I don't think you've achieved maximum melodrama/hyperbole here, I think you still have room for even more- go big or go home! — Enai De A Lukal

Do you happen to remember Mao's cultural revolution? You don't see echoes of that in our present situation?

I like this attitude, but we can ask if the real thing functions here as more than our expectation that we'll have to live in a different model. What I am thinking of here is the 'total model' of culture-world and not just mathematical physics. — Yellow Horse

I don't believe we'll ever find ultimate reality either in physics or in metaphysics. I read Steven Weinberg's Dreams of a Final Theory some years back and disagree with the premise. We are not just around the corner from a theory of everything that's "final" and we never will be.

There's a forest somewhere, and in that forest are trees, and one of those trees has branches and leaves, and on one of those leaves there's a caterpillar. The caterpillar knows when it's night and when it's day. It knows to go toward what it likes to eat; and away from what likes to eat it. It knows, deep in its DNA, that someday it will ascend to become a beautiful butterfly.

In short: That caterpillar has a metaphysics.
— fishfry

Good stuff! — Yellow Horse

I am so glad you like my caterpillar story.

One, there could be higher levels of awareness and intelligence out there that are to us as we are to a caterpillar on a leaf.
— fishfry

While I agree, I am fascinated by this analogy. This 'higher level intelligence' seems to have to exist for us (for our limited understanding) as a vague promise of more.

To really grasp what we mean by higher intelligence, it seems we'd have to already possess it. — Yellow Horse

No, we merely need to argue by analogy. My cat has more intelligence than a caterpillar and I have more than my cat, though my cat would not agree. At each level we have a metaphysics and we know as much as we're able to. But there's always another level UNLESS you are willing to claim that we are the "crown of creation" and that, having produced the 8 billion of us, nature is done with improvement. This, I cannot believe; especially after glancing at the headlines.

The intellectual history of humanity is to find out that we're not the center. We're not the center of the universe, we're not the center of the solar system, we're not different from the animals. It seems incredibly unlikely that we are the tippy top of intelligence and that there ain't no more. The caterpillar and the cat both believe the same thing too.

Trump declares that he is the defender of free speech, but he is represented as a real threat. After reading this letter one can get impression that there is just one real threat, and there is also" stifling atmosphere". — Number2018

Hope you don't mind if I prefer to keep the issue of free speech nonpartisan. It is for me. I'll stipulate that there's not much of a constituency for free speech either on the left all the right these days.

These are dangerous times. People think awful stuff "couldn't happen here," but every bad thing that ever happened in the world happened in a place where the people thought it couldn't happen.
— fishfry

Probably, people who do not live in the US cannot understand what is going on there. — Number2018

People in China who remember Mao's cultural revolution, and people in Germany who remember You Know Who, understand all too well.

"It can't happen here" is happening here.

This type. But it seems our telescopes show us only stars and planets, no other type of galaxyes. — Eugen

I was being a little tongue in cheek contemplating a galaxy made up of all the discarded technology of all the other galaxies. Of course galaxies by definition are made up of lots of stars, with some of those stars having planets.

I wonder where those writers and academics were years, even decades ago, when the alarm bells were being rung. Better late than never, I suppose. — NOS4A2

The alt media have been screaming their heads off for decades. And frankly the left used to support free speech. This anti-freedom left is a frightening development. It's been percolating for a long time but really got going when Trump won the election. All they want to do is blow up the country now, whether literally as Antifa or figuratively like Pelosi and Biden. Biden just adopted Bernie's entire platform, plus said he wanted people to buy American. So he's just coopted Trump's platform too. Amazing. And Pelosi just said that "people will do what they do" in response to protesters pulling down a statue of Christopher Columbus in Pelosi's home city of Baltimore. That's disgraceful. She cares about nothing but her own power now, and her power depends on staying in front of the mob.

But special consideration needs to be given to Chomsky. He’s been a free speech warrior throughout his entire career, even defending the rights of Holocaust revisionists (his defence of Robert Faurisson was legendary) and war criminals. — NOS4A2

He's always been there. Like I say, I'm a big fan.

None of the people with these authoritarian ideals would ever put themselves in danger to advance their agenda. The fact that Noam Chomsky is now alt-right is just hilarious, not scary. — Kev

I don't find it funny in the least. Nor that some of the signatories to the letter have now apologized for daring to come out in support of free speech. I find that very dangerous and scary.

