Apparently Davis Aurini is capable of sometimes telling the truth.
As you may recall, the bald, semi-Nazi stain on humanity released his version of The Sarkeesian Effect (that was officially not his version of The Sarkeesian Effect) last week to something less than universal acclaim, with one critic describing the “film” as “worse than a dead squirrel in your wall.”
Ok, that was me.
Weirdly, it turns out that Aurini actually agrees with some of my criticisms. While still maintaining that his not-version of The Sarkeesian Effect is a “damn good film,” he admitted on a livestream last night that the section of his film critiquing Anita Sarkeesian’s alleged lies was “crap.”
He then suggested it would have been much better … if he’d actually watched Sarkeesian’s videos.
Yep. He spent a year — and tens of thousands of dollars of other people’s money — ostensibly making a film about Sarkeesian. But somehow he never got around to watching any of her videos.
ETHICS!
You can hear the whole segment on “Bechtloff’s Saturday Night Livestream: Secret Crisis of the Infinity Hour” on Youtube here. (The link should take you to the relevant portion of the livestrean, which starts just short of an hour and twenty minutes in.)
Here are the highlights.
In this first clip, Aurini responds to someone with a question about his attacks on Sarkeesian’s alleged dishonesty.
This clip ends a bit abruptly because Aurini was cut off by Bechtloff before finishing his sentence. Luckily, he went on to elaborate on his point. And threw in in a racial slur while he was at it, because why not?
And here he admits he didn’t bother to watch Sarkeesian’s videos.
It’s about ethics in making an entire film about someone without actually knowing anything about them.
EDITED TO ADD:
We Hunted the Mammoth has obtained this footage of Davis Aurini as a child.
H/T — Thanks to the alert reader who pointed me to the relevant section of the livestream.
I don’t like the creat of his jib.
That’s just because you’re a know nothing-quack-addict.
You know, I feel like galt seems a little butthurt. You must have hit a nerve, PI! Good job!
…Who walked? The octopus? And how could you slip in shit if you were in a tree? I have so many questions.
I’m also fascinated to hear how that last comment was in your rational self-interest. You weren’t getting paid for that one either, you know.
I’ll fill in some of the details of libertarian utopia, since Galt doesn’t seem to have studied his own philosophy.
Money wouldn’t exist. We would go back to a gold standard which magically would work because gold values itself. There would also be trade and bartering.
Contracts would be enforced by pointing to one’s private army. There would be literally no point even having a contract other than flashing it to other people as evidence that there was an agreement. Just flashing it to random people on the street. I mean random people on the ground, where there would be a street in a less dysfunctional society.
Instead of the semi-civilized court system we have now, people would simply do what they could get away with. The person with the biggest local army would be like a demigod dictator with no limit to their power.
Of course, the free market is perfect and could never fail, thus only perfectly moral people could ever become rich and maintain an army of any size, so we wouldn’t need to worry about this stuff at all.
Honestly, the only minor problem with libertarianism is that planes would collide in the air. But no system is 100% flawless.
A. Noyd brought up probably the most significant answer to ‘why is capitalism bad’–by concentrating value it destroys more than it creates. I will never forget reading in Grey Brechin’s ‘Farewell Promised Land’ that it would cost orders of magnitude more to restore the area devastated by gold mining in California in the late nineteenth century than the actual value of the gold extracted from it. And that’s just the physical environment, not even considering the lives and labour stolen from slaves and workers (you may recall 1066 and all that says the greatest innovation of the industrial revolution was the Spinning Jenny (with a picture of a young girl underneath)). As far as an English working-class friend of mine could see, capitalism was fantastic–he and his class were far better off now than they were even a generation ago. But he hadn’t taken into account that his good fortune relied on dragging the people of China, India and other countries into poverty to contribute their labour to supporting his lifestyle.
