Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[zabu of nΩd]

Here, have some random provocation:

George Saunders understands what Rand fans won't: Objectivism is more young adult fantasy than political philosophy

Simply put, once you actually see laissez faire capitalism and greed-is-good extremism at work, it doesn’t look as nice as it sounds in Rand’s works.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

That article reads like this: I'm smart and edgy and think Ayn Rand was wrong about stuff.

Bashing Ayn Rand constantly is for children too.

Also, Objectivism is not Libertarianism.

and China? WTF?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

http://www.prettyfedup.com/pfu/philosophical/whyarepeoplesostupid.htm

Regular readers will enjoy this (Jimmy and Pat?)

Oh and that site is insane lol. I mean that in a good way.

 

[Einherjar86]

Here, have some random provocation:

George Saunders understands what Rand fans won't: Objectivism is more young adult fantasy than political philosophy

I tend to agree with most of what he writes, but this article is very sensationalist.

That article reads like this: I'm smart and edgy and think Ayn Rand was wrong about stuff.

Bashing Ayn Rand constantly is for children too.

Also, Objectivism is not Libertarianism.

and China? WTF?

I think the author is trying to make the point that most people who ascribe to Rand's philosophy (i.e. Objectivism) also would describe themselves as libertarians in a politico-economic sense.

The problem with "check your premises" (Rand's favorite instructive sentence) is that you can do it ad infinitum. The statement implies a perfect, pristine situational logic that all human individuals can tap into; but this also requires an essential, universal normativity of human being. Rand's normativity also occupies an ethical position that is just realistically ridiculous; that is, she sees those she would qualify as normal as "good," and those who aren't normal as "evil."

 

[Dak]

Ayn Rand didn't really understand free market capitalism. Hence why she denigrated the "little businessman". Since she had come from Communist Russia, that's somewhat understandable. She was also a young adult during a period where the US was wrestling with social movements between corporatism and communism. Corporatism won out, although not in the format Ayn promoted.

Anyway, that article is incorrect on every level, other than that Rand's work is fiction for children. To use China as an example against a (purported) free market ideology is pretty much the icing on the idiot cake.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Zero Dark Thirty: Hollywood's gift to American power
Many have pointed out that Kathryn Bigelow's film endorses torture. But why has such a film been made now?
Slavoj Žižek


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...-dark-thirty-normalises-torture-unjustifiable

 

[Dak]

I didn't watch Hurt Locker and won't be watching this other piece of bullshit pro-war propaganda.

 

[Dak]

A voice of reason in the morass.

"There is a world of difference between being "pro-business" and "pro-market." Bingo.

 

[Matt]

Zero Dark Thirty wasn't a bad movie. It could've been a lot shorter, but it wasn't bad.

 

[Einherjar86]

Žižek's point isn't that it's a bad or good movie. From what I've read, it's an incredibly well-made film; but that's beside the point. By the standards of its time, Birth of a Nation was a well-made film.

 

[Dak]

Because Birth of a Nation isn't relatively historically accurate? Zerodarkthirty is not only despicable in it's apparent bland treatment of torture, it's also the cinematization of a lie.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't know what you mean by "lie."

 

[Dak]

I don't know what you mean by "lie."

There's no credible evidence that Bin Laden was alive in 2002, much less 2011. Whatever happened (if anything happened) in 2011, it wasn't the killing and sea-dumping of OBL.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's completely ridiculous. You have no grounds for calling it a "lie."

 

[Dak]

That's completely ridiculous. You have no grounds for calling it a "lie."

Is it? Do I? Credible evidence suggests OBL died in Dec 2001 of health problems. The only evidence of his existence since then has been videos released of a bunch of different guys with beards who appear to be getting younger and younger all the time. Maybe it was the same guy and he liked Just for Men and makeup. Seems no less ridiculous.

A big problem is people don't really understand the concept of cell based decentralized operations. It's kind of like how people don't understand who Anonymous is. It's anyone who wants to be Anonymous. Anyone can claim to be OBL/Al Qaeda.

Dumping the body at sea before anyone could see it was kind of like the nail in the coffin. Wouldn't the entire world want to see this? Somebody could have been dumped in the sea. I merely submit that it was not the OBL.

As far as the military particulars surrounding Seal Team 6, none of it adds up. Releasing the identities of the members of the team, and then further releasing the identities of members of the Team as they are eliminated after the fact is completely out of line with standard protocol and a violation of OPSEC. The information came out almost immediately, which suggests either a staging or premeditation. Again, entirely out of line with standard protocol. Hell, it can sometimes take weeks just to notify the family when a military regular is killed in action.

