Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fighting The Fourth Reich
#21
(08-22-2017, 06:41 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: History shows that fascistic regimes start wars that democratic countries dread -- but that the democracies win.  Twist America in 1940  into a fascist society (1915 Klan) and Germany and Japan into liberal democracies, and... our freeways in the East are called Autobahns, and some of the most common names for little girls on the West Coast include "Michiko" and "Sumiko".

Fascistic regimes greatly overestimate the likelihood of winning because of the 'ethnic' superiority of the people that they lead... to disaster.  Once the democracies start winning, they establish themselves as the best of all possible worlds, and make sure that people who happened to be on the wrong side have no cause to resist.

You should be concerned about a possible Washington-Beijing Axis. What the Russians could have done in 2016, the Chinese can also do. Maybe they would be more subtle, supporting Americans more amenable to free trade without the knowledge of such people that the support for their candidacies has come ultimately from China. If the Chinese dislike the way America is going now, then maybe they will support Democrats.

So your response to the ridiculousness of your mental model is to drag out the Man in the High Tower and to claim that Vladimir Putin somehow, someway mind controlled the American people to vote for a man you don't like.

Well at least I have my answer.  You work on being clueless.  Not even my politically brain dead mother bought the "Muh Russia" narrative.  China has greater problems than a possibly hostile man in the White House.  They have to deliver the goods to their people or face revolution.

As I said, Europe has no ablity to fight a world war, and Asia has no desire to (not even Mr. Kim).
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#22
(08-22-2017, 06:54 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(08-22-2017, 06:41 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: History shows that fascistic regimes start wars that democratic countries dread -- but that the democracies win.  Twist America in 1940  into a fascist society (1915 Klan) and Germany and Japan into liberal democracies, and... our freeways in the East are called Autobahns, and some of the most common names for little girls on the West Coast include "Michiko" and "Sumiko".

Fascistic regimes greatly overestimate the likelihood of winning because of the 'ethnic' superiority of the people that they lead... to disaster.  Once the democracies start winning, they establish themselves as the best of all possible worlds, and make sure that people who happened to be on the wrong side have no cause to resist.

You should be concerned about a possible Washington-Beijing Axis. What the Russians could have done in 2016, the Chinese can also do. Maybe they would be more subtle, supporting Americans more amenable to free trade without the knowledge of such people that the support for their candidacies has come ultimately from China. If the Chinese dislike the way America is going now, then maybe they will support Democrats.

So your response to the ridiculousness of your mental model is to drag out the Man in the High Tower and to claim that Vladimir Putin somehow, someway mind controlled the American people to vote for a man you don't like.

Well at least I have my answer.  You work on being clueless.  Not even my politically brain dead mother bought the "Muh Russia" narrative.  China has greater problems than a possibly hostile man in the White House.  They have to deliver the goods to their people or face revolution.

As I said, Europe has no ablity to fight a world war, and Asia has no desire to (not even Mr. Kim).

The world has a surplus of high ego low rationality actors.  No area of the world has a monopoly on them.  Those who live in glass houses shouldn't invite Trump to move in. 

We also have no shortage of high partisan pundits cherry picking reality to advocate extreme world views.

Saddam thought it was clever to pretend to have weapons of mass destruction.  Bush 43 thought it clever to remove Saddam, to destabilize the middle east.  Kim thinks it clever to work up nukes.  Don't think you understand the high ego highly partisan mind, or count on folks to think like you do.  It is in many ways amusing to watch extreme partisans passing in the night, but such views should not be mistaken for reality.
Reply
#23
Bob, I would argue that Mr. Kim knows that a state which has nuclear weapons won't be attacked. The difference between him and Saddam Hussein is that he has now these weapons and has the ability to produce more whereas Saddam never had that ability--his game was to keep Iran from crossing the boarder.

Kim's game is to shake his missiles for rice and antibiotics to keep from being overthrown.

I find underestimating the rationality of political actors is as dangerous (and stupid) as overestimating them. What one must look at is the real situation based on resources, wealth, intellectual capacities of population and other sundry "dry statistics".

As my signature says: It really is all mathematics.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#24
(08-22-2017, 07:16 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The world has a surplus of high ego low rationality actors.  No area of the world has a monopoly on them.  Those who live in glass houses shouldn't invite Trump to move in. 

We also have no shortage of high partisan pundits cherry picking reality to advocate extreme world views.

Saddam thought it was clever to pretend to have weapons of mass destruction.  Bush 43 thought it clever to remove Saddam, to destabilize the middle east.  Kim thinks it clever to work up nukes.  Don't think you understand the high ego highly partisan mind, or count on folks to think like you do.  It is in many ways amusing to watch extreme partisans passing in the night, but such views should not be mistaken for reality.

I think you hit it in your first sentence.  These are not partisans, since a partisan is focused on a party.  These are egotists ... GWB included to a lesser extent.  Actions and methods needed to deal with partisans and egotists are very different.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#25
(08-22-2017, 07:26 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Bob, I would argue that Mr. Kim knows that a state which has nuclear weapons won't be attacked.  The difference between him and Saddam Hussein is that he has now these weapons and has the ability to produce more whereas Saddam never had that ability--his game was to keep Iran from crossing the boarder.

Kim's game is to shake his missiles for rice and antibiotics to keep from being overthrown.

I find underestimating the rationality of political actors is as dangerous (and stupid) as overestimating them.  What one must look at is the real situation based on resources, wealth, intellectual capacities of population and other sundry "dry statistics".

As my signature says:  It really is all mathematics.

