• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Jonathan

  1. 20 hours ago, caroljane said:

    Tonight on TV -

    8:00 - Shore Leave - the younger Shores scramble to return from their Mexican vacation in time for work, but  Mamie's   dark tan and  Richy's   water gun cause  last-minute holdups at the border.

    Guest Star: Rep. Steve King (Border Official)

    cameo appearance by the late Charlton Heston's Cold Hand.

    Carol, you should avoid bringing up race and skin color after having revealed what you think of black people. Your posing and virtue signaling just isn't ever going to be effective after that.


  2. 29 minutes ago, caroljane said:

    Brant, I fear I am succumbing to Senior Succinct Syndrome.Posting more  substantially would just earn me more abuse of my substance from the J's, why should I make more effort just for more scorn? 

    Anyway old friend, you are not exactly prolix yourself.

    Oh, no! You've been "abused"? Poor dear. It's heartbreaking that you'd come here and behave so sweetly, and not abusively at all, and not tell any falsehoods, but yet others would lash out at you for no reason! You poor, innocent victim!


  3. 14 hours ago, Darrell Hougen said:

    I think people who want socialism generally have no historical perspective. The Plymouth Colony was a (failed and abandoned) experiment in socialism. The Jamestown colony was another (failed and abandoned) experiment in socialism. The entire state of Georgia was a (failed and abandoned) experiment in socialism. Numerous other communities in the United States and Europe have tried socialism since times predating the Soviet Union by hundreds of years. It's been tried throughout the world in numerous countries and it has always failed. And yet ... And yet ... next time we'll get it right.

    How many hundreds of years do we have to wait for people to completely abandon the idea of socialism?


    Let's try it again. It'll have to work this time. I just know it will.


  4. 29 minutes ago, Darrell Hougen said:

    As a friend put it, "They were eating the seed corn."

    Consuming the resources that should have been invested makes a person feel rich until next year ... when there is no harvest.



    But let's keep trying it until it works. After all, it's the moral thing to do. If we care enough, and have good intentions, socialism will work the next time.



  5. 15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:


    I have no doubt Bolsonaro from Brazil had a hand in this. He wants socialism out of South America, and Latin America for that matter.

    Here's a tweet from Styxhexenhammer666 a few minutes ago:

    He included the following 2013 article from Salon by David Sirota.


    Hugo Chavez’s economic miracle



    Well, it WAS real socialism, but then it stopped being real at some point. It's actually capitalism's fault that it failed. So, we should try socialism again, because it'll work this time.


  6. 10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Here's an idea.

    Rush Limbaugh says the media made Cortez. And pretty soon the media will take her away.

    Just like they did with Avenatti.

    Why? Too many Dem billionaires who got rich pilfering the public coffers. Cortez is now saying billionaires are evil and she won't stop. The folks at Davos were not amused.

    So marching orders are coming soon.

    What do I think?


    I know the media is frustrated with their lack of power over President Trump. They did not make him, so they cannot break him. His bond with his followers comes from identification at a gut level, not puff pieces engineered to make him famous and acceptable.

    In the case of Cortez, however, she's dumb. She's persuasion savvy enough to get tons of publicity, but otherwise she's pretty damn dumb.

    And she's totally 100% media made.

    That makes her eminently replaceable.


    She is getting too sassy. She's going after her own. The establishment Dems are not idealistic enough for her, not far enough left. I'm looking forward to their biting back, and then to the continued infighting.


  7. 49 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

    The same thing can be done with a string and two thumbtacks.   Please see 


    Yes, and there's also a method using just a strip of paper, but both the string and the strip methods are harder to control if you really need accuracy (notice the jaggy mess-ups in the video above). Also, the adjustable track jig method, like the example in the Rockler video that I posted, is SOOOO much easier for creating the precise size of ellipse that you want -- if you want, say, an 18 x 24 ellipse, you just set the pins at 18 and 24, where figuring out the same with the focal points and string method is more complex. Notice that the video that you posted doesn't address how to create an ellipse of a predetermined height and width.


  8. 16 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:


    I'll try to see the rest of the video, but, for me, listening to that dude's gotcha way of arguing these days is like chewing on double-edged razor blades.



    I get it. And often times that gotcha style intentionally ignores context which explains where the target of his gotcha was coming from, and is therefore unfair. But, generally, this dude is on target. Hicks's work is tainted by his Randian Objecti-goggles and his sloppy scholarship. He just seems to interpret things how he wishes or feels, and doesn't seem to have any curiosity to verify if he has understood things correctly. He trusts other Rand-zealots opinions and interpretations, also without bringing any critical thinking to the task. He totally blocks out informed criticism -- I've experienced that firsthand.

