The way Patrick suffered all that abuse from Zaha before getting to work for her says a lot about both him and Zaha. After 25 years I the practice, I avoid these people when I can. Sit in that position too long and you will have no soul left.
On a different note, unfortunate that this might incur a disservice to parametricism in general. The association built up between neoliberalism and parameteicism in such a discourse might now overshadow other usages and possibilities. There is no evidence that it cannot be employed under non-profit driven circumstances, as functionally or as dysfunctionally (is there an objective study on whether parametrically construed buildings functionally and socially outperform others?) as it being used for the ends he espouses.
Neoliberalism relies on the power of the state. It's proped up by state power, regs, and capital. Anarcho capitalism is much more independent of the state. Hillary Clinton is an example of a neo-liberal...Someone like Ron Paul represents more of a anarcho capitalist agenda....I'm not sure they are the same...maybe in some respects, but ultimately most US corporations benefit from neo-liberalism...Monsanto, big pharma, etc...While so called disruptive companies like uber and arbnb are more examples of capitalism in spite of the state...enabled mostly by technological innovations.,.
I don't see PSs agenda as an inherently evil one...while I understand that it sure can be used for evil....I'd say it's more system based than moral based and is really only as bad or good as the way it is used...an ax is a tool until you hit someone in the head with it.
Neoliberalism is the transitional step that gives up more and more responsibility and control over to corporations. Eventually, the democratic mechanisms in government and the press that allow ordinary people like us to exercise political muscle and to stay informed break down. And as they break down, wealthy private forces will advance.
If you don't see whats wrong with Patrik Schumacher's proposal/manifesto/thought-experiment/whatever , then perhaps you just don't see what is wrong about the path we're already on.
I can take a super wild guess that they're rejecting Schumacher for the same reasons that ZHA and the executors of Hadid's estate spoke out against him yesterday. But that just a guess.
So davvid, how is Patrick's manifesto any different from what has already happened? You are judging a system as a mechanism based on its most immoral players and worst manifestations. I'm just saying, capitalism is not inherently bad. But I guess again we are arguing whether guns kill people or people kill people...Power and greed will surface in any system because they are inherent to human nature. The question is whether or not we have the liberty as a people to prevent tyranny. Capitalism is the only system that provides a mechanism for such resistance.
Of course Schumacher is allowed to speak his mind. But is he entitled to an audience? Is he entitled to invitations to speak at prestigious conferences? Are we not allowed to criticize him? Are we not allowed to ignore him?
Also, are Schumacher's ideas actually compelling, or are they just controversial. Most of his ideas just seem to be casually plucked from economics or philosophy and shoehorned into Architecture discourse. And he regularly uses rhetoric that seems to have been borrowed directly from conservative media. For example, his use of the phrase "political correctness" when Shigeru Ban was awarded the Pritzker Prize, seemed particularly revealing of how run-of-the-mill his motivations actually are. And how, despite the hifalutin architecture context, he sometimes just seems like just another recently radicalized libertarian dude who just started learning more about Ron Paul.
"People have every right to _______ and _______ _____. In fact, ____ and _____ have argued over many issues over the years. So __ am not offended by the _________ against him, or suggesting he should not be held to account for views that others object to. What ____ am condemning is the _________ tenor of the _____, and the ____________ consequences of turning on someone for expressing _____ deemed beyond the pale. _________ ideas are ______ to be afraid of. We even teach __________ (or at least we used to) that ______ and ______ are one thing but _________ are nothing to worry about. So the first response to _______'s diatribe should not be to reach for the _______ button, but to instead grow some _______ and maybe ________ back."
he is right in that he is not speaking for ZHA. and ZHA is, like most businesses with profit in mind, amoral, economically speaking. which is to say, ZHA is not much better or worse - generally- than many of the companies we work, have worked for, lead, etc. indeed, on a broader moral scale, to my knowledge, for instance, they have not built prisons, especially prisons that serve capital punishment for instance. yes, they have built for oppressive regimes and dictatorships as, I am sure, have many others.
he is speaking as a public intellectual (in the sense that his pronouncements implicate public policy and civic life) and, as an architectural intellectual (in trying to bind parametricism with neoliberalism in, if not deterministic way then in a compatibility based way).
I am of the opinion that his pronouncement is not at all subversive. he is not doing anything than state his enthusiasm for an economic model that has been in development globally, that is no longer in a paradigmatic state that is to speak and that has lead to the economically strangling gentrification of cities (driving the poor away - therefore depriving them of their own means of sustenance - as those with more means are able to compete more advantageously in taking over properties) , increasing loss of liberalism as opposed to the increase thereof as the rich tend to form a network of their own that precludes the poor: hence "class war", a war declared necessarily by the appetite for profit , impoverishment of the poor locally and globally, cronyism ..etc.
You will find many examples of this; I suggest my own, Lebanon where private interests have taken over public space, taken over the capital's residential market pushing out residents who can no longer afford to live in their neighbourhoods that they grew up in. the entire Lebanese coastal shore has been piecemealed out to rich politicians and their business acolytes (here you can even inverse the terms, rich businessmen and their politician acolytes) and the only remaining successful public space, the Corniche and its beach extention,
. I would claim here that capitalism does not happen in a void, not neoliberalism nor so called "anarcho-capitalism", a term that expresses an extreme state of neoliberalism, ie the extreme conclusion of weaking (therefore disappearance) of government, deregulation and privatization. but its a good catchy term none the less. All stages of capitalism inherit the structures of economic priviledge that precede it, be it a structure of religious institutions, bourgeois businesses, traditional kinship, slavery, feudalism etc. The notion of a neutral equitable capitalism, a benign one that situates your interests on par with my own, an equal competition, with the disappearance of an intervening powerful regulating body (ie government) that influences the competition ...is a sham, or a scam.
Capitalism never happens on an equal footing between those who are victims of these structures and those who privildge from this system. neoliberalism- and its extreme theoretical conclusion anarcho-capitalism - is nothing but the total loss of some liberal provisions instated by governments the early 20th century , that are being consistently weakened since then, in response to powerful demands by the people and in fear of the growing rise of a global leftist revolution at that time (there is no such fear nowadays of course).
There is nothing subversive or progressive about Schumacher's position. it is only an avant garde in the sense that it is pushing at the forefront of an already developed hegemonic state of affairs to a conclusion that will only lead to the tyranny of the rich over the poor and to the complete loss of brakes instated to protect the drive of profit over welfare. in other words an avant garde to a regressive and repressive state of reality
as for the position that one style or method is more natural or conducive to or functionally enabling for neoliberalism (or call it what you will) more than another, that is, u suspect, as associative as are eisenman's projects relative to, for instance, language (or whatever his contemporaneous interest is).
as i used the term, I had somewhat in mind the defensive advance guard implicit in the literal and military significance of the word. that is to speak a force that supports and defends an already established state of reality, an intellectual voice "pushing at the forefront of an already developed hegemonic").
so I say:" it is only an avant garde in the sense that..." to present knowingly that conflict with the way the term we use nowadays to refer to a, somewhat, 'before-the-fact' creative and experimental -rather than dogma based and buttressing- force. of course I am limiting myself to the topic here, the politics of Schumacher rather than his actual architectural undertakings. the latter is a different topic, despite his present associative conjectures.
I must say, although I detest this political terrain, I remember reading parts of his book. he is not at all of a dull intellect and I am sure would be a most interesting coffee table partner. I mean, I think I would die of boredom if I had zumthor or pallasmaa or one of those to talk to...anyway, the man is not the devil, although I don't think he would be morally against the idea of building in hell if he got a free hand at trying his parametricism at a grand and infernal urban scale.
Schumacher has thoroughly proved himself to be an idiot.
Also, anarcho-capitalism is definitionally oxymoronic and anyone claiming their subscription to that "ideology" either has no idea what anarchism and capitalism mean or they are bad-faith actors using the anarcho prefix to put a rebellious spin on austerity-pimping neo-liberalism.
Anarchism is the opposition to all hierarchy. Not exactly anti-hierarchy to suggest gutting social housing in a country with a skyrocketing rate of teen homelessness (let alone homelessness in general)...
No it’s not. You are mistaken. There is no scenario in nature where hierarchy is absent. Anarchism relies on spontaneous order over centralized planning. Capitalism is simply the ability for 2 parties engage in free trade. In archaism
Apr 18, 22 7:14 pm ·
·
x-jla
There is absolutely no state, unlike libertarianism which has a basic state to ensure inalienable rights and liberties. In anarchism, there is no one backing property rights or money. Security would be privately held, or communal in nature. Think pre-colonial North America. There was still trade, hierarchies, local politics, territory’s, etc. all in the absence of a federal government. I don’t think this would work…just clarifying. You need to also make a distinction between left and right anarchism or libertarianism. Neither are inherently right or left. Both versions exist. Noam Chomsky is famously a left libertarian-anarchist. I get what you are saying, in that capitalism as we know it requires state backed property rights and currency, but in and of itself, capitalism is nothing more than trade.
Please tell you don't believe pre-colonial North America was an anarchist environment.
Apr 19, 22 9:55 am ·
·
x-jla
It was tribal. Tribalism is not anarchism, but anarchism becomes tribalism in some form. Hierarchies are an essential part of human organization. Break down existing systems, and humans conglomerate, and within those conglomerates hierarchical human relationships form.
Apr 19, 22 11:50 am ·
·
x-jla
So the misunderstanding is that anarchism is complete disorder. It’s not. Rather it replaces a singular centralized state order, with many localized communal orders. My problem with this is that local tyranny is still tyranny in effect. An abusive relationship between 2 parties can be tyrannical. Libertarianism solves this problem by creating a centralized state that ensures individuals basic liberties and rights, and protects individuals from state and personal aggression. Anarchism, left or right, devolves into the same thing, and that thing is only as good as the worst of its people.
I think the social experiment CHOP proves this point true. Within a week a de facto police state formed that committed the same infractions that they were complaining about. A hard border formed. hierarchies of leadership formed. Rules formed. It’s all the same shit, different name.
They have many things in common with Republicans, but that’s because some aspects of Republicanism focuses on smaller state power. They also have some things in common with liberals. It’s not as simple as you are making it. Republicans and democrats aren’t philosophical…they are political parties. Anarchy and libertarian is simply a removal or reduction of state authoritarianism, and an acceptance of the spontaneous order that follows, influenced by culture and human nature. That’s all it is. Republicans and conservatives believe in the codified preservation of institutions. Libertarians believe in the organic
Apr 19, 22 3:16 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
Libertarians trust that the person next door values and believes the same thing they do. When reality sets in they start setting up rules and become Republicans.
You think that the outcome of an occupation of a single city block by protestors with constant surrounding pressure from state apparatuses is a good representation of the possibilities and efficacy of voluntary association?
I am not mistaken. I am very familiar with the difference between political ideologies and political parties. True anarchism is (and always has been) a left wing ideology. "Anarcho-capitalism" and the modern definition of "libertarianism" are exactly the same; neither are actually pursuant of anarchism. Also, there are plenty of examples of non-hierarchical systems in the natural world. But even if that weren't the case, its still incomparable to human association. Also ps, communism is good! (USSR/Cuba were state capitalist nations painted red lol).
It doesn’t matter what wing the ideology is. In an anarchist world, Trade and capitalism will naturally evolve, and only can be suppressed with the opposite of anarchism/libertarianism, authoritarianism.
Anarchy is a cool idea that people will ruin like they ruin everything else. My philosophy is that any ism will collapse at the weak point of the individual citizens…greed, gluttony, violence, ignorance, etc. An anarchist society filled with enlightened people is easy. It’s the difference between a prison filled with violent criminals vs one filled with a bunch of Buddhist monks. Two totally different experiences despite the same environment. Betterment of the individual is the key to the success of any system. And, In our culture the individual is becoming worse, not better. more narcissistic, greedy, entitled, glutinous, materialistic, arrogant…this is why the culture stuff is imo far more important than the political stuff.
