Author Topic: Some CoS inside information  (Read 1197 times)

Mindmaster

Re: Some CoS inside information
« Reply #60 on: September 23, 2019, 02:35:07 am »
There's quite a gap between the problem of disagreement offending others and insulting one personally in the sense of an ad hominem fallacy. Hell, fascism relies on ad hominem fallacies, especially those like "you disagree, so you must have cognitive problems".

There is really no socio-political ideology that doesn't fall victim to this path of rationale in one way or another. Hence, my blanket warning: "There is no good herd for a left-hand pather."

Km Anu

  • O.S. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 445
  • Total likes: 212
  • Never will his wrath or might extort from me
    • View Profile
Re: Some CoS inside information
« Reply #61 on: September 23, 2019, 04:52:53 am »
That's not an ad-hominen, it was a legitimate question and framed as tactfully as one can. You can read it yourself.

Moreover, a bigger question is who exactly is offended? It seems everyone but the person it was directed to. Why do you suppose that is?


And yes, it is important to know if a person you are communicating with is on the spectrum, because it saves a ton of time when you know that sarcasm, flippancy, figurative language anything non-literal just causes way more confusion than it clarifies. That's just the nature of the beast. It's how they process things. If you know this ahead of time you can___ what's the word? ___ oh right: accommodate them!

Here's a story - it is relevant if you have eyes to see it, bear with me:

A buddy of mine was tasked with implementing a real quick and dirty Captcha system for some site. It consisted of a phrase with words that were different colors. You had to type in the phrase or answer what color is the fourth word or whatever. Not well-thought-out and very quick and dirty. It just had to be quick, nothing too complicated.

So, anyway, he implements it and it seems to be working, but every so often he'd get these calls from the users that every now and again the captcha would just reject their responses even though they knew for sure they entered it right.

Guy spends countless hours - weeks on project that should only take not even a day - trying to replicate the error, refactoring his code, all that. Still, just when he thought he had it nailed down - a day or two later he'd get another call, this time from another user. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.

He asks me to look at it, I see nothing wrong with the code, and it just occurs to me

 "well maybe they're just fucking color blind!"

... turns out that's exactly what it was.

They were too embarrassed to say, didn't consider it important, and my buddy just didn't want to risk offending anyone.

The rule is not to avoid offense, and I'm not investing energy into a philosophical debate about the nature of our forum guidelines.  Your comment was innapropriate.  You do not have to agree, but you do have to follow our guidelines to retain membership.

You are also presenting a false dichotomy.

Liu

Re: Some CoS inside information
« Reply #62 on: September 23, 2019, 06:18:26 am »
Thanks for defending me, but I didn't feel offended whatsoever by the question whether I'm on the autism spectrum.
As I mentioned here and elsewhere on this board before, it might quite likely actually be the case.
It would have been better to first just point out that I'm taking something too literally than to get overly surprised about it, but in the previous cases here where I misunderstood people due to taking them by their word, they also didn't really point out anything for quite a while, so it's actually good IALPRR brought up the confusion within a reasonable timespan.

Regarding impelled speech:
As to my counter-argument: It's in there. Sadly, I'd have to try very hard to make more than a paragraph of it. It is this:

There simply is no justification in my mind for impelled speech. Period.

There is no justification in my mind for the demands a group identity to presume dictate the laws by which two people - two individuals - must address each other. What pronouns they can and cannot use. What level of consideration must be given.
It seems to me like you're having an emotional problem with changing or broadening your definition of "he" and "she" towards what a significant segment of the population is taking it to mean nowadays. Just some suggestion for introspection, I might be mistaken.

That's interesting! It's the opposite of my beleif. With this identified, I can use both moving foreward, thank you.

I was thinking along the lines of trauma structuring behavior via negative association. Those negative associations are more likey to manifest as behavioral patterns that favor disassociation with the gender.

By adding the neurological change as causality, it could be said that an individual with the neural make-up to disassociate with their sex is more likely to also disassociate with their gender if they experience early trauma.

You may also be able to theorize that the two are interdependent, that it takes some combination of both for the topic of current discussion to manifest. That is my fluid belief.
Those seem to be two sides of the same coin to me, so yes, likely interrelated.

Everything in someone's life is relevant to pursuing the LHP collectively, but it is not usually specific to that path. I'm perplexed by the being queer and not knowing it comment, if only because I couldn't imagine being in that head space. Self-awareness is probably the most galvanizing personal trait present when someone decides to pursue the path. You know you're not a normie, you know why, but moreover since you are freed from the burden of conformity the LHP becomes really appealing. However, you know it's not a social club and by this juncture you're not needing that -- the need to belong or fit in is gone.
Some people may first enter the path and then grow up. Or they may be "different" in some other way but for some reason or another haven't given this aspect the proper attention yet.
Heck I've been a Satanist for longer than being fully aware that I'm trans - when I "became" a Satanist 6 years ago or so, I was hardly aware that transsexuality is a thing. I mean, I had gender dysphoria, but I found different explanations (e.g. trauma from being bullied plus having social anxiety making me avoid normal sexuality and thereby also dislike sexual aspects of my body, or belief that gender is purely a social construct and that this is why I don't fit in any of the female stereotypes and more into the male stereotypes.) Also didn't know that I'm asexual, assumed I was pansexual as I didn't know that what I was experiencing was just aesthetic attraction, not sexual attraction.

