PJ's Authoritarian thread: C-SPAM edition

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > PJ's Authoritarian thread: C-SPAM edition

Sheng-Ji Yang: Mar 5, 2014

T-man posted:

"I fail to understand how this would be harassment (given my knowledge and social position)" and "this is not harassment (for someone else)" are not equal. But screw it, I'm done discussing this. Reality is subjective and there's no truth and we all die alone yadda yadda.

Also I post more in D&D and BYOB than I do PYF.

PS. I'll be reading along, already started on chapter 1.

lol

# ? Nov 3, 2018 07:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 17:10

paul_soccer10: Mar 28, 2016; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Lol

# ? Nov 3, 2018 07:44

paul_soccer10: Mar 28, 2016; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

# ? Nov 3, 2018 07:44

Former DILF: Jul 13, 2017

why did the n word cross the road

# ? Nov 3, 2018 07:50

Former DILF: Jul 13, 2017

Former DILF posted:

why did the n word cross the road

to liberate the markets because that is a moral necessity

# ? Nov 3, 2018 07:50

Former DILF: Jul 13, 2017

you ever notice how neoliberals drive like this and socialists dont drive but instead barricade themselves inside (previously) unmapped caves?

# ? Nov 3, 2018 07:51

Former DILF: Jul 13, 2017

so this neoliberal was walkin around a tesla dealership

the salesman walks up and says "i bet you're thinking about buying a tesla"

the neoliberal replies "no, i know im buying a tesla. i'm thinking about raping children in the basement of a pizza restaurant"

the salesman says "well i can put you down on the waiting list for a deposit"

# ? Nov 3, 2018 07:54

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

Jazerus posted:

i mean, fishmech literally can't post in cspam, he's not allowed because we told him to gently caress off extremely hard. it is in general a place you can tell anybody to gently caress off though and people should do so

i feel like there is a weird refusal on your part to actually engage with the large body of material prester has written about all of the points you've raised in your last couple of posts. this isn't exactly new, the d&d thread was years old and the OP of this thread links to prester's blog where she lays this all out. there's been an ongoing discussion about this stuff for years so is it a surprise that there are a few bits of specialized vocabulary involved? this poo poo is not actually complicated, or even particularly far outside of currently existing psychological theory once you mentally transform it from prester's vocabulary into more standard terms. which requires reading it in detail - that's not going to be everybody's cup of tea and that's fine but that doesn't make jargon gibberish.

most people are not narrativists. some people have been in the past and aren't now, others aren't right now but will be in the future, and most people never will be. it's not a clinical pathology - it's a system of logical reasoning that a person can be talked into believing in, or talked out of believing in, and which ties everything into a larger-than-life narrative about a conflict between good and evil. the exact details vary according to the person's culture, interests, and experiences, of course - one narrativist might believe that life is a story about a left behind style rapture that'll happen any day now, another that the reptilians control the world through the UN, another that the end of civilization is coming and so they must stockpile food and weapons for the post-apocalypse. all of the familiar varieties of crazy that make a normal person go "" because they're people living in weird all-encompassing fantasy worlds. some of those people can pass for not-crazy - those are narrativists with an outer narrative.

it's certainly true that people use "genteel social signifiers covering power relations" but that's not exactly what is going on for a narrativist - the power relations part is the perspective of non-narrativists who feed the narrativists their narrative, while the narrativist is living a fantasy where they're the Good Guys fighting the Bad Guys. a lot of the folks who do nonsensical poo poo to "own the libs" are thinking on this symbolic fantasy level where their actions will contribute to the spiritual war that they perceive as happening all around them. narrativist theory is about the dittoheads, whereas the "rhetoric covering power relations" part is rush himself, to use a very last-decade comparison here. this isn't something that you are unfamiliar with, willie - it's just viewed through a different lens.

people in this thread aren't compelled by a grand narrative of narrativism. narrativists aren't the evil enemy, even if they're often easily fooled by grifters and authoritarians into supporting regressive poo poo, and we don't build our lives around a perceived conflict between narrativists and non-narrativists. narrativists simply are part of the human condition, an aspect of human society that is more usually treated as many discrete phenomena rather than a unified one. that's where i think PJ's writings really have value - they identify commonalities between disparate groups of folks who are disconnected from reality-based reasoning, and explain mechanically why we see certain behaviors and dynamics in these groups. is PJ right about everything? no, certainly not, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to take seriously here.

i contend that none of this is true merely because you assert it in earnest, and prefer previously existing scholarly explanations of this behavior instead. i have provided more support for my ideas than you or PJ for yours, because i've read things about this subject and shared a couple of them--though not nearly enough things to begin formulating grand unifying explicatory theories of my own. do you understand the problem?

at least the authoritarian personality didn't need to make people refer to a blog of Terminology in order to interpret empirical fieldwork.

Sheng-Ji Yang posted:

how the gently caress is this harassment lol

unless you think correctly pointing out how fundamentally stupid all this is counts as harassment

im still half worried im biting down too hard on a bored grad student's Foucalt's Pendulum style troll but dialed down for goons seeking whatever it is they're looking for, and that the punchline is the thread is creating within it the thing it's purporting to describe.

actually no im not worried because that would be fuckin' great

Willie Tomg has issued a correction as of 08:01 on Nov 3, 2018

# ? Nov 3, 2018 07:59

Sheng-Ji Yang: Mar 5, 2014

Al! posted:

lol

i dont think yall " " get " " cspam

# ? Nov 3, 2018 08:18

Prav: Oct 29, 2011

argas please explain your behaviour wrt authoritarian personalities and narrative disorders

# ? Nov 3, 2018 08:21

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

Sheng-Ji Yang posted:

i dont think yall " " get " " cspam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxXEPk3dzFg

# ? Nov 3, 2018 08:28

E-Tank: Aug 4, 2011

So uhh, to try and get things back on topic, I posted this and I don't know if PJ ever got a look at it. I was kinda proud of it, so posting it here again.

"So I found what I think is the most clear cut case of a narrativist being put on the spot by having exposed the inner narrative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7hYxYZbqtQ&t=2558s

This is Mark Collett. At the time of this video, he was something of a rising star in the BNP, which is literally the British Nazi Party.

First thing he does when the reporter comes in and tells him that he's a reporter, and he's been writing a report about him, is to deny everything. Because he doesn't have any proof.

then when the reporter tells him he recorded everything he looks like a deer caught in headlights because he said some *Really* nasty poo poo. First he demands he leave because he has betrayed him, then immediately begs for him to stop it from airing. He repeatedly asks the reporter to turn off the camera for five minutes, the reporter refuses to. It is. . . Glorious, and at the same time terrifying, seeing someone realize that their brilliance 'superiority' to everyone else was tricked. That he said so many things, and got caught saying them. It's like two different people. One smug and so cocksure of himself, the other one is terrified. Terrified of what he's done, and how he got caught. He probably fakes trying to quit the BNP and it devolves from there."

If nothing else, watching someone's world suddenly collapse inward as the carefully constructed lie is destroyed by his own hand, is incredibly cathartic.

# ? Nov 3, 2018 09:42

uncop: Oct 23, 2010

Willie Tomg posted:

i contend that none of this is true merely because you assert it in earnest, and prefer previously existing scholarly explanations of this behavior instead. i have provided more support for my ideas than you or PJ for yours, because i've read things about this subject and shared a couple of them--though not nearly enough things to begin formulating grand unifying explicatory theories of my own. do you understand the problem?

at least the authoritarian personality didn't need to make people refer to a blog of Terminology in order to interpret empirical fieldwork.

Have you considered that the reason why a tome of a book does not require you to know jargon beforehand is because it�s a book, and it can explain its concepts within the text, so that you naturally understand what the author means when words come up later? Very unlike the humble forum post.

Of course it�s made worse because PJ is not an academically educated person that could easily refer to existing, better known concepts and had to create her own instead to be able to communicate her ideas efficiently. But they aren�t arcane or overly vague as her detractors tend to assert, they just are not immediately obvious without reading the blog or the old thread.

There is a lot of criticism that stems from putting PJ alongside professional academics� published books with a humongous amount of person-hours put into making sure everything works. Even if PJ was some kind of mythical genius that was right about everything she asserts somehow, her current work would still pale in comparison because of pretty obvious realities.

Preferring real books is only logical, and reading a whole lot is ultimately the only way to refine this kind of stuff to academic standards, but good books existing is not an argument for dismissing someone�s work, only for others to start somewhere else if they haven�t yet and want to learn about the subject right now. I�m yet to see an actual takedown that shows a correct understanding of PJ�s framework and uses knowledge of academic work to show it to be based on assertions that are untrue. �It�s bad because it�s false�, rather than �it�s bad because I don�t understand it / it�s nowhere near academic standards / it covers ground that is already trodden�. Your crit is firmly in the �I haven�t put in any effort to understand it so it�s vague gibberish, here�s some counterevidence to it as I misunderstand it� camp.

# ? Nov 3, 2018 10:08

Jazerus: May 24, 2011

Willie Tomg posted:

i contend that none of this is true merely because you assert it in earnest, and prefer previously existing scholarly explanations of this behavior instead. i have provided more support for my ideas than you or PJ for yours, because i've read things about this subject and shared a couple of them--though not nearly enough things to begin formulating grand unifying explicatory theories of my own. do you understand the problem?

at least the authoritarian personality didn't need to make people refer to a blog of Terminology in order to interpret empirical fieldwork.

im still half worried im biting down too hard on a bored grad student's Foucalt's Pendulum style troll but dialed down for goons seeking whatever it is they're looking for, and that the punchline is the thread is creating within it the thing it's purporting to describe.

actually no im not worried because that would be fuckin' great

i mean it's not true because i'm asserting it in earnest. that would be stupid! i am explaining prester's ideas to you. they are not necessarily accurate and need a much more scientific approach to be shown to be "true" inasmuch as science can approach the concept of "truth", but i personally feel there is value in exploring explanations based on this framework as prester develops it even if it is still rough and has not been empirically tested. all models start out untested.

unlike prester i am educated in this field and do have an awareness of the scholarly explanations about all of these things which is why i'm not asserting that everything PJ says is true - however, PJ's framework is not really in opposition to anything i have ever read. it is a very different perspective that has some overlap with existing scholarly writing but also raises new points worthy of discussion and eventually study, once she's in a position to do so.

you are kind of coming into this mid-stream and making assumptions that the people posting in this thread are hanging on prester's every word to discern the Truth or whatever. that is not the case - we're well aware that this isn't the most solid set of ideas ever created. prester is aware of that, even - the whole point is to help prester, who is passionate about this but not well-educated, to assimilate these ideas into the previously existing scholarly explanations while retaining the parts that seem to have new explanatory power. if it was just nonsense i wouldn't be posting, and if it was a super-solid academic theory that required no further discussion, i wouldn't be posting either.

Al! posted:

big jordan peterson fans itt lol

# ? Nov 3, 2018 16:35

Jazerus: May 24, 2011

Sheng-Ji Yang posted:

i dont think yall " " get " " cspam

what the gently caress

show yourself, coward. i will never stop lmaoing.

# ? Nov 3, 2018 16:36

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Jazerus posted:

what the gently caress

show yourself, coward. i will never stop lmaoing.

Lol.

# ? Nov 3, 2018 16:37

Jazerus: May 24, 2011

Former DILF posted:

pj is unironically the best socialist on this forum, not only is she using her labor to directly create material of benefit to the proletariat, that material is useful for direct contravention against fascist thought on the levels it needs to be addressed.

at the risk of exhaling used up farts, fascism is rhetoric masquerading as debate and violence masquerading as force and the framework of the inner and outer narrative allows us to identify and address practitioners of what Hillary called "both a public and private position"

# ? Nov 3, 2018 16:47

Al!: Apr 2, 2010

Sheng-Ji Yang posted:

i dont think yall " " get " " cspam

lol

# ? Nov 3, 2018 16:50

deadking: Apr 13, 2006; Hello? Charlemagne?!

Jazerus posted:

unlike prester i am educated in this field and do have an awareness of the scholarly explanations about all of these things which is why i'm not asserting that everything PJ says is true - however, PJ's framework is not really in opposition to anything i have ever read. it is a very different perspective that has some overlap with existing scholarly writing but also raises new points worthy of discussion and eventually study, once she's in a position to do so.

That is precisely the problem. There is nothing controversial about the idea that people and groups approach their lives and the world through the framework of "narrative" or whatever you want to call it (As RD pointed out). It is, however, overly general and provides little real insight into how any given group behaves. This "theory" is dressed up in an ever expanding and unnecessary proprietary vocabulary which makes these ideas completely impenetrable to most readers. This superfluous mass of terminology further allows its proponents to insist that if you haven't mastered it you aren't in a position to offer any criticism. None of these terms are necessary to express these ideas but the provide cover for serious flaws and shortcomings with an appearance of comprehensiveness.

To my mind, these shortcomings include, as others have pointed out, a serious lack of attention to historicity, material conditions, or power relations. What happened to the Anabaptists over 500 years in Europe and North America that might have shaped that community? There is no consideration of this in PJ's point and little in your own that isn't obscured by this terminology. Do the Republicans act the way they do because they are capital N narrativists who only see part of the chessboard or are they a party that exists to defend the material resources of the propertied class? Others ITT have pointed this out and been dismissed out of hand as harassers or insufficiently schooled in the unnecessary and irritating vocabulary.

In conclusion,

Al! posted:

lol

# ? Nov 3, 2018 17:43

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

Willie Tomg posted:

i contend that none of this is true merely because you assert it in earnest, and prefer previously existing scholarly explanations of this behavior instead. i have provided more support for my ideas than you or PJ for yours, because i've read things about this subject and shared a couple of them--though not nearly enough things to begin formulating grand unifying explicatory theories of my own. do you understand the problem?

at least the authoritarian personality didn't need to make people refer to a blog of Terminology in order to interpret empirical fieldwork.

I found your appeals to authority rather weird. Adorno is well out of date, even Altermeyer is out of date, you also chose a Philosophy Phd thesis to back your claim which isn't properly related to the group sociology we're effectively discussing and it is also out of date, coming in the same year as Stenner's work but only quoting her initial paper. Unfortunately for you, if you had read Stenner you'd certainly need to read up on sociological/statistics jargon if you weren't already well-versed in that field, and since Stenner is relentlessly empirical your references are at least on similar shaky ground to PJ's which are after all still at the level of working theory.

# ? Nov 3, 2018 17:51

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

uncop posted:

There is a lot of criticism that stems from putting PJ alongside professional academics� published books with a humongous amount of person-hours put into making sure everything works. Even if PJ was some kind of mythical genius that was right about everything she asserts somehow, her current work would still pale in comparison because of pretty obvious realities.

Preferring real books is only logical, and reading a whole lot is ultimately the only way to refine this kind of stuff to academic standards, but good books existing is not an argument for dismissing someone�s work, only for others to start somewhere else if they haven�t yet and want to learn about the subject right now. I�m yet to see an actual takedown that shows a correct understanding of PJ�s framework and uses knowledge of academic work to show it to be based on assertions that are untrue. �It�s bad because it�s false�, rather than �it�s bad because I don�t understand it / it�s nowhere near academic standards / it covers ground that is already trodden�. Your crit is firmly in the �I haven�t put in any effort to understand it so it�s vague gibberish, here�s some counterevidence to it as I misunderstand it� camp.

Jazerus posted:

i mean it's not true because i'm asserting it in earnest. that would be stupid! i am explaining prester's ideas to you. they are not necessarily accurate and need a much more scientific approach to be shown to be "true" inasmuch as science can approach the concept of "truth", but i personally feel there is value in exploring explanations based on this framework as prester develops it even if it is still rough and has not been empirically tested. all models start out untested.

unlike prester i am educated in this field and do have an awareness of the scholarly explanations about all of these things which is why i'm not asserting that everything PJ says is true - however, PJ's framework is not really in opposition to anything i have ever read. it is a very different perspective that has some overlap with existing scholarly writing but also raises new points worthy of discussion and eventually study, once she's in a position to do so.

you are kind of coming into this mid-stream and making assumptions that the people posting in this thread are hanging on prester's every word to discern the Truth or whatever. that is not the case - we're well aware that this isn't the most solid set of ideas ever created. prester is aware of that, even - the whole point is to help prester, who is passionate about this but not well-educated, to assimilate these ideas into the previously existing scholarly explanations while retaining the parts that seem to have new explanatory power. if it was just nonsense i wouldn't be posting, and if it was a super-solid academic theory that required no further discussion, i wouldn't be posting either.

there is no "work" here. work would be hunting down and collating a collection of texts that positively proves the argument or else performing field work on people who are not the author and creating one. you don't build a framework of reckons and read back on it later to confirm. that's a conservative's parody of humanities departments they're trying to remove.

it is not insurmountable! we are all on the internet right now. it is the single largest collection of information ever assembled in human history and if you can't find what you're looking for then you can instantly contact someone who can. the problem isn't a hitherto undiscovered demographic of mentally ill people upset at the disturbance of their hermeneutic circles of sacredness and profanity, its that we're all on the internet and nobody meaningfully uses the motherfucker.

