or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 4

post #46 of 5129
Thread Starter 
Today's musing is about the concept of shame. Here's the Merriam-Webster:
Quote:
1
a : a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety
b : the susceptibility to such emotion
2
: a condition of humiliating disgrace or disrepute : ignominy
3
a : something that brings censure or reproach; also : something to be regretted : pity
b : a cause of feeling shame

Now, I'm not an academic scholar on such things, such as Fuuma and some others are, but it seems to me shame (and guilt) have been pretty useful tools to help shape society, and control the individuals in it, since...well, since humans started to live in society. However, now shame seems to be all the rage in avant guarde lefty circles and it's a bad thing, a thing done by those with...privilege!

Fat shaming, slut shaming, etc, etc. Maybe sometimes society creates shame mechanisms to benefit both society and the individual? If you can't wipe your own ass properly because of how fat you are? Well maybe a little shame would not be a bad thing. If you're putting your physical safety in danger due to unwise sexual liaisons? Well, maybe a little shame will get you acting safer.

This is not to toss out all shaming as positive but I really think the folks that want to paint all these new hypenated-shaming as intrinsically bad just want to feel vindicated that their outlier lives are "normal." Guess what? They ain't.
post #47 of 5129
Shame must be eliminated in favour of feel good all the time feelings.

Shamist.
post #48 of 5129
Piob is a Shame-Shamer. He suffers from No-shame privilege and doesn't even know it. #ignorance #privilege #shame #shamist #cisgender
post #49 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Today's musing is about the concept of shame. Here's the Merriam-Webster:
Now, I'm not an academic scholar on such things, such as Fuuma and some others are, but it seems to me shame (and guilt) have been pretty useful tools to help shape society, and control the individuals in it, since...well, since humans started to live in society. However, now shame seems to be all the rage in avant guarde lefty circles and it's a bad thing, a thing done by those with...privilege!

Fat shaming, slut shaming, etc, etc. Maybe sometimes society creates shame mechanisms to benefit both society and the individual? If you can't wipe your own ass properly because of how fat you are? Well maybe a little shame would not be a bad thing. If you're putting your physical safety in danger due to unwise sexual liaisons? Well, maybe a little shame will get you acting safer.

This is not to toss out all shaming as positive but I really think the folks that want to paint all these new hypenated-shaming as intrinsically bad just want to feel vindicated that their outlier lives are "normal." Guess what? They ain't.

Agreed. It would be oversimplifying to say that shame is the basis of morality, but it's not that far off. The idea that your feelings trump all other moral considerations is a sign of utter decadence.
post #50 of 5129
I am all for decadence
post #51 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhowie View Post

I am all for decadence

I can see the appeal, but it's what happens right before the barbarians come to kill you and rape your wife.
post #52 of 5129
I am the barbarian.
post #53 of 5129
Thread Starter 
Today's musing is about the latest revelation concerning Obama's life. Apparently there is an uncle that has been an illegal immigrant in the US for decades. All prior reports are Obama had never met the man and these reports were in answer to Repub attacks on Obama concerning having said illegal immigrant uncle. Well now he's been elected to his second term and apparently it has come to light he actually lived with the uncle for a short period of time. Of course it is now being put forth that Obama never actually said anything about not meeting this uncle; it was just assumed by his staff he never had and it was they that gave the erroneous/false answer.

I understand the motivation for Obama lying about this but am amazed and impressed the facts of the matter were suppressed successfully for so long. Apparently the only reason the truth has come out is that for some reason the uncle started telling people Obama living with him briefly. I wonder why he decided to do this now? Maybe he thinks it will help his deportation case?

I'm going to be interested in how the MSM handles this revelation. Will they accept the rather incredulous excuse being put forward or will they finally roll their eyes too?
post #54 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Today's musing is about the latest revelation concerning Obama's life. Apparently there is an uncle that has been an illegal immigrant in the US for decades. All prior reports are Obama had never met the man and these reports were in answer to Repub attacks on Obama concerning having said illegal immigrant uncle. Well now he's been elected to his second term and apparently it has come to light he actually lived with the uncle for a short period of time. Of course it is now being put forth that Obama never actually said anything about not meeting this uncle; it was just assumed by his staff he never had and it was they that gave the erroneous/false answer.

I understand the motivation for Obama lying about this but am amazed and impressed the facts of the matter were suppressed successfully for so long. Apparently the only reason the truth has come out is that for some reason the uncle started telling people Obama living with him briefly. I wonder why he decided to do this now? Maybe he thinks it will help his deportation case?

I'm going to be interested in how the MSM handles this revelation. Will they accept the rather incredulous excuse being put forward or will they finally roll their eyes too?

The Fourth Estate is now populated by a single journalist.

Sharyl Attkisson.

The collapse of the free press is an amazing thing to watch, and a great reminder of why the Second Amendment is so important.
post #55 of 5129
Thread Starter 
Well, CNN is now reporting on the "clarification" of things.
Quote:
The White House was asked about their relationship in 2011 at which time the administration denied the President and his Kenyan uncle had ever met. Carney retracted that information Thursday saying that the President himself had never been consulted about their relationship.

"Back when this arose, folks looked at the record, including the President's book, and there was no evidence that they had met. And that was what was conveyed. Nobody spoke to the President," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters.

"When Omar Obama said the other day and there were reports that he had said the other day that President Obama, back when he was a law school student, had stayed with him in Cambridge, I thought it was the right thing to do to go ask him."

Carney continued: "Nobody had asked him in the past, and the President said that he in fact had met Omar Obama when he moved to Cambridge for law school and that he stayed with him for a brief period of time until his, the President's, apartment was ready."

Yes, I can see such an issue arising, with the attendant controversy, and no one actually simply asking Obama. I can also see Obama, who strikes me as a bit of a control freak, not being part of the crafted answer to the initial story.
post #56 of 5129
post #57 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by origenesprit View Post


Indeed, BO knows how to play "the game".

Maybe he mixed up his Omars.
post #58 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

Indeed, BO knows how to play "the game".

Maybe he mixed up his Omars.

Wasn't there another president who employed the tactic of "plausible deniability"?

What ever happened to him?
post #59 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

Wasn't there another president who employed the tactic of "plausible deniability"?

What ever happened to him?

That was George Washington. He saved the children but not the British children.
post #60 of 5129
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

That was George Washington. He saved the children but not the British children.

I heard that he once held an opponent's wife's hand in a jar of acid, at a party.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob