Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

So, between the recent Rolling Stones kerfluffle and DOJ study + my own biased anecdotal observations, I am laughing my ass off at the state of the feminist wing of the Cathedral. There is no "rape culture", especially on college campuses, unless by culture you mean that something could possibly happen somewhere somehow. There is, however, quite clearly a victim culture across the socioeconomipolitical divides.

Rape stats dropping, college students less likely to be victimized

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm extremely skeptical of anything surrounding the spoken having little to do with what intent of the speakers. That is different from saying what is spoken is literally what the speakers meant. This is where context/body language comes in.

Maybe at best the argument can be made that speakers who are ignorant of context/body language can have difficulty with correct word selection, but this has almost nothing to do with words/language in terms of the words/language spoken and rather involves come measure of cognitive ability. There is circuitry involved, but not "within language".

I think any sort of literal/figurative feedback would be contingent on the speakers/hearers, which renders independent investigation almost impossible due to immediate confirmation bias on whatever part the investigator plays. For example: If a simpleton picks up an average rock and holds it up to you and says simply "rock", anything beyond the "concrete label" of the concrete thing is merely kicking up dust and complaining about being unable to see (this is, of course, figurative). There is, of course, context and body language to read here. A tripartite network to perhaps put it in your language. But for some reason I don't believe you are including context or body language in your talk of "feedback between the literal and the figurative".

There is a circuitry between speakers, between speakers and language, and within language itself. I didn't say that anything having to do with spoken language has little to do with speakers; I said that the internal circuitry of language itself has little to do with its speakers.

The definition of any language, for it to be language, is that it must persist despite the death of any hypothetical speaker. Language is a fundamentally paradoxical phenomenon. In order for it to be language, it must make sense for more than one person; and if this is the case, then it also must make sense in the absence of those persons. Meaning emerges from a dialectic of pattern and randomness, both of which are material phenomenon. Subjective interpretation might lie with a speaker; but language doesn't need conscious subjects in order to function. Language can be impactful on the level of meaning between subjects, but also on the level of complexity. This is already happening in the field of communications, cybernetics, and the internet.

Context is incredibly important; but the connotations of various contexts can manifest in a linguistic communication regardless of the actual context.

So, between the recent Rolling Stones kerfluffle and DOJ study + my own biased anecdotal observations, I am laughing my ass off at the state of the feminist wing of the Cathedral. There is no "rape culture", especially on college campuses, unless by culture you mean that something could possible happen somewhere somehow. There is, however, quite clearly a victim culture across the socioeconomicpolitical divides.

Rape stats dropping, college students less likely to be victimized

"Rape culture" doesn't mean that rape is happening all over the place.

It means that institutions exhibit a propensity to ignore accusation or rape, or to avoid pursuing cases against the accused.

 

[Dak]

There is a circuitry between speakers, between speakers and language, and within language itself. I didn't say that anything having to do with spoken language has little to do with speakers; I said that the internal circuitry of language itself has little to do with its speakers.

But it arises by definition from the speakers. Since it depends on the speakers for existence, it cannot have "little" to do with them.

The definition of any language, for it to be language, is that it must persist despite the death of any hypothetical speaker. Language is a fundamentally paradoxical phenomenon. In order for it to be language, it must make sense for more than one person; and if this is the case, then it also must make sense in the absence of those persons. Meaning emerges from a dialectic of pattern and randomness, both of which are material phenomenon. Subjective interpretation might lie with a speaker; but language doesn't need conscious subjects in order to function. Language can be impactful on the level of meaning between subjects, but also on the level of complexity. This is already happening in the field of communications, cybernetics, and the internet.

Context is incredibly important; but the connotations of various contexts can manifest in a linguistic communication regardless of the actual context.

Fallacy of composition. And there is no "randomness", so there can be no such dialectic. Edit: I hope you aren't referring to coding language as not needing conscious subjects.

"Rape culture" ..... means that institutions exhibit a propensity to ignore accusation or rape, or to avoid pursuing cases against the accused.

So what is a "propensity"? Regardless, colleges were never designed or intended to function as some sort of independent justice department. You go to the police to report crimes. I've had to sit through speeches saying as much as a student; I imagine most others have as well at some point in their student experience.

Despite all that, the "rape culture" complaints are pretty much always buttressed by the 1 out of 5 stat, which is clearly and grossly false, and such buttressing implicitly or explicitly says that it is the frequency of rape that primarily is the evidence of a "rape culture".

