padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
thanks again, I'm still aware of how decision-making works, just like I was the first time
The Matrix vs Ghostbusters
- Thread starter Corpsey
- Start date
-
- Tags
- certified pussyhound clang swords dickless over here fat cenobite luka i didn't write this one i know kung fu i show you how deep the rabbit hole goes inexhaustible source material jar jar's taint millions of dead platypus pinhead craner sophia loren stop trying to hit me and hit me sweet sweet slaughter terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought that spring we lived on bowls of risotto the gestapo's last orgy the roast of oliver craner there is no spoon tree chunks which is bio-mechanoid woah
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
I'm proposing that a hierarchy can represent a collective's interests more effectively than a flat structure.
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Re. school, I was referring to the employee structure, not the pupils.
luka
Well-known member
yeah alright dont understand what youre on about and youre being pointlessly belligerent and obtuse as usual so lets leave it
mixed_biscuits
_________________________
Rand:
Rand was intentionally maximally confrontational to the Left; she takes terms that have positive valence for them (eg. 'altruism') and attempts to flip that valence straight up on its head (she is quite happy with uncompelled 'altruism' (loosely termed) which she calls 'benevolence'). This rhetorical tactic makes her very difficult for many to stomach. To my mind, she's not unlike Nietzsche or Zizek in this use of rhetorical reversals, although (intentionally) even more direct.
It's ambitious because it attempts to ground morality objectively (thereby obviating the need for religion, I guess). Her book 'The Romantic Manifesto' I enjoyed and is comparatively unabrasive in tone; it's about culture/art/aesthetics.
Rand was intentionally maximally confrontational to the Left; she takes terms that have positive valence for them (eg. 'altruism') and attempts to flip that valence straight up on its head (she is quite happy with uncompelled 'altruism' (loosely termed) which she calls 'benevolence'). This rhetorical tactic makes her very difficult for many to stomach. To my mind, she's not unlike Nietzsche or Zizek in this use of rhetorical reversals, although (intentionally) even more direct.
It's ambitious because it attempts to ground morality objectively (thereby obviating the need for religion, I guess). Her book 'The Romantic Manifesto' I enjoyed and is comparatively unabrasive in tone; it's about culture/art/aesthetics.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
fair enough. my same argument as a sports team etc applies, but that does make more sense.
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
as a pragmatic tradeoff between effectiveness and self-determination, beyond a certain point of social complexity, sure
I never denied (or would) that hierarchy has potential situational advantages. that's obvious.
just that it's always a decision whether those advantages are worth the tradeoff. I favor the flattest structure (or lack of structure) possible, even at the cost of some effectiveness. this is all abstract of course. irl it's always a matter of doing the best with what's possible.
but the original question wasn't about what works better, tho. it was, is hierarchy inevitable? which isn't clear at all, and I don't think you've addressed (maybe you weren't intending to address that, idk)
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
I would call that impossible rather than ambitious. there is no such thing as objectivity in a finite being.
and as that seems to underpin everything she does, she's a non-starter for me.
all the left-trolling stuff doesn't bother me, it's just a shrug and sure, whatever you say kinda thing. it's supposed to get a rise out of people.
but, I appreciate your thoughtful answer
padraig (u.s.)
a monkey that will go ape
lmao I get sick of your double standards luke I really do, from a man who's literally told me to fuck off
if you wanna play yr mystical games go ahead but don't tell me what I can and can't talk about
Adam Curtis believes the reason stuff like Occupy fails is because the left are afraid to talk about power and horizontal structures with no clear leadership result in infighting, loss of momentum and focus and the movements being unable to meet the state, police and so on - who do have clear structure and leadership - head on.
john eden
male pale and stale
Well perhaps I have a different experience of the left than Curtis but I think there has been quite a lot of talking about power. But maybe not many practical solutions.
droid
Well-known member
A Randian meeting?? What the hell?
There is no necessity for strict hierarchy in warfare. Two of the most effective military forces in the 20th century were the Spanish anarchist militias and the Makhnovshchyna, Makhno's black army in Ukraine. Organised on democratic principles with elections, mass assemblies etc. their flexibility allowed them to prevail over sometimes overwhelming odds, and, ironically, they were both betrayed by the Soviets.
There is no necessity for strict hierarchy in warfare. Two of the most effective military forces in the 20th century were the Spanish anarchist militias and the Makhnovshchyna, Makhno's black army in Ukraine. Organised on democratic principles with elections, mass assemblies etc. their flexibility allowed them to prevail over sometimes overwhelming odds, and, ironically, they were both betrayed by the Soviets.
He isn't just talking about warfare though. He's talking about what happens after. Curtis doesn't believe you can have a functioning human society without power and he believes that some on the left think you can and that that's what they're after: a society with no hierarchies.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
That's interesting. I heard that John Bonham was a tireless advocate of Keynesianism.
luka
Well-known member
There's a huge appetite for the heretical and the taboo among a growing section of the alienated drifting betrayed middle classes. What has been declared off limits by liberal consensus? The bell curve theory. Ayn Rand. Monarchism. Nick Land. Donald Rumsfeld. Jordan Peterson.
You can see this temptation at work in all sorts of people across dissensus.
Last edited:
luka
Well-known member
Craner famously came under the influence of a Machiavellian Jewish South African called Shapiro who introduced him to Strauss and Bloom and neoconservatism. Vimothy was converted to the far right by Nick Land. HMG had severe bowel problems and sought solutions in various off-piste dietary cults. I haven't got round to interviewing biscuits yet so I don't know what his trajectory was.
Last edited: