The Sage Garden

[IceSpear]

With Snowstalker on hiatus, this once flourishing garden will soon wither away.

Good riddance. This thread largely serves as a means by which liberals and assorted 'lefties' attack actual lefties and people who dare to have an ideological preference or consistency beyond 'muh Democrats'

Well, at least you posted directly into the garden this time. TNF, you seem to be trying to fill the Snowstalker void yourself.

I have no qualms about my posts being posted here, given that this thread seems to be little more than a liberal circlejerk self-congratulating itself on how 'reasonable' they are compared to us unwashed lefties, who actually believe in something other than 'muh barack obama' and 'muh hillary clinton'. You seem to be attempting to try and make yourself into something other than a generic red avatar sh**tposter, and doing a fairly awful job at it, if I may say so. I'd recommend just not posting altogether, given that it would literally have the same affect on this forum as the rest of your 'contributions' here.

To be fair, a circlejerk about how reasonable we are is pretty warranted when supposed leftists talk about how they'd support Alan Keyes over Obama without a hint of sarcasm.

[bedstuy]

Guntaker, calling TNF sage is ridiculous and misses the point entirely. Someone who has actually studied and sincerely believes in Marxist principles as opposed to simply regurgitating something they found on Wikipedia is not a sage scholar. It's unfortunate that this thread has been misappropriated in such a manner.

I'm not totally aware of the definition of "sage," or who exactly qualifies as sagacious.  But, as far as I can tell, TNF doesn't really have much of an intellectual foundation or an analytical mind.  He just sort of parrots slogans.  I would actually be surprised if he had studied Marxism at an academic or broad-based level.  I actually respect people who try out different perspectives on politics more than people who adopt a fixed, totalistic ideology and shout people down with slogans like a Maoist fanatic.  

[TNF]

With Snowstalker on hiatus, this once flourishing garden will soon wither away.

Good riddance. This thread largely serves as a means by which liberals and assorted 'lefties' attack actual lefties and people who dare to have an ideological preference or consistency beyond 'muh Democrats'

Are you implying anyone who is a Democrat or Republican has no ideology?

What I am implying is that this thread exists to attack people who dare to have actual principles, which they do not subsequently subsume to the needs of 'muh democrats' and 'muh republicans'. The fact that there's almost uniform agreement among red avatars (even the supposed progressive ones) that the worst slimy, disgusting turd of a corporate Democrat is better than supporting a principled left-winger answers your question in an of itself. Republicans and Democrats on Atlas are certainly ideological, but only in the sense that the ideology they subscribe to is 'Republicanism' or 'Democratism'.

[TNF]

Guntaker, calling TNF sage is ridiculous and misses the point entirely. Someone who has actually studied and sincerely believes in Marxist principles as opposed to simply regurgitating something they found on Wikipedia is not a sage scholar. It's unfortunate that this thread has been misappropriated in such a manner.

I'm not totally aware of the definition of "sage," or who exactly qualifies as sagacious.  But, as far as I can tell, TNF doesn't really have much of an intellectual foundation or an analytical mind.  He just sort of parrots slogans.  I would actually be surprised if he had studied Marxism at an academic or broad-based level.  I actually respect people who try out different perspectives on politics more than people who adopt a fixed, totalistic ideology and shout people down with slogans like a Maoist fanatic. 

This is hilarious, given that you subscribe to the fixed, totalistic ideologies of American hegemony, Zionism, and liberalism.

[IceSpear]

With Snowstalker on hiatus, this once flourishing garden will soon wither away.

Good riddance. This thread largely serves as a means by which liberals and assorted 'lefties' attack actual lefties and people who dare to have an ideological preference or consistency beyond 'muh Democrats'

Are you implying anyone who is a Democrat or Republican has no ideology?

What I am implying is that this thread exists to attack people who dare to have actual principles, which they do not subsequently subsume to the needs of 'muh democrats' and 'muh republicans'. The fact that there's almost uniform agreement among red avatars (even the supposed progressive ones) that the worst slimy, disgusting turd of a corporate Democrat is better than supporting a principled left-winger answers your question in an of itself. Republicans and Democrats on Atlas are certainly ideological, but only in the sense that the ideology they subscribe to is 'Republicanism' or 'Democratism'.

Or it's just that people have an ideology, then pick the party which best fits it that actually has a chance of winning. That's kind of how it works in a first past the post two-party system, otherwise you marginalize yourself and actually end up helping the people you're diametrically opposed to.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Guntaker, calling TNF sage is ridiculous and misses the point entirely. Someone who has actually studied and sincerely believes in Marxist principles as opposed to simply regurgitating something they found on Wikipedia is not a sage scholar. It's unfortunate that this thread has been misappropriated in such a manner.

I'm not totally aware of the definition of "sage," or who exactly qualifies as sagacious.  But, as far as I can tell, TNF doesn't really have much of an intellectual foundation or an analytical mind.  He just sort of parrots slogans.  I would actually be surprised if he had studied Marxism at an academic or broad-based level.  I actually respect people who try out different perspectives on politics more than people who adopt a fixed, totalistic ideology and shout people down with slogans like a Maoist fanatic. 

This is hilarious, given that you subscribe to the fixed, totalistic ideologies of American hegemony, Zionism, and liberalism.

Now, this most definitely qualifies as sage.

[bedstuy]

Guntaker, calling TNF sage is ridiculous and misses the point entirely. Someone who has actually studied and sincerely believes in Marxist principles as opposed to simply regurgitating something they found on Wikipedia is not a sage scholar. It's unfortunate that this thread has been misappropriated in such a manner.

I'm not totally aware of the definition of "sage," or who exactly qualifies as sagacious.  But, as far as I can tell, TNF doesn't really have much of an intellectual foundation or an analytical mind.  He just sort of parrots slogans.  I would actually be surprised if he had studied Marxism at an academic or broad-based level.  I actually respect people who try out different perspectives on politics more than people who adopt a fixed, totalistic ideology and shout people down with slogans like a Maoist fanatic. 

This is hilarious, given that you subscribe to the fixed, totalistic ideologies of American hegemony, Zionism, and liberalism.

Thanks for proving my point.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

TNF, you're hurting me here.

[Oakvale]

Sage is like pornography, guys. You know it when you see it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sage is like pornography, guys. You know it when you see it.

Well, I saw it.

[King]

Sage is like pornography, guys. You know it when you see it.

Well, I saw it.

You don't watch porn, though.

[TNF]

Guntaker, calling TNF sage is ridiculous and misses the point entirely. Someone who has actually studied and sincerely believes in Marxist principles as opposed to simply regurgitating something they found on Wikipedia is not a sage scholar. It's unfortunate that this thread has been misappropriated in such a manner.

I'm not totally aware of the definition of "sage," or who exactly qualifies as sagacious.  But, as far as I can tell, TNF doesn't really have much of an intellectual foundation or an analytical mind.  He just sort of parrots slogans.  I would actually be surprised if he had studied Marxism at an academic or broad-based level.  I actually respect people who try out different perspectives on politics more than people who adopt a fixed, totalistic ideology and shout people down with slogans like a Maoist fanatic. 

This is hilarious, given that you subscribe to the fixed, totalistic ideologies of American hegemony, Zionism, and liberalism.

Thanks for proving my point.

And thank you for ignoring mine. It's all well and good to call whatever I subscribe to 'totalistic' once you admit that your own systems of belief fall into that very category.

Guntaker, calling TNF sage is ridiculous and misses the point entirely. Someone who has actually studied and sincerely believes in Marxist principles as opposed to simply regurgitating something they found on Wikipedia is not a sage scholar. It's unfortunate that this thread has been misappropriated in such a manner.

I'm not totally aware of the definition of "sage," or who exactly qualifies as sagacious.  But, as far as I can tell, TNF doesn't really have much of an intellectual foundation or an analytical mind.  He just sort of parrots slogans.  I would actually be surprised if he had studied Marxism at an academic or broad-based level.  I actually respect people who try out different perspectives on politics more than people who adopt a fixed, totalistic ideology and shout people down with slogans like a Maoist fanatic. 

This is hilarious, given that you subscribe to the fixed, totalistic ideologies of American hegemony, Zionism, and liberalism.

Now, this most definitely qualifies as sage.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to this thread.

With Snowstalker on hiatus, this once flourishing garden will soon wither away.

Good riddance. This thread largely serves as a means by which liberals and assorted 'lefties' attack actual lefties and people who dare to have an ideological preference or consistency beyond 'muh Democrats'

Are you implying anyone who is a Democrat or Republican has no ideology?

What I am implying is that this thread exists to attack people who dare to have actual principles, which they do not subsequently subsume to the needs of 'muh democrats' and 'muh republicans'. The fact that there's almost uniform agreement among red avatars (even the supposed progressive ones) that the worst slimy, disgusting turd of a corporate Democrat is better than supporting a principled left-winger answers your question in an of itself. Republicans and Democrats on Atlas are certainly ideological, but only in the sense that the ideology they subscribe to is 'Republicanism' or 'Democratism'.

Or it's just that people have an ideology, then pick the party which best fits it that actually has a chance of winning. That's kind of how it works in a first past the post two-party system, otherwise you marginalize yourself and actually end up helping the people you're diametrically opposed to.

If you accept the need to participate in electoral politics, perhaps. Fortunately once you realize that the entire game is rigged and that change cannot be produced from within the system, you can stop caring about petty squabbles within the ruling elite and focus on building alternatives that are both viable and participatory, which can act as actual ways for working people and their allies to exercise power in ways wholly apart from the sham that is liberal electoralism.

[bedstuy]

Guntaker, calling TNF sage is ridiculous and misses the point entirely. Someone who has actually studied and sincerely believes in Marxist principles as opposed to simply regurgitating something they found on Wikipedia is not a sage scholar. It's unfortunate that this thread has been misappropriated in such a manner.

I'm not totally aware of the definition of "sage," or who exactly qualifies as sagacious.  But, as far as I can tell, TNF doesn't really have much of an intellectual foundation or an analytical mind.  He just sort of parrots slogans.  I would actually be surprised if he had studied Marxism at an academic or broad-based level.  I actually respect people who try out different perspectives on politics more than people who adopt a fixed, totalistic ideology and shout people down with slogans like a Maoist fanatic. 

This is hilarious, given that you subscribe to the fixed, totalistic ideologies of American hegemony, Zionism, and liberalism.

Thanks for proving my point.

And thank you for ignoring mine. It's all well and good to call whatever I subscribe to 'totalistic' once you admit that your own systems of belief fall into that very category.

No.

I have an open mind and I don't care that you disagree with me.  I do not care what you believe.  My point is that you don't seem to have a principled foundation for your beliefs and you fall back on slogans and labels.  Workers, good.  Capitalists, bad.  Four legs, good. Two legs, bad.  I don't know if that represents your actual beliefs, maybe it doesn't.  I just have never seen any evidence that you're a serious thinker.  You just seem like a doctrinaire adherent of an ideology that you support without actually critically examining it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Guntaker, calling TNF sage is ridiculous and misses the point entirely. Someone who has actually studied and sincerely believes in Marxist principles as opposed to simply regurgitating something they found on Wikipedia is not a sage scholar. It's unfortunate that this thread has been misappropriated in such a manner.

I'm not totally aware of the definition of "sage," or who exactly qualifies as sagacious.  But, as far as I can tell, TNF doesn't really have much of an intellectual foundation or an analytical mind.  He just sort of parrots slogans.  I would actually be surprised if he had studied Marxism at an academic or broad-based level.  I actually respect people who try out different perspectives on politics more than people who adopt a fixed, totalistic ideology and shout people down with slogans like a Maoist fanatic. 

This is hilarious, given that you subscribe to the fixed, totalistic ideologies of American hegemony, Zionism, and liberalism.

Now, this most definitely qualifies as sage.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to this thread.

When was this thread ever supposed to attract valuable contributions?

[free my dawg]

AggregateDemand's problem (and I realize this is going to be a 'sagepost', and I don't really care) is that he's enslaved to bad metaphors. E.g.:

If you eat 3,000 calories per day, you're going to have to burn calories to maintain healthy weight. You can lift weights to increase work output and gain muscle mass. You can run and do cardio training to increase work output and endurance. You can walk around in circles, which burns insufficient calories, and only makes you good at walking in circles.

Republicans are the people who say "If we're not going to change our workout regimen, we might as well cut government caloric intake to 2,000 calories per day, and stop walking circles". Democrats are the people who say "I can't believe Republicans think there is something better than walking in circles".

Explaining government nutritional science to American liberals is like trying to fell Ironbark with a dull spoon. Of course liberals think Republicans are anorexics. Anyone who stands between them and the buffet is fascist pig...

This is an incredibly bad set of metaphorical imagery for a few reasons, not the least of which is that society is not a metabolic organism; it does not function in predictable ways - contra the Enlightenment-era tendency to view society through a framework of essentially static images - and so there is no equivalences to 'exercise', 'overeating', 'caloric intake control', and so on. The economy is not physiological.

This is a problem with most contemporary political frameworks, and I genuinely think a lot of problems could be solved if we simply had a different imaginary vocabulary to express them in. My conception of things is much closer to smoke circulating in a fan blade, or maybe some of the more chaotic concepts emerging out of quantum physics. Conceiving of society as an essentially predictable pattern of cause-and-effect correlations is so eighteenth century.

[Meursault]

AggregateDemand's problem (and I realize this is going to be a 'sagepost', and I don't really care) is that he's enslaved to bad metaphors. E.g.:

If you eat 3,000 calories per day, you're going to have to burn calories to maintain healthy weight. You can lift weights to increase work output and gain muscle mass. You can run and do cardio training to increase work output and endurance. You can walk around in circles, which burns insufficient calories, and only makes you good at walking in circles.

Republicans are the people who say "If we're not going to change our workout regimen, we might as well cut government caloric intake to 2,000 calories per day, and stop walking circles". Democrats are the people who say "I can't believe Republicans think there is something better than walking in circles".

Explaining government nutritional science to American liberals is like trying to fell Ironbark with a dull spoon. Of course liberals think Republicans are anorexics. Anyone who stands between them and the buffet is fascist pig...

This is an incredibly bad set of metaphorical imagery for a few reasons, not the least of which is that society is not a metabolic organism; it does not function in predictable ways - contra the Enlightenment-era tendency to view society through a framework of essentially static images - and so there is no equivalences to 'exercise', 'overeating', 'caloric intake control', and so on. The economy is not physiological.

This is a problem with most contemporary political frameworks, and I genuinely think a lot of problems could be solved if we simply had a different imaginary vocabulary to express them in. My conception of things is much closer to smoke circulating in a fan blade, or maybe some of the more chaotic concepts emerging out of quantum physics. Conceiving of society as an essentially predictable pattern of cause-and-effect correlations is so eighteenth century.

I get the feeling I'm going to be featured a lot in this thread.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

AggregateDemand's problem (and I realize this is going to be a 'sagepost', and I don't really care) is that he's enslaved to bad metaphors. E.g.:

If you eat 3,000 calories per day, you're going to have to burn calories to maintain healthy weight. You can lift weights to increase work output and gain muscle mass. You can run and do cardio training to increase work output and endurance. You can walk around in circles, which burns insufficient calories, and only makes you good at walking in circles.

Republicans are the people who say "If we're not going to change our workout regimen, we might as well cut government caloric intake to 2,000 calories per day, and stop walking circles". Democrats are the people who say "I can't believe Republicans think there is something better than walking in circles".

Explaining government nutritional science to American liberals is like trying to fell Ironbark with a dull spoon. Of course liberals think Republicans are anorexics. Anyone who stands between them and the buffet is fascist pig...

This is an incredibly bad set of metaphorical imagery for a few reasons, not the least of which is that society is not a metabolic organism; it does not function in predictable ways - contra the Enlightenment-era tendency to view society through a framework of essentially static images - and so there is no equivalences to 'exercise', 'overeating', 'caloric intake control', and so on. The economy is not physiological.

This is a problem with most contemporary political frameworks, and I genuinely think a lot of problems could be solved if we simply had a different imaginary vocabulary to express them in. My conception of things is much closer to smoke circulating in a fan blade, or maybe some of the more chaotic concepts emerging out of quantum physics. Conceiving of society as an essentially predictable pattern of cause-and-effect correlations is so eighteenth century.

I get the feeling I'm going to be featured a lot in this thread.

That's not really a good sign. Also (for some constructive criticism), comparing economics to "some of the more chaotic concepts emerging out of quantum physics" is probably the worst metaphor I've ever seen. The point of metaphors and suchlike is to make things easier to understand, hence AD's admittedly flawed cake rant, and quantum physics is probably the single hardest thing to understand in the world.

[traininthedistance]

That's not really a good sign. Also (for some constructive criticism), comparing economics to "some of the more chaotic concepts emerging out of quantum physics" is probably the worst metaphor I've ever seen. The point of metaphors and suchlike is to make things easier to understand, hence AD's admittedly flawed cake rant, and quantum physics is probably the single hardest thing to understand in the world.

Not to speak for Mersault or anything... but I'm pretty sure that's his point.  You may disagree with his contention that economics is almost wholly unfathomable by normal Euclidean (so to speak) methods, but the metaphor was, I'd argue, very precisely and well chosen for the point he's trying to advance.

Does that make sense?

[Meursault]

Exactly so. And it's not just economics but really all social processes that are nebulous, incomprehensible - like steam vapor or smoke.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

That's not really a good sign. Also (for some constructive criticism), comparing economics to "some of the more chaotic concepts emerging out of quantum physics" is probably the worst metaphor I've ever seen. The point of metaphors and suchlike is to make things easier to understand, hence AD's admittedly flawed cake rant, and quantum physics is probably the single hardest thing to understand in the world.

Not to speak for Mersault or anything... but I'm pretty sure that's his point.  You may disagree with his contention that economics is almost wholly unfathomable by normal Euclidean (so to speak) methods, but the metaphor was, I'd argue, very precisely and well chosen for the point he's trying to advance.

Does that make sense?

So Mr. Meursault's just arguing against this metaphoricization (correct word?) of big issues by pointing out that no one can really understand them? If that's the case, then I understand.

[muon2]

That's not really a good sign. Also (for some constructive criticism), comparing economics to "some of the more chaotic concepts emerging out of quantum physics" is probably the worst metaphor I've ever seen. The point of metaphors and suchlike is to make things easier to understand, hence AD's admittedly flawed cake rant, and quantum physics is probably the single hardest thing to understand in the world.

Not to speak for Mersault or anything... but I'm pretty sure that's his point.  You may disagree with his contention that economics is almost wholly unfathomable by normal Euclidean (so to speak) methods, but the metaphor was, I'd argue, very precisely and well chosen for the point he's trying to advance.

Does that make sense?

So Mr. Meursault's just arguing against this metaphoricization (correct word?) of big issues by pointing out that no one can really understand them? If that's the case, then I understand.

But if that's true it does start to border on sage.

I do like his analogy to aspects of fluids and quantum statistical processes. Society has a similarly large number of individual elements and variables that make strict predictability fail.  However, if that is the analogy I wouldn't go into the sage territory of saying no one can understand them, because even chaotic fluid flow such as smoke can be understood in a larger sense by setting parameters of operation. Ie, certain things that are physically possible won't happen in a specific chaotic system and that provides understanding of the limits of possible behavior.

[traininthedistance]

That's not really a good sign. Also (for some constructive criticism), comparing economics to "some of the more chaotic concepts emerging out of quantum physics" is probably the worst metaphor I've ever seen. The point of metaphors and suchlike is to make things easier to understand, hence AD's admittedly flawed cake rant, and quantum physics is probably the single hardest thing to understand in the world.

Not to speak for Mersault or anything... but I'm pretty sure that's his point.  You may disagree with his contention that economics is almost wholly unfathomable by normal Euclidean (so to speak) methods, but the metaphor was, I'd argue, very precisely and well chosen for the point he's trying to advance.

Does that make sense?

So Mr. Meursault's just arguing against this metaphoricization (correct word?) of big issues by pointing out that no one can really understand them? If that's the case, then I understand.

But if that's true it does start to border on sage.

I do like his analogy to aspects of fluids and quantum statistical processes. Society has a similarly large number of individual elements and variables that make strict predictability fail.  However, if that is the analogy I wouldn't go into the sage territory of saying no one can understand them, because even chaotic fluid flow such as smoke can be understood in a larger sense by setting parameters of operation. Ie, certain things that are physically possible won't happen in a specific chaotic system and that provides understanding of the limits of possible behavior.

FWIW I agree with this exactly.  Yes, economics and social processes are far more complex and chaotic than the simplistic neoclassical understanding of such, and economists could stand to be a lot more humble and less in love with their models and their priors.  But, we do have the ability to model chaotic and/or emergent processes to a point, and we likewise do have the ability to understand economics and other social processes, to a point.  We're not flying completely blind here, that's obviously silly.  I thus have a good deal of sympathy with Mersault's POV, while at the same time not really agreeing with it much.

[free my dawg]

3. Cons constantly sabotage libertarian and neoliberal policy, which helps the left-wing machine retain some bureaucratic power.

[MATTROSE94]

I'm sure the denizens of Baghdad, Belgrade, and Balboa would disagree with the notion that Russia is the most aggressive and violent of the great powers.

[Oakvale]

"The Muslim"

Of course the Muslim is ready for democracy. In many ways he is more purely democratic than the Western man. And therein lies the problem: Islamic democracy is an illiberal democracy; it chooses raw majoritarianism over selective protectioms for minorities. Don't criticize Islam for being incompatible with democracy, then, but with liberalism.

Let this be a reminder that Einzige was the original pseud, far overshadowing Snowstalker's comparatively mild sage scholarship.