Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: A Taxonomy of Poo

209 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Less Cosa Nostra than Judean People's Front/People's Front of Judea, surely? ("Don't call me Shirley")

    Well, for folks who claim to abhor religion they sure seem to act like the kind of cult that will rigorously shun anyone who deviates from absolute doctrinal purity. Case Study #1,438,701 in the pathology of ideology when politics becomes indistinguishable from religion.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Suze Vermeer,

    Sacha
    OMG. I knew blonde businesswoman had moved on from The Don, but not who to? No surprises, though, I guess.
    However, despite unwelcome thoughts of Paul Henry's elocution, we must arse on and keep the word in our lexicon. I expect the next one we'll have to f ight off is 'aks' for 'ask'.l

    Hey Pub Guy,
    I'm with you on the frustration brought on by the gulf between such discussions as this and the man in the street, but I need both sorts of company and need to talk at both levels.
    I don't understand all the academic jargon some posters write in and sometimes it seems to be a bit of a jousting competition between the very well read, but mostly I find it fun, informative and stimulating.

    Wellington • Since Jul 2008 • 29 posts Report Reply

  • Geoff Lealand,

    There was a question, some way back, about a documentary about the PYM. Can't remember the title but it was made by Russell Campbell and Alastair Barry.

    As an aside--has anyone else read the piece by Nicholas Carr "Is Google making us Stoopid? What the internet is doing to our brains" (Atlantic July/August 2008). He suggests (amongst other things) that the net is making it difficult to stay focused on long pieces of writing. I am finding I am doing the same with some of these discussions--anything longer than 2 or 3 pars tends to get skipped, in favour of shorter entries. Does that make me 'stoopid'?

    Screen & Media Studies, U… • Since Oct 2007 • 2562 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Campbell,

    Gee - the thread that just keeps on giving ......

    I guess I've had to joust with scientologists too much, I'd never really thought of Randism as a religion but I guess they are - the sort without a god but with a prophet (kind of like Buddhism) - maybe more so that elron's where the leaders probably don't really believe ....

    Dunedin • Since Nov 2006 • 2623 posts Report Reply

  • Sam F,

    maybe more so that elron's where the leaders probably don't really believe ....

    It's entirely possible that Scientology's leaders have come to believe their own stories. Don't discount the combined power of repetition, outside 'persecution' and unthinking sycophantic affirmation from sciborgs lower in the hierarchy.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1611 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    There was a question, some way back, about a documentary about the PYM. Can't remember the title but it was made by Russell Campbell and Alastair Barry.

    Rebels in Retrospect, Vanguard Films.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Keir Leslie,

    while Marxism is nominally distinct from right-wing authoritarianism or neoconservatism or libertarianism, they are essentially authoritarian social darwinism and there is no essential shift from the authoritarian, deterministic pattern or mindset of Marxism to those ideologies.

    Um, wtf? That's duckspeak. You're not using actual, meaningful words there.

    How can Marxism be social darwinism? ``From each according to his ability, to each according to their ability'' is the negation of social darwinism. They're antithetical.

    Centrist liberals have their very own set of poo labels, and `extremist' `totalitarian', `authoritarian' etc. are all perfectly capable of being used as such.

    This illusion that you can just lazily stick neoconservatism, fascism, libertarianism, and Marxism in one corner and explain them all by the same highly reductive logic is bizarre. It's weird, because, as far as I can tell, it consist of taking everyone who disagrees with a certain species of liberalism, and treating that as the defining feature of their philosophies. Oddly enough, if you do that, they all look the same.

    Since Jul 2008 • 1452 posts Report Reply

  • Julie Fairey,

    A way back someone pointed out that calling someone a lesbian isn't actually an insult... It seems to me that a lot of the "dykocracy" discourse is about not really dealing with the fact that there are powerful women in our country these days, and I don't just mean Alison Holst.

    Someone mentioned the new NBR column using the title "Helengrad" - my understanding is that this is David Farrar's weekly missive, is that right?

    Puketapapa Mt Roskill, AK… • Since Dec 2007 • 234 posts Report Reply

  • Sam F,

    I think the problem is more that the authoritarian, deterministic elements in all of those ideologies tend to attract a similar brand of adherent, who will then stress those elements in whatever ideology they attach themselves to.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1611 posts Report Reply

  • Shep Cheyenne,

    Kyle - thanks for the PYM thing.
    I'm sure that quote of Shadbolt was aimed to piss a few hippies off.

    PhD = Paper Hanging Diploma (Interior decorating)

    Since Oct 2007 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • andrew llewellyn,

    Someone mentioned the new NBR column using the title "Helengrad" - my understanding is that this is David Farrar's weekly missive, is that right?

    That is right. I quite like the term Helengrad :)

    Since Nov 2006 • 2075 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Reeves,

    How can Marxism be social darwinism?

    Absolutely, Keir: I think perhaps people are, as so often, conflating Marxism with some of its attempted (or claimed) implementations throughout history.

    Near Donny Park, Hamilton… • Since Apr 2007 • 94 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    a jousting competition between the very well read

    Perhaps, but I don't think anyone's doing it to show off, thankfully.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Shep Cheyenne,

    Helengrad is really DFP et al admition of defeat.

    Their war goes on but they have not hope of success, it is an ideological battle as Stalingrad was.

    Just who is their Hitler if Helen is Stalin?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

    Since Oct 2007 • 927 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Rowe,

    Farrar's column is on NBR Online, rather than in the newspaper itself.

