Joker Here.

[Zero_Sum]

Hey guys Joker here, I just wanted to say hello and long time no see.

I'm currently posting on the wonderful websites Gab and 4chan.

Anywho, I'm still working and also attending college. I should be graduating college by 2021.

I still identity as a modern fascist and national socialist, I'm no longer the quaint anarchist I use to be.

Also note, I was right about economic collapse of the United States all along as the economy is currently crumbling and very soon the dollar [USD] will die. Have you guys missed me yet?

[iambiguous]

My only interest in the new Joker is the extent to which he construes a "modern fascist and national socialist" in the same manner in which he once construed being a "quaint anarchist".

In other words, as an objectivist?

Think about it. He once figured that anarchy reflected the most reasonable assessment of the human condition. Then [presumably] through new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas, he now figures that fascism and national socialism reflect the most reasonable assessment of the human condition.

So, before he was wrong...but now he is right?

But: What if through more new experiences, relationships and access to ideas still, he becomes liberal or a social democrat or a Communist down the road?

Instead, most moral and political objectivists are able to think themselves into believing that who they think they are now reflects the final synthesis.

And above all else they refuse to acknowledge that who they think they are now is merely one more psychological rendition of this: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

From my frame of mind [no less an existential contraption], it's not whether or not he is able to demonstrate that who he is now is what all rational men and women are obligated to be. On the contrary, it's only the comfort and the consolation he sustains in being able to anchor "I" to an objective font.

And it can fall anywhere along the political spectrum. What you believe pales next to that you believe.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Welcome back old boy.

"I still identity as a modern fascist and national socialist, I'm no longer the quaint anarchist I use to be."

Brings sadness to my heart.

[Pedro I Rengel]

You can still work and be an anarchist. I don't know about college.

[Mowk]

Hey Joker, hat's off to you. What are you studying? Still hanging with your darling?

[Zero_Sum]

Hey Joker, hat's off to you. What are you studying? Still hanging with your darling?

Yeah, me and Wendy still live together. Let's just say I'm studying to be an electrical technician of sorts.

[Zero_Sum]

Welcome back old boy.

"I still identity as a modern fascist and national socialist, I'm no longer the quaint anarchist I use to be."

Brings sadness to my heart.

Becoming a national socialist has been a logical conclusion for me. I became an adult and therefore out-grew anarchism.

Also, understanding human nature the way as I do only a government with an iron fist can curb out of control humanity and get rid of the cancer known as neo-liberalism.

Neo-conservatism is just a different variation of neo-liberalism where I despise it equally.

[Zero_Sum]

You can still work and be an anarchist. I don't know about college.

Anarchism is a joke, took me almost a small decade to finally figure that out but I did eventually.

[Zero_Sum]

My only interest in the new Joker is the extent to which he construes a "modern fascist and national socialist" in the same manner in which he once construed being a "quaint anarchist".

In other words, as an objectivist?

Think about it. He once figured that anarchy reflected the most reasonable assessment of the human condition. Then [presumably] through new experiences, new relationships and access to new ideas, he now figures that fascism and national socialism reflect the most reasonable assessment of the human condition.

So, before he was wrong...but now he is right?

But: What if through more new experiences, relationships and access to ideas still, he becomes liberal or a social democrat or a Communist down the road?

Instead, most moral and political objectivists are able to think themselves into believing that who they think they are now reflects the final synthesis.

And above all else they refuse to acknowledge that who they think they are now is merely one more psychological rendition of this: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5&t=185296

From my frame of mind [no less an existential contraption], it's not whether or not he is able to demonstrate that who he is now is what all rational men and women are obligated to be. On the contrary, it's only the comfort and the consolation he sustains in being able to anchor "I" to an objective font.

And it can fall anywhere along the political spectrum. What you believe pales next to that you believe.

People's life experiences and perspectives change overtime. For me finally rejecting anarchism was a way of shedding my naive youth once and for all.

Your curiosity is interesting for one who doesn't believe in anything and who has taken a neutral or unknown position on just about everything because you're a representation of an individual that takes extreme skepticism on virtually everything which leads your entire philosophy in life to permanent inaction.

I don't know if I would call myself an objectivist entirely but I would define myself as a radical pragmatist and utilitarian perhaps.

[Mowk]

Yeah, me and Wendy still live together.

She is a darling.

Let's just say I'm studying to be an electrical technician of sorts.

That's an interesting description of sorts. So how are you at circuit design?

[Zero_Sum]

Yeah, me and Wendy still live together.

She is a darling.

Let's just say I'm studying to be an electrical technician of sorts.

That's an interesting description of sorts. So how are you at circuit design?

I'm finding that I'm learning new talents that before I originally never dreamed of acquiring. It's a slow process that is bearing fruit.

[Pedro I Rengel]

That's not an iron fist.

Heh.

[Zero_Sum]

That's not an iron fist.

Heh.

What's that?

[iambiguous]

People's life experiences and perspectives change overtime. For me finally rejecting anarchism was a way of shedding my naive youth once and for all.

Been there, done that. Quite a few times in fact. And, with each reconfiguration, I was able to think myself into believing that this time I got it right. Then it began to dawn on me that whole point of having new experiences, new relationships and contact with new ideas is to set up the next incarnation.

Then it began to dawn on me that each new fabrication was no less an existential contraption rooted in dasein.

You'll either get there yourself or you won't.

Your curiosity is interesting for one who doesn't believe in anything and who has taken a neutral or unknown position on just about everything because you're a representation of an individual that takes extreme skepticism on virtually everything which leads your entire philosophy in life to permanent inaction.

On the contrary, I try to make a distinction between the things I believe that I am able to demonstrate to others that, as rational men and women, they ought to believe in turn, and those things -- value judgments, moral and political prejudices, aesthetic inclinations -- which seem more the embodiment of dasein as an existential contraption in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.

I don't know if I would call myself an objectivist entirely but I would define myself as a radical pragmatist and utilitarian perhaps.

Okay, lets try this...

Generally, those who call themselves fascists, make particular assumptions about such things as race and ethnicity and gender and sexual orientation and nationalism, and cultural values.

How as a radical pragmatist would you make a distinction between yourself and a more hardcore fascist in regard to particular contexts involving interactions around demographics of this sort. What makes for a modern fascist?

From my way of thinking here, an objectivist is someone who insist that their own thinking about these things is the only way that others are permitted to think about them if they wish to be construed as "one of us".

I merely suggest this has far more to do with the psychological perks embedded in believing that "I" can be anchored to fonts like fascism, than in the capacity to demonstrate [philosophically or otherwise] that fascism reflects the most rational [virtuous] point of view.

Again, this thing: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

[Zero_Sum]

People's life experiences and perspectives change overtime. For me finally rejecting anarchism was a way of shedding my naive youth once and for all.

Been there, done that. Quite a few times in fact. And, with each reconfiguration, I was able to think myself into believing that this time I got it right. Then it began to dawn on me that whole point of having new experiences, new relationships and contact with new ideas is to set up the next incarnation.

Then it began to dawn on me that each new fabrication was no less an existential contraption rooted in dasein.

You'll either get there yourself or you won't.

Your curiosity is interesting for one who doesn't believe in anything and who has taken a neutral or unknown position on just about everything because you're a representation of an individual that takes extreme skepticism on virtually everything which leads your entire philosophy in life to permanent inaction.

On the contrary, I try to make a distinction between the things I believe that I am able to demonstrate to others that, as rational men and women, they ought to believe in turn, and those things -- value judgments, moral and political prejudices, aesthetic inclinations -- which seem more the embodiment of dasein as an existential contraption in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.

I don't know if I would call myself an objectivist entirely but I would define myself as a radical pragmatist and utilitarian perhaps.

Okay, lets try this...

Generally, those who call themselves fascists, make particular assumptions about such things as race and ethnicity and gender and sexual orientation and nationalism, and cultural values.

How as a radical pragmatist would you make a distinction between yourself and a more hardcore fascist in regard to particular contexts involving interactions around demographics of this sort. What makes for a modern fascist?

From my way of thinking here, an objectivist is someone who insist that their own thinking about these things is the only way that others are permitted to think about them if they wish to be construed as "one of us".

I merely suggest this has far more to do with the psychological perks embedded in believing that "I" can be anchored to fonts like fascism, than in the capacity to demonstrate [philosophically or otherwise] that fascism reflects the most rational [virtuous] point of view.

Again, this thing: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

You overthink too much which is why I've always been bored with your mental masturbations and gymnastics. I'm all about practicality and simplification where whether or not something is perfect doesn't mean anything to me at all. I'm all about what works and is efficient in appliance, not whether something is perfect. I suppose you're still chasing that perfect logical system or perception that is supposedly out there somewhere [yet never to be found by anybody ever] and knowing you even if you find it you'll probably raise both of your arms saying there is no way of knowing anything. [which would ultimately make your quest or mental articulations in of themselves pointless, why are you even here?]

Your articulations is basically that nobody can know anything therefore, how can you demonstrate anything? That's quite the conundrum you have there.

As for my racial and fascist beliefs let's just say I'm a little bit more mentally flexible than my comrades. I tend to think outside of the box.

[iambiguous]

You overthink too much which is why I've always been bored with your mental masturbations and gymnastics. I'm all about practicality and simplification where whether or not something is perfect doesn't mean anything to me at all. I'm all about what works and is efficient in appliance, not whether something is perfect.

So, you consider yourself fully qualified to decide when someone either does or does not "overthink" fascism? Given all that was at stake for literally millions when the old fascism was around.

Still, I don't see why you can't substantiate what the "modern" fascist construes to be rational behavior in regard to particular moral and political perspectives revolving around such things as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation. Again, if only to make the proper distinction between their fascism back then and your fascism now.

Of course my own reaction to fascism still revolves around the assumption that, in regard to value judgments and political prejudices, one becomes a fascist given the manner in which I construe human identity here as the embodiment of dasein. "I" as an existential contraption. I'm just curious as to why my argument here is not deemed applicable by you to you.

And the extent to which you may well be just one more run of the mill objectivist.

I suppose you're still chasing that perfect logical system or perception that is supposedly out there somewhere [yet never to be found by anybody ever] and knowing you even if you find it you'll probably raise both of your arms saying there is no way of knowing anything. [which would ultimately make your quest or mental articulations in of themselves pointless, why are you even here?]

Your articulations is basically that nobody can know anything therefore, how can you demonstrate anything? That's quite the conundrum you have there.

On the contrary, with regard to value judgments of this sort, I make the distinction between things that individuals believe to be true in their head and that which they are able to demonstrate all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn. There are, after all, any number of facts that can be demonstrated regarding fascism then and fascism now.

But what is the argument able to demonstrate that -- morally, politically -- fascism reflects the most reasonable assessment of human interactions?

As for my racial and fascist beliefs let's just say I'm a little bit more mentally flexible than my comrades. I tend to think outside of the box.

Again, cite specific examples of this in contexts we are all likely to be familiar with.

[Zero_Sum]

Iambig, you don't just over think fascism, you over think everything. That's your biggest problem right there.

Nobody has any time for that shit.

I swear, if we were talking about the philosophical valuation of the utility of salt shakers in cooking you would still find some kind of fault with it.

"I'm using salt on my country fried chicken steak, how does this relate to me and dasein?"

[promethean75]

You say that now, but if you ever found yourself in a kitchen awash with conflicting culinary spices, you might ask yourself why you chose salt instead of something else... or if you even had the freewill to choose.

Tell him about it, Biggs.

[Zero_Sum]

You say that now, but if you ever found yourself in a kitchen awash with conflicting culinary spices, you might ask yourself why you chose salt instead of something else... or if you even had the freewill to choose.

Tell him about it, Biggs.

You see, that's what I'm talking about right there, over thinking shit.

Sometimes a salt shaker is just a salt shaker and sometimes I just prefer pepper over my scrambled eggs or toast.

[iambiguous]

Iambig, you don't just over think fascism, you over think everything. That's your biggest problem right there.

Gasp! Yet another "I am not an objectivist!" avoiding the arguments I made above by making me the issue.

Instead, what he should be doing is taking up my suggestion to bring fascism out into the world of human interactions, noting a particular context involving conflicting value judgments and behaviors -- fascism, communism, socialism, anarchism, liberalism, conservativism, libertarianism, nihilism etc. -- and exploring the choices that individuals make given his own fascist view and my own take on moral nihilism.

That way he could expose in great detail the manner in which I "overthink" everything.

Instead, he attempts to reconfigure that into his own rendition of...wit?

I swear, if we were talking about the philosophical valuation of the utility of salt shakers in cooking you would still find some kind of fault with it.

Look, I respect the man's intelligence. He is far, far removed from some of the godawful Kids here. But my main interest [as everyone knows] is in testing the intelligence of others to determine what they think about the components of my own moral and political philosophy. How is being a "modern radical pragmatic fascist" applicable to a discussion of human identity, conflicting goods and political economy. Given a particular context, involving conflicting value judgments.

He can go there on the philosophy board or he can continue to huff and puff about me here.

The fact is, I don't argue that I am more intelligent than he is. I don't argue that my frame of mind here is more reasonable than his is. My main interest lies less in what other philosophers think they know about good and bad or rational and irrational moral narratives configured into political agendas. I'm far more intrigued with how they have come to think as they do. Existentially.

This part:

Identity is ever constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed over the years by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of variables---some of which we had/have no choice/control regarding. We really are "thrown" into a fortuitous smorgasbord of demographic factors at birth and then molded and manipulated as children into whatever configuration of "reality" suits the cultural [and political] institutions of our time.

On the other hand:

In my view, one crucial difference between people is the extent to which they become more or less self-conscious of this. Why? Because, obviously, to the extent that they do, they can attempt to deconstruct the past and then reconstruct the future into one of their own more autonomous making.

But then what does this really mean? That is the question that has always fascinated me the most. Once I become cognizant of how profoundly problematic my "self" is, what can "I" do about it? And what are the philosophical implications of acknowledging that identity is, by and large, an existential contraption that is always subject to change without notice? What can we "anchor" our identity to so as to make this prefabricated...fabricated...refabricated world seem less vertiginous? And, thus, more certain.

This either interest him in turn or he continues to just shrug it all off as "overthinking everything".

[Zero_Sum]

Society can't function with moral nihilism because it's impractical, not pragmatic, and serves no utilitarian purpose Iambig. Society or human civilization couldn't exist in a morally nihilistic atmosphere which is why human morality or ethics was historically created to begin with. Is morality and ethics imperfect, flawed, or inconsistent? Of course it is just as human beings are also flawed, inconsistent, and imperfect.

Waving your hands up in the air saying it is imperfect, inconsistent, or flawed achieves nothing. So I see you wasting your time there with that.

There certainly is a lot of room in improving human morality or ethics because it's clear the current set is failing horribly everywhere. I honestly don't know what you and other moral nihilists are exactly trying to achieve anymore which is why I left moral nihilism altogether. Thomas Hobbes, Niccolo Machiavelli, along with an assortment of pre-Confucian Chinese philosophers [Han Fei] helped me see why moral nihilism achieves nothing.

[iambiguous]

Society can't function with moral nihilism because it's impractical, not pragmatic, and serves no utilitarian purpose Iambig. Society or human civilization couldn't exist in a morally nihilistic atmosphere which is why human morality or ethics was historically created to begin with. Is morality and ethics imperfect or inconsistent? Of course it is just as human beings are also flawed, inconsistent, and imperfect.

Come on, if any particular community took a leap of faith to No God, it would still continue to function "for all practical purposes". There would still be a need to prescribe and proscribe particular sets of behaviors. As, for example, it set about the business of, in a Marxist sense, sustaining one or another means of production. It's just that if everyone came to the conclusions that I do, they would likely opt more or less for either might makes right or moderation, negotiation and compromise.

Moral nihilism can be intertwined into either option. Or into a combination of both given particular contexts. It all depends on how the genes and the memes play out in any particular historical or cultural or interpersonal context.

But throughout human history there have been any number of moral objectivists that, through one or another God religiously or No God political agenda, have embraced the right makes might model of human interaction instead. For them there is one and only one way in which to construe race and gender and sexual orientation...and every and all other set of conflicting goods. As they do. You are "one of us" or "one of them".

So, from my frame of mind, it comes down to how you construe your own "modern radical pragmatic fascism". Are you convinced "here and now" that your moral values reflect the optimal way of thinking about the relationships above? The Satyr Syndrome.

Or are you willing to concede that my own frame of mind here is relevant to human interactions in the is/ought world. That is, that "I" the existential contraption in a world of contingency, chance and change, is always subject to reconfiguration given new experiences, new relationships and access to new knowledge, information and ideas.

Then it depends on how far down into the "hole" you go as a "fractured and fragmented" person-ality. But that often revolves more around your set of circumstances, doesn't it?

Waving your hands up in the air saying it is imperfect, inconsistent, or flawed achieves nothing. So I see you wasting your time there with that.

I'm only wasting my time around those who insist that fascism, communism, liberalism, conservativism, etc., are predicated on one or another objectivist font. Those who insist that perfection, consistency and flawlessness is within our grasp. It must be because they already embody it.

There certainly is a lot of room in improving human morality or ethics because it's clear the current set is failing horribly everywhere.

Well, the moral nihilist would suggest that "improving human morality" is basically an existential contraption rooted in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Out in a particular world understood in a particular manner. And, on the contrary, for those who own and operate the global economy [ironically enough, nihilists by and large] things are succeeding fabulously.

Well, sure, until they're not. After all, you keep predicting the collapse of their empires year in and year out.

[Artimas]

Welcome back. Another infinity confined to the present.

[Zero_Sum]

For the record Iambig, I believe the current model of society politically, socially, economically, sexually, and racially is unsustainable where it is on the verge of collapse. I of course want it to collapse because I understand nobody in positions of power currently have any political will or real solutions of reforming it better in improvement.

That doesn't mean however that I resort to moral nihilism because of all that.

I believe that once the dust and fire settles the collapse of our current societies we have the opportunity to build better ones from the ground up out of the old ruins. From the ashes out with the old and in with the new.

I also believe we can create better moral and ethical social systems as well.

Still nonetheless, I believe there will be a violent devastating cataclysmic event that will transpire with this current society or civilization that will naturally have to sort itself out in a purely chaotic fashion before any of that is remotely possible in implementing. Our current societies will die viciously, violently, chaotically, brutally, and within a horrendous destructive manner because those that currently control the reins of power will not give it up willing.

Like all cycles or that which is cyclical concerning human behavioral social interaction change doesn't happen without some type event of conflict.

[iambiguous]

For the record Iambig, I believe the current model of society politically, socially, economically, sexually, and racially is unsustainable where it is on the verge of collapse. I of course want it to collapse because I understand nobody in positions of power currently have any political will or real solutions of reforming it better in improvement.

Again, the gist of my argument here revolves less around what you think you believe and more around how I think you have come to believe it given the assumptions I make here:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

And from this frame of mind the conclusions I arrived at here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382

So...

Mostly I am interested in the extent to which the political prejudices of others are derived either from "thought out" philosophical/political/sociological/psychological/economic etc., assessments of the human condition, or are more the embodiment of the components of my own moral/political narrative: dasein/identity, conflicting goods/value judgments, political economy/power of enforcement.

Then taking intellectual contraptions of this sort out into the world of actual conflicting behaviors in actual sets of circumstances.

Though, sure, if this does not interest someone, it is their prerogative to eschew exchanges with me here and move on to others.

That doesn't mean however that I resort to moral nihilism because of all that.

Okay, but I can't avoid it because "here and now" I have thought myself into believing that it is a reasonable point of view given the manner in which I have come to assess my experiences over the years. And all I can do is to explore the manner in which others have come to choose the behaviors that seem most rational to them. How are they not "fractured and fragmented" in a No God world? How do they not see "I" in the is/ought world as a profoundly problematic existential contraption ever subject to reconfiguration in a world awash in contingency, chance and change?

I believe that once the dust and fire settles the collapse of our current societies we have the opportunity to build better ones from the ground up out of the old ruins. From the ashes out with the old and in with the new.

From my frame of mind, this "new" political reality is no less entangled in the assumptions I make about "I" and "we" and "them" out in a particular world, viewed from a particular point of view derived from dasein.

I also believe we can create better moral and ethical social systems as well.

Cite an example of this then. What would constitute a better moral and ethical system in regard to the conflicting goods embedded in abortion or race or homosexuality or the role of government or immigration? How would your own values here not just be political prejudices derived existentially from the particular life that you lived?

In fact, I suspect that people react negatively to my arguments here precisely because it disturbs them to imagine their own particular "I" as an existential contraption. Instead, one way or another, and all along the moral and political spectrum, they need the psychological assurance that there is in fact a "real me" able to be in sync with "the right thing to do".

Still nonetheless, I believe there will be a violent devastating cataclysmic event that will transpire with this current society or civilization that will naturally have to sort itself out in a purely chaotic fashion before any of that is remotely possible in implementing. Our current societies will die viciously, violently, chaotically, brutally, and within a horrendous destructive manner because those that currently control the reins of power will not give it up willing.

Maybe. But wait until you have the responsibility of, say, raising children in this world. When their lives too are at stake. Will you indoctrinate them to believe that only your own "new world" values count? Will they become chips off the old block...or else?

One of us until death do you part?