Feuds
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
What are some good angry feuds between authors?
>feud
More like the demolition and erasing from any rational person's mind of any and all 'contributions' to the world Chomsky has made.
It was not a feud. It was an intellectual devastation and murder by Harris on Chomsky.
>>7895290
that sounds delicious. expound.
This all reminds me of the Chomsky/Foucault debate, however that went down. wiki told me that Chomsky was scandalized by Foucault's total amorality.
I'm also interested. Everything i am seeing is saying Chomsky (pseudo intellectual leftist whom I don't really care for) blew Harris out.
>>7895287
There was a pretty great poetry-off between Banjo Paterson and Henry Lawson. It's almost a rapbattle to be honest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_Debate
>>7895294
he did
harris was a useless little boy
just read it for yourself; not that long
>>7895294
Ha.
Read for yourself
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-limits-of-discourse
Harris's beautiful brush strokes of science, logic and morality here are thing of awe and even intimidation to me tb h. A true intellectual.
>>7895300
>>7895292
I really don't get people who say Foucault won that. Chomsky and Foucault barely disagreed on all that much substantially in which there is any degree of certainty I.e. Except from the shit about social structures and how much of a role they play.
And when they were debating ideas of justice It was just difference of approach which I think chomsky had a more admirable position. Which was that there are actions to be taken for 'better' justice and Foucault seemed only interested in more abstract notions of ideal justice.
>>7895302
>I hand out le hat meme to anyone who acknowledges science as a positive force.
You've really become jaded by this board m8
>>7895294
Harris frequently misrepresented Chomsky's position and refused address the responses correcting this. At one point he admits to not having read the works he criticise. He further chose to illustrate his ill-conceived ideas with elaborate thought experiments that read like adolescent fantasies. Chomsky at one point calls them "embarrassing."
>>7895312
There's a difference between acknowledging science as a good thing and sucking it's dick and you've got a bit of something white on your face.
>>7895316
Science wasn't even the main topic of my post. Just quiet down, please.
>>7895308
Nobody says Foucault won that. He's a mongoloid.
>>7895329
They do, though. Plenty do
>>7895330
Foucault spewed nonsensical gibberish around the clock. It's impossible for him to have won any battle of wits.
>>7895343
He wasn't that hard to follow at lest in some parts. He just didn't have much to say in terms of real world practical terms. All a bit too abstract IMO.
>>7895343
>nonsensical gibberish
you can criticize his writing style for being hard to penetrate, but that doesn't mean the ideas he expresses are meaningless.
>>7895295
farken oath cunt
*chews pinga*
>>7895300
i constantly say that you fags will assimilate but you'd better do it soon because the lines between trolling and redditry are starting to blur a little too much for my liking
Harris got fucking destroyed by Chomski.
>>7895388
Bad post, good numbers
>>7895300
just read this. harris chastised & exposed for a myopic pseud then in wounded-child mode (having no doubt planned in advance to publish the exchange) attempts to regain the sympathetic upper hand by pleading piety of intent for civil discourse and accusing chomsky of dangling the very bait he himself proffered.
he got school like the infant he is.
>>7895470
>disparaging the only real embodiment of the übermensch ever to exist
Just stop it.
Christopher Priest vs Harlan Ellison.
http://web.archive.org/web/20000902203835/http://sf.www.lysator.liu.se/sf_archive/sf-texts/Ansible/Last_Deadloss_Visions,Chris_Priest
or, really, Harlan Ellison vs everybody on Earth.
>>7895571
>http://web.archive.org/web/20000902203835/http://sf.www.lysator.liu.se/sf_archive/sf-texts/Ansible/Last_Deadloss_Visions,Chris_Priest
" However, with objectivity and balance out of the window, it might seem that the only thing left is personal attack. Mr Ellison and his followers are quick to point this out. In fact, calling it a feud is just about the only comfort Mr Ellison can take, because then he can try to ignore what people are saying about him.
This essay is not one side of a feud: my sole contact with Harlan Ellison is described later. I know few things about him (other than the fact that we are both professional writers working in or around the sf world) and I have read very little of his work. My interest in him was first aroused by his defensive braggadocio about 'The Last Dangerous Visions', which made me wonder what was going on and what he was trying to hide. After I had done some research I realized what a terrific story it was. In brief, I still feel uninterested in Mr Ellison himself, but the story is fascinating."
>>7895575
wow that's a big ass load of butthurt.
justified, sure, but still a lot of tldr anal pain.
>>7895571
>>7895575
damn. are there more examples of proper ownage? when one literary person is really based and completely humiliates another?
>>7895597
you do know the background to this, right?
Harlan Ellison accepts dozens of short stories for a collection, and has been claiming that collection is going to be published any day now... for FORTY FIVE YEARS.
many of the original contributors have died of old age waiting for this. it's worse than the "Chinese Democracy" debacle.
occasionally i think about getting some other fans together and breaking into his place to liberate the box with the stories. scan them, put them up online for free. he won't even let the surviving authors take their work back.
the wikipedia entry for "Dog in the Manger" should have a picture of Harlan Ellison.
Harris - Chomsky
Zizek - Chomsky
Faucalt - Chomsky
Who the dick'ed?
>>7895898
Chomsky>>>Foucault>>>>>>>Zizek>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Buckley/Harris
>>7895913
I find /lit/ to be an extremely conservative part of 4chan. A lot of people don't like Chomsky because his ideas essentially destroy many of their cherished illusions. Chomsky points out the inequality and hypocrisy of American politics (both home and abroad). He analyses the social power structures from an objective and impartial perspective, showing how they operate in an oppressive manner (this includes schools, media outlets, the corporate/financial sector, etc.)
Many pampered people (whom have benefited greatly from this country's produce) have a difficult time accepting many of Chomsky's proposals since he is so critical of the establishment that they have otherwise benefited from. It's often difficult for people to see that their lives are not reflective of the social consensus.
