As reposted to Scrubgenius:
Nigel: Since when is marketing a conspiracy theory?
Roger: Since it started working. Ever since the 8 circuit model was adopted, in other words. They figured out that ads with women draped over cars sold magazines with the ads, not the cars themselves. So they went with the 8 circuit model, discredited Leary (with his assistance), and then put the shit to work. That's why the 8 circuit model is found in marketing and political science classes, but not psychology classes.
You can't swing a dead cat without hitting an example of the model in use. Every commercial on TV, for example.
So it's a CT. It's just a CT that happens to be TRUE.
An interesting dichotomy exists between television shows and television commercials.
The commercials use the 8 circuit model to emphasize a myth of individuality (some of which are done in a diabolically clever way, like the "Bluebell Ice Cream" commericials), while the shows emphatically state that it's okay for an individualist to conform to the group or submit to authority by his or her own choice (that choice, of course, being an illusion). Specific examples would be "24", where we "choose to allow" people like Jack Bauer to torture people for the common good, because he's an even more "rugged individualist" than we are, and can therefore be trusted to act in our stead.
An interesting dichotomy exists between television shows and television commercials.
The commercials use the 8 circuit model to emphasize a myth of individuality (some of which are done in a diabolically clever way, like the "Bluebell Ice Cream" commericials), while the shows emphatically state that it's okay for an individualist to conform to the group or submit to authority by his or her own choice (that choice, of course, being an illusion). Specific examples would be "24", where we "choose to allow" people like Jack Bauer to torture people for the common good, because he's an even more "rugged individualist" than we are, and can therefore be trusted to act in our stead.
Nigel: Yeah, it's pretty interesting how so many TV shows right now center around an agency that's bigger than the government, or an individual (or individuals) who operate outside of the law, essentially taking care of things for the rest of us.
It's an odd dichotomy, reinforcing the idea of "rugged individualism GOOD!" while also providing the comforting notion that we're all being taken care of.
Roger: It's also funny how people can't or won't look at the situation, because it hits them square in the 2nd circuit. You can explain until you're blue in the face, and they CAN'T LOOK AT IT.
Conditioning is a terrible thing.
Nigel: Yeah, it's true. Trust me, I've tried to have this conversation before, about how the "rugged individualism" that Americans pride ourselves on so much is actually toxic and anti-community, as well as paradoxically anti-survival. Which is part of why I'm so interested in its origins.
People really can't wrap their heads around it, and avoid the shit out of it. Especially enlightened liberals, who feel special and hate the masses etc etc. They've bought into it completely, and it's too uncomfortable for them to examine the possibility that the only way to build a healthy society is to actually FUCKING BE A SOCIETY.
Roger: Yep. It particularly doesn't fly in "rugged individualist" states, like Alaska (Alty seems to be an exception). Or Texas, for that matter. But you are correct. While certain regions may have it worse than others, ALL OF THEM HAVE IT. And I could see how the left fringe would really, really fall for it, just as much as the teabaggers..."The sheeple don't understand."
Nigel: Exactly... and as the Common Walls project existed to try to expound upon, a divided population is an easy population to control and manipulate. The "Rugged Individualism" meme is inherently divisive.
Roger: DING! Post of the fucking year. That's a connection I hadn't made. We can do something with this.
LMNO: I was just about to say something similar. Also, it's funny there's a dichotomy between the pro-healthcare stance around here, the pro-takes-a-villiage mentality expressed, even a pro-Project-Mayhem-no-precious-snowflake-or-unicorn memeswamp... and the now-rearing "individuality" idea.
Paes: GET OUT OF MY SELF-CONSISTENT WORLDVIEW, YOU MANIAC.
Roger: What's especially funny is that when I made a series of posts undermining my own earlier arguments, people COULD NOT SEE THE POSTS. Too much ouch on the old 2d circuit.
Nigel: Ideas that are really uncomfortable often become invisible.
LMNO: This is a beautiful layman rephrasing of "cognitive dissonance".
Paes: I REJECT THE IDEA THAT I AM REJECTING IDEAS AUTOMATICALLY.
Roger: I am in serious danger of having an idea, here. Funny thing with the original topic...The 2nd amendment spells out the right of individuals to bear arms, with the justfication in the explanitory clause being that they can therefore operate in a GROUP known as a "militia". There's something down this fucking rabbit hole. I just have to keep digging.
See, here's the thing. We're primates. The only "individuals" in the primate world are those driven out of the pack. Now, I'm NOT saying that people shouldn't think for themselves, or that we should all engage in 100% pack mentality, but I AM saying that the DEFAULT position is pack thinking. And I think I'm also saying that being driven out of the pack CAN be a GOOD thing, under certain circumstances...But that being said, you are most often going to have one unhappy, dysfunctional primate.
And maybe a small percentage of those unhappy, dysfunctional primates do things like go on shooting sprees.
Paes: MUST RECONCILE NEED TO BE NOT THEM WITH NEED TO BE PART OF THEM
Roger: And that's the fucking beauty of it. It's a false dichotomy. You can be BOTH part of the pack and an individual. In fact, you kind of HAVE to be both. In other words, the question isn't "how can I be an individual and not part of the pack", but "How can I be an individual while remaining part of the pack." And THAT is the disconnect. Right wingers want to be lone wolves, and left wingers want to collectivize. Both answers, by themselves, are wrong. Instead, the goal should be to create a society in which the rights of the individual are best served by cooperation within the group. A bunch of guys in wigs proposed something similar (though less inclusive) a couple of hundred years ago, but nobody took them seriously.
Nigel: I am a rock may as well be our national anthem. Which is interesting, simply because isolation is the single most psychologically damaging environmental factor for the human psyche; worse than physical and sexual abuse. Well, saying that it's worse than stress is incorrect: Other than catastrophic trauma, isolation is the single greatest psychological stressor known to our species.
Roger: And we have reached the bottom of the rabbit hole, folks.
We have been sold - indeed, sold ourselves - on the idea of harming ourselves in the worst possible manner, for our own "good".
Always
Be
Closing
Nigel: BAM.
Roger: Yep. I think we've found one of the main motive forces of The Conspiracy, AND what separates The Conspiracy from a healthy society. Shit, now it looks OBVIOUS. And it's gonna piss some of the free market tards here off pretty bad.
Nigel: The problem is that telling Americans that Rugged Individualism™ isn't actually good for them and that it leads to isolation, disconnection, and a host of psychological problems including depression and antisocial behavior is a lot like telling the British that the sky is made of dancing clown ponies or telling Australians that peanut butter is food. They just ignore you because to them, what you're saying is completely ridiculous and not to be dignified by giving it a second thought.
Roger: Still gonna piss the free market tards off, and that alone is worth the time this took.
Nigel: I think you have missed the entire fucking point, here.
Roger: Can't help it. I'm a DUMBASS.
Some excellent points...though pissing off free market tards is IRRESISTABLE.
Another Rugged Individualist meme: Longarm from those little books that are the only thing Bubbas read...
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 19, 2012, 06:40:42 PM
Some excellent points...though pissing off free market tards is IRRESISTABLE.
Another Rugged Individualist meme: Longarm from those little books that are the only thing Bubbas read...
:?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 2012, 06:45:12 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 19, 2012, 06:40:42 PM
Some excellent points...though pissing off free market tards is IRRESISTABLE.
Another Rugged Individualist meme: Longarm from those little books that are the only thing Bubbas read...
:?
It's a series of skinny little books. Kind of a Harlequin Romance series for men.
It's essentially the same shit over and over. The bad guy is running rampant and they can't catch him by legal means, so they have to hire Longarm. He tracks the guy, gets laid on the way and then catches him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longarm_(book_series)
The American Individualism meme is a bill of goods, and the American people bought it.
This reminds me a lot of an idea I saw in an Alan Watts piece a while back: The idea that we are Different, but not Separate. I'm still not entirely sure how much stock I want to put into his ideas, but this seems to me like the best possible way of phrasing the distinction between Rugged Individualism™ and Social Individualism.
And reading this was a necessary slap in the face for me, I think. Despite my Canadian-ness, I'm one of those people who spends his life as a brooding, bitter misanthrope and then wonders why he doesn't have any friends and everyone at work thinks he's a freak.
I've become fascinated with Asch's conformity experiments and the interesting results that people in Japan and Britain, countries which are (for good reason) widely thought of as more communally-oriented, scored significantly lower for conformity than Americans on those experiments. It creates a sort of "Individualism Paradox" in which those who consider themselves most fiercely individualistic, when put to the test, are actually more conforming, possibly because of a sense of insecurity resulting from their disconnection from community.
The dangers of conformity became a media talking point in the 1950's, and people were encouraged to express their individuality. So far I haven't found this "American Individualism and the Dangers of Conformity" meme earlier than that, but I haven't had time to do very much research. The rise of Nazi Germany was widely blamed on conformity.
At the end of the war, the economy was facing some problems and the US needed consumers, badly. I am starting to suspect that the post-war emergence of self expression and free love was in part engineered by corporations who were seeking to create the largest group of materialists ever to exist on the planet, and met with great success... the Baby Boomers.
In other words, I think that hippies were the unintended consequence of a marketing campaign. :lol:
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 05:19:14 PM
I've become fascinated with Asch's conformity experiments and the interesting results that people in Japan and Britain, countries which are (for good reason) widely thought of as more communally-oriented, scored significantly lower for conformity than Americans on those experiments. It creates a sort of "Individualism Paradox" in which those who consider themselves most fiercely individualistic, when put to the test, are actually more conforming, possibly because of a sense of insecurity resulting from their disconnection from community.
