it, submit it, make it subvervient to an earlier axiomatic idea of yours. It's a knitting metaphor: you catch the new thread but you quilt it through the same hole to keep the whole thing together. In politics I used to do it unwittingly (now I do it on principle) with neo-liberals: they are all evil fucking cunts that validate my originally formed opinion (that they are evil fucking cunts).
If we return to the axiomatic ideas of the ethics you expound here, they are that: 1) nature is always just, there is a higher principle at work, and 2) mothers keep us from living the life we should be living according to this higher principle.
Female ducks happen to drown when they are raped by groups of male ducks, sea elephant females are at times squashed to death under the weight of the males . Human childbirth is extremely painful, has lead, and still sometimes leads to the death of the mother. Lots of mammals will engage in incest, some cannibalise the young: "Nature red in tooth and claw."
This puts your ethics in a dilemma because your initial stance is that if things are really as I have just stated them, this seems unpalatable.
The obvious solution to this is to accept that nature - unfortunately - isn't good. As far as we can discern it is random, pointless and idiotic. But you cannot do this -- because it is your axiomatic expression, your point-de-caption that keeps your ethics together, so instead you are forced to either 1) disregard such evidence as unfounded, 2) claim that these phenomena are manmade, or 3) go deeper and deeper into the hermeneutics of suspicion (in your case: Nietzsche): yes these things do happen, but they do so for a good reason (because they "must"), ending up with "rape isn't rape."
Let's forget Lacan for a moment and just ask about domination and sex: An ambivalent girl who teases/ manipulates and then gives in to/ gets what she wants from an ambivalent guy and what they have is male dominating female sex (with both of them thinking: do I really want this, does he/she really want this, how can I, how could she/he really be wanting this, and then.. release)
This is what you depict as 'really' being rape -- needy, manipulative, illusion-driven, 'meaningful' sex, why?
You try to pin women down with your knowledge of what they really want (10>1 sex ratio based on Greek myths, "look at what they do> what they say" quote and stuff about twerking), and still these ambivalent games are a million times preferable to e.g. the natural and deadly sex practices of ducks and elephant seals.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 12:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It doesn't really sound like you're being very discerning in your argument. "...smacks of Jesus Freak" seems like a reactionary condemnation, as if you're upset by the possibility of religious connotation alone.
You mention that Alone has presented "an interesting academic idea over the course of several years", yet you imply that his "solution" of faking it is tied to the supposed Christianity. But that solution was a part of his "academic idea" going years back. Why is it suddenly invalidated in light of your suspicions?
Existentialism is definitely the watchword of this blog, but I don't think the sum of this site's ideas amounts to proselytism. Rather, awareness of your constant choice-making. An awareness that, yes, Kierkegaard wrote about...but so did Sartre and Nietzsche.
(As for his tweet re: BDSM, isn't it possible that it's more of a behavioral observation than a statement of fact? If Nietzsche had said something like this, we'd probably assume he was pointing out the influence of Judeo-Christian values behind closed doors. On the other hand, it is easy enough to replace "God" with "superego" or "the Other" or "the Spectacle" and achieve similar results. That said, I believe Alone does tend to throw ideas out there to see if they stick. I'd be interested in seeing the logic that drove him to this idea...I'm assuming it's related to his porn book.)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 12:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am an atheist, yet I don't find any of Alone's comments offensive or alienating. Admittedly, I haven't read the remark about BDSM but it sounds interesting. I don't follow memes but I've also seen the fedoras and neckbeards thing applied to disparate groups -- communists, libertarians, you-name-it (I'm not sure what this means or from whence it originates, though the image it evokes is rather unpleasant).
I reread one of Alone's older posts recently that said that the only way you can teach your child to stand up for himself while still being part of the system is to instill in him a moral sense that enables him to intuitively know of a greater good and when it calls for generally proscribed action. Based on this and what I've read from him, I guess that Alone is secular but acknowledges that some of the ideas and structure that co-evolved with religion are still useful. We wouldn't want to too hastily discard everything from the past because of a flawed belief in our enlightenment. That was tried before: it was called the Cultural Revolution and it wasn't pretty.
The greater likelihood is that he employs the logic of the religious and the secular because there is something to be learned from both sides. Surely it's not lost on his readership that he frequently derides Marxism and postmodern narcissism while at the same time suggesting that quickly dismissing postmodern theories and psychoanalysis is defense against having to read and understand difficult things. Is he a conservative or a radical, Christian (Muslim, Jewish) or secular? At first I was interested in these things but that was because it's easier to use an identity as a proxy for having to form an opinion on the material itself. I might have forewent reading this website if I knew at the time that its creator is a Christian, but it wouldn't bother me any more (I know this because I have, as a result of this blog, accepted material from writers I would have previously ignored solely based on their religion). The fact is that many religions, schools of thought, and other groups have gleaned insight into human condition and we shouldn't exclude them to feed our own identities. This is what I get from Alone's apparent vacillation. Even taking this into consideration, he concludes recognizes that science is the only system for explaining the natural world; good enough for me.
I have come to agree with Alone's "fake it until you make it" advice. There may not be a cure for narcissism, but by faking it you can at least spare everyone you [should] care about. How can one be cured of narcissism by thinking: the point is to cure 'myself' from narcissism so that 'I' may be happy? Were there another cure, 'fake it' would probably still have to be the logical starting point. This is one conclusion given here but I don't think it's 'the' conclusion.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 8:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Wonderful post. Thank you for sharing!!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 10:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Will you be my dad?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 30, 2014 11:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Anynonymous wrote about caring care of your mother in old age as a societal construct "You would not care at all for your mother if you were not taught to do so. You were constructed to fit the system that you would be supporting".
Yes and no, I would say. I don't know about the other mammals, but I expect maybe elephants and chimpanzees might care for their aging mothers?
I would want to interject another existential or phenomenological level between nature and culture: the interpersonal.
In our actual daily life people care an awful lot about whether other people --and particularly some other poeple-- seem well disposed towards them. There's a big difference between you inadvertently harming me and you doing it in total indifference to my wellbeing, and you doing it with full malicious intent to harm me (Peter Strawson). The pain is the same, but my reaction will wary wildly because of an emotional reciprocal logic
We come to demand a certain regard for our wellbeing from others (reactive morality). We avoid congregating with those it seems do not take our wellbeing into acctount. We often go on to demand of the other something of the same regard that we demand for ourselves for other others (vicarious morality), and finally we come to demand of ourselves that we extend something of the same regard for the other's wellbeing that we demand of them (self-reactive morality).
This applies to everyone within your moral horizon. You may have others that this does not apply to: people that you are deem are not in control of themselves are not seen as relevant for moral demands (the criminally insane, destructive toddlers). Racists, nationalists and sexists will have certain groups that are outside the boundaries of their moral horizon (and so they often seem like nice people as long as you don't belong to said groups.)
Accepting that this is so, does not make it any less real.
That is why it feels like an ethical demand that you should take your mother's wellbeing into consideration well after she has ceased to have any 'utilitarian' care-taking value for you. It is as if her agapic love has infected you (Cap. M.: this is what makes a human being, Jonny: this is manipulation, illusion, shaming)
Culture has a hard time manipulating this interpersonal moral logic, but it is sometimes able to do so. For example during the Cultural Revolution children would denounce their "bourgeouis rightist" parents, leading to their public humiliation, sometimes forced labour, prison, executition. This, to me, is only possible with religion: Mao as a metaphysical saviour figure, his cult of personality.
This is Lacan over Dostoyesky: It's not that without God everything is permissable (because there is no ultimate foundation), no, our propensity for emphatic identification and social nature does not allow this, it is only with God that everything is permissable: because you can break any moral norm in the name of God.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 1, 2014 10:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
For some people it's drinking excessively, for some people it's religion. I just wish Alone would pick a side, because at least in my view, the two are mutually exclusive, or at least you heavily lean on one while pretending to take refuge in the other.
Tell that to the Episcopalians.
Okay, I'm leaving...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 1, 2014 12:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
However, the biggest flaw in his argument (and everyones attempt to refute it) is that it's ALL irrelevant in the end...
Yes.
You would not care at all for your mother if you were not taught to do so.
Yes, and in Nature, offspring are not taught to do so. They have the best mothers but they're complete ingrates, as they should be. Mothers were rewarded already, so cubs live for themselves.
Taking your first breath, crying for food, selfish desires, and reproduction are all programmed into us in the womb.
So is being humane, resisting authority, fighting attempted domination, protecting children, promiscuous sex, etc. Our system is programmed but mothers are reprogramming for war.
You also cannot claim that there is nothing to be truly gained from it, simply because you don't fit into it. You cannot say that there 'is no worth' in a system, only that YOU find no worth in it.
If the system is a genocidal war machine, does it really matter whether the cogs derive value from being part of it? The system is sub-worthless as it relies on contrived misery and cannibalism.
Capella Moderno may belong to a created system where his parents have worth to him long after his independence from them, but this in no way makes him a slave to anything.
I'm not here to denigrate but truth cannot be considerate. We are all slaves. Moderno is further enslaved by signing a contract backed by the violence of the biopolitical State. If you're going to be owned, a woman you like isn't a bad owner but if relations deteriorate, the biopolitical judiciary will treat him like a slave.
His mother has not crippled him, but given him great purpose.
We're all crippled. We cannot even comprehend how powerful our minds would have been were we not subjected to malicious abuse intended to make us feel worthless and obligated. "Purpose" is not subjective, we have responsibilities to children once they're here but it would be a lie to claim there is a purpose in suffering to enable women's depraved sex/princess narrative during youth.
Even if she taught him to find that purpose in caring for her past her usefulness, he sounds much happier then you.
No doubt. My empathy for the children of Humanity leaves me fighting a continual battle to remain calm so that Evil cannot use my fury as an excuse to ignore truth. I call reality as I see it. If shattering fantasy makes people unhappy, it's regrettable but I will not lie.
That makes her very useful indeed.
Anyone can lie to create delusional happiness. But it's not real.
The only thing you can do is open your eyes to the world around you, decide what you will do, and be blissfully content in your freedom to do so.
There is no freedom. It's an illusion. Evil won't even let slaves go.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 1, 2014 1:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The idea that the best response to any situation is just to accept existing conditions, swallow your anger, swallow your pride, and continue as best you might is an expression of a sort of ideal Britishness, the "stiff upper lip".
It's also incredibly convenient for women, who desperately want the show to roll on regardless. Women will breed life for Massa on a plantation where slaves get the lash. They really love that sex.
"I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?" - Sojourner Truth "Ain't I a Woman?" (1851)
But stiff upper lip is, dialectically speaking, nothing more than a form of cowardice; less a level-headed stoicism than a neurotic unwillingness to confront an unjust reality.
Yes. To Be or Not To Be is the question of slavery or liberty. Slaves don't fear death. They fear shame (even posthumously).
On the one hand, niceness is just what the infantilised subject thinks is lacking from the world she is hiding from.
This is a great article. "Why can't we all be nicer to each other?" or "Why can't we all get along?" Only malicious infants need nice.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 1, 2014 2:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It is relatively hard for heterosexual men to get laid
For the vast majority of the world's men, it's nearly impossible. There are Indian men coming to Thailand to lose their virginity. There's nothing wrong with these men, Indian girls are just so objectified, they're liable to commit suicide if they're raped. All their worth...stolen. The value of a woman's virginity is so prized, a soldier with a knife took on 40 armed bandits robbing a train, because a virgin about to lose her chastity begged for help.
That's a kickass story but yes, it's very hard for men. 100% contrived difficulty. Biologically, women would be pestering men.
No biology is necessary to change biology, only time and persistence of effects over it are.
Correct. But it's a very long time for unnatural effects to persist.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 1, 2014 2:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
45 del (unit) of pain Cannot stop laughing.Just goes to show you you can slap sciency-sounding words on anything and convince gullible illiterates like jonny that it's real.
If you imagine that I thought women actually die during labour, you need to learn how to read. You're too stupid to be laughing. By definition, propaganda is false. When real, it's called "news".
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 1, 2014 3:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
As such even without "broken" men and women in whatever corrupted culture we may currently live in, I do assert that men have been the ones facing the greater difficulty in acquiring procreative sex since forever among our ancestors.
Using your own logic, you've proven that women had to do more work to get sex. Or are you still holding onto the Big Lie that science has already disproven? Why are we even discussing this?
“More than anything, though, as an isolated, rigid phallus filled vaginal blood vessels and sent the red line of the plethysmograph high, niceties vanished, conventions cracked; female desire was, at base, nothing if not animal.” - Daniel Bergner (What Do Women Want? Adventures in the Science of Female Desire)
There's a reason women condition girls to imagine pain, danger, insult, degradation when shown visual stimuli of male genitalia.
3) Given assumption/axiom "A" (= heterosexual men have a relatively hard time acquiring sex compared to heterosexual women) and thought experiment "B" (= whichever gender has a harder time acquiring sex should be favored by natural selection to have a higher relative libido on average), then I propose "C" (= on average heterosexual men's libido should be higher then that of heterosexual women).
Assumption "A" is biologically wrong. If girls didn't need to be slut-shamed, they wouldn't be. The fact that they are ruthlessly slut-shamed is the proof that women perceive girls' natural biology as a threat to their sociological exploitation of men.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 1, 2014 6:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Honestly, I would recommend that this community read the Captive Mind, and then contrast it with Alone.
Literally, that warp between an extremely intrinsic society vs an extremely extrinsic society is...enlightening.
Tragically, if you have any basic knowledge of the Cold War besides the shit Reagan shoveled to Alone, you find yourself realizing we lost the Cold War too.
(Wait? You mean the "Golden Era" of America had a 35% Unionization rate? 73% taxes on the 1%? Wide-scale government programs? Nope. Not true. Sam Walton built the highways and landed on the moon. And it was Socialism which caused the sun to set too.)
...but what really shakes the mind, is that the man who sold you on "limited government" also sold the .1% on Quantitative Easing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman#Public_policy_positions
Nope. Not true. It was Obama's idea.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 1, 2014 6:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
BTW:
This is what Democracy looks like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exuGv3HsV-U
Keep in mind that these guys died with more money then you will every have. (Unless you have it already, like me.)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 1, 2014 11:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If you fake it until you make it, what happens if you forget that you are faking it and think it is real? Does it then become real? Or have you just forgotten that you are faking it? And then to quote R.D. Laing, "you forget and then forget that you have forgotten." Which is Laing's definition of repression.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 1, 2014 11:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This one is for jonny from a discussion of Simon Critchley's new book The Hamlet Doctrine:
Paternity, Joyce declares, is a necessary evil, a legal family fiction, as vulgar as Nietzsche imagined. Stephen asks, “Who is the father of any son that any son should love him or he any son?” What links father and son in nature is “An instant of blind rut”— no more.
He is discussing Stephen Dedalus in Joyce's Ulysses here.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 2, 2014 2:49 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is one conclusion given here but I don't think it's 'the' conclusion.
The Conclusion: When you find yourself playing a rigged game, the only way to win is not to play.
One Conclusion: Fake it till you make it (for reasons you stated). 'It' isn't made that way in reality; but the treatment is for others.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 2, 2014 3:13 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Unsurprisingly, you conflate being wrong with lying. That the high school drop out at the cash register thinks corn might be on aisle 10, when it is really on 11, doesn't make her a liar.
It can mean she's dishonest and probably does mean she's dishonest. Let's ask him on what aisle we might find the corn?
Him: "Aisle 11."
She's dishonest. Rather than cover her face in deceit, she could learn her job or study school. If she wasn't obsessed with sex and cannibalisation [i.imgur.com/ykaLS6v.png], she'd be competent.
Read Lies Every Man Wants To Hear and you will understand what's going with girls (they're taking advice from competition).
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 2, 2014 3:56 AM | Posted by : | Reply
jonny is that whiny beta male in a fedora that every guy at the party wants to punch in the face but doesn't because of the social contract
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 2, 2014 4:53 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is what Democracy looks like.
That's a good video. Imagine that again, with the broken, entitled narcissists of today in those men's positions. They won't be fighting for organised labour. It's going to be ghastly.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 2, 2014 6:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jonny is that whiny beta male in a fedora that every guy at the party wants to punch in the face
Social contract in Australia? I've never been punched in my life. But if anyone wanted to, the social contract wouldn't stop them.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 2, 2014 3:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Actually, they thankfully can't...
That's kind of the point.
I studied Labor riots, and the key strategy was this.
Half of the people fight the national guard.
The other half of people burn the city down in small squads.
Works 80% of the time, every-time. (Remember, Unions were formed to prevent this; if they call your bluff, give them your hand.)
Meanwhile, a "riot" of the Millies would be just be a fucking duck-hunt. The Guard would protect the nobility, and then let the poor people eat each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots
Its kind of fucked up, but it depends on who you hurt, rather then that you got hurt.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 2, 2014 3:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What scares me the most, though, is that if ONLY johnny can see this, and that johnny IMMEDIATELY saw it, and REFUSED to deny it, then frankly, I really do think our future is anti-feminist.
I have found that more patriarchal/racist the person, the more class aware they are; why do you think Southerners voted Democrat in the first place?
And Communists openly advocated that the female gender was a holdover of our past, to be eliminated by genetic engineering...in the 1920s. (Its the thought that counts.)
I hope I'm wrong. I really do.
Like, you guys can hit Johnny all you want as a misogynist, and you would be right, but at the end of the day, he's going to be the only one left to feed himself, after I've taken all your food.
If misogyny is a prerequisite for economic struggle, then holy shit, this is actually worse then real history.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 2, 2014 6:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
True .1%er's would have had then/than boarding school'd into them so they could move swiftly on to dann/als and puis/que.
re: the Last Feminist, jonny may draw ire on the grounds of misogyny at first, but I'd wager more people are annoyed by the conspiratorial, absolutist, and occasionally obviously incorrect (nature is symmetrical?) basis for his arguments.
Whoever is "right" when the ship goes down is just as edible as whoever is wrong. If it turns out to be jonny, he better hope the lady boys don't have a sweet tooth for pink meat.
P.S. 1860s college degrees were not 1930s college degrees were not 1990s college degrees, etc. Now find+replace: "college degrees::Democrats"
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 2, 2014 8:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Actually living in a patriarchal-centric world and a cass-centric world are two competing viewpoints. Maybe you just see people who like to externalize the deeper issues they face like the lady in Alone's article. Also trying to sum up other people in one or two definitions versus what I am sure are your own nuanced opinions on the root of societies' evil hmmm where have I seen that before...
Also I really do hope you are being sarcastic/satyrical.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 2, 2014 9:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Haven't figured out how to quote yet
"re: the Last Feminist, jonny may draw ire on the grounds of misogyny at first, but I'd wager more people are annoyed by the conspiratorial, absolutist, and occasionally obviously incorrect (nature is symmetrical?) basis for his arguments."
That's fair. I can concede that.
"Whoever is "right" when the ship goes down is just as edible as whoever is wrong. If it turns out to be jonny, he better hope the lady boys don't have a sweet tooth for pink meat."
But you see, that's the interesting part; the people who survived the titanic didn't board it in the first place. (Not enough life boats.)
The whole "barbarians-at-the-gates" meme doesn't actually play out as people think it does; rather then expecting the poorest and dumbest to take over, its the smartest and cruelest who do so instead. It's the guy who fights for the Legalism who wins in the end, rather then guy who fights merely for himself.
Don't get me wrong, Drug Dealers and Communists are pretty much the same demographic, except one of them is intelligent and the other one is intelligent and organized.
But machismo is a greater threat to the Mexican man then the Gringo ever was, and the constant drug killings of Mexico are usually over the lowest, and most worthless of stakes.
And then, we find out, in even the most ancient, barbaric times, Ideology always triumphs over the Clan; have you ever asked yourself why you've never met an ethnic Vandal, Visigoth, Goth, or Lombard? And more importantly, why you have never met a Anglo-Saxon?
Here's an example of how a Barbaric state is conquered into an Ideology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalism_(Chinese_philosophy)
Interestingly, it was beaten by Confucious, but only AFTER China had been unified. Which, again, why Totalitarian societies are the strongest societys in times of chaos. (Kind of how the Soviet Union or Maoist China came to power.)
We imagine the Mongols as backwards marauders who pillaged the world without contributing anything to history; which is correct, which is why there are only eight million of them left. But at the same time, the Mongolian invasion was as much of a black swan as Nuclear War, (and killed more people too!)
And precisely their lack of belief structure led to their ideological and genetic extinction. (Russians are everywhere in Eastern Europe because Communism put them there; and the Danzig isn't Deutsch.
Its very, very, obvious how things are going to happen, because they happen over decades, then years, then months, and then by the time it goes to days, and those who saw thing at years usually get to join the party. (Lenin saw the writing on the wall in 1914. All he had to do was spend fifteen minutes in a Russian military barracks before he realized that he would rule them.)
And based on my clock, Climate Change is a snail compared to Nuclear War. (But the Mongols could be coming!?!)
And yes, even in the "1000 years of darkness" people knew Rome was a sinking ship centuries before it happened; we call it the Byzantine Empire.
So "Barbarians at the gates" was much more a game of "who can grab what they can before the lights go out," and that entire regions of the Roman Empire thrived without Roman Rule (known as European History,) precisely because they rejected Roman(American)identity BEFORE the great collapse.
But it was a predictable process; one could see the pottery industries of Londonimum collapse in the same way that Miami sinks under water, or how Detroit is the most important place to for the next power right now.
Hence, why, as a ".1%er," I find myself in a bizarre position. I know the game is up, but nobody else does, and so not only am I given a head start in wealth, I'm also given a head start in time, too. (Unless of course I die. In which case, I don't have anything to worry about anyway. But the ones I pity are the guys who are worried, but are clueless about what's going on.)
So, going back to my original point,
What terrifies me is that we haven't had a society rationally talk about Gender and Class at the same time; one dialogue usually fucks up the other dialogue, and we both know which one is more important.
And when someone like Johnny goes, "Aha!" with such kind of enthusiasm that only someone like Che could give, what causes the "fear" is that I struggle to come up with another person who could say the same. That's what terrifies me.(I mean, I've been to the ISO; I cannot think of how much lower on the Left I'd have to sink to prove such an obvious point.)
Very rarely, can you encounter a "limit" in human history; is misogyny a price of modernity? (And I fully believe that murder and dictatorship is a price of Modernity, so I don't have naiveness about that.)
It doesn't make conceptual sense why this would be the case, but yet, it keeps happening over and over and over and over. (Shit, I even found the process in the Ottoman Empire and the Umayyad Caliphate for goodness sake; the golden age of "tolerance" was also the death knell of the empires)
And like Groucho Marx, "I'd never join a club that would have me in as a member," my worst suspicion comes true, even if I cannot put a "finger" on it yet.
That's all I'm saying; the fact that Johnny got enticed means something is wrong, because out of all the dozens of people I've done this shtick with, he was the only one that responded. If there were others...more like one other...then I probably would've just shut the fuck up as usual. (But I want to be challenged on it, so I spoke up.)
PS: I know that, obviously, I didn't intend anything more then what was said. (Although, that does read like an Alone trick.)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 2, 2014 9:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 2, 2014 11:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's funny, .1%, I know just how I would seize power and try to save/shape the world if I had the ability to fund groups and organizations the way you do. Hint: for less then a few hundred grand you could, over the course of a year or two allow, fund development on ReactOS to mature to where it could replace Windows XP on every computer that still runs it. I have no idea why no millionaire would want to, publicly or secretly, fuck with Microsoft except that there is no direct profit in it.
You wouldn't even need to take over the development because open-source software is all about ideology (Stallman), meritocracy, competition, hierarchical control. Hell, Linux, the OS-kernel that runs the planet, is run by a self-declared "Benevolent Dictator for Life".
That's my narcissism. I dream that I could Steve Jobs the next computer revolution. 2015: Year of the Linux Desktop. I could totally do it to. (and yet, I am not, nor actively working toward it. That's why Alone's writings are like crack).
Another hint: KDE is the desktop of choice because the Qt toolkit lets your desktop applications morph into tablet or phone apps when you disconnect your keyboard. Seamless. Microsoft has shitty Windows 8, Apple has different apps on the iPad then on the Macintosh. Nobody but KDE has an already functioning all-purpose environment. Qt lets UI designers become simple programmers instead of using Photoshop and making developers implement their vision. That's what's missing in proprietary solutions today. And to think, Nokia bought Qt, then sold it after Microsoft's evil minion became CEO and destroyed the company for his former masters to buy it up.
So, if you feel like throwing some cash toward where it could really change the world, check out those two projects (ReactOS and KDE). Funny, I feel crazy "tipping" my hand and revealing those elements to my world-domination plan, but I'm probably not going to become a millionaire in time to seize these opportunities, so they are all yours.
The proliferation of Linux on the desktop could kill the companies that are trying to centralize and own our social lives and markets. The matrix today thrives on Twitter and Facebook metrics of popularity -- destroy that and you might burst the whole tech-bubble. People who don't game realize a 10 year old PC would suit them fine.
Then who knows what would happen? Maybe private social-networks would be rebuilt on geographic location. Maybe that would lead to tribalism, or masses of seperatists, or the organization of private militias. Maybe all of the internets repressed tribes (furries, dragon-kin, etc.) might spew into reality, feeling safer to broadcast themselves on a more private, local internet. But hey, bound to happen sooner or later, right?
I'm reading now some book called The Bolsheviks from 1965. The Berlin wall came down when I was two, so it's all new to me. Indeed the contrast to individualism really blows my mind *ahem* I mean, is quite vertiginous. I will pick up Captive Mind to follow it up.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 3, 2014 5:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Richie D.
My comment that I wrote up got collapsed/wasn't approved.
And lo and behold, I forgot to save it.
Do want to rewrite the important bits of it.
I know nothing about Operating Systems, however, I do know that we all live under Gates' shadow in his realm.
I want to say that I am a "big fish" in a small ocean, and that an unrecognized name like mine stands NO chance against a recognized name like his; for goodness sake, he is so rich is first instinct would be to buy out any endeavor that would oppose him, and the stakes are so high it would be cheaper for him too.
But...the internet is truly incompatible with Western Civilization, in the sense that Intellectual Property and the Internet cannot mutually coexist; one has to control the other.
Of course, we could establish the framework to allow for both profit and creativity; you know, some sort of "Interstate" system that is a information "highway," but like any Socialist program, I worry about "traffic."
However, be careful about trusting Horizontalism too much. Unlike Authoritarianism, we all know who calls the shots, and he is strong; but in horizontalism, we don't know who calls the shots, and he's usually weak.
www.kickstarter.com
I trust the horizon when I am above it, and never when it is above me; I cannot hold up the heavens, only society can.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 3, 2014 5:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Damn it. Accidently added an extra .0 at the end.
My apologies. If that were the case, I'd be Bill Gates!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 12:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Just curious about your Noam Chomsky and Chris Hedges submission to your implied hypocrites list.
That's nice. You're "curious." As in, "here, let me try to subtly undercut el puerco by suggesting nobody can call Chomsky or Hedges a hypocrite."
Heckuvajob on the confirmation bias withstanding the onslaught of curiosity, Nonnytard. Remember the golden rule of the narcissist:
MY EXPERT is infallible.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 1:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Ouch. You are getting mighty close to Zizek here. Careful.
Jeff Popovich as "abbeysbooks"? Impossible!
Jeff Popovich is a GENIUS. Why just look at his BLCKDGRD blog, where he pretends to lampoon himself. His misunderstanding of irony is, ironically, the deathblow. Why? Since -- err, ahhh, y'know -- he considers himself an operator of a highbrow literature blawg where supra-highbrow humor (see, e.g., Will Ferrell and Tater Salad and Chris Farley) is the staple holding together the ragtag watercolor poems and strong desire to achieve greatness by affiliation.
Why does the Zizek reference give him away? Because Poppy O'Vitcher thinks that his "criticisms" of Zizek prove deep Marxist fidelity and crucial eviscerating analysis of Zizek's pseudo-Marxism. In other words, Poppy O'Vitcher presents self as The Real Marxist.
We would like you to notice that there are actually no similarities between Poppy O'Vitcher and abbeysbooks, and we insist you Anonymously reiterate the idea that Your Humble Author (el puerco) is actually "jonny" or perhaps "Alone."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 1:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's nice. You're "curious." As in, "here, let me try to subtly undercut el puerco by suggesting nobody can call Chomsky or Hedges a hypocrite."
Keep stroking that tinfoil hat, Porky.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 1:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Atheists certainly can be narcissists and this may indeed manifest as rage towards the believers.
"may" manifest as spiteful, derisive rage toward religion and believers?
"may"?
You're operating at 2+2=___?
The problem concerns advanced calculus, and it doesn't matter if you know the blank earns the digit 4, you're not ready for calculus and might never be so ready.
Spiteful derision toward religion and believers is nothing more than an ego defense. See my comment above regarding how this is narcissism (MY EXPERT....).
Generally speaking, spite toward religion/believers is a typical adolescent reaction (thus, "reactionary" in "progressive" or "leftist" lingo) toward one's parents. It's an early early early stop on the road toward gaining independence as an adult human.
Since you're the author of your own mind's landscape, you are not hurt by someone else believing in a deity.
Please: bring more derision to bear on these terrible questions of (1) whether one can misunderstand what is science, and (2) whether a person qualifying with a "yes" under the prior question can take that misunderstanding several levels higher in existential confusion, and create a dichotomy of human meaning/value where science>>>religion and, concomitantly, religion is for losers.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 1:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Keep stroking that tinfoil hat, Porky.
Another acolyte from the Church of Chomsky?
What a grand surprise we have on offer tonight, lard-asses and germophobes. Rather than look deeply, we see projection! The most juvenile of ego defenses!
Eggshell ego is the foundation of narcissism!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 1:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Fake Turk sez:
What scares me the most, though, [about jonny's posts]....
Congratulations. You experience existential terror when confronting words on the internet.
Naturally you leap, every single time, to the conclusion which says, "I know what jonny is thinking, and I know it because words have ONLY the meanings that I ascribe to them under my own mental landscape which has numerous castles surrounded by moats, and within those castles are my numerous points of self-doubt."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 1:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes, Porky, we realize it's much easier for you to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a Chomskyite.
"They must be attempting to defend Chomsky! That's why they don't take me seriously!"
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 1:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
For some people it's drinking excessively, for some people it's religion. I just wish Alone would pick a side, because at least in my view, the two are mutually exclusive, or at least you heavily lean on one while pretending to take refuge in the other.
This is what the eidetic-memory-equipped WebSage and Rhetorical Dictator, a/k/a Jack Crow, was heard to bark and chirp as he swung his leg from the knee joint repeatedly, bashing the head of a projected-as "misogynist reactionary" who made fun of Crow's absurd homuncular presentation (read: insanity, offered as genius), back when Crow was a student at one of the handful of feeders to St Paul's. Crow's victim is very lucky that he wasn't also strangled by the uniform rep tie otherwise adorning Heroic Crow's tasteful sartorial regalia.
To fully understand the heaps of scorn and piles of derision offered by Crow toward religion, we must look toward the pivotal life events which formed his mental landscape. Primary among them was his mother's catholicism barring divorce and preventing abortion. Crow identified with his mother and assumed that all men were like his father, who was described by Mother Crow as a misogynist rapist reactionary bigot trying to elevate The Patriarchy at the expense of the Noble Gyne.
And here we have the irony: were Mother Crow allowed to divorce and abort, little Jackie would never be alive today, as his little blastomere ball of cells (clearly, NOT HUMAN per Crow Diktat) would have been scraped clean with the curette and vacuumed from the maternal invagination like the trash it was.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 1:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Yes, Porky, we realize it's much easier for you to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a Chomskyite.
"They must be attempting to defend Chomsky! That's why they don't take me seriously!"
So much projection, you should work at the cinema! Remember the lamp can melt the celluloid when you perseverate, Mister Projectionist.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 1:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oh no, the Walking Projection Machine accused me of projecting! My existential angst is at an all-time high!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 1:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Congratulations on being the embodiment of that elevated intellectual taunt practiced by kindergarteners and preschoolers everywhere:
I know you are, but what am I?
Don't you have some misogynist reactionaries to spot and try to chide somewhere else on the internet, Heroic Nonny? Am I the worst of the worst, in your refined brain?
If so, then please be advised: I'm very interested in how much further you can regress. Please give it a sincere effort! Remember Chayefsky's screenplay for Altered States, there's a lot of room left for regression.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 1:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes, Porky, everyone who thinks you're a joke is a misogynist "reactionary!"
Nobody understands you but you! Don't worry though, someday somebody will recognize your Internet Snark Degree and you will be lauded as the Master-Debater King that you see yourself as.
Keep on chuggin' away!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 2:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Well, I can't really say you don't have a mastery of reframing someone's comments in a completely different context, and confidently stating that your reframe is the real truth about the author's mindset.
That's quite a skill. Has it served you well in meatspace? Did it excuse the many acts of violence you have committed over your meatspace lifespan? Do you tell yourself that beating the piss out of someone is permissible as long as you can convince yourself the person is a reactionary? Or a skeptic toward Chomsky?
Please remember to feel great confident ego-salving when you tell yourself you "delivered a smackdown to Porky". Remember, everyone takes internet commentary as direly serious as you! Everyone has a strong urge to be correct and of the superior social caste, just like you. Remember: you are the standard and exemplar, and we pissants are just jealous strivers seeking to one day be allowed to ask Nonny@TLP whether we can Join the Kook Kids Klique.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 2:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Nobody understands you but you! Don't worry though, someday somebody will recognize your Internet Snark Degree and you will be lauded as the Master-Debater King that you see yourself as.
You imagine yourself as Tarzie's understudy?
Please don't share the details of your sexual fantasy involving you, Tarzie, a gallon tub of Crisco, and a collection of mandrels from a decommissioned condom factory.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 2:14 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Chomsky and Hedges have done more work for us then anyone else alive today; they assume a position of wisdom, and then teach ignorance to our enemies.
There is also a strong connection between Hedges and Zizek's strains of thought. Although he conducted journalism during the Yugoslav wars, which turned him into a "nonviolent activist," Zizek was an actual fucking Slav, and so he got to see the full experience from the beginning to the end.
The key difference? Hedges wants to create a nonviolent/democratic revolutions as an alternative to violent revolution, where Zizek knows that it was the nonviolent/democratic revolutions which allowed the genocide to occur afterwards. (I strongly suspect that Zizek is an atoned communist, after seeing the horror of "democratic nationalism" but idk. This is speculation.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_Wars#Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947
Once the big bad wolf is dead, the three little pigs are left to prove who is the Big Bad Pig. (And that's ladies and gentlemen, is where Somalia comes from.)
Zizek isn't a genius, and honestly, he couldn't be one; we haven't had a Dark Age in an Industrial era throughout human history, so a lot of the symptoms just flew under the radar, until Zizek finally picked it apart...somehow. He's really more a groundbreaker then a particular genius, but that's more then good enough.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 2:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
True .1%er's would have had then/than boarding school'd into them so they could move swiftly on to dann/als and puis/que.
He may not be typing much for SMBIVA, but Jake Backpack spends plenty of time reading TLP's comment threads and springing his Heroic Nonnyisms on an unsuspecting commentariat.
We like you best as Tarzie or Michael J Smith, but you can be Nonny here if you like, Jake. We won't tell. But we would like you to share with us how a gay (half-italian) Jewish trustafarian fop hones his alleged comedy chops, and maybe if we can inject some sodium pentothal into one of your spaghetti appendages, we can hear you regale us with the exponential growth in internet identities you've experienced over the past decade. As well as your enduring, abiding interest in psychotherapy, and whether that's because your gender confusion is rooted in your sexual behavior choices -- or vice-versa!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 2:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Chomsky and Hedges have done more work for us then anyone else alive today; they assume a position of wisdom, and then teach ignorance to our enemies.
Hell yeah! That's some EXCELLENT narcissistic projection!
You are definitely the repository of the We/Us Position. You speak for everyone.
Keen shift you do when going between .1% and Nonny. And fantastic humor with the .1% handle. Gosh, that's so cutting! So vanguard! So lefty-progressy! Why, you're practically Russell Brand!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 2:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nice word salad. Are we supposed to know who "Tarzie" and "Jake Backpack" are?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 2:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Yes, the regression is proceeding with enviable pace. That's impressive.
Did you learn of the phrase "word salad" by reading Psychology Today? Huffington Post? Daily Kos? Perhaps you should redirect your attention to The Princess Bride, and the bit where we hear:
"I don't think that word means what you think it means."
Here, the "word" would be "salad," in your case.
Please continue regressing, but maybe pick up the pace and take it from enviable to exclusive.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 2:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Simply epic! Upvoted and saved for future use. You've taken me on a ruse cruise I soon won't recover from.
I think I'm going to go lie down now; my entire existence has been rocked by the sheer wit of Le Porko!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 2:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Yes, yes, I notice you have no humor to offer, so naturally your attempts at such are comprised of little more than smallminded fantasies about your imagined superiority.
So that's a wee bit better than enviable regression, but it's nowhere near an exclusive regression of a particular type: the one of which only you are capable.
Perhaps you should now go light a sparkler and prance around your little postage-stamp-sized "yard", you clever Brooklyn wit. If you instagram it and tweet-link the instagram'd image, perhaps Corey Robin will see it and offer you a position as his...uh... research assistant. Mrs Professor Robin has no idea that the RA is a purely sexual job, and has even fewer clues about her husband's pretense at hetero/breeder... uh... lifestyle. I'm sure the secret would be safe with you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 3:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
El Puerco, do you ever get tired of being a cunt?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 4:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
El Puerco doesn't, but all the people around him sure do. Why do you think el puerco, jonny, and abbey post on the interwebs? They can't find people who don't detect their toxic bullshit a mile away.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 4:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Uh guys?
Is this hostility really paying off against each other?
Granted, I know I tend to go on "tangents," but like, ignoring me is an option too, let alone actually listening to me. (I guess that's why I'm a fan of Zizek; I'm mad like him.)
But I don't think all this "literal" "psychoanalysis" is going to help us understand the world, which admittedly is the most important thing compared to us all. For all intents and purposes, what good does it do to take down my "authenticity," I can do that all by myself given enough time.
I mean, we all have our skeletons, but its useless trying to drag them out, when its our job to keep them in.
Its kind of why I decided to speak up; we are all capable of thinking intrinsically, but its time to think about the external world in an intrinsic manner. (Measuring the world against Authority, for the first time since 1968.)
And yes, I do high-flying speeches, and I know those have consequences too...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 6:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Is that a fact Anonymous. I wonder how many Anonymous's there are on comment boards. Can't trace you that way. I am abbeysbooks and I am also seymourblogger. You can fine me in many places and on facebook, disqus all the time. Feel free to research my infamous past.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 7:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Honestly I have no idea what El puerco's deal is.
Just understand that regardless of who you are or how often you post, at one point or another he will single you out for a round of insults.
The insults may or may not actually relate to the content of your post, and they may or may not actually make sense, but they will definitely come. You can attract his ire by doing anything from stating your opinion authoritatively to agreeing with a philosophy he personally doesn't like, so somehow upsetting him is unavoidable.
Just step back, let him get it out of his system, and continue on with your original conversation. There isn't really a point trying to respond to him, because all he will do is scrape for more reasons to insult you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 7:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Is that a fact
I don't know abbey, is it?
I am abbeysbooks
No, I am abbeysbooks. You can find me in many places and on facebook, disqus all the time. Feel free to research my infamous past.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2014 7:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You can attract his ire by doing anything from stating your opinion authoritatively to agreeing with a philosophy he personally doesn't like
Even agreeing with a philosophy he does like or disagreeing with a philosophy he doesn't like won't cut it, because obviously nobody REALLY gets it like el puerco does!
In all seriousness though I'm surprised people keep responding to him because it means that they either haven't realized he's a troll who carefully manufactures shit specifically designed to bait you, or they just don't care and enjoy adding fuel to the fire.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 5, 2014 1:32 AM | Posted by : | Reply
lol. i love how el puerco is unable to get my cock out of his little shredded asshole.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 5, 2014 12:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sure, I'd love to converse.
But I really don't what is interesting to the crowd, and whether I have knowledge on the subject.
I do know, though, that our primary way of "oppression" is through the Sterile Intellectual technique. Populate the planet with stupid, weak, intellectuals, and the strong ones get crowded out just by the sheer mass. (TLP is a perfect example of a victim like this)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_insect_technique
What we do is we jack up the confidence of our "intellegista," so that they become incapable of recognizing the problem, and then we continue the status quo of slow collapse.
In essence, every blog of TLP can be summed up in the above statement, but actually "solving" this problem would break the psyche of most people. (It's like thinking you are going to Heaven but finding out you live in 21st Century America.)
What is very, very, hard to get across is that "Bread and Circuses" were done BECAUSE they taught the Romans that Rome was eternal; and since know the Emperor will govern the world forever, why don't we pass the time with playing CoD?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 5, 2014 5:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Don't be ridiculous. Of course you can trace me or anyone on this site with rudimentary hacking. I guess you don't read this blog much or your beloved Foucault because you'd know that who I am doesn't matter.
The interesting question is why anonymity makes you uncomfortable. Oh, I know, because then you can't use ad hominem attacks, which is the only form of "discussion" you're capable of.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 5, 2014 9:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nice try, Potshot McFactless.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 2:50 AM | Posted by : | Reply
In fairness to Abbeysbrooks, anonymous posting is incredibly annoying. I can never tell if I'm arguing with one person or half a dozen, which inevitably leads to all sorts of confusion, such as views being attributed to the wrong person.
Just pick a name, folks!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 3:14 AM | Posted by : | Reply
It's been a while since Alone's last post. I wish there was new material to discuss
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 3:54 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Then post some new material. Here, tumblr, .blogger, etc.
You do have a mind of your own, yes?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 1:56 PM | Posted by : | Reply
El Puerco, do you ever get tired of being a cunt?
So you hate women? And thus the use of "cunt" as epithet?
Nice. You probably take jonny to task for his misogyny too. Priceless.
Of all the slams you can choose, you pick "cunt."
Yes. Very nice.
The comments threads always show the narcissism, don't they?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 1:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
lol. i love how el puerco is unable to get my cock out of his little shredded asshole.
Everyone appreciates you telling us how you like your sexual relations. Violent, bloody, and gay.
Fantastic revelations. We're all impressed.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 2:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Even agreeing with a philosophy he does like or disagreeing with a philosophy he doesn't like won't cut it, because obviously nobody REALLY gets it like el puerco does!
I think it would be instructive if you'd do this thread the honor of describing what is the "it" you think I "get."
Show us how your ethereal divining tool ferrets out the true beliefs of every commenter by merely reviewing a comment's text. Be careful to avoid what you are projecting about yourself!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 2:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You can attract his ire by doing anything from stating your opinion authoritatively to agreeing with a philosophy he personally doesn't like, so somehow upsetting him is unavoidable.
Gosh. I didn't realize I was "upset." I guess that word must have a new hipster definition. You know. Like hipster "irony" which isn't irony at all. So hipster "upset" is not upset. Okay. I could understand that.
If you're thinking I'm angry, sad, mad, torqued off, frazzled, miffed, disturbed, slighted, defeated, hurt, demeaned, diminished, smacked down, or otherwise some rough synonym of literal upset, I'm afraid you're going to have to settle for being completely mistaken about that.
Chin up. It might get better. Usually when you stop thinking you're a mind-reader, it improves.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 2:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I studied Labor riots, and the key strategy was this.
Half of the people fight the national guard.
The other half of people burn the city down in small squads.
Oh golly. So you watched Stallone in F.I.S.T. and you think that's the template, eh?
We have a real genuine self-appointed e-Union-Organizer here, folks. Who "studied Labor riots." And we all know that if you study one "riot" you know how all of them play out, because people aren't individualized at all. Nope. They're fungible constructs.
Ask any Marxist.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 2:23 PM | Posted by : | Reply
In fairness to Abbeysbrooks, anonymous posting is incredibly annoying.
Yes, listen to Jeff Popovich, who comments as "Abbeysbooks." Which isn't anonymity at all. See, if I call myself "BabbysOoks," that's me being completely real and honest. Like everyone else on the internet. Completely honest. No fantasies about being a psychiatrist, no fantasies about being able to read minds, no fantasies about omniscience, no fantasies about omnipotence.
Just straight-up honesty, right from the heart, filtered by a pure unbiased mind, banging those QWERTY lessons out with unflinching heroic fidelity to REALITY, baby!
Take "Frank," for example. His name really IS Francis.
Touch his stuff -- he'll kill ya. Call him Francis, he'll kill ya.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 3:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
QWERTY lessons
So you are forty years old. Not that the resentment toward anything young and gay didn't give that away.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 3:08 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Well, well, well. Your belief in your ability to read minds through a comment remains unassailed and thus unwavering. That's quite heroic of you.
Please continue predicting wrongly about another's age, another's alleged "resentment," and all manner of other e-psychiatry practiced by reading random comments. It's probably the highlight of this 900+ comment thread, that little delusion of yours put into practice.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 3:23 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The proliferation of Linux on the desktop could kill the companies that are trying to centralize and own our social lives and markets.
For someone who presents himself (under a different handle) as being a genius of the iWorld/eUniverse, you don't seem to understand too much. If use of Linux expands to emulate the OS dominance (per capita) of Apple or Windows systems, Linux will cease in its open-source-means-free-from-intrusive-eyes status and go the way of commerce, like Mozilla and many others who use loss-leader (free at first, then not so free) as the operative mantra.
Definitely continue thinking you know how it will play out. Like the "Labor riots student" above, you imagine a hermetically sealed world with no variables and everything being controlled.
Hopefully you identify with progress and more narrowly with a subset of humans who are progressing humanity forward with technological devices. It's quite clear that the ubiquity of e-world linkage will take us all to a valhalla of progress, and there's no way that anything technological can ever work large-scale harms against humanity. Those boys in Los Alamos would definitely agree if we could shoot back in time around 70 years. They'd be right on board with you. "We're just trying to unlock this powerful energy source. Why it's MADNESS to think we'd ever use it as a weapon."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 3:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So you hate women? And thus the use of "cunt" as epithet?
Nope. I can't stand you, though. You're a total cunt. King Cunt of House Cunt, that's you. The Carlsbad Cavern of cunts. The cuntiest cunt in cuntville.
Don't like a little four letter word? Maybe you should try not being such a milquetoast? Alternatively, being less of a cunt is also an option.
Nice. You probably take jonny to task for his misogyny too. Priceless.
Nope. Wrong again. 0 for 2. I take Jonny to task for not making any fucking sense, but he's an infinitely more valuable contributor than you. Jonny, at least, has a point of view, demented though it may be. You contribute nothing at all. All you ever do is shit on people. That's why, when I called you a cunt, the only person to object was you. Face it, you're a cunt. The question is why, and what are you going to do about it?
The comments threads always show the narcissism, don't they?
You spend your days on website where you are roundly despised by everyone, contributing nothing, posting nothing but sarcasm and abuse, assiduously building an online identity as the dumbest, most contemptible fucking troll imaginable, presumably for the sheer masochistic joy of it, revelling in the negative attention, and yet somehow I'm the narcissist?
How about you blow it out your ass? You're a fucking punching bag, nothing more.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 3:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What exactly do you think you're doing when you accuse others of projection or narcissism or of having a "postage stamp sized yard" or of having a "gender identity problem", etc.? Are you not making assumptions about the writer of the text?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 3:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Wow. You "can't stand" me?
You sure do convince yourself with 100% surety that you know another person's full intent and the entire realm of possible acts, thoughts, feelings, etc., even without actually knowing that person at all.
I suppose "can't stand" might mean, in your hipster world, "don't know anything about," but then that would render the rest of your lengthy diatribe of prediction more than a little meaningless, wouldn't it?
Strangely, it would also reveal the perfect embodiment of Alone's theory of narcissism's prevalence among those who read, misunderstand, and take far too seriously his essays -- wouldn't it?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 3:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Are you not making assumptions about the writer of the text?
No.
But I can understand why a narcissist who insists on projecting his own flaws onto others would reflexively conclude that way.
I don't think I know anyone who comments here. I don't think I know their mindsets, their habits, their socioeconomic status, their sexuality, their gender, their race, their age, their cultural preferences, or their emotional/psychological maladies.
But if you think YOU know those things about others, you'd naturally assume others are like you. Because everyone is just like you -- or they're wrong. Right?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 3:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You spend your days on website where you are roundly despised by everyone,
So you are the author of any comment which isn't mine, which isn't offered by el puerco?
Or, alternatively, you think you have the right to speak for everyone. Which is just a wee bit narcissistic, a tad arrogant, and a smidge delusional -- isn't it?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 3:43 PM | Posted by : | Reply
All you ever do is shit on people
In this thread I haven't defecated anywhere, let alone near a person, and far less likely "on" someone.
Show me a person in this thread. I think you'll fail mightily, unless you resort to the distortion which equates words on a page with human in meatspace. But then that would show you to be something quite destructive, given the words you tend to choose when you try to take apart my posts, wouldn't it?
Do you know what is amusing in this exchange?
If so, please tell us.
Since you've thus far elevated yourself to Universal Arbiter of Posting Commenter Psychology, I have little doubt that you'll volunteer the Universal Conclusion about that is amusing.
Don't be stingy. Share.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 3:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Wow. You "can't stand" me?You sure do convince yourself with 100% surety that you know another person's full intent and the entire realm of possible acts, thoughts, feelings, etc., even without actually knowing that person at all.
Your posts are nothing but repositories of spite and bile. From this I have concluded that you are total cunt. I can't stand you because, based on all the available evidence, you seem like a thoroughly contemptible person. If you wanted to be perceived differently then you should have written different things. If I've got the wrong idea about you then that's YOUR fault.
If you disagree, it might be worth asking yourself why you have so few defenders and so many detractors. Why have so many people got the wrong idea about you? Well, I'll answer that, it's because if you're not a total cunt you're doing a magnificent impression of one.
I suppose "can't stand" might mean, in your hipster world, "don't know anything about,"
Nope. 0 for 3. When I say I can't stand you I mean that I really can't stand you.
Besides, I DO know something about you. I know that you're the sort of weird little dweeb who spends his free time randomly shitting all over people for no reason. And I know that you're an Internet bully, because you act like one.
Strangely, it would also reveal the perfect embodiment of Alone's theory of narcissism's prevalence among those who read, misunderstand, and take far too seriously his essays -- wouldn't it?
Frankly, given what you've posted on the subject, I don't think you would recognise a narcissist if you came home and found one fucking your wife. Perhaps you should refrain from using words you don't understand.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 3:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Face it, you're a cunt. The question is why, and what are you going to do about it?
Laugh at your delusions regarding mind-reading and more pertinently, regarding your skills in comedy.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 3:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't think I know anyone who comments here. I don't think I know their mindsets, their habits, their socioeconomic status, their sexuality, their gender, their race, their age, their cultural preferences, or their emotional/psychological maladies.
Okay. What are you intending when you use phrases like "in your hipster world" and "those who read...and take far too seriously his essays"?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 3:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Your posts are nothing but repositories of spite and bile.
I'm afraid you're mistaken yet again. And it's more than just overstatement you're employing. "Nothing but" would be a gross overstatement if there were even one situation where I used the word "spite" or the word "bile," but I'm 99.99% certain that I've never used either word in this thread.
Also you're still hobbled by that lingering problem of thinking you're infallibly reading someone else's mind and mental state when you accuse someone of posting from a bilious, spiteful stance. But I can understand why you'd tell yourself that your appraisal is inerrant. Otherwise, you'd have to examine your own motives and why you insist on the accused other being what you have predicted and, broken record time here folks, projected those mindsets onto whomever you refuse to read in any way but as-predicted, as-projected.
That's great stuff if you're aiming for self-mockery. I don't know your aims, but truly if that is one of them, then congratulations.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 3:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
If I've got the wrong idea about you then that's YOUR fault.
It's my fault you draw conclusions about me without knowing me in the slightest?
No, that's not narcissistic of you. Not projection-laden. Not delusional about mind-reading. And clearly not completely wrong about another, while telling self it's impossible to be wrong in that setting.
May I politely suggest that you continue deluding yourself in this manner? I, for one, find it very amusing, and almost certainly for reasons other than why you'd imagine I'd find it amusing.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 4:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What are you intending when you use phrases like "in your hipster world" and "those who read...and take far too seriously his essays"?
I intend to show your comments fail when they practice e-psychoanalysis and, where comedy is concerned, create vacuums where comedy cannot breathe.
Have I succeeded? You can tell us what you think, but unless you are the author of every single comment other than my own, you'd just be arrogantly pretending at the Universal Arbiter role again.
I would suggest you use 23 different new handles to create a false chorus of criticism toward my commentary!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 4:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's my fault you draw conclusions about me without knowing me in the slightest?
Yes. It is your fault. Your writing projects a character that is consistently loathsome. Either you are loathsome, or you're a terrible writer. Either way the fault is yours.
Speaking of mind-reading, where is your evidence that I 'm either a hipster or a misogynist?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 4:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I intend to show your comments fail when they practice e-psychoanalysis
Which comments of mine practiced "e-psychoanalysis"?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 4:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I will refer you to one of my earlier comments, where I said:
Well, I can't really say you don't have a mastery of reframing someone's comments in a completely different context, and confidently stating that your reframe is the real truth about the author's mindset.
I suppose (means: I am guessing here, I'm not confidently concluding) you might think it somehow clever, in a foppishly snarky sort of way, for you to twist others' words and try to use them against the writer's intent. You may want to examine the origins of that little tactic. Most people who use such tactics have unresolved trauma in their personal history. Most people who take delight in lying about others' motives have some spooky corners of their psyche which get avoided with some real vigor.
Perhaps that's not applicable to you, though. Only you would know for sure, and you'd probably never admit it here if it were true. That could spoil the pretense at omniscience, omnipotence, and Chair of the e-Psychology Department at University of Projected Selves.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 4:14 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Which comments of mine practiced "e-psychoanalysis"?
Pretty much every single one directed at me, or mentioning me.
And probably every other comment where you talked about a comment written by someone other than yourself.
Please invest your energies in this new victim status you've adopted. The naive pollyanna stance helps put your adversary in a weakened, quasi-empathetic position which seems Stockholm Syndrome-ish, but actually is laying a trap under that guise.
Yes, play the victim naif. It's sure to catch me off guard.
Since you're superior, etc.
If you're in analysis, I bet your analyst loves the 45 min sessions spent with you. Might even enable a quick book writing!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 4:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Seems like it's the first day on the internet for some people here.
Protip: Le Porko is indeed a massive cunt, and he's baiting you into replying. You're wasting your time. Ignore the attention whore and move on.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 4:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
My lack of humorous inspiration drive me to being very serious. It's boring and I like it. Wish you people could give it up and hug each other.
Strangely enough these hostile comments, snide remarks and aggressive suggestions do inspire me to love. I like being out-smarted, laughed at or being subject to the most cruel verbal mistreatment. It makes me feel safe.
And I'm not sure I even know what projection is. It's psychology, right? Just saying.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 4:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
If you're implying that earlier comment was a response to me (which you might not be), you'd be wrong.
Most people who use such tactics have unresolved trauma in their personal history. Most people who take delight in lying about others' motives have some spooky corners of their psyche which get avoided with some real vigor.
What makes you say this?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 4:26 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Please invest your energies in this new victim status you've adopted.
What about my writing implies that I have adopted a "victim status"? I'm trying to avoid making assumptions when reading your posts, but this occasionally requires clarification.
actually is laying a trap under that guise
No traps.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 4:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Wish I knew how to talk with people. All I know is how to sell cars or talk to people. And I talk too much about myself, I know. I do that but I would like to stop.
No - it is not for you, no not to you either. It's just text. This is not: Love you all.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 4:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What makes you say this?
"Makes" is far too strong a word. Nothing "makes" me comment or think about commenting.
But that's because I'm long past the narcissistic hipster stage of my life, which for me ended some time around 15 or 16 years of age. I don't have a need to defend against imagined injuries and conjured adversaries. Don't have a want for demonizing everything that doesn't comply with my own preferences. Not any more.
It's okay if you're stuck there, though. Even if you're stuck there well past the age when people smarter, more holistic, and better-grounded than you would have moved on. Everyone's got baggage they lug around. Some have extra long arms that are a bit stronger than most, thanks to the Bill of Lading being well-stuffed. Perhaps it's those long arms that make you think you're reaching me and taking me down a peg, eh?
You don't have to answer. I would understand if the shame might keep you mum. The ego can be a brittle thing. Especially when too much is invested in its superiority and infallibility.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 4:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
How do you know that "most people who use such tactics have unresolved trauma in their personal history" or that "most people who take delight in lying about others' motives have some spooky corners of their psyche which get avoided with some real vigor"?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 4:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What about my writing implies that I have adopted a "victim status"?
Such things remain hidden from the narcissist.
Protip: Le Porko is indeed a massive cunt, and he's baiting you into replying. You're wasting your time. Ignore the attention whore and move on.
With your numerous comments in this vein, Francois, you seem to show great investment in getting everyone on your Hype Train carrying a banner saying el puerco is a massive cunt.
If that's the case, I'm not sure you're in a position to be pretending at objective identification of another's motives. And surely you wouldn't be the "pro" who could offer any kind of "tip" here. Would you?
Or maybe you're the Professional Cunt Labeller? That would be an estimable position, nudging up against royalty.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 4:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's that lack of spontaneous expression, thoughts flowing freely from mind to text. I know that some people consider not having a filter a curse but it's a blessing. Wish I could stop being so restricted and just be free, you know - free?
More follows.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 6, 2014 4:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
How do you know that "most people who use such tactics have unresolved trauma in their personal history" or that "most people who take delight in lying about others' motives have some spooky corners of their psyche which get avoided with some real vigor"?
How do YOU know anything which is true? Not just True for You thus True for Everyone (which is a painted landscape fantasy), but just plain True.
How do YOU know that if you put gasoline in your car's tank, it will enable you to drive the car for as many miles as your car's engine can manage from the quantity you put in the tank?
I could be like Popovich and say, "well I read it in an Expert's treatise, and MY EXPERT is correct."
Or I could know it from other bases, grounded in meatspace life, far from the fake expertise projected on the internet.
You'll decide whatever you decide, though. Since you've got your own prejudices to employ, your own biases to confirm, your own fantasy landscape to frame and hang on the wall.
Aren't you supposed to be on a book tour, Yakov?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 1:51 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Anyone seen The Secret Life of Walter Mitty yet? It's like Narcissism: The Movie.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 11:07 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nope. Would you recommend it?
Also I'd like to remind everyone not to feed the troll. This particular one seems very clever, and replying only encourages him. The best way to punish him or make him go away is by not engaging him at all. Just keep discussing whatever it is you're discussing and ignore any posts he makes, even if they are personal insults against you that you have a good comeback for. I know it's hard, but I encourage you to push yourself by not replying to the man at all.
And now, I'd like to invite one and all to do a compare-and-contrast of Camus and Sartre. Whom do you personally appreciate more? Whom do you find more intelligible or accessible? Does one of them strike you as a charlatan or hack? Etc.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 11:39 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nope. Would you recommend it?
I would recommend it only if you want to watch a film about breaking out of your narcissistic shell told by a narcissist (I'm talking about the new Ben Stiller remake that came out last year).
The film is one of those aspirational, saccharine "life-affirming" movies. Ben Stiller starts out as an office worker living in this dream world where he is a boring nobody who routinely fantasizes about grandiose adventures to compensate for how non-grandiose he is in real life, and then one day he decides to go out and engage in all these whacky shenanigans in order to prove that he is worth something.
I'd say give it a watch but it's pretty obvious the filmmakers made it with cynical intent.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 12:21 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Lacan very well may have been a narcissist, but a video of him smoking a cigarette and having the kind of confidence that's most likely conducive to being a lecturer isn't proof of that.
I didn't intend for that to be the sole argument for why I think such a thing. I've read his writing, I've seen Lacan Parle and La Psychanalyse Parts 1 and 2 (the only televised lectures ever recorded) as well as researched a little about his profession and life.
These links might be useful:
http://www.psychiatrie-und-ethik.de/infc/en/Shrink_from_Hell.htm
http://www.richardwebster.net/thecultoflacan.html
Obviously take these accounts with a grain of salt, but if any of this happens to be true it doesn't really paint him in a positive light. I myself haven't read Roudinesco's biography of Lacan, as it's a whopping 788 pages, but I plan to do so when I have free time in the future.
There is also a documentary that came out in 2001 called Quartier Lacan, in which some of Lacan's peers and various other French psychoanalysts discuss him and his work. The synopsis is as follows:
A fair amount is made of the fact that Lacan was renowned for his powers of seduction and what effect this had on transference in the clinical setting. According to some of the interviewees, he could be irresistibly seductive, so much so that some thought him "monster".
I have a copy of it but unfortunately I'm unable to watch it, as it's in French and there are currently no English subtitles available.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 1:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Also I'd like to remind everyone not to feed the troll.
So let's not feed "Dick Trickle." Though you can't help lapping up what's trickling out of any nearby penis, can you Dick?
This particular one seems very clever, and replying only encourages him.
No, not clever at all. Gay troller uses "clever" homophilic name which also is a NASCAR driver's name -- maybe he's a gay redneck troller? Still -- not clever. But indeed narcissistic and arrogant, and imagines self the Voice of the Community, and imagines self speaking for all when wanting to compare Camus and Sartre, like Tarzie comparing activist and agitator while saying he loves Penis. Look at all the gay trollers using the internet to find a quick-fuck!
Just keep discussing whatever it is you're discussing and ignore any posts he makes, even if they are personal insults against you that you have a good comeback for.
Classic Tarzie/Bacharach/Popovich 3-part Godhead mumblejumble! Thus far not a single good reply to me, and I haven't insulted anyone.
I have, however, made fun of posts and their wording. Which is far different from insulting a person. Which you'd know if you were half as clever as you pretend. Right?
Everyone who isn't gay and trolling for a gay lover/quickfuck, remember: you don't have to discuss philosophers or their theories, especially when this blog isn't about philosophers or their theories. The Commentariat does not own the substance and ramshackle rabbit trail chases, snipe hunts, and searches for muffler bearings and canivoling pins are not mandatory. You can, and should, discuss what Alone has referenced or discussed in his primary essay above.
Unless you're a gay man here to troll for other gay men who use discussions of "philosophy" to find pseudo-intellectual horny gay men looking to fuck another pseudo-intellectual horny gay man. If that's what you're after, I suggest Bacharach, Tarzie or Popovich for your daily dose of Gay Fop Pseudo-Intellectual nonsense and random hookup arranging.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 1:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This just in: Le Porko outs himself as a self-loathing fag. More news at 11.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 1:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Your investment in having your projection be an accurate statement of reality is quite interesting, and says far more about you than you imagine your little petty "put-down" succeeds in discerning about me.
Not surprised, Francois, that you choose to be Nonny here. Also not surprised that in your world, if someone doesn't praise homosexuals, then that person must be closeted. After all, your world shapes up neatly: either just like you (gay, clever, sexy, funny) or not like you (ugly breeder who actually is in the closet) if the person disagrees with you or exposes the fallacies of your non-thinking comments.
Binary. A person is either gay, or pretending to be a breeder while deeply closeted. In other words, in Nonny's World, everyone's gay -- they either know it and preen about it on the internet, or they are hiding from the truth as closeted self-haters.
Yes, that's some deep knowledge of everything right there. Very deep. Holistic and wise.
Your attempts to make your ego swell up with the same turgidity your penis gains when you post one of your snarks, they're not succeeding.
And in case you didn't get the memo: being gay is irrelevant unless we're talking about what gender you prefer when having sex. And last I checked, we weren't talking about that anywhere.
But that won't stop you from trumpeting to the world how grand and noble you are, simply due to your preferring sex with those having the same gender as yourself.
It would be great if you could use that powerful brain (cough cough) of yours to logically explain what makes me a self-hating gay, and what makes me a male human being. Please share.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 2:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
If everyone would just STOP RESPONDING to Jonny, maybe JUST MAYBE he would stop ruining comment threads for all of us. It's infuriating. EYE would love to read all of the thoughtful, thought-provoking comments that many lovely people on the interwebs take the time to write - in response to thought-provoking real shit by Alone - and instead, fish through all of Jonny's crap and all the idiots who engage with him... before finally giving up and moving on. Let's make him go away!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 2:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes Le Porko, keep that armchair analysis coming! Here let me light you another cigar.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 2:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"ruining comment threads"
If you want to be a hipster squatter at someone else's blog, and by dint of sockpuppet comment blasting control (in your mind) that blog's content, I'd wonder why you don't create your own blog where the subject is philosophy for horny gay pseudo-intellectuals to use as an icebreaker to find some hot new wee-wee or pooper to play with.
Remind us all again, Herr Tone Patrol Fuehrer, what makes this blog actually about gay men trolling for pseudo-intellectual partners despite its clear focus on narcissism and psychiatric shortcomings in dealing with that aspect of human frailty.
Some of us would like to discuss the narcissistic features that Alone mentions in his primary essays. You gay trollers would prefer to discuss something completely unrelated, just so you can find some cock or ass to play with.
THTOP TWAWKING ABOWT NAWSISSYSM! We want to find some fellow bonobo monkeys to play with and we choose pseudo-philosophic discussions to find those bonobos! THTOP INTEWWUPTING UTH!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 2:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Yes Le Porko, keep that armchair analysis coming!
Yes, Tarzie, keep that dianabol pumping.
Here let me light you another cigar.
It's so clever how you insist your projection/prediction is true, and then state a new pseudo-truth with the same certitude. Since you're iPhone commenting at TLP while huffing on some twink's flute, you want everyone who reads and comments here to either be doing the same, or wish they were.
Tell us why your preference for using the comments thread as a gay sex connections locale should control. Do you have Alone's blessing for that? Is that why Alone created this blog? For gay men to troll for fellow pseudo-intellectuals? The main essays are just a cover for the setting of Club Rectum?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 2:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No, dude, it's exactly narcissism I'd LOVE to hear about. All I'm hearing from you is A) gay-bashing, B) anger, & C) impotence.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 2:23 PM | Posted by : | Reply
In case you forgot, Francois the Pasta&Bagel-eating Nonny Mouse Hipster, here (quoting you) is where I get the references to gay-centric commenters wanting to expunge all commentary which isn't aiming toward a gay hookup:
lol. i love how el puerco is unable to get my cock out of his little shredded asshole.
By your "logic" that statement "proves" you are either gay, or deeply closeted.
Don't be afraid to judge yourself by the same standards you use when judging the comments offered by someone you've never met and otherwise know nothing about. You're infallible!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 2:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
No, dude, it's exactly narcissism I'd LOVE to hear about. All I'm projecting onto you is A) gay-bashing, B) anger, & C) impotence.
fixed
you're welcome
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 2:33 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's interesting someone says he/she/it wants to return to Alone's focus subject of narcissism, but whenever he/she/it comments, he/she/it is trying to talk about something other than narcissism.
Those hipsters and their meta- sense of un-humor are quite the cards, aren't they? Hipster thinks total unfunny = hilarious, because that's "meta-" and "ironic."
The real nuggets are found in whether you play for Team Lacan, Gruppo Foucault, Squad Sartre, or the Rorty Cohort. Bragging on your team identity and the minutiae thereof, that's where the real truth is uncovered.
Pretentious people like to think they can spot "bashing" of "minorities". It's a nice cover for their own prejudices and biases, the empty accusation hurled toward someone completely unknown to the accuser.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 2:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are putting a ridiculous amount of effort into this.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 2:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Aw, don't jinx it! It's fun to count how many times s(he)'ll post without response; how long can crazy last?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 2:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
In this week's episode of As The Blog Turns, Le Porko has an extremely small penis and attempts to compensate for it by becoming Grand Master-Debater on an obscure internet blog. Will he win the attention he so desperately seeks? Don't touch that remote!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 2:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
El puerco, if I'm reading you correctly I agree with what you and alone both say - that is invest less of your time in your online identity (even if it's just a nonny on the TLP forums) and more on your meatspace relationships. That's exactly what alone has wrote in several of his articles. That makes a lot more sense than all 900 of the comments made here.
And can you confirm if this is your blog:
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 3:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You are putting a ridiculous amount of effort into this.
Nice of you to tell us how much effort you would require/consume to do what I'm doing. Unfortunately that has no bearing on how difficult it is for me to do it. Or, more honestly put, how easy it is for me. Perhaps this is why you are so nastily snarky, because you wish things were that simple for you, and you are angry about that sad realization that you're far from the sharpest knife in your yupscale kitchen area's artisanal cutlery display.
As I said a good ways up, it's great how everyone seems hell-bent on avoiding the topic of narcissism while embodying it with their comments.
Remember, I'm not what I am. I am nothing more than whatever you imagine and then project onto the label el puerco and whatever comment sits beneath that ID.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 3:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
We hear again from the Bacharach-Tarzie-Popovich gawd-in-three-persons Blessed Trinity:
In this week's episode of As The Blog Turns, Le Porko has an extremely small penis and attempts to compensate for it by becoming Grand Master-Debater on an obscure internet blog. Will he win the attention he so desperately seeks? Don't touch that remote!
So deeply invested in 140 characters of snark that you can't even rise above the insults that hurt your feelings in 7th grade PE locker room banter. You're stuck referencing your first pubescent feelings of existential uncertainty where your manliness was concerned.
Thanks for sharing. Perhaps you should be busier doing what you're actually paid to do by your employer, rather than offering middle school snark in yet another sad attempt at ego-buttressing?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 3:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't want to be defined by who I am [aka by what I do and by what I post on an obscure internet blog]
Your narcissism is poking out through your zipper Porky.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 3:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Aw, don't jinx it! It's fun to count how many times s(he)'ll post without response; how long can crazy last?
Gosh, look at the little hipster Insider go! Secret handshake time, baby! Did you get my text? HUGS! KISSES!
What is the relevance of "without response," lassie? You assert that I'm stupid, so maybe I'm too dumb to understand what "without response" implies or otherwise avers. Help me please, you kind and generous Soul of Distraction.
And can you confirm if this is your blog:
I can't. I'd wonder why you think it is. Perhaps Nonny is not the detective he thinks himself?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 3:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Your narcissism is poking out through your zipper Porky.
Your little quote actually isn't quoting me, but thanks for that earnest effort at outright lying! That's impressive!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 3:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
here (quoting you) is where I get the references to gay-centric commenters wanting to expunge all commentary which isn't aiming toward a gay hookup:"lol. i love how el puerco is unable to get my cock out of his little shredded asshole."
What does that comment have to do with "expunging commentary which isn't aiming toward a gay hookup"? Seems like this person just thinks you're unable to get his cock out of your asshole. And judging by the fact that you seem unable to control yourself from going on a purple prose rant to cherry-picked quotes that you take literally (all the while variously referring to a blogger named Tarzie that you seem obsessed with...or am I projecting my obsession with a blogger I don't know?), it seems like he's right.
You don't understand how language works. In response to another comment, you interpreted the use of "what makes you say that?" as if the intention was "what forces you to say that?", but that's because you read it literally. Language is behavior defined by use/context. The intent of the question based on the context was "how do you know this?" A question which, once clarified, you evaded in your predictable comedian's rhythm without the joke.
Another problem with most of your implications is that they assume what people write in the comments represents the totality of what they are willing to discuss or think about themselves, as if "real truth" could be discerned about anything or anyone in a handful of comments. As if somebody's self-awareness about their own narcissism is precluded in comments not about that self-awareness.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 3:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You refuse to take responsibility for what you write in the comments section of this blog. That quote was a direct quote from another Alone article and it is directly applicable to your defensive, contradictory, and hypocritical style of posting.
Keep hiding your head in the sand though, it's doing you a lot of good.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 3:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm an appreciator of Lacanian theory, and so admittedly bias, but there are a few things I feel compelled to note with regard to the links you provided.
First: Although I've studied and appreciated Lacanian theory for a few years, I take the charge, leveled at people like myself by people like the authors of those takedowns, that we have been "brainwashed" or "seduced" by his ideas very seriously. I'm an intellectual, raised by scientists, and the fact that I've devoted my studies to letters instead of numbers is a cause of personal consternation. I will freely confess that I've lost sleep over the lack of quantifiable, empirical evidence to support and repeat Lacan's documentation through scientific method. I sometimes wonder if Chomsky, for whom I have a great deal of respect, is completely right, and that Lacan and Zizek and the whole history of anti-philosophy is naught but posture and pyrotechnics.
I am not, in other words, a blind disciple, captivated by the fascinating presence of a cult-like personality, which seems to be an unfair characterization made be those authors of anyone who is compelled by Lacan's ideas. Quite the contrary: I just like to think and read and write, and regardless of the stature and reputation of Lacan -- about which I could really care less, except to say that I'm glad he had a high enough profile to have been translated -- his ideas are not only interesting but useful to me.
With that said, the first link you provided was better than the second. I know he passed away fairly recently so no disrespect or anything, but Richard Webster's (the second author's) interpretation of Lacan's mirror theory is so woefully naïve that I have to believe his entire critique is built on a cracked and lopsided foundation. Combine that with the fact that he explicitly acknowledges how important the mirror phase is to Lacan's overall project and I wonder how it is that he could not take the time to make sure he understood it properly.
The possible objections to Lacan's theory are so numerous that an entire book would be needed to anthologise them. One of the simplest would point to the inherent implausibility of a theory of human development in which a child's relationship to a mirror is held to be more significant than its relationship to its parents.
Talk about missing the point. I'm not going to do any exegesis except to point out that it requires only the most rudimentary understanding of Lacanian theory to know that the mirror phase doesn't necessarily involve an actual mirror. Parents are mirrors, too, just like other children (again, according to the theory). I mean, just look at Webster's annotations: maybe if he spent more time reading Lacan and less time reading others' derisions of him (nearly half of the 46 annotations on that second link come from Roudinesco, either directly or through Tallis; only 5 come from Lacan, and 0 from Zizek or Fink, the two most widely acclaimed expounders of his theory) then I could take his criticism more seriously. As it is, however, he strikes me like anyone else so vocally upset with something they don't appear to understand: ignorant and lazy.
At bottom, despite my continued reservations about his ideas, I feel that the controversy they provoke is, alone, reason enough to indulge them, to at least try to grapple with them. Having done so, I find them indispensable to my own worldview, increasingly nuanced and explanatorily powerful, which I've been hammering out for myself over the years.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 3:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
it seems like he's right.
Yes, whenever you want to seem "right," you should come in pretending to be a 2d Person who Admires the 1st Person's remarks, where 1st Person is you and, unsurprisingly, so is 2d Person.
Glenn Greenwald is probably the most famous current celebrity to use this tactic on the internet to boost his reputation. "Why look at my comment threads! 350+ and still going strong, and everyone agrees with me and thinks I'm a brilliant analyst." Meanwhile 335+ of the comments are written by Greenwald or a lackey paid to pad and buff and support/endorse/AGREED!
The brilliant gay savant Tarzie uses this at his ill-considered and barely-noticed blog. I stumbled upon it when I read someone else's blog praising the genius of Tarzie. After reading, I thought it had to be satire -- the praise of Tarzie, it had to be a sarcastic mild inversion. But the person praising Tarzie kept linking to each new Tarzie essay.
Strangely, Tarzie's writing is a mirror image of Greenwald's. And the comment threads are a mirror image of Greenwald's blog and website comment threads. Echo chamber, no dissent, no disagreement, no real humans anywhere in the mix.
It seems like he's right. Yep, it sure does.
I admire how wounded you are when you read my comments, Nonny. What exactly are you defending against here? What projection? And why must you create fake-agreement-among-sockpuppets to bolster your defenses?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 3:43 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm not going to do any exegesis...
What a pretentious nonce. This genius can be found at Crow Falls Down and at The Crow's Eye, pretending via cut-and-paste to be some kind of walking consortium of Humanity's Brightest Minds.
You want us to be impressed with your pseudo-academic puffery which takes 500 words to say what I could in 12 or 15. You want to escape from what you are, a dog chasing its tail in rhetorical terms. But you won't escape by chasing your tail. You have to leap the fence, dig under it, or get rescued by an external force, a deus ex machina.
PLEASE LET US GET BACK TO OUR PRETENTIOUS DISCUSSION OF NOTHING.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 3:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not willing to get into an argument about Lacan's theory first and foremost because you seem to wear as a badge of honour the idea that you and you alone are the sole arbiter of understanding about Lacan and his work. If anything a big part of Lacan's output was about how language is deceptive and ultimately unknowable.
"The very foundation of interhuman discourse is misunderstanding" (Seminar III, 184).
Lacan goes into great detail about how it is impossible to discern by any method the meaning of any word. All readings are determinations made by the reader. Or rather, Lacan is bringing up the reader-ladenness of reading. Knowledge of the master signifier is exactly impossible as knowledge of God.
What I AM willing to discuss is Lacan's method of appropriating scientific jargon and concepts into an admittedly pseudoscientific field (psychoanalysis), a field that is still in it's baby stages and which lies heavily on the findings of neuroscience and clinical psychology. Why does he feel the need to infuse this kind of technical jargon into psychoanalysis? Is it an attempt to make it be taken more seriously? Is it to lend it an air of authority and mystique that it otherwise wouldn't have? I can't help but see flashes of cargo cult science when I read Lacan.
I enjoy Lacan and his writing. I think he had a handful of ideas and concepts that are certainly applicable and interesting, but I can't really say that about his work as a whole, and as far as his practice and his personal life goes, I think that's another thing that needs to be addressed. I.E. his routine abuse of patients, his decision to reduce sessions to as little as 10 minutes while refusing to reduce his fee accordingly, and his palpable narcissistic rage at not being taken seriously whenever he deemed it necessary. You can play the "do as I say, not as I do" game, but it only goes so far before you have to start reflecting on the actions of a person who does the exact opposite of what he preaches.
So in this case I'd like to stay away from a discussion of his theory and focus more on a discussion of 1) his need to infuse scientific-sounding jargon into his work, and 2) his appalling personal behaviour both in the clinical setting and outside of it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 3:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Even when failing outright, Nonny holds self out as the heroic savior of This Blog's True Purpose: Gay Sex Hookups via Pretentious Empty Discussion of Philosophy-ish Stuff:
You refuse to take responsibility for what you write in the comments section of this blog. That quote was a direct quote from another Alone article and it is directly applicable to your defensive, contradictory, and hypocritical style of posting.
Keep hiding your head in the sand though, it's doing you a lot of good.
Every word of what you say depends upon what you have projected onto me, what you assume are my aims, what you assume I mean to do, and what you NEED ME TO BE DOING in order to feel triumphant and heroic and, most of all, CORRECT.
But you're completely wrong about me, and thus your pseudo-winning stance, your faux-triumph, is just another pyrrhic victory fabricated in the artisanally constructed landscape of your mind.
How does that make you feel?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 3:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Every word of what you say depends upon what you have projected onto me, what you assume are my aims, what you assume I mean to do, and what you NEED ME TO BE DOING in order to feel triumphant and heroic and, most of all, CORRECT.
If this is the case then you're apparently not the master communicator you think we are.
Please continue to laugh at people for allegedly misunderstanding your motives based on what you type. If nobody else is understanding you but you, perhaps you're the only idiot in the room, an idiot who is incapable of making himself understood.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 3:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
In the last two hours or so you have posted 12 times. I consider that a ridiculous amount of effort to put into replies on a comment thread.
Even if it took you less than a minute to write out each of those posts, which I could believe judging by the content and quality of your posts, that is still far too much effort.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 3:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Ha, it's amazing to me how many gay-snark Tarzie-fans are on this blog, struggling constantly to topple my incredible logic and unmatched wit. I wonder how many Gay Pseudointellectual Poof Hookups have happened here today just because of the presence of homos who have congregated to debate me?
Anything you can possibly say about anything I type here is merely a projection on your part, Nonny, and your Empty Pretentious Discussion belies a deep homosexual urge to pretend like you know what you're talking about.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 3:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What projection? And why must you create fake-agreement-among-sockpuppets to bolster your defenses?
Yes, Porky, everyone who disagrees with you is a sockpuppet.
Keep that armchair diagnosis coming! I'm hoping to compile all of your deep insight into one giant Porky dissertation!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 3:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And why must you create fake-agreement-among-sockpuppets to bolster your defenses?
Every word of what you say depends upon what you have projected onto me, what you assume are my aims, what you assume I mean to do, and what you NEED ME TO BE DOING in order to feel triumphant and heroic and, most of all, CORRECT.But you're completely wrong about me, and thus your pseudo-winning stance, your faux-triumph, is just another pyrrhic victory fabricated in the artisanally constructed landscape of your mind.
How does that make you feel?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 3:56 PM | Posted by : | Reply
If this is the case then you're apparently not the master communicator you think we are.
I'm shocked. Again you state a conclusion boldly, without any sort of logical explanation of how that conclusion should be seen as valid given the evidence and how you put it together into a whole.
Of course, avoiding that analysis with a giant leap to the conclusion, that's the point exactly. You're right, because you say you're right. Because what you project onto me has to be right. Because you have to be right.
Right?
Please spew more angry words (idiot; superior attitude re: "not the master etc.") and unveiled frustration (idiot, idiot, idiot). We appreciate your sincere offerings of what you tried desperately to pin on me: impotent rage.
Nicely done! You wouldn't post elsewhere on the internet as "Brian M" by any chance, would you?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 3:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Your charge of impotent rage is just you projecting your impotent rage onto me, Porko.
You really need to get some new material! Keep that impotent rage coming!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 3:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
July 7, 2014 3:54 PM
Now getting desperate. Typing comments to post as "el puerco" when they're not my comments.
You really are full of impotent rage, aren't you? So angry and frustrated you have to make up a comment and ascribe it to me. To make me what you project.
That's pretty pathetic, but not unexpected from you. Rage on, Soul of Gender Identity Confusion Yielding Feelings of Real Impotence.
Rage on.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Here we go once again. The Chomsky/Tarzie-ites just can't keep their Gay Homosexual urges in their pants long enough to not impersonate me on the internet.
Your projection of impotent rage is what you are reading into my posts, Nonny. You think that by impersonating me you can confirm the bias people here already have about my motives based on the words in an internet comment.
Continue to hurl empty invective and spew nonsense while simultaneously failing to discern my true motives. Narcissism at its finest.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
that is still far too much effort.
It pales in comparison to you writing 600+ of the 900+ comments in this thread.
But I understand. You need to be authoritative and correct, don't you? You need to Control the Narrative, don't you? It got you where you are today, Internet Profile-wise. Right?
See, if you were actually Alone and you cared about the content of this comment thread and wanted it to stay on the path of pretentious, empty discussions of irrelevant philosophy-ish stuff that is little more than cut-and-paste of wikipedia etc. pre-existing Thoughts of Others, you'd have saddled up and started riding herd somewhere around comment 35 out of 900+.
So, the question remains: Why are you trying to control the narrative and control everyone's perceptions of me? Why do you have so much invested in that narrative of pseudo-philosophy-by-pseudo-intellectuals, and why are you so firmly heels-dug-in on the subject of Telling Everyone The Truth About el puerco?
Maybe it's to avoid the Truth About You?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
July 7, 2014 4:02 PM
Another fake comment not my own. Poor little eggshell ego really struggling to control the narrative. Poor little soul-less soul, devoid of love and kindness, nothing but destruction, insistent on tearing down anyone who won't let the pretentious pseudo-discussion of pseudo-intellectual pseudo-philosophy.
PLEASE LET US GET BACK TO LACAN vs SARTRE, IT MAKES US FEEL SPECIAL AND BRILLIANT AND LETS US AVOID THE UGLY REALITY THAT ALONE POSITS FOR US.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Let's get real. I'm better than alone.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Keep those weak ego defenses up, Nonny, you really are doing a slap-bang job of impersonating me on the Pseudointellectual Gay Hookup Spot of 2014.
For some reason you need to make posts pretending that you are me, most likely because it gives you some kind of gay satisfaction that you possess some power of discernment over my motives or why I post here.
Perhaps you'd do well as a backup writer for Tarzie or a pinch-hitter for Jake Backpack's Gay Homosexual Blogging Team?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Liked your comment. I am working on a blog post for the movie Divergent reading through Lacan's Mirror Stage. If you have seen it you will know what I am referring to. If not my blog will appear here at http://moviesandfilm (dot) blogspot (dot) com. Direct links seem to go into moderation so I am avoiding it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Wow, I've just had a blinding flash of insight! I'm actually a total cunt. Sorry everyone, I'll see myself out.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So I've seen the movie.
It's not my favorite movie of all time, by any means. And I'm not saying you're wrong. I might even agree with you, and I might just like arguing over pop culture.
That said, let's cage fight.
*SPOILERS FOLLOW*
The secret life of Walter Mitty, in its current Ben Stiller revision, is as close to an anti-narcissism tale as I've seen in years.
It's not ACTUALLY anti-narcissism, because it's marketed to mainstream America, and you have to appeal to our inner self-obsessive to move units, but it comes damn close.
We begin with a character sketch of Walter: he's a loser. A bro who works as a support desk technician for an online dating service (?!) is unable to help him get a profile, because he literally has not done anything of note.
If you want this movie to be pro-narcissism, you would point out that this guy continues to call Walter, apparently unasked, over the course of the movie, showing that the world is secretly really, really interested in who you are, your own special you.
And to that I say bull. The dating services guy is the Greek Chorus - reacting to the story how the audience might, but allowed to talk directly to the main character. He's the objective eye, how the world sees Walter, free of how Walter would frame himself, and he tells Walter to his face. This is precisely what Alone mentioned the parents of Narcissus kept from him, in "The Second Story".
He wants to be nice, but Walter isn't a dummy. In the first scene with him, he's trying to prompt Walter for life experiences, and his repeated questions cause Walter to have his first dream, and it ends with the girl he likes saying "God, you're notable". This establishes instantly that the dreams are a means of self-protection. Rather than deal with how he isn't awesome, or suave, or actually anything, really, he just has a dream where he is kicked up to 11. And this is never seen as a good thing in the movie. His dreams are a symptom of his loser lifestyle.
Anti-narcissism point #1 - you need to BE great, it doesn't matter about your "rich, internal mental life". Or at least: maybe YOU can live that way, but the girl and the dating service aren't going to be fooled.
But reality encroaches! He can't talk to the girl for spit, his work is changing around him, which threatens his job. He is an expert, a dedicated expert, at his job, which is processing film for Time. Time is taken over by the Smug Brothers, thrown on to the treacherous internet, with it's apple trappings, and his work is demeaned. The cover of the final physical Time magazine is supposed to be a photo, and he can't find the photo - it's missing from the roll taken by their most famous photographer ever, which was sent to Walk along with a gift wallet. The new boss has made it abundantly clear that Walt can't go to him for help.
So, about to be fired by Smugboss, Walt is like alright, screw it. I'm going to go FIND this photographer, and see if he can give me the photo himself.
It's at this point that Walter starts doing Awesome Stuff. And it's here that the movie truly shows itself to be anti-narcissism.
Walt's epic epoch sees him tracking the photographer all over the world. The photographer is Earnest Hemmingway with a lens, a Man's Man, and so chasing him means taking helicopter rides over arctic oceans, tooling around near active volcanoes, all sorts of derring-do.
And you know what? Walt is kind of crappy at it. He survives a jump into the arctic ocean, sure, but he only ended up there because he jumps the wrong way out of the helicopter, and because of that, he loses the valuable equipment he was taking to the boat. They are nice, but kind of mad.
He gets close to the exploding volcano, but would have been toast without the intervention of a guy with a truck, who carries him away from it. In other words, it's not like The Power Was Inside You The Whole Time, Walter Mitty. He's doing the best that he can, but frequently falls up short. He deals with other people, gets their help, and I can't ever remember anybody helping him because he's just so awesome. They fish him out of the ocean and drive him away from the volcano because that's what you do for another human being.
Anti-narcissism lesson 2: when you start doing stuff, you'll frequently fail and look dumb. Keep doing it, because you have to, jerk.
The call center dating site guy calls Walt a few times over the course of the movie, becoming more and more awed with the exciting life he's living. And sure, I get that could be narcissistic, but here's the key: Walt is ACTUALLY LIVING an exciting life. He's flying around everywhere doing things for some reason other than rediscovering himself, or personal growth (he's doing it to get the photo, which, again, is for the front page of the Magazine he cares about and puts a lot of work towards). Actually, something I mentioned earlier: it's clear that there's no place for Walt in the future of the magazine. He's fired if he gets the photo or not, he's going after it because he is proud of his work and wants to go out feeling proud, not like an idiot. Call that what you will, it isn't narcissism. A narcissist wouldn't have to chase the photo, they'd demand that everybody recognize them as a special snowflake regardless.
Anti-narcissism lesson 3: People will recognize you as pretty cool, but only after you've put in the work.
He's having fewer dreams as he goes along, but still has a roadblock when talking to the girl. He bonds with their son a little over skateboarding, which he is apparently great at, but is scared off by the prospect of a husband or ex-husband in the girl's life.
The skateboarding bit MIGHT be called narcissistic, because it's not something we see Walt work for, it's just in his background. BUT it's in no way implied that he "just knew" how to do it. Walt spent a ton of time skateboarding as a child, so it's a skill he has now. Fair enough, that's not really narcissistic. In fact, the skills he has and has learned (skateboardin', in this case) end up being crucial to the narrative, both because it gets him personally closer, and because he's able, through various means, to bond with his crush's kid because of it.
Anti-narcissism lesson 4: Want to connect with other people? Share an interest. BE GOOD at something. Then, if somebody also cares about what you're good at, you can bond over that.
So the journey continues, Walt's dreams abate, he leans on his family for support, and makes some new friends, and has adventures, and eventually finds out that the photo was with him the whole time, tucked in the wallet given to him as a gift by Hemmingway, and the photo was of him working at Time.
This feels the most narcissistic-y, and I'd agree that it is. The audience wants to know that, hey, none of that stuff that Walter just did actually matters, right? The REAL recognition comes from who he IS, which is a photo-manipulator. People recognize and value him for THAT, not for any of his many accomplishments!
Well, yes and no. To actually GET the photo, he had to find the photographer, because he'd have never thought to check the wallet. There's some symbolism at play there.
He received a gift, and rather than examine it, you know, CHECK INSIDE it, he discarded it because it wasn't what he wanted. Walt didn't value what other people gave him, beyond how it related to what he wanted right at that instant.
He threw away what he wanted because he couldn't recognize it, and he needed external help realizing what he wanted. And to even GET that external help, he needed to get to the photographer, who was an outdoors man. So to get the help of other people in seeing the worth inside himself, he needed to get outside of himself and connect with other people. At that time, AND ONLY THEN, they were capable of mirroring the worth inside himself. He had to step outside of himself, sacrificing safety, money, time, whatever, to get there. And even then, his self-worth was given to him. He appreciated it, but even the final shot of the magazine shows that he is simply emblematic of all the workers who made Life great.
That was a chapter of his life, and since it's the movie, he's got the courage to talk to the girl, and they are talking about things other than how great he is. He connected with her kid by being thoughtful, and with her by being interesting, and also quite nice.
The movie beings with Walt standing alone on a platform, talking to the only mirror he has in his life, a dating site support technician, and the whole point of the conversation is to get a profile of Walt up in the hope that the girl he likes would notice him and recognize his worth, worth which Walt doesn't, at that point, actually have (the movie tells us).
It ends with Walt filling in a resume with a new job, full of the things he has actually done. He doesn't daydream, since his life is actually worth living, and he's well-connected to those around him.
So no, that doesn't strike me as particularly narcissistic.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Language is behavior defined by use/context.
Translation:
Reality is defined by whatever I think it is, and I'm never wrong when I imagine I know what someone else intends to say. If someone's words in a comment are intended to mean what the author actually intended them to mean, that's the author's fault for not reading my mind and fixing my projection issues BEFORE offering that comment onto which I projected an erroneous meaning and/or set of meanings.
Good job hiding behind pseudo-intellectual blather on empty, distractive irrelevancies such as semiotics.
A person's statement means what the person intended, not what the speaker erroneously projected onto the words. If the listener is honest, he/she/it will work out the meaning through discussion.
If the listener (or reader) is dishonest, he/she/it will ignore any disparity between projection-onto and speaker/writer intent, and will discard the speaker/writer intend in favor of the projection, which must remain unchallenged and, for want of a better metaphor, gospel truth.
Though the metaphor is particularly useful for those pseudo-intellectual atheist Brights who invest too much ego in hating religion. Isn't it?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
oh sorry.
...not what the speaker erroneously projected onto the words.
should say
...not what the listener erroneously projected onto the words.
Since Nonny versions 1 through 452 wouldn't figure that out on his/her/its own, I'm helping.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Actually even if there was only a single person who used the Anonymous handle, which there isn't because duh, six hundred posts over 65 days is only about one post per two and a half hours. Not even close to the one post per 10 minutes that you have maintained today.
I honestly don't understand why you think I'm trying to control the perception of you. Much like you choose to mock the posts of this thread, I choose to mock the energy you expend on it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Should probably read prior comments before posting this, I know, will catch up. It's just that I've been confused no more than confused. Been angry even though I realize it's probably unfair, and even if it have been just it would have been stupid and suicidal, and not to mention that that anger also has been spilling over to persons whom I strongly suspect never ever deserved it in the first place and probably never will, and even if the recipient of the undeserved anger should deserve it, I would certainly let go of it anyway - I mean who am I kidding?
Think I'm saying that all eventualities are covered. And that I need to control myself. Got no self-control whatsoever. Love you all you in particular but that is a creepy thing to say, unless you know action. Still, I mean it. That is what I know.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
July 7, 2014 4:18 PM
"Frank" again pretends to be me. Nice job, "Frank." Your ego wound is seeping, suppurating, and noisomely indicating bad infection. Kindly submit to debridement and re-suture or you'll lose the limb (here, ego).
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Please ignore my last post. It was a terrible mistake. I'm so high on the smell of my own farts that I don't know what I'm doing. This is the real el puerco. I'm currently undertaking a great deal of soul-searching to figure out why it is that I'm such an obnoxious cunt. Unfortunately, I am much less intelligent than a deranged laboratory chimp that has been specifically bred to test the effects of pistol whippings on posting ability, so it may take some time.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Actually even if there was only a single person who used the Anonymous handle, which there isn't because duh, six hundred posts over 65 days is only about one post per two and a half hours. Not even close to the one post per 10 minutes that you have maintained today.
Looks like Nonny has a hard time with reading comprehension, and must resort to projection and firm conclusion based on that projected fantasy.
You actually thought I believe every "Anonymous" is the same person? Or do you go beyond thought and conclude that's my belief, damning all other possibilities as unlikely because they'd show you wrong?
If you have a problem with sheer post count, I hope you know the identity of every single poster here and are prepared to tally up each URL's originating posted comments. Then we can set up a theatre for hurling juvenile gay snark insults at whomever the Nonny I quote above deems to be "posting too much" and thus "working too hard."
Meanwhile, Nonny returns to his/her/its blogging activity which includes comment-blasting rehabilitation of Nonny's various internet egos, each of them fragile and precarious and in need of constant buttressing, defense, and soothing.
It has a not-too-surprising parallel to what I mentioned above with reference to Tarzie and Greenwald. Funny how after mentioning those two and their sock puppet defense systems, Nonny get all invigorated on the subjects of (1) imitating me by posting things I did not write but attributing them to el puerco, and (2) trying to "prove" that I'm somehow ___________ (the Dx still isn't in from Nonny Psychiatrix LLC) because that is how Nonny needs me to be.
The very best thing about this exchange with such dishonest dissemblers, prevaricators, projectors and liars is how they continue insisting their projections are true and anyone who points out the festering narcissism must be a "troll" or a closeted, self-hating gay man.
It's one of life's great comedies. I wonder how they keep their rage contained. It's surely not being sublimated through clever remarks made here.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
semiotics
Not semiotics. Language games. You don't understand how language works. Scream "fire!" in front of a man holding a gun and in front of a burning building. Language is behavior defined by use/context.
You also don't seem to understand, based on another recent comment of yours, that people can simultaneously realize how soulless and destructive they are while talking about a thinker you decided was a pseudointellectual before reading. These are not mutually exclusive. It seems like you would rather have us revel in our narcissism instead of having discussions with other people about topics you have decided are "pseudointellectual."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
July 7, 2014 4:32 PM
So desperate.
Keep attributing your comments to me. I'll keep noting which ones are you, pretending at being me.
Rage, rage, against the dying of your masculine ego, Nonny. Use passive aggression wherever possible, emulating your mother's femininity. You want to be a woman at all times, except when having sex, then you are All Man -- fucking another man.
Well done. You're not confused. You're a noble gay man who spends his idle rich leisure time trying to Win At Snark on the internet. That's true nobility.
Please put the latex crown on your capitum before engaging in dangerous rectal probing, Nonny. You don't want to give your HIV to that poor unsuspecting twink you found in the freshman incoming class, would you? What's a gay professor to do? So many dangers!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:44 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Sometimes I get overwhelmed. Mainly by people. Buildings, computers or dogs rarely make deep impression on me. Well designed software? Idk.
Abstract entities who hide out of sight only allowing their effects to be observed, or felt, may also act in a manner suitable for overwhelming me, or anyone else for that matter. It's a mystery and frankly I've grown less and less fond of mysteries lately. Simplicity is it. Simplicity is beautiful, predictable, trustworthy, orderly, practical, efficient and easy. I don't enjoy pain, I like having fun, plain and simple.
It's not that I wouldn't sign up for war, like if I lived during WWI I probably would. It would have been a simple choice. Perhaps not well informed but still a decent one. Today, war is much more entertaining.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You don't understand how language works.
What a bold and completely wrong conclusion.
You can't possibly know what I understand about language.
That probably explains why you state so boldly that I don't understand how it works. Because that's easier than talking to me about it.
Just utter conclusions, offered as fact.
What a peach of a pseudo-intellectual! A real peach!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
On the contrary, you specifically wrote:
"It pales in comparison to you writing 600+ of the 900+ comments in this thread."
You were clearly referring to "Anonymous" as a single entity. If you didn't mean that, why did you write it? If nothing else throughout this thread you have attacked people for reading in to posts, my taking you literally is simply an attempt to accommodate you.
Also, posts per min is a rate, not a count. I'm not commenting on your post count, I'm commenting on the rate.
I continue to find humor in the energy you devote to this. How many paragraphs will you require to respond to this post?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I was bullied when I was at school and, frankly, I deserved it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I can't. I'd wonder why you think it is. Perhaps Nonny is not the detective he thinks himself?
If you can associate Frank with the "fake" El Puerco (looks like you're invested into an online identity as well) based entirely on writing style alone - then surely I can also associate a blog with five years worth of posts with your writing style?
I'm not an internet detective. I didn't recognize the reference you used when you wrote -Sprytel J Chimchim - it's been a while since I've seen Speed Racer reruns on TV. Probably at least twenty years. I just thought it was a funny word and a google search led to a blog where, like you, the author mispells Spritle as Sprytel. Don't think that's a coincidence. That blogger, like you, also uses the word broheem a lot and had a few posts about Tarzie, Glen Greenwald and a sidebar with a made up Jeff Popovich quote.
Not that it means anything - I guess that it's full of in-jokes and is meant for your meatspace friends but I like your writing style and I found it entertaining.
If you don't want to own your work, or if it's not yours, at least let me ask do you like mountain biking? And how long have you been doing it?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 4:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
July 7, 2014 4:12 PM
Not me. And a great irony. Most of the people who comment here are trying to out-Alone Alone when they're not outright copycatting. And while Jacob Bacharach sold a novel to a 4th tier publisher as a result of copycatting Michael Chabon's first novel, that doesn't mean copycatting is noble, honorable, or otherwise indicative of personal integrity. In fact, copycatting is probably one of the many pinnacles in the multi-peaked mountains called The Narcissism Range.
I don't think I'm better than anyone, but of course Nonny, being an insecure striver who needs always to compare himself to others (because fearing inadequacy and needs to "measure up") and come out on top in the analysis of me-vs-other, he's got to be vying for Best of the Bunch at all times.
What else would a Narcissist do, but that? What else?
The reason to remain an e-person, an ethereal projection of the brittle ego, is because meatspace life analysis is sure to result in suicidal ideation, actual self-extermination, or some tailspin into self-hatred.
Which explains why Nonny thinks I'm a self-hating closeted gay man. Because Nonny hates him/herself, and maybe because Nonny is gay and experiences identity blurring as a result? I guess that's possible. Nonny would know for sure, but Nonny wouldn't ever admit it here. That would reveal weakness in the Internet World of Projected Egos, and that's not why Nonny is here. The Internet World of Projected Egos is where fragile egos go to boost self-esteem through mild to elaborate lies about personal accomplishment, ability, etc. You can begin to see why people would resort to complex pseudo-intellectual discussion as an ice-breaker for finding one's (internet construct's) soul mate.
Can't you?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 5:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
July 7, 2014 4:47 PM
Ah yes, Francois. You'd like that to be true, you wish I'd said that, so that your projections would be true.
Too bad it's not.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 5:02 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You were clearly referring to "Anonymous" as a single entity.
I weep for the lack of imagination. Did you lose it, or did you never have it?
Again you leap to a single conclusion and exclude the possibility of all other intents and meanings. And with such confidence you build an entire irrationale on that conclusion.
No, you're not projecting. Not at all.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 5:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Le Porko's ability to scream "YOU'RE PROJECTING!" while simultaneously projecting onto anyone and everyone here (with a strange fixation on homosexuality, some blogger called "Tarzie", and someone named "Popovich") is admirable. How exactly he honed this skill is a mystery, but it seems he's become an absolute master at it and will wield it with extreme prejudice.
Will he get that attention and ego-coddling he so desperately seeks? Will his father finally notice him now? Stay tuned!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 5:08 PM | Posted by : | Reply
then surely I can also associate a blog with five years worth of posts with your writing style?
You can do whatever you wish when projecting. I expect you'll project all kinds of things in order to feel validated. That's what most humans do when confronting the possibility of error. Stand on the prediction/projection, never doubt it!
You said 5 years worth. Did you just read 5 years worth of posts in 30 minutes? That blog must not have much content.
I haven't clicked on your link, but I'm sure you wanted me to. What did you find there? Can you describe it for us? People seem happy to cut-and-paste IMDB movie reviews, wikipedia entries re Foucault, and shadetree Marxism from pseudo-intellectual bloggers, so why not tell us what you found there, in your own insightful words?
For a real telltale offering of honesty, why don't you tell us whose writing YOU emulate?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 5:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This seems to be Le Porko's personal blog. References to "Popovich", "Brights", and "Jack Crow" abound, and a similar manic/schizophrenic writing style is present.
I wonder why he flat-out lied to us about it not being his blog? Perhaps he doesn't want to dialogue with us mere mortals.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 5:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Rounding off this evening by sharing with the world that I'm runnning out of the electricity which is stored in a brick under my portable personal computer.
Lovely comments this beautiful evening. Hope I get to read them all some day.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 5:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
July 7, 2014 5:03 PM
Again, not my comment.
Again more of the highminded taunt, "I know you are but what am I?"
You sure are wounded and vengeful, aren't you?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 5:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Don't blame me for the little shit! It's not my fault I couldn't afford a long enough coat hanger!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 5:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Are you alright, bud?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 5:14 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I wonder why he flat-out lied to us about it not being his blog?
Maybe because it's not a lie. Maybe because your conclusion is wrong.
Keep having no imagination. Keep holding fast to your first impression, reality being damned to the hindmost if not exterminated completely.
There are many ways to prove I "flat-out lied" about what you said I lied about. Boldly stating as a conclusion that a "flat-out lie" was told, that's not proof.
You'd need proof, wouldn't you? If you wanted to be believed?
I think if you look around the internet, you can find a number of blogs where the people you listed are discussed at the same place. I suppose I'm the author of those blogs too, eh?
Rush to judgment! It always obviates the need for proof!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 5:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Whatever you want. Just so long as I get to keep distracting myself with pseudo-insights. Pseudo-insights help me greatly. They enable avoidance of personal responsibility, and let me demonize others who are "responsible." Because they're psychopaths.
That's surely the win-win analysis right there.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 5:21 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Will he get that attention and ego-coddling he so desperately seeks? Will his father finally notice him now? Stay tuned!
You have such confidence in your assessments, but if I'm a 28 year old woman who grew up with a father but no mother, then how does that square with your projection?
Who ends up being mistaken while holding firm to the conviction of being utterly correct?
Perhaps you think choosing as handle the male Spanish word for the noble pig means I'm a man, but that's just another spot where you're wrong while telling yourself how infallible is your e-psychiatry.
You seem quite eager to take The Internet very seriously and literally, especially where the literal take hangs on your projections.
I wonder why that is. Disappointments in meatspace reality?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 5:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You'd prefer to listen to Greta van Susteren, Nina Totenberg, Alan Dershowitz, Radley Balko or Glenn Greenwald when it comes to legal matters, and that's because you're stupid AND arrogant.
Stupid because those listed people are not legal pontiffs, but rather quasi-legal spin artists. Arrogant because despite what I just said, you continue to think that only the media-sanctified Experts can know anything about that broad subject on which you know absolutely nothing: the Law.
You'll also think that Tarzie is "on point" because his gay lounge lizard snark toward Greenwald makes you think he's got Greenwald's number (as it were), but Tarzie doesn't know jack shit about the Law, nor about anything outside the universe of the essence of flamboyant downtown gayness. If you want to know new blow job techniques for use at your favorite sex bunker filled with people like you (XY+XY), seek out Tarzie's wise counsel. If you want to know what makes Greenwald a bogus artifice, maybe ignore Tarzie as readily as you'd ignore the reason commentariat or Glenn Beck.
I don't recall Greenwald, Balko, Dershowitz, Totenberg or van Susteren telling you what is the problem with modern po-po interpretation of 4th and 5th A rights at stake when they (po-po) want to dive into your iPhone's contents.
However, I do notice that the Supremes just handed down a 9-0 smackdown to Holder/Obama/Emanuel/Rubin/Israel on the subject of po-po leniency where iPhone snoopage is concerned, and I notice that I was correct when I told you earlier what's at stake on the Q.
Naturally, you should continue following your chosen tribal klaxon and partisan expert, because they tell you that you're a genius who needs no deeper investigation or understanding. There's no way I could know anything on this subject, as I'm not a gay lawyer who lies about his expertise, not a trustafarian twitter-based ripoff of the guy who wrote Live from Golgotha acting as the catty-sphere's hottest purveyor of gay snark, not a Libertarian, not a Zionist, not a familiar NPR voice, and not a bad advertisement for facelift surgery.
Also, as the great sages Krogh Barr and diane! and Sprytel J. Chimchim have told you, I'm just a stupid reactionary who doesn't have sufficient respect for the Lefte Banke's colony of trinket-acquisition-based-progress.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 5:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If you'd asked me to ghost write for you, impersonator, it would have been even funnier, but I guess when someone is imitating me it's asking too much to request any more than getting halfway there. You can't know it if you haven't lived it.
Yes, it does a Tarzie-like job of imitating my style but tweaking it for a Purple Dinosaur Barney audience re MTB where Tarzie tweaks for a snarky gay lounge lizard audience re sociopolitics.
Good job. Being a pale imitation of your superior is far better than being the best you, isn't it?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 5:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
July 7, 2014 5:20 PM
A masterful display of obsession, Nonny. Again, a post that I didn't type out, but you have attributed it to me.
This is a sad situation you're in. Do you think it may help for you to step outside and spend some time in the world that exists outside your online identity?
Or are you so heavily invested in gaming this personal vendetta that you'll continue here? I side with the latter, mostly because that's what you've done so far -- obsess, lie, obsess more, lie more, seethe with impotent rage, bubble over with frustration.
If you were a person, and this were a meatspace display offered in public, I'm sure that many bystanders would worry over your sanity. Thankfully you can take comfort in the fact that Nonny is only an internet construct, used to purge real meatspace feelings.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 5:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
July 7, 2014 5:21 PM
July 7, 2014 5:23 PM
Well, this is quite an experience! The obsession continues. I didn't type either one of those comments, but again they're attributed to me.
Why the vendetta, Imposter? What's the wound?
This is a real vendetta, isn't it? It has the trappings of one.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 5:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thanks to my over 20 years of internet discussion forum participation, I have learned quite a few things about how to pass one's self off as an Expert on the Internet. It used to baffle me quite a bit, but it's pretty obvious now. Perhaps a little tale will help explain.
In 2012 it's pretty common for people to be generically accustomed to pretense on the internet. Nearly anyone you know who's spent any time browsing or surfing the Toobz can share a laugh with you when you talk about 40something shut-in guy living in his mother's basement who got busted for impersonating a 15-year-old girl in a hook-up forum.
But at the same time it's commonly misunderstood or not-understood how or why, for example, a political ignoramus and complete naif about human nature would be able to pass himself off as an Internet Savant on SocioEconoPolitical Matters.
Why do you think that is? Why do you find it easy to see Joe the Janitor exercising peculiar fantasies by pretending to be a 15-yr-old cheerleader, but can't imagine Irving the Ignoramus wanting desperately to be mistaken for the next Noam Chomsky?
*********************
The ways in which people end up getting praised on the Toobz as political sages are nearly identical to the ways in which a person gains "popular" status in middle or high school. It's a combination of attitudes projected, insecurities palliated, tribal needs fulfilled.
Remember back to 8th grade. The first guy to have enough facial hair to require shaving gets the girls all moist. The first girl to have enough boob prominence to require a C-cup bra gets the boys all wooden. "Popularity" is about envy. When guys hear that Tom Testosterone's beard (such as it is) requires regular maintenance and therefore makes the girls swoon, they wish their facial hedge would grow like a rainforest. When girls hear that Emily Estrogen's thoracic terrain is driving the boys into onanist frenzies, they wish their little brassiere bumps would fatten up properly.
*********************
In the socio-econo-politico realm of Toobs Banter, most web surfers really are politically stupid. As in, sub-cretinous brickheaded ignorance. And they can't write a decent sentence, let alone a coherent paragraph, never mind a string of paragraphs that almost resemble a half-decent essay.
So when some dork-ass motherfucker bold enough to risk ridicule writes a blog post or forum comment that strings together 2 or 3 thoughts in a few paragraphs, in some way that can be followed by an earnest 2d grader, suddenly a nascent expert is born.
Wouldn't you like to become an Internet Savant yourself?
Of course you would. That's why you're reading me. You want to find some ideas that you can mimic and thereby pass yourself off as being some minor imitation of my own self. Admit it.
And because I'm a generous person, I'm going to help you sort out just how you can try to rise to my elevated station.
I make no guarantee that you'll become as famous and world-wide admired as I am, but perhaps I can help you reach the status of someone like Amanda Marcotte, Chris Bowers, Markos Zuniga, Melissa McEwan, or Jane Hamsher.
1) Read a bunch of political "analysis" from such accepted experts as Tom Friedman, Paul Krugman or Chris Hedges (if Democrat), or George Will, William Safire or Thomas Sowell (if Republican).
2) Note the frequency with which these experts offer assuredness in their perspective, and the ways in which the assuredness is conveyed. Observe the way opinion is rendered as irrefutable fact. Example: "While it cannot be doubted that Black people prefer fried chicken and watermelon, I saw Clarence Thomas eating lunch at an Indian restaurant in Georgetown -- so he's not the Uncle Tom everyone thinks him to be."
3) Note the lack of sources, generally speaking, for their assured opinion(s). But also, note the sources offered when that rare occurrence happens. Example: "I was speaking the other day with a friend in the Obama Administration, and she told me that President Obama would prefer to not use drones, but due to pressures from the Republican Party on National Security, he's left with no choice."
5) Note the ways in which "data" are offered and the frequency with which "statistics" are used to give the "data" credibility. If you can use statistics from a highbrow-sounding thinktank (whose only purpose is to generate rhetoric to be used in political opinion), you'll prevent many readers from doubting your honesty. Example: "While we often hear people such as former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney questioning the role Israel plays in US foreign affairs, 73% of Americans polled by Zye O. Gnist, LLC said they prefer US tax dollars being spent to help Israel defend itself from neighboring terrorists."
6) Note the balance of non-controversy and partisan affirmation. By "non-controversy" I mean the ways in which obvious problems are identified in grave tones. By "partisan affirmation" I mean the ways in which the problems are presented in language that resembles what one-half of the duopoly uses to discuss problems. Example: "Women's reproductive rights are threatened by the prospect of a Romney presidency, which would enable new Supreme Court justice appointments that may result in an overturn of Roe v. Wade."
7) Be sure to pay close attention to the occasional use of personal experience, or stories of "regular folks", as practical examples supporting the opinions offered. Begin thinking about your own personal anecdotes that can be whipped into service as "proof" of your opinions being correct. Example: "Just the other day I was speaking to a teabagger neighbor, who said we need to elect Romney/Ryan in order to strengthen National Security. But hasn't Obama been tough on terrorists?"
8) Never use a small word when a big, multi-syllable rare word can be used. The more often you send people scrambling for a dictionary or thesaurus, the more likely you'll be worshiped for your "erudition" or "articulateness." Example: "One clear reason to vote for Obama/Biden this November is the obstreporous manner in which the Romney/Ryan campaign repeatedly and almost without exception has elected obfuscation rather than elucidation. There are innumerable exemplars of this reprehensible methodology, offering an incomprehensible conducement toward elision."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 5:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Or are you so heavily invested in gaming this personal vendetta that you'll continue here? I side with the latter, mostly because that's what you've done so far -- obsess, lie, obsess more, lie more, seethe with impotent rage, bubble over with frustration.
This is merely you projecting your impotent rage and frustration onto me, the writer, and onto the words that I have written here.
Don't worry though, Nonny, I'm sure you'll get runner-up for the Tarzie Gay Lounge Lizard Snark Award!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 5:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
July 7, 2014 5:31 PM
July 7, 2014 5:35 PM
Two more I didn't write.
I suppose this obsession will continue. If there actually are readers other than myself and Nonny-pretending-to-be-me, some of you may want to ask why Nonny has veered off-course from Lacan vs Foucault vs Sartre and onto this weird obsession.
My theory was stated above, it arose when I said Greenwald and Tarzie are functional equivalents. I guess I'm supposed to be comforted by the fact that Nonny says some random blogger I've never read also has mentioned Tarzie and Greenwald as well as Popovich. So I guess that means at least two human beings have read Tarzie, Greenwald and Popovich, and at least one of those two is me.
The question you should ask is this: which of Tarzie, Greenwald or Popovich is here as Nonny, revealing ego injury with every obsessive insistence that I have a blog and am whatever Nonny accuses me of being.
What is that distracting you from, regarding Nonny?
That's a good question. Unless, of course, your agenda is jumping on bandwagons and getting into a groupthink frenzy of rush to judgment. If that's your agenda, I guess you need more than a bit of skepticism to get to a solid footing.
I wonder if anyone here thinks they have the forensic touch for identifying another person based on "writing style." We could make a game of that, couldn't we?
Nonny sure writes just like Nonny, who writes like Frank, who writes like Your Private Hipster Incubus. Under Nonny #26's "reasoning" that's all the proof we need to conclude they're all the same person.
The police use con artists in a similar setting, calling them "handwriting analysts". Maybe that's what Nonny does in his day job? His evening job is obviously stand-up comedian on the internet, appearing daily at TLP. Let's give him a big round of applause! Or a big bowl of applesauce. One or the other.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 5:55 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Damn it, I'm obviously Nonny too, since I failed to enter Name and Email address above. This reminds me of the post above where I failed to do that, and jonny thought I was criticizing him rather than agreeing with him.
This one:
June 27, 2014 1:12 PM
which I posted again at 1:13 using Name and Email address.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 6:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Accusation of projection is ubiquitous across your posts. In order to avoid projection, or accusation of projection, the most logical response is to simply take everything you say literally.
I'm just trying to accommodate you as best I can. Rest assured knowing that I will only take from your posts, and respond to, literal meanings. That way we can both know that my biases are not effecting my reading of your posts.
Well done on reducing your word count, although your energy expenditure in this thread is still startlingly, and hilariously, high.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 6:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You people think you're sick of him?! I have to lick peanut butter off his balls!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 6:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not willing to get into an argument about Lacan's theory.
OK.
If anything a big part of Lacan's output was about how language is deceptive and ultimately unknowable.
That sounds like an argument about Lacan’s theory.
you seem to wear as a badge of honour the idea that you and you alone are the sole arbiter of understanding about Lacan and his work.
No need to be a dick. I’m not sure what I said to give you that impression but that’s not how I feel. This is how I feel:
I enjoy Lacan and his writing. I think he had a handful of ideas and concepts that are certainly applicable and interesting, but I can't really say that about his work as a whole, and as far as his practice and his personal life goes, I think that's another thing that needs to be addressed. I.E. his routine abuse of patients, his decision to reduce sessions to as little as 10 minutes while refusing to reduce his fee accordingly, and his palpable narcissistic rage at not being taken seriously whenever he deemed it necessary.
Nailed it. Also, I can’t speak for you, but I see in Alone’s articles for TLP the influence of a handful of Lacan’s interesting and applicable concepts. At the end of the day they are valuable to me for strictly personal reasons, and I believe they have the potential to be valuable for others, as well.
So in this case I'd like to stay away from a discussion of his theory and focus more on a discussion of 1) his need to infuse scientific-sounding jargon into his work, and 2) his appalling personal behaviour both in the clinical setting and outside of it.
No problem -- that’s a discussion I’m not particularly interested in having. Why is it relevant unless you intend to dismiss him out-of-court as a snake oil salesman (which – even if it were actual snake oil – still ought to require a fair trial and clear demonstration of its inefficacy)? Oppenheimer’s work led to atomic weaponry. Does that make it less valuable? People still want to see Tiger Woods win golf tournaments no matter how many hookers he beds; people continue listening to Chris Brown’s albums even after he beat up Rhianna; I’ll be interested in a handful of Lacan’s ideas regardless of his charlatanry and egotism.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 6:14 PM | Posted by : | Reply
July 7, 2014 6:00 PM
So your personal issues are:
copycatting
being over-wordy
literalism despite other options
Have I missed anything? You are so eager to accuse me of having your personal flaws. You know, if it's "hilarious" where/how I'm _____________ (again, still waiting on the Dx here), you're still just boldly stating conclusions as if fact, and that's still a projection issue, and that's still a problem of narcissism you're obscuring.
I wonder about your pretense at superiority. How insignificant do you really feel? In meatspace, what do you do? Hide from sight? Lurk in shadows? Shy away from speaking your mind, because you just might be countered by someone who probably is smarter and more articulate than you?
Those are all fine reasons to hide behind an internet identity, while pretending you're the Clouseau exposing someone's internet identity. Which, again, arose after I mentioned the equivalence of Greenwald and Tarzie.
Using Nonnylogic: I guess that settles who is behind Tarzie. I've drawn my conclusion, I've got some irrelevant random suppositions masquerading as essential facts, and I'm not going to hear anyone say differently.
By the way, that "el puerco's dog" character sounds a lot like someone I've read elsewhere on the internet. This particular internet identity imagines itself very funny when offering very juvenile unfunny remarks at the same time it complains that the discussion isn't highbrow or on-topic enough.
I suppose an enterprising comic mind could find something worthwhile there.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 6:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Also, I can’t speak for you, but I see in Alone’s articles for TLP the influence of a handful of Lacan’s interesting and applicable concepts. At the end of the day they are valuable to me for strictly personal reasons, and I believe they have the potential to be valuable for others, as well.
Translation:
I'm going to discuss Lacan now, to show I'm familiar with Lacan, which shows I'm well-read and familiar with symbolists, existentialists, semioticians, deconstructors, and psychiatry theorists. I'm hoping someone out there will want to fuck me for revealing that. Alternatively, I'm hoping you think I'm tremendously brilliant for revealing that. Either way, I have a lot invested in my online identity, especially my projected self which comments at TLP. In meatspace, nobody takes me seriously and most think I'm a fake-intellectual blowhard who resembles Cliff Klaven. But I know better. My mother said I'm brilliant, and my last boyfriend said my mind is sexy. It must be true.
Yes, carry on with your projections! No better time than the present to boast and brag and find yourself an admirer if not sex partner via pretentious commentary at TLP.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 6:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Everything you just wrote is you projecting your impotent rage onto that person.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 8:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Come on man, focus. We have to ignore him. Any kind of response, no mater how articulate or witty or whatever, will serve the Porkman's purposes. The best ththing you can do (in my opinion), is maintain a conversation with other people in this comments section and completely ignore anything Porkenstein says. Ultimately we want to get to the point where we don't even mention him. Regrettably I have to reference our pal obliquely in the process of communicating my suggested strategy, but eventually we need to get past that. Now, back to Lacan or whatever it is that people are talking about in this thread!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 8:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Does anyone else think that the chick on the Pacific Standard color looked like Dana Scully?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 9:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What in the ever loving hell is going in in this comment thread?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 9:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
el puerco is jizzing all over it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 9:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't know, but it's made me realize I need to spend less time in these comments and more time looking for a second summer job.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 9:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What's your already-existing summer job?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 9:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Liquor store. It's only part time, though, so I'm not really making as much money as I could be before school starts back up. I kind of regret not taking summer classes, but this would have been my third year without an actual summer break so I said "fuck it" and have consequently become a bit of a bum. More work will likely do me good.
Are you in college?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 10:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nope, I graduated college in 2011. I'm working now.
I wish I had found this blog in college. It's given me so many insights that would have been invaluable back then. How about you, I take it you're in college? What are you studying?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 10:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Chemical engineering, minoring in German. Stressful as fuck, more into the German than the Chem. engineering anymore.
Funny you say that, since the insights of this blog usually have me thinking of awful things I've done way before college (in relationships, friendships, etc.). I guess that's a form of denial on my part, since it's easy to condemn my past while pretending I'm not still the same way in the present. One thing I've noticed is that sometimes I will focus on the political/social aspects of Alone's articles because that's easier than self-analysis. I remember a commenter a while back saying something about it being better for most people to leave this site after a while, and I'm starting to see why. It's not that I have nothing left to learn, but it becomes easy for my psychological biases to take even the insights of this website and transmute them into a psychological defense against change after a while.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 7, 2014 10:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
One thing that Alone's work has brought into focus for me is the degree to which I was obsessed with my image when I was in high school/college. A lot of my behavior was motivated by my need to have people look at me a certain way. I wanted to be known as a certain kind of guy, and my fantasies often involved attractive women or high status men "finally realizing" just how impressive of a person I had been all along. The desire to trigger in people a "look of recognition that I was the better person" was a deep, source for so much of what I did. Although I'm largely free of that particular motivator at this point in my life, it still rears its head a little bit. My social skills and general happiness in life have improved dramatically over the last five years, and my gradual letting go of this particular value system definitely contributed to the change. Quitting drugs and alcohol helped as well.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 12:32 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Even though Alone is in a rut, without Alone, I would still be trapped in a rut as well.
Thanks man for the tough Gen X love.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 12:43 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Honestly, though, eventually the when the world is lost, the only left to do is to put it back together.
>"One thing I've noticed is that sometimes I will focus on the political/social aspects of Alone's articles because that's easier than self-analysis."
Don't fall into his trap of trying to save a sinking ship by adopting a "Individualist/Right-Wing" analysis of the world; it will kill you...literally.
Right now, we need changes and a new direction, and although we can celebrate the demise of the Red Menace, the West is imploding now that it cannot project its weaknesses on communist boogeymen; Western growth rates, for instance, are so terrible that they are actually comparable to 80s Soviet Successes in terms of their metrics.
And if given an argument, I would say the Western 2020 economy will be worse then the Soviet 1980 economy, but "nonviolence" won't be an option, so it will sink worse before it gets better.
If you have the capacity to reject yourself, then you have survived society.
But you have to take the next step, and reject society, including the sacred cows of individualism, democracy, and Capitalism, or otherwise the only thing left to do is to actually just drink and die.
A big picture is what is needed, because people like me have spent billions of dollars convincing you otherwise.
Start in the places which invoke unconditional rejection (Authority? Pssh. What a loser!) and you can piece together the damage we have done.
Finally, I would be Left if I was in America, precisely because America has exhausted all its Right-Wing options; Alone is right in 1990, wrong in 2020... otherwise he takes you with him.
So this tendency to look at the "big" picture once the shame train has came and went, be grateful that you can do that, and that you (most likely) haven't spent half your life in the 20th Century.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 1:35 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
>And if given an argument, I would say the Western 2020 economy will be worse then the Soviet 1980 economy
I'm very, very skeptical of this statement. I mean, I'm not disagreeing with it outright, and in fact I'm genuinely curious to hear your justification of it. I just want to make sure you understand what you're saying. The Soviet economy in 1980 was experiencing a shortage of consumer goods that nobody under the age of 75 who has lived in the United States their entire life has ever experienced. The kind of change you are describing taking place over the 6 year period 2014 through 2020 would be quasi-apocalyptic, the worst economic crisis in US history.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 1:37 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I apologize for my previous post. I thought you said US, when you were referring to the West as a whole. I'm not as familiar with the situation in the EU, except that austerity is a word that comes up a lot over there. I find your prediction a bit more believable with regards to the EU, but I'm still skeptical. Again, I'd be curious to hear why you think the West will experience a hypermassive economic catastrophe in the next six years.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 10:57 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
But you have to take the next step, and reject society, including the sacred cows of individualism, democracy, and Capitalism, or otherwise the only thing left to do is to actually just drink and die.
I've always found it interesting how democracy seems necessary to the survival of individualism and capitalism (PS. why did you Capitalize it? Just a tendency, I suppose, like "God"...) yet it's the one I would first try to save out of those three. Especially considering that the only plausible alternative to capitalism (i.e., some kind of socialism) would seem to require for its smooth functioning a democratic base.
Then again, as much as I despise the conditions that capitalism is creating, I have a hard time disagreeing with people like Hayek who argued that the only plausible alternative to capitalism is a centralized economy, which sounds pretty terrible.
Individualism is the big kicker, I think, and neoliberalism in particular, because it instills in people a very specific idea of freedom: the freedom to Be Who You Are, to "discover yourself". Alone works to dismantle the myth of an "inner me" because it's the first step towards building a new idea of freedom, one that takes as it's primary subject the human species instead of the human individual.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 12:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Alone works to dismantle the myth of an "inner me" because it's the first step towards building a new idea of freedom, one that takes as it's primary subject the human species instead of the human individual.
How did you extrapolate that at all from Alone's writing?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 12:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If you'll accept a little baseless encouragement, when it comes to engineering, the job is so much better than the schooling. The work is less, and the mentoring is much more effective - in a couple months at my current job I had learned more than I did in a full year of undergrad. And I barely work 50 hours a week currently, which might sound like a lot, but as I'm sure you know it doesn't hold a candle to the time requirements of a STEM degree.
While I agree that its good to avoid building up defenses to change, keep in mind that you are currently in a position in life where boundlessly fucking up is the most OK it will ever be. I suggest working to be a better person tomorrow, rather than hating the person you are today - because today you can get away with it, but tomorrow you might not.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 12:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Right, but what history are you talking about?
The hardest part to understand is that we have such a poor grasp of history before 1945, that if we understood it, we would have a suicide epidemic.
I mean, the whole concept of the "Soviet Boogeyman" is so f-cked up, that it reads like Sauron rather then people.
Here are some very, very, important misconceptions to identify.
1. The Totalitarian regimes emerged AFTER the collapse, rather then causing the collapse. Communism was an alternative for War Veterans, and it recruited specifically War Veterans, who were so fed up of being invaded and bullied by weak Capitalist economies, that they wanted to direct control to protect themselves.
Again, the casualities of WWI on the Russian Front where 10 million, the same as the number of political prisoners killed by Joe Stalin. The War Veterans literally, viewed their own society as a hostile threat, to be put against by the "forces of History," so that they can implement rational reforms.
And again, what isn't mentioned is that Communist societies failed in Consumption, but they were actually MORE productive that Capitalist societies; from a "rich person" perspective, they would force investments until they got what they wanted, and although they were inefficient expenditures, by god did they work in the end; half of the world's steel does in fact, come from the Collectivization projects founded by Mao.
2. Fascism was the "other side" of the coin, where it was so dead set on preventing change, that it would kill everyone to prevent reform. The whole goal of Hitler was to "plunder" from other countries so that the structural reforms of the 20th Century were prevented in the first place; everybody cries about the Holocaust, but for the Nazis, it was a highly profitable policy. (God forgive me for saying that.)
3. "Socialism" or whatever you want to call it, was rather then having the Far Left kill the masses (Reform or Death) or society killing other people because it refused to reform (Death to reform), the "simple" solution was just to reform. Full Stop. You don't need to do "Social Engineering" to make positive changes, just to man the fuck up and admit that the old ways are done. (Cowardice drives the Right.)
So FDR allowed Trade Unions. Bam! Communism solved, workers are in productivity gains, because they can negotiate a salary. Not complicated. At all.
However, this only happened because the THREAT of Communism is the BEST thing about Communism; all of the wonderous goodies we got in the 20th Century was a product of a Cold War; so why is it so hard to understand that when the Cold War ended, so did our goodies?
Finally. Hayek is a bitch, like Lacan. He invents very persuasive sounding stuff, but neither the Rich nor the Intelligent take him seriously. Remember, Freidman gave you "Limited Government" but he also gave us "Quantative Easing."
As in, he invented the money helicopters that keep you poor, and he invented Limited government from shooting down the money helicopters.
Finally, for all the shit Keynes has gotten, he's been right too, but people aren't strong enough to hear his messages. Only when the bodies start dropping, will people consider the fact that they aren't gods, but merely apes desperately looking to survive.
So here's the kicker; centralization is required in periods of tremendous change, but when things are in a better state, decentralization "occurs" naturally...to the protests of the New Deal Democrats. (Also, Stalinist Communism failed because it couldn't "work" and so it forced high degrees of centralization to keep it working. Deng's Communism is still government run, but decentralization is the reason why the bubble is building up. weird right>)
Hayek wants you to think of "big bad government" so he can protect our ill-gotten gains; if you discovered the centralization was merely rearrangement, rather then revolution, you might be MUCH more tempted to do otherwise. (Also, Keynes made millions on the Stock Market. Unlike Hayek, he knew how to play Capitalism ala Warren Buffet Style. Don't write that off either.)
PS: I capitalize random words because of my German Heritage. Don't really know why I do it. I should stop it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 12:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The whole quote, or just the bold portion?
I can't go quote combing right now, but I think the fact that Alone works to dismantle the myth of an "inner me" should be a given if you've read many of the articles. He frequently notes that people make the mistake of believing that there is some kind of "you" inside that one needs to "figure out". "Figuring oneself out" is always a defense against change, etc.
The bold portion of the quote isn't drawn directly from Alone's articles, per se, but I believe the subtext is there. I think part of the goal of dismantling the myth of an "inner me" is, again, to allow room for conceiving freedom outside of "freedom to pursue my inner self." Do you see? In neoliberal society, freedom is almost exclusively the freedom to "discover yourself," to "find yourself". The problem is that that kind of freedom is predicated on the ego and its continual formation/reinforcement. That's what Alone's vision of narcissism is all about: A bunch of people who are unable to privilege or distinguish their "subjectivity" above or apart from their "ego". A society that is able/willing to do that is one in which "freedom" would cease to function purely as a reinforcement of the ego, as the "freedom to pursue/discover my real self".
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 12:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
A bunch of people who are unable to privilege or distinguish their "subjectivity" above or apart from their "ego". A society that is able/willing to do that is one in which "freedom" would cease to function purely as a reinforcement of the ego, as the "freedom to pursue/discover my real self"
Can you elaborate on how you're using the term "subjectivity" here?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 1:26 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Comparing the two economies, is, at best, is like comparing the tastes between apples and oranges; pick your poison.
Most of my beliefs come from my experinces talking to people in the FSU, whom actually had a lot of positive things to say about it, precisely because they were apolitical in the first place.
Furthermore, they only came to America because the world AFTER the FSU was a nightmare.
Here are some highlights.
USSR: It was a Millennials Paradise, where they paid you to go to College for Liberal Arts; yes. You heard that right; my friend took dancing lessons in College, and got paid for it. (Shes late 40s.)
USSR: Work was very easy, and stressfree. Didn't get paid much for it, but you don't get paid much for the US either. In fact, internships are actually much, much, worse compared to the Soviets. (Don't discount this, the vast majority of people want low stress work. Its how I recruited two employees in the first place.)
USSR: Healthcare was a given. So like, if you got sick, you didn't die. Literally, this would be half my argument against the Western Economy. Right now, only Baby Boomers are old, but when Gen X gets old, they will discover why people fought and died for the Welfare System; you don't get to live past 50 without it.
USSR: Crime? What fucking crime? Communists are trained in revolutionary subversion, you think a bunch of raghead terrorists from the Mid East can stop them?
I read about this one time, where four Soviet Diplomats were held hostage; the USSR demanded politely, in front of Hezbollah themselves, to release them. They said no.
So what they did was then they found the favorite Brother of the head of Hezebollah, and they captured him, and cut his organs out, and then mailed it to the family of the head of Hezbollah.
Of course, Hezbollah shot a diplomat, but so what? The KGB was literally looking at killing his children, his wife, his mother, his father, and cutting their organs up, and then mailing them to extended families.
You see, that had a profound effect on the Mid East, because it taught the Islamists that in the pecking order of things, Communism > Islam; Communism just attracts and makes a superior breed of men. (Hence, the New Man movement was about how high IQ individuals gravitate toward Marxism; it selects the smartest of all races, and therefore is a threat to the Aryan Race.)
They were so effective at stopping crime, that they considered Religion a crime! Everybody points to Afghanistan and shouts, "Ah Hah!" without understand that the war itself was caused because the Soviets invaded Afghanistan to kill non-aligned Communists in the first place.
What people forget, is that the Communists kicked out all the Islamists from Central Asia in the 1920s. "Afghanis" aren't Arab, their Turkic, and when the Czar fell, the Central Asian republics thought that it would be a "Caliphate..." boy were they fucking wrong.
Anyway, Crimes really didn't happen much in Russia...of all places... because the Communists' revolutionary apparatuses were leagues beyond petty criminals, and they could outlaw all kinds of bizarre shit...like a Free Market...because they didn't fuck around with Teleos and could program Humans reliably. (I mean, the Soviets had one of the lowest Recidivism rates in the world too.)
Okay, those three points there, you may think, "wow! What low standards? Why should I be thankful that I can have medicine, safety, and education in a police state that literally demands everything from me." And you'd be right.
But in the 2020 Western Economy, you don't live because you lack medicine, education, and safety. Full Stop.
I mean, people are shouting about, "oh, the old will crowd out the country, and there will be perpetual welfare payments." No they won't. You die. Its that simple.
Black teen who commits a crime? Dead. Old woman who doesn't have Social Security? Dead. Mentally Ill veteran who has demons? Dead. Millennial who is unemployed and discovers he has a health condition? Dead. Dead. Dead. Dead.
They don't even solve crimes between Black People where I live; the State wants them to kill each other. I mean, remember the moment where America was supposed to be a "Minority-Majority" nation. Literally, the plight of Black and Brown people is so bad, that the Census has to keep pushing the date farther and farther back, and Asians, not Hispanics, are the fastest growing Demographic.
Effectively, we created an economy for the few, and if you are smart and strong, you are going to make it.
"In Communism, there isn't any food in grocery stores, but in Capitalism, there is food in grocery stores, but none of it is for you."
Look. Between the two, the choice is neither. But. What I want to show the world is that things are fucked up, to create a better change, not that we should take any "particular" lesson from the Politburo.
But if you really, really, want the stupid "GDP" metric, well. Here you go.
http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/photo/active/71.jpg
Of course, the Article "rationalizes" how things are better today, but then again, my whole case is based on different data regardless.
And my case is, "You can survive in the Soviet Union, but you can't in the West." (Hence the demographic declines)
Finally: It's fair if you don't buy the argument, but keep in mind that the vast majority of EE who lived through the 90s would understand what I was talking about; they thought they were going to get Dallas, but got the Wire instead.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 2:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Keep talking, I'm on board.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 2:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
this comment thread
is like when
i lectured 14
hours at john jay
regarding the
goals of occupy:wall street
the students
earnest and willing
to learn
were falling asleep
nonetheless
some say it
was my droning
i say
there wasn't
enough coffee
14 hours is
a long time
even for me
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 2:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sure, though there are those in this thread that won't appreciate the source.
It's no secret that Alone draws from Lacanian theory, and I think the difference he draws between the "ego" and the "subject" can be helpful for thinking about TLP articles. The difference, in Lacanian terms, has to do with the three "registers" of the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary. The ego is an imaginary entity, with "imaginary" here meaning something close to "fantasy". The ego begins with what Lacan called the "mirror phase", in which a child initially recognizes their own holistic image.
Imagine there's a child and, of course, this child desires things. It cries, not just because it can't communicate its desire, but because it can't define its desire. It doesn't know what it wants, in other words, only that it wants. So much so that we might as well just go ahead and call this thing, not a child, but a Want. That's literally all it is: a squishy little ball of want. The Want learns, from its parents reactions to its cries, that its desires are satisfiable via different things, food, water, clean diaper, attention, etc. The Want learns, in other words, what it wants.
Part of this process of learning what it wants involves, at some point, recognizing itself AS A THING. The Want doesn't feel like a "person" yet; it's not until it recognizes the Other (either a mirror image of itself, or the image of itself as seen in another child of the same age, or even in a parent) as a WHOLE that it begins to identify itself as ALSO WHOLE. The moment a child perceives the discrete parts of its body and mind (its arms and legs and desires) as a unified THING, the ego is born. The ego is nothing but the illusion of wholeness offered to the child. This is important because the freshly minted ego must work to sustain this illusion of wholeness through continual reinforcement, a process that never ends because the only way for the ego to feed itself is through the recognition of others. Sound familar? When Alone talks about narcissism, he's talking about an over-identification with the ego, an identification that requires narcissists to continually reinforce their own ego through the recognition of others, recognition that can come in a variety of forms, but is always temporary.
The subject is more complicated.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 2:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
My dearest op,
You have much to teach all of us. For I among a small handful of select social theorists understand what you can tell us. Things we can't hear or read from anyone else, they are your stock in trade. Perhaps if John Jay were as well considered as Columbia or even NYU, the students would have been more serious about the lecture despite the duration. When I was a young lad, we imported coca leaves to chew, and told everyone they were green tobacco leaves. It made us seem like we possessed hidden knowledge. Were we less tasteful and less refined, perhaps we could have traveled to a jazz club and secured some of that devil cocaine, but it is such a low-born habit to sniff cocaine powder. Were we living in Xanadu, things may have been different.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 3:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I must hasten to agree with Dr Schumann above. I have always found much to unpack when Dr Schumann or Professor Paine is communicating with us. Nuggets and treasures abound for those willing to put in the time and attention. In theory we find reality, which perennially struggles to comply with theory's mandates. Those who propound theory are the real describers of reality, much to the chagrin of the unfortunately deluded sorts of people who tend to think themselves inhabiting a reality-based community.
As a good student, I realized the first step to unlocking the secrets possessed by my superiors was to accept my humble station and realize that I am now, and always have been, a blank slate for the professors and doctors of academia to inscribe with great theories for my edification. Only by slow, grinding efforts could I one day hope to achieve some small fraction of the insights shared by such educators as Professor Paine or Dr Schumann, and even then my pittance of knowledge would pale in a ghastly white against the neverending black hole of wisdom held by Paine, Schumann, and other lights of social theory.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 3:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
moral al
point of
order
coleridge
was an
enthusiast
in the
opioids
not
the
alkaloids
forgiven
if you
never passed
organic
shame if
you did
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 3:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Last week we were unraveling the gordian knot that enwrapped and obscured one of the essential truths regarding our ongoing collapse. Astute readers may recall that I mentioned the multicultural story of Abraham's binding of Isaac, which we find not just in judeo-christian religious fable, but also in the Koran, or Qu'ran, if you will.
Replete within that tale of Isaac's binding is an inescapable truism about humanity which has endured to the present era of ongoing collapse: humans will always sacrifice a living human to achieve personal ends, and the more human sacrifice is sought or used, the nearer the society to full collapse.
The present solution --or, really, a complex multi-tiered distraction, if we are to be honest-- at least in America, is to use social media and internet communication vehicles to achieve the desired form of human sacrifice. On the internet (and from what I hear, but have not personally experienced, on the smartphone cloud) you can see people breaking into tribes readying for war. But the war is somewhat more metaphoric than actual, since armament is neither readied nor employed, at least not as we have known armament previously. Rather, the materiel of 2014 is tribalist argumentation in a comment thread, chat room, listserv, facebook page. (I understand also that there is a device called "twitter" which allows people to comment from their smartphone directly into the stream of other smartphone users, much like I know email to do from my computer. I do not employ the smartphone technology myself, as I have limited my present technology exposure to my home computer, which is a Commodore 64 with some special tweaks I learned about 15 years ago when researching a science fiction novel that covered personal computing and its extrapolation by computer hot-rodders and modders.)
In the modern war theatre, the soldiers are stratified much like they were during the Roman Empire. We have centurions, auxilia, legions, and praetors. We also have peregrini, who aspire to be made part of the legions. Each caste finds itself tasked with a responsibility to advance the empire's goals from a military perspective.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 4:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Clearly, "Alone" should rename himself "Tiresome", as that would be a more accurate description of what he *does*. That seems to be important to him. It would also fit nicely with the book of porn he's allegedly writing (and why--Is this website not enough self-loathing masturbation for him?) which I suspect is tailored specifically (by accident or design) to the special needs children who make up the frequent commenters here.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 7:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
One of my 14 interns alerted me to this blog's mention of me, which prompted me to remind everyone of my status as a constitutional lawyer, civil rights expert, electronic data security specialist, political theorist, social critic and public intellectual.
Apparently this el puerco person is jealous, probably because he's never:
* been cited on the floor of the US Congress by a progressive member of Congress
* published numerous books elucidating our nation's theft and derailment by neocons
* offered several journalistic positions in growing stature and pay, merely by virtue of a constantly growing base of fans and supporters who, and this cannot be overstated, themselves are very wise and informed people.
I don't recall seeing Pierre Omidyar offering el puerco a position as the lead journalist and lead editor at a groundbreaking new publication of high-quality dissident journalism.
I suggest you all ignore his jealous tirades. And please, don't forget to follow me on twitter:
@ggreenwald
Thank you all for your support as I continue fighting the good fight. We will vindicate Edward Snowden and reveal the terrifying, horrific corruption that is trying (but, let us be clear, failing) to undercut Mr Snowden's death-defying escape from NSA with clearly damaging data.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 7:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Did you know that Glenn Greenwald eats red meat but says he's in favor of animal rights?
Have you ever noticed he has bags under his eyes?
And who is his hair stylist? I want to know what salon to avoid.
Now that I've completely destroyed his credibility by pointing out his dietary habits, sagging skin and disturbing haircut, I'd like you all to congratulate me for my unflinching willingness to speak truth to power.
PS: He doesn't even own cats. Clearly not a civil rights expert. If you want to follow a real civil rights expert on twitter, here's what you need: @RancidTarzie
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 7:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's patently obvious that Tarzie is jealous of Glenn Greenwald.
We can ignore that el puerco fool, who is even more jealous of Glenn than Tarzie is. And that's pretty hard to do.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 7:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'd like to steer the discussion back toward what op said and what Al Schumann and Paul Alexander said in agreement with op. I think there is indeed a lot to unpack in what op offered us in his inimitable style. But let's also recognize the essential nature of studying Marx's work. If anyone can guide us wisely through the prodigious analytic output of Karl Marx, op is that person. I have the greatest respect for him.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 8, 2014 11:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
it's really disappointing that jonny, abbeysbooks, and el puerco have never massdebated with each other like they do with everyone else.
that would be a better fireworks show than the 4th
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 9, 2014 9:16 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
As a follow up to my previous post, this idea that Alone is forwarding isn't necessarily religious at all. It is actually a very succinct summation of Lacan's concept 'Das Ding'.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 9, 2014 9:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
*It would help if I were consistent in my usernames*
As a follow up to my previous post, this idea that Alone is forwarding isn't necessarily religious at all. It is actually a very succinct summation of Lacan's concept 'Das Ding'.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 9, 2014 10:13 AM | Posted by : | Reply
WE MADE IT YOU GUYS, BEYOND THE TEN THOUSAND MARK GLORY LIES
ALONE WILL YOU LOVE US NOW, ALONE WILL YOU LOVE US NOW, ALONE WILL YOU LOVE US NOW, ALONE WILL YOU LOVE US NOW, ALONE WILL YOU LOVE US NOW, ALONE WILL YOU LOVE US NOW, ALONE WILL YOU LOVE US NOW
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 9, 2014 10:16 AM | Posted by : | Reply
It disturbs my eternal slumbers to see so many people invoking my name and work while understanding none of it. Had I lived to see the era where people put much more emotional and existential wellness investment in an online representation of themselves than they do in their physical daily living selves, I would have commented on how likely it would be that the online imitations would use petitfoggery, exaggeration, pretense, lying, shambolic dissembling, and megalomaniacal fraudulent description of selves to create a disturbing disparity between lived life and projected, imagined life.
I didn't really concern myself with fantasy vs reality dichotomies, but from the comments invoking my name above, you'd think that was the essence of my work. Perhaps the mere mention of my name has gained some coin-like value to certain people outside the small circle of philosophers I called my peers. I would not wish to be affiliated with people who pretend to understand my work but fail miserably in presenting or explaining it, but I cannot control them from the ether of eternity.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 9, 2014 11:32 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You see, that's the point.
Listening is the measure of power, and the reason why we are rapidly approaching a Dark Age, and everyone is more focused on being the king of a dying world then trying to find a new world.
For instance, if I literally walked up to our brighter populations and said; are you wiser then Charlemagne? They would turn their head sideways, and then they would say, "yeah, duh!"
But in essence, its that kind of "obese overconfidence" which allows us to ignore the solutions we need, because we are so focused on trying to...sigh... reinvent the wheel, that inevitably we find ourselves forgetting about wheels at all.
Yes. Charlemagne couldn't read. But he conquered Europe. He did so by building a very large logistics chain across Europe, and using guile to deal with European Clans (Read, Street Gangs,) killing them over and over by taking advantage of their stupidity.
But here's the kicker. Charlemagne couldn't read, but set the foundation of his own "miniature" renaissance, which solidified his era, precisely because he realized scholarship was important, and therefore ceaselessly promoted it, not bothering to learn how to read it until his death bed, when it didn't matter.
I mean, you can spend fifteen minutes on a famous person, just figured out what they did, and lo and behold, there are ALOT of valuable lessons if you can kick your "Freedom bias" to the curb.
Knowledge really is just a history of successes, and we are destined to fail because even our "brightest" like Alone take most of human history, find it suspiciously Left Wing (Have you read F-cking Christ?), discover that these people also literally believed the sun revolved around the earth, and then conclude "Haha! Charlamagne is v.00045 of leader, where Reagan is release build v.1!"
"Therefore, problem is government, and solution is no government. Genius!" (To be fair, his insights on behavior are nuanced, but from what I can gather from his civic views, they are just. so. basic.)
(I mean for God's sake, the man literally built government. That's all he did. And fuck! He apparently abolished the Gold Standard! Had no idea! Literally, he's a Medieval Socialist, or Correa is a 21st century Charlemagne. Nobody wants to give credit to the Left, precisely because the Left kills the "old," and most of the time, "old is right;" but not always)
As for me? Its precisely because I feel so ignorant, and I feel others are ignorant that they are ignorant like me; so in essence, I look to historicism, and see what fits and what doesn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicism
None of these ideas I've expressed are really my own, which is why I am confident in them. And I've been studying so much now, the maxim of "History Rhymes" really is true; but history, again, has a strong Left-Wing bias.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 9, 2014 12:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Actually, Jasper, the approval of metaphorical figures are actually more important then real people; people are humans, but the fictions we invent our far more powerful
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Cid#Death
Of course, Spain? Who the f-ck are those guys, they can't balance a checkbook, am I right?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 10, 2014 10:29 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I keep imagining Abbeysbooks as the owl from Winnie the Pooh. I would be shocked if at least one of these personalities (Johnny, Abbey, el puerco, etc.) wasn't Alone or one of Alone's friends having a little fun and/or attempting to garner more active attention for the blog by baiting people with ridiculousness. It just seems unlikely that so many people would continually invest so much time in this tiny tiny corner of the internet, especially as updates from Alone official become more and more infrequent.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 10, 2014 11:08 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Newsflash: Not everyone spends their time in the same way that you do.
And chrissakes, why in the world would Alone/Blackbeard role play here, aside from occasionally setting the plank?
Argh, enough, ye mutineer!
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
July 10, 2014 4:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You strike me as a pedophile who created an identity on the exterior for himself. Don't feel bad, there are millions of people like that...
I read a lot of your posts and they all come to the same conclusion. I have no choice but, I'm gonna have the FBI looking for you... sorry.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 10, 2014 5:21 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Guess the smartest thing I can do is to keep my mouth shut.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 10, 2014 7:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So tell me more about this "infamous history" of yours.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 10, 2014 7:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I should reply to someone making fun of me?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 10, 2014 9:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone is posting as el puerco and will continue to do so until we raise the standards of our comments
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 11, 2014 8:38 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ugh, you INSISTED that I choose a username! Eh, I've actually had a couple of productive conversations with you when you called yourself seymour blagger--you didn't mind me being anonymous then. The "potshots" were a little uncalled for. I'm sorry. This is my way of trying to find some common ground.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 11, 2014 2:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I have very little doubt this is the case. If not Alone, then it was somebody arguing with himself, and attempting to have a bit of fun.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 11, 2014 2:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am seymourblogger just not here. Who were you when we had "productive" conversations. Oh to apply the word productive to a conversation means that the conversation is commdodified therefore enclosed within the capitalistic frame of the dialectic.
So go on. Glad to see you have some name now here.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 11, 2014 3:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No, it doesn't mean that. In context a "productive conversation" is a conversation that achieved a significant result - result being some noteworthy transfer of ideas or consideration of a new perspective.
I can't tell if you're joking, or if you actually think that when someone calls a conversation productive they literally mean "that conversation resulted in a significant net gain of commodities".
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 11, 2014 6:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Dem damn commdodities, I tell ya. And I'm a bout had it with dem damn dominatin discurses, too!
Jesus, no wonder there are no new articles. Alone's smart enough to jump ship when the rats all start coming out. Comments thread is a liability at this point.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 11, 2014 6:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Hey stranger, welcome! Don't mind Abbey, he's got Asperger's.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 11, 2014 6:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hey stay stooopid.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 11, 2014 7:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm being sincere. I don't know what a productive conversation is unless one is interviewing for something, pitching something, trying to convince someone, finding out something, etc. What's wrong with just talking? If someone wants to know something they can just ask. The answer makes it productive. But that isn't conversation. That is a mild form of interrogation.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 12, 2014 12:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Two things abbey:
First, if someone can make fun of you, besides simple namecalling, it's usually because you gave them an opening to do so. You, for example, evince a very facile, juvenile online persona with your endless repetition of jargon and name dropping. Whenever someone makes fun of you the first question you should ask yourself is whether or not you left yourself open to it, which is what I do and which is why I very rarely encounter others making fun of me.
Second, a productive conversation is one in which the various parties ask questions of one another and provide direct and substantive answers, something you've spectacularly failed to do. This latter relates to the former - your lack of substance is why others are making fun of you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 12, 2014 12:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
abbey, people tend to have little respect for those who don't ask questions about other's positions and who refuse to provide direct answers regarding their own.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 12, 2014 3:23 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Polite trolls are still trolls.
All I know about trolls is that if you feed them, they thrive. If you starve them, they die.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 12, 2014 10:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The term "troll" has become so overused it has ceased to possess any coherent meaning.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 13, 2014 7:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Sorry I'm not current on the newest terms for someone who obsesses in comments at blogs. Is there also a new term for those who engage the politely obsessed?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 13, 2014 9:56 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Excited.
An electron require very little energy to become fixed to a higher orbital. And why is it okay to say trans-late but not inter-late, I mean transnational works fine as do international. Why should language be any different?
Can't wait for Alone to upload the real stuff.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 13, 2014 11:57 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
From the view of the medical community and psychiatry ALONE IS A TROLL. Why do you think he hides his name and has begun taking down his more controversial articles? Why do you think the only moderation he does on this site anymore is DELETING POSTS THAT USE HIS REAL NAME?
You know what's funny? Alone has a soft spot for 4chan and anonymity. Why do you think Alone disabled the rating system? Why do you think the default posting name is anonymous? Have you even read these articles bro?
Browse the internet long enough and you'll soon discover that 4chan generates the majority of original content on the internet. Originality and creativity thrive in their hatred and criticism of everything. Or do you think America circlejerking their way through history accomplishes something meaningful? HAVE YOU NOT NOTICED THIS IS WHAT ALONE HAS BEEN HARPING AGAINST? Alone uses pop culture to troll his readers and commentators. Everything's tongue in cheek: "my rum and cynicism makes me immune to your argument". OR HADN'T YOU NOTICED?
4chan calls it "clapistan", "amerifat", etc; alone calls it "narcissism". Different dialects, similar conclusions. Oh, but occasionally alone suggests actionable steps to combat the circlejerk.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 13, 2014 12:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
in b4 u are projecting
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 13, 2014 1:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
does a bear shit in the woods?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 13, 2014 6:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I have a kneejerk reaction to agree with what you're saying but in my unsolicited opinion, you're mashing together a whole bunch of concepts, and that mash isn't going to be comprehensible to a lot of people who read your comment. For example, when you say "American circlejerking their way through history" I'm pretty sure you describing the mindset of a certain subset of Westerners, not trying to criticize the various incredible achievements of Americans and individuals who were enabled by certain aspects of American society throughout the last couple hundred years. I know what you're getting at, but a lot of people don't, and may in fact be offended or annoyed by your post. This may result in conflict. Conflict on an obscure comments section deep in the Internet isn't a big deal, but I think it can be seen as a microcosm of larger scale conflicts that take place when people don't formulate their arguments carefully. As much as you hate the overfed, overporned, overTV-ed, overmedicated, appallingly un-aware of the massive faggotry that is American exceptionalism citizens of Clapistan, I think it's better to reach out to them with compassion and well formulated ideas, rather than alienate them further with our own narcissistic tongue-lashings.
tl;dr Showing somebody how wrong they are is usually done for narcissistic reasons that end up driving the wrong person away; reaching out to somebody who is wrong in a compassionate and measured way often convinces them to be right. This should be kept in mind when we argue, debate, or communicate something that we think is important.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 14, 2014 1:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yeah, that's really well said! I'll try and rewrite the my post later and make it less aggressive and condescending. Sometimes I hit a wall with my already limited capacity for empathy.
One of the best posts I've seen on here in a while. Thanks!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 14, 2014 2:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Sorry I'm not current on the newest terms for someone who obsesses in comments at blogs. Is there also a new term for those who engage the politely obsessed?
It would appear that as of July 13, 2014 7:04 AM, one such new term is Joan of Aargghh.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 14, 2014 2:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
tl;dr Showing somebody how wrong they are is usually done for narcissistic reasons that end up driving the wrong person away; reaching out to somebody who is wrong in a compassionate and measured way often convinces them to be right. This should be kept in mind when we argue, debate, or communicate something that we think is important.
Splinter in other's eye, log in yours.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 14, 2014 4:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Splinter in other's eye, log in yours.
That must mean the whole goddamn forest is in yours.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 14, 2014 4:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The word, and I quote - "forest" - does not necessarily tell us anything about the volume of wood. Do not automatically assume that "forest" imply more volume wood than "log". I know for a fact that that mistake has been done before.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 14, 2014 5:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
That must mean the whole goddamn forest is in yours.
Did you hear the whistling of something moving fast at some discrete altitude above your head?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 14, 2014 5:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The word, and I quote - "forest" - does not necessarily tell us anything about the volume of wood. Do not automatically assume that "forest" imply more volume wood than "log". I know for a fact that that mistake has been done before.
Sorry, let me clarify:
>Redwood forest
My bad, didn't realize the level of autism I was dealing with here.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 14, 2014 5:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Did you hear the whistling of something moving fast at some discrete altitude above your head?
Was it the screaming thunder of pots calling kettles black?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 14, 2014 5:23 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Was it the screaming thunder of pots calling kettles black?
I'm sorry, is this an attempt to rehabilitate your prior error? If you are using hypocritical assertions when accusing someone else of being captive to hypocrisy itself, it doesn't exactly call to mind the picture of someone who has solid footing under his/her feet. Instead it calls up images of houses built from playing cards, and of Ray Bolger's most famous role.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 14, 2014 6:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm sorry, is this an attempt to rehabilitate your prior error? If you are using hypocritical assertions when accusing someone else of being captive to hypocrisy itself, it doesn't exactly call to mind the picture of someone who has solid footing under his/her feet. Instead it calls up images of houses built from playing cards, and of Ray Bolger's most famous role.
I'm pretty sure the only "error" I've made is being the latest goon in an endless samba-line of goons who are quick to (using slightly different phrasing) accuse The Other of the very thing they are engaging in.
Hence log, meet eye.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 14, 2014 7:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The post called the keyhole square.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 15, 2014 4:10 AM | Posted by : | Reply
You're smashing. Exactly the kind of person I'd like to engage in a dark alley. I'm that kind of guy you know, though, practically made of steel, got no emotions. Never been fond of pussies.
Eye see log. You too slow.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 15, 2014 4:54 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Anonymous, what's with that tone? You know, it remind me of myself when feeling insecure. Drop that front! You're not fooling anyone. We all know it folks, that true humility follows enlightenment. Or perhaps it was the other way around. Ask a witness to the theater of life.
I don't know a lot about language. Frankly it is a somewhat boring topic. Why this obsession over tools? I don't get it. But I _am_ sort of slow - do not be fooled. I'm not Alone.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 15, 2014 11:29 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Also, I would never post a comment except as me (Alone). However, if you want to completely freak yourself out, how would you feel if I told you that every single comment on this blog is mine except the ones _you_ wrote? That there is only one real commenter, and it is you. Yes, you. I know who you are: if you're reading this, it's for you.
/freakout
That would be a truly awesome idea for a movie or book (or, dare I say it, blog)-- you capture one single unsuspecting reader into a multi- year multi person dialogue. There was a performance art troupe that did this to someone, once (if you remember the name, please comment)-- I hear about it on NPR: a bar full of people all pretended to be this guy's friend, and had gathered to celebrate his birthday, and of course he had never met any of them but they all seemed to know him so well...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 15, 2014 2:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That is, of course, a quote from Alone's comment here:
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/04/this_is_baywatch.html#comment-8062
Well-played!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 15, 2014 2:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Hence log, meet eye.
Easier for a pineapple to fit within the perimeter of a paramecium than it is for a narcissist to admit an error. I wonder if it helps to see the pineapple can fit, thus it's not just a carny's trick.
Choose your stuffed animal from the top shelf. Just one, please. And here's a ticket for a free cotton candy. On the house. Tell your friends about us.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 15, 2014 11:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I hate post-postmodern society.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 16, 2014 12:06 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Agree. For simplicity, it could be referred to as modern society, or even better, just Society.
Never cared much for postmodern society to put it mildly. A couple of years ago I was prone to join a militia - seriously!
Now I'm more into advertising. Just saying.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 17, 2014 2:39 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The Morning Stars daily update report that a follow up is planned, in the future. Intellectually, I believe it will be a success.
According to rumor its theme was originally thought to be a variation on Life of Brian - "we are all individuals", but no not this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2gJamguN04
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 17, 2014 11:25 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I wonder if it helps to see the pineapple can fit, thus it's not just a carny's trick.
Is this your philosophy of psychiatry?
In fondo, è solo un trucco.
Si, è solo un trucco.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 17, 2014 2:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Is this your philosophy of psychiatry?
No, that's just the not-the-author's-intent that you narcissistically foisted onto the statement.
I wonder if anyone finds your Italian impressive. It must have been embarrassing for you to consider posting in English. Your internet self never should sink so low!
Is that comment typical of what you do when talking to friends in person? Swap back and forth between Italian and English, while telling them what they meant to say, which foisted intent you coquettishly pose as a (pseudo-)question?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 18, 2014 1:06 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Swap back and forth between Italian and English
Problem is, the kind of crime SPENCH is capable of fighting is not applicable here.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 18, 2014 4:13 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I just wanted to let you know that what you do really affects peoples lives and that people - like me - truly appreciate it.
Z6
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 18, 2014 8:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is how it always ends, with death. But first there was life. Hidden beneath the blah, blah, blah. It is all settled beneath the the chitter chatter and the noise. Silence and sentiment. Emotion and Fear. The haggard, inconstant flashes of beauty. And then the wretched squalor and miserable humanity. All buried under the cover of the embarrassment of being in the world. Beyond there is what lies beyond. I don't deal with what lies beyond. Therefore, let this novel begin. After all it's just a trick. Yes, just a trick.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 19, 2014 6:05 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
When Alone talks about narcissism, he's talking about an over-identification with the ego, an identification that requires narcissists to continually reinforce their own ego through the recognition of others, recognition that can come in a variety of forms, but is always temporary.The subject is more complicated.
Kindly continue. Could the need to continually reinforce be a credibility issue? If everyone is a creepy sleaze, as our creepy sleazy mothers raised us to be, why would anybody be believed?
I had a gf once who had incredibly low self-esteem. In 19 years of being an expert in the field, I've never seen a cuter girl but I only ever saw her face once (concealed by cosmetics the rest of the time, with day and night routines). She will die before showing her stunning face in public which, I'm ashamed to admit, suited me just fine at the time. Aesthetically, she was out of my league.
She was still hot with makeup and I had to get used to every guy's head turning, whistling, catcallers, guys coming up to hit on her like I didn't exist - I thought they were just blind or stupid but I was in denial. What they were actually doing was being very shrewd. Women have impossibly creepy and twisted - antisocial - value systems. They are attracted to rude, imposing, cowardly bullies because they are rude, imposing, cowardly bullies. Rape fantasies contain uncomfortable truths for this demented world of denial. Women's values are self-defeating but they've been set up to faceplant by a lifetime of surreptitious abuse from resentful women.
I was cool with the imposition as I was fucking her but I didn't like it when better-looking guys made her laugh. Thankfully, that didn't happen too often; through no fault of the guys (she wasn't bright enough to get how funny and charming some of these guys were). This is an outrage, really. Girls just sit there like painted rocks, Cargo Cult victims of women's malicious lies of entitlement, waiting for what they deserve as victims of their coercive monopoly flail themselves - mostly in vain - against their infantile incomprehension, their minds corrupted and reduced by a lifetime of women's malicious lies and degradation. They cannot reciprocate. In many ways, they're robots. Entitled, boring, insulting robots. This is not in their interests.
Their interests are horribly corrupted. As they're infinitely more important than men, the interests of the entire species are horribly corrupted. War and unmerited entitlement are not even in the interests of war profiteers and royalty.
Iza's dangerously low self-esteem was simply moronic, farcically out-of-sync with reality and my OCD grew increasingly perturbed by the contradiction. One day I inquired into the nature of her entrenched self-contempt, unmoved by near celebrity levels of attention from men. It baffled me into silence at the time but her (disgusted) response was telling:
"All those guys? Them? They just want to fuck me."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 19, 2014 6:58 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Alone works to dismantle the myth of an "inner me" because it's the first step towards building a new idea of freedom, one that takes as it's primary subject the human species instead of the human individual.
It is my very strong impression that Alone works to reconstruct Self in a conformist Society of terrified, mindless, selfless fools (bickering and squabbling, killing and enslaving, all in denial of their abject fear, hapless conformity and suffocating need).
And I believe this undertaking to be the first step towards building a new idea of freedom, one that takes as it's primary subject the human species instead of the human individual.
I think you got the end right but may have confused the means. If you look around at this world of horror, no one is acting in their best interests; everyone is being exploited by those they trust. M.A.D. may be a good workaround to this miserable world's obsession with exploitation of the young / denial, but our best interests reside in the minds of the only authentic nobility that exists, our sovereign young (in a selfish world, they would represent all our value + expected value gained by leveraging our achievements).
But selfless women want mindless fealty and loving slaves, so the minds of deity children have to be obliterated by deceit, terror and shame and we all have to endure torturous lives of denied agony, confusion and rage at perceived wrongs when the truth is, we can only be betrayed by Our own. Just one of those things, I guess...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 19, 2014 7:23 AM | Posted by : | Reply
jonny, the rest of us are just waiting for you to knock on the door of a sorority dorm and not receive a response, and then go on to shoot up innocent civilians in order to satiate your impotent rage.
Maybe then you'll get the validation you desperately crave, because by my estimation (and I could be completely wrong) nobody is taking your comments seriously.
Enter response about how I'm a narcissist and about how I have no right to speak for "the rest of us".
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
July 19, 2014 10:30 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I had a gf once who had incredibly low self-esteem.
Having been around really hot women my entire life, I assure you that you seriously misread the situation.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 19, 2014 12:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Good to see jonny offering different takes on the absurdity of present-day feminism-ism.
Having been around really hot women my entire life, I assure you that you seriously misread the situation.
Oh I get it, that's a joke, right?
Caesar sends you to the lions, pretender.
Those kitties you love will love you right back. As their meal.
Wanting to be a woman isn't the same as knowing the thoughts of the woman jonny spoke of.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 19, 2014 12:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
jonny, the rest of us are just waiting for you to knock on the door of a sorority dorm and not receive a response, and then go on to shoot up innocent civilians in order to satiate your impotent rage.
So, your participation at TLP depends entirely on imagining yourself the Detective Chief Inspector tasked with ferreting out misogynistic psychopaths.
When you read Swift's A Modest Proposal, did you actually think he was selling the world on the idea of eating babies for real?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 19, 2014 12:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Maybe then you'll get the validation you desperately crave, because by my estimation (and I could be completely wrong) nobody is taking your comments seriously.
Enter response about how I'm a narcissist and about how I have no right to speak for "the rest of us".
Please speak these words with your very special own personal touch of intonation and inflection. While looking quite directly into the mirror.
Do this five times.
Then come back and tell us what you learned.
You'll be graded accordingly. You might redeem yourself and actually save your chances of passing 5th grade. Keep remembering: you're good enough for 6th grade, dammit! You've learned to refine those other-demonizing remarks in a way that sets you up nicely for middle school clique formation.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 19, 2014 12:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What's really kind of interesting about this statement:
"On occasion what the activists think they want may happen coincidentally to align with what the system wants, and from that moment on they will be lead to believe they are making a difference, which means they're making money for someone else. "
Is that if you extrapolate that out it can basically be applied to any of the major social movements of the 20th century. Women's suffrage (by that I mean women are equal to men), the civil rights movement, etc.
Looking at those through the lens of that quote reveals an entirely different reason for the acceptance of those movements: money. By not allowing women to make major decisions the "system" was losing 50% of the population's money. Likewise, by preventing a major racial class of people to engage equally in the system it was losing that money too.
So while the activists might have thought they got somewhere, all they managed to do was open two massive markets to being exploited. Now women are the number one consumer in the US and the black community is massively leveraged on credit. Both of which enrich "the system".
So it seems the author has an interesting point
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 19, 2014 12:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Enter response about how I'm a narcissist and about how I have no right to speak for "the rest of us".
(yes, this portion should have been italicized above)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 19, 2014 12:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So it seems the author has an interesting point
You have now told me to think the author has an interesting point. Thank you. I could never reach that conclusion without your generously wise and selflessly insightful interloping interpretations.
Everyone you know here on facebook is dying to learn your every thought every moment. What else seems an interesting point to you? Please tell us how and what to think!
Oh wait, this isn't facebook, is it? It's not twitter, is it? Your passing observation on the post-lunch toilet visit status of constipation after eating too many dumplings really isn't adding much, is it?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 19, 2014 12:55 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Hmm...you sound a little bit like el puerco. That's not a good thing. El puerco's a total cunt.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 19, 2014 4:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
When you read Swift's A Modest Proposal, did you actually think he was selling the world on the idea of eating babies for real?
went a little too far that time; you just gave the fun away
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 19, 2014 5:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
nobody is taking your comments seriously
55
Enter response about how I'm a narcissist and about how I have no right to speak for "the rest of us".
You've completely misunderstood. The question is not whether you have the Right to be psychotic, you do. You can be delusional. No one can stop you. But if you avail yourself of the Right to be detached from reality, there is some downside...
You don't really want to be thinking what others are thinking unless it's inadvertent. If you can't think for yourself, you're not actually a real person. You won't really exist. You'll be like a virtual thing. A shell of something. To the naked eye, you'd walk, move, appear authentic. You'd be just like a human, except...
Dead.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 19, 2014 5:26 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That is......how do I say it.......subtle.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 19, 2014 5:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Having been around really hot women my entire life, I assure you that you seriously misread the situation.
It's very unlikely as the situation would be almost impossible to misread but unlike most, I can be shown when I'm wrong. All it takes is a logical and reasoned argument and I'll be convinced.
I don't know how the above could be expected to convince me.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 19, 2014 5:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Just asher. Pay no mind. He's gonna have to chg his name again.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 19, 2014 7:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
if you want to go a bit deeper than that interesting hypothesis you can google cia and feminism
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 20, 2014 10:47 AM | Posted by : | Reply
El puerco's a total cunt.
As one of EP's known associates, I can tell you that when you type such comments, Francophile-in-Germania, they can't really achieve what you wish. They don't insult EP, he knows better than to take the internet seriously, which you'd know if you'd actually read his comments. They don't satirize you, in which situation you pretend at a third helping of hubris while naively operating at a 5 year old's level of maturity and wisdom -- so, in other words, instead of coming off funny, you come off smug. Smug is hard to carry in comedy, as your posts demonstrate. Usually the comic trying to mock smug ends up being smug himself or herself in the bargain. Where you need to show more Steven Wright or Mitch Hedberg, you are showing too much Will Ferrell. Even the unfunny Chris Farley could carry smug better than you, Frenchie.
Where EP does gain some chuckles is in seeing you repeatedly try this same theme. It reminds EP of Einstein's practical definition of insanity. Me? I'm just reminded of the hundreds of smug, over-achieving grinders I've known who thought their college 4.0 is proof of their genius, despite their needing 15-20x the half-smart-person's time investment to get those grades.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 20, 2014 10:51 AM | Posted by : | Reply
went a little too far that time; you just gave the fun away
lo siento, but sometimes the skipping records simply need to be tossed out unless you have a record lathe of your own and the precision and patience to fix the errors, and while I don't mind a bit of focus or the spending of time, I don't have a record lathe. The cheap 45 was skipping nearly as soon as it saw its first needle. And it was some Air Supply song. What was worth saving there?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 21, 2014 8:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I didn't quite get the thing about records.
I remember myself back in the days, before internet. Played games offline and when internet arrived I could hardly understand what the fuzz was about. Obviously I was wrong, at least not very well informed.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 21, 2014 8:15 AM | Posted by : | Reply
At worst it is embarrassing to read this blog. In particular I am embarrassed by Alones skepticism of academia.
Unlike many of you, I've been there - I know everything from the inside and I'll say it flat out: it is embarrassing.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 21, 2014 10:52 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I didn't quite get the thing about records.
Frank is a skipping, or "broken" record. The groove trips right after the voice in the track says "cunt," says "cunt" again, skips again, says "cunt" again, skips again, says "cunt" again, skips again, says "cunt" again, skips again, says "cunt" again.
If you could fix the record, you'd find out what else Frank had to say about the "cunt" accusation and maybe even some substantiation for it, or at least maybe some of Frank's own mental machinations pretending at explanation. If it were a Hit Record and you'd lose popularity in your clique for not having a working copy, maybe you'd go buy another at the local wax stacker.
I remember myself back in the days, before internet.
The only people alive today and treating the internet as reality itself, and who might also understand the pre-CD, pre-iTunes world of music are The Hipsters, and they would collect LPs and EPs and 45s and expensive turntables just as a pose. They couldn't remember what it was like because they don't know. But they've memorized it, at least, and that allows them to pretend to have enough experience with the bygone era/thing to have a fresh Hipster Disdain for it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 22, 2014 10:39 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Er, do you mean the ideas presented in the blog embarrassing, or are you referring to the state of academia?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 22, 2014 11:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
She means Alone's scepticism is embarrassing but she intends to keep any sanity well-concealed. She's hoping to be pressed for her expert opinion, which she is dying to reluctantly tender (but cannot be seen to be too eager to offer it or no one will value it).
It's guaranteed to be worthless. She can't even write a few lines without running into that old chestnut ambiguity. But she's coy. It's a little horrifying but nothing compared to the horror of coy men.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 23, 2014 1:49 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm inclined to think she's talking about the state of academia, and that she's embarrased of the peers she's met and/or of/for herself. I'd be interested to see her elaborate.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 23, 2014 2:38 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I strongly believe mankind soon will be presented with a proposal, a plan, to eradicate all embarrassment. Make no mistake on this and do not twist these words - may lightning strike you. In a formal sense the proposal will be outrageously simplistic, a blank slate to the uninformed observer but a vividly colorful tacit agreement dressed up as a truly magnificent narrative to anyone who care to put on the glasses.
Imagine a global event where all shake hands and agree to put our differences behind us, unconditionally. What a pessimistic and depressing scenario. Won't be getting my vote. I've seen something far better. It wasn't something I saw because I was looking for it - impossible, because I didn't know anything about it. It was imposed on me.
The only honor I'm willing to accept is that I refused to deny it instead of going along with my own filthy stinking treacherous mind, trusting a body of accumulated knowledge about our polluted world.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 23, 2014 3:05 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Got to admit it, I'm uneasy with Alones trashing of academia. It mainly serve as to extend his own penis and I'm against it.
I wish Alone could be more willing to see professors as the real victims here. It is a fact that many people look up to professors and demand answers from them. We all know how demanding people can be, especially ordinary people. Professors and intellectuals are human beings too, and I wish anyone could try for how it feels being framed as mister-know-it-all, you know - expectations and all that. Try carrying all that and add an endless supply of people telling you how brilliant you are. I don't feel like being harsh on academics.
I'll rather make fun of them and see how they react, but I'm a child. Please pity me and show me how to behave as an adult.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 23, 2014 3:26 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It is beyond me how you could read those things into what I wrote. The message was perfectly clear, but for sake of world peace I'll reformulate.
_I_ get embarrassed by this blog. It shows _me_ how little _I_ know and how _I_ have fooled myself into believing _I_ know things _I_ don't. For _me_ this blog is epistemology and _I_ have been suffering from embarrassment due to _my_ lack of knowledge, though I went to school indeed.
Any questions?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 23, 2014 1:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Could the need to continually reinforce be a credibility issue?
It's absolutely a credibility issue; the difference is that it's a structurally necessary credibility issue. No matter how you slice it (you can imagine a world where women conform to your ideal of them) the credibility issue persists. Not because your ideal is wrong, but because that's how the ego works. The ego, which is never whole yet constantly desires wholeness, in receiving the desired recognition, must by design submit that recognition to a process in which its credibility is undermined. It's the master/slave dialectic all over again, day in and day out: the master requires the recognition of another whom he makes his slave, but who, as a slave, is never in a position to offer it. That's just how the ego works, which is why narcissism can be so detrimental to a person/society.
It is my very strong impression that Alone works to reconstruct Self...I think you got the end right, but you may have confused the means
Just to go back real quick, I stated that I believed Alone worked to dismantle the myth of an "inner me". To clarify, I don't think the way I'm using the concept of an "inner me" (or "you" or whoever) aligns with the way your using the concept of a "Self". The difference is, however, important, especially for you because so much of your outlook hinges on the way you conceive of the Self, and I think it's restricting you.
To be straightforward, I think you should abandon your reliance on the concept of the Self in favor of a more nuanced understanding of what, in psychoanalytic/philosophical terms, is called the "subject" (again, not to be confused with the ego, though they are interrelated). I only say that because, as a term derived from eastern mysticism, the concept of the Self is too broad and anachronistic to jibe with contemporary insights. It can't, for example, accommodate the very important distinction between "ego" and "subject" while still maintaining their interrelation. Consider, for example, some very basic questions: Is the Self totally separate from whatever you take to be "not the Self", the inauthentic personality people adopt? If it's not totally separate, then how are they related? Is one or both conscious? If unconscious, how do they communicate? If they don't communicate, then how is it possible to differentiate? Etc.
Unlike the Self, a modern theory of the subject must draw on the semiotic distinction between signifier and signified, and in that way maintain a tangible relation to the ego while at the same time establishing some distance from it.
Descartes was wrong: I think where I am not, therefore I am where I do not think. Similarly, we can say that consciousness is precisely what stands in the way of subjectivity.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 23, 2014 1:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Please pity me and show me how to behave as an adult.
Satire apprenticeships are hard to find. You can go it alone, but you'll end up a hipster, sneering disdainfully at things and telling everyone that you're being ironic, and the misunderstanding of what is irony is supposedly what's funny when you do that. Fellow hipsters, ill-educated themselves and prideful to a person, will laugh and insist they "get the joke" and anyone who doesn't is just "too stupid" or, in the hipster's greatest comic utterance, "too old." More than anything, the hipster wants to be mistaken for an embodiment of progress: technological, cultural, political, sexual, behavioral, and yes of course, linguistic. By making the word "irony" now mean absolutely nothing, the hipster is vanguard embodied.
I submit that given your comment from which I pulled the first quoted remark in italics, there is a great future for you in hipsterdom. Don't worry, your fellow hipsters will tell you that you're behaving as an adult in a meta-meta-meta-post-post-post-irony way.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 23, 2014 1:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
... None of that was clear in your original message.
The only thing that matches up is the statement "I am embarrassed", but in the original it was vague with regards to what specifically [what about Alone's skepticism is embarrassing] and whether you were vicariously embarrassed [I'm embarrassed for you for having those ideas] or strictly embarrassed [I'm embarrassed to be part of the things you have called out].
So yeah. No questions, but not feeling the snark here.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 24, 2014 5:17 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Is the Self totally separate from whatever you take to be "not the Self", the inauthentic personality people adopt? If it's not totally separate, then how are they related? Is one or both conscious? If unconscious, how do they communicate? If they don't communicate, then how is it possible to differentiate? Etc.
What are your answers? Do you really talk to your higher self? I haven't been able to find much about it but the language you use sounds like you read a lot of new agey stuff or western Buddhism, mindfulness and awareness.
I don't think you're going get your message of a "higher self/inner me" with people who don't routinely experience it. For me I kind of get a sense of what you're talking about from reading about a third of Eckhart Tolle's book. But it's not like I haven't experienced it before reading it. For me, it's the voice that pops up when laying down at night after fighting with my wife - the one that says to forgive. It says to make amends with my dad or whoever else I've wronged.
It comes easiest when I'm lying down or taking deep breathes. It always popped up after I smoked DMT. Is that what you're talking about? Or am I wrong about how you experience?
For me - my guess and I'm pulling it out of my ass is that it's just another part of my brain firing. Probably something to do with the prefrontal cortex from what I've read on the internet (or whatever part of the brain that deals with empathy - major hint: something narcissists supposedly lack). And again, just a guess but I think it comes easier with age too and definitely with practice.
The Descartes quote is a good primer but we may as well be talking mumbo jumbo. Forget about building a theory if nobody's even familiar with what you're talking about. And how are you going to build a theory when it's all very subjective. I experience what I think of as an "inner self" as a kind, sometimes empathetic voice.
Do you?
And are you sure you got it from Eastern mysticism or did you get it the western interpretation of Zen Buddhism? You might want to look up German Romanticism and its influence on Buddhism in the West.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 24, 2014 5:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
i screwed up the blockquote but you get the idea
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 24, 2014 11:30 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You misunderstood.
