Good.
JonnyPitt approves:
Unbelievable. How stupid do you have to be to think that wouldn’t radically confuse a kid…borderline traumatic. Kids don’t understand sex. It’s impossible for them to understand because they don’t feel lust. At most they have attraction. Yet they are very curious about for obvious reasons. To show a kid explicit over the top sexual acts makes that curiosity go all sideways. Some people just don’t have any sense. They pick a side and lose all objective independent thought.
And how is it any different from the scenario I described to which you replied “I don’t see the problem” and “But what about the Catholics”
I can’t imagine why armed groups are following them around.
I would never gyrate in front of a child. And I’d never take any children to a show where they do that. How often these things happen? I’m inclined to think they are few and far between. Certainly far less often than a pastor actually diddling a choir boy
Every single “family drag show” I’ve seen is incredibly inappropriate for children. This is abuse and grooming no matter what Catholics are doing. No amount of whataboutism can make this okay. I get it, you have a chip on your shoulder about religion and you lean left but Jesus Christ snap out of it. These people are sick. There is no such thing as a family friendly drag show just like there is no such thing as a family friendly burlesque show.
Well if you say so. I’ve never seen a family friendly drag show. The word show would put me off though. I’ve never even heard of a family friendly drag show. I mean show indicates a performance. And what else would drag showers be performing other than sexual acts*. I have heard of drag queen story hour in libraries. And those never rang any alarms for me.
edit: got caught being a little transphobic. i’m sure drag show performers can sing and dance too.
If you say so. How about burlesque story hour? Why? Just fucking why? Drag culture besides being adult entertainment is known for being heavily steeped in hardcore drug use. Why do kids need to be exposed to it? Why does this need to be explained?
The story hours are sick as well.
https://neonnettle.com/news/8738-drag-queen-blames-children-for-inappropriate-contact-during-story-hour-event
But listen to what this trans YouTuber has to say about it.
How would implying that drag queens can’t sing or dance be indicative of an irrational fear of trans people? God I hate buzz words.
Not even vaguely funny.
What happened to your enjoying of pure intent?
That sounded great.
The undermining of normal morality is hardly the direction to be going in.
There was an interesting topic here, now you wish it is be some lame attempt at post ironic humour?
Either you have some experience of childhood sexual abuse, or your identity is morphing to some extreme nihilism because all else failed.
What?
Please say what specifically you found beyond the pail so I can explain. There’s really nothing there. Drag queens, Hitler, WW3, the end of Western civilization…i get it. It’s all very serious stuff.
I lost the connection. Can’t seem to maintain it for any length of time anymore. Sucks. One of the weird things is that then with pure intent seems like a distant memory and now fully steeped in the human condition doesn’t seem so bad.
Ok. News to me. I guess they’re all groomers and addicts. Damn. Good thing there’s not that many of them. I don’t know of a single drag show venue in my town. There’s gotta be at least one but totally out of my radar.
They don’t need to be. I don’t know a single family who has taken their kids to see men in drag. There’s probably less than 100 children in my town who has ever seen a drag queen.
I may have misspoke. I was implying that drag queens are nothing but hyper-sexual degenerates. And have no talent to show off so their shows must just be nothing but sexual innuendo.
It’s just a word meaning fear of transsexuals. The LGBTQ people do way overuse it from the stories I’ve heard. It seems annyone who has any questions at all or wants to make a single point that isn’t 100% validating gets called transphobic.
Funny story. After this exchange, I went over to my neighbors house to invite them to a fire we had last night. Turns out my neighbor is transitioning to being a girl and now goes by a different name. What are the odds? Needless to say, we’re locking the kids in doors and will be moving. Got the rifle out too. Fully loaded by the front door. The boy is cleaning it right now.
I just read this unhinged post.
Leaving aside the self-defeating statement at the start regarding how your lost connection to pure intent “sucks”, you then go on to accept being steeped in the human condition.
That accurately sets the scene for the very human-condition-exemplifying text that follows, which includes some rambling observations which I was able to partially agree with (though imprecisely delivered and with some missteps in logic).
