daughterofkarl

[daughterofkarl]

Ivy wrote:

@davis I’ll be going la la la….my sister just suffered a horrible still birth and the hospital sent her home with a dead baby and said “good luck.” We may as well be living in a third world country. Burying the baby today

I know we don’t know each other, Ivy. But, I am so very sorry. I can’t imagine a pain deeper than the loss of a child. My sincere sympathy to your sister and your family.

[daughterofkarl]

Glen D and Unseen,

I am not ignoring you.  I am taking a Summer writing seminar for my job, and I have a paper due this week.  I’m on a deadline, so I need to give that my attention.

Glen:  In retrospect, I was kind of hard on you.  Sometimes I forget what it was like to have been new to discussion/debate forums, and I let my frustration get the better of me.   I will get back to you!

Unseen:  I have not had a chance to review your links on Jefferson, but I am not sure there is any real point in doing so, as you seem completely incapable of grasping my point or demonstrating any serious engagement.  Your shallow approach to the subject matter means there is no real benefit for me in further interaction with you at this time.  I find it interesting that, having again reiterated your strawman (that my point was that slavery/genocide in the US was “OK”) you then go on, without apparent irony, to make an assertion that only confirms the point I actually did make:  Jefferson’s acceptance of the institution of slavery was rooted in his desire for material wealth “Because he wanted to be a rich, country gentleman,…”

I’m not interested in disingenuous bullshit.    All you seem interested in is sloppy arguments, and “rogering an attractive slavegirl,” so fuck off.   You’re wasting my time.

And, yes.  I am being condescending AF, and I’m not sorry, so spare me all the manipulative “Have you ever noticed how…” crap.  It’s a diversionary tactic designed to put me on the defensive, and I don’t show up for that shit.   You get the respect you earn.

• This reply was modified 6 years, 11 months ago by daughterofkarl.

[daughterofkarl]

Glen D wrote:

“I love to hear variations on the “Hey, everybody was doing it” kind of excuse. Mom and Dad didn’t buy it.” Nor should they; the argument is based on a Tu qouque (you too) logical fallacy. If the USA was founded on theft, murder and genocide, the charges must be answered by themselves. What other countries did is irrelevant. The fallacy is also so known as ‘The Nuremberg Defence’ .Nazi war criminals such as Hermann Goring tried to use it, and it was rejected. In my opinion, the point was worth making. ((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin for “you also”), or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent’s argument by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s). The Oxford English Dictionary cites John Cooke’s 1614 stage play, The Cittie Gallant, as the earliest use of the term in the English language.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

The point would have been worth making if that had actually been what I said.  But, I didn’t.  Hence the straw man. Set up an argument your opponent has not made, and then argue it as though they had.  At no point did I reference other countries’ engagement in slavery/genocide as an excuse for it having happened in the Americas.  I referenced it simply to point out that that particular characteristic of the US/Americas is not what reveals the essential character of the US.  Or the Americas.  Whichever.  I am really having a hard time understanding your inability to grasp the point I actually made.  That the essential character of the US is far more saliently revealed in our origins as a capitalist, consumer culture whose very existence was dependent on the shareholders back in England getting their investment back.  Do you all really not see how that factor, for better and worse, is a part of our national DNA in a very specific way?  How, literally, everything else about us, including our penchant for slavery/genocide, grew from that??  No one has even attempted to discuss that, so hung up are you on an argument that was never made.

Your mastery of Wikipedia is very impressive.

• This reply was modified 6 years, 11 months ago by daughterofkarl.

[daughterofkarl]

“I love to hear variations on the “Hey, everybody was doing it” kind of excuse. Mom and Dad didn’t buy it.”  (Unseen)

Oh, I’m sorry, Professor.  I was under the impression that this was a discussion forum, not a venue for Unseen to make his little pronouncements and gift us all with his unassailable wisdom.  Nice straw man you built there, but you’re arguing–not particularly well–a point I did not make.  Maybe you should get down off your high horse, stop being a patronizing dick, and actually say something that furthers the conversation.

