Story how good things are now (Read 1942 times)

  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5538
dok is our resident anti-civilization anarchist
Not anymore as I recall it.
  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5538
It's why it's a faulty concept and those that preach it are, frankly, naive and ill-suited to discussions like this. I've had people tell me about a "Chaocracy" before, where people are chosen entirely randomly day by day to run the state. What a wonderfully egalitarian principle, until you realise that most people are actually idiots and don't have the skills, intelligence, or basic worth to govern our lives (and indeed our societies DO need governance, otherwise order breaks down and everything is infinitely shittier than it is already).
I don't get why some people prefer to think of society as being a mathematical construct that you can perform equations on to manage its statistical properties. I actually think anarchists tend to be smarter about at this than, say, mainstream US libertarians, because they tend to be more self-conscious about it, whereas libertarians genuinely believe that destroying government will solve everything. Libertarians tend to see the abolishing of government as an end in and of itself whereas to the more reputable anarchists like Chomsky it's more like an eventual result of doing other things. I'm lookin' at Diet to see if I'm somewhat right on that.
  • Avatar of crone_lover720
  • PEW PEW PEW
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2002
  • Posts: 5554
chomsky is just as dumb as anyone else
  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5538
chomsky more like chimpsky
  • Avatar of Barack Obama
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 16, 2008
  • Posts: 5244
Chomsky is a pretty brilliant guy and it's pretty sad that he's probably gonna be gone in like 5-10 years

IDK, "anarchist" is a pretty broad category that encompasses a lot of different approaches from anti-civ fantasy garbage & isolated conspiratorial bombthrowers, to historically relevant movements/organizations like the CNT in Spain and the IWW in the US. A lot of self-identified anarchists I know are some of the most intelligent and dedicated people I've met in my life but I also know a lot who are dumb as a bag of hammers.
  • Avatar of EvilDemonCreature
  • i don't like change
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jul 5, 2002
  • Posts: 1453
Qualifying anything into broad categories using 'words' such as "anarchist" or "civilization" or even "dumb" is invariably going to lead to generalizations among any number of things that may actually have very little in common.

It only works that way because our biologically crafted brains were built to make communicating information as efficiently as possible. It's all about the various contexts in which that interchange of information transpires throughout such an ultimately limited lifetime filled with various such experiences.

In that sense, everyone is as dumb as anybody. Chomsky isn't even special enough to single him out on who he is as dumb as, and the only thing dumber is even having to ask the question in the first place.
  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5538
Qualifying anything into broad categories using 'words' such as "anarchist" or "civilization" or even "dumb" is invariably going to lead to generalizations among any number of things that may actually have very little in common.

It only works that way because our biologically crafted brains were built to make communicating information as efficiently as possible. It's all about the various contexts in which that interchange of information transpires throughout such an ultimately limited lifetime filled with various such experiences.

In that sense, everyone is as dumb as anybody. Chomsky isn't even special enough to single him out on who he is as dumb as, and the only thing dumber is even having to ask the question in the first place.
  • Avatar of Barack Obama
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 16, 2008
  • Posts: 5244
It only works that way because our biologically crafted brains were built to make communicating information as efficiently as possible.
not really...
  • I fear and I tremble
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Aug 21, 2005
  • Posts: 6165
chomsky is just as dumb as anyone else

why? why do people keep posting shit like this without even another statement to back it up?
DEUCE: MEETING THE URINE UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL AND REALIZING IT'S JUST LIKE ME AND MY PREJUDICES  THIS WHOLE TIME WERE COMPLETELY FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF PTTTTHTHTHH GOD IT'S EVERYWHERE<br />DEUCE: FUCK THIS TASTES LIKE PISS<br />PANTS: WHERE IT SHOULD TASTE LIKE COTTON CANDY OR PICKLES<br />DEUCE: OR AT LEAST LIKE URINE NOT PISS
  • Avatar of Biggles
  • I know your secrets
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: May 5, 2005
  • Posts: 688
sidepart moustache posting is justified antirationally through the inherent phenomenological self-authority of the author. it is only through the pre-reflective self-conscious truth that the post can be, and indeed needs to be justified.

