[SSDR]

@Stardust, What is the point of you defending that creep? What is it gonna do for ya?

How much of a response are you going to make out of this post?

[Stardust]

@Stardust, What is the point of you defending that creep? What is it gonna do for ya?

How much of a response are you going to make out of this post?

Excuse me, am I missing a point here..?
This post was a response to you. Why should I expect a response, or any commendations from ckaihatsu for that matter?

I see that you've run out of your responses, so still holding on to your usual replacement method of insulting people.

[SSDR]

@Stardust, Well yeah I know that post was a response to me, that's why I replied.

"Excuse me"

I see that you've run out of your responses, so still holding on to your usual replacement method of making indirect responses to people that make NO SENSE.

[ckaihatsu]

https://www.genengnews.com/topics/omics ... be-linked/


First off I don't agree with SSDR's mischaracterizations of my person, of course, which are just facile insults and off-the-topic rhetoric.

On a side note, there's been a lot of recent research in the field of autism, interestingly -- see the article at the link above -- specifically in connecting the health of the gut to the health of the brain, since almost all neurotransmitters are produced in the gut:


> 90 percent of the body's serotonin is made in the digestive tract.

https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/micr ... -gut-46495


---


It's worthwhile to note that SSDR just uses the 'projection' rhetorical tactic in which any true, negative characteristics of him- or herself are neatly projected onto others, like myself, in order to deflect from having those true, negative characteristics ascribed to him- or herself. This is a common practice among those of the right-wing, in general.

Psychological projection

Psychological projection is a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[Stardust]

Thanks for your informative post, as always ckaihatsu.

Sure, 'projection' also came to mind while I was writing that response yesterday, which could have been added in a separate paragraph.

I for one, have witnessed many occasions where the referred person/s have used that defense mechanism (which is of course, not healthy; and pathological).
Freud was the one who initially discovered and suggested this term, and has been the subject of intensive studies by many professionals in the field since...

[SSDR]

@ckaihatsu, You don't have to agree with anyone or anything.

No one was expecting you to agree.

And I am not autistic. YOU are autistic. This picture looks so retarded lmfaooooooooooo.

[ckaihatsu]

Thanks for your informative post, as always ckaihatsu.

Sure, 'projection' also came to mind while I was writing that response yesterday, which could have been added in a separate paragraph.

I for one, have witnessed many occasions where the referred person/s have used that defense mechanism (which is of course, not healthy; and pathological).
Freud was the one who initially discovered and suggested this term, and has been the subject of intensive studies by many professionals in the field since...

Thanks for the thanks, Stardust.

The tricky thing with these armchair-analyses is that it's difficult to tell if the origin of the person's rhetoric is *unconscious*, and 'psychological', or if it's *conscious* and pre-planned -- in SSDR's case I don't think that it's a 'defense mechanism' because we're all being consciously political here (in some form) so it's simply best to *not psychologize* because in doing so one is basically implying that the other doesn't know what they're doing.

It's a form of *dehumanization* to say that someone is simply *unconsciously* responding to statements, especially in this, *political economy* context which is basically *non-personal* since it deals with mass social dynamics and is not artistic or literary and does not deal with *specific individuals*.


Humanities - Technology Chart 3.0

Spoiler: show

Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

Spoiler: show

[Stardust]

Thanks for the thanks, Stardust.

The tricky thing with these armchair-analyses is that it's difficult to tell if the origin of the person's rhetoric is *unconscious*, and 'psychological', or if it's *conscious* and pre-planned -- in SSDR's case I don't think that it's a 'defense mechanism' because we're all being consciously political here (in some form) so it's simply best to *not psychologize* because in doing so one is basically implying that the other doesn't know what they're doing.

It's a form of *dehumanization* to say that someone is simply *unconsciously* responding to statements, especially in this, *political economy* context which is basically *non-personal* since it deals with mass social dynamics and is not artistic or literary and does not deal with *specific individuals*.


Humanities - Technology Chart 3.0

Spoiler: show

Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

Spoiler: show

You're most welcome, ckaihatsu! Also thanks, for your explanations and the helpful diagrams.

Psychoanalysis, or any profession related to the subject of the mind; sure is a tricky job. One may argue, a large portion of the efforts Freud made (and the others, onward) were about establishing whether or not a particular way of thoughts and/or behavior were emerging from the person's unconscious / subconscious; or they were expressed / done consciously. Partly due to the fact that the lines between the conscious and unconscious are not always sharply defined...

I should agree with you though, on the subject of the psyche and the politics; that the boundaries between them should not be confused. Hence, rather than trying to read the persons' health or state of mind in connection with what they argue, and how they behave towards the others, including towards their opponents in the domain of politics; they should be judged by their political positions and actions.

As you've mentioned, one (psychology) deals with the individuals; whilst the other (politics) is concerned with the mass social dynamics. Therefore, they should be regarded and treated as such, within their own contexts.

Otherwise, it would be something like what the authorities in New Zealand have been trying to do lately; by investigating the fascist - Brenton Tarrant's psychological health concerning the mass killings he has carried out; while it is clear to everyone now that his act was not spontaneous, temporary insanity for instance; but based on a detailed plan carefully made over more than two years:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/0 ... r-m27.html

[ckaihatsu]

You're most welcome, ckaihatsu! Also thanks, for your explanations and the helpful diagrams.

Psychoanalysis, or any profession related to the subject of the mind; sure is a tricky job. One may argue, a large portion of the efforts Freud made (and the others, onward) were about establishing whether or not a particular way of thoughts and/or behavior were emerging from the person's unconscious / subconscious; or they were expressed / done consciously. Partly due to the fact that the lines between the conscious and unconscious are not always sharply defined...

I should agree with you though, on the subject of the psyche and the politics; that the boundaries between them should not be confused. Hence, rather than trying to read the persons' health or state of mind in connection with what they argue, and how they behave towards the others, including towards their opponents in the domain of politics; they should be judged by their political positions and actions.

As you've mentioned, one (psychology) deals with the individuals; whilst the other (politics) is concerned with the mass social dynamics. Therefore, they should be regarded and treated as such, within their own contexts.

Otherwise, it would be something like what the authorities in New Zealand have been trying to do lately; by investigating the fascist - Brenton Tarrant's psychological health concerning the mass killings he has carried out; while it is clear to everyone now that his act was not spontaneous, temporary insanity for instance; but based on a detailed plan carefully made over more than two years:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/0 ... r-m27.html

Yup, agreed entirely, and very well put, and good example. Thanks very much, Stardust.

[SSDR]

@Stardust, The given diagrams look like an autistic person made them. Their communicative characteristics tend to show many signs of autism.

Those diagrams also don't make ANY SENSE. And they're incomprehensible not because I have learning disabilities (in which I don't, I can comprehend things pretty well, Chris just makes incomprehensible statements and diagrams), but because the creator of those stupid diagrams, Chris has autism.



Claiming that some stupid shit like this is incomprehensible doesn't make me unintelligent. Rather, it makes the illustrator, Chris, look really retarded. What is the point of this retarded illustration? It shows NO economic views. It shows no economic terms nor points. It doesn't serve ANY purpose. And if it "doesn't need to" then why are you trying to use it as an unproven example to prove your useless statements? @ckaihatsu ?

[Stardust]

@Stardust, The given diagrams look like an autistic person made them. Their communicative characteristics tend to show many signs of autism.

Those diagrams also don't make ANY SENSE. And they're incomprehensible not because I have learning disabilities (in which I don't, I can comprehend things pretty well, Chris just makes incomprehensible statements and diagrams), but because the creator of those stupid diagrams, Chris has autism.

Claiming that some stupid shit like this is incomprehensible doesn't make me unintelligent. Rather, it makes the illustrator, Chris, look really retarded. What is the point of this retarded illustration? It shows NO economic views. It shows no economic terms nor points. It doesn't serve ANY purpose. And if it "doesn't need to" then why are you trying to use it as an unproven example to prove your useless statements? @ckaihatsu ?

Not worthy of an answer, at all...
The more you behave this way; the more you prove your shortcomings in the realms of logic.
You're utterly a fool!

[SSDR]

@Stardust, Why would any answer have any "worthy?" Aren't you a socialist? Socialists don't value anything because in socialism, the concept of value doesn't exist.

The more you and Chris post like this, the more you prove your dialogues as ineffective.

[ckaihatsu]

SSDR, not all of my (3D) graphics work is diagrams -- the one you chose is a rendered 3D landscape (in the background), from the 'labor credits framework' diagram, and then put through filters (GIMP + G'MIC), for the 'painterly' look that you see.

Artistic works, and other kinds of artistic expressivity, don't *have* to be useful in the utilitarian sense -- in fact, I have a *diagram* that shows this, with 'art' and 'literature' being more-socially-useless, while social science and (hard) science are more socially *useful*:

Humanities-Technology Chart 2.0

Spoiler: show

This is *philosophical* terrain you've stumbled into -- should humankind restrict itself to only socially-useful kinds of activities, like those of building buildings and making technological progress, while never really *enjoying* the fruits of those endeavors, instead just looping back into producing *more tools, goods, and services* -- ?

(In that case everyone would be doing 'useful' / utilitarian things, incessantly, but then no one could ever relax and actually personally *use* those things since that would be *useless* activity.)

[SSDR]

@ckaihatsu, There's no point of you even posting them. And change your clothes, you need somewhere new to shop

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu, There's no point of you even posting them. And change your clothes, you need somewhere new to shop

You just don't appreciate the *casual* look. There's no point posting my diagrams for *you*, because you're too close-minded. Fortunately you're not the only one reading this thread.

[SSDR]

@ckaihatsu, I don't need to appreciate the "casual" look.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu, I don't need to appreciate the "casual" look.

You're off on a tangent again, unable to sustain a single line of thought, or topic. Whatever, as ever.

[SSDR]

@ckaihatsu, That is not a "tangent." This clearly shows that you don't know many definitions, since you can't handle them.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu, That is not a "tangent." This clearly shows that you don't know many definitions, since you can't handle them.

Yeah, it's a tangent because you think you "don't need" to appreciate the casual look -- yet here it is, right in front of you, and you can't accept it. *No one* 'needs' to acknowledge different styles -- you'll still live, unfortunately -- yet they're a part of cultural existence, something you'd rather *run* from, because you 'don't need' to accept such. Keep running, see where it gets you.

[SSDR]

@ckaihatsu, I am not running from anyone...... wtf?