Can we have a new one? Old one has a shitty attitude, and doesn’t fix the problems around here with the renegade moderators who trample on philosophy, or update to a more advanced software. He just PMs people pics from the James Bond movie Goldeneye when pressed too hard.
I nominate Dan to be the new king. Why? Cause Dan doesnt seem to give a damn, and I don’t imagine he wants to work with antiquated coding, he would just update to the newer software and say “Fuck It All… I Live in Alberta and buy all my groceries from a gas station, and just don’t give a damn.”
This means better functioning forum + more freedom from a far, distant, lame duck king, content to give max freedom of expression to his peons.
I would launch a multi account Jihad on her ass, and invite some of the most inventive trolls I’ve met over the years to assault this site if she was left in charge… and no amount of moderator approval for posts or checking IPs would work.
I’m disqualified from being a moderator under my own philosophy for how kids should behave (don’t ban real people just spam bots, short of well reasoned cease and desist orders… even some of those can be laughed at, especially from foreign countries, or people doing something deeply wrong, like posting child sex pics. I don’t believe in banning people otherwise… but since I have AImbigious on ignore, I can’t see if he is posting child porn or not… so wouldn’t be a good moderator for this reason.
Magsj is automatically excluded from being a moderator, she hasn’t earned that right. Dan was elected to it, was responsive to his trespasses on common trust whenever it was brought up, tends to ask what and why prior. I can live with Dan as a replacement. Ucci sometimes starts moving shit randomly… I know people are intimidated by the green name when he shows up critically in a post, thinking his opinion is moderation… it isn’t, just posting like everyone else, and he allows a very wide range of opinions.
Magsj has made a few improvements overtime, but every time she gets better, she suddenly turns to shit again… it is like she knows she did a good deed recently, so she can now be a greater cunt in this occasion… but that mere capacity to change ranks her as only second worst, over Only Human, who isn’t able to change.
Thats how I rank the moderators around here. It really just should be reduced in scope to spam bots, change of titles if you care to. And Magsj shouldn’t be upset about being srcong worst, she used to be THE WORST.
Christ on a carousel. Can you finally, or ever, shut the fuck up? Every fucking day you’ve got a new rant on here, pissing and moaning about how the board is run. Nobody gives a shit. Most of the people you target by name are some of the most decent characters around here. Here’s an idea. Take the amount of time you would normally use to write one of your wandering walls of text about nothing (and everything), and use it to create your own forum. Run it however you want and invite everyone you like to come sing your praises.
I know, I’ve seen people post those types of messages to you. That’s what I’m saying. People should have standards when it comes to humor. The fact that they don’t and you take it to heart is what upsets me. You should have never been allowed to think like this. You’re as much a victim as a perpetrator of this gross misconduct.
I’m a artist of rhetoric at heart ultimately, upholding traditional philosophical standards, erase me, you erase Socrates, Plato, Aristotle from philosophy… I will explain and give example.
Most people know visually, most of our discussions take place in a conversational tableau vivants of sorts, where we question and know through the interactions of things. This is our imagination:
Our ability to determine identity of things subjectively is twofold, based on Why and How.
On one hand, I sense what people are thinking, or create situationally a visual scheme, but then I introduce the element of Aporia, Paradox, in place of the description, and in doing so, I incline or decline people’s emotive states successively (not randomly).
Aporia, as explained:
This is all I’m doing, is introducing identity paradox into how we visualize knowing of being.
Aporia is the ruling trait in identity, yet also in paradox, that could only be funny, in the form of stating bland facts, in the background of the hidden meanings in Fixed Cross’ image choices… he tried to bring it to life, and I superimposed its factual history which disturbingly corresponds to some of his character weaknesses (being a fluzy sodomist, who hates sodomy, cause he saw it (men kissing) and didn’t like it).
Politically incorrect? You betcha. Thats Aporia though, if it fits, despite the conflict facts, it fits.
I am funny because people say I am. I sit on that rift that erupts in laughter. It is similar to the Ah-ha and Eureka of sudden insight. I do both quite often, but in the case of Aporia and Identity, I’m left crunching equations that surpass the Raven’s Paradox:
You can see the setup in this seemingly incredibly tasteless set-up (bait) I made in a recent post, explaining this destroys the joke but explains this insight:
Obviously, I am not a black man. I’m not even convincingly trying to be black, got Gib to switch roles from squeaky PC Canadian to a Nigger hollering forum troll. The entire thread is about the joke inherent in this, Aporia in Identity (started by Trixie). It gets turned against everyone, the dialogue makes it difficult to proceed under traditional apologetics for society, it is a societal criticism, that hits emotionally strained nerves.
