The American Republic has Ended, What Next?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Whatever, Alexis. You know there is more than what you're focusing on, but for whatever reasons, you must deny it.

Yes! “There is always more”. No statement or declaration can stand on its own because “there is always more”.

You’ve made that statement about a hundred times.

Having a specific idea or view, or holding to a value, is a symptom of obsessive “ego”.

…because “there is always more”.

Ever-so-slightly circular!

[Alexis Jacobi]

One potentially relevant note: In our present there are views and debates that are being battled over in the public sphere. These are profound, interpretive issues and concerns. Often, and especially when the outline of the debate is handled (explained) by one faction that is determined by specific ideological commitments, there is no or little “accurate framing” of the issue. That is where “skewing” is evident. A type of “spin”.

If this is true then disentangling the issue, and rephrasing it “correctly”, must be our object.

Now, I can name what these interpretive debates are and I can locate the value-declarations that inform specific ideological commitments. That is not establishing “limitations” but rather attempting to zero-in on the actual core of the conflict and debate.

[Lacewing]

I ask for your help here to locate and identify the “more balanced (truer) perspective”. Let’s take as a topic — it is a hot one — the Conservative reaction to introducing sexual themes and materials in the public schools. Can you please explain what that more balanced and truer perspective should be? You know what it is, right? Can you explain it?

A more balanced and truer perspective would include considerations such as these:
> What is appropriate for the real world that children TODAY understand and are living in?
> What is appropriate based on the age groups?
> Which books/materials are actually inappropriate rather than simply being what religion opposes?
> Are we keeping in mind what children are exposed to all the time in movies and video games and online media?
> Is the broader book banning an extreme reaction to a few inappropriate books?
> Is the book banning being used for a political agenda?

In other words, this isn't just a black-and-white case deserving outrage and extreme reactions. What is actually going on... and are we willing to ask more questions and address it appropriately, all things considered?

Common sense over agendas.

[Lacewing]

Whatever, Alexis. You know there is more than what you're focusing on, but for whatever reasons, you must deny it.

Yes! “There is always more”. No statement or declaration can stand on its own because “there is always more”.

You’ve made that statement about a hundred times.

Having a specific idea or view, or holding to a value, is a symptom of obsessive “ego”.

…because “there is always more”.

Ever-so-slightly circular!

Not true. Distorted and exaggerated. I get that it bothers you.

[Lacewing]

Now, I can name what these interpretive debates are and I can locate the value-declarations that inform specific ideological commitments. That is not establishing “limitations” but rather attempting to zero-in on the actual core of the conflict and debate.

If you distort and/or assign the primary fault to one side of a large issue/concept involving many parts, then you are framing only a portion of the entire picture. Naturally, you may not be able to fairly or intelligently represent that which you 'oppose' -- and that goes for all of us. (Like I.C. talking about what atheists think and want and do. He can only speak for himself and what he imagines. It's not the same from the perspectives of other people... so it's not true.) People often want/try to claim 'what's true across the board'. Why is that necessary for discussion?

[Alexis Jacobi]

A more balanced and truer perspective would include considerations such as these:

• What is appropriate for the real world that children TODAY understand and are living in?
• What is appropriate based on the age groups?
• Which books/materials are actually inappropriate rather than simply being what religion opposes?
• Are we keeping in mind what children are exposed to all the time in movies and video games and online media?
• Is the broader book banning an extreme reaction to a few inappropriate books?
• Is the book banning being used for a political agenda?

In other words, this isn't just a black-and-white case deserving outrage and extreme reactions. What is actually going on... and are we willing to ask more questions and address it appropriately, all things considered?

Common sense over agendas.

First, and I believe that you do not have the self-circumspection to notice this, you are putting forward what you call an *agenda*. The propositions that you are working with here are undergirded by ideological commitments. I am not so much bothered by that as I am aware that you do not recognize the intrusion of your own ideological commitments into your arguments and assertions. Therefore, I focus on you as an exponent of value-commitments of that *radical* sort which I believe can be recognized and described.

Simply doing that, without drama and explosive emotionalism, is my object. Seeing clearly and stating things clearly.

Common sense I take, coming from you, as a code-word. Whose *common sense*? Your common sense does not coincide with the value-definitions of those who oppose your radicalism, the radicalism that you cannot recognize because of a lack of self-introspection.

• What is appropriate for the real world that children TODAY understand and are living in?

This in my view is a very tricky and rhetorically-infused statement. Again, you seem unaware of the intrusion of your ideological predicates. What are you implying here? That those children themselves -- 5 year olds, 8 year olds, 15 year olds -- shall formulate their own *agendas* about these issues of sexual identity and sexual activity? How do you propose that a 5-10 year old child will do that? What you are proposing is darkly ignorant.

What is this *real world* that you refer to as if it is a *real thing*? Do you determine what part of this World is real and then explain or state what is *unreal*? In fact you do. And this is why I say that your commitments are linked to radicalism, and this radicalism can be seen and exposed. Simply to see it, to understand it.

Who determines this notion you express of *appropriateness*? You are making value-declarations but based in what exactly? Who has determined them as valid or good? You?

The notion that children have the capability of sorting through an extremely complex media world of ideas, images, and identifications and that they have the adult capability of making sense of all of this and then choosing what is right, proper and good in a philosophical sense, is in my view ridiculous Lacewing. Yet you actually are saying something like this without awareness of the implications and ramifications of what you say.

• Which books/materials are actually inappropriate rather than simply being what religion opposes?

Another statement driven, it seems, by unconsciously determined value-declarations (and prejudices). All value-systems in all cultures, and certainly our own, have been influenced and determined by religious philosophy. To say "what religion opposes" is a statement that reveals your own limitations Lacewing. I certainly grasp that you are opposed to the impositions of religion because of your own (religious) upbringing which, as you say, you have to get free of, but religious values are here and are part of the social body. The more you look into this the more it presents itself as true.

But you are largely -- largely but not wholly -- ignorant in this area. You have not studied the issue. You have no sources to refer to. Therefore your opposition to *religiously determined* or religiously influenced values is a manifestation of your own ideological commitments. That is fine as far as it goes except that you cannot see your won predicates nor notice how they insert themselves. You are also driven by value-definitions just as much as those you oppose and those you condemn. But you do not have enough self-introspection to see yourself.

Again is it you that will determine *appropriateness*? You and the Democratic Party? Some assembled board of cultural commissars? Who will do this work of determining what is appropriate? On what basis? According to what values? With what ends in (ultimate) view? Do you recognize the problematical nature of the sort of statements that you make? No. Because you cannot and won't self-introspect.

• Are we keeping in mind what children are exposed to all the time in movies and video games and online media?

Do you mean am I keeping this in mind? I am aware that our entire culture has been ultra-influenced by ideological and market brokers who engineer and re-engineer value-sets often in order to be able to sell products. The notion of The Marketing of Evil (a title of a book) in which a value-centered perspective is contrasted with one that has no actual value-base except in making money and selling products is a perspective that you Lacewing are unfamiliar with. You have not studied this issue. You have not dedicated proper time to it.

Becoming aware of what has happened in a culture of Social Engineering is therefore the prime consideration. And who will establish what is right, proper and good for children? And in accordance with what value-base?

You Lacewing? You will do this?

• Is the broader book banning an extreme reaction to a few inappropriate books?

Again, you are insufficiently informed Lacewing. You do not show that you have a proper or sufficient interest in the actual questions. An answer -- one possible one to your question -- is that the issue of the sexualization of children, and the use of sexuality as a tool of political control, is actually what isat the core of the issue and the conversation. But you, ignorant woman, are unfamiliar with the issue. Yet you open your giant yap and spout all sorts of stuff that reveals your own ignorance of the problems that are being examined! That is my view of your generally superficial stance. Deal with it, reject it, bark at the moon if it serves you. That is what I notice when I read your vain posts.

