This site is supported by Nobility Studios.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Bullying of sexual/gender minorities

38 posts in this topic

Posted

There have been at least a couple of recent, unfortuante comments here that, to my mind, were sneers against sexual minorities. One of the sneers was directed at a brief Slate article, which included a video. The point of the article was that sexual minorities, such as the transgendered, are at much higher risk of bullying and even suicide because of bullying.

Consider if that such minorites were to read the sneers at this site, they might feel bullied. Perhaps it's the last bullying that pushes them over the edge.

I suggest that such comments be prohibited from this site. This never has, after all, been a free-speech site, and in the old days we censored comments and even banned paricipants for offenses like failing to construct a proper philosophical argument or ignoring pertinent questions.

Maybe we ought to bring back the old days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Would you just stop- stop with all the moral fucking outrage. Jesus Christ.

This isn't a "free speech site?" What the hell is wrong with you? I mean, you've historically railed (rightfully so as I see it) against fascism, but hey man, when it comes to anything that offends your always precious evaluative sensibilities, you're perfectly willing to become a regular Mussolini.

What's particularly tragic here is that you can discuss, with erudition, theories of time, quantum physics, relativity, philosophy of science, etc, but in wake of that which would dare even satirize that approaching and/or embodying your (leftist) political philosophy, you undergo rapid devolution (colloquially used here people!), transforming into a poo flinging ape.

I "sneered" at a Slate article and you want to ban me? Incredible.

Edited by DeadCanDance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On rereading your post, I've found it so incredibly ridiculous, I'm at a loss.

Perhaps a sexual minority "might feel bullied" and it "pushes them over the edge?"

If a sexual minority feels "bullied" because I "sneered" at a Slate article, that's his/her/its problem- in fact, your threat to ban me is making me a little edgy- I'm thinking I might feel bullied.

You've posted reflecting Schopenhauer's pessimism- perhaps some downtrodden soul will stumble along these parts, and coming to see pessimism herein affirmed, will put a gun in their mouth and pull the trigger...shut it down!

We can't have any of that "free speech" 'round these parts- free speech is for fascist scumbags.

Edited by DeadCanDance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Just out of curiosity, Derrik, what is your opinion of LGBTs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

what is your opinion of LGBTs?

Mmm... one of the best things you can pick up on a long train journey. With mayonnaise and a pickled gherkin, obviously. And only one at a time.

Oh.. hang on... that's a BLT...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No, I was talking about a Lettuce, Gherkin, Bacon, and Tomato sandwich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

LOL

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

... that's his/her/its problem ...

You've said all that needs to be said about you, right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ah yes, "all that needs to be said," all the complexities and multifaceted aspects of a human person and you would reduce judgment to a single comment- truly amazing.

A person does not operate within the confines of a sickly political correctness...Davidm's response? "To the gulags with him!"

Gulags is, of course, rhetorical exaggeration, but your modus operandi is a hyper-exclusivity in the name of inclusivity as value, raised to status omnipresence.

George Carlin made jokes about rape, I'm sure you'd be right there, sign in hand, angry voice pushing the bounds of your vocal cords as you long for the "old days" when such voices were swiftly silenced.

Ironic, given your penchant for 'egalitarianism;' you dream about the masses unshackled from the ruling hand of oligarchy and you can't even stand what you perceive to be offensive without dipping into that old Vanguardist, authoritarianism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Are you saying rape jokes are acceptable? Do you feel your right to tell a crass joke trumps the right of a rape victim to not have the trauma they have suffered trivialized? Or, if they do hear the joke, should they put up and shut up?

BTW, going back to your earlier point, if somebody feels bullied or victimized by something you said, it isn't simply their problem, and they do have the right to complain about it. Furthermore your blatant and malicious attacks on LGBTs are in no way comparable with a philosophical argument that may cause some people to think life is misery, especially when the intention of the former is to demonise an undeserving group of people.

If you do not think it is right for LGBTs to be victimised, treated differently, or viewed with contempt, I apologise for the misunderstanding, but it does seem as though you have a problem with them. Maybe something you want to talk about?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I was hoping to avoid this topic, but here it goes.