There is violence ramping up in the States, but it's gang violence in places where the police have been neutered/walked out. Stay out of those places. — Kev

That's a pretty glib way to speak of major parts of the country falling outside the control of the government.

I think that the letter is appropriate to be fully quoted: — ssu

Yes thank you. You know that in the last couple of days some of the signatories have actually apologized for daring to agree to something that J.K. Rowling agrees with. I won't bore you with the details, those who follow the transgender wars know the story and if the rest haven't heard it by now they're not interested.

So yes, people apologized to the cancel mob for putting their name to a letter supporting free and open speech and dialog.

This frightens me greatly. Not just because of the mob, but because the entire corporate apparatus is behind it. If you're not woke you're ostracized and the very idea of free speech comes from privilege.

This is sick. This is a nightmare. Somebody talk me down, tell me this isn't happening.

I had a thought the other day. Every awful thing in the world that ever happened, happened in a place where the inhabitants believed such a thing could never happen. This is Mao's cultural revolution on the streets AND in the halls of corporate and political power, come to our country. It's here now.

I see quite a lot of people not having issue with infinite regress as objection to the argument. I know very little but WLC seems to argue that ockhams razor would shave off unnecessary causes? — DoppyTheElv

He only says that so that he can pull God out of his sleeve. There is simply no fundamental reason, no known law of physics, that rules out an infinite regress of causes in a causal universe. But who says the universe is causal? Quantum physics casts doubt though the issue is far from settled. WLC's razor is, "Whatever answer I want to get, that's what Ockham's razor would pick." It's a rhetorical trick.

@Kev, Our friend Noam signed a letter today opposing cancel culture and supporting free speech. JK Rowling and many others also signed.

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/506314-jk-rowling-noam-chomsky-sign-letter-warning-of-restriction-of

https://nypost.com/2020/07/07/j-k-rowling-among-dozens-to-call-for-end-to-cancel-culture/

Then what happened? Chomsky is getting #cancelled. Leftists are outraged that he or anyone else would dare speak out for free expression. That's how bad things are out there. For some reason I can't find a link to the story about his getting in trouble with the left. Whose champion he's only been for fifty years.

That's it. You say "Chomsky" to a leftist and they say, "Old white man who believes in free speech. On the list for the guillotine." When the leftists find their Robsepierre, none of us will be safe.

ps I did find a link, unfortunately it's from a very disreputable source, one that's helped lie the country into more than one war. I speak of course of the New York Times.

Artists and Writers Warn of an ‘Intolerant Climate.’ Reaction Is Swift

Down below we find:

And on social media, the reaction was swift, with some heaping ridicule on the letter’s signatories — who include cultural luminaries like Margaret Atwood, Bill T. Jones and Wynton Marsalis, along with journalists and academics — for thin-skinnedness, privilege and, as one person put it, fear of loss of “relevance.”

If you're for free speech, it's because you're a privileged old white guy. And if you're old you're irrelevant and your ideas are deemed wrong by definition. Noam Chomsky? He's for free speech. Cancel him.

These are dangerous times. People think awful stuff "couldn't happen here," but every bad thing that ever happened in the world happened in a place where the people thought it couldn't happen.

Physics has shown us the universe has many laws or rules by which it operates; gravitational constant, conservation laws, uncertainty principle, thermodynamics etc. — Benj96

No such thing.

Math and physics are what we humans use to make a model for ourselves of what the world is and how it works.

There's no reason to think our limited model is the real thing.

I express it thus.

There's a forest somewhere, and in that forest are trees, and one of those trees has branches and leaves, and on one of those leaves there's a caterpillar. The caterpillar knows when it's night and when it's day. It knows to go toward what it likes to eat; and away from what likes to eat it. It knows, deep in its DNA, that someday it will ascend to become a beautiful butterfly.

In short: That caterpillar has a metaphysics.

Just as we do. One would have to claim we are the highest level of consciousness ever in the history of the universe; and not only that, but that we are so clever we've discovered the ultimate nature of reality.

Surely that's not tenable. One, there could be higher levels of awareness and intelligence out there that are to us as we are to a caterpillar on a leaf. And two, even if we have a pretty good approximation to what's going on, that's not at all the same as what's going on. The mathematical nature of physics might be telling us more about ourselves than about the universe. We see what we're capable of seeing. We know what we're capable of knowing.

