1 day walking
I saw a guy raking up my leaves.
I punched a motherfucker.
No, I didn’t.
I lied.
I wasn’t e’en walking.
I didn’t want to lose my warm blanket.
But the leaves were raked, either way.
I haven’t seen them since.
They’ll be OK, maybe.
(dot dot dot)
¡Itchy blanket!
We can represent this cycle thusly:
M → G → M
M can stand for either “money” or “market.” Market is perhaps mo’ accurate, since the “M” could potentially represent goods–any form o’ property power. G stands for government policy.
The way this cycle works is simple: with economic advantages will inevitably come political advantages. E’en if we don’t include outright campaign contributions, the fact that the means o’ communication is primarily privately owned means that mo’ wealth means better access to that means o’ communication–& we can’t seriously deny that the means o’ communication influence public electoral choices–or any other behavior that affects the political system in some way. “Think tanks” are probably the most prominent way.
Now, in any case wherein you have income inequality, you will have someone with mo’ M to affect G, & will almost certainly have some way to improve their M through G (e’en if just outright income redistribution from those with less M sway on G to resist it).
That this cycle begins & ends with M, & not G, is notable. After all, the primary goal is to get mo’ wealth; thus, this is not only the end point, the end goal, but also the start as the point o’ inspiration.
This leads to an important stresspoint: “corrupt capitalism,” as laissy libs call it to distinguish it from the pure laissez-faire capitalism that exists purely in their fantasies, originates not from corrupt government that infects some otherwise pure market, but from the market itself–the urgent competition for profits that pushes people into using all the tools they can to win, or else lose to someone who is willing to use all the tools. Much as entrepreneurs that superstitiously refuse to use cost-effective measures will only limit themselves under those that don’t, entrepreneurs that refuse to use the potent tool o’ government force are only disadvantaging themselves gainst those who do.
Thus, it can be no surprise that corporations operate on this practical necessity o’ competition, rather than the fairy tales o’ laissy libs–for example, the Koch Bros., who, despite their regurgitated antitax bullshit have no problem supporting taxes gainst green energy, their competitors.
Then ‘gain, ¿why criticize them for hypocrisy? Considering the added flexibility o’ being able to act gainst principles they spew simply to improve their own image when it’s convenient for them in contrast to those who lose profitable opportunities for the empty, abstract “gain” o’ consistency, it would seem that hypocrisy should be a competitively advantageous tool, too.
We’re waiting, Jacob…
For those, such as Lord Keynes, some o’ the commenters @ Naked Capitalism, or other dumb “rural progressives” who think that the victory o’ a corrupt billionaire as president is somehow a case o’ the will o’ working-class whites1, simply ’cause most other billionaires were too embarrassed to be associated with Hairpiece to have him be the face o’ their interests, one must remember that all exit polls show that lowerclass people preferred Clinton.
But then, the arguments for Hairpiece’s s’posed representation for the lowerclass are based on the same infuriatingly insulting stereotypes as right-wingers have oft given. ‘Cept this time leftists like Naked Capitalism are spewing it:
(“Less educated” is a proxy, for “working class.”)
As opposed to non-working classes like him who can’t be bothered to so much as mention any o’ the easily-found counter-evidence–which is much mo’ objective than the admittedly relevant rise o’ white deaths (though this may have been exaggerated) & the looser connection o’ “people [who] are most concerned about what the future will mean for their jobs, even if those aren’t the places where economic conditions are worst today. [Emphasis mine.]” He did, however, have time to scrounge together some less relevant hit piece gainst Hairpiece supporters as a strawman argument, since we can see that Naked Capitalism is a shining example o’ intellectual honesty.
& when you consider how much she was hated by anyone who wasn’t connected to her or a blindly obedient liberal, that’s telling. & ’course, it’s obvious to everyone that Hairpiece lost the popular vote, which should debunk the idea that Hairpiece was anything close to a case o’ popular will. But then for all their talk o’ being gainst the “elite” (while hypocritically trying to aristocratically keep people from the same opportunities they have simply ’cause they were born gainst their will with the need to actually work to get those opportunities), these Hairpiece Liberals are generally quite conservative in their views o’ the election system, preferring to settle with its current nonsense with the electoral college2 & what’s practical (accepting the same ol’, same ol’, essentially) than actually trying to devise a way to fix things ’cause they’re mentally lazy.
