Philosophy Now Forum

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 10:17 pm What's up with Biggy's habit of publicly declaring victories?

Satyr does this also. It could be an homage.

Shameless

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 9:57 pm Details please.

Con mucho gusto! However, from this point on they will cost you. How many details do you want to start with? I’ll prepare an estimate.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 9:57 pmCome on AJ, grow a pair and note what, if you were to attain power in what you construe to be "the best of all possible communities" the law of the land would be in regard to things like gay marriage, homosexual rights, transgenders, etc..

Wait. You go first. You’ve asked this question so often. Might you also answer it? Paint me a post-extreme-Right post-Christian racist proto Marxian utopia.

Myself, I’ll maybe put my answer to music.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 9:57 pmNo, this seems particularly ambiguous to me. Would you be behind those who were intent politically on changing attitudes back to, say, what once prevailed in the 1950s here in America?

A decent question really. My view? You cannot go backwards in any sense. Admiration of the past is usually false romanticism. Like Isaiah Berlin said in this interesting interview, we are not men of that previous age and we cannot fake it. It is impossible to re-replicate it or any other age.

There is only going forward.

I am curious as well how the great patriots of the reactive Conservative Right envision the world they desire. In some countries they seem to be solidifying protective enclosures (Poland is a possible example, Romania also). But that is different from trying to replicate a former time.

An interesting topic in any case. Thank you. Did the threat of Satyr’s harsh domination put the Fear of the Lord in you?!?

My interest, perhaps misguided? is to broaden conversations such as that in which we are engaged in here.

Many things occurring now are connected to other things. The total picture must be considered.

So, Iambiguous, for the sake of on-going productive (not merely bickering) conversation I am interested in your view, as one moulded by the Vietnam experience, which politicized many, what you think of McGregor’s views as expressed here?

You have to listen a few minutes in to hear what he says about America “exporting” values that many do not share.

What if this is connected to the anti-Deep State Conservative Right?

(Very very strange times we are in! How can we talk productively about it?)

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 11:12 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 9:57 pm Details please.

Con mucho gusto! However, from this point on they will cost you. How many details do you want to start with? I’ll prepare an estimate.

Let's start here...

Okay, in regard to homosexuality, how is "mass formation" as encompassed here different from your own assessment of it...as opposed to Satyr's even more extreme assessment of it...as opposed to the truly extreme Nazi assessment of it back in the 1930s and 1940s Germany.

Let's get down to the nitty gritty here regarding what behaviors you would permit in your "best of all possible communities" and what behaviors you would not permit.

Gay marriage for example.

How many details can you provide us with in regard to legislation in your own "best of all possible communities" pertaining to the right of homosexuals to marry and enjoy all the rights and responsibilities that heterosexual couples enjoy and are burdened with.

Then hopefully Satyr and the Nazis among us can note the manner in which the details in their legislation would be different.



I should add that so far Satyr himself is not too impressed with you here:

I thought those fucks [at PN] were smarter than the nitwits on ILP.
Took them years to finally ignore her to the point where she was forced to find new victims to annoy.
I guess it'll take them years on PN before they begin to ignore her Karen insanity.

Apparently "Karen" -- iamastupidcunt -- is me here.

This Karen:

"Karen is a pejorative term used as slang for a white woman perceived as entitled or demanding beyond the scope of what is normal. The term is often portrayed in memes depicting white women who use their white privilege to demand their own way."

Or:

"a middle-aged woman, typically blonde, makes solutions to others' problems an inconvenience to her although she isn't remotely affected."

You figure it out.

iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Apr 03, 2023 8:40 pm But most of us can recall instances in our past where, had that happened instead of this, our lives might have been very different. The only reason it has to be imagined is because this instead of that happened.

For me it always comes back to being born on March 23rd. Why? Because in being born on that day I was eligible for the draft. Had I been born on March 22nd or March 24th I might never have been drafted at all.

And being drafted changed everything. That resulted in my being sent to Vietnam and meeting soldiers there that completely upended my own value judgments. I went over there a devout Christian, a political conservative, a born in the belly of the white working class racist, a gross sexist and fiercely opposed to all "faggotry". I came back an atheist and an Marxist-Leninist.

What you link to (your writing on other sites) is incomprehensible to me. Your writing-style is terribly annoying at times. Other times you write clearly. I quickly scan it and then click away. FYI. If the movies are worthwhile I'm interested. But there must be a YouTube link, no?

What interests me in what I have quoted here is the path of your transformation. It is a germane topic and I wonder if you have read any of Kathleen Belew's books? Like Bring the War Home. Belew has been called before congressional groups and there is one interesting video of her encounter with Candace Owens. Though half of this forum is made up of barking lunatics I would suggest that there is a serious and thoughtful way for people to think about the issues of our day without succumbing to blockading and bickering.

I've read both Bring the War Home and her more recent book A Field Guide to White Supremacy.

Her argument in BTWH is that it was Vietnam and the experience there that politicized numerous different groups and empowered people of various ideological orientations. It can easily be seen that if Americans were enrolled in military operations against *communists* and *communism* in S. Asia, and if that use of violence was legitimized there, then those who came home from that war and that experience justified their own violence against those they described as radicals and communists at home, it is not hard at least to understand the *logic* of their thinking. Similarly, those who were politicized into the Left Revolutionary camp determined that violence and even the tactic of guerrilla warfare were both justified and needed to defeat the identified enemy (their own State and nation).

It is wise to consider the pattern, if you will, of the American Civil War as it continually plays out. For this reason the question of *patriotism* and *allegiance* are always at the core of the dramatic differences of opinion and view in respect to what is going on today in America. How 'patriots' define themselves, what their values and beliefs are, and also their sense of ownership of America and the fate and destiny of America -- all of this must, in my view, be taken into consideration when examining social and political conflicts today.

In your case (and the case of the larger part of a generation I think) you went from one belief-set to a belief-set known to offer to a person a radical interpretive framing, a near-absolute critical framing which, as I often say, operates like an *acid*. With this *acid* then, a generation used it to attack, melt, deconstruct, invalidate and undermine not simply the State that sent them to fight in a war with a dubious casus belli. And, as most agree, it was that war, at that time, that quite literally tore the nation apart.

So, though you have been, in relation to me, involved in amazing projections and externalizations of deep paranoia, you are quite mistaken if you actually believe I am allied with Nazism or any of the particular evils that captivate your imagination in your barking performances here and apparently in other places as well.

The reason you (and others) get confused is because of the force and power of a mental syndrome I have labeled 'binary thinking'. I refer to a malady of thinking. To Belinda I have described it as 'emotional thinking' and used words like 'shrill' 'deranged' etc. I submit that it is this style of thinking that has broken out as an irruption in the social body. It is comparable to possession of the sort CG Jung talks about. And here's the thing: everyone is susceptible to it. And if one thinks that one is not or has not been infected by it (to one degree or another) that right there is the fatal mistake. We are all susceptible to psychic infection.

So you asked me (in your totally skewed way with your bizarre introduction of the figure Satyr!) to say something about Mass Formation -- this somewhat half-baked term that is circulating on the Internet and functions as an 'interpretive device' for those who wish to label their enemies as being captured by psychological ailment.

If you are asking me what I think about that I would direct you to two essays by CG Jung on the topic of the European conflagration: Wotan and After the Catastrophe.

Tucker Carleson interviewed Mattias Desmet (PhD Psychology, University of Ghent) who has written The Psychology of Totalitarianism on a recent show. It is worth watching. Except I would watch it from a place of a certain *distance*. I do not think that Tucker Carlson is in any sense outside of the possibility of being infected or contaminated (in the way I am referring to it here).

It is way way to easy to constantly refer to the supreme example of Ontological Malevolence (Hitler, the Nazi eruption, the European wars and a great deal more) without understanding the nature of psychic conflagrations.

So, whereas in your case you were politicized in a situation of genuine and veritable trauma, and you necessarily reversed all your *beliefs* and your platform of understanding, and then took up a doctrinal set that allows for a total critical position and, finally, the violent overthrow of that which is described as the origin of evil and oppression, I think it is wise to stand back from 'falling into' such a false-solution.

However, when people are *captured* by an ideology they seem to lose all sense of measure. The analytical tool dominates all of their thinking and interpreting method and indeed it is said to function like a religion of True Believers. Religious fury, religious conviction, the easy solution offered by falling into a belief system that seems to solve all problems of analysis -- I say that we need to examine these tendencies to which we are all susceptible.

Biggs wuz like a goddamn che Guevara over there, AJ. May have even shot some of his own guys after he defected.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 4:08 pm Biggs wuz like a goddamn che Guevara over there, AJ. May have even shot some of his own guys after he defected.

Yeah, AJ! What about that?!!

Here, AJ, let him help you....

you on steroids wrote: Karen speak:

