We need to re-focus all our genocide on this woman

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:05 pm

This woman. She needs to be genocided, over and over and over and over again. Somehow. Get on it.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle ... experience

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:25 pm

Most of the time I'm joking/exaggerating when I say some people need to be killed. Not here. This evil worthless narcissistic authoritarian sociopathic cunt needs to die, now. Her body needs to be burned and put in a canister and shot out to the sun. We then need to scrub down or melt everything she ever touched.

Ffs what kind of horrible dystopian nightmare do we live in where this shit is acceptable.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Fri Mar 25, 2016 11:28 pm

sorry I'm just sort of upset right now

Post by **aels** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:08 am

Jesus Christ. Yeah, we should definitely kidnap our children so they don't fall prey to that most shameful of careers. What decent man would marry a woman he knew to be a hairdresser? Maybe your children are acting out because you're a terrible person! MAYBE THAT. All this would teach me in terms of meaningful life lessons would be that my mother is a snakey fuck who is quite prepared to drug me and have me taken away by strangers to live in the desert. But hey, she knuckled down and chose the exact life her mother wanted for her so I suppose all's well that ends well and no one involved in this needs to consider their understanding of personal boundaries.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:23 am

I've known about these re-education camps for a few years, they're headed by what's called the "troubled teen industry" or whatever, they're basically secretive un-regulated gulag labor camps where children and teenagers are literally kidnapped by masked strangers in the middle of the night and forced to go to, and obviously they're organized by a bunch of religious nutcases/psychopaths with complete power so there's a lot of physical and sexual abuse there. And these religious upper-class parent fucks pay tens of thousands of dollars to have their children go to them because they smoked pot or skipped school or had the temerity to be gay or showed any sign of independence at all, where they're abused and tortured and brainwashed to be good upstanding God-fearing citizens. It's disturbing and horrifying as fuck.

"Kidnapped for Christ" is a documentary that goes over it. Cracked.com had some good articles on it. There's been a few books about it. I honestly think this industry is a lot larger and more horrifying than we think.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:29 am

The best way to keep your children off drugs - drug them!

Post by **aels** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:29 am

Like, maybe spend thousands of dollars on therapy instead. For your kids, or for you so you stop thinking that kidnap is rad.

Post by **aels** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:30 am

CashRules wrote:The best way to keep your children off drugs - drug them!

She was going to become a HAIRDRESSER, BRANDON. A HAIRDRESSER. My God, I'd disown such a child.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:39 am

I probably shouldn't say much. I've stolen a few kids in my time, it's part of my culture.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:43 am

This evil cunt drugged her daughter and paid for her to be sent to a forced labor camp because she wanted to be a hairdresser.

Fuck her. She needs to die.

I like how most of the comments under her article were deleted.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:48 am

I'd be okay with killing the mother. These kinds of "camps" are bullshit in the first place no matter what the kid has done. But this one didn't even do anything.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:52 am

(I sometimes get sort of emotional sometimes)

The vast majority of the time they don't even do anything. They're sent there for doing drugs or skipping school or getting bad grades or being gay or atheist or contemplating suicide or talking back or having an attitude. There's nothing you could do to deserve to be sent to a torture indoctrination camp where there's a certainty of physical abuse and a high likelihood of sexual abuse.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:53 am

In case you couldn't tell this article triggered the fuck out of me.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 1:01 am

I used to get calls from these kinds of parents:

"My kid saw your kid smoking weed at a party last night."

"Okay, I'm about to give her hell."

"Yeah, you should."

"You're damn right, she knows not to smoke weed if she's not going to save any for me."
___

"Somebody said they saw your girl kissing another girl. You might want to have a talk with her about that."

"Okay, I'll tell her "somebody" is being a nosy cuntface, thanks."

Post by **Islandmur** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 2:26 am

What a horrid story.

Most teens have grades that drop and go through their rebellious phases. If your kid is dropping out to go to beauty school, the problem isn't the kid, you've failed to instill in them the necessity for school.

There is such a thing as peer pressure but you're the one supposed to teach them how to deal with it, so they don't get caught with drugs at 14.

The real kicker of this story about this proud mom, is that there is no point of view from the reformed children. None.

I'd say the they love me for it part is a lie.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 2:36 am

These camps brainwash kids into loving their parents for sending them there... so it might be true.

Unvoiced_Apollo · Post by **Unvoiced_Apollo** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 2:56 am

Derived Absurdity wrote:These camps brainwash kids into loving their parents for sending them there... so it might be true.

I think I mean "I love you" more to my mother than this daughter to hers, and that's saying something.

Then again, my relationship clearly wasn't as toxic as her feeling like she had to pay for my kidnapping and held hostage in some God forsaken desert.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:25 am

Beauty school dropout, go back to high school...

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 4:46 am

nosy cuntface, lol

but those are some good reactions, though. I like it when parents act like their kids are actual human people with rights and stuff.

phe_de · Post by **phe_de** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 5:39 pm

Derived Absurdity wrote:Ffs what kind of horrible dystopian nightmare do we live in where this shit is acceptable.

The world where people take parenting tips from "Tiger Mother" Amy Chua seriously.
It's a nightmare, but we are not dreaming.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 5:41 pm

I agree, that "Tiger Mother" crap is disturbing.

Even if it was effective, it would be unjustifiable, but we know for a fact that it's not. That makes it worse. (And these camps are evidently not "effective" either.)

phe_de · Post by **phe_de** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 5:53 pm

On the other hand, the concept of childhood as a phase of human life where children can be children is relatively recent. I believe it started after the Enlightenment of the 18th century; or maybe even later, after the first wave of the Industrial Revolution.

Before, children were essentially seen as small adults, and treated accordingly. Two words: Child labor.

So it's understandable (not justifiable), that some people believe that what "worked" for thousands of years in terms of forming children might work now; in a modernized way.
Regardless of the fact that a world where children do not have rights is a world of war, famine, and very short lifespans...

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 6:19 pm

Well, these things shouldn't happen to adults either. And they don't. So they're not really treating them like adults. They're treating them like objects.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 8:36 pm

Somewhat tangentially, Eva is starting to annoy me a bit.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 9:43 pm

He's a decent fellow, but he wears you down.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 10:26 pm

I try to like Eva, but he's someone with absolutely no education beyond high school who thinks reading a lot is a substitute. It's not. The idea that you can be well-educated without formal education is a myth. It's a myth that needs to die, by genocide.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 10:53 pm

I don't like how he seems to be skipping over sentences in my posts and thus responds to points I didn't make, at least twice in that thread alone. I don't know if he's playing dumb or "devil's advocate" or what.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 11:07 pm

He does that a lot. He's a guy who makes extremely long posts to say what anyone else could say in three sentences and expects people to read it all. Then he can't read and comprehend what is being said in return. He did the same with me just a few days ago on that thread of his that maxed out in just a little over a day. In that case, he completely missed my first sentence.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 11:11 pm

I noticed that, but I struck it up as honest misreading/misunderstanding/whatever. 'Cuz it was one time. Now (I see) it's a pattern. He's repeatedly missing things it should be difficult to miss.

EDIT: Also when I point this out to him he doesn't acknowledge it or apologize for it in any way.

I thinking I'm starting to understand why he has such trouble coming round to the idea of this woman being a narcissist.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 11:23 pm

I should probably restate what i said earlier to make sure it's not misunderstood. There's nothing wrong with reading a lot to gain a better understanding of topics you haven't otherwise studied in depth. In fact, any intelligent person with even the least bit of curiosity about the world outside their own little bubble would do exactly that. There is a big problem, however, with thinking that such reading makes you qualified to argue those topics in faux-academic language. Too often Eva does the latter and his amateurish approach is evident by his unnecessary verbosity, unnecessary in that a true academic could say the same thing using about 20% of the words while doing a better job of both getting his own point across and comprehending the other person's point.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sat Mar 26, 2016 11:35 pm

Derived Absurdity wrote:I noticed that, but I struck it up as honest misreading/misunderstanding/whatever. 'Cuz it was one time. Now (I see) it's a pattern. He's repeatedly missing things it should be difficult to miss.