It's the height of arrogance to think that we, of all creatures, know the truth of the universe.

I'd recommend you just start reading... because it will likely suck you in. Don't put too much stock in the wikipedia page about him, you'll probably disagree with what it says. His own ideals are not really important in his writing, it's more about how he gives the facts of history a new meaning as he provides more information that you probably didn't know was out there. You can stop at any time and still come out with some valuable insight. — Kev

Ok I'll check the article out. Thanks.

A computer is a configuration of atoms. If the Universe is infinite, can we have huge places like an entire galaxy of computers even if there was no living intelligence there? — Eugen

Do you mean a galaxy simulated inside a computer? We can do that even in a finite computer. In fact we simulate galaxies right now with the computers we have.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/galaxy-simulations-are-last-matching-reality-and-producing-surprising-insights-cosmic

On the other hand, do you mean a galaxy literally made of computers? Like it's a galaxy, but instead of stars and planets space dust, it's entirely filled with mainframes from the 1960's, IBM PCs from the 80s, eight-inch floppy disks, last year's iPhones? An entire galaxy where obsolete computer hardware goes to simply orbit a black hole for eternity? Once beloved and then abandoned by a fickle market that always wants something newer?

Yes that's entirely plausible. A lot of my old hardware is out there I'm sure.

help me out guys im very ignorant on this — PhilosophyNewbie

The conclusion is baked it. If we said, "Whatever exists must have a cause," then there could be nothing that exists that wasn't caused. Even God was caused, so he must not actually be God.

The premise is therefore worded: "Whatever BEGINS to exist (my emphasis) must have a cause." Now the casual reader, the first-timer to this argument, passes over that without thinking about it. So that a few lines later, we conclude that there must be an uncaused existing thing. Which we call God.

But really, you don't need the rest of the argument, which serves more to obfuscate the chain of logic. Once you say that anything that BEGINS to exist must have a cause, and then you say (without any proof or evidence) that there can't be an infinite regress of causes, that there was an uncaused cause.

Which might be Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the Brahman, but never mind. As William Lane Craig tells it, the uncaused cause just happens to be the God of the Christian Bible. But nevermind that unwarranted leap. The problem is that the premises have baked in that there is an uncaused cause.

But both premises are easily falsified. If causes go back like the negative integers: ..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ... then:

* Each cause has an immediate predecessor cause; and

* There is no uncaused cause.

This simple model of causality falsifies the argument.

The Kalam argument assumes everything it claims to prove. It's circular and fallacious proves nothing.

It depends on how the power structure is set up. Here you can read a developed theory with a lot of primary sources on how the political structure is the determining factor in the trajectory of a society. https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified/ It's pretty long winded, but there's a lot of gems in there. — Kev

Thank you so much for this link. As you may know I'm a great consumer and sometimes even connoisseur of alternate ideas. I've always been someone who can read something interesting and provocative for its own sake, without feeling the need to join the movement.

In that spirit I clicked your link, and found what is evidently a little area of the Web I hadn't seen. Someone with a following perhaps. Looks a little intellectual-alt based on the typeface and visual style.

At the top is a name, Mencius Moldbug. Wiki brings up Curtis Yarvin, whose page begins:

Curtis Guy Yarvin (born 1973), also known by the pen name Mencius Moldbug, is an American far-right blogger.[4][5] Yarvin and his ideas are often associated with the alt-right.[6] From 2007 to 2014 he authored a blog called "Unqualified Reservations" which argued that American democracy is a failed experiment,[7] and that it should be replaced by monarchy or corporate governance.[8] He is known, along with fellow "neo-reactionary" Nick Land, for developing the anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic ideas behind the Dark Enlightenment.

Yes I can see that. It connects with a libertarian book by Hans-Hermann Hoppe called Democracy: The God That Failed. The title says it all.

But this is nothing new, right? Wasn't it Socrates who totally distrusted democracy as nothing better than mob rule? Two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat.

I'll take a look at that essay and the site. I'm always interested in these little communities of alternative thought out there.

