ghomeshi has acknowledged there was violence, the question is whether it was consensual.
the problem i have with decoutere as a witness is that she's a cop. if you accept this sort of framing hypothesis as at the least likely given the lengths the conservatives have gone to to take over the cbc, the fact that she's a cop eliminates any sort of objectivity that should otherwise be there.
there are multiple other accusers, and to my knowledge none of them are cops. but this situation of a cop standing up to take down a liberal cbc host on sexual assault charges is very fishy to me....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkiLrFUS49M
i mean, i don't claim to know with any certainty what's going on here or who's being honest and who isn't.
but the perception i'm getting is that there's much more to this situation than is apparent on the surface.
it would be useful if jian could clarify what he means by "consensual" because the stories that have come out take the same form - he tries it, they're in shock, it doesn't continue. see, that's not consent. but, dudes often have weird ideas about consent. that would eliminate the contradiction immediately - he would misunderstand consent and be liable for the consequences.
but, the stories also have other constants that are sort of weird. now, i know they're the kinds of things that are often held up as examples of rape culture. i don't remember because i was in shock. i didn't file charges because i was embarrassed. it's often legitimate. but these are also the kinds of things that our legal system has difficulty with.
the reality is that there's a political context here, and these ambiguities need to be clarified before any kind of conclusion can be reached.
all i'm pointing out is that the situation is fishy.
Sunday, November 2, 2014
i'm going to reject being called a liberal (i'd prefer variants of anarchist, communist or socialist), but i happened to see the clip and while i think sam harris badly mischaracterized his opponents, and maher kept quiet on that when he shouldn't have, i don't recall anything racist coming out of anybody.
i do recall that ben affleck had a lot of difficulty in following the discussion, though.
i do recall that ben affleck had a lot of difficulty in following the discussion, though.
deathtokoalas
ugh. is that throbbing beat meant to represent the cheese congealing and exploding out of the screen? rocquefort incoming! cheddar at five o'clock - take cover!
i'm done now, but what a horrendous disappointment....
daniel tatro
The fact that she's consistent with it makes me think it's intentional. Yeah, her earlier work was more complex and melodic, but the name of this album is "Unflesh". Without flesh, so I think she's implying that she purposely "stripped" her sound to convey something more raw and psychological. I think she was challenging herself, and I respect her for that.
deathtokoalas
i don't think there's any question it's intentional.....
the way i'm interpreting it is that when she first started everybody was comparing her to fever ray. it wasn't that accurate a comparison, but it was everywhere. so, sensing an opportunity to capitalize on the misperception, she shifted her sound to try and tap into the audience she was being marketed to.
and, it seems to have worked on some level. but it's more than a little bit disappointing to hear somebody that is obviously quite talented stoop to that kind of level.
it's reflective of a set of broader trends, though. in the end, i suspect she'll snap out of this one way or another. in the meantime, i need to be hypercritical.
Gazelle Twin
"i'm going to let negative reaction of these videos stand as a reflection of the general inability of the masses to comprehend abstract art. go ahead and dislike it...you idiots....." https://www.youtube.com/user/deathtokoalas/about
deathtokoalas
i would agree that everybody should check my site out :)
it's not the right reaction to get defensive. i'm criticizing with the intent that you push yourself a little harder. your first disc had many layers to untangle - it was very carefully, intricately put together. your second disc displays no such subtlety. so, you'll have to forgive me for expecting a little more out of you than you provided on your most recent effort, and trying to get that across in hopes that you'll take the criticism to heart.
a critic has a social responsibility to push artists to their potential. i take this seriously. to a real critic, a review is not just a marketing tool - it's an evaluation, and feedback. ideally, there should be dialogue, so i like the fact that you're responding.
now, if you're trying to justify the nature of your recent release by turning my words around on me, i have to reject that from where i'm standing - and i know that you might not know where i'm standing, but that kind of argument is actually the nature of the criticism, rather than a way around it.
sgearry
I think every artist is especially vulnerable with their second album which is always going to face the criticism of either 'more of the same' or 'something different'. I say good on Gazelle for challenging herself to the latter as opposed to restraining herself to a certain methodology, and producing some very interesting results! I agree, the first album is beautiful but this is something completely different which I feel in turn deserves a completely different (and maybe a little more merciful!) angle of critique to that of the first album. I feel that this musical shift is more a product of the artistic concept of the album (a challenging exploration of the human body as I understand), than anything to do with marketing strategies, and I think it's a visionary achievement. Also, I really like koalas :) Why would you advocate their extinction?
deathtokoalas
koalas must be abolished due to their perversely insolent cuteness.
i don't really think this discussion has an end point, as we're starting from opposite premises.
