Saturday, September 12, 2015

the t remains silent

The hive-minded We Are So Much Smarter than Our Ideological-Political-Socio-Economic Adversaries construct known as the (t) commentariat have again demonstrated their smug wrongness and intellectual deficiencies, in the lengthy comment thread found here.

For one simple example:

Yes, light waves and radio waves and sound waves and microwaves are all "the same thing" at some conceptual level, but I'll be damned if on its own a radio (AM or FM or CB or ham or walkie talkie) wave is giving off visible light in the process of carrying musical, verbal or other sonic signals.

So to an ignorant non-(pseudo)libertarian, it's not really wrong to say a radio wave and a light wave are different things.  They are different in the qualities they manifest to the human who encounters them in nature or in a laboratory.  That they both are a manner of energy transmission (waveform) doesn't make them the very same thing.

Try to heat your cold pizza by putting it next to your switched-on portable FM radio from the 1970s/80s.  Put it right next to the speaker if you think it will help magnify the energy in those sound waves.

Try to light the room by pressing play on your .mp3 player.  The little display screen doesn't count.  The sound is what I'd like to see you use to light the room.


Yes, they're utterly distinguishable in the easiest manner from smug progressives.

You memorized the categories, thus demonstrating a rigidity of outlook premised on hierarchies-as-the-territory, rather than merely a map thereof.

You are so proud of your memorized categories that you think you know everything.

Maybe you are able to imagine the territory in perfect image when you read a map.

But you're still not walking the land when you read the map.


Harold Caidagh said...

But what if I'm out in the woods walking, and reading a map while I walk?

Chet Redweld said...

Then you're not likely a member of the commentariat, who dwell mainly in the digital world and when not there, in an urban environment where your "map" is your phone/tablet app displayed on a screen, and your "woods" is a lone sapling planted in an urban "park" that was man-made atop an old landfill.

H.M. Lohmann said...

I find nature scary, since it is unruly and unpredictable. When I was 11 I went to a week-long sleepover camp and we actually spent 2 nights in a tent in the woods. I didn't sleep a wink. I kept hearing wolves, lions, tigers, bears, and human-eating zombies outside my tent all night long. I felt much safer at home and was glad to have the week finished. Just think, back then we didn't have smartphones to tell us where we were at any given time, and how to map our path to civilization from whatever uncivilized place we got lost in. We couldn't just call our friends with anything other than our voices. Or smoke signals. Terrifying.

Chet Redweld said...

You and the great majority of the commentariat, Hy. It's okay, that's why humans built cities made of people and accommodating structures who/which forever grasp at an imagined future. If you stick to cities and other urbanized modern environments, you'll never have a worry.

Unless your battery runs out. Or electricity utilities suffer outages.

It's okay to mediate your experience of reality, Hy. Reality sure does carry a powerful punch.

Harold Caidagh said...

I think Hy's comment explains why The Blair Witch Project was received with all earnestness as a "horror" movie.

Paul Behrer said...

Yeah no shit. Oooh. Spooky woods! Urban legends! Folk tales!

I really thought dumbass reactionary redneck hillbillies who probably worship Jesus Christ in some literal pentecostal sense were the only people who believed folk tales like Little Red Riding Hood and Goldilocks and only stupid urban Christers believed such things as the tales of Nathaniel Hawthorne being literal reporting of truly experienced events.

Funny how humans think that knowing the world of human commercial endeavor is tantamount to knowing the whole of the biosphere. If a human didn't "discover" it or "develop" it or describe it in writing or otherwise make profit off of it, it doesn't exist/doesn't matter.

Shit, sounds like I'm describing economics there, doesn't it?

Chet Redweld said...

Either that, or the outlook of Ron Bailey.

Harold Caidagh said...

As well as the choir to which he preaches -- the commentariat and the fellow "editors" and writers at the hive mind.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

They have a lot in common with the Enginerds who spout authoritative bullshit in every skiing or MTB related discussion found on the internet. The Outdoor Lifestyle Enginerds --a majority of them at least-- also are progressives, which makes things really absurdly comic. They're like the perfect synthesis of arrogant (t)reason commenter and arrogant pwoggy woggy doo dah.

Chet Redweld said...

Yes, I'm staying tuned to twitter for the Big Smug Show-Down. Everyone keeps doing the same old thing, while pretending to wage a pitched war --of words, mind you, and indeed they will be powerfully condemnatory, I promise-- of great meaning for/to humanity's future.

In this corner: Ron Bailey and Nick Gillespie

In that corner: Corey Robin and Fred deBoer

Gentlemen, start your keyboards!

Harold Caidagh said...

Veronique deRugy vs Medea Benjamin!

Katherine Mangu-Ward vs Melissa McEwan!

Everyone's throwin' down at the big bash-a-thon!

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

So let me see if I have this correctly:

The publication known as "reason" is contributing to the death of its namesake concept/practice, by virtue of its participating writers, readers and observers failing to adhere to the namesake concept/practice while believing themselves literal embodiments thereof.

The so-called "progressive" view includes a bearing of strong moral rectitude and firm judgments made on that foundation, and might carry a faint air of puritanism while wearing various costumes implying tolerance for varying viewpoints.

I'm struggling to see the real meaningful differences between the two.

Do libertarians who read/comment at reason listen to NPR or watch PBS?

Do progressives think legalization and decriminalization of marijuana is superior to tax-and-regulate?

Both sides seem to think "science" --whatever that means-- is on their side in all doings and in all rhetorical/provocational positions.

Both sides seem to think The Future (syn: technology, progress, human ingenuity) will save us.

Is the only difference in the fact that most of the reasonites arrived via Elephant and most progressives arrive via Donkey?

Chet Redweld said...

Pretty much that's it, when you distill things to their essence.

So it's just a continuation of D vs R.

Guess who keeps winning?