Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A warlord is the leader of his war... team?In that way he's comparable to a CEO or the head of a government.
Yes, but it cuts out the main part of my criticism. It's like me saying "I don't think Ponies should be cut in half for entertainment" and then you saying "but don't you agree that camels are good to ride on".
[edit] To be fair, it's probably not your fault, I am too vague in my posts a lot.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Scarcity plus capacity for violence. The progression is clear. I hate the word "natural" with a passion but I would call it an inevitable outcome of existing. Since an organization has great capacity for violence it is able (and sometimes willing) to stop more violence with the threat of retaliation.
sure, but then we are back to what I was saying in the Palin thread. You can't decontextualize what it means to be human outside of the contexts those humans exist in. Sure, we could think of situations where even I, given the context, would oppress others. All I am saying is that there is nothing "natural" about this behaviour, it is merely a consequence of the "demand characteristics" people face in that context.
so yes, in a situation where there are no formal conflict resolution mechanisms, a scarcity of resources and a complete lack of technological solutions, people will probably act in a competitive manner. This is no more natural than the fact people will act in the most altruistic ways when the proper context is experienced.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But then we're back to having a government again.
I was supposed to give the psychological argument for anarchy?
Originally posted by Darth Jello
This is why I don't buy liberal economics/libertarianism/non-eugenics based social darwinism.
One of those is much different than the others and it is left-field.
You said something similar to this: pears, apples, and toaster.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No you can insult specific women for valid reasons. You just shouldn't insult womankind by using implications of femininity for traits you perceive as bad in man. Like how saying "Oh Obama, he's such a girl" implies there's something wrong with being a girl, at the very least that it is a bad thing for a man to behave like one.
You've go that a little ****ed up along the way, somewhere. There's nothing wrong with female traits: as long as you're female. It's considered an insult to a man to be assigned female traits. That's pretty basic and you understand that. It's the same as assigning a female manly traits as an insult.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The market disagrees with you. Having a CEO increases the efficiency of a corporation dramatically. Or did you think businesses were run entirely by the invisible hand?
Most corporations are run by a board of executives and voting shareholders. Translating that into politics using the same metaphor: an oligarchy.
The board has the veto, the board as the votes (with the shareholders getting veto powers and propositions powers, as well.) Technically, in a publicly traded organization, it is the voting shareholders that really "run" an organization. Many times, the CEO is a public figurehead for the board and acts more like the major domo as the CEO and chairs the BoEs meetings.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You've go that a little ****ed up along the way, somewhere. There's nothing wrong with female traits: as long as you're female. It's considered an insult to a man to be assigned female traits. That's pretty basic and you understand that. It's the same as assigning a female manly traits as an insult.
I dont want to speak for Bardock, but I think his point was that it is a little insulting to assume there are these things called "male" or "female" traits
I could have read something into his post though
Originally posted by inimalist
I dont want to speak for Bardock, but I think his point was that it is a little insulting to assume there are these things called "male" or "female" traitsI could have read something into his post though
He, himself, freely admits that there are generalized behaviral difference: we are animals, too. We can be categorized, generalized, and so forth. In fact, som professions center around that fact: generalizing humans.
However, his beef was with the "submissive" feminine stereotype or something. I don't remember what Jello was on about.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You've go that a little ****ed up along the way, somewhere. There's nothing wrong with female traits: as long as you're female. It's considered an insult to a man to be assigned female traits. That's pretty basic and you understand that. It's the same as assigning a female manly traits as an insult.
No, I don't think that even if there actually are female and male traits (and I am definitely not talking about the common stereotypes of female = emotional, weak, etc. - male = tough, logical, etc.) it should and is not insulting to a man. For a women to be tough and logical, is not necessarily insulting, admittedly it may be threatening and many men (and women) will feel she has to be "put in her place", but that is exactly what I am talking about.
And before you say what we discussed about RJ's chivalry in particular (but of course every chivalry in general), you are right that we have a shallow conception of treasuring the feminine, but only in a possessive, "they could never help themselves, they are weak and stupid" way.
