A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Discuss anything you want.
Post Reply
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1560
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Thu Dec 06, 2018 1:45 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
The big money Republicans don't really make sense to me on this. They know the score. Big oil companies knew about this and suppressed it in the 1970s (Talk about crimes against humanity! If we wind up in a six-degree world, the Nazis will have nothing on these guys.). You have to wonder what their end game is on this, because it is not in the self-interest of life as we know it to continue in the direction of burning fossil fuels. Joe Six-Pack who gets all his news from his Facebook feed and 4Chan can be explained pretty easily as being misled and willfully ignorant. At the very least, I can wrap my head around that. What I can't wrap my head around is being part of the millionaire/billionaire set with all the information right in front of you and sticking with denial. Even if you're in first class on the Titanic, the ship is still sinking. Short-sighted self-interest? I have a hard time believing that they're that clueless. Do they have some Malthusian end-game of geo-politics? Sounds too much like a conspiracy theory. Trapped in a death-spiral? This, sadly makes the most sense. You can be a heroin junkie and know that it is killing you, but still recognize that you're gonna need your next fix. Even so, it is baffling that we are still living in two worlds relative to the basic questions of fact about global warming.
maybe they think that they can ride out any worst case scenario so it's not a big deal either way and why bother forfeiting any comfort in the short-term.

I have seen plenty of appeals for action by using the national security angle, the economic angle, health risk angle, rise in migrant/refugee angle; I know that saying stuff like "it's the right thing to do!" or "think of the polar bears!" aren't effective. I still sometimes wonder if the fact that so many solutions are anathema to the "no government spending/free market/taxation is theft/anti-globalism" stuff that there becomes the part where you lose people. I know I get waaaay too hung up on not looking like a communist/eco-freak/partisan zealot because I don't know what solutions will be acceptable to that half of the country (although I've been finding out that the solutions that are acceptable may be too meager and that is a problem).
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1560
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Thu Dec 06, 2018 1:50 pm

I heard one popular commentator (who shall remain nameless) give his argument that
Let's say for the sake of argument that all of the water levels around the world rise by, let's say, five feet over the next 100 years. Say 10 feet over the next 100 years. And it puts all of the low-lying areas on the coast underwater. Let's say all of that happens. You think people aren't just going to sell their homes and move?
and it made me angry to think that even after the 2008 financial crisis some of us still have yet to learn any lessons about risk transfer. or maybe they think this time will be different. (it's not like coastal homes aren't still being purchased)
I dunno if that was worth posting. maybe I'm just letting off some steam
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:57 pm

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:and it made me angry to think that even after the 2008 financial crisis some of us still have yet to learn any lessons about risk transfer. or maybe they think this time will be different. (it's not like coastal homes aren't still being purchased)
2008 is a prime example. The people who broke the system were the ones who were bailed out? Check. Complete with huge Christmas bonuses to CEOs from bailout money (you know, for doing such a good job). Massive transfer of wealth from Main Street to Wall Street? Check. Refusal of Federal Reserve to tell congress which European banks got bail out money? Check. Broken laws fixed to prevent this from happening again? Nope. Return to casino-style game play (the house always wins and they're playing with our money) that led to the last crash? Check. Why the fuck would I trust these assholes to save the planet with a carbon tax scheme? It's not a direct mandate to lower emissions. Rather, it is a tax scheme (for everyone, not just the big factories pumping smoke into the air and chemicals into rivers) designed to create new economy or sub-economy and one in which those with financial privilege can buy their way into more pollution.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Dec 07, 2018 3:10 am

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:maybe they think that they can ride out any worst case scenario so it's not a big deal either way and why bother forfeiting any comfort in the short-term.
Nah, these rich pedos are going to Mars with Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson. I'm sure they'll still try to collect Earth-rent though, the scabby scrotes.

In fact, I think my favorite aspect of the recent Neil DeGrasse Tyson accusations is that they've given him a week to shut the fuck up about how awesome Elon Musk is.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1560
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:42 am

some are actively preparing for the future though

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017 ... super-rich
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:18 pm

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:some are actively preparing for the future though

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017 ... super-rich
I think it was Zizek who remarked that we are still stuck on the 90's end-of-history-ism that we cannot imagine the end of capitalism and can only suppose that the zombie apocalypse follows. Mark Blyth's warning to the rich is that
"The Hamptons is not a defensible position. It's a low-lying beach. Eventually people will come for you"
and I guess some of them agree, which is why we see stories about rich people buying land in New Zealand, buying up islands to escape to, and converting old missile silos into bunkers, etc. They're still missing the point of Blyth's advice (e.g., fix the economy, play by your own rules, distribute the wealth so that everyone can play the game).*

And to that we can add, take real steps to fix the climate. Not slogans, not little schemes, not virtue signaling. Your little "green" cup from Starbucks and your "Energy Star" fridge is nowhere near enough and we shouldn't be blaming consumers anyway.

*And the rich are still going to be screwed in the zombie apocalypse. The poor will blame the rich and seek them out in their strongholds as juicy targets for revenge and resources. The fortress mentality is a bad one. No one wants to be stuck in the tiny refinery surrounded by Humongous and his biker gang. Being besieged is a nightmare marathon. Castles were not places where elites simply "holed up" in the past, but they were kind of like air craft carriers--a means of projecting power in a region via the garrisons that could be deployed from and which were coordinated in systems of fortresses and garrisons. The literary image of the fortress as "Helm's Deep" is a distortion of the rational purpose of fortresses, which is not simply "a great place to be trapped when it hits the fan." On the other hand, the "bug out" fantasy (including all those poor people with rifles who think that they will live like John Rambo in the woods) is (like not conceiving of what could follow capitalism) is also a failure of imagination. The people who survive crises will be those who form communities, share resources, and take advantage of mobility. That is, it will be those people who are engaged with other people and institutions for mutually productive purposes who will be best off. But why not be productive and engaged now? That is, take Blyth's advice.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:39 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:The people who survive crises will be those who form communities, share resources, and take advantage of mobility. That is, it will be those people who are engaged with other people and institutions for mutually productive purposes who will be best off. But why not be productive and engaged now? That is, take Blyth's advice.
It's like you've never seen an episode of Survivor. Those are the true end of capitalism values instilled in an entire generation.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Fri Dec 07, 2018 11:58 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote: I am still strongly opposed to a carbon tax as too little too late, hurting the poor, and selling off pollution like indulgences. I don't even see it as a stepping stone. We need mandated carbon limits--FULL STOP--do not pass go, do not purchase carbon credits to keep doing business as usual. We need to go full Tesla on our future. We're past the point of being able to manage the situation through moderation and the usually hand-wavy policies. Incentivize purchasing items locally to cut down on the amount of needless shipping we see--does it make sense to you that we raise chickens in the U.S., have them processed in China, and then send them back to the U.S.?--would be great. For example, reverse the polarity of sales tax. Put a sales tax on all Amazon purchases (which sadly is pretty much the same thing as saying "tax all internet sales" which is what I am really saying) and remove all sales taxes from locally produced and sold goods. Build some new nuclear plants. Develop solar power which is getting better all the time. Invest in infrastructure. The most efficient way, by far, to move stuff around on land is by rail. Build more rails and trains and take trucks off the road (truckers are going to lose their jobs to automation anyway).
Melvin Butterworth wrote: 2008 is a prime example. The people who broke the system were the ones who were bailed out? Check. Complete with huge Christmas bonuses to CEOs from bailout money (you know, for doing such a good job). Massive transfer of wealth from Main Street to Wall Street? Check. Refusal of Federal Reserve to tell congress which European banks got bail out money? Check. Broken laws fixed to prevent this from happening again? Nope. Return to casino-style game play (the house always wins and they're playing with our money) that led to the last crash? Check. Why the fuck would I trust these assholes to save the planet with a carbon tax scheme? It's not a direct mandate to lower emissions. Rather, it is a tax scheme (for everyone, not just the big factories pumping smoke into the air and chemicals into rivers) designed to create new economy or sub-economy and one in which those with financial privilege can buy their way into more pollution.
Why would you trust them to competently install a carbon limits scheme or any of the other tax schemes you propose? And, oh yeah, why do you keep ignoring DaMU's point about the dividend? If tax-and-dividend is too small, how is a more far-ranging government policy not going to have more far-ranging impacts on the economy? Do you expect a carbon limit scheme not to raise energy prices? That's the thing about an externality. If you don't want it to be an externality anymore, then you have to price it into the system, and it's a fairytale to imagine that fossil fuel industries will shoulder this alone. The government can come in and absorb some of the pain with deficit-spending to try to ease the pain for lower-income people (again, with things like dividends or whatever it turns out to be), but ultimately our society will have to pay the short-term cost to offset a long-term disaster. The government veered into moral hazard during the financial crisis? Obviously. They also kept the world economy from completely tanking. They could've done nothing and then we'd be complaining about their wholesale negligence. They could've played a heavier hand, nationalizing the banks, breaking them up and jailing CEOs (yum), but obviously this wouldn't have been the choice of someone with a scattershot skepticism of government competence. And that's the thing with disasters. The collective response to them necessarily involves trying to suss out the bad from the worse answer based on limited information, and no matter what you do, it's gonna get messy. You can adopt Republican rhetoric of "why should I trust these assholes?" and dismissing taxes as "criminalizing being alive and participating in the economy" and then mix this in with a dash of Occupy fist-shaking, but we'll still be left having to take the kind of centralized, broad-based action that government is uniquely positioned to do.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:43 am

