Communism and socialism are not interchangeable terms but it seems like you are using them as though they were. Under socialism or capitalism, the government could be totalitarian or a modern democracy but under communism, there can only be a totalitarian government. Communism is a detailed ideology, it entails far more than just socialism, which shouldn't really receive the blame for what happened with communism.

By giving, one plays a role and by receiving, one plays a role and when it comes to experience, knowledge, wisdom, the roles are deeper than the simplicity that I think is required when it comes to clear cut altruism. Consider, for example, if you feigned interest in someone else's taste in music, depending on the person, they might be quite delighted to see that you've taken this interest. Some people, love to share and love to be validated by others, they might just enjoy the attention. If you set up a business as a tour guide because you have a passion for your local landscapes, that's fine but it's not altruistic, you are running a business and trying to make a living. Or as a karate instructor, you are helping others to receive the benefits and experience of karate but you are called "master", you are being paid, there are many benefits for you, you are not just giving selflessly, we can't call that altruism.

I think you would need to find an example which you felt could be described as "selfless giving" before you could call it altruism.

I think Brett wanted to be a martyr. Leaving the forum may have felt like a defeat while being banned felt like a victory. He talked of "being silenced", he didn't get banned for the reasons he wanted to and so perhaps that's why he wanted to force their hand? It all seems to be based on stuff which happened in the last week or so.

How is this relevant? — Kenosha Kid

They are my views on what counterpunch has said, specifically on page 14. It is not a criticism directed towards you. As I said, I am not going to defend him and I have no interest in speaking on his behalf.

This brings to mind a more general question: I have often felt that when discussing with people who appeared honestly have a different opinion on social issues that the main disagreement was about what could reasonably be concluded from events. What happened was not in doubt, but what it means was. — Echarmion

I don't know, I think the left and the right rarely agree on what happened or what is happening. Seeing agreement on anything but moral platitudes like "racism is wrong" but then all similarities ending is what I expect. The main reason for that is that the news media, politicians and so on can be highly manipulative and seeing a totally different understanding of the world based on whether a person watches fox or cnn is to be expected.

That is do you feel they're overinterpreting events? See intent with insufficient evidence? Conclude systemic issues exist based on anecdotal evidence? — Echarmion

I think that both the left and the right hold nuance in contempt and dislike it when things don't fit into their narratives. It's actually very difficult to know for instance, whether racism was involved in an act of police brutality but the left seems sure it's racism and the right are sure it's not racism. The further out you go, the more sure they are. Neither of them can actually prove anything and so it's a bit ridiculous.

More generally, do you feel like the "left wing" tries to make the world more complicated than it is - that things are more often what they appear, and common sense works? Or is it the opposite? Neither? — Echarmion

I think ideologies, whether left or right-wing, are generally about oversimplification rather than over-complication. They take a certain way of looking at the world and force it into every conceivable context.

I did not talk in-depth about what I thought counterpunch was saying nor my opinions on the matter, you're getting ahead of yourself. I do not have a problem with people talking about race but I do have a problem with saying "race x should do this or needs to stop doing this" for a number of reasons. Mainly, it is ridiculous to hold a race of people accountable, no matter the subject matter. If we allow that then racism becomes justified.

I acknowledge systemic racism and I do not consider it to be negligible. I have talked about this topic many times in the past, you're free to read an example.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8482/does-systemic-racism-exist-in-the-us/p24

There's a lot on this site to show that I am neither soft on racism nor deny its existence.

If I misrepresent your argument and then immediately admit that I did and that I was wrong, why would you insist that I did it on purpose? What did I achieve besides showing that I sometimes misrepresent people, making me look bad and vindicating you immediately, what do I gain by doing that? Also, I just called the guy racist, not doing a very good job of defending him.

Honestly, I was biased against you due to previous posts, I thought I had read enough of this thread to know that you were being unreasonable. I admit I was wrong, his comments about the election fraud are also insane, I am surprised but I see now that your comments are way more justified than I had thought.

