Friam

capitalism vs. individualism

Classic

List

Threaded

130 messages Options

1234567

David Eric Smith

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

Very very sorry Glen

You said “as a people”.

There was no need for my reply.

E

> On Nov 12, 2019, at 10:04 AM, Eric Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Good thread; far more than I can process.
>
> But… (from Glen’s anecdote)
>
>> This episode challenged my understanding of infrastructure. I don't think Renee's alone in this. I've heard people complain of the tiniest things about their public trans trips ... someone smacking their food ... someone with body odor ... the drunk guy passed out on the seat ... someone clipping their toenails ... etc. They all sound like rationalizations, to me. Whatever the deeper cause, there's something about us as a people that prevents effective sharing. So, I'm now considering changing all my advocacy from public transportation to massive swarms of publicly owned, self-driving, electric cars. And I'll start trashing Amtrak and Portland's TriMet every chance I get. 8^)
>
> Not “as people”. As Americans. Important, I think, to acknowledge how malleable this is, and the role of culture (including institutions).
>
> Live by the train systems in Japan for a while, and you are smacked in the face by the broken culture that Americans seem to believe is an irredeemable human condition. Come back to a city like Atlanta, and the impulse to blame that “you people aren’t even trying” is all but irresistable. A transition back to New York is still somewhat harsh, but not to the same degree.
>
> The same can be said, for that matter, of cost control in the medical system. A person to whom I am connected had a ligament-replacement surgery done to reconstruct a joint, with a week in-hospital (because the Japanese hate to take unnecessary risks of anything), by a specialst who has trained and worked for decades in both Japan and the UK, and the most-caring hospital staff. It cost me 1000 dollars, and about 1/3 had been covered by national insurance. I think in the US, without coverage (which is the relevant situation in this case), a similar quality of treatment would have cost me more than my whole after-tax income for half a year.
>
> If those are the stress-testing cases, think of what the difference can be in behavior on the street, and in other ordinary interactions.
>
> American culture needs a hard kick in the ass, and an admonition to grow up, because we no longer have the slack to live like this and survive it. There are plenty of American people who are not the sources of that broken culture, and they already get kicked too much, so I don’t mean that. But the view that, while there are problems that will remain to afflict people under any case, still so much better an effort _can_ be made.
>
> I constantly think of the saying “You know the ship's only in trouble if the sailors stop swearing”. Probably literally not true, but makes a point. I wonder what it would look like if Americans woke up to realize that the ship is in trouble.
>
> Best to all,
>
> Eric
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Carl Tollander

Re: the Commons and Convenience

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

I find that if I have a more economical vehicle, that I'm somehow motivated to drive more. " Fuel Economy" may here be more of a dimensional collapse to a more easily apprehended category. Anyhow....

Why is that? The hybrid car (RAV4 hybrid) will gradually train me, via feedback availability ("look how 'our" regenerative braking is working, hey, don't watch the dash screen too much") and tiny rewards ("good work, your eco score is 80, try to work on your acceleration") to drive in a certain way. I can see that happening, and that I'm slightly uncomfy about being so trainable, but yes, at 50MPG I feel somewhat virtuous, even if I am driving 25 up Agua Fria. Works better than the "Your Speed" implied threat of a ticket devices placed around the city. Not unlike being glued to a phone screen.

Despite all that, I suspect people rebel at things that are good for the commons because they dislike the idea of giving up some notion of their free will as a consequence of (even indirectly) serving the commons.

In a similar vein, I find myself reading Isabelle Stengers these days, alas in many respects because I am an English major and am easily attracted to (deceived by?) interesting usage of commas. http://openhumanitiespress.org/books/download/Stengers_2015_In-Catastrophic-Times.pdf . I used to enjoy Thomas Carlyle, on the other end of the political spectrum, and the rhythm of the prose is, seems to me, similar.

Carl

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 6:45 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'd say "it's hard to share"... any "Commons" and maybe even moreso when
the Commons in question require big investment and technological
development... but I'm not quite sure why... it is as if whatever the
Commons delivers, we expect more?

It is also hard to give up "convenience", once habituated toit. I can
barely imagine tying up a hardwired phone line to get 300 or 1200bps
internet service today... I think I'd probably do without somehow. I
once walked, ran, rode my bike miles and miles to get where I needed to
go (school, work, etc.) but now that I have been conditioned to jumping
in a heated/AC car and driving 60-80 mph with a good quality sound
system and dozens of radio stations, hundreds of CDs ripped to the hard
drive and Bluetooth audio to allow me to chat with family and friends or
do some business or listen to a podcast, I'd have a hard time even going
back to driving 55 or having to leave my windows down to keep from
feeling a little hot on a warm day, much less live with my own singing
or a small handful of scratchy AM stations.

I think if I *lost* some of those conveniences for a while, I'd welcome
the lesser things back in a heart beat.

