[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 213 KB, 2448x530, 638026CA-DC2B-49DC-9728-B1478D78B05B.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
16238704 No.16238704 [Reply] [Original]

Teddy K (160 IQ) couldn’t understand this, are you smarter than him?

>> No.16238722 [DELETED] 

If i were smart in any way i would not be wasting my time here, anon.

>> No.16238735

It's just phrased poorly. It's obviously saying people feel more confident in their state of dependence on corporations when the corporations can afford to be less desperate

>> No.16238753

it's loaded asf and not formalized

>> No.16238782

I read it as “when corporations are operating stably, people’s dependence on them is more reasonable and justified (from the people’s point of view)”

>> No.16238842


You wouldn't be smarter than him if you attach any meaning to this. You would be a fool.

He's right: "when business is normal" is obscure; "procedural opposition" (does he mean bureaucracy?) is undefined; "heightens the legitimacy of the latter's dependence" instead of heightens he should have used increases if he means to modify Dependence, and "legitimacy" does not take qualifiers - its either legitimate or not. What is the "legitimacy of the client's dependence" mean? Does it mean reinforces?
And the use of "the latter's" instead of saying the clients is just an extra layer of confusion for the reader.

This sentence is totally incomprehensible, and you should feel manipulated and a little ashamed if you attach any meaning to it.

>> No.16238859

The sentence was composed specifically to filter autists like Ted and this guy >>16238842

>> No.16238893


I guess it's okay to call me an autist, since for years I have simply been calling people like you stupid.

See that? Stupid. Direct. No ambiguity. No grammatical gymnastics. Clear. No possibility for miscommunication.

>> No.16238894

I think that's correct, it just leaves out why, which is the procedural opposition
Procedural opposition is the only vague term, the rest you can pretty much figure out. Business as normal obviously refers to average economic times when supply and demand are operating predictably. With this in mind, one can take procedural opposition to mean the opposition between how much corporations are willing to charge and how much clients are willing to spend, which doesn't exist in abnormal times when one side is more desperate and the dynamic of the relationship consequently feels less legitimate

>> No.16238899

holy shit lol

>> No.16238926

There should be a level of competition between clients and the corporations that they patronize but the competition has the added effect of making the client more dependent without them being aware of it?

>> No.16238940

Also iq is a meme. Some people will be great at math and others will be great at decrypting dense philosophical texts. That's not just one kind of intelligence

>> No.16238943


Why should I have to "figure it out?"
That is my point. There is no need for the obfuscation. But to that point:
"Normal procedure" is not a term of art, and it is you that is putting all that crap about supply and demand in there, not the author. Why are you doing that?
"Procedural opposition" means the price? Jesus Christ? How did you come up with that?

Where the fuck do you get "abnormal times?" Nothing in this sentence says anything conditional.

So this is Exactly what I am talking about when I talk about manipulation.
It is up to the author to write the story, not the reader, and any author that is trying to get you to write the story with obscurity is manipulating you.

You do realize that QAnon has never come up with one single detail to its conspiracy theory besides that they have a secret and that they are in a position to know, and all of the rest of it, every detail, was written by everyone trying to guess what that secret was, and then they just obliquly confirmed it, don't you?

Never let an author get away with making you fill in the blanks....

.... unless it is Lovecraft.

>> No.16238990

Actually based

>> No.16239004

Based angloid bugmen. Continentalcucks btfo forever.

>> No.16239008

And it's super fluid.

I've gotten as high as 137 and as low as 107.

>> No.16239010


And this is a fallacy. Never trust the people around you. Dependence makes you a slave.

>> No.16239015
File: 40 KB, 410x598, 1584239584026.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Please hold

>> No.16239017

>Some people will be great at math and others will be great at decrypting dense philosophical texts.
Ironically enough, only the former make for great philosophers.

>> No.16239111

T. Realist

>> No.16239296

b a as ed

>> No.16239519

First, there is an opposition between corporation - say, Amazon - and the client - say, me.

This is normal in business. Furthermore, this opposition is procedural: it belongs to the very process of the thing. If this were not the case, the process would be disrupted, and the business wouldn't be normal anymore.
Real life example: assume you are a fake client - say, the U.S. president - who buys something from the corporation - say, Amazon - in order to fulfill some corruption scheme, such as money laundering, or because your wife works at Amazon. This would be a non-normal business, and the process would have been disrupted because the opposition between client and corporation would have been destroyed in order to fulfill a corruption - extra-economic, personalistic - goal.
In other words, client and corporation would be saying ''let's benefit each other!'' instead of saying "let me try get as much money as I can!" or "let me try to get this product for as small a price as I can" which is the normal situation between buyer and seller.

Lastly, Ilich says that this opposition usually heightens the legitimacy of the dependency of the client on the corporation.
Ilich seems to be saying that this dependency exists, and that it is legitimate, because in other circumstances - such as the one I have described in my corruption example - the relationship between corporation and client would be even worse than one of dependency.

I find Ilich is short-sighted here, because he doesn't realize that corporations also depend on the clients, so that *the relationship is one of interdependence, not of the latter's dependence exclusively.*
For instance, Amazon is very free and can do a lot of things. But it can't do everything. If Amazon, for instance, starts to publish racist things on their website, or starts to push for necrophilia, or some other disgusting practice, then you can be pretty sure that the clients will suddenly make themselves independent from it, the investors - contemplating the behavior of the clients - will sell their stocks as fast as possible, and the firm is going to collapse.

This was my interpretation.
I have never read Ilich in my entire life and maybe it has nothing to do with what he actually thought, but this is one of the possible interpretations of that sentence.

>> No.16239528
File: 38 KB, 406x600, illich.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

first time I have seen Illich referenced here; has anyone gone through his writing? Tools for Conviviality seems like it should be required reading for the industrial person, as does a lot of his work

>> No.16240049

when business is normal, clients are dependent upon corporations. Not the other way around. A client needs something the corporation can produce, the corporation doesn't need the client, they already have other clients.
When business is normal, it heightens/reinforces this situation.

only when business is abnormal is this situation reversed. When businesses are desperate for clients, will clients have the "upper hand" so to speak. Clients will then be able to pick and choose which corporation (probably from a list of many other corporations) to patron. The client can be more demanding, can pay the corporation less.

>> No.16240065

That's bold and honest.

>> No.16240082
File: 11 KB, 255x197, 1512324545431.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

So am I right?

>> No.16240112

>can afford to be less desperate
>heightens the legitimacy of the latter's dependence
aren't equivalent

>> No.16240141

it's poorly translated retards

>> No.16240191

You can understand it, but it's just a complicated way of writing.

>> No.16240369

There's a few different types of intelligence, Ted K was good at puzzles and math.

>> No.16240394

illich wrote in english

>> No.16240594

I think he is saying, that because businesses have the funds and know-how to hire teams to deal with judicial matters and the clients do not, this makes the client more dependent on the business for legal procedures.

>> No.16240816

And? I said it was a vague and complicated way of writing, but you can still understand it.

>> No.16240840


I like you

>> No.16240953
File: 63 KB, 1280x720, reddit moment.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>.... unless it is Lovecraft.

>> No.16241411

Ted was a midwit. Anyone who isn't a zoomer knows this.

>> No.16241862

it's literally just negging

>> No.16241973

Of course they're not, one leads to the other

>> No.16241979

It's called context

>> No.16241989

this shows public schools are a failure

>> No.16241992


>> No.16242021

>160 IQ
>still uses "obscure" when he means "obtuse"
Obscure means concealed or hidden from popular view e.g. if a band you like is very niche with only a few fans you'd say their music is obscure (like Eno's "Obscure Records"
Obtuse means meandering and not getting to the point, as in purple prose

>> No.16242174

>it's written like shit on purpose

>> No.16242210

Except midwits hate Ted

>> No.16242218

ESL's don't have the right to criticize anyone else's english and using obscure in that context is a very common idiom

>> No.16242289

Lol you are a bugman AND you hate q, filtertered tbqh

>> No.16242294

This is probably why you have no sincere friends m8.

>> No.16242313

Pure sophistry.

>> No.16242365

what is meant by "procedural opposition" then?

>> No.16242594

>procedual opposition
Commonplace differentiating conflict of interest in business
>latters dependance
positive feedback loop where both parties tied to common "natural" laws makes the more fluid client, prone to entropy, while the more "robust" business would not be as much, making the one, over time, dependent on the other.

Although Ted K is right. it´s stupid. This took me 45 minutes

>> No.16242599

MONGREL. Inbred fucking spastic, are you retarded or some shit? How do you live with yourself being such a dumb cunt? HOW, you fucking cunt.

>> No.16242609

The vaguest clauses are "procedural opposition" and "heightens the legitimacy." It makes sense that clients would be dependent on corporations, as they need them for their services. The only possible meaning of "procedural opposition" I can come up with without more context is bargaining potential. Buyers (clients) and sellers are opposed in the sense that buyers want to get the lowest price for a good or service while sellers (corporations) want the highest. Or perhaps it refers to discrepancies in supply and demand. What does it mean then, when "business is normal?" I would assume this means during economically stable times, which would mean that most buys can afford the services on offer. The last nugget of mystery is this "legitimacy", which could mean, their willingness to participate in the transaction and accept the corporation's terms and conditions.

>> No.16242613

Based. Midwits on here trying to prove their intelligence are showing themselves up.

>> No.16242916

>should have used increases instead of heightens
Both convey the same connotations of augmentation

>Dependence and legitimacy are binary states and can't take qualifiers
There are degrees to both dependence and legitimacy, your view is too rigid, logically this is fine (for example, a government's legitimacy can increase over time, it doesn't simply snap from one extreme to the other)

>Gets confused by the use of 'the latter's' instead of repeating the same word
It's not perfect, I think that's clear, whoever wrote this could have been more straightforward but you're either being pedantic and nit-picking for some kind of pseud points or you're genuinely thrown off by a bit of stylistic-flair, either because you're ESL or because you have a form of 'tism like others have suggested

>> No.16242981

It is obscure because K is saying that the author is not being straightforward and clearly defining what he's talking about openly, instead he's leaving you to guess at specifically what he's referring to by such things as 'procedural opposition', therefore the use of obscure is fine, the meaning is hidden and concealed behind the author's style of writing

>> No.16243117

>so... procedural opposition means the price... jesus christ how did you come up with that??
Are you retarded, how is this all you took from that. He's referring to the state of normal operation, the status quo in which that normal friction between the consumer and corporation takes place regarding the price of goods in free markets

>Nothing in the sentence says anything conditional on normal times
"WHEN business is normal ...", it is the opening premise

>Why do authors not write like they're explaining something to retards, how can they expect me to understand that they're referring to the regular supply and demand opposition between the consumer and corporation and all dat economics shieeet
I suspect it's because they don't want to waste effort on painstakingly exploring every implication and statement they make for retards who can't understand language unless it is made childishly clear.

I think Kaczynski's confusion only came from not understanding precisely how this regular state of 'procedure' causes an increase in the dependence of the consumer, although I suspect that's something you'd have to work out from the context of what Illich writes about before, rather than just from a single sentence

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.