this has become commonplace, and he's projecting.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/5/18064610/trump-midterm-elections-voter-suppression
Monday, November 5, 2018
i have not been following the midterms and do not have any suggestions. but, i again must point to the dominant factor in the previous cycle: if you are a poor person or a minority in a district held by the republicans at the state level, your ability to actually cast a ballot is, at this stage in history, actually quite precarious. it's gotten to the point where polling firms actually have to scale back their numbers to account for voter suppression tactics. and, what happened in 2016 is that they didn't scale it back far enough - even as i was arguing that they were manipulating data to absurd extremes. to properly account for the range of tactics that republicans are using to prevent people from voting nowadays, you need to perform surgery on the sample.
what that means is that the democrats are going to have to eat into the republican base if they want to actually win seats in these regions. it's not enough to work up minorities and poor people, because when they get to the polling places, they won't be allowed to vote. they have to make the ground up amongst demographic groups that are actually allowed to vote.
i don't know what the data says on this point because i haven't been following it. but, don't be surprised if you hear things like there was "low turnout amongst hispanics and african-americans".
what that means is that the democrats are going to have to eat into the republican base if they want to actually win seats in these regions. it's not enough to work up minorities and poor people, because when they get to the polling places, they won't be allowed to vote. they have to make the ground up amongst demographic groups that are actually allowed to vote.
i don't know what the data says on this point because i haven't been following it. but, don't be surprised if you hear things like there was "low turnout amongst hispanics and african-americans".
so, this is the first round of experiments.
as is clear, the base/background rate is constant around 0.14. some fluctuations are going to happen, but that's the background noise.
the spike at 20:00 is from having both of the type j bulbs running, which was 250 W, in total. these remain small numbers as isolated spikes, but an extra 0.24 is significantly higher than the base rate, which includes two led bulbs. and, running .24 for 5 hours a day adds up to 35 kwh/month - nearly a third of my target.
the spike at 11:00 is from running the 100 W bulb, which took up 0.11 of the 0.24, indicating that the 150 W bulb took up 0.13. see, that's counter-intuitive, and part of what i wanted to check. i'll verify that tomorrow afternoon.
the new bulbs should be running at roughly a tenth of the power, and if i can cut that 35 down to 4 then i'm most of the way towards renormalizing my usage.
i'll check the other switch tonight, after 19:00.
as is clear, the base/background rate is constant around 0.14. some fluctuations are going to happen, but that's the background noise.
the spike at 20:00 is from having both of the type j bulbs running, which was 250 W, in total. these remain small numbers as isolated spikes, but an extra 0.24 is significantly higher than the base rate, which includes two led bulbs. and, running .24 for 5 hours a day adds up to 35 kwh/month - nearly a third of my target.
the spike at 11:00 is from running the 100 W bulb, which took up 0.11 of the 0.24, indicating that the 150 W bulb took up 0.13. see, that's counter-intuitive, and part of what i wanted to check. i'll verify that tomorrow afternoon.
the new bulbs should be running at roughly a tenth of the power, and if i can cut that 35 down to 4 then i'm most of the way towards renormalizing my usage.
i'll check the other switch tonight, after 19:00.
but, "cultural marxism" is not a conspiracy theory. it is the same thing as "neo-conservatism"; remember - these people were all trostykists. were. and, that is the error that the right makes - they get the whole thing backwards. and, don't they always?
these are the same types of people that think that removing the state will lead to a spontaneous mass respect towards property rights, because they don't understand that the state doesn't just happen to uphold those rights but exists for that exact purpose.
it's no secret that the people that build the world we live in today were, in fact, marxists in the past. the blueprint is in the pnac. and, they've been open about their utilization of marxist theory to advance their imperialist agenda.
nor is this without historical precedent, as was documented by the likes of quigley and sutton - both of whom had access to deep resources in order to understand what was happening around them. nor has it escaped the understanding of prominent leftist historians, like zinn and chomsky, both of whom have written extensively on the topic, but who understand the idea as a vulgar marxism rather than as cultural marxism.
zizek in a lot of ways is a good example of "cultural marxism" in the actual sense, as he is a leftist academic that has moved hard to the right, albeit for financial gain. a more disappointing example was christopher hitchens.
nor is the confusion around the situation new, either, as this is the same thesis put forward by the john birch society in the middle of the last century, which is the ideological origins of the koch brothers.
and, who came up with the idea that the illuminati is a satanic group, or that freethinkers and masons were in league with the devil? it was the catholic church, who were seeking to fight back against a movement that it saw as a threat to it's own power - and rightly so, as the liberalism expounded by these groups eventually did the church in, didn't it?
it is a measurable phenomenon over what is now the last several decades, more than the last century, that powerful capitalists have found insights within marx that they've understood are ways to better help them win the class war. we used to call this vulgar. today, we call it cultural.
read sutton and move forwards; he understood this quite well. so, for example, he understood that when the rockefellers and the morgan interests generously funded the bolsheviks, it was not out of any affinity with marxism, but because they wanted to capture the russian market, which was newly opening up out of czarist backwardsness. by putting a one party dictatorship in power, they could avoid the waste and bureaucracy associated with free markets, and jump directly to an efficient domination over russian consumption. and, that is, in fact broadly what happened - and what defines our understanding of this concept of "state capitalism".
likewise, any good conservative capitalist standing in 2018 should be well aware of the necessity of religion in upholding a system that is fraying at the seams. i have repeatedly posted a fragment from socialism: utopian and scientific that goes over the differences in the british and german bourgeoisie, in relation to the maintenance of a religious middle class. it was, after all, the socialists that argued that if religion is allowed to collapse then capitalism will collapse with it - this was not initially a hegelian warning from nietszche, but a socialist tactic. and, so, should we be surprised that capital seeks to replace the dying culture of christianity with a model that appears to be so much more successful? and, might these useful idiots on the left ought to be more in opposition than the reactionary christians, about it?
was marx himself not a capitalist? and did he not utilize his own tools in this manner, as well? was marx himself not the first vulgar marxist?
see, it's one thing to redirect these people towards better sources of information, but it's another to shut them down altogether. what's happening is that they're being effectively co-opted, and in that sense peterson is no less ignorant than his followers are. there's a worthwhile observation in there. indeed, the conspiracy theory is intended to obscure this worthwhile observation - as all good conspiracy theories are.
these are the same types of people that think that removing the state will lead to a spontaneous mass respect towards property rights, because they don't understand that the state doesn't just happen to uphold those rights but exists for that exact purpose.
it's no secret that the people that build the world we live in today were, in fact, marxists in the past. the blueprint is in the pnac. and, they've been open about their utilization of marxist theory to advance their imperialist agenda.
nor is this without historical precedent, as was documented by the likes of quigley and sutton - both of whom had access to deep resources in order to understand what was happening around them. nor has it escaped the understanding of prominent leftist historians, like zinn and chomsky, both of whom have written extensively on the topic, but who understand the idea as a vulgar marxism rather than as cultural marxism.
zizek in a lot of ways is a good example of "cultural marxism" in the actual sense, as he is a leftist academic that has moved hard to the right, albeit for financial gain. a more disappointing example was christopher hitchens.
nor is the confusion around the situation new, either, as this is the same thesis put forward by the john birch society in the middle of the last century, which is the ideological origins of the koch brothers.
and, who came up with the idea that the illuminati is a satanic group, or that freethinkers and masons were in league with the devil? it was the catholic church, who were seeking to fight back against a movement that it saw as a threat to it's own power - and rightly so, as the liberalism expounded by these groups eventually did the church in, didn't it?
it is a measurable phenomenon over what is now the last several decades, more than the last century, that powerful capitalists have found insights within marx that they've understood are ways to better help them win the class war. we used to call this vulgar. today, we call it cultural.
read sutton and move forwards; he understood this quite well. so, for example, he understood that when the rockefellers and the morgan interests generously funded the bolsheviks, it was not out of any affinity with marxism, but because they wanted to capture the russian market, which was newly opening up out of czarist backwardsness. by putting a one party dictatorship in power, they could avoid the waste and bureaucracy associated with free markets, and jump directly to an efficient domination over russian consumption. and, that is, in fact broadly what happened - and what defines our understanding of this concept of "state capitalism".
likewise, any good conservative capitalist standing in 2018 should be well aware of the necessity of religion in upholding a system that is fraying at the seams. i have repeatedly posted a fragment from socialism: utopian and scientific that goes over the differences in the british and german bourgeoisie, in relation to the maintenance of a religious middle class. it was, after all, the socialists that argued that if religion is allowed to collapse then capitalism will collapse with it - this was not initially a hegelian warning from nietszche, but a socialist tactic. and, so, should we be surprised that capital seeks to replace the dying culture of christianity with a model that appears to be so much more successful? and, might these useful idiots on the left ought to be more in opposition than the reactionary christians, about it?
was marx himself not a capitalist? and did he not utilize his own tools in this manner, as well? was marx himself not the first vulgar marxist?
see, it's one thing to redirect these people towards better sources of information, but it's another to shut them down altogether. what's happening is that they're being effectively co-opted, and in that sense peterson is no less ignorant than his followers are. there's a worthwhile observation in there. indeed, the conspiracy theory is intended to obscure this worthwhile observation - as all good conspiracy theories are.
ok. so, that should deal with that problem, even if the lights don't get here until next month.
i don't know why, but the fixtures in here are very diverse. i have lights around the apartment that take normal bulbs, and got a deal on them at canadian tire - $0.50/bulb. so, i have a lot of led lights - but i also have a great need for them, as there are 14 sockets in the unit, including the stove and two lamps. i'm only usually going to have two-four on at one time.
there is also a total of five spotlights in the unit - three in the front hallway and two in the kitchen. two of these burnt out quite quickly, and i bought some at canadian tire, for $4 each. i had a stranded $31 sitting in my ebay account, so i spent $11 on 5 replacement spotlights. that's half-price, but they might not be here until january. it will cut 50W bulbs down to 9W. i'll have to test these switches, too.
somebody on e-bay had exactly the right replacement for the type j bulbs for me - 18 mm across to replace the standard 16/17 halogens. everything on amazon was pushing 25 mm. i got 4 of them for the two sockets, a fresh pair plus a replacement, for $13. so, my $31 is now $7, but my actual account has been spared - it feels free, but i will need to transfer the money back in over time (this is leftover money from sales at my bandcamp site). this is going to replace a 100 W and a 150 W bulb with two 15 W bulbs. so, it should still be very bright, but at a tenth of the cost. some time before january...
and, i got a 2-pack of led par20s for the bathroom. this is going to take me from 175 W all the way down to 9 W and should be here much sooner. $17, so $8.50 each. but, again: i had a $23 credit at amazon that was actually put there by accident, so these light bulbs are actually free.
i may put the other par 20 on the front step; again, i'll have to test the switch
i'll do all the right testing once the new bulbs come in, and we'll see what the difference is.
i don't know why, but the fixtures in here are very diverse. i have lights around the apartment that take normal bulbs, and got a deal on them at canadian tire - $0.50/bulb. so, i have a lot of led lights - but i also have a great need for them, as there are 14 sockets in the unit, including the stove and two lamps. i'm only usually going to have two-four on at one time.
there is also a total of five spotlights in the unit - three in the front hallway and two in the kitchen. two of these burnt out quite quickly, and i bought some at canadian tire, for $4 each. i had a stranded $31 sitting in my ebay account, so i spent $11 on 5 replacement spotlights. that's half-price, but they might not be here until january. it will cut 50W bulbs down to 9W. i'll have to test these switches, too.
somebody on e-bay had exactly the right replacement for the type j bulbs for me - 18 mm across to replace the standard 16/17 halogens. everything on amazon was pushing 25 mm. i got 4 of them for the two sockets, a fresh pair plus a replacement, for $13. so, my $31 is now $7, but my actual account has been spared - it feels free, but i will need to transfer the money back in over time (this is leftover money from sales at my bandcamp site). this is going to replace a 100 W and a 150 W bulb with two 15 W bulbs. so, it should still be very bright, but at a tenth of the cost. some time before january...
and, i got a 2-pack of led par20s for the bathroom. this is going to take me from 175 W all the way down to 9 W and should be here much sooner. $17, so $8.50 each. but, again: i had a $23 credit at amazon that was actually put there by accident, so these light bulbs are actually free.
i may put the other par 20 on the front step; again, i'll have to test the switch
i'll do all the right testing once the new bulbs come in, and we'll see what the difference is.
on third thought, i should be able to get what i want in there.
i have about 5 mms from the base of the fixture to the socket for the bulb. but, then i have another 5 mm to play with to get to the center of the socket. so, anything with about ten cm from the socket should fit - and i did see some of these
i still have a $25 credit at amazon, so that's probably the best way to approach this.