If we insult men by ascribing negative female traits with things like "Oh you are a little sissy girl" or "Gee, are you on your period" or "Don't be such a *****" or even inversely "Come on, be a man!" we are being sexist, we put down women and elevate manliness.
Originally posted by inimalist
I dont want to speak for Bardock, but I think his point was that it is a little insulting to assume there are these things called "male" or "female" traitsI could have read something into his post though
Originally posted by dadudemon
He, himself, freely admits that there are generalized behaviral difference: we are animals, too. We can be categorized, generalized, and so forth. In fact, som professions center around that fact: generalizing humans.However, his beef was with the "submissive" feminine stereotype or something. I don't remember what Jello was on about.
I do believe that there may be factual differences between males and females, however I don't think the ones that are commonly used to insult men are female traits, but rather a stereotype ingrained into us by society. Additionally even if it would be applicable (in a neutral society) to more women, we are still generalizing wrongly and exclude the individual.
By using these to put down men we a) put down women (as society definitely favours its own conception of masculinity) and b) further the wrong and frankly bad stereotypes.
Though, again, I should make it clear that I don't think Darth Jello is sexist, or that he did it on purpose, like I said we are all so brainwashed by society we don't even think about what the implications of what we say are. And again, I do not want to take me out of this, I use terms like "pussy" and "*****" way too often, I try to stop it completely though as I realized the sexist implications I further with it.
Of course we could discuss the pros and cons of such self censorship and whether you give the words even more power by making them more inappropriate, see "******" for example, but on the whole I think a more conscious understanding of what we say is favorable.
And lol, I just realized I'm taking a rather different view on the subject than Lenny Bruce there earlier.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I don't think that even if there actually are female and male traits (and I am definitely not talking about the common stereotypes of female = emotional, weak, etc. - male = tough, logical, etc.) it should and is not insulting to a man. For a women to be tough and logical, is not necessarily insulting, admittedly it may be threatening and many men (and women) will feel she has to be "put in her place", but that is exactly what I am talking about.
Calling someone logical is very hard to pull off as a sexist insult.
"YOU! YOU! YOU LOGICAL HEAD!"
"GASPITY! YOU SEXIST BASTARD!"
That's definitely not what is being talked about. It doesn't work.
"Tough?" Not so much. Yeah, it's generally not cool for women to be tough, meaning, eat worms for 20 bucks, stab yourself with rusty nails, etc. That's not logical stuff, either.
Originally posted by Bardock42
And before you say what we discussed about RJ's chivalry in particular (but of course every chivalry in general), you are right that we have a shallow conception of treasuring the feminine, but only in a possessive, "they could never help themselves, they are weak and stupid" way.
Nah, not that, at all. Feminine traits are delicious, sexually: soft, not very hairy, not possessing a strong BO, softer features, soft voice, curves, full lips, smooth hands, etc. These are nice breeding traits because they appeal to our primal sides. These are feminine traits that are not becoming of a man. Granted, BO is looked at as bad in many cultures, but lots of feminine traits are still looked at in the same manner. These traits are almost universally appealing on a women, but not on a man. It is not sexist to look for traits like these in women: that's what we are programmed to do. It is not sexist to consider a man less manly when you, symbolically, assign those traits to men. It's meant as an insult to men and NOT women: it is explicitly an compliment to most women.
Originally posted by Bardock42
If we insult men by ascribing negative female traits with things like "Oh you are a little sissy girl" or "Gee, are you on your period" or "Don't be such a *****" or even inversely "Come on, be a man!" we are being sexist, we put down women and elevate manliness.
But, you see, why is it bad for a female to be emotional? You're assuming that it's bad to be those things when I do not view them as such. Sure, maybe in your skewed sexist view of the sexes, those traits are bad, universally. I find them attractive on a female but it makes me dislike on males. I find girly girls sexy. Of course, a girly man is certainly not tolerable when you're working outside: a girly girl isn't much fun, either...besides the sweat on her chest. mmhmmm! (Survey shows that a majority of women find a sweaty man attractive when he's working out, so that wasn't a sexist statement: it seems to appeal to a majority of both sexes. I guess it is because it shows some sort of "primal" health or something.)
