Comment Section Dialog

One of the things I find challenging about exchanges between debating parties on the internet whether it be on message boards or in the comment sections of blogs is that the parties tend to make too many points in one post. When this happens it becomes impossible for an opposing side to argue every point effectively because the chain of ideas becomes too fractured. That is why I tend to respond to only one point in any comment I make. That way the conversation stays clear and coherent (or at least that is the intent).

Over the past year a very judgmental and obsessive person has been commenting in bulk on my blog. This individual named Thordaddy identifies as a white supremacist who is not a Christian but worships Christ as a perfect man nonetheless. There is something about my writing that apparently gets his goat which makes our exchanges entertaining for me. (I am not proud of the fact that I do enjoy getting a rise out of him by the way). The comment section of my last blog post is no exception to this dynamic. In that comment section it would have been too cumbersome and ineffective to respond to every point he attempted to make. As such, I thought it would be interesting to break apart the first section of his comments by individual point and address them individually in this blog post in the form of a dialog.

The passages marked TD are his own words taken directly from the comment section of the previous post. The passages marked WS are my responses that I did not make in that comment section but attempt to address them now. Feel free to refer to that comment section for the original text of the exchange.

DIALOG

TD : Even in your NOW genuine quest for a more perfected self made aware by a desire to resolve all mental conflicts, YOU DELUDE YOURSELF as to the true nature of “thordaddy” FOR THE PURPOSE of a self-sabotaging. There is simply not existing within ANY OF YOUR RETORTS actual evidence of a true belief in the idea that you are “f$&king” with some “poor guy.”

WS : Don’t you think the fact that I need only mention “some poor guy” without referencing “Thordaddy” to get a huge response out of you is evidence of my ability to bait you?

TD : Stripped down to its bare naked letters, your rhetoric is, in reality, incredibly pathetic now GIVEN the size and scope of the dialogue and the informative analytics which measure the impact of my work HERE.

WS : I don’t really understand what you are talking about. However, you do sound kind of angry and full of yourself.

TD : If your take were more in line with reality then “we” would have witnessed some sort of piling-on effect by equal-minded winston Scrooges. “We” have “seen” NOTHING of the sort. And of course, AS YOU HAVE REITERATED time and again, I have no actual side ready to pounce upon you. So what is closer to reality is that your fans are mere spectators in no way prepared to engage in the dialogue as they leave you all alone to do the best you can.

WS : I don’t have an extensive readership or following. You by far constitute the bulk of the comments on my blog over the past year or so. It’s not like I have created a community of my blog readers. As such, I don’t find your argument here particularly persuasive.

TD : Then again, YOUR SIDE does not really BELIEVE in doing the best one can. Your side DOES NOT BELIEVE in the perfecting of the self. Your side only believes in the annihilation of the self AS absolute liberation.

WS : When you say “your side” do you mean the non radical, right-wing, nut job side? Also, I don’t know where you get the idea that I don’t believe in perfecting the self. I strive to improve myself every day in various areas. This blog is an effort to improve my writing skills for example.

TD : And now your continued obliviousness to the above is the very empirical evidence one would look for so as to declare this dialogue to be amongst a radical autonomist and a white Supremacist.

WS : That is a circular argument which relies upon undefined terms. All your rhetoric seems to follow this pattern which I find very interesting. You say you have defined the terms you use but your definitions are usually in the form of other undefined terms that in turn define themselves based on the first undefined terms . I have to wonder why you shun using the ordinary definitions and word usage that everyone else uses. I suspect it has to do with you wanting to “separate” from reality and live in a world of your own construction rather than in the real world that actually exists.

TD : What is clear is that when a radical liberationist meets true belief, he is at a loss, SELF-EVIDENTLY. And when that “true belief” is “Perfection as operating paradigm” then said liberationist INEVITABLY morphs radical AS HIS ONLY MANDATED REACTION. So if YOU REJECT “Perfection as your operating paradigm” THEN you will just self-annihilate. In other words, if your spirit is not put to the idea of Perfection THEN your Ego will be busy devising many ways to annihilate your Self so that its “perfection” IS SIMPLY OUT OF THE QUESTION.

