Sports writer kills himself, leaves behind website describing how and why

Dumar_sl · Sep 6, 2013

hodj_sl said:
you just fall back on regurgitating radical socialist authors as a way to get out of having to frame a real argument and rebuttal to the debate.

David Harvey is the Distinguished Professor of Anthropology and Geography at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY). A leading social theorist of international standing [...] Widely influential, he is among the top 20 most cited authors in the humanities [...] In 2007, Harvey was listed as the 18th most-cited intellectual of all time in the humanities and social sciences by The Times Higher Education Guide.

Radical socialist authors, at least wiki before you insult. Who knows, maybe I know him? Go home and raise that gpa, then come back.

hodj · Sep 6, 2013

I'm fully aware of who David Harvey is.

What relevance does his reading of Das Kapital have to this debate? None. Is he going to break out that top secret unknown Marx written peer reviewed document showing the more material goods we own the less able to experience real emotions we become? No? Then all you've done is appeal to his authority without any justification or context in the debate, and cited what amounts to several hours of listening to someone read a giant book for nothing.

What you've done is the intellectual equivalent of a Christian telling an atheist "Listen to Billy Graham's reading of the entire Bible before you can debate me about the Bible!!!!!"

I don't think so tim. We've already been over that ground.

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 6, 2013

dumar, why don't you write out your shit and we can fuck it over instead of you just linking it and telling us to, "GO READ IT. IT WILL CHANGE YOUR WORLD."

Tanoomba · Sep 6, 2013

I bet if Dr. DiMeowmeow had something to say about this it would have been quotedextensively.

fanaskin · Sep 6, 2013

I want real communism to come already so I can sit on my ass and do nothing.

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 6, 2013

you still gotta work or you will kill yourself. I sometimes wish playing games all day is a work and that way i don't have to tell myself, "I should stop fucking around and get back to work." sometimes i wish i could be sean.

hodj · Sep 6, 2013

Lol Tanoomba so angsty

Color me surprised a guy with an English degree can't tell the difference between quantifiable facts given as statements under oath in court of law by one of the most reputable sources for those statements in the country versus subjective political diatribes being sourced by a lazy pseudo intellectual as a substition for a real, cogent argument developed of his own rational self reflection.

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 6, 2013

why u reading his shit. he is dumber than a nail.

hodj · Sep 6, 2013

I did it this time because I knew it was getting about time for him to stick his foot in his mouth again, and I wanted to be the one to point it out.

Lithose · Sep 6, 2013

Tanoomba_sl said:
See, this is where I strongly disagree. I think we've been conditioned to become cold, unfeeling and ruthless because of the powerful minority who who got where they are by being cold, unfeeling and ruthless. If those most capable of having a negative effect on our lives are also those with the least empathy, compassion or concern for others, it creates a situation where it's almost completely pointless to be anything other than an equally cold-hearted asshole. Our true nature, as far as I'm concerned, is to cooperate with each other with the realization that what's good for one of us is what's good for all of us.Unfortunately, capitalism has done a hell of a job keeping that true nature buried deep down where it can do no "harm".

So how do you rationalize the fact that the world was far more brutal and "cold" before capitalism? Capitalism did not create this condition, rather it was formed to respond to it. It was born from an era where people were abused, died and horribly mistreated because of a family name or some connection to a mythical deity gave the monopoly of violence to some random jack ass. The fact is, and this is something even Marx admitted to--capitalism raised the standard of living in nearly every country it was implemented in. There were radical improvements in almost every metric of quality of life.

This rise in quality, in fact, is needed in order to reach Marx's utopia. This is another thing he readily admits to. The only way to form a good socialist base (Which can evolve into communism) is the higher productivity and social equality in Capitalism (Note I said higher--because as bad as capitalism's social equality can be, it's leaps and bounds better than the systems before it.)

