Political opinion may be subjective but logic- specifically demonstrable real-world examples and statistics or factual data- are not. Care to list a few examples?
Scrolling down the first page of threads, they are mostly philosophy threads with a couple of big political threads. A number of active members are progressives and/or leftists. That doesn't make it a leftist forum, and even if it did, discuss politics elsewhere if you don't like it. Get a life.
Reply to Brett Everyone on this forum ( at least if they have anything interesting to offer) attacks unceasingly. That’s what makes it fun.
StreetlightJanuary 09, 2021 at 02:02#4862350 likes
Is the free marketplace of ideas being mean to you again? Free speech a bit too free for your liking? Looking for a safe space? Posting a trigger warning for others?
The majority is apparently liberal if that’s what you’re trying to say, sans the micro-drama.
Jack CumminsJanuary 09, 2021 at 02:29#4862450 likes
Reply to Brett
I do consider myself as left wing but you have not discussed anything other than the possibility of being attacked, so I am unclear what point you are trying to make.
Reply to Brett
It's true that this forum is mostly left-leaning but it's a bit unfair for you to complain about being unceasing attacks from leftists. Post anything which is left-leaning and you will also be relentlessly debated. While this is more true for politics, we could really say, post nearly anything and you will probably be criticised and debated, it's a philosophy forum after all.
Welkin RogueJanuary 09, 2021 at 03:28#4862570 likes
Philosophy is stressful in that you are constantly challenged.
Philosophising about politics is even more stressful in that you are constantly challenged about stuff which is (increasingly) close to your heart and identity. The nature of the challenge is also likely to be more heated. I haven't followed your interactions here, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a little less dispassionate analysis and a little more dismissiveness coming from those who disagree with you. At least, that's been my experience talking about politics. I have conflicting feelings about what we should think about that. On the one hand, it is perfectly understandable given the essentially practical nature of the inquiry - ultimately, our political philosophy must be oriented towards getting people to do stuff we think is just (I think ethics and politics are fundamentally practical disciplines). On the other, I think we should strive to be as dispassionate as possible in the context of philosophising.
To all my fellow right wingers who have migrated from Parler because Big Brother/Big Tech Google and Apple have eliminated Parler from their webstores (Orwell actually touched on this in 1984, but that's for another thread), let me be the first to say: welcome to our new home.
I am looking forward to having a serious discussion on issues that touch on the very core of what it means to be right wing today, including our fundamental beliefs and the worldview with which we understand reality.
Let's get right down to it, contemporary right wing philosophy. The first question I will pose is: Do you think that Trump is the reincarnation of Christ? Or, does Christ merely work through him in order to lay the groundwork for his Glorious Return?
Do you think that Trump is the reincarnation of Christ?
Personally, no. Though I don't see why it would be impossible. The same for the random guy who delivers your mail or perhaps waits your tables. According to scripture, Jesus was not aware who he was until he was in his 30s or so, when he was in the temple and stated "the prophecy is fulfilled". He was purportedly, obviously from the most widely known detail being born in a manger, born into a family of neither wealth nor nobility. One could argue, being born as a billionaire mogul would in theory only stifle such a realization, being a man as well subject to temptation, fear, anger, lust, etc.
Reply to Maw
This forum really contains close to no actual right-wingers, if you actually look at the majority of political debates on this forum, it's moderate left vs further left. Of course, the further left see anyone who doesn't agree with them as right-wing so people get called right-wing all the time but not really.
This forum really contains close to no actual right-wingers, if you actually look at the majority of political debates on this forum, it's moderate left vs further left.
This forum contains plenty of pro-capitalists, who are part of the right. There are lots of religious social conservatives too, who are also part of the right. What it doesn't generally contain are vocally active racists, misogynists, and so on, because hate like that isn't actually philosophy and thankfully is against the rules here.
I don't think I've actually noticed any e.g. Marxist-Leninists, never mind Stalinists, or anything like that here. In addition to the capitalists and social conservatives above, there mostly seem to be centrists (a la the Democratic Party), and then libertarian socialists. The axis here seems to be between those who think the status quo, economically and socially, is mostly fine (which is the definition of conservative), and those who want more liberty, more equality, or both.
If you think the aforementioned centrists are "moderate left", that just shows how far right your own viewpoint is skewed, but then you're in good company with most Americans in that case, so it's hard to blame you.
He was purportedly, obviously from the most widely known detail being born in a manger, born into a family of neither wealth nor nobility. One could argue, being born as a billionaire mogul would in theory only stifle such a realization, being a man as well subject to temptation, fear, anger, lust, etc.
It is true that Christ was born in a manger, but if you read The Bible carefully, particularly what Jesus says, it is clear he is very pro-capitalism.
This forum really contains close to no actual right-wingers, if you actually look at the majority of political debates on this forum, it's moderate left vs further left. Of course, the further left see anyone who doesn't agree with them as right-wing so people get called right-wing all the time but not really.
This is why we need to bring serious right wing discussion into these forums!
Reply to Pfhorrest
I do not think socialism can belong to the left and that capitalism is on the right. Fascism, for instance, is known to have anti-capitalistic factions and there are many left-leaning ideas on how our current capitalism could be reformed to be more in-line with the goals of the left. So I do not accept the "pro-capitalism is right-wing" idea. Pro-capitalists here want more economic redistribution, believe in more regulation, are amenable or in favour of increasing taxes.
I do not think there is a balance of people who are against more economic redistribution versus those who are in favour of it. Even the few people who actively label themselves as "right-wing" are also in favour of more economic redistribution. I can't keep track of every person who makes an account here but for posters with 1k+ posts, the overwhelming majority (95%+) would support more economic redistribution. We could analyse some threads talking about economic inequality, there may be debate on the best way to do it but if there's debate on whether it's necessary, it's usually just one or two people posting a lot.
The democratic party is certainly left-wing. The democratic party often talks about topics such as climate action, pro-choice, gun control, economic redistribution, increased taxes, pro-immigration, increasing the minimum wage, free healthcare, taxing the super-rich, expanding free education. Exhibiting the typical idea of left governments, there's no way it's reasonable to call them centre, even centre-left.
As I said, for whatever reason the further left-wing posters will label anyone who isn't as radical as they are as "right-wing". The current thread on fascism demonstrates this, Kenosha kid is calling people right-wing for just daring to criticise Antifa, it's absurd.
Obviously Brett is venting some frustration here but his poor expression of his issue with this forum doesnt mean there is no substance here.
Perhaps the OP could be rephrased and made a bit more clear and substantive, something like: “does the leftist bias of this forum hinder political discussions?” Or “is the leftist bias on this forum resulting in a tribal mentality that is dismissive of other/right posters?”
To anyone who doesn't think there is a leftist bias, I direct you to the poll done on political affiliations in another thread. 60% left, but more importantly 0% right. An example from this very thread came from Pfhorrest when he said “ I'm sorry about reality's well-known liberal bias. Feel free to hide from reality in a right-wing echo chamber if you really prefer.”
Left wing, reality based. Right wing, not reality based but the simple dogma of an echo chamber.
Thats a pretty biased way of looking at the right and the people on it. Also, delightfully ironic since Im not sure what else you would call this forum other than an echo chamber given there is apparently (according to Pforrests own poll) 0% of the other side posting on it.
Another question worth asking is why someone on the right might feel attacked.
Another might be “ are we interested in diversity of opinion on this forum or just the “correct” (left) opinions, politically speaking?”
It is also relevant to ask whether the right even exists anymore, or it has disappeared in the wake of trumpism, the political game (right wing ideology has been replaced by the ideology of winning the game of politics) and astonishingly widely accepted conspiracy theories?
Warning: this is a leftist forum and you will be attacked unceasingly if you disagree with them.
Edit: correction, the forum is dominated by leftists.
Naturally any Philosophy forum has for ages been dominated by leftists. Marx simply is such a big part of contemporary philosophy, so the leftists have been always part of the philosophy circles. And even if marxism-leninism isn't so popular anymore, it's totally OK to promote and talk about a philosophy that has lead to hideous totalitarianism and mass murder (unlike fascism and national socialism).
What just has happened is that the tensions have gone up and the unfortunate low standards of social media have influenced writing here too. The present toxic atmosphere in public discourse hasn't been kept away from this site, unfortunately.
Yet if you aren't a leftist, I think PF is the perfect forum to interact with reasonable leftists. And actually not all are leftists here...
And even if marxism-leninism isn't so popular anymore, it's totally OK to promote and talk about a philosophy that has lead to hideous totalitarianism and mass murder (unlike fascism and national socialism).
Probably because neither fascism and nazism have anything useful to say about the dominant economic system, whereas communism does. Marx Das Capital is an analytical piece of work with a lot of predictions about the consequences of capitalism that turned out to be true. His labour theory of value is a continuation of Adam Smith and Ricardo.
To really understand the problems of corporate capitalism requires acquaintance with Marx, although, perhaps nowadays we could ignore it and read Piketty instead.
This forum really contains close to no actual right-wingers, if you actually look at the majority of political debates on this forum, it's moderate left vs further left.
Yes, the real debate is not between right and left, but between the sane sensible people on all sides and the nutzo crackpots on all sides.
Harry HinduJanuary 09, 2021 at 12:45#4863310 likes
This forum contains plenty of pro-capitalists, who are part of the right. There are lots of religious social conservatives too, who are also part of the right. What it doesn't generally contain are vocally active racists, misogynists, and so on, because hate like that isn't actually philosophy and thankfully is against the rules here.
Hate was the primary reason you voted against Trump. You "progressives" like to believe that you are all open-minded and accepting of others differences, but your actions speak louder than your words. You people are are so filled with hate its insane.
But then that's part if the problem. You think its ok to verbally abuse others you disagree with, but racism is a big, "No-No"? Whats the fucking difference?
StreetlightJanuary 09, 2021 at 12:56#4863330 likes
You think its ok to verbally abuse others you disagree with, but racism is a big, "No-No"? Whats the fucking difference?
Oh this one's easy. People I disagree with can be wrong, be shown to be wrong, can change their minds, can sustain and support hurt and evil by means of their belief, while the color of someone's skin does none of these things. Racists should hang from the rafters and have their life slowly squeezed out of them until they choke on their own spit and blood. Next question.
Hate was the primary reason you voted against Trump. You "progressives" like to believe that you are all open-minded and accepting of others differences, but your actions speak louder than your words.
There would seem to be some measure of truth in this. As evidence we can examine the Trump thread which seems to filled primarily with tribal emotionalism, snotty superiority poses and the like. And this is a philosophy forum, well, in theory at least.
What we may need is a thread where we carefully separate the insanity of voting for Trump (especially the 2nd time) with the valid concerns that caused many people to reach for such a radical alternative. As example, it's not crazy to be concerned about immigration given that the political class has presented no coherent idea of even how many people we wish to have living in America.
Also, while it seems beyond doubt that Trump himself is a despicable danger to the republic, it's also true that he has an instinctive street level type of understanding of the American public which surpasses that of his competitors. And that would include most of us here, as evidenced by how eagerly we remain addicted to the reality TV show which Trump is hosting.
In order to have such a thoughtful discussion we're going to have to find some way to liberate ourselves from the ego driven tribal chest thumping which has dominated this topic on this forum so far. That is, we're going to have to find some way to be a little bit less like Trump ourselves.
But then that's part if the problem. You think its ok to verbally abuse others you disagree with, but racism is a big, "No-No"? Whats the fucking difference?
The difference is that it's acceptable to be black but not acceptable to be a racist, and so therefore it's acceptable to say bad things about racists being racists but not acceptable to say bad things about black people being black.
You "progressives" like to believe that you are all open-minded and accepting of others differences
There's a difference between accepting homosexuals and accepting homophobia. Homosexuality is acceptable and homophobia isn't. Progressives don't argue that we should accept every difference, only that we should accept acceptable differences.
Racists should hang from the rafters and have their life slowly squeezed out of them until they choke on their own spit and blood. Next question.
Ok, here's the next question. When are you going to find some outlet other than a philosophy forum for such oh-so dramatic little high school statements? How about reddit, facebook, twitter or any one of a thousand other places? Why do you have to do it here?
The Internet is huge. There are probably literally a million sites where you would fit right in with the other high school carpet chewers. Why is it so important to you to persistently degrade this site, a philosophy forum, with that which you wish to do.
You asked for a question. There you go.
StreetlightJanuary 09, 2021 at 13:15#4863430 likes
How about this? When you feel like making statements unfit for a philosophy forum why not confine that activity to the Lounge? Or, retire as a mod and leave the question to others to decide.
Or, ignore all such concerns, and just admit your goal is to drive the quality of content on this forum as low as you possibly can. If that's your goal, and the forum owner agrees with that agenda, then I would agree it's time for me to let this go and enjoy the ride down to forum death with you.
StreetlightJanuary 09, 2021 at 13:27#4863450 likes
Reply to Hippyhead Nah, someone who gets their panties in a twist about a response to the equivocation of racism and disagreement - but not that egregious equivocation itself - is someone too dense to take seriously.
To all my fellow right wingers who have migrated from Parler because Big Brother/Big Tech Google and Apple have eliminated Parler from their webstores (Orwell actually touched on this in 1984, but that's for another thread), let me be the first to say: welcome to our new home.
Parler is quite amusing. It says on the homepage 'Speak freely and express yourself openly, without fear of being “deplatformed” for your views', but then in its user agreement it says 'Parler may remove any content and terminate your access to the Services at any time and for any reason to the extent Parler reasonably believes (a) you have violated these Terms or Parler’s Community Guidelines' with the Community Guidelines saying 'However, even when the law may not require us to flag or remove reported content, or to ban a member, we will nonetheless do so when we deem it necessary to prevent our services from being used by someone in the commission of a crime or civil tort—particularly when these are likely to interfere with our mission of providing a welcoming, nonpartisan Public Square. Examples include criminal solicitation, fraud, and nuisance.'
So how exactly is it different to any other social media like Twitter?
Probably because neither fascism and nazism have anything useful to say about the dominant economic system
Except that China's government lead economy has done quite a lot, which in my view comes close to fascism. But of course, they see themselves as genuine marxists while nobody of the leftists on this forum see them as that (which is hilarious, actually). But hey, who cares what the actual people say to be these times.
Ok, here's the next question. When are you going to find some outlet other than a philosophy forum for such oh-so dramatic little high school statements? How about reddit, facebook, twitter or any one of a thousand other places? Why do you have to do it here?
What in the part of the definition of being "a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" does China differ according to you? Italy under Mussolini had still capitalism only "with a strong state". The difference for Mussolini and the Italian fascists was that the capitalist system was strongly controlled and lead by a strong government.
I wouldn't class strong economic control as a defining part of fascism. I'd say the core elements are: A strong focus on the family and the nation as the essential social organisations, a focus on "law and order" and hierarchical, autocratic rule, fetishism for the military and/or police, restrictive social order aimed at recreating an imagined past "golden age" and of course disdain for democracy.
China is drifting towards fascism under Xi, I don't know enough about the internal politics to judge how far it is on that way.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 09, 2021 at 14:32#4863570 likes
True, but leftists come in all different flavors and it can be fun to engage with some of them. In particular I've come to like engaging with libertarian socialists and Marx-inspired thinkers who might not be full Marxists yet. It was initially a little difficult for me to deal with hardline leftists, but eventually you just gotta enjoy it and go along with the insanity and play back at them a little.
[quote=Wikipedia]Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism".[/quote]
Is the universe itself left-wing or right-wing? Does mother nature provide the right environment for "...freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform, and internationalism" or does it cater to "...authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism" or does it play both sides or neither?
Right-wing ideals seem more attuned to the way the universe functions - "survival of the fittest" doesn't leave enough room for, you know, things like freedom, fraternity, rights, progress, reform, etc. except maybe on the off chance that a major upheaval takes place in the ecosystem but even then it doesn't take long for things to go back to (right-wingy) business as usual. It could be said right-wing beliefs reflect mother nature's true colors.
Left-wing mores smack of a desire by humans to break from tradition, tradition that's just minor variations of the Darwinian trope - struggle for survival - and beat a new path based on values that humans have, in terms of geological time, only recently become aware of. I won't be completely wrong in saying that left-wing philosophy bears the mark of all of mankind's civilizations, the best they had to offer.
I do not think socialism can belong to the left and that capitalism is on the right.
"Left" and "right" are extremely leaky generalisations about a whole host of not necessarily connected views. So it's no surprise that noone can agree on who is what.
What's perhaps interesting is that people seem to object to being described as "right wing", but outsider of specific circles people rarely object to the opposite label.
To anyone who doesn't think there is a leftist bias, I direct you to the poll done on political affiliations in another thread. 60% left, but more importantly 0% right. An example from this very thread came from Pfhorrest when he said “ I'm sorry about reality's well-known liberal bias. Feel free to hide from reality in a right-wing echo chamber if you really prefer.”
I guess the question is how do we know whether it's reality or the forum that has the left-wing bias?
It's at least possible that the consensus actually represents the best arguments.
What's perhaps interesting is that people seem to object to being described as "right wing", but outsider of specific circles people rarely object to the opposite label.
On this forum being called a right-winger is used practically as an insult but that's because this forum is incredibly left-leaning. I don't know if it gets more left than this site really, it's well beyond anything I've encountered before. Even on this forum, moderate left posters don't call people right-wing as an insult and likely wouldn't feel insulted to be called right-wing. I don't think it's more than the environment one finds themselves in, whether being called right or left could be considered an insult.
Reply to Benkei There's threads about that, as you know, Benkei.
Economists like Menger and others have far earlier shown how flawed the theories are, but the most obvious example is the little if meaningless impact of Marxian economics in current economics. Sorry, but markets and the market mechanism of demand and supply work far better to explain economic issues. Not a dubious theory based on "labor" making the value of something. What it is useful is for ideological leftist politics and not much else, actually. Especially with economics or with economic planning it simply isn't useful.
And anyway, the fixation on going through again and again the writings of the19th Century philosopher with a religious zeal and the utter lack of referring to later Marxian economics shows how dead actually the school is. We simply don't refer to, with similar zeal, to the writings of Adam Smith or Pareto and do understand that even if they did have good insights, their views are quite antiquated as the economy and the society has moved on from the 19th Century. And of course, the utter demise of the communist experiments IS proof just how wrong the economics is, because the theories surely were tried to be put into practice.
But that hardly matters as it's basically a religion and ideology than a scientific theory.
And anyway, I'm not so sure how much modern day leftism has to do with Marx anymore.
Kenosha KidJanuary 09, 2021 at 16:39#4863820 likes
On this forum being called a right-winger is used practically as an insult but that's because this forum is incredibly left-leaning.
The converse is certainly true. It always baffles me that right-wingers use the phrases "left-wing" and "communist" as if I'm supposed to be offended by that the way they would be.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 09, 2021 at 16:49#4863840 likes
I don't even know if a forum full of classical liberals/right libertarians would even be sustainable when it comes to talk on philosophy. We'd all probably just end up talking about finances and drugs. I'm sure I have differences with the others on the right it's just not all that important to me, and if there is a difference between, say, me and Judaka we usually just express our own opinions and move on. Left wingers are often vicious with other left wingers.
China is drifting towards fascism under Xi, I don't know enough about the internal politics to judge how far it is on that way.
Learn about it. I think Xi is a perfect example of someone who is an successful autocrat, starting from little things as he abolished term limits for himself. (Trump would be the unsuccessful autocrat).
"Left" and "right" are extremely leaky generalisations about a whole host of not necessarily connected views. So it's no surprise that noone can agree on who is what.
Agreed. I think this is because people tend to use those terms as labels (you think this, you must be right/left)) rather than categories (you think this, and thats right/left). The former pushes someone into a box (the dichotomy of left or right) the latter allows for entry into and or all appropriate boxes. Nuance I often hear it called.
What's perhaps interesting is that people seem to object to being described as "right wing", but outsider of specific circles people rarely object to the opposite label.
Well would those specific circles be the “right wing” ones? Why wouldnt someone object to the right wing term unless they were in fact in those right wing circles? I understand that right or left is insulting to some people, but what exactly are you trying to say here? Do you think a person who isnt left wing still embraces the label “left wing”?
I guess the question is how do we know whether it's reality or the forum that has the left-wing bias?
Does reality have a bias? If you are talking about the left or right being correct or incorrect, then I think thats showing bias, human bias rather than realities bias. I think both right and left are equally capable of being correct and incorrect.
Also, it seems clear that this forum is biased left. Thats just going to be the case when the majority is left, no?
It's at least possible that the consensus actually represents the best arguments.
Agreed, but how did you determine (or how would you determine) that to be the case? The false dichotomy naturally obscures the issue, as ideology and ape brain tribalism rears its ugly head.
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 17:30#4863910 likes
Reply to StreetlightX You say: "Racists should hang from the rafters and have their life slowly squeezed out of them until they choke on their own spit and blood."
That seems quite extreme to me. Would you genuinely kill someone for having a 'wrongful' opinion? Do you not believe in freedom of conscience, thought and expression?
Also, does that include black racists? Or does your philosophy maintain that only white people can hate others on the basis of skin colour? If so, what is it that makes black people immune to this sentiment?
StreetlightJanuary 09, 2021 at 18:00#4863970 likes
Reply to counterpunch Let's be clear about one thing: racism is not an 'opinion'. Not liking pecan pie is an 'opinion'. Racism is active hurt from the get-go, agression against an entire class of humans - whichever class of humans, to answer your question - for their very existence. And no, I wouldn't kill them, but I'd be perfectly happy were they so shamed, stigmatized, and opressed everywhere they went that they rope themselves out of self-respect. I do not 'believe' in the 'freedom' of racist expression - I believe in it's ruthless and uncompromizing supression and rejection. There's nothing 'extreme' about this - it's basic human decency.
And before any two-bit cloud-brain vomits out the predictible 'doesn't that make you as bad as the racist?' - no, if you don't like the above, then don't be racist.
On this forum being called a right-winger is used practically as an insult but that's because this forum is incredibly left-leaning.
Perhaps all the online spaces I frequent are left-leaning, but I very rarely see anyone positively self-describing as "right wing". The actual right-wingers seem to prefer other names. Left wing is a far more common self-description.
I don't know if it gets more left than this site really, it's well beyond anything I've encountered before.
Then I can pretty confidently say: you ain't seen nothing yet. I think even r/politics is more obviously left-leaning than this forum. To say nothing of dedicated spaces for anarchists etc.
I would, because it's part of the ideology. Fascists just loath plutocracy, nearly as much as communists do.
Well it's certainly surprising, then, that at least the two most commonly cited fascist states ended up with a lot of plutocracy.
I mean I do know about the "thid way" and that fascists certainly claim to be interested in widespread economic reforms. It's just that they seem to rarely materialize. But maybe I am ignorant, I haven't really looked into fascist regimes outside europe.
Learn about it. I think Xi is a perfect example of someone who is an successful autocrat, starting from little things as he abolished term limits for himself.
I do try. He is certainly successful. The question is what direction he will take the country in.
Agreed. I think this is because people tend to use those terms as labels (you think this, you must be right/left)) rather than categories (you think this, and thats right/left). The former pushes someone into a box (the dichotomy of left or right) the latter allows for entry into and or all appropriate boxes. Nuance I often hear it called.
Well said. It's hard to avoid labels in everyday discourse, of course, but they have little place in a philosophy forum.
Well would those specific circles be the “right wing” ones? Why wouldnt someone object to the right wing term unless they were in fact in those right wing circles? I understand that right or left is insulting to some people, but what exactly are you trying to say here? Do you think a person who isnt left wing still embraces the label “left wing”?
It's just that it seems to me that people who are in righ wing circles will usually use a more specific label for their ideas, and many more who embrace some elements of "right wing" ideas will reject the label. This doesn't seem to happen to the same extent on the left. People will usually not object to be labeled left wing even if they are only really interested in social justice rather than econmically "left" ideas.
Of course this might all be my bias talking. But it seem like we associate "right wing" with "Hitler" and therefore bad much more quickly then we do the same with "left wing" and "Mao".
Does reality have a bias? If you are talking about the left or right being correct or incorrect, then I think thats showing bias, human bias rather than realities bias. I think both right and left are equally capable of being correct and incorrect.
Well, no. It was tounge-in-cheek. Of course both are equally capable of being correct, but only one is actually correct (or moral, or least bad). We cannot find out via the labels though, we need to debate. I think this forum does a rather good job at the debating, for an online forum. It's not without bias, but nothing is.
Also, it seems clear that this forum is biased left. Thats just going to be the case when the majority is left, no?
Insofar as you're more likely to garner negative or even hostile replies to espousing "right wing" ideas, sure. But so long as the discussion remains for the most part honest and on topic, this is not necessarily a problem.
Agreed, but how did you determine (or how would you determine) that to be the case? The false dichotomy naturally obscures the issue, as ideology and ape brain tribalism rears its ugly head.
I agree that it'd be best to not consider labels like left and right at all when engaging in a discussion. We won't all be able to avoid it all of the time.
We simply don't refer to, with similar zeal, to the writings of Adam Smith or Pareto and do understand that even if they did have good insights, their views are quite antiquated as the economy
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 18:18#4864070 likes
Reply to StreetlightX If racism is not an opinion - what is it? I don't understand what you mean by 'its active hurt from the get go.' We're not chatting here. This is a philosophy forum, and left wing politically correct dogma seeks to control Western civilisation. So can you be more specific in explaining your rationale? Because I don't understand it. It seems hypocritical in several ways; not least that it decries stereotypes as racist, or sexist, or homophobic, and then employs those same stereotypes to insist that all black people, or all women, or all gay people suffer the same discrimination and disadvantage. Why do you stereotype by skin colour - rather than height, or weight, or hair colour? Why does political correctness not just judge individuals on the basis of their moral conduct, regardless of other factors? Why do you make race an issue?
StreetlightJanuary 09, 2021 at 18:20#4864090 likes
Reply to counterpunch Oh god you're not even a real person you're just a transmission cable of Jordan Peterson talking points. As you were.
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 18:26#4864160 likes
Reply to StreetlightX As I were... what? I don't understand you. Don't dehumanize me. I am very much a real person. Politically, I consider myself centrist, and I'm not racist. But nor am I on board with the dictatorial dogma that is political correctness, and you expressed a desire to proceed to the extremes, beyond twitter mobs and de-platforming - to murdering people who don't adopt your dictatorial ideology. Don't you think, that before you start killing people for what you believe - and they don't, you should at least be capable of justifying those beliefs?
Reply to counterpunch
You're wasting your time, the guy you're talking to is well beyond reason. I've never seen him treat anyone who disagrees with him with anything but mockery and trolling, go talk to someone more deserving of your time, like, literally anyone.
Perhaps all the online spaces I frequent are left-leaning, but I very rarely see anyone positively self-describing as "right wing". The actual right-wingers seem to prefer other names. Left wing is a far more common self-description.
I think "conservative" is more popular but I do see it. Though I think the emphasis for both sides is about using left or right as a pejorative rather than self-describing positively. I would say most of your experience is just based on the circles you inhabit but it is a bit harder to self-describe as right-wing for various reasons, so maybe there's some truth to it.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 09, 2021 at 18:35#4864230 likes
It's good that you mentioned that you're a centrist, that will surely de-escalate things.
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 18:39#4864250 likes
Reply to Judaka Thanks for the advice. I'll stop when it gets boring.
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 18:46#4864260 likes
Reply to BitconnectCarlos It's easy to be a centrist when the two main political parties have run away to the extremes. In practice, it makes me politically homeless. What I want to know, is what allows people like streetlightx - follow the left all the way to the extremes, and keep pushing?
I suspect, political correctness has a 'holier than thou' tendency that acts like a ratchet. No matter how unreasonable it becomes, there's no turning back. Anyone who doubts the absolute righteousness of the dogma is automatically a nazi - like JK Rowling, darling of the left for years, one sceptical tweet and she's the devil.
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 18:52#4864300 likes
Reply to Michael Okay. As a matter of fact, humankind are a single species. In those terms, there is no such thing as race. And yet, left wing ideology insists there is. So, in scientifically rational terms - sure. IN political terms, not so much. The left simultaneously propose a contest between the interests of racial groups, and deny white people the right to compete.
What I’m saying is that unlike an opinion such as so-and-so being the greatest musician, with a truth value determined by individual preference, the belief that one race is inferior to another and so deserving of lesser respect or opportunity or whatever is simply false whatever each person’s individual preference.
Also, while it seems beyond doubt that Trump himself is a despicable danger to the republic, it's also true that he has an instinctive street level type of understanding of the American public which surpasses that of his competitors. And that would include most of us here, as evidenced by how eagerly we remain addicted to the reality TV show which Trump is hosting.
It could be argued that he’s responsible for the condition of the Republican Party today, and that he achieved it in only four years, so how good is his street-smarts? Did he understand his followers well enough to foresee their attack on the capital? Was that part of his genius plan?
He’s a conman and an unprincipled trickster. Tricksters always eventually get caught up in their own net.
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 19:28#4864490 likes
Bias is exactly the same as opinion. Bias is a synonym for opinion. Not that it's a particularly significant point. I was merely drawing out the views of StreetlightX - who doesn't seem able to explain why he wants to murder people.
Similarly, I'm interested in what you mean by "dominant position" - particularly with regard to race. Are you saying that all white people have dominance over all black people? I don't think that's true; neither in the world, or within Western society. But then, I don't stereotype people based on skin colour. Left wing, politically correct ideology does - and so suggests that I, for example, a working class white man, am in the same racial stereotype as Eton and Oxford educated members of the Bullingdon Club; heirs to vast fortunes and the seats of power. I'm not. Not even close. I'm just as disadvantaged as my best friend at school who was from Trinidad. So left wing skin colour stereotypes fail; in that they discriminate against people like me, assuming I have some dominant position I don't have - even if, it might be argued some white people do.
Kenosha KidJanuary 09, 2021 at 19:31#4864500 likes
But that hardly matters as it's basically a religion and ideology than a scientific theory.
And anyway, I'm not so sure how much modern day leftism has to do with Marx anymore.
I recently blew up what I thought was a solid friendship by confessing that I no longer had an interest in reading or discussing Marx, especially in the context of what seems like the rapidly impending environmental disaster. By the time socialists achieve mass working class consciousness, Wall Street and the working class will have both drowned--literally or figuratively.
"Far left", "left" and "leftist" are still appealing labels, but when push comes to shove, what exactly do they mean? The "far right" and "right" seem like clearer labels. Editorial content in the Wall Street Journal (part of the Dow Jones company) seems consistently pro-capitalist, pro-corporate, pro-property, pro-reduced regulation, and so forth.
Solidly "left", even fairly "far left" publications and web sites are usually not in favor of abolishing private property and the corporation-protecting state. For that one has to turn to specifically revolutionary sites (most of which have been "preserved in aspic").
"Left" and "right" are maybe more terms of cultural and/or psychological difference, but even then they are 'leaky'. Leftists seem more tolerant of social deviation (until they are not). Right wingers seem resistant to social deviation, until they are not. (Example: the crowd that captured the capital last Wednesday looked a lot more like the anti-law-and-order hippies of old than I would have expected: blue jeans, beards, bare chested-tattooed, etc. Or maybe my cultural categories are out of date.).
Our old, handy, and familiar categories just don't work very well any more.
Kenosha KidJanuary 09, 2021 at 19:36#4864530 likes
Also, while it seems beyond doubt that Trump himself is a despicable danger to the republic, it's also true that he has an instinctive street level type of understanding of the American public which surpasses that of his competitors.
This is always the right-wing fallacy: an implicit and utterly dishonest definition of 'the people' or 'the public'. Trump is utterly bemused by 50% of the American public. They don't love him, so must be mistaken or traitors or weak or incompetent or something else that they're not. He cannot comprehend that anyone would disagree that he should get everything he wants at all times. There's no savvy there. He is immensely over-confident in himself and that is enough for a great many people.
This is a philosophy forum, and left wing politically correct dogma seeks to control Western civilisation.
— counterpunch
The shame of this is that you'll never understand why that's hilarious.
Doctrinaire, "politically correct" ideologues would perhaps like to control Western Civilization, but really, how likely are they to succeed? A lot of people want to enforce their favorite etiquette manual, but barbarians keep ripping them up.
I was merely drawing out the views of StreetlightX - who doesn't seem able to explain why he wants to murder people.
I’m surprised that he bothered to explicitly state that he does not want to do that, to those few who are unable to discern expression/content, or merely read.
I'm interested in what you mean by "dominant position" - particularly with regard to race.
The other day a large group of predominantly white middle aged men stormed and ransacked our nations capital. Some of the security opened gates and took selfie’s with them. That demonstrates a dominant position.
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 19:50#4864580 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank Given that half of government and all of the media are steeped in political correctness; given that Kier Starmer leapt to his knees for Black Lies Matter, and unequivocally endorsed gender self identification - and that the London Mayor just spent £1.3m of public money promoting Black Lies Matter on New Year's Eve, given that Parler has been banned by Google in an ongoing politically correct crusade against freedom of speech, I'd say, they're getting there. Which takes me back to where I came in - with StreetlightX, saying he would murder racists. So how is any of this funny?
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 20:07#4864590 likes
I don't see it that way. Rightly or wrongly, those people believed the election was a fraud - in much the same Democrats called the 2016 election a fraud. Go on youtube and search for John Oliver, voting machines, 2016. Maybe there's good reason to doubt the result. I don't know. I'm in the UK, a long way from the action.
Nevertheless, if the election was a fraud, those people did the right thing. They occupied the seat of power - and that's exactly what people should do if the system is corrupted. Afterall, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution both begin "We, the people...." It belongs to them. It's shameful that a police officer shot someone dead for trying to enter a building that they own.
But who should really be ashamed in all this is a highly politicised and polarised news media - who are quite willing to publish claims the election system is fraudulent without sufficient evidence; the left wing media in 2016, and the right wing media in 2020. The people who occupied THIER seat of power to prevent a fraudulent election have nothing to be ashamed of.
It doesn't demonstrate anything about racial dominance - as far as I can tell. If you think it does, please explain in what way. I don't see it.
Who should be ashamed in all this is a highly politicised and polarised news media - who are quite willing to publish claims the election system is fraudulent without sufficient evidence
News outlets are businesses that seek profit and consequently cater to their audiences. Some audiences want more factual information and others prefer a more opinionated (bias, as you say) presentation. Do they create news? Hopefully not. Trump is primarily responsible for continually chanting about voter fraud to his gullible base. If an authority figure repeats a lie enough times the weak minded will believe that it’s the truth. And boy did he repeat it. He claimed it as though it were fact rather than suspicion. News networks reported with whatever presentation suited their particular audiences. So by your reasoning it seems that the Divider-in-Chief should be ashamed.
It's just that it seems to me that people who are in righ wing circles will usually use a more specific label for their ideas, and many more who embrace some elements of "right wing" ideas will reject the label. This doesn't seem to happen to the same extent on the left. People will usually not object to be labeled left wing even if they are only really interested in social justice rather than econmically "left" ideas.
Of course this might all be my bias talking. But it seem like we associate "right wing" with "Hitler" and therefore bad much more quickly then we do the same with "left wing" and "Mao".
Ya, see I do not associate the right wing with hitler nor Mao with left wing, but I may be ignorant of the general consensus. You do hear that association made more often in the last 5-10 years, but I think this is more about a loud minority fringe on either side.
Well, no. It was tounge-in-cheek. Of course both are equally capable of being correct, but only one is actually correct (or moral, or least bad). We cannot find out via the labels though, we need to debate. I think this forum does a rather good job at the debating, for an online forum. It's not without bias, but nothing is.
Very true, key words are “online” and “forum”. Thats a low bar.
Bias can never be purged, only managed. The key to doing that is realising that at any given time, on any given topic, you could have your head up your ass. Thats what I do anyway lol
You cant purge it but you can try and minimise its influence by being aware of it.
Insofar as you're more likely to garner negative or even hostile replies to espousing "right wing" ideas, sure. But so long as the discussion remains for the most part honest and on topic, this is not necessarily a problem.
Not necessarily no, but ive seen some pretty gross displays by that left bias on this forum...though none of those incidences seemed like honest discourse.
I agree that it'd be best to not consider labels like left and right at all when engaging in a discussion. We won't all be able to avoid it all of the time.
Well I think its easier to dismiss people when you label them, thats why people do it. If you can make people associate right wing with hitler, then all your work is done. You call them right wing and you dont even need to talk to them at all. If you can call someone a left winger and have it mean “Moaist” then you no longer need to listen to that person, they are essentially a monster.
Kenosha KidJanuary 09, 2021 at 20:43#4864690 likes
Nevertheless, if the election was a fraud, those people did the right thing.
If there had been evidence that there had been widespread and crucial election fraud, then there democratic systems would already have been worthless, so, yes, why not.
However not being able to accept defeat is not the same as believing you have won. The evidence for who won was determined by the count. There was no alternative count, like a secret will in a locked desk draw, with which to contest the first. The only evidence pointed to Biden winning the election.
So then no, after all. Since there was no basis to believe that Trump had been robbed, merely insisting on it doesn't justify the attempt to destroy democracy in process.
I see you you're new here. Welcome... ish. This is a philosophy forum and something has presumably attracted you to it. Here you are advocating that, if you do not want something to be true, you are justified in proceeding on the basis of its opposite, even to the extent of destroying democracy and attacking police officers. Is this a general philosophic position you have, or a special one you whip out for politics? Or are you not here for the philosophy at all, just for the right-wing propaganda?
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 21:11#4864730 likes
Reply to Kenosha Kid Thank you for the warm-ish welcome. I was attracted to the forum because I am the most significant philosophical thinker of this, or any other generation - and I'm duty bound to share my uniquely enlightened thoughts, and shepard humankind into a prosperous and sustainable future - despite your apparent determination to misunderstand, and blunder into extinction.
if you do not want something to be true, you are justified in proceeding on the basis of its opposite, even to the extent of destroying democracy and attacking police officers.
There is no alternative to acting on the basis of belief; the important thig is to make sure those beliefs are valid. I said, I don't know if the election was fraudulent - but if it was, they did the right thing. If it wasn't - then they didn't do the right thing. If they acted on the basis of false belief - the consequences were wrongful.
That is my general philosophical position - and incidentally, it's why humankind is headed for extinction. It's not capitalism. It's a lack of regard for science as an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality, particularly, in the application of technology.
I was attracted to the forum because I am the most significant philosophical thinker of this, or any other generation - and I'm duty bound to share my uniquely enlightened thoughts, and shepard humankind into a prosperous and sustainable future
Please tell me this is sarcasm.
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 21:32#4864780 likes
Reply to praxis Sorry for the delay - I was washing up and making dinner. There's more to news than merely catering to the audience. There's supposed to be journalistic ethics - standards of practice for news organisations, and fake news is entirely unethical. Reporting what someone said - knowing it to be untrue, and not challenging it, is unethical. There's no excuse in profit making businesses, who only cater to their audiences supposed biases. That's like a doctor handing out puberty blockers to children who are suffering from gender dysphoria. It's utterly unethical.
I haven't paid Trump a great deal of attention. I know he has lent credence to claims of fraud, but I also recall the 2016 election being decried as fraudulent by the left - and what's missing, is the left saying the integrity of the democratic system must be assured. It seems like, they don't care if the election was a fraud because they "won." Or are we to suppose, Trump fixed what Obama left broken, and then declined to claim credit for assuring the integrity of the vote? He's soooo modest! Or are we to suppose that you were lying in 2016, and now - don't like the same lies used against your champion?
schopenhauer1January 09, 2021 at 21:38#4864810 likes
I haven't paid Trump a great deal of attention. I know he has lent credence to claims of fraud, but I also recall the 2016 election being decried as fraudulent by the left - and what's missing, is the left saying the integrity of the democratic system must be assured. It seems like, they don't care if the election was a fraud because they "won." Or are we to suppose, Trump fixed what Obama left broken, and then declined to claim credit for assuring the integrity of the vote? He's soooo modest! Or are we to suppose that you were lying in 2016, and now - don't like the same lies used against your champion?
Difference is that one could have contested much more in 2016 being Hillary won popular vote and lost electoral college vote. Yet neither Hillary nor Obama created years of narcissistic rallies, endless poisoning-well Tweets, and the like, such that such an event as a storming of a separate branch of government would even be fathomed by their followers... yet it is very predictable based on what we know of Trump, what he has created with his following, and the like. Obama was maligned for years about not being a citizen, and he sat there while the smug Don took power.
Odd as it may sound, Trump claimed that there was fraud in 2016, just not to the extent of the last election. Preparing the way for any future loss, I guess. But you’re referring to claims of foreign interference? Intelligence agencies reported that it was true, and the Mueller report didn’t exonerate the prez of collusion as he claims it did.
That is my general philosophical position - and incidentally, it's why humankind is headed for extinction.
Let’s hope it doesn’t take root then.
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 21:44#4864830 likes
Reply to Pfhorrest No. It's not sarcasm. My philosophical aim is to save humankind from extinction, and I know how. The only conceit is the immodesty of saying so. So, yes, it's tongue in cheek, but true nevertheless.
There is no alternative to acting on the basis of belief; the important thig is to make sure those beliefs are valid. I said, I don't know if the election was fraudulent - but if it was, they did the right thing.
They didn't do the right thing because they had no evidence that there had been voter fraud. Acting on blind belief is not doing the right thing. Even if it turned out that there had been voter fraud, they still would not have been doing the right thing, but rather their blind belief would have just happened to turn out to be true. I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if someone else has already made this point.
schopenhauer1January 09, 2021 at 21:54#4864860 likes
They didn't do the right thing because they had no evidence that there had been voter fraud. Acting on blind belief is not doing the right thing. Even if it turned out that there had been voter fraud, they still would not have been doing the right, but their blind belief would have just happened to turn out to be true. I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if someone else has already made this point.
When you claim that the election would be fraudulent before the actual election, then yeah. How come his followers had forgotten that?
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 21:54#4864870 likes
Reply to schopenhauer1 I don't know if the election was a fraud or not. I'm in the UK - a long way from this, and I could get just as convincing arguments from the other side, saying the 2016 vote was valid and the 2020 vote a fraud. I don't know enough to form an opinion. But I can say, both sides have made claims the election system is open to fraud - and that's not good. Particularly as, it seems, in 2016 and 2020 - the apparent results have been, or are going to be sustained. Is all this sour grapes?
schopenhauer1January 09, 2021 at 21:57#4864890 likes
I don't know if the election was a fraud or not. I'm in the UK - a long way from this, and I could get just as convincing arguments from the other side, saying the 2016 vote was valid and the 2020 vote a fraud. I don't know enough to form an opinion. But I can say, both sides have made claims the election system is open to fraud - and that's not good. Particularly as, it seems, in 2016 and 2020 - the apparent results have been, or are going to be sustained. Is all this sour grapes?
No one contested in 2016 as far as I know, and I just mentioned the very large differences of how transfer of power was handled between 2016 and now. Also just mentioned that Trump said he believed there to be fraud BEFORE the election.. so what do you make of that shit? Ridiculous move.. He threatened calling fraud and did it.. he was always going to do it.. doesn't matter how clean the system.
Also, 2020 results are not sour grapes, as even very conservative judges agreed the grounds for the fraud were ridiculous.. all of them.
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 22:18#4864950 likes
Reply to Janus I would like to agree with you, but objective truth is a very difficult thing to establish, particularly - in the midst of a politicised, polarised media frenzy. Those who occupied the capital believed what they were led to believe - and acted to defend democracy. It's not they who should be condemned, but those who misled them - namely, the media.
Similarly, I don't condemn Extinction Rebellion. They're wrong, or misled anti-capitalists. They believe they are acting in a just cause. Thing is, it's not capitalism to blame. The climate and ecological crisis is a consequence of our mistaken relationship to science. We use the tools - but we don't read the instructions - in that, we don't act on the basis of a scientific understanding of reality. We act on the basis of ideology, and apply technology according to what's ideologically valid.
Perhaps the democrats and republicans should appoint a scientist to design an objectively fair and fraud proof voting system. Unlike journalists, scientists have ethics built in to their methodology.
Kenosha KidJanuary 09, 2021 at 22:19#4864960 likes
There is no alternative to acting on the basis of belief; the important thig is to make sure those beliefs are valid.
Actually, yes, there is. Questioning your beliefs is important. Only an idiot would arrive at one idea without justification and run with it forever. If you can justify your beliefs, you should do so. If not, you should listen. And certainly not try and, say, stage a coup.
If one has every reason to believe X and none to believe in Y, your belief in Y is not a justification for bad actions. This is why "He seemed a threat because he was a " is not a justification for assaulting someone, even though it's the sort that racists think fine. To justify your actions in the world, your beliefs must have some basis in that world.
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 22:29#4865030 likes
Reply to Kenosha Kid 50% of people are below average intelligence - and average intelligence isn't much to brag about. Those working in the media; one would assume, are above average intelligence. They should know better than to mislead the muggles.
It's like Black Lies Matter. It has absolutely no basis in statistical fact. In fact, police arrest over 10 million people per year. There are around 1000 arrest related deaths, 42% white, 32% black. There's no racist genocide being committed by the police. Yet the media cheer as businesses are burned and looted, and Black Lives Matter is painted in 10 foot high letters along 5th avenue - while the same media condemn those who seek to defend democracy from what they believe is a fraudulent election.
I would like to agree with you, but objective truth is a very difficult thing to establish, particularly - in the midst of a politicised, polarised media frenzy.
The truth may be hard, or even impossible to establish; if it's merely hard then evidence can be found and presented, if impossible then no evidence can be found. If no evidence for voter fraud can be found then there is no justification for believing there had been voter fraud, and even less justification for mob action based on the blind belief, itself based on the baseless ravings of an imbecile, that there had been voter fraud.
It's John Oliver - a left wing comedian, from before 2016, talking about voting machines. The Dems cast doubt on the integrity of the vote before 2016. Trump isn't the author of this narrative. The left are. If Trump is a raving imbecile, misleading his followers - it must be that Trump fixed the voting system, then declined to take credit for it. Or, the left were lying in 2016. Which is it?
That is my general philosophical position - and incidentally, it's why humankind is headed for extinction. It's not capitalism. It's a lack of regard for science as an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality, particularly, in the application of technology.
So, your general philosophical position is that people should act blindly and hope that their actions will turn out to be justified by evidence? And mankind's failure to do that is the reason it is heading for extinction? And yet you valorize science which advocates acting only on evidence? You sound confused! Just what humanity needs right now; a confused savior!
Kenosha KidJanuary 09, 2021 at 22:44#4865150 likes
In fact, police arrest over 10 million people per year. There are around 1000 arrest related deaths, 42% white, 32% black. There's no racist genocide being committed by the police.
Yeah we've heard all this racist bs a million times. I don't even think *you* think you're being clever, it's more like a mindless vocal tick. BLM is not about the thousands of black people accidentally killed or killed in self-defence by police. No one is protesting because some cop won a gun duel. It's because of the smaller but still shamefully significant number of black people being murdered by police. Pretending up is down is something anyone with a bad ideology has to do, especially racists, so I'm not shocked.
the same media condemn those who seek to defend democracy from what they believe is a fraudulent election.
Another reality inversion. A lynch mob trying to stop the government accepting the will of the people is there to "defend democracy" in fascist double speak. Again, nothing new or smart here, just another example of why you should be loathed.
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 22:45#4865160 likes
What do you think the percentage of whites to blacks is?
Black people are 13% of the US population, but commit a lot more crime. For example, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics data from 2003-2012, blacks commit around 6000 murders per year - and whites about 5000, even though white people are 76% of the population.
Black people are 13% of the US population, but commit a lot more crime.
If that is indeed true it would probably be so because they are an economically and socially oppressed and disadvantaged minority. And to further complicate the issue, the statistics re population are straightforward, whereas those re crimes committed are not. This might help you gain a less simplistic view.
Reply to counterpunch Send me something that cites baseless Democrat claims of voting fraud, not a video featuring a comedian. And in any case even if the democrats had made baseless claims that wouldn't justify them or the republicans doing so; so you're not presenting an argument but merely rhetoric.
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 23:00#4865290 likes
Reply to Kenosha Kid Okay, loathe me then, but statistics speak louder than social media narratives. And the fact is, Black Lies Matter is a false social media narrative created by neo marxist ideologues with carefully edited phone cam footage, to incite black people to riots, and spike the US Presidential election by stuffing politically correct ideology down everyone's throats.
But it has no statistical validity. Police arrest over 10 million people per year. There are less than 1000 arrest related deaths. A minority of those are black people. Furthermore, George Floyd was a junkie scumbag, arrested for passing fake bills, who needed to be restrained because he fought police like a mad dog while hopped up on about six different drugs. He was claiming 'I can't breathe' long before anyone had hold of his neck - undermining the credibility of any such claim later on. And he was saying it because "I can't breathe" is a BLM mantra. How careless is that, making a slogan out of "I can't breathe?" You don't give a shit about black people. It's all a power game to you self righteous neo-marxist ideologues. You claimed the election was a fraud in 2016 - just as, you incited riots with lies; and democracy and law and order are the losers here.
The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average.
...
As such, the results of this study provide evidence that there is racial bias in police shootings that is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates, and is related to either: 1) racial bias in police encountering suspects/civilians, or 2) racial bias by police in the use of force upon encountering suspects/civilians.
If that is indeed true it would probably be so because they are an economically and socially oppressed and disadvantaged minority. And to further complicate the issue, the statistics re population are straightforward, whereas those re crimes committed are not.
Poverty is the parent of crime. Aristotle.
One doesn't need to study African American crime to see this. Even in countries with a very small percentage of black people, such as counterpunch's own, crime rates soar highest in the most squalid places.
But beyond that, being black in America is simply more criminal. A black person caught with weed is three and a half times more likely to be arrested. A black driver is far more likely to be pulled over. A black neighborhood is much more policed than a similarly poor white neighborhood.
Add onto that the fact that, surprise surprise, murderous racist white cops aren't exactly honest about their feelings. If you want to arrest or shoot someone, there's always "assault of a police officer" to fall back on. There was a video I saw a while ago of a white cop shooting an unarmed black guy in the back. Just strolled over and dumped a gun next to the body. If it hadn't have been filmed, that would have been one more black criminal rather than the equally tragic one more dead victim of racist white cops.
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 23:07#4865370 likes
Reply to Michael It doesn't take into account the number, or type of crimes committed. Look at the bare statistics. Black people - particularly young black males, are much more inclined to violent crime than the average. They commit much more crime than the average. Consequently, they put themselves in harms way. It's not rocket science. A Bayesian analysis covers up the simple truth.
Alas, no slip. Just a racist piece of crap being racist.
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 23:13#4865430 likes
Reply to Janus That was entirely on purpose - because Black Lies matter is based on lies; a false social media narrative, constructed from carefully edited phonecam footage. For example, it wasn't until police bodycam footage was leaked, we knew that George Floyd resisted arrest in a very aggressive way, and needed to be restrained. Did no-one film that except the police?
Similarly, a black British MP - named Dawn Bulter, filmed the police stopping her car, gave them a bunch of attitude, and then flipped the image to suggest she was the driver - when in fact, she was a passenger, and the driver was white, and splattered the video all over twitter. It's all lies - spread via social media. It's an agenda - not a fact.
You should read the paper before you make assumptions about what it does or doesn’t take into account.
It is sometimes suggested that in urban areas with more black residents and higher levels of inequality, individuals may be more likely to commit violent crime, and thus the racial bias in police shooting may be explainable as a proximate response by police to areas of high violence and crime (community violence theory). In other words, if the environment is such that race and crime covary, police shooting ratios may show signs of racial bias, even if it is crime, not race, that is the causal driver of police shootings. In the models fit in this study, however, there is no evidence of an association between black-specific crime rates (neither in assault-related arrests nor in weapons-related arrests) and racial bias in police shootings, irrespective of whether or not other controls were included in the model. As such, the results of this study provide no empirical support for the idea that racial bias in police shootings (in the time period, 2011–2014, described in this study) is driven by race-specific crime rates (at least as measured by the proxies of assault- and weapons-related arrest rates in 2012).
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 23:17#4865490 likes
Reply to Kenosha Kid I'm not standing for that. I wish to complain. I haven't insulted you, and I don't expect to be insulted. But that's exactly where you left wing ideologues go when you haven't got a leg to stand on; decry the person as racist, sexist or homophobic. I've made quite clear, it's political correctness I have a problem with - not black people, or gays, or women. Left wing ideology. That's what's under discussion here. It's not me playing identity politics - it's you!
Kenosha KidJanuary 09, 2021 at 23:29#4865520 likes
Actually, you have. First, you and people like you are an offense to all decent people. Racism is not a religion or an economic philosophy. It's harm is not accidental. It's violence as culture, not just in the individual ways it expresses itself, but to humanity itself. It kills over and over and over throughout history and excuses itself via it's own circularity. It is not difference of opinion: it is inexcusable violent hate that has to be named, condemned and stamped out by every conscientious person capable of caring for others to protect us from its violence.
Plus the aforementioned bs double speak is an insult to intelligence. Like anyone is stupid enough not to see through that brain-dead crap.
I'm a straight white middle class man from England. My identity is not an issue: that's been one of my many, many privileges. I haven't used it to besmirch people without those privileges because I'm not a scumbag.
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 23:33#4865530 likes
Reply to Michael I don't think that says what you think it does, or what it appears to say. I have a degree in sociology and politics, including statistical method - and I know first hand the biases in what are laughingly called the social sciences. The humanities are a breeding ground of left wing, politically correct dogma - and the problem here is, as stated above, that a multi level Bayesian analysis is simply unnecessary. It introduces hierarchical values to data points - in order to construe one shooting as more statistically significant than another shooting. i.e. to introduce the biased assumptions that, unsurprisingly then constitute the conclusion. It's a lie.
counterpunchJanuary 09, 2021 at 23:42#4865540 likes
Reply to Kenosha Kid I'm an offence to all decent people? It's difficult not to take that personally. I think maybe, your problem is that you assume your values are far more universal than in fact they are. I think most people, like me - recognise that left wing politically correct ideology is problematic at best. I'm trying to discuss those problems civilly. If you cannot keep a civil tongue in your head, best you fuck off you mug!
Given that half of government and all of the media are steeped in political correctness; given that Kier Starmer leapt to his knees for Black Lies Matter, and unequivocally endorsed gender self identification - and that the London Mayor just spent £1.3m of public money promoting Black Lies Matter on New Year's Eve, given that Parler has been banned by Google in an ongoing politically correct crusade against freedom of speech, I'd say, they're getting there. Which takes me back to where I came in - with StreetlightX, saying he would murder racists. So how is any of this funny?
Now, don't get me confused with StreetlightX.
was "...public money promoting Black Lies Matter..." deliberate or accidental? I'm not a big BLM fan; granted, the police resort to deadly force in many cases where disabling force would be much more appropriate. Still, black deaths at the hands of police are a small fraction of the deaths caused by civilian (usually black on black) gunfire. BLM should focus on black-on-black gun deaths as well as death by police.
My guess is that most people killed by the police are poor, whether they are black, hispanic, white or asian. A lot of police effort is directed at controlling "the rabble" at the bottom, -- the poor. That so many blacks are poor is a better cause-effect relationship with respect to racism than the activities of the police.
My guess is the Google and Apple did not ban Parler apps for reasons of political correctness. Neither corporation wants to appear as minor league tools of major league politics. Google and Apple are both very much part of The Establishment. Further, the rich people who own Google and Apple (stock holders) are generally always on the side of Law & Order, except when it comes to tax law. As a group, the rich have little (or none) sympathy with the relative poor and trouble makers.
The political right (conservatives, Republicans, etc.) have not been suffering from a lack of access to free speech. Neither has the opposite side of the aisle. If some socialists started calling for a violent take over of (Rhode Island or maybe North Dakota--never mind the U.S Congress) you can rest, assured that they will be promptly deplatformed.
We do not have absolute free speech. Some topics have been ruled out of bounds. I don't like it, but that's life.
Kenosha KidJanuary 09, 2021 at 23:54#4865600 likes
But I'm justified in treating you uncivilly because I GENUINELY BELIEVE THAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO because I GENUINELY BELIEVE YOU ARE A RACIST SCUMBAG and I GENUINELY BELIEVE RACIST SCUMBAGS ARE AN EVIL THREAT TO HUMANITY.
There is no alternative to acting on the basis of belief
This is your philosophy. Whereas the Trump rioters had only evidence against their beliefs, you have provided ample evidence that you are a racist. So even by your stricter criteria, I am justified in my response. I perceive your racism whether you own it or not. I believe you are a racist.
So ACCORDING TO YOUR AVOWEDLY GENERAL PHILOSOPHY, how would you say I should treat you?
Just wanted to see if you believed your supposed principles or whether they'd crumble the second they didn't fit into your ideology.
The Mayor of London used the New Year's Eve firework display money to hire drones, to form the BLM raised fist slogan in the sky. It was very deliberate, and kept secret until the big show. He's a left wing Labour Mayor, and I've just realised what you're asking.... - yes, the omission was deliberate. Black Lies Matter is a statistically false, social media narrative. When it all kicked off, I looked up the data on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website, and it's just not true that the US police are engaged in some sort of racist genocide.
I'm inclined to agree that poverty is a factor, but I'm betting it comes down to intelligence. If a police officer points a gun at you, and you ain't clever enough to comply, then you might just get your dumb ass shot - no matter what colour you are.
I don't quite get your point regards Parler. In the context of a politically correct crusade across all forms of social media - against right wing voices, who have to claim free speech protections for their opinions from the ubiquity of left wing cancel culture, I think it's just another example of shutting down the right while letting the left run wild.
You mention StreetlightX - I came in when he said he wanted to hang racists. He wants to murder people for their opinions. Serious or not, that's extreme - and something I don't think any right winger could get away with. They'd have police kicking their door off if they said that; find themselves in prison for inciting violence. The left wrap their villainy in the garb of righteousness; with such pathetic, self effacing, submissive displays of self recrimination it makes my skin crawl.
So I say to them, you know slavery existed since the dawn of time, right? You know it was thousands of years, black people had been selling other black people into slavery before Europeans got involved. You know we ended the salve trade - and invented almost everything in the modern world. But no. They are blind to the facts. The left hate us. They hate themselves. They'll side with anyone before us.
counterpunchJanuary 10, 2021 at 00:31#4865700 likes
Because this is a philosophy forum, not a chat forum. I'm here to discuss philosophy. I'm not here to butter you up, and become your firmest friend. I'm not here to call you names and become your bitterest enemy. I'm here to discuss philosophy - and frankly, you're letting the side down by dragging the conversation into the gutter of the giving and taking of personal offence.
I don't care whether you like me or not. I do care what you think about political correctness. I'd like you to explain it to me - because, I don't think you can, because it doesn't make a lick of sense.
If you think that makes me racist, then a) you're wrong. and b) I don't give a little rat's turd.
Adopt some academic distance. Discuss the subject matter, and keep your barbed tongue sheathed, or leave me the hell alone.
counterpunchJanuary 10, 2021 at 00:52#4865740 likes
Trying to not be PC? It makes you appear alt-right.
Philosophically speaking, given that your lot appeal to a subjectivism. how I appear to you says something about you, but it says nothing about me. For you, reality is subjectively constructed. You are responsible for how I appear, not me. So, what is alt-right? Is it like Viet Cong, or the Red Peril? Some menacing name conjured up to stereotype, and demonise anyone who opposes the left wing, politically correct cultural strangle hold?
I ask you, seriously, human being to human being, do you not think political correctness is problematic? Do you really think JK Rowling hates trans people because she said something about 'the cervixed" used to be called women? Don't you not think it's incredibly hysterical and childish - and that free speech and a thick skin are better things to encourage in the next generation than a hair trigger sensitivity to offence?
Reply to counterpunchOne of my problems (being a lefty) is I don't like a lot of the Left's knee-jerk positions. Like... the so-called cancel culture where one rumor of disapproved behavior and you are out of the game. Like... the left's insistence on the rights of any person to immigrate from anywhere to anywhere else. Like... the hasty adoption of leftist buzz words (like white privilege) by people who were not interested in their privileged status (if they even were) until it became a sign of virtue to confess it. Ad nauseam.
Intelligence may be a factor in police encounters. It seems self-evident to me that aggression toward cops is always a bad idea. local culture with respect to machismo is another; even style figures into what happens when police and civilians have freighted encounters. If "in-your-face" confrontation is de rigueur in interpersonal behavior, that could result in a hostile response from the police. Having a string of criminal convictions is a prejudicial fact. Et cetera.
Clearly, black people have been the targets of highly discriminatory practices since the days of slavery. There are planned, managed, systematically executed reasons why black people in the United States are, on average, poor. Their poverty is neither self-inflicted nor accidental. Economic racism has been at work. But economic exploitation is an equal opportunity game. The white working class has, by and large, been fucked over since the earliest colonial period of US history. So have a lot of other people.
As for the history of slavery, everybody was fair game. Back in the day when Britain was considered barbarian, slaves from Britain were quite popular--red hair, pink complexions, exotic. Thank the Romans for that. In Classical Greece, anyone could become a slave through financial misfortune. And once enslaved, many stayed enslaved.
It [recent insurrection at US capital] doesn't demonstrate anything about racial dominance - as far as I can tell. If you think it does, please explain in what way. I don't see it.
Basically, white conservatives forced access and ransacked the nation's capital. Imagine, if you will, ten thousand African American US citizens planning a protest at the capital, acquiring all appropriate licenses, and on the planned date protesting at the gates of the capital. Would they be able to force entry into the heart of our nation's democracy as easily and deeply as the white conservatives? Even if they were protesting the extinction of a species of butterfly it is very hard to imagine that they would. Of course this is speculative but I think shows a practical difference in racial dominance. One race litteraly has more access to a place than others.
Kenosha KidJanuary 10, 2021 at 01:14#4865800 likes
I'm here to discuss philosophy - and frankly, you're letting the side down by dragging the conversation into the gutter of the giving and taking of personal offence.
Terrific wilful missing of the point, full marks for that. Not a milligram of intellectual rigour or shame to you, I see.
Philosophically speaking, given that your lot appeal to a subjectivism. how I appear to you says something about you, but it says nothing about me. For you, reality is subjectively constructed. You are responsible for how I appear, not me. So, what is alt-right? Is it like Viet Cong, or the Red Peril? Some menacing name conjured up to stereotype, and demonise anyone who opposes the left wing, politically correct cultural strangle hold?
Remarkable that you can stereotype and criticize stereotyping in the same breath. I merely mentioned that you appear alt-right, meaning that you reason and say the same sort of things that alt-right folks do. It's not a good sign simply because you've identified as a centrist. It indicates deception.
Don't you not think it's incredibly hysterical and childish - and that free speech and a thick skin are better things to encourage in the next generation than a hair trigger sensitivity to offence?
Who was recently whining about StreetlightX's manner of expression?
counterpunchJanuary 10, 2021 at 01:50#4865880 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank I'm in the UK, and I'm Blairite still. It was after the fall of Communism in Russia and China, Blair sought a Third Way - re-rooting socialist values in a compromise with capitalist economics. It was very popular. He won three elections. Nonetheless, Labour denounced him as a red Tory, rejected his philosophy, and doubled down on neo marxian, post modern, reverse identity politics. Problem is, it's a zero sum game - and so the political landscape is utterly polarised.
For me, I'm proud of my country and what we've achieved - and will achieve, if only I could be heard above the madding crowd. The right deny climate change; or insofar as they acknowledge it, make promises for the far distant future they know they won't be around - to fail to deliver. The left use climate change as a battering ram against western civilisation generally, and capitalism in particular. Again polarisation and both wrong. It's not just political correctness. I'm politically homeless, and seek solace in philosophy.
Interesting thing is, I was looking at the US Constitution yesterday, and it states:
Fifteenth Amendment
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
That was adopted in 1870. Read in relation to the rest of the Constitution, that guarantees legal equality, it's quite difficult to understand how "economic racism" has been effected. Poverty is not proof of racism. But it is very difficult to escape.
Going back just a little further to 1847, the workers of the Northern mill town where I grew up - all worked in the mill, children too, when Parliament passed the Factories Act - ensuring that , "women and children between the ages of 13 and 18 could work only 63 hours per week." And they were paid in tokens, that could only be redeemed at the company store.
My grandfather - born about 1905, failed his 11 plus and was immediately taken out of school and put to work in the mines, opening and closing doors when the trucks passed, for sixpence a week. Later he was conscripted to fight in WWII, and died in a rented house with hardly a penny to his name. If I lack sympathy for claims of discrimination, it's because I'm white and far from fucking privileged.
I haven't been paying attention enough to tell how much of a racist you actually are or aren't, just skimming some comments that accuse you of it, but I would be interested or at least amused to see an attempted justification of whatever it is you think that's being called racist in terms of deep philosophical principles.
E.g. I can formulate an argument directly to anti-racism from a deep abstract and general philosophical principle like "every meaningful question has a universally correct answer". I'd be interested to see if you can do likewise.
counterpunchJanuary 10, 2021 at 01:57#4865920 likes
Reply to Pfhorrest Sorry, I don't understand your question. I can assure you I'm not racist. I do however have big problems with political correctness - not least, that it makes race an issue, and proceeds far beyond colour blind equality into positive discrimination - which effectively, discriminates against white people. And straight people, and men. But we were discussing political correctness in relation to race, and so - the kneejerk response from the left is to accuse me of racism.
counterpunchJanuary 10, 2021 at 02:11#4865960 likes
Reply to praxis Black Lives Matter were just applauded uncritically by the left wing media for killing around 40 people, causing hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage, for looting shops and burning businesses. Your critique of the capitol protests is just as biased. I'm a philosopher. I seek fairness and impartiality in my reason. I know black lives matter is based on social media lies with no statistical basis in fact. I don't know if the election was a fraud. You still haven't explained why the left claimed the 2016 election was a fraud, and why now, you think the electoral system has been fixed. Or, admitted you were lying in 2016 when you protested against Trump's election.
counterpunchJanuary 10, 2021 at 02:27#4866030 likes
Remarkable that you can stereotype and criticize stereotyping in the same breath. I merely mentioned that you appear alt-right, meaning that you reason and say the same sort of things that alt-right folks do. It's not a good sign simply because you've identified as a centrist. It indicates deception.
Don't you not think it's incredibly hysterical and childish - and that free speech and a thick skin are better things to encourage in the next generation than a hair trigger sensitivity to offence?
— counterpunch
Who was recently whining about StreetlightX's manner of expression?
To you! But again, to subjectivists, beauty, or deception - is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I see no value in deception - at least, not on a philosophy forum. I've been very forthright, and consistent in my views. Why would I go to this trouble to express things I don't believe. To deceive who? You? What would be the point?
Challenging what someone says, particularly when they say, they would gladly murder people for having the 'wrong' opinion, is not whining about someone's manner of expression. It's a genuine concern - not least because the genocides of the left have been far more frequent, and much, much larger in scale than any such atrocity by the right, and yet you continue to propound this obviously dangerous, runaway train of a dictatorial dogma.
In my view, your hysterical offence taking is a very small price to pay for freedom. I hope you're offended. I wish it. I'm glad of it, because every time a commie cries, freedom gets its wings!
Count Timothy von IcarusJanuary 10, 2021 at 02:36#4866070 likes
Reply to counterpunch
I don't recall any major outlets or Democratic politicians saying that votes were inaccurately counted in 2016. Do you have an example?
Hillary Clinton conceded within 24 hours.
Objections to the election were:
1. The claim that the Electoral College system is antiquated, undemocratic, and unfair. No one claimed it wasn't the law of the land, they said it should be changed, a reform that had bipartisan support and almost happened under Nixon.
2. Hillary Clinton's campaign was negatively affected by a hack of her party's email server and selective leaks of internal communications. This action was traced back to Russian intelligence. Foreign intervention in elections always happens, but the level of espionage was unprecedented. The complaint against the Trump campaign was that he broke norms by not condemning said foreign intervention, and indeed publicaly applauding it. Later, it was revealed that Trump's campaign manager and son met with a member of Russian intelligence after they had suggested in an email that they had "dirt on Clinton." This meeting was scheduled shortly before the hacked emails were released. The claim was that the campaign had known about the espionage and supported it.
To be honest, I think it's entirely possible that this meeting was set up solely to falsely implicate the Republican campaign and sow internal division. It was safer than letting them in on it and had the same effect on national unity; it's a damn genius move.
Notably, they tried the same thing in several European nations and had far less impact because all domestic parties condemned the leaks and foreign interference.
3. There were the perennial complaints about voter registration purged, gerrymandering, abuse of the justice system to disenfranchise minorities by giving them felony status for crimes such as non-violent drug use, for which White citizens rarely lose their right to vote (and bear arms).
4. James Coney's late announcement that some of the infamous "emails," might have been found days before the election. (The politicization of investigations was a long time coming, so I'm not sure how unprecedented it really was).
I hope you can see the difference between these complaints and claiming that you did in fact win the election you lost, "in a landslide," and that millions of fake votes were submitted. No one claimed that less people in key states voted for Donald Trump in 2016, and Hillary Clinton conceded, rather than claiming that Trump had to "prove there wasn't fraud to enter the White House." Clinton never called elections officials in swing states to personally lobby them to reverse the results. She never called state legislators and asked them to pick electors in line with her candidacy, rather than the results of the election. She never asked Congress to toss out election results certified by the states.
I found the Women's March protests distasteful and embarrassing, but it's hard to take GOP lawmakers and conservative pundits seriously when, after their loss, they've thrown a hissy fit an order of magnitude larger.
The investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election was unfortunately politicized by both sides, although I'd point out that the President began calling it a hoax before the investigation had even started, putting political expediency ahead of national security. This behavior is an issue that John Bolton and General Mattis, among others, hardly liberal partisans, say was perennial. The Democrats for their part undermined their credibility by jumping on half baked conspiracy theories and stretching the evidence available. By focusing on Russia, they distracted from the fact that multiple Cabinet members have come out on the record saying the President put personal gain above national security in myriad other, provable situations.
Black Lives Matter were just applauded uncritically by the left wing media for killing around 40 people, causing hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage, for looting shops and burning businesses. ... I'm a philosopher. I seek fairness and impartiality in my reason.
Fairness and impartiality are good. How about evidence? Can you post a link of any media outlet doing what you claim?
I'm getting tired of your selective sensitivity. It wasn't there when it was black people doing much less worse stuff than killing police officers. Don't pretend to be rational when you're stinking of bias.
Drop the act of being objective or truly interested in any way. Just jump right to the complete rationalization of what happened yesterday. Spare yourself the mental gymnastics.
— Xtrix
Still don't understand the rationale of having a user on this site who repeatedly cites and parrots nefarious lies of radical rightwing publications, and then acts like he never believed in it to begin with when he's called out on it, or just ignores it entirely and moves on to the next fabrication to waste everyone's time with.
It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing its the fact that you fabricated shit out of thin air and expect anyone to put in any effort to take that shit seriously.
It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing its the fact that you fabricated shit out of thin air and expect anyone to put in any effort to take that shit seriously.
I don't know if you'd call John Oliver a major outlet. I'm in the UK. I'm not glued to Fox or MSNBC - watching in depth political analysis of American politics I can recall 4 years after the fact. But Oliver is generally left wing - and he did a video on voting machines before the 2016 election. I recall a lot of people claiming Trump is 'not my president' - and then there was all the collusion stuff on top of that. The left clearly cast doubt on the validity of the 2016 election. And you are doing still.
I'm not on the frontlines. I've made that clear. I'm from the UK. I've said I don't know if the election was fraudulent or not. But it does seem strange, for all the doubt cast in 2016, that now there's utter certainty on the left that the election was entirely valid. I wonder if they'd be saying that if they'd lost?
If it weren't for Covid - the US economy would still be booming, and Trump would have walked it. He isn't/wasn't such a bad President in many ways. Disaster for the environment - something I care a lot about, but in other ways, he was pretty good. He didn't start any wars, even while he called out China for devaluing their currency and dumping on European and American markets. He encouraged Europe to step up to its obligations on defence, while engaging with the likes of North Korea. He lived up to the small government, low tax principles of the right - and challenged political correctness by saying what he damn well pleased. I think history will remember him fondly.
Conversely, I fear that Biden is beholden to extreme left wing elements, that political correctness will become utterly oppressive, and that his $2 trillion Green New Deal will be a disaster; in that, I don't believe windmills and solar panels can ever provide enough energy to meet our needs. In 25 years they'll all be scrap, and by then it'll be too late to stop climate change. I'd rather a climate change denier - than a plan to apply the wrong technologies, and in doing so, silence all discussion of the subject.
Reply to Pfhorrest I think you can rightly be held to be racist on the basis of either commission or omission; the latter consisting in failing to recognize the plight of oppressed racial minorities and trying to rationalize the situation to exonerate the actively racist members of our society and excusing or denying the existent systemic racism which works to keep the oppressed oppressed.
Black Lives Matter were just applauded uncritically by the left wing media for killing around 40 people, causing hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage, for looting shops and burning businesses. ... I'm a philosopher. I seek fairness and impartiality in my reason.
— counterpunch
Fairness and impartiality are good. How about evidence? Can you post a link of any media outlet doing what you claim?
I could, I guess - but why should I? Because you demand it? Google the phrase 'mostly peaceful' - and I think you'll get my point.
Excuse me, I care deeply about the environment. But what if we start doing solar panels and the sun explodes? What if we put up windmills and the winds just stops forever? We'd invest all that money for nothing!
"I suggest that what we are facing in biblical terms is very much a Tower of Babel situation, not apocalypse or judgement day; it's a breakdown of communication. I think it is a psychological defence; communication has become too fast, too universal and ego becomes swamped, and takes refuge from the engulfing mass of others in a fantasy world. In this condition, the majority votes for there not being a problem, and that makes problems unresolvable." ~ unenlightened
Joking aside we need to engage more with people like @Brett@NOS4A2 and especially @counterpunch as they are a real deal philosopher! (Joking not completely aside, I guess)
counterpunchJanuary 10, 2021 at 04:03#4866430 likes
Reply to praxis I can show you evidence of Black Lies Matter riots, but I can't show you evidence of left wing media - not criticizing them, because - as surely, even the least philosophically educated should be aware, one cannot prove a negative. So, I ask you, of what do you demand evidence? The best advice I can offer is to Google the phrase "mostly peaceful" in relation to BLM; and compare it with the absolute condemnation of the capitol protestors, who - rightly or wrongly, sought to defend democracy. The capitol protestors won't be painting their names on 5th avenue in 10 foot high letters, or having fireworks displays in support of them, half way around the world, paid for by the British tax payer. Can you tell me, how many people BLM killed, or how much property damage they caused? No, and it was a lot. But we don't hear about it. It's left wing media hypocrisy.
"I suggest that what we are facing in biblical terms is very much a Tower of Babel situation, not apocalypse or judgement day; it's a breakdown of communication. I think it is a psychological defence; communication has become too fast, too universal and ego becomes swamped, and takes refuge from the engulfing mass of others in a fantasy world.
Joking aside we need to engage more with people like Brett @NOS4A2 and especially @counterpunch
I do actually agree with this in principle. If I had unlimited time and energy I would love to spend it trying to reach common ground with ideological "opponents". Problem is that doing so properly is time-consuming and exhausting and I really don't have that time or energy to spare, so neither can I blame anyone else who doesn't want to make the effort either.
If I had unlimited time and energy I would love to spend it trying to reach common ground with ideological "opponents". Problem is that doing so properly is time-consuming and exhausting and I really don't have that time or energy to spare
Excuse me, I care deeply about the environment. But what if we start doing solar panels and the sun explodes? What if we put up windmills and the winds just stops forever? We'd invest all that money for nothing!
East Anglia ONE, off the coast of the UK, has 102 windmills, took ten years to build at a cost of £2.5bn, and produces 714MW - enough to power 600,000 homes. The UK has around 30 million homes - so, just to meet domestic energy demand, we'd need over 6000 windmills, at a cost of £1500bn. They have a working life of 25 years, and after that - same again. If you claim wind-power is an adequate solution to climate change then you're either dishonest or crazy. But we're not done, because from 2030, the UK is phasing out petrol cars - adding the demand of 30 million or so, electric vehicles to the national grid. The sums don't add up - not even nearly. They're making promises that are obviously false, just to shut people up - until they can disappear over the political horizon.
I have a solution, and I know it's right. I can prove it right down to the philosophical roots. I can explain where we've gone wrong and how to put it right in the same terms. I am a philosopher. My core subject is how to save the world. And I know how.
I can show you evidence of Black Lies Matter riots, but I can't show you evidence of left wing media - not criticizing them, because - as surely, even the least philosophically educated should be aware, one cannot prove a negative.
Damn! I’ve been outfoxed again by your philosophical prowess. But seriously, your claim was: “Black Lives Matter were just applauded uncritically by the left wing media for killing around 40 people, causing hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage....”
I have a solution, and I know it's right. I can prove it right down to the philosophical roots. I can explain where we've gone wrong and how to put it right in the same terms. I am a philosopher. My core subject is how to save the world. And I know how.
So are you going to start a thread about that sometime?
counterpunchJanuary 10, 2021 at 04:39#4866570 likes
I have a solution, and I know it's right. I can prove it right down to the philosophical roots. I can explain where we've gone wrong and how to put it right in the same terms. I am a philosopher. My core subject is how to save the world. And I know how.
— counterpunch
So are you going to start a thread about that sometime?
I don't know. It seems a bit immodest to start a thread to propound my own philosophy. It feels better to introduce my ideas by showing where others are faulty. The problem with left wing ideology on climate change is the 'limits to growth' hypothesis - based in turn on Malthusian pessimism. They want us to pay more and have less, and carbon tax this, and stop doing that, eat grass and cycle to work or whatever. They make people the problem, but in fact - resources are a function of the energy available to create them. Given enough clean energy we can extract carbon from the air and bury it, produce hydrogen fuel, desalinate water to irrigate land, recycle everything, farm fish, and so on - a high energy sustainable future with high living standards, in balance with nature. The left want anti capitalist, eco commie poverty, kept in place by left wing authoritarian government - presumably, forever. It's frankly, a horrifying prospect. We'd be better off sailing off the edge of the world in pursuit of the almighty dollar than letting the eco commies have their way. But I think we can secure a prosperous sustainable future through the application of the right technologies, and that ain't windmills. It's magma power. The heat energy of the earth itself.
Rafaella LeonJanuary 10, 2021 at 04:47#4866580 likes
Edit: correction, the forum is dominated by leftists.
The mods are the most devoted and strict inspectors of communist orthodoxy in the forum's OPs. Once you have escaped the "fair line", they ban you and make you a renegade, a non-person.
Communists censors everyone who is not in line with the Ingsoc's dogmas.
Joking aside we need to engage more with people like Brett @NOS4A2 and especially @counterpunch as they are a real deal philosopher! (Joking not completely aside, I guess)
Looks like I'll have to add resident neckbeard-posing-as-young-lady @Rafaella Leon to the list as well
I'm worried about the same thing as you, except a right wing version. I also worry about the CCP and I'm not even sure what wing they are; but they're authoritarian as fuck so I consider them Cunts.
For the record, I don't think biden et al are authoritarian - at all, but I do see trump as being so. Why do you think the democrats are authoritarian?
counterpunchJanuary 10, 2021 at 05:19#4866630 likes
You don't think political correctness is authoritarian? Those who don't parrot the dogma get burned at the stake of cancel culture. Then, climate change - (do you mean IPCC?) The left want to stop people flying, eating meat, driving cars etc. Do you know what Liberty is? Freedom of speech, and freedom of choice are an anathema to the left. Their climate policies imply an increasingly authoritarian government and planned economy. Politically correct eco commies. Anti capitalist, anti free speech - anti western. They're the enemy within, a 5th column, reds under the bed!
Trump is small government, low tax and low regulation. He refused to appoint people to half of government agencies. That's non authoritarian - his personal style aside, less government equals more freedom. Dishwashers that get the dishes clean because there isn't some government agency making laws about how much water or electricity they can use. Fine by me. I want freedom - but to afford it we need limitless clean energy from magma.
That was adopted in 1870. Read in relation to the rest of the Constitution, that guarantees legal equality, it's quite difficult to understand how "economic racism" has been effected. Poverty is not proof of racism. But it is very difficult to escape.
It was easy because the constitution and laws were just ignored, not just by private parties, but by the US Government and the States. Prime Example: in the mid-1930s, a large program was created to improve the nation's deteriorating housing stock. The plan was to help finance new housing--hell, new city-suburbs. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) helped millions of people obtain mortgages for good quality new housing in new communities. Thanks to pressure from southern senators, the program explicitly barred blacks, Jews, and other minorities from the mortgage program. (Unconstitutional? Of course it was.)
For urban blacks, the FHA built new rental housing--large high-rise complexes. The rules went so far as to say that a mortgage for housing in urban cores could not be granted to a white family if there was so few as one black family on the block, and blacks were altogether ineligible for urban-core loans.
The financial value of the millions of new properties located in thriving suburbs, coast to coast, appreciated handsomely. This allowed millions of white home owners to accumulate significant equity, which could be used to further the families upward mobility. It was an all-around good deal. for whites.
Eventually the courts and congress eliminated racial barriers in FHA programs. It was, however, too late to undo the long term damage. The millions of homes in white suburbs were now too expensive for any but well-off blacks to buy. Plus, the all-white suburbs mostly wanted to--and have--stayed white.
So, the FHA program doesn't account for black poverty entirely. Employment discrimination has to be factored in, as do poor education programs, poor community health care, and so on and so forth.
I'm in the UK, and I'm Blairite still. It was after the fall of Communism in Russia and China, Blair sought a Third Way - re-rooting socialist values in a compromise with capitalist economics. It was very popular.
The US (and I assume the UK and EU countries) have at times reined in the excesses of capitalism through tax law. Higher taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations reduces disparities, and funds the government at a high enough level to effectively serve the common good. Low taxes puts us where we are now -- a starved public service sector and a bloated wealthy class -- the 1%, or 1/10 of 1%ers.
we'd need over 6000 windmills, at a cost of £1500bn. They have a working life of 25 years, and after that - same again.
I doubt if the entire windmill has to be replaced every 25 years; it's probably the generator at the top, driven by the blades, that has to be replaced. Well, nuclear plants don't last indefinitely; neither do coal fired generators, or hydro-electric.
Clearly we can not merely power the present wasteful energy-use regime with solar or wind power. We have to cease and desist. There are presently over 1 billion cars in the world, almost all of them powered by fossil fuel. The solution is not to build many millions of windmills to power billions of cars; the solution is to get rid of cars, and replace them with other methods of transportation.
Seems to me that 21st century society is facing 19th century problems while using antiquated 20th century economics as a solution.
Yeah, you can say that, yet society isn't transforming from a feudal society as it was in the 19th Century. Modern middle class is a bit different from the classes of 19th Century. Above all, history of the 19th and 20th Century has also answered many issues, if we just want to look at our history. Yet one part where economics is now truly lost is in monetary economics, that I agree with. It doesn't make any sense of the insanity now upon us (with the economy in recession and asset inflation making the stock market going into all time highs and the central banks printing a lot of money).
Reply to Maw Adam Smith institute? Well, what I meant is that apart from Economics 1.1 lessons, economists don't refer typically to Smith as Marxist economists to what Marx has written.
I've notice fiscal conservatism (a good thing) generally isn't shot down but Christians as opposed to other religions are not allowed to preach. Other religions are allowed to preach all the time. How do you define preaching? Judgement is a spectrum and most People judge others on some level. The new testament actually does not say not to make judgements on others. Judgement is a spectrum. Do you need me to explain why?
Harry HinduJanuary 10, 2021 at 12:55#4867190 likes
The difference is that it's acceptable to be black but not acceptable to be a racist, and so therefore it's acceptable to say bad things about racists being racists but not acceptable to say bad things about black people being black.
Acceptable by who? You only get to speak for yourself. Look who gets to define what is acceptable and label others actions as racists when they are simply disagreeing with you, and not being racist. Demonizing others and calling them racists just because the don't believe in the "white privilege" myth isn't acceptable either.
My point was, is it wrong to verbally abuse anyone at all? You seem to think blacks and homosexuals are free to say what they want without being challenged, because to challenge them means that the challenger is a racist or homophobe. This is the left's political discourse in a nutshell.
No one was talking about fraud in 2016. Some believed that Russian interference (which did take place) had an influence on the election results, and that Trump colluded with Russia in this purpose (with some good reason to believe this). I did not believe either of that myself, but that’s what was said.
Compare this to the claims that hundreds of thousands of votes are fraudulent. Voter fraud is extremely rare, and anyone with a brain cell knew that trump would make something up if he lost — he said it explicitly.
That’s happened, predictably, and you people take it seriously enough to be “agnostic” about it? No, sorry — experts (remember them?) say the opposite, in fact: that the election was the most secure in history. And it’s not opinion — there’s overwhelming evidence to back it up. Partly it was due, ironically, to Trump’s screaming about fraud.
People who want to believe a fiction WILL believe a fiction. But this election was free, fair, and secure. There is no evidence to the contrary, which is why Trump has lost every court case. Because you can’t win in court with delusions.
Count Timothy von IcarusJanuary 10, 2021 at 13:35#4867320 likes
When did John Oliver claim that there were fraudulent votes and that Hillary actually was rightful winner of the election?
Seems like false equivalency to me.
There is certainly bias against conservatives in academia to some extent; although it varies significantly by field. Francis Fukayama (my personal favorite political theorist), is a conservative associated with the Bush I years and is highly respected in his field. "Conservatives," seem more set upon than they are, because Trumpists have decided that people like Fukayama, who live in a world of nuance and complexity, are degenerate RINO scum, particularly since they won't sing Trump's praises. Hell, Mitt Romney, a successful and popular Republican governor in the unfavorable landscape of Massachusetts, who was Republican voters' choice for President in 2012, and almost unseated a Obama, is now considered a RINO, deep state liberal. Hell, half the people Trump himself picked for main cabinet positions, Mattis, Tillerson, Sessions, etc. flipped to being craven closet liberals and morons as soon as the cult of personality began taking criticism.
Point being, people don't have near as much a problem with conservatism as they do Trumpism. The reason is that Trumpism mostly relies on ignoring nuance and enforcing a worldview of Manichean struggle through a steady stream of abject lies. Conservatives who have the audacity to criticize Trump are apparently no longer conservative in this context. No one is going to debate anyone who just restates lies.
"Dems called the 2016 election fraudulent," for instance, is a Rush Limbaugh tier comparison for the reasons I listed above. You can't say "I don't have one single example of Democrats saying the vote count was wrong or that Hillary really won and should take office," and then claim the two cases are parallel. At best you can argue that the complaints over foreign intervention and the FBI's actions were overblown and eroded norms, but those norms were later ripped to shreds Trump himself.
Same goes on every other issue. Trumpists will swear up and down he curbed migration before COVID, despite the fact that illegal border crossings demonstrably hit a 13 year high under his leadership and that his party had control of both chambers of Congress, the Court, and the White House for 24 months and did not hold one (1) vote on migration, not even token changes to make enforcement slightly easier. If Trumpists go with "alternative facts," and people call them assholes and a morons, I don't blame them. There is no point in arguing with people who refuse to accept reality.
I have a solution, and I know it's right. I can prove it right down to the philosophical roots. I can explain where we've gone wrong and how to put it right in the same terms. I am a philosopher. My core subject is how to save the world. And I know how.
What do you think the problems and the solutions are?
Acceptable by who? You only get to speak for yourself. Look who gets to define what is acceptable...
Nobody gets to define what is acceptable, but everyone gets to judge what is acceptable. But people who judge racism or sexism or homophobia to be acceptable are wrong, because they aren't acceptable, and people who judge them to be unacceptable are right, because they are unacceptable.
You seem to think blacks and homosexuals are free to say what they want without being challenged, because to challenge them means that the challenger is a racist or homophobe.
No I don't. I think that it's acceptable to criticize people for being racist or sexist or homophobic but not acceptable to criticize people for being black or a woman or gay.
counterpunchJanuary 10, 2021 at 14:09#4867390 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank One doesn't need to do very much reading on the HRA to realise that your explanation of the issues, conflates effect with cause. It may indeed, have had the effect of relative disadvantage for blacks, but there wasn't specific race based discrimination as far as I can tell. Apparently, 2% of FHA mortgages did go to blacks.
Redlining - was based on economic geography, not skin colour per se. It was was an active policy for around 30 years - 1935-1968; that banks refused mortgage applications from people living in certain areas. That approach has not gone away. I know people today, who can't get home or car insurance because of where they live - because there's high crime and low employment. It's just how banks work.
The problem here is that one person's success, is viewed as another's failure. That's a vice; not a virtue. Do not covet thy neighbour ass. I'm glad I live in a society where people are able to succeed. Inequality is good. People become rich by creating things, and then use the money to buy stuff, pay tax and employ people.
The responsibility is with the individual - to develop their talents and sell them into the market; and so serve society by buying stuff, employing people and paying tax. You would place the responsibility for individuals economic well being on society. You require banks to make economically risky decisions, and where did that lead to in 2008? To a mortgage crisis, based on bad debt - and an economic recession that wiped out economies around the world. In short, you're looking at all this down the wrong end of the telescope.
On windmills, it doesn't really matter if the whole thing needs replacing every 25 years. Or if the tower can be re-used. They still won't produce enough energy to meet our needs. Further, because wind is intermittent - it either requires storage facilities be built, or fossil fuel back up; so twice the energy infrastructure. They really are - not a good idea. And nor is ...."cease and desist." You've just been weeping buckets of blood over poor black people, and now you want to impose poverty on everyone, forever after? Explain this to me. Is it that you think poverty is fine - just so long as it's not racist poverty? You would pull down the ceiling - make everyone equally poor, and then congratulate yourself that you've achieved equality? That's insane!
In my view, we need to apply the technology to draw limitless amounts of energy from the earth's molten interior - by drilling through hot volcanic rock, lining the bore holes with pipes and pumping water through, to produce super-heated steam, to drive turbines to produce massive base load electricity.
This energy can then be used to produce hydrogen fuel, that can be piped and shipped around the world, and burnt in traditional power stations - thus utilizing the larger part of the existing energy infrastructure. Waste heat can be used to extract carbon from the air and bury it, and desalinate water to irrigate land - for agriculture and habitation. In this way we can protect forest and natural water sources, resist desertification - while maintaining productivity and high living standards.
And think about this; it may take hundreds of years, but - because resources are a consequence of the energy available to produce them, eventually, based on limitless clean energy, capitalism would ultimately achieve post materiality - and that's a form of equality I can live with. If I were an eco-commie, I'd be demanding capitalism live up to its own premises - from Hardin's tragedy of the Commons, that says "any freely available resource will be exploited to extinction." Well there it is - more energy than you can shake a fistfull of dollars at. Have at it!
counterpunchJanuary 10, 2021 at 14:22#4867420 likes
Reply to Xtrix I've admitted, numerous times, that I don't know if the election was a fraud or not. I'm in the UK. You Yankie-doodles are much closer to this than I am. We get an impression through "world news" - but it's not the lead story over here. From what I've experienced of your media - it's utterly polarised, and that's where I'd lay the blame. Rightly or wrongly, those people who protested in the capitol believed they were doing the right thing, and if the election was a fraud - what they did was patriotic and in defence of democracy. If they were misled by a highly polarised political/media landscape, that's hardly their fault. Maybe politics of all persuasions, and the media need to reaffirm their commitment to truth and the common good. Country before party. Truth, justice and the American way.
Kenosha KidJanuary 10, 2021 at 14:24#4867430 likes
Joking aside we need to engage more with people like Brett @NOS4A2 and especially @counterpunch as they are a real deal philosopher! (Joking not completely aside, I guess)
Jonathan Swift:Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.
Engaging with them is pointless. They are not reasonable people. They embrace hypocrisy, invention, whataboutery, and swerving contrary evidence and argument. You could show them watertight proof that, say, racism is real and all they will see is proof that so-called facts are not to be trusted.
My view is not that we should encourage such people, but that we should oppose at all opportunities and all means within our principles. Call out every fabrication, every racist principle, every hypocrisy, not because it will move them (it can't), but so that it is held in a constant state of being opposed rather than accepted, and so that every lie, every expression of hate, every fallacy read by others is followed by a counter-argument or contrary evidence or just a straightforward naming for what it is.
Disease is best fought by antibodies, and fascism is a disease, not a philosophy.
I have a solution, and I know it's right. I can prove it right down to the philosophical roots. I can explain where we've gone wrong and how to put it right in the same terms. I am a philosopher. My core subject is how to save the world. And I know how.
Later...
I don't know. It seems a bit immodest to start a thread to propound my own philosophy.
:rofl:
Count Timothy von IcarusJanuary 10, 2021 at 14:33#4867480 likes
The media has repeated over and over that fraud allegations are ridiculous. The courts, including Republican elected judges and those appointed by Trump wrote scathing opinions about his team's challenges. Even Fox News news program lay this out.
Hell, his obsequious Attorney General Barr said point blank that there was no evidence of fraud, as did former Trump supporting Republican elections officials in Georgia.
It is the President himself who led the charge of fraud allegations. He has been screaming about fraud since six months before the election. The media boosting him is Fox's non-news commentary programs, and propaganda outlets such as Newsmax and OANN. There is a reason the President has been personally attacking Fox since the election and telling his followers to stop watching news and only watch propaganda outlets.
These aren't news programs. They are the right wing equivalent of Jacobin magazine.
counterpunchJanuary 10, 2021 at 14:46#4867640 likes
What do you think the problems and the solutions are?
The fundamental nature of the problem is not capitalism. It's our mistaken relationship to science as truth; established when Galileo was tried for heresy, for proving the earth orbits the sun using scientific method. Consequently, we have used the tools, but have not observed the instructions. We continue to act on the basis of ideological conceptions of the world; applying or withholding technology as ideological priorities dictate - and not, as a scientific understanding of reality suggests we should, assuming only we wish to survive.
Looked at in these terms the solution is obvious. Drill through hot volcanic rock, and use the vast heat energy of the earth to extract carbon from the air, desalinate water to irrigate land, produce hydrogen fuel, and so meet all our energy needs, and more, from a virtually limitless source of clean energy.
Scientifically, energy is fundamental to everything we do. It follows that resources are a function of the energy available to create them - there is no limits to growth, just the misapplication of technology. We can have a high energy sustainable future with high living standards. We can make a paradise of the world - fountains, fruit trees and marble floors for miles. We just need enough energy - and it's there, beneath our feet, a big ball of molten rock 4000 miles deep and 26000 miles around.
We can't shut it all down and sit in the cold and dark forever, eating grass and walking to work. We have to power through. Make good on civilisation by securing the future; not backing down, while apologising profusely for all the crap our ancestors did to eachother - but making those sacrifices worth something by securing a decent future for humankind.
I've admitted, numerous times, that I don't know if the election was a fraud or not.
Let me make it easy: THERE WAS NO ELECTION FRAUD. Saying something like “I don’t know” is itself a copout. I don’t know that Santa Claus lives in the North Pole. Who knows? Maybe. There’s no evidence proving that he DOESN’T.
You get the point I hope. This is just an intellectual mistake.
Yes, it’s largely media and various thought leaders deluding people, but citizens themselves deserve partial blame as well.
counterpunchJanuary 10, 2021 at 15:04#4867770 likes
The media has repeated over and over that fraud allegations are ridiculous.
Exactly! It's odd, frankly, that media are so adamant the election was legit. When have they ever - not been out to sensationalise and scandalise? But what do I know? I'm a million miles away, and can only speak in terms of generalities. I do recall lots of fraud allegations in 2016, John Oliver's video on voting machines - and people declaring Trump is "not my President." Now, it seems like - it's all the same accusations, with the roles reversed. I don't know any more about it than that - and I'm not willing to take your word for it. I've heard you though. I understand what you believe, and acknowledge, you probably know more about it than me. I just don't know if you're being fair minded, or are defending the left wing position.
counterpunchJanuary 10, 2021 at 15:14#4867810 likes
Reply to Xtrix The Problem of Induction. Karl Popper. Yes. I get your point, but it doesn't really apply here. I don't know because I live in the UK, and believe it or not - we've got our own problems. Covid and brexit dominate our news cycle. The US Presidential election - while obviously, very important, isn't on 24/7. We're like, 200 years, and they still haven't got a handle on democracy! Might I suggest you return our colony to the rightful rule of Her Majesty?
I do recall lots of fraud allegations in 2016, John Oliver's video on voting machines - and people declaring Trump is "not my President."
For someone interested in truth, you sure are awfully cavalier about touting your opinion of things you - by your own admission - do not understand. Why not take your own advice and do research first and talk second?
You're proposing an engineering solution to a social problem. The problem you identify is that people are too easily swayed by falsehood and emotion. Your solution is clean energy? How are those related? In order to realize your vision, you'd first have to figure out how to motivate people to work together on a basis of shared truth.
We just need enough energy - and it's there, beneath our feet, a big ball of molten rock 4000 miles deep and 26000 miles around
I see. So you believe drilling to the centre of the planet in lots of places will save us all.
counterpunchJanuary 10, 2021 at 16:05#4868030 likes
Reply to Echarmion These quotes are from different posts. The former is from my reply to Count Timothy Von Icarus, regarding the US Presidential election. The latter is from my reply to fdrake, and it's all about clean energy. Truth is a common theme, but I'm not saying clean energy from magma will somehow make the election process fraud proof. All I said originally - about five pages ago, is that the capitol protestors are being unfairly demonised - (unlike BLM who were cheered on by the media as they burnt and looted businesses, causing hundreds of millions in property damage and killing over 40 people) - the capitol protestors people were defending democracy, and they're being pilloried. I've been defending that, over and over again - ever since. I didn't say that there was election fraud. I've admitted, I don't know. Those people, and there were a lot of them - believed there was election fraud, and they sought to occupy government. Good on them, I say.
You're proposing an engineering solution to a social problem.
Climate change isn;t a social problem. It's the misapplication of technology - that occurs because, historically, the Church made science a heresy, denying "Valid knowledge of Creation" the moral authority it rightfully owns. So, we use science, but don't observe it. We apply technology as religious, political and economic ideology suggests, rather than - as a scientific understanding of reality suggests. It's a mistake - deeply buried in our philosophical history, and just never revisited. I'm revisiting it!
counterpunchJanuary 10, 2021 at 16:25#4868080 likes
I see. So you believe drilling to the centre of the planet in lots of places will save us all.
