HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » sibelian » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 33 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Sep 4, 2007, 07:36 AM
Number of posts: 7,359

Journal Archives

OK then. A Message to Hillary Supporters...

I have say I admire your fortitude. It's a thankless task.

Her being female doesn't seem to count for anything, her being likely to win according to polls doesn't seem to count for anything, her campaign strategy doesn't seem to garner her any respect, her clothing doesn't register with anyone who isn't particularly interested in women's clothing, people talk about her e-mails, people talk about her hawkish foreign policy, people talk about everything about her except how awesome she is.

I have to reiterate the sentiments of an earlier post on this board, it's not hate. Nobody could hate someone that banal.

And it is her BANALITY that turns people off.

She's a gamer, not a leader.

It's not just her support that's a mile wide and an inch deep, it's her entire policy platform.

She is the most beautiful embodiment POSSIBLE of everything about American politics that everyone's fed up with. She's evasive, she's poised, she's graceful, she's elegant, she always seems to think she knows better then everyone else without really saying why... She's a lean, mean fighting machine. I don't doubt that.

But that's not the solution, that's the problem.

Victories are only important if they gain something for the victorious beyind the idea of the victory itself. There's no point winning an election with a candidate that can't be relied on to what's right over what wins.

ANYTHING can "WIN". That's not the point. Not so long ago Bush won. Shouldwe all have voted for him because he was likely to win?

So, your task isn't what you think it is. There's no point pissing the rest of us off. WE don't care. Why would we vote for someone on the grounds that you have issues with us?

It's Clinton herself that we take issue with, not your perception of us. You can think what you like about us, that's not going to tick the box. Why would anyone go into a voting booth and think "Oh dear, I annoyed someone on DU, I'd better vote for Hillary". Nobody's going to do that, are they?

Make your case. She must bring something of value to people, not politics. Politics does what it likes - that we can all see.

There's no point treating the entire population of the United States as lumps of Play-Doh that get all their ideas about politics from politicians. They don't.


(twirls moustache)



Next post up on GD (does anyone else think it's oddly appropriate that this site's software makes THAT smiley turn up in THAT acronym) - "HILLARY SPARKLECHOPS AND THE MAGIC PANTSUIT"!!!

I'll GET you, Hillary Pitstop.

I actually miss OperationMindCrime now.

Complete maroon, but he had SOME standards.

Blimey, I'm old.

First Gay President....


If anybody told me I ought to vote for a guy because he's gay (like me) I would just stare at them.

I'm sorry. I can't relate to it. At all. On ANY level. I'd vote for someone based on what they have said that they plan to do.

I wouldn't vote for someone based on a box they're in because there's no reason to suppose that their being in that box would result in anything in particular.

I SERIOUSLY wouldn't vote for someone based on their sexual orientation after having been told repeatedly that they have far more limited power than people really understand and will have to spend their entire time compromising. I'd vote for someone who knows when NOT to compromise, so that my interests are actually represented by action, not signified by assocation.

And I REALLY REALLY REALLY wouldn't vote for someone who puts forth their sexual orientation as a positive in terms of image after their having supported legislation that actually limits the freedoms and rights of my sexual orientation, whether that orientation's the same as mine or not.

Nobody EVER alert-stalks ME. I feel left out.

Another illusion shattered. Oh, well.

How are media pundits "scientific"?

Why would we assume they aren't "biased" and online polls are?

Why would publically and very obviously deleting large numbers of comments opposing a mainstream position on a mainstream news source's site make the position more tenable rather than less?

If DU's membership tends heavily towards the baby boomer demographic, and support for Sanders in online polls here repeatedly makes him ten times as popular as Clinton, why would one assume that online polls elsewhere are being pumped by "kids"?

If online polls are unscientific, why bother posting them on DU?

When people don't have a position to maintain but know they must maintain the appearance of a position, what do they do?

Ooooo, triangulating to the LEFT.


It's our turn!

Hello Admins, I have a slightly awkward question regarding MIRT

It came to light recently that a poster on DU, currently on the MIRT team, has boasted off-site on another forum of wishing to goad another contributor here into posting things that could be hidden with the specific aim of having them timed out.

Is this something which you feel is an appropriate attitude for a member of the MIRT team?

It seems reasonable to me that the MIRT team should be focussed on the freely undertaken conduct of members, not attempting to establish correctable conduct through manipulation, with the long-term desired effect of silencing their contributions, in order to skew the compisition of the site's membership. I would expect a member of the MIRT team to be impartial, and would find it difficult to assume that their MIRT role was being attended to with that impartiality had that member revealed such manipulative tendencies elsewhere.

I hope you can reassure me.


Control freaks never notice when their foundations are crumbling.

They only ever see it too late.

Control freaks tend to think in rigid systems that enable their thoughts to move quickly around nice steady, well-understood patterns. They don't want the system disturbed.

You'll tend to find that they will declare things in the system to be unchangeable. But it's not because these elements of the system can't change, it's because the control freak needs to suppose that they can't change because other processes dependent on those elements are attractive to them.

Emotional processes, typically.

The CEO of lampshade-making company X doesn't care about lampshades. He'll say he does, of course. He has to.

But what he really likes is the suits. Being the centre of attention in board meetings. Having a title. Comfy leather seats. Being good at looking important.

Such people have a great deal invested emotionally in these symbols.

They will talk up their lampshades until the cows come home. Thats what they have to do to get the suits.

They know that the lampshades are no better than anyone elses. They know that you know that, too. They don't care. So long as everyone behaves as if the lampshades are better than everyone else's they get the suits.

