I hate it when programmers need to justify their continued employment so they create problems that need "creative solutions" that result in "features" that get in the way of using an already mature product.

Maybe odd to be weighing in on this of all things on a Saturday morning, especially since it could become a can of worms, but...

kokorodoko wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:18 amLiberals generally fear the people, the mass, the mob; and they are mocked for this by leftists. But the latter are inclined to take on board too eagerly this idea as an antithesis to the ruling order, not examining how, or even embracing the fact that, a romanticism remains for them in this idea. A romanticism for which this "people" stands for authentic existence.

I mostly agree with this ^^^.

However...

kokorodoko wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:18 amAlong with this romanticism therefore, leftist intellectuals are historically very often accompanied by an aversion to the very people-ness of the people - consumerism, mass culture, rambunctious pleasures, even politics (The communist utopia is a place without politics[...]) To the intellectual, these excesses are often taken to be intrusive aberrations corrupting the pure people.

In my experience, this ^^^ isn't so, especially among contemporary leftists who've passed through or are still a part of academia. In most cases, hardcore leftists--at least very online ones--are deeply afraid of appearing snobby in this regard, unless such snobbery can somehow be directed at their political and social antipodes. Or, I dunno, be a source of self-mockery.

Snobbery often brings into relief one's privilege (past or present), one's distance from the flock, even if the person in question isn't economically prosperous, and this is something nearly all vocal leftists, much as I might like some of them, tend to be coy/apprehensive about.


Would say that the aforementioned idea of "the people," or consensus among "workers" or "non-elites," or some sort of majority (within a community, or in the world at large), can be molded to all sorts of ends.

The prevailing mindset toward a given subject/person/ideology can change like the direction of the wind and a commonality among most progressives is that they will adapt to what they consider to be the "right" or "ultimately winning" side, as per their general social or intellectual stance, or simply on the heels of peer pressure, even if their knowledge of the thing at hand is horribly incomplete or not well thought out.

Of course, the inverse (if you will) can be true of conservatives, especially hardcore ones, who almost seem to dislike "change" on principle, such that they will do all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify not adapting to newer currents of thought or policy that might be more inclusive or beneficial to a greater number of people. It becomes a badge of honor for them to stay the same, or even regress, as a kind of f.u. to the world.

One might infer that I think being middle of the road/centrist is the answer, but that's not the case either. Instead one should just think for himself/herself, and judge matters on a case by case basis, go where the facts lead them rather than jump to conclusions. It's also perfectly fine for someone to not have an opinion/stance on something.

In the end, actually helping someone tangibly, in the "real world"/within one's community/on a grass roots level (along with not voting for assholes) will probably do more good than most political conjecture/online discourse/tweeting/speeches/etc.

kokorodoko wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:39 pm So sick of these radicals who are always on about "the people". We gotta go to the people, to the workers, whatever, we gotta talk to the people, go out among the people, find out what they want.

It's always they. Always them, always those people over there. Never you, never I. Through the fantasy of a "people" with whose voice you claim to speak, you deny how this allows you to erect your self-interest against mine, and against others.

Rereading this in light of your latter posts, I get the impression that you're trying to resolve the tension between any given mass of people that's subject to the madness of crowds, and attempts by radicals of any kind who frame their own ideology on some kind of identity with those masses, which they can never be part of because the mass is unthinking.

Anyway, I don't necessarily disagree with any of what you said. I'm just not sure I'm reading you right. If I am, then I probably wasted a lot of words about stuff you're better versed in than I am. It's worth noting that any mindless mob is still made up of people who, when they're not subject to mass psychology, have minds and personalities of their own.

DaveA wrote:

kokorodoko wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:18 amAlong with this romanticism therefore, leftist intellectuals are historically very often accompanied by an aversion to the very people-ness of the people - consumerism, mass culture, rambunctious pleasures, even politics (The communist utopia is a place without politics[...]) To the intellectual, these excesses are often taken to be intrusive aberrations corrupting the pure people.

