War Room Lounge V43: STEM is Overrated

[Fawlty]

Its tricky - most people in comments sections are taking your view of does it it lead to actual acts on real kids or does it subdue urges?

Side question is how does that Asian cartoon porn not qualify? Or reading game of thrones when 14 yr old dani is having sex, or even seeing barts Wang in the Simpsons movie not qualify? Where is the line drawn?

Yeah that's a tricky question. I think the way to go (if that question can't be answered well enough) would be banning the manufacture/sale going forward, but not criminalizing the possession. It somehow seems morally better to control the market than to control the private behavior. It's easier to say that we shouldn't make those products than to say that people can't have twisted fantasies in their homes with plastic.

Literature is so dependent on context (historical accuracy, alternate universes like GOT are two reasons not to touch literature). Bart's wang was, I hope, not meant to incite lust. The Asian stuff is fucking gross, yeah I think that should be illegal. I'm not the one to say, though.

 

[Fawlty]

Ted Bundy says "yes it does".

On a side note, how crazy do you have to be to order that? I think if you're crazy enough to actually order a child sex doll and put your name to it, you should definitely be monitored...strictly. That doesn't even touch on the INDUSTRY making the dolls...

I'm all for a relatively free society, but there are limits.

Bundy also lied his ass off about being turned into a rapist/killer by erotic detective magazines, and other shit that played well to the Christian right, because he was trying to get out of his execution. I wouldn't trust a word he said.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Yeah that's a tricky question. I think the way to go (if that question can't be answered well enough) would be banning the manufacture/sale going forward, but not criminalizing the possession. It somehow seems morally better to control the market than to control the private behavior. It's easier to say that we shouldn't make those products than to say that people can't have twisted fantasies in their homes with plastic. Literature is so dependent on context (historical accuracy, alternate universes like GOT are two reasons not to touch literature). Bart's wang was, I hope, not meant to incite lust.

I completely agree with not downloading onus from manufacturer to purchaser (although it was an international purchase so harder to enforce) but I'm uneasy about giving personhood protections to objects in which no person was abused or used to create - which is relevant discussion considering we are entering the age of robotics.

 

[HereticBD]

Bundy also lied his ass off about being turned into a rapist/killer by erotic detective magazines, and other shit that played well to the Christian right, because he was trying to get out of his execution. I wouldn't trust a word he said.

You think he lied about that? Why would he, and why is it such a shocking correlation?

Not everyone who is into kinky porn is gonna become a serial killer, but there are a few who do. I don't think he was lying at all about that. He was a smart guy. He may have been trying to buy some time, and get some more interviews out of it, but I think that was one of the most honest moments of that psycho's life.

That's like ignoring a phile saying that child porn influenced them. Are you so against Christians that you can't honestly make the connection? Give me a fuckin' break.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Still got em

Wish they had more likes tho =(

Incoming rant for the peanut gallery. It really does bother me that we've entered a period of de facto cosigning the romanticizing of late 20th century Republicans. Today, the most common answer by American citizens to "who is the best president in US history" is that halfwit Ronald Reagan. And now even the center left is appropriating some of that revisionism (of Reagan as a decent, dignified guy as opposed to a more polished previous version of Trump) to draw a contrast to Trump's irreverence, which, let's face it, doesn't bother the vast majority of Republicans.

The Republican Party needs to be ripped out root and stem, not coddled back to the point of GWB/Reagan.

I understand what you're saying

I've had a bit of crisis of conscience since Trump and it honestly started before that with the rise of people like Ted Cruz and the embracing of the Tea Party.

We obviously have serious fundamental disagreements that probably would show the most when it comes to foreign policy.

I'm sure you're not a Boehner fan and you probably despise him but his ousting was the official death of the GOP for me.

But it started before that.

I was raised by a Reagan Republican and I still like a good amount about Reagan (particularly his foreign policy team which you probably abhor) but when Republicans chose Reagan over HW that was the starting point.

The party went into a dogmatic mode but they would give concessions (policies they new were needed but they could twist as dogmatically good to the orthodox base on phrasing).

For instance we have a lot of working poor. Instead of "welfare" we'll agree to the earned income tax credit. Taxes are bad so tax credits are good especially for those earning income with children.

Under this model Reagan was able to work with Tip O'Neil

Originally Clinton could still work with Newt.


But the GOP was not satisfied with that arrangement, they needed power.

So they gerrymander more and more. There has been some Dem gerrymandering but they weren't the minority party nationwide so they never got as good as it nationwide.

Boehner was a traditional shrewd Republican who was willing to Give Obama policy concessions in terms of the ACA and other programs in exchange for oil pipelines, Trade agreements, and all of the other highbrow shit Republicans used to care about. But the Republicans were no longer rank and file when there was a Dem President. They are now only rank and file with an R President.

The "highbrow" Republicans thought they could control the rubes. But they can't. And now they are embracing them for judges and tax cuts.

Obama tried to play under the old rules with Boehner and after him but the GOP does not want bipartisan legislation or leadership. Even if they wanted it they lost the ability to deliver it.

 

[Falsedawn]

Can’t be real.

Can it?

Apparently there's more

 

[Fawlty]

You think he lied about that? Why would he, and why is it such a shocking correlation?

Not everyone who is into kinky porn is gonna become a serial killer, but there are a few who do. I don't think he was lying at all about that. He was a smart guy. He may have been trying to buy some time, and get some more interviews out of it, but I think that was one of the most honest moments of that psycho's life.

That's like ignoring a phile saying that child porn influenced them. Are you so against Christians that you can't honestly make the connection? Give me a fuckin' break.

It's not really a shocking correlation, and that's part of his game. I already said why he would lie, because he didn't want the state to execute him. He wanted to come off like a victim, and it worked somewhat effectively on gullible people, as we can see still today. Bundy was notoriously manipulative and dishonest. Exactly the kind of person who can make somebody like you say "he seemed really honest there."

Also I wasn't bagging on Christianity, I was pointing out that he pandered to the Christian right's porn hysteria of the day.

 

[HereticBD]

It's not really a shocking correlation, and that's part of his game. I already said why he would lie, because he didn't want the state to execute him. He wanted to come off like a victim, and it worked somewhat effectively on gullible people, as we can see still today.

Why does that make him a victim? It's a common environmental effect. There is usually a trigger point with these guys, and violent pornography is not exactly an out of this world example. You obviously just have a problem with it, because he told it to some super Christian guy with an agenda.

Do you believe Bundy was just born evil, or something? An even more spiritual belief...

If Bundy said he was possessed by the Devil, or some bullshit, I could see your point. However, he was just explaining some very basic trigger points. You didn't say "well, he could've been lying, but I don't know". You were adamant that he was lying, like it was obvious, when it clearly wasn't. That all comes down to your prejudice against Christians.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I understand what you're saying

I've had a bit of crisis of conscience since Trump and it honestly started before that with the rise of people like Ted Cruz and the embracing of the Tea Party.

We obviously have serious fundamental disagreements that probably would show the most when it comes to foreign policy.

I'm sure you're not a Boehner fan and you probably despise him but his ousting was the official death of the GOP for me.

But it started before that.

I was raised by a Reagan Republican and I still like a good amount about Reagan (particularly his foreign policy team which you probably abhor) but when Republicans chose Reagan over HW that was the starting point.

The party went into a dogmatic mode but they would give concessions (policies they new were needed but they could twist as dogmatically good to the orthodox base on phrasing).

For instance we have a lot of working poor. Instead of "welfare" we'll agree to the earned income tax credit. Taxes are bad so tax credits are good especially for those earning income with children.

Under this model Reagan was able to work with Tip O'Neil

Originally Clinton could still work with Newt.


But the GOP was not satisfied with that arrangement, they needed power.

So they gerrymander more and more. There has been some Dem gerrymandering but they weren't the minority party nationwide so they never got as good as it nationwide.

Boehner was a traditional shrewd Republican who was willing to Give Obama policy concessions in terms of the ACA and other programs in exchange for oil pipelines, Trade agreements, and all of the other highbrow shit Republicans used to care about. But the Republicans were no longer rank and file when there was a Dem President. They are now only rank and file with an R President.

The "highbrow" Republicans thought they could control the rubes. But they can't. And now they are embracing them for judges and tax cuts.

Obama tried to play under the old rules with Boehner and after him but the GOP does not want bipartisan legislation or leadership. Even if they wanted it they lost the ability to deliver it.

Damn fine post is damn fine

 

[HockeyBjj]

@Tycho Brah @Gregolian

That's Putin himself on the ice. Not seeing the carpet, and faceplanting

I feel like everyone needs to see this

 

[Trotsky]

If you couldn't tell, I've been home sick the past few days and just consuming YouTube videos like jerkoff since I can't focus to read. But I thought this discussion was really interesting. This chubby philosopher guy is talking about the faulty logic of these New Atheist darlings of the young right in superimposing their normative beliefs onto the scientific process and impregnating their own value judgement into this sort of objectivist ethos about facts determining moral truths.

I thought it was particularly interesting when they got into the (maddeningly stupid) quasi-evolutionary arguments by types like Jordan Peterson (and Greoric for instance) to say that, because humans are naturally domineering and will seek to marginalize each other to internalize benefits, we should do away with constraints on self-interest and allow power, influence, and basic welfare to accumulate at the discretion of those who have or will succeed. It kind of touches on the right's cynicism (@Jack V Savage) in regard to the fundamental impossibility of the administration of good governance of collective interests by administrators who are inherently self-interested.

