Frankies Blog

Looks like Frankies blog about Magpies blog has now been closed. Oh the irony.

In any case, I'm curious to know why these blogs would be closed? Sure they might be getting a bit long winded and repetitive, but at the very least couldn't the moderator closing the blogs at least post why they are closing them?

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Votes: 0

Replies

        • Daz be patient,  it will come . 

      • Frankie, Yes. JP deserves success. It's actually a tragedy people want to take successful people out. You probably get it too.

        What also gets me is the sheer lunacy, hate, spitefulness of hyper-radical thinking left or right - the problem of identity possession - which is exactly what JP is highlighting & why the possessed hate him so deeply. 

        Look at some of these Feminists protesting outside the White House recently: Destroy world order! Destroy capitalism ! Destroy the Patriarchy! Destroy! Destroy! There's some mental illness attached to this. 

        Daz's won't accept this video as evidence because it's not from a web article written by a journalist on this video.

        But, after these radicals replace the world order with other multi-hair-coloured My Little Pony economic rulers - and ironically establish a new world order - what does she propose to do with men if male masculinity is truly tyrannical & evil? Put them in Marxist Gulags like the Stalin-Mao Communists did to add to the millions of other corpses? If all men had it so good why are more of them committing suicide? 

        The irony of all this is: "we" have never lived in better times, really.

        Sure, we have serious problems, can improve things & continue to make things fairer for everyone. But destroy world order? 

         

        • HOE, I don’t condone that protesters tone, as while it may preach to the converted, it fails to win over the more moderate. Also, very few are attracted to a long list of things that are hated with zero indication that there is a thing worthwhile to hold onto.

          But when Trump said there are good people on both sides of the Charlottesville protest that pitted neo-nazis and white supremacists against assorted leftists, did you agree that we should include neo-Nazis and white supremacists amongst the good people? When the NZ fellow killed 50 in attacks on mosques in Christchurch, did you sympathise with his plight? When the American went on a mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, having posted an anti-immigrant video, did you think he was just standing up for justice?

          What kind of world are these extreme right wingers trying to create? Is it one you want to live in? Maybe not, but guess who those extreme right wingers are liking on Facebook? Guess which Patreon site they give patronage too? Yes, JP. Why is that? Because the world order those extremists think needs to be re-established is one based on strength justified by strength not accountability or rights, and they think the world order is natural (men over women, one race over another, etc) but distorted by modern social liberalism. And JP justifies both. JP is an intellectual for those extreme right wingers because he dog whistles to their prejudices and provides an intellectual architecture that warrants their preferences as a natural order suppressed by progressives. 

          So you can post all the videos you like of powerless complaint merchants on the left with funny hair colour and shrill voices, and in the meantime, neo-nazi, white supremacist and anti-immigrant terrorists are marching in the streets and even shooting people and what the fuck are you saying about that?

        • I wonder who she votes for, Trump?

          She's lucky she lives today but in the land of the free - a few centuries ago it would've been off with her head.

          • Frank, she is American, so it would not surprise to see her vote completely against her interests. Because the Americans have got pretty dumb lately 

            • Or maybe they are finally waking up to the media lies and leftist rubbish

    • But HOE, you are running! Go have a look at the places where I say X and you claim I say Xa, after which you don’t even lampoon Xa, you go on about Y, the point you originally made. That is classic avoidance.

      For instance, I say that you can’t paste an entire video as evidence. You can post the video but you need to be more specific and quote the relevant part of the JP argument you claim warrants your position. Your strategy has been akin to religious apologists who disclaim any form of meanness in the Bible by saying “read the Bible”. Has JP become your Bible to such an extent that you think it satisfactory to just say “read JP”?

      Another example: we are debating if JP condones violence, and I lay out his argument that violence is within males, as part of the natural make-up, and he thinks a man who refuses to act violently is not worthy of respect and he says he is quite bummed he is not allowed to hit women because of social conventions. Now you do not address that exact point, instead shirking it and using anecdotes about crazy women that, what, you wish you could have hit? And see that is the issue right there. That is called condonement. JP has set it up that if it were not for a prissy society there would be a lot more violence, as males act out their natural instincts to visit violence upon those they might disagree with and also act out the natural instinct to visit violence on crazy women. You seem to not grasp JP’s point here, because you fail to follow his thinking as it moves from the absolute to the relative. To be frank (hi Frank!), the absolute-relative movement in JP’s thought is admirable. Are there fixed things within changes? To his credit JP raises this question. It is just that JP settles on the absolute, and you miss this settlement. JP says society changes and our rules of conduct change (the relative), so today it’s not cool to hit women. But JP laments this settlement, because males are inherently violent and women inherently unruly (the absolute). Now that we are denied the natural settlement of violence - women cannot be reasoned with (because apparently if reasoning fails to settle something the option must be war not agreement to disagree and settling on a lower order agreement) - society reflects the chaos that is (absolutely) the feminine. Yes, JP says men should act honourably and take responsibility. But what you overlook is the domain of cases in which JP explicitly says those virtues apply. Clean your room. Speak up for yourself. Poor and unemployed? Take responsibility. But his argument explicitly says violence against women is NOT the males fault, and so it is not something for him to take responsibility for. In JP’s logic men are the victims of a prissy society that has allowed women to sometimes be in charge and have sex outside of marriage.

      Again, you have to pay attention to what he says, at more than a literal level. JP issues caveats because he knows the social rules of the game, which are relative: JP should men hit women? No, take responsibility and act honourably. OK JP why are men hitting women and what to say about it? Oh that’s bad (relatively speaking). But the absolute now comes to the fore: society has changed to the point where men can’t hit women, so anxieties build up in a context where women are acting out of place and being independent and having sex as they wish. This frustrates mans natural urge to dominate. Society is frustrating mans natural dominance. And here is the kicker ... the point that escapes too many because as they say JP is the stupid persons intellectual ... why blame women not society at that point? Because women have absolute characteristics too. Theirs is to be subordinate. Says JP. Explicitly. And so if these women are wilfully acting out of turn, then they deserve the violence that comes their way because men are just being men and if women would just go back to being women then the men would not bring violence upon them. And JP thinks that’s the key to peace. Know your lane. Stay in it. Chaos ensues if you don’t and it’s your fault. There is a word for this type of thinking and it starts with F. I wonder if you know which word it is?

      JP says all this in and through his theory of Jungian archetypes. Maybe the question you need to ask yourself is why is JP such a hero of the alt right men’s rights groups? Is it just because he says men and women are different? Shit that could make Daffy Duck their hero. It’s because JP validates their sense that men are superior and that women have acted out too much, and that men are being restricted from just being blokes who do things like smack those crazy bitches and otherwise keep them in kitchens and beds and tell em to shut up. You know as well as I do that there are types like that, but you are shirking that JP is their hero. He validates them, and guess what, they don’t read much those types but they have sure the hell tead JP from front to cover 12 times, and they have seen what the Jungian archetypes and biological determination view is saying.

      • Daz, We can go through all your allegations one by one, but first...

        Again, do you concede JP is right: Men should refrain from hitting women even in stressful situations if a woman went crazy?

        Or do you suggest another action: like hitting a woman? 

        I'm going to keep repeating this until you stop running from it. Or concede your allegations of JP condoning violence against woman has no legs. It's just your personal feeling or opinion.

        • HOE, I addressed it. All I can say here is what I would say to a student repeatedly not understanding a point. Try harder. 

          JP says restrain yourself because social rules are currently against you. But he laments the existence of those social rules and the restraint they counsel. I explained how he reaches that conclusion above. You must try harder, my friend; I’m saying that to you in earnest honesty. If this were some paper you were writing we would be sitting down with the relevant passages and examples and going through them item by item, and then we would be asking about the over-arching architecture of the argument and what that architecture does with the explicit words and the examples. I feel you are not grasping the absolute-relative distinction in JP’s thought and what it does for his thinking.

      • Okay Daz, I'll concede two points:

        1. I agree with you: you have an "uncharitable" view of JP.

        2. I was wrong, you don't call JP "uncharitable", you actually call him a "jerk."

        See how nice I can play. Now your turn. Answer. Pretty please.

        PS:You probably don't see JP as uncharitable I imagine.

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

LB replied to Prof. Daz's discussion R4 V TIGERS: FREUD SAYS ‘WORK THROUGH’ IT, DEAR EELS
"Then again, tired middle opens up the ruck for Api to do his thing.
We will give him space but will halves help him. Our spine is much better with Gutho and Brown in there."
1 minute ago
JB. Prints of Parra replied to Cʜɪᴇғ -'s discussion Big News On Lomax
"What I could see happening is Lomax to the Chooks and Suaalii to the Eels "
27 minutes ago
Cumberland Eel replied to Cʜɪᴇғ -'s discussion Big News On Lomax
"Can anyone actually see this happening. Lomax at the Eels? "
34 minutes ago
Electric Eel 2 replied to Poppa's discussion Players and Values and Judgements to make
"Hardly the point that I was making!"
50 minutes ago
More…