Observations and Thoughts too short for their own threads - 2

Some say there are only two genders. But I think there are three. Masculine, Feminine, and Modern. I've been listening to a lot of garbage music. And come to the conclusion that Moderns are a gender of their own. Because there is nothing macho or feminizing about them.
For instance, hermaphrodites are not a new gender, but a mix of masculine and feminine gender. David Bowie, Michael Jackson etc. are examples of hermaphrodite genders. They are not a new gender but just a mix of masculine and feminine. Those genders have long been since replaced by a new gender, the Modern gender. I can't really describe it in words. Sort of like how autotune doesn't really sound masculine or feminine at all. Just like unnatural sounding. But not a good kind of unnatural sounding like techno. So it cannot even be said to be natural or unnatural sounding. Hard to describe. And not quite a nullgender like a robot or autistic person either.

Don't forget the cuck gender, the eunuch gender and the faggot gender.
There are many genders in society.

Anfang wrote:

Don't forget the cuck gender, the eunuch gender and the faggot gender.
There are many genders in society.

Cucks are sort of like Modern gender, eunuchs are not a new gender they are either feminized or no gender.

Was gonna make a thread about true homos but I changed my mind. True homos are manly males attracted to other manly males. Therefore I don't really think they are masculine but not really feminine either. By true homos I mean what I mentioned, I don't consider effete men as true full homos, nor and/or men who either gave up on women and/or were abuse victims.

Yeah, no, whatever, why even...

Anyway...
There are two biological sexes in the species man. Male and female.
There are some in-between mutations but they are rare.

If there is some objective meaning to the word gender then the meaning is being the social role and part of their identity in a society based on the sexes.
Objective because I don't need to know the subject's own interpretation, opinion, potential lie, to know what his/her gender is.

Your sex is who you are, not what you just claim to be today.

One aspect of modern "gender theory" and its cousins in other areas of modern discourse is that it gives power to the liar. Not only because somebody might claim to be something that he/she is not but more fundamentally that it creates unfalsifiable identities, ideas and hierarchies. So we have a social order made up of beliefs which are of the unfalsifiable kind and it's hollowed out through removing the real.

Anfang wrote:

Yeah, no, whatever, why even...

Anyway...
There are two biological sexes in the species man. Male and female.
There are some in-between mutations but they are rare.

If there is some objective meaning to the word gender then the meaning is being the social role and part of their identity in a society based on the sexes.
Objective because I don't need to know the subject's own interpretation, opinion, potential lie, to know what his/her gender is.

Your sex is who you are, not what you just claim to be today.

One aspect of modern "gender theory" and its cousins in other areas of modern discourse is that it gives power to the liar. Not only because somebody might claim to be something that he/she is not but more fundamentally that it creates unfalsifiable identities, ideas and hierarchies. So we have a social order made up of beliefs which are of the unfalsifiable kind and it's hollowed out through removing the real.

I was just saying moderns don't seem to fit any description. When I listen to music I hear genders, either macho or feminine or a mix of both. But when I hear modern music I hear just noise. In terms of specialized sex roles, moderns don't really act like either masculine or feminine. Men who want to obey rules and ban guns aren't masculine. They aren't feminine either so I don't know what to call them other than just modern.

If they were being honest and say they are a woman or a man and not try to subvert the connections to reality then there would be no problem from my side that they have a personality or psychology way different from the expected based on their sex, age, race,...

But that's not good enough for those who deem themselves to be above reality and who'd like to be the arbiter of what is real in their little narcissistic bubble which unfortunately includes the people around them who they are talking to. Then you end up with a male who had his genitals cut off and who doesn't like to be thought of as a male who had his genitals cut off but as a woman or something.

Anfang wrote:

If they were being honest and say they are a woman or a man and not try to subvert the connections to reality then there would be no problem from my side that they have a personality or psychology way different from the expected based on their sex, age, race,...

But that's not good enough for those who deem themselves to be above reality and who'd like to be the arbiter of what is real in their little narcissistic bubble which unfortunately includes the people around them who they are talking to. Then you end up with a male who had his genitals cut off and who doesn't like to be thought of as a male who had his genitals cut off but as a woman or something.

Im on the fence about it. One one hand there is a segment of the community that wants to say that they were born "female". (Meaning born male.) Which makes me feel mentally confused as there is no reference point. If you were born male you have a male body. Which may turn the external appearance to look almost the same as female. Although when I think of the word "man" I think of bearded lumberjack manly men. Although I have imagined (in a dream one night) a world where the definition of man was more loose and that people who looked like girls were called as men, lol.

Quote :

Stfu, thanks.

My new favourite reply in many comment sections across the internets.
At least for today.

Right Wing Tax Squads - it is only logical that sex workers should pay right wing men for the opportunity cost we suffer when we don't beat/rape/kill them when they operate on our territory. And it is a pretty big opportunity cost.

"Live by the sword, die by the sword" - as if that is a bad and not a good thing and it is better to die as a helpless, decrepit old man shitting himself in the bed.

