Pander Bear
Bluelight Crew
Its not an agenda if you're right and everybody else is stupid, evil, and weak... Its "rational"
CE&P social thread: why do the people I disagree with hate freedom so much?
- Thread starter Pander Bear
- Start date
- Status
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
I have the idea of a TV show that would (1) make loads of money, (2) contribute to the downfall of civilization and (3) get me suicide-bombed by someone with at least an ounce of human decency:
Imagine, a reality show featuring Casey Anthony and Amanda Knox.
(Yes, I'm going to hell.)
Imagine, a reality show featuring Casey Anthony and Amanda Knox.
(Yes, I'm going to hell.)
Bardeaux
Bluelight Crew
Sounds kind of hot.
(I'll see you there, Escher)
(I'll see you there, Escher)
qwe
Bluelight Crew
CE&P: Fair & Balanced!
MyFinalRest said:
MyFinalRest
Bluelighter
^Mr. qwe is refering to a quoted post I made in the "morgan freeman calls the tea party racist thread."
I'll say it it here to but I have no problem with ad hom attacks/insults it's just that I have a problem with those who have a problem with them yet they use them too.
But, this straw man garbage does have a tendency to really piss me off as well as these over-dressed pieces of sophistry. You can have a discussion with an atmosphere of insults being hurled back and forth, but it is quite difficult when one has to to dismiss strawmen all the time or constantly call someone out for spewing out "sophistry" that ultimately says absolutely nothing.
And here's an example of somebody that spent too much time learning the "marxist vocabulary" in his Soc. Marxist Thought Processes 379 Course:
It sucks to read something and then end up with several different ideas of "what the hell is he talking about" and "what the hell does this have to do with what I was talking about"? Well it at least prevents me from trying to argue with his position or lack of one.
and only Pander Bear could have thought of a sticky thread title like this...
I'll say it it here to but I have no problem with ad hom attacks/insults it's just that I have a problem with those who have a problem with them yet they use them too.
But, this straw man garbage does have a tendency to really piss me off as well as these over-dressed pieces of sophistry. You can have a discussion with an atmosphere of insults being hurled back and forth, but it is quite difficult when one has to to dismiss strawmen all the time or constantly call someone out for spewing out "sophistry" that ultimately says absolutely nothing.
And here's an example of somebody that spent too much time learning the "marxist vocabulary" in his Soc. Marxist Thought Processes 379 Course:
While 'good leadership' is to be desired (arguing against it would be like adopting an 'anti-competence stance' or something), even potentially good leaders face institutional constraints which force debilitating concessions to power-elites, the latter playing a role in structuring such institutions. What is more, this prevailing framework of institutions comes to shape these leaders' dispositions, actions, and identities, corruptingly constructing 'good leadership' as a mere facade, opening the door to demagoguery.
ebola
It sucks to read something and then end up with several different ideas of "what the hell is he talking about" and "what the hell does this have to do with what I was talking about"? Well it at least prevents me from trying to argue with his position or lack of one.
and only Pander Bear could have thought of a sticky thread title like this...
Last edited:
MyFinalRest
Bluelighter
I'm waiting for you... (please Hammer don't hurt me!)
Last edited:
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
Have fun with that. I don't see any novel contentions in your last couple posts, and I am hesitant to clutter my forum with irrelevant squabbling. We'll see how bored I get today...
ebola
ebola
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
Fuck it: I am that bored.
Like the rest of us, you dislike hypocrisy. great...However, you have to understand that there is a gradient between unproblematic argumentation and personal attacks (and other ad-homs). We tolerate the occasional snarky quip, but some material presents the danger of degrading further discussion.
In that case, please stop making use of them in your argumentation.
I'll try to keep my sophistry more straightforward in the future. But really, how do you (personally) differentiate sophistry from valid arguments rooted in niche sets of concepts and jargon? A seemingly 'fancy verbal veneer' can actually capture complex concepts more concisely and precisely than one can through other means.
I'd like to excise all of the above. At least you're not giving me much 'sophistry' to deal with, but the strawmen and insults are getting tiresome.
So your critique, here, is that I acquired a superficial set of esoteric terminology (as I learned "vocabulary", not analytical frameworks, history, etc.) in a single course on "Marxist Thought Processes". What is wrong with learning a particular perspective, a particular way of thinking? Doesn't understanding require reach beyond accrual of non-contextualized facts? What do facts mean outside of ways to engage them?
Do you imagine this nonexistent course to guide the totality of my thinking? Does my educational background (or anyone's) hold relevance for these discussions?
I guess this argument is tenuously neo-Marxist, but it draws more heavily from Bourdieu, noting how political fields construct the rules of the political game, the dispositions of actors involved, and practices of domination between ruler and ruled which reproduce the political field in question. There is also a clear Weberian strand, whereby the pursuit of efficient means crowds out creation of ethical values and according goals, ie as efficiency eclipses the quest for the good.
And here is the crux of the matter:
You indicate that you don't understand what I said, notice that the terminology is unfamiliar, and then move straight to dismissing my post as "sophistry". Why don't you ask people to clarify what they mean when you can't tell? That's how people converse with one another.
This is a 'social' thread, functioning in part to quarantine insipid squabbles like this.
You're the one who requested I "bring it on".
ebola
FinalARRRR said:
Like the rest of us, you dislike hypocrisy. great...However, you have to understand that there is a gradient between unproblematic argumentation and personal attacks (and other ad-homs). We tolerate the occasional snarky quip, but some material presents the danger of degrading further discussion.
In that case, please stop making use of them in your argumentation.
I'll try to keep my sophistry more straightforward in the future.
But really, how do you (personally) differentiate sophistry from valid arguments rooted in niche sets of concepts and jargon? A seemingly 'fancy verbal veneer' can actually capture complex concepts more concisely and precisely than one can through other means.I'd like to excise all of the above. At least you're not giving me much 'sophistry' to deal with, but the strawmen and insults are getting tiresome.
So your critique, here, is that I acquired a superficial set of esoteric terminology (as I learned "vocabulary", not analytical frameworks, history, etc.) in a single course on "Marxist Thought Processes". What is wrong with learning a particular perspective, a particular way of thinking? Doesn't understanding require reach beyond accrual of non-contextualized facts? What do facts mean outside of ways to engage them?
Do you imagine this nonexistent course to guide the totality of my thinking? Does my educational background (or anyone's) hold relevance for these discussions?
While 'good leadership' is to be desired (arguing against it would be like adopting an 'anti-competence stance' or something
ebola
I guess this argument is tenuously neo-Marxist, but it draws more heavily from Bourdieu, noting how political fields construct the rules of the political game, the dispositions of actors involved, and practices of domination between ruler and ruled which reproduce the political field in question. There is also a clear Weberian strand, whereby the pursuit of efficient means crowds out creation of ethical values and according goals, ie as efficiency eclipses the quest for the good.
And here is the crux of the matter:
You indicate that you don't understand what I said, notice that the terminology is unfamiliar, and then move straight to dismissing my post as "sophistry". Why don't you ask people to clarify what they mean when you can't tell? That's how people converse with one another.
This is a 'social' thread, functioning in part to quarantine insipid squabbles like this.
You're the one who requested I "bring it on".ebola
qwe
Bluelight Crew
this is a drug board. you really can say, pretty much, whatever the fuck you want. what do you want the mods to do, vote republican?
on ebola's posts, i find one of the best ways to increase one's intelligence is to have a dictionary toolbar on hand while reading unfamiliar words. and then applying the cognitive energy to parse the sentence.
on ebola's posts, i find one of the best ways to increase one's intelligence is to have a dictionary toolbar on hand while reading unfamiliar words. and then applying the cognitive energy to parse the sentence.
Last edited:
Pander Bear
Bluelight Crew
Pretty much this-- the kernel of every MFR post, but that big one in particular.
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
No, that's just because Ebola is well-read. It just seems confusing since your vocabulary is from Fox News.
So I was contemplating racism today and I came to the conclusion that while everyone these days makes a big deal about not being racist, most people are in fact racist even if they don't know it.
On the whole, most people associate with people that are similar to them. It is human nature to look for people that you can identify with culturally to spend your time with. In the strictest sense, if people were not racist then the race category would not fit into that equation at all. But in reality we see that most people choose friends within their own ethnicity. People tend to be more comfortable with people that look like them.
Usually when you see exceptions to this it is because the two people share something in common that overcomes the racial boundary. Something like growing up next door neighbors, playing together on a sports team, going to the same church ect. would be good examples.
In my mind most people are racist to some extent, but almost everyone these days is tolerant of other races. They see people as relatively equal, and when weighing the merits of a particular person ethnicity is one thing among many that determines the value of a person.
I don't really know what the point of all this is.... I guess its just some random musings that I felt like typing out for some reason.
On the whole, most people associate with people that are similar to them. It is human nature to look for people that you can identify with culturally to spend your time with. In the strictest sense, if people were not racist then the race category would not fit into that equation at all. But in reality we see that most people choose friends within their own ethnicity. People tend to be more comfortable with people that look like them.
Usually when you see exceptions to this it is because the two people share something in common that overcomes the racial boundary. Something like growing up next door neighbors, playing together on a sports team, going to the same church ect. would be good examples.
In my mind most people are racist to some extent, but almost everyone these days is tolerant of other races. They see people as relatively equal, and when weighing the merits of a particular person ethnicity is one thing among many that determines the value of a person.
I don't really know what the point of all this is.... I guess its just some random musings that I felt like typing out for some reason.
Apostacious
Bluelighter
Wow... how embarrassing... I cannot even begin to conceive of how stupid I would feel if I were MFR.
MyFinalRest
Bluelighter
I think the above posts simply just proved my point.
*Ebola said he is a neo-marxist (even the man whose name gave rise to such a term would be rolling in his grave) who favors "esoteric" bullshit over straight forward intellectual and innovative concepts that may actually help people tackle today's political, social, and economic problems. Not understanding a "big wurd" or a "jargonish concept" is not a big deal since I'm on the internet and I can simply bing up what I don't understand. The real problem is that you favor certain schools of thought that come up with concepts that have no connection to reality in the sense one might try to convince me that 2+2=5. Also, you must be one of those lizard-people that conspiracists are warning us about because you have to flick your cyber tongue out after every sentence you make
Although qwe is so far coming off as the most intelligent and sensible of this clique he is serving up a straw man i.e. "want everybody to vote republican"
Uh no, I hate the GOP and I hate the Democratic party even more because they truly have proven themselves to be the GOP's bitches, even going to the extent to reject support their party members that are trying or tried to make a stand like Dennis Kucinich or the deceased Robert C. Byrd.
*Pander Bear nice attempt at an insult, straw man, and a misconstruance of what I originally said. I should hit the report button on that one like you or somebody else did me for a comment I recently made about you.
*Escher is also using the insult technique along with a straw man that accuses me of watching fox news. I was actually starting think Escher was recovering from his temporary case of autism and starting to make clever statements indicating he could follow a stream of thought from post to post but I guess he just proved me wrong.
*And my dear Apostacious, who failed to make even one convincing point in our grand 9/11 arguments, thanks for the ad hominem attack. Your mom asshole.
See you guys around.
*Ebola said he is a neo-marxist (even the man whose name gave rise to such a term would be rolling in his grave) who favors "esoteric" bullshit over straight forward intellectual and innovative concepts that may actually help people tackle today's political, social, and economic problems. Not understanding a "big wurd" or a "jargonish concept" is not a big deal since I'm on the internet and I can simply bing up what I don't understand. The real problem is that you favor certain schools of thought that come up with concepts that have no connection to reality in the sense one might try to convince me that 2+2=5. Also, you must be one of those lizard-people that conspiracists are warning us about because you have to flick your cyber tongue out after every sentence you make
Although qwe is so far coming off as the most intelligent and sensible of this clique he is serving up a straw man i.e. "want everybody to vote republican"
Uh no, I hate the GOP and I hate the Democratic party even more because they truly have proven themselves to be the GOP's bitches, even going to the extent to reject support their party members that are trying or tried to make a stand like Dennis Kucinich or the deceased Robert C. Byrd.
*Pander Bear nice attempt at an insult, straw man, and a misconstruance of what I originally said. I should hit the report button on that one like you or somebody else did me for a comment I recently made about you.
*Escher is also using the insult technique along with a straw man that accuses me of watching fox news. I was actually starting think Escher was recovering from his temporary case of autism and starting to make clever statements indicating he could follow a stream of thought from post to post but I guess he just proved me wrong.
*And my dear Apostacious, who failed to make even one convincing point in our grand 9/11 arguments, thanks for the ad hominem attack. Your mom asshole.
See you guys around.
MyFinalRest
Bluelighter
^I also disagree with Care's statement. I have never chosen friends based on ethnicity. I don't think it it's natural at all, at least not for me. I would also argue that the concept of "race as ethnicity" is relatively recent only beginning in Germany and Western Europe in the mid to late 19th century. The word was used much before this and it meant one's family lineage, not one's ethnicity. For example in the film Bram Stoker's Dracula when Keanu Reeves is meeting with Dracula over dinner in the beginning of the movie, Dracula refers to a "a tale of my great race" meaning only his ancestors, not the entire slavic ethnicity. I just saw it a few days ago and it came to mind.
Also Historian Jacques Barzun offers more insight into this matter in his book Race: a Study in Modern Superstition
I do have my boundaries of course, but ethnicity certainly isn't one of them.
Also Historian Jacques Barzun offers more insight into this matter in his book Race: a Study in Modern Superstition
I do have my boundaries of course, but ethnicity certainly isn't one of them.
Max Power
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2007
- Messages
- 9,888
That's like saying Jordan was kinda good at basketball or Gretzky sorta knew his way around the ice.
(Yes, I have a hard-on for ebola's vast lexicon. There, I said it.)
MyFinalRest
Bluelighter
^Ah another of ebola's crony mods arrives with a homo-erotic cult of personality style praise for his master. Ebola is certainly Chairman Mao of his forum.
Being well read and being able to mindlessly ape it back is nothing special. Guys like Bourdieu and Weber are hardly infallible if even correct in their theories. I'm not surprised you guys jumped on the ad hominem insult train saying MFR "can't read our master's big wurdz." Oh believe me, I am all too familiar with this neo-marxist terminology and so is almost everyone else who had these marxist sociology, political science, and history professors. It's like some factory in Soviet Russia produced thousands of robots in the 70's and sent them to the US to teach university courses. There is a good chance you had one of them or their students if you went to college.
Why this school of thought (and I use this term loosely) fails is that it can't fathom the creation of quality institutions or quality leadership. That's why when Chomsky shifts into his more anarchistic thought it comes out better than this recapitulation of Das Kapital we are confronted with in the Marxist school of thought. If one truly thinks so low of humans obtaining power and that the ensuing framework is doomed to being miserable, one might as well go straight to anarchy. If you constantly rail against elites and their institutions, what is the likely outcome for those who might succeed in creating Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat? You end up with dictators and party creeps who never bothered to gather an idea of what ethical and quality leadership might be. Although my marxist lesbian teachers argued that we didn't see Marx's plans faithfully implemented in oppressive and and failed USSR and Red China, I think we did see a very faithful implementation. That was the likely outcome of Marxism. It failed with the people craving bourgeois capitalist society and hating the oppressive dictatorships that uprooted them and their traditions. There is more to life than the great class struggle.
So I do find it very hypocritical when these neo-marxists rail against "the bad elites" and praise the good and honest "little guys" who struggle to have somewhere to live and something to eat when these professors are themselves part of this lazy and corrupted "elite." That's who the mainstream left-wing in Western politics are and we have seen how pathetically useless they have been since the Nixon days. The reason the institutional framework is doomed to corruption and a skewed idea of "efficiency" is because right now in America, it's full of "chairman ebola" type assholes and their right-wing counterparts that use their authority to make sure it remains corrupt and self serving to the "power-elites" while surrounding themselves with cronies who merely spout off this "pseudo-liberal and pseudo-addressing social need" style "demagoguery' without actually making good on their verbal commitments.
There are good people out there who can create good institutions that employ good people and some people right here in America - while it remains free enough to do so - and they are doing it without giving in to corruption.