The dangers of conformity became a media talking point in the 1950's, and people were encouraged to express their individuality. So far I haven't found this "American Individualism and the Dangers of Conformity" meme earlier than that, but I haven't had time to do very much research. The rise of Nazi Germany was widely blamed on conformity.
At the end of the war, the economy was facing some problems and the US needed consumers, badly. I am starting to suspect that the post-war emergence of self expression and free love was in part engineered by corporations who were seeking to create the largest group of materialists ever to exist on the planet, and met with great success... the Baby Boomers.
In other words, I think that hippies were the unintended consequence of a marketing campaign. :lol:
That makes a disturbing amount of sense.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 05:24:17 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 05:19:14 PM
I've become fascinated with Asch's conformity experiments and the interesting results that people in Japan and Britain, countries which are (for good reason) widely thought of as more communally-oriented, scored significantly lower for conformity than Americans on those experiments. It creates a sort of "Individualism Paradox" in which those who consider themselves most fiercely individualistic, when put to the test, are actually more conforming, possibly because of a sense of insecurity resulting from their disconnection from community.
The dangers of conformity became a media talking point in the 1950's, and people were encouraged to express their individuality. So far I haven't found this "American Individualism and the Dangers of Conformity" meme earlier than that, but I haven't had time to do very much research. The rise of Nazi Germany was widely blamed on conformity.
At the end of the war, the economy was facing some problems and the US needed consumers, badly. I am starting to suspect that the post-war emergence of self expression and free love was in part engineered by corporations who were seeking to create the largest group of materialists ever to exist on the planet, and met with great success... the Baby Boomers.
In other words, I think that hippies were the unintended consequence of a marketing campaign. :lol:
That makes a disturbing amount of sense.
Yeah, as soon as it started to click into place I got that creepy "OHSHI-" feeling.
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 05:38:13 PM
Yeah, as soon as it started to click into place I got that creepy "OHSHI-" feeling.
The really FUNNY part is, that's before ads were actually researched and designed properly.
Now they can create a "generation identity" inside of 8 weeks...the longest time it takes for a meme to propagate nation-wide, which is ALSO artificial. Memes work better when they're "aged", ie, when a COOL SUBCULTURE uses them for a while first. This explains the career of Justin Beiber, among other evils.
And you can tell when a meme has reached its saturation point (when it stops being effective). You can buy a Justin Beiber electric toothbrush now - I shit you not - which means his target audience is now 9 years old. He's done.
And then the next one will show up. He or she will be hyped to a fever pitch 48 hours before his or her first single hits the market, as "aging" can be fabricated in the case of entertainment. "Everyone loves <insert name>, watch for his new single on <insert date>!" The fact that it's his or her FIRST single, and that nobody's ever heard of him or her will be lost in the hype.
The marketing technique for branding a generation works the same way. A subculture is picked on the criteria of how vanilla it is (hipsters, etc) - which is to say, how easy it is to emulate - and that is constantly represented as the "cool" segment of the population. What these people like or want is catalogued so everyone will know what to buy and when.
When that generation is too old to have disposable income (when they have kids), the next generation is branded and moved into the public eye.
We've come a long way from hippies, Nigel. That shit took 15 years.
The Boomers are still driving our economy. One of the reasons there's so much of a future in the heathcare industry right now is because boomers are getting old.
And who do you think buys those Justin Bieber toothbrushes for their grandkids?
The thing is, the whole scheme worked out beautifully.
And we're still buying it, en masse, as a nation... Individuality! Self-reliance! Every man for himself!
We've bought a history of American individual self-reliance that never existed and turned it into a religion that's tearing apart the unions and keeping us from things like decent jobs, equitable pay, and healthcare, all while being more conformist than we ever were before we started being ruggedly individualistic, dying our hair purple, and piercing our faces.
Holy shit, good job, America!
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 06:02:49 PM
And we're still buying it, en masse, as a nation... Individuality! Self-reliance! Every man for himself!
We've bought a history of American individual self-reliance that never existed and turned it into a religion that's tearing apart the unions and keeping us from things like decent jobs, equitable pay, and healthcare, all while being more conformist than we ever were before we started being ruggedly individualistic, dying our hair purple, and piercing our faces.
Holy shit, good job, America!
We're fucking GENIUSES at that shit. And when I say "we", I mean each of us, individually. Together. But not in a collectivist sense, because that's for poor countries, like Canada and Europe.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 06:04:44 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 06:02:49 PM
And we're still buying it, en masse, as a nation... Individuality! Self-reliance! Every man for himself!
We've bought a history of American individual self-reliance that never existed and turned it into a religion that's tearing apart the unions and keeping us from things like decent jobs, equitable pay, and healthcare, all while being more conformist than we ever were before we started being ruggedly individualistic, dying our hair purple, and piercing our faces.
Holy shit, good job, America!
We're fucking GENIUSES at that shit. And when I say "we", I mean each of us, individually. Together. But not in a collectivist sense, because that's for poor countries, like Canada and Europe.
:lol:
I need to get my brain out of this travel-funk. Clearly this is one of the more important things that the PD Discordian Hive Mind has come up with recently, but I can't bring my thoughts into focus enough to create essays, pamphlets, or posters.
But I do think this needs to eventually crystallize into a GASM of some kind.
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 06:32:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 06:04:44 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 06:02:49 PM
And we're still buying it, en masse, as a nation... Individuality! Self-reliance! Every man for himself!
We've bought a history of American individual self-reliance that never existed and turned it into a religion that's tearing apart the unions and keeping us from things like decent jobs, equitable pay, and healthcare, all while being more conformist than we ever were before we started being ruggedly individualistic, dying our hair purple, and piercing our faces.
Holy shit, good job, America!
We're fucking GENIUSES at that shit. And when I say "we", I mean each of us, individually. Together. But not in a collectivist sense, because that's for poor countries, like Canada and Europe.
:lol:
Funny thing: Americans loudly defend a standard of living that their grandparents wouldn't have tolerated.
Quote from: Cainad on December 20, 2012, 06:38:04 PM
I need to get my brain out of this travel-funk. Clearly this is one of the more important things that the PD Discordian Hive Mind has come up with recently, but I can't bring my thoughts into focus enough to create essays, pamphlets, or posters.
But I do think this needs to eventually crystallize into a GASM of some kind.
Or something. A pamphlet, maybe. GASMs have become participatory events in which nobody actually participates.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 06:38:51 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 06:32:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 06:04:44 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 06:02:49 PM
And we're still buying it, en masse, as a nation... Individuality! Self-reliance! Every man for himself!
We've bought a history of American individual self-reliance that never existed and turned it into a religion that's tearing apart the unions and keeping us from things like decent jobs, equitable pay, and healthcare, all while being more conformist than we ever were before we started being ruggedly individualistic, dying our hair purple, and piercing our faces.
Holy shit, good job, America!
We're fucking GENIUSES at that shit. And when I say "we", I mean each of us, individually. Together. But not in a collectivist sense, because that's for poor countries, like Canada and Europe.
:lol:
Funny thing: Americans loudly defend a standard of living that their grandparents wouldn't have tolerated.
:lulz: Fucking insane. And we're actively all about tearing apart the infrastructure that once gave us the reputation of being a great nation.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 06:41:32 PM
Quote from: Cainad on December 20, 2012, 06:38:04 PM
I need to get my brain out of this travel-funk. Clearly this is one of the more important things that the PD Discordian Hive Mind has come up with recently, but I can't bring my thoughts into focus enough to create essays, pamphlets, or posters.
But I do think this needs to eventually crystallize into a GASM of some kind.
Or something. A pamphlet, maybe. GASMs have become participatory events in which nobody actually participates.
Yeah, unfortunately I think it might be time to retire the GASM. For now, anyway.
Can we go back to calling it "Larding", then?
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 07:13:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 06:38:51 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 06:32:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 06:04:44 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 06:02:49 PM
And we're still buying it, en masse, as a nation... Individuality! Self-reliance! Every man for himself!
We've bought a history of American individual self-reliance that never existed and turned it into a religion that's tearing apart the unions and keeping us from things like decent jobs, equitable pay, and healthcare, all while being more conformist than we ever were before we started being ruggedly individualistic, dying our hair purple, and piercing our faces.
Holy shit, good job, America!
We're fucking GENIUSES at that shit. And when I say "we", I mean each of us, individually. Together. But not in a collectivist sense, because that's for poor countries, like Canada and Europe.
:lol:
Funny thing: Americans loudly defend a standard of living that their grandparents wouldn't have tolerated.
:lulz: Fucking insane. And we're actively all about tearing apart the infrastructure that once gave us the reputation of being a great nation.
Michigan went "right to work". MICHIGAN.
Eventually, we'll have to do the entire labor movement over again.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 07:20:19 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 07:13:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 06:38:51 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 06:32:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 06:04:44 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 06:02:49 PM
And we're still buying it, en masse, as a nation... Individuality! Self-reliance! Every man for himself!
We've bought a history of American individual self-reliance that never existed and turned it into a religion that's tearing apart the unions and keeping us from things like decent jobs, equitable pay, and healthcare, all while being more conformist than we ever were before we started being ruggedly individualistic, dying our hair purple, and piercing our faces.
Holy shit, good job, America!
We're fucking GENIUSES at that shit. And when I say "we", I mean each of us, individually. Together. But not in a collectivist sense, because that's for poor countries, like Canada and Europe.
