Lolth: Web
Moderator: atreestump
Forum rules
No Abusive Behavior. No Spam. No Porn. No Gore. It's that simple.
No Abusive Behavior. No Spam. No Porn. No Gore. It's that simple.
Online
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: I'll talk about a bunch of things here
Link
Last edited by kFoyauextlH on Thu Aug 28, 2025 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Online
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: Sell your soul
Something
Last edited by kFoyauextlH on Thu Aug 28, 2025 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Online
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: I'll talk about a bunch of things here
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/ ... _muscular/
"
Llyngeir
•
3y ago
•
Edited 3y ago
While women in Classical statues are hardly 'fat', there is a distinct difference between the ideal men's body presented in statues, which are lean and athletic, and the supposedly ideal women's body which is presented as much more natural. This largely comes down to the elite ideal of women's lifestyles in Classical Athens. While men were free to go to the gymnasium, and were encouraged to do so, and boys were generally also expected to do so, women were largely confined to certain areas of life.
Xenophon provides us with what may have been the Classical Athenian elite ideal concerning women in his Economics. In his work, Xenophon says that women were responsible for controlling the household. Indeed, it appears that a girl's education, whether provided to her by her parents or by her new husband, was orientated towards this responsibility (Ec. 7.3ff; cf. Hesiod WD 699). According to Xenophon, "to be woman it is more honourable to stay indoors than to abide in the fields, but to the man it is unseemly rather to stay indoors than to attend to the work outside" (Ec. 7.30). We should be wary, however, simply accepting Xenophon's testimony as the general view of Classical Athenians as, much like Plato, his works weren't performed in a public sphere or for public attention, but for a small section of society.
Yet, we see a similar belief in other Classical Athenian sources. For example, Lycurgus tells us that, when word of a defeat reached Athens, women were crouched in their doorways asking passersby for news of their husbands, brothers, and sons, and Lycurgus makes it clear that such behaviour was considered shameful (Against Leocrates 40). Lysias similarly tells us that it was an admirable thing for young women to not even be seen by their kinsmen (3.6-7). Additionally, Euripides tells us that it was considered "shameful for a woman to be standing with young men" (Electra 343-4). These examples are from speeches and a play, which were performed before a wide selection of Athenians from different social strata, and as such, we can infer that this ideal was widely held. Thus, elite women likely led largely sedentary lifestyles.
However, these examples likely relate to elite Athenian women, not all women in Athens. As Cohen says, "relatively few families which could dispense with the essential economic activities of the woman - activities which necessarily involve going out of the house" (1989: 9). There are plenty of hints throughout the sources that poorer women regularly went outside, for example, to fetch water (Aristophanes Lysistrata 327-31; cf. this vase painting) or even to go to work (Aristotle Politics 1323a), such as selling goods in the market (Aristophanes Wasps 495-500). These working women were likely not of the physical appearance that you describe, but they were also not the women statues were made of.
As for elite women, as Blundell says, "There is no evidence to suggest that Athenian girls were given any kind of systematic athletics training in the gymnasium" (1995: 133). That said, there is evidence from vase paintings that show girls and young women involved in some forms of exercise. This vase shows a young woman running, possibly being chased, while holding her skirts in one hand in a manner that is reminiscent of a bronze figurine we'll turn to in a moment. This vase shows girls dancing under instruction, although we can say nothing about their status from the vase, they could conceivably be slave girls being trained. Finally, this vase, from the temple of Artemis in Brauron, shows girls or young women dancing or running (see Blundell, 1995: 133-5).
In Sparta, on the other hand, there is evidence for more formal physical education for girls and women. Xenophon, in his Lacedaemonain Politeia, approves of the 'Lycurgan' measures that meant both boys and girls had some form of physical training, including "races and trials of strength" (1.4). Euripides paints Spartan women in a similar light, saying that they go abroad with men and exercise in the same places as men (Andromache 595-601). Alcman, who was active in the late seventh to sixth century BC, references girls dancing (fr. 1 West). In Aristophanes' Lysistrata, Lampito, the Spartan woman, is said to look like she could strangle a bull (line 81). Both Plato (Laws 806a) and Aristotle (Politics 1269b) complain that Spartan women's physical education made them no better at war than women of other Greek poleis, suggesting that their exercise was unusual for Greek women. This figurine, mentioned above, is thought to be Laconian, possibly attesting to the exercise of Spartan women in the Archaic period. Sadly, however, we do not have much more physical evidence of women exercising in Sparta.
Thus, the appearance of women in Classical sculpture with less athletic figures than their male counterparts is simply due to the culture of female separation in Classical Athens, which meant that women likely did not have the opportunity to exercise, while elite men made a habit of going to the gymnasium.
"
"
Llyngeir
•
3y ago
•
Edited 3y ago
While women in Classical statues are hardly 'fat', there is a distinct difference between the ideal men's body presented in statues, which are lean and athletic, and the supposedly ideal women's body which is presented as much more natural. This largely comes down to the elite ideal of women's lifestyles in Classical Athens. While men were free to go to the gymnasium, and were encouraged to do so, and boys were generally also expected to do so, women were largely confined to certain areas of life.
Xenophon provides us with what may have been the Classical Athenian elite ideal concerning women in his Economics. In his work, Xenophon says that women were responsible for controlling the household. Indeed, it appears that a girl's education, whether provided to her by her parents or by her new husband, was orientated towards this responsibility (Ec. 7.3ff; cf. Hesiod WD 699). According to Xenophon, "to be woman it is more honourable to stay indoors than to abide in the fields, but to the man it is unseemly rather to stay indoors than to attend to the work outside" (Ec. 7.30). We should be wary, however, simply accepting Xenophon's testimony as the general view of Classical Athenians as, much like Plato, his works weren't performed in a public sphere or for public attention, but for a small section of society.
Yet, we see a similar belief in other Classical Athenian sources. For example, Lycurgus tells us that, when word of a defeat reached Athens, women were crouched in their doorways asking passersby for news of their husbands, brothers, and sons, and Lycurgus makes it clear that such behaviour was considered shameful (Against Leocrates 40). Lysias similarly tells us that it was an admirable thing for young women to not even be seen by their kinsmen (3.6-7). Additionally, Euripides tells us that it was considered "shameful for a woman to be standing with young men" (Electra 343-4). These examples are from speeches and a play, which were performed before a wide selection of Athenians from different social strata, and as such, we can infer that this ideal was widely held. Thus, elite women likely led largely sedentary lifestyles.
However, these examples likely relate to elite Athenian women, not all women in Athens. As Cohen says, "relatively few families which could dispense with the essential economic activities of the woman - activities which necessarily involve going out of the house" (1989: 9). There are plenty of hints throughout the sources that poorer women regularly went outside, for example, to fetch water (Aristophanes Lysistrata 327-31; cf. this vase painting) or even to go to work (Aristotle Politics 1323a), such as selling goods in the market (Aristophanes Wasps 495-500). These working women were likely not of the physical appearance that you describe, but they were also not the women statues were made of.
As for elite women, as Blundell says, "There is no evidence to suggest that Athenian girls were given any kind of systematic athletics training in the gymnasium" (1995: 133). That said, there is evidence from vase paintings that show girls and young women involved in some forms of exercise. This vase shows a young woman running, possibly being chased, while holding her skirts in one hand in a manner that is reminiscent of a bronze figurine we'll turn to in a moment. This vase shows girls dancing under instruction, although we can say nothing about their status from the vase, they could conceivably be slave girls being trained. Finally, this vase, from the temple of Artemis in Brauron, shows girls or young women dancing or running (see Blundell, 1995: 133-5).
In Sparta, on the other hand, there is evidence for more formal physical education for girls and women. Xenophon, in his Lacedaemonain Politeia, approves of the 'Lycurgan' measures that meant both boys and girls had some form of physical training, including "races and trials of strength" (1.4). Euripides paints Spartan women in a similar light, saying that they go abroad with men and exercise in the same places as men (Andromache 595-601). Alcman, who was active in the late seventh to sixth century BC, references girls dancing (fr. 1 West). In Aristophanes' Lysistrata, Lampito, the Spartan woman, is said to look like she could strangle a bull (line 81). Both Plato (Laws 806a) and Aristotle (Politics 1269b) complain that Spartan women's physical education made them no better at war than women of other Greek poleis, suggesting that their exercise was unusual for Greek women. This figurine, mentioned above, is thought to be Laconian, possibly attesting to the exercise of Spartan women in the Archaic period. Sadly, however, we do not have much more physical evidence of women exercising in Sparta.
Thus, the appearance of women in Classical sculpture with less athletic figures than their male counterparts is simply due to the culture of female separation in Classical Athens, which meant that women likely did not have the opportunity to exercise, while elite men made a habit of going to the gymnasium.
"
Online
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: I'll talk about a bunch of things here
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/UmWBIyb6Rxo/hq72 ... mmgKS7SOdg
Is it this?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Backrooms
Just a little, like I've heard of this liminal spaces and empty places stuff that had some videos on YouTube, but I'm not sure if they've made more of it since I last saw it, which was just about empty and abandoned places that feel a little weird or creepy to people, along with the way that they tend to photograph them.
I was laying here in bed, it is almost 8 A.M. here, and I'm actually sort of experiencing the theme in a way. There was a conversation in the hall, and I went to see, and no one was visible, they were out of view and around the corners, and were elderly people talking about a move they are going to make, unnecessarily in my opinion, to another apartment that is older and smaller possibly, and they were talking about lightheadedness, a lack of appetite, and then the other person said to keep his number handy in case they need to call for help, the whole thing stressed me out so much that my heart was beating fast just thinking about it. I doubt the apartment would be affordable, but it is the one right across from mine and one of the biggest probably as it has two bedrooms, but he complains of some kind of toxicity in there potentially. I am locked in this space with very little room and too much stuff that has been shifted for the pest control and not shifted back because of the difficulty involved.
I've never seen their place inside, as even if their doir is opened it is just a wall and one has to to the side to get to the main areas, so it is like a backroom mystery left to the imagination. All I've ever heard are sounds from when people had been going in there, as they were showing it frequently when trying to sell this building, which now was sold and is under new ownership. All these changes lead to stress and instability.
I was looking up the etymology of the word war which apparently "confusion", and that is what a lot of these changes seem to bring, a sense of fear through a lack of clarity and certainty, and undertaking without knowing what is in the blind spots, the places where the visibility is low, and where one can't see.
That theme has been haunting me with the constant fear about numerous things, including my repeated pain issue that returned now more than once after days of nothing like that happening, so I'm left in suspense, but there is suspense about so many things, about my other apartment and what might be going on there, also just when I'm standing on the floor by my bed where I felt like a gigantic spider might run out from underneath, and usually when I feel that way, it has happened, and then it did happen just the other night and luckily I was not standing right there as there is barely any room to move or dodge the spider. It was very big but I caught it, unlike the one I failed to catch where the attempt led to a huge scratch down my arm because it was in the middle of some bikes and the metal must have gotten me. Earlier in the night my clothing got caught in the grocery store when I was reaching for something and snagged a thread loose, which irritated me, but I managed to pull to back in. The item I was reaching for was up high and around, behind something, in the back.
This theme repeated or had already occurred where a woman with a pronounced vocal fry, which I had been commenting earlier that I had never heard in the wild or out in real life, was speaking to the people at the deli meats counter section. I had to avoid her and a wet floor sign where there was no longer a wet floor as far as I could tell. I was trying to find out what these different looking meats were in a Turkey & Beef sub sandwich called a Dagwood. They were confused and told me it might be pork, and I told them that the Classic Dagwood there already has pork. Then another conspiracy was offered, that the hot dog meat of 100 percent beef hot dogs was actually mixed with pork too, which I don't really believe but I can understand the doubt people may have lol, but that is what the person behind the counter told me after the other worker had disappeared around a corner and behind some doors in a backroom type area. There were corners and unseen areas everywhere, particularly pronounced this time, and incidents with girls not turning their heads, so that I couldn't see their faces, both in the apartment and at the grocery store, which was unusual and creepy. The one girl whose face I finally saw, may have been one I saw earlier on my last trip to the grocery store, where she had a spiderweb drawn next to her eye. If it was her, then practically everyone who was there last time was there this time too and they've been there every time I've happened to go to the grocery store on amy random day.
I was looking up Jubilee or had seen Jubilee from the X-Men one day and she is a character that spent her time in the liminal places by hiding out in a mall after hours. Them I went to the grocery store and the worker was named Jubilee, she was there on this trip too, along with the guy from the register who just happened to be shopping and was off work and not in his uniform. It is Truman Show-esque to just keep seeing the same people over and over who happen to be shopping on whatever day I go there.
So the lady with the vocal fry asked the people at the counter if they had fondue and they didn't even know what that was, but I told her I had seen it, and that it was around the corner, in a place that was not visible from where we were walking as I was trying to show her, but then it wasn't even there when I made it there, so she said she just might make it herself, and I asked if she knew what cheese they use for it, and she said "fontana or something", amd I left it at that, knowing that was not the names I had heard for the typical cheeses used, but not remembering the name or the pronunciation of it.
Back around the corner I went, to my cart where I had left there, and the people who had said at one point they think the strange meat in one is almost certainly beef were now saying it is likely pork lol.
I bought the stuff and went to the door and it was locked and so I was standing there and then from around a corner the security guard came along to open the door. I went outside and then saw that the thrift store was closing and that the painting of the caterpillar from Alice In Wonderland that I had been a little interested in and looked at every time in its high place eas a blank space now. I tried to look around in the closed store from the outside, looking around the corners how I could. Then walking back home I turned a corner, and looked down a side road where I meet a cat, but didn't want to meet the cat under these conditions, but walked by while still looking, sensing that the cat was very likely there and possibly even watching from somewhere but it only approaches once I enter into the area. Then I saw these two strange looking people I had seen in the grocery store who had appeared around a corner, and then who left with me and went the other way and disappeared around a corner, where now one of them, the more remarkable of the two, was coming out of a door in a strange apartment which has only a narrow staircase behind the door before leading up to the unseen apartments.
At some point there were also 3 people on bicycles appearing one after another around the corner, and they aren't supposed to ride on the sidewalk, the first had a bright lamp and suddenly appeared, then there were two others, and I was apprehensive about the blind spot they had been appearing from rapidly.
I reached a place where people leave books and things for the public to look at or take, and I saw that there were a lot of CDs in there which I couldn't see what they were, so had to lift each one and read it, and most were classical, but I was carrying grocery bags and couldn't set them down in case earwigs would climb on them, and the bench or whatever had slits I couldn't see past, with plants and dirt underneath that looked like the sort of place earwigs like to climb around. Then there was this sound of rustling over and over next to me, which may have been a large rat, but it caused me to turn where I then saw a crazy looking person rapidly approaching from a distance and I abandoned everything and headed to the light to cross the street, and the crazy looking person possessively went to the place where I was to look through what was there also. There were more corners on my wayback, and then another free book containing unit which I looked through with my phone's flashlight. There was someone down the street with their headlights left on and pointing in my direction.
The books were in layers, hiding other books, ans there were corners, so I had to push some and lift some and create spaces to look around and to see what was there.
I approached the vehicle with the lights creepily left on and the guy got out of the vehicle, walked around behind his vehicle, and spit on the sidewalk, so I crossed the street, and they got in their car and rode away, but the behaviour was all really weird.
Is it this?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Backrooms
Just a little, like I've heard of this liminal spaces and empty places stuff that had some videos on YouTube, but I'm not sure if they've made more of it since I last saw it, which was just about empty and abandoned places that feel a little weird or creepy to people, along with the way that they tend to photograph them.
I was laying here in bed, it is almost 8 A.M. here, and I'm actually sort of experiencing the theme in a way. There was a conversation in the hall, and I went to see, and no one was visible, they were out of view and around the corners, and were elderly people talking about a move they are going to make, unnecessarily in my opinion, to another apartment that is older and smaller possibly, and they were talking about lightheadedness, a lack of appetite, and then the other person said to keep his number handy in case they need to call for help, the whole thing stressed me out so much that my heart was beating fast just thinking about it. I doubt the apartment would be affordable, but it is the one right across from mine and one of the biggest probably as it has two bedrooms, but he complains of some kind of toxicity in there potentially. I am locked in this space with very little room and too much stuff that has been shifted for the pest control and not shifted back because of the difficulty involved.
I've never seen their place inside, as even if their doir is opened it is just a wall and one has to to the side to get to the main areas, so it is like a backroom mystery left to the imagination. All I've ever heard are sounds from when people had been going in there, as they were showing it frequently when trying to sell this building, which now was sold and is under new ownership. All these changes lead to stress and instability.
I was looking up the etymology of the word war which apparently "confusion", and that is what a lot of these changes seem to bring, a sense of fear through a lack of clarity and certainty, and undertaking without knowing what is in the blind spots, the places where the visibility is low, and where one can't see.
That theme has been haunting me with the constant fear about numerous things, including my repeated pain issue that returned now more than once after days of nothing like that happening, so I'm left in suspense, but there is suspense about so many things, about my other apartment and what might be going on there, also just when I'm standing on the floor by my bed where I felt like a gigantic spider might run out from underneath, and usually when I feel that way, it has happened, and then it did happen just the other night and luckily I was not standing right there as there is barely any room to move or dodge the spider. It was very big but I caught it, unlike the one I failed to catch where the attempt led to a huge scratch down my arm because it was in the middle of some bikes and the metal must have gotten me. Earlier in the night my clothing got caught in the grocery store when I was reaching for something and snagged a thread loose, which irritated me, but I managed to pull to back in. The item I was reaching for was up high and around, behind something, in the back.
This theme repeated or had already occurred where a woman with a pronounced vocal fry, which I had been commenting earlier that I had never heard in the wild or out in real life, was speaking to the people at the deli meats counter section. I had to avoid her and a wet floor sign where there was no longer a wet floor as far as I could tell. I was trying to find out what these different looking meats were in a Turkey & Beef sub sandwich called a Dagwood. They were confused and told me it might be pork, and I told them that the Classic Dagwood there already has pork. Then another conspiracy was offered, that the hot dog meat of 100 percent beef hot dogs was actually mixed with pork too, which I don't really believe but I can understand the doubt people may have lol, but that is what the person behind the counter told me after the other worker had disappeared around a corner and behind some doors in a backroom type area. There were corners and unseen areas everywhere, particularly pronounced this time, and incidents with girls not turning their heads, so that I couldn't see their faces, both in the apartment and at the grocery store, which was unusual and creepy. The one girl whose face I finally saw, may have been one I saw earlier on my last trip to the grocery store, where she had a spiderweb drawn next to her eye. If it was her, then practically everyone who was there last time was there this time too and they've been there every time I've happened to go to the grocery store on amy random day.
I was looking up Jubilee or had seen Jubilee from the X-Men one day and she is a character that spent her time in the liminal places by hiding out in a mall after hours. Them I went to the grocery store and the worker was named Jubilee, she was there on this trip too, along with the guy from the register who just happened to be shopping and was off work and not in his uniform. It is Truman Show-esque to just keep seeing the same people over and over who happen to be shopping on whatever day I go there.
So the lady with the vocal fry asked the people at the counter if they had fondue and they didn't even know what that was, but I told her I had seen it, and that it was around the corner, in a place that was not visible from where we were walking as I was trying to show her, but then it wasn't even there when I made it there, so she said she just might make it herself, and I asked if she knew what cheese they use for it, and she said "fontana or something", amd I left it at that, knowing that was not the names I had heard for the typical cheeses used, but not remembering the name or the pronunciation of it.
Back around the corner I went, to my cart where I had left there, and the people who had said at one point they think the strange meat in one is almost certainly beef were now saying it is likely pork lol.
I bought the stuff and went to the door and it was locked and so I was standing there and then from around a corner the security guard came along to open the door. I went outside and then saw that the thrift store was closing and that the painting of the caterpillar from Alice In Wonderland that I had been a little interested in and looked at every time in its high place eas a blank space now. I tried to look around in the closed store from the outside, looking around the corners how I could. Then walking back home I turned a corner, and looked down a side road where I meet a cat, but didn't want to meet the cat under these conditions, but walked by while still looking, sensing that the cat was very likely there and possibly even watching from somewhere but it only approaches once I enter into the area. Then I saw these two strange looking people I had seen in the grocery store who had appeared around a corner, and then who left with me and went the other way and disappeared around a corner, where now one of them, the more remarkable of the two, was coming out of a door in a strange apartment which has only a narrow staircase behind the door before leading up to the unseen apartments.
At some point there were also 3 people on bicycles appearing one after another around the corner, and they aren't supposed to ride on the sidewalk, the first had a bright lamp and suddenly appeared, then there were two others, and I was apprehensive about the blind spot they had been appearing from rapidly.
I reached a place where people leave books and things for the public to look at or take, and I saw that there were a lot of CDs in there which I couldn't see what they were, so had to lift each one and read it, and most were classical, but I was carrying grocery bags and couldn't set them down in case earwigs would climb on them, and the bench or whatever had slits I couldn't see past, with plants and dirt underneath that looked like the sort of place earwigs like to climb around. Then there was this sound of rustling over and over next to me, which may have been a large rat, but it caused me to turn where I then saw a crazy looking person rapidly approaching from a distance and I abandoned everything and headed to the light to cross the street, and the crazy looking person possessively went to the place where I was to look through what was there also. There were more corners on my wayback, and then another free book containing unit which I looked through with my phone's flashlight. There was someone down the street with their headlights left on and pointing in my direction.
The books were in layers, hiding other books, ans there were corners, so I had to push some and lift some and create spaces to look around and to see what was there.
I approached the vehicle with the lights creepily left on and the guy got out of the vehicle, walked around behind his vehicle, and spit on the sidewalk, so I crossed the street, and they got in their car and rode away, but the behaviour was all really weird.
Last edited by kFoyauextlH on Thu Aug 28, 2025 11:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Online
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: I'll talk about a bunch of things here
Removed
Last edited by kFoyauextlH on Thu Aug 28, 2025 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Online
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: I'll talk about a bunch of things here
This has something to do with censorship or something?:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxVyzyCRd ... ure=shared
Hasan Piker keeps saying he is a "white man", but very many people probably would not think of him in the same manner as other "white" people, because he is "Ethnically Turkish from a Muslim Background" and the "white people" and the "non-white" people both don't think of that as "white" as far as I'm aware. They would think of the other guy the video is about, Anthony Fantano, as a "white man" more, but still possibly less so slightly as an Italian, though Italians have managed to be considered more white perhaps now than the Spanish, due to so many Spanish speaking countries being mixed with native Americans that it has made any "Spanish Speaker" viewed as potentially less "white". When people say "white", they mean Western and Northern Europeans most of all, then the Western Most Eastern Europeans. Then it keeps going like that until people are quite far away. Greeks are considered less white than Italians, Romanians are barely considered white, and there is a certain "look" expected too, as well as a range of accents that are considered more "white" and less "white". "Russians" get separated out and linked to slightly different things even though they are often looking like "white people", and are likely considered more "white" than "Mexicans" or whatever else, but looks can play a role.
Hasan Piker though, as far as I'm aware, is not there at all, he is considered less white than a Russian, he is linked to the Muslims and the Turks, the traditional "Anti-White" foe, and his skin tone barely plays a role once people are aware of that, every bit of his face will then be scrutinized and parsed to see how "ethnic", "foreign", and "non-white" he is, to confirm what they have heard of him being linked to those things. As far as I am aware, he is not "white" by most standards at all, like being "half", but is a "sand (person)" through and through, and the J people call the very fair skinned Palestinians "monkeys" even, and want to ghettoize them and link them to the way they may have manipulated "black culture" in America, which in Japan is depicted in the form of cockroaches in this anime:
https://youtu.be/qh9gUHA975c?feature=shared
Actually, in a way, he is doing a disservice to people by pretending people like him are viewed in the same fashion as other "white" people.
I barely scrape by myself, with only maybe much more non-white looking people possibly thinking I may be white, but I'm always stressed by the thought that people may think that I'm not quite white, just because I want the least amount of trouble. Personally, I know that I'm on a different team than most of all the people, but I have to live in fear of that being brought up and my having to persuade people that I'm not so different from them when I really may be in lots of ways, like if they are actually haters of things I like secretly, or lovers of things I despise.
That is why I consider myself a "bl*ck man" and a "n*gg*r", meaning what these people would consider their "savage" enemy and a "Moor", but in disguise, but aware that they are in a different spiritual faction than myself, and the paranoia that they would try to work harm towards me, even naturally and helplessly or unconsciously, just because I am on another team. My team is not "Muslim" either though, in the sense that there are many people using that term who are actually of a different belief system or understanding and would also be potentially hostile, so I feel mainly totally isolated from "teams" for the most part and alienated from everyone, just pretending however I can to better survive or improve my interactions with one set of threats or another.
In the current ranking, chosen by the dominant "white overmind", the worst of all things may be "Black Woman" and "Native Woman" since they are both "Black" and a "Woman", so if anyone can pass as "not that", they absolutely should skip the hassle of being linked to either thing, but most of the time, they simply can't hide it or pretend to be something that would get them treated better.
If I "discovered" I was somehow, in any way, something that would get me treated badly, I would never "come out" as that! That is a totally unecessary hardship, that only a fool in my opinion would deliberately express in a world as hate filled as this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxVyzyCRd ... ure=shared
Hasan Piker keeps saying he is a "white man", but very many people probably would not think of him in the same manner as other "white" people, because he is "Ethnically Turkish from a Muslim Background" and the "white people" and the "non-white" people both don't think of that as "white" as far as I'm aware. They would think of the other guy the video is about, Anthony Fantano, as a "white man" more, but still possibly less so slightly as an Italian, though Italians have managed to be considered more white perhaps now than the Spanish, due to so many Spanish speaking countries being mixed with native Americans that it has made any "Spanish Speaker" viewed as potentially less "white". When people say "white", they mean Western and Northern Europeans most of all, then the Western Most Eastern Europeans. Then it keeps going like that until people are quite far away. Greeks are considered less white than Italians, Romanians are barely considered white, and there is a certain "look" expected too, as well as a range of accents that are considered more "white" and less "white". "Russians" get separated out and linked to slightly different things even though they are often looking like "white people", and are likely considered more "white" than "Mexicans" or whatever else, but looks can play a role.
Hasan Piker though, as far as I'm aware, is not there at all, he is considered less white than a Russian, he is linked to the Muslims and the Turks, the traditional "Anti-White" foe, and his skin tone barely plays a role once people are aware of that, every bit of his face will then be scrutinized and parsed to see how "ethnic", "foreign", and "non-white" he is, to confirm what they have heard of him being linked to those things. As far as I am aware, he is not "white" by most standards at all, like being "half", but is a "sand (person)" through and through, and the J people call the very fair skinned Palestinians "monkeys" even, and want to ghettoize them and link them to the way they may have manipulated "black culture" in America, which in Japan is depicted in the form of cockroaches in this anime:
https://youtu.be/qh9gUHA975c?feature=shared
Actually, in a way, he is doing a disservice to people by pretending people like him are viewed in the same fashion as other "white" people.
I barely scrape by myself, with only maybe much more non-white looking people possibly thinking I may be white, but I'm always stressed by the thought that people may think that I'm not quite white, just because I want the least amount of trouble. Personally, I know that I'm on a different team than most of all the people, but I have to live in fear of that being brought up and my having to persuade people that I'm not so different from them when I really may be in lots of ways, like if they are actually haters of things I like secretly, or lovers of things I despise.
That is why I consider myself a "bl*ck man" and a "n*gg*r", meaning what these people would consider their "savage" enemy and a "Moor", but in disguise, but aware that they are in a different spiritual faction than myself, and the paranoia that they would try to work harm towards me, even naturally and helplessly or unconsciously, just because I am on another team. My team is not "Muslim" either though, in the sense that there are many people using that term who are actually of a different belief system or understanding and would also be potentially hostile, so I feel mainly totally isolated from "teams" for the most part and alienated from everyone, just pretending however I can to better survive or improve my interactions with one set of threats or another.
In the current ranking, chosen by the dominant "white overmind", the worst of all things may be "Black Woman" and "Native Woman" since they are both "Black" and a "Woman", so if anyone can pass as "not that", they absolutely should skip the hassle of being linked to either thing, but most of the time, they simply can't hide it or pretend to be something that would get them treated better.
If I "discovered" I was somehow, in any way, something that would get me treated badly, I would never "come out" as that! That is a totally unecessary hardship, that only a fool in my opinion would deliberately express in a world as hate filled as this.
Online
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: I'll talk about a bunch of things here
I almost kept this one, but I decided to eradicate even the letter when it might reference things that can not rightfully ever even be approached for discussion.
Last edited by kFoyauextlH on Thu Aug 28, 2025 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Online
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: I'll talk about a bunch of things here
Some guy said something
Last edited by kFoyauextlH on Thu Aug 28, 2025 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Online
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: I'll talk about a bunch of things here
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YYmzot4Vg ... ure=shared
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RiifxDnLW ... ure=shared
"
@johnlavin836
10 days ago
What if the dummy with the knife bumped into the shoulder rammer
"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7b_0CfmQ1 ... ure=shared
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s4pxtiLR9 ... ure=shared
"
@chickensangwich97
1 year ago (edited)
Brennan never tries to have an actual conversation about holding a turd. He only ever engages in a meta-conversation about everyone else presuming it's wrong for him to hold a turd. They presume so because it is obviously true, so Brennan can only argue that it's wrong to close the discussion of the issue.
He never actually argues that holding the turd is right. If he tried to actually engage with "is there any good reason for me to hold this turd?" he would immediately lose the debate.
Whenever you're dealing with people like this, always ask: are they having the conversation, or the meta-conversation?
1.8K
63
@calebjensen6654
1 year ago
It always makes me think hardcore misdirection, exceptionally used by the worst of us.
@abhyudaykrishna9714
1 year ago (edited)
lmfao so so true, very well put. it's a weird problem with discourse online especially that only seems to be growing all the time: the meta nature of how people talk about topics or issues; everything is a reaction to something else and there is no basis or grounding of the discussion in any core ideas, much less material reality. it's truly enough to drive one insane
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago (edited)
So wrong, he has the right to hold that turd. That's why there's no law against it. He only crossed a line when he smeared it on someone's face. Whenever you use a weak argument like, because it's obviously true, you depart from rational discourse and enter into the realm of kindergarten logic. All rights should be maintained until there is a good enough reason to restrict them. If everything was illegal until good reason was given to make it legal, the world would be a very strange place. (Ok it is already a strange place but it would be much stranger)
@samrapine4615
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 LA municipal code, section 41.47.2, "Urinating or Defecating in Public". Good enough reasons include salmonella and shigella, for starters. While the base tapestry of society expects that the taboo of shitting at your desk and carrying it around is "obviously true", we're fortunate enough to have it woven to legal framework for folks stuck on the stoa.
58
46
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@samrapine4615 if you poo in the bathroom and then walk out holding it, you didn't deficate in public
@jordanmacavoy4089
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 We know a priori that holding shit is wrong - we could examine the broader context, but in the case of such deeply held convictions (such as the Right of all laborers to work in sanitary conditions, as free as possible of human waste) it's up to the "visionary" to provide reasonable, data-driven arguments to overturn precedence in a way that alters the very foundation of civilized society. He doesn't approach any kind of reasonable argument, instead using circular logic to justify offensive behavior, and then using circular logic to justify the use of circular logic in defending his indefensible position. The existence of a Bill of Rights, the delineation of natural rights afforded to all people under our jurisdiction, completely contradicts the absurd notion that you should be free to do anything you want just because there isn't a specific code against doing it. Besides which - holding shit in a shared office space would in fact be considered unsanitary and disruptive enough to be illegal under existing laws.
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@jordanmacavoy4089 invoking a priori is just another way of saying, I can't justify what I'm saying, so I'll just say it's common sense
@jordanmacavoy4089
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 "A priori" only means "common sense" if you don't know what a priori means. It means that we have gotten to the most fundamental layer of discussion possible - technically there are a bunch of suppositions that went into getting here, but they're ones we're extremely comfortable with because they are either proven by data or self-evident (i.e., human waste is unsanitary (driven by data), unsanitary work conditions are bad (a priori), ergo holding human waste in the workplace without a good argument is bad).
And this is what I mean by the onus being on the "free thinker" in coming up with a reasonable argument for their disruptive behavior. If you want to challenge axioms, you should be allowed to! There totally are bad axioms poisoning our public consciousness, and we do need to investigate and rout them so that higher level discussions can be more productive. However, you have to do better than childish dream logic and circular reasoning to do so - the rest of the characters in the skit don't have the structured language to explain that to him (that's the joke), but they do understand it fundamentally (except Raph's character, who is temporarily mind-poisoned by infant logic). The "paradigm challenger" knows that they don't know the logical structure required to banish him back to Plato's cave, and abuses that to try to trick them with confusing language he learned from 4channers who took Philosophy 101 and then promptly stopped learning forever.
@WeenieHutGenius
1 year ago
Is there a name for this kind of thing? I feel like there has to be
2
@JohnnyStar-tr5fc
1 year ago
See if it was a theoretical turd it would be okay to bring that situation into a meta convo, really only as an analogy or opener but then…… why the freaking turd irl and why that analogy at all!!!! Lolol so funny
@Chuppaciuk
1 year ago
@jordanmacavoy4089 I mean I'm not arguing for the poop, but the statement unsanitary working conditions are bad is not a priori, because a priori statements are self-evident, based purely on logic. Yes unsanitary working conditions are dangerous, but It only seems self-evident because it is widely known. Just an example, Doctors didn't know about microbes for the majority of human history and conducted procedures in unsanitary conditions because they didn't know it increases the risk of infection. The causality of unsanitary working conditions having health risk needed empirical evidence for people to realise. An example for an apriori statement would be a tautology like 'a tree is a tree'
And even if unsanitary working conditions being bad was apriori, your own comment proves tim right in that holding shit is bad being a priori is not really true because you've had to deduce it.
That being said, even if you're not right about the a priori bit, you're deduction based on empirical evidence is pretty good, although you could further the argument by saying that uncanitary working conditions are dangerous to people -> by holding human waste in your hand you're for no reason you're unnecessarily creating unsanitary working conditions (all three of the statements we can only know to be true thanks to empirical evidence) -> putting other people in danger for no reason is bad. Now the last statement is an ethical one and if Kant can call an ethical statement a priori, I don't know why we shouldn't.
@jordanmacavoy4089
1 year ago
@Chuppaciuk What I mean is that normal people don't (and shouldn't) deeply consider the origin of germ theory and the history of labor and safety laws when someone shits in their hand in the middle of the office. You and I have the luxury of considering how and why it was unacceptable, because nobody is standing between us holding human shit in their hand. In that room, there is an immediately collective notion, a powerful consensus, unbounded by even the simple syllogism you constructed, that the condition Brennan created was unacceptable. It is so deeply embedded in our social consciousness that it is unacceptable to hold human shit in an office that we do not have to philosophize it. We take the truth to be *self-evident*. To challenge such a deeply held conviction is to shake the very foundation of the social contract - again, something we should be allowed to do! Sometimes we take bad notions to be self-evident and they need to be re-examined. But you have to do it before you shit in your hand in the middle of the office, after you have made an argument that doesn't use twisted dream logic to suppress the rational ideas of your coworkers who are already deeply distressed and confused because you took a shit in your hand in the middle of the office.
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 holding crap out in public is still unsanitary, for unnecessary reason, it's a risk to yourself, others and bothersome psychologically to others
11
44
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 The government has no responsibility to protect me from myself. People's psychological hangups don't really matter either. People get upset about all kinds of stuff that's not illegal and is even a constitutional right, so that's a moot point, too. I'd need to see some proof that poop being near you and not touching you with it was unsanitary. If so, portopotties would be illegal, would they not? Farting in an elevator is not an arrestable offense.
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 same logic back to you then, people whose opinion on holding crap out on public probably don't matter either, only difference is that the majority people agree holding crap out on public is taboo and disturbing. But I mean sure there aren't risks (sarcasm), apart from figuring out where to lay the crap, how to manage tasks while holding the crap, bumping into people and unknowingly smearing the crap everywhere and for what particular reason? No reason? So you're doing something, that makes you inefficient actively, to the detriment of yourself, your environment and other people for no reason? It's a really roundabout way from taking a regular crap on a toilet but aight. Oh not to mention farting and holding out a crap is fundamentally different in that, farting is something that can't be particularly managed as compared to holding out a crap on public and that give or take 2 seconds, eventually farts stop smelling due to laws of physics and gasses rising up to the atmosphere, I think we both know holding out a crap in public doesn't have nearly the same expiration. But put it this way, even if you still disagree, just by using your logic, it wouldn't be particularly illegal for one to perhaps kick you out of an establishment, fire you, cuss at you for doing something so obtuse, that is simply the effect of having a free mind and what would you know most free minds are bothered by holding out crap by the hand, I don't think it's far fetched to assume that me spitting a venomous statement on a random bystander randomly would cause the effect of me being berated, booed and possibly having things thrown at me, it's not illegal but it's still likely, that's just causality
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 also fairly sure by those factors alone the government would have to intervene in the form of enforcing hygienic codes
3
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 it actually doesn't apply the other way because in reverse, it's imposing your will onto others. All these scenarios are conjectured and require separate rulings for legality. For example, in many places, I'm allowed to open carry a weapon. That doesn't mean that if I bump into someone and it goes off and hurts them, I'm not responsible. Playing the hypothetical game is a good way to ban anything and everything.
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 it ISNT illegal for someone to kick me out of an establishment, fire me, or cuss at me, so idk what your point there was. I don't have to hold poop for anyone else to do one of those things to me. Businesses don't have to have any reason at all to tell me to leave or fire me (generally, depending on the state), and thank goodness free speech is a thing so if you want to curse me for holding a poop you have every right.
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 it WOULD, however, be illegal if you threw something at someone because you didn't like their words. Unless they expressly threatened you, that kind of behavior is childish. I guess you missed the sticks and stones speech in kindergarten
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago (edited)
@timgalivan2846 So you bring out crap on your hands, skip the whole discussion with your coworkers and have the consequences in mind (imagine being in a restaurant setting) and that's suddenly not just you imposing your will unto to them, your consequences unexpectedly? But they object and take action concurrently and that's not practicing free will or something? It's called free will to disagree, it happens it's part of free will, it's happening right now
9
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 k tell me then a law that says I can't kick you out of a restaurant for doing something so inconsiderate? Not a gun law mind you an actual law about carrying crap on your hand. In that case you don't necessarily have authority or say in the matter do you?
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 yeah yeah and I guess you weren't potty trained in kindergarten amirite? We all could learn something huh?
2
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 it's like you're arguing with yourself. I said pretty clearly that you can be kicked out of or fired from a private business for any reason, so who are you arguing with? Mr. Straw man I guess
1
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 k, we agree then. Due to objective factors such as the law, common sense, factors affecting yourself and others and based on your ethical system, not only does one have the advantage in law to disagree with you for such an act, you'd also be morally wrong for holding the crap out in the first place in a public setting
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 so if I'm keeping track of this right. One of your main points, legality, rebutted by me and left undefended by you, for obvious reasons. Free will and how it affects others, just because you're thinking about your own free will explicitly, not thinking about others, doesn't mean your free will won't have an effect it just means you're inconsiderate, rebutted. 2-0, it's a great ratio, devil's advocate beaten by bundles of straw
2
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 also wtf is the intrinsic benefits of holding crap out of your hand? How is it not just as discussed, a detriment to you and those around you? At least with firearms you could argue for self defense and bans, thanks for bringing that up, you don't need a ban for something that's already illegal, you just need a book and glossary and see how general rules apply
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 public indecency, health code violations, etc.... see where it took me?
3
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago (edited)
@timgalivan2846 I'm not playing a hypothetical game, I'm being pragmatic, there is no benefit to holding out crap on your hand, it is in fact impractical to do so. So the main factor of whether something's ban-able or not is to see it's benefits and drawbacks, again, what you want not to be banned is mostly just drawbacks, it isn't necessary for metaphysics to be used in the case, cause you can also argue for pragmatics
3
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 you need to look up strawman arguments. Who said anything about intrensic benefits?
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 You should look up public indecency. Obviously, you don't know what that is
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago (edited)
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 btw at this point, I think it's very clear you have no idea what the bit in the original video was. You probably think Brennan is an actual monster who smears poop on people, and you're taking all of this WAY too seriously
I bet you're real fun at parties 
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 what so I could argue concepts all day like you? You're fun in a party too? Maybe in your world we're tit for tat in that issue, so I bring up another big factor into it, into the main cruxes of how something is deemed ban-able or not and it's an issue? I bring up pragmatics, something responsible to root the conversation in so we don't get into logic loops and it's a problem because I'm guessing, that not only is your ethics questionable and circular but if I brought up pragmatics into it too you wouldn't be able to rebuttal that at all. So call me names, compare things that aren't comparable and pretend that isn't a strawman but you oughta make sure you're rebutting my points too and making good points yourself
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 so what's the issue? Free will? Already had that discussion, accountability for yourself and others? Easy, pragmatics? Already brought it up
2
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 you answer this then, as straight as the conversation gets. I hold a log out in front of you and as previously stated, give you the risks of doing so for little reason, by your logic you can kick me out, because by your logic I am a detriment to myself, the environment and other people and am breaking laws, then we factor my logic into it and I'm being impractical too. No gun laws, state laws, just the hypothetical straight up and who's the bad guy there?
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 while you're at it, do us a favor and just say every name, post every emoji you want at me. Clearly you hate me enough to be hypocritical and get into fallacies, I don't much appreciate disingenuousness
2
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 you don't make things illegal cause it isn't pragmatic, that's pure nonsense
1
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 ok, I'm going to try to help clue you in one more time to what's going on here without completely spoon feeding it to you. Do you think Brennan Lee Mulligan thinks it's ok to Rub a Mud Monkey on his coworkers' faces?
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 you answer my question and I'll answer yours but maybe instead you could skip into spoon feeding me huh?
4
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago (edited)
@timgalivan2846 "you don't make things illegal cause it isn't pragmatic...." You make it sound like that Isn't one of the main factors on what makes something illegal, heroin? Unless it's in a medical setting, there are pragmatic reasons why it's illegal
3
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago (edited)
@timgalivan2846 but I guess for you if they had a PhD in philosophy, that just beats a doctorate in biology, that sure isn't ridiculous
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 "because it isn't pragmatic" is DEFINITELY not why heroin is illegal I was trying to clue you in that Brennan is doing a bit, ergo propter hoc, I'm doing a bit, but I can see your blood pressure rising through the damn phone so I just can't do it to you any more. Go see a doctor about some Zanex and have a nice day. I hope you find peace in life
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago (edited)
@timgalivan2846 it goes both ways dude, otherwise why would you waste your time into this too and call me a name first, as the first obvious strawman? Only difference is that I'm human and I can understand how this whole conversation would be frustrating but ultimately just another argument in the internet and wouldn't need to get into a whole social experiment scheme as to the reasons I planned into getting into an argument, I just did in on a whim, I wouldn't say it's personal enough to get into how someone lives their life, you argue the point and that's it, you don't argue the person. I mean it's not like I told you to take heroin, ruin your stable life because of the obviously harmful side effects and affect those around you because that's bad for apparently practical reasons. But you know walk away I guess if it's irritating to get into, I'll still think I'm right and you wouldn't understand why, you'll still think you're right and I wouldn't understand why, that's the real lesson
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 if you wanna come back to the conversation though just argue why you wouldn't take heroin and not include any practical reasons into it
2
@komatosfulcrum
11 months ago
@timgalivan2846 you saw an actor performing a character who no one likes and thought, "i want to be that"
2
@ayebraine
11 months ago
@timgalivan2846 Why are you doing this
@aionicthunder
9 months ago
@timgalivan2846 This is a long conversation, but I just want to mention to you that, in at least 49 out of 50 states, you cannot be fired for no reason. You likely have an incorrect concept of what "At will" state is, that being one in which you can be fired for any LEGAL reason (which has very much made me wonder what the other state does. How else do you get fired?). That is in place so that wrongful termination lawsuits are possible. For example, revealing that you are pregnant, or have requested FMLA leave, then being let go for "poor performance"? Keep a paper trail, and you have a lawsuit on your hands, one you could get with a "no win, no fee" lawyer.
Know your rights is my point
@timgalivan2846
9 months ago
@aionicthunder it would be more accurate to say they can be fired without reason given. It would then be on the employee to prove they were fired for one of a short list of restricted reasons. A hard bar to meet. It is likely insurmountable for someone unemployed.
1
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
9 months ago
@timgalivan2846 oh yeah did some research, you don't have to have to have a specific word by word law to say you can't do something, that's what general laws exist for, an example would be attaching a flamethrower to your car, no specific law about it but if you apply laws about arms and weapons, specifically the use of flamethrowers, which are laws that actually exist, it would actually be considered illegal. Fairly sure you could find a general law for holding out poop in public
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
9 months ago
@timgalivan2846 just for research's sake though, if you truly believe you can't be tried in court for the act, then just hold out your crap on public in front of the authorities and report your findings
@timgalivan2846
9 months ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 1. Wow, should I be paying rent for living in your head this long? Back at it again.
2. you're still referencing a law that prohibits flamethrower use at the end of the day, so doesn't that undercut your point about not needing a law for something to be prohibited?
3. Don't tell me you think cops don't unlawfully arrest people, or arrest people first and then try to figure out something to apply after the fact? Haven't you heard of contempt of cop laws that are catch alls they apply to everything like obstruction, interference, and disorderly conduct? If you have the time and money to fight for years, then after several appeals and higher courts throwing out lower courts' mistakes, you will win but as they saying goes, "you can beat the charges but you can't beat the ride."
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
9 months ago
@timgalivan2846 1. Glad to know we're in the same boat
2. Just adding to my original point
3. Hey you're the one who said it wouldn't be illegal, I'm just taking it to its natural conclusion, taking it to the court to actually find out but if you can't that means no proof of evidence and that you and I are not necessarily right, so ground zero
1
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
9 months ago
@timgalivan2846 found some laws and regulations. Also the link's the best part
@timgalivan2846
9 months ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 People like Brennan don't believe it's good enough to just hold the right belief. It's also important to understand WHY those things are right. Without that, you just end up making terrible arguments in a YouTube chat to try to convince someone who already believes what you believe, but has a better understanding of the reasons why. Someone who wants you to have good arguments. Someone who understands often, we start with a belief, and try to justify it in reverse, which is BAD. If you don't have good reason for a good belief, you'll end up having bad reasons for a bad belief in other aspects of your life. We clear? We good? Imma get back to taking care of my cat who's in liver failure, and you get back to rage posting in stale chats at people who forgot about you until you try to start up the conversation again months later
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
9 months ago (edited)
@timgalivan2846 lemme just quote you a sec "That's why there's no law against it...." You lost the the point of argument, now you're trying to goalpost the whole thing in ethics or whatever, which I still win in btw. Now you bring up cats and liver failure like what? Cool you have a life or whatever, I do too, just seems rather personal to bring that up on the internet in this conversation of all things, you don't need to prove having a life you know? You just know it, never asked it, never cared but good luck on your cat or whatever, hakuna matata either way. Talking like you not a nobody either, wouldn't have remembered this whole thing if I didn't see it in my comment history and you still replied on my whim, that is just as poor of an impulse control as me. If I wanna win in ethics this time, I'll pick some whim in my life, get your arse provoked to comment again and call it a social experiment, lol
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
9 months ago
@timgalivan2846 hey does your social experiment include cats as a focus group too?
1
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
9 months ago (edited)
@timgalivan2846 also, PE-TTY, really man? Using your dying cat as a glorified dong measuring life contest, in a year-ish argument not even about it, with people you can't even see, in the internet? Ethically speaking, could use some work
1
@eldryn7443
9 months ago
@timgalivan2846 Good luck taking care of your cat with poop in your hand
@filipemartinho1753
8 months ago
@timgalivan2846I assure you, there are plenty of laws against defecating in public. It's unsanitary and disturbing
1
@filipemartinho1753
8 months ago
@timgalivan2846oh god, this is a thread kf an uphill battle you've been fighting for months on end that proves the original commenter's point! Gosh, this is such an interesting comment section. You should be analysed by someone, I think there's a lot to learn
2
@jankthunder4012
6 months ago
He has to have the meta conversation because they're refusing to have the actual conversation.
@adamclark4434
6 months ago
Like when ppl say men can be pregnant?
@noskes1
3 months ago
Yeah, that's the joke.
@FFKonoko
3 weeks ago
@Chuppaciuk I wish I wasn't a year late but...isn't it included in the definition of the word unsanitary? The doctors not knowing it was bad meant it wasn't considered unsanitary. The moment it is defined as unsanitary and agreed to be, it is a priori. The real hurdle here is getting him to agree that poop being present is unsanitary.
"
"
@processpsych
3 years ago
I love the fact that this entire sketch is a hilariously convincing poop metaphor for Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance. Well played, gang. Well played.
6.1K
28
@akobrakoral
3 years ago
in this sketch it's more like Karl Pooper
655
4
@essie_bee
3 years ago (edited)
@akobrakoral i fucking love this
85
@neothepenguin1257
3 years ago
@akobrakoral I verbally laughed aloud thanks
@Beegrene
3 years ago
It works on a lot of levels. Because the cast let him get away with holding a turd for so long, he was able to slowly escalate. If they had killed him right from the start, nobody would have had poop smeared on their faces or put in their mouths.
311
@joehair3446
3 years ago
When you are tolerant of everything, you stand for nothing
@Cirac1
2 years ago
@crispinfornoff206 Intolerance isn't some nebulous concept lol it's definition is straightforward and not particularly open to interpretation. Its an unwillingness to accept beliefs, behaviours, cultures and people that differ from you.
Provided the previous aren't limiting the freedom of others or causing harm, intolerance against them should not be tolerated.
@Cirac1
2 years ago
@crispinfornoff206 lmao! The Bolshevist revolution had nothing to do with tolerance or intolerance, it was a socio-economic fueled revolution
The south didn't oppress slaves because the slaves were intolerant.
They went to war because their money was threatened by the collapse of the slavery institution.
Your parameters for "people doing bad things to people to stop intolerance" are so laughably broad and vague they could be applied to literally any conflict or attrocity in human history. "Y'know guys, Genghis Khan was just trying to stop everyone else from being intolerant of him ruling them!".
@silverkleptofox
2 years ago
The ‘tolerance paradox’ falls apart when you realize that tolerance is a contract. The intolerant are in breech of the contract, so they no longer benefit from it
@radicaltrafficcone8284
4 months ago
More like Karl pooper
"
They already made the joke, and people kept repeating it in the chain. Maybe that is a joke too, but an extremely irritating one to just keep repeating what people have already said.
"
@sananaryon4061
6 years ago
"It's word magic he learned from a fountain of lies"
"Your word sorcery ends now"
I'll be using all of these quotes for a DnD campaign sooner or later
4.5K
15
@LuminousOriens
5 years ago
Have you used them?
7
5
@sananaryon4061
5 years ago
@LuminousOriens Not yet, unfortunately
"
https://youtu.be/iQIgyHTtvaE?feature=shared
This guy's face is like a mask.
"
@kropfreiter
3 years ago
Talk about totally missing the point.
119
3
@openmind2464
2 years ago
How so?
1
2
@kropfreiter
2 years ago (edited)
@openmind2464 unlike the Cheshire Cat, I don't need to explain myself. The point behind Popper is that tolerance has its limits. Allowing the intolerant to dictate what those limits are is a slippery slope leading to the end of tolerance by the ascendancy of the intolerant.
@noahhenderson3164
1 year ago
@openmind2464 This guy is arguing sh- about violence. Popper was talking about tolerance. He was saying that to be a tolerant society we can't fight intolerance with tolerance because those intolerant people aren't on the same debate stage as us. So you have to reject that public s*** flinging to have actual discussions and push the right kind of tolerance.
"
"
@UserJWR
4 years ago
Karl Popper specifically talked about intolerance, not violence, making your second point a strawman, as many pointed out. But even if he did in the way you proposed: The argument is still a paradox. If you defend yourself against violence using violent means, you are using violence (which is kind of tautological, but you get my point). So the concept of suppressing violence with violent means is paradoxical by nature. Whether or not violent self defence is "moral" or "acceptable" is an entirely different question that has little to do with the violence paradox from before.
@colinr.turner
4 years ago
The difference is that most rational people do not equate violence with self-defence, and there is a very clear line between someone who's just verbally intolerant and someone's who's violent. Trying to define what level of tolerance / intolerance is acceptable is unnecessarily messy and subjective. Whereas violence has a much clearer boundary to see when someone has crossed the line.
@UserJWR
4 years ago
@colinr.turner There is no such thing as "rational people", we are all irrational in some way. There are only rational arguments. But that's besides the point.
It all depends on your definition of violence. What is violence to you? And more specifically: Why is self-defense not violent, even if you use violent measures? Before you make a rational argument, you have to get your definitions straight. That's also why 99% of "I debunk [complex philosophical concept or argument] in [unreasonably small time frame]" videos are kinda nonsensical and miss the point.
@artisanshrew
3 years ago
@UserJWR That is the entire point! All of it is SUBJECTIVE to a degree and regardless of how "rational" the argument, people aren't persuaded by rationale ANYWAY!
Your argument is moot!
Sometimes the most simple explanation is more than sufficient and no amount of bloviating is going to change that!
@music79075
2 years ago (edited)
@UserJWR vi·o·lence
/ˈvī(ə)ləns/
Learn to pronounce
noun
behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
If I am forced to do any of those things to prevent those things being done to me then it I am not being violent. I am defending myself.
The Violent person is choosing to exhibit behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill me.
I am not being violent if that person forces me into an ultimatum of "I die or am maimed or kill or maim him". I am defending myself.
@UserJWR
2 years ago (edited)
@music79075 Read the definition again. It says nothing about choice. If you defend yourself, your most effective (and likely) course of action will be to inflict as much damage upon the other person as necessary to make them incapable of hurting you. You will literally engage in "behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something". Thanks for providing a definition that proves my point.
Also, one could argue that you still have the choice to surrender yourself, "turn the other cheek" if you will, instead of defending yourself. I tend to dislike that line of argument because it discounts the level of coercion that's at play in violent situations. It also discounts the human tendency and instinct to avert damage and survive.
@music79075
2 years ago (edited)
@UserJWR defense is different because you are choosing to defend yourself which may involve reciprocation.
1
6
@UserJWR
2 years ago
@music79075 So you DO choose to defend yourself, which, by your logic, makes it violent. Which is it? Please get your arguments together.
9
@music79075
2 years ago (edited)
@UserJWR I'm saying that Defending yourself using reciprocal force is not violence because the aim is to defend myself not cause harm or kill. Violence is the process i have been forced to use.
@UserJWR
2 years ago (edited)
@music79075 How do you defend yourself without harming the attacker? The goal of defending yourself is to render the attacker unable to harm you. That involves harming them, especially and by definition when you use reciprocal force (you punch me, therefore I will punch you). Defending yourself is inherently violent. Please note that this does not imply a normative statement about violence of self defense. Not all kinds of violence are morally wrong.
EDIT: You also contradict yourself with your last sentence: "Violence is the process I have been forced to use." So you agree that self defense is violence? At least that's what that last sentence implies. Please, again, get your arguments together.
@music79075
2 years ago (edited)
@UserJWR You are misunderstanding what I am saying.
My intent is not to harm or kill, my intent is to defend myself in a violent situation which may require reciprocal or greater force.
My end goal is not to harm or kill the attacker. My end goal is to be safe. My use of physical force is a form of defense.
My attackers end goal is to harm me and is exercising physical force for that end and so it is violence.
When in a self defense situation the defender is not exercising "violence", for lack of a better term, to harm or kill the attacker for the sake of harming or killing the attacker. They are doing it to preserve themselves and so it is not violence because the end goal of the act of self defense is not to harm the attacker but to defend the attacked; the attacker possibly getting harmed or killed is a byproduct.
This is in opposition to the attacker who is using violence to harm or kill the attacked for the sake of doing that because it furthers self serving goal, like greed or wrath.
@UserJWR
2 years ago
@music79075 I understand the difference between aggression and self-defense. I know what you mean. However, the intent to harm and the intent to defend yourself are not mutually exclusive. In order to be safe, one might have to harm an attacker. That is completely congruent with the definition you posted. If you engage in behaviour that intends to harm another, you are being violent, no matter the end goal.
11
@Boo7X77
2 years ago
@openaccessguy when you are defending yourself you are committing an act of violence. You're over complicating it.
@SamMaciel
2 years ago (edited)
@UserJWRthank you for all your points here. Kudos.
2
@RayDoeksen
2 years ago
Using violence to suppress violence is only paradoxical if you are unfamiliar with concepts like justice.
1
1
@UserJWR
2 years ago (edited)
@RayDoeksen What exactly does justice have to do with it? Violence can be just or unjust, it's a normatively neutral concept.
@mornnb
1 year ago
It's not paradoxical by nature because the issue is not the violence itself, but rather in the instigation of violence. If you say that the issue is in instigating violence rather than violence, then to say that you can respond to violence with violence is not a paradox .
The mistake being made here is in saying that violence is the problem when the real problem is the instigation violence. A world in which violence was never allowed not even in response, would quickly be taken over by those willing to break this rule and functionally it can not work.
2
@jamie59685
8 months ago
the use of force it not always violence
@UserJWR
8 months ago
@mornnb Then you have the problem of proactive and reactive violence. If the police knows about a terror cell, they know that terror cell is planning to be violent, but the terrorists have not yet acted on their plans, I think we all agree that the police is still justified in breaking down their door and arresting (or shooting) them even before an act of terrorism has been committed. However, who initiated the violence here? Clearly, the terrorists first had the intention to be violent, but the police are the ones who actually engaged in violent action first. Also, you could argue that the police "instigated violence" by ordering the arrest of those terrorists. The police did not react to an act of violence directly.
@mornnb
8 months ago
@UserJWRAction to prevent violence where clear intent is proven is a different thing to instigation of violence. In this case the issue is still fundamentally the instigation of violence and not the violence itself. In that scenario, you closely monitor and arrest based on actions that show clear intent to instigate violence. You don't merely go on speech either, you wait for the actions that show intent.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_law
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum
Stick or t*rd?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RiifxDnLW ... ure=shared
"
@johnlavin836
10 days ago
What if the dummy with the knife bumped into the shoulder rammer
"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7b_0CfmQ1 ... ure=shared
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s4pxtiLR9 ... ure=shared
"
@chickensangwich97
1 year ago (edited)
Brennan never tries to have an actual conversation about holding a turd. He only ever engages in a meta-conversation about everyone else presuming it's wrong for him to hold a turd. They presume so because it is obviously true, so Brennan can only argue that it's wrong to close the discussion of the issue.
He never actually argues that holding the turd is right. If he tried to actually engage with "is there any good reason for me to hold this turd?" he would immediately lose the debate.
Whenever you're dealing with people like this, always ask: are they having the conversation, or the meta-conversation?
1.8K
63
@calebjensen6654
1 year ago
It always makes me think hardcore misdirection, exceptionally used by the worst of us.
@abhyudaykrishna9714
1 year ago (edited)
lmfao so so true, very well put. it's a weird problem with discourse online especially that only seems to be growing all the time: the meta nature of how people talk about topics or issues; everything is a reaction to something else and there is no basis or grounding of the discussion in any core ideas, much less material reality. it's truly enough to drive one insane
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago (edited)
So wrong, he has the right to hold that turd. That's why there's no law against it. He only crossed a line when he smeared it on someone's face. Whenever you use a weak argument like, because it's obviously true, you depart from rational discourse and enter into the realm of kindergarten logic. All rights should be maintained until there is a good enough reason to restrict them. If everything was illegal until good reason was given to make it legal, the world would be a very strange place. (Ok it is already a strange place but it would be much stranger)
@samrapine4615
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 LA municipal code, section 41.47.2, "Urinating or Defecating in Public". Good enough reasons include salmonella and shigella, for starters. While the base tapestry of society expects that the taboo of shitting at your desk and carrying it around is "obviously true", we're fortunate enough to have it woven to legal framework for folks stuck on the stoa.
58
46
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@samrapine4615 if you poo in the bathroom and then walk out holding it, you didn't deficate in public
@jordanmacavoy4089
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 We know a priori that holding shit is wrong - we could examine the broader context, but in the case of such deeply held convictions (such as the Right of all laborers to work in sanitary conditions, as free as possible of human waste) it's up to the "visionary" to provide reasonable, data-driven arguments to overturn precedence in a way that alters the very foundation of civilized society. He doesn't approach any kind of reasonable argument, instead using circular logic to justify offensive behavior, and then using circular logic to justify the use of circular logic in defending his indefensible position. The existence of a Bill of Rights, the delineation of natural rights afforded to all people under our jurisdiction, completely contradicts the absurd notion that you should be free to do anything you want just because there isn't a specific code against doing it. Besides which - holding shit in a shared office space would in fact be considered unsanitary and disruptive enough to be illegal under existing laws.
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@jordanmacavoy4089 invoking a priori is just another way of saying, I can't justify what I'm saying, so I'll just say it's common sense
@jordanmacavoy4089
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 "A priori" only means "common sense" if you don't know what a priori means. It means that we have gotten to the most fundamental layer of discussion possible - technically there are a bunch of suppositions that went into getting here, but they're ones we're extremely comfortable with because they are either proven by data or self-evident (i.e., human waste is unsanitary (driven by data), unsanitary work conditions are bad (a priori), ergo holding human waste in the workplace without a good argument is bad).
And this is what I mean by the onus being on the "free thinker" in coming up with a reasonable argument for their disruptive behavior. If you want to challenge axioms, you should be allowed to! There totally are bad axioms poisoning our public consciousness, and we do need to investigate and rout them so that higher level discussions can be more productive. However, you have to do better than childish dream logic and circular reasoning to do so - the rest of the characters in the skit don't have the structured language to explain that to him (that's the joke), but they do understand it fundamentally (except Raph's character, who is temporarily mind-poisoned by infant logic). The "paradigm challenger" knows that they don't know the logical structure required to banish him back to Plato's cave, and abuses that to try to trick them with confusing language he learned from 4channers who took Philosophy 101 and then promptly stopped learning forever.
@WeenieHutGenius
1 year ago
Is there a name for this kind of thing? I feel like there has to be
2
@JohnnyStar-tr5fc
1 year ago
See if it was a theoretical turd it would be okay to bring that situation into a meta convo, really only as an analogy or opener but then…… why the freaking turd irl and why that analogy at all!!!! Lolol so funny
@Chuppaciuk
1 year ago
@jordanmacavoy4089 I mean I'm not arguing for the poop, but the statement unsanitary working conditions are bad is not a priori, because a priori statements are self-evident, based purely on logic. Yes unsanitary working conditions are dangerous, but It only seems self-evident because it is widely known. Just an example, Doctors didn't know about microbes for the majority of human history and conducted procedures in unsanitary conditions because they didn't know it increases the risk of infection. The causality of unsanitary working conditions having health risk needed empirical evidence for people to realise. An example for an apriori statement would be a tautology like 'a tree is a tree'
And even if unsanitary working conditions being bad was apriori, your own comment proves tim right in that holding shit is bad being a priori is not really true because you've had to deduce it.
That being said, even if you're not right about the a priori bit, you're deduction based on empirical evidence is pretty good, although you could further the argument by saying that uncanitary working conditions are dangerous to people -> by holding human waste in your hand you're for no reason you're unnecessarily creating unsanitary working conditions (all three of the statements we can only know to be true thanks to empirical evidence) -> putting other people in danger for no reason is bad. Now the last statement is an ethical one and if Kant can call an ethical statement a priori, I don't know why we shouldn't.
@jordanmacavoy4089
1 year ago
@Chuppaciuk What I mean is that normal people don't (and shouldn't) deeply consider the origin of germ theory and the history of labor and safety laws when someone shits in their hand in the middle of the office. You and I have the luxury of considering how and why it was unacceptable, because nobody is standing between us holding human shit in their hand. In that room, there is an immediately collective notion, a powerful consensus, unbounded by even the simple syllogism you constructed, that the condition Brennan created was unacceptable. It is so deeply embedded in our social consciousness that it is unacceptable to hold human shit in an office that we do not have to philosophize it. We take the truth to be *self-evident*. To challenge such a deeply held conviction is to shake the very foundation of the social contract - again, something we should be allowed to do! Sometimes we take bad notions to be self-evident and they need to be re-examined. But you have to do it before you shit in your hand in the middle of the office, after you have made an argument that doesn't use twisted dream logic to suppress the rational ideas of your coworkers who are already deeply distressed and confused because you took a shit in your hand in the middle of the office.
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 holding crap out in public is still unsanitary, for unnecessary reason, it's a risk to yourself, others and bothersome psychologically to others
11
44
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 The government has no responsibility to protect me from myself. People's psychological hangups don't really matter either. People get upset about all kinds of stuff that's not illegal and is even a constitutional right, so that's a moot point, too. I'd need to see some proof that poop being near you and not touching you with it was unsanitary. If so, portopotties would be illegal, would they not? Farting in an elevator is not an arrestable offense.
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 same logic back to you then, people whose opinion on holding crap out on public probably don't matter either, only difference is that the majority people agree holding crap out on public is taboo and disturbing. But I mean sure there aren't risks (sarcasm), apart from figuring out where to lay the crap, how to manage tasks while holding the crap, bumping into people and unknowingly smearing the crap everywhere and for what particular reason? No reason? So you're doing something, that makes you inefficient actively, to the detriment of yourself, your environment and other people for no reason? It's a really roundabout way from taking a regular crap on a toilet but aight. Oh not to mention farting and holding out a crap is fundamentally different in that, farting is something that can't be particularly managed as compared to holding out a crap on public and that give or take 2 seconds, eventually farts stop smelling due to laws of physics and gasses rising up to the atmosphere, I think we both know holding out a crap in public doesn't have nearly the same expiration. But put it this way, even if you still disagree, just by using your logic, it wouldn't be particularly illegal for one to perhaps kick you out of an establishment, fire you, cuss at you for doing something so obtuse, that is simply the effect of having a free mind and what would you know most free minds are bothered by holding out crap by the hand, I don't think it's far fetched to assume that me spitting a venomous statement on a random bystander randomly would cause the effect of me being berated, booed and possibly having things thrown at me, it's not illegal but it's still likely, that's just causality
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 also fairly sure by those factors alone the government would have to intervene in the form of enforcing hygienic codes
3
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 it actually doesn't apply the other way because in reverse, it's imposing your will onto others. All these scenarios are conjectured and require separate rulings for legality. For example, in many places, I'm allowed to open carry a weapon. That doesn't mean that if I bump into someone and it goes off and hurts them, I'm not responsible. Playing the hypothetical game is a good way to ban anything and everything.
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 it ISNT illegal for someone to kick me out of an establishment, fire me, or cuss at me, so idk what your point there was. I don't have to hold poop for anyone else to do one of those things to me. Businesses don't have to have any reason at all to tell me to leave or fire me (generally, depending on the state), and thank goodness free speech is a thing so if you want to curse me for holding a poop you have every right.
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 it WOULD, however, be illegal if you threw something at someone because you didn't like their words. Unless they expressly threatened you, that kind of behavior is childish. I guess you missed the sticks and stones speech in kindergarten
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago (edited)
@timgalivan2846 So you bring out crap on your hands, skip the whole discussion with your coworkers and have the consequences in mind (imagine being in a restaurant setting) and that's suddenly not just you imposing your will unto to them, your consequences unexpectedly? But they object and take action concurrently and that's not practicing free will or something? It's called free will to disagree, it happens it's part of free will, it's happening right now
9
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 k tell me then a law that says I can't kick you out of a restaurant for doing something so inconsiderate? Not a gun law mind you an actual law about carrying crap on your hand. In that case you don't necessarily have authority or say in the matter do you?
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 yeah yeah and I guess you weren't potty trained in kindergarten amirite? We all could learn something huh?
2
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 it's like you're arguing with yourself. I said pretty clearly that you can be kicked out of or fired from a private business for any reason, so who are you arguing with? Mr. Straw man I guess
1
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 k, we agree then. Due to objective factors such as the law, common sense, factors affecting yourself and others and based on your ethical system, not only does one have the advantage in law to disagree with you for such an act, you'd also be morally wrong for holding the crap out in the first place in a public setting
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 so if I'm keeping track of this right. One of your main points, legality, rebutted by me and left undefended by you, for obvious reasons. Free will and how it affects others, just because you're thinking about your own free will explicitly, not thinking about others, doesn't mean your free will won't have an effect it just means you're inconsiderate, rebutted. 2-0, it's a great ratio, devil's advocate beaten by bundles of straw
2
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 also wtf is the intrinsic benefits of holding crap out of your hand? How is it not just as discussed, a detriment to you and those around you? At least with firearms you could argue for self defense and bans, thanks for bringing that up, you don't need a ban for something that's already illegal, you just need a book and glossary and see how general rules apply
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 public indecency, health code violations, etc.... see where it took me?
3
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago (edited)
@timgalivan2846 I'm not playing a hypothetical game, I'm being pragmatic, there is no benefit to holding out crap on your hand, it is in fact impractical to do so. So the main factor of whether something's ban-able or not is to see it's benefits and drawbacks, again, what you want not to be banned is mostly just drawbacks, it isn't necessary for metaphysics to be used in the case, cause you can also argue for pragmatics
3
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 you need to look up strawman arguments. Who said anything about intrensic benefits?
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 You should look up public indecency. Obviously, you don't know what that is
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago (edited)
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 btw at this point, I think it's very clear you have no idea what the bit in the original video was. You probably think Brennan is an actual monster who smears poop on people, and you're taking all of this WAY too seriously
I bet you're real fun at parties 
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 what so I could argue concepts all day like you? You're fun in a party too? Maybe in your world we're tit for tat in that issue, so I bring up another big factor into it, into the main cruxes of how something is deemed ban-able or not and it's an issue? I bring up pragmatics, something responsible to root the conversation in so we don't get into logic loops and it's a problem because I'm guessing, that not only is your ethics questionable and circular but if I brought up pragmatics into it too you wouldn't be able to rebuttal that at all. So call me names, compare things that aren't comparable and pretend that isn't a strawman but you oughta make sure you're rebutting my points too and making good points yourself
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 so what's the issue? Free will? Already had that discussion, accountability for yourself and others? Easy, pragmatics? Already brought it up
2
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 you answer this then, as straight as the conversation gets. I hold a log out in front of you and as previously stated, give you the risks of doing so for little reason, by your logic you can kick me out, because by your logic I am a detriment to myself, the environment and other people and am breaking laws, then we factor my logic into it and I'm being impractical too. No gun laws, state laws, just the hypothetical straight up and who's the bad guy there?
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 while you're at it, do us a favor and just say every name, post every emoji you want at me. Clearly you hate me enough to be hypocritical and get into fallacies, I don't much appreciate disingenuousness
2
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 you don't make things illegal cause it isn't pragmatic, that's pure nonsense
1
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 ok, I'm going to try to help clue you in one more time to what's going on here without completely spoon feeding it to you. Do you think Brennan Lee Mulligan thinks it's ok to Rub a Mud Monkey on his coworkers' faces?
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 you answer my question and I'll answer yours but maybe instead you could skip into spoon feeding me huh?
4
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago (edited)
@timgalivan2846 "you don't make things illegal cause it isn't pragmatic...." You make it sound like that Isn't one of the main factors on what makes something illegal, heroin? Unless it's in a medical setting, there are pragmatic reasons why it's illegal
3
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago (edited)
@timgalivan2846 but I guess for you if they had a PhD in philosophy, that just beats a doctorate in biology, that sure isn't ridiculous
@timgalivan2846
1 year ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 "because it isn't pragmatic" is DEFINITELY not why heroin is illegal
I was trying to clue you in that Brennan is doing a bit, ergo propter hoc, I'm doing a bit, but I can see your blood pressure rising through the damn phone so I just can't do it to you any more. Go see a doctor about some Zanex and have a nice day. I hope you find peace in life@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago (edited)
@timgalivan2846 it goes both ways dude, otherwise why would you waste your time into this too and call me a name first, as the first obvious strawman? Only difference is that I'm human and I can understand how this whole conversation would be frustrating but ultimately just another argument in the internet and wouldn't need to get into a whole social experiment scheme as to the reasons I planned into getting into an argument, I just did in on a whim, I wouldn't say it's personal enough to get into how someone lives their life, you argue the point and that's it, you don't argue the person. I mean it's not like I told you to take heroin, ruin your stable life because of the obviously harmful side effects and affect those around you because that's bad for apparently practical reasons. But you know walk away I guess if it's irritating to get into, I'll still think I'm right and you wouldn't understand why, you'll still think you're right and I wouldn't understand why, that's the real lesson
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
1 year ago
@timgalivan2846 if you wanna come back to the conversation though just argue why you wouldn't take heroin and not include any practical reasons into it
2
@komatosfulcrum
11 months ago
@timgalivan2846 you saw an actor performing a character who no one likes and thought, "i want to be that"
2
@ayebraine
11 months ago
@timgalivan2846 Why are you doing this
@aionicthunder
9 months ago
@timgalivan2846 This is a long conversation, but I just want to mention to you that, in at least 49 out of 50 states, you cannot be fired for no reason. You likely have an incorrect concept of what "At will" state is, that being one in which you can be fired for any LEGAL reason (which has very much made me wonder what the other state does. How else do you get fired?). That is in place so that wrongful termination lawsuits are possible. For example, revealing that you are pregnant, or have requested FMLA leave, then being let go for "poor performance"? Keep a paper trail, and you have a lawsuit on your hands, one you could get with a "no win, no fee" lawyer.
Know your rights is my point
@timgalivan2846
9 months ago
@aionicthunder it would be more accurate to say they can be fired without reason given. It would then be on the employee to prove they were fired for one of a short list of restricted reasons. A hard bar to meet. It is likely insurmountable for someone unemployed.
1
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
9 months ago
@timgalivan2846 oh yeah did some research, you don't have to have to have a specific word by word law to say you can't do something, that's what general laws exist for, an example would be attaching a flamethrower to your car, no specific law about it but if you apply laws about arms and weapons, specifically the use of flamethrowers, which are laws that actually exist, it would actually be considered illegal. Fairly sure you could find a general law for holding out poop in public
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
9 months ago
@timgalivan2846 just for research's sake though, if you truly believe you can't be tried in court for the act, then just hold out your crap on public in front of the authorities and report your findings
@timgalivan2846
9 months ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 1. Wow, should I be paying rent for living in your head this long? Back at it again.
2. you're still referencing a law that prohibits flamethrower use at the end of the day, so doesn't that undercut your point about not needing a law for something to be prohibited?
3. Don't tell me you think cops don't unlawfully arrest people, or arrest people first and then try to figure out something to apply after the fact? Haven't you heard of contempt of cop laws that are catch alls they apply to everything like obstruction, interference, and disorderly conduct? If you have the time and money to fight for years, then after several appeals and higher courts throwing out lower courts' mistakes, you will win but as they saying goes, "you can beat the charges but you can't beat the ride."
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
9 months ago
@timgalivan2846 1. Glad to know we're in the same boat
2. Just adding to my original point
3. Hey you're the one who said it wouldn't be illegal, I'm just taking it to its natural conclusion, taking it to the court to actually find out but if you can't that means no proof of evidence and that you and I are not necessarily right, so ground zero
1
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
9 months ago
@timgalivan2846 found some laws and regulations. Also the link's the best part
@timgalivan2846
9 months ago
@somedudeintheinterweb8665 People like Brennan don't believe it's good enough to just hold the right belief. It's also important to understand WHY those things are right. Without that, you just end up making terrible arguments in a YouTube chat to try to convince someone who already believes what you believe, but has a better understanding of the reasons why. Someone who wants you to have good arguments. Someone who understands often, we start with a belief, and try to justify it in reverse, which is BAD. If you don't have good reason for a good belief, you'll end up having bad reasons for a bad belief in other aspects of your life. We clear? We good? Imma get back to taking care of my cat who's in liver failure, and you get back to rage posting in stale chats at people who forgot about you until you try to start up the conversation again months later
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
9 months ago (edited)
@timgalivan2846 lemme just quote you a sec "That's why there's no law against it...." You lost the the point of argument, now you're trying to goalpost the whole thing in ethics or whatever, which I still win in btw. Now you bring up cats and liver failure like what? Cool you have a life or whatever, I do too, just seems rather personal to bring that up on the internet in this conversation of all things, you don't need to prove having a life you know? You just know it, never asked it, never cared but good luck on your cat or whatever, hakuna matata either way. Talking like you not a nobody either, wouldn't have remembered this whole thing if I didn't see it in my comment history and you still replied on my whim, that is just as poor of an impulse control as me. If I wanna win in ethics this time, I'll pick some whim in my life, get your arse provoked to comment again and call it a social experiment, lol
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
9 months ago
@timgalivan2846 hey does your social experiment include cats as a focus group too?
1
@somedudeintheinterweb8665
9 months ago (edited)
@timgalivan2846 also, PE-TTY, really man? Using your dying cat as a glorified dong measuring life contest, in a year-ish argument not even about it, with people you can't even see, in the internet? Ethically speaking, could use some work
1
@eldryn7443
9 months ago
@timgalivan2846 Good luck taking care of your cat with poop in your hand
@filipemartinho1753
8 months ago
@timgalivan2846I assure you, there are plenty of laws against defecating in public. It's unsanitary and disturbing
1
@filipemartinho1753
8 months ago
@timgalivan2846oh god, this is a thread kf an uphill battle you've been fighting for months on end that proves the original commenter's point! Gosh, this is such an interesting comment section. You should be analysed by someone, I think there's a lot to learn
2
@jankthunder4012
6 months ago
He has to have the meta conversation because they're refusing to have the actual conversation.
@adamclark4434
6 months ago
Like when ppl say men can be pregnant?
@noskes1
3 months ago
Yeah, that's the joke.
@FFKonoko
3 weeks ago
@Chuppaciuk I wish I wasn't a year late but...isn't it included in the definition of the word unsanitary? The doctors not knowing it was bad meant it wasn't considered unsanitary. The moment it is defined as unsanitary and agreed to be, it is a priori. The real hurdle here is getting him to agree that poop being present is unsanitary.
"
"
@processpsych
3 years ago
I love the fact that this entire sketch is a hilariously convincing poop metaphor for Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance. Well played, gang. Well played.
6.1K
28
@akobrakoral
3 years ago
in this sketch it's more like Karl Pooper
655
4
@essie_bee
3 years ago (edited)
@akobrakoral i fucking love this
85
@neothepenguin1257
3 years ago
@akobrakoral I verbally laughed aloud thanks
@Beegrene
3 years ago
It works on a lot of levels. Because the cast let him get away with holding a turd for so long, he was able to slowly escalate. If they had killed him right from the start, nobody would have had poop smeared on their faces or put in their mouths.
311
@joehair3446
3 years ago
When you are tolerant of everything, you stand for nothing
@Cirac1
2 years ago
@crispinfornoff206 Intolerance isn't some nebulous concept lol it's definition is straightforward and not particularly open to interpretation. Its an unwillingness to accept beliefs, behaviours, cultures and people that differ from you.
Provided the previous aren't limiting the freedom of others or causing harm, intolerance against them should not be tolerated.
@Cirac1
2 years ago
@crispinfornoff206 lmao! The Bolshevist revolution had nothing to do with tolerance or intolerance, it was a socio-economic fueled revolution
The south didn't oppress slaves because the slaves were intolerant.
They went to war because their money was threatened by the collapse of the slavery institution.
Your parameters for "people doing bad things to people to stop intolerance" are so laughably broad and vague they could be applied to literally any conflict or attrocity in human history. "Y'know guys, Genghis Khan was just trying to stop everyone else from being intolerant of him ruling them!".
@silverkleptofox
2 years ago
The ‘tolerance paradox’ falls apart when you realize that tolerance is a contract. The intolerant are in breech of the contract, so they no longer benefit from it
@radicaltrafficcone8284
4 months ago
More like Karl pooper
"
They already made the joke, and people kept repeating it in the chain. Maybe that is a joke too, but an extremely irritating one to just keep repeating what people have already said.
"
@sananaryon4061
6 years ago
"It's word magic he learned from a fountain of lies"
"Your word sorcery ends now"
I'll be using all of these quotes for a DnD campaign sooner or later
4.5K
15
@LuminousOriens
5 years ago
Have you used them?
7
5
@sananaryon4061
5 years ago
@LuminousOriens Not yet, unfortunately
"
https://youtu.be/iQIgyHTtvaE?feature=shared
This guy's face is like a mask.
"
@kropfreiter
3 years ago
Talk about totally missing the point.
119
3
@openmind2464
2 years ago
How so?
1
2
@kropfreiter
2 years ago (edited)
@openmind2464 unlike the Cheshire Cat, I don't need to explain myself. The point behind Popper is that tolerance has its limits. Allowing the intolerant to dictate what those limits are is a slippery slope leading to the end of tolerance by the ascendancy of the intolerant.
@noahhenderson3164
1 year ago
@openmind2464 This guy is arguing sh- about violence. Popper was talking about tolerance. He was saying that to be a tolerant society we can't fight intolerance with tolerance because those intolerant people aren't on the same debate stage as us. So you have to reject that public s*** flinging to have actual discussions and push the right kind of tolerance.
"
"
@UserJWR
4 years ago
Karl Popper specifically talked about intolerance, not violence, making your second point a strawman, as many pointed out. But even if he did in the way you proposed: The argument is still a paradox. If you defend yourself against violence using violent means, you are using violence (which is kind of tautological, but you get my point). So the concept of suppressing violence with violent means is paradoxical by nature. Whether or not violent self defence is "moral" or "acceptable" is an entirely different question that has little to do with the violence paradox from before.
@colinr.turner
4 years ago
The difference is that most rational people do not equate violence with self-defence, and there is a very clear line between someone who's just verbally intolerant and someone's who's violent. Trying to define what level of tolerance / intolerance is acceptable is unnecessarily messy and subjective. Whereas violence has a much clearer boundary to see when someone has crossed the line.
@UserJWR
4 years ago
@colinr.turner There is no such thing as "rational people", we are all irrational in some way. There are only rational arguments. But that's besides the point.
It all depends on your definition of violence. What is violence to you? And more specifically: Why is self-defense not violent, even if you use violent measures? Before you make a rational argument, you have to get your definitions straight. That's also why 99% of "I debunk [complex philosophical concept or argument] in [unreasonably small time frame]" videos are kinda nonsensical and miss the point.
@artisanshrew
3 years ago
@UserJWR That is the entire point! All of it is SUBJECTIVE to a degree and regardless of how "rational" the argument, people aren't persuaded by rationale ANYWAY!
Your argument is moot!
Sometimes the most simple explanation is more than sufficient and no amount of bloviating is going to change that!
@music79075
2 years ago (edited)
@UserJWR vi·o·lence
/ˈvī(ə)ləns/
Learn to pronounce
noun
behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
If I am forced to do any of those things to prevent those things being done to me then it I am not being violent. I am defending myself.
The Violent person is choosing to exhibit behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill me.
I am not being violent if that person forces me into an ultimatum of "I die or am maimed or kill or maim him". I am defending myself.
@UserJWR
2 years ago (edited)
@music79075 Read the definition again. It says nothing about choice. If you defend yourself, your most effective (and likely) course of action will be to inflict as much damage upon the other person as necessary to make them incapable of hurting you. You will literally engage in "behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something". Thanks for providing a definition that proves my point.
Also, one could argue that you still have the choice to surrender yourself, "turn the other cheek" if you will, instead of defending yourself. I tend to dislike that line of argument because it discounts the level of coercion that's at play in violent situations. It also discounts the human tendency and instinct to avert damage and survive.
@music79075
2 years ago (edited)
@UserJWR defense is different because you are choosing to defend yourself which may involve reciprocation.
1
6
@UserJWR
2 years ago
@music79075 So you DO choose to defend yourself, which, by your logic, makes it violent. Which is it? Please get your arguments together.
9
@music79075
2 years ago (edited)
@UserJWR I'm saying that Defending yourself using reciprocal force is not violence because the aim is to defend myself not cause harm or kill. Violence is the process i have been forced to use.
@UserJWR
2 years ago (edited)
@music79075 How do you defend yourself without harming the attacker? The goal of defending yourself is to render the attacker unable to harm you. That involves harming them, especially and by definition when you use reciprocal force (you punch me, therefore I will punch you). Defending yourself is inherently violent. Please note that this does not imply a normative statement about violence of self defense. Not all kinds of violence are morally wrong.
EDIT: You also contradict yourself with your last sentence: "Violence is the process I have been forced to use." So you agree that self defense is violence? At least that's what that last sentence implies. Please, again, get your arguments together.
@music79075
2 years ago (edited)
@UserJWR You are misunderstanding what I am saying.
My intent is not to harm or kill, my intent is to defend myself in a violent situation which may require reciprocal or greater force.
My end goal is not to harm or kill the attacker. My end goal is to be safe. My use of physical force is a form of defense.
My attackers end goal is to harm me and is exercising physical force for that end and so it is violence.
When in a self defense situation the defender is not exercising "violence", for lack of a better term, to harm or kill the attacker for the sake of harming or killing the attacker. They are doing it to preserve themselves and so it is not violence because the end goal of the act of self defense is not to harm the attacker but to defend the attacked; the attacker possibly getting harmed or killed is a byproduct.
This is in opposition to the attacker who is using violence to harm or kill the attacked for the sake of doing that because it furthers self serving goal, like greed or wrath.
@UserJWR
2 years ago
@music79075 I understand the difference between aggression and self-defense. I know what you mean. However, the intent to harm and the intent to defend yourself are not mutually exclusive. In order to be safe, one might have to harm an attacker. That is completely congruent with the definition you posted. If you engage in behaviour that intends to harm another, you are being violent, no matter the end goal.
11
@Boo7X77
2 years ago
@openaccessguy when you are defending yourself you are committing an act of violence. You're over complicating it.
@SamMaciel
2 years ago (edited)
@UserJWRthank you for all your points here. Kudos.
2
@RayDoeksen
2 years ago
Using violence to suppress violence is only paradoxical if you are unfamiliar with concepts like justice.
1
1
@UserJWR
2 years ago (edited)
@RayDoeksen What exactly does justice have to do with it? Violence can be just or unjust, it's a normatively neutral concept.
@mornnb
1 year ago
It's not paradoxical by nature because the issue is not the violence itself, but rather in the instigation of violence. If you say that the issue is in instigating violence rather than violence, then to say that you can respond to violence with violence is not a paradox .
The mistake being made here is in saying that violence is the problem when the real problem is the instigation violence. A world in which violence was never allowed not even in response, would quickly be taken over by those willing to break this rule and functionally it can not work.
2
@jamie59685
8 months ago
the use of force it not always violence
@UserJWR
8 months ago
@mornnb Then you have the problem of proactive and reactive violence. If the police knows about a terror cell, they know that terror cell is planning to be violent, but the terrorists have not yet acted on their plans, I think we all agree that the police is still justified in breaking down their door and arresting (or shooting) them even before an act of terrorism has been committed. However, who initiated the violence here? Clearly, the terrorists first had the intention to be violent, but the police are the ones who actually engaged in violent action first. Also, you could argue that the police "instigated violence" by ordering the arrest of those terrorists. The police did not react to an act of violence directly.
@mornnb
8 months ago
@UserJWRAction to prevent violence where clear intent is proven is a different thing to instigation of violence. In this case the issue is still fundamentally the instigation of violence and not the violence itself. In that scenario, you closely monitor and arrest based on actions that show clear intent to instigate violence. You don't merely go on speech either, you wait for the actions that show intent.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_law
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum
Stick or t*rd?
Online
-
kFoyauextlH
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2025 3:53 pm
Re: I'll talk about a bunch of things here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophily
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterophily
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_ties
"
Most of the early work in heterophily was done in the 1960s by Everett Rogers in his book Diffusion Of Innovations. According to Rogers, "Heterophily, the mirror opposite of homophily, is defined as the degree to which pairs of individuals who interact are different in certain attributes".[1] This is in contrast to homophily, the likelihood that individuals are to surround themselves with those they share similarities with.[1] An example of heterophily would be to individuals from different ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds becoming friends. Through his work Rogers showed that heterophilous networks were better able to spread innovations. Later, scholars such as Paul Burton have drawn connections between modern social network analysis as practiced by Mark Granovetter in his theory of weak ties and the work of Georg Simmel. Burton found that Simmel's notion of "the stranger" is equivalent to Granovetter's weak tie in that both can bridge homophilous networks, turning them into one larger heterophilous network.
Heterophily is usually not a term found often by itself. Rather it is often used in conjunction with other similar terms that define attraction. Heterophily is often discussed with its opposite, homophily when analyzing how relationships form between people. Heterophily also may be mentioned in areas such as homogamy, exogamy, and endogamy.
To fully understand heterophily, it is important to understand the meaning and importance of homophily. The theory of homophily states that "similarity breeds connection."[2] Homophily has two specific types, status homophily and value homophily. Status homophily are ascribed statuses such as race, gender, and age.[2] Value homophily refers to shared beliefs and practices between individuals.[2] Studies of homophily have linked attraction between individuals based on similarly shared demographics. These may include, but are not limited to: race, ethnicity, gender, and socio-economic status. In fact, according to The logic of social bias: The structural demography of heterophily by Ray Reagans, the first component is the intrinsic level of interpersonal attraction due to homophily.[3] Individuals are more likely to form social groups based upon what they have on common. This creates strong ties within the group. Mark Granovetter defined the strength of a tie as a "combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy, and the reciprocal services which characterize the tie".[4] However, Granovetter's article suggested that weak ties are also instrumental in building social networks. He believed that weak ties could be possibly more effective than strong ties in reaching individuals.[4] Findings like this have been referenced when discussing heterophily.
The effect and occurrence of heterophily is also analyzed in intimate relationships. In Dangerous Liaisons? Dating and Drinking Diffusion in Adolescent Peer Networks, Derek Kreager and Dana Haynie mention the effects of heterophily on romantic relationships. They see the removal of the barrier of gender as a departure from the homophily of peer friendships.[5] According to Kreager and Haynie "exposure to new behaviors and social contexts associated with a dating partner may also correspond to higher levels of influence from that partner."[5] The terms homogamy, endogamy, and exogamy are often used when discussing intimate relationships in a sociological context. Homogamy refers to the tendency of individuals to marry others that share similarities with each other, while endogamy is the practice of marrying within a specific group. The relation between these terms and homophily is the tendency to be attracted to what is similar. Homogamy and endogamy may be a result of cultural practices or personal preference. Endogamy's antithesis, exogamy, is marriage only outside of a particular group.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network_analysis
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... etwork.jpg
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociogram
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathema ... s_diseases
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_ ... _religion)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_of_Jews
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
https://ermintrude2.medium.com/a-summar ... c25b6bec07
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settler_colonialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brood_parasitism
https://www.ujecology.com/articles/the- ... 03583.html
https://phys.org/news/2015-06-cuckoos-m ... guise.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckold
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckquean
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyeurism
https://palmerluckey.com/if-you-die-in- ... real-life/
"
But that isn’t what you are here for. You want NerveGear, the incredible device that perfectly recreates reality using a direct neural interface that is also capable of killing the user. The idea of tying your real life to your virtual avatar has always fascinated me – you instantly raise the stakes to the maximum level and force people to fundamentally rethink how they interact with the virtual world and the players inside it. Pumped up graphics might make a game look more real, but only the threat of serious consequences can make a game feel real to you and every other person in the game. This is an area of videogame mechanics that has never been explored, despite the long history of real-world sports revolving around similar stakes.
