FourthBase's Mea Culpa Thread

[FourthBase]

I think some of you will like this. Most?

So, I think I found a way to prove that racism and meat are bad. Tell me if I'm wrong. Tell me if there's anyone else who's already gone through this same logic, I would love to read whomever that is. All the math is just a ballpark placeholder to be revised by someone smarter who really knows what the numbers are. Bear with me...

All life is literally one family.
Every animal and plant is literally your cousin.
You have second cousins you live around.
You find fifth cousins on 23andMe.
You are surrounded by 20th and 30th cousins.
On the other side of the world...
Deep in jungles, stranded on islands...
Live your 50th and 60th cousins.
Even deeper in a jungle, snacking on fruit:
Your 50000th cousins, other great apes.
You have a weird relationship with...
Your 500000th cousins.
Some of them, you love like siblings, offspring.
Some of them are pests you trap in glue.
Some of them you kill and eat.
Those ants your 50000th cousins eat?
They're your 50000000th cousins.
Your body is crawling with microscopic...
5000000000th cousins.
The plants those ants crawl over?
They're your 5000000000000th cousins.

[Picture that narrated by Attenborough]



All of the decisions we make, whether to love a cousin or ignore a cousin or hate a cousin or devour a cousin or wash a cousin off our skin, are a choice of where to draw the line at which cousin is related enough or not to care enough about. Obviously, in order to live, we must not give a shit about some cousins, at a certain point. Microbes and vegetables, for example, are simply too fucking removed to be concerned about, and if we don't control and consume them, we die. But they're all still literally cousins. The only question is where you draw the line.

Your 1st cousin might as well be your great-grandchild. Literally, genetically. Your 50th cousins might as well be your direct descendants 1,000 years from now. That's not too long. Hate wisely. Or don't hate races at all, because it's idiotic.

Your 500000th cousins might as well be your direct descendants 10,000,000 years from now. That might seem like a long time, but is it long enough to justify eating them? Probably not. Eat wisely. Besides, you already treat some of them like little brothers and sisters. Like retarded, furry, four-legged children. You've confirmed that it's possible to treat some mammals just like family. Start thinking of the other ones more like family, too.

So...QED, or nah?

OMG lol Hearing it all in an Attenborough voice is a fucking riot. "Obviously, in order to live, we must not give a shit about some cousins, at a certain point." And also "simply too fucking removed", lol. "Like retarded, furry, four-legged children"...then picture a shot like this:



/attenborough

Someday I need to find somebody who does a killer Attenborough impression.

[FourthBase]

Further along Apostasy Road...

But since evil is a two-way street, or a 12-way intersection, the pwnage has to be promiscuously distributed. Here's some apostasy. It may look like I'm attempting to collaborate with Nazis here, and: I am! In order to make an anti-fascist point. I sent this to a rancid reactionary:

I'm not a fan of the alt-right, but this idea is too good not to share, and there need to be literal Nazis for it to work as political theater, so consider this me throwing a bone, for the greater good. You're welcome.

I'm sure others here or on the chans have joked about doing something similar, but I don't think people realize just how effective a double-binding submission-move it would be, if it's done right.

Steps:

Locate a Muslim bakery that won't make a gay wedding cake.

Ask them to make a super-ghey wedding cake.

Wait for them to refuse.

Protest.

Profit.

Here is the specific recipe:

* 4 literal Nazis
- All dressed in *rainbow* attire
- 1 in a rainbow clown outfit (big honk)
- 1 as a drag queen in a rainbow dress (legit, no hetero half-assing)
- 1 dressed like that guy in the "Are you not entertained?" meme, with a heroic Batman cape and mask, wearing rainbow stockings and arm sleeves (I mean, really though, is this not why they are here?)
- 1 dressed as butch as Rachel Maddow performing in a drag king revue, in a rainbow-striped Nazi uniform (could be female, or could be a dude temporarily identifying as a butch lesbian, not sure which is more effective, meaningful propaganda...could be a coin flip)

* 4 signs
- 1 that is a verbatim quote of some obnoxiously woke sign from a Chick fil A protest
- 1 that calls for homophobic businesses to go bankrupt
- 1 that calls for homophobes to pack up and leave the country
- 1 that says "Are we the baddies?" or however that skit goes
- Should be in typical Germanic, very Nazi font, whatever that is (look up the photo of four Nazis holding signs in an anti-Jew boycott outside a Jewish storefront, the type should look exactly like that)

That's it. It should work. It's absolutely worth trying, anyway. As long as you maintain the cosplay (do it, it's for a good cause) throughout, and don't let your masks slip and reveal your despicable, deplorable personalities. At the same time, it has to be a transparent stunt. Part of the whole point is that the world gets to see that it's nearly impossible to tell the difference between progressives and fascists, which means people have to know that it's actually fascists doing the culture jamming.

