|
CommieGIR posted:There is a difference between internally and externally rigging the game. This is more external than internal. How, exactly, did you construct the perfect fence that decides what is external and what is internal? The very concept of a rigged game is that it uses things such as arbitrage to profit off of a difference between internal and external value.
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Sep 8, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
My attempt at an Executive Summary: Strangecoin, despite the semiotics, is not a Bitcoin derivative. Rather, it is an alternative form of Twitter for use by organizations that use Big Data to measure more individual datum per unit than is normally contained in a tweet. The prefix 'Strange', therefore, can be related to the academic concept of 'Weird Twitter', the labeling of FYAD dynamics on twitter. Academics in the Big Data business enjoy talking about 'Weird Twitter' because of the self-aware nature of the dynamic: This also explains why you keep returning to SA; an attempt to document 'Weird Twitter' at the source- like an anthropologist in the wild.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Yo Eripsa, do you desperately wish to be the Dian Fossey of Weird Twitter, c/d?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I mean "spontaneous" not in the sense of "easy" but in the sense of "you already have a corporation once you've engaged in transactions with its members. There's no additional contractual hurdles to jump through." Engaging in a transaction just is forming a corporation. Can that new, spontaneous (but not that specific type of spontaneous) corporation of transactions shield the investors from liability?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:All cryptocurrencies make transactions extremely traceable, due to all of them being recorded in files present on every user's storage. In fact, the balance of anyone's account can only be determined by replaying all transactions that have ever occurred. The only thing that makes cryptocurrencies less traceable is by obscuring the spending pattern of each individual 'actor' via spreading the transactions between a multitude of unique separate cryptocurrency structures and hoping that the resulting hairball becomes a P vs NP problem of being simple to adjudicate the value of X but hard to identify the pattern of X. Which, if you're being appropriately incredulous, is half the reason of the sudden boom in new cryptocurrencies once the truth of the bitcoin-backsolve issues became popularly disseminated.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:In what way is someone with a theoretical enhancement disabled? As a category, people wearing google glass are not cyborgs. They might wish they were, but they're not. If we're talking about people with neuroprosthetics, then we might have interesting social and legal questions to ask. We do not have those questions to ask when the subject of discrimination refuses to take their sunglasses off at night/wear google glass in a bar. The irony is that if I slap someone with Google Glass hard enough to take the expensive piece of equipment off their face I am both showing that real, actionable violence against 'cyborgs' exists, but also that wearing Google Glass is merely a fashion choice rather than something as unextractable as gender identity. Cyborgs only exist in the minds of the techno-fetishists that desperately want to become them, and will remain as such until the act of being part-machine is more than the affectation of bougie self-obsession.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
StrangeCoin isn't a currency, because it fails in the initial example to even be a unit of account: something that even bitcoin can succeed at.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Nothing you've done is ambitious. Much like a grad student hiding like a parasite amongst the flesh of academia, an overly-broad unspecific tract making claims to larger fields of study is the product of bougie 'idea-guys' that lack the ambition to promote active change in their world.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
This is the closest I've found to a 'thesis' in the thread about StrangeCoin, but like the promises of the Singularity (which is happening any day now), it really doesn't deliver anything concrete.RealityApologist posted:Of course they do. I'm not saying I'm measuring anything that's impossible to measure in other ways, I'm just saying that the framework of our existing currency isn't set up to do these things very easily.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:In other words, if this model or some variation predicted economic cycles of boom and bust that were less extreme and frequent than the cycles in a traditional economy, then this would speak in favor of adopting that model. So must StrangeCoin exist only in post-capitalism, or is it merely assumed that StrangeCoin is a vehicle for capitalist theory?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Nepotism is literally only about choosing the preferred individual between two equivalent actors, and not ever the case of giving inequitable rewards to those of your own social strata? This is libertarian fallacy 101 stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:1. Let's postpone the question of whether nepotism is a "problem" for a minute. Nepotism is a fact of economic relationships. Other things equal, people tend towards a bias in hiring and preferentially treating their family and friends. And what a great second/third sentence you wrote there, where your initial definition is about between equals taste preferences rather than the more onerous nepotistic rot as seen throughout history. Learn to approach your writing from a stance outside of your privilege and construct a thesis that passes a laugh test.