no big thing gained, why waste all the effort merely for physical pleasure — Agustino

Because part of the joy of life is shared pleasure, whether long-lasting or not.

they destroy the very capacity for forming permanent bonds, and thus take away a greater good. — Agustino

This is not quite true in my experience. I don't see the problem in accepting a variety of types of sexual relationship. One could argue, for example, that one-night stands can bring an understanding of how much that is not strictly sexual is involved in maintaining a permanent bond (one that also involves sex). And it's a fairly common observation that an experience of one-night stands can reduce one's obsession with sex.

I may eat tapas casually with my fingers but still observe the ceremony later when I sit down to dinner. If I hadn't had the tapas, and had then sat down to dinner ravenous, I might not behave quite so well.

So you think it's impossible to form a temporary bond, one that lasts only for one night? Or do you think temporary bonds are insignificant or pointless (or something else bad)?

And what negative aspects are you referring to? And does this apply to all one-night stands or just some or most of them?

What is the spiritual dimension of sex, and do you think one can explore this dimension, or do justice to it, in a one-night stand?

A relevant article from yesterday, which puts some meat on the bones of my post:

Why Have People “Had Enough of Experts”?

This site does not allow to edit the options in the poll. — mosesquine

Putting this here as a reminder for the next time I send feature requests to PlushForums.

:B

I personally have no objection to the occasional post with nothing in it except a thumbs-up in response to another post, but I wouldn't want to see it getting out of hand.

(Y)

Here's a story.

The end of the Cold War removed all challenges to capitalism, and politics in many places became less the forum for fundamental disagreements over the structure of society, and more a matter of management. Thus a managerial political elite came to dominate, personified by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton, also exemplified by the increasingly powerful European Union. For managerial politics there is no argument over how things are to be arranged economically: capitalism has won, and we should let the capitalists get on with it. This supposedly is grown-up, truthy politics because these policies or non-policies are backed up by expert economists who apparently know best about how society should operate.

But governments can be more active in other areas: people can still be managed, nudged, and punished for what they say and think. And here too, governments can appeal to experts--in psychology, sociology, and so on--to justify this, against which there can be no legitimate argument. That's the point of experts: to take the politics out of politics.

But things didn't carry on smoothly in the way these technocrats hoped, and as well as the continuing economic stagnation that none of the neoliberal economic experts ever managed to do anything about, there was a major economic crisis that none of them predicted. People have suffered, and managerial politics has nothing to say to them. The experts have nothing to say to them. Working class people know this, and in the political vacuum we see the rise of Le Pen and Trump.

The talk of "post-truth" politics is anti-democratic whining from a short-sighted managerial elite who see things slipping away from them and don't know what to do about it.

No, that's not a feature. I guess I could ask for it, but I see very little need for it myself. If many others agree then I'll ask the developers for it.

As with everything, write and keep your own content locally: whenever you want to write something long, write it in a text file first and save it on your computer.

I'm buying a soprano sax soon, so I've been watching soprano sax stuff on youtube, and I came across this from The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, which almost brought a tear to my eye. Probably the last time I played a video game.



The original remains the best for me. You really get that modal feel and the bite of the tritone.

:D Get real, you say, after offering this real-life utterance from a fire-chief:

'are there any beings in that building?' — Wayfarer

Anyway, it seemed like you were trying to engage with the philosophical tradition, so I thought it was relevant to point out roughly the way that being has been used in philosophy since the pre-Socratics.

According to your usage, yes, but I think that's a non-philosophical usage.

I see a fundamental distinction between objects and beings; because beings are subjects of experience whereas chairs (etc) are not. Which is why in classical theology material things are more 'distant' from the source of being than are beings. — Wayfarer

This is a bit confusing, because as far as I'm aware it's not the traditional distinction used in Western philosophy, going all the way back to the Greeks. Generally, being in philosophy is to do with what is, or what exists; and whatever has or partakes in being is a being. Thus both subjects and objects are beings.

Go on, tell me :) 'To give a bodily form to, to incarnate...' Doesn't that make the body a wrapper? — mcdoodle

I don't think it implies any kind of containment, no.

