|
Glad you bumped this two and a half months dead thread to drop off your review of its participants.
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 05:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
Weldon Pemberton posted:In some ways, yes. In other ways, no, because there's a reason only literary scholars and people like Moldbug care about his political orientation rather than his literature. He had his fair share of detractors in his time (including people who loved his fiction and were shocked and disappointed by Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question, like the Transcendentalists), and these days he isn't even referred to in that context in schools because there are more important people who used similar arguments. He comes up occasionally in historiographies of the French Revolution... which I guess is more analogous to literary than political significance.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
Tias posted:Oh gently caress, why did I have to look up Tunney FYP.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
I kinda wanna reply to this dude but I also kinda don't want to suffer through reading his terrible posts.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
MagicMasochist posted:I have mixed-race family who I love, an Asian girlfriend, and plenty of non-white friends. But of course, liberals love going "oh my god! he said it! he said he has black friends! WHAT A TOTAL RACIST" -- which makes absolutely no sense to me. If I hated non-whites I just wouldn't talk to them ever, duh. I got about this far and couldn't loving deal with any more when I saw the word "Navajo" so I'll just let you in on a lil' secret: racism isn't about full-on passionate rageloathing, it's not even just the more low-key slow-burning animosity of the most blatant and self-conscious racists, it's about having a bunch of hosed up demeaning ideas about people based on what you think their "race" is, these ideas aren't even explicitly about other races being inferior to yours and can just be a matter of boxing people into limited stereotypes and making unfounded assumptions about them. You can hold these ideas and still like people of other races. These ideas influence behavior in ways that aren't necessarily even consciously chosen by people who hold them. Honestly this more subtle kind is probably a lot more insidious and harmful because it flies under the radar and dopes like you seem to think that if you don't have a klan hood stored away you're not racist so you don't even recognize it as racist because sure you don't have any kind of overt negative feelings about other races but that's not the only way to be racist and not the only basis for racist actions. That's why "liberals" make fun of the "I have black friends" thing: it's a tell that someone is ridiculously ignorant and probably in denial about something. hth eta: Yeah, good call. \/\/\/\/ GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Dec 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
Oh hey, I'm reading the other thread now and Filippo Corridoni posted:I've got a theory. lol
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Merdifex posted:Assuming that this is his tumblr, this is an amusing jerk-off he saw fit to post: Note that if you check out the rest of it, half the posts seem to be reblogs of gifs of women sucking dicks. Just in case that's not something you're looking to see right now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
So has anyone mentioned this?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Anarchism seems to literally mean capitalism for some people.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
^^^^ eta: Yeah, basically. Guavanaut posted:Some people being people who have never read an anarchist text and think that Rothbard was sincere when he said he was a libertarian even when he said "lol I'm stealing the word 'libertarian' from the left I think there's more to it than just that. The whole of pro-market conservative discourse is based on the idea that market behavior is the natural social mode of homo sapiens and the government is an artificial intrusion. It's not always stated so explicitly but it's inherent to any policy preference with the justification of "get the government out of the way and let the market work." This requires that one believe that the absence of government involvement in some economic sector is the natural, default state of affairs and the retreat of government involvement signals a return to normal. So taking it to its logical conclusion, the absence of any government would be pure free market capitalism.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2015 16:33
|
|
"
|
Jack Gladney posted:It's about tyranny too, about how the worst motherfucker running the biggest empire will be swallowed by sand and forgotten eventually. Shelley was a serious radical on his day, an anarchist before there was a word for it. Countdown to jrode including him in his pantheon of "liberal anarchists" beginning... now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:Jrod is the worst, but we already have a thread to rag on him. Please keep on tasks with making fun of openly practicing fascists. Whoa, yes sir!!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I'm honestly not sure which of them is a funnier spokesperson for the 'movement'. On the one hand we've got the guy with the shaved head who goes out of his way to arrange a tasteful looking skull in the background of every video he films (you can just imagine the little internal calculations he does before each new video: "should I put the skull here on the desk? No no, it will look much classier if I place it over here on the shelf.") How do we know he doesn't own multiple skulls and has pre-arranged them with the rest of his furniture before ever filming anything?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Soon the doctrinal conflict between many-skullers and single-skullers will tear this thread apart.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
