Dak
mentat
http://www.ted.com/talks/temple_grandin_the_world_needs_all_kinds_of_minds
I'm apparently on the far right tip end of option 3.
I'm apparently on the far right tip end of option 3.
Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Dak
mentat
The beauty of Conspiracy Theories is there is always a counter conspiracy theory (or hundred):
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-02/why-us-presidential-election-has-entire-world-confused
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-02/why-us-presidential-election-has-entire-world-confused
Einherjar86
Active Member
Ha, well that's entertaining at least. When the campaign season for began, a friend and I chatted nonchalantly about whether Trump was an orchestrated figure placed on the stage to attract attention (and potentially votes) in a certain direction.
I don't promote such things as my personal beliefs, but they're always there in the back of my mind. But I tend to see things operating at a level that even the mysterious "elite" can't control.
I don't promote such things as my personal beliefs, but they're always there in the back of my mind. But I tend to see things operating at a level that even the mysterious "elite" can't control.
Dak
mentat
Relevant: Zizek apparently has stated Trump is the lesser of evils. Not sure if that makes my opinion any more credible lol
Einherjar86
Active Member
Haha, me neither. Žižek has played the media for years now; there's a reason he's "the Elvis of cultural theory."
Additionally, Žižek is a Marxist, and that's why he supports Trump.
Additionally, Žižek is a Marxist, and that's why he supports Trump.
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
Ha, not exactly. Žižek's position seems to be that Trump is so backwards that he's bound to accelerate the system's implosion by enforcing reactionary measures that won't address deeper structural conflicts.
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
I don't think he's saying that Trump is going to be the source of these "big awakenings." But then, it's often difficult to know exactly what Žižek is saying.
Dak
mentat
Yeah he's pretty clear that he thinks Trump has his own issues (which he does). I think the point is that if Trump wins - if he's not being put up there himself - this will instigate some major changes in how politics/consensus making works in the US. The various wings of the Cathedral if you will, will have to re-evaluate how they operate.
Dak
mentat
I guess this goes here: I have such a broad range of response to the Trump win depending on the angle. I think the most positive response is to the fucking meltdown I knew would occur - mostly amongst those vocal liberal women - but also amongst populations I happen to be immersed in in general. This election has revealed a lot of underlying truths about the irrationality of humanity, and has been totally amazing for my own personal ongoing education in observing humanity. My cynicism grows exponentially yet somehow I still care about humanity. It's more than I can say for all of the liberals I encounter. They have an inverse correlation between their cynicism and care.
Last edited:
Einherjar86
Active Member
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
That is what I figured. 
I'm not sure of which liberals you're speaking so generally, but I think you might be mistaking theoretical motivations or concerns for a lack of care. Abstracted methodologies can sometimes appear cold and uninterested in the lives of individuals.
I'm not sure of which liberals you're speaking so generally, but I think you might be mistaking theoretical motivations or concerns for a lack of care. Abstracted methodologies can sometimes appear cold and uninterested in the lives of individuals.
Dak
mentat
That is what I figured.
I'm not sure of which liberals you're speaking so generally, but I think you might be mistaking theoretical motivations or concerns for a lack of care. Abstracted methodologies can sometimes appear cold and uninterested in the lives of individuals.
Not any liberal intellectuals. I mean your average Democrat etc personal emotional orientations.
Dak
mentat
rms
Active Member
Einherjar86
Active Member
Haha, that's actually one part of it that I remember definitely agreeing with. I mean, not in any ethical sense, just an economic one. It's the same for student loans. I agree that student loans are an outrageous amount and a tremendous burden to pay off, but they're tremendous because a growing number of students aren't getting the high-paying jobs to pay off those loans.
I'm against privatizing education, but my reasons are different than those discussed in the SSC post or the original article. As far as the piece goes, it is very good I think; but both authors seem to be assuming that "efficiency" is an agreed-upon objective, and that it's easily measurable. The problem with addressing the growing education crisis via the market is that educational efficiency (whatever it is, or whatever it looks like) isn't easily measurable in economic terms.
I'm against privatizing education, but my reasons are different than those discussed in the SSC post or the original article. As far as the piece goes, it is very good I think; but both authors seem to be assuming that "efficiency" is an agreed-upon objective, and that it's easily measurable. The problem with addressing the growing education crisis via the market is that educational efficiency (whatever it is, or whatever it looks like) isn't easily measurable in economic terms.
Dak
mentat
I don't understand disagreeing with the payday lender issue. The profit margin is the proof. You can argue that they "take advantage of poor people" because these people shouldn't be loaned money, but then that sort of orientation towards poor people has it's own issues.
rms
Active Member
like the article suggests though, Starbucks is 9% profit and they are obviously doing damn fine. There's a surplus of those piece of shit loaning agencies near poor areas, I don't believe they are 'struggling' to stay afloat
