This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Topics - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 454647 4849 ... 67
1381
« on: December 13, 2014, 07:03:53 AM »
So, for those of you who may remember, my neighbours (a mother and her two preteen daughters) are constantly at each others' throats, shouting and swearing. The mother has threatened to hit both of them, and their shouting matches wake me up most mornings. The mother, however, is also pregnant and due any time soon. Yesterday, there was another shouting match. The mother was threatening to kick one of her daughters out the house and telling her to pack her bags, and the girl said "I don't want to be homeless! It's cold outside!", to which the mother responded "I know it's fucking cold outside!" among other things. One thing she said crossed the threshold. She was shouting at her daughters saying "The baby's dead! The baby's dead!" and blaming them for the baby's death (it isn't dead). This is in Serious because I'm genuinely unsure of what to do, and I don't want to pull a Horton.
1382
« on: December 12, 2014, 06:43:02 PM »
Halo, the Videogame That Trains Your Teens to Fight for the Nietzschean New World OrderWe will not be discussing the criminal levels of violence so common in computer games today. We will not be discussing how the creators of Halo have taken this to a new level, preying on children’s insecurities to offer than an outlet through the scope of a futuristic rifle. We will save the news reports of mental neurosis, obesity, suicide and even murder associated with the gaming lifestyle for another time. These are simply matters of public record, issues that a moral society will either grapple with or not if we care in the least about projecting those uniquely American values of justice and human decency into the future.
No, today let us pull back the layers of secrecy to reveal what Halo, one of this nation’s most controversial video games, is teaching young people about God and socialist revolution. Never before have we encountered something so unquestionably dangerous as this noxious fantasy scene of simian jack bootery and salacious jezebels conspiring to deliriously manipulate our fragile, lost teens who, in their heart of hearts, may be simply yearning for a warm embrace and a reason to live. Indeed, the story that follows will not be a pretty one.
Plot: Egged on by a half-naked female handler named Cortana, a chemically-enhanced warrior fights against a theocratic alliance called “The Covenant” descended from the heavens. Master Chief joins gangs and employs an arsenal of implausible weapons to viciously wipe out all the ancestors of “the Ark” in an effort to cement the power of a global government called the UNSC.
Setting: Massive structures of fascist design dot dangerous Asiatic landscapes. The hyper-real graphics are drawn with jarring fluorescent colors. This future world is on the cusp of the ultimate judgment, reminiscent of Biblical End Times. There is no grey area here. You’re either lock step with Master Chief’s agenda of anarchy or you die.
Soundtrack: Heavy metal slasher rock at ear-piercing levels.
Influence: For over a decade, this has been the most popular game on the planet. It has spawned children’s books, comic series, costume festivals, television shows, fan videos, spin-off games and a type of animated pornography known as Machinera. Along the way, it has sold over 100 million copies and has made its creators billions of dollars.
One may ask why the story of Halo has never been told before. Could it be the enormous power that the entertainment industry wields over the public discourse? Could it be those billions of dollars that companies like Microsoft throw around Congress? Or could it be just one small cog in the grand scheme of things that international banking cartels use to sell us on the illusion of those frail dollars crumpled damply in our pockets?
A more immediate truth is that the game is extremely off-putting and complicated for adults. Its component “Xbox” shooting console is expensive. And even when one plays the game, it takes incredible effort to understand its larger meaning. Only those who become truly addicted to Halo discover its deepest, most hidden levels.
To get there, you traverse places with names like Blood Gulch, Valhalla, Tombstone and Warlock Wizards. You arm yourself with flamethrowers and plasma cannons, reticule booms and fusion cores. You join gangs of real-life players all across the world wide web and embark on quests to the screams of “Kill! Faster! Kill!” The scene is littered with the skulls of the dead, skulls that give you narcotic boosts of insane power as you tear the heads off your opponents and feast on their gory innards.
