Debating The Old Goat

Here’s the deal Trixie, you thought it was funny, but suicide protects us from dictators!!!

Imagine a creator…

“I’m going to create new people, and if they have a way out, I might not have friends, I plan to torture them mercilessly until the get Stockholm syndrome or burn in hell forever”

What the fuck is that ???

Same with parents of a child…

To laugh at it, is to get Stockholm syndrome!

Lions do all sorts of things, they kick members from the pride and eat young not of their own…

Since we are discussing lions…

pfft whatever kriswest… I’ve read about 2000 papers in multidisciplinary studies on this topic, not including books.

You seem to have not read the post that you’re saying is wrong. No doubt a few species of animals do war-like things. The ones most like us, makes sense. Ants come to mind. But to evaluate the animal kingdom as a whole as to what species are the most ‘non-warlike’ is fucking stupid. Why is a bonobo less warlike than an oyster? What about all those creatures that live solitary lives, avoiding others of their species? “Is this creature warlike” is a question that isn’t going to apply to 95% of the animal kingdom, so to point to one creature and say ‘this is the one that’s least warlike’ is just stupid.

Well Uccisore, grass and oysters both commit homicide with overcrowding …

I think you haven’t studied this enough…

And then come off as if you had .

Satyr, the man who points to the one and only true path of human objectivity.

He is the light in the darkness and the objective messianic savior of us all. The great objective mystic that in his glory has shed light on the universal mysteries of reality for us all. He alone has learned the secrets of the universe.

Satyr, the law-giver. Bow and grovel at his feet. If he bends over, does not the devout acolyte kiss his ass? :stuck_out_tongue:

You know I hate that and see the forces setting that up as well. That doesn’t make what you called highest, high at all.

I agree. It seems you think that the only way to survive is to not have much culture, ever, in any form. That we can be apex primates, but basically live like other primates.

How will the collapse have changed people so that they make a society you like rather than what has gone before?

Why will the collapse teach people this? Other collapses of civilizations did not teach people this?

That’s not the point. YOu could be there now. Right now you are yearning, but in fact you could head into the woods right now AND yearn for the end of civilization. There are people out there right now living in many ways as one would after collapse. You have to be far away from most humans, but if you are heading to Alaska, not by air, you will be going through land like that.

No, I don’t see them as the only ones, they will be very effective ones. But there will be all sorts of groups. However those groups will organize around leaders and make rules and the ones that work with consensus will frustrate the hell out of someone wiht your personality. So you will be in a group, as leader or as follower or as equal and all these groups will have rules, more as time goes on. There will be enforcement, control…

You write like a religious person waiting for the rapture. Suddenly things will be different. Yes, chaos, but human nature will not undergo some miraculous change. People will again want security, will follow leaders, will want structure, will try to recreate functioning machines and so on.

Where does the miraculous change in human nature come from?

It is as if you think most people will become anarchist nihilists. This is not what has happened historically after collapses: religions, reorganization similar to former lines, control, rules all resurrect.

So what will your life have that the gorillas life does not. Because before this you seem to have said, very clearly and a few times, that you yearn for a survival based, animal like feral life.

It is not an illusion that we take pleasure in and grow through and exhibit our brains’ full capacities through all sorts of cultural processes that need not be tied to religions. All sorts of arts, crafts, building and creation. Our brains will have much less challenges in your dream life.

Seriously, this was stupid. I do not hold this civilization in high regard. I hate modern society. I do not see the options as being a gorilla and 1984.

I also see nothing at all but religious faith on your part that post apocalypse will suddenly have cleansed humanity of all of what you call delusions and they will form your version of utopia.

Not for the full range of our capabilities.

I am not in a fantasy world. You are just reacting to X person. I loathe this society also. Guilt is God. Control is God. And I do see the trends quite clearly.

I ALSO SEE YOUR FANTASY: that a collapse will somehow change human nature. Humans will set about recreating this society, because that is what they know and because they will not have learned via disaster.

No answer, then.

The seeds of culture’s destruction was planted inside itself a long time ago.

You see humans as very effective monkeys. I see them as already having demonstrated unbelievable potentials no monkey has shown. You yearn for a life where only a part of what our nature is capable of. That is a denial of our nature.

You seem only to be able to hear this as meaning, Moreno likes civilization. 1) whatever I like or do not like is irrevelent to the issue of whether you are denying a part of what it is to be human, which you are and 2) I can hate this civilization, but see clearly at the same time that you are faith based. Things will be different in human relations after collapse. But humans will be the same, unless you can say why this time, unlike all other times, humans will give up on setting up the very structures you hate.

I could see you simply hating society and wishing for it to be destroyed. But you go beyond this. YOu see a utopia, a harsh one,b ut that’s how your utopia would be.

This is fantasy.

You are down on religions because they talk about things that cannot be sensed, you KNOW, even though you cannot sense it and cannot know it, that things will be good in the aftermath. And this makes you a priest.

Notice your urge to write: me, a priest, hardly.

But that is not a response, it is posturing.

A response would be to either admit that you merely hope it will work out like that or a response would be to show what your faith is based on. Why it MUST TURN OUT THAT WAY.

I don’t give a shit about Satyr. So many lives raping the servant boys - gently, kindly, and buying them presents when the wife isn’t looking. So many lives breaking people down so they stay down and calling it pedagogy and the creation of excellence.

You on the other hand have had the shit end of the stick going right back to the beginning.

When the collapse comes it is much better that you face your uncertainty now or it is much more likely to smack you down again.

Satyr’s laws include the correctness of certainty as posture. To shame away doubts or resistance. To consider strength something officially rigid.

Motherfuckers have ruined so much.

You may be a rebel, but you are taking daddy’s axioms into the maelstorm.

I meant, that we are not monkeys. Yes, society denies how much we are like them. However you seem to want to deny how different. Everybody wants to cut shit out. When I disagree with you, you think I want to cut out the monkey or deny it. No, I just see you denying parts of yourself

Good catch. Expressed, realized, enjoyed…

In any case, the very people who have the most power now are also rooting for collapse, since they expect to have more control of what little is left after. Your hatred of middle class complacency and denial makes you laugh at the same shit as the people who most would see you in a box.

Rousseauism is no solution. There is no need to civilly go back to nature. Nature dominates anyway.

How do you imagine things getting to the better with or without collapse?
What does it look like?

It is a cyclical process. Catastrophes come again and again. We do not need to make any contribution to catastrophes. But we do. It would be better to relinquish any contribution to catatstrophes or to decisions which lead to catatstrophes, if we were more capable of relinquishing. We should stop changing the world and start protecting the world.

A better world would be a protected world, especially for the offspring. But it is very likely that the human rulers and some other humans will not stop changing the world (thus: destroying the world) and will get the worst world. So the next human-made catastrophe will come sooner as expected.

We should eliminate or at least replace the globalistic institutions, which are merely established for the changers, thus exploiters, destroyers of the world, and also eliminate or at least replace the globalistic “human rights”, which are merely established for the changers, thus exploiters, destroyers of the world. We have to protect the world; we have to protect our chidren and their children and so on; we have to protect our countries; we have to protect the right of domicile (I mean it as the exact opposite of the right we now have: the right to settle wherever one wants to); we have to protect ourselves by protecting our nation, our origin, our traditions … and so on. We need rights to protect ourselves in the sense that these rights can successfully stop protecting the rights of the globalists.

When a forest becomes too large and expansive it eventually catches fire as a part of the natural equilibrium with its environment. From this fire out of the ashes of the old forest a new one is born. New life emerges in renewal after destruction. It’s a part of a much larger cycle of things. Creation, destruction, creation, destruction…

And how would you define yourself Moreno? What are your views on the world? It’s not something we hear a lot from you on these internet forums.