(it irks me too)
(someones gonna ugh this post :D​)
  • Avatar of crone_lover720
  • PEW PEW PEW
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2002
  • Posts: 5554
why? why do people keep posting shit like this without even another statement to back it up?
not worth it
  • Avatar of gargonherd
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jul 11, 2011
  • Posts: 111
Chomsky is a pretty brilliant guy and it's pretty sad that he's probably gonna be gone in like 5-10 years


This is by no means an insult to you, or anyone really, but I think this is an interesting point. The thing a lot of people I know can't seem to differentiate is that Chomsky is a brilliant person, but his political ideology isn't. To be fair no particular political ideology is even nearing perfect but instead of abolishing all the work towards the current structure in favor of a non-hierarchical system based upon some of the most flawed, idealistic aspects of communism is kind of counter-intuitive. People only view these subjects as binary: they're smart, or they're not. They have the right idea, or they don't. The thing is almost all philosophies have some valid basis but the actual implementation these ideas require isn't usually possible or effective with most people. People get generalized: what works for one person won't work for another. And that's why no system can truly be perfect- because perfection is defined by the individual and unless all the people are exactly the same no one will come to a unanimous conclusion.


I've been thinking about this a lot because I recently got back from a trip to Baltimore where I was staying in a townhouse with a group of about 7 punks. Almost all of them were anarcho-communists and I think it's interesting to note that they all had personal disagreements about how this revolution would work and how it would be handled afterwards. If after hundreds of years with (now) millions of people working to improve our system, and very slow progress, what leads them to believe abolishing all that and replacing it with some infrastructure they can't even agree upon would just work? Everyone wants to think they have an answer to the major world issues but ultimately it's something we have to spend a lot of time analyzing and trying to make better, not just a simple question with an answer. You can make things better for most people, but you won't please everyone.


Ultimately I think these are the best times to live in as the original subject of this thread was. I know plenty of people who discuss the individual being alienated by technology, government, etc. but it ultimately is just romanticizing over abstract ideas of the past that, in reality, never were much better in the first place. Many people are so pessimistic about the future but all I can see is the same improvement we've experienced over the course of our duration- only now it's advancing quicker than ever. I am excited to see what things time brings even if they're not always the greatest- because what purpose does greatness have if we can't contrast it against the struggles?


I am glad this thread exists because even if I don't necessarily agree with everything said 100% it is still being put out there and is giving me something to think about.
  • Avatar of crone_lover720
  • PEW PEW PEW
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2002
  • Posts: 5554
welcome, nice avatar!

I don't disagree with your feelings on chomsky's ideas about government, but I disagree with part of your reasoning. the concept of not being able to please everyone is insignificant, and kind of leaning towards libertarian thinking, where terrible people try to excuse horrible shit by saying it's what the people want. what people want is so controlled by big business, the media, marketing, and culture/pseudoculture that it's a pretty terrible determinant of what would be GOOD for everyone. philosophy is pretty much the same thing. the times change, and so do people. the only semi-reliable information comes from scientific data, which is still left up to the motivations of the individual to gather and interpret

I know CHIMPsky calls his ideas "libertarian socialism" or something like that so I'm not sure how well "doesn't please everyone" applies, so if it doesn't apply to his ivory tower philosophical drivel my post still applies to communism other ideas about government

if you say "chomsky is brilliant, but his political shit isn't", you must like his linguistic work, his ability to put together pretty sentences, or you have a different idea of what makes someone brilliant. I call him dumb because he's a big baby playing around with his intellectual tinker tots for a living, and people, for various reasons, are so willing to change his diaper and breastfeed his philosophical ego. it's all garbage as far as I'm concerned. his linguistic stuff could have been a little interesting, but apparently it has all been a big waste of time? not totally sure, but I'm not inclined to look it up.
  • Avatar of gargonherd
  • Pip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jul 11, 2011
  • Posts: 111
Thanks, I do a lot of sprites like this so I'm glad you like it! I spend a lot of time on it.


Yeah, that's fair enough. I didn't think of it that way so much, but that's actually a good point. The culture of the time and the influence of other people plays a role way more than what people actually want deep down even from personal experience. If an idea isn't present in your culture, there isn't really any demand for it. This gets into language ultimately where if you can't express an idea you can't really understand it entirely. The whole thing with Chompsky is that he's interesting in his philosophy on linguistics and obviously is a bright person (to me at least) but I really don't agree with him as far as a lot of his political views go, and even the social implications on some of his linguistic writings. I really don't feel like I have to agree with him entirely to give him a degree of credit as an influential linguist and smart guy overall, but I see where you're coming from. A lot of intellectuals alienate others with an inflated sense of worth that really makes it hard to relate with them on any level really. Of course there are always people willing to eat it up and continue buying into it so as you say, they're only feeding those peoples' egos. I think Chompsky is a pretty damn smart guy (even if some of it is squandered) but I can understand what you mean.