And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[greg]

Fair enough, my friend. I think metal was awesome in the 70's and 80's, perhaps reached a zenith around 1990 or so and then faded. Can't really tell you about death metal at all. Friends raved about the Euro metal scene years ago but I longed for coherent lyrics, something tangible like Ozzy singing Paranoid or Rob Halford Breaking the Law. 

The metal scene is probably bigger than it's ever been, but at this point is so diverse that everything is just branches off of branches rather than the roots, like the stuff you're talking about. You probably wouldn't like the modern stuff- although still there is more traditional stuff out there, it can be very progressive, harsh, abstract stuff. So many subgenres to explore.

Film noir always intrigued more than horror movies. The latter seemed gratuitous, scenes meant to shock and awe for its own sake. Perhaps I'm missing something here. The former had a far greater psychology to it and violence emerged naturally from choices that flowed upon a river of fatalism.

Film noir seems like something I should have gotten into, but tbh I have no idea exactly what it is.

[greg]

It certainly has evolved. I'm sure there is great music out there but I've never explored it, sad to say. I think the last metal song I remember loving was Slayer's God Hates Us All and that was like in 2001. I liked some of Metallica's last album but does that still count as metal?

Well, if I had give an example of the sound of modern metal this would be a good one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzznL_8DIUM

That Slayer album is great, probably my favorite out of the ones that I've heard. Not really a thrash metal guy... there are a select few bands still doing thrash, like Vektor, who I've been listening to recently, who is pretty decent.

Usually centered around a crime of some kind, usually a femme fatale but not always, a morally comprised man whose lust or weaknesses leads him to murder or something sinister. There is a day to day concrete psychological resonance with me. Whereas with horror I feel like I've entered a world that is totally foreign, except maybe in a nightmare. I dunno. Random violence like that just unsettles me. If you kill someone there should be a reason.

Yeah, not having a reason is pretty inhuman, it's more like a force of nature than a thinking person. But the aspect of people that do that IRL like serial killers, I think it's purely based on feelings. They don't quite understand it, either, except as compulsions. Usually it may stem from childhood abuse so it just gets baked in to the wiring of their brain.

[arpeggio]

I can watch MSNBS for about half an hour before I get frustrated and start watching old episodes of NCIS.

Fox, only a few minutes.

It is all a matter of degrees.

"How's you mother-in-law? Compared to what?"

[Todd]

Perhaps it's time to revisit this op-ed:

America Shouldn't Tolerate 'Biden Being Biden'

Here's the accompanying photo of another famous inappropriate moment from Super-Creepy Uncle Joe.



It is from that intractable, far-right outlet Time, so it's just kooky. 

It's hard to tell if and when things will get back to normal in terms of retail politics and pressing the flesh.  Super-Creepy 46 may not get a chance to get all touchy-feely as president.

[drogulus]

Fair enough, Drog, but if I may add that pretty much most people think they have facts on their side, no matter whether they are on the left or the right or hold firmly to an ideology or not. I think most are selective in finding a particular set of information and using it to advance policies, goals, etc or confirm what they already wanted it to.

If that doesn't make any sense I had a Moscow Mule with lunch so apologies in advance.

     Some selectivity might be controlled by bias and some in defiance of it. The question is whether you are the servant or the master of your beliefs. I prefer to choose based on what I know and can find out, and in the process try to shape my ideology more than it shapes me.

     

[Karl Henning]

     Some selectivity might be controlled by bias and some in defiance of it. The question is whether you are the servant or the master of your beliefs. I prefer to choose based on what I know and can find out, and in the process try to shape my ideology more than it shapes me.

     

Surgically done, sir.

[drogulus]

I believe you 100%. Perhaps it's more of a conservative tradition to stick with and value your beliefs, traditions, and ideology longer because they have worked hitherto and only alter them slowly when liberals typically react with far more gusto to notions of change or progressivism because of something like "having facts on their side." Could be a values vs facts debate in the end.

     Acting on the notion that one has facts on your side is doubleplus good IMV. It means you can be wrong about things, which I value very highly. It makes wrongness a discoverable fact rather than just allowing beliefs to reinforce themselves with no check on them.

     Values may not be facts but if facts can't alter them you are a puppet. Murder is wrong and stays wrong because the social facts that determine this value will not change even if your favorite Bog says otherwise.

[greg]

"This process, Garsten acknowledges, is very different from "justification," the mode of discourse featured in liberal political theory, which assumes the possibility of universal agreement and thus advocates that we treat "different audiences similarly," whereas rhetoricians assume the inevitability of disagreement and advocate treating "different audiences differently" (5)" (Fleming, 2019, p. 519).

