#contentless behavior

[akibunni]

So i love limbus company

[lu-is-not-ok]

Some Zero shitpost redraws because I fell into a contentless behavior type mood

Original images under cut

[mistressmochalo]

Karamatsu is not narcissus (analisis of character part 2)

Assuming that Karamatsu's behavior is not entirely a game, then we can assume that he really does have a personality disorder, namely...

Histrionic personality disorder.

This is where the interesting part comes in and why Karamatsu is considered a narcissist when in truth he is not.

The fact is that HRD has similar features to NRD, but has a number of significant differences. The term “narcissist” is much better known than “hysteric”, hence the confusion.

As in the case of NPD, a person’s main need is to always be the center of attention, the personality is also self-centered, however, for a hysteric, receiving attention from others is an end in itself. The narcissist, on the contrary, attracts attention to himself in order to demonstrate his superiority.

The next obvious difference is the absence of problems with empathy. Narcissists can show it, but only externally; internally they are not capable of compassion.

So, who are the hysterics? These are very extravagant, bright personalities who strive to attract attention to themselves in every available way. Moreover, attention can be different from love and admiration to anger and disgust; they will be happy with anything as long as they are noticed. When they are not noticed or ignored it causes discomfort.

Features of behavior. In speech and behavior they are similar to theater actors, they are prone to vivid displays of emotions, their speech is dramatic and, as a rule, figurative, impressionistic, grandiose, but at the same time not specific and contentless. The intonation of the voice is also dramatic, the voice can be comically cartoonish, childish or seductive.

His outrageous behavior most of the time irritates Ichimatsu in particular, while the others try to ignore him. In fact, Ichi reacts more than others to his ridiculous phrases and antics, despite the fact that he expresses this through anger and irritation, but this is still the attention that Karamatsu desperately needs.

Also, the main way to stand out from the crowd is appearance. They choose bright, extravagant, revealing outfits that often border on absurdity. Let's remember his T-shirts with his own face, shiny pants and boots, short shorts and cowboy hats, sunglasses that he wears even at night.

For narcissists, being ridiculous, funny and stupid in the eyes of others is humiliating and like death.

Causes of HRD. Lack or complete absence of attention in childhood and adolescence.

Karamatsu is from a large family in which he could not get enough love and attention from his parents, in high school he was a lonely, quiet child whom no one noticed, he had no friends, which also left a mark on his mind and brought him to creating your dramatic self.

If we briefly compare these two personality types, narcissists are vain, arrogant people who consider themselves to be among the elite, hysterics are clowns who are not ashamed of being clowns.

I'm more inclined to think that he's just pretending. With my analysis I wanted to prove that even pretending Karamatsu does not behave like a real narcissist.

[xenosagaepisodeone]

I found this futaba chan/4chan-styled website dedicated to kpop called choachan and the posts (there are only 2 boards so there’s not much biodiversity to survey) are this odd collage of fussy but sentimental teenage stan affectations suffused with territorial chan board behavior born from social isolation. most of the anonymous image boards I visited when I was 13-14 were very slow moving and functioned more as a casual hangout of sorts (uboachan comes to mind), but this is an active subculture unfolding in real time.

the vast majority of the post are under 180 characters long and exchanges can amount to largely contentless exchange of memes. it’s like observing a group chat or livestream -- but with the more unhinged of stan culture tendencies being traded as some semblance of a conversation. no semblance of community is felt as you scroll because no sense of community is being fostered. all that exists is the tacit assumption that everyone else acts like you do. the website is also incredibly distinct from obsessive forums like kiwifarms and lolcow. the malice that continues the existence in those communities are incredibly tempered here -- to the point where disagreements end as quickly as they begin (or simply come apart in seas of fancams and promo images).

idk maybe the kids will be alright.

[sansissleeping]

Who Runs Sans is Sleeping?

Who runs Sans is Sleeping?

V2

Hi there, call me Phi, or Filene Taylor.

There's a lot to know about these simple questions of "who" and "runs" in this sentence. Because Sans Is Sleeping is the first public real time endurance run for denying UNDERTALE's worst virtues, there's a lot that goes into it. Make sure you've asked and read, "What is Sans is Sleeping?" Otherwise, the whole service and the idea of its long-term performance depend upon a lot of factors that make it easy to run with a humble offering of reliability. This works for me. I'm a busy mom of two, and my family is neurodivergent. Let's start more about me.

I'm a Queer disabled nonbinary bipansexual transgender woman witch eroticist warrior, and the genocide ending of UNDERTALE haunted my life. I became to literally understand that the game's behavior was of a living object that can be permanently altered. There was a panic the first time folk realized that no matter how many times they deleted their save files, the game knew they had committed the sins and enabled the worst ending, which also emotionally disturbed me in a philosophical and emotional way. Spoiler: there's another file to delete. Nonetheless, how could I, somebody who allowed and fostered a pacifist world, stood by and participated in the spectatorship of witnessing its literal murder? Why did I fail to break up that fight before its horror disgusted and frightened me? It was a game taking place in my imagination that had me complicit in its utter fulfillment of humanity. Did that make it any less terrifying to see somebody who was my friend be torn to shreds by my perverted obsession with content?

It was at that point that I realized I had freed the demon even by watching somebody else perform it in the game. It was a perfect "creepypasta" ghost story of the battle of form versus content when you've utterly consumed all the content. You're left with the contentless form, and so I was haunted by the hole, hollow, and eternal erasure possible by me when I failed to SAVE our friends.

So with this tremendous guilt I also admit my own toxic and traumatic offenses for which I now rebuke. I ask not for your redemption of me or my failures. I ask instead that you help me create a meaningful and helpful community that can offer mutual aid, immutable perseverance of what we hold dear being our planet and all life upon it, and restorative justice to remake our messes and pay it forward. I am sorry for all those I hurt and pray we make our world big enough to let Sans sleep until the end of Time.

P. S.

I'm a stone Queer furry posthuman European-American human alien, who is married in a poly relationship, we're parents of two, and I identify my religion as Simulacra Salvationism. The COVID-19 pandemic and the rise of global autocracy have usurped our sense of social support even within our own families. Until I find more means of support, SansIsSleeping will remain only maintained by myself, Filene, as sole proprietor of Slumberer Sentinels. See, "How can I help?" for a list. For more about me, visit http://filene.cloud (empty ATM).

[ask-artsy-oncie]

Hot take: if you write "x characters reacting to fanfiction" (boils down to the author ranting about how much they hate fanfiction by having characters hate it) or "letter to the fandom" (boils down to 'shut up') or just general, making-fun-of-fanfiction-type "stories" you're not as fucking cool as you think you are and you need to take your superiorist attitude elsewhere. Especially when you tack on "this wasn't meant to be hateful it's just a joke! uwu" because everyone knows it's ultimately a lie and that you're just trying to mitigate the amount of backlash you get.

It's 9× more annoying to wade through crap that's contentless at best and straight up bullying at worst than it will ever be to wade through bad fanfiction that I may not like, but someone out there probably does. It does nothing for the community to point and laugh at things that everyone already knows exists, when the most cause that comes from it is making others ashamed for their interest in the name of perpetuating cringe culture. If you do this you seriously need to stop and think why you're doing this in the first place. If something is genuinely bothering you then maybe you should be venting in private instead of going out of your way to make some people feel bad and just annoy others.

