8 ms·

"I believe my generation will overthrow the arbitrary and brutal authority of corporate capitalism and bigoted conservatism in favor of rationalistic, libertari

"I believe my generation will overthrow the arbitrary and brutal authority of corporate capitalism and bigoted conservatism in favor of rationalistic, libertarian socialism driven by a scientific approach and a concern for universal social justice." so, did you just take poli-sci to learn buzzwords and impress dumb chicks? I'm guessing you failed to comprehend any of the material. Before you call a fortune 500 company a "brutal authority" you might want to READ A FUCKING BOOK.

JonnieCache 16y ago
>I'm guessing you failed to comprehend any of the material... READ A FUCKING BOOK. If you're so much cleverer than this chap, why have you not felt it necessary to accompany your ad-hominem attacks with at least a basic level of elucidation? To the chap in question: insightful views clearly stated. I applaud your goals and I hope we can make it happen.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  Insults do not ad hominem make. Not to say that it was a good comment to begin with.
  - danssig 16y ago
    The whole post basically said the author was stupid while neglecting to explicitly point out anything wrong with what he/she said. That's pretty much the definition of ad hominem, no?
    - Locke1689 16y ago
      Not at all. http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html As I said, insults are not ad hominem in and of themselves.
  - MarkPNeyer 16y ago
    if insults don't make an argument ad hominem, what does?
    - barrkel 16y ago
      "He's an asshole, but he makes a good point." Not ad hominem, not trying to refute the argument, but still an insult. "He's an asshole, and his argument is crap." Not ad hominem, refuting the argument by mere assertion, and an insult. "He's an asshole, so his argument can't be taken seriously." Ad hominem - implying that some characteristic of the person makes his argument flawed; and an insult. "He just wants what's best for his daughter, so his argument can't be taken seriously." Ad hominem (implying bias); but not an insult.
- wwz 16y ago
  He did not claim the author was an idiot and dismiss his writing because of it. That would be ad hominem. He read and ingested the article and then (rightfully) drew the conclusion that the author is an idiot.
  - Natsu 16y ago
    Even if one accepts his conclusion as correct, he did not explain how he came to that conclusion very well. While I can, in fact, guess why he concluded that, I am merely guessing because his reasoning was not explained very well. I really hope that I'm wrong in believing that about half of his problems are with the use of political labels. The very meaning of all political labels is contested: people abuse them constantly for their own purposes, so they do not carry the same meaning for all people. For example, "socialism" can be anything from an oppressive government that ruthlessly punishes success to neighbors banding together to help each other out in times of trouble. Or it can be used as a simple insult. The problem isn't that these words have no meaning, the problem is that people are fighting over what these words should mean. As Lewis Carroll put it, 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.'
ovi256 16y ago
Nice personal attack right there. Try addressing his argument next time. And FYI, sociologically speaking, most corporations are brutal psychopats.
- nazgulnarsil 16y ago
  He didn't make a cohesive argument to respond to. libertarian socialism? I don't argue with fools, but I will point him out to others in the hope that they'll save some time. those brutal psychopaths happen to be the most effective form of peacefully organizing humans to provide stuff others want in voluntary trade ever created. There's a reason we see thousands of years of conquest, then the innovation that allows large safe investment in wealth generating ventures and a subsequent explosion in global standards of living and the decline of conquest. you might want to try reading a book as well. But who am I kidding? the historical illiteracy of the post cold war era is all but absolute at this point. Rah Rah democracy.
- ramanujan 16y ago
  Absolutely agree with you that he should address his argument. That said, this is almost too obvious to point out, but it happens to be true that the Soviet Union and Communist China (and Vietnam, Cambodia, etcetera) murdered 100 million+[1] in the name of "building socialism", and it is quite possible that the original poster knows people from those countries who lost loved ones to socialism/communism. Seen in this light, I'm not saying that OP's phrasing was the way to go, but it's understandable that there are people frustrated by this all too common style of ignorance. It's not idealistic to actually support socialism in 2011, it's simply ignorant. At the risk of reductio ad Hitlerum, certainly an offhand comment in favor of "rational, libertarian Nazism" would have dominated response to the essay, yet we find it acceptable for educated people to make offhand[2] complimentary references to a polar opposite ideology that actually killed many more people. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087 http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression... [2] Or in this case, direct rather than offhand
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    You're making the same mistake that he was by assuming that he was advocating actual socialism/communism instead of a "social democracy"-esque hybrid.
wulczer 16y ago
Even though the comment could be more civil and less aggressive, it does point out the phrase from the article that struck me most. Jumping from people with less economical stability who don't advance because they "spend the bulk of their time trying not to offend" and "don't offer suggestions when in meetings" to brutal authority of bigoted conservatism is a stretch. In my book, people who act natural, take initiative and get things done deserve to advance. People who are withdrawn and only interested in keeping their jobs don't. And on the other hand smack-average performers don't get noticed and advanced, while silent and shy types, if they're doing a stellar job, do. Maybe it's specific to the technology field, but I never noticed that one's financial wealth, or lack of it, influenced their carrer path. edit: typos
- calibraxis 16y ago
  > Maybe it's specific to the technology field [...] Yes, the author wrote, "I would advise those who are sufficiently talented to work in technology, which tends to be more meritocratic than other industries, and to avoid old-style business. Beyond that, I know of no solution." Though I think techies from wealthier families still have an advantage in terms of salary bargaining, and choosing what teams they work with. (Being able to walk away is a serious advantage. Simply wait for great deals to come along, then push in with whatever strength you have... bailing if you realize it's not a good deal after all.) Not to mention more leisure time learning tech from various angles, and safety nets.
  - billswift 16y ago
    People from wealthier families also have an advantage in fields that use unpaid internships when starting.
lionhearted 16y ago
Naz, I agree with you that he's taking a position that's pretty uninformed based on history and I'm a big admirer of your comments and thinking, but I even thought "read a fucking book" wasn't the best way to present a counterargument. People here are smart, if you show them cohesive analysis and can avoid emotionally loaded words, they respond to it. The Western commerce structures have produced more wealth than anything else in history... almost everything you interact with on a daily basis is a result of coordinated effort of these structures. People don't even realize because they're surrounded in wealth - they don't viscerally understand how it got there, and how it wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the structures we've got. For instance, in Soviet Russia the soda vending machines wouldn't give you a can or bottle (what a waste!), so instead there was a communal cup that filled with soda, you drank from the cup that everyone else did, and then there was a bucket of stale water you dipped the cup in afterwards to clean it for the next person. Needless to say, this promoted all sorts of germs and unsanitary nastiness and lots of educated people forbade their kids from drinking the soda from the communal cup, whereas less educated people passed their germs around and got more sick, and had lower health and lower life expectancy. But people don't read history, so they don't know about stuff like that. They just assume that soda companies are... what's the author call it, brutal authoritarian something? You're right, people don't study history. So we've got to be patient and work with them and educate them a little bit as to how things really are. It's kind of a thankless job, but I think civility is the only way to do it.
- yequalsx 16y ago
  In terms of material wealth Western commerce structures have produced more. However, much suffering has occurred a result. High levels of pollution, propping up of corrupt regimes in exchange for access to resources for cheap cost, environmental damage done to poor countries, etc. The costs of this material wealth have not been measured fully. Typically fields like economics only look at financial matters to determine that we are better off. The 'we' part changes depending on context. Are people in the Nigerian deltas better off? Every two years or so they experience a Gulf of Mexico BP level oil spill. Acidity levels in the ocean are increasing and then there is global warming. In some countries life is good (generally speaking) but this good life does come, at least partially, at the expense of others. From my perspective there is a serious problem with capitalism and Western commerce structures. The problems seem to be getting worse.
bhousel 16y ago
I'm legitimately curious, which fucking books do you think the author of the blog should read? For what it's worth, I initially dismissed your comment as a troll, but was motivated enough by your replies to click through to your profile and read some of your own blog, and was surprised to find that you are actually an intelligent and interesting person. See how just one carelessly worded rant can tarnish a first impression? Give the blogger the benefit of the doubt -- he sounds young, but not stupid.
omouse 16y ago
Yes yes, we know how wonderful capitalism is at producing gadgets and it gives us a great show, but how much is it helping people really? Does union busting and making people work for the bare minimum they need to live make you feel as warm and fuzzy inside inside?

