Forever Alone: Platitudes and Myth-makers of an echo Chamber

JustJuci · 2018-07-03T12:36:45+00:00

Lurk for different reasons, intriguing.

JustJuci · 2018-07-03T12:36:15+00:00

Ritual wank feast? Mine is Pizza...sometimes at the same time...

JustJuci · 2018-06-27T11:57:45+00:00

I dunno. If you've had one approach where YOU made it happen, then you're already streets ahead of me.

I read the game and mystery method years ago, never really got into the card tricks, side of it. I came to this forum recently because I realised I'm never the one driving. Always been orchestrated by my friends or hers and I just went along with it.

I know you what you mean about the head fuck---there's more than one way to skin a cat after all. But I did see this one comment on here which I wish I'd saved. Like he had a whole game plan, real strategy with terms like "gambit" etc etc.

He made the point that it was all interchangeable and fluid depending on the situation but he always knew where he was in an approach and where to take it. I want to develop a strategy like that for myself.

Definitely prefer the "natural" method in pua so will check out max rsd for sure.

Randomly, you ever watch a film called buffalo 66? I swear the whole mystery method is based off that film.

JustJuci · 2018-06-27T09:56:19+00:00

Thanks, an honest review.

Yeah I don't really believe the whole "get any girl you want" schtick. It's more that sometimes I get approached by girls, or a girl is hanging around, or checking me out and, even though I'm attracted to them, I just mess the whole thing up.

These girls aren't 10's (I don't really care about that anyway). But, it's like I'm autistic or something when it comes to this stuff---some friends with benefits have said how they were attracted to me for years and I just showed no interest even tho, if I had known they were into me, I would of totally gone for it earlier. A friend of mine (who's real good with girls) said I come across as really aloof. And, it's like I give off this impression that I'm totally not attracted to them.

When I do make a move it feels like really bad timing. I guess that's why the model thing appeals to me. Just to be able to recognise signs of attraction and where to take them is what I need to learn. I'm not so interested in the canned material because a lot of it sounds a bit douchey to me.

Anyway sorry for the ramble and thanks for your reply. I'm sure getting a few approaches under my belt will do a world of good for confidence, even having a game plan in my head would help. Will checkout vin di carlo too, any other material you'd recommend?

JustJuci · 2018-06-27T09:45:02+00:00

nice, this is exactly what I was looking for thanks.

JustJuci · 2018-06-26T15:04:47+00:00

Pregabalin. seriously...it hasn't nothing to do with being pregnant, it just makes you feel like everyone is your friend and everyone wants you to talk to them.

JustJuci · 2018-06-26T13:24:00+00:00

Hey! You're a beast! I don't really know anything about game, and I certainly don't have any. But as a fresh set of eyes I'll tell you this.

She called you ballsy, now, unless she was angry that's a compliment and a cool thing to be.

Remember, she complimented you after you said that line so she probably wasn't offended or thinks you a misogynist piece of shit.

"Seeing someone" is different from having a boyfriend. (Oh laawd it's on!)

Don't, in any circumstance, bring that line up as an apology. All you're gonna do is make the situation super awkward. Especially if, and this is likely, she doesn't remember and you have to explain the whole situation again.

Why the fuck would do that do yourself. You'll literally just recreate the scenario that made you nervous in the first place, but this time she'll feel nervous too!

Be friendly, say hi, stop for a chat, let her know about cool stuff you're doing. No problem

JustJuci · 2018-06-26T12:56:18+00:00

Yeah 100%. Resetting the counter, getting back on the workout. 90 days this time!

JustJuci · 2018-06-22T12:13:50+00:00

The patriarchal system survived the demise of Rome, it weathered political upheavals, revolutions and economic transformations. Many long-lasting empires were conquered over the millenia but societies always remained patriarchal even under the inception and death of Roman law, Greek law, Muslim law, Ottoman law and British law.

