Page 4 of 5 [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,066

07 May 2020, 6:37 am

A Greatest Martial Artist is one Clever enough Never
to Get into a 'Real Fight' Their Entire Life; Something about
the Pen is Greater than the Sword And Love Trumps Fear With Compassion.
This Is what Meek Means; A Higher Power Than A Fist; Compassion Deserves Respect.

To Understand Any Human Problem, it helps to Research the Root of 'the Human Evil'.
Meh; Generally Speaking it's not Really Evil and More Associated With Environmental Challenge.

In this Case, The Environmental Challenge, Particularly in the Deep South, More Specifically Where
i Live; the Area that Still Supports the Epitome of Toxic Patriarchy; Trump, By 85 Percent as he touts
the Benefit of Sacrificing Elders as 'Mud-Mix to continue to Build His Golden Towers'; Yes, Just another
Pharaoh God of Power And Status Without Empathy to Rule other Humans and Raise them without Empathy too.

Of course, generally speaking, the Old Testament God is A Tribal God 'Built' to Kill If Necessary; Killing Empathy
of course to get the Job of Killing done to Secure Subsistence in Environments of SCaRCiTY; Read that City
again; a place of Fear and Scars of Scarcity too. It Doesn't Take Long when one Visits a First Baptist Church
Where i Live to understand Which God is Worshipped; The God of Scarcity or the God of Abundance.

The God of Scarcity Conservatively Walks A Talk That Says it's Never Enough.

The God of Abundance Liberally Dancing Singing is much more Compassionate;
Gives and Shares More Than Takes and Hoards; Truly A Pleasure to Be Around in Peace and Harmony.

Toxic Patriarchy is still a Reflection of a Spoon-Fed Tribal God Almost From Birth; Where The
Fist Is God and Love is Second and Yes None; As Well as Not Clever Enough To Solve Problems more
Than F You; or You are The F Word and Not Fred If you Smile. Oh, The "Beautiful" Memories Where i Live...

i've lived in this Toxic Patriarchy all the way through School and Working for the Military where
You Do have to be ready to Kill for a living as a way of life. Thing is; it really doesn't need to
be that way at Church when Big Daddy tells His Little Boy that Fists rule over Compassion
And Don't Smile or Have Joy; and don't you heal your Soul With Tears and don't
You ever look like a loving Version of 'Jesus', No matter what you do; fill
your pockets up with Sand And Throw Desert of Scarcity against
All those who do not look and act like You; Trump is a fine
actor; He embodies all of what an Old Testament Tribal Religion still is.
He Appeals To The Crowd That Throws Stones; He Helps the Tribal God Keep Breathing;
Meanwhile, Little Love Abused Boys End Up With No Love, No Job, And In Prison if they are lucky enough to 'survive'.

Onward Christian Soldiers; Just another way for Pharaoh to Build His Golden Towers; and a 'Comb-over' for Trump.

Hint: A Pandemic Makes Scarcity REAL; IN THIS Environment 'Onward Christian Soldiers' Weld AR-15's
to Prove they Worship A Trump God. These are the Days the Weak Are Sacrificed By Men Who Never Fully become Human.

From a Science point of View; Humans Survive Best When They Cooperate in Relatively Small Groups of Environmental Balance in Giving Sharing Love; When Scarcity Comes, Canines become more Exposed; And Tribal Gods both
Abstract Constructs And Humans Same, Rise as Totem For Killing "HeART" Comes to Replace Totem for Love;
Generally Speaking, the Symbol of Jesus as developed in the Story at Least is a 'Totem for Love'; A Hopeful
Newer Testament Totem to Replace A Tribal God of Fear and Hate Demanding Worship And Sacrificing Humans 'Conservatively Speaking' to Secure Environmental Resources for Subsistence; In this Case Narcissistic Supply of
A Leader With No Soul of Empathy; In Other Words, A Ticket to Hold More Political Rallies in Public; No Matter
How many People have to Die to fill what is His Void Within That He May Never have in his
Entire Life:

A Soul.