You made your little statement as though it revealed something unique and essential about the American character.  I merely opined that engaging in genocide and slavery did not reveal anything particularly unique to the American character because:

a.  Genocide and slavery were not unique to America, making it part of the character of many preceding civilizations for thousands of years, and far from excusing it, I acknowledged that the devastation wrought by the arrival of the Europeans in the Americas was massive, eclipsing even the Aztecs, who were notorious for their brutal oppression of other native peoples.

And,

b.  Far more telling and revelatory of the US national psyche would be the fact that our earliest origins were rooted in capitalism and consumer culture, Jamestown being the example of that.   The genocide and slavery engaged in by the US was always directly tied to those economic factors, resulting in our continuing to engage in those behaviors far longer than most of our contemporaries.  Treating people like livestock, and continuing to do that long after the rest of Western civilization had outlawed slavery because it was economically advantageous?  Fucking heinous.

That is, of course, if by America you mean the United States.  A point you have failed to clarify at all.  That little piece of intellectual sloppiness only adds to the murkiness of your point.  The first acts of genocide and slavery enacted against the indigenous peoples of the Americas were wrought by the Spanish, not the English who founded the US.

If you wanted to make a relevant point that might have engendered a further dialogue, you could have pointed out my characterization of the Europeans as “settlers,” when it would be more accurate to say that the Spanish, and the British and French who followed them, were really “invaders,” not settlers.  That could have led to a really interesting discussion of how language is used in societies to create a narrative and how deeply internalized those structures are.

But then we might have had a meaningful, interesting, and enlightening dialogue, and that doesn’t appear to be what you want to have.

My mistake.

 

[daughterofkarl]

Unseen wrote:

America started, it’s been said, as a criminal enterprise. Slavery. Genocide.

To be fair, the same could be said to be true of almost every civilization that ever achieved ascendancy on the world stage, whether it’s the French slaughtering the Huguenots, or the English starving the Irish. Genocide and slavery were not unique to America, nor did genocide and slavery not occur in the Americas before the arrival of European settlers. The Europeans undoubtedly did the whole slavery/genocide thing much more efficiently and effectively than the native people, but they had all that superior weaponry and disease to spread around. So, there’s that. It could be argued, however, that, if by America you mean the United States, we do have to own the ignominy of having continued those practices until well into the modern era. And that we are still grappling with the effects of it.

If by America you do mean the US, Jamestown was the first successful English colony in Northern America. It is from Jamestown that the other 13 colonies grew, making it the genesis of what becomes the United States. Jamestown was a colony founded by a corporation, for the purpose of turning a profit. All of that high-minded, religious freedom stuff came later. So it might be more accurate to say that The United States, particularly, was founded on an act of capitalist free market enterprise. Everything else about us, for good and ill, even genocide and slavery, is born of that singular fact.

[daughterofkarl]

We have never lived in a democracy.

I am increasingly concerned that the transfer of power following the current regime will not be achieved without bloodshed.

The American Civil War was the bloodiest and costliest war we have ever fought.   The next one will be worse.  And our enemies rejoice, because a second Civil War effectively removes the US from the world stage, perhaps forever.

The next election is crucial.  It may be our last opportunity to change our current trajectory through administrative and legislative means.   It will not be a fair election, of course.  Our electoral system was tampered with in the last election and will be again.  The only way to overcome that is through overwhelming numbers.  People have to turn out in the hundreds of thousands, and they have to reject the current administration.   Trump and his minions like to portray themselves as the majority, and therefore representative of the will of the American people, but they aren’t.   They never have been.

If a majority of Americans actually start wielding the power they have, we might be able to turn this around.  If not, a lot of us are very likely going to die in the next war.

[daughterofkarl]

A priest, a rabbi, and a minister walk into a bar.

Bartender says, “What is this?  Some kind of joke?”

 

Why did the punk rocker cross the road?

He had a chicken stapled to his face.

 

How many punk rockers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Two.  One to screw the bulb in, and one to kick the chair out from under him.

 

How many psychiatrists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Just one, but the lightbulb has to really want to change.

 

How many Jewish mothers does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Oy.  Don’t bother.  I’ll just sit here in the dark.

 

Two cannibals are eating a clown.  One says to the other, “Does this taste funny to you?”

[daughterofkarl]

jakelafort wrote:

Daughterofkarl, you just brought back a memory. 2001 was first serious book i read at age of six. And it was a tough read. After that reading was a ritual for me and i read every night. Also it is weird to read a book first as a child and then as an adult. I did that with some Bertrand Russell. Read him when i was around 12 and thought he was so brilliant. Upon revisiting him i was not nearly as impressed.

Jeez Louise, jake (can I call you that?) you were reading “2001” at six??!!  Damn.  I bet you were a little terrifying as a child!  🙂  (I am totally teasing you, you know that, right?)   I am a nightly reader myself.  It’s like the little treat I give myself at the end of every day when the house is finally quiet and everybody and everything is taken care of, and I can have just a bit of time to myself.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 9 months ago by daughterofkarl.

[daughterofkarl]

Davis wrote:

daughterofkarl wrote:

Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, a Search for Who We Are

Hey. THanks for the recommendation. I have a pretty enormous reading list but I will put the book on it. Sometimes older books can explain general concepts and I find older books also add a lot more humanity and an intersting narrative. For example Desmond Morris’s books like “The human zoo” and “The Naked Ape”, while having a few details rather out of date, in general these books taught me just how animalistic we are. Tell you what, if you agree to read the Human Zoo, I’ll read Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors. I’d love a chance to discuss Desmond Morrises work with someone.

Deal! On “The Human Zoo,” I mean.  Morris is not an author I am familiar with, so I would like to check him out. But, like you, my reading list is pretty long, so I won’t give you a hard, fast deadline, nor expect one from you.  With school back in session, my three-dimensional life is pretty much kicking my ass right now, so my time to read for my own purposes is more limited.   I will expect you to keep your end of the bargain, though! 🙂

You had given me a reading list on another thread that had a couple of Dawkins and Hitchens works on it.  I meant to get back to you on that, but never had the chance.  I had tried to read their work several years ago–they being some of the authors already in vogue among my fellow atheists then–but, to be honest, I didn’t get far with them. I’m afraid I found them ponderous and a bit dull.  Maybe I just wasn’t ready for them at that point.  I have been thinking about revisiting them to see if I feel differently about them.

That’s what happened to me with Arthur C. Clark and “2001: A Space Odyssey.” I tried to read it when I was around 11-12, I think.  It was over my head, and I didn’t really understand it at all.  Later, as an adult, I read it again, and was able to grasp it; ended up reading several of Clark’s novels.  Really enjoyed them a lot.  So timing is everything, and I sometimes go back to things that I didn’t like at all on first reading to find out if they resonate with me differently.

Cheers!

DOK

[daughterofkarl]

Hi, Simon!  (Can I call you that?)  You wrote:

“Competition / cooperation” are standard terms and they express the essence of the situation in my opinion. If you think about it, if one is “an army of one”, then competition is inevitable.

I think you’re probably right, that competition likely rises inevitably where there is not cooperation.  But something about that dichotomy is not sitting well with me, and I can’t quite put my finger on why.  Perhaps it’s the idea of an “army of one.”  That sort of implies that there is no state of being in which one is solitary, not seeking cooperation, but is also not aggressive—ie. is not an “army.”  That may have to do with my professional experience, in which I have worked with numerous mentally ill people who are not in any way competitive, but are also incapable of seeking out the necessary social interactions that would lead to cooperation.  I am also mother to an autistic young man.  He, too, is not competitive, generally, but had to be taught cooperation, as his natural preference tends toward being solitary.  It is simply not in his nature to seek interaction, and thereby, cooperation.

It is an unfortunate byproduct of my work that I sometimes lose sight of the baselines of what “normal” psychology is, as I spend a great deal of my time interacting with those who fall outside of those norms.

IDK.  If it gets any clearer to me, I’ll let you know!  🙂

DOK

Oh!  I do like the final version of your matrix much better.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 9 months ago by daughterofkarl.

[daughterofkarl]

Hi!

I’m from Texas.  The big, shiny brass buckle on the Bible Belt, USA!  LOL

DOK

 

[daughterofkarl]

Hi, Davis!

If you haven’t read Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, a Search for Who We Are, by Carl Sagan and Anne Druyan, you should.   It is a fascinating take on the subject of human evolution and human and animal behavior.   Wikipedia describes it thus:  “The authors give a summary account of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, with particular focus upon certain traits central to human nature and the discussion of where their precursors began to develop in other species.”

It came out in ’93, and there is undoubtedly more current research, but it is beautifully written and just a damn enjoyable read.

DOK

 

 

 

 

[daughterofkarl]

Hello, Simon Paynton,

I’m glad you’re rethinking your use of “sheeple” in the bottom right of your chart.  Referring to people who fall into the category of being both cooperative and passive as “sheeple” is…well, sort of passive-aggressive, to be honest, and seems to betray a distinct bias.   Nowhere else is the terminology you use so obviously pejorative and non-objective.  Self-effacing is probably more what you mean, yes?  It isn’t your position that the only positive form of cooperation/affiliation is that which is both cooperative and competitive, right?     Or am I misunderstanding what it is you are trying to convey with the chart.  I am reading it as a tool for quantifying a range of human behaviors/responses on a continuum.  Is that correct?    Perhaps it is the terminology you are using.   If you are striving to create a chart that indicates opposing forces, it might be more accurate and objective to say the opposite quality to “passive” is “active,” not “competitive.”  The opposite quality to “submission” is “assertion.” (Or you could go with “domination,” but that is a pretty loaded term as well.)   My point is that, if you are seeking to create a tool that can be used to, more or less, objectively quantify human behavior/responses in social environments along a continuum, you might want to consider using terminology that is less emotionally-weighted and value-laden.   Likewise, you might want to consider that the opposite quality to cooperation might more accurately be described as “isolation” rather than “defection?”

Or maybe I am just completely misreading the chart and your intent.   That’s been known to happen!  🙂

Cheers!

DOK

• This reply was modified 7 years, 9 months ago by daughterofkarl.

[daughterofkarl]

1996, Driving drunk, rear-ended another vehicle hard enough to break my kneecap against the dashboard of my car.  Could have killed somebody.  Eternally grateful that I was the most seriously injured one involved.  Arrested for DUI.  Two years probation, huge fines, 100 hours community service.   And just to make it extra special, I got to call my father at 4:00am on FATHER’S DAY to tell him his daughter was hospitalized, about to undergo surgery, after having been arrested for DUI.  Yeah.  Not my finest moment.  But I have never driven drunk again, and never will!

[daughterofkarl]

Hi, Emma.

I am glad you’re here, and that you have found a place where you can be yourself as you embark on this journey of self-discovery.  I was fortunate to have grown up in a family that was tolerant and supportive of any exploration I chose to undertake, but it sounds like that is not the case for you.  I’m sorry.  If we can provide a safe space for you, that’s a great thing.  But, I think my peers are right when they say to be careful about how you choose to include your family (or If, or When) in your process.   I gather that you are young and not yet able to live independently, and as such, you may have to live with your parents rules until you become legally able to make your own decisions.  That’s rough, and it can seem like forever, but it isn’t, so hold the fuck on.  OK?

In the meantime, now that you have decided what you don’t believe, ie the whole magic skydaddy thing, the most challenging part of the journey begins:  Deciding what you do believe in.  If we can be a support system or a sounding board while you do that, good on us, right?  I am pretty new to this particular forum myself.  But, I am also old, and I’ve been doing this a long time.

Anyway, welcome!

DOK

[Author]

Posts