General CE Chat

Sobering documentary on the corrupt shiteshow that is the Oligarch's, Ukraine and Russia:

 
If anyone is subscribed to Pod Save America, the latest episode with Joe Biden is really good. If you aren't subscribed, I'd recommend it. Its on Spotify.
 
Bizarre, seems like the mom drove the van off the cliff intentionally. Devonte Hart, the kid known for a viral image of him hugging a police officer while crying, perished in the incident.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/02/us/family-suv-pacific-coast-crash-what-we-know/index.html

The troubling past of a family whose car plunged off a cliff

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...y-believed-authorities-be-intentional-n861876
California crash that killed Hart family may have been intentional, authorities say
"At this time, three children are still missing and could be in the ocean," a California Highway Patrol officer said.
 
https://www.eurozine.com/change-course-human-history/


How to change the course of human history
(at least, the part that's already happened)

The story we have been telling ourselves about our origins is wrong, and perpetuates the idea of inevitable social inequality. David Graeber and David Wengrow ask why the myth of 'agricultural revolution' remains so persistent, and argue that there is a whole lot more we can learn from our ancestors.
Click to expand...


a very long essay about early human history/societies. I can't say if its claims are actually true. The first three parts are to some extend point-scoring against philosophic schools that got it wrong (in the mind of the author). Its interesting, but also a tiny bit obnoxious. Additionally he does a lot of name-dropping, which is not the best way to explain something.

If you are not interested in his sociological conclusions and all his talk about inequality, one can simply skip those three parts and start reading at „4) How the course of (past) history can now change“.
 
Last edited:
PedroMendez said:
https://www.eurozine.com/change-course-human-history/





a very long essay about early human history/societies. I can't say if its claims are actually true. The first three parts are to some extend point-scoring against philosophic schools that got it wrong (in the mind of the author). Its interesting, but also a tiny bit obnoxious. Additionally he does a lot of name-dropping, which is

If you are not interested in his sociological conclusions and all his talk about inequality, one can simply skip those three parts and start reading at „4) How the course of (past) history can now change“.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed reading that. Thanks for sharing!
 
PedroMendez said:
https://www.eurozine.com/change-course-human-history/





a very long essay about early human history/societies. I can't say if its claims are actually true. The first three parts are to some extend point-scoring against philosophic schools that got it wrong (in the mind of the author). Its interesting, but also a tiny bit obnoxious. Additionally he does a lot of name-dropping, which is not the best way to explain something.

If you are not interested in his sociological conclusions and all his talk about inequality, one can simply skip those three parts and start reading at „4) How the course of (past) history can now change“.
Click to expand...

I read this a while back and it's cool and convincing but it's hard to say how correct it is since these guys seem to be trashing an entire field with such confidence...I'm always skeptical of that confidence!
 
Checking in with the world's richest man
S0Vxw8h.png




jWYAacx.png



0Mo03W2.png
 
The problem of antisemitism in Germany is getting some attention now. It started with two rapper, who have antisemitic texts, winning the Echo (a big German music award). The pusback is pretty substantial.

The second incident was a young man wearing a Kippa getting assaulted by an Arabic speaking person in Berlin. The victim filmed the whole thing with his mobile and the clip went viral.

Now the cherry on top:
A mainstream left-wing commentator (writes a column for DerSpiegel and appears frequently on TV) tweets the following:

Victim blaming at its finest; blaming the person for wearing a Kippa.
 
Last edited:
PedroMendez said:
Click to expand...




Sweet Square said:
Megan McArdle is a actual psychopath

Click to expand...



Related to Megan and to regulations (because of her view on building regulations which SS posted):
A report on the Grenfell Tower fire leaked to the London Evening Standard points out that the building – which was built after the Ronan Point explosion – was able to stay standing because of the width of the concrete on its lower floors, despite the ferocity of the blaze. And yet, had the tower been built to the lower end of modern building regulations, it is likely it would have collapsed, the report concluded.
...
After the 2009 blaze in Lakanal House, south London, which killed six people, fire regulations should have been bolstered, and institutions such as Southwark council, which breached regulations, should have faced harsher penalties.

Instead, we were gifted David Cameron’s assault on regulation. Cameron boasted that the corner-cutting and revocation of many regulations on building and business would save £500 per home built
Click to expand...
 
Sweet Square said:
Megan McArdle is a actual psychopath
Click to expand...
This Megan McArdle may be a psychopath or not, I don't know her; but I don't think general criticism directed at her person (however valid it may be) is a very good response to the tweet or the twitter thread she's referring to. If you think her broader stance influences her argument in a bad way, it would be more interesting to hear why and how exactly.

As for the twitter thread: The way I understand it, it basically describes how economic coercion and specific moral ideas of fairness contradict in practice. And it claims that trying to shape capitalism along these moral ideas leads to idealistic misunderstandings of how capitalism works and what the maneuvering room based on morality actually is. (And describes how, as a consequence, this personal morale turns into a broad social ideal, while conformity with economic coercion remains personal practice.)

I guess it's known by now I'm not in favour of capitalism, so my conclusions from this basic observation are diametrically opposed to those the author seems to make (what he calls "adulthood"/"common sense", i.e. the embrace of the rules of the game). But the observation as such seems correct to me. If someone has a different understanding, please go ahead.

Can't say much about McArdle's tweet itself because I have no idea what "orthogonal to the original point, and nonetheless related" means in this context. If someone could enlighten me there?
 
Last edited:
Synco said:
This Megan McArdle may be a psychopath or not, I don't know her; but I don't think general criticism directed at her person (however valid it may be) is a very good response to the tweet or the twitter thread she's referring to. If you think her broader stance influences her argument in a bad way, it would be more interesting to hear why and how exactly.

As for the twitter thread: The way I understand it, it basically describes how economic coercion and specific moral ideas of fairness contradict in practice. And it claims that trying to shape capitalism along these moral ideas leads to idealistic misunderstandings of how capitalism works and what the maneuvering room based on morality actually is. (And how, as a consequence, this personal morale turns into a broad social ideal, while conformity with economic coercion remains personal practice.)

I guess it's known by now I'm not in favour of capitalism, so my conclusions from this basic observation are diametrically opposed to those the author seems to make (what he calls "adulthood"/"common sense", i.e. the embrace of the rules of the game). But the observation as such seems correct to me. If someone has a different understanding, please go ahead.

Can't say much about McArdle's tweet itself because I have no idea what "orthogonal to the original point, but notheless related" means in this context. If someone could enlighten me there?
Click to expand...

There's more here about her shite views - https://theoutline.com/post/2303/megan-mcardle-has-a-lot-of-bad-ideas?zd=2&zi=z3qdgxvc

But the more fascinating and confusion part is that she somehow manages to make people think she is saying something insightful when the reality is she is barley saying anything all.




https://www.patreon.com/posts/18084828

Starts at 1:10

 
@Sweet Square
All fine, and I'll perhaps take a look at it sometime, but my point was this:
If you think her broader stance influences her argument in a bad way, it would be more interesting to hear why and how exactly.
Click to expand...
You have now simply repeated the personal criticism (so far) unconnected to the specific argument, while I'm more interested in the argument itself (mostly the twitter thread). If you think the assumptions made there are the outcome of the distinct ideology you criticise, then the obvious way to go is to demonstrate how.
 
Synco said:
@Sweet Square
All fine, and I'll perhaps take a look at it sometime, but my point was this:

You have now simply repeated the personal criticism (so far) unconnected to the specific argument, while I'm more interested in the argument itself (mostly the twitter thread). If you think the assumptions made there are the outcome of the distinct ideology you criticise, then the obvious way to go is to demonstrate how.
Click to expand...
The twitter thread isn't a really argument for anything, more so someone venting that politics isn't completely catered to them anymore. Using one 'moment'' from 20 odd years ago to essentially mock poor whites who voted for Trump, all while showing their twitter followers how ''smart'' they are.

