Cornellius

First, I have a tough time sometimes following through a convo or a call because of the behavior of the caller. It really struck me during podcast #936 Insomnia or: War is not done with you (wonderful 'cast btw, highly recommended) that the listener couldn't be silent for more than a second after Stef laid out a reasoning as if he couldn't withstand the pressure of being the recipient, the subject of the conversation, as if he was hard-pressed to shift the conversation away from himself. He often wanted to say that he really got what Stef was saying, that he really really agreed, and that he thought this and that and the other before Stef could continue his train of thoughts which was just a few seconds away, as if he wanted to own Stef's thoughts and therefore inoculate himself from the help. Perhaps Stef was able to handle it emotionally and focus on the weighty theory and empiricism he was digging out whilst ignoring the needs the viewer was communicating passive-aggressively, but the thing is, in such a case a direct intervention would've been in order at the very least because it made the listening experience kind of difficult, as a matter of fact I myself was pretty annoyed at the guy. Second, I think sometimes Stef can lack tact. Ok, here's what has bothered me in the past, maybe it's of value. At one time, it was time-outs for children. You know, sometimes I hear Stef say something fishy that can really offset the balance of the respect I have for him, and sometimes it's like I'm trying to sabotage the relationship I have with him, but at other times it's a bit worse. Time-outs and the Super Nanny stuff that stef says is interesting really lights up the fear of authority centers in the brain something bad. I mean time-outs? It really took a long time for me to absorb the idea that they're really the only way to stop a child from doing bad stuff regardless what kind of person the parent in particular intervening is themselves, and learn to differentiate between what is past abuse and what is tricky and difficult problem solving. It's as if a lot of us have this difficulty fighting the fight or flight reaction to needing to be virtuous and rational in our minds where Snap! we're now allergic to anything resembling the past. What an acrobatic kind of emotional defense. But please watch out for people's sensitive side when it comes to these momentarily shocking things that can occur. Third, I have perceived bits of utilitarian pragmatism, and no need to say, that kind of stuff ain't good at all. I'll give one example for now, and I think it's the really big one for me. In the premium 'cast Preparing for the Launch, Stef talks with a stalled unemployed man who lives with his parents at the time of the call and has issues "pulling his own weight" as the expression goes. I had an issue during the call when Stef was talking him into dropping the passive-aggression against the parents, and instead showing respect for the services provided by them by providing services in return until he can move out. I felt cornered in a 1984 Goldstein's book ambush type situation where I thought Stef held a special place in his heart for parents who give their sons complete responsibility for laziness neurotic patterns that they're entirely responsible for, like for philosophy it's universal except for that one long standing tradition of productivity that's like a thorn in the side of my brain that I just somehow decided not to touch. I even felt terrified and helpless because for a moment I thought that my destiny was to abandon libertarianism and keep seeing my parents. At one point, and I paraphrase, he said that it is wrong from those parents to say that they'll support him despite his laziness because that's enabling that laziness. Where's the virtue in that Pavlovian dog mentality? Why is that acceptable? Don't you see the gaping hole? Why would you lie to someone about letting them lie in the street waiting to die instead of letting them in under the pretext that they need to fly with their own wings? It really made me angry, because I didn't think that was honest. Utilitarian pragmatism is to me an unconscious invention to make others get out of bed in the morning, make breakfast, go to work, take care of stuff, go to the store, clean the place, learn what they need to learn and go to bed at night, without consciously realizing that it's their heart's content that allows them to get out of bed and go for what they want in life. I don't know if I'm still having a tough time getting it, but it would be nice to get respect for the violence that is felt when someone you trust advances values you disagree with, and I'd rather kill myself than order myself to get off my butt for some pretext, and I've held the same sentiment across the board for a year with little to no emotional deviation. I see that simple thought as not harmless, but as virulent and contagious.

So, about two weeks ago around Christmas time, my grandmother seems to have committed a monstrous projection during the usual "just checking on you" grating phone call. Used to be usual because I've decided to renounce to the relationship, being the last one I needed to clear in my family. Relationship is in quotes. A thing or two about my grandmother: she's a bored widow who spends her time looking for something to do when she isn't filling the gap with dead end relationships with people her age. And she claims to need her grandchildren to keep her company, of course without admitting that she wishes that me and my sister take on the responsibility. So brilliantly, she begs for my love, with the creepy subculture that a boy's best friend is his mother. I sometimes wondered whether I was being enslaved. And there's something she told me that I never really processed, as I could never be distanced in any family situation. In the middle of the phone conversation, she asks "So, what were you doing just now?" I look around weary-eyed at the mess and respond cryptically "I was just doing some cleaning in here" And in all seriousness, she adds "Just trying to fight the boredom, hm?"