DCD, do you not understand what free speech is? There's nothing about regulating speech on private property that is "fascist" or anti-egalitarian or in conflict with free speech rights. Claiming that it is fascistic is the sort of rhetorical move that I'd expect from an inbred West Virginian. Suppose a Holocaust denier entered this forum and was banned for posting odious nonsense. Would anyone take issue with that? No; there's nothing objectionable about refusing to engage people who have repeatedly shown themselves to be unreasonable, vile idiots. (I'm yet to meet a single person who takes issue with the acceptance of LGBTs and doesn't fall into the latter category.) If you have a problem with that principle, then I suppose you'd be opposed to the removal of persons from private houses and restaurants who've chosen to force themselves inside and ramble at length about the Jewish banking conspiracy.

I'd be willing to accept that you were exaggerating for the sake of effect were it not for these two lines:

"This isn't a 'free speech site?' What the hell is wrong with you? I mean, you've historically railed (rightfully so as I see it) against fascism, but hey man, when it comes to anything that offends your always precious evaluative sensibilities, you're perfectly willing to become a regular Mussolini."

"Ironic, given your penchant for 'egalitarianism;' you dream about the masses unshackled from the ruling hand of oligarchy and you can't even stand what you perceive to be offensive without dipping into that old Vanguardist, authoritarianism."

What stuns me is that you thought it a good idea to advertise your bigotry on this site. Have you so deeply buried yourself in the New Right revival of frustration and paranoia that you didn't think that decent, educated people would, by and large (at least), object to that?

Edited by PeculiarPhilosopher
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The views expressed here by DeadCanDance have surprised me, but at least they appear in this forum, rather than the more esoteric ones. However, this by no means makes his views acceptable, and I think he has rightly deserved all the criticisms he has received.

This conversation is really about what we mean by "free speech", and anyone who wishes to join and participate in any organisation will ultimately abide by the rules of that organisation and confine their own ideas of freedom of speech according to those rules, whilst participating within the organisation, otherwise they can expect to be asked to leave, if they do not do so on their own accord.

As a young idealist (Utopian - William Morris's "News from Nowhere"?) anarchist I used to think that we should all be able to say and do whatever we pleased, whenever we liked, wherever we were and to whom we were in contact, whoever they were! No-one would take offence to the point of violence (in pub discussions occasionally someone would walk out, but they would be back the next night), we were all friends together. If offence was caused, apologies were soon forthcoming. I think Christian Anarchy leans in that direction, but few of us are Christian Anarchists, and the hegemony of human organisations soon leads to war.

In this respect DCD has a point in that freedom of speech may cause offence, and the problem resides with the person(s) feeling offended, not with the person who makes the offensive remark. Jokes about mothers-in-law, and jokes about Christianity immediately spring to my mind! In a totalitarian state we may dare not even speak freely in our places of leisure and recreation.

There has been a suggestion that we should all air our views on the LGBT movement, for instance, but how far would we get before some of us were asked to leave TGL? My Christian position here is as I have said before, I condemn the sin, but not the sinner, but I also empathise with anyone who is afflicted (ouch - my apologies if that word causes offence with anyone) with any sexual problems (that's probably all of us!), and do what I can to make them feel comfortable and accepted.

The argument over military conscription often focusses on our reaction to the scenario of an enemy soldier breaking into out house and raping and killing our loved ones. The book "The Overcomers", by Richard Wurmbrand addresses the problem of some of the evils of wartime from a Christian perspective.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yes, free speech may cause offense, and we have to accept that if we want to have free speech, but the problem of offense most certainly does not lie solely with the person feeling offended. We know empirically that people commit suicide from bullying “free speech.” The point is that “free speech” is not something that automatically applies everywhere and in all venues. If someone comes into your house and uses his “free speech” to attack sexual minorities, It’s your house and you have the right to give him the heave-ho if you object to what he says.

That said, I never called, as was charged, for anyone to be banned. I merely reflected that in the past, this site had much tougher restrictions on “free speech,” up to and including banning people for failing to defend their arguments. I do maintain that this site ought to prohibit hate speech, such as vicious gibes against transgendered people, which is exactly on par with racist commentary. Would this site permit overt expressions of racism? I doubt it.

In addition, the whole notion of allegedly violating free speech is a colossal red herring in this case anyway, because as it turns out, the author of the remarks to which I objected has his own Twitter feed and blog (where, by the way, he has the perfect, recognized right to block commentary or forbid others from posting for any reason whatsoever). I was simply agog at the things I read on his Twitter feed, but I won’t elaborate. Suffice it to say that he has his own platform in cyberspace; he can and does say, there, anything he chooses. Is that not sufficient?