WS : But I don’t reject perfection. I know that does not fit in your circular, “logical” scheme which is probably why you continue to write as if I do reject it.

TD : And this is exactly where the masses “stand.” Perfecting their selves is out of the question… Out of their minds… A real absurdity… And you stir this pot THROUGH your anti-white Supremacy.

WS : I admit that I do not self identify as a white supremacist but that is a good thing. A great deal of evil has been wrought throughout human history under the banner of racial supremacy.

 

Advertisements

27 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

27 responses to “Comment Section Dialog

  1. thordaddy

    WS : Don’t you think the fact that I need only mention “some poor guy” without referencing “Thordaddy” to get a huge response out of you is evidence of my ability to bait you?

    No… Absolutely not. First, per your own impenetrable tendency to deconstruct all conceivable meaning between us, you haven’t put forth a mutually agreed upon definition of “huge,” “you,” “evidence,” “ability” or “bait.” Secondly, YOU ARE an IRREGULAR PART OF MY TRAINING now. You are an “advancement” from abstract speculation and hearsay to a very particular anecdote pulled forth. Thirdly, you have provided a fertile domain for my most densely intense dispersal of intellectual seedling. And because you know this subconsciously… That you have provided a very accommodating platform for a genuine wS AS a professed and progessed Roman Catholic THEN your take on this dynamic is “positively” anti-Epic…

    BUT…

    You struggle with the idea that this domain may all have to come down or at least deleted of all references to wS if only for the sake of humanity and your duty as “roman catholic.”

    • Ha! A 145 word response (not counting the words you quoted from me). I challenge you not to respond. Is that at all possible?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        That’s a stupid “challenge.” As in, a nonsensical “challenge.” As in a “challenge” that is not really a “challenge” because “we” are really discussing “control.”

      • Thank you for proving my point!

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        The point is that you have no point. Either as piercing tip or intellectual fiat.

      • If I have no point why do you feel so compelled to obsessively respond to everything I write?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        The point is the attempt to discern your actual beliefs and how to reconcile such beliefs with the label of “roman catholic” which you whip around seemingly at will.

        I believe in objective Supremacy, ie., Perfection, as my “operating paradigm.” You apparently do not believe in such an operating paradigm.

        So how do you call yourself a “roman catholic” while you deny the legitimacy of the white Supremacist?

      • On what do you base this misguided feeling of yours that I do not believe in perfection?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You do not believe in (P)erfection.

        You ONLY BELIEVE in (p)erfection.

        What this signifies is a radically autonomous individual. An individual attempting to falsify reality with his sheer will.

      • If by “Perfection” you mean God why not say God? If “Perfection” means something other than God, what does it mean?

  2. thordaddy

    I don’t really understand what you are talking about. However, you do sound kind of angry and full of yourself.

    But… That “sound” is MADE UP in your head! And you hear “it” in my words for the purpose of advancing your radical autonomy at the expense of Truth.

    I am your only REAL commentator. All others are mere spectators. And so he who even brings a “game” to begin with so as to draw a larger crowd of spectators is now spit upon TO THE SAME EFFECT… Draw more spectators. You can “see” these “things” in your blog analytics. “thordaddy” as a matter of effectual execution, makes the “spiders” crawl. What this does in turn to individuals such as yourself is either force you to run with the “spiders” or pull out your giant insect swatter and take back control of a domain THAT YOU MERELY HOST for the purpose of maximizing your radical autonomy. And there are metrics for this, but one also requires a mutually-shared conception
    of a calibrated increment of measure to properly interperet said analytics.

  3. thordaddy

    I don’t have an extensive readership or following. You by far constitute the bulk of the comments on my blog over the past year or so. It’s not like I have created a community of my blog readers. As such, I don’t find your argument here particularly persuasive.

    Not only was my argument not attempting to persuade, but you have said virtually the exact same thing I said. You have some readers/spectators and ONE real commentator. AND when that one real commentator comments, it is assumed that more spectators spectate. This can be gleaned from your blog analytics. The reason for this uptick in spectatorship is due the basic mechanics of the system itself. Fresh content “attracts” the search engine “spiders” so that one’s domain may “suffer” an “infestation.”

