Home
by Vilmos Tehenészfiú Tue Nov 08, 2022 6:41 amNe razumem šta hoćeš da kažeš.
USA - США - SAD
- Posts : 7172
Join date : 2020-03-05
_____
"Burundi je svakako sharmantno mesto cinika i knjiskih ljudi koji gledaju stvar sa svog olimpa od kartona."
“Here he was then, cruising the deserts of Mexico in my Ford Torino with my wife and my credit cards and his black-tongued dog. He had a chow dog that went everywhere with him, to the post office and ball games, and now that red beast was making free with his lion feet on my Torino seats.”
- Posts : 50116
Join date : 2017-11-16
Pa hocu da kazem da je to malo preveliki zalogaj za prosto "prevaspitavanje". Mora nesto da se uradi (ne kazem da niko nista ne radi, mind)
- Posts : 5222
Join date : 2016-01-26
Сама идеја да ти је пало на памет ”преваспитавање” уместо материјалног бољитка је скандалозна за једног виђеног либерала. 
”Преваспитавање” у 22 веку значи гулаге за Ујгуре где их ”преваспитавају”.
Не решава се ово у либералном систему ”преваспитавањем” него само пресипањем новца из једне класе у другу, законима, јачањем привреде, задовољавањем те класе људи.
”Преваспитавање” у 22 веку значи гулаге за Ујгуре где их ”преваспитавају”.
Не решава се ово у либералном систему ”преваспитавањем” него само пресипањем новца из једне класе у другу, законима, јачањем привреде, задовољавањем те класе људи.
_____
Burundi is an exception among other nations because it is a country which gave God first place, a God who guards and protects from all misfortune.
Burundi... opskurno udruženje 20ak levičarskih intelektualaca, kojima je fetiš odbrana poniženih i uvredjenih.
- Posts : 50116
Join date : 2017-11-16
Јанош Винету wrote:Сама идеја да ти је пало на памет ”преваспитавање” уместо материјалног бољитка је скандалозна за једног виђеног либерала.
”Преваспитавање” у 22 веку значи гулаге за Ујгуре где их ”преваспитавају”.
Не решава се ово у либералном систему ”преваспитавањем” него само пресипањем новца из једне класе у другу, законима, јачањем привреде, задовољавањем те класе људи.
Valjda vidis da je pod navodnicima. Stilska figura za ubedjivanje da nesto ne valja, a nesto drugo dobro.
A upravo sam i mislio na zadovoljavanje potreba.
- Posts : 81477
Join date : 2012-06-10
Mislim da je ta klasa (kiropraktičari, real-estate agenti itsl) povrh svega pretrpela i jak finansijski udar zbog korone.
_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."
Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
- Posts : 5222
Join date : 2016-01-26
+1
Могу само да се сагласим, има гомила пристојних али унесрећених људи којима је егзистенција угрожена.
А има и ово:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/trump-american-gentry-wyman-elites/620151/
Америчка џентрија, земљопоседничко племство. Људи који имају плантаже поморанџи у Калифорнији, држе сточне берзе око Бејкерсфилда где каубоји долазе да продају краве и коње.
Тако неки профил људи који би могао бити добростојећи али заправо није компатибилан са глобализованом привредом и ”рушилачким” (”дисруптивним”, хех, кад се преведе тек се онда види шта то значи) технологијама, заједно са овом унесрећеном средњом класом киропрактичара добије се једна поклекла виша и средња класа која је суштински свесна да јој се ближи крај.
Полако истиче песак из пешчаника а они гледају бесно у њега.
Могу само да се сагласим, има гомила пристојних али унесрећених људи којима је егзистенција угрожена.
А има и ово:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/trump-american-gentry-wyman-elites/620151/
Америчка џентрија, земљопоседничко племство. Људи који имају плантаже поморанџи у Калифорнији, држе сточне берзе око Бејкерсфилда где каубоји долазе да продају краве и коње.
Тако неки профил људи који би могао бити добростојећи али заправо није компатибилан са глобализованом привредом и ”рушилачким” (”дисруптивним”, хех, кад се преведе тек се онда види шта то значи) технологијама, заједно са овом унесрећеном средњом класом киропрактичара добије се једна поклекла виша и средња класа која је суштински свесна да јој се ближи крај.
Полако истиче песак из пешчаника а они гледају бесно у њега.
_____
Burundi is an exception among other nations because it is a country which gave God first place, a God who guards and protects from all misfortune.
Burundi... opskurno udruženje 20ak levičarskih intelektualaca, kojima je fetiš odbrana poniženih i uvredjenih.
- Posts : 40139
Join date : 2012-02-12
Location : имам пуну полицу књига, која ми је главна?
Негде код Шеное (Коловоза?) се сећам да су се спомињали ти припадници нижег племства. Звали су се шљивари.
_____
I drove a škodilak before it was cool.
