Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Memescape Hellscape Engage

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Testy Calibrate

Lol. I don't hate P.Z. I just don't read his blog very often. Thanks for the link though. Bizarre to have such a purpose to one's life.
WTF? Is that real?
I never had the thought "Ah this bunch are heathens... they will high five me for woo hooing."

The only thought I had was ...

"Bingo. Borealis is full of s*** about Maasai not living very long. Here's an old geezer that is sprightly enough to marry a young hottie ... Woohoo!"

That's honestly the only thought I had.

And you were promptly schooled on what the word 'average' means, so it was a dumb response to begin with. You're so desperate to 'prove borealis is full of shit' that you put yourself in these really awkward situations.

Besides which, most 'old geezers', provided they haven't got a serious medical condition that interferes with their plumbing, are 'sprightly enough' to have sexual intercourse. Have you not heard about the unfortunate prevalence of STDs in senior housing? They aren't catching gonorrhea from toilet seats.

Also the whole concept is disgusting. 'Young hotties' - Jesus Christ Dave, why the hell would you use that term to describe a 15 year old girl?
Not to put too fine a point on this, but I suspect he used the term because it's culturally appropriate in his culture. It's easy to forget sometimes that we are in the middle of a massive cultural upheaval where the old order is being overturned and no one exactly knows what the new order will look like yet. The principle of equity which is the hallmark of the rising tide is intimately tied to the idea of privilege which is a very difficult concept for people to understand if they haven't been exposed to it and if they happen to enjoy that privilege. I have a lot of academic knowledge (and have taught it as part of a curriculum to college students) and significant real-world experience using the concept in the contexts of community engagement and homeless youth and I still have to shut up and let my judgments lie dormant in lots of cases. My defaults are often from the old order. I don't rightly know where the lines are any more in many cases. It's hard to square the massive positive impact that, say, Bill Cosby had on the cause of civil rights, with his behavior towards women. It makes it a little hard for me to be as upset as some people get over his behavior even though his behavior was disturbingly twisted and objectively horrible. It's easier to not be offended at, say Garrison Kiellor or Al Franken because their transgressions weren't, say, 30 or 40 actual rapes. But also because we are all significantly richer for their contributions. I don't know who Weinstein is or what movies he made so I don't know what we would lose if his contributions were erased from the public record, but I do know in Keillor's case and it's a tragedy IMO. Firing someone is one thing but erasing a history that contributes to intellectual and maybe even spiritual growth is quite another. It's easy for some people to go there. Not for all. Even though I am versed in the new ethics, my conditioning happened in a very different time and there are plenty of occasions where I recognize that.

While there are plenty of people who seem to have a very solid grasp of the new ethics, there are also plenty of people who are trying but it still doesn't come naturally. Then there are people who straight up resist. They are loathe to relinquish the power of their privilege especially since it isn't visible to those who are exercising it. It's hard for the out of work poor southern white kkk xian dumbfuck to see that they are willing to use violence only to ensure that someone else is at the actual bottom of the totem pole. They lap up the stupid shit their masters feed them because they are being assured that someone else will never be able to pass them on the economic totem pole. That kind of existence barely qualifies for an example of freewill, IMO. Products of place and time with no concept of how to go about adapting to new circumstances or maybe even no concept that adaptation is useful, believing instead that enough rage will force the world to remain as it was when norms were established.

Norms are incredibly powerful things. Our values determine our behavior to such a massive extent that the most critical skill humans have is the ability to examine and assess our own personal values in the context of decisions we make. The inability to do that is the most cruel of disabilities because always on the horizon is an external social pressure suggesting that the sufferer is missing something but with actually no tools available to even assess the question because the 'thing' the individual is missing has a different 'thing' in its place.

Many, maybe most, men are constantly dealing with conflicting signals from the brain and the balls. How we deal with that conflict has a tremendous amount to do with how we learn to deal with it. It is not the sort of thing that is easy to sit down and think deeply on and arrive at a universal answer completely independently. We have to learn the boundary conditions. It helps if we begin with, it's not appropriate to make another person do anything they don't want to for personal gratification. If that one tries to slip in there very far down the line, it's already missed the point where an individual establishes the priorities and types of personal gratifications and so becomes secondary to what has already been established regarding those priorities. One of the perqs to being a rock star was culturally established to be unlimited sex, drugs, and rock and roll. The ends to which men used to assume power naturally be put include tons of sex with whatever kinks they might have developed over time. It takes an entirely new cultural background to make locker-room talk unacceptable in a locker-room. I do think we are moving that way though. But it's not surprising to see Dave make the formulaic 1970's red-piller type responses because that was the value structure he absorbed and his ability to examine his own values is notoriously nonexistent. He values women as individuals but has a separate box for women as objects for men to enjoy. Of course, he wants to believe that they enjoy it too because otherwise he'd have to examine his beliefs. But fortunately he doesn't have to because he just assumes that women mostly enjoy the role of whore and it's the line that divides right from wrong when women don't want to act the role of whores. Which makes severe complication in a marriage situation I'd guess. It's a defect not to want to put out at whatever your husband commands. That's where those 'at what point did the value get assimilated' situations become clear. Is the husband master? Does that come first?

