Pedantic Struggles: The All Encompassing Philosophy Thread™

[E.H. Ruddock]

Darrin, i think

Darrin always used consistently proper capitalization and punctuation.

[malice]

Neo-Accelerationist


I don't know what that means but it sure sounds good

In political and social theory, accelerationism is the idea that either the prevailing system of capitalism, or certain technosocial processes that have historically characterised it, should be expanded, repurposed, or accelerated in order to generate radical social change. Some contemporary accelerationist philosophy takes as its starting point the Deleuzo-Guattarian theory of deterritorialisation, aiming to identify, deepen, and radicalise the forces of deterritorialisation with a view to overcoming the countervailing tendencies that suppress the possibility of far-reaching social transformation.[1][clarification needed] Accelerationism may also refer more broadly, and usually pejoratively, to support for the deepening of capitalism in the belief that this will hasten its self-destructive tendencies and ultimately lead to its collapse.[2][3]

Accelerationist theory has been divided into mutually contradictory left-wing and right-wing variants. "Left-accelerationism" attempts to press "the process of technological evolution" beyond the constrictive horizon of capitalism, for example by repurposing modern technology for socially beneficial and emancipatory ends; "right-accelerationism" supports the indefinite intensification of capitalism itself, possibly in order to bring about a technological singularity.

Sounds interesting. Kind of a transhumanist idea.

pls explain transhumanist . im vaguely familiar with humanism, but not the trans . and since im on the subject, I'll have to go through the above descriptions once im home. Too much bus shaking to read now

[malice]

Darrin, i think

Darrin always used consistently proper capitalization and punctuation.

I was going by the batshit crazy diatribe only, but youre right. Darrin, while insane, was quite good with punctuation.

[LoathedVermin72]

I think I would describe myself as a retronaturalist

[BurtReynolds]

I'm only dimly aware of the terms myself, and I'm on my phone right now so I can't type, but I tend to go back and forth between transhumanism and primitivism, if those can be thought of as opposite poles on a spectrum.

I kinda think of a technology singularity as game over, though, so I'm not sure I want that.

[malice]

I'm only dimly aware of the terms myself, and I'm on my phone right now so I can't type, but I tend to go back and forth between transhumanism and primitivism, if those can be thought of as opposite poles on a spectrum.

I kinda think of a technology singularity as game over, though, so I'm not sure I want that.

So akin to Timothy Leary talking about how technology will advance at an exponential rate until we'll need drugs to expand our consciousness enough to benefit and understand it properly

[BurtReynolds]

vs.

[BurtReynolds]

[Dscans]

This is one of the best things I've read in a while.
https://cdn.cato.org/libertarianismdoto ... litics.pdf

Basically, the author articulates three political axes: oppressor v. oppressed, civilization v. barbarism, and coercion v. liberty. For the most part, people tend to view the world through only one of these axes.

For a progressive, the highest virtue is to be on the side of the oppressed, and the worst sin is to be aligned with the oppressor. For a conservative, the highest virtue is to be on the side of civilizing institutions, and the worst sin is to be aligned with those who would tear down those institutions and thereby promote barbarism. For a libertarian, the highest virtue is to be on the side of individual choice, and the worst sin is to be aligned with expanding the scope of government.

[BurtReynolds]

[E.H. Ruddock]

Get out of here, flat earther

[BurtReynolds]

Flat Earth Society

[BurtReynolds]

get this fascist off the stage!

[BurtReynolds]

[Norah]

oh great another meme thread

[BurtReynolds]

oh great another meme thread

You're right. I may have gone too far with that last one.

[Simple Torture]

[simple schoolboy]

oh great another *spook* thread

Egoist correction

[Superblood Wolfmoon]

So in light of your ideological bent, where do you stand on federal assistance for Texas in the wake of Harvey? There's an attitude in this country that rears its head sometimes saying the people who do something stupid, who then require emergency services/rescue, ought to foot the bill for it. Because why should hard-working taxpayers subsidize the stupidity and carelessness of others, right?

Yet Houston was essentially built on a giant flood plain, and only 15% of homeowners in the hardest-hit areas had flood insurance. Why should hard-working taxpayers subsidize the stupidity and carelessness of Houston's city planners and residents? After all, they chose to live there knowing the danger, right?

[BurtReynolds]

So in light of your ideological bent, where do you stand on federal assistance for Texas in the wake of Harvey? There's an attitude in this country that rears its head sometimes saying the people who do something stupid, who then require emergency services/rescue, ought to foot the bill for it. Because why should hard-working taxpayers subsidize the stupidity and carelessness of others, right?

Yet Houston was essentially built on a giant flood plain, and only 15% of homeowners in the hardest-hit areas had flood insurance. Why should hard-working taxpayers subsidize the stupidity and carelessness of Houston's city planners and residents? After all, they chose to live there knowing the danger, right?

Well Houstonians are taxpayers, too. Why shouldn't they be able to get something for the money they were forced to give up? I assume that's part of the contract, though in my experience with Katrina, you don't get back nearly what you pay in (or in my case, anything at all).

I think most places in the country have their share of danger associated with them, whether its floods, fires, earthquakes, blizzards etc. But many of those places are strategically important, so it's impractical to say that people living in a high risk area are on their own (to a certain extent). I can see the usefulness of using taxpayer dollars to prop up a city like New Orleans (to a certain degree. At a certain point you're throwing good money after bad), Port cities are too important, etc. Everyone can't live in Nebraska where its safe.

But Houston? Houston is a blighted place where no right-thinking people should live. Abandon it to the swamps and never speak of it again.

-------

Then again, if the goal is to help people, it would probably be a lot more efficient to reallocate funds used for helping people rebuild beachfront property in flood plains to other programs.

edit: There's also the hidden long-term cost of promoting people moving to higher risk areas that will cost taxpayers a tremendous amount over time. This has been the trend for decades, and it adds billions to the cost of these disasters.