1087: "Cirith Ungol"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby eran_rathan » Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:23 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:Not bad, I similarly use the label "naive anarchist" to mean much the same. "If men were angels, this would be heaven, as I am no angel, the best I can do is try to keep it from turning into hell."



(nods) My position generally follows Prof. de la Paz's.

"I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby J Thomas » Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:34 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:
J Thomas wrote:
Max™ wrote:Just had to note, as a true libertarian (i.e. an anarchist who favors liberty) I am not irate over someone being unable to choose which evil they would prefer to inflict on another.

I am irate over there being a political party that so exemplifies irony they aren't even aware of the irony of being in favor of hyper-capitalist political positions and calling yourselves "The Libertarian Party", as there is nothing libertarian about the vast majority of those positions... unless you think corporations are actually people and deserve all the liberty they can get... but that's just awful.


You have described your opinions before, and you are not a libertarian by the accepted meaning of the word. You are probably a libertarian in some deep philosophical sense, the sort of sense that Thomas Jefferson and Jesus were communists, but not by the accepted meaning.

Accepted by whom?


By the US mass media and the large majority of Americans who use the word.

I ask because a little perspective might help explain my statement.

Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social in New York between 1858 and 1861 while the use of the term "libertarian communism" dates from November, 1880 when a French anarchist congress adopted it. [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 75 and p. 145] The use of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire -- The Libertarian -- in France in 1895, for example). Since then, particularly outside America, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements. Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based "Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas (and 90 years after the expression "libertarian communism" was first adopted).


This is like saying that the original meaning of "liberal" amounted to free trade, personal liberties, and pretty much everything that old-wave "conservatives" said they believed in. It can be historically true and yet have no relationship to the language as it is currently used.

The accepted meaning boils down to this:

Everybody in the world has the absolute right to do whatever they want, provided they don't do bad things. Me and my friends will decide what's bad,

They don't say it quite that way, but that's exactly what it boils down to.

It's hard to start there and end up someplace ironical.

Interesting, where did you get that?


I listened to a whole bunch of libertarians, and paid attention to what they said, and then I boiled it down to that. LIbertarians agree that everybody has the absolute right to make their own choices. But they also agree that bad things should not happen, that people do not have the right to trample other people's rights. When asked how to decide who has which rights, in hypothetical situations, they usually decide on the spot who's right and who's wrong based on their own beliefs about right and wrong. Sometimes they disagree. They often disagree about how to enforce their decisions, how to make sure that people do the right things instead of wrong things. But they definitely agree that they have the right to decide how morality will be enforced.

.....

Just taking those two first definitions and fusing them yields:

LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM: a social system which believes in freedom of action and thought and free will, in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.


Yes. By a similar process I started saying that politically I am with the "radical center". But later somebody more important grabbed the phrase and if I say that now, some people will think I agree with him. Which I often do, but not enough to give myself his label.

Given the origin of the word, I'm going to continue using it as I do, and pointing out that the US Libertarian Party appropriated it and attempt to spin it as "freedom for those with money and engaged in capitalist enterprises to do what they want without government interference", more or less what you said, "me and my friends will decide what is bad", that doesn't mean they're using the word properly.


Some people tell other people that they are using the language wrong. It happens. The first time I noticed it, I was in the 2nd week of first grade and the teacher told Larry Corbin to do something and he said OK. She slapped him in the face and told the class that "OK" was slang and not really english and we were never to use that word. I don't think I'd ever seen anybody get slapped before, though of course I'd been spanked up to around age 4. A couple of hours later she told me to do something and I said OK. Then I realized what I'd done and I waited to get slapped in the face. She told me that OK was slang and not really english and we were never to use that word, and she didn't slap me. I think the next couple of minutes were the first time I realized that we had a class system, and I was not at the bottom of it.

I'm certainly not going to tell you not to use your words however you want. People will tend to misunderstand, but maybe somehow you will get enough other people to talk your way that the accepted meanings will shift.

The US Libertarian Party is as libertarian as The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is a republic which practices democracy for it's people.