i have about 5 mms from the base of the fixture to the socket for the bulb. but, then i have another 5 mm to play with to get to the center of the socket. so, anything with about ten cm from the socket should fit - and i did see some of these
i still have a $25 credit at amazon, so that's probably the best way to approach this.
i've been shopping for bulbs all night.
on second thought, it seems like these bulbs may be difficult to replace due to the geometry of the fixture. i only have a few mm to play with, and the replacements are all quite wide. i might not be able to find a bulb that fits.
we'll see what kind of data comes back. what i did was turn everything off except the background use - two led bulbs in the bedroom, appliances (including the modem) and the laptop/monitor setup in the bedroom - and leave the lights in the bathroom on for one hour each, over three combinations - both bulbs, and then each separately. that should let me understand what kind of usage i can assign directly to the bulbs, and whether it's really as bad as it seems. the background is about 0.15. the two of them running together is probably going to be as high as 0.5, indicating that each of them is equal to the background. and, when a single bulb is equal to all of the appliances, two led bulbs and a computer, that bulb is a problem that needs to go.
if it's as bad as i think, i may just take the bulbs out and buy a lamp, instead. or, if i can find an led floodlight, i could just stick with that.
i now need to test the other switch through three combinations - just the fan, the fan & the led and the fan & the ir light. this will help me understand just how bad the ir light is, and whether it's really worthwhile to replace it or not.
on second thought, it seems like these bulbs may be difficult to replace due to the geometry of the fixture. i only have a few mm to play with, and the replacements are all quite wide. i might not be able to find a bulb that fits.
we'll see what kind of data comes back. what i did was turn everything off except the background use - two led bulbs in the bedroom, appliances (including the modem) and the laptop/monitor setup in the bedroom - and leave the lights in the bathroom on for one hour each, over three combinations - both bulbs, and then each separately. that should let me understand what kind of usage i can assign directly to the bulbs, and whether it's really as bad as it seems. the background is about 0.15. the two of them running together is probably going to be as high as 0.5, indicating that each of them is equal to the background. and, when a single bulb is equal to all of the appliances, two led bulbs and a computer, that bulb is a problem that needs to go.
if it's as bad as i think, i may just take the bulbs out and buy a lamp, instead. or, if i can find an led floodlight, i could just stick with that.
i now need to test the other switch through three combinations - just the fan, the fan & the led and the fan & the ir light. this will help me understand just how bad the ir light is, and whether it's really worthwhile to replace it or not.
zizek is of course a master of projection.
but, he beat me to the claim of dishonesty.
and, this might be the only argument i ever take his side on.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-clinical-psychologist-canada-popularity-convincing-why-left-wing-alt-right-cathy-a8208301.html
but, he beat me to the claim of dishonesty.
and, this might be the only argument i ever take his side on.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jordan-peterson-clinical-psychologist-canada-popularity-convincing-why-left-wing-alt-right-cathy-a8208301.html
the person that peterson reminds me of most is zizek - he appeals mostly to uneducated white men who never went to university, who get some kind of ego boost from thinking that they're finally being allowed to engage in a debate that they were never previously permitted to engage in, because nobody ever thought they were intelligent enough to engage in it. but, there's essentially nothing of substance to what he's saying, and when he's not being dishonest, he's being distracting.
and, he is deeply dishonest.
the surreal thing is that you'll see him being presented on the other side of the argument - as though freud or jung should be taken more seriously than derrida or lacan, or foucault. you've just moved across the rhine. it's the same bullshit. and, the guy really belongs in the same category as much of what his proponents are trying to contrast him against.
as mentioned: i don't want to engage in this debate, because i don't think it's worth my time. other than to clarify the facts of the situation when he attempts to distort them, that is to fact check him, he's really broadly not worth responding to.
and, that is my suggestion to dealing with him - don't bother engaging him. just fact check him and leave it at that.
and, he is deeply dishonest.
the surreal thing is that you'll see him being presented on the other side of the argument - as though freud or jung should be taken more seriously than derrida or lacan, or foucault. you've just moved across the rhine. it's the same bullshit. and, the guy really belongs in the same category as much of what his proponents are trying to contrast him against.
as mentioned: i don't want to engage in this debate, because i don't think it's worth my time. other than to clarify the facts of the situation when he attempts to distort them, that is to fact check him, he's really broadly not worth responding to.
and, that is my suggestion to dealing with him - don't bother engaging him. just fact check him and leave it at that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)