In order to understand how Conservatives, who are versed in these issues, see the sexualization as a tool of political control you would have to read, study and consider. That is why I say that getting familiar with the arguments of those on the other side is crucial.

If only to be able to have a fair and upstanding conversation.

• Is the book banning being used for a political agenda?

What an idiotic statement. Do you have any understanding of the parameters of what is described as The Culture Wars? Duh! Of course these social and cultural issue sof value dovetail with politics. Politics being downstream from culture.

We are in times of profound ideological, political, cultural and social battles. Just to be able to see and understand this is a task all to itself. This is what I recently stated: to stop merely bickering over partisan positions in a never-ending rehearsal and to do the work to define what the value-definitions that are at stake actually are.

Far more appropriate for a philosophically-oriented forum than the inane bickering.

Now, please critique what I have written here and tell me if it is *skewed* and unbalanced and why you believe this is so. Correct me and show me the right way.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If you distort and/or assign the primary fault to one side of a large issue/concept involving many parts, then you are framing only a portion of the entire picture.

Right Lacewing. What I ask of you is that you demonstrate right here, to your peers, how this is to be done. Talk about those "many parts". Show the full picture that you imply is there to be seen and which you surely see. Or are you speaking in ideal terms? Of what you imagine is possible?

In my own case I do not believe I have ever "distort[ed] and/or assign[ed] the primary fault to one side". What I have suggested is getting down to the actual core by identifying, and then talking about, the fundamental value-issues at stake.

But I think you are taking a swipe, aren't you? at your interpretive reduction of what IC often says, yes?

What I say in respect to those arenas in which IC offers opinions and his own generalizations that I am aware of the critical postures of those he has read -- one example being James Lindsay -- and I share his perspective predominantly.

Assigning fault is part of a critical process of seeing. But one has to have a defined value-base from which to make any statements at all. If one makes statements (about what *fault* is and who is *at fault*) one must then be able to back it up.

Talk about how one must go about properly framing what you call here the *entire picture*.

[henry quirk]

Culture is a competition, and the on-going result of competition. With that in mind...

the Conservative reaction to introducing sexual themes and materials in the public schools. Can you please explain what that more balanced and truer perspective should be?

In public schools (elementary, high school): if public schools must exist, and if such such materials must be offered, those materials should only be available thru elective classes not required for promotion or graduation, and only with the formal permission of both parents (after the parents have formally reviewed the materials).

In private schools: anything goes.

Public schools ostensibly serve the community, are paid for by the community. No modern (or would that be postmodern?) community is monolithic. Public schools can't be the transmitter of (all) culture(s) or measure(s). In such settings, teach 'em to read, write, and do arithmetic and leave the rest to mom and dad (or mom and mom, or dad and dad, or...) and the wider community.

Private schools serve populations. A Catholic school, for example, serves Catholics. Along with the essentials (the 3 Rs), it transmits Catholic culture and measure. It ought not be expected to convey, or convey kindly, or even neutrally, insane notions about 357 genders or how to perform fellatio on your best bud, at age 8. Another private school, one perhaps catering to fetishists, wouldn't be expected to communicate there are only two sexes or that fellatio has a place only for adults in private.

-that's the balanced perspective-

The proper solution, in a free nation, is, of course, to put the kibosh on public, mandatory education and let things schism as they will.

-that's my perspective-

[Lacewing]

A more balanced and truer perspective would include considerations such as these...

In other words, this isn't just a black-and-white case deserving outrage and extreme reactions. What is actually going on... and are we willing to ask more questions and address it appropriately, all things considered?

Common sense over agendas.

First, and I believe that you do not have the self-circumspection to notice this, you are putting forward what you call an *agenda*. The propositions that you are working with here are undergirded by ideological commitments. I am not so much bothered by that as I am aware that you do not recognize the intrusion of your own ideological commitments into your arguments and assertions.