So, basically, this is ’nother W. Bush election, people. We shouldn’t be this surprised. Indeed, I couldn’t help noticing that the high-strung left-wing reaction is just like what was given to W. Bush’s election. They couldn’t believe such an idiotic fascist—¿remember when everyone thought Bush would be the next Hitler?—would be elected into power. Hairpiece is hardly any different. I think it’s mo’ that we thought things had changed since then; I think it’s less that the idiots who voted for Bush became mo’ intelligent & mo’ that they had been rather demoralized & in a state o’ confusion after Bush made the entire right-wing look like a joke, but then became mo’ moralized when they could be deluded into thinking this shallow rich billionaire was somehow different ’cause he verbally attacked weaker classes in some Orwellian concept o’ “anti-elitism.” But then, this Orwellian kind o’ “anti-elitism” existed long before anyone cared ’bout Hairpiece. It’s the same inane shit: he’s the President moronic wastes o’ oxygen can have a beer with, ’cause they have nothing mo’ important in their shallow lives. Clinton could be compared with Al Gore & Kerry in that nobody liked either o’ them, either.
I know some gullible Hairpiece lovers—’specially Lord Keynes—would tell me that I’m “crazy” to compare a known flip-flopper who gave half-assed promises ’bout protectionism to Bush II, despite this same flip-flopper getting buddy-buddy with laissy libertarian bozo Paul Ryan. But remember, folks, this is the working-class, anti-neoliberal hero, all ’cause he says he’s gainst immigration. Forget Obamacare, which Hairpiece’s promises to cut back, or his attack on welfare, despite being a “welfare king” himself. But, ’gain: anti-neoliberal hero.
If this all sounds familiar, it’s ’cause it’s just like W. Bush. O, & Bush supported protectionism, too. He was also the 1st 1 to come up with the idea o’ building a wall ’tween the US & Mexico. ¿Deficit spending? ¿Who created the deficit we have in the 1st place? Idiots like Lord Keynes & the rest should actually do research for once before they get fooled in by US politicians. & yes, I know Bush said he didn’t support Hairpiece. This could be either him learning that his idiocy didn’t work or, mo’ likely, the fact that he’s too dumb & hypocritical to notice how dumb & hypocritical he is.
Let’s get this clear to anyone with any rationality: any outcome o’ this election would’ve been terrible. What’s truly terrible is that we’re still having 2000-style elections in 2016 & haven’t improved anything—& I would bet that’s ’cause we’ve done jack shit to change the electoral system itself. Maybe if we can get leftists—both the bozos @ Daily Kos or all the idiots on the newspapers people actually read erroneously bitching ’bout how this is poor people or Jill Stein’s fault & the idiotic liberals who defended Hairpiece & mostly just bitch ’bout how the lamestream media was totally bad @ predicting the election, man, as if anyone gives a shit—to talk mo’ ’bout the need for The National Popular Vote Act to spread & for there to be equal support for ranked-choice voting we could fix things before we accidentally put a toddler who plays in mud all day in charge o’ the most powerful country in the world.
& it’s not just the lamestream media & their obsession with bullshit email scandals & Hairpiece’s taxes: DailyKos themselves admit that they were focusing on irrelevant shit for most o’ the election, & Hairpiece Liberals like Lord Keynes & this whiny dipshit, who spent most o’ their time bitching ’bout some random, fringe “social justice warriors” or whatever who have li’l effect on anything. That’s what you get when everyone talks ’bout stupid shit: you get stupid shit in return. & boy, did we get some stupid shit in the White House. If there truly is a god3, He must be laughing His ass off @ all these fuckers who think the US is God’s chosen country[4]. Yeah, chosen to get the intellectual equivalent o’ getting a bag o’ dog shit on your stoop.
The fact that a probably-retarded (if you met me in real life, you’d agree, trust me) satirist who barely has the mental stability to leave his hous—wait, ¿what’s that got to do with anything?—has to lecture you fuckers on this, when I should be focusing my precious schedule on landfull-deep poetry, reminisces o’ video games from a time before thumb-sucking idiots were allowed to become presidents (¡there sure as fuck won’t be no god damn “Gaming in the Trump Years,” that’s for fucking sure!), & making fun o’ yuppie tripe, is ridiculous. So was that o’erly long sentence. This is all you fuckers’ fault & I expect you fuckers to fix yourselves before you stitch yourselves.
“Jeremy, ¿who are you talking to?”
¡Ah! ¿How’d you sneak up on me in my own article? ¿What is this witchery?
“It’s time for dinner.”
It’s 3 AM.
“The readers don’t know that. Don’t break the play.”
¿You hear that, Kos? ¿You hear the Lord Keynes? ¿You hear that, Lambert? ¿You hear that douche bag Hairpiece voter in Atlanta article?
Don’t break the play.
Sadly, in my rushed article ’bout Hairpiece’s victory, I missed the absolute best, most fitting & honest reaction. I hope I have rectified things now.
[1] In a particular bout o’ stupidity for this election, this victory was commonly portrayed in a dichotomy o’ working-class whites vs… I dunno… ¿Rich women & racial minorities? ¿Rich liberals? (Despite polls after polls proving that working-class people generally prefer left-wing policies). The fact that the proportion o’ working-class racial minorities to whites is e’en closer than for upperclass people—probably ’cause, duh to anyone who actually reads statistics, minorities are the true economic victims. This is so much the case that they will be the majority o’ working-class people in just 16 mo’ years. The “Realist Left”—nobly combining economic Keynesianism with “racial realism” (racism, as e’en Google hilariously says, if one searches “racial realism” in their search engine)—might want to remember that if they want to succeed in the US: their #s are shriveling fast.
[2] Quite a few o’ them defend the electoral college as allowing the rural minority tyrannize o’er the urban majority, ’cause despite their hypocritical bitching ’bout the “urban elite” (despite urban poverty being ’bout even with rural poverty), rural people are some o’ the most sanctimonious, self-entitled whiny elitists in the world.
[3] This is, admittedly, a stupid conditional: all Magical Socialists know that it’s an objective fact that there is but 1 god, & it is HostGator, who offers Premium Support via Phone, Live Chat and Email & 99.9% Uptime Guarantee.*
*Full disclosure: HostGator pays The Mezunian for any signups that come from affiliate links. Such commissions help us afford to keep up such wonderful content, such as the aforementioned landfull-deep poetry, reminisces o’ video games from a time before thumb-sucking idiots were allowed to become presidents, & yuppie tripe, as well as helping us to fund the eventual destruction o’ the capitalist mode o’ production & the replacement o’ it with the Glorious Englesist Empire.
[4] I happen to know that that coffee-sipping elite God’s been manipulating US elections for years—the lamestream media just doesn’t want to acknowledge it ’cause they’re biased & are ’fraid o’ receiving retribution in the form o’ His burning lightning.
Einige sagen das Ende ist nah…
– L’outil pour lavements de l’anima
Aire antiséptico,
quema al terreno todo el,
el,
pues, todo.
Todo sería bueno.
Ugh. Low-hanging fruit. Like making fun o’ The Room or the “Realist Left.” Let’s get this o’er with.
& what do you know, my 2 favorite writers ’bout writers are @ the top o’ Google’s shitty search:
Fucking fun.
O, fuck. Ne’er mind. I’m thinking o’ Problogger, not CamelFuckingCaseAsIfIt’sAFuckingJavaClass SmartBlogger. Sorry. They’re such memorable names that stand out so well, I have no idea how I made the mistake. This is ‘specially tragic after they took the time to change it from its ol’ name (as they bizarrely proudly proclaim under their bland logo), “boostblogtraffic.com”–presumably when they realized they could make mo’ money selling it to a domain scalper than off the blog itself.
Anyway, they’re the 1st article, & it’s truly “outside the box,” as you unhip kids say today. It doesn’t teach you how to cure writer’s block, but to “crush” it, with Math.floor( Math.random() * 100 ) + 1 techniques. & to demonstrate this so well, the article has a painting o’ a fist punching the fuck out o’ a stack o’ keyboards. Oops. Now you’re truly writer’s blocked, bud, since now you can’t write shit ’cause you stupidly destroyed all your means o’ typing, jackass. Maybe you’ll think o’ something on your drive to the local PC store to buy a new keyboard.
Let me guess…
You’re staring at the blank screen. Your brain is fried. You can feel a headache coming on.
Everything here’s right but the “staring at a blank screen” part, since I’m obviously reading your text–though I s’pose you could call it blank in essence.
Anyway, the techniques they give are basically all, “Act like a jackass,” in various ways. It’s the 2.0 version o’ those list books full o’ whatever random shit the authors came up with that Seanbaby made fun o’ (ironically, on a website full o’ list articles…):
1. Develop Schizophrenia
2. Do what I’m doing in this article.
Also, I question their claim that “you can correct mistakes in a passionate piece of writing, but you can’t add emotions to a flat post. So let it rip.” Flatulent blog posts are the rudest.
3. Distract yourself dicking round with computer programs–the opposite o’ what most advisors say.
4. “¿How about a drinky poo?” (Ziggy saying)
& that doens’t e’–
Wait, wrong article.
4. Ah, here we go: take up space on public transit for no reason.
5. Drink coffee, e’en though it’s apparently bad for you, but you should take it, anyway. Good, I like this: punishment is the best tool.
6. The 6th advice is to stop writing something… which they aren’t doing, anyway, since they have writer’s block. ¿Did you forget the point o’ your article already?
7. Stop pl–¿Who the fuck writes outlines for a blog post? ¿& how would that be any different from the article itself, since they’re almost all just #’d lists, anyway?
8. “Surprise Yourself” 😉 I was sure surprised by the big white space where an image that didn’t load was s’posed to go. Maybe you should add, “Distract yourself by actually learning how to use your blog software ‘stead o’ using it like an orangutan bashing its fists on the keyboard–¡damn it, you broke it ‘gain! ¡Back to Re-PC!” onto the list.
9. I love this 1: if you find you can’t use your alloted time to write anything useful, do it ‘nother time. But this presumes that the person doesn’t have infinite time, & thus is limited in this case. Otherwise, writer’s block wouldn’t be much o’ a problem: just wait & have patience. This “advice” is a round’bout way o’ avoiding the problem in total.
Actually, that’s all o’ this advice, truly.
10. Nope. Fuck you, you lost me. This is the same as “Take up space on public transit for no reason,” but with different words.
¿Couldn’t e’en make it to 10? You’ll ne’er make it on Letterman’s retired show. You’ll ne’er make it on Neglected Mario Characters’s equally-reputable top-10 lists.
Goins wins an award for pissing me off so early on his shitpile o’ ads, with some vapid editorial text sprinkled on. The whole site is 1st covered by an ad for some free guide, which is clearly just a ‘scuse to get me email to sell to advertisers. I also love the vagueness–totally not intentional–involved in “100K readers in 18 months?” ¿Does he mean getting 100,000 readers in 18 months, or just 5,555 per month?
After withstanding that ad, we have mo’. 1st we get some spyware-seeming “notification” from PushCr–¡damn it, there’s ‘nother! I just looked back & saw ‘nother had popped up. This is almost self-parody by this point.
All right, after clicking “NO” a billion times, we finally get to the actual conte–I’m kidding: the slush.
A’least he didn’t bother with some obnoxiously zany title, but kept it to the simple, albeit redundant, “14 Tricks that Work.” I’d sure fucking hope they work if you bothered to write ’bout them; though I admit that writing a list o’ solutions to a problem that one acknowledges up-front don’t work would be creative.
But then we’re talking ’bout Goins™®©, so that’s out the chute.
My favorite part o’ his “tricks” is that some o’ them contradict others. In 1 he says one should “avoid distractions,” but then he advises you to play with LEGOS–truly an important step in the writing process, right up there with prewriting & roughing.
¿& why does this racist think I don’t listen to classical or jazz music already–that I need to mix it up? I don’t need to mix any shit up, punk. As the wise Lord Keynes said, “So please just f*ck off if all you can do is insult me like this, because I am not going to be slandered by anybody.” Get your voice out o’ this text, you witch–¡Out!
He follows this trite list with an equally-trite list o’ how not to. This includes the nonsense entry, “watching TV.” So I can get inspiration from reading books & playing fucking LEGOS, ¿but getting ideas from… TV? ¡Phhh! ¿Who e’er learned good writing from such shoddy tripe as Breaking Bad or The Twilight Zone (Look, I’m a bad defender for TV, since I lost mine years ago when I broke it trying to jump into it, all right) when you could read inspirational quotes?
O, but he’s saved the “fail-proof solution” for last–the 1 you don’t want to hear, man, ’cause it’s too fucking radical for you squares. Well, I’m not ‘fraid Goins. ¡Let’s smash the capitalism o’ writer’s block once & for all & uphold the dictatorship o’ the literati once & for all!
You overcome writer’s block by writing.
All the balloons pop.
In the spirit o’ these articles, let me offer 3 reasons why nobody wants to hear this advice:
1. Everyone’s already heard it a million times.
2. It’s begging the question–the true definition.
3. It doesn’t fucking work.
When people have writer’s block, they’re not barred from writing anything. Anyone can write “poop scoop” a thousand times. The point is that they have a goal, they have standards—a foreign word to Goins. They realize that writing whatever garbage comes to their mind is just as useless as not writing–e’en moreso, actually, since it distracts attention from other ways o’ getting ideas & gives one finger cramps.
