Print

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

[miauw62]

Problem is that meaning or deep emotion is usually unilaterally cruddy ones. I'd much rather spend the majority of my life drinking milk and ginger (chocolate milk and something not ginger, anyway, since ginger tastes ruddy terrible to me) than spend most of it gargling feces-draino cocktails. I got tired of the "world is mud" bullshit back when I actually was stuck in classical literature for several years straight (never again).

I'd strongly say there's a lot more room to be explored in regards to upbeat and healthy interactions between characters than most everyone gives credit, though. You don't have to have shitty people being shitty to one another in a shitty situation to impart meaning, and positive emotions can get just as gorram deep as negative ones. Slice of life can be fluffy without being vapid. High literature may tend to disagree with that, but there's a ruddy reason I don't read that well constructed drek anymore.

Terry Pratchett's books are a good example of optimistic books with a deep meaning.

[Bohandas]

On a somewhat related note, "good" cannot exist in a vacuum. It's a meaningless idea on its own in the same way that "cold" is meaningless without heat.

Cold can -only- exist without heat. Cold is -defined- as the lack of heat. If there were no heat there would be -only- cold.

EDIT:
There's a word for concepts like that that are abstract things defined simply by the absence of a concrete thing (cold is the absence of heat, dryness is the absence of water, silence is the absence of sound, etc) but treated lingustically as if they were real in themselves; but I can't remember what the word is. Do any of you know?

[Bohandas]

So, apparently a california state attorney aide is being accused of being part of a 3000 year masonic cabal or something.

I think the stupidest thing in that article may be the claim that the Knights Templar predate christianity.

[Descan]

Problem is that meaning or deep emotion is usually unilaterally cruddy ones. I'd much rather spend the majority of my life drinking milk and ginger (chocolate milk and something not ginger, anyway, since ginger tastes ruddy terrible to me) than spend most of it gargling feces-draino cocktails. I got tired of the "world is mud" bullshit back when I actually was stuck in classical literature for several years straight (never again).

I'd strongly say there's a lot more room to be explored in regards to upbeat and healthy interactions between characters than most everyone gives credit, though. You don't have to have shitty people being shitty to one another in a shitty situation to impart meaning, and positive emotions can get just as gorram deep as negative ones. Slice of life can be fluffy without being vapid. High literature may tend to disagree with that, but there's a ruddy reason I don't read that well constructed drek anymore.

Some of the best fiction I've read has basically been "Optimistic guy says "fuck you all, I'm gonna do the thing," and then does the thing."

[Graknorke]

Had someone try to tell me today that unequal distribution of wealth is a good thing that should not only be allowed to happen, but encouraged if possible.
No idea why because he would definitely not fall on the "has stuff" side.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Radio Controlled]

What were his arguments, if you can reproduce them? Just curious.

[Lord Shonus]

Had someone try to tell me today that unequal distribution of wealth is a good thing that should not only be allowed to happen, but encouraged if possible.
No idea why because he would definitely not fall on the "has stuff" side.

I actually know the rationale for this. The argument is that the "have nots" will look at the "haves", and desire to "have". This will motivate the "have nots" to work toward pulling themselves up, and that process will create the innovation and economic growth that helps everyone. Essentially, he's arguing for jealousy as an engine of growth.

[Graknorke]

What were his arguments, if you can reproduce them? Just curious.

Basically that because things tend to go that way, that's the way it should be. Except unlike normal libertarian type arguments he was saying that rather than leaving it alone and letting it happen it should be sped up. It wasn't a very well thought-out argument I think.

[hops]

That's the entire reason jealousy exist, innit? Just that people sometimes find it easier tomsabotage others rather than be superior.

[SirQuiamus]

If I steal somebody's arm, they'll be motivated to get a new one, and the overall increase in the number of arms will increase productivity and economic growth.

My God, Ayn Rand was right! 

[Orange Wizard]

I'd support unequal distribution of wealth in the sense that people are rewarded for the work that they do. So, people who do more valuable work for Society™ are paid more than those who do less valuable work.
Then people start complaining about doctors getting paid more than rubbish collectors, which brings the whole supply/demand of skills into play, effectively turning the whole ordeal into Capitalism 2.0: Socialism Doesn't Always Work As Planned.

[Frumple]

... man, rubbish collectors don't get paid nearly enough for what they do. Massively in demand, incredibly vital service (that, frankly, probably saves nearly as many lives as doctors do, if not more), and one of the deadliest jobs on the planet, and they basically get dumped on by everyone, including the folks that control the purse strings. It's a bit unfortunate, y'know?

[Orange Wizard]

Yeah. Anyone whose job is clearing up other peoples' shit deserves a massive pay rise.

[hops]

If I steal somebody's arm, they'll be motivated to get a new one, and the overall increase in the number of arms will increase productivity and economic growth.

My God, Ayn Rand was right! 

Soon, we will become an arm singularity.