Racism

[Gary Childress]

I have very limited patience for your nonsense, Gary.

That has been evident from the get-go. Did you think I hadn't noticed?

[Alexis Jacobi]

[Moron, looser, idiot — I have learned all this from Veggie! I don’t know, it’s kind of fun really.]

[Gary Childress]

[Moron, looser, idiot — I have learned all this from Veggie! I don’t know, it’s kind of fun really.]

There you go. Do you feel a little better now? If not, maybe breaking inexpensive dinnerware would help? (Nothing with sharp edges, though.) You're doing great!

[Gary Childress]

Extra points if you repeatedly hit yourself on the forehead with a feather-stuffed baton. Though, I'm not entirely sure why I say that. (I'll get back to you if and when I have a better answer.)

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Gary Childress]

BTW, have you ever noticed that Charlie Chaplin and Adolf Hitler had the same sort of mustache?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

BTW, have you ever noticed that Charlie Chaplin and Adolf Hitler had the same sort of mustache?

Yes. And they must be the only two humans who ever existed who had a moustache like that (althought Chaplin's was probably fake).

[Alexis Jacobi]

[Moron, looser, idiot — I have learned all this from Veggie! I don’t know, it’s kind of fun really.]

There you go. Do you feel a little better now? If not, maybe breaking inexpensive dinnerware would help? (Nothing with sharp edges, though.) You're doing great!

We do not have inexpensive dinnerware. When last in Panama we bought up partial sets and lone pieces of ultra-expensive French and German dinnerware. Limoges, Christofle, Haviland, and had it sent back.

If a piece breaks — Oh well. Nothing to cry over. A great relief for the maids.

If you mean to refer to a certain “intolerance” with idiocy on my part, I recognize that it is somewhat contrary to the *proper rules* but it can be included if there is also substantial engagement with ideas generally.

Sometimes — or so it seems to me — the best descriptors of those we oppose and argue with maybe in the end be the most honest and precise. Take Iam’s view that I am a “pedant” and “up in philosophical clouds”. It encapsulates his actual view not only of me but of, what? philosophy generally (?) It is a curious position to have really since it implied action not vain (and interminable) musing.

(He’d make a great Maoist or Nazi if you think about it.)

You interest me because of your self-confessed mental illness, but in combination with a total moral weakness — not to mention that every conversation you engage in is turned into a therapy session and your infliction of blame on those who do not suffer as you do.

You have become, for me, emblematic of *America* today. A culture of weaklings, the decrepit, the spiritually devastated, of sick masculinity verging on inevitable faggotry. You and *your ilk* (to quote Iams) are taking over. All ideas are reduced to emotions. You can’t see beyond your own sickness. Nothing matters but your sickness.

My contempt for *you* really has very little to do with you-personally. I can only see you, as I say, as an emblem. Like the canary in the coal mine.

Did I do evil by stating what I think? It seems sharp but not wrong. My view is that we desperately need real directness and honesty about *what we have become*.

[The 23rd and 24th chapters of The Course deal on Radical Honesty. You really need to sign up!]

[Gary Childress]

[Moron, looser, idiot — I have learned all this from Veggie! I don’t know, it’s kind of fun really.]

There you go. Do you feel a little better now? If not, maybe breaking inexpensive dinnerware would help? (Nothing with sharp edges, though.) You're doing great!

We do not have inexpensive dinnerware. When last in Panama we bought up partial sets and lone pieces of ultra-expensive French and German dinnerware. Limoges, Christofle, Haviland, and had it sent back.

If a piece breaks — Oh well. Nothing to cry over. A great relief for the maids.

If you mean to refer to a certain “intolerance” with idiocy on my part, I recognize that it is somewhat contrary to the *proper rules* but it can be included if there is also substantial engagement with ideas generally.

Sometimes — or so it seems to me — the best descriptors of those we oppose and argue with maybe in the end be the most honest and precise. Take Iam’s view that I am a “pedant” and “up in philosophical clouds”. It encapsulates his actual view not only of me but of, what? philosophy generally (?) It is a curious position to have really since it implied action not vain (and interminable) musing.

(He’d make a great Maoist or Nazi if you think about it.)

You interest me because of your self-confessed mental illness, but in combination with a total moral weakness — not to mention that every conversation you engage in is turned into a therapy session and your infliction of blame on those who do not suffer as you do.

You have become, for me, emblematic of *America* today. A culture of weaklings, the decrepit, the spiritually devastated, of sick masculinity verging on inevitable faggotry. You and *your ilk* (to quote Iams) are taking over. All ideas are reduced to emotions. You can’t see beyond your own sickness. Nothing matters but your sickness.

