Split from Freedom in Houston

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Hey, if you don't want to do this I can find someone else to do it with.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Hey, if you don't want to do this I can find someone else to do it with.

I can be a total dickhead, if you need someone to work with.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Hey, if you don't want to do this I can find someone else to do it with.

I can be a total dickhead, if you need someone to work with.

The dickishness wasn't what I was after, it's the particular flavor of weak ego and experience with Anonymous. We had another guy here a while ago that almost pushed the right buttons for me, but it wasn't quite enough to solidify the thoughts. Von has enough of the same problems that it could have been a productive discussion, and I know this is just more tough guy shit but I really do not have the patience to wade through it all. I'm sure there's someone with the right type of crazy that doesn't have the extra racist dickhead angle.


Also, to address one of your points, von: I was involuntarily hospitalized at a shithole. Bad experiences != bad concept.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Hey, if you don't want to do this I can find someone else to do it with.

I can be a total dickhead, if you need someone to work with.

The dickishness wasn't what I was after, it's the particular flavor of weak ego and experience with Anonymous. We had another guy here a while ago that almost pushed the right buttons for me, but it wasn't quite enough to solidify the thoughts. Von has enough of the same problems that it could have been a productive discussion, and I know this is just more tough guy shit but I really do not have the patience to wade through it all. I'm sure there's someone with the right type of crazy that doesn't have the extra racist dickhead angle.


Also, to address one of your points, von: I was involuntarily hospitalized at a shithole. Bad experiences != bad concept.

Thing is, despite his claims of "trolling", he is either actually a racist, or he's a sociopath.  In either case, you're sort of casting pearls before swine.  You can go to 4Chan and find 30 guys like him in 30 seconds.  He's basically poptard with a little more staying power.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Hey, if you don't want to do this I can find someone else to do it with.

I can be a total dickhead, if you need someone to work with.

The dickishness wasn't what I was after, it's the particular flavor of weak ego and experience with Anonymous. We had another guy here a while ago that almost pushed the right buttons for me, but it wasn't quite enough to solidify the thoughts. Von has enough of the same problems that it could have been a productive discussion, and I know this is just more tough guy shit but I really do not have the patience to wade through it all. I'm sure there's someone with the right type of crazy that doesn't have the extra racist dickhead angle.


Also, to address one of your points, von: I was involuntarily hospitalized at a shithole. Bad experiences != bad concept.

Thing is, despite his claims of "trolling", he is either actually a racist, or he's a sociopath.  In either case, you're sort of casting pearls before swine.  You can go to 4Chan and find 30 guys like him in 30 seconds.  He's basically poptard with a little more staying power.

My guess is badly socialized racist capable of reform. Of course, that takes effort and he's put on his "I don't need to do anything I'm happy the way I am" face, so meh. It's not like I don't have WWP open in the next tab anyway.

[von]

Hey, if you don't want to do this I can find someone else to do it with.

I do want to do this, though...your idea of taking a deep look at the psychology behind anonymous sociality is intensely interesting to me!
Look, I know I've shit the bed alot recently, but for the sake of being able to work on this project with you, I'll be somewhat decent just for that.

And on that note, damn you for presenting me with something I want -- now I owe you!

Regardless, back to my initial positions, though: what do you need to know from me, and what shall we be aiming to accomplish?

[The Johnny]

My guess is badly socialized racist capable of reform....

Usually "reform" has to come from personal initiative, not from external influence.

It comes to mind a vague paralel with addicts and recovery (which I'm in no means an expert, just some stuff i have come to know), in which sometimes one can be more helpful in their recovery by either:

A) Creating negative consequences for their destructive behaviour INSTEAD of being an enabler (call the police, get them in jail)

or

B) Stay away from them (so that their behaviour has social costs to them)

[von]

My guess is badly socialized racist capable of reform....

...

A) Creating negative consequences for their destructive behaviour INSTEAD of being an enabler (call the police, get them in jail)

or

B) Stay away from them (so that their behaviour has social costs to them)

Neither of these are particularly useful for galvanising internal change in regards to benefitting the "reformer".
Point "A" can lead to the "reformee" internalising the "reformer" as a source of negative influence and thus an enemy. Point "B" is irrelevant -- if you ostracise a drug addict, he can go hang out with other drug addicts -- he'll even have more impetus to do so should point "A" have been waged against him.

[The Johnny]

My guess is badly socialized racist capable of reform....

...

A) Creating negative consequences for their destructive behaviour INSTEAD of being an enabler (call the police, get them in jail)

or

B) Stay away from them (so that their behaviour has social costs to them)

Neither of these are particularly useful for galvanising internal change in regards to benefitting the "reformer".
Point "A" can lead to the "reformee" internalising the "reformer" as a source of negative influence and thus an enemy. Point "B" is irrelevant -- if you ostracise a drug addict, he can go hang out with other drug addicts -- he'll even have more impetus to do so should point "A" have been waged against him.

It's benefitial for the "reformer" because, as I've understood it, prevents him/her from playing a codependent role.

[von]

My guess is badly socialized racist capable of reform....

...

A) Creating negative consequences for their destructive behaviour INSTEAD of being an enabler (call the police, get them in jail)

or

B) Stay away from them (so that their behaviour has social costs to them)

Neither of these are particularly useful for galvanising internal change in regards to benefitting the "reformer".
Point "A" can lead to the "reformee" internalising the "reformer" as a source of negative influence and thus an enemy. Point "B" is irrelevant -- if you ostracise a drug addict, he can go hang out with other drug addicts -- he'll even have more impetus to do so should point "A" have been waged against him.

It's benefitial for the "reformer" because, as I've understood it, prevents him/her from playing a codependent role.

I can follow the logic there, but I cannot agree with it.

Consider this:

There's this gay kid living in a world where being gay is considered socially detestable. Said gay kid's parents see their gay offspring's behaviour as being "destructive" towards his own social capital.
Following this, they have their gay progeny attend some sort of torturous pray-the-gay-away reeducation camp, or whatever...

Does the gay kid convert to heterosexuality (which would be the aim of the reformer), or does he hold a resentment towards his parents for causing the traumatic experience of the anti-gay camp, and then go affliliate with a predominately gay social group?

Just a thought...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

My guess is badly socialized racist capable of reform.

OPTIMISM REIGNS SUPREME!   

[von]

My guess is badly socialized racist capable of reform.

OPTIMISM REIGNS SUPREME!   

Confusion reigns with so much more supremacy, though.

What does reforming my racism have to do with discussing anonymous communications styles?

[The Johnny]

My guess is badly socialized racist capable of reform....

...

A) Creating negative consequences for their destructive behaviour INSTEAD of being an enabler (call the police, get them in jail)

or

B) Stay away from them (so that their behaviour has social costs to them)

Neither of these are particularly useful for galvanising internal change in regards to benefitting the "reformer".
Point "A" can lead to the "reformee" internalising the "reformer" as a source of negative influence and thus an enemy. Point "B" is irrelevant -- if you ostracise a drug addict, he can go hang out with other drug addicts -- he'll even have more impetus to do so should point "A" have been waged against him.

It's benefitial for the "reformer" because, as I've understood it, prevents him/her from playing a codependent role.

I can follow the logic there, but I cannot agree with it.

Consider this:

There's this gay kid living in a world where being gay is considered socially detestable. Said gay kid's parents see their gay offspring's behaviour as being "destructive" towards his own social capital.
Following this, they have their gay progeny attend some sort of torturous pray-the-gay-away reeducation camp, or whatever...

Does the gay kid convert to heterosexuality (which would be the aim of the reformer), or does he hold a resentment towards his parents for causing the traumatic experience of the anti-gay camp, and then go affliliate with a predominately gay social group?

Just a thought...

I'm pretty sure you are just being sophistrous, but might as well adress it:

*Conveniently, you deleted in the quotes the initial parts of what I said about succesful "reform" coming only from personal initiative. That is important because, the only thing close to legitimate forced "rehabilitation" is the judicial system (in an ideal world anyhow, since it's mostly used for punishment, but whatever).

*Now in your hypothetical, there is a flawed and uninformed view on the parents on what is "destructive". Second, it's an attempt at reforming something that cannot be changed, independently of if the said kid is ideologized into thinking he wants to be hetero. This type of forced reform is just abuse of authority. Also, I'm not sure if you need to be reminded that homosexuality is not a crime, nor is it destructive.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

My guess is badly socialized racist capable of reform.

OPTIMISM REIGNS SUPREME!   

Confusion reigns with so much more supremacy, though.

What does reforming my racism have to do with discussing anonymous communications styles?

Who the hell cares?  Having established that you're a racist, it's all humor from here on out.  I have a test for determining who's a person and who isn't:  Can the individual in question recognize the personhood of other people?  Racists can't, by definition.  Ergo, you stopped being an actual person the moment you called Nigel a "mulatto welfare queen".

So, you know, your opinion and/or your questions, as above, are essentially meaningless.

[von]

I'm pretty sure you are just being sophistrous, but might as well adress it:

Possibly so, but dialogue and examination is a good spotlight for examining fallacy....thanks for making an address!

*Conveniently, you deleted in the quotes the initial parts of what I said about succesful "reform" coming only from personal initiative. That is important because, the only thing close to legitimate forced "rehabilitation" is the judicial system (in an ideal world anyhow, since it's mostly used for punishment, but whatever).

I deleted them because I don't disagree with the idea that personal insight is the best way to cause change -- What I do not agree with is the second position, which is why I addressed it specifically.

*Now in your hypothetical, there is a flawed and uninformed view on the parents on what is "destructive". Second, it's an attempt at reforming something that cannot be changed, independently of if the said kid is ideologized into thinking he wants to be hetero. This type of forced reform is just abuse of authority. Also, I'm not sure if you need to be reminded that homosexuality is not a crime, nor is it destructive.

We'll have disconnect here, but allow me to address that I'm very far from anti-homosexual; my hypothetical is drawn from the experiences of a close friend, so my hypothetical is not an endorsement of anti-queer behaviour in any case...anyway, on with my rebuttle then:

In the situation of the parents, who see their child's social capital as being important in a gay-hating world, homosexuality could very well be seen as being "destructive". I mean, if we have all of these arguments floating around about how gays have less privlege than straight folk, it could be very well reasoned that the hypothetical parents saw their kid's actions as leading to lowered privlege, which in turn translates to lowered economic status, social status, etc. So from the view of the parents, they are "correct" in that their child's behaviour is destructive in the fields which they consider relevant.

Naturally, the gay kid can rationalise his point of view too -- about how he's being opressed by society, and about his lack of privlege, and in the end, his arguments, I'm sure, would be equally as valid as his parents' -- just placing emphasis on something that isn't social capital relating to the status quo.

Likewise, the drug addict, or even the shitbag racist can make arguments equally as valid as his own "reformer" -- except focusing on a different end goal. This disconnect of end goals, this is discord -- and the fact that by changing the end goal one can argue anything into truth -- this is why I maintain a world view of moral relativism; everyone can spray bullshit, anyone can believe it, but in the end, none of it really holds much truth from the perspective of someone who holds an opposing view point....