Oh yeah, there was another recent one. This one was okay because it made me start worrying. Well, I’m always worrying… just a little more now.
Same dialect - the grammar of a literate person trying to sound semi-literate by making purposeful spelling mistakes and such.
Something about ticking sounds in his truck engine coming and going. This was either a mockery of the truck with bad lifters that some shyster sold me right after i got out of prison or the vandals have put sugar or some shit in my gas tank recently (and are now laughing). Years ago someone punched a hole in my Escalade radiator. I do know that. Suddenly leaking fluid and we found the hole.
In a situation like mine, you just keep pushing forward. If one day your engine blows up, you figure out what to do next. You make no plans for the future (because they are so uncertain in your circumstances). You try to keep your obligations and relations to anyone at a minimum - you can neither trust anyone nor commit, as a friend, to anyone if the next minute you may have nothing and have to leave. You don’t acquire much property for fear of losing it or having to leave it. You are at the total mercy of forces nothing can stop, and the only way out would be to turn yourself into a fugative… and now the law is after you, too.
“Away with bourgeois and plebian values!”
The question we are pressed with is not ‘can we allow it’, but SHOULD we allow it. If doing so somehow compromises or forces a loss of some kind of fundamental element that makes possible the heights and depths of the spiritual feeling in man, then we would caution against it. But we aren’t sure what kinds of conflict should be allowed to exist and flourish… what is needed to give every citizen their own personal life plotline of failure and success, the trials and tribulations, the periods of self-transformative growth, and all that jazz.
We have sports, but that’s trivial. Currently, we have these struggles in the form of economic and reproductive competition. These are the things that people suffer most and consequently, successes that give them the most pride and happiness and opportunity for personal growth.
But what if you removed these particular modes of competition. Do we social-darwinism out and pull a Spengler or go full Jetsons mode? Would we degenerate if we got along very terribly well, everybody had a boo, and we got off only on stuff like being the first to come up with an idea that improves production or service in one’s field and no longer felt like real men and women by being hypermaterialistic hypergamists tryna roll up and test muhfuckas all the time.
Would a leveling such as this be healthy for homoclownicus? I say yes if only because I’m not impressed enough with aristocratic cultures of the day enough to want to protect them. I would do it experimentally. Put man in a global skinner’s box to see what would happen.
Some say give Prom a million dollars, and he’ll become bourgeois. This is an attempt to question my convictions and present me as a fair weather critic of capitalism. I say now for the record that I’d not hire a single employee and draw no usury except the interest gained from having the million in the bank.
I will never again own crypto because i refuse to possess the spoils of someone else’s proof-of-work… even if they are just uninteresting computer geeks in cubicles at keyboards.
Holy fuck what are all the tech nerdz gonna do when software does all the totally mind numbing monotonous shit they do on a computer all day? Will they have to leave the cubicles, get real jobs, and actually start moving corporeal objects with mass around in the world by applying force through a distance?
Sorry… need a random thread to post this for Gary. He’s being raped at another forum and I’m tryna rescue him.
“I was thinking in terms of Moral Emotivism (ala AJ Ayer) that simply yelling “boo” or “hurray” might be an acceptable form of moral argumentation.”
“No matter how much I dislike a statement someone makes, I suppose all statements ultimately rest on their truth value, not on their morally pleasing or unpleasing aspects.”
Hidden premise in 1: that there CAN be moral argumentation at all. There can not be, so you’re stating a nonproblem. Not being able to make moral argumentation is not a problem when it’s impossible in the first place.
Hidden premise in 2: that moral expressions CAN have truth value. They can not because they are not truth-apt… they’re not propositions that CAN be true or false. How true are my expressions “goddamit!”, “helllll yeah!”, and “eeeeeew”?
“This movies sucks!” Looks like this statement can be true or false, duddint it? Ah, but it can’t be because it reduces to an emotive expression, not a truth claim. Out of the statement, “This movie sucks” we can only know objectively that you don’t like it.