My contempt for *you* really has very little to do with you-personally. I can only see you, as I say, as an emblem. Like the canary in the coal mine.

Did I do evil by stating what I think? It seems sharp but not wrong. My view is that we desperately need real directness and honesty about *what we have become*.

[The 23rd and 24th chapters of The Course deal on Radical Honesty. You really need to sign up!]

Why do you have "contempt"? What is there for you to be 'contemptuous' of? Is the Limoges dinnerware not pleasing you? Would you like some of our innexpensive dinnerware to smash? I'd be happy to to provide that for you as well, however, it would be more practical (considering the real world distance between us) for you to make the effort to get it yourself. It's generally innexpensive and easily affordable. If you can afford the other stuff, then you should be able to accomplish that on your own. Feel free to shout if I can be of further assistance. I'll let you know if I will accomodate.

Maybe in the meantime you can go outside and savagely destroy weeds in the garden. Perhaps that will bring you a sense of accomplishment too? Wish I could be of more help. Sorry.

Have you tried therapy?

[Lacewing]

I myself very certainly do not believe in any philosophy of “loving” an enemy.

I can’t think of anyone in the world who realistically practices such an absurd philosophy.

Efforts to understand enemies might be made. Strategic compromises maybe. But love?

There is no Christian who seriously practices this “love your enemy” business.

I think love is more about the way we 'view'.

If we are viewing one as an enemy, then that is not about love.

Feeling contempt for 'another' is (obviously) not love, no matter how we identify ourselves spiritually.

If we view all as one, that is love.

If our aim is acceptance (and hopefully some degree of understanding), that is love.

The goal of 'loving one's enemy' suggests to me a goal of acceptance (even when understanding isn't possible) regardless of apparent differences. It doesn't mean agreement or compatibility. It refers to a higher view. (Like a parent might have acceptance of their child despite that child's foolishness or destructiveness.) I think it is spiritual to love the world as it is even if there's also a desire to change it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Why do you have "contempt"?

That's a good question. What is the function of contempt? And what is its value?

con•tempt (kənˈtɛmpt)
n.
1. a feeling of disdain for anything considered mean, vile, or worthless; scorn.
2. the state of being despised; disgrace.
3. willful disobedience to or open disrespect for the rules or orders of a court or legislative body: contempt of court.

[1350–1400; < Latin contemptus a slighting <contemn(ere) to despise, scorn (see contemn) + -tus suffix of v. action]

syn: contempt, disdain, scorn imply strong feelings of disapproval and aversion toward what seems base, mean, or worthless. contempt is disapproval tinged with disgust: to feel contempt for a weakling. disdain is a feeling that a person or thing is beneath one's dignity and unworthy of one's notice, respect, or concern: a disdain for crooked dealing. scorn denotes undisguised contempt often combined with derision: He showed scorn for those less ambitious than himself.

Contempt is always directed against one's own self. I mean, in the best of circumstances. If one is merely contemptful -- imperiously scornful -- that is usually a sign of projection. And what one is not seeing is one's own self.

Hate yourself first -- and then extend it to others!

So in fact I have a good deal of contempt for aspects of myself which I *detest*. Shall I create a list? I certainly can.

Since a great deal of what I write about has to do with gaining a sense of what has real value and real meaning, I will say that I have contempt for what has kept me from being capable of making those definitions. Or of accepting shallow substitutes.

It is actually a very worthy topic. You have your moments, Gary!

[Gary Childress]

Hate yourself first -- and then extend it to others!

Hmm.

[iambiguous]

...if you do believe that "on average" your race is intellectually superior to and far, far less likely to commit crimes, steal or riot than other races and you were in a position of power in a community composed of different races, what would be permitted and what would not be permitted in regard to social, political and economic interactions? What behaviors would be encouraged/rewarded and what behaviors would be discouraged/punished? For example, would interracial marriages still be legal?

And how would you compare yourself [on race] to, say, those who practiced apartheid in South Africa and those who practiced extermination in Nazi Germany?

Grow a pair for us and actually walk your talk.

However, you know nothing about South Africa and likely less about Germany.

Okay, Mr. Wiggle Too, in regard to race, what is there to know about them? And how, in regard to race, would your own "best of all possible communities" unfold socially, politically and economically...by comparison?

You misunderstand “growing a pair” and in that sense I sense you have an impeded masculinity. But then it’s all “fragmented & fractured” in your case, right?

It's just an expression. It's me wanting you to come clean regarding the fate of those of other races if you were in a position of power in a community and could enforce your intellectual contraptions here regarding race.

And, yes, my own profoundly problematic political prejudices are what they are: rooted existentially in dasein. I'm just curious to explore how, in regard to race, your own are not?