:lol:
Funny thing: Americans loudly defend a standard of living that their grandparents wouldn't have tolerated.
:lulz: Fucking insane. And we're actively all about tearing apart the infrastructure that once gave us the reputation of being a great nation.
Michigan went "right to work". MICHIGAN.
Eventually, we'll have to do the entire labor movement over again.
:x That's insane. Pure fucking insanity.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 20, 2012, 09:18:51 PM
:x That's insane. Pure fucking insanity.
HELLO, YOU MUST BE NEW HERE. ALLOW YOU TO INTRODUCE YOU TO YOUR FELLOW PATIENTS.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 2012, 02:23:38 PM
Paes: MUST RECONCILE NEED TO BE NOT THEM WITH NEED TO BE PART OF THEM
Think this was whichever holist is H0list. I've stopped paying attention.
Quote from: Pæs on December 20, 2012, 09:30:09 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 19, 2012, 02:23:38 PM
Paes: MUST RECONCILE NEED TO BE NOT THEM WITH NEED TO BE PART OF THEM
Think this was whichever holist is H0list. I've stopped paying attention.
I changed shit, for brevity's sake. Also, I stopped paying attention.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 20, 2012, 05:38:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 05:24:17 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 05:19:14 PM
I've become fascinated with Asch's conformity experiments and the interesting results that people in Japan and Britain, countries which are (for good reason) widely thought of as more communally-oriented, scored significantly lower for conformity than Americans on those experiments. It creates a sort of "Individualism Paradox" in which those who consider themselves most fiercely individualistic, when put to the test, are actually more conforming, possibly because of a sense of insecurity resulting from their disconnection from community.
The dangers of conformity became a media talking point in the 1950's, and people were encouraged to express their individuality. So far I haven't found this "American Individualism and the Dangers of Conformity" meme earlier than that, but I haven't had time to do very much research. The rise of Nazi Germany was widely blamed on conformity.
At the end of the war, the economy was facing some problems and the US needed consumers, badly. I am starting to suspect that the post-war emergence of self expression and free love was in part engineered by corporations who were seeking to create the largest group of materialists ever to exist on the planet, and met with great success... the Baby Boomers.
In other words, I think that hippies were the unintended consequence of a marketing campaign. :lol:
That makes a disturbing amount of sense.
Yeah, as soon as it started to click into place I got that creepy "OHSHI-" feeling.
The Pill.
Not birth control pills themselves, which are a GOOD thing, but all the 1060's media attention/buzz about THE PILL.
"THE WORLD IS NEVER GONNA BE THE SAME BECAUSE THE PILL"
Birth control existed prior to that.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 20, 2012, 09:43:09 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 20, 2012, 05:38:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 05:24:17 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 05:19:14 PM
I've become fascinated with Asch's conformity experiments and the interesting results that people in Japan and Britain, countries which are (for good reason) widely thought of as more communally-oriented, scored significantly lower for conformity than Americans on those experiments. It creates a sort of "Individualism Paradox" in which those who consider themselves most fiercely individualistic, when put to the test, are actually more conforming, possibly because of a sense of insecurity resulting from their disconnection from community.
The dangers of conformity became a media talking point in the 1950's, and people were encouraged to express their individuality. So far I haven't found this "American Individualism and the Dangers of Conformity" meme earlier than that, but I haven't had time to do very much research. The rise of Nazi Germany was widely blamed on conformity.
At the end of the war, the economy was facing some problems and the US needed consumers, badly. I am starting to suspect that the post-war emergence of self expression and free love was in part engineered by corporations who were seeking to create the largest group of materialists ever to exist on the planet, and met with great success... the Baby Boomers.
In other words, I think that hippies were the unintended consequence of a marketing campaign. :lol:
That makes a disturbing amount of sense.
Yeah, as soon as it started to click into place I got that creepy "OHSHI-" feeling.
The Pill.
Not birth control pills themselves, which are a GOOD thing, but all the 1060's media attention/buzz about THE PILL.
"THE WORLD IS NEVER GONNA BE THE SAME BECAUSE THE PILL"
Birth control existed prior to that.
Yes, but the woman finally had CONTROL over it with the pill.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 09:44:36 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 20, 2012, 09:43:09 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 20, 2012, 05:38:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 05:24:17 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 05:19:14 PM
I've become fascinated with Asch's conformity experiments and the interesting results that people in Japan and Britain, countries which are (for good reason) widely thought of as more communally-oriented, scored significantly lower for conformity than Americans on those experiments. It creates a sort of "Individualism Paradox" in which those who consider themselves most fiercely individualistic, when put to the test, are actually more conforming, possibly because of a sense of insecurity resulting from their disconnection from community.
The dangers of conformity became a media talking point in the 1950's, and people were encouraged to express their individuality. So far I haven't found this "American Individualism and the Dangers of Conformity" meme earlier than that, but I haven't had time to do very much research. The rise of Nazi Germany was widely blamed on conformity.
At the end of the war, the economy was facing some problems and the US needed consumers, badly. I am starting to suspect that the post-war emergence of self expression and free love was in part engineered by corporations who were seeking to create the largest group of materialists ever to exist on the planet, and met with great success... the Baby Boomers.
In other words, I think that hippies were the unintended consequence of a marketing campaign. :lol:
That makes a disturbing amount of sense.
Yeah, as soon as it started to click into place I got that creepy "OHSHI-" feeling.
The Pill.
Not birth control pills themselves, which are a GOOD thing, but all the 1060's media attention/buzz about THE PILL.
"THE WORLD IS NEVER GONNA BE THE SAME BECAUSE THE PILL"
Birth control existed prior to that.
Yes, but the woman finally had CONTROL over it with the pill.
Because diaphragms can take a whole three seconds to shove up there? :lol:
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 20, 2012, 09:47:30 PM
Because diaphragms can take a whole three seconds to shove up there? :lol:
Assuming the man gave her A) that 3 seconds, and B) the option.
Remember that spousal rape wasn't always a crime.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 09:49:12 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 20, 2012, 09:47:30 PM
Because diaphragms can take a whole three seconds to shove up there? :lol:
Assuming the man gave her A) that 3 seconds, and B) the option.
Remember that spousal rape wasn't always a crime.
:x :x :x
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 20, 2012, 09:43:09 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 20, 2012, 05:38:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 05:24:17 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 05:19:14 PM
I've become fascinated with Asch's conformity experiments and the interesting results that people in Japan and Britain, countries which are (for good reason) widely thought of as more communally-oriented, scored significantly lower for conformity than Americans on those experiments. It creates a sort of "Individualism Paradox" in which those who consider themselves most fiercely individualistic, when put to the test, are actually more conforming, possibly because of a sense of insecurity resulting from their disconnection from community.
The dangers of conformity became a media talking point in the 1950's, and people were encouraged to express their individuality. So far I haven't found this "American Individualism and the Dangers of Conformity" meme earlier than that, but I haven't had time to do very much research. The rise of Nazi Germany was widely blamed on conformity.
At the end of the war, the economy was facing some problems and the US needed consumers, badly. I am starting to suspect that the post-war emergence of self expression and free love was in part engineered by corporations who were seeking to create the largest group of materialists ever to exist on the planet, and met with great success... the Baby Boomers.
In other words, I think that hippies were the unintended consequence of a marketing campaign. :lol:
That makes a disturbing amount of sense.
Yeah, as soon as it started to click into place I got that creepy "OHSHI-" feeling.
The Pill.
Not birth control pills themselves, which are a GOOD thing, but all the 1060's media attention/buzz about THE PILL.
"THE WORLD IS NEVER GONNA BE THE SAME BECAUSE THE PILL"
Birth control existed prior to that.
The Pill was a huge game-changer. It was the first form of birth control that could be taken in secret and was difficult to sabotage or tamper with, so that married women whose husbands weren't on board with birth control could still prevent pregnancy. It works 24/7, so that it prevents pregnancy in the case of rape. It put women's reproductive control in their own hands.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 20, 2012, 09:55:54 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 20, 2012, 09:43:09 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 20, 2012, 05:38:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 05:24:17 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 05:19:14 PM
I've become fascinated with Asch's conformity experiments and the interesting results that people in Japan and Britain, countries which are (for good reason) widely thought of as more communally-oriented, scored significantly lower for conformity than Americans on those experiments. It creates a sort of "Individualism Paradox" in which those who consider themselves most fiercely individualistic, when put to the test, are actually more conforming, possibly because of a sense of insecurity resulting from their disconnection from community.
The dangers of conformity became a media talking point in the 1950's, and people were encouraged to express their individuality. So far I haven't found this "American Individualism and the Dangers of Conformity" meme earlier than that, but I haven't had time to do very much research. The rise of Nazi Germany was widely blamed on conformity.
At the end of the war, the economy was facing some problems and the US needed consumers, badly. I am starting to suspect that the post-war emergence of self expression and free love was in part engineered by corporations who were seeking to create the largest group of materialists ever to exist on the planet, and met with great success... the Baby Boomers.
In other words, I think that hippies were the unintended consequence of a marketing campaign. :lol:
That makes a disturbing amount of sense.
Yeah, as soon as it started to click into place I got that creepy "OHSHI-" feeling.
The Pill.
Not birth control pills themselves, which are a GOOD thing, but all the 1060's media attention/buzz about THE PILL.
"THE WORLD IS NEVER GONNA BE THE SAME BECAUSE THE PILL"
Birth control existed prior to that.
