Joker Complaint Thread- Carleas Please Read.

There is nothing incoherent about this thread that necessitated it’s move to the sandbox area of the forum.

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=189968

It was an exercise in satire and being a contrarian. This does fit in with social or political discourse.

I ask that it either be moved back to the society section of the forum or at least moved to the non-philosophical chat area.

There is no argument in that thread. There’s an implicit argument. If there are some rich women in a society, then women are not oppressed in that society. It’s not a very strong argument and it is implicit. The Sandbox is a nice place for it’s half formed thoughts and whatever germs there might be also, see the description of the sandbox. I know you think pictures are deeper and better explanations than words, but gosh, who isn’t bombarded somehow by images like those. We must all be learning deeply about society just through advertising without commentary, so we don’t need threads on that kind of topic.

Ok, so you did understand the argument I was trying to convey. It was a piece of satire and whether people like it or not it is a valid piece for the society section of the forum.

He is technically right, he used two very traditional philosophical expositions here, which qualifies him using philosophical rhetoric.

  1. Chreia χρεία

In particular, the χπερίας in Joker’s thread in a build beyond Publilius Syrus (a Stoic playwright)’ build of memes, which comes from Theophrastus Characters (Aristotle’s Buttbuddy).

Look at this cover of Theophrastus’ characters (won’t let be display)

amazon.com/The-Characters-Th … B0013MRS6I

If I was to find a close parallel to any one given philosopher, I would have to point at Crates of Thebes… the Cynic Philosopher who gave up his wealth to his city of Thebes, and joined Diogenes in a effort to learn philosophy.

He is a anarchist nihilist getting in touch with the classics, and the classics inevitably will by Cynic Philosophy, and the Stoic continuations that sit as the cornerstone of modern culture and philosophy. Cynics didn’t usually use a question and response format, but rather contrarian behavior to expose paradox and encourage catharsis in passing individuals. Fully expect Joker and Phred the Phuckhead to merge into a dog team hounding members… in a VERY Conservative and most legitimate matter, this behavior has been central to philosophy since at least the Platonic era… if not much earlier given some Assyrian precedents.

There is nothing objectional in the above, philosophers in every age experienced or knew of it. I support it needs to be returned, and given honored protection. It fully fits in with long honored American free speech protections. Its purpose was to encourage a healthy discourse.

We wouldn’t have great works of literature if not for works like this… it’s a important evolutionary step. He is providing biographies as well, which reminds me of the attempt of John Malalas to integrate Chataracter Mimes written of the Emperors to Criticisms of them, matching them to historical sources writing a history of the world, from Antiquity to his present. Didn’t always work, but that’s up to specialists like me to debate, it was highly innovative, joker is paralleling it without knowing it.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Malalas

Either move it back, or enshine this thread in the Archives, with my post here added, so people can ruminate and ponder how philosophy was done in antiquity, and what it looks like in one of it’s better, higher forms.

I am the forums subject matter expert on this era, no moderator is better read than me in this area, and I am a Stoic, was a Cynic. I know better in this case, better than any authority you could find among your moderators. Listen to me in this case.

See right there, even Turd thinks is should be moved back and agrees with me. He made some intriguing arguments for it.

We now await Carleas response.

I recommend just asking Ucci directly.

He never listens to me. We barely speak to each other. I always get the feeling that with his conservative value sytem he deeply despises me. :stuck_out_tongue:

I think he mostly despises you cause your a piece of shit.

However, Carleas knows about as much about philosophy as he does the law, which is very little, and has a proven track record for doing the wrong thing purely out of spite and moderator solidarity. I have seen Ucci adapt his position out of being reasoned with, and conservative politics, especially constitutional, does involve having a historical understanding.

He was likely not as well read in the history of philosophy, and doesn’t realize your methods, which dramatically predate you by the way, is inherently antagonistic to any form of Rules of Order.

If you go back to the times of Marcus Aurelius (prior to him becoming Emperor) Cynic and Stoic Philosophers were entering into the Roman Senate while in session, denouncing people on a similar basis, noting their character traits made them unvirtous, and thus unqualified to be a Senator. This oftentimes resulted in death for the accusers.

This resurfaced during debates about free speech in the US, we oftentimes faced unwarranted censorship, a modern example today would be of the type I give for Magsj for her past actions. Its the kind that the Turkish State today is launching against the free press in Turkey… Turkey uses some of the very same claims this site uses to squash debates, their favorite is Ad Homming the president… the Zinnati’s and Magsj’s in Turkey is using it to commit genocide on the Kurds within Turkey, as well as to cover up supplying ISIS.