Морони на власти чешће мењају правила него гаће.
- Posts : 81477
Join date : 2012-06-10
Pa ne znam baš da li je egzistencija (vrv ima i takvih), ali middle class status i ponos koji uz njega ide, svakako.
_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."
Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
- Posts : 7172
Join date : 2020-03-05
Word. Moj kiropraktičar je počeo da šalje masovnim emailom “istine” o koroni sa sve linkovima na video koji objašnjava šta nam vladari u senci rade i pozivima na zoom call gde će da nam objasni kako samo lekovita trava (koju on gle čuda ima) može da nas sačuva od te pošasti. I naravno, nikako da se vakcinišemo, taman posla.Erős Pista wrote:Mislim da je ta klasa (kiropraktičari, real-estate agenti itsl) povrh svega pretrpela i jak finansijski udar zbog korone.
_____
"Burundi je svakako sharmantno mesto cinika i knjiskih ljudi koji gledaju stvar sa svog olimpa od kartona."
“Here he was then, cruising the deserts of Mexico in my Ford Torino with my wife and my credit cards and his black-tongued dog. He had a chow dog that went everywhere with him, to the post office and ball games, and now that red beast was making free with his lion feet on my Torino seats.”
- Posts : 81477
Join date : 2012-06-10
Ma da, to još i dobro kliknjava sa new age pogledom na svet koji takvi likovi po pravilu imaju. Da ne ponavljam sad, kačili smo već tekstove o yoga moms QAnon fenomenu.
Ali mislim da su im se anti-kovid mere zaista usrale u život i da je to u kombinaciji sa ovim ostalim stvarima (ponosom na svoj preduzetnički uspeh, prezirom prema državnoj pomoći, nju ejdž verovanjima itsl) rezultirali ovim.
Ali mislim da su im se anti-kovid mere zaista usrale u život i da je to u kombinaciji sa ovim ostalim stvarima (ponosom na svoj preduzetnički uspeh, prezirom prema državnoj pomoći, nju ejdž verovanjima itsl) rezultirali ovim.
_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."
Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
- Posts : 7172
Join date : 2020-03-05
Doduše treba reći i da “niža srednja klasa”, putuje autom 12 sati pa prenoći u Motel 6, a ovi su do Vašingtona leteli i privatnim avionima. Tako da cela ta priča da je to u stvari niža srednja klasa meni baš i ne pije vodu skroz.
_____
"Burundi je svakako sharmantno mesto cinika i knjiskih ljudi koji gledaju stvar sa svog olimpa od kartona."
“Here he was then, cruising the deserts of Mexico in my Ford Torino with my wife and my credit cards and his black-tongued dog. He had a chow dog that went everywhere with him, to the post office and ball games, and now that red beast was making free with his lion feet on my Torino seats.”
- Posts : 36926
Join date : 2014-10-27
plus treba dodati da su GOP glasaci disciplinovana srednja klasa koji pokazuje klasnu koheziju i solidarnost mimo ove sumanute ideologije. sav taj mitoloski inroads koji je tramp napravio ka radnistvu je uglavnom tlapnja.
_____
And Will's father stood up, stuffed his pipe with tobacco, rummaged his pockets for matches, brought out a battered harmonica, a penknife, a cigarette lighter that wouldn't work, and a memo pad he had always meant to write some great thoughts down on but never got around to, and lined up these weapons for a pygmy war that could be lost before it even started
- Posts : 7172
Join date : 2020-03-05
Fora je da od Trampa naovamo nema ideologije pa oni ipak glasaju. Kao SNS glasači u Srbiji. Ima knjiga o tome “it was all a lie” Stuarta Stevensa.
_____
"Burundi je svakako sharmantno mesto cinika i knjiskih ljudi koji gledaju stvar sa svog olimpa od kartona."
“Here he was then, cruising the deserts of Mexico in my Ford Torino with my wife and my credit cards and his black-tongued dog. He had a chow dog that went everywhere with him, to the post office and ball games, and now that red beast was making free with his lion feet on my Torino seats.”
- Posts : 81477
Join date : 2012-06-10
Et Vilmoš
Pa zato i kažem da oni nisu baš egzistencijalno ugroženi, više im je povređen ponos i slika o sebi.
Ima jedan sjajan stariji tekst o Tea Party, koji je meni potpuno otvorio te likove. Oni su besni na državu jer im je razbila mit koji su gajili sebi samima kao rugged nezavisnim individualcima.
Pa zato i kažem da oni nisu baš egzistencijalno ugroženi, više im je povređen ponos i slika o sebi.
Ima jedan sjajan stariji tekst o Tea Party, koji je meni potpuno otvorio te likove. Oni su besni na državu jer im je razbila mit koji su gajili sebi samima kao rugged nezavisnim individualcima.
- Spoiler:
Deluded Individualism
By Firmin DeBrabander
August 18, 2012 2:30 pm August 18, 2012 2:30 pm
The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.
