Desperate Degenerate Support Group

[promethean75]

Biggs, wanna see something funny as hell happen? Of course you do. Post this over at KT. No wait don't. It'd be too cruel. No yeah do it. Fuck it man, do it.

According to the Arniaz study, …Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310. Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt. See Arnaiz-Villena A, et.al: HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks.

[promethean75]

Holy shit the plot thickens dude. I just read that Thales received instruction from a very elusive presocratic philosopher who's work was lost... but fragments of it were recovered in various ancient texts. His name was Negronides, and he is considered the real father of greek philosophy.

[promethean75]

VIDEO: Fighting-age male migrants at Greek border say they want to go to Germany where there is free money

— Voice of Europe [...] (@V_of_Europe)

Post-Modern Afro-Asiatic hoards drunk on Abrahamic nihilism and desperate in their degeneration seeking vengeance and hope - a way to expunge their passions, i.e, needs/desires.

Jesus and here I was thinking these folks are just trying to escape the political turmoil, poverty and squalor in their own country, like anybody with a shred of sense would do, and now I find out they're drunk post-modern afro-asiatic abrahamonihilists seeking vengeance.

Who'da thunk it.

[iambiguous]

Moderns empty the world of meaning, using language, and then seek meaning in their own abstractions which have been rendered void and unable to offer them any fulfillment.
Then they seek relief in hedonism, and other forms of hyperbolic escapism, and in chemical joy, or art emptied of reality, reflecting their internal emptiness.

This is the cycle of Desperate Degeneracy.

And on and on and on he goes. The irony ever and always escaping him.

After all, what does he provide for us with on this thread but a world of words? The meaning of which almost never going beyond the use of language itself. Endless intellectual contraptions that, post after post after post, take the place of "hedonism...hyperbolic escapism...chemical joy... art emptied of reality, reflecting their internal emptiness."

You tell me: How are not his own numbingly didactic "general descriptions" not the very epitome of philosophical emptiness?

[promethean75]

Well when you understand the Ethiopian heritage of the Greek people, the rich imagery and use of apothegm in writing style, as opposed to abstract argument, accounts for most of what you're trying to understand in a more rigorously logical manner. These people have a long history of story telling and practicing philosophy in their own capacity. I think it's rather insensitive that you criticize him so.

[promethean75]

You tell me: How are not his own numbingly didactic "general descriptions" not the very epitome of philosophical emptiness?

he dropped another one this morning, and if it weren't for the fact that i'm not inspired to debate in the company of only a handful of people (here at ILP) who would either learn nothing from my critiques, or in no way be able to apply anything they've learned to improve their lives even if they did learn anything, i'd seize the opportunity to do something with it. it used to be that i felt insulted enough (i being marxist in my leanings) by all the yapping, but these days i can't even get angry anymore, man.

but i wouldn't be able to answer your question anyway because the nature of the writing is such a verbose, disorganized mishmash of induction, poetry, unfalsifiable theory, pseudo-psychonanalytical nonsense, metaphysics and informal fallacy, topped with the emanating bitterness of someone so mundane and ordinary that living in a communist concentration camp would make no noticeable difference in his life, anyway... so you're finally like 'fuck this. excuse me, alexander the great, but if you could go ahead and pipe down a bit, we'd all appreciate it. thaaaanks.'

[MagsJ]

A self-professed Degenerate, at 2.05: meet UK Grime artist Devlin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loVX1lTAOiA

[promethean75]

freewill/determinism debate throwback. it's throwback thursday. no wait it's friday. still though.

1. Determinism referring to causality has to integrate conscious agency as part of its conception of causality.

2. A living agency participates in determining its own fate through choice - choice is the expression of will; its external manifestation.

3. Choice is how this causality participates, but hard determinism implies that choice is also determined and not a choice at all, but the illusion of it, basing this on a strictly mental participation in choosing from the available options.

4. In many cases the choice has already been made and then registers in the mind, after-the-fact.
This implies that free-will is slight and difficult to direct - the mind must cultivate itself to react impulsively, just as the body does - imposing upon the body an alternate choice from the one it has already made.

if 1 were true, there would be something about the nature and process of causality that wouldn't exist unless there were people around to think about it. it would mean the very act of 'conceiving' of causality does something to the way it works or changes (adds or subtracts) something about its nature. and what if two or more people have a different 'conception' of it? does that mean causality can be more than one thing, depending on whatever it is the person's 'conception' makes it?

if 2 is true, it means 'there is a kind of phenomena that isn't subject to the same causality that everything else in the world is subject to. it is called the 'will', and it produces another kind of causality that competes with the other over the 'fate' of the person.' but if these two are engaged in a causal exchange, any talk of agency is redundant. the causal relationship itself is that causality and any kind of agency would be just another effect of this causality, just another feature, and a single causal chain would preside over everything.

bu look at 3 and 4. it says that there is a special kind of mental state that involves a slight and difficult process of cultivating itself so it can react impulsively... which must mean 'free of causality'. i defer you to problem 2.

here's something i posted... maybe even twice before. if i did, and nuthin clicked then, nuthin'll probably click this time. but that's okay.

https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2014/ ... free-will/


among the great insights W had here, is noting the the equivocation we make between 'inner experience' and 'acting deliberately' that is based in a misunderstanding of what 'deliberation' entails. in fact the feeling of being compelled only comes into question when one is...

"dissatisfied with what one finds, thinking that acting deliberately in such a case can’t just consist in the fact that “I merely looked, made such-and-such a face, and drew a line” (175)."

this person who was drawing the line. his deliberation to observe the rule and follow it only occurs to him when he confuses it with an 'inner' act of will, and this arises only when he believes there had to be something more to the 'looking, making a face and drawing a line' that was guiding it from inside. and from this comes the germ of thought that the 'will' is not a phenomena, that it isn't exhibited in a behavioral act (eg., looking, making face, etc.) but in a different kind of act, an act of 'deliberation'.

that feeling of being compelled to perform properly a series of rules that, if not followed, would result in non-sense, is the genesis of the feeling of deliberation. but it isn't an 'act'. the ruling following and the apprehension of the rule following by the deliberator is the same thing. he doesn't 'choose' from some 'inner space' to deliberate, and only when he reflects on how he behaved, does he assign deliberation to arbitrary acts like looking, making a face, etc.

[Mr J]

I think what I find interesting about Know Thyself Forum currently over there is that there is no mentioning of the Coronavirus or current events. There is no threads over there discussing it. It's like Satyr went full boomer and is in current denial about the situation overall.

I like Satyr, I really do, he impacted me in many ways when I was younger concerning philosophy overall. I remember him arguing or debating against me saying it wasn't possible for modern society to collapse overnight, I really do wonder what he is thinking right about now and if his position on that has changed at all recently.

Satyr if you're reading this, it indeed does look like modern societies can collapse overnight, don't you think so? Admit it guy, on that subject you were wrong where I was right.

[promethean75]

Boaf of ya'll is wrong. Civilizations don't 'collapse'. They just expand or contract, change or stay the same, merge or reemerge, etc. What's most likely to happen with this corona nonsense is that each country's relationship to and treatment of the virus (including social measures put into place) will follow the same directions and patterns that China followed. So the U.S. will crest and then flatten out and then be brought out of lockdown. European countries will go through the same process.

Also an economic collapse doesn't necessarily collapse all of society. What it does is force a radical change in the former modes and relationships of production, those that are no longer useful in managing the problems produced by the present circumstances. But the machine would never 'halt' like you imagine. The material wealth is still there and an abundance of labor power to be profited from. The only thing that would change would be the ways these relationships and modes of production were formally arranged and governed.

The best thing you and your homeboy satyr can do right now if you want to help, is stay the fuck at home

[Mr J]

Boaf of ya'll is wrong. Civilizations don't 'collapse'. They just expand or contract, change or stay the same, merge or reemerge, etc. What's most likely to happen with this corona nonsense is that each country's relationship to and treatment of the virus (including social measures put into place) will follow the same directions and patterns that China followed. So the U.S. will crest and then flatten out and then be brought out of lockdown. European countries will go through the same process.

Also an economic collapse doesn't necessarily collapse all of society. What it does is force a radical change in the former modes and relationships of production, those that are no longer useful in managing the problems produced by the present circumstances. But the machine would never 'halt' like you imagine. The material wealth is still there and an abundance of labor power to be profited from. The only thing that would change would be the ways these relationships and modes of production were formally arranged and governed.

The best thing you and your homeboy satyr can do right now if you want to help, is stay the fuck at home

Yes, when nations, civilizations, or societies collapse there is a transformation of change from one mode of existence to another but usually not without some kind of violence, existential crisis, social upheaval, and revolution thrown into the mix first where an emerging new social order purges the old social order. Collapse as a word designation signifies the death of the old social order in the transformation of a new one, the breaking down of the old social order itself.

I see Hollywood has a sense of humor or brevity talking from their comfortable million dollar mansions, funny.

[Meno_]

Baby, transforms are multi functional bio feedback mechanisms. They only allow a certain breadth of expansion/contraction, before and after which all inalienable rights are forefitted.

[Mr Reasonable]

I just scanned through this entire thread which is something I almost never do, especially one with this many pages and I have to say that I am really disappointed with the lack of anecdotes about degenerate behavior on the part of the participants here.

[iambiguous]

"Shit Smears". Wasn't that your degenerate name over there?

