Hush (I Can't Say What I Want To)

Just go to something like gab, post a picture of your face and use your real name.

You can put whatever opinion you'd like.

This looks like another "I want to be free of consequences" thread - that's never been the case and will never be the case.

I'm in too .

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: MisterMcKill

..."...
Are you willing to say what is really on your mind? ..."...

Nope.
This here mind is an egotistical, judgmental wretch.
It is self-interested, short-sighted, and doesn't care about any potential consequences.
It is not loving, it is egotistical.

Your mileage may vary.

Honesty is priceless. So you can take a step back in your own head to watch your thoughts hunting ducks? This is evolution, and I'm certain the rest will catch up someday, eventually.
You make a good point for the irrational part of us, though. It's something different when we naked monkeys meet each other in person, and feel the gaze of another beast with a whole different galaxy in their eyes. It really helps a lot to mind your tone when a fistfight over literally nothin is about to erupt during a heated debate. Pun intended.
But. Still... you have a big heart, and you are probably one of the few persons who can let it speak without the fear of being attacked for that. It's still up to us which thoughts we literally keep in mind. Right?

a reply to: MisterMcKill

As a liberal here in Texas, I kept my mouth shut. Wiccan friends also hid their religion because of very real fears of reprisal (some had their cars damaged, some had their homes damaged.) Jewish and Muslim friends still fear reprisals simply because of what and who they are.

I didn't put a Clinton sign in my yard or bumper sticker on my car for fear that the same thing would happen to my car and yard signs as happened to other friends (signs stolen or damaged, car keyed, etc.)

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: MisterMcKill

..."...
Are you willing to say what is really on your mind? ..."...

Nope.
This here mind is an egotistical, judgmental wretch.
It is self-interested, short-sighted, and doesn't care about any potential consequences.
It is not loving, it is egotistical.

Your mileage may vary.

Honesty is priceless. So you can take a step back in your own head to watch your thoughts hunting ducks? This is evolution, and I'm certain the rest will catch up someday, eventually.
You make a good point for the irrational part of us, though. It's something different when we naked monkeys meet each other in person, and feel the gaze of another beast with a whole different galaxy in their eyes. It really helps a lot to mind your tone when a fistfight over literally nothin is about to erupt during a heated debate. Pun intended.
But. Still... you have a big heart, and you are probably one of the few persons who can let it speak without the fear of being attacked for that. It's still up to us which thoughts we literally keep in mind. Right?

Thanks. You are too kind.

Love your comparison of objectively watching thoughts arise, watching the now: to duck-hunting, or NES Duck-Hunt.
You get it. That's it.

Don't worry: am getting old, so the ladies don't have too many punny fistfights over me anymore...
(See: even self-deprecating humour like that, is in the flow, and ego-based.)

Perhaps the flow of debates, and arguments, has this in common with humour?
What needs to be said so quickly, that it can't wait to be weighed before said?
If a fool says something silly, just off-the-cuff: does the response need to be swift, if needed at all?
When a self-appointed critic looks at one of your paintings for 5 seconds, and then spews their analysis: does it have the same impact on you as another whom has spent some time drinking-in the work?


As for thoughts: seems to me there are different kinds of thoughts.
The thoughts that just appear in the now, seeming from out of nowhere: and the kinds of directed thoughts one may have, whilst contemplating whatever.
Often both at once.

a reply to: Nothin

Is that you, Billy?

Perhaps the flow of debates, and arguments, has this in common with humour? What needs to be said so quickly, that it can't wait to be weighed before said? If a fool says something silly, just off-the-cuff: does the response need to be swift, if needed at all?
When a self-appointed critic looks at one of your paintings for 5 seconds, and then spews their analysis: does it have the same impact on you as another whom has spent some time drinking-in the work?

Sometimes it does, it's a perspective I can relate to. I'd rather have a frank reply than some less offensive feedback wrapped in lies. It's just a question of taste after all, right? Even I don't like some of my old paintings anymore.

Which brings me back to the thread at hand: I don't think clear-names and no T&C's will promote a honest exchange. In the long run we'll see people filing court cases for every single offense that resonated with them, and thus we'll have the same oligarchy ruling over us in no time. Lawyer up, Saul Goodman!
And the people like yourself, who's minds I really enjoy to pick apart, will probably stop sharing their thoughts due to various aspects of self-preservation. It's like Fckbook, only worse.

As for thoughts: seems to me there are different kinds of thoughts.
The thoughts that just appear in the now, seeming from out of nowhere: and the kinds of directed thoughts one may have, whilst contemplating whatever.

How to be brilliant every day!

You're deep into philosophy and constructivism here, welcome to the chaos in our own heads! I think we just blew the framework of this thread, but isn't that why we're all here in the first place; to share (and experience) thoughts?

Great reply, my friend! I was hoping we would get there eventually. And here we are.

a reply to: MisterMcKill

hobbledege you say?
just what if.....I got a bump on the head.....
Greaseman was unique
I really do not see a place for him in todays media

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Nothin

Is that you, Billy?

Perhaps the flow of debates, and arguments, has this in common with humour? What needs to be said so quickly, that it can't wait to be weighed before said? If a fool says something silly, just off-the-cuff: does the response need to be swift, if needed at all?
When a self-appointed critic looks at one of your paintings for 5 seconds, and then spews their analysis: does it have the same impact on you as another whom has spent some time drinking-in the work?

Sometimes it does, it's a perspective I can relate to. I'd rather have a frank reply than some less offensive feedback wrapped in lies. It's just a question of taste after all, right? Even I don't like some of my old paintings anymore.

Which brings me back to the thread at hand: I don't think clear-names and no T&C's will promote a honest exchange. In the long run we'll see people filing court cases for every single offense that resonated with them, and thus we'll have the same oligarchy ruling over us in no time. Lawyer up, Saul Goodman!
And the people like yourself, who's minds I really enjoy to pick apart, will probably stop sharing their thoughts due to various aspects of self-preservation. It's like Fckbook, only worse.

As for thoughts: seems to me there are different kinds of thoughts.
The thoughts that just appear in the now, seeming from out of nowhere: and the kinds of directed thoughts one may have, whilst contemplating whatever.

How to be brilliant every day!

You're deep into philosophy and constructivism here, welcome to the chaos in our own heads! I think we just blew the framework of this thread, but isn't that why we're all here in the first place; to share (and experience) thoughts?

Great reply, my friend! I was hoping we would get there eventually. And here we are.

Don't understand why folks believe that speaking freely, in the moment, and without reflection: equals honesty.
Care to explain it?

Please kindly remove your pick from my brain. Thanks.

Where exactly are we?

Why would someone put saying whatever the hell they wanted, ahead of the potential consequences?

What is so important, that it needs to be said, even if it breaks someones heart, or destroys a dear-one's psyche?

What might be the driving force behind that?

a reply to: MisterMcKill



If you search my post history, you can see thatI say what I want all the time. I don't care if it is PC or not. And I even use my real name bc I am not afraid of living my life the way I want to.
What do you want to talk about?

Anyway that is sad you couldn't find anyone with balls.


"But there is one question I may ask: how many members here have been in a situation where they have not spoken their mind(s) because they were afraid of the consequences? "
Absolutely none. Even in the Army I spoke my mind to commanders knowing full well they didn't like what they heard one bit, but I did it in such a way that it was not dereliction and I was still respectful.

"Is there a way we can fix this/do this without violence?"
Sure, the easiest way is true, common-sense parenting. You can't rely on the state to raise your kid the way society should go, it's the parent's responsibility to raise strong minded tough children. If you aren't a parent, another way of fixing it is speaking your mind no matter what, and then and only then will other people see how ridiculous a lot of what passes for 'society' is today. Because they have to see it in action.

a reply to: Nothin

Don't understand why folks believe that speaking freely, in the moment, and without reflection: equals honesty. Care to explain it?

Well. Voicing a subjective truth would be a very honest act, with or without reflection on the direct consequences. You could still apply your reflections in order to adjust your tone and wording. That's how people get away with insults. You can still attack someones way of life without going after the person, and sometimes it might be worth doing so in order to provoke reactions.

