h a l f b a k e r yRenovating the wheel
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Much as terrorists are trying to recruit the angry
disenfranchised, kooks (no offence to any one here)
this book would attempt to trick misfits into learning
personal skills and reintegrating into normal society.
It could cover topics such
as:
DESTROYING THE ENEMY's (argument)
in a debate.
SEIZING ATTENTION: with engaging and semi-logical
statements
STRIKE AT THEIR HEARTS (with a positive attitude and
warm
smile)
YOUR SECRET WEAPON (a chapter on the benefits of
antipsychotic medications)
Wikipedia: Ethical Egoism
http://en.wikipedia...wiki/Ethical_egoism
[rcarty, Oct 25 2014]
Totalitariansim and fascism
http://www.britanni...435/totalitarianism
[rcarty, Oct 25 2014]
Nietzsche and Utilitarianism a paper
http://muse.jhu.edu...29/29.1anomaly.html
[rcarty, Oct 25 2014]
Orwell - Fascism
http://orwell.ru/li...lease/english/efasc
"It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless...use the word with a certain amount of circumspection" [rcarty, Oct 25 2014]
program where web searches for terroist sites are redirected to antiheroism sites.
https://www.nytimes...cur&smid=tw-nytimes
[bob, Dec 31 2019]
[link]
|
| |
Better of consulting the Borg, they have it down pat these days... |
|
| |
Problem: what if the terrorists use their new powers
to convert everyone (peacefully) to Islam? |
|
| |
Note: this Idea have been improved somewhat. |
|
| |
//such is not cowering in a corner or killing people in the name of the god someone told him to believe in. |
|
| |
Communism, science, money, freedom...do these count as deities? |
|
| |
Who are the disenfranchised, [bob]? Just curious. |
|
| |
//Who are the disenfranchised..? |
|
| |
Those without a franchise? Considered the Dynorod one, but don't have the bum cleavage for it. |
|
| |
I'm more concerned about how we came to have a category product:weapon: bomb: happy. |
|
| |
" Note: this Idea have been improved somewhat " |
|
| |
This is too funny. It is rather amazing!
"I'm more concerned about how we came to have a
category product:weapon: bomb: happy." |
|
| |
Communism requires a great deal of faith. Faith that your fellow countrymen are being their most productive and not trying to skim anything off the top. |
|
| |
Oddly, freedom has similar sorts of issues. |
|
| |
I believe that treon and beanangel were both fond of the
happy bomb concept in one form or another. The category
has a noble history cannot be measured by its elective use. |
|
| |
//Faith for the sake of it has no utility. |
|
| |
I have great faith in my complete lack of faith. |
|
| |
//I'm more concerned about how we came to have a
category product:weapon: bomb: happy.// |
|
| |
And oddly, not a single idea in this category belongs to
[beanangel]. |
|
| |
Howcome no one's ever done the (P)resident Evil line.. |
|
| |
//Faith for the sake of it has no utility.// |
|
| |
What do you make of Sartre's conception of Good Faith and Bad Faith? |
|
| |
Well, a hat ... or a boat .... or a paper aeroplane ... or what's that little
Origami figure that Gaff leaves outside Deckard's apartment at the
end of Blade Runner, a camel ? |
|
| |
// Who are the disenfranchised // |
|
| |
Nobody important, is who. |
|
| |
Certainly not anybody who counts. |
|
| |
This is a madness methodology, like when someone says he has a method to his madness. I guess from the category choice, the idea is "being a time bomb" for the contemporary radical who doesn't want to cause pointless injury and death, but at the same time wants the threat of the guerrilla fighter to remain in an anarchic polarity to the state, but in a diagnostic grey area between politico and psycho. |
|
| |
More interesting would be a book that connects How to Win Friend and Influence People to ethical egoism, early anglo-american liberal thought, Beacon Hill established contemporaneously with Hobbes as historical benchmark, the ethos reflected in Carnegie's book basically advocates putting your ego aside for long term ego benefit vis-a-vis social contract. |
|
| |
This poster's idea is an unethical egoism anyway read the link. |
|
| |
That's the starting point for psych-ops. Sort of a political psychology. For example [lurch] in the the ebola immunity idea presented a utilitarian argument against my egoism. Utilitarianism being at least Orwell's perception of a fascism. Fascism of course can refer to any number of increasingly meaningless things, not just Nazis. This is conceivably a fascism because individuality really becomes a function of acceptance by others. If you look at his statement it is almost an exact word for word representation of utilitarianism in the link. Everyone can be profiled this way. If you read the link, you'll see that most political ideologies are reducible to a standard psychological orientation. |
