Why is USMB a hub for bad views?

[gnarlylove]

You claimed the use of the word "attack" defined my non-rational behavior. Then you call my honest and logical inquiry into your deficient claims "picking a fight." Using your same logic, you are not rational because you used "picking a fight" when everyone knows I am not fighting you, I am trying to proceed using rational discussion techniques (i.e. argument, evidence etc.). I'm sorry that you are so sensitive to critical thinking and rational argument that you ask I stop. So this officially terminates our discussion.

If anyone has followed our conversation as an independent outside observer, then I'd imagine what they would conclude is that Boss has been irrational in a majority of posts, not to mention disrespectful which was admitted. I have repeatedly and sincerely apologized for my shortcomings and plainly asked to stick to the high road of clear logic and rational discussion. The fact that my authentic attempts to proceed with lucid rational discussion and challenging false claims have been alleged to lack rationality is clear evidence of Boss's duplicitous use of rationality.

 

[Boss]

I did not claim your use of the word "attack" defined your non-rational behavior. I stated that we cannot have a rational discussion because you are not rational. You took offense to this remark and denied not being rational. I then illustrated an example of you not being rational by pointing out the use of the word "attack" where it did not apply. You did not make an honest inquiry into my claim, you accused me of "attacking" both the "Hope and Change" mantra and you personally, neither of which was true. Since then, you have persisted in taking a hostile argumentative tone in our discussion, despite the fact I have repeatedly stated that I am not here to argue and fight. I continue to point out, this is not rational behavior.

It is probably for the best that we terminate our conversation at this point. It is clear you have no intentions of being rational or engaging in any kind of self-evaluation. You simply want to be right and win an argument, and that is fine. I completely understand your sentiment and wish I had realized it earlier, I could have used this time more wisely. Thank you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't know why you are bothering to wrestle this pig, Boss. You are not going to get anything out of it.

I don't know either at this point. It is purely a selfless act. I read his initial OP and thought I would interject my observations to perhaps help him gain understanding, but I am realizing now that he only wanted to bait someone into an argument and his OP premise was total bullshit.

Live and learn.

 

[shart_attack]

Wow. Juuuuuuuust. Wow.

"If y'uns cain't say sumin' nice, say nuttin'," Mama Shart used to say to me when I was still crawlin', and hadn't yet heard of the Springsteen(/tramp)(/shart) Credo of what some of us was born to do.

Bet even yet Mama woulda said that this thread behoovingly prooves that some fellow animal kingdom critters sadly take themselves waaaaaaaay too seriously.

Aww, Gary Larson: please come back. We hardly knew ye.

 

[editec]

This is a board filled with faith based partisans.

Faith based partisan is probably a redundant term since in order to be a partisan, one must eschew thinking for oneself and accept the PARTY LINE (on faith)

 

[Barb]

This is a board filled with faith based partisans.

Faith based partisan is probably a redundant term since in order to be a partisan, one must eschew thinking for oneself and accept the PARTY LINE (on faith)

Virus of the Mind is a decent reference...if a little one-sided, but Memetics, as much as there's a spat between "purely" a physical part of our brains and "purely" a non literal social function,has excellent explanations:

Memetic Lexicon

"Every scheme includes a vaccime to protect against rival memes. For instance:

Conservatism: automatically resist all new memes.
Orthodoxy: automatically reject all new memes.
Science: test new memes for theoretical consistency and(where applicable) empirical repeatability; continually re-assess old memes; accept schemes only conditionally, pending future re:-assessment.
Radicalism: embrace one new scheme, reject all others.
Nihilism: reject all schemes, new and old.
New Age: accept all esthetically-appealing memes, new and old, regardless of empirical (or even internal) consistency; reject others. (Note that this one doesn't provide much protection.)
Japanese: adapt (parts of) new schemes to the old ones."
Yesterday at 5:32am · Like

I'm working on cross referencing mimetics with semiotics. Both have a wealth of information to share.

 

[gnarlylove]

So our slogan must be: reform of consciousness not though dogmas, but through the analysis of mystical consciousness that is not clear to itself, whether it appears in religious or political form. It will then be clear that the world has long dreamt of something of which it only needs a fully developed consciousness in order to really possess it. Clearly, the problem does not lie in filling some great void between past ideas and those of the future but in the completion of ideas of the past. Finally, it will be clear that humanity is not beginning a new work, but consciously bringing its old work to completion.

So we can summarize the purpose of our journal [Marx's employment at the time] in one word: self-understanding (meaning critical philosophy) by our age of its struggles and desires. This is as tas for the world and for us. it can only be achieved by united forces. What is at stake is a confession, nothing more. To have its sins forgiven, humanity needs only to recognize them as they are.

From Early Texts found in "Karl Marx His Life and Thought" by David M.

 

[flacaltenn]

This is a board filled with faith based partisans.