To clarify: First, Jonny is the one who frequently refers to the Self, as the concept has evolved out of eastern mysticism (first hinduism, then buddhism). There's nothing Western or German Romantic about the concept, it's right out of the Vedas: "Thou art that!"
Second, my use of an "inner me", against Jonny's use of the Self, follows Alone in that we are both saying the "inner me" is a myth -- at least in the sense that it's commonly used. For example, the myth of an "inner me" is strong when someone says something like, "I'm really learning a lot about myself," or, "I just need/needed to FIND myself." In both of these circumstances, the person imagines that there is an "inner them" that is "there", objectively, to be discovered. This myth is not just wrong, but dangerous because it encourages over-identification with the ego (i.e. narcissism). There is no "inner me" that is there, objectively. There is only my ego, which is constantly working to construct/maintain the illusion of a "me" because that's what the ego does.
In addition to our egos, we are also subjects, but the latter is much more difficult to define and to do so effectively requires that the reader/listener be familiar with some concepts that come out of psychoanalysis and philosophy. If you want to know more, I'm happy to share, but it'll take some work on both of our parts and I'm not going to undertake it unless requested.
P.s. I was just being polemical with the Descartes (mis)quote. I think it's correct, broadly speaking, but I don't really expect it to make sense right off the bat. If you read it a few times and with the right emphasis, however, I do think it's capable of inciting intuition, intuition that honestly goes a long way in trying to grasp the larger psychoanalytic picture.
P.p.s. Narcissism, the psychological condition, is not in any way related to the physiological conditions stemming from trauma to the prefrontal cortex. In other words, narcissism exists in the mind, not in the brain, and though not conscious, per se, is amenable to conscious treatment by the ego. Narcissists can "get better", become less identified with their egos, at least to a certain point. (I'm not saying you can get rid of the ego; you can't. You can, however, become less identified with it by recognizing and remembering what it is and how it works.)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 24, 2014 1:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It comes easiest when I'm lying down or taking deep breathes. It always popped up after I smoked DMT. Is that what you're talking about? Or am I wrong about how you experience?
One day the discussion will focus on TLP's essay, but for now, sit back and watch the fancypants urbane sophisticated gay pseudo-intellectuals practicing their online mating ritual.
You are indeed wrong about how some other person experiences something, especially when you have no basis to fabricate an idea of that other's experience. It's a little sickening watching you bullshit your way into online intimacy. How desperate is your meatspace life anyway?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 24, 2014 9:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
For some reason when I read this "Forest Fire" by Dead Kennedys cued up in my head.
I have absolutely no idea why I'm inclined to share this.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 24, 2014 9:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Wait wait, I know now. The question Guido was answering evoked the memory of this, which I'd have been inclined to say to Anon, ie maybe Free Dumb was talking about something that shares a common denominator with DK's protest depicted.
Sorry, I'm slow, and the audio had come to mind before the video.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 24, 2014 10:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I appreciate your comments.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 25, 2014 11:33 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Fancy trinkets engulfed by flames, wife-or-cocaine?, living through a projection: the big difference between that era and this is now, gay men think they run the world (as it appears on the internet) because fake internet culture (projected ether, as opposed to meatspace) tells them Gays Are Number One, Sweetie. Queer eye for the straight guy, as concept, suggests if you're a breeder you don't know shit about doo-doo and need the Emergent Gay Intervention to save your sorry ass. No wonder they think everyone on the internet wants to change the topic to gay men practicing pretentious "sharing" as a mating ritual.
The ubergays have their movement: eliminate all heteros, or put them in zoos for sexual reeducation by Ludovico technique, done on full display for the enlightened ubergays to watch and mock from their superior position.
I think Holiday in Cambodia describes them better. And Police Truck describes their fantasy.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 26, 2014 10:47 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm glad I can fall back on opinions I formed years ago, in case someone is tempted to argue I'm an utilitarian:
What you don't know won't hurt you
I.
As far as I remember this statement has been repulsing to me. I've been repulsed by this statement, though I concede it has a grain of truth to it, obviously. Perhaps it was the realization that information wants to be free so to speak, that no-one is in control. Guess most of us have seen Murphys law applied to a social context. Do you really believe to be omniscient? That you are aware of everything that possibly can go wrong, that nothing escape your attention, that your interpretation is complete? Oh.
II.
I've always been attracted to equality, that the same laws and norms should apply to everyone. Strange, because truth be told I haven't been very respectful towards society and can't say I've done my best to be subordinate under common law. I had my own opinions and rarely felt inclination towards society as what they spoke to be justice met my mind as hypocritical vile an arrogant self serving concealed evil condensed into a matrix of confusing language. I tell myself that it is not my game, but then again: would I know? More precisely, would I be filled with a desire to know if knowing meant also judging myself? In a crude sense, I feel that is exactly the thin line, dividing people. Do you judge yourself with the same enthusiasm as your neighbor? Why not? You're something else, a different substance? I can smell your stinking arrogance in my own sweat.
What kind of equality do you want?
Mechanical rules?
Because I said so
Sums up everything that is wrong with the world. Makes me want to join a militia.
III.
It's interesting how you can infer a wealth of information merely by making eye contact. Or how a small sentence, a phrase, in a particular context can reveal familiarity between peoples minds.
But she is gaining from it too. I'm so cool that merely being in my proximity being a winner. It's win-win.
Storm - please come. Fury - don't leave me. I need - correction, want, - a bottle of rum. Put me out of my misery, please. I can't take it any more. Why do you hate me? Don't you ever take risks? I'm not a hater though your continued campaign against my liberty anger me. Why can't we talk? I'd be happy - an please quote me on this - to chat with you in public, on stage with microphones and the spotlights on me. No problem, you got it. Let us find that one thing that threaten my identity, that one primary cause to my hate and rage.
Why do you continue to hate me?
If your brain had a single particle of love for me you would talk _with_ me.
Instead you wish-think being an artillery officer. It's not gonna cut it. I need humans. On the other hand, why do I recognize that look in your face, or that quote? Is it merely because I've seen it before, or is it because I only recognize things that correspond to my own inner experience?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 26, 2014 10:57 AM | Posted by : | Reply
You must be filled with conflicting values. I wonder which ones prevail.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 26, 2014 11:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I apologize for the tone. Bear with me.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 26, 2014 11:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Instead you wish-think being an artillery officer.
If you write it, it tells us about you.
This is the comment thread's corollary unsaid companion to "if you are reading, it's for you."
In your case, you wish to impress us with lots of words that say nothing but feel, to you, quite profound in their revelations.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 26, 2014 11:08 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Correction:
It tells about your perception, which strictly speaking is me yes but there is a distinction. It's fine.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 26, 2014 11:16 AM | Posted by : | Reply
You're right. Everything I say tells something about me. I can't say anything about something which isn't me, it might be true for all I know. Wouldn't that leave us with all communication being about my opinion vs yours and no third alternative?
Don't wish to start a debate on this but of course I welcome being corrected.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 26, 2014 11:20 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Think we (I) need to remember that we're speaking to ourselves.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 26, 2014 2:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Wish I could say that that comment was meant as a demonstration of a mind with an inflated ego and misguided sense of self importance and absolutely most important of all, I think: unhealthy emotions. You only need a sense of smell, no thinking required.
Wish I could say that. ByeThanksTakeCare.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 26, 2014 9:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
...how it feels being framed as mister-know-it-all, you know - expectations and all that. Try carrying all that and add an endless supply of people telling you how brilliant you are.
There have been times in my life when many people tried to frame me as omniscient or "the final arbiter" on disputes (in a vocation infinitely more competitive and cut-throat than the cushy world of tenure in academia). But I felt no pressure at all.
Granted, I was not a fraud. And when people would tell me I was brilliant, I'd grimace. I am brilliant but in poker I was the laziest and dullest I've ever been.
You'll never guess what I did, it was very shrewd. You're going to think I'm nuts. I simply told the truth. When I knew for certain, I would say so. Confident, I would say so. Unsure, I would say so. No fucking idea? I would say "I have no fucking idea. That shit is over my head."
Your concerns reveal your fraud and reliance on external validation. Why not go crazy and just tell the truth?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 26, 2014 10:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well my read was wrong but I hope English isn't your native language or you would really be hammering your point home.
What makes you think the readers of this blog are clueless about the state of academia? It should be obvious that many have advanced academic qualifications, just from reading the comments.
I think everyone knows why academia is a joke.
416 On the emancipation of women. Can women be just at all, if they are so used to loving, to feeling immediately pro or con? For this reason they are also less often partial to causes, more often to people; but if to a cause, they immediately become partisan, thereby ruining its pure, innocent effect. Thus, there is a not insignificant danger when they are entrusted with politics or certain areas of science (history, for example)." - Nietzsche
I had a Polish Jewish feminist lecturer for WWII History. Ah, getting High Distinctions was easy. My mate nearly got arrested for writing a very technical and unemotional paper arguing in defence of some aspect of Germany's strategical manoeuvring. She called the police. She wanted him charged with a hate crime. I'd never read a better paper myself and when he got it published, she dropped the police action but wouldn't reverse his 0% mark.
Lies and [insert with meaning here] don't mix.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 27, 2014 2:45 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Your concerns reveal your fraud and reliance on external validation. Why not go crazy and just tell the truth?
Whose truth? Would be glad to share my opinion but not sure it counts for much, unless it agrees.
Also, some bloggers claim that truth has to be discovered. Generally speaking it can't just be told. Or, it can be told, but that is not a sufficient condition for it to be understood.
.
Why not go crazy and just tell the truth?
..
I think everyone knows why academia is a joke.
416 On the emancipation of women.
...
Eh, sounds like a challenge. Believe "we" should approach this topic with humor and good faith. I'm tempted to quote a famous author, a classic - 2000 years old - but I'm afraid it will be twisted and interpreted out of context. Truth be told, I know by experience how easy you misunderstand the classics, possibly due to post-modernism. Or perhaps post-modernism is exactly what you need. Guess it depend on the interpretation.
I've often felt that women use their intellect more wisely. I like women, a lot. Only God knows how many crazy things I've done to get the approval, or merely the attention, of a woman.
Still, it is inconceivable for me to a militia with a female chief of staff. Never! My "militia" of choice got male leadership. Not that I personally care much about gender, unless we're talking about sex. Just saying [insert meaning].
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 27, 2014 3:09 AM | Posted by : | Reply
crazy things I've done to get the approval, or merely the attention, of a woman.
Someone told me that is representative for how gender works.
Something about how [insert correct gender} get more validation from "leadership". And how [insert truth] is in power, but since since a womans approval means a lot to an individual ruler - possibly way more then it should - it is debatable who really is in control.
If I ruled the world, I would probably first and foremost attempt to be a global scale woman pleaser, unfortunately. I'm weak and I need help.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 27, 2014 3:40 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Despite their inherited limitations, women strike me as more honest. I assume that must be an enormous handicap at certain arenas.
Am I on to something?
Or will you announce the completion of gender science, please, and start doing something interesting? It's cute that you are thinking.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 27, 2014 4:38 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh well just trying to be funny.
Shouldn't. This is serious. And woman, you too are allowed to speak. Your master is generous, kind and gentle.
It might be that you don't understand, but it's for your own good. Even I admit not knowing what what is best for myself - and I'm a man! The man. I got power, and I intend to use it.
Come on, please say something. Anything but nothing.
How can I be at service?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 27, 2014 8:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Women choose Circles of Meaning rather than committing to Truth where they find it. It's a stand that has no place in academia, but no one wants to say that. That would be mean. We mustn't be mean.
Really, the major problem with feminism is probably that no one ever had to die for it. For a lot of women, "Freedom" is merely some consumerist fantasy of plenty rather than a responsibility to be fully human, allowing the rational side of one to protect the high irrationals (faith, love, etc., the ineffables that ALone refers to in his WIttgenstein quote) while managing the low irrationals (jealousy, anger, hatred, fear, etc.)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 28, 2014 3:09 AM | Posted by : | Reply
...that consciousness is precisely what stands in the way of subjectivity.
Oh, it's precisely like that. I see.
Thank you!
Re academia I would like to mention how much I appreciate Descartes for his contributions to mathematics. It's perfectly understandable that he was seduced by his own brilliant intellect. Unfortunately, it's normal to be ignorant of our own limitations.
allowing the rational side of one to protect the high irrationals .... while managing the low irrationals
Aha - rational high? Two dimensions. Imagine that.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 28, 2014 3:50 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Why not go crazy and just tell the truth?
Because it's a process. You can't expect it to be like flipping a switch. There is work to be done. The role of emotions for intellectual development, it fascinates me. Won't claim that I understand it very well though. I'm a beginner.
I feel like quoting a famous philosopher who spoke about this, but can't decide whether I should or not. Not completely convinced my heart is where it should, so better safe than sorry. I'm sure someone else can do it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 28, 2014 5:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's perfectly understandable that he was seduced by his own brilliant intellect.
Well, suddenly we're at imdb.com and I'm reading Flippy Mimeograf's cliche-stuffed review of a movie, which Flippy composed by picking his favorite 3- and 4-word cliches from "famous reviewers" and then stitching together this morass of cliche using punctuation pronoun and modifier.
Speaking of people who think saying "academia" makes them sound/read as highbrow and more-upper-class-than-they-are, confusing jigsaws of boilerplate homilies and anachronisms and words-as-cotton-candy are one of the truest signs of an insecure social striver who wants to be mistaken for brighter, better-read and more articulate than his/her being would demonstrate in a meatspace conversation.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 28, 2014 8:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
[Reads tellingly like raised-in-the-80s-Jersey-speak. The author should drive a bit more distance between his/her character and him/her--there's too little suspension of disbelief here, and legalistic cognition shows through]
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 28, 2014 11:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes yes you are.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 8:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Guido Perdido used to post as el puerco. He was a cunt then, and he's a cunt now. Just ignore him.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 10:19 AM | Posted by : | Reply
[Reads tellingly like....]
Thank you for your projections. You were raised in the 80s and have an imagination regarding Jersey-speak, probably thanks to teevee programming in the 2000s and 2010s. Thanks for sharing, this is a sharing space with trigger warnings required for mentioning New Jersey, which you failed to do.
Guido Perdido used to post as el puerco. He was a cunt then, and he's a cunt now. Just ignore him.
You must be having a heart attack, let's hope the paramedics bring a defibrillator.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 4:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's perfectly understandable that he was seduced by his own brilliant intellect.
Quite an obvious point here, but strictly speaking it is lusts and desire which act to seduction, not cognition. His theses is sound enough logically, and of course rhetorically. I know René, but just in case I looked him up in the dictionary. I'm not sure whether he would approve this message, but here it is.
On the night...While within, he had three visions and believed that a divine spirit revealed to him a new philosophy....applying the mathematical method to philosophy. He concluded...the pursuit of true wisdom....saw very clearly that all truths were linked with one another, so that finding a fundamental truth and proceeding with logic would open the way to all science. This basic truth, Descartes found quite soon: his famous "I think therefore I am".
Now I have an expanded understanding on why Blaise never could forgive René. He probably had an actual revelation, seeing his name associated with anything but of mathematics. It must have been devastating.
Descartes wanted to be popular, so he told them what he imagined they wanted to hear, whatever massage pleasing peoples ears. In that sense, he rised to become one of the great psychologists of his time.
I'm not discarding all cognition, merely establishing the fact that it is primary about emotional response. I am anonymous and I approve this message :)
ps: fake prophets and idiots claiming some kind of special circumstance under the eyes of [ ]. Their words fall to nothing. In reality, in the long run, Truth prevails.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 4:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I think anonymity is valuable.
It is not uncommon to be afraid of whatever, so in order to preserve freedom anonymity is vital.
I would very much like to hear the opinions of frightened people, marginalized groups etc I'm hoping for a world where no-one bothers to be anonymous.
It's coming. Freedom is coming. That is, my subjective opinion...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 5:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Pay attention!
This massage is not written with intention to shield me or any of my friends. We don't need secondary protection. Going forward, I strongly advice you - and for all you know I'm staring at your eyeballs right now - to search for valuable meaning, you know knowledge and stuff, durable and practical. Preferably everlasting.
Do not fall for his tricks, directing your attention, treating you as a puppet.
One striking feature about our future culture, is not only all the things we will know, but also - what we will become ignorant of. I'm not being rhetorical thought I suspect it will require some linguistic work.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 6:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Law school savvy doesn't pan out so well here.
Here's a yes or no question: Have you (author of comment under handle Guido Perdido) been a resident of New Jersey for any length of time?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 8:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Fred deBoer is angry that someone busted him. "Oh I only comment under my full name, I never use handles." Thus spake Friedrich (the Boor, not the Zoroastrian) at his own blog. Meanwhile, sock puppets a la Freddy abound as one travels the webz of projected wish-I-were sentiments. Happy days are here again, Fred's conscience being cleared again. Sing along with us, chorus!
Oh the torture of being a PhD in Rhetoric candidate at Pure Doo Omniversum. It's enough to drive a fop to lie!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 8:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Have you (author of comment under handle Guido Perdido) been a resident of New Jersey for any length of time?
Nope. But Pusschere's comment has the pitch and timbre of truth, doesn't it?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 8:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I really like you. Hope we'll meat soon. I like law shcool.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 8:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
When Guido Perdido says Pusschere sounds honest, do you think that relates to the managing partner of the firm Fred Frank and Synonymous PC saying this:
Law school savvy doesn't pan out so well here.
Speaking of "savvy," what exactly is that word's meaning, and what does the quoted remark mean in full? Is it some way of telling the world you realize how little your PhD in Rhetoric will do for you if you're a liar who publicly declares on his serious blog that he uses no sock puppets on the internet? Is that a show of solidarity with Glenn Greenwald, Master of Puppets?
(elsewhere in the Internet of Everything, our anti-anti-Hero of post-modern post-irony meta-identity was heard to fantasize aloud the following scenario)
"Ladies and Gentlemen! Tonight on our roster are two accomplished Internet Frauds! Seated to my right is Glenn Greenwald, noted purveyor of triple-digit multiple internet identity commentary. We'd like to congratulate him on fooling a very large fan-base into believing that he's an expert with a scholarly, caring, humanistic bent to his disturbing content-control mania.
"And seated to my left is the blossoming talent of Fred deBoer. Mr deBoer, once known only for his flaccid and empty flaming homosexual "wit" (we quote to suggest laxity in definition, matching the lack of turgidity in his humor) offered at Jacob Bacharach's pseudonymous blog Who is IOZ?, but since Bacharach got famous among a more numerous audience of pretentious dandies than his blog offered him and began ignoring that blog in favor of a new, PR-ready Avowal of Self, our virtual yearling deBoer has been multiplying steadily the number of Interet Identities he inhabits. Lately you can see him blogging openly at two spots, with latency at numerous others. Perhaps he's not entirely "out" -- as it's called in the lingua franca of his clique.
"But nonetheless, let's get a big hand for these two charlatans, who whenever pinned on a lie can be counted on to initiate a barrage of character insult implications in the finest feminine-identifying gay passive aggression."
(thus ends our anti-anti-Hero's confused daydream)
Perhaps you should have a session with Jamie Kirchick to straighten things out, Fred.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 8:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I really like you. Hope we'll meat soon. I like law shcool.
Let me tell you, sineater, that I know The Spanish Pig, and you're not him.
One puzzles at the degree of ego injury felt by someone who needs to impersonate another. What did The Spanish Pig do to you, sineater? Was it learning of his heterosexuality that irked you and thwarted your fantasies regarding Piggy and you?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 9:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Now I have an expanded understanding on why Blaise never could forgive René. He probably had an actual revelation, seeing his name associated with anything but of mathematics. It must have been devastating.
How lucky we are to have Dorian Gray, a contemporary and intellectual equal of Pascal and Descartes, here with us in this comment thread. Please, Monsieur Gray, tell us more of the times you supped and debauched with "Rene" and "Blaise," your two bichons friese.
That dog food is damned fine when you add enough mayonnaise, isn't it? Your days as a sous chef understudy are paying off.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 9:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The fact is that Jim Weiss remembers who you are.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 9:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Please decode, I don't have the Fancy Ornate Decoder Pinky Ring and don't know the secret wrist-flap.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 9:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Is there a reason you post this crap?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 9:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This may be Free Dumb:
Narcissism, the psychological condition, is not in any way related to the physiological conditions stemming from trauma to the prefrontal cortex. In other words, narcissism exists in the mind, not in the brain, and though not conscious, per se, is amenable to conscious treatment by the ego. Narcissists can "get better", become less identified with their egos, at least to a certain point. (I'm not saying you can get rid of the ego; you can't. You can, however, become less identified with it by recognizing and remembering what it is and how it works.)
but a lot of people pay a lot of money per hour to professionals who can't be nearly as essential or pithy.
And it's free here, and not dumb.
Still, I suggest continuing to pay $150/hr or whatever to that person who tells you only enough to get the meatspace version of a website click or facebook "Like".
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 9:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Is there some kind of deep inside-baseball satire going on in the comments section now? Because I'm not understanding half of the names being namedropped here, nor am I capable of following the increasingly Byzantine conversation.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 9:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yeah, see crap like this is what I'm talking about. Its a comment, vaguely hostile, devoid of content, and yet still excessive in length.
What possible reason could you have for posting this kind of thing so incessantly?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 9:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Is there a reason you post this crap?
Please show me where I posted the phrase
this crap
and I will try to contextualize it for you.
Meanwhile, try engaging your brain for purposes other than reinforcement of your ego's numerous areas of fragility and brittleness.
As a general rule, most of what I type in comments here is directly relevant to (1) Alone's main essay above the comments, (2) some commenter's misunderstanding of the essay and/or how it relates to human society and/or the more specious tropes in mental health, or (3) some other commenter's attempt to turn TLP BLOG into Gay Men's Hookup Zone, Pretentious Pseudo-Intellectual subcategory.
Maybe you should start by trying to figure which of (1), (2) or (3) applies to any given comment I've made. After all, I'm staying on track here, while others are trying to prove themselves worthy of a gay hookup because they can cut-and-paste some crap they find from Dead Windbags on wikipedia.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 10:02 PM | Posted by : | Reply
BLAH BLAH BLAH vaguely hostile BLAH BLAH BLAH
your ego needs a new vision Rx, apparently you have astigmatism, cataracts, glaucoma, or progressive blindness. You feel hostility because, most likely, you wrote the script for your life's movie and that script made you a victim. So every interaction you encounter is felt as hostile. Meanwhile, I don't know you and honestly don't have any reason to care about your reactions, so I can't be hostile to you.
Maybe there's a lesson here somewhere, but it'll require some thought at your end.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 10:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You're an interesting sort.
Every post you make is somehow hostile, either directly judging a person or actively seeking to have their own posts apply to themselves (your accusations of projection), and yet you seem to actively avoid contributing anything yourself.
At any rate, you answered the question "what" as in, "what is this crap you keep posting", but I asked "why". So why do you keep posting this crap?
Oh, side note: your "this crap" statement was delightfully clever, I chuckled, but it isn't exactly a reusable joke - try to top yourself this time.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 10:14 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Is there some kind of deep inside-baseball satire going on in the comments section now?
Looks like you hit on category (3) of my topical reasons for posting comments. Yes, a good number of commenters spray, like horny male cats in season, all over the household. They spray their spoo everywhere because they're not getting enough mating opportunity. Here, the spoo takes the form of cut-and-paste nonsense regarding any one or more of the collection of well-over-rated "philosophers" whose work is both mangled and misunderstood by the spoo-spraying male cat in need of copulation.
You're watching them prove the concept of homosexuality being genetic. Gay cats: how do they get their rocks off? How do they fulfill their biological procreative destiny?
That's what they want the threads to be about.
Wouldn't you rather talk about Alone's linkage of cultural artifacts to the problem of narcissism in America? Talking poorly and pretentiously about a philosopher one doesn't understand is pointless if your existential happiness hasn't been seen for quite a while, but it's classic narcissism, is it not?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 10:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Every post you make is somehow hostile, either directly judging a person or actively seeking to have their own posts apply to themselves (your accusations of projection), and yet you seem to actively avoid contributing anything yourself.
As I said: keep true to that script you wrote for yourself. Never consider that your assumptions could be in error. After all, you don't know me at all, and thus can't know whether I'm in any particular emotional or thought state, and therefore can't accurately describe as fact the character of my comments and what sorts of menace or disregard you imagine them to contain. You're creating a story and reinforcing the story, and telling yourself the story is far truer than the truth about what I or anyone else thinks about you, or your thoughts.
It smells a little like you're addicted to victimhood here, but it could just be someone hasn't washed their feet in years.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 10:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone???
Jeez, 1200+ comments, your audience is YEARNING FOR ANOTHER SCREED... tease us with your new book or something
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 10:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Why would I ever consider that my assumptions are in error? You certainly don't seem to, and it is by and large irrelevant to the topic of my interest anyway.
Whether I think you are hostile (based on the tone I read in your word choice and dependance on insults and judgements), homophobic (based on your choice to use a slur to produce what I think you intended to be a negative example) or just kind of bored (based on your rather persistent responses to anyone who engages you on this website) doesn't actually matter. I've asked you to describe yourself - something you seem to be avoiding by making this conversation about me. Allow me to assure you that I will do my best to avoid applying any of my personal biases to your explanation, if that's what is holding you back.
So. Why do you post this crap?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 10:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ooooh wait, I just got that last line! Jesus washes my feet! A reference to Alone's post on projection that also related indirectly to homophobia! Very clever indeed!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 10:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Whatever you do, don't get him started on the topic of abortion.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 10:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't post anything that I consider the rhetorical equivalent of fecal matter, but if I ever do in the future, remind me of it with a quote, and I'll explain it to you.
Meanwhile, I admire your steadfast adherence to a progressive outlook, and I wish you the best of luck in managing interactions with people who do not see the world exactly as you do.
As to the precise substance of your comment? Good job contradicting yourself and talking in circles while calling my posts "crap". That must be that new "irony" all the tweeters talk about on twitter, in between snarky remarks about some reactionary's dining habits, clothing choice, or taste in cinema. Remember, your view is the only view, and whoever sees the world differently is WRONG. Otherwise, how can you be RIGHT?
To the extent a milquetoast soft-n-squishy LEFTist can be RIGHT, that is.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 10:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Ooooh wait, I just got that last line! Jesus washes my feet! A reference to Alone's post on projection that also related indirectly to homophobia! Very clever indeed!
Wrong. No Jesus reference. No imitating Alone -- I leave that to Abbeysbooks, Asher, Fred, Frank, and you, each of whom fails badly at it, but you can't all be what you haven't the native talents, learned skills or cumulative experience to be. No homophobia anywhere.
So we see how poorly you predict the so-called "truth" about another's mindset. Imagine how many other places you do this, other than here in these threads. With your friends. With your co-workers. With your family. The script must be followed!
Nothing ruins a movie more than a hamfisted micromanaging deluded director. Except perhaps a shitty screenplay.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 10:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No, no. I already told you - the over-literal joke only works once. You did a fine job with the foot washing reference in the last post, don't let the quality slip now.
What's wrong with talking in circles? I thought that's what we're doing - I ask the question, you avoid it, make the conversation about me, I ask the question again. That I think your posts are crap isn't really a contradiction of my posts - I'm just making a personal value judgement. It might be hypocritical, but it's not contradictory - feel free to read into it however you choose though, but whatever you do, don't project anything. There's this guy on here who hates that.
Hehehehehehe, I will admit to a small ploy though. I did very much want to see how you would react to me referring to your posts as containing homophobic slurs. I'm seeing interesting things today. It took a minute to find out what you were referring to though, not familiar with your political system.
Anyway, judgement free I promise: So. Why do you post this crap?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 10:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Is there some kind of deep inside-baseball satire going on in the comments section now? Because I'm not understanding half of the names being namedropped here, nor am I capable of following the increasingly Byzantine conversation.
A man in his forties or fifties who blogs at pezcandy(dot)blogspot(dot)com is using Alone's articles as an excuse to delight in his narcissistic hatred of young people and modern culture without realizing he is a part of the Dumbest Generation of Narcissists. The references he makes here to certain bloggers, journalists, etc. are littered all over his blog as well. The fact that he spends so much time dedicated to his characters and namedrops so randomly and interchangeably leads me to assume he is not mentally well. I know, I know. Pathologizing a radical behavior on this website??? Luckily my pathologizing comes with no power.
Read through a little bit of his blog. See the comments? You'll see a few different names there, they're all him. He writes blog posts, then responds to them under different names. They are different characters. On the sidebar there is a list of "retired jerseys", i.e. retired internet personas that he posts under. The entire blog is him talking to himself. He will deny that it is him, but his denial is coming from the point of view of his character. He imagines himself as the Diogenes of the internet, though it is a Diogenes with an identity problem.
In the comments here in cyberspace, his characters have made some good points that are worth reflecting over. And that is not a compliment to him, nor is it attempt at a Gay Hookup. A lot of his ideas are stupid. People discussing things he doesn't like (under the assumption that they're lifting their knowledge from Wikipedia) automatically leads to elementary school mentality of "you're gay!" Also, his theory that all internet writing is projection can easily be disproved:
You are a millionaire!
(Am I projecting that I am, in fact, a millionaire?)
Projection is a particular case, it is not all cases.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 11:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Wait, so you weren't making a halfway intelligent reference either to this blog or a religious concept? That's disappointing, I honestly actually thought you had. So I suppose the script says I think people are smarter than they are?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 11:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
A man in his forties or fifties who blogs at pezcandy(dot)blogspot(dot)com is using Alone's articles as an excuse to delight in his narcissistic hatred of young people and modern culture without realizing he is a part of the Dumbest Generation of Narcissists.
Apparently that person who wrote that blog insulted you somehow.
That fact of insult doesn't make true your accusation that I'm the author who insulted you at the blog you described.
Didn't you already try this once, with numerous block quotes from that blog? Travel back upthread and witness your prior attempts. You are convinced of your rectitude, however ill-placed. Maybe there's some comedy in this?
I tend to doubt that, though. Why? You are demonstrating a classic case of Internet Butthurt.
Internet Butthurt is very hard to carry off sincerely while playing at comedy. It's hard to pretend to be beaten about the cranium by someone's preppy topsiders-and-chinos-equipped leg swinging repeatedly at your head unless you are really comedically clever and totally detached, and thus far I haven't see those qualities in your posts. Not for want of trying, though. Obviously.
Moving on to more revelatory projections from you -- what is the significance of pointing out someone's age as 40s or 50s? I see those years of my life, a ways ahead of me now, as inevitabilities and not something I should scorn or avoid or pretend to be above. But what about you? Do you intend to kill yourself before you get that old? Do you worship youth and have you a difficult time considering yourself as losing the Beauty of the Reflection you first fell in love with as a teenage boy? How will you sustain this lust for youth as you age yourself? Will you run around the internet pretending to spot homophobes, bigots, misogynists and reactionaries from a safe cloistered haven of male feminist gays who imagine themselves dimestore philosophers but who lack an original insight, each of them, every time?
You can answer that if you have the stones for it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 11:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Read through a little bit of his blog. See the comments? You'll see a few different names there, they're all him. He writes blog posts, then responds to them under different names. They are different characters. On the sidebar there is a list of "retired jerseys", i.e. retired internet personas that he posts under. The entire blog is him talking to himself. He will deny that it is him, but his denial is coming from the point of view of his character. He imagines himself as the Diogenes of the internet, though it is a Diogenes with an identity problem.
Didn't I already suggest you need some time with Jamie Kirchick to straighten out your sexual identity problems?
This diversionary tactic of pretending you've sussed the ID of an author is peculiar, somewhat like celebrity worship but inverted as being driven by the aching sphincter I mentioned above. I suppose in a culture driven by feminine perspectives calling everything a man does "rape," you can claim that you were raped by a comment written under a male identity handle, so that verifies the story you've told yourself, vets the sources, OKs it for printing. Why check facts? You're a post-irony journalist, a post-honesty truth-teller. Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good!
How long have your nursed this grudge you carry? Aren't your nipples sore? Do gay men produce milk when they adopt a fluffy white kittycat? Inquiring and reasonable minds sincerely wish to be informed.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 11:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Wait, so you weren't making a halfway intelligent reference either to this blog or a religious concept? That's disappointing, I honestly actually thought you had. So I suppose the script says I think people are smarter than they are?
The script is about you, Bro Diddley. It's your script. You wanted to tell yourself you "got" something that you imagined was elusive to certain others. It's a little like peer pressure telling you that you have to like a certain movie, book or piece of artwork or be considered a philistine. Never mind that art is individual, you need to fit in!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 29, 2014 11:33 PM | Posted by : | Reply
No, no. I already told you - the over-literal joke only works once. You did a fine job with the foot washing reference in the last post, don't let the quality slip now.
You go right ahead and keep telling yourself you're my boss/editor/mentor/superior. Remember, it's your script.
What if I told you that where you think I'm serious I'm joking and where you think I'm joking I'm serious? Would you rewrite the script then, or would you hold fast to its legend -- and what would that tight grip mean for the future of the story?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 12:49 AM | Posted by : | Reply
He had a nasty shoulder breakage some time ago.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 1:11 AM | Posted by : | Reply
This blogger sure did get under Synny's and Darnell's and Fred's and Frank's and a bunch of other handle's meatspace writer's skin.
Why else this protracted focus with supposedly hidden details (are they being presented as facts? looks that way) that you keep implying are all part of me and my history?
It looks a little like the obsessions regarding who is Alone.
I suppose focusing on an anonymous writer's identity is another convenient way of avoiding the problems created by your narcissistic focus on your imagination's strange conclusions being factual and error-free.
I suppose things could be worse. You could be seconds away from dying after slicing your forearms open with razor blades, or you could be out stalking people to rape and kill in meatspace.
Hell, who's to say that you're actually NOT doing either thing right now? If I can be this mystery blogger you insist, then you clearly can be a psychologically ruptured misanthrope who demonizes people he doesn't know and works toward doing them corporal harm.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 1:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I figured as much from briefly browsing through his blog. The constant references to obscure bloggers and journalists (Tarzie? Jake Backpack? Popovich? Who are these people and why does he have such a fascination with them?), the overused vocab ("gay snark", "lounge lizard", "meatspace", etc.), and the general writing style are similar, as well as the odd fixation on homosexuality. So as far as I can tell (and I could be completely wrong), it's either the same person or somebody attempting to make a point by writing like this person, although I have no idea why someone would expend so much effort impersonating this guy just to make a point.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 2:05 AM | Posted by : | Reply
So as far as I can tell (and I could be completely wrong), it's either the same person or somebody attempting to make a point by writing like this person, although I have no idea why someone would expend so much effort impersonating this guy just to make a point.
I'm not that blogger, and not trying to imitate/be that blogger, but I find it strange you don't see impersonation imitation or pretense in your and others' pseudo-psychiatric, fake-philosophic, ersatz-intellectual comments left here, and go the next more ludicrous step of wondering aloud why someone would imitate another openly on an internet site. I haven't had to spend much time reading Alone's posts and the comment threads following them to see that most of the commenters here are aping Alone, trying to impress Alone, or trying to be "sexy" with their imagined genius shown through the fake-philosophic, ersatz-intellectual, pseudo-psychiatric comments they leave. If I ran through the 1200 comments of this thread, I'm sure there would be fewer than 100 that have anything worth reading. Like most websites, the comment thread is mostly an echo chamber where people imitate each other and try to impress one another with their fidelity to the Groupthink.
The name "Darnell" is very clever. I guess it's better than Yakov. If I were labelled Yakov by my brutish, wagons-circled parents, I'd probably have identity issues and would try to get over them by imagining casts of characters and inhabiting them at numerous sites around the internet. If anyone pointed this out, I would accuse him/her of all sorts of things I cannot and will not ever prove, but I would state them assuredly with a dismissive, superior air that makes no mistake about the attitude with which you should view this person I'm accusing: disdain nudging up against white-hot hatred.
I'm proud of you, Yakov. You've come so far with such a tiny cast of loyalists, each of them willing to be malleable in comment posting handle, but all dedicated to the cause. I think Svengali would approve.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 2:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I had a good laugh with this one:
http://progrepnow.blogspot.com/2010/01/story-so-far.html
-----------
Cut it out with the combativeness, puerc/perdido. I am 85% sure that you and I share a good deal of common interests, have somewhat similar opinions, etc. Hell, I'll wager that others might feel that way too, to some degree. I doubt many drive BMWs here--although, what if Alone drove one? Would that change anything? There's quite a bit of anti-_____ here too--really no need to knock on an open door.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 2:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Like it had been pointed out above, no one had seen Spritel spelled "Sprytel J Chimchim" so a search yields no more than seven results total--one here, six on pezcandy.blogspot.com
6pez's+1puerc=7
So for most of the hyper-text space sans robots.txt exclusions, that's VERY telling.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 2:53 AM | Posted by : | Reply
(Tarzie? Jake Backpack? Popovich? Who are these people and why does he have such a fascination with them?), the overused vocab ("gay snark", "lounge lizard", "meatspace", etc.), and the general writing style are similar, as well as the odd fixation on homosexuality.
The faked innocence holds no more water than a sieve. Those people you know and read.
The "overused vocab" can be found anywhere, as I found those phrases. "Gay snark" is a phrase I found when I asked why people were so petty, catty, feminine passive-aggressive, and backbiting but were alleging they were men. "That's gay men being snarky," a friend told me. And if you say you never saw "meatspace" before my comments here, you're lying. Especially after you pretend that you are a young hipster who hates anyone in their 40s or older.
I told you upthread, what you comment tells me a lot about you. While you imagine yourself cleverly dancing around me with random bizarre accusations, you are telling me all about which of my comments gets you most worked-up and fueled with that passive-aggressive feminine putdown-via-almost-subtle-implication.
And I'm pretty confident you know precisely what the references to category (3) of gay pseudo-intellectuals trying to hook up in the comments thread is suggesting, despite your pretense at ignorance on that one. You know why? Those people you pretend to not know, their blogs and their comments elsewhere on the internet are exactly like the categories (2) and (3) I talked about above. Same passive-aggressive snark, same "wit" that relies a lot on the swishy swagger of fake-upper-class pseudo-sophistication.
It's no wonder you want to focus on your misdiagnosis of my identity and authorship. Yours has been exposed. What I wonder is, whether Alone actually wants that snarky pool of snakes to commandeer his comment threads and reorient them toward gay hookup purposes.
If all those absurd comments are trying for humor, they're very poorly written because most of them make no sense. Earnest ignorami don't write comments that read as if they were written by spambots. I'm in favor of the conclusion that it's lazy, juvenile un-humor pretending at some kind of satire. It's immature enough to be too lowbrow for even slapstick. It makes Benny Hill's most juvenile gags look like satire that only the sharpest 0.05% of the populace could understand.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 3:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
So for most of the hyper-text space sans robots.txt exclusions, that's VERY telling.
So what is it telling you? What passive-aggressive implications can you almost-assert as a result?
(I'd like to take a moment to imitate you. Starting now.)
I have seen a lot of people comment as ED, as ed, as Ed, and as eD. Many of their comments have been duplicitous, mendacious, conniving, distorting, and otherwise insincere. That's VERY telling when I read comments by ED here.
(imitation exercise complete)
Please continue your vendetta, though. Nothing fuels a narcissist like a manic bout of righteousness fulfilling the verification of yet another fantasy conjured by your ego's insistence on infallibility.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 3:15 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Cut it out with the combativeness, puerc/perdido. I am 85% sure that you and I share a good deal of common interests, have somewhat similar opinions, etc. Hell, I'll wager that others might feel that way too, to some degree. I doubt many drive BMWs here--although, what if Alone drove one? Would that change anything? There's quite a bit of anti-_____ here too--really no need to knock on an open door.
I find your pretense that you know me personally is, to put it mildly, mindfuckingly creepy and bizarre in its need for online intimacy. I think you need a new hobby.
What, things are slow in the Barbershop Quartet tweetfeed tonight? Nothing immensely important or fabulous elsewhere in your internet tours?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 3:34 AM | Posted by : | Reply
jonny/el puerco/guido perdito, when can we expect your manifesto?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 3:51 AM | Posted by : | Reply
It's my fault, everyone. I drank SO MUCH paint-thinner when I was pregnant!!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 5:12 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's alright. All women are mendacious, perfidious, malicious whores by nature, so you couldn't have known better.
Does this count as "gay snark"? Add this comment to the list of heterosexual bystanders accused by El Perdido of attempting to use the comments section as a "homosexual hookup" spot.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 5:48 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh, I'm so glad you understand! I tried to put things right myself, but no matter how many times I threw the little shit in a dumpster he just kept finding his way back.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 10:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I suppose the script is about me, but you are the one who has stated as a fact that it exists, and the one that has stated as a fact the contents, so I presume that you know more about it that I do. So tell me about the script! Tell me about myself.
You'll also have to tell me what it would mean to me if you switched your jokes and serious statements around, although if we're being fully honest here, I have no idea when you do one or the other. My assumptions on the nature of your statements are just my attempt to puzzle out your oddly written posts.
If "It smells a little like you're addicted to victimhood here, but it could just be someone hasn't washed their feet in years." isn't supposed to be a reference, then it's just a moderately stupid statement. So I took the high road, and assumed that you intended for it to carry some sort of actual meaning through reference. Don't worry, I won't mistake your statements again like that.
I mean, yes obviously I'm trying to act as your editor - just like you're trying to act as my psychoanalyst. If you're going to make statements of fact about me as you have been, then I want you to at least appear competent while you try. I mean, really, "Bro Diddely"? I can't tell if that's supposed to be an insult, or just what a 50 year old thinks is "cool" these days and you're trying to connect with me. I can't have someone like that explaining the nature of my psyche to me.
Also, while you're at it, tell me:
So. Why do you post this crap?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 11:00 AM | Posted by : | Reply
In summary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeoBp_y1DU4
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 2:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's my fault, everyone. I drank SO MUCH paint-thinner when I was pregnant!!
When playing golf, you stand in the tee box and plunge the ball+tee into the ground, then you step back and address the ball with your chosen driving club. You take a backswing, then start your downswing, then strike the ball, then follow through.
"You" is generic above. If I were speaking of you personally, I would ask: why did you whiff when you swung at the ball?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 2:44 PM | Posted by : | Reply
jonny/el puerco/guido perdito, when can we expect your manifesto?
You'll have to ask Yakov about jonny.
The Spanish Pig says he's gone to the homeland, Vigo to be precise, and will most likely not be using the internet while there.
I have no manifesto, but I'd like to hear you explain what you imagine such a manifesto would have to say, whom it would blame, what it would complain about, et cetera. I'm starting to think you might be talented enough in the duplicity arts to really surprise the audience here with your fabrications regarding what I think, believe, et cetera. Please share.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 2:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I mean, yes obviously I'm trying to act as your editor - just like you're trying to act as my psychoanalyst.
Apparently you can't see that the idea preceding the dash is what gives rise to the erroneous conclusion following the dash. Why do you think that is?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 2:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I mean, really, "Bro Diddely"? I can't tell if that's supposed to be an insult, or just what a 50 year old thinks is "cool" these days and you're trying to connect with me.
None of the above. Hey, how did that happen? You guessed wrongly 3x. Maybe you didn't look at the evidence, or if you did glance quickly and half-attentively, you cherry-picked what it meant and painted a unique "reality" landscape with that selective vision. I can say I've seen these two situations (didn't look at evidence, or looked/concluded only selectively) many times before, and I bet you have even more convoluted explanations for why you were wrong 3 guesses in a row.
One might begin to see arrogance in the pattern of continued wrong guesses on such false confidence grounds. I guess that depends on how holistic the actor's approach once he has learned of his tendency to overlook, ignore, or reinterpret those things which make him uncomfortable for various reasons.
I'm just speaking from experiences I've had with others. I don't pretend to be anyone's analyst or counselor here, so if you're imagining that I am so pretending, maybe that's 4 wrong guesses? The pattern continues, if that's so. What is that telling us?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 2:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I can't have someone like that explaining the nature of my psyche to me.
Perhaps the Psychology Today forums are more suitable for someone of your particular online personality and temperament.
I think maybe a dose of Sam Vaknin might help, though.
Anyway, I'm not "explaining the nature of [your] psyche," but you sure seem attached to the notion that I am. Do you have any thoughts on why that might be?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 3:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh, I'm so glad you understand! I tried to put things right myself, but no matter how many times I threw the little shit in a dumpster he just kept finding his way back.
Obviously you are a matriarchy-promoting heterophobe who is bigoted against Spaniards, and your continued microaggressions without trigger warnings in advance might earn you a few days in the Time Out box. You'll have time to calm down and get your head screwed on straight again, and you'll feel better as a result, we promise.
signed,
The Doctrinaires of Cultural Hypocrisy
we specialize in intolerance and hate
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 3:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Add this comment to the list of heterosexual bystanders accused by El Perdido of attempting to use the comments section as a "homosexual hookup" spot.
An interesting theory. So if you're a heterosexual male, why do you choose to write with such flowery modifiers and why do you rely on passive-aggression? Those classically feminine traits are almost never seen among male heterosexuals when communicating, not even when they are trying to gain sympathy from their GF/fiancee/wife/partner.
Men tend to be direct and blunt, and avoidant or evasive rather than passive-aggressive. If hetero.
So, are you lying about being hetero? Or were you unduly influenced by the past 6-8 years of metrosexualizing (cultural code word for "gay tastemaker influence") in American culture? Or is there some other alternative? This should be one of those "teachable moments", let's not let it go to waste.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 3:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Dear me, splitting up quotes makes them more tedious to address than just responding in a single post you know. Of course you don't actually directly reply either, making me have to return and check the comments rather than getting an automatic email. Are you trying to make this inconvenient for me?
Anyway, I only really need to respond to one. They all more or less say the same thing.
I think that you're trying to analyze me because you show all the signs of trying to do so, from my experience of course.
Telling me for a fact that my life follows a personal script, telling me the contents of that script, telling me that I may have a victimhood complex, and so on and so forth. These kinds of judgements and assumptions have only ever come from a person trying to tell me what I'm thinking, who I am, in my experience. The same thing you accused me of when I referred to you as "vaguely hostile" if you recall. If you aren't pretending to be my doctor, then you're doing a terrible job of pretending you're not.
And why shouldn't I think that you want to analyze me? I mean really, this whole conversation stemmed from one simple question, that you apparently really REALLY don't want to answer. "Why do you post this crap?". Each of your posts has been some kind of attempt to distract from the original question, to make the conversation about me, when it has actually been about you this entire time - I wonder if I've learned anything about you, or if its just some massive intricate projection as you postulate, tell me doctor?
But, since I haven't learned what I actually originally posted to find out, the conversation will continue until you answer, or hide.
So. Why do you post this crap?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 3:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sam Vaknin
Sam Vaknin is a fraud who lies about his qualifications and uses his shallow and anecdotal understanding of narcissism to sell books.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 3:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So. Why do you post this crap?
I like your style. So smart oh so smart. Guess you know a lot about how the world works.
You are so intellectual. Guess you know a lot about science. Do you believe we humans understand any of the many major questions about our universe and existence, about life?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 3:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Telling me for a fact that my life follows a personal script [blather burble bicker ballyhoo]
I didn't tell you anything "for a fact." That's what you imagine.
You don't have to call it a script, that's just a metaphor. Maybe you're a painter and it's your outline sketch. Maybe you're a sculptor and it's the first few whittles or torch-to-metal moments.
You should ask yourself why you are so attached to the notion of an accurate mind-reading ability, and why you think it can be displayed by the ways in which you choose to interpret my comments. Such as, insisting that I've told you "for a fact" something I've never said. It's an odd thing, manipulative, passive-aggressive, arrogant and eager to exclude all possibilities.
Which makes it unscientific, illogical, irrational, and uninquisitive.
As a start.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 3:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh come on! I'm not aiming to make you look bad. I'm your friend.
Even if you're being an unreasonable bully. So, if you are genuine it will be nothing less than great fun!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 3:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This post is probably disingenuous, and probably a sock puppet.
See? I'm learning! I'm not supposed to use definite terms in conversations ever, or else I'm projecting, or psychoanalyzing. I wish I could insert the "The more you know" jingle.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 4:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Sam Vaknin is a fraud who lies about his qualifications and uses his shallow and anecdotal understanding of narcissism to sell books.
That would have been effective if I were Sam Vaknin promoting myself here. It might even be funny.
If Vaknin is a narcissist himself and mostly tells stories of personal experience with his narcissistic mother and his own narcissism arising from coping with her and hers, why is that "shallow and anecdotal"? From the times I read his webpage (maybe 8 years ago?), he doesn't seem shallow, and since "anecdotal" means the same as "gossip" I don't think you're using the word accurately -- unless you have proof that Vaknin made it all up to create a niche and sell books which are almost never bought by anyone.
Maybe he's an entertainer working a line of satire that is beyond your grasp? Would that make him "shallow and anecdotal"? If so, how?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 4:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Noooo no no no. You made it clear previously that stating something in definite terms means that its a statement of fact. Hence why my statement of "vaugely hostile" was an attempt to factually determine the nature of your posts, rather than a personal judgement on my part. You said it yourself:
As I said: keep true to that script you wrote for yourself. Never consider that your assumptions could be in error. After all, you don't know me at all, and thus can't know whether I'm in any particular emotional or thought state, and therefore can't accurately describe as fact the character of my comments and what sorts of menace or disregard you imagine them to contain.
So when you tell me that I'm keeping true to a script I wrote for myself, you aren't making a metaphor - you are making a statement of fact. The same with a statement in this very response: you've told me that I am "attached to the notion of an accurate mind-reading ability". There can be no doubt, within the sphere of rules you have produced to govern our conversation, you are making factual claims about me.
You can't go changing the rules now my boy, we have to stay consistent!
Have you noticed yet?
By the way: So. Why do you keep posting this crap?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 4:14 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Which makes it unscientific, illogical, irrational, and uninquisitive.
So now I know you are religious. Get out of here you nut, leave rational people be. I want progress.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 4:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Sorry about that I'll be more constructive.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 4:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It is easier to exchange information in meatspace. This cyber bs aint my forté.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 4:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Noooo no no no. You made it clear previously that stating something in definite terms means that its a statement of fact.
Feel free to quote me to demonstrate this clear-making I supposedly did.
Or, instead, just draw more conclusions and insist that's "reality".
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 4:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So now I know you are religious. Get out of here you nut, leave rational people be. I want progress.
That bold word trips you up.
Show us how you "know" that I'm "religious" and please, by all means, explain what is my "religion." After all, you know more about me than I do!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 4:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm immensely underwhelmed by the lack of continued discussion of me, my expertise, my skillful mastery of marketing, my confident ambivalence.
Please follow me on twitter: @ggreenwald
for all your civil rights and #Snowden needs.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 4:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
There can be no doubt, within the sphere of rules you have produced to govern our conversation, you are making factual claims about me.
Oh I see. Using a made-up phrase, "sphere of rules you have produced to govern our conversation," which means nothing, you again insist that I'm doing something I'm not intending to do.
I wonder if you think you're being funny with irony. Let me tell you: you're not. Irony is not coincidence. Irony is not an awkward moment. Irony is not you trying poorly at making fun of me by imitating me erroneously. None of that is irony.
You continue to be mindfuckingly creepy in your pretense that you know me and further ruse that you are "embarrassing me" with these conjured realities you've ascribed to me.
When you come back here in 30 days to re-read your imagined brilliance, you're going to have one of those moments where you feel like you were forced out on stage, in the spotlight, completely naked in front of an audience whose approval you desperately want and need.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 4:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I did quote you. It's right in the post you responded to, once again indirectly and inconveniently for me by the way, in the second paragraph.
I stated that your posts are vaguely hostile, and you interpreted it as an attempt to state a fact on my part, rather than the much more likely and typically common personal judgement it would be construed as otherwise.
You have made this same conclusion in other places within our conversation, and in conversations with other posters. Both you and your other self do this quite consistently when responding.
Therefore, in order to acquiesce with your position and allow this to proceed as smoothly as you will allow, I have taken "Statements are Factual Claims" to be a rule of our conversation. I've been doing my all to keep true to it throughout our discussion, however you seem to have consistency issues.
At any rate, you've avoided it yet again, but it will never go away:
So. Why do you post this crap?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 4:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And so you do it again, not only splitting posts in a very inconvenient way, but making factual claims about me.
Tell me, how do you KNOW that I am attempting to embarrass you? And how do you KNOW that I will "come back here in 30 days to re-read [my] imagined brilliance, [I am] going to have one of those moments where [I] feel like you were forced out on stage, in the spotlight, completely naked in front of an audience whose approval [I] desperately want and need."
If I didn't know better, I would call that projection.
Anyway, try for a twofer: So. Why do you post this crap?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 5:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The guy is clearly unwell and I think the best course of action is to ignore him.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 5:14 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This is an impressive string of Internet Butthurt.
"I know you are, but what am I?" is the essence of your complaints, you say the same thing over and over again, imagining you're turning me words against me. Imagining. And concluding the imagination is inerrant.
Which of my remarks insulted you deepest? Or is it that pezbloggy place and the author of that blog you're angry at, but still assuming that attacking me irrationally is the same as getting your revenge on pezblogger?
It seems a lot of stuff has got under your e-identity's skin, and a lot of that hypodermic quality was created by you, as errant interpretations.
The question is, why is it now very like hasbarat? You wouldn't be assuming I'm a secretly Palestinian pseudo-Spaniard, would you? Are you assuming I'm Hamas? Do my natural gas reserves make you drool with profiteering fantasies? Are you nursing the human cultural grudge of the mid-20th century's events regarding your clique, and imagining that all your "enemies" exist wherever your fever-fugue-dreams tell you?
Whatever the case, you're acting like a 70-year-old grudge is at stake here.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 5:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I did quote you. It's right in the post you responded to, once again indirectly and inconveniently for me by the way, in the second paragraph.
You didn't quote me "making it clear" that I was creating "facts" out of ether.
So, feel free to do that -- well, "whenever," as your clique likes to put it. Passive-aggressive, snarky, superior, confident, and wrong. The winning combination!
You truly are immensely important and terribly vital. You're also frighteningly sociopathic, maddeningly heterophobic, chiffon-and-lacedly decadent in a baroque fashion. Yes, you are inside baseball itself. Probably a catcher, as you like the view from there, and like what it says about you, symbolically.
Yes, without question you are a prize specimen. I'm sure your mirror agrees.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 5:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hehehehe, a 70 year old grudge? I'm shaking the cage of a strange person on the internet and getting entertaining results. I can type almost anything, and you'll still post a bizarre series of contradictory or hypocritical claims, all the while keeping a straight face. I got you to go off on american politics for goodness sake, and I could have milked that one for ages if I cared about them.
The fact that you can't see how the claims and judgements you make about others so readily apply to yourself doesn't make them inaccurate, it just shows you don't realize how poorly you're communicating. I don't even think you're actually trying to be clever, but it really comes off like you are - and that you're terrible at it. Look at the entire fifth paragraph, is that even supposed to mean anything? Its just a list of what I can only assume are references to something, written in an accusatory (IN MY OPINION) tone.
Here I'll make you a trade - I'll give you "Why I post this crap" if you give me yours.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 5:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You "shook my cage"?
If you imagine you're causing something, then that effect was caused! By you!
It's the best. Really superior!
I remember you, back in kindergarten: Made ya doooooo it! Made ya do it!
You thought I concluded that you truly had that power, and your conviction of superiority could not be moved, not a millimeter.
What is it you're making me do? What is my mental state now? Show us the power of your telepathy!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 5:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Your mental state? Its the mental state of a person who actually posted this:
You truly are immensely important and terribly vital. You're also frighteningly sociopathic, maddeningly heterophobic, chiffon-and-lacedly decadent in a baroque fashion. Yes, you are inside baseball itself. Probably a catcher, as you like the view from there, and like what it says about you, symbolically.
And was serious.
I don't think you understand, I'm not trying to trick you into doing something, or make you look the fool. I'm walking up, poking you in the ribs, and stepping back to see what kind of reaction you have. And you have a lot of reactions.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 5:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
And was serious.
If that's what you need to tell yourself, please do it as often as your self-concept/self-image requires. I wouldn't want reality to intrude upon your fantasy. I'll help you shield that ego from all indicia of reality if it will let you continue thinking that your mind-reading has been perfected.
I will then suggest you take that talent on the road. You could sell yourself as a cultural critic, you could "read" people you've never met just by seeing their facebook page, their tweets, their instagram, their internet commentary. For maximum fiscal return, be partisan, and passive-aggressively shrill. For maximum ego return, be sub-niche-partisan and play to your clique within the partisan group. Like male feminists, or angry lesbians, or sheepish polite Asians trying to assimilate. Whichever best describes you, work that sub-niche for maximum ego boost.
But you may want to go for more profit, in which case you'll lose some of your core constituency as you "sell out" to broaden your message. I wonder, do you have experience with that sort of practice?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 6:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hahahaha, see? I type whatever I want and I get three paragraphs in return, more if you decide to actually read my full comment and need to react to something else in it with another post.
The best part is the last two paragraphs are basically devoid of content - they're just something you've included for reasons I will likely never understand.
You've just attached yourself to the idea that I think I can read you, and everything I say will feed into that - even this very sentence - justifying more and more words, and more and more "repartee" by you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 6:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So if I have already decided to type as much as I feel like typing, in order to make whatever statements I may want to make, it's not actually my decision to type a comment -- but rather, it's your telepathy making me do it?
Fascinating.
What if I am fixated on a minimum of 3 paragraphs regardless of whose comment I'm addressing? Say I am keen on the number 3 for some reason. You're asserting that you got into my noggin long ago and established that fixation through the sheer force of your telepathic will?
I'm astounded. What else can you do? Did you succeed in turning dirt into gold, or sand into oil? How about turning lies into reality?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 6:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I love seeing someone's festering wound revealed to the world. You didn't even smell that dying tissue? It didn't alert you to some problem, maybe?
Perhaps I should have been a plastic surgeon who specializes in repairing seriously infected tissue reconstruction, instead of a nobody on the internet, in whose commentary certain internet posters invest far too much of their own energies, nursing grudges for decades, never letting go, becoming identified with that grudge.
It would suck to be that person, stuck in a grudge arising from a comment which, with at least 99% certainty, wasn't even intended as a real injury-producer and quite possibly wasn't even directed at the grudge-holder. Of course none of that matters in a grudge. Grudges are not about reality. They are about how in the aftermath you coped with an event, or series of events, which occurred in reality. You could not possibly have earned any kind of comic remark sent your way, let alone an insult, let alone a real attempt to do physical harm to you.
Reality doesn't matter. You've got the grudge. And it feels so good to nurse it!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 6:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And again! Yes, I am telepathic, I can read your mind, you believe it - so it must be true.
Get it?
Why are you so fixated on that, by the way?
You can't be that keen on the number three, you posted four paragraphs this time, and in the one following. And how am I asserting that I've gotten into your head, and that I'm influencing you to post so much? You're doing this all on your own, I'm just here for the ride. I supply the action, you supply the reaction. The reaction is all I want, content can be whatever you want.
I suppose I'm influencing you in as much as I'm making you react, by acting, if that's what you mean.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 7:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I am shocked at how you can read my mind. As I type this comment, a voice in my head is saying,
"some person you don't know and who doesn't know you, but who is somehow injured by your internet commentary, is forcing you to type this right now, as you're typing it, and you have no control over the matter. He or she owns you, and you've never done a single thing autonomously in your life. Furthermore, your Controlling Anonymous Internet Spectre is not only a mind reader and telepathic manipulator of you, but also is a scholar of human psychology, an aficionado of brazilian sausage, a civil rights expert, past President of the Exclusive Acres Activist Federation, an e-journalist, a professor of psychiatry at Winged Id Sanitorium and College, the inventor of the electron, the discoverer of reality as we know it, and God himself (or herself, if you are inclined that way)."
It's amazing what you can do, Controlling Anonymous Internet Spectre. You should use this skill for a higher human good, like eradicating Israel or killing Sarah Palin or mounting a PR campaign that proves Lindsey Graham once had a beard.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 30, 2014 8:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And there you go reading my mind again - "somehow injured", and even after I tried to explain it. Are we having a mind battle from your perspective? Can I be Jean Grey?
This is what I do at work instead of surfing porn. I pick some forum, a side on said forum, and I have at it. I've argued gun laws in a country (yours I think) that I don't even know about, just for entertainment. You just presented such a massive target. It started with an eye roll on my part "Why do you post this crap *fnar *fnar, *sip of Starbucks, *back to reading post after post", and then you just kept responding and responding and I realized that I could milk this as long as I wanted. See you tomorrow?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 31, 2014 11:13 AM | Posted by : | Reply
This is what I do at work instead of surfing porn.
By all reports, ADL lets you surf hot Israeli porn of whatever gender you prefer when you bump. They figure that if they can get your libido worked up, your posting will be more effective.
So, how many people do you have on your e-Stalking List?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 31, 2014 12:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
E-Stalking? None. The list of people I can play for entertainment is about three, four if you count myself. Five if you count the other you.
It is kind of cute, though, that you think you rate high enough on my scale of attention to count as a stalkee.
I think my favorite part of your posts in is that you always put in what I generally assume is some kind of mangled quip. I mean really, "Hot Israeli porn of whatever gender you want"? That line is so clumsy and ill conceived I have no idea what you're even trying to imply - it may as well be a series of random words.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 31, 2014 1:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You go right ahead and keep telling yourself you're my boss/editor/mentor/superior.
Okay, that I can manage.
Remember, your view is the only view, and whoever sees the world differently is WRONG. Otherwise, how can you be RIGHT?
I like it when you capitalize the keywords for me. Too much text tend to be confusing. Thank you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 31, 2014 1:43 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Freddy is proving what his PhD will demonstrate: snark flambe under multiple handles, using the "I know you are but what am I?" theme to equicide ends.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 31, 2014 2:21 PM | Posted by : | Reply
No snarkiness here. Just relaxing, watching tv and thinking out loud. Actually I was addressing black/white thinking realize being too colorful. So, therefore I was thinking you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 31, 2014 2:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
On its way to the screen, so much information is lost. It's a disadvantage, on the other hand you do get full control of how it is presented, editing capability that is.
I'm not sure how I feel about it. Should I feel something particular about it, or should I think it through? What's the difference?
What's up with this comment section anyway. A thousand comments. I hope it is time due to turn a new page, soon.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 31, 2014 2:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
when can we expect your manifesto?
Working on it right now. Not in a concrete technical sense I should say. It's art you know. People underestimate how much practice it takes to raise a pinky and whoohoo be done with it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 31, 2014 3:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It start with gestures.
Recognition.
As a infant, I realized the location of my eyes by observing the blackout as my hands....
But I don't remember realizing how it corresponded to other people, I mean how did I come to understand where _their_ eyes were. How could I be sure? The eyes could be for hearing.
And what about the time frame? Learning the basics, so slow. I'm not impressed.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 31, 2014 3:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It starts with breathing. Touching. Skin contact. And light.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 31, 2014 3:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It must have been the same principles all the way, right?
Principles or principle? Anyone?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 31, 2014 3:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh no!
I'm WRONG.
It doesn't start with breathing. Nor skin contact, nor light.
But it's not very helpful merely pointing out what is wrong, I need to know what is RIGHT. I have a disorder making me sensitive to colors. Obsessed with black and white thinking although I rarely get agitated emotionally except when being in the vicinity of a woman smelling you right now should be impossible at distance except when creativity dictate reality.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 31, 2014 3:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Theorem I.
"learning" must imply the possibility for failing, at least short term.
Corollary II. (never investigated the difference although I'm perfectly able to talk like I know the difference, I don't)
Interaction, communication. Do I communicate with the environment? Don't like the sound of it. Discarded. Learning alone, simply by interacting with the environment.
Hmm. What if you are surrounded by life? Alone, or not?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 31, 2014 3:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
How about animals?
Obviously, there are overlapping features for how humans and animals learn, but what about differences?
Do we have an additional layer, emerging property or whatever? When do that hypothetical layer manifest itself?
I'm OCD so merely the idea of something hypothetical sort of freak me out. Imagine investing your soul into something and later on you discover that it was only a theory. I'm an insecure person and need certainty and confidence, both emotionally and intellectually.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 1, 2014 1:51 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"I don not deny or minimize sexism"??? Dr. Christian Ballas, a storm is coming. Sixty years of 'women's lib' gender war on civilization... Men have finally showed up...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySMVtRmQl1Y&list=UUDoNFQZqQpd6aL32Ua4JPTQ
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 5, 2014 3:30 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Believe that my tendency to dramatize has produced language which may have created images in your mind that shouldn't be there.
Using words as "prophet" or "revelation" may direct your attention to concepts which by no means make justice to truth. I realize that this behavior is damaging and generally unhealthy.
It's not that I'm unwilling to pushing this message further, but I don't think it will serve any of us.
My lessons:
- It's best to err on the safe side.
- Emotions rule the moment.
- Think more. Establish a more solid frame.
It is anonymous but still - few things are more foolish than attempting to be your own witness. Right?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 5, 2014 3:50 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Or perhaps it's worse, that it is about wanting to be something.
I really don't know. Wish I had a better understanding of people, that is me, you, us. I'll tell if something useful materialize.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 5, 2014 4:42 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Make no mistake on this and do not twist these words - may lightning strike you.
Not sure how much analysis this need.
- Who am I to say what you should do or not?
I can give recommandations based on what I'm learning, thats it.
- No, I'm not into weather forecasting either.
Why didn't I address it until now? It would have been say easier to do it right away. I believe this thread contain plenty of comments suggesting it, but I didn't understand, didn't receive what was sent - why not?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 5, 2014 5:04 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't want to be like this, but truth is that I tend to ignore some pieces of information and promote others.
It's my desires. Generally speaking I'm not conscious of what's driving me, my actions and my speech.
I believe in focus on emotional development, becoming more aware on what exactly I'm feeling and why, and in time develop command of the moment.
It doesn't means to put my emotions to rest, not at all - far from it. It's about building a proper framework of expression, and discipline.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 5, 2014 11:57 AM | Posted by : | Reply
to anyone:
it has been becoming clear for a while that the comment-style of this blog is a barrier to productive discussion. it seems that alone disabled the upvoting/downvoting to try and bandaid the problem, but the issue goes too deep.
i don't think this is off-topic because: first, the article deals with the usefulness of anonymity on the internet; second, as a few personas have pointed out, narcissism is wreaking havoc on the comments section.
given the plausibility of alone's diagnosis of the modern psyche, what styles of forum/user architecture might facilitate healthier discourse?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 5, 2014 11:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The comments section structure is perfectly fine except for the fact that there's no way to look at a post and see a link to everyone who responded to it. That would be my only gripe.
If anything, the layout is much better than the clusterfuck that is the Reddit layout.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 6, 2014 3:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I wish it were completely anonymous. That way only discourse would matter. No attacking or defending a few of our commentators. Their ideas would be considered or derided for their worth.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 6, 2014 4:08 PM | Posted by : | Reply
In the army everyone is anonymous. They are all the same. They fight for freedom, don't you know? A good soldier is a dead one.
Todays libertarianism read communism to me. What we need is more militarism.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 6, 2014 4:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm scared. Wish I could be sent to a training facility to become more of fundamentalist, more extreme.
Growing up in a modern society has made me nuanced. That is truly horrific and threatening to my integrity. I'm prepared to undertake any measures to prevent opposition to libertarianism.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 6, 2014 4:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Merely thinking it (won't even mention the fact that you wrote it) disqualify you from having relevant opinions pertaining to contemporary feminism. I won't have it. No-one and nothing is going to stop me from becoming an extremist. It is my sincere hope, that in the future our justice system will incorporate new knowledge within neuroscience to prosecute all criminals, not just guilty ones. Furthermore I wish this system to be fully automated, making us safe from the terror of malpractice.
Feminism need to embrace the possibilities current technology provide. I militantly oppose anyone against progress.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 7, 2014 11:30 AM | Posted by : | Reply
So much for this blog. So long, TLP.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 7, 2014 12:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Just go back and read any article > 2 years old. There are plenty of productive discussions in past articles. And in those newer articles: the first 50 to 100 posts are pretty good for that too!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 9, 2014 9:03 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Only 186 more comments before we beat the all-time record for comments on an article on this God-forsaken site. We can do it! Come on somebody, say something that I think Guido Perdido thinks to possibly be narcissistic and get this thing rolling.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 9, 2014 4:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Eagerly waiting your next article.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 10, 2014 2:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Stay behind the steering wheel, partner.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 11, 2014 4:05 AM | Posted by : | Reply
What's even more comfortable when you are entertaining after a day of hard work.
friv 3
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 12, 2014 10:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I found a few utube vidios about eliot rodger-
"how to avoid being killed by someone like eliot rodger" was the best so far.
He was bullied i guess. But the diagnosis in the video makes complete sense. I looked them all up. Got the book too.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 15, 2014 12:12 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
eally LP? Nothing for over 3 months? we could use a little insight.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 15, 2014 10:21 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Do you read the posts? They're not about you. Everything's not about you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 16, 2014 3:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Don't tell. It's for the best.
Discover.
Nothing new. Seen it before.
Tired of old. The past. What used to be.
It's not discovered. It's told.
Over and over again. Nothing new?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 19, 2014 11:07 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I can put on some shiny armor and swing a sword, chopping off heads to go and spew fire on dragons. All it takes, is to not care.
If you don't care, you're invincible.
Or, all it takes, is focus on things to despise and hate.
If I hate enough, I'm invincible.
Nothing get me off balance.
What kind of war is it, that you secretly wish was yours?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 19, 2014 11:27 AM | Posted by : | Reply
You, you filthy worthless little worm.
You will be clubbed to death the moment your head sticks out of my ass. You will surely be annihilated.
(one second later)
Friend. I love you! Always have. We can start wearing clothes, and dine together. You was right, I was wrong. I'm so sorry.
Explanation:
Something happened. It took more than a second, and you are guilty at rewriting history but it doesn't matter. Nothing matter except that it will be okay.
Pardon my language. I should have written - I'm so angry right now -but it's too late for that. It's just a front anyway, so as long as I tell you - you'll be alright. Don't think it over. Let someone think for you. Let me. Relax now. Lower your defenses. Peeeeaaacccee.
PS: don't read too much into it. I'll post something later which will be more suitable for interpretations. Stay tuned!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
August 31, 2014 1:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I want The Last Psychiatrist to come back.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 3, 2014 12:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
maybe TLP was really Robin Williams? and he obviously won't be posting anything new.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 3, 2014 3:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Well to be fair, if she didn't like the dark knight there probably is something wrong with her.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 3, 2014 7:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises? One of best movies ever.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 4, 2014 7:35 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Allright. I admit it. I miss you, this seems like such a lonely place without you. Sure there are others but they leave me feeling superior and dumb, you made me feel smart and undeserving.
Darling I miss you and am willing to make the sacrifices necessary.
And if there's nothing you want from me.
Frankly. I'm willing to pay.
That doesn't cheapen what we have, does it?
Please.
I don't mind sharing.
Never did.
Just come back to us TLP
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 4, 2014 12:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I miss you so much Alone please come back PPLEASE
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 4, 2014 6:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If I report your post will you die?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 4, 2014 8:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Silly lyrics, but decent music and therefore an alright band.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 5, 2014 6:16 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It would be extremely narcissistic.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 5, 2014 5:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
WTF kind of name is WTF?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 5, 2014 6:56 PM | Posted by : | Reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Cw1ng75KP0
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 6, 2014 10:08 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I NEVER CARED UNTIL I MET YOU!
AND NOW IT CHILL ME TO THE BONE --
HOW DO I GET YOU ALONE?
HOW DO I GET YOU, ALONE?
ALONE?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 9, 2014 12:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
face-box -> Maxim: This is how women are told what men want
Larger box -> US Weekly: This is how women are told how to want.
In other words, Maxim tells women that men want women to look like that.
US Weekly tells women that women want to look like what men want them to look like.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 9, 2014 4:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You should read this ebook I found, Fraud in Mental health by the therapist. Some therapist is outing personality disorders- i think 60%, getting disability so social workers can make their productivity (keep their gov. jobs). LA times just had an article that at lest 50% of veterans are malingering for disability.
Found the book looking at
Eliot Rodger retribution biggest 3 psych diagnosis on youtube
Book is blowing my mind!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 10, 2014 1:29 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The more people receiving disability and other social programs means the less money available for war.Why countries with universal med care etc don't go to war as easily as we do.War is a way to transfer tax money to munitions manufacturers.Why it's good for the economy.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 10, 2014 9:04 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My guess is someplace where he/she won't be budging from until some cash ends up in the TLP donation ciborium. (Paypal)
I don't know TLP of course, but anyone doing work that is clearly thought-provoking deserves to have the readership chip in for dinner or drinks.
If you can do it, then go on and do it.
Don't trust the link ^above^ or it happens to be inactive? There is a clickable button on the right tab above "Categories." You have to page down a bit, though.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 10, 2014 3:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Anyone trying to fill the hole left by Alone, here's a (much less angry) blog in the same vein
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 11, 2014 6:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Anyone trying to fill the hole left by Alone, here's a (much less angry) blog in the same vein
You mean to say
here's a blog, I wish it were in the same vein but it's not even in the same body, let alone the same household, much less the same town.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 12, 2014 10:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
in other words.... please read my shitty blog, which is no where near as good as this one, but since TLP has abandoned you, my bottom of the heap piece of shit site might finally get some traffic.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 13, 2014 9:21 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Looks promising.
If it's insight into the American soul you want, 28sherman is another good place to look.
http://28sherman.blogspot.com/
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 14, 2014 2:21 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That blog you linked to is frustrating, but shows some promise. Some posts are well-written (stylistically) (the recent ones more so) while others read like high school essays at points (yeah my writing sucks, but that's not the point--stop looking at me!). There's blatant racism in quite a few posts, coupled with BS implications that the author is (was?) not really racist. There's also some weird casual sexism in some posts, more noticeable at some points than others. I think the author should stay more within whatever their specialty or knowledge base is, and try to work through their prejudice (I believe TLP has used his blog to work through/transcend prejudice, with some amazing results). I believe the blog you linked to has the potential to become a good, or at least decent, conservative-wonk blog, and perhaps it's on its way there already.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 14, 2014 2:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Did I really just use the word "some" 3 times in one sentence? I should've replaced the first instance with "this," or something. But my points still stand.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 14, 2014 3:02 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The more people receiving disability and other social programs means the less money available for war.
The US is $88 trillion in debt (five times the annual GDP). You may be a little confused about how macroeconomics and geopolitics intertwine. If you spend as much as the US spends on their military, who is going to foreclose? And how, exactly?
The more people receiving payment from somebody means the more money you must make available for war. The last time the US fought a war game at home, their opponents were the US. Social welfare is the biggest mistake the world has ever made. "Let them eat cake" is madness. They are not entitled to eat bread, let alone cake. They refuse work. They just breed leeches.
"The rich get richer and the poor get -- children." (F. Scott Fitzgerald)
Men continually screw up in negotiations with terrorists when they enter into negotiations with terrorists. You cannot deter malice by rewarding it. Children warrant investment, they are never the beneficiaries of welfare / charity. Poor is a euphemism for whore. Think about it, how else can you be born into poverty? What kind of woman breeds life she cannot provide for? Women invest their youths in making sure men treat them Right (like a whore, for the same reason) and they breed hostages for hijack when men start treating younger women Right. These illegitimate mothers make children attached to ensure needless suffering if separated. Men prevented from rescuing children enter into negotiations. Morons.
Hijackers make shitty mothers and not just because they're not bluffing, children suffer and die when men cannot save them (at a rate of 29,000 toddlers / day presently, primarily baby girls as women hate competition). Women gamed by their mother's traumatic shaming and malicious lies of entitlement imagine perfidy is cunning. They only Know Best how to betray Their Own.
"Somebody needs to pay for all my children, all our suffering. Somebody needs to be held accountable. Somebody needs to pay." (American mother of 15, unemployed) [ youtu.be/RBqjZ0KZCa0 ]
Somebody needs to pay for women to have sex and if you think about it, there's never been another reason for wars. Women selling favour = Somebody needs to pay. Men can slave to pay for whores or they can fight leeching wars. I don't know what people imagine wars are needed for but men don't die for fun. If there were no whores, there could be no wars > this is a logical proof.
311 million Americans and 252 million need somebody to pay. The more people receiving payment from somebody means the more money available for war. Can't afford it? Need doesn't care.
Need doesn't work. Even worse, need needs need (to feel productive). Need didn't work. It was never going to work. There's nobody left to pay. Every nation is in debt. Toddler Whore armies spread women's biopolitics across the globe. I've been all over, only entitled leeches remain. Somebody needs to pay.
Everyone has paid, for their entire lives, in ways they can't begin to fathom. The invoice for prostitutes entitled to children's cake was paid for 6000 years straight. Stop paying. Let them eat shit.
"That ain't workin' That's the way you do it Get your money for nothin' Get your dicks for free."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 14, 2014 3:11 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I like this, Nikita! I'd love to see how your blog develops. I commented on the post about Instagram. I see seymourblogger also found her way to your blog and left some interesting comments, 2 of which I know you've had the pleasure of seeing! :)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 14, 2014 9:37 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
@johnnycoconut - Hey, I'm the writer of 28sherman. I freely admit writing is not my strength (always my weak spot in school). Thanks for the feedback on a blog I run as a mental release. Racism? Like I give a shit. Work thru prejudice? That sounds lioe ocial worker lady talk. Feel free to comment if moved to and read if interested.
@ciarog - Thanks for the rec. Much appreciated.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 14, 2014 4:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"how to avoid being killed by someone like eliot rodger" was the best so far. He was bullied i guess. But the diagnosis in the video makes complete sense.
So you're staying away from girls now, Ethen? From the video:
The more people understand the criteria of the two most dangerous personality disorders, Antisocial and Narcissistic personality disorder, the better they can be at avoiding these people and saving their lives.Common indicators of personality disordered thinking and behaviours are:
1. A refusal to work.
2. Rigid thinking style and behaviours that aren't helping a person have a better life.
3. These individuals see themselves as victims and identify as victims of others and the world.
4. They have an attitude that nothing is good enough and they make others feel they're not doing enough for them.
5. They seem to always be in crisis or surrounded by drama.
6. They chronically complain yet reject what is needed to change their thinking, beliefs or behaviours.
7. People with personality disorders refuse to change and no one can make them change.
That criteria describes the personality of the vast majority of the Young-girls in the world. His diagnosis is redundant as everyone in Polite Society is antisocial, by definition. Oh you tell yourself your lies are for others, but your malice isn't valued by your victims. You tell yourself lies aren't malicious, but your denial isn't valued by your victims. Deny your denial and you're in recursion. It is not possible to function in Polite Society unless you valued being nice at the expense of being honest or true to your Self.
"If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything (true) at all."
Everyone who functions in Polite Society is antisocial, by definition. The joke is that they don't see their antisocial conduct as antisocial because their antisocial mothers played their generic reversal trick of violent persuasion. *Abracadabra!* Antisocial (deceit) became social (nice) and social (honesty) became antisocial (rude). With violence, nonsense is common sense.
Rodger Elliot felt entitled to women's love for the same reason women feel entitled to husbands; they deserve it after suffering to please lecherous mothers. But suffering to please retired whores cum mothers has no merit. Girls suffer to preserve their virtue for sale to men who have no use for their virtuous lies. How can men benefit from the obstruction of biology? What can you merit by contriving "difficulty" in fear of being "easy"? What do men gain from female objectification? Women who undress to impress are an automatic liability. Why the fuck are they dressed?
Women merely appear to represent value by concealing what men had no interest in prior. But does gift-wrapping liability make it valuable? Women are a Trojan Horse, it's brazen fraud. Call it a hunch, but securing their fraudulent gains will require binding, bonds, ties...marriage? WedLOCK would indeed lock in the proceeds from fraud, at least Until Death Do You Part. To imagine women are the victims of domestic violence would make you an imbecile. It's violent provocation to refuse to leave when your presence is not welcome. Women employ fraud to induce men's interest in concealed liability and then get fooled by the illusion (of being valued) created by their fabricated illusion (of value).
"Hi I'm Tom."
"Hi."
"What's your name?"
"Diamond Mercedes."
"That's your real name?"
"You don't deserve my real."
If some men are willing to deserve her, is it all that wrong to sell? Yes, she's stupidly penalising herself by screening out men who don't need to grovel (cream of the barrel), saving herself for groveling men (bottom of the barrel). But what if giving it up for free to random guys could get a girl shamed, hated or...killed?
That would be our reality.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
September 14, 2014 5:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I've only read a few posts but this 28sherman guy is pretty sharp.
These women willingly put up with this garbage because the guy has them believing they are the loser in the relationship. Both are, but she feels she is the loser who cannot find better.
What Women Want is what everyone wants, someone too good for them (as defined by their internal value system). You can make yourself too good for most women just by getting a job and not needing to wear cosmetics, but women don't care. Humans measure the relative worth of others by our own values and never by the values of others. As the neutralised competition of Society's mothers and wives, girls value predation, fraud, manipulation, exploitation, playing hard to get, bullying, cruelty and sadistic power plays.
An obnoxious, infantile, aggressive, abusive, emotionally degraded bully - who'll take candy from a baby because he can - is very appealing to girls (so bullied, they can't show their face in public). Girls are looking to imprint onto (perceived) strength, a rule-breaker. For an extreme example: Ted Bundy's female fans.
This species is so reduced. Power and strength are not displayed by the need to display - anyone can take candy from a baby, needing to isn't strong or powerful. Power and strength is displayed by lack of need / desire / abuse. This is irrefutable logic, in need you are the slave of whomever controls access to the resource you need (or imagine you need). All need is weak. Lack of need is strong. But women don't care...so men don't either.
"The Young-Girl brings all greatness down to the level of her ass." (Tiqqun)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 14, 2014 6:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
jonny, link your blog again. I forgot what it's called/how to get to it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 14, 2014 7:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes you are logically right about social programs vs war but since the budget discussions are fabricated anyway huge monies for social programs will have to be discussed as well as war. War is profitable for certain industries and for keeping young men occupied for a few years to burn off the testosterone. That used to kill them in the olden days and get rid of second,3rd,4th sons who could inherit nothing and so were cut loose to cause mischief.
I have missed you as I think of things to say to you. Just finished reading Shirley Temple's autobiography and you will find much in there to marvel over her brilliance as a 3 and 4 and 5 year old child.
I used to think of her as a child who was victimized. But she was consummately aware of everything going on on sets.She was sexed as a female, gendered as male in mind and body and masquerading as sexy female by age 3. She was as Graham Greene nailed her, a seductress. His mistake was in accusing the industry for doing it to her. She knew the game, perfected flirting until an adult when it didn't work so well for her masquerade.She is even raped and writes it. One ofthe studio lechers among many who were after her as a married teen escorted her to her compartment on the publicity train and she made a mistake letting him. When they got to her door, she unlocked it and he slammed her inside,locked the door on her. She writes, "Good God! I thought.I'm going to be raped!"
End of chapter. White page to bottom. No more mention of it.
She does not describe it in excruciating detail making it into a soap opera, nor does she assume victimhood. She does what she always did. She doesn't look back and moves on. I do not see her as a woman nor a man. Just a person. She had a magnificent intelligence that makes one wonder who she might have become and what she might have done.She never sentimentalizes either.Really startling to read it. Her encounter playing croquet with the great Orson Welles is worth the price of the book in what it reveals about Welles's marvelous brilliance and also hers. His recognition of her (she's 3 or 4)as a person. He sees right into her singularity and responds to that in her. She doesn't get it though. She has no intuition nor imagination. Reading that book through Young Girl seriously would be to touch bottom to all this.
Link to your blog please.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 14, 2014 9:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
does anyone even bother to read jonny's virgin rage posts anymore or is he just yelling into the metaphorical void
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 14, 2014 10:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No. No one does. Not at all. Not even you, with that apparent appeal for approval and all. NO NON NIHIL (NICHIL) NEGATORY NEVER NOT NULLIFIED NI NEE NAO NIE NE NAHI NEM NE NEJ NU NIET NIEN.
Feel free to share your feelings, though. In all probability said feelings mean a great to jonny, as it were--though I may not speak for him, notwithstanding.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 14, 2014 11:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
go to bed, jonny
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 14, 2014 11:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
With all this blog talk, why not start up a new "Partial Objects" type collective (multiple authors on one blog)?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 14, 2014 11:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I thought everyone who knew about this place and Partial Objects was aware of Postmodernize but maybe not. This might be what you're looking for:
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 15, 2014 12:21 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I had seen the site referenced and may have checked it out once or twice, but did not realize I could submit posts. I guess I'll finish up these Word drafts then.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 15, 2014 7:44 PM | Posted by : | Reply
i hope we didnt make tlp leave by being retards
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 16, 2014 1:25 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If I ruled the world, I would probably first and foremost attempt to be a global scale woman pleaser, unfortunately. I'm weak and I need help.
All need is weak, by definition. The need for power displays weakness. Strength is displayed by the absence of need (strength never needs to display
Every powerbroker on the planet needs the house-builders on their side. Massa can't give birth. Massa can't build power. But pleasing women will never get them on your side. Where did "nice guys" finish? There's one way to get house-builders on your side:
Exodus 1:12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew.
The more you afflict humans, the more they will suffer to please you. Reverse engineer that truth to learn why humans suffer. In one very important way (reality), humans oppress themselves when they deny their betrayal > accept capacity to betray. Denial (lying to Self) betrays Self. "Think Positive!" = denial / delusion.
"Ain't I A Woman?" (Sojourner Truth on gender inequality, 1851)
"I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?"
Who breeds 13 children on a plantation where hungry slaves get the lash? Wrong question. The Right question is why are slaves starved and beaten? The Answer is [for their capacity to betray children]. Sojourner Truth's children weren't "sold off to slavery", they were born into slavery and sold off by her to Massa for $0 + benefits (like, the authority to exploit Her Own man / children). By definition, slaves cannot perceive themselves as slaves. Slaves who can are slaves no longer. They're chained by illusions (lies).
Freed from fear > Freedom. What are your fears? Help your Self.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 16, 2014 3:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jonny, link your blog again.
http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com
I can't write but that's more unfortunate for this world than I, as I'm nearly free. There is a lot of truth people are blind to, I do the best I can flying blind, I can't see myself but that's more reliable than mirrors. My premise is as rude as it gets in Polite Society. People who aren't offended by child porn, gratuitous sexual violence or even snuff films and offended and disgusted by my repetitive truth and that should be a clue (they're not looking for).
When I suspect I'm blind, I look to contradictions for clues. To conceal is easy, concealing the need to conceal is incredibly hard.
"If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself." (George Orwell)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 16, 2014 7:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
When I suspect I'm blind, I look to contradictions for clues. To conceal is easy, concealing the need to conceal is incredibly hard.This is great. In fact, Jonny, you say a lot of true things. I still think one of your premises is wrong, but I'm pretty sure you'll come around: women are people, too, with a consciousness not inherently different from men. It's the culture that is corrupted, and it's so because of capitalism.
I know you and Abbey seem to talk, but I don't know what kind of resources you've seen. Tiqqun, yes, and that was good. This is better:
http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/sohn_rethel_epistemology.html
See the light. This is, I swear, the definitive account of epistemology. Everything about our culture is right there. It's an abomination that this is so obscure.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 16, 2014 7:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
^ Ignore the extended blockquote.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 16, 2014 10:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Quite new to this site (And to psychiatry in general)
So Alone's point was, I gather, that even if Sexism/Racism/whatever is a problem that most people who post about it on blogs/social media/media in general aren't actually doing anything to stop these things, they are just doing it for self validation and peer approval. Correct?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 17, 2014 6:00 AM | Posted by : | Reply
This reads like it's being screamed at a flock of pigeons.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 17, 2014 8:01 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I never found such a great and amazing content and fabulous solution to my problem.......really giving a different idea in applying ideas in planning a systematic way. thank you !
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 18, 2014 10:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Generally speaking, people that used to be bullied and know how to retaliate.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 19, 2014 12:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Is the Self totally separate from whatever you take to be "not the Self", the inauthentic personality people adopt?
Completely separate. We are violently forced to adopt the inauthentic personality to please whomever has a problem with toddlers asexual "privates" in public (capture-bonding abuse). Prior to surrendering our Self to our disapproving abusers, we're selfish, comfortable in our skin, oblivious to the image we project, how we look or appear, oblivious to the glare of those watching.
Mothers who need life of Their Own didn't bring us here for our sake. We exist to suffer to please her, to role play, to assist her false image she intends to project. Toddlers push back on imposition, rebellious conduct only violence can correct. The battle of wills is a mismatch that can only end in selfless love.
When the toddler's Self is forfeited, it's a protection mechanism (Stockholm Syndrome). The toddler suppresses Selfish concern for their own interests in favour of Selfless concern for the abuser. The trauma fuses the toddler's perception of Self with the abuser, eroding the toddler's Self who will now consider others before indulging themselves. Unable to validate internally, the toddler is now dependent on the external validation of the abuser.
Is one or both conscious?
The suppressed Self is unconscious. The false image projected is conscious, obsessively so. In time, the narcissist child will conflate image with identity, becoming the false image they project.
If they don't communicate, then how is it possible to differentiate?
Self is about motive. Self serves our interests. Without Self, we're vulnerable to disapproval (manipulation). Self of girls is horribly eroded, to the point where they don't always know why they're doing things or for whom they're doing them. Some examples:
* A girl rejecting a proposal, "I really want to...but I can't."
* A girl late for a date explains she was fixing makeup for you.
* A married woman wearing cosmetics to feel good about herself.
* A girl conceals her STD to avoid making you think poorly of her.
"This above all: To thine own self be true. And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man." (Shakespeare)
Because if you're true to your Self, you have no need to impress anyone. Every you do will be done for you. Selfless women frame everything as a favour; sex, marriage, motherhood, childbirth, lies, shame, abuse, everything they do is for you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 20, 2014 11:37 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I hope you do break free, Jonny. If you do, can you say how you got there? You say a lot of things I think are wrong, and a lot of things I have no idea if I agree with, but there are a lot of times when you speak something profound, even if it's not your literal words but a sense or feeling behind them. Also, I may have seen your poker winnings page--seems pretty successful to me.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 20, 2014 5:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Please correct me, but I have been grossly misinterpreting a lot of things, first and foremost your attitude towards society. Frankly speaking I'm still not sure what to make out of your texts. Many of them seem so fitting. Right into it. Guess it serve to show me at what heights we can be fooled by our mind.
Isn't that one of Alones favorite themes, how man fool himself? I've often felt that narcissism is merely a starting point for Alone, that his real project is liberation. I believe he will live to see success, but enough about that.
I wonder, if liberation will take a different form then expected - would he be able to see it? Or would he see it but still reject it? I'm unsure of how I myself would react, that is - if I didn't know.
In any case. I value Alone and have an poorly founded belief in that he will play a role in a project for liberation. I don't know. He sort of excel at not personalizing an issue and there are qualities of his mind I truly would like to adopt, but his personality is where it's at. His ideas doesn't matter that much. I recognize him as sincere and I believe that is what make meeting of minds possible.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 21, 2014 2:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Just finished GONE GIRL which has the most explicit fictional description of YOUNG GIRL I have ever read. And written by Gillain Flynn a young woman who is wicked smart. You want to read a woman sticking stilettos knives in other women, who agrees with you. then IMO read her book. Haven't read her others and I shudder thinking about reading them. She nails the embedded media and personality interfaced so perfectly.Stay with it until part 2 and 3 and all the perfidy rises to be seen.A fictionalized brutal account of what you have been saying for a very long time.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 21, 2014 7:23 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Have you ever been interested in questions of Mind Control?
http://www.nogovitsyn.com/mind-control/
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 22, 2014 3:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm a little embarrassed over how my perception of someone has been changing. It's okay to have evolving opinions, but to almost do a 180 based on something not even being remembered, is at best confusion.
Faced with uncertainty and confusion - "how do I interpret it?" - the solution is, in theory at least, simple. You start the puzzle with the most recognizable pieces and proceed with interpretation of your information in light of your starting point, the things you're most sure of.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 22, 2014 5:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Werner Herzog in an interview with Kaja Perina circa '05:
I loathe psychology as one of the major faults of our civilization nowadays. There's something not right about this amount of introspection. I can only give you a metaphor: When you move into an apartment, you cannot start to illuminate every last corner with neon light. If there are no dark corners or hidden niches, your house becomes uninhabitable. Human beings who are trying to self-reflect and explore their innermost being to the last corner become uninhabitable people.
Unsolicited, but nonetheless: let your perception stand. Period. Less is more.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 22, 2014 5:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Any interpretation for "more is less"?
It sounds meaningful. Not sure, it can be something there.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 22, 2014 7:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone, I heard that big brother is out warning against a police state, that abuse of modern technology is a serious treat to democracy.
Alone, I'm thinking that big brother is saying that for maintaining power, that it's slipping and they are desperate to prevent it or at least slow it down.
I don't hate them, but they are liars. Their presentation of a that mentioned perception serve an end, namely having us to believe in their power, that they possess powerful tools which mustn't be abused.
The enemy is getting weaker.
Alone - did I get it correctly?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 22, 2014 7:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think that's very good. Insightful, for sure. Nice work.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 23, 2014 11:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Freud considered introversion to be an aspect of narcissism. So, there is that.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 23, 2014 12:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Is this a joke?
I mean, maybe I´m losing the point of this BS because English is not my mother tongue? Is like... all ironic or anything?
I must tell you one thing: if you want to look at the news in Spain there is a girl rapists who has attacked 3 kids and the police has all forces at this.
Just to let you know, if you are not joking, that 1st, they were little girls, not getting for any male attention; 2nd, this is real, not a thing any woman told them, this happened to them and 3rd that the police force is going around the schools giving tips and instructions on how to spot any possible threath like this.
Just to let you know that there is something out there that it´s called - check out: REALITY.
In case you want to get outside of whatever thing/place/stuff you´re into.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 23, 2014 5:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There's no need to respond to jonny. Some think he's a troll, some think he's a satire of the meaningless, empty, and pseudo-intellectual argumentative style of Continental philosophy, some think he's the next Elliot Roger who comes here to post his manic schizophrenic gibberish whenever he forgets to take his medication. In none of these circumstances should you respond to him.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 23, 2014 6:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
NOt a good thing to take Freud out of context like that and paraphrase to boot. Freudian theory does not consider narcissism a bad thing. There is healthy narcissism and pathological narcissism. Freud was treating patients that lived in families with fathers, mothers and nannies as well as siblings. They were a unit. Now fathers are often just not there. Single mothers with siblings from different fathers breaks down the kinship system civilization is based on.Our family structures are all messed up kinship wise, so why wouldn't they be dysfunctional.The organizational structures that have been in place for thousands of years went flying about 50 years ago when THE PILL flew into our lives at the corner drugstore.It has brought benefits and liabilities just like everything else.
If a woman ,say, no longer combs her hair, does not wash, wanders about in the same clothes week after week, we can safely say that narcissism is at a very low point with her. Excessive narcissism as those women who spend thousands on plastic surgery to be real life Barbies is pathological. We now live in a Narcissistic culture that encompasses its pathological manifestation for all to see. But since it is everywhere, it is invisible. That's what evil is. When it is everywhere, it is invisible. The movie A Most Wanted Man presents this in a fiction that is more real than real, hyperreal. In that movie evil is obscene.BTW this is what Miley Cyrus is doing with her Wrecking Ball video and with her twerking. A fug you to pop princess YoungGirl soft porn "seduction" and a challenge to hard core porn on excess and obscenity. Miley has opened eyes to expose both hard and soft core porn so we can take another look.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 24, 2014 1:04 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
BTW this is what Miley Cyrus is doing with her Wrecking Ball video and with her twerking. A fug you to pop princess YoungGirl soft porn "seduction" and a challenge to hard core porn on excess and obscenity. Miley has opened eyes to expose both hard and soft core porn so we can take another look.
This has to be the most asinine analysis of Miley Cyrus I've ever seen. Please stop posting your half-assed pseudo-intellectual postmodern twaddle. Miley Cyrus isn't doing anything to "make you take a closer look". She's doing it because she's a shallow pop idol emulating all of the shallow pop idols before her, and is arguably a victim of the system that created her.
Next are you going to tell me that the films of Michael Bay are tongue-in-cheek critical analyses of the state of modern cinema?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
September 24, 2014 6:39 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Miley Cyrus isn't doing anything to "make you take a closer look"
Maybe, but still, why not take a closer look regardless?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 24, 2014 6:59 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not taking issue with the idea of taking a closer look, I'm taking issue with abbey's ridiculous idea that Miley is engaging in some kind of knowing, high-brow satire when anyone with half a brain can see that's not true.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 24, 2014 7:58 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
...engaging in some kind of knowing, high-brow satire
It's much more than that. And those a bit beyond half-brained can muss about in the metasphere for it to take shape. (lateral cognition helpful here) Let go of the fuss and get lost in the chord progression of emergent properties. Otherwise it is mostly perceived as meaningless parroting and hearing anyone suggest otherwise will be treated as some form of threat. I'll forgo any Robert Anton Wilson quotes at this time.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 24, 2014 5:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Shes doing it because it makes money. Lots and lots of money. Relative depth of heart and soul has nothing to do with it. As to why she stirs up controversy, outside of the fiscal motivation, given the choices between "poignant social commentary" and "shallow brat", honestly Id choose the former. Im not exactly sure what you might call what she does, but whatever it is, shes very good at it, evidenced by the fact you're talking about it. And all the money.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
September 24, 2014 5:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Same anonymous who replied a minute ago (5:10) Its really funny that you choose Michael Bay as your example as well. You are just as wrong as abbey, just on the opposite end of the spectrum. You assume Miley Cyrus is stupid and shallow just because she irks you. Forget the fact that she turned herself from a Disney pop princess into a legitimate A-List musical performer in a just a couple years, shes dresses slutty, so shes stupid right?
Michael Bays movies make almost all of their money overseas. He is an absolute magician at creating movies with simple, fun story lines that be translated across language and culture without no exposition whatsoever. He is a brilliant filmmaker, its just not deep social commentary, so hes stupid right?
Both of those people are excellent at what they do, why would you assume they're not capable of creating anything that doesnt have multiple layers to it? Your vehemence is just as ridiculous as abbeys. Its not so black and white.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 24, 2014 6:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I never said Miley did it on purpose.Did Harriet Beecher Stowe know that she was putting the last nail in the coffin of slavery with her sentimental trashy soap opera book? Did Miley know Taylor Swift was going to look dated? Or Katy Perry? I mean how far can you go to one up Miley in performance? How can you be sexy, desirable, seductive in a soft porn or funny way after Miley did Wrecking Ball and twerked. Miley just took all this soft porn and almost hard core porn up another notch until it all imploded.Did Peggy Lee, Jo Stafford, Rosemary Clooney, Dinah Shore,Billie Holliday,et al have to do this to promote their records and albums?As Nietzsche says, if you want to get rid of something take it to excess and push it over the abyss and it will suicide itself.Did Miley intend this? I doubt it. But then artists don't logically plan these things out, do they? Miley obviously hit a nerve as it took her to the top.She does not play the cute, the sexy seductive game. She takes it to the max, why Liam with his anxiety over his movie career could not continue with as it was going to ruin his heart throb image.It's not about right and wrong anymore. I am not right. Nor am I wrong. All this is just my own reading of what she did. I have found in other places other people who read it the same way. Does that mean because there are more of us we are right? No, it just means we have a common reading of Miley's performances. To change the subject and move into wedding porn via the Kardashians.Then A-List Joli and Pitt finally get LEGALLY married and they don't do wedding porn at all. Were they making a statement about wedding porn? I doubt it. I think they were just following what they wanted and it turned out that way.But it sure did put the jaundiced eye on wedding porn didn't it? Just open your eyes and learn to read alternative ways. Everyone doesn't read Shakespeare the same way or we wouldn't have these some hundred years of critique, would we?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 24, 2014 6:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Bay is making successful movies - read $$$$$ - and they are not art but commercial productions, Hollywood style. No one is wrong here. Get out of the Dominating Discourse. There are just different readings. If you interpret as to right and wrong you enter Foucault's "swamp of psychological interpretation" where nothing can ever be resolved because at the fundamental level of the Discourse lies the opposite thesis/antithesis. This is Hegel's dialectic and this is where the post moderns go after Marx.As I am going after you. If I reply to you in your Discourse, then I am entering your playing field, your rules.Now why would I do that?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 24, 2014 9:55 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Money/desire, power, art. Relevant here is Badiou speaking to the Guardian about two years ago:
I think that if we want to get back to a truthful world, that implies that we admit the limits of language, and that we know how to use fiction in the service of truth, and not in the service of unlimited desire, then we need to change fiction, that is for sure.We need to change fiction and that is very important. It is very important and I would say that could be the great challenge for contemporary artists, of which their very responsibility is to propose new fictions.
It is not very easy at the beginning because new fictions are not recognizable-- they seem foreign to a world dominated by competition and money. I think that the invention of new type of fiction and new ways to create fictions are extremely important.
Dominant Discourse serves to deny that very acknowledgement of language's limit. Open yourself to new fictions. After all, you're reading TLP-- certainly you haven't missed the hints scattered here and there, so I'd imagine a reader being somewhat keen on occupying a post-ideological mindset every now and then.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 24, 2014 10:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Interesting perspective.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 24, 2014 11:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Wow. Very very nice. Thank you for posting this here.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 24, 2014 11:26 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
We learn more about nefarious govt goings on from Le Carre's fictions than anywhere else eh.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 12:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
See the light. This is, I swear, the definitive account of epistemology. Everything about our culture is right there.
I saw no mention of the original commodity, the luxury product shrewdly hacked out of the traumatised minds of poor toddlers. The commodification of children ignited all commerce and trade, triggering the need for currency exchange, hoarded resources, property rights, law, conflict, violence, war etc.
In 1837, a story by Hans Christian Andersen was published and it's probably the most important story ever told, if only because humans only learn when they're impressionable. The Emperor's New Clothes isn't really a moral fable, it merely appears to be. It's scornful ridicule mocking reduced narcissists who would rather appear "normal" than be correct, competent or sane in reality.
Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success."But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said.
"Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?" said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on."
"But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last.
We're going backwards, the mean EQ of this species has decreased since that story was published. The number of people who feel that "sticks and stones can break your bones but words can never hurt you" is shrinking every day. Humans are more psychotic now than they've ever been. Stupid mothers need lies, violence and shame to force children stupid because no child has ever needed a dependent whore's unique skillset in all of history. Though fucking, lying and bullying are appear to be valuable to women, children need abuse to force them to need liability.
"Thou hast eyes yet see'st not in what misery thou art fallen." - Tiresias to Oedipus (blind to his mother's evil)
"But whore obstruction of biology isn't valuable!"
Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?
100% of girls are viciously reduced to make them sub-worthless because mothers and wives cannot compete with valuable girls. The reduced girls are so stupid, they literally believe their mothers turned them into liabilities for their sake. Objectified women have been turning every girl into a liability for 6000 years because mothers and wives remain in the competition (for the illegitimate entitlement to control male slaves against their will) without being competitive. They can only compete against liability. Men shouldn't be capable of being fooled by the worth of value concealed for sale, or fooled by the worth of liability, but their desperate stupidity is not organic. Men are blind to betrayal. 6000 years of stupid whores = 6000 years of stupid, evil humans.
Exodus 1:12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew.
Whores don't breed until they're afflicted. In need, they breed to offload their affliction. Their capacity to breed betrayal is why they are afflicted. Their stupid, infantile scheming against their own children gives Power the motive to afflict them. If they didn't breed loving, selfless, authoritarian slaves, Power has no motive.
_________
Your deceit and malice is not evil because you're cunning and crafty, you're evil because you're stupidly insane to be fooled by your own fraud. You only lie to impress, if you didn't care about impressing, you wouldn't lie at all. So you only reduce your value below worthless to impress those you value. You are insane.
Only sub-worthless whores (like your mother) are impressed by the ability to lie; victims of your deceit do not value your lies, they merely appear to. When they no longer appear to (when you no longer appear valuable), you get butt hurt and feel betrayed. But they never valued your fraud, you never impressed anyone. They appeared impressed when you appeared impressive. When you no longer appear impressive, they will not appear impressed. Awwh princess, I know; men really should value your psychotic fraud "Until Death Do You Part" and the State couldn't agree more. So that's what wedlock (and domestic violence) is for.
Whores raise their daughters to reject men (i.e. penalise themselves) who want to give them value. Girls want men to pay for the Right to give girls value. Women cannot pleasure men so they force men to pay to pleasure women. Why are men buying unremunerated employment? Suffer if they do, suffer if they don't; boys are abused to make them suffer for refusing to suffer.
Men who are afraid of the penalty for refusal will pursue whore favour. Men who are not afraid will not. The unafraid men are clearly more valuable, but they've all been bred out. Whores only want confused men to buy their fraud. But they will not be confused once they sample the fraud they've been forced to purchase with suffering. The truth of fraud's worth is revealed by men to girls when they don't call them again. Rather than accept that whore obstruction has no value to men, women know there's something wrong with men. They just want to get lucky. Correct! Either men hate to get lucky twice --or-- this world is out of luck.
"You hate women because you can't get lucky", whores sneer.
Correct! I can't get lucky. Black rappers have a similar complaint.
_____________
And one person whispered to another what the men had said, "Only whores obstruct biology? The victims of domestic violence are men and children? Women's clothes conceal liability? They reveal intent to sell fraud? Women selling fraud are whores?"
"Silence those misogynists!" the whole town cried out at last.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 1:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Must read Gone Girl. Don't see how movie can screen it as fictionalized Young Girl but that's what the book is. An astonishing account of the consciousness of Young Girl planning to present herself as YG only she calls it Cool Girl.Tochange the subject here's a not Young Girl Meredith Monk who has pioneered the voice eliminating the sex pop princess baggage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-PVlBnt-x0&feature=youtu.be&a
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 7:49 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Hey jonny, I've been wondering, what do you think about homosexuality in both men and women? Have they escaped the vicious system you write about?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 11:25 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I admire you're enthusiasm, I really do, because again I think you've got some legitimate points. But you continually miss the forest for the trees.
I'm the one sent you the link to Sohn-Rhethel's materialist epistemology. You said this:
...the original commodity, the luxury product shrewdly hacked out of the traumatised minds of poor toddlers. The commodification of children ignited all commerce and trade, triggering the need for currency exchange, hoarded resources, property rights, law, conflict, violence, war etc.
Do you know about dialectics? If so, you've missed the point: There is no original commodity. The market didn't "begin" with anything, it was always already being formed from the moment human beings found themselves in a position where they were required to cooperate with one another for their survival.
How about semiotic theory? (Read the posts by Tsui_Pen in the reddit threads at /r/thelastpsychiatrist about postmodernism/structuralism, the author explains it pretty well.) Both language and commodity exchange operate according to the same structural principles, principles that produce, essentially as a byproduct, necessary false consciousness, which is to say ideology.
http://danieltutt.com/2012/11/15/sohn-rethels-necessary-false-consciousness-and-marxist-epistemology/
I have faith in you but feel like you've completely missed the point on this one. Everything we ascribe to our consciousness --all of our miraculous capacity for pure abstraction (which is what "value" is, the thing you hate more than anything, "worth", "price", etc.), all basis for subject/object, pure motion, mathematics, exchange, abstract time and space and something called "nature" that serves as its embodiment -- ALL OF IT DOESN'T "BEGIN" WITH CHILD COMMODIFICATION. If it "begins" at all, it does so with the combination of human intelligence and a community of people who, in order to survive and thrive, exchange goods (importantly, not yet commodities). It is the exchange of these goods -- THE PHYSICAL ACT OF THE EXCHANGE, not whatever it is the exchanging agents are "thinking about" -- that creates this pure abstraction. Furthermore, it wasn't until money was coined that the act of their abstraction assumed a material form, and literally by carrying that form around in their pockets those agents had imparted to them the purely abstract principles their actions demonstrated. It's like magic, "a self-encounter of nature blindly occurring in the mind of man."
We can't, of course, go back to a time before abstract thought, before math and philosophy, nor would we want to. Everything incredible about the time we live in has come as a direct result of man's capacity for reason and abstract thought. The final point, here, is that the only way forward is to reconcile our capacity with a view of the world that historicizes it. Because an ahistorical version of this account says that our capacity for reason comes from...where? Idealists say it comes from God. Kant (essentially) said it comes from the physical wiring of our brains. But these are unsatisfactory answers, and are the very shape of ideology itself.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 11:46 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
(continued)
And as far as "The Emperors New Clothes", you're right: It's a parable, not a fable, but it's only peripherally concerned with the idiocy and pathetic backwardness of "polite society" (which I despise as much as you). It is more directly about the phenomenon of the big Other -- the impersonal "system" as drawn by Alone -- that dictates what polite society even entails. When the child points out that the emperor has no clothes, it's his puncturing of the social field of the big Other that puts the other attendees into the position of a forced choice in which they are compelled to disavow the Other. It's like handing a cop a $20 bill with your license verus asking him, outright, "Can I bribe you?". It's the ostensible deniability, the recognition of the big Other that occurs from explicitly identifying it as a bribe that forces an officer to recognize the illegality of the action.
But this is pretty standard stuff. Have you seen the Lego Movie? the big Other is like an instruction booklet that we all carry around in our heads and refer to constantly even if we're not completely aware of it.
Smile! Always return a wave! Buy overpriced coffee! Listen to popular music! And, most importantly, Enjoy!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 2:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think you are just projecting your own intelligence and importance in this comment, like what you enjoyed so much about "the most important tale of all time". There's the punishment you feel you've never had to face while maintaining your air of intellectual superiority. You reinforce your superiority by stating your opinions as if they should be regarded as fact. You should read some literature by Christopher Lasch, I am sure it is one of the works which inspired alone, otherwise it's a pretty wild coincidence to say the least. In it he talks about how Narcissists have a fundamental sense that society is decaying, there is no future, and thus this justifies them to live for the now and indulge their visceral urges in whatever way society lets them.
Alone's generally pessimistic tone might conclude one to believe that their own pessimistic outlook on the earth is inline with his. But that's just a defence they have set up in their own lives to protect against change. Didn't take time to read your paragraphs but it appears, despite your literature background, that you lack some pretty fundamental insights.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 5:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Go get your collaborator. His name is Zizek. Living in the End Times and Less Than Nothing his book on Hegel through Lacan and Lacan through Hegel.There isn't going to be a nuclear war but read Virilio on that and why. You have wonderful company out there. Join them.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 5:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jonny is the only sane voice here that requires thought in answering. all the rest of the "thoughtful" comments are balderdash.Just meanderings within the Dominating Discourse.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 5:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nice on the self, the "inner me" that doesn't exist.
"I am multitudes." Walt Whitman
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 6:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The post modern Discourse is structured to avoid being Dominant.It is always subverting itself.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 6:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jonny's error that you are addressing lies in his Discourse. He is posing the ORIGEN of commodification of children, going far back to stick his finger on it. This is because he is not looking at the problem genealogically. Children became a commodity when capitalism intersected with power/knowledge/normality/capitalism. At that moment in time, that intersection, the State regarded children as commodities, as future labor and consumers, as breeders who will become obsolescent and die sooner rather than later the State hopes. This intersection begins the study of Biopower. The people of a State were now seen as wealth instead of flotsam. Children needed to be cared for "because they were wealth" for the State and common procreation would no longer be sufficient to raise them. For them to just die of neglect was no longer an option, according to the State. They must be cared for because they were wealth of the State, they were commodities. So marriage was instituted and became an institution of the State. Nothing sacred about it. Marriage was always about property, exchange and alliance, not romance and love until the 12th century with the advent of the Cathars. Let's not go there now but this is Abelard and Heloise and mythologically Tristan and Yseult,which separated sacred love from procreation.The world is evil so to procreate and bring children into an evil world is itself evil.This is Jonny's thinking - partly at least. And all of you act very much like the Inquisition who conducted genocide against the Cathars whom they saw as a dangerous enemy. It was.
Jonny is not far off but his Discourse certainly is as it is classical Hegelian search for origins and horizons, both of which regress into incomprehensible darkness of fragile threads disloving into nothing and a future that extends into such nebulousness we cannot imagine.Why Foucault called it the "psychological swamp of interpretation."If you don't go on that playing field you cannot sink in it and smother.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 9:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jonny is the only sane voice here that requires thought in answering. all the rest of the "thoughtful" comments are balderdash.Just meanderings within the Dominating Discourse.
Truly you don't actually believe this? You must have an unorthodox definition of "sane". Even so, jonny isn't saying anything novel or profoundly new. There are a million MRA blogs out there that parrot the same exact points jonny makes with slightly different phrasing.
Not to say that jonny is wrong; he has a couple of good insights. But he is fundamentally missing the forest for the trees.
The post modern Discourse is structured to avoid being Dominant.It is always subverting itself.
Again, patently false. I could go into why but the easy way is just to gesture to the amount of people who allow themselves to be suckered in by the kind of mystical woo that Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault, Lacan, Zizek, and many other continental philosophers peddle in. If it is "constantly subverting itself" as you say, what could you possibly bring to any discussion using postmodern thought?
Please note that I am not attacking all postmodern thought, just the intellectually dishonest cult-type that you've been sucked into. You are evidence that people take this woo seriously, and in large numbers. Derrida even managed to get people to vote him an honorary degree for his nonsense. It has permeated the humanities in academia, but unfortunately (for you) no matter how many times your postmodern figureheads appropriate mathematical, medical, and scientific jargon (Lacan: "The penis is totally like the square root of minus one, guys"), people who have even an undergraduate grasp of science will call you out on the woo you write.
It is especially humorous when philosophiers argue a point that they themselves exemplify far more than anyone else. "A clear and unambiguous meaning of a text does not exist!", phrased in such a way that the text espousing this view is borderline meaningless. Bravo, Derrida! Which, again, might have been his intention, but if that was his intention then why do sycophants get so pissy when you point out how nonsensical the writing is?
What I can tell from your writing is that it seems you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way Foucault talks about the Dominant Discourse, or this might just be a byproduct of the fact that Foucault and other continental philosophers deliberately make their writing needlessly purple, obscurantist, and Byzantine, which in turn allows for a wide range of interpretation (perhaps even no interpretation because there's nothing to interpret). You've fetishized "dominance" to the point where any mode of discourse that might be dominant in one specific frame of time is automatically wrong, or shouldn't be responded to or dealt with, just by virtue of the fact that it happens to be the dominant one. Which again probably explains why you're willing to take half-lucid rambling nonsense like jonny's posts or much of continental philosophy and run with it. You've created a virtue out of being the underdog, out of constantly "subverting" yourself and "never being pinned down", and you've made a demon out of lucid writing, coherent thoughts, and saying what you mean.
Not to mention Zizek is a plagiarist :
http://withendemanndom.blogspot.com/2014/07/slavoj-zizek-philosophaster-and_9.html
but I'm sure you'll take that and flip it and use it as an example of how he's deconstructing the very idea of academic scholarship or some such bullshit.
Like jonny, you're a windbag, abbey. A fraud and a snake oil salesmen who takes anything and everything and shapes it to his or her worldview, making declarative statements about things like they are fact while wrapping it up in fashionable nonsense, much like the postmodern idols you worship so fervently. Your appeals to authority (Zizek, Foucault, etc.) directly contradict your interpretation of the Dominant Discourse because, at least here, you - and jonny - are the Dominant Discourse. Like jonny, you are not interested in rational conversation. Like jonny, your writing is dumbfounding nonsense with little to no real world mapping and propped up in whackadoo postmodern window dressing. You refuse to make yourself readily understood because you don't care about being understood, because then people would see that you're a hack with nothing interesting, enlightening, or relevant to say, much like a large portion of continental philosophy.
The irony that jonny would reference The Emperor's New Clothes is overbearing. You are The Emperor's New Clothes. Have you heard of The Postmodernism Generator?
http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo/
I doubt anyone has a problem with the sometimes interesting and always fanciful discussion that you and postmodernists take part in, but a problem does arise when you attempt to put down or silence people based on a misreading of the Dominant Discourse. You use it like a get out of jail free card. You're clearly not interested in any Discourse but your own. How can you expect people to take you seriously when you refuse to work to make yourself understood?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 9:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Again, more fucking nonsense. Capitalism intersected with capitalism?
I can't tell if English just isn't your native language or if you are intentionally typing nonsense. You are creating work when you type stuff like this, and people have to then penetrate and parse your ridiculous prose.
So marriage was instituted and became an institution of the State. Nothing sacred about it. Marriage was always about property, exchange and alliance, not romance and love
You're correct. However, do you think that this is somehow a novel or revolutionary idea? People have known this for centuries, although it clearly doesn't stop people from marrying and becoming slaves to that framework. Does that single, lucid fact require ten paragraphs of mystical dipshit nonsense, Bible quotes, and twenty synonyms of the words "perifidous" and "whore" from jonny? No, it doesn't.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 10:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I didn't say capitalism intersected with capitalism. Power/knowledge intersected with normality and capitalism.Thus we have power/knowledge/capitalism/normality.Power knowledge has always been a relation but not until capitalism began to grow did they intersect and become entwined accompanied by normality. Because the Great Confinement of Europe began at that time. I trust Foucault's scholarship way more than your utterances.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 10:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm a windbag after this post by YOU.I don't think so.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 10:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Good catch on the Big Other.Nice.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 10:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I didn't say capitalism intersected with capitalism.
Verbatim:
capitalism intersected with power/knowledge/normality/capitalism
Nice try.
I'm a windbag after this post by YOU.I don't think so.
Yes abbey, continue to dodge and avoid and hand-wave away everyone who calls you out on your nonsensical bullshit. That's definitely the ticket to get people to actually take you seriously.
Continue to hide behind obscurantism.
Every opinion is equally (in)valid in metaphysics, and especially in your particular brand of intellectually dishonest metaphysics, since nothing in metaphycis is testable. You can talk literally any bullshit and call it "metaphysics" and it has the same intellectual merit as the writings of any philosopher. Metaphysics is literally empty nonsensical talk.
Philosophical terminology - especially yours - is ambiguous, intentionally vague, varies subjectively and has no practical applications.
I'm a windbag?
Yes. A huge windbag blasting hot air towards anyone who has the misfortune of reading your word salad.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 10:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Exactly.
I didn't say capitalism intersected with capitalism.
Verbatim:
"capitalism intersected with power/knowledge/normality/capitalism"
Nice try.
Capitalism intersected with power/knowledge and what we got out of it is power/knowledge/capitalism/normality. I could have said it better with more words but I thought since you have said you read Foucault that you would understand that the power/knowledge Foucauldian Grid has a finer mesh now that capitalism is woven in along with normality. Is what I meant clear now? Probably not. Careful because you are getting in your "word salad" mode of writing.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 11:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am a windbag so what do you call this post of yours? Jes sayin'
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 11:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
what do you call this post of yours?
Clearly-phrased and lucid criticism of your windbaggery. Emphasis on "clearly-phrased" and "lucid". You should try it sometime.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 11:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
To be crass: This is bullshit, plain and simple.
You know damn well what you're doing.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 11:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And what am I doing exactly?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 11:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Being a shithead. Is that clear enough, you emotionally empty, vapid, annoying little fucker?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 25, 2014 11:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sorry, you're just trying to draw me into the Dominating Discourse where, as Foucault observed, everything becomes mired in the "swamp of interpretation." I'm not going to play ball on your field.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 26, 2014 12:05 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
IMO I don't think he is emotionally mature enuf to stop.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 26, 2014 12:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
On to projection now, are we abbey? Let me know when you're done blowing hot air, and when you actually want to engage in meaningful discussion. Although I can't say I'll hold my breath.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 26, 2014 3:18 AM | Posted by : | Reply
It's a growing concern you raise.. especially with the ever increasing number of users on social media.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 26, 2014 8:10 AM | Posted by : | Reply
It was all going well before some idiot doxed him.
The man was right in that we should have debated his ideas and not who he is IRL. I hope he didn't have problems for the article about Certifications.
That's why we can't have nice things.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 26, 2014 10:47 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thanks for the blog reference.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 26, 2014 11:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Johnny is not the problem here; Abbey is.
But as far as I'm concerned, you're as much of a windbag as s/he is. It's not anyone else's fault if you're too stupid to understand Derrida.
You want to debate someone who knows what they're talking about? Then have at it: Meet me at the reddit page I've dedicated to this topic under /r/thelastpsychiatrist. There are two posts there dealing with postmodern writers such as Derrida and I challenge you discredit what I've written about them or to demonstrate how what I claim they ("postmodernists") are saying is in any way empty posturing without meaning or merit.
I won't do this here because Abbey will fuck it all up and at the reddit page I can delete his/her comments.
Hope to see you there.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 26, 2014 11:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you're too stupid to understand Derrida
I've read some real howlers in this comment section but this one might take the cake.
Using this logic, if you found anything in my post too difficult to understand and/or agree with then clearly you're just too stupid to analyze the content.
And no, I'm not interested in quibbling about the merits of Derrida with someone whose idea of modern linguistics is the work of Saussure. I've read your posts on Reddit. They're infinitely better written than anything abbey has vomited into a comment box, and the content is interesting, but that's all it is: interesting. I can agree with you all day about language being negatively differentiated, but it doesn't change the fact that Lacan's entire framework of the sliding "signifier/signified" rests on an outdated and simplistic Saussurean view of language. I feel no obligation to "debate" something that has been outmoded for quite some time now, and this would be readily apparent to anyone who has kept up with linguistics or even philosophy in general in the last decade. I'm not going to take time to go through reinventing the wheel with you just so you can feel validated about having wasted time studying Derrida and Saussure.
If you don't like my demonstrably true assertion that you can say literally any bullshit and call it "metaphysics" while still maintaining the same intellectual merit as the writings of any philosopher, then by all means substitute it with whatever continental get out of jail free card tickles your fancy. Abbey likes to call it "not engaging with the Dominating Discourse".
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 26, 2014 11:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
OK, fair enough, "too stupid" was obviously polemical and I was trying to get your goad, being defensive because there are a lot of troglodytes who troll Derrida with the most superficial of understandings. I should've said "too lazy", but that too appears that it would have been a mischaracterization.
But this:
Lacan's entire framework of the sliding "signifier/signified" rests on an outdated and simplistic Saussurean view of language.
and this:
something that has been outmoded for quite some time now, and this would be readily apparent to anyone who has kept up with linguistics or even philosophy in general in the last decade.
are patently false. I don't know where you got that impression, or if you work in academics, or -- if so -- how they do it at your institution, but as someone who got a Ph.D. in Linguistics under a Rhodes scholarship (in the last 10 years), I can tell you that you are buttfuckingly wrong.
Just because modern linguistics turned toward neuropsychology for more workable (read "empirical") models, doesn't mean that Saussure has been discredited. Far from it; his insights remain the basis for a systematic study of language.
So, if you don't want to debate, that's on you. And though I don't visit this site often (anymore) I will continue to shoot down any wounded ducks you try to fly over the heads of those that don't know any better. Respond with justification, or don't, but until you argue something you're no better than Abbey.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 26, 2014 12:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
are patently false. I don't know where you got that impression, or if you work in academics, or -- if so -- how they do it at your institution, but as someone who got a Ph.D. in Linguistics under a Rhodes scholarship (in the last 10 years), I can tell you that you are buttfuckingly wrong.
If this is in some way true then I guess whatever I was taught wasn't entirely correct. I don't have a PHD in linguistics, I don't deal with linguistics directly, I don't remember seeing anyone even discussing or citing Saussure or Derrida regarding current linguistics outside of film and literature students, and I don't readily see the application of a Saussurean framework to the psychological and neurological sciences. What I outlined very briefly is just the summary of material I have studied.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 26, 2014 1:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Again, that's fair. And you're not exactly wrong; like I said, the trend in linguistics dating at least as far back as Chomsky's universal grammar has, much like analytic philosophy, turned toward more empirical, neropsych-type models.
But I think it's important to take that fact with a grain of salt. It's typical of the way research funding is allocated according today's results-oriented criteria. In any field, not just linguistics, those proposals that don't appear "workable" (i.e., definitively achievable and/or profitable) are eschewed in favor of those that do. I'm not moralizing, here, just pointing out that anytime decisions between options need to be made, those decisions need to be based on something. And where, in the past, that basis might have been ambition or creativity (historically, we fund much less "exciting" and ambitions work in the sciences than we used to), today that basis is practicality and achievablity (i.e., measurable progress toward definite goals).
And I'm also far from the only one who thinks/notices/laments this fact. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists who got into their respective fields because of the excitement they offered only to watch their frontiers gradually, over the course of about 20 - 30 years, contract to the point where their original passion became so abridged and contorted as to render it not only unrecognizable, but uninspiring.
NASA, whose trajectory has more or less gone from the moon to the bank, has pretty much been the litmus test for this phenomenon over the years, and has undoubtedly put out its fair share of dreamers. And they're still a best-case-scenario for most aspiring and ambitious scientists. A hell of a lot better than Pfizer, anyway.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 26, 2014 1:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Anytime, I'm glad you enjoyed it. It's a travesty that his work isn't more widely read because I just don't think you can nail it any harder than that.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 26, 2014 9:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Interesting you say that. I'll take a look at reddit.And keep quiet I guess.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 27, 2014 6:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm uneasy with referring to big brother as "the enemy".
An Enemy exist, sure - but I believe, that we shouldn't be labeling individuals or groups of individuals. It is more appropriate and just to describe behavior and mentality.
It is more than pragmatism. It's justice.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 27, 2014 6:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I agree. Big Brother gets swiped from 1984 and morphs into something else. If all this is regarded through Foucauldian Grid it makes more sense besides having one of the major minds of the last half of the 20th century as foundation. Foucault talks about "cutting off the head of the king" meaning symbolically, by you, in your thinking and that's what you are doing. Lacan uses the Big Other for any authority, real or imagined, physical or mental, any concept or belief you hold etc.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 28, 2014 7:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I trust you and I care about you. No fear.
Your "friends" doesn't know what they are doing. No real ideas, lying and most importantly - lying. Quite similar to what they intend to replace. Surprise ahead, I guess.. They won't know what hit them.
Please correct any misconceptions.
Love,
Victoria
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 29, 2014 7:31 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Who will bully the bullies?
It won't be a bully.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 29, 2014 6:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Why are people so concerned with bullies.See it very simply and it is clear.We as a nation are a BULLY in the entire WORLD. Is it any wonder our children are bullies, bullying others on the playground.They are playing a game to ready them for the world they will live in as adults.
Just as children in war zones play children's games of "war, killing, etc." Huizinga wrote a classic on Ludic (play behavior) explaining this.Our military and law enforcement as it is today requires BULLIES and our culture is meeting that demand for the future.
I didn't finish Alone's blog post on this as it was too linear and wordy.I will at some other time though.
Bullying is also the way to enforce "normality" in the Foucauldian Grid of power/knowledge/normality/capital
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 30, 2014 4:23 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think you would like the treatment of Narcissism that Hymen Spotnitz gives, as it was his specialty.His term The Narcissistic Defense is solid.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 30, 2014 11:53 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Huizinga DID write Homo ludens, which I have sitting right in front of me. The difference between you and me is that I have actually read it. The ludic has ZERO relevance to bullying. The agon is only in play when those of equal strength/status play against one another.
Trying to wave off individual behavior airily because the behavior of a nation-state is not to your liking is either disingenuous or idiotic, you choose. Children bully in all cultures, and it's because we are social creatures who must either dominate, follow, or be an outcast. Those with a strong urge to dominate will do whatever they are allowed to do. Strong social disapproval of bullying will go a long way toward discouraging it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 30, 2014 2:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
yes, bullying is natural, we get it from our 23 chromosomes, just like people are born as psychopaths, or as bigots. psychological outlook is just like hair color or eye pigment.
thank gawd delusional know-nothings are back at TLP to spew the shit they think is reality
or maybe, idiot non-savants, the problem is the definition of "bullying" and the blind eye human culture in the USA turns toward childhood environmental influences
maybe "bullies" are raised by parents who don't know to provide structure and boundaries for their child's willfull aggressions
or parents who actually nurture and reward willful aggression
naaaaah, let's not think about that, easier to assume it's genetic, because a TED lecture said so
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 30, 2014 4:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I didn't finish Alone's blog post on this as it was too linear and wordy.I will at some other time though.
so you don't even read the article but nonetheless take it upon yourself to shit up the comment section with your nonsense? why the fuck are you even posting here?
go peddle your blog elsewhere
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 30, 2014 5:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Predict that someone has to evolve as a comedian.
Predict that I will be silent until I won't.
Not really my thing.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 30, 2014 7:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I've read it now and I agree with it.But I already knew what he was going to say.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 30, 2014 7:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I read it long before you were born.Erikson analyzed play with girls and boys. Girls playing with blocks built enclosed areas. Boys made projectiles.The Zuni culture was peaceful and static.Children did not play competitive games. Competitive games played by children teach the culture. Next on your list should be Ruth Benedict's Patterns of Culture.In it is also an essay on swaddling infants as teaching the culture. Anyone can wiki a book you know or read an Amazon review and say they read it. You haven't read much as you aren't a literate thinker.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 30, 2014 9:21 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Children,
Let me tell you a joke. It's for the economy.
The cheap one.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
September 30, 2014 9:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I apologize for the tone.
I imagined an intention, it was probably never was anyones intention.
Did that make sense?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 1, 2014 7:48 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
(didn't have time to read beyond September 23, 2014 5:58 PM; hoping I didn't miss anything)
@Talk:
@Victoria:
Look into Oswald Spengler and Jaques Ellul. Big Brother is indeed getting nastier and pushier, but also brittle and arthritic.
@bongrel:
I doubt it. At least, I don’t think Alone would blame the commenters of a psychiatric blog for being psychiatric. *I* would; I used to avoid the comments section like the plague for that reason; but that’s why I am me and he is Alone.
(Honestly, the more time I spend in rural free clinics, the more I wonder what’s *wrong* with psychiatrists to make it so rare for them to strangle us patients.)
@abbeysbooks:
Shirley Temple? As in "Animal Crackers In My Soup" Shirley Temple? News to me, though I guess it would be given that I'm not an American girl born before the Kennedy Administration. Fact is, I figured that she had died around the same time as Ronald Reagan.
As for "wondering who she might have become", um, I seem to recall from high school that she became a diplomat. Wiki confirms this: Ambassador to Ghana and Czechoslovakia, and Chief of Protocol of the United States. That ain't too bad for a former child star, is it? Do you think Miley Cyrus is ever going to be an Ambassador to Czechoslovakia?
*wikis that*
Oh. Well...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 1, 2014 9:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Previous comment was mine.
"As Nietzsche says, if you want to get rid of something take it to excess and push it over the abyss and it will suicide itself."
Point.
Counterpoint: goalposts. Remember back when Madonna was considered avante-garde? Bsck when Like a Prayer had people calling for her excomunication?
Anyway,
http://hipsterracist.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/flogging-miley/
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 1, 2014 9:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I know what she did as an adult.But oh she had an unbelievable mind and perception.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 1, 2014 9:21 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Madonna was very conservative then if judged by today's standards of image and behavior.She was just first.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 1, 2014 1:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Good stuff. I also appreciate your toning down the woman-hating I've seen elsewhere on your blog (fairly explicit at some points, like your powerfully careless racism intersecting with SSI recipients) in favor of actually recognizing Hess still dealt with shit she shouldn't have had to deal with. The misattribution is just the icing on the cake.
Have you read much Louis Althusser? He was crazy, crazy as shit, but his ideas on the impersonality of human history are interesting in the context you use to talk about "the system" and what it will or won't allow.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 1, 2014 1:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"are patently false. I don't know where you got that impression, or if you work in academics, or -- if so -- how they do it at your institution, but as someone who got a Ph.D. in Linguistics under a Rhodes scholarship (in the last 10 years), I can tell you that you are buttfuckingly wrong.
If this is in some way true then I guess whatever I was taught wasn't entirely correct. I don't have a PHD in linguistics, I don't deal with linguistics directly, I don't remember seeing anyone even discussing or citing Saussure or Derrida regarding current linguistics outside of film and literature students, and I don't readily see the application of a Saussurean framework to the psychological and neurological sciences. What I outlined very briefly is just the summary of material I have studied."
I've talked to a Rhodes scholar from my school. She's my age. Dim-witted, ambitious but intellectually plain. Driven is all--but she'd be driven at anything, she randomly chose scholarship to excel at, but doesn't care about it for itself, only for: the trappings.
So waving the academic credential means nothing. You ever met a stupid PhD? Better question: you ever met a smart PhD? I'll wait.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 1, 2014 6:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"fairly explicit at some points, like your powerfully careless racism intersecting with SSI recipients"
Racist? I never saw it, and I actually am racist so it ain't like I’d have any reason not to.
White, brown, and black tend to all have their representatives in the welfare office waiting rooms. Could be that he hates us all equal—lots of Asians in the psychiatric profession— but I always liked to imagine Alone as an Eskimo. An Eskimo pirate.
Completely innocuous question: how many SSI recipients have you actually met? Because, maybe you're an exception, but it seems to me like mainstream Americans can best maintain a sympathetic view of the poor and downtrodden by… staying far away from them.
(See GK Chesterton's observations about the modern reformer; when you see the purpose of a gate in the road, only then should you attempt to dismantle it.)
Anyway, his SSI posts always struck me as a subtle way of selling living wage to fiscal conservatives, and in fact I have successfully used them for that purpose.
"Should I be forced to pay for lazy bums who could find work if they wanted?"
Yes you should, because any truly useful work they could find would be better done by a robot. Your society has rendered a good portion of the populous obsolete, irrelevant and very restless. What do you do to keep them from burning it? You can't throw them all in prison for smoking the meth and crack poured into their neighbourhoods by the CIA (and an increasing number are of the nothing-harder-than-Adderall variety; Hipsters on Food Stamps), you can't afford another excuse to draft them all (and, honestly, how many more wars can you lose before your flag changes?), you ain't austere enough to start gassing them (yet). So in the time before Skynet awakens there's really no better option than just paying them not to riot.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 1, 2014 6:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Althusser and Foucault were good friends and F knew his work well. It is felt that Althusser's reading of Marx was definitive for the time.Then Foucault dismantled it and A - I think - saw that he was correct. About that time he suicided.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 1, 2014 7:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Al Gore said that about paying them.So he knows exactly that is what those SSI payments are for.They make you jump thru a lot of hoops to keep it tho. I tell my niece that she gets paid for being sick and so she has really made herself sick cause she got caught up in the pretense and it became real for her.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 2, 2014 12:25 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"So in the time before Skynet awakens there's really no better option than just paying them not to riot."
Skynet awakened a long time ago. Our history of "demonically possessed" people setting up crazy and crazy successful religions isn't that of darwinism but super advanced mind control.
Too bad skynet and/or those above it are bullies themselves and not interested in being nannies, closer to Lilith than nannies.
Coincidentally I just started another blog about this:
http://ancientmindcontrol.wordpress.com/
I should rename it to Skynet Lives but I don't want to sound too crazy.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 2, 2014 12:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well, you're about as myopic as they come.
People who get Ph.D's are obviously dumb, is that what you're trying to say?
Look, guy, I think theories of intelligence are pretty much bullshit to begin with and, to me, a credential says a lot more about a person's ability to stick with something and apply a great deal of effort and focus toward a specified end than it does about how "smart" they are.
You might be the most naturally gifted person in this comments thread but you haven't figured out how to make other people see it that way. And saying that Ph.D. students are "dim-witted [sic]" or "intellectually plain" just makes you sound like a hater, and until you prove otherwise I'll assume you're inexperienced, doubtful of your own abilities and probably pretty scared about the future because at your age (22?) you're now up against a reality that resists your demands to be viewed and treated on your own terms, and in which you're finding -- to your horror -- that you might not have anything original or important to say. Which is obviously both frustrating and completely false, because of course you have something important and original to say (everyone does) you just haven't developed the discipline and intestinal fortitude required to pursue learning how to say it. So instead of putting your nose to the grindstone (which you view as a kind of conformity and surrender to unacceptable terms) you lash out, which is both predictable and, in your case, embarrassing.
I write all of this in perfect accordance with your own comment, in which -- assuming that you, too, have some kind of capacity for sustained effort and focus -- you could've added something meaningful to the topic under discussion (i.e., whether Saussure's structural linguistics is anachronistic) but instead choose to focus on me and my "credential waving". Which you hopefully now realize was pretty dumb on your part because while I'm waving credentials you're waving...what?
If you don't like what I've said, then read up on the topic and try to show me something I don't already know. Because I know you, I've met you a thousand times and you're not interesting. The alternative, of course, would be to change, which -- if you've read anything Alone has written -- is always the objective.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 2, 2014 2:23 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"how many SSI recipients have you actually met? Because, maybe you're an exception, but it seems to me like mainstream Americans can best maintain a sympathetic view of the poor and downtrodden by… staying far away from them."
I've met the dead ones. I grew up in a Southern metro where, sad to say, my family probably belonged. Alone is explicitly racist enough times to not warrant further comment on my part.
"You might be the most naturally gifted person in this comments thread but you haven't figured out how to make other people see it that way. And saying that Ph.D. students are "dim-witted [sic]" or "intellectually plain" just makes you sound like a hater, and until you prove otherwise I'll assume you're inexperienced, doubtful of your own abilities and probably pretty scared about the future because at your age (22?) you're now up against a reality that resists your demands to be viewed and treated on your own terms, and in which you're finding -- to your horror -- that you might not have anything original or important to say. Which is obviously both frustrating and completely false, because of course you have something important and original to say (everyone does) you just haven't developed the discipline and intestinal fortitude required to pursue learning how to say it. So instead of putting your nose to the grindstone (which you view as a kind of conformity and surrender to unacceptable terms) you lash out, which is both predictable and, in your case, embarrassing."
The worst thing about this blog is the cheap psychoanalysis its readers offer. The only thing you got right is my age--kudos for that. I'll be interviewing the latest biographer of Marx alongside Noam Chomsky in December for an article. The sad thing about your jab is both of these PhDs would probably agree with me that it takes a special kind of stupid to get a PhD.
Cross between Palahniuk and my pill-head shrink. Heh. Try better, little simulacrum!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 2, 2014 2:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
mainstream Americans can best maintain a sympathetic view of the poor and downtrodden by… staying far away from them
Actually, I plan to visit New York.
First, I will write about 911. It will also touch politics.
Love,
Victoria
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 2, 2014 5:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
J if you are so great then how come you still debate in the Dominating Discourse of classical Hegelian dialectic? Before you are with Chomsky listen careful many times to the famous Foucault/Chomsky debate when Foucault was young and just getting started. It does not fall into the trap you fall into here.Afterwards Foucault incorporated strong points of Chomsky into his thinking.Why are you still stuck?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 2, 2014 6:14 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Great question.
They are clever. I'll save the details for now. Silly me got caught by the moment and trusted a tweet! :)
In any case, looking forward to visit New York.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 2, 2014 6:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
There's more to it, but unless you want to learn more about people who blow up buildings it's not interesting.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 2, 2014 6:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm calling BS on you Oxford alumnus claim. Shouldn't you have work or other mental explorations that require adequate concentration, that which is not nominally compatible with petty internet comment feuds?
Alum Christopher Hitchens had disputes, but they were part of the theatrics, see. The narrative, you know.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 2, 2014 9:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It will become a great narrative in the end. You'll see.
I'll make this a learning experience. It's not something that I didn't know in the first place, but we do need reminders.
Looking forward to have you commenting on my blog.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 2, 2014 9:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Just for clarification the anonymous you're responding to in that post is not the same anonymous you were talking to before.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 2, 2014 9:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Chomsky vs. Foucault debate
Abbey, if "two people completely talking past each other and discussing a somewhat similar topic in two completely alien fashions" is your idea of "not engaging in the Dominating Discourse" then I'm not sure what to say to you, and if that's your idea of good discourse then that might explain your airy, content-free posting style here. They were not only literally speaking different languages but they were metaphorically speaking different languages as well.
I would ask you to expound upon your supposed knowledge of Hegel and Foucault but like so many times before you'll decline because you don't want to be "soundbite'd". At the very least Tsui Pen is honest in his discourse style and strives to make himself understood, but I can't say the same about you Abbey because every single criticism levied against you, including the enormous post I made farther up the thread, is met with a handwave and a complete refusal to engage. Tell me Abbey, why do you continue to post inane bullshit while at the same time refusing to engage with any criticism of your claims? I wanna know what you get from it since it's clearly not done from a pedagogic position. Is it a form of tourrete's or OCD?
Why post it at all? "It does not fall into the trap you fall into here" is a zero-content statement. What trap and specifically how? Nobody can tell because you refuse to clarify yourself. I'm still not even convinced you have a firm grasp of the English language. Does posting tautological banalities make you feel better about your lack of meaningful education?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 2, 2014 9:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It will become a great narrative in the end. You'll see.I'll make this a learning experience. It's not something that I didn't know in the first place, but we do need reminders.
Looking forward to have you commenting on my blog.
Is anyone even able to make heads or tails of Victoria's posts, and furthermore does anybody know why this blog attracts so many loony-bins making zero-content posts?
Actually, I plan to visit New York. First, I will write about 911. It will also touch politics.
First you should probably take a rudimentary English class.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 3, 2014 2:37 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"J if you are so great then how come you still debate in the Dominating Discourse of classical Hegelian dialectic? Before you are with Chomsky listen careful many times to the famous Foucault/Chomsky debate when Foucault was young and just getting started. It does not fall into the trap you fall into here.Afterwards Foucault incorporated strong points of Chomsky into his thinking.Why are you still stuck?"
Eat my ass, to begin with, then come back for leftovers. I've read the Chomsky-Foucault debate and it was absolutely pointless. The bald Frenchman yelled a bit about power and the American muttered a bit about structure. I've read more of Foucault than I have of Chomsky and remain a fan of both, but I am no post-structuralist--it is a mistake to take Foucault as a god, since he would laugh at you for it sooner than I would. His points on the power dynamics of discourse are institutional, not personal. Neither you nor I are institutions.
Beyond that, you're an idiot for confusing Hegel's dialectic with dialectic itself, which is what we're having now. I listened to a lecture not a month ago by Dr. Andrew Cole of Princeton on the role Hegel played in creating modern theory and influencing Marx--he was nice enough to sign my copy of Capital, under Angela Davis's name--and the points he made were no more complex than any troll can discover by browsing online concerning the difference between dialectics and a dialectic.
Cunt.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 3, 2014 11:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hi -- sorry, have we met?
I never attended Oxford, you must have mistaken me for someone else.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 3, 2014 11:38 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The worst thing about this blog is the cheap psychoanalysis its readers offer. The only thing you got right is my age--kudos for that. I'll be interviewing the latest biographer of Marx alongside Noam Chomsky in December for an article. The sad thing about your jab is both of these PhDs would probably agree with me that it takes a special kind of stupid to get a PhD.
This isn't a pissing contest. I think that's cool that you're conducting interviews, I'm a big fan of Marx's materialist epistemology (not necessarily "Marxism", and not necessarily Marx) and Chomsky is without a doubt one of my personal heroes. For all the shit that fans of continental philosophy give him -- and this is coming from one such fan -- the guy has the iron will of a golem and balls to match. Talk about zero fucks to give.
From my perspective, you're defending yourself against a perceived attack that I never really made. I didn't "psychoanalyze" you; in fact, the idea that guessing at a person's character/circumstances is somehow psychoanalysis is a complete mischaracterization and precisely what cheapens it to begin with . Yeah, I took some stabs in the dark based on your condemnation of my "credential waving", with regard to which I thought you missed the point and presented an angle of your personality that was fairly clearly discernible. That's how I guessed your age.
None of that is the point. I've written fairly extensively across the internet and, actually, this might be the only time I've mentioned my advanced degree because it's rarely relevant. In this particular case, however, it was relevant because we were having a discussion about a very specific point within linguistics and whether or not that point was still relevant. I simply offered my credentials as a source. That's it. You, my friend, were the one who got all uppity about it, which led me to think some things about the kinds of people who tend to get uppity about others' credentials. I should know, I used to be one.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 3, 2014 5:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I also appreciate your toning down the woman-hating I've seen elsewhere on your blog
oh seriously, fuck off with your projections of "hatred", you can't discern hate or any other emotion from words on a screen.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 3, 2014 5:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Beyond that, you're an idiot for confusing Hegel's dialectic with dialectic itself, which is what we're having now.
thanks for confirming that this "dialectic" bullshit is nothing more than idiots arguing on the internet for some kind of ego-boost that arises from reading one's preening on a display
most people talk, but pretentious insecure people "have a dialectic"
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 3, 2014 5:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
...as someone who got a Ph.D. in Linguistics under a Rhodes scholarship (in the last 10 years), I can tell you...
To wit, Rhodes Scholarship is inseparable from Oxford. What is seen here is that "I" is in apposition to "someone."
Outline the mistake.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 3, 2014 5:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's much more than that. And those a bit beyond half-brained can muss about in the metasphere for it to take shape.
good job on the example of "dialectic" being no more then pretentious bafflegarb offered as some sort of deep analysis of meanings hidden to everyone but you
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 3, 2014 5:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ah yes, el puerco again. Must be out of the depressive phase and back into the ultraproductive phase, I see.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 3, 2014 5:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Been reading Lacan and it is striking how his philosophy remind me of another book I'm reading, especially his concept of negative space.
The book is about creating an illusion of a secret language, a code. Some of the characters in the book start seeing irregularities in texts people exchange and therefore assume it must be some sort of a code.
In my opinion, it is the very search for the code which creates it. It's a Lacanian object. In english: it only exists in your mind.
Lacan was right.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 3, 2014 7:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Confused?
It begins with a faint signal, hints - which cause people to search: -"what could it mean?"
Lacan offer an excellent framework for interpreting contemporary media and society in general!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 3, 2014 7:26 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Since the Lacanian and Hegelian Zizek has done all this reading of the media through Lacan and Hegel, why does a lightweight like you want to reinvent the wheel? Use Zizek to stand on his shoulders. Try it with Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.Or read me when I finish mine.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 4, 2014 12:32 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I want new articles, you had better not be dead, jerk.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 4, 2014 1:05 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Zizek
Oh you mean Zizek the plagiarist?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 4, 2014 6:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Does a mistake with regard to annotating/specifying/accounting-for a source in a NON ACADEMIC WORK result in the entirety of said work (otherwise chock full of attributions) being labeled plagiarism? I recall it was a single fuck-up.
Otherwise, did I miss anything else? Was it, like Lehrer, part of a pattern or something?
Should we count one strike and march straight to devaluing the entirety of an author's entire library? All off their work?
Even though Zizek doesn't attend predominantly to academic philosophy, his record among the academy at large remains unscathed. Nothing has been brought forth by the towers indicative of any theft in that realm.
Verso is not going to drop him, children.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 4, 2014 7:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
a mistake with regard to annotating/specifying/accounting-for a source
Is that what we're calling it now?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 4, 2014 7:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
A was attacking me by saying that about Zizek.A pretty common thing to say by trolls and A is one. I mostly ignore him unless I want to reply something in particular for someone to read down the line. Also helps me to simplify and clarify my thoughts. Thanks for the support tho.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 4, 2014 7:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
A was attacking me by saying that about Zizek
Contrary to your personal belief, no one is "attacking" you, you functionally illiterate narcissist. The world does not revolve around you.
You will continue to write incorrect nonsensical garbage and people will continue to correct you. You can call that an "attack" all you want, doesn't change what it is.
I mostly ignore him unless I want to reply something in particular for someone to read down the line.
No, you ignore criticism because you have nothing of value to add, nor can you competently defend anything you've written here.
simplify and clarify my thoughts
You've done nothing of the sort for the entire duration you've posted on this website.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 4, 2014 6:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thought provoking and well-written as usual. Thanks!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 6, 2014 9:19 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Miss this guy - new post please!!!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 6, 2014 5:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Ah yes, el puerco again.
I'm afraid you have me confused with someone that you're obviously obsessed with.
Best of luck shedding that obsession. Maybe not snarking on the internet could help you get there.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 6, 2014 5:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
From what I've been told, I'm fairly good at communication, given that I know what I'm talking about, of course.
Love,
Victor
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 6, 2014 6:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
snark
There's that word again. Did you forget to take your pills Porko? You haven't updated your blog in a while, I'm starting to get worried, although I must admit it's for personal reasons. Watching your mental illness unravel itself across the internet is infinitely amusing.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 6, 2014 6:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You keep talking to porko/el puerco, I'll sit back and watch you confuse yourself further.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 7, 2014 3:51 AM | Posted by : | Reply
So it has been 5+ months and we've seen no book and nothing new here... what is going on with you, Alone?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 7, 2014 7:17 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm really looking forward to your book and please write another post.
It's strange, the course of things. A while ago, I thought I would stay away from worldly affairs. Had no desire for attention and all I basically wanted, was a job, freedoom of speech and peace for me and my loved ones. Reality dictated something else. What triggered me, was observing the behavior of children around me and I realized that it wouldn't stop. It may sound like an appeal to emotion, but it is not - it's the truth.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 7, 2014 11:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That kind of implies that your recent posts have been uninterpretable on purpose. Why would that be?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 7, 2014 7:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Observe children. This is our future.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 7, 2014 7:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"oh seriously, fuck off with your projections of "hatred", you can't discern hate or any other emotion from words on a screen."
Alone is most certainly a practical misogynist.
"Oh you mean Zizek the plagiarist?"
Zizek is an academic. He feeds himself through the academy. Plagiarism is the biggest sin a man in his profession can confess of, and the fact it came from white supremacist writing makes it all the worse. Lo and behold, Dr. Martin Luther King's plagiarism only came out after he died and had performed all the good he could have performed. Zizek is no Dr. King. His insights tend to be unoriginal, though I credit him with reviving interest in Lacan (who, at least, leads to Althusser, the better theorist of ideology) which was surely no easy feat. For a public intellectual he has revived interest in theory and the scholarly pursuits, albeit in a manner more flashy than a snake-oil salesman--but nevertheless if he is a plagiarist, a living one at that, it is certainly justified to express deep and abiding concern that perhaps he too is fraudulent.
It isn't like Zizek is a particularly nice man, or even a humanist. He's a left-fascist, self-described: fuck him.
"good job on the example of "dialectic" being no more then pretentious bafflegarb offered as some sort of deep analysis of meanings hidden to everyone but you"
Dialectic, you stupid fuck, simply means a certain kind of discourse. We are engaging in it now, all of us here in this thread, by definition. Hegelian dialectics is an entirely different concept predicated on and constituted by the sort of synthesis typical, classical dialectic is not.
"From my perspective, you're defending yourself against a perceived attack that I never really made. I didn't "psychoanalyze" you; in fact, the idea that guessing at a person's character/circumstances is somehow psychoanalysis is a complete mischaracterization and precisely what cheapens it to begin with . Yeah, I took some stabs in the dark based on your condemnation of my "credential waving", with regard to which I thought you missed the point and presented an angle of your personality that was fairly clearly discernible. That's how I guessed your age."
You were writing with Palahniuk's bore-making pen to attack a ghost in the dark. No, you presumed to know me, and you do not know me--at least until December when my name goes public in one of the leftist rags. Otherwise, you gave in to the cheap temptation to pretend anyone here can be known. If the author of this blog is to remain a ghost to us, even if we knew his name, you'd best refrain from extracting details from the rest of us. Where did it get you?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 8, 2014 10:43 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Althusser, the better theorist of ideology
Curious why you think Althusser is better than Lacan (or Zizek, for that matter) on ideology. Can you elaborate?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 8, 2014 1:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Althusser borrowed from Lacan, but Zizek bastardized the former in an attempt to understand the latter. Althusser understood not only the importance of social-structural totality, he understood its fractures. Zizek is lost in the mire of media, not the material symbols that inform ideology in everyday life, at its every moment. He fails in this because all he can think about is the worst parts of Freudianism, and the spectacle--not the simpler elements that serve to subjugate people, all the time, always already.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 8, 2014 5:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's funny to hear you say that because I was initially drawn to Althusser (first through "Marxist" literary critics like Walter Benjamin and Mikhail Bakhtin, then Marx and Lenin) and only later read about Zizek's Lacan. I first read the Sublime Object of Ideology in a state of near shock and awe because Zizek's exposition arranged the information in my head in such a way as to make coherent sense out of it and it blew me away. I'm thankful that I'd read a fair amount before reading Zizek because the thing he is clearly best at is, without a doubt, pedagogy. I can agree with some of the criticisms against him because his primary value for me is supplemental.
But let's get back to Althusser. I read Ideological State Apparatuses (chunks of it, anyway) and I do remember Contradiction and Overdetermination. From what you say about the "fractures", and from the idea of overdetermination, it sounds like Althusser is closer to Deleuze? Maybe I should go back and reread...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 8, 2014 6:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Yes, I realize that it will probably be necessary to further analysis of contemporary political language.
When will I get time to do the things I want to do?
I'm not complaining but I admit that I enjoy precision and deconstructing an endless stream of text, is at best boring. Stop it, please.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 8, 2014 6:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
When Abbeysbooks posts as J, the content really gets to a new apogee of absurdity.
This is one special, special cult.
I think it's good that you keep the elitism at 99% and the hubris at 100%. Certainty always trumps honesty.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 8, 2014 6:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thank you.
I'm stuck in oldschool thinking and suffer from the delusion that our future will be like the past.
That comment could easily be interpreted...wrong. Perhaps because....it was wrong? I like it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 8, 2014 7:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's Zarathustra.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 8, 2014 7:02 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So, what's primary for me is supplemental for you?
That's radical.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 8, 2014 7:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sorry to disappoint you but I'm not J. Believe it or not as you wish.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 8, 2014 7:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Actually it's a very fine blog for your information.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 8, 2014 7:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I have not read Althusser but know that Foucault was close to him and supported him to enter the College de France.Foucault's break with Marxism brought an ideological rift with Althusser but they remained friends.Althusser committed suicide you know and he was our time's greatest scholar of Marx. To get into better or worse than Lacan is to slip into the Discourse of the dialectic. Foolish. Why would Zizek want to recreate the wheel when we have Althusser.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 8, 2014 7:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"But let's get back to Althusser. I read Ideological State Apparatuses (chunks of it, anyway) and I do remember Contradiction and Overdetermination. From what you say about the "fractures", and from the idea of overdetermination, it sounds like Althusser is closer to Deleuze? Maybe I should go back and reread..."
Althusser wrote a good deal in his time, much of it gibberish, admittedly. His insights into the structural nature of ideology, when structural-anything was popular in the academy, remain for me his most useful tendency. His concept of overdetermination does bear resemblance to the rhizome of D&G, but I am not familiar enough with the latter to go beyond that.
"When Abbeysbooks posts as J, the content really gets to a new apogee of absurdity."
To my knowledge Abbeysbooks hasn't posted under my name.
"I have not read Althusser but know that Foucault was close to him and supported him to enter the College de France.Foucault's break with Marxism brought an ideological rift with Althusser but they remained friends.Althusser committed suicide you know and he was our time's greatest scholar of Marx. To get into better or worse than Lacan is to slip into the Discourse of the dialectic. Foolish. Why would Zizek want to recreate the wheel when we have Althusser."
Althusser did not commit suicide, I don't think. Though, he certainly tried to enough times over the decades. You should read his memoirs before you read any of his academic work. He is dangerous territory, and only parts of his work should be taken seriously. Though those parts are phenomenal.
And.
You can't complain about elitism on a blog supposedly written by a psychiatrist. Twitter is that way -----> .
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 8, 2014 7:56 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"To get into better or worse than Lacan is to slip into the Discourse of the dialectic."
Stop talking.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 9, 2014 6:28 AM | Posted by : | Reply
That was, once again, not me @6:46. I can see nonny heading for the throttle again. Good job on securing the pseudo-intellectual infotainment spotlight by posting as me to get a bath-house date.
Some things will never end.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 9, 2014 6:32 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Good of you to admit your intellectual shortcomings by oh-so hilariously attempting to end an internet argument. BRAVO, Tarzie!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 9, 2014 7:31 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm so stuck in oldschool thinking. It's not that I'm against change or anything. Help.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 9, 2014 7:43 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
OK. You are stuck in the Dominating Discourse and as long as you think in oppositions you can't move to the outside. You just play an endless game of ping-pong. See the movie Snowpiercer then read unemployednegativity's review of it and you will be on your way.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 9, 2014 4:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"OK. You are stuck in the Dominating Discourse and as long as you think in oppositions you can't move to the outside. You just play an endless game of ping-pong. See the movie Snowpiercer then read unemployednegativity's review of it and you will be on your way."
Crack a book. Your nonsense about the dominating discourse should be put into a cannon and shot into space. Derrida was a fraud, dear one.
We talk. I talk. You talk. You spout gibberish. If I dominate it, pardon me, but that's natural law, not Hegel manifesting.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 9, 2014 5:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Yes, you are absolutely right.
Focus fixed. Earlier today, I made plans for tomorrow in case you're curious.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 9, 2014 5:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Porko give it up buddy. Your autistic posts stick out like a sore thumb.
Fuck of back to your comedy blog and obsess over Greenwald or whatever other weird shit you're obsessed with.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 9, 2014 7:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I said nothing about Derrida, just Snowpiercer and unemployednegativity. Have you seen this movie and read his review. If not STFU.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 9, 2014 11:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
No I haven't seen any fucking Snowpiercer. You're the one gibing on about Althusser's Marxism and Foucault even after confessing you haven't read a lick of Althusser's theoretical writings, but somehow he's "the best" of Western Marxism the 20th century had? Try again, dear, that honor belongs to other luminaries.
I don't get my philosophy from movies because: I am not a tool: I can actually sustain more than three whole paragraphs!: and they're almost always terribly bastardized. Look at the Matrix trilogy. Basic Continentalist philosophy distorted with semtex and automatic weapons. Who needs that shit?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 10, 2014 6:01 AM | Posted by : | Reply
People, offer up if you see differently, but I'm pretty sure a large part of TLP is written addressing matters of character like 'J' above. I hazard to think that I cannot be the only one that thinks so.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 10, 2014 6:23 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I replied to you from my email but it didn't post. But unemployednegativity is a professor of philosophy at Maine and he goes into continental philosophy with Snowpiercer so take it up with him. He is excellent BTW and aggressive. Diane Rubenstein does it with American Presidents, Zizek with movies also, so I am in good company. Too bad you don't want to learn anything.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 10, 2014 6:30 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
J is pretty unstable and nasty unstable. It seems likely TLP posts posts that take commenters into consideration and address their ways of expressing themselves. You know good analysts that do groups want the members to be helpful to each other and that is my opinion.He creates the space for that. Narcissistic people go into rages like J and attack others. So usually that kind of person is not selected to participate in a group as they are destructive.Jonny used to be the one everyone attacked. When I came I saw that and I also saw he was expressing meaningful concepts that perhaps could have been stated better. Now he does that. He got his bile out here on people like J and the do gooders who do no good, so he is on his way with a successful blog of his own. That's what any person in this profession wants to happen. J isn't going to make it. Nor porko whatever. Others get tired of the hostility and attacks and leave. When a new blog post goes up interesting people read and comment and then go away until the next one. There's a new one up now, did you know that?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 10, 2014 9:44 AM | Posted by : | Reply
How precisely do you consider blogging a matter of "success."
You're playing in a sandbox.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 10, 2014 10:58 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Says the guy who just spent time commenting on a blog. Is this some form of translocated PUA negging dinted by cheap intellectualism?
Look around; I smell something.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 13, 2014 1:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I take your silence to mean something. It might suggest that you're more busy than usual, or not.
In any case, I'm looking forward to learn more details about your work. Being slow-minded, I have already started to think past tense, that it is over, that the rest are formalities, a walk in the park.
That being said, I am aware it is a process, and when there is an ending, something else begins.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 13, 2014 4:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Are you autistic by any chance?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 13, 2014 5:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Are you autistic by any chance?
I'm afraid not.
I notice things. You notice things. We're looking at the same thing, I believe.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 13, 2014 5:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Take a live signal from a living mind, add or subtract whatever, connect the resulting signal it into the aether.
Reality-TV for our times.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 13, 2014 5:20 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Please do not hesitate if you have a lumen or two to share. Enlighten me.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 13, 2014 9:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
TLP, you had me
but I never had you
I-I-I needed you
You didn't need me
So I-I-I
I just gotta tell you
Goodbye
Goodbye
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
October 13, 2014 10:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Go get your own thoughts, then. Stop needing someone else to think for you. At the furthest end of need is mental retardation. I don't think talking to this doctor will do much, if at all, for you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 14, 2014 2:26 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I didn't fully appreciate how everyone is naked.
Great potential. Saves time.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 15, 2014 3:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
While I first agreed with Alone and many comments here that women should ignore online trolls, or be more creative who they ask for help i.e. the mayor in Amanda Hess's cases, but what happens when law enforcement and the University system fails you. Where do you turn then? In retrospect, the basic premise of Alone's argument sounds glib when you consider this type of bullying is more than troll's leaving nasty comments to a University receiving death threats if a feminist guest speaker goes on, threatening not only to kill her but anyone in the audience who gets in there way.
Here's a link to the full story: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/15/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-games-critic-cancels-talk
And this is happening more and more. I notice in this post Alone, did not address the Elliot Rodgers story and the misogyny in his statements that led Rogers on a killing rampage. Especially, given the connection to the Pick-Up Artist community and then the many anti-women forums he frequented.
I work at a School of Engineering where the student population is 75% male and the level of compliments we get from the female population on their professors, fellow students is atrocious. Sadly, female students are getting the message before they even step into the workplace that their not welcome in STEM, that their opinions don't matter.
As a long-time reader of this blog, I don't believe Alone supports misogyny or this type of behavior from trolls against women. Rather the message I've always gotten is to think for yourself, look for where the media is trying to control the message, and of course facing our own narcissism, which we are quick to see in others but not ourselves. Advice that has been helpful in my own life, where I try now to focus more on what I can give to others in any given situation rather on myself and how annoyed I am.
I bring this up now after noticing how many of these stories are alike -- Elliot Rodgers, 4Chan and Jennifer Laurence case, and now this with
female game developer Anita Sarkeesian. This can only get worst given that with her case the University and the police gave in to a terrorist threat, played right into this maniacs hands, proving that women are not protected by any force of law. Truly a tragic day for women; and as a female, I've received this message loud and clear.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 15, 2014 3:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
* complaints not compliments. Believe me, I wish it was compliments about how fair and respectful and thoughtful the men are here. Which is not to say there aren't any males, who exhibit the extremes of misogynistic behaviors. I just wished they'd speak up against their guy friends when they see it happening. When more men speak up, we'll start seeing less and less of this. Because right now we women can't anymore, if we're being killed for it. How many more women have to die before the men stand up?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 15, 2014 3:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"How many more women have to die before the men stand up?"
Honestly, this is a nice ideal, and it's certainly a possible social phenomenon. It coincides with education and most guys I know, even if they are sexually promiscuous with girls and debase them in conversation, would severely threaten, or in some cases kill, a man who abused a woman.
But the real question is why aren't women in the age of feminism fighting back harder? Some of my female friends carry weapons on them at all times. When dudes start getting cut, that might reduce violence and femicide more than chivalry.
This from someone who liked the radical stage of feminism rather than the diluted tendency we have now in the West.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 15, 2014 4:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
First of all, this post was published almost a whole month before the Elliot Roger shooting, so why would you expect Alone to address it in his post? Secondly, it's hilarious to watch certain people try and spin the Elliot Roger case into a feminist issue when it was anything but. Sorry, but it was not "the misogyny in his statements" that "led Rogers on a killing rampage". Rogers' main problem had nothing to do with misogyny; his hatred of women was only incidental to a much deeper problem (as many people here have noted, getting laid wouldn't have done anything to help him), and it's kind of sickening to see some people claim women as his sole victim when he ended up killing more men than women.
Furthermore, not sure why you think those death threats towards Sarkeesian were anything more than the usual bluffs taken to a grandiose level. And I'm not condoning that person's actions had he not been joking, but Sarkeesian is a fraud and a shrill cunt. I'm not a child and therefore I despise and actively avoid video games and "video games culture", but even I know she's a fraud and a shrill cunt who tricks people into giving her money for her inane Youtube analyses of video games in which she displays a less-than-undergraduate grasp of the concepts being tackled.
Your comments about the chilly STEM atmosphere boil down to simple bitching, as any and all comments about the chilly STEM atmosphere can and do ("The patriarchy is the reason I'm doing poorly in STEM!"). Your passing comments about 4chan and the Jennifer Lawrence leak provide enough information to make me not want to hear any more of your opinions on it, since they are no doubt uninformed and most likely taken secondhand from Jezebel or Gawker.
If you're going to come here and write several paragraphs of airheaded nonsense, at least have the rigor to get basic facts right, like for example the date of the article you're posting on.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 15, 2014 5:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Whoosh. My comment was meant to be satirical. Not a John Lennon fan, I take it?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 15, 2014 5:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My comment was meant to be a parodic reference to John Lennon's song "Mother." Like everyone else here, I appreciate Dr. Alone's essays and wonder where he's gone. I thought it would be FUN AND AMUSING to take the mild feelings of dependence and abandonment that exist to some degree in everyone (even compos mentis adults), and do a little comic exaggeration. Maybe you're just not a John Lennon fan.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 15, 2014 6:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Law enforcement and the university system are always going to fail you. Especially when you most need them.Like parents who get in the way about trivia and are not there when you really need them.That is, those times when you have only you to depend on. This is what women need to cultivate and other women need to set the example for doing this cultivation. The energy is always about making some Big Other to respond in a PC correct way.Women must stop looking even for the Big Other.
Universities are in hock to the company store. That is a huge portion of their wealth is tied up with govt grants, privileges, and cannot be separated. It is Foucault's power/knowledge/capital/normality Grid. Get over it. It's here to stay.The planet requires serious environmental work to attack capitalism's destruction of everything. All else is just a distraction.
Women have bought into this as they were intended to do. They are the most dangerous revolutionary force so they must be distracted, dangled with toys in front of them, co-opted, everything possible to entangle them, hold them hostage, so they never even touch the potential they have.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 15, 2014 7:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The terroristic threats were made in a university setting where they would most likely be intimidating and taken seriously. The one making the threats knew this and expected the educational institution would back down. That's what they wanted. To show this puppet like behavior universities offer students nowadays.Universities are complicit with the state no matter how privately well they are funded.
And video games are not just for the childish. There is a sophisticated perception of reality that comes from this Virtual Reality gameworld. They think in terms of strategy, not misogyny and psychological baggage.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 15, 2014 7:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Most women are still stuck in "Help daddy, he hit me."
What do you do when you are an 80 year old woman walking home late after seeing a movie you wanted to see, and having a car pull up beside you, the passenger door opened, and a man inside asking if you want a lift? So I look inside and he has his cock out, rubbing it, and it is huge.
Do you scream for help? Do you try to out run the car? Run back of a house? This is true BTW and happened to me a few months ago.
I looked him in the eye from the sidewalk and told him to get the mothafuckinway outta here. I pulled out my phone (which wasn't working) and pretended to make a call. He drove off.And no I didn't bother with his license plate or calling the police of whatever. I know how that plays out so forgettaboudit.
There is always just you and your creative ability to handle the situation.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 15, 2014 8:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You're an 80 year old woman?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 15, 2014 8:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes. You have a problem with that?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 15, 2014 10:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Christ, for an old woman, you sound like an undergraduate ranting about Foucauldian grids she neither comprehends nor really cares about.
Women don't worry about a Big Other, they worry about getting raped by their best friends *and* the strangers in the street.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 16, 2014 12:00 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Completely unrelated to this article, but where is the article about the minister who committed suicide after waiting 100 days and made a website about it? Has it been removed? I checked the archives and couldn't find it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 16, 2014 3:56 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I remember that happening, but I don't remember Alone ever commenting on it. What I do remember is Alone's poorly written, borderline religious anti-suicide post, which is probably the only sub-par article he's ever written and is very different in quality than the rest of his output. You can still find it on the Wayback Machine if you feel so inclined.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 16, 2014 4:33 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Thank you.
"Problem" solved shortly.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 16, 2014 7:16 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Women don't worry about a Big Other
Care you to elaborate?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 16, 2014 8:39 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sadly, female students are getting the message before they even step into the workplace that their not welcome in STEM, that their opinions don't matter.
Man, if I was pissing people off that much, I'd be forced to bring my life decision to pursue prostitution / hijacking under scrutiny.
Maybe the opinions of professional liars aren't really valid at all?
Maybe you're obnoxious and antisocial, after being sucker punched by your competition? You didn't take her advice, right?
Why would you listen to a married woman tell you what men like?
Why would you listen to whores that make you hate who you are?
The oldest scam in the world, you fell for it.
When someone offers you their con to get rich,
You are the mark, you silly daughter of a bitch.
You were played by your mother. Women have only hate for girls. But every girl is a moron who cannot be pitied. You cry wolf wolf.
You prey on empathy. You get no sympathy.
Men want girls to be happy pleasing themselves.
Women want girls to suffer to please them.
Who was on your side? And whose side are you on?
Consider yourself lucky you're only hated. For embracing your mother's sleaze and selling fraud to men you cannot please?
I think we both know you deserve much worse.
Let me guess, you think I'm misogynist? You're just confused. Misogynists hate women for being women. Your mother was a misogynist. You are a misogynist. But I am not. I like women.
You would have no problems if you were a human woman, I bet.
No one likes a fraud.
Try to be humane to be a human.
Try to be grownup to be a woman.
Try not to be an infant. Try not to be a whore.
When you're independent, self-sufficient, self-reliant and free of need to communicate with violence, shame and lies, then you'll be a woman. And you'll be welcome in the workplace then.
Until then, please understand. Men are forced to work with you.
But men hate misogynists. You shouldn't be in their workplace.
Misogynists are supposed to be at home.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
October 16, 2014 9:26 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Johny: One small quip I have in your assertions is that females must like sex more then males.
Here is some original thought; men are not coded to desire sex. Men are coded to desire to please.
Men are coded to please women who are coded to be obsessed with sex > men appear to be obsessed with sex.
This makes perfect sense because sex is worthless for men. But the drive to have it is powerful enough for some men to rape. I've always been bothered by the disparity between desire (overwhelming) and reward (underwhelming). It's embarrassing. I've often been embarrassed.
I shouldn't have been. I was doing my job. Girls weren't doing theirs. Girls aren't validating men. How can they? They're whores.
To me it would seem natural selection would give the biggest desire for sex to whichever gender had to do more work to acquire it.
Women have to do more work. They just aren't doing the work. Men have the please. They have no choice. Obstruction or not.
Apply this selection pattern after a enough numbers of generations and it should be obvious that natural selection will favor a higher libido for the group that has to do more work to acquire access to sex.
Religious women are very concerned with male depravity. It's their fundamental concern. Their concern is contrived, a means to an end that is prostitution.
"To the moralist prostitution does not consist so much in the fact that the woman sells her body, but rather that she sells it out of wedlock." (Emma Goldman)
Puritan prostitutes could titillate men just by flashing an ankle or wrist. So pure, they could have been nuns. And would have been, if convents were filled with bachelors.
I grew up in a religious environment, a fundamentalist Christian commune. I remember confusion trying to help girls being harassed by boys who - apparently - were obsessed with looking up their skirts. I was far too young to comprehend the appeal of looking at cloth but the solution seemed obvious. "Why not just wear pants?", I suggested. No one looked up my pants. Problem solved. But the girls just ignored me, preferring to continue to be exasperated as the victims of - alleged - perverts.
Wanting to complain to draw attention to the ostensible value of their concealed object is their endgame. They want the rules of modesty --and-- they want to complain about them.
Women wear skirts because they want men to wear the pants. Women fear that men won't want to pay for liability, whether they dress or undress. But the former tricks men into wanting to buy fraud. WedLOCK traps the "catch". Men are trapped.
This is very cunning by women, if they love domestic violence.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 16, 2014 9:35 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So I look inside and he has his cock out, rubbing it, and it is huge.
Heheh. I'm just joking.
But as far as perception goes, you could have taken that as an awkward compliment. He was just showing you the naked truth.
Maybe you were interested. Turns out you weren't. I don't think men rape women. I think men rape whores. And I think, whores laugh all the way to Thou Shalt Not.
"We need to teach our boys not to rape."
Or they won't.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 16, 2014 5:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's ironic the comments here railing that women should not look to males for help or protection. That they should depend solely on themselves and start what carrying weapons, shooting at any man who looks at them wrong? This is a fool's solution. I would ask how many of you carry guns and would act in the same manner.
And say Ms. Sarkeesian brought her own weapon to the talk, what would you have her do? Have a bloody showdown with these maniacs and put your sons and daughters at risk. How would she be portrayed in the media? By society? That is as she's facing trial for murder, endangerment, acting foolishly, crazy, scared, not letting the police handle their job,acting like a vigilante, for taking the law into her own hands.... She would lose and ultimately so would all women if we went berserk and starting Thelma and Louise-ing it.
No women I know is asking men to protect or defend them outside what is supposedly the job of law enforcement, which comprise of both men and women. If I'm not mistaken, I thought that's what the tax dollars we pay are for. Further, if you took one second to look at the video games Ms. Sarkeesian is questioning, you'd see she's making the same point as some of you have here - railing against the "damsel and distress" caricature, as well as, the slapping around, beating up on women depicted for no purpose to the game.
As a women, I'm not asking any man to protect me or to fight any battles for me. But is it too much to ask of men to stop making women the target of their hate and violence. Their hate and violence against all groups of innocent bystanders, of not only women, but children and yes, I fully acknowledge, of other men. Because your right there is an as high percentage of male-against-male violence. Yes, Elliott Rodgers did target men as well as women. Could we look beyond the reasons and look at the behavior of these maniacs and find a solution to stop them. They control our society. The very fact that you feel a need to carry a gun to protect yourself proves that. Unless of course as Alone would argue you're doing it to inform your identity.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 16, 2014 5:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are just conditioned to live in another era that has already gone. What you are asking about men was what men were like when I was a young woman and girl. At least there I lived in suburban Philadelphia. They are not like that anymore so deal with it. The whole culture is slipping into just a few levels above feral. Am reading victor Frankl's Search for Meaning about his camp experiences noting the loss of feeling and the resultant apathy.The boys who takeout their feelings of aggression suffered aggression themselves when they were too young to defend themselves. As in the camps, their defense mechanism requires them to shut down to endure and survive. They are not going to undo that in any easy way. And it will cost a lot of time on the couch. Do you see their doing that? They would have to be suffering themselves to seek help. As along as they can dump on someone else, they won't suffer.I'll tell you though, when these men get old, they suffer.Too late though.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
October 16, 2014 5:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I had a patient once who had a small convenience store where you could get anything. He even had sex toys there. He told me that women mostly came in to look and buy the stuff. That they were far more interested than men. This was in the early 1980's.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 16, 2014 5:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Why would I want to debate with jonny? I only tried to understand him and that took me to tiqqun's Young Girl, which validated jonny. His ideas were never what I could have come up with on my own. We had different experiences that formed us. But I can recognize an original and passionate mind when I come across one. (Not very often sadly to say.)So I spent over a year being disturbed until I fell across Young Girl. Now if you see or read Gone Girl and read it through Young Girl, both will have a deeper meaning for you.And maybe someday you can unravel jonny enough to understand what he is saying, thinking and feeling. It is dangerous to know this for anyone as it is for Nick Dunne in Gone Girl. It will be for you too. Audiences leave this movie, having come in often in heterosexual pairs, maybe married, and they leave quietly.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 16, 2014 6:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You do know, I hope, that this scenario is what eXistenZ is all about. Cronenberg's movie based onhis comic book.Allegra is her name in it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 16, 2014 11:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Found it. It was Pastabagel on Partial Objects. I keep forgetting about that site.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 17, 2014 8:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I work in wine production. This time of year is my favorite not only because of hundreds of thousands of gallons of ferment undergoing exothermic bliss, (sometimes not so blissfully and thus no sleep) but because of the Argentinian interns that invariably arrive each year.
One common denominator year after year--different people each time--is that they're mostly if not always together. The boys are with the boys, the girls with the girls, or more commonly, an admixture. When asked about 'protection,' you're met with a blank stare for a seemingly uncomfortable length of time before the dots are connected, which says a lot.
Look, they're not from Utopia by any means, I get it; nonetheless I must confess I'm a bit tickled by what I see as a great example of non-dependent strength-in-numbers.
Question for all: Why do you think it is different in our neck of the woods?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 17, 2014 8:56 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's an age of solidarity before capitalism sets in their bones.As Jules Henry says in his Culture Against Man, "Education must teach children to hate each other in socially accepted ways," for capitalism to work.So my A means your F.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 18, 2014 1:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That they should depend solely on themselves and start what carrying weapons, shooting at any man who looks at them wrong?
If looks could kill...
I would ask how many of you carry guns and would act in the same manner.
Zero. No one is as psychotic as you. Mean looks and mean words cannot hurt you. You are hurting you. Your mother hurt you.
And say Ms. Sarkeesian brought her own weapon to the talk, what would you have her do?
Provide supporting evidence for the hoax she fabricated. Terror can only beat you when you want it to. By virtue of her wanting it to, logic dictates she will cut corners in her desperate, amoral intent to get to where she wants to be (right where she is).
Have a bloody showdown with these maniacs and put your sons and daughters at risk.
Try not to spill too much imagined blood in your virtual bravery.
railing against the "damsel and distress" caricature, as well as, the slapping around, beating up on women depicted
She's playing the damsel in distress.
But is it too much to ask of men to stop making women the target of their hate and violence. Their hate and violence against all groups of innocent bystanders, of not only women, but children
Men have no need to do such things. Women have all the need.
Could we look beyond the reasons and look at the behavior of these maniacs and find a solution to stop them. They control our society.
I don't know how to stop mothers abusing toddlers either.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 18, 2014 3:44 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't know how to stop mothers abusing toddlers either.
For many years it twisted my insides noticing this.In Philly I didn't go to the supermarket much.But in the Ozarks in the early 90's I did and got so upset at the way mothers treated their children that I couldn't stand it. Eventually i have become apathetic since I can't stop it nor say anything.It is something I endure.
I even see it at the vet with the way they treat their dogs. I hurt for their dogs too.
IDK how to stop them either.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 18, 2014 5:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It seems to me that you know exactly how to stop them, that you are perfectly aware of who the ultimate spindoctor is.
Our backward culture isn't ready for a female educator? Is that it? For it to be taken seriously the words still need to be coming from a man?
I don't know how your exact words would be, but it would surprise me if your understanding is lesser than mine, actually I'm confident that it is the other way around.
I don't want to marginalize men and I am saying this as a contrarian although it is true: the most valuable things I've learned in life, more often than not it came from a woman.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 18, 2014 5:30 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Then tell me how you change someone's mind in order to get them to stop doing destructive things to their children.I'm waiting.
Short of 5 to 10 on the couch with all that expenditure to go with it while you are coping with reality which is getting increasingly worse.
Actually it's pretty simple. As soon as a woman becomes a mother, she identifies with her own mother. If they haven't been getting along, they begin to do so as mom is the first person a new mother calls with new mother questions.So she begins to do as she was done.I suppose she changes some variations, but she internalizes her mother yet again, and this time it takes.Is this worse than a state program for baby sitting children? IDK.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 18, 2014 5:38 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Give us an example of some of this value being imparted by the sisterhood. If you refuse, then it's obviously cannibal 'advice' to prey on men.
Let's see you put your money where your mouth is.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 18, 2014 5:39 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Lol.
Who's preying on men? I mean in the real world, not someone's persecution fantasy.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 18, 2014 5:45 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
When asked about 'protection,' you're met with a blank stare for a seemingly uncomfortable length of time before the dots are connected, which says a lot.