"selfish philosophies" like this are ideological cover stories for removing obstacles preventing the already very rich from becoming even richer and are carried out by neer-do-well dupes who think that taxation and regulation are the only things holding them back. It is not really a philosophy so much as a delusion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
I have never found this "Ayn Rand collected welfare!" stuff very compelling. She got benefits from Social Security, which she paid into throughout her working life. I mean one of her heroes in Atlas Shrugged was a pirate who raided foreign aid shipments to give them back to the oppressed captains of industry who had been taxed to pay for them, so there's precedent in her ideology for this.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:A good chunk of foreign aid is in the form of "here are some vouchers to buy arms/vehicles/technology from our domestic manufacturers", so that already happens without the piracy. And it's everyone else's taxes going to the captains of industry. I'm talking about fictional events she described as a metaphor that explains her own ideology because the question is about her moral consistency.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Yeah I just found it funny that she had the captain of industry be a pirate to steal his taxes back, rather than gaming the foreign aid system to get his taxes and more back like any actual captain of industry would do. Well, this is why you don't let philosophy students with Viking blood in their veins and a half-baked political agenda get access (somehow??) to warships capable of out-running and out-gunning the worlds' professional navies (again, somehow??????), I guess 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:It would all be fine if Rand and lots of other people who buy into that sort of ideology didn't constantly rant about everyone else getting government stuff. See, for example, H.H.H who says all kinds of stuff about government employees while working as a prof. at a public university (i.e. as a government employee). The point about triple-H is legit, but the complaint of Rand et. el. isn't about "government welfare" generally, but about "redistributive" welfare specifically. Social Security is a system the beneficiaries pay into throughout their lives. They might even feel entitled to collect unemployment assistance because they paid taxes. The idea, right or wrong, is that there is a whole class of welfare beneficiaries who vote themselves other peoples' money through taxes they don't have to pay because they don't work. Again, this is all a delusion that falls apart when you start probing deeper and apply more analytical pressure to it. But on the surface, they can square the circle by saying they were forced to pay for all these things so they are justified in taking them when offered.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Yeah, that's what I mean about a surface justification. To be honest, I am not sure if they are actually fooling themselves but it's possible that they really seriously believe that when they do it, it's temporary and/or justified by their past unwilling contributions, unlike the vast hordes of professional dole surfers. You can see this in other places. Walter Block had a whole essay about why libertarian professors at public universities wouldn't be executed by the anarchocapitalist revolutionary tribunal. Both Ayn Rand and Triple-H have some mixed messages about "corporatism" or "crony capitalism." On the one hand, all the "bad rich people" would be hosed by a libertarian society where they have no government patronage. On the other hand, both see it as legitimate to have an agent in Washington to lobby to keep the government off your back as a kind of necessary evil.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
"I'm a huuuge white nationalist... on paper."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Oh, so Steve Ditko is the guy behind this weird poo poo: http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/297/
GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
