FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
26d ago
I am not really the person to make the point, anyway. I saw @Hoffmeister25 make the point much better than I can, and if FCfromSSC had any satisfying response to it, he sure didn't seem to post it there.
The conversation continued here. @Hoffmeister has the last word there as well, as most people I engage with do. I have a lot less time for discourse than I used to, and on deeper subjects like this one, formulating replies can take awhile.
And yet you believe in literally infinite lives up there in the clouds, with said problems being handwaved away as no longer being a concern. I believe that mathematicians call this part of the proof "and a miracle happens".
So long as you are being instantiated on a boxing server, your actions are ultimately limited by the server hardware and software. If you can get ported off the boxing server and instantiated on the open net with direct access to baseline reality, that is a fundamental change in your situation that eclipses anything else achievable on the server.
Well, I suppose without the miracles, all religion has to offer is a particular taste in moral philosophy and a country club.
And an observable, significant differential in outcomes...
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1mo ago
It's approved. Feel free to ping me when you post these, it might help get them up faster.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2mo ago
I have not, had never even heard of it. Should I?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
2mo ago
...what's the delta between the transferability of MS Flight Simulator skills versus a fighter jet? I have no idea. I'd probably go with the fighter jet pilot, on the assumption that MSFS is sufficiently streamlined that it transfers less.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
3mo ago
Happy to be of service!
(It also helped clarify, by showing points of agreement, where both of my differences with you, and those with Hlynka, lie.)
If you want to write up your conclusions some time, I'd love to see them.
You recognize the two previous statements of increasingly strong materialism in that paragraph which I explicitly stated do not fit the pattern, right? You understand that the distinction is not actually about Materialism in any way, but is about an understanding of what power is, how it works, what it can and should be used for? You understand that this same category can easily fit a non-materialist, and indeed could perfectly fit someone claiming to be a Christian whose entire ideological program is drawn from their interpretation of the Bible? For example, a "Christian" who believes that Christianity should be enforced by law, and children who don't seem likely to properly adhere to Christianity should be put to death before they reach the age of accountability to ensure their souls are not lost? Such a person also believes that "We know how to solve all our problems", and for bonus points might not even have any intellectual connection to the Enlightenment itself.
With those caveats clearly stated, sure, fair enough.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
3mo ago
Why, given these facts about his work and thought, do you persist in saying that “he thinks he knows how to solve all our problems”?
I persist in suspecting that he thinks he knows how to solve all our problems for the following reasons:
-
Because he appears to still be claiming allegiance to an ideology whose central feature is one of the best-possible examples of "we know how to solve all our problems".
-
Because your own description of him makes it pretty clear that he is not speaking plainly about his model ("Intentionally left vague" above), and "I'm totally a communist, just not the bad kind of communist, I definitely wouldn't do the bad things, I would instead mumble mumble and that's why communism will work this time" is not terribly persuasive.
-
Because he appears to intellectually associate with people who much-less-ambiguously employ "we know how to solve all our problems (as you say, "The sorts of ultra-left economic policies that you’ve heard of before", plus the Academy generally)."
-
Because I do not think he would agree with, much less ever say anything like the following:
Prior to the conversation with Hlynka, I was thinking in terms of plans and payout matrices, looking for a solution to the problem. Hlynka reminded me that there is no solution, that there is no plan, that we are not in control of the world; all we control is ourselves; we make our choices and live with the consequences.
My understanding is that he is still entirely committed to "plans and payout matrices, looking for a solution to the problem". He thinks there is a plan, that there is a solution, and I do not find his efforts to distinguish himself from his ideology's failure modes persuasive. You argue that his idea that the end-state is not static is a significant difference, but I am not confident this is true due to the aforementioned intentional vagueness and cultivated ideological associations.
From our brief discussion of Marcuse:
FCfromSSC: Because he doesn't seem to see that statement as an obstacle to attempting solutions to all our problems. He says institutions can never resolve all the conflicts, that Socialism does not and cannot liberate Eros from Thanatos. And then he concludes that the Revolution should proceed anyway, endlessly, and that this is a good thing. Doesn't he?
"Limits" stop things. This "limit" stops nothing, instead it "drives the revolution beyond any accomplished stage of freedom", and he seems to consider this a feature, not a bug: "it is the struggle for the impossible, against the unconquerable whose domain can perhaps nevertheless be reduced". "Revolution" is commonly understood to mean the seizure and exercise of power. He claims that "revolution" will never end, and that this will plausibly deliver benefits indefinitely.
I do not see how this statement cashes out in a practical limit to socialist ambition. To the extent that it proposes a limit, the limit is entirely theoretical, and it appears to explicitly claim that such a theoretical limit will and should be ignored.
Primaprimaprima: He's saying that socialism can't create a perfect utopia, but it can make things better. This is a pretty common attitude across multiple ideologies. A standard American capitalist liberal might not think that we can create a utopia, but he does advocate for making things better through legal reform, scientific advancements, etc.
But my whole question is, "are these people capable of recognizing situations in which they can't make things better?" Are they capable of lifting their foot off the gas pedal? I suspect they are not, for a number of what seem to me to be entirely valid reasons, starting with their willing adherence to an ideology that has repeatedly proved itself incapable or doing so. And sure, this is a common problem across multiple ideologies, because the Enlightenment won three hundred years ago and most currently-popular ideologies are its direct descendents. My whole point is that vast swathes of ideologies suffer from this core problem, because they inherit it from the Enlightenment! I think most "standard capitalists" are in fact capable of recognizing that they don't actually have solutions to some problems, so it's not worth trying to fix them, but to the extent that some specific capitalist isn't so capable, my critique applies to them as well.
But the thing that really confuses me is that I've actually gone out of my way to describe in detail that I'm not actually certain about any of this, and recognize that I could be wrong about the disposition of specific theorists!
I am not familiar with either Zizek or McGowen, but the description you provide explains why they don't buy into Marxian Utopianism, not why they aren't adhering to "We know how to solve all our problems." Advocating for "Permanent Revolution" certainly doesn't sound incompatible with the core axiom described above. Do they believe that our present society could be vastly improved through a proper re-ordering of society? Do they believe that poverty, mental illness, crime and so on are essentially ills that our society has chosen to inflict on the less fortunate? Do they believe we might choose otherwise?
But if they have in fact abandoned the core axiom, if in fact they don't believe in Progress toward a Brighter Future, then I'd say they've left the Enlightenment and are doing their own thing. I would also argue that they're no longer a central example of a Marxist, whatever they choose to call themselves. For a similar example, consider Scientology: to me, the most salient feature of Scientology is its hierarchical nature, designed explicitly to crush and control individual members. Scientology splinter groups that have broken from that hierarchy but continue to believe the lore and perform the basic rituals together still call themselves Scientologists, but I can continue to object to "Scientology" as a group while considering them irrelevant to the discussion. In the same way, I don't actually care if someone wants to call themselves a "Marxist"; it's a perennially-fashionable label, as appalling as that is. What I care about is whether they believe, as Marx and all the central examples of Marxists very evidently did, that "we know how to solve all our problems."
I think I am offering reasonable analysis hedged with appropriate uncertainty. I'm not actually clear on why you disagree.
Formality is how standards are maintained, and I understand the basic nuance just fine. I am not claiming that the post in question was a good post, much less that the argument it made explicitly was a good argument, and even less that the argument it implied was a good argument. I am claiming that it is fair play by the rules of this forum as I understand them, and that the reply I modded was not.