Jinnistan wrote: It's like you've never seen an episode of Survivor. Those are the true end of capitalism values instilled in an entire generation.
Survivor is predicated on "dog eat dog" cooperation which is the basis for unstable coalitions (Survivor is, by design, a collapsing Jenga tower of cooperation), but not thriving communities. Those who survive tough times are those who can really come together and form communities. Those who operate under a Kantian "formulation of humanity" have much more robust relationships than those who don't. I don't see this as a distinctly "capitalist" consideration, unless we're going all the way back to Adam Smith's formulation of small-producers in a market bounded by Christian values to keep it from going on-tilt. But even having a "Survivor" mind-set is healthier than the idea of bugging-in to your private castle or bugging-out to your cabin the woods (me-against-the-world). For those who can only operate in terms of rational self-interest, Blyth's advice is worth considering. It's on all of our interests to fix the economy and the environment.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Dec 08, 2018 1:28 am

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
Survivor is predicated on "dog eat dog" cooperation which is the basis for unstable coalitions (Survivor is, by design, a collapsing Jenga tower of cooperation), but not thriving communities. Those who survive tough times are those who can really come together and form communities. Those who operate under a Kantian "formulation of humanity" have much more robust relationships than those who don't. I don't see this as a distinctly "capitalist" consideration, unless we're going all the way back to Adam Smith's formulation of small-producers in a market bounded by Christian values to keep it from going on-tilt. But even having a "Survivor" mind-set is healthier than the idea of bugging-in to your private castle or bugging-out to your cabin the woods (me-against-the-world). For those who can only operate in terms of rational self-interest, Blyth's advice is worth considering. It's on all of our interests to fix the economy and the environment.
Survivor is about the last man standing, proverbially speaking. It is literally "me against the world" where all relationships are transactional and duplicitous. When I saw Survivor for the first (only) time, this was perfctly clear to me. So much so, that I assumed there was a twist somewhere. Otherwise, the show seems like a comic satire written by a Maoist about the extremes of cannibalistic capitalism (Who's "voted off" anyway? And waste that protein?!? We all understand the "implication" here.) But no, sadly, it turns out that satire is dead, and Survivor actually does represent the celebrated American values of Randian entitlement and opportunism. That shit is even still on the air. People are actually that stupid (or cruel, or both).
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:20 am

Jinnistan wrote:Survivor is about the last man standing, proverbially speaking. It is literally "me against the world" where all relationships are transactional and duplicitous. When I saw Survivor for the first (only) time, this was perfctly clear to me. So much so, that I assumed there was a twist somewhere. Otherwise, the show seems like a comic satire written by a Maoist about the extremes of cannibalistic capitalism (Who's "voted off" anyway? And waste that protein?!? We all understand the "implication" here.) But no, sadly, it turns out that satire is dead, and Survivor actually does represent the celebrated American values of Randian entitlement and opportunism. That shit is even still on the air. People are actually that stupid (or cruel, or both).
Janson, I don't think you're wrong here, so I am not quite sure where we disagree or if you're even noting a disagreement (e.g., perhaps accusing me of just stating the obvious?).
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by crumbsroom » Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:28 am

Jinnistan wrote:That shit is even still on the air.
You say this like it would be the decent cultural thing that I had been deprived of all these many years of consistent Wednesday night, prime time entertainment.

You can't expect terrible movies to get me by every night, dammit.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:17 am

crumbsroom wrote:You can't expect terrible movies to get me by every night, dammit.
"Why eat dog shit when I can masturbate with razor blades"?
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Mon Dec 10, 2018 3:28 am

What a week, folks.

For those (few) paying attention, the deceptively meager revelations from the court filings on Flynn, Manafort and Cohen have offered an ample amount of promising dish. Maybe not exactly "collusion" yet but maybe something with a likewise..."synergy"? Is that the word?

But in a world of perfect press coverage that is capable of eating through the fast and sloppy spew of Toxic Trump Events, there would be but one quote this past week that should qualify to serve as the Trump Administration epitaph: "Yeah, but I won't be here."

An easy credibility test for Republicans and conservatives would be to ask them if they're familiar with the above story, show it to them, and count the coughs.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1560
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:59 am

my sense of proportion is too fucked up to know how much these things matter. but then I've said that before, many, many times. [deep sigh]
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Dec 13, 2018 5:33 am

Seriously though.

The Vietnamese?
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:55 am

Jinnistan wrote:Seriously though.

The Vietnamese?
They lost. Trump only respects winners. You know, like draft dodgers who "won" by avoiding the Hanoi Hilton by never serving.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Thu Dec 13, 2018 8:52 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:They lost. Trump only respects winners. You know, like draft dodgers who "won" by avoiding the Hanoi Hilton by never serving.
Plus, he never even got gonorrhea. Allegedly.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:18 am

Maybe not as salacious as the current top stories of Trump, but it's worth noting before it completely sinks under the radar that Trump has also been fucking college students.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:43 pm

Would anyone like to be WH chief of staff? Looks like no one wants the job.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:54 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:Would anyone like to be WH chief of staff? Looks like no one wants the job.
I thought he was going to Jared.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Dec 22, 2018 4:29 am

"Holy shit!......don't quote me on that." - anonymous Republican Senator upon learning of Gen. Mattis' resignation.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1560
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:55 pm

setting aside conversations about policies and other topics of substance, do you think that late-70's is too old an age to be running for president? while I know not everyone in their late-70's is in ill-health, the cautious part of me (which is most of me) says 'yes'.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25244
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Stu » Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:00 pm

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:setting aside conversations about policies and other topics of substance, do you think that late-70's is too old an age to be running for president? while I know not everyone in their late-70's is in ill-health, the cautious part of me (which is most of me) says 'yes'.
As long as I have faith that the candidate's running mate would make for a good President should anything happen (so obviously, someone like Sarah Palin was automatically out of the running in that regard), I really don't care how old the main man/woman is; Sanders could be a 1000 years old, but if he was still progressive (and especially if he was running against Drumpf), I'd still vote for him a 1000 times over.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:24 pm

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:setting aside conversations about policies and other topics of substance, do you think that late-70's is too old an age to be running for president? while I know not everyone in their late-70's is in ill-health, the cautious part of me (which is most of me) says 'yes'.
I was thinking that it's odd how the leading prospects for Dem nominees tend to be either older millennials (Swalwell, O'Rourke) or younger war babies (Biden, Sanders) and very little in between.