My own being the relatively tepid "chimp"

[Mr Reasonable]

I don't know what I did to that guy but I remember his feelings were hurt pretty bad for a long time.

[iambiguous]

I don't know what I did to that guy but I remember his feelings were hurt pretty bad for a long time.

What you gave him was as love tap compared to the humiliation that I dumped on him. It reached the point where, in order to spare himself even more embarrassment, he stopped responding to me altogether.

You know, if I do say so myself.

[Mr Reasonable]

I think what bothered him was that he was so passionate about his trolling and for me it sort of fluctuated between boring and slightly annoying. He's like the kind of guy who has a big poster on his wall of an epic looking old white dude with a sword or something and who wakes up every day thinking about shit like honor and the self. It's so funny when people get stuck in some rabbit hole or another and can't see it about themselves or see out of it at all. People do it about all kinds of things. You can't save them, and if they're not interesting then you just ignore them, but a little part deep down inside kind of feels sorry for them.

[promethean75]

Ideals theories, about ideal beings living in ideal circumstances...ideal not in "good" but ideal as in perfect for communism to come about and to be applied perfectly.
Idealists - what I call positive nihilists - are always accusing others of imperfectly applying and understanding their, otherwise, perfect ideologies, and they cannot be refuted because it's all in their minds - theoretical, and perfect, like a fantasy.

For the record, we desperately degenerate positive nihilists state clearly at least two premises in defense of our degenerate platform.

1) that no desperately degenerate Marxist society has yet existed and we challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise (e.g., strict adherence to the desperately degenerative planks)

2) that it is up to the working class to change themselves along with their new political order. We cannot therefore know in advance how such a society will be structured in full degenerate detail. It must desperately evolve in its own abrahamoasian nihilistic degeneracy.

[iambiguous]

σάτυρος attempts to sum up the nature of Desperate Degenerates:

Abrahamism is a world view, a way of seeing the world and relating to it.
Marxism is a psychology, an attitude - a state of mind.
Nihilism is pure ideology, nullifying reality.

So, what "on earth" does he mean by that?

He doesn't tell us. All he will refer to here are "world views", "states of mind" and "pure ideology".

Those precious intellectual contraptions that ever and always abound in his own "philosophical assessments".

So, all I can do is to ask those who think they do "get" what he is trying to tell others above, to bring it down to earth themselves. Cite particular contexts which might prompt Abrahamists and Marxists and nihilists to assess human interactions in their own habituated way. Then note how σάτυρος would thump them.

Then an exchange can unfold from there.

[Mr Reasonable]

I've gotten a bit more degenerate since I realized that you can get the morning after pill on Amazon for about 8 bucks with prime shipping.

I know it's, like, well past it's due by date, but...

This is the same man that said he needs his president to have certain amount of decorum and manners.

If you think the decorums and manners are there to cover for the scumbag, you have it exactly backwards.

I just defined you the left, now go forth and conquer.

(Thank you and sorry Mr Reasonable. You are still, for other reasons, my hero. namaste.)

I thought about this post after Trump hired Jason Miller. I lol'd

[Pedro I Rengel]

I don't think you got the point of that post.

"If you think the decorums and manners are there to cover for the scumbag, you have it exactly backwards. "

That means that the decorum and manners you appeal to would not exist to hide the scumbag beneath. It means that you act as a scumbag, in order to hide the yearning for manners and decorum. Obama's politeness is only ostensibly to hide your "evil liberal babykillin'" but actually your evil liberal babykillin exists to give yourself permission to base your conception of reality on a person's politeness.

That is the entire point of the left. All the debauchery is not real. The debauchery is cover, because humans deep down know it is a weakness to need verything to be prim and unthreatening. So in order to make a kindergarden atmosphere your life's aim, you need to say or do something completely obscene.

You know, like Baudrillard said. The only thing they are hiding is that they are hiding nothing.

Your understanding of foreign policy or global finance or the relationship between government regulation and freedom doesn't exist. That's why any mention of them only gets snyde remarks and unrelated anecdotes. You neither know about them nor feel overly concerned about them. The super good manners you demand aren't to hide a clever understanding of the things that concern politics. Your snide remarks and clever one-twos are there to hide that all you really want is Obama to rock your cradle. You don't side-step issues and sarcasm your way out of points because you don't consider anyone worth discussing them with. You do it because they aren't there. And the reason you can do that, so comfortably, is that you have convinced even yourself that what you are covering up is a deep-held scumbaggery.

The cover, is the goal.

[Mr Reasonable]

whats wrong with killing a baby? you mean abortion? i'm for it.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Yeah I know you are.

[Mr Reasonable]

is that bad? whos gonna feed them anyway?

[Pedro I Rengel]

Well, if it weren't bad, it would be no use to you.

See?