And this goes double for if you do this to shame a specific ship, people who write shipping fics in general, or people who write smut. Miss me with that "I ONLY write gen/NO ROMANCE (ergo, my content is more canon (even though some ships and romance plots are well within canon compliancy) and therefore better because EVERY ONE will enjoy it!)" bullshit attitude. Not only are it's implications so self-centered, but they're also wrong, given how many people only track a ship archive over a fandom archive. Like everyone's allowed to write what they want, and there's a thing called categories and genres on different fanfiction hosting websites. You don't need to throw on a disclaimer that demands people know how you feel about shipping in general, they'll know your fic isn't of that caliber when they see the "friendship" (lack of romance) or "gen" markers on your fic. Again, it's obnoxious and superiorist, and people who aren't in the exact same camp of angry as you are, or people who decide they don't want to hate-read something, aren't going to be drawn to your writing because you tack that on. It's unreasonably stubborn to refuse to see this, how others are viewing you based on the way you portray your own work.

oh yeah, and if you put that shit in the actual ship archive you're making fun of, have a big ol' massive Fuck You.

I'm well aware that there's accepted problematic behavior within the fanfiction community, but the best way to combat that is with informative PSAs that help people understand why something is a problem and how they can grow as writers and avoid these problems, on platforms OTHER than fanfiction archives so archives and tags go un-spammed. There are ways to actually make a difference outside of bullying others behind a "joking" persona, if you cared, you'd be taking those actions.

TL;DR: It's okay to not like things, don't be a dick about the things you don't like.

[biometricbits]

Notes On "Camp"

by Susan Sontag

Published in 1964.

Many things in the world have not been named; and many things, even if they have been named, have never been described. One of these is the sensibility -- unmistakably modern, a variant of sophistication but hardly identical with it -- that goes by the cult name of "Camp."

A sensibility (as distinct from an idea) is one of the hardest things to talk about; but there are special reasons why Camp, in particular, has never been discussed. It is not a natural mode of sensibility, if there be any such. Indeed the essence of Camp is its love of the unnatural: of artifice and exaggeration. And Camp is esoteric -- something of a private code, a badge of identity even, among small urban cliques. Apart from a lazy two-page sketch in Christopher Isherwood's novel

The World in the Evening

(1954), it has hardly broken into print. To talk about Camp is therefore to betray it. If the betrayal can be defended, it will be for the edification it provides, or the dignity of the conflict it resolves. For myself, I plead the goal of self-edification, and the goad of a sharp conflict in my own sensibility. I am strongly drawn to Camp, and almost as strongly offended by it. That is why I want to talk about it, and why I can. For no one who wholeheartedly shares in a given sensibility can analyze it; he can only, whatever his intention, exhibit it. To name a sensibility, to draw its contours and to recount its history, requires a deep sympathy modified by revulsion.

Though I am speaking about sensibility only -- and about a sensibility that, among other things, converts the serious into the frivolous -- these are grave matters. Most people think of sensibility or taste as the realm of purely subjective preferences, those mysterious attractions, mainly sensual, that have not been brought under the sovereignty of reason. They

allow

that considerations of taste play a part in their reactions to people and to works of art. But this attitude is naïve. And even worse. To patronize the faculty of taste is to patronize oneself. For taste governs every free -- as opposed to rote -- human response. Nothing is more decisive. There is taste in people, visual taste, taste in emotion - and there is taste in acts, taste in morality. Intelligence, as well, is really a kind of taste: taste in ideas. (One of the facts to be reckoned with is that taste tends to develop very unevenly. It's rare that the same person has good visual taste and good taste in people

and

taste in ideas.)

Taste has no system and no proofs. But there is something like a logic of taste: the consistent sensibility which underlies and gives rise to a certain taste. A sensibility is almost, but not quite, ineffable. Any sensibility which can be crammed into the mold of a system, or handled with the rough tools of proof, is no longer a sensibility at all. It has hardened into an idea . . .

To snare a sensibility in words, especially one that is alive and powerful,

1

one must be tentative and nimble. The form of jottings, rather than an essay (with its claim to a linear, consecutive argument), seemed more appropriate for getting down something of this particular fugitive sensibility. It's embarrassing to be solemn and treatise-like about Camp. One runs the risk of having, oneself, produced a very inferior piece of Camp.

These notes are for Oscar Wilde.

"One should either be a work of art, or wear a work of art."

-

Phrases & Philosophies for the Use of the Young

1. To start very generally: Camp is a certain mode of aestheticism. It is one way of seeing the world as an aesthetic phenomenon. That way, the way of Camp, is not in terms of beauty, but in terms of the degree of artifice, of stylization.

2. To emphasize style is to slight content, or to introduce an attitude which is neutral with respect to content. It goes without saying that the Camp sensibility is disengaged, depoliticized -- or at least apolitical.

3. Not only is there a Camp vision, a Camp way of looking at things. Camp is as well a quality discoverable in objects and the behavior of persons. There are "campy" movies, clothes, furniture, popular songs, novels, people, buildings. . . . This distinction is important. True, the Camp eye has the power to transform experience. But not everything can be seen as Camp. It's not

all

in the eye of the beholder.

4. Random examples of items which are part of the canon of Camp:

   Zuleika Dobson

   Tiffany lamps

   Scopitone films

   The Brown Derby restaurant on Sunset Boulevard in LA

The Enquirer

, headlines and stories

   Aubrey Beardsley drawings

Swan Lake

   Bellini's operas

   Visconti's direction of

Salome

and

'Tis Pity She's a Whore

   certain turn-of-the-century picture postcards

   Schoedsack's

King Kong

   the Cuban pop singer La Lupe

   Lynn Ward's novel in woodcuts,

God's Man

   the old Flash Gordon comics

   women's clothes of the twenties (feather boas, fringed and beaded dresses, etc.)

   the novels of Ronald Firbank and Ivy Compton-Burnett

   stag movies seen without lust

5. Camp taste has an affinity for certain arts rather than others. Clothes, furniture, all the elements of visual décor, for instance, make up a large part of Camp. For Camp art is often decorative art, emphasizing texture, sensuous surface, and style at the expense of content. Concert music, though, because it is contentless, is rarely Camp. It offers no opportunity, say, for a contrast between silly or extravagant content and rich form. . . . Sometimes whole art forms become saturated with Camp. Classical ballet, opera, movies have seemed so for a long time. In the last two years, popular music (post rock-'n'-roll, what the French call yé yé) has been annexed. And movie criticism (like lists of "The 10 Best Bad Movies I Have Seen") is probably the greatest popularizer of Camp taste today, because most people still go to the movies in a high-spirited and unpretentious way.

6. There is a sense in which it is correct to say: "It's too good to be Camp." Or "too important," not marginal enough. (More on this later.) Thus, the personality and many of the works of Jean Cocteau are Camp, but not those of André Gide; the operas of Richard Strauss, but not those of Wagner; concoctions of Tin Pan Alley and Liverpool, but not jazz. Many examples of Camp are things which, from a "serious" point of view, are either bad art or kitsch. Not all, though. Not only is Camp not necessarily bad art, but some art which can be approached as Camp (example: the major films of Louis Feuillade) merits the most serious admiration and study.

"The more we study Art, the less we care for Nature."

-

The Decay of Lying

7. All Camp objects, and persons, contain a large element of artifice. Nothing in nature can be campy . . . Rural Camp is still man-made, and most campy objects are urban. (Yet, they often have a serenity -- or a naiveté -- which is the equivalent of pastoral. A great deal of Camp suggests Empson's phrase, "urban pastoral.")

8. Camp is a vision of the world in terms of style -- but a particular kind of style. It is the love of the exaggerated, the "off," of things-being-what-they-are-not. The best example is in Art Nouveau, the most typical and fully developed Camp style. Art Nouveau objects, typically, convert one thing into something else: the lighting fixtures in the form of flowering plants, the living room which is really a grotto. A remarkable example: the Paris Métro entrances designed by Hector Guimard in the late 1890s in the shape of cast-iron orchid stalks.

9. As a taste in persons, Camp responds particularly to the markedly attenuated and to the strongly exaggerated. The androgyne is certainly one of the great images of Camp sensibility. Examples: the swooning, slim, sinuous figures of pre-Raphaelite painting and poetry; the thin, flowing, sexless bodies in Art Nouveau prints and posters, presented in relief on lamps and ashtrays; the haunting androgynous vacancy behind the perfect beauty of Greta Garbo. Here, Camp taste draws on a mostly unacknowledged truth of taste: the most refined form of sexual attractiveness (as well as the most refined form of sexual pleasure) consists in going against the grain of one's sex. What is most beautiful in virile men is something feminine; what is most beautiful in feminine women is something masculine. . . . Allied to the Camp taste for the androgynous is something that seems quite different but isn't: a relish for the exaggeration of sexual characteristics and personality mannerisms. For obvious reasons, the best examples that can be cited are movie stars. The corny flamboyant female-ness of Jayne Mansfield, Gina Lollobrigida, Jane Russell, Virginia Mayo; the exaggerated he-man-ness of Steve Reeves, Victor Mature. The great stylists of temperament and mannerism, like Bette Davis, Barbara Stanwyck, Tallulah Bankhead, Edwige Feuillière.

10. Camp sees everything in quotation marks. It's not a lamp, but a "lamp"; not a woman, but a "woman." To perceive Camp in objects and persons is to understand Being-as-Playing-a-Role. It is the farthest extension, in sensibility, of the metaphor of life as theater.

11. Camp is the triumph of the epicene style. (The convertibility of "man" and "woman," "person" and "thing.") But all style, that is, artifice, is, ultimately, epicene. Life is not stylish. Neither is nature.

12. The question isn't, "Why travesty, impersonation, theatricality?" The question is, rather, "When does travesty, impersonation, theatricality acquire the special flavor of Camp?" Why is the atmosphere of Shakespeare's comedies (

As You Like It

, etc.) not epicene, while that of

Der Rosenkavalier

is?

13. The dividing line seems to fall in the 18th century; there the origins of Camp taste are to be found (Gothic novels, Chinoiserie, caricature, artificial ruins, and so forth.) But the relation to nature was quite different then. In the 18th century, people of taste either patronized nature (Strawberry Hill) or attempted to remake it into something artificial (Versailles). They also indefatigably patronized the past. Today's Camp taste effaces nature, or else contradicts it outright. And the relation of Camp taste to the past is extremely sentimental.

14. A pocket history of Camp might, of course, begin farther back -- with the mannerist artists like Pontormo, Rosso, and Caravaggio, or the extraordinarily theatrical painting of Georges de La Tour, or Euphuism (Lyly, etc.) in literature. Still, the soundest starting point seems to be the late 17th and early 18th century, because of that period's extraordinary feeling for artifice, for surface, for symmetry; its taste for the picturesque and the thrilling, its elegant conventions for representing instant feeling and the total presence of character -- the epigram and the rhymed couplet (in words), the flourish (in gesture and in music). The late 17th and early 18th century is the great period of Camp: Pope, Congreve, Walpole, etc, but not Swift;

les précieux

in France; the rococo churches of Munich; Pergolesi. Somewhat later: much of Mozart. But in the 19th century, what had been distributed throughout all of high culture now becomes a special taste; it takes on overtones of the acute, the esoteric, the perverse. Confining the story to England alone, we see Camp continuing wanly through 19th century aestheticism (Bume-Jones, Pater, Ruskin, Tennyson), emerging full-blown with the Art Nouveau movement in the visual and decorative arts, and finding its conscious ideologists in such "wits" as Wilde and Firbank.

15. Of course, to say all these things are Camp is not to argue they are simply that. A full analysis of Art Nouveau, for instance, would scarcely equate it with Camp. But such an analysis cannot ignore what in Art Nouveau allows it to be experienced as Camp. Art Nouveau is full of "content," even of a political-moral sort; it was a revolutionary movement in the arts, spurred on by a Utopian vision (somewhere between William Morris and the Bauhaus group) of an organic politics and taste. Yet there is also a feature of the Art Nouveau objects which suggests a disengaged, unserious, "aesthete's" vision. This tells us something important about Art Nouveau -- and about what the lens of Camp, which blocks out content, is.

16. Thus, the Camp sensibility is one that is alive to a double sense in which some things can be taken. But this is not the familiar split-level construction of a literal meaning, on the one hand, and a symbolic meaning, on the other. It is the difference, rather, between the thing as meaning something, anything, and the thing as pure artifice.

17. This comes out clearly in the vulgar use of the word Camp as a verb, "to camp," something that people do. To camp is a mode of seduction -- one which employs flamboyant mannerisms susceptible of a double interpretation; gestures full of duplicity, with a witty meaning for cognoscenti and another, more impersonal, for outsiders. Equally and by extension, when the word becomes a noun, when a person or a thing is "a camp," a duplicity is involved. Behind the "straight" public sense in which something can be taken, one has found a private zany experience of the thing.

"To be natural is such a very difficult pose to keep up."

-

An Ideal Husband

18. One must distinguish between naïve and deliberate Camp. Pure Camp is always naive. Camp which knows itself to be Camp ("camping") is usually less satisfying.

19. The pure examples of Camp are unintentional; they are dead serious. The Art Nouveau craftsman who makes a lamp with a snake coiled around it is not kidding, nor is he trying to be charming. He is saying, in all earnestness: Voilà! the Orient! Genuine Camp -- for instance, the numbers devised for the Warner Brothers musicals of the early thirties (

42nd Street

;

The Golddiggers of 1933

; ...

of 1935

; ...

of 1937

; etc.) by Busby Berkeley -- does not mean to be funny. Camping -- say, the plays of Noel Coward -- does. It seems unlikely that much of the traditional opera repertoire could be such satisfying Camp if the melodramatic absurdities of most opera plots had not been taken seriously by their composers. One doesn't need to know the artist's private intentions. The work tells all. (Compare a typical 19th century opera with Samuel Barber's

Vanessa

, a piece of manufactured, calculated Camp, and the difference is clear.)

