Accelerationism [Glugglugglug]

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Accelerationism [Glugglugglug]

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Name one time accelerationism has worked anywhere.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2015 12:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 8, 2024 05:08

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Ddraig posted:

I believe in Accelerationism, not because I believe or even hope that the world will suddenly realize that they've been going wrong all this time, but because I believe the human species as a whole is fundamentally unworthy of continued existence so the sooner we gently caress off and let others have a chance the better off the world, and all its inhabitants who aren't us, will be.

But you're using human judgement, which we know sucks, so why should I listen to you?

# ¿ Dec 11, 2015 12:22

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

VitalSigns posted:

2008. Republicans controlled congress starting in 1994 and every branch of government by 2001, and in the next 7 years they flushed trillions away in endless pointless grinding wars, destroyed as much regulation as they could, and by the 2008 election the economy was in a shambles and the country was burning down around us. And it ushered in Democratic supermajorities and the first black President.

_{...And all the gains were promptly blunted by the next election because Bush did the bare minimum to save us from depression by bailing out the banks, and instead of learning, the reactionary voters just needed someone to get on TV and tell them it was poor black people who engineered the collpase}

It didn't work, though, because the GOP got two terrible supreme court justices out of the deal, and maintained or increased state control. They didn't lose everything they gained, by a long shot, in 2008.

# ¿ Dec 12, 2015 14:37

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Kilroy posted:

Does it count as accelerationism if I think Trump taking the GOP nom is good for America long term, as well as (probably) good for the GOP?

Trump represents that part of the electorate that any government/society basically has to totally ignore or marginalize in order to function, that the GOP has been playing for votes since pretty much the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I can think of no better way to relegate these people back to the edges of society where they belong, than to have a referendum, in the form of a Presidential election, on what they represent and who they are as people, and have the result of that referendum be that they get utterly loving annihilated in the general.

That said, I'm actually not so sure that they would be annihilated in the general, but without putting up the stakes, it isn't a referendum.

That's a fair and interesting question. I have no idea if the Trump nomination would solidify the racist base and make them dig their heels in even more after his embarrassing defeat, or if seeing him go down in flames would actually convince them they're outside the mainstream. It might make things worse.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2015 14:37

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Quidam Viator posted:

I do not need to cite any sources to justify the obvious and invariable observation that all empires and nations follow an essentially parabolic path when it comes to a representation of their fortunes.

Yeah you would, anyone know knows poo poo about history knows that isn't true. There are a lot of empires and nations that waxed and waned, waxed and waned. A parabolic path would be the exception, not the rule.

You really are bad at making arguments, and I think you may also not know that many things.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2016 01:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 8, 2024 05:08

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Somfin posted:

Ah but you see, all empires that have ever existed and ended have at some point been small, then grown larger, then become smaller again.

According to the I'm An Aging Physicist and Here Is What I Think About Your Field methodology, this means that all empires have followed generally parabolic paths.

Imagine a perfectly spherical Rome on a frictionless historical plane...

It's kind of cool thinking about the variety, actually. Ancient Egypt: Just a fuckton of waxing and waning over thousands of years, one of the most long-lasting empires of all time, and yet there were times it barely existed, where it looked as though it would vanish. Ghenghis Kahn's empire rose like a flood, and then after his death, split into smaller but still quite stable empires. Rome: a slow local rise, a faster conquering of surrounding lands, a stagnation, a split into West and East with West resurging and falling back over and over, finally basically being absorbed by Germanic kingdoms and transforming them into a much more "Roman" one that lasted a hell of a long time itself, up until the age of gunpowder. The East changing and mutating but hanging on, sometimes basically just Byzantium.

I can't actually think of a single empire that followed a parabolic path.

quote:

Imagine a perfectly spherical Rome on a frictionless historical plane.

Imagine four spherical Romes on the edge of a cliff.

Edit: Rodney may be trying to be the next Otter Guy.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2016 02:11

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Accelerationism [Glugglugglug]