The truthers and movements like theirs are a pathetic attempt to project a false sense of understanding of events clearly beyond their intellectual grasp. It is obviously a defense mechanism for dealing with their own lack of knowledge of the world beyond their groups activities.

The notion that an often basement dwelling social outcast can uncover great conspiracies, and a deep understanding of the intricacies of centuries old conflicts thousands of miles away is ludicrous. Actual intelligence agencies attempt and often fail at this every day - and they have considerable resources in both manpower and technology.

The irony inherent in all these theories is the attempt to somehow remove the obvious foreign (and therefore unknown) influences in these events, and instead put all the blame in a supposedly omnipotent US government. In doing so they have created a rather flattering image of a super villain they can not defeat, thereby validating their continued struggle, and reassuringly know all about.

If their fantasies were real they would of course be jailed or dead. That is the case of all real dissidents of actual autocratic states.
Eventually this serves the lone purpose of maintaining a community of believers similar to that of a cult. By ascribing to these beliefs they gain access to a social construct often denied them earlier in life.

The group inflates the participants egos and and instills a confidence rarely felt before. That feeling is obviously precious to these people, much like jewelery to a cave dwelling humanoid featured, not surprisingly, in certain works which many of them hold as the pinnacle of literature. Therefore, one should not be surprised by the lengths to which these people will go in preaching their convictions. Their newly found social status depends on your acceptance of their inane rants.

Westy and gwiz665, you both make a good point. What you're speaking of could be called "emotional economy". It's the idea that we only place emotional investment in those close to us - those whom we expect will in return invest emotionally in us. This is the natural way of human civilization, and it is an important psychological defense mechanism. For instance, as i write this, someone somewhere in the world just died. If all people could feel the death of all other people (or creatures in general), we would all be overwhelmed by the constant flood of pain and emotion.

However, you fail to understand the nature of the situation. And while it is important to have a rational outlook on the subject of celebrities, it is also important to understand this next concept:

When you kill an animal for food (or buy a packaged, pre-killed, animal product) it is healthy to thank that animal for giving its life to sustain your own. Too many people thank God, or some other thing, but thanking the animal - so that you understand your own place in the natural order - is the true purpose of saying grace before eating.

Without that thanks, and without the understanding that comes with genuine gratitude for the sacrifice of another life for your own, a person begins to devalue the life of the creature they killed. The devaluation continues and grows in its own way, until eventually that person (and all people) come to believe themselves to be above less intelligent forms of life. Understand: Just because humans are higher on the food chain doesn't mean you are any more significant than a deer - or a bee. Or even a virus.

It is not possible to understand the meaning of this overnight. It is a kind of insight that must grow in you until the meaning becomes clear on its own. It is the same as when your parents push you to say "please" and "thank you" and to show respect in general and have good manners. As a very young child, you don't understand the necessity. But as you grow older and gain experience with other people and social situations, you begin to understand that the words "please", "thank you", "excuse me", "i'm sorry", and so on, have a deeper purpose that goes beyond mere manners.

And so it is with emotional expression. People form attachments to artists and performers. These attachments are, in truth, almost always made to the image that the artist is projecting of him- or herself. But even that projected image is a part of the person. Just as importantly however, it should be understood that celebrities /become/ celebrities not just because of the link between their image and their fans, but also because of the links between people who share a love or interest in what that famous person is doing. People tend to congregate around ideas (and ideals). That's why going to church is so popular. People could worship in the privacy of their own homes, yet many choose to go to a church (or temple, etc). Why? Because of the social aspect. Because of the shared links, not just between the congregation and the topic at hand, but also between all the people present! It is this way with all things.

Understand further that a person's emotional investment itself is so often times tied directly to some event in their life. Perhaps someone experienced her first kiss while Elvis was playing on the radio in the background. Perhaps a close family member died 20 or 30 years ago, and at that time, that person heard a song that echoed the same feelings he or she was feeling at that moment. There was a sense that "Yes, someone else out there /knows/ what i'm going through. Their lyrics comfort me. Their melody is a catharsis of my very soul." There's a gratitude there. And now that the musician has died, it is as if the person has lost a piece of themselves.

It may not seem rational, but it is most certainly logical.

Understand finally that this emotional connection to a person's outward persona is a fine and necessary substitution for having a direct emotional connection to them. (Regardless of whether they're a so-called "celebrity" or not.) The problem isn't that we have too much of that, it's that we don't have enough of it going around to more people. And what we do have is too often abused by unscrupulous journalism (ie: "The Media"). Perhaps you would find it interesting to know that i personally have more emotional resonance with Tori Amos than i do with any one of my blood kin. She and i don't know each other personally, but her actions (her music) have helped me through situations that none of them would or could have (and in fact, some of those situations were caused by them).

There's so much more that could be said on this subject, though i will simply close with this: All things in moderation. Balance.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'sea, cucumber, plant, react, holothuroidea' to 'sea, cucumber, plant, react, holothuroidea, disappear, defense mechanism' - edited by residue

Hardly unusual. It is the natural defense mechanism of many toads.

>> ^Farhad2000:
reflexive straw-man construction as a psychological defense mechanism


He never said all muslims are the same, or anything remotely like that. But the moderate or liberal muslims do contradict some of the more hard-line parts of the Koran. Jihadists contradict some of the more liberal parts of the Koran as well. There's no denying the fact that the Koran is as bloody and misogynistic as the Bible. Mohammad was just another conqueror who rewrote mythology to his advantage like the Roman emperors often did.

As Thomas Jefferson said, picking out the genuine and good teachings of Jesus from the bible is like "diamonds in a dunghill".

Great comment. Thank you for the link; I will watch it later. History is full of examples of people in power using scapegoats, events, or creating events in order to sway the public toward an action they want. I look at the PR campaign leading up to the Iraq war. Anyone who spent anytime researching the claims would have either dismissed the reasons and/or brought up serious objections. Or recognized the very coordinated effort by officials to imply nuclear threat against the US, but then later deny that they is what they meant. The American public was treated as a dupe and responded as one (as a whole.)

I don't agree with the assumption that we must commit evil to end evil. That is the difference between justice and revenge. We both know that Iraq was an unprovoked attack that had nothing to do with justice.

"The Sutras of Abu Ghraib" is a story of an American soldier who finds his belief in Buddhism strengthen over time to where he applies (and eventually gets) a conscientious objector discharge. The author does a good job of showing people, good people, bowing and giving up their morals in the face of group pressure and the stresses of occupying a hostile country. You will find the same type of behavior in this war (with racial slurs, etc.) Could this be a self defense mechanism by the soldier? Dehumanize the country's inhabitants because they can't tell which are hostile and which just trying to live their lives? It seems logical that this psychological defense would arise when you may hurt someone who is just trying to live their life. Winning and losing have little meaning when you lose yourself.

Fuck no, no such thingy exists....the ideal model on the videosift is some one that does not piss EVERYONE off

and durr, I know ad-homs not a label, that was a rush-through, because I was too lazy too make a list, and ad-hom is dropped so much by yerself and others as a damn defense mechanism to shut down discussions that chafe or challenge.

Be damn the rules of conduct on the internet-anyone that meets me in person knows me to be no different than I am here....same person, use of expletives notwithstanding, I am a really fun guy...I like windy walks, puppies, and discussing politics, and how much ts has become a putrified insult to my sensibilities. My favorite color is purple, but I can't stand Oprah. I enjoy playing music, and learning practical skills and horticulture.My horse's name is twister, and I have this many years(shows fingers by fives).

Oh, and I must point out, that the examples of insults from the qm-types that you reference from your blog above???.....I don't resemble that infantile shit in the least....

Just look at the UK. Recently gun crime has suffered a massive increase, despite the handgun ban. Know why that is? Because we were never allowed to carry loaded guns on our person anyway, so they were never a defensive mechanism. Removing them did nothing. Modern gun crime in the UK is committed by people who wouldn't have been able to gain legal access to a firearm in the first place and all of them are black market goods.

What do you think would happen in the US if you introduced a handgun ban? Suddenly a lot of criminals would be armed while the populace would become defenceless. Its not like the UK where very few people have guns, so only the gangs get them, nearly any criminal is likely to be armed because they have been so freely available before.

