Messages

It strikes me as inconsistent.

Guessing it's supposed to be about gun violence, but perhaps I'm a little biased by recent events.

I think you need to rewrite it once or twice or three times.

It's not very consistent, it's not supposed to be about gun violence, and I probably should re-write it once or twice and three more times

Poem I wrote, with intent to turn it into a song if some nasty thief doesn't come take my obviously already gone dreams of fame/stardom/wealth.


On patrol, just another day
when a baby bigfoot comes out to play
watching, waiting to hear
what it has to say

"You have nothing to fear"
Just what I wanted to hear
gun raised, fired and aimed
fucking hell, got blood in my beer

On patrol, just another day
When a teenage bigfoot gets in my way
watching, waiting to see
if and what it has to say

"Look behind that tree
You will find all that you seek"
gun raised, aimed and ...
"It's all just for fun, and I'm on a streak"

On patrol, just another day
When a ripe old bigfoot enters the fray
watching, ready to deal
with all of the theatrics, without delay

I know how you feel
and on that day, both of their lives, their fates were sealed
gun raised, aimed and ...
It's tough not knowing what is real

If anyone wants to interpret it, feel free. It would be interesting to see how its perception being created and its perception being read are similar and different. Or you can tell me it sucks. That's cool too.

Thank you, I was wondering why I was straining myself. To a certain extent I'm already dissociating, and it's very weird to dissociate from dissociating...

There's probably a reason it was "think" in the third person and not write a post to put on the internet; to other people it's just weird...

Zack went through a phase where he thought like that. He blames his intelligence, which more accurately translated would be his ability to absorb information and act on it in his head. Because who needs real life when you've got an imagination that awesome!

He also read an article on psychology today about how thinking to oneself in the third person makes one calmer and more rational. He doesn't actually think he's irrational or tensed up, but he is always open to trying new ways to eliminate his self concept, so that he can then go about life and strive to reach the goals he threw out with the bathwater that was his self. He is not regretting it, because it's so much easier not having to be disappointed while maintaining perfectly plausible rationalizations that he is more rational and less emotional as a result, when in fact(tm) he is simply in a different prison of self-delusions designed to give him the indirect narcissistic sense of superiority over others he doesn't know he needs for reasons he doesn't or can't or won't fully understand.

Or something. He actually was just having trouble getting used to talking in third person to himself because he didn't have any context through which to apply it, but he figured he couldn't go wrong with self-introspecting, thereby manipulating the way he introspects about his introspecting. He was also largely similar to what he sounds like now, only with a few fancy psychology terms he doesn't usually use and he could write a book about himself right now, but is choosing not to because that is too obvious a sign of narcissism (which is too loaded of a term for him to use in his own writing or every day language).

Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-happiness-project/201112/think-yourself-in-the-third-person

But the thing is, it really works. (from the top of the web page) Zack isn't sure yet, but he definitely sees himself being even more honest with himself in the future.

First off, I'm going to be using authoritative language to explain this idea, which has probably been espoused at least 5 times before, but this is only because I'm too lazy to make it more "exactly" what I mean due to the number of words that would be required and the fact that I don't have much time before I have to get ready for work.

The PCL-R:

glib and superficial charm
grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self
need for stimulation
pathological lying
cunning and manipulativeness
lack of remorse or guilt
shallow affect (superficial emotional responsiveness)
callousness and lack of empathy
parasitic lifestyle
poor behavioral controls
sexual promiscuity
early behavior problems
lack of realistic long-term goals
impulsivity
irresponsibility
failure to accept responsibility for own actions
many short-term marital relationships
juvenile delinquency
revocation of conditional release
criminal versatility

This is a somewhat official/somewhat unofficial method used by psychologists to diagnose the subject with "psychopathy" which practically makes them the devil incarnate; official in that it is "to be used by trained officials only" and unofficial in the sense that the DCM doesn't list it as a valid disorder. On a scale of 0-2, how much money do you give to the homeless?

It has been used to suggest both that the criminal should have longer sentences (because they're the devil incarnate) and that they should have shorter sentences (because they're obviously not responsible for their crimes due to a brain defect). It is also used by all of your friends to give them a reason for not liking certain people who apparently do not meet their standards for what "normal" is.

There are a fair number of these traits which are either being instilled into the citizenry or that the media is trying to make you think the traits are being instilled into the citizenry. I won't go into too much depth because I have to get ready for work soon, but here are some of the traits and the ways in which they are being instilled. If you want, feel free to add to this list.

glib and superficial charm - The inherent importance of beauty is greatly exaggerated, "techniques" for appearing nice and friendly regardless of actual intent are available to those interested
grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self - You're an awesome person! Sure, you may have no life and be a pedophile and be stuck in prison, but it's just because you haven't been taught how awesome you are. Self-help books, religion, rugged individualism, etc.
need for stimulation - teenagers on their phones all the time, more?
pathological lying - Possibly techniques for appearing nice and friendly (depends on the individual using them) More?
cunning and manipulativeness - Same as above, game theory, more?
callousness and lack of empathy - the capability of most to walk or drive by people in need without a second glance

The inherent subjectivity in applying all of these "traits" based on whatever perception a "trained" psychologist (or your friend) has of the person's background and a detailed interview is like calling something a dog upon hearing that it is a four legged mammal with teeth and sometimes makes noises. That dog, however, is being judged by a jury of cats (and dogs like it are responsible for all of the problems with society).

Basically, this is a rant on the mis-use of science applied to one specific instance. Obviously, some people aren't nice and having "guidelines" for things to watch for might be helpful, or it might turn out terribly and alienate the entire population because of priming, confirmation bias and the fundamental attribution error.

NOTE: This was a rant I made in response to a comment I saw by someone on a different forum, but thought it was applicable here as well. Not to anyone in particular, to everyone. The subject area is probably one that people here know about confronting.

Most people I know, and I know this may or may not be you so please don't say "BUT THAT'S NOT ME!", would probably lie unless they were "really" your friend when they are confronted with an awkward situation regarding the opinion of the askee in regards to something that the asker has. I know that sounds confusing, but in a more specific way: your friend asks you if you like his or her new jacket. Do you tell them the truth? Do you value honesty? Do you value the friendship of the person to whom you are referring?

in this rock-and-hard-place dilemma, you have two options: 1. to lie and to maintain the good graces of your friend or 2. tell the truth because you A) care about the person and are trying to help her or B) something else that I'm too lazy to think of right now. In either case, assuming you are empathetic in the slightest, care about the friend you imagined for this scenario and value honesty, you have been inconsistent with your thoughts about yourself. "I'm an honest person" and "I just lied", so I'm told, are conflicting thoughts in regards to cognitive dissonance theory. You can justify it to yourself however you want to, either by reducing the significance of the lie (it was a "little white lie") or you can try to justify the lie by saying you were helping your friend (or something else, obviously). All of this is only correlational with the real reason you did it, however. If you think you actually know the real reasons you do things, take an intro to social psychology class at a college or watch this one[1] on Youtube. It's free and is bound to change your perception on people as a whole if you are open to knowing such things. But what is learned can't be unlearned, that's my only ominous warning.

I'm a hypocrite because I don't actually think I care about telling people and I know it will all eventually all be for naught in the grand scheme of things. Hell, even in the small scheme of things. In two weeks, this will just be another rant I made, barely memorable in the slightest.

The only solution to this that I can think of, which doesn't actually resolve this, is a hierarchy of values that (in theory) you memorize and logically follow through to the end (or you'd be a hypocrite for that, too) in your day-to-day life. This, however, doesn't resolve the dilemma. It merely ignores the dilemma entirely, with the added bonus of giving you a reason for ignoring that dilemma.

The point of this post (or lack thereof) was to say that there really isn't any reason to call someone a hypocrite except to shame them for not doing something or doing something that you think they think they should be doing but aren't.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V17Ead_YAxc&list=PL3E423E294511D174

All of the lurkers coming out of the woodwork are Pope Lecherous. Just you wait and see.

I'm not Pope Lecherous. I don't even know who Pope Lecherous is. Just ignore the fact that that is exactly what Pope Lecherous would say if he was trying to avoid being detected, and you'll see that I am 100% correct.

You have to believe ONE of them, don't you? This cuts right through all the BS and reveals the unsubstantiated nature of identity and beliefs in an online setting. The exact same thing occurs in real life (minus the identity part, usually).

I hate to be the one to remind you, but Rule One is "Do not act incautiously when confronting little bald wrinkly smiling men".

No it isn't! Yes it is! *ad infinitum*

TO BE CONTINUED...

> Sorry if this whole spiel isn't exactly in context with what you're on about in your conversation with LMNO, but I've seen you default to sri syadasti a few times now, so I figured I'd give some words on that...

That's fine, and it's helpful. From the very same context with which you are attempting to describe to me, I was attempting to interpret it from a completely different context. I, however, enjoy the absurdity of believing everything to be true, false, meaningful and meaningless as it is very helpful in traversing the social landscape.

I've read self-"development"/"help" books with similar ideas, and while I see the truth in all of it (and indeed, the false, meaning and lack thereof), I prefer a flexibility in perspectives that such a philosophy does not quite cover as well as my current interpretation. I appreciate the insight as to the source of the idea.

I'm not sure if the other contributers were feeling the same, but when it came to "re-writing" the Principia (the original name of the project was "PD 2006" or similar), only RWHN tried to tackle the "Nonsense as Salvation" section (and wouldn't stop harping on it ever since).

I, personally, take most things seriously as long as they have nothing whatsoever to do with real life. Talk to me about philosophy or "ideas" and I'll have a lively discussion, but if you ever really tried to get to know me by starting with "How's the Weather?" I'd say fine and that would be the end of it. Most of my conversation in real life is just me pointing out ironies and funny scenarios I've thought of in my head that were inspired by something going on.

I mean, can you really find some deep, hidden Seriously Serious TRUTH™ by going through the "Safe For Work" thread, or the "Bitches Don't Know About My Tomahawk" meme?

Forgive me if I misread the Principia, but isn't there something in there about everything being true, false, meaningful and meaningless? And a commandment not to believe anything you read?

Don't answer that, of course you can, you're a Discordian.

If blogs are to be believed

If blogs are to be believed, there is apparently a claim that a 1500 year old bible suggests that Jesus Christ was not crucified. The blog goes on to elucidate the fact that the Vatican is surprised, but is it really that surprising? Not if you consider it in the context of Discordianism, where everything is true, false, meaningful and meaningless.

Even more proof for our completely arbitrary and completely holy belief system in the divine and lack thereof, wouldn't you all agree, disagree, agree to disagree, disagree to agree, agree to disagree to agree, disagree to agree to disagree, and agree to agree to agree?

Source: http://www.themindawakened.com/2014/05/1500-year-old-bible-claims-jesus-chris.html

The first rule of Discordia is don't talk about discordia.

No it isn't.

We're both right. No debate is possible in a world where everything is true, false, meaningful and meaningless. Any argument is just to fill the void that would otherwise exist.

If we did the radical right would fall upon us with knives and forks. Their low cunning does not allow for even the possibility of change on that level.

lolwut

Exactly my thought. I was unaware the gub'mint was trying to steal my viagra, but I suppose if everything is true, false, meaningful and meaningless it is true. I can't imagine what they would do with it, and don't want to. After all, they ARE getting on in years...

technically, that what culture is, us programming ourselves to behave in a way we otherwise wouldn't in the wild. though again, people don't do anything that at least some species of animals do, just on a larger and more complicated scale. the only different is the amount of foof-ah-rah (how do you spell that?)

This is where the trouble comes in, though. IS our culture overcoming our animal nature, or is it a mere delusion of overcoming our animal nature, while at the same time expressing it fully? I find it hard to believe that IF people are special and above animals in the universe, that they would still make such a big deal out of such petty differences.