In defense of/. mods, right now I see that the moderation is being corrected. And really misused moderation is usually taken care of by metamodes, I think.
Thanks for expanding on my much too short comment. I whole-heartedly agree. My "grandparents" reference was just meant in the sense that at that time, the pro-state leftists were the much stronger element.
The chances of libertarianism can maybe be deduced by the success of the anti-state left;) Just to toss a few names out there (without an overarching sense or order, Google is your friend) for those who don't want to remain on/.'s level in this matter: the already-mentioned Bakunin, Kropotkin, the Paris Commune of 1871, the Spanish Revolution of 1936, Operaismo, Deleuze/Guattari (Mille Plateaux), the Anarchist FAQ http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
Right, and all her characters, even the good guys, are unbelievable flat. There is scarcely any character development, the souls of these people have no depth, they have no hidden desires, no demons that haunt them, etc. In short,they are not at all like real people, which makes it just bad writing and a bad idea to hinge a theory of the real world on it. It's enjoyable though, like Star Trek.
*** Spoiler if you haven't finished Atlas Shrugged *** I have just spent way too much time googling for a comic that someone once linked in a/. comment. It was possibly titled "Atlas Shrugged, the sequel", or "Atlas Shrugged, Part II", or similar. It tells the story, in approx. one page, of how the story continued after all the Atlas heroes had settled down in their mountain seclusion: after some bragging of how they finally had gotten rid of all the useless people, they discover that they actually have no clue how to do all the mundane every-day tasks these people had done for them, like actually producing metals, cooking, or cleaning up. They all end up having to work the fields, muttering about how much it sucks. It was hilarious, and an extremely to-the-point comment on the shortcomings of Rand's "philosophy".
I had no success, so if anyone knows what I am talking about, please post the link. It's possible that this was part of a bigger series of comic "sequels" to famous books.
Yeah, I received 5 troll/flamebait mods within a minute or so, probably one guy. To be honest, though, my posts indeed were a bit flamebait-y, which I kind of regret. I mainly vented, and just can't be bothered anymore to explain myself in these/. topics, the stupidity of some of the libertarian and "conservative" crowd rivals that of the creationists in their stories.
I may have expressed my point not clearly. Certainly, many great people and ideas are falsely considered nutcase(s) in Europe (just as in the US), and it was not meant as a value judgment. The point was that libertarianism is decidedly fringe in Europe,and thus discussing it in a US context is only natural.
I, too, enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged. "Objectivists" who take it for a description of the real world are nuts, though. And as far as modern literature goes, she is just not on the level of the 20th century's greats.
STOP discussing socialism on the basis of your fucked-up US party systems. The democrats are in no way whatsoever resembling socialism or even what is called "social democratic" in Europe.
Bringing up the US is not "out of nowhere",but implied by the story submission. Nowhere else is the term "libertarian" even known, and your run-of-the-mill US libertarian would be classified as a nut-case (sometimes right-wing, sometimes left-wing) in Europe.
You musical horizon must be very limited. There is a huge number of collectively-composed pieces out there. Just as one example, look at Animal Collective, or much of Jazz after the 40ies.
Yeah, every space craft, car, CPU, dish washer, software, etc. is designed by a secluded individual genius. Oh, and yeah, I have read the Mythical Man-month, have you? Large parts of it are about how to structure a successful team.
And just as often, the special chemistry between the people in a band is lost when they break up, and neither individual ever reaches the same heights again. Look at McCartney.
I think of a leftist as someone who believes in a benevolent government that taxes the wealthy to provide benefits to the have-nots. This equates to Big Government.
Then you are thinking wrong, or at least much too simplistic. You know, there is actually contemporary leftist theory out there to read, why not try it instead of being stuck in a world view that fits your grandparents' time? E.g., Empire. PDF, txt and html versions here.
Funny, but I don't see that in reality. I read/. at threshold -1 to watch moderation misuse, and despite the frequent bitching about groupthink, it is extremely rare that anyone is erroneously modded to even 0, much less -1.
Funny. But you know what I mean: often you come across a statement that you know is true, but is tagged to need a citation. Now, I agree that such statements are not particularly great in an encyclopedia, but the point still stands that the lack of a link does not per se make the statement untrue.
This is made more difficult in case of topics that are (a) not well documented in general, and (b) happened before the internet became mainstream. Anyone who has ever searched for little-known, pre-internet stuff that did not originate in the US, or, even worse, only existed in a little country somewhere, knows how frustrating this can be. Often not even printed material exists.
Should all this information be simply eradicated from history?
I know, we still have to deal with reality though. Saying "this is not a problem because all statements should have sources" is not helpful, when a huge number of statements don't.
Both are good points, I think. But while articles indeed should have links to sources, by far not all do. And by far not all information that isn't backed up by source links right now is worthless or wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
In defense of /. mods, right now I see that the moderation is being corrected. And really misused moderation is usually taken care of by metamodes, I think.
Thanks for expanding on my much too short comment. I whole-heartedly agree. My "grandparents" reference was just meant in the sense that at that time, the pro-state leftists were the much stronger element.