The Pill was a huge game-changer. It was the first form of birth control that could be taken in secret and was difficult to sabotage or tamper with, so that married women whose husbands weren't on board with birth control could still prevent pregnancy. It works 24/7, so that it prevents pregnancy in the case of rape. It put women's reproductive control in their own hands.
Assuming they could explain the clinic bill and pharmacy expenses.
Weren't the men still controlling the money for the most part?
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 20, 2012, 10:01:21 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 20, 2012, 09:55:54 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 20, 2012, 09:43:09 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 20, 2012, 05:38:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 05:24:17 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 05:19:14 PM
I've become fascinated with Asch's conformity experiments and the interesting results that people in Japan and Britain, countries which are (for good reason) widely thought of as more communally-oriented, scored significantly lower for conformity than Americans on those experiments. It creates a sort of "Individualism Paradox" in which those who consider themselves most fiercely individualistic, when put to the test, are actually more conforming, possibly because of a sense of insecurity resulting from their disconnection from community.
The dangers of conformity became a media talking point in the 1950's, and people were encouraged to express their individuality. So far I haven't found this "American Individualism and the Dangers of Conformity" meme earlier than that, but I haven't had time to do very much research. The rise of Nazi Germany was widely blamed on conformity.
At the end of the war, the economy was facing some problems and the US needed consumers, badly. I am starting to suspect that the post-war emergence of self expression and free love was in part engineered by corporations who were seeking to create the largest group of materialists ever to exist on the planet, and met with great success... the Baby Boomers.
In other words, I think that hippies were the unintended consequence of a marketing campaign. :lol:
That makes a disturbing amount of sense.
Yeah, as soon as it started to click into place I got that creepy "OHSHI-" feeling.
The Pill.
Not birth control pills themselves, which are a GOOD thing, but all the 1060's media attention/buzz about THE PILL.
"THE WORLD IS NEVER GONNA BE THE SAME BECAUSE THE PILL"
Birth control existed prior to that.
The Pill was a huge game-changer. It was the first form of birth control that could be taken in secret and was difficult to sabotage or tamper with, so that married women whose husbands weren't on board with birth control could still prevent pregnancy. It works 24/7, so that it prevents pregnancy in the case of rape. It put women's reproductive control in their own hands.
Assuming they could explain the clinic bill and pharmacy expenses.
Weren't the men still controlling the money for the most part?
I thought household expense was part of "women's work"
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 20, 2012, 10:01:21 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 20, 2012, 09:55:54 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 20, 2012, 09:43:09 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 20, 2012, 05:38:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 05:24:17 PM
Quote from: hølist on December 20, 2012, 05:19:14 PM
I've become fascinated with Asch's conformity experiments and the interesting results that people in Japan and Britain, countries which are (for good reason) widely thought of as more communally-oriented, scored significantly lower for conformity than Americans on those experiments. It creates a sort of "Individualism Paradox" in which those who consider themselves most fiercely individualistic, when put to the test, are actually more conforming, possibly because of a sense of insecurity resulting from their disconnection from community.
The dangers of conformity became a media talking point in the 1950's, and people were encouraged to express their individuality. So far I haven't found this "American Individualism and the Dangers of Conformity" meme earlier than that, but I haven't had time to do very much research. The rise of Nazi Germany was widely blamed on conformity.
At the end of the war, the economy was facing some problems and the US needed consumers, badly. I am starting to suspect that the post-war emergence of self expression and free love was in part engineered by corporations who were seeking to create the largest group of materialists ever to exist on the planet, and met with great success... the Baby Boomers.
In other words, I think that hippies were the unintended consequence of a marketing campaign. :lol:
That makes a disturbing amount of sense.
Yeah, as soon as it started to click into place I got that creepy "OHSHI-" feeling.
The Pill.
Not birth control pills themselves, which are a GOOD thing, but all the 1060's media attention/buzz about THE PILL.
"THE WORLD IS NEVER GONNA BE THE SAME BECAUSE THE PILL"
Birth control existed prior to that.
The Pill was a huge game-changer. It was the first form of birth control that could be taken in secret and was difficult to sabotage or tamper with, so that married women whose husbands weren't on board with birth control could still prevent pregnancy. It works 24/7, so that it prevents pregnancy in the case of rape. It put women's reproductive control in their own hands.
Assuming they could explain the clinic bill and pharmacy expenses.
Weren't the men still controlling the money for the most part?
Domestic expenses like doctor visits and pills would have been easy to skate under the radar. Women were supposed to take care of things like that, and they were cheap back then. Plus, easy to put the blame on cramps or "nerves".
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 20, 2012, 10:20:29 PM
Domestic expenses like doctor visits and pills would have been easy to skate under the radar. Women were supposed to take care of things like that, and they were cheap back then. Plus, easy to put the blame on cramps or "nerves".
My mother described sympathetic doctors in the 60s & 70s who would put it down as medicine for nervousness, which isn't actually a lie when you think about it.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 10:22:20 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 20, 2012, 10:20:29 PM
Domestic expenses like doctor visits and pills would have been easy to skate under the radar. Women were supposed to take care of things like that, and they were cheap back then. Plus, easy to put the blame on cramps or "nerves".
My mother described sympathetic doctors in the 60s & 70s who would put it down as medicine for nervousness, which isn't actually a lie when you think about it.
:lulz:
Getting pregnant totally makes me nervous...
Best response on Scrubgenius so far:
On Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:55:43 AM UTC-8, Dr. Marcus Membrane wrote:
The point was that even the idea of a "Rugged Individualist" is an idea we're programmed with.
I remember coming home from work one night on the Rapid Transit and hearing someone
singing. I turned around and saw a guy in the last seat masturbating and singing "La Bamba"
at the top of his lungs. As I made my way to another car, I remember thinking "Now THAT'S
a Rugged Individualist."
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 11:20:34 PM
Best response on Scrubgenius so far:
On Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:55:43 AM UTC-8, Dr. Marcus Membrane wrote:
The point was that even the idea of a "Rugged Individualist" is an idea we're programmed with.
I remember coming home from work one night on the Rapid Transit and hearing someone
singing. I turned around and saw a guy in the last seat masturbating and singing "La Bamba"
at the top of his lungs. As I made my way to another car, I remember thinking "Now THAT'S
a Rugged Individualist."
Oh FUCK YES.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/sections/mrsa-superbug/
the nging "La Bamba" year was '69
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 21, 2012, 08:16:26 AM
Oh FUCK YES.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on December 20, 2012, 11:20:34 PM
Best response on Scrubgenius so far:
On Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:55:43 AM UTC-8, Dr. Marcus Membrane wrote:
The point was that even the idea of a "Rugged Individualist" is an idea we're programmed with.
I remember coming home from work one night on the Rapid Transit and hearing someone
singing. I turned around and saw a guy in the last seat masturbating and singing "La Bamba"
at the top of his lungs. As I made my way to another car, I remember thinking "Now THAT'S
a Rugged Individualist."
Glad I found this topic.
Rugged individualists are NOT gun store commandos, mall ninjas, home-improvement specialists, MMA gym dwellers, survival course trainers, or the shooting range equivalent of the golf clubs "Pro".
These may be consumer whores, or carefully disguised plants. A person may go to one of their places looking for a simple item, solution, experience, or training. This person then models an example of "How it is done right", and shows them the ever increasingly expensive path to doing it MORE RIGHT.
Are they peddling some useful stuff along the way? Sure, possibly. They do not sell an ultimate goal, or ever transition to other areas to address other needs though. That is where the aspiring "Rugged Individual" has to step in and transition themselves. Hopefully before their weekends and paycheck up through retirement are tied up in malarky. Like Roger pointed out well - it's stuff to keep you busy until you die.
When does the Rugged Individual come into their own? I'm not even going to humor "Shit hits the fan" scenarios. These are modern mythology. An almost masturbatory desire that something will happen that puts everyone's skill set to shame BUT yours. Bow, scrape, and hoard at the altar of PREPAREDNESS long enough and you will be rewarded roughing it in comfort while everyone else screams and dies. (We have heard this before) (More on this eventually.)
Further, despite the "24" example given earlier, society doesn't actually WANT proper rugged individuals. Your neighbors don't want an armed nutter, your family doesn't want to worry, your workplace doesn't want someone to suggest or question the Manual or Procedure, and the TSA, despite how close at hand the gloves are, do not want to know about your corn intake.
More importantly, what kind of life do you want out of it all? We don't want to be another pinkboy corporate drone, we don't want to be the guy jacking it and singing on the subway (good an example of the principle as it may be), and if you think a life prepparing and flinching it fun go for it you are not worth my time.
One possible taken on this - be ready to calibrate your nuttiness to the situation.
Camo at the office - BAD.
Rifle on the subway JUST IN CASE SOMEONE SNAPS-BAD.
Bomb shelter - I hope you like rad poisoning instead of incineration- BAD.
Find where the line is. Press on it. Stretch their rear envelope Nigel Style. You have to find where and how to do this for your own situation, and carry it out where it makes sense to you. Ripping it may resulting in sudden quashing. If you think this is knuckling under to "The System", please bear in mind that an elephant shitting is part of a "System" too. IF you're going to walk up to its ass and decide to defy it you better have a damn fine cork. At least wear a hat.
Quote from: Richter on January 01, 2013, 04:25:04 PM
Glad I found this topic.
Rugged individualists are NOT gun store commandos, mall ninjas, home-improvement specialists, MMA gym dwellers, survival course trainers, or the shooting range equivalent of the golf clubs "Pro".
