User Controls

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. ...
  5. 377
  6. 378
  7. 379
  8. 380
  9. 381
  10. 382
  11. ...
  12. 593
  13. 594
  14. 595
  15. 596

Posts by Obbe

  1. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by DietPiano Pls answer



    That's what I was wondering the other day. "You need to FEEL your feelings". Okay, but if you feel your feelings and they're all terrible all the time and they drive you to kill yourself, which is exactly why your defense (survival) mechanisms begin kicking in that cause you to constantly fight your feelings as they are in a fit of denial. Is the best thing for this person to curb all denial mechanisms and feel their feelings and kill themselves instead of deny themselves and not do so?

    I guess in a way it's like asking the question whether Malice is finally better off now than he was before.

    I can't tell you what's best for anyone besides myself. You have to figure out what is best on your own. Get rid of the distractions. Ignore your ego. Rediscover who you really are, what you really want, and do that.

    Malice can't be anything because he's stopped existing. IMO he would have been better off if he made the effort towards improving his life, instead of ending it.

    If you want to talk about your feelings in private I will listen.
  2. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Talk about Paul Stamets and fungi you faggots.
  3. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by whoami Uncle Ted had some good insights.

    You agree with his assessment?
  4. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

    7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

    8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

    9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

    FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY

    10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self- hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

    11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

    12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto- dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.

    13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

    14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

    15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

    16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

    17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

    18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

    19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

    20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

    21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

    22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

    23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

    OVERSOCIALIZATION

    24. Psychologists use the term “socialization” to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are oversocialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.

    25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term “oversocialized” to describe such people. [2]

    26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society’s expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think “unclean” thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.

    27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals [3] constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment.

    28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today’s leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes [4] for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.

    29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black “underclass” they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black- style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects most leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers “responsible,” they want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn’t care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a “responsible” parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values.

    30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society’s most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of “liberation.” In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.

    31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumbnail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.

    32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today’s society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.
  5. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Japan-Is-Eternal BBS forums are not social media

    social media is something like tumblr and youtube

    It's all contaminated.
  6. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Information gives you dopamine.
  7. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Common De-mominator That doesn't mean there is some higher meaning to natural selection, but it is what it is: there are success and failure conditions created within nature. Nature makes its own way.

    That's assuming nature has a specific goal in mind - does it? I don't know, but I think nature is just a bunch a particles floating around. Sometimes they collide or stick together or miss each other but none of that activity is success or failure, it just is what it is, nature being nature. You don't need to get mad about it. It is what it is bud.
  8. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Common De-mominator You said you don't know but now you're going ahead and making a positive claim that none of those are successes and failures. What do you know about the purpose of the growth of hair and the ways it varies? If anything you're just ignorant to it like the cuckoo chick.

    You have a certain level of comprehension of your own reasons, don't arrogantly get ahead of yourself and assume it's complete.

    I don't know how many Newtons of force my hands can generate in all its various arrangements but I'm in control of it to an extremely fine degree, with many degrees of freedom.

    The reasons we cobble together are not the only reasons in the world, and our representational awareness of reasons is nothing special past a certain point. A monkey has more of a concept of success than an amoeba while we have more of a concept of success than a monkey, but that's ultimately relative to whatever framing we began with. The reasons are out there independent of us, it's just part of the system doing what it does, and that creates successes and failures by their own criteria.

    A cuckoo chick failing its deception is a failure to survive, it's a failure to gain nourishment brood-parasitically etc, even if no one is around to see it, or even if we didn't give it that label. Our recognition is only representational.

    I don't know anything so why would I speculate that there is some greater purpose to a bird succeeding to survive or not? Whether the bird survives or dies is the system operating the way it operates. It's a "success" if we consider survival to be the goal, but I don't know anything so why would I consider some birds survival a success or failure any more than I would consider some random pariticals colliding or missing each other as a success or failure?
  9. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Common De-mominator How do you define failure or success for anything? It doesn't depend on anyone knowing the reasons why one is defined one way and not the other.

    The cuckoo chick tries to knock competing eggs out of the nest and steals food from the other chicks so they starve, in order to survive.

    None of the organisms on the system really have any idea what's going on (to the best of our knowledge), the chick is pretty much acting on straight instinct, it doesn't know that the bird above it isn't it's real mother or the other eggs are competitors. But they don't need to, for the cuckoo's gambit to be successful for the reasons that it is.



    How do you know success conditions aren't built into the system by necessity?

    I don't really know anything, but you have no control over the growth of your hair. Whether your hair grows straight, or curly, or if it maybe all falls out, none of those are really successes or failures but really just the system performing the way it performs. And in response maybe you will straighten your curly hair, or curl your straight hair or maybe you will wear a wig on your bald head, and again none of those are inherently successes or failures but rather just the system operating the way it operates. You have no control over the beating of your heart and if it stops beating you will die. Again this is the system operating the way it operates. And maybe someone will try to resuscitate you, but whether they succeed or fail, again, is just the system performing the way it performs.
  10. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Most stupid poster:

  11. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson As firecrotch eloquently stated, a failure of one piece doesn't necessarily mean loss of control or operation of the whole machine.

    This. And how can one piece even "fail" in this sense? The machine is running, everything is affecting everything else but with no inherent purpose or goal, so how do you define failure or success? Everything is doing exactly what it does. If something does fall apart that is still a part of the system operating the way it operates.
  12. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Look for the barcode in your inner lip.
  13. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Common De-mominator Maybe. I'm still pretty skeptical of his educational background. Going "I went to MIT but they totes wiped my history because I knew too much" is kinda sketchy. Anyway, like I said, it's interesting as a real world myth. It's just hard for me to believe he is credible. At worst he might just be very convincingly delusional.

    The government is starting to disclose more information about UFOs... except now they call the UAPs.

  14. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Common De-mominator I'm not an expert, this is basic high school physics and chemistry level knowledge that super genius alien rocket engineer Bob Lazar isn't aware of.

    Moscovium isn't a mystery any more, it's a well known and well researched substance, there aren't any magic hidden isotopes that break the laws of physics. Scientific understanding at that scale of physics is just too well understood at this point.

    Ok. I believe you.

    Still, feels like he believes what he says.
  15. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Common De-mominator Isotopes have nothing to do with it. Isotopes are a matter of having a different number of neutrons leading to different structural interactions. Unstable nuclei are unstable because they have too many protons and neutrons for their binding energy from the strong force. Moscovium is a transuranic element and the most stable isotope has a half life of minutes

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transuranium_element

    Well gee, maybe you are an expert after all. Or maybe you are trolling me again.
  16. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Common De-mominator Anyway, he literally admitted he fucked that podcast and invited Hamilton on again to do it right so that would indicate the opposite of a big ego.

    The dude does have a big ego, admit it, but being able to admit he fucked up and asking for a do-over is redeeming.
  17. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country There’s precisely zero reason to think that, but I can’t prove a negative

    Bob Lazar claims to have worked on some technology that used a stable isotope of 115 as fuel.
  18. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country All of them. It literally explodes when you make it.

    You mean so far all the isotopes we have synthesized have exploded when we've made them. It is possible that a stable isotope exists and we just haven't synthesized it yet.
  19. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Common De-mominator Right. It's mostly fascinating to low IQ people who don't know what he's talking about but enjoy it as a sci fi story. That's fine, just know it's sci fi.

    If it's sci fi, it's incredibly compelling and it's author doesn't seem to think it's fiction either. I mean, he repeated the same story in court, under oath.
  20. Obbe Alan What? [annoy my right-angled speediness]
    Originally posted by Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Element 115 has a half life of a fraction of a second. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscovium

    Which isotope?
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. ...
  5. 377
  6. 378
  7. 379
  8. 380
  9. 381
  10. 382
  11. ...
  12. 593
  13. 594
  14. 595
  15. 596
Jump to Top