Reducing the Input

[luka]

the reason people have a problem with Land is that he is a militant campaigning racist. that's it in a nutshell.

 

[luka]

a lot of the cool stuff in Land hes just borrowed from science fiction, conspircy culture and psychedelic culture. but people who read philosophy are usually so badly read with no cultural literacy so they dont realise.

 

[woops]

you havent even read him though!

when has this ever stopped you luke

 

[luka]

i've transcencded the need to read.

 

[constant escape]

you havent even read him though!

True, certainly not enough of him to be speaking the way I am. Just "Dark Enlightenment" and a bunch of hyperstition (?) blog posts, plus interviews. Honestly, I don't think I'll go much further than that, unless someone convinces me there is more to him than I can currently appreciate.

ARGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Don't worry, I'll drop it. I had my spiel.

 

[luka]

Well worth reading Meltdown because it's fun and good and also reading his Twitter account to see how lame he is now.

 

[version]

I watched Gattaca last night and stumbled across this whilst talking to constant escape while it was paused:

Sign in - Google Accounts

 

[version]

Can't help feeling he's doing the Evola "superfascist" thing with that term.

 

[line b]

not sure exactly what he's getting at with that term

 

[version]

Neither am I. It just seems like he slapped a provocative title on some garbled thoughts on genetic engineering.

 

[line b]

He's using academic jargon to hide the fact that he is literally and exclusively describing the plot of Idiocracy

 

[constant escape]

I watched Gattaca last night and stumbled across this whilst talking to constant escape while it was paused:

Sign in - Google Accounts

excerpt:

On the sweetness-and-light side, racists and anti-racists can be expected to eventually bond in a defensive fraternity, when they recognize that traditionally-differentiated human populations are being torn asunder on an axis of variation that dwarfs all of their established concerns.

It seems like he addresses much of this with a kind of humanity-in-hindsight ambivalence that surely must register to some as a red flag. And I'm not saying it doesn't harbor dangerous seeds - but it seems like what he's arguing doesn't lead to evil conclusions. From what I understand. If he's even arguing anything, other than "the current paradigm/value-framework will transform and render all current positions moot" - but I don't wanna put words in his mouth. Maybe that's not the point.

Anyway, I hadn't seen that one before, thanks.