Sex and the Religious-Left

[FlashDangerpants]

It's clear you've carefully analyzed Trump's statements and actions, highlighting inconsistencies and perceived dishonesty. Your attention to detail regarding his interactions with Serge Kovaleski and his remarks about injecting disinfectant underscores your concerns about his credibility. It's understandable that you feel frustrated and disillusioned by what you perceive as deceitfulness in leadership. It's essential to engage in critical thinking and hold leaders accountable for their words and actions. Your willingness to question and challenge misinformation is commendable.

Bot?

Apparently not. It seems things have gone full circle already and humans have learned to imitate the barren language of ChatGPT.

[Atla]

It's clear you've carefully analyzed Trump's statements and actions, highlighting inconsistencies and perceived dishonesty. Your attention to detail regarding his interactions with Serge Kovaleski and his remarks about injecting disinfectant underscores your concerns about his credibility. It's understandable that you feel frustrated and disillusioned by what you perceive as deceitfulness in leadership. It's essential to engage in critical thinking and hold leaders accountable for their words and actions. Your willingness to question and challenge misinformation is commendable.

Bot?

Apparently not. It seems things have gone full circle already and humans have learned to imitate the barren language of ChatGPT.

When humans begin to imitate the language and mannerisms of AI like ChatGPT, it represents a fascinating intersection of technology and culture. This phenomenon could signify several things:

Normalization of AI Interaction: As AI becomes more ingrained in daily life, mimicking its language and mannerisms could be a natural extension of human interaction with technology. Just as people adopt slang or gestures from popular culture, AI's influence on language and behavior could become similarly pervasive.

Shift in Communication Patterns: The adoption of AI-like language and mannerisms may reflect a broader shift in how humans communicate. As people engage more frequently with AI interfaces, they may unconsciously integrate AI-like speech patterns into their own communication styles, blurring the lines between human and artificial interaction.

Cultural Reflection: Mimicking ChatGPT's language and mannerisms could also be a form of cultural commentary or satire, reflecting society's fascination with and reliance on AI technology. It might serve as a way for people to explore the implications of AI on human identity, communication, and social norms.

Creative Expression: Some individuals may intentionally emulate AI language and mannerisms as a form of creative expression or experimentation. Just as artists and writers draw inspiration from various sources, incorporating AI-like elements into human communication could be a novel way to express ideas or provoke thought.

Overall, the phenomenon of humans imitating ChatGPT's language and mannerisms represents a complex interplay between technology and culture. It underscores the evolving relationship between humans and AI, raising questions about the nature of language, identity, and communication in an increasingly digital world.

(I totally wrote the above btw, totally)

[Wizard22]

The masses repeat the talking-points from Legacy Media MSM already... if the masses begin to copy AI and Bots, that might be an upgrade...

[Harbal]

The masses repeat the talking-points from Legacy Media MSM already... if the masses begin to copy AI and Bots, that might be an upgrade...

Any luck finding a woman yet?

[Wizard22]

Any luck finding a woman yet?

I appreciate your concern for my wellbeing, thank you Hairball, what a turnaround you're making here.

[Harbal]

Any luck finding a woman yet?

I appreciate your concern for my wellbeing, thank you Hairball, what a turnaround you're making here.

It was curiosity, not concern.

[FlashDangerpants]

Any luck finding a woman yet?

I appreciate your concern for my wellbeing, thank you Hairball, what a turnaround you're making here.

It was curiosity, not concern.

Don't you limit poor little wizzy, he can be both a curiosity and a concern at the same time if he wants.

[seeds]

Examining videos of Serge K. he does not have erratic twitching movements. He holds himself and speaks normally. So the imitation-narrative seems to fall apart.

Understanding Trump's crude and juvenile nature, it's not difficult to imagine that in one of his many encounters with Serge Kovaleski,...

(of which Trump adamantly denied knowing what Serge looked like, even though he said "...you gotta see this guy...")

...that he (Trump) must have noticed some awkward movements made by Serge, and in his effort to entertain his adoring worshipers, did his over-the-top (hyper-exaggerated) imitation of Serge's affliction...