By the by, could you provide examples of Stefan patronizing with younger listeners and whoever else he could have felt superior to?

My first impression was that the movie would be like The Purge, giving cynics their desired relief from thinking the world can be free by painting insanity as endless and inescapable. Does the movie encompass that kind of cynicism? Haven't watched it yet.

Not that I can't ever be more philosophical than I am. I recently wrote a post on the message board named 2014 Resolutions, which was uploaded at 23:59 on December 31st. http://breakingfreeftd.blogspot.ca/2013/12/2014-resolutions.html I don't want to project my behavior onto others, but I will say now that I did not expect the dangers of being a propagandist without my knowledge was so tangible, and lack of rigor in honest, concise, bland and transparent communication of ideas is something that virtually everyone risks indulging in. I've written a lot of articles on my blog similar to the post I put out on new year's eve that is not philophical in nature, but rethorical. Rhetoric. That fabulous talent of projecting an image of advancement and productivity by putting thoughts together in a way that feels right. Stringing thoughts together in a way that is appealing: the unconscious unchecked. Some people look back at what they did last night when they were drunk and condone it, so they get drunk again. I'm one of those who look back at those actions and are horrified by all the stuff that was made up for the sake of feeling better about oneself, and that's why I was quick to remove the post and talk about the dangers of rhetoric... how it can be persuasive for the writer themselves. In the end, why speak rhetorically? Maybe it's because of how painful ignorance can be. As for resolutions, I guess a better one would be to submit all behavior of mine to conscious methodic examining.

And sorry to anyone who read my post and found it a little confusing. I was hard pressed on getting something out that was memorable before midnight.

Post withheld.

I never said or implied that 99% of the population supported Democracy, which is to give approval, comfort, or encouragement. I said that 99% of people trust Democracy, as in they don't question it when they know it's such an influence on their lives, and obviously that's a rough estimate. I also never extended the general Democratic minded society to the people on this forum. My gripe was not with jer's confusion. You extended my gripe with Jer's attitude which I considered demeaning attitude to a refusal to admit my inability to communicate with any clarity, with no basis for the move, and that I find audaciously insulting on your part. I didn't want to rephrase my post to Jer because I genuinely did not think that Jer cared about what I was trying to bring to bear to the topic. I didn't complain that you weren't able to connect the dots in my post, I complained that you tried to connect the dots where there were none and I'm still complaining about that. Oh, you still don't see what I meant? Lacks information? Makes no sense? Well, it turns out I'm a human being too and without concrete evidence of the contrary, I feel as though I've made my case adequately, and I feel that vulgarizing again for you would not be in the service of your understanding, but in the service of my enslavement. As for your post (the 5th), I don't see why you're complaining because I cleared your confusion throroughly. What did I do? I did complain that you were intentionally confusing my main post, not because you didn't get me, but because you enunciated a very personal misunderstanding (I thought PX was A and PY was B!) without proving that it had anything to do with a lack of skill or and omission on my part, and for some reason you've proven that I need to get my s--t in order. When you complain about something that you didn't express for others to hear and they didn't address, you know what I call that behavior? Solipsism. People can't read your mind: look it up. That's a problem in your mind's eye only, Culain. This could almost be called strawmaning, because instead of shooting down an argument, you're shooting me down. Hear this: Party Y's victory at the end is not even a plot twist, because I did not set up that they would lose. I simply stated Party X's political attitude, and then: "Party Y wins Canadian elections for a 4 year term..." I stated a contradictory reality. It doesn't matter why party Y won. All that matters is that they won. Oh, you don't think Y could've won because X seemed to dominate them? Hey, demagoguery isn't truthful mate! Your post #5 is objectively and officially confusing. You expected and considered critical the omitted information that party X is the mainstream candidate and party Y is the alternative Ron Paul-ish candidate that makes more sense than X. But you did not provide the reason why those informations were important, other than your expectations, whilst implying that those expectations belong to all readers, making me feel like an idiot. You of all people accuse others of being confusing, and that's a real problem Your rescuing of Democracy is empty since Democracy doesn't encompass personal relationships nor workplace co-organization. Democracy is enforcement of something popular on everyone who doesn't agree, therefore trumps the possibility of a voluntary relationship or of cooperation. Democracy needs the guns of the state and propaganda if it is to be enforced. Oh, but why do you say so? I mean, you don't believe anyone with half a brain would "actually" understand what I say, do you? Of course, what's the use of waiting for it, I'll always be isolated! Dear sweet Lord dude. Am I way too kind?

assertion |əˈsərSHən| noun a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief I stated that I believed that democracy was boulder dash in the beginning with a clear title: "The infallible logic of Democracy: a simple proof that you’re smarter than 99% of people" (Democracy: just about universally accepted/ 99% of people: those who accept democracy/ This post about Democracy's logic says how you're smarter than them: this post says that Democracy is illogical) Thoughts cannot be fragmented unless you can find a way to solidify information and break it in half. "fragmented" is vitriol aimed at me, and not an argument. Don't neg me bro, it hurts my feelings. I wonder whether I should hand out the "cunning hypocrite" card more often

By 99% of people I meant those who put their trust in democracy. If you can see beyond democracy, you certainly are more savvy about the world, for which many would use the term "smart", than 99% of people. That was very simple, and when people then go "I have no idea what you're talking about" because it does not make perfect sense to them, there's certainly something grating about it. I can't help you if you "have no idea what I'm talking about". Please take one look at your own behavior and I'll take a look at mine. Even if I'm still bullshitting you Jer, I don't need you to help me with that. Thank you for not replying. As for my logical critique of Democracy, that's certainly an area can certainly help with confusion. Maybe you're intentionally confusing what I said, in fact it looks like you connected the dots where there were none, that's why you would now be confused. But I can reformulate. No, I'm not identifying Party Y as slightly more rational or anything. Party Y is the target of the necessary poison spewing at the other party required in the electoral process to make your party at the very least the place where people go to be rescued from the other. "Vote Democrat because spineless is better than evil" My contention is that it is dishonest to claim the virtue of the voting masses in voting for the "good" party when so many of them will vote for the "bad" or "stupid" or "evil" party, in an electoral process that is said to determine the outcome of a country, for at least 4 years in Canada or the US. My contention is that Democracy invariably requires from competing parties that voting masses are praised at the same time as they are condemned, at once succeeding and failing at a crucial and far-reaching task: voting. For the record, Culain's reply was very confusing. It took me a while to understand what your expectations were of what my conclusion would be, and that's because you didn't tell me where you were coming from. I wonder whether I should hand out the "cunning hypocrite" card more often

90% of world population?

Come on, you're being a little derogatory there.

Great question.... huh.... if there is such a thing as overpopulation ever in human history, then maybe... living expenditures peak dramatically, rendering any child birth over the renewal rate of the family unsustainable, and therefore people have less kids? Then only problem with that completely natural course of action is aging population, but that's only a problem in a statist system where the young have to pay for the old farts' undeserved public sector pensions and irresponsible state retirement homes. How do we make sure that services normally provided by youth don't become inaccessible? Don't completely stop having kids. Don't even find the sweet balance. Nature is a sweet balance. In a free society, a withdrawal of births is no problem whatsoever, and singlehandedly solves concerns of overpopulation. In a statist world of helpless unreality, every negative aspect inherent to life: scarcity, lack of space, poverty, unhealthiness, pollution, competition, violence, etc. is considered a death sentence, and therefore becomes a death sentence.

Apparently, Franz Ferdinand was killed by "anarchists" thus setting off World War 1. Thanks Anarchy like OMG!

You think I was being serious? I don't think you're being very serious right now by the by.

What about a yummy exception? Here's an action that is selfless. When the kamikazee yells Allahu Akbar! then blows himself up, you can say he's a pretty selfless person as the shockwave is travelling towards people in a night club! Oh the altruism!

New Oxford American Dictionary for |fôr, fər| preposition1 in support of or in favor of (a person or policy): they voted for independence in a referendum. 2 affecting, with regard to, or in respect of (someone or something): she is responsible for the efficient running of their department | the demand for money.4 having (the thing mentioned) as a purpose or function: she is searching for enlightenment |the necessary tools for making a picture frame. 5 having (the thing mentioned) as a reason or cause: Aileen is proud of her family for their support | I could dance and sing for joy. So it looks like the 2 first forms of the phrase "I did this for you" are valid and harmless. Can't say the same thing for 4 and 5, which are in my mind the culturally accepted forms. I mean how often do you hear someone say "I did this for you" meaning "I did this in your favor"? What people really mean by "I did this for you" isn't "I acted in your favor" but more like "I busted my ass sacrifying for your sake god dammit!" because "I did this/ for you" in that form is simply oxymoronic. So no "I did this for you" is not an altogether valid statement.

Cheers.

I've been heavily bothered by that question in the past. To bring it up surely goes against the mythology in my family. During the last few phone calls my mother must have on more than twenty occasions told me "I have no expectations from you" for instance "I don't want you to act in a certain way, look I'm sending you your grandmother's pie, look do you want it or not? That's all I'm asking!" only to go nuts more and more as I kept saying I didn't want it, and back to calm and affectionate at the end of the call. I think now that exposes the fact that it was 0% selfless will to share a pie for me to enjoy and 100% expectation from me to let my family into my heart. Interesting detail - I always felt wary about accepting food from my mother because I was afraid it might me poisoned. It was certainly against my principles because I had a dream where my mother assaulted me twice and murdered me with a gun, and as a person she is a real splitter. Logically, no action ever taken on Earth has been selfless, although at some level I think people do make themselves think that they're selfless at times. It's been held as a virtue in many societies and still is. It's an idea that's possible to absorb and in the end, isn't the dominant culture one that makes a moral dichotomy out of lazy indulgence vs. self-sacrifice. Isn't the latter the high standard for at least men in society right now? That false self. Do you have a Youtube channel?

I think by definition weirdness can't sustain itself in a personality, therefore it is only temporary in someone's life. Maybe weirdness is a phase like you described, in relation to the more stable rest of the person's life.

A normal person is a person who conforms to a mass of norms that is subjectively large, or holds conformity to norms as a moral virtue.

Nah, see, that's exactly why most people don't become anarchists. You think Stefan had a magical super power in his chest? First he had genetic and environmental predispositions for his anarchism that determined the path he was going to take... with a sort of strong will and intelligent, then as he said not be too controlled but rather simply beaten up by his family showed him exactly what he does not want in life, probably being what granted him the great memory he claims to have cultivated. Therefore drawn to intellectual pursuits early on. Classic books. The Wall. Pursuits which would end up including self-knowledge... A lot of people worldwide likely follow this path since there's over a billion people in the Western world, but then the similarities end. Stef happened to read a lot, and one day he had a friend whose favorite band'd drummer happened to love Ayn Rand, so he was exposed to The Fountainhead. So, his predisposition got mixed with an opening to reach for philosophy early on, and he pushed himself in the good direction as it was the right time to do so. What if his set of circumstances didn't match up with the right inclination in time? People are anxiety-reducing machines, and seek happiness as their end. In a society where irrationality caracterizes even the most irrational of people, Stef could've stopped at a lifestyle, a rut, an overpowered relationship... at the point where Ayn Rand was shown to him, it definitely wasn't the only place to look. And even Ayn Rand didn't make it through to anarchism in her life. In a society without the internet, becoming an anarchist was to be very lucky, because turning points heading towards anarchism or statism were blind turning points.

Party X: « We got the algorithms, we can inflate sclerotic institutions, and we wanna shove money into the sky like Robin Hood. No doubt, I am singularly photogenic and absorbed by my appearance in the political landscape, as well as the whore to several lobbyist organizations; however, I will always claim to represent the best methods of governance in view of this nation’s prosperity, all shoved into one. Now, elections time is almost upon us, and I demand from Canadians that they do the right thing, which is to not vote for that brutish Party Y. As the ad says, silence is no option at all! We are a Democracy. Which means that we trust Canadians wholeheartedly. We. Love. Canada. So go right ahead. » Party Y wins Canadian elections for a 4 year term.

My mother said the same thing about me when I got more emotional on the phone. She said I was scary and obviously she played with that. Such as David MJ Aurini. :S

You open a deep window.