Post a controversial opinion

is def more of a self help guru than anything else, with his jungian archetypes. i feel weird that i know so much about him but there are just SO MANY youtube rabbit holes to fall into.

the function of government or large organizations in general is to determine how to address the aggregate needs and desires of individuals at the group level and the human element has been set aside as people substitute profitability and the flow of capital as a measure of success instead of determining how to help individuals

it’s not that government is there to shape lives and tell people what their role is, it’s that it should exist to provide a framework for possibility that benefits all people and ensures everyone has the access to make their own way

it’s not government regulation and taxes and affirmative action keeping people from reaching their potential, it’s regressive economic and social forces keeping your peers from elevating the best among them

Lament For the Pronouns

O! Pronouns, why must thou be so ill-equipped
for your job, that poets' wings are clipped
when they, of many a shape, & gender,
must limit perforce their poetic tender
to "I, it, he, she, we, you, they"?
There's got to be a better way.

Rogan pressing Milo Y on the consent stuff probably helped his downfall.

I don't like how he defends Alex Jones but I think it's possible he's made Jones a joke with some people who would normally take him seriously. They're friends but Rogan makes fun of him all the time.

bravo Aimless

A pro-tip more than a controversial opinion, really, I guess.

If you are irked because someone you know on social media is connected to a controversial figure, DO NOT publically tag the person you know in a post on social media. That is bullshit.

Consider, instead, contacting the person you know directly.

ugh, yes

On a similar note, I know the entire idea of subtweeting is a broken premise because you're basically all shouting in the same room and assuming since you didn't directly draw attention they might not notice what you're saying, but being able to publicly comment on things or people without directly drawing their notice is fine. People who immediately tag whoever they think is being criticized are doing no good.

Then again, there are times where I've wondered why the heck someone didn't try to directly ask about an opinion instead of taking a picture of a tweet as if to say "look at this fucking guy" when I respect both of them equally

Word.

This happened to me early today. Still trying to decide whether to respond.

At some point we need to realize that a random person saying something gross on social media is a non-story and deserves to be ignored or perhaps blocked/muted. It just isn't worth engaging.

Bragging about charitable acts cheapens the act. Performing virtue publicly cheapens the virtue. (Sometimes I think there is an argument to be made that certain acts/speech acts should be broadcast to 'lead by example' but 99% of the time this is not the case.)

Trump is bad. But not THAT bad.

Bragging about charitable acts cheapens the act. Performing virtue publicly cheapens the virtue.

feel like I was taught this from very early on at religious school, 2nd highest form of tzedakah etc

I feel weird about donation websites where it lists the donors, or amounts, or even both. Thankfully you can usually change it to be anonymous

Bragging about charitable acts cheapens the act. Performing virtue publicly cheapens the virtue. (Sometimes I think there is an argument to be made that certain acts/speech acts should be broadcast to 'lead by example' but 99% of the time this is not the case.)

― Mordy, Monday, October 16, 2017 3:52 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

where does it fall relative to not donating?

feel like I was taught this from very early on at religious school, 2nd highest form of tzedakah etc

― Οὖτις, Monday, October 16, 2017 3:25 PM (fifty-eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah I learned a "hierarchy" but don't remember it all. I think completely anonymous and unrequested charity is at the top, i.e. no one including the recipient knows who you are, but it's still more virtuous when only the recipient knows vs public. And obviously all giving is above not giving.

It's a Christian notion too, c/o the Gospel passages in which Jesus condemns Pharisees for praying loudly from front row seats at the Temple.

not a controversial opinion imo

xxp the top iirc might be giving someone the means to support themselves?

i think you're right it's not controversial it's just rarely practiced. i withdraw the statement.

where does it fall relative to not donating?

yeah probably better to donate and get credit for it than not donate at all.

imo you should loudly donate large amounts and then have the check bounce to truly do it all

ie Donald Trump it

he's mastered it, he never even writes the check

or the grandmaster move, present the check at a charity event an organization throws... at your venue, and they pay you much more than the donation

truly a thought genious

lolol @ trumpit

Better still, present a comically huge novelty check that you have no intention of backing up with real money

yeah probably better to donate and get credit for it than not donate at all.

― Mordy, Monday, October 16, 2017 5:33 PM (thirty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

is there any intermediate point where they cross? say, i donate 1c less and don't brag about it. is that better? if not, the opinion seems vacuous

It's a Christian notion too, c/o the Gospel passages in which Jesus condemns Pharisees for praying loudly from front row seats at the Temple.

(it's a jewish thing that jesus was repeating just sayin)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzedakah

if not, the opinion seems vacuous

no, you're right. i was just reacting to a lot of public moralizing on social media. i'm sorry.

you're right

http://i.imgur.com/OVARjz1.gif

Which reminds me that Trump announced he would donate $1 million "of his own money" to Houston flood relief, but follow-ups a day or two later failed to pin down when where or how this had happened or was planned to happen. Too bad no one in the press even seems to remember this or considers it worth nagging him about.

people tried nagging him but he immediately failed to act intelligently on about five others things immediately following that

morality doesn't work

I think the press pool should ask him about it daily. They should make a pact among themselves that whoever he selects for the first question is honor-bound to ask that particular one, no matter what other juicy question they had envisioned asking. It would make him livid.

they’d just stop doing press briefings again

Which reminds me that Trump announced he would donate $1 million "of his own money" to Houston flood relief, but follow-ups a day or two later failed to pin down when where or how this had happened or was planned to happen. Too bad no one in the press even seems to remember this or considers it worth nagging him about.

― A is for (Aimless), Monday, October 16, 2017 10:33 PM (fifty-nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

eh this is fake news (lol). there's a reporter at the washington post who is specifically on this type of boring ass beat and won a pulitzer because of it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/09/06/trump-announces-recipients-for-his-1-million-donation-for-hurricane-harvey-relief/?utm_term=.63268e95e7a7

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/washington-posts-david-fahrenthold-wins-pulitzer-prize-for-dogged-reporting-of-trumps-philanthropy/2017/04/10/dd535d2e-1dfb-11e7-be2a-3a1fb24d4671_story.html?utm_term=.ad0d5249a074

Treeship OTM way upthread re: Peterson. Self-help guru & "bite sized philosophy" is a good way to describe it. And yeah I enjoy listening to him monologue. I don't fuck with the patreon videos or the youtube videos with insane/bizarre/offensive subtitles, but I dig the like 10 minute clips of some of his lectures & the interviews i've heard. My style of talking- completely manic & tangential & always trying to bring the issue back to essentials/archetypes.

Human sacrifice sounds like a beautiful way to die.

It's a Christian notion too, c/o the Gospel passages in which Jesus condemns Pharisees for praying loudly from front row seats at the Temple.
(it's a jewish thing that jesus was repeating just sayin)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzedakah

― kurt schwitterz, Monday, October 16, 2017 5:13 PM (four days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Also echoes Isaiah mocking public self-denigration on Yom Kippur

Christianity is a better model for leftist emancipatory politics than Marxism. (I have probably said this elsewhere on the board but feel the need to document it here.)

Like institutional Christianity? I think Christianity is a better conduit/context for leftist emancipatory politics than Marxism (religious appeals are so powerful), but I don't think the left should be more like the Church.

No def not the Church! (Though as a institution it could prove useful.)

idk what that means really let alone why you'd think it

Me either but I am going to assume it means that ryan is a post-Tolstoy anarcho-Christian.

I agree with ryan

even zizek has said this

We keep trying to get Christianity back to flipping the tables in the temple and even with a Franciscan Pope it’s still “well, some usury has to happen, otherwise how are we going to pay all these guardsmen from Switzerland?”

the problem w organized religion is, people will go to church or a temple or whathaveyou, and they will donate money to them for charity. alot of these people are congressmen doing this publicly for political reasons, which is totally fine. the problem is then when it comes time for everybody to come to the table and figure out what we are going to spend our money on as a country, they feel like they are already helping out, and legally/financially, they are. perhaps it alleviates the sense of Christian givingness, they are getting high on their own supply.

Wasn't a dig btw. I honestly didn't know what ryan meant.

i feel like its pretty good. God is the ultimate authority and him creating the universe is like, the best positive example you can set.

the future obv doesn't belong to one ideology, all will contribute, melting into one another, like waves in the sea.

and the world will live as one

then the waves crash against the rocks, the ships are smashed to bits, the sailors drown, the waves go back, and nothing's changed except more working people are dead

you people not watching this ballgame are stuelpnagels