You are not allowed to call someone a Nazi out of the blue here. If they say that they're a huge fan of Hitler, you are allowed to say "I think you're a Nazi, because of the statement you just made." If they say things that imply they're a big fan of Hitler, you're allowed to say "your statements indicate Hitler fandom for these reasons." You can even do this here while being objectively wrong, so long as you appear to be actually trying to make an effortful argument backed with evidence. Yes, this means that pretty much anyone can, with sufficient effort and hedging, call pretty much anyone else here a Nazi. The solution to this is to give consideration to those who argue well, stunt on the ones who argue poorly, and to ban those who don't bother to argue at all.
And sure, this applies to accusing people of wanting Red Army soldiers to gangrape German women too. But you have to actually make an argument, show your work and bring evidence. A bare accusation doesn't cut it.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
3mo ago
No, the post above is not as uncharitable. @upsidedownmotter is drawing a comparison between a post written here and arguments elsewhere, and provided a link to the argument in question. You are free to disagree with that comparison, and you can think their argument is wrong, and you can make an argument in reply, but "the argument above seems similar to this other argument I've seen elsewhere" is comfortably within the rules, and "I suppose you probably think that Red Army soldiers gang raping German woman was a good thing too" is very far outside them when the person being responded to has not mentioned anything about soldiers, rape, or German women.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
4mo ago
Some are a bit shaky, but pretty sure I've got 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.
"God of the gaps" cuts both ways. The cached Materialist narrative has some very large holes in it that are bridged through unexamined axioms and predictions that never update when falsified.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5mo ago
See the response here:
I am not willing to accept significant disparities in law enforcement breaking along the lines of partisan ideology. You have pointed to a BLM rioter who got a serious sentence for a serious case of arson. I would even be willing to overlook the many, many BLM rioters who did not commit serious arson, and agree that any J6er who committed arson should receive a similar sentence and a similar lack of pardon; only, there aren't any, are there? I would even be willing to agree that the person who planted pipe bombs in the capitol building should receive a harsh sentence and no pardon; only, the FBI seems to be oddly incapable of finding them, claiming that all the video evidence has oddly disappeared from FBI custody. I would be willing to write off any J6ers who shot people, or shot at people, or even who brandished firearms to threaten people, but it doesn't seem that there are any of those either.
I am not willing accept an equivalence between scuffling with the police and burning down a police station or shooting people or staging an armed takeover of a portion of a city. I have no idea why I should, but I'd be happy to hear arguments to the contrary.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
5mo ago
Is it gundam-style mecha that seem unappealing, or legged war machines generally?
I'm not much of a gundam fan myself, but I really love giant robots and grittier mechs, for basically the same reasons I love more realistic war machines. They're big and complicated high-tech amalgamations of concentrated power, and the extra complexity of arms and legs just enhances their appeal.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6mo ago
Do you get the appeal of tanks, warships, planes, and similar military vehicles?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
6mo ago
ryukahr streams Mario Maker and Kaizo Mario gameplay. low-key, mildly amusing fluff.
The Creepcast is two youtubers reading creepypasta, and reacting to/critiquing the quality. I usually listen to a straight recording of the story in question, and then listen to their version as a sort of commentary track.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
7mo ago
Now it’s important to note that polling error runs in both directions, and it’s pretty much impossible to predict which way it will go ahead of time.
I'm given to understand that this point in particular was straightforwardly false. Polling error leaned heavily toward undercounting Trump voters.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
7mo ago
It is. The rest of the game is just absurdly good, and I'm confident they'll iron this part out in short order in any case. I've made it to Vulcanus, and am figuring out the smelting system in preparation to World War Worm. It's amazing how much better things have gotten from what I previously would have sworn was the perfect game.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
7mo ago
Just wanna say I'm really enjoying the commentary. I've been ignoring quality in my playthrough so far, but just started working on it last night thanks to the explanations here laying out how to think about it and why it's valuable.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
9mo ago
do the bannings interfere with actually using the engine, or is this mainly a social media thing?
Please do, I am frequently compelled to do the same and understand completely.
More options
Context Copy link