Oh, I agree, the alt-rights views about the "white race" are absurd. It is clearly a reactionary movement to recent events portrayed on the media. — Judaka

And how things are portrayed in the global media is mimicked in the regional and national level, even if it doesn't fit the local situation.

I've come to the conclusion that the most simple way to look at this is that people tolerate foreingers and ethnic minorities, if these contribute financially to the society.

Nobody hates tourists. Everybody understands that tourist bring money to a society, create jobs and hence they are tolerated, even if they can be annoying. Yet if foreigners (or ethnic minorities) seem to be not contributing to the system, but exploiting the work of others, then the ugly head of xenophobia and racism appear. And if foreigners outright exploit the society in such way that they can be described as stealing the wealth, then they are foreign occupiers. And then the young men rise up in arms and there is absolutely no tolerance for the foreign entity, which basically is an enemy.

The above explains most of what is now described as an anti-immigration movement in Europe. You can call it xenophobia, racism or nativism, but the underlying issue is the same. This even describes ethnic tensions in other places where a small minority has become prosperous and seems to be 'running the place': there the nativist discourse is about the foreign minority 'exploiting' the majority.

Those that truly cherish racism and racist ideas are typically an odd, small but vocal minority themselves.

Africa and South America are notoriously having difficulties with racism and tribalism
— Judaka

Due to centuries of European colonialism — Anaxagoras

Colonialism? As if there weren't states in Africa before colonial times? Tribalism especially in the African context is just a condescending way to describe a similar phenomenon like patriotism and nationalism.

would argue that outside of Anglo-Saxon whites in the West, all ethnic groups think like the alt-right, sometimes less extremely and sometimes more. — Judaka

Except that basically the whole "white/caucasian" discourse is very American. In my country it's very strange and basically just imported here.

The reason is obvious. If you would make the distinction so popular in the US (and UK) of people being 'white' and basically 'coloured' or 'non-European', you would get highly unpopular statistics for the alt-right types: the population in Finland would be 97,8% whites and 2,2% 'coloured'. Naturally nobody uses this kind of division. The authorities (and the likely majority of people) would see this division as extremely racist and for the alt-right agitators promoting the idea of 'white' people being in peril here is ludicrous when whites consist of nearly 98% of the population. No, as the biggest ethnic minorities are (in order) Russians, Estonians and Swedes (which shouldn't be confused to Swedish speaking Finns, actually) are basically 'white', the discourse is simply about the evil foreigners.

First and foremost, Europeans have been are still are racist towards each other. The idea of 'whiteness' being something unifying is as strange as being black in Africa.

do you agree that to the extent that the political spectrum is defined by the people who self identify with locations on it, that it is much less useful a way to view political thinking? — wax

That's a different question than is the spectrum a myth. I would put it this way: is the current political spectrum an useful tool to describe current politcal environment?

I'd say largely yes. Not at all times though. There can be issues that divide people in other ways just than the left and right. I think Terrapin Station's picture of more/less authoritarianism on the y-axis shows this quite well: are you authoritarian or not doesn't depend on the left/right divide.

Another thing is when some political agenda or objective is accepted universally, then the old way of dividing left and right doesn't work anymore… on that specific issue. This has to be remembered. From the origins of the term left and right (from the French revolution, if I remember correctly) many issues have been at least on some level universally been agreed to. Or a consensus has been reached and all sides have accepted the issue. For example, the agenda of classic liberalism in the 19th Century, eradication of the feudal remnants of the society of the ancien regime aristocracy with democratic systems. Then the success of the labour movement on legislation that is universally accepted labour laws in the West and third example is the success of suffragettes. These kind of advances have changed the current political spectrum from what earlier existed.

Hence let's say in one or two hundred years the current hot potatoes of politics might be quite different, yet I assume that the divide between left and right will remain. After all, the issue of wealth distribution has been there from the Ancient times. Just remember the Gracchi brothers from ancient Rome.

The newspaper Helsingin Sanomat pondered about the problem of the next elections to the European Parliament. What if the UK is still a member? What happens to the seats that now have been already have been planned to be divided to others when the UK leaves? And just how willing will the British be to participate in EU elections when the country is leaving the EU?

I propose that we should have a competition of bringing all kinds of animals to Florida and let them go loose into the nature and the urban surroundings in Florida. So not just a couple of monkeys at one place. Breed monkeys in zoos all around and transport them in Florida. Not just a couple, hundreds and hopefully thousands of monkeys set free in Florida. After all, Florida has just about 100 mammal species, but in the World there are over 5 000 mammal species. So let's get the species count to 1000 at least.

Then we would look at what animals flourish and be happy of the biological diversity that we have brought down upon the Peninsula. Nothing better than have a pack of African hyenas going over the trashcans of Floridians while Australians Dingos wait for their turn and Japanes Macaques alongside Brazilian black capuchins and ring tailed lemurs from Madagaskar inspect the event up from the trees.

↪ssu ↪Brett
Right, I'm not interested in talking about the strawman alt-right that people who disagree with the left need to constantly deny affiliation with. The alt-right does exist, they are not neo-nazis and their views actually kind of need to be contended with. — Judaka

The alt-right are what are called white supremacists. How much neo-nazism is there, who cares. They do talk about a peril that the 'white race' is in, on how Western culture is based on race and so on. They are fixated with race and identity politics.

↪Here's a good representation of the alt-right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3MvOSyE0ow&t=2126s — Judaka

At least after this representation it should be obvious that Jordan Peterson isn't a spokesperson of the alt-right and yes, they the alt-right really do want to co-opt him (why otherwise this bizarre speech about interpreting Peterson by a third person).

Yet it's very difficult to talk about the right in a unified way when you have a total idiot seen as the captain of the ship.

Let me advance the fictitious clock to a time when we have got all the answers to our plethora of Questions. — Nort Fragrant

How could we get all the answers when new questions emerge all the time as the World transforms (and we transform it) all the time.

And how about our urge to improve things? You think that will stop? That engineers will just one day come to a conclusion to say: "OK, that was that! Time to find a new occupation."

The alt-right, to me, seems to be defined by the liberals. — Brett

I think Richard Spencer started to use the term in defining how the new wave of what we would call neo-nazis and white supremacists differ from the "old" traditional right.

Now liberals can surely use the term now for everything they see bad in the right, but that is a different thing.

The alt-right in my view is arguing for essentially exactly the same thing that most other ethnical groups take for granted, even in the West. — Judaka

I disagree. I've never seen the Asian community talking about an Asian genocide.

And rather to talk about some tiny group of neo-nazis, it should be understood that the term "alt-right" is used as a name for generally right-wing views. Just like the leftist views can be named to be "marxist". Then one can start arguing that basically that views are essentially quite the same things that most proponents of identity-politics talk about.

Is the political spectrum a myth?

No.

Well, he was trying to spin himself as sort of new centrist-style political force, at least. And he does have some elements of both. But yes, too rightwing for my liking. I am not a fan. His "new ideas", like suddenly hiking up a tax which caused widespread protests for weeks on end until he finally made concessions, have not exactly been a screaming success. — S

Be extremely cautious with people that market themselves as centrists or anything new. They are absolutely the worst. Everybody will finish hating them. Just remember Tony Blair and his implementation of "Third way". How cool was that for Britannia?

Far better are those who indeed are centrist, yet openly acknowledge that they are either conservative/right-wing or left-wing/progressive and specifically in what issues. Sincerity is important in a politician.

No, horses are fluffy and purr! — S

Meow!

Nothing tells more about xenophobia, islamophobia and the absolute and utter ignorance of other people when sikhs are attacked as muslims.

I think the number of instances "panic at the sight of sikhs" would be a pretty accurate index on a wide variety of things in a western country.

Here's some Russian propaganda about the issue.


I favour that we should start referring to Scots as Englishmen with a personality disorder. They didn't want independence, so why do we foreigners have to differ them from the English? Sean Connery: an Englishman with a personality disorder living in the US.

There are people who want to do what is right, who have an interest in social justice, morality. Sometimes some of them go to extremes. Grouping them all together as politically correct ignores the particulars. — Fooloso4

Have you ever thought that you could generalize this? That this could be said about a lot of issues and movements today.