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Appealing to a ceteris paribus clause = evidence of privilege. Yowza, I don't even know how to respond to that. You are needlessly obscurant by way of your lack of writing skill combined with your own obvious biases. The result is an ill-defined and, in my opinion, incorrect approach to the issue of nepotism as if it was merely the consequence of an otherwise Just World, which you have rhetorically absolved as merely a TED talk-esque 'problem with a simple solution' that StrangeCoin acts as a cure-all. My own conclusion is that if you are unable to consider that nepotism is, rather, a larger and more frightening issue of ethics and economics- a contributor to institutional rot that must be consistently treated and re-treated at all levels- than perhaps the time spent during your self-stated leisure time (a product of your massive privilege as a long-term academic) on what has resulted in an admittedly half-baked Twitter/BitCoin alternative would have had greater fruits if you read a book more concerned with the common social issues of the day. At that point, you would have already known how the problem would be defined from your own knowledge rather than attempting to create a problem (that you then mislabel) for StrangeCoin to solve. (edit for grammar) Gerund fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I don't currently have academic access to any databases. I'm limited with what I can learn on the free web, or what people can liberate for me. RealityApologist posted:I have academic friends and colleagues who know my work and are reading this thread and refuse to participate because of the audience. They tell me I'm wasting my time with morons. I feel like I'm paying my dues on the dirty streets on the internet.  Your academic (pause for emphasis) friends aren't willing to let you hitchhike JSTOR access, and so you have to avail yourself on free internet articles when real academic journals are provided for you by the thread?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I don't know what you mean by "as bad as", or why that is relevant to the argument I make. Is DOMA or DADT as bad as Jim Crow? If not, does that mean we shouldn't care about the former? Way to stake your entire argument upon under-defined ethical relativism. This is your home court? Jim Crow (specifically anti-miscegenation laws) & DOMA/DADT both are concerned with the destruction of interpersonal relationships. Yet "cyborgs" are not a cultural or interpersonal creation, but rather the product of self-obsessed bougie scum attempting to enter in their own event in the oppression olympics. Should there ever be a 'cyborg' culture or 'cyborg'-to-non-cyborg relationship, there would then be real, actionable evidence on the social discrimination, or lack of it, faced by cyborgs. Getting your toys taken away is, like, the worst example when there are counter-examples of transgender individuals that are sacrificing everything- including things like the 'toys' that make up cyborg identity- in order to be identified in their chosen gender. I contend that it is impossible for a 'cyborg' to make sacrifices for their identity- as their identity is defined by having a huge amount of privilege and class structure. We do not apply queer theory to the pain and sacrifices of the aristocracy, after all. Gerund fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hey Eripsa you want to see some actual loving cyborg discrimination you sheltered lunkhead? How about the employment rate of war vet amputees with prosthetic limbs? You think maybe that's a little more real than me thinking you're an rear end in a top hat because you point Glass at me? He would refuse to define people with prosthetics or cochlear implants as 'cyborgs', as they are not actually using whiz-bang app-fueled tools (only for rich people, naturally) that would be destructive to their identity if they were taken away; the former is rather just an example of the poors AKA the disabled.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I'm not interested in simple myths. This is the story of our first steps into the digital age as a global species. It is among the biggest stories we've every told, and it outstrips every one of us in our attempts to tell it. It is a song we all know a few words to, but we're struggling to find the melody to harmonize around. I know a verse or two, and if you hum a few bars I can fake some more, and I'm happy to perform them at open mic night for a general audience until the rest of us can catch the tune and sing along. By the time that happens it might be a different song entirely, and that's okay. It's a beautiful song. singularity-as-religion.txt You realize that the width and breadth of the internet (and global communication as a whole) isn't going to become universal any time soon, right? Or that the internet is just as vulnerable to state control and cultural propaganda as previous inventions such as the radio or the printing press? Or that the energy and material demands of a fully-digitized world is arguably secondary to the health and happiness of our entire species? Whitey on the Moon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY) is from more than thirty years ago, and you're talking about a fully digitized culture, drat.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
His posting is really a form of noblesse oblige. Bringing the light to the dark country wot wot.