JonnieCache 16y ago

>I'm guessing you failed to comprehend any of the material... READ A FUCKING BOOK. If you're so much cleverer than this chap, why have you not felt it necessary to accompany your ad-hominem attacks with at least a basic level of elucidation? To the chap in question: insightful views clearly stated. I applaud your goals and I hope we can make it happen.

Locke1689 16y ago
Insults do not ad hominem make. Not to say that it was a good comment to begin with.
- danssig 16y ago
  The whole post basically said the author was stupid while neglecting to explicitly point out anything wrong with what he/she said. That's pretty much the definition of ad hominem, no?
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    Not at all. http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html As I said, insults are not ad hominem in and of themselves.
- MarkPNeyer 16y ago
  if insults don't make an argument ad hominem, what does?
  - barrkel 16y ago
    "He's an asshole, but he makes a good point." Not ad hominem, not trying to refute the argument, but still an insult. "He's an asshole, and his argument is crap." Not ad hominem, refuting the argument by mere assertion, and an insult. "He's an asshole, so his argument can't be taken seriously." Ad hominem - implying that some characteristic of the person makes his argument flawed; and an insult. "He just wants what's best for his daughter, so his argument can't be taken seriously." Ad hominem (implying bias); but not an insult.
wwz 16y ago
He did not claim the author was an idiot and dismiss his writing because of it. That would be ad hominem. He read and ingested the article and then (rightfully) drew the conclusion that the author is an idiot.
- Natsu 16y ago
  Even if one accepts his conclusion as correct, he did not explain how he came to that conclusion very well. While I can, in fact, guess why he concluded that, I am merely guessing because his reasoning was not explained very well. I really hope that I'm wrong in believing that about half of his problems are with the use of political labels. The very meaning of all political labels is contested: people abuse them constantly for their own purposes, so they do not carry the same meaning for all people. For example, "socialism" can be anything from an oppressive government that ruthlessly punishes success to neighbors banding together to help each other out in times of trouble. Or it can be used as a simple insult. The problem isn't that these words have no meaning, the problem is that people are fighting over what these words should mean. As Lewis Carroll put it, 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.'

ovi256 16y ago

Nice personal attack right there. Try addressing his argument next time. And FYI, sociologically speaking, most corporations are brutal psychopats.

nazgulnarsil 16y ago
He didn't make a cohesive argument to respond to. libertarian socialism? I don't argue with fools, but I will point him out to others in the hope that they'll save some time. those brutal psychopaths happen to be the most effective form of peacefully organizing humans to provide stuff others want in voluntary trade ever created. There's a reason we see thousands of years of conquest, then the innovation that allows large safe investment in wealth generating ventures and a subsequent explosion in global standards of living and the decline of conquest. you might want to try reading a book as well. But who am I kidding? the historical illiteracy of the post cold war era is all but absolute at this point. Rah Rah democracy.
ramanujan 16y ago
Absolutely agree with you that he should address his argument. That said, this is almost too obvious to point out, but it happens to be true that the Soviet Union and Communist China (and Vietnam, Cambodia, etcetera) murdered 100 million+[1] in the name of "building socialism", and it is quite possible that the original poster knows people from those countries who lost loved ones to socialism/communism. Seen in this light, I'm not saying that OP's phrasing was the way to go, but it's understandable that there are people frustrated by this all too common style of ignorance. It's not idealistic to actually support socialism in 2011, it's simply ignorant. At the risk of reductio ad Hitlerum, certainly an offhand comment in favor of "rational, libertarian Nazism" would have dominated response to the essay, yet we find it acceptable for educated people to make offhand[2] complimentary references to a polar opposite ideology that actually killed many more people. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087 http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression... [2] Or in this case, direct rather than offhand
- Locke1689 16y ago
  You're making the same mistake that he was by assuming that he was advocating actual socialism/communism instead of a "social democracy"-esque hybrid.

