Just here to mark my dismay at the loss of yet another long time poster. What is causing veteran posters to lose their cool all of a sudden?

Ultimately I have no argument against the moderator's decision as I fully understand the practical need for a low tolerance approach. It's just quite lamentable...

I would still like to see a temp ban or an appeal system...We have the technology...

If this idea that simplicity evolves into complexity is true then what explains the quite obvious fact that humans when engaged in creative acts can never produce something more complex than humans themselves? All our inventions no matter how advanced are but cheap imitations of nature. — TheMadFool

If human minds have X complexity, and things of greater complexity tend to emerge from things of lesser complexity, then it actually does follow (inductively) that human minds can make things more complex than themselves.

How do we explain the hard-problem of consciousness — TheMadFool

One explanation is that it emerges from the complex system/neural networks that our bodies initiate. A second possibility is that we're self-deluded P-zombies...

or our inability to create artificial intelligence and usher in the technological singularity? — TheMadFool

The technological singularity is not coherent for a number of reasons (exponentially growing processing and memory requirements, for example)... Intelligence is the ability to anticipate something, and to anticipate requires observations + calculations. The more confident you want your anticipations to be, exponentially more observations and calculations are required to achieve a linear increase in intelligence. The *process* of the singularity makes sense, but it's a practical impossibility because we almost instantly hit the physical limits of any apparatus we construct. (a true techno singularity must therefore be self-assembling, and the rate of self-assembly must constantly accelerate).

Granted that I may be speaking too soon and we may be able to create something more complex than ourselves in the future but as of the moment our inability to do so contradicts the simplicity evolves into complexity hypothesis. — TheMadFool

"Simplicity" is not an ingredient of complexity. Dynamism, however, is. In systems with very many "simple" fundamental elements, and where the fundamental elements are highly dynamic (can interact with other fundamental parts in numerous ways), emergence tends to happen.

Humans in human society is a good example. One human living alone in the forest is not complex at all compared to a multi-cultural and inter-continental civilization. Humans par nature basically just wander around in forests or plains like the hominid ancestors we evolved from. But give humans enough time and enough behavioral dynamism (and a critical mass), and we figure out how to reach novel tiers of existence (tiers whose complexity did not emerge from biology alone, but from serendipity, interactions, observations, discoveries, communication, time, and space).

In a nut shell, time and space is a serendipity generator (a generator of complexity/patterns/structure, where self-stable *lasting* "complex" phenomenon accumulate overtime and eventually form the ground floor (the basic system) for a new scale of emergent phenomenon), but like diamonds, greater magnitude in the product confers exponentially rising cost (in time, space, and energy).

So the answer to your main point is that we simply cannot afford it. Biology is too cheap and efficient to be contended with in terms of raw complicatedness. That said, groups of humans are the basis for *things that emerge from humans* (emergent phenomenon are wholes by definition, and the human collective is probably the next scale in which we should expect to see highly complex emergence), and human civilization as a whole is debatably more complex than even our own biology.

Following on from the above, this does not happen. There is no move to a lower understanding of an individual because the measurement of trend was never measurement of an individual in the first place. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You're right that statistical analysis is not a measurement of any one individual, so even when there are very clear trends that apply to a given "identity group", we would be mistaken to make any hard assumptions in applying them to individuals. This is one of the reasons I reject the intersectional framework; it's concerned with trends of suffering at the intersection of identity groups rather than the much more complex intersection that discrete identities and individuals actually inhabit.

Racial demographic statistical analysis can be a useful heuristic that points us toward systemic causal problems (such as racism and various forms of unjust discrimination), but we need to actually figure out how the system produces those results, else we're just begging the same question in an endless self-undermining cycle (self-undermining because it assumes causal origins without ever testing for them, which negates the need for research into other possible causes (causes that don't turn on race alone)).

Trends describe a social trend, not an individual. We cannot draw implications about an individual from a trend. The trend is it's own particular fact of society, concurrent to individuals who we might describe. (which is why, for example, the presence of a rich black individual doesn't take a away the trend poverty among black people as a group. Or conversely, why the destitute white person doesn't take away a trend of wealth in their group).

There are no generalisations to make. All are false because they amount to a catergory error, a confusion of one kind of description (trends in a population) for another (description of an individual), even in cases where an individual might have a trait identified in a trend.

I'm out of time again, the rest will have to wait for another day. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I've been busy myself (sorry for the late response).

So we seem to agree that statistical trends in outcomes are not an appropriate basis for discrimination of individuals. I think we would disagree, however, as to whether or not disparity in statistical trends between demographics warrants the appeal to systemic discrimination (to the degree that "color blindness" becomes problematic). A part of our disagreement may be in the way you equate statistical disparities with "systemic discrimination". I believe this is a hasty assumption because of the many other known and unknown factors that can contribute to individual and group outcomes.

"Sensitivity to starting conditions" is one of my larger sources of doubt. The eventual outcomes of complex systems can be very sensitive to initial or starting conditions, where small changes to the starting (or current) state of affairs can have extreme ramifications on the end (or future) results. For example, the economic legacy of slavery and jim crow determined that even in the supposedly post-racial seventies, the black demographic was still massively impoverished compared to the white middle class. And starting around the mid 1980's, the middle class began to shrink; any gains the black community, on average, had at that time, would have began to evaporate. So when we look at the raw statistics of today, how can we easily differentiate between outcomes determined by on-going individual or systemic racism/discrimination, and outcomes determined by the myriad of other forces?

Almost as if by irony, were we to focus on race and racism at the expense of focusing on such other systemic forces, our efforts to course correct will be futile. If we managed to legislate the burka (achieved full-blown color blindness), what is going to prevent the middle class from continuing to shrink, and the wealthy few from continuing to break away from the rest of us at greater and greater expense? I'm not trying to deny that racism exists (color blindness is good in my opinion as we attempt to ourselves be less racist), but I am loathe to define it as an inherent component of the system (as you yourself use the term,it would merely be synonymous with "statistical outcome disparities", as if merely to say, society isn't fair.)

Then there's the problematic human psychology of normatively focusing on race as anything other than cultural or genetic happenstance (being interested in one's heritage is not a faux pas in and of itself, and in that sense our racial identities are benign, but it's possible to go too far). When racial heritage becomes too important, we naturally start thinking xenophobically: "Since my well-being is attached to the well-being of my group (irrational), I had better favor members of my group, and disfavor members of other groups". Even if people don't believe they would act in a prejudiced way, they still have that capacity (how we think we will act, and why we think we acted the way we did, often differs drastically from the actual causes of our behavior). This phenomenon can happen with everything from sports clubs to zodiac signs.

