it seems like that scene from the end of ‘return of the jedi’ where
no. please shut the fuck up. so, first, that’s a pseudophilosophical hollywood bastardization of a misunderstanding of a whole big complex philosophical system (actually a couple sorta related ones that were just sorta lumped together, because orientalism), via americanized christianity. you understand no part of that. try studying the humanities. please. you need that almost as badly as you need to punch a nazi. feel free to do it while cackling with glee instead of hate, if that’s what floats your boat.
fascism is just hate
no. fascism is fleeing reality for a solipsistic fantasy with a blindness powered by feeling persecuted and the thrill of victory. there’s a reason nazis like cocaine and meth so much; it’s basically the healthier version of what they believe in chemical form. but it’s more than that, because they have to flatten the territory to match their incredibly shitty map.
again; please study the humanities. or at least the places where they meet up with STEM and the sex parties get real weird. as soon as you’re done punching nazis. which, again, really really desperately needs doing. and I say punch, but I don’t actually super care if you punch any nazis, I don’t think punching nazis will fix anything.
punching, in this text, is a metaphor for shooting.
My point is not that fascism is just hate. I am sure you understood it though because you made your position clear.
Still I am intrigued to read more about your theories. That STEM and humanities meetup or the complex philosophical system that I don’t understand, could you give me a hint on where to start digging?
I’m kind of afraid to tell you because you’ll think you understand what the hell you’re talking about after a one hour documentary, like you thought you understood morality generally after the six hours of watching space wizards swing laser swords in each other’s general direction, but the dharmic religions, fuzzy taoism (that’s a whole thing) and bushido-which is mostly separate and kinda based on one guy who was as good at murder as he was bad at skin care. which I think makes me reverse miyamoto musashi.
and there are all sorts of places where they meet. my fav example of it is the old command and control/systems/cybernetics theory, where you had margaret mead(big 20th cultural anthropologist) and john von neumann(pure math guy) at the same conference. you get some in psychopharmacology but we don’t really study that at all scientifically so there’s not a lot there.
again, you don’t have any grasp on what you’re talking about for the first twenty hours. i promise. and if you think you have it figured out at 20 hours, you’re still probably wrong. there are monks that dedicate their lives to understanding this shit. you do not.
if you want the more western friendly version of bhuddism, try neitzsche, but he was deliberately abstruse specifically so dumb fucks wouldn’t think they understood his shit and misconstrue what he was saying. it didn’t work, but it did create a high barrier to entry. maybe that would be a good place to start.
please don’t try to learn this on social media. read an actual long-form book. you will not understand this based on social media interactions; I promise you. social media is not for learning beyond the most shallow surface information. it’s for light dopamine release and doom scrolling while you get your mind shredded by influence ops from all (but mostly fasch) directions and indulge your worst mental illnesses.
Almost funny that you suggest him while he was instrumentalized by the fascists as a fascist.
It’s still strange that you stress punching nazis while you have a deeper understanding of their mentality. Don’t people fall back to group strength when they feel vulnerable themselves? Punching Nazis will confirm that vulnerability.
he was instrumentalized by nazis because he used one word they liked, and had vibes they wanted to appropriate, and knew their people wouldn’t actually read it-except his sister/editor, who absolutely became a nazi a couple decades after his death, as soon as that was a thing that you could be. he actually explicitly dismissed the underlying (and extremely silly) basis of the master race thing in one of his books, despite dying in the year 1900. basically saying ‘your virtue comes not from your ancestry, not from the past, but by working your ass off to build and become more than you were. don’t be a little bitch who hides in other peoples accomplishments, real or imagined.’ the phrasing in the translation I read was something like ‘we are the hyperboreans, you and I, reader, who endeavor to somethingorother’ and it would take so much education on popular batshit 19th century estoteric racist cope to explain that one line to you, like one of those weird references in a jane austen novel that you need to either be of the time or a historian or a complete no-life nerd to get, and it’s absolutely not worth it unless you like learning about just how dumb europeans were at the time, but it is also explicitly the basis of the whole ‘aryan master race’ thing, which he explicitly calls bullshit on decades before the concept of fascism, or the war that birthed it, was a glimmer in d’anunzio’s eye, by saying that, basically, you get cool new stuff with hard work and intellectual courage, not jacking off to your grandpa’s high school photos. I think it’s in either “beyond good and evil” or “the antichrist” (neitzsche was not a fan of blood cults) if you want to read more. he WAS a 19th century elitist painfully german asshole, and he does explicitly state that he’s hard to read on purpose. so take what he says with some salt, but there’s good stuff in there.
