Outis Niemand

About Outis Niemand

Ornamental hermit. Sciolist. Musician manqué. Poetaster. Armchair psychologist. Pseudo-philosopher. Founder of Panta Rheism™. The complete Rabelaisian man. Great eater, deep drinker, stout fighter, prodigious lover; clear thinker, creator of beauty, seeker of truth and prophet of heroic grandeurs. I coalesce the vapors of human experience into a viable and logical comprehension. (Contact: asundayofliberty at gmail)

Posts by Outis Niemand:

Friends with Beneficence

October 4, 2010 By Outis Niemand in foolosophy, gender, psychology, sex-you-all

I’ve enjoyed reading Juliet Lapidos’s series of essays on platonic friendship. My best friends have usually been women, come to think of it, and knock on wood, I have yet to experience a cross-gender friendship being ruined by sexual frustration or unrequited love. It’s never seemed like a complicated balancing act in my mind, but as one of those friends once said to me:

Society at large, however, seems to feel that if you share a passion for anything — well then! Eyebrows are raised, sly glances shared.

It does seem like the default assumption is that guys are either fucking every slightly attractive woman they see, or at least plotting to do so. I blame that quack Freud. As does Joseph Epstein:

Eroticizing everything, as is their wont, Freudians find that much close male friendship is at its core homoerotic, while the notion of male-female friends outside sexual interest is generally inconceivable to Freudians, who not so secretly believe that all men wish to do with women is jump their bones.

…If I believed in Freud, I could not have written a book on friendship, because friendship doesn’t quite exist for Freudians; sexual appetite, evident or obscured, washes it away. Fortunately, I do not believe in Freud. In fact, I have come to believe instead that Freudian psychoanalysts, like Germany after WWII, ought to be made to pay reparations to their poor patient-victims.

…The notion that two healthy people of the opposite sex cannot meet regularly and talk about important things without eventually falling into bed with each other is part of the fading but still enduring Freudian heritage. All other Freudian ideas – from the Oedipus complex to feces being symbolic of money – have been laughed out of the court of reason and empirical science, but the notion that at bottom (also at middle and at top), we are sexual beings, ready at the least chance to have at it, has not. A good Freudian is likely to consider most friendships between a man and a woman as erotic, and for that matter close friendships between people of the same sex as homoeroticism, more or less disguised.

As if harboring, on some level, the unavoidable realization that “Hey, my female friend really is a slammin’ hottie,” contaminates and invalidates the pure, otherworldly essence of the friendship. It’s not that the mere idea of sex with my female friends is repulsive; it’s that it would possibly change the dynamic of the relationship in ways that aren’t worth the risk. Why is that not allowed to stand as a valid objection to sexualizing the relationship? Why are our basest urges always taken to be more real, honest and meaningful than our reflective ones? Why is it so blithely assumed that biological attraction will always overpower philosophical restraint?

Successpool

October 4, 2010 By Outis Niemand in socmed, technology, the wire, writing

Julian Baggini:

When blogs first appeared, they were compared unfavorably with newspaper and magazine articles. They tended to be shorter, were written more quickly, were light on research and heavy on opinion. But to those growing up on Facebook and Twitter, they must seem ponderously slow and long. For those who value thoughtful, crafted writing, this is a worrying development. However, paradoxically, microblogging might actually help longer, more thoughtful writing. The ever-shortening nature of social networking communications could help revive ‘proper writing’ by re-opening the gap between off-the-cuff jottings and thoughtful prose which blogging temporarily blurred.

This could easily occur as a result of a kind of Darwinian struggle. Those teletrailers who manage to be interesting and pithy in short tweets and messages could attract followers away from those who take 400-word blogs to make their point. Natural selection could result in the survival of the briefest. But, as we’ve seen, the distinctive feature of teletrailing is that it provides a constant streams of hyperlinks to more substantive material. Since people are going to receive many such links a day, there will be another evolutionary struggle, from which a few victors will emerge.

