>>6128
I like my non anarchy.
Without law and order I couldn't be a NEET all day.
I also like my computer and anime and manga and dolls and figures and all the other things that keep me from killing myself.

The whole thing was rather silly, OP. I never watched the movie but I gave the book a read through once becuase I had heard so much about it. Really, I wasn't impressed. Also, the MC was a crazy person, and crazy people don't need to be consistent.

This is really more /ot/ material. Perhaps you should delete this and move it there OP.

>My question is, why is Tyler Durden seen wearing a retro leather jacket, a silk buttoned down collared shirt, sunglasses, black slacks, and tan loafers when he preaches against that kind of life style?
He's being ironic, duh

The first rule of Fight Club is, you do not talk about Fight Club, OP.

>My question is...

I only watched the film. I asumed he got his clothes from second hand/used goods markets, wich was the reason why they hardly matched each other, making him look like a clown. But if I remember corrrectly, he also had a good car so I don't know...

About the general luddite ideology of the piece: I have encountered feelings about it. Modernity is the product of science's interpretation of the world, wich allow us to generate technology. Global order's main illness of inequality and exhaustion of resources due to waste, aren't accidents at all: this sick world pretty well matches Comte's predicted scheme about hierarchization of education, polarization of social classes and depredation of nature though industry, but without the dissapereance of conflicts and war (that is: we had "order" and "progress" alright, but never "love": the project of a social science failled, and certainly positivism's viewing of science failled: the scientific method never really existed in practice; neither science brings truth, but just domination). So, to preach against modernity is really to preach against science; wich pretty much constitutes the suicidal higher renounce to men's main survival strategy: to overcome the contingencies of the world by bending it as a whole, with knowledge; rather to really understand anything (wich is also likely impossible), to just enslave it, by turning it into something useful to us (to turn the world into a place we can inhabit, at its own cost)...

So I could say Tyler is right: all this is wicked and should end; but I don't see a way of doing it without also wipping out humanity as a whole in the process (for good or bad, for me or you). Pseudo-solutions as that of Zeitgeist's makers are just very delayed and trivialized propaganda, wich only serves to illiterate kids and stoners to feel "conscious" and "alternative"; it's just all the same pointless crap: there's no revolution, justice, solution or brighter future on sight.

Post edited on 23rd Jul 2011, 4:24am

>>6141
I don't think he owned a car, but he did steal a ferrari right after he left the airport.

Also thanks for that pic, I laughed a great deal just then.

I am neither against nor in support of any system of social, political or economic organization. My interests reside in only my well being. That said, I'd be content living within any system which panders to that requisite.

I suppose in saying this questions are raised as to what my sentiments towards a system of governance not catering to this requirement would have to be. I suppose I'd have to fundamentally oppose such a system, but not in the sense that I view it as objectively "wrong", just not advantageous to my own position.

I enjoyed fight club. What I do not enjoy is seeing edgy teenagers blindly align with ideas presented in the film. Any auspicious notions of contemporary humanity living prosperously within an anarchistic civilization are laughable at best. An anarchistic civilization is a weak civilization, lacking the coordination and productivity found in any alternative system of social governance currently in practice. Such a society would inevitably be destroyed and consumed by its centralized counterpart. Like communism, anarchism fails to take into account fundamental behaviors present within prevalent human nature.

Post edited on 23rd Jul 2011, 12:14am

>>6149
>Like communism, anarchism fails to take into account fundamental behaviors present within prevalent human nature.

I don't know about anarchism, but on communism I'd go even further. In general, when you think about any of those super-society or the-world-as-one schemes, they seem to take as granted that we can jump into a kind of eusocial stage without meeting first the biological implications/conditions... So yeah: no "Imagine" for us, for the moment (if ever).

Also: gotta love Yotsuba, there.

Post edited on 23rd Jul 2011, 3:43pm

Fight Club is good, but overrated. The first act is brilliant, but when it gets to the whole Project Mayhem thing it starts to fall apart.