EDIT: Also when I point this out to him he doesn't acknowledge it or apologize for it in any way.

I thinking I'm starting to understand why he has such trouble coming round to the idea of this woman being a narcissist.

It's because he's so into what he has to say since he's read a lot - so doesn't pay close attention and makes toi many assumptions about your position. He has "I've got everything figured out" syndrome. He will claim he doesn't have that attitude but his actions suggest otherwise. He's very similar to that Jr weirdo but much less of a prick.

Post by **Islandmur** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 1:02 am

I think reading can help you debate, as long and you've actually understood what you read.

Problem is certain people read a lot and retain a lot but in a "by rot" way, they think because they've understood the words they've understood the meaning and that's false. It takes a lot more then "just reading" to understand things specially academic things.

I sort of tune out when people start saying according to Y, X stated that, too much.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 1:26 am

Most of my knowledge of biology comes from self-study. But I didn't arrive there from a total vacuum the way Eva arrived at most of his knowledge. I have a M.S. in mathematics and I began my interest in biology by first becoming interested in cladistics (modern taxonomy) which is just an application of set theory*, something in which i do have formal training. From there, combined with the few biology courses I did have, it was relatively easy to develop a fairly decent understanding of biology. But I would never pretend that my knowledge of the broad discipline of biology is equivalent to someone with an actual background in biology, such as Monk or Ruth. This type of undeservedly-arrogant thinking is how we get someone like Bryce comically trying to lecture people on logic or someone like Goz having an opinion about anything. I try to avoid Eva as much as possible because even though i recognize his amateurish layman's style for what it is, most of his posts concern philosophy, an area where I am no more qualified than he is except for discussing logic. In fact, he probably knows more about the overall discipline of philosophy than I do but still not enough to discuss it as though he's an expert.

* I arrived at much of my knowledge and interest in several fields of study specifically because of how they relate to set theory or other branches of mathematics.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 1:50 am

I tend to only talk passionately about things I'm educated about. And if I'm not, I take a more passive role in the discussion. I don't know why that is so difficult for some people.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 1:52 am

Because most people are assholes. By my latest estimates at least 97.3% of the human population should be exterminated and used for fertilizer and fish food.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:36 am

Eva feels sorry for Jeffrey Dahmer. Remember that thread I made about sympathy for serial killers?

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:48 am

Ummm...thread count is 666 the day after Christ was nailed to a cross. I'm....afraid.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:53 am

As someone with zero formal training in philosophy but a lot of "self-study" FWIW even I can tell Eva is somewhat of an amateur. If nothing else, his obsession with LessWrongian-style "rationalism" and his quoting of Eliezer Yudkowsky like he's scripture is a dead giveaway. Among virtually all actual philosophers who've bothered to comment on it LessWrong is considered an obscene joke. Eddie, unfortunately, is someone who seems to have actual knowledge of and respect for the field, as terrible is his morals and his discourse are.

Eva does seem to have a lot of formal knowledge of film theory, though. If he doesn't he hides it really well. His film analysis blows everyone else away.

As for me saying we "don't have much of a disagreement" on that thread, well, we still very much do, but I was getting sick of the conversation by that point and I wanted to drop it on a friendly note. Eva and I have gotten along for years and I wanted it to stay that way. And yes, I realize right now I'm talking behind his back like a stereotypical mean high school girl. But I'm seeing a side of him I haven't really noticed before.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 4:04 am

Yeah... I'm starting to get that "this guy is a sociopath" feeling again. It's always the same pattern. He seems like a decent person, then you start to get into an ethical disagreement that initially doesn't seem like a big deal, but the further into it you get the more you start to wonder if something is seriously wrong with him.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:40 am

He's like a low-grade sociopath. I doubt he could ever hurt anyone but there's still some intuitive things he doesn't seem to "get".

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:15 pm

I like how he admitted that someone in his real life accused him of lacking empathy. Someone he was just trying to "help". But of course he self-servingly framed it as an attack on the character of the accuser. I wonder what the real story is.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Tue Mar 29, 2016 10:36 pm

I have to admit though it's difficult to square his apparent empathy deficits when he's arguing ethics with the humanity he shows when he's analyzing film. Movie critic-Eva shows someone who is very much in touch with his humanity and who seems to experience and appreciate the full spectrum of human emotion. I've always been very impressed with that part of him. I don't really get it.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Tue Mar 29, 2016 10:47 pm

Can you lead me to a particular good review of his that showcases this?

I mean...I don't think he's actually a sociopath. But he might a little further on the spectrum than the average person. When I was arguing with him recently, I also speculated that he might seem somewhat out of touch with his humanity because he claims to have trained himself to never trust his intuition.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Tue Mar 29, 2016 10:58 pm

Even the expressions of humanity I've seen from him are all very "head in the clouds"...not very grounded in reality. Kinda like fleetsin. Maybe it's the poetry.

And it ironically comes across as callous and self-serving...and ultimately shallow...because he dismisses real shit for his bullshit. He recently tried that nonsense when I was arguing with him about the Nina Simone biopic. Talking about the elephant man and some other shit.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Tue Mar 29, 2016 11:05 pm

I actually get it from the IMDB comments he's made over the years, not actual reviews. Like his posts on the 2001, Evangelion, and Film General boards. It seems to me that he's highly perceptive and accurate when it comes to a film's emotional authenticity (and conversely when it's lacking); he's able to hone in on what exactly makes certain films emotionally meaningful, and why they're not when they're not (and only pretending to be). More generally he gives emotion in film the critical weight it deserves, unlike other reviewers I used to like who overly focus on plot mechanics, acting, cinematography, and so on while leaving the emotional strength of the narrative on the back burner (which gives me the impression they don't care about it, which gives me the further impression they're missing a critical piece of their humanity which is a requirement for reviewing movies).

He just always seemed like a person who treats emotion seriously and maturely. I can't think of one particularly illustrative example.

Post by **aels** » Tue Mar 29, 2016 11:15 pm

^ I would just like to say how much I like this comment. That probably sounds sarcastic but it's not, I just really like the way you've phrased it.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Tue Mar 29, 2016 11:17 pm

Thanks!

Post by **Islandmur** » Tue Mar 29, 2016 11:57 pm

Cassius Clay wrote:Even the expressions of humanity I've seen from him are all very "head in the clouds"...not very grounded in reality. Kinda like fleetsin. Maybe it's the poetry.

And it ironically comes across as callous and self-serving...and ultimately shallow...because he dismisses real shit for his bullshit. He recently tried that nonsense when I was arguing with him about the Nina Simone biopic. Talking about the elephant man and some other shit.

Hey don't bash the poetry!

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:01 am

Poetry is for the birds.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Wed Mar 30, 2016 12:02 am

Derived Absurdity wrote:I actually get it from the IMDB comments he's made over the years, not actual reviews. Like his posts on the 2001, Evangelion, and Film General boards. It seems to me that he's highly perceptive and accurate when it comes to a film's emotional authenticity (and conversely when it's lacking); he's able to hone in on what exactly makes certain films emotionally meaningful, and why they're not when they're not (and only pretending to be). More generally he gives emotion in film the critical weight it deserves, unlike other reviewers I used to like who overly focus on plot mechanics, acting, cinematography, and so on while leaving the emotional strength of the narrative on the back burner (which gives me the impression they don't care about it, which gives me the further impression they're missing a critical piece of their humanity which is a requirement for reviewing movies).

He just always seemed like a person who treats emotion seriously and maturely. I can't think of one particularly illustrative example.

Maybe he plagiarizes.