@Bartender_Venator's banner p

Bartender_Venator


				

				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2023 April 20 03:54:53 UTC

				

User ID: 2349

Bartender_Venator


				
				
				

				
1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2023 April 20 03:54:53 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 2349

I think that no matter how many bombs you drop you would have a lot of trouble turning Germany into Germany, too.

This is actually very easy to understand from a Marxist perspective, particularly if you've read your Charles Murray. Capitalist/managerial elites, and those who have the talent to join their magic circles at a young age, want maximal social freedom for themselves, and don't really care what happens when the working class adopts their memes. Nowadays Capital has taken it to an entirely new level by creating sexual memes optimized for sniping technophiliac Sensitive Young Autists.

Notably, Stacey Abrams also claimed that her 2018 gubernatorial election was Stolen (I will, in fairness to both her and Blake Masters' mysteriously broken voting machines, say that having partisan Secretaries of State overseeing elections seems insane to me).

It's significantly more than the Lizardman Constant. Rasmussen in 2023 had 32% of Democrats believing it was very likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election (13% "somewhat likely"). 62% all voters for very/somewhat. Now, before someone jumps on me, that's "affected", not "the election was stolen". But this loss of faith is a serious problem, and no amount of socially enforced outgroup-blaming or ostrich-heading among Respectable People will change that.

Y’all need to fix the DMV before anyone talks about voter ID.

I believe this is known as the Moldbug Speedrun.

I yeschad to your first paragraph, but with regard to the last point - that may be a current among weird Kansas evangelicals, but the typical Anglo-civil-libertarian opposition to mandatory ID is more along the lines of "it's not a question of what the government pinky promises to do with it now, but what it can do with it in the future - plus, we can expect it to end up disenfranchising innocent people in a much worse way than something like slapping voter ID onto the existing system." This is very much a live political issue in the UK, where several governments have tried to introduce national ID and failed (voting in the UK also requires a government-issued photo ID, or a certificate from your local voting authority including a photo and the UK-equivalent of an SSN).

The words of a man who will never get to China.

I have not had much trouble at Newark lately, but I know it's usually a shitshow in all respects. Touchless ID should at least smooth some of that out if you're signed up and flying through a terminal that has it.

Austen is much more accessible to the modern reader than the KJV or Hamlet, and reading things like Pride and Prejudice will prepare you for reading Shakespeare.

Funny, I would hard disagree on the Shakespeare point. Sure, there will be even more words you have to look at the footnotes for, but Shakespeare's plays are written to be performed on stage, generally in a simple and natural meter, which inherently limits sentence length and complexity. Having trouble with To Be or Not To Be? Just read it like you were speaking it. Austen and the later Victorian novelists are the result of a tradition continually building on Shakespeare's English, making it more structurally complex and verbose to fit a reading public rather than a theatre audience (if nothing else, if you look at Victorian novelists, their most kudzu sentences are generally physical descriptions of a scene, which Shakespeare doesn't do much. Marlowe, yes, but rarely Shakespeare).

These days, at least in the airports I use, it's a <5 minute process, and the only inconvenience is emptying my pockets into my bag and putting them back in. Walk in, Touchless ID/CLEAR, get to a line of a few people on the new machines, bags in, metal detector, done. Not that there aren't absolute disasters, like Austin last weekend, but those are usually pretty easy to avoid. Sure, it would be nice to just not have it, but when has the government ever abolished a jobs program that lets them charge you money?

Airport security basically doesn't exist as an inconvenience any more if you are willing to pass a background check and pay some money. The background check is what actually replaces the security, the money is why they keep the shitty lines for the plebs.

...I hope you're not claiming to get that view from actual Straussians. The closest thing there is to a (West Coast) Straussian perspective on the current state of Congress is that the Constitution intends for the legislature to be a dynamic, powerful branch which acts to shape the law as necessary. The Senate is a participant in that process, but a participant in an actual working process. Congress today is a castrati choir because of the Leviathan you mentioned, but Congress also willingly abdicated their power to Leviathan in order to keep their chairs comfy and spend more time fundraising.

Then, I'd like to see a hard RETVRN to Federalism that places states as the primary "actors." California can experiment with its polyamory socialist redistributionism while West Virginia fucks around with legalizing machine guns.

From your lips to Lady Columbia's ears.

I do think the word had a different valence in the 19th Century, more neutral - in part because of its entirely negative use by socialists. Think of the the way the word is used for the exploitation of mineral deposits, for instance (that is to say, "exploitation" had the connotation of treating people as resources, still mildly negative but not as inflammatory as today). For what it's worth, the robot agrees - but I may be wrong, this is just the vibe I get from old books. At the same time, Marx was very much a pamphleteer as well as economist, so I think it's partly both.

My sympathy is strictly with the textualist Marxists who also find this annoying when the kids around them are doing it. They do exist and I appreciate their grumpiness.

Because if you are, then you should know that preserving the original sentence structure is flat out impossible in many cases because languages have different grammars. What is correct structure in language A can be very much not correct in language B.

I think I've been unclear there. What I mean to say is that if a book has complex and layered sentence structure, that should be reflected in the translation, and likewise if it has clear prose with short sentences. Translation is not a case of going word for word. For instance, if you are translating a single-sentence modernist novel, your translation should if at all possible be a single sentence in the other language. It's an art that trades off preserving word-for-word accuracy, semantics, flow, rhythm, and structural considerations. I've read a couple works in multiple translations, and you can see how the tradeoffs work and which translators do it better.