    Which isn't to say that I think that postmodernism, or anything else that Hicks attacks, is good or valid. I just don't get into the straw man mindset. I can't appreciate or identify with someone who gets so much wrong, and is so hellbent on attacking that he can't properly identify what he is attacking or why. Hicks gets everything so twisted around that he is the one who is exhibits the mindset that he claims that the postmodernists advocate: He interprets texts however he wishes to interpret them so that he can condemn the author.


  9. 1 hour ago, caroljane said:

    Gotcha J - I have seen his reality shows!  Have you? 

    Say, wasn't that you on the second episode of "Celebrity Mole" pushing the catering trolley?

    I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Satire is fantasy, of course, --but have you never drawn a caricature of anyone for any reason except hating them?  Never done a quick cartoon of someone you actually liked?  Or didn't know, or care about, except they were eminently caricaturable?

    ftr, I think Rodman is a fairly shrewd entertainer who has exploited his natural flakiness pretty well. He does, in fact, entertain me sometimes.

    Yes, I've seen Rodman's shows.

    The  thing is that caricatures aren't good or funny when the artist draws everyone the same way regardless of their actual characteristics or personality.

    "Who's that supposed to be, Walter Matthau?"

    "No. It's Audrey Hepburn."

    "But in reality she doesn't have a huge nose or gigantic, old-man ears."

    "Yeah, but that's how I draw caricatures. I draw big noses and ears on everyone. I have rules that I follow. It's not a caricature if it doesn't have a big nose and big ears."


    1 hour ago, caroljane said:

    Nothing seems to entertain you these days, except sadistic fantasies of the unworthy suffering for their contemptible unworthiness.



    Um, you're projecting again.

    I've said nothing even close to indicating that I fantasize about others' suffering. I wish the best for everyone.

    But let me see if I understand the "logic" that you're using.

    Is the idea that if I don't go along with your beliefs of what you should be allowed to force other people to do and pay for, then you think that it logically follows that I have contempt for the people that you pretend to want to help? If I'm critical of your primitive urge to control other people, then I'm sadistic?

    Silly twit. You should stick to sharing your opinions about literature. It's the only thing that you actually know. On every other subject, you're just dumb.

    I don't remember: Were you a school teacher?



  10. 10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Earlier today, Rush Limbaugh also broke this guy down:

    The Truth About the MAGA Hat Kids and the Native American Vet

    I'm too busy right now to curate the most juicy parts for you, so read it if you like this kind of commentary. This is a good one.

    EDIT: Well... you know I'm not going to be able to resist. :) 

    So here's a tidbit from the transcript:

    That is funny since the anti-Trumpers (including Republican idiots like S. E. Cupp) were the worst of the lot to pile on these kids with pure unadulterated finger-wagging bullshit while being the worst to habitually complain about President Trump's manners.

    What a bunch of morons!



    It really is stunnng that in today's world, people have still not learned to shut the f up until the facts are in. Especially since they've burned themselves so many times over Trump and MAGA issues. Wait before you open your mouth to express your seething hatred of Trump and his supporters. Give it a day or two to see if your hatred has distorted your interpretation of events, and that your hatreds have been fueled by others hatred-driven misinterpretations and outright lies. You're making fools and assholes of yourselves and accomplishing the opposite of your goals.


  11. 8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    I just saw the first 13 minutes of that critique and I didn't like it.

    It's not because I agree or disagree with the points Hicks or the critic made. Frankly, I need to do more reading about post-modernism (and philosophers in general) before I can say anything deep about them. But, right now, my backstage interest and time are consumed with fiction writing and fiction writing theory, methods, and so forth. So that is for another day.

    But I can talk intelligently about something from experience. I didn't like the critique because I kept seeing a mistake (or intentional switcharoonie) happening over and over that I have become weary of from debating gotcha arguers. Hicks was presenting his overview of different philosophers and ideas from his own framework, that is, from a Randian framework. The critic kept taking him to task for not using the framework of the philosophers themselves.

    For example, Hicks lumped some feminists in with post-modernism who were not avowed post-modernists. To someone like me, it's clear he was talking about categorizing them according to his own standards according to an idea he was putting forth, that is his frame, not according to their frame or the frame of an encyclopedia article writer. The critic said (I paraphrase): See? Gotcha! The women were not post-modernists. One even wrote an article criticizing post-modernism.

    An analogy is in order to clarify this process. Modern people consider slavery bad and evil. People in antiquity considered it normal. Modern people think the very fact that others owned slaves, even in antiquity, was evil. Back then, those who treated their slaves poorly were considered evil and those who treated them well virtuous. I can agree or disagree with the idea of judging slavery through a modern lens and not the lens of the ancients, but I am not going to fully understand what a modern person is saying if I ignore his frame and bash him for not agreeing with details using a different ancient frame, a frame he was aware of and never intended to use. 