I have no way to predict the future, but I'm pretty sure that by focusing on race - by telling people it is an important part of identity (a group defining identity) - we're just going to wind up stimulating an increase in racial bias in general (because race then becomes a more central part of our world-view schema), and in some cases people will just outright embrace racial conflict as some kind of inherent feature of human society (for example, the alt-right's rejection of "diversity" is 100% founded on a group vs group mentality).

Implicit bias is a rather controversial subject in social psychology (how we measure it and whether those measurements means anything), but there are a few practical approaches to reducing them. One is to simply be aware of how our psychology can be affected when we are in groups (how we seek to conform, to justify, etc...), where eventually individuals become better at recognizing the emotional and environmental cues that trigger biased behavior. My own interpretation of color blindness is that it is a self-motivated attempt to realize when the race of others causes us to discriminate in our interactions with them,and to correct that behavior. I stand by the merits of color-blindness initiatives...

You misunderstand. I wasn’t trying to say ability relates to race, gender or religion in any particular way. I was referring to ability as identity. Just as someone might have a race, gender or relation, they have abilities which society might recognise or not. My point was an equitable society will recognise a person’s abilities as valuable, rather than trying to just ignore them (as the colourblind approach does with race). — TheWillowOfDarkness

So i think it might be useful to separate two different kinds of "valuation" that we apply to others. The first kind is like respect and kindness; to be a valued human being means people think what happpens to you is important. Another kind is when someone values another person for economic reasons. Ability and disability can have a strong impact on the latter kind of judgment, but it should not have any impact on the former. Race, however, should neither have an impact on the former or the latter type of judgment.

If a disability is to amount to a life not worth living, it’s got to be on features which define it (like terrible suffering, disconnection, etc. ), as for any able-bodied person. Anything else is just prejudice, a supposition the able-bodied get merit over the disabled by their able bodied existence. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Life worth living isn't necessarily related to ability, disability, merit, or value. Primarily it relates to happiness: I'm not suggesting that able bodied people have more valuable lives, I'm saying they by definition do not suffer from disability, where suffering has an impact on happiness.

With disability, we also the direction reaction between recognition and addressing problems. How can we hope to address the needs of this with a disability, if we ignore how they are different, the specific needs they have? To be blind to the difference means we cannot take directed action towards it. Addressing the problems on the individual and community level needs recognition of the individuals of the community. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I have no problem recognizing special needs that stem from disability or disease. But I do have a problem recognizing special needs that intrinsically stem from race. This is why I think the comparison between identity and disability is too fast and loose. Comparing race to ability is the exact opposite of what I'm trying to do with color-blindness.

Affirmative action, at least as it usually practiced, fails to address most structural problems for this reason. Giving a some individuals a position in a college or a company doesn’t address needs of the many which constitute that structural disadvantage, let alone other structural disadvantages of those of different identities. — TheWillowOfDarkness

We're on the same page here. I think affirmative action could work if it was earnestly attempted, and while we're at it i would have us focus directly on those individuals who are left behind, regardless of race.

I've put these together because they speak to the same issue: focusing on individual needs in a social context is always a question of collective guilt or virtue. Not in the sense you would seem to assume here, where a person is supposedly especially good/bad in their identity and obtains merit/lose merit for it, but in the sense our society will be guilty or virtuous towards individuals. We cannot focus on what an individual needs from society without a notion who the individual is, how they belong, and how society has a collective responsibility to deliver what they need.

Addressing an issue of structural racism is question of dealing with a guilt our society has generated for a group of people. Our society is guilty of a mistreatment. Fixing this wrong is a collective responsibility which will have consequences for particular people. Certain white people, for example, will lose their vision of an all white community. Some white rich people will have to be less rich, more money going to black people on the bottom (amongst others as well, assuming we are also fixing some things for other groups on the bottom). — TheWillowOfDarkness

The enduring problem i can get past is that trying to understand individuals as a function of their race or other identity leads to a lower-resolution understanding of any given individual (that is to say: to understand the individual, we must look most closely at the individual). When it comes to those who bear guilt, the same statistics based heuristic becomes rhetorically problematic.

A "devaluing" of those at the top, many of those who are white, is exactly what it takes to change something for those at the bottom. I don't mean some violent revolution where everyone's property is being seized, just that those on top lose certain aspects of wealth, status and power when those on the bottom are understood to have merit and get a greater slice of the economic pie.

A simple example is a billionaire will only be able to say they have $2999985000 more than a poor person, rather than $3000000000. But that $15000 of "devaluing" is enough to drive some people to racial hatred or neo-liberal insanity. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I agree that absolute wealth inequality and poverty is obscene in seemingly every nation on the planet, and I would probably support a stronger stance than Bernie Sanders in trying to eliminate those gaps. But my point is that, essentially, who or what is at the top (wherever and whatever that top may be) matters much less than improving conditions for those at the bottom. A symbolic or physical devaluing of those at the top could make a difference for many reasons, but the poor cant eat symbols; they're means and not ends: the end goal is to improve lives, ideally starting with those who suffer the most.

Subcultures never run along racial or ethnic lines. Arguing so is a category error. Cultural actives one partakes in are distinct from having one particular identity or not. Former outsiders become part of groups all the time. Supposing a subculture only involves people of a certain racial or ethic group is just a form of racial essentialism.

Some subcultures might have a certain connection to people of particular racial or ethnic identity, but that doesn’t make belonging to the subculture only for that group of people. Family, relationships location and circumstance can always toss people of expected race or ethnicity into that culture. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I agree, which is why I remarked that culture doesn't necessarily gang with ethnicity.

Race, like any other identity aspect, cannot be used to defined groups. Identity is of the individual. If we are to speak about an identity, we are speaking about individuals. There is nothing homogenous about it. In any given ethnic group, there will be all sorts of people. Different cultural aspects, different concepts of self, variance in material and economic conditions. Identity specifically crosses in-group diversity, to include all sections of the bell curve. Rather the race defining groups, individuals of race define the group. A racial group is an identification of a similarity (racial identity) between these individuals of race. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I agree once more, I would only add the caveat that some people do partially define *themselves* according to their ethnic identity.

The statistics you speak of here is a misstep. Or rather, the way you are using them is backwards. We can measure in group diversity, draw out particular relations, general trends, etc., of the group in society. What does this tell us? Certain numbers of people of the group are in particular cultural, material and economic conditions. It’s not a description of any one individual. — TheWillowOfDarkness

it's a claim about a group of individuals, but you cannot apply it to all members of the group without generalizing, which is where i think there's room for error.

The colourblind is a response to the idea of people gaining merit over others by identity. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not by identity, by identity based discrimination. It's about addressing the mechanism by which identity confers merit. it amounts to proclaiming that identity should not confer merit.

In other words, it is an approach afraid of recognising who people are, for it thinks identity is nothing more than a trick to obtain merit. The position is running on an underlying idea people obtain merit through who they are (i.e. their identity). — TheWillowOfDarkness

I beg to differ. I believe it runs directly contrary to that position.

It tries to eliminate this by giving everyone the same singular identity (person, human, man, citizen, etc. ), so everyone is granted the same merit. We are all just free citizens (unlike those slaves, immigrants, non-citizens, aliens, etc., who do not belong), so we must be of equal merit. Not only does he colourblind approach fear identity gives merit, but it ironically believes it too. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Are you sure it logically follows that intending not to judge others by their skin colour implies that one actually does believe skin colour indicates merit?

If identity wasn’t consider to grant merit, the colourblind approach makes no sense. If we are people of equal merit, what do we have to fear in our differences being recognised? We have nothing. Since we are people of equal merit, we are valuable no matter how we might differ from others. Our differences can be bold, on show, recognised constantly — TheWillowOfDarkness

The problem is there's also history and contemporary identity based discrimination to contend with. I don't think I'm afraid of recognizing differences (I'm comfortable recognizing more of them than most) but I'm afraid of delivering injustice or unfair judgments to others because of hasty or irrational schemas or stereotypes that the human psyche is heir to. In short, the colourblind initiative still makes sense if there is still racism, even if those promoting it believe race does not indicate merit.

My point here is the colourblind approach begins in a fucked understanding of people.

It understands people have to take some specific form (the differentlessness, universal subject) before they have merit. It rejects, like the racists, the sexists, etc al., people have merit in themselves (whatever differences that might entail). Rather than grasping people have merit, a colourblind approach just continues the squabble over being “the right sort” to have merit. — TheWillowOfDarkness

As usual, there is a vast chasm between our interpretations, but we do share common ground. I think that merit only makes sense (in this discussion) when we apply it to individuals rather than identities. It's fine to be proud of heritage and culture,but I don't think it's fair to wield it as an advantage over others, which is what colorblindness seeks to address.

The only modern (and non overtly racist) domain in which I've seen ethnicity directly equated with merit is in select management theory. They value diversity in employee ethnicity and culture because it enhances problem solving capacity and expands company perspective. Not to mention it lets them advertise that they're out to promote equality...

p.s:

I may need a few days to respond to the rest of your impressively long post :) . Thanks for your patience, and thanks for sharing!

I see I can't win for losing with you either: on a thread purportedly about "White Privilege" you're perplexed as to why I point out that it's a White Privilege is a symptom of what I argue is the more fundamental, or pervasive, problem of "Class Privilege" but then my focus of "Class Privilege" annoys you because you misread me as conflating Class & Race. — 180 Proof

That's fair, but you sent me to those posts to contextualize your position here. I'm not annoyed that you would focus on classism, or even on racism, but I am perplexed how you can transition so vaguely between the two in order to rebuke color-blindness.

I am an opponent of certain radical left narratives, and apologize if I’ve conflated your position them, but it isn’t for lack of trying not to…

Because Systemic Racism is one of the policing functions of Structural Classicism that facilitates the socio-economic structure (i.e. status quo) reproducing, or perpetuating, itself. Consider: the relation of Classism to Racism is analogous to the relation of Central Nervous System to Peripheral Nervous System in our bodies - the latter being an intergral function the former. — 180 Proof

I get this, but I can’t square it with opposing color-blindness…

You're apparently missing my satirical pique at the pedestrian quality of this thread discussion (and others like it), that is, you've missed the punchline of that post. So no, the burqa reductio doesn't indicate anything I believer whatsoever about Race, Class, etc — 180 Proof

Though it is clearly a humorous comment, it still seems to make a plausible point (humor is still valid persuasion): that we’re incapable of refraining from acting on racial bias, short of total racial anonymity.
In my scramble to understand why you and others oppose color-blindness initiatives, it seemed a reasonable interpretation

Really? The victim card. O----kay ... — 180 Proof

You seem to have made them into the only currency that matters, and as it happens, I’ve got a stacked deck, so why not?

... "White Privilege" isn't about individuals who happen to be white (i.e caucasian ... (hetero & male too)); it's about what nonwhite persons and communities are up against - discrimination, etc in schooling, employment, healthcare, law enforcement, house, pollution, etc because they are nonwhite - all day everyday. None of that's about you ... unless, of course, you're a white person or community that happens to be poor (i.e. lower middle/working/under-class) and thereby catching hell on a daily basis too ... otherwise "White Privilege" and "Class Privilege" ain't about the social economic & political struggles you're not having. — 180 Proof

Why make the assumption and then correct yourself in the same paragraph? (I'll admit to being annoyed that the only way to avoid the kafkatrap is to appeal to my own experience, but it shows the inconsistency of how telling people they have "white privilege" can play out and spares me the enduring insult of strangers telling me what opportunities and obstacles I did or didn't have).

At any rate, VS, structures of exploitation and their sub-systems of discrimination are the complex cause of INJUSTICE, with which one is either willingly or obliviously complicit or one is not, regardless of whether or not one is white and whether or not one belongs to the upper/over-classes. Nobody gets an ethical free pass (or Get Out of Moral-Jail Free card), so to speak ... — 180 Proof

So is vernacular like “white privilege” and anti-color blindness really the best vehicle for getting there or for stimulating positive action? I oppose the language as divisive and ultimately prejudiced, and I still can’t really comprehend why color-blindness as an initiative applied to discriminatory institutions is somehow bad.

Fault me for being an (American) old school anarcho-lefty, but, imho, "white privilege" is secondary to, or derivative of, manifest Class Privilege (i.e. hierarchical domination structures via systems of exploitation, regulatory semiotic schema & paramilitary policing). The only reason I can see for a white person being "ashamed" of "white privilege" is because s/he isn't using it to expose, subvert or sabotage Class Privilege and thereby becomes/remains complicit in the (passive, conformal) perpetuation of "white privilege" ... just as 'nonwhite persons' too can be complicit in perpetuating, even ramifying, nonwhite under-priviledge by failing or refusing to subvert & sabotage - whenever possible and however as covertly as necessary - Class Privilege.

I can't see how one judges oneself Just when one is not actively, in word & deed, Anti-Injustice. (e.g. Rosanna Arquette?) — 180 Proof

I assume you've heard the statement

When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression


or, at least, that you understand the sentiment. Many (will) feel "reverse discrimination" who have enjoyed the (legacy) privilege of discriminating with impunity against disadvantaged classes, or minorites of one kind or another, whenever "discrimination" is either explicitly prohibited or implicitly obviated (or threatened) by 'aggressively redistributive' policies (e.g. Rawls, Sen). The 'welfare state' & its attendant policies has always only been a reformist prophylactic (more quarter than) half-measure ... a political-economic 'gradualism' that's mostly only delayed a critical reckoning and exacerbated the metastases of Class Privilege (Piketty, Varoufakis, Wolff). If history, sociology, behavioral economics, etc braided together is an incisive guide, then (sooner rather than later) more radical measures (will) have to be taken than simply recycling more of the 'middle-class' same old same old e.g. "raise the minimum wage", "paid family leave", "free childcare", "free college", "free healthcare" ... "universal basic income", etc. — 180 Proof

Maybe I just can't get past the term "white privilege"?

