Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[rms]

but about degradation of a water supply.

i think if you frame the issue this way, you then have to admit the largest problem is Indian sovereignty over their water supplies/land etc

and it becomes more interesting since that water source was deemed far enough away from the pipeline but of course runoff/seeping is always an issue and, imo, was rather an overreaction

Cut particular funding from particular sources. Science isn't a monolith, in either its funding or its results.

Dak, I can't tell if you're news ignorant or just downplaying what Trump is doing, but he's clearly demonizing or at least speaking negatively on left leaning practices of media and science. Just today he apparently told MSNBC to stop reporting on the possibility of Russia's influence and instead focus on his claims of Obama's wire tapping. That is an insane statement from the president on many levels.

For the women's movement, that was clearly a proactive reaction to possible actions against women in the U.S., can't deny that. But it is interesting how twitter is mobilizing political actions across the country, and obviously not good or bad entirely. But the other two, science and DAP, are clearly in response to political agendas

 

[Dak]

i think if you frame the issue this way, you then have to admit the largest problem is Indian sovereignty over their water supplies/land etc

and it becomes more interesting since that water source was deemed far enough away from the pipeline but of course runoff/seeping is always an issue and, imo, was rather an overreaction

The Indians haven't been sovereign, and need to either fully fight that (which includes giving up stipends) or fully accept it. Not one tribe trying to win some extra monies. The whole thing would have been a joke, if it wasn't so environmentally and personally (for protesters) destructive)

Dak, I can't tell if you're news ignorant or just downplaying what Trump is doing, but he's clearly demonizing or at least speaking negatively on left leaning practices of media and science. Just today he apparently told MSNBC to stop reporting on the possibility of Russia's influence and instead focus on his claims of Obama's wire tapping. That is an insane statement from the president on many levels.

For the women's movement, that was clearly a proactive reaction to possible actions against women in the U.S., can't deny that. But it is interesting how twitter is mobilizing political actions across the country, and obviously not good or bad entirely. But the other two, science and DAP, are clearly in response to political agendas

I know he has been demonizing left leaning practices, and that is one of the few things he does I don't have a problem with. There was in fact wire-tapping of Trump-related activities by US intelligence agencies while Obama was in office. This is a fact. The point should be that everyone is being tapped. Trump isn't wrong generally, only specifically, in this matter.

The "proactive response" was in response to left-media unsubstantiated fearmongering re: women's issues. The science thing is in response to targeted budget cuts. Notice science funding flowing through DoD sources hasn't been cut. And before one assumes that's merely destruction research, DARPA and the DoD provide a significant amount of dollars to public and private medical research.

 

[rms]

The Indians haven't been sovereign

I don't agree here, sovereignty is quite established on reservations. Sure, it's been worked around, but it is there.

I know he has been demonizing left leaning practices, and that is one of the few things he does I don't have a problem with.

I am struggling to think you really believe this

There was in fact wire-tapping of Trump-related activities by US intelligence agencies while Obama was in office. This is a fact.

Last I heard was that he was 'near' wire tapping of RUS ambassadors or something. Was not personally tapped but was on some tapes/recordings etc

Trump isn't wrong generally, only specifically, in this matter.

This is the downplaying i'm referring to. You're hoping that Trump is trying to do something noble about wiretapping but I think we've seen enough of Political-Trump to see he's only interested in emboldening the Right and demonizing the Left. I am done thinking he's some smart guy making most of the American public look dumb, he hasn't done anything to warrant that belief.

The "proactive response" was in response to left-media unsubstantiated fearmongering re: women's issues.

I agree

The science thing is in response to targeted budget cuts.

there are claims, and I think proven, that research is being deleted from public websites. That research is left leaning, generally if not entirely.

 

[Einherjar86]

Cut particular funding from particular sources. Science isn't a monolith, in either its funding or its results.

I cite the documentary Particle Fever, which I've probably done before. When an economic journalist asks what financial application(s) the discovery of the Higgs Boson will yield, all the physicist can say is: "It could be nothing--except for understanding everything."

