The Maelstrom of Violence

[Eric the Green]

Rags wrote: "Where's the denunciation of Antifa's black/red flags and other symbols? They may as well be adorned with swastikas."

Hmm, I thought Mr. Rags liked black and red. And very loud bllasts of red and black sound assaulting you. Hmmmmm

[Eric the Green]

(09-18-2017, 08:40 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(09-18-2017, 07:18 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-18-2017, 06:10 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: 1.  Fascism and Communism are both equally evil.  I can't for the life of me why people are always, always dissing Fascists , which is correct, but nothing, nothing about those evil motherfucking Antifa scum.  Which ideology killed more people in the 20th century.   Answer  , it's the commies. I mean one can also look at Cynic Heroes list of his, uh heroes.   So where's the damnation of the evils of Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Khmer Rough?  I bet Antifas would love to suck off Stalin's cock.  Where's the denunciation of Antifa's black/red flags and other symbols?  They may as well be adorned with swastikas. 

2. 21st century axis of evil:  Neocons/Neoliberals.

3. Yeah, antifas are also stupid for their internationalism.  They may as well go suck off McStain's cock.  Mcstain has cancer and isn't long for this world.  He deserves a treat of having his cock sucked by antifas.

4. Life is touch... Well... I guess I can print a picture stuff related to antifa and go burn it in the backyard to make myself to feel better. <- I know folks think  it's weird, but burning shit is very relaxing.

There is an idea, a saying, usually expressed religiously, usually associated with the neo Wiccans, that varies around “Do as you will, but harm none.”

Now I try to run my values scientific first, political second, with religious a poor third.  However, this one can become or illustrate political ideas.  If you assume the Bill of Rights guarantees a right to what you want without interference from the government, from anyone, the first phase is a general and inclusive as you like.  If one accepts that negative rights to not guarantee a protected right to do harm, the second phase is solid.

I guess ‘Do as you will, but harm none” could be the short version.

Thus one can ask, do we really need the Maelstrom of Violence?

I mean, I can admire Martin Luther King.  Lots of folks do.  Would he have got as far as he did without Malcom X lurking in the background?

Kinser has started to call out for folks to wear a helmet.  As a Whig, can I ask if the idea of government is that people shouldn’t have to wear helmets?  If the purpose of government is to subdue those who do harm, why should we embrace an idea of helmets for all?

This left me more than a little disturbed by Ragnarok’s recent post.  There are lots of points I can agree with.  I see lots of Agricultural Age government tainted by authoritarian tyrants, and the political struggles against tyranny as tightly tied with the struggles over industry.  I see any appearance of re-establishing colonialism, which Bush 43 gave, as related to what the Neocons and Neoliberals might attempt.  A lot of the conflicts Ragnarok raises are pertinent.

And, yes, I have a fireplace screen saver.

But I get cold feet.  Do as you will, but harm none.  Can those who would do harm, for whatever reason, be subdued without doing harm.  Can the desire of each to do as he will be honored, not be answered by threats to coerce?

Fact aside, is Ragnarok’s tone necessary?

No answers.  Some questions.

1. Yes, the I take a lot of ideas from Wicca, tbh.

2. Wrt antifa, it's the lack of a spotlight as to how evil they are. Big Tech denied the Fascists should of course be banned, but so should Antifa.  That's the point, there's no equal treatment hardly anywhere. If one thing is evil, and another thing is equally evil, why is one evil called out, but the other is not.  It's the basic  fairness doctrine. Fascists for the most part , just troll around, but Antifa not only trolls, but attacks things / people who aren't actually Fascists.  Here's a good video for this.







And uh, so I here from Antifa that Ben Shapiro is a Nazi?   Really,  not Antifa's weed is something I can believe in.

I'm not sure if I get what your stating wrt Martin Luther King vs. Malcolm X.

The way I'm taking it is that Malcolm X is also tied to The Weather Underground and SLA. ? Do you see these 3 as similar to each other. IOW, they seek ends of the counterculture like chucking Jim Crow and the 'Nam war, but with some sort of mixed violent means.

SLA: a bunch of mid-70s silly nuts whose only actions were to go around and rob banks and commit crimes, while shouting revolutionary slogans.

Weather Underground was a more-violent late-60s New Left group, and an offshoot of Students for a Democratic Society.

Malcolm X from the early to mid-60s said that he and his followers would not be non-violent towards those who were not non-violent towards him and his followers. In this he contrasted with Martin Luther King Jr., and a Nobel Peace Prize winner, who exhorted and instructed his followers to meet brute force with soul force.

[Kinser79]

(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me.  But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.

I've essentially determined that what passes for liberalism these days is really a form of mental illness.  Essentially this video explains it well.  Again, David Cullen typically discusses technology not politics, but when it comes to politics he's pretty spot on for a European.

[Kinser79]

(09-17-2017, 09:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me.  But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.

He is simply Eric Hoffer's True Believer, attracted to extremist, ruthless causes. He was recently a Stalinist and is now a Trump supporter. I can see him becoming a fanatical Muslim once he finds President Trump irrelevant or discredited.

Unlikely.  Muslims want to throw people like me off roofs.  Since I don't have a desire to test the theory "fags can't fly" I don't find their ideology attractive.

[Kinser79]

(09-18-2017, 08:40 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: And uh, so I here from Antifa that Ben Shapiro is a Nazi?   Really,  not Antifa's weed is something I can believe in.

I don't know what the Antifas and the libtards are on but it isn't weed. I'm sticking by my theory that they have a mental illness. It should be noted for those who aren't paying attention that Benjamin Shapiro is a Conservative and Practicing Orthodox Jew. As I've said before, to these clowns anyone to the right of Mao is literally Hitler.

Quote:I'm not sure if I get what your stating wrt Martin Luther King vs. Malcolm X.

I believe that he is alluding to the fact that the nonviolent change acheived by MLK was mostly the result of the fact that his version of change was preferable to the violent change that Malcolm X was willing to engage in. The Civil Rights Movement used a good cop/bad cop method. In that particular case MLK played the good cop while Malcolm the bad cop. It was similar to the Indian Independence movement with Gandhi playing good cop while the Hindu Ultranationalist played the bad cops.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-19-2017, 12:29 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-18-2017, 08:40 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: I'm not sure if I get what your stating wrt Martin Luther King vs. Malcolm X.

I believe that he is alluding to the fact that the nonviolent change achieved by MLK was mostly the result of the fact that his version of change was preferable to the violent change that Malcolm X was willing to engage in.  The Civil Rights Movement used a good cop/bad cop method.  In that particular case MLK played the good cop while Malcolm the bad cop.  It was similar to the Indian Independence movement with Gandhi playing good cop while the Hindu Ultranationalist played the bad cops.

I'm not sure I'd use variations of the word 'play'. Lots of folks would have been quite in earnest. Other than that, he's got the right idea.

[pbrower2a]

(09-18-2017, 12:24 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-17-2017, 09:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me.  But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.

He is simply Eric Hoffer's True Believer, attracted to extremist, ruthless causes. He was recently a Stalinist and is now a Trump supporter. I can see him becoming a fanatical Muslim once he finds President Trump irrelevant or discredited.

What makes you personally not a true believer?  I’m not picking on you.  Really wondering.  

We all believe in our own perspective and advocate them.  I’ve tried to isolate mine, and come up with the self-evident paragraph and the Bill of Rights.  To that, maybe I’d add cautiously the S&H cycles.  In a true crisis, one works together for the common good, while in an unravelling one can tend to be selfish.  There are some who want to make the cyclical selfishness permanent.

Have you thought through your anchors?  Are there things that must be changed?  How desperately?  What makes one a true believer?

While this is addressed to Pbrower, anyone might feel free to answer.

Good points. My political ideology is basically what it was about forty years ago when I was in college (I went from conservative to liberal). Changing my stubborn mind requires a well-honed argument, and not simply promises of glory, a great afterlife, or corrupt indulgence. I prefer science as an arbiter of fact.

Have I changed? Sure. Homosexual rights, which I find necessary for the sake of law and order. After I was threatened with gay-bashing I came to the realization that the problem was not that I had a swift and decisive defense of my 'straightness' but instead that there are people who believe that it is acceptable to beat and rob gay men. That attitude is incompatible with the safety of anyone, straight or gay. Whatever causes homosexuals to get more respect for their humanity makes life safer for us all. I came to accept a conservative critique of the idea that criminal behavior resulted from oppression and economic deprivation once I came to the recognition that (1) there are plenty of good people in even the worst places in which to live (prisons possibly excepted) who do not do crime, (2) that many criminals have never experienced 'oppression', (3) because poverty is heavily concentrated in certain ethnic groups an assumption that poverty is linked to oppression and thus crime is thus racist or classist, and (4) that sociopathy better predicts crime than anything else. I read about an embezzler and I think "I could never do that" and find that the crook had advantages that I never had. I have never been in the political avant-garde because I have known of too many risks.

I consider radicalism of any kind dangerous, and any call to violence suspect. I have read enough history, not all of it American, to recognize the potential horror of any revolution. I also recognize that entrenched power, economic or political, can become both corrupt and cruel. It's up to us to grasp virtue as a blessing in its own right and recognize vice as a fraud.

I recognize that the essence of democracy is not so much in having free, fair, and competitive elections -- but as significantly, the willingness to lose those elections. Anyone who wants electoral politics to ratify how wonderful he is must recognize that in most places one has a 50-50 chance of losing an election.

But I have no obligation to accept the political wind of the day as wonderful. I think of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who lamented every 'Presidentiad' (Emerson coined the word) from Andrew Jackson to James Buchanan, only to become enthusiastic about Abraham Lincoln. I am not Ralph Waldo Emerson, but just imagine how excited I will be about the next Lincoln-like President.  If Jimmy Carter is the new John Quincy Adams and Ronald Reagan is the new Andrew Jackson, then we are about due.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-19-2017, 09:59 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: But I have no obligation to accept the political wind of the day as wonderful. I think of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who lamented every 'Presidentiad' (Emerson coined the word) from Andrew Jackson to James Buchanan, only to become enthusiastic about Abraham Lincoln. I am not Ralph Waldo Emerson, but just imagine how excited I will be about the next Lincoln-like President.  If Jimmy Carter is the new John Quincy Adams and Ronald Reagan is the new Andrew Jackson, then we are about due.

The 'about due' part I can sympathize with.

The rest requires a bit of thinking...

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-19-2017, 12:18 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-17-2017, 09:32 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-17-2017, 12:45 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-17-2017, 01:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: It seems like you, as well as the Nazi and Confederates, are embracing harm.

Implying that Kinser is basically a Nazi, as you just did, looks like hate speech to me.  But hey, it's always been clear that you're fine with hate speech when you're the one speaking.

He is simply Eric Hoffer's True Believer, attracted to extremist, ruthless causes. He was recently a Stalinist and is now a Trump supporter. I can see him becoming a fanatical Muslim once he finds President Trump irrelevant or discredited.

Unlikely.  Muslims want to throw people like me off roofs.  Since I don't have a desire to test the theory "fags can't fly" I don't find their ideology attractive.

OK.  Let's assume no racial or gender group is good at flying.  Other than that, you seem to have evaded the question.  Of course, the question wasn't really asked well.

How to you tell a True Believer from on who believes in his world view?  It seems pretty safe to say that everyone believes in his world view.

Part of it would be whether there is an element of superiority or vileness to it.  "Mine is the master race.  Some should wait in line for the genocide machine."  "Some races should endure slavery as that is their proper place."  "Only those with a demonstrated ability to fly should be tolerated.  This should be tested immediately."  This immediate judgement, this prejudice, is one quick clue that somebody is off the deep end.

