Sports writer kills himself, leaves behind website describing how and why
- Thread starter caramon13_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,657
Yep. Marx himself is fine, if a bit depressing to read. It's his self appointed Priests that are annoying as all shit.
Dumar brings me to a more intimate understanding of my Pagan ancestors. And I also understand why they sometimes upside-down crucified those smug shitheads.
For this I honor Dumar.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
If I haven't read the Quran, I can never criticize a Muslim
If I haven't read Dianetics I can't criticize Scientologists
If I haven't read the Bible, I can't criticize Christians
If I haven't engaged in trade on the Stock Exchange I can't criticize bankers
If I haven't served in a war or been a Congressmember or President I can't criticize wars
etc. and so forth and so on.
I've read all of the Manifesto, and large tracts of Das Kapital.
The difference between Dumar and me? I didn't find every answer to life between the covers of that sole treatise, because they aren't. Marx had no fucking understanding of biology and its relation to environment, had no concept of modern society as it exists today, for obvious reasons being he's dead, and while he is one of the giants whose shoulders many social scientists stand upon, he's just another person, a person whose contributions have been in some cases redacted, others revised, and others accepted as is, but all this idolization and turning the guy into a fucking religious prophet like Moses marching through the desert with the 10 commandmants hanging on his nuts gets old real fucking fast.
Eric Fromm, too, great he was a well reknowned socialist psychologist who had some radical theories you agree with. Citing him chapter and verse isn't EVIDENCE of anything. He's one fucking psychologist. Would you take someone citing Freud chapter and verse as proving anything? Of course not. Because Freud was a great contributor and founder of the field, but he also was throwing a lot of wacky ideas at the wall to see what stuck and not all of them did.
If I haven't read Dianetics I can't criticize Scientologists
If I haven't read the Bible, I can't criticize Christians
If I haven't engaged in trade on the Stock Exchange I can't criticize bankers
If I haven't served in a war or been a Congressmember or President I can't criticize wars
etc. and so forth and so on.
I've read all of the Manifesto, and large tracts of Das Kapital.
The difference between Dumar and me? I didn't find every answer to life between the covers of that sole treatise, because they aren't. Marx had no fucking understanding of biology and its relation to environment, had no concept of modern society as it exists today, for obvious reasons being he's dead, and while he is one of the giants whose shoulders many social scientists stand upon, he's just another person, a person whose contributions have been in some cases redacted, others revised, and others accepted as is, but all this idolization and turning the guy into a fucking religious prophet like Moses marching through the desert with the 10 commandmants hanging on his nuts gets old real fucking fast.
Eric Fromm, too, great he was a well reknowned socialist psychologist who had some radical theories you agree with. Citing him chapter and verse isn't EVIDENCE of anything. He's one fucking psychologist. Would you take someone citing Freud chapter and verse as proving anything? Of course not. Because Freud was a great contributor and founder of the field, but he also was throwing a lot of wacky ideas at the wall to see what stuck and not all of them did.
Dunno where you're getting the religious fervor. I'm of the Frankfurt School, which is essentially a rejection of all symbols and iconography at its core (all idolatry and idolatrous worship).
We can use the thoughts expounded by other social thinkers if you're pouting about the ones I chose. But you got Marx totally wrong in that post. Excerpts read does not an understanding make.
We can use the thoughts expounded by other social thinkers if you're pouting about the ones I chose. But you got Marx totally wrong in that post. Excerpts read does not an understanding make.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
Just reread every post you make when you start doing this, if you are capable of an ounce of real self reflection, its very evident on its face. You start "Have you EVEN READ this?" As if just READING the book will convince EVERYONE of the TRUTH of that book, the implicit assumption being that if you don't agree automatically, well, that must mean you haven't read it, because its so obviously true on its face, I mean how could anyone ever disagree?
I'm a die hard atheist and just the fact that you would say "I'm of the [insert group here] school" and then follow that with "I reject all symbology iconography" without realizing the cognitive dissonance implicit in that statement is a big part of why I wonder if you're even capable of the self reflection to realize how you cite Marx like a die hard southern baptist preacher cites the book of Revelations at a funeral.
Rejecting idolatry and symbology means rejecting human heros too, Dumar. You must have missed that at the socialist atheist convention.
The Frankfurt School was a rejection of Orthodox Marxism. The very thing you're claiming I am. Take Araysar's advice: you don't know what I'm talking about. It's fine. I don't know much or care too deeply about aspects of anthropology.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
I think a great rebuttal I might start doing for Dumar exclusively is to just quote the Bible back at him when he quotes anyone else.
