Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/17/2019 in Posts

  1. 3 points
    He's a child or else a very young adult. The graphic is General Iroh from Avatar: the Last Airbender an anime series that ran from 2005-2008 and is still popular today. The hand gesture Iroh is making is likely part of a kata as he often imparted wisdom to his grandson while they trained together. My 15-year-old and I loved that series and quote from it on a semi-regular basis. The very next line after the graphic, our mystery poster says, "So here I am, trying to draw wisdom from a new source." I read him in the same way I would have read my teenage son - more mature and smarter than average, but an awkward communicator and not sure how to convey that he wants to learn something while maintaining that he knows everything. You know, like a kid would do. Your experience, MSK, led you to read him differently, and you'll get no judgment from me on that, neither in my response to the poster nor in this response to you. However, I was compelled to answer honestly his honest inquiry. No, I did not get the same impression of him as others did.
  2. 2 points
    I’m road tripping today and passing my time as a passenger surfing the internet. I rarely have more than a few minutes these days for this kind of activity, so I tend to be quite selfish with how I spend those minutes. Hence, my much reduced activity here in general and my hesitance to devote a lot of energy on this thread. But I see there are others attempting to speak on my behalf and perhaps being offended for me, so .... Regarding a Socratic circle, I have no idea if there is a correct way to do one, and I’ve never participated in one. I only know what the young people in my life have told me about their experience. It’s typically done in ELA classes when discussing literature, but I assume it can be done in other settings. There’s an inner circle of participants who are meant to discuss and an outer circle of participants who are meant to observe. After a time, they switch places. There is some general topic, but other than that the discussion is meant to be a sharing of ideas and wherever that goes, it goes. Now, my understanding is that it can be quite boring when participants repeat by rote. Therefore, kids like my son will open with some purposely provocative statement. Playing devil’s advocate if you will. Pot stirring if you prefer. It’s common for him to begin dinner discussions this way. We’re both entertained. I’ve seen this be not so entertaining. One of the young people on my team at work is accustomed to being the most brilliant person in the room. And she is brilliant. But what worked for her in the classroom doesn’t always work in the real world. When she comes to me with a purposely provocative idea, it’s my job to coach her through communicating that in a way that won’t get her laughed out of the room. Or called condescending. Regarding the phantom, I don’t know him. I’ve said already that I drew conclusions about him based on what I gleaned from his original post and my own experiences. I don’t have any attachment to the rightness or wrongness of those conclusions. Michael, I simply don’t know what else I could contribute that would be enlightening for you, but I freely admit that I didn’t go very far backwards to see what other questions you may have asked that I didn’t address. Unless you expected a response to “aw, c’mon” in which case I’ll close with “Jane, you ignorant slut!” That’s a joke, of course. Everyone be well.
  3. 2 points
    Jon, And of course being bullied, right? That's the subtext everyone is responding to. And that's rich coming from you. Since when do you stand up for social justice warriors, anyway? Talk about weird and bizarre. You wanna do tough-guy talk, tough guy? Here's some tough talk. Tone it down. I mean it. My patience is wearing thin. Michael
  4. 1 point
    Here is one hell of a story war technique. Override a defense mechanism in the human brain that shuts off predictions and scare the shit out of people with their own personal death. Then offer your agenda as a savior to stave off the end for a time. This technique is as old as the hills, like stories of the apocalypse, but the left and ruling class has come up with a way to literally rob the young of their future by short-circuiting the brain's defense against depression from contemplating their own deaths. Many young people don't believe they are going to live past 30 because of manmade climate change (and other things, but climate change is the main story culprit). And the unintended consequences? There is a huge increase in young people suicides. How's them apples? Congratulations, assholes. Here's the transcript. The Left Has Reprogrammed the Human Brain to Focus on Death Read it. This is really evil. Rush based his comments on this story: Doubting death: how our brains shield us from mortal truth Brain seems to categorise death as something that only befalls other people And that is based on a study that is coming out in a few weeks. I will try to remember to post it. In sum, if you can indoctrinate school kids with fear of their own impending doom--with no plausible escape--in order to mold them into proper little voting machines after they grow up, you also rob them of their entire meaning in life. If there is no future worth living, many of them will check out through suicide. And that is exactly what they are doing. I don't think the elitist ruling class gives a damn. They already send the young to fight pointless wars just so they can make money and keep power. If some legs get blown off or the caskets pile up, well, too bad. They just want power over whoever is left. Michael EDIT: A tangent from Rush today: Environmentalist Wackos Drop the Polar Bears. The polar bears were storytelling gold for manmade climate change. People even made commercials about polar bears showing up and hugging people who held back carbon emissions. But those suckers just won't die. What's worse, they are thriving and increasing. Now it's at a point where the victimhood story has collapsed. It's just too damn obvious to everybody that the polar bears live. They live! So the poor things are being fired as poster animal for the environmentalist movement.