Another criteria would be a definition of 'harm' similar to that applied to a Bill of Rights.  If someone proclaims they are members of the sole race suitable to be the world's policemen, or a race which has a manifest destiny, or a race that bears a 'burden' to rule, color me dubious.  I'd be looking for anything that might resemble harm, as I would suspect a lot of people would be.  That sort of claim of superiority has been over done.

On the other hand Hoffer actually advocates nationalism, the idea that pride of place is essential to getting ahead, to create anything new.  Let us suppose that Americans are ahead of the game in education.  This might mean more places of higher education, more students ready to apply themselves, more jobs ready for those who do apply themselves.  To a great degree, no one is getting hurt if this is truly a strength.  (Let's ignore, for the moment, more people prepared to a specific job than will be hired within the specialty.  I need an example of a positive strength.)

Could I have examples of nationalistic virtues?  Can groups claim they are good at something, have a reason for their pride?  "I can fly!  (Flap. Flap.)  Look, I can... (Thud.)"

By declaring a people have a strength, a superiority, and that they are not out to hurt anyone, can one pretend that certain true believers are not fanatical True Believers?

I have a feeling that the notion of tribal thinking, tribal morality, could be involved.  If person or group is out to hurt someone for their own advantage, should this be considered OK if the person hurt is of another tribe?  I can see the guy from the other tribe getting indignant.

Then, there is the degree of ideological blindness.  You see a lot of thinking of the pattern "all people of (insert group here) are (insert stereotype here).  Often it isn't true.  Often harm is involved in assuming it is true.  Is it important that a world view should be clear of that type of stereotype?

Just chasing my tail.  I have an interesting perspective that needs hammering down.

OK.  For a moment, let's assume an American progressive.  You might think one of the two...

1. He wants to build a strong community, with the government being a good tool.
   
2. What is he smoking?  Can I get some?
   

Then here comes a conservative. You might think one of the two...

1. He wants to build a strong community, but the government just messes it up.
   
2. What is he smoking?  Can I get some?
   

The above might prove only that America has a drug problem.

[Mikebert]

(09-19-2017, 12:29 AM)Kinser79. Wrote: I don't know what the Antifas and the libtards are on but it isn't weed.  I'm sticking by my theory that they have a mental illness.  It should be noted for those who aren't paying attention that Benjamin Shapiro is a Conservative and Practicing Orthodox Jew.  As I've said before, to these clowns anyone to the right of Mao is literally Hitler.

Well you're one to talk.  Not too long ago you were a Marxist-Leninist of the Stalinist persuasion

[Kinser79]

(09-19-2017, 05:20 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-19-2017, 12:29 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-18-2017, 08:40 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: I'm not sure if I get what your stating wrt Martin Luther King vs. Malcolm X.

I believe that he is alluding to the fact that the nonviolent change achieved by MLK was mostly the result of the fact that his version of change was preferable to the violent change that Malcolm X was willing to engage in.  The Civil Rights Movement used a good cop/bad cop method.  In that particular case MLK played the good cop while Malcolm the bad cop.  It was similar to the Indian Independence movement with Gandhi playing good cop while the Hindu Ultranationalist played the bad cops.

I'm not sure I'd use variations of the word 'play'.  Lots of folks would have been quite in earnest.  Other than that, he's got the right idea.

I can't say that "acted" is much better of a word choice.  So unless you have something to quibble over other than semantics....

[Kinser79]

(09-19-2017, 03:38 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(09-19-2017, 12:29 AM)Kinser79. Wrote: I don't know what the Antifas and the libtards are on but it isn't weed.  I'm sticking by my theory that they have a mental illness.  It should be noted for those who aren't paying attention that Benjamin Shapiro is a Conservative and Practicing Orthodox Jew.  As I've said before, to these clowns anyone to the right of Mao is literally Hitler.

Well you're one to talk.  Not too long ago you were a Marxist-Leninist of the Stalinist persuasion

Actually even while a Marxist-Leninist I never accused Benjamin Shapiro of being a Nazi.  I didn't agree with him, in fact I still don't, but he is not a Nazi--if I had to pen him down I'd say he is an establishment Republican with Neocon tendencies.  Though those neocon tendencies could just be a manifestation of his Zionist leanings.