wulczer 16y ago

Even though the comment could be more civil and less aggressive, it does point out the phrase from the article that struck me most. Jumping from people with less economical stability who don't advance because they "spend the bulk of their time trying not to offend" and "don't offer suggestions when in meetings" to brutal authority of bigoted conservatism is a stretch. In my book, people who act natural, take initiative and get things done deserve to advance. People who are withdrawn and only interested in keeping their jobs don't. And on the other hand smack-average performers don't get noticed and advanced, while silent and shy types, if they're doing a stellar job, do. Maybe it's specific to the technology field, but I never noticed that one's financial wealth, or lack of it, influenced their carrer path. edit: typos

calibraxis 16y ago
> Maybe it's specific to the technology field [...] Yes, the author wrote, "I would advise those who are sufficiently talented to work in technology, which tends to be more meritocratic than other industries, and to avoid old-style business. Beyond that, I know of no solution." Though I think techies from wealthier families still have an advantage in terms of salary bargaining, and choosing what teams they work with. (Being able to walk away is a serious advantage. Simply wait for great deals to come along, then push in with whatever strength you have... bailing if you realize it's not a good deal after all.) Not to mention more leisure time learning tech from various angles, and safety nets.
- billswift 16y ago
  People from wealthier families also have an advantage in fields that use unpaid internships when starting.

lionhearted 16y ago

Naz, I agree with you that he's taking a position that's pretty uninformed based on history and I'm a big admirer of your comments and thinking, but I even thought "read a fucking book" wasn't the best way to present a counterargument. People here are smart, if you show them cohesive analysis and can avoid emotionally loaded words, they respond to it. The Western commerce structures have produced more wealth than anything else in history... almost everything you interact with on a daily basis is a result of coordinated effort of these structures. People don't even realize because they're surrounded in wealth - they don't viscerally understand how it got there, and how it wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the structures we've got. For instance, in Soviet Russia the soda vending machines wouldn't give you a can or bottle (what a waste!), so instead there was a communal cup that filled with soda, you drank from the cup that everyone else did, and then there was a bucket of stale water you dipped the cup in afterwards to clean it for the next person. Needless to say, this promoted all sorts of germs and unsanitary nastiness and lots of educated people forbade their kids from drinking the soda from the communal cup, whereas less educated people passed their germs around and got more sick, and had lower health and lower life expectancy. But people don't read history, so they don't know about stuff like that. They just assume that soda companies are... what's the author call it, brutal authoritarian something? You're right, people don't study history. So we've got to be patient and work with them and educate them a little bit as to how things really are. It's kind of a thankless job, but I think civility is the only way to do it.

yequalsx 16y ago
In terms of material wealth Western commerce structures have produced more. However, much suffering has occurred a result. High levels of pollution, propping up of corrupt regimes in exchange for access to resources for cheap cost, environmental damage done to poor countries, etc. The costs of this material wealth have not been measured fully. Typically fields like economics only look at financial matters to determine that we are better off. The 'we' part changes depending on context. Are people in the Nigerian deltas better off? Every two years or so they experience a Gulf of Mexico BP level oil spill. Acidity levels in the ocean are increasing and then there is global warming. In some countries life is good (generally speaking) but this good life does come, at least partially, at the expense of others. From my perspective there is a serious problem with capitalism and Western commerce structures. The problems seem to be getting worse.

bhousel 16y ago

I'm legitimately curious, which fucking books do you think the author of the blog should read? For what it's worth, I initially dismissed your comment as a troll, but was motivated enough by your replies to click through to your profile and read some of your own blog, and was surprised to find that you are actually an intelligent and interesting person. See how just one carelessly worded rant can tarnish a first impression? Give the blogger the benefit of the doubt -- he sounds young, but not stupid.

omouse 16y ago

Yes yes, we know how wonderful capitalism is at producing gadgets and it gives us a great show, but how much is it helping people really? Does union busting and making people work for the bare minimum they need to live make you feel as warm and fuzzy inside inside?