Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Memorial Day is a Part of a Cultural Con Game

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 12:34:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Let me just ask it straight-out, why a Memorial Day, why oh why do societies designate holidays to honor those who've fought for and lost their lives in the wars their governments have seen fit to instigate and wage? Of course the conventional, patriotic, pro-military/pro-veterans answer that just about everyone thinks should do is: "They, veterans and causalities of our wars, have done something self-sacrificing and heroic, ergo and ipso facto they deserve to be honored". Whether it's out of the mouths of unctuously pro-veteran conservative politicians, or ordinary citizens who've been thoroughly inculcated with the patriotic mythology of America, the "Well duh, veterans deserve to be honored" reply is really the only one your likely to hear, regardless of whether you're in a red state or a blue state, in Middle America or liberal LA.

But I'm not terribly interested in rubberstamping or reinforcing the naïve conventional propaganda and programming constantly being fed into our spongy brains by the Establishment's media. I'd prefer to look at good ole Memorial Day from a somewhat more critically-minded perspective. That is, let's summon the subversive intellectual honesty and moral guts to take a look at Memorial Day from the perspective called "the hermeneutics of suspicion".

If you're not familiar with the highfalutin term "hermeneutics of suspicion", don't let it put you off, what it means is actually pretty simple. It's merely an approach to critical thinking in which you ask yourself what might seem like a "cynical" question, i.e. you cautiously and distrustfully ask, about some taken-for-granted feature of life or belief: "Is it in someone's interest? Is there some specific someone or class of someone's, some interest group or institution in society, that perhaps benefits from we the people accepting such and such a feature of life or belief?" And then you proceed to probe beneath the face value of, and parse the various social and political implications of that which you're analyzing. It's a method of consciously and systematically rejecting the naïve acceptance of society's "conventional wisdom", and trying to get to the structural bottom of things.

Now of course this is a method that many people can appreciate and delight in using when it comes to things they don't really believe in in the first place. For example, in our secular times many people have a low opinion of organized religion, therefore they have no qualms about using hermeneutics to discredit religion. It's easy for many non-churchgoing people to observe and opine that the churches and their hierarchy, that popes and evangelists are the ones who benefit from us buying into their religious belief systems, and that perhaps religion is an institution that's invented and used by them as a means of social control and economic exploitation. Since religion is no longer a sacred cow for people it's easy for them to critically tear into and shred it.

However, although Western people's sacred cows nowadays are no longer religious, they still are thoroughly insinuated into our worldview, and still have much emotional potency for us. One of these secular sacred cows is of course the P-word, patriotism – and the patriotic ethic of military service to country. From an early age parents, public schools and institutions, books and the electronic mass media, all begin to instill in our minds that we should ground our personal self-concept in our tribal, national identity. That being an American or a German or an Argentine, or what have you, is a real and important, or perhaps the most important, part of our identity; and that one has a social-moral duty to render service to one's nation, is an orthodoxy that's so deeply catechized into our thinking that most of us will never question it in the entire course of our lives, and some of us will proudly and gullibly give up our lives for it.

Well then, since we see that patriotism and the notion that it's noble to bear arms for your nation is ensconced in our sense of self and our canon of conventionalities and certitudes, and at a level so fundamental that it feels like uncontestable right thinking and common sense, it's hardly surprising that for a great many of us it's indeed a sacred cow that we don't take too kindly to having critically dissected. But we can't let this deter us if we're committed to the values of truth-seeking and critical thinking.

And what do you think we find when we practice the "hermeneutics of suspicion", in a no-holds-barred fashion, on the tenet of our society's nationalistic "civil religion" that says: "You shall pledge your allegiance to your country, and your willingness to fight and die for it"? Well, let's ask the mildly intellectually treasonable question, does someone unduly benefit from our indoctrination with such a patriotic sense of loyalty and duty? Is there someone, or a class of someones in whose interest it is for us to be raised to think it's honorable to participate in our country's wars?

When the question is put this bluntly you'd have to be pretty naïve or in superpatriotically deep denial to not have some obvious suspects spontaneously popping into your head. You know, suspects such as Halliburton, which profiteered to the tune of more than $17 billion in Iraq; or DynCorp, which made $1.44 billion; or Washington Group International, which has enriched itself by $931 million; or, of course, Exxon-Mobil, whose profitability has been greatly benefited by the Iraq war/occupation. Which is all to say that the corporate elite has made out very nicely from the U.S.s latest bit of military aggression, and the patriotic willingness of American citizens to take part in it.

