bukvich@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On May 9, 8:06 am, Iskander <theinfinitiveo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Ah. But is it just? The Buddha disapproves of schadenfreud, I
am pretty
>> sure.
> That isn't schadenfreud; it's apathy and my rationalization of why I
> don't want any of my tax dollars to go for repopulating the flood
> zone.
No blood for oil! No money for houses!
> Schadenfrued is more like this: John O'Neill was the
> government's number one Bin Laden hunter before he retired in 2001. If
> anybody was in a position to know what was about to be happening, it
> was him.
Truth out!
> After he retired he took a job as a security consultant in
> New York and his office was in the world trade center and he croaked
> in the attack. I am quite sorry about the rest of them, but I read
> that and I just busted out laughing. I don't even know if it's true
> but I found it hilarious nevertheless.
I think that is irony, not schadenfreud.
>> Which will follow the withering away of the *****, no doubt.
> Don't need to go transhumanist for that. See pinkorangered's latest
> post. Apparently Freud was resigned to ***less living at age 40.
Dear God. It'd be sorta weirdly comforting if I could not get it up, or
did not wish to get it up, but NO!
> I
> wonder what the psychotherapist would say if I told him it bugs me
> waking up first thing in the morning and this bothersome erection
> always makes it troublesome to get into my preferred routine.
Priapism!
>> And any answer off the 'mainstream' will promptly get you
****canned by
>> various office holders who control the party.
> If a hunting rifle was still a weapon of mass destruction we could
> have a bloody revolution every thirty years and the mainstreamers
> would unanimously keep their mouths shut.
It's still a weapon of mass destruction.
> You could go to black mass
> and be a pillar of secular society six days a week.
Somehow, I doubt that; one notes that freedom of religion and an
anti-government attitude resulted in ... Mormonism. Not quite up there
with the black mass thing.
> Alas the force of the status quo makes a puny little hunting rifle
> next to useless for making the society more interesting.
The thing is, is that the world has never been like that. Rebellions
tend to fail. Rebellions (or revolutions) are practically batting .000,
in terms of changing the social mores. Guerilla war makes it expensive
to occupy. It rarely totally overhauls the culture, and even when it
does the effects are usually not that lasting. Note that the Soviets
failed to wipe out the Orthodox.
>> That's because they're trying to maximise the power of the
press by
>> controlling the nomination process. And the easiest way to do that is
to
>> focus on trivial crap.
> That's part of it. The main driver is what draws ratings. That's
> Monica Lewinsky and OJ, not the deficit and the dollar.
Bah. They could draw ratings lots of ways; they are not required to be
stupid and mendacious. That's a failure of imagination, not a method of
meeting demand.
> Those topics
> make eyes glaze over and the viewers hit the channel changer button
> en' masse.
That's the argument of the press: the press can't make uninteresting
things interesting. I say the press doesn't know how to make interesting
topics interesting. They do know how to make things sleazy.
>> The question is, is are the R's worn out enough that they can
be beaten
>> in 2012 or do we get stuck with Guilani and civil war/dictator****p?
> You are getting ahead of your time bindings.
But I have said it before.
>>>>> You cannot fool ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.
>>>> Continental drift?
>>> YOU CANNOT FOOL ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME ! !
> . . . like I was saying . . .
How DO you know you aren't a brain in a vat, anyways?
max
['I think I missed that explanation.']
|