The woman Cortana hovers behind, whispering conspiracies in your ear. She uses her big-breasted flirtatiousness to trick you to take on suicidal missions. She may be little more than a cliché of the Cold War communist agent handling the “useful idiots” of the West, but she is extremely effective.
The more you play the game, the more dehumanized you become. You are simply a robot after all, a robot of bits and bytes manifested on a television screen. Compassion and love are cast aside. You have become a killing machine whose sole purpose in life is to crush religion into a bloody mound of puss and gristle for the sake of the End Times collective.
Is this truly the fate that awaits us? How can we so casually cast aside the wisdom of our Founding Fathers? They had a vision of freedom and faith that gave birth to the greatest nation this planet has ever known. Since the 1960s, we have seen our most sacred institutions destroyed in the name of “progress.” Radical sexuality, communism, drugs and inner city violence are the reprehensible results of liberalism’s assault on the primacy of patriotism and family values. Today let us consider how far these people will go to destroy those amongst us who cherish God’s plan for America and our inviolable responsibility to keep the world safe.
Halo is simply that first, furtive step on the long march to the American Armageddon. Yet if we educate ourselves and arm our homefronts with faith, there is always hope. You might even begin by giving your teen that warm, heartfelt hug he so desperately craves.
CHRISTIAN SYMBOLOGY OF HALO
Covenant: Represents the Evangelical Christians of America, those who hold sacred the Biblical covenant to live in harmony with the Gospels. They are depicted as monstrous and fanatical and children are forced to kill them.
Forerunners: These are the Gods who created the videogame. Employing deism to describe our Almighty is a backhanded way to insult the One True God of Christianity.
Halo: God’s Kingdom of Grace on earth that players try desperately to escape. What is outside this circle of saintly light? The answer is the emptiness of atheism and nihilism.
The Ark: In the Bible, Noah’s Ark is the protector of all forms of life yet here it means a star wars space satellite with the capacity to launch extinction. Without any doubt, this contradiction of imagery exposes the radical hatred of true American values in Halo.
Ontological Imperialism: Halo nags you to ponder the ultimate meaning of the game and thereby the ultimate meaning of your existence. In doing so, it is hijacking the traditional role of Christianity in a young person’s education. Sadly, the answer that Halo offers to this question is that you must live out your life in the here and now, destroying every remnant of the Christian faith and fomenting a New World Order in which everyone is godlike.
“God is dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?” –Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science. Jesus. Fucking. Christ. Spoiler The article is actually satire, but be honest - how many of you were fooled by it?
1383
« on: December 12, 2014, 06:04:04 PM »
1384
« on: December 12, 2014, 05:57:02 PM »
"Pickleboy" as he calls himself is always pranking Charles, his bipolar father - AKA Angry Grandpa. I don't care if it's real or not, because Pickleboy is a pathetic, whiny cunt and I love to watch Charles smash his shit up and push him to tears.
1385
« on: December 12, 2014, 05:29:57 PM »
The hair behind my right ear has become noticeably thinner in comparison to the hair behind my left ear. I don't really know why I do it; it feels almost like a compulsion. I find myself running my hand through my hair, which makes knots, and then I feel this rising level of tension if I don't run my hand through it again and get rid of the knots (which results in me pulling me hair out). It's at the point where I actually feel quite distressed if I resist the urge to do it.
The thing is, though, I'm not stressed out about anything - I'm perfectly fine by most accounts. But I end up pulling my hair out, carrying running my hand through it, feeling it's still slightly clumped and then making the problem worse. It's pissing me off.
/rant
1386
« on: December 12, 2014, 01:49:46 PM »
1387
« on: December 12, 2014, 12:16:00 PM »
1388
« on: December 12, 2014, 12:09:18 PM »
Where the fuck is the second podcast?
1389
« on: December 11, 2014, 04:17:05 PM »
http://www.16personalities.com/I'd like for people to take it, and then look for the section which details "strengths and weaknesses". The reason this is in Serious is that I'd like to have a serious discussion about this test and how (accurately) it corresponds to certain personality traits and even psychological disorders, as well as how well you think the strengths and weaknesses describe you. Also, you can look here to see which celebrities you share your type with. Predictably, I got INTJ. Mind: 19pc introverted. Energy: 12pc intuitive. Nature: 54pc thinking. Tactics: 35pc judging. Identity: 17pc assertive. Strengths: Spoiler Imaginative and strategic. High self-confidence. Independent and decisive. Hard-working and determined. Open-minded. Jack-of-all-trades. Weaknesses: Spoiler Arrogant. Judgmental. Overly analytical. Loathe highly structured environments. Clueless in romance. I apparent share my personality type with Marx, Rand, Nietzsche, Tesla, Martin Luther and Lenin.
1390
« on: December 11, 2014, 03:37:44 PM »
Maybe it's just me, but it feels as if our culture has become uncultured - as it were. The people we revere are the Kardashians and pop singers, and we read about their everyday occurrences in magazines and online. When we do climb the intellectual ladder, things are stifled by a STEM circlejerk and the suppression of things like aesthetics and passion.
The Enlightenment saw a burst of literature, the arts, philosophy - the humanities - which, it seems, has failed to bear any continuance. It seems that our culture is either emotionally mute or overly-rational.
1391
« on: December 11, 2014, 02:40:19 PM »
1392
« on: December 11, 2014, 12:42:08 PM »
I know AMAs are pretty much dead in the Serious board (as they should be), but I couldn't think of any other way to set off a proper discussion about Friedrich Nietzsche. I don't consider myself an authority on him, indeed few are, but I probably know the most out of everybody here.
So, if you're interested, shoot.
1393
« on: December 10, 2014, 03:43:40 PM »
I'm talking from a social perspective, only.
I was reading some Nietzsche earlier, and he makes a good point about how - prior to the Reformation - the State and religion had been fundamentally intertwined. Religion had a very strong political function. Ceremonies like baptism would ensure religio-cultural homogeneity, and the State would derive its legitimacy from a religious authority to rule.
However, the Reformation obviously strained that. My country, England, actually weathered the Reformation fairly well, and we ended up with a weird episcopal church that was a mismatch of Calvinism and Lutheranism. Even after the Reformation, though, we see this fundamental link with religion. It was so great that even after Charles I's Personal Rule, his execution, the establishment of the Protectorate and the existence of a Republican Army, a Parliament still offered the Crown to Oliver Cromwell.
The fall in religious legitimacy for the State gives rise to religious pluralism and severs the authority the State has over the people, leading to a rise in majoritarianism, utilitarianism and - as we've seen - democracy.
Yet, with many things besides just religion, we've seen time and time again that humans are just bad at being individualistic. The fair few are capable of it; capable of living a solitary, ruthless and ambitious life - the Nietzscheans and the Randians among us. But in Europe we see pluralism leading to religious fundamentalism, nationalism, social conservatism and other forms of "us v. them" collectivism.
Pluralism, essentially, dangerous pluralism that undermines the authority of the governments which hang over us. My question is, given this tendency for pluralism to arise, and conflict with it - particularly in times of crisis - which necessarily leads to the State lacking legitimacy and thus power, is widespread libertarianism actually viable?
I'm not arguing we should end democracy (although that'd be nice) and I'm not arguing for oppressive governments. But ever since the fall of religion, and the rise of secularism/pluralism, it seems we can't afford to place liberty as the goal of politics.
1394
« on: December 10, 2014, 12:29:09 PM »
This is what I've got so far, mostly based off my own bookcase. It'd be great if you challenged some of my listings, as well as added your own based on any philosophers you're familiar with. Spoiler Also, here is our collated political compass: Azumarill was just between Icy and Verbatim, C stands for Comet and Kinder was just below Turkey.
1395
« on: December 09, 2014, 03:41:57 PM »
It's some heavy fucking stuff; really makes you think. Has anybody else seen it? What did you think? Does how you win matter? Or is it simply a case of realpolitik, and winning is the only end. I must admit I hesitate at the idea of genocide, even in the preservation of the human species. Is such an act justifiable? For those who don't know: Spoiler Ender plays what he believes is a simulation, but is actually the real battle. He ends up completely destroying the homeworld of the Formics - a race of insectoid aliens associated via hive-mind - and becoming depressed at his actions. I'm still trying to collate all of the information.
1396
« on: December 08, 2014, 06:22:23 PM »
For the same reason they should be allowed to deny services to Nazis. Of course, the latter example is much more understandable. Nazis are - rightly - universally reviled for their largely disgusting creed. It's completely reasonable for a business owner to want to deny goods and services to these people, based on their sentiments.
If we allow this to be true then it seems prudent they should also be allowed to deny services to gays - or anybody else for that matter. I think it'd be objectively immoral to do so, but it isn't my job to lobby the government to enforce morality. It's also not really the governments job, in my mind, to promote such forms of morality.
That isn't to say, however, that these people should be excused. We, as consumers, ought to take a bit of responsibility and don a bit of self-reliance, and make these people incur the financial costs. Spread the word, protest, tell people that the owners are bigoted. If people still go to this service, and they remain in business then tough shit, really. It isn't your place to compel anyone to not receive services from such a place for such a reason.
But, what we don't do is cry to the government and get some fucking pointless law signed into being for the sake of "progress" and "justice".
1397
« on: December 08, 2014, 06:16:07 PM »
I have one idea, which I like to call the Aesthetic Principle, that I maintain is sort of semi-original. It basically asserts that all forms of human, if not sentient, behaviour necessarily stems from aesthetics. I've seen it expressed in vaguely similar forms - Pirsig's MOQ, Nietzsche's perspectivism - but never in a way that explicitly makes aesthetics the very basis of philosophy.
What about you?
1398
« on: December 08, 2014, 01:09:47 PM »
Ignore the typical Guardianista bias.A “never-before-seen” novel from the late Ayn Rand, who expounded her personal philosophy of “Objectivism” in the doorstopper work of fiction Atlas Shrugged, is due to be released next year, her publisher has announced.
The book is called Ideal, and was written by Rand in 1934 as a novel, but according to publisher New American Library, an imprint at Penguin Random House, the author “thought the theme of the piece would be better realised as a play and put the novel aside”. The Ayn Rand Institute says that the story “grew out of a conversation with a movie fan who gushed that she would give her life to meet a certain famous actress”. Rand was “dubious”, and came up with a slice of fiction “in which the integrity of those who profess to embrace ideals would be tested. What if their idol suddenly appears in their lives, seemingly desperately in need of help, so that their ideals now demand real action?”
Rand’s most famous work of fiction, Atlas Shrugged, is the story of John Galt, a man who wants to “stop the motor of the world”. Galt lives on the principle that “I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine”, with the novel – along with another of Rand’s works, The Fountainhead – more fully laying out her theory of Objectivism, “the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute”, as Rand herself put it.
George Monbiot has said that Rand’s beliefs have “a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the postwar world has produced”, while Sam Jordison, blogging about Atlas Shrugged for the Guardian, found that “it’s as unpleasant as it is daft and as a work of literature it’s deeply flawed”. Despite this, Rand’s work and theories have millions of followers, with more than 29.5m copies of her titles sold to date, according to the Ayn Rand Institute.
Ideal will be released next July, as the first novel from Rand since 1957’s Atlas Shrugged. It is, said its publisher, the story of the “beautiful but tormented actress” Kay Gonda, who goes on the run after being accused of murder. Desperate, she turns for help to six fans who have written to her, “each telling her that she represents their ideal – a respectable family man, a far-left activist, a cynical artist, an evangelist, a playboy, and a lost soul”.
“Each reacts to her plight in his own way, their reactions a glimpse into their secret selves and their true values. In the end their responses to her pleas give Kay the answers she has been seeking,” said the publisher.