The most telling point in this show was that killing sprees tend to occur in "Gun free zones". Now make the entire country a "gun free zone" and see what happens

Tasers are illegal to private citizens in Michigan unless they are a "registered bail agent, private investigator, or properly trained aircraft pilot or crew" (that's straight from the TASER website)... and after seeing several of the videos posted here on the fatal side effects of the TASER, I think this is prudent. However, after there were several rapes in my city last spring I did initially ask my father to get me a taser, but that's not possible, so I've settled with the highest concentration pepper spray available. Both self defense mechanisms are of course secondary to a good pair of shoes you can run in, and I never leave the house alone wearing a pair I cannot do that in... call me paranoid, but I think that the women who wear high heels every day only decrease their chances of getting themselves out of a potentially dangerous situation... not to mention destroying their back and feet, but whatever, yet another case of the cultural imprinting of a beauty ideal I guess.

As for glasses, I personally do not think I necessarily look better without them, and believe me, I would never date a guy who didn't appreciate me in them. But, my own empirical evidence suggests that the general public feels otherwise (pervasive cultural attitude I guess), as I almost never get a second look with them on. But whatever, its all personal preference, as I myself prefer a guy with glasses.

@Lurch

It is normal behavior for the opposite sex to be attracted. You are supposed to seek sex with the opposite gender and it being pleasurable should make you want to do it. If you weren't basically programmed this way from the start, there is no guarantee the species would effectively reproduce. Seeking pleasure by having sex within the same gender is not natural. Something is incorrectly wired in your brain for that to be appealing to you. No different than someone who needs to have pain inflicted for sexual excitement. That is not natural, something happened to make that person that way.


what about people who eat hot peppers? the hot oil is a defense mechanism for the pepper. eating hot peppers is not normal or natural. Planting rows of peppers is effective in keeping elephants away from an area.

Doing something because it is "normal" or expected is probably the worst reason to do something. are you really that big a fan of conformity?

Also, the body is not "designed" for sitting at a computer, and that has all kinds of side effects, like RSI, Carpal Tunnel, bad-back, fat-belly... is that also a moral issue? or is this more about justifying prejudice.


additionally, up until recently, inter-racial or inter-caste marriages were not normal, and were considered immoral. shall we go back to those times?

I think the uncontrollable, high-pitched snorts of laughter caused by this clip were my mind's defense mechanism against immediate, irreversible insanity.

yep, that is definitely a defense mechanism, would you eat something that screamed at you??? That cute tag is purely subjective here....don't you still have some relatives, karaidl, that still think YOU are cute??? (i'd pinch the shit outta yer cheeks if i ever saw you!.....a distraction to set you up for "the titty twister from God!")

--what i object to here is the taking things out of context and attempting to demonise a whole religion, and all its followers.

Nobody here or on CNN is demonizing a whole religion or denying that there are many different variations of Islam.

--I am pretty sure that "christian" society is still down on women (check how much they earn compared to men, and count the number of prime ministers)

This is true on average and irrelevant.

--Last time I checked, people from ALL religions beat and murdered other people.

There are probably some religions small enough that literally that is not the case, but in spirit you're right.

------ Mink wrote:
And I have to say it, an old book that maybe condones violence against women is a million miles away from a modern illegal deadly invasion of Iraq in the name of the "christian" god as defined by a leader who "talks to god" and doesn't realise it's the same god in Islam too.
------

Bush is a hallucinating fool, and the war was awfuly managed, but that's irrelevant to this video and that doesn't prove that it was a bad idea to take out one of the worst dictators in the world by force.

Bush is not so stupid to be unaware that both Islam and Christianity are based on the god of the Old Testament, the god of Judaism. It doesn't really matter whether two fabricated revelations describe the same imaginary being; what really matters is how various people believe that and act upon it. Whether the militant interpretation of this particular verse is right or not is irrelevant because you can't prove it, at least you can't prove it to them. The Koran certainly can be interpreted in a misogynistic way because it came from a patriarchal culture, just like the Bible. I believe both of these books contain a lot of foolishness.

-------- MINK wrote:
So, ya know, i love the anti snuff rule, but i am all for freedom of speech, so let this post be here as an example of the irrationality of the poster, and an opportunity for people like gwaan to offer more context and debate around a commonly held myth about Islam.
--------

Gwaan posted the same exact comment to another video of mine, and we had a lengthy debate about it.

-------- Mink Wrote:
FFS, has anyone who calls Islam "evil" actually read the old testament? It's nasty!
http://www.evilbible.com
--------

I agree with you.


-------- MINK wrote:
Thumbs down for all literalists and fundamentalists and extremists of ALL persuasions.
--------

I bet you are an extremist against Hitler. I bet you are an extremist against slavery. I bet you are an extremist against murder. Extremism itself is not the problem. Knowing what to feel strongly about and knowing what is worth fighting for is the hard part.

Regarding literalism, it is very useful to be able to carefully construct words to make a precise and unambiguous message. It is also useful to be able to invert that process. The trouble with most religious scriptures is that they're often either ambiguous, morally repugnant, or false (Sometimes there are bits of wisdom like in the sermon on the mount). Religious apologists metaphoricize any part of it they don't like as a psychological defense mechanism. Some passages could 'mean' almost anything with a loose enough metaphorical interpretation; it's sometimes a glorified Rorschach test. I prefer writings that actually mean something.

--what i object to here is the taking things out of context and attempting to demonise a whole religion, and all its followers.

Nobody here or on CNN is demonizing a whole religion or denying that there are many different variations of Islam. There's no need to get so defensive about footage of current events.

--I am pretty sure that "christian" society is still down on women (check how much they earn compared to men, and count the number of prime ministers)

This is true on average and irrelevant.

--Last time I checked, people from ALL religions beat and murdered other people.

There are probably some religions small enough that literally that is not the case, but in spirit you're right.

------ Mink wrote:
And I have to say it, an old book that maybe condones violence against women is a million miles away from a modern illegal deadly invasion of Iraq in the name of the "christian" god as defined by a leader who "talks to god" and doesn't realise it's the same god in Islam too.
------

Bush is a hallucinating fool, and the war was awfuly managed, but that's irrelevant to this video and that doesn't prove that it was a bad idea to take out one of the worst dictators in the world by force.

Bush is not so stupid to be unaware that both Islam and Christianity are based on the god of the Old Testament, the god of Judaism. It doesn't really matter whether two fabricated revelations describe the same imaginary being; what really matters is how various people believe that and act upon it. Whether the militant interpretation of this particular verse is right or not is irrelevant because you can't prove it, at least you can't prove it to them. The Koran certainly can be interpreted in a misogynistic way because it came from a patriarchal culture, just like the Bible. I believe both of these books contain a lot of foolishness.

-------- MINK wrote:
So, ya know, i love the anti snuff rule, but i am all for freedom of speech, so let this post be here as an example of the irrationality of the poster, and an opportunity for people like gwaan to offer more context and debate around a commonly held myth about Islam.
--------

Gwaan posted the same exact comment to another video of mine, and we had a lengthy debate about it.

-------- Mink Wrote:
FFS, has anyone who calls Islam "evil" actually read the old testament? It's nasty!
http://www.evilbible.com
--------

I agree with you.


-------- MINK wrote:
Thumbs down for all literalists and fundamentalists and extremists of ALL persuasions.
--------

I bet you are an extremist against Hitler. I bet you are an extremist against slavery. I bet you are an extremist against murder. Extremism itself is not the problem. Knowing what to feel strongly about and knowing what is worth fighting for is the hard part.

Regarding literalism, it is very useful to be able to carefully construct words to make a precise and unambiguous message. It is also useful to be able to invert that process. The trouble with most religious scriptures is that they're often either ambiguous, morally repugnant, or false (Sometimes there are bits of wisdom like in the sermon on the mount). Religious apologists metaphoricize any part of it they don't like as a psychological defense mechanism. Some passages could 'mean' almost anything with a loose enough metaphorical interpretation; it's sometimes a glorified Rorschach test. I prefer writings that actually mean something.

From George Carlin:

We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet?

I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I'm tired of fucking Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!

We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...asshole.

So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.