Why are you attacking me personally? I will refrain, however, from giving you any gratuitous personal development advice and continue to post about ideas and argument. When did I say it was about taking away from history? I am asking if they ever were written out or not? Nobody has provided any evidence of when and who wrote women out of the history of the Vic Gold Rush.
And yet so many are willing to blindly accept that this DID occur. Obviously by evil male historians hell bent on persecuting women. Erik, I don't know that women were ever written out of the history of the gold rushes, it's just that most general histories tended to concentrate on the digging of the gold bit. Having a history that adds to the existing, albeit small body of histories that examines what women were doing is a good thing.
Kinda like having histories about women's contributions during the the wars- something not really done in great numbers until recently. They had, in main, focused on the fighting bits. Thanks Dove. I agree that our understanding of history is improved by examining the different perspectives and untold stories. That is not how this review has been framed. I hope that you understand that I am questioning the tone of this book and the article that the story of women involved in the Gold Rush was somehow deliberately ignored by self righteous male historians.
I recall seeing and old movie with Chips Rafferty that focussed on the fighting and the courage of men. Obviously part of the story, but not the whole story. Like all movies I am sure that it engaged in poetic licence when it came to fact. Should we also stray from facts to engage in a discussion that supports our particular ideology? Peace right back at you. You've tried very hard. How about this bit: 'This book adds to our understanding of the men who were in Ballarat at the time as much as it contributes to our understanding of women's history. The author of the review says nothing about nasty men writing out women from histroy, just that what she learned about the period was 'dull'.
Probably because you are being an off topic non event. Sorry mate, bit this is about as even handed as your namesake's real estate scam in 10th century Greenland. The stock standard weapons of bullies, name calling and type casting by heritage or gender. Well played. The author is quoted in the article as having her primary purpose for the book to write women back into the story of Eureka. My on topic question WAS when were they written out of the story of Eureka. The best response I have had is that there was probably not much written about them in the first place, that is probably true, but it doesn't answer the question.
A farmer up in Collinsville will most likely lose his farm because he lost a legal case against a major coal mine - it is privately owned, and the owner is the second richest person in Australia - and not only will his water supply be diminished, as a result of the case, but he also gets to pay some of the miner's legal costs As it turns out, this miner had contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the serving Liberal Party, who appear ignorant of the farmer's pleas.
May I respectfully ask that the Author of this book pass along copies to the serving women of the North ; they may get up enough steam and wrath to change matters - Lord knows, the men everywhere are stumped for guts. Source: ABC news today. A lively review. Makes me want to read this book. One thing I'll be on the lookout for: a description of the abandoned children whose numbers soared during the gold rush and in its aftermath. The s and s saw the rise of large orphanages in Victoria. We are still dealing with the repercussions in the Royal Commission's hearings today. So often children are the sad victims of tragic circumstances but they are rarely found in historical accounts.
Yyvonne, The Eureka Stokade was a Goldminers strike against the government troops and the miners stood with their women and the women stood with their men. Gold fever made that spec of Australia stand still and it was written into history as one of Australia's great moments. It does not matter who wrote it. It happened. My great great grandmother was at Lambing Flat during the riots there. She lived to , and I have two photos of her, one as a middle aged woman, silver nitrate on glass and another with my mother as a young girl, when the old lady was at the end of her life.
We were brought up on her stories of the bullets whipping through the tent her husband was a carrier, so she spent much of her life alone , and sitting in front of the barred door in a small hut with a shotgun over her knees during the Jimmy Governor rampage. The fact is that this hatchet faced, imperious, brave woman would engendered plenty of respect in her own lifetime, as I'm sure any other attitude may have been life threatening.
I don't get the idea that women need to be " written in" to history. They were there, and they played there own unique role, and it was accepted and recognised at the time. Possibly a true story of women at that time, while perhaps unlikely to fulfil a feminist agenda, would prove that these women were brave, resourceful, respected, and hardly shrinking violets.
Hi, Whitey. Your insights jolt imaginations. I've recently written a book on a NSW bushranger who experienced both the tent city at Lambing Flat as a pre-adolescent and then, unlike his comrades who all died by the bullet, lived long enough to engage in the chase north for the murderous Governor. Fascinating time in our history, regardless of gender.
We have no idea how tough these women were. We also forget that their role engendered a kind of respect which we don't see today. She brought up 10 kids as a widow, and I reckon you crossed her at your peril. Awesome pioneer women. My great grandad had a shop in Lambing Flat and his father in law was an apothecary there. What often gets overlooked in these 'history stories' is the fact that modern Labor is derived ie Unions from the miners who agitated against, viciously fought, and attempted to eradicate the Chinese from the goldfields of NSW and VIC.
These days, those that align themselves with Labor preach to others of their moral superiority on the subject. How our history has been re-written. Talk about a Terra Nullius hey CoB. Your incredulous claim that racism began on these lands when private contracting, self employed miners were racist against the Chinese miners in the s, speaks volumes about the widespread inability to acknowledge a far worse racism already occurring against the rightful owners of the lands and resources.
And who would they be, dubious: a the disparate nomadic tribes that roamed their territories pre-European settlement? Because they are the only 'first peoples'. Everything they possessed was stolen by each subsequent tribal arrival. Or was it And by the way, I didn't say racism 'began' in the s. I said what occurred then ' To breed something you need the DNA to already exist. Please don't verbal me. Your misplaced moral superiority, dubious, might lessen your grievance with the world but you're not convincing. Swirling platitudes and name calling is your style, I understand that, but it does you no credit.
And by the way, you didn't answer the question. If you want to engage in an adult debate and maybe even change my mind, you'll have to do better than that. If the author and reviewer have failed in their attempt to identify women of strength, resourcefulness, courage, ingenuity and respect of colonial times, they haven't indulged themselves in the written bushranging history of our nation.
Expand your literary ignorance. Eric the Red, Having read most that has been written on Eureka during my research I think it is legit to describe the complete omission of women from its history as being "Written out" of it. Your declaration that you have "no intention to read the book" says it all. Rest peacefully in your ignorance. Are you the author of the book? If so, thanks for your post. So the answer to my question is that women were in fact NOT written out of the story of Eureka but in your opinion there was a gap in the historical record that needed to be filled and that was the motivation for your book.
Why didn't you say that in the first place? Well her daughter probably found it more interesting in her 1st year of university because she's read about it before. I am also not willing to read those boring history stuff, too. However, after reading your review, many questions came up to my mind about this book and I would go to the library, find the book and take a look at it now. Because descriptions to women's life of that time sounds farely interesting.
Always, women are not the most significant role in the history, but they also appeal as important and key people in the stories. Whenever the time is, there are always women doing better than men in the history- having huge amount of money, sitting in higher positions or being the pioneers of that time. I never knew that there was a gold rush in Australia where people from all over the world came to search for gold. I've only heard about the gold rush in America where all the people went to the west to search for gold. This book sounds interesting though.
So many whiny haters. Read the book. The statement was revealed in a Policy Exchange report, which was co-authored by former counter-terror chief Richard Walton. The report also states that the group, responsible for bringing London to a standstill in April by glueing themselves to trains and corporate buildings before placing a boat in the centre of Oxford Circus resulting in millions of pounds of losses to West End sales, are aiming to achieve a total breakdown of the state and democracy.
We are going to force the governments to act. He and Gail Bradbrook are driving the group, the report also states, according to the Mail Online. I find Kazimierz Dabrowski's Positive Disintegration appealing as well. Read the Wiki. You'll understand.
Download PDF Bit Players, Bullies and Righteous Rebels
You must learn more about childrearing modes to understand the origins of that which you are motivated to move on from. I totally agree. I think the entire notion of post-modern feminism could be summed up in a single sentence. Woman are not capable of self defense so we society have to pre-chew the entire culture for them. It explains more of what's going on than any other explanation. Why is being threatened with rape by people who don't know where you live a huge deal?
Because women are incapable of dealing with their delicate emotions. Why must women be handed equal pay? I'm down with actual equality. But woman are not being trained to take actual equality. Woman are not as men in general are trained to deal with hurt feelings and bullies. They aren't taught that a decision generally means choosing not to do other stuff just as surely as it means choosing to do what you want. Women are not taught to use power to protect themselves.
They're shinking violets, and since they want to be in the line of fire, but aren't trained to deal with it, that means that we must de-ball the entire internet for them. And it does, as TLP says, play directly into the hands of the powerful. The most powerful tool of oppression is a population rendered incapable of dealing with its own problems without going to an authority to solve by removing yet more freedom and power from the people.
