alanschu Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Now they named genocide as social evolution. I don't have time to watch the link right now. Does the video state that genocide is social evolution? Or were you equating my perspective to being a genocidal one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meshugger Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Having said that, perhaps the next step of societal evolution frankly IS the dissolution of culture? Who knows if we'll ever get there (probably not), but if human beings were to identify more with being "human beings" instead of a particular nationality, I wonder what sort of changes in the types of conflicts would exist between people. That would be one of the greatest paradigm shifts in humanity. No longer there would by any kind of "us & them", there would be no group-formations, no competition, nothing to compare to, no judgment or acknowledgement. Everyone would be an atom of thought in a sea of minds for common goal, which sounds waaay to Asimovian sci-fi for me. 1 "Some men see things as they are and say why?""I dream things that never were and say why not?"- George Bernard Shaw"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."- Friedrich Nietzsche "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Some guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoraptor Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 What is a drop of rain, compared to the storm? What is a thought compared to a mind? Our unity is full of wonder that your tiny individualism cannot even conceive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 That would be one of the greatest paradigm shifts in humanity. No longer there would by any kind of "us & them", there would be no group-formations, no competition, nothing to compare to, no judgment or acknowledgement. Everyone would be an atom of thought in a sea of minds for common goal, which sounds waaay to Asimovian sci-fi for me. As unlikely as it would be (I agree it'd be a huge shift), I don't think it'd get rid of competition, or even judgment or acknowledgement. If people identified themselves as a "human being" first and foremost, it just means that a lot of the racial/cultural motivations for conflict are minimialized/eliminated. I play hard in a game of volleyball not because I wish to assert my dominant culture. I certainly don't try harder against different ethnicities. I like to win though (what's this get me... dopamine? Haha) and it's fun to compete and play at a competitive level, so I continue to do so. Alberta is considered more "redneck" and perhaps more homogeneous (especially in rural areas) but I still compete with others for employment and purchases (like my condo) in addition to leisure activities. I wouldn't consider the dissolution of culture/nationalism as something that would make people all communists or anything like that, working towards the collective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obyknven Posted October 8, 2012 Author Share Posted October 8, 2012 That would be one of the greatest paradigm shifts in humanity. No longer there would by any kind of "us & them", there would be no group-formations, no competition, nothing to compare to, no judgment or acknowledgement. Everyone would be an atom of thought in a sea of minds for common goal, which sounds waaay to Asimovian sci-fi for me. ... I wouldn't consider the dissolution of culture/nationalism as something that would make people all communists or anything like that, working towards the collective. Substitution of concepts. Multiculturalism is not Marxism thing. This is North-American consumption postmodern culture. Because consumers can't produce anything, they steal elements of other cultures and mix these parts. Internationalism totally different. It's just alliance exploited class of all nations in class war against parasitic classes. Following on from Marx, Lenin took up the national question as a means of arming the revolutionary social democracy in Russia and uniting the oppressed nationalities under the banner of the working class. In answer to national oppression, the Russian Marxists (in the famous Clause 9 of the Russian Social Democratic Party) called for the right of nations to self-determination - that is, to complete separation as states. "To accuse those who support freedom of self-determination, i.e., freedom to secede, of encouraging separation, is foolish and hypocritical as accusing those who advocate freedom of divorce of encouraging the destruction of family ties", stated Lenin. (The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, p.83) "The bourgeoisie always places its national demands in the forefront, and does so in categorical fashion. With the proletariat, however, these demands are subordinated to the interests of the class struggle." (Ibid, p.21) And again, "While recognising equality and equal rights to a national state, it values above all and places foremost the alliance of the proletarians of all nations, and assesses any national demand, any national separation, from the angle of the workers' class struggle." "The cornerstone of the whole policy of the Communist International on the national and colonial questions", stated Lenin, "must be closer union of the proletarians and working masses generally of all nations and countries for a joint revolutionary struggle to overthrow the landlords and the bourgeoisie; for this alone will guarantee victory over capitalism, without which the abolition of national oppression and inequality is impossible." (Preliminary Draft of Theses on the National and Colonial Questions, 5th June 1920) More in "Nationalism in Lenin" by Leon Trotsky. http://www.marxists....25/lenin/10.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 I'm getting LoF vibes now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 I'm getting LoF vibes now! I know, they grow up so fast! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcador Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 What is a drop of rain, compared to the storm? What is a thought compared to a mind? Our unity is full of wonder that your tiny individualism cannot even conceive. For some reason I read that in Sheng-ji Yang's voice. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meshugger Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 That would be one of the greatest paradigm shifts in humanity. No longer there would by any kind of "us & them", there would be no group-formations, no competition, nothing to compare to, no judgment or acknowledgement. Everyone would be an atom of thought in a sea of minds for common goal, which sounds waaay to Asimovian sci-fi for me. As unlikely as it would be (I agree it'd be a huge shift), I don't think it'd get rid of competition, or even judgment or acknowledgement. If people identified themselves as a "human being" first and foremost, it just means that a lot of the racial/cultural motivations for conflict are minimialized/eliminated. I play hard in a game of volleyball not because I wish to assert my dominant culture. I certainly don't try harder against different ethnicities. I like to win though (what's this get me... dopamine? Haha) and it's fun to compete and play at a competitive level, so I continue to do so. Alberta is considered more "redneck" and perhaps more homogeneous (especially in rural areas) but I still compete with others for employment and purchases (like my condo) in addition to leisure activities. I wouldn't consider the dissolution of culture/nationalism as something that would make people all communists or anything like that, working towards the collective. There's a slight difference there, you do not beat others in volleyball to assert your dominant culture, you beat them because you want your team to win. Their traits are just a secondary manifestation from the original reason: they are the other guys. If we start to think of everyone as one, then the reason for competition will then be pointless, which is why i think that the elimination of culture is a major shift in human social interaction. A step to monoculture is more likely, however bleak that would be. "Some men see things as they are and say why?""I dream things that never were and say why not?"- George Bernard Shaw"Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man."- Friedrich Nietzsche "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." - Some guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 "She has already made public her programme for the next few months and pointed out that cultural diversity should become an inalienable part of Norway’s everyday life." What exactly does that mean in practical terms? There are none that are right, only strong of opinion. There are none that are wrong, only ignorant of facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGX-17 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) Googled Hadi Tajik. DAAAAAAYUM girl, you lookin' fine! yeah, capitalism has turned out the be in the top-100 of bad things - although it did a marvelous job to begin with. Unfortunately it did not create the equality and natural balance that it would in theory - in instead created huge multinational firms much akin to the trading companies of the 16-18th centuries. So I'm totally down with restructuring that too. B-bu-buh-but regulation is the problem, not laissez-faire! *crayon scribbles over the portions of Adam Smith where he says government regulation and taxation of the rich are vital for capitalism to work* RON PAUL 2012! Lemme show you my sweet Friedrich Hayek tramp stamp, bro! Edited October 9, 2012 by AGX-17 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 There's a slight difference there, you do not beat others in volleyball to assert your dominant culture, you beat them because you want your team to win. Their traits are just a secondary manifestation from the original reason: they are the other guys. If we start to think of everyone as one, then the reason for competition will then be pointless, which is why i think that the elimination of culture is a major shift in human social interaction. A step to monoculture is more likely, however bleak that would be. I think everyone identifying themselves as "human being first" is closer to the monoculture idea you're talking about. I still see the opposing team as "the other guys" regardless of culture, and I don't think this disappears if people are less nationalistic. The fact that this still exists despite homogeneous cultures is evidence that humanity's competitiveness is not dependent on culture. At best it provides an alternative form of competitiveness (you see it in the Olympics, which actually makes me shake my head more and more), but Michael Phelps still competes as hard as he can against Ryan Lochte, despite both being American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoraptor Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 What is a drop of rain, compared to the storm? What is a thought compared to a mind? Our unity is full of wonder that your tiny individualism cannot even conceive. For some reason I read that in Sheng-ji Yang's voice. It's The Many from System Shock 2. I rather like it because it is appropriate for both extremes, nationalists who want everyone in their country to think as one mind and multicult types who also want everyone to think with one mind- just in a different way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcador Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Would also work for Yang though, well, the non-individualistic stuff anyway. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoraptor Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Yeah, Yang and The Many are both broadly intended to be 'communists'- old school authoritarian collectivists- so a lot of their stuff sounds very similar. Yang's VO about returning to the vats (when you discover cloning? iirc) has almost a direct equivalent from The Many as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcador Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Recycling Tanks. Some of the base facilities in this game are kinda offputting if you think about it. Like the Punishment Sphere. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humodour Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) "She has already made public her programme for the next few months and pointed out that cultural diversity should become an inalienable part of Norway’s everyday life." What exactly does that mean in practical terms? Well, in Australia (and Canada), multiculturalism is bound into law (has been since the 70's in both countries). So if it isn't bound into law in Norway yet, perhaps that's what she is proposing. Otherwise it just sounds to me like she's continuing the theme of "Breivik and what he stood for were evil - we need to keep pushing in the opposite direction to those evils and embrace others cultures as a society, rather than drifting towards intolerance and insularism". Googled Hadi Tajik. DAAAAAAYUM girl, you lookin' fine! yeah, capitalism has turned out the be in the top-100 of bad things - although it did a marvelous job to begin with. Unfortunately it did not create the equality and natural balance that it would in theory - in instead created huge multinational firms much akin to the trading companies of the 16-18th centuries. So I'm totally down with restructuring that too. B-bu-buh-but regulation is the problem, not laissez-faire! *crayon scribbles over the portions of Adam Smith where he says government regulation and taxation of the rich are vital for capitalism to work* RON PAUL 2012! Lemme show you my sweet Friedrich Hayek tramp stamp, bro! I love you. Edited October 11, 2012 by Krezack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosbjerg Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 B-bu-buh-but regulation is the problem, not laissez-faire! *crayon scribbles over the portions of Adam Smith where he says government regulation and taxation of the rich are vital for capitalism to work* RON PAUL 2012! Lemme show you my sweet Friedrich Hayek tramp stamp, bro! I'm not a big fan of the Austrian school - although we agree that the fed is currently one of the biggest problems in modern economy. The fundamental problem imo is, that the system assumes the highest level of responsibility from the consumer, which is something we've seen again and again is just not present. And without restrictions and that responsibility the entire system is in a very real danger of succumbing to cartels, misinformation and outright exploitation of the consumer. Fortune favors the bald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGX-17 Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 (edited) B-bu-buh-but regulation is the problem, not laissez-faire! *crayon scribbles over the portions of Adam Smith where he says government regulation and taxation of the rich are vital for capitalism to work* RON PAUL 2012! Lemme show you my sweet Friedrich Hayek tramp stamp, bro! I'm not a big fan of the Austrian school - although we agree that the fed is currently one of the biggest problems in modern economy. The fundamental problem imo is, that the system assumes the highest level of responsibility from the consumer, which is something we've seen again and again is just not present. And without restrictions and that responsibility the entire system is in a very real danger of succumbing to cartels, misinformation and outright exploitation of the consumer. Big business and government are the biggest, baddest cartel of our time, and exploitation takes place wherever possible. The progressive/labor movement of the early 20th century made the US/Western European populace more difficult to exploit, which is why they move their operations overseas to countries with weak labor laws, to find a more exploitable labor force. Well, except for the economic utopia of Deutschland. Zey are so industrious. Economics wasn't recognized as a legitimate science by Alfred Nobel (the economics prize was conjured up by a Swiss bank,) and it's dominated more by ideology than evidence. Reform in the field of economics is just as vital as reform in government. Classical/Neo-Classical economists tend to be right-wing ideologues more concerned with pushing the conservative agenda than studying the economy to find what works best. Evidence that laissez-faire can't work has been building exponentially thanks to more "hard" sciences like biology (humans are not fundamentally rational, selfish robots, for example.) They disregard the ample potential for corruption that has been recognized even by the laymen of the ancient world, and has been rife in every era in human history. The Randroids amongst them are the most delusional, ignoring entirely that all of human achievement up to this day has required cooperation and social cohesion, something which they consider the cardinal sin on Earth which must be eradicated. Capitalism is a better system than feudalism, no doubt, but that doesn't make it the final, ideal system of economy. .... This has been completely tangential to the thread subject, but worth saying, at least. Edited October 11, 2012 by AGX-17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 http://youtu.be/K-gRi635a6U I shared this with my students today. It is incredibly sad, but I was also amazed by this young girl's strength and courage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcador Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Not that sad - she's not dead yet. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 The sad part is that she was targeted at all. Hopefully she will make a full recovery, it sounds like she is getting the best medical care available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoonDing Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Another big problem in those backwards countries besides girls having no access to education is the disgusting child weddings The ending of the words is ALMSIVI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 That is why the young girl is so spot on when she speaks about the importance of education. The problem in these countries isn't Islam or tribalism, the problem is ignorance. Groups like the Taliban rely on ignorance to gain power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcador Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 The sad part is that she was targeted at all. Hopefully she will make a full recovery, it sounds like she is getting the best medical care available. Hardly the first - maybe first with a gun, they seem to like acid for these things. I guess the fact she's an activist is causing all the attention (good for her though, helps get that treatment, too). Eventually they'll start acting decently, heh. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now