Desperate Degenerate Support Group

[surreptitious75]

https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t251 ... eets#82573

[promethean75]

Yeah I set my watch timer for 60 seconds when I'm having sex. Every 60 seconds that has elapsed, I ask her 'would you like to keep having sex?' You can't be too careful, man.

But isn't that some crazy shit? These leftist progressives are unbelievable. This is what happens when western capitalism has produced such a mess that even it's enemies become mental.

[Urwrongx1000]

Lol @ Sam. He has very little patience for gandalf's rambling. You can totally hear it.

https://youtu.be/sueFi0F8ynE

Are you ready to concede? Admit there is Free-Will!

[iambiguous]

Desperate Degenerates create absurd scenarios to then negate them absolutely....or they affirm scenarios as being absolutely certain - when no such claim can ever be made...and then they accuse others of being "objectivists" - code for fascist, authoritarian, capitalist - if they do not show a slight uncertainty, in the from of a disclaimer.

Once again, when I note the clear distinction that can be made between objective facts relating to homosexual behavior and subjective value judgments made in reacting to it, all he can do is to scurry back up into the clouds of abstraction. Genes and memes become but two more intellectual contraptions to be stuffed into the distinction he makes between phenomena and nounena. Ever and always in his head.

And all "objectivists" is "code" for is the argument that in regard to subjective value judgments, there are those of his ilk who insist that they are interchangable with the objective facts that can be ascertained in regard to any conflicting goods. And that is "proven" by insisting that unless you think like "one of us" [and grasp behaviors wholly in sync with nature] you are necessarily wrong.

Note to others:

If he ever does actually respond specifically to the points I have raised above, please bring it to my attention.

[surreptitious75]

its not a groundbreaking fact that everything changes actually not even that is true
you could change it to some or many things change but to say everything changes is simply something nobody can know

Everything observable is in a state of flux and has been so for all of known existence
Nothing can exist within a vacuum and not be affected by anything outside of it as this is not how reality actually functions
The state of absolute nothing that exists at the quantum level cannot persist before it is violated by quantum fluctuations
Change is motion and everything moves so change applies to everything - therefore to say that everything changes is true
Each moment of existence - that is as infinitesimally small as possible - is different from any other moment of existence

[surreptitious75]

These leftist progressives are unbelievable
This is what happens when western capitalism has produced such a mess that even its enemies become mental

We certainly live in interesting times with the never ending culture wars being fought very aggressively in both cyber and meat space

A man with a cock and balls between his legs can identify as a woman but if anyone deliberately misgenders him they are guilty of a hate crime
That man can compete against biological women in his professional sport but if they think that this is wrong then they are guilty of a hate crime
That man expects a biological woman to wax his balls when he goes to a salon because he identifies as a woman but take them to court when they refuse to do so
That man expects lesbians to sleep with him because he identifies as a woman but when they do not because they are not into cock they are guilty of a hate crime

And so a woman no longer has to have a vagina or a clitoris or a uterus or breasts to actually identify as a woman
She can instead have a cock and balls and a prostrate and levels of testosterone not natural to biological women

I cannot see any meeting of minds whatsoever between the two different sides in this and it is not going to be going away any time soon

I accept all human beings regardless of anything else but I do not and cannot accept their interpretation of biological reality and that is my only problem with them
This post would automatically get me labelled a transphobe and therefore guilty of a hate crime were any trans to actually read it but I only am saying what is true

I try to be as open minded as possible but as with most things there are limitations
I would be lying to myself were I to accept their interpretation of biological reality purely for reasons of political correctness no matter how hard I tried to
I am rather detached most of the time with regard to this but only mention it in passing to demonstrate your point about the progressive left that you made

On a more general level I cease to be surprised any more by how human beings choose to interpret aspects of reality
I actually encourage it because the freedom to openly think for oneself is arguably the greatest freedom that we have

[promethean75]

If he ever does actually respond specifically to the points I have raised above, please bring it to my attention.

well lieutenant biggs, there's a reason why most philosophers have to rely on generalizations when trying to explain a reason for some phenomena. by narrowing down such explanations to consist of a number of causes which are either obvious, preferable, or both, the philosopher finds some comfortable orientation he can operate in. in sarty pants' case, you can see a 'system' (for lack of a better word) of ideas which, in his head, exist as axioms of explanation for various phenomena. you keep seeing this progression of causes... for example... something like 'abrahamism > nihilism > leftism'. now for each particular phenomena that could be called such a thing, there are innumerable causes participating in the formation of these events... only a few of which become known to the theorist, who then concludes such phenomena are fully explained by them. see althusser's concept of 'overdetermination'.

in truth, such a system of explanation - because it consists only of what can be grasped by the theorist - comes to reflect more of what the theorist wants to be true rather than what is true... or rather, an entire account of all the causes responsible for the development of the phenomena in question.

you might recall what spinoza said about the nature of emotional knowledge, which is a different kind of knowledge than that of analytical, deductive, and rational knowledge. this kind of knowledge is derived directly from the experience of the effects on the body. truth here comes from how one feels about a particular belief. if a theory of one of these simple explanations produces in the theorist a sense of certainty - that he understands why - the effect of the knowledge on the body is positive and produces a pleasurable feeling. cognitive consonance, as i've called it before. what determines whether or not a theory of explanation is believed to be true is whether or not it works to preserve this feeling of certainty. but being that this kind of knowledge is always inadequate and subject to only a very narrow margin of 'experienced causes', it is always incomplete and muddled... and therefore comes only to reflect what the thinker prefers is true, rather than necessarily what is true.

we appropriate our knowledge of the world to fit what we want to believe about it... and this desire to maintain cognitive consonance is always one step ahead of our acquisition of the knowledge of causes. in a sense you could say we only understand what we want to understand... and what we want to understand must be compatible with the small inventory of causes we are aware of.

for sarty pants, the 'abrahamism > nihilism > leftism' narrative works to maintain theoretical statis, so to speak. while in reality, the phenomena described by these stages could be described in any number of different ways which would lead to entirely different theoretical conclusions.

each of these phenomena are always more than the few things that are grasped by the theorists who must narrow them down merely to be grasped at all. the full range of causes can never be known, hence the appropriation of the known causes to compose the system of explanations.

but regarding your request to 'produce examples' from such generalizations for which some prescription can be made to demonstrate rather than simply describe, i'd say your shit out of luck. some philosophy is so contorted and senseless, it can't be demonstrated. the question 'what on earth does this mean' will only ever be answered by more unintelligible nonsense about which you'll ask 'what on earth does this mean.'

philosophical language has become so entangled in the endless intersections of forms of grammar that all kinds of rules making our words sensible are all but lost completely in the debacle. western logocentrism has suffered this ill fated destiny since the ancient greeks (some of the first ruling classes to feel contempt for ordinary language), and very well may never recover.

[MagsJ]

This thread’s sister thread over at KTS: http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t2293 ... egenerates so one, spawning the other.

[surreptitious75]

http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t2293 ... ates#82599

If someone wishes to be fat then they are entirely within their rights to be so as they have that freedom to be what they want to be
But it is not fatphobic to congratulate someone else for losing weight for they have the very same rights and freedom to be what they want to be
Obesity is obviously bad for ones health which is why some people want to lose weight and there is absolutely nothing whatsoever wrong with this

That Paul Joseph Watson post that Satyr screenshot has another link claiming that maths is racist because it is white and Western
Some of it may be white and Western but the actual number system is Indian so come the revolution that will hopefully be saved

The alphabet though is Greek so that will have to go and the English language too

A while ago I saw a tweet that said the left will eat itself but I think the cannibalism has already started
Only time will tell how effective the Cultural Revolution is going to be for it is too early to say right now

I am so glad that I am just an observer rather than a participant because for me it would
be too much mental energy to take one side over the other and even if was the right one

It is actually wrong to think of the culture wars in such terms because they exist more as a spectrum rather than as a binary

[promethean75]

Mmmmmhmmm....you go girl.
You be a proud strong, beautiful, smart, black woman, don let them say it ain't so!!!
Dey, scared...ahuh...dey scared and jealous of you.
Just tellin' it like it is - keepin' it real, sista.

why satyr great 'till he gotta be great... don't post it, tell it straight to my face...

you coulda had a bad bitch. non-committal. help you with your career, just a little...

[iambiguous]

but regarding your request to 'produce examples' from such generalizations for which some prescription can be made to demonstrate rather than simply describe, i'd say your shit out of luck. some philosophy is so contorted and senseless, it can't be demonstrated. the question 'what on earth does this mean' will only ever be answered by more unintelligible nonsense about which you'll ask 'what on earth does this mean.'

I don't mind being shit out of luck here if σᾰ́τῠρος doesn't mind being exposed [over and again] as just another run of the mill rendition of the autodidactic pedant. Another Ralph Dumain in my own estimation. I bump into them in almost every forum. Them and the Kids.

Still, there's always at least a minimum hope that they will begin to grasp the psychological derivation of their own particular embodiment of "one of us". What I call the "psychology of objectivism". That either brings them to despair or frees them to pursue nihilism in a more or less constructive manner.

You know, in what may well be an autonomous universe.

[iambiguous]

Three main taboo topics for Desperate degenerates: 1-race, 2-identity, 3-sex.
In fact all can be reduced to identity.
They define the concepts in ways so as to ridicule them, or define them out of existence...desperately trying to detach the definition from the physical, empirical, tangible....the observable interactive existent; they must make it all ideological, abstract...obscure, vague, and meaningless, so as to then permit the subjective mind to give them whatever meaning each prefers.

The main taboo for him of course ever and always revolves around avoiding at all cost taking any particular individual's understanding, attitude and political prejudices regarding race, identity and sex out into the world of actual human interactions; and then exploring how, through the convoluted [actual existential] interaction of genes and memes, some come to believe things that are in conflict with what others believe.

Up in the clouds of abstraction however all of this unfolds intellectually for him by merely assuming that the words mean what he says they do. The intent then being to goad you up into the clouds with him to defend your own definitions. Leaving the world of actual human interaction farther and farther behind.

Again, I challenge anyone to note examples where this is not the case. It is he and his ilk that yank discussions of race, identity and sex into the "ideological, abstract...obscure, vague" scholastic milieu of those who are only able to communicate their points through "general description" intellectual contraptions.

[promethean75]

i told myself i wouldn't have the freewill/determinism conversation anymore if i had to have it with those on the short bus. but sure as shit here i am again getting on the short bus.

i often hear sarty pants in what he believes is a novel approach to the definition of freewill, say something like 'the agent participates in determining events.' he may not have said this verbatim but it's essentially what his idea amounts to.

at face value this looks undeniable... which is probably why it's accepted by whoever is moved by this simple formula. but the concealed premise here is not so easily revealed. there's no doubt that my body, like every other body in space and time, is at the same time both a cause and an effect; something happens to me, and i happen to something. i might bump into a door and it swings shut. in this sense we could say my body was (one of) the causes that made the door do what it did. you could further say that i 'participated' in determining something.

but this line of reasoning is entirely missing the point of the problem. there is no argument against the claim that 'we participate in causality', but against the claim that 'i' add some causative element which wasn't already there when i 'decided' to bump into the door, since this superimposes a new kind of causation into the event. how is a 'choice' not an effect and only a cause? if it isn't an effect, what compelled it must have sprung spontaneously into space and time. or, it is an entirely different substance altogether that merely corresponds with physical causation - in which case everytime i make a choice a physical action of my body just happens to follow - but can't be effected by it. this, of course, is typical cartesian dualism.

now i don't think sarty pants is a cartesian dualist on purpose because i doubt he is able to understand it. i believe rather that he accidentally falls into such confused dualistic thinking without comprehending what's going on. it's more so what happens when from the terrifying fear and disappointment of/in the illusion of freewill, one desperately struggles to find a way to save it. and this is especially important when a great degree of your philosophical impetus consists of wanting to reprimand the world for some state that it's in. for sarty pants, freewill is one of the critical cornerstones of his worldview. if it is removed, the whole raging edifice freaks out and malfunctions.

[Gloominary]

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.”

― Oscar Wilde

[iambiguous]

dupe post

[iambiguous]

The Desperate Degenerates world-view is entirely Abrahamic.
Essentially it's dualistic, on the surface, but monist at its core.
The perceived world is the "illusion" - the physical is the world of the "fallen", and the absolutely real world is the noetic, the idealistic...the oneness.

Okay, let's assume that this reflects the truth about the world we live in. An intellectual truth let's call it.

Let's challenge him then to take this truth and plug it into actual experiences he has had with Desperate Degenerates. What specific behaviors did he choose and how were they clearly not Abrahamic?

Or let him focus in on a context most here are familiar with in which values are in conflict regarding race or gender or sexual orientation. How specifically is his perception of the world here more in sync with reality than that of the Desperate Degenerates? How in some detail would he go about intertwining memes and genes so as the describe behaviors that are the least "noetic and idealistic."

Finally, how are we to understand his own argument here as not just another example of an objectivist dogma that others are expected to embrace in order to be in sync with his own rendition of the "oneness".

[promethean75]

Choice is how the mind displays its freedom from the body; how idea separates itself from the physical realm of causality.

see what i mean, biggs? what are we gonna do with this guy? two glaring mistakes here; first that there is some 'thing' called 'mind', while in fact this word is only a description of behavior. second, that this 'thing' (which it isn't) can be 'free' from the body.

The more difficult the choice, the more will-power is required - the most it contradicts its own physical impulses. The difficulty of choosing exposes the degree of the organism's freedom.

but every choice is preceded by a physical impulse, so the struggle between difficult choices amounts to physical impulses overriding each other, and nothing more. one is not more or less free depending on how nervous they are before making a choice. one does not reside over which choice is the outcome of these conflicting impulses.

let's run a little experiment. think of a film (26:30).

[promethean75]

You can always trace some Afro-Asiatic blood in those who deny free-will

I'm a determinist because I'm negrosian? Hmm... *scratches chin*

[promethean75]

Properly defining concepts does not make them arbitrary , or subjective, or culturally determined. The opposite, in fact, it places them outside human subjectivity....in the world.
Concepts, like morality and god, can be defined out of existence, i.e., in ways that reality cannot give evidence for their existence. This is a self-deceptive defensive method....not evidence of integrity - it is arguing in bad faith.

this tells us nothing more than this: here is a person who believes how he defines such terms is the right way, and that anyone who does not agree with his definitions are either a) not intelligent enough to understand the definitions, or b) agreeing with his definitions but pretending they mean something else in an act of self-deception and with a lack of integrity.

the two examples he gives us are 'morality' and 'god'... the two things he thinks he properly defines. but the very nature of these words and the phenomena to which they subscribe, whether conceptual (god) or physical (morality), makes them subject to almost endless possibilities of meaning.

if by 'morality' we simply agree to say 'social behavior of animals (conscious or not)', then this is a definition that's indisputable. but when we begin to examine such things as the causes for such behavior, the quality of such behavior, and the guidelines for such behavior, we are no longer describing but explaining. there are any number of philosophical perspectives that take up this task, and therefore there are innumerable definitions and meanings for the terms used to extrapolate those perspectives.

the dubious nature of the philosophy of morality becomes exponentially more severe as it proceeds in this direction: stating that morality is 'x' (very simple) > stating why morality is 'x' (more difficult) > stating how morality should be 'x' (incredibly difficult... no, really impossible).

so anyone who would actually believes the latter two can be done, and that they can do it, demonstrates only their lack of philosophical experience. anything other than a purely naturalistic description of morality, by the very nature of its theory, isn't able to explain or prescribe moral behavior. and if it does, it can be immediately undermined by anyone with even the slightest knowledge of logic.

these theorists only continue to hold in their heads what they think are coherent philosophical systems pertaining to the nature of morality because someone hasn't yet come along and taken them apart.

regarding the 'proper definition of god', you really must consider this insight before you even bother yourself with such nonsense; there is no god, so it can be anything you want it to be and you'd not know you were wrong.

and here is a guy who thinks he's properly defined what doesn't exist. moreover, he has the nerve to say other people who define this thing that doesn't exist, have defined it wrongly.

one more time:

Concepts, like morality and god, can be defined out of existence, i.e., in ways that reality cannot give evidence for their existence. This is a self-deceptive defensive method

they cannot be 'defined out of existence' because they were never in existence to begin with. except for morality, but the limits of this inquiry are very certain. people behave socially. that's it. the only thing that can be known about morality. anything else about it is a house of cards.

[iambiguous]

We exist in accordance with our subjective interpretation of an objective world.
A world that existed before life emerged and will continue after life is extinguished.

Yes, but what the objectivists do here is to settle in on a particular font: God, Reason, political ideology, deontological philosophy, nature. And, given the assumption they make about the font [more rather than less in an authoritarian manner], they proceed to insist that only the manner in which they define and describe how this subjective interpretation works counts.

But: Some [like him] choose to do so only up in the general description clouds of abstraction. The autodidact, for example. Or the pedant. Those who thrive on making a show of intelligence by almost never coming down off the intellectual skyhooks.

What this world is independent from our interpretations is what philosophy seeks to explore and explain.

No, what he [a bonafide serious philosopher] seeks to explain [over and over again], is that, in regard to every context imagainable involving conflicting moral, political and religious values, if you don't share his own assessment of the relationship between genes and memes you are both Desperate and Dengerate.

By definition in other words.

The subjective mind does not create reality, it interprets it...and the quality of its interpretation, in relation to its motive, determines its success, and its fitness.

The subjective mind often creates reality. If a particular subjective mind believes that homosexuality is an abomination and has acquired the political power to act on that belief, he or she can create a reality for homosexuals that involve all manner of punishments. Including a prison cell or the oven.

But, for the objectivists, the subjective mind is either more or less in sync with the world as they understand it to be. Success and failure, fitness or flabiness depends entirely on accepting their own political prejudices.

Meanwhile this part...

The main taboo for him of course ever and always revolves around avoiding at all cost taking any particular individual's understanding, attitude and political prejudices regarding race, identity and sex out into the world of actual human interactions; and then exploring how, through the convoluted [actual existential] interaction of genes and memes, some come to believe things that are in conflict with what others believe.

Up in the clouds of abstraction however all of this unfolds intellectually for him by merely assuming that the words mean what he says they do. The intent then being to goad you up into the clouds with him to defend your own definitions. Leaving the world of actual human interaction farther and farther behind.

...continues to be almost completely ignored by him. After all, that would involve actually coming down out of the scholastic clouds wouldn't it?

[iambiguous]

For the Desperate Degenerate life is inevitable - an end, part of a universal plan.
In their self-denying humility their arrogance is transferred externally - power and pride through association.
They want to feel inevitable; part of a universal order - God's will, in a secular form.
Their eternal life is eternal return - it is believed in as an absolute repetition of the exact same...because all is exactly ordered, and will exactly repeat...infinitely.

Is it even possible to be more intellectually obtuse in describing Desperate Degenerates? Such that actual flesh and blood human beings can decide if in the course of living their lives from day to day they might themselves be Desperate Degenerates.