These may be consumer whores, or carefully disguised plants. A person may go to one of their places looking for a simple item, solution, experience, or training. This person then models an example of "How it is done right", and shows them the ever increasingly expensive path to doing it MORE RIGHT.
Are they peddling some useful stuff along the way? Sure, possibly. They do not sell an ultimate goal, or ever transition to other areas to address other needs though. That is where the aspiring "Rugged Individual" has to step in and transition themselves. Hopefully before their weekends and paycheck up through retirement are tied up in malarky. Like Roger pointed out well - it's stuff to keep you busy until you die.
When does the Rugged Individual come into their own? I'm not even going to humor "Shit hits the fan" scenarios. These are modern mythology. An almost masturbatory desire that something will happen that puts everyone's skill set to shame BUT yours. Bow, scrape, and hoard at the altar of PREPAREDNESS long enough and you will be rewarded roughing it in comfort while everyone else screams and dies. (We have heard this before) (More on this eventually.)
Further, despite the "24" example given earlier, society doesn't actually WANT proper rugged individuals. Your neighbors don't want an armed nutter, your family doesn't want to worry, your workplace doesn't want someone to suggest or question the Manual or Procedure, and the TSA, despite how close at hand the gloves are, do not want to know about your corn intake.
More importantly, what kind of life do you want out of it all? We don't want to be another pinkboy corporate drone, we don't want to be the guy jacking it and singing on the subway (good an example of the principle as it may be), and if you think a life prepparing and flinching it fun go for it you are not worth my time.
One possible taken on this - be ready to calibrate your nuttiness to the situation.
Camo at the office - BAD.
Rifle on the subway JUST IN CASE SOMEONE SNAPS-BAD.
Bomb shelter - I hope you like rad poisoning instead of incineration- BAD.
Find where the line is. Press on it. Stretch their rear envelope Nigel Style. You have to find where and how to do this for your own situation, and carry it out where it makes sense to you. Ripping it may resulting in sudden quashing. If you think this is knuckling under to "The System", please bear in mind that an elephant shitting is part of a "System" too. IF you're going to walk up to its ass and decide to defy it you better have a damn fine cork. At least wear a hat.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img519/5774/mittens2xi0.gif)
I've been awake for 30 minutes and this post is what I've had for breakfast so far.
People here have commented on the paradox that people buy into the idea of individualism yet are always displaying signals of being submissive to a certain community, and that it may be because of their feelings of insecurity; I think it might be something more general:
People operating under the "rugged individualism" meme do not want to live in a society (for certain definitions of "society", of course)
Not wanting to live in a society, they don't care for it.
Not caring for it, they don't pay attention to the idea.
Not paying attention to the idea, they don't know much about it.
Not knowing much about it, they can be part of one without realizing it.
And of course, if you are a part of something without even realizing that something is there you can be manipulated by it much more easily. Which explains why countries thought to be more community-oriented (Britain and Japan were cited) are less conforming: they are able to see some of the bullshit because they recognize their own community-related experiences better and are able to use that knowledge in their favor.
So the paradox does not arise from the conflict of an idea with a specific psychological reaction to it, it follows usually from the idea itself, it's a consequence of it. Does any of this make sense? :?
I think you hit the nail right on the head, Sano.
huh, i wonder if this is why Japan can be so socially conservative yet have some of the weirdest subcultures and entertainment. :|
That could very well be.
I love this thread.
The Paes screeching in the OP, is that fair game for marginalia? It wasn't clear from the thread who actually wrote it.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 08, 2013, 03:57:08 PM
The Paes screeching in the OP, is that fair game for marginalia? It wasn't clear from the thread who actually wrote it.
Paes wrote it; it's a transcription of a conversation that I think went down across threads or in fragments in another thread.
Now that I think about it, it's too bad this one went down too late to make it into BIP 2013, but on the other hand, I think there's probably about enough good material that's been written since then that we might consider starting another project after BIP 2013 makes it to press.
"The Bitter Tea Revolutionary Handbook" or something like that.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 08, 2013, 04:09:12 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 08, 2013, 03:57:08 PM
The Paes screeching in the OP, is that fair game for marginalia? It wasn't clear from the thread who actually wrote it.
Paes wrote it; it's a transcription of a conversation that I think went down across threads or in fragments in another thread.
Now that I think about it, it's too bad this one went down too late to make it into BIP 2013, but on the other hand, I think there's probably about enough good material that's been written since then that we might consider starting another project after BIP 2013 makes it to press.
"The Bitter Tea Revolutionary Handbook" or something like that.
I like that!
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 08, 2013, 04:18:38 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 08, 2013, 04:09:12 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 08, 2013, 03:57:08 PM
The Paes screeching in the OP, is that fair game for marginalia? It wasn't clear from the thread who actually wrote it.
Paes wrote it; it's a transcription of a conversation that I think went down across threads or in fragments in another thread.
Now that I think about it, it's too bad this one went down too late to make it into BIP 2013, but on the other hand, I think there's probably about enough good material that's been written since then that we might consider starting another project after BIP 2013 makes it to press.
"The Bitter Tea Revolutionary Handbook" or something like that.
I like that!
Squeee! Time for things to start brewing...
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE :fap:
:nopunsplease:
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 08, 2013, 04:23:03 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on July 08, 2013, 04:18:38 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 08, 2013, 04:09:12 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 08, 2013, 03:57:08 PM
The Paes screeching in the OP, is that fair game for marginalia? It wasn't clear from the thread who actually wrote it.
Paes wrote it; it's a transcription of a conversation that I think went down across threads or in fragments in another thread.
Now that I think about it, it's too bad this one went down too late to make it into BIP 2013, but on the other hand, I think there's probably about enough good material that's been written since then that we might consider starting another project after BIP 2013 makes it to press.
"The Bitter Tea Revolutionary Handbook" or something like that.
I like that!
Squeee! Time for things to start brewing...
:nopunsplease:
I kind of have to rant for the Bitter Tea thingie.
Where to post it?
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2013, 10:03:38 PM
Where to post it?
Nigel started a thread for it here : http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34931.0.html
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 10, 2013, 12:47:58 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2013, 10:03:38 PM
Where to post it?
Nigel started a thread for it here : http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34931.0.html
Thanks!
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 10, 2013, 01:26:07 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on July 10, 2013, 12:47:58 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 09, 2013, 10:03:38 PM
Where to post it?
Nigel started a thread for it here : http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34931.0.html
Thanks!
Yup. I've been trying to think of something to write for it, but I think my idea needs to percolate a bit longer.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 08, 2013, 03:57:08 PM
The Paes screeching in the OP, is that fair game for marginalia? It wasn't clear from the thread who actually wrote it.
Feel free to use any of that screeching however you like.
Quote from: Pæs on July 10, 2013, 09:30:27 AM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on July 08, 2013, 03:57:08 PM
The Paes screeching in the OP, is that fair game for marginalia? It wasn't clear from the thread who actually wrote it.
Feel free to use any of that screeching however you like.
WOOOOOO!
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 20, 2012, 05:19:14 PM
I've become fascinated with Asch's conformity experiments and the interesting results that people in Japan and Britain, countries which are (for good reason) widely thought of as more communally-oriented, scored significantly lower for conformity than Americans on those experiments. It creates a sort of "Individualism Paradox" in which those who consider themselves most fiercely individualistic, when put to the test, are actually more conforming, possibly because of a sense of insecurity resulting from their disconnection from community.
This makes me want to put together a PSA warning Rugged Individualists that their primate brain is conspiring against their individualism because it thinks its lineage entitles it to an opinion on survival.
LEARN TO RECOGNISE THE WARNING SIGNS BEFORE YOU GET ASSIMILATED INTO A COMMUNITY.
Quote from: Pæs on July 25, 2013, 03:13:57 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 20, 2012, 05:19:14 PM
I've become fascinated with Asch's conformity experiments and the interesting results that people in Japan and Britain, countries which are (for good reason) widely thought of as more communally-oriented, scored significantly lower for conformity than Americans on those experiments. It creates a sort of "Individualism Paradox" in which those who consider themselves most fiercely individualistic, when put to the test, are actually more conforming, possibly because of a sense of insecurity resulting from their disconnection from community.
This makes me want to put together a PSA warning Rugged Individualists that their primate brain is conspiring against their individualism because it thinks its lineage entitles it to an opinion on survival.
Oh shit I would LOVE to see that!
I'm considering whether satirising the Rugged Individualist with a group/website that puts out advice on Rugged Individualism might be worthwhile.
Quote from: Pæs on July 25, 2013, 05:41:26 AM
I'm considering whether satirising the Rugged Individualist with a group/website that puts out advice on Rugged Individualism might be worthwhile.
Ohhhh my god. If you have time for such a project, YES. I would definitely contribute.
I am also tempted, as well as somewhat confused, by what "The Bitter Tea Party" would look like.
Quote from: Pæs on July 25, 2013, 05:55:15 AM
I am also tempted, as well as somewhat confused, by what "The Bitter Tea Party" would look like.
:lulz:
Oh, that IS a good question.
Quote from: Pæs on July 25, 2013, 05:55:15 AM
I am also tempted, as well as somewhat confused, by what "The Bitter Tea Party" would look like.
:holyman:
+ :butthurt:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 25, 2013, 04:06:20 PM
Quote from: Pæs on July 25, 2013, 05:55:15 AM
I am also tempted, as well as somewhat confused, by what "The Bitter Tea Party" would look like.