Originally posted by Bardock42
I do believe that there may be factual differences between males and females, however I don't think the ones that are commonly used to insult men are female traits, but rather a stereotype ingrained into us by society. Additionally even if it would be applicable (in a neutral society) to more women, we are still generalizing wrongly and exclude the individual.By using these to put down men we a) put down women (as society definitely favours its own conception of masculinity) and b) further the wrong and frankly bad stereotypes.
I would say that femininity is praised and sought after much more than masculinity.
These days, though, it's becoming more acceptable to not have such asymmetric gender roles.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Though, again, I should make it clear that I don't think Darth Jello is sexist, or that he did it on purpose, like I said we are all so brainwashed by society we don't even think about what the implications of what we say are. And again, I do not want to take me out of this, I use terms like "pussy" and "*****" way too often, I try to stop it completely though as I realized the sexist implications I further with it.
Telling someone that they are acting like a ***** more or less means that they are a female dog that is being overly territorial/grumpy right after she had a litter of puppies. Seems very applicable in many situations.
Calling someone a p*ssy refers to a cat, I thought: small cats are very skittish and afraid of everything. Seems very fitting in some situations. I think some people confuse calling someone a p*ssy with that of the vag version: it does not compute. I don't even understand how that can compute in their heads.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course we could discuss the pros and cons of such self censorship and whether you give the words even more power by making them more inappropriate, see "******" for example, but on the whole I think a more conscious understanding of what we say is favorable.And lol, I just realized I'm taking a rather different view on the subject than Lenny Bruce there earlier.
Indeed. I say we claim those words for a new definition of something good. That way we not only depower them, we re-empower them with new meaning. lol
Originally posted by dadudemon
Calling someone logical is very hard to pull off as a sexist insult.
"YOU! YOU! YOU LOGICAL HEAD!""GASPITY! YOU SEXIST BASTARD!"
That's definitely not what is being talked about. It doesn't work.
"Tough?" Not so much. Yeah, it's not cool for women to be tough, meaning, eat worms for 20 bucks, stab yourself with rusty nails, etc. That's not logical stuff, either.
That is what I am talking about. Unequal and invalid separation of traits to put down women and elevate men in the teachings and understanding by society.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Nah, not that, at all. Feminine traits are delicious, sexually: soft, not very hairy, not possessing a strong BO, softer features, soft voice, curves, full lips, smooth hands, etc. These are nice breeding traits because they appeal to our primal sides. These are feminine traits that are not becoming of a man. Granted, BO is looked at as bad in many cultures, but lots of feminine traits are still looked at in the same manner. These traits are almost universally appealing on a women, but not on a man. It is not sexist to look for traits like these in women: that's what we are programmed to do. It is not sexist to consider a man less manly when you, symbolically, assign those traits to men. It's meant as an insult to men and NOT women: it is explicitly an compliment to most women.
Well, two things, a) yes those are the traits I was talking about that we can pretty accurately describe as feminine b) even these are not (and shouldn't be thought of as) wrong or bad for a man to possess (except for maybe BO, which I you said correctly is in our culture looked down as bad on both sides). So I agree with you, but would argue that it is not the point I was making and not what Darth Jello, who I was replying to talked about.
Originally posted by dadudemon
But, you see, why is it bad for a female to be emotional? You're assuming that it's bad to be those things when I do not view them as such. Sure, maybe in your skewed sexist view of the sexes, those traits are bad, universally. I find them attractive on a female but it makes me dislike on males. I find girly girls sexy. Of course, a girly man is certainly not tolerable when you're working outside: a girly girl isn't much fun, either...besides the sweat on her chest. mmhmmm! (Survey shows that a majority of women find a sweaty man attractive when he's working out, so that wasn't a sexist statement: it seems to appeal to a majority of both sexes. I guess it is because it shows some sort of "primal" health or something.)