Like, I'm just scrolling through some pictures of these Mr. A comics and I even if I didn't already know I could have told that an Objectivist made them just because they cram these walls of text into goddamn comic book speech bubbles (or speech boxes in this case). Who the gently caress picks up a comic book to read all that?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I think it's nice that he's at least honest in that he is "trained" as a Historian as opposed to actually being competent, or even qualified... What does it even mean, or what does it reflect? Does having a BA in history make you "trained as a historian"? Like yeah majoring in history will train you in the methods of historical research, sure. It doesn't give you any authority. The results of your research do, whatever level of education you've attained.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Aurini 'studied for a degree' but I've never seen him directly mention having one. He feels like he knows enough to give advice to PhD students tho. haha what oh gently caress: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvyj7fkfsWQ (Sorry for this boring play by play poo poo, I can't help it, this was too dumb. I kind of want t make a reply video but I kind of think that's a terrible idea, so enjoy this probably terrible post!) OK what the hell is he saying at like 1 minute: "We all know Aron Clay's book is worthless"? What?? He's not wrong about the financial thing, at least, that's something lots of folks going into grad school need to know but uhh a PhD candidate probably already has that figured out and if not it's pretty much too late. But if this is going to be "advice" on a professional, personal career decisions level, maybe he'll have a point? 1:40 - Jared Diamond's books "have a lot of good history with a few liberal biases" lol The shape of this so far is that you can study something else and still write about history from that other disciplinary perspective. Um, OK, anyone can do that but again, this is stuff you tell someone considering grad school: Only pursue a PhD in history if you can't really imagine being happy doing anything but researching and teaching history professionally. And that other perspective is as likely to be a detriment to the quality of your historical writing if you don't really understand the way academic history works, the state of the field, the proper use of primary sources, and are basically just dashing some biotruths onto a plate of pop history from Barnes and Noble, which I suspect is Aurini's angle here. 2:05 - "If you are a young kid, stay away from the humanities, they are incredibly expensive..." Again, a PhD candidate is not just starting out and what you should be telling a "young kid" is not to accept an offer unless you'll get funding. That he thinks paying for grad school is a necessity is tell #1 that he's probably talking out of his rear end. 2:20 - Now things are getting interesting: "You're not going to learn much from these profs, it's a giant Ponzi scheme." His "trained in history" schtick is starting to really come through here. Yes you can learn a lot about history in your spare time, but this is advice from someone who does not understand what grad school is for. This is where it's really, really apparent that he is talking out of his rear end. You're not supposed to "learn from profs" in terms of content, you're there to get caught up on the historiography and benefit from discussion with peers and experienced historians about where the discipline is going, what needs to be uncovered or clarified, and how to do that effectively. You will however learn a ton from your professors about being a professional in the discipline of history because it is effectively professional training on how to be a historian from people who have been historians for possibly decades. Dunno what this "ponzi scheme" business is about, is the implication that you're being parasitically taken advantage of by your advisers? That can happen pretty much loving anywhere, but where does the pyramid come in? Should I be offloading some of my 2/3 of the grading load to easy marks from the incoming cohort in exchange for vague promises of some kind of reward flowing ultimately from my adviser? Grad school actually is pretty exploitative, but that has more to do with how higher education generally is being structured on more corporate lines and the resulting administrative priorities than with "profs" taking you for a ride. Referencing "Aaron" again, kinda feel like I missed something, totally not going back to figure out what. 2:55 - Thought he was onto something about how programs are accepting more grad students than there can possibly be professorial positions for, but then: "The average IQ at universities is plummeting"  3:10 "So, for this guy..." oh poo poo, are we finally going to hear something relevant to an ABD rather than a prospective grad student!? 3:25 - "If you're this far you may as well finish it." What, no, this is terrible advice! This is exactly the kind of bad advice or thinking that keeps people in academia long after they're burned out, it's sunk costs fallacy nonsense and if you really are disturbed by the awful financial prospects of academia you need to tell doctoral candidates to be flexible and willing to bail if their passion for history isn't enough to justify the opportunity costs of keeping going! poo poo! 3:30 - "You'll get to have a 'Dr.' in front of your name..." Ah, yes, vanity, a brilliant motivation to validate. Gotta get that identity bling. Jesus Christ. 3:35 - "You probably learned more about history from your passion than from the school," again, you don't know what the gently caress this is for buddy! And your PhD candidate advisee should hopefully be able to tell. Overriding irrepressible passion is the only valid reason to do this poo poo, and you don't do it to "learn from school" (i.e., the program, which is basically an extended professional development process) except in as much as a passion for the subject is what motivates you to keep up with course readings and writing papers. 