•  Previous
  • 1
  • ...
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7(current)
Ideology/Politics on The Ray Peat Forum (Charlie's)
#61
(12-31-2016, 09:54 AM)such_saturation Wrote:
(10-30-2016, 04:36 PM)darley Wrote:  Some, like Such_Saturation over on Charlie's site, bemoan the discussion of politics--like my wonderings about Peat's leanings. 

The only thing I bemoan is not "wondering about Peat's leanings", but trying to assign a leaning to his very quest to be free of leanings. You seem to, in the name of "true Peatism", make every effort to segregate Ray Peat with all the people who misunderstand him, by looking for any possible bit in which he appears to oversimplify himself or condense his own thoughts. And then people wonder why he shies away from taking stances...

"The only thing I bemoan is not "wondering about Peat's leanings", but trying to assign a leaning to his very quest to be free of leanings."

Your words here, Such, accurately reflect the kind of Kool-Aid drinking deflection, obfuscation, and fogging over
that is encouraged and even valorized over on Charlie's forum.
Let's say, at the most basic, practical level, one wishes to test drive a faithfully derived Peat diet.
What one will be met with over on Charlie's forum is largely all kinds of silly resistance
flying under the flag of high-flown philosophical and semantic dodging.
The word "diet" will be objected to at every turn, for starters
(even though Peat himself uses the word himself regularly in exactly the straightforward sense the word was designed to be employed.)

I submit that at least half to 75% of that befogging 
is simply an effort to blur and make it impossible for Peat's dietary/nutritional ideas
to be held to very reasonable account and tested empirically.
Simply to try to answer the question : does a Peat diet lead to better health.
#62
(12-31-2016, 06:19 AM)Blinkyrocket Wrote: If somebody likes freedom why would they vote for Hillary? I get that you don't wanna vote for the guy who seems to have that dominant authoritarian mentality of hierarchy and whatnot, but Hillary would've been terrible when it comes to actual individual freedom. Also, all of the governments climate change efforts don't do anything anyway, it's almost of no consequence at all that Trump is a climate change denier.

Democrats and liberals want more government rule, and conservatives/ libertarians want less. Less rule means less authority. Less authority means less need to even care about whether or not gay marriage is legal, because for instance marriage wouldn't have a law at all, it wouldn't be governmentally controlled, same thing for whatever hot topic. Also, as soon as you start talking about racism and sexism, liberals start to say that free speech should be banned because it's potentially hurtful or racist or sexist or whatever.... people are free to be jerks and that's what makes freedom freedom.

The liberals of nowadays r like this anyway, can't speak for liberalism as a philosophy.

If you want to make this perfect paradise where people love each other and are tolerant and kind, who r u gonna put in it? Voluntary association is important, and without it you just go right back to authoritarianism.

I don't even know if this post coincides with anything in this thread, lol. Suffice it to say that Hillary wasn't good for president and modern liberals are stupid, they're sort of like what modern feminists r today.... *shudders at the thought of feminism* (emphasis on modern feminism, the kind where women think that the gender pay gap actually exists when in reality they don't get high paying jobs because they refuse to accept or apply for the necessary jobs that would actually pay well....)

"Suffice it to say that Hillary wasn't good for president and modern liberals are stupid, they're sort of like what modern feminists r today.... *shudders at the thought of feminism*..."

Suffice to say, your post reflects the retarded and self-congratulatory know-nothingism so pervasive over on Charlie's forum--and indeed disseminated and enforced by Charlie and his minions.  Conspiracy theory masquerading as deep thought; Breitbart and Alt-Right style racism and bigotry; dangerous and thought-free frothings-at-the-mouth about the environment; patting-oneself-on-the-back tribalistic anti-liberal rants.  The whole grab-bag of what came to be a pretty obnoxious and pervasive way of "thinking" over there under Charlie's authoritarian leadership (and censorship).
#63
(12-31-2016, 04:36 PM)darley Wrote:
(12-31-2016, 06:19 AM)Blinkyrocket Wrote: If somebody likes freedom why would they vote for Hillary? I get that you don't wanna vote for the guy who seems to have that dominant authoritarian mentality of hierarchy and whatnot, but Hillary would've been terrible when it comes to actual individual freedom. Also, all of the governments climate change efforts don't do anything anyway, it's almost of no consequence at all that Trump is a climate change denier.

