Those are not seperate. Remove the "neomarxist" aspects of those studies and one fails to teach objective truths about the topic, society, its people and their relations. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Having read myself sociology also I truly beg to differ.

Marxism is just a school in an academic field.

Again, how do you know that? In a deterministic universe, can not everything be expressed as an algorithm? — Echarmion

No. Of course not.

Not only is the Laplacian determinism false, but also then you would have the Entscheidungsproblem answered differently, which was proven to be negative exactly by Turing with the idea of a Turing Machine. The Church-Turing thesis has importance here.

If I lost you here, I'll try to explain this as simple as I can what I mean.

a) Assume that everything can be expressed with an algorithm in the universe. This means that there is a specific algorithm explaining every phenomenon etc in the universe.

b) The above would mean that there is a positive answer to the Entscheidungsproblem: there would be an algorithm to decide whether a given statement is provable from the axioms using the rules of logic. This is just how algorithms as functions work.

c) Turing (alongside Church) showed that this isn't the case.

d) It's not by accident that Turing Machines are the theoretical structure of all computers. Hence this problem isn't just something that can be evaded. This might not be a practical obstacle as many things can easily be solved by algorithms. The problem only comes when the situation isn't routine and the computer/software should "think out of the box".

e) As I said, we humans don't calculate everything. We can handle information that hasn't got a pattern and still make sense of it.

You're clutching at straws. — Izat So

Nope, Terrapin Stations view is totally sound, understandable and I agree with it. And you were saying that there is a push to stop these fields. Well, not even that review website is up and as Terrapin Station explained, it's rather far fetched that this would mount to an academic subject to be erased away.

If you look how the article is written, it literally says that JP is saying that English literature, anthropology, sociology, women’s studies and ethnic studies as the types of courses have to go.

REALLY?

If something Professor Peterson would argue, it would be that postmodern neo-Marxist approach to these studies ought to go. That is the quite reasonable view of Petersons ideas. You can get when listening or reading Peterson. Yet to assume that he is advocating among things like English literature, anthropology or sociology to be stopped taught in university is a totally crazy interpretation.

As Trump said long ago, he could shoot someone dead on Fifth Ave, and his supporters would applaud. Evidence of Trump's unfitness, ineptitude, and mendacity pile up all around him, but Fox and Friends continue to provide cover. It can't go on like this. I think the facts of the case are such as to demand impeachment. If the GOP won't go along, well it's on their heads. The facts are in the public domain. — Wayfarer

Never underestimate the tribalism, the vitriol and utter hatred of the other side in American politics. The GOP won't go along. Above all, those people who hated Hillary so much simply won't go along either. Both sides can live very comfortably in their own echo chambers.

I've lost faith in Americans having any objectivity in these issues.

What did they do to earn 82 million? — Benkei

Served with duty their country honorably and very successfully.

What else? :smile:

nobody is seeking to shut down Feminist Studies departments
— ssu

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/11/10/u-of-t-profs-proposed-website-would-target-professors-teaching-womens-and-ethnic-studies.html — Izat So

Ah, your favorite JP. Let's look into this with a simple Google search:

Jordan Peterson, an outspoken and controversial psychology professor at the University of Toronto known for his public refusals to use gender-neutral pronouns, started a new campaign against the perceived excesses of campus liberalism. But amid criticism he abandoned the plan.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported that Peterson planned to build a website that would have listed courses containing “postmodern neo-Marxist course content,” in an effort to decrease enrollment in those courses. The list was intended to reach beyond University of Toronto courses.

"We're going to start with a website in the next month and a half that will be designed to help students and parents identify postmodern content in courses so that they can avoid them," Peterson told Canadian broadcaster CTV.

In a YouTube video posted to his personal account, he highlighted English literature, anthropology, sociology, women’s studies and ethnic studies as the types of courses “that have to go.”

Professors at the University of Toronto expressed concern that they would be targeted by such a list, which also led to fears of harassment.

"Instructors of the potentially targeted courses believe that their autonomy as educators may be under threat. The proposed website has created a climate of fear and intimidation," the University of Toronto Faculty Association said in a statement to Canadian media.

Peterson, on Twitter, later said he was not going to go ahead with the plan.

(See Professor Abandons Plan for List of ‘Neo-Marxist Course Content’

So as I was saying: nobody is seeking to shut down Feminist Studies departments. And needless to say, even if JP would have gone with his website on the issue, it wouldn't be the same as shutting down Feminist Studies.

The obvious counter argument is that human brains also just follow a well written software. — Echarmion

Then 'the software' simply isn't a traditional mathematical algorithm.

It means that you can create amalgams of previous experiences or ideas. All new ideas consist of previous experiences. A purple polka dotted people eater can't be thought of without having the concepts of purple, polka dots, people, and eating prior to creating it in your mind. — Harry Hindu

And that is quite different from a Turing Machine which basically uses simple math to follow an algorithm. What we do extremely well and are masters in, and computers might do in the future, is recognizing patterns. This importance of patterns is the reason why math and computing is so dominant. Yet we can do even better: we can handle information that has no pattern, is unique. We have this utterly incredible ability to make a narrative: First happened this, the happened a totally new thing...then Harry Hindu made a comment from another perspective. That's not computation. You cannot extrapolate from the start a pattern that will tell the rest (and your comment). There is no pattern to be computed. And that makes us so awesome compared to Turing Machines.

Most new ideas arent useful unless they apply to the world in some way. Computers can be programmed to assemble information in unique ways and then try to apply it to some goal in the world, and its usefulness is dependent upon how it relates to some truth in the world. — Harry Hindu

And typically you need the human to choose just what is useful. In a nutshell, computers have a really big problem of 'thinking out of the box'. It really is a theoretical, logical problem for them. I think that people are simply in denial about this because basically they don't understand just how a Turing Machine works.

Desalination of seawater to provide freshwater has actually already turned the tables in Israel.

They were at first having problems with fresh water use, but now it's not a problem anymore. Or hasn't been for years now. Also the newsclip explains the technology too.



So that of the typically totally forgotten and very unpopular positive news about the subject.

And what makes you think humans do not have these limitations? The way our brains function and create new connections is based on a fixed set of rules. — Echarmion

Well, we can argue if humans are conscious or not! Or think about it in this way: what does it mean to be creative, to have a new idea? Did someone tell you exactly how you should get a new idea?

The point here what I try to make and I've described in the thought experiment above is this: we can easily understand the decision making system we ourselves use and alter it in a creative way. It doesn't mean that Computers cannot emerge to have AI (and that naturally depends on the definition of AI), what it means that how Turing Machines work now cannot do that. They surely can (likely even at the present) fool us to believe that they are a living person when you are just interacting with a computer program.

Yet that doesn't make the program having AI as it simply follows a well written software, an algorithm. That's all what Turing Machines can do. Sorry, but that is the goddam definition.

SSU, you have misrepresentated my position. I do think people should talk about PC issues because I think that there are some problems with PC extremism. What I don't get is why pundits seem so much more concerned about the relatively piddling cases of political correctness gone bad than the rise of the right with its potentially deadly xenophobia and misogyny. — Izat So

We agree on something. Perhaps it should be good to ask here what you see as a problem with PC extremism? Can you give an example?

Besides, I don't think that engaging in this discussion means that people wouldn't be worried about xenophobia or misogyny...or terrorism. Contrary to the belief of many leftists, the right isn't at all an unified front and there's absolutely no love or agreement with the traditional right and the far right. They really are two different animals, just as was were Western based social democracy and Soviet based Marxism-Leninism totally different in the 20th Century. The two were literally enemies to each other.

Furthermore, the pundits, "thought leaders", inadvertently appear to the xenophobes and the misogynists to give them some legitimation. They can talk about tempering political correctness rather than trying to shut down Feminist Studies departments. — Izat So

Topics like immigration or wealth distribution are important topics to be debated even if with the first topic it is the far right and in the latter it is the far left that seek to dominate the discourse...as if they are the only ones critical about the subject. We shouldn't fall into this kind of thinking as it is the traditional way how the extremists seek to dominate the discussion and shut down, push out other moderate views. And naturally their opponents like this: what would be better for leftists to have the ability to paint the whole right with swastikas and for the right to paint the left with Soviet style hammers and sickles.