Indeed, without the secular faith that one's country is righteous and that it's always righteous to fight for it, how would the business-political complex that predaceously and parasitically sits atop our society's politico-economic food chain ever hope to enlist the public's enthusiastic support and cooperation for its greedy military escapades? How would it dupe mothers into sending their sons and daughters off to kill or be killed to further fatten already obscenely obese corporate fat cats? How would it be able to fool enough of the people enough of the time to time and again turn the U.S. armed services into its private gunmen?

The propagandistic Big Lie, that it's a deontological duty, as it were, and a wonderful honor to take up a spear or M16 for your tribe and sally forth to slaughter its supposed enemies is clearly and certainly an exceedingly serviceable lie for a tribe's chieftains – or in our case for the chieftains of the moneyed and governmental establishment that runs our society's show. Well, people do need to be motivated to endure the hardships of war, and to risk having their limbs blown off, or their lives snuffed out by an enemy's bullet. This being the case, societies, at the sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle behest of their ruling class, carefully mold our beliefs to make us altogether gullible when it comes to our gung ho-ness to do our part for the war effort, to support the troops, to cop that old wartime my-country-right-or-wrong attitude.

The conclusion is located directly below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 12:34:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conclusion

Quite simply put, militaristic patriotism serves the special interests of the rich & powerful, and our society and culture being to a serious extent in the power of the rich & powerful, well, it's a no-brainer that we're going to be taught to love and lay down our lives for corporate Big Brother whenever its shills, the politicians, start waving the flag and crying like Chicken Little that "national security" or honor is at stake. Thus and so, we are taught to suspend critical disbelief when it comes to the moral legitimacy of our nation's wars, and our military personnel's complicity in them. We're taught that our troops are always heroes; that we're not to morally criticize them; that they're like well-intentioned dumb jocks in uniform who only wish to serve their country, and that this absolves them of the sin of killing the innocent to advance the avaricious agenda of our plutocratic rulers.

As for our national holidays, such as Memorial Day, they're all merely a part of the way a society acculturates its people to take on such an exploitable patriotic mentalité. Specifically, a holiday such as Memorial Day helps condition us to think that it's highly admirable, almost worth it, to lose our lives serving the government and the moneyocracy it fronts for. And again, such thinking is promoted for the obvious reason that it makes young men and women more easily recruited; more disposed and motivated to sign up and sign on to take part in immoral wars; to become murderers under the color of their government's authority, and to sometimes have their own precious lives brutally abbreviated. What the hermeneutics of suspicion reveals, then, is that not only is "the truth the first casualty of war", it's only by means of manipulating us with patriotically feel-good falsehoods that our ruling class can send us as a nation into war in the first place. Memorial Day is just a special occasion for the imprinting of such naively patriotic, obedient, militaristic, and jingoistic attitudes in our unwitting brains. Observing it makes us a part of the problem, rather than the solution, of war and imperialism.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 12:36:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 12:34:07 AM, charleslb wrote:
Let me just ask it straight-out, why a Memorial Day, why oh why do societies designate holidays to honor those who've fought for and lost their lives in the wars their governments have seen fit to instigate and wage?
GOVERNMENTS designate holidays. Good lord that was a stupid question.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 12:37:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sorry, I know it's a little late in the day to be posting something about the holiday, but I was otherwise occupied earlier.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 12:39:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 12:36:49 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/31/2011 12:34:07 AM, charleslb wrote:
Let me just ask it straight-out, why a Memorial Day, why oh why do societies designate holidays to honor those who've fought for and lost their lives in the wars their governments have seen fit to instigate and wage?
GOVERNMENTS designate holidays. Good lord that was a stupid question.

Yes, but as a part of a societal program of acculturation that largely serves the ruling class that the government protects & serves. That is, it all runs somewhat deeper than simply "THE GOVERNMENT".
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 12:45:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There's no such thing as a societal program. Societies don't do things.

Incidentally, who pays the taxes for all this military stuff? Rich people. Hence, this isn't "Moneyocracy" at work. If indeed you presume that the only benefits of war are to the sellers of war goods and services, which merely listing off their numbers does not demonstrate, such transfer of wealth is from some rich people to other rich people. If money doesn't distinguish the ruling class, what does? Political pull-- i.e., "If it's government, it's the problem."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 1:44:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 12:45:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There's no such thing as a societal program. Societies don't do things.

