Pretentious Crap
- Thread starter josef k.
- Start date
hi martyr complex :waves:
you still didn't answer my question. name ONE archeological item that securely dates from 150,000 years ago that demonstrates something, one thing, ANYthing about human organization, foodways, life ways, or social organization during that period...
Just one.
You claimed that your theories about 150,000-2 million years of pre-history are supported by "archeological evidence," but um no, not even close
Ice Age was what, 20,000 years ago, ended maybe 10,000 years ago in its last stage - and you are talking about archeological evidence from 120,000 years earlier than that?
You are the one imposing the fantasies here, you are the one doing violence to method, standards of inquiry, standards of the historical interpretation of material culture
In short, you have not the slightest, faintest idea what you are talking about when you say "archeological evidence"
So save your "oh poor me" act for someone else!
whatever,
there are these things called fossils. which may be bone, teeth, other preserved biological material, or any number of other objects, which scientists have found from 150k years ago and much, much earlier. information extracted from fossils enable them to make educated guesses and formulate theoretical models of life in the distant past. this is how we know that dinosaurs almost certainly existed.
but of course there is lots of disagreement about every part of this process: how reliable is carbon-dating, how to interpret the data, etc. for instance, if you ask someone like Sarah Palin, Dinosaurs were made up by communists to destroy our faith in the Lord Jesus.
my profession is Motion Graphic Design for Television and Film; I am not a scientist of any kind, and have no formal training in archeology. thus my ideas regarding these matters is comprised of information gathered from various reputable scholars and scientists who do have formal training as well as international recognition for their work in these fields. one of these scholars is Jared Diamond, and yet another is Professor Fischer, whose lecture i linked to upthread.
so if you have any issues with the scientific process through which pre-historic data is collected and interpreted, i encourage you to call up the archeology department of any major or minor university in the world, and speak to someone who will be better equipped to answer your questions.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
To stop Robert Kilroy-Silk being invisible.
i've heard of fossils, yes. but once again, you keep telling us about everything that you already cited, about your 'evidence,' your mountains of evidence, your 'reputable' schoalars ... and so... surely it must be very simple to produce for me one link, one citation, one reference, to an archeological item dating from 150,000 BC. Just one.
I listened to your entire mp3. It provided no 'evidence' from pre-history. Fischer's lecture comprises one long garden variety summary of the work of Marshall Sahlins, a U of Chicago cultural anthropologist who has been extremely influential but who has had a definite scholarly agenda. Not exactly the kind of thing that counts as "clear evidence," ESPECIALLY when one is talking about something as sketchy, hazy, poorly understood as ... 150,000 years ago ... LOLZ ... my point is that you are making claims that have no basis in evidence but are mere fantastic speculations . Furthermore, while you may well have your own vision of what pre-history was like, you have not provided one shred of evidence for it -- in fact, you seem not to have the slightest idea what 'evidence' -- either it's evaluation or status -- even means in the realm of historical material culture .
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
My interests would be with the historical descent of pretentious crap, to the hegemonic position it enjoys today.
The key question doesn't lie with the violence of hunter-gathering nomads, but on their relative levels of pretentious crap.
I also wonder whether pretentious crap is not, in the end, the principal enemy of Anonymous.
The key question doesn't lie with the violence of hunter-gathering nomads, but on their relative levels of pretentious crap.
I also wonder whether pretentious crap is not, in the end, the principal enemy of Anonymous.
I've been thinking about these issues with respect to criticism and critics lately. Granted: this might be an issue of interest only to me.
But it strikes me that there are two forms of criticism - on the one hand, the criticism of masks, based on degrees of authority. On the other, the criticism of anonymity, based on the careful practice of description, and, to some degree, poetry. The former says: "Based on what I know, and who I am, my opinions are these." The latter says: "Based on nothing special, this is what I think."
I contend that the former is the essence of pretentious crap.
But it strikes me that there are two forms of criticism - on the one hand, the criticism of masks, based on degrees of authority. On the other, the criticism of anonymity, based on the careful practice of description, and, to some degree, poetry. The former says: "Based on what I know, and who I am, my opinions are these." The latter says: "Based on nothing special, this is what I think."
I contend that the former is the essence of pretentious crap.
scottdisco
rip this joint please
Rich totally OTM.
people like Amartya Sen have kicked a lot of Malthus to the kerb but if i can just quote a bit of Alex de Waal (we don't need the argument de Waal alludes to at the start to make this flourish-of-a-point)
scottdisco
rip this joint please
Anonymous is maybe the ultimate mask. What is interesting about it is the way that it seems very aggressive to other forms of authority. The anti-Scientology campaign was a kind of embryonic example of this. The stuff on Encyclopedia Dramatica is a bit more sophisticated. What they really seem to be opposed to are claims of authority, in all of their various guises.
I don't think Anonymous is a pretense. Or if it is, is a different kind of pretense. Certain forms of pretentiousness are rendered impossible once identity-political issues are taken out of the equation.
I don't think Anonymous is a pretense. Or if it is, is a different kind of pretense. Certain forms of pretentiousness are rendered impossible once identity-political issues are taken out of the equation.
vimothy
yurp
Ah, I see what you mean with regards to criticism. Anonymous is interesting (occasionally exhilarating) for that reason. But I do think it is pretentious, though I don't mean pretentious in a negative sense, necessarily. It's certainly ostentatious, unnecessary, and at play. An authority/anti-authority. And aggressive -- edging towards King Mob style cruelty.
"And aggressive -- edging towards King Mob style cruelty."
With the vital distinction that it isn't a group, or in any sense an organized body, but a free-floating identity that has no identity.
The theorists of the multitude now have their object. But it isn't the object they dreamed about.
With the vital distinction that it isn't a group, or in any sense an organized body, but a free-floating identity that has no identity.
The theorists of the multitude now have their object. But it isn't the object they dreamed about.
4chan unpretentious? :/
"Anonymous" is something I'm somewhat familiar with, because I'm kind of interested in the multimedia communicative and creative possibilies of internet meme culture, and the (much more creative and interesting) memetic scenius over at Ytmnd sometimes admits that their site's memes often come from /b/ (not always true, ytmnd has its own memes too). So I've gotten a bit familiar with the influence of 4chan, because there's some crossover there with ytmnd, as well as a few other boards. But the chans have gotten some attention lately because 1. most popular internet memes, including Rickrolling and lolcats, start there these days and 2. the raids: which sounds sooo kewwwl and L337, but are really just a bunch of bored kids doing things like saying the N word on black message boards. Not what people have mythologised it to be.
It's totally pretentious though, not all raw, pure, no-bullshit instinct and "realness" just because most of them don't post under a screenname. Ignore Encyclopedia Dramatica's claims, /b/tards have this totally defined and rigid identity that they all try to posture and conform to to fit in (*pretention*)... by mindlessly and unoriginally braying out nothing but popular meme-phrases and trying to act jaded, heartless, and sick; and if anything, the only thing more "real" about 4chan is its being a place where these anime fans are perhaps a little more candid about their really odd preferences (you name it, Japan fetishizes it it seems :slanted
. The place can also sometimes be funny and weirdly interesting, and some of the more over-the-top but less cruel pranks on more deserving targets can make you smirk, but the whole "Anonymous" thing has been blown way out of proportion.
It's funny how this joke-name "Anonymous", just because it sounds all nefarious and mysterious, has created this big, false mystique and meaning around what is just a bunch of neglected suburban white kids fapping to anime and venting their teenage rage by trolling and doing stupid pranks. And there's absolutely nothing political about them, the Chanology thing was a misunderstood joke. They also, trying to prove how hardcore they are, often do things like calling up and tormenting families of suicide victims. Srsly, forget "lulz" culture, it's just a new side-effect of selfish middle class kids getting warped by the depersonalization of modern communications and being raised by tv.
HTML:
It's totally pretentious though, not all raw, pure, no-bullshit instinct and "realness" just because most of them don't post under a screenname. Ignore Encyclopedia Dramatica's claims, /b/tards have this totally defined and rigid identity that they all try to posture and conform to to fit in (*pretention*)... by mindlessly and unoriginally braying out nothing but popular meme-phrases and trying to act jaded, heartless, and sick; and if anything, the only thing more "real" about 4chan is its being a place where these anime fans are perhaps a little more candid about their really odd preferences (you name it, Japan fetishizes it it seems :slanted
. The place can also sometimes be funny and weirdly interesting, and some of the more over-the-top but less cruel pranks on more deserving targets can make you smirk, but the whole "Anonymous" thing has been blown way out of proportion.It's funny how this joke-name "Anonymous", just because it sounds all nefarious and mysterious, has created this big, false mystique and meaning around what is just a bunch of neglected suburban white kids fapping to anime and venting their teenage rage by trolling and doing stupid pranks. And there's absolutely nothing political about them, the Chanology thing was a misunderstood joke. They also, trying to prove how hardcore they are, often do things like calling up and tormenting families of suicide victims. Srsly, forget "lulz" culture, it's just a new side-effect of selfish middle class kids getting warped by the depersonalization of modern communications and being raised by tv.