SentinelSlain
Suck my joined date.
- Nov 21, 2007
- 10,015
- 153
- 63
Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Matt
Active Member
Dak
mentat
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Yup gaming has changed. Remember when they just sold us a $50 game and didn't particularly care how long we played? The big thing was making sure we liked it enough to buy the next one, but now the shitty industry is moving toward subscription-based games like MMO's that need the subject to keep playing--and paying--until the end of fucking time!!!
Skinner Box, virtual pellets, pressing that lever and we'll keep pressing it until we call it home. fuckers.
Skinner Box, virtual pellets, pressing that lever and we'll keep pressing it until we call it home. fuckers.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Here is an article that sorta relates to your video
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/technology/07brain.html?_r=1&ref=matt_richtel&pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/technology/07brain.html?_r=1&ref=matt_richtel&pagewanted=all
Dak
mentat
Good article, but I would rather some of the people stop making value judgements so quickly on the changes.
People who are distracted with tech were generally the same people who sought distraction in other ways. It's just that now instead of the newspaper or the TV or the radio, it's any number of tech devices with internet access. At least real information and learning is available, whether or not people choose to make use of it, instead of passive interaction with tightly controlled propaganda.
People who are distracted with tech were generally the same people who sought distraction in other ways. It's just that now instead of the newspaper or the TV or the radio, it's any number of tech devices with internet access. At least real information and learning is available, whether or not people choose to make use of it, instead of passive interaction with tightly controlled propaganda.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Ive been reading and watching videos of Christopher Hitchens, Dan Dennet and Sam Harris and im curious what the assessment is of these fellas
Last edited by a moderator:
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
Hitchens is brilliant, may his none existent soul rest in peace. I do have to say though, his position on the Iraq War was probably the only hole in his rhetoric. Harris is great, I really should check more of his stuff out. Atheist philosophy in general, however, does not really interest me. I have never been religious, dating back to my early childhood, and I've been an atheist for a long time. I came out of the "atheist closet" (aka told my mom I was an atheist) when I was 12, but I had notions of that positions that began well before that; therefore, for me, the non-existence of god is sort of a given and it doesn't really interest me enough for me to truly delve into it.
On a funny side note, I delved into LaVeyan Satanism soon after becoming an atheist. I loved the philosophy of it, but found the religious notion silly, so I got out of it. When I was a senior in high school, I read Atlas Shrugged and thought to myself, "Wow, Objectivism is a lot like Satanism". Turns out that Ayn Rand had a profound influence on Anton LaVey.
On a funny side note, I delved into LaVeyan Satanism soon after becoming an atheist. I loved the philosophy of it, but found the religious notion silly, so I got out of it. When I was a senior in high school, I read Atlas Shrugged and thought to myself, "Wow, Objectivism is a lot like Satanism". Turns out that Ayn Rand had a profound influence on Anton LaVey.
Dak
mentat
Matt
Active Member
"The National Rifle Association lobbied for the new law, arguing that the court decision had legalized police to commit unjustified entries"
Lol. Anyway, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77037.html:
As much as I love Bill, he needs to shut the fuck up.
Lol. Anyway, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77037.html:
As much as I love Bill, he needs to shut the fuck up.
Dak
mentat
Mathiäs;10313885 said:
Police engaging in B&E deserve a bullet to the head like any other thug. Probably more so.
Mathiäs;10313885 said:
Bill works for the same interests as Romney and Obama. It appears that my initial assumption that Obama had been selected for a second term may be wrong, or at least the situation has changed in the last twelve months. His halo is dimming and perhaps they feel need a new face in the old suit.
Einherjar86
Active Member
From what I've read, Sam Harris sounds like a hack. I also don't actively go out of my way to read Hitchens's or Dawkins's work, and I've never found their arguments particularly convincing. They do the same thing Fox News does; they appeal to those who already share their opinions. Furthermore, they continually revert to the "this just doesn't make sense" approach but fail to realize their valorization of logic and sense isn't the same for everyone else, and they (especially Hitchens) continually appeal to a kind of ruthless aggression (as in the speech above where he says that, if asked to sacrifice his child, he would say "No, fuck you" and everyone cheers). This aggression garners favor from the audience, but only because the audience already shares the same view. They're not really offering any poignant critical argument.
That said, I think it's important they speak about the things they do; it just provides nothing substantial or particularly radical for me.
That said, I think it's important they speak about the things they do; it just provides nothing substantial or particularly radical for me.
Einherjar86
Active Member
And that's fine; I just don't put them up on the level of (what I believe are) revolutionary atheistic theorists like Hume or Nietzsche.
Also, I watched a documentary on Noam Chomsky and he actually said this when asked about a peaceful society under capitalism: "When Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western civilization, he said that it maybe would be a good idea, and the same can be said of capitalism. It might be a good idea, we've never had anything remotely resembling it, and the reason we haven't is [...] the 'owning' class would never permit it because they know perfectly well that if capitalist institutions were established it would destroy the economy, so therefore they insist on a powerful state that intervenes to protect them from the ravages of the market."
Sounds like something similar I hear on this forum...
Also, I watched a documentary on Noam Chomsky and he actually said this when asked about a peaceful society under capitalism: "When Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western civilization, he said that it maybe would be a good idea, and the same can be said of capitalism. It might be a good idea, we've never had anything remotely resembling it, and the reason we haven't is [...] the 'owning' class would never permit it because they know perfectly well that if capitalist institutions were established it would destroy the economy, so therefore they insist on a powerful state that intervenes to protect them from the ravages of the market."
Sounds like something similar I hear on this forum...
Dak
mentat
And that's fine; I just don't put them up on the level of (what I believe are) revolutionary atheistic theorists like Hume or Nietzsche.
Also, I watched a documentary on Noam Chomsky and he actually said this when asked about a peaceful society under capitalism: "When Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western civilization, he said that it maybe would be a good idea, and the same can be said of capitalism. It might be a good idea, we've never had anything remotely resembling it, and the reason we haven't is [...] the 'owning' class would never permit it because they know perfectly well that if capitalist institutions were established it would destroy the economy, so therefore they insist on a powerful state that intervenes to protect them from the ravages of the market."
Sounds like something similar I hear on this forum...
I think it could have been put more accurately, but that is the current lie. "We have to bail out XXXX or the economy will be destroyed".
The economy wouldn't be destroyed, that business already destroyed itself. That's why they demand the bailout.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I was really focusing on the exact words that you highlighted while I was transcribing that quote, and I had the same reaction you did initially. However, I think that Chomsky is referring specifically to the economic conditions that are engendered under a corporatist environment, not a generic capitalist economy. The economy we have operates under free market conditions in select regional areas, but on the whole it's a highly selective system under the guise of a free market.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Dak
mentat
I think maybe what he is referring to is the current economic order. For example, were the banks and auto manufacturers allowed to bankrupt, this would have upset the economic order, not the economy itself, as the economy is merely the sum total of the transactions of all individuals.
People "like" capitalism, until it works. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but half of capitalistic success is failure. When a business fails, that is a capitalistic success story. It means the system is working. Subsidies, bailouts, taxes, tariffs, etc. are all examples of the "unpleasant" side of capitalism being attacked.
Bankruptcy is not the end of the world. It is a necessary part of capitalism which allows all parties involved to liquidate the mess and move on to try again, hopefully with the benefit of some lessons learned.