Incidentally, who pays the taxes for all this military stuff? Rich people. Hence, this isn't "Moneyocracy" at work. If indeed you presume that the only benefits of war are to the sellers of war goods and services, which merely listing off their numbers does not demonstrate, such transfer of wealth is from some rich people to other rich people. If money doesn't distinguish the ruling class, what does? Political pull-- i.e., "If it's government, it's the problem."

Say what! No, dear Ragnar, rich people do not pay most of the tax dollars that go into the federal government's coffers. They (and I'm talking about the superrich and megacorporations, not some upper middle-class individual making a hundred grand a year) don't even pay anything remotely approaching their fair share. In fact, quite the opposite is the case, the rich make out like ultimate welfare cheats with all the corporate welfare they receive. Well, by any chance have you heard about all the corporate welfare that the uber-profitable oil companies receive? My gosh, if you really think that the rich are paying most of the taxes that finance this country's wars, rather than quite obscenely profiting from them, well, then perhaps we're living in two different realities, I'll let the other readers of this post decide which of us is living in the real world, and which of us in some kind of twilight zone where black, despite appearances, is actually white and up is paradoxically down, etc.!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 2:20:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 1:44:19 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 5/31/2011 12:45:29 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There's no such thing as a societal program. Societies don't do things.

Incidentally, who pays the taxes for all this military stuff? Rich people. Hence, this isn't "Moneyocracy" at work. If indeed you presume that the only benefits of war are to the sellers of war goods and services, which merely listing off their numbers does not demonstrate, such transfer of wealth is from some rich people to other rich people. If money doesn't distinguish the ruling class, what does? Political pull-- i.e., "If it's government, it's the problem."

Say what! No, dear Ragnar, rich people do not pay most of the tax dollars that go into the federal government's coffers. They (and I'm talking about the superrich and megacorporations, not some upper middle-class individual making a hundred grand a year) don't even pay anything remotely approaching their fair share.
Non sequitir, whether they pay some commie's notion of a "Fair share" is completely irrelevant to whether they bear most of the absolute burden.

The superrich-- define.

Corporations can't be a class, people from all walks of life own shares in corporations.

In fact, quite the opposite is the case, the rich make out like ultimate welfare cheats with all the corporate welfare they receive.
Some do.

Well, by any chance have you heard about all the corporate welfare that the uber-profitable oil companies receive?
Where does it come from? The twisting nether, or other rich people?

My gosh, if you really think that the rich are paying most of the taxes that finance this country's wars, rather than quite obscenely profiting from them
The problem is that you're a collectivist who thinks "The rich" is something that exists. There is no "The rich." There is no "The people." There is no "Society." There are THESE people, THESE social interactions, THESE rich, then THOSE people, THOSE social interactions, THOSE rich, so on and so forth. The consequence of this is that no "Rather than" is necessary.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 10:30:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
God you have a lot of time on your hands. I have to ask though...why pick on Memorial Day? It's literally a harmless holiday. While yes, it is there to celebrate our armed forces, who have every right to be celebrated, most people just use it to spend time with family. Did you have a bad experience or something?
It would seem you don't like it because of you think it glorifies war or patriotism. And nobody likes either one of those things but the bottomline is that these people died...for you. Yes, you can argue that the U.S started this war for money or blah blah blah. And you'd probably be right.
But that is not why these people sign up for the Armed Forces. They will kill or die to protect what they love. I'm the exact same way. If my family or my way of life is threatened, let me make this clear, I WILL KILL YOU OR DIE BY YOUR HANDS . Call it patriotism or insanity. Hell the two things aren't mutually exclusive but it's true. One thing I never understand about guys like you, you seem to have a profound hatred of America, or at least the government. But why don't you leave? Why do you stay where you don't want to be and you're not wanted
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 1:13:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/31/2011 10:30:11 PM, MarquisX wrote:
but the bottomline is that these people died...for you. Yes, you can argue that the U.S started this war for money or blah blah blah. And you'd probably be right.
But that is not why these people sign up for the Armed Forces. They will kill or die to protect what they love.

So, you're essentially your offering what I refer to in the post as the dumb jock in uniform defense for military personnel, you're arguing that they are unsophisticated individuals who naively buy the political-patriotic rhetoric and honestly believe that they're fighting for mom and apple pie, and for you and me. Well, firstly, I give some folks in the armed forces a little more credit for possessing some smarts and skepticism than you do. They aren't all 17-year-old Iowa farm boys who've just fallen off the proverbial turnip truck.

Yep, some people in the military are actually worldly-wise! They may wrap themselves in the flag to deflect moral criticism, they may parrot the propagandistic doublespeak of their leaders, they may profess an admirable sounding "ah shucks, I just want to serve my country" motivation for joining up, but in the privacy of their own conscience's they know that they're deployed to achieve the self-serving agenda of the economic and political elite, not to fight and possibly die for little ole me.

This being the case, why enlist and risk life and limb? Well, there are various self-serving reasons that young men (and women) enter the military. For some young males it's a macho ego trip to become a U.S. marine. For others, it's a way to get some free education and job training. For others it's the sparse job market and limited employment opportunities in a society in economic recession that is the motivating factor. No, alas, they're in it to selfishly serve themselves, not their fatherland or fellow citizens.

And this is what they do, i.e. serve themselves, until the time to earn their paycheck comes, and then they end up in some other land killing innocent men, women, and children, immorally servicing the greed of the corporate ruling class.

As for those who do gullibly swallow the rubbishy rhetoric of fighting for God and country – as the saying goes, ignorance is no excuse. Anyone who isn't mentally handicapped or brain damaged has the critical faculties to know better – to know, for example, that Iraq was all about profiteering and petroleum. And likewise, everyone free of brain damage has the moral intelligence to apprehend that this is wrong, that it's heinously ethically wrong to participate in killing people to enrich Halliburton and Exxon-Mobil.

Thus and so, everyone of normal intellectual and moral intelligence has a moral obligation to use his higher gifts, to grasp the unrighteous nature of and motivations behind a war, and to take the correct stand, to say: "Hell no, I won't go and take human life for the likes of George Bush, Dick Cheney, the CEOs of well-connected corporations, and the sense of entitlement of U.S. oil companies to control the planets dwindling supply of fossil fuels." Anyone who naively fails to realize that he needs to take such a stand and allows him/herself to be used as cannon fodder really lacks the moral sense and sensibility to deserve much respect. And such military naïf remain guilty of a sin against life, for, again, ignorance and ethically jejune naïveté is no excuse whatsoever.

Well then, you can facilely dismiss all of this with "blah, blah, blah", but myself I find little about fighting in wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan that garners any "honor" for our pamperingly-proofed-against-all-criticism troops. As Marine Corp general Smedley Butler once said, "war is a racket", and those who fire the guns and missiles are little more than the glorified gunmen of the top racketeer of big business and government.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 1:33:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
No, alas, they're in it to selfishly serve themselves, not their fatherland or fellow citizens.
Thank Null-Jesus for that. We'd really be on the road to hell if we had altruists for soldiers.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 1:46:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 1:33:50 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
No, alas, they're in it to selfishly serve themselves, not their fatherland or fellow citizens.
Thank Null-Jesus for that. We'd really be on the road to hell if we had altruists for soldiers.

You miss the point, most people who aren't libertarians and doctrinaire believers in self-interest as the only and highest motivation do in fact thank soldiers for being altruistically self-sacrificing rather than honestly factoring into their estimation of their supposedly patriotic heroes the fact that many of them, many in the military, are really there to selfishly serve themselves. That is, most people who wish to thank and support the troops aren't really being very intellectually honest, shall we say. And when you, or someone with your take on self-interest, shakes a soldier's hand to thank him for his "service", unless you forthrightly say "Thank you for joining up to selfishly serve your own interests, and incidentally serving society", then you're not being very intellectually honest either.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 1:55:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
you or someone with your take... shakes a soldier's hand to thank him for his "service"
http://catmacros.files.wordpress.com...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 2:12:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 1:55:49 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
you or someone with your take... shakes a soldier's hand to thank him for his "service"
http://catmacros.files.wordpress.com...

Cute kitty.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 7:05:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Wow. You get on my case and say I called them flag waving idiots, then you go and say they are morally bankrupted assw*pes only looking to serve themselves. And of course you are the shining beacon of what's right and what's wrong. You sir, have no idea what you are talking about. There are much easier ways to get schooling and money, than putting your life on the line. The problem with men like you is that you are weak. A coward. You see someone willing to risk life and limb and knowing you can't do that, makes you wonder if they have ulterior motives. Whatever their reason for joining I respect them a helluva lot more than the guy hiding behind a computer screen. You think the government is corrupt? Nut up or shut up. Fight.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 7:10:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 7:05:47 AM, MarquisX wrote:
Wow. You get on my case and say I called them flag waving idiots, then you go and say they are morally bankrupted assw*pes only looking to serve themselves. And of course you are the shining beacon of what's right and what's wrong. You sir, have no idea what you are talking about. There are much easier ways to get schooling and money, than putting your life on the line. The problem with men like you is that you are weak. A coward. You see someone willing to risk life and limb and knowing you can't do that, makes you wonder if they have ulterior motives. Whatever their reason for joining I respect them a helluva lot more than the guy hiding behind a computer screen. You think the government is corrupt? Nut up or shut up. Fight.