Capitalism didn't "bury" our true nature. It merely understood our true naturewhenwe have to deal withresource scarcity. When there isn't enough to go around, we tend to be very terrible, we are brutal, cold and will disenfranchise the weak in order to reduce scarcity for the strong. Capitalism accepted that as a truth and channeled it into higher productivity by created a political-economic system that offered abstracted reward structure that controlled the normal violent byproducts of that nature and allowed for innovation and a far more fluid social mobility (Though, it's obviously got major flaws--but it IS vastly superior to systems before).

If anything, Capitalism brought us one step closer to your view of human nature--and again, even Marx admits this (Capitalism is a step on his progression to Communism). However, it's only a step because as long as there is scarcity, people will be this way. That's not something Capitalism is forcing on us, it's always be present. That's why the Romans had slaves, it's why the feudal lords were assholes and why the Mongols took everyone's stuff--because people, at their core, are brutal when they need stuff (Or, as I think Dumar is saying, when they THINK they need more--which is a flaw of modern capitalism).

The fact is though, that said brutal nature due to scarcity? That's a driving force of evolution. It's buried in us. Capitalism isn't keeping down our happy place, it's instead putting a restraint on that brutal nature by placating it with stuff. (I believe what Dumar is referring to is how we've achieved a very high level of production and the desire for more now is not natural, but instead synthetic based on capitalism's need for growth. And that's fair, it's a fatal flaw in Capitalist economics--that productivity becomes self serving, Supply Side economics is the fruition of that. Haven't caught up completely on the thread though.)

Dumar_sl · Sep 6, 2013

Trollface_sl said:
dumar, why don't you write out your shit and we can fuck it over instead of you just linking it and telling us to, "GO READ IT. IT WILL CHANGE YOUR WORLD."

Oh, I was pointing out the pure comedy of the leading and foremost anthropologist alive today being Marxian and having an online lecture series dedicated to the same book hodj here not only hasn't read, but says is outdated because of bone marrow studies on the latest CSI episode, or something.

I'm a better anthropologist than he, and I'm not even close to an anthropologist.

hodj · Sep 6, 2013

Dumar_sl said:
Oh, I was pointing out the pure comedy of the leading and foremost anthropologist alive today being Marxian and having an online lecture series dedicated to the same book hodj here not only hasn't read, but says is outdated because of bone marrow studies on the latest CSI episode, or something.

I'm a better anthropologist than he, and I'm not even close to an anthropologist.

I'm pretty sure I've repeatedly pointed out that most anthropologists are Marxists. What the fuck are you even trying to say here? No one is mocking David Harvey or calling his knowledge into question.

The problem you're missing and refusing to address here is already stated:

What relevance does his reading of Das Kapital have to this debate? None. Is he going to break out that top secret unknown Marx written peer reviewed document showing the more material goods we own the less able to experience real emotions we become? No? Then all you've done is appeal to his authority without any justification or context in the debate, and cited what amounts to several hours of listening to someone read a giant book for nothing.

But it went right past your head again.Just because David Harvey is a Marxist does not, in any way, provide evidence in support of your argument that commodities induce emotional responses that make us incapable of being fully human.

What you are doing is saying "Commodities make you less human because emotional response." Then when I ask for evidence you say "Just listen to this premiere anthropologist read Marx's Das Kapital!"

That's not an argument or support for your position. Its an appeal to authority. Tell us, Dumar, what RELEVANCE does David Harvey's reading of Marx have to THIS debate about whether material commodities make us less human?

Dumar_sl · Sep 6, 2013

Lithose_sl said:
(Or, as I think Dumar is saying, when they THINK they need more--which is a flaw of modern capitalism).

The fact is though, that said brutal nature due to scarcity? That's a driving force of evolution. It's buried in us. Capitalism isn't keeping down our happy place, it's instead putting a restraint on that brutal nature by placating it with stuff. (I believe what Dumar is referring to is how we've achieved a very high level of production and the desire for more now is not natural, but instead synthetic based on capitalism's need for growth. Haven't caught up completely on the thread though.)

We weren't talking about material needs being met or otherwise, but instead pondering the commodity and the commodification of human experience as a major cause for depression or alienation in society, and hence, suicide as a rational decision for the author of the blog in the original post of the thread.

Of which your next to last sentence touches upon.

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 6, 2013

Lithose_sl said:
So how do you rationalize the fact that the world was far more brutal and "cold" before capitalism? Capitalism did not create this condition, rather it was formed to respond to it. It was born from an era where people were abused, died and horribly mistreated because of a family name or some connection to a mythical deity gave the monopoly of violence to some random jack ass. The fact is, and this is something even Marx admitted to--capitalism raised the standard of living in nearly every country it was implemented in. There were radical improvements in almost every metric of quality of life.

This rise in quality, in fact, is needed in order to reach Marx's utopia. This is another thing he readily admits to. The only way to form a good socialist base (Which can evolve into communism) is the higher productivity and social equality in Capitalism (Note I said higher--because as bad as capitalism's social equality can be, it's leaps and bounds better than the systems before it.)

Capitalism didn't "bury" our true nature. It merely understood our true naturewhenwe have to deal withresource scarcity. When there isn't enough to go around, we tend to be very terrible, we are brutal, cold and will disenfranchise the weak in order to reduce scarcity for the strong. Capitalism accepted that as a truth and channeled it into higher productivity by created a political-economic system that offered abstracted reward structure that controlled the normal violent byproducts of that nature and allowed for innovation and a far more fluid social mobility (Though, it's obviously got major flaws--but it IS vastly superior to systems before).

If anything, Capitalism brought us one step closer to your view of human nature--and again, even Marx admits this (Capitalism is a step on his progression to Communism). However, it's only a step because as long as there is scarcity, people will be this way. That's not something Capitalism is forcing on us, it's always be present. That's why the Romans had slaves, it's why the feudal lords were assholes and why the Mongols took everyone's stuff--because people, at their core, are brutal when they need stuff (Or, as I think Dumar is saying, when they THINK they need more--which is a flaw of modern capitalism).

The fact is though, that said brutal nature due to scarcity? That's a driving force of evolution. It's buried in us. Capitalism isn't keeping down our happy place, it's instead putting a restraint on that brutal nature by placating it with stuff. (I believe what Dumar is referring to is how we've achieved a very high level of production and the desire for more now is not natural, but instead synthetic based on capitalism's need for growth. And that's fair, it's a fatal flaw in Capitalist economics--that productivity becomes self serving, Supply Side economics is the fruition of that. Haven't caught up completely on the thread though.)

wasted reply to an individual who is completely unequipped for any discussion. but good post. I take similar, if not same, evolutionary view of history when it comes to history, society, and core social functions. This is why women's movement became incredibly popular in 1960. Shit got real good for everyone. Warren Farrell states similar statement. Necessity requires that men sacrifice for the greater good of the family. To be brutal when needed, to protect and preserve women, to protect his line and specie's survival. This slowly unravels with growth in standard of living. How that unravels is another question, since for thousands of years, we've been built and adopted to the features that gave us the proper tools to survive.

fanaskin · Sep 6, 2013

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Lithose again.

Dumar_sl · Sep 6, 2013

Trollface_sl said:
protect and preserve women

Oh yes, women are precious ... commodities. Haven't you seen the latest SMV charts? We can estimate their peak sexual value by age and even determine its depreciation over time. Famm's avatar tagline says it best.

Awesome, this capitalism thing.

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 6, 2013

Dumar_sl said:
We weren't talking about material needs being met or otherwise, but instead pondering the commodity and the commodification of human experience as a major cause for depression or alienation in society, and hence, suicide as a rational decision for the author of the blog in the original post of the thread.

Of which your next to last sentence touches upon.

Anything can be argued to be rational. So what?

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 6, 2013

Dumar_sl said:
Oh yes, women are precious ... commodities. Haven't you seen the latest SMV charts? We can estimate their peak sexual value by age and determine the value of the commodity easily. Famm's avatar tagline says it best.

Bro, I take your commodity perspective to heart. I agree with it bro. However, how you utilize that commodity perspective, I do not agree.

EDIT: women are precious because they make babies. otherwise, in contrast with men, they are going to lose and men will triumph over their dead corpses. And ya know I've been reading a lot and wondering why it was such a high priority to protect women. Child birth, back then, was as shitty as they come. Infant mortality was through the roof and the toil of child bearing was equally harsh. Combined with lack of medical advances and understanding, it is no wonder why people built shrines and gods to worship goddess of fertility. if you look at one of babylon goddess status, i think one of them had big tits and a large ass. Women were preferred to be slightly fat and those were glorified since fatter women increased the chance of successful child birth.

hodj · Sep 6, 2013

When haven't women been "commodities" by that definition Dumar?

Here again you fail to see the value in research, but research on primates finds females "Selling" themselves for favors constantly. There's so much evidence for chimpanzee, bonobo and other great ape females utilizing sex to get access to more resources and protection from large males in the social group its not even remotely debatable.

So are primate chimpanzee females who sell their cunts for bananas being commoditized by their male chimp pack mates? And is this lessening their emotional capacity to engage with their pack mates appropriately as a response?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wil...for-fruit.html

Female chimpanzees are "selling" sex to the males that gather the most fruit, according to new research.
Behavioural psychologists found that female chimps mate with the males that give them the most fruit, while male chimps steal "desirable" fruits such as papaya from farms and orchards in a bid to woo potential mates.

Oranges, pineapples and maize are among the most sought after crops, with bananas proving far less popular.

The scientists also discovered that the chimp that gathered the most fruit in the "food-for-sex" trade received more grooming from females than the group's alpha male.

Researchers from Stirling University released their findings after studying the behaviour of chimps in the West African village of Bossou in the Republic of Guinea.
Dr Kimberley Hockings said the findings provided the first evidence of large-scale plant food sharing among chimpanzees with a sexual motive.
Male chimps were also said to be most likely to give food to a female that took part in the most "consortships", where an adult female and male move to the edge of the community where the male enjoys exclusive mating access.
Dr Hockings added: "It is unusual behaviour as even though the major part of chimpanzees' diets consists of plant foods, wild plant food sharing occurs infrequently.

"The male who shared the most food engaged in more consortships and received more grooming than the other males, even the alpha male.
"Therefore the male chimpanzees appear to be 'showing off' and trading their forbidden fruit for other currencies, for example 'food-for-sex' and 'food-for-grooming'.
"In humans, the pursuit of certain foods is also strongly sex-biased. For example, it has been proposed that men in hunter-gatherer societies acquire large and risky-to-obtain food packages to garner attention.
"This research shows that chimpanzees at Bossou use crop-raiding as an opportunity to obtain and share desirable foods, providing further insights into the evolutionary basis of human food sharing."
The wild chimpanzee population has declined by more than two-thirds over the last 30 years, with around 200,000 left in the wild.
Chimpanzee habitats have suffered from deforestation, while poaching, disease and capture for the pet trade have also contributed to a drop in numbers.
The group's findings, following research by scientists from Stirling and from universities in England, Portugal, the USA and Japan, are published in the online jounral PLoS One from the Public Library of Science.

Sounds to me like female chimpanzees are engaging in unnatural material cultural patterns that supposedly only humans engage in, that is lessening their capacity for emotional attachment to their peers.

But you said that can't happen in other species. Its uniquely human, right?

Right?

TrollfaceDeux · Sep 6, 2013

hodj_sl said:
When haven't women been "commodities" by that definition Dumar?

Here again you fail to see the value in research, but research on primates finds females "Selling" themselves for favors constantly. There's so much evidence for chimpanzee, bonobo and other great ape females utilizing sex to get access to more resources and protection from large males in the social group its not even remotely debatable.

my question to dumar is...why separate human "nature" from animal "nature?" How is that even possible?

Sports writer kills himself, leaves behind website describing how and why

shitlord

Vox Populi Jihadi

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

ジョーディーすれいやー

Well known agitator

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Vox Populi Jihadi

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Vox Populi Jihadi

Buzzfeed Editor

shitlord

Vox Populi Jihadi

shitlord

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Well known agitator

shitlord

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer

Vox Populi Jihadi

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer