|
Cingulate posted:Still left of the mainstream though right?
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
Nolanar posted:Unrelated question that ties back into the actual subject of this thread: the stupidest question that tumblr guy ever asked was "Which thede and which phyle do you consider yourself a part of? Also, why do you include so many progressive fnords in your writings?" What the hell are thedes and phyles? I'm just assuming "fnords" means "buzzwords, and also I read a counterculture book this one time." The explanation. A combination of Wesley and Scott. Obviously it's a troll ask, but the actual concepts are terrible also.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
divabot posted:The explanation. A combination of Wesley and Scott. Obviously it's a troll ask, but the actual concepts are terrible also. So it's an attempt to create a cultural taxonomy along the lines of the kingdom/phylum/etc system for biology? Race Realism taken to its full conclusion I guess. Woolie Wool posted:Is Randroids' obsessive hate-on for Kant derived from the fact that he suggested that you can't solve every problem just by thinking about it really hard with the help of ~*axioms*~ and might actually have to consult real experience instead of the view from inside your own rear end? I can't imagine they're too fond of where the categorical imperative ends up, either. I'm not supposed to treat other people as means to an end? gently caress that!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Thede and phyle are buzzwords, where thedes are affinity group (eg: nerds) and phlyes are thedes whose children are members of that thede (eg: ethnicities) that could "have a secessionist movement." These terms were coined by nydwracu so he could make ethnonationalist arguments without being dismissed out of hand, and/or as a way to pitch ethnonationalism to nerds based on the implicit (and stupid) premise that cultures are basically larger-scale high school cliques. Saeku has a new favorite as of 16:48 on Feb 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
I think a lot of you are dealing with the issue of if STEM is "left" in absolute terms. That it is probably not. And as always, I'd like to see some data before developing confidence in a judgement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
I'm in the clade where people don't talk of thedes and phydes or whatever. Luigi's Discount Porn Bin posted:The results likely aren't as strong as they seem, but on balance... probably? Party ID is a reasonably strong correlate of political orientation but I don't know how the subgroup effects shake out. Jobs in the natural sciences tend to be occupied by postgraduate degree holders, and those people do skew leftier than the general population. The most relevant comparison group would be people with equivalent degrees in English or Sociology or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
"Thede" always struck me as sounding like a word made up especially for Anglish, which makes sense as that wiki is probably a perfect-circle Venn diagram of language nerds and neo-Nazis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Antinatalism/likes The ongoing merger of antinatalism and white supremacism proceeds as any level of intellectual consistency lies dead in a ditch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:So it's an attempt to create a cultural taxonomy along the lines of the kingdom/phylum/etc system for biology? Race Realism taken to its full conclusion I guess. She nabs her ethics from him while condemning him, it's great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:She nabs her ethics from him while condemning him, it's great. You should have hung out in the Property Rights thread before the culling. Libertarians quoting Ludwig von Mises while spitting on us for being filthy Utilitarians, it was amazing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Is Randroids' obsessive hate-on for Kant derived from the fact that he suggested that you can't solve every problem just by thinking about it really hard with the help of ~*axioms*~ and might actually have to consult real experience instead of the view from inside your own rear end?  is just Ron Paul's stupid logo, it's not a slashdot specific thing. it's just in 2008 Ron Paul got a bunch of awkward nerds to vote for him by promising to legalize weed or something and it kinda caused a big shift right in a lot of places.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:
Specifically, Ron Paul supporters would buy banners that like this 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Is Randroids' obsessive hate-on for Kant derived from the fact that he suggested that you can't solve every problem just by thinking about it really hard with the help of ~*axioms*~ and might actually have to consult real experience instead of the view from inside your own rear end? Part of it is definitely that he's thrilled at the idea that we don't perceive the world of things directly but must arrange it into sense through relationships between objects in time and space. Mostly because they are dumb assholes who never read a book that didn't have a spaceship or a dragon in it unless that book was House of Leaves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
I don't want to derail but I always kinda liked Kant in that utilitarianism seemed like it was trying to quantify a fundamentally either unquantifiable or fraught with asymptotes quality, but i've heard people on these very forums saying that Kant's ideas are actually bad and full of flaws. I looked around a bit but didn't find any particular argument that completely brought the ownage or whatever philosophers call it, what should I be reading for a more modern view of ethics?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:I don't want to derail but I always kinda liked Kant in that utilitarianism seemed like it was trying to quantify a fundamentally either unquantifiable or fraught with asymptotes quality, but i've heard people on these very forums saying that Kant's ideas are actually bad and full of flaws. I looked around a bit but didn't find any particular argument that completely brought the ownage or whatever philosophers call it, what should I be reading for a more modern view of ethics? You're opening a can of worms, except it's not so much a can of worms as a can of, I dunno, smart people disagreeing? Anyway there are still deontologists and utilitarians hanging around and writing books, and I am sure there are many good modern texts about contemporary ethics. Jack Gladney posted:Part of it is definitely that he's thrilled at the idea that we don't perceive the world of things directly but must arrange it into sense through relationships between objects in time and space. Mostly because they are dumb assholes who never read a book that didn't have a spaceship or a dragon in it unless that book was House of Leaves. Popular Thread Target St_Rev has this weird hateboner for Kant that appears to be based entirely on John Derbyshire saying he held back mathematics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:I don't want to derail but I always kinda liked Kant in that utilitarianism seemed like it was trying to quantify a fundamentally either unquantifiable or fraught with asymptotes quality, but i've heard people on these very forums saying that Kant's ideas are actually bad and full of flaws. I looked around a bit but didn't find any particular argument that completely brought the ownage or whatever philosophers call it, what should I be reading for a more modern view of ethics? Kant himself came to some very weird conclusions using his own logic. The "inquisitive murderer" case is probably the most famous one, but there was also something about masturbation being worse than suicide I think? Even most Kantians think Kant was a bit off. But yeah, deontologists and utilitarians have been debating each other pretty much ever since Kant started writing, and there are still non-fringe advocates of both sides.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Christine Korsgaard is a contemporary Kantian who I think is smart and charming and good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:23
|
|
Nolanar posted:Yeah, as a grad student in the physical sciences, even a lot of the "socially traditional" people here tend to vote Dem, if only because the GOP has made it abundantly clear that they hate us and want to tell us what we're allowed to study. Illuminatus! Trilogy was tons of fun, but the Historical Illuminatus! books slowly turned into straight libertarian propaganda.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Robert Anton Wilson was a Christina Hoff Sommers fan, the post-rationalist embrace of him isn't TOTALLY out of nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:I don't want to derail but I always kinda liked Kant in that utilitarianism seemed like it was trying to quantify a fundamentally either unquantifiable or fraught with asymptotes quality, but i've heard people on these very forums saying that Kant's ideas are actually bad and full of flaws. I looked around a bit but didn't find any particular argument that completely brought the ownage or whatever philosophers call it, what should I be reading for a more modern view of ethics? To expand on the murderer thing, Kant argued that it would be morally incorrect to lie to a murderer in order to save the life of someone. So, if Murderer A asks you "where is Person B so I can kill them" then it would be wrong for you to misdirect Murderer A. At best, you could refuse to tell Murderer A where Person B was, but clearly if you are hiding Person B and Murderer A asks "Are you hiding Person B," a non-answer will be answer enough. Honestly though, this is a pretty minor problem. Utilitarians have to deal with the Repugnant Conclusion (a utilitarian would have to support a world with an arbitrarily large number of people who are all living lives barely worth living over a world with a smaller population leaving extremely good lives) and all and they are chugging along fine. I think a deeper issue is just that Kant is a deontologist and many people find deontology unsatisfying. The way deontology is normally explained is that the Right is more important than the Good, which means that even if an action would bring about the Good if it were to violate the Right than it would morally wrong to perform the act. Consequentialism is more appealing in that the Good precedes the Right and an act is Right insofar as it maximizes, increases, satisfies, etc. the Good. Another issue is that it is a bit easier to justify deontology in universe with a God, while it is easier to justify consequentialism in a naturalistic universe. Not impossible either way, but that creates battle lines. As to quantifying, it really does depend, but I don't necessarily think it is a problem. It seems to make sense that saving two lives is probably better than saving one life all things being equal, etc. There are some scholars who think that transitivity in ethics is actually wrong (Temkin is most associated with this, but I have not read much of his work). There are odd cases where quantifying things seems to lead to the wrong result (Yud.txt), but I'm not sure if we should throw out quantification in total. If you want to read more about them, I'd suggest checking out Stanford for generic deontology http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/ , http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/ for Kant's moral philosophy in particular. You might also want to check out http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/ for the opposite position as it were. And maybe http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/ for Virtue Ethics. The three big normative ethical categories are deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics (although, those refer to general ways of understanding normative ethics, not necessarily particular ethical rules; one can be a utilitarian or a priortarian and still be a consequentialist for example). You might also want to check out Philpapers as well. Also, um, I'd suggest not reading Kant directly. He is really confusing and it would almost certainly be better to just read reviews, summaries, etc. of Kant. A good view of modern ethics is On What Matters which is really long, hard to summarize, and fascinating, but which tries to reconcile Kantian thought an utilitarian thought. But it isn't exactly a crash course in either an expects some prior knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:Robert Anton Wilson was a Christina Hoff Sommers fan, the post-rationalist embrace of him isn't TOTALLY out of nowhere. That makes sense- his later works have a lot of venom directed at feminists, particularly those who dared suggest free love might not be the best thing ever. Of course, he also wrote a book where he quite literally accused CSICOP of being worse than Hitler, which would be a weird thing for your average STEM sort to endorse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:24
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:https://twitter.com/Antinatalism/likes That's a shame. I've always considered myself an antinatalist, before I even had a word for it. It's simple logic, at least to me - humans die and we're aware of that, and it's a horrific fate. I don't wanna die, and thus it's better that I'd never been born at all. Creating a mortal being is almost murder, since you're responsible for its ultimate fate. I guess you could argue that it's the only true murder - like Shakespeare's character says in Julius Ceaser, any other murder is just hastening the inevitable and reducing the time we fear death. I dunno how you get from something so simple into racism. I guess I could start my own antinatalist site or group, but there's no point - I'd just alienate people, and it's not like philosophy will make people stop having kids.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Reflections85 posted:I'm deeply amused that Sandifer just made a minor criticism of Scott and racism and got flooded with a bunch of neoreactionary asks. Like, drat. They need to calm down there. Although his response is perfect http://philsandifer.tumblr.com/post/139755984656/the-answer-to-the-stupidest-question-i-have-ever Imagine how dangerous NRx would be of they had propagandists who talked like people and not Ferengi anthropologists musing on the intellectual deficiencies and strange customs of Earth hew-mons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Count Chocula posted:That's a shame. I've always considered myself an antinatalist, before I even had a word for it. It's simple logic, at least to me - humans die and we're aware of that, and it's a horrific fate. I don't wanna die, and thus it's better that I'd never been born at all. Creating a mortal being is almost murder, since you're responsible for its ultimate fate. I guess you could argue that it's the only true murder - like Shakespeare's character says in Julius Ceaser, any other murder is just hastening the inevitable and reducing the time we fear death. It's like if a twitter account for, I dunno, Tolstoy quotes, had a likes pages full of links to Russian child porn sites. It's so jarring and bizarre.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Count Chocula posted:I dunno how you get from something so simple into racism. I guess I could start my own antinatalist site or group, but there's no point - I'd just alienate people, and it's not like philosophy will make people stop having kids. It's not really a stretch to imagine how "some people shouldn't be born" could quickly turn into full blown racism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:17
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It's not really a stretch to imagine how "some people shouldn't be born" could quickly turn into full blown racism. It's not 'some people', though. It's 'nobody should be born'. It's 'birth guarantees death'.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
You're all thinking too hard about the Kant thing, or at least harder than the people we're discussing ever did. Ayn Rand declared Kant to be the worst person ever, so if your identity is based around an ideology and group that holds her ideas in high regard, you have to start from the conclusion that everything Kant wrote is wrong and work backwards from there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Reflections85 posted:I'm curious. What magazine do you consider to be exactly harsh enough on the capitalist oppressors. I tend to mostly read Dissent, Jacobin, and Nation, with Jacobin being the furthest left. What else is there? http://www.classwarparty.org.uk/ Luigi's Discount Porn Bin posted:"Thede" always struck me as sounding like a word made up especially for Anglish, which makes sense as that wiki is probably a perfect-circle Venn diagram of language nerds and neo-Nazis. quote:In 1991 the Workermootly Kithish Gathering (WKG) break-up saw the the Cold's War, and a seemingly a safer world. But with the bitterness spreadig between Palestinish and Israeli folks; the September 2001 strikes against some Ameriksland's great towns and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a far less safer world has come about. quote:I have a dream. It is a foresight deeply and longly rooted in the American mind. Did I just have a stroke? Should I be calling an ambulance?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
This seems intensely nerdy but Orwell said he thought a lot of pretentious idiot writers used big heaps of Latin/Greek terminology to conceal that their ideas were lovely, stupid, or trying to trick the reader. So I don't think it's necessarily some kind of super-racist project of doom, given how much of a Red Orwell was. But who else can we think of who like to use a lot of Greek and Latin word roots to try and look smart?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Count Chocula posted:That's a shame. I've always considered myself an antinatalist, before I even had a word for it. It's simple logic, at least to me - humans die and we're aware of that, and it's a horrific fate. I don't wanna die, and thus it's better that I'd never been born at all. Creating a mortal being is almost murder, since you're responsible for its ultimate fate. I guess you could argue that it's the only true murder - like Shakespeare's character says in Julius Ceaser, any other murder is just hastening the inevitable and reducing the time we fear death. Well the counter-point is that by using such philosophy you've stopped someone living before they were even born, which may take away from their inevitable death, but you've also denied them a chance and choice of living. You say you don't want to die, but you're also specifically not going to have a child, and thus choose to deny that child life, because you don't want that child to die? Depending on the person this can seem counter-intuitive. Of course, I say: to each their own. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
This notion of human cultures and social dynamics being equivalent to high school cliques is essentially uniformly accepted by all internet tech nerds, NRx notwithstanding. It's just that Wesley created a volkisch nomenclature for it which, if anything, made obvious the absurdity of it all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Nessus posted:This seems intensely nerdy but Orwell said he thought a lot of pretentious idiot writers used big heaps of Latin/Greek terminology to conceal that their ideas were lovely, stupid, or trying to trick the reader. So I don't think it's necessarily some kind of super-racist project of doom, given how much of a Red Orwell was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:53
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Well the counter-point is that by using such philosophy you've stopped someone living before they were even born, which may take away from their inevitable death, but you've also denied them a chance and choice of living. You say you don't want to die, but you're also specifically not going to have a child, and thus choose to deny that child life, because you don't want that child to die? Depending on the person this can seem counter-intuitive. Living with death and the fear of it is worse than never existing. Read Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death, but the whole philosophy can be summed up in one line from the Denial of Death. By having a child you're creating a being that will suffer and be concious of it.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Count Chocula posted:Living with death and the fear of it is worse than never existing. Read Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death, but the whole philosophy can be summed up in one line from the Denial of Death. Oh yeah? Pistols at dawn, budddy! More seriously it's genuinely a case that while I appreciate anti-Natalism I'm not part of the crowd, so to speak.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Not necessarily racist, but their stated goal of reclaiming the English language for the English people is a big red flag IMO. Count Chocula posted:Living with death and the fear of it is worse than never existing. Read Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death, but the whole philosophy can be summed up in one line from the Denial of Death.  this hasn't ever been my subjective experience. I am not particularly eager to die but the prospect doesn't fill me with fundamental terror. Given that this has been true for a bunch of people in my family, maybe this is something inherited. But which is more adaptive... the terror of death... or the lack of it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
I can't imagine an adaptive purpose for the immense, all-consuming terror of death that would lead to one supporting anti-natalism because one is afraid of dying. That's like Eliezer Yudkowsky levels of thanatophobia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 01:08
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Imagine how dangerous NRx would be of they had propagandists who talked like people and not Ferengi anthropologists musing on the intellectual deficiencies and strange customs of Earth hew-mons. I find this comparison unfair to Ferengi. What are the aliens in Battlefield Earth called?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Nessus posted:
During the height of my depressive mania I was obsessed with this idea, and spent days awake and then days binge drinking over it, rinsing and repeating. After 8 months or so I found a way to move past it (and heal) but I can't pretend to claim I have a way of passing on my way of doing so to others. I appreciate the struggling, but personally found a way to overcome it. It's goddamn difficult.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:I find this comparison unfair to Ferengi. What are the aliens in Battlefield Earth called? Psychlos This is definitely how Aurini sounds when he gets depressed and drunk
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
So, someone talked about GamerGate's harassment, and St_Rev went absolutely loving bonkers. https://twitter.com/St_Rev/status/701909234565382144 https://twitter.com/St_Rev/status/701910956260065284 ...there are a few more tweets full of overblown nonsense like this, but it's absolutely amazing how much importance these people place on social media events. I guess it doesn't matter enough to put it up here, but you should check out the things he retweeted, people talking about how left-wing opinions being voiced on twitter is actually "cultists" practising "vast, unaccountable power" e: Also, is it time we officially introduced Rev to Sandifer? https://twitter.com/St_Rev/status/701754455327379456 Fututor Magnus has a new favorite as of 01:48 on Feb 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2016 01:44
|
|