:holyman: + :butthurt:
Yes, with more stars-and-stripes and the words "We The People" in large Gothic print in the background.
Quote from: Cainad on July 25, 2013, 04:48:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on July 25, 2013, 04:06:20 PM
Quote from: Pæs on July 25, 2013, 05:55:15 AM
I am also tempted, as well as somewhat confused, by what "The Bitter Tea Party" would look like.
:holyman: + :butthurt:
Yes, with more stars-and-stripes and the words "We The People" in large Gothic print in the background.
It needs to happen. Facebook page?
This thing needs to be bumped every now and then until we're in a position to run with it.
Oh hell yes.
What are some of the synonyms and euphemisms for Rugged Individualism that people might use? Things like "self sufficiency". I'm trying to thing of things to search to understand what the meme looks like in its natural habitat.
I've just started thinking about the PSA, anti-socialist advice group again and its relationship to the cross-cultural ultimatum test. If we could market the uniquely American brand of selfishness as the scientifically backed essence of What It Means To Be American, we could warn against cooperation and generosity as traits scientists have discovered in The Others and promote zero-sum thinking.
Lone-wolf
Outlaw
Randite Scumbag
Maverick
Quote from: Pæs on February 26, 2014, 01:16:57 AM
What are some of the synonyms and euphemisms for Rugged Individualism that people might use? Things like "self sufficiency". I'm trying to thing of things to search to understand what the meme looks like in its natural habitat.
I've just started thinking about the PSA, anti-socialist advice group again and its relationship to the cross-cultural ultimatum test. If we could market the uniquely American brand of selfishness as the scientifically backed essence of What It Means To Be American, we could warn against cooperation and generosity as traits scientists have discovered in The Others and promote zero-sum thinking.
Personal Responsibility and Independence, for sure.
I like this list.
Independent thinker
Self-reliant
Self-made
The word "entrepreneur" is much abused, I think.
Something something "bootstraps".
I have a rugged individualist on Godless Mingle.
He mostly whines that all atheists seem to be liberals.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 26, 2014, 03:20:54 AM
I have a rugged individualist on Godless Mingle.
He mostly whines that all atheists seem to be liberals.
Hahahaha
Damn, I almost wish I hadn't been banned, except that I would just get banned again.
Innovative
"Going Rogue".
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2014, 06:35:31 PM
"Going Rouge".
FTFY in honor of our Sarah.
I still like "innovative", because it doesn't really MEAN anything when they say it.
For those of you who don't spend an hour a day fucking with libertarians, "Innovation" is how they will be rich. Details, however, are scanty. There doesn't seem to be a plan, aside from "Invisible Hand Jesus and Innovation and can I have my Bentley now, please?"
"Thought Leader"
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2014, 06:41:24 PM
"Thought Leader"
Oh, that's the guy that thinks up things for other people to do, right?
"I'm more of an idea rat."
- Ratbert
Yup. "It would be great for the company if everyone else took a pay cut and worked weekends."
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 26, 2014, 06:38:09 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2014, 06:35:31 PM
"Going Rouge".
FTFY in honor of our Sarah.
I still like "innovative", because it doesn't really MEAN anything when they say it.
For those of you who don't spend an hour a day fucking with libertarians, "Innovation" is how they will be rich. Details, however, are scanty. There doesn't seem to be a plan, aside from "Invisible Hand Jesus and Innovation and can I have my Bentley now, please?"
So basically they're Underpants Gnomes.
Quote from: THE PHYTOPHTHORATIC HOLDER OF THE ADVANCED DEGREE on February 26, 2014, 06:59:44 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 26, 2014, 06:38:09 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2014, 06:35:31 PM
"Going Rouge".
FTFY in honor of our Sarah.
I still like "innovative", because it doesn't really MEAN anything when they say it.
For those of you who don't spend an hour a day fucking with libertarians, "Innovation" is how they will be rich. Details, however, are scanty. There doesn't seem to be a plan, aside from "Invisible Hand Jesus and Innovation and can I have my Bentley now, please?"
So basically they're Underpants Gnomes.
Pretty much.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2014, 06:57:31 PM
Yup. "It would be great for the company if everyone else took a pay cut and worked weekends."
That's the guy that the crew meets out in the parking lot for a little remedial "training".
Derp. The wiki article on self-sufficiency.
QuoteThe entire population of the world was, at one time, self-sufficient. They made their own clothing, tools, weapons, boats, huts, and food. They used gathering, hunting, herding and farming to find/hunt/grow their own food. As the human population of the world grew, the wild food supply dwindled. People began to rely on herding and farming more; relying less upon gathering and hunting. In modern times, automated food production on farms makes food. The vast populations now depend on a fewer farmers to make their food for them. Many in developed nations now depend on job salaries to buy food, clothes, and shelter, rather than making these things from raw materials found in the environment. But in a few places in the world, native societies continue to be self-sufficient, never having given up their traditional ways of food gathering and food making. Because these native peoples have no jobs and make no salaries, they are often listed as unemployed.
If a community can be a 'self' for the purpose of self-sufficiency, at what point of growth and expansion of communication does the community get large enough that it's consider to be dependent on others, rather than including those others in the 'self'?
Wait. That's from wikipedia?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2014, 08:48:57 PM
Wait. That's from wikipedia?
It's got a :cn: so it might not be for long. :lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-sufficiency
Quote from: Pæs on February 26, 2014, 08:54:35 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 26, 2014, 08:48:57 PM
Wait. That's from wikipedia?
It's got a :cn: so it might not be for long. :lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-sufficiency
Saved to HD, just in case it gets lost.
I'm just gonna go back to the original topic here:
This seems to be exactly what I needed to read, based on my confusion with my other post (rant). The thought of being alone had never occurred to me to be a negative stance, but more of a neutral stance. I've never really connected with anyone until recently, and so loneliness was never really a big deal until I read the connection that Nigel made in the OP.
Fuck, I try to take a step back and look at the biggest picture(s) I can see, but I just keep getting fed more small details that change what the bigger picture looks like.
I guess, for me, it always came down to this choice:
Do I take the time to destroy the predispositions and conditioned tendencies that have been instilled into me by the world (And neglect consequences of decisions I make because they condition/predispose me even more), and achieve transcendence through separation of the mind from the body? Or do I base everything I do off of logical reactions to the environment around me, becoming an adaptive robot?
As humans, I guess we tend to do both of these things at the same time, which causes a bit of conflict with others, as our tendencies toward one of these decisions over the others varies from person to person (Minus the occulty-stuff at the end of each decision, that shit is mine).
Or do most people do neither and contribute to the entropy of this cesspool we call a society for no reason at all? Is this the big-picture choice to be made, and is there a right answer? Am I just fucking nuts?
If I am, and you don't want to reply to this nonsense, just know I am a free-market tard, and it did piss me off.
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on March 29, 2014, 10:24:22 PM
Or do most people do neither and contribute to the entropy of this cesspool we call a society for no reason at all?
Nobody does anything for "no reason at all". They don't typically have material gain in mind most of the time, if that's what you mean.
Quote] just know I am a free-market tard,
Oh. I hope you get better.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2014, 12:11:09 AM
Nobody does anything for "no reason at all". They don't typically have material gain in mind most of the time, if that's what you mean.
Yeah, I over-thought that one again.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2014, 12:11:09 AM
Oh. I hope you get better.
Thanks, me too :lulz:
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on March 30, 2014, 12:56:30 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2014, 12:11:09 AM
Nobody does anything for "no reason at all". They don't typically have material gain in mind most of the time, if that's what you mean.
Yeah, I over-thought that one again.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2014, 12:11:09 AM
Oh. I hope you get better.
Thanks, me too :lulz:
Libertarianism/Free Market Tard is the same bad signal that makes people think communism is a good idea. In fact, the two are more or less identical.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2014, 02:20:32 AM
Libertarianism/Free Market Tard is the same bad signal that makes people think communism is a good idea. In fact, the two are more or less identical.
I see why you would say that, but I think that is because we view things differently on a fundamental level. I'm ok with that though. I disagree with many people in a very similar way. We tend to get along fine now that I've come to see that.
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on March 30, 2014, 02:32:37 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2014, 02:20:32 AM
Libertarianism/Free Market Tard is the same bad signal that makes people think communism is a good idea. In fact, the two are more or less identical.
I see why you would say that, but I think that is because we view things differently on a fundamental level. I'm ok with that though. I disagree with many people in a very similar way. We tend to get along fine now that I've come to see that.
Well, I was just sayin'. Both ideologies require that people behave in predictable, machine-like ways. This is why both ideologies are complete and utter failures, and result in a very few people having it all at the expense of, you know,
everyone else.
Can you give me one factual reason why a free market system as proposed by libertarianism is desirable?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2014, 02:35:38 AM
Well, I was just sayin'. Both ideologies require that people behave in predictable, machine-like ways. This is why both ideologies are complete and utter failures, and result in a very few people having it all at the expense of, you know, everyone else.
Can you give me one factual reason why a free market system as proposed by libertarianism is desirable?
I couldn't possibly argue that either system would be desirable for anyone but myself. Bitch, I don't know yo life. I'd simply say that I'd trade/exchange in a free-market manner regardless of what everyone else wants, because it's what works for me. The way I see it, people already trade/exchange in whatever way they want to, whether it be with restriction, or without it. If you choose to limit yourself with constructs and laws, be my guest. If I want to limit my trade with different constructs and laws than you do, that's my choice, and it shouldn't affect any of yours. I don't think anyone should be pressing their trade/exchange restrictions on anyone else. Free-market, to me, implies that all possible sides are accounted for.