Gerund fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I didn't do this. If this is your area of research then I'd expect you to be very sympathetic with the importance of tools for one's identity and well-being. Accessibility is a huge factor in mental health. Our tools matter. What are the 'tools' then, and is the reason that it is necessarily to split "Cyborg identity" from disabled/handicapable identity that you necessarily require said 'tools' to also be the means of the upper social class to reinforce their own privilege?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I just want to build the drat thing so the future can loving get here already because it isn't here yet and things are pretty poo poo, and you all have a hell of a lot better loving chance of making it happen than me. Step one- please hop off the futurist/singularity theology and realize that if/when 'the future' gets here it won't be any better for you or for those you care about, and that for the vast sea of those more unprivileged than you anything approaching 'the future' would be held back from them to begin with. You simply must be able to consider a world outside the warm fuzzy blanket of academia, where everyone is young and healthy and only ever-so-slightly uncomfortable (even if rapidly gaining debt). There are people that starve every day- when confronted by this very fact of life by SedanChair, you became an uncomfortable child swaying back and forth in your chair with a gasping gob. Is it because children screaming in pain from unfed bellies is uncomfortable for you to contemplate? Do the sick and dying not match your perception of a post-Cyborg world? Is there any real ethic to your beliefs, or have you pushed the entirety of your moral values into 'the future' where everything will be the shiney chrome and neon text they promised us in the 90s? You're the person that William F. Buckley had to invent when he used "Don't immanentize the eschaton!" as a slogan to destroy the Great Society of the post-war years.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Adar posted:Things that Eripsa does not understand, as evidenced throughout his threads: -'tools' as vehicles for fashion and class-identifier dynamics rather than the very defined term in anthropology
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
Alright, here is an attack on the ideas rather than the character of Eripsa: The creation of an important distinction between tools that have a goal of replacing a lost human ability (a crutch) and tools that have a goal of increasing a human ability (language, a cellphone, Google Glass) is critical to the understanding of 'Cyborg' identity vs handicapible identity. When asked what deprivation 'cyborgs' experienced by the denial of these tools (their tools of increasing human ability, often things considered luxuries vs. necessities, as above), examples were given about being denied the ability to live the life they want. When pressured about the what the nature of the term 'tools' were, it was brought up that things such as Shoes were, in themselves, tools to increase the ability of walking/climbing/movement- and if we were to continue this, the entire ensemble of a person might, in this way, be considered also a tool. So therefore an example can be then brought that would be a case of legal laws being targeted against 'cyborgs' using a specific set of tools, because it is seen in the public's interest to prevent them from living the life they want to lead.  This is a fake military member. He wants to use the tool of the military uniform in order to lead a life of respect and admiration reserved for those that risk life and limb in patriotic duty. The SCOTUS recently overturned laws that would ban the use of these tools in any way other than those specifically used to defraud institutions or individuals- that for regular social existence, a liar wearing surplus uniform is exercising free speech. This person is, essentially, a 'cyborg'. This is the sort of person that Cyborg Rights was built to struggle for.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:People don't deserve unqualified access to their tools. I mention several cases (mostly involving weapons) where it's entirely reasonable to restrict access to tools. Given that military impersonation is primarily dangerous because of the access to weapons of war, this would surely fall under that same analysis. As mentioned, there is a body of legal rulings establishing that 'cyborgs' wearing fake uniforms are exercising their right to expression- and if you truly believed that the act of using and possessing and being identified as a user of tools constituted a identity worthy of respect and defense, this wouldn't even be the totality of their rights. However, as with the ruling above, the establishment of the use of the internet as a basic human right was done with the core moral argument: both sets of tools as used primarily as a vehicle to enact the right of expression and communication, and not a fundamental right to tools in and of themselves. But within the context as built by RA, these tools are essential to the identity and are, apparently, a critical element to the theory that tools are, themselves, an identity. So to see him walk back his own defense of these poor 'cyborgs' is wrong. He should treat them as specific and justified elements of 'cyborg' theory- despite them being as relatively despicable within the 'cyborg' community as (and I make this comparison with the knowledge of far more respected published writings than 'cyborg' theory) queer theory treats and understands paedophilla and/or beastialiy*. Both have an undercurrent of fraud and deceit inherent outside of their nature of crossing a taboo- the reason for it being a taboo is that they are fraudulent and deceitful (and in the latter, harmful for the development of children). I mean unless what you've said about tools is literally only about appropriating the language of queer theory for your own privileged use of super-cool technology that represents your status as a symbol. *Seriously if you want to fight over this read Rachel Carroll first and probably make a new thread in A/T about Queer and Feminist Theory w/r/t the rights of alternative sexualities.