daniel tatro
I simply dont think it's fair to assume that she changed her style bcause of whom she is being compared to. She could have easily spit out another "The Entire City", but instead took differentpath and did anequally good job. You cant trash an album just because it wasnt what you wanted to hear
deathtokoalas
well, she didn't previously sound very much like fever ray. then everybody compared her to fever ray. then she releases a record that is indistinguishable from a fever ray record (and is boring for all the same reasons that fever ray is boring). it's a deduction, but it's a fairly obvious one.
i'll generally criticize an artist for stagnancy more often and more acutely than i will criticize an artist for releasing a failed experiment. but, this isn't a failed experiment. it's just a hollowing out, a watering down, a pandering to the audience...
sgearry
By this premise, I imagine there are a lot of animals out there having the same existential crisis. Do you feel the same about cats for example, or just koala bears in particular? I'm genuinely intrigued by this rationale.
deathtokoalas
cats are a different kind of evil, always plotting to eat you as soon as they get the chance. that's a minor concern. the koalas are really the tip of something much deeper, something that threatens our very existence.
xTheOxx
I like that GT quoted you, then said nothing more. Everything you wrote afterward fell in one of two categories: assumptions about what she meant, and comments that invalidate your own feelings about people criticizing your work.
You feel like your criticism is constructive, or that she somehow doesn't understand what real criticism is for, yet people who criticize your work are, according to you, "idiots" who merely prove that the masses don't deserve your greatness. I've listened to a few of your tracks. My criticism to you is this: find a way to make your take on abstraction a little bit appealing. Better musicians have done it, but from what I hear, you don't. At all.
deathtokoalas
my comments are reflective of the like system, and what i've pulled out of the metrics. it seems to be common for people to listen to thirty seconds of a twenty-five minute piece and then click "dislike". this is all very clear in the context it exists in, and i would invite people to go to my page and read my comments rather than rely on this idiot's misunderstanding of them.
now, you're further suggesting that i sell out. no thanks.
art is challenging, not appealing. it reflects the viewpoints of the artist, who must be entirely disinterested in the public's reaction. nor is it malleable to public opinion.
once you start bringing in these characteristics and acting in this way, you are no longer producing art and are no longer an artist. you are now a clown producing a commodity.
ugh. is that throbbing beat meant to represent the cheese congealing and exploding out of the screen? rocquefort incoming! cheddar at five o'clock - take cover!
i'm done now, but what a horrendous disappointment....
daniel tatro
The fact that she's consistent with it makes me think it's intentional. Yeah, her earlier work was more complex and melodic, but the name of this album is "Unflesh". Without flesh, so I think she's implying that she purposely "stripped" her sound to convey something more raw and psychological. I think she was challenging herself, and I respect her for that.
deathtokoalas
i don't think there's any question it's intentional.....
the way i'm interpreting it is that when she first started everybody was comparing her to fever ray. it wasn't that accurate a comparison, but it was everywhere. so, sensing an opportunity to capitalize on the misperception, she shifted her sound to try and tap into the audience she was being marketed to.
and, it seems to have worked on some level. but it's more than a little bit disappointing to hear somebody that is obviously quite talented stoop to that kind of level.
it's reflective of a set of broader trends, though. in the end, i suspect she'll snap out of this one way or another. in the meantime, i need to be hypercritical.
Gazelle Twin
"i'm going to let negative reaction of these videos stand as a reflection of the general inability of the masses to comprehend abstract art. go ahead and dislike it...you idiots....." https://www.youtube.com/user/deathtokoalas/about
deathtokoalas
i would agree that everybody should check my site out :)
it's not the right reaction to get defensive. i'm criticizing with the intent that you push yourself a little harder. your first disc had many layers to untangle - it was very carefully, intricately put together. your second disc displays no such subtlety. so, you'll have to forgive me for expecting a little more out of you than you provided on your most recent effort, and trying to get that across in hopes that you'll take the criticism to heart.
a critic has a social responsibility to push artists to their potential. i take this seriously. to a real critic, a review is not just a marketing tool - it's an evaluation, and feedback. ideally, there should be dialogue, so i like the fact that you're responding.
now, if you're trying to justify the nature of your recent release by turning my words around on me, i have to reject that from where i'm standing - and i know that you might not know where i'm standing, but that kind of argument is actually the nature of the criticism, rather than a way around it.
sgearry
I think every artist is especially vulnerable with their second album which is always going to face the criticism of either 'more of the same' or 'something different'. I say good on Gazelle for challenging herself to the latter as opposed to restraining herself to a certain methodology, and producing some very interesting results! I agree, the first album is beautiful but this is something completely different which I feel in turn deserves a completely different (and maybe a little more merciful!) angle of critique to that of the first album. I feel that this musical shift is more a product of the artistic concept of the album (a challenging exploration of the human body as I understand), than anything to do with marketing strategies, and I think it's a visionary achievement. Also, I really like koalas :) Why would you advocate their extinction?
deathtokoalas
koalas must be abolished due to their perversely insolent cuteness.
i don't really think this discussion has an end point, as we're starting from opposite premises.
daniel tatro
I simply dont think it's fair to assume that she changed her style bcause of whom she is being compared to. She could have easily spit out another "The Entire City", but instead took differentpath and did anequally good job. You cant trash an album just because it wasnt what you wanted to hear
deathtokoalas
well, she didn't previously sound very much like fever ray. then everybody compared her to fever ray. then she releases a record that is indistinguishable from a fever ray record (and is boring for all the same reasons that fever ray is boring). it's a deduction, but it's a fairly obvious one.
i'll generally criticize an artist for stagnancy more often and more acutely than i will criticize an artist for releasing a failed experiment. but, this isn't a failed experiment. it's just a hollowing out, a watering down, a pandering to the audience...
sgearry
By this premise, I imagine there are a lot of animals out there having the same existential crisis. Do you feel the same about cats for example, or just koala bears in particular? I'm genuinely intrigued by this rationale.
deathtokoalas
cats are a different kind of evil, always plotting to eat you as soon as they get the chance. that's a minor concern. the koalas are really the tip of something much deeper, something that threatens our very existence.
xTheOxx
I like that GT quoted you, then said nothing more. Everything you wrote afterward fell in one of two categories: assumptions about what she meant, and comments that invalidate your own feelings about people criticizing your work.
You feel like your criticism is constructive, or that she somehow doesn't understand what real criticism is for, yet people who criticize your work are, according to you, "idiots" who merely prove that the masses don't deserve your greatness. I've listened to a few of your tracks. My criticism to you is this: find a way to make your take on abstraction a little bit appealing. Better musicians have done it, but from what I hear, you don't. At all.
deathtokoalas
my comments are reflective of the like system, and what i've pulled out of the metrics. it seems to be common for people to listen to thirty seconds of a twenty-five minute piece and then click "dislike". this is all very clear in the context it exists in, and i would invite people to go to my page and read my comments rather than rely on this idiot's misunderstanding of them.
now, you're further suggesting that i sell out. no thanks.
art is challenging, not appealing. it reflects the viewpoints of the artist, who must be entirely disinterested in the public's reaction. nor is it malleable to public opinion.
once you start bringing in these characteristics and acting in this way, you are no longer producing art and are no longer an artist. you are now a clown producing a commodity.
deathtokoalas
the production is a little better than the last one, but it's equally boring. best case projected scenario from this point is that the singles are the filler on the record....
Azriel X
and what records have you made this year...hmm?
deathtokoalas
listen, elizabeth, i didn't mean to spam your video, but i think it's reasonable to answer the question.
i finalized a total of 28 bandcamp releases over 2014. that's not a sarcastic response. really, seriously. well, you've gotta expect answers you're not expecting. now, this is material that was initially written over the space of 1999-2002, but a lot of it was left scored in midi files or half finished demos. my goal over 2014 was to complete as much of it as i could, and this is continuing into 2015. i probably won't finish 28 over 2015, but i could very well finish around 20.
of those 28 releases, some of them are eps full of remixes (some are quite long; one is three hours) and a few of them are full records that i'd characterize as existing before i took my training wheels off as a composer. i was 18 years old in 1999.
to answer the question directly, i completed my fourth and fifth records over 2014, as well as the bulk of my sixth and seventh (which will be finalized within a few weeks). this was a process of compiling existing material, recording previously written material and writing around existing demos.
google's spam filters are a little overactive, and this would be spam if it weren't for the request. so the main site is at jasonparent dot bandcamp dot com. add the following to the end of that.
fourth record:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/deny-everything
fifth record:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
sixth record (to be finalized soon):
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj-2
seventh record (to be finalized soon):
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/ftaa
you could also take a look around the main site if you'd like, as there are literally dozens of other releases up there.
(deleted comment)
deathtokoalas
bandcamp is really the only half-functioning record label on the planet right now - pretty much the only way to seriously avoid the industry influence and release records independently, without interference from bankers. i just wish it had a better comment system.
the production is a little better than the last one, but it's equally boring. best case projected scenario from this point is that the singles are the filler on the record....
Azriel X
and what records have you made this year...hmm?
deathtokoalas
listen, elizabeth, i didn't mean to spam your video, but i think it's reasonable to answer the question.
i finalized a total of 28 bandcamp releases over 2014. that's not a sarcastic response. really, seriously. well, you've gotta expect answers you're not expecting. now, this is material that was initially written over the space of 1999-2002, but a lot of it was left scored in midi files or half finished demos. my goal over 2014 was to complete as much of it as i could, and this is continuing into 2015. i probably won't finish 28 over 2015, but i could very well finish around 20.
of those 28 releases, some of them are eps full of remixes (some are quite long; one is three hours) and a few of them are full records that i'd characterize as existing before i took my training wheels off as a composer. i was 18 years old in 1999.
to answer the question directly, i completed my fourth and fifth records over 2014, as well as the bulk of my sixth and seventh (which will be finalized within a few weeks). this was a process of compiling existing material, recording previously written material and writing around existing demos.
google's spam filters are a little overactive, and this would be spam if it weren't for the request. so the main site is at jasonparent dot bandcamp dot com. add the following to the end of that.
fourth record:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/deny-everything
fifth record:
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj
sixth record (to be finalized soon):
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj-2
seventh record (to be finalized soon):
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/ftaa
you could also take a look around the main site if you'd like, as there are literally dozens of other releases up there.
(deleted comment)
deathtokoalas
bandcamp is really the only half-functioning record label on the planet right now - pretty much the only way to seriously avoid the industry influence and release records independently, without interference from bankers. i just wish it had a better comment system.
deathtokoalas
hrmmn. underlying sarcasm in the track aside, a year or two ago i would have argued that gazelle twin was the most interesting in the group of artists similar to her for the precise reason that she avoided this kind of watered down four on the floor disco shit. haven't heard the disc yet, hope it's not too indicative...
djambi
The album is pretty bass-y and aggro but that's exactly why it's special. While her contemporaries are doing what she already did with 'The Entire City' now, she's channeling something more intense and more akin to the industrial music that preceded all this "four on the floor" disco shit.
deathtokoalas
c'mon. she gave into the noob reviews and released a fever ray record.
Gazelle Twin
DON'T KNOCK DISCO.
deathtokoalas
the artlessness of disco is one of those things that is so apparent that it doesn't really require an argument...
Shane Logan
WTF fuck is disco in the 2010's?
Hardly four to the floor anything. IMO this is far more visceral, stripped back and raw than anything she's done to date. Impressive.
deathtokoalas
this is a pretty good example of disco in the 2010s....
Lukas Dettlinger
Fever Ray is awesome, though!
deathtokoalas
meh. it's simplistic pop music.
hrmmn. underlying sarcasm in the track aside, a year or two ago i would have argued that gazelle twin was the most interesting in the group of artists similar to her for the precise reason that she avoided this kind of watered down four on the floor disco shit. haven't heard the disc yet, hope it's not too indicative...
djambi
The album is pretty bass-y and aggro but that's exactly why it's special. While her contemporaries are doing what she already did with 'The Entire City' now, she's channeling something more intense and more akin to the industrial music that preceded all this "four on the floor" disco shit.
deathtokoalas
c'mon. she gave into the noob reviews and released a fever ray record.
Gazelle Twin
DON'T KNOCK DISCO.
deathtokoalas
the artlessness of disco is one of those things that is so apparent that it doesn't really require an argument...
Shane Logan
WTF fuck is disco in the 2010's?
Hardly four to the floor anything. IMO this is far more visceral, stripped back and raw than anything she's done to date. Impressive.
deathtokoalas
this is a pretty good example of disco in the 2010s....
Lukas Dettlinger
Fever Ray is awesome, though!
deathtokoalas
meh. it's simplistic pop music.
is clarity witch house?
i've been struggling for a way to describe it, and it might be the right description. it's the right synthesis, although the ragtime section at the end is kind of not very witch house. keep in mind this is from 2002. i was listening to large amounts of coil at the time, and coming out of a near obsession with skinny puppy. while a fundamentalist atheist, i've always had an interest in "goth music". sean had roots in more of the goth-metal stuff like manson...
this is the unmodified 2002 vocal mix. witch house?
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/clarity-original-vocal-mix
my tags on this are sort of priceless, but it's the truth of it.
post-punk, goth, noise, synth pop, witch house, folk, industrial, noise rock, ragtime, Jazz Fusion,
i guess that's not completely out of left-field...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0GzEiZYJa0
this is why i'm being careful to date everything as best as i can. there's legitimately a lot of novel ideas that are before their time hidden in my work. if i get it all properly dated, hopefully somebody with the right ear finds it....
i've been struggling for a way to describe it, and it might be the right description. it's the right synthesis, although the ragtime section at the end is kind of not very witch house. keep in mind this is from 2002. i was listening to large amounts of coil at the time, and coming out of a near obsession with skinny puppy. while a fundamentalist atheist, i've always had an interest in "goth music". sean had roots in more of the goth-metal stuff like manson...
this is the unmodified 2002 vocal mix. witch house?
https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/clarity-original-vocal-mix
my tags on this are sort of priceless, but it's the truth of it.
post-punk, goth, noise, synth pop, witch house, folk, industrial, noise rock, ragtime, Jazz Fusion,
i guess that's not completely out of left-field...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0GzEiZYJa0
this is why i'm being careful to date everything as best as i can. there's legitimately a lot of novel ideas that are before their time hidden in my work. if i get it all properly dated, hopefully somebody with the right ear finds it....
if you're tired of arguing with zionists...this is the truth of it.
and while it's beyond surreal and absurd, and exasperatingly sad, it just exposes the absurdity of racism.
i'll explain, because i know most people don't really have the historical background.
about 1500 years ago (not quite, but almost), the area of israel passed from primarily roman (although sometimes persian) control to arab muslim control. there are some destruction events in jewish history before that, but the stories that they led to a "scattering" of the jews have very little archaeological support. we know there was substantial jewish migration to a few areas (ukraine, spain, iran, a few others) but there's never been any evidence to support the idea that the jews literally got up and left the area, or were expelled in any kind of significant numbers.
what recent genetic testing has upheld is really the logical answer - that there never was a substantial migration in or out of israel during the "arabization" of the region, which was roughly 700-1000. what actually happened was merely that the jewish population of the region converted to islam - as the spaniards or the indians or the iranians did.
what that means is that the palestinian people, who have been persecuted so horribly as "invaders on jewish land", are in actual fact the literal - and only true - descendants of the actual hebrew people. they are, in fact, the "real jews".
the amount of arab admixture into this jewish population has been as minimal as it is anywhere else in the islamicized areas. we speak of modern iranians as iranians, not arabs. likewise, we should speak of modern palestinians as jews.
get your head around this. the incredible upheavals, the global conflicts, the incredible suffering....it's all based on a misperception.
and while it's beyond surreal and absurd, and exasperatingly sad, it just exposes the absurdity of racism.
i'll explain, because i know most people don't really have the historical background.
about 1500 years ago (not quite, but almost), the area of israel passed from primarily roman (although sometimes persian) control to arab muslim control. there are some destruction events in jewish history before that, but the stories that they led to a "scattering" of the jews have very little archaeological support. we know there was substantial jewish migration to a few areas (ukraine, spain, iran, a few others) but there's never been any evidence to support the idea that the jews literally got up and left the area, or were expelled in any kind of significant numbers.
what recent genetic testing has upheld is really the logical answer - that there never was a substantial migration in or out of israel during the "arabization" of the region, which was roughly 700-1000. what actually happened was merely that the jewish population of the region converted to islam - as the spaniards or the indians or the iranians did.
what that means is that the palestinian people, who have been persecuted so horribly as "invaders on jewish land", are in actual fact the literal - and only true - descendants of the actual hebrew people. they are, in fact, the "real jews".
the amount of arab admixture into this jewish population has been as minimal as it is anywhere else in the islamicized areas. we speak of modern iranians as iranians, not arabs. likewise, we should speak of modern palestinians as jews.
get your head around this. the incredible upheavals, the global conflicts, the incredible suffering....it's all based on a misperception.
Paul Dettmann
You people are fucking morons. His words were intentionally taken out of context in this clip so you braindead losers could use it as another right wing talking point.
Here's what he actually said at 17:10 in the full video:
"We need better child care, day care, and and early childhood education policies.You know, in many states sending your child to day care costs more than sending them to a public university. True. And, too often, parents have no choice but to put their kids in cheaper daycare that maybe doesn't have the kinds of programming that makes a big difference in a child's development. And sometimes there may just not be any slots, or the best programs may be too far away. And sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that's not a choice we want Americans to make."
http://www.c-span.org/video/?322491-2/president-obama-remarks-economy
deathtokoalas
you're half right. the words are badly taken out of context, but this clip was a gift to the propaganda machine. he's gotta be more careful...
Divine Insurrection
Why is it all you people have is insults? Can you not see what these bastards are trying to do? Are you BLIND? Or do you actually dig the idea of living in a Communist/Islamic nation?
deathtokoalas
absolutely. look at the communism they have in saudi arabia, where women are forced to go to work against their will.
the american free market system is all about making sure people don't have to go to work if they don't want to.
chaostic84
you are obviously a left side faggot, jump off a cliff and help America. Stupid queer.
deathtokoalas
if that was directed at me, you're correct in your accusations - but wouldn't it be easier if you carried out a public stoning?
Katherine
If you read the whole transcript (available on whitehouse.gov), he's talking about parents who are FORCED to stay at home because they CAN'T AFFORD childcare. He's not upset that people CHOOSE to stay at home.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/10/31/remarks-president-women-and-economy-providence-ri
Duncan
The puppet masters want everyone in the to broke to have at least one parent stay home with the children camp. The agenda is a hybrid reservation/company town for the world
deathtokoalas
i think that's a paranoid exaggeration.
the reality is that there's a contradiction in liberal economic theory. on the one hand, we have this idea of self-ownership - and there's good arguments for this. one of the things that defines self-ownership in a liberal market society is the ability to generate your own income. there's a lot of freedom attached to this - relatively speaking, anyways. some women may give in to the existential dread and prefer to be taken care of, but the proper conclusion from market theory really ought to be that there should be a choice here between dependence and independence. and, yes, that's what obama meant to say, even if he gave his opponents a gift in the way he said it.
but, the flip side of this is that productive forces are constantly seeking to reduce the workforce, and have been succeeding pretty spectacularly over the last generation or so. this is set to increase. just a purely mathematical argument would demand that we'd need 55% (or whatever the percentage of women is) economic growth since 1960 in order to create enough jobs to accommodate for it. that's a hefty growth curve...
...and we're living through deindustrialization and mechanization. we've been pretty flat since roughly 1970, and likely set to decrease.
so, there's a contradiction, there.
one of the ways to resolve the contradiction is to try and convince women they don't want to work after all. this isn't likely to be successful on a large scale within a market system. there's just too much economic freedom attached to the idea of generating your income, and too much shit involved in tying your existence to somebody else's pay check. some women are lucky enough to find themselves in positive situations with this, but most women are smart enough to realize the possible consequences of getting stuck in that sort of situation. so, it's not going to happen.
but they keep pushing it because there isn't a way out besides making serious changes to the way we order the economy. mechanization isn't going to reverse itself. so, you're looking at things like job sharing. and when you play this out to it's conclusion, you're inevitably left with high levels of progressive taxation to administer it.
there's no other end point. and i don't think the democrats really get that either, i think they're mostly lost in delusions about unending growth curves.
you can't just double the labour market in a stagnant or even shrinking economy and expect it to keep going. but, self-ownership is fundamental to individual freedom in the market order. contradiction....
dswynne
First, family planning arrangements is none of the government's business. Secondly, the reason why women have to make a choice to begin with is due to excessive taxation of the poor and middle-class. Thirdly, there is a school of thought amongst feminists that hate the idea of stay-at-home moms because it a) lowers the earning power of women across the board, and, b) takes prominent "talent" out of corporate America, thus less feminine representation. Finally, by empowering the daycare system, you have a perfect storm to unionize daycare workers. Thus, what Pres. Obama said is disingenuous, even if this clip was "taken out of context", based upon the goals of this man (i.e. increasing the scope of government).
deathtokoalas
it's not a question of whether it's the state's business or not, so long as the state exists it will interfere, it's a question of what the state needs to do to protect it's own interests. there's a disagreement on this point, but the democrats and republicans are really equally delusional about it. the republicans argue that the state needs to foster a family-oriented type model in order to protect the wealth of the upper classes from being taxed to pay for the collapse of that system, whereas the democrats argue that the more workers you have the higher the tax base is. i'm several degrees to the left of the democrats, but i realize that the republicans actually make more sense on this point. they're at least acknowledging the basic arithmetic that comes from transferring wealth out of the nuclear family. the democrats are just projecting growth rates out of thin air and into lalaland.
the basic arithmetic is intuitive. consider two people: mary and mark. mary and mark are neither related nor are they lovers - they don't even know each other. if it were the past, mary would be expected to be taken care of by her husband. but, now mary wants to go to work and, because she's a better candidate than mark, takes mark's job away from him. now, mary had a husband to take care of her when she wasn't working. who takes care of mark when he's not working? the answer is that the government has to do this.
so, the basic arithmetic is a shift in responsibility from the family patriarch to the state.
now, here's the thing: maybe you can let mark starve to death. who cares, right? but, you can't let ten million marks starve to death. rather, ten million marks are going to raise an army and tear the state down. so, the state has no choice but to provide them with something or other. just enough to stop them from revolting.
we know what republicans want: to minimize the tax burden for the upper class. so, this is a problem for them. this is the reason they promote the policies they promote.
now, the democrats take this other crazy position that argues that mary and mark don't need to be competing for jobs. the market will adjust. it will create new jobs, so both mary and mark can be working. as a million maries enter the work force, a million new jobs are created. it's magic. then, there's a million new workers to tax.
there's a lot of smoke and mirrors around this, but these are the basic economic positions that drive the way the parties approach this.
i'm not going to respond to your other points, as they're too dumb to bother with and i think you know it.
what's missing in the spectrum is a realistic analysis of how to deal with the contradictory movements of increasing female economic freedom and degrowth caused be deindustrialization and mechanization. i think we can have both of these things, but only if we re-evaluate our calvinist concepts of labour.
dswynne
I think you are misconstruing my argument. I am very much in support of women making the choice on whether or not they want to stay at home. I am saying that Obama is not being sincere in his speech. He doesn't care about whether or not women chose to stay home; he cares more about increasing government spending, while expanding the role of government (vis-a-vis daycare). I also refuted Obama's argument that women who stay home to raise kids make less money. I countered this by stating that tax policies (i.e. disposable income) is the reason why stay-at-home mothers is the reason why families generate less income. The rest of my arguments were stemmed from what I know of the Democratic agenda, especially where the state of feminism is. That part could be debated, but the rest of what I wrote is not.