There is a curious passage early in Freud’s “Ego and the Id” where he remarks that the id behaves “as if” it were unconscious. The phrase is puzzling, but the meaning is clear: the id is the secret driver of our desires, the desires that animate our conscious life, but the ego does not recognize it as such. The ego — what we take to be our conscious, autonomous self — is ignorant to the agency of the id, and sees itself in the driver seat instead. Freud offers the following metaphor: the ego is like a man on horseback, struggling to contain the powerful beast beneath; to the extent that the ego succeeds in guiding this beast, it’s only by “transforming the id’s will into action as if it were its own.”
By Freud’s account, conscious autonomy is a charade. “We are lived,” as he puts it, and yet we don’t see it as such. Indeed, Freud suggests that to be human is to rebel against that vision — the truth. We tend to see ourselves as self-determining, self-conscious agents in all that we decide and do, and we cling to that image. But why? Why do we resist the truth? Why do we wish — strain, strive, against the grain of reality — to be autonomous individuals, and see ourselves as such?A version of the stubborn myth of self-determination has surfaced again in politics.
Perhaps Freud is too cynical regarding conscious autonomy, but he is right to question our presumption to it. He is right to suggest that we typically — wrongly — ignore the extent to which we are determined by unknown forces, and overestimate our self-control. The path to happiness for Freud, or some semblance of it in his stormy account of the psyche, involves accepting our basic condition. But why do we presume individual agency in the first place? Why do we insist on it stubbornly, irrationally, often recklessly?
I was reminded of Freud’s paradox by a poignant article in The Times a few months back, which described a Republican leaning district in Minnesota, and its constituents’ conflicted desire to be self-reliant (“Even Critics of the Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It,” Feb. 11). The article cited a study from Dartmouth political science professor Dean Lacy, which revealed that, though Republicans call for deep cuts to the safety net, their districts rely more on government support than their Democratic counterparts.
In Chisago County, Minn., The Times’s reporters spoke with residents who supported the Tea Party and its proposed cuts to federal spending, even while they admitted they could not get by without government support. Tea Party aficionados, and many on the extreme right of the Republican party for that matter, are typically characterized as self-sufficient middle class folk, angry about sustaining the idle poor with their tax dollars. Chisago County revealed a different aspect of this anger: economically struggling Americans professing a robust individualism and self-determination, frustrated with their failures to achieve that ideal.
Why the stubborn insistence on self-determination, in spite of the facts? One might say there is something profoundly American in this. It’s our fierce individualism shining through. Residents of Chisago County are clinging to notions of past self-reliance before the recession, before the welfare state. It’s admirable in a way. Alternately, it evokes the delusional autonomy of Freud’s poor ego.
Leif Parsons
These people, like many across the nation, rely on government assistance, but pretend they don’t. They even resent the government for their reliance. If they looked closely though, they’d see that we are all thoroughly saturated with government assistance in this country: farm subsidies that lower food prices for us all, mortgage interest deductions that disproportionately favor the rich, federal mortgage guarantees that keep interest rates low, a bloated Department of Defense that sustains entire sectors of the economy and puts hundreds of thousands of people to work. We can hardly fathom the depth of our dependence on government, and pretend we are bold individualists instead.
As we are in an election year, the persistence of this delusion has manifested itself politically, particularly as a foundation in the Republican Party ideology — from Ron Paul’s insistence during the primaries that the government shouldn’t intervene to help the uninsured even when they are deathly ill, to Rick Santorum’s maligning of public schools, to Mitt Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan as a running mate. There is no doubt that radical individualism will remain a central selling point of their campaign. Ryan’s signature work, his proposal for the federal budget, calls for drastic cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Pell grants and job training programs, among others. To no surprise, as The New Yorker revealed in a recent profile of Ryan, the home district that supports him is boosted by considerable government largesse.
Of course the professed individualists have an easy time cutting services for the poor. But this is misguided. There are many counties across the nation that, like Chisago County, might feel insulated from the trials of the destitute. Perhaps this is because they are able to ignore the poverty in their midst, or because they are rather homogeneous and geographically removed from concentrations of poverty, like urban ghettos. But the fate of the middle class counties and urban ghettos is entwined. When the poor are left to rot in their misery, the misery does not stay contained. It harms us all. The crime radiates, the misery offends, it debases the whole. Individuals, much less communities, cannot be insulated from it.
Thanks to a decades-long safety net, we have forgotten the trials of living without it. This is why, the historian Tony Judt argued, it’s easy for some to speak fondly of a world without government: we can’t fully imagine or recall what it’s like. We can’t really appreciate the horrors Upton Sinclair witnessed in the Chicago slaughterhouses before regulation, or the burden of living without Social Security and Medicare to look forward to. Thus, we can entertain nostalgia for a time when everyone pulled his own weight, bore his own risk, and was the master of his destiny. That time was a myth. But the notion of self-reliance is also a fallacy.
