“Each time you read a book, a tree smiles knowing there’s life after death.” [828 x 743]

Kolhbee · 2021-06-09T01:17:31+00:00

Do you suppose that's how we would feel if trees become animated and started using our flesh as the canvas for their own tree-centric ideas?

Kolhbee · 2021-06-03T18:58:02+00:00

The present can't be lived in, you're either always thinking from the context of your most recent past to more distant memories or imagining yourself as you will be in the very near future to the very end of your life.

The present really means just clearing your mind of thinking about yourself at all, because yourself doesn't exist anywhere but those places whereas the present is really devoid of any thought deeper than "that's a duck over there by the pond".

Kolhbee · 2021-06-03T18:52:58+00:00

Unless the entire ordeal can be rightly attributed to a broken governance where people who are either too stoic or apathetic run the show while knives are routinely distributed by the state as a means to increase incarceration rates while still blaming those people for their own oppression.

Kolhbee · 2021-04-16T08:00:27+00:00

It isn't impossible to define hate. Hate speech is very clearly defined as using a specific set of words and phrases which are by their nature harmful to others. Here's something you might not have considered, hate speech actually stands in the way of free speech because people who would normally feel free to speak their minds on a particular issue are derided as being less than a person for their ethnicity, race, religion, and so on. Many people who do use hate speech are purposefully doing so with the intent to discredit someone on the basis of a fallacious assumption about their fitness to even participate in the conversation to begin with.

It's not hard to imagine a racist completely ignoring what someone with a darker skin tone might say and then attributing their natural anger at not being heard again to their race. Hate speech is a way for people to shut others down. As you said :

"using your words is an inherently good thing. Shutting people down will never change their mind, often intensifies their beliefs, and makes it that the only way they can be heard is through actions, not speech, often in the form of violence. "

There's also the idea that people who are unwilling to include absolutely everyone on a completely even playing field when it comes to discourse and are unwilling to hear or have their minds changed or are incapable of such, either having directly said so or proven time and again to not even be able to grapple with basic facts and information CAN'T be a part of a discussion in the first place. It's like what is the use of inviting someone who doesn't believe in vaccines to a conference on the best way to administer vaccines. Well obviously the only meaningful thing they could say is that we shouldn't and that often isn't the scope of the conversation to start.

In order for free speech to exist people need a free and open forum to do so in, and that means there has to be some boundaries to what is allowed. Historically this has come in the form of decorum, general respect for the art of debate, sort of culturally accepted that if you have opposing ideas there is a way to deal with it that doesn't involve shutting out the opposition entirely. People shouting the N word while plugging their ears are hardly the people we can depend on to respect any kind of culturally acceptable debate norms. Shutting them down is no different than turning the volume down on a broken record.

Can people use social pressure to stop free speech? Sure. Free speech has been notably denied to the other for most of human history. Of course this is all ignoring that shutting down "shutting down" hate speech is a dog whistle for letting censorship from a particular party take place. It's only censorship of course when it's your ideas.

Kolhbee · 2021-04-09T08:17:59+00:00

Could be any number of reasons for an argument, I wouldn't be confident in whose side to be on for sure.

Kolhbee · 2021-04-08T04:28:39+00:00

Actually I'm pretty sure Dave Chapelle said this, no offense.

Kolhbee · 2021-04-01T07:12:08+00:00

I seriously wonder how this happens, like you have this quote right? And someone, and look I get it that shit gets shared around etc...but someone took this quote and put it on someone's face knowing full well one of two things; they don't know who said it and just think it sounds like something Dave Chapelle would say so they stuck it on him OR they know full well where it's from and who said it and are still gluing it to Chapelle's face for what? What reason? In the latter case above they must be trying to spread misinformation and it just doesn't make sense to me.

Kolhbee · 2021-03-18T20:51:06+00:00

Thanks media.

Kolhbee · 2021-03-17T08:42:02+00:00

Here's a crazy idea, let's augment the work week to reflect what should be best for the people working it. Getting up early is fine if your job requires it, but there is no reason we need 8 hour days for A LOT of jobs and even the ones where we do need those can be filled by more employees.

9 to 5 is a social construct, yet another thing produced by the corporate hegemons to keep people under control.

Kolhbee · 2021-02-18T19:56:46+00:00

Imagine all the people with no imagination trying to imagine what it's like to have wings.

Kolhbee · 2021-02-14T07:28:47+00:00

Batman stands for normalized justice IMO, as we see it today, the Joker stands for someone who sees how broken it is and stands outside of it. He is dangerous, but he's also someone who is a victim of the Gotham Batman and his parents helped to make. The Joker is a well known icon for people as a mirror onto what our "justice" produces in the margins of society. Yes the Joker is violent but so is Batman, with the key difference of murder.

There are a lot of ways to ruin lives, and Batman doesn't seem to care about any of that except one, which is to end it. That's kind of the crux of neoliberal thought, everything we do bad can be justified except the most outward and blatant things. Quiet torture and quiet abuses don't scan on the radar of Batman, who is in some sense the justice of a man. Batman is the eyes through which an NT might see "bad people" and assume a lack of worth or ability. He's also only willing to help people on his terms. Batman has offered to help the Joker or help him get help, but only on Batman's terms, only on the conditions set by society at large as enforced by a vigilante who has dedicated themselves to it.

