Murrica: fuck yeah

..et d'autres discussions ennuyeuses
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 58307
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1929 times
Received rep: 1286 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11551 by Dog » Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:55 pm

Fine, if you guys insist on talking about murrica in the murrica thread (completely out of its proper context in human evolution):

New York state GOP says taxpayers "chipped in" to buy Cuomo one-way ticket to Canada
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-s ... to-canada/
User avatar
PredsFan77
Posts: 37779
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:53 am
Location: 7 TIME LOUNGE JEOPARDY CHAMP!!!
Has given rep: 140 times
Received rep: 412 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11552 by PredsFan77 » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:04 pm

from the folks that brought you hillary 60% victory

Image
CDX.NA.IG.9









[LEFT]Image[/LEFT]
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 58307
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1929 times
Received rep: 1286 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11553 by Dog » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:11 pm

PredsFan77 wrote:from the folks that brought you hillary 60% victory


Hey, on average, 4 times out of ten it’s the 40% that wins!
User avatar
AD
Posts: 69240
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 738 times
Received rep: 857 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11554 by AD » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:12 pm

Dog wrote:
Craig wrote:Banana is in the top 1% of a country that is in the top 1% of all the countries in the world at a time when the world is doing in the top 1% of it's entire history, and he's all doom and gloom.


Technically, Canada is like 15th or something in GDP per capita. Nominal. On a PPP basis we’re like 35. On 200odd states, that’s like 7-15th percentile-ish. Not bad, but not 1%. I know I should do it on population numbers rather than number of states (many in the top are tiny), but whatever -would still be out of top 1%. Banana’s income, however, surely places him in the global 1%. Not sure about Canada. You make more than $250kish, banes? This is very likely a top 1% time to be alive as a human. So far at least, which isn’t a fair comparaison. At the end of human existence, it may turn out to not even be a top 10% time to have existed as a human!


Depends on the year. But I don't think I'm anywhere near top 1%.
Maybe 5%?

Whats top 1% in Canada?
User avatar
AD
Posts: 69240
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 738 times
Received rep: 857 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11555 by AD » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:13 pm

Top 5% in a country in the top 7% in a time that will end up in the top 25% all time.

:why:
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 58307
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1929 times
Received rep: 1286 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11556 by Dog » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:18 pm

Wtf are you doing with a 5th percentile income, banana? That’s shameful shit. I don’t believe it.

:crossarms:
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 58307
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1929 times
Received rep: 1286 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11557 by Dog » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:19 pm

What’s fifth percentile?
senate
Registered Broad
Posts: 7791
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:36 am
Has given rep: 261 times
Received rep: 427 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11558 by senate » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:27 pm

Dog wrote:What’s fifth percentile?


I think he meant to describe himself as fifth column.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 69240
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 738 times
Received rep: 857 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11559 by AD » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:37 pm

Dog wrote:Wtf are you doing with a 5th percentile income, banana? That’s shameful shit. I don’t believe it.

:crossarms:


I'm guessing 1% is like 1million income per year in Canada.
senate
Registered Broad
Posts: 7791
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:36 am
Has given rep: 261 times
Received rep: 427 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11560 by senate » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:40 pm

AD wrote:
Dog wrote:Wtf are you doing with a 5th percentile income, banana? That’s shameful shit. I don’t believe it.

:crossarms:


I'm guessing 1% is like 1million income per year in Canada.


Top 1% is $234,700 as of 2015.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 39756
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 42 times
Received rep: 440 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11561 by Craig » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:40 pm

1% is about 225k. 5 is 122. Those are 2015 numbers.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 58307
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1929 times
Received rep: 1286 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11562 by Dog » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:41 pm

AD wrote:
Dog wrote:Wtf are you doing with a 5th percentile income, banana? That’s shameful shit. I don’t believe it.

:crossarms:


I'm guessing 1% is like 1million income per year in Canada.


Cool it there, MbS, we are a socialist country without slavery, you know.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 39756
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 42 times
Received rep: 440 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11563 by Craig » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:44 pm

Senate must have numbers that added some for inflation or something. Here's my source:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/ca ... e36383159/
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 58307
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1929 times
Received rep: 1286 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11564 by Dog » Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:50 pm

This isn’t about money, people!
User avatar
Slick Nick
Registered Broad
Posts: 9465
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:40 pm
Has given rep: 1200 times
Received rep: 745 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11565 by Slick Nick » Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:16 am

senate wrote:
AD wrote:
Dog wrote:Wtf are you doing with a 5th percentile income, banana? That’s shameful shit. I don’t believe it.

:crossarms:


I'm guessing 1% is like 1million income per year in Canada.


Top 1% is $234,700 as of 2015.


Does this include offshore bank accounts?

:googles list of tax heavens:

35. British Virgin Islands
36. United States Virgin Islands
37. Jordan
38. Lebanon
39. Liberia
40. Liechtenstein
41. Luxembourg, for purposes of income received by Companies referred to in paragraph 1 of the Protocol appended to the Agreement, to avoid double taxation, dated 3 June 1986
42. Macao
43. Monaco
44. Oman
45. Panama
46. San Marino
47. Seychelles
48. Singapore


Do you have bank accounts in Lebanon, Banes?
User avatar
Shawnathan Horcoff
Registered Broad
Posts: 37823
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:51 am
Has given rep: 546 times
Received rep: 747 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11566 by Shawnathan Horcoff » Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:25 am

As our good friend Slickless Nicklas has recently mentioned, Kierkegaard provided the final word on human existence:

The present age is essentially a sensible, reflecting age, devoid of passion, flaring up in superficial, short-lived enthusiasm and prudentially relaxing in indolence. ...whereas a passionate age accelerates, raises up, and overthrows, elevates and debases, a reflective apathetic age does the opposite, it stifles and impedes, it levels.... In antiquity the individual in the crowd had no significance whatsoever; the man of excellence stood for them all. The trend today is in the direction of mathematical equality, so that in all classes about so and so many uniformly make one individual.... For leveling to take place, a phantom must first be raised, the spirit of leveling, a monstrous abstraction, an all-encompassing something that is nothing, a mirage—and this phantom is the public.... The present age is essentially a sensible age, devoid of passion and therefore it has nullified the principle of contradiction


Also, let's keep this thread about Galchenyuk's on-ice performance, development and value and NOT bring in his personal life or race.
senate
Registered Broad
Posts: 7791
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:36 am
Has given rep: 261 times
Received rep: 427 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11567 by senate » Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:41 am




As expensive as the parade would have been, it would only enough to buy one F-35.