There's no telling which sources could be practically beneficial. As far as scientists doing climate research goes, it's likely that their work will have a more immediate impact on practical matters in the next 50-100 years. And unfortunately, that's what's going.

I find the whole DAP thing tangential but you seem to be insisting it as central (I apologize if this is incorrect) so I will try to treat it seriously. The entire anti-DAP movement wasn't even about oil per se, but about degradation of a water supply. Moving the pipeline had various issues, but would still threaten water supply were a leak in that vicinity to occur. However, pipelines are a lesser necessary evil, and shifting the line only shifts the potential threat. Why are the Souix there more special than other peoples? Do they not benefit from oil products? Are they more at risk from spill damage than anyone else?

I posed it as an example. Does shifting the potential threat have any effect on the potential threat? Because your philosophy seems to be "fuck it."

The fact that the protest caused actual problems vs the potential problems of a pipeline is more irony than argument. A sort of cherry on top of any argument.

Again, this doesn't reduce the concern over the potential problems. That's what you don't seem to get.

I also think there are environmental concerns. I don't think protests are the best option, nor do I think most protests intelligently oriented to concerns. The reason for this, and this is to track things back to my point, is that actual solutions don't matter. We need transcendant purpose. Transcendence is, more or less, by definition, impossible and more importantly, untestable. That way we cannot have counter evidence to our actions. This is why these movements do not generate more happiness. They protest the impossible, but not the untestable.

These movements do generate happiness. You're not a part of them, so I wouldn't expect you to know that.


Look, long story short, I don't agree with that original claim that we're in a rut because people are bored with success. It's dismissive of actual problems, which--even if they're not testable--are certainly observable. If you don't see them, then it's probably because you refuse to.

I know he has been demonizing left leaning practices, and that is one of the few things he does I don't have a problem with. There was in fact wire-tapping of Trump-related activities by US intelligence agencies while Obama was in office. This is a fact. The point should be that everyone is being tapped. Trump isn't wrong generally, only specifically, in this matter.

Wow. You're drinking the Kool-Aid like it's vitamin water. Good to know.

 

[Dak]

I cite the documentary Particle Fever, which I've probably done before. When an economic journalist asks what financial application(s) the discovery of the Higgs Boson will yield, all the physicist can say is: "It could be nothing--except for understanding everything."

There's no telling which sources could be practically beneficial. As far as scientists doing climate research goes, it's likely that their work will have a more immediate impact on practical matters in the next 50-100 years. And unfortunately, that's what's going.

How do you know it's likely? Seems a matter of faith. Climate models are notoriously poor. Obviously financial implications aren't the only thing. Financial models are also notoriously poor. That is, in part, why we have all of these booms and busts.

I posed it as an example. Does shifting the potential threat have any effect on the potential threat? Because your philosophy seems to be "fuck it."
Again, this doesn't reduce the concern over the potential problems.

Sure it doesn't. Where did I suggest it did? Pipelines are currently necessary. That doesn't mean they couldn't be improved.

These movements do generate happiness. You're not a part of them, so I wouldn't expect you to know that.

A currently unproveable assertion. As a contrary data point, depression and other mood disorders are growing globally, and at a faster rate in the first world than third world (possibly due to access differential, but that rather supports the point than disproves it).

Look, long story short, I don't agree with that original claim that we're in a rut because people are bored with success. It's dismissive of actual problems, which--even if they're not testable--are certainly observable. If you don't see them, then it's probably because you refuse to.

If something is observable it is testable (even though such testing is going to be frought with issues). But you're not a scientist, even of a soft variety, so I understand your willingness to ignore science (except where personally salient). Every other headline I've had to read in the legacy media since November in the US + Brexit in the UK has been about radicalism, whether in terms of nationalism, or Islamicism, or Leftism. Combined with increasing rates of mood disorders, there is likely an underlying variable or variables to these various phenomenons or movements. I propose, in concert with various more philosophically conservative thinkers of yore, that the binding is a lack of meaning in life, or rather, the search for meaning in the absence of such offered via culture.