...otherwise, Trump's completely idiotic looking, wiggly/jiggly gyration act makes no sense.

But no part of this has any real relevance for me.

Yet, it appears to be relevant enough to compel you to keep defending Trump's scandalous behavior.

None of this is very essential.

Pointing out Trump's character flaws is indeed essential if one believes that a guy that acts like this...



...in public, no matter what the reason, has no business having access to nuclear launch codes.

Furthermore, it is extremely essential to keep exposing the bizarre and twisted nature of this Trump/MAGA phenomenon if we don't want our children to learn and assume that it's perfectly okay for them to be a cheater, a fraudster, a criminal grifter, and a pathological liar in America, and a large portion of the population will reward your immoral behavior by handing you the keys to the kingdom.

Trump has been maligned and misrepresented cynically from the very start.

Is it really "cynically"?

Or, is it because he's actually been a dirty rotten scoundrel from the very start?

That maligning has taken innumerable forms.

Yes. And that's because his cheating, grifting, and lying comes in innumerable forms.

It continues today in lawfare schemes outrageous on the face.

So then, is it your heartfelt position that it is outrageous to hold Donnie ("The Bull") Trump accountable for fraudulent tax and accounting practices that the rest of us would have been put in prison for, long ago? Really?

Here's the thing,...

...One of the main problems with arguing with Trump supporters such as you and the Wiz...

(never mind people like this guy - https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AyN34sFk ... ture=share)

...is that you fail (or purposely refuse) to recognize that when I bring up the examples of him lying about the Serge Kovaleski affair, or lying about insisting he was being "sarcastic" when he suggested injecting disinfectant,...

...is that there is no practical way to explicate and display all of his lies and dirty deeds in a single post (or thousands of posts, for that matter).

Indeed, what I am doing is simply the metaphorical equivalent of taking a microscope and zeroing-in on just two of the vast number of "cells" (lies/frauds) that make up the stinking and bloated body of Trump's cumulative crimes.

I mean, good lord, while you defend his honor against my pointing out a mere two of his specific lies, your complete lack of peripheral vision allows you to ignore the fact that, at this very moment, he is facing multiple indictments for crimes and frauds...

(even including the possibility of committing treason)

...that, again, the rest of us would have been put in jail for, years ago.

I do not seek however to cover over character flaws — there are many.

Then stop doing it!

And as I say, yet with all sorts of reservations and doubts (about the conditions of American politics and disunity) my support of the Trump faction is for the faction — people surrounding his movement and those drawn to it — whose stances I respect.

Are you telling us that you respect racism and bigotry?

Because that's what much of the Trumpian "Make America Great Again" faction stands for.

I mean, just look at the first minute and a half of this YouTube video...
(https://youtu.be/kpqbhL319z4) for confirmation of that claim.

On the other hand, I totally agree with you wanting to support the abovementioned "faction's" concerns over the disunity and corruption in government.

However, can't we at least try to figure out a way of supporting them without, again, rewarding a dirty rotten scoundrel for his immoral behavior???...

...Not to mention him being one of the most dis-unifying persons ever to arise from the cesspool of power-hungry, crap-panted despots...


_______

[promethean75]

To say Don T is a bad president or person becuz he makes fun of retarded people and shits his pants while playing golf, is simply outrageous ad hominem.

Where does the Left get off calling Don T an arrogant deplorable moron all the time when he only does stuff like make fun of retarded people and shit his pants? Why are his arguments for how to run a country wrong becuz of these two things?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I should pay more attention to your reading list, and less to my own intuition and sense of right and wrong, you mean? Before you complain about my resistance to your influence, tell me how persuasive you find my point of view.

As I've said many times: "I am here for my own purposes". As an example you have (in the post I quoted from) explained your orientation and, indirectly, the *trajectory* that brought you to your declared position. You ask me to answer your question "How persuasive [do] you find my point of view"? and my answer is "Very persuasive" when I understand the trajectory of ideas and the social movement (which I shorten to 'social engineering') that has created Our Present.

Very persuasive ... and I intend to work against it (specifically in my own self).

This Present presents itself as *inevitable* and also (as you said earlier) as *right* (and as I say *righteous*) and the sets of attitudes and interpretations that inform it trundle on from year to year and decade to decade. But not with a conscious, intended result but rather, in my view, as something semi-conscious -- and here I make reference to an *inevitableness* that is not so much a structured creation but more an unconscious result or outcome (consequence is another word I could use).

What interests me in what you say is the phrase *intuition and sense of right and wrong*. I recognize that you prefaced it with *my* and I certainly understand and respect your view. However I will say that I am very uncertain if *the average man* or just *someone in the street* is actually capable of defining what is right and wrong. Here, naturally, I refer to *structures of authority* as a counter-insinuation to the notion of intuited senses of good and bad. And again I refer to Robert Bork who, among different pointed critiques, noted that one of the intense influences of the 1960s youth movement was the *intuited* and felt belief that it was right, proper and good to tear down established hierarchies of value as the very notion of authority was challenged.

I know of course that any reference I make to authority -- and indeed this is very true for our entire civilization -- will involve reference to religious authority. And that means, of course, reference to the metaphysics about which authority figures spoke and also the base upon which their views and ideas were constructed. You can pick any particular area -- say the definition of marriage or the proper education of a child though the list will be endless -- and ideas that arise from our traditions of metaphysics will show themselves evident.

Once the original and inspiring sets of beliefs begin to become dissolved, step by step and also inevitably, the structures that were built begin to disintegrate. At first, it might not be recognized as something *destructive*, and indeed it might seem to be and might be felt as *constructive* just as the relaxation of a stricture might *feel* to be relieving. But my view is that it is later, when a general decadence and dissolution has shown itself, that it is then that one notices what happens when the structures of value are falling apart.

My view is that this is super-evident in our present. And as I have said I also believe that many people notice this, do not know precisely what the causes are (the causal chains that have led to it) and that they struggle to *make interpretations* -- often wildly and spontaneously -- about why things are as they are. Simultaneously they also -- this seems inevitable -- put forth what they see as remediation of the decadence and breakdown. That which will arrest it and correct it.

I do not imagine that I have to point out to general readership here that the cultural battles of our day center upon these questions. And also notice that the trend is toward *confrontation* on many different levels; from the family and community level up to the global and geo-political.

Should I pay more attention to your reading list?

Beyond any shadow of any doubt of any sort at all, yes. A thousand times yes. I am not less convinced of this when I first came back on to PN I am a hundred times more certain. But the *certainty* that has been solidified is for me alone. I cannot mystically transfer it to another. Could I prove it to you? I do not think so. Why? Your desire, your purpose, your project, is to negate that such a thing is necessary. So if you are an locomotive moving along a track you will keep moving along the lines established by that track.

I all hinges back to *education*.

resistance to your influence

There is more to be gained from seeing *influence* in a more abstract manner. Just as I try to point out that *your ideas* are not really yours but something produced in you (and in all of us) by processes of cultural engineering, so it is that in order for there to be a recovery from the result of these revolutions, the original and more substantive and more value-oriented base has to be recovered. The original reasoning and the logic (logos) has to be rediscovered, re-cognized and re-hierarchized.

And so yes, this is definitely a process of education and re-education. And that is what I take *reading list* to mean.

I return again to my original statement. It has not changed. And I do not see how it could be changed without a very definite and a very real destruction of value.

What I said is that it is necessary for our society as a whole to realize that the marriage of a man and a woman in a productive, family-oriented relationship should be, must be, seen as of a superior category to a sterile homosexual union. A given homosexual must and should see this and must not elevate his/her union to a level that it should and must not occupy. The direction of culture -- our culture -- should and must reorient itself toward the family (and if you wish the word *traditional* can be inserted there as a qualifier). As I said: homosexuality exists, and homosexuals exist, but they should, and we all should, down-play and restrict those performances (like pride parades) that celebrate sterile unions. There are a thousand different avenues by which the influence of homosexuals and homosexual choices are presented in our culture. It is best if these are down-played and (I struggle for the proper word) repressed.

