Welcome the new moderator!

...from afar.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And even then you have to squint..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

or sun will blind your eyes and mind will go into epilepsy

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are giving her too much credit.

 

who? her? I am talking about the Sun, her body has long gone to ashes.

 

Oh?
Then what do they say?
Do you, perchance, espeaka the spanish?

 

I appreciate your criticism.

However, I am inclined to think that it's not her doing that she is/was so popular.

The way she speaks does at least this:

1. Pushes many people's buttons so they get rather emotional around her - and then as they try to remedy the emotional, they tend to fall into pity, patronizing, denial - all of these attaching them to the notion of Gendanken, talking about her. It's a negative attachment, but negative publicity is still publicity.

2. Addresses many people doubts, insecurities, grey zones, things they would rather hide from others and even from themselves. People tend to automatically develop a love-hate attachment to such people, which can result in a lot of talking.

3. She comes across as sexually aggressive. The attention of many men, and some women, both positive and negative attention, is thereby secured.


Were it not for other people's various desires, doubts, insecurities - would she (or anyone, for that matter) still be popular? I say no.
So if she doesn't live up to her popularity, she can hardly be blamed for that.

A while back, David Beckham was involved in some minor scandal or something, it was nothing unusual or big.
The reaction of some of his fans was: You betrayed us! You are not the David Beckham you are supposed to be!

But there is, of course, the issue of responsibility of those in the social position of high popularity. Something to look into.

 

try your finger...

Not on me though, I'm not into that.

Anyway, I couldn't remember my password, it has been so long since i have posted. I fell into actual life right in the middle of some of the same old discussions anyway probably. To be honest, I've come back to look but wasn't excited.

When I saw that Gendanken is moderating this forum it was enough to make me dust off my password.
The thing some people here aren't getting is this - Gendanken's SOCIAL imperative as mod, i.e. to make the forum safe, is admittedly a little like handing the war on terror over to a terroist, george bush style. But hopefully we are adult enough to handle that.
Her INTELLECTUAL imperative, however, is to help nurture a community of thought. And handing her that role seems quite appropriate.
Just depends on how you look at it.

That having been said, please let me know if any discussions of any depth are taking place in this biiaatch.

Re: gendanken talking about jews - most strong intellects have terrible weaknesses of some sort, due to an imbalance of perspective or experience of real-life situations, so if she is racist, that would be one of hers.
If that rant was truly racist and not just a literary gimmick Gendanken happened to grab for shock value etc., I will have to put that on my infinitely long list of why the world is such a twisted mess... which reminds me of something my grandmother used to say about my brother "he is like the devil - all the good things he does with his hands get wiped away with his tail when he turns around." Oh, the diabolical humanity of it all. etc.

Hi gendanken. Glad you still exist.



edit -
p.s. hi invert. glad you still exist too.

 

Or it could be the effects of South Park.

The Dreidel song!

 

I read a review of Eartha Kitt the other day from The Times Online:

Hilariously ridiculous that people will invent exaggerated criticisms of people by such terminable methods—over what? Qualms.

 

So we all desire her or fear her? Weird. I just think she's funny and an excellent provocateur.

 

And she hasn't even sunk her teeth in Human Sciences, Philosophy, Ethics, and Culture and the Arts yet.

 

I said -
Were it not for other people's various desires, doubts, insecurities - would she (or anyone, for that matter) still be popular? I say no.

I didn't say we all desire her or fear her.
I mean that we all have various desires, doubts, insecurities and these lead us into all sorts of things, being fans and haters, among other things. I basically stated the obvious. But it seemed to be pertinent because I am under the impression that some people were trying to argue that Gendanken somehow usurped people's attention and such - completely denying their own various desires, doubts, insecurities that lead them to pay attention to her posting and person in the first place. The sort of denial like being caught inflagranti and saying "She made me do it!"

 

Cole,

The complaints, of course, will come mostly from the social corner. All the little chitchatters chatting away. All they want is a nice safe environment for them to stroke each others' egos.

Strictly byob.

Welcome back, by the way.

And, for any interested, Cole started out a bit uptight about Gendanken's nastiness as well, if I recall correctly.

Heh.
So did I, for that matter.
It does take a certain type of person to go beyond their initial, "What a twat!" assessment and get to the meat and subtext behind the polemic.


Greenberg,

Obvious? Yeah.
You basically said, "Nobody would be interested in her if we were as uncomprehending and nonperceiving as bricks in the wall..."