From just that one Wiki paragraph, though, I would say I am not in agreement with his remedies. Sure, democracy doesn't work, but even the Founders knew that. We don't have a democracy, we have a Constitutional republic. "If you can keep it," as Ben Franklin said. Our system of government is designed to protect the rights of minority interests. Minority in the sense of less than the majority. Democracy just lets one tribe bully another. It's a terrible idea.

But monarchy? No. I dig the Queen, she is one classy lady. But I would not want a hereditary monarch decreeing what I may do and what I may not do, and when the nation goes to war and wether it works for peace, decided by such an individual.

And corporate governance? What does that mean? Run it like a business? Regularly prune the least productive 10% of society and organize the world into a hierarchy where every single person gets a written report from their superior on how well they serve the globalist agenda?

Man this guy's dangerous. He's an authoritarian globalist, not an alt-right or right-wing type.

Curious, what about this guy interests you? Can you summarize so I don't have to read it all?

ps one more para from Wiki.

Yarvin has links with the website Breitbart News, the former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, and with the billionaire investor Peter Thiel.[9] Yarvin's ideas have been particularly influential among radical libertarians, and the public discourses of prominent investors like Thiel have echoed Yarvin's project of seceding from the US to establish tech-CEO dictatorships.[10][11] Journalist Mike Wendling has called Yarvin "the Alt right's favorite philosophy instructor".[12] Bannon, in particular, has read and admired his work.[13]

Interesting. He's a techno-libertarian. I lean libertarian but I oppose the techno-libertarians. Corporate governance based on clever algorithms and sociopathic child-CEOs. No thanks.

This is what I thought you meant, and am just using the word entity to refer to the group as a whole. — Kev

Ok. Still, even knowing that I'd push back. The powers that be are far from monolithic. I've read articles claiming that the deep state is at war with itself, with various factions trying to figure out what to do next. There's an interconnected web of individuals and organizations, but they may well have conflicting agendas among themselves.

No, I do believe there is plenty of conspiring going on. I just don't think that explains everything, though. — Kev

Ok, you're taking my position to an extreme. didn't say that EVERYTHING is under their control. Someone wins or loses an election or breaks their leg or wins the lottery, they didn't plan that. The big, broad outlines are well within the global plan of the past decades.

And I don't think the absence of these conspirators would solve much (others would probably have taken that place). I think the conditions were set up to make such grand manipulations possible, but not by design. Good intentions have been acted on in the form of poor engineering. There was never a chance that the public would not have become corrupted. — Kev

Ok good point. Could it have been any other way? If you put humans on a planet, does a secret global elite inevitably develop? Probably. Still, it's a good filter for understanding the news. The kids aren't pulling down statues in a vacuum.

I read Chomsky a while ago. Please correct me if I misunderstand or misinterpreted him. — Number2018

I'm no expert. I'm a Chomskyan in my worldview but I've never read much of his or anyone else's work. I acquired my knowledge of politics and the social sciences from the media, mainstream and alt-; and not from reading any academic works. It's kind of you to think I might be able to correct or inform you, but sadly this is not the case.

I wanted to read your post in detail and respond suitably, but it might take me a while to get to it. Just wanted to let you know that your post made an impression even if I haven't yet responded.

This is smart. People do not change their minds on things like this unless it is rooted in a more fundamental change of perspective. — Kev

I'm trying to learn to be smart. When I talk politics my natural style is to be provocative. I often exaggerate a point or deliberately take the unpopular side of some question. And then when I provoke some people TOO much, I get defensive or argumentative. I've decided to break that cycle.

But without arguing with your judgments of political events, I would suggest that the coordination behind them that you see is organic and not coming from any one entity. — Kev

A straw man I never expressed. I did not say that one entity, whose name I'm sure we don't know, pulls all the strings. That's not what I believe. I do believe there's an interconnected web of very (very!) powerful people in the world who most certainly do get together to plan what they've got coming for the rest of us.

If you want me to identify some specific suspects, I can give you the Davos crowd; and also the annual Bilderberg meeting.

If you want me to name some names, Henry Kissinger comes to mind. I could look up a bunch more names if you like.

Do you honestly think all those billionaires and world leaders DON'T conspire against the rest of us? On what evidence do you assert that claim? I would say that the evidence supports my view of things if you look at the transformation of the world over the past fifty years. Or look at how the establishment handled the banking crisis of 2008 and the banking crisis of 2020?

