The Whack-Job Threshold

[Ophidia]

Re: The Whack-Job Threshold

LOL - on the subject of metaphysics, I, personally, spend a lot of time laughing. What most people refer to as "metaphysics" bears about the same relationship to actual metaphysics (a branch of philosophy) as a wet cardboard box does to a house.

I have learned something here - I've always heard 'metaphysics' going hand-in-hand with occultism & Spiritualism, and never knew it had real-world connotations.

[Ananta Androscoggin]

Re: The Whack-Job Threshold

Hmmmmmmmmmm . . . here goes

• New Age twaddle, with its wild-ass fantasizing that they're allowed to "do magic and all that other stuff" while "still" being Christians.
• Imbeciles who can't comprehend "One is entitled to one's own opinions, but NOT to one's own 'facts'." The kind of people who so severely cherry-pick their arguments (which is called "proof-texting" when used with the bible, not to be confused with "proofreading") that they ignore half of all reality or more in order to come to their "conclusions."
• Star Child, Indigo Child, Otherkin, and their fellow fantasists, who are so desperate to be "special" in some way that they're willing to abandon everything about themselves which might have actually been special.
• Those who go on and on about their "warfare against the forces of evil" which read like something straight out of the novels of the fantasy-writers' guild.
• As to Scientology, my opinion is that they are mostly a Pyramid Blackmail Scheme-based cult.
• As to extremist right-wing Christianist politicians, if their Satan really exists, they are most probably among his most faithful and LOUD servants (Michelle Bachmann, Pat Robertson, Rick Perry, Tony Perkins, Brian Fischer, Porno Pete LaBarbera, Jerry Falwell, Linda Harvey, Mike Bickle, Lou Engle, Orly Taitz, David Barton, etc., etc.). They will most assuredly receive high honors from their devil upon their return to Hell at the ends of their lives here on earth.
• Attention Whores whose entire existence is to do things which will call people's attention to themselves, hopefully of the fawning, worshipful kind. Such as Sarah Palin, Paris Hilton, Fiona Horn, Mohmmar Khadaffi, Kim Il Jong, Newt Gingrich, and other less-than stellar servants of "satan".
• People who cannot grasp that Revelations (a.k.a., personal gnosis ?), when they happen, are meant for the growth of the individual they're revealed to, and are not meant to have the entire species of homo sapiens sapiens shoehorned into. Nor are they the call for the recipient to go on some "holy mission" over.
• People whose sincerity in their Pagan spirituality goes no farther than that of a casual LARPer into their game. Do any of YOU want your HP or HPS to look on the spirituality of the group members as nothing more than something to be manipulated for their amusement and advancement up the gaming ranks?

I've always had the curse of involuntarily seeing down the chain of implications inherent to statements declared by others (unless I divert myself forcefully away). This results in often seeing that the results of what they claim we should all be doing are often likely to be pretty-much the exact opposite of what they're claiming. Not a pleasant experience. Clairsentience also sucks, when it's operating (I have never bothered to try to learn to control it).

[B. de Corbin]

Re: The Whack-Job Threshold

I have learned something here - I've always heard 'metaphysics' going hand-in-hand with occultism & Spiritualism, and never knew it had real-world connotations.

I'll go off topic a bit and explain -

Technically, metaphysics is the branch of philosophy which examines the nature of what we perceive as "reality." In the bit from Russell that I quoted, Russell is examining that bit of reality which we call "cause and effect relationships."

Normally, most people never question the idea of "cause & effect" - if we were asked what a cause and effect relationship means, we'd most likely say something to the effect of "A causes B, which causes C, which caused D..." But when we take a close look at the phenomenon, this explanation doesn't hold up - it's good enough for daily use, but doesn't actually explain what a cause and effect relationship is, and how it works.

It seems like a waste of time to look so closely at something so "simple" as cause and effect relationships, but Russell's little essay actually changed the way in which scientists and mathematicians deal with causal relationships (Russell was also a prominent mathematician, as well as a metaphysician).

