A432

Members
  • Content Count

    632
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by A432

  1. Insisting that one's personal belief about it be accepted with the kind of fervor appropriate to a religious event is, IMHO, an exceedingly arbitrary demand. This is not the martyrdom of Saint Joan of Arc being discussed, but a problematic incident with no clear resolution possible. .
  2. Ask twenty people, chosen at random, what "rape" is. My "own understanding" has nothing to do with it --- any more than that the word "conversation" can connote carnal connection (Shakespeare, if I recall rightly) has with its sense in general conversation. Figurative sense is not literal sense.
  3. Ah yes -- the magic of words. Years ago, when tomato ketchup was listed (with a straight face) in a government nutrition program report as a "vegetable," the laughter that resulted was loud and long. Sadly, there's been no similar response to the linguistic scorched earth policy that's completely re-written reality in criminal justice. Thus sexual contact between an inmate and a staff member, no matter how consentual, is legally "Institutional Sexual Assault" (Rape), because, in legal fiction, an inmate is legally incapable of giving consent. Ditto draconian age restrictions with young people -- so many and so silly that many peoples' grandfathers would have been (statutory) "rapists." The whole thing's sick beyond the power of description. I can call my front yard "Australia," and my back yard "New Zealand" if it amuses me. But without a thousand goons with a thousand guns to enforce my edict, this remains a private fiction rather than case law.
  4. 1) I don;t know L StJ's motivation, and don't pretend to. But let's play qui bono. Not being female, I can't say for sure (and even if I were, my experience wouldn't necessarily be that of another one, so that whole approach is a wash). But we are told, at every opportunity, that the biggest factor inhibiting women from disclosing that they have been sexually assaulted is that it would come to public attention. The one inevitable result of digging this whole thing up, after such along time, is . . . wait for it . . . public attention. No other purported rationalization holds water. (If my car is stolen, would getting this widespread publicity keep anyone else's car from being stolen ? Or even less likely ?) Public attention is what else ? It is the lifeblood of every performer's career. Without it, nobody has one. With enough of it, all kinds of subsidiary commercial opportunities open up -- Talk show bookings. Book deals. Public appearances. Commercial endorsements. I posted before (to no apparent effect) an anecdote, widely known in Hollywood in years past. A film star (possibly Rock Hudson) calls his agent one morning, beside himself. "Have you seen what Hedda Hopper (a gossip columnist) wrote about me this morning ?" "Relax -- she spelled your name right." As for equating old age with ED (as its called in advertisements for sexual potency drugs), see if you can find reliable stats on how many men on the far side of 70 are able to keep "performing" without such pills. And this incident was long, long before that. A better question would be how informed people can assume he could function sexually at his age then. As to my belittling people (when not responding in kind), another illustrative anecdote. This one concerning a prison chaplain I knew. In the course of a counseling session, he noticed that the inmate across from his desk was describing ailments that were symptoms of advanced diabetes. A call to medical got him tested and, the med staff said, possibly saved his life. Malfunctions in thinking have symptoms too. And not everyone who notes them is "trying to be superior."
  5. Noted in passing : “Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad. “He was a lonely ghost uttering a truth that nobody would ever hear. But so long as he uttered it, in some obscure way the continuity was not broken. It was not by making yourself heard but by staying sane that you carried on the human heritage.” -- George Orwell
  6. At least one outfit offering pernambuco tailpieces is advising they be used in conjunction with kevlar tailguts. (?) Pernambuco pegs (?)
  7. Doublethink 101 : We must value and embrace diversity of opinion. But we ensure that our voices are the only ones heard -- by force (physical, economic or social). Orange Man bad.
  8. And the Goodthinkists have the Antifa mobs and the Cancel campaigns.
  9. I only wish you did. Because supposing that reality depends on time and place is relativism pure and simple.
  10. If I had called you a Stalinist, you would have been offended. But you've called yourself one, by implication, by making common cause with them. And I'm offended. Because the Proof of Concept -- the example of what you're talking about put into actual practice -- was the Gulag Archipelago, with which you should be at least passingly familiar. On the safe assumption that you are, that is an example of what Orwell termed "Doublethink" -- Nobody (except for the True-Believing Goodthinkists) is alleging that everything in human nature is OK in every situation. But I should like to point out that, if every example of it in the past could have been prevented, none of us would be here talking about it. In the face of which, at least a modicum of humility might be in order.
  11. "O, wad some Poower the giftie gie us, to see oursels as others see us !" -- Robert Burns There was a cartoon in Mad Magazine back in the 1950s, making fun of Madison Avenue conformity, that I wish I could find, copy and paste, for it nails what the goodthink mob looks like from outside (outside the perspective of their belief system). Four identical men. Identical suits, identical haircuts, identical briefcases, identical expressions on their faces. Four word balloons -- one from each. To wit, "I'm a rugged individualist !" "Same here !" "Me too !" "Ditto !" I quite had my fill of attention for its own sake long before I showed up here, Sospiri. "Attention seeking" may be the only motivation for going against the grain you can imagine, but it is the Goodthinkers who are in need of perspective-expansion, and it's unfortunately fallen to my lot to provide it since no one else grown up is venturing to provide this roundly-hated but much-needed thought commodity. Martin put his finger on it in his autobiographical note (the private school business). That sort of thing has always gone on in such settings (boarding schools, athletic teams, corporate management settings, [the military in spades], college fraternities/sororities, &c. &c. &c.) because it is an expression of an ineradicable aspect of human nature itself. Hate it, revile it, reject it (and properly so, as an individual choice), but there it is, in defiance of you. It always has been and, until the second coming institutes the new order (the authentic one) (i.e., not the current counterfeit of it), it always will be. People are so immature today (I suspect by "educational" design) that they, in all innocence, believe that what pleases them is what ought to be -- that the world around them exists to express their wishes in tangible form -- and if it doesn't, there is something wrong with it. This, good peoople, is the myopic perspective. When goocdthinking myopics learn (probably by accident) that Thomas Aquinas acknowledged and accepted the necessity of brothels in a city as an analogue of the sewage system, channeling away what would otherwise contaminate everything, all they can imagine is that he was a "hypocrite." This tells you nothing about Aquinas, and everything about the maturity level of the Goodthinkists. Imagining that human nature can be done away-with provided a big enough stink and noise is raised when some expression of it is discovered (even alleged) somewhere -- that it can be manipulated into conformity with its desires -- and by force if necessary (since it is necessary) -- is pure Stalinism (New Soviet Man). But all that results from such misguided attempts to play Creator is hypocrisy (very apparent to those not absorbed in playing the Cancel Culture Game, and intrinsically objectionable on that basis alone). One is reminded of the Nasrudin joke in which he, as a clergyman, is called to the bedside of a dying man who asks him for a prayer suitable to the occasion. Nasrudin provides him with this one : "God help me ! Devil help me !" The man is beyond irate. "This is no time for your joking, Nasrudin !" To which he replies, "No one in your condition is in any position to take chances."
  12. Gustave Le Bon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crowd:_A_Study_of_the_Popular_Mind Classic study of mob psychology. Recommended reading/pondering.
  13. Thanks for the really good pictures ! My current fantasy is now, as a result of seeing them, having Mr. Kimura make me a more-or-less copy of the Red Diamond Strad, but with much less wear. I'd enjoy just looking at it. And one of yours as well !
  14. And mistaking differences of opinion/interpretation as denying the value of someone's contributions or personal belittlement is beyond the pale. If that distinction is not grasped when it's pointed out (and it chronically isn't), discussion is rendered futile by intent. A "troll" is anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion on something where legitimate differences of opinion are possible ? And Groupthink is the touchstone of value ? Seems so. Both are defining characteristics. Of what, I do not say.
  15. Bottom line : in Scottish jurisprudence, her allegation is Not Proven. And there the matter rests. He is neither guilty nor not guilty. Using her allegation as a pretext for displays of angry self-righteousness ("virtue signaling") is a separate, unrelated matter. Conflating the two is demonstrating inability to think.
  16. As usual, Blankface, you are offering a strawman argument. No one alleges that Martin is anything but a well-spoken, knowledgeable and good-hearted man, deservedly respected for his contributions. You are defending something no one has attacked. But his claim that your "comments are always measured and thoughtful, never inflammatory or aggressive or playing to the crowd." is -- giving it (and him) the benefit of every possible doubt -- a classic example of Orwelian doublethink, in which the truth of a matter depends on the agenda it supports/advances. Again. On a personal level -- you, Blankie, as an individual, I find admirably perceptive and experienced. But you consistently show yourself unable to extract and grasp information when you are angry. It gets twisted into what you want it to be, and you honestly believe that your version of it is what it is. " Your ongoing speech is to reduce women to objects of male obsessions and judgements, about "beauty" and " attractiveness/unattractiveness" ("no man would look twice at", what's an unbelieveable sexistic point of view) and directly leading to excusing crimes by "nature", followed by victim blaming, slut shaming, body shaming - just the usual strategy we are watching each time when it's about these themes." " And still you don't realize what you're talking about, do you? Sounds like another excuse for pedophilia" " https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-integrationist/201702/psychopaths-sadists-and-the-lure-internet-aggression " Not, in my view, examples of always being "measured and thoughtful, never inflammatory or aggressive or playing to the crowd."
  17. Objection, Your Honor : the witness is hallucinating. Either fact and reason are the bottom line here, or popularity is (with seniority as a multiplier). In the first case, this is a place to discuss violins ; in the second, it is no different from a herd of cattle or a flock of chickens with their pecking orders and hierarchies. Human rules or animal rules. It can't be both.
  18. That's a good way to make gentle fun of wishful thinking when it's going unrecognized. Same deal here. She said. He said. And in light of his advanced age at the time, in conjunction with the in-house investigation finding and his sterling reputation overall, there is simply no warrant for continuing to agitate over this. None. But accepting that would mean people seeking excitement wouldn't have a soap opera, and our would-be moral exemplars wouldn't have a soap box to pontificate from. Clearly an unsatisfactory outcome from their perspective. So we suppose that there were strawberries, and suppose that there was shortcake, insisting that all discussion be predicated on believing this. And reviling those who spoil the fun by refusing to go along with the gag. But allowing emotional conviction to hijack reason (and common sense), while popular (just look around), is dysfunctional.
  19. Noted in passing : Congruence with collectivist mentality = righteousness = truth.
  20. By "us" you mean the choir of identically-programmed snowflakes you preach to. In your imagination, you're probably Braveheart or somebody like that -- a hero of the Virtue Wars like GretaThunberg but without the PR support (a fantasy that probably excites you). To normal people, just another if the True Believers that infest the world, pretending they've inherited the mantles of the Biblical Prophets. And thoroughly tedious.