  5. 1 point
    Veritas is ready to reveal more CNN news today, this time about the sexual harrassment scandal. The accused had already locked their Twitter account, but now, Twitter is DOWN; "over capacity", it's saying... Probably just a coincidence, I'm sure... (Edit, 10/22/19: It's back up, now...for now...)
  6. 1 point
    Jon, Re the first paragraph. Try tracking. Re the second: No "siege mentality." Michael knows, I know, you know that you can't take over. You can, however, drop the efforts to tell Michael how he should run his list. Ellen
  7. 1 point
    "Not being able to handle criticism" doesn't necessary imply banning the other person. It could also mean "always insisting on having the last word", or "not being able to say 'lets agree to disagree'" for example.
  8. 1 point
    Jon, You claim that Michael can't handle criticism. (I suppose that's what your "You [MSK] don’t do even the mildest criticism" means.) Then why does Michael tolerate your presence with your chronic criticism of how he runs his list? Ellen
  9. 1 point
    Jon, Nah... I wasn't even testing. Banter and a flare-up are not tests. They are, well, banter and a flare-up. It's true I will test a newbie a bit to see about his or her honesty of intentions (OMG! There's that word again. ). That's to save time and headaches later on and is based on some chops I have earned the hard way. But test the alpha dog? Why? That doesn't pass the smell test. It smells too much like balls. And I don't do balls sniffing... Michael
  10. 1 point
    Imagine the approach used by a reporter. Of course journalism includes more job niches than reporter, but lack of communication skills isn't a recommendation for any of them I know of. Ellen
  11. 1 point
    Deanna, Ah, come on. I ask a simple question about what you see, and even tell you I am curious for my own reasons dealing with my studies, and you're not sure you see the point? I even tell you I am not judging anything with this question? Well, here's the point since it is not clear to you: Exchange of information. It's simple. You know something I don't and I would like you to tell me so I can know it, too. I even said that. How is that not clear? But this phantom dude comes here and opens with a crapload of negative assumptions about Rand's flaws, and ours for that matter based on no knowledge at all, and you do see the point? Jeez, Louise... On another issue, I looked up Socratic Circle since I had not heard of it and looked at a few search entries. I happen to like the Socratic method of digging information out of the right brain and underbelly of the mind in order to verbalize it through questions and discussion. (I can give you great books that discuss how this happens, starting with Iain McGilchrist's book on the divided brain. But there are many more I have read.) Much of the info in the brain has not been recorded in memory in verbal form, nor even the processing of it is in verbal form. So with questions and discussion, things often emerge and appear like they are new. And they are--in words. But the info was there all along. Also, the Socratic method allows the creative impulse to be added to that process so some truly new paths and dot-connections happen. (Apropos, Rand used this method in a solitaire-like manner in her creative writing and later in her nonfiction. She would list a string of questions as they came to mind, then proceed to answer them as if they came from someone else. After she did that, she would choose what to pursue and what to discard.) In my search, I saw a lot of things mentioning Common Core when they talked about Socratic Circle. So maybe I never heard of this because it's a new jargon term from that system. I don't know... I will look deeper over time. From what little I read, I didn't find any meaningful connection with how this phantom guy opened--talking about what he is not nor ever could be--presuming that that unfortunate state was what we were, and how flawed and foolish the things he wants to discuss are, etc., as he seeks wisdom from all this. That's the Socratic Circle way? Really? (All right, all right, that was a friendly poke in the ribs...) I want to ask you how you think the mental and emotional immaturity of a 15 year old can apply to college graduates because I'm still curious and I'm still not sure what you see. When I look at what goes on in the news on college campuses, with their safe spaces, bullying by collectives, conviction by accusation, intolerance of the boogiemen they have been indoctrinated to hate (mostly America and white males), etc., I can see the possibility. But, frankly, I am looking even deeper. Maybe you're not interested. Whatever... As part of what I see, I got into my stepson's head and, even though he is on the autistic spectrum, his IQ is now recorded as much higher than before--in fact, now it's at an average level--and he is going to college.