20. Probably, intending to be campy is always harmful. The perfection of

Trouble in Paradise

and

The Maltese Falcon

, among the greatest Camp movies ever made, comes from the effortless smooth way in which tone is maintained. This is not so with such famous would-be Camp films of the fifties as

All About Eve

and

Beat the Devil

. These more recent movies have their fine moments, but the first is so slick and the second so hysterical; they want so badly to be campy that they're continually losing the beat. . . . Perhaps, though, it is not so much a question of the unintended effect versus the conscious intention, as of the delicate relation between parody and self-parody in Camp. The films of Hitchcock are a showcase for this problem. When self-parody lacks ebullience but instead reveals (even sporadically) a contempt for one's themes and one's materials - as in

To Catch a Thief

,

Rear Window

,

North by Northwest

-- the results are forced and heavy-handed, rarely Camp. Successful Camp -- a movie like Carné's Drôle de Drame; the film performances of Mae West and Edward Everett Horton; portions of the Goon Show -- even when it reveals self-parody, reeks of self-love.

21. So, again, Camp rests on innocence. That means Camp discloses innocence, but also, when it can, corrupts it. Objects, being objects, don't change when they are singled out by the Camp vision. Persons, however, respond to their audiences. Persons begin "camping": Mae West, Bea Lillie, La Lupe, Tallulah Bankhead in Lifeboat, Bette Davis in All About Eve. (Persons can even be induced to camp without their knowing it. Consider the way Fellini got Anita Ekberg to parody herself in

La Dolce Vita.

)

22. Considered a little less strictly, Camp is either completely naive or else wholly conscious (when one plays at being campy). An example of the latter: Wilde's epigrams themselves.

"It's absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious."

-

Lady Windemere's Fan

23. In naïve, or pure, Camp, the essential element is seriousness, a seriousness that fails. Of course, not all seriousness that fails can be redeemed as Camp. Only that which has the proper mixture of the exaggerated, the fantastic, the passionate, and the naïve.

24. When something is just bad (rather than Camp), it's often because it is too mediocre in its ambition. The artist hasn't attempted to do anything really outlandish. ("It's too much," "It's too fantastic," "It's not to be believed," are standard phrases of Camp enthusiasm.)

25. The hallmark of Camp is the spirit of extravagance. Camp is a woman walking around in a dress made of three million feathers. Camp is the paintings of Carlo Crivelli, with their real jewels and

trompe-l'oeil

insects and cracks in the masonry. Camp is the outrageous aestheticism of Steinberg's six American movies with Dietrich, all six, but especially the last,

The Devil Is a Woman

. . . . In Camp there is often something démesuré in the quality of the ambition, not only in the style of the work itself. Gaudí's lurid and beautiful buildings in Barcelona are Camp not only because of their style but because they reveal -- most notably in the Cathedral of the Sagrada Familia -- the ambition on the part of one man to do what it takes a generation, a whole culture to accomplish.

26. Camp is art that proposes itself seriously, but cannot be taken altogether seriously because it is "too much."

Titus Andronicus

and

Strange Interlude

are almost Camp, or could be played as Camp. The public manner and rhetoric of de Gaulle, often, are pure Camp.

27. A work can come close to Camp, but not make it, because it succeeds. Eisenstein's films are seldom Camp because, despite all exaggeration, they do succeed (dramatically) without surplus. If they were a little more "off," they could be great Camp - particularly

Ivan the Terrible I

&

II

. The same for Blake's drawings and paintings, weird and mannered as they are. They aren't Camp; though Art Nouveau, influenced by Blake, is.

What is extravagant in an inconsistent or an unpassionate way is not Camp. Neither can anything be Camp that does not seem to spring from an irrepressible, a virtually uncontrolled sensibility. Without passion, one gets pseudo-Camp -- what is merely decorative, safe, in a word, chic. On the barren edge of Camp lie a number of attractive things: the sleek fantasies of Dali, the haute couture preciosity of Albicocco's

The Girl with the Golden Eyes

. But the two things - Camp and preciosity - must not be confused.

28. Again, Camp is the attempt to do something extraordinary. But extraordinary in the sense, often, of being special, glamorous. (The curved line, the extravagant gesture.) Not extraordinary merely in the sense of effort. Ripley's Believe-It-Or-Not items are rarely campy. These items, either natural oddities (the two-headed rooster, the eggplant in the shape of a cross) or else the products of immense labor (the man who walked from here to China on his hands, the woman who engraved the New Testament on the head of a pin), lack the visual reward - the glamour, the theatricality - that marks off certain extravagances as Camp.

29. The reason a movie like

On the Beach

, books like

Winesburg

,

Ohio

and

For Whom the Bell Tolls

are bad to the point of being laughable, but not bad to the point of being enjoyable, is that they are too dogged and pretentious. They lack fantasy. There is Camp in such bad movies as

The Prodigal

and

Samson and Delilah

, the series of Italian color spectacles featuring the super-hero Maciste, numerous Japanese science fiction films (

Rodan

,

The Mysterians

,

The H-Man

) because, in their relative unpretentiousness and vulgarity, they are more extreme and irresponsible in their fantasy - and therefore touching and quite enjoyable.

30. Of course, the canon of Camp can change. Time has a great deal to do with it. Time may enhance what seems simply dogged or lacking in fantasy now because we are too close to it, because it resembles too closely our own everyday fantasies, the fantastic nature of which we don't perceive. We are better able to enjoy a fantasy as fantasy when it is not our own.

31. This is why so many of the objects prized by Camp taste are old-fashioned, out-of-date, démodé. It's not a love of the old as such. It's simply that the process of aging or deterioration provides the necessary detachment -- or arouses a necessary sympathy. When the theme is important, and contemporary, the failure of a work of art may make us indignant. Time can change that. Time liberates the work of art from moral relevance, delivering it over to the Camp sensibility. . . . Another effect: time contracts the sphere of banality. (Banality is, strictly speaking, always a category of the contemporary.) What was banal can, with the passage of time, become fantastic. Many people who listen with delight to the style of Rudy Vallee revived by the English pop group, The Temperance Seven, would have been driven up the wall by Rudy Vallee in his heyday.

Thus, things are campy, not when they become old - but when we become less involved in them, and can enjoy, instead of be frustrated by, the failure of the attempt. But the effect of time is unpredictable. Maybe Method acting (James Dean, Rod Steiger, Warren Beatty) will seem as Camp some day as Ruby Keeler's does now - or as Sarah Bernhardt's does, in the films she made at the end of her career. And maybe not.

32. Camp is the glorification of "character." The statement is of no importance - except, of course, to the person (Loie Fuller, Gaudí, Cecil B. De Mille, Crivelli, de Gaulle, etc.) who makes it. What the Camp eye appreciates is the unity, the force of the person. In every move the aging Martha Graham makes she's being Martha Graham, etc., etc. . . . This is clear in the case of the great serious idol of Camp taste, Greta Garbo. Garbo's incompetence (at the least, lack of depth) as an

actress

enhances her beauty. She's always herself.

33. What Camp taste responds to is "instant character" (this is, of course, very 18th century); and, conversely, what it is not stirred by is the sense of the development of character. Character is understood as a state of continual incandescence - a person being one, very intense thing. This attitude toward character is a key element of the theatricalization of experience embodied in the Camp sensibility. And it helps account for the fact that opera and ballet are experienced as such rich treasures of Camp, for neither of these forms can easily do justice to the complexity of human nature. Wherever there is development of character, Camp is reduced. Among operas, for example,

La Traviata

(which has some small development of character) is less campy than

Il Trovatore

(which has none).

"Life is too important a thing ever to talk seriously about it."

-

Vera, or The Nihilists

34. Camp taste turns its back on the good-bad axis of ordinary aesthetic judgment. Camp doesn't reverse things. It doesn't argue that the good is bad, or the bad is good. What it does is to offer for art (and life) a different -- a supplementary -- set of standards.