A Human Without
Empathy and Love
That Drives Compassion (A SouL)
is surely not a 'Real Man' and barely a Human at all;
This Applies to An Entire Way of Desert Life that refuses to die....
An 'Old Testament Way' of Life Where The Fist Is Still Greater than Gold of HeART.

LiTMuS of True Love; Never Jealous; and Never Demanding Worship; Giving Sharing; Not a Trump Way of Life;

More Like 'Human'.

Any Church or Way of Life that Demands Worship is Not Associated With True Love;

In Fact by Totem; It is 'Anti-Christ'; as True Love Is Meek And Strong Enough to Only Give and Share;
Never Demanding Worship of Take and Hoard Away from A Measure of Love That Remains Compassionate

through it

ALL.

Love Stands TaLLest for There Are No Bows in this Place of Lion Hearted Courage; To Be Clear that's More
Like a Lioness than Lion in REAL NATURE; IT'S NO surprise that The Lioness Who Does all the Work of 'Love' is
Forgotten in Fairy Tales of SCaRCiTY too.


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Greatshield17
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 14 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 431
Location: Columbia-Kootenay Region, British Columbia

07 May 2020, 6:28 pm

Karamazov wrote:
Greatshield17 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
XFilesGeek wrote:
Well, to give my two cents, toxic femininity is:

1. Teaching girls that their two most important traits are their beauty and their ability to nurture.

2. That all girls should want to become mothers, and, when they do become mothers, that it should be the most important part of their identity.

3. Not teaching girls to be assertive and set strong boundaries.

4. That women should always put the needs and wants of others over their own self interest.

5. Teaching girls that women are ultimately responsible for the behavior of men.

6. That women shouldn't poop, fart, be hairy, or do anything that marks us as actual human beings.

7. That women need to be passive and wait for things to happen to us rather than work towards our own goals.

8. Teaching girls that they need to take care of men and not hold men accountable for their own circumstances. That girls need to "stand by their man" and strive to "fix" a$$holes.

That's what I got for now.

Toxic masculinity is when gender roles hurt men (and those around them). Toxic femininity is when gender roles hurt women and those around them.

The way I see it, the reason you never see feminists talking about toxic femininity is because the central goal of feminism is to fight it. It’s taken for granted that expectations of femininity are damaging; it needs to be explicitly stated that the same is true for masculinity.

I keep meaning to ask this, in the case of a man, when does one cross the line of pushing oneself hard to be a good man, and pushing oneself too hard and render things toxic? (I assume cases where this hurts others, it would already be considered toxic)

My understanding is that the issue of toxicity hurting one arises as a result of attitude towards self: that is any trait regarded as virtuous can become toxic, I’ll give two examples of my line of thought, one is toxic masculinity: one is a parallel from what I know of Christian thought.

A stoic outlook is a component of the traditional idea of virtue, particularly in the UK: however there is a distinction between pretending one lacks emotions which are in fact there and repressing them; and acknowledging those emotions and striving to handle them calmly with the minimum of fuss & bother, knowing that perfection is this regard is unreachable: and that’s fine. The first is toxic self-repression, the second isn’t.

You raised idolatry in one of your earlier posts on this thread, I think that might be a good model by analogy, to whit: there is nothing idolatrous in appreciating a fine sculpture for its aesthetic qualities, the skill involved in its making and other aspects of it's material thusness, but, if one starts to regard the sculpture as too beautiful to be anything other than a direct embodiment of divinity in and of itself: then the issue of idolatry arises.

Does that make sense?
Or am I generating more confusion?
Greatshield17 wrote:
Also, I can't remember whether or not this was answered in my original patriot/nationalist question but, would other motives effect or determine whether a certain behaviour would be considered toxically masculine or not?

Yes: people can engage in the same acts for a variety of reasons and motives, with a variety of attitudes, both good and bad in all cases.
That’s why I went rather abstract upthread: it’s about the manner of ones conceptual/emotional identification of self within ones political community, rather than particular acts as such.
Obviously there are inherently toxic acts: but these are usually fairly easy to recognise, and neither of the examples you gave are such.

