rigorousintuition.ca

Sepka wrote:I knew I smelled toast!

That's not toast. You're probably smelling the U.S. Constitution—as it continues to be burned to fuel the national security state.

Sepka wrote:I knew I smelled toast!

There's nothing like the smell of crushed individual liberty in the morning.

Your enjoyment of it is pretty pungent, too, though. I would say that it mells a little like Good German. But it's so much more subtle and so much less of a practical choice that it's not really a fair comparison.

Whatever the case, it's always worth remembering that a light touch goes a long way when it comes to personal scent. In case your mother never taught you that.

Sepka wrote:I knew I smelled toast!

Crassness, thy name is Sepka

Searcher08 wrote:

Sepka wrote:I knew I smelled toast!

Crassness, thy name is Sepka

I don't think so. Crassness can be hot in a private context, or an effective way to make a forceful point in a public context, or simply the only emotionally honest response possible in any number of contexts. And at its most uncalled for, it can't be any worse than offensive.

Dumbfuck stupidity, on the other hand, is something to be pitied but also something to be feared. Because it's a potentially serious danger both to the stupid dumbfuck and to others.

Same goes double for taking pleasure in the pain of others on a recreational basis. That's a sport exclusively played by the very weak, who are even more to be pitied and exponentially more to be feared than stupid dumbfucks are.

I don't doubt that there's more to Sepka than dumbfuck stupidity and the reflexive identification with whoever has the most brute power in any given situation as a cheap and thrilling means of self-stimulation. Because no one's that simple a caricature in reality.

But that doesn't exactly make the stupidity and lite sadism any cuter. Or any less regrettable. On the latter point, if anything, the reverse, I'd say.

Searcher08 wrote:Crassness, thy name is Sepka

RI seems to inspire me.

Sepka wrote:

Searcher08 wrote:Crassness, thy name is Sepka

RI seems to inspire me.

If the implication is that the fault is in the stimulus not the response, however kittenishly it's supposed to come across, it's not exactly the most appropriate thread to suggest that you're not fully accountable for what you do and say, on the grounds that you wouldn't have done or said it if the material and circumstances hadn't made it possible.

According to that logic, it should be an acceptable defense that NASA seems to have inspired McKinnon.

compared2what? wrote: If the implication is that the fault is in the stimulus not the response, however kittenishly it's supposed to come across, it's not exactly the most appropriate thread to suggest that you're not fully accountable for what you do and say, on the grounds that you wouldn't have done or said it if the material and circumstances hadn't made it possible.

According to that logic, it should be an acceptable defense that NASA seems to have inspired McKinnon.

As always, I'm completely responsible for my own words. And lest there be any mistake, I'm well-pleased by McKinnon's predicament, and make no apologies for my schadenfreude.

What I was referring to was the general background level of pettiness and intolerance for opposing views that always seems to characterize discourse on RI. I feel no guilt for expressing myself freely here, surrounded as I am by so many others who make no effort towards politeness or restraint. One adapts one's speech and manner to suit one's circumstances, yet that implies neither inconstancy nor lack of ownership of one's opinions.

What I was referring to was the general background level of pettiness and intolerance for opposing views that always seems to characterize discourse on RI. I feel no guilt for expressing myself freely here, surrounded as I am by so many others who make no effort towards politeness or restraint. One adapts one's speech and manner to suit one's circumstances, yet that implies neither inconstancy nor lack of ownership of one's opinions.

No doubt there is some pettiness and intolerance of opinion that surfaces here, Sepka, but I think most of the derision is derived from your consistent foreign policy position that might makes right and your insistence that foreigners and especially Muslims pose the ultimate threat. I for one enjoy your posts even when I disagree vehemently. But don't be surprised that a lot of people at RI disagree with your conclusions. Your conclusions align with the mainstream, and many here do not.

That frosty prose style suits you. Yet have I further cause to repine. For it was not the inconstancy of your views upon which I, with mine, had sought to shine a revealing light.

Sooth. Would indeed that your views were less constant, that your heart and mind might -- perceiving the ease and grace with which the newly flighty companion with whom they had dwelt in confinement so long had taken wing -- grow bold and likewise dare to soar: soar above the grim and lowering clouds that never knowing, never dreaming they had theretofore mistaken for the horizon itself!

In any event, I think the word you were looking for is "inconsistent." And I'm sorry to say that it is inconsistent to hold others to a standard of accountability the constancy of which is absolute, while maintaining that the standards to which you hold yourself are equally stringent, since you're responsible for lowering them when in a low environment.

Sorry. But that makes no fucking sense at all.

mentalgongfu2 wrote: No doubt there is some pettiness and intolerance of opinion that surfaces here, Sepka, but I think most of the derision is derived from your consistent foreign policy position that might makes right and your insistence that foreigners and especially Muslims pose the ultimate threat. I for one enjoy your posts even when I disagree vehemently. But don't be surprised that a lot of people at RI disagree with your conclusions. Your conclusions align with the mainstream, and many here do not.

I freely admit to being a total bitch sometimes, for which I try to apologize when an apology might make a difference. I don't like to see anyone getting ganged up on for being different than the gang or holding a minority opinion. In fact, I've tried in the past, as on this thread to support Sepka, who was, imo, being kicked while down and whimpering that it wasn't schadenfreude that made the prospect of killing hundreds of thousands of people for no reason at all something worth celebrating, swear to god. Although I had been the person who objected to the apparent schadenfreude to begin with. Because the sentiment had been disowned, and it was that (and the total ignorance on which the belief that there was news worth celebrating was based) I was objecting to.

Political differences make the world go round. And I have no problem agreeing to disagree with anyone who reached a political position in good faith. The things I find problematic are: the gleeful cruelty; the lack of empathy or remorse; and the willful refusal to grasp the simple proposition that a political opinion that has no basis in fact or reason is neither political nor an opinion.

The last of those things is hardly unique to Sepka, obviously. One (to take refuge in the pronouns of monarchy, and thereby flatter with imitation) has accustomed oneself, happily, to meeting fools wherever one goes. One is a fool oneself on many points. (Though one hopes to have enough self-esteem in general to cop to one's own ignorance when it's remarked upon by others.)

But the first two are vicious. And they're also dangerous to other people. Innocent, foolish people. And it's a pretty fucking massive discourtesy to them not to call a vicious, dangerous disregard for their humanity and personhood what it is in plainspoken terms, simply to preserve the tone of prim, lace-curtain civility that's suddenly so in vogue around here.