posted on February 24, 2018 04:12 AM by
u/queerbees
22
u/queerbees20 pointsat 1519446211.000000
Seriously, this gem! If I could have, I would have just put the whole
quote in the title:
One of the biggest misconceptions I had with the social justice /
critical theory space was thinking it was analogous to physics – in the
same way that thermodynamics is grounded in statistical mechanics, I
assumed that all of these social theorists’ prescriptions for society
were fundamentally grounded in a particular theory of ethics.
But when I try to dig into the literature, it seems that’s not the
case – patriarchy and oppression actually seem to be their terminal
values. I would say that a man just walking around town with a toolchest
is absolutely perpetuating patriarchial symbolism to some extent, but
that doesn’t make me decry this action.
But I have to say, I really feel better understood now.
But the thing that’s even better is this buried
lede:
This is a bit tangential, but while I generally like Musk and am a
big supporter of space exploration, I thought his launching of one of
his own cars out there was pretty… vulgar? Tacky might be a better word?
Whichever. Maybe I’m just too delicate, but it saddens me in a small way
to think that, several billion years from now when the expanding Sun has
scoured all life from the Earth, one of the only remaining legacies of
humanity’s existence is going to be that dumb car, just floating out
there for eternity.
I feel like for the first time I actually get just a sliver of the
rational logic: yeah, I do think it’s dark that after our
extinction when the earth burns up, Musk’s stupid car orbiting past Mars
will be among our last monuments. Eww. So embarrassed. Sorry future
aliens, I hope this reddit comment get’s in an extraterrestrial archive
somehow:
“Sorry, I wish I could say that we were a more complicated
self-consuming race—not just a bunch of dirty consumerists. –QB.”
If it wasn’t a car, it would have just been a lump of metal. They had to launch *some* test payload because it was a *test flight*. At least a car is cool and something we can meme. It’s really not that much of a waste when you compare it to everything that goes into making a rocket.
So, again, they should be sneered at.
What’s more interesting to me is the development of using thermodynamics to meme bad ideas. Keep an eye on that trend.
It was a tacky media stunt that demonstrates just how corupting consumer capitalism is---our trash is now heading the direction of the asteroid belt. At least the Voyager probes, as tiny and insignificant as they are, had some class.
> At least the Voyager probes, as tiny and insignificant as they are, had some class.
This. They might not have succeeded at depicting humanity free of their own cultural baggage, but they *tried*. And they got a whole lot closer than what amounts to a giant spaceborne flashing neon sign saying "HELLO ALIENS, ELON IS THE MONKEY WITH THE BIGGEST GENITALIA."
And really, "Don't Panic"? Don't get me wrong, it's a *good* sci-fi reference, but shouldn't our best and brightest have something meaningful and original to say? Or should we just put a plaque on Mars saying "the cake is a lie" next?
It's space exploration as envisioned by *Rick & Morty* fans.
> It's space exploration as envisioned by Rick & Morty fans.
That's a good sneer. This is our culture now: cars in space and riots at McDonalds. I don't think we'll ever get to *Blade Runner* dystopia at this pace.
It’s clear that Sagan et al. were too good for the time. No one will ever top the nostalgia and beauty of voyager.
That being said, I wouldn’t compare a Falcon Heavy test flight (historically, rocket tests always used boring [boilerplate](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boilerplate_(spaceflight)) to NASA’s Flagship programs. That’s a bit unfair, isn’t it? If anything, SpaceX pushed the envelope simply by putting something up there besides a lump of cold rolled steel, which would be a typical payload for a mission where the primary purpose is to test rocket functionality. Remember, the Heavy is a new rocket. No one flies real payloads on test flights. That would involve too much risk.
The kabbalistic implications of a culturally-free monument to the shared history of humanity burning in a failed experimental rocket launch are immense.
A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face and arms began to swell.
(and Whitey's on the moon)
I can't pay no doctor bill.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
Ten years from now I'll be payin' still.
(while Whitey's on the moon)
The man jus' upped my rent las' night.
('cause Whitey's on the moon)
No hot water, no toilets, no lights.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
I wonder why he's uppi' me?
('cause Whitey's on the moon?)
I was already payin' 'im fifty a week.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Taxes takin' my whole damn check,
Junkies makin' me a nervous wreck,
The price of food is goin' up,
An' as if all that shit wasn't enough
A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face an' arm began to swell.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
Was all that money I made las' year
(for Whitey on the moon?)
How come there ain't no money here?
(Hm! Whitey's on the moon)
Y'know I jus' 'bout had my fill
(of Whitey on the moon)
I think I'll sen' these doctor bills,
Airmail special
(to Whitey on the moon)
I agree with the sentiment, but the government choosing not to fund healthcare has nothing to do with the government choosing to fund aerospace.