But in addition to that not many people understand that the kind of capitalism that created the Industrial Revolution is not the kind of capitalism that took advantage of it, and that we have now. I admit I’m surprised that historians seem to have ignored this–a few seem to vaguely see it, but no one has yet said it outright (my suspicion is that this is because it doesn’t line up with Marx’s theory of historical development, which we all take for granted). Since this is a challenging idea it would take a long time to explain; I’ll just suggest it with this quote from Gillian Cookson, one of the ones who seems to have spotted the difference:
To accept that some kind of collaboration operated, and apparently worked well, requires an imaginative leap out of the competitive and confrontational framework upon which much late-twentieth-century management thinking rests. The evolution and success of the system is explicable in the artisan context of early textile engineering. Artisans generally took a long view of business, seeing continuation as a priority so that following generations had the means to make a living. This apparently anachronistic pre-industrial milieu provided a highly suitable setting for the new industry.
Wow, OTGGYCD, I guess when you start waxing lyrical about the wonders of the market, people don’t just fall silent and listen patiently to you. Ayn Rand must have been wrong about that.
I wonder if she was wrong about anything else?
@ Scented Fucking Hard Chairs – “I don’t like the creat of his jib.”
I laughed soooo hard at this.
Do you even know brevity is the soul of wit, bro?
@Everyone
Excellent job with Galt there. Your patience is admirable.
@Paradoxical Intention
Actually, what I really wanted to see is the embarrassed looks on the faces of the Randian ”titans” once they realize the rest of society goes on just fine without them. But that works too.
@guy
Well said. It is rarely brought up that even if the people opting out of public services aren’t technically using them, they still benefit from them in several ways.
@Axecalibur
(Warning: Rant incoming)
As others have said, capitalism does not really raise anyone out of poverty. Capitalism, at least the laissez-faire variant, is based on the idea of poorly distributed wealth forcing the many to sell their labor to benefit the few. Modern capitalism, at its very core, is based on the idea of property and the power of those with said property. It was never meant to elevate anyone who wasn’t already well-off; it is a natural progression from imperialist politics.
For example, innovation is often hailed as one of the benefits of capitalism, that innovation and technological progress benefit all. But in reality, innovation largely suffers because of the focus on making a profit, and the innovations that would indeed make different lines of work easier tend to benefit only those who can afford them, while innovations in the workplace may paradoxically lead to drawbacks to the innovator. A personal example: An innovation made by workers that reduced the time and effort needed for a specific task lead to the employer drastically reducing the work hours for said innovators. Since they were paid on an hourly basis, their innovative approach actually harmed their own well-being. Without proper worker’s contracts (which are socialist in nature), innovations may lead to workers being laid off entirely, because the work they do is no longer necessary. Again, the capitalist benefits, while workers get the short end of the stick. So, in that regard, capitalism actually stifles innovation.
And what about those who are not competitive-minded or interested in making a profit for themselves, but rather to increase the overall standard of living for all? Personally, I have never been driven by competition; quite on the contrary, I am at my best when I feel my work benefits the people around me just as much as me. Of course, in a capitalist system, I’m easily exploited by those who rely on a solidarity rhetoric while not actually contributing to a system of solidarity.
I wonder if the various faults in the free market system that seemingly go against the very idea of a free market, such as cartels, corruption and monopolies, are the result of humans simply not handling ongoing stress well. A system based on constant competition is stressful to anyone participating in it, which is why anyone with a modicum of power (in the form of wealth) tends to try to manipulate the market in order to stay on top. Competition has its uses in short bursts, but not as a lifestyle. This, in my opinion, is one of the inherent failures of capitalism. Contrary to what Social Darwinists say, humans are not built for constant, unceasing competition.
Capitalism is also not stable in the least. The tendency of the market to form bubbles that simulate growth has most recently lead to the massive, still ongoing financial crisis. Such crises are usually handled with socialist politics, which raises the question of why laissez-faire capitalism is used in the first place if it inevitably leads to another crisis – and another bailout. One could argue that in a more well-regulated system, such bubbles would be spotted and popped before they manage to cause a crisis, but again, why the need to regulate something that is not essential in the first place? Why the desperate need to hang on to such a massively flawed system? I have sometimes argued that capitalism could have its uses in walks of life that aren’t included in basic survival (such as housing, food and water, healthcare etc). With that, I simply mean that capitalism could be an economic model for the production and distribution of luxury items. In light of the more recent failures of the prevailing economic system, I have now come to fear my optimism has been misplaced. Capitalism sustains itself with creating myths and the illusion of necessity. If humanity continues to believe in stories, we will continue having a capitalist system. If humanity ceases to believe in them, well, what’s the point in having a capitalist system in the first place?
Of course, it is possible that my idea of capitalism has been tainted by the various failures of its implementations in the real world. But in conclusion, I still have to say that no, capitalism as we know it doesn’t work. Throughout recent history, all the economic booms have been largely due to outside factors, such as the industrial revolution, a supply of (seemingly) free energy and, of course, the regular implementation of socialist politics. If there is a form of capitalism that can work, it cannot be relying on the many times debunked theory of the ”free” market. Personally, speaking as a political radical, I’d argue that capitalism in itself is already broken beyond repair, and any effort made to fix it is taking away from what we could accomplish were we to abandon it entirely. But maybe that’s just me.
@Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
You jest, but I’ve actually had to explain to someone why this isn’t true.
Ooooh, did I hit a nerve, Mr. Salty Pants? Are you mad that I’m existing as a human being (oh, sorry, as “some catty little pube”) without your expressed permission? Aw, poor baby. Do you need a nap?
It’s not my fault you don’t see me as the amazing fucking ray of sunshine I am. I’m adorable/cute/funny/awesome as fuck pookie, and I don’t need your affirmation to know it.
And if brevity is the soul of wit, you have certainly outpaced me in word count, sir. By a country mile. Too bad none of your words make sense in that configuration, so it’s a little hard for me to be insulted by them.
Way to assume that you must be THE HARDEST WORKER here. Because you totes know our personal lives and shit apparently.
Oh, wait, I’m just “some catty little pube” so what do I know about work and “jibs” and shit?
That sounds good for sailors then. Though, who really uses jibs for larger ships anymore? I mean, small sailboats, sure, but definitely not most larger ships, right? Those have engines.
Moe?
Galt has cut me to the quick with this final sentence. I was wrong all along, I see that now, but it is too late to rectify my mistakes upon the world! Forsooth, I die~! [/heavy sarcasm]
Well, my life isn’t perfect, but at least I’m not throwing an incoherent, horribly spelt, written temper tantrum on the internet because someone didn’t swallow my bullshit wholesale and dared to mock me because I was condescending about a language program.
@Paradoxical
°˖✧That’s my girl~✧˖°
http://ih1.redbubble.net/image.41428005.7390/flat,800×800,075,f.jpg
Oh, and Galt didn’t stick the flounce. Again.
@Galt:
Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were fantasy novels.
I understand that you read a fantasy novel at one point and now think it’s real. I sympathise. I can remember the disappointment that I felt when I realised that there was no such place as Minas Tirith, and that I was never going to be whisked away on a grand adventure to strange and terrifying places. I got over it, though. I think you’re still clinging to the fantasy book you read.
If you wanted to rant about your fantasy world and how it works, then you can do that somewhere on the web. My eyes will glaze over when you do it, but then your eyes will probably glaze over when I talk to you about Sindarin phonology and the geology of Emyn Muil. That’s the price we pay for being nerds.
However.
You do not get to be mean to Paradoxy. She’s a lovely person, one of the genuinely nicest and funniest here, and is always extremely supportive of everyone else. Interactions with her always make people feel happy. Interactions with you… well, so far I’m not impressed.
Yes, she is a heathen. Yes, she’s long-winded. However, these are not the insults you seem to think they are. She’s an awesome person and so when she’s long winded she’s awesome about it; and I’m sure when she’s heathen she’s also awesomely heathen.
You could also have called her fat. That, too, would not have been an insult. Fat people are every bit as human as thin people.
I understand that you think you’re an intelligent man who looks at everything through a scientific and dispassionate viewpoint. However, let me lay down the fucking law here because there seems to be some confusion: Game recognise game, and you look unfamiliar.
I accept the “heathen” bit because that’s true (because I’m a pagan who is polytheistic and not just because I dare to defy Galt’s religious devotion to libertarianism), but I was almost insulted by the “long-winded” bit EJ. I like to think of myself as somewhat consice.
(There’s no edit function on mobile apparently.)
And I will not accept that “insult” from someone as uneccesarily verbose (and so hilariously incoherent) as Galt.
That’s the pot calling the kettle black.
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ Shut your mouth (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ
@David, et al, re: the current troll: Time for the banhammer?
He’s grown…I was going to say “remarkably tedious”, but he’s really rather unremarkably – but massively – so.
@ IP
(Warning for one of my interminable anecdotes)
I did a case once arising from the crash of a light aircraft. I got talking to the air accident investigator. I was interested to find out that there is a school of thought within the aviation industry that there would be fewer near misses and related problems if pilots were just allowed to pick their own routes, rather than being confined to very narrow air corridors as they are currently.
There are lots of factors at play of course. Sometimes there are great circle considerations and ATC would have to take over near actual airports. But the general thesis was that there’s so much room in three dimensional airspace, the chances of any aircraft trying to occupy the same spot at the same time was statistically insignificant. It wasn’t even a left-field view and it crops up every now and then when people living under flight paths complain about the environmental issues.
Of course this view is based on practical factors rather than an ideological repugnance at pilots being constrained by “the man”.
@Alan – As someone who lives in an area with lots
of restricted airspaces, it’d be…interesting…to see that happen.
THAT’S the trantrum I was expecting. Well, almost, usually there’s some n-words in there for good meas-wait, dirty possum butt-wiping? Am I wiping the opossum butts, or am I wiping my butt with an opossum? I mean, I can’t imagine wiping a baby opossum butt would be much harder than wiping a kitten butt, maybe just wear gloves and long sleeves?
Hey! Some of the loveliest people I know wipe possums’ butts!
(Not shown: actual possum butt wiping)
As I slowly but surely make my way back through the comments*, there’s something I feel like yelling from the rooftop:
You people are frikkin’ awesome.
@Scildfreja – Your combination of MLP gifs and hard science makes me smile.
@PI – You are a http://i.imgur.com/RDe9zJr.gif .
@Moocow – http://31.media.tumblr.com/c7bd10f095583c83847e6d8bd89da211/tumblr_mzuqbp3BIW1ry758io1_r2_500.gif
(more to come if that sound that just happened wasn’t our toddler)
* I’m getting through as much as I can before the kiddos wake up while drinking black coffee and…ohgawd…I just got these donut baking things and am out of control. This morning features donut-shaped coffee cakes.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzbhimXO2L1r09w0co2_1280.gif
Dude, I know, right?!?
Moms can be real task masters for that sweet, sweet allowance.
Fucking leaves, amirite?
And why do you have to clean the gutters? You didn’t buy the house. They bought the house. You didn’t ask to live there. It’s so fucking unfair.
Don’t let go of that anger, though!
Use it to SPREAD you OBJECTIVIST WISDOM!
YELL IT THE WOOOOORRRRLD!
But do stick to your promise to flounce.
Real Masters of the Universe – those in complete control, those who truly exercise their agency – keep their promises.
@Once you go Galt, you embrace being a spoiled brat
You sound angry. Are you angry? You know what? I actually want you to build your libertarian utopia. As long as its on some deserted island or some other place far away from society. I want you to fulfill your dreams. Because i fucking hate you. Because the best laid plans of dipshits like you have always ended in monumental, humiliating failures.
I always find it funny when internet trolls make claims such as “I work harder than anyone here” or “I know more about X than you” or “I’ve gone through more difficult times than you all combined”. Because these are things the troll can’t possibly know. It’s obvious to everyone but the troll that the troll is simply making shit up instead of coming up with proper arguments.
@IP – Oh! I watched a show recently about that Libertarian Utopia…
…what was it…
…what was it…
Oh, yeah – The Walking Dead.
I mean, sure – there were zombies, but otherwise it was spot on.
@guest –
Huh. I had never thought about it in those terms.
Thanks!
[tbc]