What is so important, that it needs to be said, even if it breaks someones heart, or destroys a dear-one's psyche?

What might be the driving force behind that?

Excellent questions! I will remove my pick once we're at the bottom of his.

My paranoia is all over the place by now, I sense desperate attempts for total control/ total transparency. Not exactly from the OP of this thread though, can't blame the artist for catering to an audience.

But there is this possibility to bully people until they'll shut up for good, and you can somewhat delegitimize pretty much everything they say when you deny them their voice for raising it in an anonymous way. And there's a certain element of an ad hominem attack in this as well; people doing so allegedly fear the consequences for what they say, mere cowards who shouldn't be taken seriously.
I'm overstating things here to illustrate my take, but I can see the direction this is going. And I don't like it, which is why I'm glad we're having this conversation.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Nothin

Don't understand why folks believe that speaking freely, in the moment, and without reflection: equals honesty. Care to explain it?

Well. Voicing a subjective truth would be a very honest act, with or without reflection on the direct consequences. You could still apply your reflections in order to adjust your tone and wording. That's how people get away with insults. You can still attack someones way of life without going after the person, and sometimes it might be worth doing so in order to provoke reactions.

What is so important, that it needs to be said, even if it breaks someones heart, or destroys a dear-one's psyche?

What might be the driving force behind that?

Excellent questions! I will remove my pick once we're at the bottom of his.

My paranoia is all over the place by now, I sense desperate attempts for total control/ total transparency. Not exactly from the OP of this thread though, can't blame the artist for catering to an audience.

But there is this possibility to bully people until they'll shut up for good, and you can somewhat delegitimize pretty much everything they say when you deny them their voice for raising it in an anonymous way. And there's a certain element of an ad hominem attack in this as well; people doing so allegedly fear the consequences for what they say, mere cowards who shouldn't be taken seriously.
I'm overstating things here to illustrate my take, but I can see the direction this is going. And I don't like it, which is why I'm glad we're having this conversation.

You might be right. Am not convinced that ..."...Voicing a subjective truth would be a very honest act..."...


Did you know that some picks are double-sided...?

Nice idea. a LOT of people would listen to it.
both sides. some would try to kill you....
that's how they try to stop you.
you don't HAVE to be insane to be a yank.
its just they ALL are.
you could even free people to Say what they feel and believe.
good luck.

a reply to: Nothin

Is that some meta level of Edward Bernays, PR, mind control and positivist consumer culture you found in said subjective truths? Most people just proliferate falsehoods with perpetuating a misguided conformism, I can see that.
But... still... isn't it just a lie people fill with live in all the honesty that comes with this bliss of ignorance? Splitting hairs here, but I would like to understand where you're coming from with this.

True Will

Theoretically, at this point, the Thelemite acts in alignment with Nature, just as a stream flows downhill, with neither resistance nor "lust of result"

"True Will vs. False Consumerism", round one. Good night, good fight!

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Nothin

Is that some meta level of Edward Bernays, PR, mind control and positivist consumer culture you found in said subjective truths? Most people just proliferate falsehoods with perpetuating a misguided conformism, I can see that.
But... still... isn't it just a lie people fill with live in all the honesty that comes with this bliss of ignorance? Splitting hairs here, but I would like to understand where you're coming from with this.

True Will

Theoretically, at this point, the Thelemite acts in alignment with Nature, just as a stream flows downhill, with neither resistance nor "lust of result"

"True Will vs. False Consumerism", round one. Good night, good fight!

Not purposely any of that.

There may indeed be some honesty in that concept of free-will. In basking in that bliss of ignorance.
But how many folks live like that?
In my view: those would be the absolute last folks interested in getting involved in political discussions, or interactions of the like.

They would probably seek to withdraw from the BS of this sick society, where they are constantly bombarded by their polar opposites.

a reply to: Nothin

“Love, by its very nature, is unworldly, and it is for this reason rather than its rarity that it is not only apolitical but antipolitical, perhaps the most powerful of all antipolitical forces.”

H. Arendt