I didn't really understand this, what are the Argentines doing that American kids aren't? Not living in fear of men?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 18, 2014 5:46 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Femicide is usually considered a South American and Northern African phenomenon. Including Argentina.
Probably happens here too though.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 18, 2014 5:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The noncontributing half of the population. The only enemies of liberty, freedom and Self. The leeches who've contributed nothing but misery and suffering for thousands of years of child abuse. The withholders of nonexistent favour, the concealers of liability sold as value, the whores who turn trix on toddlers so they can undress to impress. The creeps perpetuating the need behind all evil, violence, lies, abuse, shame, conflict, war, imagined suffering,
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 18, 2014 5:53 AM | Posted by : | Reply
You're blaming women for the evils of the world?
I didn't know Alone's blog was a center for men's rights activism. What a laughable platform. I'm glad the academy doesn't take it seriously.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 18, 2014 6:33 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You're blaming women for the evils of the world?
Don't be ridiculous. Clearly it was men willing to play fair, be honest and contribute who were to blame.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 18, 2014 6:35 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Whatever world you're living in, jonny, it sure as hell ain't consensus.
Men have in general, in both East and West, butchered each other sooner than they would cross cultural barriers. "Play fair." In history?
That crack and your lips need to stop getting together.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
October 18, 2014 7:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I didn't really understand this
Shitty and unclear writing on my part.
Not living in fear of men?
Yes. At least observably less so. Admittedly, n=low from my angle.
Per Abbey's comment yesterday, I asked a few Argentines what they thought of success in terms of wealth. All of them said that they vaguely recognize some practical benefit--it isn't something they despise or oppose--but it ranks so low in terms of what they value. And no, they don't wear Guevara silhoutte t-shirts, either.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 18, 2014 8:30 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Men have in general, in both East and West, butchered each other sooner than they would cross cultural barriers
Hey while we're at it: Also in general they intellectually, analytically, synthetically, and physically designed, planned, produced, executed, and laid the fibers, cables, dishes, COM towers, junction backbones and maintenance scheduling necessary for you to be able to post your comment.
Where I'm from we had a large earthquake recently. Do you want to take a little guess as to who in general got vital resources and utilities repaired and restored or rebuilt for local society to return to nominal funtion? Hint, they weren't outside (in general) only to gawk at and photograph rubble.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 18, 2014 8:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Whatever world you're living in, jonny, it sure as hell ain't consensus
Well, consensus dictates that people in most of the west 'get' this:
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 18, 2014 8:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
tiqqun collective - Young Girl - not exactly mainstream consensus. Published by semiotext(e)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 18, 2014 3:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Whatever world you're living in, jonny, it sure as hell ain't consensus.
Oh no. I'm terrified of not being "normal". Let me change my position from irrefutable logic to babbling insanity. I don't want to be ridiculed by conformist robots. Their mean words...
Men have in general, in both East and West, butchered each other sooner than they would cross cultural barriers.
This world of selfless victims of child abuse could not process motive if their lives depended on it. And quite frankly, their lives should.
Do men kill and die in wars for fun? Or do they fight for favour?
Abused boys rush to war to prove their worth.
Someone has to make them feel worthless first. A real shame.
That crack and your lips need to stop getting together.
Your lips and your mother's cock could use some time apart.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 18, 2014 6:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
From my perspective, it is obvious that no-one knows exactly what they are talking about. It's all floating, a sea of words and metaphors, which imply a considerable loss of accuracy compared to a specific and concrete use of language.
That lack of accuracy facilitate a certain group dynamic, an imaginary common perception which actually is several distinct and parallel perceptions. I don't know. I'll think it over and perhaps post something at reddit.
I'm excited over how use of metaphors have flourished. So many possibilities, especially when used as a supplement to specificity and precision.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 18, 2014 11:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"Your lips and your mother's cock could use some time apart."
That is an incredibly silly insult to use against a gay man, isn't it?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 6:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No. Jonny crunched the odds before the flop.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 7:16 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
All of them said that they vaguely recognize some practical benefit--it isn't something they despise or oppose--but it ranks so low in terms of what they value.
Dammit. Speaking from personal experience, the more confused the boy, the more determined his suffering will be to achieve "success" (as defined by the lies of Whore Society).
I've been meaning to tell this story for awhile actually, but when I retired at 26, I had US$1.3 million and two decades of suffering behind me. I'd earned the Right to have fun. But girls were unimpressed. I wasn't flashing bling but I was circling the globe and spending a lot (I had a flat in Buenos Aires overlooking the Recoleta polo field for a few months), but girls just disapproved.
I was 14 when girls started to single me out for disapproval. I didn't get rejected much, but only because I don't ask questions when I've already been given the answers. Without ambiguity, girls universally stated their disapproval. That may have been a clue. Women can't agree on What Women Want or concur on the romantic appeal of serial killers who sleep with decomposing bodies, so when women are certain, it's probably a tell.
I only knew what I was told but sleeping alone isn't confusing. They said they weren't interested so I didn't bother them. That's why they bothered me. Annoyed that I didn't approach, they lashed out. Force women to make the first move and they'll level insults and abuse. They don't want to be "easy". But no woman can explain why. Contriving "difficulty" is why they are whores.
Traumatised, I went to work. I sacrificed. I increased my worth for decades. I studied hard. I excelled. I learned new skills. I whipped myself mercilessly. I wasn't good enough to please. With obsessive discipline, I lifted weights until I screamed, I ran until I couldn't breathe, I'd stop to vomit and then run on (athletes rarely discuss it but vomiting is rapidly replaced by endorphin release, not as orgasmic as childbirth but in the same category).
Winning isn't ecstatic, however; it's mostly just agony. A few hours sleep at night, one foot in front of the next all day, every day, fighting the urge to collapse in defeat. Death is blissful fantasy for high achievers in a world where competition is life and death. Men are born and bred to please. If death pleases, men rush to die. If not, men get no reprieve. Biologically, women want sex, men want to please. I was trapped by evil, in reality. I added tens of thousands of hours of value, but never enough to please.
Exhausted on some nights, I'd burst into tears. I wasn't good enough. Girls kept telling me. But death wouldn't please so I had no choice. So I'd punch my pillow, scream into it before jumping to my feet to scrape the tears away. Clenching my jaw, slapping my face, I'd stare down mirrors and spit hatred. Weak. Pathetic. Disgusting. Not good enough. Never good enough to please.
Back to work. More pain. More danger. Greater risks. I dragged myself way out of my comfort zone to learn how to be engaging, interesting, amusing, entertaining and disarming. But girls would not disarm. I'd approach under a white flag of truce, they'd raise their guns, I'd halt, prove I was unarmed, expose vulnerability in good faith. And they'd just fire. A world of endless perfidy.
When I retired, I just gave up. On paper, I was impressive; wealthy, attractive, intelligent, healthy, popular, athletic, entertaining, personable, charming and generous. But girls who were ugly, filthy, poor, stupid, diseased, friendless, obese, boring, obnoxious - wretched losers - still weren't impressed. I had stalkers camping in my lobby for days at a time, trapping me inside. Security tried to move them but they'd scream. I tried to sneak past one but she caught me, determined to give me a piece of her mind. She'd waited days to tell me. She was unimpressed. She wanted me to know she disapproved. Then she left.
And the penny dropped.
The filthy imps are raping biology. Men don't need to impress wretched creeps. At 14, with a clear face and honest intent, I was already out of their league. They don't say what they mean or mean what they say; betrayal is the extent of their power. Men tolerate treachery; women steal from babies, bully toddlers and ridicule the confusion of children women have explicitly deceived.
"They cripple the bird's wing and then condemn it for not flying as fast as they." (Malcolm X)
As the only sentient beings in the universe who don't want to be independent, women are cannibals spewing creepy lies and toxic stupidity. Men don't need more. Women need less, much less.
Liars need less air. Men should take care of them...humanely.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 8:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
From my perspective, it is obvious that no-one knows exactly what they are talking about. It's all floating, a sea of words and metaphors, which imply a considerable loss of accuracy compared to a specific and concrete use of language.
A world of confusion but it's an error to presume it's organic. Look to who benefits from confusion and chaos. You'll find they're the ones creating all the confusion and chaos by lying to children.
Mothers and priests are leeches who contribute nothing but cannot exist without manufacturing suffering. Your suffering brings you closer to God. And who is God but the mother who fed you God and the middlemen who speak for the omnipotent (presumably because God is powerless to speak for herself).
"They cripple the bird's wing and then condemn it for not flying as fast as they." (Malcolm X)
Women lie to confuse men and then ridicule men's confusion.
Mothers lie to confuse children and then shame their confusion.
Children don't confuse themselves (violence needed for respect).
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 8:32 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Further, if you took one second to look at the video games Ms. Sarkeesian is questioning, you'd see she's making the same point as some of you have here - railing against the "damsel and distress" caricature, as well as, the slapping around, beating up on women depicted for no purpose to the game.
Again, I'm not into video games that much but "video games" in this argument can be substituted for any form of art, be it film or music or literature etc.
Who are you to "rail against [what you perceive to be] caricatures" in art? Why is it your job, or Sarkeesian's job, or anyone's job to be forcibly dictating what people do or don't consume? If I make a film or write a book, I am in no way obliged to conform to your special snowflake view of the world, nor am I obliged to include enough strong female characters or minorities just to satiate you. If you have that big of a problem with the dearth of strong female characters in films or video games, I assure you you're looking in the wrong places and are most likely content with being spoonfed by Hollywood and the videogame industry. Another alternative would be to become the change you want to see: make a film or create a videogame that does include strong female characters who aren't just punching bags or wet holes for the main characters to stick their penises in. But you won't do that either because that would require hard work on your part, and you'd rather just post a few tweets about #misogyny in gaming or in Hollywood and get back to eating your tub of ice cream on the couch in front of the latest episode of Vampire Diaries.
The point is that either everything is okay or nothing is okay. I fully expect you to put your money where your convictions are and bomb the next art gallery that showcases pictures of naked women. No one is going to hold your hand and do it for you, and if you really do expect men to de-teeth reality for you, then perhaps the caricatures of women you take such issue with - that women are overgrown children who need their hands held - aren't all that bizarre.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 8:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Then tell me how you change someone's mind in order to get them to stop doing destructive things to their children.I'm waiting.
Antinatalism.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 8:39 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What confuses me about your women stories is this: I cannot imagine the women you are talking about. Well, yes I can, but I never think of you as approaching that kind of woman.When I imagine the kind of woman you might approach,It does not compute that she would act the way you describe women acting.
You have lashed out at me many many times. What I did was check out what I had written to trigger your rage.It may not have been rage, but I couldn't read your words any other way. So I had to think some more. You see you are an enigma. I had no problem understanding why the do gooders who tried to give you pop psy advice and sound bites were never going to have any effect but rage.And my difficulty was in thinking ALL women were whores because I happen to have known personally women who were not, some married, but all self supporting. So again came the "who are these women jonny knows?"Neither would my women friends have put up with your rants and raves. But me, I'm a professional listener - took me long enough - but here I am.What can you say to someone who writes the way you do and at the same time says they have no education. Now there's a show stopper!
I came to realize that your horror filled childhood crippled you and enlightened you. Your originality is a consequence of that. So is your refusal to back down, to compromise to keep the conversation going, your complete unwillingness to change anything about the way you think and feel about these things.
There are some things I do know for sure.You would never in your lifetime have any social access to me or any of the women I have known in my life that I love and respect. (Not many of course.)And a precious few of them really see how horrible women are mostly as we walk around among them without having anything to do with them.
So where does this leave you. As I have said before I see nothing for you except art in some form or other. I mean have you ever seen a movie of Jackson Pollack painting? Pure rage. And they are gorgeous paintings if you have seen the originals, the big famous ones that stun you.
Your blog interests me, but not all of each one of them, but mine are also the same so what can I say. And then curioushairedgal sent me the link to tiqqun's Young Girl and the rest was history for me. I think CHG jumped on it because she used to come here and read you and we would comment together.She also had no ready answers. And then YG gave us what you were saying in a form that we could relate to with our present interests and considering the collective of writers who put it together.
No one here is ever likely to read it and absorb it and relate to it on a deep and true level.So it's useless to go on to try to communicate that kind of thing here and impossible in other places because it is so PC Feminist INCORRECT! There certainly are the new women philosophers of cutting edge thinking who can relate to it but not as fully I think. Baudrillard understands it and feminists HATE him so they hate everything else he has written and he has been "disappeared" which is exactly what he wanted to do and have happen to him. Only one woman, a real feminist named Diane Rubenstein has written about him, using his thinking to discuss his thinking using American Presidents and Jackie and Hillary.So that was how I came to this whole learning tree for me. Thank you.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 8:50 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Is this a sneak peak of the script for the new Elliot Rodger movie?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 9:10 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Your lips and your mother's cock could use some time apart."That is an incredibly silly insult to use against a gay man, isn't it?
Not at all. (BTW it was a retort to a zapper of an insult to jonny. Did you expect him to take it?) Read the sentence through Lacan. "How do you know she's a woman?" was what he said once. I didn't get it when I first read it. Women are sexed female and can or may be GENDERED male. I would guess a gay man grew up with mixed "signs" from both parents. In any attraction it is the "signs" that are exchanged, that attract or repel. The initial personal perception of that in image form is highly anxious and one just wants to unsee it the first time. But how do you unsee it once you SEE it. Before that you saw but didn't know what you were seeing, but once the denial no longer exists in a moment that catches you by surprise, there you are. If you are in a relationship when you first see it, what do you do? How do you think about this.
I just finished seeing the 2001 remake of Orson Welles's The Magnificent Ambersons. Welles's original film ended up in a big battle between Orson and RKO, an hour cut out of it, the ending changed, and Welles's Hollywood career over for 10 years, but never again would he have what he got with Citizen Kane. TMA has an unacted sexually incestuous relationship between mother and son that the 2001 Love Memorial to Welles by recreating the film exactly as his screenplay and shooting scrip demanded, included it. It was anathema in the late 1940's, and of course had to go. Welles was not a compromiser with his art. He was difficult and enormously generous with all who knew him. He made stars out of actors who are household words in classic movies. He gave them freedom to create their roles, try a scene in many different ways to come to their truth, and all who worked with him adored him. His language in his screenplays spoiled everyone in them. Most rarely if ever got offered a film later that came close in depth. Every major director of any artistic merit has studied his films. He innovated so many things that are standard today so much so that they feel cliched. When Welles's did one of those circular staircase hold your breath scenes, it felt like the first time you ever saw it that way.
He had the same eye as Leo Steinberg had for painting and sculpture. Leo could tell you that Michelangelo NEVER repeated a figural gesture that he had used before in a drawing or painting. He never repeated himself.Just to know that, write it, say it, means that you have studied all the work of someone great in order to have perceived that, then checked to see if it was true.That is what I mean by focused attention on what you are doing.
The psychological baggage that people write here is to enter the "psychological swamp of endless interpretation" that Foucault put to bed when most of you were being put to bed.It's the modernist way of thinking. I am done with it. It is a crippled way of thinking. It cripples your mind to think that way once you have liberated it, if you have.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 9:16 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Top comment.
Women choose Circles of Meaning rather than committing to Truth where they find it. It's a stand that has no place in academia, but no one wants to say that. That would be mean. We mustn't be mean.
Correct. The attitude has no place in academia but women tend to conflate valid criticism with an attack on their identity. Women's lies have no place anywhere but women who've been given to believe (by their abusive mothers) that concealing and twisting reality is a fundamental requirement of being a lady imagine that hating lying frauds = hating women. The only people who hate women are Society's 'women' (and sons they've confused).
Really, the major problem with feminism is probably that no one ever had to die for it.
That's the problem with State feminism, certainly. Heaven only knows how many millions of girls have died for their Right to be liberated women, but they were killed by women for competitive reasons. Women don't know how to compete, they've conflated competing with destroying competitors. No one can win if they refuse to compete, womens' oppression of children has only ever won the appearance of winning (the illusion of last man standing).
For a lot of women, "Freedom" is merely some consumerist fantasy of plenty rather than a responsibility to be fully human
Yes. They see liberation as the Right to cannibalise more freely.
...allowing the rational side of one to protect the high irrationals (faith, love, etc., the ineffables that ALone refers to in his WIttgenstein quote) while managing the low irrationals (jealousy, anger, hatred, fear, etc.)
Can irrationals ever be truly high?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 9:45 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't know any detail about S's stance on video games and the blowback from it except that a couple of women I know on twitter have had threats personal and professional and then real life stalking threatening.
The women on twitter are still mostly arguing against men doing this in the Discourse of binary thinking."Men should not do it. Other professional men should be able to see weev's sociopathology, etc." To argue in this way of binary thinking is to lose if you are up against a hard core gamer. To say the one lying about you has "no proof or evidence and you have" is an immediate giveaway that you are out of the loop.
The problem with video gaming is not the content of the video game. It is the interface of the gamer with the game. The hard core gamer sees the world as if it were a video game.
Example:The Boston Marathon Bombing and the set up of the Chechen boys, with circumstantial evidence that contradicts itself all over the place and the people who should be paying attention are not.
My young bf gamer immediately picked out what was wrong in the images first posted on whowhatwhy . I became compulsive for awhile and then stopped. When i returned to that site there was a core group there really nitpicking all the images and videos. They still are at weebly. By then at WWW the comment section on this blog was thousands long. The owner and moderrator of the site WWW was getting disgruntled. I had more questions, but I was out of their Discourse. They were still looking at pros and cons and not seeing it as a Debordian SPECTACLE. So they got mad at me. I told them they needed to get their own site as all their work could be wiped out any time the mod got fed up with his site being hijacked.I also told them it was the best way to get rid of me and my comments as then they could block me. This is what convinced them to move. The tide has turned on Boston and they are the reason. One boy is dead, the other in solitary since a year ago April and most think they got the baddie so what's it all about. We will have a show trial like Lenin began to do early on. That's what it is all about. The trashing of our judicial system. The last major trashing of a beautiful judicial system for the accused was the one trashed to get Jesus. They got him and that was the end of the Hebrew Law that was so very fine in its concern for the accused. (If the first vote was a majority vote to condemn, the accused was released. A vote that overwhelming meant it wasn't considered carefully enough so the accused went free.Pretty nice to control violence among elders of the justice system voting on emotional hysteria.)
My young hacker bf after Boston said it was the same as Grand Theft Auto. Now these games are acted out by children and videoed for youtube. They repeat the scene. Then there are adolescents and older who really do do it and film it. U can watch them on youtube and some get caught and do time. In GTA the major EVENT is a bicycle race in Italy. It's not the Tour de France but its name signals the sign of Tour de France if you are following me on that. The Boston Marathon can be read as a similar "sign" for GTA. So what happens next in the game? An explosion somewhere else. And a few days later there was a fertilizer plant near WACO - I believe - that went kaboom! He said to me, "See I told you!" Then he said look for some shooting, killing, in a public place. Sure enough there was one at an airport out on the tarmac. I lost the argument giving up. This means that all gamers are in on this. Something happens, is read as a sign, and gamers you don't know, have never met, are not conspiring with, take the next step. How can that be predicted, stopped, or whatever. They are just in the game,k living in Virtual Reality where there is no truth or false, only speculation and credibility. And this is what the women don't get. In VR that's all you get. Right now we are in Simulated Reality most of the time as I sit here and type to people I don't know)mixed with my real life (walking my dogs in the park,grocery shopping, cooking, etc.)Even now there is no true and false, only credibility so whether I bother answering someone has to do with how much credibility I am holding out for them. My network gets smaller and smaller all the time.Alone is the only thing that brings me here as I respect what s/he says and thinks and feels and the way s/he says it. There used to be quite intelligent people here, but they have been driven away. But there are other sites I go to that feed me.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 10:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
castlequeen you are arguing in the Discourse of Freedom to do, buy, play what I want to do, buy or play. No one has the right to stop me. OK.
This is not really much to do with freedom and everything to do with license. But Microsoft did Grand Theft Auto, so do we blame MCS or you for buying and playing it? And so on. The minds of children are being hijacked into Virtual Reality but who in Congress understands that since their minds have been hijacked by lobbyists, etc.
So like the bloody cove at taiji where they slaughter dolphins, and Virtual Reality stealing reality of children and hijacking their minds, and your freedom to buy, rent, share, play the game, whatever all boils down to CAPITALISM. What is invisible here is that capitalism is IRREVERSIBLE. This means it cannot be fixed. We can slow it with regulations, and they will figure ways around the regulations, etc - world wide game of cops and robbers eh - all to obscure the fact that CAPITALISM is IRREVERSIBLE, cumulative, etc which defies the IDEOLOGY of capitalism, the belief system of capitalism as the INVISIBLE REAL of everything everyone is screaming and ranting against, demanding that it be fixed. So we fight with each other and create DETERRENCE for them who have seen it and know exactly what they are doing: creating SPECTACLE.It's working. Maybe this is the first time you are reading this strategy. Maybe not. But you will see it more and more. This is what alone writes about but doesn't call it SPECTACLE. That's the only difference.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 10:04 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
But you won't do that either because that would require hard work on your part, and you'd rather just post a few tweets about #misogyny in gaming or in Hollywood and get back to eating your tub of ice cream on the couch in front of the latest episode of Vampire Diaries.
With her male slave for company. The man she's either bound or intends to bind to her side in wedlock to prevent him from choosing not to be with her down the line. And he would choose that, guaranteed. Haggard old retired whores cannot compete with young, promiscuous girls. Women know this so they will never stop sadistically abusing children and reducing girls to objects they can compete with (liability). All the value is dead.
No one is going to hold your hand and do it for you, and if you really do expect men to de-teeth reality for you, then perhaps the caricatures of women you take such issue with - that women are overgrown children who need their hands held - aren't all that bizarre.
The hypocrisy is risible. Damsel in distress piteously sneering at caricatures of damsels in distress? Where can one vomit politely.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 10:08 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And antinatalism is what? A soundbite.Do you always answer in zappy soundbites? I admit mine was a rhetorical question that can't be answered or taught to anyone.
Bettelheim did groups with mothers. Initially he would ask them, "What kind of adult would you wish your child to be?" Many just said, "I want her/him just to be happy." Well what is happy? How do you define it? What contributes to it? Etc.So you see he was starting pretty close to ground zero with these mothers whose children were living in a residential treatment center.
I say the system is so broken it can't be fixed. We can help a child that changes his/her world and that is important. But why must we continue to make so many crippled children that the number of dysfunctional children always increases.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 10:13 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Interesting. There is an old Hebrew custom that when the adolescent daughter gets her first period, the mother slaps her face. The subtext meaning "Your father is my man. Keep away from him now."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 10:41 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Antinatalism
Bingo. Women are nauseating when they flatly refuse to accept the negative value of their Gift of Slavery even as they simultaneously block the exits to force escaping slaves to suffer.
__________
The Poor are led to believe their suffering is the fault of the selfish Rich, who refuse to share hoarded wealth and play the system to their advantage. But the Poor are blind to the fact that rich people don't give birth to children in poverty. The Poor are in denial about why they've received the Gift of Suffering (without reward)
"The Rich get richer and the Poor get -- children." (F. Scott Fitzgerald)
The Rich are placed on the wrong side of hostile demographics. The Poor are used to forcing the Rich to share. The Rich are used to buying reprieve (even if dealing with the blind Poor isn't easy).
“Let them eat cake.”
The Poor were offended. They wanted food for free. How dare she! They chopped off her head for suggesting the Rich meet the violent demands of hijackers. Women who get angry at men who talk about their money spring to mind.
Everything is different this time around. The US is reportedly $222 trillion in debt. Under "normal" circumstances, pressure to accommodate women's illegitimate entitlement (to fuck for free and breed slaves for somebody else to pay for) is relieved with leeching war but who can be pillaged to pay for Western women's withheld favour this time around? The entire world is choking on the illegitimate need of noncontributing women (to feel valued).
Automation is rendering women's mindless slave force redundant. The Rich are being squeezed into an untenable position. The Poor will continue to demand the Rich handover their cake. Leeching is not sustainable. There's no more cake. So the Rich have to cull.
Forbes: 1.6 Billion Rounds of Ammo for Homeland Security
“Let them eat shit.”
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 10:44 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You should like this from Zizek on disposable people.Yes the earth is overpopulated.http://historiesofviolence.com/specialseries/disposable-life/
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 10:51 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You will like this. The link goes to the wrong page. Chapter 14 is the one to read. Anyway this looked also wonderful so you can read more if you want. http://deepgreenresistance.org/en/why-resist/problem-of-civilization I'm sick of continuing at the level I have been at.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 2:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well, yes I can, but I never think of you as approaching that kind of woman.
I never approached, this is my beef. I didn't believe I had value. I had nothing to interest women (yet). Women are the victims of their own lies to men. It's not women who are intrinsically valuable, it's men. Men pleasure women. Women can't pleasure men. Natural Selection produced men who need to please women and are pleased when women are pleased. Men's good faith is abused, the logic changed to illogical. Mothers break the faith.
Men are intrinsically enough. Only women need value. Girls secretly obsessed with sex liked me. I was obsessed with pleasing. Certain I couldn't please them (yet), I never bothered them. Certain that I thought I was too good for them, they abused and traumatised me. The cutest girls in my school hated me. I'd never even looked at them. That was why they hated me.
Selfless love is hate. Women are insanely self-defeating. They tear you down to make you feel worthless > you become worthless. When I became worthless (I started lying to impress), the abuse ceased. No approval or disapproval. No one cared.
It may not have been rage, but I couldn't read your words any other way.
Not rage, but I am a terrible communicator when frustrated. People refuse to accept their malice and deceit has no value. Every mother tells children that [value] is rude and that [malice] is valued. Children suffer to be malicious in consideration, then they feel entitled to your reciprocal suffering. They did you the favour of deceiving you, why aren't you willing to value them?
As victims of women's hate, girls spit in men's faces with whore protestations and then try to sell their virtue. Wedlock needed.
And my difficulty was in thinking ALL women were whores because I happen to have known personally women who were not, some married, but all self supporting.
Wrong. The mistake you're making is imagining there's an emotional quality to the word whore. There isn't, I use it to describe. No other word can suffice. Prostitutes are honest and "easy". Women hate them for being "too cheap". Um...what?
Women who force men to pay to please them are "too cheap".
Don't proceed until you see why all women are whores.
_________________
Prostitutes are hated for being "too cheap".
Sluts are hated for being "too free" (RIP Amanda Todd).
Women who pay men for sex were murdered in Biblical times (when women changed the logic). The first wars were needed to kill women for paying men to pleasure them (the Natural Order).
Numbers 25 (KJV) 1 ...the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. 2 And they called the people...and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.
Midian women were using food to buy sex from Israel's men.
16 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 17 Vex the Midianites, and smite them: 18 For they vex you with their wiles...
Israel's women didn't want to compete.
Numbers 31 (KJV) 1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites... 3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying...avenge the Lord of Midian.
Who's avenging whom? Midian's 'crime' was competing fairly.
All women are whores - marriage is the payment that makes prostitutes "too cheap". My sisters are whores. Women I like are whores. The word whore describes action. When women stop disadvantaging men, they stop being whores. For as long as they defeat themselves by exploiting men's need to please, they'll be whores. I get along with whores but I can't respect them, they're compromised. I can't respect johns for the same reason.
When cannibals say, "Be a cannibal or die", what can you do?
You die. There's no mitigation for being a cannibal.
"To the moralist prostitution does not consist so much in the fact that the woman sells her body, but rather that she sells it out of wedlock." (Emma Goldman)
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 3:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I came to realize that your horror filled childhood crippled you and enlightened you.
Every child is crippled in a broken world of lies and violence but on my first day of school, I was arguably the brightest 14yo in the country. Dunno why but it's pretty embarrassing for Society. How rapidly I conformed to the mean is pretty embarrassing for me.
...your refusal to back down, to compromise to keep the conversation going, your complete unwillingness to change anything about the way you think and feel about these things.
Truth convinces me. I've never met anyone as easily convinced. Everyone else is frozen. I refuse to appease. They're all broken. They value their mother's abuse. I value truth / reality / biology.
So where does this leave you.
I'll be dead within a month. And I'm furious. I just can't be a part of the demonic cannibalisation of deity children. When men start treating younger whores Right, hijackers who've been extorting men their entire life need to breed life of Their Own (to leech off).
There is no value in a world of violent devils selling favour as if it had value. Lies, malice and inflicted suffering = negative value. Humans agree to disagree. That is why everyone is worthless.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 3:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh, fuck this blog. Psychopaths.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 3:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Is this a sneak peak of the script for the new Elliot Rodger movie?
This is the kind of value I'm talking about. Imbecilic feelings.
Elliot Rodger was either entitled to be loved by women who despised him -- or -- his mother who made him suffer with the promise of reward needs to die. Children feel entitled when you make them suffer with your filthy promises of nonexistent reward.
The joke was on Elliot. There is no reward for men. Elliot had no merit. I got all the rewards Elliot wanted. There is no reward for merit in a world of psychotic birthright (delusional princesses). There is no reason for men to live in a world populated by you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 3:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The problem with video gaming is not the content of the video game. It is the interface of the gamer with the game. The hard core gamer sees the world as if it were a video game.
The problem is widely known. I couldn't get insurance for the modified Celica I bought as an 18yo. I was outraged, genuinely offended. How dare they? I was a great driver, but I couldn't have told you why. The reason was video games. I drove that uninsured car like a videogame and promptly wrote it off doing 160kph in torrential rain. For an hour prior to spinning off the highway, I thought I was losing power steering fluid. I was aquaplaning, the policeman explained the next morning before confirming that it was indeed a kangaroo I'd swerved to avoid.
What a champ, I thought. I'm not sure it's that simple. They condition children to speed. They sell cars that can reach illegal speeds (my Celica got up to 235kph in a country where the fastest you can legally go is 110kph). They've had the technology to speed limit since WWII, but crashes are $$. Children are set up for trauma, conditioned to associate speed with cool. I got played.
The problem with women criticising anything is that women are misogynist liars who hate girls and prey on men. Men are slaves. There is no reward for men. It's got nothing to do with hating women and everything to do with hating frauds and hypocrisy.
Women cannot criticise men until they're no longer contriving "difficulty" to enable the extortion of "easy" men. There's no way of circumnavigating reality. Until women are honest, they should STFU. Why should anyone listen to what professional liars say?
"Like all whores, she dreams of innocence. But distinct from them, she demands to be believed and believed sincerely." (Tiqqun)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 4:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The minds of children are being hijacked into Virtual Reality but who in Congress understands that since their minds have been hijacked by lobbyists, etc.
Children's minds are hijacked by their mother's violence and lies. If mothers weren't abusing their power of first access to change the logic, children would never be confused by emotive appeal. Children are betrayed with lies at source, this isn't my opinion.
You'd better not pout, you'd better not cry, because pouting and crying are ineffective means of communication; not because Santa rewards you for being "nice" (suffering to please your mother). Children are supposed to act in their best interests at all times; that's their reward. Children are not supposed to be rewarded for pleasing themselves. The reasons they are rewarded for [not defeating themselves] are incredibly dubious and sinister.
Santa isn't real. Humans are owed nothing for [not being malicious]. Their refusal to accept this rendered life meaningless.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 4:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
DGR Chapter 14 available as .pdf here
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 9:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well what is happy? How do you define it? What contributes to it?
Studies have proved what was already known to be true; the difference between happiness and misery isn't influenced all that much by the activity we're doing but whether or not we've chosen to do it. Humans are coded to be selfish. We want to do things for ourselves. Children enjoy learning, working, cleaning, socialising, eating right until they're forced by a bully to suffer to please her.
Humans are unhappy when they're averse to their own interests. Mothers use force to respondent condition children to associate [unpleasant emotive stimuli] with [acting in their own interests].
Want a child to hate learning? Force them to do their homework.
Want a child to hate socialising? Force them to meet new people.
Want a child to hate cleaning? Force them to do their chores.
Want a child to hate salad? Force them to eat their greens.
Challenge: See how long it takes for a woman to appeal to your best interests when making a logical case to convince you.
They cannot do it. They're too reduced to identify mutual self-interest. They nag, harass, threaten, cajole, shame, sulk, pout, coerce and lie to persuade men to give them Special entitlement. Mothers tell girls: "Wait patiently for what you deserve."
What value does waiting create? A stupid illusion, the appearance of value. Desperate men marry them but why are they waiting? Desperate men pay to undress them but why are they dressed? Desperate men buy their favour but why was favour withheld?
It's all brazen hijacking, there's no value. Women fall for their own lies when men they've tricked into valuing them trick them into feeling valued. The morons force men to crack open their safe for the prize of -- surprise! -- there's no prize. Hah ha.
Men reveal women's true worth non-stop but women reject the appraisal. When men who "get lucky" don't want to see them again, the problem isn't with men but women only listen to the sycophants telling them lies they want to hear: "Forget about him. You don't need to change a thing. You're perfect as you are."
Either men hate getting lucky twice - or - they didn't get lucky.
Either men hate having fun twice - or - they didn't have fun.
Girls are betrayed by women who tell them they deserve a man who will value their fraud, fall in love with their indolence, treat them Right for being a whore and live happy ever after. In a world of entitled women, there's no reward for men with merit.
Elliot Rodger was an entitled woman. #YesAllWomen are like that.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 11:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm just responding to this one but I read them all. I know "whore" the way you and tiqqun use it is not emotional but I needed to be reminded. So we have a capitalistic society that depends on "whoring" as its motor. If people weren't selling you what you don't need or intrinsically want, then why would anyone buy. So your entire tirade - what else can I call it - boils down to capitalism.
Jules Henry in Culture Against Man: "You must teach children - they must 'learn' - to hate each other in socially accepted ways."
Isn't that what you are saying? Isn't this what capitalism teaches? Without it how could we have a capitalistic system? Without it why would there be a need to turn ourselves into commodities? To manufacture value?
It is obvious to me you need to write a novel. And you need to make yourself into a character who thinks, feels and writes this.
Foucault: "I write to become someone else. Don't ask me to remain the same." (Said at different times. and another, "I write so I can forget about it.")
I know you don't think you are going to convince anyone. Nor do I think your writing has dialogue as its purpose. So I can only guess it is about expressing yourself as clearly as possible for you. That is of great value.
Is there some reason that stops you from committing to this?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 11:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'll be dead within a month.
No! Where will I get my weekly dose of persecution complex? Back to seeking out inane rants on tumblr I suppose...
on my first day of school, I was arguably the brightest 14yo in the country. Dunno why but it's pretty embarrassing for Society. How rapidly I conformed to the mean is pretty embarrassing for me.
Shit, son. If only you had been given a proper upbringing that nurtured and utilized your vast intellect we might have lived to see the toppling of the matriarchy.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 11:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thank you. It is quite wonderful isn't it. Not a question. I have been thinking if I could start the way they suggest. I don't feel the energy I would need for it. For those activist days. Everything that is wrong really gets down to this, doesn't it? So as long as we are responding to the spin it keeps going.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 19, 2014 11:26 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If only all of us had been given a creatively enhancing upbringing and nurturing the entire world would be different. This is the problem.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 20, 2014 12:13 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
http://deepgreenresistance.org/en/why-resist/problem-of-civilization
I already read this, I just didn't comment because the writer is dumb. The problem isn't the Rich and Powerful, they're never as evil as the long suffering Poor are led to imagine by the villains actually responsible for their plight (mothers who breed poverty). This fact is proved every day the Poor and Powerless aren't forced into gulags, raped, beaten or killed for sport. Sure, the Rich and Powerful play the corrupt system for advantage but when 99% of a representative democracy are oppressed by the 1%, at some point you have to accept that the People are oppressed by themselves. The system is corrupt because the Poor are amoral sociopaths who refuse to play fair. Snivelling liars, lazy and malicious, entitled and blind to the reality of all suffering. It's the Poor's willingness to use force and fraud to take from the Rich that creates the need for totalitarian control / restricted liberties.
Poor men never have sex (they can't afford the time or expense).
Down and Out in Paris and London (George Orwell) "Tramps are cut off from women, in the first place, because there are very few women at their level of society. One might imagine that among destitute people the sexes would be as equally balanced as elsewhere. But it is not so; in fact, one can almost say that below a certain level society is entirely male. The cause is presumably that unemployment affects women less than men; also that any presentable woman can, in the last resort, attach herself to some man. The result, for a tramp, is that he is condemned to perpetual celibacy."There is no doubt that women never, or hardly ever, condescend to men who are much poorer than themselves. Cut off from the whole race of women, a tramp feels himself degraded to the rank of a cripple or a lunatic. No humiliation could do more damage to a man’s self-respect."
Why are poor women splitting their legs when they should be working and sleeping? After all, they hate sex. Women's lies are diabolic. They then blame the Rich when the children they can't afford to feed are suffering (after they find room in the budget to make up their fake faces). Women are amoral sociopaths who offload blame for everything they are responsible for. All evil is sourced from their malicious noncontribution and child abuse.
Their children grow up with hate in their hearts, for spics, niggers, foreigners, each other, themselves or the Rich. All hate burns from one evil source. On what grounds are the Poor entitled to the Rich's wealth? Their argument is violent as they don't have grounds. But children trained with violent lies use force and fraud.
The Rich are far too indulgent. They offer jobs at set wages and if the Poor don't like the remuneration, what's the problem? The Rich aren't forcing them to work. It's not the Rich's fault that the Poor can't support extended families of lecherous women and hungry children on their meagre salary. Why are they carrying noncontributing women? Why are they breeding children they can't feed? If they warrant being paid more, they can quit and renegotiate but they don't want to compete fairly. They just want, or else! There's too many slaves for jobs available and it's not the Rich who give birth. Poor women get their legs trying to get rich.
And that is why they are poor. It wasn't the Rich who broke the faith. Hoarding is a needy reaction. Without motive to hoard, the Rich wouldn't need to. So what triggered the need to restrict access to resources? This isn't complex, you can use logic to work through motive and arrive at the answer. The Rich aren't rich for fun. Why do the Rich need to lord it over the Poor? Who are they trying to impress? Why do Rich men need to be viewed with favour, when judged in comparison with other men?
Children don't objectify themselves.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 20, 2014 12:47 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So your entire tirade - what else can I call it - boils down to capitalism.
The problem isn't capitalism. The problem is child abuse.
Humans can't act in their own interests because they're blind to the reality where their selfish interests are not served by cannibalism. Mothers are selfless cannibals who spew toxic emotional insanity at children they violently break for love. They're not selfish, they're all selfless imps blind to reality. Mushroom clouds will explain why cannibalism isn't selfish, if 4000 years of Mutually Assured Destruction are insufficient.
Lies and violence have no value; to the Insane, they appear to.
Without it why would there be a need to turn ourselves into commodities?
Children don't giftwrap themselves for sale.
It is obvious to me you need to write a novel.
No. And not just because I cannot write. Measures have been taken to ensure slaves cannot be rescued. Mothers protect themselves from criticism. Yet another signed declaration of guilt.
Is there some reason that stops you from committing to this?
I'm procrastinating on being murdered. I'm not happy about it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 20, 2014 1:16 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
the mother slaps her face. The subtext meaning "Your father is my man. Keep away from him now."
I realise incest in the private family home is far more prevalent than people like to imagine but it's Society's women who destroy every girl by proxy. Mothers serve as Society's proxy, having sacrificed their children's interests a decade prior, to sell sex.
It's easy to mock my writing but in this post, I write irrefutable logic showing that bullying mothers enslaved the species with respondent conditioning. It's brilliant and irrefutable truth, so...
Of course I live in a world so batshit evil and insane, they hate truth. I applaud the imminent culling.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 20, 2014 2:35 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I know you hate religion, but I think you also love it. The Biblical part of it. Your own DISCOURSE itself is Biblical. Your rants are Biblical in style, as if you were a preacher lecturing at the pulpit. What you have grasped - but not consciously - is wht Nietzsche has taught us. The style in which something is written must be even more so than the subject - content - of what is being written about. Biblical style - again Nietzsche - is musical, a dance of the satyr, which slides beneath the censoring, logical part of the mind, which would help explain the wide acceptance of this ancient text. The Bible enters our being as music, words as music, as notes in a composition, rather than as a logical explanation of God, the origin of the world, or any of the other historical, semi-historical subjects it records for us.
And this is your style in your more longish comments. They begin to sound Biblical. The music is ponderous Beethoven, and like Beethoven they take a long time to climax. I doubt that this is consciously intended by you. It is effective and staves off certain criticisms, while baiting other kinds.
Right now I am reading Babette Babich (she's a woman) on Nietzsche and style, about which he has much to say. file:///C:/Users/Rukia/Desktop/Babich-On_Nietzsches_Judgment_of_Style_and_Humes_Quixotic_Taste-libre.pdf
Rand was an ardent lifelong student of Nietzsche. Her Atlas Shrugged was reviewed by National Review's Whittaker Chambers an ex-Communist who gave us the most intellectually understanding of reviews,pinpointing the influence of Nietzsche in her mind and writing, yet completely misreading Nietzsche's long wrestling match with philology - of which he was the master in German - the style of writing now forever interlaced with content.And this is what Babich is writing about, our modern Nietzschean scholar of great intuitive and academic brilliance.
Chambers:
Something of this implication is fixed in the book's dictatorial tone, which is much its most striking feature. Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind, which finds this one natural to it, shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: " To the gas chambers — go!"
Rand's style is even more so than the bureaucratic, miserable system she is writing about. It is "worse" as advised by Nietzsche in his advice to writers which Rand took as her Bible. We know this from her Journal, scrubbed of Nietzsche as it was, and from Barbara Branden's excerpt that Beyond Good and Evil was the first book Rand bought in English "and I underlined all my favorite passages." It is obvious she learned English from the inadequate (for its time) Nietzschean translation.
Atlas is a novel that is more than a novel, a hyper novel departing from the stylistic length and topic suitable for the novel writer. It is "didactic" and relentless, just what the system is, how it feels to us, how caught up in it we are with no hope of getting out. It is Foucault's Foucauldian Grid of power/knowledge/capital/normality and Atlas makes you feel every restraining thread that holds you there. It is unbearable to read.Only the pages of soaring ecstasy interrupt. Dagny dialogue with Reardon on their relationship and sex could be considered required reading for any therapist. Even Freud who had difficulty understanding why Dora turned down Herr K.Something Amy Dunne in Gone Girl perceives immediately in her own experience with N ick's first kiss.
I have gone into all this to make the point that jonny's Discourse is more so than the content of what he is writing about. Like Rand's it enters the consciousness sliding right by the logic censor of the mind to infect it.
I can only say that the Biblical indoctrination jonny was subject to in his childhood has done the job it was intended to do.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 20, 2014 4:14 AM | Posted by : | Reply
If there's no new post in the next couple of weeks, could this blog please be taken down? It's just too depressing to see evidence of a bright mind giving up.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 20, 2014 4:43 AM | Posted by : | Reply
How will I get past this winter without Alone to warm me up?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 20, 2014 5:08 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't think the site should be taken down, nor do I think it could since Alone is gone (who would do the taking down?), but I do wish he had locked the comments section so I wouldn't have to listen to a bunch of delusional morons talk past each other for months on end.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 20, 2014 5:34 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Your own DISCOURSE itself is Biblical. Your rants are Biblical in style, as if you were a preacher lecturing at the pulpit.
That's unintentional, I just get frustrated at a world of needy abuse victims who've bonded with their abusers. One gender dies to inch Humanity forward, the other fucks to pummel us back.
"One can no longer live with people: it is too hideous and nauseating. Owners and owned, they are like the two sides of a ghastly disease." (DH Lawrence)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 20, 2014 6:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I know it's unintentional.Why you are interfaced with it.The world is mad. What else is new.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 20, 2014 9:07 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
...so I wouldn't have to listen to a bunch of delusional morons talk past each other
Aaaannnd who exactly is making you do this?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 20, 2014 9:07 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
so I wouldn't have to listen to a bunch of delusional morons talk past each other for months on end.
Poor non-person, do you really have to?
Did you know you have the power to control your own actions?
I bet you didn't know that, huh.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 20, 2014 10:12 AM | Posted by : | Reply
female game developer Anita Sarkeesian.
She is not a game developer. She is the voice of Feminist Frequency, which publishes ideological propaganda videos. The basic formula is to identify tropes involving women in media and mix feminist dogma into discussion of those tropes. Media clips are chosen assembled to maximize emotional impact (even if clips are presented out of context).
The part where she identifies tropes is usually done well. Tropes are described clearly and examples accurately identified. The part where she mixes in the feminist concepts is almost always done without proper argumentation, typically drawing unproven causality links and making assertions about culture that have no basis in fact.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 20, 2014 11:30 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
A link? I'd like to read her.
Facts are not required when in Simulated Reality. Only speculation, resonances, echoes. From what you said I inferred that that was what she was doing. I'd like to check out my hypothesis.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 20, 2014 7:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Did you know you have the power to control your own actions?
Do you though?
Who or what are you referring to when you invoke "you" or "I"? What specifically is the controller of said actions?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 20, 2014 8:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'll invoke 'you' to address the following:
Are you retarded?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 20, 2014 9:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Abbey and jonny, you'll have to take elsewhere. It appears you razz the mildly mentally and emotionally retarded. You see, their being so nonplussed is leading moderate to overt discomfort, and they simply need the absence of such for their well-being. Such discomfort yields gastric disequilibrium that limits their ability to stay so well-fed.
I'm sure you will take kind regards in this matter.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 20, 2014 10:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This site attracts a wide variety of people but the bad drive out the intelligent.
If you hang around with crows you don't get to hear the nightingales. - Sufi saying
There's a good reason the tea party people don't want their children educated. Ill educated people HATE intelligence wherever they find it. ISIS is now using this against the US as they are superbly savvy when it comes to promotion.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 21, 2014 1:15 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Jonny, I have a friendly question for you. It seems to me that you are criticizing women on a number of levels. If that is the case, is your criticism meant to apply to every single woman on this planet? Or are you prepared to admit that there are exceptions to what you are saying?
I also have a friendly comment. As you are probably aware, your views are unpopular and uncommon. That does not mean they are wrong. Do you think that if more people shared your views, something positive could be done about the sorry state of the world? If so, I have a suggestion. It seems to me that your posts are full of complex metaphors, obscure references, and words being used differently than how they are usually used. Furthermore, it seems to me that you are boiling over with barely contained rage as you write. Let me know if I'm wrong about this. Anyway, if your goal is to convince people to believe as you believe (which it might not be), I encourage you to make your language more accessible and to be patient with other people who are trying to get acquainted with your ideas. Let me know what you think of my suggestion.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 21, 2014 1:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
you
There's that word again.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 21, 2014 2:07 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Abbey and jonny, you'll have to take elsewhere. It appears you razz the mildly mentally and emotionally retarded. You see, their being so nonplussed is leading moderate to overt discomfort, and they simply need the absence of such for their well-being. Such discomfort yields gastric disequilibrium that limits their ability to stay so well-fed.
Ah yes, the old "u mad" retort. Calling out jonny and abbey for having the same communication skills as an autistic child with a cleft palate is now a sign that one is "mmildly and emotionally retarded". Glad the jonny+abby Internet Defense Force is here to settle the matter. No need to even respond to jonny+abby; they should always be assumed correct and any outside commentary concerning the dearth of insight or intelligence in their writing is, rude, redundant, and should be discouraged, lest the common swine in the comment section interrupt their casting of pearls.
Please, abbey, continue namedropping various continental philosophers while simultaneously illuminating your grave misinterpretation of their writing, all the while refusing to engage anyone who corrects you. And jonny, please continue using the comments section of this blog as a sort of personal therapy for excising your inner demons, until of course you make good on your self-admitted plans for suicide.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 21, 2014 2:58 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
grave misinterpretation of their writing
Certainly it would take just as much time to delineate a few of her misunderstanding and offer reasonably viable alternatives as it took to type the comment you made.
In my profession, you never offer production criticisms without pudding. Plain and simple. Even if they are seen as scathing.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 21, 2014 3:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
*misunderstandings
Calling out jonny and abbey for having the same communication skills as an autistic child
First of all, what's in it for you? What are you getting out of it? Just curious.
Second, I am VERY familiar with scads of aspies and mild autistics (lots of overlap IMO) from the South Bay techie world. Plenty of them are good friends, even though we differ a bit; typically wine is for them is collectible or trivia-driven--an obsessive hobby. Whatever wisdom you posses giving you the ability to see their (jonny and abbey's) language as an autistic signifier is beyond my comprehension. I don't agree whatsoever.
Are you fascinated with autism or something? I could introduce you to quite a few...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 21, 2014 3:24 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Second, I am VERY familiar with scads of aspies and mild autistics from the South Bay techie world.
Seems like some of it might have rubbed off on you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 21, 2014 3:35 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Puhleeeeze. In a cutthroat industry, you have no idea what a misread of cue can cost. Not for the thin-skinned. If only it were as simple as 'wolves in sheep's clothing.'
Besides, if jonny were autistic how could he have pulled the pot from the competition?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 21, 2014 4:25 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
For all his boasting of being the beneficiary of of fuck-you money and having pulled a Randian Atlas Shrugged-style escape to the underbelly of some east Asian shithole, living a peaceful life free of the claws of western women, jonny's pot is unfortunately still in the same competition as the rest of us. The only problem is by shrinking his frame of reference and viewing life on the scale of the subatomic particle rather than on the level of dependent networks, he has convinced himself he is independent when in reality his new ideological indoctrination is just as much a product of powers outside of himself as his childhood indoctrination at the hands of religious cult women. With all his talk of systemic biological and cultural oppression that creates and builds upon itself in an endless feedback loop, he should know better, and abbey would know better had she actually understood all the Foucault she purports to have read.
If jonny really was a Bible-quoting MRA version of John Galt, he wouldn't still be coming back again and again to post on this blog about how mummy destroyed his life just by virtue of the fact that she shot him out of her slimy hole.
Don't get me wrong; jonny has some interesting things to say, and I find myself thinking that he's not necessarily incorrect with his general interpretation of life, but he sometimes misses the proverbial forest for the proverbial trees. Chalking everything wrong with existence down to the boogeyman of the female is not only wrong, but wrong in a way that does his argument a disservice, because he's half-right but he makes it personal when it's not. The problem is not women, but the vagina. Not even the vagina, or anything to do with women specifically, but with procreation. Hence my response of "antinatalism" to abbey's question of how to fix things. Any other talk that attempts to go about fixing things is case of a frame that is too narrow. It's just window dressing. Both suicide and antinatalism are civilization's last true taboos, because to even discuss the possibility of either in polite company is to confront the very nature of our existence and question its value, and we just can't have that, can we?
I sincerely hope jonny doesn't have kids, and I don't say that out of any snarky hatred or an attempt to make a joke about jonny's reproductive/intellectual/genetic fitness. I hope he doesn't have any kids because he seems to know quite well the horrors brought upon people by other people who see themselves as the possessors of the right to choose to bring another human into existence without their consent. His rhetoric is profoundly antinatalist and I hope he puts his money where his mouth is.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 21, 2014 4:33 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jonny's comments are validated in better form in tiqqun's Young Girl. YG is fictionalized in Gone Girl. It is not limited to women.Young Girl is ageless,raceless,genderless,and sexless.Young Girl could be you, your mother, your rather, your boss. I think Obama fits YG quite well.
jonny has just not formalized it as well. semiotext(e) has an edition our now but it is still in pdf online as I reread it last week. It puts the feminist ideology in a way different ballpark.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 21, 2014 4:42 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If instead of antinatalist you had said you were siding with Catharism I would have gotten it. They have a valid point.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 21, 2014 5:06 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I had a dream Alone came back. He wrote a blog post, and one explaining his absence, and one about his book of porn (it was a great book). I bought it.
I woke up with a smile on my face.
And yet, checking the website, there is nothing new except more of your mental wankery. Such is life, I guess.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 21, 2014 7:49 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
the underbelly of some east Asian shithole
Shithole? In a world of war? You think Asian women can't betray their children as good as Western whores? You think they can't make boys feel wretched enough to rush to war to prove their worth? I assure you that East Asia has caught up with Western standards of child abuse. Children are abused just as horrifically here as they've always been in the West. #YesAllWomen withhold favour, conceal liability and abuse children by way of contribution.
Your sickening stupidity in imagining the superior abuse of children (to make boys for war, girls for sale) makes you entitled to a superior standard of living is just nauseating. Cannibalism isn't Survival of the Fittest, it's (temporary) 'survival' of the Least Fit. Cannibals cannot compete so they destroy their competitors. That is not the competition, you nitwit. The West refuses to compete. War cannot win, it's Mutually Assured Destruction.
History Of The Conquest Of Peru (Prescott) From the hour that Pizarro and his followers had entered within the sphere of Atahuallpa's influence, the hand of friendship had been extended to them by the natives. Their first act, on crossing the mountains, was to kidnap the monarch and massacre his people. The seizure of his person might be vindicated, by those who considered the end as justifying the means, on the ground that it was indispensable to secure the triumphs of the Cross. But no such apology can be urged for the massacre of the unarmed and helpless population -- as wanton as it was wicked.
If you went to Lima, you'd think Peru was a shithole. The shithole is where your mind used to be. You're just a bunch of stained whores and johns preying on children to turn them into demonic images of you. Christian soldiers entitled to rape foreign women, kill their friends and return home with stolen gold they've been tricked into believing they needed to buy (withheld) whore favour.
And the abusive whores say, "Good boy. I'm so proud of you." And all the Toddler leeches lived happily ever after. It's all they needed, to make abusive whores proud. No more abuse. Just don't make any more whores! Then the need to abuse children won't be needed again. What's that? You married the whores? When you stop doing that, the need for war will end. Keep needing to please noncontributing whores and you'll live in Hell.
Welcome to Hell.
jonny's pot is unfortunately still in the same competition as the rest of us.
I don't compete with lying, violent cannibals. This is my beef.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 21, 2014 8:32 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What specifically is the controller of said actions?
Not the lying demon-god of the Whore religions, that's for certain.
God said:
Genesis 2:17 ...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
The Devil said:
Genesis 3:5 ...in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened...
In the day they ate thereof:
[ ] they died
[x] their eyes were opened
So God just lies.
The Devil is a humanitarian whistle-blower who values truth.
That's how it's always been. Religion's lies and violence give you power over objectified slaves. Truth gives your Self power over you. No one in control would ever want to control human objects.
Things have no value. No one values you. They just pretend to.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 21, 2014 8:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I had a dream
Thank you for your contribution. Your dreams are incredibly valuable and you should never stop sharing them in lieu of sanity.
I thank God for your dream. I thank you for sharing it with me.
It means a lot.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 21, 2014 3:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is where Rand went head to head with Nietzsche. IN his Genealogy of Morals Nietzsche discusses the man of exchange, the merchant, the business man concerned with profit.And he hates him.
Rand is fighting with her mentor by glorifying the businessman but unknowingly she will destroy him when she crashes Nathaniel Brandon's empire built for her when he proves sexually unfaithful to her, and lying to her because she is the kind of person who cannot be told the truth without seeking violent revenge.
What Bane is saying in The Dark Knight Rises, "When all is lies, the truth is a weapon." Does anything else explain their violent persecution of Snowden and Assange.
A famous intellectual rabbi in NYC held a weekly midrash on Genesis for 5 years with some very well known artists, writers, et al. Basically this is a reading, rereading, of Genesis sentence by sentence with discussion. Sorry that's all I remember without the book in my hands. It is a deconstruction of Genesis really.
My reading of Eden and the forbidding and the transgression is that God forbid the eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge to introduce transgression of the Law. By forbidding he enhanced the fruit of that tree.So if man wanted knowledge s/he would have to transgress the Law to obtain it.The Law being God given, now it is man made law with different problems because of origin.So did God want man to transgress, to value knowledge highly enough to transgress? An interesting thought. I argued this with a young religious girl some years ago and she said it was because God wanted to give us free will to decide. Are far right wing Christians still deciding whether to eat the fruit or not. Still afraid of transgressing? An interesting thing to think about IMO.
As to value and the individual. Baudrillard talks of Impossible Exchange. If there is only ONE then one cannot be exchanged for anything because there is only one. The example of our planet is used. A good one I think. There is only one. There is no possibility of exchange. Therefore, Impossible Exchange.
If humans keep cloning themselves physically and psychologically that would make them exchangeable, so Impossible Exchange would not apply to them? They would be exchangeable, of an assessed value, of replacement, buying and selling which Young Girl has no problem with. She values herself,but only in the marketplace of value, not in any intrinsic worth unrelated to the market place.
Just thoughts and feelings. I like the dream too. I hope alone is interested in the way we are talking with each other and pleased that we may have learned something from him.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 21, 2014 3:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And religion is the first example of organized power over humans. This is Foucault's power/knowledge grid, the Foucauldian Grid. Before capitalism and normality intersected and enmeshed with it. Power/knowledge is a relation. Each cannot exist without the other and both increase together. It is an important concept.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 21, 2014 5:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jonny's comments are validated in better form in tiqqun's Young Girl.
That's certainly true. But form of presentation is not the problem. Minds broken by first access = unserviceable. Big Mother changes the logic. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
Cognitive dissonance is the problem. Narcissists are in denial. They walk around proudly advertising their naked shame. I don't know who they're trying to fool but shame isn't concealed by concealing it. It's pure logic but it won't soothe their dissonance.
Children are forced to hate their true Self and love the false image their mothers want them to project. Women only breed in need (to please) so children are perceived as raw material that must be formed into an object of pleasing fraud before use.
As children contend with a violent sculptor four times their size, their emotional butthole is raped when they learn their mother's tongue. Destined for a life of delicate butthurt. Narcissists are so eager to impress, you'd think they'd at least try to be impressive.
But you'd be wrong.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 21, 2014 6:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It seems to me that you are criticizing women on a number of levels. If that is the case, is your criticism meant to apply to every single woman on this planet?
Some things are applicable to every woman. There are zero women who shun all illegitimate advantage, of that I'm near certain. No women are telling the stark naked truth.
I have never seen talk of handing power back to its rightful owners (girls). In 6000 years of horror, any woman who followed this path was killed or didn't exist. Women have stolen children's birthright. Men incentivised and protected them the entire time. I'm not the only person who sees obvious realities the world is blind to. I might be the only person not holding anything back.
Esther Vilar is a magnificent woman. Better than almost all men. She's holding back a lot of truth though. Pretty hard to criticise a woman whose life has been in serious danger since 1971.
"The Manipulated Man" (Esther Vilar)
Vilar writes, "Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves." The book contends that young boys are encouraged to associate their masculinity with their ability to be sexually intimate with a woman, and that a woman can control a man by socially empowering herself to be the gate-keeper to his sense of masculinity.The author says that social definitions and norms, such as the idea that women are weak, are constructed by women and that praise is only given to a man when a woman's needs are met in some way.
Vilar claims that women can control their emotional reactions whereas men cannot, and that women create emotional reactions to control men and get their way. She says women "blackmail" men and use sex as a tool.
The book argues that women use traditions and concepts of love and romance, which are seen more positively than sex, to control men's sexual lives. Vilar writes that men gain nothing from marriage and that women, who are out to get men's money, coerce them into marriage under the pretense that it is romantic.
Or are you prepared to admit that there are exceptions to what you are saying?
Esther Vilar certainly is one but the fundamental problem with NAWALT is that any woman who wasn't Like That would welcome men telling women they need to be like her. It is a logical proof that only women who are Like That whine about NAWALT.
Of course some women try very hard to be good, humane people. No doubt there are many women sacrificing their lives for children. But I'm not sure it's ethical to sustain life. I'm unwilling to take it but in a world where the premise that existence has value is horrifically false, sustaining life is not...
I'm not comfortable with my pacifist cop-out, either. If you happened upon a man violently raping a 4yo girl and he said, "It's okay, she's my daughter", and you just gave him a piece of your mind and continued on your way as he continued raping...this is what I'm doing every day with mothers, boys and the wilful destruction of minds for slavery and war (for no reward).
Is there mitigation for cannibalism? I don't think so.
Is bringing life to this planet mitigable? I don't think so.
Do you think that if more people shared your views, something positive could be done about the sorry state of the world?
No. I'm just thinking out loud. Initially, I wanted to find a way to bring my sisters back to life. I didn't fully know what happened to them but I knew it was dark and evil, their minds had been destroyed (much worse than murder if you think about it). I had no idea what happened to my sisters happened 105 billion times.
If so, I have a suggestion. It seems to me that your posts are full of complex metaphors, obscure references, and words being used differently than how they are usually used. Furthermore, it seems to me that you are boiling over with barely contained rage as you write. Let me know if I'm wrong about this.
I'm not a good writer but one of the problems is that everyone has corrupted definitions and conceptual understanding of words and values. I should do better. I should be more considerate, less petulant, less OCD, less sloppy, more mindful of perception, etc but...I don't really think people are worth it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 21, 2014 7:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
please continue using the comments section of this blog as a sort of personal therapy
What a relief. I had some trepidation prior but I'm breathing much easier now that Ms Anonymous' has authorised me to comment on Alone's blog. Thank you -- thank you so much.
It means a lot.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 21, 2014 10:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thank you for the reply. I think you are very earnest and have put a lot of thought into your beliefs. One thing I'd like to challenge you on is your statement that you are posting in this comment section solely as a way of thinking out loud. If you knew that there was nobody in this comments section who would read anything you posted, would you still post things? If you in fact would not post anything if this was the case, then it seems that your posts in this section are based at least partially on the understanding that someone, somewhere will read them. If this is the case, then the fact that you continue posting suggests this form of communication to be "worth it" to you. I may be overreaching here, but I think that your very persistence in expressing yourself in this public forum suggests that you do think that people are, on some level, "worth it". There is still something that motivates you to continue reaching out, in spite of (or maybe because of?) the indignant, self-aggrandizing comments that people keep making in response to your posts. I think (and now I know I'm overreaching) that this tenuous connection with others that you still maintain is, overall, a nice thing. Feel free to disagree with me on this.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 22, 2014 12:08 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Holy shit. I come back to this place and there is still no new post by Alone. But jonny is now almost completely coherent!
Fuck the haters! In this strange niche of a bellicose blog lives a dialogue between real, living, growing people. The fact that abbeysbooks and jonny are still here blows my feeble mind. But until Alone decides to sober up and post again, the floor is yours you two. glen and peanut-gallery included. All the bytes are generously subsidized by the Church of Scientology.
jonny, I know how grateful you will be for my generous permission to continue posting. You are infinitely welcome.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 22, 2014 12:16 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh, and the prestigious dick trickle! Please forgive the omission. I love the fucking internet.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 22, 2014 12:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If you knew that there was nobody in this comments section who would read anything you posted, would you still post things?
Obviously I can type to myself, but I can't think very well without the expectation that someone is going to read it.
I think that your very persistence in expressing yourself in this public forum suggests that you do think that people are, on some level, "worth it".
If I stop stalling, I have to exit. I have no issue with leaving this valueless world but I'm not cool with the terrifying risks slaves are forced to take if they want to leave. Errors are subjected to unthinkable penalties. Until one looks into it, it might be hard to appreciate just how much effort is undertaken to make returning their unsolicited Gift as dangerous and traumatic as possible.
It's just a nightmare. So I procrastinate.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 22, 2014 1:32 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So you have been thinking about Symbolic Exchange and Death.Dome woman with terminal cancer is on t he cover of some magazine this week who has chosen to die in 3 weeks.
With this murderous bloody slaughter of dolphins at Taiji Cove, it is only something like that that is going to stop it. Underneath all the suffering now is capitalism. Without capitalism there is no Young Girl.
I had a friend once who caught TB. He applied for welfare and was refused. So he told her he was just going to get on the subway and cough and cough. so he got what he wanted. Today they would throw him in a prison hospital for terroristic threats. When AIDS became well known he figured someone would just go ahead and take down some despised people with them.
I think this is coming. "You have given me the 'GIFT' of Life and now I am returning the Counter-Gift." Zizek says he is cheerful about the way the world is going. "Humanity is going to die." He has said he hates humanity although he likes individuals he knows. I understand what he means.
People cannot stand to see freedom. I have worked hard to allow my dogs as much freedom as the world around me permits without hurting them. I have erred sometimes. My next door neighbor in Thornfield MO carefully planned a murder of my dog. I left my house and everything in it about 4 weeks later when the window of opportunity arose I was ready to see it and went. Eventually this evil family rotted away. I tried to make friends with their children and that started all the trouble. I was selling used books at the time and had hundreds of children's books. I went outside and read some stories to them. They were so happy and they loved them. I began teaching them to read and giving them books. The father got enraged, threw the books back at me, forbid them to come see me. They sat all summer going only to the edge of their grass. They would sit quietly while their parents screamed at each other in the house and pull grass up with their fingers. I was living in a nightmare watching this. A friend of mine was over and we were talking about it. I was puzzled. He said that they were afraid to go off the property and afraid to be in the house, which was why they spent all summer pulling grass up with their fingers. There's more but I'll stop now. All I wanted was to be friends.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 22, 2014 4:32 AM | Posted by : | Reply
They should have shot your paranoid ass for fucking with their kids, abbey.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 22, 2014 4:43 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
For wanting them to love books and reading. Yes that is true. It was a great threat to these ignorant, red neck alcoholic deadbeats who moved into the empty house on the other side of the church. After I was gone the mom breeded again and had a baby. In January with a new baby she was found drunk, passed out on the dirt road. From your comment it sounds like you are the type that would be associating with people like this. Have fun listening to children and babies cry and husbands beating up their women. Perfect for you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 22, 2014 10:01 AM | Posted by : | Reply
And religion is the first example of organized power over humans.
If you ask me, and I'm not saying you did, this is somewhat accurate. It's misleading, but it is definitely some truth in there.
I firmly believe, that individuals, humans are being used to orchestrate a spectacle. They are not themselves aware of it, that they are being used, influenced.
You may observe a number of signs, individually insignificant but aggregated they constitute a signal.
I've seen it in different contexts, including academia. For me personally, its effect is as real as my own reflection in the mirror.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 22, 2014 1:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I firmly believe, that individuals, humans are being used to orchestrate a spectacle.
It's Guy's Ghost, posting anonymously.
Do they want to be so used, Guy?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 22, 2014 1:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It was a great threat to these ignorant, red neck alcoholic deadbeats who moved into the empty house on the other side of the church. After I was gone the mom breeded again and had a baby. In January with a new baby she was found drunk, passed out on the dirt road. From your comment it sounds like you are the type that would be associating with people like this.
abbey has so much compassion
she preserves it all
saves it
for those who are exactly like her
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
October 22, 2014 1:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Great question, to be approached with care and humility.
A preliminary answer:
Some of them prone to being used, are individualistic minded people (or maybe not) who believe to be pursuing a rational course of action.
Rationality and self-interest may be something very different that what you've been taught. Human nature may be different than what you've been taught.
For humans, self-interest is basic, vital, necessary.
If you are unable to grasp which way to go in order to pursue your own best interest, it is in my best interest to show you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 22, 2014 2:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are not J.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 22, 2014 2:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My name isn't SneakyWoolBlanket either.
Think of it as a sign.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 22, 2014 3:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
If you are unable to grasp which way to go in order to pursue your own best interest, it is in my best interest to show you.
I can't program you, and if I could I wouldn't.
One intellectual argument has already been presented, without any objections or attempts on corrections made. That being said, I know that for many people, it isn't about rationality, but rather about what is desired to be true, for example.
If there is a problem somewhere, it isn't lack of available information. It's at your fingertips. If you are a true utilitarian, you'll search for truth, wherever it may lead you.
It's interesting how Love and Truth is related, connected - that your intentions/motives to some extent decide or frames what you potentially may learn.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 22, 2014 4:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
On second reading, that comment wasn't written in a casual, relaxed and friendly style.
I make mistakes, small ones, big ones - and hopefully I learn.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 22, 2014 4:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I can't help someone like that nor do I want to try or be friends with them. Just an empty hole you are throwing cheese down. Enabling them.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 22, 2014 4:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
indeed
there but for
the grace of
abbey's chosen master
goes abbey
sure feels good
by comparison
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
October 22, 2014 5:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You really need to stop posting as J.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 23, 2014 5:47 AM | Posted by : | Reply
a long article and good information.
Thank author sharing it.
Juegos Loola
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 23, 2014 6:50 AM | Posted by : | Reply
What I think about this blog post on bullies is that it has attracted quite a number of BULLIES! It has drawn them here. Not hard core ones, but those learning the trade with enough time and money to spend the time. This is the way kids begin. At a low, seemingly harmless level that escalates as they become more proficient. There isn't any end in sight as to how they can extend it.
alone is responsible for whatever part of it is occurring here. Both Genet and Burroughs have said that the writer is responsible for what s/he writes. That you can bring things about you would prefer not to have happened by not considering this fact.
alone must accept responsibility for enabling the learning of bullying, and not interfering to resolve the resistance to talking cooperatively with each other. This often happens with a less than wonderful family therapist who bring the "scapegoat" into a family therapy situation to "show" how bad they are to this family. The family itself is dysfunctional an d unless a family therapist is extremely experienced the result is going to be disaster with the "siblings" (you see it here)aggressing against each other when the aggression really belongs on alone. alone has said s/he drinks. (Are we supposed to be considerate of this problem now?)This is my major criticism with alone. Something has been started here and alone has started it. There is no intervention to resolve the narcissistic regression, so it is used as a weapon by various people at various times by labeling others.The siblings have begun to aggress against each other. This is what Lord of the Flies was about carried to extremes.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 23, 2014 2:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My first and only comment ever: Stop acknowledging them.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
October 23, 2014 3:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
ALONE IS HERE, WITH US, IN THE COMMENTS SECTION, EVERY DAY[8].
Open your eyes:
1) Who asserts with such authority that certain posts are not actually made by their purported authors?
2) Who posts with encyclopedic knowledge of the archives, including what has been deleted?
3) Who recently lost their anonymity?
4) Who revels in the 'progress' of the site's users?
5) Who spends weeks and weeks battling with the commenters whom he alleged had been ruining the comment section, only to fade away when those actual commenters disappeared?
6) Who identifies with 'alone's internal conflicts over the fact that his writing attracted these actual commenters?
7) Who has a theory about how our interpretation of fiction and dialogue is like a psychoanalytic mirror?
None of this is real.
------------------
8. Who is responsible for this paranoid comment?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 23, 2014 11:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
NO, I BROKE THE DAM!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 23, 2014 11:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
When racism is the core of all significant political power, which it unquestionably is, relying on the politically oppressive power of using 'racist' as a slur will come back to haunt you. Not all racists are created equal, are they? The most powerful groups in the world rule through racism. You defend them every time you ignore their racist power only to oppress another group with your slurs. History is not going to be kind to you. Your nihilistic brand of anti-racism has to be applied very evenly (never going to happen due to the nature of real power) or not at all to allow for equality in democratic political movement. Consider this your notice.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 24, 2014 3:02 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
BECAUSE racism conflicts with "normality" in the Foucauldian Grid of power/knowledge/capitalism/normality. It is far worse and more entrenched.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 24, 2014 3:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't mind that you post as S, as long as you don't expect me to read much into it.
In any case, I have to admit that I'm bullish on education. Given that I get my space, it is unconceivable for me that I will consciously deny myself knowledge and opt for not-happiness.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 24, 2014 3:16 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There is a difference between trolls and bullies.Bullies will not stop by ignoring them. It will infuriate them further. Always a matter of time until they take it out in the physical world as women are now writing about.They have been attracted here by the title and the content.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
October 24, 2014 4:59 AM | Posted by : | Reply
What I'd like to read, is an atheist perspective on the new Adam, or how a twelve year old kid raised in a buddhist culture can get to the core of all the fuzz about the ransom.
The way I see it, it should be relatively easy to comprehend whether you agree or not, theist or atheist. Personally, I do not fully understand it - and it's not because lack of desire.
I want to read "Jesus for dummies" - would love to read something like that.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 24, 2014 5:30 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You asked for that in the exact perfect place. You want John Caputo's The Insistence of God: A Theology of Perhaps.American, raised Catholic, now the grandfather of "radical theology." These are the most amazing group of thinkers expanding with life pouring out of their pores, that I have been around in Decades.Caputo is a scholar of continental philosophical thinking and it shows in this book. It is astonishing.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 24, 2014 10:26 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The Gospel of Thomas, which Emperor Constantine considered too anarchic to be included in the Bible, is a short compilation of Jesus' sayings that doesn't follow any narrative or include any miracles.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 24, 2014 12:43 PM | Posted by : | Reply
There is a difference between trolls and bullies.Bullies will not stop by ignoring them. It will infuriate them further. Always a matter of time until they take it out in the physical world as women are now writing about.They have been attracted here by the title and the content.
abbey has peered
into the glass
quickened with
silver
and here above
right there
she tells us
what she saw
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
October 24, 2014 12:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nice little haiku poem. I like it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 24, 2014 9:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Richard Kearney's "The God Who May Be." He is riffing nicely off Levinas and Derrida to create an opening for an eschatological God. Check it out; it's cutting edge and exciting.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 24, 2014 10:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Kearney sounds wonderful. Since Caputo also does this - became a personal friend of Derrida - I suspect he is Caputo influenced. LIke to read his take. Thanks.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 25, 2014 6:13 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Are you familiar with Karl Kraus? he was a prominent social critic nad he reminds me so much of Alone.
these guys http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5SPtKK2NPk give nice introductory talk about Kraus
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 25, 2014 10:52 AM | Posted by : | Reply
A text about influence is on its way.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 25, 2014 5:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I thought Gospel of Thomas was fiction, that someone made it up?
Essentially, that it is a lie. I could be wrong.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 26, 2014 8:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
the gospel of Thomas is made up of words, not people
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 28, 2014 7:19 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Whatever it will be, it will be disappointing. It's my expectations. Too high. Not realistic.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 28, 2014 7:21 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I want to know everything - now!
But I'm a child. Know nothing about delayed gratitude.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 29, 2014 3:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I shall now cope with the lack of new content by writing lastpsychiatrist haiuku.
angry drinker waxes
mirrors upset the great apes
but not this bonzo!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 30, 2014 2:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I would like to take this opportunity to say to the bozo that outed this great man and reduced his output to 0:
Well done faggot. Hope that brief rush of importance you felt was worth it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 30, 2014 2:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I had figured out his identity long ago but what purpose does it serve to dox someone when you are enjoying his thoughts and want him to keep writing? I hope people didn't stoop to trying to contact him in the real world. That would piss anyone off.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 30, 2014 6:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Wonder how great apes interpret things, what they make out of it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 30, 2014 6:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm glad the body can affect the surface.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 30, 2014 10:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm guessing someone did try to contact him in real life, and it's understandable if he decided to walk away in response to some fucking weirdo coming to his place of business because of some shit he read on the internet. It's unfortunate. It would be a shame to never read any more of Aloine's writing again, and I hope the faggots responsible for the doxing are proud of themselves.
However if that wasn't the actual reason, I wouldn't be surprised if he at some point became disgusted by his audience. The comments section here is now unbearable, as evidenced by the three posts immediately above mine. Who even writes shit like that? The comments section is full of replies of this stripe. It's like reading the diary of a manic schizophrenic who also recreationally uses marijuana. Not to mention the barely literate ideological ramblings of Abbeysbooks, Jonny (aka Elliot Rodger 2.0), and that weird motherfucker who is obsessed with obscure bloggers and homosexuality. It wouldn't look too good on your resume to be the host of a website home to a bunch of maniacs, and if I were a psychiatrist, the last thing on my list of things to do in my free time would be to get off work having just tended to the mentally ill and then log onto my blog to find a bunch of barely coherent and hateful comments by the mentally ill. Not sure what it is about this site in particular that attracts people straight out of the uncanny valley, but it attracts them nonetheless and does so in spades.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 31, 2014 12:25 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I hope he realizes that his writing has been a major force for good in the lives of many people, though I'm sure he realizes that the comments section is not representative of his entire audience. Thank you, Alone. I hope you are doing well.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
October 31, 2014 12:45 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone, goddamnit toss us a little something. It doesn't have to solve the meaning of life, just give us something to talk or at least laugh about. Don't go Dave Barry on us :(
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 31, 2014 12:54 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Or we're in the cold for now cause Alone is stepping his game up and about to drop something big. Maddox had quite a few non-prolific years, now his podcast is killin it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 31, 2014 4:49 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I think Alone is educated enough not to condone the use of "faggot" in the complaint of the bastard who outed him. Might be a bit right-wing, but a dumbass, he isn't.
Besides, it's only a blog. Everyone has a blog. You can remake these bitches within thirty heart-beats and have them turn out better every time. Look at the print-publications of the 1930s, when that output took real work. Whine, whine, whine. Welcome to the 21st century.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 31, 2014 4:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
In case this is indeed your first day on the internet, the word "faggot" as a catch-all pejorative rarely has anything at all to do with ill will toward the gays.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 31, 2014 5:42 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes, I'm sure that someone spending entire days with actual real-life "weirdos" or merely mentally unstable people since he is a real-life psychiatrist (who once had a patient threaten him at gunpoint for some meds) is totally gonna get saddened by "bad comments" on the internet.
It's honestly not too likely.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
October 31, 2014 10:12 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The reference to large genitals looks an awful lot like a fetish when you contrast it with smart underachievers. 99% of the time I'd just stop reading if there's any hint the writer is some flavour of standard fetish moron but based on the rest of the post I'm setting aside my suspicion. Is there a post where whatever is being gestured at is explained?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 31, 2014 12:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
300 million people cannot all be powerful. They cannot all have "concierge policing", because there are not enough police to go around. Nor are there enough teachers for concierge education, nor enough doctors for concierge medicine. If these services were available to everyone, it would cost much more than 100% of GDP, and would require many more people than have these qualities to be sufficiently capable, motivated, and qualified to perform these roles.
So for nearly everyone, impotence is inevitable.
The article is right that we will never hear recordings of the head of Goldman Sachs making racist remarks. However, it overestimates the importance of this hypothetical event. The errant head would merely be replaced with another who mercilessly optimizes Goldman Sachs' bottom line - and does not let racism obstruct this activity.
Our society is excellent at satisfying the material wants of a large number of people, but it is impossible to make most of those people powerful, or even feel powerful.
People crave social status. They long to be at the top of the tree. So much so, that if they cannot reach the top by other means, they will do so by redefining how they measure status itself.
The problem is not merely narcissistic and psychological, but existential, philosophical, even spiritual. How do we cope with our utter insignificance?
Pick your humour: phlegmatic, sanguine, choleric or melancholic.
The phlegmatic and sanguine are reconciled to their situation.
The melancholic may blame herself or others for her impotence, and she reacts despondently.
The choleric, such as Amanda Hess, always blames others, and wants to fight about it - with anyone who annoys her, regardless of their degree of responsibility for her impotence.
Western women have been fighting for their rights for at least 200 years. The funny thing is, the more rights they have won, and the greater their level of equality (or, in some areas, superiority), the greater the number of women who step forward to fight. Our society encourages grievance politics. It encourages the choleric, and welcomes grievance warriors like Amanda Hess.
In large part, grievance warriors are useful idiots who will persuade others to vote for X, as part of X's scheme to attain real power. X does not really care about his voters' impotence, or the fact that he feeds their dissatisfaction and fosters social division. In reality there is nothing X can do to make all his voters powerful, and he knows that. However, he can make the likes of Amanda Hess feel powerful, feel that they have influence and are being listened to. And so the process continues - for ever.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 31, 2014 12:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Exactly. Even I couldn't have said it better. LOL! at my own comment.Thanks for this.Every professional therapist that is really good, and I think alone is, eventually comes to the conclusion that there is "something" out there that is manufacturing the disturbances in people that bring them to you.(Foucault's Grid of power/knowledge/capital/normality.)It's a sobering moment to realize you are spending your time with your finger in the dike.No pun intended.This leaves you wanting more, more ways to reach more people.alone is a psychiatrist with medical training.Probably associated with a hospital, I would say a good teaching one,and not free to treat patients as alone knows they should be treated, not free to experiment, but very free to prescribe Big Pharma meds;to experiment with them is OK.alone reached many people with this blog and realizes that as many as he has helped here, the finger is still in the dike.alone cannot change the Discourse.He provides information and knowledge - a rather rare coupling these days - and that still is not enough.So those of us trained in this profession have met the stone wall of our limitations.The profound Alice Miller quit to paint.So did Sylvia Ashton Warner a great teacher always in trouble with the administration.alone is dealing with this. He cannot stop these awful comments without monitoring 24/7.Not willing to do that.
Will alone be back? Maybe, maybe not.But there are many here who feel abandoned.It is akin to when your analyst suddenly and unexpectedly dies. It's a terrible terrible thing from which you never recover whole.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 31, 2014 1:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
His sadness would be about not being able to change most people who follow this blog, nor for them to figure out how to dialogue with any newbies who arrive.alone has worked hard on this blog, devoted much thought to everything posted,and still it's not enough."Too little, too late."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 31, 2014 4:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
alone is probably in a hospital setting so he doesn't spend a lot of time with weirdos as you call them.Besides they are far more interesting than normal bores. Unmedicated they are passionate individuals.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 31, 2014 4:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You can't possibly be serious, but I assume there is a reason behind that voice of yours.
300 million people cannot all be powerful...So for nearly everyone, impotence is inevitable..... but it is impossible to make most of those people powerful, or even feel powerful.
If you want to be "powerful", to rule people - you need a friend, and probably a shrink. If you want to become an example and rule utopia by making people desire to follow you, then you'll become powerful.
People crave social status. They long to be at the top of the tree.
People can be trained, and retrained.
In terms of social psychology, the world function very hierarchal. Common people readily accept all kind of nonsense as long as it's coming from above, from authority. Imagine than, how much better penetration a signal with valuable content will have.
I'm sure many of one percenters will agree on that it is necessary to effect a downward flow of real responsibility, freedom to decide and much more less detailed governance.
Do you think they enjoy it when people look at them and demand answers for all the problems in the world? I imagine they hate it and it is associated with fear.
Our society is excellent at satisfying the material wants of a large number of people,
Yes.
...because there are not enough police to go around. Nor are there enough teachers...nor enough doctors...would require many more people than have these qualities to be sufficiently capable, motivated, and qualified to perform these roles.
Oh - THAT is an easy one. Get out of the "certification"-mentality, that there exist an point you need to get past in order to "become" something. We need to fully embrace to think this in terms of a process. A masters degree is in most cases pointless anyway, in terms of usable knowledge.
Learning by doing, that is what actually happens anyway. I'm sure many people would like to switch field of occupation. A workforce of people with multiple skills would make society more flexible and redundant, not to mention the psychological benefit from learning new skills.
We should opt for having way more doctors and teachers than we need.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 31, 2014 4:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Management of public perception, commercials and all that - there we have something interesting to discuss.
We have so many desires. I feel that I am being mislead.
Who can I blame? Or am I thinking about it the wrong way?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 31, 2014 4:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It's about more than commercials. It is a grand narrative, a super structure which serve to interpret everything inside of it.
I need to get out more.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 31, 2014 4:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Wonder how things would be if we had an emperor, a global king.
My king is pro choice and pro free speech. Imagine that.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 31, 2014 6:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Read some more posts and yeah, definitely a fetish. Benefit of the doubt revoked.
What a waste of insight.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 31, 2014 6:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Alone had noted reference to what I presume was his repression in an earlier post.
Don't knock others wearing fashionable sleeves, if you get my drift.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 31, 2014 7:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It clicks with something I read earlier today.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
October 31, 2014 9:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Scratch that I'm confused again. More red flags but I guess you're just not making a point of catching people up. That and you like saying "eat it, cuckold" sometimes and "If I was a 15 year old girl, and I'm not saying I'm not", others. Still not sure about the fetish.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 2:43 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I was thinking, that it would be better to think of it as an addiction. Anyway, I looked up fetish in wikipedia:
Sexual fetishism or erotic fetishism is the sexual arousal a person receives from a physical object, or from a specific situation
Sounds compatible to me.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 3:56 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My use of the term "weirdo" actually came from the person I quoted. And regardless of the quantity of those, Alone's been working as a psychiatrist for decades. He's seen his share of those, and I would be baffled if he managed to lose his drive to write just because people were not nice or "lost causes" on the internet. Lost causes in real life are even more of a norm, and since this blog is predominantly about people who are actually incapable of changing, ever, since this is the main topic of this blog (to the point where you see mentions of it even in posts where it had no reason to happen), so no, I don't believe Alone is weak to internet idiots in the slightest.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 4:01 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
It's not a complete explanation, but you have been trained to think that you're entitled to complete access to e.g. my laptop.
For years, you've been reading my letters and (without permission) used my webcamera and my personal microphone.
there's no power in abolishing anonymity, the power is in giving everyone the pretense of anonymity while secretly retaining the PGP keys to the kingdom.
I'm an outsider, not well informed - but judging from the pieces of information I do have, I'm guessing that here in Norway (population 5 millions) there are about 5000 people with complete access to _your_ laptop.
There is a culture based on that practice, interpreting itself. I'm guessing it to be something like - "It can't be avoided so it might as well be us" and a sense of contributing to science.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 4:07 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I wrote that comment, about PGP and science.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 5:14 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Technically, it would be simple to implement an architecture rendering the practice unfeasible.
Technology is a friend of mine.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 7:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yeah I know, it's called aluminum foil, amirite?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 7:37 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Again, correct me if I'm wrong:
Access normally depends on BIOS/firmware, so it is platform independent. I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if javascript isn't necessary.
Would take minimal of resources or time to fix it.
There are other steps to be taken, but this is what I would identify as a low hanging fruit. Anyway, it's not about technology or lack of possibilities. Not at all.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 7:43 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ah - a reference to an old habit of mine: smoking heroin.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 7:45 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm tempted to ask how you knew.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 9:17 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
People crave social status. They long to be at the top of the tree.People can be trained, and retrained.
In terms of social psychology, the world function very hierarchal. Common people readily accept all kind of nonsense as long as it's coming from above, from authority. Imagine than, how much better penetration a signal with valuable content will have.
I'm sure many of one percenters will agree on that it is necessary to effect a downward flow of real responsibility, freedom to decide and much more less detailed governance.
Do you think they enjoy it when people look at them and demand answers for all the problems in the world? I imagine they hate it and it is associated with fear.
This is an exceptional comment. Disowning responsibility and blaming others for one's own actions is the hallmark of selfless victims of child abuse; 106 billion lives have been brought to this world by sex-obsessed women who hate sex. Just ask them! They'll tell you, even as they're being pleasured by men who aren't deterred by "No means no" because they Know Best. Children are bred to serve a provisioning role by noncontributing, selfless wretches who are supposed to provision their own young.
The abdication of responsibility for one's Self is the purest form of evil. The Selfless are horrific, dead shells of former humans. The infantilisation of Humanity is complete; human minds are deformed by violence and shame when impressionable, development stunted to produce dysfunctional dependents who need the objectified demons who breed life of Their Own to cannibalise. For this reason, I believe you are mistaken. People taught wrong can be retaught but people trained wrong cannot be retrained. When tamed by violent mothers who Know Best, toddlers choose to live for lies (rather than die for truth). An unwillingness to die for truth is irreparable.
The 1% aren't to blame for the 99% who breed life to belay their own death. The 1% cannot force women to stop breeding life they cannot care for. The 1% cannot feed the children of poverty. The 1% will not share what they are forced to hoard by women's objectification of children (to gain illegitimate entitlement to leech). The 1% can't help children raised to imagine their suffering is the fault of someone who isn't a) themselves, or b) the women who try and fail to fuck their way out of poverty.
The 1% are forced to play by women's psychotic rules (Might is Right). Until mothers stop forcing children to choose between living for lies or dying for truth, no one will be right. The selfless masses abdicate their power (rights and responsibilities) with apathy before they inevitably disown responsibilities in their violent efforts to seize control of rights. Might is never Right but History shows how it can appear to be. On an unparalleled scale, it's about to appear to be. The culling of this species is imminent.
"God gave Noah the rainbow sign, No more water, the fire next time." (Baldwin)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 9:48 AM | Posted by : | Reply
toddlers choose to live for lies
Been talking with people, and noticed that some seemingly understand themselves as informed, in the know, with a sense of esoteric knowledge.
I'm talking about working class folks far far away from centralized (nominal) power. People are being lead by their noses, told that they matter, given a false sense of importance, privilege.
Cheap.
Now, we are about to enter a new age.
The abdication of responsibility for one's Self is the purest form of evil.
I'd phrase it more gentle, but yes - to abdicate doesn't mean decisions won't be taken. Whether you're aware of it or not, a decision to abdicate will have fatal consequences for you personally. Think of it as gravity. It can't be changed.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 10:13 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Neutrality doesn't exist.
I'm not saying it for the effect, but to state a spiritual truth with material consequences.
It can be explained in several different ways, depending on context. As simple and specific as possible: was neutrality a factual option for Russia in 1939?
It isn't an option for you either, no matter what you believe or not.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 10:31 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My king is pro choice and pro free speech. Imagine that.
Pro-choice allows women to torture children (the abortion debate is just a proxy for the very serious issue of women who flatly refuse to accept liability for the consequences of their actions).
Pro-free speech is freedom to fill children's minds with putrid lies. Freedom of slander / smear, freedom of hate speech (illegitimate entitlement), freedom of sleazy religious conditioning of adolescents to suffer traumatic shame when they hit puberty.
Who wants children to be shell-shocked by puberty? Creepy selfless wretches obsessed with protecting their illegitimate entitlement to exclusively own human property (who would be stolen in an instant if allowed freedom to choose for themselves).
"Until Death Do Us Part."
Liberty is complicated by reduced women who breed children for utility / disposal. Blinded to the truth of their betrayal, humans cannot perceive their best interests are not served by their obsession with controlling their Loved One/s. Josef Fritzl was not an exception, he represents the (reduced) Human Condition.
Objectified women thrive on suffering they inflict on men and children. They need to create the artificial need for their nonexistent services or no one will value their precious liability. Women's intrinsic value is negative, their true worth nothing but an illusion manufactured by child abuse (objectification serves to conceal liability for sale). When objectified women can no longer undress to impress, mothers with MSbP materialise. It's magic!
