Post #142,298
2/19/04 6:28:44 AM
|
Re: {sigh} Orthogonal to this juicy flamefest..
Thank you for thinking, which is more than can be said for the irascible Norsemen, but..
My point is that the entire idea of "equalism" as Mags puts it - "androgyny" as I would state it - is a destructive derangement of natural order, and that its most obvious manifestations are the physical perversion of homosexuality and the mental perversion of blind feminism, and that both of these have their common origin in a deranged disembodiment of the anima in both individuals and the collective - if drawn farther, this derangement could easily be shown to be the origin of most of our other woes. One does not tinker with nature and get away with it. I cannot expect anyone who is unfamiliar with the symbolic ideas, and who lacks simple skills of observation without prejudice, to understand this perspective - so I quit with the final statement:
Feminism and homosexuality are in fact disguised hatred of women and children and their natural relation to each other.
-drl
|
Post #142,305
2/19/04 7:33:32 AM
|
Redux.
blah blah blah I hate queers blah blah I might be one blah blah I'm afeared of that fact blah blah did I mention I hate women too blah blah especially strong women blah blah they should all go back to being brood mothers and housewives blah blah equality is for white men only blah blah the good old days blah blah.
And Ashton, you should be ashamed of supporting this ridiculous viewpoint. It's 2004, not 1804.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
|
Post #142,418
2/19/04 7:10:32 PM
|
Straw queer.
C'mon Peter, your brain is more original than that. I didn't PICK 'sides' in this faux-dichotomy - remember?
It doesn't matter that (too) often -- your stereotypical analysis of homophobia IS.. quite close enough for government work; I mean.. some of the slavering hordes with pitchforks Are that lawful prey!
I don't see Ross's putative -phobia nor steely-suppressed envy. And not hatred in its various telltale forms. If you think you do (see such) . . .
I also don't know that the Jung / animus syntax (or other archetypal approach to human fucked-uppedness) -- is without its own recursive flaws: few things involving 'us' are ever reducible to algorithms. That idea is a conceit of not just er programmers. It's an equivalent of The Market Will Correct, for those whose religion is Econ 101A, and who see 'humans' as decimal points on their generated graphs. It compiles: it must be Truth.
(A similar flaccid digital-think as in those who can also stomach the Social-Darwinist Neoconmen because: they be so Efficient at clearing out the Undesirables.. which screw up *their* inane spreadsheets diagramming Authority Rulez.) Clear out these pissy nonconformist outliers and THEN -- we can calculate the velocity of money into our offshore accounts, to the nearest penny. Same class of vicious reduction of humans to 'entries' - by people with stunted emotional age ~11. Lots of these around. Majority??
ie. if you want to refute Ross's model, you have to refute it - not impute troglodyte transparent ugliness of the chain-queers-to-fences sort. Repeat: (Ross says) he doesn't 'Hate Queers'. Or envy same etc. The comments on the form of the sex, now (!) - I deem gratuitous and counterproductive. Don't Do that, Ross! It gets you: methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.
WTF - analyze the motions of a decent orgasm (let alone the internal mental acrobatics -- after all, the most Erotic part of the body is ... the Mind) -- and it's *all* stuff for Monty Python wink/nudge ...
WhatsItLike, huh.. WhatsItLike !?
(Even Vulcans forget that curl grad V = 0, when the annual green testosterone flood hits the old limbic system..)
The fact that this self-selected group, demonstrably possessing 52 cards and even a couple spare Jokers in the deck -- is unclear about the tenuous fabric of "our '04 civilization ??" -- Is a bit unnerving though. To moi, anyway.
Chicken Little had a rather dull vocabulary; WTF, she was a fucking chicken. We. Have. Nukes. and are likely about to use them (if a LOT goes wrong between now and November Two Thousand and Four)
Screw the Queers AND the Heteros and their internal clockworks:
THE FUCKING SKY *IS* FALLING !!
Ashtonradamus
Find a Way to get the fucking Neoconmen back into their padded cells, you assholes; screw the dance about Who's Tougher on Crime or Hates Sin Most.
|
Post #142,421
2/19/04 8:13:20 PM
|
Re: Straw queer.
The basis of my argument is a desire to have and live in a productive culture. A culture that can't properly inhabit the masculine and feminine principles equally will die.
A similar thing happens with self/shadow splits - the Nazis, for example, identified their "self" with Aryan perfection, and so projected their "shadow" onto Jews and outcasts. We know the results. Anima/animus problems are not as dire but they do lead to sterility. The creative faculty needs inspiration tempered by judgement to generate ideas (masculine) and then needs feeling tempered by sensation to give them form (feminine). A society with "female issues" coming from a warped anima image will be safety obsessed, unable to create new things,and obsessed with "relating", be it by sex, prison, corporate work, politics... One with "male issues" will be unable to properly structure creative energy, and so obsessed with "newness", be it by nomadic wandering, pillaging and plunder, short-term plans without regard for permanence of effectiveness.