Spinoza greatly influenced Freud, and he adds a compelling insight we would do well to reckon with. Spinoza also questioned the human pretense to autonomy. Men believe themselves free, he said, merely because they are conscious of their volitions and appetites, but they are wholly determined. In fact, Spinoza claimed — to the horror of his contemporaries —that we are all just modes of one substance, “God or Nature” he called it, which is really the same thing. Individual actions are no such thing at all; they are expressions of another entity altogether, which acts through us unwittingly. To be human, according to Spinoza, is to be party to a confounding existential illusion — that human individuals are independent agents — which exacts a heavy emotional and political toll on us. It is the source of anxiety, envy, anger — all the passions that torment our psyche — and the violence that ensues. If we should come to see our nature as it truly is, if we should see that no “individuals” properly speaking exist at all, Spinoza maintained, it would greatly benefit humankind.
There is no such thing as a discrete individual, Spinoza points out. This is a fiction. The boundaries of ‘me’ are fluid and blurred. We are all profoundly linked in countless ways we can hardly perceive. My decisions, choices, actions are inspired and motivated by others to no small extent. The passions, Spinoza argued, derive from seeing people as autonomous individuals responsible for all the objectionable actions that issue from them. Understanding the interrelated nature of everyone and everything is the key to diminishing the passions and the havoc they wreak.
In this, Spinoza and President Obama seem to concur: we’re all in this together. We are not the sole authors of our destiny, each of us; our destinies are entangled — messily, unpredictably. Our cultural demands of individualism are too extreme. They are constitutionally irrational, Spinoza and Freud tell us, and their potential consequences are disastrous. Thanks to our safety net, we live in a society that affirms the dependence and interdependence of all. To that extent, it affirms a basic truth of our nature. We forsake it at our own peril.
Firmin DeBrabander is an associate professor of philosophy at the Maryland Institute College of Art, Baltimore and the author of “Spinoza and the Stoics.”
_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."
Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
- Posts : 7172
Join date : 2020-03-05
Dobar tekst, hvala.Erős Pista wrote:Et Vilmoš
Pa zato i kažem da oni nisu baš egzistencijalno ugroženi, više im je povređen ponos i slika o sebi.
Ima jedan sjajan stariji tekst o Tea Party, koji je meni potpuno otvorio te likove. Oni su besni na državu jer im je razbila mit koji su gajili sebi samima kao rugged nezavisnim individualcima.
- Spoiler:
Deluded Individualism
By Firmin DeBrabander
August 18, 2012 2:30 pm August 18, 2012 2:30 pm
The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.
There is a curious passage early in Freud’s “Ego and the Id” where he remarks that the id behaves “as if” it were unconscious. The phrase is puzzling, but the meaning is clear: the id is the secret driver of our desires, the desires that animate our conscious life, but the ego does not recognize it as such. The ego — what we take to be our conscious, autonomous self — is ignorant to the agency of the id, and sees itself in the driver seat instead. Freud offers the following metaphor: the ego is like a man on horseback, struggling to contain the powerful beast beneath; to the extent that the ego succeeds in guiding this beast, it’s only by “transforming the id’s will into action as if it were its own.”
By Freud’s account, conscious autonomy is a charade. “We are lived,” as he puts it, and yet we don’t see it as such. Indeed, Freud suggests that to be human is to rebel against that vision — the truth. We tend to see ourselves as self-determining, self-conscious agents in all that we decide and do, and we cling to that image. But why? Why do we resist the truth? Why do we wish — strain, strive, against the grain of reality — to be autonomous individuals, and see ourselves as such?A version of the stubborn myth of self-determination has surfaced again in politics.
Perhaps Freud is too cynical regarding conscious autonomy, but he is right to question our presumption to it. He is right to suggest that we typically — wrongly — ignore the extent to which we are determined by unknown forces, and overestimate our self-control. The path to happiness for Freud, or some semblance of it in his stormy account of the psyche, involves accepting our basic condition. But why do we presume individual agency in the first place? Why do we insist on it stubbornly, irrationally, often recklessly?
I was reminded of Freud’s paradox by a poignant article in The Times a few months back, which described a Republican leaning district in Minnesota, and its constituents’ conflicted desire to be self-reliant (“Even Critics of the Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It,” Feb. 11). The article cited a study from Dartmouth political science professor Dean Lacy, which revealed that, though Republicans call for deep cuts to the safety net, their districts rely more on government support than their Democratic counterparts.
In Chisago County, Minn., The Times’s reporters spoke with residents who supported the Tea Party and its proposed cuts to federal spending, even while they admitted they could not get by without government support. Tea Party aficionados, and many on the extreme right of the Republican party for that matter, are typically characterized as self-sufficient middle class folk, angry about sustaining the idle poor with their tax dollars. Chisago County revealed a different aspect of this anger: economically struggling Americans professing a robust individualism and self-determination, frustrated with their failures to achieve that ideal.