# ? Nov 3, 2018 17:53

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

ewe2 posted:

I found your appeals to authority rather weird. Adorno is well out of date, even Altermeyer is out of date, you also chose a Philosophy Phd thesis to back your claim which isn't properly related to the group sociology we're effectively discussing and it is also out of date, coming in the same year as Stenner's work but only quoting her initial paper. Unfortunately for you, if you had read Stenner you'd certainly need to read up on sociological/statistics jargon if you weren't already well-versed in that field, and since Stenner is relentlessly empirical your references are at least on similar shaky ground to PJ's which are after all still at the level of working theory.

this is all true except for calling it a working theory.

i'd quibble that at least sociological and stat terms have applicability in places outside one thread on a forum.

# ? Nov 3, 2018 17:54

Al!: Apr 2, 2010

the most useful part of this thread is understanding how and why it's insanely toxic

# ? Nov 3, 2018 17:57

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

Al! posted:

the most useful part of this thread is understanding how and why it's insanely toxic

# ? Nov 3, 2018 17:58

Helianthus Annuus: Feb 21, 2006; can i touch your hand; Grimey Drawer

the worst part of this thread is when PJ politely asked R. Guyovich to leave instead of telling him his kosovorotka look like a dishrag

# ? Nov 3, 2018 18:07

Al!: Apr 2, 2010

I found your appeals to authority rather weird.

# ? Nov 3, 2018 18:08

WampaLord: Jan 14, 2010

Al! posted:

the most useful part of this thread is understanding how and why it's insanely toxic

Seriously, if you or anyone else is here to poo poo all over the thread, can you not?

# ? Nov 3, 2018 18:18

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

E-Tank posted:

So uhh, to try and get things back on topic, I posted this and I don't know if PJ ever got a look at it. I was kinda proud of it, so posting it here again.

"So I found what I think is the most clear cut case of a narrativist being put on the spot by having exposed the inner narrative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7hYxYZbqtQ&t=2558s

This is Mark Collett. At the time of this video, he was something of a rising star in the BNP, which is literally the British Nazi Party.

First thing he does when the reporter comes in and tells him that he's a reporter, and he's been writing a report about him, is to deny everything. Because he doesn't have any proof.

then when the reporter tells him he recorded everything he looks like a deer caught in headlights because he said some *Really* nasty poo poo. First he demands he leave because he has betrayed him, then immediately begs for him to stop it from airing. He repeatedly asks the reporter to turn off the camera for five minutes, the reporter refuses to. It is. . . Glorious, and at the same time terrifying, seeing someone realize that their brilliance 'superiority' to everyone else was tricked. That he said so many things, and got caught saying them. It's like two different people. One smug and so cocksure of himself, the other one is terrified. Terrified of what he's done, and how he got caught. He probably fakes trying to quit the BNP and it devolves from there."

If nothing else, watching someone's world suddenly collapse inward as the carefully constructed lie is destroyed by his own hand, is incredibly cathartic.

or he's an idiot kid realizing he skullfucked his entire arc in the movement before it began because he ran his mouth on camera thinking he was getting publicity.

quote:

At the center of the conspiracy in Foucault's Pendulum is a short cryptic text brought to the attention of the young editors, Belpo and Casaubon, by a mysterious Colonel Ardenti. It holds the secret of the Templars in code, he says. Years later, Belpo, Casaubon, and their kabbalistic colleague, Diatallevi, will invent a elaborate parody conspiracy, "The Plan," based on their interpretation of Ardenti's text. Later, Casaubon's lover, Lia, will research and offer her own interpretation of the text. Far from a cryptic statement of the Templar's plan, she finds it a merchant's miscellaneous delivery list.

So here we have it-either the secret plan of the Templars or a common list. A devotee of the occult might reject the commonplace interpretation out of hand as too mundane. A skeptic might accept it equally readily, for the skeptic is guided by what Eco calls "economy." Presented with a text, a "sane" interpreter searches for the context that provides for the easiest or most efficient interpretation. In most cases, economy will favor the mundane interpretation, which appears to require the least belief. The occult interpretation, however, is often more appealing psychologically, satisfying a craving for a fullness or even an excess of meaning in the world. For some, the occult may also be more economical, because excess meaning may be easier to believe than deficient meaning.

Unlike either the skeptic or the occultist, the conspiracist would accept Lia's interpretation without rejecting the Plan, for what could be more subtle than to disguise the Plan as a delivery list? A conspiracist sees an excess not only of meaning, but also of design or strategy.' And this gets at the crux of the problem the conspiracist presents: such an excess is unfalsifiable, not because it admits no proof of truth and falsity, but because it admits no possibility of uninvolvement. Once launched on this kind of reasoning, one can find nothing certain to be not-conspiracy. Everything, even the most trivial and miscellaneous of details, must fit, and in the effort to make it all fit together within a theory, the conspiracist comes to suffer from interpretative paranoia. It is against such paranoia that Eco's recent work, including Foucault's Pendulum, seems to be directed.' The paranoid interpreter does not misinterpret, but overinterprets. He or she doesn't see the trees for the forests.

# ? Nov 3, 2018 18:21

Helianthus Annuus: Feb 21, 2006; can i touch your hand; Grimey Drawer

WampaLord posted:

Seriously, if you or anyone else is here to poo poo all over the thread, can you not?

why contain it? 'scool

# ? Nov 3, 2018 18:23

Al!: Apr 2, 2010

WampaLord posted:

Seriously, if you or anyone else is here to poo poo all over the thread, can you not?

im just an antibody to the discourse friend

# ? Nov 3, 2018 18:28

Mia Wasikowska: Oct 7, 2006

so i read 'when prophecy fails' last night and it's very good! surprised how good the prose is for like, 1950s sociology?? cool stuff

# ? Nov 4, 2018 01:02

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

So while reading the first chapter it got me thinking back to some things that have come up before in other discussions. In the NT the letters of Paul (the ones that are actually his) are the earliest books. The story behind his travels is that he is collecting from all these churches he visits to give a collection to the church in Jerusalem (he wants to jump starts
the return of Jesus) it goes bad (so bad that it's not in the canon). The four Gospels are probably written down in response to the Jewish War and destruction of the temple. Pauline apocalyptic thought is before a predicted apocalyptic event. The gospels are written down after a disconfirmation event.

Apocalyptic thought at its core always has a couple of assertion: poo poo's hosed. hosed poo poo is going to end someday. But when ever there is a concrete: this specfic hosed poo poo will end this way and on this time frame that always leads to a disconfirmation. Eventually the apocalypse (if the group affirming it survives and continues to affirm it) gets pushed back to the end of history and / or it gets immanatized (and one sees this combination in liturgical Christianity).

# ? Nov 4, 2018 04:50

Former DILF: Jul 13, 2017

BrandorKP posted:

So while reading the first chapter it got me thinking back to some things that have come up before in other discussions. In the NT the letters of Paul (the ones that are actually his) are the earliest books. The story behind his travels is that he is collecting from all these churches he visits to give a collection to the church in Jerusalem (he wants to jump starts
the return of Jesus) it goes bad (so bad that it's not in the canon). The four Gospels are probably written down in response to the Jewish War and destruction of the temple. Pauline apocalyptic thought is before a predicted apocalyptic event. The gospels are written down after a disconfirmation event.

Apocalyptic thought at its core always has a couple of assertion: poo poo's hosed. hosed poo poo is going to end someday. But when ever there is a concrete: this specfic hosed poo poo will end this way and on this time frame that always leads to a disconfirmation. Eventually the apocalypse (if the group affirming it survives and continues to affirm it) gets pushed back to the end of history and / or it gets immanatized (and one sees this combination in liturgical Christianity).

ah christ

i think if you read my posts in the past couple of pages you'll know i'm not closed minded

but this poo poo really waffles my batter, im not a liturgy boi

# ? Nov 4, 2018 05:13

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Former DILF posted:

but this poo poo really waffles my batter, im not a liturgy boi

I've stopped giving a poo poo about what we each are. But this is the larger issue (seperate from Prester related discussion ) poo poo's hosed, concretely that poo poo is modernity and Capitalism. The nature of apocalyptic thought needs looking at.

# ? Nov 4, 2018 06:32