I read a bit about 'embodied cognition' but stopped to wonder: that very phrase implies that the body is some sort of wrapper. — mcdoodle

I don't think it does.

Looks like it's just one of those things where you have to figure it out for yourself. Have your own 'eureka' moment. — dukkha

The true believer speaks.

Done. Thanks.

No such thing as the world! That's a good one. — Sapientia

Note that this claim is part of the "New realist" ontology of philosopher Markus Gabriel, so I'd say it's quite respectable.

It looks like there's little evidence Bannon hates Jews. The problem with the left yelling racist is that they're now the boy who cried wolf. — Hanover

Yesterday I read a very interesting article accusing the liberals and left of crying wolf over Trump's racism. It takes each accusation and examines it quite thoroughly:

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/

Anyway, I made bomba rice for dinner this evening.

Bomba rice is a variety of rice cultivated in the Valencian region of Spain, where I'm currently living. I'd never heard of it till I moved here recently. It was brought here by the Arabs a long time ago, and it's the kind of rice to use in paella, a dish that originates here. It's quite similar to risotto rice, like Arborio, but I seem to get on with it better. It just behaves well, in the pan, on the plate, and in the mouth. It's got character.

What I do is chop an onion and some garlic, fry the onion, after a few minutes add the garlic, and then add some chopped or grated tomatoes. Then I add the rice, stir it around for a minute, and then add some stock/broth. I tend to make it kind of in the way you make risotto--adding the liquid gradually--just because I find it easier to watch over what I'm cooking rather than calculate the amount of liquid I'll need and then just leave it. (I hate leaving a meal just cooking while I do nothing. I can't relax.) So I just add stock whenever it's getting too low. In between stirring it I cover the pan, because the great thing about bomba rice is that the grains absorb a lot of liquid and expand in size without losing their shape and integrity. So I mostly keep the lid on so as not to boil away the liquid.

Saffron is a good addition towards the end, for both colour and flavour. I also like some heat, so chilis, paprika and cayenne pepper work well.

I've found it goes especially well with morcilla, which is a Spanish blood sausage. One way to incorporate this is to fry the chunks of morcilla in the same pan even before you put the onions in, and just leave them in there while the rice cooks. So long as you don't burn the morcilla to a crisp, it seems to be impossible to overcook it.

@dukkha I think you asked the same thoughtless question back on the old PF, and I seem to remember responding to it. I say thoughtless, because I can't imagine how you can be so stuck on this for years unless you have simply stopped thinking.

Surely you don't think that when you look in a mirror, you are *literally* seeing your own face, as if the mirror magically turns the direction of your gaze back towards you? — dukkha

Although I agree with Andrew that "literally" doesn't really belong here, nonetheless I would affirm, if specifically asked, that I am literally seeing my own face in the mirror. I'm seeing it indirectly, perhaps--but this is the only way I can see it anyway.

Or even just look through your windscreen, and then stick your head out your window and look at the road directly. They don't look exactly the same, in fact there's quite a few difference go check for yourself. How do you explain this if in both cases you're seeing the same road, if the windscreen is 'see-through'? — dukkha

To see through something is often to see it distorted. What do you think "see-through" means? If you think to be see-through is to be non-distorting, then you just don't know what it means.

Treating the light reflected off the object geometrically, one can make a cross-section anywhere along the path from object to eye. One can then stipulate that this cross-section is a projection or image. All you're doing is making your cross-section at the pane of glass, imagining it as an image, and then treating this image as the thing that is seen. You could equally take a cross-section in mid-air as the image that is seen, if that's the way you want to use the word "see". But it's arbitrary and says nothing profound. But it's actually much worse than that, because when you say that this imaginary image is what is seen, you are misusing the word "see" and causing yourself untold confusion.

I meant that I have a domain that I can use. — Benkei

You can use your own domain on Squarespace.

I also dislike Wordpress, but lots of people seem to like it.

@Benkei You said in the OP that you're creating a "digital CV" but then you say you don't want to just display your CV. So, what do you want to do? And how much time do you want to spend on it? What is your budget? Would you prefer something you had to host yourself or would you be willing to pay for a hosted service?