I wrote this big long post because I have been thinking about the cultural divide a lot lately. A relative  supports Trump just as mindlessly and just as cluelessly as Dave does and I'm having some trouble squaring the fact that the mindset cannot even see that it is derivative of and enabling of actual Nazi ideology with the fact that the mindset is so horrible. I want to smash it like a cockroach, but I also want to leave idiots alone since they already have enough hardship in their worlds. There is no difficulty marginalizing their beliefs and values, it's easy to just say I'm not interested in Nazi propaganda, but it's hard to engage with it in a humane way and I have to remind myself that the changes are so dramatic that it's possible to feel some empathy for those who may enable horrors through pure ignorance. If humanity snuffs itself, it makes no difference if I was pissed off at those who contributed to the specific causes.

Ethics really are situational in some aspects. We may abhor the idea of infanticide and condemn cultural traditions that accepted it as justifiable, but the alternative was doubtlessly worse in some distant time or place. Child brides are horrible things. But starvation is too. Being a Nazi enabler/sympathizer (excuse me, 'the least racist people anyone's ever seen') in the US though, well, where and what is the appropriate response to it?

Worse, it's being promulgated through propaganda pitching it as an existential crisis while Wall Street keeps taking steep rents and laughing at how easy divide and conquer is. That gets easier to do when you control the reins of government and can actually make life an existential crises for the weakest group. That primes the fearful and inoculates them against the tools needed for adaptation. If you can stunt adaptive behavior, you can control the behavior of individuals easily by making the logical case for actions that certain values demand.

Wow. That's my first WoT in years.

ETA2: It's hard for me to be grateful enough for my good fortune of having really strong women for grandmothers, mother, wife, and daughters.
I never had the thought "Ah this bunch are heathens... they will high five me for woo hooing."

The only thought I had was ...

"Bingo. Borealis is full of s*** about Maasai not living very long. Here's an old geezer that is sprightly enough to marry a young hottie ... Woohoo!"

That's honestly the only thought I had.
I believe you.
I don't know whether to put this here or in comic relief
We all waited with bated breath for President Donald Trump's physical results --asking how in the world could this rotund, Kentucky-Fried-and-McDonald's-eating 71-year-old be in decent health?
How indeed?

On Friday, the White House released a statement allegedly written by the doctor who administered the exam. It said that the president was "in excellent health."

Except for one niggling thing. The doctor's name was spelled wrong.

White House physician Ronny Jackson spells his name with a "y."

As Rachel Maddow reported on her show Friday night, the statement released by the White House was signed by a "Dr. Ronnie Jackson," who spells his name with an "ie."

I think a man who has gone through medical school and made it all the way to the White House would know how to spell his own name. Unless . . . Unless.

Shareblue reports that it was also odd that this doctor who can't spell his name went against protocol in that he put "Dr." in front of his name, when most medical doctors use their name followed by their degree (for example, "Ronny Jackson, MD, FAAEM"), rather than using their title ("Dr.")

In the past, President Obama's test results--by the very same doctor--have been a bit more detailed.

Although the president reportedly spent more than three hours with a physician, the details--including his current medications, weight, BMI, blood pressure and cholesterol results--like his real tax returns--will most likely never see the light of day.
I don't know what's more unbelievable

That weight and height
His extraordinary capacity for exercise
A resting heart rate of 68bpm

it's kind of amazing they would lie like that. It's so obviously a lie. What the fuck has our country come to.
The purpose of that article was to respond to those who were basically saying ... in effect ...  "Poor 15 old bride ... she's stuck having sex with an old geezer who probably can't even get it up."
Wow. This is utter BS.

And you have the nerve to call others liars.
I see I was multiply ninja'd. Not surprising. But not only is it not what anyone else said, it is exactly the abhorrent perspective that people piled on him for.
"But, as to child marriage, his argument was that one bride (15 years old) was claimed to be happy about it by a South African white woman that didn't speak their language.  And another (12 years old) was claimed to be getting a great deal because she married a rich guy and could get fucked by all the other adults that she desired."

Good case study in the art of spin.

AKA lying.

But as always you can't specify the lie, only accuse someone of lying.

That was a summary Dave, where was the lie?

ETA: Or is it in fact yourself that is lying as usual.

First lie: "child marriage" - you are giving readers the impression that we were discussing "child marriage."  But I was not discussing child marriage.  I was discussing longevity of indigenous people groups.  In my search for long lived indigenous people, I ran across that article so I posted it with the "woo hoo" comment which echoed the sentiment of the on site white woman living in the village.  That was just a passing comment intended to communicate "wow, that 70 year old guy is plenty healthy enough to attract a hot young bride!"