No. I don't propose drilling to the core of the earth. I was explaining how vast the energy of the earth is - 4000 miles deep, 26000 miles around. We could tap that energy forever and never put a dent in it. I suggest drilling close to magma chambers, and at subduction zones, where one continental plate meets another. There are about 500 volcanic islands in the Pacific Rim - far from anywhere and surrounded by water. There's also a huge magma chamber in the US - under Yellowstone national park, but I'd leave that one alone for now. It's too large, and too close to civilisation to make it a test subject. If something goes wrong - a super-volcano would take out most of North America. And we wouldn't want that, would we!
(unlike BLM who were cheered on by the media as they burnt and looted businesses, causing hundreds of millions in property damage and killing over 40 people)
Here again you are posting inaccurate figures (BLM protesters haven't killed over 40 people). Why are you posting a number you haven't fact-checked, if you care about scientific accuracy?
Those people, and there were a lot of them - believed there was election fraud, and they sought to occupy government. Good on them, I say.
Did these people arrive at their conclusions using scientific rigor? Or even due dilligence? And if you're going to answer "I don't know", then how come you nevertheless conclude that what they did was good?
Climate change isn;t a social problem. It's the misapplication of technology - that occurs because, historically, the Church made science a heresy, denying "Valid knowledge of Creation" the moral authority it rightfully owns.
The church is a social organisation. Applying science is a social process. So I am not sure how you can write all this and not conclude that the problem is a social one.
No. I don't propose drilling to the core of the earth. I was explaining how vast the energy of the earth is - 4000 miles deep, 26000 miles around. We could tap that energy forever and never put a dent in it. I suggest drilling close to magma chambers, and at subduction zones, where one continental plate meets another. There are about 500 volcanic islands in the Pacific Rim - far from anywhere and surrounded by water. There's also a huge magma chamber in the US - under Yellowstone national park, but I'd leave that one alone for now. It's too large, and too close to civilisation to make it a test subject. If something goes wrong - a super-volcano would take out most of North America. And we wouldn't want that, would we!
I can get behind global efforts for clean energy production. Whether your magma chamber idea would be able to produce enough energy is a scientific question, if you're right, that still leaves the political problems of its implementation.
The fundamental nature of the problem is not capitalism. It's our mistaken relationship to science as truth; established when Galileo was tried for heresy, for proving the earth orbits the sun using scientific method. Consequently, we have used the tools, but have not observed the instructions. We continue to act on the basis of ideological conceptions of the world; applying or withholding technology as ideological priorities dictate - and not, as a scientific understanding of reality suggests we should, assuming only we wish to survive.
Do you believe science has an answer to something like: "BLM protesters pulling down the statues they did is praiseworthy because it simultaneously highlights histories of oppression and dismantles symbols of that oppression"?
Except Mr Trump himself. The election then was going to be rigged, remember?
He was repeating all the same lines before that how rigged the election was going to be (if he lost). There was even the same debate if he would accept defeat in 2016. What's new?
Here again you are posting inaccurate figures (BLM protesters haven't killed over 40 people).
Oh dear, am I? I do apologise. I had heard it was around 40 people dead, but I can't vouch for the validity of the source. So how many people were killed in the BLM rioting? Usually, one would rely on the media to tally such figures, but there's been a distinct lack of criticism. The deaths and damage are being ignored.
Did these people arrive at their conclusions using scientific rigor? Or even due dilligence? And if you're going to answer "I don't know", then how come you nevertheless conclude that what they did was good?
It's an opinion - I suppose. I don't claim it's the only possible opinion. Indeed, I have repeatedly said I don't know if the election was fraudulent. I acknowledge the possibility those people were misled. But then, they can't be blamed for being misled, and in my view - occupying the seat of government is the correct response to a fraudulent election.
The church is a social organisation. Applying science is a social process. So I am not sure how you can write all this and not conclude that the problem is a social one.
I wouldn't subsume this problem under a sociological heading. It's philosophy, political theory, history. The Church is a political organisation, not a social one. In 1634, when the Church tried Galileo for heresy, they were in effect a pan-European government, banking house, and system of justice. It was not the happy clappers who meet in the community centre on Sunday mornings to praise Jesus. A large part of European colonialism was people escaping the absolutist power of the Church. The Church was burning people alive for heresy right through to 1792 - 60 years into the Industrial Revolution; a revolution based on applied science. We used science, sure - but it wasn't recognised as an understanding of reality, and consequently, we have applied the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons. That's a problem of philosophy, of political theory, of history - but it's not sociology.
Can you elaborate on how a scientific understanding of reality can tell us what to do?
Good question. Hostile question, but spot on. I assume you know Hume, and the is/ought dichotomy. Hume writes:
"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, ...when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not."
Hume maintains that this is a fallacy; but he says it himself - it's what human beings do. Neither you nor I can look at a list of facts without prioritising them in terms of our moral values. It occurs because, contrary to popular belief - morality is not external to us, given by God, or capable of precise codification. It's internal - a sense, like a sense of humour, or the aesthetic sense. It's ingrained into us by evolution in a tribal context - wherein, the moral individual within the tribe, and the moral tribe, conferred evolutionary advantages in the struggle to survive to breed, and pass on those qualities to subsequent generations. Religion, law, politics, economics etc, are expressions of that innate moral sense.
It's actually quite interesting because Nietzsche didn't understand this. He believed man in a state of nature was a wilful brute, and that religion was an inversion of the values natural to this superman. But he was wrong. Man could not have survived if he didn't share food, and look after the tribe. Nietzsche's amoral superman would soon have died out. The strong were not fooled by the weak - hunter gatherers joined together to form civilisations, and needed explicit moral codes justified with reference to God. We then promptly forgot this because religion requires faith and claims divine authorship, and divine authority for God's laws. So Hume writes of a morality external to us - whereas, in reality, it's an ingrained moral sense, and our rightful place is the bridge between the is and the ought, between fact and value, knowing what's scientifically true, and doing what's morally right in terms of what's scientifically true.
AnsiktsburkJanuary 10, 2021 at 21:17#4868790 likes
A lot of uninteresting petty details to answer the innate question in the thread start :
Do people that make the effort to inhabitate a philosophy forum, maybe also philosophy institutions, tend to be left leaning?
If so, why? My best guess is that my fellow countryman Martin Hägglund in his book This Life(Vårt enda liv) might give a clue as to why.
Reply to counterpunch With respect to housing policy, there is ample evidence that racial discrimination was baked into the enabling legislation and implementation. The government policies didn't invent racial discrimination -- they hardened it into the national landscape.
One doesn't need to do very much reading on the HRA to realise that your explanation of the issues, conflates effect with cause.
Actually, one has to do quite a lot of reading to see that I am NOT conflating effect with cause.
Certainly, there were (and are) other major factors which contribute to the wealth/poverty distribution we see today in the US. One doesn't have to be a leftist to acknowledge that. When one compares the collective performance of Immigrant groups, like Somalis, to American blacks, it is clear that big cultural differences are at work. Same for some other immigrant groups who have succeeded under difficult circumstances.
As for boring into the earth to tap the energy derived from the hot interior, pause to consider the technical and maintenance issues involved in a) reaching geologically stable, very hot layers of the crust, and b) putting pipes into very hot, highly corrosive environments for many years. Geothermal is a good thing where feasible, but it's not a maintenance free source.
The entire point of worrying about energy extraction from fossil fuel and 1.4 billion cars (plus more commercial vehicles), and wasteful energy use is global warming -- a crisis which is unfolding before us. We'll need to use solar, wind, geo-thermal, hydro, and anything else we can devise on the production end to avoid economic, cultural, and environmental collapse. 1.4 billion cars--and their continued production and replacement--is simply not sustainable -- meaning, it's not compatible with reducing CO2 levels.
Forcing everybody into common poverty? NOBODY wants to do that. We just don't have another 100 years to make a graceful transition from fossil to hydrogen fuel. We probably don't have 50 years.
It isn't an ideological commitment that makes me doubt that humankind will ever achieve post-materiality -- a la Star Trek and other very optimistic science fiction themes. It would be splendid if we could do that -- but post-materiality rests on ideas that have no material reality at the present time. Mine asteroids for metal, gases, water, etc.? That would be great. Put heavy industry on the moon? Fine. We recently returned a tiny packet of dust from an asteroid, and it took years for the vessel to reach the rock and return--and this is a once-off success.
It seems like 'post materiality' requires that we figure out how to get something from nothing.
counterpunchJanuary 10, 2021 at 21:54#4868880 likes
I can get behind global efforts for clean energy production. Whether your magma chamber idea would be able to produce enough energy is a scientific question, if you're right, that still leaves the political problems of its implementation.
I agree, but I believe I can make the case - even to fossil fuel producing nation states and companies. For instance, the UK is currently planning to build windmills and ban fossil fuel powered cars by 2030. That's bizarre; because wind power can hardly be expected to keep the lights on, less yet add 30 million electric vehicles to demand upon the national grid.
Imagine it does work, and we begin producing magma power. The question then is how to apply it. I've looked at various approaches, and what appeals to my eye - other than extracting carbon from the air and burying it, is taking out large energy users first, like steel, cement, aluminium, desalination and irrigation, shipping, planes, trains, recycling etc, and someway down the road, eventually - cars. But not immediately, because it's too much. Huge infrastructure costs and loss of revenues at the same time, will cause economic havoc, political instability - war, famine and death. We don't want that. We want a smooth, orderly, profitable transition to a high energy sustainable future based on clean energy. Petroleum producing nations need time to diversify their economies, and we need time to build the infrastructure to support 30 million electric vehicles. Applied carefully, magma energy can give us time.
Do you believe science has an answer to something like: "BLM protesters pulling down the statues they did is praiseworthy because it simultaneously highlights histories of oppression and dismantles symbols of that oppression"?
Asked questions like this, I always think of Napoleon, blowing the nose off the Sphnix with a cannon, relative to Lord Elgin, who spent his entire family fortune to save the marbles of the Acropolis, which at the time was being used as an ammo dump in a war between the Greeks and the Turks. And today's politically correct, anti Western colonialist claims that the marbles must be returned.
Looking back from that high energy sustainable future, yes - I think people would regret destroying history for what it symbolises today. I think providing the world with limitless clean energy from magma, securing the future for humankind makes good on the civilisation we fought to build, and that sanitising history removes a warning label from what might come again if we don't keep building.
Huge infrastructure costs and loss of revenues at the same time, will cause economic havoc, political instability - war, famine and death.
In a discussion among some leftists about a year ago, that very point about global warming was made: the consequences of an abrupt halt to the auto/fossil fuel segment of the economy (a large hunk) would be a catastrophic blow to the global economy. Not abruptly halting the the auto/fossil fuel segment of the economy (along with other fossil fuel use) guarantees an environmental catastrophe.
in other words, we are screwed.
Totally screwed, because we don't have time to implement reliance on magma, wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, et al. As a rule of thumb, 40 to 50 years are required to implement major technological changes--from proof of concept to commonplace. 30 more years of roll-out for solar and wind puts us at 2051. 50 years for geo-thermal puts us at 2071. Too late in either case to forestall major disaster.
We can, we should, we must press forward on all fronts, from magma to heavy reliance on bicycles, bearing in mind that we can't avoid major environmental losses.
counterpunchJanuary 10, 2021 at 22:35#4869030 likes
Actually, one has to do quite a lot of reading to see that I am NOT conflating effect with cause.
I admit, I haven't done a lot of reading on the subject - but you didn't address my point. Economic geography is still alive and kicking. People can't get home or car insurance based on where they live today. It's just banking procedure. It may be racist in effect, but racism isn't the cause.
Certainly, there were (and are) other major factors which contribute to the wealth/poverty distribution we see today in the US. One doesn't have to be a leftist to acknowledge that. When one compares the collective performance of Immigrant groups, like Somalis, to American blacks, it is clear that big cultural differences are at work. Same for some other immigrant groups who have succeeded under difficult circumstances.
No kidding. Chinese labourers went to America to work on the railroads, and were treated very poorly. Yet today, they are the highest performing demographic across the board, education, employment, earnings, zero crime rate. How does one explain that in a supposedly, institutionally racist society?
On "boring into the earth to tap the energy derived from the hot interior" you want to write it off in favour of your windmill powered, low energy, have less - pay more, anti capitalist, eco commie vision of the future. That's precisely what I'm seeking to avoid.
Think about it - green government planning the economy in relation to some imagined carrying capacity, forever. How could that work? Would the natural resources 'saved' from the seething masses be kept forever off limits? People would vote that down in the blink of an eye if you let them vote - so you can't have democracy, you can't support freedom of choice, or freedom of opinion. It's inhuman. And you'd end up committing genocide because you make people the problem - rather than the application of technology.
"Limits to growth" is false. Resources are a consequence of the energy available to develop them, and the energy is there, beneath our feet. We need to tap that energy in a big way, and then we can begin to repair the damage we've done - extracting carbon from the air, not just emitting less carbon. Developing wastelands for agriculture with fresh water produced from sea water, rather than burning the forests and depleting natural water sources. You would prevent people burning the forests, but offer no alternative - because windmill energy isn't enough, so you'd make them eat Soylent Green.
an abrupt halt to the auto/fossil fuel segment of the economy
One important thing to keep in mind here is that we don't have to put a bunch of car and energy companies out of business and their employees out of work with all the consequences that that would have. We just have to get them to change what kinds of cars and energy they sell. The auto industry is already swinging heavily into hybrid or full electric vehicles. "Oil companies" are already rebranding themselves "energy companies" and investing in alternatives. It's just the smart thing to do, since one way or another oil's days are numbered.
We just have to get them to change what kinds of cars and energy they sell. The auto industry is already swinging heavily into hybrid or full electric vehicles. "Oil companies" are already rebranding themselves "energy companies" and investing in alternatives. It's just the smart thing to do, since one way or another oil's days are numbered.
And that happens with consumers choosing electric / fuel cell electric / hybrid vehicles with competition among the car manufacturers driving the costs down of these "alternative" fuel cars.
That's it. Markets can do something useful.
(What that transformation actually looks like)
counterpunchJanuary 10, 2021 at 23:26#4869270 likes
Reply to ssu That is a startling transformation from ...none, to not quite none - and it only took a decade! There are 47 million cars in Germany - according to google. I'd deal with that last. I'd extract carbon from the air before I'd trash 47 million cars, impose massive infrastructure costs on the taxpayer/consumer, add huge energy demand to the national grid, and destabilize fossil fuel geo politics. All so some pretentious twit can break their arm patting themselves on the back - for how environmentally conscious they are! It's greenwash. It's not a plan; it's an excuse.
That is a startling transformation from ...none, to not quite none - and it only took a decade!
And that's how in reality transformations happen. (Except that electric cars have been around since the time of the combustion engine.) And btw it is a transformation as in Germany annually roughly about 3 million cars are sold. From nothing to every tenth one is a dramatic change, counterpunch.
Besides, If you look just how long horse drawn wagons and the early cars roamed the streets together, that did take a while. In the US the transformation was very rapid, yet globally it was another thing as personal cars were a luxury for a long time:
I'd extract carbon from the air before I'd trash 47 million cars, impose massive infrastructure costs on the taxpayer/consumer, add huge energy demand to the national grid, and destabilize fossil fuel geo politics.
Adding massive costs to the taxpayer/consumer will decrease demand, so where do need the huge energy demand on the national grid?
And just what do have in mind with destabilizing fossil fuel geopolitics? Start a civil war in Saudi-Arabia and have the US attack Iran and Venezuela?
relative to Lord Elgin, who spent his entire family fortune to save the marbles of the Acropolis, which at the time was being used as an ammo dump in a war between the Greeks and the Turks.
26 September 1687: After the Ottoman conquest, it [the Parthenon] was turned into a mosque in the early 1460s. On 26 September 1687, an Ottoman ammunition dump inside the building was ignited by Venetian bombardment during a siege of the Acropolis. The resulting explosion severely damaged the Parthenon and its sculptures.
From 1801 to 1812, agents of Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin removed about half of the surviving sculptures of the Parthenon, as well as sculptures from the Propylaea and Erechtheum.
Hey, Counterpunch: I've seen the Elgin Marbles at the BM, and I'm kind of glad he took them. Ditto for the Rosetta Stone. It would have been better had his predecessors acquired the sculptures before the idiot Turks decided to store explosives in one of the most beautiful buildings the world has seen, but... 20/20 rearview vision.
If you look just how long horse drawn wagons and the early cars roamed the streets together, that did take a while.
"German soldier and his horse in the Russian SFSR, 1941. In two months, December 1941 and January 1942, the German Army on the Eastern Front lost 179,000 horses.[1]
counterpunchJanuary 11, 2021 at 00:43#4869480 likes
Reply to ssu I think it depends on how you read the graph. I read it as total number of electric and hybrid vehicles registered, but if it's annual number of registrations - it's better than not quite none, but it still presents a problem regarding demand on the national grid. Displacing carbon emissions is not the same as not producing them. My approach relies first, on sourcing massive, reliable clean energy from magma - (think geothermal on steroids) and applying that energy to afford continued economic growth, and cushion the transformation, both politically and economically.
I was just looking for that photograph. It's a doozy; 8 years and Ford changed the world. I suppose it took longer elsewhere; and I suppose Ford's transformation is based in turn on the discovery and extraction of oil by "Edwin L. Drake, who employed William Smith, an expert salt driller, to supervise drilling operations and on August 27, 1859, they struck oil at a depth of sixty-nine feet" - but yes, change, when it comes can be very rapid. As we approach upon an unsustainable future, it becomes ever more urgent that it's the right change. And to my mind, electric cars are putting the cart before the horse. First, we need boatloads of clean energy - just as Ford needed boatloads of oil.
And just what do have in mind with destabilizing fossil fuel geopolitics? Start a civil war in Saudi-Arabia and have the US attack Iran and Venezuela?
With both these quotes, you've got the wrong end of the stick. These are, in my view - dangers of what I believe is a wrongful approach - not things I'm trying to achieve, but things I think, my approach would avoid. The UK is planning to ban petrol cars from 2030 - which would place a huge burden on the national grid. I wouldn't do that. Stopping buying petroleum overnight would plunge countries like Saudi, Russia, Iran, Venezuela into chaos. I wouldn't do that either.
I'd produce massive amounts of energy from magma, and use that energy to supply electricity, or hydrogen to the big industrial energy users first - cement, steel, aluminium, shipping, aviation, etc - while using waste heat from the production of electricity and hydrogen fuel, to extract carbon from the air and bury it as calcium carbonate by reinjection. In this way, we could carry on very much as we are, without upsetting the apple cart - separating loss of revenues from huge infrastructure costs, and actively reducing atmospheric carbon - not just, producing a little less of it.
it still presents a problem regarding demand on the national grid. Displacing carbon emissions is not the same as not producing them.
It feels perverse to actually have to point this out, but... More and more energy on the grid comes from renewables: that is the trend. Your country has had entire days worth of energy consumption provided entirely by renewable sources. You have major energy providers who only deal with greener energy now (e.g. Scottish Power). That is not true of petrol and diesel cars. If incremental replacement of carbon-emitting fuel with greener alternatives is the aim, which it is, arguing for sticking with petrol and diesel is bizarre.
Anyway, as Baden is closing this thread and there might be another better thread to discuss just what to do with the global economy to address climate change, it might be good end with comments more along the lines of this thread.
One of the basic things for a forum like this is to represent different opinions and that those differences in opinion are discussed on the higher intellectual level than with the typical vitriol and ad hominem attacks, which your average social media discourse descends to. A central question is the role of the government and the role of the markets. Your answer above, Reply to counterpunch, shows obviously that you have thought about the issue, but firmly believe in a top down lead manner for the change to come. I think it is one of the most important arguments that divide the left and the right.
While I agree as a conservative that markets have their problems and the market mechanism cannot take care of everything in the society (as anarcho-capitalists believe), the mechanism can do a lot and has done a lot. The failure of Soviet style centralized planning shows this, yet one should also remind that the Chinese, who (at least the leadership) firmly believe that they are communists, have done well just by partly using the market mechanism. Yet transformations that basically nobody saw coming in the government and couldn't be planned ahead happen with the free market system. And this is crucial. Economic history has showed so many times that with innovations and new technological breakthroughs that lead to new industries cannot be pre-planned centrally, but are usually done by some eccentric hobbyists at start.
Harry HinduJanuary 11, 2021 at 10:53#4871460 likes
No I don't. I think that it's acceptable to criticize people for being racist or sexist or homophobic but not acceptable to criticize people for being black or a woman or gay.
What about criticizing people for being white, as in "white privilege"?
You seem to think that your judgements of what is acceptable, is more acceptable than what others judge as acceptable.
Not if there is an objective fact of the matter. Something either is or isn't acceptable, whatever any person believes, and none of us get to define it to be another way. For example, pedophilia is unacceptable, whatever you believe. Those who judge pedophilia to be unacceptable are right, and those who judge pedophilia to be acceptable are wrong. And racism is unacceptable, whatever you believe. Those who judge racism to be unacceptable are right, and those who judge racism to be acceptable are wrong.
What about criticizing people for being white, as in "white privilege"?
Talk of "white privilege" isn't criticizing people for being white. When people talk about white privilege they are making the claim that white people have certain advantages over non-white people because of racism against non-white people.
You seem to think that your judgements of what is acceptable, is more acceptable than what others judge as acceptable.
No, I think that my judgement of what is acceptable is correct. I believe that I am correct in judging pedophilia, racism, sexism, and homophobia to be unacceptable, and that anyone who judges any of these things to be acceptable is wrong, because the objective fact of the matter is that these things are unacceptable.
Harry HinduJanuary 11, 2021 at 11:06#4871520 likes
Puhh-leeez. This is so typical of the kind of stuff I see on FB and Twitter.
And if Trump had won, and you started a thread complaining about how he won illegally, it wouldn't have been a "whine" thread, but a "patriotic call for action," right?
This is what I'm taking about how one side defines the argument in such a way that makes the other side appear to be the "whiners", "racists" and "bigots". Name-calling isn't acceptable, period, especially on a philosophy forum that is seriously about philosophy.
Looking back from that high energy sustainable future, yes - I think people would regret destroying history for what it symbolises today. I think providing the world with limitless clean energy from magma, securing the future for humankind makes good on the civilisation we fought to build, and that sanitising history removes a warning label from what might come again if we don't keep building.
Eh, those statues have sat there being a celebration of history for a long time, removing them is a symbolic act to acknowledge the ongoing relevance of the warning they represent.
In terms of "big picture" stuff we probably agree; if the world had limitless clean energy that everyone could access, our greatest existential threats would be solved. Getting there will be messy political business though, and I'd guess we'd disagree on what kind of politics is required to get there. Our lords and masters have a habit of doing whatever they can to limit our access to that future, since they're invested in keeping the material conditions in place that cause those existential threats and stifle us from doing anything about it.
Harry HinduJanuary 11, 2021 at 11:09#4871540 likes
Talk of "white privilege" isn't criticizing people for being white. When people talk about white privilege they are making the claim that white people have certain advantages over non-white people because of racism against non-white people.
No, I think that my judgement of what is acceptable is correct. I believe that I am correct in judging pedophilia, racism, sexism, and homophobia to be unacceptable, and that anyone who judges any of these things to be acceptable is wrong, because the objective fact of the matter is that these things are unacceptable.
This is all based on the faulty idea that morality is objective.
My point all along is that you have simply redefined questioning a faulty premise that you have assumed to be true, to fall within the category of "racism". Its no different than a religious fundamentalist accusing me if being a devil-worshipper when I question their assertions about the existence of their God.
Harry HinduJanuary 11, 2021 at 11:16#4871570 likes
Lol. The KKK is not lots of people, nor are all whites part of the KKK. Guilt by association is another logical fallacy. So much for engaging in philosophy on this "philosoohy" forum.
My point all along is that you have simply redefined questioning a faulty premise that you have assumed to be true, to fall within the category of "racism".
I don't know what you mean by this. I was just responding to your question "You think its ok to verbally abuse others you disagree with, but racism is a big, "No-No"? Whats the fucking difference?"
The difference, as I said, is that 1) it's acceptable to be black, and so 2) unacceptable to criticize people for being black. It then follows from this that 3) racism is unacceptable, and so 4) it's acceptable for people to be criticized for being a racist.
Lol. The KKK is not lots of people, nor are all whites part of the KKK. Guilt by association us another logical fallacy. So much for engaging in philosophy on this "philosoohy" forum.
I didn't say that only the KKK are racist or that all white people are part of the KKK, and nowhere did I suggest any guilt by association.
Harry HinduJanuary 11, 2021 at 11:32#4871650 likes
Again, my point is that calling someone the R-word is just as unacceptable as calling someone the N-word because they are both examples of ad hominems, and ad hominems are logical fallacies that simply don't move the discussion anywhere. On a philosophy forum worth its salt, they should be kept at a minimum, but you seem to think that its acceptable for some to do it and not others. So much for your ideas of equality and eliminating privileges. :roll:
Again, my point is that calling someone the R-word is just as unacceptable as calling someone the N-word because they are both examples of ad hominems, and ad hominems are logical fallacies that simply don't move the discussion anywhere.
If someone is a racist then it's acceptable to call them a racist and criticize them for being a racist. If someone is black then it's not acceptable to call them a nigger and criticize them for being black.
and that anyone who judges any of these things to be acceptable is wrong, because the objective fact of the matter is that these things are unacceptable.
What makes moral claims objective? While I agree that genocide is bad, I don't see what sort of fact about the world justifies that being an objectively real judgement. The universe doesn't seem to care, and human societies have had different moral codes with philosophers defending competing ethical systems. What makes any of our moral judgements objective?
Is there a kind of internal moral realism? Is it real in the way money and economics are real? We have some means of agreeing on what values to assign to things or actions?
Kenosha KidJanuary 11, 2021 at 12:30#4871900 likes
Again, my point is that calling someone the R-word is just as unacceptable as calling someone the N-word because they are both examples of ad hominems,
Oh FFS, "racist" is not a pejorative term against racists. Likening it to the N-word is beyond stupid.
Oh FFS, "racist" is not a pejorative term against racists
Exactly, simply because something has a negative connotation doesn't make it a pejorative. You can have adjectives that are both pejoratives and negatively connote and that are not pejoratives yet still negatively connote. Calling a person a "rat" is a pejorative, calling a rat a "rat" isn't, it's neutrally descriptive. Calling a black person a "nigger" is a pejorative, calling a racist, a "racist" is neutrally descriptive. Easy way to know is if the language is publically acceptable: can you read it in respectable newspapers, and hear it spoken by your elected leaders without objection. In the case of "racist", the answer is, obviously, yes. In the case of "nigger", the answer is, obviously, no. Of course, the right just adores to obfuscate and equivocate concerning language. It's often their only door to justification for their opinions.
counterpunchJanuary 11, 2021 at 14:07#4872140 likes
Reply to Kenosha Kid Australia is exporting 350 million tonnes of coal to Asia every year - while bushfires rage out of control, and the Brazilian rainforest, and Russian arctic tundra are also ablaze - so patting ourselves on the back because we went without burning coal for a few hours, at night, in summer, is a feel good media puff piece. So are electric vehicles.
Transforming automotive technology simply isn't practical - at this stage. First, it places a very large demand on the national grid at a time when we're turning to technologies that produce less power. I would aim to produce massive amounts of clean energy from the heat energy of the earth first, and distribute that energy as hydrogen fuel - that can then be used in cars...and power stations, producing electricity for the national grid. There are not enough charging points for electric vehicles - about 30,000 installed, whereas, the UK has 30 million cars. Installing all that infrastructure would be an enormous task, and come at a huge cost.
Batteries are not good - they have huge drawbacks. They use a lot of toxic metals that have to be mined, and disposed of - but that's some other countries problem, right? Wrong. In reality, the earth is a single planetary environment, and this is a global problem.
If this were about sustainability, at the very least - they would make batteries interchangable, such that, they would be charged at the filling station, and you pull in, switch out the battery, and off you go. Instead, they have built in batteries.- such that, the car has to sit idle for 12-24 hours to charge, and then goes 250 miles max. You can fast charge the car - but then, you damage the battery, and after three years or so, it won't hold a charge. And you have to scrap the battery and the car.
A systematic approach suggest, first, sourcing massive amounts of clean energy. Because that will cushion the impact of any subsequent transformations - not least by affording petroleum producing countries time to diversify their economies. Distributing that energy as hydrogen fuel suggests HICE hydrogen internal combustion engines, or hydrogen fuel cells - both better options than batteries.
Kenosha KidJanuary 11, 2021 at 14:10#4872160 likes
Reply to counterpunch That future changes will be required as we change technologies is not a coherent argument against changing technologies, especially when the current technology is even less tenable.
In terms of "big picture" stuff we probably agree; if the world had limitless clean energy that everyone could access, our greatest existential threats would be solved.
And when we get fusion reactors to be so efficient that they can compete perfectly against other energy sources, I am certain that there will many of those that are critical of the new technology, distrusting the "science" and being fearful about it's effects. Perhaps that the fusion reactor will explode as a hydrogen bomb. Heck, at least it will cause cancer or something!
(Besides, think about the bureaucracy and the red tape with all these countries involved:)
counterpunchJanuary 11, 2021 at 15:18#4872450 likes
Reply to ssu The left wing approach to sustainability is wrong. Capitalism isn't the fundamental problem. The problem is our mistaken relationship to science; in that we disregard it as an understanding of reality, using science for ideological ends. In that context, capitalism without science based regulation is extremely destructive, but it's not the cause. Further, the left's have less-pay more, carbon tax this, stop that, eat grass and cycle to work approach is no solution.
Not only would it imply authoritarian government to impose poverty on the masses for the left wing approach to take effect - (and in that context, the repeated failures of communism to plan a successful economy might be construed as a virtue) only, even more fundamentally, poor people breed more. It's well noted that improved living standards reduce fertility. So reducing living standards would see a population explosion, and ever less resources eeked out between ever more people. That's not a sustainable future - it's some dystopian mash up between 1984 and The Hunger Games!
The answer lies with a very basic tenet of capitalist ideology, from Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons. As a justification of private property, Hardin shows that "any freely available resource will be over-exploited." His argument concerned common grazing land, and how everyone with access - acting in their rational self interest, would add another cow, and another, and a few sheep and some goats - until the land was exhausted, and the resource destroyed. The earth is a big ball of molten rock - have at it! Exploit it to the maximum degree!
Producing limitless amounts of clean energy from magma to support continued capitalist growth - we can have a sustainable future with high living standards, and population should level off at around 10-12bn by the year 2100 - according the the mid range UN Population Division projections. Undermine improved living standards by reducing demand, and population will not level out. We have to press on - we have no choice. But we need more energy - not less. That's the key. It's the only way to balance the equation.
counterpunchJanuary 11, 2021 at 15:54#4872640 likes
Eh, those statues have sat there being a celebration of history for a long time, removing them is a symbolic act to acknowledge the ongoing relevance of the warning they represent.
How does something that isn't there, say anything? You look at that statue of Colston, for example - and are offended by it. It means something different to you now than it meant to those who erected it, and it will mean something different again to subsequent generations. Who the giddy fuck are you to insist your current opinion, not only trumps that of previous generations, but removes it from the consideration of all subsequent generations?
What do you see? You see an anti western target for your politically correct virtue signalling - a myopic, self righteous view based on the lie that slavery was a particular cruelty invented and practiced by white people, against black people - because they're black. You think slavery was racism. But white people didn't go out and capture black people and force them into slavery. They bought slaves from black people; trading Western manufactured goods - cloth and metal tools for slaves, then trading salves for sugar and spices in the Americas, and then back to Europe to sell the sugar and spices.
Slavery existed since the dawn of time - Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece - they all had slaves. The Arab slave trade from Africa was seven centuries old before Europeans got involved. And a few centuries later, for the first time ever in the entire history of humankind, there arose a civilisation that determined to put an end to slavery. That's what I see when I look at that statue of Colston. I see a man from an age before philosophies on the rights of man and capitalist economics based on individual liberty - allowed for Abolition. You despise the very civilisation that ended slavery - and if you have your anti western way, you would again, make slaves of us all - and call it Communism.
Reply to counterpunch I totally agree with your argument on the importance of energy. That is crucial. The most abhorrent and lunatic ideas are those that assume that there are too many people and the solution we have to go back to some time that the person in his or her fantasies thinks is optimal.
Also I agree with that the solution is higher living standards, as that has and will curb population growth. Also more wealthy people, not those on the brink of starvation, will happily preserve nature. Even if the poorest do understand what is happening, what can you do if you haven't anything else and the immediate problem is how to feed your family today and tomorrow? What has happened now in Asia, would be far more than welcome to happen in Africa.
counterpunchJanuary 11, 2021 at 16:06#4872720 likes
Reply to Kenosha Kid If I made a coherent argument, you wouldn't read it. You'd ignore everything I said, and toss off some thoughtless one liner within two minuets of my post.
But we need more energy - not less. That's the key.
The good news here is that according to somebody a lot smarter than us, E=mc2. This means that all matter is energy [and a hell of a lot of energy], so this will not be a big problem moving forward. It's simply a matter of figuring it out.
counterpunchJanuary 11, 2021 at 16:24#4872840 likes
Reply to synthesis I don't think nuclear fusion can work in earth gravity. I think the huge gravity of the sun creates an immense density of hydrogen plasma - and this is necessary to overcome the Pauli exclusion principle. They can make fusion happen, but I doubt they will ever sustain a reaction in earth gravity under any pressure they can manufacture.
Nuclear fission works, but it's got a lot of drawbacks - not least, sourcing yellow cake Uranium in a world destabilized by a concerted move away from fossil fuels. It takes massive amounts of steel and concrete to build a nuclear power station - usually produced with fossil fuels. It produces radioactive waste materials that have to be stored safely, forever. Then, there's decommissioning a nuclear power station. All that concrete and steel - now low level radioactive, has to be dug up and disposed of.
It may seem like a bargain if you ignore all the drawbacks, and focus exclusively on the fact fission produces a lot of energy without producing carbon, but it's false accounting. I have a better idea. The earth is a big ball of molten rock.
I don't think nuclear fusion can work in earth gravity.
I am not suggesting that fusion is the answer, only that energy is the least of our concerns. Put enough resources to work here, and solutions will be found.
I do agree with you that capitalism is not only not the problem, it's the only game in town, as socialism is simply a re-distribution scheme and communism, a pipe-dream.
It's just a matter of rooting out the corruption which has pretty much paralyzed all systems.
I don't think nuclear fusion can work in earth gravity.
?
You mean H-bombs don't work or what? I assume you mean something else. Nuclear fusion can be done...it just typically uses more energy that it creates, if I have any idea about physics (which might not be so).
Jackson first achieved fusion when he was 12, just hours before he turned 13 on Jan. 19, 2018. His achievement was affirmed by representatives of the Open Source Fusor Research Consortium on Feb. 2
CiceronianusJanuary 11, 2021 at 16:48#4872940 likes
Warning: this is a leftist forum and you will be attacked unceasingly if you disagree with them.
Edit: correction, the forum is dominated by leftists.
It isn't possible to usefully assess the existence of "leftists" and their worth without defining what they are, which in turn requires that you define what "rightists" are (or whatever those who stand in opposition to leftists are called).
For my part, I'm not sure that the right wing, or conservatism, has any champions or supporters of note here in God's Favorite Country or elsewhere as far as I know, who demand respect as thinkers. Conservatism as I understand once did. It isn't necessary to look as far back as Burke (who, sadly, embarrassed himself so extensively by his comments on the death of Marie-Antoinette that he nearly made himself seem pathetic). Not all that long ago, ii could boast of people like Russell Kirk and Bill Buckley, who were at least capable of defending or promoting it as reasonable in certain respects.
But now? It isn't possible to listen to members of the right wing media or its pundits without marveling at their frantic, self-righteous display of militant ignorance. Conservative politicians seem dull, mendacious, venal and craven. [In truth, I don't care for pundits or politicians of any kind] Are there any conservative or right wing thinkers or intellectuals anymore? Has our grotesque president, his followers and his enablers managed to snuff them out or driven them into silent exile?
Conservatism as I understand it was admirable in its emphasis on civil liberties, less government control where unharmful speech, though and conduct are concerned, a respect for traditions--perhaps I understood it to be more like Classical Liberalism than it was in fact. In any case, there was a time when I valued these views; I still do, though not as I once did. But now it seems a repository for bigotry, jingoism, nationalism and is anti-science and anti-reason.
counterpunchJanuary 11, 2021 at 17:54#4873040 likes
Reply to ssu I've encountered the idea of post material values before - that is, the idea that the West can afford to care about the environment, but you make a good and sympathetic argument of it. What choice do they have? I've done a lot of different jobs in my lifetime, and the best employers want to do things well. The idea that capitalism is necessarily a destructive force, I think is false. It's a basic truism of physics, that in an entropic universe - maintaining a particular state requires the expenditure of energy. If energy is a scarce, expensive factor of production - it limits what land and what resources are worth developing, and what can be done to mitigate the consequences of production. It's essentially the same argument: what choice do they have? Limitless clean energy will give us the choice.
Kenosha KidJanuary 11, 2021 at 18:02#4873050 likes
If I made a coherent argument, you wouldn't read it. You'd ignore everything I said, and toss off some thoughtless one liner within two minuets of my post.
I took that on board and waited two hours so as to give you a more considered response, which is this: Pretty big if.
How does something that isn't there, say anything? You look at that statue of Colston, for example - and are offended by it. It means something different to you now than it meant to those who erected it, and it will mean something different again to subsequent generations. Who the giddy fuck are you to insist your current opinion, not only trumps that of previous generations, but removes it from the consideration of all subsequent generations?
I'm not offended by statues. I'm simply indifferent to them. My perspective is tearing them down is the best use of them, really. But I also don't expect tearing them down to do very much; at best it's a symbolic gesture, but I imagine that it sends a message as symbols do. Those statues were put up to reproduce history in a symbolic register, the mob which tears them down has the same function.
I believe the argument you've made applies to any action which goes against a tradition, regardless of the value of the tradition. I do side with you that traditions can be there for a reason, but I do think that their values should be weighed and measured. What those statues represent has been, and found wanting.
I reserve the right to judge traditions, just as you've done with the present state of the world and its habits of not listening to scientists! Ought that change? Who're you to go against the traditional relationship of science and politics? The argument you've used is very much a two edged blade.
What do you see? You see an anti western target for your politically correct virtue signalling - a myopic, self righteous view based on the lie that slavery was a particular cruelty invented and practiced by white people, against black people - because they're black. You think slavery was racism. But white people didn't go out and capture black people and force them into slavery. They bought slaves from black people; trading Western manufactured goods - cloth and metal tools for slaves, then trading salves for sugar and spices in the Americas, and then back to Europe to sell the sugar and spices.
I don't really like that you've told me what I see. What I see is the historical contingency that nations which largely consisted of people with white or light tan skin, for mercantile+economic reasons, decided that chattel slavery, indentured servitude and colonial expansion were good business ideas - these were the ur form of systemic racism. And then further historical contingencies that lead those slavers and their political ilk creating justifying ideologies for slavery - those are expressedly racist. We live in the legacy of those decisions, and their continued effects have been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt.
Slavery, structurally, clearly doesn't have to be a white person enslaving a nonwhite person. Slavery, insofar as it is relevant to our societies' present functions, absolutely was.
You despise the very civilisation that ended slavery
Nah man, I've got nothing but respect for Dessalines, and anyone that works to end slavery, apartheid, and discrimination of any sort.
and if you have your anti western way
Anti-western? I doubt you mean that in the sense that the west couldn't function as it does without systemic racism; with that I agree. But I don't really know why you would think I'm anti-western. What does that mean to you?
counterpunchJanuary 11, 2021 at 18:05#4873070 likes
Reply to ssu I mean, I don't believe it's possible to create a self sustaining fusion reaction that produces excess energy... in earth gravity. That doesn't mean it's not possible to force fusion to occur, but like you say - it requires more energy input, than is produced as output. The energy put in overcomes the exclusion principle; something that in the sun, is achieved by the huge gravity and density of hydrogen plasma. Nuclear fusion will never be a viable power source on earth.
counterpunchJanuary 11, 2021 at 18:10#4873090 likes
Reply to Kenosha Kid During that two hours, did you perchance - go back and read my post? Or just spend it thinking up another one liner?
Kenosha KidJanuary 11, 2021 at 18:15#4873100 likes
In any case, there was a time when I valued these views; I still do, though not as I once did. But now it seems a repository for bigotry, jingoism, nationalism and is anti-science and anti-reason.
First, don't let the populism of Trump distract you here. Just because the GOP in America is in chaos doesn't mean that conservatism around the World is in chaos and has been defeated by right-wing populists. That's a false narrative, which naturally is eagerly upheld by people from the left.
Just ask yourself, which conservative leader has been in power in the West for the longest?
Angela Merkel.
Of course the Trumpist doesn't even realize that the German chancellor is from a conservative party, just as the typical American leftist today abhors the actual social democrat leaders in the West (of whom Tony Blair was actually the prime example). Yet it's telling that the moderate left and the moderate right are totally sidelined as focus is given to the populists in the media.
But what are the real power structures? The political division in the European Parliament tells something about the true power balance in the EU. And which is the largest faction? The EPP, center-right as it is known. And btw Angela Merkel's party belongs to the EPP, just like the local Conservative Party Kokoomus from here (whereas the UK Tories belonged to the ECR).
In my view the idea that conservatism has lost to right-wing populism simply isn't true. Conservatism hasn't fallen into jingoism, nationalism and anti-science reasoning. It's one narrative promoted by those who oppose conservatism.
counterpunchJanuary 11, 2021 at 18:52#4873210 likes
Reply to fdrake You're indifferent to statues, but support tearing them down. Yeah, that makes sense. The thing is, building a statue is a constructive symbolic symbol. It communicates through time. Tearing them down isn't. It leaves nothing behind - and so says nothing beyond a fleeting moment of signalled virtue.
I used the term "you" in a collective sense - meaning, you left wing types. It came across as personal to you, and was more aggressive in tone than I intended. For that I apologise. But it remains that slavery existed since the dawn of time, and without the British Empire and the United States - it couldn't have been ended. It therefore seems to me, massively hypocritical - to denounce western civilisation for what had been a universal practice, throughout all of history - that we brought to an end.
This obvious left wing hypocrisy can only be achieved by denying the ubiquity of slavery to the human condition, and that's not a lesson you want to forget. Those statues should make you aware, and happy you live in a society and era that allows for individual liberty. Yet you, lefties - protest against the very society, philosophies and economic system that afford you that freedom. You act as if freedom is some natural default setting. It's not. Slavery is the default - and freedom is hard won. So no, it's not quite:
the argument you've made applies to any action which goes against a tradition,
It's that you falsify the history to forge a weapon against the very system that affords you the freedom to have an opinion, and to express it. You turn our own achievements against us - and it's just dishonest. We have multi-cultural societies, and have set racial equality in law, but it's still not good enough for you lefties - because, when it comes down to it, you're playing identity politics, and it's a power game. It's you lefties stirring up racial animosity for political advantage - not the right. Western society isn't institutionally racist, there isn't a racist genocide being committed by the police. It's all a lie. You politically correct lefties are the real racists, only you're racist against white people so that's okay then! .
CiceronianusJanuary 11, 2021 at 19:04#4873250 likes
Just because the GOP in America is in chaos doesn't mean that conservatism around the World is in chaos and has been defeated by right-wing populists.
You're right. I should have limited my comments to the state of conservatism in the U.S. Here, it seems, we're witnessing a sort of rebirth of the views held by the John Birch Society, which was once denounced by conservatives.
counterpunchJanuary 11, 2021 at 19:05#4873260 likes
You're indifferent to statues, but support tearing them down. Yeah, that makes sense.
I don't think it changes much, but is a mildly good thing that they're torn down. Mild preference for them being torn down. I'd have a stronger preference if I saw stronger evidence that tearing them down helped fight systemic discrimination, I'd have a weaker preference if I saw evidence that it doesn't help at all. I haven't seen any evidence, or convincing arguments, that tearing down the statues harms people or society. I've seen some evidence, and convincing arguments, that it helps in a limited way.
I used the term "you" in a collective sense - meaning, you left wing types. It came across as personal to you, and was more aggressive in tone than I intended. For that I apologise
:up:
No worries, I have the same bad habits of stereotyping the people I seem to disagree with.
This obvious left wing hypocrisy can only be achieved by denying the ubiquity of slavery to the human condition, and that's not a lesson you want to forget. Those statues should make you aware, and happy you live in a society and era that allows for individual liberty. Yet you, lefties - protest against the very society, philosophies and economic system that afford you that freedom. You act as if freedom is some natural default setting. It's not. Slavery is the default - and freedom is hard won. So no, it's not quite:
I don't think "slavery is the default" fits the anthropological record; from what I've read of it there's very few things that compare to international slave raids and barter of people between societies. David Graeber's "Debt, The First 5000 years" has rather a lot of relevant detail on this. I wouldn't say this automatically means anything like modern freedom fits the record either; we're kinda similar to Ancient Greek slaves - we form contracts with people for performing services and receive money as payment.
t's that you falsify the history to forge a weapon against the very system that affords you the freedom to have an opinion, and to express it. You turn our own achievements against us - and it's just dishonest. We have multi-cultural societies, and have set racial equality in law, but it's still not good enough for you lefties - because, when it comes down to it, you're playing identity politics, and it's a power game. It's you lefties stirring up racial animosity for political advantage - not the right. Western society isn't institutionally racist, there isn't a racist genocide being committed by the police. It's all a lie. You politically correct lefties are the real racists, only you're racist against white people so that's okay then! .
Formal equality under the law doesn't signal the absence of systemic discrimination in a society. If you understand systemic discrimination as "institutional discrimination", I think you've been interpreting systemic discrimination in a limited way; missing the intended interpretation. It's more of a functional thing than a legal thing - closer to something like "a society can be said to be systemically discriminatory against group X iff belonging in group X amplifies exposure to negative outcomes relative to those who are not in group X AND that exposure has strong social+economic contributory causes". In general now we're talking about stuff like black people in the US being exposed more to dangerous levels of lead paint due to Jim Crow laws, redlining etc than a formalised legal difference between the groups. The same kinda thing for hiring disparities with equivalent CVs but you change the racialisation or gender association of the name! Formal inequality under the law (a form of institutionalised discrimination) would also fall under that general characterisation.
Economists like Menger and others have far earlier shown how flawed the theories are, but the most obvious example is the little if meaningless impact of Marxian economics in current economics.
Have you been living under a rock the past 12 years? Marxist economics has been vilified for years. Like any theory about human action it's flawed but it's definitely experiencing a revival since 2008.
The way forward is heterogenous economics and Marx is part of it.
Just looking where most activated goodwill arises from on a balance sheet is a clear indication demand and supply isn't the whole story.
Reply to ssu Yeah, superconductivity at room temperature is one of the most important breakthroughs, allowing for the magnets to be placed much closer requiring much less size and therefore energy usage. That's the recent game changer.
I do agree with you that capitalism is not only not the problem, it's the only game in town, as socialism is simply a re-distribution scheme and communism, a pipe-dream.
It's just a matter of rooting out the corruption which has pretty much paralyzed all systems.
What if the corruption is part and parcel of capitalism though? A capitalist system allows an ever accelerating accumulation of wealth. This is in a way what everyone in a capitalist system ultimately strives for - not just to be rich, but to get exponentially richer.
It's obvious that the massive concentrations of wealth this produces come with associated power, and this power then competes with political power. The result is corruption, as politics becomes a tool for economic gain and vice versa.
Hard to see how to get out of that spiral without some kind of reform.
Thanks I take it as a compliment, though my time is also extremely limited... I am of the conviction that there is one reason for all. People from all stripes and walks of life can understand the difference between a good and a bad argument. That is an essential article of faith in philosophy I think, though not uncontroversial.
Communists censors everyone who is not in line with the Ingsoc's dogmas.
Communist censors? A lot must have changed since I went MIA. Or do you just use 'communist' as a label for people who's political views you do not like? If so, isn't that some sort of 'Godwin' you exploit? The censors would never allow me to call you a national socialist for instance, but hey you may call everyone communist and associate them with Stalin.
Kenosha KidJanuary 11, 2021 at 21:30#4873820 likes
Then, you may wish to give my post a reasonable response.
My response was perfectly reasonable. The fact that it's fatal to your argument and you don't want to deal with it doesn't make it unreasonable. This is your opportunity to defend your point; if you can't, you can't.
You're right. I should have limited my comments to the state of conservatism in the U.S. Here, it seems, we're witnessing a sort of rebirth of the views held by the John Birch Society, which was once denounced by conservatives.
The fate of conservatism is to be dragged in a direction not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of politics. Because they cannot alter change, and due to a fondness for authority and order, conservatives are often the hand-maiden of socialism, insofar as compromises and appeasement have led to greater state control (See Bismarck and the foundation of the modern welfare state). This control has not only served to hinder the rise of socialism, but also any path to liberty.
Reply to Kenosha Kid Perhaps, and eventually, the Mods might oblige one to get fucked off...? As in, instead of one fucking off oneself, one might have them fuck one off with a permanent ban or some such?
Just trying to be helpful by giving possible translations.
I don't think nuclear fusion can work in earth gravity.
This seems to me to display a misguided picture of how the physics of fusion works. Seems to me the sort of thing that someone who has read pop accounts and not done the maths might say. On that basis I will not be taking much of Counter's pugilistic advice to heart, until I see some evidence to the contrary.
Like any theory about human action it's flawed but it's definitely experiencing a revival since 2008.
Well, Marxists have allways said that it has experienced a revival. I thought Neo-Marxian economics was a big thing in leftist circles in the 1970's and 1980's with guys like Paul Sweezy.
What if the corruption is part and parcel of capitalism though? A capitalist system allows an ever accelerating accumulation of wealth. This is in a way what everyone in a capitalist system ultimately strives for - not just to be rich, but to get exponentially richer.
If capitalism would be so all encompassing greed, how do you explain then that even with capitalism many countries do have a lot of social cohesion and are just fine with things like the welfare state. Bismarck wasn't a leftist, but he went on with social-welfare legislation.
The fate of conservatism is to be dragged in a direction not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of politics. Because they cannot alter change, and due to a fondness for authority and order, conservatives are often the hand-maiden of socialism, insofar as compromises and appeasement have led to greater state control (See Bismarck and the foundation of the modern welfare state). This control has not only served to hinder the rise of socialism, but also any path to liberty.
Then again look at present social democracy in Europe. Not hardly the movement that would have as it's agenda of doing away with capitalism. Yet social democracy is the actual movement that has prevailed and been very successful in the West, not totalitarian communism. The simple reason is that if something works and people are happy with it, then any political movement has to go with it and just bite it's tongue, however much the thing goes against their core ideology. Hence it's not so one sided as you think.
Yes we can! Bush signing Medicare part D in 2003, hence even Republicans are totally capable of enlarging the welfare state.
If capitalism would be so all encompassing greed, how do you explain then that even with capitalism many countries do have a lot of social cohesion and are just fine with things like the welfare state.
A welfare state is a counterbalance to capitalism, keeping its excesses in check. Without one capitalism would eat itself alive. It's thus prudent, for smart capitalists, to allow one, to keep capitalism otherwise rolling along longer, avoiding the crisis Marx predicted at its end... by slowly becoming more socialist.*
That's what "heterogenous economics" means, I suspect: a mixed economy, one with a mix of capitalist and socialist policies. Unless Benkei actually meant "heterodox economics" instead.
*(I think that there is a general pattern of that in all social systems, analogous to the evolution of parasitic organisms: if you kill your host then you die off with it, so there's selection pressure to evolve toward symbiosis rather than parasitism, mutual benefit instead of winning at another's expense. Thus social systems that destroy their societies to not memetically reproduce as efficiently as those that produce more stable and flourishing societies do.)
SSU says things like Marx has been proven wrong because supply and demand explain the economy better and yet thinks to be taken seriously.
The issue with Benkei was about Marx's value theory of labour. That actually has to do with supply and demand. Marx apparently wrote a lot else more, which isn't proven right or wrong by this.
As Carl Menger said way back in his time about the theory:
There is no necessary and direct connection between the value of a good and whether, or in what quantities, labor and other goods of higher order were applied to its production. A non-economic good (a quantity of timber in a virgin forest, for example) does not attain value for men since large quantities of labor or other economic goods were not applied to its production. Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value. In general, no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value, but considers solely the services that the good will render him and which he would have to forgo if he did not have it at his command...The quantities of labor or of other means of production applied to its production cannot, therefore, be the determining factor in the value of a good.
Here the laws of supply and demand are a far better model.
A welfare state is a counterbalance to capitalism, keeping its excesses in check. Without one capitalism would eat itself alive.
I think people understand that societies made up of capitalists are far more complex than that. Let's remember that capitalism is private ownership of trade and industry while the classic definition of socialism is ownership of these by the community. Modern social democracy doesn't strive for that anymore, just to "curb the excesses of a market economy", hence just to regulate capitalism, in my view.
And also here is the crucial question: even if trade and industry is in private ownership, why cannot social cohesion and solidarity still prevail? A society is far more complex than just trade and business. There are many other bonds people have with each other than that. The counterpart might not be socialism, but perhaps social cohesion.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 11, 2021 at 22:43#4874220 likes
All the leftists would be eating each other over the correct interpretation of Marx. You're lucky you have the right-wingers here to serve as the common enemy, it's the closest you'll get to leftist unity.
What if the corruption is part and parcel of capitalism though? A capitalist system allows an ever accelerating accumulation of wealth. This is in a way what everyone in a capitalist system ultimately strives for - not just to be rich, but to get exponentially richer.
You are absolutely correct, but corruption is part and parcel of all human activity. I do realize that the temptations are perhaps greater when wealth (power) is involved, but it's everywhere (all the time).
The fact that capitalism does appear to result in increasing concentrations of wealth can be attenuated by keeping the system as "honest" as possible, i.e., maintaining competition, keeping the politicians somewhat under control, using real money, etc. At present, it's a complete mess.
And I am not convinced that all but the few have such a maniacal propensity to go towards avarice. Just the same, keeping those things that can be regulated (within the context of freedom), regulated, you will get the best result possible.
Capitalism (like all human systems) has it's issues, but it's so incredibly efficient and has lifted an incredible amount of people out of poverty. It also a system that rewards merit, hard work, and most importantly panders to the market, where it is the masses [mostly] that decide what is going to be a successful product/service.
Top-down economics (like top-down everything else) is a disaster.
Let's remember that capitalism is private ownership of trade and industry while the classic definition of socialism is ownership of these by the community. Modern social democracy doesn't strive for that anymore, just to "curb the excesses of a market economy", hence just to regulate capitalism, in my view.
If that private ownership were truly considered complete and sacrosanct, then the taxes that fund the social programs of a welfare state would rightly be considered theft. If the laws of the land hold it justified and right for the state to confiscate some of the wealth of those private owners for the benefit of all of society, that is in effect saying that the people as a whole, represented by their democratic state, have some rights in that wealth, i.e. a stake in it, a bit of ownership of it.
If I can rightfully take something that's "yours" -- not just get away with it, but if there's actually nothing wrong with me doing so -- then to that extent is it partly "mine" as well, because your claims to it do not rightfully exclude my claims to it. So if a state of and by the people can rightfully take from "privately owned" industry -- and it's not theft, but something they're fully justified in doing -- then to that extent that industry is partly "theirs", because the private claims to it do not rightfully exclude the people's claims to it.
Consider the extreme scenario, where 100% of "private profit" rightfully belonged to a democratic state for use in social welfare. Would that not be a form of state socialism? Would that not amount to a claim of ownership by the state to all of that "private industry"?
Top-down economics (like top-down everything else) is a disaster
Which is an argument against capitalism, because capitalism organizes things in a top-down fashion: the owners are the top, the people who live on and work with the capital that they own are at the bottom. To eliminate that top-down hierarchy would be to devolve ownership equally to the people at the bottom, which would be socialism.
Capitalism isn't just any old free market, capitalism is the concentration of wealth into few hands, and the consequent division of the people into those who own and those who don't. A free market where ownership was widely and evenly distributed would not be capitalist, but libertarian-socialist.
A welfare state is a counterbalance to capitalism, keeping its excesses in check. Without one capitalism would eat itself alive. It's thus prudent, for smart capitalists, to allow one, to keep capitalism otherwise rolling along longer, avoiding the crisis Marx predicted at its end... by slowly becoming more socialist.*
Although all systems have their issues, most of the inadequacies the welfare state addresses are not capitalism's fault. It is the political system that creates templates that are destined to failure, e.g., a corporate legal structure that ensures eventual serf-status for the majority.
The political system need only protect property rights and discourage the tendency towards consolidation. Competition is the key to what keeps the ship of capitalism righted and, as well, what capitalists fight (tooth and nail) to destroy.
You think its ok to verbally abuse others you disagree with, but racism is a big, "No-No"? Whats the fucking difference?
Dude I've been advocating for civil discourse for years. Generally what happens is people call me names up until the point I demonstrate them wrong and reveal their hypocrisy. Then they stop responding to me.
With regard to the paradox of tolerance specifically, here is what Karl Popper said:
Less well known [than other paradoxes Popper discusses] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Is there a difference between this and the way it is usually interpreted? Of course. Because reason isn't used at all. People go straight to insults. Then they say "Gee whiz! It's so hard to convince conservatives of anything..."
As to that, I think there are specific techniques people need to learn in order to have the skill to revise their position during a discussion. And if they haven't entered the discussion with the possibility of revising their position, they are essentially engaging in verbal combat.
I say this because the unwillingness to revise means that the person and the opinion are lacking an important separation. If I can truly say that I have an opinion, I can also accept it as an opinion -- meaning it is fallible and therefore subject to change. I can get rid of it, perhaps feeling some emotion in the process, but because it is something I have I will still be myself afterwards. But when people are so attached to their opinions, having those opinions challenged becomes a loss of identity. That is when the line between ad hominem and arguing the point disappears.
But this attitude toward the world that treats opinions as being inseparable from identity is not an unsophisticated one. It is common to point out that a person's opinion is invalid not because of its internal consistency or truth value but because it is sexist, racist, etc. If you really scrutinize such a rebuttal, it actually amounts to an ad hominem and thus it wouldn't, by itself, show a flaw in the opinion. It takes a sophisticated worldview in which truth is generated or discovered by proper methodology in order to reframe the accusation of racism, sexism, etc. into a implicit critique of a truth-finding method. In this use of the term, it is further recognized that it is an uncovering of implicit premises, so even the accuser is not attacking their interlocutor so much as helping them to realize a flaw in their thinking.
Unfortunately, people online don't tend to be so well educated or aware of this distinction. Instead they view themselves factionally. These terms (racist, sexist, supporter of X) become "purity tests" which automatically identify a person as being part of a group whose presence in the discussion is unwanted. Thus, bullying and insults are used to try to shut others up. The irony, however, is that the presence of diverse opinions is necessary for a discussion. To this, I can only comment that racism, sexism, etc. have a latent or subconscious element, meaning nobody can truly say they are not a racist, sexist, etc. Therefore everyone should be aware of the hypocrisy involved in quickly applying these labels to others only to insult them.
Returning to the notion of being willing to revise your own opinions, the crucial element is having some personal rules or standards through which you become able to recognize when your position is seriously compromised. This is because there is no judge in an online debate. We are each responsible for applying the rules to ourselves. Even when an argument is totally disproved, the person who made that argument is not automatically convinced -- nor should they be. But if they are genuinely searching for the truth, they should be mature enough to write "Ok. I guess my argument doesn't work."
Kenosha KidJanuary 12, 2021 at 00:11#4874750 likes
Which is an argument against capitalism, because capitalism organizes things in a top-down fashion: the owners are the top, the people who live on and work with the capital that they own are at the bottom. To eliminate that top-down hierarchy would be to devolve ownership equally to the people at the bottom, which would be socialism.
In absolute terms, you are correct, but there can never be equality (nor should there be). Equality of opportunity is a worthy goal, though. You cannot eliminate incentives nor can you refuse to award innovation and merit, so there is will always be stratification. The key is to make it such that the haves and the have-nots live in the same planetary system.
Capitalism isn't just any old free market, capitalism is the concentration of wealth into few hands, and the consequent division of the people into those who own and those who don't. A free market where ownership was widely and evenly distributed would not be capitalist, but libertarian-socialist.
Understood, but there are ways to minimize potential harm, the most obvious in our present predicament being a return to real money and the elimination of the everything bubble. There are other methods, as well. Housing in the U.S. was a great example where the system was designed to help families afford to buy a house (before housing was given to the banking speculators who quickly made a mess out that too).
Kenosha KidJanuary 12, 2021 at 00:13#4874770 likes
In absolute terms, you are correct, but there can never be equality (nor should there be). Equality of opportunity is a worthy goal, though. You cannot eliminate incentives nor can you refuse to award innovation and merit
Yes you can. They're called co-operatives.
counterpunchJanuary 12, 2021 at 00:19#4874810 likes
Do you believe science has an answer to something like: "BLM protesters pulling down the statues they did is praiseworthy because it simultaneously highlights histories of oppression and dismantles symbols of that oppression"?
Reply to fdrake I quote the passage above to illustrate where we came in on this question - just a day or so ago, and how already, the point has wandered quite a ways from its origins. If it weren't possible to click back a page or two, and look up where we came in - I would be quite lost. I really couldn't explain why we are seeking to establish the precise mildness of your approval for removing statues that remind us where we came from.
No worries, I have the same bad habits of stereotyping the people I seem to disagree with.
I do worry though.
"The world's two largest standing Buddhas - one of them 165ft high - were blown up by the Taliban in Afghanistan at the weekend. After failing to destroy the 1,700-year-old sandstone statues of Buddha with anti-aircraft and tank fire, the Taliban brought a lorryload of dynamite from Kabul."
How mild is your approval for this? Or do you disapprove of this - and maintain it's only your lefty cultural vandalism that's praiseworthy?
I don't think "slavery is the default" fits the anthropological record;
You don't? Ancient Egyptians, Greek, Romans all had slaves did they not? Ottomans, Muslims, Africans, Russians all had slaves. British people were slaves until 1584; only they called them serfs. Slavery is the default, and capitalism is the cure. Don't be sly - making sideways arguments, and referencing books I haven't read, and am obviously not about to run out and buy. Slavery was everywhere - all around the world and throughout all of history until the West ended it.
"a society can be said to be systemically discriminatory against group X iff belonging in group X amplifies exposure to negative outcomes relative to those who are not in group X AND that exposure has strong social+economic contributory causes".
Another sly argument. In society and economics, it's necessary to discriminate - for example, between people who are qualified for a job, and those who are not qualified. So, for example, if numerous black people applied for a job without having the necessary qualifications, by your logic - they are being discriminated against, relative to the white person who is qualified. The discrimination isn't racial discrimination, but you switch effect with cause - like with Redlining, to suggest a racial disparity in effect proves racist intent as a cause. It's not so. That's politically correct logic. The same logic that denies slavery existed everywhere, since the dawn of time. You - lefties, are not capable of an honest argument.
counterpunchJanuary 12, 2021 at 00:59#4874990 likes
This seems to me to display a misguided picture of how the physics of fusion works. Seems to me the sort of thing that someone who has read pop accounts and not done the maths might say. On that basis I will not be taking much of Counter's pugilistic advice to heart, until I see some evidence to the contrary.
Misguided in what way? I freely admit my instinct isn't based on calculating the gravitational effect upon atomic nuclei of the mass of the sun, relative to the Pauli Exclusion Principle - but my layman's understanding isn't misguided. I suspect a sustained nuclear fusion reaction in the sun is only possible because the plasma is so dense under immense gravitational pressure - it overcomes exclusion, and that recreating solar plasma density on earth is not possible. Or is a self sustaining fusion reaction still just five years away - like it has been for the past 50 years?
Regardless, fusion is not something we can rely on to come along any time soon to provide the limitless clean energy we need to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability. We have to look elsewhere - and one doesn't need to be capable of calculating atomic trajectories to realise, the earth is a big ball of molten rock containing more energy than we could ever even put a dent in - no matter how much energy we care to spend, extracting carbon from the air, desalinating sea water to develop land for agriculture, recycling waste, and lighting, heating, transport and everything else. The promise of limitless clean energy from fusion has not been fulfilled. It's time to drill for magma power on a massive scale, and we can secure the future.
I was attracted to the forum because I am the most significant philosophical thinker of this, or any other generation
Oh - psychoceramics. I should have spotted it earlier.
Is this a direct consequence of the closure of Parler? Can we expect more visitors as they look for somewhere else to share their wisdom?
counterpunchJanuary 12, 2021 at 01:41#4875220 likes
Reply to Banno "No" is an exclamation used to indicate a negative response. It's also an adverb, meaning "not at all; to no extent."
Fusion can occur on earth - I don't deny that. But there's a big difference between making two atomic nuclei fuse - and a self sustaining fusion reaction.
It's the latter (I suspect) that's not possible - because the same density of plasma; plasma with the gravitational force of 333000 earth mases forcing atoms together, cannot be created on earth.
Oh - psychoceramics. I should have spotted it earlier. Is this a direct consequence of the closure of Parler? Can we expect more visitors as they look for somewhere else to share their wisdom?
Oh boy, more straight up insults. I am forced to ask whether you think you, as a moderator capable of banning people from the forum, should be insulting people, creating personal antagonisms? I am not willing to respond to your repeated insults in kind, because I'll get banned. So please desist, or grant me license to speak freely.
Oh boy, more straight up insults. I am forced to ask whether you think you, as a moderator capable of banning people from the forum, should be insulting people, creating personal antagonisms? I am not willing to respond to your repeated insults in kind, because I'll get banned. So please desist, or grant me license to speak freely.
You'll be banned anyway if you don't stop talking nonsense.
Sorry, but markets and the market mechanism of demand and supply work far better to explain economic issues. Not a dubious theory based on "labor" making the value of something.
Are you not aware of Marx's writings on supply and demand? It's covered quite extensively in the Grundrisse and Capital (which I would hope you would have read before jumping into criticisms of Marx). Marx wrote about the limitations of treating supply and demand as an economic law as it was the predominant bourgeois economic theory in his own time (e.g. Say, Bastiat) and which was further criticized by non-Marxists as well, decades after Marx (e.g. Keynes).
I'm baffled by the Menger quote you cite as it includes sloppy misreadings of Marx. Value for Marx in his Labor Theory of Value is determined by socially necessary labor time in a given society, which isn't synonymous with "large quantities" of labor as Menger writes. No where in the quote provided does Menger grapple with Marx's definition on his own terms. It's unclear if Menger does so elsewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if you just googled "Criticism of Labor Theory of Value", and copied and pasted the Wikipedia entry.
Menger also confuses Marx's definition of value as conflating with a definition of price, whereas Marx is very careful to separate the two and that there are of course deviations between the two. But let's think about the brief example within Menger's quote using Marx's actual analysis and see why the former's criticisms is so absurd. Menger asks why the consumer should care about the productive origins of a commodity in regards to price (which Marx would call commodity fetishism). Fair enough, but what about the capitalist? In order to have a product in market she has to have a labor force comprised of wage laborers who require monetary compensation (and also require reproduction, i.e. they need to minimally feed, clothe, and shelter themselves and begin the working day again). She will additionally need the raw material along with the machine(s) or other technology that the laborers will use in producing her commodities. Likewise, the raw material requires wage laborers to extract and distribute to producers, as do the machines which need laborers to be build. The capitalist who requires and gathers all this, for producing her commodity, needs to take these costs into account when positing or determining the market price of her commodity. The capitalist ideally wants to keep the price high, in order to maximize their profit rate, but Menger's generalized consumer can simply choose not to buy if the price exceeds their use value, and the capitalist can adjust the price lower, accordingly. However, if the price is too low then the capitalist at best makes no profit (in which case, why enter production at all), and at worst she loses money due to these productive costs. As Marx writes in the Grundrisse (chapter 2):
The price of a commodity constantly stands above or below the value of the commodity, and the value of the commodity itself exists only in this up-and-down movement of commodity prices. Supply and demand constantly determine the prices of commodities; never balance, or only coincidentally; but the cost of production, for its part, determines the oscillations of supply and demand.
And if Menger's consumer still doesn't accept the asking price, if no consumer accepts the price, then we have an economic crisis, a crisis of overproduction/under consumption.
Summarily, this is the subterfuge behind bourgeois economists; hiding the details of production, including the labor force and it's struggles, behind a veil in order to direct attention to supply and demand in the marketplace and away from labor concerns.
All the leftists would be eating each other over the correct interpretation of Marx.
That sounds far better than debating if, say, Black Lives Matter is a terrorist organization or if political correctness is Orwell's worst nightmare or some other crap.
StreetlightJanuary 12, 2021 at 02:12#4875350 likes
That sounds far better than debating if, say, Black Lives Matter is a terrorist organization or if political correctness is Orwell's worst nightmare or some other crap.
Yeah dunno why he's threatening us with a good time.
counterpunchJanuary 12, 2021 at 02:21#4875380 likes
You'll be banned anyway if you don't stop talking nonsense.
I don't want to get banned, but banno is quite obviously seeking to provoke me. He was nothing but insulting. And he's wrong about nuclear fusion. I am quite willing to honestly and openly thrash out any disagreements we may have, but he's coming at me sideways.
I'd have thought that a philosophy forum was the last place on earth I'd have to negotiate this kind of thing. Has he no appreciation for the grand scheme of philosophical ideas - developing over thousands of years? The problem with a left wing (anti) intellectual circle jerk is that, they're all too afraid of the mob they've created to speak freely. When they've de-platformed everyone who isn't entirely agreeable, how do they know when they're wrong? Other than that their lips are moving!
I’m sure Counterpunch wouldn’t mind if someone mentioned that magma energy is not a new idea and that it obviously isn’t his. It does have the potential to bring 10 times more energy than today’s geothermal, but is difficult to obtain. It is being tried in Iceland where they are drilling about 2 miles down and they have to hit just the right kind of rock for the hole to be usable. And then the water will be highly corrosive which will cause other problems. This is not an easy layup.
The point is that his beloved capitalists are not dragging their feet on this. No one is. If this was the best return on investment at the time, then wind farms would never have been built. It will take time. Counterpunch complains about what people are doing while waiting for something that can’t be rushed.
And finally, this parallel line on racism. There is no prize given out for ending slavery. For one, it hasn’t ended, and two, you don’t get a trophy for ending what had become unsustainable. The purpose behind BLM is not going away. They are not interested in your rationale or anybody else’s.
I'm duty bound to share my uniquely enlightened thoughts, and shepard humankind into a prosperous and sustainable future - despite your apparent determination to misunderstand, and blunder into extinction. -Counterpunch
Read this aloud into a mirror
counterpunchJanuary 12, 2021 at 02:48#4875450 likes
Reply to Monitor The Icelandic should line the bore holes with pipes - not pump water into a hole in the ground. If you pump water into a hole in the ground, thermal expansion will create earthquakes. If you pump water through pipes - thermal expansion produces electricity.
I did, and Candyman appeared and told me best of luck and to keep up the good work. It's odd that more people don't feel that way. A lot of people just want to insult and belittle me, when all I'm trying to do is promote ideas that will provide for a sustainable future. Why do you think that is?
Although all systems have their issues, most of the inadequacies the welfare state addresses are not capitalism's fault. It is the political system that creates templates that are destined to failure, e.g., a corporate legal structure that ensures eventual serf-status for the majority.
The political system need only protect property rights and discourage the tendency towards consolidation. Competition is the key to what keeps the ship of capitalism righted and, as well, what capitalists fight (tooth and nail) to destroy.
Capitalism is a product of (if not wholly a part of) a political system.
Discouraging the tendency toward consolidation would be precisely fighting against capitalism, because capitalism just is that consolidation; which is why, just as you say, capitalists fight so hard to destroy the competition that threatens it. Competition is only possible among peers, which is to say, people who are roughly equals.
My personal pick for the big bad behind capitalism is rent, including rent on money i.e. interest, precisely because that creates a tendency toward consolidation. If those who have more thereby have leverage to extract even more from those who have less (because those who own more than they're using can lend the excess out at profit and those who own less than they need to use must pay to borrow it), then the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and over time wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
Get rid of things like that, so that wealth naturally flows from the idle rich to the working poor and doesn't just flow right back up again, so that there is a natural center-ward pressure in wealth distribution, and in time (as the wealth equalizes) you've got socialism, but still a free market. People aren't going to end up all exactly equal in wealth, but that's fine when the remaining inequalities due to some people working more and consuming less are so trivial, and so easily overcome, compared to the free ride vs sisyphean struggle dichotomy we have under capitalism.
A lot of people just want to insult and belittle me, when all I'm trying to do is promote ideas that will provide for a sustainable future. Why do you think that is?
The first part is wrong. Take out the word "me". The second part is a projection, a presupposition. You aren't working on anything that we can see, you are waiting for applause.
counterpunchJanuary 12, 2021 at 03:57#4875720 likes
Reply to Monitor If by applause you mean agreement, then yes, that is what I'm waiting for. But all I've met with is disagreement - some of it, quite vitriolic. In part, I believe that's because I don't subscribe to the 'limits to growth' approach to sustainability - promoted by the left as an anti-capitalist trojan horse.
In my view, a left wing, stop this, carbon tax that, pay more and have less approach to sustainability - isn't necessary, and wouldn't work anyway. If they had an honest desire to secure a sustainable future - they should be delighted all these cuts, taxes and prohibitions aren't necessary. But they don't want to know. The left love telling people what they can and can't think, say and do. They get off on it.
I can show windmills cannot produce enough energy to meet our needs. Don't want to know. Battery powered cars are an environmental and economic disaster. Don't want to know. Fusion is a non starter. Don't want to know. That's what I mean by an apparent determination to misunderstand and stumble into extinction.
I am duty bound to promote truth - in particular, a scientifically rational idea of truth, because that's the philosophical method I advocate. I have to live up to my own philosophical standards. Everything I wrote there is true, but that doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humour about it.
If by applause you mean agreement, then yes, that is what I'm waiting for. But all I've met with is disagreement - some of it, quite vitriolic. In part, I believe that's because I don't subscribe to the 'limits to growth' approach to sustainability - promoted by the left as an anti-capitalist trojan horse.
In my view, a left wing, stop this, carbon tax that, pay more and have less approach to sustainability - isn't necessary, and wouldn't work anyway. If they had an honest desire to secure a sustainable future - they should be delighted all these cuts, taxes and prohibitions aren't necessary. But they don't want to know. The left love telling people what they can and can't think, say and do. They get off on it.
I can show windmills cannot produce enough energy to meet our needs. Don't want to know. Battery powered cars are an environmental and economic disaster. Don't want to know. Fusion is a non starter. Don't want to know. That's what I mean by an apparent determination to misunderstand and stumble into extinction.
I am duty bound to promote truth - in particular, a scientifically rational idea of truth, because that's the philosophical method I advocate. I have to live up to my own philosophical standards. Everything I wrote there is true, but that doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humour about it.
Leftists are trying to stop me from having sex with my own brain, but I won't let them.
But when people are so attached to their opinions, having those opinions challenged becomes a loss of identity.
I think about the issue in a similar way. Identity is sacrificed in the pursuit of truth. But what motivates the pursuit of the truth? One identifies with rationality. So really we have an internal collision of sub-identities. A network of belief and desires is constantly modified. Identity is unstable, especially when people are young and running through a gallery of alternatives, as they discover this or that fault with their current persona, which is only a mask in retrospect, at the moment of transcendence/detachment.
A side point: to be rational is to be virtuously depersonalized. A reality in common is acknowledged, along with the limitations of any individual perspective on this reality.
counterpunchJanuary 12, 2021 at 04:35#4875800 likes
If that private ownership were truly considered complete and sacrosanct, then the taxes that fund the social programs of a welfare state would rightly be considered theft.
I don't think that industry being owned privately means this "complete and sacrosanct" libertarianism you talk of. The kind of Ayn Randian libertarianism in the US isn't any kind of natural consequence or end result of capitalism, it is just one result that has happened in one specific country, which has a multitude of reasons why it has gone the way it has. The idea that if you have capitalism, then you social programs and welfare state is considered theft is just quite bizarre.
In short, who owns the industry and trade doesn't define everything in a society nor does it define how the society holds itself together. There are many other issues here as every society has developed from a past version of itself that existed prior modern capitalism.
If the laws of the land hold it justified and right for the state to confiscate some of the wealth of those private owners for the benefit of all of society, that is in effect saying that the people as a whole, represented by their democratic state, have some rights in that wealth, i.e. a stake in it, a bit of ownership of it.
Well, actually no.
It's simply called taxation.
And people are and have been perfectly OK with taxation for millennia to fund the state. And that state can be a monarchy, an Empire, a theocracy or whatever. People have understood that if you are going to have something like armed forces to defend the society, that obviously costs something. That libertarian individualism you refer to is a quite recent idea in the history of nations and them taxing their people.
I am duty bound to promote truth - in particular, a scientifically rational idea of truth, because that's the philosophical method I advocate. I have to live up to my own philosophical standards. Everything I wrote there is true, but that doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humour about it.
You think truth and politics can be easily separated, but that is a naïve notion. I believe in rational discourse too, but the questions we ask produce the answers we get and the questions we ask are a result of politics, not truth. You simply buy into a different set of assumptions than most people who are considered to be on the left would. You believe in free markets, but just think about the enormous apparatus of rules required to keep a market free. In free market societies we have constructed a whole battery of rules and regulations, top down, to protect our 'free market'. Now leftists would say if we have that battery of rules anyway and if free market requires an infrastructure, why not tax people for its use? We can use it to steer society in the direction we find desirable.
Now liberatrians would say that no such steering is warranted, but they forget that a free market is itself a steering mechanism. It promotes certain values and penalizes others. One is not inherently more free than the other, it simply depends on your assumptions. This clash of people with a different outlook on life, the values worthy of protection and the virtues that are to be cultivated is what is called the political. The left is no ore 'getting off' on telling people what to think as the right 'gets off' on exploitation of others.
This is evocative of a "magic formula" which is nothing but a vain belief that it is possible to search after the truth in a way that protects you from ever being wrong.But if you feel you've come upon the proper attitude, it only leads you to overconfidence. You come to believe you understand everything because, in truth, you are refusing to make assertions or formulate ideas out of a fear which you won't acknowledge.
The opposite is true. One must acknowledge ones own personal interest. To be rational is to believe in what you are arguing for and to be emotionally invested in the world. Only then does it become possible to have your opinions challenged and learn something. But in order to actualize this possibility, it is further necessary to distinguish between your own argument and what you believe is true based upon that argument. It is necessary to distinguish between the goal of the social movement and the social movement itself. And so on.
Marx wrote about the limitations of treating supply and demand as an economic law as it was the predominant bourgeois economic theory in his own time (e.g. Say, Bastiat)
Say and Say's law isn't part of the economic theory of supply and demand on which modern mainstream economics is based on. I'm not familiar with what Bastiat has said on this.
But let's think about the brief example within Menger's quote using Marx's actual analysis and see why the former's criticisms is so absurd. Menger asks why the consumer should care about the productive origins of a commodity in regards to price (which Marx would call commodity fetishism). Fair enough, but what about the capitalist? In order to have a product in market she has to have a labor force comprised of wage laborers who require monetary compensation (and also require reproduction, i.e. they need to minimally feed, clothe, and shelter themselves and begin the working day again). She will additionally need the raw material along with the machine(s) or other technology that the laborers will use in producing her commodities. Likewise, the raw material requires wage laborers to extract and distribute to producers, as do the machines which need laborers to be build.
And here what you have described the market mechanism of both supply and demand tell far better what is going to happen.
Because if those costs the capitalist faces, the proletariat she has to keep alive at the bare minimum to gather those raw materials and to produce the good, is only one part of the equation. How many are willing to buy that good and for what price is needed and is absolutely crucial. If the costs are so high that only an eccentric millionaire can buy the good and is indeed willing to buy the good at the price that covers the capitalists costs and gives her a reasonable profit, then not much good will be produced. If that doesn't cover it, then the good won't be manufactured in the first place. No production, no proletariat working for the capitalist, no capitalist, actually. Only people doing some other stuff. If at a lower price more people are willing to buy the good, the capitalist might prosper more.
This just shows how more in line with reality is the supply and demand model to the Marxian model. The idea that the work put into the production is a one sided model which doesn't take into account how the market mechanism and pricing works.
I don't think that industry being owned privately means this "complete and sacrosanct" libertarianism you talk of.
It can be partially private without that kind of completeness, sure. I'm not saying that the only options are Randian capitalism or uniformly distributed social ownership. I'm saying that the less total the privacy of ownership is, the greater the public ownership in proportion: that granting the legitimacy of a public interest in something, like the right to tax it, is granting a limit to its private ownership.
Ownership of something is just is having rights in it, and vice versa. If the public has rights to the profits of industry, e.g. if taxation is legitimate, then that is in effect (even if not in name) at least partial public ownership.
I'm not saying anything at all here about whether that's good or bad, just that it is what it is. If someone doesn't have completely exclusive rights over something, it isn't completely private property of theirs. They can have partially exclusive rights and so it can be partially private, sure, but the exclusivity of their rights and the privacy of their property are the same thing.
The kind of Ayn Randian libertarianism in the US isn't any kind of natural consequence or end result of capitalism, it is just one result that has happened in one specific country
It's not a consequence of capitalism, it's a cause of it. Capitalism is the concentration of ownership of capital in relatively few hands. Randianism supports and leads to that; not vice versa. So yes, you can have some capitalism without that. But to the extent that there are limits on the privacy of property, that is also a limit on the possibility of capitalism. (But not vice versa; it is possible to have socialism with completely private property, so long as it remains distributed in many hands).
And people are and have been perfectly OK with taxation for millennia to fund the state. And that state can be a monarchy, an Empire, a theocracy or whatever. People have understood that if you are going to have something like armed forces to defend the society, that obviously costs something. That libertarian individualism you refer to is a quite recent idea in the history of nations and them taxing their people.
The notion that taxation is legitimate is the same notion as the state having a stake in the property being taxed. That is an old idea, yes: in feudal systems all capital (that being only land at the time) was technically owned by the state and only leased to other holders, and that lease was what legitimated the taxation of it: it's the Crown's land, and you can pay the tax on it or get the fuck off. That system technically persists to this day: "ownership" of a plot of land even in the United States is usually "fee simple" tenancy on the state's land, with only the extremely rare "allodial title" being actually completely and legally landlord-free ownership.
Nowadays in a post-agricultural economy there is capital other than land, which is not subject to exactly those same old feudal laws. But if it is legitimate for the state to tax the proceeds from that capital, then the state in a practical sense owns an interest in it, regardless of the words used in statutes to describe that relation.
It's a movement that considers every economic theory had something useful to say and that economist should be aware of all of them.
With that I can agree with. Any economic theory that gets support usually have a point and a kernel of truth in them. And what is obvious is that real economic policy and real economic structures don't follow the pure ideological theories, but are a mixture of many.
And Marx talking about the obvious problems in the 19th Century societies does have a point. I'm not saying that Marx as a philosopher would be unimportant. What I was saying that his economic theories haven't been so successful as neoclassical economics and there is a reason for this, even if Marxian economics is taught in various universities around the World. When I was in the university, Marx was taught to us in several courses while for example Austrian school economics was only covered in a voluntary study group by a small group of students, which I unfortunately turned down when asked to join. That tells a lot, actually.
I remember a professor in the university telling that Marx also made the prediction that the proletariat might not focus it's efforts on creating a communist revolution, but simply to demand more pay. Looking at the labor movement in the West, that is the way it went. What is notable is that capitalist societies in the West did make an effort to improve the situation. If someone like Bismarck introduces the first social-welfare legislation to counter the socialists demand, who actually is then behind the improvements, Marx or Bismarck?
Capitalism is the concentration of ownership of capital in relatively few hands.
Capitalism is the ownership of industry is held in private hands. Private ownership doesn't lead to that. For example, land ownership hasn't concentrated into relatively few hands, there are lot of small landowners in every country. Competition leads to larger producers being more efficient than smaller ones and the most likely situation is an oligopoly situation where there are a few large companies which dominate a large part of the market, but a huge portion is made up of a vast amount of small companies with niche segments of the market. Perhaps here one should make a difference between capitalism and market economy.
Ownership of something is just is having rights in it, and vice versa. If the public has rights to the profits of industry, e.g. if taxation is legitimate, then that is in effect (even if ot in name) at least partial public ownership.
And how do you explain absolute monarchies then? Hobbes? How much different is the state actually if it's a monarchy or a republic? The postman is the same postman even if the monarchy is overthrown and is replaced with a republic.
Nowadays in a post-agricultural economy there is capital other than land, which is not subject to exactly those same old feudal laws. But if it is legitimate for the state to tax the proceeds from that capital, then the state in a practical sense owns an interest in it, regardless of the words used in statutes to describe that relation.
For the state it's not only an issue of checks and balances, it's also interested in it's own power.
If capitalism would be so all encompassing greed, how do you explain then that even with capitalism many countries do have a lot of social cohesion and are just fine with things like the welfare state. Bismarck wasn't a leftist, but he went on with social-welfare legislation.
Bismarck is not perhaps the best example you could pick here, since the reason he added the "drop of socialist oil" to the mix was to avoid a socialist revolution.
But yes, capitalism has been successful. Quite remarkably so, in fact. But that doesn't mean there isn't always the inherent danger of unrestrained capital accumulation leading to unrestrained power. I think the struggle between welfare, unions and regulation on the one side and the profit motif on the other is hard to overlook.
You are absolutely correct, but corruption is part and parcel of all human activity. I do realize that the temptations are perhaps greater when wealth (power) is involved, but it's everywhere (all the time).
Then you do realize the problem. I don't claim that any change would lead to a perfect system.
The fact that capitalism does appear to result in increasing concentrations of wealth can be attenuated by keeping the system as "honest" as possible, i.e., maintaining competition, keeping the politicians somewhat under control, using real money, etc. At present, it's a complete mess.
You seem to be under the impression that the politicians need to be kept "under control", but they aren't the ones who have all the capital, are they? What about keeping the capitalists under control?
And I am not convinced that all but the few have such a maniacal propensity to go towards avarice. Just the same, keeping those things that can be regulated (within the context of freedom), regulated, you will get the best result possible.
What I am talking about is not really avarice. That would imply that the problem is specific people of bad character. But accumulation of capital is part of capitalism, regardless of individual greed. It's the force driving the expansion of the economy. Capitalism takes the very natural inclination of humans to accumulate resources and turns into a tool to drive the economy.
This has worked very well for some time, but the problems keep mounting. Regulation helps, of course, but unless you are regulating with the goal of actually fixing the problem, instead of just addressing the symptoms, you'll always risk to be too late.
Capitalism (like all human systems) has it's issues, but it's so incredibly efficient and has lifted an incredible amount of people out of poverty. It also a system that rewards merit, hard work, and most importantly panders to the market, where it is the masses [mostly] that decide what is going to be a successful product/service.
Top-down economics (like top-down everything else) is a disaster.
There are, however, other approaches that are also meritocratic and market based and not top-down economies. There are already businesses right now that are not capitalist and yet compete in the same market as everyone else.
The dark shadow hanging over Marxism is his stages of history analysis which is complete bunk. Ironically the "communist future" is probably the most wrong theory Marx ever wrote yet it is the only thing 99% of people know about Marx.
StreetlightJanuary 12, 2021 at 09:49#4876530 likes
It's hard to take seriously claims that capitalism 'is incredibly efficient' as anything more than mythmaking on the order of Aztec Gods and magical witch-doctors: one only needs to look at the black hole growth of finance in the 21st century, sucking up capital into the hands of a tiny cabal of state-supported lottery winners to explode that myth in all its thin, hot air. As for the idea that capitalism has 'lifted an incredible amount of people out of poverty' - no, people have been lifted out of poverty in spite of capitalism, not because of it:
As for the idea that capitalism has 'lifted an incredible amount of people out of poverty' - no, people have been lifted out of poverty in spite of capitalism, not because of it:
On what basis do you say that?
StreetlightJanuary 12, 2021 at 09:53#4876600 likes
The video addresses the last four decades of globalism. Of course the success of globalism is a lie. But the idea that capitalism brought people out of poverty is true historically. Interestingly the video states that no advanced country has achieved low poverty rates without high levels of government spending. Government spending is the result of taxation. No Capitalism, no taxes, no public spending.
Kenosha KidJanuary 12, 2021 at 10:10#4876650 likes
But the idea that capitalism brought people out of poverty is true historically.
So basically you're saying there are circumstances in which capitalism can bring people out of poverty, even if we're not in those circumstances and likely never will be. Agreed. There are also circumstances where pushing someone into a road might save their life. But don't push people into roads generally.
StreetlightJanuary 12, 2021 at 10:11#4876680 likes
Interestingly the video states that no advanced country has achieved low poverty rates without high levels of government spending. Government spending is the result of taxation.
Wait - you think taxation is capitalist?
And conversely, you think "globalism" isn't capitalist?
Yes, it's just the free market of ideas that taxing the rich to pay for social programs in Nordic countries that have free health-care and free higher education proves capitalism works. If they have a high quality of life in Nordic countries it's capitalism succeeding, because capitalism is about success, and all success must be due in some vague way to capitalism. That's pretty obvious I think.
As per the OP, US style conservatism committed to anti-intellectualism starting with Reagan and the "southern strategy".
It's so far down the anti-intellectual path that conservative pundits need to say things like "it isn't true, literally, but it feels true and it's an important truth that's being felt here that speaks to conservatives".
Due to false balance in the media, there's built up the expectation that "there must be just as good arguments for my side as the other side on this issue", but this isn't true, and the expectation that an anti-intellectual movement would create good arguments is just stupid.
Now, does this mean contemporary US conservatives are stupid?
Yes.
What we have witnessed with Bush the Second and a more extreme repeat with Trump is the terminal phase of an anti-intellectual movement in which the leaders of the movement are no longer real intellectuals simply manipulating a bunch of fools to increase their power and wealth, but fully buy the propaganda and can simply no longer manage in a strategically competent way, as they truly do not understand how reality works. That fools follow them despite making zero sense is seen as strength and legitimization of positions that are known to make no sense. One that can repeat a lie and make decisions without justification without consequences is by definition more powerful than one who can't, indeed it's the only proof of real power and the sweetest cocaine of the power hungry. However, reality cannot be managed from a position of effectively arbitrary decisions for any extended period of time.
So basically you're saying there are circumstances in which capitalism can bring people out of poverty, even if we're not in those circumstances and likely never will be.
Bismarck is not perhaps the best example you could pick here, since the reason he added the "drop of socialist oil" to the mix was to avoid a socialist revolution.
Actually that was the reason and which shows that politicians that supported a monarchy can still see the needs of the people and react to social issues before they turn into open revolution.
But that doesn't mean there isn't always the inherent danger of unrestrained capital accumulation leading to unrestrained power. I think the struggle between welfare, unions and regulation on the one side and the profit motif on the other is hard to overlook.
Yet doesn't unrestrained socialism lead to unrestrained power? Look at history.
And I simply don't buy it.
Where I live, which has the so-called "Nordic model", has an capitalist free market system, yet might look like to people in the US as socialism. Still, the country is capitalist. Here the welfare model is promoted by the right also, no political party has here as it's intension to demolish the welfare state. So I don't really by the argument that the right or conservatives are against welfare state and that the only ones arguing for it is the left or capitalism inherently leads to unrestrained power. It simply isn't true.
And trade unions? Trade unions don't have to believe in a socialist ideology. They are there just to promote the interests of the employees towards the employer. It's quite reasonable. What isn't reasonable is not to have trade unions and then think that all employers would behave decently. Perhaps if you are part of the workforce that is highly sought after, you can get a great deal, but if there many people to replace you, look out!
To give an example why trade unions are non-political: the vast majority (likely 99%) of officers in the Finnish army belong to their own trade union, which is part of the academic trade union. And none, literally none of them is a leftist. During the 20's and the 30's the Communists tried to infiltrate the Finnish Army (on the belief that they could do it just like they had infiltrated the Russian Imperial Army). They had no success, not even one person, which is pretty dismal. Again these issues aren't things just pushed by the left.
How about saying something you actually believe with some precision, rather than saying something not generally true then denying when it does or does not hold true?
StreetlightJanuary 12, 2021 at 10:44#4876870 likes
Reply to ssu Exactly the trash the video I posted debunks.
Actually that was the reason and which shows that politicians that supported a monarchy and see the needs of the people and react to issues before they turn into open revolution.
It strikes me as unnecessarily risky though, to hope that when things get really bad, someone will step in in time.
Yet doesn't unrestrained socialism lead to unrestrained power?
That depends on what you understand by "socialism". But I don't really want to debate the merits of either system in the abstract. I just think it's worth looking at other motivations apart from profit. For example, there is a growing movement of "purpose companies", like the search engine "Ecosia". These operate in the market, but their capital is held in a purpose-bound trust (in the case of Ecosia that is planting trees). It has all the advantages of a market economy, but instead of measuring it's success in terms of profit margin, it does so in terms of planted trees.
There are interesting approaches out there. One doesn't need to drag Stalin's corpse out of the closet in any discussion about economic reform.
"It" being that only leftists argue for economic reform and welfare? I'd agree with you. Plenty of the new right wing parties across Europe promote redistribution, usually explicitly for the benefit of specific nationals.
Kenosha KidJanuary 12, 2021 at 10:46#4876910 likes
I quote the passage above to illustrate where we came in on this question - just a day or so ago, and how already, the point has wandered quite a ways from its origins. If it weren't possible to click back a page or two, and look up where we came in - I would be quite lost. I really couldn't explain why we are seeking to establish the precise mildness of your approval for removing statues that remind us where we came from.
Points tend to multiply when following them along their lines of connection. To my reckoning, you accused me of being inconsistent when I said I was indifferent to statues but approved of those statues being torn down. I replied describing that I had a mild preference for them being torn down.
I'd initially brought up the statues because I believed it would be an issue which shows that some political issues aren't resolvable by scientific means, and I believed you'd disagree with me on whether tearing down those statues was permissible.
"The world's two largest standing Buddhas - one of them 165ft high - were blown up by the Taliban in Afghanistan at the weekend. After failing to destroy the 1,700-year-old sandstone statues of Buddha with anti-aircraft and tank fire, the Taliban brought a lorryload of dynamite from Kabul."
How mild is your approval for this? Or do you disapprove of this - and maintain it's only your lefty cultural vandalism that's praiseworthy?
My approval/disapproval for tearing down a statue depends on what it represents, why it was torn down, and what the act enables. I don't know enough about that act of vandalism to form much of an opinion about it.
You don't? Ancient Egyptians, Greek, Romans all had slaves did they not? Ottomans, Muslims, Africans, Russians all had slaves. British people were slaves until 1584; only they called them serfs. Slavery is the default, and capitalism is the cure. Don't be sly - making sideways arguments, and referencing books I haven't read, and am obviously not about to run out and buy. Slavery was everywhere - all around the world and throughout all of history until the West ended it.
I think a book reference is rather generous actually. If you're not going to check reputable contrary citations to your historical+anthropological claims, I don't think there's much point talking about the issue with you.
Another sly argument. In society and economics, it's necessary to discriminate - for example, between people who are qualified for a job, and those who are not qualified. So, for example, if numerous black people applied for a job without having the necessary qualifications, by your logic - they are being discriminated against, relative to the white person who is qualified. The discrimination isn't racial discrimination, but you switch effect with cause - like with Redlining, to suggest a racial disparity in effect proves racist intent as a cause. It's not so. That's politically correct logic. The same logic that denies slavery existed everywhere, since the dawn of time. You - lefties, are not capable of an honest argument.
I gave you an easily attackable candidate definition/clarification of how I understand systemic discrimination. If you are unwilling to engage with the term on its terms, again, I don't think either of us will benefit from continuing the discussion.
For example, land ownership hasn't concentrated into relatively few hands, there are lot of small landowners in every country
Not relative to the population size; at least not if you're accounting for outstanding debts on land (e.g. mortgages). Most people don't own their own homes free and clear. Most people own no land at all free and clear. The ownership of land is concentrated in the hands of a small fraction of the population. That may be a large number, but that's irrelevant. "The 1%" is still millions of people, but that fact doesn't help the 99% any.
Perhaps here one should make a difference between capitalism and market economy.
That's precisely what I'm doing. One can in principle have a propertarian free market economy without having capitalism, if one can somehow prevent the ownership of capital from concentrating in a small portion of the population instead of staying widely distributed across the whole population.
Explain what about them? In an absolute monarchy the monarch effectively owns everything. That's perfectly consistent the principles I'm talking about here, and why I kept saying "democratic state" and such to be clear that the legitimacy of taxation only implies partial public ownership if the state doing that taxation is of, by, and for the public. In an absolute monarchy it implies the monarch has (at least partial) ownership of everything, instead of the public.
The dark shadow hanging over Marxism is his stages of history analysis which is complete bunk.
An authoritarian, hierarchical state will survive longer against the threat of revolution if it asks its subjects what they want of it, and gives them a cut of its takings, naturally inclining such authoritarian, hierarchical states to evolve a layer of social democracy as a means of effectively buying the loyalty of its subjects, or else eventually fall to popular revolution.
Such a social democracy can then most easily appease the most people if it simply lets them make their own lifestyle choices instead of telling them how to live, and lets them provide each other with services instead of trying to do so itself, adding a layer of liberty and a free market.
Thus, the lazy selfish authority, acting in its own self-interest, naturally devolves power toward a social democracy; and a lazy selfish social democracy, acting in its own self-interest, naturally devolves power toward more anarchic ideals.
Kenosha KidJanuary 12, 2021 at 11:05#4877030 likes
Not relative to the population size; at least not if you're accounting for outstanding debts on land (e.g. mortgages). Most people don't own their own homes free and clear. Most people own no land at all free and clear. The ownership of land is concentrated in the hands of a small fraction of the population. That may be a large number, but that's irrelevant. "The 1%" is still millions of people, but that fact doesn't help the 99% any.
Right. In addition, you can't just rely on snapshots: that isn't very meaningful. Where I am, quite a lot of people still own their own homes, but that percentage is falling rather rapidly. It is the trend of land ownership, not the current value, that is the measure.
Its like if you invite me to a wedding. The fact that I haven't drunk all the champagne yet does not mean I'm not drinking all the champagne. And I will drink all the champagne.
Harry HinduJanuary 12, 2021 at 11:25#4877110 likes
If someone is a racist then it's acceptable to call them a racist and criticize them for being a racist. If someone is black then it's not acceptable to call them a nigger and criticize them for being black
What does calling a person a racist accomplish in a philosophy forum that calling someone a nigger, doesn't? Calling them a racist doesn't accomplish anything. Laying out the arguement of how it is a logical fallacy of a false cause and ad hominems is the acceptable path to take.
But your simple mind can only seem to understand how to lower yourself to their level of intelligence. Calling people names is just childish.
Disagreeing that white privilege exists isnt criticizing blacks for being black. It is criticizing the argument. That is the difference. So to call people racist because they are criticizing an argument is no different than calling someone a nigger or cracker for criticizing your argument.
Isn't white privilege criticizing whites for being white?
Harry HinduJanuary 12, 2021 at 11:28#4877120 likes
Calling a person a "rat" is a pejorative, calling a rat a "rat" isn't, it's neutrally descriptive. Calling a black person a "nigger" is a pejorative, calling a racist, a "racist" is neutrally descriptive.
LO-Fucking-L!
As I have been arguing all along is that people that aren't racist are being called racist! Pay attention!
. Of course the success of globalism is a lie.
— Brett
Apart from seriously diminishing global povetry, but who cares about little things like that.
Sorry, a bit of confusion there. I mean globalism has destroyed so much. It’s not the great success story overall, i.e. American jobs, sweat shops, etc.
It doesn't matter whether they're racist or not, it's not the same class of word. You can simply be wrong about someone being racist. Calling someone a "nigger" is not a matter of being right or wrong. It's a pure insult. Do you get the distinction yet?
How about saying something you actually believe with some precision, rather than saying something not generally true then denying when it does or does not hold true?
So you don’t think it’s true that the money the government spends on public programs comes from taxation?
Kenosha KidJanuary 12, 2021 at 11:59#4877320 likes
So you don’t think it’s true that the money the government spends on public programs comes from taxation?
That has nothing to do with the point I responded to. You're obviously not going to defend the point, I give up.
Harry HinduJanuary 12, 2021 at 12:00#4877350 likes
Reply to Baden As I keep having to point out because certain people like to go off the tracks and attack something that I haven't said...
Calling someone a racist when they aren't is just as insulting. If you dont get that, then that's fine as it is just more evidence that there is no objective morality and we could sit here and argue all day about our subjective views of what is more insulting, but I'm not interested.
So basically you're saying there are circumstances in which capitalism can bring people out of poverty, even if we're not in those circumstances and likely never will be.
What does calling a person a racist accomplish in a philosophy forum that calling someone a nigger, doesn't? Calling them a racist doesn't accomplish anything. Laying out the arguement of how it is a logical fallacy of a false cause and ad hominems is the acceptable path to take.
But your simple mind can only seem to understand how to lower yourself to their level of intelligence. Calling people names is just childish.
This was your comment that I responded to:
Hate was the primary reason you voted against Trump. You "progressives" like to believe that you are all open-minded and accepting of others differences, but your actions speak louder than your words. You people are are so filled with hate its insane.
But then that's part if the problem. You think its ok to verbally abuse others you disagree with, but racism is a big, "No-No"? Whats the fucking difference?
It had nothing to do with what people call each other on a philosophy forum. You were asking about the political views of progressives, and questioning what you believed to be an inconsistency in their position. I'm explaining to you that their position isn't inconsistent; their position is that it's acceptable to criticize people for unacceptable things (e.g. being a racist) and unacceptable to criticize people for acceptable things (e.g. being black).
Isn't white privilege criticizing whites for being white?
No, white privilege refers to "the implicit or systemic advantages that people who are deemed white have relative to people who are not deemed white; it is the absence of suspicion and other negative reactions that white people experience."
Oh boy, more straight up insults. I am forced to ask whether you think you, as a moderator capable of banning people from the forum, should be insulting people, creating personal antagonisms?
Banno isn't a moderator, FYI. The list of moderators is here.
I don't think either of us will benefit from continuing the discussion.
"I don't think either of us will benefit from continuing this discussion."
My friend, I had no such illusions going in. But please don't discount the possibility that someone other than you and I, reading this, might benefit from seeing a lefty twit get handed his arse over and over again.
Kenosha KidJanuary 12, 2021 at 12:29#4877490 likes
The video addresses the last four decades of globalism. Of course the success of globalism is a lie. But the idea that capitalism brought people out of poverty is true historically.
Okay. The period of the video and the video itself is about globalism. Globalism may have pulled some people out of poverty, which wouldn’t have been hard, but it then placed other people in trouble. I don’t think I need to explain all that. In that sense globalism is a big con, a global con job. We know who benefitted. But historically, going back as far as the industrial revolution, capitalism has slowly drawn people out of crippling poverty. There’s no doubt it created problems. But no other system has done this, until now, which is China. China is not Russia, they’re flexible with their Marxist ideology, they’re pragmatic. Which is interesting.
Kenosha KidJanuary 12, 2021 at 12:42#4877560 likes
Okay. The period of the video and the video itself is about globalism. Globalism may have pulled some people out of poverty, which wouldn’t have been hard, but it then placed other people in trouble. I don’t think I need to explain all that. In that sense globalism is a big con, a global con job. We know who benefitted. But historically, going back as far as the industrial revolution, capitalism has slowly drawn people out of crippling poverty. There’s no doubt it created problems. But no other system has done this, until now, which is China. China is not Russia, they’re flexible with their Marxist ideology, they’re pragmatic. Which is interesting.
I'm going to forego the question of capitalism's history for now, the above is basically saying that in an isolationist country, capitalism is net good and in an internationalist country, capitalism is net bad.
Which is what I suggested above that you refuted: it is not that capitalism is net good, but may be so under certain circumstances and may be bad under others.
Btw China's rise in wealth and power comes from globalisation.
My friend, I had no such illusions going in. But please don't discount the possibility that someone other than you and I, reading this, might benefit from seeing a lefty twit get handed his arse over and over again.
:up:
If this imaginary audience wants to read a more civilised and in depth discussion of related issues; which includes citations; I invite them to read here.
the above is basically saying that in an isolationist country, capitalism is net good and in an internationalist country, capitalism is net bad.
No, I’m not saying that at all. (BTW I’m aware of China reaping the rewards of globalisation. I just think their success is interesting to look at.)
In all countries over the course of recent history they have benefitted from capitalism in that it has brought people out of poverty. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or not, I’m just making myself clear.
Globalism promised the same thing on a global level. So yes people in China, India, Bangladesh benefitted in obtaining jobs. They were able to earn reasonable money for where they lived. But the conditions were what we in the West had already moved on from, they are terrible. So that’s a lie there about the wonder of globalism. Then as a result of jobs going there they were lost in other countries. Whole industries closed down. You know all this. So yes capitalism pulled people out of poverty and globalism put them back in poverty.
Harry HinduJanuary 12, 2021 at 13:01#4877700 likes
It had nothing to do with what people call each other on a philosophy forum. You were asking about the political views of progressives, and questioning what you believed to be an inconsistency in their position. I'm explaining to you that their position isn't inconsistent; their position is that it's acceptable to criticize people for unacceptable things
Sure it does. And it is morally inconsistent to call people names for calling people names. It is also unacceptable to misuse "racist", in calling people who are not racist, "racist" simply because you can't argue against thing they said.
On a philosophy forum logic should be the arbiter of what is acceptable or not. Ad hominems are logical fallacies. It is also lazy thinking. It is more work to attack an argument than it is to attack a person.
Okay. The period of the video and the video itself is about globalism. Globalism may have pulled some people out of poverty, which wouldn’t have been hard, but it then placed other people in trouble. I don’t think I need to explain all that. In that sense globalism is a big con, a global con job. We know who benefitted. But historically, going back as far as the industrial revolution, capitalism has slowly drawn people out of crippling poverty. There’s no doubt it created problems. But no other system has done this, until now, which is China. China is not Russia, they’re flexible with their Marxist ideology, they’re pragmatic. Which is interesting.
Harry HinduJanuary 12, 2021 at 13:21#4877740 likes
No, white privilege refers to "the implicit or systemic advantages that people who are deemed white have relative to people who are not deemed white; it is the absence of suspicion and other negative reactions that white people experience."
Then what point are you trying to make, if not to guilt-trip whites into thinking that it is wrong to have this "privilege", when in Asian countries there is Asian privilege and in African countries there is black privilege? What should be done about the privilege in those countries? To say that we should only do something in this country is singling out whites to be criticized.
Sure it does. And it is morally inconsistent to call people names for calling people names. It is also unacceptable to misuse "racist", in calling people who are not racist, "racist" simply because you can't argue against thing they said.
Who said anything about misusing "racist"? I'm saying that if someone is a racist then it's acceptable to criticize them for being a racist, and that if someone is black then it's unacceptable to criticize them for being black. And the same for homophobia/being gay and sexism/being a woman. Progressives aren't inconsistent in holding this view.
Then what point are you trying to make, if not to guilt-trip whites into thinking that it is wrong to have this "privilege"
I've never used the term "white privilege". Others talk about it because it's a fact of life. And it is wrong that there is white privilege, but that's not to say that every white person is responsible for it.
What should be done about the privilege in those countries? To say that we should only do something in this country is singling out whites to be criticized.
People don't tend to have much control over what happens in other countries. There's nothing I can do to address racism in Japan or corruption in Russia.
It strikes me as unnecessarily risky though, to hope that when things get really bad, someone will step in in time.
Of course. When we look at the history of nearly all Western nations, there have been those critical times when a socialist revolution was possible. Let's not forget that Germany indeed experienced after WW1 brief revolts.
That depends on what you understand by "socialism"
I think a good divide would be with social democracy and with the more communists and marxist-leninist. Social Democratic ruled Sweden is quite different from Cuba (or Venezuela) are quite different.
Explain what about them? In an absolute monarchy the monarch effectively owns everything.
That would be owned by the government in a democracy. Not that there isn't private property. I think that people in Brunei, Monaco or Saudi Arabia do have private property.
think a good divide would be with social democracy and with the more communists and marxist-leninist. Social Democratic ruled Sweden is quite different from Cuba (or Venezuela) are quite different.
Is it about state controlled economies with just different degrees of control?
Sorry, a bit of confusion there. I mean globalism has destroyed so much. It’s not the great success story overall, i.e. American jobs, sweat shops, etc.
Yet one cannot deny that countries like China or India do have benefitted from the current era of globalization. The US has been the loser here, and we can see it now in the current situation the country is in.
Is it about state controlled economies with just different degrees of control?
Yes and no.
If you argue that Sweden is state controllled economy, then I guess the US is also a state controlled economy with it's resorting to using the Defense Production Act and subsidizing heavily various industries and companies. Yet I don't think anyone here thinks Trump's USA is socialist.
A good measure is if the government start nationalizing industries and starts rationing products. Let's look at for example Venezuela has done:
So not only oil production is nationalized (which is more like the norm today in many countries). Chavez himself went to nationalize either totally or certain companies from the steel industry, gold mining, telecom, electricity and agriculture.
Needless to say that Sweden hasn't gone in a similar way and nationalized industries with such fervor. Last time they had to do that was during the banking crisis in the 1990's, where state took an active role in rearranging the banking sector (unlike in the US). However there are and have been state monopolies in Sweden (System Bolaget for liquor stores or prior Apoteket AB for pharmaceutical retailers and so on). Yet that some industries or service have been deemed so important or so costly that the state takes responsibility of them isn't something only connected to socialism. For example, you can find state owned railways in many capitalist countries.
Last time they had to do that was during the banking crisis in the 1990's, where state took an active role in rearranging the banking sector (unlike in the US
Banks were temporarily nationalized in the US, though. I think the US is on the socialist spectrum, it's just that no one, including Americans, wants to think of it that way.
Globalization keeps it from becoming more socialist. US corporations have one foot off shore as it is. Any attempt to control them further would just drive them further away.
The US seems like a sinking ship. :groan:
counterpunchJanuary 12, 2021 at 15:10#4878110 likes
If this imaginary audience wants to read a more civilised and in depth discussion of related issues; which includes citations; I invite them to read here.
I wouldn't presume to discourage the imagined audience from doing so, but would merely point out that it is assumed that any disparity is the consequence of discrimination - conflating effect with cause. It is not assumed that person Y has a personal responsibility to qualify for the loan, or the job, or not commit the crime. It is not allowed that X doesn't have a discriminatory opinion of person Y. If it's not explicit, it's implicit, it's institutional, it's subconscious, but it's definitely discrimination. The one thing disparity cannot be, is the consequence of person Y being judged fairly on merit - even while, disparities are bound to result from people being judged fairly on merit, because any one person is different from any other.
Say and Say's law isn't part of the economic theory of supply and demand on which modern mainstream economics is based on. I'm not familiar with what Bastiat has said on this.
Because if those costs the capitalist faces, the proletariat she has to keep alive at the bare minimum to gather those raw materials and to produce the good, is only one part of the equation
The idea that the work put into the production is a one sided model which doesn't take into account how the market mechanism and pricing works.
Holy shit, did every single word I wrote go over your head? Are you illiterate? Should I bold every crucial line I write to ensure it gets your full attention and cross my fingers in the hopes that it's absorbed into your reptile brain where it has a chance to settle?
The price of a commodity constantly stands above or below the value of the commodity, and the value of the commodity itself exists only in this up-and-down movement of commodity prices. Supply and demand constantly determine the prices of commodities; never balance, or only coincidentally; but the cost of production, for its part, determines the oscillations of supply and demand
Does this help? Can you better understand now? The "Marxian Model" isn't the cost of production tout court. The pricing via the market mechanism i.e. consumer demand is explicit in his analysis, it is "part of the equation" as you so demand it be. On the contrary, it is Menger's analysis that is one-sided by focusing exclusively on the consumer perspective and not the fact that the capitalist has a minimum price floor, otherwise there is no profit. The former, per Menger, can ignore the productive origins of the commodity, but the latter, per Marx, can't.
If that doesn't cover it, then the good won't be manufactured in the first place.
Well no, this is putting the cart before the horse. The upper limit cost of what the general consumer is willing to put up is only known in the last instance, i.e. the products have to be produced and in market for sale. This requires that the wage labors have already been hired and have done the work and need to be compensated, the machines have been bought the land rented etc. and everything has been put into use. The capitalist doesn't have otherworldly foresight into what the general population within a market is going to purchase and what they are willing to spend. And, more often than not, this is a crises that occurs for pre-existing markets, e.g. a consumer technology is that suddenly rendered obsolete by new technology so that demand sudden falls for the older product.
Co-ops work well in distribution (especially food) but not so much on the production end. History has revealed that people need motivation (other then benevolence) to put in the kind of work necessary to produce leading edge innovation (which drives productivity).
I wouldn't presume to discourage the imagined audience from doing so, but would merely point out that it is assumed that any disparity is the consequence of discrimination - conflating effect with cause. It is not assumed that person Y has a personal responsibility to qualify for the loan, or the job, or not commit the crime. It is not allowed that X doesn't have a discriminatory opinion of person Y. If it's not explicit, it's implicit, it's institutional, it's subconscious, but it's definitely discrimination. The one thing disparity cannot be, is the consequence of person Y being judged fairly on merit - even while, disparities are bound to result from people being judged fairly on merit, because any one person is different from any other.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Systemic discrimination is absolutely explicit. See this World Health Organisation report charting systemic sexism and its causes; gender stereotypes make glass ceilings and maternity is an employment opportunity "tax"; gender as a societal process apportions men and women differentially into different jobs and gets them treated differently within them regardless of individual merit.
And I have no idea how you've come through COVID and BLM without gaining even a cursory understanding of the empirical realities that systemic racism refers to.
Your position requires sanitising history, something you allegedly dislike; it begs you to answer the question of how we could emerge from an imperial history, a global slave trade, and enter into a post-colonial present without the expropriated, undermined groups of all that suffering under the weight of that history. It beggars belief that all of this can neatly be explained by differences in individual merit.
Well no, this is putting the cart before the horse. The upper limit cost of what the general consumer is willing to put up is only known in the last instance, i.e. the products have to be produced and in market for sale. This requires that the wage labors have already been hired and have done the work and need to be compensated, the machines have been bought the land rented etc. and everything has been put into use. The capitalist doesn't have otherworldly foresight into what the general population within a market is going to purchase and what they are willing to spend. And, more often than not, this is a crises that occurs for pre-existing markets, e.g. a consumer technology is that suddenly rendered obsolete by new technology so that demand sudden falls for the older product.
:up:
Anwar Shaikh's work found that Marxian[hide=*] (Marx inspired, there's no vector algebra in Capital, and his sectoral model from Vol 3 had mathematical errors which Shaikh claims (IIRC, from his Youtube lectures) to have corrected)[/hide] "prices of production" actually track market price extremely closely; less than 0.12% relative deviation between the two in the analysed time series.
Discouraging the tendency toward consolidation would be precisely fighting against capitalism, because capitalism just is that consolidation; which is why, just as you say, capitalists fight so hard to destroy the competition that threatens it. Competition is only possible among peers, which is to say, people who are roughly equals.
Not necessarily. For example, anti-trust laws and other methods of preventing monopolization (reduced political corruption). It seems as if almost every industry is dominated by two or three players (at most) anymore. Keeping competition vibrant is where most trade law should be keenly focused.
My personal pick for the big bad behind capitalism is rent, including rent on money i.e. interest, precisely because that creates a tendency toward consolidation.
I hear ya, but many people are not in a position to own (just starting-out or whatever) so there must a supplier of all things that rent involves (pretty much everything in this hyper-financialized economy).
My own pet peeve is the stock market where people "earn" money passively (rent, again). Getting paid for doing nothing is perhaps the greatest con of all-time!
You seem to be under the impression that the politicians need to be kept "under control", but they aren't the ones who have all the capital, are they? What about keeping the capitalists under control?
In theory, the market should control the capitalists. If they do something wrong (economically), the market should punish them. If they do something illegal, then the political system should penalize. Several thousand years of human history suggests that we need to keep our expectations pretty darn low when it comes to the political class. Politicians sell favors and little else.
Capitalism takes the very natural inclination of humans to accumulate resources and turns into a tool to drive the economy.
How so? It would seem that the most productive form of capitalism is where resources are being used optimally, that is, the correct marriage of resources and labor. As well, wouldn't accumulation slow innovation/productivity through anti-competitiveness?
There are, however, other approaches that are also meritocratic and market based and not top-down economies. There are already businesses right now that are not capitalist and yet compete in the same market as everyone else.
I would be interested in a couple of examples. Thanks.
but the cost of production, for its part, determines the oscillations of supply and demand
Even if Marx doesn't use the name "labour theory of value", I guess this comes close to it. So how does the cost of production determine changes (oscillations) in demand? This is the basic question I have with the labour theory of value. Yes, I guess Marx doesn't start from the viewpoint of one transaction, but from an aggregate viewpoint, yet still this is left open.
Of course the problem here I guess is the antiquated theory from Ricardo that Marx uses, even if Marx refines this.
Yet a change in demand can perfectly happen without any link to the cost of production. This is modelled in neoclassical economics as simply the demand curve moving. (And that is btw was the Menger's point: if a diamond is just picked up by accident by a passer by (with no work) or is found after a large diamond mine operates for ages (with a huge amount of work), the price of the diamond is the same).
Well no, this is putting the cart before the horse. The upper limit cost of what the general consumer is willing to put up is only known in the last instance, i.e. the products have to be produced and in market for sale.
Yes. And there's a lot of products of which price can already be quite well known in the market when the capitalist makes the calculation to invest or not. If your planning to mine a natural resource or start a dairy, I guess the price of milk or the price natural resource is quite well known to you. One dairy or mine will likely not alter the price so much.
What you refer (if I understand again correctly) would be true in a product that has never been on the market, I guess. That is the case very seldom.
Systemic discrimination is absolutely explicit. See this World Health Organisation report charting systemic sexism and its causes; gender stereotypes make glass ceilings and maternity is an employment opportunity "tax"; gender as a societal process apportions men and women differentially into different jobs and gets them treated differently within them regardless of individual merit.
And I have no idea how you've come through COVID and BLM without gaining even a cursory understanding of the empirical realities that systemic racism refers to.
Your position requires sanitising history, something you allegedly dislike; it begs you to answer the question of how we could emerge from an imperial history, a global slave trade, and enter into a post-colonial present without the expropriated, undermined groups of all that suffering under the weight of that history. It beggars belief that all of this can neatly be explained by differences in individual merit.
When it comes down to it, each and every person is guilty of everything. We are human and that's just they way we are. As well, history reveals that the vast majority of people are more comfortable with those that share similar experiences, be it on the playground, on the job, or in social situations. This is natural.
The problem isn't that people have preferences (based on their experiences), but when people are willfully discriminated against and opportunity is lost, because having the chance to succeed is all that we can hope for in life.
What BLM and others miss is that every group throughout history has been discriminated against (and this will exist even in a perfect world due to natural preferences). It seems to be what social humanity does, but things have been improving in that regard. The answer to discrimination is not reverse discrimination. The answer to any social wrong is not to double down, instead, it is to end the cycle.
American society should do whatever it can to support equality of opportunity, but it comes down to the individual and what factors allow this individual to gain access (and support) to these opportunities. You cannot legislate individual success.
Nobody is sanitizing history as those who have studied it learned and conditions have improved drastically over the past decades for many, but not all. The discussion that needs to be had is what happened to the rest and what factors resulted in them being left behind. There are many and they affect every institution in this country. As well, there is a great deal of personal responsibility that must be taken for the conditions on the ground as they exist today.
many people are not in a position to own (just starting-out or whatever) so there must a supplier of all things that rent involves
People not being in a position to own is precisely the problem, and the existence of rent exploits and exacerbates that problem.
If rent was not a legally enforceable arrangement, everyone who owns properties to rent out would have no better use for them than to sell them, and nobody to sell them too but the people who would otherwise have been renting (since nobody else is going to buy just as an investment when they in turn can’t rent it out either). This creates incentive for landlords, banks, etc, to sell off properties on terms that are as affordable as renting.
Conversely, compared to that kind of market, the existence of rent creates an incentive for the rich to own more property than they need for their own use, and gives them a means of accruing more and more, which raises prices, and leaves everyone else unable to afford to buy.
My own pet peeve is the stock market where people "earn" money passively (rent, again). Getting paid for doing nothing is perhaps the greatest con of all-time!
Stocks are actually qualitatively differently from rent and interest and I have no objection to them. That is the legitimate way to invest, rather than lending at interest.
With a loan, you give someone money and in return they owe you back more money, regardless of whether the loan actually benefits them or not: if they borrow and fail they still owe you even more than they borrowed. That’s really money for nothing.
With stock, you’re literally going into business with them, becoming a co-owner of their business in exchange for funding it, and only if their business succeeds do you succeed. For smart stock owners with diverse holdings, like with index funds, your success is tied to the overall success of the market, so the good of the whole economy is in your best interest.
CiceronianusJanuary 12, 2021 at 18:44#4878960 likes
Because they cannot alter change, and due to a fondness for authority and order, conservatives are often the hand-maiden of socialism, insofar as compromises and appeasement have led to greater state control (See Bismarck and the foundation of the modern welfare state).
I'm not certain about conservatism leading to socialism, but it seems clear enough that here in our Glorious Republic, it has come to encourage the restriction, through the power of the state, of the thoughts, conduct and influence of people who are different from what conservatives have become.
It's no longer a question of controlling the power of the state, but assuring that power is exercised only for the benefit of particular people.
Great, seems that you've found to copy paste the crucial part from Marx (I remember one Lizard brain berating me on an internet quote, but anyway).
No, I actually pulled this quote because I actually read Grundrisse, and the quote shows how Menger misreads Marx. Your Menger quote can be found in the Wikipedia entry for
"Criticisms of the Labor Theory of Value", which is safe to say the farthest you have read up on the subject.
Yet a change in demand can perfectly happen without any link to the cost of production. This is modelled in neoclassical economics as simply the demand curve moving. (And that is btw was the Menger's point: if a diamond is just picked up by accident by a passer by (with no work) or is found after a large diamond mine operates for ages (with a huge amount of work), the price of the diamond is the same).
It's hilarious how you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You can't help but speak in the most vacuous and vague terms because you don't know enough to go beyond it. You say a change in demand is modelled in neoclassic economics by "the demand curve moving". So when the demand changes the demand curve changes?! Wow! Holy shit Marx defeated.
Otherwise, Menger's diamond example fallaciously attempts to conflate an explicitly non-capitalist exchange with a capitalist one, whereas Marx is only interested in analyzing the latter and the value creating process within it. As I explained, price and value are two distinct technical terms for Marx. It's no different than the asinine "mud pie" argument.
Let's say that two people, one a capitalist who owns a mining operation and the another, a non-capitalist, have in their possession each one identical raw diamond. The capitalist extracted the raw diamond from his mining operation using wage labor and machinery, while the non-capitalist just happened to stumble upon it. Now both go into the market to sell. The non-capitalist does not have a price floor because there was no cost in extracting the diamond for him. He can sell for a $1 and therefore profits $1. However, capitalist does have a floor price because there is a cost to the extraction process. In this one instance of a competitive transaction, the non-capitalist can therefore undersell the capitalist, but then what? He can't create any additional demand, he doesn't have a mining operation to continue to extract raw diamonds. He created one instance of demand which was concluded at point of sale. That's it! But the capitalist, while not making a sale in this one instance, can continue putting raw diamonds up in the marketplace and finding demand (safe to assume non-capitalists aren't continuing to randomly come across raw diamonds on the ground) because she has a mode of production in place that can continue this process. But Marx isn't talking about the non-capitalist sale and he doesn't need to because he's analyzing the supply and demand in a capitalist economy which requires taking cost of production into account when determining price.
I guess the price of milk or the price natural resource is quite well known to you. One dairy or mine will likely not alter the price so much. What you refer (if I understand again correctly) would be true in a product that has never been on the market, I guess. That is the case very seldom.
I'm just going to quote and bold what I already said, "And, more often than not, this is a crises that occurs for pre-existing markets, e.g. a consumer technology is that suddenly rendered obsolete by new technology so that demand sudden falls for the older product."
In all countries over the course of recent history they have benefitted from capitalism in that it has brought people out of poverty. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or not, I’m just making myself clear.
Ah, I thought you'd recanted this point already, although I suppose it depends what you mean by "recent". In the last 50 years, capitalism has drawn people out of poverty when markets are good and dumped them back into it when markets are bad, leading to no net gain in most capitalist countries and something of a disaster during, say, a lethal viral pandemic.
Going back much beyond that you're going to struggle, since poverty statistics become more scarce the further back we go.
You'd enjoy the paper I linked to @Maw. It concludes:
Even without any mediation, labour values capture about 91 per cent of the structure of observed market prices. This alone makes it clear that it is technical change that drives the movements of relative prices over time, as Ricardo so cogently argued (Pasinetti, 1977, pp. 138-43). Moving to the vertically integrated version of Marx’s approximation of prices of production allows us to retain this critical insight, while at the same time accounting for the price-of-production-induced transfers of value that he emphasized. On the whole these results seem to provide powerful support for the classical and Marxian emphasis on the structural determinants of relative prices in the modern world.
Kenosha KidJanuary 12, 2021 at 19:55#4879150 likes
Now both go into the market to sell. The non-capitalist does not have a price floor because there was no cost in extracting the diamond for him. He can sell for a $1 and therefore profits $1. However, capitalist does have a floor price because there is a cost to the extraction process.
True, but you are forgetting that you need a buyer here also.
Sure, the non capitalist might give the diamond away for 1$, but likely he or she would simply ask what the buyer is willing to pay for it. The fact is that buyer hardly is interested on how much work was put into finding the diamond. The diamond has subjective value to the buyer(s), either he might be looking for diamonds used by industry or interested in it as a luxury item or an eccentric store of wealth. This value has nothing to do with the amount of work put into mining the diamond (or the luck finding of it). In short, you need both the capitalist/non-capitalist and the buyer(s) to get a market and a price.
In this one instance of a competitive transaction, the non-capitalist can therefore undersell the capitalist, but then what? He can't create any additional demand, he doesn't have a mining operation to continue to extract raw diamonds. He created one instance of demand which was concluded at point of sale. That's it! But the capitalist, while not making a sale in this one instance, can continue putting raw diamonds up in the marketplace and finding demand (safe to assume non-capitalists aren't continuing to randomly come across raw diamonds on the ground) because she has a mode of production in place that can continue this process.
Yet his production is dependent on the demand of (mined) diamonds. The idea of not thinking about the demand side (and the reasons for the demand) here, but making this economic model using just the supply side costs and labour doesn't catch many important aspects. The so called input costs don't determine the final prices.
If by a new method artificial diamonds can be made by robots for that price of 1$ per carat (not thousands of dollars), industry will start a frenzy on how and where to use the new resource with likely many cutting tools having diamonds. And diamonds would fall from being a luxury item and an eccentric store of wealth. Yet the capitalist will shut his mine down or start digging up something else precious there.
but likely he or she would simply ask what the buyer is willing to pay for it. The fact is thatbuyer hardly is interested on how much work was put into finding the diamond. The diamond has subjective value to the buyer(s), either he might be looking for diamonds used by industry or interested in it as a luxury item or an eccentric store of wealth. This value has nothing to do with the amount of work put into mining the diamond (or the luck finding of it).
Here you go again, ignoring previous posts of mine and conflating price and value.
making this economic model using just the supply side costs and labour doesn't catch many important aspects.
This is incredible, do you have the memory of a fly? I explained how this isn't the case 6 hours ago. Once again you and I go around in circles because you are either unable to understand what is being said, or you are simply refusing to do so because you can't admit you're wrong.
counterpunchJanuary 12, 2021 at 21:48#4879630 likes
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
If you think providing the title of a book - not even a passage from that book, just the title: 'Debt: the first 5000 years' - constitutes evidence that slavery was not endemic until the West ended it, I have a book title for you: "Despised" by Paul Embery. Run out and get it and see what it says about your left wing, politically correct, North London intellectual circle jerk. Spoiler alert - you are the reason Labour will never be elected again.
Reply to fdrake...it begs you to answer the question of how we could emerge from an imperial history, a global slave trade, and enter into a post-colonial present without the expropriated, undermined groups of all that suffering under the weight of that history. It beggars belief that all of this can neatly be explained by differences in individual merit.[/quote]
You demand I answer for the actions of my ancestors? My working class ancestors built the Labour Party from nothing to represent their interests relative to the owners of the means of production. And you've abandoned us, to weep bitterly and constantly on behalf of everyone but us - while the owners of the means of production have privatised everything, sold off council housing, destroyed the unions, cut pensions, ended job security, imposed zero hours contracts...etc, etc, and I'd still vote for them before a Labour Party overrun by people like you!
Not necessarily. For example, anti-trust laws and other methods of preventing monopolization
— synthesis
“Not necessarily” what?
Anti-trust laws are a check against capitalism.
It seems as if almost every industry is dominated by two or three players (at most) anymore.
— synthesis
As is the natural consequence of capitalism.
Let me draw an analogy. Everybody has a tendency to go towards death. But what people do in their lifetimes can greatly affect the quality as well as the quantity of time they remain their present form.
Capitalism certainly tends towards accumulation, no doubt about it, but there are things that can be done to attenuate this tendency. As you know, nothing is black and white, so this is where doing the right things will make a considerable difference in the lives of the majority.
many people are not in a position to own (just starting-out or whatever) so there must a supplier of all things that rent involves
— synthesis
People not being in a position to own is precisely the problem, and the existence of rent exploits and exacerbates that problem.
If rent was not a legally enforceable arrangement, everyone who owns properties to rent out would have no better use for them than to sell them, and nobody to sell them too but the people who would otherwise have been renting (since nobody else is going to buy just as an investment when they in turn can’t rent it out either). This creates incentive for landlords, banks, etc, to sell off properties on terms that are as affordable as renting.
Conversely, compared to that kind of market, the existence of rent creates an incentive for the rich to own more property than they need for their own use, and gives them a means of accruing more and more, which raises prices, and leaves everyone else unable to afford to buy.
Then how would folks acquire property or any business tools when first starting off? Most of the problems that have to do with housing are caused by a combination of government mis-regulation and banking. Back in the day, nearly anybody with a job could afford to buy a house. There were reasons for this (it was a priority of American society). Houses only went up with the inflation rate and people looked at their purchase as a place to save (for retirement or whatever) while keeping up with inflation.
For those who are unable to purchase a house, a rental market makes a great deal of sense. Many times, renting is the better option. Again, you need regulations in place that will prevent the housing market from becoming a subsidiary of the greater casino.
My own pet peeve is the stock market where people "earn" money passively (rent, again). Getting paid for doing nothing is perhaps the greatest con of all-time!
— synthesis
Stocks are actually qualitatively differently from rent and interest and I have no objection to them. That is the legitimate way to invest, rather than lending at interest.
With a loan, you give someone money and in return they owe you back more money, regardless of whether the loan actually benefits them or not: if they borrow and fail they still owe you even more than they borrowed. That’s really money for nothing.
Apparently you've never received one of those letters from a bankruptcy court telling you that the money owed to you has gone up in smoke.
With stock, you’re literally going into business with them, becoming a co-owner of their business in exchange for funding it, and only if their business succeeds do you succeed. For smart stock owners with diverse holdings, like with index funds, your success is tied to the overall success of the market, so the good of the whole economy is in your best interest.
You're only going into to business with them if you own a huge block of stock. Otherwise, I see little difference between the two besides agreeing on a return up-front. You can buy bond funds, as well.
Regardless, the ultimate human fantasy of making it possible to get "something for nothing" is (IMO) the greatest impediment to capitalism being accepted by a larger percentage of the population. Any something for nothing scheme stinks and people can smell it a mile away.
Hopefully the next system (another fantasy) will reward its participants proportionally for the their labor-value added while cutting all parasites out of the deal.
You demand I answer for the actions of my ancestors? My working class ancestors built the Labour Party from nothing to represent their interests relative to the owners of the means of production. And you've abandoned us, to weep bitterly and constantly on behalf of everyone but us - while the owners of the means of production have privatised everything, sold off council housing, destroyed the unions, cut pensions, ended job security, imposed zero hours contracts...etc, etc, and I'd still vote for them before a Labour Party overrun by people like you!
This reads like you frame the struggle against systemic discrimination as a separate struggle from class struggle; overwhelmingly those who get the short end of the stick demographically are economically disenfranchised - working long hours for too little pay and too little security. Programs that benefit those groups tend to benefit the worst off.
A working class politics that emphasises social programs but can't stand in solidarity with those who would benefit most from them loses its base. Get with the times, race+class+gender are aspects of the same struggle.
I will, however, join you in lamenting the death of class politics in the UK's "Labour party", I simply hope that the Corbynite wing wins out soon.
And finance. The most successful co-ops are banks, insurers, etc. Energy too.
I suppose just about anything would work in banking, after-all, creating one's product out of thin air would seemingly open up a great deal of possibilities.
I am not that familiar with the energy consortium other then paying the various energy pipers monthly. I fear its not much better here in the People's Republic of California.
Kenosha KidJanuary 12, 2021 at 23:40#4879920 likes
I suppose just about anything would work in banking, after-all, creating one's product out of thin air would seemingly open up a great deal of possibilities.
I'm not sure it's really easier or harder in different industries. After all, the roles in co-operatives aren't any different than in a capitalist organisation: it's simply that everyone is on the same pay, everyone had the same stake, and people move around more, which happens at the top anyway, just between companies rather than within.
Let me draw an analogy. Everybody has a tendency to go towards death. But what people do in their lifetimes can greatly affect the quality as well as the quantity of time they remain their present form.
Right, and those things people do are fighting against death. Mitigating death.
Then how would folks acquire property or any business tools when first starting off?
They would pay for them, just like they currently pay to rent them. The only difference being that in exchange for those payments they accrue ownership.
And in the long run, as this leads to the widespread distribution of capital, everybody would be starting off as what we would consider rich today, being born into families that have enough capital left from the most recently dead generation to pass on to the most recently grown generation.
There is already excess capital that someone else has lying around for you to borrow to get started. Imagine a world where instead of asking someone else to borrow their excess capital, you just had that excess capital lying around yourself, because you were born into a family that just had it lying around, because every family has a share of the unused wealth of society, instead of just a tiny fraction of them.
For those who are unable to purchase a house, a rental market makes a great deal of sense
Why should anyone be unable to purchase a house, yet able to rent? You're paying money either way, you just don't get anything to your name for that money in the latter case.
Which raises the obvious question: why does anyone rent? Because owning is priced out of their range, because owning is not just a place to live, it's a way to get free money from other people who need a place to live, so people who have more money than they need for their immediate expenses are incentivized to buy housing just to rent it out, which makes owning more expensive, making more people stuck renting, which makes owning even more valuable to those who can afford it, raising the price of ownership, etc in a vicious cycle.
Imagine a world where you start "renting" a house and eventually, you get to stop paying rent and just live there forever, and your great-grandkids can live there after you die, because in exchange for all that money you paid for housing, you actually got a house!
Apparently you've never received one of those letters from a bankruptcy court telling you that the money owed to you has gone up in smoke.
That's a necessary mitigation of the problems that lending at interest would otherwise cause.
In a world where rent and thus interest wasn't a thing, borrowing and not returning something could just be treated as the theft that it is. Of course that would make people a lot more hesitant to borrow, and the lack of interest would make people a lot more hesitant to lend anyway... so instead of lending at interest, investors could buy equity in the ventures they're investing in, and then either win or lose together with the people running those ventures.
Regardless, the ultimate human fantasy of making it possible to get "something for nothing" is (IMO) the greatest impediment to capitalism being accepted by a larger percentage of the population. Any something for nothing scheme stinks and people can smell it a mile away.
I don't follow this. Getting something for nothing (nothing of their own at least) is exactly what capitalists do capitalism for. Being able to generate profit just from owning things that other people have to pay you to use is the core of capitalism. That's "something for nothing" as far as the capitalist is concerned; because the suffering of the borrowers at whose expense that something really comes is hidden from them behind a Just World Fallacy that says they deserve that free ride because they're the good people, while the poor whose backs they're riding on must deserve that burden because of something they did wrong. And the only reason so many of the poor at the bottom actively support the perpetuation of this system is because they have aspirations of some day being the one getting something "for nothing" (at someone else's expense) instead.
Hopefully the next system (another fantasy) will reward its participants proportionally for the their labor-value added while cutting all parasites out of the deal.
Which raises the obvious question: why does anyone rent?
I understand where you’re coming from in terms of your posts about capitalism, but not everyone wants to own a property, and there are many reasons for wanting to rent. There’s no doubt that landlords are hurting people, but on the other hand without their investment there wouldn’t be places to rent for those who don’t want to buy. Not to mention the fact that a small business may view renting as a better option than buying.
the fuck they dont. why would you want to keep paying for something when you could instead just have it and stop paying? you can keep paying someone else to do maintenance of that’s what you want. your landlord does anyway.
and landlords dont invest in shit. houses would still be built for purchase even if nobody was buying them to rent out.
the fuck they dont. why would you want to keep paying for something when you could instead just have it and stop paying?
That’s a pretty bold claim. And “stop paying”? How does that work?
I didn’t want to own a home for many years. That sort of commitment just didn’t appeal. I’ve known many people who prefer to rent. Of course they don’t like how high the rent is but they pay it because they want to live in a particular area. They may not plan to live in that town or city permanently. There are many reasons for not wanting to own a home.
counterpunchJanuary 13, 2021 at 02:35#4880290 likes
Reply to fdrake Corbyn and his ilk are the problem, not the answer. The working man doesn't want a zero sum, identity politics game played against the Eton-Oxbridge set, that incidentally discriminates against him because he's also white.
He won't vote for that, because - while he does want a fair days pay, affordable rent, decent public services etc, he is nonetheless a patriot. He's not an anti-capitalist, anti-western, politically correct, bleeding heart, eco commie - ashamed of his history, his gender and his skin colour. That shit isn't going to fly, and the collapse of the Labour vote in the north; the utter rejection of Corbyn in 2019, demonstrates that.
Labour needs another Blair - not another Corbyn, because the working man wants capitalism with a social conscience; not to seize the means of production. He has no such aspiration. He never has done. All that Marxian bullshit is another middle class idea of the working class interest - like political correctness. If Labour ever want power again, they need a centrist pitch - like Blair's Third Way. Not political correctness, nothing to the left of Clause IV, but a practical pitch for government that recognises the value of business, so that he can go out and earn a decent living.
That’s a pretty bold claim. And “stop paying”? How does that work?
Stop paying the way I don’t have to keep paying to use my desk because I own it already. Who would rather have to pay in perpetuity to have a desk if they could afford to pay once and then just have the desk “for free” (besides paying to buy it) forever?
I swear it’s like people are brainwashing into simply not comprehending the idea of not having to pay someone else just for the right to exist somewhere.
What commitment? If you want to treat a purchased home like a rental and just walk away from it leaving behind all the money you spent, you can do that. But why would you want to if you could get
a lot of the money you’ve spent on housing back out? With rent you don’t have that option: your money went down a black hole, it’s not coming back.
Just picture a world where when you leave a “rental” you can get a bunch of your “rent” money back, if you want to go through that effort; or you can walk away and leave it all behind if you really have to bail in a rush. That’s what a world without rent looks like.
Nobody would be forbidden from living in a place or letting someone live at their place or giving or receiving money, but contracts whereby someone owes money in exchange for being let use something would be unenforceable.
Consequently nobody would engage in the business of renting out for profit, and would consequently sell off their would-have-been-rental properties to the only people still buying, the would-have-been-renters, on the kinds of terms they can afford, i.e. terms comparable to renting.
So you could pay someone money to live somewhere just like you could now renting a place, but you would have means you of recouping some of that money when you move.
And new housing would continue to be built because new people would still need new housing and be willing to pay for it. They would just skip the middle man who neither built the house nor paid for it yet gets to keep the money and the house in the end.
So no enforceable contracts on paying rent for leasing a place. Consequently there would squatters, which defeats the purpose of owning and renting properties and therefore kills off the rental market. Is that it?
In theory, the market should control the capitalists. If they do something wrong (economically), the market should punish them.
"The market" is not something that exists like a market in your local town. It's a theoretical model that explains the formation of price according to supply and demand, if certain conditions are met.
In another sense, a "market" is just a descriptive term for transactions that happen in a specific region or concerning a specific ware.
In either case all that a market can be said to control is the price and distribution of goods, but not who profits from their production, how they use those profits etc.
It would seem that the most productive form of capitalism is where resources are being used optimally, that is, the correct marriage of resources and labor.
Who decides how to define productivity and what the optimal use of resources is? In capitalism the only systemic motive is profit, so it'll be set up to optimise for profit. The idea that by striving for profit we ultimately benefit everyone is a religious one, going back to the protestant work ethic.
As well, wouldn't accumulation slow innovation/productivity through anti-competitiveness
Yes, and this is in fact what happens unless there are other forces - like political ones - involved. Under capitalism, you don't want to innovate or be competitive. You want to have a monopoly that makes you money with no effort involved. As an economic system, it only works so long as you can keep competition alive.
I would be interested in a couple of examples. Thanks.
There is the cooperative, where everyone owns an equal share in the company - there are some rather large and old ones around right now.
There is the "purpose company", which works like a normal company, but isn't owned by a person, but by a trust that is legally obligated to use it's resources towards a given goal. So instead of aiming for profit, you could have companies with aims like cleaning the ocean or planting trees (search engine Ecosia is an example and does the latter).
What would it take you to change your mind on the following issues:
(1) that systemic discrimination exists
(2) that a politics (BLM) wanting social programs for the worst off isn't "racism against white people"
?
Kenosha KidJanuary 13, 2021 at 09:16#4881120 likes
the fuck they dont. why would you want to keep paying for something when you could instead just have it and stop paying?
I dare say there are a tiny number of such people. This rather reminds me of David Cameron's defense of the hugely exploitative zero-hours contracting, basically the same as Brett's argument.
So you aren't aware just how close Marx is to Ricardo's labor theory of value? If the basic argument was (with Benkei) about the labor theory of value, referring to the origins here is totally reasonable. Might add that Smith had also similar view (as Ricardo et al).
So no enforceable contracts on paying rent for leasing a place. Consequently there would squatters, which defeats the purpose of owning and renting properties and therefore kills off the rental market. Is that it?
Yeah, and then in the absence of the rental market the purchase market re-adjusts to its natural state, and nothing of value is lost. Anyone who wants something functionally equivalent to rent as we have it now can have that (you pay money every month, and when you leave you leave all that money behind), and anyone who doesn't want that has a better alternative (you pay the same money every month, and when you leave you have options to recoup the money you've been spending on housing to put toward your new housing elsewhere).
What exactly is the negative consequence of owning rather than renting that you're trying to avoid? I have my suspicions but rather than just give my answers to all of them at once I'd like to know what in particular you're concerned about.
BTW sorry about the "fuck" earlier, had a stressful evening.
What exactly is the negative consequence of owning rather than renting that you're trying to avoid?
There are no negative consequences I’m trying to avoid. I was interested if, in your theory, there really was a place or system for people who didn’t want to buy. Because if the rental market died as a consequence of certain actions I was wondering how renters would fit in.
counterpunchJanuary 13, 2021 at 10:29#4881530 likes
What would it take you to change your mind on the following issues:
(1) that systemic discrimination exists
(2) that a politics (BLM) wanting social programs for the worst off isn't "racism against white people"
?
I know systematic discrimination exists. I call it political correctness, and I fucking hate it - precisely because of how it plays out in relation to politics like BLM. Here are the facts. In 2012 Obama ended the collection of data by the Bureau of Justice Statistics on the race of Arrest Related Deaths. In 2013 Black Lies Matter was formed. BLM used carefully edited cell phone footage to create a social media narrative to suggest that police were murdering black people - and no-one disputed this because of political correctness. No-one wants to get twitter mobbed and denounced as a racist - so they let it slide.
When the rioting started, I wanted to know what the facts were - and so I looked them up. From 2003-2012, there were on average 10 million arrests per year. There were around 1000 Arrest Related Deaths per year - 42% white, 32% black. That's a 0.1% failure rate in a country where people carry guns. The police are not murdering people. In fact they are incredibly professional. But how to explain the fact that black people are 13% of the population, yet make up 32% of deaths. For that we have to look at the crime stats - and they are fucking abysmal. Black people commit massively more crime than white people. Really, it's shocking. The black 13% of the population commit more murders than the white 76% of the population. Violent crime, drugs, theft - all way above average. Put simply, black people commit more crime.
Compare this with Asians in America. Virtually zero crime rate. The top demographic in education, and the top earning demographic overall. How is it possible that Asians are doing so well if there's systematic racism? Face it - your politically correct bullshit is appeasement, and it's not good. The stereotype is well earned. It's there in the music - just listen to some racist, homophobic, sexist gangster rap - glorifying criminality and violence, that all the young black men so admire and seek to emulate. The problem is cultural - and it's never going to change until black people take personal responsibility, start to value education and aspire to a socially useful idea of success.
Because if the rental market died as a consequence of certain actions I was wondering how renters would fit in.
Would-be renters would be able to be owners instead, and just like owners now could, they could always walk away from their purchase if they don't mind losing all the money they've spent like a renter would. (But why would they want to if they could possibly avoid it?)
counterpunchJanuary 13, 2021 at 10:47#4881620 likes
Reply to Pfhorrest Government should buy up all the poor quality housing stock, demolish it - and build more and better housing on the same site, and then have a government backed rental/ownership scheme - where the money is ploughed back in to fund the purchase of poor quality housing stock, and the building of more and better housing. Self financing solution to the housing crisis!
What exactly is the negative consequence of owning rather than renting that you're trying to avoid? I have my suspicions but rather than just give my answers to all of them at once I'd like to know what in particular you're concerned about.
Well you have to pay for maintenance, so if something major breaks just after you bought, you might then not be able to easily afford the repairs. Which is worse if, say, you were only planning to stay for a few months and need to sell the property afterwards, which will not recoup the expenses for the repair.
In addition, selling a property does itself require time and money, so depending on how long you stay, this might not be worth it.
Well you have to pay for maintenance, so if something major breaks just after you bought, you might then not be able to easily afford the repairs. Which is worse if, say, you were only planning to stay for a few months and need to sell the property afterwards, which will not recoup the expenses for the repair.
Someone will be happy to sell you an insurance product to cover that. It could even be the same person who would otherwise have been your landlord, if they really were adding the value of spreading around that risk and would like to keep doing so.
BLM used carefully edited cell phone footage to create a social media narrative to suggest that police were murdering black people - and no-one disputed this because of political correctness.
Here's something I really don't understand; how have you managed to convince yourself that political correctness is systemic racism against white people, but you believe systemic racism against nonwhites can be explained entirely by its alleged targets' individual merit? This makes very little sense to me.
I can understand your feelings of persecution. I just don't think you're being persecuted like you seem to believe. To my reckoning, you're actually repeating the talking points and using the same data as right wing rags - and it's to your credit that you've actually looked up data. You should read this, which studies rates of police killings in the US while adjusting for poverty, it concludes:
In addition to confirming previously documented racial/ethnic inequalities in the United States, the analyses above identify strong socioeconomic inequalities in rates of police killings. Rates of police killings increase in tandem with census tract poverty for the overall population, and within the white, black, and Latino populations. For white people, the rate of police killings among the poorest fifth of census tracts (7.9 per million) is similar to the rate among black people in census tracts with the second-lowest poverty (i.e. the second quintile; 7.7 per million). Higher poverty among the black population accounts for a meaningful, but relatively modest, portion of the black-white gap in police killing rates. In contrast, higher census tract poverty fully explained the Latino-white gap, and the police killing rate among Latinos was lower than expected given their relatively high rates of census tract poverty
The broader judicial+law enforcement situation in the UK is similar; which is as expected, marginalised groups with less social opportunities and higher poverty face worse conditions in the street, the job interview, the workplace and the court. Poverty does a lot of the work, but it doesn't explain all the disparity; the remainder is to a large part systemic racism.
The kind of politics that limits police power, empowers social programs, and provides more security for the worst off and the worker, regardless of skin colour, benefits everyone. And it is effective, look at what happened in Glasgow when knife crime ("white on white crime" lol) was addressed as a public health issue!
The rental market is a good example where government control that sounds beneficial, like rental price limits, can worsen the situation and where a healthy free market solves the problem. But for the market to be healthy and to work, there are several important factors that have to be true: 1) ordinary working people have to have the ability to get a loan with normal interest rates to purchase a home and 2) there aren't limitations or difficulties on who can rent real estate and renting real estate is considered a safe investment.
If 1) doesn't apply, like is in many Third World countries, the end result is too few housing is built and that what is built is likely built only for the richest buyers. Others live in cramped housing and on rent. And when large segment of the population are forced to rent, then in the end of their lives they have nothing to give to the next generation. This is one important factor why many countries have lacked the essential middle class and you have countries with large populations but little wealth. That lack of widespread affluence means that there is no domestic demand to create a thriving service sector and retail sector. Few billionaires won't do it. Factor 2) is essential for the health of the market also: if the demand for rental apartments is high, the ability for even ordinary people to save by investing in a flat or two will be have a big effect on the market and will create that supply to deal with the demand. Also a "safe" rental market will attract institutional investors. They won't invest, if there's the possibility of very punitive legislation to "help" those who rent.
Kenosha KidJanuary 13, 2021 at 11:26#4881730 likes
I'm saying that if someone is a racist then it's acceptable to criticize them for being a racist, and that if someone is black then it's unacceptable to criticize them for being black.
Who and when on these forums has criticized someone for being black? If there hasn't been any, or the percentage is minute, then how can you argue that racism is the prevalent idea, or is even a serious problem?
Who and when on these forums have generalized whites by using terms like, "white privilege"? Lots of people in this forum. And when you disagree with them and point out the weak points of their argument, they call you a "racist".
If someone criticized a back for being black, it would be redundant to say, "racist". I mean, what do you really hope to accomplish by calling someone a racist whose racist actions are on display for everyone to see?
I've never used the term "white privilege". Others talk about it because it's a fact of life. And it is wrong that there is white privilege, but that's not to say that every white person is responsible for it.
You still seem to be focused on whites when whites are only a fraction of the world population. As I have been saying, white privilege is not a fact of life. Does that make a racist?[
People don't tend to have much control over what happens in other countries. There's nothing I can do to address racism in Japan or corruption in Russia.
What a lazy cop-out. This forum has members in many countries and this isn't the only forum on the internet. Thanks for showing everyone how truly biased and lazy you are.
Kenosha KidJanuary 13, 2021 at 11:46#4881790 likes
Who and when on these forums have generalized whites by using terms like, "white privilege"? Lots of people in this forum. And when you disagree with them and point out the weak points of their argument, they call you a "racist".
Well either it is advantageous to be white in which case generally white people are privileged in that respect, or racism doesn't manifest itself statistically. Since racism is statistically manifest, it is generally advantageous to be white.
Why don’t you actually try and address @Harry Hindu’s post.
Kenosha KidJanuary 13, 2021 at 11:56#4881820 likes
Reply to Brett It's a large quantity of wrong. I addressed the part I thought most amenable to progress. If I need advice about what to address from you, I'll give you a heads up but frankly it's well outside your jurisdiction.
counterpunchJanuary 13, 2021 at 12:13#4881860 likes
Here's something I really don't understand; how have you managed to convince yourself that political correctness is systemic racism against white people, but you believe systemic racism against nonwhites can be explained entirely by its alleged targets' individual merit? This makes very little sense to me.
The same explanation applies. The systematic racism of political correctness is a consequence of the individualism and cowardice of white people; that they don't have a collectivist sense of identity, less yet racial identity, and individually, fall victim to left wing ideologues who seek to make them ashamed of their history and skin colour - not least to justify mass immigration. In fact, white people should be proud of the massive contributions they have made to the world. They invented damn near everything - from the scientific and industrial revolutions, to modern democratic governance, rule of law, medical science, the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, flight, radio, television, computers, the internet and so on and on.
I can understand your feelings of persecution. I just don't think you're being persecuted like you seem to believe. To my reckoning, you're actually repeating the talking points and using the same data as right wing rags - and it's to your credit that you've actually looked up data. You should read this, which studies rates of police killings in the US while adjusting for poverty,
Oh, for goodness sake - stop adjusting for this and that, and take some fucking responsibility. There are plenty of poor white people. They don't commit murder at 6 times the national average.
The kind of politics that limits police power, empowers social programs, and provides more security for the worst off and the worker, regardless of skin colour...
But it's not regardless of skin colour is it? It's black people to the front of the queue, followed by women and homosexuals, and you straight white males - who should be ashamed of yourselves, to the back. I'll give you a for instance.
Stormzy is a black British rapper - and he created scholarships to Cambridge exclusively for black students. Everyone approved. Giving back to his community! What a guy! Some years later Sir Brian Thwaites - originally from a white working class background, sought to create scholarships exclusively for white working class boys like him, and was denounced as racist. The money was rejected by the schools in fear of a politically correct backlash. The telling fact is, that white working class boys are now the lowest performing demographic in schools - but they can't get any help ...because that would be racist.
Political correctness is an hypocrisy. It simultaneously stereotypes people by race, and criminalises stereotyping people by race. It doesn't even make sense in its own terms, less yet make sense of the world.
Oh, for goodness sake - stop adjusting for this and that, and take some fucking responsibility. There are plenty of poor white people.
I don't think you know what "adjusting" means. In a statistical analysis of data - in this case police killings, there are lots of confounding variables. In this case, crime rates are higher in poor neighbourhoods, and poor neighbourhoods are more likely to contain more nonwhites. You need to "adjust" for the economic causes of police killings since they're causally related to demographic disparities in police killings - systemic racism.
What you've made is an emotional appeal, and I can see it as persuasive if you feel you are under attack. And your civil liberties and equality of opportunity are under attack; just not by working class civil rights activists and their working class allies. If you live in the UK, your civil liberties are being eroded by Bojo and his possy of gammon faced clowns.
It isn't the "politically correct" left who've turned the NHS from the European gold standard of healthcare to the shitshow that it is, it's those clowns you're currently supporting through your rhetoric. Stop trying to shit on the only people who have your back.
The same explanation applies. The systematic racism of political correctness is a consequence of the individualism and cowardice of white people; that they don't have a collectivist sense of identity, less yet racial identity, and individually, fall victim to left wing ideologues who seek to make them ashamed of their history and skin colour - not least to justify mass immigration.
In your estimation, do the wealthy nations that struggle with the problem of mass migration also exploit the countries that the immigrants are coming from?
In fact, white people should be proud of the massive contributions they have made to the world. They invented damn near everything - from the scientific and industrial revolutions, to modern democratic governance, rule of law, medical science, the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, flight, radio, television, computers, the internet and so on and on.
I don't really get that notion of pride. I don't contribute to my own whiteness, so it doesn't seem to be something I could be proud of. If I wanted to be proud of, say, past inventions, I'd at least have to consider my conduct to be in some way a continuation of the inventors ethos / methods.
Like you can be proud of furthering the development of science in the tradition of past scientists, but I don't get where skin colour enters into it.
And in case you want to reply "well why are black people allowed to be proud of their blackness", I'll just concede for the sake of discussion that the same problem applies.
Jack CumminsJanuary 13, 2021 at 13:03#4881960 likes
Reply to counterpunch
The topic of political correctness is complex and subtle. Being politically correct can be over the top if it gets too rigid. If everything we say has to end up sounding like an equal opportunities statement it can border on to the ridiculous. On the other hand how far should people be allowed to go in expressing prejudices?
I would say that part of the problem is that people often use political correctness to cover up there own prejudices. Perhaps on some level, we all have prejudices, which are really preconceived assumptions. There is a danger that too much political correctness can simply push prejudice underground, to fester, but emerge in some more dangerous way.
But it is a grey area, because if no attempts are made to rule out prejudiced opinions, against any racial or other group, it can get to the point where prejudice is just acceptable.
counterpunchJanuary 13, 2021 at 13:48#4882220 likes
Nor did my tutor in statistical methodology when I studied Sociology and Politics at university. Nonetheless, I know my way around SPSS, and I passed the module with a reasonable grade.
In a statistical analysis of data - in this case police killings, there are lots of confounding variables. In this case, crime rates are higher in poor neighbourhoods, and poor neighbourhoods are more likely to contain more non-whites. You need to "adjust" for the economic causes of police killings since they're causally related to demographic disparities in police killings - systemic racism.
No, you really don't - because that's tautological. You will only prove the assumptions you feed in to skew the data. Bayesian analysis attributes a hierarchical weighted value to data points. The death of a black person is not equivalent to the death of a white person, and so - unsurprisingly, the analysis shows black people are killed disproportionately. You assume systematic racism - so you find systematic racism.
What you've made is an emotional appeal, and I can see it as persuasive if you feel you are under attack. And your civil liberties and equality of opportunity are under attack; just not by working class civil rights activists and their working class allies. If you live in the UK, your civil liberties are being eroded by Bojo and his possy of gammon faced clowns.
If this were a right wing forum - like such a thing could exist on the internet without getting de-platformed, I'd gladly rip into "Bojo and his possy of gammon faced clowns" (as you describe them, careless of the racist overtones because they're white.) But this is a left wing forum, so let's focus on the left - (and their possy of chocolate faced clowns Is that acceptable language? No, it is not!) ...in particular, on the left's abandonment of the white working class in favour of an upside down form of identity politics.
I gave you a concrete example of politically correct discrimination against white people. It's not a feeling that you can dismiss by offering your patented brand condescending left wing sympathy and understanding. You can't "whatabout" me by turning this on the Tories. You haven't got the back of the average white working class man. Another concrete example - in the midst of the brexit fiasco, Labour went completely AWOL and did one of their typically searching anal audits on anti-Semitism. A Labour government would be dangerously susceptible to being thrown off track in the midst of a crisis - so utterly consumed are they by political correctness. It's hypocritical, it's unjust, and worse than all that, it's weak. Knock if off!
I honestly can't believe you think that calling Bojo and his incompetent toffs "gammon faced clowns" is racist against white people. They absolutely have a choice not to be gammon faced clowns, the same can't be said for skin colour. I'm calling them names because of policy decisions.
Regardless, I see you have a very low bar for branding events instances of racism against white people in the UK, how could you have possibly missed systemic racism against PoCs in the UK if your bar is that low?
I'd guess, as you've highlighted is possible, it's because you don't want to see.
counterpunchJanuary 13, 2021 at 14:14#4882340 likes
In your estimation, do the wealthy nations that struggle with the problem of mass migration also exploit the countries that the immigrants are coming from?
Depends on what you mean by exploit. Is 0.7% of GDP in foreign aid exploitative? Is vast amounts of charity, given by British people anytime there's a war, famine or natural disaster anywhere in the world - exploitative? Are equally vast sums earned by migrants to Britain, and sent abroad - exploitative? I don't know what you mean by exploit. It's one of those 'eye of the beholder' things.
I don't really get that notion of pride. I don't contribute to my own whiteness, so it doesn't seem to be something I could be proud of. If I wanted to be proud of, say, past inventions, I'd at least have to consider my conduct to be in some way a continuation of the inventors ethos / methods.
But you get the concept of an inherited shame for slavery - I suppose? Given that slavery existed since the dawn of time, and was practiced by every civilisation until the west put an end to it, and given that western civilisation also invented everything - in those terms, on balance, its positive contributions to the world massively outweigh the bad, and we should be able to be proud of our history - but on the contrary, the left seek to shame us with it.
Kenosha KidJanuary 13, 2021 at 14:19#4882360 likes
Regardless, I see you have a very low bar for branding events instances of racism against white people in the UK, how could you have possibly missed systemic racism against PoCs in the UK if your bar is that low?
This seems astonishingly common and the crux of the matter. Non-racial slurs against white people are proof the the whites -- the ones who did slavery, lynch mobs, segregation, etc. -- are the oppressed race, while that same history of slavery, lynchings, segregation, etc., right through to the repeated murder of black people by white cops caught on video, to just now a white poster getting banned for calling someone the N-word, do not count as evidence, mere anomolies. This speaks to a rank hypocrisy that seems to characterise the alt-right, if not the right generally.
I don't think that says what you think it does, or what it appears to say.
It says exactly what it says:
It is sometimes suggested that in urban areas with more black residents and higher levels of inequality, individuals may be more likely to commit violent crime, and thus the racial bias in police shooting may be explainable as a proximate response by police to areas of high violence and crime (community violence theory [14, 15, 23, 35]). In other words, if the environment is such that race and crime covary, police shooting ratios may show signs of racial bias, even if it is crime, not race, that is the causal driver of police shootings. In the models fit in this study, however, there is no evidence of an association between black-specific crime rates (neither in assault-related arrests nor in weapons-related arrests) and racial bias in police shootings, irrespective of whether or not other controls were included in the model. As such, the results of this study provide no empirical support for the idea that racial bias in police shootings (in the time period, 2011–2014, described in this study) is driven by race-specific crime rates (at least as measured by the proxies of assault- and weapons-related arrest rates in 2012).
In other words, that the probability of being black, unarmed, and shot by police is 3.49 times the probability of being white, unarmed, and shot by police is not explained by unarmed black people being 3.49 times more likely than unarmed white people to commit a crime that warrants being shot by the police.
So you aren't aware just how close Marx is to Ricardo's labor theory of value? If the basic argument was (with Benkei) about the labor theory of value, referring to the origins here is totally reasonable. Might add that Smith had also similar view (as Ricardo et al).
Marx's labor theory of value is nonetheless distinct and refined from Ricardo's and Smith's definition, and the original argument with Benkei wasn't about the general labor theory of value, but Marx's in particular.
Just admit you have no idea what you are talking.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 13, 2021 at 14:36#4882400 likes
the fuck they dont. why would you want to keep paying for something when you could instead just have it and stop paying? you can keep paying someone else to do maintenance of that’s what you want. your landlord does anyway.
In order to do this you'd have to plop down a significant amount of cash and likely cash out investments. This is often a bad financial move because these investments that you sold have a high yearly return and now that money is basically locked into your house and you're no longer getting those returns.
Your desire to own your home outright is a personal preference, not a universal measure of financial health or optimization. If that's how you want to do your finances, fine, but don't treat it as a universal.
counterpunchJanuary 13, 2021 at 14:50#4882420 likes
I honestly can't believe you think that calling Bojo and his incompetent toffs "gammon faced clowns" is racist against white people. They absolutely have a choice not to be gammon faced clowns, the same can't be said for skin colour. I'm calling them names because of policy decisions.
It's the hypocrisy I seek to highlight; not the casual anti white racism per se. It's that you would be screaming blue murder if someone made a similar comment disparaging black people as 'chocolate faced clowns.' And the fact you don't see this as an hypocrisy is precisely the point. Your political correctness hypocritical because you don't apply the same standards equally. This carries forth into areas that matter, like I showed with the concrete example of Stormzy and his exclusively black scholarships, while Thwaites was branded racist - an example that you have failed to address.
Regardless, I see you have a very low bar for branding events instances of racism against white people in the UK, how could you have possibly missed systemic racism against PoCs in the UK if your bar is that low?
You've also failed to address the fact that white working class boys are now the lowest performing demographic in British schools, and that Asians are the highest, and highest earning demographic in the US. Nonetheless, this "systematic racism" narrative plays out both sides of the Atlantic. You haven't explained how Asians can be doing so well in a systematically racist society. But in regard to police shootings, you seek to account for every confounding variable, while turning a blind eye to the fact that black people commit massively more crime. You ARE a racist - and the fact you do it in reverse doesn't make it any less morally repugnant.
Reply to fdrake Suppose I want to say something about racism in Europe. I discover that there's racism in France, so I think I've learned something about Europe.
Subsequently, if I come across Dane who says there's not much racism, I assure him that he's blind to the facts around him.
It's anthropology through a telescope. White people do tend to be blind to the racism around them, but that doesn't mean my Danish person is blind.
It's anthropology through a telescope. White people do tend to be blind to the racism around them, but that doesn't mean my Danish person is blind.
Aye. I think the approach should depend on the context, since @counterpunch here has been swearing at me for a while I figured I'd pick up the gauntlet. He's expressedly more interested in trying to dunk on me than engaging in good faith:
My friend, I had no such illusions going in. But please don't discount the possibility that someone other than you and I, reading this, might benefit from seeing a lefty twit get handed his arse over and over again.
Reply to fdrake Oh. He's looking to "own" a leftist. They don't have many forums open to them these days.
counterpunchJanuary 13, 2021 at 15:02#4882500 likes
Reply to Jack Cummins I have an answer - let's give everyone free speech, and let them say what they like, because to my mind, people who say hateful things - it says more about them than the people they hate. Hateful opinions are almost always ignorant opinions. And if they're not ignorant opinions, it's likely something that needs bringing out into the open, and not swept under the politically correct carpet.
Jack CumminsJanuary 13, 2021 at 15:08#4882520 likes
Reply to counterpunch
I believe in free speech and open discussion but the problem is that people can end up hurting people with their hatred. But, it is true that hatred of others probably stems from self hatred.
Reply to Jack Cummins
But where is that "free speech and open discussion" supposed to take place?
Every conversation takes place somewhere, on someone's turf, not on some neutral no-man's land.
The rule of the turf takes precedence: the one who owns the turf where the conversation takes place has the say.
Kenosha KidJanuary 13, 2021 at 15:18#4882550 likes
In order to do this you'd have to plop down a significant amount of cash and likely cash out investments. This is often a bad financial move because these investments that you sold have a high yearly return and now that money is basically locked into your house and you're no longer getting those returns.
Rent drives up house prices massively. The buy to let and property development to let booms in the UK anyway are the reasons housing affordability is incommensurate with earnings increases. (Oh, and Russian oligarchs buying up London real estate.) Rent is still the problem.
Jack CumminsJanuary 13, 2021 at 15:22#4882570 likes
Reply to baker
It is a difficult question. How does one work with prejudice and hatred.?Certainly, my own experience in dealing with racist and homophobic etc people is that you can argue with such people and end up not getting anywhere. My mother has racist friends and I hear her challenge them very well. The next day they say exactly the same thing. The prejudiced mind is most often a closed mind.
Kenosha KidJanuary 13, 2021 at 15:25#4882580 likes
My mother has racist friends and I hear her challenge them very well. The next day they say exactly the same thing. The prejudiced mind is most often a closed mind.
I've noticed the same. There is something rather sly about it. You think you're having a conversation, turns out they're just finding out what sort of arguments they need to defend against next time.
counterpunchJanuary 13, 2021 at 15:31#4882610 likes
It's a fact, not a theory - that black people commit significantly more crime, and more violent crime in particular. I looked at the statistics, and 13% of the US population (blacks) commit more murders than 76% of the population (whites). There are plenty of poor white people. Inequality isn't the explanation. And you can't over-police murder.
there is no evidence of an association between black-specific crime rates (neither in assault-related arrests nor in weapons-related arrests) and racial bias in police shootings,
You highlight this - and it's easy to miss, but the sentence actually begins:
In the models fit in this study, however, there is no evidence of an association...
Well, d'uh - you set out to disprove any such association with a Bayesian analysis that attributes a weighted hierarchical value to data points. "In the models fit in this study!" It's left wing academia double speak for "we messed around with the raw data until we proved our own politically correct assumptions."
The raw data is very simple and the explanation is obvious. Black people commit more violent crime. Violent offenders are more likely to get shot.
It is a difficult question. How does one work with prejudice and hatred.?
But why would one have to?
I think the real problem with hatred and prejudice is that one hasn't come to the final conclusion that they are in fact _not_ evolutionarily advantageous.
Don't you ever wonder whether the people who are full of hatred and prejudice might in fact be better off in life after all?
What valuable things are they missing out on because of their hatred and prejudice? I can't think of any.
People who are full of hatred and prejudice can make life hard for some others, indeed. But beyond that, they don't seem to be missing out on anything. Hatred and prejudice aren't the sort of stumbling blocks and negative things as some people paint them to be.
It's a fact, not a theory - that black people commit significantly more crime, and more violent crime in particular. I looked at the statistics, and 13% of the US population (blacks) commit more murders than 76% of the population (whites). There are plenty of poor white people. Inequality isn't the explanation. And you can't over-police murder.
What bearing does that have on the study cited? It shows that unarmed black people are 3.49 times more likely to be shot by police than unarmed white people. Unless unarmed black people commit 3.49 times more crimes that warrant being shot by police than unarmed white people then this shows that there is racial bias. Even if black people are twice as likely to commit such crimes as white people, that would only explain them being twice as likely to be shot, and so the figure still shows racial bias.
Well, d'uh - you set out to disprove any such association with a Bayesian analysis that attributes a weighted hierarchical value to data points. "In the models fit in this study!" It's left wing academia double speak for "we messed around with the raw data until we proved our own politically correct assumptions."
You've yet to show how the models fails. You've just asserted that they do. That's no argument. I'm more inclined to believe a peer-reviewed paper than a random person on the internet who doesn't support his claims.
If you don't understand my point as it seems, then resorting to condescending arrogance and belittling seems the modus operandi for you. Which is very typical.
There are plenty of poor white people. Inequality isn't the explanation.
If there are disproportionately more poor black people than poor white people then inequality could be the explanation. For example if 90% of black people are poor compared to 70% of white people, and if being poor is a motivator to committing violent crimes, then there will be disproportionately more black violent criminals than white violent criminals.
What's your alternative suggestion? That black people are genetically predisposed to violence, and that racial disparities in income and poverty are incidental?
Jack CumminsJanuary 13, 2021 at 16:16#4882770 likes
Reply to baker
I am quite sure that people who have strong prejudices are not wishing to change and are comfortable with beliefs. On a long term basis I would imagine that hatred of others comes back to oneself. The most obvious case is having committed all the worst atrocities, Hitler killed himself.
The level on which I would think about working with prejudice is if I am in a professional or group situation where prejudices are occurring. What can be tolerated and what goes against boundaries is the main issue.
counterpunchJanuary 13, 2021 at 16:21#4882800 likes
Reply to Michael Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuckity fuck fuck - will you LISTEN. The raw data doesn't show that:
unarmed black people are 3.49 times more likely to be shot.
The study concludes that, but only AFTER the data has been weighted - such that a black person being shot isn't equal to a white person being shot, when various demographic and factors have been ASSUMED, and taken into account to skew the raw data. It's a TAUTOLOGY. Garbage in - garbage out.
It shows that unarmed black people are 3.49 times more likely to be shot by police than unarmed white people. Unless unarmed black people commit 3.49 times more crimes that warrant being shot by police than unarmed white people then this shows that there is racial bias.
Or they are more likely to resist arrest - thereby endangering the police officer or members of the public.
Even if black people are twice as likely to commit such crimes as white people, that would only explain them being twice as likely to be shot, and so the figure still shows racial bias.
To repeat myself a third time - 13% of the US population commit more murders than 76% of the population. That's 5.8 times more likely to commit murder, based on the raw data. But again, it's not the crime - it's the arrest. You can commit mass murder - Dylan Roof springs to mind, but give yourself up to police and they won't kill you. You can be selling bootleg CD's outside the kwikimart - Michael Brown springs to mind, act like a jackass and end up dead. The crime is irrelevant - except insofar as it indicates a propensity to resist arrest.
You can be selling bootleg CD's outside the kwikimart - Michael Brown springs to mind, act like a jackass and end up dead. The crime is irrelevant - except insofar as it indicates a propensity to resist arrest.
On a long term basis I would imagine that hatred of others comes back to oneself. The most obvious case is having committed all the worst atrocities, Hitler killed himself.
What if Hitler and other Nazis who committed suicide did so for stoic (sic!) reasons?
I have heard in WWII documentaries that some Nazis who committed suicide around the time of the end of the war wrote in their goodbye letters that they can't bear to live in a world ruled by an inferior race, and that this is why they willingly departed from life.
It's not clear that the Nazis who committed suicide did so out of self-loathing or some such.
The level on which I would think about working with prejudice is if I am in a professional or group situation where prejudices are occurring. What can be tolerated and what goes against boundaries is the main issue.
Which is a clear case of the rule of the turf: the owner of the turf has the say as to what is acceptable and what isn't.
Just reading through this thread, it seems to me that the site rules would benefit from something against this sort of posting habit. I know it's not currently against the rules, but repeatedly making specific factual claims without even an attempt at citation or support (as counterpunch is doing here) is just wasting forum space.
There are limits of tolerance on written style, I don't think it's excessive to have limits also on strucure.
counterpunchJanuary 13, 2021 at 16:45#4882960 likes
If there are disproportionately more poor black people than poor white people then inequality could be the explanation. For example if 90% of black people are poor compared to 70% of white people, and if being poor is a motivator to committing violent crimes, then there will be disproportionately more black violent criminals than white violent criminals. What's your alternative suggestion? That black people are genetically predisposed to violence, and that racial disparities in income and poverty are incidental?
I have no explanation. I'm not looking for one. I'm merely pointing out the politically correct hypocrisies. It feels very uncomfortable to be speaking about race at all, but it's the left that are playing identity politics - and so it falls to me to state the statistical facts, over and over again until I look like a complete bastard.
Personally, I'm an individualist, and treat people as individuals regardless of skin colour, sexuality, gender or whatever - and I think that's the way it should be. These are what's called arbitrary characteristics, and it's wrong to discriminate on that basis.
It's not me that imagines all black people, or all white people, or all gay people share a common identity. That's the left, and it sucks - it's identity politics, and whether it's done by the right or the left, it's wrong.
Which raises the obvious question: why does anyone rent? Because owning is priced out of their range, because owning is not just a place to live, it's a way to get free money from other people who need a place to live, so people who have more money than they need for their immediate expenses are incentivized to buy housing just to rent it out, which makes owning more expensive, making more people stuck renting, which makes owning even more valuable to those who can afford it, raising the price of ownership, etc in a vicious cycle.
There are many good reasons to rent. And the problem isn't necessarily renting, its the political tax incentives that create the disparities. Again, most real estate laws were changed in the 80's and 90's to favor capital. This could easily be changed to balance the benefits. For instance, why not split the RE tax deduction 50/50 between landlord and renter? You could also apply this to depreciation [although that would get messy]. There are ways to create more equity (npi).
Renting is the obvious choice when starting out, first, because you generally have little capital available, and second, you are probably going to be reasonably transient. One of the best things anybody can do when they relocate is to rent for a year or two in order to get to know the area before you buy. Perhaps you'll decide it's not working for you [or your job didn't work out or whatever].
As you may know, buying a house is a huge commitment not only financially, but emotionally and every other way. The present system sucks the life out of buyers with the endless fees, costs, taxes, etc. Again, housing morphed into just another financialization scheme designed in the 80's to replace the real industrial economy that was outsourced so the few could live like kings and queens. Worked quite well.
I don't follow this. Getting something for nothing (nothing of their own at least) is exactly what capitalists do capitalism for. Being able to generate profit just from owning things that other people have to pay you to use is the core of capitalism.
In my ideal world, everybody would work for themselves. No parasites.
You can't hope for much forward movement in this world when so many people do nothing with their knowledge other than manipulate the system while creating no wealth (but plenty of grief), thus is revealed purpose of every political system (simply a clearinghouse to connect those who give brides with those who take them).
Jack CumminsJanuary 13, 2021 at 16:54#4883000 likes
Reply to baker
I just wish to point out that you say that the Nazi's may not have loathed themselves and they killed themselves because they did not want to live with an inferior race. The whole point Hitler was making was about wanting to destroy inferior people. This captures the whole problem underlying prejudiced hatred, which is the belief that one is superior to others.
Oh. He's looking to "own" a leftist. They don't have many forums open to them these days
Indeed. This is one of the few places on the internet someone will be remain able to have that kind of conversation in good faith. And a willing sucker like me is willing to put in the time as a left symbol for a stranger to work out his emotional issues on. @counterpunch here seems to be a species of Brit whose heart is for worker populism and class politics but whose media diet has lead him to forget what those actually looked like in Britain.
Labour needs another Blair - not another Corbyn, because the working man wants capitalism with a social conscience; not to seize the means of production. He has no such aspiration. He never has done. All that Marxian bullshit is another middle class idea of the working class interest - like political correctness. If Labour ever want power again, they need a centrist pitch - like Blair's Third Way. Not political correctness, nothing to the left of Clause IV, but a practical pitch for government that recognises the value of business, so that he can go out and earn a decent living.
You demand I answer for the actions of my ancestors? My working class ancestors built the Labour Party from nothing to represent their interests relative to the owners of the means of production. And you've abandoned us, to weep bitterly and constantly on behalf of everyone but us - while the owners of the means of production have privatised everything, sold off council housing, destroyed the unions, cut pensions, ended job security, imposed zero hours contracts...etc, etc, and I'd still vote for them before a Labour Party overrun by people like you!
This confusion isn't really his fault. In the UK, @counterpunch's brand of populism is articulated along class lines. It's a rather effective bridge builder; the UK's older left leaners (like over 30) have lived through a time of worsening conditions for the lowest earners and the erosion of state institutions by replacing them with public-private partnerships; it started (I think) in the 70's with coal, it ripped through public transport, public housing, libraries, education, care work... and the NHS is teetering on the brink of becoming an insurance style system. Both parties agreed on this programme of fostering public-private partnerships, just differed on implementation issues. As Thatcher put it when asked what her greatest legacy was, she replied "New Labour" - that was the Blairites.
The working class regardless of race suffers from all that, and Labour's (rightly in my view) perceived as a lighter shade of corporate corruption than the Tories after 2008 with their banker bailouts. They've been tearing themselves apart for years trying to reconcile their internal contradictions; their base demands that they have to be the party of workerist populism, they have to be the party of cosmopolitan pro-EU middle class and business interest, and they now have to appeal to this nostalgia fuelled nationalist reaction of the UK's working class against the international public-private partnerships Labour helped foster. It's a borderline intractable divide. (If you'd like I can dig up a Youtube video from a political scientist in support of this analysis of the split). And it winds up having people who're talking worker-populist points rallying to support people whose policies go against those points.
counterpunchJanuary 13, 2021 at 16:56#4883020 likes
The implied claim here is that the disparity can be explained by different behaviour when faced with arrest. Do you have evidence for that?
I cited evidence; albeit somewhat anecdotal. Dylan Roof - alive. Michael Brown - dead. Roof - gave up. Brown - resisted. It's not rocket science.
The police don't kill people unless they can't help but do so. The number of arrest related deaths is tiny. 1000 deaths per year, from over 10 million arrests. 0.1% - from all causes, i.e. suicide, overdose, shot by police. etc.
counterpunchJanuary 13, 2021 at 17:03#4883030 likes
I know it's not currently against the rules, but repeatedly making specific factual claims without even an attempt at citation or support (as counterpunch is doing here) is just wasting forum space.
The facts cited are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics - data sets from 2003-2012. I have mentioned this in previous comments. Mentioning it every time I have had to repeat the same points over and over again to try and push the facts past the political correctness goggles of left wing ideologues, would be a waste of forum space. Unlike your comment - which was sooooo worth the pixels.
You can ditch the "somewhat". The reason I ask is this: since the evidence you have is not different from the evidence some random person in a BLM protest is likely to cite, what makes you so certain you are correct (certain enough you're willing to "look like a bastard", in your words)?
There are plenty of poor white people.[enough to affect the conclusion that] Inequality isn't the explanation.
All of these claims require support. There's absolutely no point in maintaining an internet space to act as nothing more than a selective database of what some random people reckon might be the case.
. (If you'd like I can dig up a Youtube video from a political scientist in support of this analysis of the split). And it winds up having people who're talking worker-populist points rallying to support people whose policies go against those points.
If you have time, yes!
So counterpunch really has no one in the government representing his interests? And his sense of having been betrayed by the supposed left has left him more angry at leftists than the tories?
How does racism and anti-semitism enter his worldview? Racial diversity just magnifies his sense of living on unstable ground?
counterpunchJanuary 13, 2021 at 17:28#4883170 likes
Reply to Echarmion I cited anecdotal evidence for the idea that resisting arrest is more likely to get you shot. It's common knowledge that police don't judge the crimes people commit. That's not their role. They arrest people who are suspected of committing crimes. If the courts then prove they committed those crimes, the courts sentence them. The police only arrest people, and if someone resists arrest, they use force - sometimes lethal force.
It's repeating statistics over and over that makes me look like a bastard. But that is Bureau of Justice Statistics data, that shows the BLM narrative is a false narrative - created by left wing ideologues under the cover of political correctness. No-one challenges it because political correctness is an aggressive, oppressive dogma. But black people commit more crime, more violent crime - and so, perhaps, are more likely to resist arrest.
Michael Brown resisted arrest, George Floyd resisted arrest, Breonna Taylor's boyfriend opened fire on police and she ended up dead. It's fairly easy to conclude that if they'd complied, they wouldn't have died.
"The market" is not something that exists like a market in your local town. It's a theoretical model that explains the formation of price according to supply and demand, if certain conditions are met.
In another sense, a "market" is just a descriptive term for transactions that happen in a specific region or concerning a specific ware.
In either case all that a market can be said to control is the price and distribution of goods, but not who profits from their production, how they use those profits etc.
The market is more than just price discovery as anybody who has been cancelled can attest. It's an all encompassing force that players on all sides attempt to manipulate to their own advantage.
Although quite obedient to the demands of capital over the last several decades, I remember the catch-phase, "look for the union label," and I am notthat old.
Regardless of how we wish to define it, I believe we can both agree that the freer the market, the more the price of any commodity reflects the actual value contained (which is most important to having a highly efficient economy).
counterpunchJanuary 13, 2021 at 17:41#4883240 likes
All of these claims require support. There's absolutely no point in maintaining an internet space to act as nothing more than a selective database of what some random people reckon might be the case.
The people here are not random. They are self selecting. They are here to share and discuss ideas. Not all ideas require support. It's perfectly acceptable to express an opinion. Like you did when you said:
"There's absolutely no point in maintaining an internet space to act as nothing more than a selective database of what some random people reckon might be the case."
It would be bizarre to demand, can you support that opinion with evidence? Nonetheless, I think we've all learned something from the fact you said it!
Kenosha KidJanuary 13, 2021 at 17:47#4883270 likes
Resisting arrest is not an explanation for murdering someone *after* they're cuffed. Condoning racist murder with such obviously flawed argumentation is disgusting.
counterpunchJanuary 13, 2021 at 17:47#4883280 likes
How does racism and anti-semitism enter his worldview? Racial diversity just magnifies his sense of living on unstable ground?
No. I'm perfectly fine with a diverse society. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of political correctness - and the weakness of political correctness given the tendency of Labour to abdicate from major political crises (brexit) and disappear up its own arse in search of anti-Semites. I have no problem with Jewish people, or black people, or anyone else. But I do have a problem with political correctness - not least that it leaves people like me, lacking political representation.
Just reading through this thread, it seems to me that the site rules would benefit from something against this sort of posting habit. I know it's not currently against the rules, but repeatedly making specific factual claims without even an attempt at citation or support (as counterpunch is doing here) is just wasting forum space.
This is not a scientific journal, only a discussion between interested parties. You can choose to agree or disagree. Obviously you have access to the internet, so you can do your own research and counter arguments.
If we follow your notion of correct conduct, then where does one draw the line? Can any thought be original or do we need to certify such via a lexicon of acceptable thinking?
Even if this was a scientific journal, any breakthrough requires taking accepted thought and jumping up and down on it until it is no longer recognized as truth.
Kenosha KidJanuary 13, 2021 at 17:53#4883320 likes
Even if this was a scientific journal, any breakthrough requires taking accepted thought and jumping up and down on it until it is no longer recognized as truth.
Via the complete opposite approach to unsubstantiated claim.
The market is more than just price discovery as anybody who has been cancelled can attest. It's an all encompassing force that players on all sides attempt to manipulate to their own advantage.
As I have said before, the idea that the market is some kind of "force" is unfounded. There is no such thing. It goes back to Smith's "invisible hand", by which he meant: God.
Regardless of how we wish to define it, I believe we can both agree that the freer the market, the more the price of any commodity reflects the actual value contained (which is most important to having a highly efficient economy).
That depends on how we define "free" as well. So it's one of those statements that's true by definition, but the devil is in the details.
I cited anecdotal evidence for the idea that resisting arrest is more likely to get you shot.
You're not answering my question, but then this seems something that people who agree with you always seem to do - never answer the question, but always repeat your claims.
counterpunchJanuary 13, 2021 at 21:31#4884070 likes
Resisting arrest is not an explanation for murdering someone *after* they're cuffed. Condoning racist murder with such obviously flawed argumentation is disgusting.
Floyd was arrested. He resisted arrest. He was restrained. The restraint may have contributed to his death. What was racist about it? What was murder - about it? You're the one employing flawed argumentation?
Kenosha KidJanuary 13, 2021 at 21:59#4884140 likes
May have? It was videoed. You are without doubt the most disgusting individual I've ever really encountered, conversationally speaking.
counterpunchJanuary 13, 2021 at 22:00#4884150 likes
Reply to frank Labour were built by my forefathers to represent me, but I cant vote for a Labour party overrun with politically correct, far left ideologues. They don't represent me, they represent blacks, gays, women, trannies - anyone before me. They're too easily distracted by some politically correct twitter mob witch-hunt to form a government I can trust in a crisis. The Tories don't represent me except maybe in some distant trickle down fashion - which is only ever so slightly better than the nothing Labour have to offer.
I has high hopes for Starmer after Comrade Corbyn was rejected by the electorate - then he unequivocally endorsed gender self identification and leapt to his knees for Black Lies Matter. So had Starmer not heard of GIDS, and the 30 or more therapists that quit since 2016, citing politically correct pressure to hand out puberty blockers to dysphoric children? Did Starmer not check out the stats on the number of Arrest Related Deaths - or did he endorse Black Lies Matter on the basis of politically correct pretence alone?
I don't want a government with less strength of character and less integrity than 30 gender therapists - who don't unequivocally endorse gender self identification, especially in children. Nor do I want a government that lacks the presence of mind to do two minuets googling before abasing themselves before an organisation burning and looting homes and businesses across the pond on the basis of a false narrative.
Labour were built by my forefathers to represent me, but I cant vote for a Labour party overrun with politically correct, far left ideologues. They don't represent me, they represent blacks, gays, women, trannies - anyone before me.
I think you're just a bigot.
counterpunchJanuary 13, 2021 at 22:07#4884170 likes
May have? It was videoed. You are without doubt the most disgusting individual I've ever really encountered, conversationally speaking.
Your opinion means less than nothing to me because I have a very great disrespect for the virtue signalling motives behind it. The fact is, you don't know what the cause of death was, and deciding whether it was murder is absolutely not your call.
I imagine you've seen the cell phone footage. You should really watch the leaked police bodycam footage. It paints a very different picture. Watch it and tell me, if it was your job to arrest that man - would you keep him restrained?
Kenosha KidJanuary 13, 2021 at 22:09#4884180 likes
Typical. I'm the white working class majority that Labour used to represent, but now don't because they have been overrun by politically correct ideologues. It's a typical lefty ideologue move to cast insults like bigot and racist at people like me - particularly when they complain that they're not represented by the left.
I'll repeat this again for you slow kids at the back - I don't discriminate against people on the basis of skin colour, gender, sexuality - or any other arbitrary characteristics. I do judge people on the strength of their character. You judge people on the basis of skin colour. You're the racist here. Not me. You discriminate against people like me - with an ideology that makes me last in line because I'm a straight white male.
Kenosha KidJanuary 13, 2021 at 22:25#4884230 likes
I'm the white working class majority that Labour used to represent, but now don't
At least you're clear that it's Labour's perceived failure to represent your whiteness that you hate them for. I mean, not that it was particularly unclear before.
Government should buy up all the poor quality housing stock, demolish it - and build more and better housing on the same site, and then have a government backed rental/ownership scheme - where the money is ploughed back in to fund the purchase of poor quality housing stock, and the building of more and better housing. Self financing solution to the housing crisis!
I could get behind that. It's not a solution to the problem but it's palliative of the symptoms, and harm reduction is priority #1.
in many Third World countries, the end result is too few housing is built and that what is built is likely built only for the richest buyers. Others live in cramped housing and on rent. And when large segment of the population are forced to rent, then in the end of their lives they have nothing to give to the next generation.
So I guess the United States (or at least California) really is a third world country now? Because living this end result first-hand is the origin of my complaints.
the ability for even ordinary people to save by investing in a flat or two
It is mathematically impossible for it to be ordinary for people to own more housing than they use themselves in order to rent it out to others. If everybody ordinarily owned their own housing, then nobody would be renting someone else's excess housing, so there would be no takers if you had excess housing you wanted to rent out. There can only be a rental market when there are some who own more than they need to use, and others who need to use more than they own.
They won't invest, if there's the possibility of very punitive legislation to "help" those who rent.
Good. Stop buying up all the fucking housing for an "investment" at the expense of people who actually need housing to live in.
I've seen those studies often quoted that rent control reduces the availability of housing, and the catch is that it only reduces the availability of rental housing -- because the houses that had been rented out are instead sold off. The reduction in rental housing stock is counteracted by an increase in purchase housing stock. More people buy, fewer people rent. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
In order to do this you'd have to plop down a significant amount of cash and likely cash out investments.
Only in the housing market as it is today. Changing that is the entire point of this exercise. Most people don't have investments to cash out of to put toward housing in the first place. The people who do aren't the ones who are suffering under the current system, and I agree that within the current system it's smarter to keep your money somewhere it grows faster in order to pay down lower service on debts. (It being stupid to do otherwise is precisely why I don't have some super expensive mortgage right now, but instead live in a tiny trailer and am investing elsewhere at least until my investment can put enough down on a house that the mortgage isn't so expensive anymore). My proposal is that there shouldn't be "service on debts" and a huge up-front pile of cash required to begin with: that owning should be as affordable as renting in the short term, and actually result in ownership of housing in the long term.
The world may think they do. You may think you do. But you don't. Calling it a murder is just as absurd as calling it racist.
Watch it and tell me, if it was your job to arrest that man - would you keep him restrained?
— counterpunch
Yes, and once he was restrained, I would not then murder him.[/quote]
Rhetoric. Not even good rhetoric. It's the intellectual equivalent of 'I'm rubber you're glue.' That's what you're doing with a man's death, and four men's careers, you're playing some idiotic virtue signalling game. Please leave me alone.
Kenosha KidJanuary 13, 2021 at 22:44#4884340 likes
Sure, just quit it with the alt-right, racist, fascist propaganda and I'll leave you well alone. Or even better just leave and go back to whatever communication platforms are still open to your backward lot. But every time you post this vile shit on this site, I will name it and condemn it until one or both of us are banned. That's the way it gotta be when you bring your fucked up war here.
The conversation is about @counterpunch refusing to acknowledge reality.
All too common. But given what we might infer from his writing, it's not a surprise that he wants you to back down. What he is claiming is nasty. Thank you, Kenosha, for calling these lies out.
Kenosha KidJanuary 13, 2021 at 23:52#4884530 likes
Reply to Kenosha Kid
I don't agree with too much counterpunch has said but I'm pretty sure he isn't alt-right, racist or fascist. He isn't condoning anything by saying George Floyd resisted arrest, anyone can see that he did. As I said, don't agree with his comments but you sound ridiculous. This is not the first time, stop mislabeling people with whatever you think sounds bad just because you don't like what they have to say. If he's really that bad, at least try not to appear worse?
Even if this was a scientific journal, any breakthrough requires taking accepted thought and jumping up and down on it until it is no longer recognized as truth.
— synthesis
Via the complete opposite approach to unsubstantiated claim.
Science can be as political as every other institution, e.g., the story of BIG tobacco.
The market is more than just price discovery as anybody who has been cancelled can attest. It's an all encompassing force that players on all sides attempt to manipulate to their own advantage.
— synthesis
As I have said before, the idea that the market is some kind of "force" is unfounded. There is no such thing. It goes back to Smith's "invisible hand", by which he meant: God.
By force, what is meant is that there are innumerable factors that affect markets. If some would like to include, God, why the hell not!?
Regardless of how we wish to define it, I believe we can both agree that the freer the market, the more the price of any commodity reflects the actual value contained (which is most important to having a highly efficient economy).
— synthesis
That depends on how we define "free" as well. So it's one of those statements that's true by definition, but the devil is in the details.
Science can be as political as every other institution, e.g., the story of BIG tobacco.
That's a very good example of how, despite biases introduced by large, powerful vested interests, the truth will out. Despite investment and collusion, we do now have a consensus in both the scientific and political community that smoking causes unnecessary death.
I somehow think that is not the point you wanted to make...
Science can be as political as every other institution, e.g., the story of BIG tobacco.
— synthesis
That's a very good example of how, despite biases introduced by large, powerful vested interests, the truth will out. Despite investment and collusion, we do now have a consensus in both the scientific and political community that smoking causes unnecessary death.
I somehow think that is not the point you wanted to make...
The truth always comes out...eventually...but generally well after the profits have been taken and legal liabilities have lapsed.
Science is not what most believe it to be (on all levels).
...repeatedly making specific factual claims without even an attempt at citation or support (as counterpunch is doing here) is just wasting forum space.
Counterpunch is factually wrong on several points. Yet you said Quoting synthesis
If we follow your notion of correct conduct, then where does one draw the line? Can any thought be original or do we need to certify such via a lexicon of acceptable thinking?
Science may not be what most people believe it is; but we can make good use of it here, and should do. We can help the truth out.
Hm. You appeared to disagree with Isaac when he asked again for @counterpunch to provide justification...
...repeatedly making specific factual claims without even an attempt at citation or support (as counterpunch is doing here) is just wasting forum space.
— Isaac
Counterpunch is factually wrong on several points. Yet you said
I never suggested he was factually wrong. I've seen those same statistics many times.
If we follow your notion of correct conduct, then where does one draw the line? Can any thought be original or do we need to certify such via a lexicon of acceptable thinking?
— synthesis
Science may not be what most people believe it is; but we can make good use of it here, and should do. We can help the truth out.
What I was getting at is that science (similar to religion) can be used to prove just about anything, so when you hear people say, "Listen to the science," you best duck as to miss being buried in grade A BS.
Again, science is a tool and you must work with it within its limitations (which most people do not get). Science has a language of its own, one that is manipulated to orchestrate pretty much whatever needs to take place.
Another example is BIG Pharma, a group of people that should probably spend the next 50 years in prison for the crimes they've committed against the American people.
The truth only needs to be left alone (like everybody and everything else).
The raw data is very simple and the explanation is obvious. Black people commit more violent crime. Violent offenders are more likely to get shot.
Wilfully ignoring the detail.
Science is a process, not a doctrine. That does not mean that it is not factual. Scientific evidence may be used in support of untruths, but it does not prove them.
The odd thing about science, on which you and I will agree, is that despite this, it is quite useful.
Of course, it doesn’t mean all conservatives are stupid, and we have some few capable conservative commentators amongst our members. But a bias towards the left would be expected in a forum such as this, and is indicative of the quality of the contributors... in the main.
Science is a process, not a doctrine. That does not mean that it is not factual. Scientific evidence may be used in support of untruths, but it does not prove them.
The odd thing about science, on which you and I will agree, is that despite this, it is quite useful.
I'll let counterpunch fight his own battles.
I am professionally trained in science and agree vis a vis its utility, but it has SERIOUS limitations which the lay public fails to comprehend.
Policy should never be made using only science. There are many more things of greater importance as science can only point you in the right direction (perhaps). Often, it's the opposite case where science is waaaay off the mark (and in the long run, this is ALWAYS the case).
If I can change the subject...being new to this forum and interested in what's taking place in the country, I am would be interested in what the current definition of "left" is. Can you help me out here?
Over here, Labour Party - Left. Liberal Party - Right. The Liberals are a centre, liberal economic party that is distorted by a small number of very conservative idiot politicians and a media run for corporate interests. Labour is a traditional socialist party with the usual personality disorder.
StreetlightJanuary 14, 2021 at 02:54#4885090 likes
Over here, Labour Party - Left. Liberal Party - Right. The Liberals are a centre, liberal economic party that is distorted by a small number of very conservative idiot politicians and a media run for corporate interests. Labour is a traditional socialist party with the usual personality disorder.
I live in the People's Republic of California. It seems as if the "left" has taken the extremist path (which never works out very well) and I am wondering why.
According to their website (which was changed after getting some bad press), they were anti-nuclear family, a position that might be called a bit extreme. The three founders were Marxist-trained (whatever that means), another position that would be considered extreme in the U.S. Passively advocating violence, etc.
StreetlightJanuary 14, 2021 at 03:36#4885210 likes
According to their website (which was changed after getting some bad press), they were anti-nuclear family,
I can't see anything about this - Link? In what way were they anti - do they want to ban them or what?
Marxist-trained - they went to University? If you never encountered Marx, you're not educated; but what did they do, go to a reeducation camp or something?
And what aspects of their agenda have the Democrats adopted, that are objectionable?
I can't see anything about this - Link? In what way were they anti - do they want to ban them or what?
Marxist-trained - they went to University? If you never encountered Marx, you're not educated; but what did they do, go to a reeducation camp or something?
And what aspects of their agenda have the Democrats adopted, that are objectionable?
Obviously you're not familiar with the group, but thank you anyway. Enjoyed the conversation!
Shit, I hate it when folk refuse to back up their claims.
I am familiar with the group. Just not with your claims about them. I went to the nominal web site and did a search, but found nothing that supported your claim, nor was there anything in the WIki article.
Shit, I hate it when folk refuse to back up their claims.
I am trying to polite and nice so please don't play games with me. I know you know who they are, after all, who doesn't?
My original question was about why you believe the left has chosen to go to the extreme when the results of such is never good (right or left). What works is the center, a compromise including progressive and conservative ideas. Do you disagree?
According to their website (which was changed after getting some bad press), they were anti-nuclear family, a position that might be called a bit extreme. The three founders were Marxist-trained (whatever that means), another position that would be considered extreme in the U.S. Passively advocating violence, etc.
My original question was about why you believe the left has chosen to go to the extreme when the results of such is never good (right or left). What works is the center, a compromise including progressive and conservative ideas. Do you disagree?
It's important that you back up your claim, because it would give me an indication of what you think the "extreme" left is; then I might be able to tell you if I think they are in the extreme left...
My theory is that what is considered centre in the USA is well to the right of what is considered centre elsewhere; specifically, the centre in Australia would generally be taken to be between the socialist Labour Party and the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party would be roughly equivalent to the Democrats, were their policies not distorted by pandering to conservatives.
So, yes, I'm all for stopping the game playing. Tell me specifically what it is that BLM want, that has been accepted by the Democrats, that is unacceptable to you?
So, yes, I'm all for stopping the game playing. Tell me specifically what it is that BLM want, that has been accepted by the Democrats, that is unacceptable to you?
As far as I can tell, they wanted to get Trump out of office. Otherwise, they seem to be concerned about the 10-15 unarmed black men killed each year by white law enforcement officers and that's about it.
The effort by all the different factions (that wanted to get rid of Trump) certainly seemed to pay-off, but there is always a backlash when extreme measures are employed (terrorizing individuals and businesses in several U.S. cities).
I believe that the amazing progress that a great many in the black community have made over the past several decades has been dealt a severe blow by the entire systemic racism narrative for so many different reasons. Calling an entire race of people racist in the most un-racist country in the world seems a bit extreme, no?
...they seem to be concerned about the 10-15 unarmed black men killed each year
Not unreasonable, given the difference between deaths of unarmed black and white men at the hands of police... again, we might agree that this is not extreme.
Hmm. Here we start to differ more directly. It seems to me beyond doubt that there is endemic racism in the US. Here, Too. I also think it needs to be called out. Is it systematic? Something systematic is wrong, given the disproportionate number of blacks in incarceration.
The figures on incarceration are worse for Indigenous Australians, and I support efforts here to identify systematic reasons for this and eradicate them.
...they seem to be concerned about the 10-15 unarmed black men killed each year
— synthesis
Not unreasonable, given the difference between deaths of unarmed black and white men at the hands of police... again, we might agree that this is not extreme.
What's extreme is they don't seem to care about the massive black-on-black carnage that's going on in several U.S. cities.
...backlash...
— synthesis
To what are you referring? What backlash? Folk voting for Trump? Folk invading the Capitol?
...terrorizing individuals and businesses...
— synthesis
Riots? Yeah, not nice. But it gets attention.
Not nice? Do you have any idea what went down here last summer? How about if it was your father that was murdered, or your house or business that was burned-down?
systemic racism narrative...
— synthesis
Hmm. Here we start to differ more directly. It seems to me beyond doubt that there is endemic racism in the US. Here, Too. I also think it needs to be called out. Is it systematic? Something systematic is wrong, given the disproportionate number of blacks in incarceration.
There is endemic everything everywhere. We are human beings and we all do lots of stupid stuff but (on the whole) things have improved drastically over the past decades. There is enough blame to go around but you do NOT blame an entire race of people for something that happened 99% in the past.
Calling an entire race of people racist in the most un-racist country in the world seems a bit extreme, no?
— synthesis
Sure. Who did that, then? Citation?
This is what the systemic racism narrative is, no? I cannot provide you with specific references but I've seen it time and time again in blogs, on TV, in the news, EVERYWHERE.
Look, everybody knows that blacks have had it harder everywhere in the world. And I have never met anybody who thinks this is a good thing or doesn't want to see the situation resolve itself, but you cannot blame innocent people and tell them they are racist. That will not end well and this is why I asked you why such an extreme posture was embraced by the left. Does the left really believe they can upend the entire world order overnight?
As far as I can tell, in the U.S., money is still green so that's really the only color that means shit here.
This is what the systemic racism narrative is, no? I cannot provide you with specific references
Here's a reference: The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein.
The 'color of law" doesn't refer to race. It means "under the cover of law", like the law under which the FHA operated for many years.
The Color of Law is a study of one large piece of racism which was systemic: the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) started in 1935 helped finance new suburban housing for white people and urban high-rise rental housing for blacks. Racially mixed neighborhoods were denied financial backing, which encouraged their slide into slums--mostly occupied by black people.
If you read much about urban history (Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis, Los Angeles, etc.) you will find other examples of systemic racism -- that is, racial discrimination that operated consistently and over time.
Urban history doesn't account for all racial disadvantage. Plenty of racial bias was and is unsystematic, individualized, inconsistent, and persistent.
What's extreme is they don't seem to care about the massive black-on-black carnage that's going on in several U.S. cities.
Don't they? I don't have access to much information; so isn't this a different, albeit related, issue? Again, even if true, that wouldn't make them extreme, in my view, just focused.
Not nice? Do you have any idea what went down here last summer? How about if it was your father that was murdered, or your house or business that was burned-down?
There is endemic everything everywhere. We are human beings and we all do lots of stupid stuff but (on the whole) things have improved drastically over the past decades.
Yes, things get better; at least in part because of the efforts of activists.
There is enough blame to go around but you do NOT blame an entire race of people for something that happened 99% in the past....
This is what the systemic racism narrative is, no? I cannot provide you with specific references but I've seen it time and time again in blogs, on TV, in the news, EVERYWHERE.
...so it should not be hard for you to find a citation.
...but you cannot blame innocent people and tell them they are racist. .
I understand that recognising one's privilege is difficult. You and I benefited from racism, even if we did not participate. Again, who has blamed which innocent people? Something concrete on which we can continue the conversation.
That will not end well and this is why I asked you why such an extreme posture was embraced by the left. Does the left really believe they can upend the entire world order overnight?
I'm still having trouble seeing what it is you see as extreme... voting Trump out?
As far as I can tell, in the U.S., money is still green so that's really the only color that means shit here.
Is this in reference to my comments about social security? Seems to me that following the dollar has been taken to an extreme in the US. There's an interesting conversation to be had about the role of the myth of individual accomplishment here.
Edit: that you are here might indicate that you are interested in considering different perspectives. Well done. I like it here because just occasionally I am forced to reconsider my views. Show me something to make me reconsider.
I understand that recognising one's privilege is difficult. You and I benefited from racism, even if we did not participate. Again, who has blamed which innocent people? Something concrete on which we can continue the conversation.
Maybe we should make all tall people shorter, good looking people plainer, smart people dumber, so on and so forth? Yes, certain people have advantages.
The bottom-line...you cannot makes things better by making them worse. People are not equal and never will be. That does not mean you can not make things fairer and they are getting better. More importantly, you play the hand you are dealt with the greatest amount of effort and skill you can muster.
This entire racist thing was a political scam like it always is. After all, the Democrats in the U.S. have used black people for political gain since the 60's. If they really cared, would so many Democratically controlled cities look like they do? It's a disgrace.
...you cannot makes things better by making them worse...
Again, who is making them worse? Read over this discussion again, and ask yourself how you went. Go back to here, were I asked you about the importance of science. Then there was Quoting synthesis
It seems as if the "left" has taken the extremist path
and my asking you to explain what you saw as extreme. Did you succeed? The accusations that BLM are anti-family and marxist trained - unsupported and unverified, and not extreme even if they were. Voting Trump out - not extreme; utterly reasonable. This:Quoting synthesis
There is endemic everything everywhere. We are human beings and we all do lots of stupid stuff but (on the whole) things have improved drastically over the past decades. There is enough blame to go around but you do NOT blame an entire race of people for something that happened 99% in the past.
Sure, we muddle along, trying to fix stuff up. That's what BLM are doing. But who is blaming an entier race?
How well supported is your rejection of what you call "the Left"?
Maybe we should make all tall people shorter, good looking people plainer, smart people dumber, so on and so forth? Yes, certain people have advantages.
The bottom-line...you cannot makes things better by making them worse. People are not equal and never will be. That does not mean you can not make things fairer and they are getting better.
Isn't fairness a zero sum game? How can you make things fairer without increasing the advantages of the disadvantaged and decreasing the advantages of the advantaged?
Otherwise, they seem to be concerned about the 10-15 unarmed black men killed each year by white law enforcement officers and that's about it.
BLM leaders made the strategic decision to focus on black deaths at the hands of the police, who are agents of civil power. That isn't the choice I would have made -- but I am not black or part of BLM. Simultaneously campaigning effectively against police abuse (which, to be fair, is larger than the issue of black deaths caused by police) and black-on-black killings is problematic. Problematic because the two issues run in opposite directions with different stakeholders. And, to be frank, young blacks killing other young blacks just isn't an issue around which one can build a very large coalition.
The Mad Dads (black men) have made black-on-black deaths their issue. They don't organize big marches and demonstrations; they focus on small interventions in neighborhoods involving dozens of people rather than thousands. It would be difficult for them to take on police abuse at the same time.
It takes very large, well funded organizations to attack multiple issues at the same time--say, the environment, distribution of wealth, over population, racism, sexism, and the role of social media in society. For that there are governments, political parties (for worse or for better), the UN, and big NGOs.
The whole point Hitler was making was about wanting to destroy inferior people. This captures the whole problem underlying prejudiced hatred, which is the belief that one is superior to others.
But you don't believe you are equal to the Nazis, or that the Nazis are equal to you, do you? Exactly.
Kenosha KidJanuary 14, 2021 at 08:08#4885750 likes
Hmm, true, I misrepresented you there, my bad. Doesn't change my main* point though.
If your main point is that people who support far-right violent insurrectionists, who engage in baseless racist propaganda, and who promote propaganda about how whites are being oppressed are beyond naming or criticism or the contempt of decent people, your main point is wrong. If your main point is that counterpunch didn't do these things, you are also wrong. Either way, you seem to be continuing as you began.
Jack CumminsJanuary 14, 2021 at 08:44#4885990 likes
Reply to baker
You say that,
'You don't believe that you are equal to the Nazi's or that the Nazi's are equal to you. Exactly.'
I think you are suggesting that each of us believes in some kind of superiority, and would imply that I think that I am "better' than the Nazi's. Of course I don't condone what the Nazi's did. But I would say that it is still problematic when people do try to see themselves as better, including morally better, than others.
Of course I don't condone what the Nazi's did. But I would say that it is still problematic when people do try to see themselves as better, including morally better, than others.
But then this points right back at you. How do you respond to that?
Jack CumminsJanuary 14, 2021 at 09:21#4886130 likes
Reply to baker
I would say that obviously every one has to have a point of view or we would be like jellyfish floating in a sea of unknowing but the danger is moral or political arrogance. It is so easy evil on to to project onto others, whether it is Hitler or Bin Laden.
Really, what I have been trying to say in the brief snippets of discussion I have been having with you is that prejudiced hatred arises from projecting on to others. It is not an easy problem to address but our own sense of superiority can be damaging.
With the few comments I have made, you keep directing them back at me. I have awareness that any comment which I make about others has personal significance too. I am aware of that but I would say that I think that many ignore this dimension. I feel that you are going to tell me that I think that I am superior for saying that and I would say, absolutely not.
It has just been that is the way my own life experiences has led me to think and that I am coming more from a psychological angle than a political one. But I do believe that there is an important dialogue between politics and psychology. The psychological view can benefit from an understanding of the political and the political can gain from a psychological perspective.
Reply to Kenosha Kid
A lot of right-wing speakers who aren't racist, fascist or alt-right disagree with the issues around systemic racism, George Floyd, political correctness and even on Trump. This is just politically motivated labelling by you. He hasn't said anything racist, he's said quite a bit which goes against the alt-right ideology and where does the fascism claim come from? Do you actually think you can back any of this shit up? I'm interested @Banno
Does this mean you could join me in telling kenosha kid to stop with the nonsense? Why is saying "he's factually wrong" not good enough? I mean you're the second last person I want to be asking but perhaps he'll listen to you, we don't need to call people "fascist" and "racist" or "alt-right" when they're not, just to make a point.
Kenosha KidJanuary 14, 2021 at 09:43#4886190 likes
A lot of right-wing speakers who aren't racist, fascist or alt-right disagree with the issues around systemic racism, George Floyd, political correctness and even on Trump.
No. There is not a valid right-wing opinion on how Floyd died that differs from the facts. I reject a defense of belittling all victims of racism on post-truth grounds as equally racist. If you have problems with the term "racist", easy solution: don't be it. We're not discussing economic philosophy here: this is racist propaganda that proceeds by the right wing MO of insisting that what we saw was not what we saw, that while the facts establish X, there are alternative facts we can invent that show !X, it just depends on your point of view. Kidding yourself this is fine is one thing; kidding yourself that everyone else will accept it as fine is just straight up dumb.
Reply to Kenosha Kid
Can you even prove the Floyd murder was racially motivated? You shouldn't call someone racist because they say things you don't like - when they're not racist. Just because it's not racist - that doesn't make it okay, you can still be angry just, maybe stop diluting the meaning of important words for political benefit?
@Banno Yes but does being factually wrong make him a racist fascist? What if he's just wrong?
Kenosha KidJanuary 14, 2021 at 10:07#4886250 likes
When the rioting started, I wanted to know what the facts were - and so I looked them up. From 2003-2012, there were on average 10 million arrests per year. There were around 1000 Arrest Related Deaths per year - 42% white, 32% black. That's a 0.1% failure rate in a country where people carry guns. The police are not murdering people. In fact they are incredibly professional. But how to explain the fact that black people are 13% of the population, yet make up 32% of deaths. For that we have to look at the crime stats - and they are fucking abysmal. Black people commit massively more crime than white people. Really, it's shocking. The black 13% of the population commit more murders than the white 76% of the population. Violent crime, drugs, theft - all way above average. Put simply, black people commit more crime.
...The problem is cultural - and it's never going to change until black people take personal responsibility, start to value education and aspire to a socially useful idea of success.
That's not just being wrong.
Do I think him a fascist? I wouldn't use that language. I do think his thinking is - as shown here and elsewhere - shall we say, eccentric... Quoting counterpunch
I was attracted to the forum because I am the most significant philosophical thinker of this, or any other generation - and I'm duty bound to share my uniquely enlightened thoughts, and shepard(sic) humankind into a prosperous and sustainable future
So counterpunch really has no one in the government representing his interests?
I don't think so? I'm assuming @counterpunch is one of those hereditary working class people who got educated (possibly when tuition was free!), then aged only to have the Labour party; traditionally worker-populist; betray 'em. But considering he's advocated here for a neoliberal (public-private partnership expanding) figurehead for Labour by my reckoning he's advocating for exactly the kind of Labour politics that destroyed their reputation in 2008 anyway - elites [hide=**](and "expert" is kinda a dirty word in the UK at this point, it's been ruined to the extent the right wing rags don't seem to use it when making appeals to expertise, eg government epidemiologists are "SAGEs" after their governing body!)[/hide] making unaccountable decisions.
And his sense of having been betrayed by the supposed left has left him more angry at leftists than the tories?
Seems that way? Why are you so angry with "the left" @counterpunch? Does the current activist+Corbynite left zeitgeist of anti-racist, pro-trans, anti-sexist class struggle rhetoric make you feel excluded? Like the left's no longer "for you" since you're white?
Reply to Banno
Hmm, I do see that as being racist, okay, I am not sure if this is enough to warrant kenosha kid's theatrics about it but it is totally unacceptable to blame "black culture" and "black people" for "black crime". I admit page 14 is pretty damning, @Kenosha Kid I may not have called you out if I read this properly, you are not being so unreasonable as I had thought. The way he talks about "white people" and "black people" bothers me a lot. Maybe I'll just sit out for now and make up my mind about this later.
It's a large quantity of wrong. I addressed the part I thought most amenable to progress. If I need advice about what to address from you, I'll give you a heads up but frankly it's well outside your jurisdiction.
Its not wrong that if you question the existence of white privilege you get called a racist. That was the point of what you quoted. Your reply simply doesn't address what I said, but that is expected from you.
Harry HinduJanuary 14, 2021 at 11:42#4886470 likes
Reply to Banno Why? Did he question the existence of white privilege?
Harry HinduJanuary 14, 2021 at 11:57#4886490 likes
Reply to Banno Riiiight. So now you're affiliating me with Brett when I've never spoken to the guy before now? If you had been paying attention, you'd have noticed that I have said that racial slurs are ad hominems, just like calling people racist is. But you and your companions aren't interested in facts, only propaganda.
The funny thing is that if Brett didn't use a racial slur but instead used terms like, "idiot", "moron", or even "shit-ass" or "fuck-face", he wouldn't have even given a second notice, because people think those names are OK to call people.
The fact is that not all blacks are offended by racial slurs, just like not everyone is offended by being called a "dumb-ass". So you are simply taking on yourself of speaking for others for which you dont know anything about, while at the same time generalizing all blacks as if they are all equally offended and interpret the word the same way.
If you had been paying attention, you'd have noticed that I have said that racial slurs are ad hominems, just like calling people racist is. But you and your companions aren't interested in facts, only propaganda.
Meh. Just not much interested in your posts.
Kenosha KidJanuary 14, 2021 at 12:02#4886510 likes
I may not have called you out if I read this properly, you are not being so unreasonable as I had thought. The way he talks about "white people" and "black people" bothers me a lot. Maybe I'll just sit out for now and make up my mind about this later.
Talking about race isn't necessarily racist in the context of other racial prejudice. If you believe racism is negligible, i.e. there is very little evidence to suggest that it exists, well, you're wrong, but at least in your view race arguably shouldn't be a topic. That is not counterpunch's reasoning. His version of racism is to deny that white-on-black racism is real when hundreds of thousands of black people have been enslaved, lynched, segregated, murdered, assaulted and marginalised by it, while on the other hand espousing alt-right propaganda that whites are being oppressed, along with males, straights and cis-gendered persons. The evidence for the existence of white-on-black racism is overwhelming. The evidence for white oppression is non-existent. In addition, he has characterised black people as intrinsically criminal, while bemoaning political parties for not exclusively representing white people.
Racism is very real and very solidly evidenced. It is also unambiguously evil. You say you hadn't read his many offending posts. Frankly I don't buy it. You completely misrepresented my argument from the start, while apparently insisting on a maximal evidential basis for pretty uncontroversial conclusions, a lower bar you cannot possibly insist on in any meaningful discussion.
You're defending someone who claimed that George Floyd cynically said "I can't breathe" because it was a BLM slogan and then you ask me for absolute proof that yet another white cop murdering a defenceless, handcuffed black man is evidence of racism. Sure, whoops, right?
Nevertheless, if the election was a fraud, those people did the right thing. They occupied the seat of power - and that's exactly what people should do if the system is corrupted. Afterall, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution both begin "We, the people...." It belongs to them. It's shameful that a police officer shot someone dead for trying to enter a building that they own.... The people who occupied THIER seat of power to prevent a fraudulent election have nothing to be ashamed of.
Legitimising a violent coup against a democratic government because his lot can't wrap their heads around why Trump was a turn-off is still legitimising a violent coup against a democratic government.
Can you even prove the Floyd murder was racially motivated? You shouldn't call someone racist because they say things you don't like - when they're not racist. Just because it's not racist - that doesn't make it okay, you can still be angry just, maybe stop diluting the meaning of important words for political benefit?
This brings to mind a more general question: I have often felt that when discussing with people who appeared honestly have a different opinion on social issues that the main disagreement was about what could reasonably be concluded from events. What happened was not in doubt, but what it means was.
So, do you think people you characzerize as "left wing", or who are engaged in "social justice" movements often have bad epistemological standards?
That is do you feel they're overinterpreting events? See intent with insufficient evidence? Conclude systemic issues exist based on anecdotal evidence?
More generally, do you feel like the "left wing" tries to make the world more complicated than it is - that things are more often what they appear, and common sense works? Or is it the opposite? Neither?
Reply to Kenosha Kid
I did not talk in-depth about what I thought counterpunch was saying nor my opinions on the matter, you're getting ahead of yourself. I do not have a problem with people talking about race but I do have a problem with saying "race x should do this or needs to stop doing this" for a number of reasons. Mainly, it is ridiculous to hold a race of people accountable, no matter the subject matter. If we allow that then racism becomes justified.
I acknowledge systemic racism and I do not consider it to be negligible. I have talked about this topic many times in the past, you're free to read an example.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8482/does-systemic-racism-exist-in-the-us/p24
There's a lot on this site to show that I am neither soft on racism nor deny its existence.
If I misrepresent your argument and then immediately admit that I did and that I was wrong, why would you insist that I did it on purpose? What did I achieve besides showing that I sometimes misrepresent people, making me look bad and vindicating you immediately, what do I gain by doing that? Also, I just called the guy racist, not doing a very good job of defending him.
Honestly, I was biased against you due to previous posts, I thought I had read enough of this thread to know that you were being unreasonable. I admit I was wrong, his comments about the election fraud are also insane, I am surprised but I see now that your comments are way more justified than I had thought.
I couldn't find the original video with voter demographic breakdown, but I found one with Mark Blyth making largely the same point. (Edit: if you want a longer piece putting the UK's political disintegration and rise of the right alongside the US's, he's got lectures on that too).
This brings to mind a more general question: I have often felt that when discussing with people who appeared honestly have a different opinion on social issues that the main disagreement was about what could reasonably be concluded from events. What happened was not in doubt, but what it means was.
I don't know, I think the left and the right rarely agree on what happened or what is happening. Seeing agreement on anything but moral platitudes like "racism is wrong" but then all similarities ending is what I expect. The main reason for that is that the news media, politicians and so on can be highly manipulative and seeing a totally different understanding of the world based on whether a person watches fox or cnn is to be expected.
That is do you feel they're overinterpreting events? See intent with insufficient evidence? Conclude systemic issues exist based on anecdotal evidence?
I think that both the left and the right hold nuance in contempt and dislike it when things don't fit into their narratives. It's actually very difficult to know for instance, whether racism was involved in an act of police brutality but the left seems sure it's racism and the right are sure it's not racism. The further out you go, the more sure they are. Neither of them can actually prove anything and so it's a bit ridiculous.
More generally, do you feel like the "left wing" tries to make the world more complicated than it is - that things are more often what they appear, and common sense works? Or is it the opposite? Neither?
I think ideologies, whether left or right-wing, are generally about oversimplification rather than over-complication. They take a certain way of looking at the world and force it into every conceivable context.
Kenosha KidJanuary 14, 2021 at 13:51#4886670 likes
I do have a problem with saying "race x should do this or needs to stop doing this" for a number of reasons. Mainly, it is ridiculous to hold a race of people accountable, no matter the subject matter.
How is this relevant? Counterpunch is not a synecdoche for white people. Even the few people I've tussled with on here (Brett, BitcoinCarlos, NOS4A2) do not collectively constitute a synecdoche for white people. Speaking of which:
I was biased against you due to previous posts, I thought I had read enough of this thread to know that you were being unreasonable.
I'm extremely consistent on this point, as are the likes of the above, the most common theme being that murdered black people somehow have it coming, the other being that black people are intrinsically criminal while criminal white people are exceptions, I.e. racist propaganda. So I'm wondering what you see is different about this one. Feel free to PM me if you think there's a point to be made here but don't want to drag it out here. I do take notes.
As for the rest, fine. I, at face value, take your post at face value.
Nevertheless, if the election was a fraud, those people did the right thing. They occupied the seat of power - and that's exactly what people should do if the system is corrupted. Afterall, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution both begin "We, the people...." It belongs to them. It's shameful that a police officer shot someone dead for trying to enter a building that they own.... The people who occupied THIER seat of power to prevent a fraudulent election have nothing to be ashamed of.
Legitimising a violent coup against a democratic government because his lot can't wrap their heads around why Trump was a turn-off is still legitimising a violent coup against a democratic government.
I don't think that above makes him a fascist. Note the "if". The question is that if elections would be fraudulent, naturally then the winner of the elections wouldn't be lawful. And of course if the elections aren't fraudulent, then this act of saying that they were is itself sedition, a thing that might be added there.
And note that those that have accused others of a fraud have been the leadership of the US administration itself. So technically it isn't a coup as a coup is defined as the removal of an existing government. The correct term is a Self-coup or autocoup. This happens when:
A nation's leader, despite having come to power through legal means, dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assumes extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances. Other measures taken may include annulling the nation's constitution, suspending civil courts and having the head of government assume dictatorial powers.
They are my views on what counterpunch has said, specifically on page 14. It is not a criticism directed towards you. As I said, I am not going to defend him and I have no interest in speaking on his behalf.
counterpunchJanuary 14, 2021 at 14:07#4886710 likes
I'm assuming counterpunch is one of those hereditary working class people who got educated (possibly when tuition was free!), then aged only to have the Labour party; traditionally worker-populist; betray 'em. But considering he's advocated here for a neoliberal (public-private partnership expanding) figurehead for Labour by my reckoning he's advocating for exactly the kind of Labour politics that destroyed their reputation in 2008
It's strange how you can be so astute in some respects, and so purblind in others. I was raised in a working class household. I left school, worked in construction and demolition - and attended university as a mature student. I'm the first generation in my family to attend university. I studied sociology and politics. My major concerns upon graduating were not political or sociological - but philosophical and environmental.
Put simply, I discovered, humankind is headed for extinction - not because of capitalist greed, but because we have a mistaken relationship to science. Science is not just a tool; it's a means to establish valid knowledge of reality/Creation - and it's an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality. We are headed for extinction because we fail to understand this, and abuse science by applying it for ideological ends. That said, we cannot secure a sustainable future by tearing down the churches, banks and borders because "it's not true" - we have to get there from here!
Your left wing, anti-capitalist, pay more-have less, carbon tax this, stop that, windmills and solar panels idea of sustainability won't work. It's based on Malthusian pessimism - disproven by 200 years of improved living standards despite a growing population, and the lie of limits to growth. Resources, in fact, are a function of the energy available to create them - not some fixed quantity being used up, that might run out. To secure the future we need massive amounts of clean energy, sufficient to create the resources we need, by extracting carbon from the air and burying it, and desalinating water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation. We need improved living standards - not impoverishment imposed by left wing authoritarian government, not least because poor people tend to breed more.
The energy is available in the interior of the earth. Based on many years of practical construction/demolition experience - I believe it is possible to tap into that energy by drilling through hot volcanic rock, lining the bore hole with pipes and pumping water through, to produce steam to drive turbines, to produce massive, constant, clean, base load electricity. Given that energy, capitalism will be sustainable - and we can look forward to wealthy sustainable markets, and population levelling off at around 12bn people by the year 2100. Without that energy, we cannot secure the future.
It's for these reasons, as much as solidarity with my working class origins - that I point out the left's purblind insanities, Here we're talking about political correctness, but I'd rather be talking about sustainability. Biden's Green New Deal - Europe's Green New Deal, are based on appeasing the same brand of left wing emotional reasoning that informs political correctness. It's all "How dare you?" - and no regard for the facts. It's all self-righteous authoritarianism - and no physics.
So is the solution to ban renting? Does that really make a lot of sense? You know that renting out part of the house can also make paying off a mortgage easier.
counterpunchJanuary 14, 2021 at 14:36#4886780 likes
I'm the first generation in my family to attend university. I studied sociology and politics. My major concerns upon graduating were not political or sociological - but philosophical and environmental.
Same, but I went into STEM for statistics in the hope of becoming more employable. Not as a mature student though. When you grow up in a place where people leave a state school[hide=*] (it was under review for closing due to "under performance" twice when I was there)[/hide] expecting to be "on the dole" because there's no jobs anywhere nearby, you wanna get the fuck out if you at all can. The choices looked like "join the army and go to Afghanistan or Iraq" or be a student.
Your left wing, anti-capitalist, pay more-have less, carbon tax this, stop that, windmills and solar panels idea of sustainability won't work. It's based on Malthusian pessimism - disproven by 200 years of improved living standards despite a growing population, and the lie of limits to growth. Resources, in fact, are a function of the energy available to create them - not some fixed quantity being used up, that might run out.
I think you're right to say that there are better technologies to use to provide green increases in living standards, interpreting it literally you're very wrong though; oil and its derivatives are finite. That's a major problem.
We need improved living standards - not impoverishment imposed by left wing authoritarian government, not least because poor people tend to breed more.
I really wish you'd voted for Corbyn. From their 2019 Manifesto:
That’s why Labour will kick-start a Green Industrial Revolution that will create one million jobs in the UK to transform our industry, energy, transport, agriculture and our buildings, while restoring nature. Our Green New Deal aims to achieve the substantial majority of our emissions reductions by 2030 in a way that is evidence-based, just and that delivers an economy that serves the interests of the many, not the few.
Just as the original Industrial Revolution brought industry, jobs and pride to our towns, Labour’s world-leading Green Industrial Revolution will rebuild them, with more rewarding, well-paid jobs, lower energy bills and whole new industries to revive parts of our country that have been neglected for too long. For some, industrial transition has become a byword for devastation, because successive Conservative governments were content to sit back and leave the fate of whole industries and communities at the mercy of market forces. A Labour government will never let that happen.
We will work in partnership with the workforce and their trade unions in every sector of our economy, so that they lead the transition in their industries, creating new, good-quality jobs and making sure that their extensive skills are passed on to the next generation of workers.
We will show the world how prioritising sustainability will not only deliver immediate improvements to everyone’s lives but also offer humanity a pathway to a more equitable and enlightened economy: one that protects our environment, reins in corporate power, revitalises democracy, unites our communities, builds international solidarity and promises a better quality of life for all. The scale of the challenge requires nothing less.
Tackling the destruction of our planet is a question of justice – for the communities at home and abroad who are most affected by it and for our children who will bear the consequences if we don’t. Social justice will define Labour’s approach. We will make sure that the costs of the green transition fall fairly and are mostly borne by the wealthy and those most responsible for the problem
The facts of the matter are green energy transitions are huge coordination problems and costly, government involvement is required to address both those things. Why are you so filled with vitriol against a trend which wants the same things as you - green democratising reform?
counterpunchJanuary 14, 2021 at 15:05#4886850 likes
Reply to fdrake We all want much the same things. The question is how we bring that about. Do you really believe that de-platforming straight white males is a way to bring about greater tolerance and understanding? Do you really believe we can eek out our existence by wearing second hand clothes, not eating meat, and sailing across the Atlantic? Do you really believe we can have a Green Industrial Revolution while simultaneously disenfranchising business?
What Corbyn's Labour party (within a Party) fail to realise is that the Invisible Hand at the heart of capitalism is a miracle that affords personal and political freedom - while producing and distributing the goods and services people want and need, without authoritarian government deciding what is produced, and who gets what and when.
Without that magical coordination of the self interested economic decisions of people in a free market, all decision making is invested in government, and one aged, charismatic leader you worship like a God, or get de-platformed - often, quite literally. There's a reason Communism so often runs to genocide. There's a reason Communism always fails to produce the idealist, equalitarian plenty it aspires to at its birth. It's not what you want. We want much the same things. It's how you would aim to bring it about. Corbyn's left of Clause IV rhetoric gives me chills. Political correctness gives me chills. I see gulags in your future.
The question is how we bring that about. Do you really believe that de-platforming straight white males is a way to bring about greater tolerance and understanding?
No one's going into Burns Nights and shutting them down for being white supremacist events promoting a pasty poet are they? Do me a favour will you, give me a list of events in which white men were deplatformed for being white men, You don't just get to list events there with your interpretation, you have to establish that white men are being deplatformed for being white men.
counterpunchJanuary 14, 2021 at 15:28#4886910 likes
Reply to fdrake White privilege is a concept that delegitimises opinions based on skin colour. The infamous example is that of Lawrence Fox on Question Time - told by a woman in the audience that he couldn't have an opinion on the British Royal family because he's white. How the FUCK are you so purblind to what's going on in the name of political correctness?
Kenosha KidJanuary 14, 2021 at 15:42#4886950 likes
Its not wrong that if you question the existence of white privilege you get called a racist. That was the point of what you quoted. Your reply simply doesn't address what I said, but that is expected from you.
Who and when on these forums have generalized whites by using terms like, "white privilege"? Lots of people in this forum. And when you disagree with them and point out the weak points of their argument, they call you a "racist".
— Harry Hindu
Well either it is advantageous to be white in which case generally white people are privileged in that respect, or racism doesn't manifest itself statistically. Since racism is statistically manifest, it is generally advantageous to be white.
In short, either white privilege is real and denying it is denying its victims, or white privilege isn't real in which case we should see no evidence of it. Not sure how you're missing the connection here. If I live in a racist society, and I am advantaged by that, and I refute the existence of that racism, I am protecting a racist society, therefore am racist.
Kenosha KidJanuary 14, 2021 at 15:43#4886960 likes
And note that those that have accused others of a fraud have been the leadership of the US administration itself.
This is a substitution error. The subject was not people accusing other people of fraud, baseless or otherwise. The subject was violent insurrectionists attacking and killing police with the intent to attack and kill lawmakers.
Kenosha KidJanuary 14, 2021 at 15:50#4886970 likes
So is the solution to ban renting? Does that really make a lot of sense? You know that renting out part of the house can also make paying off a mortgage easier.
No, the solution to a problem is not always to ban it. I don't actually think there is a solution, not one that reverses the damage anyway. Either we price most people out of the housing market to be exploited by landlords charging exorbitant rents, or we act to reverse the housing price rise and effectively sink the value of private property. It's lose-lose, which is why it should have been regulated ages ago.
Effectively making housing an investment opportunity meant naturally drawing those with capital to snap it up in large quantities and drive up its price. Housing should not be about making money: it's a basic necessity.
The infamous example is that of Lawrence Fox on Question Time - told by a woman in the audience that he couldn't have an opinion on the British Royal family because he's white.
The worst part about engaging in good faith with people like yourself is that I actually have to fucking check your sources just in case what you're saying is right. All that to avoid filterbubbling myself.
Rachel Boyle: "The problem we've got with this is that Megan has agreed to be Harry's wife and then the press have torn her to pieces. And let's be really clear about what this is, let's call it by its name, it's racism. She's a black woman and she has been torn to pieces"
Lawrence Fox interrupts: "No it's not, we're the most tolerant lovely country in Europe, you can't just throw the charge of racism at everybody, it's really starting to get boring now..."
Rachel Boyle: "The worst thing about your comment is that you are a white privileged male"
Lawrence Fox interrupts, groaning, the audience joins in, some applaud: "Ohhh god, I can't help what I am. I was born like this it's an immutable characteristic, so to call me a white privileged male is to be racist"
Rachel Boyle: "You cannot dismiss..."
The Question time hosts then interrupt her again and move segment.
If you look at it in context, the reason Boyle invoked the concept of "white privilege" was because Fox was hostilely dismissive of the claim that the reason the press tore Megan to shreds for marrying Harry had anything to do with her skin colour. If you look at it, privilege is invoked quite precisely as being informative of Fox's perspective which he expressed in the statement, and his hostile, groaning dismissal of the very idea that the British tabloids went apeshit on Harry and Megan in a racially loaded manner. It was actually Fox who interpreted the claim as "shut up because you're white" and acted thusly. Boyle's comments were regarding press coverage.
Considering that the role racism played in how tabloids treated Megan had some evidence for it, it shouldn't've been dismissed outright, and certainly not in Fox's hyperbolic and posturing tone. He head-desked at the very idea that being white in the UK doesn't get you exposed to racism much and thus your perspective may not have a good barometer for racism's presence and extent.
I think you've been living in a filterbubble.
And even if Boyle did want Fox to respond to an accusation of white privilege on a news platform, that already disqualifies it from being a deplatforming event. Unless, of course, you think a charged discussion on a national news platform is deplatforming...
Kenosha KidJanuary 14, 2021 at 16:31#4887080 likes
Considering that the role racism played in how tabloids treated Megan had some evidence for it, it shouldn't've been dismissed outright, and certainly not in Fox's hyperbolic and posturing tone.
Certainly not by Fox full stop. His privilege goes so far beyond his whiteness that his touted authority on ground level Britain ("the most tolerant lovely country in Europe") is quite ridiculous. I'm quite sure Fox's upbringing was lovely and tolerant. And white as snow. But that says nothing about Britain.
Certainly not by Fox full stop. His privilege goes so far beyond his whiteness that his touted authority on ground level Britain ("the most tolerant lovely country in Europe") is quite ridiculous. I'm quite sure Fox's upbringing was lovely and tolerant. And white as snow. But that says nothing about Britain.
Yes. It is quite ridiculous that a scholar of ethnicity and culture in the UK's opinion on whether racism is implicated in an event is dismissed as deplatforming and racism, whereas Fox interrupting her, accusing her of racism and the show itself changing segment was not.
Regardless, the idea that a dialogue between two people on a major news platform is taken as an instance of deplatforming is just nuts. No one was denied access to a venue, and the only person who was interrupted (repeatedly) was Boyle.
Isn't fairness a zero sum game? How can you make things fairer without increasing the advantages of the disadvantaged and decreasing the advantages of the advantaged?
You increase fairness by expanding access and opportunity. Redistribution does not work. People have to do it (succeed) themselves in order for it to be sustainable.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 14, 2021 at 16:48#4887130 likes
Effectively making housing an investment opportunity meant naturally drawing those with capital to snap it up in large quantities and drive up its price. Housing should not be about making money: it's a basic necessity.
But what do you have against homeowners building equity in their property and gaining wealth through that? That's not only for the upper class, the middle class does it too. Why are you against wealth creation? I know leftists might like it if everyone is poor but equal, but most people don't.
Really, what I have been trying to say in the brief snippets of discussion I have been having with you is that prejudiced hatred arises from projecting on to others. It is not an easy problem to address but our own sense of superiority can be damaging.
But how can our own sense of superiority be damaging?
Can you explain, other than on the example of the Nazis?
You mention the Nazis. On the other hand, take parents, teachers, or doctors who routinely consider themselves superior to children/students/patients; without doing so, they couldn't do their job or fulfill their roles.
With the few comments I have made, you keep directing them back at me. I have awareness that any comment which I make about others has personal significance too. I am aware of that but I would say that I think that many ignore this dimension.
Yes, but it later comes out that they believe they are superior, even though they are reluctant to openly admit it.
I feel that you are going to tell me that I think that I am superior for saying that and I would say, absolutely not.
Actually, it seems this is the only viable path for judging/assessing others: to start with the position that one is superior to them. How else is one's judgment/assesment of others supposed to be relevant?
It has just been that is the way my own life experiences has led me to think and that I am coming more from a psychological angle than a political one. But I do believe that there is an important dialogue between politics and psychology. The psychological view can benefit from an understanding of the political and the political can gain from a psychological perspective.
A psychologist deems himself superior to other people, at least to his patients.
This entire racist thing was a political scam like it always is.
— synthesis
I think you are right. There will be white Democrats using the issue as leverage.
Do you think the BLM black supporters are part of that scam? Or do they think they have a real grievance?
BLM seems to be a Marxist political group with their own agenda and they have every right to that. Hey, Marx was a brilliant economist (but he unleashed one of the great social horrors in history). I have no problem with that until they start advocating violence and believe that terrorizing people is an acceptable MO.
Here's more good news: The gap between the number of blacks and whites in prison is shrinking
But this: Countries with the largest number of prisoners per 100,000 of the national population, as of June 2020
What's that about? Look at your competition, man!
That's old news and is a completely different subject. The U.S. is basically a police-state in many ways. These are complex problems with many layers and you just can't say, "Look at that problem, obviously everybody is racist."
In order for the black community to move on, they are going to have to take responsibility for a lot of it. And so will the politicians who thought that creating a welfare state would do anything but end-up as it always does, creating massive dependency (three generations now).
There are ways to fix these problems but its going to take a lot of effort from all involved. The Democratic politicians (on the whole) that have been presiding over these ravaged areas could care less. Go visit the slums of Chicago or Baltimore or Philadelphia and see for yourself.
counterpunchJanuary 14, 2021 at 17:07#4887190 likes
"The worst thing about your comment is that you are a white privileged male"
In other words, your opinion has no validity because you're white. Which is exactly what I said the concept of white privilege achieves - de-platforming white people based solely on skin colour!
I don't know if the tabloids attacked Meghan, or if they did, why they did so. I don't read tabloid newspapers. But I doubt it was racism. The tabloids may have been critical of Meghan - after all, from what little I know, she refused to play the princess. But Rachel Boyle is imparting a motive for that criticism, saying it's motivated by racism. That's a matter of opinion. Fox disagrees, he doesn't believe it's motivated by racism, and he gets told, in essence, your opinion has no validity because you're white.
give me a list of events in which white men were deplatformed for being white men,
- you got one. And what do you do with it? You agree that he's a white privileged male and that his opinion has no legitimacy, and then say in the same fucking breath, that that doesn't happen.
Considering that the role racism played in how tabloids treated Megan had some evidence for it, it shouldn't've been dismissed outright, and certainly not in Fox's hyperbolic and posturing tone. He head-desked at the very idea that being white in the UK doesn't get you exposed to racism much and thus your perspective may not have a good barometer for racism's presence and extent.
It does happen. You're doing it right here. How can you deny it?
The worst part about engaging in good faith with people like yourself is that I actually have to fucking check your sources just in case what you're saying is right. All that to avoid filterbubbling myself.
I don't understand this passage. I assure you I am neither dishonest nor stupid. I am engaging in good faith. I don't tell lies, and nor am I blinkered by prejudice - like you are. Also, what the fuck is a filterbubble? I think I get it from context, but I'd rather you spare me the lefty buzzwords and use plain English if it's all the same to you!
BLM leaders made the strategic decision to focus on black deaths at the hands of the police, who are agents of civil power.
This would be like having an organisation fight against heart disease by pointing out the few times that cardiac surgeons made mistakes doing complex procedures. Yes, its a small part of the problem (patients dying from cardiac disease) but its nothing compared to all the other factors (plus its only going to enrage the vast majority of cardiologists that are busting their asses to save lives).
Obviously there are problems everywhere and you could probably find some among the very best in any human endeavor, but does it make sense to alienate the very people who can fix the problems you seems so concerned about? I suppose their intention was to get a lot of attention, but I am not sure they could have done anything more to marginalize their own case. After all, the number of white people out there who buy into this self-hatred thing must be waning fast.
Nearly Half Of Democrats Think The 2016 Election Was ‘Rigged’
NOVEMBER 18, 2016 By Sean Davis
Nearly half of Democrats think the 2016 presidential election was “rigged,” according to a new poll released this week by YouGov. The poll found that a whopping 42 percent of Democrats believe the election was rigged. Only 58 percent of Democrats responded that Donald Trump was “legitimately” elected on Nov. 8.
Yet somehow, in 2020 - it's all proper and above board. I don't know what the truth of the matter is, but I know this, the Democrats started it. We can deduce from this fact that either the Democrats were lying in 2016 - or that now, they don't care that the election was a fraud because they won. So, which is it? Or maybe, it's that Trump - fixed the electoral process, and then, with typical modesty, declined to take credit for it??
Jack CumminsJanuary 14, 2021 at 17:40#4887290 likes
Reply to baker
Don't you see any dangers in a sense of superiority? Of course, I would guess that it does depend on how you understand the idea of superior and my own working definition is of is of being intrinsically better.
You speak of a parent's role. In that role, the parent is in the position of having greater experience since he or she has lived longer. However, that is best seen of a transitional state, probably to the point where a child reaches adulthood because we would not always see older people as having more knowledge. Of course, that is not to dismiss the wisdom of older people , who were revered as elders in more traditional societies.
Nevertheless, the point which I feel that you are missing is that a sense of superiority can be a way of putting others down. It may bolster the ego but it is an aspect of power dynamics and I would say that it lies at the heart of oppression.
This is a substitution error. The subject was not people accusing other people of fraud, baseless or otherwise. The subject was violent insurrectionists attacking and killing police with the intent to attack and kill lawmakers.
There have been many incidents of people wanting to kill and killing the police in the US recently, and I don't think lawmakers would be a bad target for them. That's where the US is now.
Yet I was referring to Trump here. The guy who talked of an "the egregious assault on democracy" and was going to walk down with them to the Capitol and was saying that "you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated".
And if Trump's autocoup would have been successful?
So what if the Electoral voting count on January 6th would have been stopped, the votes (as Trump wished) would have sent to be re-certified to the states and a committee (that was actually suggested) would have been formed to inspect the "widespread election fraud", perhaps lead by Rudy Giuliani, and for the time being that the committee works (perhaps 6 to 12 months or more) the current Trump administration would have continued for the time being despite what Article II the Constitution says? Perhaps Biden and the democratic leadership would be put into house arrest, into pretrial detention?
How terrible insurrectionists would be those violently protesting the events then?
(This is of course quite hypothetical as Trump simply is so inept leader that he couldn't manage to stage a successful autocoup, but still just shows logic behind those who believe the falsehoods said to them over and over.)
Kenosha KidJanuary 14, 2021 at 17:48#4887320 likes
Nearly Half Of Democrats Think The 2016 Election Was ‘Rigged’
Yet I remember Hillary Clinton accepting the outcome.
Yes, that elections have been manipulated has been a long lasting topic in the US. But again here it's the way that Trump far over the top than anyone other had done before him. As I wrote earlier, the culture of vitriolic accusations to motivate your base has been for long the basic problem in US politics. And since there is no possibility of the two ruling parties having to have coalition parties, the discourse can be as hostile as it has been.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 14, 2021 at 17:57#4887360 likes
The housing market is always going to price out some part of the population, it's just a matter of how big that part it. Even if prices were dirt cheap some still won't be able to afford it, and those with the houses won't be able to accumulate wealth through their homes. I get what you're saying though - it is what it is.
Kenosha KidJanuary 14, 2021 at 17:59#4887370 likes
Yes, I dig that you're drawing me into a different point. But it has so little to do with mine that it can't stand as a refutation of it. Violent insurrectionists wanting to overthrow democracy to install an unelected populist figure ticks a large number of fascist boxes.
How terrible insurrectionists would be those violently protesting the events then?
Sorry, do you mean the the insurrectionists who do exist who attempted to overthrow democracy, or some hypothetical insurrectionists who attempt to reinstate it? If the former, very. If the latter, not at all. America is a constitutionally democratic country. A fascist dictatorship would be an internal enemy.
Kenosha KidJanuary 14, 2021 at 18:00#4887380 likes
Yet I remember Hillary Clinton accepting the outcome.
Despite conceding the election, she spent the next four years saying that he was not the legitimate president.
Bottom-line...it's politics, they all (99.9% of them 99.9% of the time) lie.
Everybody is on their own as the political system is not going to save anyone. It is and has always been a system designed by the few for the benefit of the few. Make your own way the best you can by seizing what opportunities exist. And help those to see what they must do the best you can.
BitconnectCarlosJanuary 14, 2021 at 18:03#4887400 likes
Ok but in a sense it could just always be elitist, it's just a matter of how much elitism we're talking. The homeless guy isn't going to be able to afford even a $400 down payment and could call those who could "the elites." It's all relative.
counterpunchJanuary 14, 2021 at 18:10#4887450 likes
that elections have been manipulated has been a long lasting topic in the US.
No it hasn't. Gerrymandering aside, there was up until 2016 - a general belief in the integrity of the process and a tradition of coming together after elections. A widespread belief that the election was rigged, and howls of "not my president" after an election is something Democrats cooked up in 2016, and now, blame Trump supporters for believing.
I'll say it again, I don't know if the election was a fraud. But it seems to me profoundly unjust to hound people, disgrace and prosecute them - for seeking to defend democracy from what they had been told by both sides, was a flawed and fraudulent process. The Dems can't wash their hands of what they instigated, in the blood of patriots.
Kenosha KidJanuary 14, 2021 at 18:10#4887460 likes
Ok but in a sense it could just always be elitist, it's just a matter of how much elitism we're talking.
By definition an elite can't be all that inclusive. It can't, for instance, simply be a large minority.
Irrespective, I am very comfortable in salary and savings and feel lucky to just bought a house again. The equivalent of me in 10 years with my financial status adjusted for inflation will not afford it. Me twenty years ago on a starter's salary and a few grand in the bank bought a house effortlessly. So the issue is that home ownership is becoming increasingly elitist, however large you allow an elite to be.
Sorry, do you mean the the insurrectionists who do exist who attempted to overthrow democracy, or some hypothetical insurrectionists who attempt to reinstate it? If the former, very. If the latter, not at all.
A very telling answer from you.
Kenosha KidJanuary 14, 2021 at 18:28#4887590 likes
You increase fairness by expanding access and opportunity. Redistribution does not work. People have to do it (succeed) themselves in order for it to be sustainable.
But noone succeeds all by themselves, do they? They all rely on good parenting, education, opportunity afforded by outside sources.
People can make more or less out of what they're given, but no-one is an island.
that the Invisible Hand at the heart of capitalism is a miracle that affords personal and political freedom
Do you mean a literal miracle, i.e. an act of God? Do you consider the literal hand of God to be involved in the market?
counterpunchJanuary 14, 2021 at 19:03#4887740 likes
Reply to ssu I have to admit I was otherwise engaged in the year 2000, by personal matters. But never before 2016 have I been aware of claims the process was rigged, or a widespread refusal to accept the result. It's difficult to make heads or tails of that photograph, but given Gore/Lieberman lost, I'm guessing they're the one's weeping about counting all the votes. Again, Dems. So...
counterpunchJanuary 14, 2021 at 19:08#4887770 likes
that the Invisible Hand at the heart of capitalism is a miracle that affords personal and political freedom
— counterpunch
Do you mean a literal miracle, i.e. an act of God? Do you consider the literal hand of God to be involved in the market?
No. I don't suggest there's anything supernatural going on, but it's strange and wonderful how the rationally self interested actions of individuals conspire to produce and distribute the goods and services people want and need without any over-arching authority. Adam Smith described it as an invisible hand. It would be madness of the highest order to dispense with it.
Don't you see any dangers in a sense of superiority?
Danger for whom? The superior person?
Of course, I would guess that it does depend on how you understand the idea of superior and my own working definition is of is of being intrinsically better.
Two things:
1. Who gets to be the arbiter of which person is intrinsically better than some other person?
2. Would you say you're intrinsically better than, say, Hitler?
Nevertheless, the point which I feel that you are missing is that a sense of superiority can be a way of putting others down. It may bolster the ego but it is an aspect of power dynamics and I would say that it lies at the heart of oppression.
That is the whole point of superiority. There is no reason to think that a sense of superiority is not evolutionarily advantageous. Life is a struggle for survival, and in that struggle, deeming oneself superior to others is advantageous to one's survival.
Deeming oneself inferior - intrinsically inferior - is a recipe for failure.
Jack CumminsJanuary 14, 2021 at 19:30#4887830 likes
Reply to baker
I am not advocating a sense of inferiority. I do believe in aiming for one's best and I do not equate superiority with ability My point about the problem of a sense of superiority is more the way in which pride can go wrong and be about power over others. But I do believe in empowerment and certainly not false humility.
What I am talking about is superiority and the dark shadow it casts. I believe that everyone is equal in worth and value. I would argue that this is the basis for opposing oppression which has its roots in people ranking themselves as superior.
After all, the number of white people out there who buy into this self-hatred thing must be waning fast.
I never encourage collective guilt feelings or collective self-hatred. It's tedious; it's unproductive; sometimes it is pretentiously faked. Individuals ought to feel guilt for acts they have committed with malice and forethought. I don't feel guilty when white police kill blacks. It might have been just plain murder, and if so the officer should be punished. Or it might have been accidental; inadvertent; not intended. Investigations can sort it out. Consequences should follow.
We can, we should, we must understand how our history unfolded. Not just our personal history; but our national history. From at least a general understanding we should see some large trends that have been at work for a long time. No one should feel guilty about the epidemics which resulted from Columbus's search for a westward route to Asia. No one should feel guilty about British colonialism. No one should feel guilty about slavery. Or the industrial revolution. Or the millions of Native Americans' deaths caused by American westward expansion. We were not there.
I recommend reading about the urban history of the US, not so that people can find more reasons for self hatred or collective guilt, but for an understanding of how it unfolded, how we got to where we are. Once understanding is obtained, one will see how difficult it will be to undo the past.
If an individual is working to harm other people, they have reason to feel guilty, and they should stop doing it. There are plenty of crooks out there, some on street corners, some in elegant office suites.
You increase fairness by expanding access and opportunity. Redistribution does not work. People have to do it (succeed) themselves in order for it to be sustainable.
— synthesis
But noone succeeds all by themselves, do they? They all rely on good parenting, education, opportunity afforded by outside sources.
People can make more or less out of what they're given, but no-one is an island.
Of course, that's why it soooo important to have a family and community (education) supporting you. The number one predictor of success is successful parents. The black community is amazing so when they do figure out what needs to be done, I believe they will leave the white and Asian folks in the dust.
You must instill the necessity to be focused and work hard in order to succeed, i.e., to have meaningful success (as opposed to being, say, a trust-fund individual). There is a significant percentage of the black community that are already there, so it's just a matter of time before the rest are pulled-up, but it is the black community that will do the pulling.
No. I don't suggest there's anything supernatural going on, but it's strange and wonderful how the rationally self interested actions of individuals conspire to produce and distribute the goods and services people want and need without any over-arching authority.
The thing is, though, that there has always been an over-arching authority since capitalism began. Capitalism developed under historically strong states.
There is a significant percentage of the black community that are already there, so it's just a matter of time before the rest are pulled-up, but it is the black community that will do the pulling.
I just wonder why you'd be against helping them? Like we can disagree on the right approach, but certainly there is something that can be done.
After all, the number of white people out there who buy into this self-hatred thing must be waning fast.
— synthesis
I never encourage collective guilt feelings or collective self-hatred. It's tedious; it's unproductive; sometimes it is pretentiously faked. Individuals ought to feel guilt for acts they have committed with malice and forethought. I don't feel guilty when white police kill blacks. It might have been just plain murder, and if so the officer should be punished. Or it might have been accidental; inadvertent; not intended. Investigations can sort it out. Consequences should follow.
We can, we should, we must understand how our history unfolded. Not just our personal history; but our national history. From at least a general understanding we should see some large trends that have been at work for a long time. No one should feel guilty about the epidemics which resulted from Columbus's search for a westward route to Asia. No one should feel guilty about British colonialism. No one should feel guilty about slavery. Or the industrial revolution. Or the millions of Native Americans' deaths caused by American westward expansion. We were not there.
I recommend reading about the urban history of the US, not so that people can find more reasons for self hatred or collective guilt, but for an understanding of how it unfolded, how we got to where we are. Once understanding is obtained, one will see how difficult it will be to undo the past.
If an individual is working to harm other people, they have reason to feel guilty, and they should stop doing it. There are plenty of crooks out there, some on street corners, some in elegant office suites.
We've been through all this in this country. People who went to school (when you actually learned something, say, people over 50) know the history. We were all taught and understand. Many of us saw what happened during the civil rights era and get it. And things have changed drastically.
What society decided to do is move on from the past and make a better future. It is only younger people taught by Marxist holdouts in universities that seem to want to go back and dredge all this up again. The past is past. It's time to resume the moving on and making a better future.
Calling people who had nothing to do with what went on over the last four hundred years, racists, is just plain wrong. I believe that the majority of black people agree with this outlook. Should the Germans still be paying for the atrocities of WWII or the Russians, or every other groups that's behaved poorly?
The lesson in life that people must learn is that you ALWAYS keeping moving forward. Attaching to the past is what suffering is.
How terrible insurrectionists would be those violently protesting the events then?
It seems quite consistent to be in support of some violent insurrections and not in support of others. Neither the violence nor the insurrection parts of it are inherently wrong, it's a matter of how it's done, why it's done, and what're the consequences.
To be clear; if the context was something like a group of extremely pissed off people impoverished during COVID nonlethally disrupting the process that kept blocking their stimulus checks, that's at the very least defensible and understandable. A violent attempt to overturn an election result whose fairness held up to extreme bipartisan scrutiny in that court system is definitely not defensible. What is justified to believe about the situation matters.
I just wonder why you'd be against helping them? Like we can disagree on the right approach, but certainly there is something that can be done.
There's a book written by a black gentleman titled, "Stop Helping Us," or something to that effect. He can explain it better than I, but the gist is that the "helping" needs to be in the providing of opportunity, not handouts. Each person has to do the work themselves. Didn't you? The support must come from their parents and their communities, or it won't work.
Black individuals will have success the same as any other group once they fix their families and communities and make success a priority. It's that simple.
Black people are great and I don't know anybody who thinks differently. Really.
Well, I don;t see anything that links them to Marx; although doubtless some BLM supporters are Marxist, being a Marxist is not on the prerequisite... So I;m going out on a limb and saying that it might seem so to you, but you would be wrong.
It seems quite consistent to be in support of some violent insurrections and not in support of others. Neither the violence nor the insurrection parts of it are inherently wrong, it's a matter of how it's done, why it's done, and what're the consequences.
Hence discretion, reasoning and knowledge is important. Many don't have that.
Especially thanks to the fact that people can create their alternate reality echo chamber and join their others, and politicians are willing to go along with the wild narrative, this can lead to mass hysteria that enforces false reality. This can become a real problem. I've heard it myself in 2019: a Republican member of the House giving a speech (to an empty chamber) on what a threat the FBI poses on the US people. It was then absurd as it is now, even if Washington DC was peaceful and beautiful back then. This is the consequence of the rhetoric.
Usually it's not so. The classical terrorist cell is a group which works like a cult. Hence terrorists can be totally estranged from reality. I remember an interview of an old German leftist activist, who had debated Baader-Meinhof gang (or Red Army Fraction, 1970-1998) members, who believed literally that they were living in Nazi Germany. The activist tried to convice them that post-WW2 West Germany isn't the Third Reich or the continuation of the Third Reich, but to no, the terrorists had made up their minds.
Yet once that thinking starts to spread from a small cult to mainstream, then you have a problem. And even if there is now a media frenzy about it, it is understandable that if a person totally believes in what Trump says (and the other politicians for example in the Stop the steal rally on January 6th) then it's on to Capitol Hill to "protect the Constitution". Understanding that doesn't mean you accept of support that, but gives a better picture of how dangerous the situation is.
counterpunchJanuary 14, 2021 at 21:29#4888320 likes
Reply to Echarmion Adam Smith described it as an invisible hand. It would be madness of the highest order to dispense with it.
— counterpunch
And Adam Smith was referring to God. He was a religious person, and it's not exactly subtle.
Adam Smith? Wealth of Nations? 1776? Thought God was producing and distributing goods and services? Did he? If you say so dude! I thought he thought it was the rationally self interest economic decisions of individuals in a free market. But God, you say? Well I never!
The thing is, though, that there has always been an over-arching authority since capitalism began. Capitalism developed under historically strong states.
It's fascinating that you would comment on something you don't understand at all. The distinction here is between a capitalist economy and a communist economy. In a capitalist economy, people are free to own things, and employ their capital as they see fit. "It is not by the goodwill of the butcher or baker that I have my supper, but by their regard to their own self interest." It's distributed economic decision making - and as if by an invisible hand, the self interested actions of individuals conspire to produce the goods and services people want and need.
In a communist, command economy - people are not free to own things. The state owns everything, and plans economic production. A centralised authority making decisions about what to produce and how goods are distributed. Consequently, communists can't allow people freedom. People must do what they're told, because they too are factors of production. You must do the job you're assigned, not one you would choose. People cannot have freedom of political opinion, or freedom of speech. There is one party, it owns everything and tolerates no opposition - because the state is responsible for production. Communism has never worked. It is responsible for genocides in Russia and China, ten times worse than Hitler.
Jack CumminsJanuary 14, 2021 at 21:42#4888350 likes
Reply to baker
You seem to be opposed to seeing any problems with the idea of superiority, and my view of seeing people as being of equal worth and value. You do point to the evolutionary importance of superiority. However, I am wondering what system of society you are advocating, in terms of ranking according to certain measures of superiority. Would you be wishing to maintain the status quo or challenge power dynamics?
My point about superiority took place within a discussion about political correctness. However, all discussions gets broken up in this long thread. But, bearing in mind that the conversation took place originally in that context I am wondering what are your views on the importance of equality?
I thought he thought it was the rationally self interest economic decisions of individuals in a free market.
It makes no sense to refer to the rational self-intetested decisions of individuals as an "invisible hand". They're not invisible, for one. Nor would it occur to anyone to describe the individuals making up the whole as the "hand leading it".
Also the actual quote is this:
(...) by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.
Note that it says "as in many other cases", so it does not sound as if we're talking about something that's only relevant to markets.
I'd stick to Umberto Eco's 14 points for using that word.
I've a little speech I use to explain to kids why they shouldn't use the word "Fuck" unthinkingly. There are some words that have great power - they grab attention. You don't hear folk in authority - I use parents, teachers, doctors as the example - using "fuck"; it doesn't happen. But imagine if it did. Then they would have your attention. That's the power of the word; choose when to use it with care.
Question: How many Marxists do you think there are? (Marxist = have read at least his shorter writings and understand them; apply at least some Marxist principles like class conflict, surplus value... to contemporary problems.) Anyone can claim to be a Marxist, a leftist, anti-fascist, revolutionary, or anything else, without actually being such a thing. After selling Marxism for over 10 years (while working in a Marxist organization), we found interested buyers to be few and far between.
Substituting identity conflict for class conflict is not, in my humble opinion, proper Marxist practice. Any number of affinity groups have reason to work for their own advancement. but there's nothing inherently Marxist about that. As a group, black people have good reasons to engage in community based political activity. They don't need Uncle Karl to justify themselves
counterpunchJanuary 14, 2021 at 22:00#4888430 likes
Reply to Banno I'd never heard of Parler before it was de-platformed by left wing, political correctness nutters who have no interest in free speech, but only want to hear their own opinions parroted back to them. That so, the question isn't what I'm doing on a philosophy forum, it's what are all you lefties doing here?
Left wing philosophies are utterly incoherent, by which I mean subjectivism, critical theory, post-modernism and neo marxism. If you want to discuss any of these, or indeed, my own philosophy - which is objectivist, evolutionary, structuralist, moral realist, capitalist - and intended to secure a sustainable future - I'll be only too happy to oblige you.
It's fascinating that you would write two paragraphs that have nothing to do with what I wrote.
Just trying to help!
counterpunchJanuary 14, 2021 at 22:06#4888460 likes
Reply to Banno It wasn't facebook that hosted Parler, as far as I know, nor Amazon. It was google. But it was left wing political correctness nutters moaning about people enjoying free speech that got it closed down.
edit: correction - apparently Amazon provided "the online tools to run the app" - but it was amazon, google and apple together, that stuck the knife in. Not facebook.
Reply to counterpunch, Google and Apple stopped offering the Parler app in their app stores, Amazon took Parler offline (this is basically where Parler lived). Without the host (Amazon), there's no Parler. The app could be made available outside Google and Apple, and a web-based frontend might still access the Amazon backend hosting (much like Facebook or The Philosophy Forum, for example). Anyway, those companies are capitalist.
counterpunchJanuary 14, 2021 at 22:52#4888560 likes
Reply to jorndoe Yes, those companies are capitalist - but it can hardly have escaped your notice that there's a pandemic of political correctness going around - infecting the West, and killing our fundamental values, not least free speech. What you may not know is that the disease originates with the left. It's a left wing plague - caught by capitalist companies.
Reply to counterpunch What do you think you have argued here - that Amazon and Apple should not respond to their customer's concerns? That there ought be some control on Apple and Amazon, so that folk can have free speech? But I thought there was this "invisible hand" that you said would make things work... after all, presumably Parler can get someone else to host it, if it is a decent player in the free market...
I'd stick to Umberto Eco's 14 points for using that word.
Someone posted a list of from a study of common fascist characteristics more from the supporter's point of view and now I can't find the damn thing, but in short: believing that your party has some kind of destiny; believing there is a dark but unevidenced conspiracy at play thwarting that destiny; believing that the same justifies any action, no matter how illegal or immoral, which is where counterpunch comes in.
Love Eco though. The Prague Cemetery is woefully underrated.
counterpunchJanuary 14, 2021 at 23:05#4888670 likes
What do you think you have argued here - that Amazon and Apple should not respond to their customer's concerns?
Given that political correctness is a dictatorial dogma, yes, I think Amazon and Google and everyone else, should refuse to tolerate intolerant left wing, political correctness bigots and bullies, and insist on human rights like freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of expression.
But I thought there was this "invisible hand" that you said would make things work... after all, presumably Parler can get someone else to host it, if it is a decent player in the free market...
There is; and it will if people abandon google/apple/amazon in significant numbers, they'll suffer economically.
couldn't find the original video with voter demographic breakdown, but I found one with Mark Blyth making largely the same point. (Edit: if you want a longer piece putting the UK's political disintegration and rise of the right alongside the US's, he's got lectures on that too).
Question: How many Marxists do you think there are? (Marxist = have read at least his shorter writings and understand them; apply at least some Marxist principles like class conflict, surplus value... to contemporary problems.)
Point well taken. There are very few serious "anythings" out there.
People should take the time to read his work. Truly a brilliant economist.
counterpunchJanuary 15, 2021 at 02:02#4889180 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank Yeah, that's funny. Almost as funny as synthesis saying Marx was a brilliant economist. He wasn't an economist. There's nothing in his writings about what would replace the cash nexus in capitalism, or therefore how to obviate self interest and the market.
In The German Ideology (1845-46) Marx wrote about the end of the division of labor which would enable: “in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.“
Reply to counterpunch After sampling a Marxist reading group last fall I decided there just wasn't enough time between me and the grave to spend it on reading more Marx. One person in the group flew into a rage when I said I didn't think understanding Marx was the key to stopping the global warming catastrophe from continuing toward doom.
Tragically, I haven't heard any good jokes lately, about anything. Even The New Yorker Cartoon Department is losing its edge. Great humor has to have an edge, a little barbed wire, a little shock. Jokes approved for all audiences are like children's movies. They're baby food.
Once there are no good jokes, the world might as well come to an end.
One person in the group flew into a rage when I said I didn't think understanding Marx was the key to stopping the global warming catastrophe from continuing toward doom.
Very astute. I couldn't agree more. To secure the future we have to improve living standards, because poor people breed more - so Marxists would have to share ever less production between ever more people. How would that work? Dictatorial government fencing off unused resources from the starving masses, because of some supposed environmental carrying capacity? The have less-pay more, carbon tax this, stop that approach assumes failure - and merely seeks to eek out our existence, until they pluck up the authoritarian courage for another commie brand genocide.
Fortunately, in reality, resources are a function of the energy available to create them, and there's more energy than we could ever put a dent in, inside the earth. The way to beat the climate change roadblock is pedal to the metal - magma power, carbon extraction and sequestration, hydrogen fuel, desalination and irrigation - spend massive amounts of energy to build a sustainable and prosperous world.
I only need a few billion to get started. Five years I'll have a working facility, producing energy from magma. I'd supply big industrial energy users first - cement, steel, aluminium. Then I'd get into shipping, to deliver energy as hydrogen, to be burnt in traditional power stations. Then I'd go into desalination and irrigation - and I've always been interested in aquaculture. We shouldn't be hunting the oceans, there's too many of us. We need to farm fish. Then, total recycling. Given enough energy landfills are a gold mine. I could sort all this out, and turn a handsome profit doing so.
Yes, those companies are capitalist - but it can hardly have escaped your notice that there's a pandemic of political correctness going around - infecting the West, and killing our fundamental values, not least free speech. What you may not know is that the disease originates with the left. It's a left wing plague - caught by capitalist companies.
I remind you once again what sort of things were discussed at Parler, which includes discussions to assasinate politicians, protesters and journalists and threats to violently disrupt the inauguration of Biden. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/488033
And you think that's PC gone wild? Because we really need to give people promoting violence the ability to reach thousands of likeminded idiots?
counterpunchJanuary 15, 2021 at 09:54#4890040 likes
Reply to counterpunch That questions seems to suggest a tu quo que fallacy so try again.
counterpunchJanuary 15, 2021 at 10:01#4890070 likes
Reply to Benkei Tu quo que? Not so. I advocate for the human rights of freedom of conscience and expression; for everyone, even left wing political correctness liars, bigots and bullies.
Reply to counterpunch Maybe finish the point you were trying to make then with your earlier question because the only interpretation I could give it was "BLM did it too therefore nutjobs on Parler should be allowed as well". That would cleary be a fallacy but enlighten me what the point of your diversionary question was.
Which brings me back to this: In that respect you still haven't answered my questions. And you think that's PC gone wild? Because we really need to give people promoting violence the ability to reach thousands of likeminded idiots?
Harry HinduJanuary 15, 2021 at 10:37#4890140 likes
Sure, because you know that a reasonable exchange between us ends up with you looking to fool.
But you are interested in accusing me if being companions with someone, who I spoke to once, that was banned for using racial slurs, without reading my posts?
Everytime you respond to me, you end up looking biased and stupid.
In short, either white privilege is real and denying it is denying its victims, or white privilege isn't real in which case we should see no evidence of it. Not sure how you're missing the connection here. If I live in a racist society, and I am advantaged by that, and I refute the existence of that racism, I am protecting a racist society, therefore am racist.
If you live in a racist society, you're a racist. Duh! Everything else you said is totally irrelevant. Do you live in a racist society, KK? If all of society were racist, then you wouldn't have black presidents, vice-presidents, judges, and congressmen. So what society you're talking about could only be one that exists in your head.
Harry HinduJanuary 15, 2021 at 10:51#4890200 likes
Reply to Banno Thought you weren't interested in reading my posts?
Anyways. I'm not interested in "winning", like you. You think this is a game, obviously. I'm simply interested in having a intellectually honest conversation, but you don't seem to understand the concept.
counterpunchJanuary 15, 2021 at 11:05#4890210 likes
Reply to Benkei It's more like, 'you failed to condemn calls to violence by BLM - so your condemnation of calls to violence on Parler is an hypocrisy' - but it's not a failure to live up to your own standards. Hypocrisy is your standards. Rather, my appeal is to human rights; as in freedom of conscience and expression.
Reply to counterpunch What I did or didn't do is irrelevant to the questions I posed to you, which you still haven't answered. Try again: Do you think that's PC gone wild? Do we really need to give people promoting violence the ability to reach thousands of likeminded idiots?
BLM never called for violence. They did their best to quell it
Except for the violence at the marches, and the rioting, and the arson, etc. I suppose those instances of violence were "politically relevant" and therefore...not violent somehow? I will not say I am deeply versed in the Black Lives Matter movement (All lives matter equally. Which means someone will say I am racist because I believe in equality of people.) however, from a distance, a movement which espouses the injustices done against it, protests those injustices, in the form of social justice, media response, marches and rioting...is it BLM or Trump VS the election? Because from the outside....pretty similar responses by those "wronged".
BLM never called for violence. They did their best to quell it.
And not everyone at the Capitol was rioting. The fact that people can make these distinctions for one side and not the other is just more evidence of the propaganda bubbles that they live in.
But then, the Boston Tea Party was branded a riot at the time - the American and French revolutions began with riots. One man's terrorist is another man's martyr. This is the subjective nature of ethics/politics. This is why we need more level heads, that aren't emotionally invested in their assertions, and aren't trying to speak for others that they don't know, to have a reasonable discussion.
A simple solution would be to abolish political parties. That would ease the division between us, but division is what the Dems and Reps need to stay viable. So it is no surprise that they are the ones stoking that division and then people like KK, Banno and Michael are just a few of the pawns in their game. A truly woke person is one that realizes they've been a pawn and refuses to be one any longer.
Reply to Harry Hindu Wouldn't that be nice eh! Recognize another's opinion as as valid as one's own and try to find commonality to work together toward general improvement. I could handle seeing more of that.
Reply to Book273 Scroll up, (or even move back a page in the meantime), check the post by jorndoe I referenced and let me know whether having a platform enabling that sort of stuff should stay up.
Or if we put it in the indivualistic, capitalist terms of freedom of choice, if I run Amazon and I disagree with those views, why should I continue to provide services to it?
The laissez-faire capitalist, unlimited freedom of speech right wingers can't have it both. If we can vote and speak with our dollars and if that means you can't talk about assassinations anymore, you haven't been censored because you can start your own hosting company, own chat program etc. etc.
But that way lies the total disintegration of society.
I sincerely believe that to burst those echo bubbles, the only way forward is to demand interoperabililty between all messenger apps and social networks. Enforce a standard communication protocol so that if I post something on twitter it can be picked up and shared everywhere directly - so someone using facebook can directly subscribe to my Twitter feed and have it show up there. And then prohibit all the targeted ads, news and videos so that whatever is just trending on every social network taken together is visible and not that the only shit you get shovelled looks like the shit you looked at 5 seconds ago.
BLM never called for violence. They did their best to quell it.
Sure, yet that's a bit problematic. Especially "their best to quell it" part.
For starters, If they would have a clearer organization with a far more active leadership, they could argue that they are in charge of BLM. Yet I think they wisely understand that it's not the way to go: if the leadership would take central stage, go on a media circus, they would likely just start to annoy people. Now there's a) those who call themselves as official BLM b) those who support BLM, but don't have links to a) and c) those who loosely support basically agenda. All actors a), b) and c) are viewed as BLM. And I guess many that actually aren't.
How many know Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi?
These times organizations or movements, just like the militant Trumpists, start from denying having any involvement in anything that would make them look bad. The 'direct action' wings are always kept separately. The right-wing extremists have perfected with the "lone nut" terrorist: the terrorist that takes great care that he cannot be linked to organizations that he supports (like being an official member etc.), which simply would mean that the organization would be disbanded as a terrorist organization. Even the FBI has said that this is the modus operandi.
So things happen like this: BLM later denies that they have anything to do with those branches of BLM that do make stupid comments, like one founder of Greater Branch of New York BLM, Mr Newsome:
"if this country doesn't give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right? And I could be speaking ... figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It's a matter of interpretation.
"Let's observe the history of the 1960s, when black people were rioting," he went on. "We had the highest growth in wealth, in property ownership. Think about the last few weeks since we started protesting. There have been eight cops fired across the country."
"I don't condone nor do I condemn rioting," Newsome added. "But I'm just telling you what I observed."
And not everyone at the Capitol was rioting. The fact that people can make these distinctions for one side and not the other is just more evidence of the propaganda bubbles that they live in.
But then, the Boston Tea Party was branded a riot at the time - the American and French revolutions began with riots. One man's terrorist is another man's martyr. This is the subjective nature of ethics/politics. This is why we need more level heads, that aren't emotionally invested in their assertions, and aren't trying to speak for others that they don't know, to have a reasonable discussion.
A simple solution would be to abolish political parties. That would ease the division between us, but division is what the Dems and Reps need to stay viable. So it is no surprise that they are the ones stoking that division and then people like KK, Banno and Michael are just a few of the pawns in their game. A truly woke person is one that realizes they've been a pawn and refuses to be one any longer.
There can be different interpretation of facts but when people believe lies despite the availability of facts to the contrary there is no subjective nature to discuss.
That said, assertions how other people are pawns is being emotionally invested in your own assertions as well. So by pretending you're above it all, you just demonstrate you're completely in the same game as those you tell yourselves it's ok to ignore.
A truly woke person is one that realizes they've been a pawn and refuses to be one any longer.
A truly woke person realizes their pawnship and navigates within that role to peace, joy, and a fern garden with lots of moss and a little buddha statue at the end of the path that leads from the rock garden in a world where the weather has become the water feature due to el nino.
What were we talking about?
Kenosha KidJanuary 15, 2021 at 12:23#4890420 likes
During the Floyd marches they did their best to quell violence.
Ok.
And what was their best? This is a sincere question, because I didn't notice that in media at the time. If you have links, I'd be happy about that. This is simply something that I don't know.
I don't think those three women have power over those who go to a BLM demonstration.
Reply to Benkei I would prefer to see all the social network sites get shutdown. We can go meet our neighbours again, engage in our communities. When the shit hits your online social network won't likely show up on your doorstep asking if you need a hand or offering you a place to stay and a meal, but your neighbour across the street might. Build community, not "likes".
Reply to Book273 That genie is out of the bottle, I'm afraid. And one does not (and should not) preclude the other. I do like playing scrabble with my mom on the phone and easily chatting with my dad via Signal and share news, ideas etc. Group chats are usually totally useless though.
I notice among my age peers (40+) that they're trying to downsize on all the social networks, phone time etc. anyway. I suspect for kids growing up with this the novelty will wear off even sooner.
I notice among my age peers (40+) that they're trying to downsize on all the social networks, phone time etc. anyway. I suspect for kids growing up with this the novelty will wear off even sooner.
Interestingly, as my 70-year old former lefty mother has become increasingly right-wing, she's embraced social media more and more.
Reply to Kenosha Kid Makes sense, any right wing views online result in online lefty hatred, which is easily ignored. In person lefty violence is harder to ignore. Sounds like your mother has wisdom. She is more free to be herself online. Good for her.
counterpunchJanuary 15, 2021 at 14:06#4890720 likes
What I did or didn't do is irrelevant to the questions I posed to you, which you still haven't answered. Try again: Do you think that's PC gone wild? Do we really need to give people promoting violence the ability to reach thousands of likeminded idiots?
On reddit there's a thread entitled 'free speech' and people visit that thread and post vile, violent, absurd, sweary, scary things to try and get them removed by the mods, so that then they can say "Ah, ha - I knew you didn't believe in free speech." Until, or unless you can show that there were credible threats emerging from Parler, I don't see any reason to shut it down. I think it unlikely, credible threats would be discussed on an internet notice board, and this is just people - either testing the limits of free speech, or blowing off steam. If there were credible threats, where are the arrests of these potential terrorists? No, this is closing down right wing spaces - in accord with the left wing, politically correct, cancel culture playbook.
They also have other echo chambers and propaganda sites, like Gab (gab·com) and Turning Point USA (tpusa·com).
I'm sure their user-bases have gone up recently.
I think the former is hosted by Azure. The latter is transparently McCarthyism.
Anyway, seems likely at the moment that they'll find other (Presidential) candidates down the line.
Until, or unless you can show that there were credible threats emerging from Parler, I don't see any reason to shut it down. I think it unlikely, credible threats would be discussed on an internet notice board, and this is just people - either testing the limits of free speech, or blowing off steam. If there were credible threats, where are the arrests of these potential terrorists? No, this is closing down right wing spaces - in accord with the left wing, politically correct, cancel culture playbook.
You think it unlikely and yet it appears to have happened.
We'll probably see more of it over time now that Parler is working with the FBI to provide information on its users. It isn't known if people, who have been arrested through other methods of identification, have been users of Parler and what they posted there. Investigations take time, which answers your "where are the arrests? "; they're under way and not necessarily being identified through Parler data.
The idea that these people are just innocently testing the limits of free speech or blowing off steam is a curious interpretation of calling for assassinations and violence.
This is blowing off steam:
Jesus Fucking Christ I can't FUCKING UNDERSTAND why people can be so fucking dumb and stupid. All politicians should go to hell and fuck of and die.
This isn't:
On January xxx we need to start systematicly assasinating #liberal leaders, liberal activists, #blm leaders and supporters, members of #nba #nfl #mlb # mainstreammedia anchors and correspondents. I already have a news worthy event planned.
The fact you can't or won't tell the difference worries me.
counterpunchJanuary 15, 2021 at 16:12#4890890 likes
Reply to Benkei You should have read the case notes more carefully.
Page 3 - top, reads:
"although evidence gathered in this investigation to date indicates that Eduard Florea did not ultimately travel to Washington DC on that date"
This is just some idiot, spouting off on the internet, trying to stir up shit. It wouldn't surprise me at all to discover he was actually a lefty. In the event, police busted his house and found ammunition he wasn't allowed to have because of a previous felony charge - but no weapons. This person is not a credible threat. He's a sad case. Probably mentally ill.
What do you think you have argued here - that Amazon and Apple should not respond to their customer's concerns? That there ought be some control on Apple and Amazon, so that folk can have free speech? But I thought there was this "invisible hand" that you said would make things work... after all, presumably Parler can get someone else to host it, if it is a decent player in the free market...
I think nearly everybody has a tendency to have an extremely short-term outlook these days (for lots of obvious reasons), but the so-called "invisible hand" could be considered karmic in nature. In any case, everything works out in the end one way or another.
It's hard to imagine the West would go from a several hundred year philosophical history of tolerance in nearly all things (particularly speech) to an intolerant fascist (corporatist) one almost overnight. The right to free speech was taught as the foundation of freedom as we know it in the U.S. .
I believe what the tech monopolies have done is furthered along the conversation for regulation because there must be enough people in power who understand that the pendulum doth swingest back, and when it does, retribution will most likely be the first order of the day.
There is no doubt that this came from the left and this will be its undoing.
I agree that the average forum member leans centre or left. With that said, why exactly is that a problem? Nobody is censoring discussion here. If you wanted to make a post about the failings of progressivism in the US or elsewhere, you're free to do so.
Except for the violence at the marches, and the rioting, and the arson, etc.
I am not a member of BLM, and haven't supported them. BUT... Hey, Book:
The rioting of last summer (following G Floyd's death) began less than a mile from where I live. I observed how it started. There was a mix of people demonstrating at the Third Precinct station at 6:30 pm. The mix was black, white, hispanic; mostly young people; some BLM signs and T-shirts, but not the majority. A lot of the graffiti, speeches, and yelling was hate-the-police stuff. The unorganized crowd of locals was winding itself up. Within two hours a small group (maybe 15) started breaking into the Third Precinct building and starting fires inside. Meanwhile, some fires were being started in nearby buildings. Much of this action was photographed, much of it streamed by Unicorn Video. The arsonists at work turned out to be white guys from outstate or suburban Minnesota. They were not members or associates of BLM.
By 11:00 p.m. there were a number of large fires burning around Minneapolis and lots of looting by locals. At 1:00 a.m. I observed several white people looting a Walgreens 3 blocks from my house, then the building was torched.
In the days that followed, BLM mounted several very large demonstrations and marches that were orderly and without violent acts. Yes there were arrests for curfew violations, blocking freeways, and the like. There was, I suspect, some looting by demonstrators after the late-night march had come to an end and participants had scattered.
Big demonstrations are usually composed of people on a continuum of volatility. Most of the people are in the middle (not very volatile) but there is usually a small portion that once aroused become reckless. This is true for any kind of demonstration.
A truly woke person realizes their pawnship and navigates within that role to peace, joy, and a fern garden with lots of moss and a little buddha statue at the end of the path that leads from the rock garden
I watch a number of markets (stocks, bonds, gold) daily just in the course of updating my daily financial records (my retirement account is invested in index funds of all three of those), and an interesting thing that I've noticed during the course of this year, where I've also been watching political news more closely than usual, is that the markets respond positively whenever there is news of financial relief or other generally good news for common people, and negatively when there is bad news about the same topics (e.g. stimulus bill talks fall through again).
It's almost as if the people with their actual money on the line, on average at least, realize that a healthy flourishing society is good for business.
See also: insurance companies raising rates in low-lying coastal areas as evidence for the reality of climate change. Just follow the money, because smart money isn't ideological, and ideologues and their money are (eventually, not soon enough) parted. (We just have to be careful that they're not allowed to take the rest of us down with them).
You seem to be opposed to seeing any problems with the idea of superiority, and my view of seeing people as being of equal worth and value. You do point to the evolutionary importance of superiority.
You haven't been answering my questions.
Do you think hatred and prejudice are something idle and avoidable? That they serve no practical purpose?
The fact is that not even bare survival is guaranteed for anyone. Even in first-world countries, the possibility of dying in poverty and homelessness is becoming more and more prominent.
However, I am wondering what system of society you are advocating, in terms of ranking according to certain measures of superiority. Would you be wishing to maintain the status quo or challenge power dynamics?
My point about superiority took place within a discussion about political correctness. However, all discussions gets broken up in this long thread. But, bearing in mind that the conversation took place originally in that context I am wondering what are your views on the importance of equality?
People aren't equal. It's a fact of life.
Why try to sugarcoat this with politically correct notions that do nothing but set vulnerable people up for failure?
I don't advocate any particular political or social system. I am opposed to the politically correct pretenses of equality which just add insult to injury.
Obviously you have access to the internet, so you can do your own research and counter arguments.
That's just disingenuous laziness. Why would I trawl the internet for evidence-based counter-arguments if my interlocutor didn't go to such effort in the first place. All we end up with a a pointless list of some random people's opinions.
If we follow your notion of correct conduct, then where does one draw the line?
We already have rules about quality and tone, both of which require some contextual line to be drawn. Such a requirement doesn't seem to have brought the site to it's knees yet. I don't see why the provision of references should be any more difficult to judge.
"I think Trump's a brilliant leader" doesn't require a reference (though maybe a lobotomy)
Even if this was a scientific journal, any breakthrough requires taking accepted thought and jumping up and down on it until it is no longer recognized as truth.
No. No breakthrough requires that. Breakthroughs require careful and diligent hard work researching and checking, peer-reviewing, checking again, correcting mistakes, more checking... and then, finally maybe publishing. It pisses me off intently that after all that hard work someone claiming to be interested in the subject (whatever it is) can't even be bothered to type the question into a search engine to find out if anyone has done such painstaking work.
Reply to counterpunch And then you launch right into some unfounded conspiracy theory it was a leftist and take him not being there on the 6th as evidence that his stockpiling of weapons and ammo are not proof of intent to start shooting people. Why does he need 1,000 hollow point bullets?
Jack CumminsJanuary 16, 2021 at 08:41#4893380 likes
Reply to baker
You say that I have not answered your questions. I am not sure what they were exactly because it is hard to find them in this long thread. I think that you asked me whether I thought I was superior to Hitler or the Nazi's. I am critical of what these people did so I see the perspective they came from as something to avoid. But I am really saying that, even if you see it as a contradiction, that we should rise above beliefs about superiority.
I would agree that people are not necessarily free from the threat of poverty and homelessness in the first world countries. I think that sometimes people can use the language of equality and political correctness as empty rhetoric. Attitudes towards the vulnerable are more than just words. But this is a complex topic, especially as we are having it in the middle of a thread of many other highly emotional dialogues.
counterpunchJanuary 16, 2021 at 12:46#4893810 likes
Reply to Benkei I asked you for a credible threat emerging from Parler. You say you found one. But Florea didn't attend the event. He mouthed off on Parler - pretending he was attending, pretending he intended violence, pretending he was armed. But read the case notes carefully - HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY WEAPONS when arrested. And he didn't attend the event.
What you're left with is some sad sack, mouthing off on the internet, who had some ammunition in his house he wasn't supposed to have.
What I don't understand is, how you imagine he was doing the movement he pretended to support, any favours? This isn't someone who supports the movement. This is a pretender. A fantasist. A sheep in wolf's clothing. A shit stirring lefty? Quite possibly!
Harry HinduJanuary 16, 2021 at 13:04#4893830 likes
People aren't equal. It's a fact of life.
Why try to sugarcoat this with politically correct notions that do nothing but set vulnerable people up for failure?
I don't advocate any particular political or social system. I am opposed to the politically correct pretenses of equality which just add insult to injury.
What adds insult to injury is telling someone born without your advantages that their failures are because they are not your equal.
There was a psychological experiment some years back. Pairs of people playing against each other at Monopoly. At the start, a coin was tossed. Whoever won the coin toss was given twice as much money as their opponent at the start, could roll twice as many die each go, and received twice as much when they passed Go (which they did twice as often).
As such, the winner of the coin toss won Monopoly. The winner played more aggressively, was ruder, gloated frequently, and consistently overestimated their skill.
When asked how they won the game, not a single player mentioned the coin toss. Each believed they'd won because they were the better player.
People who benefit from systematic inequality point the finger at the disadvantaged and insist they are intrinsically lesser than the advantaged. It's unfortunately a quirk of psychology that being born privileged turns you into a jerk.
Harry HinduJanuary 16, 2021 at 13:19#4893870 likes
There can be different interpretation of facts but when people believe lies despite the availability of facts to the contrary there is no subjective nature to discuss.
But when all of your "facts" seem to indicate that your side doesn't do anything wrong, isn't capable of oppressing others, and that the other side is the problem, then that should be a red flag that your "facts" are merely propaganda.
If it were actually a fact that one side is worse than the other, then what reason would we have in keeping the other side viable? And in eliminating the other side, did you just eliminate the available choices we all have?
The fact is that both sides are the problem. Political parties are the problem. There should be no sides in a political discussion. There should simply be individuals expressing their opinions, as no one else has the right to speak for someone else, especially if they can speak for themselves.
That said, assertions how other people are pawns is being emotionally invested in your own assertions as well. So by pretending you're above it all, you just demonstrate you're completely in the same game as those you tell yourselves it's ok to ignore.
LOL. No, being emotionally invested means that you are afraid to be wrong. But being afraid to be wrong means that you will never make mistakes. If you never make mistakes, you will never learn. Have you ever been wrong in any of your political/ethical views, Benkei?
I am more than happy to be proven wrong that most Americans are pawns in the political game between Reps and Dems. I just need evidence.
Harry HinduJanuary 16, 2021 at 13:22#4893880 likes
A truly woke person realizes their pawnship and navigates within that role to peace, joy, and a fern garden with lots of moss and a little buddha statue at the end of the path that leads from the rock garden in a world where the weather has become the water feature due to el nino.
What were we talking about?
Actually, for me, it would be a little statue of Shiva, in a garden of hemp. That is the epitome of peace and joy for me.
:cool:
Yeah, bruh. What were we talking about?
Harry HinduJanuary 16, 2021 at 13:26#4893920 likes
Look, it doesn't matter much to me whether you want to come across as a liar or an idiot, so interpreting my statements as contrary ones is your call. Either way, all you're demonstrating is that you're not worth engaging with which you've over-established already.
Harry HinduJanuary 16, 2021 at 13:35#4893940 likes
Look, it doesn't matter much to me whether you want to come across as a liar or an idiot, so interpreting my statements as contrary ones is your call. Either way, all you're demonstrating is that you're not worth engaging with which you've over-established already.
Forgive me if I don't really care what you think or say about me. When you can actually think for yourself and not just regurgitate everything you read, I'll be happy to have a reasonable discussion with you.
Kenosha KidJanuary 16, 2021 at 13:38#4893960 likes
Reply to Harry Hindu Both sides are the problem, said the guy who paints people he disagrees with as pawns and pretending he isn't one himself. So we have non-pawns and pawns, and within pawns there's whatever you're alluding to on two opposing sides as well. Yawn.
Reply to counterpunch You're wilfully blind to the obvious if stockpiling ammo and repeatedly threatening people don't constitute a credible threat.
counterpunchJanuary 16, 2021 at 14:00#4894050 likes
Reply to Benkei I don't know that he was stockpiling ammo. His previous conviction was for possession of 13 firearms. Perhaps the ammo was left over - and he just failed to get rid of it. An offence, under the terms of his bail, but not in itself material to this issue. I'll tell you what is odd though - how suddenly, you've come over all law and order, when only last month you were echoing calls to defund the police!!
Even if this was a scientific journal, any breakthrough requires taking accepted thought and jumping up and down on it until it is no longer recognized as truth.
— synthesis
No. No breakthrough requires that. Breakthroughs require careful and diligent hard work researching and checking, peer-reviewing, checking again, correcting mistakes, more checking... and then, finally maybe publishing. It pisses me off intently that after all that hard work someone claiming to be interested in the subject (whatever it is) can't even be bothered to type the question into a search engine to find out if anyone has done such painstaking work.
You are missing my point.
There are two types of conversations you can have. One a friendly chat over a couple of beers type of chat and another where you are attempting to prove a point (for some academic or professional reason). I kind of approach this forum as a friendly chat. No need for the drama.
You also missed my point about breakthroughs, as well. As you may or may not know, science is quite political and therefore subject to all the nonsense that goes on in that sphere. Many times when researchers discover better ways/problematic issues that do not serve the primary interests of TPTB, it becomes difficult to move forward. History is replete with examples.
counterpunchJanuary 16, 2021 at 17:33#4894540 likes
I suppose, if you two are arguing, and don't feel that listing academic sources is any way to resolve the issue - you could each put your cases to a neutral third party and agree to accept the verdict.
There are two types of conversations you can have. One a friendly chat over a couple of beers type of chat and another where you are attempting to prove a point (for some academic or professional reason). I kind of approach this forum as a friendly chat. No need for the drama.
Firstly, it's not about the nature of the conversation, it's about the nature of the beliefs. Why would anyone have such beliefs unless they had some evidence for them? Surely you don't just adopt your beliefs at random? The point is, that even for a 'down the pub' type of conversation, you should have the reason for your belief ready to hand. If you don't have a reason, then why tell everyone about it?
Secondly, this is not a 'chat down the pub'. We're not friends, I' not interested in your opinion for it's own sake - why on earth would I be? I'm interested in the stuff other people know, and the way they might frame it, but I can't see the interest in just knwing what version of events some random people have pinned their flag to without cause.
science is quite political and therefore subject to all the nonsense that goes on in that sphere. Many times when researchers discover better ways/problematic issues that do not serve the primary interests of TPTB, it becomes difficult to move forward.
I fail to see what that's got to do with failing to present any evidence. There's been not a single scientific revolution which was not accompanied by, motivated by, evidence. Scientists do not just randomly decide the status quo has got it wrong, they do so on the basis of evidence.
I suppose, if you two are arguing, and don't feel that listing academic sources is any way to resolve the issue - you could each put your cases to a neutral third party and agree to accept the verdict.
Again, if you can't tell the difference between an opinion which is relevant to the framing of beliefs and a statement of fact then there's little hope for you. That we should support our empirical claims is an opinion of mine, it requires no evidential support. That BLM fabricated the mobile phone footage is a statement of fact (and an pernicious one at that) it requires evidence.
Secondly, this is not a 'chat down the pub'. We're not friends, I' not interested in your opinion for it's own sake - why on earth would I be? I'm interested in the stuff other people know, and the way they might frame it, but I can't see the interest in just knowing what version of events some random people have pinned their flag to without cause.
Well, Issac, I would imagine if you spoke with every participant in this forum, you would get many different reasons why they are here. You are very serious about these conversations, me, not so much. I am here to relax and enjoy other people's views.
science is quite political and therefore subject to all the nonsense that goes on in that sphere. Many times when researchers discover better ways/problematic issues that do not serve the primary interests of TPTB, it becomes difficult to move forward.
— synthesis
I fail to see what that's got to do with failing to present any evidence. There's been not a single scientific revolution which was not accompanied by, motivated by, evidence. Scientists do not just randomly decide the status quo has got it wrong, they do so on the basis of evidence.
There are many different directions we can take that so let me go in this one. Science (like all knowledge) changes constantly, correct? Why should I take anything postulated out there seriously if it is only going to be dis-proven? Although I am scientifically trained, I only see it as a tool (and a rather primitive one at that).
Now, Issac, if you are going to rant and rave at me, no need (as I already have a wife :). Let's just have a nice conversation and my POV might begin to make sense to you as the ideas unfold (or maybe not).
I suppose, if you two are arguing, and don't feel that listing academic sources is any way to resolve the issue - you could each put your cases to a neutral third party and agree to accept the verdict.
Although I am sure you could probably find some academic sources to support just about any claim, my point was to keep this casual. I am interested in how my conversant partner thinks, not how some academic that might have their head up their ass (and is publishing for all the wrong reasons) thinks.
There are many different directions we can take that so let me go in this one. Science (like all knowledge) changes constantly, correct? Why should I take anything postulated out there seriously if it is only going to be dis-proven?
I am not quite sure what you're saying here. Do you not believe that, say, atoms are made out of protons, neutrons and electrons, which are made out of quarks, because tomorrow someone might figure out more fundamental building blocks to reality? Do you not use Newtons laws in common cases because they have been superseded by Einstein?
counterpunchJanuary 16, 2021 at 20:33#4895200 likes
Reply to Echarmion I think quantum physics is philosophically mistaken in assuming the idea of fundamental building blocks. Rather, I think quantum physics is a science of the frayed edge of reality where something bleeds into nothing; that quantum effects can be explained as the lack - and gaining of existential properties, location velocity, mass - etc, by things that don't quite exist, and that the central focus of reality is the causal, deterministic, macroscopic reality we inhabit, where all the forces intersect.
Reply to Isaac I also think that BLM created a false narrative with carefully edited phonecam footage - for example, footage edited to exclude George Floyd fighting four police officers while handcuffed, yelling "I can't breathe" when clearly he could, and preventing them from putting him in a vehicle. All that was omitted. All we saw until police bodycam footage was leaked, was Floyd pinned down - not the urgent need for him to be pinned down.
Reply to synthesisSince the invention of the computer, science has really come together. The ability to process large amounts of data, and communicate ideas, was a game changer. Science does now constitute a highly valid and coherent understanding of the middle ground reality we inhabit, and should be taken seriously - as an understanding of reality. The earth does orbit the sun, human beings did evolve, heat does migrate from warmer to cooler bodies, etc!
You are very serious about these conversations, me, not so much. I am here to relax and enjoy other people's views.
What on earth is the matter with chatting over a beer that should be disparaged? Samuel Johnson's discussion group met at a bar/restaurant and included luminaries like Edmund Burke, Joshua Reynolds, Oliver Goldsmith, Adam Smith, James Boswell, Edward Gibbon, et al. They ate and drank and talked.