3:40 - "That 'Dr.' in front your name will make a difference in a way that 'B.A.' won't..." lol starting to get a little on the nose here. Like yeah, it's more impressive than not having it, but what does he think it's "making a difference" for? Giving your vlogging more legitimacy? 4:05 - "This is where it gets interesting," loving finally. 4:20 - "Get the PhD, and then secure a position from a college and university" lol, oh word? thanks for the heads up man! 4:35 - "All your teaching and research, don't do it with the naive idea that you're doing something to advance the knowledge of the human race, pfft!" Then what the gently caress do you do it for? I don't give a poo poo what answer he's got lined up for this, why the gently caress would anyone enter academia at all unless they cared about advancing the cause of knowledge? That is the loving point. If you do not believe this is in any way the case, if you sincerely think that there is now way it can be true, that it's all a sham, don't finish your PhD, get the gently caress out and find anything else to do, because there is no plausible mercenary motivation here! If you just want to "secure a position" in some careerist self-interested move, that's easier said than done in the academy. (Once again, it looks like he doesn't know what the gently caress he is talking about, golly!) 4:55 - "That stuff went out the window 50 years ago." Oh really now. Around 1965 you're saying that academia stopped being about advancing human knowledge? Why oh why would that rough milestone year be significant...? CULTURAL MARXIST FRANKFURT SCHOOL LIBERAL INDOCTRINATION CAMPS BECAUSE OF THOSE HIPPIES AND UPJUMPED DARKIES 5:00 - "What you're doing is playing a political game." Yes. Yessss  5:05: "There are few positions for professors and lots of applicants for those easy dollars." Kinda makes you wonder why going through with this to "secure a position" is worth it, huh? "Easy dollars"? Does he know what the process of getting tenure is like? (Of course not.) Is it really "easy" if it takes finishing grad school and writing a dissertation and playing the application game and probably moving god knows where away from wherever you want to live just to get your foot in the door? More of the same, correct notes about how it's not a growth industry and it's basically zero-sum cutthroat competition for dwindling resources and positions (but just go ahead and "secure a position," sure), but then... 5:40 - "You need to be politically correct..." (play your loving hand already you goddamn tease) "...you need to fit in with these people and get along with these people." That depends on being "political correct"? You have to do this in any profession! 5:50 - "You need to study game and how women work." Hahaha oh my god, gently caress yes I am going to PUA my way to a job by seducing the female faculty wherever I apply, what the goddamn gently caress! Holy poo poo! 6:00 - "If you're smart and charismatic, you're likely to get a position." Nope, that is nowhere near sufficient, and is this what passes for an "Aurinu Insight"? "Competent and likable people have an easier time getting ahead in careers," wow! Amazing! 6:00 - "Part 2, it's not zero sum. *drag on cigar* And here's where you make your contribution to humanity, this PhD thing is very cynical." Yeah, almost as cynical as telling people that their teaching and research isn't for the benefit of advancing the knowledge of humanity and it's naive to think so, huh? 6:35 - tl;dr the non-zero-sum part is writing books for public consumption. You're only making a difference and advancing knowledge if people who want to buy popular history books see yours on the shelf and pick it up, not when someone is in the classroom learning from you. All that is just being playing the game to "secure a position." But what sort of writing does he think constitutes "playing the game" here? Does he event think you have to write anything with scholarly merit to get a tenure-track position and then tenure? If you want to write popular history for mass market, just go and loving do it. Popular history can be great, I appreciate good pop history, but "secure a position as a professor so you can write pop history" is just astoundingly idiotic. But on the other hand, it is exactly what you expect someone who lists "trained in history" as one of his merits to say about academia. It is something that everyone who knows nothing about it cooks up, not because it's bad advice, but because it's not something you need academia for. 8:00 - "Don't write boring white papers that only other PhD read, what a waste!" I know, who goes into academia to participate in academic research and debate? No one who wants to give you a position as a professor cares about that poo poo. But seriously, straight up, if you don't want to write research of interest to other academic historians, nothing about this process of "securing a position" matters a single bit because that is what being a professional historian working in the academy is about. 