"Taking any false premise to its logical conclusion gives a good approximation of insanity."
- Albert Einstein.
The problem with most political theories is that they're composed mostly of wishful thinking, and a belief requirement that most organized religions would be envious of. For example, talk a little smack about democracy, and you'll see fanaticism that was identical to the monarchists of old. Divine Right used to be the rallying cry; now it's "50%+1". We've all seen how well that works.
Communism, for example, requires that the majority of domesticated primates will do what's best for the group, rather than themselves. Likewise, Libertarianism fails to acknowledge Finagle, and operates under the assumption that individuals will do what's in their own best interests, and disregards all evidence to the contrary. Rational Anarchism assumes that monkeys won't form increasingly complex tribes.
Base your actions on a faulty premise, get a faulty result. You can bank on this the way you can bank on the fact that the sun will come up in the morning.
However, good luck convincing anyone of this. Political theories in general, and the above three in particular, are basically the religion of their adherents...Who WILL see things as they want them to be, not as they are. All three of the above examples are utter failures, and always will be, but there is never any shortage of people determined to worship at their altars anyway, for the same reason people in Kansas refuse to believe that the world is older than 6000 years, isn't flat, and wasn't put here for us to rape like a passed out sorority girl at a Tailhook convention.
They will argue justice, or liberty, or equality...All noble concepts, to be sure, but they will then argue that their flawed reasoning will somehow bring about these things. Antoine Lavoisier could tell you how these things usually work out.
Here's the deal: Domesticated primates can't operate without a system of governance, and no system of governance is perfect. As societies become more complex, the imperfections in any given system of governance become aggravated, until finally the system fails. The following period of anarchy isn't pretty at all, contains no liberty, justice, or equality, and invariably is replaced by the monkeys left in the aftermath. Minarchism/Libertarianism fails for the same reason...They are systems that cannot abide complexity.
As I have said before, any political theory that demands "purity" from monkeys is doomed. The less purity required, the more robust the system (You can, of course, take this too far).
So what to do? Few systems work, the ones that do don't work for long, and are invariably corrupted by the very societies they govern. The answer, of course, is to let the monkeys have their systems, and figure out how to remain autonomous within that system. I'm going to twist the meaning of the "Temporary Autonomous Zone" just a bit, and make it more resemble the Speakeasys of the prohibition era.
Or: Have your fun, just don't let the monkeys know about it. Fact is, the very complexity that causes the monkey's systems to fail also allows you to operate under their radar. I'll be talking more about this in installment #2.
Okay for now,
Dok
Everything looks good on paper.
Quote from: Suu on March 23, 2010, 04:58:13 PM
Everything looks good on paper.
This. And if you point out the flaws in their logic, you're a "reactionary" or a "shill".
The problem in all systems isn't the system, they can all "work". It's human nature that doesn't work.
Quote from: Suu on March 23, 2010, 05:00:36 PM
The problem in all systems isn't the system, they can all "work". It's human nature that doesn't work.
Human nature works just fine. It's when we try to ignore human nature to make a pretty ideal work that the problems start. Pouring brake fluid into an engine's oil pan won't keep the engine running, no matter how much you'd like it to...likewise, expecting humans to change to fit a pet political theory is an excercise in futility.
The problem I see with these three systems (and all forms of idealism, really) is that they completely misunderstand game theory. They assume that humans will always act in their long-term rational self-interest, which we all know never happens. Most people have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to politics. We don't care about making things better for our great-grandchildren. We want to know how we can make a buck in the next 15 minutes and fuck anyone that gets in our way. Sure all of those forms work on paper, but humans don't live on paper. We live in the jungle where humans are dumb, short-sighted, and lie constantly.
You have to start from where people are, if you want them to go anywhere else. Any system which doesn't recognise that people will sometimes cooperate and sometimes be selfish, sometimes be victim to circumstances beyond their control, sometimes attempt to game the system etc etc and incorporate that into the changes they want to make isn't doing political theory - they're creating Mary Suetopias (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySuetopia).
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on March 23, 2010, 05:11:43 PM
The problem I see with these three systems (and all forms of idealism, really) is that they completely misunderstand game theory. They assume that humans will always act in their long-term rational self-interest, which we all know never happens. Most people have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to politics. We don't care about making things better for our great-grandchildren. We want to know how we can make a buck in the next 15 minutes and fuck anyone that gets in our way. Sure all of those forms work on paper, but humans don't live on paper. We live in the jungle where humans are dumb, short-sighted, and lie constantly.
Precisely. And this is why we should be looking at ways to survive - and maybe even have a good time - in their system, rather than wasting our time spinning our wheels with alternatives that cannot work, and would never be accepted even if they did. The next portion I plan to write is intented to further this concept.
I look forward to reading your next one, Dok. :)
Quote from: Cain on March 23, 2010, 05:12:51 PM
You have to start from where people are, if you want them to go anywhere else. Any system which doesn't recognise that people will sometimes cooperate and sometimes be selfish, sometimes be victim to circumstances beyond their control, sometimes attempt to game the system etc etc and incorporate that into the changes they want to make isn't doing political theory - they're creating Mary Suetopias (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySuetopia).
Precisely. And since most primate politics are driven by a horrible form of pragmatism, the Mary Suetopia is doomed from inception.
Very good, Dok!
I've been figuring that's your take. i had seen you bash all the political systems without professing what should be done, and it occurred to me that you likely seek the same thing I'm seeking when you cut to the chase: privilege.
When I talk about politics, it's usually from a libertarian type standpoint without all the bells and whistles. Just sort of a don't tread on me perspective. But I really can't do it with much conviction. I don't really believe it's possible on any practical scale. And if my ramblings actually stir something up and a big fish bites, I usually just cut the line, because I'm not really trying catch that fish....
Even though I realize that what I truly want is privilege, I haven't really done much in the way of achieving this. It's a fear of.... something. Perhaps being detected by the Machine as a Nobody seeking Something. Or perhaps of what I might become if I abandon the notion of working within the system to make it more resemble a system that will still work while allowing the Slack that I seek. The conflict there I guess is that the side of me that wants the system to give maximum freedom seems to be impeded by the over men with their privilege. I don't want to be like them. Or mebbee I do...
Heaven help me, I think I'm evil...
It's tough having a conversation with said-purists. I used to be one, after all. The notion that government is not there to deal with what is but instead create what should be is a religious concept that many think they'd die for.
Well, they are certainly willing to ruin holidays and Gramma's Turkey Feast over it, anyway.
I get weary of said purists, sharing DNA with so many of them.
I like this, Dok. Mittens.
This is pretty much true, I can't think of anything to add or subtract. Still, posting to say I liked it.
Good work, Dok. Speaking as an anarchist, I agree with you on it's viability. Lovely ideal, but due to our immaturity as a species, impossible to implement. Anyway, can't wait for the next one.
Regardless, :mittens: mate.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 23, 2010, 06:26:30 PM
Very good, Dok!
I've been figuring that's your take. i had seen you bash all the political systems without professing what should be done, and it occurred to me that you likely seek the same thing I'm seeking when you cut to the chase: privilege.
When I talk about politics, it's usually from a libertarian type standpoint without all the bells and whistles. Just sort of a don't tread on me perspective. But I really can't do it with much conviction. I don't really believe it's possible on any practical scale. And if my ramblings actually stir something up and a big fish bites, I usually just cut the line, because I'm not really trying catch that fish....
Even though I realize that what I truly want is privilege, I haven't really done much in the way of achieving this. It's a fear of.... something. Perhaps being detected by the Machine as a Nobody seeking Something. Or perhaps of what I might become if I abandon the notion of working within the system to make it more resemble a system that will still work while allowing the Slack that I seek. The conflict there I guess is that the side of me that wants the system to give maximum freedom seems to be impeded by the over men with their privilege. I don't want to be like them. Or mebbee I do...
Heaven help me, I think I'm evil...
I have a solution, which will be proposed in the next essay. Not saying it's the RIGHT solution, but it's self-evident that the system is broken, and none of the alternatives can carry the load.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 24, 2010, 12:06:20 AM
Good work, Dok. Speaking as an anarchist, I agree with you on it's viability. Lovely ideal, but due to our immaturity as a species, impossible to implement. Anyway, can't wait for the next one.
Regardless, :mittens: mate.
If an idea isn't workable, then why adhere to it?
Quote from: Jenne on March 23, 2010, 06:36:31 PM
Well, they are certainly willing to ruin holidays and Gramma's Turkey Feast over it, anyway.
This is what Thanksgiving dinner is FOR, in our family.
QuoteIf an idea isn't workable, then why adhere to it?
At heart I'm an idealist, and that's the only ideal that makes sense to me. I know it can't work, but it something to work for. I use it as motivation, I guess.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 24, 2010, 01:15:51 AM
QuoteIf an idea isn't workable, then why adhere to it?
At heart I'm an idealist, and that's the only ideal that makes sense to me. I know it can't work, but it something to work for. I use it as motivation, I guess.
Life will beat that out of you soon enough. :lulz:
Yeah, probably. (shrug) I'll just enjoy it for as long as I can.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 24, 2010, 01:23:47 AM
Yeah, probably. (shrug) I'll just enjoy it for as long as I can.
Enjoy what? Who the hell enjoys pining for anarchy?
I mean BESIDES silly Frenchies in their striped shirts and berets, holding their cigarettes back ward and moaning "EET EES ALL SO BORRRIIIING!"
QuoteEnjoy what? Who the hell enjoys pining for anarchy?
Masochists, maybe? In all honesty, it's the idealism itself I enjoy. And hell, as long as I live up to my ideals, then I'm fine.
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 24, 2010, 01:30:49 AM
QuoteEnjoy what? Who the hell enjoys pining for anarchy?
Masochists, maybe? In all honesty, it's the idealism itself I enjoy. And hell, as long as I live up to my ideals, then I'm fine.
Wait til you try cynicism.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 01:35:32 AM
Quote from: Dr. James Semaj on March 24, 2010, 01:30:49 AM
QuoteEnjoy what? Who the hell enjoys pining for anarchy?
Masochists, maybe? In all honesty, it's the idealism itself I enjoy. And hell, as long as I live up to my ideals, then I'm fine.
Wait til you try cynicism.
I thought
that was what the frenchie you described was an adherent of?
also. i was almost certain that you would take umbrage with the term 'privilege' as what you seek. i even had a contingency response all ready written up!
QuoteWait til you try cynicism.
I have a feeling it'll suit me. :lulz:
Quote from: Iptuous on March 24, 2010, 02:10:26 AM
I thought that was what the frenchie you described was an adherent of?
No, that's ennui. Totally different thing.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 24, 2010, 02:10:26 AM
also. i was almost certain that you would take umbrage with the term 'privilege' as what you seek. i even had a contingency response all ready written up!
I figured it was a troll and blew past it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 02:18:20 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 24, 2010, 02:10:26 AM
also. i was almost certain that you would take umbrage with the term 'privilege' as what you seek. i even had a contingency response all ready written up!
I figured it was a troll and blew past it.
No. i was serious...
:cry:
Quote from: Iptuous on March 24, 2010, 02:24:07 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 02:18:20 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 24, 2010, 02:10:26 AM
also. i was almost certain that you would take umbrage with the term 'privilege' as what you seek. i even had a contingency response all ready written up!
