Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

But for serious, I'm sorry you've run into so many asshats. That's pretty terrible.

Thank you.

I think part of it may be where I'm from. Silicon Valley is kind of different... there's big "rationalist" meetups and whatnot, so it might just be the usual "groups in power tend to punch down" thing. Here, being an atheist or a programmer isn't just, like, a religious position or a job--it's a power identity, with techie nerds sort of at the top of the community heap being extremely strong, so I guess maybe it's something more like saying "I wouldn't date a member of the police" elsewhere. There's literally parties here where they bring in busloads of women for IT people to meet, and saying you have an interest in the arts or literature sort of gives you grounds to be (not literally) spat on and ridiculed. "You look like an English major" is generally a veiled misogynist insult, and I find it very normal to go into groups of people who want to have vile conversations about the uselessness of literature, beauty, anything that's not purely utilitarian. I mean, that's debatable, of course, but what I mean is to say that where many other parts of the country may shit on techie nerds or smart kids most commonly, around here what's popular is crapping on people for having feelings or the ever-popular "being inefficient." The arts are being totally knocked over by the sciences--not just "science is cool!!" but a sort of generalized disdain for anyone who's in the least bit soft, romantic, or aesthetically sensitive.

Man, I'm sorry for the confusion. I really should have explained this more.

[SalmonGod]

It's not just Vector.  I totally understand where she's coming from.  And I'm not even religious.  I have certain ideas that one might consider pseudo-spiritual in nature that I've rarely ever discussed.  But I've got in just as many fights with atheists that see religion as a mental virus to be quarantined and eradicated as I have with religious zealots.

[ArKFallen]

Man, I'm sorry for the confusion. I really should have explained this more.

It would likely help on these forums but considering how much thought and content seems to go into each of your posts...exhaustion might become more of an issue. Especially with emotional or political stuff.

Thank you for your contributions.

[Angle]

Yeah, your posts are pretty impressive, Vector. I'd get exhausted after writing, like, half of that.

[Bauglir]

Silicon Valley is kind of different... there's big "rationalist" meetups and whatnot, so it might just be the usual "groups in power tend to punch down" thing. Here, being an atheist or a programmer isn't just, like, a religious position or a job--it's a power identity, with techie nerds sort of at the top of the community heap being extremely strong, so I guess maybe it's something more like saying "I wouldn't date a member of the police" elsewhere. There's literally parties here where they bring in busloads of women for IT people to meet, and saying you have an interest in the arts or literature sort of gives you grounds to be (not literally) spat on and ridiculed. "You look like an English major" is generally a veiled misogynist insult, and I find it very normal to go into groups of people who want to have vile conversations about the uselessness of literature, beauty, anything that's not purely utilitarian. I mean, that's debatable, of course, but what I mean is to say that where many other parts of the country may shit on techie nerds or smart kids most commonly, around here what's popular is crapping on people for having feelings or the ever-popular "being inefficient." The arts are being totally knocked over by the sciences--not just "science is cool!!" but a sort of generalized disdain for anyone who's in the least bit soft, romantic, or aesthetically sensitive.

:<

I'm going to go spend the rest of night working on ways to turn numbers into narratives out of spite toward that perspective.

_{Also while I don't think the explanation was something you had to do, it was very nice of you to. Thank you.}

[Leafsnail]

I don't want to pick a fight with atheists. I'm sorry it appeared that way. Let's relax.

Maybe don't post multiple big rants about how terrible atheists are then, as well as a direct ad hominem against someone who challenged your view?

[UXLZ]

FOR THE LIGHT BRIGADE!

[Bauglir]

-Posting was a mistake, and I apologize. Hopefully nobody managed to quote me before now-

[UXLZ]

DERAIL FROM CURRENT TOPIC, DERAIL IS COMMENCING! ALL ABOARD THE DERAIL TRAIN! CHOO CHOOOO!

What kind of government do you guys think is most progressive? Most useful? Most efficient? Most practical?
All those wonderful things.

[TheDarkStar]

Heh.

Progressive - Pure communism or direct democracy.
Useful/efficient - Absolute monarchy with a non-corrupt leader.
Practical - Either democracy or monarchy - one because it limits how much the government can mess with people's lives. The other because it's easy to set up. I'm not counting anarchy because that doesn't usually stay anarchy for very long.

[SalmonGod]

Seems like an opportune time to throw this thing in here

According to this article, there is an very progressive little society that has sprung up in Syria and is holding its own amidst all the turmoil there.  The author compares it to the anarchist movement in revolutionary Spain or the Zapatistas.  Don't know anything about it beyond what's in the link, but I bet someone here will know more and have something interesting to say.

[TripJack]

What kind of government do you guys think is most progressive?

define progressive

Most useful?

useful in what way?

Most efficient?

dunno, in the modern age they all become hopeless bureaucracies in the end don't they?

Most practical?

republic

[Arcvasti]

What kind of government do you guys think is most progressive? Most useful? Most efficient? Most practical?
All those wonderful things.

Most progressive? Anarchy. Everyone gets all the rights they could ever want. And then some.

Most efficient/useful? Any government where someone who is a genuinely good ruler can do the right thing without having to wade through checks and balances. Of course, genuinely good rulers are rare and can't be induced, so this is hardly practical.

Most practical? Probably democracy, with more checks and balances then it currently possesses. If the people put the worst possible people in power, they still shouldn't be able to do any harm.

[Solifuge]

DERAIL FROM CURRENT TOPIC, DERAIL IS COMMENCING! ALL ABOARD THE DERAIL TRAIN! CHOO CHOOOO!

What kind of government do you guys think is most progressive? Most useful? Most efficient? Most practical?
All those wonderful things.

Aww... I actually wanted to try to have a calm discussion about Trans stuff, because I feel it's really important. But that's coo'.

It's maybe not possible to implement on a state or continental scale, but the system I find most beautiful and am kind of in love with are those pre-governmental forms of egalitarianism you can find in tribal cultures. They rely on small populations to function, since everyone kind of has to know everyone else personally... but there are no leadership positions, everyone contributes whatever they can to the group, and everyone gets whatever they need and can't produce on their own from their neighbors. Currency doesn't have to exist because commodities aren't owned; the only debt that exists is which person needs what thing... and when goods are scarce, individuals determine how to divy things up or address the shortage. It's got a collectivist vibe, without all the Fierce Nationalism or Despotism, and it warms my heart. Downsides are that you're limited to what your neighbors and you can produce, and the skills you have; if you need treatment for an illness, better hope one of them knows enough medicine to get you a working cure, etc.

I suspect it was one of Karl Marx's inspirations. I had a long argument in class with an Anthropology Professor, where I hypothesized that Communism may have been an attempt to create something like that Egalitarianism on a national scale, but failed due to the need to create a system to control the distribution of goods (you know, it wasn't goods and services passing from individual to individual anymore, so it removed the built-in equality and responsibilities individuals felt for their neighbors or society's well-being and growth... the part that makes it work on a tribal level was made impersonal by a system that turned compassion into social obligation.

As I recall, it sparked a derail about how "Communism never works." and the heavy implication that Uncle Sam was crying at me for suggesting it. I couldn't reign him back in or shift focus to my actual point. It was sad.

[Frumple]

... can see where the appeal is, but the thought of that sort of societal organization always makes me kinda' melancholy. It would mean... well, basically that our species is functionally dead. There'd be no great projects, no great innovations -- certainly none that lasted very long -- no... anything, really. We'd never reach the stars, never get off Earth. It would be stagnation. Pretty stagnation, and maybe fairly happy, but it would effectively be species level suicide. Any chance we'd have of being more than what we currently are would be gone.

Personally, I couldn't live with that. We've got hella' problems nowadays, but at least there's some sort of slim chance of escape in there, eventually, y'know? Slim hope is better than none.