Quote
I'm still at the the "what rights" issue. They have rights to be LGBT, and no one is stopping them. Social norms will not change with any amount of activism, so that's wasted effort. Those change as people are exposed to "the others" and realize they're not any trouble. The only issue I really see is from legal snafus in regard to what is considered marriage, and that's because those laws simply weren't written in mindset of being inclusive of these alternative lifestyles -- it's not that they were particularly written to deny those benefits to these individuals. (Lack of awareness versus actual resistance, two different things...) Affecting the social norm is not a LHPers business even if they project their ego into the issue and make it so. "If you are vexed by the social norm then you're not free of it!" is really the short of it... :D
Well Kapalika for example mentioned the right of being protected against losing your job or your apartment due to being trans. Seems like an important one to me.

Quote
To the person that isn't LGBT themselves, a pride parades look like the day they all put on the clown shoes. There isn't any positive social gain to participate in that activity if you ask me. :D

As far as reinforcing negative biases -- that's all pride parades and activism accomplish. But, part of me believes that there is a segment of those communities that have a persecution complex and do get something out of it. The only way for me to understand it easily is if I was contemplating participating in a "Satanic Pride" parade -- would this parade be to enrich me, entertain me, or piss of the normies and put me on their hate radar? :D It's obvious that it's nonsensical either way, but I think you see my point.
I partly do see your point. Still think people are also having pride parades for slightly different reasons, though, like enjoying to have an occasion to celebrate and being shown acceptance for an aspect of themselves that they have been discriminated against before, or simply enjoying being in a large group of people that they can be sure are on their side.
I also don't really see the sense for me to go to one to be honest but doesn't mean others aren't getting something worthwhile out of it.
And also for people who aren't queer in their gender or sexuality, a pride parade may still be a demonstration of liberal values and individuality.

IALPRT

  • Guest
Re: Some CoS inside information
« Reply #63 on: September 23, 2019, 12:27:42 pm »
Quote
The rule is not to avoid offense, and I'm not investing energy into a philosophical debate about the nature of our forum guidelines.  Your comment was innapropriate.  You do not have to agree, but you do have to follow our guidelines to retain membership.

You are also presenting a false dichotomy.
It's not a comment. It was a legitimate question. It sounds to me like you're the one who's offended, to which I offer no apologies whatsoever for that.

Also. You can't just wave the name of a logical fallacy that doesn't even remotely apply like a "expecto patronum" and expect anyone to take you seriously.

Quote
It seems to me like you're having an emotional problem with changing or broadening your definition of "he" and "she" towards what a significant segment of the population is taking it to mean nowadays. Just some suggestion for introspection, I might be mistaken.

It seems to me like they're having an emotional problem with my not changing or broadening my definition of "he" and "she" towards what an insignificant segment of the population is taking it to mean nowadays.

So, this being an "LHP forum" (reportedly) which side do you suppose should yield?

I certainly wouldn't want to break some sort of unspoken taboo or seem as if bucking prevailing societal norms by simply speaking truth to power. Perish the thought! Nothing could be further from LHP than that!
« Last Edit: September 23, 2019, 12:35:16 pm by IALPRT »

Xepera maSet

  • O.S. Co-founder | OSM Founder
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 2461
  • Total likes: 2544
  • uab Nekhekhu (Priest of the Old Gods)
    • View Profile
    • My Book on Setianism
Re: Some CoS inside information
« Reply #64 on: September 23, 2019, 12:36:36 pm »
I think the very idea that someone must "yeild" on epistemologically unanswerable questions is a curious one.

I also think being against discrimination towards non-harmful things is a perfectly valid mindset for the LHPer.

I have Come Into Being like Set
Prince of Darkness
Soul of the Heavenly Serpent
Separator who contends against Osiris for Eternity

Hapu

Re: Some CoS inside information
« Reply #65 on: September 23, 2019, 01:38:21 pm »
Hence, my blanket warning: "There is no good herd for a left-hand pather."

My brain initially processed that as, "There is no good herd for a left-hand panther."

Which, I've decided, I kind of like.

Peace is a lie, for by opposition I evolve.
Comfort is a lie, for by hardship I evolve.
Mercy is a lie, for by severity I evolve.
Purity is a lie, for by defilement I evolve.
Obedience is a lie, for by rebellion I evolve.
Order is a lie, for by chaos I evolve.
Continuity is a lie, for by death I evolve.
I am the Demon in the Flesh.

IALPRT

  • Guest
Re: Some CoS inside information
« Reply #66 on: September 23, 2019, 03:41:18 pm »
I think the very idea that someone must "yeild" on epistemologically unanswerable questions is a curious one.
I tend to agree, except I word it with greater vehemence. I sense, although I cannot prove, something more insidious and unctuous at play here than simply the hurt feelings of a small minority. What it boils down to is the control of language - en' mass via an appeal to emotion. This should be setting-off all manner of red flags to anyone who truly appreciates the power of words.

*incidentally this is what I mean by "tragically self-absorbed", that this issue isn't about them. It's about something much bigger.

Quote
I also think being against discrimination towards non-harmful things is a perfectly valid mindset for the LHPer.

LHPer gets murky. I don't mean to offend anyone but it really is a nebulous buzzword that I don't think is meant to prescribe anything specific enough to be dogmatic about. It most cases - especially on the internet - it is descriptive.

Questioning if X is LHP or RHP or a valid stance for an LHPer is seldom ever productive, it lends itself to endless discussions that really all amount to "well it really just depends on how you vector it", and I have to say, choosing to behave one way or another because it is the LHP thing to do is a bit carriage before the horse. This, of course, if we agree on LHP in the descriptive sense.

Now, in the prescriptive sense, it gets much, much murkier:

If one personally is against discrimination, one could easily suggest that this is a personal taboo which they would gain a great deal by committing themselves to breaking.

This is strictly LHP, and a point at which it diverges with the LaVeyan strain of Satanism.

Satanism introduces a whole separate can of worms: namely that the needs of the individual trump the needs of any "group" - especially those of a victimized minority. Phrases such as "I don't run on your clock" and "Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine" comes to mind.

Some could argue rightly that discrimination is not an inherently bad thing: i.e. "he has a discriminating tastes" - and this is not equivocation. Even here, it becomes a personal decision - a negotiation between two individuals on how they choose to address one another.

I mean here: a guy believes he's a she? ok fine. I'm not saying he can't believe that. But with that, that does not give him the right to suggest that it's not ok for me to believe that he's still a guy who just thinks he's a girl. I'm not committing acts of violence against the person, and I am not disrespecting him by calling "him" "him".

Maybe I personally am insulted that I am being made out to be disrespectful for calling things as they are and not as they imagine themselves to be.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2019, 03:54:34 pm by IALPRT »

Liu

Re: Some CoS inside information
« Reply #67 on: September 23, 2019, 04:09:10 pm »
It seems to me like they're having an emotional problem with my not changing or broadening my definition of "he" and "she" towards what an insignificant segment of the population is taking it to mean nowadays.
I wasn't only referring to transpeople by calling it a significant segment of the population but pretty much anyone minding their language regarding gender issues.

Quote
*incidentally this is what I mean by "tragically self-absorbed", that this issue isn't about them. It's about something much bigger.
To me the only bigger movement that seems to be part of is one about supporting people in the expression of their individuality.

I admit that the strategies, including linguistic ones, which some suggest to be employed for that are not always that good of an idea and that some people can get quite narrow-minded and dogmatic in that very pursuit, as strange as it seems.
But using pronouns according to gender instead of according to sex seems really like not a huge deal to me.

IALPRT

  • Guest
Re: Some CoS inside information
« Reply #68 on: September 23, 2019, 04:17:47 pm »

But using pronouns according to gender instead of according to sex seems really like not a huge deal to me.

Yeah, but like I mentioned I don't run on your clock.

If it's not a big deal to you, then feel free to mind your Ps and Qs. You believe you're a gender that does not conform to your birth sex? That's fine. I don't believe in gender. There is only physiological sex. You're entitled to act on your beliefs, and so am I.

I'm not telling you to act the sex you were born, so kindly keep your social constructs out of my mouth.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2019, 04:20:26 pm by IALPRT »

W_Adam_Smythe

Re: Some CoS inside information
« Reply #69 on: October 15, 2019, 01:05:04 am »
This is to the level where guys like the one who runs the official merch website are being demoted to Warlock from Reverend or higher!

On this point, while I do not know the full details, I can say this: My understanding of this guy was that something stemmed from out and out homophobic comments he had made back in the alt.satanism days that someone fount.

However, from what I heard this had nothing at all to do with his demotion and possible expulsion. That had to do with either being drastically late in shipping orders out or in some cases people not getting their orders at all, but the CoS still put up with that. If my sources are accurate on this one it boiled down to that he wasn't giving Peter the 10% for use of the Sigil of Baphomet and he was caught.

If all of this is true the real quirk is within the ethics. The CoS was fine with this guy taking members of the CoS for a ride but as soon as he got his hand in that 10% cookie jar he was out.