Laghail

Member
  • Content count

    1981
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

About Laghail

  • Rank
    Renegade
  • Birthday 04/02/86

Uncategorized

  • Location
    Racine, WI

Class

  • Class
    warrior

Recent Profile Visitors

3057 profile views
  1. The trick to sounding intellectual is using fancy words like "three-hooker blowjob"
  2. Hey, you're lifting and putting on miles? I'm in!
  3. Following for the questionable sense of humor.
  4. So he must of worn sleeves, because he competed raw??
  5. Fiiiiiirst!
  6. Foucault died of aids. I suspect he didn't wrap it.
  7. Hey welcome to the warriors (unless I missed you posting here before)!
  8. I don't think that brain mechanic is inherently a bad thing, it drives innovation. The idea of perpetual contentment is something we strive for, but growing dissatisfaction helps us keep working for more in life. Maybe it's a matter of steering your brain to find pleasure in things you find worthwhile. Definitely something you can manipulate, perhaps not fully control, but you can nudge and negotiate. Not sure any man can discipline himself into getting orgasmic pleasure from editing spreadsheets, but you can probs learn to recognize some joy from being productive and more simple treats. If neurochemistry was a simple one way escalation of stimulation required to feel happy, everyone by age 30 would need a threehooker blowjob to get out of bed in the morning.
  9. Helpful input from you both and thanks for translating my typo. Gunna ignore sleeves until I sign up for another 3 event meet.
  10. Good question. Short answer - the panopticon metaphor helps people think about who they are and how they think, especially in terms of their identity as a thing partially constructed for them by others, and this is a peaceful, cooperative process of continual compromise and manipulation. Long answer: Foucault's use of the panopticon is part of a school of thought called post-structuralism. Structuralism predicated on existentialist despair over the meaninglessness of concepts and institutions that previously held intrinsic worth; the church is good, rebellion is bad, truth is clear and discernible, morality is universal; shit got real. Structuralism is where first linguists, and then other disciplines, began a really tedious series of works trying to crib or modify existentialism; "maybe words don't have absolute meaning, and jerking off over the etymology of a word to determine if the person/place/thing itself is morally good - yeah, maybe that's a waste of time. But what if there were underlying structures that held meaning. What if words are still meaningless mouth sounds that make language only in a complicated game of telephone, but the way humans use meaningless mouth sounds has universal elements that are a-cultural! Things and words have no meaning, but the structures behind things and words have meaning! This would be a great reason to not kill ourselves over the whole existentialism thing!" Shit got very confusing. Also very recursive. Arguably, the way we understand Marxism today is probably the best example of structuralism. Marx actually blamed rich people, like specific people, that had too much money, for why he thought life was terrible. No modern Marxist would say Bill Gates is a bad person, by virtue of having one standard buttload of money. We'd say instead that the system of capitalism and world finance is itself unjust; the very way it works, even with every person involved has (maybe) the best intentions It exploits poor people and dehumanizes workers, and it's nobody's fault and it's just the shitty way humans work. So Foucault and his post-structuralist cronies rode into philosophy town (it wasn't actually like that) and advanced the conversation to propose, "maybe political structures and languages and most things have complex histories than need to be understood before they can be shoehorned into childish oversimplifications." The use of the panopticon as a social metaphor comes from Foucault's book, "Discipline and Punish." Here he's observing real history of how humans control each other in order to take apart the assumptions we make about tyranny and freedom and lots of concepts that people die over in large numbers. Recognizing how humans historically have manipulated and controlled each other doesn't necessarily free you from that cycle, but it can make you conscious of your involvement in a pointless struggle. I think that changes something. That process of deconstruction, taking apart fundamental assumptions and simplifications, I think it's really important. It's almost the definition of overthinking, and it can be the mental equivalent of the clip below. But, I think you need to make negative space, blowing up paradigms and concepts, to make room for yourself to grow.
  11. Yep. That's definitely a thing. Especially post-breakup. Keep trucking.
  12. Eh, it's not milk of magnesium and it shouldn't trigger anything traumatic, but it does help your gut digest the current load. Tasty and makes you feel good, and usually fixes any stomach upset. Also great to have after antibiotics, but the research is inconclusive if kobmucha helps beyond what's in your gut when you drink the beverage.
  13. Basic is how we do!
  14. Whoa, fish burger? Pics plz. Empty = hungry, or empty = existentially hungry?
  15. Really good point @RhiaWolfe and @Volki, visibility to observation is not just a relationship with a subject individual (schoolchild/employee/prisoner/patient) to a governor (political/educational/correctional/economic), but also with your peers. We self-correct behaviors and outputs according to our visibility to friends and family. Luckily, Facebook makes you push your content onto the platform before it's disseminated into ad-metrics and NSA-tinfoil-hat territory, which could make the metaphor break down. Prisoners don't have a social media platform between themselves and the observer, they simply are observed without IG filters or vague FB statuses ("is feeling Blessed"; "hates it when people you love disappoint you") to mitigate their behavior. But that's actually the point, a prisoner has to be themselves their own IG filter and alter their behavior according to the rules of their warden, essentially installing the warden in their own head. This is the bit where Foucault oberserves - Social media still bears out a similar relationship in that the social media user has to install the social mores of their network in their head to modify what they post; the only difference being the scope of the observer's gaze, or, social media can only see a limited slice of your life. Cool, social media = baby size panopticon. All sorted. Except. In a social media extension of the metaphor, the NSA-tinfoil hat brigade (aka @Volki) is watching everything, while the users all watch each other. The prisoners can all see into each others cells, and the central guard tower is invisible, or at least highly forgettable. The central tower in the image below is shrouded in fog, while the walls between cells are made of Plexiglas. Also, all the "prisoners" in social media are there voluntarily. Also, some of the prisoners get off on being watched, metaphorically or literally, we all have TMI / Overshare friends. Also, some of the prisoners don't understand that anyone is watching them or that there's any social conventions for what horrifying political ideologies shouldn't be shared, basically our parents/grandparents. This metaphor is starting to show some stretch marks.