Last active
1 year, 5 months ago
  • Good point re: False Flag v. hoax.

    Phrasing, too.

    I know that the link I shared from my earlier post about Exene prompted a number of people to agree with me–that they couldn’t stand the idea of seeing X live after learning of Exene’s views

    Had to read that more than once. You meant “lIve” (long I), correct?

    Carry on :)

  • Spocko & Kevin, good questions. On the right track.

    Anonymous proffering of evidence, sans named complainant, would move the process forward without the cited preferred prerequisites, i.e., protections in place. We don’t have time for that and it is exceedingly unlikely to manifest without evidence of cross-spectrum-relevant snafu surfacing. And the doers of misdeeds fully appreciate and enjoy the logical construction that B cannot happen until A happens. So they stymie, co-opt and own everything involved with A so as to preclude B. We have to show them, these grinches, that truth will out despite the clamp on due process and that we in WeThePeopleville will have our holiday despite their best efforts. Anonymous evidence proffer has the additional effect of removing the system’s favorite go-to: the exhausting, misdirecting, BS avalanche that is CIP. We have instances, deapthrowed for example, where the name of the WB was not withstanding until years later, yet the inquiry went forward based on evidence.

    Lastly, the debauchery of spinning from any/all angles to squeeze a profit – whomever is making the story/raising the issue – is a gobsmacking reminder of the corrupted sea of motives in which we are steeped. We have to do these things because they are right. Because of their power to restore true north to our moral compasses. Because the truth is undeniable and comprehensive in it’s scope. Far reaching in terms of transcending partisanship. That which cannot be assigned a price tag, yet is at the very crux of leverage to retain that initially conceived-of Republic. The ones out there already marginalized, under/unemployed, who have made the decision to do the right thing and suffer the consequences, are evidently not motivated by the same incentives that the system so greedily cherishes and jealously guards. So, they’ll be doubly surprised then, won’t they, when WTP find just the right things to break up the ice pack.

  • Right, “World Champions,” whether NFL or MLB, another fine example of declaring victory of those who aren’t even in the game.

    Aaaaand G’Night ~

  • Interesting research question would be “Why?” though.

    Why does your particular worldview require such exceptionalism?

  • *Good use of asterisks there buddy.

    Kinda like Bonds in the HOF or Armstrong’s 7 TDFs

    Nothing personal, mind you.
    I know, you want so badly to *believe*

  • Ah, the carte blanche to study, the keys to the kingdom, and yet no actual insights were had on any given day. Hint: It’s cheating to say it’s a contest to see who gets there first when all the while, you have your finger on the button the whole time, in the same way that it’s chickensh!t to attempt to launch smear campaigns from behind a paywall.

    The only war that is being lost at the moment is the one on what constitutes a fair fight. In the insane realm, chickensh!ttery is in the echo chamber, patting itself on the back. Among the rational, there are silent nods acknowledging sustained success.

  • Double the unlikely points if Michael Grimm is a known homophobe or holds anti gay political positions.

    Funny how these kinds of certitudes and assertions obtusely avoid the undertone of misogyny in homophobic statements made towards males. But then, that would open up a whole can o’worms about extreme gender bias, now wouldn’t it?

  • Glad you posted this, eCAHN. That way, if it happens, you’ll be reknown as, um, prescient.

  • Individuals must have a process for clearing their names.


    Likewise, the most unrefined quote to emerge from the info amassing debacle is this notion that “you need a haystack to find the needle.” Anyone with a background in research and statistics recognizes the parallels between rigorous scientific inquiry and the tenets of Due Process. Given a smaller haystack, wouldn’t the needle be easier to find?

    Why in the world do we not have a rigorous “false-positive search-and-destroy” program? BTW: Donation to the first person who comes up with a catchy acronym for haystack reduction that gets worked into the title of the legislative act that reels in scope of Patriot.

    With this latest ACLU publication, civil libertarians have leverage to steer the conversation in the direction of data integrity. What good does it do to sift through a haystack of false positives? What feedback loops have been established to empower citizens to assist the TLAs? Which insiders will identify, and earmark, a portion of the glut of taxpayer $$$$$ funding the apparatus, for the sake of haystack reduction?

  • zenmouser commented on the diary post Tom Engelhardt, Alone and Delusional on Planet Earth by Tom Engelhardt.

    2013-09-05 07:12:07View | Delete

    Just as still water is a breeding ground for mosquitos, so single-superpowerdom seems to be a breeding ground for delusion. This is a phenomenon about which we have to be cautious, since we know little enough about it and are, of course, in its midst. But so far, there seem to have been three stages to [...]

  • zenmouser commented on the blog post Being Peggy Noonan Being Hillary Clinton Being NBC

    2013-08-08 18:13:32View | Delete



  • zenmouser commented on the diary post Of Spies and Leaks, of Democrats and Hypocrites, of Polls and Slain Kittens by Ohio Barbarian.

    2013-06-13 06:25:34View | Delete

    Speaking of hypocrisy, please tell me you’re not a fan of drone strikes on people you’ve been brainwashed into “unliking.” Somewhere, waiting to happen on the internets, is an essay on how the reductionism of decontextualized data points (See also: Lies of Omission) has created a society where we take polls on whether or not [...]

  • Looks like the admins hadn’t counted on anyone, in an act of changing the course of Catch-22 opportunism, warning the kids that they had a choice.

    Catch-22 opportunism thwarted: Default-forced-choice, self-injurious calculus as modified via Bill of Rights option to be silent. Imagine that.

    Bravo. That teacher probably saved a few lives from being matriculated into the school-to-incarceration racket. Ounce of prevention and all.

  • Now that we have some ambient, if not also thought-provoking sounds on board, let’s get to it.

    An elegant queer theory would not have to so many special cases and would not need to shoehorn so much of other peoples’ realities into itself in order to square the circle.

    You’re limiting yourself with hyperbole and/or obtuseness here.
    Queer Theory, as you are calling it, is nothing, if not de facto, ALL Are n=1 “Special Cases” /end theory. That IS the theory.

    it fails as an emancipatory basis because it defines people in terms of the “oppressor,” terms unfavorable to emancipation.

    Move along. The point from which I am carrying my end of the discussion is quite self-defined, apart from obtuse intentional misunderstanding of an “oppressor”. In fact, that’s the whole point of my argument. Give what you take or quit being a hypocrite about it. Let people participate or let them go. You cannot have it both ways, i.e., call a one-way ban, and still maintain a straight face about it. Well you can. But everyone is questioning your integrity to your face. And you have no open dialogue, direct answer, or anything to openly show for it.

    With the tangents out of the way, the central theorem in each of your posts is this:

    I am sure that is very frustrating to trans men, but frustration is no license to reconceptualize others in ways that don’t reflect others’ reality.

    Which, if I am understanding you correctly, reflects the worldview, in as succinctly, delicately and yet so NSFW, put it: “To peen or not to peen, that is the question.”

    And I guess I have imagined that at some point in life, there would be some harmonic convergence among scientific positivism, patriarchal culture (give or take 1000 years of it), militarism, profiteering, biological endowment of an outie, admitted gay male outie-centered life AND the event of some commenter posting extensively about perceived threat via hypothetical oppression by other-gendereds who want to define life outside of default=peen. But here you, and we, are.

    As for the dialectic you pose (as far as I can tell), you seem to be asking, “How can someone’s world turn without so much as a peen around which to revolve?” And on behalf of all those who somehow manage to get by without it, day after 24-hr cycle day, I’m here to assure you, it can be, and is, quite successfully done.

    And since you essentially fired a warning flare for any F2M transperson to never dare enter your midst, ahem, ill-equipped, lest a dam of tears (? or something) breakwater due to utter disappointment and betrayal (just wow), I will also assuage your anxieties by saying, don’t worry, as much as your fear is beckoning for such a situation to present itself so you might work it through at someone else’s expense, inasmuch as someone’s self-determined will is allowed to operate effectively, the probability of such an event coming to pass, until such a time as both parties are afforded safe haven through and through, is quite low.

    Here’s the problem with peen=0 or peen=1 dialectic, and I’ve heard it within earshot at more than one community project gathering. It goes something like this: “I don’t know if I can work with you. One, you don’t have the right equipment and two, in my book, you don’t rate high on the f scale. So guess we have a problem.” Am I getting there wrt translating your perceived threat of others imposing their personage in a such a way that your repertoire for what you can actually do together comes up short?

    You see, I think your depiction of two parallel play circles is quite apt for where I ended my previous comment, about relativity. And it brings to mind a small house party I went to, when, apropos of nothing, one of the gender binarist police in our midst heard a group of us joking loudly, to which she rejoined, “You know, just because you’re a butch, doesn’t mean you’re a top.” There was dead silence. And then the group burst out laughing, falling out all about the place. Hilarious. Thank you, Madam Undersecretary Delores Umbridge (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, 2007). Because even if that is true on page 42 of some Tab A Slot B manual somewhere, none of us, no one but no one (except those like yourself who do), is checking the guidebook when it comes to the abstract spontaneity of soul attractions and the mundane, real world process of getting projects done. Because that’s how you experience the ‘f’ factor, and not a moment before.

  • Marcos,

    Let us continue our friendly discussion.
    But first, a selection of two (2) lyric interludes:

    I said, look at you this morning
    You are, by far, the cutest
    But be careful getting coffee
    I think these people want to shoot us
    Or maybe there’s some kind of local competition here
    To see who can be the rudest

    And people talk about my image
    Like I come in two dimensions
    Like lipstick is a sign of my declining mind
    Like what I happen to be wearing
    The day that someone takes a picture
    Is my new statement for all of womankind

    And I wish they could see us now
    In leather bras and rubber shorts
    Like some ridiculous new team uniform
    For some ridiculous new sport
    Quick someone call the girl police
    And, and file a report



    I just hope you understand
    Sometimes the clothes do not make the man

    All we have to do now
    Is take these lies and make them true somehow
    All we have to see
    Is that I don’t belong to you
    And you don’t belong to me
    You’ve gotta give for what you take
    You’ve gotta give for what you take


  • Are you suggesting that it is worth the cost to a theory to incorporating the exception to the general case at the expense of the accuracy of the theory describing the accurate case?

    Debating you is easy. All it requires is dismantling one false dichotomy after another. I have never heard of a case in which it is necessarily impossible to articulate a theory to incorporate an exception thusly expending accuracy. That’s absurd just on the face of aspiring to create an accurate framework. Further, validation of a theory or heuristic by going outside of itself is precisely what is posited in Godel’s Theorem VI. You were saying?

    “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.” ~ Emerson

    Foolish as in approaching Zero articulations, you know, to keep it simple.

    The point of the hopelessly muddled Contact, aside from the absurdity of a backup trillion dollar machine being constructed and hid behind the curtain, was that perception was hopelessly subjective and personal, the only evidence was that there was time for perception, no common ground on what was perceived.

    Your supposition of movie plotline disqualification as based on the notion of limited capacity to establish multi-trillion-dollar installments worldwide aside, the latter part of your quote is exactly my point. The only common interface for a frontier intersection the very boundaries of time-space was the 18 hours of recorded static. Other than that, yes, n of 1 subjectivity, just like your personal experience of the taste of spaghetti (i.e.,Qualia). Again, you’re encountering the limitations of strictly positivist-evidence based “knowing”. Doesn’t necessarily negate reality itself. Small steps, Ellie.

    The idea that non-binary gender has anything to do theoretically with lesbians and gays other than defining us all in negative terms relative to the the phobes truly strains credibility.

    Now you’ve launched some sort of Eeyore defense. Sorry that has been your experience. However, the most subversive elements, in defiance of the binary police in our community, spoke fondly, if not also in hushed tones, about the freedom of putting the binary book down, if they ever even pulled it off the shelves at all. So either your incredulity just took a hit, or the collective of gender infinity subversives I once knew just blinked out of existence.

    Nobody is entitled to recast theory onto other people and insist that a theory that does not speak to their experience is relevant to their reality.

    And such a postulate expressed as an abstraction in the extreme might actually argue something either in the affirmative or the negative were it to be applied to anything of consequence.

    Relativism *is* fascinating, isn’t it?

  • Honestly, I was through w/the thread until I read the following double-ACK:

    Of course there are multiple genders but they are rare and don’t go far to describe reality. Their rareness likewise complicates their elegant integration into other theories.

    Per the first part, guess the whole gist of the movie, Contact, went right over your head. An n of 1 account or rare instance of some ‘kind’ has just as much inherent descriptive value and relevance to shared ‘reality’ as would anything found under 66% of the standard distribution curve. Jeebus, what would life be like if ‘reality’ were relegated to only the most popular books, movies, interstates, arenas? Would you never take the road less traveled because according to your postulate, any lower frequency occurrence equates to something less real? And if there is no reality outside of that which we can all agree upon, then, does a lie agreed-upon necessarily remain a reified thing even after the revision comes along? (Hint: No, persistence of perception in the face of negating evidence is considered delusion, remember?)

    Lastly, rareness doesn’t complicate integration into any theory that is well-articulated and dynamic enough to be recursively speciated, niche-built, and populated. The only assumptions required, per Occam, are that a) something is rare and b) everything unique thing, by definition, is rare. Survival of the fittest is not irreducibly boiled down to ‘most populous contest.” It’s about fitting-est niche-building, which is a recursive process of mutual and web-interdependent modifications. Sometimes the simplest solution is also the most elegant.

  • Many progressive gay men of a certain age in my circle who are all for transgender inclusion and full civil rights have been rolling our eyes at the way that gender has metastasized the queer discourse over the past few years in a way that does not reflect what we see in the queer communities in which we live.

    Instead of getting all wonky about deviance, it might have been more productive had you expounded on the above observation. You can still opt to do so, if that is a conscious choice you want to make.

    so long as the courtesy is extended as reciprocal.

    What TollV said @ 53.

    I’m not seeing how any of these theories explain that binary gender and heterosexuality are near universal norms across all sorts of cultures and economic systems.

    All I can surmise from your statement is that you’ve limited your scope of gender studies to binary theories. There are others out there. Oddly, you seem a bit hoisted on your own petard in that you have the same “prerequisite resolution of ambiguities” as do gender binarists. In the alternative, for example, there are certain ‘schools of thought’ that suppose an infinite number of genders. Those theories align well with the brain research previously mentioned, i.e., to the effect that what we observe is a continuum, ranging from binary as one anchor, to infinity as the other, perhaps in part as a function of highly competitive hemisphere activity at the binary end, and highly integrated hemispheric activity at the infinite end. Very mind-opening, eye-opening considerations wrt the human condition, how societies self-organize, and how laws are enacted vis civil rights.

  • Agreed. Speaking of contradiction-strewn theories, how about the one where banning is somehow, hypocritically, *not* a two-way absolute. Talk about ad hoc machinations with zero integrity.

  • Would that the gender theory fetishists critically interrogate the effectiveness of their own unsettled and contradiction-strewn theories at first accurately describing and then formulating effective strategies to change reality prior to attempting to assert these theories on the rest of queerdom. Don’t want to operate under faulty assumptions.

    Gender theory fetishists? It would only be possible to lump into one group all those examining gender issues if you’re using ‘appearances via flyover at 20K feet’ as a sort criteria.

    That being said, you reverted back to ‘smart people’ as the correlate, which I clarified was not my assertion but yours.

    I am more specifically referring to, inter alia, research studies related to brain hemispheres cooperation and synergy (vs. unilateral dominance), and a possible connection with fewer hemispheric competitive offsets as a result of specific corpus callosum fiber bundle attributes. There are potentially fascinating connections between non/traditional gender roles (as externalizations of hemispheric function), increasing complexity of gender expression in individuals demonstrating shared hemispheric functioning, complex conceptualization of the world at large, and complex moral reasoning.

    And yes, it’s a lovely field of research that requires a great deal of tolerance of ambiguity (of ‘unsettled and contradiction-strewn’ theories, as you say), primarily because the complexity does not readily lend itself to standard, short-listed variables research. It is more on the par with qualitative research, experiential learning and improv. Would probably require dialogue and something akin to quantum photography (empirical proof) of non-local intelligence, neither of which can be resolved at the level of 20K ft. flyovers.

    Nonetheless, this thread is quite the lively discussion of contradiction-strewn theories, innit?

  • Load More