In my experience, this ^^^ isn't so, especially among contemporary leftists who've passed through or are still a part of academia. In most cases, hardcore leftists--at least very online ones--are deeply afraid of appearing snobby in this regard, unless such snobbery can somehow be directed at their political and social antipodes. Or, I dunno, be a source of self-mockery.

Snobbery often brings into relief one's privilege (past or present), one's distance from the flock, even if the person in question isn't economically prosperous, and this is something nearly all vocal leftists, much as I might like some of them, tend to be coy/apprehensive about.

I think the guys who've made me maddest in leftist circles have been a couple PhD candidates who were very snarky/trollish/Chapo-Trap-House-like. Hipster dudes who are DSA members but who can't stop praising Stalin, who told a friend of mine that it was a shame her Polish grandparents weren't executed in the partition of Poland. These guys live in their hip, snobby bubble, probably to a much greater extent than even the most effete and reserved of us on this board.

Those guys do indeed sound like assholes. I guess what I meant there is that the line isn't drawn at "consumerism, mass culture, rambunctious pleasures, politics" for people interested in organizing, who even if they felt this way would tend to conceal it. And in my experience, if anything, a lot of lefties embrace these things, even if ironically at times. Instead an aversion to most of that would more accurately be the domain of, I dunno, aesthetes of a certain strand or isolationist curmudgeons.

DaveA wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:45 am Maybe odd to be weighing in on this of all things on a Saturday morning, especially since it could become a can of worms, but...

Worms help things grow. Worms are good.

DaveA wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:45 am

kokorodoko wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:18 amAlong with this romanticism therefore, leftist intellectuals are historically very often accompanied by an aversion to the very people-ness of the people - consumerism, mass culture, rambunctious pleasures, even politics (The communist utopia is a place without politics[...]) To the intellectual, these excesses are often taken to be intrusive aberrations corrupting the pure people.

In my experience, this ^^^ isn't so, especially among contemporary leftists who've passed through or are still a part of academia. In most cases, hardcore leftists--at least very online ones--are deeply afraid of appearing snobby in this regard, unless such snobbery can somehow be directed at their political and social antipodes. Or, I dunno, be a source of self-mockery.

Snobbery often brings into relief one's privilege (past or present), one's distance from the flock, even if the person in question isn't economically prosperous, and this is something nearly all vocal leftists, much as I might like some of them, tend to be coy/apprehensive about.

Ah, I agree, and here you come to one of the things I am especially impatient with.

I am in possession of certain intellectual resources. It is undoubtedly a function of my class privilege or otherwise that I have been able to acquire these - that I have a baseline of subsistence guaranteed by the state, that I have leisure time because of a limited working day, that I have disposable income to buy books and pay for an internet connection, that I have access to certain information channels, that I have received free schooling... - but so what? Am I supposed to pretend as if I don't possess these resources, in case it might make someone uncomfortable?

This thing of not appearing snobbish by avoiding theoretical subjects is fake as shit. Especially when it is put forth in the way of "you intellectuals in ivory tower, they people with ordinary problems, marx said do not think". Like if you understand something and find it relevant, there is no reason why anybody else couldn't. The only reason to be averse to sharing this with "the people" is that you either don't understand it that well (or you only know it by rote, so you're immediately stumped when someone challenges you in way you're not prepared for), or that you don't trust "the people" to understand it, because "after all, only academics care about this, people have other problems", OR you are anxious that they will find you snobbish or condescending, which is a separate problem.

No matter what you do, the fact of your class conditions will not disappear. And as I demonstrated, and which is obvious, this class position and the resources it affords me gives me access to a certain power. Power that I can make use of and that I can share with others. Power that might empower someone else. That other guy, possessing that same power (supposing that we are of roughly the same educational level and whatnot), would prefer to relinquish this power and make a pretense of speaking solely about "ordinary people's problems", when such a distinction, as well as the distinction between an intellectual and the people in this way, and the deliberate choice of identifying with an idea of the people as someone who's side you take; are all distinctions that can only be made by someone who posesses these resources to begin with! And by making use of this power he is hiding his class position to pose as on the side of the people, by deliberately denying them this power.

And besides, I fucking love this theory stuff. I find it exhilarating to have my horizons expand like this. I see more possibilities, I feel greater confidence. Why wouldn't I want to share this with others?

As far as "raising consciousness" goes, a lot of leftists seem to want to boil things down to the empirical level. The dubious prioritizing of economy to culture is one example of this. They focus on the level of content and forget that of form, which is just as important. A long-standing philosophical attitude is that appearances conceal essences. There is a perception of reality which is a false perception, and the task is to break through the false appearance to uncover actual reality, and that is the one which you will orient yourself after, apart from any incidental appearance. In the belief that you have uncovered the essential (the only thing which matters, as this word is also understood), you permit yourself to ignore appearances, even though these retain their effect, their magical power, and you haven't engaged with them on that level, as apperances, but as irrelevant appendages to something else. Apperance and presentation are profoundly important to understand how you orient yourself in this world. No less so when it comes to teaching somebody else. All sorts of prejudices and conditioned responses are baked into the encounter. In the case of someone teaching, an extra layer is added in that they speak with the voice of an institution. To someone who does not have access to that institution, the presence of someone who does can be intimidating. Whether the reaction is hostility, shutting one's ears to the message; or admiration (which might be worse), there are things blocking reception which are not at the level of the facts themselves. Being aware of and raising awareness of these dynamics, on either part of the encounter, is itself part of teaching, since it relates to how power operates in general. Even when there is no direct intimidation as described, there can be lack of confidence: "Who am I to speak on this? I'm not an expert, like that other guy." Wresting knowledge from institutional power (physical and psychic) is part of claiming that knowledge.

A little bit of this has trickled into leftist circles. Discussions of "optics" are pretty prevalent, but I find those mostly rather shallow and uncomfortably close to silencing tactics. Then there are others who recognize the effectiveness of the image and signalling to draw support and persuade, but use this in a purely manipulative and opportunistic manner. "The masses respond to these signals, so this is what we will do." In this case, presentation is simply treated as a neutral tool to be used pragmatically as the situation demands, and there is no theoretical engagement with this phenomenon itself, and therefore no concern for how this affects the consciousness of the group or of those who receive the message. Furthermore those who receive the message remain ignorant of why they respond to it, something which the members of the group spreading the message are aware of, but which is not contained in their message!


My original comment referred to how I notice a disinterest in those "vulgar" things, which I take to be in line with the attitude to essence and appearance. Those excesses can be considered distractions which will disappear with the attainment of consciousness (and which therefore will not be here in a future "self-conscious" society). The people (the masses, the multitude) is excess, uncontainable at the symbolic level. In modernist rationality, uncontainability is a flaw, something to be overcome at a later stage, "animal passions" eventually to fall under the rule of reason. The same attitude taken to the masses is taken toward oneself, and you have a neurotic. The left historically is always retreating from this excess, and their very attitude to capitalism often mirrors this (it is too much, too abundant, too anarchic) - that capitalism which is emergent from the life activity of the people.

This is I think a spontaneous initial effect of an intellectual attitude. The intellectual, the philosopher, begins by turning away from the immediate, saying this is something other than that. They therefore separate themselves from the people, they can no longer "be in the moment" of being with the people in the same way, because they have broken the illusion of that immediacy, the illusion that this immediacy was the world as such. In separating themselves, the intellectual forces separation on everyone else, forcing everyone else to recognize themselves as separate. Paradise is destroyed. As Plato already noted, the people don't like intellectuals, because intellectuals kill enjoyment, the enjoyment of simply being. When enjoyment is pointed out, it cannot be enjoyed.

So in noting that liberals fear the people, I do not mock them for this. The people are scary. In seeking to reclaim lost unity and blissful immediacy, the people might band together to destroy the individual. The people are identical, the individual is different.

This attitude described is of course nothing peculiar, but a necessary consequence of self-awareness. Everyone is always already separated like this, especially since some individuals insist on their difference by their very being (as a gendered or racialized other, etc.). But here ideology enters, offering (seemingly) a way back into blissful immediacy, into nature, into just the way things are.

In either case, leftists in their presentation have indicated a certain aversion to people-ness. The popular is gaudy, flashy and entertaining; leftists have preferred the drab and the solemn. The popular is hedonistic, leftists are ascetic. There is always the real world, and the distractions. Excepting Anonymous, leftists have been absolutely, fantastically clueless about the internet, the mob technology par excellence, because it's "just the internet". The far right totally swamped the internet in the first days of web2.0, no resistance whatsoever. Leftists slowly caught on - after Gamergate, i.e. along with the mainstream media, when the alt-right had been a thing for at least three years prior.

Of course, the inverse (if you will) can be true of conservatives, especially hardcore ones, who almost seem to dislike "change" on principle, such that they will do all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify not adapting to newer currents of thought or policy that might be more inclusive or beneficial to a greater number of people. It becomes a badge of honor for them to stay the same, or even regress, as a kind of f.u. to the world.

As far as adapting, I'm with G.K. Chesterton when he said that "the reasonable man adapts to the world and the unreasonable man insists on having the world adapt to him", where he of course sides with the unreasonable man. As far as it concerns "progress" in a simplistic, non-qualified sense, the tyrannical demand to "adapt or perish" to whatever happens to be the fancy at the moment, all of which depends on the one making the demand having the power to do so. Colonial imperialism is a kind of "progress". Steelmanning the conservative position, it tends to be the voice of the "little guy" being pushed aside or buried by the onslaught of the new, or a concern for the loss of human dignity. As far as their essentialism and insistence on familial sovereignty, I have no sympathies. But these things are good to keep in mind when engaging with someone like that.

Mainly though, this concerns enjoyment as I mentioned it above. There's a lot in the conservative mindset of wanting to retain mystery, enchantment, sacredness. How they operate in practice though, shows that it's not really retaining anything (since that original thing, whatever it was, is already irretrievably lost), but recreating it, re-enchantment following disenchantment. This is worth looking into.

One might infer that I think being middle of the road/centrist is the answer, but that's not the case either. Instead one should just think for himself/herself, and judge matters on a case by case basis, go where the facts lead them rather than jump to conclusions. It's also perfectly fine for someone to not have an opinion/stance on something.

That last part especially, yes. There is intense pressure to form an opinion on things, and to speak that opinion, make one's voice heard, to participate. Forming opinions is how you construct your self, and then all of that will be scrutinized. Relieving some of that pressure would be good for everyone.

It's basic chaos theory that full prediction is inherently impossible, right? So all we have are probabilities. Being comfortable with and loving unpredictability and uncertainty is something I would encourage.

In the end, actually helping someone tangibly, in the "real world"/within one's community/on a grass roots level (along with not voting for assholes) will probably do more good than most political conjecture/online discourse/tweeting/speeches/etc.

Maybe. There's a dangerous fetish in the "real world" and the local, the personal and so on, which I alluded to above. I don't think you have to lay down strong priorities like this. As long as you're aware of where you're looking and where you're not, and touch grass every once in a while. But as far as nurturing intimate bonds, I agree.

That's a thorough, thoughtful post, FM kokorodoko. Haven't got the time to reply to all of it, but thought I'd duck in for a second to comment on a couple of things...

kokorodoko wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:18 amI am in possession of certain intellectual resources. It is undoubtedly a function of my class privilege or otherwise that I have been able to acquire these - that I have a baseline of subsistence guaranteed by the state, that I have leisure time because of a limited working day, that I have disposable income to buy books and pay for an internet connection, that I have access to certain information channels, that I have received free schooling... - but so what? Am I supposed to pretend as if I don't possess these resources, in case it might make someone uncomfortable?

No. But depending on one's environment, such resources and circumstances can be deemed suspect. What might well pass for relatively "normal" in one setting, among a specialized group of people, can be almost inordinate in another. And furthermore, among people who eat, sleep, and breathe such things, in a professional context, those same "gifts" and opportunities one makes good on in his free time, could come off as anemic. Strange how that works, huh?

