Submitted by stunet on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 09:08
Here's a list that gladdens. What Youth and "7 books you will psyche on and should totally read."
I often bemoan the fact that good writing is a dying art. It ain't necessarily true but it sometimes feels that way. The yoof, it always seemed to me, could buy a Canikon for a couple hunge, flood the 'net with images, and call 'emselves artists - easy! But unlike photography there's no shortcut to good writing: no autofocus, no colour correcting software - it's hard fucken work. And the first step toward it is to read lots and lots of great writers. So yeah, glad to see the yoof - What Yoof! - spruiking seven good books. Bit limited in scope and style but a good list nonetheless.
"The age of the Anthropocene announces that the human and natural worlds are interlinked as * NEVER * before.
Now that * WE * have a hand on the scales, we can no longer rely on nature or ecology to balance what we take from nature with what we give back."
Hmmm. More haste, less speed?
"And the thinking is downhill from there..."
How can humanity and nature be interlinked in any fashion other than intrinsically irrespective of the age ? There is no new ,old or unprecedented connection, only the eternal and immutable connection of one being entirely of the other.
“To balance what we take from nature” ....see the separation the author is describing ? Humanity could only take from nature if the two were seperate . The separation is non existent and always has been.
The premise is that we are removed from nature and it’s a false concept.
Another quick point - There is no such state as imbalance in nature. Nature is in a perpetual state of perfection. Any perceived imbalance is that which is viewed from a perspective as either advantageous or disadvantageous to one particular species or another.
Nature cannot be subtracted from or added to as it is all and it is perpetual and it is eternally perfect.
Blowin, for me there has been a profound change in our relationship with nature in recent decades. This has two aspects the first is related to Debord's views and it is that, on the whole, individuals are much less engaged with nature than in previous times. We are focused more and more on the "spectacle" this refers to the images of the world that we have created. It began with photos and movies but now, with smart devices and the Internet has become hugely distracting from the real world or nature or reality, whatever term you prefer. A classic example of this was Robert Fisk's observation that most soldiers and journalists in the war zones he reported on acted as if they were in a movie and so couldn't be killed because they were the hero.
At the same time as this trend, due to population growth and technological development we have obtained the power to influence the global systems that stabilise our environment. The consequence of these changes is that, just when people need to be focusing on nature, they are looking the other way. This will play out over the next decades and long in to the future
Ha ha! Let me hazard a guess, Blowin. You don't know what the purported 'Age of the Anthropocene' is, and you didn't even bother to give it a look.
Didn't stop you giving your opinion though.
Right! Got it! Good on you!
Anyway, for others:
The Age of the Anthropocene:
"Defining Earth’s most recent geological epoch in which human actions have started to provoke biophysical changes on a planetary scale, the word was coined in the 1980s by American biologist Eugene F. Stoermer and popularized in the early 2000s by Paul Crutzen, the Dutch atmospheric scientist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1995. The scientists noticed that these changes were leading the Earth system away from the relative equilibrium it had known since the beginning of the Holocene, 11,700 years ago."
In tea-spoon fed short:
The Age of the Anthropocene is characterized as the time in which the collective activities of human beings (Homo sapiens) began to substantially alter Earth’s surface, atmosphere, oceans, and systems of nutrient cycling.
From the same link above:
Why are we refusing to see this? There could be a number of reasons: a blind faith in progress and development – in other words, in a system which increases available wealth indefinitely – and a belief in the capacity of science and technology to solve all problems and negative externalities (like pollution, for example); powerful interests that benefit from this process and carry out intense lobbying; the media takeover of the minds of consumers, creating a hunger for individual consumption, as much for comfort as to set oneself apart and be recognized.
It is surprising that the human and social sciences have avoided this issue for so long, given that it will determine the future of humanity. Besides being anthropocentric by definition, these disciplines believe that the field belongs to the natural sciences, par excellence. The emergence of the concept of the Anthropocene confers upon them the responsibility of explaining how human societies have been able to provoke changes of such magnitude to the modus operandi of the planet, and what differentiated impacts they will have on the world map.