;) Just to toss a few names out there (without an overarching sense or order, Google is your friend) for those who don't want to remain on /.'s level in this matter: the already-mentioned Bakunin, Kropotkin, the Paris Commune of 1871, the Spanish Revolution of 1936, Operaismo, Deleuze/Guattari (Mille Plateaux), the Anarchist FAQ http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
The chances of libertarianism can maybe be deduced by the success of the anti-state left
Right, and all her characters, even the good guys, are unbelievable flat. There is scarcely any character development, the souls of these people have no depth, they have no hidden desires, no demons that haunt them, etc. In short,they are not at all like real people, which makes it just bad writing and a bad idea to hinge a theory of the real world on it. It's enjoyable though, like Star Trek.
/. comment. It was possibly titled "Atlas Shrugged, the sequel", or "Atlas Shrugged, Part II", or similar. It tells the story, in approx. one page, of how the story continued after all the Atlas heroes had settled down in their mountain seclusion: after some bragging of how they finally had gotten rid of all the useless people, they discover that they actually have no clue how to do all the mundane every-day tasks these people had done for them, like actually producing metals, cooking, or cleaning up. They all end up having to work the fields, muttering about how much it sucks.
*** Spoiler if you haven't finished Atlas Shrugged ***
I have just spent way too much time googling for a comic that someone once linked in a
It was hilarious, and an extremely to-the-point comment on the shortcomings of Rand's "philosophy".
I had no success, so if anyone knows what I am talking about, please post the link. It's possible that this was part of a bigger series of comic "sequels" to famous books.
Yeah, I received 5 troll/flamebait mods within a minute or so, probably one guy. To be honest, though, my posts indeed were a bit flamebait-y, which I kind of regret. I mainly vented, and just can't be bothered anymore to explain myself in these /. topics, the stupidity of some of the libertarian and "conservative" crowd rivals that of the creationists in their stories.
I may have expressed my point not clearly. Certainly, many great people and ideas are falsely considered nutcase(s) in Europe (just as in the US), and it was not meant as a value judgment. The point was that libertarianism is decidedly fringe in Europe,and thus discussing it in a US context is only natural.
Seems someone used all 5 mod points on me, hehe.
I, too, enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged. "Objectivists" who take it for a description of the real world are nuts, though. And as far as modern literature goes, she is just not on the level of the 20th century's greats.
And politics, or society, or local communities aren't science either. QED.
dem candidates
STOP discussing socialism on the basis of your fucked-up US party systems. The democrats are in no way whatsoever resembling socialism or even what is called "social democratic" in Europe.
Please someone correct the moderation abuse in the parent post, which is not flamebait at all.
Bringing up the US is not "out of nowhere",but implied by the story submission. Nowhere else is the term "libertarian" even known, and your run-of-the-mill US libertarian would be classified as a nut-case (sometimes right-wing, sometimes left-wing) in Europe.
And that's undeniably a solo effort.
You musical horizon must be very limited. There is a huge number of collectively-composed pieces out there. Just as one example, look at Animal Collective, or much of Jazz after the 40ies.
Yeah, every space craft, car, CPU, dish washer, software, etc. is designed by a secluded individual genius.
Oh, and yeah, I have read the Mythical Man-month, have you? Large parts of it are about how to structure a successful team.
And just as often, the special chemistry between the people in a band is lost when they break up, and neither individual ever reaches the same heights again. Look at McCartney.
I think of a leftist as someone who believes in a benevolent government that taxes the wealthy to provide benefits to the have-nots. This equates to Big Government.
Then you are thinking wrong, or at least much too simplistic. You know, there is actually contemporary leftist theory out there to read, why not try it instead of being stuck in a world view that fits your grandparents' time? E.g., Empire. PDF, txt and html versions here.
Right on, AC.
You should maybe tried to read contemporary leftist theory before making a fool of yourself in public.
Atlas Shrugged is literature, and bad at that.
that creativity is not a group project. It is about the individual.
Yeah, that's why everyone uses something called "teams". An many musicians work in "bands".
Non-Germans would be expected to have no rights in a German court of law.
No, with a few exceptions, all human beings have the same rights in a German, or really any European, court of law.
Non-Americans have little rights in an American Court of law.
I don't think so, I'd expect more or less the same.
Funny, but I don't see that in reality. I read /. at threshold -1 to watch moderation misuse, and despite the frequent bitching about groupthink, it is extremely rare that anyone is erroneously modded to even 0, much less -1.
Funny. But you know what I mean: often you come across a statement that you know is true, but is tagged to need a citation. Now, I agree that such statements are not particularly great in an encyclopedia, but the point still stands that the lack of a link does not per se make the statement untrue.
This is made more difficult in case of topics that are (a) not well documented in general, and (b) happened before the internet became mainstream. Anyone who has ever searched for little-known, pre-internet stuff that did not originate in the US, or, even worse, only existed in a little country somewhere, knows how frustrating this can be. Often not even printed material exists.
Should all this information be simply eradicated from history?
Thanks, you expressed my point much more clearly than I could.
I know, we still have to deal with reality though. Saying "this is not a problem because all statements should have sources" is not helpful, when a huge number of statements don't.
Both are good points, I think. But while articles indeed should have links to sources, by far not all do. And by far not all information that isn't backed up by source links right now is worthless or wrong.