Some people can't agree with themselves from month to month about who their favorite composer is, let alone imagine getting multiple people to agree on a favorite composer for years at a time... or about "what's right," when information availability is changing all the time... sounds like "justification" is just fantasy land wishful thinking, or possibly even an authoritarian attitude destined to be short-lived. Even Genghis Khan allowed the different conquered people under his rule to practice their own religions, because why not? Why provoke even further? 

[SimonNZ]

I know its going to sound like a silly question, but I feel compelled to ask it just for clarity's sake:

You're not against the use of news outlets to make you aware of issues you may have overlooked or to signpost things to be followed up in more depth elsewhere, right?

[Todd]

Rep. Ilhan Omar says she believes woman's sex assault claims against presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden

Under fire, first-term congresswoman says she will still vote for the Democratic presidential nominee.

I wouldn't vote for me if I believed Tara Reade

[drogulus]

     I suppose one can justify voting for the theoretically terrible Biden as an emergency measure. Tara seems to have crashed and burned without any effort to disbelieve her, so I don't know if this will be a live issue going forward.

[drogulus]

For the purpose of simplicity, I am going to focus on a single representative, Steve King. He was selected because he is likely the most controversial member of Congress. His own party withdrew his funding and removed him from prominent seats he once held. He has been accused of being a white nationalist, which is what compelled the GOP to remove him, and he received condemnation from many, and is currently running to get reelected, which seems unlikely.

     Any shithead will coalesce with others for pork. You haven't earned the lofty perch you are assuming with humdrummery like this.

     The possibility of agreement isn't a truth, it's an enabling assumption. People don't try to do things if they adopt the disabling assumption that it won't work.

[Florestan]

The relationship between facts and values has been long since established by David Hume. One cannot go from facts to values, there is simply no way to infer "what ought to be" from "what is". Facts cannot create values. To begin with, selecting the relevant facts out of myriads of them already presupposes values.

The opposite, though, is true. Values can create facts. Eg: freedom of the press, constitutional government, universal healthcare --- prior to them being facts, they were values.

[Florestan]

Correct. Don't know if we were having a strict philosophical conversation, 'tho.

Everything is philosophy, sir, despising philosophy included. 

[drogulus]

The relationship between facts and values has been long since established by David Hume. One cannot go from facts to values, there is simply no way to infer "what ought to be" from "what is". Facts cannot create values. To begin with, selecting the relevant facts out of myriads of them already presupposes values.

The opposite, though, is true. Values can create facts. Eg: freedom of the press, constitutional government, universal healthcare --- prior to them being facts, they were values.

     You can't have values without prior facts to work from, about human life as individuals and social beings. Values sort facts according to how they might be used advantageously, sometimes with a little metaphysical rocket fuel to make them stick.

     The value/fact complex is far too interesting to be stuck where Hume left it. It's best not to treat even the best philosophers as though thought stopped with them. There, I did a value!

Correct. Don't know if we were having a strict philosophical conversation, 'tho.   

     Sir, negative, sir! Hume said "ought" isn't derived from "is". Values are not so simply derived from facts as that. The question remains how facts are used to derive "oughts".

     Philosophical discussions don't have to be strict. This one isn't, and that's very OK.

[ritter]

Everything is philosophy, sir, despising philosophy included. 

From the classic Argentine comic strip Mafalda, by Quino:


-What is philopsphy, daddy?


-Yesterday I asked my dad to explain to me what philosophy is. - And?

Good day, Andrei.

[Florestan]

Good day, Andrei.

Good day, Rafael.

[Karl Henning]

Everything is philosophy, sir, despising philosophy included. 

Ecce homo, ergo elk

[Florestan]

     You can't have values without prior facts to work from, about human life as individuals and social beings. Values sort facts according to how they might be used advantageously, sometimes with a little metaphysical rocket fuel to make them stick.

     The value/fact complex is far too interesting to be stuck where Hume left it. It's best not to treat even the best philosophers as though thought stopped with them. There, I did a value!

Of course you did! You could not have done without it, no way, sir!

The question remains how facts are used to derive "oughts".

But that's precisely what I alluded to: there is simply no way that facts can be used to derive "oughts".

It's Hume, sir!

 

Philosophical discussions don't have to be strict. This one isn't, and that's very OK.

Philosophy is not a strict science. Ask Socrates, Pascal, Kierkegaard or Unamuno. Interestingly enough, none of them was German... 

[Florestan]

Ecce homo, ergo elk

What is elk?