For you “taking action” [walking the talk] is a) setting up internment camps, or b) establishing an apartheid state. Which option will it be?

No, my own political prejudices here and now go in the other direction. I merely acknowledge that they are rooted existentially in dasein. Then I note the part where from the perspective of science -- https://www.google.com/search?q=science ... s-wiz-serp -- the general consensus is that race is not at all as the apartheid and extermination folks seemed to think it was.

But only a childish, half-deranged, neurotic, confused dolt would think in such brute terms.

Okay, so what political policies in regard to race would you prefer instead? Separate but equal?

[Alexis Jacobi]

There is a great deal to know about both of them. That is if you want to talk intelligently about either of them.

Note to Satyr: This does seem to confirm what you said yesterday, doesn’t it?

IAMs wrote: It's just an expression. It's me wanting you to come clean regarding the fate of those of other races if you were in a position of power in a community and could enforce your intellectual contraptions here regarding race.

Yes, Iambiguous, I got it months back.

When you say “come clean” the implication is that I am dirty and you will help me clean myself up. You want to corral me into revealing when the internment camps will be built and when the monuments to Hitler go up.

It’s classified, you nut!

Nothing I say or have said involves any such propositions. You are a mental defective and you have severe reading issues. For that reason I say you are a neurotic.

Did your mother ever really love you? I mean really?

You never get the result you want … but you keep on as if you will get it.

[iambiguous]

...if you do believe that "on average" your race is intellectually superior to and far, far less likely to commit crimes, steal or riot than other races and you were in a position of power in a community composed of different races, what would be permitted and what would not be permitted in regard to social, political and economic interactions? What behaviors would be encouraged/rewarded and what behaviors would be discouraged/punished? For example, would interracial marriages still be legal?

And how would you compare yourself [on race] to, say, those who practiced apartheid in South Africa and those who practiced extermination in Nazi Germany?

Grow a pair for us and actually walk your talk.

However, you know nothing about South Africa and likely less about Germany.

Okay, Mr. Wiggle Too, in regard to race, what is there to know about them? And how, in regard to race, would your own "best of all possible communities" unfold socially, politically and economically...by comparison?

You misunderstand “growing a pair” and in that sense I sense you have an impeded masculinity. But then it’s all “fragmented & fractured” in your case, right?

It's just an expression. It's me wanting you to come clean regarding the fate of those of other races if you were in a position of power in a community and could enforce your intellectual contraptions here regarding race.

And, yes, my own profoundly problematic political prejudices are what they are: rooted existentially in dasein. I'm just curious to explore how, in regard to race, your own are not?

For you “taking action” [walking the talk] is a) setting up internment camps, or b) establishing an apartheid state. Which option will it be?

No, my own political prejudices here and now go in the other direction. I merely acknowledge that they are rooted existentially in dasein. Then I note the part where from the perspective of science -- https://www.google.com/search?q=science ... s-wiz-serp -- the general consensus is that race is not at all as the apartheid and extermination folks seemed to think it was.

But only a childish, half-deranged, neurotic, confused dolt would think in such brute terms.

Okay, so what political policies in regard to race would you prefer instead? Separate but equal?

There is a great deal to know about both of them. That is if you want to talk intelligently about either of them.

Note to Satyr: This does seem to confirm what you said yesterday, doesn’t it?

Absolutely shameless, Mr. Wiggle Too, absolutely shameless.


Yo, Satyr!

Over there note for us how your own convictions regarding race would play out in comparison to apartheid and extermination. And don't forget to throw in a zillion YouTube videos...the ones depicting black folks doing all of those godawful beastly things.

[iambiguous]

There is a great deal to know about both of them. That is if you want to talk intelligently about either of them.

Note to Satyr: This does seem to confirm what you said yesterday, doesn’t it?

IAMs wrote: It's just an expression. It's me wanting you to come clean regarding the fate of those of other races if you were in a position of power in a community and could enforce your intellectual contraptions here regarding race.

Yes, Iambiguous, I got it months back.

When you say “come clean” the implication is that I am dirty and you will help me clean myself up. You want to corral me into revealing when the internment camps will be built and when the monuments to Hitler go up.

Yeah, something like that. But, of course, only if that would in fact be the case. Oh, and I am completely incapable of helping anyone "clean themselves up". After all, I'm still no less fractured and fragmented myself in regard to value judgments.

It’s classified, you nut!

Sure, why not turn racism itself into a...joke? This is, after all, a philosophy forum.

Nothing I say or have said involves any such propositions. You are a mental defective and you have severe reading issues. For that reason I say you are a neurotic.

Don't you remember? As with IC and henry quirk, you are now just entertainment. And, in that regard, better posts like this from you than those godawful "walls of words". So, with you, I now get exactly what I want.