Also it should be noted that Marxist-Leninists have a great disdain for the Antifa types going so far as to call them "useful idiots" very directly.  As I've alluded to previously in my time in the leadership of a Marxist-Leninist party I've told lower ranked comrades to indulge the local antifa, we'd send them to the gulag first "after rev".

Yep, it isn't the fascist or even the conservative/religious types that go first.  It is the rabble rousing useful idiots that go first.  The idea being that  they are a threat to the new elite of the the state (that is to say, the Party), and a greater threat than any conservative forces seeing as the ML Party in question worked with them relatively closely while counter-revolutionary forces are generally scattered after a successful revolution.

[Kinser79]

(09-19-2017, 12:19 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: OK.  Let's assume no racial or gender group is good at flying.

I would say that humans in general are not capable of flight apart from using technology that is capable of flight. (Airplanes, Airships and the like). But it is clear that you missed my entire point by bringing up the "flying fags" meme.

In the Middle East in areas controlled by the likes of Isis and so-on it is well known that they routinely execute persons accused of homosexuality by throwing them from the tallest local building. This has been documented on MSM sources as well as alt-media so you really don't have an excuse as to not understanding the meme at all.

 

Quote: Other than that, you seem to have evaded the question.  Of course, the question wasn't really asked well.

I would counter that PBR didn't ask a question, and as such I was under no compunction to answer one. Rather what PBR was doing as using a canned response. He calls me a True Believer at least once a week. As such I counter his canned response with one of my own.

The thing you have to realize about him Bob is that he has a limited intellect. Since we are fairly certain he didn't burn up his brain cells taking mad hallucinogenics during the 2T, unlike some other posters here, I have to assume that PBR is merely stupid, though thankfully not stoopid (and yes there is a difference).

After all in his post immediately following mine he openly admits that his world view "has not changed much" since he was in College. This leads one to assume one of two possibilities:

A. PBR has not encountered new information which has required him to change his view points (which he later goes on in that same post to refute)

OR

B. PBR has encountered new information which for others would have require a change in view points but yet maintains those view points despite their inconsistency with reality.

Since we know he probably has clinical depression, and he claims to have a spectrum disorder; neither of which are psychoses, we must conclude therefore he has not changed his views with new information to either values lock or limited intellect since he is not insane. Unlike with you, I think in his case it is the latter since he rarely if ever makes new arguments. Much less well reasoned ones. I'd be more forgiving if he made new arguments even if they weren't well reasoned, for example my son often throws ideas around like mud to see which ones will stick--but that is of course to be expected of a teenager.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post as you really are chasing your tail after that last point.

As for the "What is he smoking and can I get some?" that is a stoner meme. A pre-internet meme too, this meme was circulating when I was a teenager, and most people didn't even have the internet back in 1995. The idea being that if someone is smoking something that makes them say things that literally sound completely deranged the drug in question (typically marijuana) is some highly potent stuff, and thus desirable.

When I was about my son's age some friends and I smoked weed all day and had our long "philosophizing" sessions which we recorded. The idea being that we in our inebriated state thought we were being profound, but after sobering up and listening to the recording discovered that mostly we sounded stupid.

In part that is one of the reasons why I've long advocated total legalization for marijuana. Not only is it socially harmless in the absence of prohibition, but its main effects are "laughing at things which aren't particularly funny" and "eating things that are not particularly healthy".

[Warren Dew]

(09-19-2017, 09:33 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Unlike with you, I think in his case it is the latter since he rarely if ever makes new arguments.

I think you've got that backwards.  Most people have to encounter new ideas more than once if they are counter to a lifetime of propaganda exposure - especially when the propaganda specifically includes simplistic ways to reject those ideas.  In addition, I believe, he has a vested interest in the welfare system.  Get him a job that takes him off welfare for a few years, and he might suddenly become open minded.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-19-2017, 09:33 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-19-2017, 12:19 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: OK.  Let's assume no racial or gender group is good at flying.

I would say that humans in general are not capable of flight apart from using technology that is capable of flight.  (Airplanes, Airships and the like).  But it is clear that you missed my entire point by bringing up the "flying fags" meme.

In the Middle East in areas controlled by the likes of Isis and so-on it is well known that they routinely execute persons accused of homosexuality by throwing them from the tallest local building.  This has been documented on MSM sources as well as alt-media so you really don't have an excuse as to not understanding the meme at all.

It seems I needed a smilie face.  Usually you can read the implied one...

(09-19-2017, 09:33 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-19-2017, 12:19 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Other than that, you seem to have evaded the question.  Of course, the question wasn't really asked well.

I would counter that PBR didn't ask a question, and as such I was under no compunction to answer one.  Rather what PBR was doing as using a canned response...  He calls me a True Believer at least once a week.  As such I counter his canned response with one of my own.

 

I see PBR as more capable than you see him, but he's a big enough boy that I'm not going to get involved in that particular tangled mess of strawmen and stereotypes.  Yes, if you are both going that route, repeating memes without much listening, you'll both be going in circles indefinitely, and have seemingly closed to a single circle.  That seems satisfactory, anyway.  If all you two want to to is repeat the same old insults repeatedly, you have a fine little pattern.

But the True Believer meme merges well enough with my own values lock and world views that it would be nice to be able to tell a beneficial vantage point from a gung ho fanatic's.  You seem to have a gung ho....  Er...  an unusual enough viewpoint that you be worth a serious ask. 

Or maybe not.  I have been exploring the concept of 'harm' a lot lately.  We may have incompatible views on that.

You may even have a helmet even...  

[Kinser79]

(09-19-2017, 09:44 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-19-2017, 09:33 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Unlike with you, I think in his case it is the latter since he rarely if ever makes new arguments.

I think you've got that backwards.  Most people have to encounter new ideas more than once if they are counter to a lifetime of propaganda exposure - especially when the propaganda specifically includes simplistic ways to reject those ideas.  In addition, I believe, he has a vested interest in the welfare system.  Get him a job that takes him off welfare for a few years, and he might suddenly become open minded.

I would not doubt that PBR has a vested interest in maintaining the welfare state, however, I have seen little evidence of his supposed intellgence.

As for countering a lifetime of exposure to propaganda, I did it.  Of course having been a Marxist-Leninist and a propagandist myself it was far easier for me to detect what is propaganda.

[Kinser79]

(09-19-2017, 10:14 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-19-2017, 09:33 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-19-2017, 12:19 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: OK.  Let's assume no racial or gender group is good at flying.

I would say that humans in general are not capable of flight apart from using technology that is capable of flight.  (Airplanes, Airships and the like).  But it is clear that you missed my entire point by bringing up the "flying fags" meme.

In the Middle East in areas controlled by the likes of Isis and so-on it is well known that they routinely execute persons accused of homosexuality by throwing them from the tallest local building.  This has been documented on MSM sources as well as alt-media so you really don't have an excuse as to not understanding the meme at all.

It seems I needed a smilie face.  Usually you can read the implied one...

It would have been prudent to have inserted the appropriate emoji in the passage as the style in which it was written was not clearly indicative of being sarcasm/humor. I find in internet based text communication that if you're unsure if you should put the emoji in, then you probably should put the emoji in.

Worst case scenario the recipient may say your joke was in poor taste.

Quote:

(09-19-2017, 09:33 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-19-2017, 12:19 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Other than that, you seem to have evaded the question.  Of course, the question wasn't really asked well.

I would counter that PBR didn't ask a question, and as such I was under no compunction to answer one.  Rather what PBR was doing as using a canned response...  He calls me a True Believer at least once a week.  As such I counter his canned response with one of my own.