I did see your examples, and I'm sorry to say that Example 3 is just worse prose (to be fair, Example 2, the Finnish translation, is execrable, I assume because that sentence structure is impossible in Finnish?). It's easier for an inattentive or less experienced reader to follow, because it breaks up the sentence with an extra verb and a reminder of the subject, but it kills the rhythm and unbalances the structure. Try reading the original and the edit out loud - notice how, for instance, the original is instantly dramatic, with the little break between "Woodhouse" and "handsome" making you read "handsome, clever, and rich" with energy, notice how the emphases on "house" and "handsome" both play on each other and break natural iambic rhythm in a way that makes "handsome" bounce off the tongue, and that runs all the way to the next strong syllable of "COMfortable". Meanwhile Example 3 reads comparatively flat, just conveying information, more like a movie narrator or a story you could read out in a classroom.

Seriously, what is it with these condescending personal attacks? Do you truly believe that anyone who disagrees with you can only do so because they are somehow inferior?

It's fine for the various forms of art appreciation to be skills you have to learn and develop - and, as you point out, only a small fraction of native speakers ever develop them. As an example, I am a complete philistine when it comes to appreciating music (but I also don't insist to my Wagner-loving friends that he's got too many notes and they're just gatekeeping). I suppose I could couch it in more padding and compliments and so on, but this is the Autism Forum. I told you how it is, and gave you my advice, which is to use authors who bridge the gap in prose style between the modernists and the Victorians as a way to develop those skills.

To a more general point, I think a lot of people have skills they don't think of as "skills" but as innate things which are reflections of their intelligence, self-worth, whatever. I've made this point a lot in the various Wellness Wednesday discussions of socializing, making friends, dating, etc. that those things are skills you have to learn and practice consciously, and doing that is the difference between getting what you want socially and becoming an ngmi shut-in. People are more receptive to that advice about social skills here, because, again, this is the Autism Forum, but it's also true of reading and writing prose. Such is life.

Calvin Westra's Moth Girl. I, uh, didn't think anyone would ever write a good novel told almost entirely through text/internet messages, and I think I was wrong. Also interesting to see the book take themes and tricks from his previous novellas and expand them. The man's a maestro and I expect great things in future.

However translating to a foreign language - which throws the sentence structure to wind and streamlines it significantly

Then that is a bad translation. If a book has complex and difficult sentence structure in the original, it should be preserved in translation (and some translations, like Ottilie Mulzet's translations from Hungarian, imo qualify as great works in themselves). Of course, good writing, ideally, has sentences which are complex but not difficult, sentences which flow, which pull you along in a clear semantic progress from concept to concept. Reading these sentences is a skill, one which modern readers have to develop, but that's fine, it's part of being a good reader. You may be taking too much of a jump at once - consider taking a look at Conrad or some other turn-of-the-century author, who can act as a bridge into the Victorians. Personally, I read very few Victorian novels, too stodgy for me, but still try to keep sharp on it to read Victorian poetry, history, and philosophy.

With respect to archaic terms, that's understandably frustrating to non-native speakers, but also part of the game. There are very few cases where you can seamlessly replace a word without some semantic or rhythmic difference. Where I do share your frustration is with the ebook format. Footnotes are very easy, and often necessary, on a physical book (e.g. there is simply no way to do without them for a Classical text), but a huge pain in the ass on e-readers.

This is one of many cases where Marxist Language and ordinary language hit friction. "Exploitation", in Marx, is a very precise concept that is supposed to be a technical term, different from ordinary use (iirc, the employer's capture of surplus-value, as in asdasd's examples). Of course, in practice, it becomes a case of using the scope of the technical term with the moral connotations of its ordinary use. I sympathize with the ornery back-to-the-text Marxists who also find this frustrating, but it's an inherently frustrating thing about arguing Marxist theory and the majority of "Marxists" seem to enjoy the motte-and-bailey games it enables. Honestly, I think Marx did, too, there's always a tension in his work between the serious economist and the firebrand pamphleteer.

Seconding Erbil, once things have calmed down. Also get out to the countryside while you're there, many historical sites.

And while the University of Chicago is Ivy-tier academically, and covered with physical ivy, it is not an Ivy League university - that's purely restricted to the Northeastern US.

If a motivated administration could actually take down corrupt urban political machines, the deportations thing would be a footnote afterwards. But at that point you might as well ask for a new flag.

Ah, yeah, I've posted before about my travails in college diagramming out Kant's arguments for a required formal logic class. Impressive to do at 17, or really at any age where you're not being forced to do so. But it was always really the transcendentals and related stuff that interested me in Kant, his morality is far too autismal.

maybe I'd try reading Heidegger's Simulacrum and Simulation

I would also love to read that book! Maybe AI can write it someday...

Assuming you mean Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation, it's a great book, but it's also very theoretical and very much of its time, you're not going to get actionable insights from it. What I would recommend, from a Heideggerian perspective, is Matthew Crawford's book The World Beyond Your Head - Crawford is definitely the best writer on this stuff who makes the philosophy accessible, concrete, and practical. Then, if you want to connect that to more academic philosophy, check out Albert Borgmann's Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life, which is an attempt to use Heidegger's theory of technology to interpret the situation of modern life.

Turns out we were all Iranian/Israeli bots, our uptime not so good lately.

Interesting, I found Kant an enjoyable read because of the ideas, but god, the prose - partly, I think, that's because the English Kant tradition makes a lot of really annoying translation choices, like "intuition" for "perception of an external object".

I've done a Jhourney retreat and it was great. I didn't hit a Jhana but many people did and I still found it very rewarding. Their approach is to treat the Jhanas as simply mental states, without a lot of the religious or mystical baggage, and try to find efficient ways to reach them. Very rat-adjacent. But yeah, super expensive for the in-person retreats and the online ones aren't exactly cheap either, definitely priced for their tech audience.