35. Ordinarily we value a work of art because of the seriousness and dignity of what it achieves. We value it because it succeeds - in being what it is and, presumably, in fulfilling the intention that lies behind it. We assume a proper, that is to say, straightforward relation between intention and performance. By such standards, we appraise

The Iliad

, Aristophanes' plays, The Art of the Fugue,

Middlemarch

, the paintings of Rembrandt, Chartres, the poetry of Donne,

The Divine Comedy

, Beethoven's quartets, and - among people - Socrates, Jesus, St. Francis, Napoleon, Savonarola. In short, the pantheon of high culture: truth, beauty, and seriousness.

36. But there are other creative sensibilities besides the seriousness (both tragic and comic) of high culture and of the high style of evaluating people. And one cheats oneself, as a human being, if one has

respect

only for the style of high culture, whatever else one may do or feel on the sly.

For instance, there is the kind of seriousness whose trademark is anguish, cruelty, derangement. Here we do accept a disparity between intention and result. I am speaking, obviously, of a style of personal existence as well as of a style in art; but the examples had best come from art. Think of Bosch, Sade, Rimbaud, Jarry, Kafka, Artaud, think of most of the important works of art of the 20th century, that is, art whose goal is not that of creating harmonies but of overstraining the medium and introducing more and more violent, and unresolvable, subject-matter. This sensibility also insists on the principle that an oeuvre in the old sense (again, in art, but also in life) is not possible. Only "fragments" are possible. . . . Clearly, different standards apply here than to traditional high culture. Something is good not because it is achieved, but because another kind of truth about the human situation, another experience of what it is to be human - in short, another valid sensibility -- is being revealed.

And third among the great creative sensibilities is Camp: the sensibility of failed seriousness, of the theatricalization of experience. Camp refuses both the harmonies of traditional seriousness, and the risks of fully identifying with extreme states of feeling.

37. The first sensibility, that of high culture, is basically moralistic. The second sensibility, that of extreme states of feeling, represented in much contemporary "avant-garde" art, gains power by a tension between moral and aesthetic passion. The third, Camp, is wholly aesthetic.

38. Camp is the consistently aesthetic experience of the world. It incarnates a victory of "style" over "content," "aesthetics" over "morality," of irony over tragedy.

39. Camp and tragedy are antitheses. There is seriousness in Camp (seriousness in the degree of the artist's involvement) and, often, pathos. The excruciating is also one of the tonalities of Camp; it is the quality of excruciation in much of Henry James (for instance,

The Europeans

,

The Awkward Age

,

The Wings of the Dove

) that is responsible for the large element of Camp in his writings. But there is never, never tragedy.

40. Style is everything. Genet's ideas, for instance, are very Camp. Genet's statement that "the only criterion of an act is its elegance"

2

is virtually interchangeable, as a statement, with Wilde's "in matters of great importance, the vital element is not sincerity, but style." But what counts, finally, is the style in which ideas are held. The ideas about morality and politics in, say,

Lady Windemere's Fan

and in

Major Barbara

are Camp, but not just because of the nature of the ideas themselves. It is those ideas, held in a special playful way. The Camp ideas in

Our Lady of the Flowers

are maintained too grimly, and the writing itself is too successfully elevated and serious, for Genet's books to be Camp.

41. The whole point of Camp is to dethrone the serious. Camp is playful, anti-serious. More precisely, Camp involves a new, more complex relation to "the serious." One can be serious about the frivolous, frivolous about the serious.

42. One is drawn to Camp when one realizes that "sincerity" is not enough. Sincerity can be simple philistinism, intellectual narrowness.

43. The traditional means for going beyond straight seriousness - irony, satire - seem feeble today, inadequate to the culturally oversaturated medium in which contemporary sensibility is schooled. Camp introduces a new standard: artifice as an ideal, theatricality.

44. Camp proposes a comic vision of the world. But not a bitter or polemical comedy. If tragedy is an experience of hyperinvolvement, comedy is an experience of underinvolvement, of detachment.

"I adore simple pleasures, they are the last refuge of the complex."

-

A Woman of No Importance

45. Detachment is the prerogative of an elite; and as the dandy is the 19th century's surrogate for the aristocrat in matters of culture, so Camp is the modern dandyism. Camp is the answer to the problem: how to be a dandy in the age of mass culture.

46. The dandy was overbred. His posture was disdain, or else ennui. He sought rare sensations, undefiled by mass appreciation. (Models: Des Esseintes in Huysmans'

À Rebours

,

Marius the Epicurean

, Valéry's

Monsieur Teste

.) He was dedicated to "good taste."

The connoisseur of Camp has found more ingenious pleasures. Not in Latin poetry and rare wines and velvet jackets, but in the coarsest, commonest pleasures, in the arts of the masses. Mere use does not defile the objects of his pleasure, since he learns to possess them in a rare way. Camp -- Dandyism in the age of mass culture -- makes no distinction between the unique object and the mass-produced object. Camp taste transcends the nausea of the replica.

47. Wilde himself is a transitional figure. The man who, when he first came to London, sported a velvet beret, lace shirts, velveteen knee-breeches and black silk stockings, could never depart too far in his life from the pleasures of the old-style dandy; this conservatism is reflected in

The Picture of Dorian Gray

. But many of his attitudes suggest something more modern. It was Wilde who formulated an important element of the Camp sensibility -- the equivalence of all objects -- when he announced his intention of "living up" to his blue-and-white china, or declared that a doorknob could be as admirable as a painting. When he proclaimed the importance of the necktie, the boutonniere, the chair, Wilde was anticipating the democratic

esprit

of Camp.

48. The old-style dandy hated vulgarity. The new-style dandy, the lover of Camp, appreciates vulgarity. Where the dandy would be continually offended or bored, the connoisseur of Camp is continually amused, delighted. The dandy held a perfumed handkerchief to his nostrils and was liable to swoon; the connoisseur of Camp sniffs the stink and prides himself on his strong nerves.

49. It is a feat, of course. A feat goaded on, in the last analysis, by the threat of boredom. The relation between boredom and Camp taste cannot be overestimated. Camp taste is by its nature possible only in affluent societies, in societies or circles capable of experiencing the psychopathology of affluence.

"What is abnormal in Life stands in normal relations to Art. It is the only thing in Life that stands in normal relations to Art."

-

A Few Maxims for the Instruction of the Over-Educated

50. Aristocracy is a position vis-à-vis culture (as well as vis-à-vis power), and the history of Camp taste is part of the history of snob taste. But since no authentic aristocrats in the old sense exist today to sponsor special tastes, who is the bearer of this taste? Answer: an improvised self-elected class, mainly homosexuals, who constitute themselves as aristocrats of taste.

51. The peculiar relation between Camp taste and homosexuality has to be explained. While it's not true that Camp taste

is

homosexual taste, there is no doubt a peculiar affinity and overlap. Not all liberals are Jews, but Jews have shown a peculiar affinity for liberal and reformist causes. So, not all homosexuals have Camp taste. But homosexuals, by and large, constitute the vanguard -- and the most articulate audience -- of Camp. (The analogy is not frivolously chosen. Jews and homosexuals are the outstanding creative minorities in contemporary urban culture. Creative, that is, in the truest sense: they are creators of sensibilities. The two pioneering forces of modern sensibility are Jewish moral seriousness and homosexual aestheticism and irony.)