 

[Einherjar86]

To be honest David, I'm not really interested in debating this. I was telling Jimmy about some of my interests, and I already know where you stand on this. I'm not interested in convincing you because your mind is already made up.

Furthermore, you appealed to the fallacy of composition above; and perhaps my wording was poorly chosen. But if you ascribe to that fallacy, then you've also just admitted the phenomenon of emergence.

In social network theory, a group of humans arranged into a social network can have abilities not possessed by the individual humans making up the network.[2] A simple example is the bucket brigade, in which humans arranged into a chain can move buckets of water or other similar items across a distance faster and with less effort than can a disorganized group of individuals carrying the loads across the same distance. What is true of the part (an individual needing to move his or her body across the whole distance to move a load) is not true of the whole (in which individuals can move loads across the distance merely by standing in place and handing off the load to the next individual).

 

[Dak]

Furthermore, you appealed to the fallacy of composition above; and perhaps my wording was poorly chosen. But if you ascribe to that fallacy, then you've also just admitted the phenomenon of emergence.

I recognize emergence. I have a problem with a perspective of emergence where the underlying components, whether their necessity or contribution, are essentially ignored. That pretty much is the fallacy of composition. "Traffic jams can exist without any given car, therefore they exist/can be treated independently of cars."

 

[Einherjar86]

They can be shown to have characteristics that individual cars don't have. Those characteristics can be treated independently of individual cars. I never said that traffic jams exist without cars. Go back and read the argument again if you have to. I've never posited the mystical existence of emergent phenomena; I have repeatedly said that emergent phenomena exhibit characteristics that their component parts do not exhibit. We can treat these characteristics without treating the component parts.

I admit that my comment on language was fallacious. I was quickly and haphazardly trying to convey this notion:

A writing that is not structurally readable – iterable – beyond the death of the addressee would not be writing.

EDIT: some food for thought and much needed perspective here:

http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/10/concerned-leftists-rediscover-michel-fou

Foucault was highly attracted to economic liberalism: he saw in it the possibility of a form of governmentality that was much less normative and authoritarian than the socialist and communist left, which he saw as totally obsolete. He especially saw in neoliberalism a "much less bureaucratic" and "much less disciplinarian" form of politics than that offered by the postwar welfare state. He seemed to imagine a neoliberalism that wouldn't project its anthropological models on the individual, that would offer individuals greater autonomy vis-à-vis the state....

Foucault was one of the first to really take the neoliberal texts seriously and to read them rigorously. Before him, those intellectual products were generally dismissed, perceived as simple propaganda.

 

[Dak]

Maybe that's why I can abide what I have read by Foucault? Madness and Civilization is currently in the mail on its way to me. I also got my hands on a digital copy of Anarchy and Legal Order. More stuff to read and ever shrinking time to read it.

Edit: I read the actual interview with Zamora. The guy is talking out of his ass about social security, at least if he is referring to the US at all (I don't know about how it was implemented in Europe).

Discussion fodder:
Related to the Sony hack:
http://www.businessinsider.com/hack-attack-will-drive-some-big-company-out-of-business-2014-12

I had an interesting conversation with a person in the computer security industry a few weeks ago.

This person is absolutely convinced that 2015 will be the year that some company goes out of business because it didn't plan adequately for an attack.

The Sony hack is different from most past hacks on this scale because the people who obtained the information don't seem to be out for personal gain. Instead, they're actively trying to embarrass and perhaps even destroy the company.

Unintended consequences:
http://www.wired.com/2014/12/where-stolen-smart-phones-go/

Indeed, Ben Levitan, a telecommunications veteran who has worked for Verizon and Sprint, among other major industry players, has argued that a kill switch, far from fully alleviating the problem, has the potential to send it corkscrewing in new and unpredictable directions.

“So you roll out the kill switch,” Levitan says. “Great. Street theft might shrink a little. Maybe a lot. But the guts of the phone are still valuable, right? People are just going to be trashing their phones and selling them for parts.” He predicted the creation of a “whole new black market.”

 

[Einherjar86]

Already people are responding to the "hack attack" as though it is an act of traditional terrorism. In other words, they call Sony's shelving of the film "un-American" and "cowardly." And this is coming from celebrities.

I agree that the attack does seem motivated not by personal interests, but by ideologues with subversive intentions. This demands a response more intellectual and involved than simply, "Sony's a bunch of pussies!"

 

[rms]

It's such a silly argument. If they released the film and there was 1 shooting at a theater or whatever the 'terrorists' would have done, everyone would be on Sony's ass for not reporting the threats or delaying the film etc..

 

[Dak]

A successful workers cooperative that delivers desirable items competitively.

Where have I said this couldn't occur?

 

[SentinelSlain]

I just assumed that given how right wing you are.

 

[Dak]

I strongly believe in freedom of association. Cooperatives fall under that.

 

[SentinelSlain]

But it's basically like a company entirely run by its union, with things like limits on both the top and bottom pay.

 

[Dak]

That's fine. I just have a problem when it is mandated by the government, protected by the government etc, just as much as I take issue with laws against unions. If someone thinks they have a winning business model that allows them to pay workers more, or provide extra perks etc, great.

 

[Dak]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-24/why-everyone-about-rush-subprime-mortgage-debt-again

Here we go again. Nothing was fixed, and the rug now looks like a mountain what with all the dirt swept under it.

 

[rms]

You didn't expect that happen? Just a nice little recession so rich whitey could buy up cheap stock market prices and cheap real estate to then resell to poor whitey

Gotta love the credit system though.

Merry Christmas though gents

 

[Dak]

What? The real economy has essentially been in a depression since the 70s. Stock market and real estate values are all inflated, even during the most recent "recession".

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I still like individual stocks. I bought pretty hard into the absurd energy selloff over the past few months. Just because oil is 40% cheaper for now doesn't mean an oil company with 20+ years of reserves is worth 40% less.

As far as real estate, I agree that there are still systemic problems in the overall market, but I think someone with enough credit info on specific property owners or tenants can find plenty of good investments. I don't have any real estate investments at the moment, but I've looked into certain REITs that rent out things like hospitals or nursing homes, and they seem like pretty stable businesses.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

In other news, my intriguing tendency toward moderate political views continues. I've been reflecting on our two-party system (along with foundational elements like the Electoral College and first-past-the-post voting), and I'm starting to appreciate some of its merits for the first time.

I like that it maintains a balance of power between two halves of a fickle, undereducated population (granted, it would be preferable to have better education, but that's a separate issue). I like that the balance includes important boundaries like religion versus atheism, urban versus rural, and "big government" versus "big private sector". I like that the system delays the effects of rapid shifts in public sentiment, and protects our economy from regulatory instability.

Sure it helps perpetuate some injustices, but over the long term I think it's helped resolve more than it's created. There may be ideas for better systems in circulation these days, but it's probably worth putting those ideas through the trial of long-term mainstream acceptance before they're implemented. We could easily implement the wrong idea with good intentions, or even the right idea at the wrong time, and end up royally fucked.

 

[Dak]

I still like individual stocks. I bought pretty hard into the absurd energy selloff over the past few months. Just because oil is 40% cheaper for now doesn't mean an oil company with 20+ years of reserves is worth 40% less.

As far as real estate, I agree that there are still systemic problems in the overall market, but I think someone with enough credit info on specific property owners or tenants can find plenty of good investments. I don't have any real estate investments at the moment, but I've looked into certain REITs that rent out things like hospitals or nursing homes, and they seem like pretty stable businesses.

I agree re: oil. The current smackdown of oil is only going to last until the shale wells get good and capped and credit dries up a bit and then OPEC will start turning off the spigot. Then up it will go again.

As far as real estate goes, if you have to live somewhere and want to own it, that is one thing - in terms of looking for a deal based on the current problematic market. After that you have to decide how long you think the housing bubble is going to be able to be supported, both in terms of credit infusion inflation and shadow inventory being withheld.

In other news, my intriguing tendency toward moderate political views continues. I've been reflecting on our two-party system (along with foundational elements like the Electoral College and first-past-the-post voting), and I'm starting to appreciate some of its merits for the first time.

I like that it maintains a balance of power between two halves of a fickle, undereducated population (granted, it would be preferable to have better education, but that's a separate issue). I like that the balance includes important boundaries like religion versus atheism, urban versus rural, and "big government" versus "big private sector". I like that the system delays the effects of rapid shifts in public sentiment, and protects our economy from regulatory instability.

Sure it helps perpetuate some injustices, but over the long term I think it's helped resolve more than it's created. There may be ideas for better systems in circulation these days, but it's probably worth putting those ideas through the trial of long-term mainstream acceptance before they're implemented. We could easily implement the wrong idea with good intentions, or even the right idea at the wrong time, and end up royally fucked.

I'll just say I disagree that it does any of the things you have listed, but it's obvious that implementing new ideas can easily go wrong for any number of reasons. That is why nations need to shrink and governance needs to be small and varied.