What makes it funny or unfunny? Partisan dependency on arguments… “These are serious subjects, do not mock orr belittle it” offers up ideologucal divisions… I become the protagonist in this, and am free to respind in a syayemmatic undermining of their arguments. Again… I do this through a carefully studied approach of where motivations and suppositions in individuals lay. I know where these lay, because I’m a philosopher of mind… I pay considerable attention to the dividing point of the conscious and unconscious… why Bishop Berkeley thought God held his internal universe together yet how John Locke coukd so bitterly mock it… a clasdic is the psychology of personality.
As a comic, I instinctively play it like a lyre. It is similar to the maieutics of Socrates, but isn’t willing. It results in the same though, a realization of incompatibility of views, and it stimulates in the individual the need to inquire indepth what the truth of the matter is… this requires them to reconsider the How-Why Synthesis of sight dominated knowledge, due to how we store memories and awareness of self.
If you don’t find me funny… you either suffer a brain lesion… because not only do far too many think I’m funny as hell, I stick very closely to the classics of what funny is… or you are shocked at the impropriety of my actions in attacking a essential sacred cow that intellectual binds the constructs of philosophy together, that makes it work, that is it’s essence. I’m seen as the opposition… in Fixed Cross’s view “I will find a way to overcome and defeat you!”.
Is it just me? No… I’m certain others in your life have crossed your path too, and you view them as shit. You likely divide us up into groups, knowing despite the fact you don’t like us, we are not a unified group… we differ in attributes. I ask in return, for the four color map theory, am I bound to fit into these groups on a where basis as a type (I am enemy), what is the lowest level that you can generically, consistently rank me? Asshole? Dickhead? Am I of the famous wild tribe of The Sons of Bitches, where we all do that same thing?
How much do you actually know about the things that you hate? How well constructed are they as unique, dynamic individuals? Am I but a enemy, and your feeling around awkwardly for allies now to support your argument? Ask for James Saint, Mr. Reasonable, Iambigious, sometimes Trixie… they predictably play the role of contrarian in hopes that I receive the same pain to destroying a aspect of their sense of self by dealing it in return… doesn’t work in my case. Why? I focus on the inherent paradox of ideas, I have no ego in these projections, and am too aware that they are visualizing the abstraction of me in place and time, and not knowing my characteristics in behavior in depth. Why? They still haven’t worked out the aporetic paradox I exposed in them… it hurts like a motherfucker, caused them considerable distress. Instead of enlightenment, it is hell in pain.
If it is a lesion… you may have apraxia. I have three different versions of it, I largely overcame my Ideo-Kenetic Apraxia by intense concentration and control, and observing communication misinformation in others. What caused me to do the wrong thing as a child (or private in basic training) when trying to execute a task, doing it clumsy, causes me to watch how society clusterfucks around excitement and fucks simple tasks up. Aspengers and Autism can relate to these issues, as well as a range of cholestrol related birth defects relating to how we process social behavior on a Ni-Se basis. You would show physical traits in the formation of your face, be it elfin features, or eyed spread to wide or too close. If it is from just hitting your head or a tumor, or salt imbalance, wouldn’t be visually obvious, though people eoukd note behavioral oddities in you. When I debate in groups, I look specifically for these traits.
I am funny, very funny, and very deep in my funny, and can explain why I am funny. It is no different from Usain Bolt saying he is fast, or Heidi Klum saying she is beautiful. Common assent to the fact, coupled with natural skill and considerably trial and error brought me to this realization. It isnt a delusion of grandure to think your napoleon if you ARE napoleon, when it is plain and obvious.
I am funny. Not ostentatious, just simply accurate. A F, followed by a U…
FU + nny.
I put the FU in funny for people like you, until you get it. You fucking get it, right? Why it is all funny? Why it is central to philosophy, non-divorceable. One can be a buddhist and never hear a koan, but koans are a essential aspect of Zen buddhism. Aporia and Identity conflict is the same for philosophy. It is why we chuckle, it is what destroys and renews a concept, it is what legitimises it. When we drift from it, the concept dies, loses excitement and vitality. Is God Dead? No, but you love life is.
How come this doesn’t warrant him being put on your “foe” list?
To the best of my knowledge, I never even came close to it. In fact, I was always quick to note that I found your posts to be highly entertaining. And, say, even educational from time to time.
I wonder what it is – really is – about me that, well, spooks you?
Being that, you know, I do have my own suspicions…
[b][i]
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin. Big time. Both in and out of church.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.
1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal
3] I have access to the ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational[/i][/b]