* That tells me the system that coddled him and molded him into a special needs sausage was screwed up, not him. I've tested him on his college lessons and in everything I walked through with him, he was spot on. Hell, I even screwed up the math on one thing and he corrected me. You have no idea how proud of him I am. Anyhow, enough of that. There's no point, right? I sincerely hope this phantom guy does not apply for a job or things like that using the same approach he used here to introduce himself to strangers on a forum. I don't predict he will be very successful if he does. Michael * Note: I do not believe his IQ increased since that rarely happens and the increase is small when it happens (although within normal parameters of how much it can increase, it may have), but I do believe the earlier testing was incompetent--the testing when he was being shaped into a special needs sausage. And that resulted in a very low score. He has a slow response time for thought to become bodily expression, including speaking. Some people take this to be evidence of lack of cognitive ability and, to be fair, it often looks like that. But it isn't. The proof is in his results when he gets the amount of time he needs and has actually done the work. I always suspected this and that's the way it worked when I coached him on writing and so on, or when he taught himself wikicode, but it finally came evident in college where, by some miracle or other, they do allow him extra time. In special needs, they kept him doing super-easy tasks and silly shit. All. Day. Long. This went on all through his public education. To say that I am angry at the system is an understatement. Fucking technocrats and government ass kissers playing at teaching to collect a paycheck...
  12. 1 point
    I didn’t miss that he was a college graduate. I was a teenage college graduate. My son is on track to be a teenage college graduate. I have two direct reports who were teenage college graduates and an intern who will be a teenage college graduate next spring. That last one doesn’t even drive yet. I am surrounded by very young high performers and over achievers who are earnest yet awkward in their communication styles. All of them have learned a particular type of discussion method called a Socratic Circle. I am accustomed to my son opening discussions in the manner in which phantom did so. Also, as I pointed out before, the quote and the graphic in the original post are from an animated series that I have enjoyed with my son. Given that phantom quoted general Iroh and then explicitly said he was following Iroh’s advice, he seems to be identifying with Iroh’s grandson Zuko, a teenager or very young adult. This is also why I assume he’s male. There are strong female characters in the series that he could have identified with but didn’t. I could go on, but I’m not sure I see the point. You drew a conclusion. I drew a conclusion. We each did so based on our own experiences. We could both be wrong or the reality may be something in between. We simply can’t know unless phantom cares to enlighten us.
  13. 1 point
    Brant, I don't know what Jon will do. I love him irrespective of whatever he decides. He's very intelligent, but at times he feels like the retarded brother I never had. Michael
  14. 1 point
    The alpha dog showed up and demanded I sniff his balls. I don't do ball sniffing. This is a philosophy forum. Michael
  15. 1 point
    For a guy with a college degree? Horseshit. Horseshit again. Seeing you demand that others coddle an SJW is outright funny. I could throw bizarre in your face, but it's just funny. Seriously. I can't stop laughing. I see The Thing stamping his foot and petulantly demanding a safe space against hurtful words and ideas. So the real deal is not that you wanna stand up for someone. It's that you wanna fight, tough guy? There's that word honesty again. Does that mean the other shit you said was dishonest? Michael
  16. 1 point
    Brant, We all get pissed at times, but at least we have real men on this forum. (Real women, too. ) As opposed to sissies who need to be coddled... Michael
  17. 1 point
    Jon likes to plant them so he can harvest them. Sorta like "Motel Hell." This guy didn't get planted.😂 --Brant
  18. 1 point
    I had a similar thought, that he's a candidate for a Fake News team - if even they want someone so poor at communicating. He isn't a "prof," just a college graduate. He was nebulous in his first post as to whether he was still in college or had finished undergraduate work: "...nor am I a philosophy major" indicates someone still in college. "I did not study philosophy" indicates someone who's finished college. The "B.A." degree affirms the latter. Ellen
  19. 1 point
    That prof was full of Peter Keating shit. --Brant
  20. 1 point
    On August 31 (on page 1), "Phantom000" wrote - bold emphasis added: If he has a B.A. in Journalism, he isn't a teenage kid. Ellen
  21. 1 point
    Jon, Well, we can't have bizarreness, can we? So let me help make this more understandable. Here'e the opening post. I could go a lot deeper than what I am going to do here, but just a few comments on this guy's opening post should suffice. Before I start, take a look at the threads in the Meet And Greet Section. In almost all of them I offer a very warm welcome, praise OL members, and make some friendly banter. Most people who post on that thread like to tell us something about themselves. Let's see what this guy tells us about himself: 1. He's not an objectivist (lower case "o"), nor could he ever consider himself one. 2. He is not very familiar with Rand's writings, nor is he deep into philosophy, but he thinks Rand's ideas range "from naive to foolish." However, some of them are just confusing. But that might be on him. 3. He wants to practice what he preaches by coming to OL. 4. To explain that, he provides a huge comic book-like graphic implying that people who study one thing only--like he thinks we do here on OL--become rigid and stale. With the guru dude pointing his finger in admonition and all. 5. Despite him thinking Rand naive to foolish (and confusing), he thinks she has some good points and "just as many bad points." 6. He does not believe in accepting or rejecting any system in totality. 7. He thinks wisdom can be found just as much in objectivism as in collectivism without being a proponent of either. Everything he said is a criticism--overt or implied--of what he thinks we are and think here on OL. There is nothing about him. Does he play the cello? Who knows? Chess? Total blank. Is he into science? Nothing. Sex? Who knows? Is he a student? Nada. Civil servant or factory worker or academic? Big fat zero. Where did he hear about Rand? Zilch. What does he agree with in Rand's writing? Or disagree with for that matter? Damned if anyone knows. But he knows for sure her writing is naive to foolish. I could go on, but I've been doing this forum stuff for years. When someone makes a come-on out of the gate like that, saying everything about you but nothing about themselves, they turn out to be one gigantic headache. Don't we already have enough headaches among our insiders? Do you think we need more? Well, let's look at it from a different angle. Maybe I overreacted. Could this guy have been an exception? Who knows? Maybe. I have yet to see one like him be an exception, but I admit the possibility--remote possibility, but still possibility. However, I was under an extreme amount of stress at the time, so I just didn't have the patience to test whether a new dog will bark or not. I used my experience of seeing a whole bunch of dogs bark in the past, and I just assumed the new one will bark, too. btw - I did not attack him. Go back and read what I wrote. I gave him constructive feedback. Maybe a bit coldly, but not with hostility. Let's call it dog training. Still, I stopped and went friendly. My friendly post ended up being test enough. And guess what? It wasn't enough for this guy to engage further except to ask, disbelievingly, if he really came off the way I said. Then poof. Gone. So I stand by my evaluation that he would have become a gigantic headache--nay, pain in the ass--had I followed his lead. I also got a private OL message back then from a female I've never heard of bashing me for "back and forth." I don't know if she was a friend or whatever of his, and she didn't even mention what she was talking about on OL, so it might have been simply a weird message out of nowhere. I suspect it was someone known to him, though. Timing and all. For the record, I don't mind the innocence of youth and their sporadic stomps on their own dongs. God knows I've had my own share. But that was not what this guy was about. You may disagree, but hopefully, my behavior is no longer bizarre to you. Also, since I seriously doubt he will be back, I get to have some fun. And if he does come back, it will be even more fun. 😎 😎 😎 😎 Michael
  22. 1 point
    MSK’s claim: “One of the most devastating effects of pedophilia on the culture at large is when people who practice it gain power and influence among the elites.” How would you say that is going, Korben? I ask sincerely. It has been a year and three months since you asked for proof and a lot of evidence has since come in about the elites and how abuse of children ties them together. You have followed postings here about Epstein, Bill Gates, Council on Foreign Relations, Harvard, MIT, etc., etc.? Are you as skeptical as the first time you heard the assertion? How would you rate the plausibility or the truth-status of the assertion today?
  23. 1 point
    And another on fake social media. This cuts deeper in philosophical terms. Ayn Rand often said that censorship applies only to governments. But I'm going to embrace the term applying to crony corporatist social media giants, too. This is for two reasons: 1. Open any dictionary and you will see that words have more than one meaning. So, legally, I agree with Rand, that censorship applies only to governments. But there are other contexts where this word fits perfectly. And that leads to: 2. Free speech as a legal right is not the only context for free speech. It is also a principle. So, as there can be a principle of free speech, there also can be a principle of censorship. Styx mentions that giant social media platforms are the current equivalent of the town square. Legally, such town squares may have private owners (although I dispute that "private" characterization when the owner is a crony corporatist entity), but as a principle (a public gathering place), the principle of free speech should also apply. That means the principle of censorship is a valid criticism for that context. Michael