Perhaps like abandoning for a while the left/right juxtaposition of agendas or the current political cilmate? Now that would be out-of-the-box thinking. — ssu

That didn't go down too well in France. Macron ended up pissing off just about everyone. — S

HAH! I like your funny sarcasm, but really, to define the issue without the political left/right juxtaposition would be far better. If one would start from a general concept where political environment affects the discourse and molds it up how things are talked about, then we would avoid the current debate of "No, PC means that your polite" - "No it doesn't".

Still smiling about that Macron comment... Yes, let's have out-of-the-box thinking in Europe: so let's vote for a federalist investment banker. He definately will have "new ideas" as we have already seen. :grin:

There's a load of interesting stuff here. This chart in particular might give pause to the militant carnivores. — unenlightened

Actually in the lecture that I like sushi posted above, the thing with beef was discussed. The lecturer gave there interesting insights. (Also, the Q&A is worth listening in my view too).

I think the only logical censorship is not to state the agenda, declarations or proclamations that terrorist make before or after a terrorist strike. The most foolish thing to do is afterwards for the media to put the terrorist on a pedestal, to the front cover and spread their ideas in their coverage of the news.This will only give rise to copycats. Hence for example Norway did the right thing by not giving Anders Breivik the ability of spreading is 'declarations for Europe'. It's not difficult to anticipate his objectives when he attacked a youth camp for young Social Democrats.

Maybe if some people didn't shield the concept from any conceivable faults, as though it is simply out of the question, unthinkable, then we might actually get somewhere. We could benefit from some out-of-the-box thinking here. — S

Perhaps like abandoning for a while the left/right juxtaposition of agendas or the current political cilmate? Now that would be out-of-the-box thinking.

Basically a better definition for politically correct would be something like "minority friendly" than politically correct. And then there ought to be really a universal definition of "politically correct" meaning "language, policies or measures" that emphasize and/or enforce the current and dominating political views or political system in any country. Hence "politically correct" would mean a lot of different things with "politically correct" speach being typical especially in totalitarian societies. Like the soviet "lithurgy" in the USSR was indeed a quite bizarre way to speak.

I am saying that in order to be valid rules need to be made official. Otherwise what we have is de facto tyranny in countries that are intended to be free. — Ilya B Shambat

Yet then the procedure just what becomes official has to have strict rules too (like the system being a democracy and the state being a justice state that embraces rights of the individual).

Perhaps you should define more accurately just what rules do you have in mind. Because legal micromanagement of stuff that should having nothing to do with jurisdiction can be a hindrance too. Or do you think that rules in football should be in law? Not only can you get a red card as a player in a football game, you also get a fine, just like a speeding ticket, that if not paid, will get you in serious trouble with the judicial system.

It is great when people come up to an agreement as to how to behave - except when in doing so they decide to put people in gas chambers. — Ilya B Shambat

Do I see a Hitler card used?

The expansiveness of US, Canadian, Australian, and Argentinian fields makes it easier to foist highly industrial processes on farmers there. — Bitter Crank

Agriculture is turning into an industry. What is diminishing is subsistence farming, which still plays a huge role in the Third World. So likely what will be a 'make or break' moment is will there be a transformation in agriculture for example in Africa. The decrease in subsistence farming isn't in my view really about agriculture or agriculture technology, but the emergence alternative jobs for people. A subsistence farmer will stay quite poor, hence the eradication of agrarian povetry happens when countries industrialize and become prosperous.

Just curious, did anyone actually watch the link I posted? If so, any thoughts? — I like sushi

Listening to it. Interesting. I love this from the lecture:

"There isn't really a choice. The argument that we can all become vegetarians is also not a viable argument. Because high protein plantfood cannot be produced in most arable land at the level it would be needed to provide protein nutrition for the Worlds population."

HA!!! So take that you stupid vegans (munching my breakfast of eggs and ham while writing this).

I say that rules, in order to be valid, have to be made official. If they are not valid, they are an attempt at de facto tyranny. So rules need to be voted on by the Congress and the President before they become binding. — Ilya B Shambat

How about rules in school or kindergarten, in sports, in games? How about rules of thumb or rules in Mathematics? The fact is that we have and apply to vast amount of rules where basically making the part of law would be absolutely crazy in my view. In fact, it's actually sometimes great when group of people came to agreement of how to behave or how to act without any official guidelines. If you assume only rules written in law apply and otherwise are bad or something (as they attempt at de facto tyranny), you'll have problems in really following what you preach.

Comes to my mind Vladimir Putin's idea of "the dictatorship of laws" for some reason with this argument.

PC is the face of the conservative battle against progressivism. — Fooloso4

Yet political correctness exists, it surely isn't imaginary. What I agree that this is more about conservatives against progressives, not the "alt-right" against "cultural marxists". The debate and the instance of PC and criticism to it simply cannot be just some weird marxists against neonazis.

Yes,what wouldn't conservatives and progressives use in their fight, however that is just one viewpoint on the matter. For example Stephen Pinker argues that freedom of speech is important and universities and science shouldn't make censor findings that seem politically incorrect, because that only enforces the views like in the alt-right. Pinkers arguments do show that this isn't just an invention of the American right. I myself hold the view that the best indeed is that things are talked openly. People simply have to have some knowledge about the issues to see what is true and what is nonsense.

How do they increase efficiency there though? I can't eval your data unless I have details about their methodology. I've heard stories of machinery and unwise methods being introduced to places where agriculture was not modernized, and now it has had negative consequences. T — Nasir Shuja

Netherlands is very advanced in agriculture technology and uses extensively greenhouses.

Here's two takes on Dutch agriculture. (And btw they put Netherlands to different status as mine stats, above, so sorry about that..)

$73 million??? SSU, where did you get these numbers from, and what do they represent? — Bitter Crank

Sorry, not 73 million, forgot the "in thousands of" and hence 73 billion by that link, where just what you take into account on all food exports can vary. The link was Which Countries Export The Most Food?. Perhaps not the optimal stats, but gives perspective. (Should have looked for better stats, but anyway.)

. I notice that the UK is nowhere near self-sufficient in food production, and that therefore your figures are so misleading as to be pretty much worthless. We export a lot, we also import a lot more — unenlightened

Notice that it was exports. Not net exports. I guess that Scotch Whisky is more profitable than exporting just barley.

Because there is more to it. Some people feel that their way of life is being threatened by those who are going to tell them how to live, what to say and do. — Fooloso4

Exactly, many people feel threatened. And of course some who really feel upset about the apparent PC sillyness for example in academia, might adhere to the conspiracy theory that Cultural Marxists are doing this ideological flouridation scheme of the new generations studying in the universities. Few believe these conspiracies, yet these kind of even more outrageous ideas naturally lead to accusations that critical comments of the PC culture etc. are just 'disguised' attacks from racists. But as during the Red Scare era the conspiracies of flouridation, vaccination programs and mental health services being a communist plot can be dismissed, so ought the most bizarre ideas too. Yet there being those laughable ideas don't make the whole issue unimportant or prove the criticism wrong.

I think the best way is simply to show the inconsistencies and falsehoods when they are promoted and leave it to people then to make their own conclusions. Simply stopping the debate and not having a debate about any issue doesn't solve it. Of course many won't make the conclusions you think should be made, but who cares, that is either their problem or their advantage then.

Will the whole Brexit thing just be a bad memory that everyone wants to forget? — boethius

That really would be the thing. If now, some 15 days before Brexit should happen somehow the UK would say "Nah. Forget it. I won't leave" it would be... I don't know what it would be. What has then the UK government done for a long time? Months of agony for nothing?

I would though want to see the faces of Brexiteers then.

Why do people offend on purpose? — Joseph Walsh

There can be several reasons.

Some might think that other people are hypocritical in being friendly and assume that they reveal the true nature of people after they have offended them. Or some just might have a bad day and want to spread the feeling. Or some are trolls, who knows.

First of all, my attitude is not PC. — Fooloso4

Actually I didn't think so. The point of power plays was just similar.