So let's review the Nuclear Club:
  1. USA -- the first member,
  2. UK -- part of the Manhattan Project, so certainly the second to have one
  3. France -- may be third or fourth,
  4. USSR (now Russia alone, I hope), before or after France
  5. Israel -- 5th?,
  6. South Africa --- Israel's partner, so they must have at least one or two,
  7. China -- 6th,
  8. Pakistan -- 7th or 8th,
  9. India -- 8th or 7th,
  10. PDRK -- 9th.
Someone on this list will use another one eventually, then Katy bar the door.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#26
(08-22-2017, 04:37 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(08-22-2017, 07:26 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Bob, I would argue that Mr. Kim knows that a state which has nuclear weapons won't be attacked.  The difference between him and Saddam Hussein is that he has now these weapons and has the ability to produce more whereas Saddam never had that ability--his game was to keep Iran from crossing the boarder.

Kim's game is to shake his missiles for rice and antibiotics to keep from being overthrown.

I find underestimating the rationality of political actors is as dangerous (and stupid) as overestimating them.  What one must look at is the real situation based on resources, wealth, intellectual capacities of population and other sundry "dry statistics".

As my signature says:  It really is all mathematics.

So let's review the Nuclear Club:
  1. USA -- the first member,
  2. UK -- part of the Manhattan Project, so certainly the second to have one
  3. France -- may be third or fourth,
  4. USSR (now Russia alone, I hope), before or after France
  5. Israel -- 5th?,
  6. South Africa --- Israel's partner, so they must have at least one or two,
  7. China -- 6th,
  8. Pakistan -- 7th or 8th,
  9. India -- 8th or 7th,
  10. PDRK -- 9th.
Someone on this list will use another one eventually, then Katy bar the door.

And of that list which has been attacked by an other nuclear power?
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#27
Japan threatened to revoke its agreements to not develop, buy, or use nuclear weapons in the event that the DPRK developed them. There was no complaint from either the Soviet Union or the PRC at the time. That was nearly thirty years ago, but I see little difference today.

If any country could develop an atom bomb quickly it would be Japan. That is the country against which atomic weapons were used.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#28
(08-22-2017, 05:17 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(08-22-2017, 04:37 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(08-22-2017, 07:26 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Bob, I would argue that Mr. Kim knows that a state which has nuclear weapons won't be attacked.  The difference between him and Saddam Hussein is that he has now these weapons and has the ability to produce more whereas Saddam never had that ability--his game was to keep Iran from crossing the boarder.

Kim's game is to shake his missiles for rice and antibiotics to keep from being overthrown.

I find underestimating the rationality of political actors is as dangerous (and stupid) as overestimating them.  What one must look at is the real situation based on resources, wealth, intellectual capacities of population and other sundry "dry statistics".

As my signature says:  It really is all mathematics.

So let's review the Nuclear Club:
  1. USA -- the first member,
  2. UK -- part of the Manhattan Project, so certainly the second to have one
  3. France -- may be third or fourth,
  4. USSR (now Russia alone, I hope), before or after France
  5. Israel -- 5th?,
  6. South Africa --- Israel's partner, so they must have at least one or two,
  7. China -- 6th,
  8. Pakistan -- 7th or 8th,
  9. India -- 8th or 7th,
  10. PDRK -- 9th.
Someone on this list will use another one eventually, then Katy bar the door.

And of that list which has been attacked by an other nuclear power?

How stable are the nuclear regimes in these countries is a better question.  James Clapper is actually worried that Trump, who can launch at will, may do so just to cover his ass.  Even if that's unlikely, how many of our adversaries on that list are content with his stability?

Nothing happens until it does, so past is not necessarily prologue.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#29
(08-23-2017, 03:30 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Japan threatened to revoke its agreements to not develop, buy, or use nuclear weapons in the event that the DPRK  developed them. There was no complaint from either the Soviet Union or the PRC at the time. That was nearly thirty years ago, but I see little difference today.  

If any country could develop an atom bomb quickly it would be Japan. That is the country against which atomic weapons were used.

My list only contained countries that have been identifies as having active nuclear programs.  I suspect that Japan may already have nukes, because they very easily can.  Testing is not needed if adequate computing power can be used in its place, and Japan has adequate materials and expertise to build bombs if they choose.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
#30
(08-23-2017, 10:17 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(08-23-2017, 03:30 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Japan threatened to revoke its agreements to not develop, buy, or use nuclear weapons in the event that the DPRK  developed them. There was no complaint from either the Soviet Union or the PRC at the time. That was nearly thirty years ago, but I see little difference today.  

If any country could develop an atom bomb quickly it would be Japan. That is the country against which atomic weapons were used.

My list only contained countries that have been identifies as having active nuclear programs.  I suspect that Japan may already have nukes, because they very easily can.  Testing is not needed if adequate computing power can be used in its place, and Japan has adequate materials and expertise to build bombs if they choose.

Excellent scientific community, plenty of economic resources, access to nuclear materials, and seeing itself under threat. The Soviet Union might have even been a wiling seller in its last years if North Korea were too blatant a threat.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#31
(08-22-2017, 06:54 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(08-22-2017, 06:41 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: History shows that fascistic regimes start wars that democratic countries dread -- but that the democracies win.  Twist America in 1940  into a fascist society (1915 Klan) and Germany and Japan into liberal democracies, and... our freeways in the East are called Autobahns, and some of the most common names for little girls on the West Coast include "Michiko" and "Sumiko".

Fascistic regimes greatly overestimate the likelihood of winning because of the 'ethnic' superiority of the people that they lead... to disaster.  Once the democracies start winning, they establish themselves as the best of all possible worlds, and make sure that people who happened to be on the wrong side have no cause to resist.

You should be concerned about a possible Washington-Beijing Axis. What the Russians could have done in 2016, the Chinese can also do. Maybe they would be more subtle, supporting Americans more amenable to free trade without the knowledge of such people that the support for their candidacies has come ultimately from China. If the Chinese dislike the way America is going now, then maybe they will support Democrats.