If you have experience in software development and don't mind fiddling around with CSS and HTML, use a static site generator (I use Flask and Frozen-Flask), perhaps in combination with a nice template/theme. Otherwise use Squarespace or something similar.

I'd go for squarespace if I didn't already have a website. — Benkei

What do you mean?

Works nicely, although I'm still hoping the PlushForums devs will build it into the software. That way we could achieve what I'm presuming is the optimal functionality, namely for ignored members to completely disappear for the ignorer, with a list of ignored members in the ignorer's profile that allows them to stop ignoring people.

I'm not sure how it worked on the old PF, as I never used it.

Thanks @SophistiCat

@Landru Guide Us joined a year ago but hasn't been seen for nine months. Things were pretty quiet at the time, so there probably weren't enough right-wing memes here to pique his ire.

I agree that Trump is his fault.

Chrome too? This is super cool. I'll try it later.

I don't know if that's more, or less, bleak than Curtis's message itself.

People have changed the world. Don Quixote may have been deluded but he did right wrongs.

Me too. I particularly love his accent.

Used to listen to 6music years ago. Is that what the cool kids are tuning into these days? I may try it again.

Almost makes me homesick for the UK.





Tied up in Nottz with a zed you cunt. (L)

As I say, I like his films and I agree with much of what he says. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical.

In his words, "the system".

Or maybe his story is just propaganda for itself.

So the question then, if we choose to forgive him the cherrypicking, the tenuous links and the exaggeration, is: does the story add up? Is it a good description of the last forty years to say that as finance took power and the world became impossibly complex, politicians and media gave up on their visions and missions and created a fake world, which, though we are sceptical and cynical about it, we accept as the new normal? It has a lot going for it, I think. On the other hand, if his choice of facts doesn't amount to evidence in support of this thesis, the film hasn't done its job except as a kind of propaganda or polemic.

Yep. The details on Trump's casino business were confusing, or confused, and didn't add much to the story, although tracing everything (on the American side) to New York's capitulation to the banks was a clever way of bringing him into the narrative later on. The thought occurs that Curtis could tell the same basic story by picking almost any place or event at all, so he's free to choose those which can be most easily connected up with what seems relevant right now, in this case Trump and Syria. So I suppose it's far more contrived than it suggests.

(Even if you didn't know that Saudia Arabia existed, this movie about state-sponsored islamic terrorism would still be entirely intelligible!) What's lacking is an admission that he's only looking at certain pieces of the puzzle, and through a certain lens. — csalisbury

But as I recall, he says something to the effect that suicide bombing slipped out of Assad's control and into the hands of the Sunni extremists (then on to the Iraqi insurgency and Isis). This implies there's another story to be told, another coherent thread leading to our situation, namely, I guess, from Salafism in Egypt, through Saudi Arabian conservatism, then Afghanistan and al Qaeda (the last of which he did in another film, though from a different angle). I don't know that it's fair to say he's pretending these other stories are not important, though of course he doesn't say much about them. The story here was of man with a vision giving up on it and losing control, which is a nice tale to illustrate an underlying explanation of how we got here.

I mostly agree, although if you've seen several of his films you'll see that he can tell different stories about the same period or the same events, as if he's showing how multifarious the threads of ideology are. None are privileged, but when he's focusing on one of them he takes it as far as he can, for dramatic purposes. I'm not so sure the grand narratives can be entirely dismissed, although some of the links may be tenuous. Certainly the over-arching theme of a few of his films, that of the failure of politics, is a good one.

I particularly appreciated the way he told the story of Gaddafi. I knew most of it, but the sheer absurdity had never really hit me before.

I read about Surkov a while ago, and couldn't quite believe it.

One of the things I like about Curtis's documentaries is the way he reveals the recklessness and incompetence of power, but with the thrilling style of a conspiracy theory. As far as actual conspiracies make an appearance in his narratives, it is to show that they fail or have unforeseen consequences. Nobody is running the show, though many have tried to, and the world's complexity exceeds everyone's grasp.

I watched it. Pretty bleak.