Ultra-Feminist Propaganda

[Blastfrog]

I like how after he got losered, he was acting like a tough guy going like "man I don't need any of you, I got my own life bitch". Then he turns around and rejoins. Guess he couldn't live without us after all. :P

[Gez]

Bucket said:

Don't like what a corporation is doing, don't buy their products and don't work there.

That would require you to know that the corporation is doing things that you do not like.

And without anti-trust regulations, what's to stop the biggest corporation from simply buying every competitor until it has a monopoly? Then good luck not buying stuff from the only source.

The economy doesn't self-regulate. The freer it is, the more often it spirals out of control into global financial crises.

[Blastfrog]

My opinion is that markets are freer with reasonable regulation, such as antitrust funds, than without any regulation. It's freer in the sense that there's more opportunity for individuals and smaller businesses in a market without monopoly or bad business practices. It gives people more of a chance to thrive to their fullest potential, equally, rather than have fatcats hoard all opportunity for themselves, in effect actually limiting things on a larger scale.

[Ladna]

A good example of where capitalism has failed at regulation is the smoking industry. The majority of people either dislike or outright despise smoking, but even severe regulation and taxation hasn't put tobacco companies out of business, let alone people just not buying their stuff.

I should also make it clear that my goal was never to insult or discredit anyone. Social issues are complex, and if their study teaches us anything, it's that labels rarely help anything. I feel like discussion is critical for growth, and that isolation, ostracization and labelling generally only create people who are more disillusioned and occasionally radical. Even worse, it may create Republicans.

Alternately we can talk about how Doom Juan hates women because he has a embarrassingly tiny dong, and he once got made fun of at his most vulnerable. I feel like it's either that or neo-marxism at this point.

[Blastfrog]

Ladna said:

The majority of people either dislike or outright despise smoking, but even severe regulation and taxation hasn't put tobacco companies out of business

Why should it? Why should people be disallowed to use tobacco?

[Ladna]

For the same reason asbestos is illegal in the US.

[myk]

Phml said:
Economic studies and hard data show individuals with college-level education or above generate value (that is, they produce more goods and services than they consume), whereas undereducated people fall on the opposite end of the spectrum, with the state having to step in - not necessarily directly, but indirectly due to equal usage of government-provided resources (i.e. running water, electricity, roads...) without generating as much value (and paying as much taxes) as their higher educated peers. Homelessness is the worst case scenario for society, as having someone on the street actually costs more than giving them a free home, due to the frequent emergency room trips such a "lifestyle" unfortunately entails. Beyond that, in the current job market there is a shortage of high-skilled workers, whereas there are too many low-skilled workers. There is no reason for capitalism to encourage keeping people in the dark, as it is counterproductive.

That cost is to the regional or national economy, in particular, capitalist businesses don't really care much, especially if they can get away without bearing part of the weight. What's going on in your continent now illustrates this well enough.

Some experts have even put forward the idea to pay kids for good grades in school, as a long-term investment for society as a whole.

I recall reading about experiments in that direction and that they were unsatisfying. Education at its best is when its aim is itself, not something else. My country does have a policy were people that send their kids to school get a sum of money per kid, depending on income. That's backing for the families so the kids don't have to work, though, not mercenary education for the kids that depends on their performance.

Information flows more freely than ever, by orders of magnitude compared to a mere two decades ago. Anyone with an Internet connection (provided they don't live in China...) has more knowledge wealth available at their fingertips than what an entire library would hold. Better yet, that information comes from many sources and many languages, leaving people to expose themselves to as many viewpoints as possible rather than staying in their bubble.

The spread of technology that allows easier access is exciting and promising, but what you're saying avoids the issue that with economic weight, you can filter and spam information by gaining control of key media. Note also that all the knowledge in the world at the tip of your fingertips but no means or incentive to use it makes it rather pointless.

When talking about social sciences, it is critical to recognize university is itself a bubble.

Social sciences? "Humanities" is a better word, anyway, but this affects all education (intellectual capital) when and if it becomes exclusive.

To assume everyone educated would share the same opinions and come to the same conclusions, and that anyone disagreeing is uneducated, is to make the above assumptions - that there is a definite end, or at least checkpoint in a straight line, and that you have personally reached it and can't possibly learn anything more on the topic.

Joshy's utterance was kind of lame and perhaps befitting a drunkard, but the the issue isn't sharing an opinion but not having the "intellectual firepower" to fight back against groups that may attempt to dominate those without much access to intellectual capital.

By definition, independent thought can't be agreeing with what other people said alone, and according too much importance to institutional education can be particulary pervasive in that regard.

Independent thought does not exist, except relatively to something in particular. So you can mention thought that is independent of academic institutions. From what he said, on the other hand, Joshy must have been referring to thought that's independent of an economic elite.

People tend to be in their early twenties by then, a phase of their life at which it's easy to get riled up about old men ruling the world with nefarious purposes, to get passionate about being defenders of good and truth against evil and ignorance, and perhaps to idly dream about how much things could be better if only "we" were in charge.

Shouldn't they? Nefarious things are certainly happening and older men are indeed in many places of power. Placing the onus on personal interest, you end that like a bitter old man that's afraid these young upstarts will take your place.

It's nowhere near as thrilling to admit we live in systems that are working decently, that overall have brought improvement to most people's lives over the years, and to realise many of our problems come from incompetency rather than malice, or from a practical inability to accomplish conflicting goals.

Thrilling or not, that is much more suitable for a comfortable position, or a position of privilege. Basically anyone, within any place or class, that feels he or she has more to lose from changing anything. Interestingly, the less an idea represents oneself or one's interests, the less thrilling it is to hold it.

[Joshy]

myk said:

Joshy's utterance was kind of lame and perhaps befitting a drunkard, but the the issue isn't sharing an opinion but not having the "intellectual firepower" to fight back against groups that may attempt to dominate those without much access to intellectual capital.

Independent thought does not exist, except relatively to something in particular. So you can mention thought that is independent of academic institutions. From what he said, on the other hand, Joshy must have been referring to thought that's independent of an economic elite.

I don't know if I am supposed to be feeling insulted by being labelled as a 'lame preachy drunkard', heh..

But in all seriousness, I think there's a bit of an overanalysis on 'independent thought' as an absolute term. A better alternative would probably be a continuous progression of 'self-realisation' that allows for 'better informed agency'. It's impossible to escape cultural/Capitalist relativity as is obviously the case, but the least one can do ideally is to move up on the spectrum of awareness within such subjective realms, near bordering on dispassionate objectivity. While education can help, that in itself isn't sufficient. For instance, one may have access to non-educational reference points that can assist in understanding of concepts others struggle to get. If you do have a better understanding of concepts with respect (something people extremely lack nowadays), good chance one's life and ideas would not be heavily determined or motivated by class, economical prejudice and such in contrast to those unfortunate enough to not have access to important concepts/reference points. It helps greatly if you are at a point that you're mostly impermeable to consumerist ideas and petty rhetoric.

It should be quite important to note that even if you do have 'intellectual firepower' to fight dominant groups/peers, it doesn't always prevail, especially in the face of misrecognition or aggressive and/or fallacious rhetorical arguments. Labels, shame, embarrassment, ad hominem attacks, overanalysis of arguments, pedantry, strawmen arguments, extortion, one would experience these and be gagged before he/she could say anything useful. Democracy at the moment isn't working too well for these reasons.

[Ladna]

Warning: drinking

This is pretty un-academic, but I'll try it anyway. I think that the perspective on "smart enough to fight back" is backwards. I'm more inclined to agree with Jesus and the woman who gives like one dollar to the church: it's not about how much you give, it's that you give as much as you can. I think the temptation to regard one's life as essentially a perfect save is wrong, it's not about character stats or inventory, it's what you fought for and how. I think that while it might seem like the guy with the most guns wins, the very concept of human rights goes a long way towards proving that while the world may fundamentally be Realist, we all believe there's something more than power politics and base survival.

[Doom Juan]

Ladna said:

Alternately we can talk about how Doom Juan hates women

Simply for not acknowledging the myth of female inequality in our current western society does not make me a misogynist - and I don't give a flying fuck for the so-called 'mistreatment' of women in the past either, as it has no relevance right here and now.

Plus it's boring history, if I'm honest.

If you want to attract the company of women with excessive body hair, keep parroting those loony-left theories. If that's your thing, who am I to argue with that?

Different strokes for different folks after all.

[myk]

Joshy said:
being labelled as a 'lame preachy drunkard'

The only part I introduced was "lame" and it referred to a specific paragraph or the way it was expressed. If you think that's a label on you, you may currently be a bit too sensitive for your own good!

A better alternative would probably be a continuous progression of 'self-realisation' that allows for 'better informed agency'. It's impossible to escape cultural/Capitalist relativity as is obviously the case, but the least one can do ideally is to move up on the spectrum of awareness within such subjective realms, near bordering on dispassionate objectivity.

Where can I get more of this, the Bhagavad Ghita?

It should be quite important to note that even if you do have 'intellectual firepower' to fight dominant groups/peers, it doesn't always prevail, especially in the face of misrecognition or aggressive and/or fallacious rhetorical arguments. Labels, shame, embarrassment, ad hominem attacks, overanalysis of arguments, pedantry, strawmen arguments, extortion, one would experience these and be gagged before he/she could say anything useful. Democracy at the moment isn't working too well for these reasons.

Rhetoric and means of expression are very important in political discourse, and you can't split language as an action from its "contents". "Intellectual firepower" necessarily includes these aspects. This is why the idea of objectivity fails in culture.

Ladna said:
I think that the perspective on "smart enough to fight back" is backwards.

Think of how often it's easier for people to get ahead in certain trades or arts when it's in the family. Why is that? The cumulative, historical experience in the family or environment really helps. Intellectual capacity isn't just individual, and it's something elaborated and developed over time, with practice, and shared. What's backwards is when the praise of intellectuality is used to hamper people who aren't fortunate to have access to intellectual wealth. It's the old story of civilization versus barbarity. It's not that poor people need to be educated by the educated, which creates dependence or subservience. Their education, which may use aspects from other developed parties, comes primarily from their own struggle for respect, sovereignty, human rights and development.

I think that while it might seem like the guy with the most guns wins, the very concept of human rights goes a long way towards proving that while the world may fundamentally be Realist, we all believe there's something more than power politics and base survival.

That sounds like a convenient discourse from the mighty to the meek. In any case, power and guns are not synonymous. If you want to build a society focused on human rights, for example, bombs and violence won't be too helpful. Force is not the only way to add value, and it can harm certain forms of socio-economic advancement.

[Sokoro]

Am I the only one who hates both women and men, and their personalities? The only person I can truly stand is Me.

[Bucket]

We both know that's not true. You hate yourself more than you hate everyone else.