>>6149
>>6151
Capitalism is the oppression, subjugation, and control of the proletariat workers by men of wealth.
Dictatorships are the oppression, subjugation, and control of the proletariat workers by men in uniforms.
Communism is the oppression, subjugation, and control of the proletariat workers by men in offices.
Socialism is the oppression, subjugation, and control of the proletariat workers by society.

Mind you, this refers strictly to the practice of each, not to the ideas of each.

>>6213
Have we really had socialism in practice, though? I think the whole point is to keep the proletariat from being disenfranchised.

>>6213
I've never understood how people could be oppressed by capitalism, when everything you have is what you take, how could you be oppressed?

>>6215
I think the Inca empire practiced a form of semi-socialism.

http://castle.eiu.edu/~historia/archives/2007/Harris.pdf
Is a fairly interesting read on it.

>>6216
Oppressed because:
-Some companies have an interest in keeping you poor (e.g credit card companies keeping you poor so you can't ever pay off a loan and constantly are chain to interest payments)

-Some companies have an interest in deceiving you (e.g bombarding you with psychologically crafted advertisements which are crammed with lies) or keeping you stupid (stupid people are less likely to question what they are being told)

-The economy is a zero sum game, so those who can't compete become poor and those who are in power keep them weak so they don't reduce their own success (e.g food being sold to overfed Westerners rather than starving Africans because the Africans can't pay for them, which worsen's the African's ability to thrive and grow strong enough to be able to pay)

I just thought up of those just then by the way, I'm no economist and just giving my two cents so anyone who does know about this stuff please correct me.

>>6218
The economy is more likely to be non-zero sum but not perfectly non-zero sum

>>6216
the same can be said for crack addicts.
you're conditioned to want to take it.
the guy selling it doesn't give a crap about you, he probably knows what he's selling is shit, but he does it anyway for the money to support his own similar addiction.

Us being NEETs and all are somewhat free from this, we've got adblocks and don't want much TV or listen to the radio much, so we don't have them creaming their shit down our throats trying to make us buy it, even then, we have no money so they have no interest in us, and as soon as you get some, someone's gonna try and take it, or as it were, make you want to give it to them.

>>6217
I wonder if they were happy. I often wonder if people in other societies were on average happier than us.

>>6221
Of course they were. Starving orphans in third-world countries today are WAY happier than the average person in developed societies.

>>6224
I've lived in not-quite-third-world countries before, and it seemed like the people had ways of coping with their daily problems. Inferior public services, water and power shortages, extremely expensive gasoline, a poor job market and discrimination against second-class citizens were common, yet they lived their lives and didn't seem to be really miserable or anything. Average middle-class citizens in first-world countries have all those basics covered, yet they'll do shit like buy gas-guzzling SUVs and then complain when the price of gas rises ten cents a gallon. Or they'll buy crap they don't need on credit, pay the minimum on their cards for years and then wonder why they're deep in debt.

No one's arguing that people in a famine-stricken country are going to be happy, of course. But having more money doesn't equal being happier in every case.

>>6225
I disagree ,very much.
Barring shit like terminal brain cancer, I'd be 100% happy if I had a 2 trillion (I know it's arbitrary) dollars. I could move out of my parents house,and pay their's off; Then I'd move to a "liberal" state and import eroge all day ,every day. My daily work would consist of studying Japanese and unlocking immortality.
A beautiful dream....;_;

>>6261
It's been proven countless times happiness doesn't work that way. If something good happens, you momentarily get happier, then you get used to it and drop back to the same level. Just because one thing is going right that doesn't mean you'll run out of things to complain about.

>>6266
>>6266
http://www.lloydianaspects.co.uk/evolve/pleasure.html

>>6266
I think the problem is most people who have money and are sad, are sad because they have no passions to spend their money on, instead they buy stuff that they don't really care about, like cars and watches, or they work 24/7.

Personally if I had tons of money(billions) I'd be happy, of course I'd spend it all in a month or two, saving money is lame.