Oh
God
Oh God Oh Oh God
OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD.
4 Likes
this one because well I really didn’t want to know.
1 Like
You think I found it from muscle memory?
#Use the magnifying glass, motherf#@ker!
1 Like
I love Kate Beaton so much. Did you know she’s CANADIAN!? 
5 Likes
Two old men are sitting on the porch of a nudist colony for intellectuals in England. The one turns to the other and says, “I say, old boy, have you read Marx?” The other says, “Yes, I believe it’s these wicker chairs.”
18 Likes
False dichotomy is false!
Part of the relativism of culture that many find offensive is that people are equally “liberal” and “conservative” - so much so that those are scarcely meaningful terms. Whatever a person identifies with, they are conserving those ideals, while seeking to be liberated from others. A progressive person can be conserving the ideals of scientific methodology. A bigot might strive to be liberated from interacting with dissimilar people. It is entirely a matter of perspective, and - if one must - identity.
Scanlon’s article falls prey to a misconception I often encounter among self-professed “conservatives” - that they are somehow actually blocked or prevented from expressing their opinions or actions simply because they find people’s reactions unfavorable! “You can’t say something un-PC anymore.”, “You can’t wish people a Merry Christmas anymore.”, “You can’t wear a pretty dress anymore.”, “You can’t beat your kids anymore.” But what I think these people really mean is that they cannot do them without consequences. Of course people can say and do things I consider crude, offensive, or imposing! But I might just call them on it, critique it, express an unfavorable opinion in response.
These are people who fail at culture because they don’t agree to disagree. In order to “be themselves”, they need to feel that they have the security of being among people who (at least seem to) share the same values. Worrying too much about what we think of each other makes people neurotic. When their values appear to be culturally dominant, it eliminates those awkward insecurities of not having the guts to wear the clothes they like, or speak up for their cherished and possibly offensive ideals.
I tend to find people most attractive when they are confident enough to not worry about how other people think they look!
6 Likes
3 Likes
LOL “Our women are hotter than their women. Because freedom.”
14 Likes
Because women are merely decorative property, not actual individuals with their own agency.
Of course.
10 Likes
Well, the Federalist authors know that a woman’s value is in her sexual attractiveness to males. Conservative women know the freedom of being objectified, which is why conservatives are totally winning the hot babe race. Liberals are slaves to respecting people as human beings rather than stereotyped objects judged by their surface and utility as status objects, so liberal ladies don’t know the freedom of constantly working to live up to conventional beauty standards to please men. The Constitution laid all this out clearly, if only people would read it.
15 Likes
I knew there was a reason I like you.
1 Like
Recursion alert! “Human being” is also just another stereotype, and social status relies upon preprogrammed behaviors, making its pursuit also a stereotyping of self, rather than assertion of agency. So rather than empowering the self at the expense of the other, it actually denies the agency of both parties.
Does anybody know where this convention takes place, or who is invited?
1 Like
Your error message kindled my interest in what recursion actually means-- I’ve always meant to learn Haskell. So I looked on the web. And instead chanced upon this:
Chapter 1: What is Recursion – evidentally the first chapter of The Recursive Mind: The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and Civilization
One paragraph stood out from the others.
In this book, I examine the more general role of recursion in our mental lives, and argue that it is the primary characteristic that distinguishes the human mind from that of other animals. It underlies our ability not only to re ect upon our own minds, but also to simulate the minds of others. It allows us to travel mentally in time, inserting consciousness of the past or future into present consciousness. Recursion is also the main ingredient distinguishing human language from all other forms of animal communication.
Very much on point.
3 Likes
I literally can’t comprehend that statement, but I think we’d better let it go since life’s busy right now.
By asking about it you’ve just entered the convention (along with millions of others).
6 Likes
Intersubjectivity is a sore point with me! Not even only some, but by far most (90+%?) of personal and social concepts people assume my use of are for me unverifiable:
This results in profound alienation and many false starts in attempting pretty much any social activity. Most people refuse to explain their schema, and refuse me explaining mine. It honestly seems like most notions of self and society, when examined, are only so much consensus vapor. How it mostly works for me is that “things” are only static shorthand which represent processes. This often has the effect of making personal and group identities alike seem quite unreal. This doesn’t make them seem solipsistic to me, but rather lacking the steady-state boundaries of personhood, organism, group, and temporality which many seem to require taking for granted.
It keeps life interesting, I suppose!
2 Likes
I spent the last hour making this:
It’s not done, but it was a fun hour. Sorry you find other people confusing. I feel your pain. Intersubjectivity is something you want to be aware of as an ontological qualifier so you can see conventions don’t have an essence but still have a kind of reality. No inherent essence, but still very real.
I’d recommend you take up Photoshop and work on making things like this:
or perhaps:
because you need to lighten up a bit and let go of trying to come up with a mental map of all, which doesn’t work, you can’t fit the world in a model, and best-case you’ll just be frustrated. But this isn’t the place to discuss that, this is the place for mocking the people who call anything that doesn’t fit their infantile model of the world “Marxism,” and related.
16 Likes