Also, he is going to be angry when he flies all the way out to Paris on November 11th and learns there is no parade and that French "celebrate" by standing quietly watching wreaths laid.
User avatar
shredz [Bot]
Registered Broad
Posts: 8248
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:31 pm
Location: Home of Keith Kinkaid
Has given rep: 1906 times
Received rep: 991 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11568 by shredz [Bot] » Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:11 am

he sounds like a kid.

and then we can go to paris and then we can have fighter jets and then big boomies in the sky! yayyy
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 58307
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1929 times
Received rep: 1286 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11569 by Dog » Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:21 am

Big Susf wrote:he sounds like a kid.

and then we can go to paris and then we can have fighter jets and then big boomies in the sky! yayyy


SPACE FORCE!

(brought to you by the Trump 2020 re-election campaign)
User avatar
shredz [Bot]
Registered Broad
Posts: 8248
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:31 pm
Location: Home of Keith Kinkaid
Has given rep: 1906 times
Received rep: 991 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11570 by shredz [Bot] » Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:04 am

Image
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 58307
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1929 times
Received rep: 1286 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11571 by Dog » Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:28 am

Shawnathan Horcoff wrote:As our good friend Slickless Nicklas has recently mentioned, Kierkegaard provided the final word on human existence:

The present age is essentially a sensible, reflecting age, devoid of passion, flaring up in superficial, short-lived enthusiasm and prudentially relaxing in indolence. ...whereas a passionate age accelerates, raises up, and overthrows, elevates and debases, a reflective apathetic age does the opposite, it stifles and impedes, it levels.... In antiquity the individual in the crowd had no significance whatsoever; the man of excellence stood for them all. The trend today is in the direction of mathematical equality, so that in all classes about so and so many uniformly make one individual.... For leveling to take place, a phantom must first be raised, the spirit of leveling, a monstrous abstraction, an all-encompassing something that is nothing, a mirage—and this phantom is the public.... The present age is essentially a sensible age, devoid of passion and therefore it has nullified the principle of contradiction



I’m not a fan of Biergaarten. Not an expert, but from the bit I know I can’t reconcile his existential and subjective philosophy with his embrace of a “leap of faith” into religious teachings to transcend human experience. It’s like, wtf, dude, be consistent. All you’re doing is quenching your existential angst with false certainties and narratives -exactly what you preach against.

I share alot with the subjective movements, movements that stem from recognizing the lack (at least as far as we can see) of an objective purpose, leading to mainly a secular humanist position on my part. However, I strongly reject the anti-rational positions in many of these philosophies. Reason isn’t an end in of itself. It is merely a tool. A tool for discovering things about the world. And I think we should adapt our worldviews to our best available understanding of the world. I change worldviews based on best available knowledge (to the extent I know it and understand it). Going to our discussion on civilization earlier, I tend to favour ever increasing cooperation amd closer ties and exchanges precisely because I have an underlying belief -which should be subject to rational debate as to interpretation of available evidence and open to being amended on the basis of future discoveries- that increasing civilization and cooperation is best. If I believed the evidence pointed towards humans being better off as more solitary animals, then I’d be for that. There’s nothing inherently good or bad about either. It’s a question of finding what works best. And that notion of “best”, which is informed by underlying values and objectives can and should be debated. That’s kinda my view of secural humanism. Try to understand the world best you can (and empirical methods is the best we have). Define your objective or desired direction (fundamentally subjective, but ya know were not as free as we like to think and science can help us better understand alot about our nature). Use reason to combine the two -to reconcile your subjective aims and worldview with best available objective knowledge of the world and to project actions into the future to see where they lead and adapt according to your best forecasts (again informed by knowledge of the world) to move towards what you consider the better outcomes. I’m not a robot. I’m not pretending humans are fully, or even mostly, rational. Nor that reason is an goal in of itself. It’s a tool. A very powerful tool to make sense of the world and to permit us to craft our way through it.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 58307
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1929 times
Received rep: 1286 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11572 by Dog » Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:41 am

Can’t believe I’m now replying with longassposts(tm) to Edward _dong. Edward_dong! I’ve lost all sense of self restraint and probity.

:why:
User avatar
AD
Posts: 69240
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 738 times
Received rep: 857 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11573 by AD » Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:05 am

Dog wrote:
AD wrote:
Dog wrote:Wtf are you doing with a 5th percentile income, banana? That’s shameful shit. I don’t believe it.

:crossarms:


I'm guessing 1% is like 1million income per year in Canada.


Cool it there, MbS, we are a socialist country without slavery, you know.


Yeah I checked... wow we're so poor.

:why:
User avatar
MP
Registered Broad
Posts: 28807
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 1:13 pm
Location: :uoıʇɐɔoן
Has given rep: 164 times
Received rep: 411 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11574 by MP » Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:29 am

Dog wrote:Wtf are you doing with a 5th percentile income, banana? That’s shameful shit. I don’t believe it.