Sure, by your reasoning. It could also make sense that they feel government is the greatest evil and they want to weaken government. If evil corporations grab power that's only an unfortunate side effect of the good they want to do. Many of them believe that giant corporations are only important because the government has set up rules that make them important, and without a strong government the big corporations will wither away. I think this is directly parallel to the traditional communist belief that after evil capitalism stops destroying the world then governments will also wither away. But when I suggested that to libertarians they said it wasn't like that at all.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby J Thomas » Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:49 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
Max™ wrote:The US Libertarian Party is as libertarian as The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is a republic which practices democracy for it's people.


This is why i prefer the term 'rational anarchist' (re: 'the Moon is a Harsh Mistress', R.A. Heinlien).

“A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.”


I like that. However, as a sort of nitpick, for myself I separate responsibility and blame. They are two entirely separate things.

You can take responsibility. That has nothing to do with whether other people blame you for results, or whether you blame yourself.

If someone "holds you responsible" it means they "blame you if they don't like what happens". Blame often takes place between humans, and not just inside humans singly. Blame is a social interaction, that people can simulate inside themselves as if they were multiple people having conversations.

Democracy is the process by which people choose the man who’ll get the blame. – Bertrand Russell
We believe that to err is human. To blame it on someone else is politics. – Hubert Humprey
The man who can smile when things go wrong has thought of someone else he can blame it on.

But you can take responsibility independent of that. You can choose to do what you can to further the purposes you choose, and it has nothing to do with whether someone blames you for anything they don't like. If you choose to take responsibility, one of the tools you can use is to blame people for not doing what you want. You can use that tool when you think it will be an effective way to further your purposes.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby eran_rathan » Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:04 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:
Max™ wrote:The US Libertarian Party is as libertarian as The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is a republic which practices democracy for it's people.


This is why i prefer the term 'rational anarchist' (re: 'the Moon is a Harsh Mistress', R.A. Heinlien).

“A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.”


I like that. However, as a sort of nitpick, for myself I separate responsibility and blame. They are two entirely separate things.

You can take responsibility. That has nothing to do with whether other people blame you for results, or whether you blame yourself.

If someone "holds you responsible" it means they "blame you if they don't like what happens". Blame often takes place between humans, and not just inside humans singly. Blame is a social interaction, that people can simulate inside themselves as if they were multiple people having conversations.


Yeah, I can roll with that - though I would add that even if someone blames you, you don't have to accept responsibility (cf. Republicans vs. Obama).
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5382
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Aug 27, 2012 6:38 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:“A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.”

The academic term for this position (or one very similar to it, at least) is philosophical anarchism, "an anarchist school of thought which contends that the state lacks moral legitimacy while not supporting violence to eliminate it. Though philosophical anarchism does not necessarily imply any action or desire for the elimination of the State, philosophical anarchists do not believe that they have an obligation or duty to obey the State, or conversely, that the State has a right to command".

J Thomas wrote:By the US mass media and the large majority of Americans who use the word.

Hordes of morons, then. It is right for us to protest the misuse of language when it reduces the usefulness of that language, such as by leaving us without a word for a certain idea or concept. What is someone who holds to Max's position supposed to call himself now, since "liberal" has been coopted by state socialists, "libertarian" has been coopted by corporatists, and "anarchist" has been coopted by molotov-throwing rioters?

This is like saying that the original meaning of "liberal" amounted to free trade, personal liberties, and pretty much everything that old-wave "conservatives" said they believed in.

Those are actually comparatively new-wave conservatives who adopted (some semblance of) the trappings of classical liberalism. The really old-wave conservatives have more in common with the current crop of conservatives in America: unabashed concentration of power in the hands of those who already have it, and damn the peasants. Their original opponents were classical liberals who said that the state shouldn't be favoring the powerful over the powerless but instead treat everyone equally, liberally. Later that ideology drifted into the position that the state should actually favor the powerless over the powerful, becoming modern "liberalism" (now a misnomer), and those liberals who still liked the original, literal liberalism thus became "conservative" in opposing changes they felt went too far (or back the way we came from, to statism). But there's always still been the original conservatives too, and they found ways to continue their favored hierarchy of power while talking the (classical) liberal talk, attracting many classical liberals to their parties. Now more and more classical liberals are realizing that they don't want to be in bed with classical conservatives, and started calling themselves something else -- libertarians -- but both the old conservatives and the new liberals are trying to keep their false dichotomy by lumping libertarians in with the old conservatives. So what do true liberals, true libertarians, people literally in favor of liberty for all and not allowing any coercive power hierarchies, call themselves now? Anarchists? That is the literal logical conclusion, but call yourself that in a group of strangers and watch them back away slowly and fear you're going to blow something up soon.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby J Thomas » Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:23 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:“A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.”

