nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
Josef K is also pretty good at the number 4 and 5 Zhaoisms. He's been on a mission to paint himself some kind of victim since people disagreed with him about Zizek being a fascist. Everyone who reads Zizek is also pretentious!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In fact, pretty much anybody who's more deeply involved in any field that you have no knowledge base in is pretentious, right Josef?

I guess that goes for anyone who might try to have a different opinion from yours in any other threads--might as well bring it all back to the initial Zizek trauma.
 
Last edited:

zhao

there are no accidents
2) Zhao is a hippy. He believes what he wants to believe. So it doesn't matter that it's well accepted that hunter-gatherer societies are by far the predominant mode of social organization, (for example), because he will find some hack job on the internet who makes a bogus claim that is not peer-reviewed. Zhao accepts these sorts of hacks as professional scientists.

hacks like Jared Diamond... right.

would love to stay and break down your pathetic fictional come back but sorry, have a birthday party to catch.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
chuckle

Jared Diamond never said anything about band-level societies, did he? He's the anarchoprimitivists guy who's all about people not eating meat ever.

Btw, maybe you don't remember, but in that thread about the move to agriculture being a mistake--I agreed with you and Diamond.
 
Last edited:

trouc

trouc
Argh...

Too much silliness.

To bring this back to something interesting, I'm struck Nomad by the conflict between your views of psychiatry/pharmacology and your interest in Foucault, Deleuze, Guattari, etc. I'd like to see how you're reconciling, for example, Bateson's theories on Schizophrenia with the current research you keep mentioning that seems to place a premium on physical processes...
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
Too much silliness.

To bring this back to something interesting, I'm struck Nomad by the conflict between your views of psychiatry/pharmacology and your interest in Foucault, Deleuze, Guattari, etc. I'd like to see how you're reconciling, for example, Bateson's theories on Schizophrenia with the current research you keep mentioning that seems to place a premium on physical processes...

Just because I'm mentioning it doesn't mean I agree with it 100%.

But there's no reason why D&G, Bateson, et al, can't be right about schizophrenia as a resistance-mode AND researchers can be right about depression being an adaptive strategy, is there?

Remember depression and schizophrenia are very different disorders.
 

trouc

trouc
Well, I'm more referring to your earlier statement that clinical depression can not be solved through will/thought/bucking up, etc... that it requires medication

and your defense of the mental health industry

So, to be brief:

something like schizophrenia being a technique of resistance implies that the problem is external to the individual

a chemical deficiency implies the opposite

I'm not sure how these are reconcilable

Perhaps I'm too suspicious, but having seen people interned, for example, when the primary factor seems to have been their inability to speak english... I don't think it's unwarranted
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
Well, I'm more referring to your earlier statement that clinical depression can not be solved through will/thought/bucking up, etc... that it requires medication

and your defense of the mental health industry

So, to be brief:

something like schizophrenia being a technique of resistance implies that the problem is external to the individual

a chemical deficiency implies the opposite

I'm not sure how these are reconcilable

Perhaps I'm too suspicious, but having seen people interned, for example, when the primary factor seems to have been their inability to speak english... I don't think it's unwarranted

Uck that's a bad story! Of course, no one wants things like that to happen, and in a better-funded world of mental health institutions, where people were less ignorant in general about the whole thing, they probably wouldn't happen as often.

But first:

I did not defend the "mental health industry" as such, I just acknowledged that mental illness is *real* and that it can and often does require treatment. Newspaper articles further stigmatizing mental illness and underfunded institutions will not help matters in this regard.

Just because there is a genetic basis for schizophrenia doesn't mean it HAS to express itself. I believe that thanks to phenotypic plasticity, all of these terrible things lurking in our DNA, that have always been there and have come to the surface in more extreme cases (trauma, etc) in the past--well, they're everywhere now. They're legitimately everywhere. Schizophrenia is expressing itself so often in part due to environmental cues (capitalism).

In an ideal world, we would not treat schizophrenia until it became a serious problem. (violent)

See here's the real issue. As of now, the medical profession has to treat severe lack of function in the "real world" as a medical problem. And yes, sometimes with some disorders more than others, I think this is warranted. Others I think don't even respond very well to treatment, i.e.

We have ADD, defiance disorders, bipolar disorder, autism, and a few others that really seem to crop up as a means to resist the social order. These sorts of people are much more likely to question authority, question teachers, they have a hard time mirroring the "values system" that the system tries to set up in them.

Until the revolution comes, it would be pretty fucking evil to deny someone with ADD a medication that will enable them to lead a normal "productive" life if that's what they want to do.

It's a difficult subject, but yeah it's an interesting one...
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
Depression, compared to ADD, autism, bipolar, schizophrenia, and some others, is relatively easy to treat. I know, try telling that to a depressed person.

But I do know that personally without 100mg of topamax a day I feel like I just want to die, basically all the time. When I take it I don't feel like that at all. I tried all of the classic SSRIs and bipolar meds but only topamax works. Feeling better frees me up from the need I felt to destroy basically every good thing in my life one by one until nothing was left, including anything that was left of myself, and now I can get stuff done. I don't know if I was really getting much done for the causes I care about spending all day every day on working up three physical dependencies and cross-addictions sleeping 14 hours a day.
 

josef k.

Dangerous Mystagogue
Report Card

"Oh Zhao, fuck you."

This year in school, Nomad has been reading lots of things and clearly is passionately interested in her studies. But she has been playing badly with the other children again. If she could somehow learn to play nicer, she would find that other people were much more willing to consider what she has to say, and also become a much more rounded and healthy individual!

Grade: C+
 
Last edited:

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
"Oh Zhao, fuck you."

This year in school, Nomad has been reading lots of things and clearly is passionately interested in her studies. But she has been playing badly with the other children again. If she could somehow learn to play nicer, she would find that other people were much more willing to consider what she has to say, and also become a much more rounded and healthy individual!

Grade: C+

Suck my hairy balls, Josef K.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
What kind of person seriously goes on the internet and wants everyone to "play nice"? That is the lamest thing I've ever heard in my life. Get a sense of humor, beey.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
You can try, and try, and try to insinuate that people like me would be "happy" if we only took morons like you on the internet more seriously, but that's a total crock.

I'm depressed because I have epilepsy, I was born with it. I've been depressed since I was a little kid. So fuck off, don't flatter yourself.

Did you ever consider that it may in fact be healthier not to give a fuck what happens on a message board? There are people in the world with real problems.
 

zhao

there are no accidents
no no, it's all good.

"too much silliness" is right.

nomad, i like you. you have interesting things to say and i'm glad you are around. but you have to consider how you proceed sometimes: walking into the room and say "your ideas are full of shit and you are stupid". and the only trying to win arguments and not considering other points of view and trying to ridicule them... but no big deal really. ok my girlfriend is staring at me and she is going to get angry any second if i don't come to bed. so good night. and peace.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
I don't dislike anyone on the internet. It's all a big nothing. It's a big bunch of words. It's fun and that's all.

Here's what I don't understand. If it's sooo offensive that someone disagrees with you, why bother coming back for more? Why bother with this one-note rehashing of the same stupid points over and over (Josef K)?

Look back at this thread. Actually read it. I know I am blunt when I state my opinion. I have no illusions about this. But I am certainly not the only participant here who has 1) used heightened rhetoric, 2) name-called, or 3) incessantly tried to bait others into strange personal banter. In fact, I was being nice until I was called names and basically had someone flip out for no reason except that I disagreed with a point they made. Maybe you should consider how YOU proceed, sometimes, Zhao. Perhaps you are overly sensitive when this is not warranted by the topic at hand, or the circumstances at hand.

I'm really sick of the "win arguments" claim, too. I am not trying to "win" anything. This is the internet. It's a discussion. There is no "prize", there is no way to "win", the only point in discussing things is to discuss them, and to express yourself. It's such a fucking male headtrip, this "win" bullshit, please stop trying to lay it on me.

Just because you might frame things in terms of "winning" doesn't mean I am also doing this. Let it be known from here on out that I think it is entirely ridiculous the idea that you can "win" a discussion on the internet.
 

josef k.

Dangerous Mystagogue
"I know I am blunt when I state my opinion."

But do you know you are sometimes extremely obnoxious?

In a way which makes - well, at least me - disinclined to take you seriously?

I get the impression that you don't quite understand why people are having the reactions they have to you. You seem to think it is because they disagree with you.

Disagreement is good. Your problem is different. It lies in the aggressive and arrogant tone with which you choose to express yourself. And your apparent unwillingness, or inability, to listen to what other people have to say. Neither of these traits is very productive of discussion.

You can continue to use this tone if you wish, but it does have its drawbacks.

As a side note, I regret the meds comment. But please refrain in the future from sending me abusive personal messages.
 
Last edited:
Top