We're still talking about Burning Man, right?


#1

Continuing the discussion from Company that pampers rich people at Burning Man won't give up:


Well, @OtherMichael, we could compare and contrast this rightness of the use of the playa by showy fairly-advantaged moderns, to the rightness of use other totally theoretical national lands by an unrelated group of showy fairly-advantaged moderns. And why it’s okay to party on former Paiute land when you pay the man, but not so okay when you don’t.

I bet some people would have some uncomfortable truths to approach if they went down that rabbit hole. Good thing we have the other 51 weeks of the year to keep all this stuff from intersecting, and good thing the Paiute are a prosperous people in modern times, with a standard of living totally above people, say, currently displaced by wars of expansion and resource extraction,and also and that they get fair recompense for their land from that man as he collects it today.

Thank FSM the Bundy’s are total maroons or I could support a little of their overall point.


#2

I detect a scooch of sarcasm.


#3

I was more aiming at the “don’t judge if you haven’t had the same experience” thang.

But I’m pretty scattershot with my blunderbuss comments, so I’ll take what I can get.


#4

25-year aged scooch.


#5

Irony, but surly that too.

*surly was a typo. One I will leave intact.


#6

I think that the perceived “fairly-advantaged moderns” are a product of western-imperialist perceptions.

Paying the local indigenous people seems entirely fair. But it is more empowering to them if they are paid in something of more value than US dollars.

The whole pay-to-play ethic of the US BLM and LEOs serves mostly to try normalizing decentralized non-commercial festivals to the very kinds of ethics they oppose, to draw them into that system. It is worth resisting and opposing.


#7

Sorry, I only have an 8 year aged Scooch


#8

‘western-imperialist’ - so, you percieve them as well.

We’re all redshirts. I think it’s funny for someone to a) go somewhere and pretend to not be one, and then b) chafe at being called pretentious.

The whole thing seems existentially dreadful to me.


#9

That I perceive perceptions goes without saying!

Perish the very thought of someone pretending to not be a shirt! If they weren’t so slow on the uptake, they could be posttending by now.


#10

I think it’s gone bad.


#11

but that you do not percieve anyone’s but your own… does seem to need to be pointed out to you.

Existentially, what you think I think…is entirely your thought.


#12

But am I really something separate which owns those perceptions? Perhaps I am both this perceptual apparatus and its content! The more pressing question might really be, then - where to best define this boundary of self/not-self?


#13

a mirror.

and you will not get a good reflection if you throw a stone in tranquil waters. Do you define the water’s edge as well, tide fighter?


#14

This topic was automatically closed after 392 days. New replies are no longer allowed.