>>7895946
>He analyses the social power structures from an objective and impartial perspective
WEW
>>7895946
i like chomsky but you're a huge faggot and should fuck off back to rddit, thx
>>7895960
you haven't made an argument you just made some shit up that's true in your mind
>>7895985
>The Haves can't understand the Have-Nots perspective
based on what
the idea that any discourse has been quelled is ridiculous, egalitarianism is the establishment ideology and Chomsky is probably the most prominent public intellectual (I wouldn't call him that but w/e)
>>7895999
I should specify. I am not saying ALL Haves can't understand the Have-Nots. The question was asked: "Why do so many people hate Chomsky?" The answer was given that many people have a difficult time escaping their personal worldview and 1st person perspective. If they started looking at life from a more objective stance (from a 3rd person perspective), they'd see that their way of living is not necessarily reflective of how the world and society functions.
As far as disagreeing with Chomsky from a 3rd person, I find, is rather difficult to do since the man is basically a walking/talking encyclopedia. He spent his whole life researching things day-in and day-out. The sources he sights in his research are sound. People may disagree with a few small things Chomsky says here and there, but, overall, he is quite uncontested.
Schopenhauer vs. Nietzsche is the best imo. The essentially pessimistic antinatalist vs. the power-focused lover of fate and the eternal. It's like the most fundamental philosophical opposition of forces you could ever find.
What's interesting to me is how I have always been Nietzschean at the core of my outlook in life, but some of my best friends have been antinatalists. Almost as if we kind of attracted each other with our differences in approach. All those friendships ended somewhat unpleasantly, but still. I wonder if this is how it is for many others who lean strongly in one direction or the other.
>>7896015
>The answer was given that many people have a difficult time escaping their personal worldview and 1st person perspective. If they started looking at life from a more objective stance (from a 3rd person perspective), they'd see that their way of living is not necessarily reflective of how the world and society functions.
so what you're saying is that people are somewhat biased due to their own personal experiences?
fucking mind blowing dude
but it applies to the have-nots just as much as the haves (actually far more so)
Chomsky isn't uncontested so much as he is rambling by himself while everyone ignores him
>>7896015
>sights
gtfo
for real
harris is a fag and you are a fag and chomsky is good
it's not the man, it's the fans...
>>7895484
>übermensch
>strives for a moral compass in "science" because he can't craft one for himself
>can't live without fame
>publishes meme books and cons teenagers out of cash
The last point is more of a dick move than any thing else, but still the point stands; Sam is anything but an übermensch.
>>7896846
>misunderstanding the übermensch
A modern day Socrates. Perhaps posterity will truly appreciate his genius
>>7896860
>A modern day Socrates
>implying that Neetski didn't have an autistic hatred of Socrates for establish the hegemony of the apollonian ideal.
>>7896878
A modern day Socrates is my inference.
harris is objectively an übermensch given by Freddy's descriptions
>>7895913
Chomsky and some otther no name came up with the critical age when it comes to launguage(including math, which co-insides with logical thought). They established the age at around 5 to 8 years after studying the Genie the wild child case. His theory has yet to be disproven really
>>7895308
I'm not sure Foucault was even interested in abstract notions of ideal justice. He seemed to be only to the extent that he could use that idea to slam down creating even abstract justice while living under capitalism. It's a nonsense argument, almost nihilistic. People who think Foucault got the better of Chomsky in that are out of their minds.
>>7895913
You've been memed m8
>>7895999
>egalitarianism is the establishment ideology
That might be the stupidest thing I've ever read on 4chan.
Derrida vs Foucault
>>7895287
Not really a feud but-
Zizek Vs Horowitz?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM0I5k50XsY
>>7897700
but it's true
>>7898223
you gravely misunderstand either the word "egalitarianism" or the word "establishment"
>>7898223
If it were true, the vast majority of wealth wouldn't be held by a tiny elite. Think it through, Einstein.
>>7898223
Egalitarianism is by definition the absence of an establishment.
I know it's hard, but try to keep up.
>>7898268
You = too stupid to breathe
>>7898275
expand
>>7898268
>but when the establishment talks about inequality (there is more than income inequality btw) it is always framed as unfortunate but necessary
Then they aren't too egalitarian, are they genius? Durp.
>>7895946
>He analyses the social power structures from an objective and impartial perspective
Are you insane
>>7895287
Probably the most famous would be
Hume and Rousseau
Leibniz and Newton
>>7895287
Sam Harris is a blue-pilled faggot.
>>7895405
It was a good post, Sam Harris is a bitch m8.
>>7898279
income inequality is pretty much the only type of inequality that the establishment will tolerate, and even then it is a hot button issue
not even the most right wing parties are allowed to say that inequality is a good thing
the inherent inequality between genders is taboo to mention and even banks run shit like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efrWsA0Q9U4
talking about the inequality between ethnicities is a good way to never be allowed on a university campus again
the university is the basis of the establishment and is rife with egalitarian ideologies
>>7898306
I second that.
Rawls and Nozick was more of an intellectual dispute between friends, but it's one of my favourite academic fueds because they graduated in the same class and are polar opposites.
>>7898300
Translation: you got owned, so you want to change the subject to social issues and political correctness. Just admit you fucked up, son.
>>7898329
>because they graduated in the same class
Not quite - Rawls was 17 years older than Nozick.
>>7898339
I stand corrected - from the same school
>>7898306
4chan should add an anti-Harrisment clause to its terms of service.
>>7898331
no, you assumed egalitarian was only referring to income
Vidal and Buckley
>>7898350
Wealth, not just income.
As yes, I assume we are talking about grown-up issues -- i.e., the distribution of material resources -- and not some identity politics juvenilia.
Why did I assume that? Because that's how this particular conversation started, namely:
>>7895985
>The Haves can't understand the Have-Nots perspective
That's the point at which you made the utterly fatuous statement that "egalitarianism is the establishment ideology".
Christ on a bike.
>>7898373
>The Haves can't understand the Have-Nots perspective
this can apply more to income and wealth
note how wealth inequality between ethnicities and gender is seen as intolerable
>>7898383
>this can apply more to income and wealth
What else would it apply to? Hugs and kisses?
>>7898389
genetic capability
>>7895290
definitely didn't go down like that
>>7898373
Egalitarianism doesn't just refer to economic rights, it also refers to civil, political, and social rights
Not everybody thinks the distribution of material resources is the only issue of consequence
I don't know why you're so angry but you should try to define your terms before you throw anonymous fits like this
Zizek>>>Foucault>>>>>>>>>>chomsky=harris
Don't misinterpret this as a zizek complement either
>>7898392
Cannot be changed, by definition. So cannot be equalized.
Myself = Chomksy > Zizek > Harris >>>>>> Foucault
>>7898414
>Egalitarianism doesn't just refer to economic rights
I never said otherwise. Egalitarianism refers to equality of economic outcome, and that is the metric relevant to this discussion. Next time, try to read the thread before jumping in.
>>7898430
yeah cool now get the general public, government and universities to admit this
>>7898499
Nobody thinks genes can be changed apart from some sort of genetic engineering that isn't practical yet. So no, there's nothing to "admit".
>>7898511
but Chomsky himself says
>Surely people differ in their biologically determined qualities. The world would be too horrible to contemplate if they did not. But discovery of a correlation between some of these qualities is of no scientific interest and of no social significance, except to racists, sexists and the like. Those who argue that there is a correlation between race and IQ and those who deny this claim are contributing to racism and other disorders, because what they are saying is based on the assumption that the answer to the question makes a difference; it does not, except to racists, sexists and the like.
there is clearly something to admit, he just won't do it
>>7898414
Are you seriously this dense?
However you define "egalitarianism", you cannot have a strictly egalitarian society if there are "haves and have nots".
So the idea that, in our deeply unequal society, the establishment (the ruling class) is somehow "egalitarian" is utter gibberish.
This isn't rocket science. It's all in the dictionary.
>>7898524
That passage says absolutely nothing about gene-editing. You have to be trolling at this point.
>>7898528
Supporting a policy of egalitarianism and being an egalitarian society are different things
>>7898456
>Egalitarianism refers to equality of economic outcome,
But it doesn't, as was just explained to you
It refers to many different forms of equality
>>7898580
Not if you are RUNNING the society! That's just what it means to be the establishment!
>>7898585
Jesus fucking Christ - I just answered this. Egalitarianism DOES NOT "just refer to economic rights". Egalitarianism DOES refer to equality of economic outcome. It can refer to many other kinds of outcome, too. However you define it, egalitarianism is inconsistent with the existence of "haves and have nots". That's just the definition of the term.
>>7898607
Establishments vary country to country, each having different goals and often bickering among themselves. The establishment of many nordic countries definitely does support egalitarianism. A significant portion of the establishment of major Western powers also supports egalitarianism, shocking and outrageous as this may be to hear for you
They might not be socialists, and they may not have an egalitarian society, but they almost all publicly support equality of civil rights among their citizens and correcting social inequalities among citizens.
>>7898635
But that's not true, it doesn't only and explicitly refer to equality of economic outcome. It is often used to refer to political rights and social inequalities.
I don't know what you're not grasping about this and I don't know why you keep bringing up haves and have nots. Again, there's difference between supporting a policy of egalitarianism and actually living in an egalitarian society, which will never exist because of inherent differences between people
>>7895946
>I find /lit/ to be an extremely conservative part of 4chan
tip top kek
>>7898701
>A significant portion of the establishment of major Western powers also supports egalitarianism, shocking and outrageous as this may be to hear for you
Complete and utter horseshit. If that were true, there wouldn't $32 Trillion parked in offshore tax havens. The establishment likes the status quo order of things - by definition.
>>7898725
>and then we supported genocidal regimes like Mao and the Khmer Rouge because we thought socialism was possible! Really! Possible! Ahahahahaha!
>>7895999
>egalitarianism is establishment
holy fuck what
>>7898701
>But that's not true, it doesn't only and explicitly refer to equality of economic outcome. It is often used to refer to political rights and social inequalities.
I NEVER SAID IT DOES. I'm just going to paste what I wrote above, since apparently you haven't read it:
Egalitarianism DOES NOT "just refer to economic rights". Egalitarianism DOES refer to equality of economic outcome. It can refer to many other kinds of outcome, too. However you define it, egalitarianism is inconsistent with the existence of "haves and have nots".
>I don't know why you keep bringing up haves and have nots.
BECAUSE THAT'S SUBJECT OF THE DISCUSSION. Seriously, read the fucking thread before commenting.
The discussion began in response to this retarded comment:
>>7895985
>The Haves can't understand the Have-Nots perspective
>based on what
>the idea that any discourse has been quelled is ridiculous, egalitarianism is the >establishment ideology
>>7898370
read necessary illusions.
>>7898371
"look you queer, call me a crypto-nazi again and i'll sock you in the goddam face, and you'll stay plastered!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYymnxoQnf8
>>7897914
I love zizek, he's fucking hilarious.
> He thinks society makes us unequal
> Doesn't realize nature makes us unequal from the get-go
> Doesn't realize inequality in society is inevitable and necessary and good
> kek
>>7898778
>necessary and good
I guess if you're talking as broad as equality in all applicable senses
>>7898778
>natural inequalities are what lead to social inequalities.
really? that's a bold assertion to make, anon. especially when there is no to little evidence to support such a claim.
>>7898793
> when there is no to little evidence to support such a claim.
Literally what. Are you kidding me?
>>7898793
There's actually extensive evidence which I assume you willfully ignore. I honestly don't understand why anybody would argue it, it's incredibly obvious. Tall people are better than short people at basketball. Smart people are better than dumb people at school. Is it entirely biological? No, of course not, but to deny biology's role entirely is to bury your head in the sand
>>7898778
Nonsense.
Whether or not "natural" inequality in aptitudes exists (hint: it does) is completely irrelevant.
Murder, too, is "natural" - so that means we shouldn't legislate against it because being natural makes it "inevitable" right?
Think before you post.
>>7898801
None of that is relevant. At all.
>>7898819
I'm identifying uncontrollable natural inequalities like differences in height and intelligence and then explaining how they lead to social inequalities.
How is that not explicitly relevant to the claim that natural inequalities cause social inequalities?
>>7898818
> He thinks an inevitabily in nature is the same thing as an inevitability in existence
whew lad.
Think before you post.
>>7895388
Your post fixes nothing. you're part of the problem. Leave.
>>7898824
Let's take a concrete example. From my interactions with you here, it is clear that you are clinically retarded. Now, does that mean it's okay to kill you? Call me a bleeding-heart egalitarian, but I say no. I say, you should be allowed the protection of the police and criminal justice system like everyone else. So what's the point of even bringing up your disability? It's a red herring, and that's Chomsky's point.
