New Testingstan

evilsoup wrote:the most recent DSM has effectively recategorised grieving as a form of depression
(yes there are surely cases where someone would genuinely need antidepressants after a bereavement, but rather than taking a nuanced approach, the writers of the DSM-V chose to make it available to everyone -- and it isn't just psychiatrists who can prescribe these drugs, but non-expert medical professionals too)

The DSM is a diagnostic tool not the fucking bible

Jovial Jeff wrote:A have chosen a Seasonic 450w PSU.

Seasonic makes good PSUs (and OEM for a bunch of other people, too).

>:3 wrote:ALSO, important thing here. I was looking at G.Skill Snipers and I see some with voltage above 1.5 V. It's important that you not use >1.5 V RAM with recent Intel processors because it might burn out the memory controller built into the CPU.

It's probably a bit of a myth, but Intel processors are becoming much less tolerant of higher-than-normal voltage in the name of reducing power. Anyone who sells > 1.5V DDR3 is selling out-of-specification RAM.

Besides, 1.35V is better

so i've seen so many sitcom characters go to bed and breakfasts and have zany sitcom antics

makes me wonder how many ppl go to b&bs in the real world just on the hope that they too can experience the zany sitcom tropes

Ok I just got back from a lecture on Butler and how she relates to and contrasts against Foucault from a biopolitical standpoint.

I don't have much direct philosophical background so one thing about her argument I found fascinating was how she feels the only real reduceable aspect of the human condition, and thus what we should start from, is that of vulnerability or precariousness. And in fact, vulnerability was treated as a positive, because it's necessary to forge meaningful bonds and connections between people and is required before one can embark upon any sort of self-reflection or analysis.

What I picked up from the lecture and got confirmed by the lecturer afterwards when I talked to her was that you could definitely interpret the argument as Butler seeing vulnerability as a positive, but differences in levels of vulnerability where issues arise. It sets up situations where people of lower vulnerability do not need to face it as readily and so are more likely and more able to react to it being exposed by lashing out so as to reassert the illusion of control, and these are the same people who have the most power, and who are able to do damage to those who experience so much vulnerability there is no escape. If you had a situation of more equal but low levels of vulnerability, there wouldn't be the imbalance to allow the lashing out to cause such damage, and if everyone were more vulnerable to the extent where it has to be confronted, the illusion of mastery would never have any place to form in the first place so there wouldn't be the lashing out when it's broken.

This relates in some ways to the topic of privilege in that it can set itself up as an alternate or potentially supplemental explanatory tool, while also sort of agreeing in that the privilege model sets up privilege what shouldn't be the default (hence the term) and the model I was finding in Butler's theory suggests that vulnerability is a necessary and good thing, and with privilege and vulnerability being rough opposites, this works out.

More of why I appreciated it, though, is that I find it relates to some of my thoughts on femininity. While I agree that traditional femininity is often tied in factors of submission and second-class existence, I do not, as many feminists theorists do (including, amusingly, Butler herself) reject it as a bad thing. Submission is not dangerous when there is no dominator, and when there is no first-class personhood put above yourself that prioritises their own self, then a life where priority is shifted to others is also not something to be exploited. Just as vulnerability is only an issue in situations of imbalanced levels, so too do many traditional aspects of femininity only become an issue when available to be exploited by traditional masculinity.

A relation I thought of earlier was to the Prisoner's Dilemma. Femininity would be staying quiet while masculinity is confession. If you have a system where everyone stays quiet, or where everyone is forced to consider and value others' needs, or to take up smaller amounts of space relative to their body size and needs, or various other things but without the opposing examples of people being socialised to take advantage of this (as well as the others being socialised to see this advantage taking as natural and good), then it'd be a net gain overall compared to the current system or a system without traditional femininity.

adr wrote:second "guy in the beige jacket." sitting on a bench "he's looking for somebody!"

clearly the sure mark of a criminal lol

They'd already IDed him from security footage earlier.

Watch the show plz

ack i only half watch much of my tv. if i devoted myself to television i'd never get anything done!

