Drifting Northward

you dont think theres anything unethical about dating a married person? lol

Gods will

There is nothing unethical about hooking up with a married person. It may be immoral under certain religious morality but is not inherently unethical. I don't owe the guy anything if his wife wants me just as no other guy owes me anything if they like my significant other and she likes them. People have to keep their signifant Others at least interested if not fascinated. This actually came up in real life for me as a friend of mine who has a partner was hypomanic and quite flirty with me. I decided to play it safe because I wouldn't want to take advantage of someone who is hypomanic and of course the risk of social ostracizaiton but to be fair I did play a little bit of tit for tat because I am human and it was fun. If it would have gotten to the point of no return well I guess I wouldn't have returned and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. In France and Italy it always seemed quite common for people to have mistresses. It was not frowned upon really in Argentina even with how Catholic they are.

On October 31 2023 01:43 RiKD wrote: There is nothing unethical about hooking up with a married person. It may be immoral under certain religious morality but is not inherently unethical. I don't owe the guy anything if his wife wants me just as no other guy owes me anything if they like my significant other and she likes them. People have to keep their signifant Others at least interested if not fascinated. This actually came up in real life for me as a friend of mine who has a partner was hypomanic and quite flirty with me. I decided to play it safe because I wouldn't want to take advantage of someone who is hypomanic and of course the risk of social ostracizaiton but to be fair I did play a little bit of tit for tat because I am human and it was fun. If it would have gotten to the point of no return well I guess I wouldn't have returned and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. In France and Italy it always seemed quite common for people to have mistresses. It was not frowned upon really in Argentina even with how Catholic they are.

I don’t disagree

On October 31 2023 01:43 RiKD wrote: There is nothing unethical about hooking up with a married person. It may be immoral under certain religious morality but is not inherently unethical. I don't owe the guy anything if his wife wants me just as no other guy owes me anything if they like my significant other and she likes them. People have to keep their signifant Others at least interested if not fascinated. This actually came up in real life for me as a friend of mine who has a partner was hypomanic and quite flirty with me. I decided to play it safe because I wouldn't want to take advantage of someone who is hypomanic and of course the risk of social ostracizaiton but to be fair I did play a little bit of tit for tat because I am human and it was fun. If it would have gotten to the point of no return well I guess I wouldn't have returned and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. In France and Italy it always seemed quite common for people to have mistresses. It was not frowned upon really in Argentina even with how Catholic they are.

I disagree. It could be a one off bad decision made by their wife, and they could have a happy marriage or fix it, otherwise. There are lots of considerations and different scenarios, but I think its a bad thing to do, ofc.

I dont think there's anything wrong with 40 year old dating 25 year old tho.

The CIA supported post structuralist philosophy. Ever wonder why that was?

The CIA supported post structuralist philosophy. Ever wonder why that was?

I did not know that the CIA supported post-structuralist philosophy. I now wonder why that was/is?

Btw, Baudrillard opposed post-structuralism and distanced himself from post-modernism although he is obviously put in those categories (wrongly). I don't love Derrida or Foucault. Don't really know too many others. I've read some Dellueze and liked it and read some Barthes and liked it. I am certainly no "post-structuarlist" expert or even a fan of POST-STRUCTURALISM.

Happy Halloween

paradise on earth as in heaven suffering will end soon

%5D

Halloween??? The only real holiday is labour day.

On October 31 2023 13:52 RiKD wrote: Show nested quote + The CIA supported post structuralist philosophy. Ever wonder why that was? I did not know that the CIA supported post-structuralist philosophy. I now wonder why that was/is? Btw, Baudrillard opposed post-structuralism and distanced himself from post-modernism although he is obviously put in those categories (wrongly). I don't love Derrida or Foucault. Don't really know too many others. I've read some Dellueze and liked it and read some Barthes and liked it. I am certainly no "post-structuarlist" expert or even a fan of POST-STRUCTURALISM.

They supported it because it was turning people away from socialism and Marxism. Anyways, I thought this was quite funny when I recently learned of it. As if the CIA even read this shit. They are pretty big into the so called woke Iidentity politics as well

A critique (from the left) is that Baudrillard was a firm leftist that drifted towards bleak fatalist. I have been in that same process more or less which is maybe why I am having a Baudrillard season. I don't even know what socialism is anymore and Marxism seems outdated in many ways. That's exactly what the CIA wants so maybe they are succeeding. I am anti-capitalist but I am not sure there is anyway to stop the locomotive before it careens off of a cliff.

socialist revolution any day now

On November 01 2023 14:50 RiKD wrote: A critique (from the left) is that Baudrillard was a firm leftist that drifted towards bleak fatalist. I have been in that same process more or less which is maybe why I am having a Baudrillard season. I don't even know what socialism is anymore and Marxism seems outdated in many ways. That's exactly what the CIA wants so maybe they are succeeding. I am anti-capitalist but I am not sure there is anyway to stop the locomotive before it careens off of a cliff.

Lol, ive never been able to get through the communist manifesto. It's such poor writing, I read 80% of david harveys companions to capital and I thought there was very little value in that particular marxian analysis of capitalism. I consider all labour theories of value as pseudoscience, (not just Karl Marx's).
I think the most valueable work of Marx is his section on the global reserve army of labour, which is very relevant today. Most leftwing economists gravitate towards things like modern monetary theory thesedays, which is very good economics imo. MMT is basically just a reality based accounting of money, and how it's made. The conclusion of MMT is that you can have full employment without extra inflation. In otherwords, no need for a reserve army of labour.