Like he says Marx says the history of human history is class struggle, and then I just cite Jesus saying something like "Love thy neighbor as thy self, turn the other cheek, and pay your taxes bro" and then go "Look, dude, its in the Bible. You can't argue with that shit. Have you even read it?"
I want a Dumar definition of what a superficial versus a natural experience is, and I want some actual peer reviewed research that shows that artificial experiences like watching a superbowl touchdown versus engaging in it onesself are harmful to individuals. All without a single quote or stolen thought from a dead socialist.
Will I get what I am asking for?
Like he says Marx says the history of human history is class struggle, and then I just cite Jesus saying something like "Love thy neighbor as thy self, turn the other cheek, and pay your taxes bro" and then go "Look, dude, its in the Bible. You can't argue with that shit. Have you even read it?"
I want a Dumar definition of what a superficial versus a natural experience is, and I want some actual peer reviewed research that shows that artificial experiences like watching a superbowl touchdown versus engaging in it onesself are harmful to individuals. All without a single quote or stolen thought from a dead socialist.
Will I get what I am asking for?
I think you have a way too superficial understanding of the topic at hand and you're falling back on religion as many often do. I quoted him once because you brought him up. And I did so to show you completely got it wrong. An atheist using religion as a crux, the ultimate irony.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
Dumar, you disregard modern social scientists who have dedicated their lives to these fields, and fall back on 150 year dead social scientists as the crux of every argument you make, then you claim anyone who doesn't cite Marx chapter and verse has a superficial knowledge of the subject. After you disregarded with a wave of the hand literally hundreds of thousands of anthropologists and sociologists with diverse backgrounds in everything from geology to cultural anthropology and women's studies, etc.
So hopefully you can see why this is the response you get. You are literally being Lumie, disregarding all modern research for one or two, often distorted, outdated models that fit your preconceived notions.
Nothing you're saying is an argument. Its regurgitation. You're literally vomiting on us. That's it.
So hopefully you can see why this is the response you get. You are literally being Lumie, disregarding all modern research for one or two, often distorted, outdated models that fit your preconceived notions.
Nothing you're saying is an argument. Its regurgitation. You're literally vomiting on us. That's it.
Dunno what you're talking about, but sure. On natural vs manufactured experience and a genuine relatedness to your life and the world:
The essence of human life is human activity. Your thoughts are born of your activity, not vice versa: so goes your activity, so too goes yourresponsesto activity, your feelings. A relatedness to the world is concerned with your interactions and activities in itas you. The feelings, emotions, thoughts - all of it, therefore, are the direct result of what youdoin the world, and that, those things bundled up, is the precise relatedness itself.
A relationship to the world viacommoditiesis not a relationship because you arenotexperiencing those feelings, emotions, and thoughts based on your direct, sensuous activity, but rather, they're being created by the commodity for you. So, into existence this commodity springs forth, and through it, through the sum total of all of them you buy, eat, consume, fuck, watch, whatever - the sum total of thecommoditiesdefines your life because that'sprecisely howyou experience the world, not directly, not through your activity as your own activity, but generated by the thing, the commodity.
And like I said, as the furthering of culture continues, so will we develop new commodities used to further service this generation, until little or no feelings you experience will be because your direct activity in and upon the world, by your relatedness to it, but more and more by what you buy and consume.
Is that more clear?
As far as peer reviewed research, I answered you. This is sociology with a dose of social philosophy. It probably doesn't exist or has even been attempted. If you find it, lemme know.
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
This is your unsupported assertion that you still fail to show any proof of. What magic thing about "commodities" takes away feelings and emotion and thoughts based on direct, sensuous activity (whatever the fuck that means)?
There is nothing. You are doing what Catholics do, which is to say you are fetishizing material objects with magic powers of evil.
Literally a form of idolatry, mind you.
Objects, materials, "commodities" are things. Stuff. They aren't magic, aren't supernatural, and do not, by their very existence, strip magic mojo away from Austin Powers, leaving him weak and bereft of capacity for human emotion and experience.
What do you mean unsupported assertion? Do you want me to link the audio of the GA Bulldawg fan who called in the radio station crying because his team lost to Clemson? That's precisely what I'm talking about.
Do you want me to link that viral video of the smartphone culture dominating all aspects of life? That's two examples that popped in my head in but a moment.
Do you want me to link that viral video of the smartphone culture dominating all aspects of life? That's two examples that popped in my head in but a moment.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
So your evidence that objects use evil voodoo magic to make people emotionless zombies is an anecdote about a football fan crying on the telephone?
See where I'm going with this whole "unsupported" thing?