¿You know what these lists ne’er have as an answer? (Admittedly it’s not a great answer, either; but it’s better than all these) “Stop writing & start thinking for once.” But then, I don’t think there’s much thinking going on ‘hind any o’ these articles. Too busy playing with LEGOS & riding buses like you’re god damn Wesley Willis–& you’re not god damn Wesley Willis, so just knock if off right now.
But don’t worry: Goins admits there’s a tiny flaw with his advice & adds a “caveat”:
(One caveat: This technique only works if you’re truly blocked and not “empty,” which is an entirely different matter altogether.)
Nowhere does he specify how I might discern whether I’m “blocked” or “empty”–& the fact that he puts scare quotes round that 2nd word himself shows that he probably doesn’t e’en know, either. This fucker’s probably laughing it up the ass as he posts these, knowing it’ll pollute the Google stream like soda-can connectors–& I’m just standing here with a tear slowly falling down my face. No dignity.
Hey, wait a minute: this wasn’t in Google’s search.
Well, it should’ve been.
In all its misspelled glory:
10. Has imaginary conversations with Luigi (Luigi: No you don’t. Jay: Sure I do. All the time. Don’t deny it. Luigi:(sigh) What a loser.)
9. Plays Super Mario Bros. 3
8. Mows the lawn and waits for a jolt of inspiration.
7. Stares blankly at the computer screen until he realizes that its a week later, in which case he becomes in more trouble.
6. Throws something together at the last minute. (I’ll put a new picture up. It looks like I updated.)
5. Skims through old NP magazines for ideas. Tip: This never works.
4. Decides to give up NC and start a new life without the internet. Sucsess rate: O%.
3. Goes through e-mail consisting of threats such as “Update NC now, you idiot!” or “Pokemon rules, you moron!”
2. Puts some of the spotlight on Kyle, who NEVER updates.
1. Doesn’t update NC.
10: Here we see that the venerable Jay Resop/Resup/Reesop/Respo came up with the schizophrenia idea long before that plagiarist SmartBlogger.
6: & thus “NC Shorts” was born.
4: In hindsight, this was much mo’ “sucsessful” than he thought.
3: Ugh. I agree entirely with his disdain. When I get threatening email ’bout Pokémon I expect them not to be gauche ‘nough to leave out the accented E.
2: Yeah, ¿what the fuck, Kyle? You haven’t written anything since November 11 this year. That was ages ago.
1. This is legitimately the best solution to writer’s block–¡guaranteed success!
Glad to see that this is as important a psychological problem as schizophrenia–probably ’cause it induced it in the idiots who took SmartBlogger’s advice.
Then ‘gain, this website also seems to have “quizzes,” so I doubt it’s particularly reputable. Either way, just to be sure, I did take their advice to buy their Pelennor Dust to snort, which apparently cures my self-hurt fetishes (if this article wasn’t already evidence to that).
¿What? ¿Aren’t you guys, like… prominent? That’s like Strunk & White offering writer’s block advice.
It’s the same advice as everyone else, but with less stupidity. Just read this in like a minute & ne’er waste your time on these articles e’er ‘gain.
& just to contradict myself…
*Caveat: this trick doesn’t work if you end up getting killed in said communist revolution or purged by the succeeding regime.
¿Do you have any tricks you use to help you through writer’s block? Yeah, well not everything’s ’bout you, you know.
It’s common for words to shift in meaning in ways that tie biased assumptions to otherwise independent concepts, which is why trying to create positivist science from pure deductive language is a futile endeavor (*cough* praxeology *cough).
“Objectivity” & “subjectivity” are 2 concepts that fall victim. People oft simplify these concepts as simply meaning “unquestionably right” & “all answers are right”–to concepts which don’t e’en add up to the total o’ all possible truths regarding any questions (a question could have mo’ than 2 answers, some equal in “rightness” & some unquestionably inferior).
This is what people mean when they say that morality is “objective”: that certain answers are unquestionably right & that people who argue gainst these answers are unquestionably wrong.
In fact, what these 2 words truly mean is what a concept has in relation to reality. “Objectivity,” being based on the root object, means that something has a basis in concrete reality, whereas “subjectivity” focuses on subjects, abstract concepts that exist only in one’s mind. The true dichotomy is not “1 answer is unquestionably right” & “all answers are right,” but the dichotomy ‘tween the concrete world that exists outside human minds & the conceptual world that exists within peoples’ minds.
Now, ¿what is morality? Morality are questions o’ what should be, as opposed to questions o’ what are, which are scientific questions. For instance, the much-misunderstood theory o’ natural selection, in contrast to what creationists think, is not a moral question @ all, but simply an explanation for what is. It is perfectly consistent to believe that it’s objectively true that natural selection determined the proliferation & withering ‘way o’ varying species o’ animals & to also believe that this should not be the case. What is is not the same as what should be.