Faith based partisan is probably a redundant term since in order to be a partisan, one must eschew thinking for oneself and accept the PARTY LINE (on faith)

Virus of the Mind is a decent reference...if a little one-sided, but Memetics, as much as there's a spat between "purely" a physical part of our brains and "purely" a non literal social function,has excellent explanations:

Memetic Lexicon

"Every scheme includes a vaccime to protect against rival memes. For instance:

Conservatism: automatically resist all new memes.
Orthodoxy: automatically reject all new memes.
Science: test new memes for theoretical consistency and(where applicable) empirical repeatability; continually re-assess old memes; accept schemes only conditionally, pending future re:-assessment.
Radicalism: embrace one new scheme, reject all others.
Nihilism: reject all schemes, new and old.
New Age: accept all esthetically-appealing memes, new and old, regardless of empirical (or even internal) consistency; reject others. (Note that this one doesn't provide much protection.)
Japanese: adapt (parts of) new schemes to the old ones."
Yesterday at 5:32am · Like

I'm working on cross referencing mimetics with semiotics. Both have a wealth of information to share.

Actually Barb -- I think you've got an interesting premise to explore.. Science also "resists all new memes" because of the proof required for the new meme. RDean will flip-out if you relate Conservatives and Science in any way...

So I suggest you add --

leftists -- whatever new meme might gain power.

liberals -- refuse to judge the quality of any meme they encounter. New or Old. Black or White. Rich or Poor..

You are welcome...

 

[Barb]

This is a board filled with faith based partisans.

Faith based partisan is probably a redundant term since in order to be a partisan, one must eschew thinking for oneself and accept the PARTY LINE (on faith)

Virus of the Mind is a decent reference...if a little one-sided, but Memetics, as much as there's a spat between "purely" a physical part of our brains and "purely" a non literal social function,has excellent explanations:

Memetic Lexicon

"Every scheme includes a vaccime to protect against rival memes. For instance:

Conservatism: automatically resist all new memes.
Orthodoxy: automatically reject all new memes.
Science: test new memes for theoretical consistency and(where applicable) empirical repeatability; continually re-assess old memes; accept schemes only conditionally, pending future re:-assessment.
Radicalism: embrace one new scheme, reject all others.
Nihilism: reject all schemes, new and old.
New Age: accept all esthetically-appealing memes, new and old, regardless of empirical (or even internal) consistency; reject others. (Note that this one doesn't provide much protection.)
Japanese: adapt (parts of) new schemes to the old ones."
Yesterday at 5:32am · Like

I'm working on cross referencing mimetics with semiotics. Both have a wealth of information to share.

Actually Barb -- I think you've got an interesting premise to explore.. Science also "resists all new memes" because of the proof required for the new meme. RDean will flip-out if you relate Conservatives and Science in any way...

So I suggest you add --

leftists -- whatever new meme might gain power.

liberals -- refuse to judge the quality of any meme they encounter. New or Old. Black or White. Rich or Poor..

You are welcome...

Meh. Science is continually reassessed, and therefore a work in progress, so I think you are mistaken. Also, you mistake "liberal" for "new age," which is covered. I like to think that liberal, as I understand it, would more closely resemble "Japanese: adapt (parts of) new schemes to the old ones."

 

[Boss]

Barb, your scalloped potatoes are fucked!

 

[Barb]

Barb, your scalloped potatoes are fucked!

I never really liked scalloped potatoes.

Not too fond of word salad, either. Keep that in mind, okay? Thanks.

 

[gnarlylove]

"Every scheme includes a vaccime to protect against rival memes. For instance:

Conservatism: automatically resist all new memes.

This is quite helpful way of conceiving certain beliefs. The viral analogy is quite appropriate insofar as certain beliefs, like American Conservatism, the host must reject all new memes that conflagrate the conservative meme.

As far as liberals go, one must look further. Official Democrats are what was known as moderate Republicans just three or four decades ago. Democrat voters and nonvoters who are genuinely liberal tend to agree neither with Democrat policy (e.g. Obama) nor Republican policy. The ones that vote often think they are selecting the lesser of two evils. So it's unfair to lump these two together.

I think it's fair to lump the official parties into the conservatism meme above. Both refuse to take measures to ensure the well being of the masses--Obama slashing 38 billion in Welfare. But this is nothing new and will not change unless we the people unite against tyranny where neither party represents the majority of people.

A genuinely liberal meme is as you assessed, Barb: to be understood as synthesizing old and new memes. I think further elaboration is important here. What this means is old memes like white males are superior are challenged by new memes like "gay rights" and "women are people too" and either expel the old meme or somehow synthesize the two. There are various stages but hopefully the new memes of treating everyone with inherent dignity will supersede these horrendous viral memes that have infected humanity from the beginning.

Thus the liberalism meme requires fundamental challenges to their old memes. If healthy criticism and skepticism was not part of the genuine liberalism meme, then I'd assume the only other meme for Americans is the conversatvism meme. Therefore the only rigorous and intelligent meme is liberalism. That being said, this does not mean to hold liberal beliefs. Liberal beliefs must be challenged and the dialectic the Hegel identified continues.

It's just so sad that Americans believe conservatism is the end of history--that society has developed as far as it should and we must put the brakes on to keep history right where it is. That of course means fighting against admitting women, gays, blacks, browns are people, the reason is white males were better off when we owned them and exploited them--demanding equal pay and opportunity is just crazy! Heck, women were not considered "peers" until 1975 when they could begin serving on a jury. Conservativism is so junked up with oppression of people that the only way to keep the host susceptible is make him reject all new memes.

 

[Unkotare]

What a self-important little airhead.