The academic term for this position (or one very similar to it, at least) is philosophical anarchism, "an anarchist school of thought which contends that the state lacks moral legitimacy while not supporting violence to eliminate it. Though philosophical anarchism does not necessarily imply any action or desire for the elimination of the State, philosophical anarchists do not believe that they have an obligation or duty to obey the State, or conversely, that the State has a right to command".


The author was probably familiar with philosophical anarchism, note the text:
"But--Professor, what are your political beliefs?"

"I'm a rational anarchist."

"I don't know that brand. Anarchist individualist, anarchist Communist, Christian anarchist, philosophical anarchist, syndicalist, libertarian--those I know. But what's this? Randite?"

"I can get along with a Randite. A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame... as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else.


He didn't say how his vision was different from "philosophical anarchism", he just said what he believed in. (Or course, claiming to get along with Randites is an assertion of unusual diplomatic skills.)

J Thomas wrote:By the US mass media and the large majority of Americans who use the word.

Hordes of morons, then. It is right for us to protest the misuse of language when it reduces the usefulness of that language, such as by leaving us without a word for a certain idea or concept. What is someone who holds to Max's position supposed to call himself now, since "liberal" has been coopted by state socialists, "libertarian" has been coopted by corporatists, and "anarchist" has been coopted by molotov-throwing rioters?


Say what you want. Say what you mean.

Let's suppose for a moment that powerful people who control media chokepoints will try to control the buzzwords. If you get involved in some sort of intellectual ferment that spills over into politics, they will try to discredit you and your ideas. If they can get away with it they will call you a communist or a liberal or a far-right nut or say you are religious. If you don't fit into any of the categories but you start to look important, they will make up a new category to put you in and discredit. I doubt that there is anybody in politics or government or in conspiracies that control things who thinks that far ahead, but let's just suppose. If you start a movement and give it a name, it will get such bad press that a lot of people will ignore you on general principle.

Then why not push each individual idea on its own? Say for example that you like the idea of proxies. US corporations use them all the time. But you could run an organization that way, almost like direct democracy. You have a vote. You can give it to somebody you trust who represents you, who votes for you. You can take your vote back any time, and maybe give it to somebody else. You can give one person your vote on one issue and somebody else on another issue. We have the technology to handle that, particularly if we don't try to keep the results secret. So OK, you push your idea but not as part of a single movement of people who agree about a lot of ideas. Each idea that seems like plain common sense can spread without a particular source to tar it with. Some party might take it up and then people will tend to ignore it because it's theirs, but you can't help that.

If you can't win the buzzword battle, maybe you can flank it.

This is like saying that the original meaning of "liberal" amounted to free trade, personal liberties, and pretty much everything that old-wave "conservatives" said they believed in.

Those are actually comparatively new-wave conservatives who adopted (some semblance of) the trappings of classical liberalism. The really old-wave conservatives have more in common with the current crop of conservatives in America: unabashed concentration of power in the hands of those who already have it, and damn the peasants. Their original opponents were classical liberals who said that the state shouldn't be favoring the powerful over the powerless but instead treat everyone equally, liberally. Later that ideology drifted into the position that the state should actually favor the powerless over the powerful, becoming modern "liberalism" (now a misnomer), and those liberals who still liked the original, literal liberalism thus became "conservative" in opposing changes they felt went too far (or back the way we came from, to statism). But there's always still been the original conservatives too, and they found ways to continue their favored hierarchy of power while talking the (classical) liberal talk, attracting many classical liberals to their parties. Now more and more classical liberals are realizing that they don't want to be in bed with classical conservatives, and started calling themselves something else -- libertarians -- but both the old conservatives and the new liberals are trying to keep their false dichotomy by lumping libertarians in with the old conservatives. So what do true liberals, true libertarians, people literally in favor of liberty for all and not allowing any coercive power hierarchies, call themselves now? Anarchists? That is the literal logical conclusion, but call yourself that in a group of strangers and watch them back away slowly and fear you're going to blow something up soon.


What good does a label do you? All the labels are bad. Maybe somebody designed it that way. You don't have to pick one.

How about just saying what you believe in? Something like, "I want increased liberty for everybody, with minimal coercion. I want individuals to be able to have more of their interactions with small organizations rather than big organizations that can coerce them easier." And take it from there. You aren't for big government controlling big business, or big business controlling big government, or whatever the labels mean today. You have a chance to say what you intend and you don't have to waste it looking for a good label when there isn't one.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5382
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:05 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:The author was probably familiar with philosophical anarchism, note the text:
"But--Professor, what are your political beliefs?"

"I'm a rational anarchist."

"I don't know that brand. Anarchist individualist, anarchist Communist, Christian anarchist, philosophical anarchist, syndicalist, libertarian--those I know. But what's this? Randite?"

"I can get along with a Randite. A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame... as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else.


He didn't say how his vision was different from "philosophical anarchism", he just said what he believed in.

Ah, curious; it's been a while since I read that book and don't have it handy to reference. Now I'm curious what differences he draws between "philosophical" and "rational" anarchism.

If you start a movement and give it a name, it will get such bad press that a lot of people will ignore you on general principle.

I think this is part of a problem which leads to the problem with language I'm complaining about. Everything gets framed in terms of "identity" (itself a misappropriated term) politics -- everyone tries to boil every difference down to a matter of what group you are in, rather than grouping people logically by their differences. For a completely nonpolitical example: if you have a bunch of green apples and a bunch of red apples and you put them in two barrels and try to sort them by their color, at no point should the term "green apple" come to mean "apple in the left barrel"; even if the sets of green apples and apples in the left barrel actually are coextensive, the terms do not become cointensive. But with politics people let their language drift like that, and come to use the term "green apple" to mean "apple in the left barrel", even if the apples start to get mixed up and some apples in the left barrel are actually red. But eventually people won't let you get away with saying something like that last clause; if it's in the left barrel it is green by (their mistaken) definition, and likewise if it's red then it must (epistemically, not deontically) be in the right barrel. At which point we've lost our ability to talk about the color of apples and are instead limited to talking about which barrel they're in, which is useless if you're just interested in the actual color of the apples regardless of what if any barrels they may be in.

Coming back to politics and your comment I'm replying to, I'm not interested in labels for movements. I'm interested in labels for ideas, which may or may not have movements promoting them (and if they do, those movements are free to describe themselves as such). So for example "liberalism" should be understood as the name for an idea -- namely, the idea that freedom is in some way of key importance -- and there may be a liberal movement promoting liberalism, but liberalism should never be understood to mean whatever that movement ends up promoting, as actually happened when the movement that once promoted liberalism began promoting state socialism. And there needn't be a movement to define the idea either. Take for example theism, which was for ages completely uncontroversial and widely accepted across all societies and so never needed a movement to promote it, and at that point didn't even need a name. But then more and more people were atheists, and needed a term to collectively describe people who weren't, and so the term "theism" gained currency. Theists haven't collectively banded together to promote theism -- each different religion promotes itself against both atheism and the others -- so there is no unified theist movement counter to the atheist movement, but there is still a singular concept of theism which is common to all theistic religions.

Or by analogy, it doesn't matter if there is one barrel of green apples and a half-dozen barrels of red apples, there are still two colors of apple. Just because they red ones aren't all in the same barrel doesn't mean they're not all red.

What good does a label do you?

Expediency. It would be extremely convenient to be able to say a word or three and have them understood as the literal description of my position, without carrying along all the connotations of everyone else who's ever used those words to describe themselves. If everyone was insistent on people using words literally instead of as shorthand for some vaguely defined cluster of ideas associated with some people who were once associated with the literal meaning of that word, we could do that, so I try to do my small part to contribute to that. But hardly anybody else does, so instead...

How about just saying what you believe in? Something like, "I want increased liberty for everybody, with minimal coercion. I want individuals to be able to have more of their interactions with small organizations rather than big organizations that can coerce them easier." And take it from there.