 

[CiG]

The women's march seemed like an ideological clusterfuck to me.

 

[Einherjar86]

How do you know it's likely? Seems a matter of faith. Climate models are notoriously poor. Obviously financial implications aren't the only thing. Financial models are also notoriously poor. That is, in part, why we have all of these booms and busts.

Give it a rest. You're trying so hard to pin faith on me, ever since I made that comment during the morality discussion.

The odds are better that scientific research not tethered to a narrow range of interests will stumble on something worthwhile. That's not to say it'll happen, I'm just invoking probability here.

Sure it doesn't. Where did I suggest it did?

What, you just wait long enough until the original comment is in the past and then act like it didn't happen?

A currently unproveable assertion. As a contrary data point, depression and other mood disorders are growing globally, and at a faster rate in the first world than third world (possibly due to access differential, but that rather supports the point than disproves it).

I don't need to prove it. I was there, I saw it. If you don't believe it, that's your prerogative. Doesn't do much for your argument though.

If something is observable it is testable (even though such testing is going to be frought with issues). But you're not a scientist, even of a soft variety, so I understand your willingness to ignore science (except where personally salient).

I'm one of the most scientifically-oriented humanists you'll come across, and you know that. Don't be daft.

You can observe something and not be able to test it. Testing/experimentation requires controlled environments. Observation is an attribute of social organization. Observation happens all the time. Testing is more specific.

It may be that any observable phenomenon is theoretically testable, but practically speaking (your favorite) this isn't always the case.

The women's march seemed like an ideological clusterfuck to me.

I was at the march here in Boston. It wasn't a clusterfuck. It was a really moving experience, if I can say that and still be taken seriously.

 

[rms]

best thing out of the women's march

 

[CiG]

I was at the march here in Boston. It wasn't a clusterfuck. It was a really moving experience, if I can say that and still be taken seriously.

Lesbians hollering "Allahu Akbar" into a megaphone with a Sharia-promoting Muslim feminist as a guest speaker (the one that said Ayaan Hirsi Ali doesn't deserve to have a vagina), Ashley Judd talking about how repulsive and dirty she is and then women wearing pussy hats? That's what I meant by clusterfuck. But I believe that was all from the Washington march?

 

[Einherjar86]

Yeah, she wasn't at ours. But there were definitely some intersectional signs.

By the way, I recently checked out a book from the library that you might be interested in: Between Islam and Feminism: Human Rights and Sharia Law in Morocco, by Zakia Salime. It goes into details regarding how Islamic feminists navigate the complexities of being Muslims and advocating for women's rights. Basically, these two institutions can exist side by side, it's just a matter of how they're pursued.

There is actually a huge discourse around the dilemma of women's rights and Islamic belief. It's not as though scholars brush it under the rug. The shelf was stacked with books on studies particular to certain regions/countries.

 

[rms]

you referring that book to me Ein or CIG?

 

[Einherjar86]

To CIG. But I mean, you're welcome to check it out too.

 

[CiG]

@Einherjar86 Thanks I'll try and track it down. I'm actually somewhat familiar with the ways women's movements in Islamic nations work by either working against Sharia or working with and within Sharia due to the works of Nonie Darwish for the most part, it's interesting and regardless of how they choose to move forward I hope they succeed.

I have a problem with western feminists trying to bring Sharia here though. What we have is superior to Sharia.

 

[Dak]

Give it a rest. You're trying so hard to pin faith on me, ever since I made that comment during the morality discussion.

The odds are better that scientific research not tethered to a narrow range of interests will stumble on something worthwhile. That's not to say it'll happen, I'm just invoking probability here.

What, you just wait long enough until the original comment is in the past and then act like it didn't happen?

I think you can't acknowledge your faith in a particular outcome relevant to some Gaia shit in this particular case. But tbh, it doesn't really matter to my original point about purpose and meaning other than that you wish for some. Nearly anything could potentially suffice to substitute for something meaningful or purposeful - in the short term.