Democrats and liberals want more government rule, and conservatives/ libertarians want less. Less rule means less authority. Less authority means less need to even care about whether or not gay marriage is legal, because for instance marriage wouldn't have a law at all, it wouldn't be governmentally controlled, same thing for whatever hot topic. Also, as soon as you start talking about racism and sexism, liberals start to say that free speech should be banned because it's potentially hurtful or racist or sexist or whatever.... people are free to be jerks and that's what makes freedom freedom.

The liberals of nowadays r like this anyway, can't speak for liberalism as a philosophy.

If you want to make this perfect paradise where people love each other and are tolerant and kind, who r u gonna put in it? Voluntary association is important, and without it you just go right back to authoritarianism.

I don't even know if this post coincides with anything in this thread, lol. Suffice it to say that Hillary wasn't good for president and modern liberals are stupid, they're sort of like what modern feminists r today.... *shudders at the thought of feminism* (emphasis on modern feminism, the kind where women think that the gender pay gap actually exists when in reality they don't get high paying jobs because they refuse to accept or apply for the necessary jobs that would actually pay well....)

"Suffice it to say that Hillary wasn't good for president and modern liberals are stupid, they're sort of like what modern feminists r today.... *shudders at the thought of feminism*..."

Suffice to say, your post reflects the retarded and self-congratulatory know-nothingism so pervasive over on Charlie's forum--and indeed disseminated and enforced by Charlie and his minions.  Conspiracy theory masquerading as deep thought, Breitbart and Alt-Right style racism and bigotry, dangerous and thought-free frothings-at-the-mouth about the environment, patting-oneself-on-the-back tribalistic anti-liberal rants.  The whole grab-bag of what came to be a pretty obnoxious and pervasive way of "thinking" over there under Charlie's authoritarian leadership (and censorship).

It's funny for the longest time I actually worried for your health, fearing you might be addled from the meek tone you took in the other forum under the nom de plume of "narouz". 

As darley, it turns out there is a whole other pent-up persona hidden inside, noticeably robust. Has your health improved?  Or was "narouz" just a disguise to avoid being censored and banned in the other forum, under Pope Charlie Mathers the Inquisitor?
My avatar: William Blake, Vision of Strength
[img]http://i.imgur.com/7sD2Hod.jpg[/img]
#64
(12-31-2016, 04:26 PM)darley Wrote:
(12-31-2016, 09:54 AM)such_saturation Wrote:
(10-30-2016, 04:36 PM)darley Wrote:  Some, like Such_Saturation over on Charlie's site, bemoan the discussion of politics--like my wonderings about Peat's leanings. 

The only thing I bemoan is not "wondering about Peat's leanings", but trying to assign a leaning to his very quest to be free of leanings. You seem to, in the name of "true Peatism", make every effort to segregate Ray Peat with all the people who misunderstand him, by looking for any possible bit in which he appears to oversimplify himself or condense his own thoughts. And then people wonder why he shies away from taking stances...

"The only thing I bemoan is not "wondering about Peat's leanings", but trying to assign a leaning to his very quest to be free of leanings."

Your words here, Such, accurately reflect the kind of Kool-Aid drinking deflection, obfuscation, and fogging over
that is encouraged and even valorized over on Charlie's forum.
Let's say, at the most basic, practical level, one wishes to test drive a faithfully derived Peat diet.
What one will be met with over on Charlie's forum is largely all kinds of silly resistance
flying under the flag of high-flown philosophical and semantic dodging.
The word "diet" will be objected to at every turn, for starters
(even though Peat himself uses the word himself regularly in exactly the straightforward sense the word was designed to be employed.)

I submit that at least half to 75% of that befogging 
is simply an effort to blur and make it impossible for Peat's dietary/nutritional ideas
to be held to very reasonable account and tested empirically.
Simply to try to answer the question : does a Peat diet lead to better health.

I may have been the cause of that. I think I started the first Ray Peat protocol, so that readers could test an actual Ray Peat diet. I even went so far as to ask many of the members, including you and Such_Saturation, for ideas and contributions. Which as I recall, you and he generously provided. 

Oddly, I never asked Charlie Mathers for contributions. I always assumed he was a kind of addled or doddering old fellow, who had not expressed an informed opinion about anything, that I had seen. To me, he was just the "admin" who kept the trains running. Or so I thought.

Then I published the compiled results.  When Jennifer took to calling my protocol Ray's Daily Allowances, I jumped on her bandwagon, and called the work-in-progress protocol the "RDA".  The idea seemed to catch on, and there were lots of comments and views on the thread.

But right away, I got complaints from some members, even though I had asked them for contributions, and included all comments I got. Now, in fairness, I had expected that some responses might be critical. After all, there would be no need to ask members for advice, if there was a protocol you could follow for yourself.

But these same members (not you or Such or Jennifer) complained that I should be banned for misconstruing Ray Peat's views. I thought the idea that I could misconstrue Ray's views was ludicrous and ignored it. I mean, anyone can write to Ray and ask his views. Why would someone on a forum need to be the judge, just because the forum had the same name as Ray?

However, it wasn't long after that I was actually banned for heresy by Pope Charlie Mathers, who -- surprise -- revealed himself to be the judge and inquisitor.

I think it's been all downhill from there, once Charlie was outed, and his true intentions were revealed.
My avatar: William Blake, Vision of Strength
[img]http://i.imgur.com/7sD2Hod.jpg[/img]
#65
Downhill is definitely the right word.
[color=#222222][size=medium]"I have no religion, no political affiliation: I believe in me, above everything else." -Chasing Good & Evil[/size][/color]
#66
Blossom is now missing and Charlie matters/Trevor kraychik has changed his username,she probably knows his log in.
I can assure you this guy has all the hallmarks of a cult leader,his Mormon upbringing primed him for this moment,he almost had it,surrounded himself with female mods,thousands of members,the time was right for Charlie/Trevor to trump peats views wth his make believe Jesus (as in the Jesus in Charlie's Brain,the one where Jesus sees Charlie as more special than everybody else)to save us.
Unfortunately just like many when they go on pop idol beleiveing they are a great singer because their dumbass parents have been telling them for years in a tiny bubble in Utah,Charlie's views were judged to be without substance or debt,he sounded like this guy


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TxgDb5IJQ9Y
#67
(01-13-2017, 09:57 PM)cantstopeating Wrote: Blossom is now missing and Charlie matters/Trevor kraychik has changed his username,she probably knows his log in.
I can assure you this guy has all the hallmarks of a cult leader,his Mormon upbringing primed him for this moment,he almost had it,surrounded himself with female mods,thousands of members,the time was right for Charlie/Trevor to trump peats views wth his make believe Jesus (as in the Jesus in Charlie's Brain,the one where Jesus sees Charlie as more special than everybody else)to save us.
Unfortunately just like many when they go on pop idol beleiveing they are a great singer because their dumbass parents have been telling them for years in a tiny bubble in Utah,Charlie's views were judged to be  without substance or debt,he sounded like this guy


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TxgDb5IJQ9Y

Oh I have my answer now. Very strange indeed after all that happened...
  
  •  Previous
  • 1
  • ...
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7(current)


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  I notice more people are having problems with the other Ray Peat forum, me too. Reaper242xxx 29 9,588 07-09-2021, 10:00 AM
Last Post: kledo5
  Banned from Ray peat forum for saying little cesars pizza anecdote was stupid raypeatclips 11 7,976 10-21-2019, 08:04 AM
Last Post: Flynn Marryat

Forum Jump: