Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

The position in that article has a few flaws:

1. It assumes we have some sort of "real" democracy (we don't, and if we did it would be worse than what we do have).
2. The appeal to the "militia" angle has been repeatedly debunked, nevermind that she made quite the anti-feminist argument in doing a private-guns-is-to-2nd as porn-is-to-1st comparison.
3. Unfortunately, as someone quite familiar with all the rich meaning and allegory that escapes from Pandora's Box, the Pandora's Box of Nuclear Weaponization is open across the globe, and for an increasingly cheap price. Attempting to close it unilaterally by singular disarmament is quixotic.

Edit: Austrian Econ has been non-empiricist. That's the main criticism of mainstream econs against Austrian econ.

 

[Dak]

LinkedIn: The Myth of the Bell Curve

 

[Einherjar86]

The position in that article has a few flaws:

1. It assumes we have some sort of "real" democracy (we don't, and if we did it would be worse than what we do have).
2. The appeal to the "militia" angle has been repeatedly debunked, nevermind that she made quite the anti-feminist argument in doing a private-guns-is-to-2nd as porn-is-to-1st comparison.
3. Unfortunately, as someone quite familiar with all the rich meaning and allegory that escapes from Pandora's Box, the Pandora's Box of Nuclear Weaponization is open across the globe, and for an increasingly cheap price. Attempting to close it unilaterally by singular disarmament is quixotic.

Edit: Austrian Econ has been non-empiricist. That's the main criticism of mainstream econs against Austrian econ.

I don't think the militia angle has been debunked at all. It's been debated, but not debunked, and I think there's a good case to be made for it.

I don't think you understood her comment on pornography. It's not anti-feminist at all, it's actually the opposite of anti-feminism (let's just call it feminist ).

 

[Dak]

I don't think the militia angle has been debunked at all. It's been debated, but not debunked, and I think there's a good case to be made for it.

I'm going to admit serious bias here btw, since any constitutional argument that is restrictive of government power I'm going to seize on practical grounds- consistently (unlike the CNN or Foxheads). Not that I will appeal to the actual SCOTUS decisions. That can change as soon as the SCOTUS appointees change.

I don't think you understood her comment on pornography. It's not anti-feminist at all, it's actually the opposite of anti-feminism (let's just call it feminist ).

I meant in it's obvious comparison of "extremes/vulgarities". Why is private ownership the extreme or vulgar variant and not the Stormtrooper Horde? The uniformed child killers? On the other side, why are recordings of sex the worst possible outcome of the 1st amendment?

 

[Einherjar86]

I meant in it's obvious comparison of "extremes/vulgarities". Why is private ownership the extreme or vulgar variant and not the Stormtrooper Horde? The uniformed child killers? On the other side, why are recordings of sex the worst possible outcome of the 1st amendment?

She's clearly being sensational; but that doesn't mean her point still stands.

 

[Dak]

She's clearly being sensational; but that doesn't mean her point still stands.

I think at this point, that nuclear stockpiles are somewhat a red herring. The nations of the world could completely deweaponize - and the old missing Soviet nukes would still be floating around. Also, as unfortunate as it is, MAD works. The only countries still fighting each other, or being invaded, are non-nuclear. (Of course, this ignores the possibility of the country imploding). Then we have to look at all the bio/mil tech that has developed since the Manhattan Project. Killer viruses, microdrones, ship mounted lasers, and so on. As far as we know, the stockpiles are no longer growing, and not necessarily because of non-proliferation treaties, but because they are no longer the pinnacle of tech, and we already have plenty.

Edit: TBC, I agree with her assertions about the problems for the individual that flow from that concentrated power. I just don't think that problem begins or ends with nuclear weapons.

 

[Einherjar86]

Haha, "that doesn't mean her point still stands" should clearly read:

"that doesn't mean her point is invalid."

I imagine that the claim of futility won't appease proponents of disarmament. Furthermore, nuclear disarmament is a check on state power; large central governments are (for the most part) the only organizations with the infrastructure to support the use/launch of nuclear weapons.

 

[Dak]

Haha, "that doesn't mean her point still stands" should clearly read:

"that doesn't mean her point is invalid."

I imagine that the claim of futility won't appease proponents of disarmament. Furthermore, nuclear disarmament is a check on state power; large central governments are (for the most part) the only organizations with the infrastructure to support the use/launch of nuclear weapons.

I knew what you meant

Yeah, and I'm not saying it's not necessarily a good goal in itself. But is disarmament a check on state power or is state power a check on disarmament? Again, there are worse, or at least equally bad things now under the same umbrella.