:crossarms:

I guessing that's only his declared income....
User avatar
AD
Posts: 69240
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 738 times
Received rep: 857 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11575 by AD » Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:31 am

I, personally, make very little income. I'm not even a homeowner. I drive a car that is 5+ years old. I don't wear fancy clothes.

I'm a man of humble means and simple pleasures.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 58307
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1929 times
Received rep: 1286 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11576 by Dog » Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:34 am

AD wrote:I, personally, make very little income. I'm not even a homeowner. I drive a car that is 5+ years old. I don't wear fancy clothes.

I'm a man of humble means and simple pleasures.


Are you a (mostly pro) corruption lawyer that has his business set up in such a manner as to pay as little tax as possible to society, banana?
User avatar
Slick Nick
Registered Broad
Posts: 9465
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:40 pm
Has given rep: 1200 times
Received rep: 745 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11577 by Slick Nick » Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:36 am

Dog wrote:I’m not a fan of Biergaarten. Not an expert, but from the bit I know I can’t reconcile his existential and subjective philosophy with his embrace of a “leap of faith” into religious teachings to transcend human experience. It’s like, wtf, dude, be consistent. All you’re doing is quenching your existential angst with false certainties and narratives -exactly what you preach against.


Kirk's religious sphere of existence is about unconditional commitment rather than solely religious faith. It's about overcoming the nihilism found in both the aesthetic sphere and the ethical sphere.. it's really only about full and total commitment to a cause.

Dog wrote:I share alot with the subjective movements, movements that stem from recognizing the lack (at least as far as we can see) of an objective purpose, leading to mainly a secular humanist position on my part. However, I strongly reject the anti-rational positions in many of these philosophies. Reason isn’t an end in of itself. It is merely a tool. A tool for discovering things about the world. And I think we should adapt our worldviews to our best available understanding of the world. I change worldviews based on best available knowledge (to the extent I know it and understand it). Going to our discussion on civilization earlier, I tend to favour ever increasing cooperation amd closer ties and exchanges precisely because I have an underlying belief -which should be subject to rational debate as to interpretation of available evidence and open to being amended on the basis of future discoveries- that increasing civilization and cooperation is best. If I believed the evidence pointed towards humans being better off as more solitary animals, then I’d be for that. There’s nothing inherently good or bad about either. It’s a question of finding what works best. And that notion of “best”, which is informed by underlying values and objectives can and should be debated. That’s kinda my view of secural humanism. Try to understand the world best you can (and empirical methods is the best we have). Define your objective or desired direction (fundamentally subjective, but ya know were not as free as we like to think and science can help us better understand alot about our nature). Use reason to combine the two -to reconcile your subjective aims and worldview with best available objective knowledge of the world and to project actions into the future to see where they lead and adapt according to your best forecasts (again informed by knowledge of the world) to move towards what you consider the better outcomes. I’m not a robot. I’m not pretending humans are fully, or even mostly, rational. Nor that reason is an goal in of itself. It’s a tool. A very powerful tool to make sense of the world and to permit us to craft our way through it.


Sliqué wrote:Plus encore, le fait que la sphère publique se retrouve à l’extérieur du pouvoir politique signifie, pour Kierkegaard, que l’on peut former toutes sortes d’opinions sur un enjeu donné, sans jamais être porté à agir pour le régler et que cette situation « opens up the possibility of endless reflection ». (Dreyfus 1997, 76) Pour le philosophe danois, puisqu’aucune action n’est réellement engagée, nous sommes constamment portés à trouver une nouvelle perspective pour aborder le problème ; ceci produit une accumulation toujours plus grande d’information qui en retour nous force à constamment remettre à plus tard la prise d’une action ou d’une décision.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 58307
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1929 times
Received rep: 1286 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11578 by Dog » Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:57 am

Slick Nick wrote:Kirk's religious sphere of existence is about unconditional commitment rather than solely religious faith. It's about overcoming the nihilism found in both the aesthetic sphere and the ethical sphere.. it's really only about full and total commitment to a cause.


Yeah, that’s what i said. It’s his “leap of faith” thing and it’s retarded (no offense to our Retarder). He basically says, faced with uncertainty, imma just going to go run into religion wholeheartedly to comfort, soothe and shield myself from the great big unkonwn out there. Motherfucker, don’t lack courage or abdicate your brain. Search for truth, not feel good. And we can debate on whether the best source of knowledge is empirical analysis (observation and experience, subjected to reason) or divine revelation or gut instincts or whatnot. I’m firmly in the camp of the former.

Slick Nick wrote: “Plus encore, le fait que la sphère publique se retrouve à l’extérieur du pouvoir politique signifie, pour Kierkegaard, que l’on peut former toutes sortes d’opinions sur un enjeu donné, sans jamais être porté à agir pour le régler et que cette situation « opens up the possibility of endless reflection ». (Dreyfus 1997, 76) Pour le philosophe danois, puisqu’aucune action n’est réellement engagée, nous sommes constamment portés à trouver une nouvelle perspective pour aborder le problème ; ceci produit une accumulation toujours plus grande d’information qui en retour nous force à constamment remettre à plus tard la prise d’une action ou d’une décision.


But that’s not true. You don’t need to artificially “wholeheatedly” (ie. closed mindedly) adopt some random unsuported worldview to avoid complete and paralysing subjectivism. You can very much have a flexible worldview that, to the greatest extent possible, is informed by objective knowledge of the world and your reasoned objectives/purposes.

All this shit stems from people not comfortable with not being directed by daddy. We’re young adults now, teen years can be messy and confusing, but we can grow into more mature, rational and “self”-directed beings. Which can 100% build strong ass communities based on mutual interest and shared condition. You don’t need yer stories, nick.
User avatar
Slick Nick
Registered Broad
Posts: 9465
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:40 pm
Has given rep: 1200 times
Received rep: 745 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11579 by Slick Nick » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:09 pm

Dog wrote:But that’s not true. You don’t need to artificially “wholeheatedly” (ie. closed mindedly) adopt some random unsuported worldview to avoid complete and paralysing subjectivism. You can very much have a flexible worldview that, to the greatest extent possible, is informed by objective knowledge of the world and your reasoned objectives/purposes.


That was my exact criticism of his philosophy.. but he has a range of valid points too. Not going into long ass posts.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 69240
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 738 times
Received rep: 857 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11580 by AD » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:16 pm

Dog wrote:
AD wrote:I, personally, make very little income. I'm not even a homeowner. I drive a car that is 5+ years old. I don't wear fancy clothes.

I'm a man of humble means and simple pleasures.


Are you a (mostly pro) corruption lawyer that has his business set up in such a manner as to pay as little tax as possible to society, banana?


Paying as little taxes as possible, within the confines and following the rules of our regulatory mechanisms on taxation, is a habitual legitimate business practice. Any other behaviour would be absurd.
User avatar
Slick Nick
Registered Broad
Posts: 9465
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:40 pm
Has given rep: 1200 times
Received rep: 745 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11581 by Slick Nick » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:18 pm

Another thread derailed!
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 58307
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1929 times
Received rep: 1286 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11582 by Dog » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:20 pm

Slick Nick wrote:
Dog wrote:But that’s not true. You don’t need to artificially “wholeheatedly” (ie. closed mindedly) adopt some random unsuported worldview to avoid complete and paralysing subjectivism. You can very much have a flexible worldview that, to the greatest extent possible, is informed by objective knowledge of the world and your reasoned objectives/purposes.


That was my exact criticism of his philosophy.. but he has a range of valid points too. Not going into long ass posts.


Agreed, that’s what I said. I subscribe to alot of the subjective-existentialist-postmodernist-humanist schools, but think Kirk in particular stood out as a wtf with his leap of faith nonesense. Like I mentionned, though, I don’t subscribe to the anti-rational stream which seems to be persistent in these movements. In fact, I think reason is the tool you use to chart your path in a “open” (non objectively imposed) world. Why? Simply because I think it leads to better results than going into full blown nihilism and doing nothing or not dealing well with open-endedness and closing your mind off and jumping wholeheartedly into a random worldview.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 58307
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1929 times
Received rep: 1286 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11583 by Dog » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:20 pm

Slick Nick wrote:Another thread derailed!


All threads lead to dogphilosophy.

:crossarms:
User avatar
Slick Nick
Registered Broad
Posts: 9465
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:40 pm
Has given rep: 1200 times
Received rep: 745 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11584 by Slick Nick » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:24 pm

Dog wrote:
Slick Nick wrote:
Dog wrote:But that’s not true. You don’t need to artificially “wholeheatedly” (ie. closed mindedly) adopt some random unsuported worldview to avoid complete and paralysing subjectivism. You can very much have a flexible worldview that, to the greatest extent possible, is informed by objective knowledge of the world and your reasoned objectives/purposes.


That was my exact criticism of his philosophy.. but he has a range of valid points too. Not going into long ass posts.


Agreed, that’s what I said. I subscribe to alot of the subjective-existentialist-postmodernist-humanist schools, but think Kirk in particular stood out as a wtf with his leap of faith nonesense. Like I mentionned, though, I don’t subscribe to the anti-rational stream which seems to be persistent in these movements. In fact, I think reason is the tool you use to chart your path in a “open” (non objectively imposed) world. Why? Simply because I think it leads to better results than going into full blown nihilism and doing nothing or not dealing well with open-endedness and closing your mind off and jumping wholeheartedly into a random worldview.


Enfin, ce qui ressort le plus clairement dans le chapitre de Dreyfus est toute l’importance qu’accorde Kierkegaard à l’engagement. Or, on est également en droit de se questionner sur la nécessité d’un engagement inconditionnel à une cause et les répercussions qui en découlent. Il me semble qu’il est tout à fait possible d’avoir une identité solide dans la sphère éthique sans se commettre corps et âme face à une cause. La possibilité de révoquer un engagement peut être vue comme menant à l’impasse, mais on peut également l’interpréter comme une manière d’ajuster sa vie en fonction des éléments nouveaux qui se présentent à nous. Se donner le droit de rectifier, c’est admettre que nous ne sommes pas infaillibles et que certains chemins que nous avons pris par le passé nous mènent également dans une impasse, aussi commis que l’on soit envers eux. Un engagement absolu suppose également une fermeture totale d’esprit. Ce type de dogmatisme mène irrémédiablement au conflit, ou pire, au fanatisme. Je pense au contraire qu’il est préférable d’utiliser notre capacité à raisonner et à dialoguer afin de minimiser les sources de conflit et de maximiser notre bien-être personnel et collectif. Finalement, il me semble préférable d’emprunter à chacune des trois sphères de l’existence des éléments qui nous paraissent importants plutôt que de s’engager vers un seul et unique chemin. Je ne vois aucune contradiction dans le fait de s’évader parfois dans le monde esthétique, de s’engager authentiquement mais de manière conditionnelle envers certaines idées dans le monde éthique et de manière inconditionnelle envers d’autres idées dans la sphère religieuse. L’équilibre entre ces trois domaines et notre capacité à nous adapter m’apparait comme une alternative plus saine à l’unilatéralisme défendu par Dreyfus.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 58307
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1929 times
Received rep: 1286 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11585 by Dog » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:25 pm

AD wrote:
Dog wrote:
AD wrote:I, personally, make very little income. I'm not even a homeowner. I drive a car that is 5+ years old. I don't wear fancy clothes.

I'm a man of humble means and simple pleasures.


Are you a (mostly pro) corruption lawyer that has his business set up in such a manner as to pay as little tax as possible to society, banana?


Paying as little taxes as possible, within the confines and following the rules of our regulatory mechanisms on taxation, is a habitual legitimate business practice. Any other behaviour would be absurd.


I’m going to have to reassess my views on liberal communal living.

:hillary:
senate
Registered Broad
Posts: 7791
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:36 am
Has given rep: 261 times
Received rep: 427 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11586 by senate » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:27 pm

If anyone wants a quick end to a war, its mercenaries.

User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 58307
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1929 times
Received rep: 1286 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11587 by Dog » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:29 pm

Slick Nick wrote:
Dog wrote:
Slick Nick wrote:
That was my exact criticism of his philosophy.. but he has a range of valid points too. Not going into long ass posts.


Agreed, that’s what I said. I subscribe to alot of the subjective-existentialist-postmodernist-humanist schools, but think Kirk in particular stood out as a wtf with his leap of faith nonesense. Like I mentionned, though, I don’t subscribe to the anti-rational stream which seems to be persistent in these movements. In fact, I think reason is the tool you use to chart your path in a “open” (non objectively imposed) world. Why? Simply because I think it leads to better results than going into full blown nihilism and doing nothing or not dealing well with open-endedness and closing your mind off and jumping wholeheartedly into a random worldview.


Enfin, ce qui ressort le plus clairement dans le chapitre de Dreyfus est toute l’importance qu’accorde Kierkegaard à l’engagement. Or, on est également en droit de se questionner sur la nécessité d’un engagement inconditionnel à une cause et les répercussions qui en découlent. Il me semble qu’il est tout à fait possible d’avoir une identité solide dans la sphère éthique sans se commettre corps et âme face à une cause. La possibilité de révoquer un engagement peut être vue comme menant à l’impasse, mais on peut également l’interpréter comme une manière d’ajuster sa vie en fonction des éléments nouveaux qui se présentent à nous. Se donner le droit de rectifier, c’est admettre que nous ne sommes pas infaillibles et que certains chemins que nous avons pris par le passé nous mènent également dans une impasse, aussi commis que l’on soit envers eux. Un engagement absolu suppose également une fermeture totale d’esprit. Ce type de dogmatisme mène irrémédiablement au conflit, ou pire, au fanatisme. Je pense au contraire qu’il est préférable d’utiliser notre capacité à raisonner et à dialoguer afin de minimiser les sources de conflit et de maximiser notre bien-être personnel et collectif. Finalement, il me semble préférable d’emprunter à chacune des trois sphères de l’existence des éléments qui nous paraissent importants plutôt que de s’engager vers un seul et unique chemin. Je ne vois aucune contradiction dans le fait de s’évader parfois dans le monde esthétique, de s’engager authentiquement mais de manière conditionnelle envers certaines idées dans le monde éthique et de manière inconditionnelle envers d’autres idées dans la sphère religieuse. L’équilibre entre ces trois domaines et notre capacité à nous adapter m’apparait comme une alternative plus saine à l’unilatéralisme défendu par Dreyfus.


You wrote that, nick? I largely agree/wrote the same here. I put more preponderance on reason, but hey also recognize that may just be the way I’m built.

Am I not going to have to fight and kill you?

:stare:
User avatar
Slick Nick
Registered Broad
Posts: 9465
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:40 pm
Has given rep: 1200 times
Received rep: 745 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11588 by Slick Nick » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:40 pm

Dog wrote:
You wrote that, nick? I largely agree/wrote the same here. I put more preponderance on reason, but hey also recognize that may just be the way I’m built.

Am I not going to not have to fight and kill you?

:stare:



The essay was about the reinterpretation of Kierkegaard by Dreyfus: Kierkegaard on the Internet: Anonymity vs. Commitment in the Present Age .. it was really about the anonymity, it's effects on the Self and commitment... there was little space for reason, so I basically really concentrated on the commitment part. But it's a fascinating thing how Kirk's ideas (mostly on the public sphere and disengagement) are probably more actual today than they were in his own time. With Twitter mobs and anonymous boards and presidents embarrassing tweets. Good read, keep in mind it was written in 1999.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 58307
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1929 times
Received rep: 1286 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11589 by Dog » Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:13 pm

Slick Nick wrote:
Dog wrote:
You wrote that, nick? I largely agree/wrote the same here. I put more preponderance on reason, but hey also recognize that may just be the way I’m built.

Am I not going to not have to fight and kill you?

:stare:



The essay was about the reinterpretation of Kierkegaard by Dreyfus: Kierkegaard on the Internet: Anonymity vs. Commitment in the Present Age .. it was really about the anonymity, it's effects on the Self and commitment... there was little space for reason, so I basically really concentrated on the commitment part. But it's a fascinating thing how Kirk's ideas (mostly on the public sphere and disengagement) are probably more actual today than they were in his own time. With Twitter mobs and anonymous boards and presidents embarrassing tweets. Good read, keep in mind it was written in 1999.


I know. Public discourse/debate is utter crap. Can’t really opine on past periods (wasn’t really there), but ça vole pas haut présentement. I sorta have a half thought that this is the natural progression of mass consumer society -people being instant gratification/low effort/high sensationalism/quick reaction junkies. Dunno.
senate
Registered Broad
Posts: 7791
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:36 am
Has given rep: 261 times
Received rep: 427 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11590 by senate » Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:13 pm



And the unsequestered jury is going to go home today and see the President of the United States commenting on the case.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 22157
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 140 times
Received rep: 423 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11591 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:59 pm

What do "twitter mobs" have to do with Kierkegaard? I am not following.
User avatar
Slick Nick
Registered Broad
Posts: 9465
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:40 pm
Has given rep: 1200 times
Received rep: 745 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11592 by Slick Nick » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:31 am

Dr_Chimera wrote:What do "twitter mobs" have to do with Kierkegaard? I am not following.


In a section of A Literary Review entitled “The Present Age”, 1
written in 1846, Kierkegaard warns that his age is character¬
ized by a disinterested reflection and curiosity that level all
differences of status and value. In his terms, this detached
reflection levels all qualitative distinctions. Everything is equal
in that nothing matters enough that one would be willing to
die for it. Nietzsche gave this modern condition a name; he
called it nihilism. Kierkegaard blames this levelling on what he calls the
Public. He says that “For levelling properly to come about
a phantom must first be provided, its spirit, a monstrous
abstraction, an all-encompassing something that is a nothing,
a mirage — this phantom is the public.” 2 But the real villain
behind the Public, Kierkegaard claims, is the Press. He warned
that “Europe will come to a standstill at the Press and remain
at a standstill as a reminder that the human race has invented
something which will eventually overpower it”, 3 and he adds:
“Even if my life had no other significance, I am satisfied
with having discovered the absolutely demoralizing existence
of the daily press.” 4

But why blame levelling on the public rather than on dem¬
ocracy, technology, or loss of respect for tradition, to name a
few candidates? And why this monomaniacal demonizing of
the press? Kierkegaard says in his journals that “Actually it is
the Press, more specifically the daily newspaper . . . which
make[s] Christianity impossible.” 5 This is an amazing claim.
Clearly, Kierkegaard saw the press as a unique cultural/
religious threat, but it will take a little while to explain why.

It is no accident that, writing in 1846, Kierkegaard chose to
attack the public and the press. To understand why he did so,
we have to begin a century earlier. In The Structural Transformation
of the Public Sphere 6 Jurgen Habermas locates the beginning of
what he calls the public sphere in the middle of the eighteenth
century. He explains that at that time the press and coffee¬
houses became the locus of a new form of political discus¬
sion. This new sphere of discourse was radically different
from the ancient polis or republic; the modern public sphere
understood itself as being outside political power. This extra¬
political status was not just defined negatively, as a lack of
political power, but seen positively. Just because public opin¬
ion is not an exercise of political power, it is protected from any partisan spirit.
Enlightenment intellectuals saw the public
sphere as a space in which the rational, disinterested reflec¬
tion that should guide government and human life could
be institutionalized and refined. Such disengaged discussion
came to be seen as an essential feature of a free society. As the
press extended public debate to a wider and wider readership
of ordinary citizens, Burke exalted that, “in a free country,
every man thinks he has a concern in all public matters”. 7

Over the next century, thanks to the expansion of the daily
press, the public sphere became increasingly democratized
until this democratization had a surprising result which,
according to Habermas, “altered [the] social preconditions
of ‘public opinion’ around the middle of the [nineteenth]
century.” 8 “[As] the Public was expanded ... by the prolifer¬
ation of the Press . . . the reign of public opinion appeared as
the reign of the many and mediocre.” 9 Many people, includ¬
ing J. S. Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville, feared “the tyranny of
public opinion” 10 and Mill felt called upon to protect “non¬
conformists from the grip of the Public itself’. 11 According
to Habermas, Tocqueville insisted that “education and power¬
ful citizens were supposed to form an elite public whose critical
debate determined public opinion”. 12

“The Present Age” shows just how original Kierkegaard
was. While Tocqueville and Mill claimed that the masses
needed elite philosophical leadership, and while Habermas
agrees with them that what happened around 1850 with the
democratization of the public sphere by the daily press is an
unfortunate decline into conformism from which the public
sphere must be rescued, Kierkegaard sees the public sphere
itself as a new and dangerous cultural phenomenon in which
the nihilism produced by the press brings out something
that was deeply wrong with the Enlightenment idea of
detached reflection from the start. Thus, while Habermas is
concerned to recapture the moral and political virtues of the
public sphere, Kierkegaard warns that there is no way to sal¬
vage the public sphere since, unlike concrete and committed
groups, it was from the start the source of levelling.

This levelling was produced in several ways. First, the new
massive distribution of desituated information was making
every sort of information immediately available to anyone,
thereby producing a desituated, detached spectator. Thus, the
new power of the press to disseminate information to every¬
one in a nation led its readers to transcend their local, per¬
sonal involvement and overcome their reticence about what
didn’t directly concern them. As Burke had noted with joy,
the press encouraged everyone to develop an opinion about
everything. This is seen by Habermas as a triumph of dem¬
ocratization, but Kierkegaard saw that the public sphere was
destined to become a detached world in which everyone
had an opinion about and commented on all public matters
without needing any first-hand experience and without having
or wanting any responsibility.

The press and its decadent descendant, the talk show, are
bad enough, but this demoralizing effect was not Kierkegaard’s
main concern. For Kierkegaard, the deeper danger is just
what Habermas applauds about the public sphere, namely,
as Kierkegaard puts it, “the public . . . eats up all individu¬
ality’s relativity and concreteness”. 13 The public sphere thus
promotes ubiquitous commentators who deliberately detach
themselves from the local practices out of which specific
issues grow and in terms of which these issues must be
resolved through some sort of committed action. As Kierke¬
gaard puts it:

The public is not a people, a generation, one's era, not a
community, an association, nor these particular persons, for
all these are only what they are by virtue of what is concrete.

Not a single one of those who belong to the public has an
essential engagement in anything , 14

What seems a virtue to detached Enlightenment reason,
therefore looks like a disastrous drawback to Kierkegaard.
Even the most conscientious commentators don’t have to
have first-hand experience nor take a concrete stand. Rather,
as Kierkegaard complains, they justify their views by citing
principles. Since the conclusions such abstract reasoning
reaches are not grounded in the local practices, its proposals
would presumably not enlist the commitment of the people
involved, and consequently would not work even if enacted
as laws.

More basically still, that the public sphere lies outside of
political power meant, for Kierkegaard, that one could hold
an opinion on anything without having to act on it. He notes
with disapproval that “[the public’s] artifice, its good sense,
its virtuosity consists in letting matters reach a verdict and a
decision without ever acting”. 15 This opens up the possibility
of endless reflection. For, if there is no need for decision and
action, one can look at all things from all sides and always
find some new perspective. The accumulation of information
thus postpones decision indefinitely since, as one finds out
more, it is always possible that one’s picture of the world,
and, therefore, of what one should do, will have to be revised.
Kierkegaard saw that, when everything is up for endless critical
commentary, action can always be postponed. “ [Reflection
is able at any moment to put things in a new light and allow
one some measure of escape.” 16 One need never act.


All that a reflective age like ours produces is more and more
knowledge. As Kierkegaard puts it, “One can say in general of
a passionless but reflective age, compared to a passionate one,
that it gains in extensity what it loses in intensity.” 17 He adds: “we all
know what path to take and what paths can be taken, but
no one will take them.” 18 No one stands behind the views the
public holds, so no one is willing to act on them. Kierkegaard
wrote in his journal: “here . . . are the two most dreadful
calamities which really are the principle powers of imperson¬
ality — the Press and anonymity.” 19 Therefore, the motto
Kierkegaard suggested for the press was: “Here men are
demoralized in the shortest possible time on the largest
possible scale, at the cheapest possible price.” 20

In “The Present Age” Kierkegaard succinctly sums up his
view of the relation of the press, the public sphere, and the
levelling going on in his time. The desituated and anonymous
press and the lack of passion or commitment in his reflective
age combine to produce the public, the agent of the nihilistic
levelling:

The abstraction of the press (for a newspaper, a journal, is no
political concretion and only an individual in an abstract
sense], combined with the passionlessness and
reflectiveness of the age, gives birth to that abstraction's
phantom, the public, which is the real Leveller. 21

Kierkegaard would surely have seen in the Internet, with
its Websites full of anonymous information from all over the
world and its interest groups that anyone in the world can
join without qualifications and where one can discuss any
topic endlessly without consequences, the hi-tech synthesis
of the worst features of the newspaper and the coffeehouse. 22
Indeed, thanks to the Internet, Burke’s dream has been
realized. In news groups, anyone, anywhere, any time, can
have an opinion on anything. All are only too eager to respond
to the equally deracinated opinions of other anonymous ama¬
teurs who post their views from nowhere. Such commenta¬
tors do not take a stand on the issues they speak about.
Indeed, the very ubiquity of the Net tends to make any such
local stand seem irrelevant.

The most perfect realization of Burke’s vision of the public
sphere is the blog. In a blog anyone can express his or her
opinion about anything without needing any experience and
without accepting any responsibility. But since putting one’s
ideas into practice and so taking risks and learning from one’s
failures and successes are required for acquiring expertise,
most bloggers have no wisdom to contribute.

The Enlightenment hope is that the few bloggers who are
engaged in the concrete activities they write about will be
recognized and be widely read, but the flood of blogs, the fact
that those involved in committed action are generally too
busy to write commentaries, and the fact that the readers who
are supposed to do the job of recognizing the enlightening
blogs by clicking on them are not themselves experienced
and wise, makes the contribution of blogs to serious public
debate unlikely. Blogging is more interactive than the press
and talk shows, and so resembles a return to the coffeehouse
kibitzing of those outside of power that Habermas admires
as democracy at work, and Kierkegaard detests as a diversion
that substitutes for risky action.

What Kierkegaard envisaged as a consequence of the
press’s indiscriminate and uncommitted coverage is now fully
realized on the World Wide Web. Thanks to hyperlinks, mean¬
ingful differences have, indeed, been levelled. Relevance and
significance have disappeared. And this is an important part of



the attraction of the Web. Nothing is too trivial to be included.
Nothing is so important that it demands a special place. In his
religious writing Kierkegaard criticized the implicit nihilism
in the idea that God is equally concerned with the salvation
of a sinner and the fall of a sparrow, 23 that “for God there is
nothing significant and nothing insignificant”. 24 He said such
a thought would lead one “to the verge of despair”. 25 On
the Web, the attraction and the danger are that everyone can
take this godlike point of view. One can view a coffee pot in
Cambridge, or the latest super-nova, study the Kyoto Protocol,
find out what fellowships are available to a person with one’s
profile, or direct a robot to plant and water a seed in Austria,
not to mention plough through thousands of ads, all with
equal ease and equal lack of any sense of what is important.
The highly significant and the absolutely trivial are laid
out together on the information highway in just the way
Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, red, white and blue shoe strings,
a thousand telephones that don’t ring, and the next world war
are laid out on Dylan’s nihilistic “Highway 61”.

Kierkegaard even foresaw that the ultimate activity the
Internet would encourage would be speculation on how big it
is, how much bigger it will get, and what, if anything, all this
means for our culture. This sort of discussion is, of course, in
danger of becoming part of the very cloud of anonymous
speculation Kierkegaard abhorred. Ever sensitive to his own
position as a speaker, Kierkegaard concluded his analysis of
the dangers of the present age and his dark predictions of
what was ahead for Europe with the ironic remark that: “And
since in this age, in which so little is actually done, such an
extraordinary amount is done in the way of prophecies, apo¬
calypses, hints, and insights into the future, there is probably
nothing else for it but to join in.” 26
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 22157
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 140 times
Received rep: 423 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11593 by Dr_Chimera » Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:34 am

Did you write this? It sucks.
User avatar
PredsFan77
Posts: 37779
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:53 am
Location: 7 TIME LOUNGE JEOPARDY CHAMP!!!
Has given rep: 140 times
Received rep: 412 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11594 by PredsFan77 » Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:17 am

tldr
CDX.NA.IG.9



















[LEFT]Image[/LEFT]
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 58307
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1929 times
Received rep: 1286 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11595 by Dog » Sat Aug 18, 2018 10:18 am

Dr_Chimera wrote:Did you write this? It sucks.


I think alot of Kirk’s positions on the press/public opinion are informed by his being the subject of ridicule in the press. Thin skinned and elitist response.

Regardless of the “masses are idiots” instincts of many “elites”, I think people (elites and proles alike) all tend to broadly espouse self-serving positions. They can certainly be indoctrinized and manipulated, but when we look at broad trends, positions and worldviews can often be explained by real self interest and/or emerge from the particular circumstances applicable to a given demographic.

If one feels the masses are going “crazy”, I think we have to look at why -what’s the undelying cause/force pushing towards that- and address it (whether accomodating it or fighting it). Address it at the root causes/issues, not dismiss it as “stupid”. People may be more or less eloquent, but they are all pretty good at sensing when something’s not going their way. I often find myself amazed at how much popular movements point to things I’m completely oblivious to (from my own position within society). Like I stated earlier, the current broad based wave of populism taking hold signals deep discontent. It shouldn’t be dismissed as “stupid”. Causes should be searched for and addressed.
User avatar
Slick Nick
Registered Broad
Posts: 9465
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:40 pm
Has given rep: 1200 times
Received rep: 745 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11596 by Slick Nick » Sat Aug 18, 2018 11:52 am

Dr_Chimera wrote:Did you write this? It sucks.


No, this guy did:
http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/04/24/hubert-dreyfus/
User avatar
Slick Nick
Registered Broad
Posts: 9465
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:40 pm
Has given rep: 1200 times
Received rep: 745 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11597 by Slick Nick » Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:15 pm

Dog wrote:
Dr_Chimera wrote:Did you write this? It sucks.


I think alot of Kirk’s positions on the press/public opinion are informed by his being the subject of ridicule in the press. Thin skinned and elitist response.

Regardless of the “masses are idiots” instincts of many “elites”, I think people (elites and proles alike) all tend to broadly espouse self-serving positions. They can certainly be indoctrinized and manipulated, but when we look at broad trends, positions and worldviews can often be explained by real self interest and/or emerge from the particular circumstances applicable to a given demographic.

If one feels the masses are going “crazy”, I think we have to look at why -what’s the undelying cause/force pushing towards that- and address it (whether accomodating it or fighting it). Address it at the root causes/issues, not dismiss it as “stupid”. People may be more or less eloquent, but they are all pretty good at sensing when something’s not going their way. I often find myself amazed at how much popular movements point to things I’m completely oblivious to (from my own position within society). Like I stated earlier, the current broad based wave of populism taking hold signals deep discontent. It shouldn’t be dismissed as “stupid”. Causes should be searched for and addressed.


I don't think that he dismisses people as stupid, I think he grasped the dangers that could pose this all encompassing yet anonymous and abstract force that is the public...it's more of a reflection on individuality vs the crowd, crowd psychology, opinion forming, etc. I think it's brilliant nonobstant the elitism and his personal butthurt against The Corsair. Whereas most people of his time simply noted the irrational behavior of masses, he actually dug deep into trying to underline the principles that are at heart of the behavior.
User avatar
mayoradamwest
Registered Broad
Posts: 29955
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 8:38 pm
Has given rep: 383 times
Received rep: 184 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11598 by mayoradamwest » Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:16 pm

Dog wrote:
Dr_Chimera wrote:Did you write this? It sucks.


I think alot of Kirk’s positions on the press/public opinion are informed by his being the subject of ridicule in the press. Thin skinned and elitist response.

Regardless of the “masses are idiots” instincts of many “elites”, I think people (elites and proles alike) all tend to broadly espouse self-serving positions. They can certainly be indoctrinized and manipulated, but when we look at broad trends, positions and worldviews can often be explained by real self interest and/or emerge from the particular circumstances applicable to a given demographic.

If one feels the masses are going “crazy”, I think we have to look at why -what’s the undelying cause/force pushing towards that- and address it (whether accomodating it or fighting it). Address it at the root causes/issues, not dismiss it as “stupid”. People may be more or less eloquent, but they are all pretty good at sensing when something’s not going their way. I often find myself amazed at how much popular movements point to things I’m completely oblivious to (from my own position within society). Like I stated earlier, the current broad based wave of populism taking hold signals deep discontent. It shouldn’t be dismissed as “stupid”. Causes should be searched for and addressed.


People are terrible at knowing when something isn't going their way, and unfortunately stupidity - ignorance is a root cause.

Fear based politics are really being pushed, though educated people also fall into it... We seem to believe what we want to. Seems like there's an ever present theme that self motivated actions are the only logical option, and to me the overarching debate of expanding services provided by the government vs trying to use free market mechanisms has been completely replaced with a collective vs extreme individualism debate. And - that there is a huge collective of people convinced that working together at a larger level is impossible and illogical who insist on running government is, at its heart, stupid.
User avatar
mooseOAK
Registered Broad
Posts: 2184
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:58 am
Has given rep: 31 times
Received rep: 266 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11599 by mooseOAK » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:45 pm

User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 22157
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 140 times
Received rep: 423 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #11600 by Dr_Chimera » Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:40 pm

Sorry, I was being too subtle!

Return to “Le mur de messages”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AhrefsBot and 2 guests