John Cena's Fuck You

@jefemuka.bsky.social

509 Followers 27 Following

i've never been cool http://www.nearzone.com http://www.journalofcogency.com Links mainly. Follow @nearzone.bsky.social @journalofcogency.com

And while you can read this situation as the base & the left having some amount of influence, this is a similar level of influence as "voting with your wallet". You can shout as loud as you want for things and refuse to vote for Democrats. If you go too far left, they will just sandbag you and lose. / They would rather sandbag you and lose than be "too socialist" because, fundamentally, they're of the capitalist class. And that's why they have the ultimate power in this situation. Maybe their success relies on you, but if they decide not to play, you get nothing. / I think I'm wrapping up here, so let me say this: most Democratic voters understand this innately, and most leftists do, too. The difference is the response. Committed Democrats are cowards, so they follow wherever the core leads, hoping for protection. Leftists get mad at the game being rigged.

Album cover of Here Come the Waterworks by Big Business

clip of OP's pic showing that the legs of one female figure morph right into the roof of the building

Still from the rapping scene of the smash hit movie Teen Witch

socialistdex quote tweeting me and doing exactly what I said he was doing: harping on the "I'm not doing Islamophobia because it's not about religion" bit and never addressing how insanely racist he is being. Not to mention he already claimed that this was about Arabs and Muslims so he has no point at all. By the screenshot he showed, what he said was Islamophobic.

Sorry, I don't want to type out this shit again.

Muting everything related to chappell roan

@verminblast.bsky.social: Because they will still die, both sides regardless of choice, Palestinians will still die. The trolley problem has you pick the life of one or many. In this case it’s the Palestinians as the one, and the people of America and Palestine and the world on the other one.

Roj Blake (in shadow) standing in a featureless white room which is supposed to have something in it. Episode "Pressure Point" from the show Blakes 7.

A dipshit called Rye Zuul says: If enough people don't vote Democrat, Republicans win and cause far more damage, both for the US, Gaza and the rest of the world. That is a consequence of the useful pro-fascist idiocy you are pushing. Every extra trans or backstreet abortion death will be partly your fault, your choice.

Black and white glabrezu looking properly terrifying from D&D1e: fierce, doberman-like head, tall and muscular, four arms, two of em have pincers, there's also a little skull so you know he's badass

Glabrezu from AD&D looking like a chihuahua head on a squatting person that has four arms, two of em are big with weird pincers, also it has a snaky tail, I know what I'm describing sounds horrible but it's drawn very adorably

The four tiers of observance or worldview are general abstract levels of knowing and understanding the world. Through these lenses, a person figures out how they should live and act in the world. These tiers are (1) the cosmos, (2) the world, (3) the society, and (4) the self. These are addressed by the four discourses: (1) cosmology, (2) epistemology, (3) axiology (or teleology), and (4) deontology. In this context, each has a specific definition that I’ll go over now.

I’ve always hated the embrace of Nietzsche on the left. I don’t think that Nietzsche had good ideas in the sense of intending anything good for most people. I’ve recently become acquainted with the nihilistic philosophy of Nick Land which strikes me as intensely similar. I usually say that the reason these philosophers get picked up by otherwise sensible leftists is that they “ask the question again”. Essentially, they revisit what seem like obvious assumptions — in progress, in the value of humanity, in the concept and/or usefulness of morality, etc. — and point out absurdities in them. The major flaw in both of them, and I won’t guess at the source, is that they don’t have anything productive to say. All they have to offer is rejection of those assumptions and animosity. People will argue that both are simply being provocative but you are not simply reading between lines at that point, you are reading between atoms.

When the police assault peaceful protesters, when courts send people to jail for years because they block traffic for mere hours, these things have happened in some part because no challenge to the system of power can be stomached by arch-conservatives. The protest, the resistance to being subsumed, is itself what the state wants to eliminate. If my arm hurts, I’m not likely to tolerate it more because I hurt it while helping my grandmother or practicing jiu jitsu. What might help me tolerate the pain — not try to extinguish it immediately — is if you tell me it is a sign of my arm healing. For those reliant on the power process, what is important is not order or disorder as such but the effective functioning of the power system. Protest is a breakdown, and the state’s violent reaction is the clearest sign that the threat posed to the state power system is real.