Yes there was a banking crisis in 2020, didn't make the news unless you followed financial events. In September, 2019, something called the "repo market" began to seize up; and without pretending to understand what that was, if it did seize up it would take the banks and then the world economy with it. So the Fed started printing trillions of dollars. In other words the frenzied hysteria over covid served to cover up, in the public's mind, the fact that the system was about to crash back in September; and that the Fed's been frantically printing since then to keep it all from blowing up. You can look all this stuff up,

Do you think the Davos and Bilderberg set DIDN'T plan to steal the wealth of the world? It just happened by accident? They're a bunch of regular guys and gals just like you and me who just happened to have the wealth of the middle class wind up in their laps, two crises in a row? Because they're just lucky. Uh oh I'm getting excited again!! I'm sure you're right. It's my imagination again. I should move along, nothing to see here ...

This took me straight back to my first time as a teen in love playing the "I'm really going to hang up now...are you still there?" banter. :flower:
Thanks for the memory — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Are you saying my posting style comes across as a petulant teenager? Well maybe it does at that! LOL

Have kids been brainwashed? Yes. Did that all originate from some powerful, globalist cabal? No. — Kev

Ok we agree on half the thesis and not the other.

Forgive me for being such a hit and run kind of poster on political topics, but I often prefer to just say my piece without defending my positions to the death. Especially since I hold many unpopular opinions.

So rather than drill down into the details of why I believe it's a plot from on high, I'll merely state that it's my opinion; and I am aware that others think all this just happened by accident. It's no fluke that Harvard turns out a product like this young woman. And neither is the fact that the NYT is suddenly attacking Mt. Rushmore and the Fourth of July and the very founding principles of this great nation, flawed as it may be. It's no accident at all. That is my opinion.

A good definition uniquely identifies the thing being defined and is reversible. A triangle is a three-sided polygon. A three-sided polygon is a triangle.
— fishfry
I couldn't have said it better myself. Is it always achievable though? — Wheatley

You're agreeing with me? Cool! Even if it's in a different thread!

MU has a metaphysical theory of numbers — InPitzotl

I can't help being struck by the amount of mindshare @Metaphysician Undercover holds here.

I pay for a 15 minute massage — Outlander

I haven't checked out this thread in a while, sounds like it's about to get spicy. Alright!

Again mathematics generally has a purpose. — Outlander

You're confusing pure math with applied math. A common category error. Math is not subject to any standard of applicability. On the contrary, the only criterion for the worth of a piece of math is whether it's regarded as interesting and beautiful by mathematicians. But to satisfy the Philistine in you (one with no appreciation of the arts), be aware that the most abstract and useless mathematics of one era often becomes a core engineering discipline of another. Number theory provides a striking example. Regarded as supremely beautiful yet utterly useless for over 2000 years; number theory is now the foundation of Internet security and cryptocurrencies. Mathematicians let their minds wander, and they let others care about purposes.

Did you only read the headline? — Wheatley

You believe everything you read in the tabloids?

I'm perfectly safe where I am. — Wheatley

Pitchfork-wielding protesters descend on wealthy Hamptons estates

NY Post again, but I have lowbrow taste. And

Nearly $1 Billion Is Shifted From Police in Budget That Pleases No One

That's from the NY Times for those who like lying warmonger fake news sources. That's 17% of the NYC police department's budget at a time when homicides and other violent crimes are exploding. And the new "bail is unfair" movement means that violent criminals are set free the day they're arrested. Plenty of links if you feel like doing the research.

You say you're safe from this insanity and I hope you're right, and I hope I'm safe too. How insane will these idealogues, as you call them, get before none of us are safe?

Ok I'm really done you can definitely have the last word but how can you say you're safe from all this? Don't you follow the news?

I don't care. One life lesson I learned is that paying less attention to ideologues is good for your mental health. — Wheatley

The question of the thread is whether there's a culture war going on. There is. It's between people willing to call out the insanity of Claira and people like her; and people claiming it's a one-off and that there's no significance to it. On the contrary, I find this a very significant story. It encapsulates everything wrong with the culture at this moment. If you don't pay attention to idealogues, what are you going to do when they come to your house or your town to set the place on fire, pull down statues, and take over neighborhoods by force, with the acquiescence of the local politicians? I'ma barf.

I'll let you have the last word.

I'm sensing that you don't think much of Harvard. I invite you to start a topic on your opinion of that university. — Wheatley

As Claira would (and did) say: The sheer entitled caucasity.

I'm going to stab you. — Wheatley

The locution is: "I'ma stab you." These days that's how people can tell you've been educated at Harvard. Your bourgeoisie roots are showing. Or as the kids say, your bougie roots.

I don't agree with that opinion, but I respect your right to express that opinion here. :smile: — Wheatley

Well thanks for not threatening to stab me!

Politics often gets messy, there's always going to be some crazy person doing some weird things. And it doesn't really matter the side of the political spectrum. — Wheatley

Ok, you think she's a one-off.

I've been following the news lately (and for decades) and I think she's the end product of a plan. That would be my opinion. I'm not a scholar of these matters but the name Gramsci comes up a lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Gramsci

I'm wondering if this is the best place to merely express your opinion. Here's the crucial question: do you want others to comment on what you've said, or would you rather be left alone? — Wheatley

That's a great question. I think I'll leave it at what I've already said. But I do invite to you at least try to explain to me what is it about this situation that doesn't bother you when a Harvard grad expresses herself by threatening to stab people who say that all lives matter? I asked you all these questions in my earlier lengthy post. Feel free to respond because maybe I'll learn something.

Do you think it's a good or bad trend in society that instead of civil argument we have young people taught to express their opinions with fits of violent rage?

My point is that your taking sensationalized TikTok videos way too seriously. — Wheatley

Me? Why don't you send an angry tweet to the company that fired her? I did nothing other than express an opinion. That's not a very serious level of commitment or even interest, although I will admit that this story caught my eye this evening. And as I said, you can donate to her GoFundMe page if you feel that strongly that she was wronged. Arguing with me won't help her, I'm not even on social media. Here's her former employer's website where you can give them a piece of your mind. Talking to me does nothing for her.

https://www2.deloitte.com/ng/en.html

But do help me to understand your point of view. What is it about "I'ma stab you if you say all lives matter" that you find acceptable and sane from a Harvard grad; or from anyone at all for that matter? What do you like about this?

Did the lamestreem (mainstream) media even bother to report it. I'm just curious — Wheatley

If you feel strongly that this demented young woman was wronged, here is her GoFundMe page where you can donate to her cause.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/the-claira-janover-is-incredible-fund-part-ii?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet

Can you explain to me what do you think is in the air these days that induces a bright, ambitious young woman to get herself into Harvard and then, after graduating and nailing a high status job at a big time accounting firm, posts a TikTok video that immediately renders her unsuitable for employment anywhere?

If it was just one person going crazy, it wouldn't be a story. It's a lot of people. She said she'd stab anyone who said all lives matter. Do you believe all lives matter? Would you stab someone who disagreed with your opinion? Would you even jokingly threaten to stab someone on the Internet where your video will exist forever?

What is in the air? And why is it happening? The answer is that these ideas have been percolating by design in academia for decades; and this woman is a product of forces far beyond her understanding. Forces from the top, and not from the bottom.

Now I do see that I get frustrated in political conversations, because it's not like the math threads. I can't prove my claims from first principles and put those principles into a historical context. In fact it always amazes me that people can write books that argue a political point; because the social sciences strike me as a black art. So I won't try.

But you tell me, if you think I'm missing the point. Why do you think this woman did what she did? Especially knowing very well what the online culture is like? Did she think nobody would care that she passionately claimed that she would stab anyone who had a different opinion than her? Didn't there used to be some kind of notion of civil disagreement in this country? What happened? "I may not agree with what you say, but I'ma stab you if you say it."

You support that ethos? And, "I'm a stab you." Harvard teaches young intellectuals to express themselves in ebonics? When did that start?

I have my ideas about all this but I can't argue them from first principles in the same way I can with math. So you tell me, maybe I'll learn something. You think she's a one-off and that because the NYT didn't print the story it doesn't mean anything? I'll remind you that the NYT helped Bush lie the country into the Iraq war by promoting daily stories about Saddam's yellowcake uranium and reactor tubes. In terms of reach and consequences, the NYT is the greatest purveyor of fake news in the world. The NY Post doesn't even come close.

Are you really going to draw conclusions from a tabloid?? — Wheatley

The story was reported nationally. There's nothing factually false about the story regardless of the source. You could google her name and get a hundred other accounts. She got fired. Were they only reacting to a tabloid too?