The work was published as a play in 2005, but according to Publishers Weekly, the novel version of the story was rediscovered in 2012 when the Ayn Rand Institute’s publishing manager Richard Ralston was digitising the writer’s archives. The new edition will include the novel and the play version, giving, said New American Library, the “millions of Ayn Rand fans around the world … a unique opportunity to explore the creative process of Rand as she wrote first a book, then a play, and the differences between the two”.
“The arrival of a never-before-seen Ayn Rand novel will thrill dedicated readers and is a true publishing event,” NAL’s senior vice president and publisher Kara Welsh told Publishers Weekly.
Rand was born in 1905, publishing her first novel, We the Living, in 1936. The Fountainhead was released in 1943, and Atlas Shrugged, her last novel, in 1957. Rand died in 1982. I'll be looking forward to this one, although I'm yet to read Atlas Shrugged.
1399
« on: December 08, 2014, 12:48:56 PM »
You can measure the quality of an entity by, at least, two measures. The first is that it can experience, and the second is its capacity to experience.
By these criteria, we can judge that a dog is more valuable than a rock and that a human is more valuable than a dog. These seem, at least to me, sound conclusions. However, it also brings into question the idea of intra-species hierarchy.
Going by this, we should value the living over the dead, the healthy over the comatose and the young over the old. We should, however, also value the artistic over the boring, the intelligent over the stupid and the powerful over the weak. Some people, by whatever measure, are simply superior to others. Does this, necessarily, equate to justifying oppression and totalitarianism? No, of course not. It's often within the interest of the hierarchs to placate their inferiors.
However, I'm not so interested in the implications as the initial acceptance of the idea. This is my model, you can develop your own. So long as you agree to the idea that people are qualitatively different. I think this justifies a difference in treatment, also, but you may not have to.
EDIT: Nobody denies that people have differences in their ability.
In my experience, quite a lot of people have difficulty admitting there exists a hierarchy in which some are simply superior to others. It seems to offend liberal sentiments.
EDIT II: Okay, maybe I was too cautious with my initial proposition. Does this qualitative difference among people justify either institutional or interpersonal discrimination?
1400
« on: December 08, 2014, 12:23:49 PM »
I need to lie down. All the blood suddenly rushed from my head.
1401
« on: December 08, 2014, 11:01:06 AM »
I'll pick out some extracts for the most important points.In this essay I challenge the anti-authoritarian understanding of Nietzsche by showing that his refusal to grant legitimacy to the state refers only to the modern state. He is critical of the normative authority demanded by the liberal state, an authority based on antecedent consensus.
[...]
At the same time, he grants legitimacy to non-normative authority, either charismatic or traditional, like the one held by the aristocratic states of antiquity, and by modern strong commanders like Napoleon.
[...]
In his early work (1862-74), Nietzsche assigns an instrumental role to the state, namely facilitating the procreation of the artistic genius. This aim can only be attained by the Olympian existence of an aristocracy secured by the enforcement of slave labour.This is most evident in his essay “The Greek State” where the authority of the state is said to derive from the natural subordination of slaves. Slavery is the necessary condition for the development of an aristocratic culture.
[...]
In HATH (1878), Nietzsche develops another facet of the notion of natural subordination conceived as the original foundation of authority. He understands the authority of the classical state as subordinate to religion. The triumph of liberal equality severs all links with religion and hierarchical conceptions. The state loses legitimacy and this marks the beginning of its extinction. What Nietzsche fears most are the revolutionary upheavals that follow the extinction of the state, and is willing to compromise with democracy to delay that occurrence.
[...]
In 1881, a change takes place in his argumentative strategy when he realizes that the failure of that legislation has led Bismark to promulgate welfare policies that further erode aristocratic authority. He now argues that the worst adversary of state authority is democracy. This is the point of departure of his campaign against current morality which he blames for the growth and consolidation of democracy. Simultaneously, he initiates a campaign in favour of a new aristocratic morality, a key element of which is an ethics of command and obedience. Further notes He defends the non-normative legitimacy of non-liberal authorities, both charismatic figures and the authority held by tradition. In 1862, he writes an essay in which he lauds the victory of Cavaignac over the socialists, “of the monarchical principle over the republic” and then the coup d’etat of Napoleon III in 1851, which Nietzsche justifies on the basis of his charismatic authority. Nietzsche privileges the authority exercised by concrete individuals as opposed to the liberal rule of abstract normativity.
He sees parliamentary democracy on the rise in Germany and this has meant a weakening of the authority of the executive state. In turn, this constitutes a grave impediment for the advancement of culture. A well-ordered state is one which places itself at the service of culture and does not step beyond this ancillary role. It is clear that Nietzsche is not critical of a state that strongly promotes culture.
The democratic state, grounded in popular consent, cannot aspire to develop a true culture. An aristocratic state is required for that purpose, a state whose matrix is a superhuman executive authority, a figure of divine proportions that can grant legitimacy to state authority.
Slaves are instruments par excellence and a society that appreciates culture must necessarily be a slave society. Such a society requires a state that sponsors an ethics of command and obedience. The state must remain in the service of an aristocratic society and culture, and serves as an “iron clamp” to establish and preserve the institution of slavery.
Nietzsche believes socialism is to be blamed for undermining the foundations of a healthy ethics of entrepreneurship. The captains of industry no longer seek to cultivate and heighten their superiority, and have thus lost their noble manners. Military society has yielded to an industrial society which shuns the ethics of command and obedience. Present-day workers understandably perceive their bosses as “clever, bloodsucking dogs, who exploit their needs, and whose name, figure, habits and reputation are indifferent to them”.
One may obey or disobey the commands of the will to power. Those who disobey will end up being commanded, and those who obey will be commanders. The will to power is not merely a drive for self-transcendence in pursuit of self-perfection; it also articulates an interpersonal relationship that involves command and obedience.
This marks Nietzsche’s determination not to ground the legitimacy of state authority on contractual formalities. At the same time, he defends other forms of authority as legitimate – charismatic authority and traditional authority. Love a bit of Nietzsche.
1402
« on: December 06, 2014, 01:21:49 PM »
Which would it be?
It seems to me that most fictional governments (especially science fiction) are either corrupt, incompetent or authoritarian. 1984, Brave New World, the UNSC, the Ministry of Magic, ARM in Known Space, the Galactic Empire, China's communist government, the Protheans from Mass Effect, the Tau - all fictional and all authoritarian, for better or for worse.
So, if you know of any liberal/libertarian governments in fiction which you'd like to live under - name them. However, I'd also like you to choose from among the more undesirable fictional regimes you know.
I'd probably choose the government in Brave New World, or the Tau, if I had to. Both seem to keep their populations particularly content, instead of fearful.
1403
« on: December 05, 2014, 03:44:15 PM »
I tend to think that economic liberties are more important than social ones.
Also, let's add civic and political liberties to the equation too. If I had to rank them, it'd probably go: - Economic - Civic - Social - Political
1404
« on: December 05, 2014, 02:48:09 PM »
I made a similar thread not too long ago about the rise of antiheroes and people rooting for the villains - which I'm sure has a lot to do with aesthetics. While I'm sure it says more about me than anything else that I, quite literally, almost always root for the baddies or, given the situation, antiheroes - Underwood, Dexter, Moriarty, Sidious, Raoul Silva, et cetera.
However, it's not just rooting for them for aesthetic purposes. I literally hold them in higher regard than their opponents; I respect them more. I relate to them more. While this may not be the case with all of those listed, I know that everybody who has seen House of Cards and enjoys it utterly respects Frank Underwood, despite the fact the man is a ruthless, manipulative, power-hungry psychopath.
So, why is this? Do we respect power and pragmatism? Is their something in the ruthlessness of psychopaths, and their sheer detachment, that we find admirable?
