Serapis Bey

The suspense is terrible. I hope it lasts. (and speaking of that...have you finally determined the details of your texting plan? Or will I suffer your wrath again for the 10 cents I add to your phone bill?)

Like it or hate it, but politics is the art of compromise. Good ideas. If Rand Paul is not your man, who is?

Kacy, sorry to see you jet, but I would remind you that all of us here are Advocates of Reason. Explicitly, even. Where else will you find a group of people united in their use of Reason? Atheist blogs? BTW, Brant said: ginny said: You said:

You're wrong for the most part. I don't believe any of us give much thought to what the readers are thinking, but what's interesting are the different reasons each of us have for such cavalier disregard. I have to take a moment to clear the record regarding one of Kacy's accusations. As RB said, there is too much revisionism in his narrative to correct in one post, but I simply have to address Kacy's broad-brush characterization of me as a socially inept fool. In addition to the facts already presented showing that RB and I were often ahead of the curve in certain respects, the truly ironic thing is that it was *I* who frequently had to admonish Kacy for launching into garrulous philosophical rants at the most inopportune times. As they say, there is a time and a place for everything, but Kacy's passion for atheism often manifested in his being the "buzzkill" in certain social situations. Most socially-adjusted people know what a "vibe" is and refrain from breaking it unless demanded by circumstance. Kacy's blind spot regarding this fact can be seen in his own admission here that he and his ex-wife used to bicker constantly in public. In both cases we see an egocentric mentality with little regard for the larger context. It should also be noted that his habit of constantly debating religious people wherever such could be found was eventually corrected by him and became another in his list of epiphanies which I never received any acknowledgement for. I understand he came to his realization himself, but it does become tiresome when one's own wisdom is given short shrift time and time again. And if anyone senses a contradiction between my endorsement of the "larger social context" and the anti-social behavior I exhibit on this forum, I would point out that what we have here barely resembles the organic and wholistic dynamic found in meatspace. All I know of the other posters on this forum are their conscious declarations, therefore, I am unable to judge any (in)congruency between their statements and their behavior or lifestyle. As such, I look at this forum as a mental playground where ideas are the only coin of the realm (for the most part). Now, as to why I find it fruitful to get a little more...uh...personal... with Kacy without regard to the readership here -- I will paraphrase what I said earlier: psychology is more fundamental than philosophy, and if we lose sight of this fact we run the risk of pointless pedantry. Getting at the motivational root of certain beliefs can be illustrative and impactful, as Nietzsche understood. For example, RB wrote: Brant took issue with this statement claiming that such a thing is not a philosophical divide but rather a divide based on psychology. So what? We are still left with a certain gap, or impasse, in our communication with Kacy. If we can't begin to understand the differences between ourselves as Objectivish people, what hope do we have to persuade those outside of our subculture? In this case, we see that much of Kacy's self-concept is tied up with a certain delimited perspective of the facts -- a perspective which excludes the reality of his being a government employee paid with tax money. I submit this observation has implications for the nature of self-esteem and its seemingly necessary usage of a kind of evasion (or restricted awareness) in maintaining its precarious balance. But that is a topic for another day. With that out of the way, I would like to ask you (MSK) if you are prepared to speak about your experience in Kacy's so-called "echo chamber." I believe you have now had suitable time to get a feel for the tenor of the discussion there. Can you share with us your Solomon-like judgement?

Nice distinction. I like it.

I stumbled across another thought provoking essay from Mencius Moldbug. Like PDS says, it's long as train smoke, but I think it's a good 'un. From Mises to Carlyle: my sick journey to the dark side of the force Core nugget: (the commentariat is high-quality as well)

Dear Ginny, A point is reached in certain people's lives where the question is asked: "Does the 'exchange of ideas' do anything other than encourage a circle-jerk?" It is at that point that we begin to look under the hood. Hope that makes sense. I've posted before:I talk of freedomYou talk of the flag I talk of revolution You'd much rather brag And if the decibels of this disenchanting discourse Continue to dampen the day The coin flips again and again and again and again As our sanity walks away All this discussion Though politically correct Is dead beyond destruction Though it leaves me quite erect And if the final sunset rolls behind the Earth And the clock is finally dead I'll look at me, you'll look at you, and we'll cry alot But this will be what we said... This will be what we said: Look where all this talking got us, baby Look where all this talking got us, baby Look where all this talking got us, baby Look where all this talking got us, baby

Indeed. Reason is your "primary absolute" and upon which you lay most of your eggs...and it is with such "reason" you have attacked, belittled and denigrated folks who are less intelligent or less sophisticated than yourself, even though such people might have been good at heart. BTW, hope you're enjoying the boundless adventure across the world in places like Israel, Greece and Italy....on all of our dimes. Interesting choice of words. So "reason itself" exists apart from "human ability"?

Interestingly enough, this schism in Objectivism (over the purity/outreach debate) is of a piece with your own disdain for folks like Rand Paul and others for not being Perfect. You and the Orthodox O's are simply different stripes of the same beach ball. EDIT: I'll also note that you didn't draw any conclusions about this strategically signficant issue, choosing instead to focus on: In other words, you are less concerned with the philosophical issue RB and I are discussing than in focusing on how the Orthodox O's are not being Big Meanies about it. SB somebody call the whaaaaaambulance!

Oh, you missed the best one -- our arguments over "whining.". My attempts to educate were predictably shot down with never ending sophistry. -- until, that is, he caught flak from his coworkers. THEN, at that point he "saw the light"...and rather than credit me with any insight, proceeded to lecture others on their misguided notions regarding whining vs. legitimate complaining. ::rolls eyes::

NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE(more seriously though, he would avoid our attacks if he would simply stop calling himself a libertarian. I don't think of liberals as all bad, and Kacy has good points to make, but it is his attempt to gain the social cachet of being a libertarian "rebel" while at the same time ingratiating himself with his many liberal friends that causes RB and I much intestinal discomfort).

EllenI've been accused of having a Russian soul on more than one occasion. Alice Rosenbaum had the soul of a Jew -- utopian idealism.

between 1861 and 1865 that is exactly what happened. Why can't it happen again?Umm... maybe because the issues at stake in the present are utterly different than those during the lead up to the Civil War?

Mark Steyn, for one, warns of a secession if this country continues crawling towards socialism. Any State the attempts secession will be visited by Federal troops and members of its government will be subject to charges of treason and insurrection. That last time States tried this there was a war that crippled or killed over 4 percent of the population. Ba'al Chatzaf Bob, honest question: do you think U.S. troops would be willing to fire upon American citizens? ( I can see it now: Kacy popping his head out of tank and demanding that Robert Baratheon and I be a part of their Benevolent Grand Experiment)

Mark Steyn, for one, warns of a secession if this country continues crawling towards socialism.

Possibly of interest to you: http://www.vdare.com/articles/libertarianism-conservatism-and-immigration-the-hoppe-solution (Paging Robert Baratheon)

I called her out. Her response: Sounds like your kinda gal, Kacy!

C'mon Kaeshee! We're waiting for you...

Perhaps a propos...(?) I was just reading one of my liberal-leaning Facebook friend's status updates. He linked to an essay discussing a recent controversial article which relayed (in detail) the goings-on of a public "sex party" in San Francisco -- said "party" involving the consent of a young girl to be violently and sexually "abused" by a dominatrix, Dom, and members of the audience. (Link here. NSFW) I don't mean to get into a discussion of the ethics involved at the "party". I bring it up because this friend of mine is generally sensible (even though a liberal), and in the discussion he tagged one of his (I presume) more "out-there" progressive/liberal female aquaintances. In the ensuing discussion about "consent", he linked to the infamous Armin Meiwes sexual cannibalism case. (Link here, NSF LIFE ) I'll call this female progressive Natalia. Natalia writes: Ok, somewhat muddled thinking as we usually find among progressives (particularly the female version), but really not much different than the Oist/Libertarian emphasis on individualism and free choice. Natalia continues: Wow. That's pretty "out-there". An obvious application of "consent" thinking to the extreme. But I'll reserve judgement for the moment. What I found most interesting however was when another commenter brought up the issue of religious groups and the phenomenon of persuasion in said groups. Her reply: WHA....??????? I'm not sure how much of this is relevent to Kacy's personal philosophy, so I'll leave it at that for others to discuss. Coincidence? I dunno. But I'm sure their motives are pure.

Indeed, which is why I have repeatedly told him in the past, "The Perfect is the enemy of the Good" The message doesn't seem to be taking.