I’m not sure what point he’s making here. Is he claiming that blogs are neither fish nor fowl but rather a farrago (I’m feeling alliterative today) of writing styles destined for the rubbish bin of history, a textual Frankenstein’s monster doomed to be chased off into the cyber-wilderness by hordes of fearful peasants with Twitter-torches and Facebook-pitchforks? I mean, as he himself says, the whole point of social networking sites, other than to let everyone know about the sandwich you just had or what you dug out of your ear canal, is to point the way toward more substantive material. You mean, like, um, people who write 400-word blog posts?

(By way of reference, the post immediately below this one is a little over 800 words, quotations included. I myself may not be the most interesting writer, but I think it’s fair to suggest that if your attention span is so hyper-frenetic that you lose concentration halfway through, you need to kick the caffeine/cocaine/meth habit ASAP.)

I read plenty of “proper” writing online every day, but even so, much of that takes the form of more-or-less colloquial essays. And blogging, to me, serves as a vital means of bridging the silent divide between author and reader. It’s true that bloggers are more like pundits than journalists, elucidating issues that other people first bring to everyone’s attention, but it was only ever right-wing political bloggers who believed their own nympholeptic rhetoric about being revolutionaries who were going to overthrow the old guard of the hated “liberal media”. Those of us who weren’t intoxicated and deranged by the pungent fumes of our own effluvia and hubris have only ever seen it as a way for like-minded people to come together and talk about what they see, sort of like sitting down to watch the news with a group of smart friends. Read any article in the New York Times or Washington Post, and then look to see how many blogs are linking to it and commenting on it. How is this a bad thing? And how would it be improved by people simply tweeting the link to the original article?

Anyway, like I said, it’s not clear to me what exactly he’s getting at. This, though, made me smirk:

The possibility of cashing in on social networks is potentially making many more people commodify themselves. Authors for example, are encouraged by publishers and agents to think about themselves as “brands”, and to blog, twitter, make friends on Facebook and so on. They are not alone: bands, artists, even therapists are turning into their own mini-PR departments, increasingly concerned not just with what they do, but how they can sell it to as many people as possible. High profile but actually quite rare tales of great success encourage creative to go along with this.

I would be a liar if I said I was not caught up in this trend. I would say I have more instrumental reasons for using Facebook than I do other ones, and while I see my twittering is a fun, creative challenge, I’m not sure I would have even started doing it I hadn’t thought that it might be good for my profile. Anecdotal evidence suggests that if I am unusual, it is only in my candour. The problem is that being high-minded and opting out looks like a luxury few can afford. Being active on social networking sites may be far from sufficient for success, but it looks increasingly as though it is necessary.

A luxury? Choosing to dig in your heels and refuse to do whatever you’re told is necessary for career success (or simply necessary to please your boss and keep your job) is a luxury? I’ve said many times that I pride myself on doing all I can to find a way to do an end-run around traditional notions of success and achievement, but, to quote Butchie from The Wire, “Conscience do cost.” It costs financially, and it costs in terms of social standing. I’m not complaining, but it’s not an easy path to choose.

Pablo Picasso Never Got Called an Asshole

October 3, 2010 By Outis Niemand in foolosophy, nietzsche, religion, spiritual-not-religious

Juan Cole:

But the Maher strategy is a little disturbing, as well, since that she was a religious seeker in her youth is not actually very relevant to her contemporary candidacy. O’Donnell’s story is a sad reminder that many religious seekers, who experiment with a number of traditions, are not actually so much open-minded as in search of a narrative about life that will give them certainty (the Society of Krishna Consciousness is as close as Hinduism gets to fundamentalism in its own right). Once O’Donnell settled on right wing Christianity, she became insufferable. And that is what should damn her politically– that she wants to impose her sectarian morality on all of us– not that she tried out other fundamentalisms when young.

On the one hand, the hypocrisy of fundamentalists is a mainstay of political humor. On the other hand, fundamentalist Christians loveloveLOVE them some redemption stories. The more depraved the former lifestyle, the sweeter the victory at the end when the sinner finally accepts Jesus’s love, and the more raucous the cheering. So I doubt these embarrassing video clips are really going to have much effect on O’Donnell’s candidacy beyond giving the blogosphere some cheap laffs. And I agree — I really don’t care at all what sort of crazy shit she said and did when she was young, whether she was earnest about it or not. I don’t want people like her near public policy, but their psychological issues are their own problem. All in all, none of this is very interesting.