The antidote is self Discipline, family, community, meaningful work, nature, free time, etc…and the role of the designer can play a part in creating places that promote some of these things. Architecture is not political, it’s cultural. PS needs to understand that the collapse of the individual character, of the citizens, under the weight of this modern world, will bring about authoritarianism. To have something that looks like anarchism, left or right, the culture needs to change. PS taking a political narrative is not effective imo. The architect is an agent of cultural persuasion, not political.
Culture is a reflection, a sum, an answer. Culture is not a deliberate construct, a formula, a question. Culture is organic, not manufactured. To say "the culture needs to change" is to suggest that people should be forced to change. You are supposedly against that. As usual you talk in circles.
SP, I never said anything about forcing anything. I literally said that “ The architect is an agent of cultural persuasion”. You lefties can’t seem to separate a critique of culture with a call to authoritarianism. I can critique culture without doing that. It’s quite easy. Here’s an example: “Americans are overweight and unhealthy mostly because of poor diet and predatory advertising”. SP-so you want to force people to exercise and ban fast food? JLA- no that’s not what I said.
Apr 20, 22 4:01 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
"To have something that looks like anarchism, left or right, the culture needs to change." -x-jla
Organically, with the right conditions, we may get to a place where the population is capable of flourishing within such a system. We are not there now. Creators of culture can play a small role in pushing culture in a “healthier” direction. Like the music of the late 60’s did imo. I don’t recall Hendrix forcing anyone to think anything. Architecture and all forms of art and culture can/should persuade, not force. I think, and I hate to say this as a huge hip-hop fan, but honestly much of it is culturally degenerative. As is the materialistic pop stuff. This doesn’t mean that we ought to ban, or stop listening…just hopefully that some more positive vibes will out compete.
Apr 20, 22 4:29 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
CULTURE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS CONSCIOUSLY CREATED. CULTURE IS A REFLECTION OF WHAT IS.
I think you are trying too hard to disagree with me on this. Various political systems require differing degrees of individual responsibility. This increases as we move down closer to anarchism…this is a reality of libertarianism too. It requires a responsible population to work. This is a stick in the spokes for capitalism, liberalism, etc. any ism that allows for personal autonomy. Left and right is less significant. This is an up down dimension…and up is definitely bad. We agree on this. Down is good, but requires good-er individuals the lower we get. Self governing morons is not going to work.
I'm only participating so you get to the statement that gets the thread nuked and you banned from more places faster.
Apr 20, 22 5:21 pm ·
·
x-jla
And how is that racist. I’m confused. Oh right, it’s not, it’s from page 2 of the lefties playbook on “how to get out of a debate when you have nothing”
Hopefully Elon buys this shit lolololol
Apr 20, 22 5:31 pm ·
·
x-jla
I’m jus very curious. I can imagine you criticizing a song that promotes buying a luxury yacht, but not critiquing a song that promotes criminality and violence. Why is this? Cowardice or a racism of low expectations?
Apr 20, 22 5:34 pm ·
·
x-jla
It’s also ironic that someone so hellbent on curating speech and banning “harmful content” believes that content has a null effect on culture. What a strange contradiction
Apr 20, 22 5:37 pm ·
·
x-jla
If you think that harmful content, in the cultural sphere can have a harmful effect on the culture, then….1) what exempts some violent rap music. 2) why can’t the opposite be true of positive thing’s positively affecting culture
Apr 20, 22 5:40 pm ·
·
x-jla
Your entire argument is full of holes.
Apr 20, 22 5:41 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
-Your imaginary representation of what you think my argument is- is full of holes. Don't get it twisted. You're arguing with your straw man.
Thing is so over played brah. No one cares what you dim wit msnbc parrots have to say.
Apr 20, 22 10:52 pm ·
·
x-jla
SP said, “ Culture is a reflection, a sum, an answer. Culture is not a deliberate construct, a formula, a question. Culture is organic, not manufactured. To say "the culture needs to change" is to suggest that people should be forced to change. You are supposedly against that. As usual you talk in circles.” What I said is that the culture needs to change as a prerequisite for something like anarchy to work. For instance, a culture so obsessed with materialism will quickly exploit the lawlessness of anarchism for personal gains. This is obvious, and not too different from the lefts critique of free market capitalism. The difference being, that I believe that the way to better
Apr 20, 22 11:00 pm ·
·
x-jla
Society is only through individual betterment, the left seems to think that the system itself can mold behaviors. So, my point is quite opposite of how you are understanding it.
Apr 20, 22 11:01 pm ·
·
rcz1001
Knock the shit off or we might just have to suspend Archinect service to everyone for a week or two. I don't give two shits about who is 'racist' because the three of you, x-jla, SneakyPete, and Chad Miller....are all acting like adolescent twits. I can safely say that x-jla's controversial opinions are so far wacky that anyone who isn't completely brain-damaged beyond any hope of repair, isn't going to even bother to entertain such opinions with any seriousness.
I'm pretty sure the Archinect staff and moderators won't mind a week or two vacation.
Apr 21, 22 12:15 am ·
·
,,,,
You are a hippocrite. You literally did not lift a finger(voted for R** *******) to prevent authoritarian rule in this country or care if 10s of millions would have been thrown off health care in the middle of a deadly pandemic or if 10s of millions would have been thrown into poverty by ending social security. You are a proponent of Social Darwinism. You could care less about anyone but yourself.
Apr 21, 22 12:21 am ·
·
rcz1001
Who did I vote for?
Apr 21, 22 12:24 am ·
·
,,,,
That was to xjla
Apr 21, 22 12:29 am ·
·
SneakyPete
Ricky b acting all pious.
Apr 21, 22 12:36 am ·
·
rcz1001
It's not about being or acting pious. It is that this bullshit going on between you and x-jla and between Chad and x-jla needs to stop. You're adults, right? You're and licensed professional (licensed architect), right? I know Chad is. There is certain professional decorum and behavioral standards expected of professionals to conduct themselves at all times.
Do you really think this bullshit above meets professional standard of behavioral conduct that is expected of any licensed profession?
I'm no saint and won't claim that. However, it doesn't help anyone to rise up to a higher professional standard of decorum if the very professionals who should be leading by example are not holding themselves out in a professional level of behavioral decorum. Come on, I think you and Chad can do better.
I am under no delusion in hoping x-jla can but maybe he can surprise me or you but that's up to him. I am not holding my breath.
The forum threads turn into a "dumpster fire" when you or Chad or others fall for the trap that x-jla (and others) place... the bait. My point is, ignore the sh-t heads and don't wallow around in their shit because it is going to get all over yourselves. Just because we aren't saints, does not mean we can't change how we conduct ourselves.
Ricky - calling out x-jla on his bs racist comments is acting like an adolescent twit? Is this like when you screamed censorship when we didn't put up with your sexist comments?
Please advise.
Apr 21, 22 10:02 am ·
·
x-jla
You’re so lame. What is racist? Examples please.
Apr 21, 22 10:20 am ·
·
x-jla
Z1111 I have no idea what you are talking about. I didn’t vote for desantis, because I don’t live in Florida, but if he runs in 2024 I will, because he’s 1000x more competent than the brain damaged Biden and Kamala -fail to the top-Harris.
Apr 21, 22 10:21 am ·
·
x-jla
For the record, it will be the first time I vote Republican.
Apr 21, 22 10:22 am ·
·
x-jla
Rick, you are a complete moron. What I wrote above, before being attacked by the usual suspects, was not at all controversial. All I said in short, it that there are social and cultural prerequisites for something like anarchism to work. It cannot work with the current degenerative culture that we have. What specifically is wrong about that?
I could just say that it's my opinion so no proof is required . . . but I won't . . .
I could point to the numerous threads of yours that were deleted because of your racist comments . . . . but I won't . . .
I will point you to the thread 4-6 months ago about Kyle Rittenhouse. That had some good examples of your racist views.
Apr 21, 22 10:27 am ·
·
x-jla
Just like in LA, remove the laws and enforcement prior the the cultural shift, you get skyrocketing crime and violence.
Apr 21, 22 10:33 am ·
·
square.
what do they call it when the self-proclaimed libertarian finally embraces their true nature of authoritarianism?
Apr 21, 22 10:34 am ·
·
x-jla
And remove financial regs from banks, you get predatory practices. It’s the same from the poor the Rich. The degenerative culture is not class specific. It just manifests differently in different socio economic classes. The degenerative culture is in the McDonald’s, McMansions, mega yachts, everywhere you look you find a culture in decline. And as self governance becomes more and more unlikely, because of this abandonment of social responsibility and community, authoritarianism will fill the void, unfortunately. The best defense against authoritarianism is not politics, it’s betterment of the individual. The amalgamation of this results in a society more capable of handling the responsibility of self governance, and more capable of staving away authoritarian creep.
“ what do they call it when the self-proclaimed libertarian finally embraces their true nature of authoritarianism?”. Are you intellectually handicapped or dishonest?
Apr 21, 22 10:51 am ·
·
x-jla
I did not embrace shit. Did you read troll?
Apr 21, 22 10:51 am ·
·
x-jla
“I could point to the numerous threads of yours that were deleted because of your racist comments . . . . but I won't . . “. No you can’t you liar. Go ahead and find something.
Apr 21, 22 10:52 am ·
·
x-jla
This is the problem with deleting what people actually write and leaving the trolls on here to make false accusations.
Apr 21, 22 10:53 am ·
·
x-jla
But you made the accusation about this thread specifically, so where is it Chad?
Apr 21, 22 10:54 am ·
·
x-jla
“ I will point you to the thread 4-6 months ago about Kyle Rittenhouse. That had some good examples of your racist views.” There was nothing racist said about Kyle Rittenhouse. He shot 3 white people, for which he was found innocent on grounds of self defense.
Apr 21, 22 10:56 am ·
·
x-jla
Anyways…no time for this nonsense
Apr 21, 22 10:58 am ·
·
square.
judging by the 8 consecutive posts, looks like you have plenty of time.
Apr 21, 22 11:13 am ·
·
SneakyPete
When the "cultural shift" is code for immigrants and black people.
Apr 21, 22 11:19 am ·
·
x-jla
Uhhh. No I didn’t say anything about that. That’s your own inner racism projecting
Apr 21, 22 11:20 am ·
·
x-jla
Immigrant groups imo, have the healthiest cultures in the US. They have been the only counterweight to this decline. And, I’ve said numerous times that I’m for open borders, so how does that jive with your accusations?
Apr 21, 22 11:23 am ·
·
SneakyPete
Trying to debate you on what you say is impossible because you contradict yourself constantly. Trying to debate you on what you leave unsaid or implied is pointless because your favorite cologne is KY. You pivot harder than an amusement park ride. But you're also more transparent than a well kept storefront. So I don't need to tell anyone anything. They know. You know. We all know.
Apr 21, 22 12:34 pm ·
·
x-jla
I’m not going to apologize for being over your head. You are lazily mistaking complexities and nuance for contradictions. There is no contradiction in what I said above. But, I see nothing wrong with holding contradictory ideas at different times. It’s called thinking.
Apr 21, 22 12:45 pm ·
·
x-jla
Now, once again, what exactly did I say that is racist? Or, admit that you were using lazy msnbc like analysis
Apr 21, 22 12:47 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
Over my head. Such a comedian. At least you consistently cause laughter. You know what they say, any laugh is a good thing, even if it's at you and not with you.
Apr 21, 22 12:56 pm ·
·
,,,,
You complain about authoritarianism and you are going to vote for it.
Apr 21, 22 1:29 pm ·
·
rcz1001
"Ricky - calling out x-jla on his bs racist comments is acting like an adolescent twit? Is this like when you screamed censorship when we didn't put up with your sexist comments?
Please advise."
