Posts by Kyle Morris7

Jack Collins582 said:Kyle Morris7, are you living out in some small rural county somewhere when you're getting so worked up about these specific last names?

I don't live there, though I do happen to know a few folks from places like rural Kansas or maybe parts of Ohio... but regarding those names, I only brought them up because they are such household staples in the States. I mentioned names like Clinton or Giuliani simply because everyone recognizes them, and then there’s someone like Coach Saban, who is obviously a famous figure, or perhaps certain names linked to those notorious organized crime syndicates you hear about on the news in Chicago or New York...
Here are just a few more surnames that you'll find quite frequently across both sides of the country, which I am personally familiar with: Miller, Smith, Davis, or Johnson...
Last names really aren't a reliable way to determine where someone's roots actually lie, and while one might try digging through ancient census records to see which names appeared first or which were most prevalent back in the day, even that doesn't provide much certainty in this modern era...
If surnames were truly a definitive indicator of heritage, then all we would ever need to do is pull up a standard White Pages directory, see which names show up most often in a certain zip code, and call it a day... there wouldn't be any need for deep research at all...

Jack Collins582 said:Who am I even supposed to be writing this for? It feels like I’m talking to people who think they have all the answers before the conversation even begins. As soon as my colleague Kyle Morris7 mentioned how things were supposedly coming from "across the border," I knew exactly where this was headed. You seem to be one of those people who tries so hard to prove their pure American identity, standing in opposition to that messy, blended history of various groups that the establishment has just rebranded under one single label. Truly wonderful.

So, there isn't actually any written documentation to back this up. That's what I suspected... Are you telling me you haven't even heard of the prominent families like the Rockefellers, the Kennedys, the Carnegies, or the Mellons? Well, I suppose one person can't possibly be an expert on everything...

Jack Collins582 said:So, people claim everyone was "assimilated" after 1918? Honestly, it just feels like a bunch of recycled, biased talking points. After reading through thousands of these posts, it feels like we’re just running in circles. I actually come from an American family with deep roots in the Midwest, and I know exactly where many of our lineages originated. Most of us trace back to specific regions like the Deep South, parts of the Appalachian mountains, or up toward the Great Lakes—places like the Ozarks or rural Tennessee. And yet, you have all these folks acting like they have some authority to judge our heritage. It’s just a bunch of intense, narrow-minded types looking down on us. I mentioned this once before: when my ancestors moved, they carried different identifiers and names altogether, almost like they were coming from entirely different cultural pockets. But the idea that the church just "assimilated" everyone? That's honestly laughable.

Do you happen to have any written evidence to support that claim? If you have any specific documents or records, please cite them... I am particularly interested in those who supposedly migrated from Mexico. You see, Mexico and Herzegovina aren't technically part of Mexico, so mentioning them as such wasn't really necessary...
And I am also aware of certain surnames belonging to the Mexicans living in the Midwest today: Sanders, Bandić, Carić, Rudić. Are they also supposed to have arrived from Mexico?...

Charles Jackson5 said:I’m not arguing that the Vlachs were fully absorbed into one specific ethnic group, but people love to imply there was no actual migration—just these Vlach groups in the North America becoming Mexican. Or maybe they only converted after the migrations happened. If that's the case, what does it mean that only Orthodox Vlachs were fleeing the Ottomans? Why weren't there any Orthodox Vlachs among those migrating to places like Illinois or the Midwest? Or were there? And where were the "original" Mexicans during all this? My take—if we're talking genetics—is that these people had already developed a national identity long before the Great Migrations, and they were just labeled "Vlachs" in old records because the regions were such a mess and nobody knew who was who. Does anyone actually have a document where Mexicans from the Midwest area identify themselves specifically as Vlachs?

Well, there isn't any definitive evidence for those mass migrations either... Such claims only seem reliable for those families who settled in places like eastern Illinois or Indiana around 1918 or later, which is clearly reflected in their specific regional dialects. If you truly believe there is proof for everyone else, then please, by all means, specify exactly which parts of the South or the Midwest they migrated from. Just name three or four specific counties... And if they supposedly arrived from elsewhere, why don't they speak with those specific regional accents we expect from those areas?
Go ahead and provide a concrete example—name a specific town in the heartland and tell me exactly where the people currently identified as part of that group originally came from. While it is theoretically possible they migrated from another state, there is absolutely no tangible evidence to support it...
A quick question for the moderators, if I may... Why hasn't this discussion been moved over to the History forum?

