GoldRushApple vs John C. Wright

I think Wright is an intelligent man and I admire his move from atheism to Christianity, Catholicism to be exact. What I don't admire is his strange inability to actually comprehend what a person is saying if he believes they are insulting him. The man is not gifted in that department. In a post of him defending good teachers, where the notion "those that can't do, teach" is popular among the right, I wrote the following:

 

"Why you have insulted me, squire!"

"No I didn't."

Now that's quite the claim that Wright dishes about himself. The "most flexible, strong and finely tuned instrument a modern education can produce" he writes about his own mind. Hmmm, a product of a decent education maybe, but the most of X? Not even close. I've come to notice this about Wright. He thinks highly of his intellect and part of his hubris is deserved: he sees through the bullshit of modernism and when he does he skewers them, but so can others who aren't named John C. Wright.

Of course I should've been more clear in my explaining. I followed up with a post that I was attacking mainstream conservatives - those that see no need in the Great Books, or a liberal arts education, or many other things where liberals support or at least see great value in (big clue: that's why they dominate faculty positions in the liberal arts & sciences departments nationwide). Now, if Wright is the erudite product of which he claims to be he'd see this. But I get the feeling he doesn't.

This also brings me to a similar verbal altercation that Wright had with another poster. The poster on his site was asking if whether or not he attended an NO (Novus Ordo) mass or a EF (Latin Mass or Extraordinary Form) mass since he became a Catholic. For whatever reason Wright took offense, thinking that he was calling an inferior Catholic for not practicing rituals, or something to that effect. It was seemingly an innocent question but apparently Wright saw it as an attack. It's a simple yes or no question, but Wright failed to answer. Here, I'll put myself in that situation -

"Hey, you're a Catholic, right?"
"Yes. Or at least I try."
"Do you attend NO or EF?"
"NO since that's what's available. I'm trying to attend an EF mass hopefully in the upcoming years."

Damn that was hard to do.

I'll try to update this post if he responds back. I get the feeling he won't admit to his blind spot that is a product of his own hubris, accusing me of heresy on behalf all intelligent men. It's okay. It's the internet after all and as intelligent and brave of a man Wright is he is in need of an education on how mainstream conservatives treat the arts and liberal arts.

And yes, my avatar is that of a storm trooper. I am a Star Wars fan. 

EDIT: Wright has apologized, so we were both wrong. I in thinking his hubris has anchored him into an abyss of I-can-do-no-wrong and he in misconception.

When atheists turn to God.

Mark Bauerlein, an English professor at Emory University.

Edward Feser, a professor at Pasadena City College. 

John C. Wight, a science fiction writer.

Forums are a gold mine of modernity.

Rated PG-13 for vulgar language. 

This small segment on imdb discussing actress' Jennifer Lawrence's hacked pictures:

Why would anyone take a nude selfie and save it on an iCloud? Heck, why would anyone take a nude selfie in the first place unless they're vain enough?

 which was followed by

 Many reasons why someone would take a nude selfie...for themselves, because they feel good in that moment; for their partner; to document weight loss; because they freakin want to. But...that is entirely not the issue. A person's private sex life is a person's private sex life, and they are entitled to do what they want without you casting judgment on it; especially in this case since these are photos that she did not intend to be made private.

Anyway, how would this affect her status at all? Did people really not think that a beautiful 20-something did not have a sex life? That she did not have an erotic side to her? These photos are just evidence of something that is as self-evident that she brushes her teeth, eats in the morning, etc. I really don't think these will be an issue... if anything she will be more famous.

The worst she will have to face is to be the butt of a couple of jokes for a couple months... but after Mockingjay 1 comes out and this issue is rehashed a bit nobody will give a crap.

You got to be kidding me. Nope. It's modernity speaking.  Thou Shall Not Judge Others Sex Lives. But modernity judges what car one drives (whether it's eco friendly or not), if one supports certain social issues (homosexual "marriage" or ASL Ice Bucket Challenge) or if one cares about starving kids in Africa. If you express anything less than support you're labeled a "hater."

Anything sexually related?  Off hands. Except for pedophilia and other deviant behaviors, but that's another topic all together. So, modernists want traditionalists - or those that are critical of the act - to cast no judgement and render the critics into a bag of potatoes when discussing personal sexual matters, whether they be sex acts or vanity pics like nude selfies yet they want support for thing like "equal rights" for homosexuals and bisexuals, support "pro-choice" and go "YOU GO GIRL!" when a woman flaunts her sexuality or react in a way that's akin to "This is totally normal. What's the big deal here?" Commenting on what happens in the bedroom is a no no, but traditionalists have to support whatever happens in a bedroom in the name of "equality" and the ideal state of being "non-judgmental." Neutrality is indirect support, since the liberalism feeds off neutrality if support is not directly given.

F_ck that sh*t. I'm gonna judge away. You ain't gonna stop me from being opinionated, as I can't really stop one from taking a nude selfie or engaging in other juvenile acts in disguise of "maturity."

Now it's interesting that the word used to defend such things, nude selfies, is "entitled." Like one deserves such an action to freely do, like they accomplished something and that's their reward - a nude selfie. If the person is going to take a nude seflie I can't stop them unless they're right beside me or texts me saying "Hey, GRA, I'm gonna take naked picture of myself." In fact, whether one is "entitled" to do such an act is besides the point. It's whether one should do it in the first place. Of course, like the second poster explains, there are various reasons take such a picture (all the weight loss pictures I've seen, the ones in google's "image" tab were all showing clothed people, so nude selfies to show weight loss are probably in the minority); but just because you "have a reason" - whatever that may be - doesn't mean one should do it. It's like wanting to punch someone.

If I'm being provoked and my temper gets the best of me, and I physically harm that provoker, would I be in the right of punching him? No. Though one can understand why I punched him, that does not mean the action I took was wise or appropriate. The person assessing the situation would  be right in saying that my action was a poor judgement on my part, that I should've practiced more restraint. Here's the thing: If that's all the person says, without damning my soul to hell, then I, hopefully, would take the criticism maturely and think to myself "You're right. I shouldn't have done such a thing even though the provoker was out of like in his actions as well." Accountability is what's lacking.

Another interesting thing the defender notes: The poster, obviously a fan of the actress, admits to a common tactic that many (extreme) fanboys use. Anything controversial that puts the actor in a negative light is dealt in a very "Don't worry guys, this all will go away with time." He also spins it into a positive light, that once it's all over that she'll more famous for it because it's another "natural" thing a 20 year old would do. So in the end, she wins. And the fans win.

I find this attitude that the defender holds both pathetic and sickening. It perfectly speaks about the mentality of opportunists (the fan in this case) squeezing whatever they can get from an initially controversial topic. In a way it's making lemonade out of lemons, but this sort of lemonade I wouldn't want to drink let alone be proud of.

If you're fan of any actor and if they get caught in some questionable acts, don't worry. As long as they become more famous because of it you're A-OKAY. I wonder if O.J. Simpson admires followed the same attitude? Okay, that was an extreme comparison. But I wonder ..

Upon thinking about what the poster stated, the towards the end of the first paragraph, it also shows that today it is natural to assume that any attractive 20 year old is sexually active. An attractive virgin? That's messed up. An attractive chaste 20-something year old? Unheard of. Honey, you need to get your hips pumping & slappin' skin by midnight tonight. Author John C. Wright touched upon this.

In modern times, it is being cultivated to not assume that a stranger is straight. If I found a member of the opposite sex attractive, muster up the courage to talk them and maybe ask then out for lunch or coffee, I'd most likely be held as inconsiderate & ignorant if I thought that person was straight. The person maybe bi or a homosexual. What's totally okay to assume is if that person we are attracted to is sexually active.

So take note: Okay - assume that an attractive person is sexually active. Not Okay - assume a given person is straight.

(OT: Film actors are pretty much the most protected class of people in America right now, besides homosexuals and illegal immigrants. A 12 year old child growing up in a middle class home has more accountability than film actors.)

 It gets even more pathetic. Mary Anne Franks, from the NY Daily News, states:

The suggestion that the female celebrities whose private nude photos were hacked are somehow at fault is false; they have been deprived of dignity and equality. The law must be reformed to make invasions of sexual privacy punishable.

Is this another war on women? I'm surprised I didn't come across someone saying this.

An interesting use of words: Dignity and equality. Setting up the narrative of "girl power in the face of social injustice" I see. Too bad I'm not buying it.

And another reformed law in order to cater to such incidents? This is coming very close to reforming traditional marriage in order to accommodate same-sex pairings. 

Libertines are fiercely protective of their sex lives when it comes from outside judgement, but they are fiercely comfortable in showing their sexuality and saying "Take me as I am!"

This all looks like "blaming the victim." I won't disagree with that. I am putting responsibility on Lawrence's shoulders, but not all. I do believe that cloud systems, in which the pictures were hacked from, should be more solid in their user's privacy. I do think the hacker should be jailed & fined. I do think it's unfortunate that all these young women were exposed this way (100+ celebrities). But, like the hacker, actions have consequences, whether it's good or bad or a mixture. My sympathy is hard to get and to distribute to the parties involved.

What I can't help but laugh if this happened to 100+ politicians. They would be crucified by the media - not protected like the celebrities in painting them as complete innocents and getting the freakin' FBI involved.  It won't be just talked about in political magazines or political circles - it would be discussed in the morning news, in the evening news and comedians would be all over any Republicans (not that I'd defend them). It be like a Sarah Palin Media Frenzy.

What I like about this issue is that it branches into several topics: privacy in general. actions & consequences, perverts and fanboys. It is a topic that reflects modernity and its mentality.  

Now, do I think Miss Lawrence is a bad person? No. Do I think she's a slut? I don't know since I don't know if she sleeps around with other people. Do I think she's a good role model? She never entered such a category, in my mind, even before this incident, though I do like how she doesn't take PETA seriously (yet).

UPDATE: Some responses having the 'This wouldn't be a big deal ... " mentality suggest that if nudity wasn't seen as socially immoral then this incident - nude selfies being hacked - wouldn't garner the current media attention. Again, this reminds me of people saying "If people saw gays like 'everyone else' (as in "married", raising kids etc.) they would be in favor of marriage "equality."' It's all about stripping away the social stigmas & taboos when it comes to anything sexually related, really.

The late Lawrence Auster commented on modernity's romance with body art. I find this entry (alongside the comments talking about plastic surgery) very appropriate with the 'art' of selfies. At first, selfies were seen as vain actions. It started with the 'duck face' and now has evolved into nude selfies, with maybe the 'duck face' smacked on the face of the photographer. Now, they're seen as normal actions done by anyone under 25. The next step is releasing nudity from any stigmas so nude selfies would be met with no negative reaction and, as the imdb poster notes above, be seen in a healthy light. (But what if the girl isn't as attractive as Lawrence?)

Ex-atheists and/or liberals seem to garner "fans" / Combox #4

Not fans of say the traditional definition, but "fans" of the "You're an idiot" kind who post snark and "Man, you totally owned him" when a fellow objector decides to point out weaknesses of an argument, and they tend to show up on on select issues.

A good example of this ex-atheist turned believer is ex-lawyer turned science fiction writer John C. Wright.

In my readings and observations the science fiction community is vehemently secular; people who have interests in computer science and coding tend to overlap this community as well. It's a community that is seemingly bright, and that's a good thing. No doubt that in his conversion from staunch atheist to now practicing Catholic, Wright has hurt some hearts and made a handful of people feel betrayed. I'm talking about the atheists and the non-conservatives who liked his writings, or at least liked it enough to say "Well that didn't outright suck."

And most of the these detractor enjoy anime. Why is that? It's like the people on tumblr or reddit. The internet is truly wonderful (no, really).

Most particularly are Wright's mini-essays on sexual morality and his criticisms of modernity - or leftism - that garner these bitter souls. They mostly do not come baring a sense of sincere earnest to understand, but are filled with snark. I do not know if their minds have a worthwhile rebuttal since they do not represent it, so I am left to view their snark as nothing more than pure irritation that someone "use to be like them" but now, in their minds, "a tool."

Another ex-atheist turned believer is philosophy professor Edward Feser. In Feser's case it's usually his comments on libertarianism and Gnus aka modern atheists that garner the trolls - at least from the posts that I've come across.

Now ex-Catholics turned non-believer or ex-conservatives turned (modern day) liberal? Such people don't garner these 'special' posters. Odd, really. It's like the "backwards" people tend to deal with rejection better. I'll speak for myself: When I hear believers turn secular I feel sadness in my heart. When I learn a prominent conservative turned (modern day) liberal I do get somewhat upset, but I'm usually eager to hear their reasons why and if I do decide to respond I leave a point-by-point comment and leave it at that. I don't care so much to engage in foolery that is the combox phenomenon filled with (modern day) liberals. As someone who has "been there done that" as an ex-liberal, I'll say confidently that people who are salivating at modernity engage in circular reasoning and BS "move the goal posts" moves.