Routinely harassing x-jla and punking him is being an adolescent twit and by the way, that can also be deemed harassment. I am complaining that this crap is a tad disruptive and actually is annoying and tiring to read on the forum and interferes. Chad Miller, you are an architect, so try behaving like one with the professional decorum that is expected of architects like other licensed professionals. There is this thing about picking your battles. You are not going to change x-jla to be what you want him to be. You claim he's racist but of course nothing specifically racist was stated in this thread at the time SneakyPete and you referenced it here. Taking discussions from other threads and polluting another thread is a netiquette 'no-no'. If you have a problem with x-jla, take it up with him off the forum, but keep the shit off this forum. I'm pretty certain Paul would appreciate you taking this bullshit elsewhere. He may or may not appreciate me saying it but I think this is shit he's tired of. I would be if I was him. Do Paul and the Archinect team a favor and take these squabbles elsewhere off this forum and behave with professional decorum on this forum even if you dislike the other persons or disagree with them but hold to a higher standard of behavioral conduct.
No, I don't agree with all the points x-jla makes on this forum or his views but I also think that some people that harasses x-jla because his views don't align with them as justification to harass x-jla and punking him about it on this forum is also not right and I don't agree with that either. People will have their own views, don't try yo change them. If they are not willing to change.... simply agree to disagree and move on.
If x-jla posts up BS lies and racist stuff and I see it then I'll call him out on it. I'm not punking him. I'm not being adolescent. It's not harassment.
I know I'm not going to change x-jla's mind. My only goal is to expose his lies and hate to other that read his posts. X-jla is free to post what he wants. Just like we're free to disagree with him and tell him so.
Ricky - being racist or in your case sexist are not differing views.
They are hate.
They are the attempt to ignorantly devalue the life of another human being based on their skin color or what's between their legs.
If you think this is something you can agree to disagree on then you're condoning racisms and in your case sexism. I'll do nothing of the sort.
Apr 21, 22 2:31 pm ·
·
x-jla
What lies? What hate? Show Proof. You are just butt hurt that my “lies” panned out the be truths. And racism! Ha ha. I don’t ever say racist shit unless your definition of racism = “things chad disagrees with”.
Apr 21, 22 2:35 pm ·
·
rcz1001
Yes you are doing all those things. The proper thing to do is flag the post to the moderator and let them deal with it. Don't respond to the person. Don't need to agree with them. People are intelligent enough on this forum to see what he says that is BS lies as BS lies. People on this forum are intelligent enough to know if what he says is racist or even if a statement is being read into by some. What if he says the "N" word. If he's black, is he racist? If he's using it like how many black comedians and rap artists uses the word, probably not but if a white person says it, it would be looked at as racist because the person is not black. It be like myself comedically referring myself to be some Peckerwood. Now, it wouldn't have the same 'sting' as it would if someone who isn't 'white' saying it. Now, I am not so sure x-jla's statements are really necessarily racist. What if x-jla is black? Now, how is a black person racist? Wouldn't you being a white person targetting him and calling him racist in fact being an act of racism?
Apr 21, 22 2:37 pm ·
·
x-jla
But good thing for you my past posts were deleted…otherwise you’d have to stop lying and slandering…the inability to go back and see these “lies” gives trolls like Chad a free pass.
Apr 21, 22 2:39 pm ·
·
x-jla
Z111. Desantis is less authoritarian than current crop of democrats…unless you think not allowing state employees in PUBLIC schools to discuss gender identity with k-2nd is authoritarianism…I don’t see it as any different than not allowing them to teach prayer in school…
Apr 21, 22 2:42 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
Prayer is learned behavior. Gender is not. Gender is language that describes a complex reality, prayer is mumbo jumbo to a made up being.
You say that I'm sexist? I dislike aspects of 'man-hating' that some women push to make it literally beyond impossible to even be male without feeling that just being born male is evil. Look, I don't have problems with women in leadership roles or women having fair pay, equal rights but that's the thing.... EQUAL. I also believe in a justice system where people are PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty. Merely being guilty by just accusations is not justice. That's a kangaroo court.... (que: Kangaroo pics) Okay, the point is, there's standards to be met before presuming someone is guilty. Our mass media culture doesn't abide by justice. They abide by the notion of forming mobs and tarring and feathering those accused and putting them on a pole and burning the accused alive without even a court trial. I find that aspect disturbing and actually kind of a scary place where you just have to be accused of something and you get burned alive. Not that long ago in history we had those Salem witchhunts and a just a little further back, we had the inquisition. Is that what women want to happen to men?
Apr 21, 22 2:48 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
Bullshit. You're just lucky and your assigned gender matches your body. If you knew or cared about anyone other than yourself who had a different situation you'd feel differently. Just like all asshole conservative or "libertarian" pricks, your thinking is rigid until it affects you personally.
Apr 21, 22 2:48 pm ·
·
x-jla
The intersectional identity politics folks have developed a reductionist ideology of what we already solved in the 1700’s…”there are 75 genders…but I only like feet…ok, 76… The founding fathers be
like NOOO. There are 7 billion! Wallah! the individual is the primary unit”
x-jla - again, look at the Rittenhouse thread. You were caught lying and being racist in that one. A two for one if you will.
While it's been interesting conversing with you my energy analysis and renderings are done so I'm going back to work.
I'm sure we'll talk again - We know you can't keep all those lies and racism bottled up for long. Try harder little troll.
Apr 21, 22 2:53 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
Pretty sure peckerwood was never used to historically describe a marginalized people in a demeaning way, balkinator.
Apr 21, 22 2:53 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
Feet? Founding fathers? You have once again bounced from extreme to extreme with no ability to talk intelligently.
Apr 21, 22 2:55 pm ·
·
rcz1001
I do agree with you Chad that racism and sexism is wrong. However, the issue may be that you could be reading into what someone says and not necessarily what the person meant. As people said, with racism, you have to be in position of power, punching down. You're white and presumed "privileged". What if x-jla is black (whose ethnic/racial culture had been slaves to white people for a long time, and still treated with inequality)? How can he be racist for punching up?
Apr 21, 22 2:57 pm ·
·
x-jla
SP, gender identity is a bullshit religion. Respecting individuals and letting individuals be however they want is all anyone needs to know. 7billion genders because the founding fathers recognized that the primary unit of society is the individual and there are as many intersections as people. To reduce that to groups is reductionist, yes.
Apr 21, 22 3:01 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
Balkinator, quit trying to prove your assumptions with fringe examples. A sample size of one proves fuck all.
Apr 21, 22 3:01 pm ·
·
x-jla
Protecting one’s liberty to express their own individuality as they see fit for themselves is all that’s needed. I don’t need to have my toddler lectured about pan sexual vampires when they can barley write their name
Apr 21, 22 3:02 pm ·
·
x-jla
Unless there is an intersectional limit that I can’t see…isn’t just focusing on respect for individuality the best?
Apr 21, 22 3:04 pm ·
·
x-jla
What I’m saying is that it’s an immeasurable spectrum. The measurements are a political tool to sew division.
Apr 21, 22 3:07 pm ·
·
,,,,
Support of the big lie is authoritarianism. So is restricting voting.
Apr 21, 22 3:08 pm ·
·
square.
Look, I don't have problems with women in leadership roles or women having fair pay, equal rights
welcome to the 20th century.. we might eventually see you in the 21st, though i wouldn't put my money on it.
Apr 21, 22 3:15 pm ·
·
x-jla
Protect the individual. Respect individuality.
Problem solved.
Apr 21, 22 3:17 pm ·
·
x-jla
A simple and beautiful ideal made complicated and annoying by the libs.
I dunno x-jla. You seem to be rather annoyed by a lot of things and you're not a lib . . .
Apr 21, 22 3:21 pm ·
·
x-jla
My point from the beginning , surprisingly caused controversy, was that freedom requires a responsible population. I’m pro 2A, but that too requires reasonable people. If we have a 2A and a population that leaves loaded guns sitting around and kids keep shooting the self, then the govt says “ you crazy assholes can’t handle this”. This is my point. Raising the point about a necessity of a responsible gun owner population in no way negates My
support of the 2A.
Apr 21, 22 3:23 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
Xlax, you know the founders weren't a fucking monolith, right? Some were federalist, some were not. This fetish of yours that they were all a bunch of rugged individualists is fantasy.
Apr 21, 22 3:28 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
Explain how ron desantis is protecting the individual. I'll wait. You have a hate boner for people you label liberals. You try and pretend it's not irrational by building an army of straw men.
Apr 21, 22 3:29 pm ·
·
rcz1001
"Pretty sure peckerwood was never used to historically describe a marginalized people in a demeaning way, balkinator."
Perhaps but its still a racial slur. However, white people are not the ethnic majority or in position of powers everywhere. There was some other perjoratives but do we really need to go there? No. However, in the U.S. there were white immigrants like Irish that were marginalized. The problem with marginalization is it is complicated and not limited to non-whites.
Apr 21, 22 3:30 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
How. The fuck. Is peckerwood racial?
Apr 21, 22 3:32 pm ·
·
rcz1001
Long fucking history is hatred and animosity. Black people have used them against white people over this long sad fucking history of hatred and animosity.
Other terms were used including wiggers (which was a short hand for "white n-word" (which I don't know its exact origins) that was used in the U.S. to marginalize the Irish immigrants so it doesn't always make logical sense but it was used as slurs as part of cultural marginalization.
Apr 21, 22 3:36 pm ·
·
x-jla
SP, I always considered my self a liberal. The new crop is not liberal. They are illiberal. I still watch and agree with much of what Bill Maher says…because he didn’t change, y’all did. I don’t really know too much about Desantis other than that he has a shot, he’s not trump, he’s not Biden, and Florida is doing good.
Apr 21, 22 3:40 pm ·
·
x-jla
By “founders”, I was using it as an embodiment of “classical liberalism” Many founders were pricks and hypocrites. Doesn’t mean that 1+2 doesn’t equal 3.
Apr 21, 22 3:42 pm ·
·
SneakyPete
Oh cool. So you're defining words as you like. Sounds like a great way to have a conversation.
Apr 21, 22 3:54 pm ·
·
rcz1001
square, well.... then... what am I to a woman?
Apr 21, 22 3:56 pm ·
·
x-jla
Fair enough SP. I’ll be more precise.
Apr 21, 22 4:00 pm ·
·
x-jla
Rick, you completely derailed the topic. This was about the legitimacy of anarcho-capitalism or left-anarchism. I’m confused why racism was brought up. My only point was that there is a cultural/individual prerequisite for these ideologies to have any potential, and that if one believes in these ideas, especially a creator or culture like an architect, their focus ought to be on influencing/priming the culture and the individual to make these ideals plausible. This is different from what PS and others typically focus on. They focus on the political ideology. You can’t make a decent stew with shitty ingredients. The current human culture is ill equipped to handle anything remotely close to anarchism, left or right. The role of the creators, who believe in such a lofty ideal, ought to focus on inspiring the types of character traits in individuals who would be equipped to handle such an ideal. I never said a thing about forcing culture to change. I did say that we ought to promote our ideals by engaging the individual and the cultural landscape, and not waste so much time on the political one. This can be as simple as integrating natural spaces into a community to promote the publics engagement with nature, to compel an appreciation of nature, if you believe in environmental issues for instance. This is not a controversial subject imo.
Apr 21, 22 4:13 pm ·
·
x-jla
It’s an antidote to the politicalization of modern architectural discourse.
Apr 21, 22 4:15 pm ·
·
rcz1001
x-jla, it was derailed before I posted here. What I do agree with you is it that for any culture and ideology, it is going to take a responsible people for it to work. If we are irresponsible than it doesn't matter what ideology, it will fail. We fail because we are stupid, irresponsible, jackasses that can't be trusted with a potato gun (playing from your statement about 2A, earlier). Freedoms comes with responsibility.
Apr 21, 22 4:27 pm ·
·
rcz1001
I do agree with you that people are not psychologically, socially, and culturally equipped for anarcho-capitalism or left-anarchism because it would not work at all. It would fail because we can not effectively operate that on large scale like national level government, or economy. You can just jump from once side of the pendulum to the other side. We have to work our way to the other side. This is why merely jumping from communism to capitalism had been a difficult and challenging issue for Russia. In fact, they just turn themselves into what they essentially were before the fall of USSR.... a dictatorship because that is what they always knew. Everything else is facade under what is essentially a dictatorial government system which is effectively no different then it was when Stalin and Kruschev was in power... Putin is just another in the line. China has been a more successful story because they been priming themselves with adopting capitalism within their socialistic governmental system which was a slight shift from their more Communist era because it was transitioned. What would an anarcho-capitalism look like and what would it need to be successful and operationally sustainable?
Apr 21, 22 4:42 pm ·
·
rcz1001
"Rick, you completely derailed the topic. This was about the legitimacy of anarcho-capitalism or left-anarchism. I’m confused why racism was brought up. My only point was that there is a cultural/individual prerequisite for these ideologies to have any potential, and that if one believes in these ideas, especially a creator or culture like an architect, their focus ought to be on influencing/priming the culture and the individual to make these ideals plausible. This is different from what PS and others typically focus on. They focus on the political ideology. You can’t make a decent stew with shitty ingredients. The current human culture is ill equipped to handle anything remotely close to anarchism, left or right. The role of the creators, who believe in such a lofty ideal, ought to focus on inspiring the types of character traits in individuals who would be equipped to handle such an ideal. I never said a thing about forcing culture to change. I did say that we ought to promote our ideals by engaging the individual and the cultural landscape, and not waste so much time on the political one. This can be as simple as integrating natural spaces into a community to promote the publics engagement with nature, to compel an appreciation of nature, if you believe in environmental issues for instance. This is not a controversial subject imo."
This is not particularly controversial to me in any way or form aside from what is inherent within the nature of political ideology and what "change" means but not controversial in the sense that it being racist or sexist or anything like that. I apologize if I had implied that you said something racist here because I don't recall a statement above but when I was referring to you saying something 'controversial opinions', I wasn't specifically referring to what you said above. I am not saying all your opinions are controversial. I hope you understand that but some of them are controversial and perhaps interpretable as being wacky but that is not about what you said specifically here. It's putting a light on the whole behavior pattern that had been going on.
Apr 21, 22 4:52 pm ·
·
rcz1001
To be clear, true anarchy means there is no government or rules. Only that which a person chooses to abide by but the problem is over time there would be nothing anyone would abide by and would be literally as wild as the animals before there was ever civilization and then maybe at some point, people decide to return to the way people were in the pre-civilization era and then over time then form proto-civilizations, and primitive government leading back to where we are now... more or less, likely with a drastic loss in historical knowledge because it would literally be a dark age. People can not co-exist with each other without rules and government. The first governments were the parent-child relationship. If it wasn't for that, we would be like wandering children that never had an adult / parental figure from the first day of our lives... with no schools, government systems, or any authority figure. We would be violent, raving assholes to each other. We wouldn't know right from wrong. We only know what hurts ourselves and what doesn't kind of things but empathy... not exactly. If the world suddenly became an anarchy, you and I might have these social rules and such that we inherited in our lives because we were taught those things. Some future generation may lose that because there's no rules so there's no rule to teach so morals and whatever else also goes the way side because we don't have to. This can be a problematic world of chaos. That is what anarchy and that is what anarchism at it's fullest is. Now, of course, there are ideas where you take elements of anarchism without going all in on the notion of anarchism.... a ideology that the rule is there is no rules, no authorities, etc. It would be a chaos culture of no rules, no authorities, no justice, do as you will. This would lead to practically non-stop violence, rape, torture, chaos. However, there are ideologies that encompasses elements of anarchism but not all of it. Like an absolute free-enterprise where there is no government or rules governing the free market. The problem with anarcho-capitalism, is, well.... is with an abolition of sovereign states, how are contracts of self-regulation going to work? People are inherently selfish so will their lust for more overcome their self-constraint? This will likely happen given how undisciplined we are as people. It's only because of these government systems that we are able to have any sort of order. The individual person may be smart or disciplined but people as a collective whole, fall way short of that. Most Americans are quite undisciplined. They have a do whatever they want ideological mindset and it's only because of laws and law enforcement that we deter as many people from just doing whatever they want. Most don't have any moral and cultural discipline... or creed they hold to to keep themselves under control. For anarcho-capitalism to work, takes a very different culture. Every single one of us will have to be strongly indoctrinated with values, discipline, etc. so that we can self-regulate.
No it doesn't. Some subjects require a long written explanation / response. Most do not.
Here is a condensed version of what you wrote Ricky.
"To be clear, true anarchy means there is no government or rules. Individuals typically cannot thrive without the assistance of a community.
Now, of course, there are ideas where you take elements of anarchism without going all in on the notion of anarchism. Concepts such as anarcho-capitalism, is problematic from the standpoint of the abolition of sovereign states and how things like contracts would work under self-regulation.
The main issue with any self regulation style society appears to be that people are inherently selfish and will choose to further their own pursues rather that help a community at large."
That's why you look over what you write. It's part of writing anything.
Apr 21, 22 6:36 pm ·
·
rcz1001
PS: I was joking when I said "It needs to be a skyscraper". True it doesn't need to be. It can be a lowly 1 story.
Apr 21, 22 6:37 pm ·
·
Frank Lloyd Wrong
jesus christ... I was right to steer clear of this thread after my last response because somehow I knew it would devolve into this mess of historical/political ignorance, appeals to authority, transphobia (for some reason??), and general lunacy.
x-jla, all I'll say that hasn't already been said is this: it's very telling of who you are and what you believe that the two people you've highlighted as having positive influences in the world are Elon Musk and Ron DeSantis...
May 3, 22 8:49 pm ·
·
Frank Lloyd Wrong
also, for fuck's sake, collect your thoughts into a single post instead of 17 different single-sentence-length posts.
and finally, to everyone in this godforsaken thread, I beg of you: learn what anarchism ACTUALLY is in theory and practice, instead of regurgitating the tired old "humans are inherently greedy" and "without a state authority, people would just go around murdering each other!!" tropes.
You don't see it 4 dimensionally. People don't know right from wrong until it is taught to them. It is people in their lives that shape a lot of who that person is. Anarchy is by definition a state of no rules, government, or anything authority. This means, there would be no parents. Parenting is a role, an authority role. In pure and absolute anarchy it would result because there is nothing to stop people from murdering or greed or any other crap because there would be nothing. I did mention that there are ideological beliefs and structure where they take elements of anarchism but not totally which by the way would be how it would likely be in a practical sense. It wouldn't really be anarchy or anarchism but that is takes aspects of it for some hybrid approach to civilization because you can't have two people in any sort of relationship with one another without rules. Social rules for example.
Anarchism is the belief to reject all rules, governments, authorities, and any institution that controls any individual. Without rules, why would a mother or father bother being parents? Remember, don't confuse being a mother/father (biologically) with being a parent. One is just a statement of biological relationship. The latter is about the role and function.
When you raise a child as a parent, you establish rules and that you are an authority figure during their childhood until they become adults. For what reason? So they can be responsible. So they can be law abiding citizens? So they respect authority? I would think so but in anarchy, what authority? No one is an authority. Why should I care what you think or say? Why would I need to be a parental figure? Why would I need to instill any sort of discipline?
The rule is there are no rules. The rule is that there is no authority. We have rules, laws, and a government system so we can have a civil society and when someone breaks the rules, they are disciplined.... right? People are not born with knowledge or anything unless something f---ed up in the divine realm when your soul/spirit is linked to your body when you came to life. You are born with nothing, otherwise. What you become is what your life and those around you when you grow up has done to shape you. You as in your psyche is a byproduct of upbringing and life experiences.
Anarchism is an -ism and thus an ideological ideal among many. The definition is defined already more than 100 years ago. It comes from Greek word: anarkhia. It means without a ruler or leader. In the ideological extreme, it means "without any authority". Therefore, no one is an authority over another person. Therefore, there can be no government or ruling. Even a parent role is a "ruler" or "leader" in a household. Therefore, that goes out the door for absolute pure anarchism.
It wouldn't just magically happen that way. It erodes into that. We become what we were at the very beginning of our species on this planet and it's just that.... the wild. We become like wild animals because there is no basis or reason to continue any society's insitutions. Sure, you might no become this. It might not even be your great great grandchildren. It can literally become that way within a 1000 years of dissolving all governments, laws, rules, societal rules (the norms like ettiquettes for example), and it just goes completely and utterly wild over time. The end result is the absolute nature of anarchy to the fullest unless the course is changed before that.
There can be any myriad of permutations of societies and institutions that has elements of anarchism but yet is not actually anarchism or anarchy.
May 4, 22 1:05 am ·
·
rcz1001
Anarchy/Anarchism is an ideological extreme as the absolute paradigm opposite of absolute authoritarianism (the opposite ideological extreme on the pendulum). Then there is a myriad of what is in between.
May 4, 22 1:12 am ·
·
rcz1001
Universally, I think we want to fall somewhere in between because no one wants either absolute extremes except a lunatic.
May 4, 22 1:14 am ·
·
rcz1001
What I can agree with you is there are various interpretations of anarchism and anarchy which deviates with the meaning of the term and the underlying root word and its etymological-based definition. Ultimately, anarchism is more than just no government because what is a government? Is not the parental role a government institution of the household unit? Anarchy and anarchism would permeate not only macroscopically but to the microscopic units of society. So it isn't just end of nation-states (sovereign states) but also the end of every tier of societal governmental institutions all the way to the household unit.
Human history shows a pattern of going to extremes before turning around. Until people can't tolerate it anymore of oppression or any other harm to them that they change things. What we haven't seen in recorded history is society or civilizations without a governing structure or institutions of authority. This is because it means we are going back to a state of affair of human species before civilizations ever existing including the more tribal civilizations like what was seen before the last ice age at some point... how far back, I am not sure. We were more primal. So how do we coexists without any rules except that which we teach and impart but what if that doesn't get taught down? What happens when there are mothers and fathers but no parent in the world for several consecutive generations? No parents. No schools. Everything we take for granted is our societal institutions are gone and never seen or experienced by anyone in the world for centuries. Internet would be gone because no one to keep it running.
All gone because no one believes they have to do anything for anyone but themselves because caring for others and sense of responsibility to care for others is a product of civilization, societal rules & governance institutions. I don't mean just political government entities that we understand today. I mean every instance of a societal governance systems. Even the indigenous tribes have a governance institution of some form not only in U.S. but elsewhere in the world.
May 4, 22 3:21 am ·
·
Frank Lloyd Wrong
Yeah good for you, or I'm sorry that happened to you, idk because I'm not reading that whole 3 part novel you typed out lmao. Again, you're just repeating ad nauseam what you've heard about anarchism and projecting your own preconceived negativities onto it. Read something by Malatesta.
May 4, 22 4:49 am ·
·
rcz1001
The point isn't that every element or aspect of anarchy is bad. It is that people are inherently bad to other people as they may be good to other people but without a societal structure and rules then they would not know one from the other. Your entire psyche, various values, etc. is developed in a society of governance and rules so we can coexist without letting our emotions control us. The point is extremes on each end of the ideological spectrum are bad because for example how does anarchy resolve issues of serial killers? Perhaps, you might pull out a gun and shoot the person but largely anarchy would result in apathy to others because of a loss of morals and sense of responsibility to care because who is going to teach them. It also would result in a loss of empathy.
Will anarchy be this bad? Perhaps not but perhaps it may be. If we take it to the absolute extreme which is where humans sadly tend to go to extremes before turning around. A person may be smart. A person may be morally decent but people en masse tends to do horrible wrongs. Just look at history.
I do see merits of some forms or elements from anarchism ideals to balance out the authoritarianism. If you read through what I wrote, I said that already. The point is people are not by its own nature ready for absolute anarchism because we just don't have the psyche and nature to impose rules.
When I said, people don't want the extremes of either end but they want somewhere in between. There is a lot in between the extremes and so far in human history, we have largely been in that zone. Extreme anarchism may work fine on the individual level but you don't live in anarchism even in your own life but you live somewhere where we keep elements of a rules/governance based societal ethos with elements of anarchism.
I'm not going to attempt to summarize any those posts Ricky. You're on your own.
May 4, 22 4:12 pm ·
·
rcz1001
There is a lot of people labeled anarchist and that label had been used so much that it dillutes the fundamental meaning of anarchism which to its ideological extreme means there would not be any rules because the fundamental point is that no person is ruled by another. Everyone is an absolute monarch of oneself only and everyone is their own chiefdom... their own "god" and territory of 1 person and 1 person only. Therefore, what laws? What rules? No authority figure because any societal institution of authority is itself a government. This means also no parental figure or teacher or school.
Patrik Schumacher's Right-wing Agenda
You know, Zaha Hadid was no Rosa Luxemberg. So it is not like. This is coming out of the blue. Is this Patrick Schumacher disowning Patrick Schumacher for the sake of the business? https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/letter-from-zaha-hadid-architects-schumachers-urban-manifesto-is-not-our-future/10015275.article 0 Will those neoliberals never learn to drop the flagging of identity politics (patrick schumacher) as a way to mask their endorsement of policies that lead directly to economic inequity and misery of the greater percentage?
(patrick schumacher's letter)
Patrik Schumacher disavowed himself for supporting Patrik Schumacher.
The way Patrick suffered all that abuse from Zaha before getting to work for her says a lot about both him and Zaha. After 25 years I the practice, I avoid these people when I can. Sit in that position too long and you will have no soul left.
One of my proffs worked there and got tired of all the chain smoking from Zaha and all the verbal abuse -
"Sit in that position too long and you will have no soul left."
Profoundly true.
https://www.dezeen.com/2016/11/30/activists-protest-zaha-hadid-architects-office-patrik-schumacher-speech/
On a different note, unfortunate that this might incur a disservice to parametricism in general. The association built up between neoliberalism and parameteicism in such a discourse might now overshadow other usages and possibilities. There is no evidence that it cannot be employed under non-profit driven circumstances, as functionally or as dysfunctionally (is there an objective study on whether parametrically construed buildings functionally and socially outperform others?) as it being used for the ends he espouses.
Why is Neoliberalism and anarcho-capitalism being conflated?
Neoliberalism relies on the power of the state. It's proped up by state power, regs, and capital. Anarcho capitalism is much more independent of the state. Hillary Clinton is an example of a neo-liberal...Someone like Ron Paul represents more of a anarcho capitalist agenda....I'm not sure they are the same...maybe in some respects, but ultimately most US corporations benefit from neo-liberalism...Monsanto, big pharma, etc...While so called disruptive companies like uber and arbnb are more examples of capitalism in spite of the state...enabled mostly by technological innovations.,.
I don't see PSs agenda as an inherently evil one...while I understand that it sure can be used for evil....I'd say it's more system based than moral based and is really only as bad or good as the way it is used...an ax is a tool until you hit someone in the head with it.
jla-x: You may as well give up. You're not going to get any of these people to look outside their narrow prejudices.
jla-x,
Neoliberalism is the transitional step that gives up more and more responsibility and control over to corporations. Eventually, the democratic mechanisms in government and the press that allow ordinary people like us to exercise political muscle and to stay informed break down. And as they break down, wealthy private forces will advance.
If you don't see whats wrong with Patrik Schumacher's proposal/manifesto/thought-experiment/whatever , then perhaps you just don't see what is wrong about the path we're already on.
Protests today outside of Zaha Hadid Architects:
quondam,
I don't know any more about these individuals than you do.
Here is an article about it: https://archpaper.com/2016/11/patrik-schumacher-protests-zaha-hadid-office-london/
I can take a super wild guess that they're rejecting Schumacher for the same reasons that ZHA and the executors of Hadid's estate spoke out against him yesterday. But that just a guess.
The sign also appears to say "class war"... sooo, maybe its a protest about linguistics? Haha
So davvid, how is Patrick's manifesto any different from what has already happened? You are judging a system as a mechanism based on its most immoral players and worst manifestations. I'm just saying, capitalism is not inherently bad. But I guess again we are arguing whether guns kill people or people kill people...Power and greed will surface in any system because they are inherent to human nature. The question is whether or not we have the liberty as a people to prevent tyranny. Capitalism is the only system that provides a mechanism for such resistance.
I.e. The protesters in your picture...
The problem isn't capitalism...it's the collusion of govt and corporate interests.
Quondam,
Of course Schumacher is allowed to speak his mind. But is he entitled to an audience? Is he entitled to invitations to speak at prestigious conferences? Are we not allowed to criticize him? Are we not allowed to ignore him?
Also, are Schumacher's ideas actually compelling, or are they just controversial. Most of his ideas just seem to be casually plucked from economics or philosophy and shoehorned into Architecture discourse. And he regularly uses rhetoric that seems to have been borrowed directly from conservative media. For example, his use of the phrase "political correctness" when Shigeru Ban was awarded the Pritzker Prize, seemed particularly revealing of how run-of-the-mill his motivations actually are. And how, despite the hifalutin architecture context, he sometimes just seems like just another recently radicalized libertarian dude who just started learning more about Ron Paul.
[I'm curious, davvid, what entitles you to an audience?]
Haha... Nothing. Which is why I don't have one.
so 'entitle' means he would have a legal or just claim to receive his audience
which means, he wouldn't necessarily have an audience if was entitled to an audience, but he would have one if he so chose.
choose to ignore fly
not ignorant of its existence
fly buzz, fly
"People have every right to _______ and _______ _____. In fact, ____ and _____ have argued over many issues over the years. So __ am not offended by the _________ against him, or suggesting he should not be held to account for views that others object to. What ____ am condemning is the _________ tenor of the _____, and the ____________ consequences of turning on someone for expressing _____ deemed beyond the pale. _________ ideas are ______ to be afraid of. We even teach __________ (or at least we used to) that ______ and ______ are one thing but _________ are nothing to worry about. So the first response to _______'s diatribe should not be to reach for the _______ button, but to instead grow some _______ and maybe ________ back."
speaking free, it's like buzzing
no one cares buzz fly
when the fly buzzes, buzz, buzz
i care to ignore
someone's been reading the new haiku book advertised on archinect....
buzz comma buzz buzz, ignore
jane, shoefly, don't fly
build, termite, build those lovely tunnels with curves
he is right in that he is not speaking for ZHA. and ZHA is, like most businesses with profit in mind, amoral, economically speaking. which is to say, ZHA is not much better or worse - generally- than many of the companies we work, have worked for, lead, etc. indeed, on a broader moral scale, to my knowledge, for instance, they have not built prisons, especially prisons that serve capital punishment for instance. yes, they have built for oppressive regimes and dictatorships as, I am sure, have many others.
he is speaking as a public intellectual (in the sense that his pronouncements implicate public policy and civic life) and, as an architectural intellectual (in trying to bind parametricism with neoliberalism in, if not deterministic way then in a compatibility based way).
I am of the opinion that his pronouncement is not at all subversive. he is not doing anything than state his enthusiasm for an economic model that has been in development globally, that is no longer in a paradigmatic state that is to speak and that has lead to the economically strangling gentrification of cities (driving the poor away - therefore depriving them of their own means of sustenance - as those with more means are able to compete more advantageously in taking over properties) , increasing loss of liberalism as opposed to the increase thereof as the rich tend to form a network of their own that precludes the poor: hence "class war", a war declared necessarily by the appetite for profit , impoverishment of the poor locally and globally, cronyism ..etc.
You will find many examples of this; I suggest my own, Lebanon where private interests have taken over public space, taken over the capital's residential market pushing out residents who can no longer afford to live in their neighbourhoods that they grew up in. the entire Lebanese coastal shore has been piecemealed out to rich politicians and their business acolytes (here you can even inverse the terms, rich businessmen and their politician acolytes) and the only remaining successful public space, the Corniche and its beach extention,
. I would claim here that capitalism does not happen in a void, not neoliberalism nor so called "anarcho-capitalism", a term that expresses an extreme state of neoliberalism, ie the extreme conclusion of weaking (therefore disappearance) of government, deregulation and privatization. but its a good catchy term none the less. All stages of capitalism inherit the structures of economic priviledge that precede it, be it a structure of religious institutions, bourgeois businesses, traditional kinship, slavery, feudalism etc. The notion of a neutral equitable capitalism, a benign one that situates your interests on par with my own, an equal competition, with the disappearance of an intervening powerful regulating body (ie government) that influences the competition ...is a sham, or a scam.
Capitalism never happens on an equal footing between those who are victims of these structures and those who privildge from this system. neoliberalism- and its extreme theoretical conclusion anarcho-capitalism - is nothing but the total loss of some liberal provisions instated by governments the early 20th century , that are being consistently weakened since then, in response to powerful demands by the people and in fear of the growing rise of a global leftist revolution at that time (there is no such fear nowadays of course).
There is nothing subversive or progressive about Schumacher's position. it is only an avant garde in the sense that it is pushing at the forefront of an already developed hegemonic state of affairs to a conclusion that will only lead to the tyranny of the rich over the poor and to the complete loss of brakes instated to protect the drive of profit over welfare. in other words an avant garde to a regressive and repressive state of reality
as for the position that one style or method is more natural or conducive to or functionally enabling for neoliberalism (or call it what you will) more than another, that is, u suspect, as associative as are eisenman's projects relative to, for instance, language (or whatever his contemporaneous interest is).
If this "has been done", or "has been going on" (not your words specifically), how is is avant-garde? or is it only the formal qualities you refer to.
as i used the term, I had somewhat in mind the defensive advance guard implicit in the literal and military significance of the word. that is to speak a force that supports and defends an already established state of reality, an intellectual voice "pushing at the forefront of an already developed hegemonic").
so I say:" it is only an avant garde in the sense that..." to present knowingly that conflict with the way the term we use nowadays to refer to a, somewhat, 'before-the-fact' creative and experimental -rather than dogma based and buttressing- force. of course I am limiting myself to the topic here, the politics of Schumacher rather than his actual architectural undertakings. the latter is a different topic, despite his present associative conjectures.
I must say, although I detest this political terrain, I remember reading parts of his book. he is not at all of a dull intellect and I am sure would be a most interesting coffee table partner. I mean, I think I would die of boredom if I had zumthor or pallasmaa or one of those to talk to...anyway, the man is not the devil, although I don't think he would be morally against the idea of building in hell if he got a free hand at trying his parametricism at a grand and infernal urban scale.
Schumacher has thoroughly proved himself to be an idiot.
Also, anarcho-capitalism is definitionally oxymoronic and anyone claiming their subscription to that "ideology" either has no idea what anarchism and capitalism mean or they are bad-faith actors using the anarcho prefix to put a rebellious spin on austerity-pimping neo-liberalism.
Anarchism is the opposition to all hierarchy. Not exactly anti-hierarchy to suggest gutting social housing in a country with a skyrocketing rate of teen homelessness (let alone homelessness in general)...
No it’s not. You are mistaken. There is no scenario in nature where hierarchy is absent. Anarchism relies on spontaneous order over centralized planning. Capitalism is simply the ability for 2 parties engage in free trade. In archaism
There is absolutely no state, unlike libertarianism which has a basic state to ensure inalienable rights and liberties. In anarchism, there is no one backing property rights or money. Security would be privately held, or communal in nature. Think pre-colonial North America. There was still trade, hierarchies, local politics, territory’s, etc. all in the absence of a federal government. I don’t think this would work…just clarifying. You need to also make a distinction between left and right anarchism or libertarianism. Neither are inherently right or left. Both versions exist. Noam Chomsky is famously a left libertarian-anarchist. I get what you are saying, in that capitalism as we know it requires state backed property rights and currency, but in and of itself, capitalism is nothing more than trade.
Please tell you don't believe pre-colonial North America was an anarchist environment.
It was tribal. Tribalism is not anarchism, but anarchism becomes tribalism in some form. Hierarchies are an essential part of human organization. Break down existing systems, and humans conglomerate, and within those conglomerates hierarchical human relationships form.
So the misunderstanding is that anarchism is complete disorder. It’s not. Rather it replaces a singular centralized state order, with many localized communal orders. My problem with this is that local tyranny is still tyranny in effect. An abusive relationship between 2 parties can be tyrannical. Libertarianism solves this problem by creating a centralized state that ensures individuals basic liberties and rights, and protects individuals from state and personal aggression. Anarchism, left or right, devolves into the same thing, and that thing is only as good as the worst of its people.
