I never realized what a blatant ripoff of the Julius Caesar story the Jesus Christ story is. Tell me if you’ve heard this one before: JC is the son of a god. He consistently forgives those who have done him harm, wowing everyone with extravagant displays of mercy and forgiveness. He is betrayed by a friend and brutally murdered. His body is displayed on a cross with stab wounds for all to see. But then when all seems lost he returns from the dead and makes all well. Going forward he is honored as both the son of a god and a god himself. Of course Caesar didn’t literally rise from the dead; he was replaced by his grand-nephew Octavian who changed his name to Julius Caesar and took over Caesar’s role in Roman society, and proceeded to found Caesar-worshipping cults. Seems perfectly plausible that one of those took a weird turn when transposed into the Judean context and mutated into Christianity.
Author Archives: aciddc
Larry Summers really likes to ask people whether they want to be outsiders, who can speak the truth but can’t have power, or insiders who can have power as long as they don’t say anything that’s unacceptable to the oligarchy. Who knows how many people he’s asked that question. We only know about the ones that have answered “outsider” so firmly that they then tell the world about the question being asked.
“In her book released , Sen. Elizabeth Warren recounted a dinner she had with President Obama’s chief economic adviser, Larry Summers, in April 2009, when Warren was the outspoken chairman of a congressionally appointed panel probing the government’s response to the financial crisis.
Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. … He teed it up this way: I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People — powerful people — listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule. They don’t criticize other insiders.
I had been warned.
Warren ignored the warning.”
“[Varoufakis] dramatises his intent throughout the crisis with a telling anecdote. He’s in Washington for a meeting with Larry Summers, the former US treasury secretary and Obama confidant. Summers asks him point blank: do you want to be on the inside or the outside? “Outsiders prioritise their freedom to speak their version of the truth. The price is that they are ignored by the insiders, who make the important decisions,” Summers warns.
Elected politicians have little power; Wall Street and a network of hedge funds, billionaires and media owners have the real power, and the art of being in politics is to recognise this as a fact of life and achieve what you can without disrupting the system. That was the offer. Varoufakis not only rejected it – by describing it in frank detail now, he is arming us against the stupidity of the left’s occasional fantasies that the system built by neoliberalism can somehow bend or compromise to our desire for social justice.”
Summers is right to ask that question; it’s an important one. But where he’s wrong is that he implies that “insider” is a morally acceptable answer. If you’re an insider in the sense he means you’re an ally of the oligarchy and thus an enemy of everyone else. And as Warren has demonstrated, you don’t have to be an insider to succeed in politics anymore. The insiders are a lot richer and better organized, but there are a lot more outsiders. We’re coming.
Everyone has a worldview. It’s the framework through which you understand the world, and into which you assimilate new knowledge. One worldview can be more accurate than another (modern scientific rationality versus all previous worldviews for example), but it’s also common for two worldviews to each get different things right and wrong (classical Mayans knowing more about astronomy but less about metallurgy than Europeans for example). If everyone you hang around with has a basically similar worldview to yours, it doesn’t really even seem like a worldview at all; it’s just the way the world works.
That’s what has happened to the mainstream media and to the people who get their news exclusively from it. The mainstream media (Network news, CNN, NBC, New York Times, Washington Post, etc.) all reflect the same basic liberal corporate centrist worldview (left neoliberalism). The last few decades have seen the rise of another popular media worldview: the conservative corporate hard-right worldview (right neoliberalism) pushed by Fox News and the rest of the Murdoch media empire. And more recently we have seen the rise of the internet creating opportunities for a lot more media worldviews, primarily the too-racist-for-Fox alt-right worldview and the whole gamut of possibilities to the left of the mainstream that had previously been shut out of the conversation.
To people who still exist purely within the mainstream media worldview this looks like everybody who is exiting that worldview is just going crazy. They’re starting to have beliefs that the mainstream media worldview says are incorrect. It leads them to talk about a “post-truth” world and fret about how we can’t agree on facts anymore. What they’re missing is that there was never an agreement on the facts, just a situation where the media was united around one interpretation. Meanwhile the people exiting that worldview to the new alternatives feel like they’re waking up to the mainstream media’s lies and have now found the truth. To be fair to the exiters, the mainstream media worldview is very flawed. To be fair to the mainstream media, most of the alternative worldviews people are leaving for are at least as flawed, often way more.
We’re going to have to get used to a world where people choose media sources based on agreement with their worldview. Other sources feel like they’re lying to you by reporting based on assumptions you don’t share. People who agree with the mainstream media worldview are bummed that everyone’s no longer forced to hear reporting from their perspective, but the rest of us will be able to hear reporting from a perspective we share. And that’s not so bad.
Love is the most powerful force in the universe.
I might have a weird definition of love though: love means caring intrinsically about something, rather than caring about it to support some other goal.
So when you say “I love you” you are saying “I care about you and want good things to happen to you regardless of whether it gives me any benefit.”
“If you love someone set them free”. If you just like someone in that you enjoy their company you’ll want to keep them around even if that’s not what’s best for them. If you love them you’ll let them go do what’s best for them even if that’s bad for you.
So what do we love? The most basic love is self-love: who do most people care about the most and most want good things to happen to? Themselves, duh. Beyond that there’s a lot of talk about the love people feel for their spouses, their children, close friends, other relatives, etc. And beyond that you can also love things like your school, your country, or even all humanity in that you care about what happens to people in those categories beyond the effect it will have on yourself and whoever else you love.
Loving only or primarily yourself is called selfishness. Selfish people only care about themselves, not their spouses or families or countries or whatever.
I really don’t encounter that many selfish people. Most people do have some additional love to give. Even bad men love their mamas. What do you call someone who really loves themself and their immediate family, but nobody else? Not exactly selfish, but seems pretty similar if you’re not in the in-group. On the other hand if you are part of that in-group someone with that attitude seems pretty great: they’re prioritizing benefiting you over almost anything else in the world.
This is what racism, nationalism, and such are about: selfishness on behalf of your race or nation or religion or whatever. Who do you love, and who don’t you love? Who are you willing to sacrifice, and on whose behalf? We will do a lot for those we love, and hurt those we don’t not so much because we don’t like them but because they don’t even enter into our calculations.
We’re undergoing a transition in how we get information. It’s going from a world in which it’s possible for elite gatekeepers to directly shape what content people see, with the limitation of ratings and light government regulation, to a world where there’s an information ecosystem where different information sources can rapidly climb to prominence and particular stories can ‘go viral’ based purely on their memetic fitness rather than any particular human effort.
On minus side, this mean’s a lot more misinformation can get out there, both deliberately and accidentally. When there are no gatekeepers all sorts of stuff gets through the gates. On the plus side, true information that the gatekeepers were keeping out also has a much easier time getting out there. So we have a surge in people getting woke and understanding the true situation we find ourselves in, with our society dominated by a political and economic oligarchy that is looking out for their own interests ahead of everyone else’s. And that’s great! But on the other hand we have a surge in all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories and the kinds of intolerance deemed sufficiently extreme for the gatekeepers to not allow it in.
The old world is dying and the new struggles to be born. But once the process is complete and ‘old media’ is just one set of content producers in the information ecosystem, I think we’ll be better off. The traditional media sucks! They’re owned by big corporations or random rich people. Those owners are not going to fund institutions that work against their own interests. That would be crazy. It doesn’t take a conspiracy or anything, you just have to assume they’re not idiots. Sometimes they’ll go as far left as NBC or the New York Times, supporting mainstream Democratic policies, but that’s it. Whatever money is to be made with a TV station catering to an audience farther left than that has so far been left on the table. In contrast, under the information ecology model, something will inevitably emerge to fill that void. If you go to the /r/socialism subreddit, something is going to be posted there, even if it’s just blog posts. Once this all stabilize it should mean that everyone pretty much has access to information sources that come at thing from that person’s same worldview. And that’s fantastic, because it means that we won’t have the massive ideological distortions created by having an all-capitalist owned media. There won’t be any general direction in media bias, since the media directed at people with each viewpoint would just be biasing people towards itself, and they’d all be pointing in different directions depending on what viewpoints there’s demand for.
There are worries about this causing people to end up in information bubbles, only aware of their own viewpoint, but even without such bubbles people change viewpoints so rarely that I’m not sure what harm it could do. And at least this way you’ll presumably be at least aware that you are in just one of many information sub-cultures and that other ones that also think their views are just as valid are out there, rather than living in the mainstream consensus universe as determined by the media gatekeepers. And I think the “information bubble” is a little simplistic anyway. It’s more like we’re all at various points on a landscape and can see the viewpoint of people some distance around us on that landscape. You encounter the views of your friends on social media, the denizens of whatever internet comment boards you frequent, and of course the actual media content you choose to consume. Those will present a range of views that statistically you’ll probably be roughly in the center of, since they’re all from people similar to you at least in that you both ended up at online location X. And of course you’re made aware of the viewpoints of people at more distant parts of the landscape by within group discussion and investigation of those subcultures, obviously with the ability to go look at their content and engage with them directly if desired. Each group bleeds into the other at the edges. We’d all be discussing the same real world events. The ‘bubbles’ would be restrained from diverging too far. And in exchange we get a far more egalitarian and democratic method of information sharing that might let people resist their oppressors. That’s a trade I’m willing to make.
It seems like everyone acknowledges that Hillary is a completely unprincipled politician who will say or do anything to gain power. The difference is whether they think that matters. The pro-Hillary line among progressives seems to be that since it’s politically advantageous for her to act like a progressive, we can count on her to keep doing so, and that’s all that matters. The anti-Hillary case is that it actually does sort of matter what a politician believes, since they’re really not that accountable once in office, and thus it’s nice to have people who genuinely believe in what they advocate.
What do you think? Is it too much to expect for a politician to have ideals?
Food Stamps are fucking crazy. We should just give people cash. People often trade their food stamps for cash anyway, just at a bad exchange rate. Currently it’s like we are spending $110 to give someone either $100 worth of food or $50 worth of cash. We could spend $110 to just give people $109 worth of cash. How can anyone think that wouldn’t be better? The concept is basically that you can’t trust people to spend money on food. That is a new level of condescension to the poor.