>>7898867
What if it's okay to kill you though?
>>7898876
Will you use your retard strength to do so?
>>7898903
10/10 argument, typical leftard response. Stick to John Green you disgusting pleb.
>>7895312
>science as a positive force
...........
......
...
.
no words rofl
>>7898801
You are confusing OBJECTIVE differences with SUBJECTIVE differences (ones where meaning is made).
Also, the so-called data you mentioned in bias simply because IQ does not measure "intelligence." We don't even have a universe definition for the term itself.
Science is supposed to use objective means to measure objective things. The minute subjectivity becomes a part of that process, objectivity is lost, and the science aspect ceases to exist.
>>7898915
*universal definition
Voltaire basically spends all of Candide expounding upon the idea that Leibniz was an idiot.
>>7898905
You are more comfortable participating at this level, aren't you?
Consider returning to /pol/ - hometown of simpletons like yourself.
>>7898824
Also, in addition to these individuals' arguments (>>7898915 & >>7898867) it should be added that, even if IQ scores did hypothetically actually measure intelligence (which they don't), you would still need data showing how these intelligence disparities construct social barriers between ethnic groups, leading to social divisions in society.
No such data exists.
>>7898528
just because the society is not egalitarian does not mean egalitarianism is not the prevailing ideology
>>7898992
the same could be said of most things since ideology is a false consciousness.
for example, we say we live in a democracy but we really live in an oligarchy. we say we educate our children when we are really indoctrinating them by schooling. we say we are peace-keepers (world police) when, in fact, we are the greatest imperial power, using military might for economic leverage. the list goes on and on.
>>7898992
How does an ideology "prevail" if not by being implemented?
>>7898759
>Egalitarianism DOES refer to equality of economic outcome
pulled out of your ass
the belief that people are broadly equal is egalitarian
the belief that people deserve equal rights is egalitarian
the view that equality is inherently good is egalitarian
western establishments believe all these things
>>7898989
there is plenty of data on the IQ gap between different ethnicities
>>7899002
>for example, we say we live in a democracy but we really live in an oligarchy. we say we educate our children when we are really indoctrinating them by schooling. we say we are peace-keepers (world police) when, in fact, we are the greatest imperial power, using military might for economic leverage. the list goes on and on.
jesus fucking christ is this what /lit/ has really come to
>>7899007
>there is plenty of data on the IQ gap between different ethnicities
don't think that's what they're saying. read:
>>7898867
>>7898915
>>7899002
they are saying that IQ doesn't actually measure intelligence since it is a subjective term.
they are also saying that (even if IQ does measure intelligence), you would still need data to show how these gaps in intelligence leads to gaps and divisions in society.
>>7898867
Why are you bringing up murder? Why are you attacking me personally instead of addressing my arguments? Did I suggest genociding the genetically inferior?
No, I merely mentioned that it's undeniable that natural uncontrollable inequalities are related to social inequalities. It's not a red herring, it's directly relevant to every complaint ever made about invisible social forces being responsible for unhappiness in a person's life. The point of bringing up disability is to address the truth in these claims: what causes different behaviors and inequality in groups of people?
>>7898915
>>7898989
There is data right in the post you are replying to, but here's some more
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1994WSJmainstream.pdf
http://www.psychpage.com/learning/library/intell/mainstream.html
These are several excerpts from a document signed by 52 academic experts on intelligence which was published by the APA:
>1. Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings--"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.
>2. Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical terms, reliable and valid) of all psychological tests and assessments. They do not measure creativity, character personality, or other important differences among individuals, nor are they intended to.
>9. IQ is strongly related, probably more so than any other single measurable human trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes. Its relation to the welfare and performance of individuals is very strong in some arenas in life (education, military training), moderate but robust in others (social competence), and modest but consistent in others (law-abidingness). Whatever IQ tests measure, it is of great practical and social importance.
>10. A high IQ is an advantage in life because virtually all activities require some reasoning and decision-making. Conversely, a low IQ is often a disadvantage, especially in disorganized environments. Of course, a high IQ no more guarantees success than a low IQ guarantees failure in life. There are many exceptions, but the odds for success in our society greatly favor individuals with higher IQs.
>>7899011
what's wrong with that post?
>>7898989
>>7898915
It is mostly impossible to be totally objective about the complexities of human behaviors. Psychology is not math class; we can study human behavior, and we can make logical inferences that are heavily supported by objective means, but determining exact and empirical conclusions about the way people behave is difficult because of its diversity. However, this does not mean we can deny attempts to measure intelligence as false when we dislike the results, and it does mean that intellect has no bearing on social outcome, especially when mainstream science says differently.
>>7899020
>and it does mean
*and it doesn't mean
>>7899014
IQ does measure intelligence
no it isn't perfect but it is still used by various institutions
even if IQ were totally worthless, that doesn't magically make intelligence disappear, any measure (test scores, nobel prizes, inventions etc.) will show the same patterns
>you would still need data to show how these gaps in intelligence leads to gaps and divisions in society.
I think it's quite obvious that smarter societies have better outcomes
>>7899019
it's like a 14 year old spent 2 months on reddit and Russel Brand's youtube channel
>>7899016
Intelligence is a psychology journal. Last time I checked, psychology is not a hard science, but, in fact, marred by the very subjectivity the previous posters mentioned.
>>7899020
If there are levels of subjectivity involved, then the data is skewed. any actual scientist will tell you that.
by all means, i agree with you in stating that these things should be studied. however, we must be very careful with our conclusions. stating that genetics is responsible for social divisions in society ignores many social factors that go into structuring the very divisions in society itself. it's rather dangerous to make such claims, especially when dealing with data that is clearly marred by subjective analysis.
>>7899029
this doesn't answer the question.
>>7899039
subjectivity does not mean you throw the entire thing out the window and consider it invalid
>however, we must be very careful with our conclusions
kys
>this doesn't answer the question.
>we say we live in a democracy but we really live in an oligarchy
""""""we"""""" (we're not all yanks but I'll humor him) don't live in an oligarchy (yes we all saw that one article)
>we say we educate our children when we are really indoctrinating them by schooling
meaningless statement, any level of education will instill children with certain values (and I am someone vehemently opposed to the current education system)
>we say we are peace-keepers (world police) when, in fact, we are the greatest imperial power
the USA is not an empire and peace-keeping is part of empire building anyway
>using military might for economic leverage
complete oversimplification of the issue
like every other post by Chomsky fans in this thread, he has said nothing above an 8th grade level
everyone who isn't a degenerate yank knows the American establishment is rotten, we don't need you to point it out
>>7895287
god i fucking hate kikes!!!
>>7899050
*kysses back* u///u i'm glad our disagreement doesn't get in the way of our LOVE, anon-kun.
>>7899007
>the belief that people are broadly equal is egalitarian
Complete and utter horseshit. Buy a dictionary, son.
>the belief that people deserve equal rights is egalitarian
>the view that equality is inherently good is egalitarian
No shit, Sherlock.
>western establishments believe all these things
Who gives a fuck what they 'believe'? What they DO is funnel $32 Trillion into offshore tax shelters. They are evil and must be destroyed.
>>>7898989
>there is plenty of data on the IQ gap between different ethnicities
Who gives a fuck? There is "plenty of data" on the "IQ gap" between Down Syndrome patients and other people. That doesn't make it okay to kill them. By the way - the same logic would make you toast as well, Corky.
>>7899050
>subjectivity does not mean you throw the entire thing out the window and consider it invalid
>>however, we must be very careful with our conclusions
Nowhere did I say that the field should be disestablished and the data thrown out. In fact, I said the opposite, noting how it SHOULD be studied. Stop putting words in other people's mouths.
>don't live in an oligarchy
Oligarchy is defined by a small group of people having control over a nation. This small group would be the elite sector of society. No one disputes that the wealthy and powerful rule America.
>any level of education will instill children with certain values
That is very different than forcing students to assimilate and conform to the status quo. You're twisting my statements. Deweyean schools do not try to assimilate and conform students to the status quo. Unlike modern day schools, Deweyean ones allow student to democratically construct their surrounding, creating their own sense of value and perception.
>peace-keeping is part of empire building anyway
No. Stability is maintained in certain areas so that it's resources and labor can be used in order to generate profit. A chaotic area cannot yield economic profit. This is why the USA has installed numerous dictators in so many foreign lands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
>complete oversimplification of the issue
I fail to see how. Geo-strategic position and economic leverage are how societies and power structures work. The end goal is economic gain.
>>7899063
>What they DO is funnel $32 Trillion into offshore tax shelters.
How is that in anyway related to egalitarianism? Are you a troll?
>>7899063
>Buy a dictionary, son.
okay
>What they DO is funnel $32 Trillion into offshore tax shelters
the Panama Papers were leaked by George Soros and the US Government (aka the establishment)
either way it has nothing to with egalitarian belief
>That doesn't make it okay to kill them.
where the fuck did anyone suggest anything like this
this entire thread you have completely misunderstood arguments and have argued with strawmen you construct for yourself, then act rude about it
I agree that western establishments (including all its tendrils) should be destroyed
>>7899039
>Intelligence is a psychology journal. Last time I checked, psychology is not a hard science, but, in fact, marred by the very subjectivity the previous posters mentioned.
This is a misconception.
Psychology is a huge field with different branches, So where as you have branches like neuropsychology and such which are largerly objective, there's also psychoanalysis which is largely subjective.
But in regards to this particular situation, a journal on intelligence would attempt to deal more with an attempt at an objective interpretation of statistical results. not armchair rhetoric like people seem to think psych is
>>7899077
I agree with you. They are ATTEMPTING to be objective. It is very difficult studying people (who are so subjective). We can't study humans the same way we study animals or nature. First of all, it's inhumane to do so (For example, you can dissect animals and bees all the like to study them. Obviously, that's a no-no when it comes to humans). Also, unlike nature (which is purely instinctual), man has consciousness, which separates him from the rest of the animal kingdom (this is due to our complex linguistic system, which differs greatly from any means of communication animals have).
I'm not trying to shit all over psychology in my posting. I'm simply pointing out that it is flawed due to it having to study subjective things. Unlike harder sciences which can still solely to objective things, psychology cannot.
Still, this is all the reason more why we need to be cautious on the conclusions we make with regards to certain studies. This was all I was saying.
>>7899066
>Oligarchy is defined by a small group of people having control over a nation.
they are still beholden to the will of the people
>That is very different than forcing students to assimilate and conform to the status quo. You're twisting my statements. Deweyean schools do not try to assimilate and conform students to the status quo. Unlike modern day schools, Deweyean ones allow student to democratically construct their surrounding, creating their own sense of value and perception.
I don't see how you could possibly think that democracy doesn't encourage conformity or that 51% ruling over 49% somehow means there is no "indoctrination" going on
it is meaningless to think you can escape ideology
>No. Stability is maintained in certain areas so that it's resources and labor can be used in order to generate profit. A chaotic area cannot yield economic profit. This is why the USA has installed numerous dictators in so many foreign lands.
has nothing to do with what I said
yes I realise the US has overthrown leaders, they have also overthrown many dictators and created chaos as a result
>I fail to see how.
the US has secured economic hegemony mainly through various trade deals made after WW2, it's military might has had little to do with it
>>7899067
Do you occupy the lower end of the IQ bell curve like (what you are so keen to describe as) the stereotypical 'negro'?
Newsflash: Egalitarianism involves equality of economic outcome.
I know it is difficult for your lower-simian brain to digest, but a situation in which a small handful of people control the vast majority of wealth is not best described as an "egalitarian" distribution.
>>7899088
>For example, you can dissect animals and bees all the like to study them. Obviously, that's a no-no when it comes to humans
how much stupider can you get man
you wonder why people don't like Chomsky (it's you)
>>7899100
the fact that the Panama Papers (again leaked by the US Government) caused such an uproar from the establishment's mouthpieces should tell you all you need to know
>>7899091
no. they are not beholden to the will of the people. rich elites don't give a fuck about the people. politicians are bought and sold by corporations during election time. it takes mass amounts of money to run for presidency. that money comes from corporation donations. and all of that money is strings-attached.
>I don't see how you could possibly think that democracy doesn't encourage conformity
Democracy is ruled by the people's will. I'm not saying that it doesn't induce some kind of conformity. Ideology and social norms will always be present in some kind of social system. Unlike the assimilation and conformists schools we have now, though, democratic ones would constantly be changing their structure based on what the citizens (or students in this case) wanted to establish for themselves. They would be far more malleable than the system we have today, which are completely rigid.
>has nothing to do with what I said
You said the goal of Empires to peace-keeping. I simply stated that this sense of "peace-keeping" is not for the sake of peace, but merely for stabilizing a region so that it can successfully be exploited.
>the US has secured economic hegemony mainly through various trade deals made after WW2, it's military might has had little to do with it
While the USA did become an Imperial Power after the 2nd world war, saying that military might has nothing to do with how to functions today is moronic. Almost all citizens' tax money is put into the military budget. The reason the USA is such a dominant force in the world today is specifically because it has more might than any other country in the world.
Just look at the figures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
>>7899102
The statement was an example of how it is easier to study animals/plants/insects in comparison to humans because there are less restrictions and limitations involved. Did you even read the post?
>>7899100
You have been told like five times that it is possible for a nation's establishment to support egalitarianism without its society being egalitarian, that egalitarianism means different things to different people, and that many interpretations of egalitarianism do not necessarily refer to economic equality because they are more preoccupied with other concepts
I don't know if you're a troll or just a leftist teenager who's out of his depth and believes that reciting the same refuted points over and over will help him save face, but this is useful link that I really think you read before continuing to post
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/
You've embarrassed yourself tonight
>>7899115
how do u kno that dogs/cats/other mammals (list not exhaustivE) don't have consciousness?
hve u seriously not read "What is it like to be a bat?" you probably should since u sound like a boozle
>>7899114
holy fuck it's like arguing with a brick wall
>no. they are not beholden to the will of the people. rich elites don't give a fuck about the people. politicians are bought and sold by corporations during election time. it takes mass amounts of money to run for presidency. that money comes from corporation donations. and all of that money is strings-attached.
yes and those politicians are still voted on by the people
>Democracy is ruled by the people's will. I'm not saying that it doesn't induce some kind of conformity. Ideology and social norms will always be present in some kind of social system. Unlike the assimilation and conformists schools we have now, though, democratic ones would constantly be changing their structure based on what the citizens (or students in this case) wanted to establish for themselves. They would be far more malleable than the system we have today, which are completely rigid.
thank you for describing democracy, now explain how this system wouldn't instill certain values in the children
>You said the goal of Empires to peace-keeping
I said peacekeeping is a part of empire building
>While the USA did become an Imperial Power after the 2nd world war, saying that military might has nothing to do with how to functions today is moronic
the US is not an empire
I never said military might had nothing to do with it, but hegemony was established through loans made after WW2
>Almost all citizens' tax money is put into the military budget. The reason the USA is such a dominant force in the world today is specifically because it has more might than any other country in the world.
this is just completely made up
what are you studying?
it can't be something that requires you to engage in discussion or write argumentative essays
also please stop telling me things I already know and for fucks sake don't link me to another wikipedia article
>>7899112
Hey dumbfuck - let me spell it out for you, since you obviously are not getting it from context:
Members of the US establishment do not *need* Mossack Fonseca since all offshoring activity can be done LEGALLY through domestic law firms (don't believe me - then ask for citations).
For the record: you are the one who brought up the Panama Papers. I was speaking of offshore tax havens generally. If massive wealth inequality exists, then obviously (a) the 'establishment' exists, and (b) that establishment very much wants to perpetuate the inegalitarian status quo.
>>7899120
>it is possible for a nation's establishment to support egalitarianism
Uh no.
By definition, if an 'establishment' exists at all, then the society it governs must be inegalitarian.
>>7895999
>the world's billionaires would prefer an egalitarian redistribution of wealth
Fuck off, troll.
Censorship is more important on /lit/ than on any other board.
>>7899184
>again with the egalitarian can only refer to income/wealth
You understand that egalitarianism was only invoked in the context of 'haves and have-nots', right? Can we at least establish that?
In any case, whether we are talking about "having certain material things" or "having certain civil rights", it is obvious that the powers-that-be -- by definition -- prefer the current "have/have-not" inequality of distribution.
>also don't know why you're equating establishment with billionaires
Are you a 12 year old who just read 'Atlas Shrugged'? Please tell us you are not that naive.
>>7899184
He's possibly a troll or mentally retarded. He either isn't reading or doesn't understand what anybody is saying; don't reply to him
>>7899120
Can I even reply to this honestly? Or, am I blacklisted from here on out?
>>7899235
Didn't mean to hit a nerve re: your retardation. It was a thought experiment.
So Chomsky is an emotional cuck and Sam Harris is a logical psychopath, huh. Sadly enough, logical psychopath tend to be right in the end, I've yet to see a cuck win anything in the long term.
>>7899235
^ Sam Harris aficionado
Look, I know it's difficult to read Hume. But still, give it a try.
>>7895329
"Foucault is a mongoloid" - avg. /lit/ user.
>>7899245
Except the is-ought gap is logical, and crossing it is emotional.
So basically the opposite.
>>7899249
He may be a mongoloid relative to Chomsky, but clearly is an Einstein relative to your standard anarcho-capitalist.
Reminder to newcomers not to engage with this thread. It's being lurked by trolls who will deliberately try to draw you into arguments that they have no interest in or capability to understand. I suspect it is a lonely and rather pathetic and unhappy man desperate for any form of attention, including negative replies from anonymous sources
You've been warned
>>7899261
this desu senpai
read a book
>>7899261
>What are some good angry feuds between authors?
is this thread even /lit/ related?
>>7899261
Is this a joke, or par for the course for controversial topics?
>>7899259
He wrote stuff no one here on /lit/ will ever have the capability to reproduce :').
>>7899271
He is the angry troll he speaks off, it's a ruse to get replies. Taquiyya.
>>7896893
As expected of an admirer of Harris.
Fanboys truly suck, does not matter the side.
>>7899279
Hahaa...one gets the sense there is some basement-boy masturbating mod who is ultra-concerned to prevent the 'wrong view of literature' from being disseminated on the internet.
>>7899289
Exactly, don't be concerned by that anonymous and his fear mongering warnings. Reply freely.
It all depends on your ideology. Let's be honest... certain folks on this board will 'cockblock' you for being even slightly anti-capitalist.
>>7899324
>certain folks on this board will 'cockblock' you for being even slightly anti-capitalist.
try to go on other board, /lit/ is massively leftist in comparison
>>7899330
>massively leftist in comparison
not leftist enough for our liking, comrade.
>>7899330
Nonetheless, there remains a residual anxiety among certain /lit/ powers-that-be according to which "oh shit, is this guy persuading people?!" constitutes a triggering event.
There are so many people I like more than Chomsky but it's impossible for me to think even for a second that Harris 'won' that email exchange
He's a whiny little child
>>7899360
Unless you have been banned for heresy.
>>7895312
You're literally that picture.
If you don't support the establishment -- Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, et. al. -- be careful what you post on /lit/. The powers-that-be here will try to prevent you from expressing your opinion -- by hook or by crook. Just putting this out there as a warning to my fellow contrarians.
>>7895946
>I find /lit/ to be an extremely conservative part of 4chan.
>>7899226
>Censorship is more important on /lit/ than on any other board.
>>7899271
>Is this a joke, or par for the course for controversial topics?
>>7899289
>Hahaa...one gets the sense there is some basement-boy masturbating mod who is ultra-concerned to prevent the 'wrong view of literature' from being disseminated on the internet.
>>7899297
>Exactly, don't be concerned by that anonymous and his fear mongering warnings. Reply freely.
>>7899324
>It all depends on your ideology. Let's be honest... certain folks on this board will 'cockblock' you for being even slightly anti-capitalist.
>>7899342
>Nonetheless, there remains a residual anxiety among certain /lit/ powers-that-be according to which "oh shit, is this guy persuading people?!" constitutes a triggering event.
>>7899421
>If you don't support the establishment -- Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, et. al. -- be careful what you post on /lit/. The powers-that-be here will try to prevent you from expressing your opinion -- by hook or by crook. Just putting this out there as a warning to my fellow contrarians.
/LIT/ USERS OF THE CHAN UNITE!
>>7899455
QED.
>>7899455
fucking capped.
Much jism spewed in near end of this thread... heehee.
>>7895999
The ruling class establishment is so egalitarian in its inequality... uhhh, I mean so unequal in its inegalitarianism... uhhh, I mean... durrrrrr.....
>>7899503
egalitarianism for the goyim
Saying anything a bit *too* anti-Harris and you WILL be banned from /lit/. Keep that in mind, rebels.
>>7899474
>>7899455
>>7899466
How does it feel /lit/?
>>7899527
Aroused.
>>7899503
Hello. I'm from South America. Here, we all typically have a very pamphletarian education. I learned in history, geography, and philosophy classes that liberalism and capitalism are evil, and that the reason we are poor is because the evil anglo capitalist made sure we adopted liberal, """"free market"""" ideology so we would never progress and be forever dependent on them. Only the local wealthy capitalist elite, allied with the global capitalist elite, profited from that system. Everyone else suffered. Even when the western establishment promoted the termination of slavery, it was a ploy: the horrible english, who were pirates and slavers all throught the XVII and XIX centuries, after their industrial revolution decided that it would be more profitable for them if slavery wouldn't exist. So they could shove their disgusting products here. Of course, they made sure none of the local countries could ever develop their own industrial capacity. That's what most of us learn, or at least those who pay any attention in school. Thinking the way you do is not really being a contrarian here nowadays, although the conservatives always fight back (especially with the midia)
Countries like Venezuela and Bolivia, equador, etc, whose governments declare themselves themselves to be progressive and socialist. And you had sympathizers in Brazil and Argentina who are less far-left, but try their best to follow the Venezuelan model. They try their best to get away from the evil American sphere of influence, trying to instead form blocs with Africa, Asia, and Russia. They all adopted populist wealth-distributing policies
Thanks to the chinese commodity boom during the mid and late 2000's, they seemed to be doing ok. Now that their economy is literally melting away, there are breadlines and people can't even shop for toilet paper, things have changed quite a bit. They are doing way worse than other third-wrold economies who adopted more conservative policies. More sensible lefties try to detach themselves from this mess, even implying that those countries are not really left-wing in the first place. More radical lefties insist that it's all liberal propaganda. That it's all a big conspiracy, and that the west is trying to shut down those people's economies because they are daring to challenge the capitalist status quo. That's literally what you're likely to hear from college professors in humanities, or lefty intellectuals.
Even though the education system here is highly biased towards the left, the middle class is getting the fuck away from it in droves . 10 years ago no one here very few would have even admited to being conservative in public, terrified that they would have been branded as a sell-out, a racist nazi, or an american/establishment puppet. Now they are "coming out" in extremely high numbers.
>>7899527
yeah, you're annoying conservatives but not really accomplishing anything. My point here >>7899589 is: the ways of the modern, """"""democratic"""""" left is doomed to always be a failure. My litttle continent was your lab, and we failed horribly. If you lefty weirdos want to actually establish your social equalitarianism, you'll have to go back to the ways of the butchers of the 20th century, and start painting the streets red with bourgeois blood. Anyone who things of himslef as a socialist and isn't a trotskist is wasting everybody's time. Good luck with that, my naive commiefriends.
>>7899594
>trotskist
>>7899594
"History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."
Even though I doubt Marx would have thought that this quote would be used about his own intellectual children.
just a reminder that Marxism is the prevailing ideology of the Cathedral and the only way to truly rebel is to embrace antihumanist radical inegalitarianism
come home autistic man
>>7899701
People will get tired of the grammar of self-intolerance being pushed upon them at a certain point either way.
>>7899701
>… although the full neocameralist approach has never been tried, its closest historical equivalents to this approach are the 18th-century tradition of enlightened absolutism as represented by Frederick the Great, and the 21st-century nondemocratic tradition as seen in lost fragments of the British Empire such as Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai. These states appear to provide a very high quality of service to their citizens, with no meaningful democracy at all. They have minimal crime and high levels of personal and economic freedom. They tend to be quite prosperous. They are weak only in political freedom, and political freedom is unimportant by definition when government is stable and effective.
Nick Land wants to set up something similar to Singapore. If you think this is a good ideas, then have fun being a fucking slave. Productivity does not mean quality of life. As Chomsky himself states: "the economic success story of Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, whose harsh tyranny is another of those famous triumphs of democracy and capitalism."
Land's fun and all to read. But his politics are horrid.
>>7899763
Redefine channels, "integrateAJAX-enabled robust enhance enable seamless sexy synergies, harness," dot-com monetize; whiteboard extend post front-end strategic real-time." Podcasts, relationships world-class, disintermediate strategize B2C incentivize transition aggregate portals, reinvent monetize enable weblogs technologies. E-services out-of-the-box share holistic communities, back-end; extend beta-test functionalities transition benchmark schemas disintermediate granular scale. Sticky dynamic user-centred drive, global implement cross-platform synergistic, end-to-end engineer redefine maximize. Syndicate podcasts incubate networkeffects bandwidth bandwidth beta-test, networking. Sticky drive e-enable, target mindshare best-of-breed unleash front-end cross-media infrastructures. Communities syndicate weblogs, "scalable citizen-media, efficient," convergence: monetize citizen-media life-hacks streamline deploy, exploit open-source." Synergies seize impactful applications disintermediate matrix user-centric whiteboard, redefine action-items synergistic authentic authentic. Aggregate strategize monetize global remix podcasts, efficient whiteboard; syndicate; ROI; citizen-media podcasts. Wireless integrate redefine channels peer-to-peer functionalities architectures? Evolve, brand incentivize data-driven monetize infomediaries implement dot-com. Redefine?
>>7899763
nah he good
>>7899773
See? This is the Land I love -- the amphetamine-fueled Land of old. Like I said, many of his earlier writings are excellent. His politics, though, are terrible.
>>7899763
>As Chomsky himself states:
The guy is a brilliant academic but stop treating him like the second coming of Christ on political matters as if merely quoting him lends your argument an air of authority.
Singapore consistently rates as one of the healthiest and most productive countries, and in complete opposition to Chomsky's naive theoretical garbage, also as one of the happiest countries in the world, and this despite pushing themselves from a colony to a first world country in a time-span of half a century.
>>7899813
>one of the happiest countries in the world
Source?
>>7899783
Did you just mistake a lorem ipsum style generated buzzwords for Nick Land's writing?
>>7899455
VIVA LA REVOLUTION
>>7899824
UNDP: World Happiness Report 2016 - it ranks number 22, going up from being at 24 in 2015.
http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/03/HR-V1Ch2_web.pdf
>>7899841
Canada is #6
USA is # 13
Singapore is #22
Uh, this doesn't help Land's argument.
>>7899854
I am not defending Land, that is a different poster, I personally prefer liberal western democracy and think it is a superior system, I simply do not share Chomsky's view of Singapore or Lee Kuan Yew.
>>7895287
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkwDqa75c9k
L
OH
L
>>7899589
I can smell your butthurt constantino tears from here
>>7899594
>South America was a leftist lab
more like right wing oriented, US funded dictatorships with a late, weird mix between 90s neoliberalism and milquetoast soc-dem in the last 15 years
Things you can talk about without someone bringing up Rushton:
>>7900085
love that guy
>>7895946
>carrying about politics at all
How do you function on a day to day basis?
>>7900686
>carrying
>>7900714
that's wait I said
>>7900718
i know :)
>>7900724
than why did you quote me?
>>7900725
you used the wrong word most likely
>>7900727
I'm fairy certain I didn't
>>7895294
Chomsky destroyed Harris in that exchange, I'm not a big Chomskyite but holy shit I was just cringing the entire time I read that. I can't believe Harris published that shit. Chomsky was even mocking him when he said he wanted to publish it calling it some strange kind of exhibitionism.
>>7899273
No shit, because we're not him. Doesn't mean Foucault wasn't a fucking mong.
He may be the single most cited author in the social sciences right now, but not nearly enough time has passed to see if he stays up there over the long term like Marx and Nietzsche have.
>>7900739
carrying about politics, eh?
>>7897914
Is Horowitz even a thinker? He just goes on polemical tirades against the liberal left
>>7900787
That's what I sad anon, you shouldn't care about politics
>>7900806
good stuff
>>7900066
>constantino
??????
>>7900070
> milquetoast soc-dem in the last 15 years
Yes, and that's how we grew up. South America population is relatively young, so a very large chunk of the people who live here grew up in the last 15 years. Things moved very quikly to the left, but moreso in Venezuela, Bolivia and Equador. You can describe Argentina or Brazil as milquetoast soc-dems, but not those three.
>>7895290
def b8
>>7899701
nick land is a deep cover post-marxist.
>>7900755
Harris is really a strange kind of person. Watching his lectures on morality, it is very clear that he does not have the intellectual capacity (or, probably more accurately, curiosity) to really grapple with the subjects he attempts to deal with and constantly gives off signs that this is the case.
From his ignorance about the specifics of religions like Hinduism and Christianity, where he simply assumes his criticisms of them are correct and that they are backwards and contradictory in all the ways he thinks they are based on cursory research, to his hilarious attempt to use the Monty Hall problem to show how poor our intuitions are, while actually showing the opposite and ignoring the flaws in his arguments that people in the audience point out, Harris is way out of his depth as a public intellectual.
>>7895626
you disgust me
>>7895364
>Foucault speaks in abstract terms, you have to think on his level to understand him
it's not abstract dude, he's conning you into thinking he's on another level by saying a bunch of big words you don't understand.
>>7895913
chomsky basically founded linguistic (read: syntactic) theory by introducing several important concepts including:
grammatical transformations on phrase structure
linguistic competence vs linguistic performance
universal grammar/the language faculty
structural cycles/barriers/phases (the name has changed over the years)
among other things
>>7895287
Marquez and Llosa, and the fuckers wouldnt even say what it is about. I personally think Marquez fucked Llosas wife.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/books/29marq.html?_r=0
Also from the article: Norman Mailer vs. Gore Vidal; When the encounter between Mr. Mailer and Mr. Vidal turned physical, if not bloody, Mr. Vidal is said to have responded from the floor, “Words fail Norman Mailer yet again.”)