Thus - the ultimate reason feminism and HS repel me, is that they are sterile and inherently moribund.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "homophobia" (what a stupid word). It has to do with "ambiphilia" - love of balance.
-drl
|
Post #142,423
2/19/04 8:30:31 PM
|
My 2 pence
IMnaaHO[1] what pisses Ross off most is the unjustifiable extreme to which a large part of modern society has carried the goal of "equality of the sexes". Was there a time when it was "normal" to believe that men were "better" than women, or more "deserving" of $foo? Yes. Is it a Good Thing[tm] that it is now generally unacceptable to profess such blanket judgements? Again, yes. But what too many people have forgotten is that just because neither gender is "better" than the other, that doesn't mean they're the same. In general: - Men are larger than women
- Men are more agressive than women
- Women have better communication skills than men
- Women have more of a nurturing instinct than men
- etc. etc. etc. ...
Does this mean that only women should raise children? Absolutely not. Does it mean that only men should be police officers? No. But political correctness has gone too damn far when it's unacceptable to observe that the average man is more likely to pass the physical part of the entrance exam to be a firefighter than the average woman. To suggest that maybe some women would actually prefer to stay home and raise their children than to drop them in day care and go to work. Would society be better off if it were widely preferred that someone stay home to raise the kids? Probably. Do the apparent general tendancies of our genders suggest that that would result in more women staying home? Probably. Does that make me a mysoginistic neanderthal who thinks all women should be breed sows? Not even close. From what I've read of Ross' position, he's mostly saying that women and men are different; and that encouraging men to act more like women and women to act more like men is taking "equality" too far.[2] [1] not-at-all [2] Yes, that reads somewhat like a "separate but equal" argument. It's not. ===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #142,312
2/19/04 7:50:51 AM
|
'Fact' extrapolated from complete ignorance of the subjects?
Seems you don't know two fifths of nine eigths of fuck-all about homosexuality, or feminism/equality of the sexes, etc.
No, "it's bad coz it's not all about me and my extreme manliness, grrrr, watch me beat my chest" does not count as knowledge of the subject.
Hope you're enjoying being consumed by your hatred of all things 'not-me'.
John. Dickhead-intolerant.
|
Post #142,316
2/19/04 8:14:06 AM
|
Re: 'Fact' extrapolated from complete ignorance of the subje
Chest-beating machoism is yet another expression of a deranged anima-image expressing as vanity (consider for example the rigid codes of presentation in biker gangs, a very anima-dominated group) and in itself is every bit as repulsive as the most preening effeminateness of the fairest of fairies - overcompensation for being dominated by the Unrestricted Feminine. Actual maleness would be found more in, say, the understated, controlled behavior of test pilots.
Note that an ideal balance involves both feminine and masculine expression - one needs the former for "structure" and the latter for "direction". When one or the other is projected, the remaining side expresses negatively. Our entire society is so in the grip of a negative projected anima-image that it is impossible for most people to see clear of it.
You show that you do not understand what I am saying with the above comment.
-drl
|
Post #142,430
2/19/04 10:04:32 PM
|
I will take at face value that you dont hate queers
I think that at any given time in history there is an average percentile that prefer their own sex for sexual activities with slight fluctuations.
It is only in times of societal stress that such tendancies tend to come into the open, not demanding space alongside as much as demanding a right to live not in fear. As a society sways right and left due to economic stress there always emerges a hedonistic group that flings all sense of survival out the window and lives for the sexual moment. This includes hetro nympho sapho homo and lesbo tendencies along with bestiality and ritual bloodletting. Because this black entre is visible half the population is horified and the other half is secretly titillated while pretending to be horrified.
As we are all sexual creatures and during teen years hormones are raging this hedonistic fringe attracts perfectly normal hetro folks who want to "experiment" notice todays middle schoolers proclivity for oral sex. You arnt cool if as a 12 yo gal you havnt baba'd a bobo. There is ample evidence that young female collegians have an almost 50% ratio of "fooling around with other girls" because it is cool. Boys tend to hang with boys and if there is a 10%er in the midst a few will say what the hell I aint queer he is and experiment away.
After an openist era ages it is always replaced with a fanatical repression as those who played grow older and place blame on the gay folks down the street for their own sexual issues and causes reprobation, hatred and harm. This has played out so many times it is cyclic in nature.
Just in our own century we have the roaring 20's, depression where gangsters and molls were accoladed (John Dillenger got headaches if he didnt have regular punch while in Prison) The Berlin scene in the early 30's Adolph's pet bumboy Ernst Rohm, Errol Flynn's notorious paties and Beria's penchant for chirrun.
All of these were followed by making homosexuality a crime punishable by death, lengthy jail sentences or vigilantism.
Well society is in a turmoil again what with the industrial age being traded for the information age and the hedonism of the 60's being rehashed in the 90's but with AIDs as the levellor so it is a matter of time before the worm turns and it will be national sacrifice and the first to get sacrificed are always the different.
Ross I know you feel the current imbalance and the ensuing chaos but lets hope those of us who are exposed will spot the pendulem swing soon enough to get the fuck out of the line of fire.
thanx,
bill
calling the demo primaries since [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=2275|http://z.iwethey.org...ow?contentid=2275]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #142,432
2/19/04 10:28:38 PM
|
Not bad.
Boxlish is at least a compressed language :-\ufffd
I'd add (as to symptoms of dis-integration):
Body piercings ['Pierce' - now a er staple character in daily paper comix] Pierced Genitals !?
Diet-to death, bullemia and related
Intensified homogenization; you MUST wear really shitty-looking baggy pants.
Cap MUST be [forward/backward] - depending on local Authority Figure's sense of shitty-chic.
American Idol | Elimidate | FOX-anything | Ann Coulter (not smothered at birth)
and... resoundingly,
the fact that Neoconmen managed! a coup in the midst of the flag-wavinest
In-duh-vidualist kultur a Jingoist ever lusted-after -- even so far as to install a Pecksniff Pope in place of the "Justice System"! cha cha cha
So if all THIS does not constitute a small 'suggestion' of just how it is that the sexual stuff Also Got Fucked Up -?- I don't know what that would take...
|
Post #142,437
2/19/04 11:13:11 PM
|
must protest at your use of language
you MUST wear really shitty-looking baggy pants. as I explain to my one baggy son "MUST you wear really baggy pants that look as though they have been shat in?" walking like he is hiding a stray log. thanx. bill calling the demo primaries since [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=2275|http://z.iwethey.org...ow?contentid=2275]
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #142,440
2/20/04 12:17:42 AM
|
Well, baggy pants sure are about implying the large log...
...just a different type of wood than what you're thinking of.
"I'll stop calling this crew 'Orwellian' when they stop using 1984 as an operations manual." - J. Bradford DeLong
|
Post #143,315
2/25/04 5:59:27 PM
|
Don't forget to add the Apprentice show to your list
I caught one of those last week and I have to say that I was amused in a gory car accident kind of way - I knew I shouldn't look (I didn't want to look) but I just had to look. If this one show doesn't epitomize the death of our culture, then I can't watch the one that does. America, "you're fired".
I believe that many in our fora are sucked in to this obvious little "election year political" tarbaby issue because they believe that it will further their electoral goals. I understand and agree with much of what Ross says. He could definately soften the language, but I never really gave a rat's ass about political correctness to begin with.
If egg and sperm do not unite, then the species does not propogate... In this sense, homosexuality is probably "unnatural". Having said that, natural does not equate to good. Arsenic is natural. Additionally, I believe that homosexuality is most probably inate, which then makes the "unnatural" argument even more specious... Perhaps this genetic makeup puts homosexuals as outlyers as opposed to being unnatural. My daughter has a genetic "defect" (Down Syndrome). I think of her as an outlyer and not unnatural or defective.
I think that homosexuality is most probably innate. I base this premise on purely anecdotal evidence (my life). I do not look at other men in a sexual way. It would be very hard to "teach" me to think otherwise. Given that belief, I do not fear homosexuality will "spread" to me or my children just by proximity. Teachers should continue to teach. Boy Scout leaders should continue to lead boy scouts. Until someone shows me decent statistics that prove that homosexuals have a higher proclivity for child molestation than the non-homosexual population, I can't see the point in discrimination of jobs.
Now, as for marriage - I don't see it as black and white. There is the civil union that the state recognizes (marriage certificate, divorce decrees, etc...) and there is the marriage ceremony. I can think of absolutely no reason why gays shouldn't be able to have the civil union. Even our President agrees with this, so let's move on...
Marriage is predominately a religious ceremony. Each culture has its own rules. In India and many other parts of the world, arranged marriages are the norm. In Nigeria and many other African countries, bigomy is the norm. The countries laws are set up to accomodate these "norms". Traditional Western Judeo-Christian "norms" (though not always one man and one woman) have always stated/strongly implied that at least one member of each sex be represented. I see the reason why this debate is so heated. I also see the "logic" behind not being a gay hating homophobic troglodyte if you hold an opinion that says, gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. It is strongly engrained in the ethos as well as the mythos. I believe that the reason gay advocates are so strongly pushing their black/white "either your for us or you're against us" rhetoric is pent up (closeted) frustration of having to deal with life as an outlyer.
Having said that, because of the way our insurance, tax laws, etc... are set up to discern only between "married and single", it would be a hell of a lot easier for the state to sanction unions/marriages between gays. If people insist on formally bestowing "second class" status on gay marriages, let them be known as garriages or what not. Make them wear a scarlet "G" when they want to visit their spouses in the hospital.
What's the hoopla? I have kids... I'm not going to teach them that gay people are anything other than different. Just like kids with Down Syndrome are different. Not less than, different.
Ashton, have I mentioned that I hate election years?
Just a few thoughts,
Danno
|