Including specific types and manners prayers for your country in your life? That’s only toxic if you’re thinking of your country in a toxic way, if not: it’s a healthy part of your life.

Joining a monarchy-supporting group? That would really depend on the outlook and attitudes promoted by the group in question, and the influence that would have on your behaviour as a citizen of your polity and a neighbour within your specific village/town/city, rather than the bald fact of them being pro-monarchy.

(Hope that helps, it’s a bit tortuous I know: but getting harshly black/white on the intertwined issues can itself be a form of toxicity!)

Thank you.

I understand what you're saying clearly, no need to worry.


_________________
Don't bother with me, I'm just a narrow-minded bigot who does nothing but "proselytize" not because I actually love the Faith, because no one loves the Faith, we're just "using it to justify our bigotry." If you see any thread by me on here that isn't "proselytizing," I can't explain that because that's obviously impossible; because again, all I've ever done on here is "proselytize."


Greatshield17
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 14 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 431
Location: Columbia-Kootenay Region, British Columbia

07 May 2020, 6:29 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
Greatshield17 wrote:
I keep meaning to ask this, in the case of a man, when does one cross the line of pushing oneself hard to be a good man, and pushing oneself too hard and render things toxic? (I assume cases where this hurts others, it would already be considered toxic)

Also, I can't remember whether or not this was answered in my original patriot/nationalist question but, would other motives effect or determine whether a certain behaviour would be considered toxically masculine or not?


Hurts others, spreads toxic ideas. I think it is so much as trying to force others to be more manly or something. One of the biggest things I hate are when I see something where a little boy cries and then masculine figure of some sort tells the boy that men don't cry, because that stuff is harmful.

I see, thanks.


_________________
Don't bother with me, I'm just a narrow-minded bigot who does nothing but "proselytize" not because I actually love the Faith, because no one loves the Faith, we're just "using it to justify our bigotry." If you see any thread by me on here that isn't "proselytizing," I can't explain that because that's obviously impossible; because again, all I've ever done on here is "proselytize."


Greatshield17
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 14 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 431
Location: Columbia-Kootenay Region, British Columbia

08 May 2020, 3:10 pm

Karamazov wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
Globalism is a bit of a slippery formless word: there are many very different streams of thought & belief that could be meaningfully classed as “globalist”: the term has been used by various political extremists (including Hitler incidentally) and seems to lack any substantive meaning beyond “all forms of inter/trans national organisation & cooperation, which one, the speaker, maintains to be inherently bad”.


I'm curious for other folks take on this matter, but I've always assumed 'globalism' is synonymous (or at least roughly enough) with the term internationalism, like the Marxist jargon term. The term globalism seems more common in liberal (capitalist) circles, as well as among reactionary populist nationalists who are hostile to it; internationalism seems more common in left-wing circles.

Yes: I’m used to hearing:
”globalisation” used to mean the expansion of trade & diplomatic relations between states, usually in a way that seems to imply this is an inherent objective force in human affairs.
”globalism” used to designate the idea that this is a discrete ideological agenda being consciously imposed by:
”globalists” which is the one that gets really loose and fuzzy because it seems to be only used as a catch-all pejorative to describe anyone who can be in any way associated with either globalisation or:
internationalism which does seem to tend to be used by moderate minded types to mean pro-diplomacy multilateral institutions (such as the UN), and by leftists to mean cross-border co-operation against aspects of globalisation they regard as theoretically unsound and deleterious to human lives in practice.

It would be interesting to see how many different impressions we all have of the meaning and usage of these terms.

I do tend to use "globalism" rather loosely because of my Catholic beliefs. As a Catholic, I believe in the social doctrine of subsidiarity, which basically means small local government and small local business. Thus, (perhaps this touches on funeralxempire's comments of left-wing and right-wing becoming obsolete terms) I'd actually consider a multinational corporation, assuming that it's usurping the role that small local businesses would fill, (like Mcdonald's for example) to fall under the pejorative term of globalism,


_________________
Don't bother with me, I'm just a narrow-minded bigot who does nothing but "proselytize" not because I actually love the Faith, because no one loves the Faith, we're just "using it to justify our bigotry." If you see any thread by me on here that isn't "proselytizing," I can't explain that because that's obviously impossible; because again, all I've ever done on here is "proselytize."


Karamazov
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,979
Location: Rural England

08 May 2020, 3:49 pm

Greatshield17 wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
Globalism is a bit of a slippery formless word: there are many very different streams of thought & belief that could be meaningfully classed as “globalist”: the term has been used by various political extremists (including Hitler incidentally) and seems to lack any substantive meaning beyond “all forms of inter/trans national organisation & cooperation, which one, the speaker, maintains to be inherently bad”.


I'm curious for other folks take on this matter, but I've always assumed 'globalism' is synonymous (or at least roughly enough) with the term internationalism, like the Marxist jargon term. The term globalism seems more common in liberal (capitalist) circles, as well as among reactionary populist nationalists who are hostile to it; internationalism seems more common in left-wing circles.

Yes: I’m used to hearing:
”globalisation” used to mean the expansion of trade & diplomatic relations between states, usually in a way that seems to imply this is an inherent objective force in human affairs.
”globalism” used to designate the idea that this is a discrete ideological agenda being consciously imposed by:
”globalists” which is the one that gets really loose and fuzzy because it seems to be only used as a catch-all pejorative to describe anyone who can be in any way associated with either globalisation or:
internationalism which does seem to tend to be used by moderate minded types to mean pro-diplomacy multilateral institutions (such as the UN), and by leftists to mean cross-border co-operation against aspects of globalisation they regard as theoretically unsound and deleterious to human lives in practice.

It would be interesting to see how many different impressions we all have of the meaning and usage of these terms.

I do tend to use "globalism" rather loosely because of my Catholic beliefs. As a Catholic, I believe in the social doctrine of subsidiarity, which basically means small local government and small local business. Thus, (perhaps this touches on funeralxempire's comments of left-wing and right-wing becoming obsolete terms) I'd actually consider a multinational corporation, assuming that it's usurping the role that small local businesses would fill, (like Mcdonald's for example) to fall under the pejorative term of globalism,


In truth the terms left and right wing were born obsolete: there were three political groupings at the birth of modern democratic governance, not two.
One of them was suppressed for several generations*, in any case a lot of shifts of ideology and interest have happened since then leading to modern political groupings being weird Frankenstein’s monsters if one makes the effort of trying to look through the eyes of our C18th forebears.

Yeah, I’d call that example “Capitalism”: a large capital-rich firm dominating many markets at the expense of smaller local family firms.
The problems of discourse eh?
One wants to clearly and rationally object to a phenomena of modern life, but the only go-to terms available are those used by either communists or fascists, neither of which one wants to be associated with. 8O

The concept of smaller scale local governments and smaller businesses is popular in some British left-wing circles: they call it “localism” however.
__________________________
* indeed, has never had a successful independent existence in US Politics: hence the primacy in an American dominated world of assuming two political groupings when most other democratic countries have at least four, sometimes many more: we have seven in the UK legislature, and another three who would like to be but don’t have enough public support.



Greatshield17
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 14 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 431
Location: Columbia-Kootenay Region, British Columbia

09 May 2020, 3:38 pm

Karamazov wrote:
Greatshield17 wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
Yes: I’m used to hearing:
”globalisation” used to mean the expansion of trade & diplomatic relations between states, usually in a way that seems to imply this is an inherent objective force in human affairs.
”globalism” used to designate the idea that this is a discrete ideological agenda being consciously imposed by:
”globalists” which is the one that gets really loose and fuzzy because it seems to be only used as a catch-all pejorative to describe anyone who can be in any way associated with either globalisation or:
internationalism which does seem to tend to be used by moderate minded types to mean pro-diplomacy multilateral institutions (such as the UN), and by leftists to mean cross-border co-operation against aspects of globalisation they regard as theoretically unsound and deleterious to human lives in practice.

It would be interesting to see how many different impressions we all have of the meaning and usage of these terms.

I do tend to use "globalism" rather loosely because of my Catholic beliefs. As a Catholic, I believe in the social doctrine of subsidiarity, which basically means small local government and small local business. Thus, (perhaps this touches on funeralxempire's comments of left-wing and right-wing becoming obsolete terms) I'd actually consider a multinational corporation, assuming that it's usurping the role that small local businesses would fill, (like Mcdonald's for example) to fall under the pejorative term of globalism,


In truth the terms left and right wing were born obsolete: there were three political groupings at the birth of modern democratic governance, not two.
One of them was suppressed for several generations*, in any case a lot of shifts of ideology and interest have happened since then leading to modern political groupings being weird Frankenstein’s monsters if one makes the effort of trying to look through the eyes of our C18th forebears.

Yeah, I’d call that example “Capitalism”: a large capital-rich firm dominating many markets at the expense of smaller local family firms.
The problems of discourse eh?
One wants to clearly and rationally object to a phenomena of modern life, but the only go-to terms available are those used by either communists or fascists, neither of which one wants to be associated with. 8O

The concept of smaller scale local governments and smaller businesses is popular in some British left-wing circles: they call it “localism” however.
__________________________
* indeed, has never had a successful independent existence in US Politics: hence the primacy in an American dominated world of assuming two political groupings when most other democratic countries have at least four, sometimes many more: we have seven in the UK legislature, and another three who would like to be but don’t have enough public support.

I like to call it global capitalism or status-quo capitalism, I'm not sure how much I'd fall under the category of localism, but my economic views would be somewhere between local capitalism and an idea proposed by Catholic philosophers Hilaire Belloc and G. K. Chesterton called Distributism.

Distributism, could be described as a form of "extreme" localism and "extreme" self-sufficiency. Distributism is best summed-up by G. K. Chesterton's slogan, "three acres and a cow," everyone has as much access to their own land and their own resources and raw materials as possible. Among Catholics, distributism has been attacked by capitalists as a form of "socialism," but most of these accusations stem from misunderstandings regarding the name and certain terms used. "Distributism" sounds like "the redistribution of property," but it actually comes Pope Leo XIII's phrase "distributive justice." Likewise, people have taken G. K. Chesterton's slogan, "three acres and a cow," to literally mean that every single person on the planet should be given three acres and a cow and thus, distributists are advocating for an agrarian egalitarian utopia; but in reality the slogan merely advocates for as many people as humanly possible, to get as much access to their own land and resources.

There of course are some flaws when it comes distributism, and perhaps even local capitalism. The big flaw being, there are certain areas I can see in the economy, where one may need a large company to fill; particularly in the sectors of travel, and and the manufacturing of large air and naval vehicles.


_________________
Don't bother with me, I'm just a narrow-minded bigot who does nothing but "proselytize" not because I actually love the Faith, because no one loves the Faith, we're just "using it to justify our bigotry." If you see any thread by me on here that isn't "proselytizing," I can't explain that because that's obviously impossible; because again, all I've ever done on here is "proselytize."


IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 32,734

09 May 2020, 4:06 pm

Image



Karamazov
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,979
Location: Rural England

10 May 2020, 5:01 am

^ Nice meme!
Elegant demonstration of the cognitive split between judging a symptom and analysing the cause behind it.
__________________________

Greatshield17 wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
Greatshield17 wrote:
Karamazov wrote:
Yes: I’m used to hearing:
”globalisation” used to mean the expansion of trade & diplomatic relations between states, usually in a way that seems to imply this is an inherent objective force in human affairs.
”globalism” used to designate the idea that this is a discrete ideological agenda being consciously imposed by:
”globalists” which is the one that gets really loose and fuzzy because it seems to be only used as a catch-all pejorative to describe anyone who can be in any way associated with either globalisation or:
internationalism which does seem to tend to be used by moderate minded types to mean pro-diplomacy multilateral institutions (such as the UN), and by leftists to mean cross-border co-operation against aspects of globalisation they regard as theoretically unsound and deleterious to human lives in practice.