The hilarious thing is, it really is the logical extreme of woke orthodoxy. Take an anti-homophobia boycott far enough, to its telos, and the majority of Muslims -- who can't change their beliefs because of biddah's airtight unchangeability -- would be pressured to leave the country. Meaning the woke left is functionally indistinguishable from the reactionary right. They're so woke, they're willing to show it by mass-deporting Muslims. Not that they'll ever have the requisite self-awareness or honesty to show the world that. But you can show it for them. Ahem. Nice logic there, isn't it? Would be a real shame if it was used against them.

Sincerely curious how y'all would react if that were tried. Which side would you be on? Neither, right? "Are we the baddies?" Yes, lol! And they are, too! But in order to keep one side from "winning", both sides have to lose. So, no, there might not be even four Nazis on the whole planet self-critical enough to pull this stunt, given the self-pwnage implied. But...are there four anti-fascists self-critical enough to concede the pwnage on their end, either? You tell me.

Here's what it would look like.
Really imagine it. Think hard. Visualize...
Four people outside a Muslim bakery holding signs.
Signs demanding homophobes be banished.
All in rainbow attire.
A drag queen.
A clown.
A caped crusader.
And a Nazi in a super-gay uniform.









The last one holding a sign that reads:
"Are we the baddies?"



The signs all in Third Reich font, like this:



So, what say you?
Are you pro-bankrupting-homophobes?
Which is indistinguishable from pro-deporting-Muslims?
Are you, very ironically, pro-blasphemy-enforcement?
Meaning, we must not suffer unwoke beliefs?

Or can you recognize a double bind when you see one?
And can you figure out a way to escape it?

[FourthBase]

Simultaneously a Mea Culpa offering and an Apostasy rickroll.

News to share: I'm changing my pronouns. Please refer to me with "we", "us", "our", and "ourself" from now on.

(Good luck!)

If you think I'm kidding: I am! Here. But the first opportunity I get to officially force a progressive to use whatever words I want? Oh you better believe I'm going to be as serious as an eye tumor.

"Bake my cake, bigot"? Say hello to "Use my pronouns, fascist."



Or rather, OUR pronouns.



Not to disrespect the bona fide dysmorphic, who are mostly normal. I would gladly use whatever pronoun a truly trans person wants. But the woke passive-aggressive dictators who want control of our speech? They deserve all the contempt we can muster. By "we", I mean you and me. Not just myself. Sorry, I meant: By "we", I mean you and us. Not just ourself. (The real fun begins when someone else starts trying to talk to or about me, er, us.)

I could also legitimately, philosophically, maybe even legally justify these pronouns as much as any others.

Per the ADA, if I had Dissociative Identity Disorder (I don't, lol, I'm not THAT fucking crazy) then I would be entitled to be addressed in the plural. Authentically experiencing oneself as having multiple personalities like a Kim Noble is just as real as feeling like you're the wrong gender. More real, in the case of the large swath of woke narcissists gaslighting themselves onto an oppression bandwagon.

That checks out, right?

Also, philosophically, it is asserting the implication that No Man Is An Island.

Fascism by Munchausen by Proxy. It's really a thing, though.

[FourthBase]

Fascism by Munchausen by Proxy. It's really a thing, though.

That was in relation to this other thing I said...

Fascism: "You, outgroup, shut up and leave this establishment or we'll destroy you."

Passive-aggressive fascism: "I'm not feeling very comfortable with that outgroup present. When they talk, it traumatizes me. I won't be emotionally healed until they're removed and fired."

Someone I respect expressed some of the same kneejerk objections you're probably having. And I replied...

It's not about the particular who and whom. I'm just describing two different means of accomplishing the same fascist end. An antisemite in 1930's Germany could be just as much of a passive-aggressive fascist. At least early on, when unvarnished aggression wasn't yet officially sanctioned, there were literally passive-aggressive Nazi fascists. Passive-aggressive fascism is also a method used by racist Southerners. "The presence of these negros is upsetting me. They're taking up room in my space. I won't be comfortable until they're shown the door."