    Hicks talked about thinkers who presented ideas of collectivism versus altruism, and individualism. It's obvious to me these terms have Rand written all over them. Of course, up to this point in the video, the critic didn't even notice. Regardless, I seriously doubt Hicks was saying Locke formally used Rand's jargon or something like that. He was essentially saying, "Look behind the words of these thinkers and you will find certain concepts in the subtexts, like collectivism versus altruism, like individualism, and so on." And he would be pegging that to an Objectivist framework and Objectivist jargon.

    The gotcha critic had a field day with this. "Locke never said such and such," and on and on. "Gotchaaaaa!"

    In everyday jargon, if both were to talk with each other and stick to their points, it would be fair to say they were talking past each other. And this is a perfect way to have a discussion without substance.

    My point with gotcha arguers is that, at least in the case of this critic, he didn't make even a minimal effort to see the frame and method Hicks was using. All he wanted to do was show how Hicks was wrong according to frames and standards Hicks did not and did not want to use. Then crow, "Gotcha!"

    On the other side of this, Rand-based intellectuals make the same goddam error. Rand herself did. Except they compounded the error by preaching.

    Once I became aware of this process, let's call it the frame switcharoonie, these kinds of gotcha displays by Rand's critics, and displays of preaching by Rand-based intellectuals, became boring to me. I want to see the ideas, weigh them, see if I agree with them, and, mostly, see if any of them enrich my life. I don't care who wins some snarky pseudo-competition.

    When one side or the other commits excesses that lead to false attributions, which almost always happens, I would fully agree with him if he said, "I agree with you about the general subtext meaning Thinker X from your frame, but you claimed Thinker X said, formally espoused, and intended Idea A. Well here's where he didn't do that, not even in the subtext." Then give example. That's reasonable.

    But these people never do that. They only say, "I'm right and you're wrong. Gotcha!" (Or on the Randian side, "I'm right and you're wrong, irrational scumbag." :) )

    Or even worse, they feign being reasonable, while "I'm right and you're wrong and that makes me a better person than you," is their entire subtext all of the time. These are the most tiresome.

    To be fair to Hick's critic, I might check out some of his videos where he defends post-modernism. He's obviously intelligent and I want to see this issue through his frame. My gut tells me he will do a good job of communicating it.

    Also, he did call Hicks out on double-checking his attributions and quotes. What I heard sounded right, but I haven't double-checked anything so I'm not going to say this with certainty. However, I have seen Rand-oriented intellectuals massively screw this part up. In general, being sloppy with quotes and attributions is an ingrained bad habit of the Objectivist subculture. This is a bad habit where I have to police myself, even today. In the early days, I sure as hell had it. It took a lot of hard work to break it. I wonder if this is caused by imitating Rand's rhetorical mannerisms... I think in my case, this was the root.


    The section that you watched is indeed about misattributions of quotes, etc., but that's just the beginning. Farther in, it gets more serious and identifies Hicks's misattributions of the positions advocated by philosophers and their motives and goals. Perhaps the critic should have began with the biggest blunders first, but he chose to follow the structure of the book

    Anyway, I know you agree, MSK, that it's not acceptable when others do it to Rand -- when they claim that she supported something that she actually opposed -- so I think it's only fair to apply the exact same standard to Hicks's criticisms of other philosophers. He does falsely claim that they held beliefs that they did not.

    I myself have confronted Hicks with proof of his falsehoods in the area of art and aesthetics. He did not respond to the substance, but attacked my character and banned me from his blog.

    It's what you call putting the normative before the cognitive. It's the act of going into research with the mindset of vindicating Rand, regardless of whether or not her judgments of others were mistaken, and then misreading/misunderstanding everything that one reads, and arriving at the predetermined conclusion.



  12. I've been observing a variety of lefties online today. They are super pissed that smirky white boy is being given a chance to explain himself. They're saying it ain't fair, because non-whites would not be given the same chance. Once a whitey is accused of something, that should be it. Guilty. You don't get to change the Narrative™ with facts. They already judged him, so there's no going back, and you don't get to take away their enjoyment of punishing him.


  13. 1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

    The sick fucks on the left want him now destroyed and if he had been slain, the sick fucks would right now be celebrating. Fuck the facts to hell, the sick sacks of shit would be celebrating right now. And they would be repeatedly citing the MAGA hats — “the boys should have known better than to wear those hats.” These are disgusting, inhuman people.

    They are SOOOOO excited about destroying this kid and his classmates.


  14. Fake News and Fake Social Media went apeshit over their Narrative™ that a "smirking white kid" led his gang of haters to surround and taunt and harass a victim of their racist Trumpist fascism.

