Note to self: don’t drink coffee while reading this thread.
12 Likes
Let me halp:
I prefer simplicity
1 Like
I certainly do consider this, I usually put forth the ideas which seem to me to be the most effective, rather than spouting spontaneous suppositions from off the top of my head. The feedback I get from people tends to not elucidate very much. It’s usually along the lines of: “That’s irrelevant, because I choose not to do so.” People seem to have a compulsion to only entertain palliatives - treating symptoms while leaving the causes of social problems unexamined and unchanged. My methodology is usually to focus more upon the cause. I offer analysis and strategies which are relevant to the matter at hand, but whether or not people agree and/or act upon them is their choice. But this also allows people to dismiss my input as being mere philosophy, or impracticality - of course, this is true of anything whatsoever, if one resolves to not act upon it!
Your question presumes that my input must generally not be relevant or helpful. Obviously, if I agreed with that, I would not have put it forth, either remained quiet or said something else. The more serious I think an issue is, the more crucial I feel it is discuss causes of and strategies for dealing with it. These are times when approaches which I suspect either don’t help, or help only superficially, might not go deep enough. The more conceptual models we have to work from, the more solutions people may find to their problems. Diverse strategies for living are, I think, most important. To me it is anything but frivolous.
1 Like
IOW, you don’t think your abstract exhortations to reconsider one’s conceptual approach to the universe are off-topic derailments, even when no one in a thread is seeing them as anything but.
I’m beginning to detect the scent of irony in your claims that everyone but you needs to rethink how they see things.
5 Likes
I also disagree that ‘more solutions’ is always a good thing. There are often correct solutions that don’t need further analysis in the context of short form communication, because they have already been beaten to death. And to further beat them to death simply spends intellectual fuel, electricity, and time.
Short story time: when ever my SO and a specific friend get together they spend more time discussing what they ought to do than doing it. Happens every. Damn. Time. And they are never, ever happier with the outcome than if they had just thrown darts (literally, they like playing darts)
4 Likes
It is not “abstract exhortations to reconsider one’s conceptual approach to the universe” which people get hot about, it is suggesting practical ways of socializing. There isn’t anything “abstract” or “philosophical” about marrying five people, or starting your own school, or your own currency. These are examples of the basic structures people use as a basis for their daily lives, one might think that was reason enough why they would have some possible relevance.
I don’t claim anything is “everything but me”! Having strategies for living, for creating and destroying social structures as needed, by the participants is not specific to me, you, or anybody else. They are tools, social technologies, which anyone can choose to pick up and use, or not.
Your questions here clearly illustrate the same two tactics which I have explained countless times. Firstly, deliberately characterizing whatever I say as being “abstract”. And secondly, turning around any social ideas or opinions I put forth as being exclusively self-centered. How many times can I explain? No, ways of life are not abstract philosophy! No, what I am discussing is not about me! I am not even very attached to my ideas or opinions, I can think of any situation and offer a half-dozen sincere possible interpretations of it. There is no rational reason to assume that whether an idea comes from me or anybody else makes any difference whatsoever about anything.
I am pretty much always rethinking things. Weren’t you just saying a few minutes ago that rethinking things was equivalent to derailment? Might this not be a conflicted attitude? Or should people rethink social matters only within boundaries predetermined by certain others?
1 Like
What is your opinion of the Sovereign Citizen / Freeman on the land movements?
2 Likes
And these happen every. Day.
I have poly friends.
I have an acquaintance on the board of a not quite lauched charter school.
I could fork dogecoin in an afternoon.
So I don’t really need to think about them, any more than I need to think about… Oh… Availability of certain pantone colors at home depot. (Crap, now I’m wondering if they stock cerulean blue…)
8 Likes
From what little I know:
I like that there is usually a some focus on sufficiency, ecology / efficient use of resources, and some departure from the industrial production/consumption paradigm.
Where it often lacks is that I perceive a lot of isolationism, individuals retreating from social life - yet somehow mediated by others, in the case of nationalist/constitutionalist types. This can result in xenophobia, paranoia, and regression from other social frameworks. I think this sentiment has bled over into US suburban life as well, minus the sufficiency aspects.
Basically, it seems almost like communal life, but without the egalitarian/cooperative aspects which would make it a sustainable society.
1 Like
Well, you missed the part about flag fringe, maritime law, and guns 
(It really is that weird)
Has anyone ever called you a “narcissist”?
1 Like
Not. Touching. That one
One of these days I should dig up some Freeman stories. It gets… Odd. Like standing outside a courthouse dressed like colonel Sanders yelling at judges odd.
1 Like
You never answer the fundamental question: Why bother?
You propose all of these “thought experiments” all the time but it isn’t clear why we should care. I mean, it is the epitome of tl;dr when I read five paragraphs from you on how gender and money aren’t real. “Ok? So what?”
Everyone here is embedded in a social and cuturual matrix, often quite happily so. Why should I care about your “pie in the sky” rethinking of all of civilization or culture? I’m not going to burn down my house, tell my coworkers to go fuck themselves, and wander into the outback or something. Most of us are interested in reform or a clean up of problems in society, not rethinking a few thousand years of civilization and culture. We’ve got kids and things going on that we’re not going to abandon.
7 Likes
Nobody who has cared to explain why, beyond basic name-calling. Why do you ask?
Considering that I am skeptical that such a thing as “personal identity” even exists as anything besides an artefact of faulty perceptions (not unlike “persistence of vision” and other such sensory illusions), and I methodically check my thoughts with questions, such as:
Does this appear to be true/false or applicable only within the context of humans?
Does this appear to be true/false or applicable only within the context of living organisms?
Does this appear to be true/false or applicable only within the context of some presumed personal identity?
…then if I somehow do function narcissistically, I don’t do it very well.
I need to make a T-shirt.
###I’m a narcissist, but I’m not very good
2 Likes
“I’m not a narcissist, but I play one on television”
3 Likes
Isn’t “play” just a cultural construct?
2 Likes
Or,
People keep telling me I’m a narcissist, but I’ve never bothered to think about why they’re saying that. Let me tell you again about my _____
(Is there a T-shirt thread?)
3 Likes
When I said fund your own meeting, you said you don’t believe in money. When I said, nobody is stopping you from expressing yourself, you said why are some speakers more important than others? I.e., you stop yourself. When I said organize your own rally, you said you don’t believe in ownership.
But right here, you say:
Do you or do you not believe in ownership? If you don’t then you have none of your own ideas. And if you do, you have your own ideas. So which is it? DO you BELIEEEEEVE? Or dontcha? Both, neither? All of the above? More perspectives? I can believe whatever I wanna believe and change it from one post and even one sentence to the next? I can say whatever I want whenever I want and contradict myself because you are wrong no matter what I say and I’m right no matter what I say? I can say two opposite things simultaneously and complain that nobody understands me when they try to make sense of my dualistic superposed twisty-turny chaos-logic? I don’t believe in words?
I believe you believe in contrariness. I say red, you say not red. I say there are specific, provable reasons; you say I am ossified into one track thinking. I say hot you say cold or possibly not hot or just maybe lukewarm, depends on your thinking and perspective and the way the stars are aligned and the neurons are firing or not firing, look at the white space, consider it that way. I say, no, you say not yet. I say hello and you say good byyyeeeeee ayee aye!
It all comes down to the Popostential nature of internet interlocution. When you are a narcissist, nobody has anything good to say that you can’t say better. When you are so stridently sure of being right and accurate and illuminating, then nobody else has room to make a good point: everything can have a finer point. If they raise a protest that there are contradictions and inconsistencies, or a divergence from a commonly accepted reality then it’s THEM being an egotistical turd dismissing you.
As I said, it’s all your rules. Go ahead, have your rules. But I know, and pretty much everyone on here knows the score now.
So, let’s have fun with it! Might as well. We ain’t gonna change you.
9 Likes
