Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

I think the more honest answer is that I just don't care. I don't consider myself a hyper- or even moderately "masculine" person, and I don't think my life is diminished because of that.

Well how many of us think we are really missing out on something that isn't socially and/or economically relevant to our positions in life? Of course even I would push back on the sort of "bro" caricatures of masculinity which pervade the strawmen of Jezebel pieces. I would argue there are archetypes of masculinity which certain situations require. A Mad Max world requires a Conan the Barbarian and Rambo if you will allow me to mix 80s references. At a different end of the spectrum we have a Holmes in Victorian England. There are rough and there are polished masculine figures, which correspond to the roughness or the polished nature of the times. The problem encountered today is that things are both and neither rough or/nor polished.

Maybe it's because of the community I live in, but I'm not sure I believe that masculinity is something that needs to persist in order for the human species to survive.

Since rough masculinity has been with the species since the beginning (and with hominids to some degree before that), is a test-tube derived androgynous asexual hominid still the human species? Will such a species have any reason or drive to perpetuate? What's the reason to test tube a baby if there's not even any interest in sexual pleasure? These aren't hyperbolic questions. Even now, the (or nearly the) most emasculated and/or androgynous culture faces a startling demographic cliff.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-demographic-cliff/article/690756

If Japan’s fertility rate were to somehow rebound to replacement level, its demographic structure is already so dilapidated that the country would lose 30 percent of its population by 2100. If Japan’s fertility rate stays where it is now? Then by 2100 the country will have lost more than half of its current population.

I don't think this is simply "hurrdurr, gotta be MOAR MANLY". This is simply, across the entire species, the unwinding of the nihilism Nietzsche warned about yet only faintly in comparison to the true danger. His solution was the Ubermensch, but without Transcendence there is no Why as an engine for the Ubermensch.

It may be the solution is in barbarism, and radical Islam is the specie's vehicle of salvation. How ironically sad.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's really not something I care enough to argue about.

 

[CiG]

Fucking terrible.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't need to participate in every argument that happens on this board. I responded to this because Dak mentioned my name, and I explained why I'm not interested. You guys can talk about it all you want, but I fail to see how my lack of interest is "fucking terrible."

 

[rms]

we all know if it was about femininity you'd have an opinion. but you already answered why you don't care so no need to go on any further. don't mind the honesty, it's what i hope to expose in a lot of these discussions

 

[Einherjar86]

If it was about feminism, then maybe... but only because I'm familiar with the discourse.

Femininity/masculinity is a different topic, and not one I'm very interested in.

 

[Dak]

https://samzdat.com/2017/06/19/the-use-and-abuse-of-witchdoctors-for-life/
Good writeup. Halfway through reading it I thought "This guy writes like The Last Psychiatrist"....and then in the comments on a different blog posting a bunch of other people asked him if he was TLP.

 

[Einherjar86]

https://samzdat.com/2017/06/01/the-meridian-of-her-greatness/#more-16052

Well, this is a good piece. And I found very little to disagree with until I revisited the very early portion, specifically this segment:

If we started with very little, and then capitalism made us all wealthier, is it really the devil if, while doing that, a few got wealthier than others?

This is a hard argument to counter, and one has to question the instinct to counter it.

I admit that I'm not entirely confident I follow exactly what the author means (the statement is a conditional, so I'm not sure which argument the author is referring to); but a counterargument is easily crafted based purely on where our values lie.

For example:

§ Principle: The purpose of government is to share out money so that there are no poor citizens—therefore no one for whom we must feel guilty because of the arbitrariness of fate. The purpose of life is to free individuals for individualism. Individualism is the project of making your own life as appealing as you can, as remarkable as you like, without the encumbrances of an unequal society, which renders your successes undeserved. Government is the outside corrective that leaves us free for life.

§ Legislative Initiative No.1: Add a tax bracket of 100 percent to cut off individual income at a fixed ceiling, allowing any individual to bring home a maximum of $100,000 a year from all sources and no more.

§ Legislative Initiative No.2: Give every citizen a total of $10,000 a year from the government revenues, paid as a monthly award, in recognition of being an adult in the United States.

This quote won't win me any sympathizers who already think I'm a communist; but my point is only that Greif's position on individualism and wealth is as convincing as samzdat's--it just depends on where your values lie.

Greif's entire piece can be found here:

https://nplusonemag.com/issue-4/politics/gut-level-legislation-or-redistribution/

 

[rms]

The purpose of life is to free individuals for individualism. Individualism is the project of making your own life as appealing as you can, as remarkable as you like, without the encumbrances of an unequal society

doesn't this proposition only say individualism is good if it doesn't harm anyone else's individualism? as to presuppose that everyone has the same ideas of individualism?

seems like Greif wasn't interested in addressing that aspect of it?

 

[Einherjar86]

The point of Greif's argument is that such interference wouldn't matter--or it would matter far less.

For instance, this portion on how a lessening of income disparity and opening up of social opportunities would reduce crime:

Obscene poverty doesn’t motivate the poor or please the rest of us; it makes the poor desperate, criminal, and unhappy. Absurd wealth doesn’t help the rich or motivate the rest of us, it makes the rich (for the most part good, decent, hardworking and talented people) into selfish guilty parties, responsible for social evil. It is cruel to rig our system to create these extremes, and cast fellow citizens into the two sewers that border the national road. For all of us, both superwealth and superpoverty make achievement trivial and unreal, and finally destroy the American principles of hard work and just deserts. Luckily, eradicating one (individual superwealth) might help eradicate the other (superpoverty).

There would still be crime, i.e. infringements upon individuality, and these infringements would be handled as they are now; but Greif is of the opinion that most criminals are driven to it by social conditions, not by personal preference (although he addresses this too, later in the essay). As such, crime would decrease if society provided expanded opportunities for individualism, since people would pursue their personal goals without the fear of absolute destitution.

I should point out that I don't share Greif's position. I just think it's a lovely example of how notions like individualism can be construed in various ways, depending on one's values.

 

[rms]

Obscene poverty doesn’t motivate the poor or please the rest of us; it makes the poor desperate, criminal, and unhappy.

but Greif is of the opinion that most criminals are driven to it by social conditions,

not sure he thinks this, your interpretation and his words are contradictory. The poor are so incredibly motivated that they become desperate, criminal. or else he's saying those that are poor are biologically prone to criminal activities, desperation etc.

As such, crime would decrease if society provided expanded opportunities for individualism,

just seems a tad pompous to assume everyone's individualism includes artistically or ideologically expressing themselves. if he tackles this idea i'd be interested, but just seems to not be interested in it

 

[Einherjar86]

not sure he thinks this, your interpretation and his words are contradictory. The poor are so incredibly motivated that they become desperate, criminal. or else he's saying those that are poor are biologically prone to criminal activities, desperation etc.

I said that Greif believes the poor are driven to crime by social conditions. Poverty is a social condition. I'm saying exactly what he (and you) just said, I chose used more general terminology.

He's definitely not saying that criminals are biologically prone to crime. Or if they are, this is negligible.

just seems a tad pompous to assume everyone's individualism includes artistically or ideologically expressing themselves. if he tackles this idea i'd be interested, but just seems to not be interested in it

He doesn't assume this. His argument is that, if people's income is restricted to $100,000, and all those people quit their jobs and do something else, then it stands to reason that they were only doing those jobs for the money--they'd always wanted to do something else. He isn't assuming that all people secretly want to be artists or musicians or something, he's just posing a conditional.

Here's a helpful passage:

The threat from those who oppose this line of thought is that, without “incentives,” people will stop working. The worst-case scenario is that tens of thousands of people who hold jobs in finance, corporate management, and the professions (not to mention professional sports and acting) will quit their jobs and end their careers because they did not truly want to be bankers, lawyers, CEOs, actors, ballplayers, et cetera. They were only doing it for the money! Actually they wanted to be high school teachers, social workers, general practitioners, stay-at-home parents, or criminals and layabouts.

Far from this being a tragedy, this would be the greatest single triumph of human emancipation in a century. A small portion of the rich and unhappy would be freed at last from the slavery of jobs that aren’t their life’s work—and all of us would be freed from an insane system.

If there is anyone working a job who would stop doing that job should his income—and all his richest compatriots’ incomes—drop to $100,000 a year, he should not be doing that job. He should never have been doing that job—for his own life’s sake. It’s just not a life, to do work you don’t want to do when you have other choices, and can think of something better (and have a $10,000 cushion to supplement a different choice of life). If no one would choose to do this job for a mere $100,000 a year, if all would pursue something else more humanly valuable; if, say, there would no longer be anyone willing to be a trader, a captain of industry, an actor, or an athlete for that kind of money—then the job should not exist.

In effect, Greif is saying that lawyers and CEOS absolutely might still exist. There can certainly be people who want to keep doing those jobs, even after a salary reduction. He's only suggesting that restricting income would "free" individuals to do what they truly want to do.

 

[rms]

I said that Greif believes the poor are driven to crime by social conditions

I know you said, but he does not say it, off of the provided quote:

Obscene poverty doesn’t motivate the poor or please the rest of us; it makes the poor desperate, criminal, and unhappy.

this distinction here doesn't appear to be logical

they'd always wanted to do something else. He isn't assuming that all people secretly want to be artists or musicians or something, he's just posing a conditional.

again, yes. but that something else is not constrained by $, aka the arts.

Actually they wanted to be high school teachers, social workers, general practitioners, stay-at-home parents, or criminals and layabouts.

"Everyone wants to be a good person! the system makes people corrupt, evil!"

how delusional

He's only suggesting that restricting income would "free" individuals to do what they truly want to do.

this isn't really in discussion man. just his idea of 'financially free' people is childish, naive, arrogant and pompous.