Besides, nobody is seeking to shut down Feminist Studies departments. The inability to understand that criticism is helpful and criticism, lets say about this subject, doesn't mean that you are appealing the misogynists. This is basically the problem with the dominant PC attitude towards debate: any criticism is seen as a veiled attack against the thing with the most sinister intentions possible. Political correctness actually promulgates conspirational views: someone saying one thing actually is actually saying something other.

Also, computer programs exist that improve their "own" code and chip design. — Kippo

Please read carefully what I said. Turing Machine simply cannot perform the task "do something else than what is given in your program in a way not defined in the program. Whatever neural network mimicking machine deep learning we are talking about, IN THE PROGRAM there has to be specific instructions how to learn, how to rewrite the program. An algorithm following Turing Machine cannot do anything else. This is crucial to understand because it goes to the mathematical essence on just how a Turing Machine and an algorithm works. This is also the reason why computers can win in games: there are confined rules what to do and a game cannot evolve to something totally else with different objectives and different rules. This is based on what a Turing Machine does.

So can AI find this "singularity"? Well, we have many crucial definitions on the way to it that we even now don't understand. Just look at the various debates around here. My point isn't that it is impossible, the point is that currently we are not there yet. A lot has to happen.

But what is typical for us is that we believe that the present scientific paradigm tells everything we need there is for everything to be solved. So was with the mechanical world-view of Newton's time and so is now.

Does anything do other than what has been programmed into it? — TheMadFool

Make this thought experiment:

1) Some professional team of psychologists etc. observe your doings for a while and they are able to make a quite clear and totally realistic synopsis of how you behave, how you react in different situations and how you manage it in social situations and with other people.

2) They and you go through their findings and have a long discussion about it and how it relates to other people and so on.

3) Here's the question: Do you think that you would be able to notice something that you might learn from their observations and the discussion to improve yourself or be, as they say, a better person?

If you say at least "perhaps", then you aren't a computer. A computer cannot look at it's own program and improve it in a way not written in the program. Now a human being can understand just how he or she has behaved, what has been his or her program and change it. That's what consciousness is.

I think it's also vital to note, per the article, that while there were about 7x more terrorist attacks in the 70s vs. the 2010s (regardless of ideological motivation), there were only 32 more deaths in the 70s than in the 2010s (which doesn't include 2017-2019), so the vast majority of left-wing terrorist attacks (+70%) were non-lethal, while a higher proportion of right-wing attacks are lethal. — Maw

A discussion of terrorism and trends in terrorism would surely be interesting.

And your comment above just adds to my point that here you do have to put into context the present with a historical comparison. Of course the comparison of terrorism in Europe would be totally different. Then of course, you had in Europe actual terrorist organizations that basically were engaged in a low intensity conflict like the IRA in Northern Ireland or ETA in Spain among othes. (This actually shows the brilliant strategy of the UK of achieving dominance over the discourse in the media even today as the conflict is referred to "The Troubles", yet which killed more servicemen and police than the Falklands war or the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan it could be called an insurgency.) In the US you have this obnoxious "culture" of mass shootings were literally the person that typically kills himself too wants infamy in the media (hence the copycats). Hence a bomb explosion that doesn't kill anybody wouldn't be noticed... with the exception of it being perpetrated by jihadists, naturally. And right-wing terrorism has it's own culture of basically using individuals that aren't related to organizations typically making their attacks on moments of opportunity. If the attacks would be instigated by a cabal of people, the police could go against this far easily by portraying the people belonging to a terrorist organization (after all, franchising terrorism has already been invented).

Yet here's the issue.

There's simply a mismatch in Izat So's basic argument that people shouldn't talk about PC issues because...there's right-wing terrorism. What is the link? Does it mean that somebody talking about a PC climate is supporting/provocating/embracing right-wing terrorism? Is talking about PC climate some kind of a dog whistle or what? Which "right-wing" commentator, Joe Rogan, Rubin, Shapiro or whoever is doing that? If I remember correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), you made the example one mass shooter / terrorist having listened to Ben Shapiro. Well, a lot of people listen to Shapiro.