The social sciences and humanities should be developing and acquiring new subjects and knowledge to respond to the questions raised by this new epoch – including natural disasters, renewable energy, the depletion of natural resources, desertification, ecocide, widespread pollution, migration, social and environmental injustice."
This is where McKenzie Wark comes in!
And where I initially started.
Cool , so you either don’t understand my point or you dont want to.
Ha ha! What??
Let me try and get this straight.
I mention something; you take a piece of it, misread it, willfully or not (who knows?! including yourself!), and go off on a tangent; I clarify and widen the original point; you ignore, again, and then come up with some gobbledygook that is a sloppy admixture of the obfuscatory and the bleedin' obvious, and - ta da! - that's that!
Jeez, you could've at least just said anthropogenic climate change is crap or something?!
It's all cool! & carry on!
Ha ha! It's a carry on, alright, Blowin!
Carry on up the Khyber!
What I’m saying has nothing to do with either the age of the anthropocene or the resultant effect on the Earth’s climate.
What I’m saying is that the article is written by someone that deals exclusively in ideas and language and that she was sloppy with both in the article you provided.
She is incorrect on a philosophical level with her references to humanity AND nature as though they’re seperate. You may think that’s bleeding obvious, as do I , but that’s what she’s saying.
I’m not explaining it again , you can reread my posts if you want . You seemed to miss their point before.
Anyway , good luck.
Mate, you're not a reader are you?
Who's the 'she'??
There is no 'she' writing in the original post (which is from a review), that you've ignored for the most part, and cherry-picked, and interpreted fallaciously anyway.
TL:DR still? Maybe I've got to learn not to bother posting links on these threads. Ever.
But even spoon-feeding doesn't seem to work at all.
That article is by a man. Mark Rappolt. McKenzie Wark is a man. Guy Debord is a man.
The one article that has a female author is the later UNESCO article, which you're NOT referring to. It is also jointly written...with a man.
You're NOT reading and it is confusing yourself, your ideas, and is, frankly, a bit embarrassing.
And a waste of time.
Good night and good luck.*
*that's a reference of sorts too!
Sorry , I didn’t read the link.
Was a bit hasty of me , it’s just that the titbit you cut and pasted was full of such wank riddled , utter drivel that I couldn’t bear to expose myself to any more of it.
So yes , I did fail to realise that it was a review of a potentially decent work . My fault. It was the incorrect statements from the reviewer that I mistook for incorrect statements from a learned person. Again , my mistake.
Still , it was this maturbatory prose that got you so damp in the crotch - “ whew , heady stuff ! - so I was right anyway when I disparaged it.
TL : DR - It doesn’t matter who wrote it , it was still drivel. The book might be fine , the review was high camp garbage.
You keep digging a deeper hole.
It's making you seem a bit immature at best, idiotic at worst.
"Still , it was this maturbatory prose that got you so damp in the crotch - “ whew , heady stuff ! - so I was right anyway when I disparaged it."
Oh dear, dear, dear...
Again, you haven't read ANYTHING have you?
Let alone digested and processed?
This seems to be a pattern of yours evident in other threads.
I can see that it accounts for the reactions to your postings from the likes of Crypto Knight for example.
Very funny, biting responses from him, but absolutely no respect shown to you as well, which must be jarring personally I suspect, Blowin, but then again, what do you expect when you leave yourself so pitifully open to it?
Reading stuff might be a starting point towards some kind of redemption and respect.
Talking about reading stuff, here's a great little book that's just been delivered across my desk. Into its 4th edition. Definitely handy for some, if not all.
Deluxe book. Being read more and more around the globe.
No doubt the swillnut klan would love to add a higher education based chapter or ten!!!
WORDY SAID IT, SO BAD LUCK!!
Herman Hesse, Paulo Coelho Joyce Thomas and Queen of the sun was an enlightening read. Those little western novels.
My latest order. One for me, one for my auld boy. An interesting Seppo take.
A go-er, Blind Boy?
And there's more! Allied to some of the discussion above re: Debord.
How to Make Trouble and Influence People: Pranks, Protests, Graffiti & Political Mischief-Making from across Australia by Iain McIntyre.
“I noticed clear back on my first visit in ’83 that radical Aussies fighting back seem to be far more tenacious and creative than most Americans—Roxby Downs, that damned Franklin dam in Tasmania, Operation Titstorm, etc. A far better way to heat up the planet than your lovely mining companies. So keep up the good work! A prank a day keeps the dog leash away.”
— Jello Biafra
The author has got some other cool books too.
What’s Jello Biafra talking about ?
Isn’t he aware that better minds than ours have proven , beyond a thread of doubt , that there exists no such beast as an Australian ?
Sorry , in case you’re questioning the reference, it’s from this little snippet you wrote recently-
“What is a "proud Australian"? Greater minds than ours have tried to come up with what "Australia" is and what it means to be "Australian",
Yeah , I know . I had a chuckle about it at the time too.
PS Rather than overthinking it , if in future you’re ever in doubt as to who is or isn’t Australian, then here’s a simple test : If the person in question self describe themselves as being from any of the world’s 194 countries that AREN’T Australia, then you can pretty much assume that they are Australian.
Not so hard , huh ?
As an old tongue-twisting mate used to say, "you cease to amaze me".
You REALLY don't read, do you?
For an experiment, just re-read your own post above, and have a think - not an over-think, or an under-think - just a good read of what's actually in there, a slow think, and get back to us, you "proud Australian" you.
Don't concern yourself at this stage with say, Donald Horne, Russel Ward, Raewyn Connell, Bryan Turner or Craig McGregor (just off the top of my head), just start with actually reading your above comment.
* actually, Craig McGregor, apart from being the author of a great book Class in Australia (among many exploring what Australia is, it's cultural meaning, Australian identity etc), has a very strong surfing connection. Nat Young and Phil Jarratt can attest to that.
Slip of the keystroke ol ‘ mate. Easily fixed.
Thanks for the heads up.
Still , point remains. You’ve busted a gut attempting to establish that there’s no such thing as an Australian, that we’ve no discernible identity and particularly none that we should be proud of .
Then you’re patting yourself on the back and posting a quote that disproves your vapid theorising and saving me the slight chore of doing it.
"Then you’re patting yourself on the back and posting a quote that disproves your vapid theorising and saving me the slight chore of doing it."
...bears what relation in your fevered mind with this?
“What is a "proud Australian"? Greater minds than ours have tried to come up with what "Australia" is and what it means to be "Australian."
"Vapid theorisers", hey? Like say, Donald Horne, Russel Ward, Raewyn Connell, Bryan Turner or Craig McGregor (just off the top of my head), among many exploring what Australia is, it's cultural meaning, Australian identity etc.
By the way, you didn't answer absolutely anything, did you? Too much of a slight chore?
And if we scroll up the page, we can see you repeating this well-worn pattern of NOT reading. Again.
Here's my "slight chore" response from previously. It still fits.
"You keep digging a deeper hole.
Reading stuff might be a starting point towards some kind of redemption and respect."
Some light reading for our right wingers
Dark Money Jane Mayer
The truth about the US plutocracy
Correction, Blind Boy: Right whingers.
I’m pretty sure the only true right winger is Blob , BB.
The rest of us are just in disagreement with what the left we felt a part of has become .
Read the book Blowin. It is cheap on Kindle.
Alright. You're on a desert island, you can bring five books. Which five do you take?
I gotta read five books?
Okay, only one. [George takes a long time to answer] Come on!
Ah! I got it. The Three Musketeers.
You've read that?
No. I'm saving it for the island.
Here's six of the seven!
Well that's that then. " The End". Six volumes of tortured autobiographical fiction later, I can finally say goodbye to Karl Ove Knausgaard. I can't help but admire his courage and think that, by going so completely over the top, he has absolutely nailed shut the coffin on autobiographical literary fiction by middle aged white men and, in the process, has created a work of literature that puts him up there with Proust and Joyce.
There have been numerous reviews if you are interested, so I will keep this brief. The main point being that nothing I have read does him justice. His critics, in my judgement, have only revealed their own inadequate readings. Yes his obsession with the ordinary can get boring but it is there for a purpose and serves that purpose well. The only criticism, if you can call it such, is that to finish on "..... and they all lived happily ever after." hides the obvious conclusion that he has had enough, that the risks to the well being of all involved had become too great. Instant classic. Start at Book One!
Not a book but worth a readhttps://www.newyorker.com/culture/personal-history/a-surfers-perspective...
That was very good , BB.
"Milkman" Anna Burns
A major prize (This year's Man-Booker) is no guarantee of a good read but this is seriously great stuff. It has been reviewed as "difficult" but I can't see it myself, well maybe if Lee Child is your idea of literature, but otherwise a really clearly articulated stream of consciousness in straight-forward language. Think Belfast, The Troubles. Everything a work of art should be!
Someone in this thread recommended 'The Dry' by Jane Harper and I finally got around to reading that over the break. Had the potential to be Aussie pulp, the literary equivalent of a Mick Molloy film, but it punched far higher. Gritty Antipodean noir, all bleached white and parched.
Surprise pres from Mum was 'Mad, Bad, and Dangerous' by Colm Toibin, an unashamedly literary knees up about the fathers of Irish letters: Joyce, Yeats, and Wilde. Just to be clear, it's not actually about Joyce, Yeats, and Wilde, three men who portrayed the Irish spirit, but it's about their fathers. Curious premise for a book, peculiar, hard going in parts, but worthwhile. Makes my old man seem like a king, which was perhaps my Mum's point for buying it.
'Trigger Warnings' by Jeff Sparrow is three-quarters done, an urgent exegesis on the history and weaponisation of political correctness and identity politics. A timely read as PC is (again) being cynically repositioned as the downfall of Western civilsation with culture warriors forming their virtuous circle attacking a hapless left while the right throws the old bait and switch to steam ahead with neolib policies. God, if only people on the left would shut up about all the small things then the PC weapon would remain unloaded.
This one’s for Stunet :
I'm not too sure what I make of that....
Not a shot at you .
Just a reminder to never go full retard.
You were talking about the disempowerment of the West due to the instability incurred through excessive adherence to political correctness.
Maybe I agree with the premise of the book and you don’t ?
That of PC becoming a proxy field of endeavour now that the Earth has been domesticated In urbanised zones ?
There are many take home messgaes from the book, but one that sings out loud is that the actual threat of Political Correctness doesn't approach the right's fear-mongering and hyperbole about the dangers of PC. The term was invented by the left as a joke at overly earnest types, yet was adopted and given a negative connotation by the right when their conservative values were challenged.
It is perplexing. Much as the writer in that piece opined, I thought that the Western world was becoming more enlightened, that we'd learned from the horrors of the past, and we could safely bed down anti-Semitism and civil rights, but in the last decade so much energy has gone into actually arguing for a return to racism and hate speech. Intellectually justifying it. That was a major platform when the Abbott government came to power. "The right to be bigots". Yeah, yeah Voltaire and all that, but aren't we supposed to be progressing...you know, actually learning from past mistakes rather than continually repeating them? It appears not. And zealous PC accusation is a way to keep stirring up the ghosts of the past till the right wingers achieve the 'brutopia' they so desire.
As you can probably see I've got a foot in each camp, right and left, and both feet have jack boots on kicking the respective arses.
Also, should say, that 'take home message' was mine. The author lays it all out with little judgement imposed.
michael pollan "how to change your mind: the new science of psychedelics"
he reports on a renaissance in the clinical use of, and research into, LSD and psilocybin....
Enlightenment doesn’t mean you can safely turn your back on humanities base instincts.
I find the idea that mankind’s morality has progressed in a lineal fashion to be quaint and unsubstantiated.
The belief that we’re more moral than even the generation before us is tenuous. The fact that we’ve had globalisation thrust upon us by vested interests that have nothing whatsoever to do with morality lends no gravity to the belief that mankind will ever be united . Political correctness in its most pure form emphasises rather than diminishes tribalism.
Don’t you think ?
Old mate in the link I provided,twisted into knots because he’s afraid to alienate a tribe that defines itself through exclusivity.....no one is ever going to unite under such delineated circumstance.
John Lennon had it right when he sang Imagine. The modern celebration of diversity leads to .......division.
But values change, no? I mean faggots once got burnt at the stake, blacks were slaves, and even kneelos were banished to the outer reaches of the pecking order. Now they've all got equal rights and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks that ain't A-OK.
So while my assertion may seem naive it's got some historical basis; cultures change, they always do, and those who resist crow about Political Correctness as if we should remain in stasis.
But my point is that PC is just a paradigm shift in who it’s okay to slight.
People haven’t gotten nicer. You’ve only got to read these threads and some of the posts of the social progressives - they’re downright mean !
It’s just the goal posts that have shifted. Sure , it’s not acceptable to hate gays , but it’s more than fine to hate “ old , white men “ .
Sure the fucktard parliamentarians weren’t the appropriate people to represent the defence of such people , but even the vehemence and unity in opposition to the fact that some one dares say “ hey , wait a minute , sure some people are getting rough treatment for their skin colour, but is attacking MORE people because of their skin colour the answer ?” .
And it’s a constant attack , even on these very threads.
That is what political correctness is . The fact that it’s still okay to be a rude , disrespectful cunt towards strangers based on their external pidgeon hole characteristics....as long as they’re on the designated hate list.
And don’t even get me started on the “ celebration “ of diversity that’s so en vogue.
Even the list of acceptable criticisms of cultures is so preprogrammed that it makes me feel crook.
So Rasta is lauded for saying that he thinks that all line ups should be more diverse ?
Go tell that to the Sentinel Islanders you fucking idiot . Or the Arnhem Land mob ....
"That is what political correctness is . The fact that it’s still okay to be a rude , disrespectful cunt towards strangers based on their external pidgeon hole characteristics....as long as they’re on the designated hate list."
I'd say that's an extremely narrow and subjective view of PC, and not what's generally being debated.
If someone is being a cunt while supposedly making a point about manners...well, they're not making a point about manners at all. You can place that argument somewhere else, probably next to all the dopey shit that Uplift/Herc/Crypto comes up with.
Also, as an aside, I'm a white man, kinda old too I guess, yet have never felt victimised when reading headlines about old white guys. Yeah, bully for me, but the whole 'race to victimhood' horsehit that News Ltd goes on with cuts both ways.
I do feel it though , Stu .
And isn’t that the crucial decider for anyone who’s racially vilified ? Personal interpretation of an incident?
I’m not going to slit my wrists because of it , but nor is anyone who’s told to get off the bus cause they’re a gook/ wog / whatever.
I’m not into it.
I’d never denigrate someone because of the colour of their skin or the history of their people, but suddenly it’s all good to do so.
I can name you a few on here that’ll do so .
It’s the New Fuckwit. Same as the Old Fuckwit ....but New !
The rest of PC is mostly divisive garbage.
Division is the wrong answer , regardless of the question.
Elevating our differences is a sure fire way to keep people segregated.
And I’m pretty sure that was why the Left was sold the dud of identity politics.
The modern danger presented by political correctness is that it’s humorousless , dour and absolute.
It brooks no argument.
And these days , to argue is to be expunged socially.
It’s the neo excommunication.
Fired from your job . Banned from social media - which is the modern version of the telephone. Ridiculed and bullied.
All for any perceived indiscretion- former requirements of jurisprudence are no longer required, thanks very much.
You’re out !
No questions asked, no quarter given.
And I’m only talking about the acts of the “rational and reasoned “ types out there. Hey BB !
So it’s agree , concede , compromise or lose it all. Your choice.
That’s the danger of PC.
You still don’t think so ?
OK then , what kind of reaction should a modern celebrity or person of power expect if they were to openly question the elevation of cultural diversity as the ultimate goal within modern Australian society ?
Without wishing to denigrate your position Blowin, (that's me being PC), I think you are completely wrong. As the oldest white man in the room, the only place I have ever experienced discrimination (of a minor and often humourously intended character) was Hawaii. I am absolutely sure that I could not say that if I had any other status, ie not white, female, Jewish, Muslim etc. So, some white men have been disadvantaged by globalisation and immigration, MOST members of other groups have experienced similar or much greater disadvantage (eg. An indigenous person of my age could not rent or buy on the NB for most of their life). The appropriate response to any kind of disadvantage is for governments to take action to minimise it. And no, this does not always happen and is not always effective. So, taking your advice, my non-PC) take on your position is that you are suffering from some sort of persecution complex and a deep desire to identify as a victim.
Boo hoo other races.
The same old white men were getting shot as soon as possible by the Japanese , the Germans and the Italians .
Denigrating someone for there skin colour is fucked.
Being able to do it without fear of recourse is political correctness.
As long as they’re the ( currently) race on the shitlist that is.
Same , same ....but different.
If you hang shit on someone because of skin colour you’re a fuckwit.
But if you want to justify your untenable position, continue as you were .
Niggers ! Yellow peril ! Old White men ! Jews !
All of these have been charged with threatening the world at some stage ...which of these is it acceptable and fashionable to persecute in the modern age ?
Sure , I’ve imagined it ...https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/because-i-am-sma... fancy SMH publishing an article I’d written saying that I’d been fetishised by Asian women cause I’ve got blonde hair and blue eyes ! This shit is off the charts for denigrating an entire race due to their skin colour . Personally I think it’s awesome that those sweet , tiny pussy Asian chicks love being fucked by blonde haired Aussies !*
*:See how crazy the reverse notion sounds ? If you can justify that , you’re a fucking moron .
And where do you get your “ facts “ that MOST non white , female , Jewish , muslims have been discriminated against ?
You think that the average Javanese muslim gets hassled for being a Muslim ?
SJW bitches Hoover those kinds of fallacies up like they’re M and M’s
I didn’t realise you were a SJW Bitch , BB .*
* Now tell me again how an insult is less insulting because your grandparents weren’t in the holocaust.
Australia Blowin! I thought we were discussing Australia. If you want to consider the situation in Indonesia, then Muslims are the majority and Christians are discriminated against in some places and there are parts of Java where to be Non-Muslim could easily prove fatal. Within Australia you can do the reading herehttps://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/...
As for the Guardian article, do you understand that we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. This implies that, while exact proportions are not expected, there should be some degree of correlation between the composition of the parliament and the composition of the community. If, as is usually the case, white men of a certain age and class are massively over-represented while other groups eg women are massively under-represented, this undermines the legitimacy of the government. If you disagree with this line of reasoning you would probably be more comfortable in some authoritarian regime where democracy is taken rather less seriously, but don't worry, there are plenty to choose from. Australia is headed so firmly in the direction of more equitable representation, I would suggest you consider the move sooner rather than later.
The Dry was a ripper of a book Stu.
Currently reading Scrublands which is similar in someways. Worth a look for sure
The threat of PC growing is pretty much a given...........horror of horrors. I note the behaviour of my kids and their friends they actually care about each other.
At their age I was a wild feral nut case in comparison, so bad I have never talked about stuff that I got up to, some of the old practical jokes would get you locked up these days, mind you likely a lot of less damaged souls around as a result.
I think the younger generation will move further to being nice while grumpy old Blowings resist, resistance is useless more important issues to get excited about always been a distraction while the big money strip wealth off the many.
The victimised white male thing I think is total BS.
Only a fool would go on a picnic with ivan milat. I don't give a fuck what chicken shit, smarmy ponces call me in virtual bad boy world. But a gutless, whiny, chicken shit, hidden, piss weak, squealing, racist, festering, maggoty, less than a cock roach shit cunt, smarmily called my wife, an innocent woman, an underage Asian whore and slut. It, in all its chickenshit, maggot, smarmy finery is all on here to this day.