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

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Among my arguments that you still don't seem to understand, your first paragraph is a pretty good one too.

I've had to spend several posts not in argument, but in providing basic definitions of concepts, things that any anthropologist should know. So unfortunately, I have to go back and define terms like what a commodity is and how it relates to human nature, in order to provide to youyet anotherargument.

But then you'll ask for peer reviews and other hard evidence of a soft science, and when I give you someone like Harvey, you'll dismiss again, regardless of his preeminence in the very field you supposedly study. You're fortunate my patience in explaining these concepts equals my enthusiasm for people eventually understanding them.
You don't have to define any terms, in fact trying to push your sole definitions as the only valid definitions is an etymylogical fallacy, which I've already pointed out. You want to define commodity exclusively by regurgitating Marxist doctrine, no thanks.

You also seem to think that soft science means you never have to back any of your opinions up with quantifiable evidence, ethnography is peer reviewed and involves quantifiable evidence, such as rates of consumption, rates of population growth, all sorts of applications. You really need to move past the 1850s worldview and get with modern research methodology.
 

Picasso3

Silver Baronet of the Realm
11,333
5,322
It's a good thing dumar has this place to write out his thoughts because you know he's the kind of dick to write on his apartment walls
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Dumar's shit is really unreadable. It's like he's stealing lines from strawmen created in Ayn Rand books.
I tried to read Atlas Shrugged because I liked the story in Bioshock so much.

I have never made it past the part where the girl is on the train and it stops and something happens I don't know what because I never got to that point.

I believe its less than 25 pages into the novel.

By Dumar's logic, of course, this means I can never say anything bad about Ron Paul....
 

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
quantifiable evidence, such as rates of consumption, rates of population growth, all sorts of applications.
Rates of population growth, of consumption, are not evidence of anything. Your previous 'evidence' of people being 'happy' with a certain amount of wealth is useless.

Go back and ask a member of the Nazi party how happy they were in their society. I'm sure they'd love to tell you that genocide made them very happy too. Ask whatever rich elite Taiwanese guy who owns a stake in Foxconn how happy he is with his wealth, ignoring the masses of manipulated and dispossessed workers in his employ.

Your evidence is evidence of nothing. It's random figures put on a screen. Why don't you look at mental illness as a product of social dysfunction over time if you want to be productive and find some 'hard evidence'.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
46,592
76,605
Go back and ask a member of the Nazi party how happy they were in their society. I'm sure they'd love to tell you that genocide made them very happy too. Ask whatever rich elite Taiwanese guy who owns a stake in Foxconn how happy he is with his wealth, ignoring the masses of manipulated and dispossessed workers in his employ.
What if you averaged the jews in the ghettos/concentration camps and the Asian workers into the happiness figure?
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Rates of population growth, of consumption, are not evidence of anything
LOL. Really? Except that they can be used to measure the impact of....commodification on a society. Amongst so many other variables. Just LOL dude, just LOL. You might as well just say what you really mean, which is "NUMBERS AND FACTS DONT MATTER IN THIS DEBATE LOL" to which I'd say "Yes, we realize that numbers and facts don't matter to YOU in this debate."

Go back and ask a member of the Nazi party how happy they were in their society.
Godwinning the thread?

Your previous 'evidence' of people being 'happy' with a certain amount of wealth is useless.
What are you even talking about here? The research shows that there is little correlation between absolute wealth and happiness, that's the point. The two are delinked, yet you're claiming a direct link through the power of evil juju gremlins that suck out the joy and humanity from people in their presence.

Your evidence is evidence of nothing.
Right, reject all research, and any evidence that doesn't fit your world view. Are you like trying to prove me right at this point? Did you just become a suicide bomber for your cause?

Why don't you look at mental illness as a product of social dysfunction over time if you want to be productive and find some 'hard evidence'.
If you're aware of literature backing up your assertions that exchange of, ownership of, or close relation to "commodities" correlates with increased cases of mental illness and depression, then by all means feel free to link it up.
 

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,036
What if you averaged the jews in the ghettos/concentration camps and the Asian workers into the happiness figure?
SMHaotH.gif
 

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
LOL. Really? Except that they can be used to measure the impact of....commodification on a society.[...] "Yes, we realize that numbers and facts don't matter to YOU in this debate." [...] If you're aware of literature backing up your assertions that exchange of, ownership of, or close relation to "commodities" correlates with increased cases of mental illness and depression, then by all means feel free to link it up
The numbers have to havemeaningfor our purpose. Linking rates of population growth or consumption proves nothing. What if the data shows an increase in consumption: where does that get us? What if it shows a decrease: what then would that be evidence of? An increase in consumption over time could mean more basic commodities needed for everyday life are purchased, like an increase in toilet paper consumption because consuming Mexican or Thai cuisine also increased or that a new iPhone was released that quarter or year. There's no correlation to anythingeven ifthe numbers support my argument. You'd have to find data that is strictlynew market commoditiesbeing created for the measurement of the consumption itself, and you'd then have to cross reference that data with increased levels of mental illness for society as a whole, while controlling for factors such as population increase (as not all mental illness is due to what I described).