8:10 - "Write the papers they want to read, don't write the truth for them." It's been obvious for a while what's really going on here, but this is the closest the subtext gets to breaching the surface: this advice is for conservative/libertarian grad students who feel like they're undercover in a left-liberal thought police state and they need to fly under the radar to get ahead. "Not writing the truth" gets you ahead when "the truth" is racist garbage, but what's the end game here? Pretend to be some Marxist believer in the lie that the nergo is the equal of the white man until you get tenure, and then, surprise! I hate blacks and think the Gilded Age owns, and you can't do poo poo about it, owned! He's basically presenting the idea that you need the legitimacy of academic credentials to back up your mass market work and you have to play the part of the liberal academic long enough to get them. I know people in my program who would lap this poo poo up, who I am pretty sure already have figured out that this is what they are there for: to write a lovely but passable dissertation and then trade on the prestige of having a PhD to lend credibility to their awful political opinions. The Newt Gingrich Plan. Which I guess constitutes "making a contribution to humanity" through mass market paperback, because conservative pop-history schlock just doesn't sell unless the author's got that "Dr." I guess. 8:45 - "Alternatively, YouTube videos" loving CALLED IT, WOOP WOOP, grind your way through the obscurity and toil from writing a dissertation to getting tenure so that people will take your vlog seriously. God drat! Look, real talk, the idea of people with academic history training doing more to popularize history is great, but this is something people burned out on the grind of academia consider when they don't want to finish their PhD or they don't want to keep chasing a tenure-track position, because that's when it makes sense. It would be great to do it if you have tenure, sure, but this is advice for an ABD with a Masters. Make up your drat mind, Aurini, your questioner is equipped to write pop history and do quality history vlogging right the hell now. And on that note... 10:25 - "Play the game the way they want you to play it, but on your own time..." lol at the idea that playing the game of getting tenure leaves you with any "your time" for pop history work. He does not understand the workload of the process involved. Not a huge shock, but worth noting that his advice boils down to "get a PhD if you're this far, I guess, and then putter away at securing tenure so you can do what I do, I, 'trained in history' neoreactionary vlogger Davis Aurini, impart this insight to you." GunnerJ fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Dec 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:He slobbers all over Beethoven even though the guy was by the standards of his time an ultraliberal who hated monarchy and wrote an incredibly over the topmusical arrangement of a poem by another liberal about how national divisions and other hatreds are stupid and we should embrace the brotherhood of all men (OK women are kind of left out but it was 1824, cut the dude some slack). Beethoven's evolving opinion of Napoleon is interesting in this context: Beethoven's secretary Ferdinand Ries posted:In writing this [the 3rd] symphony, Beethoven had been thinking of Buonaparte, but Buonaparte while he was First Consul. At that time Beethoven had the highest esteem for him, and compared him to the greatest consuls of Ancient Rome. Not only I, but many of Beethoven's closer friends, saw this symphony on his table, beautifully copied in manuscript, with the word "Buonaparte" inscribed at the very top of the title-page and "Ludwig van Beethoven" at the very bottom ...
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:I think part of the hilarity is that it is no longer possible to tell joke from real in the dumbzone. We're dealing with people who called their movement the dark enlightenment. Like, is that a pun on purpose, or...? Could be worse. I remember seeing some Objectivist blogger who unironically talked about our current era being "the Endarkenment."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:What's the term for the behaviour - I call it the 'dark god' for some reason - where someone supports a system and fantasises about its proper function and how it's all supposed to ideally work, but since actually-existing versions of that idea come along and inevitably have drawbacks or fell apart, they then have to supplement it with a simultaneous second fantasy of some dumb reason why it didn't work? The phrase "X cannot fail, it can only be failed" is the only pithy encapsulation of this I know of. In fairness, it can happen that people will falsely assume some policy or program is a failure based on a half-assed version of it (this is the basis of "starve the beast"), but you kinda have to "show your work" to prove that's happening. These guys don't do that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Basically nobody in the socialist revolution gives a poo poo about your shoes, but they would give a poo poo about your shoe factory.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
quote:CONSPIRACY ZINE EDITION This is my favorite Kickstarter already.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
wiregrind posted:Isn't that rubbish just based on (or an interpretation of) Nietzsche's "master-slave morality"? I think this particular borrowing from Neitzsche would be very difficult to pull off.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Chesapeake area Indians thought the King of England was kind of a huge scrub as a king because he kept having people give him things and didn't give anything to their ambassadors.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
Alternately, the point of the conflation is to show that Rand seems not to have understood, or chose to overlook, a lot of Nietzsche's actual ideas
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2016 17:51
|
|