Second lie:  Misrepresenting the article I posted which included an admission that yes, sometimes brides are as young as 12.  The purpose of that article was to respond to those who were basically saying ... in effect ...  "Poor 15 old bride ... she's stuck having sex with an old geezer who probably can't even get it up."  People would not understand that from what you wrote.

A commitment to truth - 100% truth - requires the hard work of actually trying to understand what people are saying and not misrepresenting them.
attract? You mean, she was asked and was excited and happy to consent? and:
respond to those who were basically saying ... in effect ...  "Poor 15 old bride ... she's stuck having sex with an old geezer who probably can't even get it up."
jesus christ man. That is NOT the issue.
It's easy, in the current climate especially, to forget just how bad Bush the lesser and his fucked up wars were. Especially since we barely even know that we are still at war. But Manning made a decision with basically no options or any idea of how to get the info out there in any kind of vetted format. She was aware of the consequences and accepted them willingly. I'm not sure I have the moral certainty to hate her for that decision.
Thanks to Donald Trump pointing out fake news I've really become more and more aware of the pervasiveness of misrepresentation and spin in much of our Communications in the world today. Now that I've become aware of it, I see it on almost every page at this forum and of course you see it constantly in the news media as well.
Yep, climb in that right-wing echo chamber and seal yourself off from any inconvenient facts.

Have you noticed that all these major Republican programs are wildly unpopular with a significant majority of the American people? No, you haven't, because people who rely on right-wing media for their news are significantly less informed, especially about topics that are inconvenient facts. They actually know less than people who don't follow the news at all, because they believe so much that is false.
What is the Fox News effect? What causes it? originally appeared on Quora: the knowledge sharing network where compelling questions are answered by people with unique insights.

Answer by William Poundstone, Author of Head in the Cloud: Why Knowing Things Still Matters When Facts Are So Easy to Look Up, on Quora:

In 2012, a Fairleigh Dickinson University survey reported that Fox News viewers were less informed about current events than people who didn't follow the news at all. The survey had asked current events questions like "Which party has the most seats in the House of Representatives?" and also asked what source of news people followed. The Fox viewers' current events scores were in the basement. This finding was immediately trumpeted by the liberal media--by Fox, not so much--and has since become known as the Fox News effect. It conjures the image of Fox News as a black hole that sucks facts out of viewers' heads.

 The first thing to realize is that every news medium has its own audience demographics. It's no secret to advertisers that the average Fox News viewer has less formal education and income than the average New York Times reader.

The Times is urban and urbane; Fox is small-town/suburban and populist. Fox competes directly against hundreds of other cable channels and has established a specialized niche in its media ecology. Fox trades in stories about the venality of big government, liberal overreach and little-guy heroes of the heartland. A large share of Fox stories deftly push emotional buttons (lest the viewer push the buttons on his or her remote...)

This format has been successful, but it has drawbacks. There's a lot that goes on in the world that doesn't easily fit the Fox template. There are important stories that don't make anyone angry, prove liberals are evil or otherwise carry an emotional punch. Fox viewers get less of them. Fox News is like an all-you-can-eat buffet, serving up red meat. A more balanced diet might be healthier in the long run.
Lol.  I'm 6'2" and 215 or so right now but I'd need to be way over 250, maybe closer to 300 to have that physique. When I lose 20 lbs, I go from a 36 to a 34 waist in levis. He's closer to a 44 waist.
6'3" 239lbs lmao ok
It's possible if he has zero muscle.
what is this about?
and broken glass iirc.
I have yet to see anybody here except me give a truly honest account of the conversation about the 15 year old Maasai bride marrying the 70 year old man. It's always told in such a way as to try to make me look like some sort of pedophile.

Classic fake news practice.
I think it was the woo hoo that really tipped the scales there.
eta: damnit
I just watched that gif like 10 times
Thanks to Donald Trump pointing out fake news I've really become more and more aware of the pervasiveness of misrepresentation and spin in much of our Communications in the world today. Now that I've become aware of it, I see it on almost every page at this forum and of course you see it constantly in the news media as well.
lol. Dear god this is such unabashed tool acknowledgement.
Like how slavery was the cause given by the seceding states?
Ask me if I care what you think.
Clearly you don't or you wouldn't keep lying.
Nope. You're lying.
Can you point out the lie or do you just mean you don't like that interpretation?
I could. But it's a waste of time to do so.
I think you're lying like you did about sending the check to NCSE
Nope. You're lying.

I'm not, though.

Perhaps you fail at communicating what you really think or believe.

Perhaps you are so invested in defending yourself that you grasp at very dubious straws that you think might uphold your position.

I've suggested before that you reread your own posts and try to see why people are reacting the way they are, because I honestly don't think you understand that.

You reveal yourself frequently as a man with very little cultural knowledge, as if you've not paid attention for several decades.
what about battery acid?
You have a Darwin debased mind.