I think your at the point where the classical aspects of philosophy are on a literary level starting to override your traditional methods of presentation. Its likely because many Anatlrchist inevitably look back to ancient Cynic movements… you’ve likely seen the style presented several times without knowing it… you yourself acknowledge your opposed to money, as they were. Your thread here points out wealthy women are behaving contrary to suppositions in feminism, it puts at strain economics and what is natural… again, a common Cynic position. Is the behavior of the rich natural, or contrived? To what extent is feminism painted with this double standard? How does it effect our concept of “Natural Laws”… are all drives to Equality warranted, or are some systems too abstract, farcical, a hindrance to true equality and detrimental to the clarification of truth in subject?

Nastiness of style was also quite commonplace in Cynic presentation, they didn’t put on airs unless it was to force a farce, and reverse it to make a point. Very few people are going to go out of their way to claim your not a shithead, but us a philosopher required to put on airs and act unnatural?

Anwser is obviously no.

You most certainly have a place in that forum in particular. I don’t think Ucci necessarily agrees with your style, largely because he isn’t familiar with it’s historical formulas, which you stuck to in a surprising orthodox fashion… if anyone asks me “What is Cynicism” I may very well point to that thread… it’s a excellent example.

I think as time goes by, Ucci will start seeing the connections between these forms and modern methods. The end result historically was that philosophers practicing this form of philosophy were given immunity from punishments. In Christian states not only were they given immunity from prosecution, but often saint status, with feast days and icons. It was especially important in Russia, it’s what is making challenging Pussy Riot by Putin so damn difficult, the same logic they give to orthodox holy fools… at least one a national hero for saving a Tsar, applies to them as well. In the west we mostly know it through court jesters… who oftentimes were the only ones free to speak. Oddly enough, Church of Satan tries this method too (can’t wait till the older Christian varient finally clashes with them). We wouldn’t have the depth and complexity to our first amendment rights, French Philosophy never would of taken off… the French did deep analysis of Cynicism in philosophy and literature from the 16th century on.

Your method here is very, very firmly embedded in the philosophical tradition. At least in this regards. You would have to find a pretty extreme Gnostic sect of Cynics putting emphasis on the apocalypse for your violent tendencies, but most of the rest of your thought is firmly rooted in the philosophical system of Cynicism as it evolved. If Ucci opposes itc then he opposes Conservatism, opposes the constitution, countless court rulings on free speech, countless playwrites from antiquite to modern times, INCLUDING Volitare and Shakesphere, and quite frankly hates America.

Thats how deeply embedded you are with that thread, as it was when I last saw it. If he came to know this, I don’t think he would hesitate to move it back. It differs from how he approaches society and ethics, but is none the less a very well documented tradition at the core of expression, debating, how we think. Its not aimed at being amicable, but disruptive and daring, forcing a reconsideration of our opinions under trying circumstance, in the moment.

A reporter couldn’t put a microphone to a politicians face with a challenging, embarrassing question without these precedents. And no, there is no wiggle room, no (not so) clever logical wiggle out of this, looking at thing with eyes mostly closed and blurred through our eyelashes, only seeing what we want to see, leaving it at that… your simply put far too embedded in tradition with this one, this is more or less a dictionary definition of a overstep.

Given how common dictatorship over free expression is becoming in the west… with Turkey killing it’s own citizens because they decided to vote for the wrong party, Europe suppressing free speech, causing a explosion of violence with the migrants (government refused to hear the people), we should definitely make a stand here and insist free speech should be enforced. We need opposing opinions, even when offensive or designed by evident shitheads as yourself, to speak up. Your the test, if we can see guys like you can freely express themselves, then we know others of every stripe can too. It encourages competitive philosophy, and competitive ideas in philosophy. When we turn our backs on guys like you, in allowing you to express yourself, we only wound ourselves.

God Bless You, you sick, demented little pervert. Keep up the good fight.

I understand what you’re saying and agree with some of it Turd but, do you really see me as a sick demented piece of shit?

#-o :cry: :stuck_out_tongue:

“Patriarchy! [picture of rich lady]” is not a syllogism, it isn’t a complete idea; it isn’t an example of reasoning, let alone well-reasoned. You can see the same level of philosophical complexity walking down the average city street, past a homeless person and a high-rise. Making a point takes more than juxtaposing images or thoughts.

This is exactly the kind of thread for which the Sandbox was created. If any post can be called “half-formed”, it is a post like this one.

At least move it to nonphilosophical chat Carleas. Don’t send it to the area of the forum where threads go to die.

I won’t argue against the sandbox, but your living in the wrong country Carleas if this is your approach to philosophy. Oh fuck… the original definition for syllogism was exactly what your claiming them not to be. It was the literal just a positioning of thoughts and images. Satyr’s pathetic little site even had (may still have, I heard it was redesigned, never checked up) this to a degree built into it’s sections.

Are you going to argue next planes don’t fly, or astronauts don’t actually go to space? Scuba diving isn’t actually about going under the sea? Thats how foolish your statement sounds.

We wouldn’t allow protests under free speech if this was the definition for what constitutes speech. Our political discourse is magically supposed to arise somehow from pissed off, incoherent protesters into legislation apparently in your mind.

Fact of the matter is, and it’s a very solid, impossible under reasonable doubt, back up by a few thousand years of precedent, what Joker presented in that thread as fairly orthodox in it’s approach. He has some fantastic precedent well beyond what I mentioned above for that thread.

Its ironic, you must walk past thousands of comedic cartoons making a point in DC each year, and just utterly fail to understand any single one of them. Do you just stare at them and blink, shouting “that’s not a thesis”?

Philosophy stretches well, well beyond the rules of order and parliamentary procedure they taught you in law school. You got short thrift in your education, I would take your old communications class professors to court for robbing you blind. Nobody but fools actually limit philosophy to the methods your talking about. A idea can’t be fully explored without exploration of the full dialectic, we should be very thankful guys like Joker are exploring classical modes of exposition. You read a thread like that, it’s as if your in ancient Athens, Alexandria, Antioch or Rome listening to the greatest Dog Philosophers denounce the vice and backwardness of society, in it’s contradictions, paving a path through their example to Eudaimonia. That is a fully legitimate form of philosophical exposition. It is directly descended from Diogenes “Republic”, the first satire and critic on Plato’s Republic and Laws. Don’t try to bullshit anyone that that hasn’t been central to the western philosophical tradition since the beginning. It has always been present. Don’t pretend otherwise, being a administrator doesn’t begin to make you historically correct on this. Any definition on political philosophy MUST bend to this.

The same Seneca who wrote The Pumpkinfication of the Divine Claudius also wrote the first Roman Mirrors for Princes for Nero. The two strands of thought are related, Pumpkinfication comes from Cynicism, Mirrors comes from Stoicism, but even that comes from Cynic suppositions that paved the way.

I’m really stumped at just what in political science hasn’t been transformed by that philosophy. You make some very bizarre and off the wall statements sometimes Carleas. Your the administrator, but not the king of philosophy. It shall remain in full effect, around the world, in debates and speeches around the world, and I hope a guy wearing a Obama, Trump, or Hillary mask carrying a sign with a single word on it holds you up in traffic daily, till you get it. Your literally living in the wrong city, you should trade Joker out for his Unibomber Cabin and write great expositions, and Joker can dissapear into the endless throngs of policy protests you apparently turn your nose up to in disgust, cause they aren’t saying ANYTHING.

Its just disturbing to know someone working in national government in DC is this blind to the language of the crowd, the fundamentals of political science. You pretend to be a lawyer, claim to of written your masters on communications… yet everyone walking around you apparently is a unqualified zombie who aren’t worth listening to.

Do you not grasp my concerns here? Both for this site, philosophy universally, and the bizarreness of you seeking a trade and profession, where if we took your statements above as how you actually approach philosophy, especially political philosophy, makes everything you do a literal mockery.

Do others with whom you work think like this? Do you just stand at the windows, laughing as they March by, laughing at those stupid idiots waving signs, as meaningless zombies? “Thats not how democracy works fools, write a tractate, or file a injunction”…

You deeply worry me sometimes Carleas. Your like, Kryptonite to the whole idea behind having a Republic. I don’t think we could technically have elections, certainly not election signs, under your outlook. Ads would be banned. Street corner soliciting to passing cars… what can they say with a image and a few thoughts? The Greek and Roman classics definitely banned… we can’t have them in Carleas outlook, as I pointed out, guys just like Joker we’re a major influence, using similar rhetorical approaches.