It has been my recent experience on another philosophy forum that any rational discussion of such things is impossible there because of a group of rabid anti-PC members who are too emotionally involved and convinced of the truth of their caricatures. — Fooloso4

This brings up one important issue here. And that is simply that the whole debate around PC isn't the most important issue (which has come up already here). And this is something one has to remember.

For example, a lot of the debate is about what "is happening in American campuses". There are some highly publisized incidents which have broken the news barrier. But otherwise, I would argue that this is basically an issue that doesn't touch the vast majority of students in tertiary education or university education in general. The truth is that the majority just studies, graduates and transfers to the workforce with usually fond memories later of their time in college / at the university. Only a tiny minority is active on these issues (or in other issues) and just like in the time of their parents (or grandparents) in 60's, a small but vocal minority creates this myth of students being all hippies and leftists back then.

With this in mind one seriously could ask why someone would get so emotional about it, really. The only ones that perhaps can feel this being larger than life are few people in the academia.

In my view even if the topic isn't the most important issue of our times, it does tell something about the present.

The biggest advance in my opinion could if the efficiency that some countries have in agriculture could be implemented in Third World countries, especially places where agricultural production has natural advantages.

Just consider the top 10 countries by value of food exports (in USD):

1 United States 72,682,349.79
2 Germany 34,628,800.73
3 United Kingdom 29,540,218.71
4 China 25,152,286.27
5 France 24,114,557.76
6 Netherlands 23,271,570.93
7 Japan 21,870,881.77
8 Canada 21,803,448.88
9 Belgium 15,742,034.88
10 Italy 13,890,507.81

Notice something peculiar? It's Netherlands, Japan and Belgium. These countries aren't big or in the case of Japan it's surprising at least to me. These aren't the countries you would suspect to be top agricultural exporters, but their production efficiency has taken the exports to another level. Several of the largest agricultural producers aren't in the top 10, which tells something also. India might naturally be not among the top exporting countries, but what about Russia and Ukraine, Brazil and Argentina?

Because if you would have these larger countries being as advanced as Netherlands in agricultural production, then supply would be somewhere totally else from today.

ake for example a public debate about abortion, and one of the invited participants said nothing but "fish" throughout the whole thing, loudly and constantly interrupting the others talking. — Isaac

I think it's quite obvious in this case that this is way to stop the discussion. Since when freedom of speach means that you don't have to wait for your turn and don't have to give others their "freedom of speach?"

Basically, we restrict speech acts all the time, so I'm curious as to your criteria for which types of speech act should not be restricted. — Isaac

When you think about, there is an abundance of situations where "rights" of individuals seem to be in contradiction with basic norms, rules and regulations. Just think of the event of removing somebody from a private or public area. When can someone literally drag me off from a place? By what authority? One might think this is very confusing, but it actually isn't.

It's an important point to notice that the value of philosophy is not just in that it is the cornerstone and also a building block for science. It has value on it's own. That it has variability and a lot of different schools may not be in itself a great thing, although it does show how varied philosophy can be.

Usefulness and how helpful it is when trying to reason issues might be a good indicator of it's value.

And let's not forget the most valuable thing: knowing Philosophy makes you appear intelligent and well learned to others. Oh that quote from Plato, Kant or Foucault can work so well. Yes, you too are a thinker.

It’s a helpful, and essential, release of potentially damaging noxious fumes :D — I like sushi

So everybody, onward with our brainfarts!

Perhaps the British Parliament chooses this very postmodern choice and simply insists that it hasn't decided on the issue when May brings it the third time to vote.

If the EU thinks this is simply a no-deal Brexit, perhaps the British will say otherwise.

?

Um, yes. Punishment for defamation is usually a fine, but you can get here a two years prison term for aggravated defamation. (Even if the law here is quite lax with punishments here typically.) And this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. I guess the majority of people understand this, meaning that they understand what freedom of speech means.

I remember a lesson in the University, which was for those writing their master's thesis. When explaining about her thesis, a social history student girl went off on a rant on how awful and suffocating the 1950's were and how terrified she would have been living back then. The woman professor holding the lesson replied to her comments: "Hey! I grew up in the 1950's, it wasn't like that!"

I wonder why people hate so much the 1950's. The 1950's was basically the decade that people would have lived in the 1940's if there would have been all that war and killing back then going on. I wonder how barbaric will people later think of us who were born in the late 20th Century when time goes on.

Were baby boomers, as many gen-Xers claim, the worst generation? — Ilya B Shambat

Yes, absolutely.

There was this very dismal generation in the 9th Century AD, but even they weren't as bad as the boomers. :death:

There is absolutely no problem in that the law upholds freedom of speech, yet has punishments for slander etc.

The problem is the arguments are so weak, there is nothing worthwhile to them at all. This is what is obnoxious about both sidesism. — TheWillowOfDarkness

You mean the whole debate is so irrelevant, not much to even discuss it or what?

When the Left get-up to make a point about the moral seriousness of a cultural practice, the both sidesism paints like they are nazis to dare hold society responsible for these practices. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But has 'the Left' really embraced political correctness? If you go past the stereotypical portrayal of cultural marxists against the alt-right, does this really fall into the left/right divide?

In this context, "compromise" is largely red-herring because the issues at stake or moral. There is no way to negotiate, for example, over whether whether white people are better than everyone else and we take any one else not to properly belong. The issues of divsion are so devisive because they ones involving a critical moral responsibility. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Truly a red herring as those being critical of PC usually don't have any ideas like that in mind. It is truly a tiny cabal that march with tiki-torches and yell "Jews will not replace us".

Of course its a power play! Politics is always a power play. We need to pay attention to how it is being played. It is not just those who are accused of being PC who are playing. - All you need to know is that is is PC and you can dismiss it without a second thought. — Fooloso4

Actually, this shows perfectly the agressive PC attitude (contrary from the polite PC stance). It's starts from the idea that debate is only a power play, it's not about engaging in other views. It assumes that the opposition uses exactly the same methods that it does, starting from things like "you can dismiss things without a second thought". That you could listen to what others say, then try to find weaknesses in their argument, convince the audience that your reasoning is better and trust that the audience can pick the correct/better argument is something quite strange with the PC crowd.

Is similar tactics used by the right? Sure, just look at the debate about 'Cultural Marxism' and then look at the people who are described as 'cultural marxists' and what they actually say. Does the right portray the aggressive PC crowd a bigger issue than they are? Some times likely: just like how the 'alt-right' seems to be everywhere by others. Yet the truth is that people on both sides of the political divide are annoyed by the victimhood tactics and crybullying of the agressive PC people. A lot of those critical about PC culture are leftist otherwise, hence even to talk about a PC / anti-PC juxtaposition is a bit confusing.

It's a Ponzi scheme if it is running on investors' capital, and not on reinvestment of profits, and there is no plausible likelihood of there ever being a return of the investors capital investment, let alone a profit. — Janus

Like um…. Silicon Valley and the IT-sector have done now for decades?

Besides, 11 million barrels per day and being the 3rd largest producer in the World doesn't sound like a Ponzi scheme.

I think perhaps the greatest potential rapidly precipitating threat (aside from possible ecological catastrophes such as the collapse of the Greenland and/or West Antarctic ice sheets) could be a collapse of what appears to be a gigantic Ponzi scheme: the US shale oil industry, a collapse due to the impossibility of sustaining oil prices at a level sufficient to yield and actual profit to that industry. — Janus

Well, it isn't a Ponzi Scheme, it's a simple case of the market mechanism.

Too low oil prices for enough producers -> drop in supply -> demand larger than supply -> higher oil prices

And if the oil prices climb too high, then the Global economy halts like someone would have put a handbrake on and then the prices fall again. Also with high oil prices other energy sources become competitive.

One of the points I am trying to make is that there is no status quo, only a struggle over what will become the status quo. — Fooloso4

A lot of PC people think of it like this about the struggle part. It's a power play: you exert power by getting people to adapt your discourse or ideas by arguing that they are otherwise against minorities etc.

Otherwise, customs and language naturally change by time.