"Skyhooks" = mansplaning.....too intellectual. Over Karen's head.
"up in the didactic pedantic clouds" = too abstract, too general...personalize it, dumb it down - emote.
"Down to earth" = dumb it down to below 100 IQ - put it in a soap opera scenario context, where emotions can factor in, giving Karen an advantage - she thinks.
"Nazi" = whatever scares Karen, and she cannot find an argument against it.
"Good argument" = emotional and beneficial to her cause.
"Dasein" = tabula rasa - thrown into the world where one is programmed with no hope of escaping the programming - nothing to do with Heidegger - another "nazi".
"Objectivism" = whatever lacks emotional triggers. Too general, too abstract....too rational, too logical. Whomever does not drop their beliefs just because another is presented. To refuse to abandon your beliefs for any other, is to be a objectivist...a "fulminating fanatic".
"Fulminating Fanatics" = all who hold onto their beliefs on merit, and do not abandon them and replace them with any other alternative no matter how absurd - the moment your own beliefs are proven to not be perfect, you must abandon them.....otherwise you are a fanatic - and Karen knows fanatics because she will fanatically say so, and then drop her disclaimer, "I may be wrong", at the end. But she can never be wrong about being wrong, because if it ain't perfect it ain't right, so it must be equally wrong as any other belief.
"Autocratic" = too unemotional, unyielding to Karen's adolescent, psycho-babbling manipulations.
"Stooge" = whomever she can manipulate but fails to undermine - trigger to help her maintain attentions, similar to her declarations of victory: feminine ploys. She taunts those she can manipulate into giving her attention, no matter how annoying and incoherent she becomes.
"Click" = tongue poke - feminine method of maintaining attention and annoying her adversaries. A woman thing.
"Note to Others" = appealing to the audience, implying she is having an impact, and they are on her side - another feminine, infantile manipulative ploy.
"Wiggle" = implying that she's somehow trapped you intellectually, and you are now retreating in panic; taunting those who attempt to escape, frustrated by the infantile Karen manipulations - pulling them back and into her linguistic trap.....her hole from where she pretends she wants to escape (damsel in distress). In fact she wants to pull the world into her hole....her gaping snatch....her ****.
Her "formidable arguments" declare free-will to not exist, and that morality is imposed by the powerful upon the weak, and there is no identity, and sex is not for reproduction, and though there are breeds and species there are no human races, just because she says so - she can google some internet hack to support her delusions, don't you worry - and if you cannot explain how matter evolves into life and how it becomes conscious then her declarations stand as indubitable facts...so *wiggle wiggle away because that's all the evidence and reasoning you'll receive from her.
She was born into her beliefs and this is a universal truth nobody can deny. We cannot learn and change our minds, 'cause we have no choice.....and this is fact because she says so.....then she'll pretend she's doubting herself..because she ain't no objectivist, *wink *wink


There's are more....but who cares.

Her goal is not to philosophize and share world views and opinions, or to debate - she has no clue about any philosophy, not even her neo-Marxism and postmodernism -....her goal is to undermine your very will to live, your spirit of being, your confidence....priming you to become a mindless minion in her utopian Marxist future world.
She's a postmodern neo-marxist opportunist....and she don't know it. She is a puppet herself.

Christianity failed her; Marxism failed her...and now she's learned of a new more vengeful method...and she likes it.

Doesn't matter what you post....she'll pretend you said nothing, and that her "arguments" - her ploys, word traps - her posts remained unanswered. She'll return to them, over and over, no matter what has been aid, as if nothing has been said, pretending that her posts are formidable, that nobody can respond or give answers.
It's all to undermine your confidence, your sanity...make you doubt yourself.
If you cannot offer her an absolute - absolute certainty, absolute evidence, a complete perfect theory of everything....then it's all the same....all equally nil.

I'm curious to see how long it takes these dimwits to realize what a psychotic **** Karen is....or do they secretly enjoy the entire exchange? I think a few of them are dimwitted enough to consider her "interesting", or they've got time to waste away.
Anyway.....carry on.

you on steroids wrote:
Black Karen....Quaran, or Kalisha....
We've got our own Mary Land Karen variant - biological male but channelling the spirit of a hysterical old woman, a Karen. Anti-philosophy Mary Land Karen philosophizing - anti-morality moralizing Mary, Karen, Land...anti-free-will, anti-choice, freely choosing this method to undermine and break down all opposition to her delusional naïve Utopia, Mary Land Karen - nagging you into submission, nagging you until you go insane, like her, reducing you to her hysterics, her emotional state; until you are ready to do anything, compromise, abandon all reasoning, agree to any subjective truth...just to shut her up.
The archetype is the same.
You cannot make heads or tails of whatever she's parroting, in a loud, nagging, repeating loop.
She's not listening to anything you say. It doesn't mater, to her...she's committed to breaking you down, to making you surrender, to desperately agree to anything if it'll shut her up.
There's no reasoning....that's "objectivism," or "white supremacy"...only emoting is permitted, i.e., subjectivity, i.e., "down to earth" Mary Karen Land calls it, in classic declarative style.
She has nothing to justify her naïve delusions....she don't need any. Reasoning and definitions of concept sis for paternalistic, white supremacist, objectivist nazis...Mr. Man!!!
She always wins, because nobody wants to deal with that shit....but you can't even walk away....she'll taunt you, appeal to the ones standing around witnessing this circus show....she'll get in your face not allowing you to turn away...constantly nagging, making no sense....
Sense is 'objectivity'....'white privilege,' or 'paternalistic'....or 'Nazism.'

***********
Mary Karen Land always wins because she accepts no objective standard to evaluate her performance. All she accepts are words, and whomever declares victory first, or convinces the most of whatever emotional satisfying delusions, is the winner....and she'll tell it to your face, in case you missed it.
Her words need not abide by any rational definition, because this would deny her talent to nag you to submission its most precious weapon.....words to confuse and trigger....to poke and prod....to trigger and degrade, to undermine your confidence, your integrity, your very identity....to tear down your psyche to its most primal state of complete animalism.
Then she'll taunt you, enjoying her victory..."...look what I've reduced you to...."....
Her goal is your total destruction, to then present herself as your saviour....leading you to her naïve, delusional Garden of Eden, that exists nowhere but in her head.

See what I reduce this "serious philosopher" down to!!!

Don't let this happen to you, okay?

Who the fuck wants to see a bunch of posts from another forum from a guy who is not here???

They're not even content posts. They're your ongoing feud.

FO already

iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 5:42 pm Here, AJ, let him help you....

you on steroids wrote: Karen speak:

"Skyhooks" = mansplaning.....too intellectual. Over Karen's head.
"up in the didactic pedantic clouds" = too abstract, too general...personalize it, dumb it down - emote.
"Down to earth" = dumb it down to below 100 IQ - put it in a soap opera scenario context, where emotions can factor in, giving Karen an advantage - she thinks.
"Nazi" = whatever scares Karen, and she cannot find an argument against it.
"Good argument" = emotional and beneficial to her cause.
"Dasein" = tabula rasa - thrown into the world where one is programmed with no hope of escaping the programming - nothing to do with Heidegger - another "nazi".
"Objectivism" = whatever lacks emotional triggers. Too general, too abstract....too rational, too logical. Whomever does not drop their beliefs just because another is presented. To refuse to abandon your beliefs for any other, is to be a objectivist...a "fulminating fanatic".
"Fulminating Fanatics" = all who hold onto their beliefs on merit, and do not abandon them and replace them with any other alternative no matter how absurd - the moment your own beliefs are proven to not be perfect, you must abandon them.....otherwise you are a fanatic - and Karen knows fanatics because she will fanatically say so, and then drop her disclaimer, "I may be wrong", at the end. But she can never be wrong about being wrong, because if it ain't perfect it ain't right, so it must be equally wrong as any other belief.
"Autocratic" = too unemotional, unyielding to Karen's adolescent, psycho-babbling manipulations.
"Stooge" = whomever she can manipulate but fails to undermine - trigger to help her maintain attentions, similar to her declarations of victory: feminine ploys. She taunts those she can manipulate into giving her attention, no matter how annoying and incoherent she becomes.
"Click" = tongue poke - feminine method of maintaining attention and annoying her adversaries. A woman thing.
"Note to Others" = appealing to the audience, implying she is having an impact, and they are on her side - another feminine, infantile manipulative ploy.
"Wiggle" = implying that she's somehow trapped you intellectually, and you are now retreating in panic; taunting those who attempt to escape, frustrated by the infantile Karen manipulations - pulling them back and into her linguistic trap.....her hole from where she pretends she wants to escape (damsel in distress). In fact she wants to pull the world into her hole....her gaping snatch....her ****.

I don't know who this person is - I assume it's satyr - but I must say, this glossary of how you use the terms and phrases is absolutely spot on. It's interesting that you employ the exact same tactics here as there, to the point where someone can lay out your play book, reverse engineer it with such precision that anybody on any other forum you've interacted with for long enough could immediately and unmistakably recognize that it's about you.

Satyr writes: I'm curious to see how long it takes these dimwits to realize what a psychotic **** Karen is....or do they secretly enjoy the entire exchange? I think a few of them are dimwitted enough to consider her "interesting", or they've got time to waste away.

Hey, you talkin’ t’me?!?

larry wrote: ↑Tue Apr 04, 2023 5:48 pm Who the fuck wants to see a bunch of posts from another forum from a guy who is not here???

They're not even content posts. They're your ongoing feud.

FO already

Seriously, though, ask yourself why those like phyllo allow themselves to get so worked up about me. I'm still betting on the assumption that a part of them is certainly intelligent enough to grasp that the points I raise about my own fractured and fragmented "self" in the is/ought world -- God and religion and value judgments -- may well one day be applicable to them.

I disturb them because, in my own rooted existentially in dasein opinion, my philosophical conclusions disturb them. They can't quite make them go away other than by configuring into Stooge mode and making all of this about me.

Fuck off indeed.

And yet, obviously enough, all they need do is to stop reading what I post. After all, given their contempt for me, why on earth would they lower themselves to respond to my posts at all?

Starting now, okay?