> Of course. And it's not only with broadband:
>
> Separate and Unequal Train Service Returns
> https://www.dcreport.org/2019/10/18/separate-and-unequal-train-service-returns/
>
> Yet another personal anecdote -- Up until about a month or so ago, I was an advocate for public transportation, in particular trains, buses, light rail, etc. But Renee' needed her car worked on, the shop being *VERY* close to a trolley stop in Portland. So, rather than me burning lots of gas driving my 12 mpg truck up there to pick her up [†], then driving it back up there to drop her off, I recommended she take the trolley to the light rail, then I could pick her up at the light rail stop, here. It's important to note that her employer provides free public transit rides and all she needs is her nursing badge to board any bus or train in the Metro area.
>
> But even though the auto shop is only a few blocks from the trolley stop, she *refused* to take it. It was much more convenient for her to have me slice out 2 hours (1 hour per trip) of my day, burn a bunch of gas, etc. than it was to ride the train(s). And she's (ostensibly) also an advocate for public transportation.
>
> This episode challenged my understanding of infrastructure. I don't think Renee's alone in this. I've heard people complain of the tiniest things about their public trans trips ... someone smacking their food ... someone with body odor ... the drunk guy passed out on the seat ... someone clipping their toenails ... etc. They all sound like rationalizations, to me. Whatever the deeper cause, there's something about us as a people that prevents effective sharing. So, I'm now considering changing all my advocacy from public transportation to massive swarms of publicly owned, self-driving, electric cars. And I'll start trashing Amtrak and Portland's TriMet every chance I get. 8^)
>
>
>
> [†] I could have picked her up on my 55 mpg motorcycle. But my guess is she would have chafed at having to carry and put on her gear for such a short ride ... plus it was a bit cold and all that other "discomfort".
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Carl Tollander

Re: the Commons and Convenience

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Trains in Japan. Few folks in the US have any idea, at a visceral level, what a high cognitive price they are paying for their pattern of usage of the automobile. Even if the vehicle doesn't run on gas. Probably not about relative economies, so educating them will likely have little effect.

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 6:45 PM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'd say "it's hard to share"... any "Commons" and maybe even moreso when
the Commons in question require big investment and technological
development... but I'm not quite sure why... it is as if whatever the
Commons delivers, we expect more?

It is also hard to give up "convenience", once habituated toit. I can
barely imagine tying up a hardwired phone line to get 300 or 1200bps
internet service today... I think I'd probably do without somehow. I
once walked, ran, rode my bike miles and miles to get where I needed to
go (school, work, etc.) but now that I have been conditioned to jumping
in a heated/AC car and driving 60-80 mph with a good quality sound
system and dozens of radio stations, hundreds of CDs ripped to the hard
drive and Bluetooth audio to allow me to chat with family and friends or
do some business or listen to a podcast, I'd have a hard time even going
back to driving 55 or having to leave my windows down to keep from
feeling a little hot on a warm day, much less live with my own singing
or a small handful of scratchy AM stations.

I think if I *lost* some of those conveniences for a while, I'd welcome
the lesser things back in a heart beat.

> Of course. And it's not only with broadband:
>
> Separate and Unequal Train Service Returns
> https://www.dcreport.org/2019/10/18/separate-and-unequal-train-service-returns/
>
> Yet another personal anecdote -- Up until about a month or so ago, I was an advocate for public transportation, in particular trains, buses, light rail, etc. But Renee' needed her car worked on, the shop being *VERY* close to a trolley stop in Portland. So, rather than me burning lots of gas driving my 12 mpg truck up there to pick her up [†], then driving it back up there to drop her off, I recommended she take the trolley to the light rail, then I could pick her up at the light rail stop, here. It's important to note that her employer provides free public transit rides and all she needs is her nursing badge to board any bus or train in the Metro area.
>
> But even though the auto shop is only a few blocks from the trolley stop, she *refused* to take it. It was much more convenient for her to have me slice out 2 hours (1 hour per trip) of my day, burn a bunch of gas, etc. than it was to ride the train(s). And she's (ostensibly) also an advocate for public transportation.
>
> This episode challenged my understanding of infrastructure. I don't think Renee's alone in this. I've heard people complain of the tiniest things about their public trans trips ... someone smacking their food ... someone with body odor ... the drunk guy passed out on the seat ... someone clipping their toenails ... etc. They all sound like rationalizations, to me. Whatever the deeper cause, there's something about us as a people that prevents effective sharing. So, I'm now considering changing all my advocacy from public transportation to massive swarms of publicly owned, self-driving, electric cars. And I'll start trashing Amtrak and Portland's TriMet every chance I get. 8^)
>
>
>
> [†] I could have picked her up on my 55 mpg motorcycle. But my guess is she would have chafed at having to carry and put on her gear for such a short ride ... plus it was a bit cold and all that other "discomfort".
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Prof David West