Because metaphysics deals with the nature of "reality," their evidence or proof of their ideas has to be based on logic rather than on physical evidence (as soon as you go behind physics, you have no physical evidence). This is a big problem for observes who are outside of formal metaphysics - if they don't have a very, very good grasp on the principles of formal logic, it appears as if the methaphycian is pulling rabbits out of a hat. So the tendency is for armchair metaphysicians to string ideas together, and fill the gaps with what seems logical to them, but is generally closer to wishful thinking.

Metaphysics can (and does) deal with things like deity, occult ideas, etc., but in a very different, much more rigorous and robust way from the way in which it is dealt with in pop metaphysics. Compare, for instance, Plotinus' Enneads to the kind of thing you find in the new age section of a bookstore dealing with the nature of the "soul" to see what I mean.

(I'm not a metaphysician, by the way - I'm a logistician. Doing metaphysics is far beyond my capabilities, but I like to read it).

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: The Whack-Job Threshold

What happens in cases like this is that the person making the statement is starting with a base assumption (that the Christians Scriptures are infallibly correct and everything which disagrees with them is, therefore, wrong) which is different than yours. You can argue with someone like this until you turn smurf blue, but you can't win - when two people have different basic assumptions they may as well be speaking different languages.

The only way you can get that other person to see your point would be to change his/her base assumptions, but, unless you have a lot of time, a lot of patience, a lot of energy, or use torture, attempting to change something as deeply embedded as a basic assumption (which is actually an emotionallly neutral term for "prejudice") is a waste of your time.

If it entertains you, argue. But don't expect much in the way of change. In fact, neither person will be changed much from the conversation.

When I was about 16, I was at a family gathering and someone much older was saying that people shouldn't be so concerned about the ecology. Her solution for ocean pollution was "Dump garbage further out in the ocean where it won't bother anyone." I exhausted myself trying to explain why that was NOT the answer. I learned that day not to beat my head against a wall!!! Thankfully that lesson has stuck with me and while I will be happy to discuss things with people, I'm not gonna get all aggravated over it anymore, and I surround myself with people I can get along with, as much as I can. Life is short and I'm here to enjoy it.

[Dez]

Re: The Whack-Job Threshold

What happens in cases like this is that the person making the statement is starting with a base assumption (that the Christians Scriptures are infallibly correct and everything which disagrees with them is, therefore, wrong) which is different than yours. You can argue with someone like this until you turn smurf blue, but you can't win - when two people have different basic assumptions they may as well be speaking different languages.

The only way you can get that other person to see your point would be to change his/her base assumptions, but, unless you have a lot of time, a lot of patience, a lot of energy, or use torture, attempting to change something as deeply embedded as a basic assumption (which is actually an emotionallly neutral term for "prejudice") is a waste of your time.

If it entertains you, argue. But don't expect much in the way of change. In fact, neither person will be changed much from the conversation.

Corbin, that's pretty much a synopsis of my threshold.

There are a lot of things that don't bother me...amuse me, yes, but I don't usually feel threatened by someone being an ardent born again Christian, or believing that spirits are talking to them through their cornflakes, or being a jock, or furry, or thinking they were an Atlantian in another life.

It's when people, whatever their belief, think that they are right, better, more progressed, higher, "saved", or in any other way have an advantage or a "secret insight" that others around them don't have, ESPECIALLY if that in turn leads to contempt of others, intolerance, patronizing, or an inability to see humor. Whatever direction it comes from, that drives me bananas faster then anything, and makes it very hard to not return tit for tat.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: The Whack-Job Threshold

Amen to that, sister!

That's exactly the spot where all the poop starts flying through the air.

(I actually was an Atlantean in my last life. My name was Pete, and I washed the floors in the Great Temple of Eternal and Undieing Enlightenment. I really do have special secret knowledge because in the course of doing my job, I picked up a few things. Mostly cigarette butts and gum wrappers, occassionally a condom).

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: The Whack-Job Threshold

Yeah I agree. It's about choice. And I think that goes for men too. If a family can afford to have the husband stay home and he wants to do that, why should he be made to feel emasculated? It's totally unfair.

