tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7833674319826768191.post6941622504029350507..comments2024-03-13T00:33:46.104-07:00Comments on Bob Einstein's Literary Equations: Debating Ignorance On The Internet And Specifically FacebookMatt Rowanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13279336765708594789noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7833674319826768191.post-10064916483466877032012-08-13T13:38:05.605-07:002012-08-13T13:38:05.605-07:00Yeah, I get what you're saying. I'm all fo...Yeah, I get what you're saying. I'm all for democratization of knowledge, which is what turned me away from Academia (I stopped all academic endeavors upon completion of master degree). I mean, it's not necessary for a mechanic to understand Deleuze (especially not freaking Deleuze), but somewhere in history art and entertainement have clashed and it became frowned upon and "ghettoized" (not sure if it's the right expression) to think about what you see and analyze whether you're being dealt garbage or not. Some people have taken on themselves to be the middle ground in between secluded academia thinking and the everyman. Henry Rollins, Chuck Klosterman and to a certain extent David Foster Wallace. I like to think I'm one of those guys.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11483490020980574428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7833674319826768191.post-56193687580726374552012-08-13T13:27:28.220-07:002012-08-13T13:27:28.220-07:00Might be worth its own blog post, honestly. I do t...Might be worth its own blog post, honestly. I do try to tell my students that knowing fewer words is relinquishing freedom because on the one hand you reduce your own ability to communicate your thoughts while simultaneous lessening what you're capable of understanding. And as if there's any question language is used against us, I direct your attention to the needlessly complex documents and whatnot that accompany different forms of insurance and other bs. Yes, the company needs to be able to protect itself legally, but it seems to often do so while at the same time looking for ways to make things less accessible for its customers. Matt Rowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13279336765708594789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7833674319826768191.post-34934006653357424432012-08-13T12:23:38.367-07:002012-08-13T12:23:38.367-07:00Hopefully so, yeah.
Have you noticed that public ...Hopefully so, yeah.<br /><br />Have you noticed that public intellectuals have been so busy quoting Orwell left and right, "Orwell, this", "Orwellian, that" that we've kind came up to it from another angle. People are suffering terrible injustice all around the world, even in our own backyard and people shrug it off and go watch "Jersey Shore". It's easy to say "what can you do?" if the only thing you do is to watch shitty television and sit around. <br /><br />Language is starting to get skewered, kids talk with letters in their words and argue that Justin Bieber has more twitter followers than Kurt Cobain, so that he must be more popular. We pay to rewatch the same movies done again and again. We worship charismatic figures. Fuck, I was reading Christopher Hitchens the other day and I had hard time with his vocabulary. I have difficulty focus on books that have more than five hundred pages.<br /><br />Culture is diluted, criticism became a competition of slogans. Intellectuals are becoming more and more irrelevant, academics are writing theses about Sex and The City and The Hills, trying to buy value to their sloppy tastes. I think we live in Orwellia.<br /><br />I know it doesn't have much to do with anything we were talking about, but after that discussion, I thought maybe you would understand that. Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11483490020980574428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7833674319826768191.post-40214162558431877902012-08-13T12:04:44.027-07:002012-08-13T12:04:44.027-07:00Again, I agree. At a certain point the "smoke...Again, I agree. At a certain point the "smoke and mirror" approach of deflecting problems onto some scapegoat will lose its impact. (As long as we remain far enough away from the fascists and communists that once ruled Europe.) At that point change will have to come, and my hope is that it comes in a very peaceful manner. Matt Rowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13279336765708594789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7833674319826768191.post-25332446747818933262012-08-13T11:34:17.185-07:002012-08-13T11:34:17.185-07:00I'm drifting a little here, but point is, if i...I'm drifting a little here, but point is, if it continues to be handled like this, supporters of both parties won't have a house and will be extremely angry.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11483490020980574428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7833674319826768191.post-7750560750786565602012-08-13T11:33:09.533-07:002012-08-13T11:33:09.533-07:00I do am extremely cynical about leaving this polit...I do am extremely cynical about leaving this political dead-end we're caught with (we have a similar deal in Canada). I have this theory that middle class is needed to make the current economic model function and that its nature is comfort. If you have a home to come back to, a family to take care of, an entertainment industry to take stressful issues off your shoulders, you're not going to revolt or do anything like that. <br /><br />I do think that when it's going to go, American politics (and much worldwide) are going to change. It's going to get simpler. Totally hypothetical example. If 50 million people lose their homes while Hank Paulson goes skysurfing in Pasadena with a gold-plated parachute while high-fiving the Prince of Abu Dhabi, people will want to hang bankers by the testicles. It won't matter how many Ayn Rand quotes he can splurt out in a minutes.<br /><br />I just don't see how it can do anything else but breaking.<br /><br />Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11483490020980574428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7833674319826768191.post-64541466805085008802012-08-13T11:13:37.748-07:002012-08-13T11:13:37.748-07:00I agree, although I do think the "us vs. them...I agree, although I do think the "us vs. them" philosophy is more attributable originally to Republicans, first the talking heads who co-opted the party, and then the politicians who realized the political capital there was to gain by embracing divisive rhetoric. All of which more or less came about for the age old reason of consolidating power among a certain group of people, and yes, I do believe the wealthiest Americans have benefited and continue benefiting most from this, even if there are many among them who see this trend as ultimately harmful for everyone, not just those operating on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. <br /><br />The biggest reason communism of the European model didn't gain the kind of traction here that it did elsewhere is largely attributable to the rise of unions and the strengthening of the American middle class in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Not everyone needs to be a millionaire (or billionaire) to be happy (I consider myself one of them), but they do need to feel they can live a comfortable life. Call it "pacification" if you're feeling cynical; I'm not. <br /><br />So anyway, coming full circle, do I think the Democrats have adopted the same sorts of divisive tactics, and what's more, operate with similarly self-serving financial ends in terms of policy making? Yes. As for reasonable politicians of the past, hell, Barry Goldwater was a fount of considered conservatism in most ways, especially where condemning ineffective, divisive socially conservative rhetoric was concerned. <br /><br />But I suppose at a certain point it doesn't matter who started it. It just matters that we find a way to end it and start treating one another with civility and compassion. Matt Rowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13279336765708594789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7833674319826768191.post-13571380481738145742012-08-13T11:01:55.158-07:002012-08-13T11:01:55.158-07:00You know, I've watched the remake of FOOTLOOSE...You know, I've watched the remake of FOOTLOOSE last week-end and they did something interesting. They changed Uncle Wes into this very bright, witty overall-wearing redneck who stands up for his now-Boston-native nephew. I thought it was interesting thing to represent a redneck as something else than slogan-saying idiot that doesn't like to question things. <br /><br />That said, political parties (in the US and everywhere) adresses what suits their "typical voter" and considers everybody else the enemy. I understand the farmers to freak out at the Democrats economic policies, because it doesn't pay attention to their needs at all. What the hell do you want them to do but get angry and defensive?<br /><br />I also understand the city dwellers to freak out at the Republican's foreign policy, especially since it's been hijacked for shadowy purposes. Their lifestyle allows them to see the consequence of their country's action a lot more than midland farmers who work eighty hours a week and look for entertainment in their small windows of relaxation. I know my point is somewhat obvious here. Politicians don't address people as if they were intelligent and capable of reasoning. <br /><br />Barack Obama kinda did during his last campaign (the keyword here is kinda) and I suppose Republicans had some great candidates before. I just don't remember them. Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11483490020980574428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7833674319826768191.post-37473224815589414982012-08-13T10:03:15.632-07:002012-08-13T10:03:15.632-07:00Also, I like that spammer. Adds a cosmopolitan qua...Also, I like that spammer. Adds a cosmopolitan quality to the discussion.Matt Rowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13279336765708594789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7833674319826768191.post-58295698947209410982012-08-13T10:00:49.489-07:002012-08-13T10:00:49.489-07:00Yeah, that's why I opted to squelch it, the wh...Yeah, that's why I opted to squelch it, the whole debate, and just move on (a little wiser?). I don't think there's anything offensive about noting this Salon article (talking up the effects of the Ryan veep selection) and its pretty interesting breakdown of the differences between conservatives and liberals, which tends to come down to clannishness vs. inclusion. It pretty well sums up why it's so difficult to come to a common understanding. One side simply isn't looking for common understanding. They're largely (as a demographic) looking for affirmation. <br /><br />http://www.salon.com/2012/08/13/why_romneys_choice_is_smart_salpart/<br /><br />"The conservatives and Republicans know what team they are on — and that tribal identity is more important to them than any idea of hegemonic cultural identity could possibly be to liberals. For one, the conservative team is almost totally white, and far more homogenous, while more than 43 percent of Obama’s supporters are people of color. Add in that conservative brand of resentment — the “makers versus the takers” — and it becomes clear who represents the conservative notion of a “maker.” With Ryan as the standard-bearer for the self-described “makers,” the team has its galvanizer." <br /><br />It's why I can present plenty of cited evidence for my position and still be referred to as a "peabrain lib" -- despite that I wouldn't even refer to myself as categorically a liberal. And what's more it's better NOT to subscribe to obvious labels and look for "-isms" to guide your worldview. Yes, I sympathize with the left-leaning worldview but I'm not opposed to considering the merits of other systems of belief, and often, agreeing with them. Matt Rowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13279336765708594789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7833674319826768191.post-39153757450089896332012-08-13T09:37:11.556-07:002012-08-13T09:37:11.556-07:00You totally got an intellectual spammer btw.You totally got an intellectual spammer btw.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11483490020980574428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7833674319826768191.post-84957349302151082742012-08-13T09:36:27.786-07:002012-08-13T09:36:27.786-07:00You're very unlikely to find an interesting ar...You're very unlikely to find an interesting argument on the internet. Or an argument that will "lead somewhere". Facebook is the loud-and-proud place where people love to say whatever they feel like because the social outcome is under their absolute control. Twitter is for witty one liners and you can't transport a Twitter convo to Facebook, at least not in public because the loud-and-proud vultures will eat you alive and make your convo derail to Kanye West photoshops. You can always try to have an image debate on Pintestest, but good luck.<br /><br />Would your debate have been different in person? I doubt it. The internet gives you the rawest pulsions of the human nature because there is a godlike feeling to be sitting behind a screen. I think the result would have been the same, but yeah. I can't understand what a Ronald Reagan apologist has to say for himself. But they talk a lot. I mean, Bill O'Reilly is still employed...Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11483490020980574428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7833674319826768191.post-19540838787207781322012-08-13T07:19:18.792-07:002012-08-13T07:19:18.792-07:00Einstein publie sa théorie de la relativité restre...Einstein publie sa théorie de la relativité restreinte en 1905, et une théorie de la gravitation dite relativité générale en 1915. Il contribue largement au développement de la mécanique quantique et de la cosmologie.<br />pour savoir plus regardez le documentaire suivant: <a href="http://documentaires-fr.blogspot.com/2012/08/einstein-1905-lannee-lumiere.html" rel="nofollow">Einstein - 1905, l'année lumière</a>yes_iam_redahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02755295125579780654noreply@blogger.com