    BUT…

    It’s kind of “scary” to imagine what might happen if your page views and commentators leaped 10x… Or a 100x… Maybe a 1000x? Could your will to write handle this load?

    • The purpose of this blog is to primarily to practice writing. An up tick in readership is gratifying but not really the point. I appreciate the potential for content our interactions has created and to the extent your obsessive comments draw more readers here I thank you.

  4. thordaddy

    When you say “your side” do you mean the non radical, right-wing, nut job side? Also, I don’t know where you get the idea that I don’t believe in perfecting the self. I strive to improve myself every day in various areas. This blog is an effort to improve my writing skills for example.

    No… Your “side” as in the side that CANNOT CONCEIVE of objective Supremacy and so can only delusionally attempt to “perfect” one’s self.

    And there is a marked difference between striving towards objective Supremacy and working to “improve yourself” ESPECIALLY when one rejects objective Supremacy as a “first principle.”

  5. thordaddy

    That is a circular argument which relies upon undefined terms. All your rhetoric seems to follow this pattern which I find very interesting. You say you have defined the terms you use but your definitions are usually in the form of other undefined terms that in turn define themselves based on the first undefined terms . I have to wonder why you shun using the ordinary definitions and word usage that everyone else uses. I suspect it has to do with you wanting to “separate” from reality and live in a world of your own construction rather than in the real world that actually exists.

    All arguments within a finite paradigm are “circular,” as in, reliant upon other things to “make the case.” I am not of the belief that a finite paradigm is the highest operative paradigm. But I recognize the (t)ruth of a closed accounting system that zeroes out to signal stasis.

    My fundamental motivation is to strive toward Supremacy in concerted effort to transcend all worldly degeneracy.

  6. thordaddy

    But I don’t reject perfection. I know that does not fit in your circular, “logical” scheme which is probably why you continue to write as if I do.

    Yes… You reject (P)erfection as objective Supremacy and continue to signal this rejection by way of ONLY AND EVER REFERENCING (p)erfection and by implication indicting a racial (s)upremacy as inherently evil.

    So there is a highest (E)ntity and a (p)rocess of regeneracy. The latter necessarily emerges from the former in the unraveling of actuality.

    • So you feel I reject perfection because I adhere to the standard rules of grammar?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        Standard rules of grammar? Lol! You must be stuck in the commonsensical past?

        What is grammatically incorrect in stating, “I strive towards objective (S)upremacy?

        Your only objection is that (S)upremacy does not actually exist. Yet, this is not a grammatical error. This is YOUR BASE ASSUMPTION concerning absolute reality.

      • If by “Supremacy” you mean God, then why not say God? If “Supremacy” means something other than God what does it mean?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        If by God you mean Allah, why not just say Allah?

      • thordaddy

        wS…

        You understand that “we” inhabit a “nation” that claims to be 70-80% Christian and that “God is dead.”

        Can you successfully reconcile this disjointed “reality?”

        I’ve reconciled this maddening reality within the framework of “radical autonomy” and the desire thereof.

        God is “dead” BECAUSE the masses REJECT objective Supremacy.

        And it is the high IQ “white” males who claim to be Christian who nonetheless do nothing to alter the mind of mass “white man.”

        Why not just say “God” IS BECAUSE “(s)upremacy” is not AT ALL dead to mass “white” sheep. Mass “white” sheep KNOWS ALL ABOUT “(s)upremacy.”

        You have to lead the flock of sheep away from the wolves.

        You do nothing of the sort.

        A mighty Christian fail.

      • I don’t claim God is dead. Nor would my claiming God is dead have any effect on God. How could it? I don’t see what your terms “Supremacy” or “Perfection” has to do with any of this.

  7. thordaddy

    I admit that I do not self identify as a white supremacist but that is a good thing. A great deal of evil has been wrought throughout human history under the banner of racial supremacy.

    Dude, seriously? How much evil is BEING WROUGHT RIGHT NOW under the banner of anti-white Supremacy? We’re talking a global hegemon of “anti-racism” destabilizing nations all over the world with a stamp of Catholic Christian approval to accompany much of this destabilizing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s