The other area -- it is actually somewhat larger and more important -- has to do with the issue and question of general sexuality, sexual ethics, sexual practice, and all the rest which has come up here. I recognize that sexuality, once it is let out of its restraints, literally *goes wild*. This is inevitable. It puts me in a difficult position to define and defend a sexual ethics which is centered around marriage and family -- I have certainly lived the larger part of my career outside of those restraints -- but I am here defending the better ethic, the better way to live (though I have no way to influence any other person). In my case I find the best defense of this in Catholic social doctrine.

But all of this is constructed upon ideas, presuppositions and metaphysics that are (largely) rejected today. I understand this. But again I am *only here for my own purposes* and I have clarified what these are for myself.

There are two directions then: One tends away from any level of restraint. At an extreme it breaks down all the restraints against all *forbidden areas* that were ever defined. The Foucaultian tendency (within the sexual domain) I might call it. The other, obviously, is established on a very different set of principles, interpretations and also values, and certainly these would be defined as *traditional*, though that is a word that has a prejudicial tone in it.

Nevertheless all that I can do here is to point out that the two poles exist and make efforts to explain why I align myself with one and not the other.

[Harbal]

Should I pay more attention to your reading list?

Beyond any shadow of any doubt of any sort at all, yes. A thousand times yes. I am not less convinced of this when I first came back on to PN I am a hundred times more certain. But the *certainty* that has been solidified is for me alone. I cannot mystically transfer it to another. Could I prove it to you? I do not think so. Why? Your desire, your purpose, your project, is to negate that such a thing is necessary. So if you are an locomotive moving along a track you will keep moving along the lines established by that track.

I think you pay me far too much attention, because as far as your areas of interest are concerned, I am completely irrelevant. I hardly play any role in society, and do not even lead a personal social life of any significance, so I influence no one. I don't even vote. Even if you were to wholly convert me to your way of thinking, nothing would come of it. But to get back to your reading list. The average man in the street has no interest in that sort of thing, and relatively few even have the capacity to understand such things, I would say.

What I said is that it is necessary for our society as a whole to realize that the marriage of a man and a woman in a productive, family-oriented relationship should be, must be, seen as of a superior category to a sterile homosexual union.

Marriage has a legal status, which puts certain obligations on, and gives certain rights to, the participants. Those obligations and rights are mostly of a practical nature, and are to do with things like financial matters, property, and such like. I do not see the sexual mix of those involved in the partnership as being relevant. I see no reason why homosexuals should be any less entitled to have access to that facility than anyone else. As for the "sterility" of their union, that is an aspect of the issue that does not resonate with me in any way whatsoever. Why would it?

[Alexis Jacobi]

All that I know Harbal. You are convenient for me simply to clarify my views in relation to that mass-man which has so much influence today.

Before Dubious started cross-dressing and wearing scandalous wigs and matronly falsies (and that horrific cloying perfume), we used to discuss Ortega & Gasset’s The Revolt of the Masses which, as you might imagine, alerts to this troubling but complex phenomenon.

You* determine far more than you can imagine.

[*You-plural]

The average man in the street has no interest in that sort of thing, and relatively few even have the capacity to understand such things, I would say.

Yes!

[Harbal]

All that I know Harbal. You are convenient for me simply to clarify my views in relation to that mass-man which has so much influence today.

Whatever else I may be, I am reasonably sure that I am not representative of the mass man.

we used to discuss Ortega & Gasset’s The Revolt of the Masses which, as you might imagine, alerts to this troubling but complex phenomenon.

Strange as it may seem, I didn't imagine that at all.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You’ve never seen the movie If?

Antidote to Alice Cooper.

[Harbal]

You’ve never seen the movie If?

No I haven't. It really isn't the sort of film I would watch.

Antidote to Alice Cooper.

It will come as no surprise to you that I much prefer Alice Cooper.