If you find out that a company is doing something in a way that you don't like, you can boycott them. I see the argument for that being a massive inconvenience for everyone involved (Or only for you, if you're the only one who disagrees), but that just means you need to decide which consequence is more in your favor: Buying from a shitneck company and having the things you want/need, or finding other more inconvenient ways to get what you want/need or not having everything you want/need. And now it all comes back to consequences. FUCK ME, I HAD IT WRONG ALL ALONG. CONSEQUENCES DICTATE BOTH SIDES' ACTIONS.
Sigh, see underlined ^
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on March 30, 2014, 02:55:32 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2014, 02:35:38 AM
Well, I was just sayin'. Both ideologies require that people behave in predictable, machine-like ways. This is why both ideologies are complete and utter failures, and result in a very few people having it all at the expense of, you know, everyone else.
Can you give me one factual reason why a free market system as proposed by libertarianism is desirable?
I couldn't possibly argue that either system would be desirable for anyone but myself. Bitch, I don't know yo life. I'd simply say that I'd trade/exchange in a free-market manner regardless of what everyone else wants, because it's what works for me. The way I see it, people already trade/exchange in whatever way they want to, whether it be with restriction, or without it. If you choose to limit yourself with constructs and laws, be my guest. If I want to limit my trade with different constructs and laws than you do, that's my choice, and it shouldn't affect any of yours. I don't think anyone should be pressing their trade/exchange restrictions on anyone else. Free-market, to me, implies that all possible sides are accounted for.
If you find out that a company is doing something in a way that you don't like, you can boycott them. I see the argument for that being a massive inconvenience for everyone involved (Or only for you, if you're the only one who disagrees), but that just means you need to decide which consequence is more in your favor: Buying from a shitneck company and having the things you want/need, or finding other more inconvenient ways to get what you want/need or not having everything you want/need. And now it all comes back to consequences. FUCK ME, I HAD IT WRONG ALL ALONG. CONSEQUENCES DICTATE BOTH SIDES' ACTIONS.
Sigh, see underlined ^
Okay. Later.
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on March 30, 2014, 02:55:32 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2014, 02:35:38 AM
Well, I was just sayin'. Both ideologies require that people behave in predictable, machine-like ways. This is why both ideologies are complete and utter failures, and result in a very few people having it all at the expense of, you know, everyone else.
Can you give me one factual reason why a free market system as proposed by libertarianism is desirable?
I couldn't possibly argue that either system would be desirable for anyone but myself. Bitch, I don't know yo life. I'd simply say that I'd trade/exchange in a free-market manner regardless of what everyone else wants, because it's what works for me. The way I see it, people already trade/exchange in whatever way they want to, whether it be with restriction, or without it. If you choose to limit yourself with constructs and laws, be my guest. If I want to limit my trade with different constructs and laws than you do, that's my choice, and it shouldn't affect any of yours. I don't think anyone should be pressing their trade/exchange restrictions on anyone else. Free-market, to me, implies that all possible sides are accounted for.
If you find out that a company is doing something in a way that you don't like, you can boycott them. I see the argument for that being a massive inconvenience for everyone involved (Or only for you, if you're the only one who disagrees), but that just means you need to decide which consequence is more in your favor: Buying from a shitneck company and having the things you want/need, or finding other more inconvenient ways to get what you want/need or not having everything you want/need. And now it all comes back to consequences. FUCK ME, I HAD IT WRONG ALL ALONG. CONSEQUENCES DICTATE BOTH SIDES' ACTIONS.
Sigh, see underlined ^
If the Free Market is so impressive, why do you refuse to acknowledge that libertarianism was rejected by the marketplace of ideas decades ago?
Quote from: Hoopla on March 30, 2014, 04:12:16 AM
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on March 30, 2014, 02:55:32 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2014, 02:35:38 AM
Well, I was just sayin'. Both ideologies require that people behave in predictable, machine-like ways. This is why both ideologies are complete and utter failures, and result in a very few people having it all at the expense of, you know, everyone else.
Can you give me one factual reason why a free market system as proposed by libertarianism is desirable?
I couldn't possibly argue that either system would be desirable for anyone but myself. Bitch, I don't know yo life. I'd simply say that I'd trade/exchange in a free-market manner regardless of what everyone else wants, because it's what works for me. The way I see it, people already trade/exchange in whatever way they want to, whether it be with restriction, or without it. If you choose to limit yourself with constructs and laws, be my guest. If I want to limit my trade with different constructs and laws than you do, that's my choice, and it shouldn't affect any of yours. I don't think anyone should be pressing their trade/exchange restrictions on anyone else. Free-market, to me, implies that all possible sides are accounted for.
If you find out that a company is doing something in a way that you don't like, you can boycott them. I see the argument for that being a massive inconvenience for everyone involved (Or only for you, if you're the only one who disagrees), but that just means you need to decide which consequence is more in your favor: Buying from a shitneck company and having the things you want/need, or finding other more inconvenient ways to get what you want/need or not having everything you want/need. And now it all comes back to consequences. FUCK ME, I HAD IT WRONG ALL ALONG. CONSEQUENCES DICTATE BOTH SIDES' ACTIONS.
Sigh, see underlined ^
If the Free Market is so impressive, why do you refuse to acknowledge that libertarianism was rejected by the marketplace of ideas decades ago?
Question of the day.
You assume under a free market you would still have a choice of outlets to use.
However, history and economic theory have shown that, absent of regulations, monpolies can easily form, using their superior economic power to undercut competition and drive them out of business. Indeed, even with regulations, cartels have undertaken price-fixing and wage setting through secret agreements with each other - agreements which are illegal under existing law, but would not be in a deregulated pure market economy.
You assume a freedom of choice which would not last long in such conditions.
Quote from: Hoopla on March 30, 2014, 04:12:16 AM
If the Free Market is so impressive, why do you refuse to acknowledge that libertarianism was rejected by the marketplace of ideas decades ago?
I'm pretty sure it was much longer ago than that.
I'm not saying I want all of us to live under Libertarian ideas. I'm not very complicated. You've labeled me a Libertarian, and so you assume I think a certain way.
All restrictions are illusory. I don't ask that we get rid of certain Leftist legislation on the economy because it "limits" us. Some of it just doesn't fucking work. I'm not saying ALL of it, but SOME of it. I think most of you will agree that BOTH SIDES have made legislative attempts that hurt our system. Obviously, an only partially free-market is what has seemed to work the best for the US. That doesn't mean that that is THE RIGHT and JUST way of going about an economy. I won't thrust my free-market shit at you, and you shouldn't thrust anything at me. I will trade/exchange however I want, with whomever I want, and with whatever restrictions I want.
Laws and restrictions are agreements that are enforced by people who make the agreements. I'm recently 18 years old, and I haven't agreed to shit yet. So I'm not trying to enforce shit.
Summary: A partially free-market system works for the US when it's implemented properly. But I won't follow all restrictions put in place by other people if they hurt me. Imma do me, you do you.
Quote from: Cain on March 30, 2014, 04:48:53 PM
You assume under a free market you would still have a choice of outlets to use.
However, history and economic theory have shown that, absent of regulations, monpolies can easily form, using their superior economic power to undercut competition and drive them out of business. Indeed, even with regulations, cartels have undertaken price-fixing and wage setting through secret agreements with each other - agreements which are illegal under existing law, but would not be in a deregulated pure market economy.
You assume a freedom of choice which would not last long in such conditions.
The way I see it, there's always a choice. It all comes back to consequences. Now you may see why I was so obsessed with achieving immunity to consequences to achieve freedom.
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on March 30, 2014, 05:59:42 PMYou've labeled me a Libertarian, and so you assume I think a certain way.
Oh, come
on.
Quote from: Hoopla on March 30, 2014, 06:07:30 PM
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on March 30, 2014, 05:59:42 PMYou've labeled me a Libertarian, and so you assume I think a certain way.
Oh, come on.
You're right, I practically did the same thing. I should've said it in the form of a question: Are you labeling me a Libertarian and assuming I think a certain way?
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on March 30, 2014, 06:13:44 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on March 30, 2014, 06:07:30 PM
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on March 30, 2014, 05:59:42 PMYou've labeled me a Libertarian, and so you assume I think a certain way.
Oh, come on.
You're right, I practically did the same thing. I should've said it in the form of a question: Are you labeling me a Libertarian and assuming I think a certain way?
This isn't
Jeopardy; the content of your post is basically unchanged.
I am labeling your opinions as libertarian in nature, yes. Because they are. And if I assume you think a certain way, it's because you have demonstrated so.
Quote from: Hoopla on March 30, 2014, 06:33:19 PM
This isn't Jeopardy; the content of your post is basically unchanged.
I am labeling your opinions as libertarian in nature, yes. Because they are. And if I assume you think a certain way, it's because you have demonstrated so.
Fair enough. I just never saw myself, nor my ideas as Libertarian. So your reaction surprised me.
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on March 30, 2014, 07:47:29 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on March 30, 2014, 06:33:19 PM
This isn't Jeopardy; the content of your post is basically unchanged.
I am labeling your opinions as libertarian in nature, yes. Because they are. And if I assume you think a certain way, it's because you have demonstrated so.
Fair enough. I just never saw myself, nor my ideas as Libertarian. So your reaction surprised me.