Granted, other than present company we don't quite measure up to the reputations of Johnson's group, but we do what we can. I'd be quite happy to move this whole thing to a nice place with good food and an assortment of good drink.
I think quantum physics is philosophically mistaken in assuming the idea of fundamental building blocks. Rather, I think quantum physics is a science of the frayed edge of reality where something bleeds into nothing; that quantum effects can be explained as the lack - and gaining of existential properties, location velocity, mass - etc, by things that don't quite exist, and that the central focus of reality is the causal, deterministic, macroscopic reality we inhabit, where all the forces intersect.
Fair enough, as far as a metaphysical explanation goes. Though I think it's important to not mix physical and metaphysical perspectives on this. On a physical level, what matter is to have the best (most powerful in terms of predictions) model that can account for all the observations. That's the "shut up and calculate" approach. Interpretations are only relevant insofar as they allow new models that allow for more predictions.
The metaphysical perspective is to ask what all of this means. That'd be something like we're reaching the frayed edge of reality, or we have basically reached the limits of our power to perceive and comprehend so the weird behaviour we're seeing isn't actually ontological, but rather is the result of us actually charting the border of our epistemological capabilities.
counterpunchJanuary 16, 2021 at 21:14#4895380 likes
Reply to Echarmion It's not my metaphysical assumption that there are fundamental building blocks. That's the assumption carried forth by quantum physics. I didn't introduce a metaphysical perspective. I pointed out its existence, and wondered if it's true. I see no reason to believe it is - and, trying to explain the weird behaviour of sub, sub atomic particles - I'm thinking double slit experiment, EPR, quantum tunnelling and the like, points rather, to a lack of existential properties that define matter on the macroscopic level i.e. location, velocity, spatial dimension, mass, etc. I suspect the behaviour is ontological, insofar as that's an appropriate term for something that doesn't have qualities like location and mass for causality to act upon, but has velocity and spatial dimension, like a photon.
Although I am scientifically trained, I only see it as a tool (and a rather primitive one at that).
— synthesis
Oh? Now I am interested. Is there a less primitive tool out there?
Temporally, absolutely, but, practically speaking, I think not.
There are many different directions we can take that so let me go in this one. Science (like all knowledge) changes constantly, correct? Why should I take anything postulated out there seriously if it is only going to be dis-proven?
— synthesis
I am not quite sure what you're saying here. Do you not believe that, say, atoms are made out of protons, neutrons and electrons, which are made out of quarks, because tomorrow someone might figure out more fundamental building blocks to reality? Do you not use Newtons laws in common cases because they have been superseded by Einstein?[/quote]
Yes, that's part of it. The rest of it concerns keeping the first part in mind. Let me give you an example...
A patient presents in your office with the complaint of chronic headache. Don't worry about not being in healthcare (if you're not). You take thorough medical, family, and social health history, do a full physical exam and order comprehensive blood work. You are able to rule out the most common headache etiologies and are left sitting on your exam stool wondering what to say tell this patient (other than, "I have no idea," but these are the steps we advise our patients to take in these cases, blah, blah, blah...").
If I was a (wo)man of science (as most health care providers are), the above would be the general way you would go about handling the above patient (give or take). Let's consider an alternative. Let's substitute our man of science for a man of someone who sees science only as a primitive tool.
The same patient with the same chronic headache symptoms presents. How might our skeptic approach this same patient? Number one, Dr. Skeptic understands that medical science (in many cases) will not only not get you to the correct diagnosis, but it will only serve to confuse the matter. So what he is going to do (before he does anything) is talk with his patient. There's a very old saying in medicine that you might have heard before, "If you listen closely enough to the patient, s/he will tell you EXACTLY what is wrong."
Now, I could go on about this but I'll stop here to see if you are with me.
counterpunchJanuary 16, 2021 at 23:13#4895740 likes
What you've got there is either a brain tumour or a junkie trying to score pain meds!
Since the invention of the computer, science has really come together. The ability to process large amounts of data, and communicate ideas, was a game changer. Science does now constitute a highly valid and coherent understanding of the middle ground reality we inhabit, and should be taken seriously - as an understanding of reality. The earth does orbit the sun, human beings did evolve, heat does migrate from warmer to cooler bodies, etc!
I had a good friend who used to say that, "Things have never been any better or worse then they have ever been," and over time I believe I have come to the conclusion that he may be correct.
As far as Reality (or reality) is concerned, the human mind is simply incapable of gaining access.
And although it may seem reasonable to assume that the earth orbits the sun, etc., that's doing a great deal of assuming where I would contend that it is impossible to understand even the simplest of things (if for no other reason than each event is preceded by an infinite number of events determining such. How you possibly understand the true nature of anything?
I had a good friend who used to say that, "Things have never been any better or worse then they have ever been," and over time I believe I have come to the conclusion that he may be correct.
Reply to synthesis I don't understand the saying. It doesn't seem to make sense. Either it's a truism - meaning, "things are what they have been in every moment" - or it implies an eternal unchanging state, in that nothing ever improves or dis-improves. (Yes, dis-improves is a word - I looked it up!)
As far as Reality (or reality) is concerned, the human mind is simply incapable of gaining access.
Untrue. Or rather, dependent on defining reality in inaccessible terms. Most basically, the sensory organs evolve in relation to reality, and are tested insofar as they allow for the survival of the organism. If a monkey, swinging through the trees saw branches further away, or nearer than they actually were - physics would ensure his extinction. The reality we experience is accurate to the objective reality that exists.
Perception may be limited to tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, but that doesn't mean what we see is not real. If you would define reality in terms of the entirety of the magnetic spectrum, or the fact atoms never touch each other, and so forth, then you can define reality beyond reach, but to my mind, science begins at our fingertips - not at the far end of the universe, and has discovered the range of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the space between atoms.
And although it may seem reasonable to assume that the earth orbits the sun, etc., that's doing a great deal of assuming where I would contend that it is impossible to understand even the simplest of things (if for no other reason than each event is preceded by an infinite number of events determining such. How you possibly understand the true nature of anything?
It is not necessary to know the location and velocity of every sub-atomic particle in the universe in every moment to experience the real. I can close my eyes and run my finger across the keyboard and experience the reality of it. Truth isn't absolute truth. Reality isn't inaccessible.
I don't understand the saying. It doesn't seem to make sense. Either it's a truism - meaning, "things are what they have been in every moment" - or it implies an eternal unchanging state, in that nothing ever improves or dis-improves. (Yes, dis-improves is a word - I looked it up!)
The idea is that as some things improve, others dis-improve, by definition (and proportionally).
As far as Reality (or reality) is concerned, the human mind is simply incapable of gaining access.
— synthesis
Untrue. Or rather, dependent on defining reality in inaccessible terms. Most basically, the sensory organs evolve in relation to reality, and are tested insofar as they allow for the survival of the organism. If a monkey, swinging through the trees saw branches further away, or nearer than they actually were - physics would ensure his extinction. The reality we experience is accurate to the objective reality that exists.
Simply the fact that we cannot access the present (time-lag between event and perception thereof) certainly suggests that we are not experiencing reality (Absolute or relative).
Perception may be limited to tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, but that doesn't mean what we see is not real. If you would define reality in terms of the entirety of the magnetic spectrum, or the fact atoms never touch each other, and so forth, then you can define reality beyond reach, but to my mind, science begins at our fingertips - not at the far end of the universe, and has discovered the range of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the space between atoms.
Reality is not like the movie our brains convey. As a matter of fact (whatever that may be), nobody has a clue what vision is. So, what are you seeing?
And although it may seem reasonable to assume that the earth orbits the sun, etc., that's doing a great deal of assuming where I would contend that it is impossible to understand even the simplest of things (if for no other reason than each event is preceded by an infinite number of events determining such. How you possibly understand the true nature of anything?
— synthesis
It is not necessary to know the location and velocity of every sub-atomic particle in the universe in every moment to experience the real. I can close my eyes and run my finger across the keyboard and experience the reality of it. Truth isn't absolute truth. Reality isn't inaccessible.
There is Absolute Truth and there is relative truth (of course, there is really neither but these are the game we must play to communicate among our own species).
Absolute Truth exist outside of the intellect whereas relative truth your personal reality (created by your experience).
If Reality was accessible, do you believe people would be wasting their time doing things like this? :)
The idea is that as some things improve, others dis-improve, by definition (and proportionally).
I see. I guess, but I don't see things that way myself. It implies futility - like all we're doing is re-arranging the deck chairs. I think science is a path, and it leads somewhere; at the very least, a long term, prosperous and sustainable future for humankind.
Simply the fact that we cannot access the present (time-lag between event and perception thereof) certainly suggests that we are not experiencing reality (Absolute or relative).
I once watched a man driving in a stake. He was some distance away, across a railway line. I was on the other side. I watched him strike with the hammer, and heard the sound of him striking the stake after, out of sync with his movements. So, here are my questions: Was there a man? Was he driving in a stake? Did his blows make a sound? Did I hear the sound? If you answered yes to all these questions, what was not real about it?
Reality is not like the movie our brains convey. As a matter of fact (whatever that may be), nobody has a clue what vision is. So, what are you seeing?
Yes, it is. It could not be otherwise. The idea that the reality we experience is subjectively constructed is false. It's largely a product of western philosophy written in the wake of Galileo's trial for the heresy for proving the earth orbits the sun. His contemporary, Descartes - wrote Meditations on First Philosophy in terror of the Church, in which he doubted all that could be doubted, and found the only thing he knew for certain was cogito ergo sum - I think therefore I am.
Subjectivism, and ultimately, post modernism follow from this root - and currently, there's a left wing academic interest in undermining the possibility of truth. But it's a falsehood. Descartes' doubt was skeptical doubt, not rational doubt. If he'd stuck his hand in front of the fire, rather than a ball of wax, he would soon have discovered the undeniable existence of an objective reality - prior to cogito!
Further, as I've already told you, the senses are evolved in creatures that had to make accurate life and death decisions about reality, generation after generation. If the senses were not accurate to reality, human being could not have evolved.
Furthermore, if reality is subjectively constructed, how can there be art, or traffic lights. Try going into traffic court and saying, you may say the light was red, but subjectively, it was green! Go to an art gallery and listen to people speaking about the brushstrokes, and the lines and the colours. They are clearly seeing the same thing. Or do you suggest they are subjectively constructing the same unreality?
There is Absolute Truth and there is relative truth
No. These are thought experiment concepts of truth. With absolute truth - you place yourself outside reality, looking in at some imagined entirety of it - and condescend to the man trying to make sense of the world around him with his limited vision. By relative truth you mean subjective truth - and the post modernist implication from subjectivism, that all truths are relative. But subjectivism is false. Truth is in correspondence to an objective reality.
The "post modernists" aren't against truth. Indeed, the favourite targets of the right are all about the truth: the various objective states the world and society takes. They just recognise the objective states are a contingent formation: a truth put there by moment of existence, rather than something put there by a transcendent force or derived from a concept or principle.
In truly postmodern fashion, “postmodernism” isn’t even a really well-defined idea to begin with, so I think you’ll need to be a little more specific if you want to critique it.
Maybe the extremes of social constructivism that claim things like “reality is a social construct”?
NB that that view is very unpopular with some parts of the left... like Marxists, who are hardcore materialists.
The idea is that as some things improve, others dis-improve, by definition (and proportionally).
— synthesis
I see. I guess, but I don't see things that way myself. It implies futility - like all we're doing is re-arranging the deck chairs. I think science is a path, and it leads somewhere; at the very least, a long term, prosperous and sustainable future for humankind.
Think of it this way...things are as good as they can be each and every moment.
Simply the fact that we cannot access the present (time-lag between event and perception thereof) certainly suggests that we are not experiencing reality (Absolute or relative).
— synthesis
I once watched a man driving in a stake. He was some distance away, across a railway line. I was on the other side. I watched him strike with the hammer, and heard the sound of him striking the stake after, out of sync with his movements. So, here are my questions: Was there a man? Was he driving in a stake? Did his blows make a sound? Did I hear the sound? If you answered yes to all these questions, what was not real about it?
Since Reality is something you experience outside of the intellect, there are no answers to your questions. OTOH, your (personal) reality was whatever your experience was, but keep in mind that it was considerably different than what was taking place (due to all kinds of filters).
Reality is not like the movie our brains convey. As a matter of fact (whatever that may be), nobody has a clue what vision is. So, what are you seeing?
— synthesis
Yes, it is. It could not be otherwise. The idea that the reality we experience is subjectively constructed is false. It's largely a product of western philosophy written in the wake of Galileo's trial for the heresy for proving the earth orbits the sun. His contemporary, Descartes - wrote Meditations on First Philosophy in terror of the Church, in which he doubted all that could be doubted, and found the only thing he knew for certain was cogito ergo sum - I think therefore I am.
How about if Reality is actually discrete moments, but somehow connected. Each moment, just as it should be, perfect in every way.
Subjectivism, and ultimately, post modernism follow from this root - and currently, there's a left wing academic interest in undermining the possibility of truth. But it's a falsehood. Descartes' doubt was skeptical doubt, not rational doubt. If he'd stuck his hand in front of the fire, rather than a ball of wax, he would soon have discovered the undeniable existence of an objective reality - prior to cogito!
Further, as I've already told you, the senses are evolved in creatures that had to make accurate life and death decisions about reality, generation after generation. If the senses were not accurate to reality, human being could not have evolved.
Consider the following...what we know, we know before our intellect kicks-in. For example, you are walking down the street and you see a young boy about to dash into the street chasing after his errant ball at the same time a car is approaching at a high speed. Without thinking (before thinking), you grab the youngster's arm and save his life.
Out thinking takes what we perceive (before thinking and therefore before our filters can engage) and creates our own reality based on a lifetime of experience. It becomes easy to conclude that we all see the same stimuli differently based on this reasoning (and that can apply to everything we perceive).
Perhaps this is why our first judgement (impression) seems to be the best in many cases?
Furthermore, if reality is subjectively constructed, how can there be art, or traffic lights. Try going into traffic court and saying, you may say the light was red, but subjectively, it was green! Go to an art gallery and listen to people speaking about the brushstrokes, and the lines and the colours. They are clearly seeing the same thing. Or do you suggest they are subjectively constructing the same unreality?
Who's to say that everybody doesn't see everything differently despite the fact that they recognize it by the same name? Differences in eye anatomy (clarity of the cornea, aqueous, lens, and vitreous) alone would insure that any wavelength would appear differently to each observer. And that's just optical clarity. How about the neurological/electrical complexity of the retina as well as the optic pathway all the way back to the occipital cortex? There are literally an infinite number of modifications that could take place to make our perceptions unique. And that's just scratching the surface. You really believe we see things the same?
And you know what, everything is just that way.
There is Absolute Truth and there is relative truth
— synthesis
No. These are thought experiment concepts of truth. With absolute truth - you place yourself outside reality, looking in at some imagined entirety of it - and condescend to the man trying to make sense of the world around him with his limited vision. By relative truth you mean subjective truth - and the post modernist implication from subjectivism, that all truths are relative. But subjectivism is false. Truth is in correspondence to an objective reality.[/quote]
Again, Absolute Truth exists outside of the intellect. It is permanent and unchanging. Relative truth is impermanent (in constant flux). Although all knowledge is indeed relative, the left got it wrong (imagine that!) by refusing to acknowledge that although truth is relative, human beings still agree to live by it (a moral code) just the same.
counterpunchJanuary 17, 2021 at 05:22#4896690 likes
Since Reality is something you experience outside of the intellect, there are no answers to your questions. OTOH, your (personal) reality was whatever your experience was, but keep in mind that it was considerably different than what was taking place (due to all kinds of filters).
There was a man. There was a stake. He was driving in the stake. The fact there was a delay between perception - in terms of the sight and the sound, doesn't mean it wasn't real. It just means that light travels faster than sound, and that is also an explicable and predictable physical reality.
You don't seem able to follow the argument, and engage in actual debate. Everything you say is mere contradiction. So, believe whatever you like. It doesn't matter anymore. Humankind is surely doomed - because, like you, they're wrong, and what is wrong cannot survive. It's cause and effect.
What adds insult to injury is telling someone born without your advantages that their failures are because they are not your equal.
/.../
People who benefit from systematic inequality point the finger at the disadvantaged and insist they are intrinsically lesser than the advantaged. It's unfortunately a quirk of psychology that being born privileged turns you into a jerk.
You are very serious about these conversations, me, not so much. I am here to relax and enjoy other people's views.
Again, seriousness has little to do with it. Even if I considered these conversations to be the most trivial matters in the world, the opinions I express in them would still have causes, and where empirical, would relate to evidence from experience.
I can't see what is so 'friendly' about claiming that BLM doctored the mobile phone footage of an arrest to make it look like murder, which then suddenly becomes fusty and academic when the actual source of that claim is added.
Science (like all knowledge) changes constantly, correct? Why should I take anything postulated out there seriously if it is only going to be dis-proven?
Number one, Dr. Skeptic understands that medical science (in many cases) will not only not get you to the correct diagnosis, but it will only serve to confuse the matter.
How does Dr. Skeptic know that? What methods does he have access to that medical science does not?
There's a very old saying in medicine that you might have heard before, "If you listen closely enough to the patient, s/he will tell you EXACTLY what is wrong."
But isn't that also what "standard" medicine does? Only that they do not just listen to you talk, but also "listen" to various other bodily functions?
I would contend that it is impossible to understand even the simplest of things (if for no other reason than each event is preceded by an infinite number of events determining such.
So, if you want to boil a pot of water, do you randomly do things to it until it boils? Pray to the gods to boil the water? Or do you use your understanding of physics to predict what course of events will make the water boil?
Again, Absolute Truth exists outside of the intellect. It is permanent and unchanging. Relative truth is impermanent (in constant flux). Although all knowledge is indeed relative, the left got it wrong (imagine that!) by refusing to acknowledge that although truth is relative, human beings still agree to live by it (a moral code) just the same.
How is this epistemological position either left or right?
26 pages in and I'm still not sure what "leftist" means. I like the following extremes to develop a spectrum on which we can move, since the left-right distinction has become fudged:
socially conservative vs. socially progressive
collectivist vs. individualist
negative freedom vs. positive freedom
economic marxism vs. laissez-faire corporatist capitalism
redisitributive justice (eg. fairness) vs. formal justice (eg. if rules are followed outcomes are always just)
minarchism vs. authoritarianism
TheWillowOfDarknessJanuary 17, 2021 at 09:37#4897080 likes
The funny thing is extremes of "social construction" are the genuine materialists. They recognise that the finite construction of things applies not only of our social relations, but also of physics relations too. Gravity, for example, doesn't just always occur. It is a manifestation of specific objects on relation to each other, a thing coupled with other things (it's environment), which happen as they do on account of how those things exist. At any moment, we might have a thing with a different relation, an object which behaves differently. The pull of gravity is soemthing which has to be made true, over not, by the existence of the things at the time.
You're right about some Marxists being upset with this kind of material account, but that is because they are in some respect idealist: they have notions or concepts of how society will necessarily work, that there is a set of outcomes which will occur, secured beyond the action of finite material states in a counterfactual relation.
Kenosha KidJanuary 17, 2021 at 11:23#4897210 likes
This is a treatment that a professional psychologist devised
... for someone wanting to be more rational. Do you think, say, the NRA want to be more rational, the KKK, the Proud Boys? (Give up? Answer is: No, they don't.)
I want to figure out how to best guard against them when they are used against me.
Even better, you could figure out how best to recognise them when you use them against others. Maybe using that professional psychologist's treatment, or by thinking really hard.
I think most biases are revealed to us by trusting others' contrary experience. It's difficult to do this when your schema for handling the testimony of others is to separate it into that which supports your position and that which is part of a conspiracy involving the Clintons, the Jews, Hunter Biden and the reanimated corpses of South American de facto dictators.
Kenosha KidJanuary 17, 2021 at 13:13#4897490 likes
The "post modernists" aren't against truth. Indeed, the favourite targets of the right are all about the truth: the various objective states the world and society takes. They just recognise the objective states are a contingent formation: a truth put there by moment of existence, rather than something put there by a transcendent force or derived from a concept or principle.
:up:
Post-truth is incompatible with post-modernism. It's sort of to deconstruction what intelligent design is to evolution.
Harry HinduJanuary 17, 2021 at 15:05#4897990 likes
Both sides are the problem, said the guy who paints people he disagrees with as pawns and pretending he isn't one himself. So we have non-pawns and pawns, and within pawns there's whatever you're alluding to on two opposing sides as well. Yawn.
The world isn't black and white. Thinking that it is is only limiting your options and your freedoms. I'm not the one seeing the world in black and white. You are. Pathetic.
Your tactic seems be, "if I can't make a good arguement against what Harry said, then I'll just accuse him if being what he is accusing me of being."
Does thinking for yourself still mean that you are a pawn? If so then all you've done is relegate the word, "pawn" into meaninglessness.
It does seem like I'm the only one here advocating for the abolishment of political parties. So who am I a pawn of in saying such things? I really want to see you back this up.
EDIT: Now that I've thought about it a bit more, Benkei is taking a tactic out of the theists handbook in asserting that even atheism is a religion. Benkei is trying to assert being a-political is still being political.
Politics IS a religion - a means of controlling individuals.
You don't seem able to follow the argument, and engage in actual debate. Everything you say is mere contradiction. So, believe whatever you like. It doesn't matter anymore. Humankind is surely doomed - because, like you, they're wrong, and what is wrong cannot survive. It's cause and effect.
What I enjoy about these conversations is other interesting people sharing their points of view. It is not my intention to convince you of anything. I am simply providing another perspective, one that works really well for me because it is my reality (the sum total of my experience in intellectual form).
I have been going back and forth a bit between the intellectual and the non-intellectual and perhaps that's what has you a bit confused. I thought you would understand. Let's get back to your example of the man who is pounding the stake. Yes, the speed of light is faster than the speed of sound and you receive the visual image before the auditory signal but you contend that this doesn't change the reality of the situation. OK.
Now what happens if the same dynamic takes place infinitely? What is the effect then?
You are very serious about these conversations, me, not so much. I am here to relax and enjoy other people's views.
— synthesis
Again, seriousness has little to do with it. Even if I considered these conversations to be the most trivial matters in the world, the opinions I express in them would still have causes, and where empirical, would relate to evidence from experience.
I can't see what is so 'friendly' about claiming that BLM doctored the mobile phone footage of an arrest to make it look like murder, which then suddenly becomes fusty and academic when the actual source of that claim is added.
What I am saying might make more sense to you in ten or fifteen years. Maybe not. I know I come from a very different place, but isn't that good? Many people have a problem with those whose thinking is non-traditional.
Perhaps you can take solace in the idea that one of these days my thinking will be old hat, replaced by new ways to link letters and words and numbers to create realities much more interesting.
Science (like all knowledge) changes constantly, correct? Why should I take anything postulated out there seriously if it is only going to be dis-proven?
— synthesis
Really? You're seriously asking that question?[/quote]
Give me an example of something I should take as a "given" in your world. And try to relax. It's Sunday :).
Number one, Dr. Skeptic understands that medical science (in many cases) will not only not get you to the correct diagnosis, but it will only serve to confuse the matter.
— synthesis
How does Dr. Skeptic know that? What methods does he have access to that medical science does not?
He knows through his experience, i.e., he has followed the SOC (standard of care) many, many times which has left him wanting.
[quote="Echarmion;489702"]There's a very old saying in medicine that you might have heard before, "If you listen closely enough to the patient, s/he will tell you EXACTLY what is wrong."
— synthesis
But isn't that also what "standard" medicine does? Only that they do not just listen to you talk, but also "listen" to various other bodily functions?
Well, that's the theory (just like the theory is that politicians act in their constituency's best interests). But you have to really listen and this takes time and, as well, being able to tap into what the person is saying.
Most providers do not have the time nor are they particularly interested in tapping into anything other then getting what needs to be done in order to satisfy TPTB which exert draconian control over the process.
[quote="Echarmion;489702"]I would contend that it is impossible to understand even the simplest of things (if for no other reason than each event is preceded by an infinite number of events determining such.
— synthesis
So, if you want to boil a pot of water, do you randomly do things to it until it boils? Pray to the gods to boil the water? Or do you use your understanding of physics to predict what course of events will make the water boil?
Boiling water has as much to do with understanding as does a dung beetle's need to understand in order to perform its vital duty.
[quote="Echarmion;489702"]How you possibly understand the true nature of anything?
— synthesis
How did the "true nature" of anything get into this discussion? What's a "true nature"? Why does it matter?
True nature is sort of a non-intellectual idea (I know). I've always kind of thought of understand as follows...it's not what you can understand that's important, but what you cannot understand that means everything.
[quote="Echarmion;489702"]Reality is not like the movie our brains convey.
— synthesis
How do you know? If you don't think we have access to reality, you cannot make claims about it.
I don't. I prefer to think of life as discrete moments (outside of time), albeit connected.
Again, Absolute Truth exists outside of the intellect. It is permanent and unchanging. Relative truth is impermanent (in constant flux). Although all knowledge is indeed relative, the left got it wrong (imagine that!) by refusing to acknowledge that although truth is relative, human beings still agree to live by it (a moral code) just the same.
— synthesis
How is this epistemological position either left or right?
It's not. It's wisdom passed down over the millennia.
Good does not always mean good for me. We're a social species whose instinctive ideas of what is good are honed on the basis that what's good for me and what's good for others all comes out in the wash. They're good instincts to trust (good for you). :)
Reply to Kenosha Kid
Since I don't hold any position of power, it's irrelevant what biases I may hold in regard to others, as long as those biases aren't to my disadvantage.
Kenosha KidJanuary 17, 2021 at 21:42#4899450 likes
Since I don't hold any position of power, it's irrelevant what biases I may hold in regard to others, as long as those biases aren't to my disadvantage.
Everyone's in a position of power all the time. In the aforementioned context of right wing extremists peddling their uninvestigated biases, those biases have the power to compel others toward biased, hateful beliefs. How do we know? Because said peddlers themselves acquired those beliefs through exposure to others.
Likewise, we can help people we love better if we are unbiased against the particular challenges they face.
I remember my (now ex-) girlfriend telling me about guys beeping her, yelling at her, slowing their cars down, winding down their windows, laughing, when she was out jogging. I found that difficult to process. It suggested that, when I wasn't looking, the world operated in a starkly different way.
I might have told this story before on here, apologies if so. A friend of mine was in a guided hiking group through the rainforest in Australia. The guide said that if they looked carefully, they'd see these giant spiders. My friend spent the whole time looking, never saw one, until near the end when he overheard the guide telling someone that you have to adjust your focus to see them because they hang between the trees and our brains have difficulty focusing on the spaces between things.
So he really focused and eventually he saw a giant arachnid dangling between the two trees in front of him. Then he turned around. They were fucking EVERYWHERE! He'd been surrounded by them the whole time, he just didn't know how to see them.
The girlfriend after the girlfriend after that told me a similar thing about guys intimidating her by yelling, slowing down etc. but also about how it didn't happen if she was with a man. Once, she and this guy had had to walk single file down a narrow path. Another man coming the other way saw her but not him, verbally abused her, then saw her friend and apologised... TO HIM!
After that I started seeing it everywhere. It's not that it hadn't been happening around me, it's just that I never tuned in. I'm in no particular position of power either, but at least I have the power to tell creeps to go fuck themselves when they start harassing lone women in the street. All because one friend who went to Australia and another who once had to walk single file taught me not to trust my biases over their experience.
I don't understand why nobody in this thread can accept that this forum doesn't fall on the exact midpoint between Brett's political views and whatever liberal views he had in mind when he made this thread. It should be obvious.
Kenosha KidJanuary 18, 2021 at 09:08#4900800 likes
I don't understand why nobody in this thread can accept that this forum doesn't fall on the exact midpoint between Brett's political views and whatever liberal views he had in mind when he made this thread. It should be obvious.
Pfhorrest did a poll. The forum leans toward the left, unsurprisingly.
Were your girlfriends who were accosted by men when they were alone? Excatly.
Likewise, we can help people we love better if we are unbiased against the particular challenges they face.
What exactly are we talking about? Do you think I'm a right-winger?
I remember my (now ex-) girlfriend telling me about guys beeping her, yelling at her, slowing their cars down, winding down their windows, laughing, when she was out jogging. I found that difficult to process. It suggested that, when I wasn't looking, the world operated in a starkly different way.
Good morning to you, too!
So he really focused and eventually he saw a giant arachnid dangling between the two trees in front of him. Then he turned around. They were fucking EVERYWHERE! He'd been surrounded by them the whole time, he just didn't know how to see them.
Same goes for when one is picking chestnuts or looking for mushrooms. Or noticing how many other people have a car of the same make and model as oneself.
Then there's a bias there as well, one of jumping to conclusions where, if one is looking for X, one is more likely to see it, and also interpret Y and Z as X.
After that I started seeing it everywhere. It's not that it hadn't been happening around me, it's just that I never tuned in. I'm in no particular position of power either, but at least I have the power to tell creeps to go fuck themselves when they start harassing lone women in the street. All because one friend who went to Australia and another who once had to walk single file taught me not to trust my biases over their experience.
What exactly are we talking about? Do you think I'm a right-winger?
No, nor do I think I *was* a right-winger. Nonetheless examining our biases to avoid misleading or, in this case, failing to protect others is important.
Then there's a bias there as well, one of jumping to conclusions where, if one is looking for X, one is more likely to see it, and also interpret Y and Z as X.
That's true, but in my example the difference was qualitative (no spiders --> many spiders) rather than quantitative (some spiders --> many spiders). Let's not forget, he was *always* looking for spiders; the difference came when he changed how he looked at the world around him.
To which I replied:
Were your girlfriends who were accosted by men when they were alone?
Because they weren't in a position of power then. Or would you say they were?
No, nor do I think I *was* a right-winger. Nonetheless examining our biases to avoid misleading or, in this case, failing to protect others is important.
Sure.
That's true, but in my example the difference was qualitative (no spiders --> many spiders) rather than quantitative (some spiders --> many spiders).
As I exemplified right away with looking for chestnuts and mushrooms. I experience it every ear: I go to collect chestnuts, I know where the trees are, but when I'm first there, I don't notice the chestnuts on the ground. I really have to look to begin seeing them, and then I continue seeing them.
Kenosha KidJanuary 18, 2021 at 12:08#4901170 likes
I think the real topic is if the leftist bias hinders open discussion.
It should hinder e.g. racism, which tends to live on the right. But not always (e.g. anti-Semitism in the British Labour party.) It doesn't matter where it comes from, it should not be tolerated imo.
I go to collect chestnuts, I know where the trees are, but when I'm first there, I don't notice the chestnuts on the ground. I really have to look to begin seeing them, and then I continue seeing them.
Ah okay. Yes, same thing. Not the same thing as confirmation bias, though.
It should hinder e.g. racism, which tends to live on the right. But not always (e.g. anti-Semitism in the British Labour party.) It doesn't matter where it comes from, it should not be tolerated imo.
As you yourself noticed, racism is a separate issue and not dependent on the right/left divide. More typically is that the response if someone brings up ideas of some thinker or philosopher is quite different depending on the political side. For some reason, one side invokes a serious and cordial response, while another is invokes jeering. But this is quite natural for especially those who feel passionately of their ideology and see the opposite side as basically evil.
If the tables would be turned around (meaning there would be only a few leftists here), I think there would be even more jeering and hostility, which I think is something because of the times we live in and the vicious culture of social media (that has settled here too).
And being a centrist is like being an agnostic: both atheists and theists are annoyed at you being so indecisive about such a clear yes/no question.
I think he’s asking if they were in a position of power then.
Yes, obviously, this is what I'm asking. I omitted [in a position of power] because I thought it was clear from the context that this is what I was referring to, since my question followed directly upon his statement that "Everyone's in a position of power all the time."
Clearly, this doesn't seem to be the case with his girlfriends when they were alone and accosted by men.
Unless KK actually thinks they were in a position of power when they were alone and accosted by men.
Kenosha KidJanuary 18, 2021 at 13:28#4901350 likes
More typically is that the response if someone brings up ideas of some thinker or philosopher is quite different depending on the political side.
Disagreeing with right wing members has so quickly and consistently seen me named as a communist, or an identity politician, or some such that I don't even bother to disagree. From my point of view, there's usually nothing meaningful to discuss.
I've always appreciated your pro-capitalist contributions though, even though they're entirely incorrect of course ;)
Kenosha KidJanuary 18, 2021 at 13:30#4901370 likes
Clearly, this doesn't seem to be the case with his girlfriends when they were alone and accosted by men.
Unless KK actually thinks they were in a position of power when they were alone and accosted by men.
In the dynamic of sexual predator/target, they do not occupy the position of power. That does not make them powerless in every conceivable dynamic. If you can do something about something, that is a position of power.
Disagreeing with right wing members has so quickly and consistently seen me named as a communist, or an identity politician, or some such that I don't even bother to disagree. From my point of view, there's usually nothing meaningful to discuss.
I've always appreciated your pro-capitalist contributions though, even though they're entirely incorrect of course ;)
Jeering and ridicule simply don't work and tell far more about the person doing it than the object of ridicule.
When I was younger I had a similar kind of dismissive attitude towards the people on the other side of the political spectrum. Yet one has to remember that the World is so complex that totally reasonable, smart and educated people can have totally opposite views on just how to tackle the current problems of our time. When you weed out the fringes, the populists and the utopians, both sides do have points. The real difference are the solutions given, not noticing the problem.
Far better to know just exactly why they make the wrong conclusions.
counterpunchJanuary 18, 2021 at 14:00#4901530 likes
Wrong answer! But good to know where your head is at!
counterpunchJanuary 18, 2021 at 14:09#4901570 likes
Reply to baker I was speaking to a telemarketer when you so rudely interrupted me with this nothing of a comment!
counterpunchJanuary 18, 2021 at 14:15#4901590 likes
This is from the BBC:
"Racism in education: How 'truth pages' helped students fight back
The killing of George Floyd was a catalyst moment for social justice movements across the world. But after the coronavirus pandemic worsened some of those movements were pushed aside."
Reply to counterpunch
A lot of people are convinced it was 1st degree murder. I think that would make more sense if the cops had taken him to a secluded location and made sure no one was videoing the entire interaction to subsequently show to the whole world.
I guess we'll find out when all the facts are examined.
counterpunchJanuary 18, 2021 at 15:18#4901750 likes
Reply to frank Correct answer. Doesn't fit in the space provided, but yes, you get the point. Here's the thing. What does a refusal to answer signify? Do they know they're being biased - and won't answer because it would reveal that bias? Or do they not know? And it's right across left wing mainstream media. How can there be a fair trial when there's all this subconscious bias being pumped out in the media?
Kenosha KidJanuary 18, 2021 at 15:25#4901760 likes
counterpunchJanuary 18, 2021 at 16:05#4901870 likes
Reply to Kenosha Kid No. He's dead. "Death" would be a perfectly appropriate word to use in the sentence
The ______ of George Floyd.
The term 'death' is accurate, and it's neutral. As opposed to 'killing' or worse, 'murder' - or worse yet, "racist murder". Those are not neutral terms. 'Killing' presumes to know what Floyd died of. 'Murder' presumes know what he died of, and that there was intent to kill. "Racist murder" - the term you used, presumes to know what Floyd died of, that there was intent to kill, and what motivated that intent. These are biased terms that should not be used by the media prior to a verdict.
The last philosophy forum I was in is also dominated by lefties. In fact, I was the last Conservative. I'm beginning to think that a Philo forum full of lefties is like saying Churches are full of righties.
Am I right to assume, it's a 'progressive' endeavour, to seek knowledge that explains the world we live in. Because Christians already know why and how the world exists?
I was more central as an agnostic 3 years ago. I sought a philosophical explanation for our creation/existence, and found science to be the least convincing. Now I guess I'd be considered a righty.
Kenosha KidJanuary 18, 2021 at 16:51#4902090 likes
Reply to Kenosha Kid
I wonder if Chauvin will plead guilty. He'll have to be protected while in jail. I guess he'll be spending a lot of time alone.
counterpunchJanuary 18, 2021 at 17:03#4902160 likes
Reply to Kenosha Kid No. You think you know, but you don't. You think you know because that's what you want to believe, and are not intelligent enough to understand that wanting to believe something is not what makes it true.
You are not intelligent enough to understand that everyone deserves a fair trial - and that prejudging what happened, doesn't allow for a fair trial - particularly if you're a mainstream broadcaster like the BBC.
I mean, you personally - who gives a shit what you think, right? But the BBC is utterly in thrall to the same politically correct, lefty cultural paradigm that so demonstrably biases your thinking, and then broadcasts undue assumptions based on that politically correct bias. The BBC should know better!
Here's the difference between us. If George Floyd had been a white criminal, who resisted arrest by four police officers, while handcuffed, making it impossible to put him in the car - so they restrained him, and he died, possibly as a consequence of that restraint - I'd be saying the same thing. I'd be saying Floyd created the situation that led to his death, and the benefit of the doubt is with the police. You wouldn't. In fact, if George Floyd were a white criminal we'd never have heard of him. Floyd's skin colour changes things for you. That's what makes you a racist.
Do you realize that you make equally, if not more sweeping assumptions about the people you interact with on this forum - their worldview, their honesty, their intelligence? You don't pause to think whether you have enough evidence to prove any of that in court.
counterpunchJanuary 18, 2021 at 19:10#4902510 likes
Reply to Isaac Is Kenosha Kid the Medical Examiner in the Floyd case? I had no idea! I should have done my research. I've only been able to determine that there are two contradictory autopsies, and a pending toxicology result. But as the Medical Examiner in the case is here - well, I'll have to defer to his professional expertise!
Phew, now I'm absolutely exhausted. All that research... Now I see why people are so reluctant to do it. I'm going to have to have a lie down.
counterpunchJanuary 18, 2021 at 19:17#4902540 likes
Reply to Echarmion Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of the sweeping assumptions I make about people here - but those people are quite free to refute those accusations, and explain what they really believe, which is my purpose in doing so. I'm being deliberately provocative with people being insufficiently honest.
counterpunchJanuary 18, 2021 at 19:24#4902570 likes
Reply to Isaac Did you read your own reference? The two autopsies are contradictory. And there's a toxicology report at issue. Which is exactly what I said. So don't tell me to "do the bare minimum" like I don't know what I'm talking about.
Kenosha KidJanuary 18, 2021 at 19:25#4902580 likes
You are not intelligent enough to understand that everyone deserves a fair trial - and that prejudging what happened, doesn't allow for a fair trial - particularly if you're a mainstream broadcaster like the BBC.
Everyone deserves a fair trial but that unfortunately for you includes video footage, eye witness testimony and coroner reports. These things you like to dismiss are called "facts" and those are used in court to assess culpability.
But the BBC is utterly in thrall to the same politically correct, lefty cultural paradigm that so demonstrably biases your thinking, and then broadcasts undue assumptions based on that politically correct bias. The BBC should know better!
The battle cry of the racist! If someone says it's not okay for the police to murder people in their custody, well duh! Oh, the person's black? Political correctness gone mad, right?
If George Floyd had been a white criminal, who resisted arrest by four police officers, while handcuffed, making it impossible to put him in the car - so they restrained him, and he died, possibly as a consequence of that restraint - I'd be saying the same thing.
Yah bullshit. A police officer shoots a white woman part of a violent mob calling for the murder of elected officials storming a government building and attacking police officers and your response is:
What is it with fascists always telling people that they didn't see what they saw? Same deal with the lynch mob at the Capitol.
counterpunchJanuary 18, 2021 at 19:39#4902670 likes
Reply to Kenosha Kid You should have viewed the police bodycam footage. It shows Floyd, handcuffed, fighting four police officers - making it impossible to put him in the car. And he's yelling "I can't breathe" - that BLM slogan, while fighting four police officers. You say he was face down, handcuffed - but that's only because he needed to be restrained. Floyd created that need. And BLM bullshit undermined the credibility of any subsequent complaint that he couldn't breathe. Did the woman need to be shot dead to prevent her entering a building? I don't think so. Do you care about her death? No. She was white!
Kenosha KidJanuary 18, 2021 at 19:43#4902690 likes
Reply to counterpunch Floyd was murdered lying face down with the cop's knee on his neck for 8 minutes. Cherry-picking the facts doesn't make you less racist: it makes you more.
Irrelevant. Both conclude he was killed, which is the statement you took issue with. Nowhere did the BBC state that the autopsies contained no contrary information.
counterpunchJanuary 18, 2021 at 19:58#4902760 likes
Reply to Kenosha Kid I didn't edit the video plastered all over social media, or tailor my description of events to make the suspect seem guiltless and helpless. I'm not cherry picking anything. I know why the police needed to restrain him. I didn't omit that - you did.
They were waiting for a van because Floyd fought like a mad dog, making it impossible to put him into the car. If he had got into the car, he wouldn't be dead. Floyd put himself face down in the road with a policeman pinning him down. He created that situation. It was a dangerous situation. Restraining people is inherently dangerous, and potentially fatal.
If the police fear they may end up charged with murder for restraining people, it's going to make it impossible for them to do their job.
counterpunchJanuary 18, 2021 at 20:01#4902790 likes
Reply to Isaac The defence say he wasn't killed. The defence say he overdosed. The autopsies are evidence - the value of which is yet to be determined by the jury. Saying he was killed is therefore, to assume guilt, and to broadcast an assumption of guilt may prejudice the trial.
Kenosha KidJanuary 18, 2021 at 20:03#4902800 likes
Accusing black people of faking evidence of race crimes against them with nothing but moronic conspiracy theories: racist.
Look at the statistics on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website. I did when the BLM rioting, burning and looting started because I wanted to know the facts.
There are around 10 million arrests per year, and around 1000 Arrest Related Deaths. That's based on an average of data from 2003-2012, before Obama shut down collection of data on the race of arrest related deaths, the year before Black Lies Matter was formed in 2013.
The data shows that of the 1000 deaths, that's 0.1% of all arrests, 32% were black and 42% were white.
Given that a lot more crimes are committed by black people than by white people, that's not disproportionate. More crimes of violence are committed by black people in general - suggesting perhaps, a greater propensity to resist arrest. For example, more murders are committed by the black, 13% of the US population, than the 76% white population.
If there's a conspiracy here, it's the false narrative created by BLM with carefully edited cell phone footage, to suggest police are engaged in a racist genocide and incite black people to riots. Perhaps that was to spike the US Presidential election. Perhaps that was post modernist neo-marxists seeking to undermine law and order, like they are trying to undermine all western values.
"Common targets of postmodern criticism include universalist ideas of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, science, language, and social progress."
Reply to counterpunch
Oh. Nothing lasts forever, man. We're just zooming through the middle of nowhere, headed toward nothing, for no reason.
My advice: see the beauty around you, weep for all the world's pain, and drink some really good tea.
counterpunchJanuary 18, 2021 at 20:39#4902970 likes
Reply to frank Let me ask you a question. Who invented the Covid vaccine, and who's going to pay for the rest of the world to get it if the WHO have their way?
You attack the very foundations of our civilisation, free speech, a fair trial, law and order, capitalism, gender, sexuality, race - a constant multi-pronged assault, and it's true - nothing does last forever. A dripping tap will cut through a mountain given enough time. So keep chipping away, and when it all comes tumbling down around your ears, do you honestly think things will be better?
You attack the very foundations of our civilisation, free speech, a fair trial, law and order, capitalism, gender, sexuality, race - a constant multi-pronged assault, and it's true - nothing does last forever. A dripping tap will cut through a mountain given enough time. So keep chipping away, and when it all comes tumbling down around your ears, do you honestly think things will be better?
You've got the Ghost of Doom lurking on your horizon. You think the solution is to put down women and minorities. It's old school white supremacism, man.
Do you see yourself as an evangelist for this cause?
counterpunchJanuary 18, 2021 at 20:53#4903040 likes
Reply to frank How depressing that you immediately see things in terms of skin colour. Do you consider yourself racist?
Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of the sweeping assumptions I make about people here - but those people are quite free to refute those accusations, and explain what they really believe, which is my purpose in doing so. I'm being deliberately provocative with people being insufficiently honest.
Am I right to assume, it's a 'progressive' endeavour, to seek knowledge that explains the world we live in.
It just looks like that.
One reason of course is that leftist ideology is atheist. However when you take a large group of scientists and add engineers there, it just looks to be leftist as the discourse in the university, at least the loudest people, are leftist, but likely it is a normal varied group. I simply don't buy the idea that universities are bastions of marxism, as some say. It's usually bullshit: you likely find just one or two loud mouthed activist that paint some faculty to be "red" and of course young students that before landing in their cushy careers, blow off steam in a rally or two. Besides, scientists don't openly show their political ideologies and why should they? To be a great volcanologist your political views don't matter so much.
Here's the difference between us. If George Floyd had been a white criminal, who resisted arrest by four police officers, while handcuffed, making it impossible to put him in the car - so they restrained him, and he died, possibly as a consequence of that restraint - I'd be saying the same thing. I'd be saying Floyd created the situation that led to his death, and the benefit of the doubt is with the police. You wouldn't. In fact, if George Floyd were a white criminal we'd never have heard of him. Floyd's skin colour changes things for you. That's what makes you a racist.
I did an experiment with the George Floyd situation:
I didn't pay attention to it when it was on the news, and only saw the video of his arrest for the first time last week.
What I saw there was the police acting in bad faith (as the police often does) and a person who was helpless against that.
Unlike probably most posters here, I am not for the US, not from the UK, I am from a country that is some 99% white and the closest I've ever seen a black person is in a tv or newspaper commercial.
I, in effect am, "color blind", but not because of political orientation, but simply because growing up in a monoracial culture where race is never or only rarely an issue can make a person not focus on skin color/race at all. Our official identification documents issued by the state do not contain a race description. Unlike US ones.
Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of the sweeping assumptions I make about people here - but those people are quite free to refute those accusations, and explain what they really believe, which is my purpose in doing so. I'm being deliberately provocative with people being insufficiently honest.
When Patrick Jane or Gregory House do that, it's fun to watch and they solve cases and figure out the right diagnosis.
But when real people do it, it just means they're jerks. And nothing good comes out of it.
Kenosha KidJanuary 18, 2021 at 21:13#4903190 likes
The data shows that of the 1000 deaths, that's 0.1% of all arrests, 32% were black and 42% were white.
Yes, you and others keep pushing this line, then you receive the obvious response -- that this isn't about deaths during arrests, this is about police shooting unsuspecting black men in the back or crushing the life out of them when they're already restrained and pose no danger --, you ignore it, then go back to regurgitating the same vomit. I know this counts for clever with the racist crowd, but it doesn't cut the mustard elsewhere. I don't think you'll find anyone here who'd hold it against a police officer for shooting in defence of self, a partner, or civilians. You might find many who dislike the police shooting to kill in order to catch a criminal, but that's about American culture generally, not it's racist culture specifically. Pretending the dialogue is about something else is not smart.
Let me ask you a question. Who invented the Covid vaccine, and who's going to pay for the rest of the world to get it if the WHO have their way?
I can well imagine you not getting your head around the idea that someone who invented a vaccine for a global pandemic wouldn't just keep it for their in-group.
Science is also international. Just because you learn it in the English-speaking west, doesn't mean it came from the English-speaking West. As hard as this will be for you to swallow, scientists typically believe that they do what they do for humanity, not for straight white English-speaking men. Crazy, huh?
counterpunchJanuary 18, 2021 at 21:14#4903200 likes
So you're not trying to convert people. You're just spitting out the same blerbs over and over, unable to wake up from it. Still, it's more fun to talk to you than your counterparts, I will say that.
I have no counterparts. I am fiercely intellectually independent. Western capitalism invented the Covid vaccine. I'm not sure what skin colour the actual scientists had. Western societies are multi-cultural societies, and science itself has a somewhat global outlook, so they could have been any skin colour. It's not a race thing. But it is a Western civilisation thing.
The thing I care most about is a sustainable future for humankind, and I don't believe that can be achieved - other than by capitalism. Capitalism has the knowledge, the skills, the technology, the human resources, the industrial capacity and so on, to do what needs to be done. Further, it has commerce, as a basis to negotiate these matters between people's. If there's any chance of a sustainable future - it will be western capitalism that does it, like it was western capitalism that invented the vaccine and is expected to pay for the rest of the world to receive it.
So the left's multi-pronged assault on objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, science, language, and social progress - in terms of race, gender, law and order, free speech a fair trial and on and on and on, all pitched against western civilisation does indeed invoke:
I simply don't buy the idea that universities are bastions of marxism, as some say. It's usually bullshit
It is bullshit. Marxism is basically dead outside of philosophy and economics. Never met a Marxist scientist in my life. Plenty critical of unconstrained capitalism though, as well as pro environmental action, pro equity, etc.
Well, yes it is. It's certainly not true that everyone is in every position of power all the time. That would be nonsensical.
So, to go back to where this tangent started from: Quoting baker
Since I don't hold any position of power, it's irrelevant what biases I may hold in regard to others, as long as those biases aren't to my disadvantage.
When a person is not in a position of power, does it make sense or is it economical to retain biases that aren't to one's disadvantage?
The thing I care most about is a sustainable future for humankind, and I don't believe that can be achieved - other than by capitalism.
I sort of agree with that. If we collapse in on ourselves as anti-technology people would like us to, we'll miss a chance to save civilization from climate change, specifically climate volatility. (I'm guessing you don't believe in climate change, white supremacists usually don't.)
Worrying about it won't really help anything, though. If civilization survives, great. If it doesn't, it had a good run. Maybe it will show up again 10,000 years from now.
Kenosha KidJanuary 18, 2021 at 21:31#4903310 likes
Reply to Kenosha Kid
I'm saying that when people are in disadvantaged positions, there is, to say the least, no incentive to change their minds or to overcome their cognitive biases.
Do you disagree?
counterpunchJanuary 18, 2021 at 21:38#4903360 likes
When Patrick Jane or Gregory House do that, it's fun to watch and they solve cases and figure out the right diagnosis. But when real people do it, it just means they're jerks. And nothing good comes out of it.
Just thought I'd collect all your posts in one place that I can take them in. Were I a critic I should say that they lack wit, lack insight, and lack explanatory power. It would be as good, or better had they never been written.
I'm saying that when people are in disadvantaged positions, there is, to say the least, no incentive to change their minds or to overcome their cognitive biases.
Do you disagree?
Yes, for all the above reasons. I mean, maybe there's some unfortunate maximally disadvantaged edge case, but generally, yes. Being economically disadvantaged, for instance, is no barrier to treating your neighbour better.
Being economically disadvantaged, for instance, is no barrier to treating your neighbour better.
Or so liberal common sense would have us believe.
But IRL, no good deed goes unpunished. What's the point of having one's mind operate by the humanist standards of secular academia, if that makes one a loser?
counterpunchJanuary 18, 2021 at 22:09#4903500 likes
Reply to frank There you go with the stereotyping. It's okay when you do it, huh? I do believe in climate change, and I'm not white supremacist. But I am pro-Western. We got a lot right. Our societies are prosperous and relatively just. We invented almost everything - scientific and industrial revolutions, through to modern democracy and capitalism. Medical science, the internal combustion engine, the computer, the internet.
I blame much on the weather - it's cold a lot of the time, and so we pursue indoor sports like reading books. And there's the relative proximity of England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain etc, and the competition of ideas, art, commerce, philosophy, music - and so on, that occurred between them over hundreds of years.
It's not racist to be proud of the contributions of western civilisation to the world; nor expect that, if there's a viable future, it will be the West that makes it happen. So yes, I object to post modernist, politically correct, white guilt ridden, craven left twits - attacking our civilisation, in their typically myopic, post truth, falsely self righteous manner.
I understand why you want to obscure it. You guys are a dying breed. Back in the day there was nothing odd about it. These days you have to choose your words carefully. is that frustrating?
I'm not going to rise to your provocation. I've spoken honestly, and explained my position eloquently. Your repeated assertions of racism are because you can't deny what I've said or defend your own dishonest position. Think about this - anti biotics alone have saved more lives that were lost in all the wars - ever! Thank you Sir Alexander Fleming FRS FRSE FRCS. And hurrah for western medicine and science in general.
Are not you better placed to tell me, than I am to tell you - to what degree you identify with the ideas I've criticised? You haven't explained, but you have acted defensively and offensively - in response to these criticisms. You're displaying classic signs of left wing fragility!
It is bullshit. Marxism is basically dead outside of philosophy and economics. Never met a Marxist scientist in my life. Plenty critical of unconstrained capitalism though, as well as pro environmental action, pro equity, etc.
And there are plenty of conservatives too that are critical of unconstrained capitalism, pro environment and pro equity, actually. At least here.
But so true. I did have one economics teacher who was a Marxist. He did give us one whole lecture on Marx when we were studying economic history (other 19th Century economist got only a part of a lecture). I also studied economic history and thought that the student were OK (even if the social history students were strange), until I once went to the homepages of the economic history students and found a picture of Marx & Lenin there with the caption that the students were "A small group of Marxists that are darn proud to be so". I found it a bit puzzling and then asked a girl at work (that had also studied there at the same time) about what was with the homepages. She replied "Oh yeah, I found it very strange too."
Oh, you are? Then get your entertainment elsewhere. If you don't care about any of this all you're doing is amusing yourself at my expense, and I resent it.
Oh, you are? Then get your entertainment elsewhere. If you don't care about any of this all you're doing is amusing yourself at my expense, and I resent it.
:rofl:
Kenosha KidJanuary 18, 2021 at 23:31#4903790 likes
And there are plenty of conservatives too that are critical of unconstrained capitalism, pro environment and pro equity, actually. At least here.
Yes, I think it's the peculiarity of the English-speaking right that social conservativism, social order theories, economic liberalism, traditionalism, some faux Christianity, post-truth, and short-termism inevitably coalesce.
The defence say he wasn't killed. The defence say he overdosed. The autopsies are evidence - the value of which is yet to be determined by the jury. Saying he was killed is therefore, to assume guilt, and to broadcast an assumption of guilt may prejudice the trial.
The only two experts currently available to the BBC on the matter of his cause of death both concluded he was killed. In such circumstances the BBC are well within their journalistic impartiality to state the conclusion of the sum total of expert opinion at the time. It is not their responsibility to preempt any possible defence. You're confusing impartiality with scepticism. Journalist need not reserve judgement until 100% certain, they only need reasonable grounds to draw the conclusions they draw. The conclusion of the only two medical experts involved are reasonable grounds.
If a jury convict, how does the further opinion of twelve members of the public add some magic level of certainty to the situation? The jurisprudential means of securing conviction and the journalistic standards of impartiality are not the same, nor even much related, and for good reason.
He's just a supremacist, not specifically a white supremacist. Right-wingers tend to be authoritarian, supremacist: "I know and others don't know. I am honest, others are not. I see things as they really are, others do not. I am the arbiter of other people's reality."
He's just a supremacist, not specifically a white supremacist.
His view is identical to the traditional white supremacist doctrine: white people are doomed because of the rise of non-whites. Non-whites are supposed to be inherently dangerous to western civilization.
Whether he knows he's a white supremacist, I don't know. Don't care. :kiss:
counterpunchJanuary 19, 2021 at 17:46#4906140 likes
Reply to Isaac On the face of it, absent of a highly charged political atmosphere, a man was arrested, he resisted arrest - fighting off four police officers, he was restrained, and he died. He was found to have a lethal quantity of narcotics in his system.
Under normal circumstances, I suspect it would be found that there wasn't a case to answer. Under the highly politicised circumstances created by BLM - it was impossible to find that there wasn't a case to answer.
Thus, one could argue, what you call "expert opinion on the cause of death" - is a somewhat forced conclusion; and consequently, using the term 'killing' - rather than the more neutral term 'death' - is cementing a forced conclusion, a first victory in a left wing crusade to make it impossible for police to do their job.
counterpunchJanuary 19, 2021 at 17:53#4906180 likes
Reply to frank That's really fucking vicious. Why are you trying to disgrace me? How many times do I have to tell you, race isn't an issue for me?
I am actively seeking to save HUMANKIND from extinction - and you seek to tarnish me with accusations of racism and white supremacism in favour of a failed commie dogma, you won't even admit to?
Nihilist my arse! You neo marxist, post modernist, politically correct wretch! Take it back - and knock it the fuck off. It's not right to impugn people, over and over - just because they don't drink the commie kool aid.
Kenosha KidJanuary 19, 2021 at 18:19#4906270 likes
Reply to counterpunchWhen someone kneels on the neck of a black man for 8 1/2 minutes until he's dead and you think an accurate description is:
one doesn't need to know jack shit about Marx to know you're a racist.
You seem to make the same vile, bullshit statements over and over, and yet seem surprised by the uniformity of the response. No one wants you to volunteer this inhumane crap. You can be a secret racist iyl. But if you insist on being an overt one, you're going to be called on it, and you're going to be despised by a lot of people.
counterpunchJanuary 19, 2021 at 18:22#4906290 likes
Reply to Kenosha Kid I would be saying the same thing If George Floyd had been a white junkie criminal scumbag.
His skin colour ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ME!
It's an issue for you though. What's up with that!
Kenosha KidJanuary 19, 2021 at 18:26#4906320 likes
But okay, let's come at this from a different angle. I consider myself a philosopher. I didn't leap at the first easy I answer I was fed. I engaged in many years of soul searching, on everything - and you think I didn't see past the appearance of skin colour? It's insulting.
Kenosha KidJanuary 19, 2021 at 19:05#4906400 likes
and you think I didn't see past the appearance of skin colour? It's insulting.
Your racism is insulting.
counterpunchJanuary 19, 2021 at 19:28#4906550 likes
Reply to Kenosha Kid You pick snippets from my argument you think you can digest in your own way, but leave behind my meaning.
I promote science as truth, I have an evolutionary conception of humankind - I think morality is a sense as opposed to a culturally specific set of laws, and I treat individuals as I find them, regardless of skin colour, gender, sexuality or whatever.
Stop trying to disgrace me, just because I don't drink the commie Kool aid. I don't drink anyone's kool aid. I'm a philosopher!
TheWillowOfDarknessJanuary 19, 2021 at 19:42#4906600 likes
The "colourblind" approach is racist. "Race" is a proxy for the material conditions and signifcance of a body. When we ignore someone's skin colour, we do not recognise their body is one which belongs of our society. We leave the question of whether society values them up to unobserved whim. We do not recognise that it is our responsibility to value people of those bodies, such that we will give them a society which respects them (and acts to change itself when it doesn't).
Racial equality is not a question of ignoring race. It is one of asserting that people of each race belong to our community--i.e. not "I do not see race", but "I do see you, your community, that you belong of our society."
He was found to have a lethal quantity of narcotics in his system.
On what grounds are you cherry-picking this conclusion of the medical examiner's and not the conclusion that he died from
cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression
You claim to follow the science yet you decide which conclusions from which scientists you are going to accept on the basis of your political ideology. So you're effectively not following the science at all.
On the matter of cause of death only two scientific experts have spoken. They both concluded he was killed.
They may well be biased. They may well have political or ideological motivations which affected their judgment on top of their expertise.
But no-one is demonstrably less biased. In no-one can it be shown that scientific expertise is speaking more than in these two MEs.
If you want to know if a bridge will stand do you ask two (biased) engineers or two (equally biased) lawyers?
My assumption is that the police behaved wrongfully, but where would one find unbiased lawyers? Whether they are prosecuting or defense attorneys, there are going to be biases. Can one set up double-blind medical type experiments in criminal cases? It would seem not.
Under the highly politicised circumstances created by BLM
BLM further politicized the already-politically charged issue of police-black community conflict. BLM only intensified it. I'm not a supporter or follower of BLM, but in all fairness, bad police-community interactions go back a long time. What is new is live coverage of police operations by way of cell-phone video. I have to assume the 4 cops in Floyd's arrest/death knew that there were critical witnesses on hand and that their actions either were, or could be, video recorded. Yet they persisted in using (what seems like excessive force) to complete the arrest and transport of GF.
Bad gay community-police conflict developed in Minneapolis in the early 1980s. The conflict was ignited by a relatively small number of cops--members of the vice squad and downtown street patrols. There was little conflict between gays and police most of the time. A minority of cops cause the majority of conflict with the black community too.
Bad actors in any field can give the whole a bad reputation.
counterpunchJanuary 19, 2021 at 21:26#4906890 likes
Reply to Isaac I'm not the one claiming Floyd was killed, and/or murdered - ahead of a verdict. I'm demonstrating the mistake you are making prejudging the case; and more significantly, feeding those prejudices into the collective subconscious via political correctness hostages in the media, subliminally, by using terms like killing and murder, rather than the more neutral, but still entirely accurate term - death.
counterpunchJanuary 19, 2021 at 21:29#4906910 likes
Nihilist my arse! You neo marxist, post modernist, politically correct wretch! Take it back - and knock it the fuck off. It's not right to impugn people, over and over - just because they don't drink the commie kool aid.
White supremacist meltdowns are fun to watch.
counterpunchJanuary 19, 2021 at 21:48#4906960 likes
Another one for the ignore list. Someone else can moderate this...
counterpunchJanuary 19, 2021 at 21:54#4906980 likes
Reply to Baden You may outnumber me, and be more abusive, and have the power of the moderators on your side - to get away with what I can't, but I'm still the only one making any sense. I'm blowing holes in your beloved lefty dogma - and all you can do about it is insult me. Try defending your position like a philosopher, and stop weeping about your sorely spanked arse!
counterpunchJanuary 19, 2021 at 22:01#4907010 likes
Reply to Baden Supremacist is your term - not mine. Accused of being a white supremacist I said I'm pro-western. I'm proud of western civilisation. Its contributions to the world are vast. It isn't about race. As I explained, it's largely about the weather, and the proximity of European nations in competition that drove us to achieve so much. We got a lot right. So what about any of that is racist, or supremacist? Am I not allowed to be proud of my history?
counterpunchJanuary 19, 2021 at 22:05#4907030 likes
Right, because on a philosophy forum - who might imagine one could discuss ideas freely, without fear of being insulted, provoked and banned. If that's the kind of forum you want, maybe you should change the name!
Reply to counterpunch You feel insulted and provoked because you are being insulted and provoked. What's odd here is that you seem unable to see the racism implicit in what you have posted. You've come up against folk with a better understanding of both philosophy and social issues, and not surprisingly your views have been found wanting. You want to be able to insult and provoke, but cry when you are insulted and provoked.
counterpunchJanuary 19, 2021 at 22:30#4907060 likes
Reply to Banno Okay, let's go with that. I don't know what I'm talking about. You know better. Then why not explain it? This is a philosophy forum after all. What can I learn from being insulted and provoked? What can I learn from this:
You seem to make the same vile, bullshit statements over and over, and yet seem surprised by the uniformity of the response. No one wants you to volunteer this inhumane crap. You can be a secret racist iyl. But if you insist on being an overt one, you're going to be called on it, and you're going to be despised by a lot of people.
What I'm getting is... shut up or else! And to me, that demonstrates precisely the quality of left wing thought. It's not able to deal with anything, so it's shut up, and look the other way, and sweep it under the rug - and then pat yourself on the back for what a good little dogmatist you are. Let none disturb your slumber - or else! It's pathetic.
...you might learn to fit in with the ethos of the forum rather than seeking to be banned.
...might...
It's you who have failed to deal with the comments here. You are replying to the least interesting comments, encouraging the responses you find so upsetting. Look as @NOS4A2's method; far more effective than yours.
Don't come into a forum such as this claiming to have all the answers; demonstrably you do not. Rather, you are serving as a textbook case of Dunning–Kruger;
Overestimate their own skill levels
Fail to recognize the genuine skill and expertise of other people
Fail to recognize their own mistakes and lack of skill
In the end you do not have to be here. IF you find it unpleasant, do something else.
counterpunchJanuary 19, 2021 at 23:03#4907170 likes
...you might learn to phrase your views with a bit more dignity...
You're a subjectivist. So you should consider any such concept a matter of subjective interpretation. Do you imagine I think my posts undignified? Because, quite the contrary. I believe my argument an eloquent appeal for dignity that political correctness lacks.
...you might learn to fit in with the ethos of the forum rather than seeking to be banned.
Fit in? Sorry. I'm a philosopher. Fit in - is not what philosophers do. I'm not seeking to be banned. You're seeking to get me banned, because I have challenged your ideas. That's because you're not a philosopher. You're a left wing ideologue. There are lots of places for you to express your ideas on the internet. Try twitter or reddit, which explicitly support the neo marxist politically correct organisation BLM, and won't hear a word of criticism.
It's you who have failed to deal with the comments here. You are replying to the least interesting comments, encouraging the responses you find so upsetting.
I have tried to respond to all the comments directed at me. What did I miss?
Don't come into a forum such as this claiming to have all the answers; demonstrably you do not. Rather, you are serving as a textbook case of Dunning–Kruger;
Is that so? I have a degree that differs - but let us assume you're right. If I am so stupid I'm incapable of recognising the existence of thought of a superior quality to my own, how does insulting me help? All I'm getting now is, more insults - and more threats. Your post are poor quality, they lack dignity, you don't recognize the pearls of wisdom we have cast at your feet because you're so stupid, fit in or else!
You think being insulted will teach me to make better posts?
No. But one might hope that @Kenosha Kid pointing out the repetitive, self-serving (bullshit is a technical term in philosophy) nature of your posts might influence you towards improvement.
It ought to be. That it isn't, should not be a source of pride; it is perhaps indicative of a lack of compassion, or of not being able to see things from the perspective of the other. The reply form Willow was a curtious invitation to reconsider your position. Your reply was at best trite. You pretend to the privilege of ignoring skin colour, only since that serves your rhetorical need. You didn't address her comments with a degree of seriousness.
That is simply not enough here. Go back and re-read her comment and re-think your reply.
Racial equality is not a question of ignoring race. It is one of asserting that people of each race belong to our community--i.e. not "I do not see race", but "I do see you, your community, that you belong in our society."
TheWillowOfDarknessJanuary 20, 2021 at 00:07#4907350 likes
It's racist or supremacist because everyone else does the same, in their own conditions. The values and practices you identify aren't uniquely Western. People of other cultures partake in them or are just as capable of doing so (as with any culture, values and practices ebb and flow with the tides if history and circumstances).
Nothing is wrong with being happy with achievements within Western culture, of course. The "pro west" is a narrative of othering. People do not mention because they are proud we have antibiotics. They do so because they imagine a narrative by which the West are a superior people and culture: supposedly, it is unique of us to have these technologies, unlike all those other primitive cultures (which is of course hilarious because The West lagged behind other cultures in anti bacterial practices for ages-- such technologies are not unique to the West and Western culture).
counterpunchJanuary 20, 2021 at 00:19#4907370 likes
His skin colour ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ME!
— counterpunch
That it isn't, should not be a source of pride; it is perhaps indicative of a lack of compassion, or of not being able to see things from the perspective of the other.
Ultimately, there is no choice but to treat people as individuals. I cannot understand what it is to be you, because I am me. I can only treat you with compassion as an individual - the same as any other individual; regardless of arbitrary factors like your skin colour, gender, sexuality etc. I owe you respect for your basic human rights - integrity of the person, property, freedom of conscience and speech. But that's about it. If I take into consideration arbitrary facts about you; and act in your favour on that basis, I am necessarily discriminating against someone else.
You pretend to the privilege of ignoring skin colour, only since that serves your rhetorical need. You didn't address her comments with a degree of seriousness.
I didn't seem to - no. To the untrained eye - my comments might have seemed somewhat rude and dismissive of what is probably a very kind and well intentioned person. But let's cut through the maudlin sentiment to start with. These are serious matters with vast consequences for a great many people. Nice isn't enough.
Why 'ought' it? The question is whether a man was killed. What does his skin colour matter?
The question is, was he treated differently because he was black.
But you cannot address this issue unless you recognise that he was black. Hence, "His skin colour ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ME!" is no more than your putting your hands over your ears and humming so as not to see what is before you.
counterpunchJanuary 20, 2021 at 00:41#4907460 likes
I am not able to respond to your post because it doesn't seem to answer my question, and is expressed in terms that are opaque, jargonistic and inexact.
So all people from all countries are colourblind, and that's racist and supremacist?
How do you think this follows from anything else said here? Willow was saying that other cultures, besides the West, are justifiably proud of their achievements. It doesn't follow that they are racist, until they add the pretence that they cannot see any difference between other cultures and their own - as you did.
Here's your inconsistency: You distinguish your own culture and you are proud of you it as it suits you; but when black folk talk of their own distinctiveness, you seek to deny its very existence by saying it "ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ME!"
It's such a small issue for you that you had to capitalise it.
counterpunchJanuary 20, 2021 at 01:02#4907530 likes
That was the first line of an argument that explains why it's necessary to treat people as individuals. You just took me to task for being dismissive of Willow - who is a lovely person, but seems to be expressing a sentimental truth, rather than a logical one - by stringing together some happy words in a fairly random order. (See the Sokal Affair.)
And the next words your, I'm guessing one finger - punches out on the keyboard, is "You spent too much time listening to Thatcher." And you call me trite?
I can quote passages from Hobbes Leviathan from memory. I've read Rawls - A Theory of Justice cover to cover. Don't judge me by your standards.
Why 'ought' it? The question is whether a man was killed. What does his skin colour matter?
— counterpunch
But you cannot address this issue unless you recognise that he was black. Hence, "His skin colour ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ME!" is no more than your putting your hands over your ears and humming so as not to see what is before you.
No, it's not. Because if he were a white junkie criminal, who fought four police officers to prevent being put in a car, and was restrained - and died waiting for a van, I'd be saying exactly the same thing. I'd be saying he created the need to restrain him, and the benefit of the doubt is with the police. You are saying something different because of his skin colour. If you're saying his skin colour was an issue - what evidence do you have for that?
TheWillowOfDarknessJanuary 20, 2021 at 01:15#4907560 likes
I was addressing assertions about the need to be pro Western and how it related to supremacy.
There are "colourblind" people in all countries no doubt, and it is indeed racist, as doesn't recognise the need to recognise a person of a race as part of the community,
but I was not answering that question. (and its definitely not all people on each society. Some people are not "colourblind" ).
TheWillowOfDarknessJanuary 20, 2021 at 01:20#4907580 likes
Definitely not sentimental, I'm talking objective material conditions of society: what is entailed in one's social existence and how it relatest others.
"Colourblindess" is akin to a empirical error. It's refusal to observe how the bodies we talk about (sometimes in terms of racial identity) occur in specific relations.
Comments (905)
Political opinion may be subjective but logic- specifically demonstrable real-world examples and statistics or factual data- are not. Care to list a few examples?
The majority is apparently liberal if that’s what you’re trying to say, sans the micro-drama.
I do consider myself as left wing but you have not discussed anything other than the possibility of being attacked, so I am unclear what point you are trying to make.
It's true that this forum is mostly left-leaning but it's a bit unfair for you to complain about being unceasing attacks from leftists. Post anything which is left-leaning and you will also be relentlessly debated. While this is more true for politics, we could really say, post nearly anything and you will probably be criticised and debated, it's a philosophy forum after all.
Philosophising about politics is even more stressful in that you are constantly challenged about stuff which is (increasingly) close to your heart and identity. The nature of the challenge is also likely to be more heated. I haven't followed your interactions here, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a little less dispassionate analysis and a little more dismissiveness coming from those who disagree with you. At least, that's been my experience talking about politics. I have conflicting feelings about what we should think about that. On the one hand, it is perfectly understandable given the essentially practical nature of the inquiry - ultimately, our political philosophy must be oriented towards getting people to do stuff we think is just (I think ethics and politics are fundamentally practical disciplines). On the other, I think we should strive to be as dispassionate as possible in the context of philosophising.
I am looking forward to having a serious discussion on issues that touch on the very core of what it means to be right wing today, including our fundamental beliefs and the worldview with which we understand reality.
Let's get right down to it, contemporary right wing philosophy. The first question I will pose is: Do you think that Trump is the reincarnation of Christ? Or, does Christ merely work through him in order to lay the groundwork for his Glorious Return?
Personally, no. Though I don't see why it would be impossible. The same for the random guy who delivers your mail or perhaps waits your tables. According to scripture, Jesus was not aware who he was until he was in his 30s or so, when he was in the temple and stated "the prophecy is fulfilled". He was purportedly, obviously from the most widely known detail being born in a manger, born into a family of neither wealth nor nobility. One could argue, being born as a billionaire mogul would in theory only stifle such a realization, being a man as well subject to temptation, fear, anger, lust, etc.
This forum really contains close to no actual right-wingers, if you actually look at the majority of political debates on this forum, it's moderate left vs further left. Of course, the further left see anyone who doesn't agree with them as right-wing so people get called right-wing all the time but not really.
This forum contains plenty of pro-capitalists, who are part of the right. There are lots of religious social conservatives too, who are also part of the right. What it doesn't generally contain are vocally active racists, misogynists, and so on, because hate like that isn't actually philosophy and thankfully is against the rules here.
I don't think I've actually noticed any e.g. Marxist-Leninists, never mind Stalinists, or anything like that here. In addition to the capitalists and social conservatives above, there mostly seem to be centrists (a la the Democratic Party), and then libertarian socialists. The axis here seems to be between those who think the status quo, economically and socially, is mostly fine (which is the definition of conservative), and those who want more liberty, more equality, or both.
If you think the aforementioned centrists are "moderate left", that just shows how far right your own viewpoint is skewed, but then you're in good company with most Americans in that case, so it's hard to blame you.
It is true that Christ was born in a manger, but if you read The Bible carefully, particularly what Jesus says, it is clear he is very pro-capitalism.
Quoting Judaka
This is why we need to bring serious right wing discussion into these forums!
Nothing slingshots an offbeat cause quite like a good martyr. "He died for this ... so we.. we must live for this!" *hoorahs of the crowd*
Nothing turns common folk against the king like seeing one of their own put to death.
I do not think socialism can belong to the left and that capitalism is on the right. Fascism, for instance, is known to have anti-capitalistic factions and there are many left-leaning ideas on how our current capitalism could be reformed to be more in-line with the goals of the left. So I do not accept the "pro-capitalism is right-wing" idea. Pro-capitalists here want more economic redistribution, believe in more regulation, are amenable or in favour of increasing taxes.
I do not think there is a balance of people who are against more economic redistribution versus those who are in favour of it. Even the few people who actively label themselves as "right-wing" are also in favour of more economic redistribution. I can't keep track of every person who makes an account here but for posters with 1k+ posts, the overwhelming majority (95%+) would support more economic redistribution. We could analyse some threads talking about economic inequality, there may be debate on the best way to do it but if there's debate on whether it's necessary, it's usually just one or two people posting a lot.
The democratic party is certainly left-wing. The democratic party often talks about topics such as climate action, pro-choice, gun control, economic redistribution, increased taxes, pro-immigration, increasing the minimum wage, free healthcare, taxing the super-rich, expanding free education. Exhibiting the typical idea of left governments, there's no way it's reasonable to call them centre, even centre-left.
As I said, for whatever reason the further left-wing posters will label anyone who isn't as radical as they are as "right-wing". The current thread on fascism demonstrates this, Kenosha kid is calling people right-wing for just daring to criticise Antifa, it's absurd.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9952/a-poll-on-the-forums-political-biases
It’s a nice mix, I think. Besides, everyone is conservative about what they think they know.
Perhaps the OP could be rephrased and made a bit more clear and substantive, something like: “does the leftist bias of this forum hinder political discussions?” Or “is the leftist bias on this forum resulting in a tribal mentality that is dismissive of other/right posters?”
To anyone who doesn't think there is a leftist bias, I direct you to the poll done on political affiliations in another thread. 60% left, but more importantly 0% right. An example from this very thread came from Pfhorrest when he said “ I'm sorry about reality's well-known liberal bias. Feel free to hide from reality in a right-wing echo chamber if you really prefer.”
Left wing, reality based. Right wing, not reality based but the simple dogma of an echo chamber.
Thats a pretty biased way of looking at the right and the people on it. Also, delightfully ironic since Im not sure what else you would call this forum other than an echo chamber given there is apparently (according to Pforrests own poll) 0% of the other side posting on it.
Another question worth asking is why someone on the right might feel attacked.
Another might be “ are we interested in diversity of opinion on this forum or just the “correct” (left) opinions, politically speaking?”
It is also relevant to ask whether the right even exists anymore, or it has disappeared in the wake of trumpism, the political game (right wing ideology has been replaced by the ideology of winning the game of politics) and astonishingly widely accepted conspiracy theories?
Naturally any Philosophy forum has for ages been dominated by leftists. Marx simply is such a big part of contemporary philosophy, so the leftists have been always part of the philosophy circles. And even if marxism-leninism isn't so popular anymore, it's totally OK to promote and talk about a philosophy that has lead to hideous totalitarianism and mass murder (unlike fascism and national socialism).
What just has happened is that the tensions have gone up and the unfortunate low standards of social media have influenced writing here too. The present toxic atmosphere in public discourse hasn't been kept away from this site, unfortunately.
Yet if you aren't a leftist, I think PF is the perfect forum to interact with reasonable leftists. And actually not all are leftists here...
Probably because neither fascism and nazism have anything useful to say about the dominant economic system, whereas communism does. Marx Das Capital is an analytical piece of work with a lot of predictions about the consequences of capitalism that turned out to be true. His labour theory of value is a continuation of Adam Smith and Ricardo.
To really understand the problems of corporate capitalism requires acquaintance with Marx, although, perhaps nowadays we could ignore it and read Piketty instead.
Yes, the real debate is not between right and left, but between the sane sensible people on all sides and the nutzo crackpots on all sides.
Hate was the primary reason you voted against Trump. You "progressives" like to believe that you are all open-minded and accepting of others differences, but your actions speak louder than your words. You people are are so filled with hate its insane.
But then that's part if the problem. You think its ok to verbally abuse others you disagree with, but racism is a big, "No-No"? Whats the fucking difference?
Oh this one's easy. People I disagree with can be wrong, be shown to be wrong, can change their minds, can sustain and support hurt and evil by means of their belief, while the color of someone's skin does none of these things. Racists should hang from the rafters and have their life slowly squeezed out of them until they choke on their own spit and blood. Next question.
There would seem to be some measure of truth in this. As evidence we can examine the Trump thread which seems to filled primarily with tribal emotionalism, snotty superiority poses and the like. And this is a philosophy forum, well, in theory at least.
What we may need is a thread where we carefully separate the insanity of voting for Trump (especially the 2nd time) with the valid concerns that caused many people to reach for such a radical alternative. As example, it's not crazy to be concerned about immigration given that the political class has presented no coherent idea of even how many people we wish to have living in America.
Also, while it seems beyond doubt that Trump himself is a despicable danger to the republic, it's also true that he has an instinctive street level type of understanding of the American public which surpasses that of his competitors. And that would include most of us here, as evidenced by how eagerly we remain addicted to the reality TV show which Trump is hosting.
In order to have such a thoughtful discussion we're going to have to find some way to liberate ourselves from the ego driven tribal chest thumping which has dominated this topic on this forum so far. That is, we're going to have to find some way to be a little bit less like Trump ourselves.
The difference is that it's acceptable to be black but not acceptable to be a racist, and so therefore it's acceptable to say bad things about racists being racists but not acceptable to say bad things about black people being black.
Quoting Harry Hindu
There's a difference between accepting homosexuals and accepting homophobia. Homosexuality is acceptable and homophobia isn't. Progressives don't argue that we should accept every difference, only that we should accept acceptable differences.
Ok, here's the next question. When are you going to find some outlet other than a philosophy forum for such oh-so dramatic little high school statements? How about reddit, facebook, twitter or any one of a thousand other places? Why do you have to do it here?
The Internet is huge. There are probably literally a million sites where you would fit right in with the other high school carpet chewers. Why is it so important to you to persistently degrade this site, a philosophy forum, with that which you wish to do.
You asked for a question. There you go.
To watch you squirm.
Or, ignore all such concerns, and just admit your goal is to drive the quality of content on this forum as low as you possibly can. If that's your goal, and the forum owner agrees with that agenda, then I would agree it's time for me to let this go and enjoy the ride down to forum death with you.
Parler is quite amusing. It says on the homepage 'Speak freely and express yourself openly, without fear of being “deplatformed” for your views', but then in its user agreement it says 'Parler may remove any content and terminate your access to the Services at any time and for any reason to the extent Parler reasonably believes (a) you have violated these Terms or Parler’s Community Guidelines' with the Community Guidelines saying 'However, even when the law may not require us to flag or remove reported content, or to ban a member, we will nonetheless do so when we deem it necessary to prevent our services from being used by someone in the commission of a crime or civil tort—particularly when these are likely to interfere with our mission of providing a welcoming, nonpartisan Public Square. Examples include criminal solicitation, fraud, and nuisance.'
So how exactly is it different to any other social media like Twitter?
Except that China's government lead economy has done quite a lot, which in my view comes close to fascism. But of course, they see themselves as genuine marxists while nobody of the leftists on this forum see them as that (which is hilarious, actually). But hey, who cares what the actual people say to be these times.
Quoting Benkei
His labour theory is a disaster.
:up:
Most outside observers describe China's economic system as capitalism with a strong state. What makes you differ?
What in the part of the definition of being "a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition" does China differ according to you? Italy under Mussolini had still capitalism only "with a strong state". The difference for Mussolini and the Italian fascists was that the capitalist system was strongly controlled and lead by a strong government.
I wouldn't class strong economic control as a defining part of fascism. I'd say the core elements are: A strong focus on the family and the nation as the essential social organisations, a focus on "law and order" and hierarchical, autocratic rule, fetishism for the military and/or police, restrictive social order aimed at recreating an imagined past "golden age" and of course disdain for democracy.
China is drifting towards fascism under Xi, I don't know enough about the internal politics to judge how far it is on that way.
True, but leftists come in all different flavors and it can be fun to engage with some of them. In particular I've come to like engaging with libertarian socialists and Marx-inspired thinkers who might not be full Marxists yet. It was initially a little difficult for me to deal with hardline leftists, but eventually you just gotta enjoy it and go along with the insanity and play back at them a little.
A telling point. :up:
[quote=Wikipedia]Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism".[/quote]
Is the universe itself left-wing or right-wing? Does mother nature provide the right environment for "...freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform, and internationalism" or does it cater to "...authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism" or does it play both sides or neither?
Right-wing ideals seem more attuned to the way the universe functions - "survival of the fittest" doesn't leave enough room for, you know, things like freedom, fraternity, rights, progress, reform, etc. except maybe on the off chance that a major upheaval takes place in the ecosystem but even then it doesn't take long for things to go back to (right-wingy) business as usual. It could be said right-wing beliefs reflect mother nature's true colors.
Left-wing mores smack of a desire by humans to break from tradition, tradition that's just minor variations of the Darwinian trope - struggle for survival - and beat a new path based on values that humans have, in terms of geological time, only recently become aware of. I won't be completely wrong in saying that left-wing philosophy bears the mark of all of mankind's civilizations, the best they had to offer.
"Left" and "right" are extremely leaky generalisations about a whole host of not necessarily connected views. So it's no surprise that noone can agree on who is what.
What's perhaps interesting is that people seem to object to being described as "right wing", but outsider of specific circles people rarely object to the opposite label.
Quoting DingoJones
I guess the question is how do we know whether it's reality or the forum that has the left-wing bias?
It's at least possible that the consensus actually represents the best arguments.
Why don't you tell me what it is and what's wrong with it?
Quoting Echarmion
On this forum being called a right-winger is used practically as an insult but that's because this forum is incredibly left-leaning. I don't know if it gets more left than this site really, it's well beyond anything I've encountered before. Even on this forum, moderate left posters don't call people right-wing as an insult and likely wouldn't feel insulted to be called right-wing. I don't think it's more than the environment one finds themselves in, whether being called right or left could be considered an insult.
Economists like Menger and others have far earlier shown how flawed the theories are, but the most obvious example is the little if meaningless impact of Marxian economics in current economics. Sorry, but markets and the market mechanism of demand and supply work far better to explain economic issues. Not a dubious theory based on "labor" making the value of something. What it is useful is for ideological leftist politics and not much else, actually. Especially with economics or with economic planning it simply isn't useful.
And anyway, the fixation on going through again and again the writings of the19th Century philosopher with a religious zeal and the utter lack of referring to later Marxian economics shows how dead actually the school is. We simply don't refer to, with similar zeal, to the writings of Adam Smith or Pareto and do understand that even if they did have good insights, their views are quite antiquated as the economy and the society has moved on from the 19th Century. And of course, the utter demise of the communist experiments IS proof just how wrong the economics is, because the theories surely were tried to be put into practice.
But that hardly matters as it's basically a religion and ideology than a scientific theory.
And anyway, I'm not so sure how much modern day leftism has to do with Marx anymore.
The converse is certainly true. It always baffles me that right-wingers use the phrases "left-wing" and "communist" as if I'm supposed to be offended by that the way they would be.
I would, because it's part of the ideology. Fascists just loath plutocracy, nearly as much as communists do.
(I assume what Mussolini thought about the role of capitalism in a fascist state matters.)
Quoting Echarmion
Learn about it. I think Xi is a perfect example of someone who is an successful autocrat, starting from little things as he abolished term limits for himself. (Trump would be the unsuccessful autocrat).
Agreed. I think this is because people tend to use those terms as labels (you think this, you must be right/left)) rather than categories (you think this, and thats right/left). The former pushes someone into a box (the dichotomy of left or right) the latter allows for entry into and or all appropriate boxes. Nuance I often hear it called.
Quoting Echarmion
Well would those specific circles be the “right wing” ones? Why wouldnt someone object to the right wing term unless they were in fact in those right wing circles? I understand that right or left is insulting to some people, but what exactly are you trying to say here? Do you think a person who isnt left wing still embraces the label “left wing”?
Quoting Echarmion
Does reality have a bias? If you are talking about the left or right being correct or incorrect, then I think thats showing bias, human bias rather than realities bias. I think both right and left are equally capable of being correct and incorrect.
Also, it seems clear that this forum is biased left. Thats just going to be the case when the majority is left, no?
Quoting Echarmion
Agreed, but how did you determine (or how would you determine) that to be the case? The false dichotomy naturally obscures the issue, as ideology and ape brain tribalism rears its ugly head.
That seems quite extreme to me. Would you genuinely kill someone for having a 'wrongful' opinion? Do you not believe in freedom of conscience, thought and expression?
Also, does that include black racists? Or does your philosophy maintain that only white people can hate others on the basis of skin colour? If so, what is it that makes black people immune to this sentiment?
And before any two-bit cloud-brain vomits out the predictible 'doesn't that make you as bad as the racist?' - no, if you don't like the above, then don't be racist.
Quoting ssu
:ok:
Perhaps all the online spaces I frequent are left-leaning, but I very rarely see anyone positively self-describing as "right wing". The actual right-wingers seem to prefer other names. Left wing is a far more common self-description.
Quoting Judaka
Then I can pretty confidently say: you ain't seen nothing yet. I think even r/politics is more obviously left-leaning than this forum. To say nothing of dedicated spaces for anarchists etc.
Quoting ssu
Well it's certainly surprising, then, that at least the two most commonly cited fascist states ended up with a lot of plutocracy.
I mean I do know about the "thid way" and that fascists certainly claim to be interested in widespread economic reforms. It's just that they seem to rarely materialize. But maybe I am ignorant, I haven't really looked into fascist regimes outside europe.
Quoting ssu
I do try. He is certainly successful. The question is what direction he will take the country in.
Quoting DingoJones
Well said. It's hard to avoid labels in everyday discourse, of course, but they have little place in a philosophy forum.
Quoting DingoJones
It's just that it seems to me that people who are in righ wing circles will usually use a more specific label for their ideas, and many more who embrace some elements of "right wing" ideas will reject the label. This doesn't seem to happen to the same extent on the left. People will usually not object to be labeled left wing even if they are only really interested in social justice rather than econmically "left" ideas.
Of course this might all be my bias talking. But it seem like we associate "right wing" with "Hitler" and therefore bad much more quickly then we do the same with "left wing" and "Mao".
Quoting DingoJones
Well, no. It was tounge-in-cheek. Of course both are equally capable of being correct, but only one is actually correct (or moral, or least bad). We cannot find out via the labels though, we need to debate. I think this forum does a rather good job at the debating, for an online forum. It's not without bias, but nothing is.
Quoting DingoJones
Insofar as you're more likely to garner negative or even hostile replies to espousing "right wing" ideas, sure. But so long as the discussion remains for the most part honest and on topic, this is not necessarily a problem.
Quoting DingoJones
I agree that it'd be best to not consider labels like left and right at all when engaging in a discussion. We won't all be able to avoid it all of the time.
What
You're wasting your time, the guy you're talking to is well beyond reason. I've never seen him treat anyone who disagrees with him with anything but mockery and trolling, go talk to someone more deserving of your time, like, literally anyone.
Quoting Echarmion
I think "conservative" is more popular but I do see it. Though I think the emphasis for both sides is about using left or right as a pejorative rather than self-describing positively. I would say most of your experience is just based on the circles you inhabit but it is a bit harder to self-describe as right-wing for various reasons, so maybe there's some truth to it.
It's good that you mentioned that you're a centrist, that will surely de-escalate things.
I suspect, political correctness has a 'holier than thou' tendency that acts like a ratchet. No matter how unreasonable it becomes, there's no turning back. Anyone who doubts the absolute righteousness of the dogma is automatically a nazi - like JK Rowling, darling of the left for years, one sceptical tweet and she's the devil.
Factually incorrect.
A negative bias, and one that is promoted in order to secure a dominant position.
Quoting counterpunch
Both left and right critique political correctness but it’s not very centrists to claim that it’s a tool of the left to control civilization.
What I’m saying is that unlike an opinion such as so-and-so being the greatest musician, with a truth value determined by individual preference, the belief that one race is inferior to another and so deserving of lesser respect or opportunity or whatever is simply false whatever each person’s individual preference.
It could be argued that he’s responsible for the condition of the Republican Party today, and that he achieved it in only four years, so how good is his street-smarts? Did he understand his followers well enough to foresee their attack on the capital? Was that part of his genius plan?
He’s a conman and an unprincipled trickster. Tricksters always eventually get caught up in their own net.
Bias is exactly the same as opinion. Bias is a synonym for opinion. Not that it's a particularly significant point. I was merely drawing out the views of StreetlightX - who doesn't seem able to explain why he wants to murder people.
Similarly, I'm interested in what you mean by "dominant position" - particularly with regard to race. Are you saying that all white people have dominance over all black people? I don't think that's true; neither in the world, or within Western society. But then, I don't stereotype people based on skin colour. Left wing, politically correct ideology does - and so suggests that I, for example, a working class white man, am in the same racial stereotype as Eton and Oxford educated members of the Bullingdon Club; heirs to vast fortunes and the seats of power. I'm not. Not even close. I'm just as disadvantaged as my best friend at school who was from Trinidad. So left wing skin colour stereotypes fail; in that they discriminate against people like me, assuming I have some dominant position I don't have - even if, it might be argued some white people do.
The shame of this is that you'll never understand why that's hilarious.
I recently blew up what I thought was a solid friendship by confessing that I no longer had an interest in reading or discussing Marx, especially in the context of what seems like the rapidly impending environmental disaster. By the time socialists achieve mass working class consciousness, Wall Street and the working class will have both drowned--literally or figuratively.
"Far left", "left" and "leftist" are still appealing labels, but when push comes to shove, what exactly do they mean? The "far right" and "right" seem like clearer labels. Editorial content in the Wall Street Journal (part of the Dow Jones company) seems consistently pro-capitalist, pro-corporate, pro-property, pro-reduced regulation, and so forth.
Solidly "left", even fairly "far left" publications and web sites are usually not in favor of abolishing private property and the corporation-protecting state. For that one has to turn to specifically revolutionary sites (most of which have been "preserved in aspic").
"Left" and "right" are maybe more terms of cultural and/or psychological difference, but even then they are 'leaky'. Leftists seem more tolerant of social deviation (until they are not). Right wingers seem resistant to social deviation, until they are not. (Example: the crowd that captured the capital last Wednesday looked a lot more like the anti-law-and-order hippies of old than I would have expected: blue jeans, beards, bare chested-tattooed, etc. Or maybe my cultural categories are out of date.).
Our old, handy, and familiar categories just don't work very well any more.
This is always the right-wing fallacy: an implicit and utterly dishonest definition of 'the people' or 'the public'. Trump is utterly bemused by 50% of the American public. They don't love him, so must be mistaken or traitors or weak or incompetent or something else that they're not. He cannot comprehend that anyone would disagree that he should get everything he wants at all times. There's no savvy there. He is immensely over-confident in himself and that is enough for a great many people.
:up:
Quoting Bitter Crank
This is why we must return to Hegel as Lenin did after Oktoberrevolution comrade.
(Marxist yuk yuks)
Doctrinaire, "politically correct" ideologues would perhaps like to control Western Civilization, but really, how likely are they to succeed? A lot of people want to enforce their favorite etiquette manual, but barbarians keep ripping them up.
I think it might be fruitless to argue with such a discerning mind.
Quoting counterpunch
I’m surprised that he bothered to explicitly state that he does not want to do that, to those few who are unable to discern expression/content, or merely read.
Quoting counterpunch
The other day a large group of predominantly white middle aged men stormed and ransacked our nations capital. Some of the security opened gates and took selfie’s with them. That demonstrates a dominant position.
I don't see it that way. Rightly or wrongly, those people believed the election was a fraud - in much the same Democrats called the 2016 election a fraud. Go on youtube and search for John Oliver, voting machines, 2016. Maybe there's good reason to doubt the result. I don't know. I'm in the UK, a long way from the action.
Nevertheless, if the election was a fraud, those people did the right thing. They occupied the seat of power - and that's exactly what people should do if the system is corrupted. Afterall, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution both begin "We, the people...." It belongs to them. It's shameful that a police officer shot someone dead for trying to enter a building that they own.
But who should really be ashamed in all this is a highly politicised and polarised news media - who are quite willing to publish claims the election system is fraudulent without sufficient evidence; the left wing media in 2016, and the right wing media in 2020. The people who occupied THIER seat of power to prevent a fraudulent election have nothing to be ashamed of.
It doesn't demonstrate anything about racial dominance - as far as I can tell. If you think it does, please explain in what way. I don't see it.
News outlets are businesses that seek profit and consequently cater to their audiences. Some audiences want more factual information and others prefer a more opinionated (bias, as you say) presentation. Do they create news? Hopefully not. Trump is primarily responsible for continually chanting about voter fraud to his gullible base. If an authority figure repeats a lie enough times the weak minded will believe that it’s the truth. And boy did he repeat it. He claimed it as though it were fact rather than suspicion. News networks reported with whatever presentation suited their particular audiences. So by your reasoning it seems that the Divider-in-Chief should be ashamed.
Ya, see I do not associate the right wing with hitler nor Mao with left wing, but I may be ignorant of the general consensus. You do hear that association made more often in the last 5-10 years, but I think this is more about a loud minority fringe on either side.
Quoting Echarmion
Very true, key words are “online” and “forum”. Thats a low bar.
Bias can never be purged, only managed. The key to doing that is realising that at any given time, on any given topic, you could have your head up your ass. Thats what I do anyway lol
You cant purge it but you can try and minimise its influence by being aware of it.
Quoting Echarmion
Not necessarily no, but ive seen some pretty gross displays by that left bias on this forum...though none of those incidences seemed like honest discourse.
Quoting Echarmion
Well I think its easier to dismiss people when you label them, thats why people do it. If you can make people associate right wing with hitler, then all your work is done. You call them right wing and you dont even need to talk to them at all. If you can call someone a left winger and have it mean “Moaist” then you no longer need to listen to that person, they are essentially a monster.
Yes, it must grate that people out there in some position of power believe that black lives matter, and are willing to show it.
Quoting counterpunch
If there had been evidence that there had been widespread and crucial election fraud, then there democratic systems would already have been worthless, so, yes, why not.
However not being able to accept defeat is not the same as believing you have won. The evidence for who won was determined by the count. There was no alternative count, like a secret will in a locked desk draw, with which to contest the first. The only evidence pointed to Biden winning the election.
So then no, after all. Since there was no basis to believe that Trump had been robbed, merely insisting on it doesn't justify the attempt to destroy democracy in process.
I see you you're new here. Welcome... ish. This is a philosophy forum and something has presumably attracted you to it. Here you are advocating that, if you do not want something to be true, you are justified in proceeding on the basis of its opposite, even to the extent of destroying democracy and attacking police officers. Is this a general philosophic position you have, or a special one you whip out for politics? Or are you not here for the philosophy at all, just for the right-wing propaganda?
For example, you claim I advocate
Quoting Kenosha Kid
There is no alternative to acting on the basis of belief; the important thig is to make sure those beliefs are valid. I said, I don't know if the election was fraudulent - but if it was, they did the right thing. If it wasn't - then they didn't do the right thing. If they acted on the basis of false belief - the consequences were wrongful.
That is my general philosophical position - and incidentally, it's why humankind is headed for extinction. It's not capitalism. It's a lack of regard for science as an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality, particularly, in the application of technology.
Please tell me this is sarcasm.
I haven't paid Trump a great deal of attention. I know he has lent credence to claims of fraud, but I also recall the 2016 election being decried as fraudulent by the left - and what's missing, is the left saying the integrity of the democratic system must be assured. It seems like, they don't care if the election was a fraud because they "won." Or are we to suppose, Trump fixed what Obama left broken, and then declined to claim credit for assuring the integrity of the vote? He's soooo modest! Or are we to suppose that you were lying in 2016, and now - don't like the same lies used against your champion?
Difference is that one could have contested much more in 2016 being Hillary won popular vote and lost electoral college vote. Yet neither Hillary nor Obama created years of narcissistic rallies, endless poisoning-well Tweets, and the like, such that such an event as a storming of a separate branch of government would even be fathomed by their followers... yet it is very predictable based on what we know of Trump, what he has created with his following, and the like. Obama was maligned for years about not being a citizen, and he sat there while the smug Don took power.
Odd as it may sound, Trump claimed that there was fraud in 2016, just not to the extent of the last election. Preparing the way for any future loss, I guess. But you’re referring to claims of foreign interference? Intelligence agencies reported that it was true, and the Mueller report didn’t exonerate the prez of collusion as he claims it did.
Quoting counterpunch
Let’s hope it doesn’t take root then.
They didn't do the right thing because they had no evidence that there had been voter fraud. Acting on blind belief is not doing the right thing. Even if it turned out that there had been voter fraud, they still would not have been doing the right thing, but rather their blind belief would have just happened to turn out to be true. I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if someone else has already made this point.
When you claim that the election would be fraudulent before the actual election, then yeah. How come his followers had forgotten that?
No one contested in 2016 as far as I know, and I just mentioned the very large differences of how transfer of power was handled between 2016 and now. Also just mentioned that Trump said he believed there to be fraud BEFORE the election.. so what do you make of that shit? Ridiculous move.. He threatened calling fraud and did it.. he was always going to do it.. doesn't matter how clean the system.
Also, 2020 results are not sour grapes, as even very conservative judges agreed the grounds for the fraud were ridiculous.. all of them.
Similarly, I don't condemn Extinction Rebellion. They're wrong, or misled anti-capitalists. They believe they are acting in a just cause. Thing is, it's not capitalism to blame. The climate and ecological crisis is a consequence of our mistaken relationship to science. We use the tools - but we don't read the instructions - in that, we don't act on the basis of a scientific understanding of reality. We act on the basis of ideology, and apply technology according to what's ideologically valid.
Perhaps the democrats and republicans should appoint a scientist to design an objectively fair and fraud proof voting system. Unlike journalists, scientists have ethics built in to their methodology.
Actually, yes, there is. Questioning your beliefs is important. Only an idiot would arrive at one idea without justification and run with it forever. If you can justify your beliefs, you should do so. If not, you should listen. And certainly not try and, say, stage a coup.
If one has every reason to believe X and none to believe in Y, your belief in Y is not a justification for bad actions. This is why "He seemed a threat because he was a
Quoting counterpunch
Good to know.
It's like Black Lies Matter. It has absolutely no basis in statistical fact. In fact, police arrest over 10 million people per year. There are around 1000 arrest related deaths, 42% white, 32% black. There's no racist genocide being committed by the police. Yet the media cheer as businesses are burned and looted, and Black Lives Matter is painted in 10 foot high letters along 5th avenue - while the same media condemn those who seek to defend democracy from what they believe is a fraudulent election.
The truth may be hard, or even impossible to establish; if it's merely hard then evidence can be found and presented, if impossible then no evidence can be found. If no evidence for voter fraud can be found then there is no justification for believing there had been voter fraud, and even less justification for mob action based on the blind belief, itself based on the baseless ravings of an imbecile, that there had been voter fraud.
Poor attention span I guess. It seems to go with the territory.
What do you think the percentage of whites to blacks is?
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube%2c+john+oliver%2c+voting+machines&docid=608054794221454549&mid=F3D928B00F76B8480811F3D928B00F76B8480811&view=detail&FORM=VIRE
It's John Oliver - a left wing comedian, from before 2016, talking about voting machines. The Dems cast doubt on the integrity of the vote before 2016. Trump isn't the author of this narrative. The left are. If Trump is a raving imbecile, misleading his followers - it must be that Trump fixed the voting system, then declined to take credit for it. Or, the left were lying in 2016. Which is it?
So, your general philosophical position is that people should act blindly and hope that their actions will turn out to be justified by evidence? And mankind's failure to do that is the reason it is heading for extinction? And yet you valorize science which advocates acting only on evidence? You sound confused! Just what humanity needs right now; a confused savior!
Yeah we've heard all this racist bs a million times. I don't even think *you* think you're being clever, it's more like a mindless vocal tick. BLM is not about the thousands of black people accidentally killed or killed in self-defence by police. No one is protesting because some cop won a gun duel. It's because of the smaller but still shamefully significant number of black people being murdered by police. Pretending up is down is something anyone with a bad ideology has to do, especially racists, so I'm not shocked.
Quoting counterpunch
Another reality inversion. A lynch mob trying to stop the government accepting the will of the people is there to "defend democracy" in fascist double speak. Again, nothing new or smart here, just another example of why you should be loathed.
Black people are 13% of the US population, but commit a lot more crime. For example, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics data from 2003-2012, blacks commit around 6000 murders per year - and whites about 5000, even though white people are 76% of the population.
If that is indeed true it would probably be so because they are an economically and socially oppressed and disadvantaged minority. And to further complicate the issue, the statistics re population are straightforward, whereas those re crimes committed are not. This might help you gain a less simplistic view.
But it has no statistical validity. Police arrest over 10 million people per year. There are less than 1000 arrest related deaths. A minority of those are black people. Furthermore, George Floyd was a junkie scumbag, arrested for passing fake bills, who needed to be restrained because he fought police like a mad dog while hopped up on about six different drugs. He was claiming 'I can't breathe' long before anyone had hold of his neck - undermining the credibility of any such claim later on. And he was saying it because "I can't breathe" is a BLM mantra. How careless is that, making a slogan out of "I can't breathe?" You don't give a shit about black people. It's all a power game to you self righteous neo-marxist ideologues. You claimed the election was a fraud in 2016 - just as, you incited riots with lies; and democracy and law and order are the losers here.
The Freudian slip is telling! Or perhaps it isn't a slip at all, which would be even more telling!
Poverty is the parent of crime. Aristotle.
One doesn't need to study African American crime to see this. Even in countries with a very small percentage of black people, such as counterpunch's own, crime rates soar highest in the most squalid places.
But beyond that, being black in America is simply more criminal. A black person caught with weed is three and a half times more likely to be arrested. A black driver is far more likely to be pulled over. A black neighborhood is much more policed than a similarly poor white neighborhood.
Add onto that the fact that, surprise surprise, murderous racist white cops aren't exactly honest about their feelings. If you want to arrest or shoot someone, there's always "assault of a police officer" to fall back on. There was a video I saw a while ago of a white cop shooting an unarmed black guy in the back. Just strolled over and dumped a gun next to the body. If it hadn't have been filmed, that would have been one more black criminal rather than the equally tragic one more dead victim of racist white cops.
Do you know the races of the officers involved in the shootings? I'd be interested to know whether this is a white officer problem or not.
Alas, no slip. Just a racist piece of crap being racist.
Similarly, a black British MP - named Dawn Bulter, filmed the police stopping her car, gave them a bunch of attitude, and then flipped the image to suggest she was the driver - when in fact, she was a passenger, and the driver was white, and splattered the video all over twitter. It's all lies - spread via social media. It's an agenda - not a fact.
You should read the paper before you make assumptions about what it does or doesn’t take into account.
Actually, you have. First, you and people like you are an offense to all decent people. Racism is not a religion or an economic philosophy. It's harm is not accidental. It's violence as culture, not just in the individual ways it expresses itself, but to humanity itself. It kills over and over and over throughout history and excuses itself via it's own circularity. It is not difference of opinion: it is inexcusable violent hate that has to be named, condemned and stamped out by every conscientious person capable of caring for others to protect us from its violence.
Plus the aforementioned bs double speak is an insult to intelligence. Like anyone is stupid enough not to see through that brain-dead crap.
Quoting counterpunch
I'm a straight white middle class man from England. My identity is not an issue: that's been one of my many, many privileges. I haven't used it to besmirch people without those privileges because I'm not a scumbag.
Now, don't get me confused with StreetlightX.
was "...public money promoting Black Lies Matter..." deliberate or accidental? I'm not a big BLM fan; granted, the police resort to deadly force in many cases where disabling force would be much more appropriate. Still, black deaths at the hands of police are a small fraction of the deaths caused by civilian (usually black on black) gunfire. BLM should focus on black-on-black gun deaths as well as death by police.
My guess is that most people killed by the police are poor, whether they are black, hispanic, white or asian. A lot of police effort is directed at controlling "the rabble" at the bottom, -- the poor. That so many blacks are poor is a better cause-effect relationship with respect to racism than the activities of the police.
My guess is the Google and Apple did not ban Parler apps for reasons of political correctness. Neither corporation wants to appear as minor league tools of major league politics. Google and Apple are both very much part of The Establishment. Further, the rich people who own Google and Apple (stock holders) are generally always on the side of Law & Order, except when it comes to tax law. As a group, the rich have little (or none) sympathy with the relative poor and trouble makers.
The political right (conservatives, Republicans, etc.) have not been suffering from a lack of access to free speech. Neither has the opposite side of the aisle. If some socialists started calling for a violent take over of (Rhode Island or maybe North Dakota--never mind the U.S Congress) you can rest, assured that they will be promptly deplatformed.
We do not have absolute free speech. Some topics have been ruled out of bounds. I don't like it, but that's life.
Quoting counterpunch
Why the hell would you NOT take it personally?
Quoting counterpunch
That has often been the case, and the world these past few years has frequently taunted me for it.
Quoting counterpunch
But I'm justified in treating you uncivilly because I GENUINELY BELIEVE THAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO because I GENUINELY BELIEVE YOU ARE A RACIST SCUMBAG and I GENUINELY BELIEVE RACIST SCUMBAGS ARE AN EVIL THREAT TO HUMANITY.
Now, if you will kindly recall:
Quoting counterpunch
This is your philosophy. Whereas the Trump rioters had only evidence against their beliefs, you have provided ample evidence that you are a racist. So even by your stricter criteria, I am justified in my response. I perceive your racism whether you own it or not. I believe you are a racist.
So ACCORDING TO YOUR AVOWEDLY GENERAL PHILOSOPHY, how would you say I should treat you?
Just wanted to see if you believed your supposed principles or whether they'd crumble the second they didn't fit into your ideology.
Trying to not be PC? It makes you appear alt-right.
The Mayor of London used the New Year's Eve firework display money to hire drones, to form the BLM raised fist slogan in the sky. It was very deliberate, and kept secret until the big show. He's a left wing Labour Mayor, and I've just realised what you're asking.... - yes, the omission was deliberate. Black Lies Matter is a statistically false, social media narrative. When it all kicked off, I looked up the data on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website, and it's just not true that the US police are engaged in some sort of racist genocide.
I'm inclined to agree that poverty is a factor, but I'm betting it comes down to intelligence. If a police officer points a gun at you, and you ain't clever enough to comply, then you might just get your dumb ass shot - no matter what colour you are.
I don't quite get your point regards Parler. In the context of a politically correct crusade across all forms of social media - against right wing voices, who have to claim free speech protections for their opinions from the ubiquity of left wing cancel culture, I think it's just another example of shutting down the right while letting the left run wild.
You mention StreetlightX - I came in when he said he wanted to hang racists. He wants to murder people for their opinions. Serious or not, that's extreme - and something I don't think any right winger could get away with. They'd have police kicking their door off if they said that; find themselves in prison for inciting violence. The left wrap their villainy in the garb of righteousness; with such pathetic, self effacing, submissive displays of self recrimination it makes my skin crawl.
So I say to them, you know slavery existed since the dawn of time, right? You know it was thousands of years, black people had been selling other black people into slavery before Europeans got involved. You know we ended the salve trade - and invented almost everything in the modern world. But no. They are blind to the facts. The left hate us. They hate themselves. They'll side with anyone before us.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Because this is a philosophy forum, not a chat forum. I'm here to discuss philosophy. I'm not here to butter you up, and become your firmest friend. I'm not here to call you names and become your bitterest enemy. I'm here to discuss philosophy - and frankly, you're letting the side down by dragging the conversation into the gutter of the giving and taking of personal offence.
I don't care whether you like me or not. I do care what you think about political correctness. I'd like you to explain it to me - because, I don't think you can, because it doesn't make a lick of sense.
If you think that makes me racist, then a) you're wrong. and b) I don't give a little rat's turd.
Adopt some academic distance. Discuss the subject matter, and keep your barbed tongue sheathed, or leave me the hell alone.
Quoting praxis
Philosophically speaking, given that your lot appeal to a subjectivism. how I appear to you says something about you, but it says nothing about me. For you, reality is subjectively constructed. You are responsible for how I appear, not me. So, what is alt-right? Is it like Viet Cong, or the Red Peril? Some menacing name conjured up to stereotype, and demonise anyone who opposes the left wing, politically correct cultural strangle hold?
I ask you, seriously, human being to human being, do you not think political correctness is problematic? Do you really think JK Rowling hates trans people because she said something about 'the cervixed" used to be called women? Don't you not think it's incredibly hysterical and childish - and that free speech and a thick skin are better things to encourage in the next generation than a hair trigger sensitivity to offence?
Intelligence may be a factor in police encounters. It seems self-evident to me that aggression toward cops is always a bad idea. local culture with respect to machismo is another; even style figures into what happens when police and civilians have freighted encounters. If "in-your-face" confrontation is de rigueur in interpersonal behavior, that could result in a hostile response from the police. Having a string of criminal convictions is a prejudicial fact. Et cetera.
Clearly, black people have been the targets of highly discriminatory practices since the days of slavery. There are planned, managed, systematically executed reasons why black people in the United States are, on average, poor. Their poverty is neither self-inflicted nor accidental. Economic racism has been at work. But economic exploitation is an equal opportunity game. The white working class has, by and large, been fucked over since the earliest colonial period of US history. So have a lot of other people.
As for the history of slavery, everybody was fair game. Back in the day when Britain was considered barbarian, slaves from Britain were quite popular--red hair, pink complexions, exotic. Thank the Romans for that. In Classical Greece, anyone could become a slave through financial misfortune. And once enslaved, many stayed enslaved.
Someone's panties are in a twist about a consistent pattern of management doing everything it can to lower the quality of this forum.
Basically, white conservatives forced access and ransacked the nation's capital. Imagine, if you will, ten thousand African American US citizens planning a protest at the capital, acquiring all appropriate licenses, and on the planned date protesting at the gates of the capital. Would they be able to force entry into the heart of our nation's democracy as easily and deeply as the white conservatives? Even if they were protesting the extinction of a species of butterfly it is very hard to imagine that they would. Of course this is speculative but I think shows a practical difference in racial dominance. One race litteraly has more access to a place than others.
Terrific wilful missing of the point, full marks for that. Not a milligram of intellectual rigour or shame to you, I see.
Remarkable that you can stereotype and criticize stereotyping in the same breath. I merely mentioned that you appear alt-right, meaning that you reason and say the same sort of things that alt-right folks do. It's not a good sign simply because you've identified as a centrist. It indicates deception.
Quoting counterpunch
Who was recently whining about StreetlightX's manner of expression?
For me, I'm proud of my country and what we've achieved - and will achieve, if only I could be heard above the madding crowd. The right deny climate change; or insofar as they acknowledge it, make promises for the far distant future they know they won't be around - to fail to deliver. The left use climate change as a battering ram against western civilisation generally, and capitalism in particular. Again polarisation and both wrong. It's not just political correctness. I'm politically homeless, and seek solace in philosophy.
Interesting thing is, I was looking at the US Constitution yesterday, and it states:
Fifteenth Amendment
Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
That was adopted in 1870. Read in relation to the rest of the Constitution, that guarantees legal equality, it's quite difficult to understand how "economic racism" has been effected. Poverty is not proof of racism. But it is very difficult to escape.
Going back just a little further to 1847, the workers of the Northern mill town where I grew up - all worked in the mill, children too, when Parliament passed the Factories Act - ensuring that , "women and children between the ages of 13 and 18 could work only 63 hours per week." And they were paid in tokens, that could only be redeemed at the company store.
My grandfather - born about 1905, failed his 11 plus and was immediately taken out of school and put to work in the mines, opening and closing doors when the trucks passed, for sixpence a week. Later he was conscripted to fight in WWII, and died in a rented house with hardly a penny to his name. If I lack sympathy for claims of discrimination, it's because I'm white and far from fucking privileged.
I haven't been paying attention enough to tell how much of a racist you actually are or aren't, just skimming some comments that accuse you of it, but I would be interested or at least amused to see an attempted justification of whatever it is you think that's being called racist in terms of deep philosophical principles.
E.g. I can formulate an argument directly to anti-racism from a deep abstract and general philosophical principle like "every meaningful question has a universally correct answer". I'd be interested to see if you can do likewise.
To you! But again, to subjectivists, beauty, or deception - is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I see no value in deception - at least, not on a philosophy forum. I've been very forthright, and consistent in my views. Why would I go to this trouble to express things I don't believe. To deceive who? You? What would be the point?
Challenging what someone says, particularly when they say, they would gladly murder people for having the 'wrong' opinion, is not whining about someone's manner of expression. It's a genuine concern - not least because the genocides of the left have been far more frequent, and much, much larger in scale than any such atrocity by the right, and yet you continue to propound this obviously dangerous, runaway train of a dictatorial dogma.
In my view, your hysterical offence taking is a very small price to pay for freedom. I hope you're offended. I wish it. I'm glad of it, because every time a commie cries, freedom gets its wings!
Absolutely, and I'm Wittgenstein
I don't recall any major outlets or Democratic politicians saying that votes were inaccurately counted in 2016. Do you have an example?
Hillary Clinton conceded within 24 hours.
Objections to the election were:
1. The claim that the Electoral College system is antiquated, undemocratic, and unfair. No one claimed it wasn't the law of the land, they said it should be changed, a reform that had bipartisan support and almost happened under Nixon.
2. Hillary Clinton's campaign was negatively affected by a hack of her party's email server and selective leaks of internal communications. This action was traced back to Russian intelligence. Foreign intervention in elections always happens, but the level of espionage was unprecedented. The complaint against the Trump campaign was that he broke norms by not condemning said foreign intervention, and indeed publicaly applauding it. Later, it was revealed that Trump's campaign manager and son met with a member of Russian intelligence after they had suggested in an email that they had "dirt on Clinton." This meeting was scheduled shortly before the hacked emails were released. The claim was that the campaign had known about the espionage and supported it.
To be honest, I think it's entirely possible that this meeting was set up solely to falsely implicate the Republican campaign and sow internal division. It was safer than letting them in on it and had the same effect on national unity; it's a damn genius move.
Notably, they tried the same thing in several European nations and had far less impact because all domestic parties condemned the leaks and foreign interference.
3. There were the perennial complaints about voter registration purged, gerrymandering, abuse of the justice system to disenfranchise minorities by giving them felony status for crimes such as non-violent drug use, for which White citizens rarely lose their right to vote (and bear arms).
4. James Coney's late announcement that some of the infamous "emails," might have been found days before the election. (The politicization of investigations was a long time coming, so I'm not sure how unprecedented it really was).
I hope you can see the difference between these complaints and claiming that you did in fact win the election you lost, "in a landslide," and that millions of fake votes were submitted. No one claimed that less people in key states voted for Donald Trump in 2016, and Hillary Clinton conceded, rather than claiming that Trump had to "prove there wasn't fraud to enter the White House." Clinton never called elections officials in swing states to personally lobby them to reverse the results. She never called state legislators and asked them to pick electors in line with her candidacy, rather than the results of the election. She never asked Congress to toss out election results certified by the states.
I found the Women's March protests distasteful and embarrassing, but it's hard to take GOP lawmakers and conservative pundits seriously when, after their loss, they've thrown a hissy fit an order of magnitude larger.
The investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election was unfortunately politicized by both sides, although I'd point out that the President began calling it a hoax before the investigation had even started, putting political expediency ahead of national security. This behavior is an issue that John Bolton and General Mattis, among others, hardly liberal partisans, say was perennial. The Democrats for their part undermined their credibility by jumping on half baked conspiracy theories and stretching the evidence available. By focusing on Russia, they distracted from the fact that multiple Cabinet members have come out on the record saying the President put personal gain above national security in myriad other, provable situations.
Fairness and impartiality are good. How about evidence? Can you post a link of any media outlet doing what you claim?
Again you’re not sounding centrist.
Are you really? I thought you were dead. Esoteric, incomprehensible, and dead.
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Maw
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Baden
Quoting Baden
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Brett
Quoting Maw
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Worthy of the TPF Quote Cabinet.
:lol:
There are Republican members that are not treated as you’ve been treated, therefore you can’t conclude that it’s because of your political identity.
I don't know if you'd call John Oliver a major outlet. I'm in the UK. I'm not glued to Fox or MSNBC - watching in depth political analysis of American politics I can recall 4 years after the fact. But Oliver is generally left wing - and he did a video on voting machines before the 2016 election. I recall a lot of people claiming Trump is 'not my president' - and then there was all the collusion stuff on top of that. The left clearly cast doubt on the validity of the 2016 election. And you are doing still.
I'm not on the frontlines. I've made that clear. I'm from the UK. I've said I don't know if the election was fraudulent or not. But it does seem strange, for all the doubt cast in 2016, that now there's utter certainty on the left that the election was entirely valid. I wonder if they'd be saying that if they'd lost?
If it weren't for Covid - the US economy would still be booming, and Trump would have walked it. He isn't/wasn't such a bad President in many ways. Disaster for the environment - something I care a lot about, but in other ways, he was pretty good. He didn't start any wars, even while he called out China for devaluing their currency and dumping on European and American markets. He encouraged Europe to step up to its obligations on defence, while engaging with the likes of North Korea. He lived up to the small government, low tax principles of the right - and challenged political correctness by saying what he damn well pleased. I think history will remember him fondly.
Conversely, I fear that Biden is beholden to extreme left wing elements, that political correctness will become utterly oppressive, and that his $2 trillion Green New Deal will be a disaster; in that, I don't believe windmills and solar panels can ever provide enough energy to meet our needs. In 25 years they'll all be scrap, and by then it'll be too late to stop climate change. I'd rather a climate change denier - than a plan to apply the wrong technologies, and in doing so, silence all discussion of the subject.
I could, I guess - but why should I? Because you demand it? Google the phrase 'mostly peaceful' - and I think you'll get my point.
Nah, because philosophers support their claims and you’ve claimed to be a philosopher.
Joking aside we need to engage more with people like @Brett @NOS4A2 and especially @counterpunch as they are a real deal philosopher! (Joking not completely aside, I guess)
One more for good measure.
Quoting Baden
Quoting The Opposite
I do actually agree with this in principle. If I had unlimited time and energy I would love to spend it trying to reach common ground with ideological "opponents". Problem is that doing so properly is time-consuming and exhausting and I really don't have that time or energy to spare, so neither can I blame anyone else who doesn't want to make the effort either.
@Tobias should be enlisted to do this
East Anglia ONE, off the coast of the UK, has 102 windmills, took ten years to build at a cost of £2.5bn, and produces 714MW - enough to power 600,000 homes. The UK has around 30 million homes - so, just to meet domestic energy demand, we'd need over 6000 windmills, at a cost of £1500bn. They have a working life of 25 years, and after that - same again. If you claim wind-power is an adequate solution to climate change then you're either dishonest or crazy. But we're not done, because from 2030, the UK is phasing out petrol cars - adding the demand of 30 million or so, electric vehicles to the national grid. The sums don't add up - not even nearly. They're making promises that are obviously false, just to shut people up - until they can disappear over the political horizon.
I have a solution, and I know it's right. I can prove it right down to the philosophical roots. I can explain where we've gone wrong and how to put it right in the same terms. I am a philosopher. My core subject is how to save the world. And I know how.
Damn! I’ve been outfoxed again by your philosophical prowess. But seriously, your claim was: “Black Lives Matter were just applauded uncritically by the left wing media for killing around 40 people, causing hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage....”
Quoting counterpunch
You seem to have heard about it.
So are you going to start a thread about that sometime?
I don't know. It seems a bit immodest to start a thread to propound my own philosophy. It feels better to introduce my ideas by showing where others are faulty. The problem with left wing ideology on climate change is the 'limits to growth' hypothesis - based in turn on Malthusian pessimism. They want us to pay more and have less, and carbon tax this, and stop doing that, eat grass and cycle to work or whatever. They make people the problem, but in fact - resources are a function of the energy available to create them. Given enough clean energy we can extract carbon from the air and bury it, produce hydrogen fuel, desalinate water to irrigate land, recycle everything, farm fish, and so on - a high energy sustainable future with high living standards, in balance with nature. The left want anti capitalist, eco commie poverty, kept in place by left wing authoritarian government - presumably, forever. It's frankly, a horrifying prospect. We'd be better off sailing off the edge of the world in pursuit of the almighty dollar than letting the eco commies have their way. But I think we can secure a prosperous sustainable future through the application of the right technologies, and that ain't windmills. It's magma power. The heat energy of the earth itself.
The mods are the most devoted and strict inspectors of communist orthodoxy in the forum's OPs. Once you have escaped the "fair line", they ban you and make you a renegade, a non-person.
Communists censors everyone who is not in line with the Ingsoc's dogmas.
Looks like I'll have to add resident neckbeard-posing-as-young-lady @Rafaella Leon to the list as well
I'm worried about the same thing as you, except a right wing version. I also worry about the CCP and I'm not even sure what wing they are; but they're authoritarian as fuck so I consider them Cunts.
For the record, I don't think biden et al are authoritarian - at all, but I do see trump as being so. Why do you think the democrats are authoritarian?
You don't think political correctness is authoritarian? Those who don't parrot the dogma get burned at the stake of cancel culture. Then, climate change - (do you mean IPCC?) The left want to stop people flying, eating meat, driving cars etc. Do you know what Liberty is? Freedom of speech, and freedom of choice are an anathema to the left. Their climate policies imply an increasingly authoritarian government and planned economy. Politically correct eco commies. Anti capitalist, anti free speech - anti western. They're the enemy within, a 5th column, reds under the bed!
Trump is small government, low tax and low regulation. He refused to appoint people to half of government agencies. That's non authoritarian - his personal style aside, less government equals more freedom. Dishwashers that get the dishes clean because there isn't some government agency making laws about how much water or electricity they can use. Fine by me. I want freedom - but to afford it we need limitless clean energy from magma.
It was easy because the constitution and laws were just ignored, not just by private parties, but by the US Government and the States. Prime Example: in the mid-1930s, a large program was created to improve the nation's deteriorating housing stock. The plan was to help finance new housing--hell, new city-suburbs. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) helped millions of people obtain mortgages for good quality new housing in new communities. Thanks to pressure from southern senators, the program explicitly barred blacks, Jews, and other minorities from the mortgage program. (Unconstitutional? Of course it was.)
For urban blacks, the FHA built new rental housing--large high-rise complexes. The rules went so far as to say that a mortgage for housing in urban cores could not be granted to a white family if there was so few as one black family on the block, and blacks were altogether ineligible for urban-core loans.
The financial value of the millions of new properties located in thriving suburbs, coast to coast, appreciated handsomely. This allowed millions of white home owners to accumulate significant equity, which could be used to further the families upward mobility. It was an all-around good deal. for whites.
Eventually the courts and congress eliminated racial barriers in FHA programs. It was, however, too late to undo the long term damage. The millions of homes in white suburbs were now too expensive for any but well-off blacks to buy. Plus, the all-white suburbs mostly wanted to--and have--stayed white.
So, the FHA program doesn't account for black poverty entirely. Employment discrimination has to be factored in, as do poor education programs, poor community health care, and so on and so forth.
Quoting counterpunch
The US (and I assume the UK and EU countries) have at times reined in the excesses of capitalism through tax law. Higher taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations reduces disparities, and funds the government at a high enough level to effectively serve the common good. Low taxes puts us where we are now -- a starved public service sector and a bloated wealthy class -- the 1%, or 1/10 of 1%ers.
The closer you look, the worse it gets.
I doubt if the entire windmill has to be replaced every 25 years; it's probably the generator at the top, driven by the blades, that has to be replaced. Well, nuclear plants don't last indefinitely; neither do coal fired generators, or hydro-electric.
Clearly we can not merely power the present wasteful energy-use regime with solar or wind power. We have to cease and desist. There are presently over 1 billion cars in the world, almost all of them powered by fossil fuel. The solution is not to build many millions of windmills to power billions of cars; the solution is to get rid of cars, and replace them with other methods of transportation.
Quoting Maw
Yeah, you can say that, yet society isn't transforming from a feudal society as it was in the 19th Century. Modern middle class is a bit different from the classes of 19th Century. Above all, history of the 19th and 20th Century has also answered many issues, if we just want to look at our history. Yet one part where economics is now truly lost is in monetary economics, that I agree with. It doesn't make any sense of the insanity now upon us (with the economy in recession and asset inflation making the stock market going into all time highs and the central banks printing a lot of money).
Adam Smith institute? Well, what I meant is that apart from Economics 1.1 lessons, economists don't refer typically to Smith as Marxist economists to what Marx has written.
I've notice fiscal conservatism (a good thing) generally isn't shot down but Christians as opposed to other religions are not allowed to preach. Other religions are allowed to preach all the time. How do you define preaching? Judgement is a spectrum and most People judge others on some level. The new testament actually does not say not to make judgements on others. Judgement is a spectrum. Do you need me to explain why?
Acceptable by who? You only get to speak for yourself. Look who gets to define what is acceptable and label others actions as racists when they are simply disagreeing with you, and not being racist. Demonizing others and calling them racists just because the don't believe in the "white privilege" myth isn't acceptable either.
My point was, is it wrong to verbally abuse anyone at all? You seem to think blacks and homosexuals are free to say what they want without being challenged, because to challenge them means that the challenger is a racist or homophobe. This is the left's political discourse in a nutshell.
No one was talking about fraud in 2016. Some believed that Russian interference (which did take place) had an influence on the election results, and that Trump colluded with Russia in this purpose (with some good reason to believe this). I did not believe either of that myself, but that’s what was said.
Compare this to the claims that hundreds of thousands of votes are fraudulent. Voter fraud is extremely rare, and anyone with a brain cell knew that trump would make something up if he lost — he said it explicitly.
That’s happened, predictably, and you people take it seriously enough to be “agnostic” about it? No, sorry — experts (remember them?) say the opposite, in fact: that the election was the most secure in history. And it’s not opinion — there’s overwhelming evidence to back it up. Partly it was due, ironically, to Trump’s screaming about fraud.
People who want to believe a fiction WILL believe a fiction. But this election was free, fair, and secure. There is no evidence to the contrary, which is why Trump has lost every court case. Because you can’t win in court with delusions.
When did John Oliver claim that there were fraudulent votes and that Hillary actually was rightful winner of the election?
Seems like false equivalency to me.
There is certainly bias against conservatives in academia to some extent; although it varies significantly by field. Francis Fukayama (my personal favorite political theorist), is a conservative associated with the Bush I years and is highly respected in his field. "Conservatives," seem more set upon than they are, because Trumpists have decided that people like Fukayama, who live in a world of nuance and complexity, are degenerate RINO scum, particularly since they won't sing Trump's praises. Hell, Mitt Romney, a successful and popular Republican governor in the unfavorable landscape of Massachusetts, who was Republican voters' choice for President in 2012, and almost unseated a Obama, is now considered a RINO, deep state liberal. Hell, half the people Trump himself picked for main cabinet positions, Mattis, Tillerson, Sessions, etc. flipped to being craven closet liberals and morons as soon as the cult of personality began taking criticism.
Point being, people don't have near as much a problem with conservatism as they do Trumpism. The reason is that Trumpism mostly relies on ignoring nuance and enforcing a worldview of Manichean struggle through a steady stream of abject lies. Conservatives who have the audacity to criticize Trump are apparently no longer conservative in this context. No one is going to debate anyone who just restates lies.
"Dems called the 2016 election fraudulent," for instance, is a Rush Limbaugh tier comparison for the reasons I listed above. You can't say "I don't have one single example of Democrats saying the vote count was wrong or that Hillary really won and should take office," and then claim the two cases are parallel. At best you can argue that the complaints over foreign intervention and the FBI's actions were overblown and eroded norms, but those norms were later ripped to shreds Trump himself.
Same goes on every other issue. Trumpists will swear up and down he curbed migration before COVID, despite the fact that illegal border crossings demonstrably hit a 13 year high under his leadership and that his party had control of both chambers of Congress, the Court, and the White House for 24 months and did not hold one (1) vote on migration, not even token changes to make enforcement slightly easier. If Trumpists go with "alternative facts," and people call them assholes and a morons, I don't blame them. There is no point in arguing with people who refuse to accept reality.
What do you think the problems and the solutions are?
Nobody gets to define what is acceptable, but everyone gets to judge what is acceptable. But people who judge racism or sexism or homophobia to be acceptable are wrong, because they aren't acceptable, and people who judge them to be unacceptable are right, because they are unacceptable.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No I don't. I think that it's acceptable to criticize people for being racist or sexist or homophobic but not acceptable to criticize people for being black or a woman or gay.
Redlining - was based on economic geography, not skin colour per se. It was was an active policy for around 30 years - 1935-1968; that banks refused mortgage applications from people living in certain areas. That approach has not gone away. I know people today, who can't get home or car insurance because of where they live - because there's high crime and low employment. It's just how banks work.
The problem here is that one person's success, is viewed as another's failure. That's a vice; not a virtue. Do not covet thy neighbour ass. I'm glad I live in a society where people are able to succeed. Inequality is good. People become rich by creating things, and then use the money to buy stuff, pay tax and employ people.
The responsibility is with the individual - to develop their talents and sell them into the market; and so serve society by buying stuff, employing people and paying tax. You would place the responsibility for individuals economic well being on society. You require banks to make economically risky decisions, and where did that lead to in 2008? To a mortgage crisis, based on bad debt - and an economic recession that wiped out economies around the world. In short, you're looking at all this down the wrong end of the telescope.
On windmills, it doesn't really matter if the whole thing needs replacing every 25 years. Or if the tower can be re-used. They still won't produce enough energy to meet our needs. Further, because wind is intermittent - it either requires storage facilities be built, or fossil fuel back up; so twice the energy infrastructure. They really are - not a good idea. And nor is ...."cease and desist." You've just been weeping buckets of blood over poor black people, and now you want to impose poverty on everyone, forever after? Explain this to me. Is it that you think poverty is fine - just so long as it's not racist poverty? You would pull down the ceiling - make everyone equally poor, and then congratulate yourself that you've achieved equality? That's insane!
In my view, we need to apply the technology to draw limitless amounts of energy from the earth's molten interior - by drilling through hot volcanic rock, lining the bore holes with pipes and pumping water through, to produce super-heated steam, to drive turbines to produce massive base load electricity.
This energy can then be used to produce hydrogen fuel, that can be piped and shipped around the world, and burnt in traditional power stations - thus utilizing the larger part of the existing energy infrastructure. Waste heat can be used to extract carbon from the air and bury it, and desalinate water to irrigate land - for agriculture and habitation. In this way we can protect forest and natural water sources, resist desertification - while maintaining productivity and high living standards.
And think about this; it may take hundreds of years, but - because resources are a consequence of the energy available to produce them, eventually, based on limitless clean energy, capitalism would ultimately achieve post materiality - and that's a form of equality I can live with. If I were an eco-commie, I'd be demanding capitalism live up to its own premises - from Hardin's tragedy of the Commons, that says "any freely available resource will be exploited to extinction." Well there it is - more energy than you can shake a fistfull of dollars at. Have at it!
Engaging with them is pointless. They are not reasonable people. They embrace hypocrisy, invention, whataboutery, and swerving contrary evidence and argument. You could show them watertight proof that, say, racism is real and all they will see is proof that so-called facts are not to be trusted.
My view is not that we should encourage such people, but that we should oppose at all opportunities and all means within our principles. Call out every fabrication, every racist principle, every hypocrisy, not because it will move them (it can't), but so that it is held in a constant state of being opposed rather than accepted, and so that every lie, every expression of hate, every fallacy read by others is followed by a counter-argument or contrary evidence or just a straightforward naming for what it is.
Disease is best fought by antibodies, and fascism is a disease, not a philosophy.
Quoting counterpunch
:rofl:
The media has repeated over and over that fraud allegations are ridiculous. The courts, including Republican elected judges and those appointed by Trump wrote scathing opinions about his team's challenges. Even Fox News news program lay this out.
Hell, his obsequious Attorney General Barr said point blank that there was no evidence of fraud, as did former Trump supporting Republican elections officials in Georgia.
It is the President himself who led the charge of fraud allegations. He has been screaming about fraud since six months before the election. The media boosting him is Fox's non-news commentary programs, and propaganda outlets such as Newsmax and OANN. There is a reason the President has been personally attacking Fox since the election and telling his followers to stop watching news and only watch propaganda outlets.
These aren't news programs. They are the right wing equivalent of Jacobin magazine.
The fundamental nature of the problem is not capitalism. It's our mistaken relationship to science as truth; established when Galileo was tried for heresy, for proving the earth orbits the sun using scientific method. Consequently, we have used the tools, but have not observed the instructions. We continue to act on the basis of ideological conceptions of the world; applying or withholding technology as ideological priorities dictate - and not, as a scientific understanding of reality suggests we should, assuming only we wish to survive.
Looked at in these terms the solution is obvious. Drill through hot volcanic rock, and use the vast heat energy of the earth to extract carbon from the air, desalinate water to irrigate land, produce hydrogen fuel, and so meet all our energy needs, and more, from a virtually limitless source of clean energy.
Scientifically, energy is fundamental to everything we do. It follows that resources are a function of the energy available to create them - there is no limits to growth, just the misapplication of technology. We can have a high energy sustainable future with high living standards. We can make a paradise of the world - fountains, fruit trees and marble floors for miles. We just need enough energy - and it's there, beneath our feet, a big ball of molten rock 4000 miles deep and 26000 miles around.
We can't shut it all down and sit in the cold and dark forever, eating grass and walking to work. We have to power through. Make good on civilisation by securing the future; not backing down, while apologising profusely for all the crap our ancestors did to eachother - but making those sacrifices worth something by securing a decent future for humankind.
Let me make it easy: THERE WAS NO ELECTION FRAUD. Saying something like “I don’t know” is itself a copout. I don’t know that Santa Claus lives in the North Pole. Who knows? Maybe. There’s no evidence proving that he DOESN’T.
You get the point I hope. This is just an intellectual mistake.
Yes, it’s largely media and various thought leaders deluding people, but citizens themselves deserve partial blame as well.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Exactly! It's odd, frankly, that media are so adamant the election was legit. When have they ever - not been out to sensationalise and scandalise? But what do I know? I'm a million miles away, and can only speak in terms of generalities. I do recall lots of fraud allegations in 2016, John Oliver's video on voting machines - and people declaring Trump is "not my President." Now, it seems like - it's all the same accusations, with the roles reversed. I don't know any more about it than that - and I'm not willing to take your word for it. I've heard you though. I understand what you believe, and acknowledge, you probably know more about it than me. I just don't know if you're being fair minded, or are defending the left wing position.
For someone interested in truth, you sure are awfully cavalier about touting your opinion of things you - by your own admission - do not understand. Why not take your own advice and do research first and talk second?
Quoting counterpunch
You're proposing an engineering solution to a social problem. The problem you identify is that people are too easily swayed by falsehood and emotion. Your solution is clean energy? How are those related? In order to realize your vision, you'd first have to figure out how to motivate people to work together on a basis of shared truth.
I see. So you believe drilling to the centre of the planet in lots of places will save us all.
I don't know where you get the idea - Quoting Echarmion Climate change isn;t a social problem. It's the misapplication of technology - that occurs because, historically, the Church made science a heresy, denying "Valid knowledge of Creation" the moral authority it rightfully owns. So, we use science, but don't observe it. We apply technology as religious, political and economic ideology suggests, rather than - as a scientific understanding of reality suggests. It's a mistake - deeply buried in our philosophical history, and just never revisited. I'm revisiting it!
No. I don't propose drilling to the core of the earth. I was explaining how vast the energy of the earth is - 4000 miles deep, 26000 miles around. We could tap that energy forever and never put a dent in it. I suggest drilling close to magma chambers, and at subduction zones, where one continental plate meets another. There are about 500 volcanic islands in the Pacific Rim - far from anywhere and surrounded by water. There's also a huge magma chamber in the US - under Yellowstone national park, but I'd leave that one alone for now. It's too large, and too close to civilisation to make it a test subject. If something goes wrong - a super-volcano would take out most of North America. And we wouldn't want that, would we!
Here again you are posting inaccurate figures (BLM protesters haven't killed over 40 people). Why are you posting a number you haven't fact-checked, if you care about scientific accuracy?
Quoting counterpunch
Did these people arrive at their conclusions using scientific rigor? Or even due dilligence? And if you're going to answer "I don't know", then how come you nevertheless conclude that what they did was good?
Quoting counterpunch
The church is a social organisation. Applying science is a social process. So I am not sure how you can write all this and not conclude that the problem is a social one.
Quoting counterpunch
Can you elaborate on how a scientific understanding of reality can tell us what to do?
I can get behind global efforts for clean energy production. Whether your magma chamber idea would be able to produce enough energy is a scientific question, if you're right, that still leaves the political problems of its implementation.
Quoting counterpunch
Do you believe science has an answer to something like: "BLM protesters pulling down the statues they did is praiseworthy because it simultaneously highlights histories of oppression and dismantles symbols of that oppression"?
Except Mr Trump himself. The election then was going to be rigged, remember?
He was repeating all the same lines before that how rigged the election was going to be (if he lost). There was even the same debate if he would accept defeat in 2016. What's new?
"'Cause this whole system's rigged, and we all know the riggers!
For the past 8 years this country's been run by— [CAW]"
-Trump
"Don't get your fans stirred up in some sort of Twitter Civil War!"
-Lincoln
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbryz0mxuMY[/video]
Oh dear, am I? I do apologise. I had heard it was around 40 people dead, but I can't vouch for the validity of the source. So how many people were killed in the BLM rioting? Usually, one would rely on the media to tally such figures, but there's been a distinct lack of criticism. The deaths and damage are being ignored.
Quoting Echarmion
It's an opinion - I suppose. I don't claim it's the only possible opinion. Indeed, I have repeatedly said I don't know if the election was fraudulent. I acknowledge the possibility those people were misled. But then, they can't be blamed for being misled, and in my view - occupying the seat of government is the correct response to a fraudulent election.
Quoting Echarmion
I wouldn't subsume this problem under a sociological heading. It's philosophy, political theory, history. The Church is a political organisation, not a social one. In 1634, when the Church tried Galileo for heresy, they were in effect a pan-European government, banking house, and system of justice. It was not the happy clappers who meet in the community centre on Sunday mornings to praise Jesus. A large part of European colonialism was people escaping the absolutist power of the Church. The Church was burning people alive for heresy right through to 1792 - 60 years into the Industrial Revolution; a revolution based on applied science. We used science, sure - but it wasn't recognised as an understanding of reality, and consequently, we have applied the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons. That's a problem of philosophy, of political theory, of history - but it's not sociology.
Quoting Echarmion
Good question. Hostile question, but spot on. I assume you know Hume, and the is/ought dichotomy. Hume writes:
"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, ...when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not."
Hume maintains that this is a fallacy; but he says it himself - it's what human beings do. Neither you nor I can look at a list of facts without prioritising them in terms of our moral values. It occurs because, contrary to popular belief - morality is not external to us, given by God, or capable of precise codification. It's internal - a sense, like a sense of humour, or the aesthetic sense. It's ingrained into us by evolution in a tribal context - wherein, the moral individual within the tribe, and the moral tribe, conferred evolutionary advantages in the struggle to survive to breed, and pass on those qualities to subsequent generations. Religion, law, politics, economics etc, are expressions of that innate moral sense.
It's actually quite interesting because Nietzsche didn't understand this. He believed man in a state of nature was a wilful brute, and that religion was an inversion of the values natural to this superman. But he was wrong. Man could not have survived if he didn't share food, and look after the tribe. Nietzsche's amoral superman would soon have died out. The strong were not fooled by the weak - hunter gatherers joined together to form civilisations, and needed explicit moral codes justified with reference to God. We then promptly forgot this because religion requires faith and claims divine authorship, and divine authority for God's laws. So Hume writes of a morality external to us - whereas, in reality, it's an ingrained moral sense, and our rightful place is the bridge between the is and the ought, between fact and value, knowing what's scientifically true, and doing what's morally right in terms of what's scientifically true.
Do people that make the effort to inhabitate a philosophy forum, maybe also philosophy institutions, tend to be left leaning?
If so, why? My best guess is that my fellow countryman Martin Hägglund in his book This Life(Vårt enda liv) might give a clue as to why.
Quoting counterpunch
Actually, one has to do quite a lot of reading to see that I am NOT conflating effect with cause.
Certainly, there were (and are) other major factors which contribute to the wealth/poverty distribution we see today in the US. One doesn't have to be a leftist to acknowledge that. When one compares the collective performance of Immigrant groups, like Somalis, to American blacks, it is clear that big cultural differences are at work. Same for some other immigrant groups who have succeeded under difficult circumstances.
As for boring into the earth to tap the energy derived from the hot interior, pause to consider the technical and maintenance issues involved in a) reaching geologically stable, very hot layers of the crust, and b) putting pipes into very hot, highly corrosive environments for many years. Geothermal is a good thing where feasible, but it's not a maintenance free source.
The entire point of worrying about energy extraction from fossil fuel and 1.4 billion cars (plus more commercial vehicles), and wasteful energy use is global warming -- a crisis which is unfolding before us. We'll need to use solar, wind, geo-thermal, hydro, and anything else we can devise on the production end to avoid economic, cultural, and environmental collapse. 1.4 billion cars--and their continued production and replacement--is simply not sustainable -- meaning, it's not compatible with reducing CO2 levels.
Forcing everybody into common poverty? NOBODY wants to do that. We just don't have another 100 years to make a graceful transition from fossil to hydrogen fuel. We probably don't have 50 years.
It isn't an ideological commitment that makes me doubt that humankind will ever achieve post-materiality -- a la Star Trek and other very optimistic science fiction themes. It would be splendid if we could do that -- but post-materiality rests on ideas that have no material reality at the present time. Mine asteroids for metal, gases, water, etc.? That would be great. Put heavy industry on the moon? Fine. We recently returned a tiny packet of dust from an asteroid, and it took years for the vessel to reach the rock and return--and this is a once-off success.
It seems like 'post materiality' requires that we figure out how to get something from nothing.
I agree, but I believe I can make the case - even to fossil fuel producing nation states and companies. For instance, the UK is currently planning to build windmills and ban fossil fuel powered cars by 2030. That's bizarre; because wind power can hardly be expected to keep the lights on, less yet add 30 million electric vehicles to demand upon the national grid.
Imagine it does work, and we begin producing magma power. The question then is how to apply it. I've looked at various approaches, and what appeals to my eye - other than extracting carbon from the air and burying it, is taking out large energy users first, like steel, cement, aluminium, desalination and irrigation, shipping, planes, trains, recycling etc, and someway down the road, eventually - cars. But not immediately, because it's too much. Huge infrastructure costs and loss of revenues at the same time, will cause economic havoc, political instability - war, famine and death. We don't want that. We want a smooth, orderly, profitable transition to a high energy sustainable future based on clean energy. Petroleum producing nations need time to diversify their economies, and we need time to build the infrastructure to support 30 million electric vehicles. Applied carefully, magma energy can give us time.
Quoting fdrake
Asked questions like this, I always think of Napoleon, blowing the nose off the Sphnix with a cannon, relative to Lord Elgin, who spent his entire family fortune to save the marbles of the Acropolis, which at the time was being used as an ammo dump in a war between the Greeks and the Turks. And today's politically correct, anti Western colonialist claims that the marbles must be returned.
Looking back from that high energy sustainable future, yes - I think people would regret destroying history for what it symbolises today. I think providing the world with limitless clean energy from magma, securing the future for humankind makes good on the civilisation we fought to build, and that sanitising history removes a warning label from what might come again if we don't keep building.
In a discussion among some leftists about a year ago, that very point about global warming was made: the consequences of an abrupt halt to the auto/fossil fuel segment of the economy (a large hunk) would be a catastrophic blow to the global economy. Not abruptly halting the the auto/fossil fuel segment of the economy (along with other fossil fuel use) guarantees an environmental catastrophe.
in other words, we are screwed.
Totally screwed, because we don't have time to implement reliance on magma, wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, et al. As a rule of thumb, 40 to 50 years are required to implement major technological changes--from proof of concept to commonplace. 30 more years of roll-out for solar and wind puts us at 2051. 50 years for geo-thermal puts us at 2071. Too late in either case to forestall major disaster.
We can, we should, we must press forward on all fronts, from magma to heavy reliance on bicycles, bearing in mind that we can't avoid major environmental losses.
I admit, I haven't done a lot of reading on the subject - but you didn't address my point. Economic geography is still alive and kicking. People can't get home or car insurance based on where they live today. It's just banking procedure. It may be racist in effect, but racism isn't the cause.
Quoting Bitter Crank
No kidding. Chinese labourers went to America to work on the railroads, and were treated very poorly. Yet today, they are the highest performing demographic across the board, education, employment, earnings, zero crime rate. How does one explain that in a supposedly, institutionally racist society?
On "boring into the earth to tap the energy derived from the hot interior" you want to write it off in favour of your windmill powered, low energy, have less - pay more, anti capitalist, eco commie vision of the future. That's precisely what I'm seeking to avoid.
Think about it - green government planning the economy in relation to some imagined carrying capacity, forever. How could that work? Would the natural resources 'saved' from the seething masses be kept forever off limits? People would vote that down in the blink of an eye if you let them vote - so you can't have democracy, you can't support freedom of choice, or freedom of opinion. It's inhuman. And you'd end up committing genocide because you make people the problem - rather than the application of technology.
"Limits to growth" is false. Resources are a consequence of the energy available to develop them, and the energy is there, beneath our feet. We need to tap that energy in a big way, and then we can begin to repair the damage we've done - extracting carbon from the air, not just emitting less carbon. Developing wastelands for agriculture with fresh water produced from sea water, rather than burning the forests and depleting natural water sources. You would prevent people burning the forests, but offer no alternative - because windmill energy isn't enough, so you'd make them eat Soylent Green.
One important thing to keep in mind here is that we don't have to put a bunch of car and energy companies out of business and their employees out of work with all the consequences that that would have. We just have to get them to change what kinds of cars and energy they sell. The auto industry is already swinging heavily into hybrid or full electric vehicles. "Oil companies" are already rebranding themselves "energy companies" and investing in alternatives. It's just the smart thing to do, since one way or another oil's days are numbered.
And that happens with consumers choosing electric / fuel cell electric / hybrid vehicles with competition among the car manufacturers driving the costs down of these "alternative" fuel cars.
That's it. Markets can do something useful.
(What that transformation actually looks like)
And that's how in reality transformations happen. (Except that electric cars have been around since the time of the combustion engine.) And btw it is a transformation as in Germany annually roughly about 3 million cars are sold. From nothing to every tenth one is a dramatic change, counterpunch.
Besides, If you look just how long horse drawn wagons and the early cars roamed the streets together, that did take a while. In the US the transformation was very rapid, yet globally it was another thing as personal cars were a luxury for a long time:
Quoting counterpunch
Adding massive costs to the taxpayer/consumer will decrease demand, so where do need the huge energy demand on the national grid?
And just what do have in mind with destabilizing fossil fuel geopolitics? Start a civil war in Saudi-Arabia and have the US attack Iran and Venezuela?
Hey, Counterpunch: I've seen the Elgin Marbles at the BM, and I'm kind of glad he took them. Ditto for the Rosetta Stone. It would have been better had his predecessors acquired the sculptures before the idiot Turks decided to store explosives in one of the most beautiful buildings the world has seen, but... 20/20 rearview vision.
"German soldier and his horse in the Russian SFSR, 1941. In two months, December 1941 and January 1942, the German Army on the Eastern Front lost 179,000 horses.[1]
I was just looking for that photograph. It's a doozy; 8 years and Ford changed the world. I suppose it took longer elsewhere; and I suppose Ford's transformation is based in turn on the discovery and extraction of oil by "Edwin L. Drake, who employed William Smith, an expert salt driller, to supervise drilling operations and on August 27, 1859, they struck oil at a depth of sixty-nine feet" - but yes, change, when it comes can be very rapid. As we approach upon an unsustainable future, it becomes ever more urgent that it's the right change. And to my mind, electric cars are putting the cart before the horse. First, we need boatloads of clean energy - just as Ford needed boatloads of oil.
Quoting ssu
Quoting ssu
With both these quotes, you've got the wrong end of the stick. These are, in my view - dangers of what I believe is a wrongful approach - not things I'm trying to achieve, but things I think, my approach would avoid. The UK is planning to ban petrol cars from 2030 - which would place a huge burden on the national grid. I wouldn't do that. Stopping buying petroleum overnight would plunge countries like Saudi, Russia, Iran, Venezuela into chaos. I wouldn't do that either.
I'd produce massive amounts of energy from magma, and use that energy to supply electricity, or hydrogen to the big industrial energy users first - cement, steel, aluminium, shipping, aviation, etc - while using waste heat from the production of electricity and hydrogen fuel, to extract carbon from the air and bury it as calcium carbonate by reinjection. In this way, we could carry on very much as we are, without upsetting the apple cart - separating loss of revenues from huge infrastructure costs, and actively reducing atmospheric carbon - not just, producing a little less of it.
It feels perverse to actually have to point this out, but... More and more energy on the grid comes from renewables: that is the trend. Your country has had entire days worth of energy consumption provided entirely by renewable sources. You have major energy providers who only deal with greener energy now (e.g. Scottish Power). That is not true of petrol and diesel cars. If incremental replacement of carbon-emitting fuel with greener alternatives is the aim, which it is, arguing for sticking with petrol and diesel is bizarre.
It is, cars are registered just once.
Anyway, as Baden is closing this thread and there might be another better thread to discuss just what to do with the global economy to address climate change, it might be good end with comments more along the lines of this thread.
One of the basic things for a forum like this is to represent different opinions and that those differences in opinion are discussed on the higher intellectual level than with the typical vitriol and ad hominem attacks, which your average social media discourse descends to. A central question is the role of the government and the role of the markets. Your answer above, , shows obviously that you have thought about the issue, but firmly believe in a top down lead manner for the change to come. I think it is one of the most important arguments that divide the left and the right.
While I agree as a conservative that markets have their problems and the market mechanism cannot take care of everything in the society (as anarcho-capitalists believe), the mechanism can do a lot and has done a lot. The failure of Soviet style centralized planning shows this, yet one should also remind that the Chinese, who (at least the leadership) firmly believe that they are communists, have done well just by partly using the market mechanism. Yet transformations that basically nobody saw coming in the government and couldn't be planned ahead happen with the free market system. And this is crucial. Economic history has showed so many times that with innovations and new technological breakthroughs that lead to new industries cannot be pre-planned centrally, but are usually done by some eccentric hobbyists at start.
Its the same thing.
Quoting Michael
What about criticizing people for being white, as in "white privilege"?
You seem to think that your judgements of what is acceptable, is more acceptable than what others judge as acceptable.
Politics is just another word for hypocrisy.
Not if there is an objective fact of the matter. Something either is or isn't acceptable, whatever any person believes, and none of us get to define it to be another way. For example, pedophilia is unacceptable, whatever you believe. Those who judge pedophilia to be unacceptable are right, and those who judge pedophilia to be acceptable are wrong. And racism is unacceptable, whatever you believe. Those who judge racism to be unacceptable are right, and those who judge racism to be acceptable are wrong.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Talk of "white privilege" isn't criticizing people for being white. When people talk about white privilege they are making the claim that white people have certain advantages over non-white people because of racism against non-white people.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No, I think that my judgement of what is acceptable is correct. I believe that I am correct in judging pedophilia, racism, sexism, and homophobia to be unacceptable, and that anyone who judges any of these things to be acceptable is wrong, because the objective fact of the matter is that these things are unacceptable.
And if Trump had won, and you started a thread complaining about how he won illegally, it wouldn't have been a "whine" thread, but a "patriotic call for action," right?
This is what I'm taking about how one side defines the argument in such a way that makes the other side appear to be the "whiners", "racists" and "bigots". Name-calling isn't acceptable, period, especially on a philosophy forum that is seriously about philosophy.
Eh, those statues have sat there being a celebration of history for a long time, removing them is a symbolic act to acknowledge the ongoing relevance of the warning they represent.
In terms of "big picture" stuff we probably agree; if the world had limitless clean energy that everyone could access, our greatest existential threats would be solved. Getting there will be messy political business though, and I'd guess we'd disagree on what kind of politics is required to get there. Our lords and masters have a habit of doing whatever they can to limit our access to that future, since they're invested in keeping the material conditions in place that cause those existential threats and stifle us from doing anything about it.
Who is being racist against non-white people?
Lots of people. The Ku Klux Klan, for example.
This is all based on the faulty idea that morality is objective.
My point all along is that you have simply redefined questioning a faulty premise that you have assumed to be true, to fall within the category of "racism". Its no different than a religious fundamentalist accusing me if being a devil-worshipper when I question their assertions about the existence of their God.
Lol. The KKK is not lots of people, nor are all whites part of the KKK. Guilt by association is another logical fallacy. So much for engaging in philosophy on this "philosoohy" forum.
I don't know what you mean by this. I was just responding to your question "You think its ok to verbally abuse others you disagree with, but racism is a big, "No-No"? Whats the fucking difference?"
The difference, as I said, is that 1) it's acceptable to be black, and so 2) unacceptable to criticize people for being black. It then follows from this that 3) racism is unacceptable, and so 4) it's acceptable for people to be criticized for being a racist.
Which of these four claims do you disagree with?
I didn't say that only the KKK are racist or that all white people are part of the KKK, and nowhere did I suggest any guilt by association.
Again, my point is that calling someone the R-word is just as unacceptable as calling someone the N-word because they are both examples of ad hominems, and ad hominems are logical fallacies that simply don't move the discussion anywhere. On a philosophy forum worth its salt, they should be kept at a minimum, but you seem to think that its acceptable for some to do it and not others. So much for your ideas of equality and eliminating privileges. :roll:
If someone is a racist then it's acceptable to call them a racist and criticize them for being a racist. If someone is black then it's not acceptable to call them a nigger and criticize them for being black.
What makes moral claims objective? While I agree that genocide is bad, I don't see what sort of fact about the world justifies that being an objectively real judgement. The universe doesn't seem to care, and human societies have had different moral codes with philosophers defending competing ethical systems. What makes any of our moral judgements objective?
Is there a kind of internal moral realism? Is it real in the way money and economics are real? We have some means of agreeing on what values to assign to things or actions?
Oh FFS, "racist" is not a pejorative term against racists. Likening it to the N-word is beyond stupid.
Exactly, simply because something has a negative connotation doesn't make it a pejorative. You can have adjectives that are both pejoratives and negatively connote and that are not pejoratives yet still negatively connote. Calling a person a "rat" is a pejorative, calling a rat a "rat" isn't, it's neutrally descriptive. Calling a black person a "nigger" is a pejorative, calling a racist, a "racist" is neutrally descriptive. Easy way to know is if the language is publically acceptable: can you read it in respectable newspapers, and hear it spoken by your elected leaders without objection. In the case of "racist", the answer is, obviously, yes. In the case of "nigger", the answer is, obviously, no. Of course, the right just adores to obfuscate and equivocate concerning language. It's often their only door to justification for their opinions.
Transforming automotive technology simply isn't practical - at this stage. First, it places a very large demand on the national grid at a time when we're turning to technologies that produce less power. I would aim to produce massive amounts of clean energy from the heat energy of the earth first, and distribute that energy as hydrogen fuel - that can then be used in cars...and power stations, producing electricity for the national grid. There are not enough charging points for electric vehicles - about 30,000 installed, whereas, the UK has 30 million cars. Installing all that infrastructure would be an enormous task, and come at a huge cost.
Batteries are not good - they have huge drawbacks. They use a lot of toxic metals that have to be mined, and disposed of - but that's some other countries problem, right? Wrong. In reality, the earth is a single planetary environment, and this is a global problem.
If this were about sustainability, at the very least - they would make batteries interchangable, such that, they would be charged at the filling station, and you pull in, switch out the battery, and off you go. Instead, they have built in batteries.- such that, the car has to sit idle for 12-24 hours to charge, and then goes 250 miles max. You can fast charge the car - but then, you damage the battery, and after three years or so, it won't hold a charge. And you have to scrap the battery and the car.
A systematic approach suggest, first, sourcing massive amounts of clean energy. Because that will cushion the impact of any subsequent transformations - not least by affording petroleum producing countries time to diversify their economies. Distributing that energy as hydrogen fuel suggests HICE hydrogen internal combustion engines, or hydrogen fuel cells - both better options than batteries.
And when we get fusion reactors to be so efficient that they can compete perfectly against other energy sources, I am certain that there will many of those that are critical of the new technology, distrusting the "science" and being fearful about it's effects. Perhaps that the fusion reactor will explode as a hydrogen bomb. Heck, at least it will cause cancer or something!
(Besides, think about the bureaucracy and the red tape with all these countries involved:)
Not only would it imply authoritarian government to impose poverty on the masses for the left wing approach to take effect - (and in that context, the repeated failures of communism to plan a successful economy might be construed as a virtue) only, even more fundamentally, poor people breed more. It's well noted that improved living standards reduce fertility. So reducing living standards would see a population explosion, and ever less resources eeked out between ever more people. That's not a sustainable future - it's some dystopian mash up between 1984 and The Hunger Games!
The answer lies with a very basic tenet of capitalist ideology, from Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons. As a justification of private property, Hardin shows that "any freely available resource will be over-exploited." His argument concerned common grazing land, and how everyone with access - acting in their rational self interest, would add another cow, and another, and a few sheep and some goats - until the land was exhausted, and the resource destroyed. The earth is a big ball of molten rock - have at it! Exploit it to the maximum degree!
Producing limitless amounts of clean energy from magma to support continued capitalist growth - we can have a sustainable future with high living standards, and population should level off at around 10-12bn by the year 2100 - according the the mid range UN Population Division projections. Undermine improved living standards by reducing demand, and population will not level out. We have to press on - we have no choice. But we need more energy - not less. That's the key. It's the only way to balance the equation.
How does something that isn't there, say anything? You look at that statue of Colston, for example - and are offended by it. It means something different to you now than it meant to those who erected it, and it will mean something different again to subsequent generations. Who the giddy fuck are you to insist your current opinion, not only trumps that of previous generations, but removes it from the consideration of all subsequent generations?
What do you see? You see an anti western target for your politically correct virtue signalling - a myopic, self righteous view based on the lie that slavery was a particular cruelty invented and practiced by white people, against black people - because they're black. You think slavery was racism. But white people didn't go out and capture black people and force them into slavery. They bought slaves from black people; trading Western manufactured goods - cloth and metal tools for slaves, then trading salves for sugar and spices in the Americas, and then back to Europe to sell the sugar and spices.
Slavery existed since the dawn of time - Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece - they all had slaves. The Arab slave trade from Africa was seven centuries old before Europeans got involved. And a few centuries later, for the first time ever in the entire history of humankind, there arose a civilisation that determined to put an end to slavery. That's what I see when I look at that statue of Colston. I see a man from an age before philosophies on the rights of man and capitalist economics based on individual liberty - allowed for Abolition. You despise the very civilisation that ended slavery - and if you have your anti western way, you would again, make slaves of us all - and call it Communism.
Also I agree with that the solution is higher living standards, as that has and will curb population growth. Also more wealthy people, not those on the brink of starvation, will happily preserve nature. Even if the poorest do understand what is happening, what can you do if you haven't anything else and the immediate problem is how to feed your family today and tomorrow? What has happened now in Asia, would be far more than welcome to happen in Africa.
The good news here is that according to somebody a lot smarter than us, E=mc2. This means that all matter is energy [and a hell of a lot of energy], so this will not be a big problem moving forward. It's simply a matter of figuring it out.
Nuclear fission works, but it's got a lot of drawbacks - not least, sourcing yellow cake Uranium in a world destabilized by a concerted move away from fossil fuels. It takes massive amounts of steel and concrete to build a nuclear power station - usually produced with fossil fuels. It produces radioactive waste materials that have to be stored safely, forever. Then, there's decommissioning a nuclear power station. All that concrete and steel - now low level radioactive, has to be dug up and disposed of.
It may seem like a bargain if you ignore all the drawbacks, and focus exclusively on the fact fission produces a lot of energy without producing carbon, but it's false accounting. I have a better idea. The earth is a big ball of molten rock.
I am not suggesting that fusion is the answer, only that energy is the least of our concerns. Put enough resources to work here, and solutions will be found.
I do agree with you that capitalism is not only not the problem, it's the only game in town, as socialism is simply a re-distribution scheme and communism, a pipe-dream.
It's just a matter of rooting out the corruption which has pretty much paralyzed all systems.
?
You mean H-bombs don't work or what? I assume you mean something else. Nuclear fusion can be done...it just typically uses more energy that it creates, if I have any idea about physics (which might not be so).
It isn't possible to usefully assess the existence of "leftists" and their worth without defining what they are, which in turn requires that you define what "rightists" are (or whatever those who stand in opposition to leftists are called).
For my part, I'm not sure that the right wing, or conservatism, has any champions or supporters of note here in God's Favorite Country or elsewhere as far as I know, who demand respect as thinkers. Conservatism as I understand once did. It isn't necessary to look as far back as Burke (who, sadly, embarrassed himself so extensively by his comments on the death of Marie-Antoinette that he nearly made himself seem pathetic). Not all that long ago, ii could boast of people like Russell Kirk and Bill Buckley, who were at least capable of defending or promoting it as reasonable in certain respects.
But now? It isn't possible to listen to members of the right wing media or its pundits without marveling at their frantic, self-righteous display of militant ignorance. Conservative politicians seem dull, mendacious, venal and craven. [In truth, I don't care for pundits or politicians of any kind] Are there any conservative or right wing thinkers or intellectuals anymore? Has our grotesque president, his followers and his enablers managed to snuff them out or driven them into silent exile?
Conservatism as I understand it was admirable in its emphasis on civil liberties, less government control where unharmful speech, though and conduct are concerned, a respect for traditions--perhaps I understood it to be more like Classical Liberalism than it was in fact. In any case, there was a time when I valued these views; I still do, though not as I once did. But now it seems a repository for bigotry, jingoism, nationalism and is anti-science and anti-reason.
I took that on board and waited two hours so as to give you a more considered response, which is this: Pretty big if.
I'm not offended by statues. I'm simply indifferent to them. My perspective is tearing them down is the best use of them, really. But I also don't expect tearing them down to do very much; at best it's a symbolic gesture, but I imagine that it sends a message as symbols do. Those statues were put up to reproduce history in a symbolic register, the mob which tears them down has the same function.
I believe the argument you've made applies to any action which goes against a tradition, regardless of the value of the tradition. I do side with you that traditions can be there for a reason, but I do think that their values should be weighed and measured. What those statues represent has been, and found wanting.
I reserve the right to judge traditions, just as you've done with the present state of the world and its habits of not listening to scientists! Ought that change? Who're you to go against the traditional relationship of science and politics? The argument you've used is very much a two edged blade.
Quoting counterpunch
I don't really like that you've told me what I see. What I see is the historical contingency that nations which largely consisted of people with white or light tan skin, for mercantile+economic reasons, decided that chattel slavery, indentured servitude and colonial expansion were good business ideas - these were the ur form of systemic racism. And then further historical contingencies that lead those slavers and their political ilk creating justifying ideologies for slavery - those are expressedly racist. We live in the legacy of those decisions, and their continued effects have been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt.
Slavery, structurally, clearly doesn't have to be a white person enslaving a nonwhite person. Slavery, insofar as it is relevant to our societies' present functions, absolutely was.
Quoting counterpunch
Nah man, I've got nothing but respect for Dessalines, and anyone that works to end slavery, apartheid, and discrimination of any sort.
Anti-western? I doubt you mean that in the sense that the west couldn't function as it does without systemic racism; with that I agree. But I don't really know why you would think I'm anti-western. What does that mean to you?
I'd already read your post. I assume you're just into dealing with even the obvious criticisms of it.
First, don't let the populism of Trump distract you here. Just because the GOP in America is in chaos doesn't mean that conservatism around the World is in chaos and has been defeated by right-wing populists. That's a false narrative, which naturally is eagerly upheld by people from the left.
Just ask yourself, which conservative leader has been in power in the West for the longest?
Angela Merkel.
Of course the Trumpist doesn't even realize that the German chancellor is from a conservative party, just as the typical American leftist today abhors the actual social democrat leaders in the West (of whom Tony Blair was actually the prime example). Yet it's telling that the moderate left and the moderate right are totally sidelined as focus is given to the populists in the media.
But what are the real power structures? The political division in the European Parliament tells something about the true power balance in the EU. And which is the largest faction? The EPP, center-right as it is known. And btw Angela Merkel's party belongs to the EPP, just like the local Conservative Party Kokoomus from here (whereas the UK Tories belonged to the ECR).
In my view the idea that conservatism has lost to right-wing populism simply isn't true. Conservatism hasn't fallen into jingoism, nationalism and anti-science reasoning. It's one narrative promoted by those who oppose conservatism.
I used the term "you" in a collective sense - meaning, you left wing types. It came across as personal to you, and was more aggressive in tone than I intended. For that I apologise. But it remains that slavery existed since the dawn of time, and without the British Empire and the United States - it couldn't have been ended. It therefore seems to me, massively hypocritical - to denounce western civilisation for what had been a universal practice, throughout all of history - that we brought to an end.
This obvious left wing hypocrisy can only be achieved by denying the ubiquity of slavery to the human condition, and that's not a lesson you want to forget. Those statues should make you aware, and happy you live in a society and era that allows for individual liberty. Yet you, lefties - protest against the very society, philosophies and economic system that afford you that freedom. You act as if freedom is some natural default setting. It's not. Slavery is the default - and freedom is hard won. So no, it's not quite:
Quoting fdrake
It's that you falsify the history to forge a weapon against the very system that affords you the freedom to have an opinion, and to express it. You turn our own achievements against us - and it's just dishonest. We have multi-cultural societies, and have set racial equality in law, but it's still not good enough for you lefties - because, when it comes down to it, you're playing identity politics, and it's a power game. It's you lefties stirring up racial animosity for political advantage - not the right. Western society isn't institutionally racist, there isn't a racist genocide being committed by the police. It's all a lie. You politically correct lefties are the real racists, only you're racist against white people so that's okay then! .
You're right. I should have limited my comments to the state of conservatism in the U.S. Here, it seems, we're witnessing a sort of rebirth of the views held by the John Birch Society, which was once denounced by conservatives.
First, you might want to deal with obvious criticisms of the grammatical structure of your attempt at a sentence.
Then, you may wish to give my post a reasonable response.
Or, alternatively, you could just get fucked off.
I don't think it changes much, but is a mildly good thing that they're torn down. Mild preference for them being torn down. I'd have a stronger preference if I saw stronger evidence that tearing them down helped fight systemic discrimination, I'd have a weaker preference if I saw evidence that it doesn't help at all. I haven't seen any evidence, or convincing arguments, that tearing down the statues harms people or society. I've seen some evidence, and convincing arguments, that it helps in a limited way.
Quoting counterpunch
:up:
No worries, I have the same bad habits of stereotyping the people I seem to disagree with.
Quoting counterpunch
I don't think "slavery is the default" fits the anthropological record; from what I've read of it there's very few things that compare to international slave raids and barter of people between societies. David Graeber's "Debt, The First 5000 years" has rather a lot of relevant detail on this. I wouldn't say this automatically means anything like modern freedom fits the record either; we're kinda similar to Ancient Greek slaves - we form contracts with people for performing services and receive money as payment.
Quoting counterpunch
Formal equality under the law doesn't signal the absence of systemic discrimination in a society. If you understand systemic discrimination as "institutional discrimination", I think you've been interpreting systemic discrimination in a limited way; missing the intended interpretation. It's more of a functional thing than a legal thing - closer to something like "a society can be said to be systemically discriminatory against group X iff belonging in group X amplifies exposure to negative outcomes relative to those who are not in group X AND that exposure has strong social+economic contributory causes". In general now we're talking about stuff like black people in the US being exposed more to dangerous levels of lead paint due to Jim Crow laws, redlining etc than a formalised legal difference between the groups. The same kinda thing for hiring disparities with equivalent CVs but you change the racialisation or gender association of the name! Formal inequality under the law (a form of institutionalised discrimination) would also fall under that general characterisation.
Well, I wouldn't be so sure about that.
I'll get back to you when it is...
Have you been living under a rock the past 12 years? Marxist economics has been vilified for years. Like any theory about human action it's flawed but it's definitely experiencing a revival since 2008.
The way forward is heterogenous economics and Marx is part of it.
Just looking where most activated goodwill arises from on a balance sheet is a clear indication demand and supply isn't the whole story.
...did you mean right whingers?
What if the corruption is part and parcel of capitalism though? A capitalist system allows an ever accelerating accumulation of wealth. This is in a way what everyone in a capitalist system ultimately strives for - not just to be rich, but to get exponentially richer.
It's obvious that the massive concentrations of wealth this produces come with associated power, and this power then competes with political power. The result is corruption, as politics becomes a tool for economic gain and vice versa.
Hard to see how to get out of that spiral without some kind of reform.
Thanks I take it as a compliment, though my time is also extremely limited... I am of the conviction that there is one reason for all. People from all stripes and walks of life can understand the difference between a good and a bad argument. That is an essential article of faith in philosophy I think, though not uncontroversial.
Quoting Rafaella Leon
Communist censors? A lot must have changed since I went MIA. Or do you just use 'communist' as a label for people who's political views you do not like? If so, isn't that some sort of 'Godwin' you exploit? The censors would never allow me to call you a national socialist for instance, but hey you may call everyone communist and associate them with Stalin.
Fair enough, editing fail.
Quoting counterpunch
My response was perfectly reasonable. The fact that it's fatal to your argument and you don't want to deal with it doesn't make it unreasonable. This is your opportunity to defend your point; if you can't, you can't.
Quoting counterpunch
It's "get fucked" or "fuck off".
The fate of conservatism is to be dragged in a direction not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of politics. Because they cannot alter change, and due to a fondness for authority and order, conservatives are often the hand-maiden of socialism, insofar as compromises and appeasement have led to greater state control (See Bismarck and the foundation of the modern welfare state). This control has not only served to hinder the rise of socialism, but also any path to liberty.
It's possible to get fucked off. As in "You better shut you're mouth pal before I really get fucked off with you."
That is true, or "I'm not going to play with those other children, mummy, in case I get fucked off." But neither fit the above context
Perhaps, and eventually, the Mods might oblige one to get fucked off...? As in, instead of one fucking off oneself, one might have them fuck one off with a permanent ban or some such?
Just trying to be helpful by giving possible translations.
Quoting counterpunch
This seems to me to display a misguided picture of how the physics of fusion works. Seems to me the sort of thing that someone who has read pop accounts and not done the maths might say. On that basis I will not be taking much of Counter's pugilistic advice to heart, until I see some evidence to the contrary.
Carl Menger lived from 1840 to 1921, hence this isn't anything new. Marxist economics has been questioned right from the start and rightly so.
Quoting Benkei
Well, Marxists have allways said that it has experienced a revival. I thought Neo-Marxian economics was a big thing in leftist circles in the 1970's and 1980's with guys like Paul Sweezy.
Quoting Benkei
Explain a bit more what you mean by this, if you have the time.
If capitalism would be so all encompassing greed, how do you explain then that even with capitalism many countries do have a lot of social cohesion and are just fine with things like the welfare state. Bismarck wasn't a leftist, but he went on with social-welfare legislation.
Then again look at present social democracy in Europe. Not hardly the movement that would have as it's agenda of doing away with capitalism. Yet social democracy is the actual movement that has prevailed and been very successful in the West, not totalitarian communism. The simple reason is that if something works and people are happy with it, then any political movement has to go with it and just bite it's tongue, however much the thing goes against their core ideology. Hence it's not so one sided as you think.
Yes we can! Bush signing Medicare part D in 2003, hence even Republicans are totally capable of enlarging the welfare state.
A welfare state is a counterbalance to capitalism, keeping its excesses in check. Without one capitalism would eat itself alive. It's thus prudent, for smart capitalists, to allow one, to keep capitalism otherwise rolling along longer, avoiding the crisis Marx predicted at its end... by slowly becoming more socialist.*
That's what "heterogenous economics" means, I suspect: a mixed economy, one with a mix of capitalist and socialist policies. Unless Benkei actually meant "heterodox economics" instead.
*(I think that there is a general pattern of that in all social systems, analogous to the evolution of parasitic organisms: if you kill your host then you die off with it, so there's selection pressure to evolve toward symbiosis rather than parasitism, mutual benefit instead of winning at another's expense. Thus social systems that destroy their societies to not memetically reproduce as efficiently as those that produce more stable and flourishing societies do.)
The issue with Benkei was about Marx's value theory of labour. That actually has to do with supply and demand. Marx apparently wrote a lot else more, which isn't proven right or wrong by this.
As Carl Menger said way back in his time about the theory:
Here the laws of supply and demand are a far better model.
I think people understand that societies made up of capitalists are far more complex than that. Let's remember that capitalism is private ownership of trade and industry while the classic definition of socialism is ownership of these by the community. Modern social democracy doesn't strive for that anymore, just to "curb the excesses of a market economy", hence just to regulate capitalism, in my view.
And also here is the crucial question: even if trade and industry is in private ownership, why cannot social cohesion and solidarity still prevail? A society is far more complex than just trade and business. There are many other bonds people have with each other than that. The counterpart might not be socialism, but perhaps social cohesion.
All the leftists would be eating each other over the correct interpretation of Marx. You're lucky you have the right-wingers here to serve as the common enemy, it's the closest you'll get to leftist unity.
You are absolutely correct, but corruption is part and parcel of all human activity. I do realize that the temptations are perhaps greater when wealth (power) is involved, but it's everywhere (all the time).
The fact that capitalism does appear to result in increasing concentrations of wealth can be attenuated by keeping the system as "honest" as possible, i.e., maintaining competition, keeping the politicians somewhat under control, using real money, etc. At present, it's a complete mess.
And I am not convinced that all but the few have such a maniacal propensity to go towards avarice. Just the same, keeping those things that can be regulated (within the context of freedom), regulated, you will get the best result possible.
Capitalism (like all human systems) has it's issues, but it's so incredibly efficient and has lifted an incredible amount of people out of poverty. It also a system that rewards merit, hard work, and most importantly panders to the market, where it is the masses [mostly] that decide what is going to be a successful product/service.
Top-down economics (like top-down everything else) is a disaster.
If that private ownership were truly considered complete and sacrosanct, then the taxes that fund the social programs of a welfare state would rightly be considered theft. If the laws of the land hold it justified and right for the state to confiscate some of the wealth of those private owners for the benefit of all of society, that is in effect saying that the people as a whole, represented by their democratic state, have some rights in that wealth, i.e. a stake in it, a bit of ownership of it.
If I can rightfully take something that's "yours" -- not just get away with it, but if there's actually nothing wrong with me doing so -- then to that extent is it partly "mine" as well, because your claims to it do not rightfully exclude my claims to it. So if a state of and by the people can rightfully take from "privately owned" industry -- and it's not theft, but something they're fully justified in doing -- then to that extent that industry is partly "theirs", because the private claims to it do not rightfully exclude the people's claims to it.
Consider the extreme scenario, where 100% of "private profit" rightfully belonged to a democratic state for use in social welfare. Would that not be a form of state socialism? Would that not amount to a claim of ownership by the state to all of that "private industry"?
Which is an argument against capitalism, because capitalism organizes things in a top-down fashion: the owners are the top, the people who live on and work with the capital that they own are at the bottom. To eliminate that top-down hierarchy would be to devolve ownership equally to the people at the bottom, which would be socialism.
Capitalism isn't just any old free market, capitalism is the concentration of wealth into few hands, and the consequent division of the people into those who own and those who don't. A free market where ownership was widely and evenly distributed would not be capitalist, but libertarian-socialist.
Although all systems have their issues, most of the inadequacies the welfare state addresses are not capitalism's fault. It is the political system that creates templates that are destined to failure, e.g., a corporate legal structure that ensures eventual serf-status for the majority.
The political system need only protect property rights and discourage the tendency towards consolidation. Competition is the key to what keeps the ship of capitalism righted and, as well, what capitalists fight (tooth and nail) to destroy.
Dude I've been advocating for civil discourse for years. Generally what happens is people call me names up until the point I demonstrate them wrong and reveal their hypocrisy. Then they stop responding to me.
With regard to the paradox of tolerance specifically, here is what Karl Popper said:
Quoting Karl Popper
Is there a difference between this and the way it is usually interpreted? Of course. Because reason isn't used at all. People go straight to insults. Then they say "Gee whiz! It's so hard to convince conservatives of anything..."
As to that, I think there are specific techniques people need to learn in order to have the skill to revise their position during a discussion. And if they haven't entered the discussion with the possibility of revising their position, they are essentially engaging in verbal combat.
I say this because the unwillingness to revise means that the person and the opinion are lacking an important separation. If I can truly say that I have an opinion, I can also accept it as an opinion -- meaning it is fallible and therefore subject to change. I can get rid of it, perhaps feeling some emotion in the process, but because it is something I have I will still be myself afterwards. But when people are so attached to their opinions, having those opinions challenged becomes a loss of identity. That is when the line between ad hominem and arguing the point disappears.
But this attitude toward the world that treats opinions as being inseparable from identity is not an unsophisticated one. It is common to point out that a person's opinion is invalid not because of its internal consistency or truth value but because it is sexist, racist, etc. If you really scrutinize such a rebuttal, it actually amounts to an ad hominem and thus it wouldn't, by itself, show a flaw in the opinion. It takes a sophisticated worldview in which truth is generated or discovered by proper methodology in order to reframe the accusation of racism, sexism, etc. into a implicit critique of a truth-finding method. In this use of the term, it is further recognized that it is an uncovering of implicit premises, so even the accuser is not attacking their interlocutor so much as helping them to realize a flaw in their thinking.
Unfortunately, people online don't tend to be so well educated or aware of this distinction. Instead they view themselves factionally. These terms (racist, sexist, supporter of X) become "purity tests" which automatically identify a person as being part of a group whose presence in the discussion is unwanted. Thus, bullying and insults are used to try to shut others up. The irony, however, is that the presence of diverse opinions is necessary for a discussion. To this, I can only comment that racism, sexism, etc. have a latent or subconscious element, meaning nobody can truly say they are not a racist, sexist, etc. Therefore everyone should be aware of the hypocrisy involved in quickly applying these labels to others only to insult them.
Returning to the notion of being willing to revise your own opinions, the crucial element is having some personal rules or standards through which you become able to recognize when your position is seriously compromised. This is because there is no judge in an online debate. We are each responsible for applying the rules to ourselves. Even when an argument is totally disproved, the person who made that argument is not automatically convinced -- nor should they be. But if they are genuinely searching for the truth, they should be mature enough to write "Ok. I guess my argument doesn't work."
We thank you for your services ;)
In absolute terms, you are correct, but there can never be equality (nor should there be). Equality of opportunity is a worthy goal, though. You cannot eliminate incentives nor can you refuse to award innovation and merit, so there is will always be stratification. The key is to make it such that the haves and the have-nots live in the same planetary system.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Understood, but there are ways to minimize potential harm, the most obvious in our present predicament being a return to real money and the elimination of the everything bubble. There are other methods, as well. Housing in the U.S. was a great example where the system was designed to help families afford to buy a house (before housing was given to the banking speculators who quickly made a mess out that too).
Yes you can. They're called co-operatives.
I quote the passage above to illustrate where we came in on this question - just a day or so ago, and how already, the point has wandered quite a ways from its origins. If it weren't possible to click back a page or two, and look up where we came in - I would be quite lost. I really couldn't explain why we are seeking to establish the precise mildness of your approval for removing statues that remind us where we came from.
Quoting fdrake
I do worry though.
"The world's two largest standing Buddhas - one of them 165ft high - were blown up by the Taliban in Afghanistan at the weekend. After failing to destroy the 1,700-year-old sandstone statues of Buddha with anti-aircraft and tank fire, the Taliban brought a lorryload of dynamite from Kabul."
How mild is your approval for this? Or do you disapprove of this - and maintain it's only your lefty cultural vandalism that's praiseworthy?
Quoting fdrake
You don't? Ancient Egyptians, Greek, Romans all had slaves did they not? Ottomans, Muslims, Africans, Russians all had slaves. British people were slaves until 1584; only they called them serfs. Slavery is the default, and capitalism is the cure. Don't be sly - making sideways arguments, and referencing books I haven't read, and am obviously not about to run out and buy. Slavery was everywhere - all around the world and throughout all of history until the West ended it.
Quoting fdrake
Another sly argument. In society and economics, it's necessary to discriminate - for example, between people who are qualified for a job, and those who are not qualified. So, for example, if numerous black people applied for a job without having the necessary qualifications, by your logic - they are being discriminated against, relative to the white person who is qualified. The discrimination isn't racial discrimination, but you switch effect with cause - like with Redlining, to suggest a racial disparity in effect proves racist intent as a cause. It's not so. That's politically correct logic. The same logic that denies slavery existed everywhere, since the dawn of time. You - lefties, are not capable of an honest argument.
Misguided in what way? I freely admit my instinct isn't based on calculating the gravitational effect upon atomic nuclei of the mass of the sun, relative to the Pauli Exclusion Principle - but my layman's understanding isn't misguided. I suspect a sustained nuclear fusion reaction in the sun is only possible because the plasma is so dense under immense gravitational pressure - it overcomes exclusion, and that recreating solar plasma density on earth is not possible. Or is a self sustaining fusion reaction still just five years away - like it has been for the past 50 years?
Regardless, fusion is not something we can rely on to come along any time soon to provide the limitless clean energy we need to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability. We have to look elsewhere - and one doesn't need to be capable of calculating atomic trajectories to realise, the earth is a big ball of molten rock containing more energy than we could ever even put a dent in - no matter how much energy we care to spend, extracting carbon from the air, desalinating sea water to develop land for agriculture, recycling waste, and lighting, heating, transport and everything else. The promise of limitless clean energy from fusion has not been fulfilled. It's time to drill for magma power on a massive scale, and we can secure the future.
No. The gravitational force of the sun is 333000 times the mass of the earth?
What do you mean"no"? Demonstrably, we can create fusion here on Earth. Do you deny that?
Saying we cannot create fusion on Earth because the planet's gravity is too weak is bizarre.
Oh - psychoceramics. I should have spotted it earlier.
Is this a direct consequence of the closure of Parler? Can we expect more visitors as they look for somewhere else to share their wisdom?
Fusion can occur on earth - I don't deny that. But there's a big difference between making two atomic nuclei fuse - and a self sustaining fusion reaction.
It's the latter (I suspect) that's not possible - because the same density of plasma; plasma with the gravitational force of 333000 earth mases forcing atoms together, cannot be created on earth.
Redacted - This guy's a nut.
Oh boy, more straight up insults. I am forced to ask whether you think you, as a moderator capable of banning people from the forum, should be insulting people, creating personal antagonisms? I am not willing to respond to your repeated insults in kind, because I'll get banned. So please desist, or grant me license to speak freely.
You'll be banned anyway if you don't stop talking nonsense.
Quoting ssu
Are you not aware of Marx's writings on supply and demand? It's covered quite extensively in the Grundrisse and Capital (which I would hope you would have read before jumping into criticisms of Marx). Marx wrote about the limitations of treating supply and demand as an economic law as it was the predominant bourgeois economic theory in his own time (e.g. Say, Bastiat) and which was further criticized by non-Marxists as well, decades after Marx (e.g. Keynes).
I'm baffled by the Menger quote you cite as it includes sloppy misreadings of Marx. Value for Marx in his Labor Theory of Value is determined by socially necessary labor time in a given society, which isn't synonymous with "large quantities" of labor as Menger writes. No where in the quote provided does Menger grapple with Marx's definition on his own terms. It's unclear if Menger does so elsewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if you just googled "Criticism of Labor Theory of Value", and copied and pasted the Wikipedia entry.
Menger also confuses Marx's definition of value as conflating with a definition of price, whereas Marx is very careful to separate the two and that there are of course deviations between the two. But let's think about the brief example within Menger's quote using Marx's actual analysis and see why the former's criticisms is so absurd. Menger asks why the consumer should care about the productive origins of a commodity in regards to price (which Marx would call commodity fetishism). Fair enough, but what about the capitalist? In order to have a product in market she has to have a labor force comprised of wage laborers who require monetary compensation (and also require reproduction, i.e. they need to minimally feed, clothe, and shelter themselves and begin the working day again). She will additionally need the raw material along with the machine(s) or other technology that the laborers will use in producing her commodities. Likewise, the raw material requires wage laborers to extract and distribute to producers, as do the machines which need laborers to be build. The capitalist who requires and gathers all this, for producing her commodity, needs to take these costs into account when positing or determining the market price of her commodity. The capitalist ideally wants to keep the price high, in order to maximize their profit rate, but Menger's generalized consumer can simply choose not to buy if the price exceeds their use value, and the capitalist can adjust the price lower, accordingly. However, if the price is too low then the capitalist at best makes no profit (in which case, why enter production at all), and at worst she loses money due to these productive costs. As Marx writes in the Grundrisse (chapter 2):
And if Menger's consumer still doesn't accept the asking price, if no consumer accepts the price, then we have an economic crisis, a crisis of overproduction/under consumption.
Summarily, this is the subterfuge behind bourgeois economists; hiding the details of production, including the labor force and it's struggles, behind a veil in order to direct attention to supply and demand in the marketplace and away from labor concerns.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
That sounds far better than debating if, say, Black Lives Matter is a terrorist organization or if political correctness is Orwell's worst nightmare or some other crap.
Yeah dunno why he's threatening us with a good time.
I don't want to get banned, but banno is quite obviously seeking to provoke me. He was nothing but insulting. And he's wrong about nuclear fusion. I am quite willing to honestly and openly thrash out any disagreements we may have, but he's coming at me sideways.
I'd have thought that a philosophy forum was the last place on earth I'd have to negotiate this kind of thing. Has he no appreciation for the grand scheme of philosophical ideas - developing over thousands of years? The problem with a left wing (anti) intellectual circle jerk is that, they're all too afraid of the mob they've created to speak freely. When they've de-platformed everyone who isn't entirely agreeable, how do they know when they're wrong? Other than that their lips are moving!
Nothing to do with Banno. Read and comply, please.
The point is that his beloved capitalists are not dragging their feet on this. No one is. If this was the best return on investment at the time, then wind farms would never have been built. It will take time. Counterpunch complains about what people are doing while waiting for something that can’t be rushed.
And finally, this parallel line on racism. There is no prize given out for ending slavery. For one, it hasn’t ended, and two, you don’t get a trophy for ending what had become unsustainable. The purpose behind BLM is not going away. They are not interested in your rationale or anybody else’s.
I'm duty bound to share my uniquely enlightened thoughts, and shepard humankind into a prosperous and sustainable future - despite your apparent determination to misunderstand, and blunder into extinction. -Counterpunch
Read this aloud into a mirror
Quoting Monitor
I did, and Candyman appeared and told me best of luck and to keep up the good work. It's odd that more people don't feel that way. A lot of people just want to insult and belittle me, when all I'm trying to do is promote ideas that will provide for a sustainable future. Why do you think that is?
Capitalism is a product of (if not wholly a part of) a political system.
Discouraging the tendency toward consolidation would be precisely fighting against capitalism, because capitalism just is that consolidation; which is why, just as you say, capitalists fight so hard to destroy the competition that threatens it. Competition is only possible among peers, which is to say, people who are roughly equals.
My personal pick for the big bad behind capitalism is rent, including rent on money i.e. interest, precisely because that creates a tendency toward consolidation. If those who have more thereby have leverage to extract even more from those who have less (because those who own more than they're using can lend the excess out at profit and those who own less than they need to use must pay to borrow it), then the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and over time wealth is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.
Get rid of things like that, so that wealth naturally flows from the idle rich to the working poor and doesn't just flow right back up again, so that there is a natural center-ward pressure in wealth distribution, and in time (as the wealth equalizes) you've got socialism, but still a free market. People aren't going to end up all exactly equal in wealth, but that's fine when the remaining inequalities due to some people working more and consuming less are so trivial, and so easily overcome, compared to the free ride vs sisyphean struggle dichotomy we have under capitalism.
The first part is wrong. Take out the word "me". The second part is a projection, a presupposition. You aren't working on anything that we can see, you are waiting for applause.
Good topic.
My choice might be size. Small is Beautiful.
I'm going to repeat this; a general question - do you foresee an inundation of ex-Parler pundits? Should we gird our loins?
Perhaps not an inundation so much as a piddling.
If so then more proactivity from the mods.
Quoting Banno
Yes.
In my view, a left wing, stop this, carbon tax that, pay more and have less approach to sustainability - isn't necessary, and wouldn't work anyway. If they had an honest desire to secure a sustainable future - they should be delighted all these cuts, taxes and prohibitions aren't necessary. But they don't want to know. The left love telling people what they can and can't think, say and do. They get off on it.
I can show windmills cannot produce enough energy to meet our needs. Don't want to know. Battery powered cars are an environmental and economic disaster. Don't want to know. Fusion is a non starter. Don't want to know. That's what I mean by an apparent determination to misunderstand and stumble into extinction.
I am duty bound to promote truth - in particular, a scientifically rational idea of truth, because that's the philosophical method I advocate. I have to live up to my own philosophical standards. Everything I wrote there is true, but that doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humour about it.
Leftists are trying to stop me from having sex with my own brain, but I won't let them.
I think about the issue in a similar way. Identity is sacrificed in the pursuit of truth. But what motivates the pursuit of the truth? One identifies with rationality. So really we have an internal collision of sub-identities. A network of belief and desires is constantly modified. Identity is unstable, especially when people are young and running through a gallery of alternatives, as they discover this or that fault with their current persona, which is only a mask in retrospect, at the moment of transcendence/detachment.
A side point: to be rational is to be virtuously depersonalized. A reality in common is acknowledged, along with the limitations of any individual perspective on this reality.
Is that the entirety of your remark, or should I be waiting for something....more substantial to follow?
Quoting Banno
ditto.
See for instance this guy :
I don't think that industry being owned privately means this "complete and sacrosanct" libertarianism you talk of. The kind of Ayn Randian libertarianism in the US isn't any kind of natural consequence or end result of capitalism, it is just one result that has happened in one specific country, which has a multitude of reasons why it has gone the way it has. The idea that if you have capitalism, then you social programs and welfare state is considered theft is just quite bizarre.
In short, who owns the industry and trade doesn't define everything in a society nor does it define how the society holds itself together. There are many other issues here as every society has developed from a past version of itself that existed prior modern capitalism.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Well, actually no.
It's simply called taxation.
And people are and have been perfectly OK with taxation for millennia to fund the state. And that state can be a monarchy, an Empire, a theocracy or whatever. People have understood that if you are going to have something like armed forces to defend the society, that obviously costs something. That libertarian individualism you refer to is a quite recent idea in the history of nations and them taxing their people.
You think truth and politics can be easily separated, but that is a naïve notion. I believe in rational discourse too, but the questions we ask produce the answers we get and the questions we ask are a result of politics, not truth. You simply buy into a different set of assumptions than most people who are considered to be on the left would. You believe in free markets, but just think about the enormous apparatus of rules required to keep a market free. In free market societies we have constructed a whole battery of rules and regulations, top down, to protect our 'free market'. Now leftists would say if we have that battery of rules anyway and if free market requires an infrastructure, why not tax people for its use? We can use it to steer society in the direction we find desirable.
Now liberatrians would say that no such steering is warranted, but they forget that a free market is itself a steering mechanism. It promotes certain values and penalizes others. One is not inherently more free than the other, it simply depends on your assumptions. This clash of people with a different outlook on life, the values worthy of protection and the virtues that are to be cultivated is what is called the political. The left is no ore 'getting off' on telling people what to think as the right 'gets off' on exploitation of others.
You're twisting my words to say the opposite of what I wrote.
Quoting five G
This is evocative of a "magic formula" which is nothing but a vain belief that it is possible to search after the truth in a way that protects you from ever being wrong.But if you feel you've come upon the proper attitude, it only leads you to overconfidence. You come to believe you understand everything because, in truth, you are refusing to make assertions or formulate ideas out of a fear which you won't acknowledge.
The opposite is true. One must acknowledge ones own personal interest. To be rational is to believe in what you are arguing for and to be emotionally invested in the world. Only then does it become possible to have your opinions challenged and learn something. But in order to actualize this possibility, it is further necessary to distinguish between your own argument and what you believe is true based upon that argument. It is necessary to distinguish between the goal of the social movement and the social movement itself. And so on.
Say and Say's law isn't part of the economic theory of supply and demand on which modern mainstream economics is based on. I'm not familiar with what Bastiat has said on this.
Quoting Maw
Which doesn't take into the account of demand in the equation. That simple.
Quoting Maw
And here what you have described the market mechanism of both supply and demand tell far better what is going to happen.
Because if those costs the capitalist faces, the proletariat she has to keep alive at the bare minimum to gather those raw materials and to produce the good, is only one part of the equation. How many are willing to buy that good and for what price is needed and is absolutely crucial. If the costs are so high that only an eccentric millionaire can buy the good and is indeed willing to buy the good at the price that covers the capitalists costs and gives her a reasonable profit, then not much good will be produced. If that doesn't cover it, then the good won't be manufactured in the first place. No production, no proletariat working for the capitalist, no capitalist, actually. Only people doing some other stuff. If at a lower price more people are willing to buy the good, the capitalist might prosper more.
This just shows how more in line with reality is the supply and demand model to the Marxian model. The idea that the work put into the production is a one sided model which doesn't take into account how the market mechanism and pricing works.
It can be partially private without that kind of completeness, sure. I'm not saying that the only options are Randian capitalism or uniformly distributed social ownership. I'm saying that the less total the privacy of ownership is, the greater the public ownership in proportion: that granting the legitimacy of a public interest in something, like the right to tax it, is granting a limit to its private ownership.
Ownership of something is just is having rights in it, and vice versa. If the public has rights to the profits of industry, e.g. if taxation is legitimate, then that is in effect (even if not in name) at least partial public ownership.
I'm not saying anything at all here about whether that's good or bad, just that it is what it is. If someone doesn't have completely exclusive rights over something, it isn't completely private property of theirs. They can have partially exclusive rights and so it can be partially private, sure, but the exclusivity of their rights and the privacy of their property are the same thing.
Quoting ssu
It's not a consequence of capitalism, it's a cause of it. Capitalism is the concentration of ownership of capital in relatively few hands. Randianism supports and leads to that; not vice versa. So yes, you can have some capitalism without that. But to the extent that there are limits on the privacy of property, that is also a limit on the possibility of capitalism. (But not vice versa; it is possible to have socialism with completely private property, so long as it remains distributed in many hands).
Quoting ssu
The notion that taxation is legitimate is the same notion as the state having a stake in the property being taxed. That is an old idea, yes: in feudal systems all capital (that being only land at the time) was technically owned by the state and only leased to other holders, and that lease was what legitimated the taxation of it: it's the Crown's land, and you can pay the tax on it or get the fuck off. That system technically persists to this day: "ownership" of a plot of land even in the United States is usually "fee simple" tenancy on the state's land, with only the extremely rare "allodial title" being actually completely and legally landlord-free ownership.
Nowadays in a post-agricultural economy there is capital other than land, which is not subject to exactly those same old feudal laws. But if it is legitimate for the state to tax the proceeds from that capital, then the state in a practical sense owns an interest in it, regardless of the words used in statutes to describe that relation.
With that I can agree with. Any economic theory that gets support usually have a point and a kernel of truth in them. And what is obvious is that real economic policy and real economic structures don't follow the pure ideological theories, but are a mixture of many.
And Marx talking about the obvious problems in the 19th Century societies does have a point. I'm not saying that Marx as a philosopher would be unimportant. What I was saying that his economic theories haven't been so successful as neoclassical economics and there is a reason for this, even if Marxian economics is taught in various universities around the World. When I was in the university, Marx was taught to us in several courses while for example Austrian school economics was only covered in a voluntary study group by a small group of students, which I unfortunately turned down when asked to join. That tells a lot, actually.
I remember a professor in the university telling that Marx also made the prediction that the proletariat might not focus it's efforts on creating a communist revolution, but simply to demand more pay. Looking at the labor movement in the West, that is the way it went. What is notable is that capitalist societies in the West did make an effort to improve the situation. If someone like Bismarck introduces the first social-welfare legislation to counter the socialists demand, who actually is then behind the improvements, Marx or Bismarck?
Capitalism is the ownership of industry is held in private hands. Private ownership doesn't lead to that. For example, land ownership hasn't concentrated into relatively few hands, there are lot of small landowners in every country. Competition leads to larger producers being more efficient than smaller ones and the most likely situation is an oligopoly situation where there are a few large companies which dominate a large part of the market, but a huge portion is made up of a vast amount of small companies with niche segments of the market. Perhaps here one should make a difference between capitalism and market economy.
Quoting Pfhorrest
And how do you explain absolute monarchies then? Hobbes? How much different is the state actually if it's a monarchy or a republic? The postman is the same postman even if the monarchy is overthrown and is replaced with a republic.
Quoting Pfhorrest
For the state it's not only an issue of checks and balances, it's also interested in it's own power.
Bismarck is not perhaps the best example you could pick here, since the reason he added the "drop of socialist oil" to the mix was to avoid a socialist revolution.
But yes, capitalism has been successful. Quite remarkably so, in fact. But that doesn't mean there isn't always the inherent danger of unrestrained capital accumulation leading to unrestrained power. I think the struggle between welfare, unions and regulation on the one side and the profit motif on the other is hard to overlook.
Quoting synthesis
Then you do realize the problem. I don't claim that any change would lead to a perfect system.
Quoting synthesis
You seem to be under the impression that the politicians need to be kept "under control", but they aren't the ones who have all the capital, are they? What about keeping the capitalists under control?
Quoting synthesis
What I am talking about is not really avarice. That would imply that the problem is specific people of bad character. But accumulation of capital is part of capitalism, regardless of individual greed. It's the force driving the expansion of the economy. Capitalism takes the very natural inclination of humans to accumulate resources and turns into a tool to drive the economy.
This has worked very well for some time, but the problems keep mounting. Regulation helps, of course, but unless you are regulating with the goal of actually fixing the problem, instead of just addressing the symptoms, you'll always risk to be too late.
Quoting synthesis
There are, however, other approaches that are also meritocratic and market based and not top-down economies. There are already businesses right now that are not capitalist and yet compete in the same market as everyone else.
Quoting StreetlightX
On what basis do you say that?
The video addresses the last four decades of globalism. Of course the success of globalism is a lie. But the idea that capitalism brought people out of poverty is true historically. Interestingly the video states that no advanced country has achieved low poverty rates without high levels of government spending. Government spending is the result of taxation. No Capitalism, no taxes, no public spending.
So basically you're saying there are circumstances in which capitalism can bring people out of poverty, even if we're not in those circumstances and likely never will be. Agreed. There are also circumstances where pushing someone into a road might save their life. But don't push people into roads generally.
Wait - you think taxation is capitalist?
And conversely, you think "globalism" isn't capitalist?
Yes, it's just the free market of ideas that taxing the rich to pay for social programs in Nordic countries that have free health-care and free higher education proves capitalism works. If they have a high quality of life in Nordic countries it's capitalism succeeding, because capitalism is about success, and all success must be due in some vague way to capitalism. That's pretty obvious I think.
It's so far down the anti-intellectual path that conservative pundits need to say things like "it isn't true, literally, but it feels true and it's an important truth that's being felt here that speaks to conservatives".
Due to false balance in the media, there's built up the expectation that "there must be just as good arguments for my side as the other side on this issue", but this isn't true, and the expectation that an anti-intellectual movement would create good arguments is just stupid.
Now, does this mean contemporary US conservatives are stupid?
Yes.
What we have witnessed with Bush the Second and a more extreme repeat with Trump is the terminal phase of an anti-intellectual movement in which the leaders of the movement are no longer real intellectuals simply manipulating a bunch of fools to increase their power and wealth, but fully buy the propaganda and can simply no longer manage in a strategically competent way, as they truly do not understand how reality works. That fools follow them despite making zero sense is seen as strength and legitimization of positions that are known to make no sense. One that can repeat a lie and make decisions without justification without consequences is by definition more powerful than one who can't, indeed it's the only proof of real power and the sweetest cocaine of the power hungry. However, reality cannot be managed from a position of effectively arbitrary decisions for any extended period of time.
Quoting StreetlightX
No I’m not saying any of those things.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
No I’m not saying that either.
Actually that was the reason and which shows that politicians that supported a monarchy can still see the needs of the people and react to social issues before they turn into open revolution.
Quoting Echarmion
Yet doesn't unrestrained socialism lead to unrestrained power? Look at history.
And I simply don't buy it.
Where I live, which has the so-called "Nordic model", has an capitalist free market system, yet might look like to people in the US as socialism. Still, the country is capitalist. Here the welfare model is promoted by the right also, no political party has here as it's intension to demolish the welfare state. So I don't really by the argument that the right or conservatives are against welfare state and that the only ones arguing for it is the left or capitalism inherently leads to unrestrained power. It simply isn't true.
And trade unions? Trade unions don't have to believe in a socialist ideology. They are there just to promote the interests of the employees towards the employer. It's quite reasonable. What isn't reasonable is not to have trade unions and then think that all employers would behave decently. Perhaps if you are part of the workforce that is highly sought after, you can get a great deal, but if there many people to replace you, look out!
To give an example why trade unions are non-political: the vast majority (likely 99%) of officers in the Finnish army belong to their own trade union, which is part of the academic trade union. And none, literally none of them is a leftist. During the 20's and the 30's the Communists tried to infiltrate the Finnish Army (on the belief that they could do it just like they had infiltrated the Russian Imperial Army). They had no success, not even one person, which is pretty dismal. Again these issues aren't things just pushed by the left.
Apart from seriously diminishing global povetry, but who cares about little things like that.
How about saying something you actually believe with some precision, rather than saying something not generally true then denying when it does or does not hold true?
It strikes me as unnecessarily risky though, to hope that when things get really bad, someone will step in in time.
Quoting ssu
That depends on what you understand by "socialism". But I don't really want to debate the merits of either system in the abstract. I just think it's worth looking at other motivations apart from profit. For example, there is a growing movement of "purpose companies", like the search engine "Ecosia". These operate in the market, but their capital is held in a purpose-bound trust (in the case of Ecosia that is planting trees). It has all the advantages of a market economy, but instead of measuring it's success in terms of profit margin, it does so in terms of planted trees.
There are interesting approaches out there. One doesn't need to drag Stalin's corpse out of the closet in any discussion about economic reform.
Quoting ssu
"It" being that only leftists argue for economic reform and welfare? I'd agree with you. Plenty of the new right wing parties across Europe promote redistribution, usually explicitly for the benefit of specific nationals.
Bravo!
Points tend to multiply when following them along their lines of connection. To my reckoning, you accused me of being inconsistent when I said I was indifferent to statues but approved of those statues being torn down. I replied describing that I had a mild preference for them being torn down.
I'd initially brought up the statues because I believed it would be an issue which shows that some political issues aren't resolvable by scientific means, and I believed you'd disagree with me on whether tearing down those statues was permissible.
Quoting counterpunch
My approval/disapproval for tearing down a statue depends on what it represents, why it was torn down, and what the act enables. I don't know enough about that act of vandalism to form much of an opinion about it.
Quoting counterpunch
I think a book reference is rather generous actually. If you're not going to check reputable contrary citations to your historical+anthropological claims, I don't think there's much point talking about the issue with you.
Quoting counterpunch
I gave you an easily attackable candidate definition/clarification of how I understand systemic discrimination. If you are unwilling to engage with the term on its terms, again, I don't think either of us will benefit from continuing the discussion.
"In private hands" as opposed to "in public hands" means precisely "in few hands" rather than "in everyone's hands".
Quoting ssu
Not relative to the population size; at least not if you're accounting for outstanding debts on land (e.g. mortgages). Most people don't own their own homes free and clear. Most people own no land at all free and clear. The ownership of land is concentrated in the hands of a small fraction of the population. That may be a large number, but that's irrelevant. "The 1%" is still millions of people, but that fact doesn't help the 99% any.
Quoting ssu
That's precisely what I'm doing. One can in principle have a propertarian free market economy without having capitalism, if one can somehow prevent the ownership of capital from concentrating in a small portion of the population instead of staying widely distributed across the whole population.
Quoting ssu
Explain what about them? In an absolute monarchy the monarch effectively owns everything. That's perfectly consistent the principles I'm talking about here, and why I kept saying "democratic state" and such to be clear that the legitimacy of taxation only implies partial public ownership if the state doing that taxation is of, by, and for the public. In an absolute monarchy it implies the monarch has (at least partial) ownership of everything, instead of the public.
An authoritarian, hierarchical state will survive longer against the threat of revolution if it asks its subjects what they want of it, and gives them a cut of its takings, naturally inclining such authoritarian, hierarchical states to evolve a layer of social democracy as a means of effectively buying the loyalty of its subjects, or else eventually fall to popular revolution.
Such a social democracy can then most easily appease the most people if it simply lets them make their own lifestyle choices instead of telling them how to live, and lets them provide each other with services instead of trying to do so itself, adding a layer of liberty and a free market.
Thus, the lazy selfish authority, acting in its own self-interest, naturally devolves power toward a social democracy; and a lazy selfish social democracy, acting in its own self-interest, naturally devolves power toward more anarchic ideals.
Right. In addition, you can't just rely on snapshots: that isn't very meaningful. Where I am, quite a lot of people still own their own homes, but that percentage is falling rather rapidly. It is the trend of land ownership, not the current value, that is the measure.
Its like if you invite me to a wedding. The fact that I haven't drunk all the champagne yet does not mean I'm not drinking all the champagne. And I will drink all the champagne.
What does calling a person a racist accomplish in a philosophy forum that calling someone a nigger, doesn't? Calling them a racist doesn't accomplish anything. Laying out the arguement of how it is a logical fallacy of a false cause and ad hominems is the acceptable path to take.
But your simple mind can only seem to understand how to lower yourself to their level of intelligence. Calling people names is just childish.
Disagreeing that white privilege exists isnt criticizing blacks for being black. It is criticizing the argument. That is the difference. So to call people racist because they are criticizing an argument is no different than calling someone a nigger or cracker for criticizing your argument.
Isn't white privilege criticizing whites for being white?
LO-Fucking-L!
As I have been arguing all along is that people that aren't racist are being called racist! Pay attention!
Quoting ssu
Sorry, a bit of confusion there. I mean globalism has destroyed so much. It’s not the great success story overall, i.e. American jobs, sweat shops, etc.
It doesn't matter whether they're racist or not, it's not the same class of word. You can simply be wrong about someone being racist. Calling someone a "nigger" is not a matter of being right or wrong. It's a pure insult. Do you get the distinction yet?
Quoting Kenosha Kid
So you don’t think it’s true that the money the government spends on public programs comes from taxation?
That has nothing to do with the point I responded to. You're obviously not going to defend the point, I give up.
Calling someone a racist when they aren't is just as insulting. If you dont get that, then that's fine as it is just more evidence that there is no objective morality and we could sit here and argue all day about our subjective views of what is more insulting, but I'm not interested.
quote="Kenosha Kid;487732"]You're obviously not going to defend the point, I give up.[/quote]
What point? Make it clear and I’ll address it.
Is this it?
Quoting Kenosha Kid
This was your comment that I responded to:
It had nothing to do with what people call each other on a philosophy forum. You were asking about the political views of progressives, and questioning what you believed to be an inconsistency in their position. I'm explaining to you that their position isn't inconsistent; their position is that it's acceptable to criticize people for unacceptable things (e.g. being a racist) and unacceptable to criticize people for acceptable things (e.g. being black).
No, white privilege refers to "the implicit or systemic advantages that people who are deemed white have relative to people who are not deemed white; it is the absence of suspicion and other negative reactions that white people experience."
Banno isn't a moderator, FYI. The list of moderators is here.
Yes, but that’s not how it’s used, Michael. Re. White privilege.
"I don't think either of us will benefit from continuing this discussion."
My friend, I had no such illusions going in. But please don't discount the possibility that someone other than you and I, reading this, might benefit from seeing a lefty twit get handed his arse over and over again.
Quoting Brett
Okay. The period of the video and the video itself is about globalism. Globalism may have pulled some people out of poverty, which wouldn’t have been hard, but it then placed other people in trouble. I don’t think I need to explain all that. In that sense globalism is a big con, a global con job. We know who benefitted. But historically, going back as far as the industrial revolution, capitalism has slowly drawn people out of crippling poverty. There’s no doubt it created problems. But no other system has done this, until now, which is China. China is not Russia, they’re flexible with their Marxist ideology, they’re pragmatic. Which is interesting.
I'm going to forego the question of capitalism's history for now, the above is basically saying that in an isolationist country, capitalism is net good and in an internationalist country, capitalism is net bad.
Which is what I suggested above that you refuted: it is not that capitalism is net good, but may be so under certain circumstances and may be bad under others.
Btw China's rise in wealth and power comes from globalisation.
:up:
If this imaginary audience wants to read a more civilised and in depth discussion of related issues; which includes citations; I invite them to read here.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
No, I’m not saying that at all. (BTW I’m aware of China reaping the rewards of globalisation. I just think their success is interesting to look at.)
In all countries over the course of recent history they have benefitted from capitalism in that it has brought people out of poverty. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or not, I’m just making myself clear.
Globalism promised the same thing on a global level. So yes people in China, India, Bangladesh benefitted in obtaining jobs. They were able to earn reasonable money for where they lived. But the conditions were what we in the West had already moved on from, they are terrible. So that’s a lie there about the wonder of globalism. Then as a result of jobs going there they were lost in other countries. Whole industries closed down. You know all this. So yes capitalism pulled people out of poverty and globalism put them back in poverty.
Sure it does. And it is morally inconsistent to call people names for calling people names. It is also unacceptable to misuse "racist", in calling people who are not racist, "racist" simply because you can't argue against thing they said.
On a philosophy forum logic should be the arbiter of what is acceptable or not. Ad hominems are logical fallacies. It is also lazy thinking. It is more work to attack an argument than it is to attack a person.
Then what point are you trying to make, if not to guilt-trip whites into thinking that it is wrong to have this "privilege", when in Asian countries there is Asian privilege and in African countries there is black privilege? What should be done about the privilege in those countries? To say that we should only do something in this country is singling out whites to be criticized.
Who said anything about misusing "racist"? I'm saying that if someone is a racist then it's acceptable to criticize them for being a racist, and that if someone is black then it's unacceptable to criticize them for being black. And the same for homophobia/being gay and sexism/being a woman. Progressives aren't inconsistent in holding this view.
I've never used the term "white privilege". Others talk about it because it's a fact of life. And it is wrong that there is white privilege, but that's not to say that every white person is responsible for it.
Quoting Harry Hindu
People don't tend to have much control over what happens in other countries. There's nothing I can do to address racism in Japan or corruption in Russia.
Of course. When we look at the history of nearly all Western nations, there have been those critical times when a socialist revolution was possible. Let's not forget that Germany indeed experienced after WW1 brief revolts.
Quoting Echarmion
I think a good divide would be with social democracy and with the more communists and marxist-leninist. Social Democratic ruled Sweden is quite different from Cuba (or Venezuela) are quite different.
Quoting Echarmion
Yes, this was what I was meaning.
That would be owned by the government in a democracy. Not that there isn't private property. I think that people in Brunei, Monaco or Saudi Arabia do have private property.
Is it about state controlled economies with just different degrees of control?
Yet one cannot deny that countries like China or India do have benefitted from the current era of globalization. The US has been the loser here, and we can see it now in the current situation the country is in.
Yes and no.
If you argue that Sweden is state controllled economy, then I guess the US is also a state controlled economy with it's resorting to using the Defense Production Act and subsidizing heavily various industries and companies. Yet I don't think anyone here thinks Trump's USA is socialist.
A good measure is if the government start nationalizing industries and starts rationing products. Let's look at for example Venezuela has done:
So not only oil production is nationalized (which is more like the norm today in many countries). Chavez himself went to nationalize either totally or certain companies from the steel industry, gold mining, telecom, electricity and agriculture.
Needless to say that Sweden hasn't gone in a similar way and nationalized industries with such fervor. Last time they had to do that was during the banking crisis in the 1990's, where state took an active role in rearranging the banking sector (unlike in the US). However there are and have been state monopolies in Sweden (System Bolaget for liquor stores or prior Apoteket AB for pharmaceutical retailers and so on). Yet that some industries or service have been deemed so important or so costly that the state takes responsibility of them isn't something only connected to socialism. For example, you can find state owned railways in many capitalist countries.
Banks were temporarily nationalized in the US, though. I think the US is on the socialist spectrum, it's just that no one, including Americans, wants to think of it that way.
Globalization keeps it from becoming more socialist. US corporations have one foot off shore as it is. Any attempt to control them further would just drive them further away.
The US seems like a sinking ship. :groan:
I wouldn't presume to discourage the imagined audience from doing so, but would merely point out that it is assumed that any disparity is the consequence of discrimination - conflating effect with cause. It is not assumed that person Y has a personal responsibility to qualify for the loan, or the job, or not commit the crime. It is not allowed that X doesn't have a discriminatory opinion of person Y. If it's not explicit, it's implicit, it's institutional, it's subconscious, but it's definitely discrimination. The one thing disparity cannot be, is the consequence of person Y being judged fairly on merit - even while, disparities are bound to result from people being judged fairly on merit, because any one person is different from any other.
I didn't say Say's Law, I said supply and demand.
Quoting ssu
Quoting ssu
Quoting ssu
Holy shit, did every single word I wrote go over your head? Are you illiterate? Should I bold every crucial line I write to ensure it gets your full attention and cross my fingers in the hopes that it's absorbed into your reptile brain where it has a chance to settle?
Does this help? Can you better understand now? The "Marxian Model" isn't the cost of production tout court. The pricing via the market mechanism i.e. consumer demand is explicit in his analysis, it is "part of the equation" as you so demand it be. On the contrary, it is Menger's analysis that is one-sided by focusing exclusively on the consumer perspective and not the fact that the capitalist has a minimum price floor, otherwise there is no profit. The former, per Menger, can ignore the productive origins of the commodity, but the latter, per Marx, can't.
Quoting ssu
Well no, this is putting the cart before the horse. The upper limit cost of what the general consumer is willing to put up is only known in the last instance, i.e. the products have to be produced and in market for sale. This requires that the wage labors have already been hired and have done the work and need to be compensated, the machines have been bought the land rented etc. and everything has been put into use. The capitalist doesn't have otherworldly foresight into what the general population within a market is going to purchase and what they are willing to spend. And, more often than not, this is a crises that occurs for pre-existing markets, e.g. a consumer technology is that suddenly rendered obsolete by new technology so that demand sudden falls for the older product.
Co-ops work well in distribution (especially food) but not so much on the production end. History has revealed that people need motivation (other then benevolence) to put in the kind of work necessary to produce leading edge innovation (which drives productivity).
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Systemic discrimination is absolutely explicit. See this World Health Organisation report charting systemic sexism and its causes; gender stereotypes make glass ceilings and maternity is an employment opportunity "tax"; gender as a societal process apportions men and women differentially into different jobs and gets them treated differently within them regardless of individual merit.
And I have no idea how you've come through COVID and BLM without gaining even a cursory understanding of the empirical realities that systemic racism refers to.
Your position requires sanitising history, something you allegedly dislike; it begs you to answer the question of how we could emerge from an imperial history, a global slave trade, and enter into a post-colonial present without the expropriated, undermined groups of all that suffering under the weight of that history. It beggars belief that all of this can neatly be explained by differences in individual merit.
:up:
Anwar Shaikh's work found that Marxian[hide=*] (Marx inspired, there's no vector algebra in Capital, and his sectoral model from Vol 3 had mathematical errors which Shaikh claims (IIRC, from his Youtube lectures) to have corrected)[/hide] "prices of production" actually track market price extremely closely; less than 0.12% relative deviation between the two in the analysed time series.
Not necessarily. For example, anti-trust laws and other methods of preventing monopolization (reduced political corruption). It seems as if almost every industry is dominated by two or three players (at most) anymore. Keeping competition vibrant is where most trade law should be keenly focused.
Quoting Pfhorrest
I hear ya, but many people are not in a position to own (just starting-out or whatever) so there must a supplier of all things that rent involves (pretty much everything in this hyper-financialized economy).
My own pet peeve is the stock market where people "earn" money passively (rent, again). Getting paid for doing nothing is perhaps the greatest con of all-time!
In theory, the market should control the capitalists. If they do something wrong (economically), the market should punish them. If they do something illegal, then the political system should penalize. Several thousand years of human history suggests that we need to keep our expectations pretty darn low when it comes to the political class. Politicians sell favors and little else.
How so? It would seem that the most productive form of capitalism is where resources are being used optimally, that is, the correct marriage of resources and labor. As well, wouldn't accumulation slow innovation/productivity through anti-competitiveness?
I would be interested in a couple of examples. Thanks.
Great, seems that you've found to copy paste the crucial part from Marx (I remember one Lizard brain berating me on an internet quote, but anyway).
OK, let's dissect what Marx says there above and especially this part:
Quoting Maw
Even if Marx doesn't use the name "labour theory of value", I guess this comes close to it.
So how does the cost of production determine changes (oscillations) in demand? This is the basic question I have with the labour theory of value. Yes, I guess Marx doesn't start from the viewpoint of one transaction, but from an aggregate viewpoint, yet still this is left open.
Of course the problem here I guess is the antiquated theory from Ricardo that Marx uses, even if Marx refines this.
Yet a change in demand can perfectly happen without any link to the cost of production. This is modelled in neoclassical economics as simply the demand curve moving. (And that is btw was the Menger's point: if a diamond is just picked up by accident by a passer by (with no work) or is found after a large diamond mine operates for ages (with a huge amount of work), the price of the diamond is the same).
Quoting Maw
Yes. And there's a lot of products of which price can already be quite well known in the market when the capitalist makes the calculation to invest or not. If your planning to mine a natural resource or start a dairy, I guess the price of milk or the price natural resource is quite well known to you. One dairy or mine will likely not alter the price so much.
What you refer (if I understand again correctly) would be true in a product that has never been on the market, I guess. That is the case very seldom.
When it comes down to it, each and every person is guilty of everything. We are human and that's just they way we are. As well, history reveals that the vast majority of people are more comfortable with those that share similar experiences, be it on the playground, on the job, or in social situations. This is natural.
The problem isn't that people have preferences (based on their experiences), but when people are willfully discriminated against and opportunity is lost, because having the chance to succeed is all that we can hope for in life.
What BLM and others miss is that every group throughout history has been discriminated against (and this will exist even in a perfect world due to natural preferences). It seems to be what social humanity does, but things have been improving in that regard. The answer to discrimination is not reverse discrimination. The answer to any social wrong is not to double down, instead, it is to end the cycle.
American society should do whatever it can to support equality of opportunity, but it comes down to the individual and what factors allow this individual to gain access (and support) to these opportunities. You cannot legislate individual success.
Nobody is sanitizing history as those who have studied it learned and conditions have improved drastically over the past decades for many, but not all. The discussion that needs to be had is what happened to the rest and what factors resulted in them being left behind. There are many and they affect every institution in this country. As well, there is a great deal of personal responsibility that must be taken for the conditions on the ground as they exist today.
“Not necessarily” what?
Anti-trust laws are a check against capitalism.
Quoting synthesis
As is the natural consequence of capitalism.
Quoting synthesis
People not being in a position to own is precisely the problem, and the existence of rent exploits and exacerbates that problem.
If rent was not a legally enforceable arrangement, everyone who owns properties to rent out would have no better use for them than to sell them, and nobody to sell them too but the people who would otherwise have been renting (since nobody else is going to buy just as an investment when they in turn can’t rent it out either). This creates incentive for landlords, banks, etc, to sell off properties on terms that are as affordable as renting.
Conversely, compared to that kind of market, the existence of rent creates an incentive for the rich to own more property than they need for their own use, and gives them a means of accruing more and more, which raises prices, and leaves everyone else unable to afford to buy.
Quoting synthesis
Stocks are actually qualitatively differently from rent and interest and I have no objection to them. That is the legitimate way to invest, rather than lending at interest.
With a loan, you give someone money and in return they owe you back more money, regardless of whether the loan actually benefits them or not: if they borrow and fail they still owe you even more than they borrowed. That’s really money for nothing.
With stock, you’re literally going into business with them, becoming a co-owner of their business in exchange for funding it, and only if their business succeeds do you succeed. For smart stock owners with diverse holdings, like with index funds, your success is tied to the overall success of the market, so the good of the whole economy is in your best interest.
I'm not certain about conservatism leading to socialism, but it seems clear enough that here in our Glorious Republic, it has come to encourage the restriction, through the power of the state, of the thoughts, conduct and influence of people who are different from what conservatives have become.
It's no longer a question of controlling the power of the state, but assuring that power is exercised only for the benefit of particular people.
No, I actually pulled this quote because I actually read Grundrisse, and the quote shows how Menger misreads Marx. Your Menger quote can be found in the Wikipedia entry for
"Criticisms of the Labor Theory of Value", which is safe to say the farthest you have read up on the subject.
Quoting ssu
It's hilarious how you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You can't help but speak in the most vacuous and vague terms because you don't know enough to go beyond it. You say a change in demand is modelled in neoclassic economics by "the demand curve moving". So when the demand changes the demand curve changes?! Wow! Holy shit Marx defeated.
Otherwise, Menger's diamond example fallaciously attempts to conflate an explicitly non-capitalist exchange with a capitalist one, whereas Marx is only interested in analyzing the latter and the value creating process within it. As I explained, price and value are two distinct technical terms for Marx. It's no different than the asinine "mud pie" argument.
Let's say that two people, one a capitalist who owns a mining operation and the another, a non-capitalist, have in their possession each one identical raw diamond. The capitalist extracted the raw diamond from his mining operation using wage labor and machinery, while the non-capitalist just happened to stumble upon it. Now both go into the market to sell. The non-capitalist does not have a price floor because there was no cost in extracting the diamond for him. He can sell for a $1 and therefore profits $1. However, capitalist does have a floor price because there is a cost to the extraction process. In this one instance of a competitive transaction, the non-capitalist can therefore undersell the capitalist, but then what? He can't create any additional demand, he doesn't have a mining operation to continue to extract raw diamonds. He created one instance of demand which was concluded at point of sale. That's it! But the capitalist, while not making a sale in this one instance, can continue putting raw diamonds up in the marketplace and finding demand (safe to assume non-capitalists aren't continuing to randomly come across raw diamonds on the ground) because she has a mode of production in place that can continue this process. But Marx isn't talking about the non-capitalist sale and he doesn't need to because he's analyzing the supply and demand in a capitalist economy which requires taking cost of production into account when determining price.
Quoting ssu
I'm just going to quote and bold what I already said, "And, more often than not, this is a crises that occurs for pre-existing markets, e.g. a consumer technology is that suddenly rendered obsolete by new technology so that demand sudden falls for the older product."
Quoting Maw
Not:
Ah, I thought you'd recanted this point already, although I suppose it depends what you mean by "recent". In the last 50 years, capitalism has drawn people out of poverty when markets are good and dumped them back into it when markets are bad, leading to no net gain in most capitalist countries and something of a disaster during, say, a lethal viral pandemic.
Going back much beyond that you're going to struggle, since poverty statistics become more scarce the further back we go.
You'd enjoy the paper I linked to @Maw. It concludes:
And finance. The most successful co-ops are banks, insurers, etc. Energy too.
Quoting synthesis
Tbf they haven't been tried that much in factories, but there are some, here in Glorious Communist Britain anyway.
What is quite presumable is your condescending attitude. But I guess that's the style here now. Anyway, and it's an interesting discussion.
Quoting Maw
The way I see it, It's basically a critique of the theories of Ricardo. But to your example:
Quoting Maw
True, but you are forgetting that you need a buyer here also.
Sure, the non capitalist might give the diamond away for 1$, but likely he or she would simply ask what the buyer is willing to pay for it. The fact is that buyer hardly is interested on how much work was put into finding the diamond. The diamond has subjective value to the buyer(s), either he might be looking for diamonds used by industry or interested in it as a luxury item or an eccentric store of wealth. This value has nothing to do with the amount of work put into mining the diamond (or the luck finding of it). In short, you need both the capitalist/non-capitalist and the buyer(s) to get a market and a price.
Yet his production is dependent on the demand of (mined) diamonds. The idea of not thinking about the demand side (and the reasons for the demand) here, but making this economic model using just the supply side costs and labour doesn't catch many important aspects. The so called input costs don't determine the final prices.
If by a new method artificial diamonds can be made by robots for that price of 1$ per carat (not thousands of dollars), industry will start a frenzy on how and where to use the new resource with likely many cutting tools having diamonds. And diamonds would fall from being a luxury item and an eccentric store of wealth. Yet the capitalist will shut his mine down or start digging up something else precious there.
Quoting fdrake
Thanks, have to look at that.
????? We are talking about Marx
Quoting ssu
Here you go again, ignoring previous posts of mine and conflating price and value.
Quoting ssu
This is incredible, do you have the memory of a fly? I explained how this isn't the case 6 hours ago. Once again you and I go around in circles because you are either unable to understand what is being said, or you are simply refusing to do so because you can't admit you're wrong.
Quoting fdrake
If you think providing the title of a book - not even a passage from that book, just the title: 'Debt: the first 5000 years' - constitutes evidence that slavery was not endemic until the West ended it, I have a book title for you: "Despised" by Paul Embery. Run out and get it and see what it says about your left wing, politically correct, North London intellectual circle jerk. Spoiler alert - you are the reason Labour will never be elected again.
...it begs you to answer the question of how we could emerge from an imperial history, a global slave trade, and enter into a post-colonial present without the expropriated, undermined groups of all that suffering under the weight of that history. It beggars belief that all of this can neatly be explained by differences in individual merit.[/quote]
You demand I answer for the actions of my ancestors? My working class ancestors built the Labour Party from nothing to represent their interests relative to the owners of the means of production. And you've abandoned us, to weep bitterly and constantly on behalf of everyone but us - while the owners of the means of production have privatised everything, sold off council housing, destroyed the unions, cut pensions, ended job security, imposed zero hours contracts...etc, etc, and I'd still vote for them before a Labour Party overrun by people like you!
Let me draw an analogy. Everybody has a tendency to go towards death. But what people do in their lifetimes can greatly affect the quality as well as the quantity of time they remain their present form.
Capitalism certainly tends towards accumulation, no doubt about it, but there are things that can be done to attenuate this tendency. As you know, nothing is black and white, so this is where doing the right things will make a considerable difference in the lives of the majority.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Then how would folks acquire property or any business tools when first starting off? Most of the problems that have to do with housing are caused by a combination of government mis-regulation and banking. Back in the day, nearly anybody with a job could afford to buy a house. There were reasons for this (it was a priority of American society). Houses only went up with the inflation rate and people looked at their purchase as a place to save (for retirement or whatever) while keeping up with inflation.
For those who are unable to purchase a house, a rental market makes a great deal of sense. Many times, renting is the better option. Again, you need regulations in place that will prevent the housing market from becoming a subsidiary of the greater casino.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Apparently you've never received one of those letters from a bankruptcy court telling you that the money owed to you has gone up in smoke.
Quoting Pfhorrest
You're only going into to business with them if you own a huge block of stock. Otherwise, I see little difference between the two besides agreeing on a return up-front. You can buy bond funds, as well.
Regardless, the ultimate human fantasy of making it possible to get "something for nothing" is (IMO) the greatest impediment to capitalism being accepted by a larger percentage of the population. Any something for nothing scheme stinks and people can smell it a mile away.
Hopefully the next system (another fantasy) will reward its participants proportionally for the their labor-value added while cutting all parasites out of the deal.
This reads like you frame the struggle against systemic discrimination as a separate struggle from class struggle; overwhelmingly those who get the short end of the stick demographically are economically disenfranchised - working long hours for too little pay and too little security. Programs that benefit those groups tend to benefit the worst off.
A working class politics that emphasises social programs but can't stand in solidarity with those who would benefit most from them loses its base. Get with the times, race+class+gender are aspects of the same struggle.
I will, however, join you in lamenting the death of class politics in the UK's "Labour party", I simply hope that the Corbynite wing wins out soon.
I suppose just about anything would work in banking, after-all, creating one's product out of thin air would seemingly open up a great deal of possibilities.
I am not that familiar with the energy consortium other then paying the various energy pipers monthly. I fear its not much better here in the People's Republic of California.
I'm not sure it's really easier or harder in different industries. After all, the roles in co-operatives aren't any different than in a capitalist organisation: it's simply that everyone is on the same pay, everyone had the same stake, and people move around more, which happens at the top anyway, just between companies rather than within.
Right, and those things people do are fighting against death. Mitigating death.
Quoting synthesis
And those things are fighting against capitalism, mitigating it.
Quoting synthesis
They would pay for them, just like they currently pay to rent them. The only difference being that in exchange for those payments they accrue ownership.
And in the long run, as this leads to the widespread distribution of capital, everybody would be starting off as what we would consider rich today, being born into families that have enough capital left from the most recently dead generation to pass on to the most recently grown generation.
There is already excess capital that someone else has lying around for you to borrow to get started. Imagine a world where instead of asking someone else to borrow their excess capital, you just had that excess capital lying around yourself, because you were born into a family that just had it lying around, because every family has a share of the unused wealth of society, instead of just a tiny fraction of them.
Quoting synthesis
Yes, which is why I pointed out that interest is a kind of rent.
Quoting synthesis
Why should anyone be unable to purchase a house, yet able to rent? You're paying money either way, you just don't get anything to your name for that money in the latter case.
Which raises the obvious question: why does anyone rent? Because owning is priced out of their range, because owning is not just a place to live, it's a way to get free money from other people who need a place to live, so people who have more money than they need for their immediate expenses are incentivized to buy housing just to rent it out, which makes owning more expensive, making more people stuck renting, which makes owning even more valuable to those who can afford it, raising the price of ownership, etc in a vicious cycle.
Imagine a world where you start "renting" a house and eventually, you get to stop paying rent and just live there forever, and your great-grandkids can live there after you die, because in exchange for all that money you paid for housing, you actually got a house!
Quoting synthesis
That's a necessary mitigation of the problems that lending at interest would otherwise cause.
In a world where rent and thus interest wasn't a thing, borrowing and not returning something could just be treated as the theft that it is. Of course that would make people a lot more hesitant to borrow, and the lack of interest would make people a lot more hesitant to lend anyway... so instead of lending at interest, investors could buy equity in the ventures they're investing in, and then either win or lose together with the people running those ventures.
Quoting synthesis
A quantitative different doesn't amount to a qualitative difference.
Quoting synthesis
That is the all-important difference.
Quoting synthesis
I don't follow this. Getting something for nothing (nothing of their own at least) is exactly what capitalists do capitalism for. Being able to generate profit just from owning things that other people have to pay you to use is the core of capitalism. That's "something for nothing" as far as the capitalist is concerned; because the suffering of the borrowers at whose expense that something really comes is hidden from them behind a Just World Fallacy that says they deserve that free ride because they're the good people, while the poor whose backs they're riding on must deserve that burden because of something they did wrong. And the only reason so many of the poor at the bottom actively support the perpetuation of this system is because they have aspirations of some day being the one getting something "for nothing" (at someone else's expense) instead.
Quoting synthesis
That would be socialism.
Quoting Pfhorrest
I understand where you’re coming from in terms of your posts about capitalism, but not everyone wants to own a property, and there are many reasons for wanting to rent. There’s no doubt that landlords are hurting people, but on the other hand without their investment there wouldn’t be places to rent for those who don’t want to buy. Not to mention the fact that a small business may view renting as a better option than buying.
the fuck they dont. why would you want to keep paying for something when you could instead just have it and stop paying? you can keep paying someone else to do maintenance of that’s what you want. your landlord does anyway.
and landlords dont invest in shit. houses would still be built for purchase even if nobody was buying them to rent out.
Quoting Pfhorrest
That’s a pretty bold claim. And “stop paying”? How does that work?
I didn’t want to own a home for many years. That sort of commitment just didn’t appeal. I’ve known many people who prefer to rent. Of course they don’t like how high the rent is but they pay it because they want to live in a particular area. They may not plan to live in that town or city permanently. There are many reasons for not wanting to own a home.
He won't vote for that, because - while he does want a fair days pay, affordable rent, decent public services etc, he is nonetheless a patriot. He's not an anti-capitalist, anti-western, politically correct, bleeding heart, eco commie - ashamed of his history, his gender and his skin colour. That shit isn't going to fly, and the collapse of the Labour vote in the north; the utter rejection of Corbyn in 2019, demonstrates that.
Labour needs another Blair - not another Corbyn, because the working man wants capitalism with a social conscience; not to seize the means of production. He has no such aspiration. He never has done. All that Marxian bullshit is another middle class idea of the working class interest - like political correctness. If Labour ever want power again, they need a centrist pitch - like Blair's Third Way. Not political correctness, nothing to the left of Clause IV, but a practical pitch for government that recognises the value of business, so that he can go out and earn a decent living.
Stop paying the way I don’t have to keep paying to use my desk because I own it already. Who would rather have to pay in perpetuity to have a desk if they could afford to pay once and then just have the desk “for free” (besides paying to buy it) forever?
I swear it’s like people are brainwashing into simply not comprehending the idea of not having to pay someone else just for the right to exist somewhere.
Quoting Brett
What commitment? If you want to treat a purchased home like a rental and just walk away from it leaving behind all the money you spent, you can do that. But why would you want to if you could get
a lot of the money you’ve spent on housing back out? With rent you don’t have that option: your money went down a black hole, it’s not coming back.
Just picture a world where when you leave a “rental” you can get a bunch of your “rent” money back, if you want to go through that effort; or you can walk away and leave it all behind if you really have to bail in a rush. That’s what a world without rent looks like.
So in this utopian world no one would be allowed to rent because there would be nothing to rent.
Consequently nobody would engage in the business of renting out for profit, and would consequently sell off their would-have-been-rental properties to the only people still buying, the would-have-been-renters, on the kinds of terms they can afford, i.e. terms comparable to renting.
So you could pay someone money to live somewhere just like you could now renting a place, but you would have means you of recouping some of that money when you move.
And new housing would continue to be built because new people would still need new housing and be willing to pay for it. They would just skip the middle man who neither built the house nor paid for it yet gets to keep the money and the house in the end.
So no enforceable contracts on paying rent for leasing a place. Consequently there would squatters, which defeats the purpose of owning and renting properties and therefore kills off the rental market. Is that it?
"The market" is not something that exists like a market in your local town. It's a theoretical model that explains the formation of price according to supply and demand, if certain conditions are met.
In another sense, a "market" is just a descriptive term for transactions that happen in a specific region or concerning a specific ware.
In either case all that a market can be said to control is the price and distribution of goods, but not who profits from their production, how they use those profits etc.
Quoting synthesis
Who decides how to define productivity and what the optimal use of resources is? In capitalism the only systemic motive is profit, so it'll be set up to optimise for profit. The idea that by striving for profit we ultimately benefit everyone is a religious one, going back to the protestant work ethic.
Quoting synthesis
Yes, and this is in fact what happens unless there are other forces - like political ones - involved. Under capitalism, you don't want to innovate or be competitive. You want to have a monopoly that makes you money with no effort involved. As an economic system, it only works so long as you can keep competition alive.
Quoting synthesis
There is the cooperative, where everyone owns an equal share in the company - there are some rather large and old ones around right now.
There is the "purpose company", which works like a normal company, but isn't owned by a person, but by a trust that is legally obligated to use it's resources towards a given goal. So instead of aiming for profit, you could have companies with aims like cleaning the ocean or planting trees (search engine Ecosia is an example and does the latter).
What would it take you to change your mind on the following issues:
(1) that systemic discrimination exists
(2) that a politics (BLM) wanting social programs for the worst off isn't "racism against white people"
?
I dare say there are a tiny number of such people. This rather reminds me of David Cameron's defense of the hugely exploitative zero-hours contracting, basically the same as Brett's argument.
So you aren't aware just how close Marx is to Ricardo's labor theory of value? If the basic argument was (with Benkei) about the labor theory of value, referring to the origins here is totally reasonable. Might add that Smith had also similar view (as Ricardo et al).
Quoting Pfhorrest
The fuck they do.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
What do you call “tiny”?
Quoting Kenosha Kid
What exactly is my argument?
Buy a dictionary.
Quoting Brett
Proof if proof were needed that even Brett doesn't know wtf he's talking about.
Well what are you meaning when you say “a tiny number”, it’s a reasonable question.
And you’ve referred to my argument, which as far as I can see is that not everyone wants to buy property.
Yeah, and then in the absence of the rental market the purchase market re-adjusts to its natural state, and nothing of value is lost. Anyone who wants something functionally equivalent to rent as we have it now can have that (you pay money every month, and when you leave you leave all that money behind), and anyone who doesn't want that has a better alternative (you pay the same money every month, and when you leave you have options to recoup the money you've been spending on housing to put toward your new housing elsewhere).
What exactly is the negative consequence of owning rather than renting that you're trying to avoid? I have my suspicions but rather than just give my answers to all of them at once I'd like to know what in particular you're concerned about.
BTW sorry about the "fuck" earlier, had a stressful evening.
Quoting Pfhorrest
There are no negative consequences I’m trying to avoid. I was interested if, in your theory, there really was a place or system for people who didn’t want to buy. Because if the rental market died as a consequence of certain actions I was wondering how renters would fit in.
I know systematic discrimination exists. I call it political correctness, and I fucking hate it - precisely because of how it plays out in relation to politics like BLM. Here are the facts. In 2012 Obama ended the collection of data by the Bureau of Justice Statistics on the race of Arrest Related Deaths. In 2013 Black Lies Matter was formed. BLM used carefully edited cell phone footage to create a social media narrative to suggest that police were murdering black people - and no-one disputed this because of political correctness. No-one wants to get twitter mobbed and denounced as a racist - so they let it slide.
When the rioting started, I wanted to know what the facts were - and so I looked them up. From 2003-2012, there were on average 10 million arrests per year. There were around 1000 Arrest Related Deaths per year - 42% white, 32% black. That's a 0.1% failure rate in a country where people carry guns. The police are not murdering people. In fact they are incredibly professional. But how to explain the fact that black people are 13% of the population, yet make up 32% of deaths. For that we have to look at the crime stats - and they are fucking abysmal. Black people commit massively more crime than white people. Really, it's shocking. The black 13% of the population commit more murders than the white 76% of the population. Violent crime, drugs, theft - all way above average. Put simply, black people commit more crime.
Compare this with Asians in America. Virtually zero crime rate. The top demographic in education, and the top earning demographic overall. How is it possible that Asians are doing so well if there's systematic racism? Face it - your politically correct bullshit is appeasement, and it's not good. The stereotype is well earned. It's there in the music - just listen to some racist, homophobic, sexist gangster rap - glorifying criminality and violence, that all the young black men so admire and seek to emulate. The problem is cultural - and it's never going to change until black people take personal responsibility, start to value education and aspire to a socially useful idea of success.
Would-be renters would be able to be owners instead, and just like owners now could, they could always walk away from their purchase if they don't mind losing all the money they've spent like a renter would. (But why would they want to if they could possibly avoid it?)
Well you have to pay for maintenance, so if something major breaks just after you bought, you might then not be able to easily afford the repairs. Which is worse if, say, you were only planning to stay for a few months and need to sell the property afterwards, which will not recoup the expenses for the repair.
In addition, selling a property does itself require time and money, so depending on how long you stay, this might not be worth it.
Someone will be happy to sell you an insurance product to cover that. It could even be the same person who would otherwise have been your landlord, if they really were adding the value of spreading around that risk and would like to keep doing so.
Quoting Echarmion
Just walking away and taking a total loss like you would if renting doesn’t cost anything, though.
Here's something I really don't understand; how have you managed to convince yourself that political correctness is systemic racism against white people, but you believe systemic racism against nonwhites can be explained entirely by its alleged targets' individual merit? This makes very little sense to me.
I can understand your feelings of persecution. I just don't think you're being persecuted like you seem to believe. To my reckoning, you're actually repeating the talking points and using the same data as right wing rags - and it's to your credit that you've actually looked up data. You should read this, which studies rates of police killings in the US while adjusting for poverty, it concludes:
The broader judicial+law enforcement situation in the UK is similar; which is as expected, marginalised groups with less social opportunities and higher poverty face worse conditions in the street, the job interview, the workplace and the court. Poverty does a lot of the work, but it doesn't explain all the disparity; the remainder is to a large part systemic racism.
The kind of politics that limits police power, empowers social programs, and provides more security for the worst off and the worker, regardless of skin colour, benefits everyone. And it is effective, look at what happened in Glasgow when knife crime ("white on white crime" lol) was addressed as a public health issue!
The rental market is a good example where government control that sounds beneficial, like rental price limits, can worsen the situation and where a healthy free market solves the problem. But for the market to be healthy and to work, there are several important factors that have to be true: 1) ordinary working people have to have the ability to get a loan with normal interest rates to purchase a home and 2) there aren't limitations or difficulties on who can rent real estate and renting real estate is considered a safe investment.
If 1) doesn't apply, like is in many Third World countries, the end result is too few housing is built and that what is built is likely built only for the richest buyers. Others live in cramped housing and on rent. And when large segment of the population are forced to rent, then in the end of their lives they have nothing to give to the next generation. This is one important factor why many countries have lacked the essential middle class and you have countries with large populations but little wealth. That lack of widespread affluence means that there is no domestic demand to create a thriving service sector and retail sector. Few billionaires won't do it. Factor 2) is essential for the health of the market also: if the demand for rental apartments is high, the ability for even ordinary people to save by investing in a flat or two will be have a big effect on the market and will create that supply to deal with the demand. Also a "safe" rental market will attract institutional investors. They won't invest, if there's the possibility of very punitive legislation to "help" those who rent.
What do you mean, "reasonable"?
I have. You obviously haven't been paying attention either, but that is expected of an authoritarian. They only care what they think.
Quoting Michael
Who and when on these forums has criticized someone for being black? If there hasn't been any, or the percentage is minute, then how can you argue that racism is the prevalent idea, or is even a serious problem?
Who and when on these forums have generalized whites by using terms like, "white privilege"? Lots of people in this forum. And when you disagree with them and point out the weak points of their argument, they call you a "racist".
If someone criticized a back for being black, it would be redundant to say, "racist". I mean, what do you really hope to accomplish by calling someone a racist whose racist actions are on display for everyone to see?
Quoting Michael
You still seem to be focused on whites when whites are only a fraction of the world population. As I have been saying, white privilege is not a fact of life. Does that make a racist?[
Quoting Michael
What a lazy cop-out. This forum has members in many countries and this isn't the only forum on the internet. Thanks for showing everyone how truly biased and lazy you are.
Well either it is advantageous to be white in which case generally white people are privileged in that respect, or racism doesn't manifest itself statistically. Since racism is statistically manifest, it is generally advantageous to be white.
Why don’t you actually try and address @Harry Hindu’s post.
The same explanation applies. The systematic racism of political correctness is a consequence of the individualism and cowardice of white people; that they don't have a collectivist sense of identity, less yet racial identity, and individually, fall victim to left wing ideologues who seek to make them ashamed of their history and skin colour - not least to justify mass immigration. In fact, white people should be proud of the massive contributions they have made to the world. They invented damn near everything - from the scientific and industrial revolutions, to modern democratic governance, rule of law, medical science, the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, flight, radio, television, computers, the internet and so on and on.
Quoting fdrake
Oh, for goodness sake - stop adjusting for this and that, and take some fucking responsibility. There are plenty of poor white people. They don't commit murder at 6 times the national average.
Quoting fdrake
But it's not regardless of skin colour is it? It's black people to the front of the queue, followed by women and homosexuals, and you straight white males - who should be ashamed of yourselves, to the back. I'll give you a for instance.
Stormzy is a black British rapper - and he created scholarships to Cambridge exclusively for black students. Everyone approved. Giving back to his community! What a guy! Some years later Sir Brian Thwaites - originally from a white working class background, sought to create scholarships exclusively for white working class boys like him, and was denounced as racist. The money was rejected by the schools in fear of a politically correct backlash. The telling fact is, that white working class boys are now the lowest performing demographic in schools - but they can't get any help ...because that would be racist.
Political correctness is an hypocrisy. It simultaneously stereotypes people by race, and criminalises stereotyping people by race. It doesn't even make sense in its own terms, less yet make sense of the world.
I don't think you know what "adjusting" means. In a statistical analysis of data - in this case police killings, there are lots of confounding variables. In this case, crime rates are higher in poor neighbourhoods, and poor neighbourhoods are more likely to contain more nonwhites. You need to "adjust" for the economic causes of police killings since they're causally related to demographic disparities in police killings - systemic racism.
What you've made is an emotional appeal, and I can see it as persuasive if you feel you are under attack. And your civil liberties and equality of opportunity are under attack; just not by working class civil rights activists and their working class allies. If you live in the UK, your civil liberties are being eroded by Bojo and his possy of gammon faced clowns.
It isn't the "politically correct" left who've turned the NHS from the European gold standard of healthcare to the shitshow that it is, it's those clowns you're currently supporting through your rhetoric. Stop trying to shit on the only people who have your back.
In your estimation, do the wealthy nations that struggle with the problem of mass migration also exploit the countries that the immigrants are coming from?
Quoting counterpunch
I don't really get that notion of pride. I don't contribute to my own whiteness, so it doesn't seem to be something I could be proud of. If I wanted to be proud of, say, past inventions, I'd at least have to consider my conduct to be in some way a continuation of the inventors ethos / methods.
Like you can be proud of furthering the development of science in the tradition of past scientists, but I don't get where skin colour enters into it.
And in case you want to reply "well why are black people allowed to be proud of their blackness", I'll just concede for the sake of discussion that the same problem applies.
The topic of political correctness is complex and subtle. Being politically correct can be over the top if it gets too rigid. If everything we say has to end up sounding like an equal opportunities statement it can border on to the ridiculous. On the other hand how far should people be allowed to go in expressing prejudices?
I would say that part of the problem is that people often use political correctness to cover up there own prejudices. Perhaps on some level, we all have prejudices, which are really preconceived assumptions. There is a danger that too much political correctness can simply push prejudice underground, to fester, but emerge in some more dangerous way.
But it is a grey area, because if no attempts are made to rule out prejudiced opinions, against any racial or other group, it can get to the point where prejudice is just acceptable.
Nor did my tutor in statistical methodology when I studied Sociology and Politics at university. Nonetheless, I know my way around SPSS, and I passed the module with a reasonable grade.
Quoting fdrake
No, you really don't - because that's tautological. You will only prove the assumptions you feed in to skew the data. Bayesian analysis attributes a hierarchical weighted value to data points. The death of a black person is not equivalent to the death of a white person, and so - unsurprisingly, the analysis shows black people are killed disproportionately. You assume systematic racism - so you find systematic racism.
Quoting fdrake
If this were a right wing forum - like such a thing could exist on the internet without getting de-platformed, I'd gladly rip into "Bojo and his possy of gammon faced clowns" (as you describe them, careless of the racist overtones because they're white.) But this is a left wing forum, so let's focus on the left - (and their possy of chocolate faced clowns Is that acceptable language? No, it is not!) ...in particular, on the left's abandonment of the white working class in favour of an upside down form of identity politics.
I gave you a concrete example of politically correct discrimination against white people. It's not a feeling that you can dismiss by offering your patented brand condescending left wing sympathy and understanding. You can't "whatabout" me by turning this on the Tories. You haven't got the back of the average white working class man. Another concrete example - in the midst of the brexit fiasco, Labour went completely AWOL and did one of their typically searching anal audits on anti-Semitism. A Labour government would be dangerously susceptible to being thrown off track in the midst of a crisis - so utterly consumed are they by political correctness. It's hypocritical, it's unjust, and worse than all that, it's weak. Knock if off!
I honestly can't believe you think that calling Bojo and his incompetent toffs "gammon faced clowns" is racist against white people. They absolutely have a choice not to be gammon faced clowns, the same can't be said for skin colour. I'm calling them names because of policy decisions.
Regardless, I see you have a very low bar for branding events instances of racism against white people in the UK, how could you have possibly missed systemic racism against PoCs in the UK if your bar is that low?
I'd guess, as you've highlighted is possible, it's because you don't want to see.
Depends on what you mean by exploit. Is 0.7% of GDP in foreign aid exploitative? Is vast amounts of charity, given by British people anytime there's a war, famine or natural disaster anywhere in the world - exploitative? Are equally vast sums earned by migrants to Britain, and sent abroad - exploitative? I don't know what you mean by exploit. It's one of those 'eye of the beholder' things.
Quoting Echarmion
But you get the concept of an inherited shame for slavery - I suppose? Given that slavery existed since the dawn of time, and was practiced by every civilisation until the west put an end to it, and given that western civilisation also invented everything - in those terms, on balance, its positive contributions to the world massively outweigh the bad, and we should be able to be proud of our history - but on the contrary, the left seek to shame us with it.
This seems astonishingly common and the crux of the matter. Non-racial slurs against white people are proof the the whites -- the ones who did slavery, lynch mobs, segregation, etc. -- are the oppressed race, while that same history of slavery, lynchings, segregation, etc., right through to the repeated murder of black people by white cops caught on video, to just now a white poster getting banned for calling someone the N-word, do not count as evidence, mere anomolies. This speaks to a rank hypocrisy that seems to characterise the alt-right, if not the right generally.
It says exactly what it says:
In other words, that the probability of being black, unarmed, and shot by police is 3.49 times the probability of being white, unarmed, and shot by police is not explained by unarmed black people being 3.49 times more likely than unarmed white people to commit a crime that warrants being shot by the police.
Marx's labor theory of value is nonetheless distinct and refined from Ricardo's and Smith's definition, and the original argument with Benkei wasn't about the general labor theory of value, but Marx's in particular.
Just admit you have no idea what you are talking.
In order to do this you'd have to plop down a significant amount of cash and likely cash out investments. This is often a bad financial move because these investments that you sold have a high yearly return and now that money is basically locked into your house and you're no longer getting those returns.
Your desire to own your home outright is a personal preference, not a universal measure of financial health or optimization. If that's how you want to do your finances, fine, but don't treat it as a universal.
It's the hypocrisy I seek to highlight; not the casual anti white racism per se. It's that you would be screaming blue murder if someone made a similar comment disparaging black people as 'chocolate faced clowns.' And the fact you don't see this as an hypocrisy is precisely the point. Your political correctness hypocritical because you don't apply the same standards equally. This carries forth into areas that matter, like I showed with the concrete example of Stormzy and his exclusively black scholarships, while Thwaites was branded racist - an example that you have failed to address.
Quoting fdrake
You've also failed to address the fact that white working class boys are now the lowest performing demographic in British schools, and that Asians are the highest, and highest earning demographic in the US. Nonetheless, this "systematic racism" narrative plays out both sides of the Atlantic. You haven't explained how Asians can be doing so well in a systematically racist society. But in regard to police shootings, you seek to account for every confounding variable, while turning a blind eye to the fact that black people commit massively more crime. You ARE a racist - and the fact you do it in reverse doesn't make it any less morally repugnant.
Subsequently, if I come across Dane who says there's not much racism, I assure him that he's blind to the facts around him.
It's anthropology through a telescope. White people do tend to be blind to the racism around them, but that doesn't mean my Danish person is blind.
How about we allow the world to be complicated?
Aye. I think the approach should depend on the context, since @counterpunch here has been swearing at me for a while I figured I'd pick up the gauntlet. He's expressedly more interested in trying to dunk on me than engaging in good faith:
Quoting counterpunch
"You reap what you sow" pays off in the long run.
I believe in free speech and open discussion but the problem is that people can end up hurting people with their hatred. But, it is true that hatred of others probably stems from self hatred.
But where is that "free speech and open discussion" supposed to take place?
Every conversation takes place somewhere, on someone's turf, not on some neutral no-man's land.
The rule of the turf takes precedence: the one who owns the turf where the conversation takes place has the say.
Rent drives up house prices massively. The buy to let and property development to let booms in the UK anyway are the reasons housing affordability is incommensurate with earnings increases. (Oh, and Russian oligarchs buying up London real estate.) Rent is still the problem.
Quoting counterpunch
:lol:
It is a difficult question. How does one work with prejudice and hatred.?Certainly, my own experience in dealing with racist and homophobic etc people is that you can argue with such people and end up not getting anywhere. My mother has racist friends and I hear her challenge them very well. The next day they say exactly the same thing. The prejudiced mind is most often a closed mind.
I've noticed the same. There is something rather sly about it. You think you're having a conversation, turns out they're just finding out what sort of arguments they need to defend against next time.
Quoting Michael
It's a fact, not a theory - that black people commit significantly more crime, and more violent crime in particular. I looked at the statistics, and 13% of the US population (blacks) commit more murders than 76% of the population (whites). There are plenty of poor white people. Inequality isn't the explanation. And you can't over-police murder.
You highlight this - and it's easy to miss, but the sentence actually begins:
Well, d'uh - you set out to disprove any such association with a Bayesian analysis that attributes a weighted hierarchical value to data points. "In the models fit in this study!" It's left wing academia double speak for "we messed around with the raw data until we proved our own politically correct assumptions."
The raw data is very simple and the explanation is obvious. Black people commit more violent crime. Violent offenders are more likely to get shot.
They never saw it as a conversation, a dialogue to begin with.
But why would one have to?
I think the real problem with hatred and prejudice is that one hasn't come to the final conclusion that they are in fact _not_ evolutionarily advantageous.
Don't you ever wonder whether the people who are full of hatred and prejudice might in fact be better off in life after all?
What valuable things are they missing out on because of their hatred and prejudice? I can't think of any.
People who are full of hatred and prejudice can make life hard for some others, indeed. But beyond that, they don't seem to be missing out on anything. Hatred and prejudice aren't the sort of stumbling blocks and negative things as some people paint them to be.
What bearing does that have on the study cited? It shows that unarmed black people are 3.49 times more likely to be shot by police than unarmed white people. Unless unarmed black people commit 3.49 times more crimes that warrant being shot by police than unarmed white people then this shows that there is racial bias. Even if black people are twice as likely to commit such crimes as white people, that would only explain them being twice as likely to be shot, and so the figure still shows racial bias.
Quoting counterpunch
You've yet to show how the models fails. You've just asserted that they do. That's no argument. I'm more inclined to believe a peer-reviewed paper than a random person on the internet who doesn't support his claims.
Still it has the same issue.
Quoting Maw
If you don't understand my point as it seems, then resorting to condescending arrogance and belittling seems the modus operandi for you. Which is very typical.
If there are disproportionately more poor black people than poor white people then inequality could be the explanation. For example if 90% of black people are poor compared to 70% of white people, and if being poor is a motivator to committing violent crimes, then there will be disproportionately more black violent criminals than white violent criminals.
What's your alternative suggestion? That black people are genetically predisposed to violence, and that racial disparities in income and poverty are incidental?
I am quite sure that people who have strong prejudices are not wishing to change and are comfortable with beliefs. On a long term basis I would imagine that hatred of others comes back to oneself. The most obvious case is having committed all the worst atrocities, Hitler killed himself.
The level on which I would think about working with prejudice is if I am in a professional or group situation where prejudices are occurring. What can be tolerated and what goes against boundaries is the main issue.
Quoting Michael
The study concludes that, but only AFTER the data has been weighted - such that a black person being shot isn't equal to a white person being shot, when various demographic and factors have been ASSUMED, and taken into account to skew the raw data. It's a TAUTOLOGY. Garbage in - garbage out.
Quoting Michael
Or they are more likely to resist arrest - thereby endangering the police officer or members of the public.
Quoting Michael
To repeat myself a third time - 13% of the US population commit more murders than 76% of the population. That's 5.8 times more likely to commit murder, based on the raw data. But again, it's not the crime - it's the arrest. You can commit mass murder - Dylan Roof springs to mind, but give yourself up to police and they won't kill you. You can be selling bootleg CD's outside the kwikimart - Michael Brown springs to mind, act like a jackass and end up dead. The crime is irrelevant - except insofar as it indicates a propensity to resist arrest.
Stop being stupid and I'll stop belittling you. Very simple.
Psychopath
What if Hitler and other Nazis who committed suicide did so for stoic (sic!) reasons?
I have heard in WWII documentaries that some Nazis who committed suicide around the time of the end of the war wrote in their goodbye letters that they can't bear to live in a world ruled by an inferior race, and that this is why they willingly departed from life.
It's not clear that the Nazis who committed suicide did so out of self-loathing or some such.
Which is a clear case of the rule of the turf: the owner of the turf has the say as to what is acceptable and what isn't.
Which raises the question of why you bring up the murder rate. Do you have an argument to make there?
Quoting counterpunch
The implied claim here is that the disparity can be explained by different behaviour when faced with arrest. Do you have evidence for that?
Just reading through this thread, it seems to me that the site rules would benefit from something against this sort of posting habit. I know it's not currently against the rules, but repeatedly making specific factual claims without even an attempt at citation or support (as counterpunch is doing here) is just wasting forum space.
There are limits of tolerance on written style, I don't think it's excessive to have limits also on strucure.
I have no explanation. I'm not looking for one. I'm merely pointing out the politically correct hypocrisies. It feels very uncomfortable to be speaking about race at all, but it's the left that are playing identity politics - and so it falls to me to state the statistical facts, over and over again until I look like a complete bastard.
Personally, I'm an individualist, and treat people as individuals regardless of skin colour, sexuality, gender or whatever - and I think that's the way it should be. These are what's called arbitrary characteristics, and it's wrong to discriminate on that basis.
It's not me that imagines all black people, or all white people, or all gay people share a common identity. That's the left, and it sucks - it's identity politics, and whether it's done by the right or the left, it's wrong.
There are many good reasons to rent. And the problem isn't necessarily renting, its the political tax incentives that create the disparities. Again, most real estate laws were changed in the 80's and 90's to favor capital. This could easily be changed to balance the benefits. For instance, why not split the RE tax deduction 50/50 between landlord and renter? You could also apply this to depreciation [although that would get messy]. There are ways to create more equity (npi).
Renting is the obvious choice when starting out, first, because you generally have little capital available, and second, you are probably going to be reasonably transient. One of the best things anybody can do when they relocate is to rent for a year or two in order to get to know the area before you buy. Perhaps you'll decide it's not working for you [or your job didn't work out or whatever].
As you may know, buying a house is a huge commitment not only financially, but emotionally and every other way. The present system sucks the life out of buyers with the endless fees, costs, taxes, etc. Again, housing morphed into just another financialization scheme designed in the 80's to replace the real industrial economy that was outsourced so the few could live like kings and queens. Worked quite well.
Quoting Pfhorrest
In my ideal world, everybody would work for themselves. No parasites.
You can't hope for much forward movement in this world when so many people do nothing with their knowledge other than manipulate the system while creating no wealth (but plenty of grief), thus is revealed purpose of every political system (simply a clearinghouse to connect those who give brides with those who take them).
I just wish to point out that you say that the Nazi's may not have loathed themselves and they killed themselves because they did not want to live with an inferior race. The whole point Hitler was making was about wanting to destroy inferior people. This captures the whole problem underlying prejudiced hatred, which is the belief that one is superior to others.
Indeed. This is one of the few places on the internet someone will be remain able to have that kind of conversation in good faith. And a willing sucker like me is willing to put in the time as a left symbol for a stranger to work out his emotional issues on. @counterpunch here seems to be a species of Brit whose heart is for worker populism and class politics but whose media diet has lead him to forget what those actually looked like in Britain.
Quoting counterpunch
Quoting counterpunch
This confusion isn't really his fault. In the UK, @counterpunch's brand of populism is articulated along class lines. It's a rather effective bridge builder; the UK's older left leaners (like over 30) have lived through a time of worsening conditions for the lowest earners and the erosion of state institutions by replacing them with public-private partnerships; it started (I think) in the 70's with coal, it ripped through public transport, public housing, libraries, education, care work... and the NHS is teetering on the brink of becoming an insurance style system. Both parties agreed on this programme of fostering public-private partnerships, just differed on implementation issues. As Thatcher put it when asked what her greatest legacy was, she replied "New Labour" - that was the Blairites.
The working class regardless of race suffers from all that, and Labour's (rightly in my view) perceived as a lighter shade of corporate corruption than the Tories after 2008 with their banker bailouts. They've been tearing themselves apart for years trying to reconcile their internal contradictions; their base demands that they have to be the party of workerist populism, they have to be the party of cosmopolitan pro-EU middle class and business interest, and they now have to appeal to this nostalgia fuelled nationalist reaction of the UK's working class against the international public-private partnerships Labour helped foster. It's a borderline intractable divide. (If you'd like I can dig up a Youtube video from a political scientist in support of this analysis of the split). And it winds up having people who're talking worker-populist points rallying to support people whose policies go against those points.
I cited evidence; albeit somewhat anecdotal. Dylan Roof - alive. Michael Brown - dead. Roof - gave up. Brown - resisted. It's not rocket science.
The police don't kill people unless they can't help but do so. The number of arrest related deaths is tiny. 1000 deaths per year, from over 10 million arrests. 0.1% - from all causes, i.e. suicide, overdose, shot by police. etc.
The facts cited are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics - data sets from 2003-2012. I have mentioned this in previous comments. Mentioning it every time I have had to repeat the same points over and over again to try and push the facts past the political correctness goggles of left wing ideologues, would be a waste of forum space. Unlike your comment - which was sooooo worth the pixels.
You can ditch the "somewhat". The reason I ask is this: since the evidence you have is not different from the evidence some random person in a BLM protest is likely to cite, what makes you so certain you are correct (certain enough you're willing to "look like a bastard", in your words)?
Quoting counterpunch
Working backwards. ..
Quoting counterpunch
Quoting counterpunch
Quoting counterpunch
Quoting counterpunch
Quoting counterpunch
Quoting counterpunch
Quoting counterpunch
Quoting counterpunch
Quoting counterpunch
All of these claims require support. There's absolutely no point in maintaining an internet space to act as nothing more than a selective database of what some random people reckon might be the case.
If you have time, yes!
So counterpunch really has no one in the government representing his interests? And his sense of having been betrayed by the supposed left has left him more angry at leftists than the tories?
How does racism and anti-semitism enter his worldview? Racial diversity just magnifies his sense of living on unstable ground?
It's repeating statistics over and over that makes me look like a bastard. But that is Bureau of Justice Statistics data, that shows the BLM narrative is a false narrative - created by left wing ideologues under the cover of political correctness. No-one challenges it because political correctness is an aggressive, oppressive dogma. But black people commit more crime, more violent crime - and so, perhaps, are more likely to resist arrest.
Michael Brown resisted arrest, George Floyd resisted arrest, Breonna Taylor's boyfriend opened fire on police and she ended up dead. It's fairly easy to conclude that if they'd complied, they wouldn't have died.
The market is more than just price discovery as anybody who has been cancelled can attest. It's an all encompassing force that players on all sides attempt to manipulate to their own advantage.
Although quite obedient to the demands of capital over the last several decades, I remember the catch-phase, "look for the union label," and I am notthat old.
Regardless of how we wish to define it, I believe we can both agree that the freer the market, the more the price of any commodity reflects the actual value contained (which is most important to having a highly efficient economy).
The people here are not random. They are self selecting. They are here to share and discuss ideas. Not all ideas require support. It's perfectly acceptable to express an opinion. Like you did when you said:
"There's absolutely no point in maintaining an internet space to act as nothing more than a selective database of what some random people reckon might be the case."
It would be bizarre to demand, can you support that opinion with evidence? Nonetheless, I think we've all learned something from the fact you said it!
Resisting arrest is not an explanation for murdering someone *after* they're cuffed. Condoning racist murder with such obviously flawed argumentation is disgusting.
No. I'm perfectly fine with a diverse society. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of political correctness - and the weakness of political correctness given the tendency of Labour to abdicate from major political crises (brexit) and disappear up its own arse in search of anti-Semites. I have no problem with Jewish people, or black people, or anyone else. But I do have a problem with political correctness - not least that it leaves people like me, lacking political representation.
This is not a scientific journal, only a discussion between interested parties. You can choose to agree or disagree. Obviously you have access to the internet, so you can do your own research and counter arguments.
If we follow your notion of correct conduct, then where does one draw the line? Can any thought be original or do we need to certify such via a lexicon of acceptable thinking?
Even if this was a scientific journal, any breakthrough requires taking accepted thought and jumping up and down on it until it is no longer recognized as truth.
Via the complete opposite approach to unsubstantiated claim.
How does political correctness leave you unrepresented?
As I have said before, the idea that the market is some kind of "force" is unfounded. There is no such thing. It goes back to Smith's "invisible hand", by which he meant: God.
Quoting synthesis
That depends on how we define "free" as well. So it's one of those statements that's true by definition, but the devil is in the details.
Quoting counterpunch
You're not answering my question, but then this seems something that people who agree with you always seem to do - never answer the question, but always repeat your claims.
Floyd was arrested. He resisted arrest. He was restrained. The restraint may have contributed to his death. What was racist about it? What was murder - about it? You're the one employing flawed argumentation?
May have? It was videoed. You are without doubt the most disgusting individual I've ever really encountered, conversationally speaking.
I has high hopes for Starmer after Comrade Corbyn was rejected by the electorate - then he unequivocally endorsed gender self identification and leapt to his knees for Black Lies Matter. So had Starmer not heard of GIDS, and the 30 or more therapists that quit since 2016, citing politically correct pressure to hand out puberty blockers to dysphoric children? Did Starmer not check out the stats on the number of Arrest Related Deaths - or did he endorse Black Lies Matter on the basis of politically correct pretence alone?
I don't want a government with less strength of character and less integrity than 30 gender therapists - who don't unequivocally endorse gender self identification, especially in children. Nor do I want a government that lacks the presence of mind to do two minuets googling before abasing themselves before an organisation burning and looting homes and businesses across the pond on the basis of a false narrative.
I think you're just a bigot.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Your opinion means less than nothing to me because I have a very great disrespect for the virtue signalling motives behind it. The fact is, you don't know what the cause of death was, and deciding whether it was murder is absolutely not your call.
I imagine you've seen the cell phone footage. You should really watch the leaked police bodycam footage. It paints a very different picture. Watch it and tell me, if it was your job to arrest that man - would you keep him restrained?
Yes I do. The world does.
Quoting counterpunch
Yes, and once he was restrained, I would not then murder him.
Quoting frank
Typical. I'm the white working class majority that Labour used to represent, but now don't because they have been overrun by politically correct ideologues. It's a typical lefty ideologue move to cast insults like bigot and racist at people like me - particularly when they complain that they're not represented by the left.
I'll repeat this again for you slow kids at the back - I don't discriminate against people on the basis of skin colour, gender, sexuality - or any other arbitrary characteristics. I do judge people on the strength of their character. You judge people on the basis of skin colour. You're the racist here. Not me. You discriminate against people like me - with an ideology that makes me last in line because I'm a straight white male.
At least you're clear that it's Labour's perceived failure to represent your whiteness that you hate them for. I mean, not that it was particularly unclear before.
I could get behind that. It's not a solution to the problem but it's palliative of the symptoms, and harm reduction is priority #1.
Quoting ssu
So I guess the United States (or at least California) really is a third world country now? Because living this end result first-hand is the origin of my complaints.
Quoting ssu
It is mathematically impossible for it to be ordinary for people to own more housing than they use themselves in order to rent it out to others. If everybody ordinarily owned their own housing, then nobody would be renting someone else's excess housing, so there would be no takers if you had excess housing you wanted to rent out. There can only be a rental market when there are some who own more than they need to use, and others who need to use more than they own.
Quoting ssu
Good. Stop buying up all the fucking housing for an "investment" at the expense of people who actually need housing to live in.
I've seen those studies often quoted that rent control reduces the availability of housing, and the catch is that it only reduces the availability of rental housing -- because the houses that had been rented out are instead sold off. The reduction in rental housing stock is counteracted by an increase in purchase housing stock. More people buy, fewer people rent. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Only in the housing market as it is today. Changing that is the entire point of this exercise. Most people don't have investments to cash out of to put toward housing in the first place. The people who do aren't the ones who are suffering under the current system, and I agree that within the current system it's smarter to keep your money somewhere it grows faster in order to pay down lower service on debts. (It being stupid to do otherwise is precisely why I don't have some super expensive mortgage right now, but instead live in a tiny trailer and am investing elsewhere at least until my investment can put enough down on a house that the mortgage isn't so expensive anymore). My proposal is that there shouldn't be "service on debts" and a huge up-front pile of cash required to begin with: that owning should be as affordable as renting in the short term, and actually result in ownership of housing in the long term.
I'm not going to roll in the mud with you. You've chosen a road of hatred and fear. You can change any time you want to.
— counterpunch
Quoting Kenosha Kid
The world may think they do. You may think you do. But you don't. Calling it a murder is just as absurd as calling it racist.
Watch it and tell me, if it was your job to arrest that man - would you keep him restrained?
— counterpunch
Yes, and once he was restrained, I would not then murder him.[/quote]
Rhetoric. Not even good rhetoric. It's the intellectual equivalent of 'I'm rubber you're glue.' That's what you're doing with a man's death, and four men's careers, you're playing some idiotic virtue signalling game. Please leave me alone.
Yes I do. Everyone does. Even you probably do, it just doesn't fit into your black = criminal, white = saintly paradigm.
Quoting counterpunch
Sure, just quit it with the alt-right, racist, fascist propaganda and I'll leave you well alone. Or even better just leave and go back to whatever communication platforms are still open to your backward lot. But every time you post this vile shit on this site, I will name it and condemn it until one or both of us are banned. That's the way it gotta be when you bring your fucked up war here.
The Two Autopsies Of George Floyd Aren’t As Different As They Seem
The conversation is about @counterpunch refusing to acknowledge reality.
All too common. But given what we might infer from his writing, it's not a surprise that he wants you to back down. What he is claiming is nasty. Thank you, Kenosha, for calling these lies out.
I don't agree with too much counterpunch has said but I'm pretty sure he isn't alt-right, racist or fascist. He isn't condoning anything by saying George Floyd resisted arrest, anyone can see that he did. As I said, don't agree with his comments but you sound ridiculous. This is not the first time, stop mislabeling people with whatever you think sounds bad just because you don't like what they have to say. If he's really that bad, at least try not to appear worse?
But factually wrong.
Science can be as political as every other institution, e.g., the story of BIG tobacco.
By force, what is meant is that there are innumerable factors that affect markets. If some would like to include, God, why the hell not!?
Quoting Echarmion
Amen...and Awomen. :)
That's a very good example of how, despite biases introduced by large, powerful vested interests, the truth will out. Despite investment and collusion, we do now have a consensus in both the scientific and political community that smoking causes unnecessary death.
I somehow think that is not the point you wanted to make...
The truth always comes out...eventually...but generally well after the profits have been taken and legal liabilities have lapsed.
Science is not what most believe it to be (on all levels).
Hm. You appeared to disagree with @Isaac when he asked again for @counterpunch to provide justification...
Quoting Isaac
Counterpunch is factually wrong on several points. Yet you said
Quoting synthesis
Science may not be what most people believe it is; but we can make good use of it here, and should do. We can help the truth out.
I never suggested he was factually wrong. I've seen those same statistics many times.
Quoting Banno
What I was getting at is that science (similar to religion) can be used to prove just about anything, so when you hear people say, "Listen to the science," you best duck as to miss being buried in grade A BS.
Again, science is a tool and you must work with it within its limitations (which most people do not get). Science has a language of its own, one that is manipulated to orchestrate pretty much whatever needs to take place.
Another example is BIG Pharma, a group of people that should probably spend the next 50 years in prison for the crimes they've committed against the American people.
The truth only needs to be left alone (like everybody and everything else).
Oh, I didn't mean to suggest you did: it was I, following @Kenosha Kid.
Quoting synthesis
That's not what I have found. Rather folk twist science to fit their own needs, as this:
Quoting counterpunch
Wilfully ignoring the detail.
Science is a process, not a doctrine. That does not mean that it is not factual. Scientific evidence may be used in support of untruths, but it does not prove them.
The odd thing about science, on which you and I will agree, is that despite this, it is quite useful.
You say that like it was a bad thing...?
(Yes, I know Bret has joined the ranks of the Dear Departed. Still counts.)
Of course, it doesn’t mean all conservatives are stupid, and we have some few capable conservative commentators amongst our members. But a bias towards the left would be expected in a forum such as this, and is indicative of the quality of the contributors... in the main.
I'll let counterpunch fight his own battles.
I am professionally trained in science and agree vis a vis its utility, but it has SERIOUS limitations which the lay public fails to comprehend.
Policy should never be made using only science. There are many more things of greater importance as science can only point you in the right direction (perhaps). Often, it's the opposite case where science is waaaay off the mark (and in the long run, this is ALWAYS the case).
If I can change the subject...being new to this forum and interested in what's taking place in the country, I am would be interested in what the current definition of "left" is. Can you help me out here?
Over here, Labour Party - Left. Liberal Party - Right. The Liberals are a centre, liberal economic party that is distorted by a small number of very conservative idiot politicians and a media run for corporate interests. Labour is a traditional socialist party with the usual personality disorder.
This seems very generous.
I live in the People's Republic of California. It seems as if the "left" has taken the extremist path (which never works out very well) and I am wondering why.
OR that's what I want them to be.
What path is that?
Psycho-path
Truth is a pathless land?
Dunno tbh
For example, the Democrat party in the U.S. essentially supporting BLM's agenda.
The agenda to reduce the amount that black people get needlessly murdered by police?
According to their website (which was changed after getting some bad press), they were anti-nuclear family, a position that might be called a bit extreme. The three founders were Marxist-trained (whatever that means), another position that would be considered extreme in the U.S. Passively advocating violence, etc.
I can't see anything about this - Link? In what way were they anti - do they want to ban them or what?
Marxist-trained - they went to University? If you never encountered Marx, you're not educated; but what did they do, go to a reeducation camp or something?
And what aspects of their agenda have the Democrats adopted, that are objectionable?
Obviously you're not familiar with the group, but thank you anyway. Enjoyed the conversation!
Shit, I hate it when folk refuse to back up their claims.
I am familiar with the group. Just not with your claims about them. I went to the nominal web site and did a search, but found nothing that supported your claim, nor was there anything in the WIki article.
Help me out here.
I am trying to polite and nice so please don't play games with me. I know you know who they are, after all, who doesn't?
My original question was about why you believe the left has chosen to go to the extreme when the results of such is never good (right or left). What works is the center, a compromise including progressive and conservative ideas. Do you disagree?
Quoting synthesis
Can you justify this with some evidence?
Quoting synthesis
It's important that you back up your claim, because it would give me an indication of what you think the "extreme" left is; then I might be able to tell you if I think they are in the extreme left...
My theory is that what is considered centre in the USA is well to the right of what is considered centre elsewhere; specifically, the centre in Australia would generally be taken to be between the socialist Labour Party and the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party would be roughly equivalent to the Democrats, were their policies not distorted by pandering to conservatives.
So, yes, I'm all for stopping the game playing. Tell me specifically what it is that BLM want, that has been accepted by the Democrats, that is unacceptable to you?
Defunding law enforcement perhaps? or legislation that makes them more accountable, or some civil rights reforms?
As far as I can tell, they wanted to get Trump out of office. Otherwise, they seem to be concerned about the 10-15 unarmed black men killed each year by white law enforcement officers and that's about it.
The effort by all the different factions (that wanted to get rid of Trump) certainly seemed to pay-off, but there is always a backlash when extreme measures are employed (terrorizing individuals and businesses in several U.S. cities).
I believe that the amazing progress that a great many in the black community have made over the past several decades has been dealt a severe blow by the entire systemic racism narrative for so many different reasons. Calling an entire race of people racist in the most un-racist country in the world seems a bit extreme, no?
I've no problem with that, nor does the majority of US voters... so that's not extreme.
Quoting synthesis
Not unreasonable, given the difference between deaths of unarmed black and white men at the hands of police... again, we might agree that this is not extreme.
Quoting synthesis To what are you referring? What backlash? Folk voting for Trump? Folk invading the Capitol?
Quoting synthesis
Riots? Yeah, not nice. But it gets attention.
Quoting synthesis
Hmm. Here we start to differ more directly. It seems to me beyond doubt that there is endemic racism in the US. Here, Too. I also think it needs to be called out. Is it systematic? Something systematic is wrong, given the disproportionate number of blacks in incarceration.
The figures on incarceration are worse for Indigenous Australians, and I support efforts here to identify systematic reasons for this and eradicate them.
Quoting synthesis
Sure. Who did that, then? Citation?
If those funds buy social services instead of riot shields, that's not a bad thing at all.
From what I can understand, the US seems to be well behind - many decades behind - comparable countries in terms of taking care of its citizens.
What's extreme is they don't seem to care about the massive black-on-black carnage that's going on in several U.S. cities.
Quoting Banno
Not nice? Do you have any idea what went down here last summer? How about if it was your father that was murdered, or your house or business that was burned-down?
Quoting Banno
There is endemic everything everywhere. We are human beings and we all do lots of stupid stuff but (on the whole) things have improved drastically over the past decades. There is enough blame to go around but you do NOT blame an entire race of people for something that happened 99% in the past.
Quoting Banno
This is what the systemic racism narrative is, no? I cannot provide you with specific references but I've seen it time and time again in blogs, on TV, in the news, EVERYWHERE.
Look, everybody knows that blacks have had it harder everywhere in the world. And I have never met anybody who thinks this is a good thing or doesn't want to see the situation resolve itself, but you cannot blame innocent people and tell them they are racist. That will not end well and this is why I asked you why such an extreme posture was embraced by the left. Does the left really believe they can upend the entire world order overnight?
As far as I can tell, in the U.S., money is still green so that's really the only color that means shit here.
Here's a reference: The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein.
The 'color of law" doesn't refer to race. It means "under the cover of law", like the law under which the FHA operated for many years.
The Color of Law is a study of one large piece of racism which was systemic: the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) started in 1935 helped finance new suburban housing for white people and urban high-rise rental housing for blacks. Racially mixed neighborhoods were denied financial backing, which encouraged their slide into slums--mostly occupied by black people.
If you read much about urban history (Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, St. Louis, Los Angeles, etc.) you will find other examples of systemic racism -- that is, racial discrimination that operated consistently and over time.
Urban history doesn't account for all racial disadvantage. Plenty of racial bias was and is unsystematic, individualized, inconsistent, and persistent.
Don't they? I don't have access to much information; so isn't this a different, albeit related, issue? Again, even if true, that wouldn't make them extreme, in my view, just focused.
Quoting synthesis
Yep. Not nice.
Quoting synthesis
Yes, things get better; at least in part because of the efforts of activists.
Quoting synthesis
...so it should not be hard for you to find a citation.
Quoting synthesis
I understand that recognising one's privilege is difficult. You and I benefited from racism, even if we did not participate. Again, who has blamed which innocent people? Something concrete on which we can continue the conversation.
Quoting synthesis
I'm still having trouble seeing what it is you see as extreme... voting Trump out?
Quoting synthesis
Is this in reference to my comments about social security? Seems to me that following the dollar has been taken to an extreme in the US. There's an interesting conversation to be had about the role of the myth of individual accomplishment here.
Edit: that you are here might indicate that you are interested in considering different perspectives. Well done. I like it here because just occasionally I am forced to reconsider my views. Show me something to make me reconsider.
It seems that folk fail to understand that systematic racism need not be intentional - although it can be.
Maybe we should make all tall people shorter, good looking people plainer, smart people dumber, so on and so forth? Yes, certain people have advantages.
The bottom-line...you cannot makes things better by making them worse. People are not equal and never will be. That does not mean you can not make things fairer and they are getting better. More importantly, you play the hand you are dealt with the greatest amount of effort and skill you can muster.
This entire racist thing was a political scam like it always is. After all, the Democrats in the U.S. have used black people for political gain since the 60's. If they really cared, would so many Democratically controlled cities look like they do? It's a disgrace.
Again, who is making them worse? Read over this discussion again, and ask yourself how you went. Go back to here, were I asked you about the importance of science. Then there was Quoting synthesis
and my asking you to explain what you saw as extreme. Did you succeed? The accusations that BLM are anti-family and marxist trained - unsupported and unverified, and not extreme even if they were. Voting Trump out - not extreme; utterly reasonable. This:Quoting synthesis
Sure, we muddle along, trying to fix stuff up. That's what BLM are doing. But who is blaming an entier race?
How well supported is your rejection of what you call "the Left"?
Isn't fairness a zero sum game? How can you make things fairer without increasing the advantages of the disadvantaged and decreasing the advantages of the advantaged?
I think you are right. There will be white Democrats using the issue as leverage.
Do you think the BLM black supporters are part of that scam? Or do they think they have a real grievance?
Here's more good news: The gap between the number of blacks and whites in prison is shrinking
But this: Countries with the largest number of prisoners per 100,000 of the national population, as of June 2020
What's that about? Look at your competition, man!
BLM leaders made the strategic decision to focus on black deaths at the hands of the police, who are agents of civil power. That isn't the choice I would have made -- but I am not black or part of BLM. Simultaneously campaigning effectively against police abuse (which, to be fair, is larger than the issue of black deaths caused by police) and black-on-black killings is problematic. Problematic because the two issues run in opposite directions with different stakeholders. And, to be frank, young blacks killing other young blacks just isn't an issue around which one can build a very large coalition.
The Mad Dads (black men) have made black-on-black deaths their issue. They don't organize big marches and demonstrations; they focus on small interventions in neighborhoods involving dozens of people rather than thousands. It would be difficult for them to take on police abuse at the same time.
It takes very large, well funded organizations to attack multiple issues at the same time--say, the environment, distribution of wealth, over population, racism, sexism, and the role of social media in society. For that there are governments, political parties (for worse or for better), the UN, and big NGOs.
But you don't believe you are equal to the Nazis, or that the Nazis are equal to you, do you? Exactly.
Pretending I disagreed with this point is trolling, please stop.
That's industry.
Hmm, true, I misrepresented you there, my bad. Doesn't change my main* point though.
If your main point is that people who support far-right violent insurrectionists, who engage in baseless racist propaganda, and who promote propaganda about how whites are being oppressed are beyond naming or criticism or the contempt of decent people, your main point is wrong. If your main point is that counterpunch didn't do these things, you are also wrong. Either way, you seem to be continuing as you began.
You say that,
'You don't believe that you are equal to the Nazi's or that the Nazi's are equal to you. Exactly.'
I think you are suggesting that each of us believes in some kind of superiority, and would imply that I think that I am "better' than the Nazi's. Of course I don't condone what the Nazi's did. But I would say that it is still problematic when people do try to see themselves as better, including morally better, than others.
But then this points right back at you. How do you respond to that?
I would say that obviously every one has to have a point of view or we would be like jellyfish floating in a sea of unknowing but the danger is moral or political arrogance. It is so easy evil on to to project onto others, whether it is Hitler or Bin Laden.
Really, what I have been trying to say in the brief snippets of discussion I have been having with you is that prejudiced hatred arises from projecting on to others. It is not an easy problem to address but our own sense of superiority can be damaging.
With the few comments I have made, you keep directing them back at me. I have awareness that any comment which I make about others has personal significance too. I am aware of that but I would say that I think that many ignore this dimension. I feel that you are going to tell me that I think that I am superior for saying that and I would say, absolutely not.
It has just been that is the way my own life experiences has led me to think and that I am coming more from a psychological angle than a political one. But I do believe that there is an important dialogue between politics and psychology. The psychological view can benefit from an understanding of the political and the political can gain from a psychological perspective.
A lot of right-wing speakers who aren't racist, fascist or alt-right disagree with the issues around systemic racism, George Floyd, political correctness and even on Trump. This is just politically motivated labelling by you. He hasn't said anything racist, he's said quite a bit which goes against the alt-right ideology and where does the fascism claim come from? Do you actually think you can back any of this shit up? I'm interested @Banno
Quoting Banno
Does this mean you could join me in telling kenosha kid to stop with the nonsense? Why is saying "he's factually wrong" not good enough? I mean you're the second last person I want to be asking but perhaps he'll listen to you, we don't need to call people "fascist" and "racist" or "alt-right" when they're not, just to make a point.
No. There is not a valid right-wing opinion on how Floyd died that differs from the facts. I reject a defense of belittling all victims of racism on post-truth grounds as equally racist. If you have problems with the term "racist", easy solution: don't be it. We're not discussing economic philosophy here: this is racist propaganda that proceeds by the right wing MO of insisting that what we saw was not what we saw, that while the facts establish X, there are alternative facts we can invent that show !X, it just depends on your point of view. Kidding yourself this is fine is one thing; kidding yourself that everyone else will accept it as fine is just straight up dumb.
"He" here being @counterpunch?
Quoting counterpunch
Factually wrong.
Can you even prove the Floyd murder was racially motivated? You shouldn't call someone racist because they say things you don't like - when they're not racist. Just because it's not racist - that doesn't make it okay, you can still be angry just, maybe stop diluting the meaning of important words for political benefit?
@Banno Yes but does being factually wrong make him a racist fascist? What if he's just wrong?
Prove as in 100%? Nope.
Quoting Judaka
Agreed. That's why I only call racists racists.
Quoting counterpunch
That's not just being wrong.
Do I think him a fascist? I wouldn't use that language. I do think his thinking is - as shown here and elsewhere - shall we say, eccentric...
Quoting counterpunch
I tried to find it again, couldn't. Sorry! I'll have another look another day.
Quoting frank
I don't think so? I'm assuming @counterpunch is one of those hereditary working class people who got educated (possibly when tuition was free!), then aged only to have the Labour party; traditionally worker-populist; betray 'em. But considering he's advocated here for a neoliberal (public-private partnership expanding) figurehead for Labour by my reckoning he's advocating for exactly the kind of Labour politics that destroyed their reputation in 2008 anyway - elites [hide=**](and "expert" is kinda a dirty word in the UK at this point, it's been ruined to the extent the right wing rags don't seem to use it when making appeals to expertise, eg government epidemiologists are "SAGEs" after their governing body!)[/hide] making unaccountable decisions.
Seems that way? Why are you so angry with "the left" @counterpunch? Does the current activist+Corbynite left zeitgeist of anti-racist, pro-trans, anti-sexist class struggle rhetoric make you feel excluded? Like the left's no longer "for you" since you're white?
Eccentric? Haha, that's for sure. I don't take the "cultural" diagnosis well either but kenosha kid is nonetheless being theatrical.
And what makes him racist, can you quote it for me, please?
Odd... what did you make of his misuse of statistics, as quoted? Seeing violence as a cultural trait of black people isn't a wee bit racist?
Hmm, I do see that as being racist, okay, I am not sure if this is enough to warrant kenosha kid's theatrics about it but it is totally unacceptable to blame "black culture" and "black people" for "black crime". I admit page 14 is pretty damning, @Kenosha Kid I may not have called you out if I read this properly, you are not being so unreasonable as I had thought. The way he talks about "white people" and "black people" bothers me a lot. Maybe I'll just sit out for now and make up my mind about this later.
Brett, KK has difficulties answering tough, direct questions. Dont expect any substantive answers from them.
Its not wrong that if you question the existence of white privilege you get called a racist. That was the point of what you quoted. Your reply simply doesn't address what I said, but that is expected from you.
Quoting fdrake
The funny thing is that if Brett didn't use a racial slur but instead used terms like, "idiot", "moron", or even "shit-ass" or "fuck-face", he wouldn't have even given a second notice, because people think those names are OK to call people.
The fact is that not all blacks are offended by racial slurs, just like not everyone is offended by being called a "dumb-ass". So you are simply taking on yourself of speaking for others for which you dont know anything about, while at the same time generalizing all blacks as if they are all equally offended and interpret the word the same way.
Meh. Just not much interested in your posts.
Talking about race isn't necessarily racist in the context of other racial prejudice. If you believe racism is negligible, i.e. there is very little evidence to suggest that it exists, well, you're wrong, but at least in your view race arguably shouldn't be a topic. That is not counterpunch's reasoning. His version of racism is to deny that white-on-black racism is real when hundreds of thousands of black people have been enslaved, lynched, segregated, murdered, assaulted and marginalised by it, while on the other hand espousing alt-right propaganda that whites are being oppressed, along with males, straights and cis-gendered persons. The evidence for the existence of white-on-black racism is overwhelming. The evidence for white oppression is non-existent. In addition, he has characterised black people as intrinsically criminal, while bemoaning political parties for not exclusively representing white people.
Racism is very real and very solidly evidenced. It is also unambiguously evil. You say you hadn't read his many offending posts. Frankly I don't buy it. You completely misrepresented my argument from the start, while apparently insisting on a maximal evidential basis for pretty uncontroversial conclusions, a lower bar you cannot possibly insist on in any meaningful discussion.
You're defending someone who claimed that George Floyd cynically said "I can't breathe" because it was a BLM slogan and then you ask me for absolute proof that yet another white cop murdering a defenceless, handcuffed black man is evidence of racism. Sure, whoops, right?
Quoting Banno
I do, based on:
Quoting counterpunch
Legitimising a violent coup against a democratic government because his lot can't wrap their heads around why Trump was a turn-off is still legitimising a violent coup against a democratic government.
This brings to mind a more general question: I have often felt that when discussing with people who appeared honestly have a different opinion on social issues that the main disagreement was about what could reasonably be concluded from events. What happened was not in doubt, but what it means was.
So, do you think people you characzerize as "left wing", or who are engaged in "social justice" movements often have bad epistemological standards?
That is do you feel they're overinterpreting events? See intent with insufficient evidence? Conclude systemic issues exist based on anecdotal evidence?
More generally, do you feel like the "left wing" tries to make the world more complicated than it is - that things are more often what they appear, and common sense works? Or is it the opposite? Neither?
I did not talk in-depth about what I thought counterpunch was saying nor my opinions on the matter, you're getting ahead of yourself. I do not have a problem with people talking about race but I do have a problem with saying "race x should do this or needs to stop doing this" for a number of reasons. Mainly, it is ridiculous to hold a race of people accountable, no matter the subject matter. If we allow that then racism becomes justified.
I acknowledge systemic racism and I do not consider it to be negligible. I have talked about this topic many times in the past, you're free to read an example.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8482/does-systemic-racism-exist-in-the-us/p24
There's a lot on this site to show that I am neither soft on racism nor deny its existence.
If I misrepresent your argument and then immediately admit that I did and that I was wrong, why would you insist that I did it on purpose? What did I achieve besides showing that I sometimes misrepresent people, making me look bad and vindicating you immediately, what do I gain by doing that? Also, I just called the guy racist, not doing a very good job of defending him.
Honestly, I was biased against you due to previous posts, I thought I had read enough of this thread to know that you were being unreasonable. I admit I was wrong, his comments about the election fraud are also insane, I am surprised but I see now that your comments are way more justified than I had thought.
I couldn't find the original video with voter demographic breakdown, but I found one with Mark Blyth making largely the same point. (Edit: if you want a longer piece putting the UK's political disintegration and rise of the right alongside the US's, he's got lectures on that too).
Quoting Echarmion
I don't know, I think the left and the right rarely agree on what happened or what is happening. Seeing agreement on anything but moral platitudes like "racism is wrong" but then all similarities ending is what I expect. The main reason for that is that the news media, politicians and so on can be highly manipulative and seeing a totally different understanding of the world based on whether a person watches fox or cnn is to be expected.
Quoting Echarmion
I think that both the left and the right hold nuance in contempt and dislike it when things don't fit into their narratives. It's actually very difficult to know for instance, whether racism was involved in an act of police brutality but the left seems sure it's racism and the right are sure it's not racism. The further out you go, the more sure they are. Neither of them can actually prove anything and so it's a bit ridiculous.
Quoting Echarmion
I think ideologies, whether left or right-wing, are generally about oversimplification rather than over-complication. They take a certain way of looking at the world and force it into every conceivable context.
How is this relevant? Counterpunch is not a synecdoche for white people. Even the few people I've tussled with on here (Brett, BitcoinCarlos, NOS4A2) do not collectively constitute a synecdoche for white people. Speaking of which:
Quoting Judaka
I'm extremely consistent on this point, as are the likes of the above, the most common theme being that murdered black people somehow have it coming, the other being that black people are intrinsically criminal while criminal white people are exceptions, I.e. racist propaganda. So I'm wondering what you see is different about this one. Feel free to PM me if you think there's a point to be made here but don't want to drag it out here. I do take notes.
As for the rest, fine. I, at face value, take your post at face value.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Quoting counterpunch
Quoting Kenosha Kid
I don't think that above makes him a fascist. Note the "if". The question is that if elections would be fraudulent, naturally then the winner of the elections wouldn't be lawful. And of course if the elections aren't fraudulent, then this act of saying that they were is itself sedition, a thing that might be added there.
And note that those that have accused others of a fraud have been the leadership of the US administration itself. So technically it isn't a coup as a coup is defined as the removal of an existing government. The correct term is a Self-coup or autocoup. This happens when:
Quoting Kenosha Kid
They are my views on what counterpunch has said, specifically on page 14. It is not a criticism directed towards you. As I said, I am not going to defend him and I have no interest in speaking on his behalf.
It's strange how you can be so astute in some respects, and so purblind in others. I was raised in a working class household. I left school, worked in construction and demolition - and attended university as a mature student. I'm the first generation in my family to attend university. I studied sociology and politics. My major concerns upon graduating were not political or sociological - but philosophical and environmental.
Put simply, I discovered, humankind is headed for extinction - not because of capitalist greed, but because we have a mistaken relationship to science. Science is not just a tool; it's a means to establish valid knowledge of reality/Creation - and it's an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality. We are headed for extinction because we fail to understand this, and abuse science by applying it for ideological ends. That said, we cannot secure a sustainable future by tearing down the churches, banks and borders because "it's not true" - we have to get there from here!
Your left wing, anti-capitalist, pay more-have less, carbon tax this, stop that, windmills and solar panels idea of sustainability won't work. It's based on Malthusian pessimism - disproven by 200 years of improved living standards despite a growing population, and the lie of limits to growth. Resources, in fact, are a function of the energy available to create them - not some fixed quantity being used up, that might run out. To secure the future we need massive amounts of clean energy, sufficient to create the resources we need, by extracting carbon from the air and burying it, and desalinating water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation. We need improved living standards - not impoverishment imposed by left wing authoritarian government, not least because poor people tend to breed more.
The energy is available in the interior of the earth. Based on many years of practical construction/demolition experience - I believe it is possible to tap into that energy by drilling through hot volcanic rock, lining the bore hole with pipes and pumping water through, to produce steam to drive turbines, to produce massive, constant, clean, base load electricity. Given that energy, capitalism will be sustainable - and we can look forward to wealthy sustainable markets, and population levelling off at around 12bn people by the year 2100. Without that energy, we cannot secure the future.
It's for these reasons, as much as solidarity with my working class origins - that I point out the left's purblind insanities, Here we're talking about political correctness, but I'd rather be talking about sustainability. Biden's Green New Deal - Europe's Green New Deal, are based on appeasing the same brand of left wing emotional reasoning that informs political correctness. It's all "How dare you?" - and no regard for the facts. It's all self-righteous authoritarianism - and no physics.
The cost of this energy is still unknown so how well it can sustain capitalism and increased human population is unknown.
So is the solution to ban renting? Does that really make a lot of sense? You know that renting out part of the house can also make paying off a mortgage easier.
Same, but I went into STEM for statistics in the hope of becoming more employable. Not as a mature student though. When you grow up in a place where people leave a state school[hide=*] (it was under review for closing due to "under performance" twice when I was there)[/hide] expecting to be "on the dole" because there's no jobs anywhere nearby, you wanna get the fuck out if you at all can. The choices looked like "join the army and go to Afghanistan or Iraq" or be a student.
Quoting counterpunch
Thanks!
Quoting counterpunch
I think you're right to say that there are better technologies to use to provide green increases in living standards, interpreting it literally you're very wrong though; oil and its derivatives are finite. That's a major problem.
I really wish you'd voted for Corbyn. From their 2019 Manifesto:
And Bernie Sanders; another figurehead of the trend you're criticising; promised a similar but more restricted program.
The facts of the matter are green energy transitions are huge coordination problems and costly, government involvement is required to address both those things. Why are you so filled with vitriol against a trend which wants the same things as you - green democratising reform?
What Corbyn's Labour party (within a Party) fail to realise is that the Invisible Hand at the heart of capitalism is a miracle that affords personal and political freedom - while producing and distributing the goods and services people want and need, without authoritarian government deciding what is produced, and who gets what and when.
Without that magical coordination of the self interested economic decisions of people in a free market, all decision making is invested in government, and one aged, charismatic leader you worship like a God, or get de-platformed - often, quite literally. There's a reason Communism so often runs to genocide. There's a reason Communism always fails to produce the idealist, equalitarian plenty it aspires to at its birth. It's not what you want. We want much the same things. It's how you would aim to bring it about. Corbyn's left of Clause IV rhetoric gives me chills. Political correctness gives me chills. I see gulags in your future.
No one's going into Burns Nights and shutting them down for being white supremacist events promoting a pasty poet are they? Do me a favour will you, give me a list of events in which white men were deplatformed for being white men, You don't just get to list events there with your interpretation, you have to establish that white men are being deplatformed for being white men.
Try reading it properly:
Quoting Kenosha Kid
In short, either white privilege is real and denying it is denying its victims, or white privilege isn't real in which case we should see no evidence of it. Not sure how you're missing the connection here. If I live in a racist society, and I am advantaged by that, and I refute the existence of that racism, I am protecting a racist society, therefore am racist.
I do. Note the conclusions, and therefore his evaluation of the "if".
Quoting ssu
This is a substitution error. The subject was not people accusing other people of fraud, baseless or otherwise. The subject was violent insurrectionists attacking and killing police with the intent to attack and kill lawmakers.
No, the solution to a problem is not always to ban it. I don't actually think there is a solution, not one that reverses the damage anyway. Either we price most people out of the housing market to be exploited by landlords charging exorbitant rents, or we act to reverse the housing price rise and effectively sink the value of private property. It's lose-lose, which is why it should have been regulated ages ago.
Effectively making housing an investment opportunity meant naturally drawing those with capital to snap it up in large quantities and drive up its price. Housing should not be about making money: it's a basic necessity.
The worst part about engaging in good faith with people like yourself is that I actually have to fucking check your sources just in case what you're saying is right. All that to avoid filterbubbling myself.
Here's the dialogue, and yes I transcribed it:
Rachel Boyle: "The problem we've got with this is that Megan has agreed to be Harry's wife and then the press have torn her to pieces. And let's be really clear about what this is, let's call it by its name, it's racism. She's a black woman and she has been torn to pieces"
Lawrence Fox interrupts: "No it's not, we're the most tolerant lovely country in Europe, you can't just throw the charge of racism at everybody, it's really starting to get boring now..."
Rachel Boyle: "The worst thing about your comment is that you are a white privileged male"
Lawrence Fox interrupts, groaning, the audience joins in, some applaud: "Ohhh god, I can't help what I am. I was born like this it's an immutable characteristic, so to call me a white privileged male is to be racist"
Rachel Boyle: "You cannot dismiss..."
The Question time hosts then interrupt her again and move segment.
If you look at it in context, the reason Boyle invoked the concept of "white privilege" was because Fox was hostilely dismissive of the claim that the reason the press tore Megan to shreds for marrying Harry had anything to do with her skin colour. If you look at it, privilege is invoked quite precisely as being informative of Fox's perspective which he expressed in the statement, and his hostile, groaning dismissal of the very idea that the British tabloids went apeshit on Harry and Megan in a racially loaded manner. It was actually Fox who interpreted the claim as "shut up because you're white" and acted thusly. Boyle's comments were regarding press coverage.
Considering that the role racism played in how tabloids treated Megan had some evidence for it, it shouldn't've been dismissed outright, and certainly not in Fox's hyperbolic and posturing tone. He head-desked at the very idea that being white in the UK doesn't get you exposed to racism much and thus your perspective may not have a good barometer for racism's presence and extent.
I think you've been living in a filterbubble.
And even if Boyle did want Fox to respond to an accusation of white privilege on a news platform, that already disqualifies it from being a deplatforming event. Unless, of course, you think a charged discussion on a national news platform is deplatforming...
Certainly not by Fox full stop. His privilege goes so far beyond his whiteness that his touted authority on ground level Britain ("the most tolerant lovely country in Europe") is quite ridiculous. I'm quite sure Fox's upbringing was lovely and tolerant. And white as snow. But that says nothing about Britain.
Yes. It is quite ridiculous that a scholar of ethnicity and culture in the UK's opinion on whether racism is implicated in an event is dismissed as deplatforming and racism, whereas Fox interrupting her, accusing her of racism and the show itself changing segment was not.
Regardless, the idea that a dialogue between two people on a major news platform is taken as an instance of deplatforming is just nuts. No one was denied access to a venue, and the only person who was interrupted (repeatedly) was Boyle.
You increase fairness by expanding access and opportunity. Redistribution does not work. People have to do it (succeed) themselves in order for it to be sustainable.
But what do you have against homeowners building equity in their property and gaining wealth through that? That's not only for the upper class, the middle class does it too. Why are you against wealth creation? I know leftists might like it if everyone is poor but equal, but most people don't.
But how can our own sense of superiority be damaging?
Can you explain, other than on the example of the Nazis?
You mention the Nazis. On the other hand, take parents, teachers, or doctors who routinely consider themselves superior to children/students/patients; without doing so, they couldn't do their job or fulfill their roles.
Yes, but it later comes out that they believe they are superior, even though they are reluctant to openly admit it.
Actually, it seems this is the only viable path for judging/assessing others: to start with the position that one is superior to them. How else is one's judgment/assesment of others supposed to be relevant?
A psychologist deems himself superior to other people, at least to his patients.
BLM seems to be a Marxist political group with their own agenda and they have every right to that. Hey, Marx was a brilliant economist (but he unleashed one of the great social horrors in history). I have no problem with that until they start advocating violence and believe that terrorizing people is an acceptable MO.
Quoting Banno
That's old news and is a completely different subject. The U.S. is basically a police-state in many ways. These are complex problems with many layers and you just can't say, "Look at that problem, obviously everybody is racist."
In order for the black community to move on, they are going to have to take responsibility for a lot of it. And so will the politicians who thought that creating a welfare state would do anything but end-up as it always does, creating massive dependency (three generations now).
There are ways to fix these problems but its going to take a lot of effort from all involved. The Democratic politicians (on the whole) that have been presiding over these ravaged areas could care less. Go visit the slums of Chicago or Baltimore or Philadelphia and see for yourself.
In other words, your opinion has no validity because you're white. Which is exactly what I said the concept of white privilege achieves - de-platforming white people based solely on skin colour!
I don't know if the tabloids attacked Meghan, or if they did, why they did so. I don't read tabloid newspapers. But I doubt it was racism. The tabloids may have been critical of Meghan - after all, from what little I know, she refused to play the princess. But Rachel Boyle is imparting a motive for that criticism, saying it's motivated by racism. That's a matter of opinion. Fox disagrees, he doesn't believe it's motivated by racism, and he gets told, in essence, your opinion has no validity because you're white.
You wanted examples:
Quoting fdrake
- you got one. And what do you do with it? You agree that he's a white privileged male and that his opinion has no legitimacy, and then say in the same fucking breath, that that doesn't happen.
Quoting fdrake
It does happen. You're doing it right here. How can you deny it?
Quoting fdrake
I don't understand this passage. I assure you I am neither dishonest nor stupid. I am engaging in good faith. I don't tell lies, and nor am I blinkered by prejudice - like you are. Also, what the fuck is a filterbubble? I think I get it from context, but I'd rather you spare me the lefty buzzwords and use plain English if it's all the same to you!
This would be like having an organisation fight against heart disease by pointing out the few times that cardiac surgeons made mistakes doing complex procedures. Yes, its a small part of the problem (patients dying from cardiac disease) but its nothing compared to all the other factors (plus its only going to enrage the vast majority of cardiologists that are busting their asses to save lives).
Obviously there are problems everywhere and you could probably find some among the very best in any human endeavor, but does it make sense to alienate the very people who can fix the problems you seems so concerned about? I suppose their intention was to get a lot of attention, but I am not sure they could have done anything more to marginalize their own case. After all, the number of white people out there who buy into this self-hatred thing must be waning fast.
Despite your animation, redistribution is a temporary solution (at best, and a poor one at that).
Nearly Half Of Democrats Think The 2016 Election Was ‘Rigged’
NOVEMBER 18, 2016 By Sean Davis
Nearly half of Democrats think the 2016 presidential election was “rigged,” according to a new poll released this week by YouGov. The poll found that a whopping 42 percent of Democrats believe the election was rigged. Only 58 percent of Democrats responded that Donald Trump was “legitimately” elected on Nov. 8.
https://thefederalist.com/2016/11/18/nearly-half-democrats-think-election-rigged/
Yet somehow, in 2020 - it's all proper and above board. I don't know what the truth of the matter is, but I know this, the Democrats started it. We can deduce from this fact that either the Democrats were lying in 2016 - or that now, they don't care that the election was a fraud because they won. So, which is it? Or maybe, it's that Trump - fixed the electoral process, and then, with typical modesty, declined to take credit for it??
Don't you see any dangers in a sense of superiority? Of course, I would guess that it does depend on how you understand the idea of superior and my own working definition is of is of being intrinsically better.
You speak of a parent's role. In that role, the parent is in the position of having greater experience since he or she has lived longer. However, that is best seen of a transitional state, probably to the point where a child reaches adulthood because we would not always see older people as having more knowledge. Of course, that is not to dismiss the wisdom of older people , who were revered as elders in more traditional societies.
Nevertheless, the point which I feel that you are missing is that a sense of superiority can be a way of putting others down. It may bolster the ego but it is an aspect of power dynamics and I would say that it lies at the heart of oppression.
Yet I was referring to Trump here. The guy who talked of an "the egregious assault on democracy" and was going to walk down with them to the Capitol and was saying that "you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated".
And if Trump's autocoup would have been successful?
So what if the Electoral voting count on January 6th would have been stopped, the votes (as Trump wished) would have sent to be re-certified to the states and a committee (that was actually suggested) would have been formed to inspect the "widespread election fraud", perhaps lead by Rudy Giuliani, and for the time being that the committee works (perhaps 6 to 12 months or more) the current Trump administration would have continued for the time being despite what Article II the Constitution says? Perhaps Biden and the democratic leadership would be put into house arrest, into pretrial detention?
How terrible insurrectionists would be those violently protesting the events then?
(This is of course quite hypothetical as Trump simply is so inept leader that he couldn't manage to stage a successful autocoup, but still just shows logic behind those who believe the falsehoods said to them over and over.)
I've already said: it prices the next generation out of the housing market.
Yet I remember Hillary Clinton accepting the outcome.
Yes, that elections have been manipulated has been a long lasting topic in the US. But again here it's the way that Trump far over the top than anyone other had done before him. As I wrote earlier, the culture of vitriolic accusations to motivate your base has been for long the basic problem in US politics. And since there is no possibility of the two ruling parties having to have coalition parties, the discourse can be as hostile as it has been.
The housing market is always going to price out some part of the population, it's just a matter of how big that part it. Even if prices were dirt cheap some still won't be able to afford it, and those with the houses won't be able to accumulate wealth through their homes. I get what you're saying though - it is what it is.
Yes, I dig that you're drawing me into a different point. But it has so little to do with mine that it can't stand as a refutation of it. Violent insurrectionists wanting to overthrow democracy to install an unelected populist figure ticks a large number of fascist boxes.
Quoting ssu
Sorry, do you mean the the insurrectionists who do exist who attempted to overthrow democracy, or some hypothetical insurrectionists who attempt to reinstate it? If the former, very. If the latter, not at all. America is a constitutionally democratic country. A fascist dictatorship would be an internal enemy.
Yes, that is the matter. When home ownership becomes elitist, that's a problem.
Despite conceding the election, she spent the next four years saying that he was not the legitimate president.
Bottom-line...it's politics, they all (99.9% of them 99.9% of the time) lie.
Everybody is on their own as the political system is not going to save anyone. It is and has always been a system designed by the few for the benefit of the few. Make your own way the best you can by seizing what opportunities exist. And help those to see what they must do the best you can.
Ok but in a sense it could just always be elitist, it's just a matter of how much elitism we're talking. The homeless guy isn't going to be able to afford even a $400 down payment and could call those who could "the elites." It's all relative.
No it hasn't. Gerrymandering aside, there was up until 2016 - a general belief in the integrity of the process and a tradition of coming together after elections. A widespread belief that the election was rigged, and howls of "not my president" after an election is something Democrats cooked up in 2016, and now, blame Trump supporters for believing.
I'll say it again, I don't know if the election was a fraud. But it seems to me profoundly unjust to hound people, disgrace and prosecute them - for seeking to defend democracy from what they had been told by both sides, was a flawed and fraudulent process. The Dems can't wash their hands of what they instigated, in the blood of patriots.
By definition an elite can't be all that inclusive. It can't, for instance, simply be a large minority.
Irrespective, I am very comfortable in salary and savings and feel lucky to just bought a house again. The equivalent of me in 10 years with my financial status adjusted for inflation will not afford it. Me twenty years ago on a starter's salary and a few grand in the bank bought a house effortlessly. So the issue is that home ownership is becoming increasingly elitist, however large you allow an elite to be.
A very telling answer from you.
I don't aim to be obscure, so... thanks!
The year 2000 elections with Bush vs Gore going to the courts far too distant in history for you to remember?
But noone succeeds all by themselves, do they? They all rely on good parenting, education, opportunity afforded by outside sources.
People can make more or less out of what they're given, but no-one is an island.
Quoting counterpunch
Do you mean a literal miracle, i.e. an act of God? Do you consider the literal hand of God to be involved in the market?
— counterpunch
Quoting Echarmion
No. I don't suggest there's anything supernatural going on, but it's strange and wonderful how the rationally self interested actions of individuals conspire to produce and distribute the goods and services people want and need without any over-arching authority. Adam Smith described it as an invisible hand. It would be madness of the highest order to dispense with it.
Danger for whom? The superior person?
Two things:
1. Who gets to be the arbiter of which person is intrinsically better than some other person?
2. Would you say you're intrinsically better than, say, Hitler?
That is the whole point of superiority. There is no reason to think that a sense of superiority is not evolutionarily advantageous. Life is a struggle for survival, and in that struggle, deeming oneself superior to others is advantageous to one's survival.
Deeming oneself inferior - intrinsically inferior - is a recipe for failure.
I am not advocating a sense of inferiority. I do believe in aiming for one's best and I do not equate superiority with ability My point about the problem of a sense of superiority is more the way in which pride can go wrong and be about power over others. But I do believe in empowerment and certainly not false humility.
What I am talking about is superiority and the dark shadow it casts. I believe that everyone is equal in worth and value. I would argue that this is the basis for opposing oppression which has its roots in people ranking themselves as superior.
I never encourage collective guilt feelings or collective self-hatred. It's tedious; it's unproductive; sometimes it is pretentiously faked. Individuals ought to feel guilt for acts they have committed with malice and forethought. I don't feel guilty when white police kill blacks. It might have been just plain murder, and if so the officer should be punished. Or it might have been accidental; inadvertent; not intended. Investigations can sort it out. Consequences should follow.
We can, we should, we must understand how our history unfolded. Not just our personal history; but our national history. From at least a general understanding we should see some large trends that have been at work for a long time. No one should feel guilty about the epidemics which resulted from Columbus's search for a westward route to Asia. No one should feel guilty about British colonialism. No one should feel guilty about slavery. Or the industrial revolution. Or the millions of Native Americans' deaths caused by American westward expansion. We were not there.
I recommend reading about the urban history of the US, not so that people can find more reasons for self hatred or collective guilt, but for an understanding of how it unfolded, how we got to where we are. Once understanding is obtained, one will see how difficult it will be to undo the past.
If an individual is working to harm other people, they have reason to feel guilty, and they should stop doing it. There are plenty of crooks out there, some on street corners, some in elegant office suites.
What is this belief based on?
Certainly not facts.
Then what about the evolutionary struggle for survival? Do you just dismiss it?
Of course, that's why it soooo important to have a family and community (education) supporting you. The number one predictor of success is successful parents. The black community is amazing so when they do figure out what needs to be done, I believe they will leave the white and Asian folks in the dust.
You must instill the necessity to be focused and work hard in order to succeed, i.e., to have meaningful success (as opposed to being, say, a trust-fund individual). There is a significant percentage of the black community that are already there, so it's just a matter of time before the rest are pulled-up, but it is the black community that will do the pulling.
And Adam Smith was referring to God. He was a religious person, and it's not exactly subtle.
Quoting counterpunch
The thing is, though, that there has always been an over-arching authority since capitalism began. Capitalism developed under historically strong states.
I just wonder why you'd be against helping them? Like we can disagree on the right approach, but certainly there is something that can be done.
We've been through all this in this country. People who went to school (when you actually learned something, say, people over 50) know the history. We were all taught and understand. Many of us saw what happened during the civil rights era and get it. And things have changed drastically.
What society decided to do is move on from the past and make a better future. It is only younger people taught by Marxist holdouts in universities that seem to want to go back and dredge all this up again. The past is past. It's time to resume the moving on and making a better future.
Calling people who had nothing to do with what went on over the last four hundred years, racists, is just plain wrong. I believe that the majority of black people agree with this outlook. Should the Germans still be paying for the atrocities of WWII or the Russians, or every other groups that's behaved poorly?
The lesson in life that people must learn is that you ALWAYS keeping moving forward. Attaching to the past is what suffering is.
I can assure you this has a long tradition in the US.
Here's a short introduction to various elections that have been disputed: A history of contested presidential elections, from Samuel Tilden to Al Gore
And one article after Al Gore (from 2006) about the 2004 elections: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?
What was unique for Trump was that he didn't accept at all the results or that he lost ...until after January 6th.
It seems quite consistent to be in support of some violent insurrections and not in support of others. Neither the violence nor the insurrection parts of it are inherently wrong, it's a matter of how it's done, why it's done, and what're the consequences.
To be clear; if the context was something like a group of extremely pissed off people impoverished during COVID nonlethally disrupting the process that kept blocking their stimulus checks, that's at the very least defensible and understandable. A violent attempt to overturn an election result whose fairness held up to extreme bipartisan scrutiny in that court system is definitely not defensible. What is justified to believe about the situation matters.
There's a book written by a black gentleman titled, "Stop Helping Us," or something to that effect. He can explain it better than I, but the gist is that the "helping" needs to be in the providing of opportunity, not handouts. Each person has to do the work themselves. Didn't you? The support must come from their parents and their communities, or it won't work.
Black individuals will have success the same as any other group once they fix their families and communities and make success a priority. It's that simple.
Black people are great and I don't know anybody who thinks differently. Really.
We really talking 'bout the Royals now? In a philosophy forum?
Well, I don;t see anything that links them to Marx; although doubtless some BLM supporters are Marxist, being a Marxist is not on the prerequisite... So I;m going out on a limb and saying that it might seem so to you, but you would be wrong.
Show some evidence. Quoting synthesis
I didn't. Quoting synthesis
...like it does here, and in Europe? Could it be you're doing it wrong?
Hence discretion, reasoning and knowledge is important. Many don't have that.
Especially thanks to the fact that people can create their alternate reality echo chamber and join their others, and politicians are willing to go along with the wild narrative, this can lead to mass hysteria that enforces false reality. This can become a real problem. I've heard it myself in 2019: a Republican member of the House giving a speech (to an empty chamber) on what a threat the FBI poses on the US people. It was then absurd as it is now, even if Washington DC was peaceful and beautiful back then. This is the consequence of the rhetoric.
Usually it's not so. The classical terrorist cell is a group which works like a cult. Hence terrorists can be totally estranged from reality. I remember an interview of an old German leftist activist, who had debated Baader-Meinhof gang (or Red Army Fraction, 1970-1998) members, who believed literally that they were living in Nazi Germany. The activist tried to convice them that post-WW2 West Germany isn't the Third Reich or the continuation of the Third Reich, but to no, the terrorists had made up their minds.
Yet once that thinking starts to spread from a small cult to mainstream, then you have a problem. And even if there is now a media frenzy about it, it is understandable that if a person totally believes in what Trump says (and the other politicians for example in the Stop the steal rally on January 6th) then it's on to Capitol Hill to "protect the Constitution". Understanding that doesn't mean you accept of support that, but gives a better picture of how dangerous the situation is.
— counterpunch
Quoting Echarmion
Adam Smith? Wealth of Nations? 1776? Thought God was producing and distributing goods and services? Did he? If you say so dude! I thought he thought it was the rationally self interest economic decisions of individuals in a free market. But God, you say? Well I never!
Quoting Echarmion
It's fascinating that you would comment on something you don't understand at all. The distinction here is between a capitalist economy and a communist economy. In a capitalist economy, people are free to own things, and employ their capital as they see fit. "It is not by the goodwill of the butcher or baker that I have my supper, but by their regard to their own self interest." It's distributed economic decision making - and as if by an invisible hand, the self interested actions of individuals conspire to produce the goods and services people want and need.
In a communist, command economy - people are not free to own things. The state owns everything, and plans economic production. A centralised authority making decisions about what to produce and how goods are distributed. Consequently, communists can't allow people freedom. People must do what they're told, because they too are factors of production. You must do the job you're assigned, not one you would choose. People cannot have freedom of political opinion, or freedom of speech. There is one party, it owns everything and tolerates no opposition - because the state is responsible for production. Communism has never worked. It is responsible for genocides in Russia and China, ten times worse than Hitler.
You seem to be opposed to seeing any problems with the idea of superiority, and my view of seeing people as being of equal worth and value. You do point to the evolutionary importance of superiority. However, I am wondering what system of society you are advocating, in terms of ranking according to certain measures of superiority. Would you be wishing to maintain the status quo or challenge power dynamics?
My point about superiority took place within a discussion about political correctness. However, all discussions gets broken up in this long thread. But, bearing in mind that the conversation took place originally in that context I am wondering what are your views on the importance of equality?
Third time I've asked - are we looking at Parler refugees?
@counterpunch
@synthesis
Both joined in the last week, no interest in general philosophy, only posting to the political threads.
BLM: Timeline of notable events and demonstrations in the United States
No.
Quoting counterpunch
I don't.
Quoting counterpunch
It makes no sense to refer to the rational self-intetested decisions of individuals as an "invisible hand". They're not invisible, for one. Nor would it occur to anyone to describe the individuals making up the whole as the "hand leading it".
Also the actual quote is this:
Note that it says "as in many other cases", so it does not sound as if we're talking about something that's only relevant to markets.
Quoting counterpunch
It's fascinating that you would write two paragraphs that have nothing to do with what I wrote.
I'd stick to Umberto Eco's 14 points for using that word.
I've a little speech I use to explain to kids why they shouldn't use the word "Fuck" unthinkingly. There are some words that have great power - they grab attention. You don't hear folk in authority - I use parents, teachers, doctors as the example - using "fuck"; it doesn't happen. But imagine if it did. Then they would have your attention. That's the power of the word; choose when to use it with care.
Question: How many Marxists do you think there are? (Marxist = have read at least his shorter writings and understand them; apply at least some Marxist principles like class conflict, surplus value... to contemporary problems.) Anyone can claim to be a Marxist, a leftist, anti-fascist, revolutionary, or anything else, without actually being such a thing. After selling Marxism for over 10 years (while working in a Marxist organization), we found interested buyers to be few and far between.
Substituting identity conflict for class conflict is not, in my humble opinion, proper Marxist practice. Any number of affinity groups have reason to work for their own advancement. but there's nothing inherently Marxist about that. As a group, black people have good reasons to engage in community based political activity. They don't need Uncle Karl to justify themselves
Left wing philosophies are utterly incoherent, by which I mean subjectivism, critical theory, post-modernism and neo marxism. If you want to discuss any of these, or indeed, my own philosophy - which is objectivist, evolutionary, structuralist, moral realist, capitalist - and intended to secure a sustainable future - I'll be only too happy to oblige you.
Quoting counterpunch
...Zuckerberg? Bezos? You sure?
Quoting Echarmion
Just trying to help!
edit: correction - apparently Amazon provided "the online tools to run the app" - but it was amazon, google and apple together, that stuck the knife in. Not facebook.
Well, there is a reason just why the debate is on political threads...
Of course you can ask, but likely they won't answer.
Would give some probability, but not anywhere close to 1.
Not so sure you are being consistent here.
Someone posted a list of from a study of common fascist characteristics more from the supporter's point of view and now I can't find the damn thing, but in short: believing that your party has some kind of destiny; believing there is a dark but unevidenced conspiracy at play thwarting that destiny; believing that the same justifies any action, no matter how illegal or immoral, which is where counterpunch comes in.
Love Eco though. The Prague Cemetery is woefully underrated.
Given that political correctness is a dictatorial dogma, yes, I think Amazon and Google and everyone else, should refuse to tolerate intolerant left wing, political correctness bigots and bullies, and insist on human rights like freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and freedom of expression.
Quoting Banno
They can act as they see fit, but they won't have my business.
Quoting Banno
There is; and it will if people abandon google/apple/amazon in significant numbers, they'll suffer economically.
Sounding more plausible to me.
Maybe add @Rafaella Leon to the list too.
Thank you so much!
...joined two moths ago; @Brett was also considered, a member from two years back who increased his activity markedly just before being banned.
Point well taken. There are very few serious "anythings" out there.
People should take the time to read his work. Truly a brilliant economist.
Quoting Bitter Crank
No doubt. Identity politics is a dead-end if ever there was one.
Marx takes the bulb out of the package, Trotsky unscrews the old bulb and then Stalin kills everyone so they won't need a lightbulb.
Thanks. Not enough Marx Jox around. I'll add that to my "Pretty Good Joke Book".
Quoting Bitter Crank
The history of all hitherto existing Marx jox has been censored by neo marxists as politically incorrect!
Unless everyone gets them.
I looked up Marxist jokes with Google and the first couple dozen I looked at were terrible. The best ones almost made me smile, slightly.
this one is a little better. The state of Marxist human is a joke!
In The German Ideology (1845-46) Marx wrote about the end of the division of labor which would enable: “in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.“
How's that for a Marxist joke?
Tragically, I haven't heard any good jokes lately, about anything. Even The New Yorker Cartoon Department is losing its edge. Great humor has to have an edge, a little barbed wire, a little shock. Jokes approved for all audiences are like children's movies. They're baby food.
Once there are no good jokes, the world might as well come to an end.
How do you expand access and opportunity?
Quoting synthesis
Redistribution of access and opportunity does not work?
Quoting synthesis
People have to expand their own access and opportunity? - How?
Good luck avoiding sites that don't run on AWS.
I think the influx has brought latent/suppressed qualities out in a few people.
Very astute. I couldn't agree more. To secure the future we have to improve living standards, because poor people breed more - so Marxists would have to share ever less production between ever more people. How would that work? Dictatorial government fencing off unused resources from the starving masses, because of some supposed environmental carrying capacity? The have less-pay more, carbon tax this, stop that approach assumes failure - and merely seeks to eek out our existence, until they pluck up the authoritarian courage for another commie brand genocide.
Fortunately, in reality, resources are a function of the energy available to create them, and there's more energy than we could ever put a dent in, inside the earth. The way to beat the climate change roadblock is pedal to the metal - magma power, carbon extraction and sequestration, hydrogen fuel, desalination and irrigation - spend massive amounts of energy to build a sustainable and prosperous world.
I only need a few billion to get started. Five years I'll have a working facility, producing energy from magma. I'd supply big industrial energy users first - cement, steel, aluminium. Then I'd get into shipping, to deliver energy as hydrogen, to be burnt in traditional power stations. Then I'd go into desalination and irrigation - and I've always been interested in aquaculture. We shouldn't be hunting the oceans, there's too many of us. We need to farm fish. Then, total recycling. Given enough energy landfills are a gold mine. I could sort all this out, and turn a handsome profit doing so.
I remind you once again what sort of things were discussed at Parler, which includes discussions to assasinate politicians, protesters and journalists and threats to violently disrupt the inauguration of Biden. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/488033
And you think that's PC gone wild? Because we really need to give people promoting violence the ability to reach thousands of likeminded idiots?
Which brings me back to this: In that respect you still haven't answered my questions. And you think that's PC gone wild? Because we really need to give people promoting violence the ability to reach thousands of likeminded idiots?
Sure, because you know that a reasonable exchange between us ends up with you looking to fool.
But you are interested in accusing me if being companions with someone, who I spoke to once, that was banned for using racial slurs, without reading my posts?
Everytime you respond to me, you end up looking biased and stupid.
(What was that about?)
If you live in a racist society, you're a racist. Duh! Everything else you said is totally irrelevant. Do you live in a racist society, KK? If all of society were racist, then you wouldn't have black presidents, vice-presidents, judges, and congressmen. So what society you're talking about could only be one that exists in your head.
Anyways. I'm not interested in "winning", like you. You think this is a game, obviously. I'm simply interested in having a intellectually honest conversation, but you don't seem to understand the concept.
BLM never called for violence. They did their best to quell it.
Except for the violence at the marches, and the rioting, and the arson, etc. I suppose those instances of violence were "politically relevant" and therefore...not violent somehow? I will not say I am deeply versed in the Black Lives Matter movement (All lives matter equally. Which means someone will say I am racist because I believe in equality of people.) however, from a distance, a movement which espouses the injustices done against it, protests those injustices, in the form of social justice, media response, marches and rioting...is it BLM or Trump VS the election? Because from the outside....pretty similar responses by those "wronged".
Which violence promoting group are we speaking of? radical left, radical right, radically angry?
And not everyone at the Capitol was rioting. The fact that people can make these distinctions for one side and not the other is just more evidence of the propaganda bubbles that they live in.
But then, the Boston Tea Party was branded a riot at the time - the American and French revolutions began with riots. One man's terrorist is another man's martyr. This is the subjective nature of ethics/politics. This is why we need more level heads, that aren't emotionally invested in their assertions, and aren't trying to speak for others that they don't know, to have a reasonable discussion.
A simple solution would be to abolish political parties. That would ease the division between us, but division is what the Dems and Reps need to stay viable. So it is no surprise that they are the ones stoking that division and then people like KK, Banno and Michael are just a few of the pawns in their game. A truly woke person is one that realizes they've been a pawn and refuses to be one any longer.
Or if we put it in the indivualistic, capitalist terms of freedom of choice, if I run Amazon and I disagree with those views, why should I continue to provide services to it?
The laissez-faire capitalist, unlimited freedom of speech right wingers can't have it both. If we can vote and speak with our dollars and if that means you can't talk about assassinations anymore, you haven't been censored because you can start your own hosting company, own chat program etc. etc.
But that way lies the total disintegration of society.
I sincerely believe that to burst those echo bubbles, the only way forward is to demand interoperabililty between all messenger apps and social networks. Enforce a standard communication protocol so that if I post something on twitter it can be picked up and shared everywhere directly - so someone using facebook can directly subscribe to my Twitter feed and have it show up there. And then prohibit all the targeted ads, news and videos so that whatever is just trending on every social network taken together is visible and not that the only shit you get shovelled looks like the shit you looked at 5 seconds ago.
BLM never called for violence.
Sure, yet that's a bit problematic. Especially "their best to quell it" part.
For starters, If they would have a clearer organization with a far more active leadership, they could argue that they are in charge of BLM. Yet I think they wisely understand that it's not the way to go: if the leadership would take central stage, go on a media circus, they would likely just start to annoy people. Now there's a) those who call themselves as official BLM b) those who support BLM, but don't have links to a) and c) those who loosely support basically agenda. All actors a), b) and c) are viewed as BLM. And I guess many that actually aren't.
How many know Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi?
These times organizations or movements, just like the militant Trumpists, start from denying having any involvement in anything that would make them look bad. The 'direct action' wings are always kept separately. The right-wing extremists have perfected with the "lone nut" terrorist: the terrorist that takes great care that he cannot be linked to organizations that he supports (like being an official member etc.), which simply would mean that the organization would be disbanded as a terrorist organization. Even the FBI has said that this is the modus operandi.
So things happen like this: BLM later denies that they have anything to do with those branches of BLM that do make stupid comments, like one founder of Greater Branch of New York BLM, Mr Newsome:
There can be different interpretation of facts but when people believe lies despite the availability of facts to the contrary there is no subjective nature to discuss.
That said, assertions how other people are pawns is being emotionally invested in your own assertions as well. So by pretending you're above it all, you just demonstrate you're completely in the same game as those you tell yourselves it's ok to ignore.
A truly woke person realizes their pawnship and navigates within that role to peace, joy, and a fern garden with lots of moss and a little buddha statue at the end of the path that leads from the rock garden in a world where the weather has become the water feature due to el nino.
What were we talking about?
That is not what I wrote.
It's not about denying comments. During the Floyd marches they did their best to quell violence.
Canada?
Shout out to the Great White North
Ok.
And what was their best? This is a sincere question, because I didn't notice that in media at the time. If you have links, I'd be happy about that. This is simply something that I don't know.
I don't think those three women have power over those who go to a BLM demonstration.
I'll look for it.
I notice among my age peers (40+) that they're trying to downsize on all the social networks, phone time etc. anyway. I suspect for kids growing up with this the novelty will wear off even sooner.
Interestingly, as my 70-year old former lefty mother has become increasingly right-wing, she's embraced social media more and more.
On reddit there's a thread entitled 'free speech' and people visit that thread and post vile, violent, absurd, sweary, scary things to try and get them removed by the mods, so that then they can say "Ah, ha - I knew you didn't believe in free speech." Until, or unless you can show that there were credible threats emerging from Parler, I don't see any reason to shut it down. I think it unlikely, credible threats would be discussed on an internet notice board, and this is just people - either testing the limits of free speech, or blowing off steam. If there were credible threats, where are the arrests of these potential terrorists? No, this is closing down right wing spaces - in accord with the left wing, politically correct, cancel culture playbook.
They also have other echo chambers and propaganda sites, like Gab (gab·com) and Turning Point USA (tpusa·com).
I'm sure their user-bases have gone up recently.
I think the former is hosted by Azure. The latter is transparently McCarthyism.
Anyway, seems likely at the moment that they'll find other (Presidential) candidates down the line.
You think it unlikely and yet it appears to have happened.
https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20454504-eduard-florea-case
We'll probably see more of it over time now that Parler is working with the FBI to provide information on its users. It isn't known if people, who have been arrested through other methods of identification, have been users of Parler and what they posted there. Investigations take time, which answers your "where are the arrests? "; they're under way and not necessarily being identified through Parler data.
The idea that these people are just innocently testing the limits of free speech or blowing off steam is a curious interpretation of calling for assassinations and violence.
This is blowing off steam:
Jesus Fucking Christ I can't FUCKING UNDERSTAND why people can be so fucking dumb and stupid. All politicians should go to hell and fuck of and die.
This isn't:
On January xxx we need to start systematicly assasinating #liberal leaders, liberal activists, #blm leaders and supporters, members of #nba #nfl #mlb # mainstreammedia anchors and correspondents. I already have a news worthy event planned.
The fact you can't or won't tell the difference worries me.
Page 3 - top, reads:
"although evidence gathered in this investigation to date indicates that Eduard Florea did not ultimately travel to Washington DC on that date"
This is just some idiot, spouting off on the internet, trying to stir up shit. It wouldn't surprise me at all to discover he was actually a lefty. In the event, police busted his house and found ammunition he wasn't allowed to have because of a previous felony charge - but no weapons. This person is not a credible threat. He's a sad case. Probably mentally ill.
I think nearly everybody has a tendency to have an extremely short-term outlook these days (for lots of obvious reasons), but the so-called "invisible hand" could be considered karmic in nature. In any case, everything works out in the end one way or another.
It's hard to imagine the West would go from a several hundred year philosophical history of tolerance in nearly all things (particularly speech) to an intolerant fascist (corporatist) one almost overnight. The right to free speech was taught as the foundation of freedom as we know it in the U.S. .
I believe what the tech monopolies have done is furthered along the conversation for regulation because there must be enough people in power who understand that the pendulum doth swingest back, and when it does, retribution will most likely be the first order of the day.
There is no doubt that this came from the left and this will be its undoing.
I agree that the average forum member leans centre or left. With that said, why exactly is that a problem? Nobody is censoring discussion here. If you wanted to make a post about the failings of progressivism in the US or elsewhere, you're free to do so.
I am not a member of BLM, and haven't supported them. BUT... Hey, Book:
The rioting of last summer (following G Floyd's death) began less than a mile from where I live. I observed how it started. There was a mix of people demonstrating at the Third Precinct station at 6:30 pm. The mix was black, white, hispanic; mostly young people; some BLM signs and T-shirts, but not the majority. A lot of the graffiti, speeches, and yelling was hate-the-police stuff. The unorganized crowd of locals was winding itself up. Within two hours a small group (maybe 15) started breaking into the Third Precinct building and starting fires inside. Meanwhile, some fires were being started in nearby buildings. Much of this action was photographed, much of it streamed by Unicorn Video. The arsonists at work turned out to be white guys from outstate or suburban Minnesota. They were not members or associates of BLM.
By 11:00 p.m. there were a number of large fires burning around Minneapolis and lots of looting by locals. At 1:00 a.m. I observed several white people looting a Walgreens 3 blocks from my house, then the building was torched.
In the days that followed, BLM mounted several very large demonstrations and marches that were orderly and without violent acts. Yes there were arrests for curfew violations, blocking freeways, and the like. There was, I suspect, some looting by demonstrators after the late-night march had come to an end and participants had scattered.
Big demonstrations are usually composed of people on a continuum of volatility. Most of the people are in the middle (not very volatile) but there is usually a small portion that once aroused become reckless. This is true for any kind of demonstration.
"truly woke" sounds very squishy and disgusting.
Free enterprise is a marvellous thing. The invisible hand at work.
I watch a number of markets (stocks, bonds, gold) daily just in the course of updating my daily financial records (my retirement account is invested in index funds of all three of those), and an interesting thing that I've noticed during the course of this year, where I've also been watching political news more closely than usual, is that the markets respond positively whenever there is news of financial relief or other generally good news for common people, and negatively when there is bad news about the same topics (e.g. stimulus bill talks fall through again).
It's almost as if the people with their actual money on the line, on average at least, realize that a healthy flourishing society is good for business.
See also: insurance companies raising rates in low-lying coastal areas as evidence for the reality of climate change. Just follow the money, because smart money isn't ideological, and ideologues and their money are (eventually, not soon enough) parted. (We just have to be careful that they're not allowed to take the rest of us down with them).
It probably sounds better if you're stoned
You haven't been answering my questions.
Do you think hatred and prejudice are something idle and avoidable? That they serve no practical purpose?
The fact is that not even bare survival is guaranteed for anyone. Even in first-world countries, the possibility of dying in poverty and homelessness is becoming more and more prominent.
People aren't equal. It's a fact of life.
Why try to sugarcoat this with politically correct notions that do nothing but set vulnerable people up for failure?
I don't advocate any particular political or social system. I am opposed to the politically correct pretenses of equality which just add insult to injury.
Obviously you've never written for a scientific journal if you think adding a couple of references turns what we have here into anything like one.
Quoting synthesis
That's just disingenuous laziness. Why would I trawl the internet for evidence-based counter-arguments if my interlocutor didn't go to such effort in the first place. All we end up with a a pointless list of some random people's opinions.
Quoting synthesis
We already have rules about quality and tone, both of which require some contextual line to be drawn. Such a requirement doesn't seem to have brought the site to it's knees yet. I don't see why the provision of references should be any more difficult to judge.
"I think Trump's a brilliant leader" doesn't require a reference (though maybe a lobotomy)
"Quoting counterpunch
..does.
Is it really that hard to tell the difference?
Quoting synthesis
No. No breakthrough requires that. Breakthroughs require careful and diligent hard work researching and checking, peer-reviewing, checking again, correcting mistakes, more checking... and then, finally maybe publishing. It pisses me off intently that after all that hard work someone claiming to be interested in the subject (whatever it is) can't even be bothered to type the question into a search engine to find out if anyone has done such painstaking work.
You say that I have not answered your questions. I am not sure what they were exactly because it is hard to find them in this long thread. I think that you asked me whether I thought I was superior to Hitler or the Nazi's. I am critical of what these people did so I see the perspective they came from as something to avoid. But I am really saying that, even if you see it as a contradiction, that we should rise above beliefs about superiority.
I would agree that people are not necessarily free from the threat of poverty and homelessness in the first world countries. I think that sometimes people can use the language of equality and political correctness as empty rhetoric. Attitudes towards the vulnerable are more than just words. But this is a complex topic, especially as we are having it in the middle of a thread of many other highly emotional dialogues.
What you're left with is some sad sack, mouthing off on the internet, who had some ammunition in his house he wasn't supposed to have.
What I don't understand is, how you imagine he was doing the movement he pretended to support, any favours? This isn't someone who supports the movement. This is a pretender. A fantasist. A sheep in wolf's clothing. A shit stirring lefty? Quite possibly!
Yet blacks were causing violence. Who is BLM? They obviously don't speak for all blacks.
What adds insult to injury is telling someone born without your advantages that their failures are because they are not your equal.
There was a psychological experiment some years back. Pairs of people playing against each other at Monopoly. At the start, a coin was tossed. Whoever won the coin toss was given twice as much money as their opponent at the start, could roll twice as many die each go, and received twice as much when they passed Go (which they did twice as often).
As such, the winner of the coin toss won Monopoly. The winner played more aggressively, was ruder, gloated frequently, and consistently overestimated their skill.
When asked how they won the game, not a single player mentioned the coin toss. Each believed they'd won because they were the better player.
People who benefit from systematic inequality point the finger at the disadvantaged and insist they are intrinsically lesser than the advantaged. It's unfortunately a quirk of psychology that being born privileged turns you into a jerk.
But when all of your "facts" seem to indicate that your side doesn't do anything wrong, isn't capable of oppressing others, and that the other side is the problem, then that should be a red flag that your "facts" are merely propaganda.
If it were actually a fact that one side is worse than the other, then what reason would we have in keeping the other side viable? And in eliminating the other side, did you just eliminate the available choices we all have?
The fact is that both sides are the problem. Political parties are the problem. There should be no sides in a political discussion. There should simply be individuals expressing their opinions, as no one else has the right to speak for someone else, especially if they can speak for themselves.
Quoting Benkei
LOL. No, being emotionally invested means that you are afraid to be wrong. But being afraid to be wrong means that you will never make mistakes. If you never make mistakes, you will never learn. Have you ever been wrong in any of your political/ethical views, Benkei?
I am more than happy to be proven wrong that most Americans are pawns in the political game between Reps and Dems. I just need evidence.
You didn't have to. It is implied in what you wrote.
No, it wasn't. Also, you quoted the text and it was perfectly explicit. It didn't require your layer of your bullshit interpretation.
Actually, for me, it would be a little statue of Shiva, in a garden of hemp. That is the epitome of peace and joy for me.
:cool:
Yeah, bruh. What were we talking about?
Yes it was. Also, no it wasn't.
Look, it doesn't matter much to me whether you want to come across as a liar or an idiot, so interpreting my statements as contrary ones is your call. Either way, all you're demonstrating is that you're not worth engaging with which you've over-established already.
Forgive me if I don't really care what you think or say about me. When you can actually think for yourself and not just regurgitate everything you read, I'll be happy to have a reasonable discussion with you.
I'll be happy to take Emily Blunt for my wife, doesn't mean I can feasibly do it.
The only thing in my way... :rofl: Watch your back.
You are missing my point.
There are two types of conversations you can have. One a friendly chat over a couple of beers type of chat and another where you are attempting to prove a point (for some academic or professional reason). I kind of approach this forum as a friendly chat. No need for the drama.
You also missed my point about breakthroughs, as well. As you may or may not know, science is quite political and therefore subject to all the nonsense that goes on in that sphere. Many times when researchers discover better ways/problematic issues that do not serve the primary interests of TPTB, it becomes difficult to move forward. History is replete with examples.
I suppose, if you two are arguing, and don't feel that listing academic sources is any way to resolve the issue - you could each put your cases to a neutral third party and agree to accept the verdict.
Firstly, it's not about the nature of the conversation, it's about the nature of the beliefs. Why would anyone have such beliefs unless they had some evidence for them? Surely you don't just adopt your beliefs at random? The point is, that even for a 'down the pub' type of conversation, you should have the reason for your belief ready to hand. If you don't have a reason, then why tell everyone about it?
Secondly, this is not a 'chat down the pub'. We're not friends, I' not interested in your opinion for it's own sake - why on earth would I be? I'm interested in the stuff other people know, and the way they might frame it, but I can't see the interest in just knwing what version of events some random people have pinned their flag to without cause.
Quoting synthesis
I fail to see what that's got to do with failing to present any evidence. There's been not a single scientific revolution which was not accompanied by, motivated by, evidence. Scientists do not just randomly decide the status quo has got it wrong, they do so on the basis of evidence.
Again, if you can't tell the difference between an opinion which is relevant to the framing of beliefs and a statement of fact then there's little hope for you. That we should support our empirical claims is an opinion of mine, it requires no evidential support. That BLM fabricated the mobile phone footage is a statement of fact (and an pernicious one at that) it requires evidence.
Well, Issac, I would imagine if you spoke with every participant in this forum, you would get many different reasons why they are here. You are very serious about these conversations, me, not so much. I am here to relax and enjoy other people's views.
Quoting Isaac
There are many different directions we can take that so let me go in this one. Science (like all knowledge) changes constantly, correct? Why should I take anything postulated out there seriously if it is only going to be dis-proven? Although I am scientifically trained, I only see it as a tool (and a rather primitive one at that).
Now, Issac, if you are going to rant and rave at me, no need (as I already have a wife :). Let's just have a nice conversation and my POV might begin to make sense to you as the ideas unfold (or maybe not).
Although I am sure you could probably find some academic sources to support just about any claim, my point was to keep this casual. I am interested in how my conversant partner thinks, not how some academic that might have their head up their ass (and is publishing for all the wrong reasons) thinks.
Oh? Now I am interested. Is there a less primitive tool out there?
Quoting synthesis
I am not quite sure what you're saying here. Do you not believe that, say, atoms are made out of protons, neutrons and electrons, which are made out of quarks, because tomorrow someone might figure out more fundamental building blocks to reality? Do you not use Newtons laws in common cases because they have been superseded by Einstein?
I also think that BLM created a false narrative with carefully edited phonecam footage - for example, footage edited to exclude George Floyd fighting four police officers while handcuffed, yelling "I can't breathe" when clearly he could, and preventing them from putting him in a vehicle. All that was omitted. All we saw until police bodycam footage was leaked, was Floyd pinned down - not the urgent need for him to be pinned down.
Since the invention of the computer, science has really come together. The ability to process large amounts of data, and communicate ideas, was a game changer. Science does now constitute a highly valid and coherent understanding of the middle ground reality we inhabit, and should be taken seriously - as an understanding of reality. The earth does orbit the sun, human beings did evolve, heat does migrate from warmer to cooler bodies, etc!
Quoting synthesis
What on earth is the matter with chatting over a beer that should be disparaged? Samuel Johnson's discussion group met at a bar/restaurant and included luminaries like Edmund Burke, Joshua Reynolds, Oliver Goldsmith, Adam Smith, James Boswell, Edward Gibbon, et al. They ate and drank and talked.
Granted, other than present company we don't quite measure up to the reputations of Johnson's group, but we do what we can. I'd be quite happy to move this whole thing to a nice place with good food and an assortment of good drink.
Fair enough, as far as a metaphysical explanation goes. Though I think it's important to not mix physical and metaphysical perspectives on this. On a physical level, what matter is to have the best (most powerful in terms of predictions) model that can account for all the observations. That's the "shut up and calculate" approach. Interpretations are only relevant insofar as they allow new models that allow for more predictions.
The metaphysical perspective is to ask what all of this means. That'd be something like we're reaching the frayed edge of reality, or we have basically reached the limits of our power to perceive and comprehend so the weird behaviour we're seeing isn't actually ontological, but rather is the result of us actually charting the border of our epistemological capabilities.
Temporally, absolutely, but, practically speaking, I think not.
There are many different directions we can take that so let me go in this one. Science (like all knowledge) changes constantly, correct? Why should I take anything postulated out there seriously if it is only going to be dis-proven?
— synthesis
I am not quite sure what you're saying here. Do you not believe that, say, atoms are made out of protons, neutrons and electrons, which are made out of quarks, because tomorrow someone might figure out more fundamental building blocks to reality? Do you not use Newtons laws in common cases because they have been superseded by Einstein?[/quote]
Yes, that's part of it. The rest of it concerns keeping the first part in mind. Let me give you an example...
A patient presents in your office with the complaint of chronic headache. Don't worry about not being in healthcare (if you're not). You take thorough medical, family, and social health history, do a full physical exam and order comprehensive blood work. You are able to rule out the most common headache etiologies and are left sitting on your exam stool wondering what to say tell this patient (other than, "I have no idea," but these are the steps we advise our patients to take in these cases, blah, blah, blah...").
If I was a (wo)man of science (as most health care providers are), the above would be the general way you would go about handling the above patient (give or take). Let's consider an alternative. Let's substitute our man of science for a man of someone who sees science only as a primitive tool.
The same patient with the same chronic headache symptoms presents. How might our skeptic approach this same patient? Number one, Dr. Skeptic understands that medical science (in many cases) will not only not get you to the correct diagnosis, but it will only serve to confuse the matter. So what he is going to do (before he does anything) is talk with his patient. There's a very old saying in medicine that you might have heard before, "If you listen closely enough to the patient, s/he will tell you EXACTLY what is wrong."
Now, I could go on about this but I'll stop here to see if you are with me.
I had a good friend who used to say that, "Things have never been any better or worse then they have ever been," and over time I believe I have come to the conclusion that he may be correct.
As far as Reality (or reality) is concerned, the human mind is simply incapable of gaining access.
And although it may seem reasonable to assume that the earth orbits the sun, etc., that's doing a great deal of assuming where I would contend that it is impossible to understand even the simplest of things (if for no other reason than each event is preceded by an infinite number of events determining such. How you possibly understand the true nature of anything?
Is that the Reality?
Looks self-refuting to me.
I don't understand the saying. It doesn't seem to make sense. Either it's a truism - meaning, "things are what they have been in every moment" - or it implies an eternal unchanging state, in that nothing ever improves or dis-improves. (Yes, dis-improves is a word - I looked it up!)
Quoting synthesis
Untrue. Or rather, dependent on defining reality in inaccessible terms. Most basically, the sensory organs evolve in relation to reality, and are tested insofar as they allow for the survival of the organism. If a monkey, swinging through the trees saw branches further away, or nearer than they actually were - physics would ensure his extinction. The reality we experience is accurate to the objective reality that exists.
Perception may be limited to tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, but that doesn't mean what we see is not real. If you would define reality in terms of the entirety of the magnetic spectrum, or the fact atoms never touch each other, and so forth, then you can define reality beyond reach, but to my mind, science begins at our fingertips - not at the far end of the universe, and has discovered the range of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the space between atoms.
Quoting synthesis
It is not necessary to know the location and velocity of every sub-atomic particle in the universe in every moment to experience the real. I can close my eyes and run my finger across the keyboard and experience the reality of it. Truth isn't absolute truth. Reality isn't inaccessible.
Absolutely.
The idea is that as some things improve, others dis-improve, by definition (and proportionally).
Quoting counterpunch
Simply the fact that we cannot access the present (time-lag between event and perception thereof) certainly suggests that we are not experiencing reality (Absolute or relative).
Quoting counterpunch
Reality is not like the movie our brains convey. As a matter of fact (whatever that may be), nobody has a clue what vision is. So, what are you seeing?
Quoting counterpunch
There is Absolute Truth and there is relative truth (of course, there is really neither but these are the game we must play to communicate among our own species).
Absolute Truth exist outside of the intellect whereas relative truth your personal reality (created by your experience).
If Reality was accessible, do you believe people would be wasting their time doing things like this? :)
I think he was referring to meliorism. Certainly conditions change, but looking at the hole, are we in a progression or a procession.
I see. I guess, but I don't see things that way myself. It implies futility - like all we're doing is re-arranging the deck chairs. I think science is a path, and it leads somewhere; at the very least, a long term, prosperous and sustainable future for humankind.
Quoting synthesis
I once watched a man driving in a stake. He was some distance away, across a railway line. I was on the other side. I watched him strike with the hammer, and heard the sound of him striking the stake after, out of sync with his movements. So, here are my questions: Was there a man? Was he driving in a stake? Did his blows make a sound? Did I hear the sound? If you answered yes to all these questions, what was not real about it?
Quoting synthesis
Yes, it is. It could not be otherwise. The idea that the reality we experience is subjectively constructed is false. It's largely a product of western philosophy written in the wake of Galileo's trial for the heresy for proving the earth orbits the sun. His contemporary, Descartes - wrote Meditations on First Philosophy in terror of the Church, in which he doubted all that could be doubted, and found the only thing he knew for certain was cogito ergo sum - I think therefore I am.
Subjectivism, and ultimately, post modernism follow from this root - and currently, there's a left wing academic interest in undermining the possibility of truth. But it's a falsehood. Descartes' doubt was skeptical doubt, not rational doubt. If he'd stuck his hand in front of the fire, rather than a ball of wax, he would soon have discovered the undeniable existence of an objective reality - prior to cogito!
Further, as I've already told you, the senses are evolved in creatures that had to make accurate life and death decisions about reality, generation after generation. If the senses were not accurate to reality, human being could not have evolved.
Furthermore, if reality is subjectively constructed, how can there be art, or traffic lights. Try going into traffic court and saying, you may say the light was red, but subjectively, it was green! Go to an art gallery and listen to people speaking about the brushstrokes, and the lines and the colours. They are clearly seeing the same thing. Or do you suggest they are subjectively constructing the same unreality?
Quoting synthesis
No. These are thought experiment concepts of truth. With absolute truth - you place yourself outside reality, looking in at some imagined entirety of it - and condescend to the man trying to make sense of the world around him with his limited vision. By relative truth you mean subjective truth - and the post modernist implication from subjectivism, that all truths are relative. But subjectivism is false. Truth is in correspondence to an objective reality.
Completely unlike the right wing populist respect for truth?
Yes, I think it is different. For the right, it's lying. For the left, it's post modernism.
The "post modernists" aren't against truth. Indeed, the favourite targets of the right are all about the truth: the various objective states the world and society takes. They just recognise the objective states are a contingent formation: a truth put there by moment of existence, rather than something put there by a transcendent force or derived from a concept or principle.
Maybe the extremes of social constructivism that claim things like “reality is a social construct”?
NB that that view is very unpopular with some parts of the left... like Marxists, who are hardcore materialists.
Think of it this way...things are as good as they can be each and every moment.
Quoting counterpunch
Since Reality is something you experience outside of the intellect, there are no answers to your questions. OTOH, your (personal) reality was whatever your experience was, but keep in mind that it was considerably different than what was taking place (due to all kinds of filters).
Quoting counterpunch
How about if Reality is actually discrete moments, but somehow connected. Each moment, just as it should be, perfect in every way.
Quoting counterpunch
Consider the following...what we know, we know before our intellect kicks-in. For example, you are walking down the street and you see a young boy about to dash into the street chasing after his errant ball at the same time a car is approaching at a high speed. Without thinking (before thinking), you grab the youngster's arm and save his life.
Out thinking takes what we perceive (before thinking and therefore before our filters can engage) and creates our own reality based on a lifetime of experience. It becomes easy to conclude that we all see the same stimuli differently based on this reasoning (and that can apply to everything we perceive).
Perhaps this is why our first judgement (impression) seems to be the best in many cases?
Quoting counterpunch
Who's to say that everybody doesn't see everything differently despite the fact that they recognize it by the same name? Differences in eye anatomy (clarity of the cornea, aqueous, lens, and vitreous) alone would insure that any wavelength would appear differently to each observer. And that's just optical clarity. How about the neurological/electrical complexity of the retina as well as the optic pathway all the way back to the occipital cortex? There are literally an infinite number of modifications that could take place to make our perceptions unique. And that's just scratching the surface. You really believe we see things the same?
And you know what, everything is just that way.
There is Absolute Truth and there is relative truth
— synthesis
No. These are thought experiment concepts of truth. With absolute truth - you place yourself outside reality, looking in at some imagined entirety of it - and condescend to the man trying to make sense of the world around him with his limited vision. By relative truth you mean subjective truth - and the post modernist implication from subjectivism, that all truths are relative. But subjectivism is false. Truth is in correspondence to an objective reality.[/quote]
Again, Absolute Truth exists outside of the intellect. It is permanent and unchanging. Relative truth is impermanent (in constant flux). Although all knowledge is indeed relative, the left got it wrong (imagine that!) by refusing to acknowledge that although truth is relative, human beings still agree to live by it (a moral code) just the same.
Or as Voltaire had it - "all's for the best in the best of all possible worlds." A perspective, known derisively as Panglossianism.
Quoting synthesis
There was a man. There was a stake. He was driving in the stake. The fact there was a delay between perception - in terms of the sight and the sound, doesn't mean it wasn't real. It just means that light travels faster than sound, and that is also an explicable and predictable physical reality.
You don't seem able to follow the argument, and engage in actual debate. Everything you say is mere contradiction. So, believe whatever you like. It doesn't matter anymore. Humankind is surely doomed - because, like you, they're wrong, and what is wrong cannot survive. It's cause and effect.
*sigh*
If only the forum wouldn't have that nifty link feature that makes it super easy to track back who said what, where, when.
IOW, standard examples of the self-serving bias and the fundamental attribution error.
I want to figure out how to best guard against them when they are used against me.
Again, seriousness has little to do with it. Even if I considered these conversations to be the most trivial matters in the world, the opinions I express in them would still have causes, and where empirical, would relate to evidence from experience.
I can't see what is so 'friendly' about claiming that BLM doctored the mobile phone footage of an arrest to make it look like murder, which then suddenly becomes fusty and academic when the actual source of that claim is added.
Quoting synthesis
Really? You're seriously asking that question?
Did I disparage it in some way? So far as I can tell I only said that this [the forum] was not such a thing.
Do you mean temporarily? Otherwise not sure what you mean.
Quoting synthesis
How does Dr. Skeptic know that? What methods does he have access to that medical science does not?
Quoting synthesis
But isn't that also what "standard" medicine does? Only that they do not just listen to you talk, but also "listen" to various other bodily functions?
Quoting synthesis
So, if you want to boil a pot of water, do you randomly do things to it until it boils? Pray to the gods to boil the water? Or do you use your understanding of physics to predict what course of events will make the water boil?
Quoting synthesis
How did the "true nature" of anything get into this discussion? What's a "true nature"? Why does it matter?
Quoting synthesis
How do you know? If you don't think we have access to reality, you cannot make claims about it.
Quoting synthesis
How is this epistemological position either left or right?
socially conservative vs. socially progressive
collectivist vs. individualist
negative freedom vs. positive freedom
economic marxism vs. laissez-faire corporatist capitalism
redisitributive justice (eg. fairness) vs. formal justice (eg. if rules are followed outcomes are always just)
minarchism vs. authoritarianism
The funny thing is extremes of "social construction" are the genuine materialists. They recognise that the finite construction of things applies not only of our social relations, but also of physics relations too. Gravity, for example, doesn't just always occur. It is a manifestation of specific objects on relation to each other, a thing coupled with other things (it's environment), which happen as they do on account of how those things exist. At any moment, we might have a thing with a different relation, an object which behaves differently. The pull of gravity is soemthing which has to be made true, over not, by the existence of the things at the time.
You're right about some Marxists being upset with this kind of material account, but that is because they are in some respect idealist: they have notions or concepts of how society will necessarily work, that there is a set of outcomes which will occur, secured beyond the action of finite material states in a counterfactual relation.
... for someone wanting to be more rational. Do you think, say, the NRA want to be more rational, the KKK, the Proud Boys? (Give up? Answer is: No, they don't.)
Quoting baker
Even better, you could figure out how best to recognise them when you use them against others. Maybe using that professional psychologist's treatment, or by thinking really hard.
I think most biases are revealed to us by trusting others' contrary experience. It's difficult to do this when your schema for handling the testimony of others is to separate it into that which supports your position and that which is part of a conspiracy involving the Clintons, the Jews, Hunter Biden and the reanimated corpses of South American de facto dictators.
:up:
Post-truth is incompatible with post-modernism. It's sort of to deconstruction what intelligent design is to evolution.
The world isn't black and white. Thinking that it is is only limiting your options and your freedoms. I'm not the one seeing the world in black and white. You are. Pathetic.
Your tactic seems be, "if I can't make a good arguement against what Harry said, then I'll just accuse him if being what he is accusing me of being."
Does thinking for yourself still mean that you are a pawn? If so then all you've done is relegate the word, "pawn" into meaninglessness.
It does seem like I'm the only one here advocating for the abolishment of political parties. So who am I a pawn of in saying such things? I really want to see you back this up.
EDIT: Now that I've thought about it a bit more, Benkei is taking a tactic out of the theists handbook in asserting that even atheism is a religion. Benkei is trying to assert being a-political is still being political.
Politics IS a religion - a means of controlling individuals.
What I enjoy about these conversations is other interesting people sharing their points of view. It is not my intention to convince you of anything. I am simply providing another perspective, one that works really well for me because it is my reality (the sum total of my experience in intellectual form).
I have been going back and forth a bit between the intellectual and the non-intellectual and perhaps that's what has you a bit confused. I thought you would understand. Let's get back to your example of the man who is pounding the stake. Yes, the speed of light is faster than the speed of sound and you receive the visual image before the auditory signal but you contend that this doesn't change the reality of the situation. OK.
Now what happens if the same dynamic takes place infinitely? What is the effect then?
What I am saying might make more sense to you in ten or fifteen years. Maybe not. I know I come from a very different place, but isn't that good? Many people have a problem with those whose thinking is non-traditional.
Perhaps you can take solace in the idea that one of these days my thinking will be old hat, replaced by new ways to link letters and words and numbers to create realities much more interesting.
Science (like all knowledge) changes constantly, correct? Why should I take anything postulated out there seriously if it is only going to be dis-proven?
— synthesis
Really? You're seriously asking that question?[/quote]
Give me an example of something I should take as a "given" in your world. And try to relax. It's Sunday :).
Why on earth would it?
Quoting synthesis
I don't see how on the face of it. Some differences are good, others bad.
Quoting synthesis
That you'll not simply float away. Gravity
It's not. It's wisdom passed down over the millennia.
Why? What good would that do me?
Actually, I'm undecided on most things.:p It's both a blessing and a curse.
Good does not always mean good for me. We're a social species whose instinctive ideas of what is good are honed on the basis that what's good for me and what's good for others all comes out in the wash. They're good instincts to trust (good for you). :)
Since I don't hold any position of power, it's irrelevant what biases I may hold in regard to others, as long as those biases aren't to my disadvantage.
Everyone's in a position of power all the time. In the aforementioned context of right wing extremists peddling their uninvestigated biases, those biases have the power to compel others toward biased, hateful beliefs. How do we know? Because said peddlers themselves acquired those beliefs through exposure to others.
Likewise, we can help people we love better if we are unbiased against the particular challenges they face.
I remember my (now ex-) girlfriend telling me about guys beeping her, yelling at her, slowing their cars down, winding down their windows, laughing, when she was out jogging. I found that difficult to process. It suggested that, when I wasn't looking, the world operated in a starkly different way.
I might have told this story before on here, apologies if so. A friend of mine was in a guided hiking group through the rainforest in Australia. The guide said that if they looked carefully, they'd see these giant spiders. My friend spent the whole time looking, never saw one, until near the end when he overheard the guide telling someone that you have to adjust your focus to see them because they hang between the trees and our brains have difficulty focusing on the spaces between things.
So he really focused and eventually he saw a giant arachnid dangling between the two trees in front of him. Then he turned around. They were fucking EVERYWHERE! He'd been surrounded by them the whole time, he just didn't know how to see them.
The girlfriend after the girlfriend after that told me a similar thing about guys intimidating her by yelling, slowing down etc. but also about how it didn't happen if she was with a man. Once, she and this guy had had to walk single file down a narrow path. Another man coming the other way saw her but not him, verbally abused her, then saw her friend and apologised... TO HIM!
After that I started seeing it everywhere. It's not that it hadn't been happening around me, it's just that I never tuned in. I'm in no particular position of power either, but at least I have the power to tell creeps to go fuck themselves when they start harassing lone women in the street. All because one friend who went to Australia and another who once had to walk single file taught me not to trust my biases over their experience.
If you believe that all time is taking place at the same time, then perhaps you should go to the closest window and there I am...simply floating by.
Pfhorrest did a poll. The forum leans toward the left, unsurprisingly.
Ummm dunno. Looks like whether or not facts should impact our beliefs, post-truth versus empiricism.
Were your girlfriends who were accosted by men when they were alone? Excatly.
What exactly are we talking about? Do you think I'm a right-winger?
Good morning to you, too!
Same goes for when one is picking chestnuts or looking for mushrooms. Or noticing how many other people have a car of the same make and model as oneself.
Then there's a bias there as well, one of jumping to conclusions where, if one is looking for X, one is more likely to see it, and also interpret Y and Z as X.
Well, more power to you, then!
I think the real topic is if the leftist bias hinders open discussion, which is crucial for the forum to work.
Wut?
Quoting baker
No, nor do I think I *was* a right-winger. Nonetheless examining our biases to avoid misleading or, in this case, failing to protect others is important.
Quoting baker
That's true, but in my example the difference was qualitative (no spiders --> many spiders) rather than quantitative (some spiders --> many spiders). Let's not forget, he was *always* looking for spiders; the difference came when he changed how he looked at the world around him.
I think the behavior of certain members, some of which probably would style themselves as leftist, inhibits discussion.
You said:
Quoting Kenosha Kid
To which I replied:
Were your girlfriends who were accosted by men when they were alone?
Because they weren't in a position of power then. Or would you say they were?
Sure.
As I exemplified right away with looking for chestnuts and mushrooms. I experience it every ear: I go to collect chestnuts, I know where the trees are, but when I'm first there, I don't notice the chestnuts on the ground. I really have to look to begin seeing them, and then I continue seeing them.
It should hinder e.g. racism, which tends to live on the right. But not always (e.g. anti-Semitism in the British Labour party.) It doesn't matter where it comes from, it should not be tolerated imo.
Quoting baker
Ah. Yes, always.
Quoting baker
Ah okay. Yes, same thing. Not the same thing as confirmation bias, though.
I think he’s asking if they were in a position of power then.
I'm reading it as:
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Without punctuation it reads as gibberish to me.
As you yourself noticed, racism is a separate issue and not dependent on the right/left divide. More typically is that the response if someone brings up ideas of some thinker or philosopher is quite different depending on the political side. For some reason, one side invokes a serious and cordial response, while another is invokes jeering. But this is quite natural for especially those who feel passionately of their ideology and see the opposite side as basically evil.
If the tables would be turned around (meaning there would be only a few leftists here), I think there would be even more jeering and hostility, which I think is something because of the times we live in and the vicious culture of social media (that has settled here too).
And being a centrist is like being an agnostic: both atheists and theists are annoyed at you being so indecisive about such a clear yes/no question.
Yes, I didn't remember the term for the bias, so I described it; but I clearly parsed the two sentences, each of which was about a different bias.
Yes, obviously, this is what I'm asking. I omitted [in a position of power] because I thought it was clear from the context that this is what I was referring to, since my question followed directly upon his statement that "Everyone's in a position of power all the time."
Clearly, this doesn't seem to be the case with his girlfriends when they were alone and accosted by men.
Unless KK actually thinks they were in a position of power when they were alone and accosted by men.
Disagreeing with right wing members has so quickly and consistently seen me named as a communist, or an identity politician, or some such that I don't even bother to disagree. From my point of view, there's usually nothing meaningful to discuss.
I've always appreciated your pro-capitalist contributions though, even though they're entirely incorrect of course ;)
In the dynamic of sexual predator/target, they do not occupy the position of power. That does not make them powerless in every conceivable dynamic. If you can do something about something, that is a position of power.
Then it's not true that "Everyone's in a position of power all the time."
Sure.
Yeah, it's their special power to see things in black-and-white like that.
As opposed to only seeing things in black, like lefty political correctness freaks do?
Oh, orange is the new black ...
The _______ of George Floyd!
Jeering and ridicule simply don't work and tell far more about the person doing it than the object of ridicule.
When I was younger I had a similar kind of dismissive attitude towards the people on the other side of the political spectrum. Yet one has to remember that the World is so complex that totally reasonable, smart and educated people can have totally opposite views on just how to tackle the current problems of our time. When you weed out the fringes, the populists and the utopians, both sides do have points. The real difference are the solutions given, not noticing the problem.
Far better to know just exactly why they make the wrong conclusions.
I used to think so too. But in the last four years, I've been beginning to change my opinion.
Being civilized is simply overrated.
*sigh*
"Racism in education: How 'truth pages' helped students fight back
The killing of George Floyd was a catalyst moment for social justice movements across the world. But after the coronavirus pandemic worsened some of those movements were pushed aside."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-55655640
Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this?
Is it that it assumes racism isn't fictional?
Quoting frank
No. It's in relation to my earlier comment.
Quoting counterpunch
You're supposed to be philosophers. You should be able to get this.
What's your point?
The _____ of George Floyd!
Just say the first thing that pops into your otherwise empty head!
A lot of people are convinced it was 1st degree murder. I think that would make more sense if the cops had taken him to a secluded location and made sure no one was videoing the entire interaction to subsequently show to the whole world.
I guess we'll find out when all the facts are examined.
Well, yes it is. It's certainly not true that everyone is in every position of power all the time. That would be nonsensical.
Quoting counterpunch
Are you now trying to suggest he's not even dead?!?
He's being charged with 3rd degree murder.
The ______ of George Floyd.
The term 'death' is accurate, and it's neutral. As opposed to 'killing' or worse, 'murder' - or worse yet, "racist murder". Those are not neutral terms. 'Killing' presumes to know what Floyd died of. 'Murder' presumes know what he died of, and that there was intent to kill. "Racist murder" - the term you used, presumes to know what Floyd died of, that there was intent to kill, and what motivated that intent. These are biased terms that should not be used by the media prior to a verdict.
The last philosophy forum I was in is also dominated by lefties. In fact, I was the last Conservative. I'm beginning to think that a Philo forum full of lefties is like saying Churches are full of righties.
Am I right to assume, it's a 'progressive' endeavour, to seek knowledge that explains the world we live in. Because Christians already know why and how the world exists?
I was more central as an agnostic 3 years ago. I sought a philosophical explanation for our creation/existence, and found science to be the least convincing. Now I guess I'd be considered a righty.
Which, of course, we do. Twice. Just seems to be something that racists like to pretend is shrouded in a mystery that isn't there.
"Killing", btw, doesn't mean murder. You can be killed by cancer, for instance. Or by a racist cop kneeling on your neck for 8 minutes.
I wonder if Chauvin will plead guilty. He'll have to be protected while in jail. I guess he'll be spending a lot of time alone.
You are not intelligent enough to understand that everyone deserves a fair trial - and that prejudging what happened, doesn't allow for a fair trial - particularly if you're a mainstream broadcaster like the BBC.
I mean, you personally - who gives a shit what you think, right? But the BBC is utterly in thrall to the same politically correct, lefty cultural paradigm that so demonstrably biases your thinking, and then broadcasts undue assumptions based on that politically correct bias. The BBC should know better!
Here's the difference between us. If George Floyd had been a white criminal, who resisted arrest by four police officers, while handcuffed, making it impossible to put him in the car - so they restrained him, and he died, possibly as a consequence of that restraint - I'd be saying the same thing. I'd be saying Floyd created the situation that led to his death, and the benefit of the doubt is with the police. You wouldn't. In fact, if George Floyd were a white criminal we'd never have heard of him. Floyd's skin colour changes things for you. That's what makes you a racist.
Look up what a Medical Examiner's job is. For fuck's sake. Do at least the bare minimum.
Do you realize that you make equally, if not more sweeping assumptions about the people you interact with on this forum - their worldview, their honesty, their intelligence? You don't pause to think whether you have enough evidence to prove any of that in court.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/25/blog-posting/two-autopsies-found-george-floyds-death-was-homici/
Phew, now I'm absolutely exhausted. All that research... Now I see why people are so reluctant to do it. I'm going to have to have a lie down.
Oh, but I do.
Quoting counterpunch
Everyone deserves a fair trial but that unfortunately for you includes video footage, eye witness testimony and coroner reports. These things you like to dismiss are called "facts" and those are used in court to assess culpability.
Quoting counterpunch
The battle cry of the racist! If someone says it's not okay for the police to murder people in their custody, well duh! Oh, the person's black? Political correctness gone mad, right?
Quoting counterpunch
Yah bullshit. A police officer shoots a white woman part of a violent mob calling for the murder of elected officials storming a government building and attacking police officers and your response is:
Quoting counterpunch
A black man lies handcuffed, face down, gasping that he can't breathe for 8 minutes and your response is basically: probly deserved it.
Standard racist crap.
— counterpunch
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Oh, but you don't.
What is it with fascists always telling people that they didn't see what they saw? Same deal with the lynch mob at the Capitol.
Irrelevant. Both conclude he was killed, which is the statement you took issue with. Nowhere did the BBC state that the autopsies contained no contrary information.
They were waiting for a van because Floyd fought like a mad dog, making it impossible to put him into the car. If he had got into the car, he wouldn't be dead. Floyd put himself face down in the road with a policeman pinning him down. He created that situation. It was a dangerous situation. Restraining people is inherently dangerous, and potentially fatal.
If the police fear they may end up charged with murder for restraining people, it's going to make it impossible for them to do their job.
Accusing black people of faking evidence of race crimes against them with nothing but moronic conspiracy theories: racist.
That doesn't make much sense.
Look at the statistics on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website. I did when the BLM rioting, burning and looting started because I wanted to know the facts.
There are around 10 million arrests per year, and around 1000 Arrest Related Deaths. That's based on an average of data from 2003-2012, before Obama shut down collection of data on the race of arrest related deaths, the year before Black Lies Matter was formed in 2013.
The data shows that of the 1000 deaths, that's 0.1% of all arrests, 32% were black and 42% were white.
Given that a lot more crimes are committed by black people than by white people, that's not disproportionate. More crimes of violence are committed by black people in general - suggesting perhaps, a greater propensity to resist arrest. For example, more murders are committed by the black, 13% of the US population, than the 76% white population.
If there's a conspiracy here, it's the false narrative created by BLM with carefully edited cell phone footage, to suggest police are engaged in a racist genocide and incite black people to riots. Perhaps that was to spike the US Presidential election. Perhaps that was post modernist neo-marxists seeking to undermine law and order, like they are trying to undermine all western values.
"Common targets of postmodern criticism include universalist ideas of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, science, language, and social progress."
You really are the enemy within.
Wow. You really are locked into your own little psycho-bubble, aren't you?
What are you worried about?
Oh. Nothing lasts forever, man. We're just zooming through the middle of nowhere, headed toward nothing, for no reason.
My advice: see the beauty around you, weep for all the world's pain, and drink some really good tea.
You attack the very foundations of our civilisation, free speech, a fair trial, law and order, capitalism, gender, sexuality, race - a constant multi-pronged assault, and it's true - nothing does last forever. A dripping tap will cut through a mountain given enough time. So keep chipping away, and when it all comes tumbling down around your ears, do you honestly think things will be better?
You've got the Ghost of Doom lurking on your horizon. You think the solution is to put down women and minorities. It's old school white supremacism, man.
Do you see yourself as an evangelist for this cause?
IOW, you approach communication in bad faith.
What could you possibly expect in return??
So you're not trying to convert people. You're just spitting out the same blerbs over and over, unable to wake up from it.
Still, it's more fun to talk to you than your counterparts, I will say that.
Quoting baker
It just looks like that.
One reason of course is that leftist ideology is atheist. However when you take a large group of scientists and add engineers there, it just looks to be leftist as the discourse in the university, at least the loudest people, are leftist, but likely it is a normal varied group. I simply don't buy the idea that universities are bastions of marxism, as some say. It's usually bullshit: you likely find just one or two loud mouthed activist that paint some faculty to be "red" and of course young students that before landing in their cushy careers, blow off steam in a rally or two. Besides, scientists don't openly show their political ideologies and why should they? To be a great volcanologist your political views don't matter so much.
I did an experiment with the George Floyd situation:
I didn't pay attention to it when it was on the news, and only saw the video of his arrest for the first time last week.
What I saw there was the police acting in bad faith (as the police often does) and a person who was helpless against that.
Unlike probably most posters here, I am not for the US, not from the UK, I am from a country that is some 99% white and the closest I've ever seen a black person is in a tv or newspaper commercial.
I, in effect am, "color blind", but not because of political orientation, but simply because growing up in a monoracial culture where race is never or only rarely an issue can make a person not focus on skin color/race at all. Our official identification documents issued by the state do not contain a race description. Unlike US ones.
You have an infinite supply of chips on your shoulder.
Oh, suffer. Poor you.
If God is with you, who can be against you?!
That's why today's leftists are so annoying. It's the heights that they've descended from.
When Patrick Jane or Gregory House do that, it's fun to watch and they solve cases and figure out the right diagnosis.
But when real people do it, it just means they're jerks. And nothing good comes out of it.
Yes, you and others keep pushing this line, then you receive the obvious response -- that this isn't about deaths during arrests, this is about police shooting unsuspecting black men in the back or crushing the life out of them when they're already restrained and pose no danger --, you ignore it, then go back to regurgitating the same vomit. I know this counts for clever with the racist crowd, but it doesn't cut the mustard elsewhere. I don't think you'll find anyone here who'd hold it against a police officer for shooting in defence of self, a partner, or civilians. You might find many who dislike the police shooting to kill in order to catch a criminal, but that's about American culture generally, not it's racist culture specifically. Pretending the dialogue is about something else is not smart.
Quoting counterpunch
I can well imagine you not getting your head around the idea that someone who invented a vaccine for a global pandemic wouldn't just keep it for their in-group.
Science is also international. Just because you learn it in the English-speaking west, doesn't mean it came from the English-speaking West. As hard as this will be for you to swallow, scientists typically believe that they do what they do for humanity, not for straight white English-speaking men. Crazy, huh?
I have no counterparts. I am fiercely intellectually independent. Western capitalism invented the Covid vaccine. I'm not sure what skin colour the actual scientists had. Western societies are multi-cultural societies, and science itself has a somewhat global outlook, so they could have been any skin colour. It's not a race thing. But it is a Western civilisation thing.
The thing I care most about is a sustainable future for humankind, and I don't believe that can be achieved - other than by capitalism. Capitalism has the knowledge, the skills, the technology, the human resources, the industrial capacity and so on, to do what needs to be done. Further, it has commerce, as a basis to negotiate these matters between people's. If there's any chance of a sustainable future - it will be western capitalism that does it, like it was western capitalism that invented the vaccine and is expected to pay for the rest of the world to receive it.
So the left's multi-pronged assault on objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, science, language, and social progress - in terms of race, gender, law and order, free speech a fair trial and on and on and on, all pitched against western civilisation does indeed invoke:
Quoting frank
It is bullshit. Marxism is basically dead outside of philosophy and economics. Never met a Marxist scientist in my life. Plenty critical of unconstrained capitalism though, as well as pro environmental action, pro equity, etc.
So, to go back to where this tangent started from:
Quoting baker
When a person is not in a position of power, does it make sense or is it economical to retain biases that aren't to one's disadvantage?
I sort of agree with that. If we collapse in on ourselves as anti-technology people would like us to, we'll miss a chance to save civilization from climate change, specifically climate volatility. (I'm guessing you don't believe in climate change, white supremacists usually don't.)
Worrying about it won't really help anything, though. If civilization survives, great. If it doesn't, it had a good run. Maybe it will show up again 10,000 years from now.
I don't think you can have read that right.
I'm saying that when people are in disadvantaged positions, there is, to say the least, no incentive to change their minds or to overcome their cognitive biases.
Do you disagree?
Quoting baker
Quoting baker
Quoting baker
Just thought I'd collect all your posts in one place that I can take them in. Were I a critic I should say that they lack wit, lack insight, and lack explanatory power. It would be as good, or better had they never been written.
It sucks to be made to drink your own poison, doesn't it.
Yes, for all the above reasons. I mean, maybe there's some unfortunate maximally disadvantaged edge case, but generally, yes. Being economically disadvantaged, for instance, is no barrier to treating your neighbour better.
Or so liberal common sense would have us believe.
But IRL, no good deed goes unpunished. What's the point of having one's mind operate by the humanist standards of secular academia, if that makes one a loser?
I blame much on the weather - it's cold a lot of the time, and so we pursue indoor sports like reading books. And there's the relative proximity of England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain etc, and the competition of ideas, art, commerce, philosophy, music - and so on, that occurred between them over hundreds of years.
It's not racist to be proud of the contributions of western civilisation to the world; nor expect that, if there's a viable future, it will be the West that makes it happen. So yes, I object to post modernist, politically correct, white guilt ridden, craven left twits - attacking our civilisation, in their typically myopic, post truth, falsely self righteous manner.
I understand why you want to obscure it. You guys are a dying breed. Back in the day there was nothing odd about it.
These days you have to choose your words carefully. Is that frustrating?
I'm not going to rise to your provocation. I've spoken honestly, and explained my position eloquently. Your repeated assertions of racism are because you can't deny what I've said or defend your own dishonest position. Think about this - anti biotics alone have saved more lives that were lost in all the wars - ever! Thank you Sir Alexander Fleming FRS FRSE FRCS. And hurrah for western medicine and science in general.
What do you think my dishonest position is?
Are not you better placed to tell me, than I am to tell you - to what degree you identify with the ideas I've criticised? You haven't explained, but you have acted defensively and offensively - in response to these criticisms. You're displaying classic signs of left wing fragility!
And there are plenty of conservatives too that are critical of unconstrained capitalism, pro environment and pro equity, actually. At least here.
But so true. I did have one economics teacher who was a Marxist. He did give us one whole lecture on Marx when we were studying economic history (other 19th Century economist got only a part of a lecture). I also studied economic history and thought that the student were OK (even if the social history students were strange), until I once went to the homepages of the economic history students and found a picture of Marx & Lenin there with the caption that the students were "A small group of Marxists that are darn proud to be so". I found it a bit puzzling and then asked a girl at work (that had also studied there at the same time) about what was with the homepages. She replied "Oh yeah, I found it very strange too."
Nah. Nihilist to the bones.
Quoting frank
Oh, you are? Then get your entertainment elsewhere. If you don't care about any of this all you're doing is amusing yourself at my expense, and I resent it.
:rofl:
Yes, I think it's the peculiarity of the English-speaking right that social conservativism, social order theories, economic liberalism, traditionalism, some faux Christianity, post-truth, and short-termism inevitably coalesce.
The only two experts currently available to the BBC on the matter of his cause of death both concluded he was killed. In such circumstances the BBC are well within their journalistic impartiality to state the conclusion of the sum total of expert opinion at the time. It is not their responsibility to preempt any possible defence. You're confusing impartiality with scepticism. Journalist need not reserve judgement until 100% certain, they only need reasonable grounds to draw the conclusions they draw. The conclusion of the only two medical experts involved are reasonable grounds.
If a jury convict, how does the further opinion of twelve members of the public add some magic level of certainty to the situation? The jurisprudential means of securing conviction and the journalistic standards of impartiality are not the same, nor even much related, and for good reason.
He's just a supremacist, not specifically a white supremacist. Right-wingers tend to be authoritarian, supremacist: "I know and others don't know. I am honest, others are not. I see things as they really are, others do not. I am the arbiter of other people's reality."
His view is identical to the traditional white supremacist doctrine: white people are doomed because of the rise of non-whites. Non-whites are supposed to be inherently dangerous to western civilization.
Whether he knows he's a white supremacist, I don't know. Don't care. :kiss:
Under normal circumstances, I suspect it would be found that there wasn't a case to answer. Under the highly politicised circumstances created by BLM - it was impossible to find that there wasn't a case to answer.
Thus, one could argue, what you call "expert opinion on the cause of death" - is a somewhat forced conclusion; and consequently, using the term 'killing' - rather than the more neutral term 'death' - is cementing a forced conclusion, a first victory in a left wing crusade to make it impossible for police to do their job.
I am actively seeking to save HUMANKIND from extinction - and you seek to tarnish me with accusations of racism and white supremacism in favour of a failed commie dogma, you won't even admit to?
Nihilist my arse! You neo marxist, post modernist, politically correct wretch! Take it back - and knock it the fuck off. It's not right to impugn people, over and over - just because they don't drink the commie kool aid.
Quoting counterpunch
one doesn't need to know jack shit about Marx to know you're a racist.
You seem to make the same vile, bullshit statements over and over, and yet seem surprised by the uniformity of the response. No one wants you to volunteer this inhumane crap. You can be a secret racist iyl. But if you insist on being an overt one, you're going to be called on it, and you're going to be despised by a lot of people.
His skin colour ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ME!
It's an issue for you though. What's up with that!
Yeah bullshit. White woman in a mob attacking police officers is fine.
But okay, let's come at this from a different angle. I consider myself a philosopher. I didn't leap at the first easy I answer I was fed. I engaged in many years of soul searching, on everything - and you think I didn't see past the appearance of skin colour? It's insulting.
I have no idea if she was a junkie, it doesn't seem relevant. But, yes, she was a criminal scumbag. Which also isn't relevant.
Quoting counterpunch
Your racism is insulting.
I promote science as truth, I have an evolutionary conception of humankind - I think morality is a sense as opposed to a culturally specific set of laws, and I treat individuals as I find them, regardless of skin colour, gender, sexuality or whatever.
Stop trying to disgrace me, just because I don't drink the commie Kool aid. I don't drink anyone's kool aid. I'm a philosopher!
The "colourblind" approach is racist. "Race" is a proxy for the material conditions and signifcance of a body. When we ignore someone's skin colour, we do not recognise their body is one which belongs of our society. We leave the question of whether society values them up to unobserved whim. We do not recognise that it is our responsibility to value people of those bodies, such that we will give them a society which respects them (and acts to change itself when it doesn't).
Racial equality is not a question of ignoring race. It is one of asserting that people of each race belong to our community--i.e. not "I do not see race", but "I do see you, your community, that you belong of our society."
On what grounds are you cherry-picking this conclusion of the medical examiner's and not the conclusion that he died from
You claim to follow the science yet you decide which conclusions from which scientists you are going to accept on the basis of your political ideology. So you're effectively not following the science at all.
On the matter of cause of death only two scientific experts have spoken. They both concluded he was killed.
They may well be biased. They may well have political or ideological motivations which affected their judgment on top of their expertise.
But no-one is demonstrably less biased. In no-one can it be shown that scientific expertise is speaking more than in these two MEs.
If you want to know if a bridge will stand do you ask two (biased) engineers or two (equally biased) lawyers?
My assumption is that the police behaved wrongfully, but where would one find unbiased lawyers? Whether they are prosecuting or defense attorneys, there are going to be biases. Can one set up double-blind medical type experiments in criminal cases? It would seem not.
Quoting counterpunch
BLM further politicized the already-politically charged issue of police-black community conflict. BLM only intensified it. I'm not a supporter or follower of BLM, but in all fairness, bad police-community interactions go back a long time. What is new is live coverage of police operations by way of cell-phone video. I have to assume the 4 cops in Floyd's arrest/death knew that there were critical witnesses on hand and that their actions either were, or could be, video recorded. Yet they persisted in using (what seems like excessive force) to complete the arrest and transport of GF.
Bad gay community-police conflict developed in Minneapolis in the early 1980s. The conflict was ignited by a relatively small number of cops--members of the vice squad and downtown street patrols. There was little conflict between gays and police most of the time. A minority of cops cause the majority of conflict with the black community too.
Bad actors in any field can give the whole a bad reputation.
thank you
Is it?
So you're a racist then?
So why can't I, also - be a racist?
Is it because I is white?
Are you saying that black people can pursue their interests based on their race, but white people can't? How do you justify that?
Well put.
White supremacist meltdowns are fun to watch.
Last words to you: I don't discuss or debate with "western" supremacists.
Quoting Banno
Right, because on a philosophy forum - who might imagine one could discuss ideas freely, without fear of being insulted, provoked and banned. If that's the kind of forum you want, maybe you should change the name!
Basically you look a bit of a fool.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
or this:
Quoting Baden
or:
Quoting Banno
What I'm getting is... shut up or else! And to me, that demonstrates precisely the quality of left wing thought. It's not able to deal with anything, so it's shut up, and look the other way, and sweep it under the rug - and then pat yourself on the back for what a good little dogmatist you are. Let none disturb your slumber - or else! It's pathetic.
...you might learn to make better posts...
Quoting Baden
...you might learn to phrase your views with a bit more dignity...
Quoting Banno
...you might learn to fit in with the ethos of the forum rather than seeking to be banned.
...might...
It's you who have failed to deal with the comments here. You are replying to the least interesting comments, encouraging the responses you find so upsetting. Look as @NOS4A2's method; far more effective than yours.
Don't come into a forum such as this claiming to have all the answers; demonstrably you do not. Rather, you are serving as a textbook case of Dunning–Kruger;
In the end you do not have to be here. IF you find it unpleasant, do something else.
You think being insulted will teach me to make better posts? That's a bit vague. What do you mean by better?
Quoting Banno
You're a subjectivist. So you should consider any such concept a matter of subjective interpretation. Do you imagine I think my posts undignified? Because, quite the contrary. I believe my argument an eloquent appeal for dignity that political correctness lacks.
Quoting Banno
Fit in? Sorry. I'm a philosopher. Fit in - is not what philosophers do. I'm not seeking to be banned. You're seeking to get me banned, because I have challenged your ideas. That's because you're not a philosopher. You're a left wing ideologue. There are lots of places for you to express your ideas on the internet. Try twitter or reddit, which explicitly support the neo marxist politically correct organisation BLM, and won't hear a word of criticism.
Quoting Banno
I have tried to respond to all the comments directed at me. What did I miss?
Quoting Banno
Is that so? I have a degree that differs - but let us assume you're right. If I am so stupid I'm incapable of recognising the existence of thought of a superior quality to my own, how does insulting me help? All I'm getting now is, more insults - and more threats. Your post are poor quality, they lack dignity, you don't recognize the pearls of wisdom we have cast at your feet because you're so stupid, fit in or else!
Yeah....no!
No. But one might hope that @Kenosha Kid pointing out the repetitive, self-serving (bullshit is a technical term in philosophy) nature of your posts might influence you towards improvement.
Let's take this one example:
Quoting counterpunch
It ought to be. That it isn't, should not be a source of pride; it is perhaps indicative of a lack of compassion, or of not being able to see things from the perspective of the other. The reply form Willow was a curtious invitation to reconsider your position. Your reply was at best trite. You pretend to the privilege of ignoring skin colour, only since that serves your rhetorical need. You didn't address her comments with a degree of seriousness.
That is simply not enough here. Go back and re-read her comment and re-think your reply.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
It's racist or supremacist because everyone else does the same, in their own conditions. The values and practices you identify aren't uniquely Western. People of other cultures partake in them or are just as capable of doing so (as with any culture, values and practices ebb and flow with the tides if history and circumstances).
Nothing is wrong with being happy with achievements within Western culture, of course. The "pro west" is a narrative of othering. People do not mention because they are proud we have antibiotics. They do so because they imagine a narrative by which the West are a superior people and culture: supposedly, it is unique of us to have these technologies, unlike all those other primitive cultures (which is of course hilarious because The West lagged behind other cultures in anti bacterial practices for ages-- such technologies are not unique to the West and Western culture).
— counterpunch
Quoting Banno
Why 'ought' it? The question is whether a man was killed. What does his skin colour matter?
Quoting Banno
Ultimately, there is no choice but to treat people as individuals. I cannot understand what it is to be you, because I am me. I can only treat you with compassion as an individual - the same as any other individual; regardless of arbitrary factors like your skin colour, gender, sexuality etc. I owe you respect for your basic human rights - integrity of the person, property, freedom of conscience and speech. But that's about it. If I take into consideration arbitrary facts about you; and act in your favour on that basis, I am necessarily discriminating against someone else.
Quoting Banno
It's not trite at all. It's the crux of the matter. She says:
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
So what about my race?
Quoting Banno
I didn't seem to - no. To the untrained eye - my comments might have seemed somewhat rude and dismissive of what is probably a very kind and well intentioned person. But let's cut through the maudlin sentiment to start with. These are serious matters with vast consequences for a great many people. Nice isn't enough.
You spent too much time listening to Thatcher.
Quoting counterpunch
The question is, was he treated differently because he was black.
But you cannot address this issue unless you recognise that he was black. Hence, "His skin colour ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ME!" is no more than your putting your hands over your ears and humming so as not to see what is before you.
I am not able to respond to your post because it doesn't seem to answer my question, and is expressed in terms that are opaque, jargonistic and inexact.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Colourblindness?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
So all people from all countries are colourblind, and that's racist and supremacist?
This doesn't make sense.
I'm not going to try.
Sorry.
Colourblindness is what you pretended to in saying "His skin colour ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ME!"
Quoting counterpunch
How do you think this follows from anything else said here? Willow was saying that other cultures, besides the West, are justifiably proud of their achievements. It doesn't follow that they are racist, until they add the pretence that they cannot see any difference between other cultures and their own - as you did.
Here's your inconsistency: You distinguish your own culture and you are proud of you it as it suits you; but when black folk talk of their own distinctiveness, you seek to deny its very existence by saying it "ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ME!"
It's such a small issue for you that you had to capitalise it.
Ultimately, there is no choice but to treat people as individuals.
— counterpunch
Quoting Banno
That was the first line of an argument that explains why it's necessary to treat people as individuals. You just took me to task for being dismissive of Willow - who is a lovely person, but seems to be expressing a sentimental truth, rather than a logical one - by stringing together some happy words in a fairly random order. (See the Sokal Affair.)
And the next words your, I'm guessing one finger - punches out on the keyboard, is "You spent too much time listening to Thatcher." And you call me trite?
I can quote passages from Hobbes Leviathan from memory. I've read Rawls - A Theory of Justice cover to cover. Don't judge me by your standards.
Why 'ought' it? The question is whether a man was killed. What does his skin colour matter?
— counterpunch
Quoting Banno
Oh, well then, yes, he most certainly was - but only after he was dead.
Quoting Banno
No, it's not. Because if he were a white junkie criminal, who fought four police officers to prevent being put in a car, and was restrained - and died waiting for a van, I'd be saying exactly the same thing. I'd be saying he created the need to restrain him, and the benefit of the doubt is with the police. You are saying something different because of his skin colour. If you're saying his skin colour was an issue - what evidence do you have for that?
I was addressing assertions about the need to be pro Western and how it related to supremacy.
There are "colourblind" people in all countries no doubt, and it is indeed racist, as doesn't recognise the need to recognise a person of a race as part of the community,
but I was not answering that question. (and its definitely not all people on each society. Some people are not "colourblind" ).
Definitely not sentimental, I'm talking objective material conditions of society: what is entailed in one's social existence and how it relatest others.
"Colourblindess" is akin to a empirical error. It's refusal to observe how the bodies we talk about (sometimes in terms of racial identity) occur in specific relations.