I think age is a perfectly reasonable concern for the job, more for issues of mental and stress endurance as much as the likelyhood of death. It's worth remembering that Trump is in fact older than Ronald Reagan by about six months (Trump was 70 when elected, Reagan turned 70 shortly after his inauguration), and the stereotypes of Reagan's mental acumen seem quaint by comparison. Looking past the sheer visible physical toll the job has had on younger presidents, it's in Trump's face which reflects the psychological stress (that increasingly frayed-looking mix of panic and contempt) which indicates the true wage of the office. One could argue that someone like Jimmy Carter, at 80 or 90, has appeared much more alert, lucid and composed, but he could also be spending 12 hours of his day listening to hummingbird tapes for all we know.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:35 pm

A couple of hot takes on other things....

There's been a lot of applause on the left in support of Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria, despite some of the practical complications of the execution (not telling allies in advance). I'm curious to see exactly how many dead Kurds it will take to see a shift on this issue.

John Kelly's interview with the LA Times wasn't too deep, but it did have a couple of wtfs. Like his insistence that Trump had never asked for him to do anything illegal because if he had, Kelly would have resigned instead. But, dude, you are resigning?

Anyone been following the patented new Alan Dershowitz defense of Michael Flynn that claims the FBI should not have the right to ask questions they already know the answer to? Because if it were desirable to justice for prosecutors to establish a pattern of deception, I imagine the Dersh's noggin would be one of the first to roll.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:34 am

Jinnistan wrote: I thought he was going to Jared.
How about Subway Jared? He's open for work, right?
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1560
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:44 pm

Jinnistan wrote:There's been a lot of applause on the left in support of Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria, despite some of the practical complications of the execution (not telling allies in advance). I'm curious to see exactly how many dead Kurds it will take to see a shift on this issue.
I wish I could weigh in on this with any definitive opinions but yeah, it's.... not an ideal situation. at least if I take a critical stance on Trump here, y'all won't think I suddenly decided to become pro-eternal war/imperialism just because I'm afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1560
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:49 pm

also (and I don't know if this is the right place for this) hearing Louis C.K.'s latest standup was disappointing and not just because I'm one of those lame-ass millennials who doesn't do mushrooms or smoke weed. but if I'm going to be offended by C.K. for any one thing, it's gonna have to be the 'cornering women and forcing them to watch him masturbate' stuff, right?
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:58 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:How about Subway Jared? He's open for work, right?
For pennies a day!

I think the Kush would have already gotten the job if it wasn't for the whole "weathring the storm" thing. Bad timing, I guess. Although I also don't see Mulvaney enduring the role as a part-time gig, so I still think it's likely that Jared finds his way in there eventually. After all, it's most likely that it was Jared who finally got Kelly out in the first place.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:06 pm

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:at least if I take a critical stance on Trump here, y'all won't think I suddenly decided to become pro-eternal war/imperialism just because I'm afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome.
More like Binary Derangement Syndrome. We're all strawmen now. Any deviation from the team makes you the most extreme iteration of the other side.
Oxnard Montalvo wrote:also (and I don't know if this is the right place for this) hearing Louis C.K.'s latest standup was disappointing and not just because I'm one of those lame-ass millennials who doesn't do mushrooms or smoke weed. but if I'm going to be offended by C.K. for any one thing, it's gonna have to be the 'cornering women and forcing them to watch him masturbate' stuff, right?
As someone who does enjoy weed and mushrooms, I'll confirm that I am just as capable of disappointment here.

My initial suspicion is that this is a calculated effort on Louie's part to cultivate an audience among the "intellectual dark web" types who are a lot more likely to indulge his self-pity over how much money he lost on I Love You, Daddy. It turns out that Jordan Peterson has demonstrated quite a lucrative avenue for weasels.
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by crumbsroom » Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:36 pm

Jinnistan wrote:My initial suspicion is that this is a calculated effort on Louie's part to cultivate an audience among the "intellectual dark web" types who are a lot more likely to indulge his self-pity over how much money he lost on I Love You, Daddy. It turns out that Jordan Peterson has demonstrated quite a lucrative avenue for weasels.
I didn't listen to much of the audio that was leaked since it seemed unpolished and not terribly good, so I hardly got to the point where I was having any suspicions towards his intent regarding these new controvesies. Reading about them though, my reflexive reaction is that this is a comedian who has always played with fire, testing out material he hasn't test run yet, and failing. Not to mention he is likely not at the top of his game after being off the stage for so long. So I'll hesitate painting him with any ambitions of catering to the Jordan Peterson crowd. So far.

That being said, the self pity he leads the set off with doesn't bode well for how he's internalized this whole 'bad year' of his. I'm one of those that doesn't believe most people should be blacklisted for their terrible behavior forever, but at the same time, I'm not sure what the appropriate level of 'punishment' is. Has one year of being in hiding enough? I don't know. Very possibly not. Two years? Five? I imagine everyone has a different view of what his ultimate sentence should be, from 'he's served his time' to 'he should never work again'. It's not a question I pretend to have any answers for.

But what I can feel pretty strongly about is that I don't feel badly for his predicament at the moment, and if he had any real self reflection towards how he behaved, neither should he. At least not to the point that he feels that he can play the victim the moment he gets on stage. My gut reaction is that this, more than the Parkland shit, more than the gender pronoun rant, is where he came off entire tone deaf. Seriously, does he not remember why he had this shitty year? For a comic who is known for being as self lacerating as he is cutting and ugly towards others, the lack of recognition he gives his habit of pulling out his dick and jerking off in front of women is striking. This, for me, is at the very least worth some suspicion that this may indeed be a different Louie than the one we've seen before.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:37 pm

Jinnistan wrote: More like Binary Derangement Syndrome. We're all strawmen now. Any deviation from the team makes you the most extreme iteration of the other side.


As someone who does enjoy weed and mushrooms, I'll confirm that I am just as capable of disappointment here.

