having an impeachment inquiry is the only way to educate the public on whether or not to vote for him in 2020 — 3017amen

I see what you're saying, but it looks like a big mistake to me.

Yes, and we call that process an election, which will take place in just over 13 months. — aletheist

This is the most important point. I neither know nor care if Trump's actions are grounds for impeachment. What seems clear though is that there's a lot of ambiguity and disagreement about it. In those circumstances, pursuing impeachment is suicidal and likely to set back the liberal cause in the US for many years, as it will be seen as an establishment counter-revolution. So just from a tactical point of view, all anti-Trump efforts have to be about getting him voted out. Trouble is I'm not sure the Democrats are up to the challenge.

This historical background is really interesting: http://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/short-history-enclosure-britain

I think it counts as an argument for option 3, and without, I think, requiring any special "invirtuation of the masses", in csal's words (unless the social changes that accompany the introduction of some kind of democratic socialism count as invirtuation).

Indeed. And can it be a coincidence that the idea, the tragedy of the commons, originated in the early 19th century, at the culmination of the enclosures? Generally it's a justification for either of Banno's first two solutions, primarily privatization.

That's not to say that it's never been a problem. It certainly is, in certain social circumstances.

Come on you two, you're embarrassing yourselves.

Apparently Fukuyama studied under Derrida at Yale. The guy who engineered modern neoconservatism, helped get us embroiled in Iraq - he was gonna be a cont-lit guy. Later, Derrida strikes him down in Spectres of Marx. this is weird. Kissinger era realism went though a continental bottleneck and got us post 911 us policy — csalisbury

Possible plot for a new Adam Curtis documentary?

I agree

Not much philosophy over the past few months, mainly research before and after my move to Moscow. These are the highlights:

Mikhail Bulgakov, The Heart of a Dog & The Master and Margarita
Yevgeny Zamyatin, We
Vasily Grossman, Life and Fate
Simon Sebag Montefiore, Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar
John Medhurst, No Less than Mystic (that rare thing, a Leftist anti-Bolshevik history of the revolution)
Abraham Ascher, Russia: a Short History
Peter Pomerantsev, Nothing is True and Everything is Possible: Adventures in Modern Russia
Orlando Figes, Revolutionary Russia, 1891-1991
China Mieville, October: The Story of the Russian Revolution

And a little light economics:

Yanis Varoufakis, Talking to my Daughter
Joseph Choonara, Reader's Guide to Marx's Capital
Karl Marx, Capital (decades since I read it)

A small semantic point, but you should be using the term "sexual behaviour", not "sexual orientation". — Michael

I think the idea is more radical and interesting than that, namely that one intentionally takes on a different sexual orientation by sheer political will. It's radical and interesting because we're accustomed now to thinking that sexual orientation is not chosen, so self-consciously choosing a different one becomes a striking act of subversion. At least, that seems to be the idea.

There are some responses that seem quite hysterical here over the suggestion that women can exercise their right to withhold sex, calling it a "tantrum," "hate speech," — Artemis

Fair enough. Although I don't think their rude dismissiveness was a reaction to the idea that women choose to "withhold sex" from men, but to the arresting idea that feminists' avoidance of heterosexual relationships is in some way progressive.

yet she wasn't proposing it at all — TheWillowOfDarkness

I know. :confused:

Several responses are working under the idea OP is suggesting every woman be a political lesbian — TheWillowOfDarkness

You already said that, and I can't see much evidence of it, as I've already said.

Yet here we are, with half the thread acting like someone is proposing every woman desperate to have sex with men is meant to be a political lesbian. — TheWillowOfDarkness

None or very few of the responses assume that she's proposing that, as far as I can tell. I for one did notice that bit, and it doesn't make any difference.

Homework perhaps. But she might be back to discuss things and is just waiting to see the responses. In any case the topics are quite interesting.

Well put.

But you have to hear a song in its entirety before you can dance to it.

The novel existed in it's entirety prior to the first report of it. Melville reported upon something that existed in it's entirety while writing the novel as well. — creativesoul

I'm sure Melville talked about Moby Dick (the novel) before it was finished.

If that's a misunderstanding, then you haven't been clear enough.

What I'm doing here with the odd claim is attempting to drive an existential wedge between reports of things and what's being reported upon. — creativesoul

What does this mean? Do you mean you're arguing against idealism? Are you just saying that things and the reports thereof are different? What is the significance of saying that something exists "in its entirety" etc.? Why does it matter?

women withholding sex from men — StreetlightX

This all turns on the misconception that sex is something that men want and women tolerate. — unenlightened

Precisely. A rather Victorian attitude.

I have two problems with the OP's argument.

Heterosexual relationships, even in the modern-day, illustrate vast disparities in the gender roles between man and the woman. For example, in terms of housework, women are left with the most work to do in the relationship whereas men, even in more egalitarian households, continually tend to do less work than their wives. Women also bear the weight in the public sphere of taking time off of work to bear children, something interviewers do not take into consideration when interviewing men. In this post, I will argue that political lesbianism, or heterosexual women willingly choosing to end their sexual relations with men, is a viable option for feminism. The lack of sexual relations is used as a defiance to the patriarchy by making a choice that does not put men in positions of male superiority. Essentially, this view allows women to choose their sexual orientation based off of the political results they want as feminists. — Bridget Eagles

Considering that most women want to continue having heterosexual relationships, how does it help them for feminists to disavow such relationships? How can it achieve the desired political results? Is it a symbolic protest? It seems to me it would make feminism look utopian at best, ridiculous at worst, thus damaging the progress towards equality. Less obviously, for feminists to abandon heterosexual relationships weakens their claim to be fighting for equality within those relationships, because it looks like an admission that those relationships are inherently unequal.