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:In a way, Strangecoin is the proof of some principle I don't know if there is the name for. It claims to provide useful information, but it would in fact require nearly perfect information to function. It would help (being, very, very generous to Strangecoin here) to control the allocation of resources, but would only work in a post-scarcity world, or at least one where all resources can be correctly tabulated according to real worth. Circular Reasoning, a fallacy related to Begging the Question.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You keep hand-waving away problems by simply saying that StrangeCoin is "balanced" without even attempting to show how it would be balanced. This is known as Begging The Question. Related, but not alike, to the fallacy of Circular Reasoning in which Strangecoin will provide more information for everyone to make choices with once we are already in a world that has a surplus of information to make choices with. For a philosophy doctoral candidate I think this is a bad place to be at, even if this thread is merely a product of a surplus of leisure time rather than a fully-formed idea.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No, his degree is wholly in "Technologic philosophy" or some such. He himself described it as "when others make new technologies, we/I try to predict or discover the moral ramifications of that technology." I have tried to start a debate with him about the actual meaning behind Cyborg Identity, but I left it for a later thread because I didn't want to distract him during his leisure time when he could be reorganizing our economic assumptions.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Philosophy of science does signify cargo-cult pseudoscience when it results in such navel-gazing screed as a shard of Queer Theory that creates a like, but not exact, copy of handicapable identity but applied specifically as an apologia for first-world singularity-bothering.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Sure, but I did nothing of the sort. My claim was that my tools constitute my identity, and that my gender is among my tools. Only in the perverse echo chamber of this thread does this come off as singularity apologia. Your numerous appeals to the eventual singularity eschaton is steeped in your ethics as presented, and not merely limited to your creation of a pseudo-queer identity of Being That Wears Nikes. But specifically, your concept of 'tool' is so counter to its use in anthropology and related studies that I fail to see how it could exist outside of an echo-chamber. To be short, a tool, as I understand the current uses, is a created (not grown) definable piece of technology that is used towards a specific goal. Language has been considered a tool, but the use of language as vehicle of cultural definition is not. And while McLuhan in media theory did remark on the interchange between the tool of media and its impact on identity, he never made the claim that the identity that was then created was, itself, a tool- as if the tool-ness of media somehow infected the user in a viral culture of tool-person. And so to claim that gender itself is a tool is at the very least a hole in your understanding, and when combined with your claims that a heart or lung is a tool makes the entire argument a flaccid iconoclasm to all known studies of man.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:I gave specific references for the view of "tools" being employed; specifically Andy Clark and Dan Dennett. The view treats all instrumental functions as tools, regardless of origin, development, or constitution. If you have problems with the view you can raise a criticism of the view, but it's disingenuous to suggest that the view isn't well represented in the literature. Philosophy of Science is in danger of delving into cargo-cult pseudoscience when their writers make heterodox claims counter to decades of surrounding literature as a peninsula of monolithic obscurantist self-reference. I'll credit the published writers by assuming that it is your decision to stretch the definition of 'instrumental function' in such a way that sublimates three decades of Queer Theory in order to support your own privileged 'cyborg identity' world-view: As there are many queer theorists that would gladly fillet you, academically, for claiming that gender is not a cultural construct; and especially for betraying an is-ought dilemma by presupposing that the tool of gender is an exchangeable and universal item. You would find that in the literature, there is a distinct difference between 'tool' and 'culture'. The former is explicitly defined by its use being free of context*. Consider the fedora- it is both a Tool in that it covers the body and adheres to cultural norms, and its use as a vehicle of Culture that defines the user as a euphoric learned individual separate from the friend-zoning whores etc etc etc. It is this necessity of context that creates the distinction. To wrap this even further back to the topic at hand, consider the idea of currency, and how ostensibly it works as a tool. However (and I realize that being confronted with the fact of child hunger is upsetting and foreign to Eripsa's sheltered privileged life- as seen in his video chat- but please soldier on here) consider the different experiences of a light-skinned first world adult wielding an AMEX Black card versus a dark-skinned third-world child wielding the same, both to buy a piece of bread. If we care to reference the milieu that produced Slumdog Millionaire, it should be clear that their experiences are wholly different because of the different cultural contexts of either person! Because of this there are many writings on the nature of capitalism and how currency other caste signifiers such as fashion are not tools but culture that reinforces taboos rather than provides means towards goals. Such as Zizek, if you care for blunt name-dropping. And so if this is the case, if even things commonly thought to be tools are instead challenged as parts of culture, why is it that you, and perhaps other 'Philosophers of Science', are brave enough to attempt to back-door the mantle of first world privilege that is 'cyborg identity' into Queer Theory via reducing gender- a critical concept within Queer Theory- into a heterodox mutant 'tool'? Consider this absurd reduction of gender as tool: is it somehow a tool for a male child (as assumed cisgendered in utero) in China to survive and be raised within the biological family whereas a female (cisgendered) child would not? Or perhaps is it rather a reflection of culture and how it acts within the context of pregnancy that causes this choice. I feel the difference is clear. But instead, allow me to suppose that this mutant heterodox definition is rather a naked play to sublimate the language of Queer Theory so as to excuse your own pathetic clinging to coltan tchockies as ritual fetishes towards the holy nerd rapture of the singularity. It then follows that these continual failures to adhere to reality are products of a broken ethic striving towards legitimacy rather than a series of mistakes of our ignorance of 'cyborg identity'. tl;dr Your moral system is a POS.  * There is a canard of 'stronger man = stronger ax' that leads one through the looking-glass of evolutionary anthropology and semi-racist post hoc justification of colonialism. But even then, the crux still remains that tools are separate from culture even in said theories. Gerund fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:He uses it this way because he assumes that's what historical caste divisions, or race divisions for that matter, were actually trying to do. Humans were naturally self-organizing into systems for labour division, only we lacked the information and precision to create anything more than systems outlined by crude proxies like race or gender. Evolutionary biology is a nasty pseudo-science much adored by cranks as a catch-all post hoc generator as to why their pet theory is and always should be the case, especially as it benefits them specifically.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:If Strangecoin means that users stand to gain power from familial networks, and if (as you have previously stated) children have their own accounts, doesn't that provide a direct incentive to have as many children as possible? Its a direct incentive to be as abusively nepotistic as possible- another term Eripsa has little if any understanding of or why its viewed negatively. edit: Who What Now posted:^^^^^^ Evolutionary psychology, rather. Its what they use when they decide to self-identify rather than chigger themselves into the flesh of the biologist's field. Gerund fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Yeah, that's some straight up biotruths bullshit. Which Eprisa seemingly subscribes to, going off the paper he linked and his expansion of it. He just dances around actually saying that people are born with certain skills and limitations. Whats sad is that because of my arguments with practitioners of EP I am far more doubtful of the claims that EB makes w/r/t specific evolutionary paths and biological conclusions that are, by their nature, unfalsifiable. edit: Eripsa, you're a quote-sniping pedant pathetically editing my own words into a misunderstood stew of badly-parsed jargon. My primary thesis remains, unchallenged, that culture and tool are two wholly different concepts that you are obscuring when you term gender as, itself, a tool. Further, your attempt to mis-quote loving BUTLER, the loving godhead of gender-queer, when she speaks of the tools as signifiers of gender as if they were, themselves, the identity of gender... It is not only insulting, but shows a severe lack of academic ethics on your part. Gerund fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Philosophy of Science is in danger of delving into cargo-cult pseudoscience when their writers make heterodox claims counter to decades of surrounding literature as a peninsula of monolithic obscurantist self-reference. I'll credit the published writers by assuming that it is your decision to stretch the definition of 'instrumental function' in such a way that sublimates three decades of Queer Theory in order to support your own privileged 'cyborg identity' world-view: This is what I wrote. The bold is what Eripsa quoted. It is pathetic to watch an academic on the cusp of defending their PhD thesis be brought so low as to disregard the entirety of the text in order to quibble over the phrasing the last half of a footnote. Your leisure time could be used so much better, obviously.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Sure, but I did nothing of the sort. My claim was that my tools constitute my identity, and that my gender is among my tools. Only in the perverse echo chamber of this thread does this come off as singularity apologia. So we're still on the whole Gender Is A Tool supposition as the crux of your 'cyborg identity', right? Because there is not one case found of any of your sources where Gender is reduced to being solely a tool. Even when you mention Merritt, to quote specifically, "gender is a social institution". Even your own quotes are an antithesis to your moral system. Are we passing over that?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Attention paid me. I neglect the law, and the law won.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:The fact that you're repeating the same nonsense over and over again is evidence that this isn't an argument at all, only people playing with you like a cat with a mouse. Well you see the 'cat' is a social institution that, through the magic of instrumentality and a flock of other obscurantist buzzwords, is also a tool. The 'mouse' adheres to a biologically naturalist form where it places itself into the role of being chased round and round by its family and friends forming a coincidental and fair caste system. You should spend more time reading the literature, friend.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
RealityApologist posted:Why do you think I'm committed to this claim? I've denied it three times explicitly in the last three responses to you. You are conflating the use of tools that make up gender identity and gender itself being a tool, rather than a social institution- as established in your own source. At no time do you show the work that results in gender being reduced to the same pack of tools, betraying the same is-ought problem of gender itself- Butler would be ashamed of you. This amazing black-box conflation of identity as inseparable from tools, or even worse of the biological truths such as a penis, is what makes your personal moral system- a moral system that is not ever actually touched on by any published source- a perverted back-door to absolve the possession of first world objects such as Nikes as a necessary act.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
Complete the following: Assuming X = Tools Y = Social Institution Z = Gender Please show how Z, being Y, and comprised of the byproduct of many Xs, can be concluded to be an X that is wholly separate from Y. Z=Y Z= (X*?)^? Z/=Y Z=X You will be graded on this test. Gerund fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Apr 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:I legitimately like this thread, and I want to see it Goldmined or stickied forever as a warning to others that grad school can become a black hole into which all coherence and rational thought can disappear forever. No ditch digger would ever write something as obtuse, nonsensical, and just plain pointless as Eripsa without the benefit of a severe head injury or full-blown schizophrenia. His understanding of the scholarship of which he is soon making a dissertation hinges upon a classical fallacy of a undistributed middle where, somehow, gender- the social institution made up of different tools- is itself a tool separate from the social institution it makes up. Because through the magic of science philosophy all things are technology, including social dynamics and morality and ethics- and as such we need not worry about their impacts as long as we continue to race towards the coming oh holy Singularity. RealityApologist posted:I just want to build the drat thing so the future can loving get here already because it isn't here yet and things are pretty poo poo, and you all have a hell of a lot better loving chance of making it happen than me. (this future includes his phd)
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Sep 8, 2024 03:57 |
|
|
There is no answer for why an account can be balanced, as the assumed 'noble lie' of the system is that the adopters will act as Nash-equilibrium homo economists irrespective of anything but a myopic Ants-playing-Star*Craft apologetic. This is despite the history of Prisoner's Dilemma and many other economic models being a rather unsure conclusion! Because, much like the conflation of gender into tools, Eripsa has also conflated 'incentive' as if it was also a tool to be built and adopted rather than the consequence of a large cultural and social constructs that, yes Virginia, has loss-conditions such as starvation as part of its design. The magical thinking of tool-as-ritual is the consequence of the moral failure that is singularity theology- the conception of society as a body of tools, to be adopted and discarded as individuals once the eschaton of post-scarcity has been immanentized. This is why the mentors and colleague distance themselves from Eripsa's positions- his moral failures as a human being has poisoned his thinking- and with it, all studies that he associates with. RealityApologist posted:I just want to build the drat thing so the future can loving get here already because it isn't here yet and things are pretty poo poo, and you all have a hell of a lot better loving chance of making it happen than me. So then to ask, in order to 'push the understanding forward' is there a philosophical difference between the 'tool' of strangecoin and the 'tool' of the emergent culture that the strangenet would require to be implemented?
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 03:15
|
|