Personally, I think it's kind of interesting realizing how much right-wing intellectuals seem to adopt, knowingly or not, a lot of concepts and conclusions from Locke and Nietzsche, two actual philosophers, to form arguments more consistent with Ayn Rand, a non-philosopher and an outright moron.



Also, @Limbo Pete, this quote made me think of you:
"Then there's this whole massive middle gulf in between that caricature [of an ultra-relativist who says that explanations outside of the scientific process are equal to those within it] and basically like well "three plus three equals six" and then pretty much once you're out of that you're in the terrain of history."

 

[HereticBD]

If you couldn't tell, I've been home sick the past few days.

I could tell. The chicken soup is in the mail, buddy.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

You think he lied about that? Why would he, and why is it such a shocking correlation?

Not everyone who is into kinky porn is gonna become a serial killer, but there are a few who do. I don't think he was lying at all about that. He was a smart guy. He may have been trying to buy some time, and get some more interviews out of it, but I think that was one of the most honest moments of that psycho's life.

That's like ignoring a phile saying that child porn influenced them. Are you so against Christians that you can't honestly make the connection? Give me a fuckin' break.

I think the entire interview was ridiculous but reading a bit about it he was talking with Dr. James Robson, an evangelical leader that hates porn. It makes a lot of sense he was trying to say he was kind of innocent, it was the pornography that did it. He said he had a normal Christian life.
Bullshit, he was raised by his grandparents because his mother had an out of wedlock birth and he didn't know it until he was an adult, he thought she was his sister. His grandfather was a raging alcoholic.
He mutilated cats and dogs. He got arrested more than once as a teenager for stealing. He was the prototypical psychopath.
He claimed to the FBI he didn't even like pornography the night before his interview with Robson.

 

[HereticBD]

I think the entire interview was ridiculous but reading a bit about it he was talking with Dr. James Robson, an evangelical leader that hates porn. It makes a lot of sense he was trying to say he was kind of innocent, it was the pornography that did it.

I don't really see that line of thinking. There is always some kind of reason. I don't think the way Bundy described it, was exonerating in any way. The easy out, would be blaming his upbringing, and not some magazines. Did he maybe focus in on that, because the guy who interviewed him was a prominent figure at the time, and highlighted that issue? Perhaps, but I don't think he was being dishonest. Then again, who can really say? He was a psychopath.

I don't see the interview as ridiculous, so much as it was a maniac coming to terms with it all, and maybe was inspired a bit by the interviewer in question. He fully admits guilt, and knows what's coming and couldn't possibly fathom this being his out, so what's his game? Just give this old Christian porn hating guy his jollies, as his last act? I don't buy that. I think he was genuine talking about that element of his mentality, but obviously that's not the be all end all of what made him.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

If you couldn't tell, I've been home sick the past few days and just consuming YouTube videos like jerkoff since I can't focus to read. But I thought this discussion was really interesting. This chubby philosopher guy is talking about the faulty logic of these New Atheist darlings of the young right in superimposing their normative beliefs onto the scientific process and impregnating their own value judgement into this sort of objectivist ethos about facts determining moral truths.

Personally, I think it's kind of interesting realizing how much right-wing intellectuals seem to adopt, knowingly or not, a lot of concepts and conclusions from Locke and Nietzsche, two actual philosophers, to form arguments more consistent with Ayn Rand, a non-philosopher and an outright moron.

I don't know much about Rand except she wrote novels that are way too long, care to give an example?
The video with the chubby philosopher is interesting. I might waste my weekend reading a bit on that.

 

[Gregolian]

Dany
Cersei
Tommen
Stannis
Joffrey
Robert

All should have taken a lesson from Ragnar

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

I don't really see that line of thinking. There is always some kind of reason. I don't think the way Bundy described it, was exonerating in any way. The easy out, would be blaming his upbringing, and not some magazines. Did he maybe focus in on that, because the guy who interviewed him was a prominent figure at the time, and highlighted that issue? Perhaps, but I don't think he was being dishonest. Then again, who can really say? He was a psychopath.

I don't see the interview as ridiculous, so much as it was a maniac coming to terms with it all, and maybe was inspired a bit by the interviewer in question. He fully admits guilt, and knows what's coming and couldn't possibly fathom this being his out, so what's his game? Just give this old Christian porn hating guy his jollies, as his last act? I don't buy that. I think he was genuine talking about that element of his mentality, but obviously that's not the be all end all of what made him.

Taken by itself I could trust him but it seems he contradicted himself the day before.

He told Dobson that "true crime" detective magazines had "corrupted" him and "fueled [his] fantasies ... to the point of becoming a serial killer"; yet in a 1977 letter to Ann Rule, he wrote, "Who in the world reads these publications? ... I have never purchased such a magazine, and [on only] two or three occasions have I ever picked one up."[340] He told Michaud and Aynsworth in 1980, and Hagmaier the night before he spoke to Dobson, that pornography played a negligible role in his development as a serial killer.[341] "The problem wasn't pornography", wrote Dekle. "The problem was Bundy."[342] "I wish I could believe that his motives were altruistic," wrote Rule. "But all I can see in that Dobson tape is another Ted Bundy manipulation of our minds. The effect of the tape is to place, once again, the onus of his crimes, not on himself, but on us."[335]

That's from wikipedia and I can't or I won't look up the sources, but if true would invalidate his point about porn.
Not directly related to violent porn and psychopaths because I was never into that stuff but I'm always a bit skeptical about these anti-porn types because most anti-porn stuff I've read is so stupid.
I'm not talking about the evangelicals, but it's a common trope among the nofap crowd that porn makes you uninterested in real sex, it gives you impotence, or that you will only want to have sex with girls that look like pornstars. It has been so different to me that I can't take it seriously.
The more porn I watched the more I wanted to taste the real thing, most girls in porn aren't actually that good looking and watching them didn't make me lose any interest in average women.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/mar/11/young-men-porn-induced-erectile-dysfunction

Lone viewers of pornography become accustomed to being fully in control of their sexual experience – which again, says Faulkner, “isn’t replicated in the real world”. Being faced with a real, complicated human being, with needs and insecurities, could be deeply off-putting.

Really? You can get hard by watching pixels but not with actual boobs in your face? Maybe you should try some cock instead.

 

[Higus]

@Tycho Brah @Gregolian

That's Putin himself on the ice. Not seeing the carpet, and faceplanting

I feel like everyone needs to see this

RIP whomever put the carpet there

 

[Trotsky]

I don't know much about Rand except she wrote novels that are way too long, care to give an example?
The video with the chubby philosopher is interesting. I might waste my weekend reading a bit on that.

There really isn't much to Rand to be completely honest. I spent a week huffing glue, err reading Atlas Shrugged, and the philosophy is, crudely, that (a) selfishness is rational, and therefore (b) selfishness is good, and therefore (c) a person who accumulates capital and power is good and virtuous, and therefore (d) the persons or institutions that seek to augment or moderate the maximum distribution of capital to those good persons are evil, lazy mooches who hate freedom.

My favorite is her characterization of persons seeking augmented distribution as "looters." That's particularly stupid since it presumes that present economic productivity is absolute and doesn't seem to realize that persons seeking to inhibit economies into neo-feudalism are effectively "looting" the economy and world of the excess wealth and happiness that would be produced in a coherently managed economy and society. I forget what the logical fallacy is called, but I remember my economics professor analogizing it to an environmentalist who is against having large yards because of the ecological wastefulness but then buys a former commercial building and then builds a big yard and says it's maximally good because the yard is better than the previous concrete - not realizing that the yard being better than the concrete doesn't negate the fact that making the lot fully green would be exponentially better for the environment.

Anyways, it's intellectually, philosophically, and economically vapid. And that's without getting into the fact that Rand's private life really contradicts her supposed commitment to those hyper-individualistic principles.

 

[TheGreatA]

I don't really see that line of thinking. There is always some kind of reason. I don't think the way Bundy described it, was exonerating in any way. The easy out, would be blaming his upbringing, and not some magazines. Did he maybe focus in on that, because the guy who interviewed him was a prominent figure at the time, and highlighted that issue? Perhaps, but I don't think he was being dishonest. Then again, who can really say? He was a psychopath.

I don't see the interview as ridiculous, so much as it was a maniac coming to terms with it all, and maybe was inspired a bit by the interviewer in question. He fully admits guilt, and knows what's coming and couldn't possibly fathom this being his out, so what's his game? Just give this old Christian porn hating guy his jollies, as his last act? I don't buy that. I think he was genuine talking about that element of his mentality, but obviously that's not the be all end all of what made him.

I would say that if you're as sick a bastard as that guy was, then you're already by nature. Hell, I've known people who were scum since about the time they reached a level of sentience, and they didn't even have an upbringing to blame. Just a certain type of excessive cruelty and self-absorbedness that goes beyond rational explanation. Those people already possess the attributes, and just about anything can give them the necessary shove in that direction. If it wasn't porn magazines then it would've been something else, after all there is no end to degenerate filth in this world, if you choose to surround yourself with it.

Most scum end up blaming external factors because they're ultimately incapable of blaming themselves for their actions. They want to believe that if things were different, they would've been just as "good" as anybody else, and that they were just unfortunate to end up how they were, thus relieving themselves of any guilt from their actions, placing the responsibility on others.

They can't face the fact that others have been subjected to far worse, while having acted morally throughout their lives. Takes away their whole foundation.