ilovefuzz.com

Iommic Pope wrote:I feel like having a long history of being shitty is still not really an excuse for being shitty.
Like, it’s 2018, there are other options.
Like not shitty.

Sure. But ideas of what constitutes "shitty" are relative and culturally specific.
So sometimes it helps to understand the history of other cultures, especially
if you intend to point out the legitimately, undeniably shitty things that they
might do.

For instance, westerners went to China in the 1800s and chided them about how
"barbarous" it was to bind women's feet. Which I think is undeniably true. But
this criticism read a little different in China because Western women at this
exact time wore such tight corsets that their mobility was severely limited and
they were incapable of doing anything strenuous lest they faint.

So... you know... each culture lives in a glass house, and it is important to understand
and look and listen first and try to use that glass house as a lens to better see that culture
and perhaps also see your own from a new perspective.

Which is all to say that diplomats should be knowledgeable about the places they are
serving so as to avoid international incidents. But... a rotten fish tweets from the top.
So I guess all glass houses are in the crosshairs.

But the majority of Americans are proudly ignorant of what the outside world is like.
I've always felt like the reality TV game show The Amazing Race should have been called
"The Ugly American" because the contestants just race through "exotic locales" and yell
at people like they're idiots because they won't tell them where the flag for their "challenge"
is located.

Yeah mate, I'm not culturally ignorant, despite the seeming naivety of that last post and its complete lack of anything but a statement of dread. I'm just venting my frustration that for every step we seem to take in the right direction as a species there's a series of sideways lunges into senselessness that make the world a collectively horrible thing to exist in.
We're living in times of great shift, people are getting scared, governments are trying to appeal to these base groups and play on fears, etc, etc.
But, I think its also naivety to say that some kind of "cultural context" makes this par for the course. Or, "expected, so who gives a fuck?" Those aren't good enough arguments, the same as it wasn't ok for colonialism, slavery, christianity, and brutal expansionism to practice its habits around the globe. The same as its not ok for America to STILL be debating gun control. The same as its not acceptable for my country to have to send marriage equality to a fucking plebiscite and still not include our indigenous population in our constitution. The same as its not fair that there are people denying facts in the face of evidence about climate change. We need to up our fucking game as a species.
There are people out there who actually give a fuck and think about where all this is going and its kinda bullshit that the rest of the fucking herd relies on them to pull them through.

We have relied on, basically, sheer luck up until very recently in order to survive. We live in an age where we have more than ever before been able to view the world empirically and say that we need to change the fucking way we operate or we are fucked, not in the distant future, but within generations.
And still we persevere with ignorance and malace.
Does that not fucking enrage you?

What's on today's episode of an Australian and a Canuk discuss America And China?

chief Trump investigation lawyer Dowd resigns.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/us/p ... awyer.html

slight thread hijack re: Fantasyland: i've read parts of it, but haven't gone front-to-back yet. from reading the parts about the 60s-80s, he has some points, but i find his premises and analysis somewhat flawed. i'm not as absolutist of a rationalist as the author; i've seen too many things in my life that were absolutely real--as in confirmed by other people--but cannot be explained by rational analysis. i also think that his POV is sometimes too stringent and/or inaccurate. for example, he complains about adults "dressing like kids" and wearing sports jerseys. i respond: why should i dress like a stereotypical sad grandpa just because i'm 61? and what's wrong with me wearing a Ronaldinho Barca jersey because i loved Ronaldinho? he also misses the mark in his description of cultural events. e.g. he characterizes Burning Man primarily as a place where people dress up in costumes, when i can state from actual experience that only a small minority of Burners dress up...it's just too much hassle when you're camped on an alkali pan in the middle of the fucking desert. so i'm still going to finish it, but i'm not at all convinced by the sweeping scope of his argument.

Thanks for your mini-review, dubs.

Plus, why "a 500-year history"?

That seems like an awfully long period of time to examine.

well, he goes all the way back to the settlement of the US-to-be in the 1600s, to the Pilgrims and John Winthrop.

Iommic Pope wrote: But, I think its also naivety to say that some kind of "cultural context" makes this par for the course. Or, "expected, so who gives a fuck?" Those aren't good enough arguments, the same as it wasn't ok for colonialism, slavery, christianity, and brutal expansionism to practice its habits around the globe.

I do give a fuck. I also think that in order to change things you first have to understand them. Perspective matters.
Different cultures have different perspectives. The free trade economy and the internet have blurred a lot of boundaries
but they don't erase cultural prejudices. In the West buildings often don't have a 13th floor, whereas in China there is
no 4th floor. There are reasons for this. Both cultures are theoretically "rational", and yet an old belief system still pops
up in every single elevator. In order to create change you have to understand what those almost invisible systems of belief
are built upon.

The swath of history in the West taken up with Industrialism and Capitalism is built upon the premise that endless
growth is good and possible. It is not. The ecosystem is about balance. If one entity endlessly replicates itself it sets
itself up for extinction since the rarefied and ever more specific conditions for that replication are subject to change.
If human civilization is 100% dependent upon electricity, what happens when there is a global disruption to that?
The only things that endlessly replicate are viruses and bacteria and cancer.

D.o.S. wrote:What's on today's episode of an Australian and a Canuk discuss America And China?

Throughout my childhood I moved around a lot and lived in several different States in the US and I also lived (not visited)
two different countries in Asia. So my contributions are based at least somewhat on facts and personal experience and
on conversations that I've had with people who have lived and studied China as part of their careers.

dubkitty wrote:slight thread hijack re: Fantasyland: i've read parts of it, but haven't gone front-to-back yet. from reading the parts about the 60s-80s, he has some points, but i find his premises and analysis somewhat flawed. i'm not as absolutist of a rationalist as the author; i've seen too many things in my life that were absolutely real--as in confirmed by other people--but cannot be explained by rational analysis. i also think that his POV is sometimes too stringent and/or inaccurate. for example, he complains about adults "dressing like kids" and wearing sports jerseys. i respond: why should i dress like a stereotypical sad grandpa just because i'm 61? and what's wrong with me wearing a Ronaldinho Barca jersey because i loved Ronaldinho? he also misses the mark in his description of cultural events. e.g. he characterizes Burning Man primarily as a place where people dress up in costumes, when i can state from actual experience that only a small minority of Burners dress up...it's just too much hassle when you're camped on an alkali pan in the middle of the fucking desert. so i'm still going to finish it, but i'm not at all convinced by the sweeping scope of his argument.

This doesn't seem like a "thread hijack" at all.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I haven't gotten very far in reading Fantasyland since a few other things have come up.
But I do intend to finish it at some point (hopefully soon).

I do think that a too stringent emphasis on "rational analysis" can miss a lot. But I am also of the opinion that it's possible
and probably a good idea to meld philosophical, scientific and spiritual approaches into a coherent worldview when attempting
to understand the universe. I think part of the problem is that many people are uncomfortable with the idea of perpetually seeking
and questioning and instead like pat answers that constrain the infinite variability and vast unknownness of the universe on the
one hand while others are uncomfortable with the idea of free will and rational thought being not only possible with humans, but
a requirement for right action. In each case (rationalist, science-based/spiritual, faith-based) people are prone to think their
own belief system infallibly correct.

It is wise to remember that the current environmental catastrophe, on the edge of which we are teetering, was created by
fact-based "rationalists" who thought they were smarter than nature and could set up systems that would disproportionately
favor human industry with no adverse effect on the possibility that the earth would continue to support life.

And on the other hand, most of the wars, subjugation of women and various "others", have been the result of narrow-minded,
fear-mongering adherents to various organized religions. And there are lots of people whose ridiculous religious fantasies are based
upon the idea that the earth was some sort of birthday present from a deity bent upon allowing humans to fuck it up just cuz they can.

oh, yeah, i agree that you have to balance the different approaches, and that rationalism is necessary. i'm just not that deterministic about things having to fit into preconceived notions, especially when they're arbitrarily based on past/existing custom.

according to a tweet:

Trump introduces Marillyn Hewson, CEO of Lockheed Martin, as Marillyn Lockheed. Tells her of the F-35: “It’s stealth. You cannot see it. Is that correct? It better be correct.”

dubkitty wrote:according to a tweet:

Trump introduces Marillyn Hewson, CEO of Lockheed Martin, as Marillyn Lockheed. Tells her of the F-35: “It’s stealth. You cannot see it. Is that correct? It better be correct.”

dubkitty wrote:according to a tweet:

Trump introduces Marillyn Hewson, CEO of Lockheed Martin, as Marillyn Lockheed. Tells her of the F-35: “It’s stealth. You cannot see it. Is that correct? It better be correct.”

Trump would love to be "stealth" too so he could grab with impunity.






Oh wait... celebrity already bestows that magical power upon his tiny, tiny, grubby little hands.

And like the F-35, he's a steaming pile.

Achtane wrote:And like the F-35, he's a steaming pile.

The USMC would disagree.