52. The reason for the flourishing of the aristocratic posture among homosexuals also seems to parallel the Jewish case. For every sensibility is self-serving to the group that promotes it. Jewish liberalism is a gesture of self-legitimization. So is Camp taste, which definitely has something propagandistic about it. Needless to say, the propaganda operates in exactly the opposite direction. The Jews pinned their hopes for integrating into modern society on promoting the moral sense. Homosexuals have pinned their integration into society on promoting the aesthetic sense. Camp is a solvent of morality. It neutralizes moral indignation, sponsors playfulness.

53. Nevertheless, even though homosexuals have been its vanguard, Camp taste is much more than homosexual taste. Obviously, its metaphor of life as theater is peculiarly suited as a justification and projection of a certain aspect of the situation of homosexuals. (The Camp insistence on not being "serious," on playing, also connects with the homosexual's desire to remain youthful.) Yet one feels that if homosexuals hadn't more or less invented Camp, someone else would. For the aristocratic posture with relation to culture cannot die, though it may persist only in increasingly arbitrary and ingenious ways. Camp is (to repeat) the relation to style in a time in which the adoption of style -- as such -- has become altogether questionable. (In the modem era, each new style, unless frankly anachronistic, has come on the scene as an anti-style.)

"One must have a heart of stone to read the death of Little Nell without laughing."

-

In conversation

54. The experiences of Camp are based on the great discovery that the sensibility of high culture has no monopoly upon refinement. Camp asserts that good taste is not simply good taste; that there exists, indeed, a good taste of bad taste. (Genet talks about this in

Our Lady of the Flowers

.) The discovery of the good taste of bad taste can be very liberating. The man who insists on high and serious pleasures is depriving himself of pleasure; he continually restricts what he can enjoy; in the constant exercise of his good taste he will eventually price himself out of the market, so to speak. Here Camp taste supervenes upon good taste as a daring and witty hedonism. It makes the man of good taste cheerful, where before he ran the risk of being chronically frustrated. It is good for the digestion.

55. Camp taste is, above all, a mode of enjoyment, of appreciation - not judgment. Camp is generous. It wants to enjoy. It only seems like malice, cynicism. (Or, if it is cynicism, it's not a ruthless but a sweet cynicism.) Camp taste doesn't propose that it is in bad taste to be serious; it doesn't sneer at someone who succeeds in being seriously dramatic. What it does is to find the success in certain passionate failures.

56. Camp taste is a kind of love, love for human nature. It relishes, rather than judges, the little triumphs and awkward intensities of "character." . . . Camp taste identifies with what it is enjoying. People who share this sensibility are not laughing at the thing they label as "a camp," they're enjoying it. Camp is a

tender

feeling.

(Here, one may compare Camp with much of Pop Art, which -- when it is not just Camp -- embodies an attitude that is related, but still very different. Pop Art is more flat and more dry, more serious, more detached, ultimately nihilistic.)

57. Camp taste nourishes itself on the love that has gone into certain objects and personal styles. The absence of this love is the reason why such kitsch items as

Peyton Place

(the book) and the Tishman Building aren't Camp.

58. The ultimate Camp statement: it's good

because

it's awful . . . Of course, one can't always say that. Only under certain conditions, those which I've tried to sketch in these notes.

1

The sensibility of an era is not only its most decisive, but also its most perishable, aspect. One may capture the ideas (intellectual history) and the behavior (social history) of an epoch without ever touching upon the sensibility or taste which informed those ideas, that behavior. Rare are those historical studies -- like Huizinga on the late Middle Ages, Febvre on 16th century France -- which do tell us something about the sensibility of the period.

2

Sartre's gloss on this in

Saint Genet

is: "Elegance is the quality of conduct which transforms the greatest amount of being into appearing."

[jesssosnoski]

"RANDOM THOUGHTS"

The media: spreading the mentality of a TODDLER since 1992

"pop" pushing the eleven-year-old "mentality"

I guess the libtards will argue that emotions and opinions are valid argument

Whom we're supposed to be watching BECAUSE of the 9/11 attacks, not useleven-

I can't see how these kids can avoid 18-20 years of education and are still capable of breathing

So are we all supposed to return to horse and buggy or bicycles for our one-hour commute?)

Yeah, some of these rich people that think WE owe THEM something...

I/We don't depend on them to exist, so SCREW 'EM!

Anyone who RESENTS the opposite sex can go FUCK THEMSELVES

"trans" will not outnumber females (not that they' ll get fucked either way)

And "suddenly" a whole group of {x} appears (all at once (i. E. Trans, leftists, extremists, the "sensitive", etc..)) "all in one place" (without any sign of them at all yesterday...) *RED FLAG* (yeah, we all believe (in the validity of) that shit, right? (sarcasm, and probably $25/hr on craigslist)

Fast, noisy, and overexpressed

"struggle" does not justify behavior

Emotional "reasoning" and enabling the dysfunctional

Maybe they can praise the illiterate...

Gender is biological

Personal transportation over "public"

Anyone whom is entertained by repetition clearly has brain damage or a severe illegal drug problem

Maybe they can have something (artificial) called "popular" opinion

Children are neither our slaves nor our masters

Remember: there's no other information other than what the libs give (sarcasm)

Who gives a fuck about the "super moon"... Yeah, I'll just stop everything I' m doing, run outside and gaze up at it in fucking awe

And... The "news" acting like no one is on Trump's side... Showing only protestors

SPECIAL TREATMENT AND FAVORATISM

"popularity" over TALENT/QUALITY

Maybe they can combine "pop" with the next word to come up with a new word with "special meaning".. I. E. "poprocks" (xm station) (SUXX).. As if "pop" conveys special meaning...

Maybe someone could "invent" some "music" with unrelated incomplete random guitar sounds, incoherent beats, and some whiny chick overaccentuating all her ms and ns to think she sounds sexy (and all other consonants too). It should also have a "rap guy" or a weak freak "rap guy" singing through an autotuner {sarcasm)

Hollywood is not a reflection of reality

Maybe they can put a whole lot of attention on lib "stars" and act like reproduction is repugnant...

Quantity over quality

Maybe the next thing the assholes & commies will say is ignorance is experience, wisdom, or intelligence

And then... They turned "medicine" into a get-rich-quick scheme

Awwwww... The "media" thinks it's America's opinion...

As soon as stuff starts turning away from their favor, they ("magically" /try to) generate a scandal/"event"

Maybe they can pretend it's "popular" to hate Trump (sarcasm)

"trans" is cognitive dissonance

Fb (and some other "groups") assume a foreigner-led or saturated leftist America-THEY ARE WRONG

REVERSE-DISCRIMINATION

Gun violence?

I've never seen a violent gun

But I have seen plenty of violent PEOPLE

REMEMBER: THEY CAN'T MENTION YOU IF YOU ARE GAY, BLACK, DEMOCRAT, FOREIGN/ILLEGAL, MUSLIM, OR "ELITE"

There are not more leftists than us

My, they don't like their "narrative" contradicted...

Remember when music used to sound like ADULTS were singing it?

Remember when artists didn't look and act like underdeveloped 12-year-olds?