Finally, Mathsteach2, this “condemn the sin, love the sinner” business, with all due respect, is pretty ridiculous. In practice things rarely comport to such a neat formulation – it seems to me that hating the sin AND hating the sinner is quite prevalent in real life (I’m not charging you with that). But in this case it is also irrelevant, because being transgendered is not a behavior – it’s an identity issue, like being black or having blue eyes. Identity cannot be a sin, unless God has a truly malevolent sense of “humor.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

DaveT, the discourse inviting tone of your response is much appreciated. That you registered disapproval of what I've stated (or may not have stated) without immediate recourse into seeking to abolish conflicting (within the general milieu of the site) sentiment, position, pro-attitude, what have you, speaks to, again, a much appreciated forbearance.

What has proven intensely vexing, though I suppose in that it reflects the hyper-sensitivity of the larger societal context, I shouldn't have so experienced vexation, is the rapidity and willingness, almost as if a reflex action, immediate, thoughtless, and pronounced, to condemn through evaluative caricature and the unambiguous embrace of the language of imputation.

To escape the animality of blind immanence through normative judgment, only to have the status quo, thoroughly Whig geist flatten this verticality back into the reflex arc is almost enamoring in the sheer irony.

To differentiate, DaveT, when you speak of my "blatant and malicious attacks on LGBTs," this, I cannot but conclude given the marked absence of any such "attacks" is pure R-complex function. Graciously, mammalian neurophysiology roused in short order and you aptly used the appearance/reality disclosing word "seem," as if to imply a certain distancing from the former delineation.

Does, after all, a generally scowling attitude towards Salon, and/or satirization necessitate the judgment that a particular group has been maliciously attacked? To be speak of contextuality here strikes me as appropriate- can you identify where this "attack," in my posts, has taken place and why, having come to this conclusion, these adjectives are warranted in your estimation?

Perhaps you're uninterested- I mean here to express roughly this: particularly when convinced of the rightness of one's position and most especially when tied to the appropriation of history, it can be disturbingly effortless to set the slicing pendulum in motion. Look at the ease with which Peculiar characterizes, literally everyone in his anecdotal report, "who takes issue with the acceptance of LGBTs" as "vile idiots." While I'm not entirely sure what he holds as entailed by "acceptance," I've certainly known and know people who, for example, are opposed to gay marriage that are neither idiotic nor vile, who are kind and loving, persons bearing no personal animosity towards LGBTs.

Then again, being from the South, this contention must surely be the product of evaluative mode of analysis emerging from all the cognitive, affective trappings of that ole proverbial "inbred West Virginian." Hold on now yall, lemme put in 'dis here chewin' tobaccer, turn on the Gunsmoke, and go beat up some gays. Yeeehaw!

Edited by DeadCanDance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Now, I know that Peculiar knows that I, on the issue of "free speech" was not, as he intimates, actually making some constitutional appeal, as if 'muh rights,' were I to be censored or banned, would thereby be violated. His spiel, if you will, was little more than empty posturing.

I'm acutely aware that TGL is Hugo's (not Davidm's) creation and that he has every right to moderate as he sees appropriate; my use of 'free speech' was expressed in response to Davidm's use of "free speech site."

Is my participation in a public forum analogous to forced home entry? To grant and respect authoritativeness relative to the confines, TGL as private property, of the owner's judgment as regards exclusivity, does not in itself, it seems to me, terminate discussion on 'free speech' in the more delimited sense of what kind of public forum TGL fashions itself and a range of broader issues, particularly here, about the interpersonal embrace and appropriateness, or lack thereof, of "hate speech," "bullying," and by extension, not expressly having been utilized, "homophobia," "racism," etc, as words/concepts signaling intolerability, and similarly, in the accuracy, or lack thereof, in reflecting what's being, or attempting to be, communicated.

Of course censoring and/or banning within TGL is not a "violation of speech rights." In the way of explanation, I do wonder if Peculiar's response, in this propositional typification of my earlier post, stems from his general penchant for (such a fiery young gentleman) tossing others, whether moral, as he has with almost everyone who has and will live (see antinatalism thread), or intellectual, into the dustbin of "inadequacy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I look forward to shredding these laughable posts soon.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

On the matter at hand: yes, it is inappropriate to post 'sneers against sexual minorities' or some of the comments that were in the now-deleted status conversations. I assume that some or all of this is trolling, but that is not appropriate here either. Neither, by the way, is counter-trolling.

More generally, if we applied the old rules or at least the early approach to moderation then most members - including me - would have been banned at some point. There are so few people actively posting now that this has not happened, largely because I assumed and hoped that the long-standing members would be able to regulate their own conduct and obviously if we ban the people who are left then the site will die. I would welcome a discussion of free speech or LGBT rights or indeed anything other than trolling, but TGL is almost ten years old and that seems something worth celebrating rather than wasting our collective energies in this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On the issue of rape jokes- do I find them "acceptable?" Executed to comedic effect I might laugh with a coeval pang of guilt, but I'm not sure what finding them unacceptable entails. In the way of moral judgment, I certainly wouldn't joke about rape, but what of it? I suppose I would vaguely take Voltaire's attitude, oft repeated, about defending the right of others to say what I myself would rather them (voluntarily) not.

I would roughly liken the situation unto that of abortion in the way of axiological triage, if you will. Both the antinatalist, convinced that the act of procreation is morally impermissible and the one convinced similarly as regards abortion, can agree that the expression of one's own moral account through action, while perhaps lamentable, is bilaterally foremost in the evaluative ordering.

On the question of "bullying," it should be noted that I nowhere stated, in the manner of blanket application, that one's perception of having been bullied or in being a "victim" can never be appropriately refracted back to the party guilty as charged, but expressed a qualified judgment.

I think it valid to discuss the terms in which one is granted "victim" status or in which one has been "bullied." It would, it seems to me, be utterly inappropriate to grant that one has in fact been "bullied" or "maliciously attacked," etc, qua one's report or perception as such. Does one's mere verbalization of having been "bullied" necessitate its veridicality?

I cannot provide a link from this phone, but the recent debacle involving Matt Taylor, who participated in the Rosetta Mission comet landing, and a shirt he wore in an interview, (it's worth at least a quick search and review) provides a good primer into the territory of my next post.

Edited by DeadCanDance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I wrote a long, nasty reply to DCD that I was about to post. Then I remembered that DCD supposedly was in the reverse position in the recent past--he had written a long, nasty reply to me, but chose not to post it. I will, as such, return the favor, and offer a short, tempered reply instead.

DCD, I think that you are a horrible person, morally speaking. I'm not saying this in the heat of anger or what have you; I've reached the conclusion after sustained, thoroughly unemotional reflection on the matter. There is no way out of this conclusion, as far as I can tell, even if you were to pull some bullshit and claim that your Twitter is just one big troll effort (I knew about your Twitter for a long while, and said nothing; then it was discovered by the regular posters here when you retweeted something that Heretic put up on his Twitter). You have a post on there expressing Nazi sympathy in thoroughly un-trollish language (and yet you deride DM as a "fascist", which I think largely vitiates your recent attempts to make your remarks on "free speech" sophisticated; to claim that you wanted a "discussion" on the sort of speech that we should allow on the site is ridiculous; the outrage in your posts suggests frothing rage at potential infringement of rights; if that's not the case, then your use of the term "fascist" was absurdly inappropriate); and it fits perfectly with everything else on there: https://twitter.com/PlatonicNoir/status/524418007431643136 . I cannot read that and not infer that you are a moral monster. Your whole approach to responding thus far misses the fact that we (for the most part) had what you've written on Twitter in mind in writing on what was "behind" your remarks on LGBTs, or what their nature is. So recourse to narrow, stringent linguistic examination of what you've written on TGL and what it implies does nothing to help your case. As such, there's little reason to respond in detail to much of what you've recently offered here.

I'm far from alone in this view of your character at this point, so if you were to claim that my dismissing you as such is simply a symptom of my tendency to render needlessly harsh judgments on others, you'd be wrong (even granting that I do have the aforementioned tendency). Additionally, in indicating the AN thread, you leave room for the interpretation--and, indeed, seem to be suggesting--that in condemning others, I was seeking to put myself on a moral pedestal. Yet I explicitly stated in that thread that, on my own moral terms, I qualify as "inadequate". You seem to have an admiration for Catholicism. Are you unaware of the fact that Catholics hold everyone to be profoundly morally inadequate? Why is the Catholic belief that this is so OK, but mine unacceptable? These are rhetorical questions. I don't expect to engage with you after this post.

I also didn't disparage "literally everyone" who is against the acceptance of LGBTs. I wrote of all such people whom I've encountered, to suggest that this experience with anti-LGBTs that I described is probably shared, and likely partially explains why most of the people here are willing to dismiss your anti-LGBT claims out of hand.