On a very basic level, the data shows that there are increased levels of mental illness as society goes along since it was measured, but again, even that isn't so useful, as you can't know if it'struemental illness or better tools and methodology to diagnose it. Fromm addresses this very dichotomy when he discusses the question of measuring mental illness accurately, but you wouldn't know, of course, because you haven't read him or anyone else relevant to your field it seems.

Sociology is actuallynota soft science: it's that the level of complexity and scope needed for its laboratory are impossible given our current limitations. Just because we lack the ability to measure doesn't mean it isn't science.

edit: Night, zz. Go to your assigned class.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
The numbers have to havemeaningfor our purpose
Except that the only purpose you have is to prove your preconceived notions.

Anyway, rates of growth, relative happiness, concepts like quality of nutrition and health, all these factors are indeed relevant to questions of whether modern society makes us unhappy or mentally ill or what have you. You just don't HAVE any numbers, so you want to discount their usefulness at all.

The laboratory is ethnographic research within a social setting, and we have that in every household and in every business, and in every restaurant and in every single area where humans congregate in any society, so no, it isn't impossible. Its done every day around the world by anthropologists and sociologists working conducing field research in the field of ethnography. But see, you eschew all modern research, so you don't realize that.

On a very basic level, the data shows that there are increased levels of mental illness as society goes along since it was measured, but again, even that isn't so useful, as you can't know if it's true mental illness or better tools and methodology to diagnose it
Mental illness is either biologically based, or its socially defined. Socially defined mental illnesses aren't real mental illnesses, they're deviations from an expected social standard. Mental illness is a biological anomaly and is measurable in terms of improper chemical and hormonal balances in the body, physical defects of the structures of the brain, etc.

Sociology is actually not a soft science
He says after saying that metrics don't really matter because he said so.
 

Burnesto

Molten Core Raider
2,142
126
Also, after skipping over most of this nonsense, if you don't live in 'merica, Canada, or Scandinavia, your life will suck.
 

Sebudai

Ssraeszha Raider
12,022
22,504
I encourage you to read my wordsyet againif you don't understand my meaning. I never said stripping your capacity of emotion. Manufacturing a product foreverything, from football games, to religion, to facebook girlfriends more and morecommodifies all human experience: it replaces, not strips, a human being of authentic, emotional responses to the world itself, a relatedness to it and other human beings, until what you're left with is feelings and thoughts based on and created byobjects, by commodities.
Replaces. A human being's authentic emotional responses. To the world itself. A relatedness to it and other human beings. Until what you're left with is feelings and thoughts. Based on and created by objects. Ergo, suicide is logical.

Yeah uhhh, that's nonsense. Complete and total.

What is an "authentic" emotional response? What constitutes "the world itself"?
 

Sebudai

Ssraeszha Raider
12,022
22,504
I'm a soft science major and Dumar's posts are making me pretty depressed about it. I hope I don't sound like this one day when I'm droning on about theories of international relations.

Sociology is actually not a soft science
Uhhh yes it is?
 

TrollfaceDeux

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Bronze Donator>
19,577
3,743
Sociology is actuallynota soft science: it's that the level of complexity and scope needed for its laboratory are impossible given our current limitations. Just because we lack the ability to measure doesn't mean it isn't science.
.
EDIT: I got high from my drugs. i dunno what i was thinking,
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
I'm a soft science major and Dumar's posts are making me pretty depressed about it. I hope I don't sound like this one day when I'm droning on about theories of international relations.
You won't as long as you don't literally put Marxist thought and literature on a pedestal and declare them unfettering glittering truth from the mouth of God.

I've never met a Marxist with as bleak a worldview as Dumar.

You're really stuck on that trial aren't you?
Tanoomba's continuing anal devastation at being completely wrong about the Zimmerman trial from the get go will never end. Its incorporated fully into his forum persona, and is like an old war wound that never quite fully heals.
 

Dumar_sl

shitlord
3,712
4
Let's explore it in a different way.

Pretend we can all go outside on the sidewalk and lay our entire lives out to give them a look over. Starting from the beginning and going through all the way until we kick the bucket, to the end. Some lives will be longer than others. If I came over and asked you about yours on the sidewalk, what would you tell me? What would you let me know about the experience called your life?

Everyone can point to some big and cool milestones, like you might show me where your kid was born, or here's where you got married. Maybe another big one is the biggest promotion you got, and here's where you finally retired. But what about all the stuff in between the milestones you're telling me about? If we look into that, what do we see? What's in those parts? That part, the biggest part, is what you did day-to-day, week-to-week for most of your life, whether it's sitting at a computer desk 9-5, being a housewife, the biggest Manning fan every Sunday, or collecting Warhammer 40k figures. You didsomethingthat's sitting there on the sidewalk now. That something is some kind of activity.

Something you buy has a purpose, else you wouldn't buy it. A plunger is a pretty darn useful thing, so are underwear. You can obviously buy lots of stuff, like an iphone or droid that you can do lots of cool things with. So let's go back to our sidewalk with this in mind: we move along, visit other people, seeing what they have to say, and we notice that, for example, a guy born in 2000 says lots of different things than a guy born in 1850.

This guy born in 1850 is interesting to us because a lot of his explanations of his life are different than ours. He can't point to things like the biggest Manning fan or collecting Warhammer 40k figures. If we go see the guy born in 2000 again, he might show us getting his first iphone as a big thing for him. It seems that the guy born in 2000 has access to buy more stuff than the guy in 1850 did. And what we notice is that when we're relating our lives there on the sidewalk, the 2000 guy keeps mentioning things that didn't exist for the other guy in 1850. We definitely notice the life experiences of those two are totally different, and it seems to us the more stuff they have access to buy, the more those things occupy their thoughts: they relate more and more of their life experience in terms of those stuffs as we move along. We're really interested to hear what a guy from 2150 has to tell us if he was around.

If we remember that the things we buy have a purpose, and we keep in mind that we keep getting access to more stuff to buy, then we can have some idea of what this 2150 future guy might tell us about his life, which would be even vastly more different than our friend from 1850. And what this is telling us, what these different explanations are showing us, is that the stuff people buy affects their life experience. They don't just buy plungers or underwear anymore, but stuff that is designed to provide an emotion for them, like maybe excitement or sadness in an NFL game or arousal from the latest 50 Shades of Gray. The stuff we buy today is mostly all created by us, all man-made, and lots of those things don't exist in reality. By exist in reality, I mean the only thing there is the concept, like the football game. A football game is a set of rules we made up and men play together according to them with a ball. However, this set of rules and ball provides a huge range of emotions for many millions of people all around the world. And the question we would love to ask, is if this made up thing was never made up, what kind of activity would people do to feel those things?

There is obviously some kind of phenomenon to what we just talked about. What do you think it is? I'd like to show a good example of how this phenomenon affects the way we think:

hodj_sl said:
If you were going to be popular in the tribe, you needed to bring home meat or food and share it,essentially purchasing good favor from the communityin order to be welcome there.
The bolded is a very interesting point for us. The words used to describe what's taking place is something we really want to explore. This guy, here in 2013, is describing an activity of sharing food by some member of an ancient tribe as purchasing good favor. This is very important because hodj didn't realize what he was doing, and the language used wasn't a choice - it was a natural one to him. The tribal guy had no concept ofpurchasinganything or what a market even is, but we're here seeing it being thought about that way.

It seems the concept of a market structure is appliedretroactivelyto activity that was done before it even existed. But what's even more strange, why? Do you remember that phrase I asked everyone to ponder and reflect upon? We get to see it in action here :

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.

hodj's conscious thought was thinking about sharing food as purchasing favor, and he wasn't aware that he was doing it. This is what that phrase is describing: that your thoughts are formed bywhat you do. Your activity is not determined byhow you think.

And so,our lives and experience in them are formed by our social being, and ours in this society is one of a market structure being applied to everything, and more and more stuff being produced to consume. Do you want to tell me when we visit your sidewalk, that lots of what you felt and thought throughout your life came from the stuff you bought?
 

Sebudai

Ssraeszha Raider
12,022
22,504
Let's explore it in a different way.

Pretend we can all go outside on the sidewalk and lay our entire lives out to give them a look over. Starting from the beginning and going through all the way until we kick the bucket, to the end. Some lives will be longer than others. If I came over and asked you about yours on the sidewalk, what would you tell me? What would you let me know about the experience called your life?

Everyone can point to some big and cool milestones, like you might show me where your kid was born, or here's where you got married. Maybe another big one is the biggest promotion you got, and here's where you finally retired. But what about all the stuff in between the milestones you're telling me about? If we look into that, what do we see? What's in those parts? That part, the biggest part, is what you did day-to-day, week-to-week for most of your life, whether it's sitting at a computer desk 9-5, being a housewife, the biggest Manning fan every Sunday, or collecting Warhammer 40k figures. You didsomethingthat's sitting there on the sidewalk now. That something is some kind of activity.

