Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

It's not even just "we are all greedy gits";

It is far more pervasive and subtle.  Every woman wants to look pretty. (well, for the most part.) But what IS pretty? Specifically, what is pretty without its cognates of plain, and ugly? (by this, I mean that for someone to be pretty, someone else must be ugly, otherwise there is no basis with which to make the distinction.)

Similarly, every man wants to appear strong and masculine (for the most part)-- But what exactly IS that specifically, without its cognates of effeminate, and impotent? (How do you define machismo, without defining what is considered unmanly or effeminate, or impotent?)

There is no way to attain these things without brutally excluding and shunning others, on purely arbitrary features or behaviors.

These tendencies are signs of the underlying pathology; We are hard wired to seek to distinguish ourselves from among our peers.  "I'm the strongest!" "I'm the prettiest!" "I'm the smartest!" "I'm the most clever", and of course, "I'm the richest."


Marxism does not require that everyone be cookie cutters, but it requires that people not upset the needs of others. BUT-- when people are naturally predisposed to seeking distinction, (which by its very nature, requires the exclusion of others), this very thing happens organically and without fail. 

It requires beings that are distinct via their simple existence, and not through artificially sought after means, and further, requires that those distinctions not actually matter in the greater scheme of things (and thus, not result in any natural exclusions.)

We are talking some pretty fundamental human behaviors here, not just base greed.

[Naturegirl1999]

Heck, we don't even need to go that far immediately.

Actual for-real socialism is much more productive in terms of well-being and environmentalism than Capitalism could ever hope to be.

Worker co-ops keep pricing reasonable, and since every employee is an owner, they all make collective decisions for management and direction. Imagine, hiring your own manager! The manager/worker relationship would be much less, if not at all, inherently antagonistic as everyone would be working towards the same goal.

This sounds cool. Is there anywhere this exists in? Or is it hypothetical as of now?

[Egan_BW]

I think that intentionally altering our psychology through genetics isn't something that's "far off" so much as something that won't ever be viable unless we become godlike beings of unlimited intellect.

[wierd]

We've gone from "Hey, we discovered DNA!" to "We are close to being able to custom engineer (wholly synthetic) microbes!" in less than a century.

Don't be so pessimistic.

[McTraveller]

Heck, we don't even need to go that far immediately.

Actual for-real socialism is much more productive in terms of well-being and environmentalism than Capitalism could ever hope to be.

Worker co-ops keep pricing reasonable, and since every employee is an owner, they all make collective decisions for management and direction. Imagine, hiring your own manager! The manager/worker relationship would be much less, if not at all, inherently antagonistic as everyone would be working towards the same goal.

This sounds cool. Is there anywhere this exists in? Or is it hypothetical as of now?

In the US these are mostly agricultural co-ops.  I've not seen (m)any in any other industry.

I've also not seen a "co-op of co-ops", which is really what you'd need to start combating the monopolistic rent-seekers.

[Gentlefish]

Dem microbes could be real useful.

Plastic -> biofuel would solve just so many problems.

But eugenics has already been blacklisted, basically. At least, state-sanctioned eugenics. I think social darwinism along with solid education will get us all (or a critical mass of us) to the point we can go to a more human-centric economy system rather than profit-centric.

Heck, we don't even need to go that far immediately.

Actual for-real socialism is much more productive in terms of well-being and environmentalism than Capitalism could ever hope to be.

Worker co-ops keep pricing reasonable, and since every employee is an owner, they all make collective decisions for management and direction. Imagine, hiring your own manager! The manager/worker relationship would be much less, if not at all, inherently antagonistic as everyone would be working towards the same goal.

This sounds cool. Is there anywhere this exists in? Or is it hypothetical as of now?

In the US these are mostly agricultural co-ops.  I've not seen (m)any in any other industry.

I've also not seen a "co-op of co-ops", which is really what you'd need to start combating the monopolistic rent-seekers.

A local grocery store of mine, Winco, is "employee-owned" in the sense that only employees own stock and stake in the business. It's also cheaper than Wal-Mart for basically everything.

[Iduno]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/14/steve-king-iowa-republican-rape-incest-abortion


IMPECCABLE LOGIC.

That puts a lot of uncomfortable questions about his family on the table. Especially with the implied "so the only solution is to keep impregnating our children."

[wierd]

Basically everyone has incest in their pedigree somewhere, (as I pointed out in a previous post.)

What is important is to realize that this is not important; In the past, people had fewer choices, and had less means of expressing agency or control over such atrocities committed by others upon them. We cannot change the past, but we CAN change the present, and the future.

These days we DO have those choices, and means. These are the tools by which we can shape the present and the future.


This is a rhetorical statement created by a person who seeks to limit those choices and means, for purely ideological (and likely religious) reasons, despite the well established consequences and actual harm that such limitation imposes.

This individual is seeking to demonstrate, through rhetoric, that "what we have now" is "a product of limited choice", and is not so bad.  The first part-- what we have now being the result of prior lack of choice, is unquestionably true.  However, the implied "not so bad" is wrong-- We understand that these things are deleterious, and we have the means to enable choice and agency for those directly implicated, and are able to make such choices.  Denying them the agency to make those choices is unconscionable.

There are layers of implication in the rhetoric used;  If you disagree that the current is "not so bad", would you wish to change the past if possible?  Would you do so, even if it would cause your own elimination?

These ancillary implications are intended to play on an audience participant's mind, and trigger self preservation instincts, to rally them into accepting the proposition.  Being a more informed and critical thinker, (or at least I like to think I am), I instead am predisposed to saying "If it is possible for me to make a choice now, in the present, that would have undone all the suffering and hardship caused by the lack of choice and agency people had in the past, by offering them that power and agency-- I would choose for them to get that choice and agency, even if it results in my own elimination from history. My existence is not worth the suffering of my ancestors." 

The rhetoric is intended to be seen with regard to how a hypothetical future generation would respond to our willful employment of means that would result in their elimination, you see-- I counter, that the future generation that would be created-- with maximal agency regarding such choice-- would be more secure and happier with their pedigree than one that results from the suffering of their ancestors, due to the lack of that choice.

I would rather that my ancestors have had better means and choices, even if that means I would not exist now.  I think this is the actually rational thing to conclude.  The representative clearly thinks otherwise.

[Egan_BW]

Thankfully we don't have means to destroy ourselves via improving conditions in the past, so considering if we should do so is pointless. There was only one past, and there will be only one future. Those who do not exist in the past, present, or future do not exist at all and considering them is also pointless.

[wierd]

Its a philosophical question. Not one you should ponder with seriousness with a plan to action.


The point of pondering it, is in deciding how you want to be regarded by future generations: as somebody that enabled better choice, and helped to build a better future where there was less suffering, or one that was beholden to a worldview that limited choice was preferable.

You cannot change your own past, but you decide the future's past now, in our present.

[PTTG??]

Maybe Steve King is just a real conservative. If something happened in the past, it is good and things should stay that way. All change is decay.

Seen in that light, he's almost self-consistent.

[scourge728]

https://gizmodo.com/the-white-house-readies-draft-of-executive-order-that-c-1837110097

[scourge728]

Honestly, that might be just as bad, a law that means nothing can instead mean anything if the people using it want it to

[Reelya]

Once he buys Greenland he can launch the Make Greenland Green Again campaign to clear off all the ice.

[smjjames]

Isn’t Greenland like, partially sovereign? I mean, it’s treated about as independently as Puerto Rico (Trump assholery nonwithstanding) but it still relies on Denmark for stuff. I suppose it wouldn’t be too much to ask the residents of Greenland whether they wanted to be under US rule. Though I guess little would actually change.

And of course, those in Greenland and Denmark say "No fucking way." and "Trump is an absolute madman to think he can do this."