Print

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

[Graknorke]

If I knew anything about the london riots I'd be all over this right now.

But no one loots for the goddamn hell of it. We're not fucking pirates. Hell, no one loots for the loot either, even traditional pirates had a reason. Almost all stolen things get sold sometime later, people don't steal for free stuff, they steal to sell it later for money.

And if that many people were looting and rioting, then where the hell would you sell it? hm?

And vandalizing? That's only done to show hate towards something else, nothing can be gained from vandalizing.

Well, people do do those things for the hell of it. When there's a smashed up bus shelter, is it because someone was upset at increasing bus fares? Or 'rebellious' schoolchildren stealing chocolates from a newsagents is because they're starving and can't afford to be fed?
It's because they get a kick out of doing things that they're not supposed to. It's nowhere near a political statement.

[Zangi]

If I knew anything about the london riots I'd be all over this right now.

But no one loots for the goddamn hell of it. We're not fucking pirates. Hell, no one loots for the loot either, even traditional pirates had a reason. Almost all stolen things get sold sometime later, people don't steal for free stuff, they steal to sell it later for money.

And if that many people were looting and rioting, then where the hell would you sell it? hm?

And vandalizing? That's only done to show hate towards something else, nothing can be gained from vandalizing.

Well, people do do those things for the hell of it. When there's a smashed up bus shelter, is it because someone was upset at increasing bus fares? Or 'rebellious' schoolchildren stealing chocolates from a newsagents is because they're starving and can't afford to be fed?
It's because they get a kick out of doing things that they're not supposed to. It's nowhere near a political statement.

Comparing a handful of douchebag / bored kids to +50k(?) uneducated / angry / poor people. 
Not sure how you can say its 'for the hell of it' when it involved so damn many people...

[kaijyuu]

Rioters do stupid things. Mob mentality isn't known for its logic.


Anywho, while I don't think any form of true anarchy will be stable enough to last a day, I do think we can spread out the power much more and centralize it much less. Who watches the watchers? The citizens. Or at least, that's how it should be, but governments like to keep secrets from their citizens and IMO break the social contract by doing so. We cannot responsibly govern ourselves in ignorance.

[darkrider2]

I don't think the London riots have anything at all to do with teen angst.

[kaijyuu]

Yes they do, from my understanding: That's what they were being blamed on. "Whiny kids are breaking stuff!" Not that that reflects reality, of course...

[darkrider2]

Yes they do, from my understanding: That's what they were being blamed on. "Whiny kids are breaking stuff!" Not that that reflects reality, of course...

Oh. Well sorry for that then. As stated I don't know anything about the london riots. It was the part inside me that believes your average person isn't one of the bandits from borderlands that caused me to step into the argument.

[Zangi]

Yes they do, from my understanding: That's what they were being blamed on. "Whiny kids are breaking stuff!" Not that that reflects reality, of course...

The equivalent of burying your head under the sand and telling yourself that it is just a simple crime problem?

[SalmonGod]

You seemt o be under the impression that if we removed all the current "malevolent" infrastructure, in your opinion, that everything would be all fixed. But what you fail to realize is that these systems sprung up in the first place because of basic human nature and interaction.

I'm not even trying to relate this to anarchy or dismantling infrastructure, unless you're referring to my description of the military-industrial complex, but it would be difficult to argue that isn't an inherently violent institution.  I'm just talking strategies for dealing with violence.

And we've had the discussion about "human nature" before, which is a concept I reject.  I'll only reiterate the most relevant point, which is it's easy for various qualities to seem like human nature when the system we live by is designed to reward those qualities and punish others.  Civilization and all its features and flaws are the product of logistical circumstances, not human nature, and the prevalence of certain human behaviors is only adaptation.  The whole concept of human nature is the claim that all human beings share a specific few personality traits, which I find to be absurd.

Also, sometimes a short term-solution is needed, for those problems that get past the long-term solutions.

True, but this is way too often used as an excuse not to invest in the long-term, which is usually more difficult in the short-term.

[Putnam]

Human nature doesn't refer to personality traits, but instinctual behaviors. Denying that particular human nature is denying that humans are animals.

[SalmonGod]

Human nature doesn't refer to personality traits, but instinctual behaviors. Denying that particular human nature is denying that humans are animals.

Care to elaborate?  My wife just finished taking an evolutionary anthropology course less than a week ago, and I followed along with it pretty closely.  It's scientifically recognized that the vast majority of human behavior is cultural in origin.  In fact, this is true to a degree among most mammals.  It's credited as being one of the top reasons for the success of the mammalia class of species, because behavior that isn't pre-determined by instinct can evolve to adapt to an environment much quicker than physiology.  Homo sapiens take this feature of mammals to the most extreme of any species.

We have survival and reproduction instincts.  We have emotions (which could largely be seen as a manifestation of those instincts) and some emotional expressions (such as smiling) that are near-universal (those who don't do these things are said to have some sort of disorder such as autism, which is actually really common).  That's about it.  In a political context, I have never heard anyone use the term "human nature" to refer to these things.  They're always making statements such as "All human beings are naturally greedy/violent".  No.  Those are personality traits.

[Putnam]

Believe it or not, what you said.

Yay almost getting into a debate over miscommunication!

[Lagslayer]

I know y'all are trying to wrap this point up, but I still feel compelled to chime in.

Human nature doesn't refer to personality traits, but instinctual behaviors. Denying that particular human nature is denying that humans are animals.

Care to elaborate?  My wife just finished taking an evolutionary anthropology course less than a week ago, and I followed along with it pretty closely.  It's scientifically recognized that the vast majority of human behavior is cultural in origin.  In fact, this is true to a degree among most mammals.  It's credited as being one of the top reasons for the success of the mammalia class of species, because behavior that isn't pre-determined by instinct can evolve to adapt to an environment much quicker than physiology.  Homo sapiens take this feature of mammals to the most extreme of any species.

We have survival and reproduction instincts.  We have emotions (which could largely be seen as a manifestation of those instincts) and some emotional expressions (such as smiling) that are near-universal (those who don't do these things are said to have some sort of disorder such as autism, which is actually really common).  That's about it.  In a political context, I have never heard anyone use the term "human nature" to refer to these things.  They're always making statements such as "All human beings are naturally greedy/violent".  No.  Those are personality traits.

Firstly, I do not deny the huge impact of culture on our behavior. However, our accumulated knowledge is only half of the equation. Just as our gained knowledge influences our decisions, our base response plays an equal part. Neither one is the full story, and neither one can be ignored. They both take part in every decision we make, in some quantity, some form. Furthermore, though our accumulated knowledge can grow and change quickly, our physiology and biochemistry do not change so much, as that is mostly ingrained into our DNA.

It is in my opinion/observation that the friction between these two forces is increasing. It could easily rip us apart if we don't proceed carefully and thoughtfully.

[Graknorke]

I'm not really sure there'll ever be much friction between socially learned behaviours and natural behaviours. Unless a new law is passed requiring everyone to stop eating, become chaste and be hermits.

[kaijyuu]

The "become chaste" one is already partially in effect and has been for thousands of years. Sexual repression is a thing, and a nasty thing. The most sexually repressed areas have on average the highest rate of sex crime (rape, molestation, etc), and honestly? "Going against human nature" is an argument I'd actually be in agreement with to explain why.

[Aqizzar]

Newly merged New York bank department headed by new firebrand launches charges against a major London bank with laundering money for the Iranian government, sending monocles everywhere flying into drinks.  This story doesn't do whole justice to the picture involved, and I really wish I could find the original.  Namely, the US Treasury Department is pissed off about this, not the money laundering but the charges.  There are proper channels and procedures for bringing jail-time charges against banks, and "public shaming" (their words) are not supposed to be a part of it.

I suppose the takeaway here is that there is the government of New York writ large is taking bank crime seriously, and giving at least one agency quite a bit of latitude in investigation and finding.