3001
Or Kill Me / Re: not srs rant material but...
« on: May 28, 2008, 03:44:01 pm »
thanks for the ass crack commandment. too many people do not heed this advice.
News:
What about those weed gangsters that are mad about you giving speeches in Bumfuck, Maine?
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
3002
Or Kill Me / Re: Time Travel Ramblings
« on: May 28, 2008, 03:16:09 pm »
"Time is an illusion; lunch-time doubly so." -- Ford Prefect to Arthur Dent
Time travel would be cool, and I have no expertise on the matter.
As for Zen koans, they might illustrate the nonlinearity of time, but they don't explain it very well. In my time machine, I will not have a control dial with options like "flax" and "grasshopper." It will have numbers, probably in traditional order, and I will not be taking a monk with me to fix the technical hiccups.
Time travel would be cool, and I have no expertise on the matter.
As for Zen koans, they might illustrate the nonlinearity of time, but they don't explain it very well. In my time machine, I will not have a control dial with options like "flax" and "grasshopper." It will have numbers, probably in traditional order, and I will not be taking a monk with me to fix the technical hiccups.
3003
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Lollercaust Repository
« on: May 28, 2008, 02:59:43 pm »
uhm.. there's no Mangrove. I'll make you an account and PM you your username/password.
3004
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Lollercaust Repository
« on: May 25, 2008, 04:12:38 am »
HEY YOU FUCKING DISCORDIANS! quit sewing discord in my thread!
3005
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Lollercaust Repository
« on: May 24, 2008, 04:10:50 am »
hence the commenting feature for suggestions/discussion and the ability to post/revise anything. or, we can just assume the project won't go anywhere and act accordingly, i guess.
3006
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Lollercaust Repository
« on: May 23, 2008, 04:00:31 pm »
the link takes you to my site which would allow for broad collaboration and stuff. kinda like a wiki except you can add/edit your own pages easier and post comments to each item for discussion.
i'm thinking this format would make it a lot easier to collaborate and produce new material as well as help organize existing stuff. pages can be moved around, sub-chapters created, etc. take a look, maybe register at the site, and we might be able to get the ball rolling.
i'm thinking this format would make it a lot easier to collaborate and produce new material as well as help organize existing stuff. pages can be moved around, sub-chapters created, etc. take a look, maybe register at the site, and we might be able to get the ball rolling.
3008
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Inverted totalitarianism, Superpower and managed democracy
« on: May 22, 2008, 07:56:25 pm »
The view that the Government officials are monsters that are consciously seeking total domination is, imho, a little naive. Government exists as it is allowed to exist. That's just a fact of social dynamics. When governments become insufferable, people eventually get rid of them, once enough of them agree on what about their government is insufferable. Government does tend by its nature to want to regulate and police everything under the sun, but that isn't a characterization of ethical or "conscious" behavior as much as it is a description of what Government's purpose is. One reason why bureaucracies survive is because of their ability to find gaps in regulatory coverage, and fill them.
A successful, liberal democracy does have the effect of pacifying the people. There's really very little difference between a "peaceful" population and a "pacified" one. When we speak of domestic peace and stability, don't we mean a society in which people defer to a common mediator (government) on matters they might otherwise take into their own hands? We're talking about being pacified and subdued, because the absence of pacification means a society where people can have no meaningful or reliable expectation of everyday life.
Humans are habitual creatures and we tend to favor whatever flavor of government allows us to form and keep our habits without interference. We can live under the most oppressive regimes and not buck the system so long as there is no painful shock to our daily rituals (see: Mussolini and Punctual Mass Transit) - and we can live under the most tolerant and liberal systems, but work automatically to undermine them when they challenge the habits and assumptions we have come to rely upon to define ourselves (see: Gay Marriage).
The rhetoric of "liberty" and "freedom" are tools used by all sides at various times, and like any rhetorical device, they can mean almost anything depending on how you phrase them. People like to use these words to encourage (or attack) each other, always using them in whatever way will best help their own cause, which is almost never in any real allegiance to freedom or liberty per se, but rather in an allegiance to their own worldview and set of habits, and whatever they think is most likely to secure those.
As for Inverted Totalitarianism, that is exactly what most people have been asking for. If you were able to explain the way this works objectively to most humans, and get an honest answer from them, they would think it's a terrible thing unless they were at the top. That's the real crux of the matter. Not that democracies are failing but that we want them to fail.
A successful, liberal democracy does have the effect of pacifying the people. There's really very little difference between a "peaceful" population and a "pacified" one. When we speak of domestic peace and stability, don't we mean a society in which people defer to a common mediator (government) on matters they might otherwise take into their own hands? We're talking about being pacified and subdued, because the absence of pacification means a society where people can have no meaningful or reliable expectation of everyday life.
Humans are habitual creatures and we tend to favor whatever flavor of government allows us to form and keep our habits without interference. We can live under the most oppressive regimes and not buck the system so long as there is no painful shock to our daily rituals (see: Mussolini and Punctual Mass Transit) - and we can live under the most tolerant and liberal systems, but work automatically to undermine them when they challenge the habits and assumptions we have come to rely upon to define ourselves (see: Gay Marriage).
The rhetoric of "liberty" and "freedom" are tools used by all sides at various times, and like any rhetorical device, they can mean almost anything depending on how you phrase them. People like to use these words to encourage (or attack) each other, always using them in whatever way will best help their own cause, which is almost never in any real allegiance to freedom or liberty per se, but rather in an allegiance to their own worldview and set of habits, and whatever they think is most likely to secure those.
As for Inverted Totalitarianism, that is exactly what most people have been asking for. If you were able to explain the way this works objectively to most humans, and get an honest answer from them, they would think it's a terrible thing unless they were at the top. That's the real crux of the matter. Not that democracies are failing but that we want them to fail.
3009
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Inverted totalitarianism, Superpower and managed democracy
« on: May 22, 2008, 06:18:26 pm »
The biggest problem with liberal democracy is that it works. It makes people comfortable, and people don't act or think when they are comfortable. They just go along. And, of course, they eat up the propaganda which besides keeping them mostly pacified, it makes them suspicious of one another, and it keeps them very much uneducated about what they should actually do when something happens that makes them realize their "liberal democracy" is gone.
So, it turns out that the best way to manage a government is also the worst way to plan for its continued success.
So, it turns out that the best way to manage a government is also the worst way to plan for its continued success.
3010
Or Kill Me / Re: Decagons are regular. Oregons are fucking dull.
« on: May 22, 2008, 06:06:27 pm »
to set the record straight:
a) Oregonians are stupid, but no more so per capita than anyone else. Taking the entire universe into account, they are still 15% percent more likely to fill out a federal tax form correctly than the average chunk of space rock. That counts for something, I'm sure.
b) It isn't "Global Warming" anymore. Now it's "Climate Change." They do this so they can say "I told you so" no matter what the temperature is next year. I realize that "liberals" are duty-bound to adhere to the words and obey the commandments of the Goracle, but I fail to see how that involves me. On the topic of man-made climate change, there are two possibilities as far as I know: 1) It's true, we're responsible, and if Nature is worth her salt she'll adapt to survive; or 2) It's bullshit, we're not responsible, and Al Gore can fuck all the goats he wants without worrying about his Carbon Footprint.
c) When, in the course of Human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to pass ridiculous legislation regarding any matter at all, it is always safe to consult Americans, because we are the best there is in that department.
a) Oregonians are stupid, but no more so per capita than anyone else. Taking the entire universe into account, they are still 15% percent more likely to fill out a federal tax form correctly than the average chunk of space rock. That counts for something, I'm sure.
b) It isn't "Global Warming" anymore. Now it's "Climate Change." They do this so they can say "I told you so" no matter what the temperature is next year. I realize that "liberals" are duty-bound to adhere to the words and obey the commandments of the Goracle, but I fail to see how that involves me. On the topic of man-made climate change, there are two possibilities as far as I know: 1) It's true, we're responsible, and if Nature is worth her salt she'll adapt to survive; or 2) It's bullshit, we're not responsible, and Al Gore can fuck all the goats he wants without worrying about his Carbon Footprint.
c) When, in the course of Human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to pass ridiculous legislation regarding any matter at all, it is always safe to consult Americans, because we are the best there is in that department.
3011
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Black Sheep ARE still Sheep
« on: May 14, 2008, 05:39:43 pm »
if (cat == long) then { lulz; }
3012
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Black Sheep ARE still Sheep
« on: May 14, 2008, 04:09:00 pm »
that works too. i'm not particularly interested in forcing the notion that there is any meaningful way to completely rise above one's programming. i'm not convinced that there is any way to have a fully original thought in the first place, much less to perform a fully original function.
3013
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: Black Sheep ARE still Sheep
« on: May 14, 2008, 03:55:04 pm »
an aversion to authority indicates a healthy desire to control your own destiny and shape your own situation.
but it can also indicate an unhealthy desire to be the authority you despise - to not know when to stop wanting more control over "your situation," which is a concept sufficiently elastic to include almost anything.
the question is, where does the individual end and the collective begin? it is the same question that spawned discussions on the Machine.
do you buck the system because it has wronged you? do you buck the system because it is ugly or ineffective? do you buck the system because you cannot control it? all of these are good enough motives at first, but they are fundamentally flawed in that they assume there is such a thing as a Perfect System. Once you are in control, you assume you have arrived at such Perfect System, but no system is perfect for everyone, so you become what you fought, and someone else becomes what you once were.
So, personally, like George Mallory, I buck the System because it is there. There is no system that exists that does not fit that description.
but it can also indicate an unhealthy desire to be the authority you despise - to not know when to stop wanting more control over "your situation," which is a concept sufficiently elastic to include almost anything.
the question is, where does the individual end and the collective begin? it is the same question that spawned discussions on the Machine.
do you buck the system because it has wronged you? do you buck the system because it is ugly or ineffective? do you buck the system because you cannot control it? all of these are good enough motives at first, but they are fundamentally flawed in that they assume there is such a thing as a Perfect System. Once you are in control, you assume you have arrived at such Perfect System, but no system is perfect for everyone, so you become what you fought, and someone else becomes what you once were.
So, personally, like George Mallory, I buck the System because it is there. There is no system that exists that does not fit that description.
3014
The Richard Nixon school of ballet and the arts / Re: ITT: Call It Now, Be Right Later
« on: May 14, 2008, 03:26:23 pm »
I predict that one day, Daruko will wake up half-naked and hung over in a cold, filthy gutter behind a run-down bowling alley on the south side of Chicago, and will be visited by the ghost of Kerry Thornley, who will give Daruko the answer to the question that has defined his existence for three or more decades. The answer, of course, will be "five tons of flax," and Daruko will wonder why he hadn't picked up on that the first time he read the Principia.
3015
Think for Yourself, Schmuck! / Re: An article I found + resulting ideas
« on: May 07, 2008, 06:50:43 am »
Nigel:
If discordianism works for you, if it has helped you, then maybe there are other people who could benefit too. Maybe those people have never even heard of discordianism. So what's so bad about putting out information that just lets them know there's something out here that they might want to use?
For all your talk about Discordianism being highly individualized (and no better inherently than an individual Discordian), you're doing a good job of pigeonholing and defining it. So what if you're not interested? If you're not interested, then don't bother with this thread. Pretty simple.
As for myself, I like Discordianism not because it is a "religion" that has "saved" me or any such fucking nonsense, but because it's fun and it's one of the few distractions that have a purpose. And it has helped me learn how to take Very Serious Things... less seriously. And save myself some graying hair. And I am interested in presenting that possibility to other people who might also benefit. It isn't about "indoctrination," it's about bringing up possibilities that so many people are so obviously missing.
I'm not really an elitist, so I don't buy into this "if they don't figure it out for themselves then fuck 'em" bullshit. I think if you can help somebody, and if you feel like doing it, then there's no harm. And it can be fun anyway.
If discordianism works for you, if it has helped you, then maybe there are other people who could benefit too. Maybe those people have never even heard of discordianism. So what's so bad about putting out information that just lets them know there's something out here that they might want to use?
For all your talk about Discordianism being highly individualized (and no better inherently than an individual Discordian), you're doing a good job of pigeonholing and defining it. So what if you're not interested? If you're not interested, then don't bother with this thread. Pretty simple.
As for myself, I like Discordianism not because it is a "religion" that has "saved" me or any such fucking nonsense, but because it's fun and it's one of the few distractions that have a purpose. And it has helped me learn how to take Very Serious Things... less seriously. And save myself some graying hair. And I am interested in presenting that possibility to other people who might also benefit. It isn't about "indoctrination," it's about bringing up possibilities that so many people are so obviously missing.
I'm not really an elitist, so I don't buy into this "if they don't figure it out for themselves then fuck 'em" bullshit. I think if you can help somebody, and if you feel like doing it, then there's no harm. And it can be fun anyway.