Why the stubborn insistence on self-determination, in spite of the facts? One might say there is something profoundly American in this. It’s our fierce individualism shining through. Residents of Chisago County are clinging to notions of past self-reliance before the recession, before the welfare state. It’s admirable in a way. Alternately, it evokes the delusional autonomy of Freud’s poor ego.
These people, like many across the nation, rely on government assistance, but pretend they don’t. They even resent the government for their reliance. If they looked closely though, they’d see that we are all thoroughly saturated with government assistance in this country: farm subsidies that lower food prices for us all, mortgage interest deductions that disproportionately favor the rich, federal mortgage guarantees that keep interest rates low, a bloated Department of Defense that sustains entire sectors of the economy and puts hundreds of thousands of people to work. We can hardly fathom the depth of our dependence on government, and pretend we are bold individualists instead.
As we are in an election year, the persistence of this delusion has manifested itself politically, particularly as a foundation in the Republican Party ideology — from Ron Paul’s insistence during the primaries that the government shouldn’t intervene to help the uninsured even when they are deathly ill, to Rick Santorum’s maligning of public schools, to Mitt Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan as a running mate. There is no doubt that radical individualism will remain a central selling point of their campaign. Ryan’s signature work, his proposal for the federal budget, calls for drastic cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Pell grants and job training programs, among others. To no surprise, as The New Yorker revealed in a recent profile of Ryan, the home district that supports him is boosted by considerable government largesse.
Of course the professed individualists have an easy time cutting services for the poor. But this is misguided. There are many counties across the nation that, like Chisago County, might feel insulated from the trials of the destitute. Perhaps this is because they are able to ignore the poverty in their midst, or because they are rather homogeneous and geographically removed from concentrations of poverty, like urban ghettos. But the fate of the middle class counties and urban ghettos is entwined. When the poor are left to rot in their misery, the misery does not stay contained. It harms us all. The crime radiates, the misery offends, it debases the whole. Individuals, much less communities, cannot be insulated from it.
Thanks to a decades-long safety net, we have forgotten the trials of living without it. This is why, the historian Tony Judt argued, it’s easy for some to speak fondly of a world without government: we can’t fully imagine or recall what it’s like. We can’t really appreciate the horrors Upton Sinclair witnessed in the Chicago slaughterhouses before regulation, or the burden of living without Social Security and Medicare to look forward to. Thus, we can entertain nostalgia for a time when everyone pulled his own weight, bore his own risk, and was the master of his destiny. That time was a myth. But the notion of self-reliance is also a fallacy.
Spinoza greatly influenced Freud, and he adds a compelling insight we would do well to reckon with. Spinoza also questioned the human pretense to autonomy. Men believe themselves free, he said, merely because they are conscious of their volitions and appetites, but they are wholly determined. In fact, Spinoza claimed — to the horror of his contemporaries —that we are all just modes of one substance, “God or Nature” he called it, which is really the same thing. Individual actions are no such thing at all; they are expressions of another entity altogether, which acts through us unwittingly. To be human, according to Spinoza, is to be party to a confounding existential illusion — that human individuals are independent agents — which exacts a heavy emotional and political toll on us. It is the source of anxiety, envy, anger — all the passions that torment our psyche — and the violence that ensues. If we should come to see our nature as it truly is, if we should see that no “individuals” properly speaking exist at all, Spinoza maintained, it would greatly benefit humankind.
There is no such thing as a discrete individual, Spinoza points out. This is a fiction. The boundaries of ‘me’ are fluid and blurred. We are all profoundly linked in countless ways we can hardly perceive. My decisions, choices, actions are inspired and motivated by others to no small extent. The passions, Spinoza argued, derive from seeing people as autonomous individuals responsible for all the objectionable actions that issue from them. Understanding the interrelated nature of everyone and everything is the key to diminishing the passions and the havoc they wreak.
In this, Spinoza and President Obama seem to concur: we’re all in this together. We are not the sole authors of our destiny, each of us; our destinies are entangled — messily, unpredictably. Our cultural demands of individualism are too extreme. They are constitutionally irrational, Spinoza and Freud tell us, and their potential consequences are disastrous. Thanks to our safety net, we live in a society that affirms the dependence and interdependence of all. To that extent, it affirms a basic truth of our nature. We forsake it at our own peril.
Firmin DeBrabander is an associate professor of philosophy at the Maryland Institute College of Art, Baltimore and the author of “Spinoza and the Stoics.”
_____
"Burundi je svakako sharmantno mesto cinika i knjiskih ljudi koji gledaju stvar sa svog olimpa od kartona."
“Here he was then, cruising the deserts of Mexico in my Ford Torino with my wife and my credit cards and his black-tongued dog. He had a chow dog that went everywhere with him, to the post office and ball games, and now that red beast was making free with his lion feet on my Torino seats.”
- Posts : 3744
Join date : 2020-09-27
Location : Waystone Inn
Odličan tekst 
_____
my goosebumps have goosebumps
- Posts : 182
Join date : 2022-10-16
Danas ce kiroprakticari I real estate agenti prevaspitati liberalne uzvisene genijalne glasace. Gluplji clanak nisam skoro procitao. Cuj kiroprakticar se uvredio sto nije prihvacen od Bil Gejca kao njemu ravnom, a real estate agenti sa 3-mesecnim kursom zele bar master degree tretman 
.
Btw za Trumpa glasaju oni koji prave 100K+ a Bajdena izvlace ovi sto ne prebacuju 50K.
100K+ nije niza srednja klasa vec srednja srednja sa familijom, a visa srednja za one koji zive sami.
Ti superiorni genijalci koji glasaju za demokrate su studirali uglavnom afroamericku istoriju, razna ljucka prava i zenske nauke i prezivljavaju veliki shok kada shvate da to nikome ne treba i niko nece da plati pa rade kao kasirke I Uber vozaci. Duhovno "prosveceni", ali finansijski ubiVeni hahaha
.Btw za Trumpa glasaju oni koji prave 100K+ a Bajdena izvlace ovi sto ne prebacuju 50K.
100K+ nije niza srednja klasa vec srednja srednja sa familijom, a visa srednja za one koji zive sami.
Ti superiorni genijalci koji glasaju za demokrate su studirali uglavnom afroamericku istoriju, razna ljucka prava i zenske nauke i prezivljavaju veliki shok kada shvate da to nikome ne treba i niko nece da plati pa rade kao kasirke I Uber vozaci. Duhovno "prosveceni", ali finansijski ubiVeni hahaha
- Posts : 5222
Join date : 2016-01-26
Ја у плочу, ти у клин.Vilmos Tehenészfiú wrote:Doduše treba reći i da “niža srednja klasa”, putuje autom 12 sati pa prenoći u Motel 6, a ovi su do Vašingtona leteli i privatnim avionima. Tako da cela ta priča da je to u stvari niža srednja klasa meni baš i ne pije vodu skroz.
Заборавио си оне типове на чамцима, америчку џентрију. Ситније и средње земљопоседнике, власнике некретнина по центрима пропалих градића, наследнике пропалих индустрија, плантажа алфалфе, поморанџи, власнике сточних берзи.
6. јануара су били сви повређени, увређени, закинути, ментало запуштени и препуштени теоријама завере. Таквих има и богатих и сиромашнијих. Занемарени и напуштени су сиротиња, нису политичка сила већ гледају само како да преживе, немају кад да купују авионске карте и да јуришају на Капитол.
Није 6. јануара кренуло Удружење киропрактичара Америке, било је тамо и других, богатијих слојева, тј. џентрија коју сам навео.
Гологузи киропрактичари и не треба да постоје пошто су надрилекари али Америка.
Erős Pista wrote:Et Vilmoš
Pa zato i kažem da oni nisu baš egzistencijalno ugroženi, više im je povređen ponos i slika o sebi.
Ima jedan sjajan stariji tekst o Tea Party, koji je meni potpuno otvorio te likove. Oni su besni na državu jer im je razbila mit koji su gajili sebi samima kao rugged nezavisnim individualcima.
- Spoiler:
Deluded Individualism
By Firmin DeBrabander
August 18, 2012 2:30 pm August 18, 2012 2:30 pm
The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.
There is a curious passage early in Freud’s “Ego and the Id” where he remarks that the id behaves “as if” it were unconscious. The phrase is puzzling, but the meaning is clear: the id is the secret driver of our desires, the desires that animate our conscious life, but the ego does not recognize it as such. The ego — what we take to be our conscious, autonomous self — is ignorant to the agency of the id, and sees itself in the driver seat instead. Freud offers the following metaphor: the ego is like a man on horseback, struggling to contain the powerful beast beneath; to the extent that the ego succeeds in guiding this beast, it’s only by “transforming the id’s will into action as if it were its own.”
By Freud’s account, conscious autonomy is a charade. “We are lived,” as he puts it, and yet we don’t see it as such. Indeed, Freud suggests that to be human is to rebel against that vision — the truth. We tend to see ourselves as self-determining, self-conscious agents in all that we decide and do, and we cling to that image. But why? Why do we resist the truth? Why do we wish — strain, strive, against the grain of reality — to be autonomous individuals, and see ourselves as such?A version of the stubborn myth of self-determination has surfaced again in politics.
Perhaps Freud is too cynical regarding conscious autonomy, but he is right to question our presumption to it. He is right to suggest that we typically — wrongly — ignore the extent to which we are determined by unknown forces, and overestimate our self-control. The path to happiness for Freud, or some semblance of it in his stormy account of the psyche, involves accepting our basic condition. But why do we presume individual agency in the first place? Why do we insist on it stubbornly, irrationally, often recklessly?
I was reminded of Freud’s paradox by a poignant article in The Times a few months back, which described a Republican leaning district in Minnesota, and its constituents’ conflicted desire to be self-reliant (“Even Critics of the Safety Net Increasingly Depend on It,” Feb. 11). The article cited a study from Dartmouth political science professor Dean Lacy, which revealed that, though Republicans call for deep cuts to the safety net, their districts rely more on government support than their Democratic counterparts.
In Chisago County, Minn., The Times’s reporters spoke with residents who supported the Tea Party and its proposed cuts to federal spending, even while they admitted they could not get by without government support. Tea Party aficionados, and many on the extreme right of the Republican party for that matter, are typically characterized as self-sufficient middle class folk, angry about sustaining the idle poor with their tax dollars. Chisago County revealed a different aspect of this anger: economically struggling Americans professing a robust individualism and self-determination, frustrated with their failures to achieve that ideal.
Why the stubborn insistence on self-determination, in spite of the facts? One might say there is something profoundly American in this. It’s our fierce individualism shining through. Residents of Chisago County are clinging to notions of past self-reliance before the recession, before the welfare state. It’s admirable in a way. Alternately, it evokes the delusional autonomy of Freud’s poor ego.
These people, like many across the nation, rely on government assistance, but pretend they don’t. They even resent the government for their reliance. If they looked closely though, they’d see that we are all thoroughly saturated with government assistance in this country: farm subsidies that lower food prices for us all, mortgage interest deductions that disproportionately favor the rich, federal mortgage guarantees that keep interest rates low, a bloated Department of Defense that sustains entire sectors of the economy and puts hundreds of thousands of people to work. We can hardly fathom the depth of our dependence on government, and pretend we are bold individualists instead.
As we are in an election year, the persistence of this delusion has manifested itself politically, particularly as a foundation in the Republican Party ideology — from Ron Paul’s insistence during the primaries that the government shouldn’t intervene to help the uninsured even when they are deathly ill, to Rick Santorum’s maligning of public schools, to Mitt Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan as a running mate. There is no doubt that radical individualism will remain a central selling point of their campaign. Ryan’s signature work, his proposal for the federal budget, calls for drastic cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, Pell grants and job training programs, among others. To no surprise, as The New Yorker revealed in a recent profile of Ryan, the home district that supports him is boosted by considerable government largesse.
Of course the professed individualists have an easy time cutting services for the poor. But this is misguided. There are many counties across the nation that, like Chisago County, might feel insulated from the trials of the destitute. Perhaps this is because they are able to ignore the poverty in their midst, or because they are rather homogeneous and geographically removed from concentrations of poverty, like urban ghettos. But the fate of the middle class counties and urban ghettos is entwined. When the poor are left to rot in their misery, the misery does not stay contained. It harms us all. The crime radiates, the misery offends, it debases the whole. Individuals, much less communities, cannot be insulated from it.
Thanks to a decades-long safety net, we have forgotten the trials of living without it. This is why, the historian Tony Judt argued, it’s easy for some to speak fondly of a world without government: we can’t fully imagine or recall what it’s like. We can’t really appreciate the horrors Upton Sinclair witnessed in the Chicago slaughterhouses before regulation, or the burden of living without Social Security and Medicare to look forward to. Thus, we can entertain nostalgia for a time when everyone pulled his own weight, bore his own risk, and was the master of his destiny. That time was a myth. But the notion of self-reliance is also a fallacy.
Spinoza greatly influenced Freud, and he adds a compelling insight we would do well to reckon with. Spinoza also questioned the human pretense to autonomy. Men believe themselves free, he said, merely because they are conscious of their volitions and appetites, but they are wholly determined. In fact, Spinoza claimed — to the horror of his contemporaries —that we are all just modes of one substance, “God or Nature” he called it, which is really the same thing. Individual actions are no such thing at all; they are expressions of another entity altogether, which acts through us unwittingly. To be human, according to Spinoza, is to be party to a confounding existential illusion — that human individuals are independent agents — which exacts a heavy emotional and political toll on us. It is the source of anxiety, envy, anger — all the passions that torment our psyche — and the violence that ensues. If we should come to see our nature as it truly is, if we should see that no “individuals” properly speaking exist at all, Spinoza maintained, it would greatly benefit humankind.
There is no such thing as a discrete individual, Spinoza points out. This is a fiction. The boundaries of ‘me’ are fluid and blurred. We are all profoundly linked in countless ways we can hardly perceive. My decisions, choices, actions are inspired and motivated by others to no small extent. The passions, Spinoza argued, derive from seeing people as autonomous individuals responsible for all the objectionable actions that issue from them. Understanding the interrelated nature of everyone and everything is the key to diminishing the passions and the havoc they wreak.
In this, Spinoza and President Obama seem to concur: we’re all in this together. We are not the sole authors of our destiny, each of us; our destinies are entangled — messily, unpredictably. Our cultural demands of individualism are too extreme. They are constitutionally irrational, Spinoza and Freud tell us, and their potential consequences are disastrous. Thanks to our safety net, we live in a society that affirms the dependence and interdependence of all. To that extent, it affirms a basic truth of our nature. We forsake it at our own peril.
Firmin DeBrabander is an associate professor of philosophy at the Maryland Institute College of Art, Baltimore and the author of “Spinoza and the Stoics.”
2012 као да је била пре 100 година, али тачно се виде обриси Трампизма као и континуитет идеологије Републиканске странке.
_____
Burundi is an exception among other nations because it is a country which gave God first place, a God who guards and protects from all misfortune.
Burundi... opskurno udruženje 20ak levičarskih intelektualaca, kojima je fetiš odbrana poniženih i uvredjenih.
- Posts : 81477
Join date : 2012-06-10
Da, da, apsolutno. Spona je bio birtherism koji je proizašao iz Tea Party-ja, a u kojem je i Trampara odigrao važnu ulogu.
_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."
Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
- Posts : 40139
Join date : 2012-02-12
Location : имам пуну полицу књига, која ми је главна?
Јанош Винету wrote:
Гологузи киропрактичари и не треба да постоје пошто су надрилекари али Америка.
Остеопатски факултет је признат као медицински. Е сад ко је ту уводио реда, види по историјама, како је настала АМА, ко је ту ставио шапе на здравство, ко је добио ћагу да може да пропише шта је медицина а шта шарлатанлук итд итд.
_____
I drove a škodilak before it was cool.
Морони на власти чешће мењају правила него гаће.
- Posts : 182
Join date : 2022-10-16
Pocinju cistke, neko mora platiti za totalni izborni poraz (ukoliko ne bude velike kradje). Prva zrtva Tiffany Cross, odvratna crna rasistkinja sa ekstremno leve MSNBC koja vec 2 godine bez posledica poziva na rasni rat crni protiv belih. 40 crnackih lidera poslalo "telegram podrske", aktivirali su se "odjeci i reagovanja". Nista ne pomaze, naredjenje je stiglo iz centralnog komiteta. Da li je ovo konacno otklon od ultra fanatika marksistickih rasista koji ce se kako se predvidja zavrsiti sklanjanjem Bajdena videcemo uskoro.
Poziv da se Ron DeSantisu odsece penis je neslavno zavrsio. Mada je krava ovo zasluzila mnogo ranije, zapravo nije trebala da bude uopste na televiziji vec u Walmartu na kasi, nikad nije kasno. Interesantno da je otkaz dosao ekspresno posle Tucker Carlsonove prozivke da od Amerike hoce da napravi Ruandu. Hvala Tucker.
Cross Connection host Tiffany Cross ripped Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and called Florida the “dick of the country” that should be “castrated”.
Poziv da se Ron DeSantisu odsece penis je neslavno zavrsio. Mada je krava ovo zasluzila mnogo ranije, zapravo nije trebala da bude uopste na televiziji vec u Walmartu na kasi, nikad nije kasno. Interesantno da je otkaz dosao ekspresno posle Tucker Carlsonove prozivke da od Amerike hoce da napravi Ruandu. Hvala Tucker
.Cross Connection host Tiffany Cross ripped Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and called Florida the “dick of the country” that should be “castrated”.
_____
Ronald Reagan: 'If Fascism Ever Comes to America, It Will Come in the Name of Liberalism'
- Posts : 81477
Join date : 2012-06-10
Šta ćeš da radiš kad crnci dođu potebe, Jojogi?
_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."
Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
- Posts : 182
Join date : 2022-10-16
_____
Ronald Reagan: 'If Fascism Ever Comes to America, It Will Come in the Name of Liberalism'
- Posts : 34211
Join date : 2012-02-10
Erős Pista wrote:Šta ćeš da radiš kad crnci dođu potebe, Jojogi?
Ni ne sanja da u Burundiju zive crnci
_____
★
Uprava napolje!
- Posts : 36926
Join date : 2014-10-27
ali ovo ultra fanatika marksistickih rasista 
ovaj ludak bi mirno gledao da mu ubijaju komsije na pragu
ovaj ludak bi mirno gledao da mu ubijaju komsije na pragu
_____
And Will's father stood up, stuffed his pipe with tobacco, rummaged his pockets for matches, brought out a battered harmonica, a penknife, a cigarette lighter that wouldn't work, and a memo pad he had always meant to write some great thoughts down on but never got around to, and lined up these weapons for a pygmy war that could be lost before it even started
|
|
|