So your response to the ridiculousness of your mental model is to drag out the Man in the High Tower and to claim that Vladimir Putin somehow, someway mind controlled the American people to vote for a man you don't like.

Americans became amenable to Donald Judas Trump by becoming impatient even with competent and benign government and falling for a demagogue. Demagogues, Right or Left, almost invariably get bad results. America is proving no exception. What should scare any conservative who may have thought that however objectionable President Trump would be he would at least be useful for achieving some 'desirable' ends -- like privatization, tax cuts especially to the benefit of the rich, greatly shrinking the welfare state (work or die!), and eviscerating the labor unions.

Donald Trump is a right-wing demagogue. Just think how amenable America will be to a left-wing demagogue should Trump fail and a left-wing demagogue offers himself as a solution for everything. Demagogic rule often leads to such failure of a Constitutional order that the Armed Forces often step in with a military coup.

...If you think my literary dream (The World Turn'd Upside Down) has obvious parallels to The Man in the High Castle -- then you are right. I believe that a fascist coalition would have a very difficult time in any effort to conquer America. As Yamamoto said, "There will be a gun behind every tree if we invade America". But I would do things a bit differently aside from turning villains and heroes as national entities around. First, because an occupation of the western US that had recently been Kluxist (and that ugly word would be as commonplace in that alternative world as fascism in ours) would be very similar to the scenario in The Man in the High Castle I would put the bulk of my story in the German and British zones of occupation.  Because the KKK of 1915 had much the same objects of hatred as the Nazis it would be similarly murderous. American recovery, at least in the East, depends heavily upon using demobilized soldiers in building such big projects as the Charles-DeGaulle-Autobahn connecting Quebec City to New Orleans, the Walther-Rathenau-Autobahn that connects Chicago and Philadelphia, the Alexander-Kerensky-Autobahn that connects Detroit and St. Petersburg, and the Winston-Churchill-Autobahn that connects Boston and Miami. (Churchill becomes the Prime Minister of the UK after the unmitigated military disaster that traps most of the British Army behind German lines and hunger riots resembling those of Russia in 1917 lead to a revolution that the conservatives take over. The dictatorial lackey regime of William Joyce collapses, and most of the British Royal Family that has taken refuge in the independent Kingdom of India (think of how the Brazilian monarchy came into existence) returns. Vichy? Its figures collaborate with KKK America and often pay a lethal penalty for having done so.

War criminals of the UK and America will of course have their necks snapped after due process of the law.

The best American military figures of America, except most obviously Douglas MacArthur who spends most of the war as a guest of the Japanese safe from the murderous purge, are killed and replaced with figures willing to do the worst on orders from the Imperial Wizard. But those are ineffective top leaders of the Army and Navy.

The ally of the USA in the form of Stalin's Soviet Union has not been all that valuable to America. It has expended great amounts of materiel and cannon fodder in the horrible Indo-Soviet war. I can hardly resist my suggestion for a widely-circulating poster in which a tiger whose stripes spell out Resistance (Widerstand in Germany) is shown overpowering and devouring a Soviet commissar.

So where is the dispute at the end of the war?  The Japanese have annexed Alaska as a prefecture of Japan, but that isn't a real problem. The Dutch East Indies annex Mindonao; having never undergone a brutal occupation by Japan, Indonesia is slower to undergo independence. The Japanese have set up a "Dominion of Oregon" that encompasses much of the western USA (Texas, New Mexico, almost all of Arizona and Louisiana, much of Colorado, and the parts of California south of the Central Valley have been transferred to Mexico as compensation for a horrible occupation -- you know the parallel. 

Atlanta, Birmingham, Charlotte, Miami, and Tampa have rather impressive Carnival celebrations. Brazil is one of the occupying powers.

Major league baseball begins the 1947 season (and its revival) with Erwin Rommel tossing the ceremonial first pitch for a game that he does not understand... but he would not allow it to come back to life without the merger of pre-war Major League Baseball and the Negro Leagues. Phil Rizzuto gets the first pitch from Satchel Page as the Yankees face the Senators -- how different the world is.

In our world, Henry Kissinger interrogates Gestapo chiefs. In my fictional world he is Heinz von Kissinger, fair but lethally-efficient Inquisitor specializing in grilling persecutors of Catholic clergy. He is still Jewish, but the Catholic Church thinks it best that Jews prosecute those who persecuted the Catholic Church because Jews are more likely to clear innocent people than get wrongful convictions. A member of the American family loses one of its members to the Inquisition (yes, that is what the organization is called, and the implications are obvious!) for an unjust execution of a Cardinal and sundry other clergy, monks, and nuns. (Catholic Inquisitors specialize in prosecuting those who persecuted Jews).

There will be no threat of nuclear war. Germany and Japan have successfully tested nuclear weapons in the Sahara and the Australian Outback, respectively... but never got a chance to use them in warfare on any American city. 

I have no intent of writing a pastiche of The Man in the High Castle. There is no need for one. Philip K. Dick did well enough. I expect to pay more attention to mass media and mass culture.  The Axis Powers lost the war largely because of their atrocities and their brutal exploitation under Axis occupation.

Quote:Well at least I have my answer.  You work on being clueless.  Not even my politically brain dead mother bought the "Muh Russia" narrative.  China has greater problems than a possibly hostile man in the White House.  They have to deliver the goods to their people or face revolution.

As I said, Europe has no ablity to fight a world war, and Asia has no desire to (not even Mr. Kim).


Have you thought that if the Russians (whether their intelligence services or their Mafia) find Donald Trump no longer useful that they might 'off' him and those connected too closely to him? The KGB toppled the puppets that it set up in Afghanistan when they proved unreliable or ineffective. President Trump rides a tiger... excuse me, a bear makes a better analogue more suitable to a Russian motif.

What is the old saying? Those who ride tigers dare not dismount. Bears are similarly dangerous.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#32
(08-23-2017, 10:14 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(08-22-2017, 05:17 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(08-22-2017, 04:37 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(08-22-2017, 07:26 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: Bob, I would argue that Mr. Kim knows that a state which has nuclear weapons won't be attacked.  The difference between him and Saddam Hussein is that he has now these weapons and has the ability to produce more whereas Saddam never had that ability--his game was to keep Iran from crossing the boarder.

Kim's game is to shake his missiles for rice and antibiotics to keep from being overthrown.

I find underestimating the rationality of political actors is as dangerous (and stupid) as overestimating them.  What one must look at is the real situation based on resources, wealth, intellectual capacities of population and other sundry "dry statistics".

As my signature says:  It really is all mathematics.

So let's review the Nuclear Club:
  1. USA -- the first member,
  2. UK -- part of the Manhattan Project, so certainly the second to have one
  3. France -- may be third or fourth,
  4. USSR (now Russia alone, I hope), before or after France
  5. Israel -- 5th?,
  6. South Africa --- Israel's partner, so they must have at least one or two,
  7. China -- 6th,
  8. Pakistan -- 7th or 8th,
  9. India -- 8th or 7th,
  10. PDRK -- 9th.
Someone on this list will use another one eventually, then Katy bar the door.

And of that list which has been attacked by an other nuclear power?

How stable are the nuclear regimes in these countries is a better question.  James Clapper is actually worried that Trump, who can launch at will, may do so just to cover his ass.  Even if that's unlikely, how many of our adversaries on that list are content with his stability?

Nothing happens until it does, so past is not necessarily prologue.

So essentially your argument is that Trump is for some reason suicidal because...reasons.  You do realize that HRC openly said she was open to nuking Iran right?  You don't think that starting yet another war somewhere and dropping a few nukes might make the US a pariah. Rolleyes 

I'm trying to decide if you have the Downs or if you're merely suffering from TDS. I suspect the latter but the more you post the more I lean toward the former. I suppose it is possible for someone with the Downs to also have TDS though.

ETA:

@PBR

I'm not going to respond to your long screed. Mostly because it is as boring as it is unhinged. As usual you used your same tired ten talking points. I'm starting to question if you might not actually have a spectrum disorder. I suggest undergoing some tests for it and getting a real diagnosis. You know, the kind you'd get going to a real psychologist and not just talking to a social worker for ten or so minutes.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#33
(08-24-2017, 12:14 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: @PBR

I'm not going to respond to your long screed.  Mostly because it is as boring as it is unhinged.  As usual you used your same tired ten talking points.  I'm starting to question if you might not actually have a spectrum disorder.  I suggest undergoing some tests for it and getting a real diagnosis.  You know, the kind you'd get going to a real psychologist and not just talking to a social worker for ten or so minutes.

I went to a psychologist when I had a psychological problem (grief-related depression) with no connection to the autistic spectrum. Everything (except substance abuse, which is not one of my problems) had gone wrong in my life, and few people cope with that well.

Asperger's is considered part of the autistic spectrum. I show many of the symptoms, some of them physical. I do not cope well with loud noises, so I could never enjoy rock-and-roll as normal people do. I have trouble with stairs. I have great difficulty in understanding body language and other forms of non-verbal communication. The dog is better at that than I am.

I was bullied frequently as a child, which is commonplace for people with Asperger's. I have had difficulty getting and holding jobs (ineptitude in understanding non-verbal communications) and was never good at dating. My capacity for expression of humor is best described as either sarcastic or sardonic. The comedy that I can get is either physical comedy (Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd, Orvilie and Hardy, Lucille Ball) or perhaps sardonic (the sort of humor that Alfred Hitchcock offers in The Trouble with Harry). Maybe something wise and witty. Vile stuff from the late Sam Kinison? Turn it off!

People have told me that I am 'high-functioning', but that appearance results from my suppression of the more objectionable features of autistic behavior. I must act to seem normal enough that my lapses are mere 'eccentricity'. I wish that I needed not be such a conformist as I am. For me, life is acting. I would rather be normal; as much as I act in real life, and I think I am good enough at it that were it not for Asperger's I would be able to make a living in Little Theater.

Maybe had I known much earlier I would have gotten better vocational guidance. I could have gotten some protection in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. I have a high-enough IQ to be a potential trouble-maker in many milieux.

The one thing good about Asperger's (aside from it not being as bad as other disorders) is that it makes one unlikely to develop any chemical dependency.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#34
(08-24-2017, 11:11 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I went to a psychologist when I had a psychological problem (grief-related depression) with no connection to the autistic spectrum.

Good and did he give you a diognosis for a spectrum disorder? If not then you're talking out of your ass as usual.

Quote:Asperger's is considered part of the autistic spectrum.

Was, actually. The DSM-V removed Asperger's as a stand alone disorder, and with good reason.

Quote:I was bullied frequently as a child,

Welcome to the club then. Oh wait, everyone gets bullied as a child.

Quote: which is commonplace for people with Asperger's.

Spectrum disorders are commonly diagnosed in children these days. Since all children get bullied to one degree or an other degree being bullied is not a symptom.

Quote: I have had difficulty getting and holding jobs (ineptitude in understanding non-verbal communications) and was never good at dating.

I doubt any spectrum disorder has anything to do with that considering that I run a donut shop that essentially staffed with all sorts of freaks and geeks. I'm by far the most normal one there. I have a feeling that your inablity to hold jobs or obtain women has more to do with being a beta than any spectrum disorder. Female nature dictates that they are attracted to alpha males (good genes) or to resources (an indicator of good genes for those who aren't your stereotypical alpha).

Quote: My capacity for expression of humor is best described as either sarcastic or sardonic. The comedy that I can get is either physical comedy (Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd, Orvilie and Hardy, Lucille Ball) or perhaps sardonic (the sort of humor that Alfred Hitchcock offers in The Trouble with Harry). Maybe something wise and witty. Vile stuff from the late Sam Kinison? Turn it off!

Not a symptom for a spectrum disorder. Sam Kinnison never really was funny. His popularity was largely based on the fact that he said the shocking shit other people were thinking. As for humor in general and jokes in particular the best are either sarcastic or sardonic.

Quote:People have told me that I am 'high-functioning', but that appearance results from my suppression of the more objectionable features of autistic behavior. I must act to seem normal enough that my lapses are mere 'eccentricity'. I wish that I needed not be such a conformist as I am. For me, life is acting. I would rather be normal; as much as I act in real life, and I think I am good enough at it that were it not for Asperger's I would be able to make a living in Little Theater.

Unless these people are psychologists then they don't know what they are talking about. I know that having a spectrum disorder is somewhat of a fad amongst Millies--but in Boomers it looks like absurd attention seeking behavior. As for normality being an act, you've just said outloud what everyone else is really doing. Being "normal" is an act.

Quote:Maybe had I known much earlier I would have gotten better vocational guidance. I could have gotten some protection in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. I have a high-enough IQ to be a potential trouble-maker in many milieux.

I doubt that. People who are successful have that drive in them. If someone does not have that drive then they will never be successful. And what denotes success is individual. I think very few people would consider being a manager of a donut shop being successful, but I don't even factor what I do for a paycheck into the equation. For me it is a place I go, to do stuff, to get money.

Also my experience indicates that those who go on and on about their IQ typically are just smart enough to know that they really are an idiot. Those with lower IQ lack the capacity to realize this, those with higher IQ see no reason to boast about their number.

Quote:The one thing good about Asperger's (aside from it not being as bad as other disorders) is that it makes one unlikely to develop any chemical dependency.

Didn't you seek out outpatient treatment for alcoholism?

Honestly I don't think you have Asperger's or any other spectrum disorder. If you did, it would have manifested itself in a diagnose-able form long before your 60s. I will say that this excuse emerged as soon as your parents were dead and could no longer blame them for your failure as a human being.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#35
(08-24-2017, 12:22 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Once again you are totally full of crap. There are many un diagnosed or late diagnosed Autistics who are over 50. Many idiots used to think Autism was "a kid thing" and therefore there was no concept of diagnosing adults. Diagnosing adults really began in earnest 10 - 15 years ago. Even so, most diagnoses were of people who were not high functioning. They were mostly people mis diagnosed as mentally ill.

Actually I'm fairly open to PBR being merely mentally ill.  The facts, however, are that he doesn't have a diagnosis. Until he gets an actual diagnosis I have no reason to believe he actually has any spectrum disorder.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#36
(08-24-2017, 12:31 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:
(08-24-2017, 12:22 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Once again you are totally full of crap. There are many un diagnosed or late diagnosed Autistics who are over 50. Many idiots used to think Autism was "a kid thing" and therefore there was no concept of diagnosing adults. Diagnosing adults really began in earnest 10 - 15 years ago. Even so, most diagnoses were of people who were not high functioning. They were mostly people mis diagnosed as mentally ill.

Actually I'm fairly open to PBR being merely mentally ill.  The facts, however, are that he doesn't have a diagnosis. Until he gets an actual diagnosis I have no reason to believe he actually has any spectrum disorder.


I have a diagnosis. It is not mental illness, but it is impairment. It is Asperger's.

I have seen some of the literature, and it describes me well. I could be in a cloud about reality because (1) I was likely to treat my anxiety (it goes with the territory) as normal because I cannot imagine living without anxiety, (2) I was likely to fault myself, and (3) I was in a family which thought any interaction with professionals in mental health a great shame. "Jewish science" or something like that.

I have a handicap. It is simply not as visible as needing a wheelchair for mobility or to need a service animal to compensate for blindness. It is no less real. It is not mental illness to the extent that I have impaired intellect or delusional thought.

I could never use Asperger's as a mitigating factor in a criminal judgment (so what. Someone with Asperger's can get help in seeking employment under ADA and getting suitable accommodation. There are jobs for which someone with Asperger's can be well suited. Those must recognize our inadequacies in understanding non-verbal communications.

I have an anxiety disorder; it goes with the territory. I could never figure that one out because I saw nothing abnormal. But anxiety can cripple one. I am one of the few people who has gone to a therapist and been told that I can have a drink to deal with anxiety. This is in a clinic that deals heavily with people with substance disorders. (An irony: I am harshly judgmental about drugs and alcoholism. One characteristic of Asperger's is that we who have it almost never have problems with addiction). 

Kinser, you either have little empathy (I know your posting habits, and you have stood for ideologies well suited to sociopathic personalities) or you fail to understand me.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#37
(08-24-2017, 11:11 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:
(08-24-2017, 12:14 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: @PBR

I'm not going to respond to your long screed.  Mostly because it is as boring as it is unhinged.  As usual you used your same tired ten talking points.  I'm starting to question if you might not actually have a spectrum disorder.  I suggest undergoing some tests for it and getting a real diagnosis.  You know, the kind you'd get going to a real psychologist and not just talking to a social worker for ten or so minutes.

I went to a psychologist when I had a psychological problem (grief-related depression) with no connection to the autistic spectrum. Everything (except substance abuse, which is not one of my problems) had gone wrong in my life, and few people cope with that well.

Asperger's is considered part of the autistic spectrum. I show many of the symptoms, some of them physical. I do not cope well with loud noises, so I could never enjoy rock-and-roll as normal people do. I have trouble with stairs. I have great difficulty in understanding body language and other forms of non-verbal communication. The dog is better at that than I am.

I was bullied frequently as a child, which is commonplace for people with Asperger's. I have had difficulty getting and holding jobs (ineptitude in understanding non-verbal communications) and was never good at dating. My capacity for expression of humor is best described as either sarcastic or sardonic. The comedy that I can get is either physical comedy (Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd, Orvilie and Hardy, Lucille Ball) or perhaps sardonic (the sort of humor that Alfred Hitchcock offers in The Trouble with Harry). Maybe something wise and witty. Vile stuff from the late Sam Kinison? Turn it off!

People have told me that I am 'high-functioning', but that appearance results from my suppression of the more objectionable features of autistic behavior. I must act to seem normal enough that my lapses are mere 'eccentricity'. I wish that I needed not be such a conformist as I am. For me, life is acting. I would rather be normal; as much as I act in real life, and I think I am good enough at it that were it not for Asperger's I would be able to make a living in Little Theater.  

Maybe had I known much earlier I would have gotten better vocational guidance. I could have gotten some protection in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. I have a high-enough IQ to be a potential trouble-maker in many milieux.

The one thing good about Asperger's (aside from it not being as bad as other disorders) is that it makes one unlikely to develop any chemical dependency.

I need to respond to all this because I have the condition as well although it affected me in somewhat different ways, creating much emotional jeopardy down through the years.  Emotional jeopardy is an unusual game; sometimes you just have to play, which means that you have to be vulnerable. I also was bullied frequently as a child, and the year I was in fourth grade I was removed from public school following the Thanksgiving break. My parents supplied a tutor for a couple of years before space at a private boarding school became available. Much has gone wrong in my life through the years from that point on. Loud noises really don't bother me much except when trying to carry on a conversation. In fact my mother always said I played music and radio too loud. (No longer do much of that, though). Never did have trouble climbing stairs, but too have had difficulty obtaining and holding jobs at times although I had two jobs that lasted seven years, which in this day and age is about par for the course. By that length of time they will usually figure out some way to consider you too big an expense.

In the dating realm, we may not have had the same experiences, and this is where the topic of emotional jeopardy comes in. I wanted an active dating life very badly and did at times have some successes and had a few relationships that possibly could have led to marriage. I admittedly blew my last opportunity in the early 2000s because of my own restlessness. I had a fall in 2008, the same year the economy had its own fall. While I recovered well physically my financial stability took a big hit from which I have never recovered. Did obtain a job by the end of that year only to be removed unceremoniously in March of 2009. That's when I learned without a doubt how, in today's workplace, office politics and political correctness trump reason, and that petty jealousies can and often do lead to real-world consequences. A book I wrote titled JUDAS TIMES SEVEN is a somewhat fictionalized account of my experience, as I never learned the truth as to what went down and why after I developed an attraction to a woman who also was my lead person for most of my time there.

The only way in which we may have gotten better regarding our common condition is that we have at least come to recognize that vulnerability isn't a sign of weakness. It actually provides us with strength to overcome the toughest of obstacles. There are those who have told me that I managed to overcome tremendous odds in order to be able to live independently. And yet I don't come even close to considering myself as any kind of hero. If I were going to write my own autobiography, which I may take on sometime before my last breath occurs, I would probably title it "Ladies' Man Dreams", as I had almost an obsessional dream of being the ladies' man who could win the affection of nearly any woman I desired. The obsession was so intense that anybody who tried to get in the way, even family members, I considered to be the enemy. Now 72, I figure that it's now safe to go public with it because it is no doubt too late in life to try to become that ladies' man now. And do you feel that the term "Ladies' man" is more derogatory today that it may once have been? I have heard that there was a time when it carried a certain sort of mystique.
Reply
#38
(08-25-2017, 09:32 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: I have a diagnosis. It is not mental illness, but it is impairment. It is Asperger's.

A self-diagnosis is worth the paper the medical records surrounding it are written on. Meaning nothing since self-diagnoses are often not written. I have dealt with that many times as my mother has a tendency to read WebMD and conclude he has whatever she's reading about. And she's an RN so she really has no excuse for this behavior.

Quote:I have seen some of the literature, and it describes me well.

Reading some literature and making a self-diagnosis or being told you may have X by someone unqualified to make that diagnosis is not the same as having a diagnosis.

Quote: I could be in a cloud about reality because (1) I was likely to treat my anxiety (it goes with the territory) as normal because I cannot imagine living without anxiety, (2) I was likely to fault myself, and (3) I was in a family which thought any interaction with professionals in mental health a great shame. "Jewish science" or something like that.

1. Everyone has anxiety about something.
2. This is an obvious untruth since after interacting with you for years I know your tendency to blame society, your parents, and any other manner of outside persons than yourself.
3. Demonstrates how your "2" is untrue. You've been an adult for the last half century, 4 decades at any rate. If you thought you had some sort of mental illness, impairment or disability you could have gone and got it diagnosed by a professional capable of making that diagnosis at any time. Or did it never occur to you that shame is externally imposed.

Quote:I have a handicap. It is simply not as visible as needing a wheelchair for mobility or to need a service animal to compensate for blindness. It is no less real. It is not mental illness to the extent that I have impaired intellect or delusional thought.

You do, but it isn't Asperger's. For two main reasons:

1. Asperger's is not recognized by the DSM.
2. It conveniently manifests suddenly after your parents have died and you can no longer realistically blame them for all your problems.