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

In reply to this post by gepr

> On 11/11/19 10:40 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > Stopping behaviors that are counterproductive is different from promulgating a prescriptive ideology. The point is to open up space for what might work, and that which has yet to be falsified. The Trumpism behaviors are not drawn from a complex data set.
>
> Maybe not. But *how* do we open up that space for people who are dead
> set for Trump, against someone like Bill Weld or Joe Walsh? By the same
> token, how could we have opened things up for the Bernie Bros who were
> so against Clinton? Or the coming nastiness between whichever D's make
> it to the primaries?
>
> I mean, if ranked choice were more widespread, that alone would help a
> lot. The tendency to -isms is canalized by over-zealous reduction. My
> self-ascribed Christian neighbor (who doesn't seem to be a follower of
> Christ, but whatever) once gave me a book with a title like "Jesus:
> Insane, Liar, or God." The idea being that the 3 ideas were mutually
> exclusive. When Dave points out that membership in his set of
> disgruntled people isn't crisp, he's only reiterating the thread topic:
> how to integrate -isms. I made my lame attempt to talk to my neighbor
> about the Axiom of Choice, modal logics, etc. ... and of course failed
> utterly. And I've heard people talk about *engaging* with Trumpists and
> trying to tease apart whatever good or bad the ecology associated with
> Trump has done or not done. But I fail every time I try. How do you
> crack open that layered chitin an Ismist accretes around their self
> without killing them?
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

Prof David West

Re: culture vs things (was: capitalism vs. individualism)

In reply to this post by gepr

Software development (not computer science or software engineering) should be the most "people" oriented profession out there. Software is written collaboratively by people. Software affects every aspect of other people's lives: work, play, love, ... . More software failures are caused by people, or more accurately by lack of understanding of people.

Sarcasm ahead:
People are harder than "things" and the "boys" that made computer science and software engineering what it is today, are afraid of the hard stuff.

At the end of WWII, England was the most advanced country in the world in terms of computer/software technology. And there were far more women in the field than men. A government edict drove the women from the discipline (actually made it semi-illegal to hold jobs in the field). Et Voila — England lost the lead and is a relative backwater.

davew

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019, at 5:13 PM, glen∈ℂ wrote:

> Yes! Along the same lines of communities policing themselves,
> pluralists are at risk of runaway relativism. I was reading this
> article
> <https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/02/smashing-the-patriarchy-why-theres-nothing-natural-about-male-supremacy> recently and was taken aback by this excerpt:
>
> > Steven Pinker, for instance, has argued that men prefer to work with “things”, whereas women prefer to work with “people”. This, he said, explains why more women work in the (low-paid) charity and healthcare sector, rather than getting PhDs in science. According to Pinker, “The occupation that fits best with the ‘people’ end of the continuum is director of a community services organisation. The occupations that fit best with the ‘things’ end are physicist, chemist, mathematician, computer programmer, and biologist.”
>
> I'm distressed by *celebrity*. But I don't draw a clear distinction
> between the cultural (aka "people") and the natural. I've forgotten who
> introduced me to it. But I like the concept of the "naturfact" ... like
> "artifact", but a found thing modified or remade by us ... partly
> synthetic, partly natural ... part thing, part "people". It's this
> mixing of the 2 categories that makes me interested in "stigmergy". One
> person's purely synthetic "city" is another person's purely natural
> habitat.
>
> When I hear people seemingly committed to an obviously incompetent and
> corrupt person like Trump, no matter what he says or does, I can't help
> but think their commitment is purely a cultural commitment. They, like
> me, don't see a sharp distinction between natural things and cultural
> things. So, since they're part of my "tribe", I feel a special
> responsibility to criticize them and argue the complement: that there
> *is* a difference between real things (like facts) versus spun
> narratives or "cults of personality" (wherein both Trump and JFK are 2
> peas in a pod, regardless of any other differences).
>
>
>
> On 11/11/19 3:26 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > The most distressing, to me, aspect of what is happening is that the discussion - rational on both sides, critical of both sides, has been reduced to a pretty much exclusive focus on one office and one individual. It is impossible to have an informative discussion about actions taken by the individual, in historical context, in terms of philosophy, policy, and context.
> >
> > I was speaking recently with a friend whose profession is political historian. She was comparing Trump and JFK with regards actions in the areas of nepotism (and generally trusting family and "cronies" over political professionals) and the intelligence community (both men spoke ill of it and ignored it). Interesting stuff, but she could not imagine such a discussion getting attention, or getting published, in today's black and white rhetorical context.
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Dave writes:

< Perhaps it is my training as a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, but I have no trouble productively engaging is "ismists" of all persuasions, often in the same day. >

My test is whether someone will play the nihilist game with me. If someone will put aside all of their values one-by-one, then there may be a mind worth engaging. But that means identifying the values, coming to agree on definitions, and that sort of thing. When that doesn't work, like because someone insists that the whole-is-more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts, then the debate can alternatively shift to the costs and benefits of that set of norms relative to another set of norms. Sometimes what happens is that the other person feels their Very Important Value System is being minimized, and they make a call for a fatwa (or similar) to be issuer or they put on their MAGA hat. Whatever. If you are interested in ethnography, be an ethnographer.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Prof David West <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 11:37 PM
To: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

Glen writes:

"And I've heard people talk about *engaging* with Trumpists and trying to tease apart whatever good or bad the ecology associated with Trump has done or not done. But I fail every time I try. How do you crack open that layered chitin an Ismist accretes around their self without killing them?"

