oh man gardenia's back my erection is at full sail
unsane wrote:[Not being insulting, just realistic.] In my internet travels i've come across only one other person as extreme as this one. It's entertaining and all as they are easy targets, but i think rather than reinforcement through mockery, these individuals desperately need psychological help. Barring that, they would be useful for study of internet megalomania. They crave pure control, surround themselves only with ppl who agree with them, creating a fantasy with them at the center. I wonder if that's what it's like being a dictator irl. Total control, surrounded by yesmen, etc...
like i said earlier. check out
this post. he was always abrasive and he certainly wasn't always right, but it's like at some point something broke in his brain. i'm not going to play internet psychologist for our internet philosopher, but there was a point where even on his own site he wasn't spewing nietzsche and attacking anyone he didn't know. there are a few people he seems to be comfortable with, but he's liable to blow up at even them now, and anyone else is almost invariably subjected to some bilious outburst and summarily banned. it's, of course, entirely possible that it's all an act, but if it is he's spending an awful lot of time on it.
we now return to "icycalm's greatest hits," adding dismay for the learning disabled and veiled hatred of homosexuals to the list! if only certain people were reading off topic right now
Icycalm wrote:You guys will really hate the truth, if you actually ever manage to realize it. Calling regular people stupid is just as cruel as calling retarded people stupid. It is just as unfair, just as unjust, because no one is responsible for being constituted the way they are -- not retarded people, nor stupid people of the "garden variety". The only logically consistent definition of stupidity we have, after all, shows us that there is no fundamental difference between regular stupid people and people with learning disabilities -- the latter are simply more heavily disadvantaged than the former.
All I am trying to do with my articles is be as offensive as possible, as unjust as possible, as unfair as possible, in order to have the greatest effect possible. In a universe in which every action is fundamentally "unjust" this is the only way to maximize effectiveness.
As for gay people, again, you would be deeply unsettled, to say the least, if you understood what I (and Heraclitus, Nietzsche, Baudrillard, etc.) really think about them.
but wait! there's more!
Icycalm wrote:To put it another way, just as a gay person would not take it as an insult if someone called him gay, a vermin would not be insulted if someone called it vermin. Insults stem from value judgements; so when I, a man, am using the word 'gay' as a pejorative, I am making a judgement as to the relative value of men and gay males, just as Schopenhauer was making a judgement as to the relative value of men and vermin. Whether this value judgement is correct or not is sometimes easy to discern (men vs. vermin) sometimes harder (men vs. gay males). In the end, only nature can be the final arbiter of the dispute, in the form of the evolutionary process.
PS. The above is a good example of what I call "harsh truths". Also note that my best friend is gay.
he unironically used the best friend defense i just came in my pants
| My games - 