And I would ask you to not respond to any of my posts that are not directed towards you, especially since you've decided to take them out of context, as a way of making a snarky retort.
deathtokoalas
both wings of the capitalist party seek to reduce spending as much as possible. historically, the democrats have been considerably more fiscally conservative. obama himself has a record of radical fiscal conservatism. further, as a statist institution, both wings of the capitalist party seek to increase the role of the state in society. it's a preposterous premise.
i think it's the third time now that i've stated that the democratic wing of the capitalist party seeks to maximize labour participation because they (incorrectly) believe that this is the way to get the highest tax return. they honestly think they'll make money off of this. conversely, the republican wing of the capitalist party seeks to minimize labour participation because they believe this is the best way to minimize the need for progressive taxation (which they understand as necessary to prevent revolution).
i don't believe that you don't understand that women seek employment to reduce dependency on men, and there's consequently little reason to discuss the topic further. it neither has anything to do with taxation, nor does it have to do with combined income, it has to do with the innate desire that individuals have to exist independently from coercive relationships. what obama was stating was that you damage your career when you have to take ten-twenty years off to raise your kids and it's not fair to make women choose between a career in law and the well-being of their own kids. it was not a statement that had anything to do with the combined income of families, it was a statement that had to do with the individual freedom of women.
if you don't like my responses, you can go ahead and remove yourself from the thread.
You people are fucking morons. His words were intentionally taken out of context in this clip so you braindead losers could use it as another right wing talking point.
Here's what he actually said at 17:10 in the full video:
"We need better child care, day care, and and early childhood education policies.You know, in many states sending your child to day care costs more than sending them to a public university. True. And, too often, parents have no choice but to put their kids in cheaper daycare that maybe doesn't have the kinds of programming that makes a big difference in a child's development. And sometimes there may just not be any slots, or the best programs may be too far away. And sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that's not a choice we want Americans to make."
http://www.c-span.org/video/?322491-2/president-obama-remarks-economy
deathtokoalas
you're half right. the words are badly taken out of context, but this clip was a gift to the propaganda machine. he's gotta be more careful...
Divine Insurrection
Why is it all you people have is insults? Can you not see what these bastards are trying to do? Are you BLIND? Or do you actually dig the idea of living in a Communist/Islamic nation?
deathtokoalas
absolutely. look at the communism they have in saudi arabia, where women are forced to go to work against their will.
the american free market system is all about making sure people don't have to go to work if they don't want to.
chaostic84
you are obviously a left side faggot, jump off a cliff and help America. Stupid queer.
deathtokoalas
if that was directed at me, you're correct in your accusations - but wouldn't it be easier if you carried out a public stoning?
Katherine
If you read the whole transcript (available on whitehouse.gov), he's talking about parents who are FORCED to stay at home because they CAN'T AFFORD childcare. He's not upset that people CHOOSE to stay at home.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/10/31/remarks-president-women-and-economy-providence-ri
Duncan
The puppet masters want everyone in the to broke to have at least one parent stay home with the children camp. The agenda is a hybrid reservation/company town for the world
deathtokoalas
i think that's a paranoid exaggeration.
the reality is that there's a contradiction in liberal economic theory. on the one hand, we have this idea of self-ownership - and there's good arguments for this. one of the things that defines self-ownership in a liberal market society is the ability to generate your own income. there's a lot of freedom attached to this - relatively speaking, anyways. some women may give in to the existential dread and prefer to be taken care of, but the proper conclusion from market theory really ought to be that there should be a choice here between dependence and independence. and, yes, that's what obama meant to say, even if he gave his opponents a gift in the way he said it.
but, the flip side of this is that productive forces are constantly seeking to reduce the workforce, and have been succeeding pretty spectacularly over the last generation or so. this is set to increase. just a purely mathematical argument would demand that we'd need 55% (or whatever the percentage of women is) economic growth since 1960 in order to create enough jobs to accommodate for it. that's a hefty growth curve...
...and we're living through deindustrialization and mechanization. we've been pretty flat since roughly 1970, and likely set to decrease.
so, there's a contradiction, there.
one of the ways to resolve the contradiction is to try and convince women they don't want to work after all. this isn't likely to be successful on a large scale within a market system. there's just too much economic freedom attached to the idea of generating your income, and too much shit involved in tying your existence to somebody else's pay check. some women are lucky enough to find themselves in positive situations with this, but most women are smart enough to realize the possible consequences of getting stuck in that sort of situation. so, it's not going to happen.
but they keep pushing it because there isn't a way out besides making serious changes to the way we order the economy. mechanization isn't going to reverse itself. so, you're looking at things like job sharing. and when you play this out to it's conclusion, you're inevitably left with high levels of progressive taxation to administer it.
there's no other end point. and i don't think the democrats really get that either, i think they're mostly lost in delusions about unending growth curves.
you can't just double the labour market in a stagnant or even shrinking economy and expect it to keep going. but, self-ownership is fundamental to individual freedom in the market order. contradiction....
dswynne
First, family planning arrangements is none of the government's business. Secondly, the reason why women have to make a choice to begin with is due to excessive taxation of the poor and middle-class. Thirdly, there is a school of thought amongst feminists that hate the idea of stay-at-home moms because it a) lowers the earning power of women across the board, and, b) takes prominent "talent" out of corporate America, thus less feminine representation. Finally, by empowering the daycare system, you have a perfect storm to unionize daycare workers. Thus, what Pres. Obama said is disingenuous, even if this clip was "taken out of context", based upon the goals of this man (i.e. increasing the scope of government).
deathtokoalas
it's not a question of whether it's the state's business or not, so long as the state exists it will interfere, it's a question of what the state needs to do to protect it's own interests. there's a disagreement on this point, but the democrats and republicans are really equally delusional about it. the republicans argue that the state needs to foster a family-oriented type model in order to protect the wealth of the upper classes from being taxed to pay for the collapse of that system, whereas the democrats argue that the more workers you have the higher the tax base is. i'm several degrees to the left of the democrats, but i realize that the republicans actually make more sense on this point. they're at least acknowledging the basic arithmetic that comes from transferring wealth out of the nuclear family. the democrats are just projecting growth rates out of thin air and into lalaland.
the basic arithmetic is intuitive. consider two people: mary and mark. mary and mark are neither related nor are they lovers - they don't even know each other. if it were the past, mary would be expected to be taken care of by her husband. but, now mary wants to go to work and, because she's a better candidate than mark, takes mark's job away from him. now, mary had a husband to take care of her when she wasn't working. who takes care of mark when he's not working? the answer is that the government has to do this.
so, the basic arithmetic is a shift in responsibility from the family patriarch to the state.
now, here's the thing: maybe you can let mark starve to death. who cares, right? but, you can't let ten million marks starve to death. rather, ten million marks are going to raise an army and tear the state down. so, the state has no choice but to provide them with something or other. just enough to stop them from revolting.
we know what republicans want: to minimize the tax burden for the upper class. so, this is a problem for them. this is the reason they promote the policies they promote.
now, the democrats take this other crazy position that argues that mary and mark don't need to be competing for jobs. the market will adjust. it will create new jobs, so both mary and mark can be working. as a million maries enter the work force, a million new jobs are created. it's magic. then, there's a million new workers to tax.
there's a lot of smoke and mirrors around this, but these are the basic economic positions that drive the way the parties approach this.
i'm not going to respond to your other points, as they're too dumb to bother with and i think you know it.
what's missing in the spectrum is a realistic analysis of how to deal with the contradictory movements of increasing female economic freedom and degrowth caused be deindustrialization and mechanization. i think we can have both of these things, but only if we re-evaluate our calvinist concepts of labour.
dswynne
I think you are misconstruing my argument. I am very much in support of women making the choice on whether or not they want to stay at home. I am saying that Obama is not being sincere in his speech. He doesn't care about whether or not women chose to stay home; he cares more about increasing government spending, while expanding the role of government (vis-a-vis daycare). I also refuted Obama's argument that women who stay home to raise kids make less money. I countered this by stating that tax policies (i.e. disposable income) is the reason why stay-at-home mothers is the reason why families generate less income. The rest of my arguments were stemmed from what I know of the Democratic agenda, especially where the state of feminism is. That part could be debated, but the rest of what I wrote is not.
And I would ask you to not respond to any of my posts that are not directed towards you, especially since you've decided to take them out of context, as a way of making a snarky retort.
deathtokoalas
both wings of the capitalist party seek to reduce spending as much as possible. historically, the democrats have been considerably more fiscally conservative. obama himself has a record of radical fiscal conservatism. further, as a statist institution, both wings of the capitalist party seek to increase the role of the state in society. it's a preposterous premise.
i think it's the third time now that i've stated that the democratic wing of the capitalist party seeks to maximize labour participation because they (incorrectly) believe that this is the way to get the highest tax return. they honestly think they'll make money off of this. conversely, the republican wing of the capitalist party seeks to minimize labour participation because they believe this is the best way to minimize the need for progressive taxation (which they understand as necessary to prevent revolution).
i don't believe that you don't understand that women seek employment to reduce dependency on men, and there's consequently little reason to discuss the topic further. it neither has anything to do with taxation, nor does it have to do with combined income, it has to do with the innate desire that individuals have to exist independently from coercive relationships. what obama was stating was that you damage your career when you have to take ten-twenty years off to raise your kids and it's not fair to make women choose between a career in law and the well-being of their own kids. it was not a statement that had anything to do with the combined income of families, it was a statement that had to do with the individual freedom of women.
if you don't like my responses, you can go ahead and remove yourself from the thread.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)