Given this assessment and those above, I challenge anyone to connect the dots between Desperate Degenerates as an intellectual contraption, and the choices that one would be obliged to make in regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, political prejudices etc., clearly demonstrating that one is a Desperate Degenerate.

In other words, aside from the fact that unless you share his own assessments of, well, everything, this makes you a Desperate Degenerate. Axiomatically as it were.

What on earth does it mean to describe life as "inevitable - an end, part of a universal plan." In what sense? In what context? Involving what value judgments and behaviors in conflict?

Has your own "arrogance [been] transferred externally"? Describe the circumstances please.

As for "power and pride through association". A context please.

Any Desperate Degenerates that you know of who wanted "to feel inevitable; part of a universal order". Those that I describe as objectivists.

And how on earth are Nietzsche's conjectures regarding eternal return relevant [specifically] to the choices that Desperate Degenerates might make? Again, for objectivists of his ilk, it makes perfect sense because if they do return again and again and again, they are always the only ones who get to understand everything again and again and again.

[promethean75]

Kanye West goes from paraphrasing Nietzsche to worshipping Jesus. A typical Abrahamic dynamic, having to do with power and how the powerless seek empowerment, anywhere they can find it.
The slave needs a master, but one that will not embarrass and lower him in the wordy. So a supernatural master to submit and remain a slave.
Herd psychology needs a farmer, a herder,. a keeper... that will not shame it with its reality, its presence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9dYenI ... atch_on_yt

he's reading too much into it... complicating something so he can pretend as if it's an example of his 'sophisticated' theory. there is no more subtle profundity to this dipshit quoting nietzsche than there is to him playing the christian. neither of these are instances of fully understanding a concept and then committing oneself to it. like any imbecile, in 'reading' nietzsche he's first shocked... then baffled... then fascinated... and then picks up what he can use ('like a plundering soldier' - N). and the christianity is only a charade for publicity. but it's worse than osteen's charade, which is orchestrated and sinister; osteen knows he's full of shit. west, on the other hand, is too stupid to not believe there is some depth to this recent spiritual revolution, so he actually believes this thing is for real. it's not a ploy. i mean he doesn't first think 'ya know a gimmick like this would raise my ratings and popularity'. this guy is actually dumb enough to believe there is a 'god', and that this 'god' would have anything to do with a cockroach like him. only after he plunges into the charade does he notice the attention he gets, and so goes with it.

that aside, a person like this is not seeking psychological submission to some kind of 'master' because he's simply too shallow and selfish to desire to serve anything... and he's simply too stupid, too crude, to be able to comprehend a cause or purpose such as christianity in its fullness. and he doesn't do any of this 'seeking to submit' subconsciously either, as sarty pants might suggest. for this to happen there would have to be some degree of inner turmoil, emotional suffering, some psychological depth coupled with an intellectual awareness of genuine existential despair (like a pascal or a kierkegaard... someone who had the intelligence to know he was crushed). west, who has the mentality of an obnoxious fifteen year old, lacks the acuity to experience any of this.

[Meno_]

Not necessarily. It may be his under lying limited awareness, an awareness that should be aware of his awareness, that dictates his beliefs. That he is missing Kierkegaard's sense of continuity between god and his archetype (anthropomorphic)
is not unique nowadays, it is within that modicum of digression, we all find ourselves today, and talking around it, merely re in forces that mistaken notion.

[promethean75]

The sting of dis-respect.
To be faced with another's display of his lack of fear in relation to you. Neither fearing what you can do to him, or what you may withhold from doing to him.
This is complete indifference.
This is what hurts.

he nailed that one, diddint he? a person would prefer being bashed, beaten, ridiculed, insulted or slandered to being completely ignored. please god anything but that. that means you don't work anymore; not in inspiring, impressing, threatening or offending.

[phoneutria]

Hi my name is phoneutria and I am a degenerate. I'd like to apply for support.