Before I conclude, I want to point out my general bemusement regarding a tactic of yours in pushing your "reactionary" political philosophy. You repeatedly take issue with those on the left for having their "evaluative priorities" out of order. How dare leftists, so your argument seems to run, complain about offensive T-shirts when there are children starving? And yet, you and your reactionary friends love to complain about equally petty things, with respect to more pressing matters like starving children. For instance, a rap about the acceptance of transgendered people. How, exactly, is it less petty to complain about that than offensive T-shirts in a world where children are starving? That you evidently wish that the Nazis had won WWII suggests further pettiness. Genocide for what? I imagine that you think that getting rid of various modern cultural trappings that you disdain would be worth a more extensive Nazi slaughter. That is not only petty, but flatly appalling.

I used to respect and even admire your intellect; and I once considered you to be of very high moral standing. I thought of you as a good friend. You've put an end to all of that.

Edited by PeculiarPhilosopher
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, I think I have found the key to this strange and rather sad puzzle. ;) but first let me start with a quote:

"A king? you want a king? Boy, nobody wants a king! Ignatius, are you sure you're OK?"

-- John Kennedy Toole, A Confederacy of Dunces

Important note to all you NRx's out there: A Confederacy of Dunces was satire! :finger: Please do not try to construct a political program around it! :rofl:

So, for instance, when Ignatius J. Reilly describes his bus trip to Baton Rogue, La., to apply for a college position teaching medievalism, as "my sojourn to the inner station of the ultimate horror," see, that's funny. You're supposed to laugh -- not nod somberly at it and think, "My God, my God, that's right!"

Please see: RationalWiki on NRx

My … Zod!

*Faints dead away* :faint:

Read it and laugh/weep. Take special note of the NRx or "Dark Enlightenment" debate about whether it's even OK to talk to a transgendered person, and their attitudes to many other "out groups" besides.

Sad and pathetic.

Edited by davidm
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

From the above-linked article:

The main thing neoreactionaries do is blog. One common feature of the movement is a long-winded — ridiculously long-winded — and oblique prose style, eager to show off its mastery of historical trivia; it seems more poetry[wp] than politics at times. This is right-wing politics in its dotage: radical, deliberately "transgressive" posturing in obscurantist prose, a worthy bookend to the Frankfurt School,[14] and perhaps evidence of the horseshoe theory of politics. Like its doppelganger, you wonder how they imagine anybody is going to be persuaded to vote for it. (Which is why neither is all that fond of voting.)

For an example, Moldbug responded to Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion by writing a seven-part sequence of posts in September 2007, totalling 37,941 words, in which he conclusively proved, step by step, thread by thread, detail by detail, that Dawkins was, for all his protestations of atheism, in fact ... a cultural Christian![15] Dawkins has, of course, stated the same thing in four and a half words: "I'm a cultural Christian" in December 2007.[16] (No doubt provoked by Moldbug's stirring rhetoric.)

LOL, just … LOL.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It cannot be said of Peculiar that he's intellectually challenged or cognitively otherly-abled or whatever currently socially approved word or phrase meaning to signify dumbness is. I have not ever doubted and do not doubt this now.

Such being the case, I'm perplexed, almost aghast at his most recent post: there must be some causal explanation for such a blatant display of a lack of comprehension, of the fervor to plug in, as it were, statements into a moral narrative where no such narrative, in the twisted structure he would hammer it into, exists.

What I've suspected about Peculiar is, unfortunately, being given witness to: in point of contact with an "other," he decides, unconsciously or otherwise, what the terms, if you will, of contact will be preemptively, and squeezes this through the mesh of a static cognitive horizon.

Though our friendship may be over, I hope Peculiar will spare me his "nastiness;" I've seen this side of the man- it's skillful and vicious...and I'm a sensitive person. :(

On second thought- let it out sir. There was a time when being called a 'horrible person' by you would have cut deeply indeed, but recognizing that such repudiations come as easily to you as a fish swimming in the water, it has a way of blunting the effect- par for the course, as they say.

Anyways, I should be able to have the knots of the latest post untied and respond this evening- I'm no Houdini here, and time moves more slowly down here in the land of "inbreds."

Edited by DeadCanDance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It honestly saddens me to say that the RationalWiki article on NRx's sounds like … Well, you can tick off every sad point: hostility to the transgendered, blacks, every "out group" that is not white-male entitled; an orotund, obfuscatory writing style intended to deceive rather than clarify; a fondness for traditional Catholicism, authoritarianism in all its forms and even Fascism; "men's rights" activism with its associated mindless misogyny; and on and on and on. Just read the Wiki article. Humankind. What a piece of work we are. :(

And yet, in chat last night (I hope he won't mind me saying this) Heretic, that compassionate curmudgeon, simply noted: "We all have our crosses to bear." And, yeah, I guess you could think of it that way, and the people who have been sucked in to this "Dark Enlightement" (LOL) nonsense are more to be pitied then censured. As always, perhaps, old Schopenhauer said it best:

Pardon’s the word to all! Whatever folly men commit, be their shortcomings or their vices what they may, let us exercise forbearance; remembering that when these faults appear in others, it is our follies and vices that we behold. They are the shortcomings of humanity, to which we belong; whose faults, one and all, we share; yes, even those very faults at which we now wax so indignant, merely because they have not yet appeared in ourselves. They are faults that do not lie on the surface. But they exist down there in the depths of our nature; and should anything call them forth, they will come and show themselves, just as we now see them in others. One man, it is true, may have faults that are absent in his fellow; and it is undeniable that the sum total of bad qualities is in some cases very large; for the difference of individuality between man and man passes all measure.

In fact, the conviction that the world and man is something that had better not have been, is of a kind to fill us with indulgence towards one another. Nay, from this point of view, we might well consider the proper form of address to be, not Monsieur, Sir, mein Herr, but my fellow-sufferer, Socî malorum, compagnon de miseres! This may perhaps sound strange, but it is in keeping with the facts; it puts others in a right light; and it reminds us of that which is after all the most necessary thing in life — the tolerance, patience, regard, and love of neighbor, of which everyone stands in need, and which, therefore, every man owes to his fellow.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think the best, most concise antidote to this NRx-Dark Enlightenment drivel (but also, ingeniously, to the actual Enlightenment, and liberal progressivism!) is Dostoevsky's Notes From Underground.

Build a Crystal Palace, and man will smash it .., if for no other reason than out of pure spite! And therein lies man's only real freedom, the freedom of revolt. Revolt even against twice two makes four, if necessary.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It cannot be said of Peculiar that he's intellectually challenged or cognitively otherly-abled or whatever currently socially approved word or phrase meaning to signify dumbness is. I have not ever doubted and do not doubt this now.

Such being the case, I'm perplexed, almost aghast at his most recent post: there must be some causal explanation for such a blatant display of a lack of comprehension, of the fervor to plug in, as it were, statements into a moral narrative where no such narrative, in the twisted structure he would hammer it into, exists.

What I've suspected about Peculiar is, unfortunately, being given witness to: in point of contact with an "other," he decides, unconsciously or otherwise, what the terms, if you will, of contact will be preemptively, and squeezes this through the mesh of a static cognitive horizon.

Though our friendship may be over, I hope Peculiar will spare me his "nastiness;" I've seen this side of the man- it's skillful and vicious...and I'm a sensitive person. :(

On second thought- let it out sir. There was a time when being called a 'horrible person' by you would have cut deeply indeed, but recognizing that such repudiations come as easily to you as a fish swimming in the water, it has a way of blunting the effect- par for the course, as they say.

Anyways, I should be able to have the knots of the latest post untied and respond this evening- I'm no Houdini here, and time moves more slowly down here in the land of "inbreds."

It's interesting that you took the time to write this somewhat long post, and yet no substantive point was made. What exactly have I failed to comprehend? You object to the "moral narrative" that is allegedly mine alone, and still address the rest of TGL in this fashion. As I've already pointed out, that's wrong. Pretty much everyone here thinks you're despicable at this point. We had many good laughs at your expense last night in chat, particularly given the fact that you are a living Ignatius J. Reilly; amazing that you're stupid enough to like CoD when you are the embodiment of the very thing it was designed to make us laugh at.

On your remarks about nastiness: I could wreck you, but, as already stated, will be abstaining from doing so. You're an easy target; it would feel cruel, like picking on a child. Anyone could do it if they knew all that I know.

You've already said, on multiple occasions, that I'm smarter than you are. As such, you'd better hope that I'm not "intellectually challenged". That bullshit at the outset of your post was, of course, a weak man's way of leveling an insult (said insult being, "Wow, this post of PP's is so dumb, I have to point out that he's not intellectually challenged!"). I love that your genteel veneer comes up when you're not working within the neo-reactionary twitter space, surrounded by like-minded clowns.

Edited by PeculiarPhilosopher
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0