If the primary or proximal force of inequality perpetuation is classism, why use the term "systemic racism" or "white privilege" to begin with when describing the phenomenon? If racial prejudice is not the main perpetuator of inter-racial inequality, then I can understand your opposition to color-blindness (in that it will not make a difference), but clearly your remarks about burkas and (and vague defense of those extolling the import of race as a determinant for interpersonal treatment) indicate you believe otherwise. What am I missing?

I'll candidly admit that the term 'white privilege' (and it's paramour, white guilt) deeply offends and upsets me. Not because I'm afraid of losing my unearned privilege, but because I believe that I've never been given any unearned privileges in the first place. It feels like I'm being assigned guilt for crimes that I neither committed, nor benefited from. And for that feeling, I'm rebuked as a part of the problem. How can I assent to a worldview that deprecates me for the color of my skin? Even if by misapprehension, such an emotional reaction is bound to consistently emerge to the extent that the generalizing and sweeping language invalidates individual experiences. Do we really want to encode such divisive sentiments in such loose simplified terms?

You might not intend these effects, but they're the obvious ramifications of your language. "Reverse racism" is roughly defined by @TheWillowOfDarkness' school of thought as "prejudice against whites" because racism itself has been redefined to mean "prejudice plus institutional power", where, since whites have all the power, it is they who decide the distribution of burdens and benefits ("All white people have white privilege" is true by its own definition, and some people within this school take it further and say "all white people are racist' (I won't speak for Willow on that point, but they do define racism purely as an outcome or state of affairs as opposed to an intention or even a specific action)).

And just as these aren't your actual words (intended usage) or arguments (strawmen), so too isn't the argument for colorblindness that we must ignore ad forget the existence of race at any or all costs, or even that we're capable of being perfectly fair and unbiased. Hence, I still don't get it.

I think you have to have a fairly strong middle-class before programs like affirmative action can create change. There's a downside to them also since they conflict with a merit-rewarding environment.

I think Americans are in the process of becoming more brownish than black and white. That might be the final solution, or part of it. — frank

AFAIK, the middle class continues to shrink, and it is definitely a factor that must be addressed in general before our other half-measures and stop gaps will have lasting effects. Being more brownish might help us with our racism problems, and with inter-racial equality, but it wont address absolute inequality.

You've lost me. :yawn: — 180 Proof

Your argument amounts to "power comes from privilege, and privilege comes from power", where the significance of race is non-sequitir; e.g: people born into poverty tend to stay in poverty. You can use statistical trends in outcomes to equate whiteness with privilege and power, and non-whiteness with its absence, but then you'd be hastily generalizing.

"All white people have white privilege" becomes a meaningless or prejudiced statement if all you're doing is generalizing from statistical outcomes. Having a better chance at winning the wealth lottery doesn't make a difference if you don't win. If you can bring up specific examples of systemic racist discrimination, how would it hurt to consciously target it with a color-blindness initiative?

Not sure I know what you mean. The world will never be perfect, but we can still try to make it a better place to live. But a new coat of paint only goes so far, and lasts so long...

I think affirmative action was intended to boost social reform. To the extent that it put minorities in good housing and schooling, it was treating one of the causes of inequality. — frank

And personally I don't think affirmative action went far enough. If we're going to intervene in inter-generational or community level poverty, half-measures and post-hoc reactions just aren't adequate. And with the looming of automation, AI, and the host other other incoming societal changes that guarantee an upending of our current economic way of life and status quo, no small amount of wealth redistribution or hole-ridden safety nets will make a difference.

If we're talking about inter-racial inequality, then affirmative action treats it directly as a symptom, but it does not exactly treat a cause per se (if lacking access to education is a symptom of poverty then I would treat poverty as the approximate cause. Even though it is true that lacking access to education can contribute to poverty, I reckon that poverty in youth predicts future education outcomes much more reliably than unjust education outcomes predicts poverty later in life (poverty is honestly the primary concern given that it is the main determinant of privilege in a commodified world)). And ultimately, I would support affirmative action for poor children and families of all colors and creeds. I don't really see a difference between the suffering of a poor white kid and a poor black kid.

overClass Priviledge. Cui bono ... — 180 Proof

This reasoning seems circular to me...

"Overclass privilege" (read: the current uninterpreted state of affairs) can't coherently be both symptom and syndrome in the context of this discussion (the discussion of whether color-blindness would be harmful). Either we use the spirit of colorblindness to *attempt to* reduce or negate class segregation along racial lines (to confront classic racism and bias that is operant in society), or we're not really talking about classes that are maintained by racist discrimination (a better take away would then be that possessing disproportional existing power is a great way to maintain, or get more of it). If we're talking about the over-class, then we're not talking about "the white race", we're talking about a minority of wealthy elites, (most of whom are white, but many of whom are not (some of whom aren't even persons, but corporations)), and who certainly did not get there by allowing advantages and privilege to trickle down to the rest of us.

If you want to redistribute wealth along racial lines so that we can enjoy the aesthetic appeal of up-down color symmetry, fine, but the 1% are still set to own everything, and the melting pot still burns when the ingredients are fairly proportioned.

I think we need reform bordering on paradigm shift to confront absolute poverty and absolute equality disparities in modern society. So not only does a reparations style approach fail to address the rest of the poor and the suffering, it could never go as far as is required.

I just want to understand when where and why race must enter this discussion. Beyond self-perpetuating statistical trends, what is the discrimination, systemic or otherwise, that we ought be aware of, and why is colorblindness not useful in the spirit of confronting it?

I'm still trying to understand where this reaction to the idea of color-blindness really comes from. On the surface it is merely the idea that we should not judge others by their skin color (à la Dr. King), but it is made to seem like an insidious plot meant to subvert its own founding moral premise; a slithering ouroboros.

Is it that ignoring race is in and of itself harmful or racist? Presumably, because systemic factors continue to discriminate? (and if so, are those factors not the result of conscious or unconscious bias present in those holding positions of power? (e.g: judges, the wealthy, politicians, doctors, educators, police, etc..)) Is the attack on color-blindness ultimately a preemptive defense of "positive discrimination" as a kind of reparative justice?

I can see the sense of this, but how do we use positive discrimination to eliminate the systemic discriminatory factors that perpetuate these inequalities in the first place? Isn't that just treating a symptom and not the cause? (what exactly is the source of the systemic discrimination? (assuming systemic discrimination is the main inequality perpetrator)).