Someone else I respect had objections, too...

If you don't fit my ideals of what humanity should be I will torture and kill you is not equal to don't be an abusive inconsiderate asshole or I'll tell you you're an asshole and stop talking to you. The biggest difference is the physical harm part in case you got lost there.

Which I'm sure many of you also thought, more or less.
But I replied...

Not just stop talking to you, dude. Understatement alert. They want people removed from public venues, expelled from universities, evicted from apartments*, denied services, fired from their jobs, permanently stigmatized. You've read The Yellow Star, right? Remember how it begins? The "passive-aggressive" could easily tip into plain old "aggressive", once these woke cultists graduate to being in charge of the state apparatus and no longer require the pretense of victimization to wield power. They don't want the world to be fair. They want their chance to get to be unfair back. You're merely looking at proto-passive-aggressive fascism. White students being told they're "taking up space" in a multicultural center. A campaign to cancel South Park because it's a danger to society. Lesbians being demonized as oppressive bigots and silenced. A thousand more, and worse, examples. Stay tuned, it's only getting worse.

There was more arguing, and I said this...

I'm not afraid of equality. I'm afraid of inequality. Which -- because humans are all too equal -- is a state that all sorts of human groups prefer and aspire to, as long as they get to be on top.

Yes, the oppressed will be extremely fucking tempted to act the same as the oppressor, to switch roles, and I do not trust human beings to resist temptation like that, no matter how much I may hope that experiencing oppression has enlightened the oppressed. Lessons get forgotten.

Is "terrible behavior" merely existing-as-white in a public space being claimed as racial property by non-whites?

Is "acting like an ass" the same as expressing constitutionally-protected political speech? Because that's what public colleges are starting to punish.

Is "acting like an ass" being a communist? Because that's what private entertainment corporations decided when they blacklisted leftists. You cool with that, since it's technically not a First Amendment violation? Weren't those anti-communist executives simply "showing them the door" as that didactic comic meme puts it? Or should Americans insist on freedom of expression even if there's no state dictate involved?

You can lose your job for being a dick, sure. You can't lose your job for religious affiliation, though. How much you wanna bet there are at least a dozen BDS protestors trying to get Jews fired right now? And again, do you want to live in a world where your employer gets to limit your speech outside of work? I don't mean, say, holocaust denial or white supremacism. I mean, "I don't think there's such a thing as a girl-brain." Which you would think is a woke statement, and up until about 10 years ago, it was, but now it is blasphemy, and soon it will be a hate crime.

It's not about not being invited. These woke fucks are literally forcing public dialogue that's already happening to shut down. If a gang of brownshirts mobbed a Jewish professor's lecture and harassed him and the crowd until the host cancelled everything for fear of a violent conflict, would you call that fascism? Or just some people telling the professor they think he's an asshole?

If I'm a student at a public university, and if I want to give a public presentation on the complex sociology behind the 13/52 meme, or if I want to wear an "It's Okay to Say 'It's Okay to Be White'" t-shirt as a political statement, they ABSOLUTELY have to give me a platform, no matter how racist they think I'm being. The Supreme Court would 100% bitchslap any administration that refused such a platform.

I remember one case where a guy was threatened with eviction.* I'll try to find it. I'm sure it's not the only case. Basically, if a landlord can be convinced that a tenant is a racist sociopath who disturbs other tenants, then anything goes, except maybe in an extremely pro-tenant state like Massachusetts.

*I'm still looking. I may have bitten off more than I could chew there. I'm pretty sure I remember a case, though. Too much pot.

The argument continued, and I continued...

You realize I'm not only not insufficiently anti-racist, I'm actually DOUBLE the anti-racist, because I don't blind myself to any of it, so I'm worry about everybody who's ever been or ever will be a victim of it. I want it all to stop. That includes preventing racism 2.0 or 5.6 or whatever we're on now. It all sucks. How can you possibly disagree with me?

Fast forward a dozen back-and-forth replies...

God gave them the right to stupidly *believe* they had the right to own slaves. God did not actually give them the right, and the state took it away. But the state still can't take away their right to believe whatever the fuck they want. That's literally the law, religion is a protected class. A Mormon who believes in the Ham bullshit can't be fired for that belief. A fundie who believes that abortion is murder and rimjobs are an abomination can't be fired for those beliefs. Do you want a society where people police each other's beliefs like that? I don't. Whether it's the government or giant corporations. Fuck that.

Anyway, how about the Orthodox Jews and conservative Muslims (most) who'd lose their businesses? That's the goal, right? Submit, or go bankrupt? Isn't that extortion, if you're not careful? Coercion? Harassment? Something bad. All those Muslim businessmen, boycotted for their unwoke beliefs, bankrupted, forced to pack up and go back to their homelands. Gee, the logical extreme of anti-homophobe boycotts would be the same as the right wing's deportation fantasies. Go figure. Horseshoe theory ain't no joke!

Fast forward...

Dude, be real. The vast majority of Muslims are homophobes. You or I might meet some who aren't, but you or I don't meet the majority of Muslims. The vast majority of Orthodox Jews are homophobes. The vast majority of *traditional* Christians, by the current woke standard, are homophobes.

But let's pretend that all the white traditional Christians decided en masse to turn pro-gay. Leaving only the black and Latino traditional Christians. Who are very homophobic. Imagine that. A boycott of Muslims, Orthodox Jews, and traditional Christians of color. If they stand by their faith, they go bankrupt. The Muslims get expelled, basically. The Jews shunned as pariahs. The black Christians denied employment. My god, the ironies would kill me.

[fast forward]

If you establish -- culturally, not legally -- a precedent that homophobes must be protested until terminated from businesses and forced into exile, that's functionally identical to a law. A blasphemy law. Thou shalt not believe. Are you seriously this oblivious to your own ironies? I treasure mine, even as I try to eliminate them by being as consistent as possible.

[fast forward]

Did my phrasing that the Panthers were specifically *Maoists* not tip you off that I had, indeed, already done my homework? Cleaver's insurrectionary rapes not racist enough? How about the white secretary they murdered? They were scumbags, however smart they were, however right they were about the Second Amendment, however nice the publicity stunts of free breakfasts were. The BPP are not the "progressives" you should be looking at as a model of anti-racism.

It's not about brown people and religion. It's about a specific religion's doctrine of unchangeability and a specific religion's extreme resistance to changing that doctrine of unchangeability. Would I like to see Muslims revise their scripture? Absolutely! Do I think they will? Probably not! Not any time soon. So the anti-homophobia boycott, if taken to its maximum, will still be driving Muslims out of the country. Your hopes of forcing a miraculous Muslim reformation are admirable but futile. Not in our lifetimes. Not from a fucking homophobia boycott. It's not racism, man. Islam isn't a fucking race. The white Muslims are just as unlikely to change. But would the Muslims pressured to take refuge from a woke anti-homophobe campaign mostly be brown people? Yep. And will the irony of woke people persecuting and deporting brown people be fucking richer than Bezos? Yep.

[tape whirs ahead]

Resistance to institutional racism is necessary and honorable. "Resistance" in the form of confusing race and class, exaggerating microggressions, and demonizing white people, is not. Might not be much left to resist. I don't think the woke left could handle that reality. They wouldn't know what to do with themselves. They'd still keep climbing molehills as if they Everests, fighting windmills, shadowboxing. And stepping on, cutting up, and knocking out white people in the process just for being white. Because the "resistance" isn't about achieving equality under the law anymore, it's now a struggle for DOMINANCE.

Does the new "resistance" affect me? Of course! I'm white, so per the "resistance" paradigm I am automatically to be afforded less consideration, less credibility, less space, less opportunity, less empathy. I belong to a race of oppressors, so I deserve it. It's not okay for me to be white. It's not okay for me to say my life matters. That's your fucking "anti-racist" resistance now. To whatever extent they're actually right, like about how cops violate constitutional and human rights, which affects me because half the people killed by cops are white, the "resistance" is fucking up any chance to make real progress by needlessly racializing the fucking problem, warping it into a polarized "You're either with woke or against woke" battle of political wills, instead of making it about the damn thing itself, police misconduct, police brutality, a problem that ALL races should be extremely anxious about and work to fix. Which means this incompetent, self-defeating resistance is *endangering my life* a little.

