|
Do you prefer the extended summer thread format? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
126 | 44.21% |
| No |
|
39 | 13.68% |
| I'm Scottish |
|
120 | 42.11% |
| Total: | 285 votes | ||
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:A random thought that someone much more clever has probably already come up with and rejected, but one thing that I think makes the UK quite so TERF-y is the underlying structure of society. American feminists fought to make women the legal and societal equals to men because the national myth of America is based on equality, while the British flavour of radical feminism (people always forget what the RF stands for) actually tried to establish women as a separate and privileged class because the British national character is still absolutely class-riven. naw, US and UK radical feminisms influenced each other heavily. WAVAW at its second-wave height was a multi-country movement Anti-pornography second-wave feminism existed also in the US (including many of its stranger alliances which are familiar today) and much of this moved across the pond easily. it's true that in the 1990s there is a undeniable divergence. Constitutionalism is a strong force in the US. Anti-pornography feminism foundered on the rocks of much tougher US conceptions of free speech - initial successes in the 1980s were decisively crushed in court - and instead anti-harassment feminism began to displace it as the primary active movement. This would shift the context to civil rights and harms in the workplace. In the UK however the campaign against Page Three, lad mags, etc. continued to gather steam and only succeeded in the 2010s. The flip side is that faith-and-family conservatism went on from strength to strength on the right in the US throughout the 1990s and 2000s, whereas it faded into irrelevance in the UK with the collapse of back-to-basics Toryism the 'sex wars' were a closely fought thing to begin with. One point is that UK women have just been that much more conservative and capital-C Conservative than US women, in the straightforward sense that UK women only began voting majority red in the era of Blair whilst US women began voting blue in the era of Kennedy. In this respect it is the US which is unusual - across all Western Europe, women have traditionally voted for conservatives or Christian democrats in speaking with specialists, a complaint I've heard is that the narrative of the fall of the second wave fails to capture continental feminism and how this influence tacitly shows up in edges of the UK experience (e.g. with the Nordic model on prostitution regulation) ronya fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Jun 1, 2021 |
#
¿
Jun 1, 2021 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
Guavanaut posted:It's interesting how this changed from the Bill of Rights being viewed as a restriction on the Federal government and not on the States to a charter of individual liberties over the course of the 20th century. yes, there's a name for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2021 13:34
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I don't think pubs were nationalised - at least on a large scale - in WW2. A few breweries were taken over (because surprisingly the kit needed to brew bear is really useful in the making of several different very exciting chemicals) and of course a lot of pubs were used as billets and for other military purposes, but I don't think pubs were taken into direct control *while remaining open as pubs*. there is apparently a three-volume detailed analysis 'HAMMOND, Richard, J. (1956), Food: Studies in Administration and Control' on the topic
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
Algol Star posted:Sorry about your brother's brain. Melts love claiming that the public hate socialism when it's quite clearly the opposite and people like socialist policies but are held back by non-policy attacks on the left. be careful with this - voters, capricious creatures that they are, are allowed to want contradictory policies at the same time both this and this can be stably true patterns of policy support
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2021 13:23
|
|
|
A well-known one:quote:Since 1923, the U.S. Navy had conducted large-scale naval exercises, termed "Fleet Problems," during which U.S. Naval forces would engage in mock battles with a purported European or Asian attacker. Fleet Problem Number 13 was a mock attack by a "militaristic, Asian, island nation against the military base at Pearl Harbor." The exercise was designed to test Pearl's defenses and assess its vulnerability to an attack. (all that said, such foresight has to be weighed against vast investments that are themselves rapidly rendered irrelevant by political or technological happenstance. Sometimes theoretical criticisms of simulated exercises have a point.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2021 14:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Has anybody really "won" a war against irregulars in recent history? the abrupt end of the Sri Lankan civil war is the contemporary go-to example stunning defeat of a popular rebel government that few observers could have predicted just years beforehand
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2021 07:59
|
|
|
that's one hell of an endogenous money theory
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2021 10:06
|
|
|
"Fewer houses = Greater demand" is exactly why EC10 asks students to carefully move curves around on a graph Not confusing demand with supply seems like a straightforward concept, and yet
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2021 11:51
|
|
|
