Donnadogsoth

There are laws against animal cruelty, aren't there? The rabbit's death wasn't cruel, so what of it? It was killed for entertainment purposes, to entertain audiences, just as other rabbits are killed to entertain the palate.

Mad Mangina? Thanks for this interesting analysis. The red flags of feminism I know of are misandry, exaggerated victimhood, reverse double-standards, scepticism of reason, and denial of the existence of a female nature. Does Fury Road exhibit any of these? Or is it a "false flag"?

Would you agree that Islam is an enabler of the violent jihadi mentality, in a way that eg. Buddhism is not?

The type of religiosity Stefan's guest describes is surely bad for the mind. Abjuring reason and ostracising people, embracing ignorance, online death threats, whatever ignoramuses can think up, well, what can we say. But as Stefan points out, Catholicism has a long history of quite involved science and logical debate. If we are made in the image of God then that means a mental image, not a physical image, and what defines us as a species more than our reason? Therefore Christianity and science must be compatible.

Indeed, thank you.

This is interesting. Would you agree that not all religions are equal when it comes to enabling and directing adrenalin-addicted pychopaths or quasi-psychopaths and their dupes towards the most destructive ends?

Would you think that such childhood trauma can predispose the victim to become an adrenalin addict later in life, which he or (increasingly, unfortunately) she works to locate in terms of violence?

There's something about gamerdom that facilitates the production of ludicrous, over-the-top blood and gore. "Evil Dead" comes to mind. But also, part of the explanation behind jihadism/terrorism must be that it's the ultimate extreme sport.

I'm sure there are plenty of "moderate Muslims" out there who cheer for democracy, but the fact remains there are plenty who are simply continuing in the 1400-year campaign of aggression against the world that Islamic history evidences. My question is, what sort of personality is drawn toward violent jihad?

Fair enough. Do you plan to charge people for saving them, or obtain a government contract to pick up the pieces?

I think Oedipus still applies. The essence of Oedipus is wanting to get the actual or symbolic daddy out of the picture somehow, destroyed or enslaved, to claim an actual or symbolic (Gaia, the Government) mommy. Any excuse for this can be thought up by the Oedipal mind. That feminism and ecology seem rooted in nihilistic urges indicates a particularly powerful complex; for, for the child to successfully destroy the family would be disastrous, and the child himself probably subconsciously knows this. Thus there is a death-wish as you note, and in both feminism and ecology. There's something more going on here: I'm interested in why you describe the masculine as optimistic, whereas the feminine by contradistinct implication is either neutral or pessimistic. Why do you think this? I think this is the origin of the death-wish, this over-adherence to the mother, to femininity.

A standout post, thank you MMX2010. My next thread was going to be about feminism, and you've beaten me to the punch, and made the implicit connection between ecologism and feminism that I see. Who is attracted to Year Zero thinking? People who are nihilistic in some way, childishly seeking a way to punish daddy for his relationship with mommy, whether that relationship is sexual (feminism) or agro-industrial (ecology's "mother earth"). So it comes down to the Oedipus complex, people who want to find a way to murder their fathers and protect and possess their pristine, innocent mothers. And they find themselves attracted to ideologies that package and sell them their anger, buttered over with "beauty of nature" and "women are wonderful" sentimentality.

You're still presuming Hitlers arise, like bubbles in a boiling pot, rather than being picked.

By that I mean, there is an ideology today known as Environmentalism or Ecology, some of which is sane and concerned with reducing smog. No one likes smog, good to cut down on it if possible, and that's all very well. But the "radical" wing of Ecology isn't concerned with smog, it's concerned with destroying the human "footprint" on the planet. Some may say we need "zero population growth," others want drastic population reduction (and by any means necessary), and a few even want total genocide of the human race. My question is, what sort of personality is drawn to this kind of genocidal, suicidal, anti-industrial, anti-science, ecology-loving ideology? Never mind that the ecology is always in flux, they love it as sacred, whereas everything man does is profane. Who is drawn to this sort of thinking?

Other than wasting time on people who don't want to be saved. I'm sure there are plenty elsewhere who do. Focus on the convertible, not the train wreck.

Would you agree, though, that a full-on American (et al) military offensive for the purposes of eradicating ISIS is justified, even though it may lead to "collateral damage"? How much collateral damage is worth it to eradicate ISIS?

Shouldn't you be doing something else?

Well-written article, Joel. I was going to suggest Postmodernism is a function of laziness, as per the art example you give, but laziness doesn't seem a core trait of the narcissist, who exhibits lots of energy, albeit directed toward their addiction.

Never mind statism, I thought this thread was going to be about Islam. That's the worse threat, if you ask me.

You're saying we can avoid Hitlers by mass dissemination of Call of Duty 3?

Videogames are yet another morphine drip to keep us indifferent and ignorant of the process towards tyranny at work in our world, which will lead to billions dying.

I'm not asking what Postmodernism is--it's as I understand it the rejection of "meta-narratives" in favour of a kind of philosophical-political nihilism couched in bloviated, pretentious, and obscurantist writing--I'm asking what kind or kinds of personalities gravitate toward it? Is there a psychological theory behind why someone would basically blow their philosophical brains out with Postmodernism?

Not a student of Creationism, but there are a few arguments. Take redwood trees, for example. These things live thousands of years. How could that have evolved? The time between generations is so huge, even geologic time doesn't seem long enough to allow it. Here is an inexhaustible source of Creationist arguments.

Why wouldn't an increasingly free market society allow slavery? You're presuming the existence of culture of anti-slavery that parallels the free market, forestalling a free market in slaves.

Yes, I can. And yes, it's vomit-worthy either case.