It would be interesting to see how many different impressions we all have of the meaning and usage of these terms.

I do tend to use "globalism" rather loosely because of my Catholic beliefs. As a Catholic, I believe in the social doctrine of subsidiarity, which basically means small local government and small local business. Thus, (perhaps this touches on funeralxempire's comments of left-wing and right-wing becoming obsolete terms) I'd actually consider a multinational corporation, assuming that it's usurping the role that small local businesses would fill, (like Mcdonald's for example) to fall under the pejorative term of globalism,


In truth the terms left and right wing were born obsolete: there were three political groupings at the birth of modern democratic governance, not two.
One of them was suppressed for several generations*, in any case a lot of shifts of ideology and interest have happened since then leading to modern political groupings being weird Frankenstein’s monsters if one makes the effort of trying to look through the eyes of our C18th forebears.

Yeah, I’d call that example “Capitalism”: a large capital-rich firm dominating many markets at the expense of smaller local family firms.
The problems of discourse eh?
One wants to clearly and rationally object to a phenomena of modern life, but the only go-to terms available are those used by either communists or fascists, neither of which one wants to be associated with. 8O

The concept of smaller scale local governments and smaller businesses is popular in some British left-wing circles: they call it “localism” however.
__________________________
* indeed, has never had a successful independent existence in US Politics: hence the primacy in an American dominated world of assuming two political groupings when most other democratic countries have at least four, sometimes many more: we have seven in the UK legislature, and another three who would like to be but don’t have enough public support.

I like to call it global capitalism or status-quo capitalism, I'm not sure how much I'd fall under the category of localism, but my economic views would be somewhere between local capitalism and an idea proposed by Catholic philosophers Hilaire Belloc and G. K. Chesterton called Distributism.

Distributism, could be described as a form of "extreme" localism and "extreme" self-sufficiency. Distributism is best summed-up by G. K. Chesterton's slogan, "three acres and a cow," everyone has as much access to their own land and their own resources and raw materials as possible. Among Catholics, distributism has been attacked by capitalists as a form of "socialism," but most of these accusations stem from misunderstandings regarding the name and certain terms used. "Distributism" sounds like "the redistribution of property," but it actually comes Pope Leo XIII's phrase "distributive justice." Likewise, people have taken G. K. Chesterton's slogan, "three acres and a cow," to literally mean that every single person on the planet should be given three acres and a cow and thus, distributists are advocating for an agrarian egalitarian utopia; but in reality the slogan merely advocates for as many people as humanly possible, to get as much access to their own land and resources.

There of course are some flaws when it comes distributism, and perhaps even local capitalism. The big flaw being, there are certain areas I can see in the economy, where one may need a large company to fill; particularly in the sectors of travel, and and the manufacturing of large air and naval vehicles.

Yes, I see some conceptual overlaps (Although not identity) there with aspects of the Leveller and Digger positions during my country’s civil war.*
For myself I tend to see the development of industrial production and processing methods and the large-scale capitalisation of trade & industry, along with the bureaucratic giganticification of states, charities and many religious institutions as a one-way historical process: the question of moment being not “what would I ideally rather have than this?” but “how do we deal with the absolute reality that this is what we have?”.
Although I certainly am biased towards maintaining as much market room for sole-trading and family businesses as is viable: I also tend towards the view that too many aspects of my own country’s state activity are centralised to a degree that precludes flexible application of policy to the various local cities and counties, many of which have subtly different cultures and markedly different economic needs regarding support, regulation and freedom of the market.
__________________________
*Understanding of course that in the context of their own time they were disputing the priorities and manner in which feudal land use and customary rights were being replaced by modern private property in land, and were not, strictly speaking, revolutionaries: however proto-communist some of their writings may appear from the hindsight of almost four centuries.