Hard News: A Taxonomy of Poo
209 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last
-
Less Cosa Nostra than Judean People's Front/People's Front of Judea, surely? ("Don't call me Shirley")
Well, for folks who claim to abhor religion they sure seem to act like the kind of cult that will rigorously shun anyone who deviates from absolute doctrinal purity. Case Study #1,438,701 in the pathology of ideology when politics becomes indistinguishable from religion.
-
Sacha
OMG. I knew blonde businesswoman had moved on from The Don, but not who to? No surprises, though, I guess.
However, despite unwelcome thoughts of Paul Henry's elocution, we must arse on and keep the word in our lexicon. I expect the next one we'll have to f ight off is 'aks' for 'ask'.lHey Pub Guy,
I'm with you on the frustration brought on by the gulf between such discussions as this and the man in the street, but I need both sorts of company and need to talk at both levels.
I don't understand all the academic jargon some posters write in and sometimes it seems to be a bit of a jousting competition between the very well read, but mostly I find it fun, informative and stimulating. -
There was a question, some way back, about a documentary about the PYM. Can't remember the title but it was made by Russell Campbell and Alastair Barry.
As an aside--has anyone else read the piece by Nicholas Carr "Is Google making us Stoopid? What the internet is doing to our brains" (Atlantic July/August 2008). He suggests (amongst other things) that the net is making it difficult to stay focused on long pieces of writing. I am finding I am doing the same with some of these discussions--anything longer than 2 or 3 pars tends to get skipped, in favour of shorter entries. Does that make me 'stoopid'?
-
Gee - the thread that just keeps on giving ......
I guess I've had to joust with scientologists too much, I'd never really thought of Randism as a religion but I guess they are - the sort without a god but with a prophet (kind of like Buddhism) - maybe more so that elron's where the leaders probably don't really believe ....
-
maybe more so that elron's where the leaders probably don't really believe ....
It's entirely possible that Scientology's leaders have come to believe their own stories. Don't discount the combined power of repetition, outside 'persecution' and unthinking sycophantic affirmation from sciborgs lower in the hierarchy.
-
There was a question, some way back, about a documentary about the PYM. Can't remember the title but it was made by Russell Campbell and Alastair Barry.
Rebels in Retrospect, Vanguard Films.
-
while Marxism is nominally distinct from right-wing authoritarianism or neoconservatism or libertarianism, they are essentially authoritarian social darwinism and there is no essential shift from the authoritarian, deterministic pattern or mindset of Marxism to those ideologies.
Um, wtf? That's duckspeak. You're not using actual, meaningful words there.
How can Marxism be social darwinism? ``From each according to his ability, to each according to their ability'' is the negation of social darwinism. They're antithetical.
Centrist liberals have their very own set of poo labels, and `extremist' `totalitarian', `authoritarian' etc. are all perfectly capable of being used as such.
This illusion that you can just lazily stick neoconservatism, fascism, libertarianism, and Marxism in one corner and explain them all by the same highly reductive logic is bizarre. It's weird, because, as far as I can tell, it consist of taking everyone who disagrees with a certain species of liberalism, and treating that as the defining feature of their philosophies. Oddly enough, if you do that, they all look the same.
-
A way back someone pointed out that calling someone a lesbian isn't actually an insult... It seems to me that a lot of the "dykocracy" discourse is about not really dealing with the fact that there are powerful women in our country these days, and I don't just mean Alison Holst.
Someone mentioned the new NBR column using the title "Helengrad" - my understanding is that this is David Farrar's weekly missive, is that right?
-
I think the problem is more that the authoritarian, deterministic elements in all of those ideologies tend to attract a similar brand of adherent, who will then stress those elements in whatever ideology they attach themselves to.
-
Kyle - thanks for the PYM thing.
I'm sure that quote of Shadbolt was aimed to piss a few hippies off.PhD = Paper Hanging Diploma (Interior decorating)
-
Someone mentioned the new NBR column using the title "Helengrad" - my understanding is that this is David Farrar's weekly missive, is that right?
That is right. I quite like the term Helengrad :)
-
How can Marxism be social darwinism?
Absolutely, Keir: I think perhaps people are, as so often, conflating Marxism with some of its attempted (or claimed) implementations throughout history.
-
a jousting competition between the very well read
Perhaps, but I don't think anyone's doing it to show off, thankfully.
-
Helengrad is really DFP et al admition of defeat.
Their war goes on but they have not hope of success, it is an ideological battle as Stalingrad was.
Just who is their Hitler if Helen is Stalin?
-
Farrar's column is on NBR Online, rather than in the newspaper itself.
-
It's weird, because, as far as I can tell, it consist of taking everyone who disagrees with a certain species of liberalism, and treating that as the defining feature of their philosophies.
Except authoritarianism is a defining feature of their philosophies. The NeoCons and fascists are just your typical power-worshipping "might makes right" authoritarians. Libertarianism masks this benearth the language of freedom, but when you unpack it, it turns out the same: money makes right, and everyone else gets to be their slaves in a pratical sense (while their oppressors claim that they are "free" all the same - a move Orwell would be proud of). In the case of Marxists and their descendents, it's more subtle - they carry the poison of Rousseau, via Kant and Hegel - the idea that only rational freedom counts, and that people must be "forced to be free". Throw in a view that rationality is defined by class-interests and that those who deny this or want to act outside their class-interests are suffering from "false consciousness", and you have a recipe for authoritarianism and oppression as nasty as anything you'll find from the power-trippers.
But clearly, this is just bourgeois liberalism denying the impeccable logic of the People.
-
I/S just said it better than I could.
-
You can't say that authoritarianism is a defining feature of Marxism without dealing with the innumerable examples of non-authoritarian Marxists -- Kautsky, Allende, the Kerala Model, etc, and the vast numbers of left-wing political parties, that, given your guilt-by-association logic, should be reeling over dead from the third-hand `poison' of Rousseau and Kant. (By the way, you know that Ayn Rand hates Kant as well, which kind of intimates against this vast authoritarian web of ideologies.)
By your standards even Orwell was a particularly nasty authoritarian, and at that point you might want to realise you've essentially defined two groups: slightly-pink left liberals, and the rest of the world. I think those aren't particularly useful categories.
There's no real informational value in calling the various political bogeymen `authoritarians', because all you're using it to mean is `wrong'.
Libertarian-anarchist types honestly aren't authoritarian in any meaningful sense that you might call fascists authoritarian.
-
It's entirely possible that Scientology's leaders have come to believe their own stories. Don't discount the combined power of repetition, outside 'persecution' and unthinking sycophantic affirmation from sciborgs lower in the hierarchy.
I understand that Elron at least did by the time he passed on to whatever plane xenu resides on.
For my money, one very interesting area of study at the moment is the investigation of why we (species we) believe what we do, whether we are hardwired for belief, and if so, why? i.e. could it have provided an evolutionary advantage at some point to have an increased 'pattern-spotting' sense, even if there isn't always a pattern to be spotted?
Better to jump for the nearest tree if the pattern in the long grass could be a tiger, than assume it isnt....
Did this evolve/mutate over millenia into a tendancy to assume that because a virgin was sacrified last year, and the harvest was good, we should probably do it again this year, just to make sure?
And if we are hard-wired for belief, what strategies should we as a species be adopting to ensure this isn't actively damaging to our society?
The way the brain works, both on a base physical level, and, um, a not completely physical level (for want of a better phrase) is endlessly fascinating.
I have a (false?) memory of reading an article about Richard Dawkins being put in a machine that generated a strong electromagnetic field around a persons head, the machine apparently radically increasing the tendancy to believe in god, spirits, ghosts, etc. Apparently he came out with a pretty strange expression on his face....
-
Wow, what I/S just said. I just know I should bookmark it for posterity, but it's late...
-
So what do we all think about the "Nudge Theory" and Libertarian Paternalism? Seems to be all the rage at present and much discussed in the papers
-
The snake/ladder connecting a certain sort of Marxist and a certain sort of Libertarian can be observed in the Revolutionary Communist Party and its journal Living Marxism, which launched with this badass utopian sloganeering:
We live in an age of caution and conformism, when critical opinions can be outlawed as 'extremism' and anything new can be rubbished as 'too risky'. Ours is an age of low expectations, when we are always being told what is bad for us, and life seems limited on all sides by restrictions, guidelines and regulations.
The spirit of LM is to go against the grain: to oppose all censorship, bans and codes of conduct; to stand up for social and scientific experimentation; to insist that we have the right to live as autonomous adults who take responsibility for our own affairs. These are basic human values that cannot be compromised if we are ever going to create a world fit for people.
That crowd includes Great Global Warming Swindle producer Martin Durkin and the people behind the rather successful Spiked.
Spiked is certainly lively -- it can be pretty good. But large tracts of it -- including its wacky pro-smoking campaign -- are about not letting the facts get in the way of a good ideology.
-
From The Independent this week. All the pieces are starting to fall into place ...
And if you look back at the world of 1979, it now seems unimaginable. Exchange controls; wage controls; closed shops; and the state, for reasons which had gone unexamined for years, owning airlines and car manufacturers. Thatcher had an almost Marxist sense of historical inevitability, and her success was such that she changed not just the world but the way we look at the world. To try to imagine the reach of the state in 1979 is, in a phrase of the time, to think the unthinkable.
-
And I believe we have a winner, and it's xkcd again.
-
O sweet! never come across xkcd's site before-
Post your response…
This topic is closed.