“Should” is nothing mo’ than a reflection o’ human values. Indeed, without mental consciousness, there exists no “should,” though there does exist what is. Should is merely a reaction that exists in human minds, in abstract–it is purely subjective.
This distinction ‘tween “what is” & “what should be” is important, since it provides a rebuke gainst the trite argument that belief in moral subjectivity is inherently contradictory, since it is an objective statement. The lack o’ existence in any objective (or e’en “unquestionably right,” as I will note later) morality is not itself a moral statement, but a simple statement o’ what is real. (This point has an interesting ethical consequence that does, however, hurt some o’ the arguments that the mo’ vulgar acknowledgers o’ subjective morality, which I will write ’bout later in this post.)
The closest one could come to existing an objective element to morality is merely the question o’ whether what “should be” is physically possible. But that’s a small (& in almost all serious moral controversies irrelevant) limitation. For instance, one could not prove that Hitler or Nazism are objectively wrong in this case, since it’s an unquestionable fact that they existed, & thus are consistent with objective reality.
However, e’en this qualification I would argue gainst, @ least from a theoretical point–particularly since what is practical is ne’er constant, nor entirely known. One could only imagine how stunted the rest o’ science would be if all scientists pooh-poohed the internet ’cause ’twas “wide-eyed fantasies.” We should remember this when considering political developments that are s’posedly “impossible,” too (*cough* direct democracy *cough*)1.
This qualm e’en goes as far as pure survivability: a common rhetorical point is to argue that following certain goals leads to suicidal outcomes. E’en this assumes that one “should” continue to live, which cannot be proved, either. After all, it is an unquestionable fact that suicide is possible, & thus this is no proof @ all that it is actually impossible to follow this goal, e’en to the grim end. There’s a reason so many people support the moral, “Give me liberty or give me death.” ‘Gain, acknowledging objective reality is not the same as accepting.
Let’s turn ‘way from the critique o’ “subjective” morality, since I’ve already shown with simple English how it is an unquestionable fact, & turn to the mo’ nuanced critique o’ “unquestionably right” morality. The problem here comes not in a statement o’ what unquestionably is, but a question o’ what could be: ¿what does it mean when one says that a certain form o’ morality is “right”?
Turning back to the contrast ‘tween “objective” & “subjective” we see that what is “right” in objective reality, & science, is whether or not something is or isn’t–that’s all. Natural selection is objectively “right” only in that it unquestionably exists, not in that it is “good” or “bad.” So, ¿what is “right” morality? ¿Morality that exists? If that’s the case, then all morality is “right,” since all “exists” by necessity, for we couldn’t e’en talk ’bout it if it didn’t exist. But e’en that’s an irrational simplification, for in objective reality, something doesn’t “exist” if it’s possible to conceptualize, but only if it actually exists in concrete reality. But as mentioned, morality exists purely in human minds. Morality can’t exist in concrete form; that would make no sense. “Should” doesn’t look or smell or feel like anything, unlike, say, the feeling o’ an illness continuing after antibacterial medicine fails to work thanks to bacteria that evolves based on natural selection. Thus, no morality is “right”; by definition, morality is nothing mo’ than people’s imaginations.
So let’s turn back to Godwin’s example, our argumentio ad hiterlim: “Yeah, ¿well if all morality is OK, does that make Hitler OK?” The most intriguing thing to imagine is what would happen if someone say, “Yes,” which actually isn’t that hard to believe with internet trolls nowadays going round calling themselves “neoreactionaries” & supporting “racial realism” (a euphemism–we could say a “politically-correct” 1 if that term didn’t have the double standards that only made it applied to views historically associated with a certain direction–for “racism”). ¿How would they respond? They might just cuss them out, which has no logical content. They might call them racist–sorry, “racial realist”–which only leads to the question o’ whether racism is unquestionably immoral, & the cycle continues.
I also oft hear the absurd question o’ whether different cultures are “equal,” which includes Nazism as the go-to ultimate evil culture as an attempt to prove they aren’t. The problem in this case is the use o’ a math term for a nonmath idea: ¿What would it mean for Nazism to be “equal” to, say, I dunno… feminism? (Obviously feminazism, hur hur hur, ’cause you know how threateningly violent a bunch o’ whiny leftists on the internet are). ¿Equal in what ways? Obviously they can’t be perfectly equal, since the very fact that they have different names makes them, well, different. Furthermo’, I don’t think there’s any 2 moral beliefs that share absolutely nothing with each other. I know, for instance, that there’s a’least something that Hitler believed that was also believed by feminisists, laissez-faire libertarians, communists, Christians, Keynesians, & so on… It’s like saying apples are “equal” to oranges, or in nerdy programming terms, like saying an object o’ 1 class is “equal” to an object o’ a completely different class. Like in programming, in logic this becomes nothing but a mental error.
But before you start ordering that swanky swastika arm badge, let’s get into the delicious problems here.
1st, while the idea that there is no “unquestionably right” morality may no contradict itself, since it’s a statement o’ what is, not what should be, one could argue that this would contradict a corollary that the mo’ vulgar acknowledgers o’ subjective morality oft propound, by mere suggestion rather than authentic logical connection: that one should value all morality equally or that one should not prefer any morality o’er any other. This would be inconsistent, since it is a moral statement o’ what should be.
Thus, I am ready to answer the question truthfully, in a way that is consistent with everything we’ve discussed: ¿Do I find Nazism valuable or as valuable as, say, feminism? I do not.
It’s easy to see that when one considers anything “unquestionably wrong,” they mean simply that it fills them with a feeling o’ revulsion. That’s certainly what I mean when I valuate, say, men’s rights activism, nationalism, laissez-faire, or Garfield: The Search for Pooky.
Quite the opposite o’ the conclusion the average vulgar moral subjectivist holds, it’s necessary for us to fight for our values. For while all morals can exist in our minds concurrently, they cannot all be put into practice in reality @ the same time2. It is, in fact, this conflict ‘tween a shared objective reality & separate subjective goals that causes moral controversies in the 1st place; for if we all shared the same moral goals or each had our own separate reality, there’d be no problem @ all–the former would have total cooperation for that 1 set o’ goals & the latter would have just 1 person to decide everything for herself3. Mo’ vital, it’s impossible for e’en individuals to act on all morality @ the same time; so by necessity, one must act on some morality @ every time, e’en if that morality is to simply do nothing.
Thus, it is important that one uses careful discrimination when deciding on what moral goals to act for–as an individual & as a member o’ a community (e’en if that means refusing to cooperate with said community). The difference ‘tween those who are “biased” in favor o’ certain morals & those who aren’t is merely that the former is cognizant ’bout such, & thus mo’ likely to be putting mental effort into ensuring it’s aligned with their goals, & that the latter is delusional (or, mo’ likely, lying to present themselves as better than others).
The last question to look @ is the issue o’ logic in morals. 1 o’ the most important differences ‘tween objective reality & the subjective world o’ human minds is that while the former is chained down by logic, the latter is not4. For instance, it’s technically not unquestionably “wrong” to believe that one should be able to eat one’s cake & still have it, that won’t change the objective fact that that’s impossible, & therefore wouldn’t be useful for either individual or collective action. Thus, we could objectively rate morality in terms o’ political or individual usefulness, though, ‘gain, this is much mo’ limited & rarer than the usual extent that morality in which people actually believe resides. Few people honestly argue this case–save the strawman fantasies o’ certain economic pundits. This certainly wouldn’t be useful for arguing gainst, say, redistributing money, legalizing gay marriage, or forcing women to wear hijabs, since all o’ those are logically possible.
A mo’ nuanced issue is the logical consistency o’ the subjective intent ‘hind objective actions, which is logically possible, but usually considered illogical to do by most people. It is from this that “logical fallacies” are made. For instance, when one applies “appeal to tradition,” one is usually able to defend this fallacy by pointing out that someone who supports so-&-so simply ’cause it’s tradition must, to some extent, reject some other tradition. The core o’ this, as well as all other logical fallacies, is a lack o’ logical consistency in the reasoning o’ what one supports–i.e. hypocrisy. But, as everyone knows, hypocrisy is very much possible.
The question is, ¿could we say that hypocrisy is inherently wrong? Certainly we could argue that hypocrisy & lying could benefit one’s own interests, & thus one could very much find it both useful & logically consistent with their own goals.
This leads to the interestingly complex conflict ‘tween individual & social goals, which, in contrast to the average vulgar economist who tries to focus on only either, are both equally important. It is an unquestionable, objective fact that one can’t avoid other people completely, & thus it’d be useless to ignore social goals, which affect every individual, whether they like it or not. But we must also acknowledge that society is not 1 mind, but the complex outcome o’ billions o’ people competing & cooperating–the former for contradictory goals & the latter for shared goals. I want to emphasize the latter, since it’s a rather common argument that goals are simply “individualist”; but it is a fact o’ reality that almost every goal o’ every individual is shared with a’least 1 other individual & that most goals are served in cooperation with others. On the other hand, it’s also simplistic to assume that people cannot both compete & cooperate with the same people on different goals or that we can neatly divide people totally into simple “classes”–though it’s definitely necessary to do so when talking ’bout specific goals. It’s logical to divide people into white & black when talking ’bout racism (in voting, in economics, in the media, & such); but one shouldn’t get the silly idea that a rich black person will support the same economics as a poor black person. Politicians, ‘course, will be well aware o’ this complexity o’ juggling issues ‘mong various people & the need to trade what goals to support & what goals then must be sacrificed & how these decisions will affect how people o’ varying political power will affect the chances o’ their winning election.
It’s equally simplistic to ignore the importance o’ social classes & “only look @ individuals as individuals” as it is to define each individual by just 1 classes. The obvious truth is that all individuals have a # o’ classes that they share with other people.
This is the important point to make o’ the relation o’ moral goals to the people who carry them out: the web o’ cooperation & competition ‘tween different people is convoluted as hell. E’en relations as simple as spouses involves a mix o’ cooperation & competition: cooperation in paying the rent for the same house & competition in fighting o’er purchases o’er goods that serve different interests5.
“All right, you’ve sperged on quite ‘nough, Prof. Mezun; but you’re scaring the other park attendees & you’ve been hogging that public bench for 2 weeks, so could you please come with us.”
¡Hands off me, fascists! ¡You’ll ne’er destroy my Fornits!
Also, I just realized I spelled their name wrong before. I think I mistook them for that 1-hobo show Kapitalism 101.
Anyway, they wrote an article that is essentially a superior version o’ my admittedly lame 1 (last year’s was much mo’ clever; probably ’cause I wasn’t up past midnight feverishly trying to coble it into some coherency). ¿Why didn’t I think to look @ what Thomas “This Ain’t Yogurt” Friedman said (“Duh, I don’t know anything ’bout anything, but my gut tells me it’s some vague abstract feeling o’ homelessness”)? I highly recommend you read it all.
But the best is the coup de grâce:
If this were Japan, we’d be seeing Democrat Party leaders committing seppuku, or cutting off their little fingers or — supposing them not to be gangsters — ritually and tearfully bowing to the people they betrayed. This being America, and these being Democrats, they are feverishly deploying the Blame Cannons at racist and sexist #BernieBros, Johnson, Stein, and the dogs who wouldn’t eat the dog food. These assclowns will only leave office if they’re whipped out with scorpions. So get to it, Sanders supporters. This is your time.
Damn, that’s some righteous anger. This’ll make me forgive the fact that you guys had on that clown, Phillip Pilkington–or as he’s called when he’s with his D&D buddies @ “Lord Keynes”‘s basement, “The Illusionist.”
I was going to continue writing ’bout liberal tears o’er Hairpiece’s victory–god, I still refuse to believe that wasn’t a psychedelic hallucination last night–but lost interest after I literally had to restart my computer ’cause Daily Kos’s website is such utter fucking sluggish trash. Seriously, ¿you truly hope to be for the working class when someone with a Core i5 with 4GB RAM can’t fucking handle your websites? ¿With what kind o’ scripting sludge & multimedia muck did your pretentious clown o’ a web designer clog your website?
(God damn it, now Naked Kapitalism is doing it. I love these dumbass fucking websites that continue to load shit with their god awful scripts e’en after I explicitly click the X that tells them to shut the fuck up & stop loading shit.)
But, anyway, ‘stead I somehow ran into this hilarious article:
In victory for Big Envelope, feds will mail Social Security statements
I love how laissy libs have so li’l self-awareness in their tiny bubble that they think terms like “Big Envelope” sound scary or important @ all.
O, no, now the vile feds are “wasting” 72 million a year on a convenience that, he himself seems to claim, benefits 73% o’ Americans. If this idiot actually knew anything ’bout economics, & didn’t have as his only reference a website that doesn’t e’en work, he’d know that 72 million a year is birdseed considering what the federal government spends yearly &–which is, itself, not that much, compared to most o’ the world.
But then, “Big Envelope” is much easier–ironically ’cause it’s not big @ all–to complain ’bout, ‘specially when one has no true problems in one’s life &, ‘stead, wastes time whining ’bout the most frivolous trifles rather than actual real-world tragedies.
But, O yeah, pretend like you’re truly sticking it to the man, rich guy who does nothing but whine.
