Funny events in anti-woke world

[Chimpzy]

Richest manbaby begging people to like his competitor's ad.

 

[tstorm823]

"Conspiratorial"? This is an interesting word to use, and I would question the implications.

As tax is disproportionately paid by the richer to fund public services for the poorer, there is therefore a clear rationale for the rich to pressure society to reduce public services so they pay less tax and have more private services for profit exploitation. This is not "conspiracy": it's overt political preference.

Buyetyen has suggested that the wealthy intentionally cripple public education with the designed purpose of keeping the poor too ignorant to challenge them. Would you call that overt political preference, or conspiracy?

Specific reparations are a very tricky issue, but some form of social program above the norm to alleviate disadvantage hardly seems outrageous.

I made pretty much exactly this point to Silvanus in post 8205.

Mankind is part of nature therefore anything manmade is also natural, ha gotcha!

Any particularly equitable system will also be a manmade system anyway.
Appeal to 'the natural order' is a rightwing fallacy, "as god intended" and all that rot.

As I already said to Buyetyen, I am not saying the natural order is good. I'm explicitly saying it's bad, and society has implemented massive programs to work against the bad of nature.

"Any particularly equitable system will be man-made" is exactly my point, just with the caveats that we already have a dramatically more equitable system than nature and total equity is unfeasible.

The "society as a whole" enabled the slave owners, and built the foundation of its economy on their coercion and theft. Slave owners did not just do these things sneakily, against the government and society's wishes.

They did, though. They did do those things against society's wishes, with threats of violence and war that eventually came to fruition.

You've failed to address the core point I was making. Firstly, that something can be inefficient and nonetheless produce. That's exactly what slavery did. And secondly, that wages and renumeration are not only owed to workers who happen to represent the best possible method of attaining the outcome.

Owed by whom is the question.

YAWN. That assertion was made as a separate point. My point in this thread of conversation was simply that the hierarchies we see now are manmade and not in fact our so-called natural state. And why all the fucking scare quotes? It doesn't make you look smart if that's what you're thinking.

You're actually trying to gaslight me. Lol.

 

[Ag3ma]

Buyetyen has suggested that the wealthy intentionally cripple public education with the designed purpose of keeping the poor too ignorant to challenge them. Would you call that overt political preference, or conspiracy?

It's not a cospiracy because a conspiracy is, by its nature, covert. Attempts to degrade public education are completely open.

There's a huge amount of variability between rich individuals, but I am absolutely sure that, overall, the rich are extremely satisfied with a system where they can buy the huge advantage of superior education for their children over the hoi polloi. I don't necessarily think that extends to consciously sabotaging public education for the majority in the minds of most rich people. Far more likely, it's just a trade-off that the plebians get worse education just so the rich pay less tax; the worse education is more a side effect than the real aim.

As I already said to Buyetyen, I am not saying the natural order is good.

"Any particularly equitable system will be man-made" is exactly my point, just with the caveats that we already have a dramatically more equitable system than nature and total equity is unfeasible.

I do not know what "the natural order" is, nor do I suspect anyone else does - although there will be people happy to theorise and expound, I'm sure. Human personalities and social natures plus environmental circumstances lead to the emergence of complex social structures with a wide range of potential variability. The idea that there is some "natural order" for human social interaction from which we can draw useful analysis about our current society seems to me a complete misconception.

At worst, it's just a fallacious attempt for people to push their particular brand of gubbins, and it happens a lot in various forms: it's the same as the "alpha / beta / gamma" nonsense that gets spouted, and much gender roles nonsense. Attempts to justify behaviours and sociopolitical policies as if nature has declared a final word, and if we try to "artificially" rig the system it will only lead to failure and collapse. There is no such natural order, no final word. We are a very adaptable species with lots and lots of flexibility.

So I think a claim we have a more equitable system than nature is meaningless. We could probably look at our earliest forebears in prehistory or little developed societies that survived to more recent times and ask whether we are more equitable than them, and I would suggest we are very manifestly not more equitable than them. However, this is arguably just comparing ourselves to primitivism not "nature", so I don't think that's worth a lot either.

 

[Silvanus]

They did, though. They did do those things against society's wishes, with threats of violence and war that eventually came to fruition.

They were protected by state and government institutions and security forces, and enabled and tacitly accepted by millions upon millions of people. Other sectors of society objected-- without the support of government until almost a century had passed. "Society" is not a monolith.

Owed by whom is the question.

Well, if you're amenable to the principle, then sure, I'm happy to move onto the practicalities!

In answer: indirectly, at least, the beneficiaries.

 

[Buyetyen]

You're actually trying to gaslight me. Lol.

Don't use words you don't know the meaning of.

 

[BrawlMan]

that the hierarchies we see now are manmade and not in fact our so-called natural state.

Mankind is part of nature therefore anything manmade is also natural, ha gotcha!

Any particularly equitable system will also be a manmade system anyway.
Appeal to 'the natural order' is a rightwing fallacy, "as god intended" and all that rot.

Return humanity back to their natural state.

​

 

[BrawlMan]

Don't use words you don't know the meaning of.

It's all he ever does. Along with the goal posting, and defending his masters who see him and everyone else as sacrificial pawns.

 

[Absent]

Return humanity back to their natural state.

But as already pointed out, there is no "natural state" for humans. Wherever there are humans, there is society, there is culture as opposed to nurture. Rules, institutions, reflexivity, organization, norms and values. It's just that these have very different contents (and very different pros and cons on very different aspects) depending on epochs and areas. Some human societies value change, others value stability, some value productivity, other value ecology, some value hierarchies, others values equality, etc. And some of these values favor growth, technology, pollution, exclusion, which happens to facilitate the crushing of their neighbours. "Success" and "efficiency" (at something specific) is not "morality". We're not in a "the better wins" scenario, we're on Earth, Planet Dickheads.

Humans can, and did, organize themselves in a staggering variety of ways, many of these unthinkable from others' standpoint (to the extent where some political organizations were seen as inexistant, as some animalistic "nature state", by people used to too different political organizations, incapable of grasping what was going on). But these organizations are not equal in terms of enabling cultural dominations. Put a herbivore and a carnivore in the same cage, the herbivore disappears without being intrisequely, objectively "inferior" in the grand scheme of things. Except that the carnivore then chooses the criterions of "moral superiority" (no surprise, it's "the ability to devour your neighbour").

Anyway. All human societies are indeed man-made, with no pre-determined system, or organisation that would be more "natural" or more "artificial" than another. But of course, humans are also good at legitimizing their systems through grand narratives about god wills and ridiculously self-contradicting ones about "nature / counter-nature", etc...

 

[BrawlMan]

But as already pointed out, there is no "natural state" for humans. Wherever there are humans, there is society, there is culture as opposed to nurture. Rules, institutions, reflexivity, organization, norms and values. It's just that these have very different contents (and very different pros and cons on very different aspects) depending on epochs and areas. Some human societies value change, others value stability, some value productivity, other value ecology, some value hierarchies, others values equality, etc. And some of these values favor growth, technology, pollution, exclusion, which happens to facilitate the crushing of their neighbours. "Success" and "efficiency" (at something specific) is not "morality". We're not in a "the better wins" scenario, we're on Earth, Planet Dickheads.

Humans can, and did, organize themselves in a staggering variety of ways, many of these unthinkable from others' standpoint (to the extent where some political organizations were seen as inexistant, as some animalistic "nature state", by people used to too different political organizations, incapable of grasping what was going on). But these organizations are not equal in terms of enabling cultural dominations. Put a herbivore and a carnivore in the same cage, the herbivore disappears without being intrisequely, objectively "inferior" in the grand scheme of things. Except that the carnivore then chooses the criterions of "moral superiority" (no surprise, it's "the ability to devour your neighbour").

Anyway. All human societies are indeed man-made, with no pre-determined system, or organisation that would be more "natural" or more "artificial" than another. But of course, humans are also good at legitimizing their systems through grand narratives about god wills and ridiculously self-contradicting ones about "nature / counter-nature", etc...

Exactly why I posted videos of Goldman. For all his knowledge and intellect, even he doesn't know of humanity's "natural state". It's pretty clear in either game, you're not supposed to agree with him. Whoever voiced acted him in HothD 4 did a great job in making Goldman sound threatening and almost convincing though.

 

[Absent]

Whoever voiced acted him in HothD 4

House of the Dead. House of the Dead. You mean House of the Dead. Got it.