Ayn Rand was apparently surprised by the same information. Nobody else really was.
Quote from: Hoopla on March 30, 2014, 07:54:58 PM
Ayn Rand was apparently surprised by the same information. Nobody else really was.
That's funny. I thought Ayn Rand was completely against all Leftist restrictions. I'm not. She wanted to ensure that America and the rest of the world was under a free-market economy. I don't. She sees all restrictions on the economy by the government as wrong, as do all other Libertarians. I don't. So how am I like them?
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on March 30, 2014, 08:08:22 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on March 30, 2014, 07:54:58 PM
Ayn Rand was apparently surprised by the same information. Nobody else really was.
That's funny. I thought Ayn Rand was completely against all Leftist restrictions. I'm not. She wanted to ensure that America and the rest of the world was under a free-market economy. I don't. She sees all restrictions on the economy by the government as wrong, as do all other Libertarians. I don't. So how am I like them?
Oh, sorry. I must have mixed you up with a rugged individualist who was proposing the Free Market as a desirable choice earlier on this page.
My mistake.
Quote from: Hoopla on March 30, 2014, 08:14:35 PM
Oh, sorry. I must have mixed you up with a rugged individualist who was proposing the Free Market as a desirable choice earlier on this page.
My mistake.
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on March 30, 2014, 02:55:32 AM
I couldn't possibly argue that either system would be desirable for anyone but myself.
What's desirable for me has nothing to do with you or anyone else. I want the system to be balanced (Close to what we have now, minus inherently broken legislation that has been implemented) between Free-market and Socialism, as does anyone else who's looked at economic theory in the past 100 years. But that's my opinion, and my opinion doesn't mean shit. I'm not a Libertarian, I'm just not agreeing to follow all restrictions or procedures because some of them aren't in my best interest (Because some of them are broken).
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on March 30, 2014, 08:38:21 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on March 30, 2014, 08:14:35 PM
Oh, sorry. I must have mixed you up with a rugged individualist who was proposing the Free Market as a desirable choice earlier on this page.
My mistake.
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on March 30, 2014, 02:55:32 AM
I couldn't possibly argue that either system would be desirable for anyone but myself.
What's desirable for me has nothing to do with you or anyone else. I want the system to be balanced (Close to what we have now, minus inherently broken legislation that has been implemented) between Free-market and Socialism, as does anyone else who's looked at economic theory in the past 100 years. But that's my opinion, and my opinion doesn't mean shit. I'm not a Libertarian, I'm just not agreeing to follow all restrictions or procedures because some of them aren't in my best interest (Because some of them are broken).
Fair enough. However, several of your individual opinions, which don't make you a Libertarian, are shared by the Cato Institute. So, hopefully you'll understand my confusion.
I can see the appeal of such opinions... but ultimately they are rather utopian.
Quote from: Hoopla on March 30, 2014, 08:51:41 PM
Fair enough. However, several of your individual opinions, which don't make you a Libertarian, are shared by the Cato Institute. So, hopefully you'll understand my confusion.
I can see the appeal of such opinions... but ultimately they are rather utopian.
And that's where our fundamental differences in perception arise. I don't want you to agree with me, I just want you to understand my perspective. What you do with my perspective now that you've understood it, has nothing to do with me. Now that I've achieved my goal of this discussion, I am happy.
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on March 30, 2014, 09:05:45 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on March 30, 2014, 08:51:41 PM
Fair enough. However, several of your individual opinions, which don't make you a Libertarian, are shared by the Cato Institute. So, hopefully you'll understand my confusion.
I can see the appeal of such opinions... but ultimately they are rather utopian.
And that's where our fundamental differences in perception arise. I don't want you to agree with me, I just want you to understand my perspective. What you do with my perspective now that you've understood it, has nothing to do with me. Now that I've achieved my goal of this discussion, I am happy.
Hoo boy.
You want immunity from consequences? Please explain what you mean by that, and how such immunity would facilitate freedom for anyone else but yourself?
Quote from: Nigel on March 31, 2014, 12:55:00 PM
You want immunity from consequences? Please explain what you mean by that, and how such immunity would facilitate freedom for anyone else but yourself?
He doesn't seem all that concerned about how his actions impact others.
There's a strong core of callous solipsism going on in him, based purely upon his writing in this thread.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 31, 2014, 01:27:11 PM
There's a strong core of callous solipsism going on in him, based purely upon his writing in this thread.
You ain't just whistlin' Dixie.
Quote from: Hoopla on March 31, 2014, 01:04:44 PM
He doesn't seem all that concerned about how his actions impact others.
Somewhat accurate, although, that is something I have to think about.
Quote from: Nigel on March 31, 2014, 12:55:00 PM
You want immunity from consequences? Please explain what you mean by that, and how such immunity would facilitate freedom for anyone else but yourself?
Immunity from consequences, as I see it, can come in a few forms. Either decisions and actions are ignored completely by everything else in existence (I don't like this idea), or the consequences of decisions or actions don't affect future action (Everything is action, NOT reaction). That, as I see it, is separation from predisposition, and as a result, a separation from environmental/societal influences.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 31, 2014, 01:27:11 PM
There's a strong core of callous solipsism going on in him, based purely upon his writing in this thread.
Yes. These are ideas I am throwing around in my head, and as Paes stated, I "doth assert too boldly." - Story of my fuckin life.
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on March 31, 2014, 05:21:30 PM
or the consequences of decisions or actions don't affect future action (Everything is action, NOT reaction).
This is bad signal.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 31, 2014, 05:22:36 PM
This is bad signal.
Agreed. Sounds robotic, don't you think? I don't like it much, anymore.
I may just be calling this one in, regardless it seems like our American Rugged Individualism is not yet dead. Forget those lost behind the trace of the image that represents overcoming. The point of ARI is to outstrip the boundaries of will and intent - to reconnect with the source that ignites thought and becomes invulnerability itself.
Quote from: LuciferX on July 04, 2014, 03:35:59 AM
I may just be calling this one in, regardless it seems like our American Rugged Individualism is not yet dead. Forget those lost behind the trace of the image that represents overcoming. The point of ARI is to outstrip the boundaries of will and intent - to reconnect with the source that ignites thought and becomes invulnerability itself.
It was never fucking alive. And your post is 90% incoherent.
Quote from: LuciferX on July 04, 2014, 03:35:59 AM
I may just be calling this one in, regardless it seems like our American Rugged Individualism is not yet dead. Forget those lost behind the trace of the image that represents overcoming. The point of ARI is to outstrip the boundaries of will and intent - to reconnect with the source that ignites thought and becomes invulnerability itself.
Totes just calling it in. On a rotary, no less.
Quote from: LuciferX on July 04, 2014, 03:35:59 AM
I may just be calling this one in, regardless it seems like our American Rugged Individualism is not yet dead. Forget those lost behind the trace of the image that represents overcoming. The point of ARI is to outstrip the boundaries of will and intent - to reconnect with the source that ignites thought and becomes invulnerability itself.
What an interesting level of completely not understanding the concept. Have you tried reading the thread?
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on July 04, 2014, 04:03:09 PM
Quote from: LuciferX on July 04, 2014, 03:35:59 AM
I may just be calling this one in, regardless it seems like our American Rugged Individualism is not yet dead. Forget those lost behind the trace of the image that represents overcoming. The point of ARI is to outstrip the boundaries of will and intent - to reconnect with the source that ignites thought and becomes invulnerability itself.
What an interesting level of completely not understanding the concept. Have you tried reading the thread?
A little. I also edited a newspaper column with the same title. People seem to understand the trappings that may result from individualism, rugged or otherwise, I just wanted to remind myself what I think the point was before it's corruption.
Quote from: Hoopla! on March 30, 2014, 04:12:16 AM
Quote from: PlightOfFernandoPoo on March 30, 2014, 02:55:32 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 30, 2014, 02:35:38 AM
Well, I was just sayin'. Both ideologies require that people behave in predictable, machine-like ways. This is why both ideologies are complete and utter failures, and result in a very few people having it all at the expense of, you know, everyone else.
Can you give me one factual reason why a free market system as proposed by libertarianism is desirable?
I couldn't possibly argue that either system would be desirable for anyone but myself. Bitch, I don't know yo life. I'd simply say that I'd trade/exchange in a free-market manner regardless of what everyone else wants, because it's what works for me. The way I see it, people already trade/exchange in whatever way they want to, whether it be with restriction, or without it. If you choose to limit yourself with constructs and laws, be my guest. If I want to limit my trade with different constructs and laws than you do, that's my choice, and it shouldn't affect any of yours. I don't think anyone should be pressing their trade/exchange restrictions on anyone else. Free-market, to me, implies that all possible sides are accounted for.
If you find out that a company is doing something in a way that you don't like, you can boycott them. I see the argument for that being a massive inconvenience for everyone involved (Or only for you, if you're the only one who disagrees), but that just means you need to decide which consequence is more in your favor: Buying from a shitneck company and having the things you want/need, or finding other more inconvenient ways to get what you want/need or not having everything you want/need. And now it all comes back to consequences. FUCK ME, I HAD IT WRONG ALL ALONG. CONSEQUENCES DICTATE BOTH SIDES' ACTIONS.
Sigh, see underlined ^
If the Free Market is so impressive, why do you refuse to acknowledge that libertarianism was rejected by the marketplace of ideas decades ago?
Bumping for something I'm working on.
The free market was also rejected by the marketplace of ideas, about 120 years ago.