So, anarcho-capitalism is not good for the same reasons communism isn’t good.
Libertarians are Republicans who don't like owning the reality that comes with the label.
I think the social experiment CHOP proves this point true. Within a week a de facto police state formed that committed the same infractions that they were complaining about. A hard border formed. hierarchies of leadership formed. Rules formed. It’s all the same shit, different name.
They have many things in common with Republicans, but that’s because some aspects of Republicanism focuses on smaller state power. They also have some things in common with liberals. It’s not as simple as you are making it. Republicans and democrats aren’t philosophical…they are political parties. Anarchy and libertarian is simply a removal or reduction of state authoritarianism, and an acceptance of the spontaneous order that follows, influenced by culture and human nature. That’s all it is. Republicans and conservatives believe in the codified preservation of institutions. Libertarians believe in the organic
Libertarians trust that the person next door values and believes the same thing they do. When reality sets in they start setting up rules and become Republicans.
You think that the outcome of an occupation of a single city block by protestors with constant surrounding pressure from state apparatuses is a good representation of the possibilities and efficacy of voluntary association?
I am not mistaken. I am very familiar with the difference between political ideologies and political parties. True anarchism is (and always has been) a left wing ideology. "Anarcho-capitalism" and the modern definition of "libertarianism" are exactly the same; neither are actually pursuant of anarchism. Also, there are plenty of examples of non-hierarchical systems in the natural world. But even if that weren't the case, its still incomparable to human association. Also ps, communism is good! (USSR/Cuba were state capitalist nations painted red lol).
It doesn’t matter what wing the ideology is. In an anarchist world, Trade and capitalism will naturally evolve, and only can be suppressed with the opposite of anarchism/libertarianism, authoritarianism.
Granted anything more advanced than hunter gathering.
“Also, there are plenty of examples of non-hierarchical systems in the natural world.“. Like?
Left anarchy and left libertarianism is the 5 second long condition that exists before human nature kicks in…
The left loves sky hooks. They totally ignore reality in favor of the way they wish the universe was.
Libertarians are just librarians who can't spell
Anarchy is a cool idea that people will ruin like they ruin everything else. My philosophy is that any ism will collapse at the weak point of the individual citizens…greed, gluttony, violence, ignorance, etc. An anarchist society filled with enlightened people is easy. It’s the difference between a prison filled with violent criminals vs one filled with a bunch of Buddhist monks. Two totally different experiences despite the same environment. Betterment of the individual is the key to the success of any system. And, In our culture the individual is becoming worse, not better. more narcissistic, greedy, entitled, glutinous, materialistic, arrogant…this is why the culture stuff is imo far more important than the political stuff.
The antidote is self Discipline, family, community, meaningful work, nature, free time, etc…and the role of the designer can play a part in creating places that promote some of these things. Architecture is not political, it’s cultural. PS needs to understand that the collapse of the individual character, of the citizens, under the weight of this modern world, will bring about authoritarianism. To have something that looks like anarchism, left or right, the culture needs to change. PS taking a political narrative is not effective imo. The architect is an agent of cultural persuasion, not political.
My 3 cents
Culture is a reflection, a sum, an answer. Culture is not a deliberate construct, a formula, a question. Culture is organic, not manufactured. To say "the culture needs to change" is to suggest that people should be forced to change. You are supposedly against that. As usual you talk in circles.
x-jla wrote:
"My 3 cents"
You've way over valued your circular opinions.
Ha, you like that huh.
SP, I never said anything about forcing anything. I literally said that “ The architect is an agent of cultural persuasion”. You lefties can’t seem to separate a critique of culture with a call to authoritarianism. I can critique culture without doing that. It’s quite easy. Here’s an example: “Americans are overweight and unhealthy mostly because of poor diet and predatory advertising”. SP-so you want to force people to exercise and ban fast food? JLA- no that’s not what I said.
"To have something that looks like anarchism, left or right, the culture needs to change." -x-jla
Where in there does it say to force the change?
Organically, with the right conditions, we may get to a place where the population is capable of flourishing within such a system. We are not there now. Creators of culture can play a small role in pushing culture in a “healthier” direction. Like the music of the late 60’s did imo. I don’t recall Hendrix forcing anyone to think anything. Architecture and all forms of art and culture can/should persuade, not force. I think, and I hate to say this as a huge hip-hop fan, but honestly much of it is culturally degenerative. As is the materialistic pop stuff. This doesn’t mean that we ought to ban, or stop listening…just hopefully that some more positive vibes will out compete.
CULTURE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS CONSCIOUSLY CREATED. CULTURE IS A REFLECTION OF WHAT IS.
Also you're a racist.
I think you are trying too hard to disagree with me on this. Various political systems require differing degrees of individual responsibility. This increases as we move down closer to anarchism…this is a reality of libertarianism too. It requires a responsible population to work. This is a stick in the spokes for capitalism, liberalism, etc. any ism that allows for personal autonomy. Left and right is less significant. This is an up down dimension…and up is definitely bad. We agree on this. Down is good, but requires good-er individuals the lower we get. Self governing morons is not going to work.
Define "responsible population"
“Also you're a racist“. No I’m not.
What tf is racist about what I said. lol
“ CULTURE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS CONSCIOUSLY CREATED. CULTURE IS A REFLECTION OF WHAT IS.” Sounds a lot like PJ “I’m a whore” thing
Culture is both reflective and reflection. And artists can do more reflecting.
“responsible population” - a population that can maintain peace, prosperity, and sustainability.
Independent of authoritarian controls.
" I think, and I hate to say this as a huge hip-hop fan, but honestly much of it is culturally degenerative." What's that high pitched whine I hear?
I'm only participating so you get to the statement that gets the thread nuked and you banned from more places faster.
And how is that racist. I’m confused. Oh right, it’s not, it’s from page 2 of the lefties playbook on “how to get out of a debate when you have nothing”
Hopefully Elon buys this shit lolololol
I’m jus very curious. I can imagine you criticizing a song that promotes buying a luxury yacht, but not critiquing a song that promotes criminality and violence. Why is this? Cowardice or a racism of low expectations?
It’s also ironic that someone so hellbent on curating speech and banning “harmful content” believes that content has a null effect on culture. What a strange contradiction
If you think that harmful content, in the cultural sphere can have a harmful effect on the culture, then….1) what exempts some violent rap music. 2) why can’t the opposite be true of positive thing’s positively affecting culture
Your entire argument is full of holes.
-Your imaginary representation of what you think my argument is- is full of holes. Don't get it twisted. You're arguing with your straw man.
So then what is your argument?
I prefer to not argue.
x-jla wrote:
"Your entire argument is full of holes"
Care to list these holes?
x-jla wrote:
“Also you're a racist“. No I’m not
Yeah you are.
You’re a racist.
And your not smart.
The “youre racist”
Thing is so over played brah. No one cares what you dim wit msnbc parrots have to say.
SP said, “ Culture is a reflection, a sum, an answer. Culture is not a deliberate construct, a formula, a question. Culture is organic, not manufactured. To say "the culture needs to change" is to suggest that people should be forced to change. You are supposedly against that. As usual you talk in circles.” What I said is that the culture needs to change as a prerequisite for something like anarchy to work. For instance, a culture so obsessed with materialism will quickly exploit the lawlessness of anarchism for personal gains. This is obvious, and not too different from the lefts critique of free market capitalism. The difference being, that I believe that the way to better
Society is only through individual betterment, the left seems to think that the system itself can mold behaviors. So, my point is quite opposite of how you are understanding it.
Knock the shit off or we might just have to suspend Archinect service to everyone for a week or two. I don't give two shits about who is 'racist' because the three of you, x-jla, SneakyPete, and Chad Miller....are all acting like adolescent twits. I can safely say that x-jla's controversial opinions are so far wacky that anyone who isn't completely brain-damaged beyond any hope of repair, isn't going to even bother to entertain such opinions with any seriousness.
I'm pretty sure the Archinect staff and moderators won't mind a week or two vacation.
You are a hippocrite. You literally did not lift a finger(voted for R** *******) to prevent authoritarian rule in this country or care if 10s of millions would have been thrown off health care in the middle of a deadly pandemic or if 10s of millions would have been thrown into poverty by ending social security. You are a proponent of Social Darwinism. You could care less about anyone but yourself.
Who did I vote for?
That was to xjla
Ricky b acting all pious.
It's not about being or acting pious. It is that this bullshit going on between you and x-jla and between Chad and x-jla needs to stop. You're adults, right? You're and licensed professional (licensed architect), right? I know Chad is. There is certain professional decorum and behavioral standards expected of professionals to conduct themselves at all times.
Do you really think this bullshit above meets professional standard of behavioral conduct that is expected of any licensed profession?
I'm no saint and won't claim that. However, it doesn't help anyone to rise up to a higher professional standard of decorum if the very professionals who should be leading by example are not holding themselves out in a professional level of behavioral decorum. Come on, I think you and Chad can do better.
I am under no delusion in hoping x-jla can but maybe he can surprise me or you but that's up to him. I am not holding my breath.
The forum threads turn into a "dumpster fire" when you or Chad or others fall for the trap that x-jla (and others) place... the bait. My point is, ignore the sh-t heads and don't wallow around in their shit because it is going to get all over yourselves. Just because we aren't saints, does not mean we can't change how we conduct ourselves.
Ricky - calling out x-jla on his bs racist comments is acting like an adolescent twit? Is this like when you screamed censorship when we didn't put up with your sexist comments?
Please advise.
You’re so lame. What is racist? Examples please.
Z1111 I have no idea what you are talking about. I didn’t vote for desantis, because I don’t live in Florida, but if he runs in 2024 I will, because he’s 1000x more competent than the brain damaged Biden and Kamala -fail to the top-Harris.
For the record, it will be the first time I vote Republican.
Rick, you are a complete moron. What I wrote above, before being attacked by the usual suspects, was not at all controversial. All I said in short, it that there are social and cultural prerequisites for something like anarchism to work. It cannot work with the current degenerative culture that we have. What specifically is wrong about that?
x-jla -
I could just say that it's my opinion so no proof is required . . . but I won't . . .
I could point to the numerous threads of yours that were deleted because of your racist comments . . . . but I won't . . .
I will point you to the thread 4-6 months ago about Kyle Rittenhouse. That had some good examples of your racist views.
Just like in LA, remove the laws and enforcement prior the the cultural shift, you get skyrocketing crime and violence.
what do they call it when the self-proclaimed libertarian finally embraces their true nature of authoritarianism?
And remove financial regs from banks, you get predatory practices. It’s the same from the poor the Rich. The degenerative culture is not class specific. It just manifests differently in different socio economic classes. The degenerative culture is in the McDonald’s, McMansions, mega yachts, everywhere you look you find a culture in decline. And as self governance becomes more and more unlikely, because of this abandonment of social responsibility and community, authoritarianism will fill the void, unfortunately. The best defense against authoritarianism is not politics, it’s betterment of the individual. The amalgamation of this results in a society more capable of handling the responsibility of self governance, and more capable of staving away authoritarian creep.
“ what do they call it when the self-proclaimed libertarian finally embraces their true nature of authoritarianism?”. Are you intellectually handicapped or dishonest?
I did not embrace shit. Did you read troll?
“I could point to the numerous threads of yours that were deleted because of your racist comments . . . . but I won't . . “. No you can’t you liar. Go ahead and find something.
This is the problem with deleting what people actually write and leaving the trolls on here to make false accusations.
But you made the accusation about this thread specifically, so where is it Chad?
“ I will point you to the thread 4-6 months ago about Kyle Rittenhouse. That had some good examples of your racist views.” There was nothing racist said about Kyle Rittenhouse. He shot 3 white people, for which he was found innocent on grounds of self defense.
Anyways…no time for this nonsense
judging by the 8 consecutive posts, looks like you have plenty of time.
When the "cultural shift" is code for immigrants and black people.
Uhhh. No I didn’t say anything about that. That’s your own inner racism projecting
Immigrant groups imo, have the healthiest cultures in the US. They have been the only counterweight to this decline. And, I’ve said numerous times that I’m for open borders, so how does that jive with your accusations?
Trying to debate you on what you say is impossible because you contradict yourself constantly. Trying to debate you on what you leave unsaid or implied is pointless because your favorite cologne is KY. You pivot harder than an amusement park ride. But you're also more transparent than a well kept storefront. So I don't need to tell anyone anything. They know. You know. We all know.
I’m not going to apologize for being over your head. You are lazily mistaking complexities and nuance for contradictions. There is no contradiction in what I said above. But, I see nothing wrong with holding contradictory ideas at different times. It’s called thinking.
Now, once again, what exactly did I say that is racist? Or, admit that you were using lazy msnbc like analysis
Over my head. Such a comedian. At least you consistently cause laughter. You know what they say, any laugh is a good thing, even if it's at you and not with you.
You complain about authoritarianism and you are going to vote for it.
"Ricky - calling out x-jla on his bs racist comments is acting like an adolescent twit? Is this like when you screamed censorship when we didn't put up with your sexist comments? Please advise."
Routinely harassing x-jla and punking him is being an adolescent twit and by the way, that can also be deemed harassment. I am complaining that this crap is a tad disruptive and actually is annoying and tiring to read on the forum and interferes. Chad Miller, you are an architect, so try behaving like one with the professional decorum that is expected of architects like other licensed professionals. There is this thing about picking your battles. You are not going to change x-jla to be what you want him to be. You claim he's racist but of course nothing specifically racist was stated in this thread at the time SneakyPete and you referenced it here. Taking discussions from other threads and polluting another thread is a netiquette 'no-no'. If you have a problem with x-jla, take it up with him off the forum, but keep the shit off this forum. I'm pretty certain Paul would appreciate you taking this bullshit elsewhere. He may or may not appreciate me saying it but I think this is shit he's tired of. I would be if I was him. Do Paul and the Archinect team a favor and take these squabbles elsewhere off this forum and behave with professional decorum on this forum even if you dislike the other persons or disagree with them but hold to a higher standard of behavioral conduct.
No, I don't agree with all the points x-jla makes on this forum or his views but I also think that some people that harasses x-jla because his views don't align with them as justification to harass x-jla and punking him about it on this forum is also not right and I don't agree with that either. People will have their own views, don't try yo change them. If they are not willing to change.... simply agree to disagree and move on.
Ricky -
If x-jla posts up BS lies and racist stuff and I see it then I'll call him out on it. I'm not punking him. I'm not being adolescent. It's not harassment.
I know I'm not going to change x-jla's mind. My only goal is to expose his lies and hate to other that read his posts. X-jla is free to post what he wants. Just like we're free to disagree with him and tell him so.
Free speech.
x-jla wrote:
"But you made the accusation about this thread specifically, so where is it Chad?"
I did nothing of the kind. I said you were a racist. I didn't say you said anything racist in this thread.
Tell me more about internet etiquette, balkinator. Be as verbose as you like.
Ricky - being racist or in your case sexist are not differing views.
They are hate.
They are the attempt to ignorantly devalue the life of another human being based on their skin color or what's between their legs.
If you think this is something you can agree to disagree on then you're condoning racisms and in your case sexism. I'll do nothing of the sort.
What lies? What hate? Show Proof. You are just butt hurt that my “lies” panned out the be truths. And racism! Ha ha. I don’t ever say racist shit unless your definition of racism = “things chad disagrees with”.
Yes you are doing all those things. The proper thing to do is flag the post to the moderator and let them deal with it. Don't respond to the person. Don't need to agree with them. People are intelligent enough on this forum to see what he says that is BS lies as BS lies. People on this forum are intelligent enough to know if what he says is racist or even if a statement is being read into by some. What if he says the "N" word. If he's black, is he racist? If he's using it like how many black comedians and rap artists uses the word, probably not but if a white person says it, it would be looked at as racist because the person is not black. It be like myself comedically referring myself to be some Peckerwood. Now, it wouldn't have the same 'sting' as it would if someone who isn't 'white' saying it. Now, I am not so sure x-jla's statements are really necessarily racist. What if x-jla is black? Now, how is a black person racist? Wouldn't you being a white person targetting him and calling him racist in fact being an act of racism?
But good thing for you my past posts were deleted…otherwise you’d have to stop lying and slandering…the inability to go back and see these “lies” gives trolls like Chad a free pass.
Z111. Desantis is less authoritarian than current crop of democrats…unless you think not allowing state employees in PUBLIC schools to discuss gender identity with k-2nd is authoritarianism…I don’t see it as any different than not allowing them to teach prayer in school…
Prayer is learned behavior. Gender is not. Gender is language that describes a complex reality, prayer is mumbo jumbo to a made up being.
Gender ideology is a religion.
You say that I'm sexist? I dislike aspects of 'man-hating' that some women push to make it literally beyond impossible to even be male without feeling that just being born male is evil. Look, I don't have problems with women in leadership roles or women having fair pay, equal rights but that's the thing.... EQUAL. I also believe in a justice system where people are PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty. Merely being guilty by just accusations is not justice. That's a kangaroo court.... (que: Kangaroo pics) Okay, the point is, there's standards to be met before presuming someone is guilty. Our mass media culture doesn't abide by justice. They abide by the notion of forming mobs and tarring and feathering those accused and putting them on a pole and burning the accused alive without even a court trial. I find that aspect disturbing and actually kind of a scary place where you just have to be accused of something and you get burned alive. Not that long ago in history we had those Salem witchhunts and a just a little further back, we had the inquisition. Is that what women want to happen to men?
Bullshit. You're just lucky and your assigned gender matches your body. If you knew or cared about anyone other than yourself who had a different situation you'd feel differently. Just like all asshole conservative or "libertarian" pricks, your thinking is rigid until it affects you personally.
The intersectional identity politics folks have developed a reductionist ideology of what we already solved in the 1700’s…”there are 75 genders…but I only like feet…ok, 76… The founding fathers be
like NOOO. There are 7 billion! Wallah! the individual is the primary unit”
x-jla - again, look at the Rittenhouse thread. You were caught lying and being racist in that one. A two for one if you will.
While it's been interesting conversing with you my energy analysis and renderings are done so I'm going back to work.
I'm sure we'll talk again - We know you can't keep all those lies and racism bottled up for long. Try harder little troll.
Pretty sure peckerwood was never used to historically describe a marginalized people in a demeaning way, balkinator.
Feet? Founding fathers? You have once again bounced from extreme to extreme with no ability to talk intelligently.
I do agree with you Chad that racism and sexism is wrong. However, the issue may be that you could be reading into what someone says and not necessarily what the person meant. As people said, with racism, you have to be in position of power, punching down. You're white and presumed "privileged". What if x-jla is black (whose ethnic/racial culture had been slaves to white people for a long time, and still treated with inequality)? How can he be racist for punching up?
SP, gender identity is a bullshit religion. Respecting individuals and letting individuals be however they want is all anyone needs to know. 7billion genders because the founding fathers recognized that the primary unit of society is the individual and there are as many intersections as people. To reduce that to groups is reductionist, yes.
Balkinator, quit trying to prove your assumptions with fringe examples. A sample size of one proves fuck all.
Protecting one’s liberty to express their own individuality as they see fit for themselves is all that’s needed. I don’t need to have my toddler lectured about pan sexual vampires when they can barley write their name
Unless there is an intersectional limit that I can’t see…isn’t just focusing on respect for individuality the best?
What I’m saying is that it’s an immeasurable spectrum. The measurements are a political tool to sew division.
Support of the big lie is authoritarianism. So is restricting voting.
Look, I don't have problems with women in leadership roles or women having fair pay, equal rights
welcome to the 20th century.. we might eventually see you in the 21st, though i wouldn't put my money on it.
Protect the individual. Respect individuality.
Problem solved.
A simple and beautiful ideal made complicated and annoying by the libs.
I dunno x-jla. You seem to be rather annoyed by a lot of things and you're not a lib . . .
My point from the beginning , surprisingly caused controversy, was that freedom requires a responsible population. I’m pro 2A, but that too requires reasonable people. If we have a 2A and a population that leaves loaded guns sitting around and kids keep shooting the self, then the govt says “ you crazy assholes can’t handle this”. This is my point. Raising the point about a necessity of a responsible gun owner population in no way negates My
support of the 2A.
Xlax, you know the founders weren't a fucking monolith, right? Some were federalist, some were not. This fetish of yours that they were all a bunch of rugged individualists is fantasy.
Explain how ron desantis is protecting the individual. I'll wait. You have a hate boner for people you label liberals. You try and pretend it's not irrational by building an army of straw men.
"Pretty sure peckerwood was never used to historically describe a marginalized people in a demeaning way, balkinator."
Perhaps but its still a racial slur. However, white people are not the ethnic majority or in position of powers everywhere. There was some other perjoratives but do we really need to go there? No. However, in the U.S. there were white immigrants like Irish that were marginalized. The problem with marginalization is it is complicated and not limited to non-whites.
How. The fuck. Is peckerwood racial?
Long fucking history is hatred and animosity. Black people have used them against white people over this long sad fucking history of hatred and animosity.
Other terms were used including wiggers (which was a short hand for "white n-word" (which I don't know its exact origins) that was used in the U.S. to marginalize the Irish immigrants so it doesn't always make logical sense but it was used as slurs as part of cultural marginalization.
SP, I always considered my self a liberal. The new crop is not liberal. They are illiberal. I still watch and agree with much of what Bill Maher says…because he didn’t change, y’all did. I don’t really know too much about Desantis other than that he has a shot, he’s not trump, he’s not Biden, and Florida is doing good.
By “founders”, I was using it as an embodiment of “classical liberalism” Many founders were pricks and hypocrites. Doesn’t mean that 1+2 doesn’t equal 3.
Oh cool. So you're defining words as you like. Sounds like a great way to have a conversation.
square, well.... then... what am I to a woman?
Fair enough SP. I’ll be more precise.
Rick, you completely derailed the topic. This was about the legitimacy of anarcho-capitalism or left-anarchism. I’m confused why racism was brought up. My only point was that there is a cultural/individual prerequisite for these ideologies to have any potential, and that if one believes in these ideas, especially a creator or culture like an architect, their focus ought to be on influencing/priming the culture and the individual to make these ideals plausible. This is different from what PS and others typically focus on. They focus on the political ideology. You can’t make a decent stew with shitty ingredients. The current human culture is ill equipped to handle anything remotely close to anarchism, left or right. The role of the creators, who believe in such a lofty ideal, ought to focus on inspiring the types of character traits in individuals who would be equipped to handle such an ideal. I never said a thing about forcing culture to change. I did say that we ought to promote our ideals by engaging the individual and the cultural landscape, and not waste so much time on the political one. This can be as simple as integrating natural spaces into a community to promote the publics engagement with nature, to compel an appreciation of nature, if you believe in environmental issues for instance. This is not a controversial subject imo.
It’s an antidote to the politicalization of modern architectural discourse.
x-jla, it was derailed before I posted here. What I do agree with you is it that for any culture and ideology, it is going to take a responsible people for it to work. If we are irresponsible than it doesn't matter what ideology, it will fail. We fail because we are stupid, irresponsible, jackasses that can't be trusted with a potato gun (playing from your statement about 2A, earlier). Freedoms comes with responsibility.
I do agree with you that people are not psychologically, socially, and culturally equipped for anarcho-capitalism or left-anarchism because it would not work at all. It would fail because we can not effectively operate that on large scale like national level government, or economy. You can just jump from once side of the pendulum to the other side. We have to work our way to the other side. This is why merely jumping from communism to capitalism had been a difficult and challenging issue for Russia. In fact, they just turn themselves into what they essentially were before the fall of USSR.... a dictatorship because that is what they always knew. Everything else is facade under what is essentially a dictatorial government system which is effectively no different then it was when Stalin and Kruschev was in power... Putin is just another in the line. China has been a more successful story because they been priming themselves with adopting capitalism within their socialistic governmental system which was a slight shift from their more Communist era because it was transitioned. What would an anarcho-capitalism look like and what would it need to be successful and operationally sustainable?