Then you make the point that “annyone (sic) who has any questions at all or wants to make a single point that isn’t 100% validating gets called transphobic.”
Which is then followed up with:
“Turns out my neighbor is transitioning to being a girl and now goes by a different name. What are the odds? Needless to say, we’re locking the kids in doors and will be moving.Got the rifle out too. Fully loaded by the front door. The boy is cleaning it right now.
Can I ask on what basis you bother to participate in this forum at all? If you want to resignedly accept your role the human condition, and you openly admit to wanting to kill people, I’m not understanding your attraction to this forum, nor the fact that this kind of behavior is mutely accepted here.
Felix to Jon: I just read this unhinged post.
Leaving aside the self-defeating statement at the start regarding how your lost connection to pure intent “sucks”, you then go on to accept being steeped in the human condition.
That accurately sets the scene for the very human-condition-exemplifying text that follows, which includes some rambling observations which I was able to partially agree with (though imprecisely delivered and with some missteps in logic).
Then you make the point that “anyone (sic) who has any questions at all or wants to make a single point that isn’t 100% validating gets called transphobic.”
Which is then followed up with:
“Turns out my neighbor is transitioning to being a girl and now goes by a different name. What are the odds? Needless to say, we’re locking the kids in doors and will be moving. Got the rifle out too. Fully loaded by the front door. The boy is cleaning it right now.
Can I ask on what basis you bother to participate in this forum at all? If you want to resignedly accept your role the human condition, and you openly admit to wanting to kill people, I’m not understanding your attraction to this forum, nor the fact that this kind of behavior is mutely accepted here. (link)
Hi Felix,
You wrote a rather non-sensical and highly passionate post yourself –
- The post you answered was written 2 years ago.
- The last 2 paragraphs were meant as a spoof, which you took to be deadly serious.
- You were so emotionally triggered on behalf of tribal loyalty that you unthinkingly showed a fellow actualist the door *(“*bother to participate in this forum at all” ).
- Based solely on the strength of your own feelings of “justified indignation” you decide that you are ‘right’ and the other is ‘wrong’.
- Wouldn’t it be far more appropriate to investigate your own passionate trigger of “justified indignation” instead of engaging in a power battle justifying/ defending the cause of your tribal belonging – as in, I am the only person I can actually change?
Claudiu recently gave a good example how one can do that –
Claudiu: Later in the day I was having a convo with two people and there was a lot of cross-talk and I wasn’t able to get out something that I really wanted to say. I had such a powerful reaction that I was floored and reeled. I got so amazingly annoyed! It was like a deep, burning annoyance. I kept my hands in my pockets and apparently it didn’t show, but this was such a deep annoyance, like it hit at my very core – and over such a trivial thing!
It was remarkable though that I was not annoyed at being annoyed, or beating myself up for feeling annoyed… I was allowing the annoyance, letting myself fully feel it, neither expressing nor repressing. And this helped me to see the shape of it, the shape of ‘me’. This remarkably deep and solid-feeling thing, like a rod of annoyance haha. It made it all the more clear that all of me, indeed, has to go! [emphases added]. (link)
Cheers Vineeto
1 Like
It’s not often I disagree with you @Vineeto but on this occasion I do!
I think you are rather assuming that I was triggered….I know I’m a feeling being but it doesn’t mean that just because I say or do anything , it means that I must have been highly triggered. Where is the evidence of feelings of “justified indignation”, other than what is being read into my text (following some logic of “he bothered to write, he made an objection to it, he wrote in a stern manner, he’s a feeling being, → therefore he was triggered”). It certainly wasn’t an LGBT issue either I just don’t think we should have people openly making murder jokes - are we calling even that actualist morality?
Also, I don’t see any clear indication that it was a spoof. Unless you mean he wasn’t serious that he would actually kill someone - I did realise that that part wasn’t meant literally! 
I still think it’s abhorrent to imply that you would kill someone because of their identity on a forum about perpetuating peace-on-earth.