Perhaps I'm not understanding your point. I didn't threaten her and I am not the nationally known accounting firm that fired her. Perhaps your beef is with them. What does the source of the story have to do with it? You can watch her original TikTok video and see whether she strikes you as a Harvard grad you'd be proud to employ to work with your corporate clients.

She was obviously joking. — Wheatley

And I'm sure the people now threatening her are joking too. Come on, man. I watched the original clip. She wasn't joking. Of course she (probably) wasn't actually going to stab anyone. And neither are the people threatening her life. She received from the universe exactly what she put out, in spades. Ancient philosophical principle.

Does it mean that corporations have the complete control over the current agenda and what can happen next? Likely, yes. But you cannot be completely sure. — Number2018

I've sworn off talking politics on this site so I've pretty much said my piece. My only point is that the current unrest is the opposite of grass roots. It's top down. If you disagree that's ok, I won't stab you like this Hahvahd grad would for disagreeing with her. She's not grass roots either, she's the end product of decades of Marxist influence in the academy. "I'ma stab you." Harvard. I'm glad I'm old and won't get to see the ultimate endgame.

https://nypost.com/2020/07/01/harvard-grad-threatens-to-stab-anyone-who-says-all-lives-matter/

She lost her job and now after threatening to stab people, she's crying that she's receiving threats of violence.

https://nypost.com/2020/07/01/harvard-grad-claira-janover-lost-deloitte-job-over-tiktok-stab-threat/

Harvard! Not SJW State. Harvard. This was not an accident. This was planned long ago in circles of power you and I aren't part of.

There's nothing grass roots about what's going on. It's top-down.
— fishfry

Could you expand, please. I did not understand you. — Number2018

Powerful interests are funding the "spontaneous" protests. Black Lives Matter, the organization, takes in huge amounts of money in contributions from corporations. Globalists have spent decades weakening national interests and nationalism worldwide. How on earth do you think it came about that the manufacturing capacity of the American heartland got sold out to China while the residents ended up on fentanyl?

I haven't the inclination today to explain all this to you but I hope you'll do some research on your own. All of a sudden the New York Times wants to destroy Mt. Rushmore? Where'd that come from?

If you'd like to know where to start, read your Chomsky.

A good definition uniquely identifies the thing being defined and is reversible. A triangle is a three-sided polygon. A three-sided polygon is a triangle.

Yes, and the rich and powerful are winning. They always win. :sad: — praxis

This.

There's nothing grass roots about what's going on. It's top-down.

You need a license to braid hair but not to bring a new human being into the world. Go figure.

The numbers in math are fiction, they are creation of human mind, ever noticed how identical they are, each consist of equal parts of another. Super abstract concept. The numbers are not made up like this: zero is all embracing, 1 is , o well, I can't change what it is, it is just any first count of anything, that particular, you see. why 2 should be 1 and 1? Why can't it be it's own size independent of 1? 1 elephant is of course different than 1 geese or 1 ant... 1 planet is different from another 1 planet. Then we try to create farther, we came up with odd and even numbers! They do not exist! Anything can be divided equally by any number, at least sufficiently equally, in a quantitative sense, it's up to our abilities to do so. If we start speaking of qualitative division, oh, we'd be so screwed. Qualitative is different, you see. It has to align with each individual desire or necessity or personal, subjective value. Someone decide three of us can eat each a portion of dog stake. I will remain hungry because I won't eat the dog or I won't eat human flesh, or I won't eat dairy. Why take two people and divide between them four apples? As if in real life people won't be able to share 5 apples if needed? We start with simplifying things to death, falsifying and wrongly naming simplification points of our mind, which actually are called then by us "numbers". What do they numb? They numb our desire to really understand Universe and accept it for what it is. The Universe is not number, it is math-less mass or entity, or phenomenon. Why there can not be true global market? For the qualitative reasons of what's offered and what people are ready to accept and make use of without harming or remaking who they were for the most of their history. — Victoria Nova

Pass the bong. It's legal in my jurisdiction.

I already answered this for you. Your request is outside the range of what I asserted, so not relevant. — Metaphysician Undercover

Don't recall what exactly this was about. Feel our convo is at a plateau at the moment, will be taking a break from our back and forth.