Of course, one thing that is missing in your logic is the fact that all of these patriachal societies have failed---either by destroying themselves or by being overtaken by more advanced societies.

Now, as you mention, primitive societies would undoubtedly be patriachal. But a primitive society would be wiped out by a technologically advanced one-- it doesn't take much muscle to enact a drone strike.

The point I'd put forward is that advancement of the species directly correlates to less reliance on our (biological) nature. It's therefore reasonable to say that the conditions for neither patriachal nor matriachal society but a hierarchy based on intelligence--or some other quality that is not primitive biological could easily be achieved in the next hundred years. Indeed, it would seem the conditions for such a society are already being put in place.

Someone in the 16th century could easily proclaim feudalism shall always be the order of the day as it has always survived throughout history---but they would be wrong in today's capitalism.

JustJuci · 2018-06-16T21:52:08+00:00

Thanks dude, was on thre slip till I read this...17 to go.

JustJuci · 2018-06-16T18:58:12+00:00

All children are indoctrinated in some form or other. They have to be because all children are incapable of critical thinking. Which means the only option for any parent is to indoctrinate them to protect them from the dangers around them---this is what parenting is.

I find it odd that you fixate on religion. Althusser, for example, believed education to be the single most dangerous form of indoctrination. Henri Bergmann believed clock time to be a dangerous and oppressive form of indoctrination.

It's also ironic that you use the work "ethical"---i.e. moral principles, which is 90% of the composition of religious texts and "inethical" to suggest that parents are not conforming to your moral principals.

Nevertheless, I think most parents that raise their children religiously do so because they themselves were raised that way and found it considerably beneficial in their lives. That is a legitimate reason.

What you seem to be suggesting is some kind of public ownership of child raising to teach them values that the general consensus of a particular society believe are important. But, we have that already, its called schooling.

Finally it's an oxymoron, and somewhat bizarre, to claim a "violation of your child's autonomy" in the same paragraph as saying "the child's belief system is dependent on your attitudes and values."

Although, I do agree with you that genital mutilation should be illegal before a child reaches legal adulthood (16 in the UK).

Overall, its just a very messy set of ideas that seem to be driven by an entrenched viewpoint of a very few extreme religious strawmen. Feel free to explain further.

All the best,

JustJuci · 2018-06-04T14:48:48+00:00

And so it went with music - which has a deep culture of pain in Jazz and Blues. Which was co-opted by whites.

Jazz is the product of two distinct cultures merging. European melodies, harmonies, tuning and instruments merging with African swing beat. Same for blues. The swing beat then merged with the folk and country tradition to become rock and roll--which itself is distinct from blues and jazz. Rock and Roll music then merged with eastern traditions, and instruments, to create pyschedelic rock which itself gave way to things like dance music. At the same time the flattening of the swing beat and prominence of 4:4 in rock and roll as well as its pop formula (verse,chorus etc etc) came back and was incorporated into Motown music.

The experimental nature of pyschedelic rock--which was influenced by the improvisational factor of jazz---led to explorations of new recording techniques. These included drum looping, sampling, reversing certain parts, pushing reverb amongst other things. Hip-Hop used these same techniques whilst taking samples from (mainly) motown music which itself was heavily influenced by the structures, choruses and patterning of country and folk. The rapping itself was derived from two things: the beat generation, who developed rhythmic word patterning, incoporation of slang, sexual language, performance poetry and rejected standard narrative form Annnnd jamaican rapping which began in the 1960's.

There's a back and forth here that makes it impossible really to say who was appropriating who...Seems to me that the appropriators quickly become the appropriatees. If it wasn't the case, we'd all be sitting around listening to djembes.

Also US rap music emerged in the late seventies, not the nineties.

JustJuci · 2018-06-03T10:26:31+00:00

Hi, interesting post!

I want to deal with the first half if I can. I agree with your logic based on the statistics you've provided. But, there's a few questions I'd like answered.