(My googling results were a bit odd. )

 

[tstorm823]

Don't use words you don't know the meaning of.

You're embarrassing yourself.

In answer: indirectly, at least, the beneficiaries.

Now try and justify how an entire nation of people, which was mostly robbed of the creative and productive capacity of many of it's residents for the concentrated benefit of a select few, is considered the overall beneficiary of that practice.

I would suggest we are very manifestly not more equitable than them. However, this is arguably just comparing ourselves to primitivism not "nature", so I don't think that's worth a lot either.

I firmly disagree with this. It is often suggested the oldest sign of civilization is a broken and healed femur, as prior to that if you broke that, you were dead before it healed, since you couldn't walk and nobody was going to protect you. Do you want the hunter-gatherer lifestyle where every resource is the tragedy of the commons? Is that the more equitable age? How about the time of tribalism? The millennia of monarchies? Do you really imagine people with less structure were just more equitable?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

 

[Silvanus]

Now try and justify how an entire nation of people, which was mostly robbed of the creative and productive capacity of many of it's residents for the concentrated benefit of a select few, is considered the overall beneficiary of that practice.

? It's not. Sectors of it were and are, to the detriment of others. This is what redistributive tax policies are for.

 

[Absent]

I firmly disagree with this. It is often suggested the oldest sign of civilization is a broken and healed femur, as prior to that if you broke that, you were dead before it healed, since you couldn't walk and nobody was going to protect you. Do you want the hunter-gatherer lifestyle where every resource is the tragedy of the commons? Is that the more equitable age? How about the time of tribalism? The millennia of monarchies? Do you really imagine people with less structure were just more equitable?

Firstly when your own proclaimed ideology amounts to slapping pink triangles on homosexuals in order to warn off potential landlords or employers, maybe you should consider shutting the fuck up whenever the discussion veers towards notions of equity or equality. That's one thing. Secondly, also consider shutting the fuck up when your babbling about societies you don't know the first thing about, in particular if you imagine "tribal tribal" or "monarchies" as "less structured" than yours (in terms of kinship, politics, trade, spirituality, whatever). Lastly, seeking example in acephalous organisations (with their strict rules against differential accumulation, against consuming your own production instead of distributing it, against the very notion of command and coercitive orders outside tactical military campaigns, etc) is probably the poorest possible attempt to boast about your own system's moral superiority. Generally speaking, maybe you should someday consider unplugging your nose from your bible for 10 seconds, before emitting any further judgement on the world that surrounds you. If that's an option at all.

Seriously. The irony of evolutionists who haven't evolved since the 19th century.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Given how little it takes to rile up the qanon crowd, this is gonna get bad

 

[Absent]

View attachment 7923

Given how little it takes to rile up the qanon crowd, this is gonna get bad

Yeah, it was a fake done with Midjourney "in order to alert people about the dangers of AI-generated images". Allegedly, the author wanted to folllow up with another tweet saying his photos aren't real, but he was cut short by a debunker.

Réforme des retraites. Ces images d'un CRS et d'une manifestante, par Midjourney, font le tour du monde

Ses images de la manifestation contre la réforme des retraites font le tour du monde. Un Breton a généré des photos par une intelligence artificielle, Midjourney, dans la veine de ChatGPT et DALL-E. Son but : sensibiliser...

france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr

Between people proudly stuck in their judgemental ignorance about other human groups (remote or nearby), and the incoming avalanche of fakes that will suffocate any valid information, I think we can soon kiss the notion of truth goodbye. Simply crushed between the everlasting lies and misconceptions of yesteryear and the brave new models of disinformation.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Between people proudly stuck in their judgemental ignorance about other human groups (remote or nearby), and the incoming avalanche of fakes that will suffocate any valid information, I think we can soon kiss the notion of truth goodbye. Simply crushed between the everlasting lies and misconceptions of yesteryear and the brave new models of disinformation.

I for one look forward to future elections being decided by which side can produce a more believable picture of the other side's candidate roasting a baby on a spit.

 

[Gergar12]

Thank you super bowl for making my internet as slow as a snail.

 

[XsjadoBlaydette]

 

[Silvanus]

I for one look forward to future elections being decided by which side can produce a more believable picture of the other side's candidate roasting a baby on a spit.

Petition to refer to these future elections as The Clone Wars?