I have to do this. Which isn't a pain in the ass to me personally because I write five-page essays on internet forums every night for fun so describing my beliefs in detail is no bother to me, but not everybody else (either people I might speak to or other people who might find themselves in my position) is happy with such loquaciousness, and many will either insist you pick a short label from their predetermined set, or try to apply one to you (and all the baggage they carry along with it). If a few short words could literally describe my position, we wouldn't have that problem.

As it stands, I pick nonstandard labels which are both literally accurate and have roughly the right extraneous connotations, and if people are confused they can either ask me to do what you say here (in which case, they asked...) or at least be confused and unable to shove me in a convenient box, in which case I can hope I maybe gave them something to think about.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

rmsgrey
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Aug 27, 2012 11:31 pm UTC

Part of the problem is that people looking to sell themselves and their ideas will label themselves with a label that's popular and not obviously totally wrong rather than one that's actually accurate. If people are sufficiently familiar with and/or knowledgeable about the original, then the impostor will fail; otherwise, the new version supplants the original in general use, leaving the few who used to use the label correctly having to either find a new label for the same idea, or ignore people telling them they're wrong all the time...

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby Max™ » Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:53 am UTC

It's unfortunate that words get arbitrarily redefined based on misuse, but the original definition remains valid. This is why I always capitalize the "L" in "Libertarian Party", it's just a name. It is far from the first time a political party appropriated a name from an ideology which has nothing in common with those espoused by said party.
mu

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby J Thomas » Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:00 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
J Thomas wrote:What good does a label do you?

Expediency. It would be extremely convenient to be able to say a word or three and have them understood as the literal description of my position, without carrying along all the connotations of everyone else who's ever used those words to describe themselves. If everyone was insistent on people using words literally instead of as shorthand for some vaguely defined cluster of ideas associated with some people who were once associated with the literal meaning of that word, we could do that, so I try to do my small part to contribute to that. But hardly anybody else does, so instead...


Now that I think about it, I notice that when people ask about that they are asking which team you support. Almost always, that's what they want to know. It's as if they asked you which football team you root for, and you try to tell them how you think the rules for football should be changed to make it a better game.

How about just saying what you believe in? Something like, "I want increased liberty for everybody, with minimal coercion. I want individuals to be able to have more of their interactions with small organizations rather than big organizations that can coerce them easier." And take it from there.

I have to do this. Which isn't a pain in the ass to me personally because I write five-page essays on internet forums every night for fun so describing my beliefs in detail is no bother to me, but not everybody else (either people I might speak to or other people who might find themselves in my position) is happy with such loquaciousness, and many will either insist you pick a short label from their predetermined set, or try to apply one to you (and all the baggage they carry along with it). If a few short words could literally describe my position, we wouldn't have that problem.


Yes, I see.

As it stands, I pick nonstandard labels which are both literally accurate and have roughly the right extraneous connotations, and if people are confused they can either ask me to do what you say here (in which case, they asked...) or at least be confused and unable to shove me in a convenient box, in which case I can hope I maybe gave them something to think about.


"Which team do you support?"
"The Oakland Dolphins."
"What?"
"See, if the rules were changed the way I think would most improve the game, Oakland and Miami would be in the best competitive position. So It's like I'm supporting them. Let me explain more?"

No wonder it's so hard to have this sort of discussion! People like you and me want to think about how to improve the system. But most people are only interested in which team wins the game. And ideas about changing the system are considered to be excuses to support one team or the other, without any real hope that the system will actually get changed except by token measures.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5382
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:06 am UTC

J Thomas wrote:"Which team do you support?"
"The Oakland Dolphins."
"What?"
"See, if the rules were changed the way I think would most improve the game, Oakland and Miami would be in the best competitive position. So It's like I'm supporting them. Let me explain more?"

I think more analogous would be something like:
"What's your favorite sports team?"
"I like martial arts. TaeKwonDo is probably my favorite; ITA more so than ITF."

Their question is presumptuous in that is presumes team sports are the only kind of sports. The closest thing to an answer to "what's my favorite sports team" I can give them, if I'm not into team sports, is what style of what non-team sport I'm into, and maybe what general school of that style of that sport. But since there aren't teams in the kind of sports I like, there is no direct answer I can give them; and "I don't like sports" or "I don't care" wouldn't be accurate either because I could be a huge supporter of athletic competitions and just not care about what color shirts people wear, but rather what impressive feats of physical prowess they can perform.

The analogy is not perfect however, as in politics which team you support has implications for what kind of plays you like to see in the game, and vice versa. I actually don't follow team sports so I can't say for sure, but my impression is that e.g. no one team is more in favor of say the quarterback sneak than any other team, yeah?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:53 pm UTC

J Thomas wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:
eran_rathan wrote:“A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world . . . aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.”

The academic term for this position (or one very similar to it, at least) is philosophical anarchism, "an anarchist school of thought which contends that the state lacks moral legitimacy while not supporting violence to eliminate it. Though philosophical anarchism does not necessarily imply any action or desire for the elimination of the State, philosophical anarchists do not believe that they have an obligation or duty to obey the State, or conversely, that the State has a right to command".


The author was probably familiar with philosophical anarchism, note the text:
"But--Professor, what are your political beliefs?"

"I'm a rational anarchist."

"I don't know that brand. Anarchist individualist, anarchist Communist, Christian anarchist, philosophical anarchist, syndicalist, libertarian--those I know. But what's this? Randite?"

"I can get along with a Randite. A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and 'society' and 'government' have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame... as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else.


He didn't say how his vision was different from "philosophical anarchism", he just said what he believed in. (Or course, claiming to get along with Randites is an assertion of unusual diplomatic skills.)


Well, sure. He was living right down the street from LeFevre at the time (who Prof. de la Paz was modeled on).
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:54 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
He didn't say how his vision was different from "philosophical anarchism", he just said what he believed in.

Ah, curious; it's been a while since I read that book and don't have it handy to reference. Now I'm curious what differences he draws between "philosophical" and "rational" anarchism.


Primarily pragmatism.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:57 pm UTC

Max™ wrote:It's unfortunate that words get arbitrarily redefined based on misuse, but the original definition remains valid. This is why I always capitalize the "L" in "Libertarian Party", it's just a name. It is far from the first time a political party appropriated a name from an ideology which has nothing in common with those espoused by said party.


I'm still hoping that the Republicans re-appropriate the "Know-Nothing Party" label, its far more accurate.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby J Thomas » Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
J Thomas wrote:"Which team do you support?"
"The Oakland Dolphins."
"What?"
"See, if the rules were changed the way I think would most improve the game, Oakland and Miami would be in the best competitive position. So It's like I'm supporting them. Let me explain more?"

I think more analogous would be something like:
"What's your favorite sports team?"
"I like martial arts. TaeKwonDo is probably my favorite; ITA more so than ITF."

Their question is presumptuous in that is presumes team sports are the only kind of sports.


It isn't a perfect analogy. Sports teams mostly don't stand for any sort of philosophy, they only stand for cities or colleges or something like that. It's as if it was nothing but identity politics.

The question isn't exactly presumptuous -- they could ask you which political party you want to win the election and distribute the spoils of victory, or which computer company's stock you want to rise more, etc. It's just one of the questions a lot of people have opinions about.

I'm just amazed at the disconnect which I hadn't much noticed before.

I try to look at it from the other guy's point of view, and it seems like you and I look kind of weird that way.

Imagine there was a war, say for example an israel/arab war, and somebody asks you whose side you're on. "I don't care which side wins. I just want better poison gas so both sides can slaughter each other more effectively." I don't think we sound as weird as that, but ... pretty weird.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5382
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:16 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:
He didn't say how his vision was different from "philosophical anarchism", he just said what he believed in.

Ah, curious; it's been a while since I read that book and don't have it handy to reference. Now I'm curious what differences he draws between "philosophical" and "rational" anarchism.


Primarily pragmatism.

On which side? Because philosophical anarchism is almost defined by its pragmatism: no state can have any moral legitimacy, in a sense no states actually exist, only masses of individual people sometimes acting in unison, usually under a different opinion about the moral legitimacy of their joint actions; but whether and how to oppose any actually extant "state" like that is entirely a practical matter decided on a case by case basis.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby blowfishhootie » Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:36 pm UTC

bigjoec wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:
bigjoec wrote:So to follow along with your first post on this thread, I'll leave it to you to determine what you should be mocked for -- too dumb to use the output from google autocomplete or too lazy to punch your search terms into a search bar that uses google autocomplete?
But let's hope you're appropriately shamed for getting help from a message board when that same help was so readily available from google.


There are many, many different combinations of words someone could try to get to that particular information. I probably didn't type something that started with "Bush idiot" I guess. I don't really remember what exactly I searched for. That I failed to find it via Google doesn't change the fact that I at least tried, and that is what I was criticizing - people whose first response is to get other people to do the search for them. There is a big difference between that and the question that sparked this argument. There is only one way to type the two-word phrase "cirith ungol" into Google.

You may not be able to see the difference, but that's your problem, not mine. It's pretty black-and-white.


I'm not sure what's more amusing -- that the "just google it" guy failed so spectacularly at a simple googling, or that he seems so averse to learning how to google more effectively. (Seriously, all it took was typing "bush goog" into an auto-complete-enabled google search box and keeping an eye on the search terms that popped up -- "bush google bomb" and "bush google failure".) You may not be able to see the humor, but I suppose that's your problem, not mine.


I know at this point I'm just feeding a troll, but I'm compelled to ask: At what point did I ask anyone here for the specifics? The specifics of the Bush thing were irrelevant to the point I was making - that Google had changed its formula based on some sort of abuse of the use of links in determining search results in the past. I didn't ask anyone to do my research for me, because I didn't care enough about the answer to do so or to look more into it than I did. I did not use a forum as a replacement for using Google, so your attempts to paint me as some sort of hypocrite fall apart immediately.

Again, the very obvious difference between this and asking "what is Cirith Ungol" is clearly lost on you, but that's your own problem.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby J Thomas » Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:56 pm UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:
bigjoec wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:You may not be able to see the difference, but that's your problem, not mine. It's pretty black-and-white.


I'm not sure what's more amusing -- that the "just google it" guy failed so spectacularly at a simple googling, or that he seems so averse to learning how to google more effectively. (Seriously, all it took was typing "bush goog" into an auto-complete-enabled google search box and keeping an eye on the search terms that popped up -- "bush google bomb" and "bush google failure".) You may not be able to see the humor, but I suppose that's your problem, not mine.


I know at this point I'm just feeding a troll, but I'm compelled to ask: At what point did I ask anyone here for the specifics? The specifics of the Bush thing were irrelevant to the point I was making - that Google had changed its formula based on some sort of abuse of the use of links in determining search results in the past. I didn't ask anyone to do my research for me, because I didn't care enough about the answer to do so or to look more into it than I did. I did not use a forum as a replacement for using Google, so your attempts to paint me as some sort of hypocrite fall apart immediately.

Again, the very obvious difference between this and asking "what is Cirith Ungol" is clearly lost on you, but that's your own problem.


You are a couple of stand-up straight men tossing setups to each other.
And there isn't even a single comedian in the house ready to take a swing at them. It's sad.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

User avatar
Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby Max™ » Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:54 am UTC

J Thomas wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:
bigjoec wrote:
blowfishhootie wrote:You may not be able to see the difference, but that's your problem, not mine. It's pretty black-and-white.


I'm not sure what's more amusing -- that the "just google it" guy failed so spectacularly at a simple googling, or that he seems so averse to learning how to google more effectively. (Seriously, all it took was typing "bush goog" into an auto-complete-enabled google search box and keeping an eye on the search terms that popped up -- "bush google bomb" and "bush google failure".) You may not be able to see the humor, but I suppose that's your problem, not mine.


I know at this point I'm just feeding a troll, but I'm compelled to ask: At what point did I ask anyone here for the specifics? The specifics of the Bush thing were irrelevant to the point I was making - that Google had changed its formula based on some sort of abuse of the use of links in determining search results in the past. I didn't ask anyone to do my research for me, because I didn't care enough about the answer to do so or to look more into it than I did. I did not use a forum as a replacement for using Google, so your attempts to paint me as some sort of hypocrite fall apart immediately.

Again, the very obvious difference between this and asking "what is Cirith Ungol" is clearly lost on you, but that's your own problem.


You are a couple of stand-up straight men tossing setups to each other.
And there isn't even a single comedian in the house ready to take a swing at them. It's sad.