My initial suspicion is that this is a calculated effort on Louie's part to cultivate an audience among the "intellectual dark web" types who are a lot more likely to indulge his self-pity over how much money he lost on I Love You, Daddy. It turns out that Jordan Peterson has demonstrated quite a lucrative avenue for weasels.
If Peterson gets some people to get their lives a little more in order with his little self-help book, good on him. I tune out when he starts getting into his Jungian stuff and his diagnosis of postmodernism only gets traction insofar as it loosely describes a popular cultural formation (he's lost when it comes to postmodern texts themselves). However, he is a skilled dialectician who consistently dunks on thudding journalists who haven't thought through axiomatic commitment to equality of outcome as a God-term. Again, good on him. Just don't commit to a meat only diet without consulting a physician. And let's not forget that the so-called IDW involves much more palatable people with more obvious liberal bona fides like the Weinsteins and Jonathan Haidt. We do want to resist simple binaries, right?
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1560
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:52 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:If Peterson gets some people to get their lives a little more in order with his little self-help book, good on him. I tune out when he starts getting into his Jungian stuff and his diagnosis of postmodernism only gets traction insofar as it loosely describes a popular cultural formation (he's lost when it comes to postmodern texts themselves). However, he is a skilled dialectician who consistently dunks on thudding journalists who haven't thought through axiomatic commitment to equality of outcome as a God-term. Again, good on him. Just don't commit to a meat only diet without consulting a physician. And let's not forget that the so-called IDW involves much more palatable people with more obvious liberal bona fides like the Weinsteins and Jonathan Haidt. We do want to resist simple binaries, right?
for anyone looking to get their lives in order, I'm sure there are plenty of other self-help books that don't have all the other stuff JP is known for (y'all know what I'm talking about).

and that all-beef diet is just bizarre.
Jinnistan wrote: More like Binary Derangement Syndrome. We're all strawmen now. Any deviation from the team makes you the most extreme iteration of the other side.
in my experience, it's less hearing it from the left and more the Trump-supporters/anti-anti-Trump people going, "oh whatever happened to the anti-war Democrats, hmmm? TDS much?" though I'm not always sure what they believe besides Trump opponents being hypocrites. up until a few years ago, I thought the Iraq War had much higher approval among Republicans. maybe it was just the guys over at The Weekly Standard.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:05 pm

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:for anyone looking to get their lives in order, I'm sure there are plenty of other self-help books that don't have all the other stuff JP is known for (y'all know what I'm talking about).
I remember when Christians were getting bent because Harry Potter was about "magic" and "witches" and "warlocks." They didn't like that these books got kids to read and wanted them to read better books instead. But the kids didn't want to read those books. They wanted to read Harry Potter and it got them into literature. Good on Rowling.
Oxnard Montalvo wrote:and that all-beef diet is just bizarre.
It comes from a good place (solidarity with a daughter desperately looking for relief for severe auto-immune distress, but it is a dubious health choice.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1560
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:11 pm

crumbsroom wrote:
I didn't listen to much of the audio that was leaked since it seemed unpolished and not terribly good, so I hardly got to the point where I was having any suspicions towards his intent regarding these new controvesies. Reading about them though, my reflexive reaction is that this is a comedian who has always played with fire, testing out material he hasn't test run yet.
and yeah, I know that comedians have to workshop material and that in the smartphone age it is hard to do so without the whole world hearing about your blunders. so I could be being too hard on him but like you said, this stuff felt different from the old-Louie C.K. (back when we didn't know was a sex offender).
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:14 pm

crumbsroom wrote:That being said, the self pity he leads the set off with doesn't bode well for how he's internalized this whole 'bad year' of his. I'm one of those that doesn't believe most people should be blacklisted for their terrible behavior forever, but at the same time, I'm not sure what the appropriate level of 'punishment' is. Has one year of being in hiding enough? I don't know. Very possibly not. Two years? Five? I imagine everyone has a different view of what his ultimate sentence should be, from 'he's served his time' to 'he should never work again'. It's not a question I pretend to have any answers for.

But what I can feel pretty strongly about is that I don't feel badly for his predicament at the moment, and if he had any real self reflection towards how he behaved, neither should he. At least not to the point that he feels that he can play the victim the moment he gets on stage. My gut reaction is that this, more than the Parkland shit, more than the gender pronoun rant, is where he came off entire tone deaf. Seriously, does he not remember why he had this shitty year? For a comic who is known for being as self lacerating as he is cutting and ugly towards others, the lack of recognition he gives his habit of pulling out his dick and jerking off in front of women is striking. This, for me, is at the very least worth some suspicion that this may indeed be a different Louie than the one we've seen before.
It was precisely the self-pity bit that made me consider his marketing motives here. And for the record I'm also not someone who feels that Louie deserves eternal exile for his past transgressions. In fact, as I've pointed out elsewhere, I find Louie CK to be a pretty small, inessential fish in this whole pond of toxic male abuse. His "justice" is far less compelling to me than those like Weinstein and Moonves, men who have made this abuse the common currency of their considerable media power.

I said last year that when Louie comes back, as he was to inevitably, it will be very telling how he does it. Will he play it off as if nothing ever happened? Will he meet his scandal head-on with one of his patented self-depricating bits on how much of a sad loser it takes to masturbate on surprised women? Maybe his more conservative turn is coincidental - after all, his peers from Seinfeld, Bill Burr and Chris Rock have also pushed back against some of the PC excess that Louie is addressing here. But what's certain to me, and maybe eventually Louie, is that his initial apology from last year is simply insufficient, and he does bear some responsibility to own that fact of his behavior as well as his lying about it for years (or worse, if we are to believe the stories of possible professional retribution against those making the allegations). Regardless, I'm not someone who's intent on silencing Louie forever, but at least I need to hear certain specific things before I can get back onboard with him. I didn't like what I heard on that tape.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1560
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:25 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
I remember when Christians were getting bent because Harry Potter was about "magic" and "witches" and "warlocks." They didn't like that these books got kids to read and wanted them to read better books instead. But the kids didn't want to read those books. They wanted to read Harry Potter and it got them into literature. Good on Rowling.
I wouldn't compare the stuff in Harry Potter that Christians found problematic to the stuff that the 'SJW crowd' finds problematic in Jordan Peterson. assuming I'm not misunderstanding him because according to Peterson, I probably am (unless that is a misunderstanding as well).
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2739
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Jinnistan » Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:31 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:And let's not forget that the so-called IDW involves much more palatable people with more obvious liberal bona fides like the Weinsteins and Jonathan Haidt. We do want to resist simple binaries, right?
I put the phrase in quotes for a reason. I thought it was funny how Joe Rogan became a member without his knowledge. I think the overall point is clear, and if you need to hear names like Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro or Charlie Kirk to help out, then there you go.
Oxnard Montalvo wrote:in my experience, it's less hearing it from the left and more the Trump-supporters/anti-anti-Trump people going, "oh whatever happened to the anti-war Democrats, hmmm? TDS much?" though I'm not always sure what they believe besides Trump opponents being hypocrites.
Oh, there's definitely litmus tests on the left as well, some of them sillier than others. Some leftists are now discarding "liberals" because the latter still believe in things like free speech and democracy. That's an extreme example. Other little internecine things like the recent turn against Beto O'Rourke for not being exactly progressive enough is maybe another warning sign. (Or maybe O'Rourke will turn out to be another John Edwards, who knows?) This scuffle between AOS and Jeffries in Brooklyn looks like a lot of petty bickering as well. And you still have your Jimmy Dore, still an ostensible progressive (but possibly separated from Greg Gutfeld at birth?) who is so pure that he still thinks that Obama and Hillary are the worst things currently happening in government.

I'm also disappointed with the David Pakman thing. He's a liberal commentator that I happen to agree with, to the degree that I find him kinda boring (I'm not really an echo-chamber type). He recently pushed back on the essentialist logic of refusing to support any white male politicians, and was greeted with a petition to have him fired from his job at Boston College. There's plenty of appetite out there for the left to eat their own.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1560
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:51 pm

I need to hang out with some more bloodthirsty leftists then.

the Beto thing was why I asked about whether age should be an issue 'cause I know he's not someone who has to worry about his body failing him and whether that has a certain appeal (when compared to older potential candidates).
with the recent Liz Warren news, I imagine it will be hard to refrain from talking about 2020 during the first half of 2019. such is this country.
User avatar
crumbsroom
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:15 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by crumbsroom » Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:17 pm

Jinnistan wrote: It was precisely the self-pity bit that made me consider his marketing motives here. And for the record I'm also not someone who feels that Louie deserves eternal exile for his past transgressions. In fact, as I've pointed out elsewhere, I find Louie CK to be a pretty small, inessential fish in this whole pond of toxic male abuse. His "justice" is far less compelling to me than those like Weinstein and Moonves, men who have made this abuse the common currency of their considerable media power.