To sketch with extreme brevity, on supply side there's just a shortage of every type of housing, from private builds to affordable housing. Britain grew in population; those people gotta stay somewhere There is however no political will sufficient to add enough housing. I've sniped ITT on "two blocks and a photo op" before. Each year missing targets just cumulates onto the next year. Tacitly this reflects the desired aggregate political outcome, which can easily be given a progressive political gloss: the collective decision of this political stasis is that instead households should aggressively housing-ladder, which conveniently shifts the pressure onto the softest targets in the entire spectrum. This is where all the policy energy has went: to make it easier to borrow to buy or rent, specifically by reducing credit requirements, or aiding downsizing (so that someone who needs your home more can obtain it - Shelter England was murmuring about 'under-occupied homes' long before the Tories would actually try the bedroom tax as an idea). It's not that this problem wasn't recognized, but it has not been enough to move the needle against ferocious resistance to building, whereas these policy battles were easier and cheaper. It's still all about reducing the cost of transfers between existing houses rather than adding new supply. So of course prices continue to go up. ronya fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Jul 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2021 12:23
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Bingo. Well, honestly it seems more like just taking morality out of it entirely & making it all very bloodless & "rational". A fun chapter heading in some (actually pretty good) notes:  (sadly less fun in text, click to embiggen)  Realtalk: reading an author is not tantamount to agreeing with it (and indeed a good introductory course and textbook should cover enough schools so that a student has a good sense of the 'lay of the land', so to speak). If encountering a new thinker makes one fall to one's knees in Damascene enlightenment, that is a very good reason to look for a literature review and set it in perspective. That's a good principle outside theory too really. However, undergraduate econ is normally not tuned with the expectation that the student goes onto graduate econ (unless one is at a really serious course). The ideal economics graduate student reads maths; undergraduate economics demonstrates neither interest nor skills useful at a higher level, since it changes so much. So even 'introductory' gets clipped back sharply. It's not even close to 'real' orthodox econ, it won't have time for 'real' heterodox econ either. One can always audit a few interesting modules, of course, to arguably the same level of depth at the end. (a good off-time approach to heterodox econ publications is to read other heterodox authors and see what they actually focus on within the school. It's v typical for a heterodox school to hype up its historic disputes - e.g., post-Keynesians really love the Cambridge capital controversy, because Robinson and Sraffa and Samuelson were in the mêlée - but one can flip open a few copies of the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics and readily note that there's nothing very much in active research that draws upon it. Proving too much is a very common weakness. In a modern age nothing stops those without an Athens login from just accessing a generous world of preprints) Anyway I am skeptical on the supposed political role of economists (even heterodox ones) - Piketty is a rockstar in France, and the virtues of l'économie américaine are not given much media respect, and yet.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2021 12:25
|
|
|
Rustybear posted:It does what it's designed to do very well, provide bluffers with just enough patter to be convincing to the non-specialist. This is exactly true. Phrased more charitably, it arms graduates with the skills to adapt very quickly to new material (as one would be in when rotating roles in a fast stream programme, or when hopping between clients at a consultancy, for instance). The less-kind interpretation is exactly that it hones bullshitting. Rustybear posted:Could you unpack this? It's nothing conspiratorial, except perhaps in the mundane sense that careers tutors could stand to do better sometimes... I feel it's a bit like the problem with being good at Science in primary school and then hoping to do well in... say, engineering, or physics. By the time one is at A levels, one has hopefully already learnt that, oh my god, it's full of differential equations. If you really loved maths all along, great. If not, well, I hope one didn't set all of one's hopes on it eventually losing interest in the math (it only does so when you've already graduated  ). And the advice there for undergraduates is the same - if you are applying to read physics, offering triple maths with as much calculus as you can get is even better than A-level physics. If you are applying to read medicine, offering chemistry with as much organic chem as you can get is even better than biology. It's counterintuitive but it's clear why after some reflection.For economics it's the same, except the cutoff generally swings at the leap from undergrad to graduate school. Two reasons there - at undergrad one is constrained to use the maths that students come armed with from their A-levels. So leaping straight into, say, the set theoretic approach that has been the bare minimum since Paul Samuelson is just out, unless one is at a sufficiently enthusiastic school that fully expects students to drink from the fire hose (remember, theory is not all there is - in the hours of the day the student also has to absorb some economic history and applied analysis). A lot of students won't have done any statistics and probability and believe me, courses normally have their hands full with just that alone. Second, it is genuinely the case that a lot of undergraduates will be reading Economics not to continue on to further study, any more than they are reading History to become historians in the next faculty over. It's a popular social science degree for other careers. So it's fair to reach some basics, even if it is not foundationally useful for advanced material.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2021 13:36
|
|
|
as a broader point, "actually it's the moral responsibility of the powers that be to anticipate and prevent foreseeable riots and crushes, anything less is professional negligence in allowing an insane mass to coalesce to hurt itself and others" is a fascinating inversion for many decades the political left usually embraced a theory of rational crowd psychology - that riots express some deep-seated social relation being protested, in some set of signs/symbols understood by the rioters. Language of the unheard etc. E. P. Thompson's English Crowd, that kind of thing it is remarkable that this seems to be flipping aisles slowly. Something something the contemporary left's inclination to cast effective protest in the form of appeals to neoliberal institutions which speak regulations and technocracy? I dunno, I'm not a collective behaviour sociologist
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
quote:The nascent focusing of political attention on to hooligan exemplars was mirrored within the academic field, with social scientific studies of fans following Oxford United (Marsh et al., 1978) and Arsenal of London (Cohen and Robins, 1978). The first study, rescued from the ethological by an application of symbolic interactionism, conceptualized football hooliganism as largely harmless, metonymic and ritualized (see Lewis and Scarisbrick-Hauser, this volume; Morris, 1981). Deploying a variation on 1960s ‘labelling theory’, the Oxford researchers attributed any genuine violence to excessive social control interventions. There have to be some doubts about the violent propensities of these fans at this time, their club being in the Third Division and relative newcomers to the English League. The study of Arsenal fans provided an important ethnographic dimension to earlier Marxist speculations on the structural role of unemployment, urban decay and the cultivation of a middle-class image for the game, in provoking a young working-class backlash through hooliganism. The Marxist position thus came to articulate a romanticized conception of the football hooligan as subcultural agent, seeking to recapture ‘magically’ the communitarianism of the traditional working-class locale, abandoned by his parents, local government and the representative football club’s directors (Clarke, 1978; Cohen, 1972; Hall and Jefferson, 1976; Pearton, 1986:79–80; Shipman, 1988; I. Taylor, 1971b). Public concern with the football hooligan was deemed to be largely processed in tabloid sensationalism, which marked a broader social movement towards a right-wing populism in dealing with crime (Hall, 1978; Hall et al., 1978)... The lowest ebb, under the ferocious onslaught of the New Right: quote:Ian Taylor (1991a: 15) conveyed a pessimistic sociological sentiment on football culture’s 1980s flavour, maintaining that the experience of ‘Kop End’ terrace life during that same period [the 1980s] at many clubs has actually been one of rampant racism, crudely sexist banter, and of aggravation conducted by groups of young white males of little education and even less wit. This confirmed Taylor’s movement from his initial position, which had identified a radical teleology in young fan subcultures. Cue the Third Way as the 90s dawn, where violence 'just happens'; being neither noble nor criminal; instead the neoliberal individual has a process right to a certain treatment quote:The ‘new realism’ was confirmed in the Home Affairs Committee (1990, 1991) investigations of football hooliganism. In a throwback to the corporatism of the 1960s, evidence from twentyone agencies operating in the football field was compiled (HAC, 1990). In the report’s supporter-friendly conclusion, the committee backed the new Football Licensing Authority as a potential ‘honest broker’ in the game, a role which would be cemented if a supporters’ representative were appointed to its directory. It also maintained that although football hooliganism was neither new nor exclusive to Britain, it was not an essential feature of the sport either. The report asserted that for too long, nonhooligan supporters had borne the brunt of a ‘them’ and ‘us’ mentality. Rather disingenuously, the report’s parliamentary authors ignored the prior political function of this outlook, to chastise the national football authorities and, to a lesser extent, the police: from Football, Violence, and Social Identity (Guillanotti et al 1994)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2021 17:51
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I'm trying not to strawman you, so I'll ask the question first - what's your actual point here? Because to my reading you seem to be conflating riot as political action with the much, much wider problems of crowd control. more of an off-the-cuff musing after reading the furious exchange over whether it is personally obligatory, as a card-carrier of Correct thought du jour, to follow The Rules written in the name of public safety, be it for covid or crowd control (especially in the face of unfairness, specifically the visceral sense of other people flouting the rules for personal benefit, and getting away with it) ThomasPaine bringing up the language point also dredged up ye olde New Left's fascination with riot crowd language and identity from somewhere in my mental recesses of assigned readings if there is a point here, it's in clinically observing the embedded neoliberal outlook (I emphasize that I use the term non-pejoratively). We do assume a legitimately vast, expert state to interpose itself in very granular ways, specifically to 1) protect us, specifically our rights and due process - an objective 'public safety' duly quantified and measured and forecasted 2) to have an accurate/neutral/technocratic policy instruments with which to hit those ostensibly neutral targets. Proportionately! A past generation of New Leftists would have immediately leapt up screaming PROPORTIONATE IN WHOSE VIEW??? WHICH CLASS??? We just take it as given. Compressive asphyxia doesn't check for the colour of your collar first. We view an objectively safe public architecture as something technocratically achievable and politically neutral, whilst a past generation of thinkers would have assumed that it too is endogenous to the political process (not that it was ever obviously productive to rail on this, anyway, whilst the prevailing means of production shifted to turn a sharp class dichotomy into shades of grey) with recent high-profile protest waves, there's some attempt to revive a selection of old New Left mantras but it does seem rather shallowly-held at times - we soon return to the familiar waters of 1) legitimacy through participation/agreement 2) objective procedural justice as common good. Sorry, this is a bit meandering. This time I honestly didn't have a hot take to deliver inasmuch as muttering "that's interesting" to an audience of myself ronya fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Jul 12, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
I'm still curious what drives Bank's clear drift on the topic of moral interventionism between the Empire of Azad (from Player of Games, 1988) and the Affront (from Excession, 1996) Banks goes to some effort to present elite Affronters as being individually affable, and the Affront's "self-perpetuating, never-ending holocaust of pain and fear" nonetheless presenting some virtues of spontaneity and enthusiasm that are absent from the hedonism of the Culture ('[Genar-Hofoen] leant towards the school of thought which held that evolution, or at least evolutionary pressures, ought to continue within and around a civilised species, rather than - as the Culture had done - choosing to replace evolution with a kind of democratically agreed physiological stasis-plus-option-list while handing over the real control of one's society to machines...'). The Azad on the other hand is a parade of gloating evil-doers gloating evilly (there's an obvious and cynical out-of-universe observation that the first Gulf War and the NATO intervention in Bosnia happen in between, but I'd prefer a textual analysis) ronya fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Jul 13, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2021 16:27
|
|
|
Antigravitas posted:I'm not sure there's really much of a shift there. Or if there was, not a lasting one. Space Elon Musk in Surface Detail (2010) is back to being utterly irredeemable, and the pro-hell politicians are basically conservative stand-ins including ranting about how people are inherently sinful and bad and that's why severe punishments must be handed out or society will collapse. Consider is pretty darned dismissive of the peace faction and has the following presented as an objective statement of fact: quote:She left instructions that she was only to be revived once the Culture could statistically 'prove' the war had been morally justified; in other words, when sufficient time had passed—peacefully—for it to be probable that more people would have died in the foreseeable and likely course of Idiran expansion than had in fact perished during the war. She was duly awoken in 1813 AD along with several million other people throughout the Culture who had stored themselves and left the same revival criterion, most with the same feeling of grim humour as she had. More broadly the Culture wins the struggle in Consider through its intrinsic superiority as a mode of civilizational organization - much the same as the subsequent Player. In Excession however a force from literally beyond time and space shows up to karmically deliver an object lesson in humility. Never mind the Affronters: even the universe itself is determined to punish Culture hawks.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Gato posted:is an interesting way to describe Azad - that certainly seems to be the most common reaction to them, and it's how I saw them when I first read the book god knows how long ago. One of the complaints that comes up most about the book is that Azad is too one-dimensionally evil. Banks definitely does have a thing for writing OTT grotesquely monstrous villains - The Algebraist comes to mind. But I read it again recently and I couldn't help but see Azad as an exaggeration of our world, not just an unpleasant fantasy - a difference of degree not nature. The gender stuff is the clearest example but I couldn't help but read Azad (the game) as a satire of liberal meritocracy - a game that anyone can theoretically win that just so happens to perpetuate the system that produced it and which is inaccessible and incomprehensible to the vast majority of the population, whose basic assumptions are so ingrained that living outside the game is unimaginable. a key plot point is the reader's ambiguity as to whether the eponymous game 'works' in its conceit of identifying the superior ideology, or whether it's just a game. For the viewpoint character Gurgeh, he wins the game in the end by playing as the Culture in the game (specifically emphasized to be a militant, assimilationist Culture that triumphs through the productive superiority of cooperative intelligence - a very specific political philosophy, rather than a generic brand of anarchism) it can be read as a critique of meritocracy, certainly, but I would say that this reading doesn't mesh well with the emperor being set up as the ultimate reification of Azad ideology as the final opponent- an Azadian who takes the game entirely seriously, rather than his plotting minister who does regard it as a cynical façade re: the parade of cackling evil, it's most noticeable in the attention devoted to vivid descriptions of macabre torture etc. - compare the Affront, who are equally luridly described as the incarnations of a holocaust, pain, fear, cruelty, etc. but all of their tortures are given a clinical detachment. Compare the hunting scene in Player vs Excession. And of course a viewpoint character becomes an Affronter by the end. ronya fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jul 13, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1416805508724502533 as a political sense, a u-turn toward mandatory vaccinations for participation in public life feels more likely than a u-turn toward lockdown at this point (in a very "well France and Germany are doing it" sense) could be worth watching Scotland on that too; not just a Tory thing
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:I think the argument is not lib → right → fash, but that historically liberals have usually supported fascism in its early stages, due to their tendency to only see tone and not content. worth noting that the actually-historic communist parties as lead by Ernst "nach Hitler, kommen wir" Thälmann or Maurice "nous agissons en défense du peuple français en ne voulant pas que la jeunesse de notre pays soit jetée en holocauste aux capitalistes anglais en lutte d’intérêts avec les capitalistes allemand" Thorez are not exactly covering themselves in glory there either a glib reading is that the communists constantly assumed that they would naturally triumph from paramilitarized politics and street chaos (narrator: they did not). Unfortunately, the liberals and conservatives and Christian democrats alike also all assumed that the communists would naturally triumph from paramilitarized politics and street chaos. There's a lesson in not drinking one's own koolaid, there.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2021 12:38
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:It's been too long since I've had to recommend Domenico Losurdo's Liberalism: A Counter-History but you should read it. It's easy to find on LibCom if you don't fancy paying for it it's a very 00s publication - just shy of two decades later, in an age of Woke Capital, highlighting that a dead white guy was a slaveowner doesn't cause monocles to pop. Have you seen Hamilton, etc. post Trump/Brexit/Corbyn/etc the notion of a left electoralism at the ballot box is no longer incredible, and likewise the prospective bugbear has shifted from washed-out liberal technocrats to full-blown right populism and/or actual fascism, depending on audience. The case to be made here is essentially oppositional: "we the left are better at fighting ${THING_YOU_HATE} than those other people" ronya fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Jul 19, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2021 13:10
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:I mean, it's a decade since it was first published in English, 16 years in Italian, & what, 2 years since it was routinely recommended in this thread? The world hasn't changed THAT much, COVID excepted. Mind you, your critique of the book was basically the same then as it is now, but of course the idea of it was never "ooooh, shocking, slaveowners are bad!!!", it's about dismantling the fantasy world that the intellectual basis of liberalism is anything other than rotten to the core. Liberalism has become accepted to be hand in hand with the concept of democracy & Losurdo points out how inaccurate that is. I have read it... I don't know why folks regard reading a book as being convinced by it. Broadly: - I don't think liberalism is a continuous and coherent intellectual inheritance that has a shared philosophical core to be 'rotten' - I don't think the liberalism of Rawls relies on the liberalism of Locke, so 'tainting' Locke says nothing about Rawls. - I don't think the charge of a original sin of exclusion makes sense - it would surprise no-one to point out that universal suffrage is a relatively recent innovation that postdates Rousseau and Locke by centuries (why Losurdo stops there and does not go on to emphasize the last group to generally benefit after universal male suffrage - that is, the expansion of the franchise to women - is left as an exercise to the reader). "Actually, all of limitation of the franchise persisting for four centuries is due to LIBERALISM as a continuous line of thought, even if many involved did not identify as liberals - but the expansion of the franchise must be credited to RADICALISM as a continuous line of thought, even if many of those did identify as liberals" is straightforwardly implausible as a thesis (and also winds up with, infamously, Losurdo arguing for Burke as a liberal thinker and JS Mill as a non-liberal thinker). At the worst one can say that liberalism in its assorted historical evolutions is not terribly meaningful in motivating or resisting expansions or contractions of the franchise, but that's still true today; see, e.g., contemporary attitudes toward merging franchises with neighbouring societies, or with mass migrants. Neither does radicalism as Losurdo understands it. - I don't think it even has much to do with classically Marxian or Marxist-Leninist or Maoist critiques of liberalism. Ask a Leninist or Maoist about the principle of franchise exclusion that Losurdo holds responsible for everything from genocide to slavery and they would say: jolly good, make sure it is a capitalist dog being excluded and dehumanized (with the consequent horror being only too predictable). My sense is that it mainly enjoys a popularity as a "hurr durr LIBERALS m i rite" text whenever invoked by the tankie set, without any serious engagement with the thesis (I also wouldn't call myself a liberal inasmuch as a market socialist with regrets) Losurdo opens with this big attack on American presidents - Jefferson, Calhoun - and this is supposed to be a great surprise to the reader, like he's revealing some secret knowledge. But maybe it is not entirely taboo wisdom today? I wager that it isn't really revelatory to newly-engaged-with-politics types, not the sort looking for Verso Books recs anyway. ronya fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Jul 19, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2021 16:03
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:You got very animated when I once made a post that said socialism can have markets quite. I recall moaning that the problem of market socialism is that its politics is never viable amongst socialists: socialists only concede market socialism when socialism is on the backfoot - i.e., when it is irrelevant anyway. As soon as Corbynism had a pulse, the market odium returned to the fore. Now that it's moribund, we're prepared to talk about it again. Memories are short. Liberalism does normally get away with claiming human rights as theirs precisely because illiberal ideologies denounce it as theirs - as bourgeois/individualist pretensions, say, as the Soviets did until very recently. Which contemporary Very Online leftism notably does not, despite equally holding liberalism in contempt! I've remarked before that the current leftist resurgence claiming human rights/civil liberties etc as one of their own is a sign of the realigning influence of the neoliberal period (its inevitable mirror being, equally, conservative fusionism on the political right discarding it). Losurdo isn't so concerned with the demarcation of rights, anyway, as with the scope of the franchise; for him rights are just endogenous expressions of privilege proportionate to the domination granted by exclusivity. Losurdo does assert that liberal theory has to answer for past failures to sufficiently expand the franchise sufficiently quickly, so merely having universal suffrage today does not count, one must answer for four centuries of oppression - but I don't know how that sticks to politically relevant or public facing figures in the West, especially when it is vividly demonstrated that capital-C Capital, or the Man, or the Establishment, or what-have-you, is actually totally fine to disavow the past, tear down its monuments, and author tearful apologies, and perpendiculate various appendages. Which is a signal change from the early 2010s.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
New Labour grew out of the pages of Marxism Today - if you take the notion that the working class knows what it wants and deserves to get it good and hard, you do wind up with a very 'the Great Moving Right Show' outlook - where it is incumbent on the left to take working people's concerns on crime, education, moral decay etc. 'seriously', whatever that means. Stuart Hall's protestations to the contrary, from there it was not that much of a stretch to arrive at the doorstep of the Third Way. Socialist Alternatives on the other hand seems to have been part of a campaign for a deliberately broad church for the fractured pieces of the 1980s New Left, with a conscious attempt to avoid a hard ideological commitment to, well, anything in particular, beyond being "left". There's a joke there somewhere, I know it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2021 11:45
|
|
|
HopperUK posted:It took me a while to figure out the great secret of working with the fabric parts. it is double-sided tape. Trust me. Don't try to glue that poo poo. spray adhesives also work well for fabric! basically don't rely on fabric to press glue into shape for you - it must be evenly applied to begin with - and also don't use glues that soak into fabric. painter's tape to mask off areas and then 3M Super 77 works well. if you need something with a longer tack time (for e.g., working with tiny, finicky miniatures) there are also other sprays that are weaker but have a longer tack time)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2021 07:34
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:I'm skeptical. How long does a house like this last? I mean I think a house needs to be bult to last centuries, otherwise it's gonna waste resourcers. I wonder how it stands up to cold weather. is that really sensible? a design life of 60 years is typical; designing for longer periods itself consumes resources in a way which necessarily cannot foresee future improvements in engineering or changes in priorities or usages
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2021 08:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
It is nice that videos tend to contain additional incidental information when the camera pans or zooms, like what the hell that resistor was before it turned into smoke and sadness, even when the video author is actually focusing on something else entirely
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2021 19:23
|
|