"
https://medium.com/design-bootcamp/the- ... 91c449ac31
People are watching themselves suffer and die by watching human beings suffer and die.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_drive
"
In classical psychoanalysis, the death drive (German: Todestrieb) is an aspect of libidinal energy that seeks "to lead organic life back into the inanimate state."[1] For Freud, it "express[es] itself—though probably only in part—as an drive of destruction directed against the external world and other organisms",[2] for example, in the behaviour of predation. It complements the life drive, which encompasses self-preservation and reproduction behaviours such as nutrition and sexuality. Both aspects of libido form the common basis of Freud's dual drive theory.
The death drive is not only expressed through instinctive aggression, such as hunting for nourishment, but also through pathological behaviour such as repetition compulsion, and self-destructiveness.[3][4][5]
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-de ... e_behavior
"
The terms mortido and destrudo (though both rejected by Freud),[39] formed analogously to libido and refer to the energy of the death instinct.[40] In the 21st century, their use among Freudian psychoanalysts has been waning, but still designate destructive energy.[41][40] The importance of integrating mortido into an individual's life, as opposed to splitting it off and disowning it, has been taken up by figures like Robert Bly in the men's movement.[42]
Paul Federn used the term mortido for the new energy source,[43] and has generally been followed in that by other analytic writers.[44] His disciple and collaborator Weiss, however, chose destrudo, which was later taken up by Charles Brenner.[45]
Mortido has also been applied in contemporary expositions of the Kabbalah.[46]
Literary criticism has been almost more prepared than psychoanalysis to make at least metaphorical use of the term 'Destrudo'. Artistic images were seen by Joseph Campbell in terms of "incestuous 'libido' and patricidal 'destrudo'";[47] while literary descriptions of the conflict between destrudo and libido[48] are still fairly widespread in the 21st century.[49]
Paul Federn
edit
Mortido was introduced by Freud's pupil Paul Federn to cover the psychic energy of the death instinct, something left open by Freud himself:[50] Providing what he saw as clinical proof of the reality of the death instinct in 1930, Federn reported on the self-destructive tendencies of severely melancholic patients as evidence of what he would later call inwardly-directed mortido.[51]
Edoardo Weiss
edit
Destrudo is a term introduced by Italian psychoanalyst Edoardo Weiss in 1935 to denote the energy of the death instinct, on the analogy of libido[52][53]—and thus to cover the energy of the destructive impulse in Freudian psychology.
Destrudo is the opposite of libido—the urge to create, an energy that arises from the Eros (or "life") drive—and is the urge to destroy arising from Thanatos (death), and thus an aspect of what Sigmund Freud termed "the aggressive instincts, whose aim is destruction".[54]
Weiss related aggression/destrudo to secondary narcissism, something generally only described in terms of the libido turning towards the self.[55]
Eric Berne
edit
Main article: Eric Berne
Eric Berne, who was a pupil of Federn's, made extensive use of the term mortido in his pre-transactional analysis study, The Mind in Action (1947). As he wrote in the foreword to the third edition of 1967, "the historical events of the last thirty years...become much clearer by introducing Paul Federn's concept of mortido".[56]
Berne saw mortido as activating such forces as hate and cruelty, blinding anger and social hostilities;[57] and considered that inwardly directed mortido underlay the phenomena of guilt and self-punishment, as well as their clinical exacerbations in the form of depression or melancholia.[58]
Berne saw sexual acts as gratifying mortido at the same time as libido; and recognised that on occasion the former becomes more important sexually than the latter, as in sadomasochism and destructive emotional relationships.[59]
Berne's concern with the role of mortido in individuals and groups, social formations and nations, arguably continued throughout all his later writings.[60]
Jean Laplanche
edit
Jean Laplanche has explored repeatedly the question of mortido,[61] and of how far a distinctive instinct of destruction can be identified in parallel to the forces of libido.[62]
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles ... chiatrist)
Brennan Brenner Berne
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupio_dissolvi
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sco ... d_the_Frog
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
"
In psychology, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid believing in a uncomfortable truth.[6] Denialism is an essentially irrational human behavior that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality.[7]
The motivations and causes of denialism include religion, self-interest (economic, political, or financial), and defence mechanisms meant to protect the psyche of the denialist against mentally disturbing facts and ideas; such disturbance is called cognitive dissonance.[8][9]
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_evidence
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophily
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterophily
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_ties
"
Most of the early work in heterophily was done in the 1960s by Everett Rogers in his book Diffusion Of Innovations. According to Rogers, "Heterophily, the mirror opposite of homophily, is defined as the degree to which pairs of individuals who interact are different in certain attributes".[1] This is in contrast to homophily, the likelihood that individuals are to surround themselves with those they share similarities with.[1] An example of heterophily would be to individuals from different ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds becoming friends. Through his work Rogers showed that heterophilous networks were better able to spread innovations. Later, scholars such as Paul Burton have drawn connections between modern social network analysis as practiced by Mark Granovetter in his theory of weak ties and the work of Georg Simmel. Burton found that Simmel's notion of "the stranger" is equivalent to Granovetter's weak tie in that both can bridge homophilous networks, turning them into one larger heterophilous network.
Heterophily is usually not a term found often by itself. Rather it is often used in conjunction with other similar terms that define attraction. Heterophily is often discussed with its opposite, homophily when analyzing how relationships form between people. Heterophily also may be mentioned in areas such as homogamy, exogamy, and endogamy.
To fully understand heterophily, it is important to understand the meaning and importance of homophily. The theory of homophily states that "similarity breeds connection."[2] Homophily has two specific types, status homophily and value homophily. Status homophily are ascribed statuses such as race, gender, and age.[2] Value homophily refers to shared beliefs and practices between individuals.[2] Studies of homophily have linked attraction between individuals based on similarly shared demographics. These may include, but are not limited to: race, ethnicity, gender, and socio-economic status. In fact, according to The logic of social bias: The structural demography of heterophily by Ray Reagans, the first component is the intrinsic level of interpersonal attraction due to homophily.[3] Individuals are more likely to form social groups based upon what they have on common. This creates strong ties within the group. Mark Granovetter defined the strength of a tie as a "combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy, and the reciprocal services which characterize the tie".[4] However, Granovetter's article suggested that weak ties are also instrumental in building social networks. He believed that weak ties could be possibly more effective than strong ties in reaching individuals.[4] Findings like this have been referenced when discussing heterophily.
The effect and occurrence of heterophily is also analyzed in intimate relationships. In Dangerous Liaisons? Dating and Drinking Diffusion in Adolescent Peer Networks, Derek Kreager and Dana Haynie mention the effects of heterophily on romantic relationships. They see the removal of the barrier of gender as a departure from the homophily of peer friendships.[5] According to Kreager and Haynie "exposure to new behaviors and social contexts associated with a dating partner may also correspond to higher levels of influence from that partner."[5] The terms homogamy, endogamy, and exogamy are often used when discussing intimate relationships in a sociological context. Homogamy refers to the tendency of individuals to marry others that share similarities with each other, while endogamy is the practice of marrying within a specific group. The relation between these terms and homophily is the tendency to be attracted to what is similar. Homogamy and endogamy may be a result of cultural practices or personal preference. Endogamy's antithesis, exogamy, is marriage only outside of a particular group.
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network_analysis
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... etwork.jpg
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociogram
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathema ... s_diseases
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_ ... _religion)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_of_Jews
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
https://ermintrude2.medium.com/a-summar ... c25b6bec07
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settler_colonialism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brood_parasitism
https://www.ujecology.com/articles/the- ... 03583.html
https://phys.org/news/2015-06-cuckoos-m ... guise.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckold
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckquean
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyeurism
https://palmerluckey.com/if-you-die-in- ... real-life/
"
But that isn’t what you are here for. You want NerveGear, the incredible device that perfectly recreates reality using a direct neural interface that is also capable of killing the user. The idea of tying your real life to your virtual avatar has always fascinated me – you instantly raise the stakes to the maximum level and force people to fundamentally rethink how they interact with the virtual world and the players inside it. Pumped up graphics might make a game look more real, but only the threat of serious consequences can make a game feel real to you and every other person in the game. This is an area of videogame mechanics that has never been explored, despite the long history of real-world sports revolving around similar stakes.
"
https://medium.com/design-bootcamp/the- ... 91c449ac31
People are watching themselves suffer and die by watching human beings suffer and die.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_drive
"
In classical psychoanalysis, the death drive (German: Todestrieb) is an aspect of libidinal energy that seeks "to lead organic life back into the inanimate state."[1] For Freud, it "express[es] itself—though probably only in part—as an drive of destruction directed against the external world and other organisms",[2] for example, in the behaviour of predation. It complements the life drive, which encompasses self-preservation and reproduction behaviours such as nutrition and sexuality. Both aspects of libido form the common basis of Freud's dual drive theory.
The death drive is not only expressed through instinctive aggression, such as hunting for nourishment, but also through pathological behaviour such as repetition compulsion, and self-destructiveness.[3][4][5]
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-de ... e_behavior
"
The terms mortido and destrudo (though both rejected by Freud),[39] formed analogously to libido and refer to the energy of the death instinct.[40] In the 21st century, their use among Freudian psychoanalysts has been waning, but still designate destructive energy.[41][40] The importance of integrating mortido into an individual's life, as opposed to splitting it off and disowning it, has been taken up by figures like Robert Bly in the men's movement.[42]
Paul Federn used the term mortido for the new energy source,[43] and has generally been followed in that by other analytic writers.[44] His disciple and collaborator Weiss, however, chose destrudo, which was later taken up by Charles Brenner.[45]
Mortido has also been applied in contemporary expositions of the Kabbalah.[46]
Literary criticism has been almost more prepared than psychoanalysis to make at least metaphorical use of the term 'Destrudo'. Artistic images were seen by Joseph Campbell in terms of "incestuous 'libido' and patricidal 'destrudo'";[47] while literary descriptions of the conflict between destrudo and libido[48] are still fairly widespread in the 21st century.[49]
Paul Federn
edit
Mortido was introduced by Freud's pupil Paul Federn to cover the psychic energy of the death instinct, something left open by Freud himself:[50] Providing what he saw as clinical proof of the reality of the death instinct in 1930, Federn reported on the self-destructive tendencies of severely melancholic patients as evidence of what he would later call inwardly-directed mortido.[51]
Edoardo Weiss
edit
Destrudo is a term introduced by Italian psychoanalyst Edoardo Weiss in 1935 to denote the energy of the death instinct, on the analogy of libido[52][53]—and thus to cover the energy of the destructive impulse in Freudian psychology.
Destrudo is the opposite of libido—the urge to create, an energy that arises from the Eros (or "life") drive—and is the urge to destroy arising from Thanatos (death), and thus an aspect of what Sigmund Freud termed "the aggressive instincts, whose aim is destruction".[54]
Weiss related aggression/destrudo to secondary narcissism, something generally only described in terms of the libido turning towards the self.[55]
Eric Berne
edit
Main article: Eric Berne
Eric Berne, who was a pupil of Federn's, made extensive use of the term mortido in his pre-transactional analysis study, The Mind in Action (1947). As he wrote in the foreword to the third edition of 1967, "the historical events of the last thirty years...become much clearer by introducing Paul Federn's concept of mortido".[56]
Berne saw mortido as activating such forces as hate and cruelty, blinding anger and social hostilities;[57] and considered that inwardly directed mortido underlay the phenomena of guilt and self-punishment, as well as their clinical exacerbations in the form of depression or melancholia.[58]
Berne saw sexual acts as gratifying mortido at the same time as libido; and recognised that on occasion the former becomes more important sexually than the latter, as in sadomasochism and destructive emotional relationships.[59]
Berne's concern with the role of mortido in individuals and groups, social formations and nations, arguably continued throughout all his later writings.[60]
Jean Laplanche
edit
Jean Laplanche has explored repeatedly the question of mortido,[61] and of how far a distinctive instinct of destruction can be identified in parallel to the forces of libido.[62]
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles ... chiatrist)
Brennan Brenner Berne
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupio_dissolvi
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sco ... d_the_Frog
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism
"
In psychology, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid believing in a uncomfortable truth.[6] Denialism is an essentially irrational human behavior that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality.[7]
The motivations and causes of denialism include religion, self-interest (economic, political, or financial), and defence mechanisms meant to protect the psyche of the denialist against mentally disturbing facts and ideas; such disturbance is called cognitive dissonance.[8][9]
"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_evidence