I only like to swing at the really obnoxiously nerdy jokes or the ones that are offensive, and I have to try to restrain my offensive joke urges a bit here. T.T
mu

User avatar
7ate9
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:07 am UTC
Location: A place
Contact:

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby 7ate9 » Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:32 am UTC

I...I thought this thread was about syntactic ambiguity. Why did it become about morals and then politics and then re-derail into an argument about how people should get their questions answered? ._.

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby Radical_Initiator » Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:45 am UTC

7ate9 wrote:I...I thought this thread was about syntactic ambiguity. Why did it become about morals and then politics and then re-derail into an argument about how people should get their questions answered? ._.

Welcome to the XKCD forums!
I looked out across the river today …

arthurd006_5
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:49 am UTC

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby arthurd006_5 » Sat Sep 15, 2012 6:16 am UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:simple googling

There's no such thing. Every page you see is part of an A/B test, and then there's the filter bubble.

User avatar
peewee_RotA
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby peewee_RotA » Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:59 pm UTC

Romeo is the son of Montague and his wife, who secretly loves and marries Juliet, a member of the rival House of Capulet.

(also from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romeo)
"Vowels have trouble getting married in Canada. They can’t pronounce their O’s."

http://timelesstherpg.wordpress.com/about/

MakingProgress
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:41 pm UTC

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby MakingProgress » Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:02 pm UTC

peewee_RotA wrote:Romeo is the son of Montague and his wife, who secretly loves and marries Juliet, a member of the rival House of Capulet.

(also from wikipedia <tag removed>)


Not any more.
Now let's see how long my update will hold.

(btw. editing wikipedia on an iPad is no fun)

rmsgrey
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:53 am UTC

MakingProgress wrote:
peewee_RotA wrote:Romeo is the son of Montague and his wife, who secretly loves and marries Juliet, a member of the rival House of Capulet.

(also from wikipedia <tag removed>)


Not any more.
Now let's see how long my update will hold.

(btw. editing wikipedia on an iPad is no fun)


I've trimmed your wording a little, now reading: "Romeo, the son of Montague and his wife, secretly loves and marries Juliet, a member of the rival House of Capulet."

User avatar
peewee_RotA
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby peewee_RotA » Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:28 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
MakingProgress wrote:
peewee_RotA wrote:Romeo is the son of Montague and his wife, who secretly loves and marries Juliet, a member of the rival House of Capulet.

(also from wikipedia <tag removed>)


Not any more.
Now let's see how long my update will hold.

(btw. editing wikipedia on an iPad is no fun)


I've trimmed your wording a little, now reading: "Romeo, the son of Montague and his wife, secretly loves and marries Juliet, a member of the rival House of Capulet."


I thought that the marriage was also a secret.
"Vowels have trouble getting married in Canada. They can’t pronounce their O’s."

http://timelesstherpg.wordpress.com/about/

rmsgrey
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby rmsgrey » Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:16 am UTC

peewee_RotA wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
MakingProgress wrote:
peewee_RotA wrote:Romeo is the son of Montague and his wife, who secretly loves and marries Juliet, a member of the rival House of Capulet.

(also from wikipedia <tag removed>)


Not any more.
Now let's see how long my update will hold.

(btw. editing wikipedia on an iPad is no fun)


I've trimmed your wording a little, now reading: "Romeo, the son of Montague and his wife, secretly loves and marries Juliet, a member of the rival House of Capulet."


I thought that the marriage was also a secret.


Reading it as "secretly loves Juliet, and marries her", while not as precise as "secretly loves and secretly marries Juliet", is still an accurate description of events

User avatar
peewee_RotA
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1087: "Cirith Ungol"

Postby peewee_RotA » Wed Mar 13, 2013 2:02 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
peewee_RotA wrote:I thought that the marriage was also a secret.


Reading it as "secretly loves Juliet, and marries her", while not as precise as "secretly loves and secretly marries Juliet", is still an accurate description of events


I feel pretty precise today, but probably not as precise as "secretly loves and secretly marries Juliet".
"Vowels have trouble getting married in Canada. They can’t pronounce their O’s."

http://timelesstherpg.wordpress.com/about/


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Pfhorrest and 54 guests