HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » sibelian » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 29 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Sep 4, 2007, 07:36 AM
Number of posts: 6,388

Journal Archives

Almost anything can be made to appear as if it has a creepy subtext.

Ill-educated, paranoid people with just about enough intelligence to notice this often assume that it's because everything everywhere secretly really DOES have a creepy subtext.

But that isn't true.

Politics and cults.

A political movement that cannot respond to criticism isnít a political movement. Really itís just a cult. A mini-cult, we might call it, perhaps, driven by personality or by the shiniess of an idea rather than a sober understanding of how political ideas actually work and how they change things.

Itís very easy to spot such mini-cults. In response to criticism, the subject of the critique is exchanged for one of the mini-cultís choosing. This is invariably because they have no response but need to cover their tracks. It's the sense that the position has been opposed emotionally, rather than criticised honestly, that is the necessary process for the minicultist, because their attachment to their own position is primarily emotional rather than arrived at through self-critical apprehension.

Time and attention is spent on long-winded arguments in which the subject changes every sentence. (Sound familiar?) The mini-cult needs only to seem to be repelling bad ideas to itself.

Such mini-cults exist all over the political spectrum and are often the only real way anything can be achieved politically. Obama would never have got into power and sorted out Obamacare without his sexy graphics and the aspect of his fanbase that likes to feel good rather than think straight, so in a sense we at least partially owe Obamacare to them.

But these little mini-cults all share the same problem, there is often very little integrity to their theory, as it almost always springs from a desire to reach for explanations of political phenomena that make them feel good, in some way, about themselves.

Human brains produce junk. LOTS of it.

The only way to get to a sensible political theory is to treat politics as a real part of the real world and apply the same laws guiding our analytical processes that we do to every other part of the world, i.e. scientifically, and the FIRST thing you do in science is not to see how your theory might be RIGHT but to see how your theory might be WRONG.

EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of a discussion instigated regarding Greenwald's character

is an attempt to deflect attention from the NSA.


I notice that certain individuals have now attempted to appropriate the term "misdirection", and similar related terms, in a series of flailing, ludicrous attempts to portray the position of anyone making this blatantly apparent fact clear as somehow manipulative.

Greenwald's character is OF NO CONSEQUENCE.

Accusations of "narcissism" and similar have no value other than to change the focus of discussion.

There is NO-ONE ON THIS BOARD who already undertands this that is going to be fooled by repeated attempts to portray Greenwald as self-interested or politically "inappropriate". Everybody already understands that it doesn't MATTER.

We already had this stupid discussion months ago. A small cohort of losers are smarting over their loss.

There are NO WAYS of addressing how Greenwald's character affects what his actions have revealed, because there are NO WAYS IN WHICH HIS CHARACTER AFFECTS WHAT HIS ACTIONS HAVE REVEALED.


For 87th fucking time.

"Keep your anger up"...

It's a thing lefties in the UK used to say to each other. "Keep your anger up." The idea was not to get complacent about oppression. Lefty acquaintances of mine argued with me when I was a student long into the night sometimes, full of piss and vinegar. Until I knew enough to see what was actually going on, I thought their attitude was counter-productive...eventually I saw what they saw and got angry myself.

The left in the UK was heavily protest based for a long time, grounded in the suffragette movement, strikes, and in more recent times the Poll Tax riots. One of my exes, when were discussing how change could come, said that if a revolution was needed, he personally didn't mind that much if it was bloody.

Does anger actually work?


HAIL Sol Invictus, the Invincible Sun!

Winter has begun as has your rise to VICTORY!!!! I think.


The next time someone says some bigoted, ignorant piece of crap to me I'm going to say:


I may buy a duck call.

My sexual orientation is being used as a political fucking football. 43 years of this crap.

This bullshit has been going on in my life now continuously since I was born. I am 43.

When I was 11 my parents refused to let me carry on seeing my friend after we'd moved town as they were convinced he was going to turn me gay.

When I was 13, my mother instructed me not to come back to her house gay after I'd been away to University as she didn't want AIDS in the family.

When I was in secondary school I was beaten up every lunchtime, pretty much every single day, for loads of reasons of which being supposed to be gay was only one by the same group of four fucking jocks who decided they'd taken a fancy to me.

When I finally got a job, the entire nation was on the brink of repealing Section 28, which forbade positive depictions of homosexuality in the classroom. Brian Soutar, who owned a stagecoach company, pulled together a "referendum" out of his own funds and achieved an ~80% NO REPEAL vote in his little poll.

