So if you had to sit down and write a manifesto, what would be in it or what already published single work would you choose ?
By manifesto I mean, well wiki seems to have a fairly good definition : "A manifesto is a public declaration of principles and intentions, often political in nature. Manifestos relating to religious belief are generally referred to as creeds. Manifestos may also be life stance-related."
What prompted me to ask the question, was my reaction to the ramblings of the Norwegian terrorist, I was thinking as others have pointed out, he seems to be an extreme narcissist with zero empathy for his fellow man; what I've read of his writings drips with hate and by the time he committed his crimes there doesn't appear to have been any love left in him.
So from my own point of view, if forced to write one's manifesto, it would have to be motivated by affection, love and hope in the wider sense of the words; something the New testament has a good deal of. If one was motivated by hate, envy and fear, then I don't see the point and you'll end up with something like ABB wrote, full of islamophobia or perhaps most dangerously another Mien Kampf.
On a practical level it might be quite useful to have ones own little book, which one could point to and say look this is my creed/religion/faith, so you can't criticise it.
:P
I say that because I've recently had a few interesting discussions about ethnics and values and in most instances the debate devolves down to them resorting to their 'magic book' as evidence that they've most of the answers.
So a born again Christian friend of mine is a decent, kind and useful member of society, but when push comes to shove, he'll say unfortunately you're going to hell, what you believe in is wrong and the word of god is on his side.
:hmm:
Another recent example is a wealthy banker friend of mine, slagging off my values as being ineffectual, whilst at the same time upholding current corporate capitalism, conveniently ignoring that in all probability he wouldn't now have a job, but for the nation stepping in an socialising their losses.
:rolleyes:
Interestingly, I think a narrow margin of the Muslims I debate with, will listen to criticism of their holy book, (though its not usually me criticising them), but I think that's only up to a point; but then again I think doing the worse thing you could think of, say burning their book, would enraged them by broadly that same amount as if one would do the same to a bible belonging to a prosthelytize born again Christians.
So how would your manifesto read ?
I don't have any where near the attention span to do something like that.
Imagine no religion. :ph34r:
Quote from: Martinus on July 26, 2011, 09:19:55 AM
Imagine no religion. :ph34r:
It's easy if you are a fucking moron.
Quote from: Grey Fox on July 26, 2011, 09:18:58 AM
I don't have any where near the attention span to do something like that.
Well I'm not suggesting some 1200 page ramble, maybe it's short enough to carve in stone (though not in the metephorical sense) like that Indian dude, whose name escapes me, did with those stone pillars a while back.
I'd say in one way you could regard the totality of ones postings here, as a manifesto of some sort ?
The one trick ponies like Hortlund might be easily pigeon-holed in the Nordic ethnic obsession that formed ABB, whilst others like CdM, paint a far more complex picture, but you know beneath it, is a still caring individual. :P (that's meant with affection towards Money)
Quote from: Martinus on July 26, 2011, 09:19:55 AM
Imagine no religion. :ph34r:
So how do you go about it ?
I don't want to ask this question, but what's in your manifesto to achieve this ?
"We shall not rest until the last imam is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
An orderly world, where everyone knows who is above them and who is beneath them. A world where people do what they're told, and where they're told what to do for their own good. A world where science and progress aren't restrained. A world where the population of the world is less than half a billion, and breeding is strictly controlled. A world where we're able to set aside large areas as parkland, where nature can take it's course. A world where people live in cities. A world where we treat things like religious fundamentalism and homosexuality as mental disorders, rather than badges of pride.
When it comes to political ideology, I am pretty boring and consider myself a moderate/centrist. I believe that minor changes here and there within the limits of our constitution are enough to make our already fairly well-working society and state work a bit better. I can't think of any radical positions that I would adhere to. So my manifesto wouldn't be very interesting.
Invest in Space Exploration!
Quote from: Neil on July 26, 2011, 09:37:21 AM
An orderly world, where everyone knows who is above them and who is beneath them. A world where people do what they're told, and where they're told what to do for their own good. A world where science and progress aren't restrained. A world where the population of the world is less than half a billion, and breeding is strictly controlled. A world where we're able to set aside large areas as parkland, where nature can take it's course. A world where people live in cities. A world where we treat things like religious fundamentalism and homosexuality as mental disorders, rather than badges of pride.
What's the purpose of treating homosexuality, if you don't breed anyway? Surely, marrying the daughter of your boss is not a social imperative.
All timmays, flamboyant homos, bloggers, twitter users, podcast makers and users, hipsters, nerds, geeks and mouthy women would be rounded up and disposed of.
My manifesto would rant against the evils of
- mushrooms
- surf and turf
- religion
and
- continental philosophy
Quote from: mongers on July 26, 2011, 09:10:22 AM
So if you had to sit down and write a manifesto, what would be in it or what already published single work would you choose ?
Probably a whole lot of nonsense, with a side of poor observational humour, a sprinkling of self-aggrandising, followed up by immediate self-hatred.
And a really, really bad ending. Like "Anyway, that's how I see it. Okay. The End."
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 26, 2011, 10:03:39 AM
All timmays, flamboyant homos, bloggers, twitter users, podcast makers and users, hipsters, nerds, geeks and mouthy women would be rounded up and disposed of.
I'm not flamboyant. I'm a podcast user though.
Quote from: Viking on July 26, 2011, 10:08:27 AM
- continental philosophy
I know. Those goddamn ancient Greeks. Bloody idiots.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 26, 2011, 10:03:39 AM
All timmays, flamboyant homos, bloggers, twitter users, podcast makers and users, hipsters, nerds, geeks and mouthy women would be rounded up and disposed of.
How would this disposal be done?
I suggest a gigantic catapult.
Quote from: Martinus on July 26, 2011, 11:08:22 AM
Quote from: Viking on July 26, 2011, 10:08:27 AM
- continental philosophy
I know. Those goddamn ancient Greeks. Bloody idiots.
sometimes people should just google terms when they don't understand them..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy
Quote from: Norgy on July 26, 2011, 11:09:51 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 26, 2011, 10:03:39 AM
All timmays, flamboyant homos, bloggers, twitter users, podcast makers and users, hipsters, nerds, geeks and mouthy women would be rounded up and disposed of.
How would this disposal be done?
I suggest a gigantic catapult.
I suggest using a tall blonde man armed to the teeth and dressed as a policeman be used instead.
A tad too soon.
Death to Kings!
Quote from: Martinus on July 26, 2011, 11:07:47 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 26, 2011, 10:03:39 AM
All timmays, flamboyant homos, bloggers, twitter users, podcast makers and users, hipsters, nerds, geeks and mouthy women would be rounded up and disposed of.
I'm not flamboyant. I'm a podcast user though.
I have judged you to be the Polack Perez Hilton.
Quote from: Martinus on July 26, 2011, 10:01:21 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 26, 2011, 09:37:21 AM
An orderly world, where everyone knows who is above them and who is beneath them. A world where people do what they're told, and where they're told what to do for their own good. A world where science and progress aren't restrained. A world where the population of the world is less than half a billion, and breeding is strictly controlled. A world where we're able to set aside large areas as parkland, where nature can take it's course. A world where people live in cities. A world where we treat things like religious fundamentalism and homosexuality as mental disorders, rather than badges of pride.
What's the purpose of treating homosexuality, if you don't breed anyway? Surely, marrying the daughter of your boss is not a social imperative.
Maintaining order. Besides, my society would breed at replacement level.
Marriage is a social imperative. Women are useful for keeping men's socially destructive tendencies under control.
Quote from: Norgy on July 26, 2011, 11:09:51 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 26, 2011, 10:03:39 AM
All timmays, flamboyant homos, bloggers, twitter users, podcast makers and users, hipsters, nerds, geeks and mouthy women would be rounded up and disposed of.
How would this disposal be done?
I suggest a gigantic catapult.
Worked to death in a coal mine.
Quote from: Norgy on July 26, 2011, 11:17:52 AM
A tad too soon.
You are just as dead if you are killed with a catapult.
I'm fairly allergic to manifestos. I hate people who always go to first principles in a political discussion, and fail to look at the practical considerations of what is being discussed.
Quote from: Barrister on July 26, 2011, 11:22:15 AM
I'm fairly allergic to manifestos. I hate people who always go to first principles in a political discussion, and fail to look at the practical considerations of what is being discussed.
No wonder people hate lawyers.
I find the term "manifesto" offensive. Why not "personifesto" or dare I say it "womynifesto"?
Quote from: Barrister on July 26, 2011, 11:22:15 AM
I'm fairly allergic to manifestos. I hate people who always go to first principles in a political discussion, and fail to look at the practical considerations of what is being discussed.
You're Edmund Burke reborn, aren't you? :hmm:
Quote from: Norgy on July 26, 2011, 11:40:11 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 26, 2011, 11:22:15 AM
I'm fairly allergic to manifestos. I hate people who always go to first principles in a political discussion, and fail to look at the practical considerations of what is being discussed.
You're Edmund Burke reborn, aren't you? :hmm:
You flatter me sir. -_-
Near term: radical wealth redistribution, sexual morality based on kindness, sensible copyright regime, no meat, restrained consumption, greater automation and the end of work, human rights regime based largely on the U.S. constitution. Long term: no religion, space colonies, recognition that human beings need to be rebuilt and, ultimately, retired, in favor of more robust, better-adapted artificial life.
Because of the nature of human beings, the long term goals are actually more plausible.
Quote from: Neil on July 26, 2011, 09:37:21 AMA world where science and progress aren't restrained. A world where the population of the world is less than half a billion
These two notions are at odds.
I would greatly restrict the number of days that Paliament sat and insist that MPs have a real career/job as well as their part-time political role.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 26, 2011, 12:33:18 PM
I would greatly restrict the number of days that Paliament sat and insist that MPs have a real career/job as well as their part-time political role.
I can really see the press headlines. Moderate Man Calls For Sensible Politics, Offends Three.
Every weekend is extended to include Friday. And flip flops are banned.
I'd probably include a rant against slim fit jeans in my manifesto.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 26, 2011, 12:33:18 PM
I would greatly restrict the number of days that Paliament sat and insist that MPs have a real career/job as well as their part-time political role.
I have to disagree with you. First MPs have a lot of work to do, and it really isn't feasible to expect them to do it on a part time basis. Second by having a job on the side opens them up to allegations of having personal motivations in how they vote. Third many jobs aren't available on a part time basis, so it would restrict who could serve as an MP.
Quote from: Neil on July 26, 2011, 09:37:21 AM
An orderly world, where everyone knows who is above them and who is beneath them. A world where people do what they're told, and where they're told what to do for their own good. A world where science and progress aren't restrained. A world where the population of the world is less than half a billion, and breeding is strictly controlled. A world where we're able to set aside large areas as parkland, where nature can take it's course. A world where people live in cities. A world where we treat things like religious fundamentalism and homosexuality as mental disorders, rather than badges of pride.
Tsk tsk...
G.
"Social uniformity through individual diversity"
But that is still only a temporary solution to try and circumvent the flaws of human nature.
The real goal would be to eliminate those flaws through genetic engineering and nano-programming. No more hierarchies, no more religions, rational management of resources, long term planning and execution... Sadly creating post humans is a long way off and we'll likely destroy ourselves long before.
G.
I think people will still be around in twenty to thirty years, Grallon.
I'm not going to reveal it now. It will be released in due time. :ph34r:
Quote from: Ideologue on July 26, 2011, 01:56:06 PM
I think people will still be around in twenty to thirty years, Grallon.
That's pretty optimistic of you. In 20-30 years time we're looking at a potential singularity event, environmental disaster, oil economy breakdown and/or nuclear war triggered by Pakistan/Iran/North Korea/Whoeverelsegetsit.
Sure, people might be around, but will civilization? :hmm:
Quote from: Slargos on July 26, 2011, 02:09:13 PM
Sure, people might be around, but will civilization? :hmm:
I'm sure Sid Meier's estate will allow the continued usage of the franchise, yes.
Quote from: Norgy on July 26, 2011, 02:13:48 PM
Quote from: Slargos on July 26, 2011, 02:09:13 PM
Sure, people might be around, but will civilization? :hmm:
I'm sure Sid Meier's estate will allow the continued usage of the franchise, yes.
I'm confident that it will be a much too complicated game to play with sticks, stones and dirt. :P
Quote from: Slargos on July 26, 2011, 02:09:13 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 26, 2011, 01:56:06 PM
I think people will still be around in twenty to thirty years, Grallon.
That's pretty optimistic of you. In 20-30 years time we're looking at a potential singularity event, environmental disaster, oil economy breakdown and/or nuclear war triggered by Pakistan/Iran/North Korea/Whoeverelsegetsit.
Sure, people might be around, but will civilization? :hmm:
A singularity event, by definition, only ends or unrecognizably transforms human civilization, not civliization itself. No likely environmental disaster or peak oil scenario, nor even any plausible nuclear war, could end civilization.
On the last, I've spoken about this before, but people tend to forget that there are only two true nuclear powers remaining on Earth, and those are the United States and Great Britain.* India and Pakistan, let alone the DPRK, have at best mere deterrence ability, not nation-ending arsenals.
*Russia could still fuck a country up, but their second-strike capability has eroded to a threadbare credibility.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 26, 2011, 11:57:30 AM
These two notions are at odds.
Not at all. They're not related.
Quote from: Neil on July 26, 2011, 02:26:53 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 26, 2011, 11:57:30 AM
These two notions are at odds.
Not at all. They're not related.
They are at odds; intelligence as a resource is derived largely from the great number of talented humans you can draw from a pool of seven billion. If you reduce the number of humans, you will reduce the number of humans capable of technological or scientific innovation. Education will only get you so far, Mr. al-Ghul--a fully mobilized seven billion is going to be smarter than a fully mobilized half billion.
Which isn't to say that the human population does not need to be reduced through gradual dieback, or the space they live in needs to be greatly expanded.
I'm just off to start writing mine. :whistle:
Quote from: Slargos on July 26, 2011, 02:09:13 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 26, 2011, 01:56:06 PM
I think people will still be around in twenty to thirty years, Grallon.
That's pretty optimistic of you. In 20-30 years time we're looking at a potential singularity event, environmental disaster, oil economy breakdown and/or nuclear war triggered by Pakistan/Iran/North Korea/Whoeverelsegetsit.
Sure, people might be around, but will civilization? :hmm:
What about Languish?
We'll use morse signals.
What's morse for "moron" and "mainstream media"?
Quote from: Norgy on July 26, 2011, 03:25:48 PM
We'll use morse signals.
What's morse for "moron" and "mainstream media"?
-... -.-- / - .... . / .--. --- .-- . .-. / --- ..-. / --. --- --- --. .-.. . --..-- / -.-- --- ..- / .-. . -.. / -.-. --- -- -- ..- -. .. ... - / ... --- -. / --- ..-. / .- / -... .. - -.-. .... .-.-.-
My manifesto would have provisions about my getting steaks cooked properly, my own private Pacific island, and an army of attractive women who wear bikinis under their 1960s-style jumpsuits (that have my initials on it). Beyond that it would mostly be stolen from 19th century texts.
Quote from: Slargos on July 26, 2011, 03:29:04 PM
Quote from: Norgy on July 26, 2011, 03:25:48 PM
We'll use morse signals.
What's morse for "moron" and "mainstream media"?
-... -.-- / - .... . / .--. --- .-- . .-. / --- ..-. / --. --- --- --. .-.. . --..-- / -.-- --- ..- / .-. . -.. / -.-. --- -- -- ..- -. .. ... - / ... --- -. / --- ..-. / .- / -... .. - -.-. .... .-.-.-
Kind of a free translation there, Slargos.
My manifesto would mandate everyone in the world register an account on Languish.
Then it would include purging everyone except me.
Quote from: Slargos on July 26, 2011, 03:29:04 PM
Quote from: Norgy on July 26, 2011, 03:25:48 PM
We'll use morse signals.
What's morse for "moron" and "mainstream media"?
-... -.-- / - .... . / .--. --- .-- . .-. / --- ..-. / --. --- --- --. .-.. . --..-- / -.-- --- ..- / .-. . -.. / -.-. --- -- -- ..- -. .. ... - / ... --- -. / --- ..-. / .- / -... .. - -.-. .... .-.-.-
It is the lyrics for 'Hollaback Girl'
My manifesto's theme song would be 'Born in the USA'.
Also, I'd like to see people flogged who are using the languish theme phrase of the day, 'Natural Law'.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 26, 2011, 02:31:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 26, 2011, 02:26:53 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 26, 2011, 11:57:30 AM
These two notions are at odds.
Not at all. They're not related.
They are at odds; intelligence as a resource is derived largely from the great number of talented humans you can draw from a pool of seven billion. If you reduce the number of humans, you will reduce the number of humans capable of technological or scientific innovation. Education will only get you so far, Mr. al-Ghul--a fully mobilized seven billion is going to be smarter than a fully mobilized half billion.
Which isn't to say that the human population does not need to be reduced through gradual dieback, or the space they live in needs to be greatly expanded.
Intelligence requires fertile ground in order to be used to the fullest. You're better off with 250 million people who are able to enjoy an extensive, resource-intense education coupled with heavy societal pressure to excel then you are 7 billion people the vast majority of whom live like animals and the rest are hobbled by the fact that achievement and knowledge aren't 'cool'.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 26, 2011, 04:51:14 PM
Quote from: Slargos on July 26, 2011, 03:29:04 PM
Quote from: Norgy on July 26, 2011, 03:25:48 PM
We'll use morse signals.
What's morse for "moron" and "mainstream media"?
-... -.-- / - .... . / .--. --- .-- . .-. / --- ..-. / --. --- --- --. .-.. . --..-- / -.-- --- ..- / .-. . -.. / -.-. --- -- -- ..- -. .. ... - / ... --- -. / --- ..-. / .- / -... .. - -.-. .... .-.-.-
It is the lyrics for 'Hollaback Girl'
^_^
G.
Quote from: Neil on July 26, 2011, 06:54:32 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 26, 2011, 02:31:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 26, 2011, 02:26:53 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 26, 2011, 11:57:30 AM
These two notions are at odds.
Not at all. They're not related.
They are at odds; intelligence as a resource is derived largely from the great number of talented humans you can draw from a pool of seven billion. If you reduce the number of humans, you will reduce the number of humans capable of technological or scientific innovation. Education will only get you so far, Mr. al-Ghul--a fully mobilized seven billion is going to be smarter than a fully mobilized half billion.
Which isn't to say that the human population does not need to be reduced through gradual dieback, or the space they live in needs to be greatly expanded.
Intelligence requires fertile ground in order to be used to the fullest. You're better off with 250 million people who are able to enjoy an extensive, resource-intense education coupled with heavy societal pressure to excel then you are 7 billion people the vast majority of whom live like animals and the rest are hobbled by the fact that achievement and knowledge aren't 'cool'.
You're assuming that humans are fungible, which they are not. Short of genetic engineering--eugenics aren't effective, at least not in the short term--there is no way to make them so. Out any given number of humans, regardless of the extent of resources devoted to their education or the social pressure applied to them, you will net a fixed number of people capable of doing high-technology or knowledge work. Not all humans are born equal, and I know you recognize this.
Besides, your system sounds a lot like Japan. It is indeed noted for technological wonder (although truthfully no more than the U.S., even adjusted for population). However, it is even more widely known as a Country of Sad People.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 26, 2011, 07:05:11 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 26, 2011, 06:54:32 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 26, 2011, 02:31:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 26, 2011, 02:26:53 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 26, 2011, 11:57:30 AM
These two notions are at odds.
Not at all. They're not related.
They are at odds; intelligence as a resource is derived largely from the great number of talented humans you can draw from a pool of seven billion. If you reduce the number of humans, you will reduce the number of humans capable of technological or scientific innovation. Education will only get you so far, Mr. al-Ghul--a fully mobilized seven billion is going to be smarter than a fully mobilized half billion.
Which isn't to say that the human population does not need to be reduced through gradual dieback, or the space they live in needs to be greatly expanded.
Intelligence requires fertile ground in order to be used to the fullest. You're better off with 250 million people who are able to enjoy an extensive, resource-intense education coupled with heavy societal pressure to excel then you are 7 billion people the vast majority of whom live like animals and the rest are hobbled by the fact that achievement and knowledge aren't 'cool'.
You're assuming that humans are fungible, which they are not. Short of genetic engineering--eugenics aren't effective, at least not in the short term--there is no way to make them so. Out any given number of humans, regardless of the extent of resources devoted to their education or the social pressure applied to them, you will net a fixed number of people capable of doing high-technology or knowledge work. Not all humans are born equal, and I know you recognize this.
You will get some, but there's no fixed number for imbecility. And retardation can always be aborted.
At any rate, the world needs ditch-diggers and service-clods too.
QuoteBesides, your system sounds a lot like Japan. It is indeed noted for technological wonder (although truthfully no more than the U.S., even adjusted for population). However, it is even more widely known as a Country of Sad People.
Of course it is. Japan is a failing country that has abandoned their sense of community and order, and their political system has stamped out ambition, both individually and as a people.
Quote from: ulmont on July 26, 2011, 04:34:00 PM
Quote from: Slargos on July 26, 2011, 03:29:04 PM
Quote from: Norgy on July 26, 2011, 03:25:48 PM
We'll use morse signals.
What's morse for "moron" and "mainstream media"?
-... -.-- / - .... . / .--. --- .-- . .-. / --- ..-. / --. --- --- --. .-.. . --..-- / -.-- --- ..- / .-. . -.. / -.-. --- -- -- ..- -. .. ... - / ... --- -. / --- ..-. / .- / -... .. - -.-. .... .-.-.-
Kind of a free translation there, Slargos.
I will not be fettered by your burgeoise notions of reality and language. :P
My manifesto would be too complicated, inconsistent, and bizarre.
I think I could make a bumper sticker: If you ain't making money or having it, why bother?
Que sera, sera.
It would have something in it about little English muffin pizzas.
Meh, mine's been done:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F41DUG4hlP5L._SL500_AA300_.jpg&hash=be54f9d97e6dbfc2de57a7054d17c6d8200f78af)
Quote from: C.C.R. on July 30, 2011, 09:14:24 AM
Meh, mine's been done:
Sorry, but it's been co-opted by morons. Not available at this time.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 30, 2011, 09:18:22 AM
Quote from: C.C.R. on July 30, 2011, 09:14:24 AM
Meh, mine's been done:
Sorry, but it's been co-opted by morons. Not available at this time.
Well, shit...
:(
I have a Gadsden flag I can't fly.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 30, 2011, 12:24:08 PM
I have a Gadsden flag I can't fly.
Get a Gonzales flag, then.
I can see some of you aren't taking this seriously. :P
I however remain 'committed'. :hmm: :ph34r: :bowler:
Quote from: mongers on August 02, 2011, 09:30:32 AM
I can see some of you aren't taking this seriously. :P
I however remain 'committed'. :hmm: :ph34r: :bowler:
Most of us aren't crazy. Or at least crazy in that way.
my manifesto says only that if you base your life on any kind of manifesto, you are a tool, not worth the breath you use to spout your nonsense. (of course it takes 800 pages of incomprehensible gibberish on my part to say so. :p)