Today's "music" (especially any "pop") is brainless contentless juvenile inexpressive narcisstic superficial shallow uneducated skillless (occasionaly infintile) repetitious bullshit

THEY WANT YOU MEDICATED, BROKE, SEDENTARY AND NOT SCREWING

No shrinking coastlines, no temperature increases, and growing ice caps-"global warming" (a part-Chinese invention) is a HOAX

THERE IS NO "CLIMATE CRISIS"

"GLOBAL WARMING" IS A FRAUD AND *PROOFLESS*

[clubofinfo]

Expert: Personally, I don’t think “the left” ultimately represents much of anything coherent, but rather constitutes a historically contingent coalition of ideological positions. Bastiat and other free market folks sat on the left of the french assembly, and while we might try to claim that as part of a consistent leftist market tradition, we should be honest that one’s position in that particular revolution — much less revolution in general — is hardly indicative of very much. There are always revolutionaries who desire systems far worse than our own, and similarly there have been many broadly recognized “leftists” whose desires were utterly anathema to liberation. It’s popular these days to paint the left and right as egalitarian versus hierarchical. But not only is this an imposed read on a far messier historical and sociological reality, but it’s honestly quite philosophically contentless. No one is particularly clear on what egalitarianism means, or even hierarchy, and many interpretations are not only mutually exclusive, they reveal supposedly identical claims as actually deeply antagonistic. Does egalitarianism mean everyone gets precisely the same wealth (however that’s supposed to be measured)? Does it mean mere legal or social equality in the abstract realm of relations before The People or The State’s legal system? Does it mean equal opportunity for economic striving or does it mean equal access to the people’s grain stores? Does equality supersede all other virtues like liberty? Is it better to all be oppressed equally than to have some achieve greater freedom? I’m not being facetious. We paper over these deep issues with “well but common sense” and the wishful assumption that our comrades will come down on the minutia the same way we would, sharing our intuitions on various tradeoffs, but that’s empirically not the case. We constantly differ. People talk about “collective direct democracy” as if something being the near unanimous will of some social body constitutes an egalitarian condition. And, sure, it does under some definitions. But the moment I see some collective body trying to vote on my life I don’t want to “participate” I want to chuck a bomb at it. Leftists use both the slogans “power to the people” and “abolish power” — this should be an intense red flag to everyone that completely different conceptual systems and values are at play. It’s delusional in the extreme to suppose that if we sat down and talked about things we’d all end up on the same page. The assumption of pan-leftist solidarity or a shared common goal is a comforting lie. The left isn’t defined by some set of axioms in ethical philosophy that we can all agree on and than argue about derivations of strategy or implementation from. The left is a historical coalition thrown together by happenstance. As with revolution we tend to self-identify as the underdogs and build our coalitions from the classes we recognize as underdogs against the classes we recognize as ruling but this leads to all kinds of contortions. We are for the right to choose because women are the underdogs in patriarchy. But at the same time we’re pro vegan because animals are the (sometimes literal) underdogs in human domination. Wait, do we value all living things? What counts as a discrete living thing? Do we value them equally or is the level of consciousness/sentience important? Is it the level of dependence or strain it places on another person? Suddenly the responses we have in situations with family members versus the overdogs of christianity seemingly start to come into conflict with the responses we have in situations with disabled people (underdogs!). I’m not saying there isn’t a way to thread all these dynamics, to find a core ethical guide and nuanced attentive implementation — I think there is one (although my particular approach of ultimately recognizing a vast spectrum of sentience/consciousness between zygotes/nematodes and anyone remotely close to a conscious human is denounced by a number on the left as “unegalitarian”). I’m pointing out that our responses rarely arise from an ethical analysis but from instinctual responses to any appearance of an underdog. The left is rarely a philosophy, more often a coalition, with theory tacked on to serve the goals of binding that coalition together. One could easily imagine universes with different historical paths where outlawing abortion is a core leftist plank, seen as deeply interrelated with opposing queerphobia, patriarchy, ableism, etc. Or the left could oppose legal sanction, but support and build grassroots social and cultural sanction against abortion. (Again, for the record I’m pro-choice.) Underdogism is a really dangerous approach to the world. It’s a good “rule of thumb” but if you know anything about me it’s that I abhor such heuristics and see them as the opposite of radical analysis. Underdogism is how you get things like zionism, leninism, poc nationalism, TERFs, SWERFs, etc. Its failures are manifold. There’s a good case the left is nothing but underdogism — in which case fascism is almost always leftist. MRAs don’t approach politics like a reactionary on the right side of the French Estates General, consciously seeking to preserve an established ruling structure, they see themselves as the underdogs. Sure, they’re not (in almost everything besides some fringe contexts like some bits of divorce law), but fuck it they’re potential underdogs, and that status is more than enough to reproduce much of the standard structures of underdogism. One might interject that the problem with underdogism of the alt-right is not just their misidentification of underdogs but their hunger for power, and this is certainly broadly true (although a fraction of the alt-right actually seem less in it for power but more in it to drink outgroup/”overdog” tears). But this certainly applies to much of the left in good standing. Certainly many authoritarian leftists have hungrily latched onto underdogism as a potential ladder to power. I’ve met feminist writers who openly admitted to me they’d be patriarchal if they were men, or own slaves if they were antebellum rich whites. Yes, any set of smart persons who recoil at clear instances of oppression are gonna broadly converge on a number of positions or analyses. But the way they reconcile or hold together these things may differ dramatically. Just because the left is a stable coalition in our present context doesn’t mean aspects of it that seem in perfect harmony won’t break in wildly different directions should certain conditions change. I have repeatedly encountered leftists who’ve claim that valuing some things above other things is hierarchical and thus right-wing (leftism being in their minds representing something more like stoicism or buddhism). Similarly you find epistemic pluralism common in the most heads-up-their-ass sectors of left academia who think thinking some models of the world are more true than others is “unegalitarian” or even “totalitarian.” It’s tempting to just laugh about hippies and move on, but these sort of horrifically bad definitions of “egalitarianism” will sometimes come out of the mouths of smart people who generally have their heads on straight the moment they move to a context they’re unused to. Now I hate the NAP, but everyone laughs at the NAP these days for being “unpragmatic” and this has increasingly become tied to a casual indictment of all ethical philosophy itself. A turn that has been encouraged by the twin interrelated scourges of the modern internet far left: tankies and nihilists. This makes sense if — as per social justice — you see the point of the left to create a social framework of etiquette and loose ideology that can bind a coalition of underdog classes together. Thus the increasing refrain of “you can’t compare!” that happens whenever someone tries to tease out commonalities or contradictions between various claims, positions or planks. There is, from this perspective, no common root or unifying ethos to the left and we should not look for one lest the whole project fall apart. Philosophy, ethics, and core values or principles become the enemies, as does both methodological individualism and universalism. There are neither individual experiences nor universal ones, just relatively simplistic classes of people with incomparable experiences. And we bind them together into common cause by badgering, social positioning, poetic affective appeals, and threats of violence. The left isn’t unified by anything. Marxism is half discredited by idiocy and monstrosity and the half that survived became a wildly contradictory mess more preoccupied with obscurantism, irrationality and anti-realism to hide its own failures than getting anything done much less charting a path. Most of the concerns of the left refer to opposing mythologized superstructures that we are left flailing in the absence of or whenever their composition and behavior change. The left is, in short, utterly allergic to radicalism. Fending off its inadequacies with short puffs of extremism instead. As social and ideological complexities compound through the runaway feedback of the information age these internal tensions and the laughably frail taping over we’ve done will only become more clear. There is still hope for a radical anarchism that is willing to root its discussions of freedom and ethics concretely and explicitly. But this will necessarily involve casting off from many allies who we share some limited intuitions or momentary prescriptions with. Or at least dissolving the comforting delusions of a deep camaraderie. The only reason the lie of “the left” has persisted for two centuries is that its grand Manichean narrative of two more or less uniform tribes — one enlightened and one indecipherably morally corrupt — enables a sense of community that provides psychological comfort to many. To many on the left (as well as on the nationalistic etc right) a hunger for “community” is actually their primary motivation. When chatting at the bar it’s better to not look too deep into why you both oppose capitalists lest you discover something that sunders rather than binds. But the format of present internet technologies has had the reverse effect. Inescapable contact with The Enemy has led us to put up hostile discursive walls that naturally end up cutting out our traditional allies too, causing both right and left to fracture in desperate attempts to find purity, trustworthiness, or some kind of deeper binding. The happenstance points of unity that worked when we had little choice in who to befriend are now fracturing in all directions. This is largely a good thing, the last two decades have seen all manner of horrors lurking among our own ranks exposed. But the process that brings to light our lack of commonality with the anti-science leftist deep ecologist who wants to kill all humans is also a process that will ultimately rip “the left” to unsalvageable shreds. This ship is sinking. And just because many of the rats are fleeing doesn’t mean we shouldn’t either. http://clubof.info/

[lu-is-not-ok]

Today on Lu's contentless behavior: Behold, the Limbus Company swear jar doc.

Yes, I reread every bit of text available to be read in Limbus Company just to count all the swear words (or all the words that, if you squint, could technically count as swear words).

Why did I do this?

Because I remembered that no Fuck has been said in LCB as of yet. Enjoy.

[lu-is-not-ok]

Canto IV Predictions

Some of these are based on stuff I’ve put together based on the trailers. Some of them are just me wildly speculating contentless behavior style. Also, they’re in no particular order.

Samjo will be relevant, whether he actually reappears or is implied to be doing something in the background.

One of the inciting events of the chapter will be a reveal of another K Corp emergency Code.

We’ll have an Abnormality fight outside of the final Dungeon (the bull appearing in a CG and in the level select background teased in the trailer suggests it).

K Corp’s Nest will get Absolutely fucking Wrecked.

The chapter will eventually lead to some sort of K Corp laboratory (battle backgrounds in some of the latter sections of the trailer).

The new enemies we see in the trailers, as well as Meursault and Rodion’s new IDs will be neither Thumb nor Leaflet Workshop, but a secret third thing - a different, new workshop. Potentially related to YuRia from Distortion Detective, since Rodya’s new ID has a weapon very similar to YuRia’s?

Meursault’s ID will be 00, as it’s the exact same outfit and weapon as one of the default enemies. Rodya’s ID will be 000, as it’s a much more elaborate outfit. Also, it would fit with Meursault already having two 000s and Rodya already having two 00s.

Mystery Raiden has connections to K Corp (based purely on the small strip of K Corp’s bright green seen on the briefly visible bit of their clothes).

There will be at least one Metal Gear reference after Mystery Raiden shows up.

We’ll get a Season 2 ID based on Mystery Raiden.

[jesssosnoski]

"RANDOM THOUGHTS"

The media: spreading the mentality of a TODDLER since 1992

I guess the libtards will argue that emotions and opinions are valid argument

Whom we're supposed to be watching BECAUSE of the 9/11 attacks, not us

I can't see how these kids can avoid 18-20 years of education and are still capable of breathing

So are we all supposed to return to horse and buggy or bicycles for our one-hour commute?)

Yeah, some of these rich people that think WE owe THEM something...

I/We don't depend on them to exist, so SCREW 'EM!

Anyone who RESENTS the opposite sex can go FUCK THEMSELVES

"trans" will not outnumber females

And "suddenly" a whole group of {x} appears (all at once (i. E. Trans, leftists, extremists, the "sensitive", etc..)) "all in one place" (without any sign of them at all yesterday...) *RED FLAG* (yeah, we all believe (in the validity of) that shit, right? (sarcasm, and probably $25/hr on craigslist)

Fast, noisy, and overexpressed

"struggle" does not justify behavior

Emotional "reasoning" and enabling the dysfunctional

Maybe they can praise the illiterate...

Gender is biological

Anyone whom is entertained by repetition clearly has brain damage or a severe illegal drug problem

Maybe they can have something (artificial) called "popular" opinion

Children are neither our slaves nor our masters

Remember: there's no other information other than what the libs give (sarcasm)

Who gives a fuck about the "super moon"... Yeah, I'll just stop everything I' m doing, run outside and gaze up at it in fucking awe

And... The "news" acting like no one is on Trump's side... Showing only protestors

SPECIAL TREATMENT AND FAVORATISM

"popularity" over TALENT/QUALITY

Maybe they can combine "pop" with the next word to come up with a new word with "special meaning".. I. E. "poprocks" (xm station) (SUXX).. As if "pop" conveys special meaning...

Maybe someone could "invent" some "music" with unrelated incomplete random guitar sounds, incoherent beats, and some whiny chick overaccentuating all her ms and ns to think she sounds sexy (and all other consonants too). It should also have a "rap guy" or a weak freak "rap guy" singing through an autotuner {sarcasm)

Hollywood is not a reflection of reality

Maybe they can put a whole lot of attention on lib "stars" and act like reproduction is repugnant...

Quantity over quality

Maybe the next thing the assholes & commies will say is ignorance is experience, wisdom, or intelligence

And then... They turned "medicine" into a get-rich-quick scheme

Awwwww... The "media" thinks it's America's opinion...

As soon as stuff starts turning away from their favor, they ("magically" /try to) generate a scandal/"event"

Maybe they can pretend it's "popular" to hate Trump (sarcasm)

"trans" is cognitive dissonance

Fb (and some other "groups") assume a foreigner-led or saturated leftist America-THEY ARE WRONG

REVERSE-DISCRIMINATION

Gun violence?

I've never seen a violent gun

But I have seen plenty of violent PEOPLE

REMEMBER: THEY CAN'T MENTION YOU IF YOU ARE GAY, BLACK, DEMOCRAT, FOREIGN/ILLEGAL, MUSLIM, OR "ELITE"

There are not more leftists than us

My, they don't like their "narrative" contradicted...

Remember when music used to sound like ADULTS were singing it?

Remember when artists didn't look and act like underdeveloped 12-year-olds?

Today's "music" (especially any "pop") is brainless contentless juvenile inexpressive narcisstic superficial shallow uneducated skillless (occasionaly infintile) repetitious bullshit

THEY WANT YOU MEDICATED, BROKE, SEDENTARY AND NOT SCREWING

No shrinking coastlines, no temperature increases, and growing ice caps-"global warming" (a part-Chinese invention) is a HOAX

THERE IS NO "CLIMATE CRISIS"

"GLOBAL WARMING" IS A FRAUD AND *PROOFLESS*

Imagine YES possessions, Imagine YES religion, Imagine YES countries

CDs and big speakers are not a dead format, as they are superior in quality and tangible