Ah, thank you very much, for here we have it expressed in very naked and unmistakable terms. What is "it"? "It" is the real underlying macho, alpha male mentality that admires soldiers & veterans. Note how dear MarquisX characterizes and dismisses me as a "man" who is "weak" and a "coward". Clearly he thinks in Neanderthaloid terms of unmanly and manly, weak and strong, cowardly and courageous, etc. In other words, yes, the same primitive terms that colored the worldview of our Paleolithic forbears are the core of the pro-military and conservative mentality. Which is to say that some of us support and laud "the troops" not so much because we have some fine moral sensibility that makes us appreciative of their self-sacrificing service to country, but because the caveman or cavewoman in us amorally admires the brute machismo, the alpha male strength they exemplify. Moreover, the primitive mentality of conservatives is also quite tribal, and admires soldiers as the national tribe's warriors. Our modern national tribes may be a good deal larger and more complex than those of our Stone-Age ancestors, and modern warriors may carry assault rifles rather than clubs, but the basic troglodytic thought patterns of today's warriors and their civilian boosters are essentially the same. Yes, someone like MarquisX would probably fit in, mentality-wise, quite well with some of his prehistoric progenitors.

(Now before anyone jumps all over me for being ad hominem, please do note how dear MarquisX threw the first polemical punches here, calling me a "weak" "coward", and a "guy hiding behind a computer screen". I said nothing at all to entitle him to get personal like this, unless you consider my critical perspective on the boys & girls in the military and what their "service" is really all about to be justification. But that would mean that no one can express a viewpoint that others emotionally disagree with without letting himself in for being insulted on a personal level. Is this really something that we wish to condone?)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 10:51:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 7:10:14 PM, charleslb wrote:

Ah, thank you very much, for here we have it expressed in very naked and unmistakable terms. What is "it"? "It" is the real underlying macho, alpha male mentality that admires soldiers & veterans. Note how dear MarquisX characterizes and dismisses me as a "man" who is "weak" and a "coward". Clearly he thinks in Neanderthaloid terms of unmanly and manly, weak and strong, cowardly and courageous, etc. In other words, yes, the same primitive terms that colored the worldview of our Paleolithic forbears are the core of the pro-military and conservative mentality. Which is to say that some of us support and laud "the troops" not so much because we have some fine moral sensibility that makes us appreciative of their self-sacrificing service to country, but because the caveman or cavewoman in us amorally admires the brute machismo, the alpha male strength they exemplify. Moreover, the primitive mentality of conservatives is also quite tribal, and admires soldiers as the national tribe's warriors. Our modern national tribes may be a good deal larger and more complex than those of our Stone-Age ancestors, and modern warriors may carry assault rifles rather than clubs, but the basic troglodytic thought patterns of today's warriors and their civilian boosters are essentially the same. Yes, someone like MarquisX would probably fit in, mentality-wise, quite well with some of his prehistoric progenitors.
You're right. I'm a man. Would i fit in with our prehistoric progenitors. Hell yeah I would. But you are both unmanly and an idiot. DO you really still think macho= dumb? I haven't seen anyone this two-dimensional since Pacman. On average how many 80's high school movies do you watch per day? Have you ever actually interacted with real people? You do know that they're are doctors in our armed forces? College graduates? Our modern day warriors could most likely beat you in a boxing match and a trivia game. You still never answered my question about why you won't leave. You. Are. Weak. I insult your manliness and you basically say "Yeah well you're a caveman". I'm not expecting a fist fight but at least something mildly creative or witty. If 25 men suddenly burst into your home and gently applied your lipstick with the tip of their penises, it would be much more manly than your response. You are supposed to be intellectual and this is an e-fight and you're failing at it. For Christ sakes, next time you insult me, make it funny or at least on some level hurtful. AMERICA F*CK YEAH!

(Now before anyone jumps all over me for being ad hominem, please do note how dear MarquisX threw the first polemical punches here, calling me a "weak" "coward", and a "guy hiding behind a computer screen". I said nothing at all to entitle him to get personal like this, unless you consider my critical perspective on the boys & girls in the military and what their "service" is really all about to be justification. But that would mean that no one can express a viewpoint that others emotionally disagree with without letting himself in for being insulted on a personal level. Is this really something that we wish to condone?)
I believe this is called "trolling". It's quite fun. And yeah I'm an assh*le. You're going to meet a lot of them in the world, you must be prepared sir.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 5:08:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 10:51:36 PM, MarquisX wrote:
You're right. I'm a man.
As Shakespeare might say, methinks the manly man doth protest too much.