Having said this, it is possible that a non-religious ideology could try to answer the questions of cosmology. What is the thing that separates religious thought from non-religious thought? Most people would say it’s the supernatural. I agree in a way, but I think we can state it more generically. A religious worldview is one which gives answers to the core questions of cosmology. While I did say that a non-religious ideology could try to answer the cosmological questions, only a worldview which takes its answers from outside nature can actually give a final answer to those questions. Empiricism may find out how the universe came to be but it will never answer why and it will never give purpose to life. Those answers cannot come from nature. Therefore, any answer to those questions will be supernatural by definition.

A country map of a fictionalized hell territory, with domains based on the demons of the Lemegeton (plus Tartarus)

Having said this, it is possible that a non-religious ideology could try to answer the questions of cosmology. What is the thing that separates religious thought from non-religious thought? Most people would say it’s the supernatural. I agree in a way, but I think we can state it more generically. A religious worldview is one which gives answers to the core questions of cosmology. While I did say that a non-religious ideology could try to answer the cosmological questions, only a worldview which takes its answers from outside nature can actually give a final answer to those questions. Empiricism may find out how the universe came to be but it will never answer why and it will never give purpose to life. Those answers cannot come from nature. Therefore, any answer to those questions will be supernatural by definition.

Having said this, it is possible that a non-religious ideology could try to answer the questions of cosmology. What is the thing that separates religious thought from non-religious thought? Most people would say it’s the supernatural. I agree in a way, but I think we can state it more generically. A religious worldview is one which gives answers to the core questions of cosmology. While I did say that a non-religious ideology could try to answer the cosmological questions, only a worldview which takes its answers from outside nature can actually give a final answer to those questions. Empiricism may find out how the universe came to be but it will never answer why and it will never give purpose to life. Those answers cannot come from nature. Therefore, any answer to those questions will be supernatural by definition.

The four tiers of observance or worldview are general abstract levels of knowing and understanding the world. Through these lenses, a person figures out how they should live and act in the world. These tiers are (1) the cosmos, (2) the world, (3) the society, and (4) the self. These are addressed by the four discourses: (1) cosmology, (2) epistemology, (3) axiology (or teleology), and (4) deontology. In this context, each has a specific definition that I’ll go over now.

Kyle Troup

google search: how do i kill the person who invented windows update

In Europe, the rise of liberalism happened alongside the rise of another idea: nationalism. It would be incorrect to say that early liberal thinkers did not understand the need for community. Most early nationalists were liberals and vice versa. Still, the individualist goals of liberalism contradict the collectivist goals of nationalism, so I find it more useful to view these as separate ideologies which can be held together. This coincidence is important because nationalism clearly introduced an alternative value-body: the national community. This led to the creation of modern political socialism, and it is in this context that ideological capitalism first emerged. Capitalism, defined in large part by the capital value-body, was a way to avoid socialism. I will explain more about these value-bodies in the next section.

Destiny is fake. The problem with destiny, and with the logic of self-flagellation, is that it ignores the agency of the other side.

For self-flagellation to make sense — for the logic of leftists having an inherent flaw to hold up — the failures of the left would have to be the fault of the left alone. That implies that nothing is fighting against the left. This is the problem with destiny, and with the elevation of Marxite use of the process of dialectical materialism to the status of prophecy simply because the argument is extremely persuasive. We have reduced our situation to something like a mountain climb, where no matter how hard it is, it is a stationary obstacle whose challenges are known and just have to be overcome.

I’ve always hated the embrace of Nietzsche on the left. I don’t think that Nietzsche had good ideas in the sense of intending anything good for most people. I’ve recently become acquainted with the nihilistic philosophy of Nick Land which strikes me as intensely similar. I usually say that the reason these philosophers get picked up by otherwise sensible leftists is that they “ask the question again”. Essentially, they revisit what seem like obvious assumptions — in progress, in the value of humanity, in the concept and/or usefulness of morality, etc. — and point out absurdities in them. The major flaw in both of them, and I won’t guess at the source, is that they don’t have anything productive to say. All they have to offer is rejection of those assumptions and animosity. People will argue that both are simply being provocative but you are not simply reading between lines at that point, you are reading between atoms.

Destiny is fake. The problem with destiny, and with the logic of self-flagellation, is that it ignores the agency of the other side.

For self-flagellation to make sense — for the logic of leftists having an inherent flaw to hold up — the failures of the left would have to be the fault of the left alone. That implies that nothing is fighting against the left. This is the problem with destiny, and with the elevation of Marxite use of the process of dialectical materialism to the status of prophecy simply because the argument is extremely persuasive. We have reduced our situation to something like a mountain climb, where no matter how hard it is, it is a stationary obstacle whose challenges are known and just have to be overcome.

I’ve always hated the embrace of Nietzsche on the left. I don’t think that Nietzsche had good ideas in the sense of intending anything good for most people. I’ve recently become acquainted with the nihilistic philosophy of Nick Land which strikes me as intensely similar. I usually say that the reason these philosophers get picked up by otherwise sensible leftists is that they “ask the question again”. Essentially, they revisit what seem like obvious assumptions — in progress, in the value of humanity, in the concept and/or usefulness of morality, etc. — and point out absurdities in them. The major flaw in both of them, and I won’t guess at the source, is that they don’t have anything productive to say. All they have to offer is rejection of those assumptions and animosity. People will argue that both are simply being provocative but you are not simply reading between lines at that point, you are reading between atoms.

Destiny is fake. The problem with destiny, and with the logic of self-flagellation, is that it ignores the agency of the other side.

For self-flagellation to make sense — for the logic of leftists having an inherent flaw to hold up — the failures of the left would have to be the fault of the left alone. That implies that nothing is fighting against the left. This is the problem with destiny, and with the elevation of Marxite use of the process of dialectical materialism to the status of prophecy simply because the argument is extremely persuasive. We have reduced our situation to something like a mountain climb, where no matter how hard it is, it is a stationary obstacle whose challenges are known and just have to be overcome.

Pull quote from the long excerpt: Who but the Vietnamese thought that they would win the Vietnam War? Who but the Haitians thought that they would win their War of Independence?

Since unions were legalized, conservatives have been trying to destroy them at all cost, partly to disrupt a core power center of left politics. Disrupting power centers of the right is hardly even mentioned on the left, even when there is overwhelming independent reason to do so, like here or MLMs

Introduction
In a relatively short space here, I am going to describe the basic formation, function, and structure of the state. My goal is to help clarify the actual nature of the state so that we, regardless of our individual statuses, can respond to the state based upon our true position. One of the pitfalls of liberalism-nationalism (i.e. the ideology of liberal democracy) is the concept of citizenship, expressed through elections and evocations of the "will of the people" and so on. It suggests that the majority of people have a real share in government. As should not require much illustration, this is not the experience of most people in most countries. *Citizenship is a kind of fake idea, meant to suggest constituency – truly having a voice in government – without actually conferring it.* My hope is that by laying out what things pressure states to form and to continue, the truth of constituency will become clear. Despite the liberal revolutions... (see link)

The primary weapon wielded against the left is the prospect of chaos overtaking society. This is not the chaos of the left, however. This chaos is like an allergic reaction. A peanut is introduced to the system, something that doesn’t harm the system as a whole, but the system misunderstands and reacts by distressing the body, possibly to the point of strangling it. The damage from an allergic reaction is not caused by the peanut, the so-called foreign agent, the damage is caused by an overreaction of the body itself. At the same time, I want to stress that this is a metaphor and society is not an organism as such. People do not choose their allergic responses but they do choose their political actions. I likened rightist response to an allergic reaction not to suggest that this response is natural or intrinsic, I did so just to highlight that the damage and chaos may be related to the introduction of the new material but it isn’t actually caused by the new material.

In Europe, the rise of liberalism happened alongside the rise of another idea: nationalism. It would be incorrect to say that early liberal thinkers did not understand the need for community. Most early nationalists were liberals and vice versa. Still, the individualist goals of liberalism contradict the collectivist goals of nationalism, so I find it more useful to view these as separate ideologies which can be held together. This coincidence is important because nationalism clearly introduced an alternative value-body: the national community. This led to the creation of modern political socialism, and it is in this context that ideological capitalism first emerged. Capitalism, defined in large part by the capital value-body, was a way to avoid socialism. I will explain more about these value-bodies in the next section.

The primary weapon wielded against the left is the prospect of chaos overtaking society. This is not the chaos of the left, however. This chaos is like an allergic reaction. A peanut is introduced to the system, something that doesn’t harm the system as a whole, but the system misunderstands and reacts by distressing the body, possibly to the point of strangling it. The damage from an allergic reaction is not caused by the peanut, the so-called foreign agent, the damage is caused by an overreaction of the body itself. At the same time, I want to stress that this is a metaphor and society is not an organism as such. People do not choose their allergic responses but they do choose their political actions. I likened rightist response to an allergic reaction not to suggest that this response is natural or intrinsic, I did so just to highlight that the damage and chaos may be related to the introduction of the new material but it isn’t actually caused by the new material.

YouTube thumbnail of a video titled "Is Archbishop Vigano trustworthy" from a channel called Professor Dr. Taylor Marshall, uploaded 3 days ago, 814 views

A sports graphic showing last names of several Antiguan and Barbudan cricket players: Buttler, Salt, Bairstow, Jacks, Kaleemullah, Bilal

Here's a dumb example from my own life. Years ago, my friend and I were traveling by car at night. We came to a fork in the road. I was driving and I took the fork one way, then my friend told me that we should have taken the other way. My reaction was to swing the car around, drive briefly over the grassy median, and get on the right road. I think we can adequately analyze this with certitude and enforcement. In the case of certitude, this is simple. After first taking the fork, the flowcule has low or no certitude that the system would take it to its preferred destination, so it decided to travel over an invalid area. However, this choice or outcome may have been impossible if more enforcement had been present. If a wall had surrounded that invalid area, the flowcule couldn't have entered. If a police officer had been present, the threat of immediate punishment may have better enforced system rules. The fact that many cars... (Continued in link)

First, I should probably make clear what I mean by sacral rule. It’s obvious that this includes two historical concepts — the divine right of kings in Europe and the mandate of heaven in China (and nearby regions) — but what else does it include and what does it not include? I live in the United States of America, a country whose population is officially about 70% Christian, has only elected Christians to be its monarch, has gone through protracted periods of Christian political mania dominating law and justice, and whose majority population regularly abuses religious minorities. Many Americans believe this country to be the favorite of the Christian God, the ruler begins their rule by swearing in upon a Christian Bible, and they are often associated with priests who recognize the ruler as being chosen by God. Does all this mean that America is under sacral rule?

First, I should probably make clear what I mean by sacral rule. It’s obvious that this includes two historical concepts — the divine right of kings in Europe and the mandate of heaven in China (and nearby regions) — but what else does it include and what does it not include? I live in the United States of America, a country whose population is officially about 70% Christian, has only elected Christians to be its monarch, has gone through protracted periods of Christian political mania dominating law and justice, and whose majority population regularly abuses religious minorities. Many Americans believe this country to be the favorite of the Christian God, the ruler begins their rule by swearing in upon a Christian Bible, and they are often associated with priests who recognize the ruler as being chosen by God. Does all this mean that America is under sacral rule?

Steve Sliberman bloviates: "That's cute, but you're terribly naive. I wish you luck, but you'll never find a perfect candidate. In the meantime, we need to stop a blatant fascist coup."

