Master What is meant in there by "treat people like people" ?
slavegirl Use a reasonable set of expectations based on the assumption that people are responsible, capable agents rather than monkeys or mental patients etc.
Master Yes, exactly. There's a whole lot to be said fori "risky behaviour". If the family lives at sea, the kid who is allowed to capsize the boat will not. The kid who isn't allowed however, will.
slavegirl Mhm, makes sense.
Master Do you know why ? Because the owner is he who can destroy, that's why. In acquiring the capacity to capsize it, he becomes an owner of it. So you know... go ahead. This is kind of why elitism and anti-inclusivenessii are absolutely essential for a healthy environment.
slavegirl Well, that speaks to intent. I'm not sure how much it speaks to ability.
Master But he doesn't have to mess with it. He only messes with it in capsizeable manners if it's not his.
slavegirl I'd say the value of risky behaviour would be that it allows people to play with their environment and get better bearings so that (if they don't want to, as in your ownership), they can in fact avoid it.iii
Master This is false. The value of risky behaviour is that it creates ownership and investment. Which is why a woman is only interesting to me if I could kill her.
slavegirl Wait though, what do you mean he doesn't have to mess with it? He's in the boat. His family lives at sea.
Master Sure. But not all activity is liable to capsize the boat.
slavegirl People exist in their environment, suggesting they can just "not mess with it" because they own it and don't want to fuck it up is a little short sighted.
Master How would you know ?
slavegirl because I've had a lot of accidents ;p
Master I do not mean "people" as in anyone who draws breath. I mean "people" as in, anyone left standing after I'm done killing all the shitheads. This, again, isn't an inclusive a worldview. Not everyone is welcome to exist.
slavegirl Okay, but this begins to be absurd. Are you just going to shoot anyone who passed the "person" test but then makes some mistake later on because he has no idea of the properties and functionality of the stuff around him, having refused to interact with it in a litany of ways in order to try and not fuck it up because he owns it?
Master Yup. Well either that or rape them, depends.
slavegirl You could just get an ant colony, yknow.
Master Nah. The ant colony is already builtiv. They call it the US and it bites bad wind.
slavegirl This doesn't seem like people-making, or people-treating, or whatever. This seems like splinter-making, a kind of fashioning of humans that are uninformed, unskilled, and unhappy.
Master On the basis of what ? Like, you go to the market, you pick some mushrooms. Have you now obtained a bunch of unmushroomy unhappy mushrooms ?v
slavegirl On the basis of their having no desire to interact with the world around them on fear of being shot.
Master If they're that cowardly fuck them, they don't belong here anyway.
slavegirl Well I'm left uncertain if you want to guide or to get guillotined.
Master The notion that it's "the whole family or hell" is utter feminine thinking bullshit. The whole family is only relevant to she who laboured with each of them equally. They're not equal in any of-them approach, and the of-her approach is irrelevant to them, and generally the world. So, no. the world's not for everyone. The world's for the well tempered ingenious.
slavegirl I'd agree with you except that I don't think "well tempered ingenious" means polite children who will spend their lives sitting in a boat with their hands under their buttocks.
Master Definitely not.
slavegirl Well that's what you suggest is required when you say that he who is an owner won't "mess with it".
Master It means exactly that : ingenious, ie, liable to surprise you, that's tempered, ie, not likely to unpleasantly surprise you. Which is the point of having children and making friends since the dawn of children and friends.
slavegirl Eh this sounds like a bunch of spiritual froufrou. Nobody will ever surprise you all the time and never during that time unpleasantly surprise you.
Master So nobody will live forever. (And it's not about me, really. Nature has its ways.)
slavegirl Well nature has its ways, sure. It's about you though inasmuch as you seem to demand and expect this from people to the degree that they're no longer deemed people if they fail.
Master I merely am pointing out that inasmuch as they want to be people, this is the only way they can be. But otherwise, ant colony is sort-of taking immigrants.
slavegirl And I'm pointing out that your "person" as such does not exist.
Master Sure it does. I'm one, for one.
Master You wanna come here an' prove it ? :D
slavegirl Lol. Seriously though, everybody makes mistakes. It's not a cliche, it's a fact.
Master Not all mistakes mean their head.
slavegirl So then how are you deciding which qualify?
Master I am not. Naaaaaaatureee has its waaaayssss. Is the boat still uncapsized ? Fine than.
slavegirl But you were saying earlier that you are going to shoot anyone who "makes some mistake because he has no idea of the properties and functionality of the stuff around him"
Master Well like I shot Andreas Derpopowhateverhisnameis.
slavegirl I thought you meant like you shot the sheriff.
Master I however did not shot no sheriff. I merely shot the derpopooty.
Master And now I have an article. Shit my life's hard but unfair.———
- Generally, education in the harem works on this scheme : slavegirl is asked a basic foundational question, to establish her general grasp of the prerequisites for what will be imparted. It may seem like a trivial thing, here, because she succeeded in answering perfectly. Nevertheless the test is often failed, because there are just a few correct answers and they may as well be strict string matches - you can't really move words around. So the odds of stumbling on a correct answer by accident, or just on the strength of one's preconceived notions is vanishingly small, one in a million or less. To most girls in training, those odds definitely seem one in a billion, mostly because preconceptions have this incredible property of being harder to break than any steel bar.
Anyway, once the gate is satisfied, the discussion proceeds towards whatever particular topic. Having answered the gatekeeper is already a major intellectual achievement however, and so rarely the ensuing conversation is unworthy of being published - a circumstance I have little complaint with. Think, o ye labourer of the pen and keyboard, staring at the blank sheet : I'm usually throwing out nine tenths or more because I simply can't be bothered with the dressing required to publish. Such fair fate. [↩]
- This is not merely the absence of any effort directed towards making things more "even", "fairer" or having any arbitrarily defined groups better represented. This is quite the exact opposite : significant effort directed against everyone, and the more trouble they have, the more they get piled on.
You don't want to narrow the breadth of performance disparity between people, so they all have and get about the same. You want to expand it as much as possible, because as you expand it the people themselves don't fill it equally, but group, and then those groups can be discriminated, which is the entire point of the exercise : discriminating people from the rest. For this reason the Gini index is very useful : it is the measure of failure. [↩]
- This is the classical, and perfectly erroneous, reinterpretation of risky behaviour from the socialist utopian point of view.
This is funny, because it retraces a very similar problem the christian utopia had. Many, many years ago, it became logically unavoidable to observe that, should one accept the authority of the church, sex should not happen at all. This does not work in any sort of social practice, obviously, so sex had to be christianly-reinterpreted, which it has been. The charade didn't fool large numbers of people however, resulting in monasteries, abbeys and things like the Russian skoptsy. The problem is unresolvable, and so by the 13th century pretty much everyone thinking on the matter was in agreement that well... this'll just have to be a case of the noble lie, there's no way out of it. Which, if you're curious, is exactly why and how the Reformation happened - you may imagine it as an external force, but in fact it's about as internal as it gets.
Whenever a major tradition reaches the logical wall of the ultimate failure of its core watch out, for it's going away. It may still cling for power (aka, social relevance) for a little while longer, but once it's lost the attention of the intellectual elite, it's lost. Which, to belabour a well established point, is quite exactly how and why Bitcoin has won. It has relatively little to do with the technology, about as much as your orgasm has to do with the silicon manufacturing technology that created the condom you're using. It has everything to do with the intellecual bankruptcy of the fiat system, which I make sport of chronicling here among chortles for your benefit.
So yes, the reinterpretation of risky behaviour from the socialist-utopian point of view is to deny any moral implication, and only admit the educational results. Much like, if you're following, the christian utopian view reinterpreted sex to deny the pleasure but admit the procreation. Because yes, christianity is the original utopia, and as upset as the socialists are about this inconvenient fact, and as much as they'd like to kill their mother so they may be somehow taken seriously as you know, an intellectual thing standing on itself, rather than a minor implication of larger things, it ain't going away. They're trying to go to heaven, mostly because they're idiots, the sort of idiots that'd fall for christianity.
Now obviously, this reinterpretation does not work, and to show it doesn't work we really don't need more intellectual heavy lifting than merely retracing the actual reasons socialism was a minor footnote for christianity (which is exacly what it was, and in the history of idea forever remains) : agency requires the moral aspect of risk. Without it, there can be no agency, and even if the socialists of today are struggling with more pedestrian problems their doomed reinterpretative attempt creates - such as, if risk should have no moral component then women walking around naked on the docks are raped just as much and in the same way as some poor soul abducted and beaten to death with lengths of pipe, because "all rape is rape" and "no means no", a point of view that proves a rather tough sale before any jury with any sort of actual life experience - nevertheless this is what ultimately sinks them : in a world of free risk, there can be no agents, and a world devoid of agency can not be said to exist, but merely to await, in a Rapunzel-like trance, the appearance of the man that'll make it go. [↩]
- It's strange how from the socialist point of view things are exactly inversed : up is down, down is up, black is white, what have you. This, to get back to our extensive readings of patristics (well... "our") for a quick lol, is actually a well established diabolic attribute. Poor Satan, sitting in Hell, actually imagines himself on a throne. And he (as you may be familiar from Pacino's memorable reading) actually thinks himself a benefactor of mankind, because really, what is divinity if not tyranny ?
And so it goes, I've always believed that atheism based on a deeply entrenched refusal to read the holy texts is intellectual simpletonism at best. You're missing out a whole metric fuckton of lulz, yo!
Then when you're done with that move on to Marx and see. [↩]
- Right ? Because collectivism is the only way to individually exist. So say the collectivists. [↩]