It's quite clear from reading Marx's work that one of the reasons his work is so voluminous is that he had a massive ego and wanted to come up with a complicated theory that explained virtually everything about the social order. Those sorts of ego problems were standard in the sciences and social sciences back then. He started trying to put calculus in his work towards the end. This was an early form of physics envy that is now part of mainstream economics culture. I think its the main reason why some neoclassical economists are trying to put topology or pde into econ. So they can feel meaning in their work, and feel smart. Some of them admit that as well. Ken Arrow being one.

It's one of the main reasons I love Chompsky's work. He's extremely well read, but is very minimilistic in his writing. Never uses big words like epistemology unless its absolutely necessary. But then I read some work by Jason Stanley and he's trying to turn a study of propaganda into a theory of epistemology. There's zero value in theorizing it like that.

socialism has lots of meanings like all political words. I'd say that socialism can be anything from welfare state, or nordic model, to economic democracy.

At this point I'd say the climate change locomotive is very likely heading for a full cascade of tipping points. It will take centuries to unravel and will cause immense human suffering, leading to civilizational decline. However, that does not mean getting to 2 degrees by 2100 instead of 3 degrees would not make an enormous difference. Two degrees would mean it would take a thousand plus years for antarctica to melt instead of a couple centuries or w/e. Huge difference and in the meantime all sorts of solutions are out there.

It's always been extremely obvious to me that lots of things can be done about capitalism and ecology, yet many refuse to face this reality. Probably one of the most self destructive dogma's of our time. It's basically the same as Thatchers TINA view, but with different motivations. This sort of belief system that we are all doomed anyway that seems popular on the left is not grounded in reality, and is basically saying if millions of people suffer, it doesn't really matter. The reality is that if society had a couple extra centuries to prepare for a full global cataclysm, these changes would happen much less suddenly, and there would be much more time to to prepare for them, and people could slowly migrate to the pockets of land that are still habitable, rather than just being hit with overnight changes. I don't rule out societies ability to bring us back to 1850 temperatures either, even with unravelling tipping points, there is a significant things that can be done to absorb carbon while simultaneously doing lots to reduce emissions.


The biggest solution to climate change will be changes in social instutions, and managing political instability caused from it. It's a political problem at this point. People might say its a tech problem, but if banks want to invest in fossil fuels rather than clean energy because there's more money in it, then that's political, not tech.

I don't see how JP Morgan / Chase magically pulls out the staggering amount of money they have in fossil fuels and re-invest it in clean energy?

How does Donald Trump back policy change?

Also:

Speaking of the CIA:

Reminder that modern art was a CIA psy-op. Former CIA officials came clean on this during the '90s, confirming that the agency used abstract art by Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning and others to promote American culture during the Cold War. The intent was to portray America as a bastion of intellectual and creative freedom. This was to rebut Soviet assertions that the U.S. was "culturally barren", and to contrast the cultural confinement of the Soviet empire, where artists had been restricted to painting Soviet realism since the 1930s.

Abstract Expressionism was seen as the most free and extreme form of artistic expression - the antithesis of Soviet rigidity. Modern art therefore became a weapon in the cultural war against communism. Beginning in the 1950s, the CIA secretly funded a group called the Congress for Cultural Freedom, through which it funnelled money to international art shows, literary magazines and operated dozens of offices around the globe - all with the explicit goal of promoting American Abstract Expressionism. These efforts, coined operation "long leash", were meant to demonstrate to disaffected Soviets and European intellectuals that American painters were free to invent, and offend; unlike under tyranny, where "artists are made the slaves and tools of the state", as Eisenhower once said.

Paradoxically, at the time the works of Pollock and de Kooning were not even broadly popular with the American public, and earlier, more open attempts to promote new American art by the State Department had been widely mocked. Even President Truman famously said, 'If that's art, I'm a Hottentot'', when visiting an exhibit purchased by the DOS. Because of this, and because it would have been impossible to attain support for such a project through Congress, the CIA's covert operation was necessary to push Abstract Expressionism in secret. Do you think this had a meaningful impact establishing abstract art as a legitimate movement, or would it have flourished anyway on its own merits?

(CultureCritic @ twitter)

On November 02 2023 19:39 RiKD wrote: I don't see how JP Morgan / Chase magically pulls out the staggering amount of money they have in fossil fuels and re-invest it in clean energy? How does Donald Trump back policy change?

Well they are going to switch to clean energy and invest more in it in the coming decade. There was a well known leaked report a couple years ago where JP Morgan said this. What is the most likely scenario is that the fossil fuel industry will start investing more and more into plastics in the coming decades as clean energy becomes cheaper. Their new goal is to put a large chunk of it into petrochemicals and 10x the amount of plastic in the world. Presumably, this will help kill more of whatever fishes still remain in the oceans, and possibly have some negative health effects on people that eat them.

So, there is a bit of an illusion that the fossil fuel industry will go out of business once their energy is too expensive. Realistically they will just keep using it make other things.

It's quite simple. Everything is down to political power. So whether banks choose to invest in fossil fuels or not in the next two decades, while they still profit off them, is down to public policy, which is down to political power and whoever exerts it.

Do you remember the universities divesting their investments in fossil fuels? That was less than 1% of the investments that the banks have in them, which was around a few trillion last i looked. It really boggles my mind that people aim for such small goals when it comes to divestments.