Maybe that's an irritating observation. This isn't something to lose sleep over every night. But there will be occasions in which one is made aware of this sort of thing. Doesn't matter what the subject at hand is. Could be philosophy, guitars, wine, sports, whatever.

kokorodoko wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 10:18 amThis thing of not appearing snobbish by avoiding theoretical subjects is fake as shit. Especially when it is put forth in the way of "you intellectuals in ivory tower, they people with ordinary problems, marx said do not think". Like if you understand something and find it relevant, there is no reason why anybody else couldn't. The only reason to be averse to sharing this with "the people" is that you either don't understand it that well (or you only know it by rote, so you're immediately stumped when someone challenges you in way you're not prepared for), or that you don't trust "the people" to understand it, because "after all, only academics care about this, people have other problems", OR you are anxious that they will find you snobbish or condescending, which is a separate problem.

I would mostly agree. But the things is, people who are insiders somehow, involved with institutions of some sort or somehow professionally accredited, or even just people who've got the luxury of being a part of a larger community or others with the same interests, enjoy a certain insulation from being accused of barking up the wrong tree, or being "full of it" (if they know their stuff). Such people can always fall back on the alibi of, "This is my job, I'm paid to be nerdy/astute/inquisitive, this is what people like us do," etc. But when people outside these situations try to maintain such interests...who knows? They might feel very adrift or at odds.

Hell, even among people who ARE vetted and well paid, there can still be hostility from some sectors of the populace. To use a banal example, look at all of the flack Dr. Fauci has gotten from a big chunk of Americans (not all, or even half, but enough to be alarming). He's just doing his job and some want him dead. Not the rosiest of pictures.


The short of it is, you don't have to apologize for any of this.

^ But this runs contrary to the original argument. The unnecessary bashfulness about status or know-how was being ascribed to the left. The hatred for Fauci's qualified opinion is coming from the right. The right wing of the U.S. loathes a qualified intellectual more than anything else. The whole 'hybrid driving, latte drinking, degree holding, out of touch, gun-hater' thing was a major weapon against non-Republicans during the 2000's. Perhaps some leftists have adopted a false folksiness to combat it. Bernie Sanders hair is a choice, I suppose. And he still had snark articles trying to sink him because he's worth a couple million dollars, 'Ha ha, phony! You own more than one house, so clearly you care about no one.'

This all gets stranger when you look at Trump's flaunting of his riches and the proletariat's complete lack of skepticism towards a casino tycoon. I guess where I'm landing is this thing of being 'with the people' (basically, populism right?), is not necessarily firmly on the left or right, but just another aspect of political theatre.

Hey gamers, here's a tip - you don't actually need a race car driver's chair to play video games. You're not pulling any Gs around corners, you don't need to protect your head and neck from whiplash, no matter how powerful your graphics processor is. You're sitting at your computer. Regular home or office furniture works just fine for this purpose.

Are people projecting a suppressed car fetish onto their gaming nook?

kokorodoko wrote:... this theory stuff. I find it exhilarating ...

Uhm, not all the time though. Sometimes it makes me paranoid.

biscuitdough wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:55 pmIt's worth noting that any mindless mob is still made up of people who, when they're not subject to mass psychology, have minds and personalities of their own.

Certainly. But when an individual is thinking as an individual, they are not of the mass, even if they identify with it. It would seem then that the mass/people in this instance is a Big Other (i.e. in identifying with the people you think you're identifying with an "everybody else", but each individual identifying in this way rests their identification on this same "everybody else", and in actuality, no one person is this "else").

Typing this though, I don't feel quite sure. How does the individual mind in a state of mass consciousness work? And are there different types (say pogrom vs. rock concert)? I'll have to think about it.

I think the guys who've made me maddest in leftist circles have been a couple PhD candidates who were very snarky/trollish/Chapo-Trap-House-like. Hipster dudes who are DSA members but who can't stop praising Stalin, who told a friend of mine that it was a shame her Polish grandparents weren't executed in the partition of Poland.

Wonderful.