They'll say anything about the lampshades. They'll measure the extent to which the shades dim the bulb. They'll massage the costs. They'll paint pretty patterns on them. They'll pose with them in front of naked ladies. Sometimes "ironically".

They don't give a fuck.

But one day along comes someone with a bulb that doesn't need a lampshade.

The bulb manufacturer will suddenly become a narcissist. The bulb manufacturer will have no taste. The bulb manufacturer will be a materialist scum-bag. There's always something.

The CEO has to do something. He has to do something to hang onto the suit.

You may think all this is hyperbole, it isn't. The majority of people at the top of the pyramid are actually astonishingly shallow. You'd have to be to get there. You have to be able to stand on the soap-box and say ANYTHING AT ALL in order to get power, because power is almost always generated by collective perception and that's easy to manipulate. All you have to do is say what people want to hear. And you have to be amazingly shallow to be interested in spending your entire life saying what people want to hear.

The only people shallower are those interested primarily in saying what they want to hear.

Mr Lampshade CEO doesn't care if the lampshades in your house improve your life. He doesn't care if you can get a cheaper shade down the road. All he cares about is getting stuff out of you. Attention, time, money... anything. Because that's how his fragile ego gets its nourishment. He has such a deeply inhuman understanding of himself and such a poor understanding of other people that he can't imagine anyone else not wanting other people's time and attention as much as he does.

This being the case, most of the things that get thrown at the bulb manufacturer are things that the CEO is dimly aware of in himself. Mr Lampshade CEO doesn't know anything else. He isn't interested in other people. When other people speak, The first thing he thinks is "how does what this person says make me feel about me?" He can't say so, because he understands that that's against the rules.

But when the lampshade empire becgins to crumble, when the unstated reciprocity that he's built his life on begins to fall apart he starts to lash out in terror. Not because the lampshades aren't being taken seriously, but because he isn't going to get any more suits.

A lot of the time he doesn't even realise that all he wants are the suits. He'll convince himself that his lampshades really are better. The mind doesn't work in straight lines. It works in bends and twists and great coiling clouds of unprocessed symbols all merging and floating through each other, tripping each other off and sparking lightning storms.

The lampshade makers never know what to say when someone's trying to switch on the light.

It takes years of effort and very often many big life battles lost before one learns to disentangle oneself from the mirror of selfdom and learn to speak truthfully. We have to be destroyed again and again. Death stalks us, disease rots us, poverty strips away our pride. All of these things take away the pieces of ourselves that make us unwholesome. All of these things strip the dead ideas away. We have to be smashed into shape. Only the strongest parts of us survive, only the parts that refuse to look away. Only the pieces of ourselves that remain after the harrowing are worth anything. It's only the battle that can do it, and losing is as important as winning. More important, in some cases. Until we have had the crap beaten out of us, we aren't looking at other people properly, we look straight at living adults and see only things that we have scribbled all over them in our imaginations. Why? Beause the scribbling is all we can think of to do.

The alternative is terrifying.

Only when we've bled and dreamed nonsense and had our rotting selfishness flayed away entirely are we real. Only then, through humility and failure, can we become acceptable to ourselves, and then have the power to speak truthfully without fear and learn to hear it when others are speaking the truth.

Only after we've been completely destroyed can we be reborn. Only after all the lies have been told can we see the truth. Only after the last monument to arrogance and selfdom has been powdered and we are walking in its dust will we have the courage to look each other in the face and believe that we are looking at things that are more like us than unlike us.

All the divisions are artificial. They are scribblings, scrawled in place reflexively by people who need to draw, need to draw something. Anything.

I'm no exception.

The lampshade howkers have spent their entire lives lying. They can't afford to let go. They've protected themselves from destruction so well that the mirrored bubble encases them completely. They can't see the truth at all. All they can see is what they want to see.

But the Universe isn't interested in lies. Cracks start creeping through the glass, slowly.

The first thing that happens when a scribbler stops looking at what he's scribbling and what he's scribbling on and the craks in the surface disturb him and he starts looking at his pen and then his arm... is that he shouts "PROJECTION!" at everybody, because that's what HE'S been doing. But it still isn't true.

The truth is easy to see. All you have to do is put down the pen.

We convince ourselves that we remain distinct from our ancestors, that their minds were unlike ours, but a cursory glance at the merest smatterings of history reveal the same problems, the same feelings, the same games, the same tricks, the same lies, the same stories, over and over and over again. We stand on their shoulders just as others will stand on ours.

And sometimes someone comes along with a new light bulb. And the same things are said about them... every time.

Hello America! UK here. You think YOUR politics is fucked up? David Cameron $%&$ed a pig.

You think YOUR politics is a mess...? Weeeellll....


UK PM David Cameron stuck a ... COUGH... "part of his anatomy" into the mouth of a dead pig in his dim and distant youth, according to Lord Ashcroft, who has recently done a biography on him.

It's all over the UK press.

So. There you go. Take some comfort in the knowledge that no matter how low and dirty campaigning gets in the US... there's always still the UK...

"Cameron biography: Ashcroft makes new debauchery claims about student days"


"No 10 says it will not 'dignify' Ashcroft's student debauchery allegations by responding to them"


...and so on.

It's slightly odd that the first episode if Charlie Brooker's quasi-science-fictional Black Mirror's first episode is TERRIBLY similar to this story... He's tweeted about it saying he didn't know about it... waaaah!


Anyway, puns all over the place now from fellow pols and others saying Cameron's "hogging the limelight" and so on. Ah, Blighty, you do me proud.

Daily Mash article is the best...

"Britons wearily accept that their Prime Minister put his cock in a pig's mouth"...


"Teacher Mary Fisher said: I cant remember whether I had already heard this or just thought I did."
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 33 Next »