    Lake Roxburgh, Central Ot… • Since Nov 2006 • 574 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    It's weird, because, as far as I can tell, it consist of taking everyone who disagrees with a certain species of liberalism, and treating that as the defining feature of their philosophies.

    Except authoritarianism is a defining feature of their philosophies. The NeoCons and fascists are just your typical power-worshipping "might makes right" authoritarians. Libertarianism masks this benearth the language of freedom, but when you unpack it, it turns out the same: money makes right, and everyone else gets to be their slaves in a pratical sense (while their oppressors claim that they are "free" all the same - a move Orwell would be proud of). In the case of Marxists and their descendents, it's more subtle - they carry the poison of Rousseau, via Kant and Hegel - the idea that only rational freedom counts, and that people must be "forced to be free". Throw in a view that rationality is defined by class-interests and that those who deny this or want to act outside their class-interests are suffering from "false consciousness", and you have a recipe for authoritarianism and oppression as nasty as anything you'll find from the power-trippers.

    But clearly, this is just bourgeois liberalism denying the impeccable logic of the People.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Sam F,

    I/S just said it better than I could.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1611 posts Report Reply

  • Keir Leslie,

    You can't say that authoritarianism is a defining feature of Marxism without dealing with the innumerable examples of non-authoritarian Marxists -- Kautsky, Allende, the Kerala Model, etc, and the vast numbers of left-wing political parties, that, given your guilt-by-association logic, should be reeling over dead from the third-hand `poison' of Rousseau and Kant. (By the way, you know that Ayn Rand hates Kant as well, which kind of intimates against this vast authoritarian web of ideologies.)

    By your standards even Orwell was a particularly nasty authoritarian, and at that point you might want to realise you've essentially defined two groups: slightly-pink left liberals, and the rest of the world. I think those aren't particularly useful categories.

    There's no real informational value in calling the various political bogeymen `authoritarians', because all you're using it to mean is `wrong'.

    Libertarian-anarchist types honestly aren't authoritarian in any meaningful sense that you might call fascists authoritarian.

    Since Jul 2008 • 1452 posts Report Reply

  • Rich Lock,

    It's entirely possible that Scientology's leaders have come to believe their own stories. Don't discount the combined power of repetition, outside 'persecution' and unthinking sycophantic affirmation from sciborgs lower in the hierarchy.

    I understand that Elron at least did by the time he passed on to whatever plane xenu resides on.

    For my money, one very interesting area of study at the moment is the investigation of why we (species we) believe what we do, whether we are hardwired for belief, and if so, why? i.e. could it have provided an evolutionary advantage at some point to have an increased 'pattern-spotting' sense, even if there isn't always a pattern to be spotted?

    Better to jump for the nearest tree if the pattern in the long grass could be a tiger, than assume it isnt....

    Did this evolve/mutate over millenia into a tendancy to assume that because a virgin was sacrified last year, and the harvest was good, we should probably do it again this year, just to make sure?

    And if we are hard-wired for belief, what strategies should we as a species be adopting to ensure this isn't actively damaging to our society?

    The way the brain works, both on a base physical level, and, um, a not completely physical level (for want of a better phrase) is endlessly fascinating.

    I have a (false?) memory of reading an article about Richard Dawkins being put in a machine that generated a strong electromagnetic field around a persons head, the machine apparently radically increasing the tendancy to believe in god, spirits, ghosts, etc. Apparently he came out with a pretty strange expression on his face....

    back in the mother countr… • Since Feb 2007 • 2728 posts Report Reply

  • Don Christie,

    Wow, what I/S just said. I just know I should bookmark it for posterity, but it's late...

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1645 posts Report Reply

  • Ben Austin,

    So what do we all think about the "Nudge Theory" and Libertarian Paternalism? Seems to be all the rage at present and much discussed in the papers

    London • Since Nov 2006 • 1027 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    The snake/ladder connecting a certain sort of Marxist and a certain sort of Libertarian can be observed in the Revolutionary Communist Party and its journal Living Marxism, which launched with this badass utopian sloganeering:

    We live in an age of caution and conformism, when critical opinions can be outlawed as 'extremism' and anything new can be rubbished as 'too risky'. Ours is an age of low expectations, when we are always being told what is bad for us, and life seems limited on all sides by restrictions, guidelines and regulations.

    The spirit of LM is to go against the grain: to oppose all censorship, bans and codes of conduct; to stand up for social and scientific experimentation; to insist that we have the right to live as autonomous adults who take responsibility for our own affairs. These are basic human values that cannot be compromised if we are ever going to create a world fit for people.

    That crowd includes Great Global Warming Swindle producer Martin Durkin and the people behind the rather successful Spiked.

    Spiked is certainly lively -- it can be pretty good. But large tracts of it -- including its wacky pro-smoking campaign -- are about not letting the facts get in the way of a good ideology.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    From The Independent this week. All the pieces are starting to fall into place ...

    And if you look back at the world of 1979, it now seems unimaginable. Exchange controls; wage controls; closed shops; and the state, for reasons which had gone unexamined for years, owning airlines and car manufacturers. Thatcher had an almost Marxist sense of historical inevitability, and her success was such that she changed not just the world but the way we look at the world. To try to imagine the reach of the state in 1979 is, in a phrase of the time, to think the unthinkable.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    And I believe we have a winner, and it's xkcd again.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4651 posts Report Reply

  • Islander,

    O sweet! never come across xkcd's site before-

    Big O, Mahitahi, Te Wahi … • Since Feb 2007 • 5643 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.