RationalWiki is neither rational nor accurate! Buncha Loonies!
- Thread starter Laura
- Start date
Buddy
The Living Force
OMG, I almost hit the floor laughing!! 
It seems there's two civilizations on this planet living side-by-side, and what's "rational" in The Great Society of Non-Thought will likely be the complete opposite to the rest of us, and vicey-versey. :)
Laura's obviously too aware to fall for this, but other female members here can also be made to suffer from crap like this, so here's my contribution.
[rant]
RationalWiki in this case appears to be a good example for social conformity using public perception to try and move Laura into the mold of the Mad, Bad, and Sad. These editors or posters probably assume they are thinking for themselves and drawing conclusions from facts when they are primarily thinking with emotional bias and drawing confusions from preferences. The words of biased emotional thought ('horrible', for example) abound on that page.
Evidently the "rational" Wiki participants fail to see their own irony which would be visible from a historical perspective because an apparent implication of that RationalWiki page has already been preempted: The author, Lisa Appignanesi, has shown a rational view of women who've been accused of mental illness as simply being forced to suffer in the context of oppression. And these people seem to be deliberately contributing to that kind of thing. As far back as the 1960s the radical psychiatrist RD Laing declared that madness was a sane response to an insane world. So, even if mad, I must be too, because what other way could they look at me if I were a public figure?
[/rant]
Back to the program already in progress... :D
It seems there's two civilizations on this planet living side-by-side, and what's "rational" in The Great Society of Non-Thought will likely be the complete opposite to the rest of us, and vicey-versey. :)
Laura's obviously too aware to fall for this, but other female members here can also be made to suffer from crap like this, so here's my contribution.
[rant]
RationalWiki in this case appears to be a good example for social conformity using public perception to try and move Laura into the mold of the Mad, Bad, and Sad. These editors or posters probably assume they are thinking for themselves and drawing conclusions from facts when they are primarily thinking with emotional bias and drawing confusions from preferences. The words of biased emotional thought ('horrible', for example) abound on that page.
Evidently the "rational" Wiki participants fail to see their own irony which would be visible from a historical perspective because an apparent implication of that RationalWiki page has already been preempted: The author, Lisa Appignanesi, has shown a rational view of women who've been accused of mental illness as simply being forced to suffer in the context of oppression. And these people seem to be deliberately contributing to that kind of thing. As far back as the 1960s the radical psychiatrist RD Laing declared that madness was a sane response to an insane world. So, even if mad, I must be too, because what other way could they look at me if I were a public figure?
[/rant]
Back to the program already in progress... :D
angelburst29
The Living Force
Buddy said:OMG, I almost hit the floor laughing!!
It seems there's two civilizations on this planet living side-by-side, and what's "rational" in The Great Society of Non-Thought will likely be the complete opposite to the rest of us, and vicey-versey. :)
Laura's obviously too aware to fall for this, but other female members here can also be made to suffer from crap like this, so here's my contribution.
[rant]
RationalWiki in this case appears to be a good example for social conformity using public perception to try and move Laura into the mold of the Mad, Bad, and Sad. These editors or posters probably assume they are thinking for themselves and drawing conclusions from facts when they are primarily thinking with emotional bias and drawing confusions from preferences. The words of biased emotional thought ('horrible', for example) abound on that page.
Evidently the "rational" Wiki participants fail to see their own irony which would be visible from a historical perspective because an apparent implication of that RationalWiki page has already been preempted: The author, Lisa Appignanesi has shown a rational view of women who've been accused of mental illness as simply being forced to suffer in the context of oppression. And these people seem to be deliberately contributing to that kind of thing. As far back as the 1960s the radical psychiatrist RD Laing declared that madness was a sane response to an insane world. So, even if mad, I must be too, because what other way could they look at me if I were a public figure?
[/rant]
Back to the program already in progress... :D
Buddy, are you referring to this Lisa Appignanesi?
Lisa Appignanesi: aka Jessica AyreElżbieta Borensztejn was born on 4 January 1946 in Łódź, Poland, the daughter of Hena and Aaron Borensztejn.
_http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/38673.Lisa_Appignanesi
In 1990, she decided to take the plunge and write full time. Since then, a number of best-selling novels have appeared as well as non-fictions. The novels have grown increasingly darker and moved into a psychological thriller genre.
_http://www.crimetime.co.uk/profiles/lisaappignanesi.php
Sounds like she's been on a long road .......... to the Twilight Zone? (Mush-brains!) A Peace Prize Nominee.
petite femme
Padawan Learner
Ridiculous! The person or persons who wrote this dribble, obviously think very highly of themselves! It basically a couple paragraphs of their opinion!!!! And name calling! Come on! How did they read back over that and consider it intelligent! I am blown away!
Buddy said:
It is the same person, and she has written several other serious non-fiction works, including a biography of Simone de Beauvoir. But hold on a minute, you're going to condemn someone because they are a successful novelist in the thriller genre? People have to make a living. If they can do it writing thrillers, good for them! Her book The Mad, Bad, and Sad: A History of Women and the Mind Doctors sounds interesting. The Amazon page for her works is here: http://www.amazon.com/Lisa-Appignanesi/e/B001HCZR5I/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1
Buddy
The Living Force
Mal7 said:
You're right. I don't know about anyone else, but I was just dodging controversy just because of something said as part of an act whose intended meaning was good. But I see that even that act (avoiding something) can have undesirable consequences, so here's what I'm thinking:
I read that book and liked it, but I suppose I got way more value from it than someone who will read only for superficial messages and not pick up on the threads running through it like there will be with a good writer, including Laura. One thread is simply that, no matter who is doing the judging, the mere fact that we have to live in this world will, at various times and to various people, make us all look crazy no matter what we say, and that we should not be name-calling and labeling people as any sort of crazy just because we (ponerized people) think someone else is that one, and in any case, all we'd really be doing is labeling the human condition. To read those Wiki word wranglers engaging in such behavior is simultaneously hilarious from the view of their inanity and sad, seeming to be trying to force someone (Laura, for example) into a state of mental alienation and implying the threat of social attack to anyone daring to associate with the Cassiopaean Experiment. That implication may not be visible on the Wiki page to some people, but it seems to be there nonetheless.
Anyway, my thought gets even more complicated from here and involves speculations concerning possible hyper-dimensional ideation, but even without any of that, I don't think the average person will understand the real significance of what Lisa is trying to point out in that book, IMO. But I think I do, and I respect that effort and contribution to the societal literature.
What I really didn't prepare for ahead of time was a possible need to defend the reference. Maybe I thought the meaning and intent would be clearer and interested people would just go read themselves.
luc said:
Yeah, i had similar thoughts as well when i read it a while back. Just a bunch of retards, and best thing to do is to laugh about it ! If iodine defficient retards have to sink so low to try and derail the work done here, it can only mean that Sott and the Forum are definitely making a difference in the world, and truly shining the light !
Chacara said:
Well, the more I think about it, the more I think this has something to do with authoritarian thinking. People like those "rational" wiki types, they defend what they perceive to be "official doctrine" whatever it takes, and become even more zealous than their "idols". Basically, they are slaves to the dominant discourse, probably without any intellectual capability whatsoever to come to their own conclusions independent from the "intellectual hierarchy". Hence the stupidity of their "arguments" - they just slam Laura's work (even using emotional language!) for the simple reason that it goes against their authority (how dare she!), which is everything to them. Ironically, this makes them the worse kind of irrational "believers" one can imagine - after all, the kind of vulgar philosophical materialism that such types promote is as contradictory as the creation story from the bible! OSIT
luc said:
That's it in a nutshell, methinks.
I'm reminded (painfully) of those I have had to deal with who love to point out how:
[list type=decimal]
[*]You can't believe everything you read on the internet, because facts are important and some people are crazy
[*]If you want to debunk something, just quote some "good" wiki or other site like Snopes
[/list]
I mean, how does one respond to that? You can't even point out how contradictory they are being in their thinking, because that's just proof that they're right and you're wrong, even though it isn't at all in reality.
