An ex-workers collective that assured the basis of my political beliefs.
Had to fix the link. Sorry for the double post (;_;)
It seems rather vague; just teenage-type opposition of whatever. Is there something deeper? In a nutshell, what is it?
Sounds more like the scribblings of a delusional loon. I agree with the flow of forbidden ideas, but whoever made that site is trying far too hard.
"top secret communiqué for members only"? But it's on the web?
There's supposedly 47 bulletins, but only one on site?
Read the FAQ for added hilarity. http://www.crimethinc.com/main/faq.html
His or her writing is really opaque. When I start reading it my mind switches off. If George Orwell, whom the site refers to several times, saw this verbiage, he'd be quite sad about the lack of clarity.
It's very very vague but its because that how the idea opperates. In whole it's a collective of anarchists who are sick of working and dealing with bullshit for the media everyday. They take matters into there own hands, but not to the point of physical harm. It's the idea that if people were free to do whatever they liked they would hopefully be kind to each other and create sustainable communities.
I must agree that the writing is something that is quite difficult to get through at times, but the message behind it all is one that I agree with.
And I disagree with the delusional comment. It's more of the types of things that people think everyday, but they just don't voice voice their thoughts.
> delusional comment
Are you kidding? Have you read the FAQ? The author of the site is trying to make it sound like some massive underground movement, when it's almost certainly just one person trying to look grandiose.
I'm more impressed by a clear message and logical coherence rather than someone jacking off to their supposed movement.
> but the message behind it all is one that I agree with.
It's probably more like it's the message you interpreted it as, a kind of literary Rorschach inkblot test. Lack of clear message is indicative of clear thought. Muddy wording and excessive verbiage is the domain of propagandists and intellectual idiots (aka, most art majors).
> indicative of a lack of clear thought
fixed
>Muddy wording and excessive verbiage is the domain of propagandists and intellectual idiots (aka, most art majors).
Same is true for pointed generalizations like that one, so please don't behave like the idiot you aren't. (no, I'm not an "art major")
Ah, but I couldn't resist a dig, even if undeserved.
While some art disciplines seem grounded in reality, like history, others are off in lala-land. Quite often when I read an analysis of a piece of English literature, or the interpretation of some music, I wonder, "where does the writer come up with this?"
You might find this interesting: http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html Some of the examples he uses look mighty familiar, don't they?
I disagree with some of orwell's assertions, that all phrases suck, sometimes when used properly, aka, simply, they can work out pretty well.
But his overall point is really valid. Do you know how many people out there are shocked when you tell them that <i>democracy</i> doesn't just mean some political system that is universally good, and that there's actually a meaning for it? It's so often praised without any discussion of what actually is.
They're even amazed that democracy and some other word equally meaningless in today's pop culture, say, "entrepreneurship" could actually be ideals that would clash.
To them, I guess, it just into the category of "<i>our</i> way".
> <i>our</i>
> I disagree with some of orwell's assertions, that all phrases suck, sometimes when used properly, aka, simply, they can work out pretty well.
I think you should pay some attention when he says to formulate your thoughts clearly, though. I've tried parsing that sentence several times now and I still have no idea what the hell you're trying to say.
>While some art disciplines seem grounded in reality, like history, others are off in lala-land. Quite often when I read an analysis of a piece of English literature, or the interpretation of some music, I wonder, "where does the writer come up with this?"
I think that 'lala-land' wacky analysis is simply a function of a person's analysis/perspective, not their expertise. Politics, philosophy, art, sociology, psychology (Especially! Look at Freud's Dora and tell me some of those dream analsyses aren't a bit goofy...), etc. all can be really esoteric and vague, too, while still using legitimate examples and (with the exception of some philosophy and some psychology) be pretty grounded. Art/literature seem to be the whipping boy for this larger problem...
(Sorry for off-topic, it isn't really my point, anyway.)
Otherwise, I agree with you! This Crimethinc seems to be another goofy offshoot of anarchism to me, and I think all these offshoots have gotten out of hand. (Though, one might argue that's what anarchy's all about...) Wikipedia thinks it's a movement, so it might not be the work of one person.
Couldn't things just stop with DIY?
> simply a function of a person's analysis/perspective, not their expertise.
There are exceptions in every case. You can find English professors who clearly elucidate what they mean, and don't come across as well-read stoners. Likewise, you can find physicists who only leave you shaking your head. It's the prevalence of bullshit in some disciplines that bothers me, not the exceptions.
I have to defend psychology a bit though: it's no longer an art. While Freud was a definite nutcase whose theories couldn't be disproven, modern psychology research is heavily founded on the scientific method. Indeed, they seem to take it more seriously than some of the hard sciences.
>While Freud was a definite nutcase whose theories couldn't be disproven
Oh, here we go again. Straight down the Freud-is-worthless Popper-or-death road.
Yes, a lot of the stuff Freud said holds no value in the psychiatry/psychology of today. However, his perspective was often fresh, and his contribution to the social sciences is in no way insignificant. I wish we could leave descriptions like "nutcase" to his prudish contemporaries.
> Straight down the Freud-is-worthless Popper-or-death road.
Did I say his contribution was worthless?
Here is what I said:
Which of those is incorrect?
>>16 Sorry, I probably overreacted a bit. I've actually run into "Freud was worthless" statements several times in the past.
However, your explanation of what you said is slightly inaccurate. You said:
>While Freud was a definite nutcase whose theories couldn't be disproven,
...which I read to imply a connection between forming theories that can't be disproven and being a nutcase, as oppose to the bulleted list in >>16 which separates the two issues. The use of the not very respectful word 'nutcase' further strengthens this impression (assuming that my English is working correctly). Of course, your clarification makes it clear you didn't want to say there was a connection.
Vague statements are wasted on those who can't be bothered to be inspired by them. Are we so bogged down by definitions and semantics that we would rather argue about technicalities than contemplate the possibility of a deeper meaning?
So the content appears shallow. So the existence of a massive underground movement is dubious. So the "library" is diminutive and unimpressive.
Consider, for a moment, that the author of the CrimethInc. site makes it very clear that it is a de-centralised dis-organisation. It would be extremely hypocritical and contrary to the spirit of the purported movement to facilitate the availability of a centralised, authoritative repository of official, unmodified works, would it not? The point is to encourage independent thought. Pretty hard to do that if everyone's reading out the same holy scriptures and being conditioned to interpret them the same way.
Vague statements and poorly clarified declarations have the power to inspire. Make whatever you want of them. Please, please don't take them at face value. It pains me to think that anything I write should be understood strictly in the way I meant for it to be understood. If my personal understanding alone was satisfactory, then I wouldn't bother posting it to a public forum such as this one.
> Vague statements and poorly clarified declarations have the power to inspire.
Not to belabor the issue, but most (all?) inspiring declarations I've heard have been very clear, or at least they were on the surface. They draw from familiar imagery and pack an connotational wallop for good measure. Poorly clarified statements provide little meat to chew on, and little incentive to do so.
I also take issue with vague statements encouraging independent thought. I believe controversial concrete statements are better at that. People don't need vague statements to make them think; if anything imprecise statements do the opposite: since they don't need to clearly state what they mean, they don't need to think.
Consider this:
Clarity and independence of mind are not the same thing.
>People don't need vague statements to make them think; if anything imprecise statements do the opposite: since they don't need to clearly state what they mean, they don't need to think.
The same can be said about concrete, controversial statements. Since every surface detail (that would appeal to the greatest number of people) has already been laid out into neatly consumable packages, there is no need to give it any more thought. The lines between at least two mutually exclusive, binary truths have been drawn. There is no need to complicate matters further by giving the purported truths any additional thought. The focus of further debate shifts to satisfy the need/desire for controversy and away from the fundamental issues involved.
>Under certain circumstances it may be in a state's best interest to engage in the elimination of undesirable elements in other states, utilizing whatever viable means are available, particularly by violation of the host state's sovereignty through superior force.
"Under certain circumstances" is poorly defined and begging for clarification. "Whatever viable means" is likewise so. I don't doubt that those key issues will be debated 'till the cows come home... Conveniently sidestepping the question of whether "violation of the host state's sovereignty through superior force" is acceptable.
>Sometimes invading other countries to kill our enemies is a good idea.
"Sometimes"? "Other countries"? "Our" enemies? The bits about invasion and killing are kind of being stuffed behind the curtain there, too.
Depending on the reader, they will see an implied truth in either statement that suits them and urges them to argue about the vague bits instead. There is indeed independent thought at work here, but the statements are framed such that the independent thought is directed at debating technicalities that will ultimately have little impact in the near future, thereby delaying any actual change in the present situation.
As for the implied truths themselves... They've already been decided. There are no alternatives. Indirect approaches and compromises are unacceptable. Like creation versus evolution, an eternal stalemate.
> already been laid out into neatly consumable packages, there is no need to give it any more thought
As opposed to them simply not getting the message at all. We write to communicate, and readers are not idle consumers.
It also works the other direction. What about the person writing it? If they can't frame their assertions clearly, what does that mean?
> "Sometimes"? "Other countries"? "Our" enemies?
Please. Don't be intentionally daft.
> they will see an implied truth in either statement that suits them and urges them to argue about the vague bits instead.
Congratulations. They'll be pointlessly arguing about different things. The issue here is to remove as much ambiguity as possible.
> As for the implied truths themselves... They've already been decided. There are no alternatives. Indirect approaches and compromises are unacceptable. Like creation versus evolution, an eternal stalemate.
I have no idea what you're talking about. This is a prime example of pretentious crap.
>As opposed to them simply not getting the message at all. We write to communicate, and readers are not idle consumers.
Speaking from personal experience: Maybe I've lost sight of what I'm talking about. Maybe I need some constructive criticism to get back on track. Maybe I've seen the extent of my own limited ability and wish to let more capable people develop my work like I know I won't be able to. Maybe I'm convinced that I'm dead wrong and need some social justification to turn over a new leaf.
As you say, readers are not idle consumers. Feedback is great. Feedback about issues of which I wasn't even aware is better.
>What about the person writing it? If they can't frame their assertions clearly, what does that mean?
It means that they might dare to put their own work into perspective after the audience has drawn its own conclusions, perhaps become sufficiently attached to those conclusions to not be easily swayed by the author's own bias?
>The issue here is to remove as much ambiguity as possible.
I don't see how removing ambiguity translates into indepedence of thought and action. Once all ambiguity is resolved, won't there be one clear definition, one objective, and an expectation that everyone will work to achieve that objective? What if I disagree? Where is my freedom to independent thought and action then?
>I have no idea what you're talking about. This is a prime example of pretentious crap.
That's because it's pretentious crap. Neither side can ever accept that the other has any merit, so no progress is made.
Somebody please translate what >>22 just said. Clearly.
Am I being trolled?
> I don't see how removing ambiguity translates into indepedence of thought and action. Once all ambiguity is resolved, won't there be one clear definition, one objective, and an expectation that everyone will work to achieve that objective? What if I disagree? Where is my freedom to independent thought and action then?
That's the point, isn't it? It is much easier to disagree with a clear and well-formulated statement than with a muddy and ambiguous one. Don't you find it much easier to disagree with "Sometimes invading other countries to kill our enemies is a good idea." than with "Under certain circumstances it may be in a state's best interest to engage in the elimination of undesirable elements in other states, utilizing whatever viable means are available, particularly by violation of the host state's sovereignty through superior force."?
Clarity fosters debate, because the basic issues will be put forward directly. Vague and ambiguous statements will only lead to misinterpretations and squabbling over details, serving no purpose.
2. An audience that accepts or rejects the author's perspective is of no use to the author as far as refining his or her own understanding of the issues written about.
3. An audience that doesn't understand the author's perspective is able to provide useful feedback by evaluating the content in context of their own standards (what the audience believes is being said) instead of the artificial standards established by the author's clearly stated intent. All feedback is welcome; nothing is out of context. If the audience finds something particularly agreeable or disagreeable in a purely factual doctrine (say, a dictionary definition), more power to them. If the audience comments on bits of wisdom they found buried in a flamebait post, that's fine too.
4. Clear statements are excellent tools for persuation or dissuation. For general acquisition of ideas and information from a diverse range of respondents (read: large-scale brainstorming and the eventual realisation of multiple ideals in parallel), they fail.
Thanks >>23. Assuming that's accurate:
2. Also irrelevant (and false). Vagueness has nothing to do with perspective. Reread the last line of >>19 a few times.
3. So instead of bickering over the central idea, now they bicker over their own interpretations? Good for literature, but not for the rest of the world.
4. Oh, really? Really? Please provide an example!
Why are the first numbers being indented?
Wakabamark. With "1." you are starting a numbered list, but the next line is blank so the list ends there.
>>24
That's not vague. Both statements contain the same information. "Under certain circumstances..." adds complexity, but doesn't provide any more or less information than "Sometimes invading other countries to kill our enemies is a good idea."
It's easier to respond to the simple version, but if I were to respond to the more complex version, I'd probably respond the same way (plus obligatory needless complexity of wording).