Perhaps it's very difficult for you to understand, but as an foreigner this feels to me quite similar to the way in the right all aspects of "leftism" are mushed up together to paint the worst kind picture. Even the tropes are similar: with the octopus tropes of the evil intensions of the billionaires and banks behind it all sponsoring the nastyness behind the curtain.

I think it just shows the political tribalism and polarization of the political field. I really that the American discourse won't creep into Finnish politics. There are small but ugly signs of it though.

Extreme PC is relatively rare, in my experience, and I can't understand why anyone would be offended with social justice, unless they are in some sense feeling threatened by the rising fortunes of women and minorities. — Izat So

Again these odd deductions: that if people think PC culture has gone too far / might go too far, they obviously (your words), obviously are feeling threatened by the rising fortunes of women and minorities.

Well, of course this is not actually odd, because what you said is totally in line with the leftist PC dogma how these issues are talked about. Nearly everything if not everything is because of the patriarchy and the whites in America losing their majority status. No other reason can be, not even for people outside the US, it seems.

Yet why is it so difficult to understand that 2/3 of even the American people don't belong either to right-wing Trump worshipping MAGA-hatters fearing socialism OR the woke progressive left seeing nazis everywhere? And that these people are basically fed up with the vitriolic debate the both extremes carry on in order to dominate the public discourse. Yes, the excesses of PC are just simply silly or just slightly annoying, not anything posing any kind of true existential threat to freedom of speach. It's not that free speech will erode away, it's that the Overton window of what is OK to be said publicly is made smaller by a small group of enthusiasts. It's basically just stupid. Yes, there's tons of far more important things to discuss, but this topic seems to be popping up again and again.

And if you haven't anytime seen what this PC culture is like, I've seen it even here in my country. It just sucks as it's so annoyingly hypocrite and simply makes things worse.

And when you ask in the OP if your conclusions are reasonable and if someone doesn't totally agree, like I don't totally agree with your long sentence filled up with a hodgepodge of leftist tropes all put together: "The patriarchal backlash and the rise of the xenophobic right all over the world have been fomented by pundits (social media bots, call them - don't mean JP) sponsored by the parasitic rentier class (huge finance and real estate) to rouse the same people whose lives they’ve ruined to scapegoat those a rung below them by lobbying for government policies that continue to support "trickle down" (i.e., siphon up) economics." then you refer to terrorism, notably right-wing terrorism, to be the actual issue here. And then you make this comparison: why is someone complaining about PC, about black listing or ostracism when there is terrorism.

Well, the thread was called: "The "thing" about Political Correctness", not "Reason why right-wing terrorism is rising".

B-b-b-b-ut I can't make tasteless jokes anymore and that's the most important thing!
— StreetlightX

Indeed! — Izat So

So you start a thread on Political correctness...

terrorism isn't on the rise in the long run
— ssu

No, it isn't - except in the US since Trump and the largest proportion by far is right wing

Again, notice the chart here. What it tells that acts of terrorism were more frequent also in the US earlier than now:



The picture World wide is different. But I assume this thread, as usual, isn't about the World outside the US.

As so little is understood about consciousness and yet we know how computers work, it's no wonder that we have the Turing Test as a test of intelligent behaviour.

The simple fact is that humans can easily notice from simple interaction things like sarcasm, jokes or hostility or a multitude of different attitudes beneath the simple discussion. As computers (Turing Machines) simply follow algorithms and are totally unable to do anything else than that, the demands simply grow exponentially on what the algorithms have to perform. Imagine how a discussion changes instantly if someone cracks a hilarious joke. How sophisticated the algorithm (program) has to be understand that the text has a joke and it is indeed funny?

And the basic problem is that any computer or Turing Machine simply cannot perform the task "do something else than what is given in your program in a way not defined in the program".