The Libertarian Party, like all U.S. third parties, has no practical chance of achieving mainstream success. But what we are seeing now is a shift within the Republican Party, which is of mainstream consequence, away from Bush's expansionist "neoconservativism" and toward small-government principles that libertarians can actually get behind. Beck, Rand Paul, and the Tea Party are the major driving force behind this ideological shift (a profoundly positive development), but Kacy feels it necessary to relentlessly attack them instead of the progressive politicians and pundits who unabashedly spend their every waking moment trying to expand the power of the state. Isn't it more logical that the targets of our ire be prioritized based on harm and the real threat they pose to our liberties? Kacy has previously explained that his priorities lie with personal liberties and not so much with economic ones. I believe the example he used was he is more concerned with his freedom of mind and choice than his pocketbook. In addition, he believes our concerns about economic collapse are examples of catastrophic thinking and a result of fear mongering. It is only natural then for him to focus on the freedom to watch porn and do drugs. This raises the question of why his concerns about the "imminent Christian theocracy" are any more or less "fear mongering" than our claims of economic catastrophe, but that is something only he can answer.

CAUGHT ON VIDEO: Robert Baratheon interviews Serapis Bey for the local paper: ;)

addendum: Just so no one gets the wrong idea, let me point out the Birdman is no Christian -- he's an atheist and a skeptic who has written articles/books eviscerating theism. He is a high-IQ member of Mensa who started something of a kerfuffle in that subcommunity by writing about the Jewish Question in one of their publications. He was predictably hanged in the public square (see here ) and responded to his critics in a later issue (here). Like myself, he is simply someone who recognizes the social benefit of traditional norms like Christianity in an increasingly insane world where progressive utilitarian accounting is the order of the day. (Going somewhat OT for a moment: I know you are a fan of Nassim Taleb. Here is a nice review/discussion of his Black Swan. It seems his ideas could do much for the conservative/right-libertarian cause, i.e., using science to show the limits of "Reason" and modern man's hubris in relation to such. Just some red meat for you to chew on as I prepare my next salvo in this thread.)

Actually, it's consistent with me being a dick and not caring about about how other people feel about my pronouncements. That's not narcissism. That's INTEGRITY. It would be narcissism if I considered other people's mistaken thinking in any way relevant to my own independent judgement. I consider it a form of honor to think of others as similarly independent minded and not easily cowed by my opinions. What you are missing is that all the OL folks you reference above have not spent YEARS engaging you in many of the same debates, topics, arguments, etc. On the other hand, I (and to a lesser extent RB) have done just that. He and I have gone round and round with your liberal tendencies, and despite whatever protestations of yours to the contrary, we have good reasons to support our position. I suspect that if the individuals you mention above had the same time and experience (and frustration) arguing with your liberal tendencies, that they too would reach a point were it became obvious that further discussion would be fruitless. There is nothing wrong with throwing your hands up in frustration. It doesn't mean one has "abandoned reason" or one has "conceded the argument". It merely means a point has been reached where further discussion would simply be a masochistic and altruistc act to help another person out of their incorrect thinking -- in short, one would be attempting to correct a "cybernetic program" as MSK puts it, for...what exactly? What would be the payoff? I'm quite sure there are numerous examples in Objectivism-Land where individuals reach an impasse and realize that further good-faith debate would merely serve to sanction the legitimacy of the other side. In such cases, all that one can do is merely state one's disagreement, name the "Other" for what he/she is, and leave it at that. I simply go one step further and indulge my sadistic impuse to keep poking that salty stick into the wound for my own amusement. But none of this should be construed as "trolling" in the sense of saying things that are untrue just to get a rise out of people. I say things that are IN FACT true, precisely to get a rise out of people. Sorry you don't see it that way. p.s. YOR a fucken liberal.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/347945/irs-targeted-conservatives-2012?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter At the risk of sounding like a broken record -- can you imagine if it were Democrats the IRS flagged for audits? Can you imagine the OUTRAGE and CONSTANT editorials about the damnable Republicans who hold power in this country? The public discourse would be FLOODED with opinion pieces and neverending Facebook memes. In this case, however, it will simply be swept down the memory hole and die a quite death. And according to Kacy, it well should be, since we are talking about Tea Party folks here, and since the Tea Partiers represent a threat to Freedom with their advocacy of Christian Theocracy, it is only just that a government devoted to religious freedom do all they can to thwart such subversive activity.