Not all revolutions are equal. The revolution that already happened was almost totally right. The revolution that the woke left wants now, is mostly not. You really think being denied the right to vote is equivalent to being denied the right to order a custom cake from absolutely anyone you want, or being denied racial ownership of public spaces? You ready for the logical endgame of that revolution? Muslims driven out of society for being homophobes? White people being expelled from public lounges for taking up lebensraum?

Blood was shed, yeah. Civil rights protestors let the racists attack them, on camera. That turned the tide. Their strategy worked. The riots didn't. Shit didn't change because of the riots or even the threat of riots. The Panthers were COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

Those grievances back then were REAL. Somebody not making you a custom cake is NOT A REAL GRIEVANCE. The boycott isn't just constitutionally protected behavior, it has a REAL IMPACT on lives. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD. If those were thousands of Nazis and Nazi sympathizers boycotting Jewish bakeries and chicken restaurants because they're (stupidly) offended by Jewish beliefs, WHAT * WOULD * YOU * SAY? Would it be harmless expression? No! It would be persecution, free speech or not. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

Skin in the game to be determined. But I don't need it to know that MLK was right. I don't need skin in the game to know that David Duke is wrong. And I don't need skin in the game to know that woke leftists are wrong. All I need is a functioning brain, just like any other human being. Opinions aren't more or less wrong depending on the race of the people who hold them. Stop being racist. But anyway, I *do* have skin in the game, because the woke gang stigmatizes white people. Might not be my black children or black grandchildren who suffer, but some other poor schmuck's. Not cool, whatever my skin is.

Fun to dip in and out of an argument that's already happened, isn't it? You get just enough of a sense of it without having to get lost in the weeds.

So..."FourthBase is repeating white nationalist talking points!" is a reflex I imagine happening in some of you. And it's true, those douchebags do say some of that same stuff. They're not all that wrong about the reversal beginning to take place. They're just fucking racist psychos who don't care about the injustice of all the other racism. They want to be racist to others and not have others be racist back to them. Conversely, the psycho "anti-racist" faction wants to stop some people from being racist but still get to be racist against those people. A real, complete anti-racist is against it all. I think I'm a real anti-racist. A real anti-fascist. Am I wrong?

[RocketMan]

Authoritarian, militaristic rightwingers rarely feel comfortable on this board.

[FourthBase]

Authoritarian, militaristic rightwingers rarely feel comfortable on this board.

Are you suggesting that's me?

[DrEvil]

You're probably the closest thing this place has to a fascist right now.

- Comically paranoid about communists and socialists? Check
- Chestbeating nationalistic twaddle? Check
- Bothsiderism out the wazoo? Check

I realize you don't see yourself that way, but that's how you come across.

[FourthBase]

You're probably the closest thing this place has to a fascist right now.

- Comically paranoid about communists and socialists? Check
- Chestbeating nationalistic twaddle? Check
- Bothsiderism out the wazoo? Check

I realize you don't see yourself that way, but that's how you come across.

That's how I come across to you all. Okay. I get that. Yes, I actually am paranoid about communists. And I'm paranoid about fascists. Paranoid, period.

Chestbeating? Meh. I was exaggerating in the Iran thread, to make a point. Am I nationalistic? I guess, if the alternative is internationalistic. I'm more of a localist, ideally. In practice, though, yes, like a Socrates, I feel a certain loyalty to the democratic society I'm a member of. I recognize that I'm also in a larger sense a member of the whole human race, of course, see my proof above, but mostly in a philosophical sense. I guess I have to revise the sports analogy above, because while I'll gladly jeer all mistakes and cheer all successes and root against both sides, and while I realize it's ultimately arbitrary, I do kind of feel a duty to protect one side more than the other, the homeland. A strong duty, if the question is something like "Would you put your life on the line to defend America from [insert aggressive enemy]?" If any kind of patriotism is by definition "nationalist", then I'm a nationalist, although I think you guys are selectively deluded if you inherently equate that with rightwingery, as if leftists can't be patriotic, let alone fucking fascism. Need I remind you of all the nationalist movements eagerly endorsed, nay, beloved by the left? Why do brown subalterns get to be nationalistic, but I can't be? Because America is fundamentally racist, imperialist, fascistic? The fuck it is. Amazing how casually the left is willing to throw the most successful revolution in history under the bus. Anyway, the problem for you all isn't nationalism, it's whom the nationalism is serving per an extremely shallow, unnuanced oppressor/oppressed dichotomy.