It's a totalitarian's wet dream. And not only are we allowing it to happen, we're demanding it. We can't deal with bullies and trolls ourselves, so that means we give up free speech big brother insists on knowing who the trolls are and doing nothing when they are punished for free speech , we can't handle our jobs, so the government must dictate with ever more specificity exactly how we interact at work. We can't handle fighting for our rights by ourselves, so we must have someone else fight for us. In other words, unlike Soviet Russia where the government was protecting the Russians from themselves, we demand that the government protect us from ourselves.
I've been down this road before. You say you want to expand your thinking and action, but what action? Have you ever acted upon information you've read in The Economist? Who are you? Or who do you think you are? The manifestation of narcissism is a disregard of semantics, and the system knows this. The real question is why does a system that wants you to see symbols and metaphors have so much fine print.
Posted by jonny May 7, PM Score: 0. May 7, PM Posted by jonny : Reply. I thought this post was going to be about mothers. But I guess truth is rude. Who don't you put more clothes on, you perverts. A side-effect of White Female Privilege the Right To Be Pursued By Men , an entitlement they protect by killing every slut must be that they imagine they're being verbally pursued harassed by trolls. That's ironic because, in the troll's mind, her verbal harassment offended him.
So they're both insane but to be fair to the troll, her mean words started it. She's the first offender. Regardless, both trolls should know it's not sane to imagine senseless pain in your imagination. Unless ESP is a thing now, it is psychotic by definition to imagine mean words can hurt you. Where's the police when an insane woman needs sectioning for her own protection?
She's cutting herself in her imagination. Throw her in an imaginary asylum. I think Society has one where it's "normal" to be insane. It may not be civil but it sure is polite. Of course information alters our thinking and behavior. Did you just spawn your worldview within your own psyche? Maybe in part Personally, TLP is my daily does of the red pill and there are few so bold as him that stand to offer that red pill. He may not always be right, but he is always enlightening.
If you find someone else that has that to offer, I'd like to read that too but so far TLP is all I can find. Partial Objects has some to offer, but if it's not written by TLP it's always a little iffy. Like you can kind of agree with most of it, but not all. TLP is where it's at. At least he has the guts to rip apart the beloved Matrix and give us poor souls some mana to eat.
Posted by jonny May 7, PM Score: When offered refreshments, boys are told by Polite Society's mothers they're to decline twice before they can reluctantly accept a third offer. No matter how much they want cookies, when offered they must lie and say, "No thank you, I'm fine.
Women know truth is rude. Women aren't objects. Objects have a function. Objects don't need. If truth is rude, it'd be rude to say "truth is rude". It's recursion, nitwits. They obliterate children's minds to secure exclusive control of their bodies for utility or disposal in war. How the fuck do any of you sleep at night? Pardon my French. If I pretend fuck is a French word instead of an English word associated with sex, whores can pretend to believe me and then they no longer need to imagine or pretend to imagine pain in their imaginations.
All colourful sex-related words trigger senseless not sensory pain, a conditioned response in the minds of victims or pretend victims of trauma. To protect daughters from sex, mothers scream them insane. To protect sons from violence, mothers tell them to be brave. They'll need to be. If deceit is diplomatic - call me crazy! To protect boys from cookies, mothers tell them to lie to induce cookie harassment and then lie a third time as they reluctantly emotional fraud submit themselves to cookie-rape.
Cookie bakers know What Boys Want but they have to cookie harass or even cookie-rape boys to accept the cookies. If they accept No means No , boys will just sit and stare at the jar of cookies with longing, faces pained with cosmetic hunger, wanting cookies. Boys are biologically coded to desire cookies. There isn't a boy alive who doesn't like cookies.
The cookies could be as bland as Sterling is old or as ugly as Donald Trump's stupid face, boys love cookies so they don't mind. There is no shame in liking cookies and if a nice lady wants to bake cookies for boys, what's it to you? It's a Cookie-rape Culture created by mothers who force "good boys" to wait patiently for what they deserve.
They are not confused. This is about war. They need the broken children of dependent, malicious women. Boys for war. Girls for sale. Warriors and whores abusing children. No humane exit. Good call on George MacDonald. Lilith is amazing. Another mundane novel of his worth a look is Robert Falconer. It is not a very interesting story, but it offers a critique of the modern idea of charity that I found very challenging. I wouldn't downplay his Christianity, because it's hard to miss in his writing.
But if you are looking to affect a revolution in your soul, you're going to have to offend somebody. On another subject, does anyone know why some of TLP's pieces are disappearing? A couple options: TLP deemed keeping them up unwise. TLP no longer thinks they help the odds of achieving moksha. TLP has been instructed to remove them by the system, suggesting his other writing is inoffensive to the system. Am I the only person here who thinks "jonny" dresses up in drag as his mother and screams at a mirror?
Maybe that was his goal. Maybe not. Stuff is probably taken down because some half-wits decided that minding their own fucking business and respecting anonymity was a rule that didn't apply to them and thus have fucked other people over. How kind of them, eh? It's disappointing for sure. I was hoping that Alone had taken further precautions to keep those comments off of his blog. I'm thinking about saving some of his articles as PDFs, not sure how long a lot of this material will remain on the web.
Is it bullying to wish I had a time machine to go back in time and convince the "outing" poster's mother to take birth control? The scales are made from the laws of the universe. Structural "imbalances" are the consequence of natural imbalances. Society is a biological construct. Posted by johnnycoconut May 9, AM Score: 0. Also, if you look up this site's archives page on Web Archive, you can find those posts and you can also find an earlier deleted post from , and a whole deleted exclusively-psychiatry-focused version of the blog from that has a lot of good stuff.
It's not about money; it's about inertia. She's fighting the boomer's battles because that cultural paradigm remains supreme. It won't be long.
- THE ATLANTIS CRYSTAL (Dr. Philadelphia Hafeldt Book 1).
- Bit Players, Bullies and Righteous Rebels by S. M. Stevens, Paperback | Barnes & Noble®!
- Bit Players, Bullies and Righteous Rebels - S. M. Stevens - Google книги!
- Thomas Wingfold, Curate V2;
- PDF Bit Players, Bullies and Righteous Rebels.
- Hard Ball on Holy Ground: The Religious Right v. The Mainline for the Churchs Soul: Research, Essays and Interviews.
- 100 Greatest Players Scott Stevens;
It is not an alien conspiracy. It is the universe unfolding according to natural laws; you and me and everybody. What goes up, comes down, and things fall apart. Smoke a joint. Chill the fuck out. Quit drinking so much. Quit doing synthetic drugs. Put down the porn. Read the Tao, then Sartor Resartus. Spend some time in the sun. Do people here ever talk about how they are getting better and letting go of their narcissism?
I see some people talking about the books they are reading, which is great. I feel now, with this article, that Alone has finally spoken directly to the concerns that brought me to him in the first place. I feel I have a very clear map of how my narcissism came to be. Of course, that doesn't mean that it's going to go away anytime soon, but it helps to know what is liable to renew my narcissistic injury and to avoid it.
Personally I enjoy having drinks with them, their sense of humor is infectious and most like talking about their music collections. FWIW they're Cal state hospital psychiatrists. Curious, though, and it's a strange question-- what decade where you born? I'm asking because those who begin to relate the way you do seem to be of a certain age, if you will.
For me the final piece of the puzzle is "The fight is a symptom of neurosis, frantic energy as a defense against impotence, frantic energy as a defense against change. These where not the injuries that got the ball rolling, but they've kept the ball rolling over the years. Is anyone here working on letting go of their narcissism? I assume that you, like me, are faking it as has been suggested, but how are you faking it? Posted by jonny May 9, AM Score: 7. May 9, AM Posted by jonny : Reply.
These 'men' were begging, pleading, screaming but girls aren't scared. They solicit attention.
One girl was complaining. Being an object of desire isn't easy. I asked her why not take her clothes off? She wasn't born in them. She didn't understand. Girls dress to undress to impress or dress to suggest [ i. That's a Glass Ceiling. I asked her why not take her makeup off? Keen to help, I asked her why not replace all her enhanced images with pics that actually look like her or her cosmetic appearance in reality? Reality is obfuscated at every step for a fraudulent end result that looks nothing like them. When guys click "Like" on her fraud, she values an illusion created by her own illusion.