And the evidence shows the right is more dangerous than the extreme PC front. — Izat So

Let's look at terrorism at a glance. Here's how our times compare for example to the 1970's:





Just as with crime stats, the truth is that terrorism isn't on the rise in the long run. And to simply state the obvious: neonazism has no chance in hell to get political traction in the US. Yes, there is far right terrorism, anti-semitism, just as there are school shootings etc. Terrorism morphs to the lone nut type as obviously all the extremist groups in the US are quite well infiltrated by the FBI and other security organizations.

But of course you can find articles about rising far right extremism...

"Mastermind"?? Forgive me, but the irony is almost unbearable — Wayfarer

No it's unbearable.

I know JP is not alt right, if that's what you're suggesting. But he is known to be attractive to some sects of the alt right. - As has been said many times, when you have an expectation of privilege (reasonable or not), equality looks like oppression. Hence all the trumped up hoopla about PC. — Izat So

And this opinion you have stated quite clearly: that basically those who criticize PC are basically enablers of the alt-right either purposefully or unintentionally, but they still do that. And that the extreme right is on the rise.

First of all I don't think that the extreme right is on the rise (just as the extreme left isn't either). What is on the rise is simply political tribalism, polarization in the political discourse and the portraying of the other side with obscene stereotypes that have nothing to do with reality in order to lure people into echo chambers supporting the 'cause' of one side or the another. Simply put it: nazism or neonazism hasn't any viability at all in US politics just like Communism. The idea is simply hilarious. Yet these astoundingly bizarre ideas are promoted as it's a great way to lure people in to support one side or the another. The reason for this is that two parties, a Centrist and a right-wing party, want to continue to dominate the political landscape in the US through this system of duopoly. Trump is no Hitler. Just as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aren't going to turn the US into Venezuela. Yet the lurid narrative 'America on the edge of peril' is willingly accepted. And there is widespread incapability to see this because your side is right and the other side is wrong.

And the criticism towards PC?

According to a Pew research poll, the majority of Americans (59%) say “too many people are easily offended these days over the language that others use.” That doesn't mean that the majority of Americans are racists or either feel sympathy or unintentionally advance the agenda of the alt-right. No, using the Occam's razor could give an answer that the majority is simply tired of walking on eggshells, yet don't see it as Trojan Horse for cultural Marxism as the extreme right does.

From one insightful article in the Atlantic Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture:

25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives, and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are progressive activists, and their views are even less typical. By contrast, the two-thirds of Americans who don’t belong to either extreme constitute an “exhausted majority.” Their members “share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation.”

. If they can be fooled by nonsense, it's a valuable thing to fool them and let it be known that they were fooled. Maybe that will teach them to be more critical, more intellectually honest. — Terrapin Station

Or maybe they just to close their ranks even more and become even more dedicated to "the cause".

You see, there is the option of seeing this as an evil deliberate hit job from the ever present and very powerful patriarchy. The fact that you are indeed right, indeed rigorous, and totally spot, which in itself has been the cause of this mudslinging and mockery!

This option works just fine. Just look at the popularity of the Flat-Earthers.

So it's not the least surprising that Jordan Peterson has a large unsavoury following of alt right supporters.

This is not photoshopped. — Izat So

The below picture is not photoshopped. In the picture there is the now former (then acting) President of Finland Tarja Halonen (President of Finland 2000-2012) holding a flag with a very observable swastika.



But this shouldn't come as a surprise of a country with such devotion to the Swastika, just look at the flag of the President of Finland. Note the symbol in medal in the upper left corner.:



And if this isn't enough, here's the winner of the "Greatest Finn" competition alongside the second place winner. In the competition, Finns could vote for the greatest Finnish person ever and the competition was very popular. Everybody assumed correctly the winner, yet the 2nd runner up was a total surprise for the people who made the competition. Here's the "greatest Finn" on the left in front and the "2nd greatest Finn" on the right. In the middle is one famous Austrian born politician people might know from history, who has come to Finland all the way from Germany to celebrate the birthday of the (later elected) "greatest Finn", who in this picture is wearing the German Knights Cross and Iron Cross . And this photo isn't photoshopped, of course.



Pictures tell more than a thousand words. So make up your minds about Finns and how favourable they are to nazism or the alt-right from the pictures above... because the simple deduction from those pictures is in quite in line with your reasoning with JP and the "thing" with Political Correctness, Izat. Or basically how this issue is debated. :razz:

As usual (as we have had this discussion already), I would be agreeing somewhat or totally with "I like Sushi" and the differences between us would be minor.

"Political Correctness", "the left", "the Right", are all a bit difficult to discuss because the terms are too fluid. We put the fluid terms in our squirt guns and aim as well as we can.

It seems to me that there is no necessary link between "the left" and "the right" these days. — Bitter Crank

Oh your are just too old, Bitter Crank. You seem to get your notions and definitions as how they were used in the 20th Century when these things were far more, dare I say, solid.

This coming from a 'toxic centrist'.

Here's a good discussion about the topic with the perpetrat..., sorry, the authors of the bogus articles . And their video about what they did basically filmed when they did it.

. If you are a true Christian you will be an environmentalist as well. The reason is that God did not create all the beauty around us so that it can be blindly plundered, and blindly plundering nature will not earn you any favors with God. — Ilya B Shambat

First, let's read what actually the Bible says about this:

Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

So Ilya, what do you think subduing means? What do you think having dominion over actually everything means, especially when you have been "created in Gods own image"?

If someone subdues you and has dominion over you, I think that isn't what you are above advocating. Modern day environmentalism, which basically starts from the idea that everything wrong today is because of our human actions has little to do with the Bible or traditional Christianity. As said by others, that doesn't mean that many Christians believers wouldn't agree with your ideas.

From the article:

This new idea is basically saying that that the physical universe that everyone sees, all the matter, all the physical objects only exists because humans perceive it as that. ItBreitenberg (848532) resembles a sort of mass hallucination that is being used to make sense of the mathematical relationships of objects. While this does seem quite far-fetched, according to Kastrup, it’s gaining ground.

What is actually new in this interpretation?

I think it's rather close to the Copenhagen interpretation in quantum physics.. just enlarged to be something of an overall philosophy thanks to rampant methodological reductionism, of course, with a lot of positivism. Similar ideas have been put forward for quite some time as well, reductionism and positivism, are quite old ideas. So our thinking happens in our mind....

But of course, who would study age-old philosophy?

Is a progressive tax system better for a government than a fixed rate system?

When asking the question if progressive taxation is better than fixed rate taxation to gained tax revenue, one should remember that there are many other very important variables that have a major impact just how much tax revenue is gained. First of course is the economic cycle, the whole competitiveness of the actual economy and so on. The idea of Laffer curve is also a bit dubious, because these things simply aren't at all so simple. The idea that lowering taxes would increase economic activity and in the end get more is quite of a stretch. Yet also to raise dramatically the tax rate doesn't get you a 1-to-1 ratio increase in tax revenue.

What progressive taxation does do is dent a little bit wealth inequality. Yet the real thing that decreases wealth inequality has historically been a severe economic depression. So strange and complex is the economy.

But the protesters are anti-democratic. Whereas Farage and co. who lied their way to a narrow victory for a cause the most destructive version of which they are now pursuing with gusto against the will of the majority of both Parliament and the public are... Where was I going with this? — Baden

Embracing your tribe?

I remember earlier there was this French guy who attacked famous people by throwing cream cakes at their faces (in the old slapstic comedy way). Once he (and his accomplices) got to cake Bill Gates. When asked about it, he said that the people from the Belgian subsidiary of Microsoft contacted him and asked him to do it, told him where and when he would have the opportunity to cake Gates (which sounds quite likely). They told him, assumedly, that their CEO was starting to take himself a bit too seriously. The thought of that being the truth, that company employees making such a practical joke on their CEO, makes me smile.

Here's how American media reported the incident:



Now I don't know if people throwing milk shakes take these issues in similar way, because in the end they seem to be fighting evil.