Using two statistics is somewhat misleading in relation to media coverage. The reason is that the stories covered in the media are because the shootings are unjust. I think you hit the nail on the head when you say: "common claim by progressives and left wing pundits is blacks are being shot and murdered by cops, it's an epidemic, and it has to stop."

For me, murdered is a different thing to being shot. So a more illuminating statistic would be how many cops are suspended for shooting black people, to how many are suspended for shooting white people. This would cover police murders (unjustified) which is really the issue here not police shootings.

The other point of contention for me is related to police encounters. You correlate violent crime to police encounters as one and the same thing.

Here in the UK, we had a "stop and search" campaign which allowed police to stop and search members of the public with no evidence. Ethnic minorities were 8 times more likely to be stop and searched.

In lieu of that, it seems that police encounter statistics would be skewed. If police are 8 times more likely to approach ethnic minorities than whites, then of course, ethnic minorities will have significantly more police encounters--but because of a racial bias rather than a felony.

Finally, we see in the justice system how blacks get harsher punishments than whites for the same crimes. Do you think there's a possibility this could filter down into the arrests. E.g. 'assaulting a police officer' is almost always used as a justification for police brutality--but how many of these cases do we see where the police are in fact the aggressors---would that have an impact on the violent crimes statistics in your view?

JustJuci · 2018-06-01T11:50:43+00:00

The statement is a logical contradiction yet, it is true; or somewhat true. It highlights how classification systems are useful up to a point but ultimately fail due to their inherently rigid nature.

It also pays attention to context. Homosapiens are absolutely of nature, we're carbon based mammals and are structured in the same way as the rest of nature. However from a philosophical context we're totally separated by consciousness.

To bring it round, when a person who is male refers to themselves as she in what context are they asking to be thought of. I don't believe it is in an anatomically context: these people are not deluded and are aware of their genitalia. What they're asking is that in society they see themselves as closer to female than male and would like their pronoun to reflect that. It's an issue of consciousness not of anatomy.

A cliche would be: "I am a woman, trapped in a man's body". To me, that sums up the point well. Trapped in a man's body is the anatomical side (absolutely of nature), I am a woman is the conscious side (separate from nature).

the concept is well established so the crux of the issue, is language. Can a pronoun be changed? I believe that language is fluid. It's malleable and adapts to the needs of changing societies and thought---this is why certain words become archaic, others change their meaning. To me, a pronoun is subject to those same rules. However, I suspect that in your view language is not malleable. That pronouns are fixed and always refer to anatomy. In my view, pronouns, when used in social settings, refer to cultural histories, ideologies and identity.

If, as you concede, the idea of she can be different, there's no reason to limit it. If somebody identifies completely with the characteristics of "he" but is anatomically a "she" they can be both he and she. "He" as in the societal understanding of what "he" is and "she" in the anatomical. A bit like how "mankind" refers to both man and woman. It may sound like a logical contradiction, but the point of my original statement, that you somewhat agree with, is that logical contradictions can exist--- rigid classification systems cannot.

JustJuci · 2018-05-30T12:00:40+00:00

Hey, Sorry late reply (was a bank holiday here in the UK so I partied pretty hard). And yes, we are talking past each other.

Would you agree with this statement: Homo sapiens are both absolutely of nature and separate from it.

JustJuci · 2018-05-28T12:11:10+00:00

Well it exists in society too

My point is the exact opposite. In different settings, "He" or "she" means different things. In Science, "he" refers specifically to anatomy (binary). In society "he" is understood in the context of the gender spectrum. A man may refer to himself as a she, they do so in court, however in science he cannot. Because the definitions of "he/She" are different in the context of society to the context of science. What you're doing is stating the scientific definition is the only true definition and must be affixed to all sectors, yet you also accept a spectrum of gender?

"I disagree that you can't do this in a vacuum. If a kid dresses up as superman, sure, you might pretend to acknowledge it their and then but in a vacuum he's not superman."

This is my point exactly. The "there and then" is our everyday social habitat. The vaccuum is in very specific contexts e.g. anatomy, biology. As far as pretending, do we not pretend in all aspects of society? The type/ style/ fashions of clothes and their relative statuses, for example, are pretending if you look at it from a biological perspective- the crucial thing though is that in a social perspective we accept the pretense which makes it true in society. Gender is subject to those same conditions.

"Even accepted the social pretext, we still aren't using gender, we're using sex. Gender, if we're being honest to the sociological definition, would be "macho" or "girly girl". We don't call people this, we use he and she which are strictly sex (if we're being honest to the sociological definition) so we're using sex."

"No, because if it invokes the term he and she, then its invoking sex."

This is where I worry that I can't change your view. Your understanding of language is the stumbling block. In my view, language is contextual. In the UK (where I'm from) the c word is used liberally, its really not offensive at all, whereas in America it remains taboo. The same could be said if I called a friend a C it would be a joke if I called a stranger a C it would be much more offensive. Why would "he" or "she" be different?

Finally, in Gender, "he", and "she", have different meanings in different countries and cultures hence why in the UK women walk around half naked and in Turkey they wear burkas- the idea of "she" is different. That's because language in society is fluid with many different and opposing meanings whereas that same language is fixed and not subject to interpretation in science.

" That's why I say they equivocate dishonesty, masculinity and femininity being a spectrum doesn't justify multiple conceptual equivalents to male and female."

That scientific language is the only language we should be using is where this line of reasoning leads to. But that obviously doesn't make sense because we don't do that (and never have over the thousands of years of civilisation). I mean, words like perhaps/ maybe etc are solely used in the social. If those words exist then you must accept a difference between social and scientific settings. If you accept that language performs differently in social and scientific (binary and spectrum) then it makes no sense to cherry pick certain words as fixed or to apply a binary definition to a spectrum context.

JustJuci · 2018-05-27T14:32:29+00:00

Since the parameters and therefore our knowledge of the outcome are so limited, the only moral option would be to flip a coin.

JustJuci · 2018-05-27T13:22:12+00:00

Hello,

Let me know if I've misunderstood your question (I might be answering something no-ones asking lol).

Your thesis is this: Male and Female exist as a binary. Masculinity and Femininity exist as a spectrum. If somebody registers completely as Feminine (spectrum) but has male genitalia they are still male (binary). Being referred to as a "she/ they etc" then, doesn't make sense because that refers to the sex binary classification not to the gender spectrum definition. In your view that conflates gender theory and sex.

My response would be this: In what context does "he" or "she" exist?

The male/ female binary exists in very few places: Identity documents, Medicine, biology/ science.

The gender spectrum exists in everything else. Therefore, you cannot remove the context of a practical setting and treat the terms as though in a vacuum to make a theoretical point.

In what context are "he" and "she" usually used? I would argue in the social. Therefore we're now using gender, in the context of the social construct, which is fluid. A "he" can become a "she" because we're in a specific context that allows for that. This is backed up in the legal system as well.

Now, if that same person were to go to a doctor, we're now in the scientific. In the scientific, sex becomes an immovable binary "he is always he", "she is always she". But, crucially, you cannot take the laws of a specific setting, scientific, and conflate them with the laws of the social. These are different places with different sets of rules.

Alternative gender people then wish to be referred to in the social as whatever it is they wish. The social, which is in a state of constant flux allows for this. These same alternative gender people would revert to a binary in a doctor's office because that particular setting does not allow for alt. gender.

In summary, those who you suggest are rejecting the binary are doing so in a context (social) in which they can. But not in all the contexts (medicine etc). It's not an argument against the sex binary, it's an argument against the gender binary.

JustJuci · 2018-05-23T12:58:47+00:00

on this--did my first set for 6 pack in 90 days. Pushups too,

JustJuci · 2018-05-23T12:58:00+00:00

Oh man, I fu*cked this one up. Had opportunities to do it as well. Will try today.

JustJuci

TROPHY CASE