Generally speaking it looks like a political attack on women, rather than on men. Of course, for feminists this is far from unprecedented.

This can be a viable form of feminism because it allows for the action of sex, which typically demonstrates men as aggressive and dominant and women to be subordinate and passive, to be removed from the sphere of heterosexual interactions. This, as a result, removes the disparity in the treatment of genders through sexual interaction. — Bridget Eagles

Not all sex between men and women is like that, but granting that a lot of it is, this still doesn't look like a good move. A feminist should if she wants, without rejecting feminism, desire to be dominated in the bedroom while at the same time fighting for a fair distribution of duties like housework and childcare. To take all differences between men and women as examples of patriarchy is to turn feminism into a caricature. Does equality really depend on a lack of disparity during sex? Do you really want to make feminism depend on that? If male dominance in sex is ineradicable (not to mention desired by and fulfilling and enriching for women), is feminism thereby rendered wrong?

his ceaseless topic spamming and discussion killing soapboxing? — DingoJones

This is why I deleted a lot of his posts.

Scary

Southwest Cilantro — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Sounds like my kind of place.

So you're wondering specifically what percentage of amateur philosophers have this gene?

Tastes great to me. I use it a lot. I call it cilantro these days, to avoid confusion with the seed.

There is some evidence that cilantrophobes can overcome their aversion with repeated exposure to the herb, especially if it is crushed rather than served whole

https://www.britannica.com/story/why-does-cilantro-taste-like-soap-to-some-people

There's something similar going on with milk.

Need we say more? — Banno

Gone.

The fact that we had hard categories in place organized the clutter a bit better. — Wallows

You've said this several times, and each time I've asked you what you meant, but you never explain. As Amity pointed out, we have categories here.

Yes, I meant to say that religious beliefs deserve special respect and tolerance over and above non-religious beliefs. — T Clark

Nope.

Not that anyone cares, but I'll be 30 next month — Jimmy

By the way, congratulations on being nearly thirty, and happy birthday in advance. Thirty is a good age. You stop being embarrassed about tripping over in the street, you suddenly become really good at sex, and you are still blissfully unaware of the horror that lies ahead.

Missed that. Too busy stroking my Capuchin.

Whose face? Roy Wood's?

Yep, before I even existed.

Less than a month before, it's true.

Before my time sorry

Elaborate!

Almost as old as Bitter Crank

I think we've had a thread about this already Jimmy, so you get a big fat zero for originality so far. :wink:

I don't think I've revealed my age on the forum before, though I'm sure it's obvious which range I'm in from my political and philosophical disillusionment and general world-weariness. 47.

Btw welcome to the forum.

I'm not going to defend neoliberalism or the right wing Brexit ultras, but I'll note that Brexit did arguably represent the chance to escape from the neoliberalism of the EU (aside from whether and how that could actually have succeeded). From that point of view, the dominance of neoliberals among pro-Brexit political leaders is owing to a failure of the Left to get behind and shape the Brexit movement, which I'm tempted to say is or was, like Trump's election to president, an expression of people's frustration with the neoliberal policies that, as Monbiot points out, have done a lot of harm.

But maybe the Brexit angle is not your focus.

Isn't it odd ... — TheMadFool

Depends how you look at it I guess. The conditions are unfavourable for building a new skyscraper on the site of the Empire State Building, but pretty good for sustaining the one that's there.

I guess it's possible that life could be appearing quite often, and immediately being eaten by bacteria.

I find the present conditions of the world - liquid water, air, temperature - actually perfect for life to begin, start from scratch. — TheMadFool

Note that the conditions of the Earth at the beginning of life were different from the present conditions.

Hate speech cultivates the conditions of/for war. — creativesoul

Do you think the following example of hate speech cultivates the conditions for war between Britain and the US?

Too much guns, religion, celebrity, flag waving nationalism, egomaniac, warmongering, stupid constitutional rights obsession. The U.S. is like our deformed offspring. — S

If not, is there any circumstance in which you think it could? Or maybe you think it isn't hate speech at all?

I'd rather acknowledge that sometimes words do lead to bad things than allow a situation where someone could order my family to be murdered and receive no punishment because some had an ideological attachment to free speech laws even more irrational than religious fundamentals' attachment to blasphemy laws. — Baden

I haven't read much of this discussion, but...

Do any serious commentators argue that ordering murder etc. ought to be defended on the basis of the principle of freedom of speech, or on the basis of its constitutional safeguards? I don't think even (reasonable) free speech absolutists would advance that position. Now, this may cast doubt on the purported absolutism of free speech absolutism--in that even it admits exceptions to the freedom of speech acts in general--but I don't think it's what is at issue in the wider debate.

on balance I'd prefer a society where extreme cases of hate speech, for example, surrounding a black person, shouting the N word at them and threatening to lynch them was not tolerated — Baden

What you're referring to here as hate speech would surely be covered by things like criminal threat, intimidation, or incitement to violence. Isn't the introduction of hate speech legislation precisely to cover other cases, namely of harm interpreted more widely, or offence--cases that don't fall under the other laws?

Ah. Now I know I was taking you too seriously.

[Rant]...[/Rant] — Pattern-chaser

At the risk of taking your rant too seriously...

As I understand the view of linguists, English English, and more widely British English, are just as much variants (varieties or dialects) of English as American English. Why should the variety spoken in the original home of the language be regarded as primary, in a world in which English is a native language in other places? After all, English has mutated in England too.