You know… the law profession itself as a universally understood medium, open to all to study was Roman Cynicism… the priesthood in Roman kept the lass secret, till one of the scholars of the law school sat on the steps, teaching anyone the law as they passed. The republic wasnt always very Democratic, there deginstely was class tension between those rich enough to become lawyers and the plebians too poor to learn it. Their only experience of it was through being prosecuted. We do a lot to laud the 12 tables, and later on the Plebian and Patrician balance of power, but there was a dark era between.

You really have no idea how dark philosophy would get if we all played by your rules. I’m not merely talking here, but philosophy as a whole, and our nation. We shouldn’t try to defend philosophy by suppressing it. Its idiotic and immature, never really works out for the best in the long run.

I’m very impressed with Joker. He seems to be rounding himself out in philosophy. Any classicist who focuses on philosophy would be nostalgically impressed by many of his posts, including this one here. You should put, as a good example of what a bona ride, orthodox approach to presenting a debate on a political science topic, this thread as a accepted varient. Its rather classical and elegant, works in Ancient Athens and New York. Ancient straight to the point, seem less economy, and mist importantly, it attracted a counterdebator. It has the qualities that make good philosophy so attractive. If he keeps this up, he might become a well known philosopher. Memes are returning back into fashion (as I mentioned Publius Syrus earlier, his mimes were memes), he can refine this into a well honed political instrument for provoking debate.

If your interested in studying rhetoric, any of you, I first urge you to look at Jokers thread. Its a fine start before you crack open the classics. I mean this from the bottom of my heart, I do get excited when I see old forms reemerge, and show they still have vitality. Its very beautiful. Anyone with a love for ancient philosophy should have a appreciation for that thread.

May I play the part of defense? Mirrors come from a different source, and has modern and post modern implications for the likes such as: Heidegger, especially Nietzsche, and Foucault. Seneca was a kind of psychologist. On the other hand, syllogism derives from Thales, and is related to geometric principles. It’s in kind a difference between an argument and a motion. The division of the motion into two halves is akin to a presentation of an argument and a counter argument. So both views are equally valid, yet where each belongs to what category, again is based on preference, clarity, and methods for sorting.

The need to sort May be primary, as to clarification is concerned , before a preference can be established.

Why thank you Turd. :wink:

Turd told me in another thread that he was just kidding and that he didn’t mean any of that nice stuff he said up there ^.

Oh, hmm…

Another thread moved. Are you fucking kidding me? :imp:

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=189739

What you have is a conservative tight wad who doesn’t like any of my threads or espoused perspectives that moves everything out of spite. At least be honest about it. Carleas, and you sit on your hands by doing nothing.

We all know that threads sent to the Sandbox die as it is well out of sight from the main sections of the forum. The discussions in those threads die rather quickly.

This is just mainstream politicos stifling creativity and new opinions that go against their orthodox beliefs.

It’s a bunch of bullshit and every one of you moderators know it.

I wonder, will there come a day where all my threads are moved to the Sandbox?

I guess the society forum is only for the liberal, conservative, and libertarian douchebags with their orthodox perspectives or politics.

We can’t have any anarchists, cynics, or nihilists running around there creating amuck, can we? :imp:

I try my best devotings hours of my time invested in my writing presenting an alternative perspective to the world and you all spit in my face.

Again, I agree with the call. You aren’t engaged in philosophy. At most charitable, you are doing a kind of performance art: you certainly are trying to communicate something, but you aren’t reasoning, you aren’t explaining your position, you aren’t making the sort of explicit connection of ideas that a philosophy forum exists to house.

It’s like you’re at a conference where people are presenting papers, and you’re mad because your interpretive dance is getting booed off stage. Interpretive dance is swell, it’s a valid means of expression, and done well it can be quite moving. But it’s not the fare of a conference.

Try expressing your ideas with words alone, and use somewhere in the ballpark of 200 of them. Express the same idea, that humans are livestock, but make the argument, support your assertions with evidence and reasoning, something like, “This is true, and if that and this are true, then this must be true, but if that’s true, then humans are livestock…” Try doing that, and if your post gets moved, you’ll have a very strong case that Uccisore is a mean old conservative who doesn’t like your edgy ideas.

As it stands, the evidence you’ve presented here equally well supports the hypothesis that Uccisore doesn’t think your interpretive dance is right for his conference, and I’m inclined to agree with.