 

[Einherjar86]

I know you said, but he does not say it, off of the provided quote:

"Obscene poverty doesn’t motivate the poor or please the rest of us; it makes the poor desperate, criminal, and unhappy."

this distinction here doesn't appear to be logical

"Obscene poverty doesn't motivate the poor [to work harder and earn more money]; it makes the poor [cut corners and resort to crime]."

We call this inference. You should give it a try.

again, yes. but that something else is not constrained by $, aka the arts.

No, it doesn't have to be the arts. Maybe they'd rather be personal trainers, or dog-sitters, or house painters, or interior decorators, but felt pressured to earn more money than those careers could offer them. This is Greif's point. It doesn't have to be a job in the arts, although it can be.

"Everyone wants to be a good person! the system makes people corrupt, evil!"

how delusional

Did you actually read his quote? He included criminals in his list of what people might want to be, implying that some people actually do just want to be criminals. So your sentiment is misguided.

this isn't really in discussion man. just his idea of 'financially free' people is childish, naive, arrogant and pompous.

 

[Dak]

Greif's ideas about what deserves guilt and what is valuable are offered completely unsubstantiated within the quotes. Furthermore, his treatment of incomes in dollars as possessing some inherent value or fixedness is entirely ignorant of the nature of money in general, but particularly inflationary monetary systems.

Separately, his assertion that eliminating superwealth will cause the elimination of superpoverty is also not substantiated, and the data showing the rise in the superwealthy in recent times concomitant with the drop in global poverty levels is evidence against such a causal relationship.

I don't care that someone values certain things more highly than others (ie, valuing academia over the FIRE sectors). Problems are created when those without requisite knowledge of the systems they wish were different have very strong opinions about how they need to be changed. Which is to say basically everyone.

Poverty is a social condition.

Poverty is the default human condition and must be understood in absolute terms. The moving goalposts of "subjective poverty" come with a host of problems. Approached briefly, subjective measures of poverty can assert that the uncontacted jungle tribalists are not impoverished, but someone with an insulated house, indoor plumbing, electricity, refrigeration, internet, an automobile, ample clothing and food, and practically infinite access to entertainment is in dire poverty.

He's definitely not saying that criminals are biologically prone to crime. Or if they are, this is negligible.

He's simply wrong. Criminals score lower on IQ tests http://law.jrank.org/pages/1363/Intelligence-Crime-Measuring-size-IQ-crime-correlation.html and higher on measures of aggressiveness, which are also correlated, and which are also highly heritable.While environmental factors influence expression, persons do not enter these environments randomly. Rather, the same genetics which are passed on also influence and are influenced by the environments into which they pass them on.

A review of the relevant literature shows that heritability explains anywhere from 41-63% of antisocial behavior. Additionally, of the environmental influences, there are both shared and nonshared influences, and the degree to which nonshared environmental influences are not in fact interpretable as based in genetics is due to some degree of perspective.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3696520/

 

[Einherjar86]

Greif's ideas about what deserves guilt and what is valuable are offered completely unsubstantiated within the quotes.

I know. Because you can't substantiate them.

The samzdat piece states:

If we started with very little, and then capitalism made us all wealthier, is it really the devil if, while doing that, a few got wealthier than others?

You can't substantiate that claim (or, again, conditional) either. It's a value-judgment.

Poverty is the default human condition and must be understood in absolute terms.

I don't think you can ever convince me that this is true. But I'll read your argument if you think it's worth your time.

He's simply wrong. Criminals score lower on IQ tests http://law.jrank.org/pages/1363/Intelligence-Crime-Measuring-size-IQ-crime-correlation.html and higher on measures of aggressiveness, which are also correlated, and which are also highly heritable.

This assumes that lower IQs and higher aggressiveness preceded poverty. You can't prove that it did, and the evidence doesn't present a persuading case that it does.

It's probably true that biology plays a role in social circumstances. I won't claim that it doesn't. But you can't say that Greif is "simply wrong," because that would demand a proof from you. And you don't have one.

 

[rms]

"Obscene poverty doesn't motivate the poor [to work harder and earn more money]; it makes the poor [cut corners and resort to crime]."

work harder and earn more money are not mutually exclusive. you can not work harder, resort to crime, and earn more money.

but whatever, you're being really childish about poorly constructing his argument. do you man

 

[Einherjar86]

Me? You keep changing your point with every post. Arguing with you is like trying to teach baseball to a bumblebee.

You're right that working harder and earning money aren't mutually exclusive. I'm asking you to stop for a second and use your fucking brain. You can easily tell what it is Greif's saying: obscene poverty doesn't motivate the poor to get jobs; it motivates them to commit crimes.

There, was that so hard?

 

[rms]

I didn't change anything. Look at how fired up you are. You projected meaning onto his vague statement and assumed that's what he meant with nothing to support that position. If that's how you took it, that's fine, but to act like he argued that is dishonest at best

 

[Einherjar86]

Wow. None of that is true.

I'm fired up because you waste my time. Every argument I have with you is a waste of time. And what's worse is that I keep trying, but you think I'm such an asshole that you can't accept the fact that I understand an article that you don't (or maybe can't).

So, this is the last time I'll be an asshole to you.