Why is it bad for anyone to be emotional? The point is, certain things which are not necessarily rooted in our evolution, are ascribed to as female traits, and they tend to be regarded lower as the ones we (also arbitrarily) ascribe to males.
What you are saying is what I am talking about, you are conditioned to dislike the traits on males but like them on females. Additionally a sort of submissiveness and subservience often belongs to the traits we "like" in females. Do you not see how that is sexist though, the traits we point on females, are ones that are designed to make them unable to succeed in our world without being taken care of by a "man".
The girly girl thing is part of what I am talking about, do you think this stereotype is a natural difference between men and women, rather than the societal conditioning? Do you boys would still grow up to be the stereotypical manly man and girls the stereotypical girly girl if they were not told from the beginning that those are male traits while the others a female? If the girls weren't primed to want Barbies and the boys GI Joe?
Originally posted by dadudemon
I would say that femininity is praised and sought after much more than masculinity.
Yes, possessively as treasure. As something to own, but undesirable to be.
Originally posted by dadudemon
These days, though, it's becoming more acceptable to not have such asymmetric gender roles.
Indeed. I do believe that is a good thing, and that we have done a huge step for women's liberation, but that there are still smaller, but also important issues to solve.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Telling someone that they are acting like a ***** more or less means that they are a female dog that is being overly territorial/grumpy right after she had a litter of puppies. Seems very applicable in many situations.
No, that's not the imagery that people are referring to when they say that. What they are referring to is a nagging, annoying woman. If you don't, I applaud that very much (it's like the South Park episode, where the children didn't see that the one being lynched was a black guy).
Originally posted by dadudemon
Calling someone a p*ssy refers to a cat, I thought: small cats are very skittish and afraid of everything. Seems very fitting in some situations. I think some people confuse calling someone a p*ssy with that of the vag version: it does not compute. I don't even understand how that can compute in their heads.
Oh please, you are taking the piss, aren't you? Not "some people", almost everyone thinks of a vagina when using that, that's why it has power, not because it conjures up imagery of kittens.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. I say we claim those words for a new definition of something good. That we, we not only depower them, we re-empower them with new meaning. lol
I wish that were as easy as that though. But I don't see that happening anytime soon, and perhaps it would be better for people not wanting a gap in gender roles and not wanting sexism to have power, to rather not use them at all, censor themselves, and ask people to do the same (or at least think about what they say)
Originally posted by inimalistAgreed I just think that claiming capitalism would work if implemented as its philosophical advocates professed is kind of a moot point as we have nothing to show for in this sense, not even the atempt, which to me is sintomatic of its nature: a fantasy. Capitalism is what it is and while I am not a marxist I do believe Marx's and Lenin's description of the system were ultimately much more accurate than Smith's wishfull thinking and Rand's apologetic discourse and human nature premises.
[B]no, and I'd agree with you, ultimately pure "anything-ism" is going to fail because it assumes things about the nature of humans. Capitalism assumes that there is a way to stop money and power from colluding to control certain aspects of the economy or society.However, if we look at what has happened in our society, much like if we look at the time of Lenin before the time of Stalin, we can see where and why these ideological regiemes break down. I would argue, for capitalism at least, that there never was this even attempt at real capitalism. Colonialism protected and expanded local markets at the expense of the colonized, America (re: smedly butler) basically used its army to enforce import/export monopolies, and in modern times, sets the trade policy of small nations trough the IMF and World Bank. The case of Haiti is exemplary, as they were only allowed access to American markets if they imported American rice (a commodity Haiti was trying to export).
Show me a state that has actually tried to break these ties between wealth and political power, and sure, then we can talk about the corrupting influence of capitalism. The problem as I see it is not that the ideal itself is unworkable, but that the psychology of power probably doesn't select for politicians who want to dismantle the institutions that keep them in power (whereas I would argue that the command economy in communism is actually unworkable on real grounds, and not just because people are crazy [which is also problematic for communism too])
That's just the thing, in a system where social organization is mediated by unlimited private control over resources, concentration of power is inevitable even without a state.
Let's assume anarcho-capitalism or minarchism are implemented:
How is it possible to avoid an oligarchy in a system where access to the means required for survival are determined by private property and not the need of all individuals? How is the increasing concentration of wealth and its consequent concentration of power gonna be avoided in a system in which the primary goal of economic activity is further profit? how can other forms of economic activity even hope to survive if they have to compete with groups oriented towards perpetual expansion?
If there is no public power for capitalists to steer, occupay, controla nd corrupt, but there are still capitalists that just leaves them as the only power left and instead of a corporate puppet state we're left with corporate neo-feudalism.
Originally posted by 753
Agreed I just think that claiming capitalism would work if implemented as its philosophical advocates professed is kind of a moot point as we have nothing to show for in this sense, not even the atempt, which to me is sintomatic of its nature: a fantasy. Capitalism is what it is and while I am not a marxist I do believe Marx's and Lenin's description of the system were ultimately much more accurate than Smith's wishfull thinking and Rand's apologetic discourse and human nature premises.
well, fine. "impossible" or "Utopian" is different from "failed", which is what was being discussed. The problem in capitalism is that people in power wont give up the financial incentives to manipulate the market and collude with business. The problems in a controlled economy come from the actual fact that such control is likely impossible. Capitalism fails because our leaders wont give up power, communism fails because the idea of controlling a nations economy in such a way fails.
We would disagree on the last part as well, history has proven marx very wrong about the impact of capitalist markets.
Originally posted by 753
That's just the thing, in a system where social organization is mediated by unlimited private control over resources, concentration of power is inevitable even without a state.
you know of a system that has no concentrations of power that are associated with access to resources?
Originally posted by 753
Let's assume anarcho-capitalism or minarchism are implemented:How is it possible to avoid an oligarchy in a system where access to the means required for survival are determined by private property and not the need of all individuals? How is the increasing concentration of wealth and its consequent concentration of power gonna be avoided in a system in which the primary goal of economic activity is further profit? how can other forms of economic activity even hope to survive if they have to compete with groups oriented towards perpetual expansion?
If there is no public power for capitalists to steer, occupay, controla nd corrupt, but there are still capitalists that just leaves them as the only power left and instead of a corporate puppet state we're left with corporate neo-feudalism.
I hate to drop this, but:
I disagree with your ontology. A system with no state can still have anti-monopolist regulation and consumer protections, they are just enforced through different mechanisms than the government. Preferably through distributed groups of interested parties, who would almost by definition be either a) much less accepting of bribery and b) would be much harder to bribe because of their distributed nature.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I mean King Kandy, when he saidThat is what I disagreed with, not with the usefulness of leadership or hierarchy.
And the "i" isn't capitalized! 😛
Originally posted by inimalist
I disagree with your ontology. A system with no state can still have anti-monopolist regulation and consumer protections, they are just enforced through different mechanisms than the government. Preferably through distributed groups of interested parties, who would almost by definition be either a) much less accepting of bribery and b) would be much harder to bribe because of their distributed nature.
Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't see what's fundamentally different between a government and a strong enough group of independent regulators.
one of the strangest mistakes people make about anarchy is assuming that it is the lack of any form of governance
it is the lack of a formal state. authority can actually be justified in some instances, and a council of people that are made up of stake-holders in a community is certainly in a much better position to make justifiable restrictions on business than is an institution where politicians and CEO are essentially interchangeable
Originally posted by inimalist
one of the strangest mistakes people make about anarchy is assuming that it is the lack of any form of governanceit is the lack of a formal state. authority can actually be justified in some instances, and a council of people that are made up of stake-holders in a community is certainly in a much better position to make justifiable restrictions on business than is an institution where politicians and CEO are essentially interchangeable