We're human and thus we have likes, dislikes, feelings, passions, biases, etc.

In other words, we're all steeped in the 'human condition' (a term I've noticed you bandying about lately, must be from a thread?)

Most people seem to not be so much interested in solutions as blame. Personal responsibility is, in general, anathema.

 

Correction: Nobody would be interested in anybody or anything if we wouldn't have desires, fears, insecurities etc.

I haven't said that desires etc. are bad.
But pretending as if one wouldn't be lead by them -as some complainers here have tried to do- I think that is not something that should pass freely on a philosophy forum.
Although those people probably are not reading this.

I don't know where I picked it up, probably at school.

I've been thinking lately though that blaming and other behaviors that are traditionally considered as inappropriate and lowly, might be an evolutionary advantage, something that helps one win in the "survival of the fittest" - and that those of us holding on to traditional values and morals are going to get wiped out.

 

(Cole Grey:
*grin*Had to double take- 'tis really you.

Greetings, minstrel; I say we sauce this dish again once its boiled? )


Myles:

I love the ecstacy of you rolling around in that phrase, "willy Jew."
Like a zealous dog who's just found some pig shit...

Yes they do.
Even ill-educated Maria will never say "Judio" on its own, it doesn't make sense; she will either specify the Jew or a Jew depending on the singularity or plurality of the noun.

The Latin noun is grammatically bound to either a definitive or indefinite article- all Spanish speakers, for example, do not have the luxury of dropping articles of speech like 'the'. In English we can say we are going home or we are going to school, in place of the house or the school, but the Spaniard and the Cuban cannot; they are grammatically bound to assign gender and article:

We are going to either the or a school, vamos a la or una fiesta, and never vamos a escuela or a fiesta.

Why do I even further this point, other than the annoyance of your ignorant proclamations on a language you know nothing about? Because the logical conclusion of your argument would make anyone that places the definitive ‘the’ in front of a race or ethnic group a racist.

Or should I read you back to you?

You have yet to formalize any argument other than the mass appeal to what is 'obvious', that's childsplay.
Give me some meat, some data, information, input besides what you so obviously state is obvious about the use of 'the' in the obvious history of racism; anything outside a personal disdain for the 'the' before 'Jew'.

The difference between The African American and An African American is what exactly and says who other than you?

 

The lion hunts in the daytime, while the housecat hunts at dusk.
The oak is a very resilient tree.
The chocolate chip cookie is an American specialty.
The Jew is stingy.
The Scottsman wears a kilt.
The American is overworked.
The German is diligent and punctual.
The Swiss Mark is a relatively stable currency.
The Massai is a warrior.
The Tibetan is lazy and dirty.
The ear is an auditory organ.
The computer is a useful machine.

and so on.

I'm not sure about the psychological/philosophical motivation behind such uses when the singular form of a noun is used to denote something that occurs or can occur in plural.
But suffice to say that this sort of use of singular forms is common and it tends to be connected with stereotypes, positive and negative stereotypes.

If anything, what is offensive about the phrase "the Jew" is that it points to a stereotype, and one that tends to be perceived as a negative one at that.
Nobody bitches about the lion being bigger than the leopard, or the oak being a resilient tree, or the Massai being a warrior - and they all come in plural numbers.
But say -or imply- something about being stingy, anally punctual and some such that upsets a particular social psyche, and you have usually crossed the common line of decency.

 

Welcome back Gendy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sorry to hear , that it is biologically impossible for you to fuck anything ........
A pitty , you should go fuck yourself ............
And then start moderating (again yourself )..........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Gendanken wrote:

No, you missed the obvious. They say it in Spanish. I am bilingual in another language that uses the definitive in similar ways, but, not oddly enough, it does not have the same feel as the definitive form in English. However even in this language and Spanish using the definitive form AND refering to the character of a race, especially in negative terms, but even often in positive terms, is racist.

In a context where they are describing what all the members do or are like, yes. And you missed the obvious in what I meant. They say it in Spanish.

Sure, I think referring to a race as 'willy' is poor spelling and racist. If you meant some other word feel free to let me know.

If you really cannot see how referring negatively to all members of a racial or religious group using the definitive form is racist as if they all were one an the same character or performing the same actions - see your own posts for the two clear examples - you are either playing the coquette or just don't ever want to back down and perhaps spoil the gendanken myth.

The lazy African American.
A lazy African American.

Duh.

 

I am confused about what is negative about having an influence over Hollywood. If it's so negative, then you'd think the jew would not want it so bad.