As such I concluded long ago that your disability is an inability to accept responsibility for your own failings. Is this a spectrum disorder? No. Is this a mental illness? No. What it is, is a character flaw.

Quote:I could never use Asperger's as a mitigating factor in a criminal judgment

You couldn't use blindness, or paralysis as a mitigating factor in a criminal judgement either.

Quote: (so what. Someone with Asperger's can get help in seeking employment under ADA and getting suitable accommodation. There are jobs for which someone with Asperger's can be well suited. Those must recognize our inadequacies in understanding non-verbal communications.

Some reason I don't think you "recognized" this symptom until you read it somewhere in the associated literature.

Quote:I have an anxiety disorder; it goes with the territory. I could never figure that one out because I saw nothing abnormal. But anxiety can cripple one. I am one of the few people who has gone to a therapist and been told that I can have a drink to deal with anxiety. This is in a clinic that deals heavily with people with substance disorders. (An irony: I am harshly judgmental about drugs and alcoholism. One characteristic of Asperger's is that we who have it almost never have problems with addiction). 

Just about everyone has some sort of problem with anxiety. I largely link it to humans having brains suited for hunting and gathering in an information age society. Our biology has yet to catch up to our culture. But I do notice that this councilor never once mentioned that you might have a spectrum disorder. And certainly if he thought you might have one he could order testing for it. Of course in a clinic that deals with substance disorders they may not even think to look for such a thing, but the fact that you didn't even bother to get a second opinion on your self-diagnosis is telling.

Quote:Kinser, you either have little empathy (I know your posting habits, and you have stood for ideologies well suited to sociopathic personalities) or you fail to understand me.

I understand you all too well. I'm assuming that you are using the English language the same way every other English speaker uses it. Or if you say the sky is blue do you really mean it is polka dotted?

As for my empathy or lack of it. I have plenty of empathy. You're just not in my tribe so there is little reason for me to have any for you. The only difference between me and others is that I'm honest about the limitations of my empathy.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply
#39
(08-25-2017, 11:25 AM)Kinser79 Wrote: As for my empathy or lack of it.  I have plenty of empathy.  You're just not in my tribe so there is little reason for me to have any for you.  The only difference between me and others is that I'm honest about the limitations of my empathy.

I’ve had exchanges with other contributors.  During those exchanges, I collected a list of words that includes insane, stupid, brainwashed and evil, among others.  All these words label one as nigh on subhuman with a dysfunctional brain.  All of these words can dismiss what the other person is thinking, proposing or proclaiming.

It’s not just forum contributors that might exchange these words.  Partisan publications such as Breitbart and The Atlantic might attract them too.  They can be associated with an extreme partisan, a pundit, a politician, an editor, whatever.  If you are an extreme partisan, if you cling to a particular way of looking at the world, you often have to reject the opposite.  Words like insane, stupid, brainwashed, evil, etc… are handy go to concepts in such a case.  Eric’s ‘insane’ label will be attached to anyone who disagrees with him on gun policy.  Kinser threw such words at a blue tainted list of magazines.  It’s common.

I’ve been trying to strive for and advocate the opposite.  Major world views generally came about for solid reasons.  In places, and cultures such reasons are still valid, well regarded and taught at a core value level.  People hold and defend such world views with conviction, integrity and thought.  In general, one would say there is no reason to think one who holds such a world view, who seeks the corresponding values, is insane, stupid, brainwashed, evil, etc…

And yet, it is hardly surprising to hear someone suggest that if you read X magazine, if you profess a certain idea, that list is apt to come out.

Sometimes this is done in a sort of civil well thought out way.  Other times, the winner is thought to be he who types the most obnoxious insult soonest.  I don’t know that the insults are overly constructive.  I do know that if the other guy appears insane, stupid, brainwashed, evil etc…  reaching for the insult is tempting to irresistible.  Hopefully, there are enough people hurling insults that a few skipping the exercise sometimes won’t be missed.

But back to serious people.  If one professes, expresses, respects both both of the extreme partisan symptoms,  and the two systems conflict, what gives?  Or more likely, if one is heavily into a single system, what gives?

Occasionally it is up stated front.  Eric doesn’t read anything from the NRA.  Kinser claims a lack of empathy.  If one explicitly throws out part of the other guy’s world view, what the heck, it’s gone for the person throwing away.  At the values level, I cannot force Eric to acknowledge what he doesn’t want to hear.  I can’t force Kinser to feel for people he doesn’t feel for.  There is a sometimes appreciation, at least on my part, for those who can be brutally honest in admitting their limitations.

But this does not imply Eric speaks for all blues, nor Kinser for all reds.  It’s tempting so say so.  A lot of people regarding the gun policy question are just not listening.  A lot of red are uninterested in helping others.  It is tempting to take the brutal admission and honesty of a few and apply the ideas behind it to the many.

Now, my own values have been questioned.  I would like to say my values put science first, that any idea has to be double checked against reality.  I would put political thought second, leaning left, Whig in most to all ways, fond of the ideas of the Enlightenment.  I’ll pick up odds and ends from various religions, but often won’t claim to be able to apply science in anything like ‘proof’.  I’ll suggest you do as you will and harm none, but not propose and experiment to observe or prove such ideas.

On Whig ideas.  Are king’s powers diminished?  Are slaves freed?  Are human rights spreading?  Have robber baron’s increased their power at the expense of aristocratic landowners?  If you look at S&H crises in the Anglo American sequence over the last 500 years or so, can you not often find a progressive faction, advocating one or more of these ideas, and moving on to ‘win’ the crisis?

But is this universal?  Are these values often European-American, often missing elsewhere?  Thus, are Whig values triumphant in certain places and times, but far less relevant elsewhere?  One counter example of Whig values would be the modern middle east.  The West has shown middle eastern people mostly colonial imperialism.  Have many come to reject all western materialistic values to cling to an old agricultural age religious world view?

And are these questions testable?  Can one examine history and apply the label ‘fact’, or are these political values which have to be labeled ‘opinion’?  Me, I’m a Whig, and I’ll hold Whiggish things to be true with a fierceness similar to anyone else clinging to any partisan viewpoint.  Still, when I observe that kings have less power, Bills of Rights have more, Slaves are free, and the rest, are these things true enough in some historically observable way?

I think so.  Kinser doesn’t.  If he doesn’t care about folks outside his tribe, he seems to try to show that nobody else cares either.  Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!  It never happened?  Take the giant autocratic eraser to history, and change history as one pleases?

I can kinda, sorta, almost respect Kinser’s world view, but am not going to name him expert on everything blue.  To defend his own empathy lite perspective, he has to disparage those who do want to share and care.  To me it seems very clear that a lot of people do care more that he does, have for quite a time, to the extent that the Whig perspective has triumphed and is still thriving.  ‘Whig’ is no longer as popular a word.  Folks have seen one problem solved, and have moved on to the next.  The forces of change are (surprise!) changing.  The words change with it.

But you have to take a partisan’s straw man characterizations of opposing partisans less than fully seriously.  If you want to learn about the blue, ask a blue, not someone whose world view demands that he disparage the blue.  Nor is the above unique to the blue.  In many cases, you can substitute the word red freely.
Reply
#40
(08-25-2017, 02:40 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:  If you are an extreme partisan, if you cling to a particular way of looking at the world, you often have to reject the opposite.

Do you mean like how you cling to the notion that there is in every crisis a faction which represents progress and it is known at the time to be the faction which will inevitably win, rather than the far more plausible likelihood that the faction which wins merely proclaims themselves to be progressive after the fact.

I hope I don't have to explain again as to why I do not subscribe to Whig History. Rather, I subscribe to the view that history is written by the victors.

Quote:  Words like insane, stupid, brainwashed, evil, etc… are handy go to concepts in such a case.  Eric’s ‘insane’ label will be attached to anyone who disagrees with him on gun policy.  Kinser threw such words at a blue tainted list of magazines.  It’s common.

Being called insane by Eric the Ignoramus is a case of a pot calling a kettle black. Oh wait, that's rayciss now. And I didn't say the Atlantic was insane, I said that their position that the solar eclipse was racist was absurd. The person(s) who wrote that article may or may not be insane. I'm not a psychologist and thus not qualified to make such a determination.

Quote:Occasionally it is up stated front.  Eric doesn’t read anything from the NRA.

I would be more surprised to find out that Eric reads.

Quote:  Kinser claims a lack of empathy.

Not quite. PBR claimed I lacked empathy. I made the counter claim that I did have empathy, just none for him. There is a difference.

Quote:But this does not imply Eric speaks for all blues, nor Kinser for all reds.

And there is an other difference as well. Eric and those like him are inclined to say that they do speak for all blues. Myself, and other reds typically are upfront that we speak for ourselves.

Quote:A lot of people regarding the gun policy question are just not listening.

There isn't much to listen to. Either you favor people having constitutional rights or you do not. Those like Eric don't want people to have rights and the biggest right standing in their way is the right to keep and bear arms. A population is either armed or enslaved there is no middle ground.

Quote: A lot of red are uninterested in helping others.

I and other reds are quite interested in helping others. One of the best ways to help them is to get them to help themselves first. Hence why many oppose the welfare state. Indeed, I can think of nothing more destructive to black Americans than the welfare state. Unless of course one wants to make the argument that racism is both systemic and worse today than it was in the 1940s.

Quote:On Whig ideas.  Are king’s powers diminished?  Are slaves freed?  Are human rights spreading?  Have robber baron’s increased their power at the expense of aristocratic landowners?  If you look at S&H crises in the Anglo American sequence over the last 500 years or so, can you not often find a progressive faction, advocating one or more of these ideas, and moving on to ‘win’ the crisis?

Do you not realize that if Britain had stuck through the war instead of growing tired of fighting the colonials that there would have been no United States. That the revered founding fathers would have been hanged like traitors. Do you not realize that had the South succeeded in defeated the North not only would none of the slaves been freed, but that the country would be split in twain. Do you not realize that had there not been WW2 people would have eventually grown tired of the ineffective New Deal.

It is after the 4T is won, by someone, that who is and who is not progressive is determined. History as ever, is written by the victors.

Quote:Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!  It never happened?

No it's never happened. Equality is the opposite of liberty because if one has liberty, the natural differences in skills, intelligence, drive and so on inevitably lead to unequal outcomes. One can have liberty or they can have equality but they can't have both. Much like eating cake or having cake.

As for me I think New Hampshire's motto expresses it best. Live free or die.

Quote:To defend his own empathy lite perspective, he has to disparage those who do want to share and care.

I wouldn't claim you to be an expert on all things red either, especially me. I'm all or sharing and caring. That I focus that on individual actions, charity and family is only right and proper. As I have said about the welfare state, nothing has been so destructive to black Americans. Yet I imagine you would consider it out of character for an avowed atheist to spend his Saturdays at a church food bank.

As for the Whig perspective, it is deader than a hammer. The next century belongs to the Jeffersonians and Jacksonians.
It really is all mathematics.

Turn on to Daddy, Tune in to Nationalism, Drop out of UN/NATO/WTO/TPP/NAFTA/CAFTA Globalism.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Why we are nowhere near the end of the fourth turning Mickey123 31 581 06-11-2020, 11:22 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green
  Civil War II - Fourth Turning Intensifying nebraska 0 376 12-28-2017, 07:33 PM
Last Post: nebraska

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)