Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«158 »
  • Locked thread
urf
Jul 12, 2009


fishmech posted:

Trump didn't arise "in place of alternatives". Trump is in line with the Republican mainstream of anti-democracy and racism that is the Republican party. The dude didn't even acheive plurality of votes or anything like that, he relied on longstanding abuse of the electoral system by his party.

This is why it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

urf fucked around with this message at Oct 21, 2018 around 18:56

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

umalt
Oct 16, 2013

You must wash your hands with soap if you're going to post here!



It looks like the tweet is deleted, what did it say?

Jazerus
May 24, 2011

I'm from another time, another world. I don't even know what you people eat for lunch.



umalt posted:

It looks like the tweet is deleted, what did it say?

"socialists were the real problem in 1933 Germany"

Antifa Turkeesian
Aug 20, 2006



Broken Cake

Jazerus posted:

"socialists were the real problem in 1933 Germany"

The we beat em before. Well beat em again! poster, only with a nazi and a white lady in a blazer holding hand and kicking a dsa guy.

Prester Jane
Nov 4, 2008


BOOSness Hammocks posted:

The we beat em before. Well beat em again! poster, only with a nazi and a white lady in a blazer holding hand and kicking a dsa guy.

So a big focus of the new thread is going to be on why established elites are psychologically predisposed to siding with Narrativists over progressives whenever "inequality of access to resources" (income inequality in our particular society) grows to a sufficient extent that it begins to disrupt a substantial portion of the individuals in a given population -and why that cycle is presently holding true in our society. Curiously despite the vast majority of the material I am about to introduce having very little to do directly with pathological individuals or extremists- the overall conclusions of the new thread are going to be (if anything) a good bit darker than this thread was.

Antifa Turkeesian
Aug 20, 2006



Broken Cake

Prester Jane posted:

So a big focus of the new thread is going to be on why established elites are psychologically predisposed to siding with Narrativists over progressives whenever "inequality of access to resources" (income inequality in our particular society) gross to a sufficient extent that it begins to disrupt a substantial portion of the lines of a given population -and why that cycle is presently holding true in our society. Curiously despite the vast majority of the material I am about to introduce having very little to do directly with pathological individuals or extremists- the overall conclusions of the new thread are going to be (if anything) a good bit darker than this thread was.

The classic answer to this question is that capitalists believe that fascists will leave their wealth and support systems intact while socialism will put those things into the service of the common good, so genocide is a reasonable price to pay for keeping their poo poo (and might even open new markets).

Just look at why business interests in Brazil back a fascist who says hes going to genocide First Nations people: he says hell sell their land to oil companies and poo poo.

Prester Jane
Nov 4, 2008


BOOSness Hammocks posted:

The classic answer to this question is that capitalists believe that fascists will leave their wealth and support systems intact while socialism will put those things into the service of the common good, so genocide is a reasonable price to pay for keeping their poo poo (and might even open new markets).

Just look at why business interests in Brazil back a fascist who says hes going to genocide First Nations people: he says hell sell their land to oil companies and poo poo.

My approach to this same subject is going to be largely apolitical- I'm looking at this from the perspective of how lived experience shapes the way the brain processes information, which then in turn shapes both worldview and behavior. The lived experience of an established multi-generational Elite Class selects very heavily for a particular combination of self-replicating behavior pattern- what I call "Structuralist Cooperators". ("Structuralist" being an archetype and "Cooperator" a subtype.)

Structuralist Cooperators will cooperate with any authority figure that they recognize and find justifications for doing so after the fact. What defines authority in the structuralist cooperated mindset is control over access to "resources"- everything from controlling access to social networking opportunities to food or energy production will make one an authority figure worth being interacted with in the Structuralist Cooperator mindset*. ("Exposure/Attention" is a resource that can make one an authority figure worth respect as well, see noted Cooperator Bill Maher's treatment of Jordan Peterson and Milo yiannopoulos.)

Structuralist Cooperators are at their core motivated to engage in behaviors that maximize their opportunities to cooperate with authority figures. They instinctually abhor any form of confrontation, whether physical or verbal. (Can't cooperate with people you're actively fighting with after all.) They then seek to structure society in such a way as to minimize the potential for any sort of conflict that can disrupt the control of resources that are central to authority*.

*This necessitates the creation of an enforcer class that possesses a monopoly on the use of violence and is charged with using that power to enforce compliance with authority.

The tendency then in any sort of non-Narrativist government is for the emergence of a class of established elites (composed of Structuralist Cooperators) that are detached from the society they control by dint of their having rigged the game in such a way that they will always win- or at the very least never have their control of resources (their source of authority) meaningfully challenged by outsiders. Once this class of established elites emergenes, a disparity in access to resources will emerge within the affected society. This stratification of access to resources will steadily continue to worsen until such point as it enables the rise of Narrativism within the impacted society.

The thing about Narrativists is that they do not conceptualize conflict in terms of a control or exchange of resources. Narrativists conceptualize as conflict in terms of big dramatic gestures that change the dominant narratives within a society. This conceptualization of conflict strikes the structuralists cooperator mindset as being exceedingly stupid and easy to manipulate- and they are half right. In terms of armed or economic conflict between State actors, the Narrativist group will almost assuredly lose. They simply I'm not very good at the kinds of large-scale organization or marshalling of resources that such conflict requires. However within a given society Narrativism does not need to achieve victory through Superior management of resources, all they need to do is change how that population is talking about itself and precedes itself. That's why despite Hillary Clinton being a Greek god in terms of resource management-, the Trump campaign still won out because they altered our dominant social narratives. They didn't need to win conflicts over resources cam they could lose as many times as it took as long as they got people talking about them and what they were doing.

Now mind you, this disparity in access to resources also has a strong tendency to fuel the developement of some sort of progressive movement within a given Society. This progressive movement conceptualizes conflicts in the same terms as Structuralist Cooperators- conflict is decided by whomever best controls the most resources. And it is this difference that I feel is the primary reason why Structuralist Cooperators will often side withNarrativists over an energized progressive movement.

Structuralist Cooperators see the Narrativist preoccupation with grand gestures that gained attention as childish and inevitably futile, whereas they perceive an energized progressive movements focus on marshalling resources I'm controlling the levers of power as a much more visceral and real threat to their authority. As such a group of established elites will perceive a rising nNarrativist movement as a bunch of useful idiots that can be manipulated into stopping the greater threat of an energized progressive movement- before being eventually discarded.

Historically this strategy tends to work out real bad for the established elites.

Prester Jane
Nov 4, 2008


To go just a bit further than the last post did- a huge contributing factor to our present situation was the racialy imbalanced way that the New Deal was implemented. The so-called "White expert class" that emerged in the wake of the New Deal was primarily composed of Structuralist Cooperators- and they have been an obstinate obstacle to true progressive reform in this country ever since.

In my view this song is a progressive trying to call out the Structuralist Cooperators that existed within the Democratic party of his era. I really strongly encourage everyone who read the last post to listen to every word in this song, because it makes our present situation much more readily understandable*.

*also horrible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

420 Gank Mid
Dec 25, 2008

WARNING: This poster is a huge bitch!



I've listened to this song literal hundreds of times and I still for the life of me dont understand the "tears ran down my spine" lyric. Is the narrator of the song crying while suspended in such a manner that their tears flow from the front of their face to their spine somehow? Is it a reference to something, a poetic allusion, or just literally the only line Ochs could think of that fits the meter and rhymes with "lost a father of mine"?

Prester Jane
Nov 4, 2008


I believe its just "_______ ran down my spine" was at the time a very folksy way of saying that you experienced something very powerfully. I believe Ochs is mocking the false sincerity of liberals with that line.

Mantis42
Jul 26, 2010


I've heard "chills ran down my spine" but never tears.

Prester Jane
Nov 4, 2008


Computer- show me clear evidence of Narrativism self replicating in the population via repetitive exposure to Bypass Logic:

https://mobile.twitter.com/punksand...%3D5730%23pti33



Hmmmm, in retrospect perhaps I shouldn't have been holding this monkeys paw when I made that request......

T-man
Aug 22, 2010

I gay robots!

http://ohumanstar.com/



Tweet deleted, screenshots are more and more needed every day. Document and archive what has been said, for the historian's sake at least.

T-man
Aug 22, 2010

I gay robots!

http://ohumanstar.com/



PJ, before the thread gets nuked, any thoughts on the recent title IX changes that basically say "gently caress you transgenders" in the most blatant way? Expectations, responses, reasons. I could use some rationalizing with this particular piece of news.

Willie Tomg
Feb 2, 2006


420 Gank Mid posted:

I've listened to this song literal hundreds of times and I still for the life of me dont understand the "tears ran down my spine" lyric.

It's a joke about affected displays of rote emotional performance as a part of the liberal character. its funny because the character can't decide if his anecdote about his Definitely Felt Emotions were chills running up his spine or tears running down his face.

Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at Oct 22, 2018 around 18:50

crazy cloud
Nov 7, 2012

Wow, cool. What?



Lipstick Apathy

Willie Tomg posted:

It's a joke about affected displays of rote emotional performance as a part of the liberal character. its funny because the character can't decide if his anecdote about his Definitely Felt Emotions were chills running up his spine or tears running down his face.

FilthyImp
Sep 30, 2002
PELE X ODDJOB 4 LYFE

Prester Jane posted:

Hmmmm, in retrospect perhaps I shouldn't have been holding this monkeys paw when I made that request......
I refuse to believe that isn't some crazy 4chan project to act like olds have been converted to alt rightism.

Prester Jane
Nov 4, 2008


FilthyImp posted:

I refuse to believe that isn't some crazy 4chan project to act like olds have been converted to alt rightism.

D E H U M A N I Z E Y O U R S E L F A N D F A C E T O B L O O D S H E D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2IkD50WFeI

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Prester Jane
Nov 4, 2008


C-SPAM thread is now live. Head on over and make yourselves comfortable. I will be closing this thread very shortly.

  • Locked thread
«158 »