it’s part of how fascists consume information. you skim and look for the stuff that confirms what you already believe, no matter how much you need to contort cherry pick or cut out whole paragraphs between words or just totally misremember stuff. it’s solipsistic as fuck. by design, if you’ve ever read the shitty book the german government put hitler up in a castle to write.
the punching in this context is a metaphor for shooting, as I said. it’s a whole identity thing about being the winners. I’m personally of the opinion that leaving ugly survivors is better than clean corpses, but I think enough of either would do the trick, and I’m not sure which is easier, being, as I concluded earlier today, reverse miyamoto musashi-bad at violence, great at skin care.
sure, you could try appeasing them, or soft approaches, but they’ve hit a critical mass where, if that were ever possible, it certainly no longer is. they need to be killed. they are solipsists, they have no concept of truth, and they don’t see you as human. they have made themselves into subhuman things that cannot be reasoned with, because they have no more reason. they cannot be negotiated with, because they do not live in the same reality as you. they cannot even be held to a treaty, because they do not have a conception of ‘truth’ or you-as-person; it does not and can not exist in their totalizing world view, which is hostile to contradictory information. it’s kind of terrifying that a person can become so entirely not a person anymore without substantial damage to bodily function. if you want to understand fascism, there are several scholars to start on. arendt is a popular one, if you don’t want to get too commie (and if you do, you already have favorites). if you want something absolutely shitlib friendly, ecco isn’t completely wrong even if he has to avoid describing a lot of it so he doesn’t have to look in any mirrors, but please read more than his 14 points.
So you see fascism as something else than colonialism of white people, as something with a spiritual component.
That solipsism, isn’t that something that also happens in consumerism and nowadays internet entertainment bubbles?
I would like to argue that it’s worthwhile to figure out how to reach people in that mental state because fascism and that state of mind are so ubiquitous that violence cannot win.
Don’t those scholars have any suggestions beyond violence?
this is literally a response to someone who said hating nazis was bad because they saw a movie about cyborg ninja alien space wizard samurai with laser swords shooting lightning at each other.
so, like, some compensation is definitely warranted. remains to be seen if I overshot.
Humanities don’t need funding for expensive laboratories
i suppose so as long as all your humanities knowledge is already solved with no need to travel to new places, study new locations, or talk to new people
According to wikipedia, humanities neither include archeology nor sociology:
The humanities include the academic study of philosophy, religion, history, language arts (literature, writing, oratory, rhetoric, poetry, etc.), the performing arts (theater, music, dance, etc.), and the visual arts (painting, sculpture, photography, filmmaking, etc.)
There is no need to travel. The people who research are either there or can be reached via internet.
I mean sure sociology may not be classified as a humanities but archeology clearly is: “include the academic study of history”
And sure maybe philosophers don’t need to travel but what do you do when you’re a historian and you need to consult historical records in another country? You are listing"the study of the performing art" how do you think people are studying these without going to the representations?
And i may be biased because it’s what i am currently studying but how are we supposed to study geography without travelling???
It’s difficult to not get snarky. You obviously have studied but you argue against my position that humanities with limited funding is possible with the demand that a new university must be able to fund nieche topics. How is that necessary?
because a humanities without “niche topics” is going to cover a very limited subject matter, and in particular, a very certain bias of subject matter! if we design humanities with cost-savings in mind, this is the most inexpensive and readily available culture, language, history: the mainstream, the corporate owned, the majority opinion. funding in humanities expands the horizons and the populace that humanities covers, and without diversity, humanities is not worth teaching
You are arguing about the curriculum of a newly established college as if it were the research focus of the entire humanities.
Diversity doesn’t come from exotic trips but the matetial you cover and the way it is taught and debated. All classic texts are freely available. For centuries that was enough.
There can be trips and such once money is available. For that you need some alumni to get donations. They will not be there if you don’t start teaching which is, for humanities, possible with a minimal budget.
What if they cut the funding so that people spend their time punching other people?
To me, it seems like a Luke and the emperor scene. They want the hate.
Humanities don’t need funding for expensive laboratories. What’s holding back people from making their own college?
no. please shut the fuck up. so, first, that’s a pseudophilosophical hollywood bastardization of a misunderstanding of a whole big complex philosophical system (actually a couple sorta related ones that were just sorta lumped together, because orientalism), via americanized christianity. you understand no part of that. try studying the humanities. please. you need that almost as badly as you need to punch a nazi. feel free to do it while cackling with glee instead of hate, if that’s what floats your boat.
no. fascism is fleeing reality for a solipsistic fantasy with a blindness powered by feeling persecuted and the thrill of victory. there’s a reason nazis like cocaine and meth so much; it’s basically the healthier version of what they believe in chemical form. but it’s more than that, because they have to flatten the territory to match their incredibly shitty map.
again; please study the humanities. or at least the places where they meet up with STEM and the sex parties get real weird. as soon as you’re done punching nazis. which, again, really really desperately needs doing. and I say punch, but I don’t actually super care if you punch any nazis, I don’t think punching nazis will fix anything.
punching, in this text, is a metaphor for shooting.
My point is not that fascism is just hate. I am sure you understood it though because you made your position clear.
Still I am intrigued to read more about your theories. That STEM and humanities meetup or the complex philosophical system that I don’t understand, could you give me a hint on where to start digging?
I’m kind of afraid to tell you because you’ll think you understand what the hell you’re talking about after a one hour documentary, like you thought you understood morality generally after the six hours of watching space wizards swing laser swords in each other’s general direction, but the dharmic religions, fuzzy taoism (that’s a whole thing) and bushido-which is mostly separate and kinda based on one guy who was as good at murder as he was bad at skin care. which I think makes me reverse miyamoto musashi.
and there are all sorts of places where they meet. my fav example of it is the old command and control/systems/cybernetics theory, where you had margaret mead(big 20th cultural anthropologist) and john von neumann(pure math guy) at the same conference. you get some in psychopharmacology but we don’t really study that at all scientifically so there’s not a lot there.
again, you don’t have any grasp on what you’re talking about for the first twenty hours. i promise. and if you think you have it figured out at 20 hours, you’re still probably wrong. there are monks that dedicate their lives to understanding this shit. you do not.
if you want the more western friendly version of bhuddism, try neitzsche, but he was deliberately abstruse specifically so dumb fucks wouldn’t think they understood his shit and misconstrue what he was saying. it didn’t work, but it did create a high barrier to entry. maybe that would be a good place to start.
Thanks a lot. By chance, do you know a lemmy channel where content in that area is posted?
please don’t try to learn this on social media. read an actual long-form book. you will not understand this based on social media interactions; I promise you. social media is not for learning beyond the most shallow surface information. it’s for light dopamine release and doom scrolling while you get your mind shredded by influence ops from all (but mostly fasch) directions and indulge your worst mental illnesses.
Exactly.
I will look into that Nietzsche though.
Almost funny that you suggest him while he was instrumentalized by the fascists as a fascist.
It’s still strange that you stress punching nazis while you have a deeper understanding of their mentality. Don’t people fall back to group strength when they feel vulnerable themselves? Punching Nazis will confirm that vulnerability.
he was instrumentalized by nazis because he used one word they liked, and had vibes they wanted to appropriate, and knew their people wouldn’t actually read it-except his sister/editor, who absolutely became a nazi a couple decades after his death, as soon as that was a thing that you could be. he actually explicitly dismissed the underlying (and extremely silly) basis of the master race thing in one of his books, despite dying in the year 1900. basically saying ‘your virtue comes not from your ancestry, not from the past, but by working your ass off to build and become more than you were. don’t be a little bitch who hides in other peoples accomplishments, real or imagined.’ the phrasing in the translation I read was something like ‘we are the hyperboreans, you and I, reader, who endeavor to somethingorother’ and it would take so much education on popular batshit 19th century estoteric racist cope to explain that one line to you, like one of those weird references in a jane austen novel that you need to either be of the time or a historian or a complete no-life nerd to get, and it’s absolutely not worth it unless you like learning about just how dumb europeans were at the time, but it is also explicitly the basis of the whole ‘aryan master race’ thing, which he explicitly calls bullshit on decades before the concept of fascism, or the war that birthed it, was a glimmer in d’anunzio’s eye, by saying that, basically, you get cool new stuff with hard work and intellectual courage, not jacking off to your grandpa’s high school photos. I think it’s in either “beyond good and evil” or “the antichrist” (neitzsche was not a fan of blood cults) if you want to read more. he WAS a 19th century elitist painfully german asshole, and he does explicitly state that he’s hard to read on purpose. so take what he says with some salt, but there’s good stuff in there.
it’s part of how fascists consume information. you skim and look for the stuff that confirms what you already believe, no matter how much you need to contort cherry pick or cut out whole paragraphs between words or just totally misremember stuff. it’s solipsistic as fuck. by design, if you’ve ever read the shitty book the german government put hitler up in a castle to write.
the punching in this context is a metaphor for shooting, as I said. it’s a whole identity thing about being the winners. I’m personally of the opinion that leaving ugly survivors is better than clean corpses, but I think enough of either would do the trick, and I’m not sure which is easier, being, as I concluded earlier today, reverse miyamoto musashi-bad at violence, great at skin care.
sure, you could try appeasing them, or soft approaches, but they’ve hit a critical mass where, if that were ever possible, it certainly no longer is. they need to be killed. they are solipsists, they have no concept of truth, and they don’t see you as human. they have made themselves into subhuman things that cannot be reasoned with, because they have no more reason. they cannot be negotiated with, because they do not live in the same reality as you. they cannot even be held to a treaty, because they do not have a conception of ‘truth’ or you-as-person; it does not and can not exist in their totalizing world view, which is hostile to contradictory information. it’s kind of terrifying that a person can become so entirely not a person anymore without substantial damage to bodily function. if you want to understand fascism, there are several scholars to start on. arendt is a popular one, if you don’t want to get too commie (and if you do, you already have favorites). if you want something absolutely shitlib friendly, ecco isn’t completely wrong even if he has to avoid describing a lot of it so he doesn’t have to look in any mirrors, but please read more than his 14 points.
Well, I have watched that monk movie.
So you see fascism as something else than colonialism of white people, as something with a spiritual component.
That solipsism, isn’t that something that also happens in consumerism and nowadays internet entertainment bubbles?
I would like to argue that it’s worthwhile to figure out how to reach people in that mental state because fascism and that state of mind are so ubiquitous that violence cannot win.
Don’t those scholars have any suggestions beyond violence?
Wow the arrogance and gatekeeping on you
this is literally a response to someone who said hating nazis was bad because they saw a movie about cyborg ninja alien space wizard samurai with laser swords shooting lightning at each other.
so, like, some compensation is definitely warranted. remains to be seen if I overshot.
i suppose so as long as all your humanities knowledge is already solved with no need to travel to new places, study new locations, or talk to new people
According to wikipedia, humanities neither include archeology nor sociology:
There is no need to travel. The people who research are either there or can be reached via internet.
I mean sure sociology may not be classified as a humanities but archeology clearly is: “include the academic study of history” And sure maybe philosophers don’t need to travel but what do you do when you’re a historian and you need to consult historical records in another country? You are listing"the study of the performing art" how do you think people are studying these without going to the representations? And i may be biased because it’s what i am currently studying but how are we supposed to study geography without travelling???
Geography is not in the list and archeology is not history.
If the college is created in a city then there are performances to visit.
History records have to be limited to scans for the first years.
In general, research can be limited to what is possible. The important part is the freedom of mind, not the freedom of resources.
the pama-nyungan language family is indigenous to Australia and all the languages in that umbrella are either endangered or extrinct already.
pick one:
a) it is already safely and thoroughly catalogued or reachable via the Internet
b) there’s already enough embedded researchers in indigenous Australian communities to study these endangered languages
c) it’s not humanities for some reason
d) probably should spend some money getting more students and professors out there to study it
It’s difficult to not get snarky. You obviously have studied but you argue against my position that humanities with limited funding is possible with the demand that a new university must be able to fund nieche topics. How is that necessary?
because a humanities without “niche topics” is going to cover a very limited subject matter, and in particular, a very certain bias of subject matter! if we design humanities with cost-savings in mind, this is the most inexpensive and readily available culture, language, history: the mainstream, the corporate owned, the majority opinion. funding in humanities expands the horizons and the populace that humanities covers, and without diversity, humanities is not worth teaching
You are arguing about the curriculum of a newly established college as if it were the research focus of the entire humanities.
Diversity doesn’t come from exotic trips but the matetial you cover and the way it is taught and debated. All classic texts are freely available. For centuries that was enough.
There can be trips and such once money is available. For that you need some alumni to get donations. They will not be there if you don’t start teaching which is, for humanities, possible with a minimal budget.