(see: me last week, bingeing on my community dvds. god i love that show)

Infinity Biscuit wrote:What I picked up from the lecture and got confirmed by the lecturer afterwards when I talked to her was that you could definitely interpret the argument as Butler seeing vulnerability as a positive, but differences in levels of vulnerability where issues arise. It sets up situations where people of lower vulnerability do not need to face it as readily and so are more likely and more able to react to it being exposed by lashing out so as to reassert the illusion of control, and these are the same people who have the most power, and who are able to do damage to those who experience so much vulnerability there is no escape. If you had a situation of more equal but low levels of vulnerability, there wouldn't be the imbalance to allow the lashing out to cause such damage, and if everyone were more vulnerable to the extent where it has to be confronted, the illusion of mastery would never have any place to form in the first place so there wouldn't be the lashing out when it's broken.

I suppose psychological dynamics of this sort may play a role, but I'm of the opinion the primary cause of shitty human behavior is probably more rational and concrete:

You and another person are hungry. You find enough food to satisfy one of you, but not both. You are in a position to decide how it gets divided. Do you feel a temptation to take the majority of it?

It really seems to me most shitty behavior can be traced back to conflicts of interest. When fulfilling somebody else's desires means denying your own the temptation naturally arises to give your own higher priority. It doesn't even have to happen consciously or even unconsciously; just satisfying your own desires with no awareness of negative consequences for others may cause you to harm others without realizing it.

Just as vulnerability is only an issue in situations of imbalanced levels

I think it's very much still an issue at balanced levels. People living in "high vulnerability" means people living in suffering and fear. Humans don't like vulnerability for very good reasons.

Infinity Biscuit wrote: I don't have much direct philosophical background so one thing about her argument I found fascinating was how she feels the only real reduceable aspect of the human condition, and thus what we should start from, is that of vulnerability or precariousness. And in fact, vulnerability was treated as a positive, because it's necessary to forge meaningful bonds and connections between people and is required before one can embark upon any sort of self-reflection or analysis.

What I picked up from the lecture and got confirmed by the lecturer afterwards when I talked to her was that you could definitely interpret the argument as Butler seeing vulnerability as a positive, but differences in levels of vulnerability where issues arise. It sets up situations where people of lower vulnerability do not need to face it as readily and so are more likely and more able to react to it being exposed by lashing out so as to reassert the illusion of control, and these are the same people who have the most power, and who are able to do damage to those who experience so much vulnerability there is no escape. If you had a situation of more equal but low levels of vulnerability, there wouldn't be the imbalance to allow the lashing out to cause such damage, and if everyone were more vulnerable to the extent where it has to be confronted, the illusion of mastery would never have any place to form in the first place so there wouldn't be the lashing out when it's broken.

Have you tried to read any Butler? If not, you should. Frames of War is excellent, and Gender Trouble (along with Undoing Gender) is one of the germinal books in modern critical theory. If you get the chance also try to read Giving an Account of Oneself. It's difficult (far more difficult than the rest of her work, which is saying something), but it's profoundly powerful.

More of why I appreciated it, though, is that I find it relates to some of my thoughts on femininity. While I agree that traditional femininity is often tied in factors of submission and second-class existence, I do not, as many feminists theorists do (including, amusingly, Butler herself) reject it as a bad thing.

You're off re: Butler and Femininity as she certainly doesn't reject 'traditional femininity', but rather calls for us to understand how gender and what is defined as gendered are performances, and that in order to understand what femininity means we have to understand the entirety of the context that creates the performance of femininity. That context, she would argue, is horrifically fucked up and thus most performances of femininity, because they help to enforce these norms, are just as fucked up. However, these same cultural norms can be challenged and subverted in a number of ways, even through the embrace of femininity via subversive acts (she was/is particularly fond of drag, for instance).

A relation I thought of earlier was to the Prisoner's Dilemma. Femininity would be staying quiet while masculinity is confession. If you have a system where everyone stays quiet, or where everyone is forced to consider and value others' needs, or to take up smaller amounts of space relative to their body size and needs, or various other things but without the opposing examples of people being socialised to take advantage of this (as well as the others being socialised to see this advantage taking as natural and good), then it'd be a net gain overall compared to the current system or a system without traditional femininity.

Butler would have more problems with the way you framed the question (your over-essentializiation of masculinity and femininity) then she would have with the rest of your scenario.


If you're interested in her I can point you in the way of some of her books and the 'important' sections. She's profoundly powerful and probably my second favorite of the modern 'queer' theorists. She's also partnered with Wendy Brown and I can't help but try to imagine what their pillow talk is like.

The only Butler I've read so far is Performative Acts and Gender Constitution, where she talks about gender as a performance and traditional femininity as largely a performance of submission (I disagree with a lot of her essay). But I've heard Gender Trouble shows a shift from her earlier work, and in the lecture it was mentioned her later material went broader than the feminist biopolitics she started writing about. The impression I got from the essay I read before was that she was at the least sympathetic to gender abolition, which I find a very dangerous philosophy in its current state, so I may be reading things into her work she did not actually put into it, though.

Do you feel I still over-essentialise masculinity and femininity if I clarify that I was talking about traditional definitions of the two?

I kinda posted this mainly for you to respond so thanks Straha

It occurs to me I might be mixing some of Bartky in with my impressions of Butler since the essay of Bartky's I read drew heavily upon Foucault.

Desert Bus For Hope 7 is live.

damnit, I finally get around to watching pacific rim and the thread about it is gone

who would have thought it wouldn't last several months of inactivity :L

NO SPOILERS!

Infinity Biscuit wrote:who would have thought it wouldn't last several months of inactivity :L

Oh you

You can start another thread, I'm sure everyone but Spartan could stand to yak it out some more

so i just re-watched john woo's 1989 film "the killer"

i love that film, it has just the right mix of beauty, cheese, action, and heart

timmy wrote:You can start another thread, I'm sure everyone but Spartan could stand to yak it out some more

Or I could just get around to watching the fucking movie.

joviwan wrote:Desert Bus For Hope 7 is live.

THE SEGA CD HELPS SAVE LIVES

so a friend got call of duty ghosts and I just played it

blops2 is a hella flawed game but it is ok and I figured this would be kinda like it except I could play as a girl so maybe it wont even be that terrible. maybe I can even avoid the newb sucky period cuz the controls are the same and such

nope it is absolutely fucking awful

1) the controls are the same except really sluggish. blops2 is fucking slow in responding too but this is so much worse.

2) the maps are big and annoying. it is easy to get stuck on random obstacles and snipers just eat you alive from above. I hate snipers. some of this might be better if I played it enough to know my way around but it isn't seeming likely

3) the guns don't kill people. blops is the same way so this isn't a new complaint but it is even worse here, guys can get armor to make them like completely immune to bullets as they stab you. as if the fucking knife wasn't already overpowered enough!

4) I can rarely even see the other players. blops2 often had guys wearing black on black backgrounds but at least sometimes I can see them. and there's the target finder! no luck here, and the minimap is smaller too so that's no help. maybe this is made for people with big screen tvs, it is the only way I can figure that the other players can make out these tiny grey dots on a sea of gray background


it's just a completely frustrating experience and my 0.3 k/d ratio over three hours of gameplay is an objective measure of the difference. blops2 pisses me off but is playable. ghosts just completely fucking sucks

I wouldn't recommend buying this anyway because it is pretty much the same crap year after year (well, or so I've heard, this and blops2 are the only ones in this franchise I've actually played but yeah the same except the sucky different details), but even if I was ok with that, I wouldn't recommend this game. go play billiards instead, at least the controls to real life are responsive

Blops2 was unusual in that it attempted something new with a stagnant franchise and even attempted to engage critically with the jingoism inherent in the franchise.

Ghosts is a genuine retread of things from previous games with all the jingoism and racism unironically turned up to eleven

I played the first BLOPS after completing the MW saga, and I was surprised at what a refreshing departure it was for the series. Never did get around to playing the second one.

i htink the drunker i get the gayer i get

Example

what

Can you quantify that statement

about 40 kilolesbians