As to your other points, I don’t regard someone who makes no apparent effort to be happy/harmless (if not the opposite) to be a “fellow actualist”. Besides which I wasn’t calling for him to be barred or similar, other than personally asking him about it (and openly wondering why this post had been taken completely without issue by anyone). I invited him to check himself, is all.
I did notice afterwards that the post was written 2 years ago, which if I’d known I probably wouldn’t haven’t bothered (not even sure if Johnny still participates here?).
I could have easily “kept my hands in pockets” in this case if I had felt the need to prove some sort of non-triggerability, but I didn’t because I didn’t feel particularly triggered (at most it could be called a mental/cognitive trigger rather an emotional one).
In other words, if this was a “trigger” it would have to have been said to be extremely minor as there were no significant feelings or chemicals that powered my actions (otherwise indeed, I wouldn’t have posted it).
Again I don’t see why this kind of behavior is mutely accepted, regardless of the “statute of limitations” supposedly being up! 
It’s an interesting situation because obviously I want to be a good actualist, and in a way you are someone who validates if that is the case (and in this case I’ve been given somewhat of a reprimand!). So I don’t want to skip over what you said, but I also want to be sincere and honestly relay my internal world as I always try to do.
Are you trying to say that it’s best for an actualist to not express any thoughts or opinions basically until they become free?
The only other thing I will say is that I am
sometimes in more of a sympathetic nervous state generally, so maybe that’s what came across to you. That’s obviously what burnout basically is, when it becomes an engrained to get stuck in something like fight or flight.
It tends to get more triggered by exercise and I did do some exercise yesterday and there is a kind of global stress response to it so maybe that slightly stiff state is what came across. I find people here tend to act as if I’m being very emotional when I’m not - who could forget the accusation of wielding a “psychic battle”?
But there is a bit of a sharp edge to the way I use my intellect, I can see that. It’s not a flood of feelings by any means but perhaps worth investigating further for its inherent seriousness.!
I am thinking about giving up exercise as it does seem to just perpetuate stress rather than really fix things.
If you go back further in the post history it’s more apparent that he is joking. From Jonny’s other responses:
In this post he is incredulous that “drag queens have armed militias following them around”
Overall his angle seemed to be “The drag shows / queens don’t seem so bad” (especially as compared to sexual abuses of children as seen in the catholic church for example). After Alexander posted a few video examples, he was more in agreement that those examples were inappropriate, though still expressing skepticism that most performances were like that.
This quote clearly delineates his overall joking tone. I wouldn’t see it the same way, though I see that he is trying to match the ‘nothing is ultimately serious’ angle of Richard:
RICHARD: It is the very fact of physical death – everybody alive today on this planet will eventually be dead – which ensures happiness and harmlessness … if everything alive today were to all-of-a-sudden endure forever then everything would matter in the long-term (everything would be of enduring importance (in this ultimate sense) and, therefore, life would be a serious business.
This is something which has been discussed on this forum in 2024, with Richard ultimately responding:
In short, the un-seriousness is due to the ultimate mortality of you, me, and everybody, the actual/material nature of the universe, and the liking / amusement is of an ultimate nature and more despite the depravity of humanity, rather than ‘including.’
Or, as @claudiu puts it:
But I highly recommend reading the entire thread. I had read it previously but I’m not sure what I was doing (or, ‘being’ 
) when I previously read it, as just now I found it quite enlightening.
To conclude, it does seem - and please correct me if this is inaccurate - that you came back to this thread after a long period (I see that you were a part of the discussion in May of '23), and, seeing the recent post by Jonny, took him as being serious/sincere and found it “unhinged,” missing the joking tone set up by the previous posts.
As for
One does not have to be “highly triggered” for there to be a trigger at play and for there to be upset happening albeit at a lower level than “highly triggered.”
You have been quite candid on this forum discussing your recent baseline of high stress, and I have been pleased to hear as you have increasingly been having naive/sensuous experiences (referencing your most recent journal post)
However, it is worth noting that the human condition consists of broad spectrums of feeling, not just a binary of “highly triggered” vs “untriggered/naive/sensuous”
I am speculating, and again please correct me if I am off base, but is it possible that you were bothered at a lower level than “highly” or even your recent baseline, perhaps peeved, irritated, affronted, or annoyed? None of these are considered extreme and indeed seen as quite normal in most polite society, but with an eye toward sensitive attention do indeed constitute a trigger (especially compared against happy & harmless!)
2 Likes
Felix: It’s not often I disagree with you Vineeto but on this occasion I do!
I think you are rather assuming that I was triggered …. I know I’m a feeling being but it doesn’t mean that just because I say or do anything, it means that I must have been highly triggered. Where is the evidence of feelings of “justified indignation”, other than what is being read into my text (following some logic of “he bothered to write, he made an objection to it, he wrote in a stern manner, he’s a feeling being, → therefore he was triggered”). It certainly wasn’t an LGBT issue either I just don’t think we should have people openly making murder jokes - are we calling even that actualist morality?
Also, I don’t see any clear indication that it was a spoof. Unless you mean he wasn’t serious that he would actually kill someone – I did realise that that part wasn’t meant literally! I still think it’s abhorrent to imply that you would kill someone because of their identity on a forum about perpetuating peace-on-earth.
As to your other points, I don’t regard someone who makes no apparent effort to be happy/harmless (if not the opposite) to be a “fellow actualist”. Besides which I wasn’t calling for him to be barred or similar, other than personally asking him about it (and openly wondering why this post had been taken completely without issue by anyone). I invited him to check himself, is all. (link)
Hi Felix,
If you say so, it must be so … to you that is.
But when someone starts their communication with “I just read this unhinged post” – unhinged as in “crazy, demented, disturbed, mad, sick, unbalanced, insane, manic, crazed, and uncontrolled, affected with madness or insanity, or highly disturbed, unstable, or distraught”, then this is the opening to a strong put-down.
You say you didn’t “see any clear indication that it was a spoof” and consequently assumed that Jon “would kill someone because of their identity”. This is quite an extreme assessment of anyone. Well, to be so far off the mark, I simply could not see that a careful sensible non-emotionally-tinged message would look like the way it did.
To spell it out – the spoof was a fantasy scene what an imaginary US Redneck (a group which Jon dislikes) would do, responding to a trans person in their neighbourhood, hence he called it a “Funny story”. You completely missed the black humour (apparently a category you are not familiar with) and just continued with your prejudiced assumptions, after you determined that Jon is not ‘one of us’, i.e. an actualist (“I don’t regard someone … to be a “fellow actualist””) and therefore won’t deserve friendly or even unbiased consideration.
Now you invoke “actualist morality” (“are we calling even that actualist morality?”). The whole sequence is riddled with identity politics, ‘us versus them’, and no regard for a fellow human being to be seen. Don’t you think this topic would deserve closer attention?
Instead of presenting yourself as a ‘good actualist’ in contrast to others – isn’t this exactly the label with which you have been whipping yourself in the past years and driven to an almost unbearable emotional state to the point of needing to take a big break from work? And still you maintain this morality of who is a ‘good actualist’ and apply it to yourself and others, even though it has done nothing at all to make you either happy or harmless, to the contrary.
Can you not see that this ‘good actualist’ morality/identity is a cunning ploy of your identity demanding that you look good in the eyes of others and your own ideals of yourself, thereby barring the way to become tangibly free from the ‘self’-slavery and stress you have submitted yourself to?
When you can really see this, grasp this, understand this, you will drop your ideals like a hot iron – they only make you more stressful, more miserable, a self-whipping fiend to yourself, and morally judgemental towards your fellow human beings who are not good enough actualists.
Maybe you were not ‘strongly’ emotionally triggered by your standards, but triggered enough to harshly morally judge the other as “crazy, demented, disturbed”, etc and call on allies to agree with your own gross misunderstanding.
So instead of your righteous and self-harming ‘good actualist’ morality/ identity you could drop all should’s and ought-to’s, and instead look for a sincere wish to be happy and harmless, for your own sake and the sake of your fellow human beings.
But refrain to make it an image, a rule, a command, an identity, else it becomes another jail like the one you have just barely escaped from.
Cheers Vineeto
4 Likes