The cheek of someone calling others stupid when he writes this




Synco said:
If you think the assumptions made there are the outcome of the distinct ideology you criticise, then the obvious way to go is to demonstrate how.[/USER]
Click to expand...
I mean there's a ton of books, lectures, debate, podcasts on all this stuff so I'm not going to waste time trying to put in badly formed sentences with poor grammar(And on a football forum of all places) the reasons why neoliberalism produces this awful ''common sense'' viewpoint.
 
Last edited:
Sweet Square said:
I mean there's a ton of books, lectures, debate, podcasts on all this stuff so I'm not going to waste a hour of my and your time to put in badly formed sentences with poor grammar(And on a football forum of all places) to show why neoliberalism produces this awful ''common sense'' viewpoint.
Click to expand...
Of course there are tons of books etc., but not having read them (and since they most certainly will not all say the same) I would have been interested in your take, even if it's just a few sentences. Just as I have tried to my outline my understanding. But it seems we can't find common ground on how to discuss this; so be it.
 
Synco said:
As for the twitter thread: The way I understand it, it basically describes how economic coercion and specific moral ideas of fairness contradict in practice. And it claims that trying to shape capitalism along these moral ideas leads to idealistic misunderstandings of how capitalism works and what the maneuvering room based on morality actually is. (And describes how, as a consequence, this personal morale turns into a broad social ideal, while conformity with economic coercion remains personal practice.)

I guess it's known by now I'm not in favour of capitalism, so my conclusions from this basic observation are diametrically opposed to those the author seems to make (what he calls "adulthood"/"common sense", i.e. the embrace of the rules of the game). But the observation as such seems correct to me. If someone has a different understanding, please go ahead.

Can't say much about McArdle's tweet itself because I have no idea what "orthogonal to the original point, and nonetheless related" means in this context. If someone could enlighten me there?
Click to expand...


Thats interesting. I have a different understanding of both threads. I don't share your interpretation, but I think its also valid. Its interesting how different priors/ideas shape ones interpretation of similar inputs.

My takeaway from the initial thread by Tom Nichols is the following: People use very different standards when evaluating their own situation compared to others. We are very good at justifying (in the sense of "finding excuses for") all sorts of behaviour, but are not willing to concede that other people do the same.
To be specific: There is no qualification that the restaurant owner couldn't lower to price of pizza and make less profit. He just doesn't think its necessary. And in a broader context: People frequently use the government to push through this unequal application of moral values.

I think Megan McArdle's thread follows the same argument just related to another subject. I read „orthogonal to the original point, and nonetheless related“ as „connected to“, but I might be wrong about that.. Government interventions/regulations have very complicated trade-offs. People who have one sided views on this („regulations are just a pointless burden on XYZ“ or „we need a lot more regulation for XYZ“) rarely aknowledge the complexity of the subject and all the trade-offs.

This sentence is a good summery:
The fact that people understand their own hard constraints, and refuse to believe in anyone else's
Click to expand...
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
I always thought of him a little like the Noel Gallagher of hiphop. He is good at knowing how to make a pop song that will get popular with the kids but doesn't demonstrate sheer technical prowess or advance the art form in any way.
Click to expand...

Noel Gallagher played a huge part in the Britpop era and helped make that kind of music popular, more so than the Stone Roses and the Inspiral Carpets. Some of his tunes have an emotional depth and gravity that not many bands can achieve. Oasis was a huge part of me growing up and I'm a massive fan. Sad to see rock music on the decline. Guess pop is what people are after now. The 90s were mint for music.
 
Nikhil said:
Noel Gallagher played a huge part in the Britpop era and helped make that kind of music popular, more so than the Stone Roses and the Inspiral Carpets. Some of his tunes have an emotional depth and gravity that not many bands can achieve. Oasis was a huge part of me growing up and I'm a massive fan. Sad to see rock music on the decline. Guess pop is what people are after now. The 90s were mint for music.
Click to expand...

They also sort of came after the Madchester scene ended and were looked at as a more commercial version of the real 80s bands who put the scene on the map.
 
Nikhil said:
Noel Gallagher played a huge part in the Britpop era and helped make that kind of music popular, more so than the Stone Roses and the Inspiral Carpets. Some of his tunes have an emotional depth and gravity that not many bands can achieve. Oasis was a huge part of me growing up and I'm a massive fan. Sad to see rock music on the decline. Guess pop is what people are after now. The 90s were mint for music.
Click to expand...

My late best friend absolutely loved Oasis and I went out of my way to even see them live in the 90s with him so they have a special place in my heart. But I tend to agree with Raoul that they were were a commercialized version of a lot of the Madchester scene.

And Fool's Gold is just a legendary song that massively influenced the 90s. Personally I think Fool's Gold and Blue Monday were true game changers whereas none of Noel's songs, as much as they make me emotional, really were. But fair play if you disagree.
 
Raoul said:
They also sort of came after the Madchester scene ended and were looked at as a more commercial version of the real 80s bands who put the scene on the map.
Click to expand...

True. Joy Division, The Smiths and Stone Roses were the bands who brought about the Madchester scene. Oasis were certainly more commercial than their predecessors but still had a "can't be arsed' attitude. Some of Liam and Noel's interviews from the 90s. :lol:

I've seen Noel live twice and Liam once. Regret never seen them as Oasis though. An Oasis reunion would make me the happiest person in the world. Don't like Noel's new album though.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
My late best friend absolutely loved Oasis and I went out of my way to even see them live in the 90s with him so they have a special place in my heart. But I tend to agree with Raoul that they were were a commercialized version of a lot of the Madchester scene.

And Fool's Gold is just a legendary song that massively influenced the 90s. Personally I think Fool's Gold and Blue Monday were true game changers whereas none of Noel's songs, as much as they make me emotional, really were. But fair play if you disagree.
Click to expand...

True. Though still not even a quarter as commercial as artists these days. I detest present day music for the large part apart from some select artists and groups across genres. I'm hugely nostalgic for the 80s and 90s Metallica, RHCP, Pink Floyd, Oasis, Aerosmith and others.

Arctic Monkeys and Kasabian are immensely talented amongst the present lot. Franz Ferdinand are alright.
 
Nikhil said:
True. Though still not even a quarter as commercial as artists these days. I detest present day music for the large part apart from some select artists and groups across genres. I'm hugely nostalgic for the 80s and 90s Metallica, RHCP, Pink Floyd, Oasis, Aerosmith and others.

Arctic Monkeys and Kasabian are immensely talented amongst the present lot. Franz Ferdinand are alright.
Click to expand...

I massively agree with you there!
There is really not much music after 1999 that I like.
My son listens to some recent downtempo, breakbeat stuff that I like but from the major genres like rock and hiphop I really dislike most of what I hear post-2000.
Even country which I don't really listen to, Johnny Cash I really like but nothing in modern country music that is bearable for me.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
I massively agree with you there!
There is really not much music after 1999 that I like.
My son listens to some recent downtempo, breakbeat stuff that I like but from the major genres like rock and hiphop I really dislike most of what I hear post-2000.
Even country which I don't really listen to, Johnny Cash I really like but nothing in modern country music that is bearable for me.
Click to expand...

Me too. My emotional connect is with the old bands. I think this is the end of rock music outside the UK. It's still going strong in Britain and Ireland but globally it's all Bieber, Swift and Katy Perry. Coldplay are hands down the biggest band in the world though. If a truly genius rock band comes along, that would do a lot to make rock popular globally again.

I like a bit of electronic music and do enjoy going for music festivals. I went for Glastonbury last summer and Austin City Limits in the autumn. Glastonbury was great fun.
 
Not sure where this belongs but it is incredibly nonsensical:
uly0wxaai9x01.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.