I figured it was a troll and blew past it.
No. i was serious...
:cry:
It's so hard to tell, after the nationalism thing, and after you were hauling on my leg in the health care thread.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 02:38:56 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 24, 2010, 02:24:07 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 02:18:20 AM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 24, 2010, 02:10:26 AM
also. i was almost certain that you would take umbrage with the term 'privilege' as what you seek. i even had a contingency response all ready written up!
I figured it was a troll and blew past it.
No. i was serious...
:cry:
It's so hard to tell, after the nationalism thing, and after you were hauling on my leg in the health care thread.
yeah... that's my bad.
the nationalism thing was me willfully ignoring the negative associations that i know to be inextricably linked to it.
the taxation=slavery i figured was more obviously a troll than it apparently was.
of course, i never can quite shake the humpty dumpty in my head with regards to terms that i use in internal dialogues to the point that they stray from the common understanding, so i would still argue those points at least tongue in cheek.... this is perhaps just another example of the same thing.
my head's a mess :)
Quote from: Iptuous on March 24, 2010, 03:01:39 AM
my head's a mess :)
Could be worse. You could be stuck with the clunker I have.
Okay, Ippie...What DID you mean by "privilege"?
You dropped the hint about Democracy, but didn't quite throw it in the same light. "50% +1" vote FOR the it, the person, or the idea, and they expect it's the best idea, or the one people will be happy with. People change their minds, people are wrong, and the fact that a majority wanted it usually fails to mollify anyone out of disillusionment.
Since no system is perfect, refreshing or swapping them every so often will at least give people longer to find beef with the new one. the more sincere the change, the longer the honeymoon with the new one. (The Tree of Liberty needs no blood, but watering it with blood shows people you mean business.)
I like most of this and agree...
However, I am somewhat confused. You state that Rational Anarchy assumes that monkeys won't form more and more complex systems... which I'm confused by. You also conclude with:
QuoteThe answer, of course, is to let the monkeys have their systems, and figure out how to remain autonomous within that system.
QuoteOr: Have your fun, just don't let the monkeys know about it.
Both of these seem to support precisely what Rational Anarchism is...
Could you explain the difference please? :)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 02:17:05 PM
Okay, Ippie...What DID you mean by "privilege"?
Hm...
well, Privilege is, as you know, derived of the latin for 'private law'.
it seems to me that seeking autonomy within the system is the pursuit of this.
If, in pursuit of your personal autonomy within the monkey's system, you happen upon an opportunity to establish an arrangement that will further your autonomy, wouldn't you take it? Say, a simple good ol' boy friendship with the local sheriff who you met and is actually pretty cool... Seems like a no brainer. Make friends with the enforcers, and you're less likely to have them stomp on your TAZ. Hell, mebbee they'll let you come play in
their TAZ... So you've got a network of friends that you determine not to be knuckle draggers that you work with in order to avoid the control of the system.
Now, what about accumulation of wealth? That gives you some slack. Well, maybe it doesn't actually bestow slack itself, but if you have the comfort of wealth, I facilitates slack. So do you feel compelled to stay within The System for this purpose even though you don't for others? Or would you seek to avoid those aspects (and
only those) that are disadvantageous to your self?
Now, if you've established that you are able to enjoy yourself in spite of, and in violation of the monkey's govt., and you've also established that you will better yourself materially in the same manner, then the arrangements that you make in order to do this are effectively a private law. Privilege.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 24, 2010, 03:54:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 02:17:05 PM
Okay, Ippie...What DID you mean by "privilege"?
Hm...
well, Privilege is, as you know, derived of the latin for 'private law'.
it seems to me that seeking autonomy within the system is the pursuit of this.
If, in pursuit of your personal autonomy within the monkey's system, you happen upon an opportunity to establish an arrangement that will further your autonomy, wouldn't you take it? Say, a simple good ol' boy friendship with the local sheriff who you met and is actually pretty cool... Seems like a no brainer. Make friends with the enforcers, and you're less likely to have them stomp on your TAZ. Hell, mebbee they'll let you come play in their TAZ... So you've got a network of friends that you determine not to be knuckle draggers that you work with in order to avoid the control of the system.
Now, what about accumulation of wealth? That gives you some slack. Well, maybe it doesn't actually bestow slack itself, but if you have the comfort of wealth, I facilitates slack. So do you feel compelled to stay within The System for this purpose even though you don't for others? Or would you seek to avoid those aspects (and only those) that are disadvantageous to your self?
Now, if you've established that you are able to enjoy yourself in spite of, and in violation of the monkey's govt., and you've also established that you will better yourself materially in the same manner, then the arrangements that you make in order to do this are effectively a private law. Privilege.
Oh, well, then, I guess I don't have to write the next installment, because you have assumed something that I wasn't going to say at all, and then stated that this is what I fucking want.
Done. FFS.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 24, 2010, 03:38:41 PM
I like most of this and agree...
However, I am somewhat confused. You state that Rational Anarchy assumes that monkeys won't form more and more complex systems... which I'm confused by. You also conclude with:
QuoteThe answer, of course, is to let the monkeys have their systems, and figure out how to remain autonomous within that system.
QuoteOr: Have your fun, just don't let the monkeys know about it.
Both of these seem to support precisely what Rational Anarchism is...
Could you explain the difference please? :)
See above comment.
You know what? I'm fucking done with this series. Congratulations, Ippie and Ratatosk. Since you two insist on putting fucking words in my mouth, particularly ippie, after I said the follow up would explain what I meant by the goddamn TAZ, including methods I had NO FUCKING INTENTION OF USING, I guess I'll just let you two fuckers write the other four essays.