 

[Einherjar86]

Some good points:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2014/02/why-is-academic-writing-so-academic.html?mobify=0

Academic writing is a fraught and mysterious thing. If you’re an academic in a writerly discipline, such as history, English, philosophy, or political science, the most important part of your work—practically and spiritually—is writing. Many academics think of themselves, correctly, as writers. And yet a successful piece of academic prose is rarely judged so by “ordinary” standards. Ordinary writing—the kind you read for fun—seeks to delight (and, sometimes, to delight and instruct). Academic writing has a more ambiguous mission. It’s supposed to be dry but also clever; faceless but also persuasive; clear but also completist. Its deepest ambiguity has to do with audience. Academic prose is, ideally, impersonal, written by one disinterested mind for other equally disinterested minds. But, because it’s intended for a very small audience of hyper-knowledgable, mutually acquainted specialists, it’s actually among the most personal writing there is. If journalists sound friendly, that’s because they’re writing for strangers. With academics, it’s the reverse.

 

[Dak]

Good quote.^

Venezuela: After being promised paradise we are living in a nightmare

Demagogue riding into office on promises of freebies? Check.
Inflation? Check.
Price Controls? Check.
Empty Shelves? Check.
Rioting? Check.
Crackdown? Check.

Democracy: The people getting what they want good and hard.

So damn predictable.

 

[Carpe Mortem]

When did low self esteem become more socially acceptable than high self esteem? I'd rather hear someone talk about how content they are with themselves than whine about how unhappy they are. Someone talks about how much they love their new hair cut, how fantastic they think it looks, and people give them shit. Someone bitches about how they're gaining weight and acne, people give them hugs.

Fucked up world.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

 

[Carpe Mortem]

^Really cool idea, Penn and Teller are idols of mine for what they bring to the world

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Corporations Received 22,000% Return on Investment from Lobbying

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...ved-22-000-Return-on-Investment-from-Lobbying

 

[Dak]

Not surprised. Murka!

 

[Dak]

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm a bit skeptical of that quote coming from a man whose work is so blatantly sympathetic toward imperialist and colonialist tendencies. The quote itself seems harmless enough; but there's a degree of cognitive dissonance going on when we consider the volatile political nature of his fiction.

I've been continuing my journey with Deleuze and Guattari by bouncing around A Thousand Plateaus (the sequel to Anti-Oedipus). It's composed far less linearly than its predecessor, and is less a book of chapters than a collection of essays.

I waded through the very dense "10,000 BC: the Geology of Morals," which proved difficult, and am now reading the more famous piece, "1227: Treatise on Nomadology - the War Machine." This essay proceeds from a somewhat unexpected premise: "AXIOM I. The war machine is exterior to the State Apparatus." That is:

As for the war machine itself, it seems to be irreducible to the State apparatus, to be outside its sovereignty and prior to its law: it comes from elsewhere.

 

[Dak]

I don't follow how his fiction, particularly the trilogy, is sympathetic to colonialism. The shire is practically anarchy, and it is the simple hobbits who are the focus. Gandalf is no king, and Gondor/Rohan both had corrupted governance. The ring/Sauron offered corrupting power. Etc

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, I didn't specify his trilogy, so you can't restrict me to that. I can say that The Silmarillion, which founds the entire history for his later fiction, expresses strong colonialist sympathies:

Thus it came to pass in that time that the Númenóreans first made great settlements upon the west shores of the ancient lands; for their own land seemed to them shrunken, and they had no rest or content therein, and they desired now wealth and dominion in Middle-earth, since the West was denied. Great harbours and strong towers they made, and there many of them took up their abode; but they appeared now rather as lords and masters and gatherers of tribute than as helpers and teachers. And the great ships of the Númenóreans were borne east on the winds and returned ever laden, and the power and majesty of their kings were increased; and they drank and they feasted and they clad themselves in silver and gold.

This quote clearly expresses (to me, anyway) that Tolkien distinguished between a kind of "good" and "bad" colonialism. His prose takes on a tone of admonition when the colonizers begin to act like "masters" instead of "teachers" or "helpers."

He basically emphasizes the righteous and noble cause of "good" colonialism, which he suggests can have no negative outcome. That is, the knowledge of certain races is superior and should be shared with others. He ignores the implicitly negative consequences to such ideas.

 

[Dak]

Two points: the prior quote clearly indicates Tolkien was some time in coming to a positive view of anarchy, probably after the writing of the Silmarillion. Secondly, seeing the spread of technology and culture as a net good thing is not exclusively an imperialistic position. I would assume, as is often the case, that he saw that those "helpers" in a power position always wind up as the despicable masters.