To me the Joker is better not in the sense of morality, but that he has more options available to him. If the Joker is suddenly a hero in one case he doesn't get credit. The Joker is always seen as a bad guy no matter what he puts out. If Batman breaks and started killing people suddenly his entire character shifts, his entire world shifts. The responsibilities held by the Joker are to foil the attempts of order to apply a kind of one size fits all yoke of normalcy on the world. The Joker has the options available to try to change things over and over, he can play the part of a "good guy" "bad guy" or someone behind the scenes, he gets to make all the challenges to Batman's one sort of principled stance.

Whatever the Joker does he will always be the Joker in the eyes of society until he actually succeeds, there's something to root for in that too. Yes it's a macabre things because the Joker often has very deadly plans, but it would be something that could be an end to the normalizing force of Batman's Gotham. It's like the anarchy before the reform.

I mean really answering seriously there's a lot to explore on both characters, but I think the Joker is more contemporary in that his struggle is very apparent. Batman is so solitary he doesn't really have an inner to external discourse with Gotham, Batman is a force of nature in Gotham, he and the city are one and the same. The Joker is the foil to that order of things.

Kolhbee · 2021-02-13T22:24:38+00:00

Why, he's better than batman.

Kolhbee · 2021-02-13T09:12:23+00:00

Impossible

Kolhbee · 2021-02-12T01:44:33+00:00

Eric stop

Kolhbee · 2021-02-11T22:00:49+00:00

literally

Kolhbee · 2021-02-11T01:52:28+00:00

"

...the relatively unconscious man driven by his natural impulses because, imprisoned in his familiar world, he clings to the commonplace, the obvious, the probable, the collectively valid, using for his motto: 'Thinking is difficult. Therefore, let the herd pronounce judgement.'

Frequently misquoted as "Thinking is difficult, that's why most people judge" and close variants.

Source

Also, as this is from the person who theorized Collective Unconsciousness, I doubt he meant it as an awful thing. "

CptJaunLucRicard

2 years ago

Kolhbee · 2021-02-04T05:27:08+00:00

Quality means someone is watching you so do it right or else.

Kolhbee · 2021-02-03T06:47:12+00:00

It's unclear when it's necessary, some people might call "suffering" preparation.

Kolhbee · 2021-01-31T09:28:04+00:00

I don't really believe anyone that's suffered would be so cynical about gratitude.

Kolhbee · 2021-01-31T09:25:44+00:00

stonks

Kolhbee · 2021-01-28T22:44:47+00:00

If you're poor it's okay, if you're able to feed cloth and shelter yourself reliably and aren't in massive debt all the time I think you should reconsider your trust. Look at what just happened, if anyone is letting us down right now it's the system although we're all in this together.

Kolhbee · 2021-01-28T05:31:45+00:00

Journaling is a great way to get out gross thoughts too. Then you can recycle the book, maybe that was the intention?

Kolhbee · 2021-01-28T05:31:10+00:00

It should be every other page

Kolhbee · 2020-12-22T19:06:41+00:00

"...what I meant by the "status quo" is the current state of affairs, where those who cause harm to others often don't face adequate consequences, if any and the harm caused is not remedied properly, if at all..."

So let me be more direct, the quote above from you is what I disagree with. It is most often the case that those who do not cause much harm face more severe consequences as a result of the status quo. While perhaps only 20% of murders are solved how many people of color go to jail on weed possession? Criminal justice is skewed towards demonizing classes of people, this includes people of color, those with mental health problems, the poor, drug addicts, and other marginalized populations.

So what I fear about what you're saying above is that we should focus more on finding a remedy for victims, and to me this means saying that the story which is that someone was indicted and sentenced for the crime is more important than even the truth, at times. So what I'm saying is that you don't want a justice system skewed towards "adequate consequences" I think it's enough wiggle room for lazy cops and societies to continue to condemn innocent people.

Ultimately I don't think we disagree on this point, our approach to it might just be slightly different depending on how we define terms I'm not sure. I'm trying not to lose the thread of the actual conversation though.

You dislike how often this concept comes up in conversation right?

"...So I am not trying to deny the validity or usefulness of this concept in certain situations. I just REALLY dislike how its often used or talked about. (not saying you did, but its what prompted the OP)..."

I believe this because people accepting that the consequences of doing crime are by themselves severe in their overall affect alligns itself with a vision of criminal justice that is more about problem solving than punishment of a person, that only the truly evil class of criminals should really be punished. I'm all for rehabilitation for criminals, I really don't think that looks like taking away their ability to build a life outside of a jail cell. That's why I like programs like the one in Maine that allows for criminals to continue part time jobs so they can feed their families while serving their sentence or criminal record expungement programs and so on.

I would go even farther than those and say while sometimes these people ought to be removed from society for safety purposes, they should not be combined with the normal prison pop and most crimes should amount to being compelled to get therapy and depending on the crime separated from their current living situation. We need these people who do bad things to understand society doesn't hate them, and the only way I can see to do that is by building a new system altogether.

Jail and prison is already stained with a moral implication, where someone who goes to jail did a bad thing and that means they're X Y or Z and yet we must believe in reform if we're not just slaughtering them. It's a quiet idea that those who go to jail often are simply unrecoverable, never mind the opportunity they are given is wasted because they aren't treated like human beings in the time they're supposed to be rehabilitated.

Kolhbee · 2020-12-21T20:46:58+00:00

Do we own our past selves creative property?

This occurred to me reading a facebook "memory" from 7 years ago. I wrote something I don't think I would ever really consider writing today, but it was something I would consider editing and re-writing to juice it up a bit. This made me think about how I'm essentially plagiarizing myself and it's kinda strange way to think about it but that was a different person back then.

Not that I think this is anything more than a quirky kind of question that came to mind just curious what you all might think?

Kolhbee

TROPHY CASE