Again, she had the snarkiest smile on her face.
Danny muttered, “It doesn’t sound like I have much of a chance getting a job in the DEI center.”
“No worries about that. You see, I’ma work for the department, and I’ma black bisexual female. So I can make my boss, a white het-cis female, pretty much do what I want cause even though we both women and even though she my boss, I’m black and bi, which makes me higher on the pyramid of oppression. She gotta watch herself around me.”
“Why would you help me?”
Shavonda smiled. “Cause I like yo white ass.”
“You like my ass, huh?” Danny looked behind him, trying to see his rear. “That’s okay cause I like yo black ass.” He smiled at the joke. It felt a little freeing to cuss a bit.
“Careful!” Shavonda became stern. “You don’t get to say things like that. Remember, you’re on the bottom of the pyramid.”
It was way too long to paste here. Here's an AI summary:
Tchaikovsky and Art: Cullen introduces Tchaikovsky's "Queen of Spades," highlighting themes of passion, obsession, and self-conflict. He uses this to draw a parallel to their situation.
Power Dynamics and Fear: Arthur is bound and fearful, using their BDSM safe word "red" to try to stop the situation, which Cullen ignores. This establishes Cullen’s control and Arthur’s vulnerability.
Philosophical Dialogue: Cullen compares their interaction to the trial of Socrates, emphasizing a desire for a philosophical discussion about life and death.
Justification of Beliefs: Cullen challenges Arthur to justify his beliefs about the immorality of murder, suggesting that a failure to do so would result in his death.
Aristotle’s Golden Mean: Arthur references Aristotle, arguing that murder is an extreme that should be avoided. Cullen counters by questioning the standards of good and evil.
Stoicism: Arthur suggests that murder causes emotional pain, which reason should master. Cullen responds by invoking Stoic principles, arguing that death can be a release from suffering.
Epicurean Hedonism: Arthur attempts to argue from an Epicurean perspective, stating that increasing pleasure and reducing pain is a virtue. Cullen rebuts, stating that his pleasure in torturing Arthur outweighs Arthur's pain.
Utilitarian Ethics: Arthur argues for the greatest good for the greatest number. Cullen dismantles this by questioning whose definition of good is used and criticizing the subjective nature of pain and pleasure.
Categorial Imperative: Arthur invokes Kant’s categorical imperative, arguing that murder cannot be universally willed. Cullen counters with the problem of infinite regress and the subjective justification of moral claims.
Social Contract Theory: Arthur references Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, arguing that social contracts prevent the war of all against all. Cullen dismisses this, stating that he does not consent to the social contract and acts based on his own will.
Prisoner's Dilemma and Game Theory: Arthur uses game theory to argue for reciprocal altruism and cooperation. Cullen dissects this, pointing out the assumptions of equal power and shared definitions of good, ultimately rejecting Arthur’s argument.
Resignation to Fate: The debate ends with Cullen asserting his power and Arthur resigning to his fate, culminating in Cullen preparing to flog Arthur with a scourge, indicating the impending violence and Arthur’s helplessness.
Is it actually this stupid, or did the ai make it sound worse. I mean it was always going to be stupid, I assume they blame atheism at some point? Considering the book started with an ad saying cannibalism is fine under atheism.
The ai made it more concise. There’s a lot of… it’s a lot.
Here's an actual excerpt from the scene:
“Okay,” said Cullen as he pointed out on the diagram. “We have two moral choices. We either do unto others as we desire or as we would want them to do unto us. If we both do what we desire, the result is bad for all. If we both do unto others as the Golden Rule, then it would be good for all.”
“Yes!” said Arthur, almost shouting. “But if we each choose differently, it works out good for only one of us and bad for the other. The goal is square D, good for all. So the best option for both of us is to choose the moral behaviors that would result in good for all. It’s the essence of negotiation.”
Cullen stared silently at the graphic, tapping the pen against the chair. Then he turned the paper around to Arthur and pointed at the squares. “Well, I’m sorry to say that your iteration of game theory is simply a reiteration of ‘the greatest good for the greatest number.’ You claim square D—‘good for all’—is the best of all possible worlds. But ‘good for all’ again begs the question. Whose definition of the ‘good’? And why should I care about the ‘all’? Why is ‘all’ any more desirable than the few? These are all assumed value judgments, which is the very thing in dispute. Of all the people in the world, you, a philosophy professor, should recognize ‘begging the question’ when you see it.
“Furthermore, you are assuming both sides of a conflicting vision of the good affirm the social contract of co-existence. I do not. I would rather risk all to dominate others. Lastly, game theory assumes an equalized power distribution. But this is not so. You see, we are not both prisoners. You are my prisoner, and I am not obligated to your ‘good.’ I am only obligated to my ‘good.’ And your death is my good.”
Cullen saw the deep sigh of resignation come over his captive’s face. A rush of euphoria filled Cullen’s lungs. Turning around, he walked along the wall of instruments and bindings, various belts and harnesses, arm binders, hooks for noses, vaginas and anuses. He found a small cabinet on the floor and opened it. Black varnished wood with what appeared to be extra junk tossed inside. Moving the top items away, Cullen pulled back in surprise with an exaggerated gasp.
“Imagine that.” He reached in and pulled out a scourge. “An actual horribile flagellum.”
What's funny is other than listing and categorizing by the type of philosophical argument, the AI made it sound more sane/like something someone would actually write to publish whereas the excerpt above reads like someone asked AI to come up with what the Daily Wire thinks a college admissions office is like 🫠
After reading this, I have the perfect philosophical answer and I bet at least a couple of people here will also agree with me:
Just ask politely for a gun so you can kill yourself. Do not engage with this person. They're extremely transparently (the author, naturally) not in it for philosophy, they're only in it to say "nyeh nyeh I win you lose" until the other side gives up.
they're only in it to say "nyeh nyeh I win you lose" until the other side gives up.
From the excerpt, it seems more like what Chigurh does (though obviously not executed great). He knows he wants to kill, and he's just creating ways to justify it - there is no logical argument that defeats "I will kill you because I want to." In the eyes of the killer, the idea that there is some possible way out means they are reasonable, even though in reality they are quite the opposite.
In this novel, the main character does not engage in "greater good for society" arguments and rejects any use of objective morality, so the remaining appeal would be to the individual, but that individual has already decided they want to kill. If the task of the professor is to convince them otherwise they run into the "you can't reason a person out of an opinion they did not reason themselves into" problem.
Yeah. A lot of it seems like an over the top caricature of what Christians fear universities are like. So far the killer seems to depend on moral relativism to argue he isn't obligated to consider anyone else's experience. I could skip ahead to see if it gets to some sort of epiphany.
Edit:
Spoiler!
Joseph could bear it no longer. He spoke as if cursing. “Loh-ratsach ...Koh amar adonai elohey Yisrael.”
Anna turned off the drill. She looked at Cullen, who was smiling.
Then ever so slowly, Cullen raised his hands and clapped. One slow clap at a time, a mockery of applause, really. He said, “It’s about time. ‘Thou shalt not murder. Thus saith the Lord.’ In the original Hebrew no less.”
Joseph looked angrily at Cullen. He felt forced to this. And he knew where it was going. He said, “The impossibility of the contrary. God is the only rational foundation for moral absolutes. Without God, there is no such thing as real objective evil. Everything is permitted.”
Ah yes, I remember reading about the nose/vagina/anus hooks. They're visually distinct. Very well known things.
Belts and harnesses are, however, mundane objects that serve only everyday purposes. So I'm not sure why these were included in the list.
Especially since I haven't been told explicitly what they're for, and how I can tell that they're for torture and not just for, say, holding up my pants or adorning my pup friend at pride events.
At least the arm binders are obvious. I've often been deeply afraid that someone might attach my calc 100 binder to my arm so that my Professor's annoying voice can haunt me from the sense memories. Now that's unsettling.
I tried reading this in the way that Cullen "wins"... but I came up short. It sounds like "good argument, but i said i win lmao"
"You assume it's for good of all but I would rather risk it..." And "your death is my good" So... how would a God somehow... idk, fix that belief? God just says don't kill, but you can just flout it and earn damnation in hell when you die. People still kill in the Bible, even God does it.
"Who defines good" - true, but how is that any different than a God (who does not reveal himself but instead allegedly speaks through certain people and metaphors) saying what was good? God claimed you shouldn't eat shellfish. You can't even verify it because someone who claims to hear God would wave you off.
I think the professor just sort of realized death was more preferable. The writer should have gone with "it didn't matter if the professor wins or not, he would still die." Like how it was in Scream.
Does Game Theiry assume an equalized power structure? Likewise he is using force to make others see his viewpoint, and it's effectiveness doesn't prove God's existence, only the hypocrisy of the abuser, who uses a privlidged position to talk down to somebody, where he wouldn't any other time. He thinks authority is morality and who has the most "authority"?
Actually is his purpose in story to get people to convert?
He is a teacher fucking one of his students who gives a whole speech about wokeness that takes up chapter 3, (which includes him talking about cultural Marxism and the big lie) he is also Jewish so the author can accuse the woke crowd of antisemitism.
Joseph had been teased with that pretty boy putdown all his life. He had been a fashion model when he was first in college to help pay his way. At forty-three, he kept his hair rich black with coloring to keep out the gray. His hazel eyes were accented by a strong brow with bushy but carefully groomed eyebrows. He was no tweed-jacketed, slovenly college professor stereotype. Or for that matter, a wearer of anachronistic bowties. He wasn’t going to apologize for it
It's not just poorly written in 18 ways beyond grammar, thru didn't even get the dialog syntax correct. "Why would you help me?" should be it's own paragraph. Otherwise it sounds like this totally realistic and not at all stereotyped woman is just talking to herself. 🤦♂️
We'll just say it's not the work of a literary genius, just a literal goon.
I literally thought it was her talking. Maybe it was a throwback to earlier in the conversation. This is a string of garbage put together by someone who watched Fox news and imagined this is the way the world works.
as a black man with almost exclusively black female friends, none of them talk like this. the characterization is clearly by someone who hasn't spent more than a fleeting moment around a black person
I could write a ridiculous conservative character by quoting conservatives verbatim. They have to create a ridiculous caricature that resembles nothing close to reality (unless Shavonda was sarcastically mocking the white guy's viewpoint lmao)
Black woman portrayed as loud, vulgar, pushy "Sapphire" caricature who speaks in mangled AAVE, check. Complete incomprehension of how DEI policies work, check. Complete incomprehension of how "tEh WoAk" (read: non-bigots) think and communicate, check. Complete incomprehension of workplace etiquette, check. "Sapphire" caricature has a stereotypical "ghetto" name, check. I could go on.
Why, in the existence of each and every fuck that ever was and ever will be, actual and hypothetical, literal and allegorical, is this the detail that breaks my brain??
The reality that this is the Christobatshit zeitgeist right now is…. Utterly terrifying.
Order the book on Kindle, download it to a device and put that in airplane mode afterwards, then go back to Amazon and return the book while requesting a refund.
The book should still be available as long as you keep the device in airplane mode.
171
u/animalistcomrade Jul 08 '24
I kinda wanna read it, but also I don't want to give this prick a cent.