Banno, tell us how race is so absolutely significant to you, that it's central to your individual identity. — ssu

I think he meant "victim status".

Even the supposition that identity should not matter is caught in these terms. It holds the only way identity could matter is if it were a stereotype to gain merit over others. — TheWillowOfDarkness

How do you get "identity only matters as a position in a hierarchy" from my moral claim that "race should not confer societal advantages and disadvantages"?

Identity has another side, the binding of an existing person, in a social environment, under a concept of who they are. This side (which is a social construct, as are all our identity categories) of race, religion, gender, ability, etc. is real, the people who are distinguished by concepts, who exist is certain material conditions, who are related in specific ways to culture an organisation of society. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I understand that subcultures can run along ethnic or racial lines, but they don't actually. Groups are collections of individuals that all share something in common. Race can be used to define groups.but they're only as culturally, conceptually, materially, and economically homogeneous as the width and standard deviation of the bell curves that measure in-group diversity (that is to say, individuals are not actually defined or necessarily accurately described by the average situation of other members of their identity group). If you tried to define someone's identity based on their race, and they disagreed with your assessment, then you would have likely been employing a racist stereotype (although you could always accuse them of having "internalized white supremacy"). The moment someone says "All black people", or "All white people", they've departed from reality.

So my rebuke is that you're ultimately advocating we rhetorically divide ourselves into ideologically rigid groups in order to assign collective guilt or virtue, where you ought to be focusing on individual needs.

A society which values equality does not see race, religion, gender or ability as irrelevant. It understands people with those identities are valuable. It sees them as part of society and recognises society will not be equitable if it ignores them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I'm trying to understand how ability relates to race, gender, or religion. I don't think ability is irrelevant, and since I think we should always be striving toward "equity" for those suffering the most, I fully support the initiatives required to help the disabled lead lives worth living. In assenting to this, I am tacitly admitting that disability is an intrinsic disadvantage; that it is better to be not disabled than to be disabled. Many disabilities are unique, but I think to be counted as a "disabled" an individual has to have some sort of reduced capacity that interferes with the normal living of life, hence, "all disabled people suffer as a result of their disability". We need not employ statistics at any point except when looking for the best bang for our investment buck when we erect or modify institutions to better accommodate the disabled, and at the same time, offering help that is tailored specifically to each disabled individual is how we can (at least forseeably) reduce the most amount of suffering among the disabled.

If we focus on the specific suffering and needs of individuals, regardless of group identity, I think we stand a better shot at delivering more change. We do need to recognize the ways in which we treat people unfairly because of their race, religion, or creed, so that we can cease the unfair treatment (which is the crux of 'colorblindness'). If poverty, immoral outcomes in the justice system, and a lack of access to quality healthcare or education are the things that disproportionately cause suffering in the black community, let's just address those problems directly, on the individual to individual level, and community to community level

There is also a bit of tension with individualist culture here. If we are in a position of respecting notions of individual freedom, we have to admit the woke-capitalist more than just getting some ideas right. We would have to admit the up-down color gradient of horizontal symmetry (note: we do not really have this now, only certain touches here and there) is an improvement, since it will have altered society in which individuals of certain identities are better valued than before. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But symmetry doesn't speak to absolute suffering; we could arrive at symmetry by "devaluing" the whites currently at the top, but that doesn't guarantee any changes for the individuals who suffer at the bottom (the Bolshevics brought about more up-down symmetry, but they certainly didn't do it by valuing individuals or menshevics).

But race, religion, gender, and ability should not matter, at least in some sense (they should not confer advantages and disadvantages, whether intrinsically or extrinsically). The problem is that anything other than neutrality toward individuals of these demographics winds up being stereotyping/hasty generalizing, and mistakes ensue.

Let's say we fund blacks-only scholarships to be given based on academic merit. It is a good enough idea, but what happens when already advantaged blacks disproportionately win the scholarship? Oops? O.K, let's make a kind of wealth requirement that excludes people from middle and upper-class families to better target the individuals who are in greater need the help. Isn't this the broader principle we should be following? Is it a demographic that needs help or is it individuals? When, where and how do we transit out of the statistical heuristic of race/demographics and into policy or practice?

I'm concerned that the geographic and economic mobility and absolute living standards of the bottom class does not reach an equitable minimum, which is a reality faced many black and white individuals and families alike (though disproportionately faces the black population). In the pursuit of equality, fairness, and improvement, I see this statistical outcome-parity stuff as nearly a complete waste of time because symmetry in proportional suffering between demographics simply does not address absolute suffering or the relative difference in burdens and benefits felt by the lower, middle, and upper classes. In caring so deeply about parity in the upper echelons, people seem to forget entirely about the majority left behind at the bottom.

You have said that color-blindness is just an excuse for white conservatives to justify the status quo by denying racism, but isn't color-wokeness just another status-quo-justifying lens of its own? One that says: It doesn't matter if our society psychopathically chews up and destroys those at the bottom of the bucket, just so long as the up-down color gradient has horizontal symmetry...?

As with most things, truth is a complicated and messy middle-ground that the polar extremes can't help but mortar and shell, which just compounds complexity.

P.S: I did not mean to imply you find great import in genetic differences. My writing usually airs on the rhetorical side, so my attempt to comment and add information usually takes the form of countering a specific perspective that I disagree with (which in this case is both the complete denial of genetic effects, as well as the supposition that we should organize society, or our judgments of others, based on these ultimately vague genetic trends).

You dont think there are ability differences between races? None? Why do american blacks dominate most american sports? Culture? — DingoJones

Differences, yes, but they may not be as large as you think (the reason this topic is taboo is because people are afraid of reaching conclusions that would support racist sentiments).

But yes, genetics do lead to deviation in trends when comparing ethnic gene pools.

Black athleticism is one of the more popular examples (NBA and playership, notably) but many factors other than genetics can and do lead to these disproportionate outcomes. For example, the black population is especially large in California,Texas, and New York, where I am to understand that playing basketball is a mainstay cultural passtime. Growing up poor (where basketball is free), and where basically everyone else is constantly playing it from as soon as they can bounce a ball (meaning they have a highly developed talent pool), is an extremely large advantage for skill development. In much the same way that the ultimate soccer players are selected and developed from a very young age, so too are modern NBA players developed from a young age. I'm not so sure if this would apply to New York, but playing ball all day long in the hot southern sun for a lifetime would also amount to insane endurance conditioning.

Another example is Jewish representation in media and entertainment. New York and LA have disproportionately high Jewish populations, and these are the two centers of American national entertainment (IIRC this fact closes the representation gap almost entirely). It may be the case that black genetics confer some-kind of advantage in sports like Basket-Ball, or that Jewish genetics confer some kind of advantage in writing/producing entertainment, but we need not, and must not, appeal to these things as raw monolithic factors that oversimplify complex realities. Much in the same way that some people claim on-going racism explains all social disparities, trying to explain everything in terms of genetics is likewise narrow.

Syria critic Lindsey Graham reverses stance, says Trump's policy could succeed

Right on schedule...

I can see how people might say "just because you claim not to treat non-whites differently doesn't eliminate racism or its effects", which is a fair enough point, but where does the outright opposition to color-blindness come from? The idea is that subscribing to it can help us reduce unjust discrimination in our own actions. What's the problem with that?

Is it fair to say that the counter thrust is something like: "We cannot undo the damage done to minorities by ignoring their circumstances"? Statistically, economic outcomes are worse for non-whites (save for asian outcomes), so the idea is to increase opportunity for minorities until the outcomes for whites and non-whites are the same. Am I on track so far?

There are two major issues I can see with this logic and practice:

1) It entails an assumption that active/passive/ongoing racism is a main or the main determinant of inequality perpetuation, which means swapping discrimination for reverse discrimination may be woefully inadequate, or it may not even have a significant impact on outcomes. What do I mean by this? Pretend that economically the black demographic was just as well off as the white demographic; we've successfully eliminated statistical inequality between demographics, but have we necessarily touched inequality in and of itself? The mean wealth of an ethnic group is not the same as wealth variance and wealth gaps within an ethnicity, or within the population as a whole. Another example would be achieving fair demographic representation in politics and other elite professions: the majority of people are not in an elite profession, and the middle class continues to shrink while the bottom class grows, so this would only benefit a minority within a minority. Equality on paper, with still roughly the same amount of suffering in the world.

The main rebut to this that I have heard is that if we had more minority representation, equality for the rest of the demographic would flow from that as a natural result (which again assumes that *systemic* racism is the main inequality perpetuator), but I've never seen this claim even vaguely substantiated other than to beg the operant racism question. Do white politicians and elite professionals look out for their fellow whites as a matter of course? And to the extent that they do, is this what perpetuates inequality? Granted, there is racism in some of our institutions (notably in the justice system), and it surely has an impact, but is this really how we want to explain away inter-generational poverty and inequality perpetuation? If so, why are there intergenerationally impoverished white families and communities in vast quantities? Is it a result of their individual genetics? After-all, they have white privilege, so there is nothing holding them back, right?

2) It reinforces a simplistic worldview based on a harmful schema/stereotype: the idea that our race defines our boons and burdens and station in society; that races act, feel, think, suffer, transgress, and are transgresses upon, as one. Psychologically, defining statistical outcomes as a group vs group effect very quickly leads to inter-group conflict along the classic "us vs them" lines (because individuals often define themselves by their group,and they leap to defend it from other groups when threats are perceived). So not only does it dissolve the individual, it also provides a neat and tidy framework for direct race-based conflict. I realize that racial tension, resentment, tribalism, and conflict is not the intended result of defining society as a system of racist causes and outcomes, but because of frail human psychology, it is the natural ramification.

I want to live in a society that treats individuals fairly, and we can't do that if ethnicity is a factor in the way we treat others. Poverty, education, health; these are all factors we can consider when we set out to create equality. Presumably, equality in representation and other outcomes would flow naturally from equality and fair opportunity at the lower levels, right?

What am I missing?

Lindsey basically became Trump's gimp-slave as soon as he got the nomination IIRC. He thinks of himself as principled, so it will be interesting to see how long it takes him to turn hypocrite yet again this go-round. (AFAIK, Lindsey as been speaking out against Trump since the Erdogan call revelations)

I don't know if I've ever read anything quite so absurd as this letter...

Here we are looking at the difference between two alternative worldviews that pretty much exhaust the possibilities. — Janus

I find this to be the dubious bit. God and Not God are certainly positive and negative positions (which are exhaustive), but it only holds up when we treat 'God" as an abstract symbol (that we may equivocate and rationalize with ad hoc, which reveals that the claim(s) itself approaches meaninglessness).

To a Christian, Jesus is either the lord and savior, or he is not. But is it two alternative worldviews that exhaust possibilities? To a Buddhist, you either believe that Buddha was the most enlightened, or you do not. With all the other gods/religions and accompanying moral/cultural packaging, associating "the other side" with one particular world view means defining "the other side" from an egocentric starting point.

"They" are "what we are not" is simply the backwards description of atheists. Atheists lack positive belief in theism, god, or gods; nothing less, but sometimes more.

Since theism usually involves the idea that there is an afterlife, divine judgement, the possibility of redemption or salvation and a much more robust notion of personal responsibility, it seems obvious that the presence or absence of belief in these theistic ideas would involve significant differences in philosophical attitudes. — Janus

But how much deviation and cross-over is there within theistic beliefs,and between the worldviews of theists and atheists? And how blurry therefore must the label "atheism" therefore become?

I say we should not attach extra associations to the term that aren't necessarily there.

And I am not a theist (I have no idea what gave you the idea that I was), but a "soft" atheist, by the way. — Janus

Yea I realized my assumption half way through writing that post, but I figured it would not really impact meat of our discussion, and it helped me to express my position rhetorically (my apologies).

A lot of the classical works aren't going to be very useful or relevant to you, although many of them might be downright enthralling (contemporary debates are among my favorite sources of information).

Usually people get into philosophy because they're interested in something specific. What are your interests? Since you seem to be interested in philosophy in general, can I assume that you're curious about "truth"? (as in: What is truth? How did it get there? What is it good for?). In this case, you should look for introductory materials (videos, essays, or texts) on the subject of "epistemology".

Some other areas that might be interesting are "ontology" (similar to epistemology, but to do with the nature of existence/ as opposed to the nature of truth), "normative ethics/morality" (do do with the nature of right and wrong or moral value), and finally the philosophy of science (which should include an examination of basic logic (inductive vs deductive).

There's more to learn in the broader field of philosophy than can be learned in ten lifetimes, so it's a bit of a tradition to follow your own interests...

I think the "incidental consequence" option is adequate. I would say that being an atheist is highly unlikely to be of no consequence to the way you think about things. In other words if, for example, per improbable, you were to became a theist, it would seem implausible to think that nothing else about your philosophy would change. — Janus

But this is like saying that not being a tennis player is of consequence to my activities because if I was to start playing tennis then it would entail some changes. (You've stated my point perfectly).

I do get the perspective you're taking: from it, my absence of belief does appear to have a consequence because of what it would mean for your present beliefs. If you became an atheist, your worldview would change because (presumably) your theism helps you derive things like existential and moral value, and so you would have to derive it elsewhere.

I can remember being accused by both theists and hard-atheists alike that I am " a cowardly fence sitter who must make a choice because the outcome will affect my entire life". I can strain to understand what they meant, but it just doesn't resonate. A popular come back is to ask people whether or not they believe in the flying spaghetti monster (and whether their lack of belief in him has consequences for their philosophy). In a well formulated nut shell: the consequence that atheism has on my philosophy is that my philosophy is not founded or based upon theism/belief in god, which does seem to contrast with the majority of historical human opinion.

But if you look at atheists and think to yourself "oh boy, they're missing out on a whole world of goodness and truth", then you're a kidder of the highest order.

Consider that having specific theistic beliefs precludes you from considering the multitudes of competing theistic hypotheses (whereas myself, as an atheist, am free to entertain and explore it all in earnest). Consider that there may be ideas, perspectives, and facts that your specific theism biases you toward, or against.

For all the niche ideas, moral foundations, etc, that your theism grants you, is there not an infinitely broader world that you're implicitly missing out on through your theistic subscription?

Why must we paint the roses?

Question for all: How much does your lack of belief (or even disbelief) in Zeus or Quetzalcoatl affect your philosophy or worldview?

Where is the "I'm an atheist, and it is of no consequence in the rest of my philosophy" option?

I feel like the question is posed incorrectly. Answer the question "How much does being a theist affect your philosophical world view?", and then the atheist can answer "by *not* same that amount".

People screamed about the same things when Trump first mentioned the withdrawal back in December. So they kicked the can down the road to a later date. That date arrives and here we are again. — NOS4A2

Again, it's not the withdraw that astonishes me, it's that the fact that Trump is set to allow (or set to be unable to prevent) the murder and slaughter of our Kurdish allies, without whom ISIS would likely still exist. We armed the Kurds, they fought and died for us, and now we're going to feed them to Erdogan? Was it all one big lie or trick that they were our allies?

If you can't see why this is, philosophically, a moral/ethical issue of the grandest possible scale, can't you at least see why it is bad strategy? In the simplest possible terms, if the U.S backstabs and abandons the Kurdish people, then other groups across the planet who are watching will likely feel and conclude that America deserves to get fucked in return (whether by political, economic, or militaristic lack of cooperation, opposition, and beyond). At this point you might say "Good, let them try",or something along those lines, but then you'd have to consider how you would be starting down a road toward war with most of the rest of the world (a war the U.S would lose, given that its economic stability depends entirely on the cooperation of a global community). Maybe this topic is fit for another thread, but it seems to be the crux of the argument that says "we should bring our boys home in all cases": Isolationism is no longer a logistical possibility if we wish to keep our current market/commodity/innovation strength and pace.

Remember when Trump came out and said "Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated"? Full blown isolationism runs along the same foolish "we'll just make a great deal" angle that Trump campaigned on. How can Trump make great deals when he very obviously does not understand these games? "i know more about ISIS than the generals do, Believe me". Did you believe that? He claims to more about everything than everyone; unmatched wisdom... An official with knowledge of the Ergodan call said Trump "got rolled" and "has no spine". Do you think Trump made a great deal? Or do you think Erdogan is about to invest in yet more American-laughing-stock?

Perhaps. All the more reason for them to behave, — NOS4A2

But if Trump gave the nod to Erdogan, then they're actually behaving... And if we just stick to isolationism and fail to protect the Kurds, American threats wont be worth a damn.

What if categorically bringing our boys home would create more problems, even for Americans, than it would solve?

Your first reaction on pulling troops was in my view misguided as it solely concerned what a failure it constituted for Trump. — Benkei

What's wrong with pointing out Trump failure? I still don't get how it is misguided. There is no order-of-priority in a Trump mega-thread.

Did you imply that I subscribe to the worst kind of misguided centrism because I didn't offer thoughts and prayers? I thought "Apparently Turkey has begun bombing of the Kurds in northern Syria, after Erdogan got the go-ahead from Trump..." spoke for itself.

If that's your first primary point in relation to what happened then I don't think that's the right order of priorities, eg. misguided. It's not such a big deal as you now seem to think it is. That's what I reacted to not the posts after that that you are now bringing up. — Benkei

I think your reaction was misguided...

What would you have me do differently?

The EU, for all their bluster, have a small fraction of the military might that America has. And the EU didn't start this cluster-fuck...



It's neither economic, nor strategic, nor moral to retreat from Syria (let alone to give Erdogan the nod to start bombing innocent people). It means prolonged chaos that eventually America will be pulled back into dealing with in around 10 years time, or sooner. Remember Afghanistan and Iraq? What's the idea behind collapsing sovereign "enemy" nations through expensive wars, only to then abandon them before they can be stabilized?

The real issue here though is not pulling out of Syria in and of itself, it is having allowed Turkey to murder our allies. If America cannot protect its allies then it really is good for nothing. Isolationism is not tenable in the globalized world (unless you want to do some farming), so why even pretend that the fates of nations are not intertwined?

Trump and the pentagon have been providing the Kurds, manly the SDF, with weapons, training, support and money since the beginning of his presidency. The caliphate is done. The operation is over. Time to bring the Troops home. — NOS4A2

My friend, think about this for a minute (it's pretty important stuff so please take a deep breath and give it some honest focus). The Kurds fought ISIS for us. Traditionally, the bonds of individuals and nations that are formed in war are sacred. This is literally an example of one soldier leaving another to die.

So now imagine that America is that cowardly backstabbing soldier. How do you think the rest of the world (let alone the Kurds) are going to feel about this?

Who in their right mind is going to think of America as trustworthy and competent when they're willing to throw their allies to the wolves in sudden bouts of supreme tactical stupidity?

"Bring the troops home" is really fun to say, but when we bring them home too soon or unpredictably, chaos ensues, and then we'll just have to go back 10 years from now. Why keep repeating the exact same mistake? Hype?

Do you really want to make America out to be the evil one by giving Turkey the nod to genocide our allies?

There is no taboo. It's just totally weird to me that your take away is what a failure for trump this is. As if that's what's important. — Benkei

This is a thread for general Trump conservation, I wasn't aware I should be limiting myself to "what's important". I already gave my take-away: "In one fell move, Trump may have just completely dashed what would have been the culminating victory of a struggle for freedom that has taken a century to unfold.".

I'm still trying to understand what centrism has to do with my posts, and why you think they're centrism of the worst kind. Is it that by saying "This is Trump's biggest failure", I'm somehow making his other failures seem less grave? As if to say "Trump is A-O-K apart from this one thing"? Should I have used a swear word?

Even if this thread was about the Turkish invasion of Kurdish controlled Syria (as opposed to being explicitly about Trump), I still don't see anything wrong or suspect in pointing out who or what is to blame.

Why are former GOP allies distancing themselves from him? Are they really concerned about Kurds? Or are they in the pocket of defense contractors? What does this mean for the Kurds? — Benkei

So, instead of pointing out that this is a direct Trump effect, you would rather I point out that his cronies and sycophants are the guilty ones? I should have blamed the industrial-military complex? If you want my speculation about the future of the Kurds you should probably look elsewhere. I've placed three bets over the last three years that they would have a Kurdistan by new-year's. I know too little about it; maybe this betrayal will get the Kurds enough international recognition to get their nation-ball rolling (Turkey will definitely need to be pressured). I'm just guessing though...

The GOP allies are distancing themselves because the outcome is an unambiguous betrayal of epic magnitude. Yes they have donations to worry about, but they also have a reputation to defend, and not all of their constituents are utterly without scruples (is suggesting that #not all republicans and conservatives are amoral, unprincipled,and idiotic bigots also an example of the worst kind of centrism?). Maybe I've read your posts wrong, but it seems like the moral rebuke you're leveraging against me hinges on the fact that I've mentioned Trump in the Trump thread.

All things you could've raised in relation to Trump's decision but easily ignored because, my, my, what a (bloody predictable) failure for him. So yeah, the sole focus on him is misplaced from my point of view — Benkei

I would really appreciate it if you would explain to me in simple and clear terms how my focus has been misplaced. What sort of things should I have brought up? This is a serious question. If I don't understand how and why you've taken issue, how can I possibly update my understanding or behavior?

That the Kurds don't have their own independent state shows just how divided they are. That the states with Kurdish minorities (Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria) have been able to keep the Kurds in separate camps is quite astonishing.

Besides, in truth they have had a semi-independent state in Iraq, even if they officially have been part of the post-Saddam Iraq.

Hence VagabondSpectre, it's not true that they haven't never held form political power in these countries: Jalal Talabani, head of the Patrioitic Union of Kurdistan, was the President of Iraq for 9 years during 2005 - 2014. Just to give one example. — ssu

That's farther than I knew! I'm quite ignorant about many details of middle eastern politics, but as long as I got the gist of it right I'll be content.

While you're hand-wringing that you can finally stick it to him I fail to see how that's going to help the Kurds. — Benkei

Nothing I can say will help the Kurds. You expect too much.

However, the more expediently and effectively Trump is rebuked or removed, the more expediently we can get an administration that starts overturning these unfathomably bad precedents. Of course, by then it might be too late for the Kurds in Syria and South-East Turkey.

The longer this is allowed to continue, the more likely this is to repeat (Trump has had a chilling effect on America's ability to deter dictators and violent regimes).

The USA as world police has never been an ideal arrangement, but at least,as you say, they had some sort of guiding principle. And now that the chief of world-police can be bribed with mere compliments, is the resulting free-for-all really that surprising?

In light of what happened and then to focus on what a failure for Trump this was, seems to be totally misplaced or American-centrism at its worst. — Benkei

I would like to understand how you came to this interpretation of my post. I don't understand how centrism could possibly relate to pointing out that abandoning the Kurds is Trump's most severe crime.

I don't get what centrism has to do with either of my posts, let alone how it could be centrism at it's worst.

It's not the first time I've posted in the thread. — Benkei

I was asking rhetorically, given the title of this thread and the fact that all conversation about Trump is ostensibly restricted to this single thread. How long before it's no longer taboo to point out that Trump just betrayed our allies and left them for dead?

What did you expect when you clicked the thread? The betrayal is so obvious and monumental that there is no need to point out why it's hideous. As @StreetlightX notes, all available evidence indicates that this is the result of Trump's direct contact with Erdogan, and that this isn't just another typical Trump scandal: innocent people, allies even, are being killed violently, and Trump is the proximal cause. Take your pick: tactical stupidity, absolute ethical failure, abject betrayal; this one's got it all. Ought I make another thread?

A thread on the Kurds and the history leading to their present predicament could be interesting. As far as I know, the Kurds had been systematically divided and conquered since the end of the Ottoman empire (their homeland exists over the shared borders of Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey). As far as I know they've never held formal political power in any of those modern nations, and have essentially been a second or third class minority. Turkey in particular has always been in conflict with the Kurdish people in some form (especially for their aspirations toward nationhood), of which there is a long a bloody historical record. Three or four years ago I was convinced that the Kurds would finally get a Kurdistan. They were helping the fight against ISIS like no other group, and they were eager and hopeful to have the west as an ally.

And so, in one fell move, Trump may have just completely dashed what would have been the culminating victory of a struggle for freedom that has taken a century to unfold...

Sure, we can blame the Pentagon and intelligence communities who failed to prevent this, or the party who hoisted him into office, or the pundits that keep him going, or the peons that voted for him (in fact we should probably blame them all according to their hand in it).

But what of the blameless toddler in question? If anything will stick, this is it (we may not be able to actually pin it to Trump's own whim, and we almost certainly cant impeach him for it, but I'm betting that this will be remembered as the the most egregious failure of the Trump presidency).

Apparently Turkey has begun bombing of the Kurds in northern Syria, after Erdogan got the go-ahead from Trump...

This will probably be Trumps single greatest failure...

Drama comes, and goes, with any human community. When it's at its best TPF is a place where only ideas matter, creativity is high, and intellectual discord doesn't beget emotional disharmony.

And perhaps the world today is just a bit more tense (and therefore sensitive) than in recent years and decades... We're across-section of the English-speaking and internet-having world, after-all, and nobody is truly immune to passion and the throngs of their environment.

With the amount of turmoil in the world today, we might actually be doing a pretty good job of things on the whole...

I'm pretty much laissez faire when it comes to speech, so it's kind of upsetting to see such a long standing contributor fall...

That said, the upkeep of this place makes necessary some sacrifices, and I would like to thank the mods for the constant effort the spend in doing so.

Fairness is an elusive a double-edged mistress...

I am not sure if Greece was not hereditary or I just made that shit up. — ZhouBoTong

The ancient Greeks traded in foreign slaves as it was deemed immoral to enslave a fellow Greek.

The Spartans were equal opportunity slavers though...

This is all Nancy Pelosi and the DNC's fault, and by now it may be entirely too late for impeachment proceedings to mean anything at all. Meanwhile, Trump is blameless in the same way that a toddler is blameless...

The DNC rail-roaded Bernie in 2016 (and seem to be doing so again), which was one of the main cinches of Trump's 2016 victory...

And when it became clear that Trump was categorically unfit for office, Pelosi's reaction was to increase the fervor of her 2020 hand-rubbing rather than to consider upholding democratic principles and American values...

Now that she's finally flipped the switch just in time for the 2020 circus, all the damage has already accrued...

I foresaw (and predicted) a mid term impeachment as a massive step toward sanitizing party politics and instigating badly needed reforms (superpacs, gerrymandering, and the electoral college to name a few). "It will be like A Christmas Carol" I thought; a cathartic return to reality and a moral center.

Turns out that pretending your crow meat is a delectable cut of swan actually changes the flavor, and also that if you stand back and give someone enough rope, they just might hang us all...