Bothsides? Not even. More: ALL sides. Both sides are, in varying ratios, on various issues, both right and also wrong. Or do you think your side is completely right? No, unless you've become detached from reality, you surely recognize that your side cannot possibly be 100% right about 100% of the issues. It's necessarily more like, half-right and half-wrong about Issue A, only 17% right about Issue B, but 78% right about Issue D (and somehow also 42% wrong), 110% right about Issue E (more right than you know), 30% right about 80% of Issue F and 65% right about the other 20% of the same Issue. It's complicated as fuck. There's nothing to streamline, no moral shorthand to take like "If Side A is for this, then it must be evil", or vice versa. If you really want truth, you have to be an asshole to everybody and also generous to everybody.

More importantly, yes, absolutely: BOTH SIDES ARE DANGEROUS. I'm not about to let my guard down and think, gee, these people mean well, they seem like they really care, I can trust them. Do you really think there's not a roughly equal distribution of evil between the extremes of left and right over the last 100+ years? The body counts are roughly equal, if you average out all the various estimates. I suppose y'all on the far left will do the whole thing now where you disqualify the Soviets or Maoists as real leftism, and expand the definition of homicide to include all indirect casualties of capitalism. And you'd be right to look at the latter...so long as you apply the same expansion to leftist regimes, inflating their death tolls even higher. And you're not completely wrong to distinguish leftist regimes that have actually existed from the ideal leftist state or anti-state. But that's the problem, same as the problem with the right's idealized version of the free market: That ideal shit is just a siren song that crashes us on the rocks of...fascism. You might object that it's sloppy and unstudious to ever call a form of leftism fascist. And I would remind you that there are plenty of Trotskyites and anarchists who would laugh in your faces and list all the ways that Red Fascism is a real thing.

You do realize you're all so far to the left end of the continuum that everything to the right of you probably looks like one flattened, singular menace? Right? Same problem the right has looking at you. That's what happens when you only ever open one eye. No depth perception. Take off the pirate patch covering your right eyes, and put on some 3D bifocals.

[mentalgongfu2]

You do realize you're all so far to the left end of the continuum that everything to the right of you probably looks like one flattened, singular menace? Right? Same problem the right has looking at you. That's what happens when you only ever open one eye. No depth perception. Take off the pirate patch covering your right eyes, and put on some 3D bifocals.

You, as an individual, do realize how off-putting it can be to a reader that you keep saying "you're all" and "you all" as if the few people left on RI are a singular homogeneous block of lockstep thought crime, don't you? Or are you so lacking in self awareness that anything in any state of disagreement to you looks like one flattened singular menace? Right? One eye open, no depth perception, etc.

Maybe insulting your audience is not a good tool of persuasion. It is great, historically, for mobilizing a base. But Persuasion, not so much. If your goal is real discussion, maybe there is a better way to go about than what you're currently doing.

This is my attempt at honest engagement, in the chance that's what you're really looking for. I suspect you're just trolling for the lulz, or whatever cool kids say these days, but I'm open to being proven wrong. You and I had some constructive discussions in the past, the long long ago, even if neither convinced the other to change opinions.

And yes, I'll acknowledge I did a one line drive-by vapid entrance into this thread earlier. My very limited RI participation is limited to short excursions these days, but I jumped in here knowing exactly what I was doing, because when you title a thread with "Mea Culpa" and then just start pointing out what you consider to be everybody else's shortcomings mixed with block quotes of 'heroic' things you allegedly said on Facebook, it has become more of a "Sorry Not Sorry" thread.

"Sorry not sorry" is the stupidest and worst phrase popularized in my adult lifetime, with "woke" coming in somewhere in the top 10 as well. The difference is "woke" is a grammatical annoyance with an air of superiority. "Sorry not sorry" is a grammatical annoyance with an air of superiority, but is also contradictory and disingenuous on its face and is basically a euphemism for "Fuck you, I don't care what you think or how you feel" in actual usage.

I have to get past that and believe there is an actual conversation to be had before I can even begin to argue why "roughly equal distribution of evil between left and right" is factually incorrect.

[FourthBase]

You do realize you're all so far to the left end of the continuum that everything to the right of you probably looks like one flattened, singular menace? Right? Same problem the right has looking at you. That's what happens when you only ever open one eye. No depth perception. Take off the pirate patch covering your right eyes, and put on some 3D bifocals.

You, as an individual, do realize how off-putting it can be to a reader that you keep saying "you're all" and "you all" as if the few people left on RI are a singular homogeneous block of lockstep thought crime, don't you? Or are you so lacking in self awareness that anything in any state of disagreement to you looks like one flattened singular menace? Right? One eye open, no depth perception, etc.

Sorry. Think of it as you-all-who-know-who-you-are, not really everyone, of course. #NotAllRigInts But, like, a little more than half this joint? Yeah.

Maybe insulting your audience is not a good tool of persuasion. It is great, historically, for mobilizing a base. But Persuasion, not so much. If your goal is real discussion, maybe there is a better way to go about than what you're currently doing.

I'm not a sophist. I speak to tell the truth, I don't speak to persuade. The truth should be persuasive enough. If people are so sensitive they can't take a little viciously frank ribbing, well, they can suck my balls.

This is my attempt at honest engagement, in the chance that's what you're really looking for. I suspect you're just trolling for the lulz, or whatever cool kids say these days, but I'm open to being proven wrong. You and I had some constructive discussions in the past, the long long ago, even if neither convinced the other to change opinions.

Engagement, primarily. Lulz are a bonus.

And yes, I'll acknowledge I did a one line drive-by vapid entrance into this thread earlier. My very limited RI participation is limited to short excursions these days, but I jumped in here knowing exactly what I was doing, because when you title a thread with "Mea Culpa" and then just start pointing out what you consider to be everybody else's shortcomings mixed with block quotes of 'heroic' things you allegedly said on Facebook, it has become more of a "Sorry Not Sorry" thread.

Right. Mixing two perspectives. It's a theme.

"Heroic", in quotes? I dunno, antagonizing and humiliating white supremacists on Facebook using my real name is pretty bold, don't you think?

"Sorry not sorry" is the stupidest and worst phrase popularized in my adult lifetime, with "woke" coming in somewhere in the top 10 as well. The difference is "woke" is a grammatical annoyance with an air of superiority. "Sorry not sorry" is a grammatical annoyance with an air of superiority, but is also contradictory and disingenuous on its face and is basically a euphemism for "Fuck you, I don't care what you think or how you feel" in actual usage.

Maybe this isn't the best time to re-introduce myself like this, but, hi, my name is FourthBase, and I've been an RI member for 15 years, and as anyone who knows me here knows, I ultimately do not give the slightest of fucks what you think or how you feel. I'm not here for hugs and fist bumps. I'm here for the truth.

I get what you're saying about Sorry Not Sorry. But are you saying there's no unannoying way to basically say "You're right about this stuff, but you're wrong about that stuff"? If so, then fuck it, I'm annoying. So were a lot of cool thinkers. Contradictory? Versus what alternative? "You're completely right!" or "You're totally wrong!"?

But nah, Woke is useful nomenclature. They/y'all started it. And it was a badge worn with pride for a little while. Can't be like, "Hey, stop turning our pet names for ourselves into derisive shorthand!" It might be time, at some point, to stop blaming the deriders. Grammar note: "Broke" is a real word. Same difference. The aorist or whatever.

I have to get past that and believe there is an actual conversation to be had before I can even begin to argue why "roughly equal distribution of evil between left and right" is factually incorrect.

There is an actual conversation. I'm just an asshole. Who cares if I'm an asshole, though. All that matters is: Am I wrong?

Explain why that's factually incorrect. Is it because of what I expected, the "silent" death toll of capitalism? But that presumes they wouldn't have died in a socialist system. So, if it's that, explain that part, too, the compared-to-what part.

Thanks for engaging, regardless. Don't take me-being-an-asshole too personal. This is pretty much how I talk to friends and family, too. I'm an incorrigible, obnoxious Southie punk. Ranking on people can be a sign of deep contempt or deep affection. Or deep-affection-mixed-with-deep-contempt.

[Sounder]

I do love you FB, often you make me smile.

Details when I have time'

Who knows, if your roll can be paused for a bit, sometime, not now, a way will be found to shock you out of your own twisting of 'truth'.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

"Twisting of 'truth' ". Truth can be arbitrary and quite subjective. Demonstrably so in the increasingly polarized, entrenched views of, say, those in the Trump camp, or those that describe themselves as 'woke liberals' (to use 2 of the more mainstream mindsets in this zeitgeist of ours).

What is 'truth'? We can all aspire to reach what we believe may be the closest approximation of a 'truth', but that doesn't mean it's true, necessarily. Or, maybe it could be true.. for now. But eternally/universally true? Does such a thing exist?

Current thinking in physics tells us, essentially, that most of what we believe to be reality is largely illusory; nothing is constant/fixed: it's all relative to another data point or observation at a given time.

The big players in the game of capturing and manipulating our attention - the Grand Magicians, if you will - apparently seem well aware of all of this, and rely on continued disharmony (and unquestioned acceptance of what's overtly observable) to maintain control.

Far from woke, they rely on many of us* to continue sleepwalking and bickering amongst each other over shadows on the wall.



*us = humans currently traversing the earth. Not this limited readership per se.







(All of this is preaching to the choir in RI, of course. I'm just looking for an excuse to type and view my words printed on a screen. "I am. I was.")

https://filmquarterly.org/2012/03/26/a- ... death-a-i/

[Harvey]

^ Don't know if you've happened across Ian Watson's entertaining account of his experience with Kubrick: http://www.ianwatson.info/plumbing-stanley-kubrick/

[JackRiddler]

^ Don't know if you've happened across Ian Watson's entertaining account of his experience with Kubrick: http://www.ianwatson.info/plumbing-stanley-kubrick/

That is great. I didn't have the half-hour but spent it reading anyway. Irresistible.

I was excited to discover this:

“Do you know what the essence of movie-making is?” Stanley asked me. “It’s buying lots of things.”

I came to the same insight long ago, after some film-work as Last Factotum, at the bottom end of the pyramid from the Kubrick. In the consumer society, a movie production is the apex consumer, trumping all others in variety and extravagance and the system and speed with which it buys, displays, and trashes things. The results are then splashed onto the big screen for millions to experience as vicarious consumption, in a society in which vicarious consumption through the media long ago became the dominant form of consumption, possibly of experience itself.

I think this too has begun to collapse with production turning so virtual, CGI and greenscreen. Maybe even more expensive than before, but less of a shopping spree.

Another thing was his paranoia about versions and leaks and total control of everything through distribution. There's something else that's becoming more and more impossible for anyone to expect. And in which I'm already at the bottom end of the pyramid from him. Whatever I write, good or bad, it's in the ether within a minute, belongs irretrievably to everyone and soon enough is read by no one.

.

[Sounder]

BelSav wrote...

"Twisting of 'truth' ". Truth can be arbitrary and quite subjective. Demonstrably so in the increasingly polarized, entrenched views of, say, those in the Trump camp, or those that describe themselves as 'woke liberals' (to use 2 of the more mainstream mindsets in this zeitgeist of ours).
What is 'truth'? We can all aspire to reach what we believe may be the closest approximation of a 'truth', but that doesn't mean it's true, necessarily. Or, maybe it could be true.. for now. But eternally/universally true? Does such a thing exist?

This is useful to realize for the situation at hand. Truth, no quotes, is beyond our ability to realize because we are constrained by limitations of information content resulting from our 'categories of understanding' being based on an incorrect premise. (Possibility or probability factors used for winnowing evidence work better as a way to relate to any complex situation, than does trying to assign truth or falsity to any given evidence bit.)

When looking for what ails this world, it makes sense to look for what both sides have in common rather than how they oppose each other. Dualism is that thing, and while one type associates all sources of causation as deriving from the physical, the other group believes all causation derives from the, so called, spiritual. That is the fuel for the kayfabe, with the physicalist faction tending toward globalism and the other faction supporting nationalism, both bad options, yet seemingly the only options, -so far.

Current thinking in physics tells us, essentially, that most of what we believe to be reality is largely illusory; nothing is constant/fixed: it's all relative to another data point or observation at a given time.

I look forward to the day when (public) science directs it's attention toward how the subtle, pre-manifest becomes gross and manifest.

The big players in the game of capturing and manipulating our attention - the Grand Magicians, if you will - apparently seem well aware of all of this, and rely on continued disharmony (and unquestioned acceptance of what's overtly observable) to maintain control.

What the GM's know and the public fails to recognize is as long as they can suppress enthusiasm, or ones heart connection to the creator, they will be in position to make decisions rather than you.

Far from woke, they rely on many of us* to continue sleepwalking and bickering amongst each other over shadows on the wall.

We do follow the recipe quite well.