    Yeah, so, smiling while a protestor walks up to you and gets up in your face is now an act of mockery and superiority, and of getting up in the protestor's face, and that smug little shit white punk should be killed for the racist crime that he committed.

    Well, after days of this type judging before knowing anything, and not wanting to know, the kid is now responding and giving his side of the story:



     1/20/2019 4:17 PM PST 

    Smirking MAGA Hat Student Responds to Accusations of Harassment

    update-graphic-red-bar.jpg1/20/19 -- The student who came face-to-face with Nathan Phillips has released a statement to the media about what he claims actually happened Friday. Nick Sandmann, a junior at Covington Catholic High School, says he and his classmates were waiting for their busses to arrive at the Lincoln Memorial when a handful of African-American protesters began shouting "hateful things" at the group of boys. Sandmann says that he and his classmates were given permission by their adult chaperones to sing their school spirit chants in response. At some point during this chanting, Sandmann says a separate group of protesters from the Indigenous People's March approached his group, and claims that Nathan Phillips then "waded" into the crowd with his drum. Other videos that have surfaced online appear to show Phillips doing exactly that...


    All of the above may be true, but, fuck it, let's crucify the smirky bastard anyway. He got played, and didn't realize at the time how the left would destroy him for being peaceful and pleasant, so he deserves to have the rest of his life destroyed. 


    • Like 2
  15. 2 hours ago, caroljane said:

    Marc my friend, you are literally right.

    No one is as literally unbelievable as Trump,

    Obama is way more unbelievable than Trump. And Hillary is way more unbelievable than Obama.

    Oh, wait, you weren't talking about reality, though, were you? You were talking about the hate-fantasy version of Trump that you've invented. If so, then, yes, you're correct that no one is as unbelievable as your hate-fantasy version of Trump.


  16. 2 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

    The PDF is available for free here:

    Notice on the cover there's a rogues gallery named, including Popper.  But checking the index, there's only one reference to Popper in the entire book:

    The biggest names in the philosophy of science - Otto Neurath, Karl Popper, Norwood Hanson, Paul Feyerabend, Thomas Kuhn, and W.V.O. Quine - despite wide variations in their versions of analytic philosophy - all argued that our theories largely dictate what we will see.

    Say what? 

    Yeah, when reading Hicks, I experience a lot of "HUH?!! WTF?!!! ARE YOU JOKING?!!!"

    Amateur hour. Sloppy and imprecise. Wrongheaded and embarrassing.


  17. 1 hour ago, caroljane said:

    BZEE'S BZZZZZ....zig-zag fron the Hollywood Hive.. 

    Mutterings from the set of red-hot upcoming MAGA series Shore Leave indicate that relations between the two stars is anything but the amity of a long-married couple....more like the Amityville Horror!  Dennis Rodman complains that his on-screen wife Caitlyn Jenner is as "unprofessional as they come  and can't act her way out of a Clemson White House Big Mac bag. Man, she can't convince me that she's even a real woman!"  Caitlyn for her part has claimed to be intimidated by Rodman's rudeness and more than once retreated in tears to the make-up room, causing frustrated delays for the rest of the cast.

    The final insult came when one of Rodman's posse was heard to state that Jenner only got the part because Roseanne Barr "said she won't have no more Gentiles for leading men", causing a media storm without which the beleaguered production could well have done....

    How will a former Olympic champ  emerge from these new challenges hmmm?

    Stay attuned to the  bzzzzzzz..


    Weird. First you invented a hate-fantasy version of Trump, but that wasn't enough, so now you're inventing a hate-fantasy version of Rodman?

    Do you know anything at all about the man in reality?

    Apparently not.


  18. 21 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:


    I actually have a PDF of this book, but haven't read it.  I sort of skimmed it, and scanned the index.  No references to Barth, Eco, Pynchon, or Wallace, so it's certainly not about Postmodern Literature, leading me to tune out. 

    This guy's review reminds me of David Gordon's critique of Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels.  

    Ouch is right.

    This criticism reminds me of my own of Hicks's sloppy dabblings into art history and aesthetics. He practices the exact methodology that he accuses postmodernists of advocating: Bring your own personal biases and grievances to reading a text, interpret it however you feel, and arrive at you predetermined conclusions, reality be damned.

    My only complaint of this critic of Hicks's work is his valley girl upward-inflecting.


  19. 24 minutes ago, Max said:

    I know, this was in fact just a first attempt, with the idea that I later could improve on it, I had also doubts about some of my assumptions, but as the result was fairly close to what one might expect (perhaps I was lucky?) and enough to falsify Merlin's argument, I decided to write it up. I used the frame that you posted earlier. 

    Okay, thanks.