I have to say, I wasn't quite so much of a vocal feminist until I moved to Germany. And I didn't really understand the difference between being an extremist man-hater and the more active but silent majority trying to earn true equality in society. It's true that men and women are different in ways, but they should have equal access. Here we are below the EU and OECD average for women in high up places, and it's embarrassing for the 4th largest economy in the world, and people are so effing ignorant about it too, like there are men quoted as saying "Sure, women can work, but they just can't cut it in the board room." We may get a quota system soon, and as much as I really didn't want it to come to that, it's just seeming to be impossible to break down the pure ignorance that a lot of the business leaders in this country have about women. Even outside of higher positions, you still get problems. Work and especially networking is still very much a "boys club." That's why I got so upset a while back at that story of the bonus trip to the brothel. I don't think people could understand it not living here, but that's just a symbol of the attitudes in the workplace...it's a men's game, and if you don't play like a boy, you don't get ahead.
Studying business, I also feel more "feminist." It really bothers me how "male" ideals are the "right" ideals, but "female" strengths such as communication and collaboration, which are equally as important in business (especially in this century) take a back seat. I see this even stronger here. In Canada I feel the playing field is much, much more equal than here in Germany.

There's still a lot of that "good old boys" stuff here too, more in some states/areas than others. Much business is conducted at strip clubs, etc. On the other hand I have known a few couples where the man stayed home.

[volcaniclastic]

Re: The Whack-Job Threshold

I'm ashamed to admit that mine is fairly low, and confined mainly to 'wicca in general'.

[Medusa]

Re: The Whack-Job Threshold

Feminists? Please define what you are using that word to refer to. Do you mean man-haters, or do you mean women who believe they should earn equal pay for equal work, have the right to vote/ get a higher education, and have credit in their own names?
I think I'm older than a lot of members here, and my definitions may be "outdated", or "the original" depending on how you look at it.

I guess my WJT is women who want ALL women to retreat into the 1950's, simply because THEY want to. I don't mind having Donna Reed for a neighbor - it's a free choice of lifestyle which is what I fought for in my youth. I was never anti-housewife - in fact I think it's a pretty good job if you can get it! I do all that stuff as it is, plus pay the bills, so it'd be a reduction in labor for me.

I apologize. Apparently a word didn't quite make it to my list. I meant NAZI feminists. My bad.

[Thjoth]

Re: The Whack-Job Threshold

My whack-job threshold is struck when something is so far off base that I can't even suspend my disbelief long enough to make sense of it. An almighty, omniscient and omnipotent being created and tracks the universe? OK, I can see how that conclusion was reached. Everything is made out of the remains of a dead giant? Again, I can see the thought process behind it. Evil spirits cause children to die in early childhood so preventative measures are taken such as magic? I can accept the reasoning behind it and respect the actions taken in response.

Anything a Scientologist has ever said, any kind of fundamentalist dogma of any kind, or anything else that defies all human logic?

[DanieMarie]

Re: The Whack-Job Threshold

I apologize. Apparently a word didn't quite make it to my list. I meant NAZI feminists. My bad.

I think most feminists even think they're whackjobs!

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: The Whack-Job Threshold

I apologize. Apparently a word didn't quite make it to my list. I meant NAZI feminists. My bad.

Whew! Yeah I have to agree with that. Actually, Nazi anything does it for me.

[Ophidia]

Re: The Whack-Job Threshold

Whew! Yeah I have to agree with that. Actually, Nazi anything does it for me.

Yeah, racism, bigotry & neo-Nazism hit my whack-job threshold, and my racism WJT is very low compared to my spirituality/religious WJT.

[DanieMarie]

Re: The Whack-Job Threshold

In the "Nazi" vein, I have to go with the political extremists I see so much in this city. That includes both the Neo-Nazis and the far-lefters. Both camps are really annoying, and seem to be made up mostly of uneducated, dumb kids (or older people who just can't grow up) who want to wreck things and make up a loose, illogical political reasoning behind it. Case in point, the far lefters went on a little spree breaking shop windows in my neighbourhood recently in a protest against "capitalism." Nevermind the fact that, despite there being a lot of yuppies in the neighbourhood, 90% of the shops, restaurants and cafes are locally-owned small businesses (not that it would make it right if they were chains either).

[Taiga Pagan]

Re: The Whack-Job Threshold

That's another thing that goes above my Whack-Job Threshold... thinking that politics is rational thinking.