If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Dak]

This "goodthinkful" element is both antithetical to functionality and a part of functionality. Resistance to systemic functionality can actually serve as a corrective to gross entrenchment.

There's a difference between providing viable alternatives and actively working against the betterment of the group. Diversity is a relatively meaningless term until we delineate what kind of diversity.

All of those issues need to be addressed, I just take issue with the attitudes with which many people address them, especially conservatives; and yes, attitudes do have an impact on how we're perceived and on how people who hold those attitudes arrive at their conclusions.

Also, you can have "more dildo and vagina hats" and still address these concerns. So stop with the false choices.

Sure, attitudes generate attitudes in reaction. But the gulf in values is so large at this point there doesn't appear to be common ground to find no matter how civil the discourse.

To be perfectly clear, every choice means the foregoing of all other possible choices. One course of action takes resources (time, attention, money, whatever) from other courses of action. You can have both, but at a probable detriment to both.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

 

[Einherjar86]

There's a difference between providing viable alternatives and actively working against the betterment of the group. Diversity is a relatively meaningless term until we delineate what kind of diversity.

I doesn't have to do with alternatives. Correctives aren't alternatives.

Sure, attitudes generate attitudes in reaction. But the gulf in values is so large at this point there doesn't appear to be common ground to find no matter how civil the discourse.

To be perfectly clear, every choice means the foregoing of all other possible choices. One course of action takes resources (time, attention, money, whatever) from other courses of action. You can have both, but at a probable detriment to both.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

You're not being perfectly clear. You're equivocating and evading. It's perfectly--perfectly--obvious that we can have progressivist marches and have regulations on immigration. They don't cancel each other out. Stop pretending they do.

There is so much more to functionality than you're admitting. Social gatherings and protests have a broader purpose than fulfilling their ostensible demands or desires. You're equivocating what protests claim to want with the complete and total fulfillment of those desires. It's not that simple.

 

[Dak]

I doesn't have to do with alternatives. Correctives aren't alternatives.

So, if I show up at BU and start practicing the drums in your classroom during your assigned classtime, I hope you'd merely consider that a corrective action, rather than impeding the progress of learning in your classes.

You're not being perfectly clear. You're equivocating and evading. It's perfectly--perfectly--obvious that we can have progressivist marches and have regulations on immigration. They don't cancel each other out. Stop pretending they do.

Of course we can have both marches and regulations. But one (at least some types of marches) is attempting to cancel out the other.

There is so much more to functionality than you're admitting. Social gatherings and protests have a broader purpose than fulfilling their ostensible demands or desires. You're equivocating what protests claim to want with the complete and total fulfillment of those desires. It's not that simple.

Efforts are inherently exclusionary. Doing one thing means not doing all other things with the resources used in that effort. Protest efforts use up resources in an attempt to gain access to more resources to use up. Claiming I'm unduly equivocating because desires aren't totally fulfilled is like protesting that I can't claim that Japan wanted to take over all of Asia because they failed. Sure, there was more to the imperial aspirations of Japan, at the individual level, than acquisition of a larger resource base, but it's not an undue equivocation.

 

[Einherjar86]

Ugh, this is tiring, and becoming an exercise in pointless semantics.

All I have to say is that your example about playing the drums in my classroom is stupid if you don't see how that's different from what protesters are doing. I realize you're being hyperbolic, but do you not comprehend that there's a correspondence between protests and the topics they take issue with? You've simply taken one environment (a classroom) and inserted into it an entirely unrelated action (beating a drum). If you think that's a good example, then I doubt your critical thinking skills.

 

[Dak]

Ugh, this is tiring, and becoming an exercise in pointless semantics.

All I have to say is that your example about playing the drums in my classroom is stupid if you don't see how that's different from what protesters are doing. I realize you're being hyperbolic, but do you not comprehend that there's a correspondence between protests and the topics they take issue with? You've simply taken one environment (a classroom) and inserted into it an entirely unrelated action (beating a drum). If you think that's a good example, then I doubt your critical thinking skills.

It's not hyperbole, it's difference in scale. Groups exist for the fulfillment of common purposes, and the size of the group does or should correspond to a necessity for said size. That is, what cannot be done with X number can be done with Y number. When persons exist in the group or within group-related physical spaces, yet seek to hinder the purposes of the group or end the existence, these people are a problem for the group, and members of the group that value the group are rightly reactive to that. Whether that is someone playing the drums in a classroom (a class being a group with a purpose of learning some thing), or sanctuary cities in a state or country (a group pooling resources to meet commonly held economic and safety goals), these are all anti-group behaviors on different scales.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's not a difference of scale, it's a difference in kind. A difference of scale would be comparing immigration protests to, say, breaking down a wall, or proposing an immigration bill to congress, or creating a sanctuary city. Those are all differences in scale.

With the classroom example, you've simply constructed a nonsensical straw man.

 

[Dak]

It's not a difference of scale, it's a difference in kind. A difference of scale would be comparing immigration protests to, say, breaking down a wall, or proposing an immigration bill to congress, or creating a sanctuary city. Those are all differences in scale.

With the classroom example, you've simply constructed a nonsensical straw man.

It's interference in group processes by non-group members. Alternatively, I could engage in the same behavior as a member of the class. There's no difference in kind; ironically, you're thinking too concretely here. It's obstructionist, deleterious behavior on a small scale.

