Live Earth

[baboon2004]

Lee Edelman is quite good on this

Amazon product ASIN 0822333694
He goes right off on some great rants, example :

Fuck the social order and the child in whose name we're terrorized! Fuck the orphan Annie and the waif from Les Mis! Fuck all the poor little innocent kids! Fuck laws with capital L's and small!
Fuck the whole network of Symbolic Relations and the Future that serves as its prop!

I paraphrased slightly but not much.

Interesting - thanks for this. Not sure of the conclusions of this book, but, more generally, I have long bemoaned a culture where children are held up as the archetype of all that is good, pure and meaningful (in this society where meanign is so hard to come by), yet, as soon as these SAME PEOPLE hit 12,13,14, they become "the problem". It's such stupidity that it hurts my brain to think about it.

 

[elgato]

That's actually a (semi-) famous economics one-liner.

Some one else summed it up like this: if trash were worth anything, people would be driving down your street offering you money for it. They don't because it's not.

Can nothing have value other than economic, and as defined by a completely free market?

In any case, no-one believes that markets are perfect anymore do they? Even if your only value is personal liberty, markets have not been able to adequately account for impacts on the future (or indeed the present)... imperfect information etc

Actually though, given the morbid eschatology and adolescent ressentiment rippling through this thread, I'm quite suprised that you're bothered by a what is clearly a joke and not by people wishing for planetary collapse (including, probably, your own death).

It was mainly the statement's lack of subtlety, and sloganeering style which I was taken aback by. Wheras the morbid eschatology represents the (logical?) end of a nuanced and complex train of thought, and is begging questions, rather than cracking skulls (if you know what I mean)

 

[Mr. Tea]

Which sounds like a creepily plausible explanation for any rise in the number of paedophiles - but is there really such a rise (beyond the increased visibility due to internet porn-rings and their exposure)?

I was about to say something along these lines. Are rates of abuse actually increasing, or just our perception of them, thanks to (frequently hysterical) media coverage? I think people have a tendency to look back on this completely imaginary golden age of innocence and safety, before paedophiles were 'invented' - whereas now that there are special police task forces, nationwide registers of sex offenders and CRB checks for people going into many kinds of profession, it must be far harder to be a child molester today than it was fifty, or even just twenty, years ago.

If more paedophiles are being apprehended, that's a good thing, because it means they're being caught - not a bad thing, because it indicates they're there in the first place (because, in actuality, they've been there all along).

Of course, this can (and, I think, has) gone too far the other way, with kids not being allowed out to play in the park because of the fear they could get raped the second they walk out the front door.

 

[vimothy]

"Economics is about money, and why it is good."

- Woody Allen

 

[Mr. Tea]

"Economics is about money, and why it is good."

- Woody Allen

That's an extremely economical way to tie together the two main themes of this rambling thread; viz., globalisation and paedophilia...

 

[nomadologist]

I am intrigued as to your cynicism on the one hand reserved for the ultra-rich (deserved of course) and yet your wide-eyed techno-positive optimism as to the ability of science to deliver... (in hoc as it is of course to the ultra-rich...)

technologies have always (as of yet) been extensions of man. maybe we could change that, and if we did, they would be freed up to be used for "good", maybe to save the world rather than destroy it.

my aesthetic preferences often get in the way of my "politics" if i have any

 

[nomadologist]

I was about to say something along these lines. Are rates of abuse actually increasing, or just our perception of them, thanks to (frequently hysterical) media coverage? I think people have a tendency to look back on this completely imaginary golden age of innocence and safety, before paedophiles were 'invented' - whereas now that there are special police task forces, nationwide registers of sex offenders and CRB checks for people going into many kinds of profession, it must be far harder to be a child molester today than it was fifty, or even just twenty, years ago.

If more paedophiles are being apprehended, that's a good thing, because it means they're being caught - not a bad thing, because it indicates they're there in the first place.

Of course, this can (and, I think, has) gone too far the other way, with kids not being allowed out to play in the park because of the fear they could get raped the second they walk out the front door.

If there are "more" pedophiles, it's not about literal numbers--it's about how our society has set up circumstances that make the right conditions for pedophilia to be the international sexual pathology of choice

 

[nomadologist]

Back on topic:



It WAS a total dud then (in the UK at least). Anyone know how many in the states watched it or how the coverage has been there? Nomadologist, what was the view from NYC?

I couldn't get a clear view of it on TV at all. Bravo kept having commercial interludes about it between programming, as did Vh1 (I think) but I couldn't see a complete performance on any channel. MTV had a lot of interviews and emails published where they asked viewers something like "Live Aid: necessary or hypocrisy?" and most everyone said it was very hypocritical and stupid.

You can't get New Yorkers to go to music shows, let alone try to make them care about Live Aid.

 

[vimothy]

Can nothing have value other than economic, and as defined by a completely free market?

Obviously, it can (hence, for example, externalities).

Do you just ignore the economic argument when it's not to your liking? (Is that a Badiouian response)? Personally, I'd opt for the qualitative over the normative analysis.

In any case, no-one believes that markets are perfect anymore do they? Even if your only value is personal liberty, markets have not been able to adequately account for impacts on the future (or indeed the present)... imperfect information etc

Well, a perfect market is something different again (as you draw attention to). That said, I don't think that anyone has ever believed that perfect markets existed. The perfect market is a heuristic.

The big elephant sized problem, however, is the same for externalities as it is for economic decisions more generally: who decides value, and how and to what effect?

If you think that waste is a resource more precious than your own time, and thus you find it preferable to preserve waste (over your own time), good for you. I applaud your egalitarianism. However, it's still an economic decision (just not a very sensible one, IMO), because economics seeks to address the problems of managing scarce resources.

It was mainly the statement's lack of subtlety, and sloganeering style which I was taken aback by. Wheras the morbid eschatology represents the (logical?) end of a nuanced and complex train of thought, and is begging questions, rather than cracking skulls (if you know what I mean)

I'll assume you're being ironic here.

[*Sound of me sticking my fingers in my ears and going "lah-lah-lah"*]

 

[nomadologist]

That's an extremely economical way to tie together the two main themes of this rambling thread; viz., globalisation and paedophilia...

i hate coherence. it's of no interest to me when things makes sense or fit together. it's the things that won't cohere, that don't gel, that make no sense, where differences eddy and form amorpohous pools and threads fray on the edges that interesting thoughts happen.

right?!

 

[Mr. Tea]

...where differences eddy and form amorpohous pools and threads fray on the edges...D

Like a Mandelbrot Set of meaning, forever spawning sub-threads that spin off from their parent, achieving independence and spawning sub-sub-threads in turn; fractal semantics...

*takes another toke*

 

[nomadologist]

Lee Edelman is quite good on this

Amazon product ASIN 0822333694
He goes right off on some great rants, example :

Fuck the social order and the child in whose name we're terrorized! Fuck the orphan Annie and the waif from Les Mis! Fuck all the poor little innocent kids! Fuck laws with capital L's and small!
Fuck the whole network of Symbolic Relations and the Future that serves as its prop!

I paraphrased slightly but not much.

this looks great, i'm gonna buy it! thanks for the recommendation. i'm surprised i haven't heard of it since i was part of the queer mafia in my college

 

[nomadologist]

Like a Mandelbrot Set of meaning, forever spawning sub-threads that spin off from their parent, achieving independence and spawning sub-sub-threads in turn; fractal semantics...

*takes another toke*

hehee

 

[mistersloane]

I agree with your reasons, but have a few of my own. I suppose mostly with a more feminist spin to them based on what you call the binary of "innocent-sexual", which is not really a binary at all. The short form goes: now that women have made gains and are much harder to completely objectify (now that very few adult women make any claims to being "virginal"-"innocent") and yet the way we structure male sexuality (to need a submissive underside to the "masculine"-dominant binary) has changed little, something is missing. Barring females as a possible underside of the sexual-innocent binary, men turn to children.

Gross but true.

Has 'This Is England' reached the US yet? There's a fascinating take on that with regard an older teenage girl and a 12 year old boy in that which I found really interesting. I also doubt that the press found it disturbing, or even commented on it, in the way they would had it been the other way round. But I haven't really looked out any reviews.

I also fundamentally don't understand what derailing a conversation means, genuinely.

 

[swears]

Has 'This Is England' reached the US yet? There's a fascinating take on that with regard an older teenage girl and a 12 year old boy in that which I found really interesting. I also doubt that the press found it disturbing, or even commented on it, in the way they would had it been the other way round. But I haven't really looked out any reviews.

There was a rather creepy scene in The Ice Storm with Christina Ricca and a younger boy too. How common is this sort of thing with teenage girls? I imagine it's pretty rare otherwise the press would have a field day with it.

 

[nomadologist]

It hasn't reached the U.S. Can I get it on Netflix? Is it a book?

I'm also with you on not understanding how to "derail" a discussion.

Forcing people to stay "on topic" for post after post after post leads to redundancy of the worst order and, in fact, makes thread die much much faster.

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds!

 

[nomadologist]

There was a rather creepy scene in The Ice Storm with Christina Ricca and a younger boy too. How common is this sort of thing with teenage girls? I imagine it's pretty rare otherwise the press would have a field day with it.

I think what happens between pre-teens and young teens and even older teens is usually of the sort of experience analysts would consider well within the boundaries of "normal" curiosity and experimentation.

I noticed in college a strange trend where, after having a couple serious relationships with boyfriends in their peer group that went sour, 18-20 year old girls would all suddenly have a 6 month affair with a much much older man. Myself included. I have some theories about that, too, but I think it's still well within the bounds of normal.

What creeps me out are male high school teachers.

 

[elgato]

Do you just ignore the economic argument when it's not to your liking? (Is that a Badiouian response)? Personally, I'd opt for the qualitative over the normative analysis.

what am i ignoring?

Well, a perfect market is something different again (as you draw attention to). That said, I don't think that anyone has ever believed that perfect markets existed. The perfect market is a heuristic.

surely therefore the 'well if waste was worth anything ppl would be...' is meaningless?

If you think that waste is a resource more precious than your own time, and thus you find it preferable to preserve waste (over your own time), good for you. I applaud your egalitarianism. However, it's still an economic decision (just not a very sensible one, IMO), because economics seeks to address the problems of managing scarce resources.

it can certainly be viewed as economic, although i would see that as an imposition of a logic rather than an inherent quality. but why is it not a sensible decision? at an individual level, it takes an incredibly small amount of time to recycle, given that disposal has to be achieved either way, and the potential benefits are great

I'll assume you're being ironic here.

haha i liked it

 

[mistersloane]

There was a rather creepy scene in The Ice Storm with Christina Ricca and a younger boy too. How common is this sort of thing with teenage girls? I imagine it's pretty rare otherwise the press would have a field day with it.

Certainly amoung my crowd it was ( and still is ) a real badge of honour to have broken boys in, they became 'yours' forever then. Punk girls, bless em.

'This Is England" is Shane Meadows new film about skinheads in the UK in 1982, a kinda pointless retro work but accurate, save the use of the word 'chillout' and no-one sniffing glue, which renders the whole exercise kinda redundant, cos everyone was on glue.

 

[Mr. Tea]

What creeps me out are male high school teachers.

What, inherently? The very concept of them?