Privilege. Kiss my fucking ass.
:oops:
sorry, man.
i guess i shoulda stuck to a mittens emote, and stfu...
Quote from: Iptuous on March 24, 2010, 04:34:22 PM
:oops:
sorry, man.
i guess i shoulda stuck to a mittens emote, and stfu...
No, no, you can write what I was going to say, considering that:
1. Your comment had nothing to do with what I HAD ALREADY WRITTEN (so your emote argument is BULLSHIT), and
2. You obviously know precisely what the fuck I was going to write in the next fucking installment. That's why you were able to TELL ME WHAT THE FUCK I WAS THINKING, because God knows, NOBODY HAS A FRESH APPROACH EVER, it's just the SAME OLD SHIT, TIME AFTER TIME, because you won't have it any other fucking way, because GOD FORBID someone post something that doesn't fit into one of your pre-programmed responses, because then you might have to FUCKING THINK.
Me: Here's the problem, next I'll talk about the solution.
You: YOUR SOLUTION IS PRIVILEGE! UNNNNNNNNNNG!
Well, that's been headed off at the pass. You may now return to the same old tired-ass retread arguments.
I'll continue this series when I stop seeing red. Next year or so.
Well trolled, Ippie.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 04:24:52 PM
You know what? I'm fucking done with this series. Congratulations, Ippie and Ratatosk. Since you two insist on putting fucking words in my mouth, particularly ippie, after I said the follow up would explain what I meant by the goddamn TAZ, including methods I had NO FUCKING INTENTION OF USING, I guess I'll just let you two fuckers write the other four essays.
Privilege. Kiss my fucking ass.
What words did I put in your mouth? I ask a fucking question.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 24, 2010, 04:51:03 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 04:24:52 PM
You know what? I'm fucking done with this series. Congratulations, Ippie and Ratatosk. Since you two insist on putting fucking words in my mouth, particularly ippie, after I said the follow up would explain what I meant by the goddamn TAZ, including methods I had NO FUCKING INTENTION OF USING, I guess I'll just let you two fuckers write the other four essays.
Privilege. Kiss my fucking ass.
What words did I put in your mouth? I ask a fucking question.
You, like Ippie, decided how I was going to explain the TAZ. Then you told me, Socratically, what
I was really thinking.
Well, fuck you both. You finish the series, since it's obvious that there are no new ideas that don't fit into your particular BIP. That's right, there's never a fresh approach, and we can just sit here and cut and paste the same old arguments all fucking day long.
I knew this shit was going to happen, and said as much to more than one person. I honest to God don't know why I bothered. Foolish optimism, I suppose.
Unbunch your fucking panties, FFS. this is PD.com (where we can respond to posts however we choose, for better or worse) not Roger.com, where everyone hangs with baited breath to wait to see what YOU and ONLY YOU think about a subject and everybody just posts mittens and "IAWTC".
Jesus Tittyfucking Christ, now even the non-retarded people here are starting to be retarded. Did somebody put something in the water?
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 24, 2010, 05:06:34 PM
Unbunch your fucking panties, FFS. this is PD.com (where we can respond to posts however we choose, for better or worse) not Roger.com, where everyone hangs with baited breath to wait to see what YOU and ONLY YOU think about a subject and everybody just posts mittens and "IAWTC".
Jesus Tittyfucking Christ, now even the non-retarded people here are starting to be retarded. Did somebody put something in the water?
You're absolutely right. This isn't roger.com, it's PD, so I don't have to, you know, finish a thought. I can just have these two assholes do it for me. Also, I shouldn't write anything in a series, to make sure I take the time to write it properly, because expecting to receive comments on what I've written - as opposed to what I am GOING to write - is totally unreasonable. I should simply let other people make my point for me, because God forbid I make my own points in my own series, prior to having it dissected and analyzed. That's like assuming the whole board is my personal playground.
I should simply resign myself to backing arguments other people make for me. Otherwise, there's danger that there may be more than 3 or 4 arguments that people will have to memorize. That would complicate things.
And complexity is bad.
Yeah, and people misinterpreting your point in a thread is an awesome reason to have a hissy fit about it and take your ball and go home rather than expound on your idea for clarification.
Because, you know, when you decide to post something in installments everyone should just stay out of the thread until you're good and done talking.
Didn't you KILL The Good Reverend? Because this is suspiciously reminiscent of him.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 24, 2010, 05:15:37 PM
Yeah, and people misinterpreting your point in a thread is an awesome reason to have a hissy fit about it and take your ball and go home rather than expound on your idea for clarification.
Because, you know, when you decide to post something in installments everyone should just stay out of the thread until you're good and done talking.
They didn't misinterpret what I said.
I posted part one, and said I'd offer a solution in part two. They then told me what my part two was going to say.
So fuck 'em. Let them write it.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 24, 2010, 05:16:03 PM
Didn't you KILL The Good Reverend? Because this is suspiciously reminiscent of him.
Oh, yeah, that fucker's dead. Because he would have thrown a fit, and then written the next installment anyway.
I won't be putting up with this shit. I asked Ippie if his privilege comment was trolling, and he said no. Then I asked him what he meant by it, and he deliberately posted the most insulting shit he could come up with, given my background here. And it had nothing to do with what I had written, it was what he just KNEW I was going to write next.
Because there are only 4 political arguments. No more are necessary or wanted.
Also, I know frustration with the SAME TIRED SHIT - and the fact that everyone insists on projecting it onto any potential new argument - is "retarded", but I can't help myself. I have an extra chromosome.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 04:54:20 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 24, 2010, 04:51:03 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 04:24:52 PM
You know what? I'm fucking done with this series. Congratulations, Ippie and Ratatosk. Since you two insist on putting fucking words in my mouth, particularly ippie, after I said the follow up would explain what I meant by the goddamn TAZ, including methods I had NO FUCKING INTENTION OF USING, I guess I'll just let you two fuckers write the other four essays.
Privilege. Kiss my fucking ass.
What words did I put in your mouth? I ask a fucking question.
You, like Ippie, decided how I was going to explain the TAZ. Then you told me, Socratically, what I was really thinking.
Well, fuck you both. You finish the series, since it's obvious that there are no new ideas that don't fit into your particular BIP. That's right, there's never a fresh approach, and we can just sit here and cut and paste the same old arguments all fucking day long.
I knew this shit was going to happen, and said as much to more than one person. I honest to God don't know why I bothered. Foolish optimism, I suppose.
Dude, you way over interpreted what I stated.
You said:
QuoteRational Anarchism assumes that monkeys won't form increasingly complex tribes.
Now, I could have argued with this, because Rational Anarchism presumes that monkeys want and need and will create increasingly complex tribes and ways to govern those tribes. Its one of the foundation points of Rational Anarchism.
THEN you said:
QuoteThe answer, of course, is to let the monkeys have their systems, and figure out how to remain autonomous within that system. I'm going to twist the meaning of the "Temporary Autonomous Zone" just a bit, and make it more resemble the Speakeasys of the prohibition era.
Or: Have your fun, just don't let the monkeys know about it. Fact is, the very complexity that causes the monkey's systems to fail also allows you to operate under their radar. I'll be talking more about this in installment #2.
And these two statements describe 'Rational Anarchism'. You can twist the meaning of TAZ, or change it or modify it... but it has nothing to do with the fact that Rational Anarchims can be defined as: let the monkeys have their systems, and figure out how to remain autonomous within that system.
So, I tried to be nice and ask for further explanation.
QuoteCould you explain the difference please?
Would you prefer that instead of asking you to expound on something like a rational human being, I just call you an ignorant little fuck that is apparently shitting rants out of their ass without any idea of what they're talking about? I didn't presume what else you were gonna say... I WAS/AM ASKING about what you SAID RIGHT HERE.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 05:23:33 PM
Also, I know frustration with the SAME TIRED SHIT - and the fact that everyone insists on projecting it onto any potential new argument - is "retarded", but I can't help myself. I have an extra chromosome.
Well then, sack the fuck up (and keep writing) or shut the fuck up and go sulk in a corner by yourself. This intentional injection of personal drama and histrionics into what is supposed to be a forum for intelligent discussion is insulting to everyone who reads it.
This isn't Apple Talk. And you're just sinking to a level at or below that of the behavior you have a problem with if this is your response every time someone takes your idea and runs the wrong way with it.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 24, 2010, 05:24:48 PM
Would you prefer that instead of asking you to expound on something like a rational human being, I just call you an ignorant little fuck that is apparently shitting rants out of their ass without any idea of what they're talking about? I didn't presume what else you were gonna say... I WAS/AM ASKING about what you SAID RIGHT HERE.
You told me what my solution was going to be. I had already stated that I was going to post that solution, but instead you decided it was "rational anarchism" in a funny dress, and said so (just as Ippie told me it was mere privilege). The fact that you said it Socratically means nothing.
Since you two have decided what I was going to say, you can go ahead and say it for me. After all, I am both retarded and ignorant.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 24, 2010, 05:26:19 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 05:23:33 PM
Also, I know frustration with the SAME TIRED SHIT - and the fact that everyone insists on projecting it onto any potential new argument - is "retarded", but I can't help myself. I have an extra chromosome.
Well then, sack the fuck up (and keep writing) or shut the fuck up and go sulk in a corner by yourself.
Okay.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 05:28:13 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 24, 2010, 05:24:48 PM
Would you prefer that instead of asking you to expound on something like a rational human being, I just call you an ignorant little fuck that is apparently shitting rants out of their ass without any idea of what they're talking about? I didn't presume what else you were gonna say... I WAS/AM ASKING about what you SAID RIGHT HERE.
You told me what my solution was going to be. I had already stated that I was going to post that solution, but instead you decided it was "rational anarchism" in a funny dress, and said so (just as Ippie told me it was mere privilege). The fact that you said it Socratically means nothing.
Since you two have decided what I was going to say, you can go ahead and say it for me. After all, I am both retarded and ignorant.
You idiot, I didn't presume a damned thing. I ASKED YOU ABOUT WHAT YOU JUST SAID WHICH APPEARED TO CONTRADICT WHAT YOU JUST SAID. I did not presume ANYTHING about where you were going... I asked about where you were right then.
If the answer was "It will make more sense with the next installment" I would have been fine with that. I put no fucking words in your mouth and I most certainly didn't presume shit about your next piece of writing.
I mean, I could have... given the inaccuracy in facts thusfar... but I didn't I asked you to clarify, for me, what the difference was between your statement and the definition of something you already called wrong... as they appear identical IN THE CURRENT PIECE OF WRITING THAT YOU POSTED.
If you can't defend what you write. Don't fucking write.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 24, 2010, 05:33:17 PM
You idiot, I didn't presume a damned thing. I ASKED YOU ABOUT WHAT YOU JUST SAID WHICH APPEARED TO CONTRADICT WHAT YOU JUST SAID. I did not presume ANYTHING about where you were going... I asked about where you were right then.
If the answer was "It will make more sense with the next installment" I would have been fine with that.
Yeah, I should have done that.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 04:48:38 PM
Or: Have your fun, just don't let the monkeys know about it. Fact is, the very complexity that causes the monkey's systems to fail also allows you to operate under their radar. I'll be talking more about this in installment #2.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 24, 2010, 05:33:17 PM
If you can't defend what you write. Don't fucking write.
More to the point, if I can't defend what I haven't yet written, I shouldn't write.
And that sounds like a damn good solution.
Thread over.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 05:37:45 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 24, 2010, 05:33:17 PM
You idiot, I didn't presume a damned thing. I ASKED YOU ABOUT WHAT YOU JUST SAID WHICH APPEARED TO CONTRADICT WHAT YOU JUST SAID. I did not presume ANYTHING about where you were going... I asked about where you were right then.
If the answer was "It will make more sense with the next installment" I would have been fine with that.
Yeah, I should have done that.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 04:48:38 PM
Or: Have your fun, just don't let the monkeys know about it. Fact is, the very complexity that causes the monkey's systems to fail also allows you to operate under their radar. I'll be talking more about this in installment #2.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 24, 2010, 05:33:17 PM
If you can't defend what you write. Don't fucking write.
More to the point, if I can't defend what I haven't yet written, I shouldn't write.
And that sounds like a damn good solution.
Thread over.
Yeah, that's a great solution. :kingmeh:
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 24, 2010, 05:40:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 05:37:45 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 24, 2010, 05:33:17 PM
You idiot, I didn't presume a damned thing. I ASKED YOU ABOUT WHAT YOU JUST SAID WHICH APPEARED TO CONTRADICT WHAT YOU JUST SAID. I did not presume ANYTHING about where you were going... I asked about where you were right then.
If the answer was "It will make more sense with the next installment" I would have been fine with that.
Yeah, I should have done that.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 04:48:38 PM
Or: Have your fun, just don't let the monkeys know about it. Fact is, the very complexity that causes the monkey's systems to fail also allows you to operate under their radar. I'll be talking more about this in installment #2.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 24, 2010, 05:33:17 PM
If you can't defend what you write. Don't fucking write.
More to the point, if I can't defend what I haven't yet written, I shouldn't write.
And that sounds like a damn good solution.
Thread over.
Yeah, that's a great solution. :kingmeh:
WTF? You proposed it.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 05:41:14 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 24, 2010, 05:40:44 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 05:37:45 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 24, 2010, 05:33:17 PM
You idiot, I didn't presume a damned thing. I ASKED YOU ABOUT WHAT YOU JUST SAID WHICH APPEARED TO CONTRADICT WHAT YOU JUST SAID. I did not presume ANYTHING about where you were going... I asked about where you were right then.
If the answer was "It will make more sense with the next installment" I would have been fine with that.
Yeah, I should have done that.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 23, 2010, 04:48:38 PM
Or: Have your fun, just don't let the monkeys know about it. Fact is, the very complexity that causes the monkey's systems to fail also allows you to operate under their radar. I'll be talking more about this in installment #2.
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 24, 2010, 05:33:17 PM
If you can't defend what you write. Don't fucking write.
More to the point, if I can't defend what I haven't yet written, I shouldn't write.
And that sounds like a damn good solution.
Thread over.
Yeah, that's a great solution. :kingmeh:
WTF? You proposed it.
No, I proposed that if you can't defend what you write (present tense) ... you still seem to be vacationing in crazyland where you believe that I somehow was bitching about what hadn't been written. But if it makes you feel better, believe what you want.
Just relax, everybody. I was enjoying this thread and was interested in where it was going... until it turned into a pissing contest. WTF is wrong with every body? Just fucking RELAX! People put words in peoples mouth around here all the time, no big deal. Relax. BUT people coming around and pissing on everything doesn't help anything either (I'm seeing a trend with this lately).
SOO
OT: Before I make any comment about this, I'm going to wait and hear Dok out in part two. Though, the idea of a space outside of the system sounds like it would just generate another system, just with different monkeys. But..
Dimo-
What the hell do I know?
Quote from: dimo on March 24, 2010, 05:58:00 PM
Just relax, everybody. I was enjoying this thread and was interested in where it was going... until it turned into a pissing contest. WTF is wrong with every body? Just fucking RELAX! People put words in peoples mouth around here all the time, no big deal. Relax. BUT people coming around and pissing on everything doesn't help anything either (I'm seeing a trend with this lately).
SOO
OT: Before I make any comment about this, I'm going to wait and hear Dok out in part two. Though, the idea of a space outside of the system sounds like it would just generate another system, just with different monkeys. But..
Dimo-
What the hell do I know?
Too pissed off to continue. Maybe some other time.
And it wasn't a space outside the system, but...aw, fuck it. It's goddamn hopeless.
Okay, done being pissed.
Speaking in a much more calm frame of mind, I think it's impossible to present a new idea at PD anymore.
I could have told you that. In fact, I think I DID tell you that, about a week ago, and then I spent 20+ pages of a thread getting slammed for being unsatisfied with the fact that PD has started down the path to EB&G-hood.
I'm just saying, if you're gonna bother trying anyway, there's no sense getting all bent halfway through and giving up.
Seriously though, once I get back to Maine and have gotten my first bloated summer paycheck, I'm gonna hit Syn up about taking over hosting of the "H" site and restarting it. Then we can bounce ideas back and forth without this sort of stupidity interjecting itself (for a few years, anyway...I think these sorts of things may have a finite lifespan) and invite people from PD if they are elitist enough for us and meet our lofty standards (IOW, they want to spend more time talking about what's going on in the world around them than they spend talking about themselves and the shit that's happening to them from a purely self-centered standpoint).
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 06:01:39 PM
Okay, done being pissed.
Speaking in a much more calm frame of mind, I think it's impossible to present a new idea at PD anymore.