Would i fit in with our prehistoric progenitors. Hell yeah I would.
What a proud thing for you.

But you are both unmanly and an idiot.
What's that children's retort, "I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever insults you hurl bounce off of me and stick to you"! Alas, this is the puerile plane of intellectuality you seem to be on, and I wouldn't wish to come off as haughtily talking over your challenged level of sophistication and apprehension.

DO you really still think macho= dumb? I haven't seen anyone this two-dimensional since Pacman.

Oh, like the well-rounded and well-read macho types who bash homosexuals; or think it's a guy's prerogative to beat on his wife; or ineloquently impugn other men's manhood to cover up their own repressed insecurity; or chest-poundingly defend the military against criticism with a support-the-troops-right-or-wrong attitude; or vote for conservative candidates who reactionarily advocate remedying all of society's sociological ills with some form of force, either military or police, etc. – are these the superlative and shining specimens of renaissance-man he-manliness that you accuse me of wrongfully stereotyping?

On average how many 80's high school movies do you watch per day? Have you ever actually interacted with real people?

Oh, I see, people who live in the real world can't possibly think the way I do, they can only think the way you do. Could this perhaps just be a bit of I'm-more-real-and-down-to-earth-than-someone-with-progressive-views reverse chauvinism on your part? At any rate, you're a self-acknowledged "troll", which I suppose means that the appropriate response is YAWN! Ah, that really was a nice relaxing yawn, I think I'll go take a little snooze, you know how we namby-pamby lefties need our nappies. As to the rest of what you had to say, blah-blah, blather, bosh, bilge, etc., etc.

Toodles, Marquis da sod.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/2/2011 11:40:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/2/2011 5:08:42 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 6/1/2011 10:51:36 PM, MarquisX wrote:
You're right. I'm a man.
As Shakespeare might say, methinks the manly man doth protest too much.
He wouldn't say that. You misquoted it. And for the record I only said I was a man after you said i was so I have not be affirming it over and over.

Would i fit in with our prehistoric progenitors. Hell yeah I would.
What a proud thing for you.
Nah...Not really.

But you are both unmanly and an idiot.
What's that children's retort, "I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever insults you hurl bounce off of me and stick to you"! Alas, this is the puerile plane of intellectuality you seem to be on, and I wouldn't wish to come off as haughtily talking over your challenged level of sophistication and apprehension.
I never said I wasn't an idiot. I am. But you sir, make me look like Issac Newton. So it's that old children's retort "Yes but you are an imbecile trying to imitate someone of great intelligence but instead comes off like a retard"


DO you really still think macho= dumb? I haven't seen anyone this two-dimensional since Pacman.

Oh, like the well-rounded and well-read macho types who bash homosexuals; or think it's a guy's prerogative to beat on his wife; or ineloquently impugn other men's manhood to cover up their own repressed insecurity; or chest-poundingly defend the military against criticism with a support-the-troops-right-or-wrong attitude; or vote for conservative candidates who reactionarily advocate remedying all of society's sociological ills with some form of force, either military or police, etc. – are these the superlative and shining specimens of renaissance-man he-manliness that you accuse me of wrongfully stereotyping?
I'm not conservative or homophobic. I'm insulting your manliness because it makes me laugh. Comedy is a very manly thing. But if you want to try and make me homophobic, here is a line for you "You're so gay it's illegal to speak to you in Men's Restrooms"

On average how many 80's high school movies do you watch per day? Have you ever actually interacted with real people?

Oh, I see, people who live in the real world can't possibly think the way I do, they can only think the way you do. Could this perhaps just be a bit of I'm-more-real-and-down-to-earth-than-someone-with-progressive-views reverse chauvinism on your part? At any rate, you're a self-acknowledged "troll", which I suppose means that the appropriate response is YAWN! Ah, that really was a nice relaxing yawn, I think I'll go take a little snooze, you know how we namby-pamby lefties need our nappies. As to the rest of what you had to say, blah-blah, blather, bosh, bilge, etc., etc.
No retort for the lipstick line? That was really good, you gotta admit that.

Toodles, Marquis da sod.
I prefer Marquis de Sade. But close.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive