Are you not Entertained? (From Gladiator)
An example of Crowds Cheering Up Joining Nonsense.
*
I do not authorize psychological nor psychiatric formulations, interpretations nor diagnosis, etc. I am no Lawyer and this not Legal advice nor advice of any kind.
This an almost conversation between Kira Rosa and Me. I am not linking to her Note nor her Substack because I do not recommend reading nor imitating Her Behavior. I reconstructed most likely partially the exchange from what remains of the Notes and PDFs created from Her Note.
I must say I have no personal Beliefs, Feelings, Opinions nor Facts beyond the textual on this Woman. For me She is like anyone else. I have no animus toward Her, I am not giving Her special considerations, just to Her narratives as in this Post of mine, not Hers. I am not criticizing Her nor Judging Her or the Like. I am merely analyzing her behavior and speech. Nothing more. I am trying to contribute to a World that is Better for Women and Men alike. Children included…
Kira Rosa
7d
Morally Grey Women
The older I get the more I think the world needs a hostile takeover by the matriarchy.
Federico Soto del Alba
6d
Do the rest of the matriarks agree with you?, or are you a rebel among them?.
Are you the head of the Revolution?. Did the matriarchs took a vote?
How older is old enough to accomplish such goal?
Many archies: Monarchy, Oligarchy, Patriarchy, Anarchy, have an atrocious track record…
Why would a Matriarchy succeed when many, if not all failed?
Kira Rosa
6d
The “archies” as you call them fail because they ignore the humanity of the people. I happen to think women would do great things in power. I think you'd find a matriarchy is nurturing and supportive but strong when needed. Corruption is a human failing that is always a possibility but those other “archies” have been led by men so that might be the factor that needs changing.
Federico Soto del Alba
16m
There is a concept in Law, Sociology and Criminology called “Implicit Corruption”.
You might want to read on it.
But basically, it refers to corruption in the very fabric of the system, in the way of doing things.
For Matriarchy to not have implicit corruption one would need to prove it is absent of it, not to show it has benefits.
There was illustrated Despotism, and Benevolent Dictatorships.
Your “is nurtuting and supportive” has no relationship to at least implicit corruption in any Matriarchy.
Kira Rosa
10m
I'm always happy to read so I will take your advice on that. However I would point out that most research and theories have historically ben rooted in patriarchal ideas and fallible in their willful ignorance to diversity. It is important to remember this when delving into any therory or concept. I appreciate your insight however and will do some digging into this concept of implicit corruption.
Federico Soto del Alba
1m
That is a red herring or a non sequitur, among others, it does not prove Matriarchy is legal just because Patriarchy was dumbfounded.
It is seeking to achieve something worse than Patriarchy.
Why?
Because I sense you might be implying Women know better, and clearly to me, you know no better than me, on this issue alone.
And my knowledge, extending your “most research and theories have historically ben rooted in patriarchal ideas and fallible in their willful ignorance to diversity”, points to excluding me for my ideas.
That looks nasty to me, because it at least does not consider my diversity better than yours…
It points to excluding me because of my gender.
What productively do you have to say right now to that?
Federico Soto del Alba
6d
And just consider there is currently no Legal way to achieve Matriarchy except if Matriarchy is a Social Club, or Matriarchy as an Utopia.
There is no Democratic way to actually, in reality, legally achieve a Matriarchical Government.
Then there is the checks and balances of being ruled by a single class, an oligarchy of individuals, regardless of skin color, ethnicity, gender, education, etc. It is called Rule of Law.
Saying half the population are women, does not get rid of the fact that in a Matriarchy all rulers, presumably will be a sort of aristocracy of just women. An aristocracy of women politicians for example.
As in All the Members of Congress will be Women and that requires Rule of Law to ensure not only the non-governing women rights, but male rights.
Then there is the issue of Nepotism… etcetera…
Kira Rosa
6d
We currently live in a patriarchal society however as you can observe there are women in powerful positions despite that. The problem is the patriarchy is designed to ensure men remain in the ultimate power position. So to answer your question no a matriarchy would not necessitate only women in power positions but would shift the balance of power to majority women. This could be achieved democratically since, as you said women make up half the population. If we came together to vote in women we could place them in positions to shift this balance. Though to be fair it is not just about positions in government it is a culture shift which takes time and peristance.
Federico Soto del Alba
6d
Again:
1.- There is no legal way to accomplish cultural shifts privileging gender. There is the concept of free discourse and discrimination, specially a priori. Culture is supposed to be a good benefiting everyone inside such Culture, you have not proven Matriarchy will benefit everyone. And I argued against it will.
2.- We are not living in a Patriarchy, prove as a fact, as a real thing, not as an Idea or a set of them we are. Prove that we are living in a World described by a Single Idea, ignoring Democracy, Rule of Law, equality, Fairness, equity, etc. Even the word Democracy does not mean a single thing.
3.- Patriarchy as an idea is not design to accomplish anything real. It is like believing in God makes the World its creation. Ideas do not work by themselves, they are ethereal, they are immaterial, they cannot cause anything at all. Ideas are not causes in the Reality sense of the word Reality.
4.- No democratic system will elect a majority of women as Democracy stands today. It goes against reality, against History, and against expectations
5.- There are no Power Positions. Power cannot be resisted by definition, all Authority Figures can be fought and resisted by Legal means in the World we live today.
Kira Rosa
6d
Sigh* I have tried to be cordial with you and converse on our differing opinions but I do not have to prove anything to you. Your are centering yourself as a man and your anger at the thought of losing control. This is likely internal but I have chosen to actively decenter men and as such will tell you to utilize your platform to express your discontent with women gaining voice and power and not use mine. I will leave you with one thing to note that if you are going to ask me to look into a concept because you think it disproves the veracity of my idea then you probably shouldn't follow that up with a diatribe about how ideas mean nothing. Have the day you deserve whatever that may be.
Federico Soto del Alba
6d
I am not angry and not losing control, you are writing fairy tales about me. Just from your imagination.
The one who makes a claim has to prove the claim, not the other way around.
You made claims, by discourse rules, you have to prove your claims, not me!.
I have no internal stuff you can see and talk about, are you a humans interior viewer?. Can you see my interiors?, is that a superpower you have?
I trained as a Radiologist, are you a Radiologist?
Read my posts about women so you can correct your erroneous statement about my, so you say, discontent with women, at least. You are talking from ignorance of me. A fallacy, and a classical one.
You have no power over me, period. I doubt you have power over your thinking processes.
Yes, please leave alone, and I will stop considering you.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt already.
To be clear, please stop talking to me, you are annoying me, not making me angry nor making me loose control. Period.
I did mention she did Nasty comments about me to me. She doubled down on trying, faking to excuse her nastiness by saying I felt threatened by Her and was expressing Anger. That she tried to be cordial perhaps in a condescending way, that she somehow could see “my interior”? from afar?, through a written piece of Text?. And apparently backtracked on reading something that might be useful to her thinking: Implicit corruption, by claiming I used a diatribe on her or against her.
Diatribe: A bitter, abusive denunciation. A prolonged or exhaustive discussion; especially, an acrimonious or invective harangue; a strain of abusive or railing language; a philippic. An abusive, bitter denunciation.
It takes two to Tango. I was and I am not bitter, I was not abusive as far as I can tell, and she had the opportunity to point clearly where? and how? and explicitly as I think I did, and I am doing now. The “discussion” was not a prolonged one.
I did not felt nor do such things and I said to her in no unclear terms I was better than her, and that I was a male. I did that because she persisted not only trying to exclude my ideas, facts and opinions, but myself for being male, and with verbal violence and falsehoods nonetheless!. And I had gone through such exclusion from Females just because I am a Male, specially one that knows more and better than some of them, on somethings and some of the time.
She did mention She did not have to prove anything [to me]. What kind of thinker argues with that Big Whooper?. An ignorant and ill-willed one, among others, as far as I know... but what do I know?: I am lazy and ignoramus…
Invoking mere words as causes, as reasons of why things happen is Magical Thinking, not using reason, and far from Helping actually is Pernicious, Harmful. This is a good example to my thinking of why the Matriarchy is dead before being born.
Invoking the Patriarchy as causative of anything is Magical Thinking.
People cheering up such behavior and the products of such “thinkers” can´t help anyone including themselves. Such thinking, its products and the behavior it promotes do not belong in communal efforts to improve the situation for Women.
And actually harms the situation of Males, so double harms.
As for her behavior it is typical of current Rhetorical practice: Fake agreement, try to find a common ground, invert the probatory burden, when failed or proven wrong attack your presumed interlocutor, center the communal anger on Him, on the Males, etc.
That is really nasty shit and it is too prevalent at Substack, at least. But I do thank my Substack overlords for hosting my writings, acknowledging I have no other connection with them nor I speak on their Behalf, at least.
As an example: “This could be achieved democratically since, as you said women make up half the population”, I think she said it before I did “...make up half the population”. Still if She didn´t, my next two paragraph deals with it anyway. ;)
She is trying to fake agreement with me by again trying to reach a common ground despite She is proposing something that rationally cannot and should not be agreed to. That seems malicious to me: Putting such effort and training to convince ooOther People to agree not only with Nonsense but with Harmful Behavior based on False Ideas.
I did wrote “Saying half the population are women..” before she wrote “…as you said women make up half the population”. If true as I narrated in this Post she is using inappropriately my “Saying half…” for Her to continue argue nonsensically.
That way of arguing, of faking having a discussion is no way to know, learn nor speak Truthful things. Or at least is among the worsts ways to do it, and I am trying to do my best, not their worst!.
Incompetence and Impotence are the Sources of Hate, not Fear, not Envy, nor Jealousy. Ignorance is usually at the Base of Incompetence and Impotence, but it is not their only component.
To me She lost her Right to Reply just by her behavior as narrated or interpreted from the Quotes.
Thanks.
Federico Soto del Alba.