Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Their customers are lucky... (Score 2) 345

I was a TW customer for some time and then moved to a place where my only cable choice is Comcast. I can tell you from experience that TW was a vastly better product. Comcast is getting better, but I still got a better product for less money (and free service calls on top of it) through TW than what I get from Comcast.

TW customers should be breathing a sigh of relief that the merger didn't go through; Comcast customers are disappointed that they missed out on a possible chance at a better product.

That said, there is still almost nothing on TV worth watching. This is becoming increasingly a fault of the cable companies as they go about buying up networks so that they can provide various degrees of exclusive content.

Comment: Re:Let's rewrite that (Score 0) 31

by damn_registrars (#48268091) Attached to: [TCM] Communist Manifesto Reading Club Part 3

Remember the Marxist ideal - which arguably has never been pursued anywhere for very long - is to have a classless society. This is what made the Manifesto so revolutionary, he wanted to propose a very different way of going about doing things for society.

Part of my challenge is that Marx seems to be discussing granular externalities, e.g. classes

Indeed, he saw the class struggle as being the primary force of oppression in his day - and indeed to him throughout history.

These are conceptual handles for swaths of people. Yet people remain individuals, from birth to death.

And the overwhelming majority of people in this world die in the same socioeconomic class that they were born in to. His experiment is to place all people in a single class and study the effects it has on their ability to prosper and achieve their potential.

Thus, societal alteration would seem to require some kind of internal renewal, not just a fresh set of labels.

Marx's argument in the end will be for the working class to rise up and take control. He believed that this would be the path to a single class society, when the means of production are controlled by the people who themselves toil on said production.

There's something of a top-down "Rousseau" flavor to Marx's ideas.

Wikipedia certainly agrees with the idea of Marx's ideas being influenced by Rousseau.

Comment: Re:Perhaps the wording was obtuse? (Score 1) 31

by damn_registrars (#48268035) Attached to: [TCM] Communist Manifesto Reading Club Part 3

the challenge of moving from some abstract ideas in Marx's head, and allowing first contact with reality. My opinion is that the success of the ideas varies inversely to the size of the population in question.

You're getting really close to the problem that Marx's ideals faced when applied in real societies. It is accepted in many circles that Marx never had in mind large (both in terms of geography and population) nations when he wrote the Manifesto. The countries he had his eye on most for this were Germany, France, and the UK. While they are, of course, three of the largest economies of Europe, they also are less of a management challenge than Russia or China.

It is unclear if Marx thought that Communism could scale for larger countries, and he was not alive to see the revolution in Russia.

I just don't grasp how any empirically valid model of secular human behavior can ever deliver on "arguably still hasn't been done". Ain't got that kind of faith, boss.

Compare what has actually been done to what Marx aspired to do.

Comment: Re:Perhaps the wording was obtuse? (Score 1) 31

by damn_registrars (#48264831) Attached to: [TCM] Communist Manifesto Reading Club Part 3

In the first place, I'm offering brief quotations as linkage to the fully quoted passage, rather than in-lining my remarks.

OK, thank you for the clarification. I wasn't sure based on what you wrote if you stopped where you thought the idea of the statement ended, or if you stopped there just to highlight that sentence without doing a longer quote.

In the case of the Communist Manifesto, a single sentence is usually a single thought. Sometimes a single thought is spread over multiple sentences in this document but I don't think I've seen him ever write a sentence where he incorporated multiple thoughts - or at least, not thoughts that hadn't been introduced earlier in the same chapter. In this vein is it acceptable for me to then assume that if you raise a question by quoting a part of a sentence that you want to discuss the entire sentence (at least, unless explicitly stated otherwise)? I just want to make sure I understand what questions you are raising and how, here.

And in the second place, I'm just really not sure that the bourgeoisie ever accomplished Marx's stated outcome:

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

I guess it makes partial sense if you consider the transition of some of these professions from ones involving patrons to commission musical works, or endow universities.

I would argue from my experience that the only one from that list who is not manipulated at the whim of the market is the priest. I have not seen the market as a tool that benefits anyone from the lower economic echelons.

That said, this smacks of an evidence-free charge to make the bourgeoisie into bigger super villains, or something.

I wouldn't say he's trying to make them into "villains", he is trying rather to show what happens when one class of people has unchecked dominance over another and the dominated class has close to no opportunity to change it on their own. This may, again, be human nature - but that is what made the idea of communism so revolutionary as it hadn't been done before (and arguably still hasn't been done).

Comment: Re:Let's rewrite that (Score 1) 31

by damn_registrars (#48264739) Attached to: [TCM] Communist Manifesto Reading Club Part 3

Does he mean:

"The emergence of the bourgeoisie is the flip side of the brutal Middle Ages vigor (e.g. Crusades?) that all of the reactionaries admire, and but which today has all gone to foppish decadence?"

I would say that Marx saw the accumulation of bourgeoisie power as a direct result of the brutal class warfare of the middle ages. Remember the Marxist ideal - which arguably has never been pursued anywhere for very long - is to have a classless society. This is what made the Manifesto so revolutionary, he wanted to propose a very different way of going about doing things for society.

Now, whether or not it is absolute human nature to divide people up into classes is a discussion that should still be had. Regardless Marx wanted to have a run at not having that division.

I'm working far too hard to make this mean something.

It means plenty. It just might not have the meaning that you were trying to extract.

Comment: Re:Common sense (Score 1) 16

by damn_registrars (#48262747) Attached to: Celebrity gun fail: Jose Canseco blows off his own finger

It's fiancé, you lazy slob!

Firefox 33.0 claims otherwise.

Learn to properly use the tools you have

Rather arrogant of you to assume that you would have better knowledge of these tools than I, particularly when you began your rant not knowing what tools I am using.

Did you have an argument, or are you just crank-writing to me? My lunch is more interesting so far.

Comment: Re:Common sense (Score 1) 16

by damn_registrars (#48261765) Attached to: Celebrity gun fail: Jose Canseco blows off his own finger

We're talking about Jose Canseco here. "Common Sense" doesn't apply to a roided-up ex-celebrity ballplayer.

Very true. He did, however, qualify for a gun permit in ... oh, wait it's Nevada. In some other places gun owners generally have common sense. It's a good thing people in states like Texas are so much more ... what's the word, the opposite of responsible?

Comment: Re:Common sense (Score 1) 16

by damn_registrars (#48260411) Attached to: Celebrity gun fail: Jose Canseco blows off his own finger
Even I know that the first commandment of gun safety is

Always treat a gun as if it is loaded

It really boggles me that people will proceed to clean a gun without first checking whether or not there is ammunition in it. Any time anyone hands me a gun for any purpose - regardless of who they are, where they are, how I know them, etc - I first check the chamber and any ammunition clips to see that I know whether or not I have just been handed a loaded weapon. When I unlock my gun cabinet and remove a gun from it the first thing I check - even though I have the only keys and I always double-check the chambers before placing a gun inside the cabinet - is to ensure I am not handling a loaded weapon.

This is common sense. How the fuck someone can proceed to attempt to clean a gun when there is ammo in it is beyond stupid. The only good news here is that he didn't hurt his fiancée. This type of stupid leads to injuries and deaths of innocent bystanders far too often.

Comment: Wait another week... (Score 1) 635

by damn_registrars (#48260127) Attached to: Pope Francis Declares Evolution and Big Bang Theory Are Right
Not long ago the Catholic Church was going to be OK with gay marriage and some limited forms of birth control, until they decided a week later that they still aren't. We ought to let the dust settle more on this one before we start congratulating the church on a sudden outbreak of common sense.

Comment: Re:At least a full day late on this article (Score 1) 45

Ordinarily, yes. However it involves money (and more particularly, things that can be advertised on sites such as this in hopes of making money off of them) so someone probably posted it on facebook a while ago and then someone from here thought it was a worthwhile opportunity.

To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)

Working...