 

[Einherjar86]

You're ignoring countless elements that differentiate between a protest and the kind of act you're describing, and you're equivocating the two by appealing to the vague "interference."

But following this logic--even if I admitted that the two were the same, I could still say that I would kick your ass out of my classroom and not be a hypocrite. Fine, the two are examples of "interference of group processes"; but my classroom happens to be a system in which that interference isn't tolerated, while the immigration system can tolerate anti-immigration protests. In fact, maybe anti-immigration protests actually force the immigration system to adapt in ways productive in the long run.

But that's getting too abstract. I still fall back on my critique of your antithetical construction between social systems and resistance to them.

 

[Dak]

You're ignoring countless elements that differentiate between a protest and the kind of act you're describing, and you're equivocating the two by appealing to the vague "interference."

But following this logic--even if I admitted that the two were the same, I could still say that I would kick your ass out of my classroom and not be a hypocrite. Fine, the two are examples of "interference of group processes"; but my classroom happens to be a system in which that interference isn't tolerated, while the immigration system can tolerate anti-immigration protests. In fact, maybe anti-immigration protests actually force the immigration system to adapt in ways productive in the long run.

But that's getting too abstract. I still fall back on my critique of your antithetical construction between social systems and resistance to them.

I understand your point of contention: playing the drums is direct interference while protesting does not stop processes. But that's simply an access or power problem. I actuallty can't actually keep playing the drums or even bring the drums into the classroom because of access (eg power) problems. But protest is the method chosen by people lacking the power to directly impair processes. So, the direct link would be if I march around outside of your classroom shouting about the problematic nature of not being able to drum in your classroom/outside of it (which I probably still couldn't do because of access/power, so I'd be limited to the nearest public sidewalk outside of BU).

I assume you would say the analogy falls apart because drumming in your class provides zero aid to your lecture content while immigrants aid the economy. I would disagree here because rhythm is incredibly intertwined with human communication and action, and could potentially be assimilated into your syllabus on a somewhat limited basis (like, if I valued the group [the class'] goals). However, illegal immigration/non-assimilation is completely at odds with any goals with of the group. Similarly, I just use your group's (class') space to practice drumming towards my own ends.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, we in the humanities are really just a bunch of hippies, so you're probably right.

But my main point of contention is that immigration protests happen and don't directly affect the efficacy of illegal immigration. In fact, if our administration is to be believed, there's a been a crackdown on illegal immigration.

 

[Dak]

But my main point of contention is that immigration protests happen and don't directly affect the efficacy of illegal immigration. In fact, if our administration is to be believed, there's a been a crackdown on illegal immigration.

But they want to - and therein lies the problem. I can't find numbers to support an actual crackdown, rather the crackdown has been unnecessary because the instances have been dramatically reduced because of a lack of institutional support. Although not a lack of marching support. What I would love is if illegal immigrant protesters had to register, so that the parched husks of desert-killed or smuggling-killed illegals could be cemented on their doorsteps. Trump, in his ignorant banter, has actually saved many lives. Not bettered maybe, but at least saved. Near complete detachment from any application (reality) has a price - and it's usually paid by some portion of the proletariat rather than the elite.

 

[CiG]

I'm reminded of those total assholes that choose to protest in libraries while people study.

 

[Einherjar86]

But they want to

Aha, but that doesn't matter! It doesn't conflict with the system's functionality.

 

[CiG]

i get my news from Breitbart, the most credible source

Fingers crossed Breitbart converts you and others like Ozzman into Trumpian socialists.

It is altogether possible that one may prefer lower living standards in favor of a more humane distribution of wealth or a government procurement policy that recycles dollars taxed and borrowed back into the domestic economy.

http://www.breitbart.com/economics/...an-case-for-donald-trumps-buy-american-order/

 

[arg]

national socialism can be good under some conditions...

1. if it's in small amounts; some wealth redistribution is ok as long as it's not massively taxing the shit out of everyone
2. it's conditional and still based on meritocracy/deserving it, NOT for everybody just because they're alive; you still let the most useless die
3. only for citizens
4. a market that is relatively free but with some protections against flooding it with foreign cheap goods/labor is a reasonable thing to have

 

[CiG]

 

[Dak]

Aha, but that doesn't matter! It doesn't conflict with the system's functionality.

Ok, so attempts don't matter. That's why we don't have laws against attempted murder.

 

[rms]

I think this could be an interesting discussion on the male v female social and economic world

p.s. the obvious hypocriscy of "men don't like healthcare and gov't work" but dare we say that about women in STEM fields

and if you watch you can totally see why Maher is a complete idiot most of the time. Just said Trump is analogous to the average white man..jeebus

this chick just said she thinks there is more woman hating now than in the past..wowza

 

[Dak]

Working class men aren't getting married because it's a raw deal for them. I disagree with the whole "cooperate better" thing. Women are busy patting themselves on the back because muscle has been easier to automate than a "soft skills". Also, women are clustered more closely around the IQ mean, so as the available jobs slowly render redundant those on the lower end of the curve, it's disproportionately affected men. They should watch out: the job fields mostly responsible for the boost in female workplace success are going to experience a contraction right when those getting degrees now hit middle age (ie nursing). But I'm sure that'll be because patriarchy too.

 

[arg]

what's so funny about my post on national socialism-lite? makes total sense to me