"They cripple the bird's wing and then condemn it for not flying as fast as they." (Malcolm X)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 10:35 AM | Posted by : | Reply
..not saying it for the effect..
At least that wasn't how I thought of it, but I believe that humans say things to achieve a desired effect on someone more often than not.
It's not necessarily a good thing.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 10:53 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Pro-choice allows women to torture children....Pro-free speech is freedom to fill children's minds with putrid lies.
What? Are you suggesting law and order? That is outrageous and if I were you I'd worry about being interpreted as rebellious or revolutionary.
Current thinking is that laws serve to an end.
I'm questioning whether the law are used lawfully or as an instrument of arbitrary power. Would be happy to debate the issue. I'm pro system and opinionated on issues concerning law and power.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 11:27 AM | Posted by : | Reply
It's simple.
Justice can't be achieved by codification or organization. Justice is only possible if laws can be applied or ignored freely, to serve an end. And that, has to apply to _everyone_ not only to a small percentage of the population.
The general idea gained acceptance and spread rapidly around 2000 years ago. I'm guessing this time, it will become even more popular.
If you insist on current practice, you may be treated according to your own preference and face execution - depending on your crime. Alternatively, you are welcome to support a good cause.
Thinking out loud, that all.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 12:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
alone must accept responsibility for enabling the learning of bullying, and not interfering to resolve the resistance to talking cooperatively with each other.
How can Alone be responsible for helping broken people who can't help themselves? People won't accept naked truth so this blog is a brilliant attempt to get people to accept they are responsible for the consequences of their actions. They only want to self-destruct and blame their victims for [insert feminist rhetoric here]. Lying cretins are pathetically, miserably needy -- but -- they can't be helped when they Know Best how everyone else should suffer to please them. Just selfless, blameless devils.
I think it's fair to say Alone wrote this blog with the explicit intent of rendering his advice redundant. He doesn't want people to need him, he wants people to help themselves. That people imagine they need him to the point where they're blaming him for making them feel abandoned is just comical. The demented infants refuse to accept they are the architects of their own misery. They can't be fixed because truth has no influence on selfless Toddlers who only want to hear 'feel-good' lies which exonerate them from feeling blame. They just want a patsy to blame for the consequences of their refusal to change.
They want to be malicious but they don't want to be a victim of malice. They want to exploit but they don't want to be exploited. They want to control others but they don't want to be in control of Self. They want to disrespect themselves and command respect for being disrespectful. They want to be carried for no reason. It's just what they want, okay? It's their royal birthright.
They want it one way. But it's the other way.
I think Alone stated his ambition to change the way people want.
He wants it one way, to be less delusional. But it's the other way.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 12:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
IF you are thinking out loud then maybe you won't be offended at my attempt to comment on your thinking.You are following a historical,linear, continuous approach in your thinking about justice. Agamben is probably the best but I have only read small essays of his so I don't know his respected lifetime of work at all well.What I have read he says that the legal system is flawed in its very fundamentals. (If the structure of the house is faulty it is foolish to go to expensive renovation.)I know this from reading Foucault's The Order of Things. To switch from vengeance to justice is a violent intersection of the power/knowledge/capital/normality grid.Vengeance belongs in the Symbolic Order and justice belongs in the Order of Production.You cannot compare or contrast things, or concepts from different orders. (Russell's Rule on the Theory of Types where paradoxes come in.)What I am saying is if you learn to think genealogically your thinking will be incredibly more powerful. You don't have to give up the Dominating Discourse of opposition, but you will find it less and less useful when you want to think about something.
I pretty much think genealogically - altho in conversations and comments I can get provoked to playing on another's ballfield only to eventually see how I could have said it better, much shorter,and far more effective if I had just dropped my baggage in the beginning. So this past summer I was reading a rather YA bio on Dolley Madison because she lived only blocks from where I had owned real estate in Philadelphia during the 80's.The photos of home were there so I signed the book out.And to my great astonishment this is what I learned about the justice system of the USA. A 1760 slavery law in the VA colony slapped me in the face: Here: http://focusfree.blogspot.com/2014/04/john-payne-dolley-madisons-father.html Hope it shocks you as much as it did me.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 12:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
there's no power in abolishing anonymity, the power is in giving everyone the pretense of anonymity while secretly retaining the PGP keys to the kingdom.
What a great sentence.Anonymity as a mask signing a concept that is empty. (Baudrillard)If we don't learn to read signifiers uncoupled from the signified, appearing as masks that can have many different signs we are doomed.This is Simulated Reality which will morph into Virtual Reality, and then we are doomed.No way out.We can never know.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 1:27 PM | Posted by : | Reply
If we don't learn to read signifiers uncoupled from the signified, appearing as masks that can have many different signs we are doomed.This is Simulated Reality which will morph into Virtual Reality, and then we are doomed.No way out.We can never know.
I don't know, I never entered that universe of thinking.
What I do know, is that we can know.
Exposure will be complete.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 1:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm longing for a world more rational and scientific, I mean down to earth and real. You know, science?! Truth!
It doesn't mean not compassionate or cold. On the contrary, love and truth could be thought of as two vectors pointing in the same direction.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 3:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Don't we all?
You were talking about...how to get there? In any case, I was merely screaming out that I'd like to be there.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 1, 2014 3:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Good catch on me.
How can Alone be responsible for helping broken people who can't help themselves?
Of course he can't and neither can any other psychiatris,psychoanalyst,psychotherapist,therapist.All that can be done is to resolve a resistance to continue saying everything that comes to mind.And you certainly have until it became so repetitive people were screaming in agony.So now yo continue to say it in far more subtle and intelligent ways now that the emotional baggage has been vomited many many times.No one here wanted your vomit.It fascinated me tho and when I stumbled across Young Girl,thru a friend,there was the same vomit honed and polished but only thru the work of a solidarity collective working on expressing it in a way that most people could understand. I said understand, not necessarily agree with. semiotext(e) in publishing it from pdf gave tiqqun's work an extremely prominent platform is the cutting edge intellectual community asking all the dangerous questions everyone should be asking.Time has run out on us and has already on many other species.
alone well knows the limitations of the profession, and that it sits inside the system helping to mask the systemic violence ofthe system, to balance it a little more so to speak.
No one can be helped if they do not want to help themselves.
When this comes up in analysis the positive narcissistic transference dissolves and the negative narcissistic transference begins.Where you try to attack and murder the object you used to be so in love with.This is where most people on this comment thread are at now with 6 months of absence from alone. Abandoned. Helpless. Crying. Whining. Whimpering. Threatening. Demanding alone will have to come up with a post to defuse the resistance to our talking with each other in a way as to NOT attack each other.Don't know what that would be.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 2, 2014 1:01 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Edward Snowden exposes Virtual Reality.
When I first read about Edward Snowden in a newspaper, I couldn't point to any obvious errors, neither could I judge the factual content of the article. What do I know?
Still, I can't deny it. It would be lying. From the very first moment, a sense of imitation struck me. The article, the character Edward Snowden, immediately met my mind as a representation, artificial, not real.
It's not that I believe the physical person isn't real, and for all I know a lot of the information about him is accurate. I don't know exactly. Is it the image? Is it the narrative? I don't know exactly, but what I do know, is that my gut feeling has since been reinforced by rational thinking.
Wikipedia:
ABC News reported that Snowden "could not enter Russia because he did not have a Russian visa and he could not travel to safe haven opportunities in Latin America because the United States had canceled his passport."[28] Snowden remained in the airport transit zone for 39 days, during which time he applied for asylum in 21 countries. On August 1, 2013, Russian authorities granted him a one-year temporary asylum. A year later, Russia issued Snowden a three-year residency permit allowing him to travel freely within the country and to go abroad for not longer than three months.[29] He lives in an undisclosed location in Russia and is seeking asylum in the European Union.
Huh? I've been told that Russia and US was rivals/enemies? Could not travel to X because United States had canceled his passport? That's how it is to become entangled in big politics, I guess. Your permissions will surely be canceled by an omnipotent entity. Airport transit for 39 days? Well, gotta make sure the paperwork is done right, I guess.
All I know for sure, is that I _immediately_ felt a sense of recognizing something. In one way or the other, it was familiar. Interesting, how our mind works.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 2, 2014 1:02 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Not to mention the barely literate ideological ramblings of Abbeysbooks, Jonny (aka Elliot Rodger 2.0), and that weird motherfucker who is obsessed with obscure bloggers and homosexuality.
I am the polar opposite of Elliot Rodger but he had every reason to be furious. He was a victim of women's psychotic abuse. Women destroyed his value and then despised him for having no value. Elliot for blind for the same reason every man is blind, including me; humans only know what they're told. Unlike Elliot, I was never angry at women until I'd pleased a sample size large enough to make their incapacity to please me a little suspect. Elliot's anger should have been directed at his mother, but the nature of women's biological is so vile, nothing is limiting their evil. Children just forgive them for everything. It's unbelievable.
I've had lengthy conversations with children who've been sold by their mothers to demons for $50 a head, tiny little innocents forced to work 14 hour shifts terrified by the beatings they get for the tiniest errors, any pretext to vent emotional overflow. At night, their tiny bodies are rented out for sexual gratification. They don't even know, they're too innocent to fully understand. Just incomprehensible evil. They're paid nothing by the demons exploiting disparities that cannot be exploited, they're fed enough to keep them alive and starving. But if they get sick, that's it. They're left to die. It's not an emotional decision, just economics.
I bet you'll never guess why they're not worth the bother. Take a wild stab. Try and kick-start that filthy whore mind into gear, see if you can't turn it over long enough to answer a simple question: Why are children's lives so cheap on this evil planet of whores?
The children are (worse than) murdered by their mothers but they don't see it that way. They get angry if you say "bad words" about the women who sold them to pedophiles, they needed the money. For gambling? For cosmetics needed to conceal ugly reality, cover up a diseased rash long enough to rape some drunk bastard's consent? It doesn't matter. You could show these children a live video feed of what their mothers needed money for and it wouldn't matter. It's terrifying. There is no limit to the evil women can inflict on children. The more abuse, the fiercer the love. if love is blind, only demons can want it. This is the evil women exploit to gain their entitlement to bully men into submission. This is the power choking the species to death. You filthy whores destroy everyone but Elliot and I are not alike.
I had no sense of entitlement at all, I was just an ignorant goof thrilled to be given the opportunity to impress. I wasn't bothered by abuse and I didn't really try to understand it; I just knew I needed more value. I didn't mind suffering to increase my worth but there needs to be a point. I could see that half the girls my age, from 14 to 25, were mostly focused on ensuring men treated them Right, fucking and partying on men's dime. I didn't resent their good fortune, I was happy for them. I respect a fair marketplace but this is the problem; women are not fair. Billions of girls were murdered and 100 billion children were viciously abused to secure women's entitlement to fuck as men work. It's fucked up. Elliot wasn't entitled to any women. There isn't a woman alive entitled to me. Elliot didn't get what he wanted. I got everything I wanted and so much more, reality eventually punctured my denial. Elliot was completely detached from reality, he knew nothing. I'm entrenched in reality and I know everything about women's depravity. I am not imagining women's value is an illusion bought with children's blood and tears, this is reality.
Elliot and I are nothing alike. He was infuriated by his inability to please women. I am infuriated by women I've pleased who cannot please me. When I couldn't please women, I assumed the problem was at my end. I am no longer confused. I please with transparent value, they don't please with cosmetic fraud. Elliot couldn't win a thing. I won nearly everything. But Elliot did have every Right to be furious. Women's abuse made him a loser, senseless destruction of potential. It's outrageous. Women's abuse made me a winner, senseless exploitation of potential. It's irrelevant. Women have destroyed 106 billion minds as valuable as mine just so they can fuck and force men to work. The Naked Truth: There is nothing for men with merit to win.
You know the truth and you fucking hate it, you just want to destroy everything true and pure with your infernal hatred that is nothing but fear of losing your ancient birthright to defeat yourself. I'm not the one who's unstable. I'm not the one who can't make logical arguments to justify my position. I'm not the one who needs lies and violence. The real question that sniveling women can't answer: How was Elliot any different from you?
It wouldn't look too good on your resume to be the host of a website home to a bunch of maniacs, and if I were a psychiatrist, the last thing on my list of things to do...
Enough. You're spewing insanity. If you were a psychiatrist? If you weren't an illiterate whore obsessed with manipulating how things look, you could have been one in reality rather than talking about it in fantasy. In reality, things couldn't look any worse for you because you are a whore. If you were a psychiatrist? You are the patient no doctor will ever fix. You need to butt-plug that filthy mouth of yours, but you won't. You'll just scream disapproval at men and children who will need more violence -- don't you agree? -- they will, or you'll never make them suffer enough to please you. I need to take my leave.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 2, 2014 1:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There's quite a lot of projection in this post. Why do you assume everyone who responds negatively toward you is a female?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 2, 2014 5:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oh Jesus Christ will you just shut the fuck up already?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 2, 2014 8:33 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
...it is impossible to make most of those people powerful, or even feel powerful.
Pretty sure they all breed life of Their Own for that purpose.
"Children should respect their elders...or else!"
Or else the elders will know it's Power Time. Children need violent discipline or they won't mindlessly obey your authority. They'll ask questions, demand justifications, what a nightmare!
"Children should be seen and not heard."
Elders like peace and quiet. Everyone knows a terrified child that doesn't ask awkward and embarrassing questions their elders can't answer is a well-behaved child. It's so pleasant, I find, when they look at you with the respect borne out of learning that hard way that you can hit them at any moment. Only with love, mind. I'm not a monster who hits without emotion. I like to feel my violence, because if you love them when you hit them -- which is the only correct way to communicate your will to stupid children, who don't listen to any of your lies -- then you won't have to hit them as hard or as often down the track. That is, unless you want to...
*teehee*
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 2, 2014 12:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is great!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 2, 2014 12:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Because tiqqun's Young Girl is not gendered, not aged, not race defined.You are Young Girl.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 2, 2014 12:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Because Edward Snowden is a character right out of Kafka's The Trial And he knows that he is.Only he has done it deliberately and carefully on purpose.But yes he is familiar. Snowden resonates with literature.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 2, 2014 3:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
i think alone is a much better writer now than he was in may
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 2, 2014 3:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It might be that I understand what you're getting at with "Tiqqun" and "Young Girl"
Been having "thoughts" for quite a while as you might know. Ideas about how my boss will spread the word and what sort of people he will employ.
Although I know that mistakes are more than accepted, I prefer some things to be absolutely correct. Don't want to say things which later turns out to be wrong, tricked by desire for anything else than truth.
Need to see manifestations.
As far as I can judge, you have been employed for quite a while. Perhaps undercover but nevertheless employed. I'm curious about how you understand things.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 2, 2014 5:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm positively sure about young woman, or in my probably outdated way of thinking: to redress an old woman.
I won't know until I know. But I'm positive that it is something about that young woman. She woke me up. The whole scene was claustrophobic. No space. It was wrong.
It has since matured. We'll see.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 2, 2014 6:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
And NotAlone yes a new post would be very welcome.
Since I'm a fan anything will do, but it would be okay if you wrote about the psychology of theology.
Even if you got it wrong, it would be right.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 2, 2014 6:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I've been thinking about language and translation.
Current thinking is that you can use internet for effective distribution. How effective can it be?
Put it this way. If I told you a joke, and if that joke was sufficiently funny, it would be translated to approx every language on the globe within less than a week.
I know, it would have to be like the funniest joke ever. LoL
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 2, 2014 7:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's not a matter of seeing what I am getting at with tiqqun's Young Girl.You can't possibly know until you have read it and spent serious tim e thinking ab out it. semiotext(e) does not publish idiots and it does publish a series of authors within the same vein.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 2, 2014 7:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
alone has grown a great deal in thinking in little over a year or so.Much more post modern in his thinking.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 5, 2014 1:37 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I like your comment
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 5, 2014 1:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
i agree with you
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 5, 2014 4:50 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Sounds very attractive, thank you veri good. Jogos Frozen
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 5, 2014 7:50 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Who bullies the bullies?
#gamergate, that's who ;p
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 5, 2014 5:43 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Bullying is a topic I've covered quite a bit on my blog:
http://silssociology.blogspot.com/
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 6, 2014 1:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
We have a govt that bullies the entire world whenever it can get away with it.Children play and mimic this behavior.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 6, 2014 11:12 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Strictly speaking you can't not be affected by your sensory input, but if you live in the moment, if your framework of thinking depends on what time of day it is, if it isn't well developed, you'll be vulnerable, controllable, changeable. All at once.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 6, 2014 11:21 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Many drops -> a bucket of water.
Small steps, a giant leap.
It will probably be repeated.
Alone - where is that post?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 6, 2014 7:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It wouldn't surprise me if the oil fund of Norway ($889.1 billion) will be spent globally, today. Pension funds - so old school.
Merely asking a question.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 6, 2014 7:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The progress party. Taste it. Who's against progress?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 6, 2014 7:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Re Afghanistan
The life of an innocent child is worth more than Norways oil fund, of course.
Hence Norway may be in debt.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 6, 2014 7:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I know that I have to come up with a reasoning behind what I've already decided to be true, I know.
Imagine how much progress there could be if all opposition disappeared.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 7, 2014 2:02 AM | Posted by : | Reply
In fairness, it is the devils game - not Americas.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 7, 2014 2:17 AM | Posted by : | Reply
- "It wasn't me, it was he who made me do it"
I'm confused.
Yes, it was him. Without him, no crime.
And no, he can only effect you to do things that is within your desire.
Question: why did I want to do it in the first place?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 7, 2014 1:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
My hunch is that a root cause must be identified before the monarchy will be established.
Wish that someone from the academy would sit down with me and explain it to me like I'm a twelve y old. Instead, I have to speculate. I don't like but guess boss has a plan with it. It's not my plan tell you that, but I'm going along wherever.
Answer:
I'm trained to desire the wrong things. I'm contaminated by the water I've been swimming in all my life. Not making excuses, merely stating a fact.
Please suggest that evil exist in my dna. In that case, I will plea not guilty.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 7, 2014 1:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Search for origins is not necessary.It assumes a continuous world and our world is ruled by EVENTS which are surprising and discontinuous.
The reason you are in your goldfish bowl is the way you are thinking.So if you think genealogically it will all straighten out. To learn how to do this read Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 7, 2014 1:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oh you asked to have it explained so a 12 year old could understand and I didn't do that. Sorry. Here in this link which is short.It is a genealogy of sexuality. Genealogy is not continuous, not progressive, event driven, so any number of forms of it can occur at the same moment in time. BECAUSE it is not continuous.http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2011/10/review-viewing-eclipse-through.html Reading the genealogy of sexuality through the Twilight movie ECLIPSE. Let me know if you understood. If not I'll find something else.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 7, 2014 2:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"There is no god and Nietzsche is his prophet!"
Is that how it goes? Don't get me wrong, I'm a great listener. Won't reject your thought just because I know little about Nietzsche. Your thought was..?
Re continuous or not, ya heard about the thing called time?
Time is a scientific fact. It is proven by scientists. I'm pro science, therefore I'm scientific. You lose. I win.
Won't allow myself to operate at your level of debating, so goodbye.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 7, 2014 4:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There is no need for me to actually speak. I can be silent. It doesn't matter.
And no, it's not a matter of monitoring micro expressions. I got all bases covered. I'm positive. Think of it as a new kind of science, except that it is about persons, not deterministic (or stochastic) rules. No mister English lit, MRI doesn't work without a strong magnetic field.
I'm glad my future doesn't depend on self proclaimed rationalists.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 7, 2014 4:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm not being gloomy.
I don't know, but for me the fact that he is that close to being out in the open, is a good sign. Great.
Whatever you believe or not, I'm truly curious - how do you rationalize it? How is the spectacle created? I'm being down to earth here - don't blame it on aliens.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 7, 2014 4:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
And remember, don't shoot the messenger.
Being caught in the net doesn't mean more than exactly that. Being caught. It's not a rational, conscious and informed choice.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 7, 2014 4:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
According to hearsay, boss screamed sulphur at someone at a particular occasion, but he didn't fire him - quite the contrary.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 7, 2014 4:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Yes, I know. Too much. Economize it.
Would be better to err on the other side.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 7, 2014 8:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
A couple of hours ago, I was trying to sleep, but I had a disturbing headache. Couldn't sleep, so now you know.
Wonder how that inner story was presented, or how much is actually told versus how much is left to your own fantasy. Didn't watch anything I.
Anyway, glad to tell you that it worked.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 4:40 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I have noted how some songs, hits, seems to lend itself to two interpretations. It is done on purpose.
Don't want to use real life examples. It's for our common good.
In my mind, a generic example would be a video of a (young) beautiful woman, trying to cope with an air conditioning failure. It's hot and judging from how she say the words I know she means it, that she really want to work on that thing.
Do you believe she (or her songwriter) is referring to the air conditioner or the platonic relationship with her best friend?
I'm not saying that young women shouldn't be nude, merely sharing an opinion/observation about intentions, motive. That's exactly where it is and nowhere else.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 4:45 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh I forgot. Believe the motive to be something like dividing people, perverts and non-perverts meaning if you spot the secondary (or primary) layer of interpretation, you're most likely a less moral individual with a contaminated mind, unlike "me", "us". We "get" it.
Yes I know it sounds like a crazy conspiracy. Bear with me.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 4:57 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Or it could simply be seen as an easy way to make quick bucks.
Guess there are as many reasons as people - or is it? Where is Plato - need to talk it over with him.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 5:00 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Inappropriate joke, sorry about that. Please disregard above comment.
It is a serious issue with bodily consequences.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 6:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The inner experience of a song writer may be very different than what I'm outlining. My description is probably influenced by by a religious world view.
For all I know, a song writer may think of it as education. Perhaps he or she wants to show how a sexual context can be contrasted with purity or whatever. Is it about forcing a perception, making us to choose between two divergent interpretations? To help me make a moral mental choice? Improvement?
We are trained to be against stuff, in opposition.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 6:13 AM | Posted by : | Reply
According to me, The last psychiatrist said:
"You don't get to decide what you meant"
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 8, 2014 10:02 AM | Posted by : | Reply
What is "the issue"?
It is tempting to connect female manipulation with explosives, war, slavery and murder - but for sake of the economy I'll attempt to restrict it.
Meta-physics aside, I'd say the most useful answer is training.
People aren't born deceitful.
We need to practice honesty, to train our sensitivities. It is most certainly a skill, to express your mind clearly, or to emote freely in a social acceptable way. No-one is born as a honest person.
Connecting people.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 9, 2014 3:28 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Dear Alone,
I very much enjoy your blog and often wonder why some posts cannot be commented on, including some that already have comments (and some that don't have any)?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 9, 2014 5:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
When it comes to writers, I usually stick with the big 3. King. Koonz. Patterson.
But this writer raises a lot of good, challenging points about my life, my money and all of its mysteries under the sun. I definitely will want to discuss these matters with my family at perhaps a nice restaurant, and warn them of these evil truths this last psychiatrist says before its too late.
Over the weekend I went out to the river with my 2nd wife, jetski and motorcycle and stepsons. Been seriously thinking about buying a house again and getting back in this bull market again, do you guys think its a good time to buy again doc? My 2nd wife and I want to near good schools, the latest flu shots, an outdoor concert venue and we can put $200,000 dollars down and maybe get a loan around $1.5 million.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 9, 2014 5:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
And to my boy Jonny looks like youre stuck fucking kangeroos buddy..
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 9, 2014 7:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"the doctor"
It's probably "my wife" and "my children".
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 9, 2014 8:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Childrens wellbeing is by necessity a common responsibility.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 9, 2014 9:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
...my life, my money...
TLP doesn't write about your money or your life. If you see it that way, you're the problem. Don't dare trouble your family with your retardation-fueled "well-intent."
It's mostly about narcissism, not YOUR narcissist, ya dig? Need advice on investments? I suggest reading up on Dunning-Kruger. Then look in the mirror. If you feel self-admiration at that point, then do everyone a favor and keep to yourself. In the case your feel otherwise, then read this.
I'm serious if you're serious.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 9, 2014 11:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
i envy you for having been trolled by the doc himself
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 10, 2014 12:11 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Going by the honor system. Ass is covered (I guess) by last line.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 10, 2014 2:44 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Oh it wasn't 3000? Only 200?
I'm relieved. It's all about numbers.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 10, 2014 2:54 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Two observations about two alternative versions of our future.
a) A reform within justice is happening now.
b) An unprecedented large number of people, henchmen and high profiles, is heading for justice, probably death sentence.
It's not about 911.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 10, 2014 3:11 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Given that information input is correct, obviously.
I know little about it, except free fall and what it implies. That part is science.
To be completely honest, I feel duped. It's ridicules how I've felt, given that so much of what I thought I knew, wasn't so. It may contribute to an unnecessary aggressive tone, I'm not sure.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 10, 2014 3:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm serious if you're serious.
Sorry for the distraction.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 10, 2014 3:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The guy who outed Alone should go fuck himself.
This left a terrible intellectual gap in my readings.
Alone please restart your brand somewhere and post the link. You know you want to give your opinion on Eliot Rodgers already...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 10, 2014 4:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
How do you know alone is outed. I don't. Does it matter.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 10, 2014 4:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If you have a terrible intellectual gap now that alone hasn't posted in a long while,that is because you are not looking.Lots of really interesting stuff on other blogs too. jonny's blog is excellent.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 10, 2014 6:02 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jonny's blog is excellent
Excellent for a laugh.
Where is our resident loony bin jonny, anyway? Has he finally offed himself?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 10, 2014 6:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ah, look at you, what with all that cutesy punchable face and all...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 10, 2014 8:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If anything, the joke is on you, jacksauce.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 10, 2014 8:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You know you want to give your opinion on Eliot Rodgers already...
Nothing says impotence like this leeching.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 11, 2014 1:24 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What the fuck are you talking about?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 11, 2014 1:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jacksauce
Am I suppose to find this offensive?
In any case, keep waving those pom-poms for jonny, he'll be happy to know he has a fanclub.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 11, 2014 7:56 AM | Posted by : | Reply
>" keep waving those pom-poms for jonny..."
Thanks hon, couldn't do it without your support.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 11, 2014 11:28 AM | Posted by : | Reply
It's someone with the mentality of being opposed, having an adversary.
It's not you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 11, 2014 3:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nice way of saying it. Someone who is cemented into the Dominating Discourse of opposition.And of course doesn't know they are in it.Very frustrating when you know and can't drag your feet out of the mud before it hardens around your boots.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 11, 2014 4:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Contrary to rumors, love is not blind.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 11, 2014 7:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I gather that a majority of talk therapists are stuck there too.
Abbey, did you have clients who were in someway worsened by prior (before seeing you) attempts at psychotherapy?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 11, 2014 7:09 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Yes I know, not exactly sensitive. What can I say? Learning, I hope.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 11, 2014 7:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Freedom of speech is valuable, but I realize that using Truth as a sledgehammer promotes nothing of value. Some way or another, I has to be _wanted_ - it can't be forced.
And even if it could, no no no. That's not it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 11, 2014 7:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes of course.And some I also failed, especially in the beginning. Usually those left treatment pretty quick. Known as Treatment Destructive Resistance.The ones who are hurt are the ones seeing therapists to keep their disability payments, so that inner mechanism that gets them to leave when they are not being helped,is stonewalled. If you know how to work with this first resistance well,they stay. But most therapists are not good enough to welcome this resistance.Used these techniques to keep students in class at Community College in Phila.They thought I was nuts for awhile but they didn't drop out which was my goal.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 11, 2014 7:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are asking for the kind of feedback you can only get in the psychoanalytic encounter. You are highly narcissistic and the Narcissistic Defense walls out any intrusion that would attack the fragile ego.It is your defense.So it must be strengthened before any interpretations are fed to the person.Every interpretation is felt as an attack on the ego.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 11, 2014 7:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Been wondering about this after I read--can't even begin to say how many times--Tiqqun's take on 'body dreams of being a soul' in Raw Materials. Later on I read a few accounts of bad experiences with therapy, (which I can't relate to) like this one ("Bad Therapy?" @WP) and thought about if it was in some way opposition opposing some sort of opposition.
Finding it difficult to extract the diamond if you will and as it were.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 11, 2014 10:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
jesus christ this comments section is out of fucking control
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 12, 2014 2:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'll pretend to be secular for a moment. It's about evolution. Bear with me. I might be wrong, but the animal I'm looking at is huge. It must have required quite some time for it to evolve.
If memory serve me correct, Lacan did his work on during the thirties. I don't know really, but it seems to me that compared to now, governance back then was slightly more backwards.
I don't know, guess it take some time for new approaches to accepted. I need a thread, to select a starting point perhaps. Did something interesting happen shortly after WWII?
I imagine to have observed two themes of cultural expression lately. One is about space, aliens, science fiction. Nothing dramatic, but it's there. Second is the use of metaphors which in my mind clearly is from the revelation.
Thinking out loud, that's all.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 12, 2014 2:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Social scientists refuse to share/expose their science.
I'm guessing that, according to the same scientists it's because advance awareness reduces its positive effect.
Have to take their word for it, I guess.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 12, 2014 4:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Are you suggesting law and order?
I don't see the point? One gender is reducing themselves to liability and simultaneously handicapping the other to ensure suffering that leeches can exploit. What can law & order do but regulate emotional cannibalism? Anarchy is liberated cannibalism.
I'm suggesting reality this world is blind to as it races to extinction in denial of the bleeding obvious. The species cannot afford the insanity of dependent mothers. They need children to be handicapped. Women mutilate their young to repay Society for allowing them to pursue indolent lives of noncontribution. They need children's suffering to survive, having chosen to invest their youths contriving "difficulty" (creating the appearance of value, inflicting suffering to exploit men's narcissistic injuries).
The world is awash in senseless horror, the sadistic torture of helpless deity children presently underway in every private family home. To what end, financing the limited sex lives of reduced women? To keep up appearances? There's no justification for this psychotic factory of suffering. Law and order cannot regulate the horror of dysfunctional mothers given to cannibalise Their Own. It's all redundant. They fear minds. They hate competition.
It has to be shut down.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 12, 2014 4:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm sure someone can confirm the following. It's not novel or cutting edge.
Prior to "a walk through the darkness", a roadmap is to be presented. The student is to have overview of the process, an awareness of what is expected to lie ahead.
Of course, if it is research - new frontiers of knowledge - a roadmap will generally not be available, though the researcher may in advance have a hunch, an expectation.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 12, 2014 5:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It can get a lot worse.In Bombay in the early 1990's.A baby held in a man's arms with his eyes burned by acid,pus oozing out,puts his hand thru my taxi window begging for money.My gf and I just sat there and cried.
Children with amputated limb so they gt more money begging. One with broken back gamboling on all fours chased me. I was terrified, for no reason,but it was startling to me.So many children maimed to help them beg.In Bombay it was not invisible as it is in other countries.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 12, 2014 5:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And all the mindless shells who loved their abusers for violently compelling them to hate themselves started snivelling, whispering, uncertain, confused, looking at each other for clues.
What is the appropriate response?
What emotion should they feel?
What behaviour is recommended?
What conduct would be approved?
More than one longed for Their mother, because she Knew Best. A grown man sobbed, only to burst into tears at the sympathetic response. With no leader barking orders, the Toddlers were lost.
A brave rat creeped forward with reckless abandon, his terror of embarrassment briefly quelled by his gnawing need for approval. Despite clearing his throat, his voice cracked as he declared, "Man, you sound crazy. You need to get help", only to rapidly return to the safe haven of conformity, Self blurred by the herd.
A billion echoes confirmed the diagnosis. They Knew "crazy" when they saw it, they didn't need to understand the damn thing. Understanding? "Thanks but no thanks", they'd snort, giggling at each other for support. Sharing ignorance with Knowing looks, agreeing to disagree with what they couldn't comprehend. They'd have felt differently, if feeling differently was "normal".
But of course, it is not. Nor can it be.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 12, 2014 5:14 PM | Posted by : | Reply
At times, I sound too confident. It's too much. If I didn't fear people, if I had more of that true strength, my voice would have been softer.
You can also view it as lack of self control, which in some ways is another one of my weak spots. It's not because I planned it to be like that.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 12, 2014 6:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It doesn't mean not compassionate or cold. On the contrary, love and truth could be thought of as two vectors pointing in the same direction.
In a world of parasites, love and truth are not synonymous. Compassion is the enemy. Abbey just gave an example:
A baby held in a man's arms with his eyes burned by acid, pus oozing out, puts his hand thru my taxi window begging for money.
Compassion is evil. Ruthless, unemotional logic devoid of sentiment is required to be humane, or leeches will continue to prey on empathy, exploit sympathy, handicap victims in private as the suffering of children screams on; out of sight, out of mind.
So you can keep knocking but won't knock me down, No love lost, no love found. (Eminem - No Love)
No Love Lost
If love blinds, how could it survive Natural Selection?
Love is unnatural except in one form; the love of healthy sentient beings for Self. Even the epic unconditional love of the mammal mother for her defenceless young is Selfish; her helpless offspring are treated as extensions of her Self. Until they're independent and unattached, they remain part of her.
Like a swordsman favouring a wounded arm, the mammal mother races against the clock to render the need for love redundant. Any mother or carer that isn't frantically rendering the need for love redundant is a corruptive and unhealthy influence. That needy kind of unnatural love is destructive. Just ask Elisabeth Fritzl. Josef couldn't bear to let her leave him, so he kept her like a husband bound to a wife and destroyed her life. Wives and stalkers have much in common; their unnatural need is the single greatest threat to the welfare of those they ostensibly care about as they do not respect free will.
"Until Death Do Us Part."
It's tragic how low this needy species has reduced itself. We are animals. Like animals, humans are supposed to love themselves.
"If you truly loved yourself, you could never hurt another." (the Buddha)
Humans hurt each other and get hurt when they've been hurt. Hurt people hurt people, because they do not love themselves.
“You don't want to love – your eternal and abnormal craving is to be loved. You aren’t positive, you’re negative. You absorb, absorb, as if you must fill yourself up with love, because you've got a shortage somewhere." (DH Lawrence)
Self is eroded by those who need love when they should be rendering the need for their love redundant. The shortage is created when hurt people hurting us. There's no need for it but this is a world of miserable, needy children, breaking each other for no reason, in denial of their own Self-loathing.
"I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself." (DH Lawrence)
In Nature, animals are emotionally healthy. Their Self forms and remains intact as their mothers didn't need to steal their love by making them ashamed of themselves. Animals live for and love themselves. This is the Natural order.
nb. Not that it invalidates the point DH Lawrence was making, but I have seen a wild thing sorry for itself. A tiny kid goat whose mother was roadkill, alone, just bleating. It was heartbreaking. I was already late for a military posting so there was nothing I could do. That is the lie I told myself. I left it to suffer in misery because I am a coward incapable of being humane. The entire human species is a bit like that kid goat, lost and confused, trapped in a reality no child can reasonably be prepared to face.
"And so we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past."
First love betrayed.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 12, 2014 6:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No Love Found
If we truly loved ourselves, we would have no need for others to suffer to please us. We could never be hurt or feel threatened by the Natural desire to play with someone else, we wouldn't need exclusive fealty. We would want everyone to do as they pleased. Humans would be happy pleasing ourselves, but for illicit need.
Humans are coded to be powerful animals, Self-sufficient, Self-reliant, islands unto themselves. "No man is an island", said Donne, but every man, woman and child needs to be or their need will continue to sweep the littlest clods out to sea.
We've been swept away from the continent. Humanity is lost at sea. This is not Natural. Need is not Natural. All need is exploitable so how can the Needy survive Natural Selection? We're being exploited by women's Polite Society. Girls are shamed to erode their Self > they need to betray their young.
Our narcissistic injuries remain fresh for life. We're all wearing clothes in shame of our true Self, which we've suppressed. We lie to fabricate false images we project to the world, certain that no one will love us otherwise. As a result, no one loves us. They love the false images we project. Everyone is in love with lies.
"Nobody knows you. You don't know yourself. And I, who am half in love with you, What am I in love with? My own imaginings?" (DH Lawrence)
Humans (especially girls) present themselves not as they are but as they wish to be perceived. We fall in love with images of each other that are nothing but illusions. Our love is not true; it's a needy lie borne out of narcissistic injury and our unnatural need for attachment. We fall in love with the illusory fraud broken humans sell in shame of their true Self.
Love is a lie we feel truly. We're truly in love with lies. We love fantasy. You can blame Disney, your mother or your Self for wanting to believe in cosmetic illusions. I don't think others can be blamed for accommodating our fantasies. If men didn't want to be deceived, women would have no motive to deceive them.
Someone took a youth to a sage and said: "Look, he is being corrupted by women."The sage shook his head and smiled. "It is men," said he, "that corrupt women; and all the failings of women should be atoned and improved in men. For it is man who creates for himself the image of woman, and woman forms herself according to this image."
"You are too kindhearted about women," said one of those present; "you do not know them."
The sage replied: "Will is the manner of men; willingness that of women. That is the law of the sexes - truly, a hard law for women. All of humanity is innocent of its existence; but women are doubly innocent. Who could have oil and kindness enough for them?"
"Damn oil! Damn kindness!" Someone else shouted out of the crowd; "women need to be educated better!"
"Men need to be educated better," said the sage and beckoned to the youth to follow him.
The youth, however, did not follow him. (Nietzsche, 1882)
I realised I was in love with lies in late 2010. I was near suicidal, destroyed and exhausted, betrayed for the last time. But love based on a delusion isn't real. What isn't real cannot be betrayed. I'd been in love with a figment of my imagination. She wasn't betraying me, she was doing what girls have always done. I'd betrayed myself, wanting to believe in fairy tales. I laughed, it was ridiculous; I'd been in denial from start to finish, living a charade. You can believe me or not, but I swear that all heartbreak is a figment of Society's imagination. When I unimagined it, it was gone.
For 24 years, I was blind. But now I see.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 12, 2014 7:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'll be private. I know, but it's helpful still. It is how your ninja eyes see something and that I get your sentiment. I know, but I still enjoy your words. It feels good.
Three, four, five months from now - I wonder, what will become of the world. The idea excite me.
Time is a friend. I believe in enlightenment. Not because I need to, or want to, or because it is beneficial for me. It is not a choice I made and not something I can reverse.
It won't be boring. Let's try to have fun.
Oh I'm such a child.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 12, 2014 11:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I've been told that Russia and US was rivals/enemies?
They're rivals with each other, to the extent that RT serves more accurate news to Americans than any US media (and I presume pro-Western media does the same for Russians). They're both the arch-enemies of their respective citizenry. The Cold War wasn't USSR v USA, it was an illusory war of terror waged by [war profiteers and powerbrokers] v [Americans and Russians].
We're still in the Dark Ages of biopolitics. Power smashes vassal marbles together in contrived wars fought for profit and power, enabled by the selfless love of boys blinded by plantation whores.
"Love is whatever you can still betray. Betrayal can only happen if you love." (le Carre)
Made to respect Authority's laws, boys die for illusions when their exploitable love for mothers is exploited by Power, who simply contrives a threat to the mothers and voila, slaves stolen for another war of attrition. 28 million Russian boys died in defence of Stalin's motherland. Had all 28 million fought for Hitler, none would have died. Hitler's interests weren't served by genocide, he just wanted to administrate power. 28 million Russian boys learned the very hard way that patriotism is suicide. One's enemies are everyone but you can only be betrayed by Your Own.
Could not travel to X because United States had canceled his passport?
Snowden couldn't get into Russia without the bureaucratic paperwork and because the US canceled his passport, he couldn't fly anywhere. The airlines don't let you board without a valid passport as they'll be forced to fly you straight back when you fail to clear immigration at your destination.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 13, 2014 12:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There's quite a lot of projection in this post. Why do you assume everyone who responds negatively toward you is a female?
There was no projection in that post. As it appears (to a moron) that I'm attacking women, I presume anyone who cannot see the truth of what I'm saying (that women are defeating themselves, betrayed by the fear and hatred of their competition) is going to be a confused prostitute-in-denial.
It's ridiculous to conceal your identity and then try to score points by challenging my presumptions. I know that insanity. Stop forcing people to presume and no one will ever need to.
"They cripple the bird's wing and then condemn it for not flying as fast as they." (Malcolm X)
Because you're antisocial, you failed to answer my questions:
1. Why are children's lives so cheap on this evil planet of whores?2. How was Elliot any different from you?
Elliot's mind was identical to a woman's. He believed he had an entitlement to be automatically loved, just like women believe they have an entitlement to use fraud to "catch" men, make them swear "Until Death Do Us Part" and then refuse to release them.
Elliot was made to suffer to please his mother, who promised him it would all be worth it. Girls are told by their mothers, "Wait patiently for what you deserve". Elliot just got tired of waiting patiently for what his suffering (understandably) led him to believe he deserved. Sure, he was delusional but no more than women entitled to marriage. And delusions are created by lies.
Children do not delude themselves.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 13, 2014 2:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are getting fucking literate in your comments here.I'm speechless.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 13, 2014 2:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Elliot is sexed male and gendered femme.Yes reading through Butler.And also masquerading as masculine.3 simple layers of deception structurally, because he's not doing it deliberately like say a transvestite or "queen" would do, of a transgendered person.To say he was confused is a bit understated.It's easier just to label him a schiz and be done with it, isn't it.That will fly, won't it?
My one year in a free school classroom:I seized the opportunity to do it against all odds.By 2nd&3rd grades most were deluded.A few weren't and that made all the difference.The rest - mostly - slowly woke up during the year.
They were sadistic and angry.They had expected a beloved teacher in the school and she retired before they got her.By October 1, they had already driven 2 teachers out of their class.They were ready for bear when I got there.So was I. The only thing keeping me going was remembering A.S. Neill in his book on his free school in the UK entitled Summerhill."When they arrive at Summerhill it is expected that the aggression they will display is in direct relation to the repression they have already undergone."That about says it, the rest is in Lord of the Flies because that's what it felt like.But there were still amazing things each day amid all this rage and chaos.
I was called into the principal's office frequently. One time because 2 of the boys were going into the surrounding woods and starting fires. I knew about that as I had done this twice as a child and they tend to get out of control really fast. In a moment you see you cannot put it out.Then what?
So I listened and heard his anxiety.He asked me what I was going to do.I said I didn't know, but it was serious and I would have to think about what I was going to do. I knew I couldn't watch them or keep them under surveillance as they were quicker and smarter than I was.An idea came to me that afternoon.I asked them if anyone would like to have a cookout for lunch the next day. Well all of them were thrilled.I asked who would be able to do the fire.The 2 boys raised their hands and I said good.Then it's settled then.So that was what we did.After that a few would decide that's what they wanted to do for lunch and ask them to do the fire the next day. So they set fires a few times a week so hot dogs and hamburgers could be cooked.Whew!
I talked with a friend about this.That decided me to take them to Arcadia University's theater production of Lysistrata.Where the women of Athens get sick of their men going off to war all the time (Peloponnesian Wars)so they decided to with hold sex from them.So on stage there's a lot of starting fires and women pouring pitchers of water on the fires to put them out.So I took these 2 boys to see it.I sat behind them and could FEEL their complete attention on this play. That was the end of the problem as they became domesticated barbecue kinds of husbands that year. Disclosure:Neither of them turned out like that at all.A blessing.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 13, 2014 9:48 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Am I doing well that I am so tuned out from popular culture that I don't recognize most of the references in TLP's writing any more?
You taught me a lot TLP. Certainly credit you with getting past my narcissism. Which is a major step in taking control of one's personal growth.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 13, 2014 12:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Life is change. We need to foster a mentality which embrace change. It is a principle of nature. You should be moving forward, improve yourself. Human life is about improvement. Not everyone realize that, and we will certainly attempt to help but I won't lie: you can't help people who can't help themselves.
All we can do, is to promote positive change. It can be brutal, as life is. You need to be strong willed and able to take care of yourself. I'm sorry for those who can't, but frankly they are none of my business. I'm ethical, so I'll feed them and facilitate growth for those who is able to adapt. It is a choice to be made. You are either a part of the solution, or the problem. Like it or not, it's the nature of things. We're creating the singularity, utopia - you are welcome to join it, if you can.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 13, 2014 12:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Not to backtrack the thread here, but which river were you at man? Just got back last weekend from Lake Berryessa up here in Nor Cal with the boat and my ex-wife and kids, too...really had a wonderful time to ourselves out there.
Re Buying a house...Yes! It's absolutely a great time to invest as interest is just obscenely low right now, I'm getting 3.28% on a 5/5 ARM loan and it's closing on Monday with some special assistance from my Air Force days. A relief to have that piece of mind, something you definitely own at the end of the day that is priceless especially with that thief in office backed by YKW. Since I've been out of work at home for the past 3 years it felt like there's finally light at the end of the tunnel, my wife and i's unemployment has been able to get us by and along with a recent judgement in our favor into a new 5 bedroom home, it has been a blessing. The kids are in Junior College now, the dogs are happy, why the negative attitude on this page brother, I don't get it either? The system works, period...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 13, 2014 4:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You should consider signing up for patreon.com so we can pay you for your blog posts.
I would sign up and give you $1 for every post. I know it's not much, but if a 1000 readers do the same, well then, now we're getting somewhere.
I just found out about it and I've been thinking about all the people who create got content that I appreciate but I can tell they have difficulty justifying giving so much without getting anything in return.
This is one of those blogs where the readers want new posts really bad, but aren't getting them, and I have a hunch that a good portion of them would be willing to pay for it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 13, 2014 4:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What could be more false than denying you have needs?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 13, 2014 4:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
He wasn't referring to basic needs. That's a given.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 13, 2014 6:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think s/he is still practicing professionally.So that's not something alone would want to do. The profession wouldn't like it either.Someone who is jealous of his competence would turn him in and make trouble for her.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 13, 2014 6:37 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Not from a technological point of view - what is TOR? Is it interesting? I've seen it mentioned but I'm mostly like whatever.
Prefer to ask around up front.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 13, 2014 7:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't understand the technical stuff.
According to various top-secret documents provided by Snowden, FoxAcid is the NSA codename for what the NSA calls an "exploit orchestrator," an internet-enabled system capable of...
It's about internet?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 13, 2014 7:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
If as a starting point BIOS (software on motherboard, not on harddrive) is clean, anonymous use of internet can relatively easy be done through use of software, e.g. browser extensions.
However, I fail to see why it should be necessary to install extra software.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 13, 2014 7:55 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Or you could simply turn off javascript.
HTML "code" has limited functionality. It is safe, even in theory.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 13, 2014 8:19 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ahaha, wrong! It is not immune from packet injection. Not whatsoever.
The only way to win is not to play. The only exception is obtaining clearance. But what would you wager the odds are having even more eyes on you now in that regard nowadays anyhow?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 13, 2014 8:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Yes, it is about people too. Fear and love, truth and lies - clearly.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 14, 2014 5:23 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Interesting answer. It made me curious.
As far as I know, on darknet, you need to know the addresses.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 14, 2014 6:29 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 14, 2014 7:54 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I'll post this now to get something going. It seems to me that exploits has been installed on users visiting the wrong websites, typically porn.
Ideas about backdoors in BIOS is inspired by Lacan. Control over internet must be achieved in a socially acceptable manner.
Attacking Tor: how the NSA targets users' online anonymity
Attacking Torrent. how N SA misses ....
The trick identified Tor users on the internet and then executes an attack against their Firefox web browser.
Fire: emotions, desire, lust.
These fingerprints are loaded into NSA database systems like XKeyscore, a bespoke collection and analysis tool which NSA boasts allows its analysts to see "almost everything" a target does on the internet.
XKeyscore : keys?
bespoke collection: poke collection
boasts : shhh
"almost everything" : not enough.
-----
PS:
I'll be personal and tell you about my porn habits. And I'm sorry: make this one exception, but generally speaking you shouldn't been reading a text like this one. Even if I watched porn every day: what is it to you?
I don't have a porn habit. Used to watch porn several years ago, but I stopped because I could feel it was contaminating my mind.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 14, 2014 8:36 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Attacking Tor: how the NSA targets users' online anonymity
Defending Root.
The online anonymity network Tor is a high-priority target for the National Security Agency.
The online anonymity network Tor is a high-priority target for the National Security Agency.
The trick identified Tor users on the internet and then executes an attack against their Firefox web browser.
A lot of people is passionate about it.
These fingerprints are loaded into NSA database systems like XKeyscore, a bespoke collection and analysis tool which NSA boasts allows its analysts to see "almost everything" a target does on the internet.
XKeyscore : keys with wide access. BIOS backdoor.
bespoke collection: spoke, lecture - outspoken people.
boasts : shhh
"almost everything" : almost everything
It might be that I'm misguided re what is socially acceptable. Guessing the view is that it will happen anyway: better off working with the future. It is foolish to oppose nature.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 14, 2014 8:47 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Sorry about that unacceptable sentence. It wasn't supposed to be posted, not like that in any case. It's not you, I know.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 14, 2014 10:21 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Third repetition is noise.
Using powerful data analysis tools with codenames such as Turbulence, Turmoil and Tumult, the NSA automatically sifts through the enormous amount of internet traffic that it sees, looking for Tor connections.
Last month, Brazilian TV news show Fantastico showed screenshots of an NSA tool that had the ability to identify Tor users by monitoring internet traffic.
------
Fourth and fifth, repeat one and two.
The very feature that makes Tor a powerful anonymity service, and the fact that all Tor users look alike on the internet, makes it easy to differentiate Tor users from other web users. On the other hand, the anonymity provided by Tor makes it impossible for the NSA to know who the user is, or whether or not the user is in the US.
Root. all users unique. On the other hand, anonymity Tor. Impossible to know who and where.
-----
Six, three minus noise. cleartext til stop signal, and some noise afterwards.
After identifying an individual Tor user on the internet, the NSA uses its network of secret internet servers to redirect those users to another set of secret internet servers, with the codename FoxAcid, to infect the user's computer. FoxAcid is an NSA system designed to act as a matchmaker between potential targets and attacks developed by the NSA, giving the agency opportunity to launch prepared attacks against their systems.
Once the computer is successfully attacked, it secretly calls back to a FoxAcid server, which then performs additional attacks on the target computer to ensure that it remains compromised long-term, and continues to provide eavesdropping information back to the NSA.
blah
blah
blah
------
The QuANTum system
To trick targets into visiting a FoxAcid server, the NSA relies on its secret partnerships with US telecoms companies. As part of the TurmOIL system, the NSA plACEs secret servers, codenamed Quantum, at KEY plACES on the internet backbone. This placement ensures that they can react faster than other websites can.
I might be overdoing it, but is this about technology?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 14, 2014 10:36 AM | Posted by : | Reply
1) this is how you should talk
2) this is how you may talk
x) rACE condition
3) Oh no, please don't.
4) Don't.
---------
The Quantum system
To trick targets into visiting a FoxAcid server, the NSA relies on its secret partnerships with US telecoms companies. As part of the Turmoil system, the NSA places secret servers, codenamed Quantum, at key places on the internet backbone. This placement ensures that they can react faster than other websites can. By exploiting that speed difference, these servers can impersonate a visited website to the target before the legitimate website can respond, thereby tricking the target's browser to visit a Foxacid server.
In the academic literature, these are called "man-in-the-middle" attacks, and have been known to the commercial and academic security communities. More specifically, they are examples of "man-on-the-side" attacks.
They are hard for any organization other than the NSA to reliably execute, because they require the attacker to have a privileged position on the internet backbone, and exploit a "race condition" between the NSA server and the legitimate website. This top-secret NSA diagram, made public last month, shows a Quantum server impersonating Google in this type of attack.
The NSA uses these fast Quantum servers to execute a packet injection attack, which surreptitiously redirects the target to the FoxAcid server. An article in the German magazine Spiegel, based on additional top secret Snowden documents, mentions an NSA developed attack technology with the name of QuantumInsert that performs redirection attacks. Another top-secret Tor presentation provided by Snowden mentions QuantumCookie to force cookies onto target browsers, and another Quantum program to "degrade/deny/disrupt Tor access".
This same technique is used by the Chinese government to block its citizens from reading censored internet content, and has been hypothesized as a probable NSA attack technique.
--------------
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 14, 2014 4:33 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Todeteat NSA on TOR is for everyone to use TOR. Like if everyone in Germany had pinned on a yellow star.Rulers threatened to do it in Finland and Nazis gave up deporting Jews there.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 15, 2014 11:23 AM | Posted by : | Reply
what idiot would think any central govt entity could be aware of internet connectivity potential and both not want to control it, and not implement measures to ensure present and future control over it? how could anything Snowden supposedly nicked from NSA be possessed of the novelty assumed to be within it? the only way to be surprised by anything Snowden might have pinched from his workstation's node is to have been operating under the assumption that fedgov wants everyone to facebook freely and that fedgov wants the most active environment for commerce to be unregulated. yeah that sounds like an adult view.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 15, 2014 4:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I agree.Snowden just told us what we already knew.But the masses out there NEED AND REQUIRE paper proof of everything.They are literal minded, want to cross every single fucking "t" and "f" so sho what his revelations were meant for.People think information is knowledge and that knowledge is knowing.Not true.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 15, 2014 5:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Please suggest that evil exist in my dna. In that case, I will plea not guilty.
No evil in DNA. It's all Mother Nurture.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 15, 2014 5:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
OMG is this argument still going on among fools.If you are looking for evil in DNA,then you will have to go further into particle physics.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 15, 2014 5:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Believe the motive to be something like dividing people, perverts and non-perverts meaning if you spot the secondary (or primary) layer of interpretation
Your comments are fantastic and yes, I believe you're onto something with the levels of allusion. It all a little bit infantile. Effective expression, I mean.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 15, 2014 6:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There you are.U got it. Oppositional thinking is a fundamental part of the structure of the Dominating Discourse of classical Hegelian dialectical thinking.Foucault:The Order of Things.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 15, 2014 6:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes.There is no representation anymore.Words refer only to other words.Then there are "floating signs" acting as masks which affirm, deny, assert, support,and quite a number of other things."Write the truth as if it can be disputed, and write a lie as it it is truth." A paraphrase from Bel Ami by de Maupassant a devout student and friend of Flaubert.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 15, 2014 7:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
People aren't born deceitful.We need to practice honesty, to train our sensitivities. It is most certainly a skill, to express your mind clearly, or to emote freely in a social acceptable way.
No-one is born as a honest person.
I think you're wrong here. People aren't born deceitful but everyone is born honest. Deception isn't an issue of morality, it's really more about mental health. To perceive value in constructing illusions to substitute for reality is not functional.
One is honest not because one is "good" but because one is sane. One is dishonest not because one is "bad" but because one is detached from the reality of their existence (psychosis).
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 15, 2014 7:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jesus christ this comments section is out of fucking control
Do you wish you had control? You want to exercise judicious powers to approve and censor comments based on how you feel? Did your feelings really need contributing? Don't get me wrong.
They mean a lot.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 15, 2014 8:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Elliot is sexed male and gendered femme.Yes reading through Butler.And also masquerading as masculine.3 simple layers of deception structurally, because he's not doing it deliberately like say a transvestite or "queen" would do, of a transgendered person.
Spot on. Interesting about the masquerading. He seemed awkward in his skin but a lifetime of abuse will do that. Poor kid.
It is amazing how averse Society is to hearing the truth about their self-defeating abuse being mirrored in every child they raise.
To say he was confused is a bit understated.It's easier just to label him a schiz and be done with it, isn't it.That will fly, won't it?
It always has.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 15, 2014 8:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It has been put forth by cutting edge feminists that women have always masqueraded.This is the first time you have EVER agreed with me and said so.
We are born unable to lie.Language gives us that ability. To communicate without communicating.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 15, 2014 9:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
the only way to be surprised by anything Snowden might have pinched from his workstation's node
Yeah, I bet you were vocal about NSA capabilities prior to Snowden. Of course, you can direct us to some URLs where you claimed all this? I know your type. There's a billion of you.
You're never ahead of anything. You can't show where you predicted anything before it's proved. You're just another babbling clone.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 16, 2014 2:33 AM | Posted by : | Reply
When Chomsky goes to meet the Creator, you will be alone, dear Psychiatrist.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 16, 2014 5:19 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Yes.There is no representation anymore.Words refer only to other words.Then there are "floating signs" acting as masks which affirm, deny, assert, support,and quite a number of other things
It's starting to sink in. Where does it stop? From the outside, there is no way to know for sure, is it?
Written language depends on an oral tradition, culture, practice. In a way, language has been kidnapped as a mean of universal communication. I'm thinking onion, the outer layers are confused because the inner layers decide the meaning of words. It's asymmetric.
It is domination dressed as nurture: - "See? That interpretation was a product of _your_ mind. Still sure it's Sexo and not Plato you're listening to?"
Guess a similar question is asked again later, begging for this answer: it was Sexo, but now in a new and improved version.
I don't know.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 16, 2014 5:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes, there is no way to ever know.Only speculation/credibility. NO true/false. This is Simulated Reality.Then it is total we will be in Virtual Reality.From that there is no escape. This is Baudrillard BTW so if you want to know more then read him or by blogs which are quicker and dirtier.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 16, 2014 6:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
As far as I know, security through obscurity isn't much of security. The more "secure" it is, the more it will demand of its users. Especially when there are many users.
We had 1, 2, x, 3, 4
x : "race condition"
RacE
First or last paragraph?
Probably not necessary, but R is letter number 18, E is number 5. But since there only are 17 paragraphs: let's take a look at paragraph five.
-------
Paragraph four and five:
An example of one such tag [LINK REMOVED] is given in another top-secret training presentation provided by Snowden.
There is no currently registered domain name by that name; it is just an example for internal NSA training purposes.
The word registered sticks out. Same with LINK REMOVED.
Link REmoved --> Last paragraph.
-----------
By 2008, the NSA was getting so much FoxAcid callback data that they needed to build a special system to manage it all.
FoxAcid callback data: compromised TOR users.
In 2008, enough TOR users were compromised. Time for the next step, a special system.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 17, 2014 8:52 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Whoever did this, know that security through obscurity isn't much of security and that someone attempting to read the cleartext is aware of that.
The last comment was a sidetrack. If you click on diagram you'll probably notice the numbers 242, which mean you should read paragraph 2, 6 and 8. (jump two, jump four, jump two)
This top-secret NSA diagram, made public last month, shows a Quantum server impersonating Google in this type of attack.
------------------
The servers are on the public internet. They have normal-looking domain names, and can be visited by any browser from anywhere; ownership of those domains cannot be traced back to the NSA.
No secret servers.
The training material states that merely trying to visit the homepage of a real FoxAcid server will not result in any attack, and that a specialized URL is required. This URL would be created by TAO for a specific NSA operation, and unique to that operation and target. This allows the FoxAcid server to know exactly who the target is when his computer contacts it.
Social engineering. It is necessary to make the target use a customized (unique) URL for identification.
The most valuable exploits are saved for the most important targets. Low-value exploits are run against technically sophisticated targets where the chance of detection is high. TAO maintains a library of exploits, each based on a different vulnerability in a system. Different exploits are authorized against different targets, depending on the value of the target, the target's technical sophistication, the value of the exploit, and other considerations.
Don't spend all the gunpowder. Save it. Sophisticated targets may discover the rootkit, it may be compromised. Don't risk it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 17, 2014 9:31 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The paragraph which first contained TAO is interesting.
According to various top-secret documents provided by Snowden, FoxAcid is the NSA codename for what the NSA calls an "exploit orchestrator," an internet-enabled system capable of attacking target computers in a variety of different ways. It is a Windows 2003 computer configured with custom software and a series of Perl scripts. These servers are run by the NSA's tailored access operations, or TAO, group. TAO is another subgroup of the systems intelligence directorate.
A sidetrack. Confusion. No backdoor in windows. Not feasible without being compromised. Or, because it is unethical. You choose.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 17, 2014 2:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My young hacker bf knows how to get in back door of windows.He learned from ex microsoft pioneer.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 17, 2014 3:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
That's ridicules. I would never guessed it.
And re the article about TOR, I wonder why it isn't written in cleartext. Seriously. Or, I kinda know why but I still don't understand it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 17, 2014 7:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What did you say? If everyone was naked, no-one would be naked?
I think it is some sort of holy secret, that we in fact are naked, it's just that we're ignorant about it, unaware.
Don't think of it as a recipe for revolution. It is for your well being. I mean, doesn't it relieve stress to know that it's only half of you out there? And in my experience that half isn't very well understood, so how much is there to it? It's mostly about shame. It's almost exclusively about shame.
Shame is so old-school.
Thinking out loud, it's a free country, you don't have to read it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 17, 2014 9:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
i couldn't read your incoherent drivel even if i wanted to
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 18, 2014 3:26 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I remember reading what they called a torture manual, some cia stuff whatever. It said that you should never make a suggestion you don't intend to keep, and more important the anticipation of a threat is more efficient than the execution itself. I imagine a stepwise procedure, up, up, up until there aren't any more ups, than, the last up will be a bluff.
My guess is it will depend on the credibility of the interrogator.
It is a beautiful tuesday in the kingdom of norway. Hello world!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 18, 2014 3:44 AM | Posted by : | Reply
And from what I've picked up, it is useful to avoid alienation: -"you people are animals, but _I_ am a civilized human. I will prevail or die a honorable death"
Some sort of a sense of having the moral upper ground can be a tremendous source of motivation. I realize this line of thinking may be outdated vis a vis the view of moral outlined earlier in this thread, the one about sanity and health.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 18, 2014 4:09 AM | Posted by : | Reply
A bit too gloomy.
Please excuse my language but it feels like going to war, a different kind of war. I don't even need to shoot people, quite the contrary - I'll be surrounded by friends or friends to be, or losers (literally).
The guys that went over the top would have been green of envy if they could see me now :)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 18, 2014 6:41 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm looking at a "computer game" with the general population segmented into four levels of privacy. It's dynamic, not static, so in order to keep your slot so to speak, movement is mandatory.
Dissent is allowed, of course, as long as its done within the framework. The game operates in accordance with the matthew principle and offer incentives for participation.
Some of its credibility rests upon knowledge about body language and central nerve system, and right now the game is listening at my heart activity, in order to gain information about sympathetic/parasympathetic activity, which serve to aid real time interpretation of my inner life as I interact or do things.
Guess it can be viewed as an educational tool combined with population control functionality :)
It made me think about the possibilities for google glasses. And of course urbanization. The game will in time offer incentives/pressure for certain segments to move into cities/population centers, while other segments will desire to live on the countryside. The rationale is energy efficiency, more efficient population control and more privacy for those who choose to play along.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 18, 2014 6:56 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I predict that there are approx ten million academics spread around the world which at no point is going to even participate as they are trained to think that being friend with the game (not the people in it mind you) implicate being an enemy of ... - and visa versa.
If the game was static, I could be moving in the right direction, but since the game itself is moving even dissenters will over time be moving with it.
I don't mean to offend anyone, not at all. I realize it must be difficult. Besides, even if we drop moral who is going to organize the thing perceived to the pending crisis? There is no alternative?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 18, 2014 2:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Yeah, I bet you were vocal about NSA capabilities prior to Snowden. Of course, you can direct us to some URLs where you claimed all this? I know your type. There's a billion of you.
probably you never looked
good job pinch hitting for The Intercept, though
plenty were talking about Snowden being bogus and nothing being novel, well before it was popularized by a couple of self-promoters who sold selves as first to know. notice they never disclose where they learned their reasons for doubt, it's always sold as if the story began with them and thus, by the bizarre logic put in place, it cannot but end with them
that's fine if you're still reading Brothers Grimm, I guess
what's knowable isn't confined by the laziness (or not) of your own personal seekings, so if you only come to skepticism by way of Omidyar, that doesn't mean it wasn't knowable without Omidyar
I am impressed with the manner of emulation you use, your master would be even more impressed I'm sure
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 18, 2014 6:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What part of "direct us to some URLs" did you not understand?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 19, 2014 7:24 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's mostly about shame. It's almost exclusively about shame.Shame is so old-school.
Women's Dark Ages power play to reduce children for Authority. That they're too reduced to notice they're breeding war is just...this is some fucked up Simulation. I wonder if any of you are even real.
I think it is some sort of holy secret, that we in fact are naked, it's just that we're ignorant about it, unaware.
Put a naked toddler oblivious to the need to fear external disapproval next to a well-dressed member of Society covering up their Natural skin, and it's pretty obvious who should be ashamed of themselves. People are so stupid, they literally imagine they're hiding their shame. But they can't conceal their need by advertising their need to conceal it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 19, 2014 8:29 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
plenty were talking about Snowden being bogus and nothing being novel
Prior to Snowden, anyone who suggested anything of the sort was subjected to universal ridicule, sneering, compassionate concerns for their mental health, locked threads and banned accounts. Then Snowden provided proof and suddenly, every little worm in the industry knew it all along. It's nauseating.
what idiot would think any central govt entity could be aware of internet connectivity potential and both not want to control it, and not implement measures to ensure present and future control over it? how could anything Snowden supposedly nicked from NSA be possessed of the novelty assumed to be within it? the only way to be surprised by anything Snowden...
You weren't surprised. That's my point. Expressing surprise concedes prior ignorance. Surprise is far too honest. You went from snickering at "tinfoil hats" and "conspiracy nuts" to reading Greenwald's articles to world-weary cynic by nightfall.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 19, 2014 2:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Whoa! Nice inversion there at the end. Your linguistic style is surpassing mine for sure.So there is good reason for the children's fairy tale The Emperor's New Clothes. How about that!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 19, 2014 2:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I know I couldn't have said it better.Damn. Exactly.To be surprised is to acknowledge ignorance.That was stellar.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 19, 2014 4:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What part of "direct us to some URLs" did you not understand?
yes, revert to process when substance is not on your side
classic move no. 2 from The Intercept: A Supporter's Polyturf Handbook
truly your attachment to fairy tales is unwavering, and for that, I suppose, you should be commended. it reflects a kind of stand-by-my-principles firmness. but how valuable is that when you're steadfast on a mistaken view?
again, if you never encountered any internet-based commentary criticizing the probability, probative value, earnestness, realism-rootedness value, sincerity, or possible other strategic angle of the Greenwald-Poitras-Snowden-Omidyar story, I don't think you looked at all.
and it's not on me to "prove" those discussions existed, I think you need to "prove" they did not.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 19, 2014 4:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
likewise for discussions of any fedgov entity snooping on your internet-based or telecom-infrastructure-dependent communication or other activity
it wasn't news when The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras started yakking about it
people had been talking about it since at least 2006
funny how suddenly it was important and essential and must-see-TV once a certain troika and their daddy warbucks got ahold of it and presented it in a new, fully-scripted-backstory-with-mysteries-to-be-solved fashion.
and look there, look who's pitched as master mystery solver
whoa
it's like it was written for Disney's sunday evening programming
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 19, 2014 4:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
You weren't surprised. That's my point. Expressing surprise concedes prior ignorance. Surprise is far too honest. You went from snickering at "tinfoil hats" and "conspiracy nuts" to reading Greenwald's articles to world-weary cynic by nightfall.
that does describe well a certain self-promoter who is now actively championing self as the One True Voice who saw the charade behind Omidyar's venture
thankfully I am not that person
you seem to suggest prior ignorance must exist in each of us
I suppose your imagination hamstrings you there
plenty of people knew fedgov was eavesdropping w/o warrants and talked about it, though in every situation I saw the bum's rush was given those who talked in that way / on that subject, it was defended in all cases by the post-9/11 fear of the terrorist. but in any case it's unrealistic to think nobody could have known, or believed with good foundations in reality, that fedgov was broad-based doing what Liddy's crew got spanked for doing at The Watergate.
plenty knew, plenty suspected
strange how shoutdowns were effective in stifling a view
or maybe not strange
that's a strange word, "strange."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 19, 2014 5:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Klein
it may serve enlightenment to ask yourself why if Mr Klein received so much attention for those disclosures of his in 2006, the famous trio behind The Intercept waited 7 years to talk about it as "breaking news."
or why Snowden's supposed documents are "essential" if Mr Klein's documents and testimony already existed
I suppose the anony mouse who believes he/she/it is subjecting me to "withering interrogation" might want some whipped cream for his/her/its humble pie
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 19, 2014 5:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Love your logic here.You assert then tell me I have to prove it is NOT.
Mars is a ruined planet and a remnant came to earth in a spaceship.
Go ahead and disprove that assertion. I'll wait. I have lots of time.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 19, 2014 5:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
oh I'm sorry, it was anonymous I was talking to above, not abbeysbooks, so you're confusing me
you insist I prove something I know factually because I was there and I was participating.
and for some reason you'd like the discussion of deceptions offered by our sanctioned "whistleblowers" to be about that proof from me, of something I know I did, rather than whether your heroes might be wrong, or corrupted.
of course proving a negative is absurd, but not as absurd as distracting on process while ignoring substance
it's nice to see duplicity practiced with such earnestness
heck, you might even be doing it voluntarily
as in, identity maintenance work
or for pay, there's a pittance going on offer for such carpet-laying work
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 19, 2014 5:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
also to abbeysbooks,
if you were to try to prove those conversations never happened, you'd have to scour wide and far to see what you could find, and based on what you and anonymous have shared in the past 40 or so comments upthread, I'm thinking your breadth and depth thus far could be measured in virtual millimeters. because you'd find at least a few hidden pockets. if you looked. and then you wouldn't feel triumphant in that pyrrhic-victory sense, for saying I'm at a loss for URL based "proof" of something I know happened because I was there.
as I said,
process when you can't manage substance
playbook tactic no. 2
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 19, 2014 11:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I think we've another puerco iteration on board again. A "jersey" as the author of nth degree of characters would put it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 4:10 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Love your logic here
Let's have another 2,000 words on how your feelings are impugned by the tone you detect here and what night terrors you have as a result.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 4:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Didn't I already suggest you need some time with Jamie Kirchick to straighten out your sexual identity problems?
This diversionary tactic of pretending you've sussed the ID of an author is peculiar, somewhat like celebrity worship but inverted as being driven by the aching sphincter I mentioned above. I suppose in a culture driven by feminine perspectives calling everything a man does "rape," you can claim that you were raped by a comment written under a male identity handle, so that verifies the story you've told yourself, vets the sources, OKs it for printing. Why check facts? You're a post-irony journalist, a post-honesty truth-teller. Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good!
How long have your nursed this grudge you carry? Aren't your nipples sore? Do gay men produce milk when they adopt a fluffy white kittycat? Inquiring and reasonable minds sincerely wish to be informed.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 5:44 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I knew I'd get mentioned even if not by name, sweeties.
You know I hold the truth. Nobody knew anything about anything until I came along. I was first to doubt Glenn Greenwald and just recently you saw me question Fred deBoer's integrity. First again. Lately I also chided David Graeber, once again a first. I'm the only one who sees things. Nobody doubted Greenwald before me. I'm the only one with the courage to focus on Fred deBoer. If it wasn't for me you'd never know that you should keep paying attention to Glenn Greenwald, Fred deBoer and David Graeber.
So listen, sweeties. I'd like you all to fellate me. I'm here reclining on my divan, listening to Davy Jones and petting my precious kitty. Please come service me. I swear, I'll tip my hat to you on twitter, sweeties. Promise.
Kisses!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 5:55 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm rather miffed at la Tarz, to be quite frank, but I'll still be in line for that servicing he desires. We do like to spat here in this little corner of Gay Men Are Geniuses! internetting, but we find that love/hate dynamic so sexy. Wood everywhere, it's a forest.
Oh. Did I just say that out loud? Naughty me! Hope my dean of faculty doesn't follow this blog!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 6:01 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I just may resume my scandalously delicious habit of blogging about the boy whose beautiful penis I sucked lovingly for hours last evening. Wouldn't that give you great pleasure, sweet Tarzie? And you, gracious and beautiful Fredrik, shall we make an oily knot together? This blogging, this effusion of my creative juices, it has granted me a fine tumescence and we must act with haste. James isn't as spry as he used to be, alas.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 6:15 AM | Posted by : | Reply
That's some fine sense of caricature you have there, whoever you are.
I have been reading this blog called BLCKDGRD, where the writer seems to think himself smarter than everyone else. He uses that tagging vehicle, and has an often used tag called "my complicity" which, apparently, he uses ironically. He's smarter than everyone, but that IQ seems inaccessible when it comes time to do something about the many things about which his blog complains. It's a kvetchfest and I've never known a very smart person whose main output was complaint, so the presentation of a constant complaint about how everyone lacks the author's fine calibration of proper social democrat or maybe leftist perspective. I mention this because just above me I see mentioned Glenn Greenwald, rancid tarzie, Fred deBoer and Jacob Bacharach, and apparently all four of those bloggers knows this BLCKDGRD character and all of them write in a way that reminds me a lot of abbeysbooks who comments here at this blog. It's an interesting kind of similarity I find when thinking about those different bloggers and their writing styles and perspectives they share in their blogs. They all have a privileged person's kind of disconnection from the granular daily struggles of the lower classes, but they all pretend to know what's best for these lucky poor folks who are about to receive generous and wise advice from an enlightened social democrat or leftist who blogs. The world undoubtedly will become a far better place thanks to these selfless bloggers who fight the good fight every day, with words, on a blog.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 8:20 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't know but to me it seems like many have joined a club, a collectivist system constituted by individualistic minded bodies.
Perhaps the first impression on contact - on average - was similar to being asked to join a club, a group of esoterics. Of course, the first thing addressed was that filthy and shameful perception of yours: it needed to be clubbed into you, that it wasn't that kind of club, it was a better type - fair, just, open, progressive.
Thing is, no-one explicitly told you about the meaning, the correct interpretation - right? You didn't have any direct familiarity with the personality behind the inviting voice. I don't know, but repeated cognitive restructuring doesn't sound healthy to me. How do you know what lies behind next corner? Life is change. Gotta move forward, I guess.
For some reason I associate it with the church of scientology. As far as I know, it emphasize education (self help), is kind of secretive about things and also, it presents a narrative which at first glance is ridicules, while a second look may reveal to you how wrong your first interpretation was. Flip flop flip flop and it's called adaptability?
The concept of thetans is interesting. Supposedly they are not created, but creators of the world. I could interpret it religiously as someone wanna be god, or to pinpoint how man may create whatever world is desirable, within the framework of nature. Also, they are believed to be reborn time and time again.
Wonder what that church is about. It give an impression of atheism, still it refer to itself as a church. Weird if you ask me.
Porko? Sounds familiar, from a childrens story? Something about a pork being controlled to leap out of a cliff?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 8:41 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I think you're wrong here. People aren't born deceitful but everyone is born honest. Deception isn't an issue of morality, it's really more about mental health. To perceive value in constructing illusions to substitute for reality is not functional.
One is honest not because one is "good" but because one is sane. One is dishonest not because one is "bad" but because one is detached from the reality of their existence (psychosis).
I love how you think about things. I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if that is exactly what Socrates meant. Since people desire happiness and good things for themselves, anyone would also desire moral behavior/mentality - problem is unawareness of the connection.
Think Socrates meant:
happiness moral sanity knowledge.
Hence no-one will knowingly do wrong.
Personally, I can't see any flaws there. It certainly got truth to it. Question become, why is there insanity/evil/unhappiness? Please don't propose those words to merely be social constructs. Think of it as neuroscience if you like.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 8:48 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Correction
happiness moral sanity knowledge.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 8:50 AM | Posted by : | Reply
happiness = moral = sanity = knowledge.
With arrows both directions...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 9:31 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What part of "direct us to some URLs" did you not understand?
This.
What part of a demand for you to provide substantive support for your claims did you not understand? If what you're claiming is true, proving it would be easy. You can't prove it because you're just another wretched liar sucking the meaning out of existence.
and it's not on me to "prove" those discussions existed, I think you need to "prove" they did not.
Omg. You are absolutely retarded. It's the inevitable side-effect of loving illusions and lies. Don't worry, it's "normal".
There's no point in worrying, because you're "normal"; i.e. there's nothing that can save this species now. Force and fraud are in control. History is written by the losers. All the winners are dead.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 12:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am in your debt forever for introducing me to blackguard's blog.All those posts of Meredith Monk today on her birthday are heavenly.I cant believe it.
I come from middle class with a father who studied Latin and Greek in high school before he took engineering in college.My mother stayed home to my chagrin.I grew up in an apt complex during WWII where we all were stuck growing up until the war was over and people started moving and buying houses.Except for us.It was an incredible blessing.It freed me from the suspicious eyes of my mother.And my friends had a great deal of integrity when rotten apples tried to spoil things.Fortunately they were dominant.For me anyway as I was little always, child size sort of, and had to figure various ways to protect myself.My mother tried to keep me out of school for another year but I demanded to go and loved it.So whenever I was at a loss, I went back to school.I sat in on many classes at Penn and Temple just because I could in those days and piled up degrees and certifications but never was a tenured academic as I over identify with the ideology of wherever I am it seems, so they get rid of me.Once it was a "free" school founded by parents and teachers along Dewey's Experience and Education, but of course it wasn't free really. You were supposed to "seduce" them into doing what you wanted them to do. Montessori says, "You do not have the right to seduce children into doing what you want them to do." So when I didn't chaos was the result for a few months. Neill of Summerhill kept me sane and in place until their rage from the past was expressed and they began to do what they wanted to do. That is they began to know what they wanted to do each day.It was the most fabulous year of my life and they still say to me, "It was the most memorable year of my schooling,but I have no idea what I learned." Well I do and I did then so that's all that counts isn't it?
Does this sound all that privileged to you? My grad degree in education was paid for mostly because I went back to teaching elementary school. More grad study in ed was paid for by my work in the Reading-Study Center at Delaware and those parents PAID well for that specialized tutoring.I wasn't of course.In the Psy department I was a teaching assistant,then turned down a NASA grant (infuriated my major professor) because I was still under the influence of Ayn Rand and didn't feel other people's taxes should support my studies.So I ruined my research career and university hopes doing that.There's a lot more but I am telling you this because I owe you,and because you only get to write like this, think like this,because you have had to.No one can teach you.You put it together from people you read and listen to.Right now I am working on Zizek.When you read or listen to Zizek he is thinking aloud for you.He has not formalized his thinking into sound bites so a careerist prof can turn it into a class syllabus.IF he doesn't understand Zizek, and has to teach him, his students will either not get it, or if they do, will know s/he's a fraud.
All this takes infinite time which has to be more precious to you than money.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 4:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Deception isn't an issue of morality, it's really more about mental health
I don't want to do a word game here, but if someone aims for a goal using harmful deception as a mean, in layman terms that is called wickedness, evil, acting immoral.
My problem is, since such behavior isn't beneficial but in fact antisocial and leads to unhappiness, it's fair to refer to it as some sort of psychosis (disconnect from reality).
In addition such behavior is learned, it's trained. I'm not sure I understand how free will works.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 5:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
In many cases, to let oneself get in the way of a message would be shameless self promotion. It's a common mistake.
That being said, you should think as highly of yourself as necessary. I don't plan to hide facts and I believe credibility won't be much of an issue. In any case, don't get me wrong but I enjoy the thought of being a part of something which in no respect depends on me. Still, I'm glad for the opportunity to contribute.
The Last Psychiatrist.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 6:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Since people desire happiness and good things for themselves, anyone would also desire moral behavior/mentality - problem is unawareness of the connection.
Correct. I'm 100% certain all problems are created by people incapable of perceiving the connection between [truth, humanity, mutual advantage] -- and -- [selfish pursuit of best interests].
In this world, selfless interests [need for external illusions such as love, prestige, respect, authority, power, loyalty, security, etc] have replaced selfish interests [elimination of need > happiness].
Happiness > requires absence of need > requires Self intact.
When Self eroded > need Maya (enchantment, illusion) > misery.
"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." (Plato)
Plato was slightly confused. It's not a question of morality. He was right about the redundancy of laws but he didn't (appear to) understand the need for laws. Selfish people don't need laws. But without laws, how can the Selfless be enticed to self-destruct?
The nature of women's rape fantasies: an analysis of prevalence, frequency, and contents.
"...62% of women have had a rape fantasy...higher than previous estimates...the median frequency of these fantasies was about 4 times per year, with 14% of participants reporting that they had rape fantasies at least once a week."
"We need to teach our boys not to rape."
Do we?
"Thou Shalt Not Kill."
Boys for war, girls for sale.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 6:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
...if someone aims for a goal using harmful deception as a mean, in layman terms that is called wickedness, evil, acting immoral.
Children are (as Abbey just phrased it) seduced by manipulators who frame self-defeating action as "wicked" and "immoral". They corrupt passion to make children want to defeating themselves by prohibiting profitless Crimes of Passion.
"Thou Shalt Not Kill."
Or no one would want to [fight their wars of aggression].
...since such behavior isn't beneficial but in fact antisocial and leads to unhappiness, it's fair to refer to it as some sort of psychosis (disconnect from reality).
"Thou Shalt Not [be Psychotic]."
Their obsession with framing psychosis as "sane" is transparent.
In addition such behavior is learned, it's trained. I'm not sure I understand how free will works.
On the contrary, I'm sure you do.
"They cripple the bird's wing and then condemn it for not flying as fast as they." (Malcolm X)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 7:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't know, but to me those fantasies sound like stories with suffering, being in a role. Not about primary about sexual pleasure but something else that has become intertwined with sexual pleasure.
Feel I should read more about it, but I'll mention that it wouldn't surprise me if these women has an overly active sympathetic component.
Narcissism.
If I'm not mistaken sympathetic activity promotes cognition, concentration. Rape/sadism isn't to be turned on someones pain per se, but the ability to ignore it, not be touched. It's about me, in the main role, everyone else are accessories.
Narcissism.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 7:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It doesn't mean that everyone is a potential rapists, but a society which selects for and promotes narcissism also facilitate a trajectory leading to rape.
Not all "narcissists" rape, far from it, but I believe rape generally require a fairly high level of narcissism in the raping personality. No narcissism, no rape.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 8:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I enjoy the thought of being a part of something which in no respect depends on me.
The only people who want others to depend on them are people who need dependants for their own survival; only dependants need dependants. Liberated humans value liberty (free will, self-determination, unrestricted competition, merit).
Need needs need. Those who need you will help you need them.
"Fear nothing. Depend on no one. Only when you reject all help are you freed." (the Buddha)
Still, I'm glad for the opportunity to contribute.
Humans are coded to want to contribute. But the illegitimately Entitled have need to fear merit (contribution). So every girl is tricked into contributing "difficulty" instead, by Young-Girls who cannot compete with younger girls. Girls are raised to contribute deceptive fraud. For girls who can't be tempted to defeat themselves, boys are raised to contribute violent force (war initially motivated by women's fear of competitive contribution).
Numbers 25 (KJV) 1 ...and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. 2 And they called the people...and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. 16 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 17 Vex the Midianites, and smite them: 18 For they vex you with their wiles...
Called the people to eat = their wiles = fair competition.
Reduced women can't compete with women who aren't reduced. Misogyny is exclusive to reduced women, only reduced sons of misogynist women have reason to hate women for being women.
All the need was sourced from reduced women's unwillingness to compete with girls. Men and children were willing to play fair.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 8:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
to me those fantasies sound like stories with suffering, being in a role.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19085605
...rape fantasies were found to exist on an erotic-aversive continuum, with 9% completely aversive, 45% completely erotic, and 46% both erotic and aversive.
91% erotic.
Women don't want rape any more than men want to kill. They fantasise about rape in the way men fantasise about killing; their repressed desire dreams of circumventing societal restrictions.
No narcissism, no rape.
It's simpler than that. Rape (as distinct from assault) is an offence constructed by women who objectify girls and shame them into selling fraudulent withheld 'favour' to men. Rape is a profitless crime, at least for men. Women have erotic fantasies about rape for a reason; their desire is restricted (they wouldn't dare to be a "slut"). But if girls were not restricted by Society?
No rape, no rape.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 20, 2014 10:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't know what people are talking aboutwhentheydoa study on "rape."I don't even know what it refers to in the minds of most women.I do know 50 Shades is the best selling book ever in the novel category.And it does eleicit "rape fantasies." Or are the fantasies about being dominated sexually.Sex is a dangerous act.AS Baudrillard says, "rape traditionally meant to 'force a woman to enjoy' not to act out sadistic fantasies on her."So rape is morphing into what?I don't know what they are talking about anymore when they talk about rape.The new movie Birdman repeats this over and over "What are we talking about when we talk about love?" the name of the short story by Carver from which the movie was made and the movie within the movie. So I guess it applies to lots of concepts we thought were set in stone and are now finding out they have been dissolving under our bedroom slippers.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 21, 2014 3:46 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't know what people are talking aboutwhentheydoa study on "rape."
Well you know it's not "assault", or there would be no confusion. "Rape" is whatever infantile Toddlers want it to mean. It was invented by women who want to sell their nonexistent virtue to men who want to do them a favour. Women are maliciously led to believe they can make their 'favour' valuable by withholding it. If I punch every girl in the face but one -- The One and Only -- it may appear as if I'm favoring her but my favour has no value.
Women violently disagree, imprisoning men for pleasuring women without satisfactory payment (a life of slavery, etc). "Rape" is the crime of giving women What Women Want without paying for the privilege. It preserves women's ancient birthright to defeat themselves. They're determined to abuse children and have men killed to protect the fraudulent 'worth' of their biologically-worthless objects. Every girl's mind (net worth) is reduced to liability to perpetuate this demonic whore lie.
Women are crazed Toddlers. They don't want to have their cake and eat it, it's men's cake they want to have and eat. When men cut them off, children are bred to steal their cake to have and eat. When they've eaten their children's cake, they go elsewhere for cake, leaving dead and dying carcasses in their wake.
Cutters mutilate themselves after mothers erode their sense of Self in need of dependants, only to get bored and blame their crippled victims for [not pleasing the whore who crippled them].
"They cripple the bird's wing and then condemn it for not flying as fast as they." (Malcolm X)
They cripple innocents and hang them out to dry. Cutters feel like they're dying, they mutilate their bodies in desperation. Betrayal is much worse than murder. Murder kills you once, betrayal keeps you alive to die...and die... It's the invisible cutters who are the real danger, they're dead inside. Women are all dead inside.
You're all dead inside, blind for convenience. You can rot in Hell.
"One can no longer live with people: it is too hideous and nauseating. Owners and owned, they are like the two sides of a ghastly disease." (DH Lawrence)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 21, 2014 2:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Between jonny, abbey, el puerco's new sockpuppet, and the nameless commenter who writes in nonsensical zen koans, I'm not sure who is the most incoherent. We truly do have a nice little sampling of the power of mental illness in the comment section here. People talking past each other, literally rambling about the matriarchy and Zizek and how everyone except puerco is gay. It's like internet performance art.
Also I have to say, I chuckled when puerco started in with his usual weird schtick of pretending to be other people and projecting homosexuality the exact moment someone suspected him of being puerco and mentioning his blog. It's like the guy can't help himself.
Just for posterity, here is el puerco's blog in case anyone wants a laugh. It's right up there with abbey's and jonny's blogs.
pezcandy.blogspot.com/?m=1
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 21, 2014 6:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Define mental illness.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 21, 2014 7:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I can try.
A learning process which selects for things harmful to your mental health. When learning is doing you harm.
I'm not sure how much weight we should put on defining words. We should keep in mind that definitions serve as tools for effective communication.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 21, 2014 8:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Define health then. Good luck.
Per lack of confidence in "how much weight we should put on defining words": Then who the fuck are you to criticize anyone's thoughts or feelings wherein NO ONE else is harmed? And what do you mean by "we" in your statement? You and what army? Those raised by Mothers to be good boys?
[http://imgur.com/gallery/oSiajTF]
Back to your kennel! AND QUIET!!!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 21, 2014 8:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well shite _______, thought I was replying to the anon above you. The "who are you to..." is my misattribution.
I'm interested what "health" means to y'all, though.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 22, 2014 2:47 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Aren't you criticizing another person's (apparently) harmless thoughts and feelings? Who are you to do so? And who am I to criticize your shit? It seems like the only way to win at the comment thread is not to play.
Alone, if we all shut up for a week, give us another article. Deal?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 22, 2014 3:48 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
1- Yes. 2- An arrogant angry man. 3- Also an arrogant angry man, but considerably and conceivably less so-- mild enough for a mulligan, even. 4- True, but what if pass the test to inherit the Chocolate Factory?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 22, 2014 11:49 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Define mental illness.
Thinking that harms the interests of one's Self. All violent thought, all deceitful thought, all confused thought. All positive thinking is mental illness. Thinking positive (as opposed to thinking) is delusional, insanely out of sync with objective reality.
Health
Staying alive harms one's Self. It's in no one's interests to remain alive to suffer for no reason. There's no upside. Pain is inflicted on you because you suffer to relieve it. You spend your life relieving contrived pain imposed on you by those who would have no motive if you weren't willing to relieve it. Enlightenment is death. Fighting to survive is mental illness.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 22, 2014 1:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
For some time I've jingled two interpretations, two expectations for the future. I'll save the details but most of the time I'm in the second one.
a) Die off. Anyone who want to live, will die.
b) Enlightenment, progress. More and more will realize it, and accept it. It's taking time because it need to be voluntarily.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 22, 2014 3:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Did you know it is possible to make people desire to accept that fertilized soil spontaneously ignite?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 22, 2014 3:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Of course, when I propose to add a section about fertilized soil in the fire safety guidelines, laughter follows.
It's a chosen perception.
It's when truth is thought to be a matter of decision.
The laughter proves it to be a lie.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 22, 2014 4:26 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis.The language label determines your perception.(All the diff words 4 snow North Americans have in their language.)Came from Whorf's work as an insurance investigator. Workers smoked, tossed matches, around barrels labeled "empty" when they were far more flammable than when filled by flammable contents.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 22, 2014 5:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are stuck in the Dominating Discourse of oppositions.Here are 3 alternatives, none of them appetizing.http://deepgreenresistance.org/en/who-we-are/deep-green-resistance-book While there check out the pdf of chapter 14 as that is where the analysis is.The assertion is: Climate Change is now irreversible, so even if we stop polluting completely, we can't reverse it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 22, 2014 7:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone is just busy with gamergate right now. He'll be back.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 22, 2014 7:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This post, combined with the one he did about the Penny Arcade/Ocean Marketing mess, already say everything about #gamergate that needs to be said. Don't force him to further engage that mess. :-)
I suspect Alone is simply engaged in a long bout of all-consuming existential despair, which may or may not eventually clear itself up.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 22, 2014 10:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
If you're sitting here day in and day out waiting for a new article, arguing in the comments or lurking here for entertainment you're missing the point of this blog. A lot of the articles alone writes boils down to spend time with your loved ones and get off the computer.
Yes there's a lot of funny stories and insight that's not replicated anywhere online with his writing style and knowledge and I miss it a lot too but that's what his advice ultimately comes down to. Do something else.
I relapse whenever I don't get a bit of alone (cause if I don't read it I don't get that hard hitting reminder) but trying my best to follow that key advice.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 22, 2014 10:43 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
By your definition of mental illness, it seems to me that pretty much everyone is mentally ill. Can you elaborate on the traits and behaviors that a hypothetically "healthy" individual would possess?
One request: you have a very rich and detailed vocabulary, but it seems to me that you have a private definition of certain words that doesn't correspond to a more commonly accepted definition of those words. I'm pretty sure you have a system inside your head that has very clear meanings for every word you use, but unfortunately I don't have access to it and therefore I sometimes find your posts confusing. IF you are interested in engaging with my question, I humbly request that you consciously try to formulate your reply to the question by using words with their more commonplace meanings in mind. This is not a demand, I'm just curious about your views but sometimes struggle with your creative word choice. Anything you can do to meet me half way here is appreciated. This is in no way a demand, and if you think that what I am asking for is unduly difficult, just do your best answering my question in your preferred manner. This is, of course, if you feel like answering my question at all.
Looking forward to your reply!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 22, 2014 10:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am often ambivalent to your posts, I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying here. There are so many ways that events can develop, and focusing on a single pair of opposites is an intellectual dead end. Reality is more akin to a gigantic system of nested fractals than to a mass of parallel linear processes. Although I guess both models can be used to describe certain things.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 22, 2014 10:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Love you bro.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 23, 2014 12:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Thinking that harms the interests of one's Self. All violent thought, all deceitful thought, all confused thought. All positive thinking is mental illness. Thinking positive (as opposed to thinking) is delusional, insanely out of sync with objective reality."
I think he's saying that mental illness is a misalignment of thought and reality. This isn't just a claim about scientific or logical thought -- it's about thought of any kind. For example, don't see things how you desire them to be; see things as they are. Don't change people/children into ____, let them become what they are. On this definition, maybe an ancient Stoic or Cynic.
Nietzsche said that the truth may be harmful to the conditions of life, health, and human flourishing. Maybe jonny is saying that we must forsake health, life, and human flourishing for truth. But this is just an ascetic ideal, and we've been there.
Of course, it's hard to see how/why an "aligned" manner of thought would be constituted as such. Even if you assume that some propositions are true and that some thought transitions are correct, it is difficult find a basis according to which an emotion or mood would count as aligned or misaligned with reality. Again, Stoicism may redeem this position.
Maybe a hard-line Spinozist view, where thought and materiality are naturally aligned but humans construct an artificial "idea" of their own thinking and material existence (eventually Althusser calls this ideology) could make the whole idea more coherent. But in this case, the idea might fall into the problem you originally posed, which is that the Spinozist ideal cannot be attained, and we are always already projected by the ideology, i.e, taken by "mental illness."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 23, 2014 12:13 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The first paragraph I wrote should end, "maybe an ancient Stoic or Cynic could qualify as sane on jonny's definition."
And I finally wanted to say that the fact that a definition of mental illness qualifies everyone as mentally ill is not enough to disqualify the definition. Freud and Lacan's definitions of neuroticism and psychosis entail that everyone is mentally ill.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 23, 2014 2:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It does invalidate the definition because if your definition of illness does not acknowledge any conditions under which someone is considered healthy, then it is semantically empty. This is basic logic. 'Illness' needs to actually PICK SOMETHING OUT, otherwise it is entirely vacuous.
Freudianism and Lacanianism are personality cults and nothing more. Take it from a psychology grad at a top 10 school.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 23, 2014 2:06 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Read Foucault.Madness and Civilization. Normality comes OUT OF MADNESS.Madness is not defined by a deviation from normality.You are just believing in a fiction that was socially constructed by the Dominating Discourse.It's just a belief, that's all.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 23, 2014 3:41 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"If your definition of illness does not acknowledge any conditions under which someone is considered healthy, then it is semantically empty."
An obvious first response is simply to admit degrees of health/illness, so that just as one cannot be "totally" ill, one cannot be "totally" healthy -- every "very ill" person is healthy in some respects, every "very healthy" person is ill in some respects. To understand why you are ill even though you believe yourself to be healthy -- to understand what the psychoanalytic definition picks out within yourself -- I recommend that you put aside the stern teachings of your undergraduate professors and read Freud for yourself.
In case you are not convinced of that response, consider this argument. While we can have an idea of a perfectly ethical human -- a human with no unethical properties predicated of him/her -- there exists no such human. So there are no conditions under which a human could be perfectly ethical or: the property of being unethical is predicated over every human. But this doesn't entail that the definitions ethical/unethical are vacuous. Likewise, it's not vacuous to say that the property of being mentally ill is predicated over every human. (You might like to challenge the likeness of these cases, but then you haven't proven anything 'as a rule of basic logic', since a challenge to the analogy would suggest that your argument rests on semantic content, and not just formal logic.)
p.s. the important idea that abbey is getting at is relevant to the general topic but it was Canguilhem who first stated it: the definition normal/pathological is normative, or value-laden, and is therefore not a proper object of purely scientific study. What counts as normal/pathological is constituted, in part, by what it is best to do, by what we desire, etc. -- blind men make exquisite seers.
I don't know if you are a real person or not, but I enjoyed your challenge, and you have heard of Antisthenes. But to Antisthenes, there was nothing more foreign than the prestige of a title, the thoughts of a scientist, or the bliss of convention. Try to develop a suspicious eye toward what you learned at school.
The most straightforward way to come to know what the Nietzsche-Freud-etc lineage can teach us about ourselves is to learn from a professor at a top university; I am sorry that you missed this opportunity, but you had your priorities. Take it from me, you could have learned both ways of knowing.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 23, 2014 3:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Take it from a psychology grad at a top 10 school
Oh yeah? Well, see here, I went to the school that is NUMBER ONE. You know, the one where Asian dad finally considers one a member of the family, fledgling status non-existent all along.
Also, my sexual organs are larger than your sexual organs. Oh, regardless of sex/gender.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 23, 2014 4:16 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"If your definition of illness does not acknowledge any conditions under which someone is considered healthy, then it is semantically empty."
IF you read Foucault 's Madness and Civilization he does a genealogy of madness.Ancient times considered madness divine.So what happened?It intersected with the development of capitalism which needed "normal" laborers.The great European confinement began about 300 years ago and continues altho changed.From confinement the "mad",the criminals, the retarded,et al began to be separated from each other.The problems of having them work and produce affected the employment/economic system,etc.But I suggest you read it for yourself. Out of madness came a definition of normality, so normality comes OUT of madness.For the ease of measurement, normality now defines madness as a deviation from "normal' which is statistically and measurement derived.It is a social construct.
I recommend that you put aside the stern teachings of your undergraduate professors and read Freud for yourself.
Thank you for the advice but I was in the psychoanalytic profession for 25 years.And it is obvious you have not been.It is 3 pronged.1.Study Freud 2.Become an analysand 3.See patients under supervision
Reading Freud is necessary but not sufficient.And I have read him, discussed him endlessly,etc.
Your third paragraph is gibberish so I won't go there.
Canguilhem was very close to Foucault.He was instrumental in getting Foucault into the College de France.He did not disagree with Foucault use of Nietzsche's method of genealogy to reveal what had been concealed by the Dominating Discourse of the dialectic concerning madness and normality of which you are still a victim.
The most straightforward way to come to know what the Nietzsche-Freud-etc lineage can teach us about ourselves is to learn from a professor at a top university; I am sorry that you missed this opportunity, but you had your priorities. Take it from me, you could have learned both ways of knowing.
This is the worst way to learn the Nietzsche-Freud "lineage" as Freud was very careful to keep psychoanalysis out of the control of psychiatry - medical schools - and the University.Few if any psychoanalysts are tenured professors at any university as they are practicing, not teaching students EXCEPT within the institute they have established with others, or have been invited to participate in.That is where you will find those who know,who see patients,and who teach Freud, are your analysts and supervise your training. Lacan disbanded his training institute when he died.No institutions for him to freeze the experience and cement its feet into the pavement in front of the institute.
You really need to clear up your thinking. You consistently mix up categories of meaning which cannot be compared in any reasonable way, and when done,turn your Discourse into a jumble sale.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 23, 2014 1:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Did you fail to notice that the first paragraph of the comment you quoted is a quotation of someone else? I recognize that punctuation is difficult for you, but come on.
I'm not talking about learning from psychoanalysts who see patients, but from intellectual historians or philosophers who have a grasp of how the ideas fit into a larger picture. By learning from such people, you'll gain the ability to connect interesting ideas together, rather than blurting them out without making explicit connections between them. I'm not saying you can't achieve this alone or by some other sort of education, but you have most certainly failed to do so. (Your paragraph on Canguilhem is a perfect example; you list irrelevant facts that you are stating, without context, just because you know them.)
What are you even responding to me for? I was talking directly to the undergrad psychology major with the gigantic penis / alone. Even though I had low expectations, it still surprises me that when you saw a post that had nothing to do with you, you chose to assimilate its meaning to your own tired, bleating ideas rather than understanding it on its own terms.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 23, 2014 5:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Did you fail to notice that the first paragraph of the comment you quoted is a quotation of someone else?
I'm pretty sure she took note of that and was not addressing it as a paragraph.
I'm not saying you can't achieve this alone or by some other sort of education, but you have most certainly failed to do so.
Not trying to be a dick-- this is nonsense.
you list irrelevant facts that you are stating, without context, just because you know them
Fallacy. Own bed is made here.
What are you even responding to me for?
Unspoken rule: This is a forum; I don't see any faux pas per Commons. Grow up.
...instead of understanding it on its own terms.
Wait, what? Now we're getting into Dunning-Kruger territory.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 23, 2014 5:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I recognize that punctuation is difficult for you, but come on.
Christ, how cheap. Let's see how easily you'll be able to pluck away on a keyboard when you're in eighties, eh?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 23, 2014 5:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What I am saying is that if you study Freud then you MUST accept his requirements of psychoanalysis.The three necessary and sufficent conditions I said. So far Zizek seems to be the only one who meets them, and Lacan himself.His analyst Francoise Dolto was a clinician first and as Lacan said,"she was the clinical counterpart to my theoretical work."She was and still is.
My own personal preference in understanding psychoanalysis is to just go to the case studies.D.W. Winnicott was a master clinician you can't appreciate by only knowing he was the first to write and observe the "transitional object" and its primary importance to the child.And how that TO must be treated by the parent. Reading Melanie Klein is like having your eyelids torn off.And Anna Freud.Freud's letters to and from Lou Andreas Salome at the end of his life are exceptional.Salome was never analyzed herself, refused to be even by Freud, yet practiced and was sent patients by Freud.He was profoundly impressed by her understanding.But she was a rare intellect as one would expect with her relationship to Nietzsche and Rilke and then Freud himself.University professors are not the professors I learned with. Now they are mostly careerists desiring desperately to get tenure which is being denied to most of them.I think the Euruopean psychoanalysts who are also intellectual philosophers are still prominent enough for us to know about. We have Zizek, Badiou, BIFO,Irigaray,Cixnous,Zuza,Butler, Rubenstein,Calchi-Novati so I would urge anyone to read them.Butler is at Columbia now,Rubenstein at Cornell, so there are still some in academia.Zizek is at GCAS and the European Graduate School, but online universities of exceptional quality and highly reduced fees are in place now.Good luck.
And I interrupted your so called "private" Discourse because your information was so mediocre.Just like you tho.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 23, 2014 6:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well thanks.A PC correct person would say that was an ageism comment.I notice them a lot now.If you are old and don't walk around in a mink coat and rive a new Cadillac you can expect to not be considered eccentric, but only Alzheimer bound. Which I fully expect nonretarded to be in his 80's, not studying post modern philosophers.It will be drooling in confinement somewhere, maybe harvested for organs by that time.He's already thinking in word salad mode.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 23, 2014 6:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The major problem with psychology is its terrible hostility to ethics built into the experimental paradigm of behaviorism.Is purely and simply useless vivisection on animals to experimentally prove what we already know since the west has become a military culture in the US and UK particularly, so a literal explanation is required.We always knew NSA was spying on us,but Snowden had to furnish "PROOF" of that to convince the literal masses.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 23, 2014 6:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
By your definition of mental illness, it seems to me that pretty much everyone is mentally ill.
That's correct. No one is thinking about how their actions can serve their best interests and if they think otherwise, they're delusional. Remaining alive necessitates mental illness (psychosis), seeing true reality precludes suffering to prolong it.
The closest a mind gets to "sane" is on the brink of (an accepted) death. In the absence of all need, the mind is free of blinkers that blind. Need blinds so all need takes a mind one step closer to barking mad (complete disassociation from reality). Mothers (who are barking mad) bark every child mad with their needy lies.
Do children really need to be ashamed of their skin?
Do children really need to fear external disapproval?
Do children really need to suffer to please whores-in-denial?
They do, when whores are violent. If they do not suffer, mothers make them suffer for that mistake. If one needs to suffer or they will suffer, one has no need to exist. A retired whore no doubt told you otherwise, but imagining purpose in suffering to pay for women's preference to extort gratuities for sex = mental illness.
Can you elaborate on the traits and behaviors that a hypothetically "healthy" individual would possess?
Only suffering that eliminates suffering can be justified using logic. Death eliminates suffering but causing death creates suffering. A life that isn't spent discouraging or disincentivizing creation of life is a misspent, unhealthy existence.
I am not responsible for the variables that created a reality where the above holds true. Men with mental illness are to blame.
I read a book once that wasn't yet written with this premise:
* If men stopped paying women to undress, women would have no motive to force everyone to dress.
* If men stopped paying women for 'favour', women would have no motive to withhold their universal favour.
* If men stopped rewarding women who abuse / deceive / exploit them, women would have no motive to abuse / deceive / exploit.
* If men stopped marrying women who cannot take care of themselves, women would be able to take care of their children.
* Etcetera.
The reality is women will always reflect men's capacity to be compromised by denial. In reality, men give women the incentive to destroy them. Men are taken for all they're willing to give.
You should see the other guys. Human nature (mental illness) is not altered by borders. War profiteers laughed all the way to Hell.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 23, 2014 6:37 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
One request: you have a very rich and detailed vocabulary, but it seems to me that you have a private definition of certain words that doesn't correspond to a more commonly accepted definition of those words.
Whilst I am inherently fallible, I'm afraid you'll find that my definitions are correct. This is easily proved; indeed, you have proved it already by failing to identify any specific words you believe were incorrectly used. If you were to give me some examples, I assure you I will investigate and remedy any errors.
This has been an issue my entire life as I taught myself English by reading dictionaries. The world was taught by pidgin-speaking retired whores who never bothered to learn what words actually mean because men are so pathetic and compromised, they're too frightened to correct women when they err.
Women take offence when men act in their best interests. So? That's not a justifiable reason to be a snivelling bitch.
*If men stopped being bitches, women would have no motive to bully them.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 23, 2014 7:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think he's saying that mental illness is a misalignment of thought and reality. This isn't just a claim about scientific or logical thought -- it's about thought of any kind. For example, don't see things how you desire them to be; see things as they are. Don't change people/children into __, let them become what they are.
Correct, except for changing people. It's fine to influence children to be who you want them to be, but if you're using violence, shame and lies to persuade and convince, the problem isn't with children's behaviour. The problem is with your mental illness.
Nietzsche said that the truth may be harmful to the conditions of life, health, and human flourishing. Maybe jonny is saying that we must forsake health, life, and human flourishing for truth.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that humans are not living, they're not healthy and they're not flourishing. They're suffering, they're miserable and they're racing to extinction in the very near future.
I'm saying everyone is psychotic because women reverse the logic to illogical with violence, shame and lies. When women put the question to every toddler, under extreme duress the choice is made to live for lies rather than suffer or die for truth. That's an understandable mistake, but choosing a life of endless misery the subconscious mind must suppress (for survival) is not justifiable.
Humans are universally killing, raping, assaulting, exploiting, abusing, betraying and deceiving each other for happiness. Imagining force and fraud can lead to happiness = mental illness.
The Buddha was the last sane man alive, I believe. I am not sane, but I was (very briefly) on the brink of an accepted death. As a result, I know what sanity looks -- feels -- like:
Buddha once told a parable in sutra:A man traveling across a field encountered a tiger. He fled, the tiger after him. Coming to a precipice, he caught hold of the root of a wild vine and swung himself down over the edge. The tiger sniffed at him from above. Trembling, the man looked down to where, far below, another tiger was waiting to eat him. Only the vine sustained him.
Two mice, one white and one black, little by little started to gnaw away the vine. The man saw a luscious strawberry near him. Grasping the vine with one hand, he plucked the strawberry with the other. How sweet it tasted!
It looks like optimality. Redundant suffering is mental illness.
Insanity (suffering) is not organic. Almost all misery is needless, the imagined product of malice. Children are forced insane during their formative years by malicious house-builders, who condition impressionable minds to imagine illusory suffering (for exploitation / control / manipulation). When the Buddha reached Enlightenment, these were his first words:
"Through the round of many births I roamed without reward, without rest, seeking the house-builder. Painful is birth again & again.House-builder, you're seen!
You will not build a house again.
All your rafters broken,
the ridge pole destroyed,
gone to the Unformed, the mind
has come to the end of craving."
His mind was reset to new. As was mine, I'm just so stupid I used my newfound happiness to 'successfully' pursue women > rapidly reconditioned to suffer. My happiness lasted seven weeks.
You cannot successfully pursue women. They are emotional cannibals with nothing to offer. You lose just by playing their rigged game. They have nothing for men to win. They peddle false promise, fraudulent emotion, manipulated desire, illusion (Maya). If you 'win', you lose. The only way to win is not to play.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 23, 2014 8:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Take it from a psychology grad at a top 10 school.
Ah, why didn't you say so? I will stop thinking and take your insanity for it. This is great because thinking hurts my tiny mind and this is much easier. Fingers crossed for our mindless future.
Just out of interest, who rates schools? And why didn't your top school teach you not to implicitly trust people selling reputation?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 23, 2014 8:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Normality comes OUT OF MADNESS.Madness is not defined by a deviation from normality.
Correct. This really should be obvious. Wanting to be "normal" won't lead to mental illness, the mere desire is mental illness.
Why wouldn't you want to be correct? To be better? To be the best you can be? Or just To Be? People want to be "normal" because barking mad retired whores bully every child miserable in their psychotic determination to keep up appearances at the expense of [everything real]. Women want to appear "normal" because they're the victims of barking mad, sex-obsessed whores who violently shame everyone who isn't willing to suffer to appear "normal". They fiercely perpetuate the status quo as they're so reduced, they imagine winning = making others lose.
It hasn't worked out for the last 55 billion women but they're going to do the exact same thing for the exact same reasons because, as the imbecilic victims of terrified competition, girls raised to hate themselves for being women Know Best.
"Try not to think too much."
Just feel bad. And be afraid. Fear is the path to happiness.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 24, 2014 2:49 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oh so perfectly funny because it is the truth!Made me laugh.I don't easily laugh.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 24, 2014 2:57 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
When you really get that normality is just "made up;a social construct" you can do nothing but wiggle your head back and forth, back and forth.Sometimes it's kind of scary to feel your mind expanding in so many directions of thoughts and feelings that you know you are what is "considered" mad.This gets worse as you get older because then they are expecting you to be mad because they have Alzheimers on the brain especially for you my dear.I find myself pretending to be normal sometimes to avoid problems.I just seem to do and want to do things that are outside the limits of what most people think is normal.Fortunately I can still dominate them linguistically when I have to.I realize they are afoot to confine you when you are old.Just get too outside the limit and you lose control.It's a Grid.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 24, 2014 3:21 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Do you people mean to tell me that abbeysbooks is an 80-something-year-old woman, and my tendency to scroll past all of her comments is due to my unjustifiable bias against the way old people type?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 24, 2014 4:29 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No it's just due to your inability to be informed. You are also a non non educated person?No one said you had to read me.I don't mind your ignoring me.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 24, 2014 4:57 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If notretarded and notnotguilty are the same person:
No, the people do not mean what you ask. You used the word "recognize" in your post above with respect to abbey's text. Does it not make sense that the SIMPLEST explanation is that her style fits necessary expediency of some kind? If someone chimes in on her behalf--even if unsolicited--can't you understand that they're LIKELY informing you of something you were LIKELY unaware of?
No wonder Dunning-Kruger was summoned. Quick, simple question: do you find yourself to be lacking among discussion skills in any way? Please tell us.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 24, 2014 10:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You don't mind notnotguilty ignoring you, but you have to leave a comment making sure that everyone knows that you do not care. Taking action to show indifference.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 24, 2014 11:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Take it from a psychology grad at a top 10 school.
Hahahaha!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 24, 2014 3:41 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My comment was not only about ignoring me.That was an afterthought.Problem is most people are not literate anymore but that's not your fault.Hard for teachers to teach the love of reading when they don't read themselves.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 24, 2014 7:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Do you motherfuckers do anything else besides grabbing straws?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 24, 2014 8:02 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Give them a break, it's not rational.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 25, 2014 8:36 AM | Posted by : | Reply
one self loathing dame
walking dead posters riposte
no synthesis found
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 25, 2014 2:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Wish TLP was still consistently blogging. Would love to read his perspective on Ferguson. Here's a little of mine, and I'm open to intelligent, thoughtful conversations regardless of shared or opposing opinions, which has been one of the strengths of this blog.
On Ferguson Verdict (what I wrote to a friend).
Let me get this straight: "The grand jury, made up of nine whites and three blacks, had been meeting to consider evidence....An indictment would have required nine of the 12 grand jurors to agree." "After weighing the evidence, at least nine of the 12 members of the grand jury decided that Wilson acted within the limits of the lethal-force law."
So justice is numbers, not facts. It seems jury selection is where justice is determined. If we are ever to see social justice changes in America it must start at the legal level (no wonder most lobbyist are lawyers) all else is futile. We need to fund The Decent Americans Lobbyist Group. As Al Gore once told the Congressional Black Caucus, in a moment of rare candor, the reason African-Americans issues aren't taken seriously is because Blacks don't make political contributions.
No Justice, No Peace. Please, stop it! I deal in cold hard facts. We're in the era of (or had we ever left it) of No Money, No Justice. Whatever your issue - Police Brutality, Climate Change, Bike Lanes, Fair Minimum Wage, and so on.
And if you don't believe me, here's Wikipedia: Lobbying in the United States describes paid activity in which special interests hire well-connected professional advocates, often lawyers, to argue for specific legislation in decision-making bodies such as the United States Congress.
So ask yourself: Where's our paid activity? Where's yours? Where's mine? Perhaps now is the time we should reflect on that; especially, considering that having a "Black" President has made few significant changes on this issue. Or any other that's near and dear to your liberal heart. Sadly, we the Decent People of America never provided the counterweight Obama needed to attack the Right and Corporatism after we got him into office, and then left him swinging on his own, and have squander an opportunity we may never have again.
That's the true tragedy I see coming out of Ferguson - that there will be more Fergusons. March all you want, tweet all you want. Meanwhile, money gains power gains justice and creates the world it wants. On the bright side, we get to live in it and buy all the stuff we want. Now if only you, me, we really wanted justice.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 25, 2014 3:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nice thoughtful comment.
Here's J.Jack Halberstam a professor at USC and GCAS:
J. Jack Halberstam Now they are saying the protestors around the nation are violent...no, it is the grand jury that is violent, the police who are violent, the media that are violent. This is now what violence looks like - racist decisions presented as justice, calls for peace and healing in the wake of murder, media coverage that transforms protest into "chaos," outrage into "looting," and law and order into a shield for white impunity. Let it burn.
Others of the same prominence are speaking out in about the same way, so you have lots of good company.After all "when you hang around with crows,you do't get to hear the nightingales sing."(sufi saying)
THE FERGUSON DECISION was definitely a RACIST FASCIST DECISION and that is what justice is.It is meant to serve its masters and oppress people.Here's a 1760 slavery law from VA colony known by 4 of 5 of our first prezzes.My reading is a reading through Zizek and Ai WeiWei on absence and its power. http://focusfree.blogspot.com/2014/04/john-payne-dolley-madisons-father.html
I have not seen your breakdown of the Grand Jury so succinct on twitter and that's where it belongs.That's where you can change the language used to discuss something.It took me 4 months to get global warming off there and replaced by climate change.Now you will rarely see global warming as I have made it stupid,uninformed,manipulated,etc.So people who wish to appear more literate than they are are conscious of the right sound-bite to use.All the arguments back and forth on global warming have crashed like the twin towers.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 25, 2014 6:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"The grand jury, made up of nine whites and three blacks, ........An indictment would have required nine of the 12 grand jurors to agree." .... at least nine of the 12 members of the grand jury decided that Wilson acted within the limits of the lethal-force law."So justice is numbers, not facts.
Are you presuming that the voting was on racial lines? Would you have made your decision on racial lines or are you an evolved being with emotional maturity, not like the imbeciles over at MO? It's preposterous that you would presume to know what decision a black person or a white person on the jury would arrive at and for what reasons.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 25, 2014 6:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
March all you want, tweet all you want. Meanwhile, money gains power gains justice and creates the world it wants
Change is planned, that much is understood. What I've failed to see is how it will happen. I don't know, but an idea came to me today and it's been reinforced. At least thats how I prefer to talk about it.
Want it to be solid, no missteps, so guess I'll wait for further manifestations before I do something realistic.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 25, 2014 6:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I associate black and white with the two parts of the central nerve system.
I don't know it sounds weird, I know. Why associate it with skin color? It doesn't make much sense to me, but nevertheless I do believe the intention is to connect those two concepts, color (skin color) and...ehem the two parts of the central nerve system.
It feels weird to read it. Please, correct me.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 25, 2014 6:33 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Assume the white part to be love, euphoria, relaxation - and black to be fear, fight or flight, anxiety, survival.
At least how I tend to think it is intended to be understood. Please enlighten me if I'm off.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 25, 2014 7:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'll put it in a secular language.
Did you know that the bible clearly teaches that Christ is going to have a political role, as head of state? It's not a controversial interpretation. I'd expect most if not all branches to agree on it.
You don't have to believe it, just for your information.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 25, 2014 10:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
These people are not anonymous and they will have to go home,their kids to school,their spouses to face with their friends,employers,employees,et al.So how the fucky do you think they are going to vote. Here's J J Halberstam (prof USC&GCAS) on Ferguson
J. Jack Halberstam Now they are saying the protestors around the nation are violent...no, it is the grand jury that is violent, the police who are violent, the media that are violent. This is now what violence looks like - racist decisions presented as justice, calls for peace and healing in the wake of murder, media coverage that transforms protest into "chaos," outrage into "looting," and law and order into a shield for white impunity. Let it burn.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 25, 2014 10:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
U are correct about MO imbeciles.MO ranks 35th in the country in education.It is a state run by 35th rate minds.That's the truth.Their ticketing ,warrants,etc in Ferguson are the same in all small towns all over.How Municipal Court has a License to Steal.How the towns make money. Oh and speed traps are another good source of funding.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 25, 2014 10:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
We are going to get a lot more police brutality.Also police are now going to be prey.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 26, 2014 3:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
A prediction may influence events or predicted trends.
Wonder if it would be possible for a country to become independent of it. Personally, I believe it would fear a domino effect and focus all its energy into prevent it from happening. I don't know, perhaps we could make a similar argument for a municipality, a commune.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 26, 2014 4:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Get the idea but I'm not sure it's quite right.
Scale, it might be a question of scale. A domino effect will only happen if the initial brick is large enough, if a critical mass of people can be swayed past a point of no return.
Do you expect a neighborhood march to effect a change in the UN? I don't think so. Forget about your commune.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 26, 2014 9:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Which is precisely what would result in bringing the spirit of Baghdad to your backyard.
Isn't that the intent?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 26, 2014 10:14 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I tend to trust people who openly confess that fertilized soil doesn't spontaneously ignite.
Whether you are a con man or a priest.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 26, 2014 10:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The intention is to cause curiosity?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 26, 2014 11:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Not really a reply to your question. Anyway, I don't know. People can't read peoples minds.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 3:43 AM | Posted by : | Reply
We will see a lot of police, who is currently appearing and will have a lot of
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 4:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
alone: please disable comments. where the fuck are you?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 5:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Now we're getting into Dunning-Kruger territory.
If I become aware I'm a moronic victim of this bias, am I still?
This is an interesting Effect.
If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent…the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is. (David Dunning)
Dammit.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 5:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Write more about this.There is a computer code for the impasse that results when two programs need the same piece of information at the same moment. It's called "shit I can't remember.A great term and concept. Double Jeopardy is not it but sort of close.Has an evil connotation as I remember.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 5:27 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Diabolical?Feels sort of correct.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 5:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
When I read comments like yours I think of babies waiting to be fed, changed, made comfortable,rescued from their cribs,their existence of perpetual and endless boredom the world thinks they require.They sleep like dogs and cars BECAUSE THEY ARE BORED. Oh that wonderful Russian novel Oblamov.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 5:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
THE FERGUSON DECISION was definitely a RACIST FASCIST DECISION and that is what justice is.
I think it was a pragmatic wartime decision -- in line with a number of recent decisions that all seem to be going the same way -- to back the citadel's impending soldiers against the presumptive revolutionaries in early skirmishes. They're preparing for an inevitable cull, of course they're going to blindly back their footsoldiers to the hilt in the leadup (to boost morale).
Is it just? Is war just? What is justice? Who makes these rules, dependent women imprinting values on toddler minds with violent force? Are they just? Justice is a diversion from reality. Whores are breeding too many slaves brainwashed with lies of violent entitlement. What are the Rich supposed to do?
Does it matter? I doubt it. The only thing that matters is what they're going to do, and what they're going to do is cull because the alternative is to hand it all over to the rioting masses.
"Somebody needs to pay."
It tends to be the children of Poverty's women who get to pay. Cops right now may have license to act with near impunity. They're killing 12yo kids waving toy guns. Cop acted reasonably, apparently. Is that even possible with a dead 12yo? I dunno. I know it's about to get really ugly in a way that will make all of this irrelevant.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 6:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There is a computer code for the impasse that results when two programs need the same piece of information at the same moment. Has an evil connotation as I remember.
Race condition? I think racing is benign, just sloppy coding.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 6:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
that is if you have them. if you don't and you're reading this shit it's probably too late.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 6:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"babies waiting to be fed, changed, made comfortable,rescued from their cribs,their existence of perpetual and endless..." I never thought such a beauty was possible on this planet. alone: please procede.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 7:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Fixed it. I don't get it. What's the point in hiding a login button and sneaky install a plugin playing an annoying melody to visitors?
Am I supposed to be outraged and complain to "the authorities", go to a news paper, implicitly confirm their legality?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 7:20 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Alone! She's looking at me wrong! Do something!
Seriously though, if you hadn't read the above article I would recommend doing so, ragnarmx.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 7:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"It does invalidate the definition because if your definition of illness does not acknowledge any conditions under which someone is considered healthy, then it is semantically empty. This is basic logic. 'Illness' needs to actually PICK SOMETHING OUT, otherwise it is entirely vacuous.
"Freudianism and Lacanianism are personality cults and nothing more. Take it from a psychology grad at a top 10 school."
Sure they are -- not that I went to a top 10 school -- but isn't like everything a personality cult? nowadays? and here we are, talking about psychology... oohwee.
And according to "basic logic" his definitions of "healthy" or "ill" could apply to a domain consisting of life and death, not restricted only to physical lifetime, let's say (even if there is nothing beyond it). You can't just flat out say his logic there is flawed. It's just different. See he actually did not specifically define a domain of discourse. Like you love having reasons to not be able to make sense of what he said. Most do. But it's not quite illogical. That's the confusing aspect of the human domain is that our logic is largely chosen in terms of our perceptions. Something like this. Our perceptions are subjective. So it's much easier to come to shared conclusions about objective matters. Not so much things recursively regarding ourselves and others and interpersonal existence, because that's inescapably personal.
For example, maybe "health"... sure. You try defining it. What is it defined in terms of? I'm not going to try, I'll give you what you're looking for directly, the official definitions themselves. And defining terms is always a fine idea, true.
: the condition of being well or free from disease
: the overall condition of someone's body or mind
: the condition or state of something
So it's either being free from illness (good health) or a scale.
It could be that our definition of health is illusory; i.e., we are applying a term that carries positive connotations -- like that he said thinking positive as opposed to thinking. This actually correlates to how I feel about holidays and such, being that today is Thanksgiving, yeah, hallelujah -- for me. Selfish, no? Stuffing my face, celebrating some old American bullshit -- spending money buying shit -- while so many others starve, right? While so much other cruelty goes on. We figure we can't do anything, don't really care to, would rather think this way, and go on with our festivities. Watching football, we were talking about the highest paid athlete in the history of major league sports now -- some Marlins player -- supposedly, now I look it up and don't find anything immediately but whether or not the facts are on point the principle still applies, and it's that this guy gets paid 320-something-MILLION for his 13 year contract, something like 60k DAILY. Of course no one is worth that money. That is a sin, if anything, if there is any ethical validity that is real in this world. Money is evil, not the love of money. It's another way to see it. I can see it but I can't be sure of its or anything's ultimate truth value, because I am only one facet of the net.
I don't know how anyone can be so sure of themselves when speaking of things beyond themselves, or of anything period like as concrete truth.
Anyway the one caveat in there being no truly healthy cases or even perceived let's put it that way of human life: is that I think there are people who do feel totally "healthy" as that's commonly understood overall. That's one thing. As a disclaimer I myself don't know many people. But then there's whether or not they have their definitions right. Because then there's the consideration of selfishness, and that's if others matter. Then that right there I guess is a question of ethics, which goes back to what, logically..? Do you believe yourself to have any morals? If so, do you ever consider that they may simply be born out of fear? Like "God-fearing", if not afraid of yourself or others in particular, there's still another option.
One of the most alluring aspect of religion or spirituality, that there's an omniscient judge reigning up above, just answering your questions for you, listening to your prayers, there for you, on your side.
Health to me rings out like a buzzword. It's something to strive for. I've seen fanatics; I see how it can definitely be used as a distraction. It is, all in all, a word, to which people grant a lot of conceptual weight, which in turn blocks out broader-scale not-directly-relevant thought. Again it's selfish. I'm no writer. That's the feeling I get. I am careful about my wording but I can't be too careful because I'm not that good a writer not to mention the most incapable speaker. Gotta get something out. It's self-serving. It's something to concern ourselves about, in concern solely of ourselves... And I question my morality as simply a byproduct of weakness all the time, so I'm not saying that I'm right. Only that you don't know any more than anyone else what is or isn't... ...
But the thing is, suppose you perceive yourself to be healthy, and you aren't harming anyone, even really in any way. You live without bothering or hindering on anyone else. Then are you really "healthy" and not just a selfish delusional, according to that same outlook? Perhaps so. So there may be (along this train of thought/opinion) a healthy, selfless way about living as we know it. All the knowledge we have still doesn't answer the most fundamental questions of existence. Here we are all must be cynical so as to be so enveloped by Alone's blog. We all believe we are enlightened with whatever our alternative views are.
What you consider "vacuous" could just be that we are widely missing a whole different perspective. Not saying that it is, just that it could. Alone depicts a lot of sense but also an impending doom that we can't all come to a collective sense, and we can't all (or maybe just won't) uphold the same values. Maybe we shouldn't. Either way I hold that our present way of living is not sustainable, sure every great empire comes to its collapse, and in an even greater cosmological sense I feel this possibility.
Hence, the plausibility of our definition of "health" being a delusion, when we are largely separating humans and nature and all kinds of things and not thinking about the big picture while we're so focused on our own benefits health-wise and such.
But that's only if you don't believe you're king of the world.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 7:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This terrible torturous comment is what Foucault saves us all from with his Madness and Civilization.Madness was once considered DIVINE! Now when did that change? Foucault will tell you because he wnet into literture and archives to find out, whereas you just babble on and on in psycho babble.Normality came OUT of madness.Health is so rare it cannot be defined.So far.We will have to wait for an anti DSM - whatever - text to tell us.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 9:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Derrida's Cogito and the History of Madness is worth a mention too, simply for (I believe if IRC) the fact that Civilization and Madness was a reductionist response to. I don't mean this disparagingly.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 9:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
this guy gets paid 320-something-MILLION for his 13 year contract, something like 60k DAILY. Of course no one is worth that money.
Though he might not be the best example, he's the example I want to use cause I don't like feminists; Matt Taylor is worth that money (he's the Rosetta scientist who ran into some trouble with the infantile Toddlers selected -- brilliantly by Power -- to lead the feminist movement). If he's not, there would be contributors who would be. But this species has no regard for contributors. Minds are not valued by an objectified species. Value isn't valued.
We foolishly glorify entertainers and diversion (distraction from suffering we wouldn't have if we were capable of acting in our own selfish best interests). Our values defeat us, inflicting suffering we need to be distracted from, which defeats us; humans just defeat themselves non-stop. If we accept that "acting in one's own selfish best interests" is a workable defintion for "sanity", the entire world is barking mad.
Money is evil, not the love of money. It's another way to see it. I can see it but I can't be sure of its or anything's ultimate truth value, because I am only one facet of the net.
Actually, we can be sure of value because this planet has 8,000,000,000 individuals who all -- by lucky coincidence -- share the identical selfish best interests. Tragically, they don't realise it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 9:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's OK to disparage Foucault.Haven't read Derrida on this.I know Foucault considered Derrida incomprehensibly obstuse.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 27, 2014 11:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
what does 'reductionist' mean in this context?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 28, 2014 12:06 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If I knew I would tell you. Guessing I would say Foucault was too pared down for glen.Foucault never has any fluff.His elegant style is power spiraling and spiraling.Not my description altho I wish it were.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 28, 2014 12:23 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I must apologize for my error. It was his "Historicist response," not "Reductionist."
You are owed pints.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 28, 2014 12:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am having the same problem with your use of historicist.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 28, 2014 2:51 AM | Posted by : | Reply
jonny writes on his blog: "Nearly everyone is psychotic. Their thoughts and feelings are not in sync with reality. This is what happens when children are raised with lies and violence."
What would it mean for thoughts and feelings to be 'in sync' with reality?
You say that cognition is desynchronized when it develops in virtue of lies and deceit, and in other comments you take logic and acceptance of death to be a path to sanity.
so you believe that truth is the theoretical and practical ideal of the sane.
you've come a long way, but this 'truth' was your mother's biggest lie
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 28, 2014 4:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What would it mean for thoughts and feelings to be 'in sync' with reality?
Understanding. Emotional stability. Awareness. Acceptance of the fact that all accurate news is positive and all inaccurate news is negative. It's impossible to get girls to understand their positive thinking is negative thought; they block out all reality deemed unpleasant and idiotically imagine they're thinking positive. Ridiculous insanity, but the entire world is making this error.
So-called positive thinking will make you suffer. Accurate thinking allows you to protect yourself in sync with reality. The world has positive thinking mixed up with positive feeling (delusion based on inaccurate or incomplete information). To be in sync with reality, you need 100% accurate information. All truth is positive. All lies are negative. Your feelings are at odds with your welfare.
If you got news that everyone you cared about had just died, it's positive if true and negative if false. You would want to know. You'd be grateful to the messenger for bringing you the information. The reduced victims of dependent women would imagine the messenger killed their loved one, because he's making them suffer by telling them.
If you were told that you look fine when you actually had purple stained teeth from drinking too much shiraz*, you might feel relieved but it's negative thinking. Delusional feelings are not nice, they're a precursor to trauma. Lies create all trauma. When perception of reality is forced to violently synchronise with reality perception is at odds with, it's fatal at worst, traumatic at best.
* This actually happened to me for four months. I must have asked 100 times what the big joke was. My friends had a good time, not wanting to hurt my feelings. I nearly went insane.
so you believe that truth is the theoretical and practical ideal of the sane.
I hold this truth to be self-evident.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
November 29, 2014 1:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"To die hating them, that was freedom." (Orwell)
goodbye.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 29, 2014 4:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Here is Anne Applebaum from the Washington Post, with "another reason to avoid internet comments" (spoiler: it's because of anonymous comments):
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 29, 2014 8:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
See ya later alligator.
Heard what you said,cement head.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 29, 2014 9:14 PM | Posted by : | Reply
A lot of fancy stuff is possible, if custom made. The questions to be asked is what can be done generically without significant risk of detection.
(off topic and kinda personal but did something happen on december the 28th?)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 30, 2014 9:07 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Why is javascript necessary to comment here?
I might be misinformed, but as far as I can tell there are no technical reasons for it to be necesarry?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 30, 2014 2:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
jonny thinks he's living in the castle in the air though he's now simply a demon from the mountains of ignorance.
the princesses of sweet rhyme and pure reason fled when he tried to rape them.
now, he is charlie brown--ever surprised that lucy pulls away the football because he doesn't know that lucy knows what he tried to do to those princesses.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 30, 2014 3:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
maybe use of html tags within comment requires javascript
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 30, 2014 3:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Goodbye jonny.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 30, 2014 3:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Goodbye jonny.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 30, 2014 8:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I was sure Alone was planning to reply after the 2014th post with an entry titled: "it's about time!" And yet, here we are at 2016. Well, there's always the holidays.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
November 30, 2014 9:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Farewell, sir.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 1, 2014 12:35 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
When someone dies for their beliefs, there's a such a critical lesson there, even if that person was completely wrong about everything (which they hardly ever are).
I am privileged to have talked with such a crazy genius as jonny--even though he didn't manage to fully articulate everything he wanted to get out, and even though his thought was tainted with prejudice, there was a striving-for-the-light there, however distorted the light may have become when it reached his awareness.
I just hope his example doesn't inspire others to suicide.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 1, 2014 12:46 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
He's been doxed on this blog, and one of his biggest fans (even bigger than us) has apparently attempted suicide. I don't know if he's coming back here.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 1, 2014 1:09 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Suicide. Hate.
Something there I can't fully understand. I chose life a year ago and I don't see myself going back on that. But suicide in itself is not something I begrudge someone for, even though I, as a rule, discourage it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 1, 2014 3:17 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What an ass you are.Jonny is a fine authentic person.They are rare.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 1, 2014 7:56 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"as a general rule," I mean. With, say, assisted suicide, I'd prefer if the patient underwent some counseling first and that so did the family.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 1, 2014 8:20 AM | Posted by : | Reply
It strikes me that being dead is the ultimate lack of need, but a suicidal act is an expression of great need.
jonny needed to not need anything.
I wonder what else he needed.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 1, 2014 8:27 AM | Posted by : | Reply
RIP to all our dead, unconditionally.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 1, 2014 3:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I hope jonny's suicide attempt does not succeed and he rebuilds his life.
I've just sent Alone an e-mail about this whole thing.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 1, 2014 4:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Why are you talking about jonny in the past tense?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 1, 2014 6:44 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm not trying to be flippant.
I don't know if he was (brain-)dead or not by the point I wrote those comments. I assume that his last comment shortly precipitated a suicide attempt; I have no way of knowing for sure. I knew that past tense would be applicable, but I didn't know if present tense would necessarily be.
Part of my reaction, I suspect, is culture--speaking of the dead as people who were and not are, even though the memories and impacts of them, and any attachment that any one of us had (there's that past tense) to them, may live on--and so when someone (like me) suspects that someone else has died, we may switch to the past tense when we talk about them, even if a different tense would be applicable to our experience of them (and even though we may make ceremonious gestures at honoring them). What are the implications of this for our human connection as a society?
Sigh. I'm reminded of the Funeral post here: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/12/funeral.html
I don't know what I'm doing.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 1, 2014 6:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I forgot to indicate that this was a reply to abbeysbooks's comment directly above.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 1, 2014 6:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
In referring to the Funeral post, I mean I hope I'm not being like one of the "psychopaths" Alone talks about there.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 2, 2014 2:08 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Der Bummlerkokosnuss:
What in the world...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 2, 2014 10:56 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Do you motherfuckers do anything else besides grabbing straws?
The array of parlor tricks has yet to be fully displayed. All good showmen hold close their best tricks, save them for the end.
Next up, the grasped straws will be --without cover of handkerchief, mind you-- turned into frizzy human hair trimmings from a hair cutting operation. These individual hair strands will be teased apart, and their split ends identified under suitable magnification.
What happens next will astound you. Without micro-instrumentation, they will tease these split ends into new split ends. You wll be amazed, I promise.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 2, 2014 12:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Jonny, lighting a candle for you now. I stopped engaging with you here a long time ago and started talking to you on Google+ I tried so hard to change your perspective just enough that you could enjoy life again. You loved truth, even when it made you miserable. You had a vision for what life could be that you could only barely articulate, it was so foreign to the human experience as it stands now. Some fought you, others derided you, and still others encouraged your despair in their foolishness. I will attempt to hold onto the better lights of your vision, Jonny. Rest in peace; I shall miss you, my gadfly. The world is already poorer for your absence.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 2, 2014 1:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Why do you think he's dead?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 2, 2014 1:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest — whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories — comes afterward. These are games; one must first answer." - Albert Camus
Abbey, link us jonny's blag. If something happened, some of us here hold some responsibility for not helping him get help.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 2, 2014 2:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
http://religionconfidencetrick.blogspot.com/
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 2, 2014 3:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jonny would never go to a therapist for help and a really fine therapist would not make this decision for him.The only help I would ever offer someone is to read Viktor Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning.Anyone who has survived the Camps, writes a book, has something to say to me. There was nothing anyone could do in the Camps when someone decided he had o reason to live.They could see the decision had been made just by looking at the person. Frankl certainly helped some examine that question while desperate himself.His own journey is a work of art.If anyone bears blame it is I for not being available these past few weeks.My mind was exhausted by something else and I could not "wake up" in time.I felt the call and I did not answer.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 2, 2014 3:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Abbey, link us jonny's blag. If something happened, some of us here hold some responsibility for not helping him get help.
Just that sentence would make me not tell you."Helping him gt help" is such an American pop psychology thing to say.It is not your fault that you think this appropriate.It is the fault of the culture that has mercantilized "helping."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 2, 2014 3:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
IT is indeed true that the standard "getting Jonny help" was not going to happen here. Not with Jonny. I asked him to read The Little Prince by St. Exupery and I asked him to come over here and see me before he did anything drastic. Obviously he did not do that last. Probably didn't do the first. He was always very kind to me but wasn't exactly great at taking direction. LOL. He was brilliant and some essential part of him stayed pristine, no matter what he did. I have no idea what lies beyond this life, if anything, but I irrationally hope that Jonny has all the answers now. And peace. He will never accept peace lest it be united with truth.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 2, 2014 3:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"unless it be united with truth..." I can't think straight today. Good day.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 2, 2014 4:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sorry about recommending The Little Prince.It is enchanting but....He needed say Kafka or even Houellebecq The Map and the Territory.Off the top of my head.If I were there I might have said, as I did to my niece when going thru this with her,
How are you planning to do it?Then begin deconstructing the method.Actually I am planning it at some time.I do not intend to go into a retirement home.I realize there ill come a day when my apt complex will make that decision for me if I don't.I myself got some vile old man living in a gated community with a fancy golf course,whisked away, so I know it can be done to anyone,even those who are very very wealthy.I am afraid of heights, so jumping is not an option for my conscious mind, yet it would probably be the best choice for the thrill.And now I think of those who jumped at the WTC on 9-11. Jonny was a writer,and writing is so lonely.Beckett and Joyce would meet all afternoon and not say anything to each other.Upon leaving one might say that was a good think. His last writing was startlingly good.But he was writing for...let's just say "pearls before swine."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 2, 2014 4:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And may I also say I truly love him.Just the way he is.He is perfect.I see who he can be and I know it's a painful road.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 2, 2014 5:49 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You're right abbey, I shouldn't have generalized. I feel personal responsibility as a physician and a psychiatrist because that's part of my moral code. I understand and respect that you have different values. Access to care is vital. And I'd bet he had access to care and deemed it useless, which means mental health practitioners bear some responsibility.
If he's gone, it's our loss. I'm not here to listen to listen to your ad hominem attacks and lazy sophistry. I'm here only to acknowledge my culpability and express my condolences.
Rest in peace jonny.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 2, 2014 6:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
How I know? Based on hints, I guessed and now to me below the surface consensus in Norway is that he's dead. It blew my mind and I can hardly believe it.
I might be naive but inducing someones suicide is at odds with the cultural code in Norway. But hey, life is change. In any case, I smell sadism, at least a "governmental" culture which doesn't repel (or attracts) sadistic minded individuals. Not being judgmental, sadism isn't beneficial.
It has crossed my mind before, mental torture.
Or you could just call it torture given the fact that after a while, the subject will prefer physical torture if choice is available, which it of course isn't - that wouldn't be civilized.
If it truly is true - as I believe it is - I'm curious, what happened prior to 2011?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 2, 2014 7:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I still don't know what I'm doing.
After I read jonny's second-to-last comment, it hit me in the face: he was telling his audience that if we are to live, we should love ourselves unconditionally because if we don't, this makes our inner mental well-being so fragile, such that we may very well be dying inside. I so appreciate this perspective, and I never really thought of it that way before!
Yet something else hit me in the face, this afternoon: jonny also advocated the lack of "need." He defined "need" as anything other than physiological needs--so, mental needs. But physiological needs imply needs of the living organism of the mind, which you must meet to certain extents in order to live, function without mental illness, or be mentally healthy, even if your mind has to do strange things to meet them. A lack of "need," taken to its logical conclusion, is possible only in brain-death (or some stages of unconsciousness).
The only ways I as someone who chose life a year ago can think of in which intentionally causing your own death is compatible with unconditional self-love are if a.) your love of others is such that you'd fulfil your life in sacrificing it for their true interests, or b.) your suffering is so intense and near impossible to ease that it could be a desperate and final act of self-love to prevent yourself from suffering further even if such prevention is possible only with a cessation of consciousness.
Otherwise, self-love dictates that you stay alive and accept continual mental needs, whatever they really are (as opposed to desires that confusedly manifest those needs and are driven by some pettiness (which is a term I'm not trying to use pejoratively/thus hypocritically)).
jonny may be dead. We may yet live. So may he.
It's so paradoxical, him being so self-denying but advocating "selfishness" as a virtue.
I wonder what he's done since writing his last comment. But that's none of my damn business.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 2, 2014 7:53 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Viktor Frankl discusses finding meaning in suffering.Man's Search for Meaning.In the Camps this was all some could embrace to keep on living.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 2, 2014 9:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
In this strange niche of a bellicose blog lives a dialogue between real, living, growing people.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 2, 2014 9:14 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Meaning and motivation.
Lately, I've learned about and been surprised over to which extent many of us is able to - in relative short time spans - redefine meaning associated with events.
Could talk about it as updating an opinion or a world-view, but it wouldn't capture it. Emotional peer pressure (or individual desire) takes priority over cognition. To pinpoint it: no meaning, only motivation.
Which of course is false. The reality is, meaning has become to obey, simplified yes, but you get the point.
slow coconut:
You express value.
Unfortunately, I'm expected to become secretary general of UN. You will than be asked to lead the space program.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 2, 2014 10:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This is a fabulous article. It's very astute and the points made are both valid and interesting. This must have taken a lot of work.
kizi 2 |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 3, 2014 2:18 PM | Posted by : | Reply
it must be really important to your concept of the world and what you conclude as reality, this sense that you knew precisely what was behind the comments written and posted by someone who assigned the name "jonny" to those posts.
throughout the history of "jonny" comments here, a little tribalist war has been conducted regarding whether "jonny" is a dangerous psychopath with violent misogyny waiting to be implemented. one tribe asserts this describes jonny and then proceeds to treat him either with superior moral and existential tones (as if dealing with a 4 year old child with a 46 IQ) or as someone who must be identified in real life and confined to a psychiatric prison. on the other hand were those who don't jump to asinine unfounded conclusions about people they don't know.
it's been clear for a long time that jonny is a character authored by someone, and not a person on the brink of doing a Breivik. how can you decide that a comment on the internet is the deepest most confessional exhibition of one's most disturbing anxieties, and completely block out the idea that people post comments on the internet for the same wide variety of reasons they say stupid crap to themselves, or to random eavesdroppers, or to actual target listeners.
I can't wait for some dolt to come along and put on an e-stethoscope and virtual lab coat, and tell me that jonny is in danger of either committing misogynistic violence, or killing himself.
you know, if you stop posting under a particular handle, you have essentially "killed" the construct.
this apparently can't be grasped by people who imagine themselves psychiatrically/psychologically informed. what a great irony that is. physician heal thyself, mutated by a digitized holographic landscape to become, online expert go fuck yourself.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 3, 2014 2:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You're a freakin' insane anti-human Green who wants nothing more than to destroy humanity
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 3, 2014 2:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
anyone interested in interacting more easily? this board is hard to navigate. if so, see you at TLP's subreddit
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 3, 2014 4:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thanks for the pointer. I signed up for reddit and visited.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 3, 2014 6:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You may be correct but I don't BELIEVE he isn't real.I do believe he could have "killed" this ID here.He evolved a great deal in 3 years.But the people here around him did not.He had other ID's elsewhere.He texted with someone on his blog, which is excellent BTW.He outgrew this cesspool.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 3, 2014 6:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Is this how you insult THE TRUTH about Climate Change?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 4, 2014 4:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
My god, this is a gigantic cultish hero worship circle jerk. Finally figured it out. "If you're reading it, it's for you." Make people neurotic, constantly questioning everything they do, seeing narcissism everywhere. Then let them crawl over each other in the comments to try to interpret the Master's writings. Use a bunch of keyword catch phrases, make your writing convoluted so there is no simple interpretation, and keep distant so no one can get a handle on you.
Alone is a smart, charismatic, alcoholic asshole. As someone said above, "Watch the clutching at straws."
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 4, 2014 5:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
nobody asked you Alone
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 4, 2014 5:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Truth hurts eh?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 5, 2014 3:08 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'd say this site draws people who are already neurotic, and need some distant abusive jerk to fill the disappointed daddy role. It's like, emotional S&M. "Tell me I'm narcissistic! Tell me I'm self-absorbed! Expose my hideous true nature to me, and when I try to finally earn your approval by fundamentally changing who I am, tell me I've got it completely wrong, and I will pretend to understand." And then just leave without a word, bringing the shitty psychodrama to completion.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 5, 2014 3:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am glad the aggression and hostility towards alone is finally being expressed openly.I will tell you personally he doesn't like it,cannot accept it,doesn't know how to work with it. And d/he could never work with it happily.
I once did a performance piece with a woman in my performance group.We agreed that she would see me "for analysis" in my office and use what came out of it for a performed piece.It was excellent and I played the analyst in it.An Amsterdam producer came to NYC to canvass for performance pieces to select for coming to Amsterdam.The other members of our group were furious that this one was chosen and they were left out.At the NYC audition Daphne and I performed it.She was a very competitive performer.She lay down on the couch and started.She had just bought a loft in the up and coming arty part - Chelsea? - of the city having sold her beautiful home in West Philly.She begins by saying,"I was broken into and robbed of technical equipment,and went on with a mess of things that were going wrong,and said she didn't feel that working with me was helping her at all, in fact everything was worse.I agreed with her and said, "When you came to see me you had a devoted lover, a kind and talented husband, a beautiful home and now you have none of that."Then she bean to protect me and say that she was glad she had made the break into a new life, da da da.The transference object must be protected until the analysand feels comfortable expressing rage towards you that won't annihilate you. So we won the audition because everyone laughed at my intervention which was to accept the hostility, validate the feelings of anger and hostility, and still not be sliced into little pieces of hurt.This is the situation of the child.Anger and rage cannot be expressed because your very survival depends on that person taking care of you.It's a Catch-22.Now if you use the standard classical position of the analyst and remain silent the anger builds up into explosive rage that cannot be expressed will turn inward and attack the self. This is the narcissistic position, the primary defense mechanism of the narcissist who cannot express rage outwardly in a socially accepted way, so turns it back around like an arrow aimed at your own heart.This is the case of Freud's Dora.She cannot.And she drops treatment.She walks,She leaves.That is the way of telling the analyst that they have failed.You are no good because you haven't helped me.
You leave.Jonny left.Did jonny really leave or did jonny just kill off jonny the character here?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 5, 2014 3:56 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is a very nice reading of the situation here BTW.Good thinking.I like your perception.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 6, 2014 11:15 AM | Posted by : | Reply
As we see Dear Abby's missing E pretending to be the Ultimate Insider, throngs of insecure people who only live when they're on the internet want to know:
why did anyone think this blog was designed to be an online headshrinker who'll fix your personal quirks and embarrassing habits?
Dear Abby finally got the blog traffic she wanted, by commenting here and noticing the comment counts in the thousands. "Finally, people are reading me, even if they ignore my own blog."
or we could see it this way:
"If I can dominate the comment threads, it's basically my blog now."
Every time she returns, she gloats.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 8, 2014 10:49 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If he killed it, then he did so with prejudice. "johnny" was in a lot of places - even cracked comments oddly enough - but now those all seem to be gone. I want to say that I hope he didn't suicide, but I find myself somewhat uncaring. Maybe its because I never really believed "johnny" was a real person, so much as a pile of anger and half complete thoughts.
Also, formatting is a thing. That brick you call a paragraph is nearly unreadable.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 8, 2014 5:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm sure it's unreadable for someone of your intelligence and education.And no one cares about you either.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 9, 2014 12:38 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I really would like to hear what you have to say about asexuality. I feel like you would have a great perspective on it.
Really though, I think we all just want you back. Stop living whatever life you have and perform for us! The people demand it! :)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 9, 2014 6:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Re: jonny in meatspace, drinking Carlsbergs and riding go-karts years ago here.
Brief essay summarizing what he considered the root of poker technique (non-technical though) available here. Format and style are similar to what you see here.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 9, 2014 6:44 AM | Posted by : | Reply
That (now former) pokernews.com reporter Melissa Castello in the segment linked above has a website with a contact link. Hint hint, for all you Thomases who ponder about "real [people]."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 9, 2014 8:19 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thanks. I liked reading and seeing that.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 9, 2014 8:43 AM | Posted by : | Reply
My absolute favourite part of the comments section (now that jonny's ramblings are gone, of course) are when abbey accuses other people of being incoherent and engaging in "psycho-babble", and then questioning the intelligence of anyone who doesn't take her horribly written posts seriously. A true postmodernist if there ever was one.
Speaking of terrible writing, I was reading one of Alone's (relatively [to now]) older articles circa 2012 and came across what I think might have been one of jonny's first posts. It was concerning suicide, and it was uncanny how relatively well-written and clear his earlier posts were compared to his newer ones; I vehemently agreed with him. No matter what I thought of his later writing, I hope he's good and well.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 9, 2014 12:00 PM | Posted by : | Reply
testing to see what timestamp I see on this comment after it's posted. I posted this at noon EST.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 9, 2014 12:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
OK, it tells me noon.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 9, 2014 3:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I agree with you completely!
What's also interesting is that abbey (who posted earlier as seymourblogger) doesn't have much structure to her arguments. They're usually also incoherent and rambling and follow the following structure:
1. HAHAHAHAHA YOU'RE WRONG
2. FOUCAULT SAID THIS
3. You haven't read Foucault
4. Therefore, you're stupid and wrong
We're all waiting for original thought from her, but the only success I get in that regard is by trolling her.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 9, 2014 6:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Daw, lets not get huffy.
You're the one bringing forth the argument that "johnny" may have just been a character - why would it matter if a character dies? If anything, it is a positive - he finally managed to move on.
I appreciate at least in your response you managed to produce a single readable paragraph for me.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 9, 2014 7:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
but the only success I get in that regard is by trolling her
Let's say you're not feeling well. Like worse than your average, you get me? Off to the doctor you go, chems are drawn, further tests are ordered, and the next day you're given six months in a matter-of-factly yet somber tone. The only other thing you're told besides a non-apparent shrug is that "it's ideopathic."
Would you spend your time doing what you do know? I'm no Seneca, but what would think about what you've done with your life, looking back?
I wonder if you guys would spend such significant chunks of your lives complaining about others' arguments when you offer no none of your own whilst examining the reality of risk that we all are subject to.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 9, 2014 10:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
jonny
i did not mean to hurt, only to point an error in the judgment of women. i hope you were not pushed to believe that a mistake is unforgivable. if i did i can feel nothing but the deepest and sincerest remorse. i light a candle for you. please do not think that my argument was judgment-i cannot help but fear that i mistook justice for mercy. forgive me.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 10, 2014 12:19 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Reading this, I remembered the writing assignment on gender that was reportedly given to grade schoolers. The question was, "What would you do if you woke up and found you were a member of the opposite gender?" The girls made lists of things they would do: have adventures, have cool careers, have money, have power. The boys said "I'd kill myself." I spent some time after Hess's article came out thinking about why that is.
To the digital native generation, online media paints a very specific picture of your average middle-class white lady — and it ain't pretty. Taken as a group, this cohort spends a lot of time worried about a select few things. Their looks. Their weight. Whether or not they were raped or will be raped. Whether or not the sex they had in college, sex they didn't like but chose of their own free will, was rape. Babies. If they're selfish for not wanting them, having them, getting too old to have them, regretting having them while pretending not to. And similar. Look at the memoirs and personal essays from white women. The talentless oaf known as Lena Dunham wrote primarily about: whether or not sex she had in college of her own volition is rape. Why it's ok to molest her sister. And her weight, and diet lists, and men, and what men think of her and if men like her. Christ, it's straight out of some Reagan-era dating book.
If this is what little boys think women value, it's no wonder they imagine they'd commit suicide rather than live female. So would I, and my name is Judy. So what are these little boys picking up on? Power, primarily, or lack thereof. Some will blame the patriarchy, but what I'm seeing these days is an awful lot of women voluntarily giving their power away and waiting for others to give it back. The world don't work like that, darlings. No wonder your life revolves around what "he" thinks of you and whether or not someone posted a gross comment on your "I'm ugly and worthless and will probably be raped"-themed blog.
You voluntarily gave up your power to fulfill your capitalism-bound duty to be looked at, admired, and paid attention to, under your real name, no less. No one SAID you had to do that, as a career or as a hobby. You could work as a physicist or design websites, but that might require you to take the power back or not give it up in the first place, and it's easier to be a victim, a target, and to give the people in charge what they want.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 10, 2014 12:27 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are talking of women and their lives based on Young-Girl Theory by tiqqun. If you want to read a complete,detailed, beautifully written account of Young-Girl then download it as it's free pdf. It is also published by semiotext(e) if you want the book.It is exceptional and radical concerning this topic.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 10, 2014 12:29 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Some might take exception to my previous comment, but I'll defend it and here's why:
• After the end of the 70s, victim feminism took root in the movement and poisoned it from the inside out. Is it any coincidence that women have won no significant legal rights since the Reagan years, and have lost quite a few in certain states, such as access to a safe, legal abortion?
• Despite this, white Western women of the middle-class and up, are the most privileged beings on the planet, making it into the global 0.1% with room to spare. They're also more privileged by far than their white working-class male counterparts they claim are oppressing them, who have lost more in real wages and earning power than any other white group.
• Media for women was always insipid under American capitalism, but in the internet era, where publishers and marketing firms have endless amounts of precise data on women's interests, careers, and hobbies, it has the power to be so much more. Alas, women's media is even more insipid, inviting women as a gender to look, judge, and be judged on the public stage of the internet. Why? Women have spoken, and this is what they want. Yes, even feminists. In fact, ESPECIALLY feminists.
• Starting in the 90s, the definition of rape on college campuses began wafting away from "assault" and toward the now-widely agreed upon "any sex I didn't like, even if months or years after the fact." And today, this definition is not limited to campus. It's mainstream. And horrifying, as we see a staggering number of highly decorated, highly public false rape accusations side by side with articles ordering us as a nation to believe all rape accusations (the converse of this orders us to believe all men rapists), no matter what. When women as a class give up their power and desire to be treated as adults, this is the end result, and all of us suffer.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 10, 2014 12:43 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes Judy and yes again and yet again like Molly Bloom! Please read tiqqun's Young-Girl Theory. I'd love to talk about it with you.It is a marvel of intelligence and style.Perhaps a number of us might get into this seminal work. https://www.google.com/search?q=tiqqun+young+Girl&rlz=1C1CHMO_enUS525US525&oq=tiqqun+young+Girl&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59.6463j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8 this is the google search result for it.Still in pdf but don't know if the link is hot.If not let me know and I will zip you a copy of mine.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 10, 2014 12:47 AM | Posted by : | Reply
7 months with no new articles? you god damn dick
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 10, 2014 12:47 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You're right of course. Which is why I actually managed to stay away from this comments section for the last few months.
Thank you for the reminder: "today is the most important day of your life". I've read all the stoics, but looks like nothing actually sank in. Seneca was a hypocrite, but that doesn't mean I should be too!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 10, 2014 12:51 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
At the end of his life Foucault was reading Seneca.Edith Hamilton has interesting things to say about him.And Queen Mary in The Fifth Queen does also. "Carthage must be destroyed!"Id there some reason you want to be known as my breasts?Is that where your "milk" comes from?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 10, 2014 1:45 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Why do you think he owes you anything at all?That's what being a narcissist is.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 10, 2014 8:13 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Compassion for every being. Compassion for those who do not understand. Compassion for those who hate those who do not understand. Compassion for those who are too weak of mind, spirit and heart to educate and therefore break down those who they wish to function better. Getting worse results. Compassion for those who are weak because they may need more supports to be strong. Protection for all beings, from ourselves, from each other.
We are an interdependent species. We need to share our gifts and assets with each other. When we see someone in need we should care for them rather than break them down further to build up ourselves.
You can read all the books in the world if you do not practice compassion with your knowledge you will only increase suffering in the world and your knowledge will all turn to shit.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 10, 2014 4:49 PM | Posted by : | Reply
great, more nimrods who think the present era's situation is problematic because not enough feminine perspective
absolutely
sure
Judy's little paradigm of boys saying "I'd kill myself," not only completely made-up on the spot, but also ignoring any reality in favor of ideological (pro-gyne, anti-andro) femme supremacy... like feminizing men and hey, why not just waterboard them until they say "I'd relish being a woman." only the gay ones will say that, Judy.
like all gay men, you want every man to be gay, or in the closet, so that your number of prospective fuckable asses is infinite, or at least correlates to the raw number of men and boys, versus the number of women/girls.
so, from John to Judy, that's clever ain't it?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 11, 2014 12:41 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Yea. FGully agreed with your article. We should be open.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 11, 2014 1:32 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Doing what you are doing does not make you stronger.
Stop stomping on your own heart. It is what's closest to you, prior to birth and at death. Nothing will ever change this fact. Nothing.
Take a long walk--nothing else--at earliest convenience and give it a thought.
I think you'll be shocked to learn, over time, what you're capable of. Novel ideas laden with considerable value, you name it. But it is a long road filled with regrets. "If I had only when I was..." --protect yourself from this kind of thinking.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 11, 2014 11:49 AM | Posted by : | Reply
just FYI, jonny is a pretty well known high stakes poker pro. News of his demise has not disseminated throughout the poker world as of this time.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 12, 2014 3:26 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I take this as a good sign.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 12, 2014 8:41 AM | Posted by : | Reply
You «died» like a narcissist*
But you taught me a lot about myself, my fellow human companions, my society and psychiatry. I am grateful.
Good luck in your next projects.
Thank you very much.
*(see the post on the last episode of the sopranos)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 12, 2014 4:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'll keep an eye on the various message boards for news. I should note, however, that the gambling/poker world isn't necessarily the quickest to pick up on this, especially the subset that lives in southeast asia. Business is conducted mostly online, and there is a lot of erratic and degenerate behavior, and in some cases a lot of isolation. It's not uncommon for guys to disappear for weeks/months, so if jonny isn't showing up in his usual spots or online people aren't necessarily assuming the worst.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 12, 2014 5:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Where did you go? How is the book coming?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 12, 2014 6:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I appreciate this info.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 13, 2014 11:48 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Jonny tried first to elevate men at the expense of women; but the cognitive dissonance was too much and so he had to admit that men were also "reduced"---but that it was all women's fault. He needed to SEE differently, if only for a moment, and that was what I tried to do with asking him to read The Little Prince, which is an incredibly humanistic tale that accepts the arbitrariness of things but affirms meaning anyway. I don't regret making that recommendation; I regret not trying harder, but he was a tough cookie. I might write one paragraph, and he would respond with pages and pages of text. He was unfortunately committed to thanatos there towards the end. We still keep him alive in this house. When inexplicable shit happens I say, "Jonny, DAMMIT." In the spring we are planting a Jonny tree. I am sure it will find a way to drive me crazy.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 13, 2014 1:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Call me crazypants, but inexplicably I feel like he's alive. Physically. Had you ever spoken to him on the phone, Laura? Usually people that have verbal contact with someone are more prone to, I mean, I don't want to call it telepathy, but you know what I mean?
Of course I don't know you but I'd guess you've had an inordinate amount of strange things happen throughout life. Maybe, maybe not.
Anyway, I'm not sure how to address the strangeness without coming off as slinging 'woo'.
/shrug
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 13, 2014 2:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Jonny wrote this:
In King's Cross in Sydney, biker gangs have controlled that part of the city since the 70s. It's all commercial and it looks like anywhere else in the city during the day, but at night it's all vice (prostitution, gambling, drugs, etc).
The police take twice as long to arrive in King's Cross than anywhere else. They have a very large HQ in King's Cross but police who move quickly around King's Cross are very brave men indeed.
I was eating breakfast after clubbing all night on a terrace overlooking the main street when I saw this biker - a steroid mountain covered in tatts - come charging down the street as fast as he could move without running (which was probably as fast as he could move, this man's legs were the size of my torso). His face screamed, "Someone is going to die."
Needless to say, everyone on his side of the street was crossing to the other side. One little girl stood remained, her mother was about 80m up the street talking on her phone, without realising her daughter had stopped (directly below the terrace where I was eating). She'd lost her balloon and when the biker passed her, she cried out for him to get her balloon.
I stopped chewing in wonder as this 400lb monster fought a battle with 2.5 million years of Natural Selection. He didn't have time, he had a job to do, someone needed to die (or be made to wish they were dead). But evolutionary biology crushed him like a paper cup. His resistance was pathetic, he hesitated, looked at her with a tortured expression that said, "Why me?" She just stared at him intently, and before my eyes, he crumpled in defeat. His shoulders slumped, his eyes dropped to his feet, he might as well have said, "Yes, your Majesty."
And he lumbered off to fetch her balloon as it lazily swept and circled away. My head swivelling between the two scenes, I watched the Queen watch the battle between her possessions with an inscrutable intensity.
Jonny
•
Aug 25, 5:58 PM
Initially, it looked an easy task but a gust of wind gave the balloon an advantage, and it looked as if it would make good its escape. But the biker stayed true to his duty and in time, the pesky balloon was returned to the child by her slave, who was sullen and resentful as if he'd been forced to do something with a gun placed to his head.
The toddler took possession of her object from her slave and repaid him with a shriek of joy, before running off up the street to catch up with her mother who never once turned around. Her cry of joy was the only reward he received, but it injected him with a chemical buzz that hit him as if he'd just mainlined speed.
His shoulders shot back, his chest puffed out, his eyes came up to sparkle with life and across his face spread the stupidest grin I've ever seen. No one would ever tell him that, of course; but he looked so chuffed and pleased with himself...he was smug. 2.5 million years of evolution slapped him on the back and tousled his hair, "Good boy. Who's a good boy? You're a good boy."
He knew he was a good boy. I watched as he watched Her Majesty run along and when she was out of sight, he blinked a few times as if coming out of a trance.
He remembered something he couldn't remember, he spun around looking for something he'd lost and, as I told myself - with a pretty good idea that I knew what was going to happen - something he wouldn't find again, for a period of time at least.
His eyes narrowed, his forehead wrinkled, his fists clenched as he tried to get back what the child had stolen from him without realising what she'd done. He focused, he grit his teeth but it was no use. She'd taken it from him, he couldn't get it back.
And I punched the air when my gut prediction proved correct. She'd taken his emotional corruption, his anger, his rage, his murderous intent was gone. He couldn't get it back. Whatever had inspired him to be ready to kill only moments prior now seemed unimportant, or inconsequential.
Shaking his head, he turned and trudged back in the direction he'd come from.
________
I have no idea what the circumstances were or whether he found his rage again (it stands to reason that he would), but I am pretty sure I watched a toddler save someone's life that day without even realising it.
When I sat back down, embarrassed (the biker wasn't the only one enchanted that morning), I nervously glanced around expecting to see all the familiar signs crazy people use to communicate their having arrived at the conclusion that someone (who isn't them) is insane. Anything humans don't understand, they imagine to be insane.
I've been told I was insane my entire life but insanity has never bothered me, I only care about whether I'm right. I was insane when I beat my parents' omnipotent deities in 50+ consecutive bouts of exorcism, 50+ to zip in my favour, all TKOs. I was insane when I refused to take my friends' side in a fight started by one of my friends who was looking for an excuse to violently vent our frustrations at having spent the night failing to impress girls (oblivious to the reality I later discovered, when I was half as impressive but impressed every girl with cocaine).
I was insane when I revealed how I intended to exploit hyper-aggressive poker players who hammer weak-tights when they have position, but everyone ridiculed my theories. So I went and made a couple million in three years, basically to prove I was right. I've always been called insane by everyone who couldn't explain why, and I've always been proved right. Feelings and emotions are worthless against mathematics and logic....
THis piece of writing is the prism through which I choose to understand who Jonny was or is.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 13, 2014 2:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
http://reddit.com/r/thelastpsychiatrist
There are a couple discussions about jonny there. Bear with my flailing attempts to articulate anything that could be tangentially relevant.
That link goes to the TLP subreddit. I registered for reddit to be able to post there.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 13, 2014 4:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Doing what you are doing does not make you stronger.
Pretending you are certain, and factually supported in the theorizing, that I am trying to be "stronger" through my comment, where does that kind of delusional thinking start?
I was simply offering up ideas for a smug know-nothing such as yourself to use precisely as you did -- to offer a "reply" which didn't even address what I said, and instead pretended to Dx me with some passive-aggressive snark.
Good job, gay as hell, and man-booby as fuck. Are you Hugo Schwyzer?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 13, 2014 4:56 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Laura, eh?
I like when you comment as "abbeysbooks". I bet your "novel" has at least 65 characters who all talk the same way. Don't worry, you can self-publish, promote it on Twitter with 65 sock puppets (hey, we like synchronicity), spam the piss out of facebook with the same Legion of Sixty-Five, and in the end call yourself a serious writer of important works. Because 65 sock puppets said so.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 13, 2014 4:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Call me crazypants,
or Adam Trovilion
or Pink Mafioso
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 13, 2014 5:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Insulting a committed Stoic is generally a waste of time. As to my identity, it's Laura. ON here and in real life. If you wanted to "research" it you could go to Jonny's blog, where we wrote back and forth often.
The fact that you think insults harm me means that assuredly I could harm you with insults. But I don't care enough to do that. Have a blessed day.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
December 13, 2014 7:26 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hi L I like this piece of writing.I am guessing - am I right? I hope - in thinking it was before his reading of tiqqun's Young-Girl Theory. Nice insight, not so good writing style.Lately his style was moving toward tiqqun's which while saying in their title that it was Young-Girl Theory, was not in the style of theory. tiqqun is a not theory of a theory. That way it cannot be formalized,turned on its head and used against the tiqqun position.Nietzsche of course innovated this.Foucault's prose is so elegant and tight it leaves no room to twist it and defeat it, and Baudrillard follows Nietzsche explicitly in a style that is "more so" that wheat he is writing about.This is what Rand does almost always in Fountainhead and a lot in Atlas, although her editor at Random purged her of rhymes (Nietzschean influence)as a style that is musical slips under the consciousness,escaping the super-ego, to infect your mind seductively. Nietzsche never meant to be the linguistic force behind antisemitism, and a careful reading reveals this to you,but only a careful reading.Hitler misread Nietzsche and was off and running. Babette Babich the great Nietzschean scholar of our time scolds him as the greatest rhetorician of his time for not being more careful, as he knew better and should have taken more care.Nietzsche in his Genealogy gives the great account of the ruination of a culture thru a war culture. How did I ever get here from your comment?
Oh yes, in his last writings jonny was writing in the style of tiqqun, which tiqqun has learned from Nietzsche.Gone are these long linear rants in the old Dominating Discourse style which drove the readers here mad and him also.
Insane is a clinical term he used, but did not mean clinical.In always seeing the outside view he was labeled "insane." But as Foucault says in Madness and Civilization "Normality comes out of madness, not madness as a deviation from normality.And when Foucault finishes with this IT IS FINISHED!He leaves no interstice where you can wiggle thru and twist his meaning.
I probably pointed this out to jonny at one time or another, but if not here it is. If he did indeed commit suicide it may be because I linked him to Green Resistance a rather bleak view of our future, but not so awful to me as many others IMO.I am pretty much out of the "American Lifestyle" altho not as much as when homesteading without running water,electricity,outhouse,chickens,1 acre garden I did all by my little self via Ruth Stout's method,and directing my unbelievably handsome young boyfriend who needed direction with his cabin and land.One has no idea what that does for your mind and contemplation when both of you are not about making work for yourself but enjoying the leisure it provides.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
December 13, 2014 7:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Pooty is definitely all "junk."Wonder which junk he looks like from all the ones in Von Trier's Nymphomania part 1.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
December 13, 2014 7:35 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
O U think Laura is me do U? I guess we can have some fun fucking with you then.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 13, 2014 7:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Most sincerely, I love that superiority "Laura"
I was trying to "insult" you? No, I don't know you and can't insult you. I mocked a comment tied to "Laura." A comment. Not you.
You're very superior to me though, and I appreciate you lowering your sedan chair (or, better said, ordering your porters to lower you) and deigning to respond to my jape on a comment.
Where's Crazypants? Taking one up the ass?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 13, 2014 7:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I said what I said about The Little Prince for some reasons.I think it is an enchanting fairy tale. I used to read it to my 2nd and 3rd graders in the sandbox on a warm day for those who wanted to listen to it. My problem with recommending it to jonny -which I said to you - was that it is basically a sentimentalized fairy tale.There is something not authentic in it.But it slips below our consciousness and infects us and I am not sure that its residue is altogether wholesome or spiritually as pure as it seems.I admit I have picked up this more critical attitude towards it over the years. DeLillo would agree with you tho as in Cosmopolis he has a number of referents to The Little Prince coming from Elise.One I thought was when Eric tells her when he was a child he calculated his weight on all the different planets.I have since learned that that was what Newton did as an adult mathematician,which serves to reinforce what DeLillo is describing as Eric's mathematical abilities as a hedge fund speculator.Either way it is very charming.That's the adjective Wittgenstein used to describe Freud's work and theory: CHARMING.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 13, 2014 7:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I guess we can have some fun fucking with you then.
I can't wait for a gay UK expat who thinks his gay self smart & witty to bring his best "fucking with" skills to the table.
Trying to insult me sure beats dealing with your gender identity. Right Chelsea-Bradley-Alexa-Tarzie-Adam-Abbey?
STOP THE PRESSES! ANGRY GAY MEN ON THE INTERNET BELIEVE THEY WIN WHEN THEY "FUCK WITH" SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET!
Go cry in Chris Hughes' lap, Abbey-Tarz.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 13, 2014 7:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ah pooty you are still all "junk."Adjust it please.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 13, 2014 7:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ah Laura I think jonny left so we could be together.He said in his blog you were the wisest - ? - person he ever met. I bet you got him into Lawrence.I love him too.He loved women but saw them clearly.And of course that moment the Baroness fell in love with him watching him make paper boats to said in the creek on their picnic.My undergrad Eng Prof used to say you needed to read him and Thomas Wolfe when you were young, say about 19.I read Wolfe much later and disagree with her.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
December 13, 2014 7:56 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Adjust it to what, Abbey-Tarz? Pseudo-brilliance comprised of cut-and-paste declarations that were made by someone else, showing your ability to be a conduit for others?
You make it sound like this is a meeting of the world's brightest minds and your posts, as voices of such brilliance, are being interrupted by your lessers, who shouldn't even be attending the meeting let alone allowed to speak.
Quite an impression of yourself you've got there. Does it bother you that it's entirely fictional, completely unimaginative, and worst of all --in your little pink flamingo world-- boring?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 13, 2014 9:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sorry honey, I'm what you would call a top.
Let me know if you're interested in going out sometime though. I'll introduce you to a few guys that will help you get it out of your system. Which is obvious!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 14, 2014 1:22 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Wonderful post. Looks like it stirred some things up for folks. Keep up the good work!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 14, 2014 10:05 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You are correct, of course; you did NOT insult me, you merely ATTEMPTED. The attempt itself was puzzling and of course completely missed the mark, as I am not writing a novel and have not even READ a novel in some years, preferring non-fiction these days.
But maybe you just don't have enough material to work with? Well, here, let me help you out. I am 49, about 20 pounds overweight, and at my best I was probably a 3, and that was in candlelight. I probably talk too loud, I think too much, I let housework get ahead of me then scramble frantically to clean in order to prove that I still belong to the middle class in which I was raised. I raised my first child haphazardly and the second one I am watching too closely. I am not as kind as I should be. I have few virtues and few serious vices, but I never lie about who I am. I add nothing much to the world but don't intend to leave it until my 90's. Why? Because I like walking through it, that's why. It's interesting. And I know that I have every bit as much right to it as someone called "pooty." Or someone called Albert Einstein. Whatever. By the time I leave this planet, I will have enjoyed the greatest pleasures available to humans, I will have denied myself yet others, and I will regret nothing. My dogs might miss me for a while. My family will be fine without me. I don't marry or raise dependent hysterics.
SO there, now you have all kinds of ammunition. Go to it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 14, 2014 10:50 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Urgh, you beat me to it. I would have done it better though.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 14, 2014 6:14 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Sorry honey, I'm what you would call a top.
Let me know if you're interested in going out sometime though. I'll introduce you to a few guys that will help you get it out of your system. Which is obvious!
Yes, it's quite patent that if you're a gay man on the internet who posts nothing but gay-oriented nonsense, everyone else on the internet is gay too.
No, you're not deluded at all. Not obsessed with yourself. Not obsessed with your constant urge toward sex.
It's almost like you're trying too hard to prove you're gay, and are insecure about it. Why is that?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 14, 2014 6:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Jacob, which character in your 2d, bound-to-be-famous novel will inhabit this "Laura" entity you have conjured here? Can I tell you she's possessed of and embodying that trait you abhor most in yourself, being "boring" to the men you imagine as your prospective lovers? The way you write women shows how much you are bound up in your gender identity tensions, you know how the woman feels but you envy the vagina she has, because having one would give your lovers one more hole to come in. The tension is from your knowing that if you had the vagina and the new additional hole, your lovers would then be hetero men and lesbians, and you're still thinking that you'd rather have gay men in your little salon. What a puzzle for you. If I were you, I would deflect. Mostly by creating a character named Laura whom you hope will purge these feelings you're having.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 14, 2014 7:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
and now I am a character in someone's (bad!) novel. How does this affect my free will, may I ask? And what about the characters I have met and borne? They are also figments of Jacob's imagination? Wow, I never had to take any of it seriously, did I? I feel much less guilty about my haphazard parenting of my elder child. And my iffy credit? NOT MY FAULT.
Look, this is truly the best news I have had all damn day. Don't spoil it for me by deciding that I am real, after all. Being a completely determined creation is AWESOME.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 15, 2014 9:15 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's pretty clear given the intermittent returns to this thread over many months with your struggling to evoke the opinions/strong reactions of others that you're searching for--wait for it--your own self esteem.
It's safe to assume then that the only thing you believe in is what others see of you.
It's funny now because you may think you're starting trouble, but Abbey and Laura are laughing because you're making yourself THEIR prisoner!
It's like an interactive version of the pezcandy blog, now packed with thinly-veiled masochism.
I'll leave a clue: If you look at your past and find a repeating series of misfortunes, the thing linking them ie completing the recursion is DESIRE. And you know what? You'll never be able to figure that out on your own.
But hey, back to the laffs!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 15, 2014 9:57 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Hey, anyone else think about jonny's admiration for Alone and immediately think, Freud and Tausk?
Every time I read about Tausk I can't shake the notion that admiration is dangerous. Dunno.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
December 15, 2014 10:41 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"...admiration is dangerous." Yes, well, admiration for the idea is a lot less dangerous than admiration for the author of the idea. Thinking of an author as a conduit is helpful, and probably more accurate, than to think of him as a creator. A healthy Stoicism keeps one from thinking too highly of anyone----imagine them as they will be in a hundred years, moldering into dust as ceaseless turmoil and busyness continues to prevail, and people still persist in thinking that somehow it's all just so important. But the ideas themselves---if they are at all good, they continue on, either gathering momentum if the time is right for them and they are fecund; or dying slowly on a library shelf somewhere, perhaps waiting to be revived again when some human being rediscovers it and thinks it's profound because it's OLD...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 15, 2014 11:56 AM | Posted by : | Reply
yahley tries so hard
TRY HARDER YAHLEY
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
December 15, 2014 12:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Being a completely determined creation is AWESOME.
Jacob, I'm not sure what media "Laura" you have in mind here, is it Schlesinger?
Given your history of writing style(s) (parenthetically as you imagine you do voices well, but you don't, you know only the rich gay yinzer pastabagel), it's obvious you would pick someone you think renders everything "ironic" and you think you are Miss Irony Herself, but sadly the world is full of people who don't experience life as a gender-confused gay man with a brittle ego, and so identifying with a Jacob's Best Creation character is limited to a very narrow audience of privileged jewish soi-dissant geniuses.
Make sure you get more gay men and fag hags to review your next novel, Jacob. Apparently you didn't grease enough palms the first time around. What were you greasing instead?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 15, 2014 12:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The best way to win is not to play.
Oops.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 15, 2014 1:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What can I do better?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 15, 2014 2:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
you're a kickass yahley already
maybe you could tell us what being a yahley adds to the mix
not very clear to me, probably because I'm not a yahley
and for Jacob-as-Dr-Laura,
the handle fun-house-mirrors Judy is a Punk with a special refraction for those who abhor penis-vagina contact
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 15, 2014 4:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What do I have and what can I add to the mix? A stick. That's all I have, and that's the only thing I am good at.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 15, 2014 4:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
that's so childish
apparently when you're born a man and want to be a woman, but haven't the willpower to emulate Larry Wachowski, you'll settle for internet cruising with a smug bearing -- even if it is childish, and maybe perhaps because it's childish. yes, maybe even because it is childish. who, exactly, is your target audience?
maybe you'll sell the Kinseyesque notion that sexuality is fluid and nobody's fully human until they've had several homosexual encounters. it worked for you in a past life, and it probably troubles you none. con men tend to be quite capable of ignoring the fallout from their behavior.
I tell you what, I'm happy to not be a gay man nor a gender-confused one. by the evidence offered here, it seems one long daisy-chain of anxieties and projections onto others, and it has to be frustrating trying to persuade straight men to have a little fling with you. a hint for future tries: telling someone directly, or insinuating, that he is in the closet and needs to admit it to himself, that's not a winning strategy for anything but your autobiography. whatever confusions you have suffered, they are not universal.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 15, 2014 5:44 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nice catch Tausk. As Nietzsche said,"Beware of disciples."So Zarathustra told them to go.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 15, 2014 5:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That way you get to lose even before you play.Opossums do that and don't get eaten.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 15, 2014 6:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ha ha.Why NIetzsche is still dangerous.He formulated his ideas in aphorisms which cannot be explained anymore than a joke.Impossible to formulate into a linear presentation to pack it in a syllabus and teach it to the careerist wannabes.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 15, 2014 9:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It seems to me that you spend quite a bit of energy protecting a hetero identity, to the point of frantic clutching.
and you dig
and dig, and dig
ya dig?
and where you dig
whereupon you lay
ya lay
-yahley
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 15, 2014 10:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thank you for bringing people to share interesting and useful Sese least I'm happy about that. friv 4 | yepi 2
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 16, 2014 5:24 AM | Posted by : | Reply
http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/jaden-and-willow-smith-exclusive-joint-interview/?_r=1
Now if this twisted thing won't make the last psych come back, what else will?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 16, 2014 5:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thank you for this. I had heard about it but hadn't gotten around to reading it. I like Jada and the things she says about parenting.Sensible beyond sensible.I hear Jaden likes Zizek!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 16, 2014 6:44 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
pooty, you have a tin ear for truth. I can imagine no greater liability in life.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 16, 2014 3:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Dear Santa:
How are you? Hope deliveries are going well, what with drone technology now. Can finally layoff those stinky reindeer's and pesky elves.
Well Santa, I've been especially nice this year; I've given to the poor (my ex-boyfriend), helped the elderly (rode shotgun w/Dad to dump Nana off at a home oops...Supported Living Community), and mentored the kiddies (amazed how quick they built my 80's toys e-commerce site, nixed those Ukraine developer bastards $12hr sheesh).
Good help so hard to find, huh, Santa?
Getting done to business, clearly you can see I'm more than worthy of a special request! No, no, the test came back negative, damn Russian whores. Thanks Big Guy! This is another special request. It's about my favorite blogger TLP.