Crossword puzzles (and the like) are fun because they reduce every word down to equal value, equal purpose - difference only between the length. More-so for the layman this reflects challenge, they feel themselves getting smarter for finding a word. For the artist or philosopher, crossword puzzles dumb them down - they end up changing values of words that in non-artificial circumstance actually simplifies and specifies concepts, making the exercise of real action easier. Commonly these specific concepts have a word length greater than the average - so crossword puzzles flip the value of words upside down. Still, playing crosswords is fucking addicting when you're competent at it, since your head fills with vanities about your score.

I see these sorts of games as useful for learning a new language.

There is always a single answer from those who are desperate.

Imagine a "SJW" of some sort complaining about something and nobody gives a shit.
That's not how the SJW type rolles.

Now, this is not about those forces in the background enabling this preachy type but about the "SJW" him/her-self.
If you are not granted power and attention, either by some institution or the type of people who you are preaching to then you won't do it for long or you will turn your kind of SJW preaching towards those ends which give you that power/attention(feeling of power).

A tip I have for procrastinators: get a savings jar for some long term goal. That goal has to be one you'd sink a lot of money into or you'd be willing to sacrifice for. It can be a fund to a cause you believe in, or a fund for a small business or fund for something that you perceive (incontrovertibly) benefits you [or people you care about] long term but not immediately.

Then, whenever you fail to do something on time, when you're late on a deadline, you have to deposit some amount of money into it. Even if it's one cent. It cannot be touched until a year or more later.

For some, this idea makes them uncomfortable. It'd be a good idea to explore why that is. Really explore your reasons for not, or your excuses. For example, saying "That makes me answerable to money." - does it really? Are you in a position to where you can contribute more without putting money toward that long term goal? Even one cent?

Those who have been deracinated may confront directly the cultural reasons; that they've been taught to be a victim or not have responsibility or otherwise they've been told to invest in self is 'racist'. If you cannot overcome this, then you have a problem.

Æon wrote:

Plato:

After reading Plato and his texts, my interpretation of his most important message and point, is that of Representations.  Plato strictly, implicitly, and explicitly details, on several occasions, how Copies are inferior to Originals.  Thus Plato, interpreted correctly, leads a philosophical mind to the appropriate conclusion.  Reality is superior to (Youthful) idealism.  Many are misled by The Republic because in that, Socrates goes into detail about the "ideal state" of Greek society, or humanity, as a "Utopia" where Justice rules supreme.  This conversation extends from disproving Thrasymachus that Just societies were ruled through Might, not Right.  Regardless of the ideal state, however, Plato's famous "Allegory of the Cave" is his strongest case of exemplifying how reality is superior (in form) than copies.  And that mankind, noblest of men, would never suffice themselves to live lives on lies: "the unexamined life is not worth living".  Even the Modern movie "The Matrix" *COPIES* this same message, re-interpreted.

The more times a thing or message is copied, the further it is removed from its source.  Plato, obviously, knew this fact well.  In The Republic, the conversation occurs to "ban" or remove many forms of art from the Utopian city, but why?  What is wrong with paintings and music?  If you understand the premise of the work then you will know that copies are Inferior to their original source.  So Plato's depiction of a 'Utopia' is opposite of how Moderns conceive of utopia as an "ideal realm".  Because by banning art, painting, and music, for example, you are removing the copies and false images that Modern society and civilization consume daily.  In fact the Modern world is just the opposite of Plato's Republic, because Moderns are obsessed with digital art, movies, television, facebook, iphones, etc.  Thus Moderns are consumed, and consume, Copies upon Copies upon Copies.  And almost nobody, or perhaps nobody at all, have the penchant and personality (of Philosophy) to seek out the sources of these copies.

Plato's main lesson was to seek out these sources, originality, and to live as close to reality as possible.  I believe that he knew, during the time of Decadent ancient Greece, that civilization and modernity would eventually make this difficult if not impossible.  And this was his true lesson to the "Sons of Ariston" (Noble Class), to whom he wrote his works.  Furthermore, Socrates becomes enigmatic.  Was Socrates a fictional representation of the author (Plato), or, a real person and tutor of Plato?  What was the relationship?  And by using Socrates, observe that it would be yet another copy of a copy, that Plato was copying the dialogues, texts, and philosophies of another man.  Thus Plato would be writing Ironically.  To properly interpret Plato, these observations must be taken into account, especially by how Reality becomes divorced and split into Ideals.  A painter observes a landscape, and then paints it.  A musician hears birds, noises, melodies, and then tunes them into songs.  Yet the Original is always superior, the true inspiration and source, of any subsequent ideal.

By properly reading Plato, a philosopher ought to know and recognize this.

This reply may be late, but i believe there is a strong correlation between Plato and the Doric ethos.

"In retort to the man who imitated a nightingale, he said, "My friend, I have had more pleasure in hearing the nightingale itself.""

- PLEISTARCHUS, from Plutarch, Sayings of the Lacedaemonians

also,

"When a lecturer said, "Speech is the most important thing of all," he retorted, "Then if you are silent, you are of no worth at all!""

- AGIS, SON OF ARCHIDAMUS, from Plutarch, Sayings of the Lacedaemonians

All subjective interpretations are based upon the objective reality, one's ideas must be as closely aligned to reality with the smallest margin of error possible based upon truthful observation of nature.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Satyr wrote:

See....in all of these idiotic questions, and statements, the question/sentence itself implies, or has already presupposed something it cannot prove nor justify.

Used in advertising
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Presupposing anyone gives a shit about what's in the closet.

The inferior use the superior as a standard, instead of ascertaining the standard of the superior. In competition, the inferior measure against a particular player or team's skill, instead of measuring against the 'subjectless' objective. The latter is more difficult, requiring one to adjust expectations - one's own behavior becomes potential obstacles (i.e. the 'other' copying/performing the same behavior). Eventually, competition involves the psychology of knowing self and other, to anticipate moves by observation.

Happy holidays, all.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I have thought about this...
There is often this idea circulating, that Christmas has become too commercialised and so on.
Essentially there are too many (implied to be thoughtless) presents being bought at Christmas time.
All that jazz.

You know, I find that giving and receiving presents is the essence of Christmas, it's what makes or breaks Christmas. Sure, it can come in different essences but when I think about it - decorating the house is like a present to all those who come and see it (if it's beautiful). Baking cookies, preparing special food - all presents for other people and yourself as well. Inviting family/friends, playing some music (a rarity in the old days) or singing is a present.
Or in more modern times - the special TV programming, a lot of good movies (when they were still quite good, at least partly) special entertainment. Also the physical presents under the tree...

So I try not to listen too much to those concern ...J.. trolls with their - "Oh no, the lovely Christmas and all that bad commercialisation." Sure it can be done in a thoughtless manner but of course there is a whole industriousness/industry around the goods and services of presents and gifts surrounding Christmas.

Christmas is essentially about presents and giving and receiving gifts of various kind.
That's not bad in itself, it's good. It's important.

I hope everybody I like had/is having a merry Christmas time.

Christmas is a pagan holiday adopted and corrupted by Abrahamism.
I think the ritual of a Christmas tree began as a way of preserving vegetation, by bringing it into the home.
Pagans used to decorate their homes with trees, vegetation so forth.

Anyway....if you keep its pagan symbolisms, as a celebration of the re-birth of nature, on the 21st of December....then its an okay holiday.
A time for family and friend get-together.

I don't know about preserving the evergreen vegetation by cutting it down and putting it inside but it brings part of the forest into the home and that part speaks to the pagan elements in the populations.
The Santa Clause or the Christkind are also pagan elements. Sure it's called "Christ-kind" but it's kind of a fairy creature and not Jesus or something.

Pretty much everything except going to church is dominantly pagan about Christmas, in my views.
Even some of the Christmas songs are more pagan than Christian, in large parts they describe and praise the beauty of nature at that time of year.

What's also curious is that I see the certain somebodies to always be criticising Christmas in the media and trying to degrade it but not so much something like Easter, the actually bigger Christian event. Death before birth I guess.
Christmas is much more European in quality than Easter. To me Easter, as it is celebrated is a very Christian event with some pagan elements tacked on to it, while Christmas is the other way around.

I don't know, maybe it's the word: Christ-mas that strengthens the association.

Satyr wrote:

A time for family and friend get-together.  

Stripped of all nonsense, that's what it is essentially about. An excuse for family and friends to get together, have a feast and exchange presents.

No need to buy into the nonsense to enjoy it.

The parallel of The Odyssey (Odysseus's return), Egyptian mythology (Return of Osiris) and the book of Revelation seems less than coincidence.

The hunters, the foragers, the war party return home. A home it is since they have decided to have a home, a place of staying instead of always nomadically moving around. A special place of rest, dwelling, rooting.

I wonder if the Christian shepherd/sheep analogy was the elites (shepherds) mocking the masses (sheep).

Shepherds raise sheep for their own benefit, to milk them, eat their flesh and wear their fur and skin. Sheep are stupid herd animals who go along with it because they don't know any better, and they'd die in nature anyway.

Bla bla blah blaaah baaah baaahh

Sheep look like they are easier to herd than cows.
Cows are not very adventurous but can be stubborn.
Goats are more difficult to keep inside fencing and can also be very stubborn.

Thanks for defending the pride of my fellow goats.

Microphones in your tablet, smartphone, or laptop, or smart TV are used to record your speech, usually only the snippets where you say something like "Alexa" or "Alexa-nder" or something that sounds similar to "Alexa" or if you are a target of interest, whatever you say. All those audio records are stored at Google/Amazon.

An incident where someone demanded and got access to his recorded Alexa data shows this to be the case.

The thing about microphones is that they are more difficult to block than something like an integrated camera lens in your device. What has also been shown is that it's possible to activate cameras without activating the light indicator next to its lens.

The spearpoint of bugmen is already putting Alexa like devices all over their house/drone-pod.
What is also curious is how most smart-home applications/systems need to run over the internet, even if it's just about turning on the lights of your living room via voice command.

Cloud computing.

All your magic technology electronics belong to us now.