Something you buy has a purpose, else you wouldn't buy it. A plunger is a pretty darn useful thing, so are underwear. You can obviously buy lots of stuff, like an iphone or droid that you can do lots of cool things with. So let's go back to our sidewalk with this in mind: we move along, visit other people, seeing what they have to say, and we notice that, for example, a guy born in 2000 says lots of different things than a guy born in 1850.

This guy born in 1850 is interesting to us because a lot of his explanations of his life are different than ours. He can't point to things like the biggest Manning fan or collecting Warhammer 40k figures. If we go see the guy born in 2000 again, he might show us getting his first iphone as a big thing for him. It seems that the guy born in 2000 has access to buy more stuff than the guy in 1850 did. And what we notice is that when we're relating our lives there on the sidewalk, the 2000 guy keeps mentioning things that didn't exist for the other guy in 1850. We definitely notice the life experiences of those two are totally different, and it seems to us the more stuff they have access to buy, the more those things occupy their thoughts: they relate more and more of their life experience in terms of those stuffs as we move along. We're really interested to hear what a guy from 2150 has to tell us if he was around.

If we remember that the things we buy have a purpose, and we keep in mind that we keep getting access to more stuff to buy, then we can have some idea of what this 2150 future guy might tell us about his life, and this dialog would be even vastly more different than our friend from 1850. And what this is telling us, what these different explanations are showing us, is that the stuff people buy affects their life experience. They don't just buy plungers or underwear anymore, but stuff that is designed to provide an emotion for them, like maybe excitement or sadness in an NFL game or arousal from the latest 50 Shades of Gray. The stuff we buy today is mostly all created by us, all man-made, and lots of those things don't exist in reality. By exist in reality, I mean the only thing there is the concept, like the football game. A football game is a set of rules we made up and men play together according to them with a ball. However, this set of rules and ball provides a huge range of emotions for many millions of people all around the world. And the question we would love to ask, is if this made up thing was never made up, what kind of activity would people do to feel those things?

There is obviously some kind of phenomenon to what we just talked about. What do you think it is? I'd like to show a good example of how this phenomenon affects the way we think:



The bolded is a very interesting point for us. The words used to describe what's taking place is something we really want to explore. This guy, here in 2013, is describing an activity of sharing food by some member of an ancient tribe as purchasing good favor. This is very important because hodj didn't realize what he was doing, and the language used wasn't a choice - it was a natural one to him. The tribal guy had no concept ofpurchasinganything or what a market even is, but we're here seeing it being thought about that way.

It seems the concept of a market structure is appliedretroactivelyto activity that was done before it even existed. But what's even more strange, why? Do you remember that phrase I asked everyone to ponder and reflect upon? We get to see it in action here :

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.

hodj's conscious thought was thinking about sharing food as purchasing something, and he wasn't aware of his doing it. This is what that phrase is describing, that your thoughts are formed bywhat you do. Your activity is not determined byhow you think.

And so,our lives and experience in them are formed by our social being, and ours in this society is one of a market structure being applied to everything, and more and more stuff being produced to consume. Do you want to tell me when we visit your sidewalk, that lots of what you felt and thought throughout your life came from the stuff you bought?
As far as I can tell, all of this is true. But why does that mean suicide is logical? It's like we've all forgot what we were arguing about under an avalanche of vague social science horseshit.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
As far as I can tell, all of this is true. But why does that mean suicide is logical? It's like we've all forgot what we were arguing about under an avalanche of vague social science horseshit.
Exactly his goal in the first place. Take the conversation away from his retarded statements into the realm of intellectual wankery so everyone stops giving a shit.

Absolutely nowhere in that rant is there a justification for his premise that

1. Commodities make people incapable of having emotions or turn them into something less than human
2. That this justifies, in any way, suicide.

Its pure intellectual masturbation at this point.

So I'm going to make this clear: Just because we buy things and use them doesn't mean they have any intrinsic value to us. To some people they do, to some people they have inordinate amounts of intrinsic value, such as to hoarders.

But the sheer act of ownership of objects, in any amount, does not magically transform people into nonhumans. Which is your argument. All this fluff about how these things may or may not influence your identity is tripe and garbage, because none of it supports your CONCLUSION that these changes make us less human, and that being stuck in a society of sub humans justifies suicide. That's your assertion. That material objects make us less human, justifying suicide if you "See the world for how it truly is".

Either give us some tangible evidence that the premise you have supports the conclusion you desire, in the form of quantifiable evidence, or stop wasting your time, and ours, typing buckets of garbage no one wants to or cares to read.