Definitely one of the obscure empires would be pretty interesting.
I never learned anything about Norte Chico or Indus River Valley civilization in school.
Did 5-4 skip this week? wtf. Not seeing anything in Patreon or normal podcast.
Nah, they did a crossover episode about abortion with Even More News. It’s pretty good, and generally bodes ill for abortion rights. You can find it on Spotify.
Also, the cohosts from Even More News will teach y’all not to complain about Rhiannon.
So good, so maddening.
latest Ezra Klein pod was a good example of the “this silicon valley techbro is really smart in narrow area X, maybe we shouldn’t just assume he’s also really smart in unrelated area Y” phenomenon
Sam Altman is a pretty smart guy and probably more thoughtful than 95% of the techbros, and he gets absolutely demolished in one word in this pod. The discussion moves from AI to the long term social ramifications, and invariably to taxation, and Sam throws his hands up with the typical “if we can’t figure out the PERFECT policy than we better just do nothing” gambit when he says “well how do you figure out how much money someone should be allowed to keep” and Ezra just posterizes him: “POLITICS” and you can just hear the “DUH MOTHERFUCKER” that he wanted to drop.
4 Likes
I’ve been listening/reading for 30 years about how neural networks will lead to general AI, but almost now actual explanation about HOW neural networks will lead to general AI. In some ways I’m a believer in NN, at least way more than GOFAI. I think we’ll get general AI eventually, in some form, but it’s more like to come from philosoper-engineers than coder bros. Probably need a few more paradigm shifts before we’re there.
Point is, Altman was abusing words like “understand” and “explanation” ceaselessly so I stopped listening after 20 minutes. He’s an evangelist, not a theorist.
Up to the 1870s on Revolutions podcast. I feel sorry for the communists who had to deal with the anarchists in meetings and such. I mean communism is wrong but there’s plenty to admire. Anarchism is just libertarianism without economics.
anarchism is many different things to different people, so don’t let Chads see this.
Not going to comment furthure.
Words are pointers to ideas. They have no inherent meaning. My computer is now resting on a piece of furniture. I call that kind of furniture “tables”. My gf calls them “mesas”. Somehow we never fight over that fact that she’s using the wrong word. Funny that.
It’s the same thing here.
When @simplicitus uses that word, he means one thing. When the friends of Buenaventura Durruti used that word, they meant something else. Nobodies right, nobodies wrong. You say potato, I say potato (that works better in spoken English).
It’s not even a difference of opinion. Not any more than me & my gf using different words to refer to the same kind of furniture.
1 Like
The word Libertarian originated from Anarchists in France. So, not that surprising imo. As a US libertarian (dunno how much he actually identified as such - I believe he identified as a ‘rational anarchist’) said:
Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
In that light it’s not surprising that a Democrat would more strongly identify with State Communists than Anarchists.
(lol at bragging that something has economics - it’s funny, like people joke about it being “the dismal science” but if you aren’t joking and actually mean it when you talk about actual economists being full of shit, people get apoplectic. Why? It’s perceived as an attack on their class. (see Marx (as a political philosopher or something like that))) (do my parens match?)
Also, obviously just because what Walter says is entertaining doesn’t make it true. He is kind of a dipshit. This simplicitus post is almost plagiarism.
Setting: Hague Congress
Anarchist: Maybe we don’t have to have gulags.
Communist: Geez, so annoying. Someone throw Bakunin out!
(eta: this is guilty of what Sabo was talking about, ie, not all commies - of course this is the next generation, but I mean Lenin(ish) and not Pannekoek(ish) - I’m not really sure where Marx and the 1860 communists fit in that spectrum)
eta eta: More notes and a tie in to friends of Buenaventura Durruti that Sabo mentioned. Expulsion of Bakunin and others directly led to the formation of The Spanish Regional Federation of the International Workingmen’s Association which led to the Federation of Workers of the Spanish Region which lead to the CNT with which Durruti was associated.
eta eta eta: And of course in the end Stalin helped crush those annoying Anarchists. (eta x 4: along with the Nazis, while the Liberals sat back and said “lol Anarchists”)
i mean, alternatively the anarchist might be saying, “why do only communists get to have gulags?” and the whole hierarchy collapses on itself.
the idea that even some anarchists don’t want to impose their will onto anyone else has to be more nuanced. even homesteading libertarians presumably create boundaries for their children, workers, and cohabitants. just like within municipality’s governance there are rules that change via a political mechanism. and it’s predicated on a global order that municipalities cannot fuck each other, which is admittedly somewhat over represented in our historical lens.
Yeah, homesteaders have rules, but it is a big world and you can leave. Like, homesteaders don’t claim up all the empty land surrounding the homestead. That’s a pretty big difference. Statists claim everything and often even tell people they can’t leave.
you are just trying to manipulate me into defending statists, which i did not want to get into. well it worked. not all statists do that!
I get the impetus behind anarchism. The system is shit. Burn it to the ground. The flaw is faith that any form of non rule governed state would be an improvement over even very bad alternative states (though it likely would be for the very worst off and those subject to the worst injustices). Marxism is at least a good effort by the underpants gnomes to explain how you get to “profit” or how it’s inevitable. Of course marxism, being a convoluted and totalistic theory is not subject to external criticism (as Popper noted), so it ultimately becomes a bludgeon wielded by those in power. Marxism is really anything those in control want, because there’s no external check (other than from other systems in competing nations).
I see liberalism as the better approach because it’s like, well this may suck but it’s realistic and it’s a lot better than the alternatives. And of course liberalism can and often does lead to more “ideal” socialistic states. Even if it did not however, it at least leads to good dentistry (even if only for 50%), durable shoes, and cheap books. Even if one were to grant that it’s terrible, it’s still better than the rest.
Willingness to accept inevitable injustice always opens liberalism to criticism, but in my mind the question is how can society be structured to produce the best available outcomes, not how it can be structured to produce outcomes that are conceptually more desirable but not possible. Marxists and anarchists are a pain in the same way christians are a pain: yes, it would be great if things were like that, but things aren’t like that. This of course puts the liberal in the position of the eternal scold: shut up and eat your Happy Meal.
Well, anarchists don’t say that. If they do, then we can talk about words just being pointers, but I don’t see how ‘anarchist’ points to them if “create boundaries for their children, workers, and cohabitants” in any way resembles a gulag.
Now the proper reply to this is what Sabo posted.
Not saying you don’t get this, but their goal is anarchism. Lenin et al (dunno about Marx) just thought you could murder people into being the right kind of people who would just live cooperatively.
Yeah, should vs ought, but you’re assuming things that aren’t true - certainly about me, if not about anarchists in general. People who call themselves “Liberal” (funnily enough originally meaning something very similar to “Libertarian” and “Anarchism” and being about individual freedom and protection from the State) are too often not just being realistic about keeping society from devolving into war lords, but openly pushing society to be more totalitarian than it is or needs to be. Imo. I just want to push it in the other direction.
at the first international? i think they probably said that.
do you mean in today’s understanding of anarchism?
If you think Bakunin, author of God and The State and most prominent anarchist at the First International, was vying for his own gulags, I think you’re mistaken.
eta: And the first chance anarchists had at starting anything like gulags was under Nestor Makhno, and they would drive the White Army out of towns and leave a note “town is yours, lemme know if you need any help again!”