|
| |
Bob/ This is a bit short for a book proposal. |
|
| |
As a movie script it is just about the right length. |
|
| |
Dale Carnegie's book is likely out of copyright, so you should feel free to borrow and twist that for your book proposal. Good luck. |
|
| |
( Wonder witch Hollywood bimbo will get the lead ?) |
|
| |
//Utilitarianism being at least Orwell's perception of a fascism// |
|
| |
So ... where does Orwell say this, [rcarty]? Or are you just dropping random names? In that case, Lao Tsu and Spinoza think you're full of it, and Nietzsche tells me he's coming round to beat you up. |
|
| |
Given how the main quote attributed to Orwell about fascism is that it is a mostly meaningless word ( which I provided, see link), it has to be inferred that his dystopic vision of utilitarianism, is something. I'll provide a link to totalitarianism to provide an easy link to fascism, and let Mussolini make my argument for me. I don't have to make an argument you'll agree with, I need only make an argument that other anti-utilitarians, which I assume the poster is, will agree with. As for Orwell, the link says he would approve if it was used with "a certain amount of circumspection". |
|
| |
My interpretation of Nietzsche is not incorrect. You would actually find both of us beating you up. |
|
| |
//You would actually find both of us beating you up.// |
|
| |
I'll lay an extra place for tea - meanwhile, you do seem to
be conflating utilitarianism with totalitarianism. Do you see
them as somehow the same thing? |
|
| |
Yes that is the degree to which I oppose utilitarianism. It is a tyranny of the majority. Is it actually a totalitarianism? Not to everyone's perception no. I don't just look at fascism as a statism, but also as anti-individualist social behavior. Consider in social situations that an individual provides some utility to others. When a person declines social invitation, thus withdrawing his utility, he may encounter utilitarian fascism where his act of individuality will be disparaged. |
|
| |
Consider that computers and the Internet and cellphones are a utilitarian development. They certainly appeal to the consumer demand for utility. Also consider that they embody some of the surveillance aspects of the utilitarian regime of pan-opticism. That consumer, or utilitarian behavior alone can cultivate a mass surveillance system makes me think that utility should not be the object of central focus. |
|
| |
Why would you want an alternative to terrible cruelty and
violence ? After all, they're directed at the "other", not you, and
being terrifyingly cruel and violent seems to be quite enjoyable
for some humans, particularly when it's encouraged by their
peer group and superiors. |
|
| |
The only objectors are "others" and that's because they're the
victims, so that's OK, isn't it ? (<- not a rhetorical question). |
|
| |
The problem with Totalitarianism is that it seeks to suppress
dissent. But this effectively stifles social and technical advance,
since all great theories (plate tectonics, quantum mechanics,
paper money) start as heresy against the accepted norm. |
|
| |
//What then do you propose? // |
|
| |
Perhaps it is "Situationist" to not propose any sort of social mediation by any object. Maybe even Situationism fails in that regard. After all some sort of object must account for the requisite inter-subjectivity of that exclusive group, that the Spectacle alone would not account. I suppose my idea bee-hive- you're-in -ism is a proposal, if not just a joke. |
|
| |
That idea is so halfbaked, I don't think there is any point searching for any meaning in it. It's really just sort of a Nietzsadfachian comment on the ethos of utilitarianism or maybe an ethical egoism. |
|
| |
//problem with terrible cruelty and violence is that it is never-ending |
|
| |
I don't have a problem with that problem. |
|
| |
Now if we could only make this idea work on MAGAts. Only problem
is that they either can't or won't read. |
|
| |
I for one welcome our new offshore-banked
overlords. |
|
| |
// program where web searches for terroist sites are
redirected to antiheroism sites // |
|
| |
What's wrong with people searching for fan community
websites about pest control products? And isn't creating
antiheroes something we should avoid? |
|
| |