Instead, this caught my eye because of its relevance to what I’ve discussed a few times with Noel and Shanna, Pillars of the Comment Section. Cole points out something that hadn’t occurred to me in so many words before, that the appearance of open-mindedness can be very different from the reality of it. The Huffington Post is glad to hear all and sundry variations on a New Age mysticism theme, but the editors aren’t accepting of criticism any more than most people are. And while many of those who partake of buffet-style spirituality are open to cosmetic diversity, the underlying themes of their world-bazaar beliefs are pretty predictable and uniform, as is their defensive reaction to being challenged and questioned.

Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong with concluding that you agree with what so many philosophies have emphasized to varying degrees over the centuries: live and let live; we’re here to see each other through, not see through each other; all that good stuff. Novelty in one’s philosophical thinking isn’t necessarily a virtue here; it may just be a restless grasping for stimulation. But for some people, being comfortable and feeling reassurance isn’t necessarily enough. Occasionally, it isn’t even desirable. Some of the most valuable experiences of our lives come as a result of pain and stress that we would never have willingly chosen beforehand. And while John Gray may be right that the siren song of pursuing truth for its own sake is a secular holdover from Christianity, and possibly not good for one’s mental health at that, the quest to place one’s convictions upon the firmest possible ground seems a noble one to me; there are certainly worse ways to spend a life.

And some people see life as an ongoing work of art, where the important thing is to live as an intriguing character in a life that tells a compelling story. To the extent that I’ve managed to incorporate elements of this mindset into my own life, I’ve found that I can more easily appreciate the stark differences between others and myself without feeling any need to reconcile them. They don’t appear to me so much as threats to my way of being or insults to my way of seeing the world, they appear as useful provocations that allow me to enhance my own thoughts and character. We’re not all ultimately alike, and I’m glad for it. I don’t want to convert people. I don’t think everyone else could or should end up in agreement with me. I just want them to provide me with some good jousting.

A twofer from Nietzsche to close with:

A very popular error – having the courage of one’s convictions: Rather it is a matter of having the courage for an attack upon one’s convictions.

Even if we were mad enough to consider all our opinions true, we should still not want them alone to exist: I cannot see why it should be desirable that truth alone should rule and be omnipotent; it is enough for me that it should possess great power. But it must be able to struggle and have great opponents, and one must be able to find relief from it from time to time in untruth – otherwise, it will become boring, powerless and tasteless to us, and make us the same.

Shall I Compare Thee to Summer’s Eve®?

October 2, 2010 By Outis Niemand in fresh hell, moralizing, religion, samesecks

Thou art more douchey, and more intemperate.

Now, while it’s obviously normal to feel repulsed at what a sociopath Vox Day is, I have to point out to those who have heretofore been blissfully unaware of his existence that I don’t think he has any special animus toward gays (or the “orientationally challenged”, as he calls them); the Scourge of Atheism seems to have issues with females and dusky foreigners as well. And woe betide any toddlers that happen to step between Vox and his God!

Pay attention, parents: this is what happens when the only bedtime story you let your son hear is the Marquis de Sade’s Justine.

Yeesh. Are you feeling a sort of numb chill in the core of your humanity that won’t seem to thaw out after reading all that? Are you stunned as you try to contemplate how a “Christian libertarian” managed to distill the absolute worst traits of both into a uniquely poisonous brew? Are you baffled as to how the orderlies don’t notice him chewing through the straitjacket and leather restraints in order to blog? Well, let’s try to laugh through the horror, what do you say? How about a classic joke?

Q: What’s the first thing Vox Day does after sex with his wife?

A: Washes the pepper spray out of his eyes!

Hypatia’s Revenge

September 28, 2010 By Outis Niemand in atheism, jests japes jokes jollies, religion

Speaking of that Pew survey:

On average, people who took the survey answered half the questions incorrectly, and many flubbed even questions about their own faith.

Those who scored the highest were atheists and agnostics, as well as two religious minorities: Jews and Mormons. The results were the same even after the researchers controlled for factors like age and racial differences.

“Even after all these other factors, including education, are taken into account, atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons still outperform all the other religious groups in our survey,” said Greg Smith, a senior researcher at Pew.

That finding might surprise some, but not Dave Silverman, president of American Atheists, an advocacy group for nonbelievers that was founded by Madalyn Murray O’Hair.

“I have heard many times that atheists know more about religion than religious people,” Mr. Silverman said. “Atheism is an effect of that knowledge, not a lack of knowledge. I gave a Bible to my daughter. That’s how you make atheists.”

Zing!

If the Mountain Won’t Come to Muhammad, Fuck It, He’ll Invent His Own Mountain

September 27, 2010 By Outis Niemand in foolosophy, religion, spiritual-not-religious

Uh?

The religious message is “less clear when you wear an Om and you have no idea what it means,” says Prothero. “Smooshing the Buddha together with a cross and star of David has a clearer message of someone who is spiritual and doesn’t belong to one religion.”

He adds that even though all of these symbols may be floating through the fashion world on shiny gold bangles or set with diamonds, people should be religiously literate and know what the symbols they’re wearing stand for. “I’m torn. Sometimes I do get annoyed when venerable religious symbols get dumbed down, but when has it never been like that? Besides, all religions are just different paths up the same mountain.”

Stephen Prothero, 180° ago:

Of course, those who claim that the world’s religions are different paths up the same mountain do not deny the undeniable fact that they differ in some particulars… It is to deny that those differences matter, however. From this perspective, whether God has a body (yes, say Mormons; no, say Muslims) or whether human beings have souls (yes, say Hindus; no, say Buddhists) is of no account because, as Hindu teacher Swami Sivananda writes, “The fundamentals or essentials of all religions are the same. There is difference only in the nonessentials.”

This is a lovely sentiment but it is untrue, disrespectful, and dangerous.

Hee hee. Hope those two can work out their profound differences! Anyway, blatant contradictions aside, I’m actually sympathetic to the devoutly religious who have to see meaningful symbols of their beliefs used as trendy accessories by airheaded celebrities and fashionistas. I mean, I’d be willing to bet that 99% of the time, when you see someone “smooshing the Buddha together with a cross and a star of David”, the “clearer message” you’re actually getting is one of a vapid twit who doesn’t understand anything about any of them, but ooh, shiny bauble look purty, must have, must have!

While I’m being generous toward my bête noire here, let me also concur with a typical complaint you hear from traditional quarters regarding this buffet-style spirituality: it also can encourage a sort of dilettantism, a shallow tendency to stay right where you are and look for various concepts and themes to basically wall yourself in, to tell yourself what you want to hear. Sort of like how allowing high school students to set their own curriculum might lead to them concluding that the Twilight series is the pinnacle of all fiction and there’s no need to try anything that doesn’t cater to the way they feel right here, right now. One of the possible benefits to picking one faith/tradition and sticking to it is that you’re forced to grapple with issues and concepts and rules that might not appeal to you or make sense initially, and out of that, a new kind of understanding might result, if not acceptance. Growth through struggle. Too many of the spiritual-not-religious types are complacent and looking to avoid struggle, having already settled into a comfortable niche, and are now just looking to accentuate it with exotic accoutrements.

The Old College Try

September 27, 2010 By Outis Niemand in education, foolosophy, work

Joseph Epstein:

Intelligent people who hadn’t gone to college began to feel a great hole in their lives, and those who had gone could usually be relied upon to hide from them what is all too sadly the truth: they really haven’t missed all that much. Paul Goodman, the 1930s radical who became something of a guru during the student rebellions of the late 1960s and early ’70s, used to enjoy saying that all going to college meant was that in doing so a person showed how badly he or she wanted to succeed in society as currently constituted. Going to college entails a large expense, lots of useless work, and the acceptance of endless onerous, preposterous trivialities, all of which, Goodman liked pointing out, showed that any young man or woman who was willing to put up with this nonsense could be expected to put up with the even greater nonsense of boring and meaningless work later in life. College, in this view, functioned chiefly to turn out useful, moderately high-level drones, finely honed tools of capitalism.