 

I see PBR as more capable than you see him, but he's a big enough boy that I'm not going to get involved in that particular tangled mess of strawmen and stereotypes.  Yes, if you are both going that route, repeating memes without much listening, you'll both be going in circles indefinitely, and have seemingly closed to a single circle.  That seems satisfactory, anyway.  If all you two want to to is repeat the same old insults repeatedly, you have a fine little pattern.

Actually I consider PBR to be a cheap form of entertainment. At least unlike with Eric the Ignoramus I don't feel dumber for typing at him. But I base my viewpoint of him on his actions here. He might be skilled in things I don't know about, I'm completely open to that. However, making new arguments is not one of those skills.

Quote:But the True Believer meme merges well enough with my own values lock and world views that it would be nice to be able to tell a beneficial vantage point from a gung ho fanatic's.  You seem to have a gung ho....  Er...  an unusual enough viewpoint that you be worth a serious ask. 

Alright then. I would say that everyone is essentially a True Believer at least in their own world view, and at least at the time they are making a statement expressing that world view.

As for my view point being unusual, I wouldn't agree. There are millions of black Americans who not only voted for the President but also support him. In fact the usual trappings of what is thought of as social conservatism is far more common amongst blacks in the US than whites. The main point of divergence for me from most other blacks is that I decided to stop voting for the guys with D's behind their names because they really weren't representing what I wanted, or believed in. If anything I'm more in line politically with my sperm donor now than at any time previously, which quite honestly is somewhat disconcerting.

Quote:Or maybe not.  I have been exploring the concept of 'harm' a lot lately.  We may have incompatible views on that.

We would. I view harm as being actual harm and not a third party's perception of what 'harm' might be or entail. Mostly because the concept of what is and is not harm is so simple that it is only when one tries to overcomplicate it that one ends up in an ideological quagmire. KISS isn't just a name for a mediocre band.

Quote:You may even have a helmet even...  

I have two helmets, three if you count the bicycle one that I only wear if the BF is watching (otherwise I don't because it looks ridiculous).

I have my grandfather's M-1 helmet from WW2 and a Soviet Sh-40 helmet which I purchased when in Russia a number of years ago. It was probably military surplus. I have and still maintain my collection of Soviet paraphernalia.

[pbrower2a]

Disability. Asperger's will shorten just about any career.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-19-2017, 10:40 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Actually I consider PBR to be a cheap form of entertainment.  At least unlike with Eric the Ignoramus I don't feel dumber for typing at him.  But I base my viewpoint of him on his actions here.  He might be skilled in things I don't know about, I'm completely open to that.  However, making new arguments is not one of those skills.

Or your world views are incompatible.  They are.  It is tempting to treat someone with incompatible worldview as insane, stupid, brainwashed, etc...  It's almost traditional here to stop meaningful conversation and reject wholesale once world view incompatibility seems established.  It certainly is not a one way street.

(09-19-2017, 10:40 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-19-2017, 10:14 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: But the True Believer meme merges well enough with my own values lock and world views that it would be nice to be able to tell a beneficial vantage point from a gung ho fanatic's.  You seem to have a gung ho....  Er...  an unusual enough viewpoint that you be worth a serious ask. 

Alright then.  I would say that everyone is essentially a True Believer at least in their own world view, and at least at the time they are making a statement expressing that world view.

As for my view point being unusual, I wouldn't agree.  There are millions of black Americans who not only voted for the President but also support him.  In fact the usual trappings of what is thought of as social conservatism is far more common among blacks in the US than whites.  The main point of divergence for me from most other blacks is that I decided to stop voting for the guys with D's behind their names because they really weren't representing what I wanted, or believed in.  If anything I'm more in line politically with my sperm donor now than at any time previously, which quite honestly is somewhat disconcerting.

That's an appropriate specific answer at one level, but misses the point I was after.  How does one tell a True Believer from someone who just has a worldview and is interested in politics?  The above is insightful as far as it goes...

A good part of it is perhaps how far along one is in the spiral of violence.  I mean, you seem to have more helmets than I do, but have you built and detonated truck bombs next to day care centers, driven airplanes into occupied office buildings or (gasp) thrown tea into a harbor?  Most of the example true believers described come from revolutionary times.  The need for change is seen as much greater than the value of the lives of people who belong to another tribe anyway.  Thus, to an ordinary civilian who has not lived and personally perceived the need for change, the acts that are done will be horrible, unimaginable.  Thus, the 'True Believer' might be seen as being a less than sane person of a different type that the ordinary.

It is just that they know the need for change personally and are as locked into one way of seeing things as many are.

My feeling is that on this side of the Atlantic, it is easy to find someone with a narrow and focused worldview.  It is not that easy to find such a person with no value for life, whose spiral of violence has overflowed.  In other parts of the world, the need for change is much more acute, and it would be correspondingly easy to find fanatics, to find the 'True Believer' of the book.

The practical example would be that it is nearly impossible to get people on the forum to listen outside their worldview, but it would be similarly impossible to convince someone to pick up a weapon and seek a permanent solution to another forum contributor.

(09-19-2017, 10:40 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-19-2017, 10:14 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: You may even have a helmet even...  

I have two helmets, three if you count the bicycle one that I only wear if the BF is watching (otherwise I don't because it looks ridiculous).

I have my grandfather's M-1 helmet from WW2 and a Soviet Sh-40 helmet which I purchased when in Russia a number of years ago.  It was probably military surplus.  I have and still maintain my collection of Soviet paraphernalia.

I had a helmet.  I may still have it if I'm willing to search the basement.  It was designed to deflect hockey pucks, did the job against a pair of nunchaku, and formed the base for a few 'hat day' creations for the university band.  Not the same.

[pbrower2a]

(09-19-2017, 10:19 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(09-19-2017, 09:44 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-19-2017, 09:33 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Unlike with you, I think in his case it is the latter since he rarely if ever makes new arguments.

I think you've got that backwards.  Most people have to encounter new ideas more than once if they are counter to a lifetime of propaganda exposure - especially when the propaganda specifically includes simplistic ways to reject those ideas.  In addition, I believe, he has a vested interest in the welfare system.  Get him a job that takes him off welfare for a few years, and he might suddenly become open minded.

I would not doubt that PBR has a vested interest in maintaining the welfare state, however, I have seen little evidence of his supposed intelligence.

As for countering a lifetime of exposure to propaganda, I did it.  Of course having been a Marxist-Leninist and a propagandist myself it was far easier for me to detect what is propaganda.

I confess. I am little more than my intellect. I do not have as fervent beliefs as you. I can think of few things woreth dying for and even fewer for which to kill.

But you know how it is. If you want to know who has uncertainty about his sexuality, then look for the fellow who brags about being a 'stud'. If you want to know who has the least-valid achievements (especially including finding meaning in life) then look for the person who brags about having his $#!+ together. If you want to know who is mishandling his money, then look for the schmuck who wastes money on status symbols.  I prefer living like a food-processing worker and making a middle-class income to making a middle-class living and trying to live like an aristocrat. With the former one can amass some savings and do some really-great things; with the latter one achieves a debt-driven banality.

I have good cause to see my own failings. I have long despised myself for failing to live up to my potential. It turns out that people have mishandled me badly. Oh yes, I have a drug and alcohol problem -- that is, being so harshly judgmental about addiction.

If I had known about Asperger's when I was young I would have had a very different and much more-rewarding life. If I could get away with Asperger's (and the one good thing about America is that it does reasonably well for people with handicaps) I would probably have a good job, a wife (probably with Asperger's) and children. Adopted, of course. They probably wouldn't look much like us... but at least they would not have the Curse.  People like me are typical fathers of children who end up institutionalized for autism.

If it takes a welfare state to aid children out of poverty, then so be it. I see a cynical solution in poverty in people using welfare to get a sofa, a TV, beer, ice cream, and chips and getting grotesquely obese... and ending up with a coronary. If I must rely upon disability I will make sure to have a dog to walk, food good for me, and something other than the TV. Like Internet access and the desire to seek something really good.