I don't need to prove it. I was there, I saw it. If you don't believe it, that's your prerogative. Doesn't do much for your argument though.

Yeah, and right after they shed those tears of joy for sticking it to the patriarchy they returned to their psychoanalysis sessions.

I'm one of the most scientifically-oriented humanists you'll come across, and you know that. Don't be daft.

I haven't seen it, and I'm far more sympathetic to your theoretic tendencies than most. In fact I've found you/them incredibly informative.

You can observe something and not be able to test it. Testing/experimentation requires controlled environments. Observation is an attribute of social organization. Observation happens all the time. Testing is more specific.

I will back off this and admit you are correct in general terms. There are observable things which cannot be replicated in RCTs. However, I don't see where any modeling provides you any definitive support.

I was at the march here in Boston. It wasn't a clusterfuck. It was a really moving experience, if I can say that and still be taken seriously.

Being capable of being moving is to my point. The Communist Manifesto (which underlies feminism - don't deny it) has been superbly moving. It's also killed hundreds of millions. It's transcendent.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think you can't acknowledge your faith in a particular outcome relevant to some Gaia shit in this particular case. But tbh, it doesn't really matter to my original point about purpose and meaning other than that you wish for some. Nearly anything could potentially suffice to substitute for something meaningful or purposeful - in the short term.

So having ecological concerns automatically makes someone a Gaia-loving hippie? You're being very presumptuous.

Yeah, and right after they shed those tears of joy for sticking it to the patriarchy they returned to their psychoanalysis sessions.

Man, you're an asshole sometimes. I'll admit that anecdotal evidence isn't convincing, but seeing as I actually know people who went to the march, and you probably don't know anyone, I'll go with my anecdotal evidence over your lack thereof.

I haven't seen it, and I'm far more sympathetic to your theoretic tendencies than most. In fact I've found you/them incredibly informative.

I'm sorry, if you haven't seen it then you're just choosing not to see it. I consider science to be a cornerstone of my studies. I teach courses on "literature and science" (I'm teaching one now), and I have books on physics, cognitive science, and genetics on my bookshelf. If I'm occasionally critical of science, that's because I'm also a humanist; but that doesn't make me non-scientific. I've never privileged humanities over science, nor have I ever claimed that the humanities are more important than science.

As much as I talk about science on this forum, you saying you "haven't seen it" is a fucking joke.

I will back off this and admit you are correct in general terms. There are observable things which cannot be replicated in RCTs. However, I don't see where any modeling provides you any definitive support.

I wasn't claiming that. All I said was that I was there, and you weren't.

Being capable of being moving is to my point. The Communist Manifesto (which underlies feminism - don't deny it) has been superbly moving. It's also killed hundreds of millions. It's transcendent.

You're attributing negative qualities to a text based on the fact that people have manipulated it to violent ends. That doesn't mean the object itself has negative qualities.

 

[CiG]

I would argue that Communism fails every time because its core ideas are negative.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think that, like every set of political principles, it has elements that work and those that don't.

 

[CiG]

Which elements work?

 

[Dak]

So having ecological concerns automatically makes someone a Gaia-loving hippie? You're being very presumptuous.

Man, you're an asshole sometimes. I'll admit that anecdotal evidence isn't convincing, but seeing as I actually know people who went to the march, and you probably don't know anyone, I'll go with my anecdotal evidence over your lack thereof.

Having ecological concerns doesn't make one a happy, and a fleeting moment of belonging doesn't fill existential voids. When people volunteer to do something we can assume they derive at least some joy from it - joy they aren't getting elsewhere. Energy in search of a cause, something "bigger than themselves".

I'm at times confused what you find assholeish. My statement was based on a series of rather mundane facts.
1. Five factor personality tests have shown the northeast to be generally high on Neuroticism (which is linked to a higher prevalence of mood disorders, etc.) Some studies have also found higher incidents of reported mental health issues in the northeast, but there are some problems with that due to differences in education and treatment availability - that is, people in the northeast are more acquainted with the problems and able to access care for it.
2. Women use therapy at a higher rate than men.
3. Psychoanalysis is still popular in the northeast. There's even a graduate school of psychodynamics in Boston.

Combine all of that with my original assertion and it's a rather banal statement. It may not describe particular people you know, but happy people full of some other purpose aren't generally drawn to mass protests.

I'm sorry, if you haven't seen it then you're just choosing not to see it. I consider science to be a cornerstone of my studies. I teach courses on "literature and science" (I'm teaching one now), and I have books on physics, cognitive science, and genetics on my bookshelf. If I'm occasionally critical of science, that's because I'm also a humanist; but that doesn't make me non-scientific. I've never privileged humanities over science, nor have I ever claimed that the humanities are more important than science.

As much as I talk about science on this forum, you saying you "haven't seen it" is a fucking joke.

I've always understood your interest in science as limited to mostly theoretical aspects - AI, space travel, etc., and particularly what their implications were, rather than "nuts and bolts". That was my what I meant when I said I don't see it.

You're attributing negative qualities to a text based on the fact that people have manipulated it to violent ends. That doesn't mean the object itself has negative qualities.

Negative or not, it offers transcendence, which is why no amount of failure in various applications has been able to relegate it to the dust bins of history. Religions and transcendent secular ideologies offer meaning and give purpose (and potentially "immortality").

 

[Einherjar86]

My main problem is that you're drawing a very, very general picture of people on one side of the political spectrum (i.e. liberal, leftist, democratic, etc.) as being concerned with non-issues, because they're too comfortable in life (or some such nonsense) and so perceive problems and discomfort where there are none.

You mentioned populism somewhere along the line to cover your bases, but you're primarily accusing leftists here of making mountains out of molehills. And you've elsewhere said that Rust Belt voters actually do have legitimate things to complain about. So I know, in general, where your sympathies lie.

It may not describe particular people you know, but happy people full of some other purpose aren't generally drawn to mass protests.

You made a comment, shortly after I said that I went to the protest in Boston, saying that you don't have time to go mill about in streets. Aside from this being a condescending comment, and aside from the fact that the Boston march (several of them, in fact) was a lot more than people milling about in streets, a lot of women that I know couldn't attend the march because (*gasp*) they had to go to work. The march was on a weekend, and a lot of people who work service jobs couldn't get off.

My wife and I have jobs that keep us busy during the week, so we had the luxury of going to the march. Additionally, I think it's safe to say that we both feel a good deal of happiness in our lives. What's more, I think it's safe to say that my colleagues do as well. What's more, I think it's safe to say that a hell of a lot of people at the march, many of whom had the financial security to go to the march on a Saturday, feel fine with their lives.

You paint the group as, in general, a mass of depressed women who feel unfulfilled, and therefore go to marches because they have nothing better to do. But in fact, a lot of people took time out of their Saturday to go to something they feel strongly about, not to go do something because they have little else going for them. A lot of people took their kids. It was an event structured around respective political views and a general disdain for the politics in office. Your impression of the marchers isn't only inaccurate, it's also dripping with political bias and, on top of that, it's arrogant and condescending.

I've always understood your interest in science as limited to mostly theoretical aspects - AI, space travel, etc., and particularly what their implications were, rather than "nuts and bolts". That was my what I meant when I said I don't see it.

Even if that's true, saying I don't understand the scientific method? Come on Dak.

Negative or not, it offers transcendence, which is why no amount of failure in various applications has been able to relegate it to the dust bins of history. Religions and transcendent secular ideologies offer meaning and give purpose (and potentially "immortality").

Okay, but I object to your use of "transcendent." I obviously resist appeals to transcendence, which I realize is what you're doing too. But you don't need transcendence in order to arrive at meaning. You're using "transcendence" in an accusatory manner, and it's partially misplaced.