The Higher Learning Poster Of The Year Nominee Thread (25k Coli Cash Prize)

[MouseTeeth]

@Slaimon

 

[Gallo]

She agree that I'm loony for his economic opinions though I disagree with most of it
The real overall knowledgeable
Mowgli/crakface when they are less Mr somebody-ish.
Vvd what he does in hl is a public service. Keep ethering and edifying
Zero zero good contributor

 

[Nascimento]

She Agree That I'm Looney -- An independent thinker. I find myself cosigning everything this guy posts, on a wide rage of issues from economics to personal responsibility and development. He even put out raps about this I'm a fan.

TheReal -- Level-headed well-spoken dude that drops concise, knowledgeable and well-reasoned posts.

Type Username Here -- Goes hard on that science and logic tip, and very principled especially when it comes to politics.

Put some thought into and ya realize there's many good contributors... boiled it down to these three as my favourites :inlove:

And just a minor note: things get a little needlessly combative here at times. Not asking for any kind of moderation, poking at people is fun if done in good taste. But when it's just mean and threads with posts of merit get sidetracked on online tough guy bullshyt, it's detrimental.

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Kool G Trap
VVD
Daze
TUH
The Real

honorable mentions: serious, hollywood hogan

 

[714562]

@Slaimon

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I can't say I post enough to be able to answer this question, but I have no problem with the worst poster's thread fyi. But I nominate my man @TrueEpic08, even if we don't always agree, dude is quality. I think he should win just because he tends to have a deeper layer of analysis on issues. I think it's easy to take the liberal position on a board like this and always get dapped, it's everyone's predisposition, but he tries to make larger or deeper points. So you got my vote Mr. Dyson

I don't agree with dude on certain things either, but I think he's one of the only, maybe the only dude who posts here that may deserve the label of "intellectual." I feel like I'm talking to a less detached Noam Chomsky when he's on the podcast. I have to go back and listen to them later to fully absorb some of the stuff he says.

I think he has a intricately constructed worldview and knows exactly what he believes about how things should and can be and his policy takes stem from that. So where he and someone like me would part is he would examine a policy particular and basically "say x is only advocated as a legit utility because of the underlying conditions set by the status quo which is illegitimate and should be dismantled," whereas someone like me would be more like " That's the world we live in, it is what it is." Essentially I think he's an idealist and I see myself more as a pragmatist. I think the homie KOSH from the old site was similar in many respects. But maybe I'm the one who can't see the forest for the trees. I don't know.

 

[daze23]

Robbie3000
The Real
VictorVonDoom
NZA

and...

 

[No1]

I don't agree with dude on certain things either, but I think he's one of the only, maybe the only dude who posts here that may deserve the label of "intellectual." I feel like I'm talking to a less detached Noam Chomsky when he's on the podcast. I have to go back and listen to them later to fully absorb some of the stuff he says.

I think he has a intricately constructed worldview and knows exactly what he believes about how things should and can be and his policy takes stem from that. So where he and someone like me would part is he would examine a policy particular and basically "say x is only advocated as a legit utility because of the underlying conditions set by the status quo which is illegitimate and should be dismantled," whereas someone like me would be more like " That's the world we live in, it is what it is." Essentially I think he's an idealist and I see myself more as a pragmatist. I think the homie KOSH from the old site was similar in many respects. But maybe I'm the one who can't see the forest for the trees. I don't know.

I think the reason why I argue with him so much is because of that, his "idealism." Heck, even his presentation of ideas reminds of how I used to write and talk at times while I was in college--which was only last spring. I reached a point where I accepted certain vices in life and that you have to present ideas to people in a certain way. It's funny, the same things I say to him, people used to say to me on SOHH about how I should "stop typing like I'm in my college class." When I'm arguing with epic, it's almost as if I'm arguing with the purely liberal conscience that I left behind for the semi-consequentialist that I've become. I can actually anticipate a lot of what he's going to say to be honest, but it's because it's what I would've said all of two-half years ago before political economy and upper-level political science courses got a hold of me. He makes the kind of arguments I thought my senior thesis would end up being about. The fact that we're probably close in age kind of irks me, like maybe I gave up on certain ideals too soon. Maybe he's right and I'm wrong. I do not think that government or the world will ever fully work the way he wants it to. But, sometimes it has. Sometimes it does. Sometimes a UN Resolution does work, sometimes a small nation can take the United States to the WTO and win.

So maybe, instead of fast-forwarding past the most-ethical option when I am looking for the solution to a problem, I can take pause and at least consider that it is worth fighting for to some degree. And maybe, that's why posting in HL in more frustrating to me than posting in KTL, I guess I have given up on a lot of the fights people who post here still believe in and some discussions I consider tired. I suppose that's why I come across at times as "why are we even discussing this ," but Epic kind of reminds me why. He does in the same systematic way in which I discard such notions before I even post my perspective.

As far as KOSH, last I heard he was about to follow me on that law school path, he was preparing for the LSAT, no idea where he went or if he went through with it.

Anyhow, Happy New Year's HL, the snow on the east coast kind of ruined some of my plans. It's the only reason I'm online right now. Looks like I'm be spending New Year's Eve at church for the first time in a long time.

 

[Pool_Shark]

The 5 posters I always check for are

TrueEpic08: Well informed and will usually say something no one else in the thread has thought of but his post always start a new conversation in the same topic.

Mowgli: Hilarious and strong opinionated,not quick to back down

The Real: Interesting cat that will back up his post with sources and explanations, always learn something from the links.

thekingsmen: I appreciate his perspective even if I don't agree or think it makes sense sometimes, it's cool to see things from a different point of view.

Sensitive Blake Griffin: Dudes hilarious and holds his own.

Everyone in HL adds something to the discussion so all you guys are good. Reading news stories on here is a billion times better than reading them on Huffington or anywhere else and the podcast is great too.

 

[Gus Money]

I need to step my game up.

 

[TrueEpic08]

I think the reason why I argue with him so much is because of that, his "idealism." Heck, even his presentation of ideas reminds of how I used to write and talk at times while I was in college--which was only last spring. I reached a point where I accepted certain vices in life and that you have to present ideas to people in a certain way. It's funny, the same things I say to him, people used to say to me on SOHH about how I should "stop typing like I'm in my college class." When I'm arguing with epic, it's almost as if I'm arguing with the purely liberal conscience that I left behind for the semi-consequentialist that I've become. I can actually anticipate a lot of what he's going to say to be honest, but it's because it's what I would've said all of two-half years ago before political economy and upper-level political science courses got a hold of me. He makes the kind of arguments I thought my senior thesis would end up being about. The fact that we're probably close in age kind of irks me, like maybe I gave up on certain ideals too soon. Maybe he's right and I'm wrong. I do not think that government or the world will ever fully work the way he wants it to. But, sometimes it has. Sometimes it does. Sometimes a UN Resolution does work, sometimes a small nation can take the United States to the WTO and win.

So maybe, instead of fast-forwarding past the most-ethical option when I am looking for the solution to a problem, I can take pause and at least consider that it is worth fighting for to some degree. And maybe, that's why posting in HL in more frustrating to me than posting in KTL, I guess I have given up on a lot of the fights people who post here still believe in and some discussions I consider tired. I suppose that's why I come across at times as "why are we even discussing this ," but Epic kind of reminds me why. He does in the same systematic way in which I discard such notions before I even post my perspective.

As far as KOSH, last I heard he was about to follow me on that law school path, he was preparing for the LSAT, no idea where he went or if he went through with it.

Anyhow, Happy New Year's HL, the snow on the east coast kind of ruined some of my plans. It's the only reason I'm online right now. Looks like I'm be spending New Year's Eve at church for the first time in a long time.

It's funny that you and Vic call me an idealist, since most people call me utterly depressing and cynical when they hear or read my worldview. I can understand why both would be mentioned regarding me though (and I'm not insulted).

Interestingly enough, some of those same upper-level Poly Sci courses helped to form my negative critique of the current system of political economy (Including the UN; even though I usually write about what certain countries within the UN do with good reason [unless I write about Intellectual Property or the like], the structure of the UN itself has to be critiqued as well). I just remember being in the class, not hating it and doing well, but being kind of appalled with the lack of breadth and insight beyond orthodoxy in terms of worldviews and ideologies. Everything had to be solution based and "based in reality" (Two of the most poisonous, presumptuous phrases that will come up in political and philosophical debate). My perspective had changed since I got into the major and gotten class and work experience; I no longer found the way in which these perspectives were held to be legitimate. So I had to leave the major and find new perspective.

Also (and I'm not saying that you're off in calling me this), I stopped considering myself ethical (in a certain sense) quite a bit ago. I've been shying away more and more from notions such as ethics as an absolute moral given of reality and a human nature, right and wrong as a constructed binary in the same way, and good and evil as a constructed binary in the same way. I simply accede to two principles when discussing political matters, philosophical matters, their metaphysical presumptions and any actions that may or may not come from it: 1). Things (material, metaphysical, whatever. All that exists in a real or irreal sense) are and are not and from that there are things that can be. 2). "Things can be otherwise than what they are". This post is long enough, so I won't bore you with details, but what I'm saying is that all is a construction, there is no absolute moral ground other than what is created by man attempting to narrativize and interpret the world in a unified way. Ethics as an absolute moral given has no meaning in the way that it and most that use it would like to posit.

I will call myself ethical in this sense: As a bit of a anarchist, politically and (increasingly) epistemologically, I try to unbind myself from what I find to be cultural, epistemological and political oppressions and presumptions about morals, culture, race, knowledge, politics, etc. But if I do that, then there's a demand that comes up that I must share what I know and recognize that others may want to do the same. Now, some will call me a crank and tell me to piss off. But in that sense, there is an ethical demand. I guess I don't consider any ethical demand in that sense to be separate from what I do intellectually or philosophically (and in that sense, you're just as ethical as I am).

Dammit, this went on too long (and possibly too presumptuous itself). I'm gonna make a thread on ethics using these last two paragraphs. With all of this said about my intellectual history and objections to some terms, I do appreciate the regard, even if I don't think that I deserve it.

(Oh, and @BarNone, repetition of arguments gives you a chance for new perspective, even if there's no reason to do so. Repetition is life, and it's also never the same thing over again. So even if it's banal, don't be so quick to dismiss it. In general, not just from me.)

 

[No1]

I just remember being in the class, not hating it and doing well, but being kind of appalled with the lack of breadth and insight beyond orthodoxy in terms of worldviews and ideologies. Everything had to be solution based and "based in reality" (Two of the most poisonous, presumptuous phrases that will come up in political and philosophical debate). My perspective had changed since I got into the major and gotten class and work experience; I no longer found the way in which these perspectives were held to be legitimate. So I had to leave the major and find new perspective

Fair enough, but my class was not taught that way. Before all I had been inundated with was theory. Political economy was only different in that "realist" notions were contrasted with the various theoretical outlooks. It came down to this quote, "Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." I'm sure you know it well. Though you may disagree with its limitations, it's difficult to claim that more often then not, that's how the world works. I can't speak for VVD, but I'm calling you "idealistic" it's because that you still believe that the world can work outside of this framework. The freedoms we exercise, even now, are the result of that power, hard or soft. I think people can hear it when I say things like, "but this just won't happen." So in that regard, you're less cynical than I am.

I simply accede to two principles when discussing political matters, philosophical matters, their metaphysical presumptions and any actions that may or may not come from it: 1). Things (material, metaphysical, whatever. All that exists in a real or irreal sense) are and are not and from that there are things that can be. 2). "Things can be otherwise than what they are". This post is long enough, so I won't bore you with details, but what I'm saying is that all is a construction, there is no absolute moral ground other than what is created by man attempting to narrativize and interpret the world in a unified way. Ethics as an absolute moral given has no meaning in the way that it and most that use it would like to posit.

I do not think there is an absolute moral ground either. I'm very much a cultural relativist in that regard. Though I believe that some cultures have it better than others. But that would be my "ethical relativist" perspective. To even extrapolate further I more or less subscribe to the belief of psychological egoism. But again, at a certain point, I do believe that we have to order society in some way and the right way is the "best" way for a given society. Which would then develop into there being a "way things are." That's inescapable I suppose.

(Oh, and @BarNone, repetition of arguments gives you a chance for new perspective, even if there's no reason to do so. Repetition is life, and it's also never the same thing over again. So even if it's banal, don't be so quick to dismiss it. In general, not just from me.)

I know, it's not the first time I've been told that. But I can't help thinking Cather was right when she said that, "There are only two or three human stories, and they go on repeating themselves as fiercely as if they had never happened before." It's why I'm always analogizing things. But then again, my old sociology professor used to say, "But have you done this type of project with THESE people." :ehhh: Oh yeah, what's the name of that album you wrote that review on, by Bobby something or other, I'm a bit bored with hip hop? Figure that I'll try something else.

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

I find victorvondoom to be the worst
He's a partisan zombie

 

[88m3]

alybaba
gallo
daze
oribital
trueepic

 

[tru_m.a.c]

eh....don't know if I can go straight to a Poster of the Year vote

I feel like folks are better in certain areas, so can we break it out into some categories? Hell we can even do it like high school year books on some "Poster most likely to....." shyt.

You may think someone is great on religious subjects, but probably weak when discussing the economy. Or a poster may be very knowledgeable on civil rights issues, but couldn't hold a conversation about the environment.