[sudo-discuss] Dystopia News: No-Sex Apartments.

[GtwoG PublicOhOne]

Re. Matthew Harbowy:

Digressive assertions about implied monogamy, plus ad hominems, do not
equal a coherent arguement.

Sure, undergrads are remarkably inventive at finding places to fuck, and
at getting five people into a twin bed for that purpose, with the floor
as a convenient overflow buffer.  Whatever. 

It wasn't long ago that they also looked forward to graduating with the
prospect of a decent job and an apartment with at least enough room in
it for a _table_ where they could have dinner with a few friends.  It
wasn't long ago that a high school dropout could look forward to much
the same.

And when my immigrant grandparents got off the boat, it was in the era
of "No (name of ethnicity) need apply," but they were able to find
family-sustaining work, back in the day when a job in a factory or
laying brick on a construction site was a ticket into the middle class. 

An apartment the size of a prison cell beats 8 square feet of wet
cardboard, and a mealworm sandwich beats going to bed hungry, but the
fact that those are presented as "the choices" for working people in
21st century America, means something. 

What it doesn't mean is that I'm some kind of repressive prude for using
the example of a monogamous couple that can't even stretch out in bed.   

"There's so many fucked up ways that our society and government puts us
at a disadvantage: sexism, classism, racism, and the ugly specter of
lowered expectations."  Exactly, and speaking of lowered expectations,
what do you call chronic underemployment and life in tiny boxes?  But
then you turn right around and contradict yourself:  "But making up new
ways the "oligarchy" are "fucking us" isn't helpful."

"Making up" new ways...?  Apartments the size of prison cells and
obligatory wormburgers are a figment of my imagination?  Go read the
news.  The links were provided.  Those were "mainstream" news sources,
and I haven't even started quoting the dissident blogs yet.  More to the
point, those types of items, rather than the resurgent KKK or "life
begins at conception" laws, are the kinds of things we're going to face
right here in the Bay Area. 

But instead you went off on "your personal biases and hang-ups..." and
"...this model you invoke of monogamous sleeping arrangements is far
from my personal nirvana..." as a "...made up world with your rules." 
That qualifies for a "not even wrong" award, in the "shoot the
messenger" category. 

And as far as "troll posts" are concerned, ad-hom attacks are a classic
tactic for shouting people down.  Argue the actual arguement, or ignore
it if you're "tired" of it, or promote polygamy if that's what's
important to you, but ad-homs and shout-down tactics lose.

-G.


=====



On 13-05-21-Tue 1:02 AM, Matthew Harbowy wrote:
> G.,
>
> Your personal biases and hang ups are more of a prison than anyone in
> the so called oligarchy could construct. I'm tired of these troll posts.
>
> At Rutgers, every undergrad on campus had a twin bed. Almost anyone
> who wanted a sexually active relationship, who was capable of social
> graces, had one. For two people who want to fuck, you'll fuck
> anywhere. Don't like a twin bed? Sleep on a futon or blanket on the
> floor. I've personally witnessed five person orgies on a twin bed and
> on a dorm floor. Expand your mind. For me, this model you invoke of
> monogamous sleeping arrangements is far from my personal nirvana.
> Being able to sleep two to a bed and having a good sex life have never
> been correlated for me. 
>
> Furthermore, look how my grandparents immigrant generation lived.
> They'd squeeze families with children into rooms not much bigger, and
> yet had no problems making more kids. 
>
> There's so many fucked up ways that our society and government puts us
> at a disadvantage: sexism, classism, racism, and the ugly specter of
> lowered expectations. Moral mores and prudery. On and on. But making
> up new ways the "oligarchy" are "fucking us" isn't helpful. If you
> don't want to live in 200 sq ft, fine, but I would think its a hell of
> a lot better than living on 8 sq ft of wet cardboard. If you don't
> want to eat bugs, fine, but don't ignore thousands of years of
> grasshopper consumption by Jews (locusts and grasshoppers are
> specifically enumerated as Kosher!) and Mesoamericans. 
>
> If you don't like the oligarchy, fine, but this made up world with
> your rules is just your own oligarchy or dictatorship, and I don't
> want to live in that world either. These modest proposals are not
> helping me find how to better participate at sudoroom. 
>
> Matt (the other one, hbergeronx)
>
> On Monday, May 20, 2013, GtwoG PublicOhOne wrote:
>
>
>
>     No-Sex Apartments.
>
>     (Creative commons, with attribution to "G.")
>
>     In cities across the USA, a new "solution" to affordable housing is
>     being promoted: micro-apartments of less than 200 square feet.  New
>     York's conrol-freak in chief, Mayor Bloomberg, is promoting them (New
>     Yorkers call them "Bloom Boxes").  A developer in San Francisco is
>     promoting them.  And developers in Seattle WA are building them by the
>     hundreds.
>
>     The Seattle apartments were recently covered in a CBS News
>     article, here:
>     http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57582327/tiny-apartments-are-creating-a-big-backlash-in-seattle/
>
>     If you look at the picture, something immediately stands out: a
>     TWIN BED.
>
>     As the article says, "...(the) apartment comes with a small private
>     bathroom, a microwave and a mini-refrigerator. There's just enough
>     room
>     for a twin bed, a neatly hung rack of clothes and shelves."  (There's
>     not even room for a desk, so forget about working from home: it's back
>     to the plantation for you, worker-bee.)
>
>     And therein lies the catch, or more accurately the "nudge," to use the
>     Newspeak word for "manipulation."
>
>     A twin bed is sufficient for sleeping, but not sufficient for a
>     regular
>     sex life with others, much less a stable relationship.
>
>     Sure, you can manage it occasionally, but for the long term it's right
>     out.  Squeezing two people into a bed meant for one is miserable,
>     particularly in the hot summer.
>
>     This is one form of "birth control" that won't be controversial
>     with the
>     Vatican or other right-wing religious denominations.  I suppose that
>     also qualifies as a "feature."  (We won't mention the fact that
>     you can
>     carry on a satisfactory solo sex life in a twin bed, lest the twin
>     beds
>     be replaced with "stand-up beds" consisting of straps on the wall.)
>
>     There's no need for the Oligarchy to make an explicit No Sex rule.
>      They
>     don't have to, when they can just "nudge" the architecture to enforce
>     that outcome by "nudging" people who might think to disobey.
>
>     Best of all (from the Oligarchy's perspective), there's nothing to
>     revolt against.  A revolt against a type of architecture is like a
>     revolt against traffic jams or weather: there's no obvious
>     evil-doer to
>     hurl ballots and tomatoes at.
>
>     The Oligarchy likes micro-apartments because they are more profitable
>     per square foot of building, compared to apartments that let you
>     have a
>     bed big enough for two people, and a fridge big enough to let you keep
>     enough food that you don't have to go shopping every day.
>
>     The working masses (that would be us) who are being lined up to
>     live in
>     these boxes would do well to recognize that they are also about
>     the same
>     size as prison cells.
>
>     The only difference is that you have the key to your cell, just like
>     inmates in "honor system prisons" for white collar criminals.
>      That, and
>     there isn't a guard staring at you whilst you poop, though I'd be
>     careful about the tiny apartments that come with internet and TV
>     service
>     included (no choice of carriers either), as the "smart sensors"
>     won't be
>     far behind.
>
>     Smaller houses and apartments are of course part of a viable
>     approach to
>     sustainability: primarily through lower energy consumption and
>     proximity
>     to public transport.  Some years ago, a close friend and I came up
>     with
>     various designs for micro-houses, from about 160 square feet, up to
>     about 400 - 500 square feet.  A building with a 500 square foot
>     "building footprint" was sufficient for a family of four.  We were
>     designing for the sake of sustainability, and for the ability of
>     individuals and communities to build these houses for themselves
>     at low
>     cost.
>
>     But as with eating bugs, it's one thing to do it by the choice of your
>     own free will, quite another to do it by way of getting mercilessly
>     milked by the Oligarchy.  Especially when the Oligarchs continue
>     to live
>     in 12,000 square foot (and larger) mansions with sprawling lawns
>     on all
>     sides.
>
>     What the world can't afford, is the Oligarchy.  Darwin, take note!
>
>     -G.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     sudo-discuss mailing list
>     sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org <javascript:;>
>     http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130521/a73fdf05/attachment.html>