Kill the Culture and Burn the Pulpit Part 2: Cultural Change

[Jasper]

I'll admit it, I'm slightly more receptive to messages that come from people who have proven their intelligence.  I don't see what's so controversial about that, unless he's saying that debates are popularity contests.

[Captain Utopia]

Never speak to me again, okay?

Whatever.  If you write something I feel like responding to, I will.  Like now - get over your inflated sense of self-importance.

[Doktor Howl]

Never speak to me again, okay?

Whatever.  If you write something I feel like responding to, I will.  Like now - get over your inflated sense of self-importance.

Okay, tried to be nice about it, Fictionpuss.  You're the one who's trying to set me up as some kind of cult leader...Presumably to hide the fact that you have no fucking argument whatsoever, and haven't done shit since your return but gush some mushyheaded bullshit you picked up on a website that would make Ron Paul blush.

So, yeah, shitforbrains, let's talk about an inflated sense of importance.  You come back here like some fucking wannabe returning prophet, trying to sell everyone the same bill of goods wrapped up differently from the rubes, and then you have the utter stupidity to support some fucking retarded shit about how individuals don't exist?  Because you're all butthurt that nobody bought your "E Democracy" bullshit?

[Captain Utopia]

I'll admit it, I'm slightly more receptive to messages that come from people who have proven their intelligence.  I don't see what's so controversial about that, unless he's saying that debates are popularity contests.

I'll admit it too, if I see a wall-of-text from a source I don't trust, I'll rarely invest the time to dig through it.  But if you respond to a post it's a different story - then I think you should take the time to understand what is being said.  The first pass through Doloras' piece raised some eyebrows - on the next pass it came off as a concept piece.  I riffed on that, and had a good time, reaching a similar but not identical conclusion.

[Jasper]

For me it comes down to two things:  Content and context.  You can look at content without considering context (i.e. who said a thing, with what intent, under which circumstances) to decide whether the content stands up on its own in a vacuum, but in an actual social interaction you don't do that because you can't live in the world of decontextualized truth statements. 

[Captain Utopia]

That's a fair point.

[Jasper]

So I guess my stance is no, I wouldn't be so quick to call BS on Roger.  There are good reasons for it that don't come down to fear or intellectual laziness.


ETA:  But that's corollary to the point that you used the fact that Charley agreed with Dok Howl against him, which is somewhat poor form, even in the lax debate conduct standards we have here.

[Captain Utopia]

Never speak to me again, okay?

Whatever.  If you write something I feel like responding to, I will.  Like now - get over your inflated sense of self-importance.

Okay, tried to be nice about it, Fictionpuss.

When?  You've been taking pot-shots at me for over a week now, ever since the E-Democracy thread started.

This was coming sooner or later, so don't pretend you didn't want or create it.

You're the one who's trying to set me up as some kind of cult leader...

Took me a while to understand what you meant by this.

No - I didn't suggest that Semaj would be afraid to call "bullshit" on you because you're a cult leader, but because you're a tinderbox of rage just ready to explode at the slightest perceived threat to your territory.  Mixed metaphors aside, this is exactly what happened ITT when I expressed dissatisfaction with your "Go kill yourself" response to a 8-post n00b, who wasn't causing any trouble at all.

But barely anyone will tell you what they really think to your face because if you've got any other choice, IT'S JUST NOT WORTH THE SHITSTORM which inevitably results.  Hence the "here's-what-i-thought-all-along" + flounce pattern which is so common.

Presumably to hide the fact that you have no fucking argument whatsoever, and haven't done shit since your return but gush some mushyheaded bullshit you picked up on a website that would make Ron Paul blush.

You personally dared me to provide detail to my thoughts regarding E-Democracy.  I called your bluff, which resulted in that thread of the same name.  I answered questions which people had until it became obvious that everybody still posting had already made up their minds.

Paint that as "my obsession" if you wish, but it was a choice of either providing the details being requested or being taunted with "DID NOT DELIVER" and other fun digs.

So, yeah, shitforbrains, let's talk about an inflated sense of importance.  You come back here like some fucking wannabe returning prophet,

No.  I'm attempting to hi-jack the doom-and-gloom narrative.  Or at least provide an alternative where possible.  Simply talking about what the future might hold does not a prophet make.

and then you have the utter stupidity to support some fucking retarded shit about how individuals don't exist?

It might have been fucking retarded shit, or it might have been how I interpreted it - as a conceptual piece working through a particular idea.  We'll probably never know what it was meant to be, because if I were Doloras, I don't think I could see a good reason to come back.

Because you're all butthurt that nobody bought your "E Democracy" bullshit?

Actually no.  I moved on.  I hadn't mentioned it or even posted on that thread in four days.

The only people butthurt by the E-Democracy thread were those who stomped in there, thought they saw an easy target, and utterly failed to convincingly pick it apart.  Hello.

[Captain Utopia]

ETA:  But that's corollary to the point that you used the fact that Charley agreed with Dok Howl against him, which is somewhat poor form, even in the lax debate conduct standards we have here.

It wasn't aimed at Dok Howl.  It was against Charley who, on about 5-6 occasions now has stayed out of the debate until Doc Howl lays the first blow, then he'll run in with a quick follow up attack.  It's the sort of thing you tend to notice when you're on the bottom of a dogpile.

[Adios]

ETA:  But that's corollary to the point that you used the fact that Charley agreed with Dok Howl against him, which is somewhat poor form, even in the lax debate conduct standards we have here.

It wasn't aimed at Dok Howl.  It was against Charley who, on about 5-6 occasions now has stayed out of the debate until Doc Howl lays the first blow, then he'll run in with a quick follow up attack.  It's the sort of thing you tend to notice when you're on the bottom of a dogpile.

Listen up shitbag. It is just possible that I waited until you said something stupid enough to feel the need to step on it? I am my own person, always have been and always will be.

I don't know what fog you are living in but you seriously need a breath of fresh air.

[Doktor Howl]

When?  You've been taking pot-shots at me for over a week now, ever since the E-Democracy thread started.

This was coming sooner or later, so don't pretend you didn't want or create it.

Oh, okay.  Taking shots at "your" idea = personal attacks.  Sorry, I didn't realize you were a complete fanatic.

No - I didn't suggest that Semaj would be afraid to call "bullshit" on you because you're a cult leader, but because you're a tinderbox of rage just ready to explode at the slightest perceived threat to your territory. 

Oh, yeah.

1.  Dr Semaj is undoubtably terrified that I will reach through his monitor and choke him out.   

2.  I've had plenty of debates here without raging out.

Mixed metaphors aside, this is exactly what happened ITT when I expressed dissatisfaction with your "Go kill yourself" response to a 8-post n00b, who wasn't causing any trouble at all.

The insistence that individuals don't exist is both ridiculous and cowardly.  The answer I handed her is the answer she deserved for that statement.

But barely anyone will tell you what they really think to your face because if you've got any other choice, IT'S JUST NOT WORTH THE SHITSTORM which inevitably results. 

Nonsense.  Just because you're a chickenshit doesn't mean everyone else is.

You personally dared me to provide detail to my thoughts regarding E-Democracy.  I called your bluff, which resulted in that thread of the same name.  I answered questions which people had until it became obvious that everybody still posting had already made up their minds.

How many threads?   

No.  I'm attempting to hi-jack the doom-and-gloom narrative. 

I keep forgetting you're stupid.

It might have been fucking retarded shit, or it might have been how I interpreted it - as a conceptual piece working through a particular idea.  We'll probably never know what it was meant to be, because if I were Doloras, I don't think I could see a good reason to come back.

You think she's as gutless as you?  Possibly.

The only people butthurt by the E-Democracy thread were those who stomped in there, thought they saw an easy target, and utterly failed to convincingly pick it apart.  Hello.

You spun like a fucking ballerina.

[Cramulus]

Dolores checks in here every now and then, and I probably expects a degree of resistance. Dolores doesn't check in very frequently, and probably won't see this for a few weeks. 

For those of you who aren't familiar, Dolores writes a fascinating blog called Chaos Marxism which blends marxism, discordia, and the black iron prison.

I think this entry elaborates on the previous point about identity, for anybody that's genuinely curious.

[Doktor Howl]

Dolores checks in here every now and then, and I probably expects a degree of resistance. Dolores doesn't check in very frequently, and probably won't see this for a few weeks. 

For those of you who aren't familiar, Dolores writes a fascinating blog called Chaos Marxism which blends marxism, discordia, and the black iron prison.

I think this entry elaborates on the previous point about identity, for anybody that's genuinely curious.

I'll have to check that out.  Not wild about Marxism, for the same reason I didn't think much of her post, but I'll at least give it a read.

[Cramulus]

It's a pretty wild point of view. I enjoy the motion to kill the ego and defeat the self, it helps me detach from bullshit ego games. I'm not crazy about Marxism either, but as a pragmatist I can definitely find some useful gems in chaos marxism.

brings this to mind:

Chapter 61
A successful cabal is like a dust cloud,
arriving from nowhere,
ungraspable,
and fading into nothingness.
The tallest blade of grass gets cut,
while the crab grass creeps unharmed.
Keep your head down.
Keep your fucking mouth shut.

Thus by concentrating on goals
without playing ego games,
much can be accomplished.
If all you want to do
is brag about how cool you are,
you might want learn to play the guitar, instead.

[Adios]

ETA:  But that's corollary to the point that you used the fact that Charley agreed with Dok Howl against him, which is somewhat poor form, even in the lax debate conduct standards we have here.

It wasn't aimed at Dok Howl.  It was against Charley who, on about 5-6 occasions now has stayed out of the debate until Doc Howl lays the first blow, then he'll run in with a quick follow up attack.  It's the sort of thing you tend to notice when you're on the bottom of a dogpile.

I'm awake now asshole and I will elaborate.

You claim in the E thread you countered all questions when you never did.

You reminded me of a little bitty dog barking his fool head while pretending to attack and nip at ankles without ever managing to take a bite. Just a lot of annoying barking while increasing the urge to give it a good kick.

And gods know Dok and I have never gotten into it. See, we know we are stubborn old men and an argument between us could go on for years without either of us conceding an inch, so we have the good sense to just drop it before the world burns.

So take your fucking cult leader yapping and go out in the yard with it puppy.