Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

orwell.ru

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 273 posts

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#131

Post by dnomad »

EdSharkey wrote: post #124
cultus wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is quite far outside of the psychological mainstream. Many of the ideas in his books qualify as pseudoscience. He has only become popular because he says what far right individuals want to hear. It is all banal well-trodden ideas dressed up.

Yes, JBP does have quite a persuasive song and dance that bedevils his detractors - he is a slippery one! Even so, his research is widely cited as GP stated: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=wL1F22UAAAAJ&hl=en It is an inconvenient fact that scientific and scholarly study does occur whose conclusions will not agree with our deeply-held ideologies. Just take it all in and try not to take any offense when you…

> Even so, his research is widely cited as GP stated:

Isn't it funny that you still can't answer the basic original question: where are JBP's sources for his extraordinary claims?

Instead of giving us a song and a dance about ideologies and other nonsense why not just answer the damn question?

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#132

Post by sabarn01 »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #129
stcredzero wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, you really need to do something about self styled "anarchists" on social media declaring that they can do any evil to fight evil, so long as they use just a little less evil. From what I can see, thought leadership doesn't reach the "anarchist" on the street, leaving them to wallow in a toxic tribalism which is welcoming of nihilistic violence. Have all the erudite debates you want. Others are presentin…

Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism. Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures. When Noam Chomsky is your most famous public personality it's hard to build a broad and passionate following. I don't see it getting anything like mainstream traction ever, as it's a…

> People seem to like to be ruled, so long as they have just enough freedom.

Look at Hobbes he lived though the chaos of the interregnum and decided that the state was all that mattered.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#133

Post by adiusmus »

stcredzero wrote: post #91
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans can't really tell the difference between real and simulated risk. Online games are incredibly compelling for the people who play them, but they're a lot less risky than taking part in a real war and risking real blood and real body parts. I don't see why we couldn't sublimate games like economics in the same way. The experience of winning would be almost identical, but simulations wouldn't have to be zero sum…

Humans can't really tell the difference between real and simulated risk. Even so, some of us have our kids play baseball-like games where they're not even allowed to strike out.

Or kids playing football with no scores shown. The mind boggles.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#134

Post by bena »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #129
stcredzero wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, you really need to do something about self styled "anarchists" on social media declaring that they can do any evil to fight evil, so long as they use just a little less evil. From what I can see, thought leadership doesn't reach the "anarchist" on the street, leaving them to wallow in a toxic tribalism which is welcoming of nihilistic violence. Have all the erudite debates you want. Others are presentin…

Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism. Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures. When Noam Chomsky is your most famous public personality it's hard to build a broad and passionate following. I don't see it getting anything like mainstream traction ever, as it's a…

I don't think anarchists have really thought through their position or have noticed particular ironies within it.

At its core, it's basically everyone doing themselves. I do my thing, you do your thing, it's all good. Until the thing I want to do interferes with your thing. And yes, we could come to some agreement. But there is going to be a certain segment of asshole that will just decide: Me strong, you weak, and just override you.

And that's what you really get, a rule of the weak by the strong. Unless, of course, we gather enough of us to overwhelm the asshole. But what if, in our group, we have conflicts? Well, we have some rules. Yeah, not everyone will get exactly what they want all the time, but a tiny bit of compromise is still better than having the asshole take your stuff for the fifth time this week.

But that's a winning strategy. And don't think the assholes won't notice. Then they get groups. So the groups escalate further and further. And as you bring in more and more people, there are more and more rules. Eventually, what you will have done is simply to have recreated modern governmental structures. We are living in the endgame of anarchy.

So, I don't think it's so much that "people like to be ruled", as much as "people would rather there be a set of standards people are expected to follow". Someone needs to enforce the social contract.

I don't think anarchism is evil, just naive.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#135

Post by JetSpiegel »

stcredzero wrote: post #130
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism. Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures. When Noam Chomsky is your most famous public personality it's hard to build a broad and passionate following. I don't see it getting anything like mainstream traction ever, as it's a…

Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism Plenty of people demonize capitalism. Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures. So you're admitting that it's a losing proposition for getting anything done? The banner of anarchy seems to be good at organizing people into bu…

If they are organized they are not Anarchists, right? That's the point.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#136

Post by macspoofing »

ballenf wrote: post #9

There's a fundamental conflict between conceptual Utopia/Heaven and the law of supply and demand. All literary conceptions of a utopia rely on abundance of some good that is scarce in the author's time. Usually ignoring that its ubiquity makes it tend toward zero value. Here's my stab at Utopia, but it requires a belief that Knowledge is infinite: Utopia is a state of unhindered, continual learning at your own chosen…

>Utopia is a state of unhindered, continual learning at your own chosen pace

Isn't that just your reformulation of the same sort of traditional definition of Utopia? You value relaxed/continual learning which in some way is missing your life, so therefore that is your Utopia. :)

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#137

Post by Presquare »

cultus wrote: post #116
stcredzero wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look up his. He's a widely cited psychological researcher, and regarded as an authority by other researchers. His lectures like this one are based on specific research.

He is quite far outside of the psychological mainstream. Many of the ideas in his books qualify as pseudoscience. He has only become popular because he says what far right individuals want to hear. It is all banal well-trodden ideas dressed up.

For people not aware of Peterson, I want you not to take the parent comment seriously. Peterson is a highly polarizing figure, and people tend to have very strong positive/negative opinions about him.

Thus the parent comment is an example of someone feeling very negatively about him, and not an accurate representation of him or his ideas.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#139

Post by merdreubu »

beat wrote: post #87
ConceptJunkie wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be alien to us, but there are millions of people for which this describes their reality.

But millions less than there were even a few decades ago. The world is making progress toward peace, health, safety, and a decent standard of living at an extraordinary pace right now. This is not to say everything is hunky-dory. But it is to say that this is no longer World War II. edit: Where do you think all the Syrian and Lebanese restaurants in America came from? Refugees from the collapse of the Ottoman empire…

>If Sweden can evolve from an impoverished hellhole to being the epitome of modern civilization in a century, why can't the same thing happen to Syria? Or Sudan? Or Myanmar? I think it can, and it will.

Except Sweden one hundred years ago was not an impoverished hellhole. In fact, it was one of the richest (maybe the richest) countries on earth, smack in the middle of the most developed, richest and urbanized part of Europe (the Baltic region) already enjoying a booming economy and 100 years of peace.

Re: Why Socialists Don't Believe in Fun (1943)

#140

Post by stcredzero »

bena wrote: post #134
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Anarchism has been pretty successfully demonized, misinterpreted and put into the "evil" bin with every other -ism except for capitalism. Kind of hard to organize when you're whole philosophy is allergic to hierarchical structures. When Noam Chomsky is your most famous public personality it's hard to build a broad and passionate following. I don't see it getting anything like mainstream traction ever, as it's a…

I don't think anarchists have really thought through their position or have noticed particular ironies within it. At its core, it's basically everyone doing themselves. I do my thing, you do your thing, it's all good. Until the thing I want to do interferes with your thing. And yes, we could come to some agreement. But there is going to be a certain segment of asshole that will just decide: Me strong, you weak, and j…

But there is going to be a certain segment of asshole that will just decide: Me strong, you weak, and just override you.

There is a brand of "anarchist" which is doing just this in 2018.

But that's a winning strategy. And don't think the assholes won't notice. Then they get groups.

The history of scenes, groups, and movements of all kinds tells us that such things are started by idealists, but eventually get suborned by sociopaths. So quite often, the assholes will come over and take over your group as well.

I don't think anarchism is evil, just naive.

What's metaphorical and paved with best intentions?

Post reply on HN