“If your way of life depends on you believing something, you’ll find a way to believe in it.”
“Every creature wants to pass something on to the next generation. I want to pass on what I think is right. I’m fighting for the ability to do that.”
“The proper company for ignorant children is not other ignorant children. Children need to spend a lot of time working one on one with adults to properly mature. Left to their own devices they will tribe up and develop their own little societies from scratch. That is one of the reasons why 40 kids to a classroom take until their mid-twenties to really become adults. It isn’t until they hit the work force and are dealing with the rest of society outside of their micro-tribal pecking orders that appropriate non-apeish behavior sets in.”
“>we are serious developer
>we want our characters to look like real people not idealized husks
>also here’s a guy who only exists in the game because fangirls demanded him
>he looks like a movie star and ten years younger than in the prequel
How low can Bioware go?”
“But anon, it’s ok to make a male look pretty. Female characters though, you can’t make them pretty, else women will get jelly.”
“Like Obama on an unsuspecting economy.”
“Obama didn’t rape the economy, because the economy wanted it.”
“The economy wanted the D”
“The hysteria the masses/media are capable of never ceases to amaze me. One man, with one or two guns, and twenty dead children. OH SHIT TWENTY DEAD PEOPLE, LETS MOBILIZE A BILLION OR TWO TO RESPOND TO IT.
This is probably why people don’t find Helen of Troy and the story of the Iliad so amazing anymore.”
“WTF, why not just shorten the article to “ALL WHO OPPOSE THE STATE MUST SUFFER, JUDGEMENT DELIVERED, PUNISHMENT IS SUMMARY EXECUTION. DO YOU HAVE ANY LAST WORDS?”
“if we truly understood why, we’d be power brokers at the very least.”
“If you assume people in power do things because they’re stupid, and you have less power than they do, you are probably wrong.”
“It horrifies Western academic economists, especially those of the conventional neo-classical persuasion, to hear it suggested that Japan does not in fact belong in the club of ‘free-market’ nations. For many of them, the idea that there can be a successful economy not based on the free play of market forces is tantamount to heresy.”
“Officials, for understandable reasons, are the least interested in setting the record straight.”
“[N]o intellectual leverage over the power of the political elite was possible, since the notion of a universal or transcendental truth was never permitted to embed itself in Japanese thought. The power-holders could control even this; indeed, no law ever restrained their power.”
“[…] I suspect that there is another, more important reason for the success of the culturalist perspective among Westerners. Many people in democratically organised societies feel uncomfortable with the notion of power. Even the less threatening word ‘politics’ evokes distaste, associated as it often is with greed, lying and other things beneath our dignity. ‘Power’ is a dirtier word still, eliciting pleasurable emotions perhaps only in those who are themselves power-hungry.
The concept of ‘power’ has been eliminated from the vocabularies of a fair number of contemporary scholars studying human affairs. So unpleasant are its connotations for intellectuals, especially Americans, that they tend to deny or renounce it, sometimes to the point of seriously suggesting that the concept be banished altogether. One explanation for this might be that the idea of power clashes emotionally with the ideal of equal opportunity, which has gained the force of an ideology. Power in the sense of control by a small group of people over the majority, and power of the kind wielded by a master over a servant, are unpleasant possibilities. Thus intellectual constructs are created that sanitise power relations and view them as the perfectly rational result of collective decisions.
This is no place to linger over the foibles of contemporary political science, but a few observations may help to place this approach in perspective. Since the Second World War academics have offered us, by and large, a cellophane-wrapped, hygienic version of our socio-political world. In this version, the concept of power is sometimes replaced by that of an allegedly more neutral ‘influence’ in which the element of (potential) force is absent. Master-servant relationships are, if noticed at all, considered in exclusively economic terms, as something moreover that works for the good of everyone; while the idea of power ‘red in tooth and claw’ emerges only in reference to revolutionary situations.
This view, especially as purveyed by the adherents of ‘pluralist theory’, leads to the acceptance of any political arrangement as basically what it ought to be, though with room for improvement of certain details. Even where power is not eliminated from scholarly discourse, its sharp edges are removed. It is often treated as if it were a scarce commodity that can be allocated through forces akin to those of the market-place. This economic explanation of the political world denatures the idea of power. It cannot explain the very real bloody noses of, say, Japan’s teachers fighting against the attempts of national educational administrators to regain control over ‘moral thinking’ in the schools. It cannot envision a country rushing headlong into disaster because of the disastrous way in which power is exercised.
The parcelling out of responsibilities and duties in the manner of democratically organised Western communities – the basis for ‘pluralist theory’ – is possible only with some prior agreement on how to limit power, and on the guises in which it is allowed to affect ordinary citizens. This approach to power presupposes the existence of laws that are taken seriously. It also assumes that the ideal of pluralist representation is a reality, and uses this reality as a point of departure.”