It could fund both. It just chooses not to. Why? I’m not an expert on the debate, but it just seems like the usual posturing and gridlock in Washington. In truth, one does not come at the expense of the other, because we have the resources for both.
In other words, I don’t see how Musk launching rockets (which NASA, Boeing, Lockheed, and dozens of other companies and firms have done, many thousands of times) stops the government from moving to single payer. It’s more or less a lack of political will and a dysfunctional system along with legions of misinformed voters, isn’t it?
No it cannot fund both. Pursuing space travel to the extent that the fuckernauts and astrobastards of silicon valley and rationalist communities want would involve astronomical spending, possibly rivalling that of the US already grotesque military budget. Our resources aren't unlimited and the more we spend shooting rockets into space and missiles into middle Eastern cities is money taken out of infrastructure and welfare.
**Definitely!** A lump of metal is *much* preferable than a vanity ad for his ego and his pet company. The lump of metal wouldn't be actively damaging for our culture.
You don't have to do it with a lump of metal, of course. The number of things better than an advertisement are **literally infinite**. Anyone could come up with better ideas at the drop of a hat. You could hire a local artist to make a metal sculpture, pregnant with symbolism. Or you could ask children to send in their drawings & dreams, engrave them into plates, and put them all in a big space treasure chest! You could make a new Rosetta Stone with the world's major languages, ancient and new; then, if humankind ends up collapsing but leaves artifacts, and in the future people/aliens/evolved nuclear cockroaches find this, they'll have the key to most languages as long as they could decipher a single one (assuming that's possible). Or, if you're an utilitarian, you could make an auction; the winner gets to choose an object (up to X kg) to send to space, and the money is sent to charity.
We would look towards space, imagine a thing of beauty out there, and be inspired. Instead, we get to cringe.
It used to be the case that this kind of cultural, artistic, humanitarian project would be *a given* for space exploration. That we've decayed to the point where they're not even *considered*, and polluting the space with *ego boasting* and *advertisements* is considered to be a reasonable choice, is a sure sign of how rotten has late-stage capitalism become. And what's most depressing is that this kind of cultural shift happens in fits and starts; just like Trump being elected moved the entire Overton window racism-wise in one big jerk, Elon's stunt celebrates the triumph of crass commercialism, and in doing so, makes our culture *even more* prey to consumerism.
How about some sort of payload of human culture---maybe a symbol to assuage those of us far more grounded that Mars won't become Musk's own little Belgian Congo. So... how about 7,000 copies of Donna Haraway's *Simians, Cyborgs and Women* that contains her seminal essay "A Cyborg Manifesto."
Then someone complains about the wastefulness of launching such useful materials into outer space. Or someone complains about the trees that were cut down to make the books.
If you’re pragmatic, you look at the situation and realize that all you’re doing is showing a capability to launch a payload into geostationary orbit or beyond. And you realize that, in a way, SpaceX funds Tesla (after all, SpaceX bought Tesla bonds). So SpaceX launching a Tesla into orbit is poetic.
It’s also a marketing gimmick for Musk, sure. You know how the game is played and why he has to do that, so no need to dwell on that point. You might also critique him for how he treats his workers—I’ve heard a few stories and they could even be completely true. You might also be upset that the primary customer for SpaceX is the USA government (because that includes the DoD, in addition to NASA and NOAA, which means not just scientific and climate research, but also military spacecraft).
But all of these criticisms are tangential to the mission itself. So, for that reason, I’m still going to say that launching the car is more poetic and fun than a lump of metal or 7,000 copies of a culturally relevant science fiction novel. Because, basically, given their situation, they had to launch *something* representative of a vehicle. So they used a vehicle—just a terrestrial one.
> So SpaceX launching a Tesla into orbit is poetic.
This is so telling it makes me cry.
As to your third paragraph: [are you actually shilling for this article?](https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/patriarchal-race-colonize-mars-just-another-example-male-entitlement-ncna849681) Because if you are, tell me where to sign up so I can be paid too.
> ...7,000 copies of a culturally relevant science fiction novel.
....how quickly the "sneerer" becomes the sneered. You can go [expletive deleted] yourself for being either too dumb to know who Donna Haraway is, or too much of an asshole, making "smart" shade. (And here it isn't even the problem that you called it sci-fi---sci-fi is great! Stopped-clock Musk has his hour hand pointed directly at that genre. But to call the book a *novel*, well... I will just repeat myself: "go [expletive deleted] yourself.")
----
Anyways, we're getting away from topic by letting you fumble the way: I don't think the rocket should have been launched at all. I don't think another space race is good. I think it distracts the small minds from the real problems with fantasies about... I don't know, *Gor* on Mars. That's what the Tesla is: 7,000 tacky copies of John Norman's *Gor* floating near the outer solar system. **Poetic**.
Okay, so now the truth comes out: you’re anti-consumption. That’s fine. Maybe, as a species, we’re not wise enough to be focused on such goals as spaceflight at this point in civilization. That’s a noble, albeit, idealistic position to take (sort of like asking a smoker not to smoke after putting a fresh pack of cigarettes on the table in front of them). But I’m there with you: conserving resources is smart, and directing them to the needy is smarter, rather them burning them just because they’re in front of us and we have the ability to do it.
But that has nothing to do with choosing a payload for this mission, which is all I’m saying. I’m actually with you on most of what you argue here.
But, listen, you’re also emotional. Just relax, it’s fine. Or sneer at me, I don’t care. You don’t know me, and you’re extrapolating from a single conversation on what the best payload for a test rocket is that somehow I’m a complete asshole, which really makes no sense (you’re speaking a feminist, anti-libertarian, vegan right now, by the way).
So here’s me sneering back at you for being so obtuse that you can’t even entertain a debate without going for the jugular. Notice that not once did I ever insult you or make a personal attack (unless you count the obtuse sentence, which really isn’t much of an insult).
Edit: Since the context was science fiction like*Hitchhikers*, I thought you’d reference a sci-if book. You mentioned Cyborg and I confused it with the half century older anti-slavery pro-equality work *Universal Robots*, which I haven’t read in a long time—probably 25 years.
Along these lines, I think it’s funny you thought ‘science fiction’ as a label is a pejorative. I feel science fiction doesn’t deserve the low class status it often gets in the world of art and culture, or the world of writing.
In reply to your edit and [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/7zu7oe/mystery_of_feminism_solved_in_the_same_way_that/durgxfa/?context=6).
----
> You mentioned Cyborg and I confused it with the half century older anti-slavery pro-equality work Universal Robots, which I haven’t read in a long time—probably 25 years.
You mean the play, *R.U.R.*? It's a really classic piece of work, not a bad piece of culture IMHO. But its kinda dark, and I don't think it can quite stand as a testament or commitment towards a better future. (Though, it would be telling of the kind of feudalistic future that can be expected from the "indentured employees" of Musk's *SpaceX Colony 001: The Blade Runner Rip-off*.)
I spoke of "A Cyborg Manifesto" explicitly for specific reasons, because it is about a certain kind of commitments to equality in the future. It was not a flippant recommendation---as if I thought the choice of payload was *meaningless*. In fact, it seems like this is what you've been imputing to my statements: that the choice of payload is meaningless. But that's been the exact opposite of what I've tried to convey: the *consumerist symbol* of the cherry red 2008 Tesla® Roadster™ is pregnant with meaning---meaning that very much bothers me to my moral core.
Well, I have to drop in one more time, because this is a really good comment.
Just to elaborate on what you said, and maybe point to a way to ameliorate the situation, I’m not surprised SpaceX employees or anyone with a technical background would view something like a test rocket payload as meaningless. Why would they see deep meaning? After all, engineers and STEM folks don’t actually receive humanities educations, and they’re often oblivious to culture, art, history, and a number of subjects.
Maybe 10 credits out of 130+ are going to be humanities for someone in STEM. This leaves them vulnerable to all kinds of blunders, from being sucked in by Russian propaganda (because they have no idea how anything works unless it’s a machine and the Dunning-Kruger effect runs wild because they all think they’re smarter than they really are), to falling for the decoy of MRAs, among other problems (like Facebook and Google engineers failing to predict how the ads could be gamed by foreign adversaries to coerce the public into electing President Donny Two-Scoops).
It leads to r/SneerClub to laugh at them for these exact reasons.
By the way, I’m working through *A Cyborg Manifesto* today, but it’s been challenging because I’m not familiar with so many of the referenced works and ideas. This is an advanced piece for someone in my position (business / STEM / economics background).
Anyways, talking with you has been frustrating, but enlightening. Thanks for ending it on this comment.
> Okay, so now the truth comes out: you’re anti-consumption.
Wow, [never again let it be said that anons on the internet are unobservant](https://www.reddit.com/r/SneerClub/comments/7zu7oe/mystery_of_feminism_solved_in_the_same_way_that/duqt0g2/).
Anti-consumption is much further than anti-consumerist, which is the quote you referenced.
My point is about the payload and you keep bringing it back to the anti-consumption thing, so I finally had to address it head on: This payload thing is a bad example for what you’re trying to say about consumption, that’s all. It’s nonsensical. Maybe if you elaborated instead of leaving a random (apparently un-related) quote, I would be more clear on what you’re writing about?
You’re so focused on winning and promoting your ideals, that you miss the nuance of a conversation, like how the payload would be more vulgar if it was just a inert lump of formless metal. It would arguably be more vulgar if it was 7,000 copies of *A Cyborg Manifesto*.
**What’s worse is we haven’t even gotten to dwell on the most fascinating aspect which is trolls / shills (Russian?) using thermodynamics as a wedge to get more humanities education lacking STEMlords on their side.**
Edit: Great, now I’m restricted on this sub due to downvotes. I’ll show myself the door—clearly I’m not invited here. You rejected one of your own FYI. I’m sorry I’m only 98% on your side.
> This payload thing is a bad example for what you’re trying to say about consumption, that’s all. It’s nonsensical.
What is the thing I am trying to say about consumption???
:) :) :) :) :)
That's not what I was trying to say about consumption. How can you say you're 98% on my side when you don't know what my side is?
Your vacillation between being conciliatory and being affronted, I have to ask: what common point of value or knowledge did you think was the bridge of understanding here? You earlier tell me I'm "emotional," that I'm don’t know you, and I'm "extrapolating from a single conversation." But, if you're being honest here, I only extrapolated (di-polated?) from your Haraway gaff---that calling *Simians, Cyborgs and Women*, which "contains her seminal **essay** 'A Cyborg Manifesto,'" a novel evinces an amount of ignorance or malice. I've said nothing more beyond that about you, personally. Sure, I've sneered (as I like to do) here at the absurdity of Tesla cars in orbit---and as the defending attorney in this case, your arguments have been treated with strict sneers.
But if it is, as you say, that we are 98% on the same side---a side you would necessarily have to extrapolate from this single conversation---then what is this 98%-side we share? We are now below the fold, and the prosecution rests her case.
I haven’t formally studied feminism and I confused it with *Universal Robots*. I resorted to google and admit my gaff. The 98% thing was just me being salty about arguing with you. I wish I wasn’t. Anyways, I’m leaving, I’ll let further replies hang.
> A mistake made by all the city planners is to consider the private automobile (and its by-products, such as the motorcycle) as essentially a means of transportation. In reality, it is the most notable material symbol of the notion of happiness that developed capitalism tends to spread throughout the society. The automobile is at the center of this general propaganda, both as supreme good of an alienated life and as essential product of the capitalist market: It is generally being said this year that American economic prosperity is soon going to depend on the success of the slogan “Two cars per family.”
Guy Debord, Situationist International #3
> So... how about 7,000 copies of Donna Haraway's Simians, Cyborgs and Women that contains her seminal essay "A Cyborg Manifesto."
I've read the Cyborg Manifesto, and some of Haraway's other work besides, and I've got to say I don't think she'd be a good choice. Not because she doesn't deserve honor among engineers- she does- but because her philosophy in particular in many ways sets itself in opposition to that of SpaceX. These days she's big on- well, the title of her most recent book is "Staying with the Trouble" (which I haven't read in full, so please correct me if I'm misapprehending). SpaceX is explicitly about not *having* to stay with the trouble- of having another option if we fuck this planet up too bad. To put her work on the Falcon... it would feel almost like mockery, to me.
---
And in spite of those difference I feel like she's probably more on Musk's side than yours, here. To quote the Manifesto:
"Modern machinery is an irreverent upstart god, mocking the Father's ubiquity and spirituality."
She was never into your brand of reverence. And she was never into mockery either, especially of the people actually out there building the future.
Besides, she's always loved scifi. I can't help but imagine she got a kick out of [this](https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a7a2e38136ec51f038b4931-640-372.png).
> (which I haven't read in full, so please correct me if I'm misapprehending)
You're misapprehending.
> And in spite of those difference I feel like she's probably more on Musk's side than yours,
You're misapprehending again.
Point being they're doing just the same that you are doing, looking for the stupidest possible example of the other and having big old circlejerk around it.
Seriously, this gem! If I could have, I would have just put the whole quote in the title:
But I have to say, I really feel better understood now.
But the thing that’s even better is this buried lede:
I feel like for the first time I actually get just a sliver of the rational logic: yeah, I do think it’s dark that after our extinction when the earth burns up, Musk’s stupid car orbiting past Mars will be among our last monuments. Eww. So embarrassed. Sorry future aliens, I hope this reddit comment get’s in an extraterrestrial archive somehow:
“Sorry, I wish I could say that we were a more complicated self-consuming race—not just a bunch of dirty consumerists. –QB.”
All failing companies should just launch their shit into space.
“The patriarchal race to colonize Mars is just another example of male entitlement” isn’t exactly Beauvoir either, to be honest.