1405
« on: December 05, 2014, 01:25:08 PM »
Posted by Turkey in Dustin's thread, I felt it warranted its own discussion. It's based on The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas. There's a utopian society with literally no strife. No rulers or politicians, police, or soldiers. Everyone is happy and they're free to explore whatever intellectual or creative passion they desire.
When each citizen reaches a certain age, they're shown the city's secret: In a small, dark closet in a cellar, with no windows, there's a child sitting naked and dirty. The child's malnourished, and mentally ill. It gets fed every now and then by being kicked awake and given a bowl of greasy corn meal, and it lives in its own filth and excrement.
Everyone of age knows about the child, and most accept it. If the child were to leave the room or otherwise be treated well, all the prosperity of Omelas would end forever and the city would be destroyed. Eventually, some people choose to leave the city, and never return.
-Would you walk away? -Is it more cruel to accept the child's sacrifice, or to abandon the city? -Is it justifiable to rescue the child and destroy the city?
1406
« on: December 01, 2014, 02:53:22 PM »
Bisexuals.
I remember reading somewhere that bis are seen by some gays within the "community" as fence-sitters and people who can't make up their mind. I can back that up from personal experience, to a minor degree, and I can't find the source right at the moment >.>
Essentially, I'm asking if the LGBT community - to the extent that it's organised and has people who self-identify within the movement - has a chronic problem with the treatment of bisexuals.
1407
« on: December 01, 2014, 02:00:23 PM »
Anti-coercionists are usually found among the more libertarian libertarians, anarchists and hippies. Coercion, for the uninitiated, is essentially persuasion but with force or psychological intimidation. Putting fear in people.
Now, it sounds lovely to have us all sing Kumbaya and link hands around a tree, but society doesn't work like that. Bertrand Russell one said, with great perception, that as energy is the fundamental concept of physics, power is the fundamental concept in social science. Coercion is but a means to power, the Will to Power, and it requires intelligence in order to use properly. Only the foolish see coercion as a force lacking nuance and variation.
Coercion requires ruthlessness, ambition and duplicity; some of the greatest attributes nature saw fit to grant us with. Coercion for the ambitious is as money is to the capitalist. Now, am I arguing that we should beat the living shit out people who disagree with us? No, of course not. But to completely revile coercion is to misunderstand how humans interact with each other.
If you aren't ruthless at something, you're worthless.
1408
« on: December 01, 2014, 11:36:45 AM »
It's not a tumor. It's not a tumor, at all.
1409
« on: December 01, 2014, 09:43:08 AM »
A lot of people's views are tempered by pragmatism and social considerations, but if you could institute any ideology and have it work to a sufficient degree - what would it be? In my heart, I'm very much a Bonapartist*. It'd be certainly nice, too, to be the Bonaparte in question. * Spoiler It refers to a political movement that advocates the idea of a strong and centralized state, where populist rhetoric supports a strongman or caudillo. For Bonapartists, the most significant lesson of the Revolution was that unity of government and governed was paramount. The honey bee was a prominent political emblem for both the First and Second Empires, representing the Bonapartist ideal of devoted service, self-sacrifice and social loyalty.
1410
« on: November 30, 2014, 02:21:30 PM »
What're the psychological motivators behind people rooting for the obvious villains of a series. This can happen when the sheer ridiculousness of the situation - such as Patriot by Mel Gibson, which tried to paint the British as borderline Nazis and just didn't work. And, of course, it can happen when the villain just absolutely steals the show, like Heath Ledger's Joker.
The explanation I find most interesting, however, is that in these instances where the prior cases don't apply, people will root for the side most similar to them. It bodes ill, to say the least, as I always root for the East India Training Company and the Galactic Empire.
Although, to be honest, rooting for the Empire isn't particularly unusual. This is in Serious because I'm interesting in the psychological motivations behind rooting for the baddies when they aren't A) just a joke B) the focus. It's similar to the way people (not even Germans or alive at the time) can feel nostalgic, respectful or otherwise sympathetic to the Nazis.
Pages: 1 ... 454647 4849 ... 67
|