Apex primates? No, I am not so foolish to believe we can go back to such a primitive existence. There’s no going back.

No, a new form of primitivism upon the collapse of civilization in its ruins will emerge. A new culture also. A sort of anti culture, culture. I am not against culture per se, I just believe in the minimum of it since as culture expands so does authority and control along with it.

The collapse of civilization across the planet will alter humanity and human behavior for a very long time especially concerning inter generational memory of the event.

Other historical collapses of various civilizations were national ones. The inevitable collapse I speak of is different and unique because it will be a global one at the height of human technological achievement.

My aims are not as simple as just jumping off the reservation to live very Thoreaunian in the woods somewhere. No, my beliefs and views are much more than that. Besides, nobody is allowed to legally jump off the reservation anyways. They would eventually find you and drag you back onto the reservation as that is how this system operates.

The rapture? :laughing: No, I am very anti religion and anti god. I’m just a guy who has a firm respect for entropy and natural equilibrium otherwise known as chaos.

Most people will become anarchistic nihilists? Nope, only a handful really.

In fact in order to maintain anarchism I believe it to be necessary to take out all kinds of authoritarian people under their various forms so that a new form of rule cannot be forged again. Execution, genocide, or whatever method available to stop their expansion in the aftermath of a civilization collapse. I want to see all of their temples and government institutions in a burning firy rubble. Line them all up and kill them in mass. Small price to pay the way I look at it so another nightmare like this current reality never arises again. If blood is the answer so be it. Let blood be spilled.

I can tell the way you write Moreno that you’re so invested in this current paradigm of civilization that you cannot imagine life or existence without it.

You say my view is fantasy and yet I would say your clinging onto civilization believing it will last forever is equally fantastic.

Human beings have such marvelous potential? To what end?

I am very aware of the power establishment’s goals in the aftermath of the collapse of civilization. I know they see it as an opportunity to further enforce control, dominion, and power over whole entire populations. They’re all apart of my target list in the advent of such a collapse. When the time comes it is open hunting season on all of their heads.

I despise the world’s elites and its aristocracies.

The neo Spartan aristocratic objective idealists are a funny lot of people obsessed with resurrecting a time period in current civilization with what they regard as the Golden Age or Human Renaissance in a time of societal decadence.

It is this idealism that their group think entirely revolves around. The problem of course with their belief is that little do they realize the type of social reformation they have in mind is unattainable and they have little or no way to implement such.

Also, this ideal Golden Age of humanity they largely worship and constantly praise is largely illusory. They cannot see that their highest ideal is equally decadent or bankrupt and that the Golden Age they admire so much was a precursor to the age we live in now.

It’s all a part of their ideological collective mythos with Satyr as their self proclaiming Platonic philosophical king.

Ah, what dreams are made of…

Then it is rigid when you say what you say and stand by it. And it is flexibility to not stand by anything and defend it.
That is mush calling itself flexible and calling what is flexible rigid.

Flexibility is resistant and when it’s pushed beyond its flexible point it remains deformed or broken.
This is when its flexible resistance was broken.

No, it can be fine to stick to your guns. I was thinking more of when challenged feeling the need to not only stick to one’s guns, but to try to use social, playing to the gallery to make the one who disagrees be seen as an idiot. To engage in dominance games, with a focus on use of shame, instead of argument and or in addition to argument. That kind of posturing. Where you must damage, to the extent you can, socially any disagreement. The autocrat’s lashing out. One can have a certainty that guides one and feel not the slightest need to try to make small anything that threatens you. In reality it is certainty as a mask. This does not mean, in his case, that he thinks he is 100 per cent certain. But in social terms he acts as if no other idea can exist or should and if harm is needed to remove it, then it is used. That should require full certainty, since it is heinous otherwise, but it really reveals weakness.

And you end up training yourself and other people to pretend you are not upset by what they say. In the Platonic form of this you get two neo-KT posters insulting each other, each making sure to point out that they do not care what the other one thinks or says, while, of course, continuing ad infinitum insulting the other one and dismissing the points made, if any. A gorgeous dance of denial hiding the fear in plain sight, which seems to work with many people.

Sticking to your guns does not look like this. or rather need not. Sticking to your guns does not entail dancing with an idiot while showing you are one. Nor trying to create a whole community where people think strength is the presentation of lacking weakness when in dispute or when dealing with something that is not parroting you.

[/quote]
If I was making a simple heuristic, it would be mush. Like: Don’t be rigid, be flexible. But I was referring to a specific individual and his rigidity. Of course, for example, he feels fear, he may even acknowledge this more than others, at certain times, when he is in control. By dynamically, he lashes out and expresses anger instead of fear. He implies certainty by being willing to diminish others, by needing to, when they disagree with him. This is rigidity and functional, relational fear denial. And it creates a culture. In this case a little one, one which has a need to be parasitic on other communities and individuals, SO THAT IT CAN FEEL SUPERIOR. It will keep coming back compulsively to what it hates because of the need to reassure itself.

So sure, if I was saying be flexible not rigid, that would be silly. There are times to be flexible and times to be rigid. There are times to stick to your guns, they are times to reconsider. Context dependent and related to what you know you know and how you know it etc.

But I was referring to a specific sick pattern.

And if you were he for example, I would encourage you to notice how convenient it is to take what I wrote as a rule for everyone always, when in fact it was a judgment of one specific sick interpersonal dynamic used repeatedly, OCDlike, by one person who has serious problems he wants to spread (mixed in with some insights, which only makes it worse).

When it comes to Satyr’s positions, all criticisms I’ve ever read were based on trying to hide parts of reality which he describes.
Attackers are not interested in explaining things but interested in obfuscation. In this case doubt does not serve to come up with a better understanding but simply to hide reality and remain blissful, blissfully ignorant about unflattering parts of reality.
Who is the most doubting person among you lot? Who is the most ambiguous one?
Someone with integrity will see that there is no valid attack on Satyr’s position except trying to seed doubt just to slander and to hide some hurtful insights. Contradict them they can not, at least not if they read them carefully. But then who would do that when certain insights hurt them. I probably wouldn’t if it would be too painful to give them the benefit of the doubt which is required for earnest consideration and understanding.

So what is left is personality traits.
How do you know that Satyr lashes out in anger?
Has somebody told you about that?
Can you not stop reading what he writes yourself?

And needing to feel superior -
Don’t you have to save the whales, the climate, humanity and abolish suffering from reality?
Do you not feel morally superior enough yet? When is your free weekend, so that the evil parts of the world can take a breather?

Lefties…
Psychoanalysing is not good for them.
They usually have so little empathy (not to confuse with sympathy or self-pity) that they tend to describe themselves all the time.

I see that you, like him, have a cut and paste reaction to disagreement and criticism. IOW something enters the radar screen of your mind. It is not flattering to your ideas or beliefs or you, so you pull from your repetoire something that attacks from some historical archive. Something even the impovrished AIs out there can manage. Here this cut and paste from the archives makes the assumption, based on nothing, that I cannot bear or notice or must hide some part of reality that Satyr boldly faces and gives insights around.

Some people might at this point assert their willingness to in fact do this. IOW take this kind of random attack as valid. Let a shift of focus take place. Be defensive.

But that’s just silly.

These questions are not coherently integrated or irrelevent. AGain, it is as if they relate somehow to what I wrote. You remind me more and more of him.

And like him you cannot read. What thread are we in? We are in a thread started by HHH and in which I contrasted my reactions to two people, one HHH and the other Satyr, his opponent in this thread. In a fairly personal message to HHH, I mentioned why I do not really give a shit about Saytr and the downside for Satyr of his personality and judgments. I was not ad homming him. OH, S is wrong because he is an asshole. I was telling another person why I do not give a shit about Satyr who has had much more control of the bed he makes for himself than HHH. That’s it. An implicit message to put my reactions to HHH in an interpersonal context.

Out of this context I then extended, in response to you, a focus on some of the interpersonal dynamics S engages in. You know PMing people to get them to carry out little tasks to undermine people. abusive sexual type stuff, playing to the gallery, trying to use shame as a control - while looking down on anyone, say religious people, who use guilt to control others (and here we are not talking about some noble forms of shame, but infantile schoolyard shit, which leads to the community he deserves) - lying, creating fake supporters, and so on.

How one acts is at least as important and one’s ideas. This is no distraction from Satyr’s ideas. HIs behavior was the topic and used to convey something interpersonal to HHH.

That you or Satyr would even care adds to one of the points I made in the previous post.

Ah, well then you are projecting your own weaknesses.

Sure, quite a long time ago. I mean at times via masks I end up reading him. Perhaps I have right here, but that’s easily remedied.

Now it doesn’t matter to me if you are him or one of his paler copies, but this is so him. AGain, something comes into his field of perception, it reminds him of other people who disagreed with, so he flings criticisms that are not relevent. A discussion with someone like that is a waste of time. That happens on personality issues and it also happens when it comes to specific discussions of ideas. A bad habit you should not emulate if you are, in fact, another person.

I am sure that’s a nice analysis of someone.

One difference between us is that you will spend pages and pages of a thread trading insults with someone you claim not to respect. That kind of what should be a waste of time fits with what I wrote in the previous post about S.

Me, I drop a dead end like this right here.

:wink:

Debating the old Goat, somehow the fire in the belly has gone.

Once there would be a flurry of responses from quite a few people, but my “pulse never got above 85”, when I read the heading above.

All things must come to an end and a fifty something male still obsessed with a 1991 horror movie speaks volumes to me.

Anyway, carry on and on and on.

You >are< being silly here.
You don’t have to take it personally when I say that I have never seen Satyr being attacked properly on his positions. You know that’s fine, you don’t have to attack his positions, don’t mention them, but likewise you don’t have to allude to them being wrong via tactics of slander and obfuscation.
Satyr is banned from ILP and this is why I find those petty attacks, trying to slander his ideas and personality irksome. That’s not a sign of strength, nor courage, in fact, it can be quite ugly.
And notice how I say slander ideas and I mean that - It’s not about properly critiquing them. And with properly I mean actually reading and understanding them and then criticise away. Then it can be done without alluding to some vague ‘rigidity’.

You don’t see how this goes in the same direction as iambiguous criticism? It’s just plain stupid and again, I’m not just saying this to be insulting to the biguous nor you but when the same kind of critique can be applied to all and any kind of statements then it’s stupid because then the critique has obviously nothing to do with the statements which were being made. It’s a generalised critique of all manmade statements directed at one person or idea in particular.
That’s just stupid.

After attacking somebody else’s personality, somebody who is banned on this forum, where the attacked can’t defend himself, you can take the high road and keep lying in wait, for another opportunity to take a shot.
Let’s call it mature behaviour.

I like that following saying - “Many people believe to have a good heart when all they have are bad nerves.”

You know its funny. I realized later that I had in fact agreed with Satyr in this thread. At least what I remembered to be his opinion from quite some time back. So on the idea level, here, I agreed with Satyr, though I did end up being critical of his character. What does he or this ISWIDEOPEN do but suggest that I can’t take on S’s ideas SO I focus on his character. Which shows once again that S, or this person who is imitating him, reads very poorly, but like Iambiguous, is always ready to type in what he has said hundreds of times as if it fit the context.

I’ve got him on ignore HaHaHa, so he is all yours again.

When all you had going for yourself was your moral high ground and that one is crumbling then shutting it down is all you have left.
I think the moral high ground is very important to Moreno, essential even.