This is the theory of a theory, a pre-theory. Capitalism is not simply an economic system or mode of production, it is a method of establishing domination: a technology of authority. It is the more or less direct successor of divine kingship. When the European revolutions of the 19th century had destroyed divine kingship, at a point when Europe had more or less dominated the world, this discredited divine kingship forever. Without divine kingship, a government must serve its society, and this logic always means that the wealth of a state will eventually be distributed among the common people. Capitalism as an ideology functions to justify the authority of those who wanted to stop that from happening over the common people by granting social privilege to the holders of capital over non-holders of capital.

Here's a dumb example from my own life. Years ago, my friend and I were traveling by car at night. We came to a fork in the road. I was driving and I took the fork one way, then my friend told me that we should have taken the other way. My reaction was to swing the car around, drive briefly over the grassy median, and get on the right road. I think we can adequately analyze this with certitude and enforcement. In the case of certitude, this is simple. After first taking the fork, the flowcule has low or no certitude that the system would take it to its preferred destination, so it decided to travel over an invalid area. However, this choice or outcome may have been impossible if more enforcement had been present. If a wall had surrounded that invalid area, the flowcule couldn't have entered. If a police officer had been present, the threat of immediate punishment may have better enforced system rules. The fact that many cars... (Continued in link)

secretoriginz.bsky.social "I have my issues with all of this stuff but imagine the current situation x10 & then imagine every other aspect of American life 10x worse & you've got where we'll be if Trump gets back into office."

Then I quote tweeted that.

From YouTube: "Lol reminds me of when I worked at a machine shop. A buddy of mine got his 19 year old son a job there. The kid kept messing with people's food and lunch bags in the break room. I caught him one day, about a week into him working there, and told him he just better hope he never messes with mine. His cocky ass turned and said, "You better just remember, I'm 19, in better shape, and have nothing to lose." I was in my late twenties, still in pretty damn good shape from being in the military, and have a family. So I stepped about 2 inches from his face and very quietly responded with, "You might wanna remember that you're still a punk kid, and I'm a grown man with everything to lose. So if it's gonna cost me my job, I'm gonna definitely make it worth my while." He went and told his dad what I said, and his dad just laughed at him and said, "You really don't wanna climb that mountain, son. And if you wanna try, you're on your own." Me and his dad both had a good laugh"

a Buddhist pilgrim wearing a cowboy hat, shades on the forehead, rainbow umbrella cocked all sassy, and potentially a ceremonial rattle? he looks cool that's the main thing

Seth Cotlar (@sethcotlar.bsky.social) posts "This is the image. I dunno, it strikes me that Presidents who deploy the visual stylings of snuff films for their campaign events are perhaps dangerous to democracy. But have you heard that Joe Biden is old?" while showing a picture of a truck with a large image of Joe Biden trussed up on the back

Chonkasaurus Rex (chonkasaurus.bsky.social): I think your performative "horror" is antisemtitism, given you completely ignore the actual genocide happening to Uyghurs.

Your lack of resilience to propaganda is astounding yet so typical of the terminally online. Touch some grass and check out reality.

meyer spongebob likes that i pointed out his love for the transphobic tweet from Eric Adams

zaza corn: I don't follow your logic. Why does the focus need to be on the Ds?

When the other choice is literal fascism, why can't our strategy be to get Ds elected and then use time not spent fighting against the horrors of fascism to build power and come up with a better plan?

Karate Fighters

Screenshot from google:
small text: About 6,330,000 results (0.34 seconds)
Big Text: It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search

Bumper stickers, one says protect birds & protect earth, one is about USA and another is shit firefighters

Some idiot: "There's an article waiting to be written about how TVTropes teed us up for the AI takeover by making people think of the act of creation as just a matter of recombining the elements from existing things."

Natalie Portman and Benjamin Millepied Divorce After 11 Years of Marriage
By Ellise Shafer

Also includes a picture of them in front of some kind of visa tiff ontario bvlgari board idk