I said last year that when Louie comes back, as he was to inevitably, it will be very telling how he does it. Will he play it off as if nothing ever happened? Will he meet his scandal head-on with one of his patented self-depricating bits on how much of a sad loser it takes to masturbate on surprised women? Maybe his more conservative turn is coincidental - after all, his peers from Seinfeld, Bill Burr and Chris Rock have also pushed back against some of the PC excess that Louie is addressing here. But what's certain to me, and maybe eventually Louie, is that his initial apology from last year is simply insufficient, and he does bear some responsibility to own that fact of his behavior as well as his lying about it for years (or worse, if we are to believe the stories of possible professional retribution against those making the allegations). Regardless, I'm not someone who's intent on silencing Louie forever, but at least I need to hear certain specific things before I can get back onboard with him. I didn't like what I heard on that tape.
It almost seems to me like he's frustrated that written apology of his didn't absolve him quickly enough, and is bitter that it is out of his hands how long it will take for him to be allowed to step right back into his career. Which is kind of exactly just as self absorbed as his apology hinted he was being about this matter. So, no, it doesn't bode well. I just don't want to take that extra step and lump these potentially problematic jokes that didn't land as evidence of anything beyond him still being willing to poke at hornet nests most would never (arguably wisely) dare to.

And this isn't me being hard-hearted towards something like the Parkland kids. I'm a downer about most things, but their immediate action to mobilize and make something profound out of what happened to them, filled me with a rare sense of hope and respect. Emma Gonzalez's speech should already be canonized as one of the great moments of oration in modern American history. What they did was beyond incredible, and I offer zero criticisms towards it. But I'm open to those who want to pop that balloon of optimism they created if they have an angle or criticism. It just doesn't look like CK has found that angle, or articulated those criticisms particularly well in this instance. And it does possibly appear to come from the place of a man who has moved from his comfort zone of self loathing, to societal loathing. Maybe this will inevitably fold into him chasing down the worst kind of audience, but I'm far from feeling this is what is happening here.

As for my talk about how long until he be 'forgiven', I wasn't aiming that towards you. I pretty much know your stance here. It was me questioning myself, more than anything. As said, I'm not sure how this works. Being a person who lived with a criminal defense attorney for years I got some seriously ugly glimpses of the judicial belly of the beast for so long that over time I came to (even more) staunchly believe that those who commit something as abominable as murder, that once they have served their time, deserve the ability to begin their lives again without having to drag the baggage of their sins everywhere. Clearly I believe in second chances for even many of the worst of us. But since CK wasn't sentenced to time, and since he absolutely is guilty of what he was accused of (which while being quite shy of murder, is still undoubtedly terrible), how far in the future does that place his second chance? It's an unsettled matter that leaves me kind of annoyed at the two most loudly proclaimed sides of this argument, these being those who wave their hands and declare with certainty that he's already suffered enough, or those who declare that he should be perpetually booed off of every stage he steps on. I think both of these groups are wrong. But I have no idea where the correct median is here. One thing I know though is taking responsibility for those sins that got one into this position is an absolute must before we start considering those second chances, and this is a step there seems to be little proof that CK has taken.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:27 pm

Jinnistan wrote:I put the phrase in quotes for a reason. I thought it was funny how Joe Rogan became a member without his knowledge. I think the overall point is clear, and if you need to hear names like Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro or Charlie Kirk to help out, then there you go.


From what I've seen of the IDW crowd, they're mostly left-leaning folks who had a WTF moment when they were attacked by their own tribe (e.g., Weinstein, Haidt, and Peterson). I'll gladly listen to a long-form discussion between Weinstein and Shapiro over 95% of what one will find on CNN or Fox.

Rogan is more of a platform/conduit for counter-culture content than anything else. I am not surprised that he was not aware of being implicated in it by association. Rogan is kind of a meat head, but he's a decent interviewer who offers sustained discussion that panel shows with screaming pro vs con muppets pretend they're delivering. If I had to choose between losing Rogan's platform or some random newspaper or "news" cable channel, I'd sacrifice the latter in a heartbeat.
Jinnistan wrote:He recently pushed back on the essentialist logic of refusing to support any white male politicians, and was greeted with a petition to have him fired from his job at Boston College. There's plenty of appetite out there for the left to eat their own.
Just the sort thing that can get one involuntarily signed up for that dark web of wrong-think in the web-o-sphere.
User avatar
Captain Terror
Posts: 1644
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Captain Terror » Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:54 pm

crumbsroom wrote: I just don't want to take that extra step and lump these potentially problematic jokes that didn't land as evidence of anything beyond him still being willing to poke at hornet nests most would never (arguably wisely) dare to.
This is where I'm at also. I'd remind everyone of his SNL monologue about child molesters. (Paraphrasing: Child molestation must be "amazing" if molesters are willing to risk the punishment.) That was on national TV for an audience that was likely to consist of people unfamiliar with him, so he's clearly not afraid to "go there" especially in a setting not meant for publication. He's flirting with the Right by taking on the Parkland kids, but his premise seems to be "millennials are annoying" as opposed to "I'm not giving up my guns because some kid cried on TV". Same with the gender pronoun jokes. To be clear, I don't find this to be his best material, only pointing out that he's not coming across as Alt-Right to me (yet).
His major failure is the bitching about the year he's had. I'd predicted that he'd have a relatively easy road back, simply because a large part of his persona was "I'm a terrible person". Given a decent amount of time away, I could imagine him re-emerging with some self-deprecating "I told you I was terrible" apology and we'd all move on. This would be far easier for him than say "Everybody's Dad" Bill Cosby, or a family-values politician. The one thing he couldn't do is act like a victim, and he unfortunately seems to have chosen that very thing.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Mon Dec 31, 2018 5:21 pm

Captain Terror wrote: This is where I'm at also. I'd remind everyone of his SNL monologue about child molesters. (Paraphrasing: Child molestation must be "amazing" if molesters are willing to risk the punishment.) That was on national TV for an audience that was likely to consist of people unfamiliar with him, so he's clearly not afraid to "go there" especially in a setting not meant for publication. He's flirting with the Right by taking on the Parkland kids, but his premise seems to be "millennials are annoying" as opposed to "I'm not giving up my guns because some kid cried on TV". Same with the gender pronoun jokes. To be clear, I don't find this to be his best material, only pointing out that he's not coming across as Alt-Right to me (yet).
His major failure is the bitching about the year he's had. I'd predicted that he'd have a relatively easy road back, simply because a large part of his persona was "I'm a terrible person". Given a decent amount of time away, I could imagine him re-emerging with some self-deprecating "I told you I was terrible" apology and we'd all move on. This would be far easier for him than say "Everybody's Dad" Bill Cosby, or a family-values politician. The one thing he couldn't do is act like a victim, and he unfortunately seems to have chosen that very thing.
The "Boy have I had a hard year" stuff highlights the consequence, but puts to the side the cause which seems to play himself up as a victim. If he confronts it and then jokes about it, then he will be joking about something (the one thing) that he really can't joke about. This could make thing worse. If he confronts it and doesn't joke about it, then he risks throwing a wet-blanket over the proceedings before they start. Maybe he feels too much shame to really confront it. Maybe he doubts his ability to confront it and then segue out of serious into funny. Maybe he really is that stuck on himself and he is a bit of a sociopath or something. The only thing I am really getting here is that he seems committed to riding out the storm by being "edgy" which was, as you note, more or less his shtick anyway. "I am just going to joke my way out of this. Sooner or later, it will all be alright." He may be disappointed to find that this hounds him for the rest of his career.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Mon Dec 31, 2018 6:40 pm

Melvin Butterworth wrote:
If Peterson gets some people to get their lives a little more in order with his little self-help book, good on him. I tune out when he starts getting into his Jungian stuff and his diagnosis of postmodernism only gets traction insofar as it loosely describes a popular cultural formation (he's lost when it comes to postmodern texts themselves). However, he is a skilled dialectician who consistently dunks on thudding journalists who haven't thought through axiomatic commitment to equality of outcome as a God-term. Again, good on him. Just don't commit to a meat only diet without consulting a physician. And let's not forget that the so-called IDW involves much more palatable people with more obvious liberal bona fides like the Weinsteins and Jonathan Haidt. We do want to resist simple binaries, right?
The problem with Peterson is that the wall separating his self-help from his politics is visibly porous. People point to his rule that you should pet cats as moral license for their attachment to him and then help themselves to the sexier, politically charged stuff that's the primary motivator of his attention, devotion and income. The former is the side of broccoli they congratulate themselves on before proceeding to the Big Mac, fries, banana split and six pack of Culture War rhetoric. It's what happened with Jean over in Kateland. He claimed that Peterson's rules were improving his life (if true, great) and then spent the bulk of his time defending Peterson's spurious claims about rape and "equality of outcome" (not great).

You yourself buy into the "equality of outcome" canard, and you've used "Harrison Bergeron" in the past to underline the point. But that can go both ways. There's nothing to stop someone from throwing "Barrison Hergeron" back at "equality of opportunity" and mocking the hypothetical, forcible leveling of opportunities at everyone's birth rather than at everyone's maturity. Which works well enough as a fictional counter-punch to a fictional punch, but ends up underlining the weaknesses of these fictions in the first place. There is no clearly delineated "axiom" of either of these equalities shared across the left or the right, and neither side intends to pursue anything approaching these reductios. There won't ever be a basic opportunity or a basic outcome, since these are always arbitrarily defined markers in much bigger, more complicated processes where we're trying to define, quantify and track progress. People can dumbly fix something whether they consider it an end or means. Our toy reductios can make a very local point, but in the hands of Petersons they've, instead, played into a collective dumbing down and polarizing of the debate where people's intuitions, on the left and the right, are much more mixed and ambivalent.
Melvin Butterworth
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 5:11 am

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Melvin Butterworth » Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:57 pm

Ergill wrote:You yourself buy into the "equality of outcome" canard,

And you appear to buy into the "I can casually dismiss what I disagree with as a canard" canard.
Ergill wrote:and you've used "Harrison Bergeron" in the past to underline the point. But that can go both ways.

A lot of things can go both ways. Proverbs, for example, are reversible. "Clothes make the man," but "don't judge a book by it's cover." "Look before you leap," but remember "he who hesitates is lost." "Nothing ventured nothing gained," but... ..."better safe than sorry."

Proverbial advice is useful as a corrective when grounded in a context. What does the situation need? Is the prevailing vice that of recklessness? Then tell the kids "to look before they leap." Is the prevailing vice that of paralyzing timidity? Then advise people that "you miss 100% of shots you don't take." And if the prevailing vice is increasingly that of socialistic uptopian equity policing motivated by disgust with our latest gilded age and the creeping idea that there really is no free will (thus undermining cultural belief in the very idea of desert), then the corrective just might be a book that tells you to stand up straight, tell the truth, and get your crap together or perhaps a parabolic story about a dystopic future where the asymptote of an unquestioned value-premise is taken to its logical conclusion.

Besides this, we can also ask, on occasion, which point of view is the better "cultural default" even if things can "go both ways." Are cultures generally better off when we presume, in the absence of a determinative context that calls forth a particular corrective, "X" or "Y"? In some cases we can say, "Go with X until Y proves otherwise." Some of these presumptions are very strong and admit of few exceptions and perhaps none at all (e.g., buy low/sell high, don't torture people for the fun of it) which give us objective, if not absolute, rules.
Ergill wrote:There's nothing to stop someone from throwing "Barrison Hergeron" back at "equality of opportunity" and mocking the hypothetical, forcible leveling of opportunities at everyone's birth rather than at everyone's maturity. Which works well enough as a fictional counter-punch to a fictional punch, but ends up underlining the weaknesses of these fictions in the first place.

The American founders did not imagine some absolute equality of opportunity which would amount to some great leveling guarantee of outcomes (e.g., controlling perfectly for nature and nurture such that everyone is equally assured an even chance of success which would, in turn, produce statistical results reflecting parity in all things). The "pursuit of happiness" is not the achievement of it. The government owes you the right to try to make yourself happy, but that's it. Equality of opportunity is the right for all of us to try, in our own way, insofar as our attempts do not unreasonably limit the liberties of others without ourselves being unreasonably limited by others.

Diversity depends on difference and difference, by necessity, involves certain disadvantages. Thems the breaks. What makes one unique, what makes one interesting, a person in the living breathing sense of the word, is the contingency of nature and nurture that shuffled the deck to produce you as you are. You might lament your horrible parents, but were it not for their lack of better judgment, you might not have been conceived at all. If you get dealt a bad hand, the odds are against you. Equality of opportunity never meant reshuffling the deck and redealing until you get an initial hand you like. Rather, it was about surveying the most typical hands (macrostates), both good and bad, that people had to play in society and making sure that it was still in everyone's rational interest to place a bet on something (a trade, a vocation, just a job to get by) so as to be minimally happy in life (chickens in pots). Equal opportunity doesn't mean that you're guaranteed to beat a pair of aces at the poker table. It just means that whatever arbitrary hand you are dealt (by your genetic shuffling and environmental location) in life, you still have enough of a chance to beat the other person's pair on the flop, turn, or river.

On the other hand, there are indeed people on the other side of the aisle who dream the dream of perfect equality of outcome (drop the needle on John Lennon's "Imagine") and do so with the understanding of this as a moral mandate.

Here, for example, is Michael Sandel on John Rawls in his book Justice,
Michael Sandel wrote:If Rawls is right, even a free market operating in a society with equal educational opportunities does not produce a just distribution of income and wealth. The reason: “Distributive shares are decided by the outcome of the natural lottery; and this outcome is arbitrary from a moral perspective. There is no more reason to permit the distribution of income and wealth to be settled by the distribution of natural assets than by historical and social fortune.”
Harbinger of Determinism, Jerry Coyne (who will NOT be persuaded of compatibilism no matter how hard Dan Dennett tries), makes an interesting statement in a YouTube talk,
Coyne-operated-pop-determinist wrote:Republicans spurred view called the "just world belief" which is that people deserve what they get if you're poor you deserve it we're not going to help you up with your bootstraps because you know you made the choice to be poor.


I won't saddle you with the rest of his talk (which is basically just a rehash of Sam Harris), but the flip-side to the "just world belief" is his world without any agency -- the unjust world belief -- no matter what happens, you're a victim. You deserve neither praise nor blame; you're not a locus of action. Consequently, why people should be benefited materially or conferred the dignity or rights either individually in the aggregate is a total mystery!

Sean Carroll once argued (in compatibilist terms) that free will is a real as baseball

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/bl ... -baseball/

and this is all the agency (if the majority of working philosophers, who just so happen to be compatibilists, are correct) one needs. And with this sense of free choice, we can offer free choices to citizens that do not come with guarantees, only the right to engage in the pursuit.

On the other hand, equality of outcome types are, by natural tendency, utilitarians. They are not great respecters of rights. Your liberties don't matter. What matters are your unearned privilege points that were handed to you by birth (wealth, IQ, race, gender) that must be flattened out by all means necessary to satisfy the great utility equation. Outcomes-centered folk don't tend to worry about the means so much. The smarter ones, like Rawls, will tolerate inequality as a necessary evil, so long as it benefits the least advantaged members of society. The dumber ones, who are much more common these days, want the asymptote and so deserve the lesson of the parable.

It is not surprising that one who is "rotten with perfection," obsessed with an absolute, will think to strawman the opposition as an absolute (perfection debating perfection, rife with the reversibility of "go the other way" that attends it). The debate between libertarian free willers and hard determinists, for example, is not interesting (no matter how much Harris and Coyne and the faceless horde of pop-neuroscientists love beating the dead horse of libertarian freedom) and neither is the retort from doe-eyed utopians that perfect opportunity (as in equal probabilistic chance at a given outcome for everyone) under free choice is a myth.
Ergill wrote:There is no clearly delineated "axiom" of either of these equalities shared across the left or the right, and neither side intends to pursue anything approaching these reductios.


Reductios abound these days. This is because people are pissed off. Rightly so. The super wealthy are sucking more and more out of the economy. We are indeed getting screwed. We do NOT have equality of opportunity or outcome. Millennials keep getting blamed for destroying industries, but we're not talking about the massive student loan debt and the barista / Walmart jobs that await them after college. And so we're polarizing, drifting from Occupy to Tea Party, Antifa to Proud Boy, Soy-Boy to Trumptard. Oh, the reductios we can see today. Pinhead emerges from nowhere with the indentitarian puzzle box of victimage (left and right), "I have so many reductios to show you...". Seriously, if you want reductios this is "a long road that ain't got no end."

I stand by Freedom of Choice as the superior default mode and a superior corrective to our present context. Choice is agentic. It is empowering. It's why Peterson is selling books. It ain't a canard. It's the canary in the coal mine. Constitutional rights are under threat because of the perception that rights = criminal (especially "alt-right") empowerment -- But people can say mean things and make bombs and hide drugs and kidnapped children!

Sure, there are limits in some contexts. Yes, some dumbasses will argue blindly for bootstraps and no safety nets, but those in the so-called IDW are largely left-leaning and believe in social safety nets. Moreover, I take particular issue with the agentic framing of global warming (10 things YOU can do to stop global warming - Uh, no. How about the 100 companies that emit 71% of global emissions do something instead of blaming people who have little to no choice in participating in the energy grid). Overall, however, solutions to problems do require agents and not victims. It requires a horizon of choice.
User avatar
Macrology
Posts: 4232
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:54 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Macrology » Mon Dec 31, 2018 10:30 pm

I'm listening to the leaked Louis CK audio, and I'm not really getting the extent of the outrage. I'm only halfway through so far, but most of the material is funny and relatively harmless, with a few misfires. The trans stuff is tired and unfunny, for instance. But otherwise it seems pretty par for the course based on his older material.

Thing is, anyone listening to his stuff right now is going to be hypercritical in light of his current reputation, but a lot the responses are very shallow readings of his comedy. One commentator I read wrote about the bit where CK calls his doctor an old Jewish faggot after he's tells Louis he shouldn't eat ice cream, complaining how the terminology is crude and doesn't contribute to the joke, but Louis spent minutes leading up to that talking about how much he likes his doctor. It's a joke about how much he likes eating ice cream and how petty and vindictive he gets when someone tries to tell him he shouldn't. The facade is transgressive but it's ultimately self-effacing. That's true of several of the bits I've heard so far. On top of that, a lot of his comedy is predicated on the fact that what he's saying is patently ridiculous or facetious. People are either willfully overlooking that fact, or they're just dumb.

I also don't think he's avoiding the issue of his disgrace. He doesn't really need to, because everyone already knows. He alludes to his shitty year, but I don't get the impression that he's wallowing in self-pity. It feels more like a "Welp! I did this and here I am." I can understand that bringing up his actual conduct would be difficult for the reasons that Melvin specified. It's worth noting that this was a private show, not a comeback special or an official recording. I might expect some kind of commentary along those lines if this were a more public showcase for his new material.

Edit: The guy laughing the whole time (presumably the guy who recorded it) is a grade A moron, though. He laughs hardest at the least funny stuff and doesn't even seem to understand what's going on during some of the better material.
Ma`crol´o`gy
n. 1. Long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words.
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 686
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by DaMU » Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:57 am

At this point, though, I feel like the transgression is more the point than the self-effacement. Sort of like his older and more established bit where he spends something like a minute or two discussing how well a hipster white barista made his coffee before capping his admiration with, "That (n-word) made the shit out of my coffee!" And then enunciating how this sentiment "came from the heart."

I mean, I'm not Monday morning quarterbacking on the totality of this guy's material (who has the time?), but it's sorta similar to Ricky Gervais, where the context of these taboo-busting jokes don't feel like sufficient justification for the indulgence of them. And it's weird that a man who ostensibly spent a year "listening" came away with, "I should punch down on transgenderism and school shooting victims." Like... huh?
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.
User avatar
Ergill
Posts: 264
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:47 pm

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Ergill » Tue Jan 01, 2019 1:24 am

Melvin Butterworth wrote: And you appear to buy into the "I can casually dismiss what I disagree with as a canard" canard.
I called it a canard because that's what I think it is, natch. I explained why. If doing that in a short post is too casual for you *shrug*. Considering how casually it looks like we'll be brushing aside whole swathes of debate regarding free will and ethics (because these are suddenly subjects or red herrings or whatever), I guess we'll all have to bear it.
Melvin Butterworth wrote: A lot of things can go both ways. Proverbs, for example, are reversible. "Clothes make the man," but "don't judge a book by it's cover." "Look before you leap," but remember "he who hesitates is lost." "Nothing ventured nothing gained," but... ..."better safe than sorry."

Proverbial advice is useful as a corrective when grounded in a context. What does the situation need? Is the prevailing vice that of recklessness? Then tell the kids "to look before they leap." Is the prevailing vice that of paralyzing timidity? Then advise people that "you miss 100% of shots you don't take." And if the prevailing vice is increasingly that of socialistic uptopian equity policing motivated by disgust with our latest gilded age and the creeping idea that there really is no free will (thus undermining cultural belief in the very idea of desert), then the corrective just might be a book that tells you to stand up straight, tell the truth, and get your crap together or perhaps a parabolic story about a dystopic future where the asymptote of an unquestioned value-premise is taken to its logical conclusion.

Besides this, we can also ask, on occasion, which point of view is the better "cultural default" even if things can "go both ways." Are cultures generally better off when we presume, in the absence of a determinative context that calls forth a particular corrective, "X" or "Y"? In some cases we can say, "Go with X until Y proves otherwise." Some of these presumptions are very strong and admit of few exceptions and perhaps none at all (e.g., buy low/sell high, don't torture people for the fun of it) which give us objective, if not absolute, rules.
We have a creature of privilege sitting on the throne, the Crony Capitalist himself, a man who claims to have bootstrapped himself into wealth after having all of it secretly funnelled to him from his parents over the course of his life—what’s more, by methods specifically shifting the burden to the serfs of his late capitalist fiefdom. He is the fat, decadent figment of Horatio Alger, a whisp of self-promotion buoyed along by his own off-gassing and the delusions and defeatism of our electorate. And most terrifying of all, he’s hijacked one of our two main parties in a way that none of us has seen in our lifetimes, the latest link in a chain of Republican radicalization dating back to the eighties. And what’s been the go-to excuse? The story they’ve been telling themselves for decades is that it’s those radical Democrats who should be motivating our proverbs, even when the chief targets are Third Way types. Beyond that, hard rightwing movements across the world have had the momentum predicated on nativism, attacks on the free press, calls for a law-and-order despotism coupled with attacks on the rule of law, bootstrap mythologies and bucking challenges to their privilege. We’ll be in a Death Wish utopia before the socialists have their say. Ask the kids in cages.

Peterson’s line is that it’s the left that’s the real concern and he points to college kids. Whew. Devastating. So fresh. Remember the suffering Americans experienced at the hands of college Maoists during the American Cultural Revolution? Me either. It’s not unlike people trying to use the Black Panthers to distract from ills of racial inequity or the Weathermen to distract from the ills of the Vietnam War. Oh, you’re scared of radicals? They deplatformed you? That’s cute. The radicalism of the late sixties and early seventies veered much further and even then, the tactic of using them to convince yourself and others that they should be guiding all of our proverbs was still crap. Those proverbs should aim higher. Next to what I’m seeing at the centers of political power right now and what I’m seeing in a gradually more progressive Democratic party that’s nevertheless far, far, far, far, far from the kind of radicalization in question, Peterson is living in cloud-cuckoo land. He claims that the right knows how to quell its fringe as the fringe absorbs it. He claims William F. Buckley Jr. as a shining example of getting conservatives into line on race (and phew, that's a ways back), apparently ignorant of his early, ignominious and outright support of white supremacy in the south, let alone his shift into the more modern conservative line in his debate with James Baldwin where he tells a black man in the sixties that he should be happy with his station while accusing him of affecting an accent because the guy talks good. Then he accuses Justin Trudeau of supporting “a murderous equity doctrine” when the dude dared send out a generic tweet supporting women marching for women’s rights. It’s like this guy is a marginally informed ideologue with little sense of history or proportion.
Melvin Butterworth wrote: The American founders did not imagine some absolute equality of opportunity which would amount to some great leveling guarantee of outcomes (e.g., controlling perfectly for nature and nurture such that everyone is equally assured an even chance of success which would, in turn, produce statistical results reflecting parity in all things). The "pursuit of happiness" is not the achievement of it. The government owes you the right to try to make yourself happy, but that's it. Equality of opportunity is the right for all of us to try, in our own way, insofar as our attempts do not unreasonably limit the liberties of others without ourselves being unreasonably limited by others.

Diversity depends on difference and difference, by necessity, involves certain disadvantages. Thems the breaks. What makes one unique, what makes one interesting, a person in the living breathing sense of the word, is the contingency of nature and nurture that shuffled the deck to produce you as you are. You might lament your horrible parents, but were it not for their lack of better judgment, you might not have been conceived at all. If you get dealt a bad hand, the odds are against you. Equality of opportunity never meant reshuffling the deck and redealing until you get an initial hand you like. Rather, it was about surveying the most typical hands (macrostates), both good and bad, that people had to play in society and making sure that it was still in everyone's rational interest to place a bet on something (a trade, a vocation, just a job to get by) so as to be minimally happy in life (chickens in pots). Equal opportunity doesn't mean that you're guaranteed to beat a pair of aces at the poker table. It just means that whatever arbitrary hand you are dealt (by your genetic shuffling and environmental location) in life, you still have enough of a chance to beat the other person's pair on the flop, turn, or river.

In other words, our generic use of “equality” (of whatever kind) is hedged about with riders, qualifications, explanations, amendments, warnings, afterthoughts, etc. What’s more, it isn’t one value alone, but a value amongst other, sometimes competing, values, between which we have to strike compromises and work through peripheral cases. You feel that “Barrison Hergeron” doesn’t countenance your fuller sense of the term? Welcome to the club. Maybe you get what it feels like when you lamely wheel out “Harrison Bergeron” because you’ve decided to play the Handicapper General and hamstring all the individuality out of your interlocutor and stuff them in a plain vanilla box of your liking. The vast majority of the people who disagree with you on this or that issue bearing on equality aren’t any more “Harrison” than you are “Barrison”. There are real disagreements, but also overlapping intuitions and opportunities to talk through what are, indeed, difficult subjects.
Melvin Butterworth wrote: Reductios abound these days. This is because people are pissed off. Rightly so. The super wealthy are sucking more and more out of the economy. We are indeed getting screwed. We do NOT have equality of opportunity or outcome.
This probably calls for diversionary walls of text! “Reductio, you say?! Isn’t everything a reductio these days? Tralala!” OK. We do not have equality of opportunity these days. What should we change to address that? But be prepared for people to shit on it as in some way an attempt to fix outcomes.
Melvin Butterworth wrote: I stand by Freedom of Choice as the superior default mode and a superior corrective to our present context. Choice is agentic. It is empowering. It's why Peterson is selling books. It ain't a canard. It's the canary in the coal mine. Constitutional rights are under threat because of the perception that rights = criminal (especially "alt-right") empowerment -- But people can say mean things and make bombs and hide drugs and kidnapped children!

Sure, there are limits in some contexts. Yes, some dumbasses will argue blindly for bootstraps and no safety nets, but those in the so-called IDW are largely left-leaning and believe in social safety nets. Moreover, I take particular issue with the agentic framing of global warming (10 things YOU can do to stop global warming - Uh, no. How about the 100 companies that emit 71% of global emissions do something instead of blaming people who have little to no choice in participating in the energy grid). Overall, however, solutions to problems do require agents and not victims. It requires a horizon of choice.
What the hell are you talking about?

And oh yeah, as for casually dismissing things, you might note that I haven’t responded to the aside on free will. I couldn’t really make heads or tails of that either. Maybe you’re hungry for philosophical discussion or something and want to talk about it, in which case, OK, I guess we could have that separately, but I don’t see how it’s particularly germane to the discussion we’re having now. Is “equality of outcome” marching hand in hand with denials of free will? Seems like a pretty marginal thread. Jerry Coyne is closer to Jonathan Haidt than Michael Sandel I bet. Sam Harris is part of the stupidly-named IDW. Caruso and Pereboom better fit the line of supposedly deducing liberalism from the nonexistence of free will, but who the fuck reads them outside of the academy? Nietzsche was a denier of free will, but not exactly an “SJW”. I've followed some of the debates, but they’ve never spurred any sort of conviction. People are much more likely reading their ethics into the metaphysical claims than deducing them the former from the latter.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1560
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: A Corrierino Awareness Thread

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Tue Jan 01, 2019 6:36 am

I hope bringing up the Louis C.K. stuff doesn't make me one of those snowflakes looking for new reasons to be offended. I'm not that bent out of shape, I just may not follow his comedy as much as I did in the past is all (unless that's proof of my wanting to live in an safe space).

sorry for being so neurotic, I just wrestle with how to comport myself lest I irritate/vex the older generation. because heck, maybe even commenting on this at all means I got triggered.
[sighs]
Post Reply