I think you are most bothered by your own inability to escape yourself. And you're trying to apply your thinking onto me, in whatever way you can do it, while telling me I'm foolish not to accept it. Kind of like mental rape.

I have standards that grow and shift with time and circumstance, and I see value in considering many angles. Each situation is unique. Whatever goals and planning I may pursue are accepting of broader redirection. I live in the moment most of the time. Each encounter is full of the vitality of that moment... and awareness and direction are available within each moment.

And right now, I'm not interested in reading any more of what you might think or want to say in your arrogant, imposing manner.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And right now, I'm not interested in reading any more of what you might think or want to say in your arrogant, imposing manner.

::: sniff, sob :::

I am crestfallen!

[Lacewing]

(using this just to get your attention)

Hey Walker... since you're really old and know what it's like to be accused of delusional thinking... do you think there should be age limits for government officials (including the Pres.)? If so, what age?

[Wizard22]

Guess who's baaaaaaaa-ACK!?

Flashpoopants sent his hired goons to take me out, but thanks to my array of newfound spells, was able to incinerate them:



So what PhilosophyNow absolute brilliance did I miss out on last week, let's see...

[ puts on reading cap ]

[Wizard22]

I haven't read it -- have you? A lot of kids are dealing with two moms and two dads these days, so maybe it's a helpful book.

I don't need to—I know what you Marxists are and what you're up to, long ago.

It's a "helpful book" to destroy natural, beautiful (heterosexual) families. When I think of what you're doing, I feel pity and sympathy for your victims, depriving Western children of loving normal parents. I want a better future for Western children and successors, not a worse one, like you and other liberals help to bring in this moral destruction and calamity.

[Wizard22]

I wasn't in discussion with a 'movement' I was replying to wizard.

• He challenged me to have my mind blown in the racism thread by all of his "true racism", and when I bade him continue he did indeed write a bunch of racist stuff. So he is proven racist, even if your 'movement' isn't.

• In his Soddom and Gomorrah thread he tells us that all sex for any purpose other than reproduction is degenrate. So we know he's an old fashioned prude.

So this 'movement' will need to find some spokesperson less compromised tan Grandwizzard22 cos we do have a pretty good idea what makes the the 50 false dream so enticing for him

Yes, and to poopants, you could not debate the points at all. It's "true racism" that if you exclude black inner-city Democrat Liberal Leftist gun violence...gang banging N-words who gun each other down, and bystanding kids too, everyday...that USA magically becomes a safer country than Denmark, Norway, Austria. There's nothing "racist" about my point though. On the contrary, I think it's "racist" to so willingly and knowingly lie about this fact, after you've been informed and made aware of it. YOU are perpetuating the "racism", poopants. My opinion and stance is not-racist. I don't think black kids and children should suffer the ghettos of Detroit, Chicago, LA, New York. You, however, do. You and the BLM "movement", Antifa want black Americans to continue to suffer.

Secondly, again, what is your counter-argument to Sodom and Gomorrah? That homosexual sodomy is..."not degenerate". What a stupid argument...you can do better than this, poopants. I bet, when put to the test, even flaming homos would admit that what they do are degenerate. In fact, many of them are proud of the fact.

[Wizard22]

Most Politicians are a bit dodgy, and many Trumpers keep trying to point the figner at Biden and others and away from Trump.

But amongst Trumps many crimes and misdemeanours here is the pinnacle. He is no longer allowed to run a charity in NY, because of the many charities he stole money from one of them was A CHILDREN'S CANCER charity.

=So Trumpers, when you can find a crime of that magnitude done by Biden, I'll listen but until then STFU.

Stealing from a cancer charity is bad. Stealing from children with cancer is beyond evil

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexand ... -business/

Biden is the sitting "legitimate" "President", Sculpty.

The ball is in our court, not yours. The onus is upon you and Biden now, not Trump.