And overall, I was successful in exposing this mainstream-left clique that is the bluelight CE&P elite - I hope those right wingers will at least appreciate this much of my war on the ineffective "limp-dicked left."
Being well read and being able to mindlessly ape it back is nothing special. Guys like Bourdieu and Weber are hardly infallible if even correct in their theories. I'm not surprised you guys jumped on the ad hominem insult train saying MFR "can't read our master's big wurdz." Oh believe me, I am all too familiar with this neo-marxist terminology and so is almost everyone else who had these marxist sociology, political science, and history professors. It's like some factory in Soviet Russia produced thousands of robots in the 70's and sent them to the US to teach university courses. There is a good chance you had one of them or their students if you went to college.
Why this school of thought (and I use this term loosely) fails is that it can't fathom the creation of quality institutions or quality leadership. That's why when Chomsky shifts into his more anarchistic thought it comes out better than this recapitulation of Das Kapital we are confronted with in the Marxist school of thought. If one truly thinks so low of humans obtaining power and that the ensuing framework is doomed to being miserable, one might as well go straight to anarchy. If you constantly rail against elites and their institutions, what is the likely outcome for those who might succeed in creating Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat? You end up with dictators and party creeps who never bothered to gather an idea of what ethical and quality leadership might be. Although my marxist lesbian teachers argued that we didn't see Marx's plans faithfully implemented in oppressive and and failed USSR and Red China, I think we did see a very faithful implementation. That was the likely outcome of Marxism. It failed with the people craving bourgeois capitalist society and hating the oppressive dictatorships that uprooted them and their traditions. There is more to life than the great class struggle.
So I do find it very hypocritical when these neo-marxists rail against "the bad elites" and praise the good and honest "little guys" who struggle to have somewhere to live and something to eat when these professors are themselves part of this lazy and corrupted "elite." That's who the mainstream left-wing in Western politics are and we have seen how pathetically useless they have been since the Nixon days. The reason the institutional framework is doomed to corruption and a skewed idea of "efficiency" is because right now in America, it's full of "chairman ebola" type assholes and their right-wing counterparts that use their authority to make sure it remains corrupt and self serving to the "power-elites" while surrounding themselves with cronies who merely spout off this "pseudo-liberal and pseudo-addressing social need" style "demagoguery' without actually making good on their verbal commitments.
There are good people out there who can create good institutions that employ good people and some people right here in America - while it remains free enough to do so - and they are doing it without giving in to corruption.
And overall, I was successful in exposing this mainstream-left clique that is the bluelight CE&P elite - I hope those right wingers will at least appreciate this much of my war on the ineffective "limp-dicked left."
Last edited:
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
When did Ebola become a neo-Marxist?
MyFinalRest
Bluelighter
True, he didn't say he was a neo-marxist but he described that statement of his that I quoted as "neo-marxist" and it is very Pierre Bordilieu-ish who is a French marxist male-lesbian coming soon to a University textbook near you! In addition to his obvious dictatorship of bluelight CE&P and other "neo-marxist" rantings that he wrote after getting fried on PCP while listening to MC Hammer and banging his head on a wall.
I recall somebody, I think it was droppersneck complaining about how when "you don't agree with something, you are accused of not getting it. There is some truth to this in the sense I never understood how some schools of thought and their theorists could actually think that their shit was actually relevant or would work and make society better if implemented. In other words, I don't get how you think you "get it." ...just a thought.
I recall somebody, I think it was droppersneck complaining about how when "you don't agree with something, you are accused of not getting it. There is some truth to this in the sense I never understood how some schools of thought and their theorists could actually think that their shit was actually relevant or would work and make society better if implemented. In other words, I don't get how you think you "get it." ...just a thought.
Last edited:
Pegasus
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2006
- Messages
- 8,073
You don't honestly think that's how people converse, do you? When a professor is teaching a subject to a classroom of people only familiar with the basics of the course, does the professor talk as extravagantly as possible, expecting the students to ask what every new word means, or does he understand that the audience is not as versed in the subject matter as he is and speak to them in a way in which they understand? If he actually wants the students to understand what he is trying to say, he won't talk way above their heads. If he fails to engage the students, he has failed at communicating, not the students at understanding.
- Status