Does it matter? No one says what they mean or means what they say so why talk at all? Women destroy girls' minds with intent. From the age of two, women are conditioning girls to imagine men want to kidnap them, leer at their exposed object, look up their skirt, rape them. Try this. Girls' big sisters look out for them, help them faceplant, police their modesty and purity, teach them to be hostile, to defeat themselves [ i. Congratulations on posting the most pretentious remark I've ever seen on this site. For all of his faults and neuroses, at least "jonny" isn't a pompous pseudo-intellectual who disguises weak ideas under big words and dense dialogue.
You should ask yourself why YOU got so miffed at my crack at "jonny". Why you feel the need to stick up for him? As much as I disagree with almost everything he types, he's apt at sticking up for himself just fine. Posted by jonny May 9, AM Score: 2. Actually, no I quite like people sticking up for me. But if you disagree with everything I say, why not counter it? But speculated smear as a counter-argument? You wonder if I dress up like a woman I never think about?
You're channeling your mother. You are my argument. You were brilliant once upon a time. But now? Posted by jonny May 9, AM Score: But to pretend it's parents doing the malicious conditioning is ridiculous. There's a fine line between malice and ignorance, but mothers aren't too stupid. They know exactly why they condition girls to associate pain with talking about sex. Or exposure to male genitalia. They'll do unspeakable things with it but you can't send them a picture of it. Or speak of it. Some girls get offended. Others get aroused. The latter would explain the former.
They're conditioned to take offence at their interests before they're interested. Puberty would scramble their brain. Doublethink used as a coping mechanism? Girls are setup to feel biological desire and sociological shame of desire, simultaneously [ i. Perverse cruelty. Guardian: Leave the Age of Consent Alone. With all due respect, have you ever considered the possibility that, at least when it comes to sex, you're simply too neurotic to have a valid opinion?
Take this very post of yours - the last line "You are my argument. I guess it sounds kind of deep? But its not like we're freshman you're trying to bang, so I don't know what you expect to accomplish. The rest of the time, I firmly doubt the accuracy of your claims. I really can't speak to the arguments you base around various philosophical ideals, but having spent many years in academia studying the sciences there are many times where you have made a claim about biology or another field and all I can do is shake my head.
Frankly, that makes me doubt you aren't just pulling the philosophical items from thin air as well. Shit in the very next post you make a claim that women are set up to feel biological desire and sociological shame simultaneously. Well, okay - not exactly blazing a new trail with that claim, hell you could probably replace "women" with "great apes in general" and be just as accurate. But then you post a bizarre image that seems to involve you sending a picture of your dick to a girl, being surprised that she wasn't happy with you and captioning it with a somewhat disturbing stream of consciousness wherein you appear to try to analyze this girl who I have a feeling is underage based on her four word replies, and make claims based on just about nothing.
That isn't an example, or evidence - its just a good way to show a cop your dick. You could have written almost anything else in the margin and made just as much sense if not more, and it would be just as well supported. You seem to be far more dedicated to maintaining the "jonny" persona you present here than actually fact checking your own claims or producing a straightforward argument - but the weak link is that you aren't as interesting as Da Vinci or as charismatic as Michelangelo, so nobody is interested enough to puzzle out whatever underlying meaning you might be trying to present.
I can barely contain my simultaneous excitement and erection. Posted by jonny May 9, PM Score: Was it her hilarious leadin about when she's President of the World that clued you in? Where's the punchline? Has a feminist ever made a joke in all of history?eqomapykop.tk
Bit Players, Bullies and Righteous Rebels : S M Stevens :
They're not exactly known for their comedy. When you next imagine I could be interested in your mother's shrewd emotional exchange in lieu of one 1 argument, abstain. When you were , your mind had twice the synapses you presently possess. Though I'm no neurologist, the neurologists seem a little shaky on logic [ i. Neurologists believe humans don't need those synapses. Have they met any? Seems like the neurologists need those synapses. Something happened when you were three that put a stop to all synapse production and you ended up disposing of half the synapse shipments your 3yo mind had mistakenly ordered and taken delivery of.
Easy mistake for a 3yo to make, but your genetic code is actually 2,,yo and isn't likely to err. Say, just before your mind went into receivership, didn't you do something awe-inspiring with all those synapses and a tongue? You were as brilliant as a physicist, Noam reckons. Logic suggests he's wrong. You had more synapses. In terms of capacity, you may have been more brilliant than any adult in known history. Now you're too stupid to be plausible.
Do you recall the last time you were so ashamed, you literally wanted to die? You were 3yo and infant amnesia protects you from the memory of the trauma. It would threaten your survival, otherwise. Science doesn't know what causes infant amnesia but the problem with scientists, neurologists and physicists is love. It blinds so your whore mother wanting it is hardly virtuous. Scientists dress for work, trying to solve infant amnesia but do you think - crazy idea - infant amnesia might be caused by the cause of amnesia?
Mothers say "No" so Science says "No" for the same reason Science believes psychopathy is genetic and that Alice Miller is a quack. Mothers know best but you have PTSD. Look in a mirror for proof of her abuse. She taught you how to be ashamed of yourself. You didn't know how lol. Wasn't that nice of her? Happy Mother's Day, retard. You cannot be this reduced. The girl made a degree emotional reversal, from Society's conditioned pain to biology's desire. Your filthy whore mother was given a deity child and gives us you? I have no desire to engage you ever again. I never said it was a funny joke, just that it was a joke.
And it was the 'President of the World' but that clued me in. Nobody ever says that when they're being serious.
List of Reviews by mylittlebookblog
Where's the punchline in the Dead Parrot sketch? Sarcasm, irony, surrealist non-sequitur, slapstick, none of them necessarily rely on punchlines. This 'joke' relied on humorous over-exaggeration. It's a light hearted rhetorical device, nothing more. As for feminists making jokes You may not find them funny, but they're still making jokes. It seems pretty obvious to me that by When you next imagine I could be interested in your mother's shrewd emotional exchange in lieu of one 1 argument, abstain.
Jonny means that you're offering a conditioned emotional response that simply "won't accept" a perspective based on nothing BUT that conditioning otherwise, you would be able to offer a logical support for your contention , and would rather next time that you didn't. Jonny, I'm with you. I think you have some good ideas. Some of what you say makes a lot of sense.
One point that I'm hung up on is the idea that Mother's necessarily have the power to shape their offspring. Perfect example: She taught you how to be ashamed of yourself. Please explain why it's necessary that "she" is responsible and not "he". And please not trying to be pushy, just want to know more go further than "because men are the products of their mothers," as that would only beg the question.
And, if so, isn't that the same sort of biopolitic you revile? I need a condition that is sufficient for making mothers the indispensable agents of children's socialization. Jonny thought this was something my mother somehow programmed me to say? Like she was speaking through me, or something? If so It was merely a suggestion. That Jonny has serious mother issues is pretty well unarguably true, I think.
It's hard to reach a different conclusion, given the content and IMO rather manic tone of his posts. It's my experience that people with "issues" of any kind tend to use them to explain too much.
It seems to me and I freely admit I may not be as well versed with Jonny's posts as some here, since he's made so many that Jonny feels that pretty much everything bad that can happen to a person can be traced back to their mother in some way. It seems self-evident to me that this way of thinking is very narrow.
It's also self-evident that narrow thinking makes it hard to reach balanced conclusions. In much the same way that, if your only tool is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail, if you think every problem in life is due to bad mothering, you're going to misidentify a lot of problems; hence my suggestion. It's likely unwise to contribute to this particular exchange: futile at best and bear-baiting at worst. I want to be doing useful work, but what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
As they say. Johnny has been a constant presence on these posts for as long as I have been scrolling down to look at the comments. I'd somehow thought that TLP would attract a certain style of discourse involving a reasonable, polite exchange of ideas. Surely TLP's devotees are interested in learning the flaws in their perception of the world, and you'd think the blogs incessant railing against narcissism should prompt some level of humility. But it seems quite the opposite, as this exchange demonstrates, or the painful bantering between "el puerco" and "Dissenter" at the bottom of the last post.
It's like they don't just want to prove eachother wrong, they also want to demonstrate their complete superiority to anyone capable of having a thought remotely similar to that of their opponent: rhetoric so extreme and childish churlish! And I can't help but see this as less of an attempt to convince, and more an attempt to build an image in the mind of the reader.
I've been to places in the internet where the discussion isn't so acrid. How did this blog's comments get like this? Was it always this way? Of course, TLP has a very distinctive styleshock value, snarky answers to rhetorical questions, etc. Powerful, often opaque, and ruthlessly unapologeticmaybe this contributes?
Johnny seems to be aping this style, but leaves a bitter taste in my mouth: while TLP appears to be conveying a reasonable, coherent, and generally understandable message under his spiky tone, Johnny seems to have all the harshness and noise but with nothing underneath. Johnny, you rightly point out that Otherand likely most other before himis not providing too much in the line of actual argument against you, falling instead on expressions of incredulity, offense, and exasperation.
But please don't take this as an indication that you're correct, or that your points are just that defensible. There comes a point in every discussion where the gulf between the worldviews of the participants becomes apparent, and it becomes clear that no volume of words will bridge the gap. Maybe maybe years of personal involvement in one another's lives can approach some understanding, but that's certainly not going to happen in the medium of a forum discussion which consists primarily of vitriol.
If they were arguing with you, you'd be right: it's an empty ad hominem. But they'e not; they're appealing others that can also see your words as empty, because with them communication might be more feasible. I realize my opinion is unsolicited and likely unwelcome, but you're not TLP, and I think you'd get much better traction in proselytizing your views if you drop the rhetoric entirely. It's probably ineffective to start off with "I'm not a neurologist, but You may want to read about synaptic pruning; marble doesn't become worse when you chisel away the bits that aren't part of the sculpture inside.
Similarly, Other's brain doesn't become half the brain it used to be when he learns to ride a tricycle. I also question your use of a conversation in which a girl wants you. On a blog about narcissism. I imagine many of those looking at it noticed especially your picture: you're young, and that makes sense: not because young people can't have valuable thoughts, but even I'm beginning to learn that humility often acquired with the passage of years tends to dull the brashness with which people trumpet minority opinions.
It doesn't invalidate what you say, but it does allow people to explain why it's being said. Lastly, these comments use HTML formatting; try putting your imgur links in this form, so they show up:. This Blog Is Fascinating! Though I will admit that the content is at times beyond my frame of reference, out of my field.
Could Some kind poster, TLP recommend some works either on or how to reach this level of cognition? Half the fun in this blog comes from the informed musings in the comments, Refreshingly civil as well. Everyone has their own recommendations. Here's my personal recommendation for a decent overview. I'm a medical student; I'm no philosopher-- so take it with a grain of salt. TLP peppers his writings with thoughts from existentialists and camus. Gordon Marino's "Basic Writings of Existentialsim" provides a good introduction. But there are plenty of youtube videos with lectures.
People here love Baudrillard, Foucault, and Zizek. My personal favorites who also are pretty easy reads are Camus Myth of Sisyphus Marcus Aurelius meditations , and Seneca letters. Good luck! Try something along these lines first. Maintain this cycle. I would add, though, as a reader of a lot of these comments, that some of the conversations that devolve into name-calling aren't as bad as the entire identity fiasco. There's some good shit in some of these "threads" but it seems like no one really engages with a lot of it. It is, as you say, a Good Sign, I think, that TLP stirs up this much emotion and thought in the readers and, to my mind, some of the vitriol is simply an expression of frustration as people grapple with new knowledge.
In any case, it appears that humility is a necessary condition for actual learning. Posted by el puerco May 9, PM Score: 0. May 9, PM Posted by el puerco : Reply. Posted by el puerco May 9, PM Score: Speaking of projection and failing to know the person you're projecting onto In the last thread I was making a point consistent with TLP's main essay focus, while the whinger adversary was trying to hold a seminar on Marxist thought and avoid the certification fetish question.
All this talk of ancient leatherbound volumes with crumbling pages makes me think nobody has bothered to mention Walker Percy's novels. Look, this is what Alone had to say about projection: It sounds like you project unwanted feelings onto another person, which is both wrong and impossible. It's not an action, it's a problem of perception.
- THE QUANTIZED SPACE. A model of the Universe - Black mass, black hole, Time and space - New theory.
- Philips Watcher.
- Cancer / Krebs: A Second Flowering / dennoch Hoffnung auf Leben.
The unwanted feelings don't make sense coming from someone like you, so you conclude they must be coming from the other person. Well that's really terrific. Retreat into the subjective feelings you have, and extrapolate them to generously paint every reader with them. I don't know if you're trying to be ironic here, with the strange emphasis on narcissistic impressions you hold regarding people you don't know, in which you paint them with psychiatric profiles based only on text typed in a comment box.