"Rick, you completely derailed the topic. This was about the legitimacy of anarcho-capitalism or left-anarchism. I’m confused why racism was brought up. My only point was that there is a cultural/individual prerequisite for these ideologies to have any potential, and that if one believes in these ideas, especially a creator or culture like an architect, their focus ought to be on influencing/priming the culture and the individual to make these ideals plausible. This is different from what PS and others typically focus on. They focus on the political ideology. You can’t make a decent stew with shitty ingredients. The current human culture is ill equipped to handle anything remotely close to anarchism, left or right. The role of the creators, who believe in such a lofty ideal, ought to focus on inspiring the types of character traits in individuals who would be equipped to handle such an ideal. I never said a thing about forcing culture to change. I did say that we ought to promote our ideals by engaging the individual and the cultural landscape, and not waste so much time on the political one. This can be as simple as integrating natural spaces into a community to promote the publics engagement with nature, to compel an appreciation of nature, if you believe in environmental issues for instance. This is not a controversial subject imo."
This is not particularly controversial to me in any way or form aside from what is inherent within the nature of political ideology and what "change" means but not controversial in the sense that it being racist or sexist or anything like that. I apologize if I had implied that you said something racist here because I don't recall a statement above but when I was referring to you saying something 'controversial opinions', I wasn't specifically referring to what you said above. I am not saying all your opinions are controversial. I hope you understand that but some of them are controversial and perhaps interpretable as being wacky but that is not about what you said specifically here. It's putting a light on the whole behavior pattern that had been going on.
To be clear, true anarchy means there is no government or rules. Only that which a person chooses to abide by but the problem is over time there would be nothing anyone would abide by and would be literally as wild as the animals before there was ever civilization and then maybe at some point, people decide to return to the way people were in the pre-civilization era and then over time then form proto-civilizations, and primitive government leading back to where we are now... more or less, likely with a drastic loss in historical knowledge because it would literally be a dark age. People can not co-exist with each other without rules and government. The first governments were the parent-child relationship. If it wasn't for that, we would be like wandering children that never had an adult / parental figure from the first day of our lives... with no schools, government systems, or any authority figure. We would be violent, raving assholes to each other. We wouldn't know right from wrong. We only know what hurts ourselves and what doesn't kind of things but empathy... not exactly. If the world suddenly became an anarchy, you and I might have these social rules and such that we inherited in our lives because we were taught those things. Some future generation may lose that because there's no rules so there's no rule to teach so morals and whatever else also goes the way side because we don't have to. This can be a problematic world of chaos. That is what anarchy and that is what anarchism at it's fullest is. Now, of course, there are ideas where you take elements of anarchism without going all in on the notion of anarchism.... a ideology that the rule is there is no rules, no authorities, etc. It would be a chaos culture of no rules, no authorities, no justice, do as you will. This would lead to practically non-stop violence, rape, torture, chaos. However, there are ideologies that encompasses elements of anarchism but not all of it. Like an absolute free-enterprise where there is no government or rules governing the free market. The problem with anarcho-capitalism, is, well.... is with an abolition of sovereign states, how are contracts of self-regulation going to work? People are inherently selfish so will their lust for more overcome their self-constraint? This will likely happen given how undisciplined we are as people. It's only because of these government systems that we are able to have any sort of order. The individual person may be smart or disciplined but people as a collective whole, fall way short of that. Most Americans are quite undisciplined. They have a do whatever they want ideological mindset and it's only because of laws and law enforcement that we deter as many people from just doing whatever they want. Most don't have any moral and cultural discipline... or creed they hold to to keep themselves under control. For anarcho-capitalism to work, takes a very different culture. Every single one of us will have to be strongly indoctrinated with values, discipline, etc. so that we can self-regulate.
Oh no I've gone crosseyed.
good for you. Thanks for the laugh.
Dear gowd - the wall-o-text is back. Just be glad x-jla doesn't post like that.
Ricky - you can make some good points but dear gowd man - you need to learn how to be clear and concise.
It needs to be a skyscraper.
No it doesn't. Some subjects require a long written explanation / response. Most do not.
Here is a condensed version of what you wrote Ricky.
"To be clear, true anarchy means there is no government or rules. Individuals typically cannot thrive without the assistance of a community.
Now, of course, there are ideas where you take elements of anarchism without going all in on the notion of anarchism. Concepts such as anarcho-capitalism, is problematic from the standpoint of the abolition of sovereign states and how things like contracts would work under self-regulation.
The main issue with any self regulation style society appears to be that people are inherently selfish and will choose to further their own pursues rather that help a community at large."
Thank you. Damn good summation.
It is usually easier to summate after you write out the thoughts than necessarily when the thoughts are made and being written initially.
That's why you look over what you write. It's part of writing anything.
PS: I was joking when I said "It needs to be a skyscraper". True it doesn't need to be. It can be a lowly 1 story.
jesus christ... I was right to steer clear of this thread after my last response because somehow I knew it would devolve into this mess of historical/political ignorance, appeals to authority, transphobia (for some reason??), and general lunacy.
x-jla, all I'll say that hasn't already been said is this: it's very telling of who you are and what you believe that the two people you've highlighted as having positive influences in the world are Elon Musk and Ron DeSantis...
also, for fuck's sake, collect your thoughts into a single post instead of 17 different single-sentence-length posts.
and finally, to everyone in this godforsaken thread, I beg of you: learn what anarchism ACTUALLY is in theory and practice, instead of regurgitating the tired old "humans are inherently greedy" and "without a state authority, people would just go around murdering each other!!" tropes.
You don't see it 4 dimensionally. People don't know right from wrong until it is taught to them. It is people in their lives that shape a lot of who that person is. Anarchy is by definition a state of no rules, government, or anything authority. This means, there would be no parents. Parenting is a role, an authority role. In pure and absolute anarchy it would result because there is nothing to stop people from murdering or greed or any other crap because there would be nothing. I did mention that there are ideological beliefs and structure where they take elements of anarchism but not totally which by the way would be how it would likely be in a practical sense. It wouldn't really be anarchy or anarchism but that is takes aspects of it for some hybrid approach to civilization because you can't have two people in any sort of relationship with one another without rules. Social rules for example.
Anarchism is the belief to reject all rules, governments, authorities, and any institution that controls any individual. Without rules, why would a mother or father bother being parents? Remember, don't confuse being a mother/father (biologically) with being a parent. One is just a statement of biological relationship. The latter is about the role and function.
When you raise a child as a parent, you establish rules and that you are an authority figure during their childhood until they become adults. For what reason? So they can be responsible. So they can be law abiding citizens? So they respect authority? I would think so but in anarchy, what authority? No one is an authority. Why should I care what you think or say? Why would I need to be a parental figure? Why would I need to instill any sort of discipline?
The rule is there are no rules. The rule is that there is no authority. We have rules, laws, and a government system so we can have a civil society and when someone breaks the rules, they are disciplined.... right? People are not born with knowledge or anything unless something f---ed up in the divine realm when your soul/spirit is linked to your body when you came to life. You are born with nothing, otherwise. What you become is what your life and those around you when you grow up has done to shape you. You as in your psyche is a byproduct of upbringing and life experiences.
Anarchism is an -ism and thus an ideological ideal among many. The definition is defined already more than 100 years ago. It comes from Greek word: anarkhia. It means without a ruler or leader. In the ideological extreme, it means "without any authority". Therefore, no one is an authority over another person. Therefore, there can be no government or ruling. Even a parent role is a "ruler" or "leader" in a household. Therefore, that goes out the door for absolute pure anarchism.
It wouldn't just magically happen that way. It erodes into that. We become what we were at the very beginning of our species on this planet and it's just that.... the wild. We become like wild animals because there is no basis or reason to continue any society's insitutions. Sure, you might no become this. It might not even be your great great grandchildren. It can literally become that way within a 1000 years of dissolving all governments, laws, rules, societal rules (the norms like ettiquettes for example), and it just goes completely and utterly wild over time. The end result is the absolute nature of anarchy to the fullest unless the course is changed before that.
There can be any myriad of permutations of societies and institutions that has elements of anarchism but yet is not actually anarchism or anarchy.
Anarchy/Anarchism is an ideological extreme as the absolute paradigm opposite of absolute authoritarianism (the opposite ideological extreme on the pendulum). Then there is a myriad of what is in between.
Universally, I think we want to fall somewhere in between because no one wants either absolute extremes except a lunatic.
What I can agree with you is there are various interpretations of anarchism and anarchy which deviates with the meaning of the term and the underlying root word and its etymological-based definition. Ultimately, anarchism is more than just no government because what is a government? Is not the parental role a government institution of the household unit? Anarchy and anarchism would permeate not only macroscopically but to the microscopic units of society. So it isn't just end of nation-states (sovereign states) but also the end of every tier of societal governmental institutions all the way to the household unit.
Human history shows a pattern of going to extremes before turning around. Until people can't tolerate it anymore of oppression or any other harm to them that they change things. What we haven't seen in recorded history is society or civilizations without a governing structure or institutions of authority. This is because it means we are going back to a state of affair of human species before civilizations ever existing including the more tribal civilizations like what was seen before the last ice age at some point... how far back, I am not sure. We were more primal. So how do we coexists without any rules except that which we teach and impart but what if that doesn't get taught down? What happens when there are mothers and fathers but no parent in the world for several consecutive generations? No parents. No schools. Everything we take for granted is our societal institutions are gone and never seen or experienced by anyone in the world for centuries. Internet would be gone because no one to keep it running.
All gone because no one believes they have to do anything for anyone but themselves because caring for others and sense of responsibility to care for others is a product of civilization, societal rules & governance institutions. I don't mean just political government entities that we understand today. I mean every instance of a societal governance systems. Even the indigenous tribes have a governance institution of some form not only in U.S. but elsewhere in the world.
Yeah good for you, or I'm sorry that happened to you, idk because I'm not reading that whole 3 part novel you typed out lmao. Again, you're just repeating ad nauseam what you've heard about anarchism and projecting your own preconceived negativities onto it. Read something by Malatesta.
The point isn't that every element or aspect of anarchy is bad. It is that people are inherently bad to other people as they may be good to other people but without a societal structure and rules then they would not know one from the other. Your entire psyche, various values, etc. is developed in a society of governance and rules so we can coexist without letting our emotions control us. The point is extremes on each end of the ideological spectrum are bad because for example how does anarchy resolve issues of serial killers? Perhaps, you might pull out a gun and shoot the person but largely anarchy would result in apathy to others because of a loss of morals and sense of responsibility to care because who is going to teach them. It also would result in a loss of empathy.
Will anarchy be this bad? Perhaps not but perhaps it may be. If we take it to the absolute extreme which is where humans sadly tend to go to extremes before turning around. A person may be smart. A person may be morally decent but people en masse tends to do horrible wrongs. Just look at history.
I do see merits of some forms or elements from anarchism ideals to balance out the authoritarianism. If you read through what I wrote, I said that already. The point is people are not by its own nature ready for absolute anarchism because we just don't have the psyche and nature to impose rules.
When I said, people don't want the extremes of either end but they want somewhere in between. There is a lot in between the extremes and so far in human history, we have largely been in that zone. Extreme anarchism may work fine on the individual level but you don't live in anarchism even in your own life but you live somewhere where we keep elements of a rules/governance based societal ethos with elements of anarchism.
I'm not going to attempt to summarize any those posts Ricky. You're on your own.
There is a lot of people labeled anarchist and that label had been used so much that it dillutes the fundamental meaning of anarchism which to its ideological extreme means there would not be any rules because the fundamental point is that no person is ruled by another. Everyone is an absolute monarch of oneself only and everyone is their own chiefdom... their own "god" and territory of 1 person and 1 person only. Therefore, what laws? What rules? No authority figure because any societal institution of authority is itself a government. This means also no parental figure or teacher or school.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.