humour: media / politics
- Thread starter zhao
- Start date
borderpolice
Well-known member
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Ahh, OK - I guess a theorem is a conceptual entity that exists in maths whereas a theory is a scientific concept. When you talk about Fermat's last theorem (prior to its being proven) as a 'theory' I would call that a hypothesis or a conjecture.
I think that's up for debate (tho in some literal political not cultural sense you are kind of correct)-- however those weren't my words!
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
Ah, you were quoting HMLT. I didn't notice that. Saying that, however...
tho in some literal political not cultural sense you are kind of correct
You're deliberately fudging the meaning of "liberal" and even "neo-liberal" (if we are to understand neo-liberal as meaning classical liberal and not just a handy catch-all insult, once relevant and appropriate but now devoid of content, not unlike "neo-con" or "bolshie" or even possibly "fascist" or "zionist"). But then, I don't suppose I should expect anything less.
tho in some literal political not cultural sense you are kind of correct
You're deliberately fudging the meaning of "liberal" and even "neo-liberal" (if we are to understand neo-liberal as meaning classical liberal and not just a handy catch-all insult, once relevant and appropriate but now devoid of content, not unlike "neo-con" or "bolshie" or even possibly "fascist" or "zionist"). But then, I don't suppose I should expect anything less.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
The one that always cracks me up is 'bourgeois' - someone used it in a Literature thread on here recently, without a trace of irony, like he was writing a pamphlet for the British Communist Party in 1925 or something.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
Gek hasn't revealed if he plans to become one himself. Though if this were the case, the underlying ideology would be no different to that of someone like Bono: becoming a hard capitalist in the cause of communism (Gek) versus becoming a hard capitalist in the cause of eliminating disease, poverty, debt (Bono via Product Red, DATA, etc). 'Communism' here becomes the fetish, the extra-ideological dimension that justifies its anti-thesis, morally legitimizing becoming a psychotic capitalist.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
Which is why 'reactionary neo-liberal' is not a contradiction. (complete with nostalgic idealisations of a mythological past full of dancing-invisible Adam Smiths).
IdleRich
IdleRich
Not explicitly but if he really believes that human-kind must escape the dead-ends he has identified and the only way that it can do so is by defeating capitalism and the only way to defeat capitalism is by becoming super-trader then I think there is a moral imperative for him to do it. For obvious reasons he can't talk about it too much but I have faith in Gekkopel to mean what he says.
vimothy
yurp
Of course - and by the same logic liberals are not really "liberal", progressives are not really "progressive", you're not a neo-freudian statist obscurantist and Gek-opel's not a would be revolutionary mass-murderer.
Gavin
booty bass intellectual
Gavin
booty bass intellectual
You're certainly spoiling for a fight today!
vimothy
yurp
Nah - my hearts not in it really. I'm just killing time while I download Bob's radio show.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
You're hopelessly oblivious to two contradictions here: [2] embracing an ideology does not defeat it; it strengthens it. [2] Believing in something, despite all evidence to the contrary and however ridiculous, is sufficient justification for the 'moral imperative' of doing anything (Blairism's 'genuine' WMD psychosis, Hitler's genuine 'bringing peace' to the world etc). And, of course, why the fuck are you even criticising anyone hearabouts for any of their beliefs if the latter are so sacrosanct? Because you're a confused, pompous, right-wing, and fucked-up little wanker ... Good day.
Mwahaha... Irish charm in full effect HMLT? Briefly as I have Hegel to read: sincere belief or whatever is a totally dubious justfication, of course this whole board is (hopefully) based on the fact that all beliefs will be interrogated and not held to be "respected" just because of the strength with which the bearer holds them.
Obviously "embracing" ideology will not defeat it, will merely replicate it. To my mind however there must be a solution between "giving in" and "opposing" from some imagined outside position that (a) no longer exists and (b) will only serve to shape Capital, not to defeat it, to ameliorate it, and hence to (possibly) alter the nature of the thing itself in ways which might be perversely against the very aims you were fighting for in the first place. So to answer yr previous question- I'm obviously unsure as to precisely how avant-capitalist techniques can be used to critique themselves, but I certainly aim to investigate further.