The suspicions extend to the Aug 6 crash. Soon as I heard about it my first thought was "there it is!". You don't cram 20+ extremely expensive assets into an ancient helicopter and then fly it in broad daylight through some of the most dangerous territory and terrain in the world (unless you want them dead) But lets assume whatever the situation was, it warranted that danger in delivery. When SpecOps members die, you don't immediately release all the information about the incident, if you ever release any of it. The whole "if something goes wrong, you never existed" is not just movie stuff. My father in law was doing "wet work" for the Army in the early 80s, and I had a neighbor in AZ who was doing blackops within the US for the Army in the late 80s and early 90s. Absolutely nothing about the situation sounds legit to anyone with a general knowledge of military procedure.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's no surprise that people see narrative where there likely is none; or, for that matter, it may very well be the case that Bin Laden died years ago. My point is that you're projecting a truth where there really is none to be found, and calling another version a lie when you have no proof for your own narrative.

Even if the U.S. military didn't actually kill Bin Laden, it's no less of a lie (in the sense you mean it) than Birth of a Nation. The film is a fictional representation. There's no doubt that many audiences won't receive it this way, and that Bigelow sees herself as directing something "truth-y"; but the film is not misleading in its content, and especially not intentionally misleading. Someone is not lying if they suppose they're telling the "truth." A film is merely one interpretation of an indefinable knot. Freud said that no one can ever get to the core, or kernel, of a dream; this is simply because there is no core.

The incongruence of military details should clue us in to something far more alarming than the basic fact that we've somehow been "lied to." Namely: if posters on GMD perceive these sorts of discrepancies, how come the people who are concocting these supposed conspiratorial narratives don't notice them? We have to assume that they do; and if so, then why do they allow them? This actually makes less sense than the odd assortment of details that you point out, and speaks to something more disturbing: that there is no normative process, or that the entire institution is far less organized that we believe. Conspiracy theories rely on these weak points, these loose screws in the plot; but we pride ourselves when we see them and don't bother questioning how they could happen to slip past the "screenwriters." It could be that they simply don't care because they know no one will do anything about it anyway; but it isn't that hard to tweak a few details and make them more airtight.

Finally, there's the issue of the film itself; and as I've already said, it's no more of a lie than Birth of a Nation:

"What is the object of history? It is quite simply, despite all the elaborations, equivocations, and qualifications of historians and philosophers, whatever is past... and yet, by definition, all that is past does not exist. To be accurate the object of history is whatever is represented as having hitherto existed. The essence of this representation is preserved records and documents. History's object, the hitherto existing, does not exist except in the modality of its current existence, as representations... What the past is is determined by the content of the various ideological forms which operate within parameters of historical knowledge."

In the case of Bin Laden's death, what documents do we have? There are none; or, there are documents mischievously crafted out of thin air (a rather dubious notion, since any contextualized object is, to an extent, crafted). The film Zero Dark Thirty is not a "lie" because it is a re-representation of texts that already precede it: "Far from working on the past, the ostensible object of history, historical knowledge works on a body of texts. These texts are a product of historical knowledge. The writing of history is the production of texts which interpret these texts." There is no "truth" at the bottom of the barrel; or, I should say, there is no human truth.

In short, I don't agree that the film is a lie in the sense that you mean.

The quotes are from Barry Hindess and Paul Hirst, and quoted in an essay by Fredric Jameson.

 

[Dak]

It's no surprise that people see narrative where there likely is none; or, for that matter, it may very well be the case that Bin Laden died years ago. My point is that you're projecting a truth where there really is none to be found, and calling another version a lie when you have no proof for your own narrative.

I'm saying that when official accounts contradict each other, and contradict protocol, and contradict normal time requirements, there's a hell of a lot more evidence for something other than the ever massaged "Public Statement".

The incongruence of military details should clue us in to something far more alarming than the basic fact that we've somehow been "lied to." Namely: if posters on GMD perceive these sorts of discrepancies, how come the people who are concocting these supposed conspiratorial narratives don't notice them? We have to assume that they do; and if so, then why do they allow them? This actually makes less sense than the odd assortment of details that you point out, and speaks to something more disturbing: that there is no normative process, or that the entire institution is far less organized that we believe. Conspiracy theories rely on these weak points, these loose screws in the plot; but we pride ourselves when we see them and don't bother questioning how they could happen to slip past the "screenwriters." It could be that they simply don't care because they know no one will do anything about it anyway; but it isn't that hard to tweak a few details and make them more airtight.

Exactly. They are dependent on public ignorance and implicit threats. I'm not the only one who recognizes the discrepancies. What can I do about? What can the others do about it? People that are in an assumed position to say something about it and be taken seriously by the public wind up dead or publicly defamed in advance (not only in this scenario but in others). Or, the truth and the murder eventually comes to light and media completely sweeps it under the rug IE the murder of Pat Tillman.

A movie was even made, which received zilch in the form of ad time and support.

There is no "truth" at the bottom of the barrel; or, I should say, there is no human truth.

Whether it does not exist, and whether or not we can find it, are two entirely different things. We aren't discussing an interpretation of the event, we are talking about if something did in fact happen. The good/bad/ugly of it is what is subjective. IE: We can argue whether or not torture is good or bad. We cannot argue over whether or not it has ever occurred.

 

[Einherjar86]

Exactly. They are dependent on public ignorance and implicit threats. I'm not the only one who recognizes the discrepancies. What can I do about? What can the others do about it? People that are in an assumed position to say something about it and be taken seriously by the public wind up dead or publicly defamed in advance (not only in this scenario but in others). Or, the truth and the murder eventually comes to light and media completely sweeps it under the rug IE the murder of Pat Tillman.

A movie was even made, which received zilch in the form of ad time and support.

I've heard nothing about that Tillman story; that's really interesting.

I have heard plenty about Bin Laden's assassination, on the other hand, and have read a half-dozen articles examining the story's "truthiness." The story is, in fact, so debated and examined that the doubt surrounding it has become part of its truth, no matter what the truth actually is. Your inner-circle theory of higher-ups who propagated a false story is entirely beside the point of the film. The film is not harmful because it's a "lie," or because it "cinematizes a lie." It's harmful purely in its projection of material within the representation. Taken as a whole, it's rather foolish to claim that it even remotely resembles what "actually happened" (although this doesn't stop people from making that claim). You're accusing it of being something that it has no responsibility for being.

That was the basis for my comparison with Birth of a Nation. If Bigelow claims that Zero Dark Thirty roughly approximates the truth, that's not a lie because she knows otherwise; it's not a lie at all. Cultural texts, especially movies, function popularly as the surface they portray, not as some essence they supposedly either convey or conceal.

Long story short, if the film perpetuates what we might call a "lie," it isn't the film's fault.

 

[Dak]

I've heard nothing about that Tillman story; that's really interesting.

Of course you haven't. Most people haven't, and that's the point. It was a bigger deal back in the mid 2000s in AZ (where I was stationed), since he was sort of a state hero. He was the poster child for self-sacrifice for foregoing his NFL riches to serve. When it began to become evident that he was set to become active in the Anti-War movement, he was removed.

Edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman

On July 26, 2007, Chris Matthews reported on Hardball that Tillman's death may have been a case of deliberate murder by Tillman's fellow soldiers – specifically that the bullet holes were tight and neat, suggesting a shot at close range. Matthews based his speculation on a report from the doctors who examined Tillman's body. The following day the Associated Press reported that a doctor who examined Tillman's body after his death wrote, "The medical evidence did not match up with the scenario as described,"[27] also noting that the wound entrances appeared as though he had been shot with an M16 rifle from fewer than 10 yards (9 m) away. A possible motive was not identified. When officers and soldiers were asked during a criminal investigation, they said they were certain the shooting was accidental. According to one of his fellow soldiers, Tillman "was popular among his fellow soldiers and had no enemies."[27][28]
In addition, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Associated Press, the Defense Department released 2,300 pages of documents which were reported to indicate:[27]
There has never been evidence of enemy fire found on the scene, and no members of Tillman's group had been hit by enemy fire.
The three-star general who withheld details of Tillman's death from his parents for a number of months told investigators approximately 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn't recall details of his actions.
Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.
Army doctors told the investigators that Tillman's wounds suggested murder because "the medical evidence did not match-up with the scenario as described."[29]
There were special forces snipers in the group immediately behind Tillman's platoon.[29]
Despite his fame, Tillman did not want to be used for propaganda purposes. He spoke to friends about his opposition to President Bush and the Iraq war, and he had made an appointment with notable government critic Noam Chomsky after his return from the military. The destruction of evidence linked to Tillman's death, including his personal journal, led his mother to speculate that he was murdered.[30] General Wesley Clark agreed that it was "very possible".[31][32]

I have heard plenty about Bin Laden's assassination, on the other hand, and have read a half-dozen articles examining the story's "truthiness." The story is, in fact, so debated and examined that the doubt surrounding it has become part of its truth, no matter what the truth actually is. Your inner-circle theory of higher-ups who propagated a false story is entirely beside the point of the film. The film is not harmful because it's a "lie," or because it "cinematizes a lie." It's harmful purely in its projection of material within the representation. Taken as a whole, it's rather foolish to claim that it even remotely resembles what "actually happened" (although this doesn't stop people from making that claim). You're accusing it of being something that it has no responsibility for being.

That was the basis for my comparison with Birth of a Nation. If Bigelow claims that Zero Dark Thirty roughly approximates the truth, that's not a lie because she knows otherwise; it's not a lie at all. Cultural texts, especially movies, function popularly as the surface they portray, not as some essence they supposedly either convey or conceal.

Long story short, if the film perpetuates what we might call a "lie," it isn't the film's fault.

Well of course I'm not "blaming" the object itself, or even necessarily Bigelow. I'm just stating what it is, which is a dramatization of events that are unlikely to have even loosely correlated with what is depicted.

 

[Einherjar86]

I see. You seemed to suggest that it was "despicable" in its "cinematization of a lie." We can criticize films for lots of reasons, but not really for being "lies."