Perhaps it is my training as a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, but I have no trouble productively engaging is "ismists" of all persuasions, often in the same day. As an anthropologist I am pretty much an absolute cultural relativist and abhor ethnocentrism. Also, I would not presume to attempt to "crack open that layered chitin" of another until and unless I had shattered my own shell.

davew

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019, at 8:00 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> On 11/11/19 10:40 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > Stopping behaviors that are counterproductive is different from promulgating a prescriptive ideology. The point is to open up space for what might work, and that which has yet to be falsified. The Trumpism behaviors are not drawn from a complex data set.
>
> Maybe not. But *how* do we open up that space for people who are dead
> set for Trump, against someone like Bill Weld or Joe Walsh? By the same
> token, how could we have opened things up for the Bernie Bros who were
> so against Clinton? Or the coming nastiness between whichever D's make
> it to the primaries?
>
> I mean, if ranked choice were more widespread, that alone would help a
> lot. The tendency to -isms is canalized by over-zealous reduction. My
> self-ascribed Christian neighbor (who doesn't seem to be a follower of
> Christ, but whatever) once gave me a book with a title like "Jesus:
> Insane, Liar, or God." The idea being that the 3 ideas were mutually
> exclusive. When Dave points out that membership in his set of
> disgruntled people isn't crisp, he's only reiterating the thread topic:
> how to integrate -isms. I made my lame attempt to talk to my neighbor
> about the Axiom of Choice, modal logics, etc. ... and of course failed
> utterly. And I've heard people talk about *engaging* with Trumpists and
> trying to tease apart whatever good or bad the ecology associated with
> Trump has done or not done. But I fail every time I try. How do you
> crack open that layered chitin an Ismist accretes around their self
> without killing them?
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

In reply to this post by David Eric Smith

No worries. I agree we need a swift kick in the ass. And I appreciated the joint repair story. Healthcare is one of the few topics that bridge political divides.

On November 11, 2019 7:31:39 PM PST, Eric Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Very very sorry Glen
>
>You said “as a people”.
>
>There was no need for my reply.
>
>E
>
>
>> On Nov 12, 2019, at 10:04 AM, Eric Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Not “as people”. As Americans. Important, I think, to acknowledge
>how malleable this is, and the role of culture (including
>institutions).
>>
>> Live by the train systems in Japan for a while, and you are smacked
>in the face by the broken culture that Americans seem to believe is an
>irredeemable human condition. Come back to a city like Atlanta, and
>the impulse to blame that “you people aren’t even trying” is all but
>irresistable. A transition back to New York is still somewhat harsh,
>but not to the same degree.
>>
>> The same can be said, for that matter, of cost control in the medical
>system. A person to whom I am connected had a ligament-replacement
>surgery done to reconstruct a joint, with a week in-hospital (because
>the Japanese hate to take unnecessary risks of anything), by a
>specialst who has trained and worked for decades in both Japan and the
>UK, and the most-caring hospital staff. It cost me 1000 dollars, and
>about 1/3 had been covered by national insurance. I think in the US,
>without coverage (which is the relevant situation in this case), a
>similar quality of treatment would have cost me more than my whole
>after-tax income for half a year.
>>
>> If those are the stress-testing cases, think of what the difference
>can be in behavior on the street, and in other ordinary interactions.
>>
>> American culture needs a hard kick in the ass, and an admonition to
>grow up, because we no longer have the slack to live like this and
>survive it. There are plenty of American people who are not the
>sources of that broken culture, and they already get kicked too much,
>so I don’t mean that. But the view that, while there are problems that
>will remain to afflict people under any case, still so much better an
>effort _can_ be made.
>>
>> I constantly think of the saying “You know the ship's only in trouble
>if the sailors stop swearing”. Probably literally not true, but makes
>a point. I wonder what it would look like if Americans woke up to
>realize that the ship is in trouble.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Steve Smith

