...to Keep the Fraud of DEI under cover and cloaked. To maintain the tyranny of superficial "appearances" that underpins Intersectionality/ Identity Politics.
In totalitarian political systems, like Communism, appearances MUST be STRICTLY maintained. The "Big Other" must see the politicians "acting" in the proper manner so that YOU can react in the proper manner. No one must note or remark upon the nakedness of the Emperor. For to do so would make private knowledge public, and break the spell/ charm that sustains the often false illusion of appearances that the Big Other sustains.
By the way, I see Kamala naked when I close my eyes. I confess, it must be because I'm a misogynistic male pig...
...but I may, or not, claim differently tomorrow, when I must perform before a same/ different Big Other and audience, and applaud myself (or not).
51 comments:
Ha-ha-ha...
\\In totalitarian political systems, like Communism, appearances MUST be STRICTLY maintained. The "Big Other" must see the politicians "acting"...
And... you BUSTED yourself -- knowing a ZILCH about "political systems, like Communism". ;-P
There is NO "politicians". %^))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
And NO "acting".
SAME as shamans dances -- it all REAL -- and NO distancing from perceiving it as Reality ALLOWED.
Means -- NO acting. Only absolute honest and involved Double Think.
\\No one must note or remark upon the nakedness of the Emperor.
Quite contrary... all kinds of dirty jokes allowed...
with a chance to receive free tickets to visit Siberia. ;-P
PS That is clearly are PROJECTION of your cap/lib/dem hypocritical realities. Yawn.
Perhaps you should review the "Big Other" video.
\\For to do so would make private knowledge public, and break the spell/ charm...
Charm?
Do you call "boot stomping into your face" -- charm? ;-P
Or... that is just that quote author and your ignorance... yawn?
\\What is the big Other concept?
In the psychoanalytic theory of Jacques Lacan, the 'Autre' or 'big Other' is the presumed god-like perspective that sees all from above and anchors meaning.
That one? ;-P Yawn.
btw - Whereas the chain of appearances was sustained in the resulting choice of Democratic candidate, it was completely broken/ trashed by the process of her selection.
Charm, as in Plato's "Charmides"... the spell that is recited when the medicinal leaf is given to complete the whole/ fill that hole with a fantasy.
\\What does Zizek mean by big Other?
The Big Other is simply the symbolic order as it exists for an individual subject (language, law, culture, etc.)
Why I should dig in trash in the basement... when I have personal keys to a lift to a penthouse? ;-P (Lem's Revelataions)
Stalin loves you! Now sign his birthday card like a good Zek!
Why? What for?
When I have Lem's Open-Minded and Rationally Clear View????
Why I need to make myself will-fooly blind???? %^)))))))
\\Stalin loves you! Now sign his birthday card like a good Zek!
BS.
Yawn.
That worked only for those who are Part of a System.
But they... they conditioned for such reactions -- as that Pavlov's dogs...
do you know/remember Pavlov's dogs????
???
Wanna know why Communists make the best managerial elite under Capitalism? Cuz they understand Capitalism better than all the 'hysterical' Capitalist fools around them.
There was no "vote" for her.
...by the actual people.
A lack of self-doubt can be a dangerous thing.
...at least to a scientist.
Rather than fill the hole with fantasy, he'll seek to fill it by experiment with a reality principle, and leave the pleasure principle behind. Thanatos, we barely knew ye!
They don't just see the advantages... they see the underlying drawbacks as well (thru critical theory application).
\\A lack of self-doubt can be a dangerous thing.
Prefer negative feedback loops. ;-P
Self-doubts is just a way into depression and despair. ;-P
\\Rather than fill the hole with fantasy, he'll seek to fill it by experiment with a reality principle, and leave the pleasure principle behind. Thanatos, we barely knew ye!
BS.
That is not how Real World scientists... proliferate. ;-P
Real Science (and technologies) -- very passionate!
\\Wanna know why Communists make the best managerial elite under Capitalism? Cuz they understand Capitalism better than all the 'hysterical' Capitalist fools around them.
I gotcha.
Antipode's Syndrome.
Because that is STRICTLY OPPOSITE to a Commie-Saint-Lenin claim -- that he likes his fellow Commies in proporting 10:1 toward Capitalistic clerks... as more adequate. ;-P
Why should I -- foreigner, care???
Especially as...
That is "Big News" for you, as it seems.
But it not anything new to any other place... or through History.
Huh. These two guys AGAIN don't like the Black candidate? Why is that? Do they want d0n-OLD to win? I know why White Supremacists like Minus and Qtard are concerned. Because the d0n-OLD campaign isn't going that well. It might be that tRump is conceding by not campaigning?
In addition to the White Supremacists, we have some Black citizens who are apparently upset that the Democrats decided not to concede. Tell d0n-OLD, "OK, you can be predisent again".
Because "Since the advent of the modern primary election system in 1972, an incumbent president has never been defeated by a primary challenger, though every president who faced a strong primary challenge went on to be defeated in the general election".
1952: Harry S. Truman was challenged by Senator Estes Kefauver. Truman lost the New Hampshire primary to Kefauver and dropped out of the race shortly after.
1968: Lyndon B. Johnson was challenged by Senator Eugene McCarthy. He didn't win the primary or the general. He dropped out.
1976: Gerald Ford faced a challenge from former California governor Ronald Reagan. He became the nominee but lost the general election.
1980: Jimmy Carter was challenged by Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown. He won the primary but lost the general.
1992: George H. W. Bush challenged by Pat Buchanan. ghwb won the primary, but lost the general.
source.
THAT is "why Kamala". Also, she WAS selected by the voters in the primaries. Because primary voters were voting for the Biden/Harris ticket. A vote for Biden was a vote for Harris.
The reason was NOT because of DEI or Communism. That's your moronic spin. You're crying because the d0n-OLD campaign is doing poorly while the Harris campaign is doing very well. She made an excellent selection for her VP, while d0n-OLD did not.
jd "Vance" is very popular among the Thiel/Musk oligarch crowd, but the voters at large don't care for him. While they like Tim Walz very much :P
Once again Dervy is stricken with the "head up his own ass" syndrome...
The Antipode knows things about the Pode that the Pode's never even thought of (since he represses bad thoughts about himself).
\\Because primary voters were voting for the Biden/Harris ticket.
Yep.
That is called vendor-locking. ;-P
Naaah... for him, that is desired. ;-P
Like having fresh air... in his NewSpeakean twisted perception of Reality. ;-P
/Real Science (and technologies) -- very passionate!
Then those parts aren't science. Check my logic here:
If you can write it in math (equation) and its' falsifiable, then it's science. FALSE! If it's scientific, then it's falsifiable. The fact that you can express something mathmatically and its' falsifiable, doesn't make the mathematics your doing "science". It's just mathematics. And if your very passionate about science, just makes you passionate, not scientific.
Can computers do "real science"?
Minus: Once again Dervy is stricken with the "head up his own ass" syndrome...
Once again you didn't actually refute anything I wrote.
Qtard: That is called vendor-locking.
It's called a 2 party system. Which is what we have in the United States. It's one or the other. If you actually want to vote for a candidate who has any chance of winning. Everyone has to abide by the system as it is.
Qtard: Naaah... for him, that is desired. ;-P Like having fresh air... in his NewSpeakean twisted perception of Reality. ;-P
Self referential comment. Proven by your use of the pronoun "he". When you've been pretty consistently referring to me as "IT". And, NO, I'm not "admitting" to being an "IT". I only point out that you have referred to me as "IT" previously and consistently. Now you use "he". Because you're referring to yourself.
Well, I must say that I agree with your accidental confession. The only time you tell the truth (it seems) is when you claim to be talking about me -- but you're really talking about yourself. LOL.
You can't refute pure opinion.
Minus: You can't refute pure opinion.
It is "opinion" that past potus candidates who faced primary challenges went on to lose in the general election? Who knew? I think if you asked the candidates (after losing) if they really lost or it was "pure opinion" that they lost -- I think they'd say they lost. As would everyone else have. Except you, apparently.
Pure opinion? No. Maybe. Like if it pure monkey screams.
But. Whenever it trying to base it on any facts/logic. It -- possible.
It called -- refute from showing inner inconsistency... in it. ;-P
\\Because you're referring to yourself.
Yeah?
And you can provide QUOTES... confirming such claim. And EXPLAIN logic behind em? ;-P
Naaaah... cause that is just "pure opinion" AKA monkey screams of yours. ;-P
But... continue-continue screaming, you -- cretinic monkey. ;-P
\\Qtard: That is called vendor-locking.
\\It's called a 2 party system. Which is what we have in the United States. It's one or the other. If you actually want to vote for a candidate who has any chance of winning. Everyone has to abide by the system as it is.
So... when Captain Haggis will stand down... to leave place to that Walz.
It also will be "in accordance with rules"? ;-P
\\Except you, apparently.
Talking about ITself? ;-P
America opened Spoiler Candidate political technology. ;-P
The past is merely that, past. To imply that it would affect the future in a certain way is your opinion. Especially vs. human behaviour.
Does Dervish think he's a genius and funny? Me thinks he's a mental midget... And no, I'm not going to laugh about it!
Another joebidenhole blast and misadventure from Ichabod Dervish The Mental Midget's BIGLY mental meltdown.
Dervish thinks he's funny, but he isn't.
Joe Conservative August 9, 2024 at 9:34 AM "Once again Dervy is stricken with the "head up his own ass" syndrome..." Then Dervy took a BIGLY BIGLY deep deep whiff and declared "It is VERY VERY SUPERLY BIGLIESTLY BIGLY BIGLY GOOD!" And he pulled his head out to drink his newest moonbat moonshine hooch brew: The Tampon Timi Horsey Juice.
Dervish got burned!
Dervish got spanked in his face again. Did the spanking leave a BIGLY brown streak on your Klan Burqa, Assface Dervish?
\\The Antipode knows things about the Pode that the Pode's never even thought of (since he represses bad thoughts about himself).
Little problem here... it suppose to work BOTH ways. ;-P
\\The past is merely that, past. To imply that it would affect the future in a certain way is your opinion. Especially vs. human behaviour.
Not all... like for example smoking three packs of cigarettes per day... well, future is pretty pre-dick-table(like... in morgue... and from there, it pretty much predictable too).
\\\\/Real Science (and technologies) -- very passionate!
\\Then those parts aren't science.
BS. ;-P
Whose said?
\\If you can write it in math (equation) and its' falsifiable, then it's science.
Who define that "falsifable"? People.
And you have plenty pf experience -- how it's easy for people -- to DENY even stone cold FACTS.
So... what they'll do with that flimsy "falsifability"??? Ahhh?? ;-P
They'll sooner ki11 you, then admit that they was NOT right, and you was right.
Yawn.
See! Passion!
\\Can computers do "real science"?
Of course not. They have NO own agency. Means -- cannot state goals and achieve em. To begin with.
Well... discussing "real science" is the moot point today. As... there is NO space to do "real science" any more.
Because... there ONLY ONE chance for opening Newton's laws, for example... and they ALREADY opened. And &c, &c, &c, &c, &c.
So... there NO place for making such a big new openings. That even skeptics like you would admit it being "real science".
And what still need to be opened -- need so much, so BIG technological advances/projects/institutions(like LHC). That again, skeptics like you will be whining "that's not real science... that's just wasting MY money". ;-P
Big Science is no more "real" than small science. A single scientist can be far more "passionate" about his work than the entire team at Los Alamos ever were. Passion NQ Science OR "reality". It's merely the 'surplus' that the scientist squeezes out of his work through Jouissance/ enjoyment.
Qtard: Pure opinion? No. Maybe. Like if it pure monkey screams.
Describing your own comments?
Qtard: But. Whenever it trying to base it on any facts/logic. It -- possible. It called -- refute from showing inner inconsistency... in it. ;-P
??? Gibberish.
Qtard: \\Because you're referring to yourself\\ Yeah? And you can provide QUOTES... confirming such claim. And EXPLAIN logic behind em? ;-P
You wrote "for him, that is desired. ;-P Like having fresh air... in his NewSpeakean twisted perception of Reality" but you didn't give any quotes or provide any logic for the (incorrect) conclusion you postulated. Why don't you do that first?
Qtard: Naaaah... cause that is just "pure opinion" AKA monkey screams of yours.
Talking about yourself again.
Qtard: But... continue-continue screaming, you -- cretinic monkey. ;-P
Self encouragement.
Qtard: That is called vendor-locking\\ It's called a 2 party system. Which is what we have in the United States. It's one or the other. If you actually want to vote for a candidate who has any chance of winning. Everyone has to abide by the system as it is\\ So... when Captain Haggis will stand down... to leave place to that Walz.
wtf? WHY should this happen? And what does this cretinic question have to do with what I wrote?
Qtard: It also will be "in accordance with rules"? ;-P
And then "that Walz" as the new potus nominee can select his VP. And then he can stand down and "leave that place" to his VP. In your crazy person delusions.
Qtard: \\Except you, apparently\\ Talking about ITself? ;-P
No. I was talking about Minus. Which was easy to deduce, given that I was replying to his comment. But you got confused. Due to being a moron.
Minus: The past is merely that, past. To imply that it would affect the future in a certain way is your opinion. Especially vs. human behaviour.
No. It's happened numerous times, not once. And you know it. Why you didn't want the nominee to be Kamala Harris. When it always HAD to be her. If it wasn't Joe Biden. The nominee was never going to be Michelle Obama.
Whatever.
There possible MYRIADS of superficial/nonpractical/buzzwording wrong definitions.
And only few that real work.
Yawn
\\Qtard: Pure opinion? No. Maybe. Like if it pure monkey screams.
\\Describing your own comments?
%^))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
\\Qtard: But. Whenever it trying to base it on any facts/logic. It -- possible. It called -- refute from showing inner inconsistency... in it. ;-P
\\??? Gibberish.
Yap. Because you are cretin -- it's impossible for you to understand what "inner inconsistancy" mean. ;-P
What is internal consistency in logic?
Other things being equal, an argument is internally consistent if it does not contradict itself. In other words, if, in the context of an argument, you claim that "X IS Y" and maintain that position throughout your argument, then, in respect to that statement, you are being consistent.
Content1
csus.edu
https://www.csus.edu › indiv › tanakar
\\but you didn't give any quotes or provide any logic for the (incorrect) conclusion you postulated. Why don't you do that first?
Because... that was said in response to Joe. Who already KNOW all quotes and all logic behind that claim. And not arguing with it. ;-P
\\wtf? WHY should this happen? And what does this cretinic question have to do with what I wrote?
Well... who knows? Who was predicting that Bi-den will leave the race? ;-P
\\And then "that Walz" as the new potus nominee can select his VP. And then he can stand down and "leave that place" to his VP. In your crazy person delusions.
Why not???
What happened once -- can surely happen twice... or more.
Yawn.
\\Qtard: \\Except you, apparently\\ Talking about ITself? ;-P
\\No. I was talking about Minus.
You alter-ego "Minus"? ;-P
\\Which was easy to deduce, given that I was replying to his comment.
Is it? ;-P
As that is known fact that you use "Minus", "Mistere", "Qtard" to sign OWN WORDS with... HOW it can be "easy to deduce" -- that you DO NOT, in your delusions... think that you talk not with other people, but with your OWN alter-egos. ;-P
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Well... in your delusions you can think that that is SANE thing to do -- SIGN OWN words, and then claim that that SOMEBODY ELSE's words.
But that is clearly and CONSISTENTLY are behavior of definitely crazy person. ;-P
But... continue-continue, crazy cretin. %^))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Writing crazy shit here.
\\No. It's happened numerous times, not once.
Yep. You are right. DEMN-Commies tried to play with rules many-many times already....
Yawn.
try "science" without putting "real" in front of it.... or "work" instead of "real work"... ;)
No answers here too... yawn. :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))000
Post a Comment