…Of course, undergraduate education is only ostensibly about producing the sound paper on T.S. Eliot or the Renaissance or the Reformation. What it’s really about, or at any rate is supposed to be about, is the development of young minds, teaching them how to think independently, how to combine common sense with proper skepticism, the whole given a fine texture by the attainment of an at first widened and later (after college, acquired on one’s own) greatly deepened culture. But what percentage of the 65 percent of Americans who regularly participate in one form or another of higher education do you suppose derive anything resembling such things from their education? I would set it at somewhere between 1 or 2 percent, though that may be too generous. Most people come away from college, happy souls, quite unscarred by what has gone on in the classroom. The education and culture they are presumably exposed to at college never lay a glove on them. This is the big dirty secret of higher education in America.

This doesn’t mean that their having gone to college isn’t worth it. Not at all. On a strict accounting, a college education, expensively priced though it nowadays generally is, probably pays off as well as any investment. Endless studies show that young men and women who attend college earn hundreds of thousands of dollars more over a lifetime than those who, for one reason or another, do not go to college. Why should this be so? For the same reason that degrees in journalism, master’s degrees in business, and other (shall we politely say?) not strictly necessary degrees make for success: because, that is, people who have already paid for these overpriced appurtenances wish others to do so, forming a (not so) little group of those who have already pledged the fraternity.

I had an artist friend in high school who said he wanted to go to college even though he didn’t need it for his career plans, “just for the college experience”. (He wasn’t a drinker, or even overly social, so I guess he was referring to the intellectual aspect.) I think I know what he meant; I still enjoy looking through the course offerings that come in the mail from all the nearby colleges and daydreaming about possibly taking the classes that catch my eye if time and energy will ever allow. But dabbling in the odd class with no real remunerative potential would be good enough for me; I know too many people who invested four-to-eight years and tens of thousands of dollars into their education, only to end up with meaningless jobs they hate, a mountain of debt on their backs, and no capacity for intellectual curiosity or enjoyment anymore.

Titus Androgynous

September 26, 2010 By Outis Niemand in beards, jests japes jokes jollies, religion, samesecks, waiting for the barbarians

Via PZ, this is funny:

In western countries in particular, a few years ago beards were often confused with a segment of society that reflected rebellion, namely the “hippy” movement of the 60’s and 70’s. It was felt that we should not in any way resemble those that reflected an attitude like this, or the drug culture that went along with it. We have to separate ourselves from that, and to have a beard a few years ago could be confusing, especially to an older generation of people at that time that were especially repulsed at the conduct of those of the younger generation. Even though we are some 30 or 40 years removed from that situation that existed during the late 60’s and early 70’s, it has been proven by experts that some people on some subconscious level do not trust a man with a beard. The underlying message that some get from a beard is that if you have one, you have something to hide, as if you are hiding behind the beard. I have even heard that idea expressed in sales courses that I have taken for secular activities. Beards are discouraged by some sales trainers because of the subconscious message that some people receive from a person with a beard, and some feel that a person without a beard generally speaking has a more professional appearance than a person who does.

…In the 1950s, in the the USA, beards were widely unpopular among the general public and most men who wore one were immediately perceived as beatniks (and later, hippies). In that American, Cold War climate, a young man who didn’t sport a military-esque brush cut and bare chin was out-of-hand labeled a communist or homosexual.

Beatniks, commies and homos, oh, my! But wait a minute…so, acting too stereotypically feminine will get a man accused of being queer, but sporting a beard, the quintessential symbol of masculinity and testosterone…also means you’re a gender traitor? Damn, they’ve got us coming and going, don’t they? Sort of like how they used to say that a witch could present herself as a beautiful young girl or a repulsive old hag. If I didn’t know better, I’d think all this paranoia was reflective of some weird psychological turmoil on the part of the accusers.

In all honesty, one of the greatest things about living among such uptight reactionaries is that they make it so easy to be subversive. No need to actually do anything confrontational or destructive, just let your facial hair follow its natural course!

Speaking of which, here’s another slander I’ve heard a time or twenty in my life:

Paul, the apostle, said something similar in 1Cor 11:14 about long hair being a dishonor to a man… Obviously Paul’s words were intended for his militant Roman contemporaries. That society started the cropped military haircut and clean-shaven face to keep lice to a minimum and avoid giving an enemy something to grab, in a skirmish.

Well, we might have many parallels with ancient Rome, but I’m pretty sure modern hygiene and grooming have rendered the lice issue largely irrelevant. And we blow our enemies up with robot planes from the safety of a control center far away from the battlefield, so I don’t think hand-to-hand combat is as prevalent as it used to be, either. But that’s okay; like I said, hidebound traditions make such easy targets. And at least we don’t have to worry about being crucified for undermining social cohesiveness anymore.

And speaking of that, I find it most amusing of all that these people have no problem worshiping a savior who is constantly portrayed as having…long hair and a beard. Imagine the mental strife that would result should they be additionally forced to admit that a man born 2,000 years ago in Palestine wouldn’t have looked like a white Westerner.

In the Depths of Their Humanity, All I Saw Was Bloodless Ideology

September 24, 2010 By Outis Niemand in atheism, history, jesus tie-dyed for your sins, moralizing, non compos mentis, religion, waiting for the barbarians

I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know, but the perpetually aggrieved Bill Donohue is a steaming, whistling little teakettle of a man, forever boiling over one thing or another. What is it this time, Bill?

The pope did not go far enough. Radical atheists like the British Humanist Association should apologize for Hitler. But they should not stop there. They also need to issue an apology for the 67 million innocent men, women and children murdered under Stalin, and the 77 million innocent Chinese killed by Mao. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all driven by a radical atheism, a militant and fundamentally dogmatic brand of secular extremism. It was this anti-religious impulse that allowed them to become mass murderers. By contrast, a grand total of 1,394 were killed during the 250 years of the Inquisition, most all of whom were murdered by secular authorities.

Yawn. Same old, same old. I’ve heard this so many times it’s starting to sound in my ears like the way adults talk in the Peanuts TV shows: Mwuh mwah muh mwah mwah mooah. Hitler an atheist? Nope. Stalin and Mao primarily driven by radical atheism? Pick your favorite response.

But let’s leave Mr. Donohue to his angry jitterbug on the stove burner and take a closer look at the more interesting theme here. One thing all three of those famous monsters actually had in common with Christianity was a belief in the teleological progression of history toward utopia, as well as in the redemptive, cleansing power of blood and violent sacrifice. Biblical scholars are united in saying that Jesus, assuming he actually existed as a historical person, was just one in a long line of Jewish apocalypticists. I know they don’t tend to emphasize this in devotional readings for some reason, but the entire point of his ministry was to prepare anyone who would listen for the coming end of the world, with violent retribution for all whom he felt deserving, followed by endless paradise. Since then, whether it’s based on visions of heaven, the classless society, or living in perfect harmony with nature, this idea that the ends justify the means pops up repeatedly throughout history. Utopia is waiting just around the bend, right after we get through the great purification by flood, fire, earthquakes or mass murder. It honestly has nothing to do with religion or the lack thereof. It’s an abstract concept of perfection that isn’t exclusive to anyone in particular.

As I’ve said before, I expect that we’re in for some hard times in the next few decades as the glory days of life in America fade further into the past, and we face choices over how far we’re willing to go to maintain our privileged position in the world, especially as nations like India and China look to get some of our standard of living for themselves. Perhaps some more equitable, balanced lifestyle will be the end result of our downward spiral, but human nature being what it is, I’m not optimistic. And because of that, I don’t see any reason to gleefully anticipate the chaos and upheaval that may come. Hell, I’d be happy to be wrong. For me, a rule of thumb is that if you’re so attached to your ideological convictions that you would rather see widespread suffering on a massive scale than to have to revise those convictions, if you can envision that sort of suffering while feeling smug over having accurately predicted it, you might just be the kind of zealot we’re talking about here.

Ink-Stained Retch

September 23, 2010 By Outis Niemand in art, jests japes jokes jollies

With 17½ hours of work adorning my body, I’ve spent a fair amount of time hanging out in tattoo parlors, seeing some, uh, interesting artwork on some, uh, interesting people. But via Radley Balko, this link contains some of the funniest and/or most horrifying imagery I’ve ever seen. Most definitely, do not click through if you’re on a work computer.

Most of us only use the term “trouser snake” metaphorically. Oh, wait, it has wings. I guess when that dude says he’s gotta go “drain the dragon”, he really means it!

A Place for My Stuff

September 23, 2010 By Outis Niemand in foolosophy, the madness of crowds

Morris Berman:

Even the anti-chic can be made chic. A Canadian magazine, Adbusters, became somewhat famous for ridiculing the need to be chic. It is now one of the chicest journals around–“underground chic,” as it were. If you are not aware of this publication, you are definitely out of it, and not as good as the people who are aware of it and read it on a regular basis. You are leading a diminished, unchic life.

This brings us to the causes of chic. If it really is as frivolous as it looks, why are we all doing it? Why does all of life finally boil down to high school? Alfred Adler, the psychoanalyst whose major concepts were “superiority complex” and “inferiority complex,” argued that the two were intimately related: the desire to be superior masked a deep sense of inferiority. If I care that much about being chic, it must be because I know, on some level, that I am terribly unchic. And this feeling of being inadequate, which dates from infancy, can finally never be overcome; which means that chicness is infinite: you can never be chic enough. Malraux was right: we never grow up.

I had just the other day mentioned a book by Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter that examined this topic in detail (even criticizing Adbusters as well). In a nutshell, their argument was that while we typically condemn profligate consumption as something the mindless sheeple do to try to be like everyone else, the driving engine of it is actually the urge to differentiate oneself from everyone else by having different, cooler stuff (which always has to be replaced as the bovine masses eventually lumber onto what was once your exclusive territory). But buying more stuff, whether it be off-brand tennis shoes from Walmart or anti-name-brand shoes from Adbusters, only reinforces the idea that our personalities are defined by the stuff we have (or lack), an idea that the neo/post/whatever/capitalist system we have is perfectly placed to exploit.

That said, I also think the image of the perfectly self-contained, self-aware, unflappable person is largely a myth. Perhaps a useful one to hold up and strive to emulate, but a myth nonetheless. We’re social creatures who mostly derive our pleasure from the earthiness of our social environment, not the thin air of life on an intellectual mountaintop. Not many of us are rugged enough to stand being completely out of step with our friends and peers; most of us would feel twinges of insecurity and self-doubt if we couldn’t find reassurance and agreement somewhere. The attempt to wean ourselves off of defining ourselves by our material possessions is difficult enough; that of trying to consistently value intellectual principle over social acceptance is almost certainly a pipe dream.

Fuckin’ Media, How Do They Work?

September 21, 2010 By Outis Niemand in bread and circuses, media/propaganda

Violent J learns how the infotainment sausage gets made:

To be honest with you, at one point—and this is what’s insane—they took my response to one question and edited it so I looked like I was responding to another question. And what’s scary to me is that this is Nightline. This is a respected piece of American journalism, and they were full of shit. That just makes me think, 90 percent of what I watch is full of shit. I couldn’t believe what they did with us, with the $10 million thing. He was so clever, the way he was saying, “No, no, no, Violent. I never said that, Violent.” It’s so clever what he’s doing—it was so clever! Then they had me sitting on the edge of my chair to make it look like I was getting mad. In reality, that was my response to another question. It was just so clever the way they did that.

Mick Foley had a similar experience with ABC’s 20/20 years ago, figuring that his own savviness and the presence of WWE’s own video crew would prevent his interview from being altered, spliced and taken out of context. He was wrong.

You might say, oh, who cares if some rappers in clown makeup and professional wrestlers get mocked or misquoted? They’re idiots anyway, right? But as he said, it’s scary when you see an article written on a subject you actually happen to know something about, and you’re appalled at how badly written and ill-informed it is. Then you have to consider how often that must be the case when you don’t know much about the subject, and have to depend on people like this to inform you. It’s a wonder we share as much common reality as we do.

No Viet Cong Ever Called Me a Faggot

September 21, 2010 By Outis Niemand in germans supported their troops too, ohferfucksake, samesecks, tribalism, waiting for the barbarians

Let me emblazon it here, in bold type, for the record: GAY PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST. Period, full stop, the end, roll credits. Therefore, it logically follows that they should be able to pursue any form of employment they want, even in, say, the military.

However.

It really strikes me as sad and pathetic that this is what leftist, uh, progressive activism in this country has been reduced to.

Singing sensation Lady Gaga threw the full weight of her stardom Monday behind efforts to repeal a US ban on gays serving openly in the military, decrying it as “against all that we stand for as Americans.”

…”Equality is the prime rib of America,” she told the crowd. “But because I’m gay I don’t get to enjoy the greatest cut of meat my country has to offer.”

…”Doesn’t it seem to be that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is backwards?” she asked, observing that gay soldiers who “hold and harbor no hatred, no prejudice, no phobia, are sent home” while “homophobic” troops remain on the job.

“If you are not honorable enough to fight without prejudice, go home!” she said in her fiery 20-minute speech before hugging veterans who had been dismissed by the US military because their sexual orientation was disclosed.

That’s right, kids. If you can’t kill foreigners in their own country with an open mind, if you can’t respect the cultural traditions that you’re in the process of undermining and destroying (along with their physical infrastructure), well, you can just stay home and keep that hateful attitude all to yourself, buster! Uncle Sam wants you to blindly follow his orders and blow official Enemies of the State (this week) to smithereens as tolerantly as you can! A Pakistani villager can take pride as he stands in the smoking rubble of what used to be his home, with the charred remains of his livestock strewn all about, knowing that it was an out-and-proud lesbian who piloted the remote-controlled drone that turned his young sons into pink mist. It gives that man hope — assuming he doesn’t die soon from malnutrition, tribal warfare, disease or despair, that is — that such a world is possible.

I swear by the wine-stained balls of Bacchus, I can’t take seeing one more liberal/lefty whine about how this unfair policy is “hurting our military’s readiness.” Oh, is it? Well, good. It’s about fucking time we started trying to accomplish that! I want to “hurt the military’s readiness.” I want to see the offense budget slashed by 65%. I want to see leftists quit cowering in abject fear of being accused of insufficient loyalty to the troops. I want to see several hundred of our military bases around the world closed. As a moral issue alone, this should take precedence over everything else. Yes, you should be able to serve. The question is why you would want to, knowing what it is that your country’s military is primarily involved in doing.

Isn’t It Ironic, Don’tcha Think

September 20, 2010 By Outis Niemand in animals

Jim Gorant:

As odd as it may seem, Michael Vick may be the best thing that ever happened to the pit bull. He gave the forum to discuss this and make it possible to get the message out there that these dogs are not what they’ve been made out to be in the headlines, that they really are just sort of dogs. And a lot varies from each one to another and then how they’re raised and socialized and all of these issues that go around them. You can find the sweetest, most loving pit bulls in the world and you can find other dogs that are as mean as you want.

I’ve often noted the same irony myself. I spent a decade involved in pit bull rescue groups with my ex, rehabilitating and adopting out a couple dozen dogs and keeping several ourselves (which all stayed with me after I split with her). The most stubbornly antagonistic, narrow-minded people I ever had to deal with were the members of my own family, who were firmly convinced that the stories they’d read and the yellow journalism TV shows they’d seen were all they needed to know; these dogs were rotten to the core and it would only be a matter of time before they ripped my throat out just to watch me die. That only began to change after Vick’s case made the news, when they finally got to see the dogs as victims rather than cartoonish monsters.

Nevertheless, I still would laugh uproariously at any calamity to befall that scumbag. Maybe that doesn’t speak well of me, but hey, I never claimed to be into all that Christian forgiveness business.

Fleurs Du Mall

September 20, 2010 By Outis Niemand in foolosophy, sex-you-all, waiting for the barbarians, work

Micah White:

Can capitalism exist without its foundation of heterosexual monogamy? Is polyamory inherently revolutionary? To all these questions we must answer: capitalism is a master of recuperation. What first shakes it, soon motivates it, later strengthens it. We will never know which tactics bring it down until we try.

To rupture the consumer myth will take more than protests in the streets and boycotts of consumer goods. It’ll require a fundamental shift in the structure of society, a revocation of our libidinal investment. Whether that’ll take the form of polyamory or simply neighbors getting to know each other remains to be seen.

Huh? What difference would it make how many people you sleep with if your spending and consumption habits remain the same? What sort of consciousness shift is this supposed to bring? I mean, check it:

The U.S. economy is predominantly driven by consumer spending, which accounts for approximately 70 percent of all economic growth.

If you want to be revolutionary, stop spending money you don’t have on shit you don’t need. If you want to be sexually revolutionary, stop pumping out more little consumers. Period.