Re: the Commons and Convenience

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

> Steve writes:
>
> < It is also hard to give up "convenience", once habituated toit. I can
> barely imagine tying up a hardwired phone line to get 300 or 1200bps
> internet service today... I think I'd probably do without somehow. I
> once walked, ran, rode my bike miles and miles to get where I needed to
> go (school, work, etc.) but now that I have been conditioned to jumping
> in a heated/AC car and driving 60-80 mph with a good quality sound
> system and dozens of radio stations, hundreds of CDs ripped to the hard
> drive and Bluetooth audio to allow me to chat with family and friends or
> do some business or listen to a podcast, I'd have a hard time even going
> back to driving 55 or having to leave my windows down to keep from
> feeling a little hot on a warm day, much less live with my own singing
> or a small handful of scratchy AM stations. >
>
> There's no need to fall back to a 300 baud. Even a small community of ~ 20k people can build a fiber optic network -- an example is my dad's town. There's no need to drive 55 mph or even drive. High speed rail in China and Japan exceed 200 mph. This is the shortsightedness and lack of imagination in individualism: To deny or not even notice that many people have the same exact needs you do.

I'm not suggesting we need to fall back to any of those things, just
reminding myself that my expectations tend to grow monotonically but
conveniences do not, they are often herky-jerky. Technology for the
most part is a "ratchet", barring an apocalypse, we don't generally
lose or forget what we have learned technologically, but we DO seem to
forget (and have a hard time relearning) the social/cultural things we
apparently once knew.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: the Commons and Convenience

I know that's true for me. It seems so foreign to me to watch a movie or read a book set before the 1990s, where someone have to park their car to try to find a phone booth in order to make a phone call.

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 9:52 AM Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Steve writes:
>
> < It is also hard to give up "convenience", once habituated toit. I can
> barely imagine tying up a hardwired phone line to get 300 or 1200bps
> internet service today... I think I'd probably do without somehow. I
> once walked, ran, rode my bike miles and miles to get where I needed to
> go (school, work, etc.) but now that I have been conditioned to jumping
> in a heated/AC car and driving 60-80 mph with a good quality sound
> system and dozens of radio stations, hundreds of CDs ripped to the hard
> drive and Bluetooth audio to allow me to chat with family and friends or
> do some business or listen to a podcast, I'd have a hard time even going
> back to driving 55 or having to leave my windows down to keep from
> feeling a little hot on a warm day, much less live with my own singing
> or a small handful of scratchy AM stations. >
>
> There's no need to fall back to a 300 baud. Even a small community of ~ 20k people can build a fiber optic network -- an example is my dad's town. There's no need to drive 55 mph or even drive. High speed rail in China and Japan exceed 200 mph. This is the shortsightedness and lack of imagination in individualism: To deny or not even notice that many people have the same exact needs you do.

I'm not suggesting we need to fall back to any of those things, just
reminding myself that my expectations tend to grow monotonically but
conveniences do not, they are often herky-jerky. Technology for the
most part is a "ratchet", barring an apocalypse, we don't generally
lose or forget what we have learned technologically, but we DO seem to
forget (and have a hard time relearning) the social/cultural things we
apparently once knew.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

cracking cosmic eggs (was: capitalism vs. individualism)

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Well, to be clear, I have no trouble engaging people outside any of my categories. I even "code switch" subconsciously, especially when hanging out with my old crowd of right wing white trash back in Texas. The problem isn't engaging. The problem is cracking their cosmic eggs [†].

And I definitely do NOT share your reticence about cracking others' eggs without first cracking my own. This is the heart of *we*. My friends most likely know me better than I know myself. And I believe it's *their* duty to crack my egg as often as they can and vice versa. To *wait* until you have no chance of being a hypocrite before you act is a form of "analysis paralysis" ... or more pretentiously: the perfect is the enemy of the good.

[†] And it's really *only* with respect to particular political issues. I've cracked many of their eggs regarding abortion and gun control with various arguments from biology and ... of all things ... Aristotle's 4 types of cause, respectively. But I simply cannot crack any w.r.t. to Trump. I think it's partly because Trump disgusts me so much. It's difficult to empathize with his supporters. I did have some success in my recent trip to England, though. There was a Brexiteer I *may* have cracked at least a bit with my discussion of Trump and BoJo. I'll never see that guy again... so who knows?

On 11/11/19 10:37 PM, Prof David West wrote:
> Perhaps it is my training as a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, but I have no trouble productively engaging is "ismists" of all persuasions, often in the same day. As an anthropologist I am pretty much an absolute cultural relativist and abhor ethnocentrism. Also, I would not presume to attempt to "crack open that layered chitin" of another until and unless I had shattered my own shell.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: cracking cosmic eggs (was: capitalism vs. individualism)

Glen writes:

< There was a Brexiteer I *may* have cracked at least a bit with my discussion of Trump and BoJo. I'll never see that guy again... so who knows? >

That's the easiest situation, like at a professional conference dinner. It is easy to play pretend in a situation where you have an incentive to keep things light, and with people who you probably won't ever have to talk to again. On the other end of the spectrum are relatives. There you have all too much persistence and context.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: the Commons and Convenience

In reply to this post by Carl Tollander

Thanks for the link to the Stengers book. Re: your idea that we *could* learn from marketing tricks like bells on slot machines or the hooks that keep us glued to phones to encourage good behavior ... like a carbon offset app that rewards you every time you substitute meat for seitan or Impossible, take a bike instead of a car, ride a train, etc. Surely someone, somewhere is doing that.

