Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

That's exactly where you're mistaken.

Sorry man you're just way off here. Even a trained woman will tell you she can not match a bigger (not just by height and weight but bone density, natural ligament and tendon strength, stamina via oxygen capacity etc) or even same size male. This is why men and women do not fight in the UFC, it's just not fair.

Ah, here we get to the problem: the question of realism. We do not depict women in these situations because they wouldn't realistically put themselves in such positions. But now we must ask the following rejoinder: does realism portray the world as it really is, or does it prescribe roles within the world?

The best answer is that it does both. So, for the sake of fiction, why not entertain the notion that a woman might fight off a 250-pound man? There was nothing generically realistic about the first season - in fact, detective fiction thrives on its use of sensationalist exaggeration. True Detective has so much more to offer than a mundane repeat of the first season.

Tina knocking out Andre the Giant doesn't need to be seen as bullshit within the context of fiction. Fiction works figuratively. Throwing a woman and man into a UFC ring and likely a woman would lose. But why are we assuming such dynamics would be the norm in a television show? Why do we rule out intelligence, trickery, capacity for elusiveness, etc.?

You have a problem with my 30 point scale? who am I hurting really? it's just based on looks not the persons character or personality and I think this is understood; it's all in fun.

I have no problem with it. I'm only saying that it contributes to the masculine expectations of our culture, no matter what you intend with it.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

OK? so go watch Rizzoli & Isles and leave True Detective alone.

yea and my biology also contributes to the masculine expectations of our culture

and the criteria of attractiveness is culturally influence but I also have some weird taste that has nothing to do with that culture and says more about my bio

 

[Einherjar86]

Whatever man, I don't see why a female actress couldn't play a lead on your precious show. I love it as much as (if not more than) you; I'd love to see a female lead. There's no reason why there can't be. All your reasons point to you simply wanting to see a detective-fiction version of Aliens.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

haha maybe, I do love Aliens.

Ah well I'm probably out of my depth anyway so I'll agree to disagree and stop dumbing down this thread.

Let me ask you a kinda weird question though. If you and I were hanging out, alone, and I see a girl walk by and ask you "dude, 1-30?" would you refuse? if so, why? especially if it was private

 

[Einherjar86]

No, I probably wouldn't. I'm as complicit as you are.

Also, I don't think you're dumbing down the thread. I'm often as brash to Dak's arguments, but it doesn't mean I discount them. Even though I may fervently disagree, I acknowledge the depth and intensiveness of our "reality effect."

But I am still right.

 

[Dak]

I find it interesting how much discussion with Ein has provided me so many new perspectives and changes of discern without fundamentally changing my ethical or practical perspective. I just have a better understanding of the why rather than using really bad arguments.

Of course, don't you know? Everyone here is right.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

No, I probably wouldn't. I'm as complicit as you are.

heh that's grim and cryptic. idk for me it's just chit chat bullshit among friends and "dudes" (I know, I know, this is a problem) to get an idea of my fellow mans taste and our differences. You know this though.

Also, I don't think you're dumbing down the thread. I'm often as brash to Dak's arguments, but it doesn't mean I discount them. Even though I may fervently disagree, I acknowledge the depth and intensiveness of our "reality effect."

Well that's cool of you. Although I end up feeling like Det. David Mills in Seven.

But I am still right.

Although sometimes there are multiple rights

 

[Einherjar86]

I find it interesting how much discussion with Ein has provided me so many new perspectives and changes of discern without fundamentally changing my ethical or practical perspective. I just have a better understanding of the why rather than using really bad arguments.

Of course, don't you know? Everyone here is right.

Hey? You calling my arguments "bad"?

 

[Einherjar86]

From Luhmann's "Complexity and Meaning":

The concepts that serve as the title of my essay seem to mark this difference [i.e. between the Humanities and the Sciences]. They indicate the core problem of the two knowledge groups and of their two different types of research. These two knowledge groups, today, have become aware of seemingly insolvable problems, and no longer identify with a specific subject matter or domain of research but rather with a problem: complexity for the sciences, meaning for the humanities. Overstating the point a little, we could say that the hard sciences identify with complexity and the soft sciences with meaning. The core problem of the hard sciences is the complexity of complexity and that of the soft sciences is the meaning of meaning.

Overall, I agree with this. "Meaning" cannot be the domain of science, but must come from an interdisciplinary observation of various fields within given cultural contexts. "Complexity," on the other hand, must come from the sciences - from those fields that simulate and calculate the various patterns of physical/biological/chemical phenomena.

That said, I find it difficult to see how science can ever be properly removed from the sphere of culture. I would venture to say that cultural critics - those in the humanities - must always keep their scientific partners in check; but I cannot claim absolute authority for cultural critics, since we too are circumscribed by culture.

 

[Dak]

Hey? You calling my arguments "bad"?

I meant my own bad arguments.

 

[Einherjar86]

Ah. I misread.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think it should be totally obvious 9/11 required some measure of complicity. From whom and exactly how is open for debate though, until all the classified and buried information comes out.

Does "complicity" equal "conspiracy"? I mean, it could certainly be the case that various actors within the defense network had some knowledge that an attack was imminent, but due to a lack of specifics or actionable details failed to pursue an appropriate response. Would this count as complicity; and if so, does it equal conspiracy if it's covered up?

I'm always hesitant to call "conspiracy," but we've discussed this in the past. To me, a conspiracy entails a total network of equally complicit and intentional agents who took it upon themselves to bring about an event - whether through deliberate force or deliberate withholding of force - and proceed to conceal the evidence of their involvement.

I wouldn't say that the world system precludes the possibility of this happening, but I do think - especially in a world of increasingly available portals of information - that it's easier to project intention into various phenomena and coincidences than to accept them as contingent. Furthermore, I think the world system invites and encourages such speculation.

 

[Dak]

I think to require the "total network" as you describe for it to meet the definition of conspiracy is akin to radical skepticism, which I find inherently unreasonable. A coverup itself is conspiracy, even if there were no prior conspiracy.

 

[Einherjar86]

A coverup itself is conspiracy, even if there were no prior conspiracy.

Can you explain what you mean by this; specifically the "no prior conspiracy" part?

 

[Dak]

Can you explain what you mean by this; specifically the "no prior conspiracy" part?

Let's say the situation you described happened, where 9/11 occurred due to honest mistakes or mere incompetence on the US end. As the tragic error unfolded, those responsible for the honest mistake or incompetence had the power to instigate a coverup of said mistakes/incompetence. That in itself is a conspiracy, even if there were no conspiracy involving complicity in the actual tragedy.

Edit: if I haven't posted this before:

 

[Einherjar86]

In that case, the conspiracy theory looks to me like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The conspiracy theory, as a cultural phenomenon, occurs regardless of whether there is a conspiracy or not. In the case of there being honest mistakes, errors, or poor judgment, perhaps a government acts to protect those involved because it knows that admission of "honest mistakes" or simple "inadequacy" wouldn't placate conspiracy theorists but merely add fuel to the fire, and perhaps even jeopardize the safety of those involved.

So the government has, in effect, created a conspiracy in response to a conspiracy theory that already existed. The conspiracy theory makes itself true purely through its suggestion.

We cannot say that conspiracy theories reflect a true state of things, even if they are true, because their source doesn't lie in their approximation to non-theoretical events. Even if certain agents possess malign intentions, the conspiracy theory exists regardless of this fact. Conspiracy theories are cultural phenomena that result from mass consensual paranoia. Now, it may certainly be the case that some theories aren't entirely off-base; some may even be correct. But the nature of conspiracy theory isn't one of correspondence; it's one of rationalization. It's rationalization so powerful that it even yields measurable effects in the political and media gestalt of a given culture.

 

[Dak]

So you're saying that it doesn't matter if conspiracy theories are true because conspiracy theories.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm saying that even if conspiracy theories happen to be accurate, they cannot be assessed on the basis of their accuracy - their correspondence to real conditions.

Conspiracy theories are never disproven. This is part of their internal resistance to evidence or refutation. They adapt and morph according to the conviction of their perpetrators. The source of conspiracy theories doesn't lie in some ultimate truth that exists external to them, but in their own paranoid fascinations. Even if one happens to hit the nail on the head, it has nothing to do with the logic of the theory itself.

Like religious belief, conspiracy theories adapt and persevere regardless of evidence against them not because of any accurate representation of the world, but because of a socio-cultural desire for explanation. Those who believe in conspiracy theories have to keep believing in them. There's no such thing as proving someone who believes in conspiracy theories wrong, because the force of conspiracy theory doesn't come from without. Conspiracy theorists thrive on coincidence, and for organisms evolutionarily conditioned to see pattern in randomness, there will always be a plethora of coincidences to choose from.

 

[Dak]

I have to take issue with the equivocation of all conspiracy theories on the basis of the theorizing of a conspiracy.

 

[Einherjar86]

Okay, fine. Why?