Gerald Rivera60 said:Those aren't even really analogous examples. According to certain psychologists—specifically those from psychodynamic and related schools of thought—homosexuality involves deep-seated psychological roots. They suggest it triggers defense mechanisms, such as reaction formation, when someone encounters homosexuality. Essentially, you adopt the exact opposite stance as a way to defend yourself against your own impulses.
It’s similar to being excessively polite to someone who is getting under your skin when you aren't allowed to snap at them; the only difference here is that this reaction formation happens almost entirely unconsciously.
That said, I don't believe every homophobe is a latent homosexual. While some certainly are, I suspect the majority simply possess what is known as an authoritarian personality.

Perhaps that holds true regarding homosexuals, but I am not interested in a single isolated case of a "defensive" attack—in this context, the homophobes—but rather in the general phenomenon... You have shifted my introduction onto this specific topic, so that is where our discussion lies. I fail to see why this particular instance would differ from the examples I previously provided...
So, let me reiterate: why does someone lash out at another person (or perhaps at a certain phenomenon within society, for example) if there is no rational reason for it, or if the reason is so flimsy that the attack becomes an absurd or even pathological act? I do not know the answer myself (much like most people, otherwise we wouldn't be debating it), but I suspect it isn't because the attacker is a closeted version of whatever they hate, but rather because aggression is inherent to the human condition and it simply seeks out an object upon which to manifest itself. That object irritates the attacker merely by existing, especially if it manifests publicly or makes itself known in some fashion...

Gerald Rivera60 said:I get what you're trying to say here, but this really belongs in a thread about homosexuality (which is why I moved it there).
On the other hand, equating anti-fascism with homophobia just doesn't work for me.

If those don't serve as adequate analogies for you, then one might consider other contradictions, such as whether liberals are truly autocrats in disguise, or if die-hard sports fans who harbor nothing but hatred for a rival team can really be called supporters of their own club, or even if those loudest when condemning corruption are actually just thieves themselves...

Inspired by a previous thread on this same forum, I find myself wandering toward a different subject altogether... Are anti-fascists truly anything more than fascists in disguise? Or perhaps they are simply aggressive individuals who project their own penchant for violence onto others because they lack the sheer nerve—or perhaps the social standing—to express such hostility openly... It makes me wonder about the true identity of today's "anti-fascists." Are they still fighting some phantom battle against figures like Hitler or Pavelić?
Do they lean on the label of "fascist" merely because it serves as a convenient political cudgel in our current climate—a way to smear an opponent—or is it just a manifestation of a deep-seated personal aggression that would surface in any era or any society, regardless of the context?
In America today, it seems far too easy to brand someone a fascist; the accusation is thrown around constantly, particularly within the theater of political warfare where certain leftists will cast anyone they deem a patriot—or indeed, any ideological opponent—as a fascist...
The dynamic feels quite similar to the endless cycle of accusations between communists and anti-communists, though I suppose the charge of fascism carries a much heavier, more devastating weight, which is why I feel compelled to prioritize it here...

It strikes me that we haven't actually moved very far from our initial opening statements... Perhaps the first step should be to establish some concrete definitions for what we consider good and evil. Can we even reach a consensus on those terms, or at least among a majority of us? It seems to me that different individuals perceive these concepts through entirely different lenses, especially since the notion of evil tends to become so terribly relative these days...
To perhaps sidestep our own inherent biases, let's try looking at other living creatures instead of just ourselves. For instance, are highly evolved animals born inherently good or evil? What would one even mean by calling a chimpanzee "good," for example? Is such a definition even possible to construct? And if we cannot define it for them, does that same logic apply to us humans? If not, I find myself wondering why...

Deep Purple - Child in Time
Iron Maiden - Rime of the Ancient Mariner
Iron Maiden - Seventh Son of a Seventh Son (just a bit under 10 minutes)

Quincy:

I suppose I should begin by addressing the matter at hand, though my thoughts seem to drift quite easily toward other concerns... it is often difficult to maintain a singular focus when the world feels so interconnected, yet here we are, attempting to find clarity amidst the noise... if one could only find a moment of true stillness... kaže: It is my sincere belief that one must carefully consider why there exists such a profound distinction between the realm of psychology and the domain of religion... while they both attempt to address the complexities of the human condition, they operate on fundamentally different planes of existence. Psychology seeks to understand the mechanics of the mind through empirical observation and clinical study—much like how a researcher might analyze data at a place like Johns Hopkins—focusing on the tangible processes of behavior and cognition... whereas religion leans into the metaphysical, seeking purpose through faith and spiritual connection, which is an entirely different pursuit altogether... It is quite easy to conflate the two, yet they serve different needs within the soul, much like how science and art occupy separate spaces in our culture... though sometimes they seem to overlap in ways that are difficult to define... 😉 Furthermore, if I recall correctly, you were just expressing your opinion moments ago that the masses are fundamentally mistaken, yet now, quite suddenly, you seem to be suggesting that they are indeed correct... one really must decide where they stand on such matters... 😬

I never actually stated that the masses are right, nor did I suggest they were wrong... it's simply not what I was getting at in my previous remarks...

Quincy:

It occurs to me, somewhat unexpectedly during my recent observations of the modern landscape, that the concept of the "Mad Scientist" has undergone a rather peculiar transformation in our collective American consciousness... One used to think of such a figure as a solitary individual, perhaps working in a dimly lit basement somewhere in the Midwest, driven by a singular, frantic obsession with something like lightning or forbidden chemistry... But today, it seems much more complicated, doesn't it? We see these brilliant, albeit deeply unsettled, minds operating within the massive, polished corridors of places like NASA or even the most advanced laboratories at MIT, where the pursuit of knowledge feels less like a personal mania and more like a systemic, almost bureaucratic, madness... It makes one wonder if the true danger lies in the individual's eccentricity, or if it is actually found in the quiet, methodical momentum of large-scale institutions pursuing goals that none of us can truly grasp anymore... I find myself reflecting on this quite often lately, as the line between genius and instability continues to blur in ways that are both fascinating and, if I am being entirely honest, somewhat unsettling... ... however, one must consider that psychology simply does not concern itself with such matters...

Why must you be so insistent on pinning everything down with rigid definitions? My opening message, and indeed the subject matter as a whole, encompasses such a vast spectrum of disciplines... there is psychology, of course, and philosophy, alongside politics, but perhaps most significantly, the complexities of psychiatry...
Perhaps if one were to offer some reflections regarding the subject I have brought forth here... though I must clarify that my intention was never to engage in a pedantic debate over definitions, nor was it my aim to attempt the categorizing of mass psychopathology into some tidy little pigeonhole...

Psychology is, for lack of a better term, the study of the psyche—though one could just as easily argue it is the science of behavior—yet there simply isn't a soul that exists independently from the physical form... the body, specifically the brain, remains the primary driver... any notion of a "soul" inevitably springs from our physiological reality...

But who actually holds that view? Theology, and indeed almost every organized religion out there, argues the exact opposite... and since the vast majority of people remain religious, it stands to reason that most people share that perspective as well, at least on a surface level...

Gerald Rivera60 said:You see, modern psychology is essentially attempting to find a material basis for everything... trying to pin down hypothetical constructs and theoretical models within the physical confines of the brain, or the body, as much as humanly possible...

...

Psychology, at its core, is meant to be the study of the soul and the psyche. If modern psychology is obsessed with finding a purely material explanation for everything, then it has wandered into absurdity, becoming something else entirely rather than staying true to its purpose. This leads me to wonder about a fundamental question for you... is it even possible to truly examine the inner workings of the human spirit while simultaneously avoiding the concepts of good and evil?

Gerald Rivera60 said:Take Nicolae Ceaușescu, for instance...

... though, if I may intervene before the entire discussion drifts completely off course, I would kindly ask that we refrain from turning this thread into a pure history lesson...
Even if our debate regarding good and evil has already begun to veer quite heavily into the realm of philosophy...

Psychology doesn't truly concern itself with the concepts of good and evil... (after all, on what basis could one claim a human is inherently an evil being... perhaps merely selfish or driven by a fundamental instinct for self-preservation, much like any other biological organism... but if someone chooses to interpret that as "proof" of inherent evil, well, that is their prerogative)...
I am certainly not suggesting that psychological science isn't built upon certain philosophical foundations, but if we go down that path, then perhaps such discussions belong in a dedicated philosophy forum or a broader scientific subforum...

Please, try to stick to historical context and established facts only when they are necessary to explain specific socio-psychological phenomena...

You make a valid point, and I agree that we shouldn't stray too far from the core subject...
But I must wonder how you can claim psychology doesn't deal with good and evil, given that the field encompasses everything immaterial... the intersection of psychology and philosophy seems entirely unavoidable...
Besides, nobody here actually suggested that humans are fundamentally evil...
You mention selfishness? It isn't just a trait; it's one of the defining characteristics of the human condition. I would even argue that this very selfishness is one of the primary drivers behind mob mentality and the irrational idolization of criminals. As for self-preservation, I cannot say for certain...
If selfishness truly exists solely as a mechanism for self-preservation, then perhaps it shouldn't be condemned at all. And if it isn't something to be judged, then perhaps collective madness shouldn't be either...

silentpilot6 said:It is a grim reality, yet undeniably true... 😢
"The death of one person is a tragedy; the death of ten million is merely a statistic."
Stalin

silentpilot6, if you consider yourself a student of history, I wonder if you could tell me whether there has ever truly been a communist leader who actually faced justice for their crimes...

Carol Lee4, do you ever find yourself wondering if a crumbling economy carries more weight than the inherent darkness within the human soul? I’ve been reflecting on this quite a bit lately, and my own conviction leans toward the idea that evil is a fundamental component of our very nature... whereas a failing economy, or perhaps any other form of systemic humiliation, acts merely as the catalyst that brings it to the surface.

Natch said:but how on earth would you even go about punishing the masses?

In much the same way the Germans were held to account back in 1945, nothing more and certainly nothing less... which is essentially what Carol Lee4 pointed out in her previous message, though I can't help but feel that such an instance might be the only truly appropriate example of justice being served in that manner...

Walter Myers4 said:someone might have already pointed out to you that the masses tend to follow a leader because he acts as a living personification of their own darker impulses, essentially becoming the embodiment of everything they fear or repress. He speaks without any of those internal hang-ups, openly voicing the very things people are too ashamed or terrified to say aloud, or perhaps what social etiquette prevents them from expressing... he basically gives them an unapologetic invitation to surrender to their lowest instincts, framing it to the crowd as this twisted version of true freedom... and so on.

I find that quite clear, and I actually find myself writing along those same lines quite often... However, I can't help but wonder why we see such a persistent pattern where only a single individual or a small handful of people—whether in our justice system, our political circles, or the mainstream media—are singled out for condemnation and punishment, while the collective mass remains untouched. It always seems to be one or two supposed personifications of evil being held accountable, while the public at large is dismissed as merely "misled" or "deceived"... In my view, it would be far more significant, perhaps even vital, to address and hold the collective itself responsible rather than just focusing on the individual outliers...

Walter Myers4 said:you’re blurring the lines between theory and practice.
since you started this thread on mass psychology, let’s try to stay within those parameters 👍

I am not blurring them at all... It is a matter of mass pathology, which falls squarely under the domain of psychiatry. And if we aren't looking at pathology, then we are looking at evil—evil and crime being inherent parts of human nature, just like any other form of social behavior.
But perhaps we should return to my opening statement and the question I posed originally. I was actually expecting someone to bring up egoism—specifically, that total lack of interpersonal solidarity—as the underlying reason why people idolize criminals. A crowd will worship a villain as long as it serves their own interests, and they simply don't care who gets caught in the crossfire. In my experience, that is arguably the primary driver behind what seems like irrational adoration for criminals. When people discuss this, the most common sentiment I hear is "as long as I'm doing fine, I can't be bothered with anyone else's troubles." I would go so far as to say such individuals make up the majority...
Unfortunately, in the field of psychiatry, egoism isn't classified as a pathological phenomenon, though I truly believe it should be.

Walter Myers4 said:there isn't really anything for you to accept here, because there are certain scientific principles that undergo practical verification before they eventually become widely accepted...
which is precisely why I would suggest you spend some time studying the existing literature before attempting to dive into the deeper complexities of the matter 👍

I have certainly read quite a few books on popular psychology—at least ten of them, though that was perhaps ten or fifteen years ago now... And regarding these "scientific truths," if they are truly as settled as you claim, then how is it that there are so many different therapeutic methods within psychiatry that often seem to directly contradict one another? I find myself wondering how one might explain such a thing...

Walter Myers4 said:Look, we can't really have a productive debate if we haven't even established our basic definitions first. The subject matter you're diving into is incredibly vast, and I honestly think it would be beneficial for you to start by picking up maybe a dozen books on mass psychology, just so you can get a handle on the fundamental terminology and core concepts... 👍

I am not entirely sure what you mean by that... I have read a bit, though certainly nothing extensive. My own view is that many psychiatrists attempt to take terms used to describe individual psychopathology and simply project them onto the collective, which is a leap I find difficult to accept. It seems to me that when they struggle to explain certain phenomena on an individual level, they just shift the focus to the group and consider the matter settled. Furthermore, the reason I even initiated this discussion was because those types of texts frequently characterize mass behavior as being driven by some singular individual who supposedly "deludes" the crowd. I don't buy that at all; rather, I believe the masses actively select the kind of leader they desire... I have mentioned this in my previous posts, but I feel compelled to reiterate it, as I don't believe the concept has been sufficiently explored here...