During that little debacle, the staffroom at my place of work was alive with talk of how those awful homosexuals should learn to LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE. These were people who knew I was gay and had worked with me for over 5 years. They just came right out with it in front of me as if I wasn't even there. These were people I had actually respected.

There was a brief period of about a year when the political climate looked as if it was about to change and then South Park re-popularised the word "gay" as an insult rather than a primarily descriptive term, by pretending it was really supposed to mean something else and was hence "ironic".

Youtube has "gay" written all over it by sniggering heterosexual teenagers.

During the 90s and early 2000s a whole pile of "metrosexuals" appeared who apparently I was to regard as a kind of tacit approval of my sexual orientation by virtue of their willingness to "take a walk on the wild side".

Also during the 90s and 2000s, the phenomenon known to speakers of languages like Greek and French, in which nouns have genders, acquired a peculiar cousin in the form of objects, abstract concepts and forms of behaviour acquiring sexual orientations. "Is this shirt gay? Is this table gay? Are wind chimes gay? Is checking out porn with your buddy gay? Are sandals gay? Is owning an aquarium gay? Is having facial hair of THIS length or THIS length gay?"

In recent times it has apparently been my fault that heterosexuals can't keep their marriages together, and their marriages don't really mean anything because promises made in front of God only count if there's something weird and unwholesome about gay people, if there ISN'T, well God will be JUST fine if you do whatever the hell you like after swearing an oath in his house.

There are executions of gay people all the time in Middle East... Vladimir Putin can't think of anything to do to deflect attention away from his thick-as-pigshitness and total incapacity to do anything of any meaning with his country except squash the demographic least able to effectively fight back... Is anyone surprised that it's Teh Gays?

And now we have a TV show with some beardy guy being honest and humble and just "expressing his opinions".

There's a reason for all this.

There are never really going to be enough gay people in the world to make our votes count enough for any of the people who can change anything. We are too small in number. They don't really need to take us into account for any more reason than a kind of political vanity project. I don't think the Right's homophobia is as clearly expressed near the top of its rickety pyramid anywhere near as strongly as it is in the foundations.

Anyway, they can use discussions about me and all the other gay people out there as statements of their wider intent. As ciphers.

It's okay to pretend openly that gays are secret pederasts among certain demographics, so you can use that to legitimise wider, more subtle forms of bigotry. After all, if the behaviour of one entire demographic can be reduced to a few simple lies, why not other demographics too? It's very useful to have one demographic that you can just squirt your adjectives and your "HOW does this make ME feel about ME" theories all over with impunity. It supports the subtler forms. One great big tentpole of "GASP! LOOK AT THE FURRRRREAKITY FREAKS!!!"

I'm afraid I've sort of resigned myself to the idea that this is probably how it will always be.

I blame Putin for this, as he pulled his "EEEEEK TEH GAYS" trick out of the hat for no identifiable reason at all.

..."After 'cataclysmic' Snowden affair, NSA faces winds of change"...


"FORT MEADE, Maryland (Reuters) - The U.S. National Security Agency has made dozens of changes in its operations and computer networks to prevent the emergence of another Edward Snowden, including potential disciplinary action, a top NSA official said on Friday, as a White House review panel recommended restraints on NSA spying.

Former NSA contractor Snowden's disclosures have been "cataclysmic" for the eavesdropping agency, Richard Ledgett, who leads a task force responding to the leaks, said in a rare interview at NSA's heavily guarded Fort Meade headquarters.

In the more than hour-long interview, Ledgett acknowledged the agency had done a poor job in its initial public response to revelations of vast NSA monitoring of phone and Internet data; pledged more transparency; and said he was deeply worried about highly classified documents not yet public that are among the 1.7 million Snowden is believed to have accessed."

Michigan Republican Committeeman: "Gay Couples Want Health Care Because They Die Early Of AIDS"


"Dave Agema, a former Michigan state representative and current member of the National Republican Committee, told attendees of a holiday party last week that he wants to protect ďtraditional marriageĒ so that gay couples donít abuse the system for health care benefits. When he worked as a pilot for American Airlines, he claims that some gay people pretended to be partnered to get benefits if they had AIDS..."

So a six year old boy kissing a girl is "sexual" now, is it?

Interesting theory.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 29 Next »