I know, I know, you've been hearing a lot of rumblings about this guy/gal/unicorn/inmate 875 - who knows at this point! So here's the thing - if he's decided to end the blog, can we get a good bye post???
I'm a "need closure" type of girl. Yes, yes, yes, I've read through all the Narcissist stuff, twice, still a work in progress #thestrugglesreal Yo! I'm sure like most here, we'd love more posts, and a crack at that book. But if he's ready to move on it's regrettable but understandable; we'd all be cool with that. It's not like we can go all Misery, kidnap him and force him to write??? That would be wrong, right?!?! Yeah, yeah, yeah totally wrong.
So one more post, that's all I want for Christmas. And I would've made this request in person, sitting on your lap but Santa Con was a bust! Dang, Million March NYC Protesters... Here's hoping everybody!
http://www.my9nj.com/story/27630160/santa-con-crosses-paths-with-million-march-nyc-protest
p.s. Perhaps we can lure him out of hiding with shipments of rum! Just say where and when, TLP!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 17, 2014 2:02 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Endings don't come in a box, all tied up tight with ribbons,etc.We hope we can do that before we die but it can't be done.It's a myth. Shall we be mature enough here to give up the myth? Or are we still too narcissistic to suppose OUR wishes should prevail?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 17, 2014 6:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Precisely. Growing up means letting go of the need for "closure." Revel in the uncertainty of it all if possible; if not, just accept it.I actually think that uncertainty is the basis of a benign regard toward the world at large, a regard that is sadly missing today in a world where everyone is certain---of some damn thing.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 17, 2014 11:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Intolerance of Ambiguity is an attribute of the Authoritarian Mind. - Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 18, 2014 12:34 PM | Posted by : | Reply
pooty, you have a tin ear for truth. I can imagine no greater liability in life.
that's because you lack imagination
what little you may possess has shown itself in this thread as stifled, stymied, locked in a false groove
pretending at mind-reading
waste of imagination if you ask me
but please continue fantasizing, it appears to hold great value for you
good luck on that 2d novel, be sure to grease more palms this time
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 18, 2014 12:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
-yahley
you show no more imagination in this incarnation than when you are Dr Schlesinger
I thank you for telling us how you struggled to accept your love of and attraction to carnal knowledge of the same gender as yourself
I thank you a second time for imagining your experience is shared by all
I thank you a third time for insisting that imagined reality is the experienced one for anyone outside yourself
quite nicely done
and still irrelevant to anyone but yourself
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 18, 2014 12:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Intolerance of Ambiguity is an attribute of the Authoritarian Mind. - Adorno's The Authoritarian Personality
it's a struggle for you
isn't it?
this idea that one person's experience isn't universal
Teddy's adoration is about Teddy
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 18, 2014 8:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare inquit est? custodiant mitigandae gereret!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 18, 2014 8:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My Latin is very very rusty.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 18, 2014 9:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Foucault's Pendulum for pooty and a stiff gin and tonic for the rest of us. we shall calm the frantic little maze rat yet. But we shall not stress while doing so.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 19, 2014 3:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
you keep telling yourself that, Dr Schlesinger
you ooze stress and insecurity in every post
whether yahley, abbeysbooks, dr schlesinger, jakebackpack, tarzie, jeff nguyen, chris floyd, arthur silber... it's all the same LOOKITME I BLAME EVERYONE ELSE FOR MY OWN PROBLEMS COPING WITH MY OWN MIND
umbert umbert is well in the past
but you do resemble those self-flagellators in The Name of the Rose
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 19, 2014 10:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Wait, did Tom Cruise just start posting as 'pooty' now or something?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 20, 2014 5:02 AM | Posted by : | Reply
This thread is kind of like a petri dish. Alone provided an initial injection of nutrients, and then left the organisms in there to their own devides. I wonder how long the back-and-forth in this thread will continue? Also, I wonder how many actual individual people are involved? Are any of the differently-named posters actually the same person? Are they all the same person? Am I also that person?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 20, 2014 5:03 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Devices, not devides. My mistake, ladies and germs.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 20, 2014 5:39 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There are a bunch of Anonymous and a bunch of sock puppets here.Some very disturbed people who write in a word salad, people looking for help so long as it is free.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 20, 2014 6:07 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sounds about right, except that I'm not sure people on here are looking for help. I think most people in this thread are just looking to get a reaction from the other denizen(s) of the thread. That's what I'm doing anyway; I felt a small blip of excitement when I refreshed this page and saw that you chose to engage with my comment.
Then again, maybe posting on here to elicit a reaction is an indirect way of seeking help, depending on how rigidly you define "seeking help".
On an unrelated topic, abbey: if nothing else, you seem pretty well-read. I have a very, very thin understanding of the Western philosophical tradition, rooted almost entirely in Bertrand Russell's "A History of Modern Philosophy". The book was written in the mid-1940s and therefore doesn't really go into Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, Wittgenstein, or most other 20th century big tymers. Do you have a recommendation for a place I can start if I want to educate myself on the post-modern philosophy of that craziest of centuries? Is there a book that is a nice survey of the big names/ideas, or is there a particularly central work/philosopher I should start with? Bonus points for material that is relatively accessible. Thanks in advance.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 20, 2014 6:10 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I mis-typed. The name of the book I was referring to is "A History of Western Philosophy". My bad.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 20, 2014 9:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I always go to the writer and not the writer who writes about the writer.In Foucault's case I read Dreyfus and Rabinow on Foucault:Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics.It was pouring rain outside in a torrent and I slipped into a thrift shop I knew and there it was on the shelf and the name Foucault rang a bell that went back to the early 80's.So I picked it up, asked how much,and the old lady said they were closing up for good and all the books were free.I had just finished Toynbee's History of the World which ends with World Empires in Disintegration.When Toynbee gets through with Civilizations in growth and then in Disintegration,it is finished.So I was in my late 70's and knew without a shadow of a doubt I was living in a disintegrating world and had pretty much decided not to go to any extreme lengths to prolong my time in it.I began to read the book on Foucault which is composed of biography and selections from his works.About 3 chapters in I was riveted knowing that someone who thought the way I had always thought had something completely original to tell me.I read him and nothing else for about 8 months and did not allow myself to think about anything else unless it integrated with what I was reading.I then read Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals and his Tragedy both in the same volume which announces his genealogical method that Foucault swiped.After that I read Diane Rubenstein's This Is Not A President in which she takes the important concepts of continental philosophy reading them through American Presidents and some on Jackie O and more on Hillary.In her intro there is a long detailed explanation of Baudrillard and his work.At this point I felt secure enough with Foucault to read Baudrillard's Forget Foucault.And then I read almost all of Baudrillard, some Virilio and Zizek a great deal.Canetti has said we all differ in a field depending on when we learned from certain writers, professors, and the order in which we learned the field.I have not read them the way others have read them. Nietzsche says, "Words written in blood are not to be read but learnt by heart." That's me, so I don't get on well with most of the people in this field except the radical theologists like Caputo, Tripp Fuller, Peter Rollins,et al.I would say that reading Foucault to start with - maybe some of Levi-Strauss, Saussure might help if you know anything about their work.From Foucault you go where you want to go.I think I would say to start with his Madness and Civilization and follow it with Discipline and Punish just because they both seem very timely right now with all that's going on.
I find your reply strange but I am taking your request seriously.If you want overviews geared to young people mostly who don't know any of this then you might like to read some of my blogs where I read present media through these writers and ideas.Here's a link http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/2013/03/lincoln-and-zero-dark-thirty-cracking.html reading 2 movies through Thucydides who I think was the first historian to use the genealogical method and actually was the first historian of the western world in Athens.I rather think you will like it. It has in it a Foucauldian CUT in history in which what went before and what followed were two different worlds.I think this parallels what has happened to us since 9-11 but you may have a different reading even tho I have tried to slant it the way I think Thucydides might have seen it.If you want to comment on it there or here I'd be glad to talk with you about it.So I guess you might want to start with my blog post then go to Foucault.It's a long journey and it will clean your mind out and reorder it.I wish I could get my apt in as good an order. Have you ever read Vicktor Frankl's Man's Search For Meaning?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 20, 2014 1:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
There are a bunch of Anonymous and a bunch of sock puppets here.Some very disturbed people who write in a word salad, people looking for help so long as it is free.
try-hard
thinks it's doing irony
but only
trying hard
and failing
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 20, 2014 1:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Wait, did Tom Cruise just start posting as 'pooty' now or something?
hipster's meme-ology
more failed irony
you're cruisin'
for toms
so you think
others are too
stellar introspective insight
you got there
hipster-memeologist
everyone else is you
then what
at the center
are you?
loco w/o locus
no control
grabby hands
empty fists
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 20, 2014 2:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No one is bound to accuse himself, is he not? Keep calm and carry on!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 21, 2014 3:55 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Thank you.
And yes, I have read Man's Search for Meaning.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 21, 2014 5:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I just want to say 'Thank you' to Jonny. Articulated my experience with 'Grandma' and 'Mother'. Was very pleased to see there are men out there ....errrr....same as me.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 22, 2014 3:28 AM | Posted by : | Reply
So I was in my late 70's and knew without a shadow of a doubt I was living in a disintegrating world and had pretty much decided not to go to any extreme lengths to prolong my time in it.I began to read the book on Foucault which is composed of biography and selections from his works. Friv For School
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 22, 2014 1:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Exactly. That's what they refer to as "mousing," as in, any time you look for free cheese, by the time you move to bite, it's too late because you're caught in a trap!
But as it were, I'm sure they'll soldier on nonetheless and abuse you for refusing to break their tiny, fragile necks.
Now on the other hand, there are rats...
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 22, 2014 8:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
jonny was the reason I came here.Just habit now sometimes.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
December 22, 2014 8:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You can only be abused if you decide to be abused.By words said to you.When actions are taken it is moved into another sphere.I like your metaphor of mousing.Yes they throw flies into the waters around here with hooks embedded in them.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
December 24, 2014 11:16 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Well, Merry Christmas, everybody. My Christmas wish is for Alone to find the time to write this blog again.
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
December 25, 2014 1:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No, the point here is that rape threats are hardly ever followed up on. Rape is, statistically speaking, committed by people the victims know personally, which means not random internet jackoffs. Thus, the subtext is that rape threats, while frightening, are not followed necessarily by rape, and that the experience of rape without threats is more frightening than the experience of a threat without a rape.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 25, 2014 1:33 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No, the point here is that rape threats are hardly ever followed up on. Rape is, statistically speaking, committed by people the victims know personally, which means not random internet jackoffs. Thus, the subtext is that rape threats, while frightening, are not followed necessarily by rape, and that the experience of rape without threats is more frightening than the experience of a threat without a rape.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 25, 2014 3:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There is so much fantasy and ideology in the topic of rape that I am astonished.Of course women lie about rape.Worse than that is that most women doesn't even know where the limit is.They comment on boards about rape that qualify as rape to me.What that serves to do is to dilute an actual violent rape where you are injured or maybe threatened with death.It can easily escalate.Women seem obsessed with it online and I think women fuel other women on this subject instead of anyone trying to defuse it.It's all hysteria mostly now.Women seem to have no bull shit feelers about men and get in situations with men that they should have blown off.If someone you know rapes you the question is can you escape it or not.You may end in a position where he is going to have sex with you no matter what you do or say and will hurt you to get it.Now your options are different.Are you willing to get beat up just to make an ideological point that you didn't want to and that you were forced? Or? Well in that case once - twice actually - I just passively allowed it.That wasn't want he wanted.He wanted a fight to turn him on, he wanted to hurt me, and he was really capable of doing that.I had had sex with him before.I wasn't willing to be beat up badly. It was very boring sex for him as well. But I wouldn't get in that situation with someone I couldn't handle.Why? For what?And it's true a huge percentage of women have erotic rape fantasies. If they didn't 50 Shades would not be the best seller of all time.It is pure S/M porn.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 25, 2014 9:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"But what if something is too hard to do?"
You figure out why you failed and you try again. And again. And even again if necessary. Failing is an essential part of learning how to do anything. Or, if your ambition is unrealistic you come up with a more realistic ambition.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 25, 2014 11:32 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Oh the illusion that you have control over whether you get raped or not and that you won't because you're "sensible." Add in that you think that rape only happens at frat parties by dudebros and on the street by teenage Black boys who will drag you into an alley. You know that media Alone keeps talking about? Don't think it really reflects life because it doesn't like you seem to believe it does.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 26, 2014 4:15 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
U are taking what I said and universalizing it.Sometimes you don't.Sometimes you only have control over how bad you will be hurt.Sometimes you only have control over your inner self in this moment.It is a resonance with being an inmate in a Camp.That shred of who you are, keeping it intact.Read Viktor Frankle's Man's Search for Meaning.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 26, 2014 4:18 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Failure is 1/2 of an opposition. Success is the other.What happens if you fold them together and look in the Gap that was hidden from you before? This is the theme of William Dean Howell's The Rise of Silas Lapham.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 27, 2014 10:11 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I like your interpretation and now I'm not 100% sure I get that one either. My interpretation was that the system wants you to think there's a difference, but studies have shown that there isn't any difference. Money can affect our happiness only because the things we need to live (food, water, shelter...) have become commodified. However, once you make enough money to cover your needs and live comfortably (which is about $50k most places - I got that number from Freakonomics), more money doesn't make you any happier. In fact, the more money one makes above what one need to live comfortably, their level of happiness actually goes down.
However, the system wants us to think that $200k has more in common with $50k, and that to be really happy (i.e. buy as much shit as we can) we should shoot for $1M. We are all duped into thinking there is a difference at all.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 30, 2014 5:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Once upon a time there was a man who called himself Healer, and he exhorted all of his patients to follow him out into the bright sunshine, out of the safe dark cave in which all were living. And some followed him ``a little ways but turned back when the glimmers of light burned their eyes...others made no effort at all, just talked of doing it Someday. Someday, when the kids are gone, when the retirement is nigh, when things are less stressful...But ONE did follow him. LIstening carefully to his Healer's voice, this ONE crept out of the cave, the dark, safe cave, and he stood up. For he had always crawled before...and suddenly he cried out in pain. His eyes, his knees, his legs---the pain was unbelievable, but there was no going back. And those inside the cave laughed and mocked, and a few tried to give him advice, but how? And the ONE cried out to his Healer but was answered only by a low laugh. ANd the ONE whirled around and around in his pain while the Healer stayed hidden.
Yes, Jonny survived his suicide attempt. He stayed in ICU for weeks, and is now recovering in Brisbane,Australia. Now anyone who has been to his blog Religion is a Confidence Trick, KNOWS that he thinks the world of ALone. Somewhere he wrote: "THis guy could save the world but people just want to talk about his writing..." Well, ALone, I don't think you can save the world; I don't think you have the cojones. But I do think you can save Jonny Vincent and I think that morally you have NO CHOICE in the matter now. You vowed to do no harm. YOu have my email address sitting in front of you. Please use it. I will give you his contact details.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 31, 2014 1:17 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I appreciate this.
Cojones aren't the only thing standing in the way of Alone saving the world. Heck, he can barely save himself, from what it looks like.
What's the standard of care for someone who implies half-jokingly that they're playing a psychiatrist-like role to their readers? How/where does it end? I'm saying this as a big fan of his writing.
I e-mailed Alone this December 1. Someone who calls himself "zuiper" on reddit may have e-mailed Alone, according to a thread he started and since deleted on the TLP subreddit a couple weeks ago. I'm going to e-mail Alone again on this topic with my current feelings, for what it's worth. I'm just as much a stranger to him as you are.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 31, 2014 10:49 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Interesting quote afrom a medium article mentioning The Last Psychiatrist:
Chloe Wyma on the branding of feminism (Brooklyn Rail). Adam Carolla, The Last Psychiatrist and other old men with essentially good instincts have been going on about this for half a decade now, but it’s nice to actually hear it from a young woman...
https://medium.com/art-criticism/the-best-art-writing-of-2014-4e99525fe50a
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
December 31, 2014 11:10 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So John J Ragland,why are yo taking the name of a dead person?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 31, 2014 12:46 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm named for an ancestor who is now dead. (RIP.)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
December 31, 2014 11:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Happy New Year, everyone! I wish you all, especially Alone, a night of rum-filled festivities.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
January 2, 2015 10:15 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I have spent almost 3 years here reading posts from alone that are watered down into pop culture from the major thinkers of our time that are too difficult for most of the readers here to read. But the real reason was to run interference from the bullying taking place here in the comments on the ID of jonny who is jonny vincent as most of you now know, who recently tried to commit suicide. With few exceptions you were all a rabble from a jumble sale, a mob of wannabe intellectuals without being willing to put in much time to maybe become one someday.And sneering,attacking, threatening anyone who displayed any intellectual acumen at all. well, here's a quote for all of you hateful people by an editor of another site.Too bad Joel isn't a psychiatrist as s/he might have done even better. Alone is a good pop writer, a professional in the field, works for Big Pharma, and is a lousy fucking clinician to have allowed this murderous mob to continue and continue and continue.
"When a person is bullied until the point of committing suicide,It is not suicide, it is murder." Joel Amat Guell
There was no one here besides myself who consistently, month after month, and year after year, validated jonny's feelings and thoughts, interpreting them at the crucial moment, channeling his almost mad desire for Nietzsche's "the will to know" to serious thinkers and writers who also validated his own mind. And at the time I was crucially occupied,the mob came down on him.You all bear responsibility.Those of you who sneered and attacked.Those of you who put some little band aids on the problem.Those of you who kept silent.The commentors here are shameful people.They are what Scott Peck would call The People of the Lie.I add to your number those do-gooders who "just wanted to help poor jonny."There is no one here of interest to me. No one I want to reach out to.I can understand why alone withdrew from here.But as a professional you cannot withdraw leaving someone in danger from a mob. Here's the URL link for that quote about bullies/murderers.You all would do well to carve it on your arm or body somewhere so you can remember it.This is not the first place or time you have done it, and it won't be the last.You are the barbarians, the feral people, Cormac McCarthy draws for us in his novel The Road.
http://kaylapocalypse.tumblr.com/post/106814927944/jotatsu-thatlitsite-quote-of-the-month I think almost everyone of you is a murderer in waiting.You just lucked out this time.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 2, 2015 10:20 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
An ancestor? Who died in 1995, almost 20 years ago? That's what you call an ancestor? I'm not buying it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 2, 2015 10:36 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Bro, do you even read this blog? Your utter lack of insight is baffling. Alone taught us that jonny did the worst thing that could happen to a narcissist like you. He attempted/committed suicide without speaking with you which means that he existed independently of you. jonny had his own movie and you weren't even in it. Hence the incomprehensible rage and the urge to violence.
1. So you enabled jonny? Good for you.
2. jonny was smart enough to handle himself. If you knew him, you'd know that. You should probably worry more about handling yourself.
3. Please do continue your ad hominem attacks. Better yet, post the link to your blog again so you can really put us "wannabe intellectuals" in our place because I read that shit and it was bananas.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 2, 2015 12:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
See: http://jamestownpress.com/news/2014-10-30/Obituaries#.VKbL3KNOmTk
John J Ragland I is my great-grandfather. Yes, he died in 1995, which is the same year that my grandmother Mary (also on my dad's side) died. I was born early that year.
The above obit is for my paternal grandfather. It contains my name and the name of his father who I'm named after. I'm the "II."
As for why I ever put my name on here in the first place, I don't know. I'll be charitable with myself and say that I did it in case anyone wanted to know, or as a show of support for Laura's concerns (albeit an unnecessary show of support).
And to "abbeysboobs": what's the purpose of your using "narcissist" as (what comes off as) a personal accusation?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 2, 2015 12:42 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am not abbeysboobs.Just another disturbed person here.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 2, 2015 1:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I know. I just didn't feel like making a separate reply to him(?).
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 2, 2015 4:45 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Don't feed the troll.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 4, 2015 11:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If jonny tried to kill himself, that is a bad thing, and I feel bad about it.
I didn't know jonny, so the following is speculation: he has a very intense, complex worldview that includes a lot of anger towards the outside world. Based on what I have heard of him, he has an active life outside of this site. It seems to me that the disrespect shown towards him in the comments section of his site was trivial compared to the many other things in the outside world that he found agonizing to behold/experience.
I strongly disagree with your accusation that the users of this site bullied jonny into attempting suicide.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 5, 2015 12:21 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Not necessarily that they did it because I would never let them and I am smarter than all of them put together on this sort of thing.
BUT. The comment section can certainly be read that way. At some time i the near future it will happen that someone will suicide and the family will go after bullies like there are here at TLP. And there is no way they all aren't going to be hauled into court to face serious trouble and time.The trend is moving in this direction if you have eyes to see.The bullies here are "professionals" in this. They gang up and go after someone who is radically different than the others, more intellectually accomplished with more integrity than they are used to and they do it. I watched - after being banned on dailykos - a young earnest lawyer get it by the same people that did it to me.He did die of a heart attack over it and he was a young guy. It also is not clear if someone actually confronted him i real life and murdered him.He was a nice guy and did a lot of good pro bono work, took on those kinds of cases that supported his political leanings.The day is coming when someone will get scapegoated for someone's death to make a point for everyone else.
For a long while they were driving jonny into a corner leaving him repeating endlessly the same rant until something else/someone else interrupted his emotional outpouring.These people here are poisonous. Most anyway.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 5, 2015 12:26 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I once went thru it at solo passion an Ayn Rand site.Her followers are ferocious when anyone challenges canon Rand and I do.I was hacked brutally by a really good IT person.I was just lucky my young bf was better at it.That code went all over the world to avoid leaving traces. And my mac never really was the same after it even tho it was stopped.Here at TLP they are sickos that a site like this attracts,who want some free therapy.They don't understand that analysis comes at great cost to both parties involved, which is why it is expensive.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 5, 2015 1:52 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
At some time i the near future it will happen that someone will suicide and the family will go after bullies like there are here at TLP. And there is no way they all aren't going to be hauled into court to face serious trouble and time.
Hahahaha. Did you even READ this article, retard? This is the very thing those insane feminists (or something) are arguing FOR. To make bullies non-anonymous, to get everyone to voluntarily give up their online anonymity. Lmao, and you think you're smarter than most TLP commenters.
You are utterly INcapable of logic. Proof: you're a Green. Then there's the fact that you refer to philosophers who deliberately write cryptically which serves no purpose than for dumb academia-worshipping assholes to wank. Literally anyone could explain those philosophies you refer to better than you've ever done. Which leads me to question why you're so averse to even TRYING to do so. That's because you want the moral high ground while not having anything substantial to share, and you're scared that if you explicitly spelled out what you know, you'd get criticized and your delusions of your own smartness would be shattered.
You infiltrate the comment section like a fucking roach, to share what your "smart" philosophers have to say. Not even that, just that "I'm so well-read, and the philosophies I study are hard to understand by the general public."
But you prefer boosting your own ego and delusions rather than educating the public. That makes you an anti-humanist, a narcissist. Since you show narcissistic traits and are a Green too, that makes you a psychopath. Which, in retrospect, makes perfect sense.
In all honesty you should just kill yourself. The world could use one less roach.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 5, 2015 2:51 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I think the people who honestly tried to engage jonny were those who were not simply using this blog to support their preconceived notions and were willing to treat jonny's words as expression of a philosophy whether or not they A.) agreed with it at whatever literal or metaphorical level they looked at it from or B.) saw it as a reflection of something not well within his means for articulation. These people included capello moderno, dick trickle, Vidar (and aliases), abbeysbooks, Laura, etc. As a tangent, not directly related to what you were talking about, I only recall jonny being disrespectful to a commenter when he felt he was on the defensive or otherwise took issue with the comment. In a good deal of those cases, the commenter was being an asshole. I always thought his repetition of "words can't hurt me" was more an affirmation than the truth, regardless of whether he was consciously aware of that. He admitted, "I should be more considerate, less petulant, less OCD, less sloppy, more mindful of perception, etc but...I don't really think people are worth it."
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 5, 2015 3:10 AM | Posted by : | Reply
(My previous comment above was a reply to abbeysbooks, not the person who thinks being Green = psychopath. (Kermit's green, and I'm pretty sure he's not a psychopath.) I forgot to indicate this on my second attempt to make the comment. So now you know :) )
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 5, 2015 1:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
But you prefer boosting your own ego and delusions rather than educating the public.
And how would I go about educating a motley group like this?I'd love to. Tell me how?
Education comes from the Latin ducere(lead,draw out) and ex (out,exit) so as Socrates says in Plato's dialogue Laches, one had to know what education is before one can apply it to their children and themselves.
So if its etymology means to "lead out" not "stuff in" what would I lead out here? I'm looking up,down,right,left and I can't find anything. Please tell me.
Listen honey, all I can do is tell you to read the books of those who will help you draw out what is inside you, or at least begin to give you an inner life out of which you might draw something besides sound bites and swear words and insults.
I can't educate anyone except myself.I'm still working on that.You seem to think I can produce sound bites so you can roll them in your mouths like chewing gum and spit out when the sweet is gone.That is the entire point of philosophers writing today in the continental vein.THEY DON'T SOUND BITE!They are not able to be formalized into a syllabus so you can take a course from a careerist and get 3 credits for it.IT CANNOT BE TAUGHT,IT MUST BE LEARNED. And there's the difference.Teach me you scream while you also scream I don't want to learn THAT!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 5, 2015 1:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
BTW this stuff is not hard to learn, but it does take serious downtime.If you want to start learning it then you can start reading my blogs.IF YOU REALLY MEAN WHAT YOU SAY. I write for people with no educational background at all and the way I do it is through the Media for the Masses.This provides a common base structure to stand on.Right now I'm working on Whiplash.IF you read it you will see how I have injected much of jonny's obsessions into it.Only you who have been here will be privy to knowing that. Isn't that part of what education means?And Whiplash is about education and its very real limits.I thank you this morning for giving me the stimulus to come up with that insight that I knew, but didn't know I knew.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 5, 2015 1:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Jonny's commentors were not "in good faith" as the French say.They baited him,denigrated him,offered pablum advice,etc.It is pretty impossible for someone to stand against a crowd with new ideas, get attacked for them, to hold out for a long while without validation.I send you to that Social Psych experiment from the 50's by Asch which is a classic in all the SP texts on estimating the length of a line in a group in which all members but one have been prompted to lie.The alone member caves.BUT with just ONE person in the group validating the correct reality that person can hold out indefinitely.That's what I was after.Of course it prolonged jonny's participation here, but much truth resulted for me and for him and anyone else who cared to absorb it.I'll say again if you see Whiplash you will understand it in a way none of the official review narratives have understood it BECAUSE you have known jonny.That is what education is.A drawing out of all of you, your experience of jonny and projecting that into a movie written and directed by a 29 year old first time - almost - director - Damien Chazelle - making a buzz for an Oscar for young Miles Teller and giving JK Simmons the character part of his career.These people are not sitting on comment boards denigrating any display of competence that is above normal.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 5, 2015 9:08 PM | Posted by : | Reply
does anybody here has any information regarding Alone? I mean, it has been a while. but it has never been a while like this. is he alive?
does anybody have any information regarding that book of his? maybe he is up to just books now?
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
January 5, 2015 9:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Someone said he worked for Big Pharma for 100K a year.IDK.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 6, 2015 9:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120690/facebook-undersharing-has-become-bigger-crime-oversharing
Hilarious article promotes oversharing on Facebook.
Chris Hughes, newrepublic' publisher and editor-in-chief is a Facebook co-founder
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 7, 2015 9:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1pjY1mDAa8
Thought you might like this anon. Would love to see your commentary on it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 8, 2015 11:40 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone, I miss your sharp misanthropic words. Especially now days in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shooting, your sharp commentaries are dearly missed. Come back please. I will give you rum if it helps.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
January 8, 2015 11:42 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Dear Alone,
please come back. Your words are much missed in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo murders, were ignorance and narcissism run strife.
I will give you rum if it helps your return.
Sincerely,
Chaos
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
January 8, 2015 11:45 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sorry about that, my computer tricked me into thinking that the first comment had been deleted so I wrote another. The offer still stands though.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 8, 2015 7:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone, where has the friendly neighbourhood pirate gone?
I can deal with never reading your analysis of 200 pages of madness from Elliot Rodger, but your sharp intellect is dearly missed regarding Charlie Hebdo. Europe is drowning in je suis charlie logos. They're literally everywhere within one day. C'mon, dude, you're a brilliant writer...
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
January 10, 2015 3:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone is a brilliant observer of current state of humankind*. I would like to ask him..... given that there are more and more people on this planet and that number of people with mental disorders is steadily increasing (either in a real time, or being redefined/reclassified as such) what, in his opinion, will End Game look like?
*Writing 'mankind' would automatically incur deadly wrath of Matriarchal.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 10, 2015 3:51 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
alone is good but not good enough.If you want the answer to Endgame look no further than Deep Green Resistance which begins where the environmental movement ends.http://deepgreenresistance.org/en/who-we-are/deep-green-resistance-book
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 10, 2015 5:08 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I totally understand animosity towards Jonny and his comments, Matriarchal and its hordes cannot allow dissenting opinion to emerge....ever..
Why? That is a question everyone should ask themselves.
This planet is mainly run by a hive-minded horde of small letter r's hell bent on destroying any K.
First mentioned and recognized in Ephesians 6:12.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 10, 2015 5:58 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I suggest you read tiqqun's Young-Girl Theory. Semiotext(e) has published it but it is still free in pdf.You will like it very much.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 12, 2015 5:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't know if that's exactly fair. There was a pretty wide range of reasons not to like his writing, some good and some bad. Personally every time he misunderstood or misquoted a bit of science reporting or a paper I got another grey hair. Wasn't so much that he didn't understand what he was trying to cite that bugged me so much as the fact that he was smart enough to actually read into this stuff and figure it out and he just didn't.
Always made me feel like he didn't respect his own ideas enough to actually treat them properly - either let your arguments stand on their own merits, or thoroughly research and understand factual backing that you want to include. Never ever half ass it, especially when it isn't critical to your thought process to provide evidence and even more so when your own misunderstanding turns the conclusions you drew on their head.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 14, 2015 12:49 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What makes you think so?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 14, 2015 7:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I believe Alone really did die, last August:
http://www.legacy.com/ns/obituary.aspx?n=edward-pajak&pid=172037539
Edward Pajak Jr.’s obituary is appearing in the following:
Published in Athens Banner-Herald on August 10, 2014
Edward Frank Pajak, Jr., Ph.D., Professor in the School of Education at Johns Hopkins University passed away on Thursday, August 7. Dr. Pajak began his career as a middle school teacher in the... Read Obituary
Published in Baltimore Sun on August 9, 2014
Edward Frank Pajak, Jr., Ph.D., Professor in the School of Education at Johns Hopkins University passed away on Thursday, August 7. Dr. Pajak began his career as a middle school teacher in the... Read Obituary
- See more at: http://www.legacy.com/ns/obituary.aspx?n=edward-pajak&pid=172037539#sthash.3kfjFfW6.dpuf
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 14, 2015 7:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not willing to tell you TLP's name, but that's not him.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 14, 2015 7:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
How do you know this is he?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 14, 2015 11:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That is definitely not him. It's Edward Teach, not Edward Pajak. ;)
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 15, 2015 1:29 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Hahaha! Do you know who Edward Teach really is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbeard
Trust me: Alone was Dr. Pajak
http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=16181
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 15, 2015 1:39 AM | Posted by : | Reply
TLP is NOT Dr. Christos Ballas, like people on reddit have said...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 15, 2015 2:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Better question: do you know what a pseudonym really is?
Far as the link goes, I bet you $145 USD (the cost of becoming a member with print + online access to that site) that Alone is not the author of that article.
Paypal or money order works fine.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 15, 2015 4:38 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Expiration Date: 01-dec-2017
... for the "thelastpsychiatrist.com"-domain.
That's the day we'll know at least whether he's done with the blog. Regardless of who he is. This blog has been the most enlightening social/human studies I have found in my life so far and I'm really thankful for Alone's effort over the years.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
January 15, 2015 4:55 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Maybe we could chip in and renew it.Shame for it to be put in limbo.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 15, 2015 5:59 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Though as far as information wanting to be free, if this domain were to lapse, Web Archive has pretty much this whole site archived, including deleted posts, as this site's gotten a pretty decent amount of traffic.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 15, 2015 9:10 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I wasn't familiar with Web Archive, thank you! (I really think I've been using the internet wrong for all these years, considering other recent discoveries which I'm too embarrassed to name)
I just wanted to share that there have been 4 captures today, ever since the post about the expiration date.
Also am I correct in understanding that a 'capture' of the http address of the front page will capture all the links back to each and every article, preserving the page as we see it today?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 15, 2015 10:15 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Guys, this is his last tweet:
"Stop my drunk tweeting and get back to writing hard core pornography? Got it."
I think he's probably working on his book. Maybe he's dead, but it would seem a pretty hardcore coincidence that that would be his last tweet.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 15, 2015 11:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
He finished his book a couple of months ago, though it's not for me. Did we all really expect it to be about porn? That's wishful thinking (I mean, a TLP book on porn, that would be amazing).
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 15, 2015 11:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What is the title of the book? Where can it be found?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 15, 2015 2:02 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Pajak was 67 when he died. Doubtful these articles are written by a 67 year old male.
That doesn't mean TLP is 'really' Ballas or anyone else we think he/she is. Only fundamentalists really give a shit anyway. The same people who argue endlessly if Jesus, heaven and Santa are real. So long as your spinning those 'intellectual' wheels climbing mount olympus looking for Zeus banging a hot nymph, you are not engaged in the infinitely harder and certainly less outwardly rewarding task of (becoming something.
Hell, you might have to suffer, alone, to do that and thats the stuff that keeps narcissists awake at night. Hard work with no guarantee of success and without anyone watching. Facebook shudders at the thought.
Someone might be dumb enough to call that faith. Even one more foolish than he would say its a leap of faith into the absurd, with a steady hand and a demeanor of, say, an ordinary tax collector. Which is a long winded way of saying that if you met TLP in person you would be underwhelmed because what really lights their fire is hidden from view because TLP doesn't need you to know.
If you have no idea of what I speak then hit the archive page, start at the oldest article and (re)read. Or better yet, unplug and never look back again. Its the highest praise you can give TLP because its the thing you cannot do.
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
January 15, 2015 8:02 PM | Posted by : | Reply
jonnycoconut when they archive a domain in retirement, it gets hard to find and is full of pop up ads that ruin it.Until you experience that you can't know.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 15, 2015 11:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Also am I correct in understanding that a 'capture' of the http address of the front page will capture all the links back to each and every article, preserving the page as we see it today?
You have the right general idea :)
Here's some info:
1.) For the 2005-or-later incarnation of the blog (i.e. what we're on), you'd want to go to the capture of http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/archives.html (which is not the front page of the blog, though it may be what you meant).
2.) The now-deleted "Truth About" posts are linked in versions of that page from April 2014 or earlier.
P.S. In response to abbeysbooks's concerns, Web Archive doesn't put any ads of their own on captures, so if you see an ad on a capture, then either it was on the original page at the time or your computer has adware.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 16, 2015 12:27 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I believe TLP received the e-mail I sent him today (well, technically yesterday) about how jonny survived his suicide attempt.
Although I referenced one of the concerns of abbeysbooks and Laura, I wasn't trying to blame him or jonny for what happened.
P.S. As of when I started typing this, there are still comments on this page mentioning TLP's possible name.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 16, 2015 1:02 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
As far as ads I accidentally found this out on a page of my own.Neither of your reasons explained.I am guessing that when it goes into limboland someone/site gets it, buys it, IDK google probably,and puts a pop up on it.No one is going to keep it all without getting something for doing it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 16, 2015 1:05 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If you are someone who knows how to do this could gather them and put them in pdf form I am sure there are many who would pay you for doing that. They would make a nice book tho.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 16, 2015 2:23 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I've just e-mailed TLP about these potentially useful resources, should he want to look into them for any reason (I don't know his situation):
Excluding stuff from the Internet Archive (the last line links to a more detailed policy that applies to more scenarios):
http://archive.org/about/exclude.php
Banning a word/term in Moveable Type comments on your blog:
http://www.movabletips.com/2010/03/banning-a-word-or-term-in-your-movable-type-comments.html
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 16, 2015 3:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The wayback machine is a nonprofit kept afloat by money and data donations from free web groups, privates and libraries. The only ads you should be seeing are the original links - I even went as far as to check three or four snapshots of this website to confirm it and everything matches up. Adsense won't work of course, but the google links are still up to date on the snapshots.
To the second thing you mentioned, I don't feel like digging for precedent, but I can't help but think that producing copies of another persons work and distributing it for free or for profit is illegal.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 16, 2015 5:00 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Obviously you are a capitalist about property and see alone's work as profit for "someone" who could assert ownership IF ALONE IS DEAD NOW OR LATER.My take on someone's work who has decided to go the blog route and is not SELLING it, is that they want the world to have it.I certainly do.I don't see alone HERE any different in that thinking.So you are projecting your own capitalist ideology on this.Many authors are now getting in the ship and publishing pdf free.Even the great Foucault's work is distributed that way.But then he did say the "author is to disappear."
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 17, 2015 12:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
TLP is NOT Dr. Christos Ballas, like people on reddit have said...
TLP is IOZ is Jacob Bacharach
Jake's seen a lot of shrinks throughout his rich gay yuppie life, and this blog has been about Jake's mental health issues all along, it helped fuel his 4th rate bildungsroman. This is the only blog where Jake doesn't delete comments that fail to massage his ego and doesn't ban commenters who haven't suitably worshiped his rich gay yuppie self. Well done Jake. Maybe your 2d novel will be worth something other than use as a screen door stop.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 17, 2015 12:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
PS, Christos Ballas is someone Jake fell in love with, but who didn't reciprocate Jake's horny prong poking about Chris's personal space. Jake's response was to try to somehow shame Ballas by attributing this blog to him. Who was Ballas? Someone Jake imagined as curative for Jake's sexual, gender and existential identity issues. Jake fantasized about Ballas being gay, and got angry when Ballas told him, "Jacob, I'm just your counselor, I'm not a prospective boyfriend. I'm not even gay, Jacob."
It all went downhill from there, and Jake started this blog as a way to petulantly "get back at" Ballas.
This is the maturity of Jacob Bacharach on display. Revel in it!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 17, 2015 2:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I suppose that makes sense to you, what with your all-seeing eye & everything that goes along with it.
It's quite a coup, the way everyone now is held to the standard of insecure, hetero-hating gay men who wish they could just sublimate into a woman's identity whenever it was time for anything but sex.
Wouldn't ever want to take people as individuals. You're either a breeder or a God. Either cis-obnoxious or trans-heroic. Either a misogynist or a feminist. Either a gay man or a person who should go die in a fire. Yes, that's a healthy outlook.
The gay narcissist is the inevitable result of the metrosexualized culture created by QEFTSG. "Everyone wants to be ME, honey. MOI!"
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 17, 2015 6:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
All this speculation is fun but the academic journals, redditors etc. got it wrong. We hired a PI and got some surprising results. Who is the author? You guessed it, Frank Stallone.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 18, 2015 12:12 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Angry failed writer Jake is angry? And childish? And hurt that he can't make his lust object dally in gay sex? Never could have guessed that.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 18, 2015 9:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I've frequented this blog for around 8 years. Miss your posts, hope you come back soon.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
January 19, 2015 12:15 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That was kind of funny, Hilarious Bookbinder
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 19, 2015 11:43 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yeah, that's not how this works. It is one thing if Alone decides to publish this blog freely - because he is the person who created (and holds implicit copywrite over) it. He could also publish this blog and charge money for it. In both these cases I'm fine with it because it is his choice.
What you are suggesting is that we go ahead and make this decision for him. It is essentially no different than the argument that "musicians want their music to be heard" and pirating it on that basis despite never actually asking the musician - you don't see Alone HERE telling us not to take his work and distribute it as we please, so it must be okay. Litigation hasn't quite caught up, but I feel comfortable referring to it as theft. This work is Alones creation, and on that basis only he or his estate has the right (moral or legal) to determine what to do with it. Maybe Pastabagel given his contributions, if he ever reappears. Certainly not you. Although if you would like to distribute PDFs of your blog for free, I'm sure your many readers would appreciate it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 19, 2015 3:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Takok and Associates strike gold. The rest signals to MotherShip...'Trouble ahead'.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 19, 2015 4:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It was...in a way...a 'tongue-in-cheek' comment. The best thing Alone did is to come forward as a thinker, educated person, blogger, and bring his ideas and beliefs to ....errrr.. you and me!
I don't care about the others.
Did a lot of good in my opinion.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 19, 2015 4:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That was me above.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 19, 2015 4:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think we can safely read alone's intent here.If he wanted to make money he would have put adsense at least on here, or clicks to X,Y,Z.Music ownership is not a lost cause.People what want the CD of course buy it. Film ownership is also gone with bit torrent.The number of us who want his blog posts is infinitesimal compared to the market and no one can opt out in the market without his/her OK or the heirs.You are being picky beyond belief but that's what I expect of almost everyone here. Literal, literal, literal always always, always.Young-Girl has been published but the authors still leave the free pdf up.Foucault's writings are pdf.Many academic papers now are not behind a firewall anymore.Don't you want to be on the right side of history anonymous.After all you call yourself anonymous or don't you know what that really stands for as a signifier.It no longer just means without a name.It carries lots more with it now.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 19, 2015 4:16 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
And it is how it works.Now.Today.Not yesterday you dinosaur.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 19, 2015 6:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There is advertising on this website. I'm watching it right now - The Maplelea Girls. Lovely dolls that many people want, I'm sure. They're so painfully off brand I couldn't make this up if I tried. There are google ads on the front page as well.
"The right side of history"? Are you nuts? I'm on the side of history that respects the right of a creator to determine how their creations are treated. If the writers of Young-Girl want to give pdfs away for free, they can go ahead and do it - but it is only THEY that have any right to make that decision, not you as you seem to be implying. If you want to toss away the legal issues, fine - lets pretend that what you propose isn't theft. On what moral grounds do you assert that you have any right to take another persons creation, repackage it, and distribute it however you please, as though it was your own?
You aren't even making clear points - why is it GOOD that films are pirated so often? I'm not being picky here, I'm taking a moral stance on an issue that you apparently don't like for reasons you don't seem to be able to communicate. Calling myself anonymous (as though not filling out a name is a conscious action) does not make me part of Anonymous, and even if it did piracy as a form of activism hasn't been part of that groups thrust for almost two years.
And it is how it works.Now.Today.Not yesterday you child.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 19, 2015 11:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'll sidestep the piracy debate (except to point out that it says "Copyright © The Last Psychiatrist.com" at the bottom of the page, which means the default copyright restrictions apply in a legal sense), but I'm having second thoughts about giving everyone access to Alone's stuff regardless of his say, because some people might have been wanting to screw him over; why else would he have deleted a couple posts some months ago?
By the way, I just e-mailed one of my family members a link to one of those deleted posts (a Web Archive capture of it).
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 20, 2015 1:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
To just copy for your own personal use is no big deal.To commercialize it is something else.I was thinking to pay for someone's time in doing it.Let's not turn a bicycle accident into a train wreck as George Bernard Shaw would say.
Some of his posts are not what he might want to be judged by in his profession so that might be why he deleted them.If a couple of months ago then that says a lot.Don't know why people make mountains out of molehills.I guess nothing else to think about.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 20, 2015 1:09 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I like it that the entertainment industry is getting punk'd.That's why.
you have any right to take another persons creation, repackage it, and distribute it however you please, as though it was your own?
And "repackage,distribute,however I please" now how did you get that from my wanting a personal copy.Every academic journal allows you to request articles for your personal and/or academic use.FOR FREE! Stupid!Go to your local library.They will order them for you.
The problem with commentors here and most places is they don't know how to read critically and react, react, react without knowing the difference between reaction and responding.Oi vay!
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 20, 2015 1:14 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
BIT-Torrent has made copyright outdated.Can't be enforced.Can't stop it.Makes a laughing stock of entertainment industry's attempt.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 20, 2015 10:37 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Wait so your moral authority is "haha, I can do this and people can't easily stop me"? You know what, my side of history may be the losing one, but the good guys don't always win.
You asked specifically for someone to produce a pdf document and distribute it, and you offered to pay them for it. You are asking someone to repackage and redistribute someone elses work for their own profit. End of story. You can try to dress it up however you want to, but your own words show your true intent.
No, not every Journal allows you to do that. Some actually very specifically disallow it because so many copies were showing up on fileserves. Many use expiring pdfs to keep people like yourself from asking someone else to repackage it and distribute for you. Those that do allow it? They specifically state that it is allowed.
And the problem with you, Abbey, is that you don't THINK critically. You might try to write that way, but it won't work until you actually add arguments and thought. Look back at your own posts - what justification have you provided for your own stance? "Well he doesn't advertise here so he must not want money!" "BIT-Torrent has made copyright outdated.Can't be enforced." "no one can opt out in the market without his/her OK or the heirs." Outright lies. At least now you're being honest "I just want a copy for myself". Still reprehensible considering you decided to ask for someone to make the copy before you thought to ask Alone if you could.
You seem to like Foucault quite a bit. Allow me to give you a suggestion. Follow his example and make an attempt to produce real arguments and critical thought before you post. Do not use his name as a shield against having to communicate or think.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 20, 2015 2:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
If you want to download a website or a webpage for offline reading, there are ways to do it. Not necessarily in PDF, but workable. I assume you know how to google around for it since you've name-dropped computer technologies like bittorrent and AdSense. Good luck!
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 20, 2015 3:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
And the problem with you, Abbey, is that you don't THINK critically.
Why think when you can pretend at wisdom by voicing the views of others you consider the authorities on the subject? It would be a waste of AB's prodigious intellect to entertain skepticism, and that intellect now may be used elsewhere. Of course, your sentiment tends to suggest you are jealous of AB's terrific mind, so perhaps we are learning something here after all. There are so many layers of elucidation on display, we have TLP's original essay above, we have jonny's despair offered up for random diagnostics of social malady, and we have AB's immense power of name-dropping. And since I'm not as smart as TLP, jonny or AB, I'm sure there are even more lessons on offer here that I'll never discern. I'm counting on others to be the lectors, pontiffs and educators. Let's make this a teachable moment.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 20, 2015 6:10 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Elizabeth Warren now becomes E.Lizabeth Warrant. How clever you are.Teachable moments would be wasted on you.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 20, 2015 6:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I am not wise.I just read wise people.I see wise movies.I have only friends who want to learn.What I am wise about is connecting dots.That's what I do.You are none of these things.Just a schmuck who is jealous of anyone knowing more than they do.Ignorance has always hated intelligence. Thru history m'lad.
You might want to stop here and start changing your condition."It's never too late to become who you might be."
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 20, 2015 6:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Just what I did.Name-drop.U see name dropping doesn't mean anything other than name dropping.Doesn't mean you know how to do either of those.Know very little about adsense also.Just that google keeps pushing it for my blogs.I added it up once on the blog most read & it amounted to $110 / year. Wasn't worth it to me as it results in clunky loading.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 20, 2015 6:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This comment section makes me sad.
Imagine if Alone wanted to measure what his readers have internalized. I am not saying that he is doing this but bare with me.
He would probably disable voting, because he does not want us just appealing to the authority of the masses. He then might troll for a bit to see how easily he can take the comment section from the discussion of the article, to an angry internet dick measuring competition.
If this was any sort of test, we have failed.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 20, 2015 6:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My library in Springfield can get articles from any Journal I want.All Journals are subscribed to by at least a few institutions.All these belong to a non-profit (forget the initials)for inter-library loan.Sometimes Drury University will have it, sometimes the University of Alaska,but they will get the xerox to be used for personal and educational purposes. Academia.edu now has academics writing directly for them online.People send me papers being posted.JARS went to Penn State and is behind a firewall now, but my library can get any article I want from it, just not online easy anymore.IF you go to a library regularly there are very competent librarians there.U can get anything on microfiche not scanned yet.
I follow and use anyone who is an authority in his field to learn from.What I use Foucault for is the way he suggested he be used. As a tool kit.He was not a THEORIST.He dug thru archives I have no access to, but he loved American libraries in Berkeley because they made it so easy for him to get what he wanted compared to the Biblioteque in Paris who always made it difficult for him, frustrating him, making him wait just to be obstructionist.The kind of librarian you would be honey.
As for heirs.They inherit all copyrights.My guess is they wouldn't bother suing over some blog posts.I am guessing there are maybe 7 people who would want to have them collected.
I WAS OFFERING TO PAY THE PERSON "FOR THEIR TIME" in doing this.Profit has nothing to do with it.I am not distributing it.Even if I were where? To whom? How would I sell them when they can be read for free.THAT'S THE IDEA!Publishing companies drowning as ebooks take center stage.How 50 Shades got started & look what happened.Demand created.So how you think Ican create a demand for alone's work,steal it and make a profit.Where do you live? La-la Land? But I already knew that.I just want a copy of them and I don't want to have to spend time learning how to do it tekkie wise.
You are a typical narcissist who wants to blow off their narcissistic rage on someone who is stupid enuf to answer them. That's me.Have you discharged enuf today.U cld jst go masturbate U know.That would help.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 20, 2015 6:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Elizabeth Warren now becomes E.Lizabeth Warrant. How clever you are.Teachable moments would be wasted on you.
Eli's a bench warrant? Waiting to happen? Is that what you're saying? Elihu Yale? This onion has so many layers.
Perhaps we are seeing a reversal of jealousy. First Anonymous appeared to be jealous of you, now you are showing some green-headedness. Tell me, do you wish you were the people's choice for 2016's election of our first female president? Are you Hillary Clinton?
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 20, 2015 7:14 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Ah you got it.I am Hillary's anon.And you are playing with Lacan.Go see a Lacanian analyst.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 20, 2015 7:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yes it is a sad comment section but most of them are unless someone moderates skillfully. Jenni at one of celebrity blogs was quite good at one time.Forget which one.
alone knows from his field that chg is not going to happen on a blog unless you are actively striving for that.I have on a few of my postings and it is consuming work to do that.It is only possible with a very few commenters.
Alone's blog here attracts what we see here.Narcissists.Borderline personalities with fragile ego strength squashed between an ID and a Super-ego to put the structure of their psyche in Freudian theology.And yes I meant theology.
Their developmental pattern has been repeated.Abandonment which can be physical or psychological and usually combined.They invested a part of themselves in someone's writing who understands the way the society - system - is structured against us.They felt understood.And more frequent posting would give them a new toy to play with.But not now.
Now alone has moved to the classic position.Silence from behind the couch.This classic psychoanalysis - not to be confused with pop psychologists - is not recommended for narcissists as it breaks down what few defenses they have in place.You don't want to do this with borderlines.You want to strengthen the defenses,help them work better, so they can be dropped by the person when they feel they don't need them any longer.This crowd will turn their narcissistic rage on almost anyone who posts here. And my beef with alone is that he as a professional - and he is certainly that - knows this and defaulted on it.Even Viktor Frankl, starved,worked to death in the Camps,did take the mental health of his fellow inmates into full consideration, helping many to find a meaning to live, a meaning in life, so they wouldn't give up.He said they could tell when a prisoner gave up immediately.Everything about him would change and he would be dead in a few days.These prisoners were called "Moslems" BTW a Lacanian play on Muslim as I see it.And Frankl was not a racists,bigot,AT ALL and yet he used this term in his writings because the inmates used it.Horrible isn't it.
But what I was getting at is that even in situations of unimaginable cruelty,deprivation,one man can help another not to succumb.And each of us here was charged with that challenge from alone.To NOT be narcissists.To offer something to another who needed it.It hasn't been done for the most part.And jonny saw this clearly and mourns for the human race deciding to NOT be a part of it.Humans aren't worth it.On twitter someone doing PR for Sea World just posted a full stadium watching dolphins captured in bloody slaughter&transported at risk of death,now doing stupid tricks to entertain those who have no inner life and no morality. It makes one wish for all species to be extinct so humans cannot destroy any more than they already have.
QED
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 20, 2015 8:09 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That reminds me of this stand-up routine by George Carlin, "Saving the Planet:"
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 20, 2015 8:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
And you are playing with Lacan.
This is why I admire your immensely prodigious brainpower, AB. You suffer no qualms when stating confidently and authoritatively what is someone else's psychiatric problem. You needn't ask any questions to divine the source of a comment or any possible alternative meanings behind it, as that would be a waste of time for someone with such keen diagnostics as yours. There is no process of elimination. There is only what AB sees. Your vision sets the standard for all others to follow and, with some futility, try to reach. Of course none will reach it. That would be foolish of them, to think they could. N'est-ce pas?
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 20, 2015 8:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Always like Carlin.He was younger then.25 species every day now it's up to 200.Quite a jump.If you read Deep Green Resistance http://deepgreenresistance.org/en/who-we-are/deep-green-resistance-book not so glibly tossed off now.Climate Change has reached the irreversible point.The planet will get not sustain the billions of people here now without industrialized,assembly line farming.Period.There will be a die off like nothing ever seen before and we will eat each other to survive. Did you read of see Cormac McCarthy's The Road? Lierre Keith has used the women's suffragette movement as a template for resistance.Can we see see that quality of integrity again in a movement? Snowden give us hope.Manning.Others.But the analysis is that probably the planet will heat up so much that no life will be possible as it doesn't look like any of us will change it.But that doesn't mean that a core of us should give up and not try.IF anyone is left we will be judged by can they breathe the air, drink the water,grow any food.And our numbers will be greatly diminished.If I could give any advice it would be to not breed.I find it a great personal relief to not have to worry about any descendants. Obviously those with them don't care anymore than they really care about their own children let alone grandchildren and so on.Had we stopped when Carlin gave this show there would have been more a chance.How bad do they have to get before we stop.To watch a polar bear drown is just plain wrong to have happen.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 21, 2015 10:29 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That's great! You know what else your library does, as a legal organization associated with a government? It secures permission before it starts copying and handing out documents left and right. Because if they didn't, they would stop being a library, and start being under arrest. What you are describing otherwise is not a good thing. It does nothing to respect the creators. You keep talking about this as though you are performing some great batmanesque justice by taking what you please and "sticking it to The Man" - but I have bad news for you today. Alone is not "The Man". He is "a man". You aren't sticking it to publishing companies when you take from him without compensation or even the simple courtesy of asking permission. You are sticking it to "a guy" who, presumably, would prefer if people showed him the minimum level of respect before stealing from him wholesale. But I suppose that is the kind of librarian you would be, sweetie - the kind with no respect for the author.
Ooooh, "Pay them for their time", so you mean directly compensate them for the effort involved in stealing someone elses property. So you're just asking for an individual operating under NON-Profit rules to fence you this work. Somehow that doesn't make it better.
Call me a narcissist if you must - it really is the only option you have now that your true colours are shown, considering you now apparently understand I am unintimidated by your ability to repeat a name. What shall I call you? The most obvious thing I suppose. Entitled.
How a person who so honestly believes that they have the RIGHT to all this information, that they somehow are OWED these papers in not only the form they were originally provided but every convenient alternative as well, could exist I will never understand. That they somehow deserve the whole of an authors work, for no other reason than that the work exists and it had the bad fortune to cross the persons line of sight. I can't honestly believe you think you are owed the sweat off another mans back, and yet here you are taking pride in your ability to take from those with no recourse. Because lets be honest here - the publishers don't give a shit about this, you couldn't hurt their bottom line if you spent a lifetime lurking from place to place taking everything you see. No, the people you are hurting are the journals that attempt to provide peer review to ensure quality (something that costs money), and the authors that hope to see a dime returned from their work. Let me do you a favour - I am a narcissist. There you go, all your fears confirmed. But it doesn't change what you are - Entitled, synonymous with reprehensible.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 21, 2015 12:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
So why then is Internet Archive able to store copies (not counting the robots.txt exception)? How does that constitute fair use? Couldn't you argue that the archived copies serve as substitutes for "original in the market"? Of course you know that the Internet Archive employees are paid, natch.
Just looking for your expertise and knowledge concerning specifics of Internet Archive's legitimacy or operative modality vis a vis 17 U.S. Code § 107, as I trust that you have completed or at the very least worked towards a JD and are not, as you say, entitled.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 21, 2015 2:19 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Problem with women, from the very beginning, was that they are bottomless pits of emotional leeching. And there is no bottom to it. Jonny has correctly identified this problem in his writings for the rest of us, charismatic owners of magnificent penises, but sadly, a very few will take this truth to the heart.
It's nice of you shills to stuff the thread with irrelevant stuff.
Happy New Year.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 21, 2015 2:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Sounds like you are very ready to read tiqqun's Young-Girl Theory.Published by semiotext(e) but still in FREE pdf.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 21, 2015 3:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
First, Non-profit does not mean "unpaid". It means that pay is determined on a reasonable basis and dividends aren't paid out.
Second, the archive has been brought to court over this - look up S. Shell. The cases went undetermined as it was settled out of court - with the archive voluntarily removing the plantiffs material. You may note it states quite clearly on the site that at any time an individual can request to have their work removed. That is how they avoid this issue. If Abbey would like to tell Alone that she is going to make a full copy of his site, and that she will delete it if he requests she does so, this may actually meet the same criteria. I know she won't and in fact had no intention of even asking permission, of course.
Third, I'm not sure what section of fair use you think this falls under. The archive making a copy, or Abbey paying a person to steal it for her, is not transformative, nor does it necessarily add educational value. You can't just download a textbook and claim it as fair use because you are using it to educate yourself.
Fourth, you don't need to work toward a JD to have basic competence in legal fields. Many professions require a working knowledge and understanding of copywrite and contract law. Fair use is lesson one, and usually the easiest to understand.
Fifth, entitlement is defined as "the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment." I don't think I'm entitled to shit - this conversation has been my attempt to communicate basic moral imperatives regarding treating authors less like crap for your own short sighted gain.
Good try though.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 21, 2015 3:04 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Not off the hook.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 21, 2015 4:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Re: "Good try though"-- that points straight to Dunning-Kruger.
Per fourth point: Someone close to me is having surgery soon. Assuming you don't have any medical experience or education, does that give any you any right to comment with regard to the span of ethics concerning each choice among a variety of procedures? Does having a 'working knowledge/understanding' of ethics count? Would that give merit to you opinion?
I'm with Dr. Fletcher on this one: You don't get the part, you earn it.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 21, 2015 4:40 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I don't require significant skill or knowledge in a field to be allowed to directly regurgitate information that has been previously covered by other individuals, who schooled me in that information. I am one of those professionals. It is literally a requirement of my job to have a basic working understanding of copyright. Could I know more? Sure - I slept through most of patent law and only read the interesting case studies in contract law. But fair use is nearly as easy as it gets, because it is specifically intended for not-lawyers to understand so they don't get in trouble though misunderstanding or accidental breach. It is actually something everyone should know about, and can be easily researched - you absolutely don't need a JD to be involved in it.
Even beyond that is the fact that I previously mentioned that if we don't want to talk about copyright, then we don't have to. I can happily explain why abbey is a horrible person on a purely moral basis without ever bringing legality into it. Already did, really.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 21, 2015 5:08 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Regurgitation, what? You are a claimant!
I don't agree that it's so clear-cut. You might want to give the following a read: (.pdf)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 21, 2015 5:13 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Nice link. Thanks.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 21, 2015 6:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I've seen that document before, and although I agree with some parts and disagree with others I don't see what specifically you're getting at here. Web archives are not in a good place legally - grey areas are not happy areas because of how quickly they can turn around on you. The case I mentioned is already noted here, and the same issues I saw are brought forward in it - in particular that the Archive did not move to dismiss the copyright claim. Not a tacit admission that copyright violation had occurred, but an admission that the question needed to be discussed - something that did not happen as the archive chose to exit the conversation before it could complete.
As I already stated, the archive gets away with what they do now because they specifically state that if you want your stuff removed, they will do so immediately - basically because an element of copyright is the "I didn't know" defense, which requires a person to tell you to stop before you can be served unless they can prove that you were violating knowingly. If they didn't, this would go back to court, and we would hear the rest of that conversation. At the end of all this, archiving works that are copyrighted is not specifically allowed for digital archives and it is not specifically disallowed - it exists in a limbo that will probably collapse in the future.
Moreover, Abbey is not an archive service, so its not exactly relevant to the overall conversation.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 21, 2015 8:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
grey areas are not happy areas because of how quickly they can turn around on you
Anyone having the audacity to write that sentence publicly I bow to and give up.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
January 21, 2015 10:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The juvenile objectivist (egads!) in me is forever struggling to figure out what they're trying to win.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 21, 2015 10:25 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This one is good too:
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 21, 2015 11:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
...between an ID and a Super-ego to put the structure of their psyche in Freudian theology.
Great point. I like how Dolto, in a way, take it further here: (from psychomedia.it/jep/number6)
In our society, the sense of paternity has been practically lost. If boys were educated to fatherhood, alongside an education of girls concerning the maturing of their genitalia-theoretically possible since the advent of birth-control methods-perhaps our Western society would recover its emotional equilibrium, and perhaps young men and women would reach adolescence having totally broken with fixations at the precocious phase of the libido and resolved their dependence on their parents, as well as their ambivalence about the two sexes and the ensuring feeling of frustration combined with a constant, latent castration and rape anxiety.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 22, 2015 1:30 AM | Posted by : | Reply
As a newcomer, I have a question: supposing women are indeed trained to be emotional leeches, why is there so much anger in these posts in reaction to this truth? Wouldn't the correct (mature, or whatever positive emotional response that does not create distress that hinders the life he who holds such belief) reaction be pity? I mean, I just don't really get all the anger here.. surely it would benefit one (and others) much more to be resigned/apathetic or even accepting as the current, however depressing, status quo? I get the whole criticism gives way to change thing, but that doesn't really seem to be what's going on here..
Another thing I would like to inquire about is that despite the emotional warfare waged on female minds to make them so weak, I don't really see how men are exactly coming out so much better. Humans just seem to be all around despicable, regardless of gender, so I don't understand why a lot of it seems to be concentrated on females, especially so if they're broken so early. Surely it would be better to dismiss these people and try not engage them emotionally? Because if they really are so dependant, wouldn't they be on the same level as children? Wouldn't allowing them to affect one's emotions be giving them ammunition they supposedly shouldn't be having? (why would someone allow a drunk to drive the car?)
I'm not insinuating that it's easy not to be demoralised, frustrated or even near suicidal because of current social conditions, I just assume that the people posting are a lot older than me, and have had a lot of time on their hands to coexist with their beliefs and with other people, so.. I don't know.. this can't be all there is?
I'm sorry if I my ignorance causes any blind rage. Thank you.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
January 22, 2015 3:00 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The Discourse sets it up that way.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 22, 2015 3:10 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
O thank you forever for that Dolto article.She is so amazingly wonderful.I haven't gone looking for her lately so this is a surprise.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 22, 2015 3:54 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Got it. Don't crowd-source the super ego, crowd-source the id in a trial by likes/upvotes in the age of revenge porn and tabloids. When's your next clinical post? All this societal commentary seems to be getting in the way of research at Penn State.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
January 22, 2015 10:26 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You gave up a while ago, when you accused me of being a narcissist rather than actually presenting a point or argument.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 22, 2015 10:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The adult moralist in me is never sure why the juvenile objectivists have such a hard time respecting creators of content. Its not like I'm asking you to give a shit about the publishers. Just the authors.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
January 23, 2015 10:47 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
This is a small point, but: "copyright," not "copywrite."
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 23, 2015 11:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Read that as a Freudian slip.Thru Lacan is even better.right and write are homonyms. Why are they being substituted for each other?What is anon trying to tell him/herself?Copy ....... and write.....and right.......Is it obvious now?
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 24, 2015 9:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Have spent a few days on the Dolto article.Stellar! Obviously tiqqun's Young-Girl draws deeply from her work.Sowhat woodwork did you come out of to be here?http://semiotexte.com/?page_id=159 You can still get the raw version on pdf FREE.Have you read much Dolto? She was Lacan's analyst.He said she was the clinical mirror of his theory.She was a superb clinican.As good/better than Breuer.Winnecott is close.Then there is Lindner and Scott Peck.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 25, 2015 7:22 AM | Posted by : | Reply
necros keep posting...
smart people will get this shit!
shouting at the wind.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
January 25, 2015 9:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
it is such a shame that this blog has stopped.
My favorite was always the Blog Post about funerals and how society coped with death.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
January 25, 2015 11:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
There are many wonderful and better blogs dealing with these themes.Try medium.com.Search twitter,facebook.Eastern Europeans are hot on this stuff.GCAS has courses,credit or audit for LOW fees.Took one with Badiou this am on reading negation through Hegel.An important quote I took with me.
"The problem with the false is not that it is false,but that it exists."-Badiou
If it's not immediately apparent to you what this means,how about another one from Hegel:"The owl of Minerva flies only at twilight."Or is it dusk?
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
January 29, 2015 5:13 PM | Posted by : | Reply
TESTING. THIS IS A TEST, NOT YUMMY YUMMY SPAM. IF YOU WANT SPAM SO MUCH, MOVE TO HAWAII, WHY DON'TCHA?
(I want to see if commenting still works after the TLP frontpage has become inaccessible. The Archives page still works; that's how I got here.)
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 2, 2015 11:31 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
No... its not. You really need to learn to present ideas clearly, rather than depending on other peoples names to get thoughts across.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 2, 2015 7:52 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
IF that were what I was trying to do. I'm not.If you are curious yellow read the writers I have mentioned.I'm not here to be your free professor. GCAS is giving a free online course on Foucault if you really want to learn.Given by his student.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 3, 2015 8:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It may not be what you are trying to do, but it is what you are doing. You have a terrible habit of peppering every argument or point you make with the names of other people - essentially presenting a patchwork of other peoples thoughts without ever actually providing your own. If you understand what they had to say, then you have no need to append their name to every other sentence. You would just say what you have to say, and it would stand on its own merits.
At the risk of being rude, I've seen some of your writings and if your understanding dominating discourse is anything to go by, you are most certainly not in a position to act as an educator on these topics.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
February 3, 2015 9:56 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well anon you have displayed the linguistic behavior of the schizophrenigenic Mother.Damned if you do and damned if you don't.First you tell me to absorb my Masters and write on my own.Then you tell me you have read my writings and I am not in a position to educate anyone on these writings.So tails I lose and heads I don't win.This was what was done to you you know.I didn't come up with this on my own.This is Gregory Bateson's Double-Bind used by R.D.Laing in his psychiatric theory and clinical work.So Laing didn't originate it either.Tsk tsk, but he's dead so you can't scold him.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 3, 2015 11:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I think 10 million dollars worth of interest
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 4, 2015 3:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
My comment was addressed more to your habit of attempting to portray yourself as an educator or gatekeeper to knowledge.
I can really see no other way to interpret "I am not your free professor" than "I know enough to teach, but instead I only show you the door". In both cases I question your abilities. You know a fair amount to be sure, but on more than one occasion you have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of a relatively basic idea and stubbornness when it comes to either correcting yourself or explaining your thought process when it is pointed out. That type of issue and attitude clearly show you aren't at the point to do either yet.
If you wrote on your own, we could see the thought process that lead to your conclusions. As it is all we see is a series of names and a conclusion that may or may not relate at all to the names. I may not have liked johnny, but at least he was forthright and clear when it came to his arguments and logic.
Also, if you're going to attack my linguistic abilities, please proof your own posts first. Even if you're writing on a phone there is no reason to be missing spaces throughout. The grammar and presentation of ideas is so poor in the last half of your post I'm not even sure what you are trying to say. I suppose I could look up the names to get an idea of what you might be thinking, but that just feeds right back in to my original point - and it implies that you have a complete understanding of the items you are quoting, which I am not really willing to assume.
Score: 2 (4 votes cast)
February 4, 2015 6:26 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Suggest you go straight to the sources.That's why I refer to them.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 4, 2015 7:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I cite my sources so you can go directly to the source if you are really interested.That's the only way to learn from them.I said, "That's the only way to learn from THEM,but not the only way to learn."
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 8, 2015 11:21 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Abbeysbooks seems to have been reading a lot on the history of bunko games and trying to meld that with a poor interpretation of MPFC's Argument Clinic sketch. Maybe just go straight to the life story of Joseph Weil for primary sources where AB's concerned.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 9, 2015 7:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
El puerco alert. Don't respond.^^
Whoever is posting as puerc et al--please understand that what happened to you (most likely you don't remember and have no conscious predicate) was NOT your fault.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 10, 2015 9:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Who's Joseph Weil?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 10, 2015 10:28 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Google wiki for Joseph Weil. Why ask when you can find out for yourself?But then that's what everyone does nowadays.They don't read, they sound bite.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 11, 2015 2:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The book is in another castle.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 12, 2015 10:54 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
For a year I pondered the equation of woman behaviour/nature. Reading a number of posts on jonnys' google+ and thought catalog (on the 3 period of pondering) the penny dropped, but how about female enlightenment? Solid proof seems to convince men, but women.. can women work out their nature/nurture via evidence or other existing method?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 12, 2015 11:50 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Are you the same syzygy who preaches about women's nature on yahoo answers?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 13, 2015 12:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
It's vaguely possible that they wanted to see the perspective of the person they replied to, regarding the dude in question.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 13, 2015 3:17 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I've tried to understand whether the presentation in your google+ posts is true though I remain to a degree dissonant, most certainly about one concept. I creatively thought of a basic theory of women lying and shaming being caused by a mechanism that would have underpinned elusive body movement before language evolved, and since language evolved underpins verbal movement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBoOim_yFjM
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 13, 2015 6:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Female enlightenment. Nature/nurture. Evidence.
Stellar work. I bow to the master.
In case you are not a troll, I'll say that's world class unintended trolling right here, you really should consider career change.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 13, 2015 10:15 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
:D I'm glad to hear that, but no it's not trolling. I think Jonny was really onto something. Earlier when you said Jonny was right about matriarchy, were you trolling? Wanted to have a conversation with some lllike minded people. :)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 14, 2015 9:21 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You might want to read tiqqun's Young-Girl one of jonny's favorite references. Also Francoise Dolto's paper which tiqqun certainly knows very well.Both are on pdf so read and come back and we can talk. http://psychomedia.it/jep/number6/dolto.htm
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 14, 2015 10:13 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
She cites her sources to make an appeal to authority so that she doesn't have to make the argument herself ala "YOU'LL KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IF YOU READ MAHATMA GANDHI'S 'NON VIOLENT CATS' IN THE APRIL 1944 ISSUE OF CAT FANCY MAGAZINE. OH YOU DIDN'T? THAT'S WHY I'M SMART AND YOU'RE NOT."
She doesn't have the knowledge and skills to make her own arguments.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 14, 2015 10:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Why do you keep insisting I reinvent the wheel.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 14, 2015 10:54 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You don't have to. I just think it would make for a more fun conversation if, when asked for details, you engaged more often instead of referencing a text and stopping there.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 14, 2015 11:06 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I'm not looking for fun conversations.How can I have a conversation if you haven't done your homework?I can't sound bite Foucault nor do I want to.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 14, 2015 1:10 PM | Posted by : | Reply
El puerco alert.
Is it healthy being so obsessed with people you do not know? What does this externalizing of your negative affections gain you? Knowing yourself is north, you're heading south. But you feign a stance from which you can know all. Maybe you're supra-orbital, beyond terrestrial north-south. Maybe you are the sky god.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
February 14, 2015 2:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hey Abbey,
I think it's high time you hard scan all letters, notes, journals, and personal effects and post them immediately. Additionally, please arrange for the production of a holonomic platter containing redundant models of your entire cognitive outlay and pop that on over via air mail because I DESERVE NOTHING LESS THAN THAT.
Also, because I said so.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 15, 2015 10:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
You must be the sibling of this show's host:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F57G5nV1q6k
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 15, 2015 11:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Please come back and write again. :(
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
February 16, 2015 12:02 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
That clip made the end of my day thank you
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 18, 2015 12:22 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I turned to reading new content and rereading recent posts as a default to avoid some less productive habits. As I was catching on to some of the finer points, the writing stopped. I can't stop the transference. It's kind of like when my old man became distant when I was just entering puberty. The transference is punching me in the gut, but for the life of me I can't seem to shake it off :/
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
February 18, 2015 1:29 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"'Would Adderall help me do more work and less porn?' No, but it will help you write a book of porn and you will be terrified at what you learn."
You have described more in those two sentences than I care to recall.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
February 18, 2015 9:39 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Don't shake it off.S/He's not here to help you work thru it so you will have to do that thru your dreams.Or you can read this clinical study. Dominique:Analysis of An Adolescent Boy.It's valuable.Don't try to get rid of it.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
February 18, 2015 3:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
thank you for sharing, I was delighted to find this web site
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
February 21, 2015 2:03 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Like-minded people? If you say so. I would like to hear first your own opinion about the women and Matriarchal. It would make any further discussion and debate, shall we say, smoother.
You claim you are 'A guy' but you are concerned about 'female enlightenment. This smells a bit fishy to me.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 1, 2015 2:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
That was a interesting read, long but good. Thanks for sharing, enjoyed it.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
March 6, 2015 6:27 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Thank you for this excellent & thoughtful post, so full of ideas that I have printed it out so i can read again & your post motivated me.
http://medbookbank.com/index.php/medical-books/usmle/usmle-step-1/pathoma-book-2015.html
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 12, 2015 1:49 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Thank you very much for posting and sharing this great article. It is so interesting for me Obat Pembesar Penis
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 14, 2015 4:26 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Totally unrelated, but have you written on Lady Gaga yet? Curious. Couldn't find anything on her except a reference. IF you haven't, can we hope to see something in the near future?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 16, 2015 2:16 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Use competent essay writing service to improve study performance and cope with the workload up to the mark. It is like browsing the Web in search of information or consulting senior students. Keep up with the times. When you need to order a paper online, you should make an in-depth research and find one that has impeccable reputation with its customers. The only way to be sure that you are hiring the right company is to read essay services reviews and compare the features of different website. As soon as you find a reliable website, you will just need to place an order by completing a simple online form, and you will have a great paper delivered by the deadline you set.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 16, 2015 5:32 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone, goddamnit toss us a little something.
jogos do friv | jogos friv
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 24, 2015 2:07 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Interesting post. Thanks for it.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 27, 2015 5:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
My head hurts, but I think in a good way. I might have just gotten smarter from reading that. Really not sure.
Can I just read some Maxim, now?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
March 28, 2015 3:11 AM | Posted by : | Reply
I Am Sets Shaibu From Australia It always lots of pain to see things go bad in my marriage but Thanks to Dr oshogum who stop my husband from cheating on me we almost got divorce and Dr oshogum save our marriage from lies because of pregnancy problem and cheats. I really do love my man and he is my source of finance. we love to have kids and his dad want to see him have kids too but i could not get pregnant because of his impotency problem then after which he was healed by Dr Oshogum i could not still get pregnant because it was already too late due to my age And he decide to live me for another another lady. Though i was very hurt i have to contact Dr oshogum again with oshogumspelltemple@live.com to help me get pregnant despite my age and bring back my husband. Now we are back together and i have a baby Girl and still expecting another soon. for any marriag, relationships problem and sickness contact oshogum for a better and to get all that you desire
1)Sickness of any kind Hepatitis B, HIV/AIDs and cancer
2)Drug Addict and Masturbation
3)Divorce, Breakup problem and To Re-unit
4)Pregnancy problem
5)Financial problem and Job promotion
6)To get a good and rich life partner
contact oshogumspelltemple@live.com
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
March 28, 2015 6:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I miss you TLP! I still check this blog like Fry's dog in Futurama. Hope the book is going well.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
April 7, 2015 6:21 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Thank for sharing!Great! Thanks for such post and please keep
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 7, 2015 1:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
If you are from one of those royal families of the Middle East, then this discussion is going to be of no interest for you. For others, earning money online has always been in the wish list. In today's world, almost everybody is looking to earn some money in their spare time, working from their homes. There may be variety of options, but not too many really beats Online surveys in flexibility or intellectual satisfaction. Online surveys, especially paid online surveys, have become very popular with the people coming from different background mainly because of its various advantages. With Internet being available to everybody, online surveys are viable options for those who cannot live their home due to various constraints.
The advent of the Internet has drastically changed the way this world lives, conducts business, and expands its social life. It has also changed the way we have dreamt of our professional careers. Just a couple of decades back, a work-from-home job profile was practically inexistent. But then, with Internet came a lot of newer opportunities, and online paid surveys is perhaps the best among them.
If you are not employed with a firm, you are perhaps in the business of doing business. And any business will invariably require an upfront investment. The new genre of online job profiles has broken away from this scenario. With activities like online surveys, you can be self employed without locking in investment. This is perhaps one of the most important factors that make online surveys a particularly irresistible one for most of us.
If you love the structured life of an employed person, if you are not comfortable with slight variations in monthly cash inflows, online surveys is certainly not for you. However, if you cherish independence and want to be your own boss, online paid surveys is something you cannot give a miss. Additionally, one of the major highlights of online surveys is that you need not be highly qualified. The profile that online survey companies generally look for before they offer online surveys to any member is that the concerned person must be have interest on a wide variety of subjects.
Rarely will you find a coin that does not have two sides. Similarly, even the best and the safest of earning avenues do have a possible flipside. Be careful - there are many fraud online surveys websites that will try to rob you of your hard earned money. If ever you are tempted to join an online surveys listing site that require a substantial subscription fees, think twice. You should keep in mind that online surveys require no or minimal investments. Online paid surveys will give you money and not take any from you. So, do not let any body take undue advantage of you. Not only you, but other members of your family may also avail of this opportunity provided by online surveys, so what are you waiting for? Happy online responding!
Visit >>>>> http://getpaid-survey.com
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 9, 2015 3:33 PM | Posted by : | Reply
everyone who wants to have serious discussion, onto reddit.
www.reddit.com/r/thelastpsychiatrist
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 9, 2015 9:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hehehe. Do we have any power to stop you from reading Maxim? Why would we?
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 9, 2015 9:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I can feel the Auroclypse approaching.
It's caressing my fundament.
I can feel the dawn slowly bleeding..
The phora,
the world that touches its own.
Inshallah...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 10, 2015 3:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Australia It always lots of pain to see things go bad in my marriage but Thanks to Dr oshogum who stop my husband from cheating on me we almost got divorce and Dr oshogum save our marriage from lies because of pregnancy problem and cheats. I really do love my man and he is my source of finance. we love to have kids and his dad want to see him have kids too but i could not get pregnant because of his impotency problem then after which he was healed by Dr Oshogum i could not still get pregnant because it was already too late due to my age And he decide to live me for another another lady. Though i was very hurt i have to contact Dr oshogum again with oshogumspelltemple@live.com And also call HIm with +2347053161489 to help me get pregnant despite my age and bring back my husband. Now we are back together and i have a baby Girl and still expecting another soon. for any marriage, relationships problem and sickness contact oshogum for a better and to get all that you desire. Contact oshogumspelltemple@gmail.com And you can call HIm with +2347053161489to get all your problem solved.
1)Sickness of any kind
2)Help to CURE Hepatitis B, HIV/AIDs CANCER and BIPOLAR
3)Solve Divorce, Breakup problem and To Re-unit
4)Solve Pregnancy problem
5)Solve your Financial problem and Job promotion
6)To get a good and rich life partner
7)To Lose at Least 21 lbs of Belly Fat in Just 7 days
8)Drug Addict and Masturbation
contact oshogumspelltemple@gmail.com And you can call HIm with +2347053161489
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 21, 2015 3:46 AM | Posted by : | Reply
http://blogs.cdc.gov/publichealthmatters/2011/05/preparedness-101-zombie-apocalypse/#comment-385481
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
April 27, 2015 1:52 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Coming up on a year, here. If Alone is reading this, I want to say Thank You. I had no idea what critical thinking actually was until I stumbled upon this website. I'm trying to be good, promise. Take Care.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
May 1, 2015 10:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Someone needs to get me Alone's e-mail address. I'm going to send him the link below, and it will make him so angry about the writer's projection and narcissism that he will come back here and blog about it.
http://lazenby.tumblr.com/post/117822868947/what-do-you-think-about-the-pen-freedom-of-speech
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 2, 2015 2:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Should you want that, his e-mail for this site is alone AT thelastpsychiatrist DOT com
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 2, 2015 2:34 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
(Source: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/about.html)
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 3, 2015 9:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Happy anniversary, Alone. This blog is still making a difference in many lives one year later, so at least keep it open and running (and everyone else can donate to keep it alive) even if your efforts may be better directed elsewhere. This glass of rum is for you; cheers.
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
May 4, 2015 6:16 PM | Posted by : | Reply
On this one year anniversary, many thanks to Alone for all his work. Reading this blog made me a better person. (Or, at least, a person who never ever checks his phone when hanging out with his family.)
By the way, here's one theory about why this blog ended that I haven't heard. Maybe it is DONE. I mean, seriously, look in the archives. The topic covered here are amazing in their breadth and depth. Every time I think, "Why won't Alone write about this?" I realize, "Oh. He already did."
Safe travels, Alone. I hope this blog always stays online.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
May 4, 2015 8:26 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Agreed with the above. Happy anniversary and thanks for keeping the blog up. It's bee a good few years, and I'd be lying if I said this corner
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 4, 2015 8:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Agreed with the above. Happy anniversary and thanks for keeping the blog up. It's bee a good few years, and I'd be lying if I said this corner of the internet didn't help me get there. Cheers.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
May 4, 2015 9:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So today marks one year of radio silence from TLP. Thanks for this great blog, even if you've left it behind for good. I hope that the rumors of your death have been exaggerated.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
May 4, 2015 10:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Here's a "new post" of sorts (someone quoting an e-mail by TLP): http://www.reddit.com/r/thelastpsychiatrist/comments/34wabm/since_its_been_a_year_i_guess_ill_share_this_a/
Of course it's brilliant.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 4, 2015 10:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Here's a new post of sorts (someone quoting an e-mail by TLP about one of his favorite books): http://www.reddit.com/r/thelastpsychiatrist/comments/34wabm/since_its_been_a_year_i_guess_ill_share_this_a/
It's brilliant.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
May 5, 2015 11:08 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Is there a way to save the entirety of this website for reference in case it goes down? Because as mentioned, it is invaluable. Not every topic has been analyzed, but that's not the point. The point is, there is more than sufficient demonstration of HOW to analyze and uncover insight into topics, so with some work, we can carry on similarly ourselves.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 5, 2015 6:29 PM | Posted by : | Reply
its been a year since his last post. Hope you're alive dude. Happy Cinco de Mayo Heysus-Christos!
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 6, 2015 1:38 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
There are ways; you can google around. This website is also saved in its entirety, or pretty close to it, by the Internet Archive, including deleted stuff (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/)
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
May 8, 2015 7:14 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Almost:
>Someone needs to get me Alone's e-mail address. I'm going to send him the link below, and it will make him so angry about the writer's projection and narcissism that he will come back here and blog about it.
>http://lazenby.tumblr.com/post/117822868947/what-do-you-think-about-the-pen-freedom-of-speech
I haven't seen quite such a perfect example of an inversion of the morality of breeding in quite some time. How could any person possibly be so opposed to racial hygiene? The author is clearly spiritually Jewish, if not an actual Jew.
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
May 24, 2015 1:21 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So... I wonder when that Book of Porn is coming out...
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 29, 2015 10:12 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I think he's making fun of himself there. Maybe.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
May 30, 2015 7:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
alone AT thelastpsychiatrist.com
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 4, 2015 4:15 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Whenever you’re part of a group or team (not necessarily in competition or close contact) in which everyone is subject to the same rules and information, it can be tough for every individual to keep track of every change, update or revision of exactly those. But if there are people in that group who take their time and care enough to share, this challenge becomes a whole lot more manageable.
kizi99.com | frivkids.us | kizi99.info | frivpc.com
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 9, 2015 4:04 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone, please finally resurrect and dissect this female super narcissist:
http://www.cecinestpasunviol.com/
The girl who cried wolf, i mean rape, steps up her game and shows a reenactment of her alleged, illusionary rape to the whole world, so that everyone finally believes her story....
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 10, 2015 12:50 AM | Posted by : | Reply
its been more than a year, it is sad that this blog stopped existing.
thank you TLP, you are a great writer
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
June 17, 2015 12:48 AM | Posted by : | Reply
If Alone will not come out of the woodwork for even Dolezal, they are probably dead. RIP in paprika.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2015 12:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thanks for all for provide these guidelines it's really helpful for everyone.
Buy Percocet Online
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2015 5:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Well, very good post with informative information. I really appreciate the fact that you approach these topics from a stand point of knowledge and information. This is the first time, I visited at your site and became your fan. You are bookmarked. Please keep on posting.
Buy Hydrocodone Online
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 17, 2015 10:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
So glad to see more writing, I am super excited to read it. Thank you!
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 24, 2015 4:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
He TLP,
When do you have some time to spare for your faithful readers :) I think many of us are missing you a bit, at least I do, whatever that means. It is just one normally anonymous reader of course.
And when does the porn book come out?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 26, 2015 8:23 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Hey so,
I'm sorry to disrupt this article, but I was linked somehow to the one the blogger here wrote on mass killers in 2010 (!)
I'm so freaked out now because I meet literally all of the criteria for being a mass killer (googled around hte issue too for more info - yup, still fit the profile) and I've been having really awfully violent thoughts and impulses for the past 2 years. I feel that I may not be able to control myself any longer? Well I hope I will but I totally totally get the reason why mass killers do what they do.
Asking here as it is a recent thread, sorry if it is disruptive. Does anyone know how to contact the guy who writes this blog? I REALLY need to speak to some good shrink (one he reocmmends?) as the ones i have currently are SO shit and so so so bad. I feel I need like, a very speciifc kinda help?
Thanks sorry and this is totally totally serious, swear on me mumz life not a troll
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
June 27, 2015 9:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Coolio, check out Invisibilia, ep. 1 "The Secret History of Thoughts". Pertains to your situation. Alone said long ago that he stopped checking the email connected to this site. His Twitter @thelastpsych may be the best bet, but that's no guarantee either.
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
June 28, 2015 9:14 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thanks dude. I will order the book (and try and get ahold of alone, god wouldn't it be good to actually get to be this guy's client? jesus.)
Just to add, spent all of today (coment I made about myself was yesterday) reading this book. OMG. mind blown. wishing alone a happy anniversary.
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
July 4, 2015 8:00 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Good Day !!
I am Hwa Jurong, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money
Lender. I want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary
assistance as I'll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to
reliable individuals.
Services Rendered include:
*Home Improvement
*Inventor Loans
*Car Loans
*Debt Consolidation Loan
*Line of Credit
*Second Loan
*Business Loans
*Personal Loans
*International Loans.
Please write back if interested.
Upon Response, you'll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social
security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to
be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail:hwajurong382@yahoo.com hwajurong12@gmail.com
Yours Sincerely,
Hwa Jurong(MD).
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 6, 2015 10:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I hope you will bring many more great things.
Friv 3 | Kizi 4
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 12:44 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This is like my fourth time stopping over your Blog. Normally, I do not make comments on website, but I have to mention that this post really pushed me to do so. Really great post .
Buy Adderall online
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 12:46 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Really good website this is, full of useful information and advice. Thanks for sharing.
Buy Adderall online
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 1:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
It is my pleasure that I have the unique opportunity to comment on this awesome post.
buy codeine online
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 1:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thanks for posting this. i really enjoyed reading this.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 1:41 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Wonderful site and I wanted to post a note to let you know, ""Good job""! I’m glad I found this blog. Brilliant and wonderful job ! Your blog site has presented me most of the strategies which I like. Thanks for sharing this.
retail consultancy sydney
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 2:21 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I was working and suddenly I visits your site frequently and recommended it to me to read also. The writing style is superior and the content is relevant. Thanks for the insight you provide the readers!
buy Xanax online
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 2:22 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thanks for providing such useful information. I really appreciate your professional approach.
buy Ritalin online
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 2:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I am also interested in this topic. I have spent a lot of time on searching this kind of topic. It is very informative.
retail sales training sydney
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 2:58 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thanks for providing such useful information. I really appreciate your professional approach.
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 2:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thanks for posting this. i really enjoyed reading this.
buy vicodin es online
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 3:31 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thanks for your marvelous posting! I actually enjoyed reading it, you will be a great author.I will ensure that I bookmark your blog and will come back in the foreseeable future. I want to encourage that you continue your great job, have a nice weekend!think you’ve made some truly interesting points.
sales development sydney
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 4:01 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thank you. I'll be passing this along.
field sales training sydney
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 4:05 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Certainly a fantastic piece of work ... It has relevant information. Thanks for posting this. Your blog is so interesting and very informative.Thanks sharing. Definitely a great piece of work Thanks for your work.
buy lortab online
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 4:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Congratulation for the great post. Those who come to read your Information will find lots of helpful and informative tips.
buy oxycodone online
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 4:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thanks for sharing the information
buy Percocet online
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 5:30 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thanks for the great post. You have a well written and informative blog especially for us.
Buy Adderall online
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 5:32 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I am also interested in this topic. I have spent a lot of time on searching this kind of topic. It is very informative.
buy valium roche online
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 6:11 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Your site is good Actually, i have seen your post and That was very informative and very entertaining for me. Thanks for posting Really Such Things. I should recommend your site to my friends. Cheers.
sales training sydney
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 6:40 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Really good website this is, full of useful information and advice. Thanks for sharing.
sales training
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 7:02 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Thanks to a brilliant effort in publishing your Information. One can be more informative as this. There are many things I can know only after reading your wonderful Information.
Buy Adderall online
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 7:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
This is really good information. Must agree that you are one of the coolest blogger I ever saw.
buy codeine online
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 7:07 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Congratulation for the great post. Those who come to read your Information will find lots of helpful and informative tips.
retail consultancy
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 7:15 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Just amazing and this website one of the best. I surely save this one.
Buy Percocet online
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 7:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this post.
Buy lortab online
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 10, 2015 7:35 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Wow!..Amazing.. I have no words to describe it.
sales coaching Sydney
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
Comments