>>27
Was your "Under certain circumstances..." example from >>19 supposed to be vague? It isn't. This is vague:
"There may come a time when an authoritarian power finds it suitable to lessen the influence of particular elements present in relevant managed situations. In addition to the standard charitable or diplomatic means available, hostility and intimidation may also be considered appropriate or necessary."
>There may come a time
Meaning that it was planned to begin with? By whom? Maybe it's an unavoidable eventuality? Maybe it's referring to some current state of affairs?
>authoritarian power
A parent? A college? A charismatic cultural icon? A middle-management guy? A state government?
>lessen the influence of particular elements
As in removing them entirely? Preventing them from affecting "us"? Preventing them from affecting "them"? Outsourcing them to a different country, industry, company, etc.? Media campaign to sweep them under the carpet?
>relevant managed situations
Relevant because it affects our ally? Our competition? Our planet? Our children? Our reputation? Our server? Is it a comment about our own poor handling of some situation? Is it a hypothetical situation?
>standard charitable or diplomatic means
Standard according to whom? Are we offering genuine charity, or are strings attached? Is there an ulterior motive to appearing charitable? Doesn't diplomacy imply under-the-table dealing? Is diplomacy being used in the sense of damage control, damage prevention, or the formation of dissolution of relationships? If the latter, what kinds of relationships and with whom?
>appropriate or necessary
Why the distinction between appropriateness and necessity? Is the author speaking of potential consequences in the distant future? Is adherence to some arbitrary standard necessary? Is it necessary from the other party's perspective, thus making it appropriate for us?
An extremely vague statement such as the one above can be interpreted as saying a dozen different things at the same time. Depending on how it's interpreted by different readers, not only will it spawn debate on a particular issue, but it'll spawn debates on a whole mess of issues, some of which are so out there that they may not even be recognisable as having been based on the same statement.
Then again, it might not. There are those who are apparently content to think only along nicely built tracks.
> It's easier to respond to the simple version, but if I were to respond to the more complex version, I'd probably respond the same way (plus obligatory needless complexity of wording).
So why write the more complex version, which is more work for everyone? Why not just come out and say what you want to say?
> There are those who are apparently content to think only along nicely built tracks.
And then there are those who like to think they don't.
Except that clarity and independence are not the same thing.
>So why write the more complex version, which is more work for everyone?
No reason, really, if it isn't likely to affect the outcome. I'd go for the simpler version in that case.
>Except that clarity and independence are not the same thing.
I never said they were the same thing. I said vagueness (absence of clarity) encourages independence; whether it translates directly into independence is another matter.
> I said vagueness (absence of clarity) encourages independence
I don't see how.
Some of the brighter scientists were also the most well-written. Take a look at our dear Feynman. Take a look at Hawking. Take a look at Chomsky.
Given the empirical evidence, allow me to be a skeptic.
> I said vagueness (absence of clarity) encourages independence
I don't see how, either. Lack of clarity to me discourages thought about the subject matter, because I have to spend too much effort just trying to decipher what the subject matter is. And lack of thought leads to lack of independence.
Clarity gives me the much greater incentive to consider the issues being presented, simply because there is less effort required to do so.
Is this discussion over now? Did we come to a conclusion?
I don't know. A lot of it makes sense to me. We spend most of our time doing stuff that doesn't matter, and watching other people do stuff rather than doing it ourselves.
How many people even know how to play a song, or paint, or have ever tried to learn? For that matter, how many have even gone to a movie without first reading the reviews or talking to friends about it.
"Cut off from direct experience, cut off from our own feelings and sometimes our own sensations, we are only too ready to adopt a viewpoint or perspective that is handed to us, and is not our own."
"Unaccustomed to direct experience, we can come to fear it."
"One of the most difficult features of direct experince is that it is unfiltered by any theories or expectations. It's hard to observe without imposing a theory to explain what we're seeing, but the trouble with theories, as Einstein said, is that they explain not only what is observed, but what can be observed. We start to build expectations based on our theories."
We don't have enough seconds in our lifetime to experience everything (or even a very tiny subset). Likewise, we can't be experts at everything either, so we defer to others.
I only quoted Crighton because he said the same thing in a less confusing manner than crimethink.
They need about 3 pages to explain what they were thinking. It does makes sense, but for the purposes of 4chan, it seemed to make far more sense to use shorter quotes that say the same thing.
I only quoted Crighton because he said the same thing in a less confusing manner than crimethink.
They need about 3 pages to explain what they were thinking. It does makes sense, but for the purposes of 4chan, it seemed to make far more sense to use shorter quotes that say the same thing.
I vote permasage.