On 11/11/19 8:36 PM, Carl Tollander wrote:
> I find that if I have a more economical vehicle, that I'm somehow motivated to drive more. " Fuel Economy" may here be more of a dimensional collapse to a more easily apprehended category. Anyhow....
>
> Why is that? The hybrid car (RAV4 hybrid) will gradually train me, via feedback availability ("look how 'our" regenerative braking is working, hey, don't watch the dash screen too much") and tiny rewards ("good work, your eco score is 80, try to work on your acceleration") to drive in a certain way. I can see that happening, and that I'm slightly uncomfy about being so trainable, but yes, at 50MPG I feel somewhat virtuous, even if I am driving 25 up Agua Fria. Works better than the "Your Speed" implied threat of a ticket devices placed around the city. Not unlike being glued to a phone screen.
>
> Despite all that, I suspect people rebel at things that are good for the commons because they dislike the idea of giving up some notion of their free will as a consequence of (even indirectly) serving the commons.
>
> In a similar vein, I find myself reading Isabelle Stengers these days, alas in many respects because I am an English major and am easily attracted to (deceived by?) interesting usage of commas. http://openhumanitiespress.org/books/download/Stengers_2015_In-Catastrophic-Times.pdf . I used to enjoy Thomas Carlyle, on the other end of the political spectrum, and the rhythm of the prose is, seems to me, similar.

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Nick Thompson

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

All,

But doesn’t all this relativist talk beg the fundamental issue:

This conversation goes on, can go on only within the framework of a liberal (broadest sense, please) democracy.

Under what circumstances, under a liberal democracy, am I called to defend it?

Has that time come?

What tools, under a liberal democracy, are available to me to defend it?

What personal sacrifices must I make in its defense.

I suppose, if the answer to all these questions is never, no, none, and none, then we can go on talking in this relativistic way forever. But somehow it feels a bit like we’re whistling by the graveyard. Or continuing to play croquet on the deck of a rocking ship whose cannons have come loose.

For instance, the current international conversation on “responsibility” in the “digital space” is harrowing. I have no idea how to handle it, yet it will get handled, and we will live with the consequences.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 1:33 AM
To: Prof David West <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

Dave writes:

< Perhaps it is my training as a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, but I have no trouble productively engaging is "ismists" of all persuasions, often in the same day. >

Marcus

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

The National Socialist German Workers' Party came to power by a federal election holding just 37% percent of the Reichstag.

Workers’ party, hmmm: Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, West Virginia..

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 5:21 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>, 'Prof David West' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

All,

But doesn’t all this relativist talk beg the fundamental issue:

This conversation goes on, can go on only within the framework of a liberal (broadest sense, please) democracy.

Under what circumstances, under a liberal democracy, am I called to defend it?

Has that time come?

What tools, under a liberal democracy, are available to me to defend it?

What personal sacrifices must I make in its defense.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

Dave writes:

< Perhaps it is my training as a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, but I have no trouble productively engaging is "ismists" of all persuasions, often in the same day. >

Marcus

Prof David West

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

Nick - "all this relativist talk" ?? Not sure what you are referring to.

Also, what parts of the responsibility in digital space conversation do you find harrowing and why?

While waiting for your response, a reflection on your questions:

1) If you value "a liberal democracy" and perceive it to be at risk, you are called on to defend it in direct proportion to its degree of value up to and including life, fortune, and sacred honor.

2) Whether the time has come, is your question to decide and act upon, for yourself. If you are wondering if a cohort of individuals with similar perceptions and values exists and if that cohort might benefit from overt association and collective action, that is quite a different issue and question.

4) Personal sacrifices up to and including the last phrase of response 1), plus the quite important sacrifice of accepting that you might be fundamentally wrong; i.e. you might have to sacrifice your values, your "truths."

3) Tools? Ah, there's the rub. In a very real sense, there are no tools. Whatever tool you use, whatever act you take; by definition, will change the very thing you are "defending" — just as the act of observation determines wave or particle. You might create a spectrum of harm; tools that will destroy the "liberal democracy" (the AK-47, the arrogance of the "woke," the absurdity of the "cancel culture") to those tools that interfere the least (mild persuasion, shining example) and choose among them as suits you.

Reading between the lines of your comment and question set, in the context of the Trump-Brexit-Nationalism-Fundamentalism-Planet-Melting conversation at large — my diagnosis is the the world (and our liberal democracy) is suffering from an extreme overdose of "Truth." (You might remember my screed, of a year ago, about the Evil Truth and the terrorism of 'rational discussion'.)

Two possible cures: teach everyone to speak and think-in a language that does not include a copula; or, have everyone experience a threshold dose of LSD or DMT.

davew

On Wed, Nov 13, 2019, at 2:21 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

All,

But doesn’t all this relativist talk beg the fundamental issue:

This conversation goes on, can go on only within the framework of a liberal (broadest sense, please) democracy.

Under what circumstances, under a liberal democracy, am I called to defend it?
Has that time come?
What tools, under a liberal democracy, are available to me to defend it?
What personal sacrifices must I make in its defense.

I suppose, if the answer to all these questions is never, no, none, and none, then we can go on talking in this relativistic way forever. But somehow it feels a bit like we’re whistling by the graveyard. Or continuing to play croquet on the deck of a rocking ship whose cannons have come loose.

For instance, the current international conversation on “responsibility” in the “digital space” is harrowing. I have no idea how to handle it, yet it will get handled, and we will live with the consequences.

Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2019 1:33 AM
To: Prof David West <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

Dave writes:

< Perhaps it is my training as a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, but I have no trouble productively engaging is "ismists" of all persuasions, often in the same day. >

My test is whether someone will play the nihilist game with me. If someone will put aside all of their values one-by-one, then there may be a mind worth engaging. But that means identifying the values, coming to agree on definitions, and that sort of thing. When that doesn't work, like because someone insists that the whole-is-more-than-the-sum-of-its-parts, then the debate can alternatively shift to the costs and benefits of that set of norms relative to another set of norms. Sometimes what happens is that the other person feels their Very Important Value System is being minimized, and they make a call for a fatwa (or similar) to be issuer or they put on their MAGA hat. Whatever. If you are interested in ethnography, be an ethnographer.

Marcus

From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Prof David West <[hidden email]>
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 11:37 PM
To: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] capitalism vs. individualism

Glen writes:

"And I've heard people talk about *engaging* with Trumpists and trying to tease apart whatever good or bad the ecology associated with Trump has done or not done. But I fail every time I try. How do you crack open that layered chitin an Ismist accretes around their self without killing them?"

Perhaps it is my training as a cultural anthropologist and ethnographer, but I have no trouble productively engaging is "ismists" of all persuasions, often in the same day. As an anthropologist I am pretty much an absolute cultural relativist and abhor ethnocentrism. Also, I would not presume to attempt to "crack open that layered chitin" of another until and unless I had shattered my own shell.

davew

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019, at 8:00 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:

> On 11/11/19 10:40 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > Stopping behaviors that are counterproductive is different from promulgating a prescriptive ideology. The point is to open up space for what might work, and that which has yet to be falsified. The Trumpism behaviors are not drawn from a complex data set.
>
> Maybe not. But *how* do we open up that space for people who are dead
> set for Trump, against someone like Bill Weld or Joe Walsh? By the same
> token, how could we have opened things up for the Bernie Bros who were
> so against Clinton? Or the coming nastiness between whichever D's make
> it to the primaries?
>
> I mean, if ranked choice were more widespread, that alone would help a
> lot. The tendency to -isms is canalized by over-zealous reduction. My
> self-ascribed Christian neighbor (who doesn't seem to be a follower of
> Christ, but whatever) once gave me a book with a title like "Jesus:
> Insane, Liar, or God." The idea being that the 3 ideas were mutually
> exclusive. When Dave points out that membership in his set of
> disgruntled people isn't crisp, he's only reiterating the thread topic:
> how to integrate -isms. I made my lame attempt to talk to my neighbor
> about the Axiom of Choice, modal logics, etc. ... and of course failed
> utterly. And I've heard people talk about *engaging* with Trumpists and
> trying to tease apart whatever good or bad the ecology associated with
> Trump has done or not done. But I fail every time I try. How do you
> crack open that layered chitin an Ismist accretes around their self
> without killing them?
>
> --
> ☣ uǝlƃ
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Circling back to things I missed. This has always irritated me. What, pragmatically, is the difference between property and "the means of production"? Sure, I know there's a body of mental gymnastics surrounding the difference. But it strikes me as an arbitrary distinction. Any privately owned *thing* can be included in the means of production. It's a difference of degree, not kind. Owning 1 screw driver gives you a little production potential. Owning a million of them gives you lots of production potential (though, admittedly, the scaling isn't linear).

So, what pragmatic reason is there to make the distinction you make here?

On 11/6/19 4:08 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Glen loosely defines capitalism as *private ownership of property* but i want to further refine it to be private ownership of *the means of production*, ...
--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

Glen writes:

"So, what pragmatic reason is there to make the distinction you make here?"

HR often departments act as if the feature space for skills can be represented as a binary vector associated with a given candidate. That resource is a thing they try to acquire and will get rid of when they no longer need it. A rich enough company might even hold on to such resources just so that another company couldn't get it. They aren't as bald-faced as calling their employees property though. They don't hesitate to use terms like "intellectual property", however.

On 11/6/19 4:08 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Glen loosely defines capitalism as *private ownership of property* but i want to further refine it to be private ownership of *the means of production*, ...
--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

Apparently encoding words can be done by my *fingers* -- I can type them correctly but nonetheless insert them out of order. That's kind of wild.

On 11/14/19, 3:45 PM, "Marcus Daniels" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Glen writes:

"So, what pragmatic reason is there to make the distinction you make here?"

HR often departments act as if the feature space for skills can be represented as a binary vector associated with a given candidate. That resource is a thing they try to acquire and will get rid of when they no longer need it. A rich enough company might even hold on to such resources just so that another company couldn't get it. They aren't as bald-faced as calling their employees property though. They don't hesitate to use terms like "intellectual property", however.

On 11/6/19 4:08 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
> Glen loosely defines capitalism as *private ownership of property* but i want to further refine it to be private ownership of *the means of production*, ...
--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Steve Smith

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

In reply to this post by gepr

> Circling back to things I missed. This has always irritated me. What, pragmatically, is the difference between property and "the means of production"? Sure, I know there's a body of mental gymnastics surrounding the difference. But it strikes me as an arbitrary distinction. Any privately owned *thing* can be included in the means of production. It's a difference of degree, not kind. Owning 1 screw driver gives you a little production potential. Owning a million of them gives you lots of production potential (though, admittedly, the scaling isn't linear).
>
> So, what pragmatic reason is there to make the distinction you make here?

I think this is a fair question.   Perhaps the dead lizard I just killed
in the dilly bag around my waist is *mine all mine* but the throwing
stick I used to kill it, which gives me the ability to kill lizards
before anyone else in my tribe can is perhaps the pragmatic
difference?   Fundamentally it has to do with whether "the group" can
"afford" for some members to have/take significant advantage over "the
commons" whether that be by technological leverage (throwing stick,
plantation, factory, or national railway system) or force of law (laws
and law enforcement contrived to protect "private property" vs "citizens
health and well being") or more organic aspects (being bigger, faster,
more aggressive than others).

I use these extreme examples, only for illustration.   I'm not
advocating the kind of handicapping parodied in Vonnegut's Harrison
Bergeron, just suggesting that maintaining an extended phenotype through
the principle of private ownership isn't (qualitatively) the same as A)
literal hoarding (gathering all the lizards up in a region) or B)
potential hoarding (establishing and maintaining the ability to gather
them so much more efficiently than others so as to effectively hoard them).

>
> On 11/6/19 4:08 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:
>> Glen loosely defines capitalism as *private ownership of property* but i want to further refine it to be private ownership of *the means of production*, ...

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: capitalism vs. individualism

In response to both MGD and SAS:

OK. But again we're arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin, right? It's like distinguishing between objects and processes, nodes and edges. Property implies a kind of control and vice versa. So, whether you "own a means" or "control a thing" is irrelevant. It's the *privacy* that's the distinguisher, not the thing that is private.

This goes back to concepts of "closure", I suppose. If you kill just enough lizards to feed your family for a month, that's one thing. But if you somehow finagle your way into preventing others from having enough lizards to feed their family for that month, that's another thing. So, the closure of privacy or, better yet, the closure of control is the leveragable distinction.

On 11/14/19 3:45 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> HR often departments act as if the feature space for skills can be represented as a binary vector associated with a given candidate. That resource is a thing they try to acquire and will get rid of when they no longer need it. A rich enough company might even hold on to such resources just so that another company couldn't get it. They aren't as bald-faced as calling their employees property though. They don't hesitate to use terms like "intellectual property", however.

On 11/14/19 3:50 PM, Steven A Smith wrote:

> I think this is a fair question.   Perhaps the dead lizard I just killed
> in the dilly bag around my waist is *mine all mine* but the throwing
> stick I used to kill it, which gives me the ability to kill lizards
> before anyone else in my tribe can is perhaps the pragmatic
> difference?   Fundamentally it has to do with whether "the group" can
> "afford" for some members to have/take significant advantage over "the
> commons" whether that be by technological leverage (throwing stick,
> plantation, factory, or national railway system) or force of law (laws
> and law enforcement contrived to protect "private property" vs "citizens
> health and well being") or more organic aspects (being bigger, faster,
> more aggressive than others).
>
> I use these extreme examples, only for illustration.   I'm not
> advocating the kind of handicapping parodied in Vonnegut's Harrison
> Bergeron, just suggesting that maintaining an extended phenotype through
> the principle of private ownership isn't (qualitatively) the same as A)
> literal hoarding (gathering all the lizards up in a region) or B)
> potential hoarding (establishing and maintaining the ability to gather
> them so much more efficiently than others so as to effectively hoard them).

--
☣ uǝlƃ

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

1234567