Impossible, the majority of people here are hungry for new ideas, and would die (or worse) without them. This is PD. We rewrote and vastly improved the holy book of the craziest religion on earth with the BIP. We indoctrinated Steven Colbert into the Illuminati. People here are responsible for one of the shadowiest paramilitary organizations on the internet.
Basically, PD fucking rules. Things like this are just the parts that don't kick ass.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 24, 2010, 06:06:14 PM
I could have told you that. In fact, I think I DID tell you that, about a week ago, and then I spent 20+ pages of a thread getting slammed for being unsatisfied with the fact that PD has started down the path to EB&G-hood.
I'm just saying, if you're gonna bother trying anyway, there's no sense getting all bent halfway through and giving up.
Seriously though, once I get back to Maine and have gotten my first bloated summer paycheck, I'm gonna hit Syn up about taking over hosting of the "H" site and restarting it. Then we can bounce ideas back and forth without this sort of stupidity interjecting itself (for a few years, anyway...I think these sorts of things may have a finite lifespan) and invite people from PD if they are elitist enough for us and meet our lofty standards (IOW, they want to spend more time talking about what's going on in the world around them than they spend talking about themselves and the shit that's happening to them from a purely self-centered standpoint).
Thing is, ECH, it's not the users, it's the culture. Ippie and Rat both
knew what I was going to say before I said it, and had already stopped listening. Then Dimo came along and did the same thing...in the same paragraph in which he said he wouldn't.
Everyone's fossilized. It's like arguing with republicans or democrats. There is a stock response to stimuli, and that response is hardwired. Push button A, get response B. All three named respondants had their responses firmly fixed, and were going to argue those points despite their lack of accuracy or even relevance.
Consider:
1. I spoke of a problem inherent in all political systems, one being worse than the other. I stated that I had an idea, which I was going to explain today.
2. Rat, Ippie, and Dimo all made assumptions about what that solution would be, and then "poisoned the well", by stating what my position was sure to be (based on the fixed binary solutions they have learned over time).
3. I got upset (like a Pavlovian dog).
4. You came along and assigned blame to me (per SOP), and made a comment about "sacking up" which was bound to make everything smooth out (also per SOP).
5 people, 5 automatic responses. There was never a conversation in this thread, just 5 white mice in Skinner's lab.
To both support your theory and to question it at the same time, I will act true to form and rationally ask, once step 2 and 3 were reached, if there could have been another acceptable course of action.
LMNO
-I knew I was gonna do that, as usual.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 24, 2010, 06:15:06 PM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 24, 2010, 06:06:14 PM
I could have told you that. In fact, I think I DID tell you that, about a week ago, and then I spent 20+ pages of a thread getting slammed for being unsatisfied with the fact that PD has started down the path to EB&G-hood.
I'm just saying, if you're gonna bother trying anyway, there's no sense getting all bent halfway through and giving up.
Seriously though, once I get back to Maine and have gotten my first bloated summer paycheck, I'm gonna hit Syn up about taking over hosting of the "H" site and restarting it. Then we can bounce ideas back and forth without this sort of stupidity interjecting itself (for a few years, anyway...I think these sorts of things may have a finite lifespan) and invite people from PD if they are elitist enough for us and meet our lofty standards (IOW, they want to spend more time talking about what's going on in the world around them than they spend talking about themselves and the shit that's happening to them from a purely self-centered standpoint).
Thing is, ECH, it's not the users, it's the culture. Ippie and Rat both knew what I was going to say before I said it, and had already stopped listening. Then Dimo came along and did the same thing...in the same paragraph in which he said he wouldn't.
Everyone's fossilized. It's like arguing with republicans or democrats. There is a stock response to stimuli, and that response is hardwired. Push button A, get response B. All three named respondants had their responses firmly fixed, and were going to argue those points despite their lack of accuracy or even relevance.
Consider:
1. I spoke of a problem inherent in all political systems, one being worse than the other. I stated that I had an idea, which I was going to explain today.
2. Rat, Ippie, and Dimo all made assumptions about what that solution would be, and then "poisoned the well", by stating what my position was sure to be (based on the fixed binary solutions they have learned over time).
3. I got upset (like a Pavlovian dog).
4. You came along and assigned blame to me (per SOP), and made a comment about "sacking up" which was bound to make everything smooth out (also per SOP).
5 people, 5 automatic responses. There was never a conversation in this thread, just 5 white mice in Skinner's lab.
fair enough, although I wasn't (at least in my own mind) assigning blame to anyone, just trying to give you a helpful head-check because I thought you were veering into territory that was only undercutting yourself. I know you have feelings too, but I tend to operate under the assumption that you, like me, respond better to someone telling you to "sack up and finish the job" than you do to someone trying to either coddle you or dismiss you entirely.
ETA: that said, where does the culture spring from, if not from the users? I honestly think that as this "tribe" gets larger, the only solution that doesn't involve apathy or drastic measures (neither of which are currently an option IMO) is to have two separate but closely related sites. That way, everyone can get whichever "fix" they need at a given point in time without half of the tribe constantly pissing and moaning about the other half.
We need an exodus, or some kind of schism, is what you're hinting at.
Okay, how do we do it?
Dunno, but I'm thinking about it pretty hard. I'm not going to act for the sake of acting (I might not act at all), so any proposed solution might take a while to brew.
also, in spite of how thoroughly jacked this thread is, I'm really interested in hearing part 2 of Dok's essay.
2nd'ed. I've heard enough hints abuout it.
Me too, I hope it at least gets explained briefly soon.
My balls, they are blue.
I'd also be very interested in the second installment. I thought we had a good discussion about it. That's why these things are fun to read. They start actual conversations, thought provoking conversations at that. Really hope you continue writing Dok. :)
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 24, 2010, 06:57:33 PM
also, in spite of how thoroughly jacked this thread is, I'm really interested in hearing part 2 of Dok's essay.
Oh, I plan to, but not just yet. Instead, I'm going to skip to part 3 and then come back to 2. The reason I'm doing this is because the evidence suggests that people aren't able to listen, at least these days (wasn't true in October), because everyone's jammed filters over their eyes, and they can't read or listen to anything except through those filters. And if nobody is going to listen, and I know that nobody is going to listen, then my head isn't going to be in that zone it needs to be in to write the essay.
So instead, I'm going to post #3, which deals - coincidentally enough - with filters and the refusal to deal with issues objectively. Tonight or tomorrow.
Sounds cool, looking forward to reading it and part 2 when you get around to posting that.
I like the way you've started this Dok and I really want to see where you go with it.
Just an FYI for a few here...... :argh!:
I wasted 3 fucking bars on my cell phone going through this thread last night while some of you boys turned this into a pissing contest..... We've been here long enough to know when Roger posts something with a number in the title it is part of a series....
I WANT TO SEE Dok's solution and if he doesn't post it.... GRRRRRR
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 25, 2010, 12:10:33 AM
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on March 24, 2010, 06:57:33 PM
also, in spite of how thoroughly jacked this thread is, I'm really interested in hearing part 2 of Dok's essay.
Oh, I plan to, but not just yet. Instead, I'm going to skip to part 3 and then come back to 2. The reason I'm doing this is because the evidence suggests that people aren't able to listen, at least these days (wasn't true in October), because everyone's jammed filters over their eyes, and they can't read or listen to anything except through those filters. And if nobody is going to listen, and I know that nobody is going to listen, then my head isn't going to be in that zone it needs to be in to write the essay.
So instead, I'm going to post #3, which deals - coincidentally enough - with filters and the refusal to deal with issues objectively. Tonight or tomorrow.
Um, just asking, but where is #3, already?
Quote from: Ratatosk on March 24, 2010, 05:24:48 PM
Dude, you way over interpreted what I stated.
You said:
QuoteRational Anarchism assumes that monkeys won't form increasingly complex tribes.
Now, I could have argued with this, because Rational Anarchism presumes that monkeys want and need and will create increasingly complex tribes and ways to govern those tribes. Its one of the foundation points of Rational Anarchism.
THEN you said:
QuoteThe answer, of course, is to let the monkeys have their systems, and figure out how to remain autonomous within that system. I'm going to twist the meaning of the "Temporary Autonomous Zone" just a bit, and make it more resemble the Speakeasys of the prohibition era.
Or: Have your fun, just don't let the monkeys know about it. Fact is, the very complexity that causes the monkey's systems to fail also allows you to operate under their radar. I'll be talking more about this in installment #2.
And these two statements describe 'Rational Anarchism'. You can twist the meaning of TAZ, or change it or modify it... but it has nothing to do with the fact that Rational Anarchims can be defined as: let the monkeys have their systems, and figure out how to remain autonomous within that system.
So, I tried to be nice and ask for further explanation.
QuoteCould you explain the difference please?
Would you prefer that instead of asking you to expound on something like a rational human being, I just call you an ignorant little fuck that is apparently shitting rants out of their ass without any idea of what they're talking about? I didn't presume what else you were gonna say... I WAS/AM ASKING about what you SAID RIGHT HERE.
Your argument currently is way too unsound to be respected. Defining two things using the same definition will automatically make them identically the same--in this case, Whatever Dok Howl's Thinking and "Rational Anarchism". Claims in your own words, better yet
quotes from others that are specifically about "Rational Anarchism", would do wonders to improve this discussion.
Quote from: Template on March 29, 2010, 05:45:28 PM
Um, just asking, but where is #3, already?
On the way. Hopefully today. Tomorrow at the latest.
I agree with most of what you are saying. The exception being that you can only have fun and ignore the rules of the game that the 'monkeys' have put in place in so far as the rules of the game don't impede your fun making, as soon as these rules start casting a shadow over the fun you, and possibly others are having, there are really only a few options, you can either go down doing what you want to do and get black baged for your troubles, because it will happen, or you can role over and play the perfect little lap dog that they want you to be, or you can try and re-write that part of the code in the game, so that the fun times don't have to stop at all.
And so starts the revolution, because as soon as you start fighting one part of the machine, it's inbuilt secondary defence systems are activated, and to fight one thing you really have to try and fight the whole thing, and this is the problem, this scares people into submission, which makes the re-coding of that part of the machine all that much harder.
This of course is my opinion.
Very well said and writin though.
Quote from: Silver Stag on March 29, 2010, 11:26:01 PM
I agree with most of what you are saying. The exception being that you can only have fun and ignore the rules of the game that the 'monkeys' have put in place in so far as the rules of the game don't impede your fun making, as soon as these rules start casting a shadow over the fun you, and possibly others are having, there are really only a few options, you can either go down doing what you want to do and get black baged for your troubles, because it will happen, or you can role over and play the perfect little lap dog that they want you to be, or you can try and re-write that part of the code in the game, so that the fun times don't have to stop at all.
And so starts the revolution, because as soon as you start fighting one part of the machine, it's inbuilt secondary defence systems are activated, and to fight one thing you really have to try and fight the whole thing, and this is the problem, this scares people into submission, which makes the re-coding of that part of the machine all that much harder.
Very well said and writin though.
There's another option. Part 3 comes out tomorrow, and part 2 (the part with that option) should be out before the end of the week.
Secrecy picks up where privacy leaves off.
I'm guessing that's part of where Dok Howl is going, though I really want to see how he says it.
In any case, it's something that's useful to know. It's not a crime until you're caught, so DON'T GET CAUGHT. Easier said than done, of course.