You'd have to be suffering from some degree of mental illness (at least I didn't say 'you'd have to be bonkers'!) to argue that kicking a few fascist arses (shock/horror!) is more morally objectionable to, random example, selling arms to Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemeni civilians (business as usual...). — Baden

So saying that political violence isn't OK means... that I find it more objectionable than selling arms to Saudi Arabia???

Confusing.

Sorry, have to go to sleep. Working day today.

What about violence between "justice" states? — Baden

You seem not to know the term justice state, oikeusvaltio in Finnish. The proper definition would be perhaps Rechtsstaat, where the power of the state is limited in order to protect citizens from the arbitrary exercise of authority. The citizens share legally based civil liberties and can use the courts. So hence my referral not only a state to be a democracy, but a justice state also.

Well, seldomly Democracies fight each other, but there of course are few exceptions. For example in WW2 at first the UK wanted to give military assistance to Finland to fight Russia and later declared war to Finland (because it was fighting Russia after Russians had immediately bombed the Capital when Germany attacked the Soviet Union). No actual fighting happened, but Finns living the UK were detained. Winston Churchill sent the following letter to Marshal Mannerheim, the commander of the Finnish Armed Forces:



So when two democracies (justice states) go to war, historically the correspondence is like the above. Quite cordial I would say.

What's your position on that? Ok, for massive military campaigns but not for neutralizing fascist bullies on the streets? Or no? — Baden

I would state that a functioning democracy (and a justice state) has the acceptance of it's people to it's existence and has the monopoly on violence along the lines of Max Weber.

And actually there have been wars and military actions that have been implemented by the UN. I have no problem with those. With the Six Day war it's clear that the Arab coalition was going to attack, while I was against the Dubya Invasion of Iraq.

My claim is that you don't have a coherent ethical position on violence. Show me I'm wrong. — Baden

You're asking far too much...

I'm saying forget the "politics" for a moment and ask yourself could an antifa member be seriously ethically engaged? Is that possible? — Baden

Jesus Christ, of course they can be! And it's on the individual to look at where he or she draws the line with direct action. Yet what I do not accept is political violence in countries that are basically justice states. Here, now. Not France of 1940-1944.

No idea what you're talking about. But putting everyone who uses violence on the same ethical terms is madness. And yes, the FR were the "terrorists". — Baden

And they opposed an actual occupier, an enemy. But I think you can understand that I was talking about the present and the West in general. The US isn't under enemy occupation. And neither is France. Or Finland. And when we have a democracy (at least I live in one), I wouldn't call for, tolerate or accept political violence.

RAF members took West Germany in my life time to be Nazi Germany...
And I wouldn't call West Germany the Third Reich.

Yeah, I wasn't talking about Syria either...

Also, putting anti-fascists on a par with fascists in terms of the language used to describe them is hardly ideologically neutral. — Baden

I put to par only those that engage in violence and terrorism. They are indeed equal, no matter on what side they are.

Like the small fringe cabal of fine neo-nazis that murdered Heather Heyer in Charlottesvile? The police clearly handled that great. — Baden

I recall correctly from a FBI document published before Charlottesville: right-wing terrorism is typical done by individuals in an act rising from opportunity. They (the FBI) knew their home-grown terrorists actually quite well. Having more than one person makes it a terrorist cell, you know. If I remember correctly, there was just one terrorist.

But if there had been enough antifa to beat the living shit out of those guys and prevent the killing, they'd have been labelled a terrorist threat. Makes ya wonder. — Baden

Seriously???? You start to remind me of the calls for arming teachers when there is a school shooting.

No, the real way is for the police simply to treat these groups seriously and separate them and preserve order.

ssu really needs to read the news more often — Maw

Not my police. But the FBI typically looks at any movement left or right.

Without better context, this is like saying penicillin needs the existence of bacteria to work as an antibiotic. Which is true, but also really misses the point. — fdrake

Not really. If you think that to be a vigilante is totally OK or that the police cannot handle some small fringe cabal of neonazis, then I have to disagree. Sorry, but the violence part I simply disagree with.

And if your opponent takes their gloves off? — fdrake

Does he really? Typically terrorism isn't tolerated.

I don't buy that antifa like strategies are only justified when we already have a fascist state. Their entire schtick is preventative. — fdrake

But do we have really a fascist state? Is there truly a threat of it? You see the RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion) believed that they indeed lived in a nazi-Germany (in West-Germany) and then retorted to violence. Yet that idea of a fraction then igniting the revolution simply didn't happen.

Should have touched on this. Why aren't things like deplatforming, institutional subterfuge, and counter protest legitimate moves again? If you and your opponent both have the gloves on, the discussion usually does not matter, direct action about it is elsewhere. — fdrake

Having gloves on is basically what a representational democracy and justice state is about. Discussion does matter. Belief in elections does matter.

. I'm kind of baffled that you don't see how fragile democracy is and how persistently it is subverted. — fdrake

It simply isn't subverted as it was in the 20th Century. Especially when focusing on the West, the idea that democracy is in peril is simply an overblown idea typically used to agitate your own side. One really has to have the perspective here: totalitarian ideologies as Marxism-Leninism and National Socialism aren't coming back after the catastrophic 20th Century.

I'm most familiar with the UK, so let's go with that. — fdrake

From the UK I'm not so well informed. But I would assume you have a similar phenomenon as we have here in our idyllic Nordic wellfare state. It starts with neonazi-or-similar movement (usually founded somewhere else) goes on a march with their own silly flags and then there is the counter-protest and in between the police that keep the two separated. Nothing typically happens, but the only thing what is created is a huge media frenzy about the issue.

What they actually do is counterprotest far right groups and dangerous ideologues, disrupt their organisations however possible (usually without violence). — fdrake

But they don't reject violence. As I've said, both neonazis and the antifa need each other.

give a shit about him giving a false narrative on a major news network. — Maw

Your babbling over a false narrative, which you haven't explained. Weinstein has gone over these issues in other far lengthier discussions, which there is no reason to say would be false.

It's simply one thing to have this kind of 'Day of Absence' of African Americans to mimick passive resistance and then to say that white people shouldn't come, and this was the whole point of Weinstein. I have no idea why you don't get this point, you just repeat your nonsensical reasoning that the event was optional or something and thus Weinstein was false. Well, I guess anything that the student body decides to do would be optional.

The question is: what exactly is the reasoning behind the principle of progressive taxation? Are we saying to wealthy people that they have to pay more just because they can? — tinman917

Yes.

That doesn’t sound right. — tinman917

That's your problem.

And actually mine.

I personally remember paying in the early 1990's from an income less than 12 000$ a tax rate of 72,5%, which was the highest rate in the country. I asked why from a tax official and she didn't know the reason. The experience stuck with me: progressive taxation is against me personally. It is not only for the filthy rich or the multi-millionaires, but against me and the middle class.

Now the top tax rate is here 50%, but of course then you have the value added tax etc. And they are currently thinking of a wealth tax of 0,1% to be paid if your investments or money in your bank account is more than 100 000 euros, even if those investments don't produce any profits. The reason they give is to reduce wealth inequality.

Not only did Bret mischaracterize the event via email — Maw

OK, you don't get my point in this issue. Fine, on forwards.

but, far worse, he went on Tucker Carlson's show and in front of an audience of millions did not correct Tucker Carlson when the latter framed the event as "student activists demanding that all white people leave campus, or else" and asking if they protested Bret directly because "he did not leave campus because he's white". — Maw

It's America. That he later goes to talk to the media and goes on talk shows can be seen as a quite logical. After all, he hasn't his earlier job anymore. And there aren't so many professor level people interviewed in the US media. Hence among the filmstars, comedians and other celebrities your run-of-the-mill college professor here isn't so bad. And Weinstein isn't a provocateur like Milo or Ben Shapiro. It's simply delirious to think that this professor designed this when sending an email, just as in the case of the Yale Hollywood costume email. As I've said all along, the whole oddity of the event made it a media issue.

Actually Bret Weinstein, who is leftist, just shows the tribalism of US politics. So he goes to talk his leftist views to conservative crowds and gets applause. What's the problem?