Hmm, I do see that as being racist, okay, I am not sure if this is enough to warrant kenosha kid's theatrics about it but it is totally unacceptable to blame "black culture" and "black people" for "black crime". I admit page 14 is pretty damning, @Kenosha Kid I may not have called you out if I read this properly, you are not being so unreasonable as I had thought. The way he talks about "white people" and "black people" bothers me a lot. Maybe I'll just sit out for now and make up my mind about this later.

Eccentric? Haha, that's for sure. I don't take the "cultural" diagnosis well either but kenosha kid is nonetheless being theatrical.


And what makes him racist, can you quote it for me, please?

Can you even prove the Floyd murder was racially motivated? You shouldn't call someone racist because they say things you don't like - when they're not racist. Just because it's not racist - that doesn't make it okay, you can still be angry just, maybe stop diluting the meaning of important words for political benefit?

@Banno Yes but does being factually wrong make him a racist fascist? What if he's just wrong?

A lot of right-wing speakers who aren't racist, fascist or alt-right disagree with the issues around systemic racism, George Floyd, political correctness and even on Trump. This is just politically motivated labelling by you. He hasn't said anything racist, he's said quite a bit which goes against the alt-right ideology and where does the fascism claim come from? Do you actually think you can back any of this shit up? I'm interested @Banno

But factually wrong. — Banno

Does this mean you could join me in telling kenosha kid to stop with the nonsense? Why is saying "he's factually wrong" not good enough? I mean you're the second last person I want to be asking but perhaps he'll listen to you, we don't need to call people "fascist" and "racist" or "alt-right" when they're not, just to make a point.

Hmm, true, I misrepresented you there, my bad. Doesn't change my main* point though.

I don't agree with too much counterpunch has said but I'm pretty sure he isn't alt-right, racist or fascist. He isn't condoning anything by saying George Floyd resisted arrest, anyone can see that he did. As I said, don't agree with his comments but you sound ridiculous. This is not the first time, stop mislabeling people with whatever you think sounds bad just because you don't like what they have to say. If he's really that bad, at least try not to appear worse?

You're really stubborn, your assertion here annoys me a lot, I should just ignore you and let it go but I can't. Quote where you asked for the evidence, the part you think I got upset about.

Ok, I thought you had mentioned you weren't interested in debating this, and tried to end this on a friendly note. You are seeing attacks where there are none. This is exactly my point as to why you don't bring political affiliation to these boards. People get WAY too defensive, and see issues where there is none. — Philosophim

No, you are misreading the situation here because honestly, I have no idea whether you even have a political affiliation or what that is if you do. I do not feel offended except that you suggest I am being defensive about "being asked to back yourself up on a philosophy board".

Ok. Lets just agree then. There is nothing wrong with stating an opinion but nothing wrong with me asking to back your opinion — Philosophim

I would hope you would not take offense at my initial request to back up that opinion — Philosophim

You should know exactly what I think about this because I just wrote about it and yet you still persist undeterred. You ignored everything I said and just repeated the same self-serving crap, reaffirming to me that there is nothing wrong with you asking me to back up my opinion. You went ahead and said it twice more, actually. Do you really think that's how this went down? You asked for evidence and I got upset that you asked for it? I did try to agree to disagree on friendly terms, now you're surprised that comment of yours isn't going down too well, lol. Whatever, have it your way, I'm not continuing this.

And that is fine. Just don't take offense when I ask you to back that up on a philosophy board. =P I had no malicious intent to discredit you, just a disagreement of outlook, and to see if you could give evidence of your outlook. — Philosophim

I didn't take offence to anything but I'm not letting that comment slide. You give me a 1 liner "I have a feeling you are seeing ideologies that aren't there" and what is your feeling but a baseless guess? So, it's on me to prove that I am not simply seeing ideologies which aren't there but that is a monumental task if I wanted to do it properly. Even proving that a single person here was an ideologue would require me to demonstrate it over many threads, with many comments and even then, one could still reasonably doubt the claim. But okay, you're no longer interested in ideologies, now you ask :

What I'm asking is why you believe the vast majority of posters here have a liberal viewpoint? — Philosophim

I answered why I believe that which was my experience in threads that debated stereotypical left-right debate points and the lack of conservative representation in those threads.

You can be to the right and believe in racism, economic inequality, pc-culture, and white privilige. None of those pre-clude left or right thinking — Philosophim

Did I say anything this corrects? No, and yours is a pretty outlandish interpretation seeing as the left-right debate is not about "belief" in racism or economic inequality at any level.

You seem to be focusing on the extremists on the right, which are still a minority and do not capture what a healthy "right" perspective is. — Philosophim

Baseless, where is your evidence for even saying that it "seems' like I'm focusing on right-wing extremism? The actual question you asked was "why do you believe" and I answered it. Not "provide objective proof for the claim that the forum is dominated by the left". You see yourself as having handled yourself well here as someone rigorously testing my claims but you have both shifted the topic to something else and you made baseless accusations which you expect me to debunk with every single post. I never promised to provide proof of my claims, such a task seems too big to take on from my perspective.

Yes, I may be biased. Yes, my experience might be skewed. Yes, our definitions of left/right may differ. All of this goes without saying. If you had decided exactly what it was you wanted, which now seems to be, proof of my claim that the forum is dominated by the left, then I might have been able to provide it.

When you consider we're in a thread about political biases and 60% said they're on the left. With what... 1 person saying they're on the right? And that the "neither" camp are probably less likely to participate in political threads, then maybe you can already see it is reasonable to think that such threads may have up to 80% or 90% of posters being "left-wing". I think even beyond this, I could create a compelling case for my claim but I don't think it's worth the time and there's no guarantee of success. I can think of several ways to go about it but they're all a lot of work. We can just agree to disagree as previously arranged but your comment here is unfair and so I had to respond, I'm not accepting the "sorry I asked you to back up your claims" or whatever.

It seems to me like you already made up your mind about it before I even said anything. You have said:
1. Ridiculing and trolling occur across the board
2. I may be seeing ideologies that aren't there
3. I am confusing left and right / I am confusing right and far-right
4. I am giving vague responses and making assumptions

I don't really think you have grounds for any of these suspicions but the fact that you've gone for all of them in a matter of 3 posts signals to me that you are pretty intent on discrediting me for whatever reason. Don't you think you've already reached your conclusion and you're just saying whatever you can right now?

You've given me so much too much to do for a topic that I don't really care about, I am not particularly interested in debating whether the forum is dominated by the left or not. I never said that the right doesn't "believe in racism or economic inequality", there just aren't many posters espousing conservative perspectives in threads on these topics. Even heated debates on political topics on this forum, both sides of the debate can be considered left-wing, that's my experience. There are posters with <100 posts who are right-wing but especially when you start looking at 1k+ posts, it starts becoming overwhelmingly left-wing and it's really not that hard, most of these posters openly self-identify. Happy to just agree to disagree, by the way.


I don't remember talking to you except in the thread about systemic racism...

I'm done with this anyways. For all I care, blacks should just go get revenge if white people don't want to listen. Burn this shit down and take it all. — Benkei

I called you an idiot and a racist, I don't see why I should apologise, you did earn those comments.

I have had many debates about typical talking points of the left and the right and they're simply left vs further left almost every time. If it's not then it's just one of the very few right-wing posters here or a new account (someone who normally doesn't post here). Somewhat recently, I spent a lot of time debating white privilege and honestly, it was just left vs further left and I really think if this forum had a right-wing presence, they would show themselves in topics like that. Racism, economic inequality, pc-culture and so on, so, experience basically.

I don't like political labels but if I had to give myself one then I'd call myself a liberal, not a conservative. What I believe is that a healthy thinker will not agree with or follow an ideology in its totality. It's not just that either because you can tell when someone has really thought out a position and when they're just following an ideological tract. An ideology is a system and it exists in competition with other ideologies. It can be an identity, a tribe to belong to, a cause to advance, it can simplify your worldview. I don't identify ideologues by just having particular viewpoints, I do it by how they describe their ideas, how often I can identify that they're just parroting an ideological point, how they treat their political opponents/allies, how concerned they are with what group (ideology) you belong to. It sounds like a lot but there are obvious red flags.

They act like soldiers on a battlefield. Here is not that bad, there are some truly terrifying ones out there. https://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/ is a good example, incel community is infamous for it, I can't even stay 30 minutes, I lose my cool, you can get the picture. It is not necessarily the result of a concerted effort among the ideologically motivated frequenters, sometimes it's just that there's enough of them to have an effect. If I post a thread about "my theory of the universe" and write some random crap, yes, people might mock and troll but it's not the same as this. There are big differences besides the obvious, "it's an ideological disagreement, not just random people trolling".

It's a consistent and uncompromising attack on alternative ideologies, a dogmatic adherence to their ideology and displays of hostility which seem unnatural. Here, the group I refer to follows what is probably best described as intersectional feminism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

Actually proving that some of the posters I named or others follow this ideology and are dogmatic and uncompromising ideologues would take some considerable effort on my part. It wouldn't be worthwhile for me to make that effort at this point. However, I am certainly not saying this because I'm bitter about being trolled or ridiculed, there is a long history for many of these posters and being aware of it isn't hard when you've been here for as long as I have.

I get the feeling that many people only respond to anything when they disagree. I've seen very little in the way of people saying they like other people's ideas or adding further to them. — Pfhorrest

I agree with that but I think the effect of the leftist ideologues is worse, you have threads of 4-5 people writing pages of comments with just name-calling, insults, trolling and so on because someone said something they disagreed with. Brett's thread about the "leftist dominated forum" was not the way to go I think because that is not the problem. The issue is that these aforementioned posters are literally breaking nearly every forum rule and it's allowed because the ones breaking the rules include the moderators. The rules are literally written by Baden, who routinely breaks his own rules unambiguously.

If all that happened was the forum rules were enforced equally or the moderators tried to lead by example rather than being an exception then Brett and others like him wouldn't be in this situation. The rules aren't "no disagreement allowed" or "you can't be highly critical of others" just don't be a twat basically.

I don't have an issue with the left-dominated forum but there are clear double standards in the moderation here. If I posted like streetlightx, I would probably get either banned or have a majority of my posts deleted, I know this from besides just logic and reading their rules because whenever I do just insult someone aimlessly, my posts are often just deleted (and should have been, not complaining). There are a number of evangelical, aggressive idealogues here and considering how many philosophical topics can be related to politics, one might have a tough time avoiding them while posting here. In an ideal world @Philosophim's approach would make sense but there's little sense in treating an ideologue like a normal person. If you post a view which goes against leftist thinking, be prepared for not just debate but unmoderated ridicule and trolling.

Some people live for that while others hate it but I see so many posters 1st time dealing with the likes of xtrix, 180proof, streetlightx, maw, baden and so on wondering what the hell they did to receive such insulting responses to benign comments. Basically, people should be prepared for it and ignore these posters and a few others if you're looking for a reasonable discussion. No reason to come in blind and expect a warm welcome to a discussion on ideas which fall outside of the leftist agenda.

I think while the poll may be a bit ambiguous, the results are pretty much what I expected and I'm really not sure who for instance voted "maximum hierarchy" and whether they're actually serious. The forum is dominated by the left, this shouldn't be controversial. Just something to take into consideration when posting.

Intellects dictate meaning, including the meaning of relative space and time and inanimate objects have no active role to play to dispute whatever the intellect dictates. If a star were sentient and intelligent, it might go mad with boredom but they're not and thus the star in this thought experiment is just being puppeted by your imagination. Perhaps you would like to be the star, who in its immense size and magnificence, looks down on human society and is far removed from it? I could admire that. However, this is a luxury for the star, not a difference in perspective. When you are in human society, sometimes you have to fight for what you believe in, what you want or just to defend yourself. I think it's easy to judge when removed but once you're in it, there's little to do but join the squabbling.

As I said before - anyone ought to be free to express their opinions, but what if a medium is used solely for the propogation of lies? Are lies protected by 'freedom of expression'? — Wayfarer

Good point. Trump became a more trustworthy source of news for his base than anything else. Trump demonstrated how weak the controls are on the president but ideally, the government should be segmented enough that when one part steps out of line, the others collapse on it and bring it back. Trump's war on truth really demonstrated how a leader can use their status as leader with just media/social media. I'm not exactly sure what should be done but the "allowing him to hang himself with misinformation" approach didn't appear to be working seeing as how many people believed him over the truth.

Maybe it didn't work with Trump in terms of usurping democracy but I don't think anyone else should be allowed a second try. Demonstrably incorrect information coming from a president needs to be addressed more forcefully.

You're wasting your time, the guy you're talking to is well beyond reason. I've never seen him treat anyone who disagrees with him with anything but mockery and trolling, go talk to someone more deserving of your time, like, literally anyone.

Perhaps all the online spaces I frequent are left-leaning, but I very rarely see anyone positively self-describing as "right wing". The actual right-wingers seem to prefer other names. Left wing is a far more common self-description. — Echarmion

I think "conservative" is more popular but I do see it. Though I think the emphasis for both sides is about using left or right as a pejorative rather than self-describing positively. I would say most of your experience is just based on the circles you inhabit but it is a bit harder to self-describe as right-wing for various reasons, so maybe there's some truth to it.

What's perhaps interesting is that people seem to object to being described as "right wing", but outsider of specific circles people rarely object to the opposite label. — Echarmion

On this forum being called a right-winger is used practically as an insult but that's because this forum is incredibly left-leaning. I don't know if it gets more left than this site really, it's well beyond anything I've encountered before. Even on this forum, moderate left posters don't call people right-wing as an insult and likely wouldn't feel insulted to be called right-wing. I don't think it's more than the environment one finds themselves in, whether being called right or left could be considered an insult.

One would have to be a real crackpot to hand over the reins to a group like US Antifa on "how to combat fascism". I don't even trust them to define it. Sadly, I think it is easy to argue that Antifa has greatly diminished the image of anti-fascist rhetoric and thinking. If the US ever does see a rise in fascism then maybe it is because people came to see anti-fascism as radical leftists with masks who protest right-wing politics thus they stop treating the topic with the same emphasis. The word fascism has lost a great deal of its meaning, an already hard-to-understand idea and now it's even more difficult for the average westerner to understand and identify.

When someone like Trump does act out dangerously fascistic behaviour, what happens when he's called out on it? It's a mix of the "boy who cried wolf" and the watered-down definition of fascism, the way it's been used politically to just smear, it's not going to be taken seriously. Antifa has literally become a convenient scapegoat for Trump, how can any reasonable person take them seriously? What have they achieved? Nothing but a negative PR campaign for their own cause.

As opposed to fascism being driven underground or "banned" it's better that everyone is aware of what it is and knows why it's a bad alternative. That being said, many actual fascist policies are against the law and much of what we saw in the rise of fascism of the 1930s would not be remotely legal.

I do not think socialism can belong to the left and that capitalism is on the right. Fascism, for instance, is known to have anti-capitalistic factions and there are many left-leaning ideas on how our current capitalism could be reformed to be more in-line with the goals of the left. So I do not accept the "pro-capitalism is right-wing" idea. Pro-capitalists here want more economic redistribution, believe in more regulation, are amenable or in favour of increasing taxes.

I do not think there is a balance of people who are against more economic redistribution versus those who are in favour of it. Even the few people who actively label themselves as "right-wing" are also in favour of more economic redistribution. I can't keep track of every person who makes an account here but for posters with 1k+ posts, the overwhelming majority (95%+) would support more economic redistribution. We could analyse some threads talking about economic inequality, there may be debate on the best way to do it but if there's debate on whether it's necessary, it's usually just one or two people posting a lot.

The democratic party is certainly left-wing. The democratic party often talks about topics such as climate action, pro-choice, gun control, economic redistribution, increased taxes, pro-immigration, increasing the minimum wage, free healthcare, taxing the super-rich, expanding free education. Exhibiting the typical idea of left governments, there's no way it's reasonable to call them centre, even centre-left.

As I said, for whatever reason the further left-wing posters will label anyone who isn't as radical as they are as "right-wing". The current thread on fascism demonstrates this, Kenosha kid is calling people right-wing for just daring to criticise Antifa, it's absurd.

This forum really contains close to no actual right-wingers, if you actually look at the majority of political debates on this forum, it's moderate left vs further left. Of course, the further left see anyone who doesn't agree with them as right-wing so people get called right-wing all the time but not really.

It's true that this forum is mostly left-leaning but it's a bit unfair for you to complain about being unceasing attacks from leftists. Post anything which is left-leaning and you will also be relentlessly debated. While this is more true for politics, we could really say, post nearly anything and you will probably be criticised and debated, it's a philosophy forum after all.

I don't think these type of things threaten our democracies but rather reveal how our democracies were never really as transparent as we want to believe they are. Assange and his collaborators just put a spotlight on it and they're now being made an example of.

This is why I find it illogical to construct an ethics of outcomes. One does not act according to outcomes; one acts according to intentions. — Kenosha Kid

I think it would be impossible to justify commending someone who intends for something malevolent but inadvertently does good but I don't think it is impossible to condemn someone who intends good or does not intend harm but inadvertently does harm. Whether by negligence, incompetence, recklessness, carelessness or impulsiveness. Not necessarily so but I think we could come up with examples where people with good intentions acted thoughtlessly and caused harm and could be rightfully condemned for it.

There's also a list of actions which are considered immoral regardless of intention. Sometimes, we need to weigh up why someone did something as a mitigating feature, like a drug dealer who is just trying to survive or support a family but often that isn't enough. When their actions are causing harm or violating moral precepts, intent may not be accepted as excusing their immoral behaviour. Perhaps a drug dealer is too much, my intent isn't necessarily to give a cut and dry example because this area can be contentious in ethics. The point is that we cannot and do not simply excuse any or all behaviour based on intent and sometimes intent doesn't even excuse a person.

There's no logical inconsistency here, we hold humans to standards which we don't expect of trees or animals.

Your anecdotal evidence wasn’t related to any fact- based argument but to the idea that “If you just go out and do some social sport or dancing, your "unlikely" will become a "certainly" ...” There’s nothing factually reliable about that whole sentence. — Brett

You did not clarify whether you are using obesity and overweight interchangeably.

I said enough, that neither being overweight or obese necessarily means that there's no physical activity. At 25-30 BMI, which is considered overweight, there is no reason that someone could not play casual sports or go dancing. I personally know or have seen many people who are overweight who play sports regularly. There is no reason to think that someone who played sports actively could not be overweight nor that someone who was overweight could not play sports actively. I don't know about any statistics showing how physically active overweight people are but it shouldn't be necessary because you've got nothing to back up your claims and really, it's in plain sight, now, that's if you are talking about the 25-30 BMI range, not obese.

I said enough, why should I have to write an essay to a comment of yours which was literally "I think" without any argument, statistics, quotes or anything of anything? The point I'm making isn't even relevant to the OP in the first place. Your criticism of me is invalid, there's nothing to argue about.

It was directed at me, and I deserve it. I'm actually starting to regret making this thread now. I'm definitely saying a lot of ridiculous things at this point. — Garth

I'm not saying these things just to try to make you look silly, if you admit that you were being ridiculous then I'm happy to agree with you and leave it at that. Acknowledging and learning from our mistakes is much more impressive than pretending we never make any.

What? You believe it is rational to believe something to be true when it's demonstrably untrue because...? Your logic? Or what? You also don't care about rationality?

That is not what I’m saying. This is what I said. — Brett

I think it’s very unlikely that someone could be overweight and play sport or dance. — Brett

This is what I was responding to but if when you said "overweight" you meant "obese" then I would agree with you. If that is just the misunderstanding then that's fine, I do not use these terms interchangeably but I can see how you thought I might be.

That’s a bit rich using anecdotal evidence when you condemn Garth, saying “ I don't really want to hear what else you can makeup, you need to be fact-checking yourself instead of just believing whatever is convenient for you. — Brett

I complimented my fact-based argument with anecdotes, there's nothing wrong with that.

I think it’s very unlikely that someone could be overweight and play sport or dance. Of course it’s possible but not long enough to count as anything. Inactivity would be a large contributor to obesity. Activity would certainly change it. — Brett

All you have to do is open up a calorie calculator to realise that even doing a large amount of exercise does not burn enough calories to make that much of a difference. The typical American diet is filled with sugar and processed carbohydrates (sugar), which causes weight gain and insulin resistance, this is what is causing the obesity epidemic, mostly that at least. You can be very lean and not exercise at all but you cannot eat and drink sugar and process carbohydrates all day and be lean just because you do some sport or dancing. What you're saying is akin to saying you can eat whatever you want provided you're physically active and that's just not true.

If you just go out and do some social sport or dancing, your "unlikely" will become a "certainly" at least anecdotally. It's only when you get into a more competitive environment that you'll stop seeing overweight people participating. Also, overweight is NOT the same as obese, I am saying overweight as in 25-30 BMI or something.

But if seeing all of these people doing sports and dancing on TV really makes us want to go do these things, why would 73% of Americans be overweight? Are we not watching enough television to become sufficiently inspired? — Garth

Not a valid argument. Not only is it possible to play sports or dance and still be overweight but inactivity is not the cause of American obesity, so there's really nothing here for you at all.

I can take any example I want really but here's a recent one:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/23/arts/television/chess-set-board-sales.html

The main character in this show is a genius, what she does cannot be replicated by nearly anyone but guess what, she makes people think chess is cool.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2020/05/03/michael-jordans-1-billion-nike-endorsement-is-the-biggest-bargain-in-sports/?sh=927301261363

Businesses are paying stars like Michael Jordan millions because they know he'll inspire people to buy what he uses because they want to be like him. Not because he's driving them to despair how they'll never be as good as he is.

When you form your opinions based on theories, rather than looking at facts, you can make up almost anything. I don't really want to hear what else you can makeup, you need to be fact-checking yourself instead of just believing whatever is convenient for you.

All the evidence goes against you, who would argue that Michael Jordon made basketball less popular? Or that Michael Jackson made people had the effect of making people NOT want to dance like him? Figures who demonstrate their exceptional qualities inspire others, they have the opposite effect of causing people to lose hope.

This just proves we are defective, like E.O. Wilson's slave-making ants, doomed to an evolutionary dead end. Either we will evolve to no longer be able to think about these things or we will go extinct. — Garth

Yeah, it certainly proves that something is defective, I'm going to say it was your original point, which was demonstrably absurd. Agree to disagree I guess.

Competitive metrics are not fundamentally instituted but exist through a pre-existing hierarchical mode of evaluation. Singing didn't become competitive due to our advanced understanding of how to sing properly, it was always competitive and it was always true that some were better than others at it. That being said, your entire argument is demonstrably incorrect, we actually live in a world where you have easy access to people who are better than you at each thing you might do. Did people stop playing sport because they know they can't compete with the best in the world? Do people no longer play chess because they're aware a grandmaster would disagree with their play? Do people feel ashamed to dance because they've seen dancing competitions on television? Of course not, doesn't all evidence goes against your claim?

We should be wrong all the time. It's boring to be correct; nobody has anything to say about a sound argument. — Garth

We should be wrong all the time? Really, what are you talking about? Thinking and talking about your thoughts isn't a purely recreational activity...

In nature, the animal that stops to contemplate the meaning of the universe is quickly eaten by a bigger animal. Or its mate is buggered by a rival and that's the end. — Garth

What animal stops to contemplate the meaning of the universe besides us? How do you come to this conclusion?

Overall, I am at least impressed that you seem to practice what you preach but I can't say I agree with what you're preaching.

I know what fascism is, it is basically whatever I don't like is fascist. Capitalism is fascist, racism is fascist, sexism is fascist, disagreeing with me is definitely fascist.

Cultural decay is clearly a generational thing, how many people talk of a cultural decay of longer than a hundred years in contemporary times? When people say Western culture is decaying, they're talking about youths diverging from the incumbent culture, abandoning the things that were thought of as important by the older generation. They're absolutely not talking about an existential crisis like ww3 or a disease which wipes them out. They're talking about reality television or sexual liberation and the like.

I guess we just agree to disagree, your emphasis on names and disregard for nuance is not interesting for me to debate. The comment about me not living in the 1960s while educating me about Langobards is just silly.


Thanks. We can agree to disagree, I do think you are likely not appreciating that when I say everything from 1960 to 2020 has changed, I mean it. We take just any old topic and someone has probably written a book on how much has changed from 1960 to 2020. economically, health, music, fashion, food, you name it. From 1960 to 2020 changes were dramatic in a way never before seen in history and from 2020 to 2080 will also be unprecedented in history.

My original point was just to say, these rates of change are miles away from life before the 1800s and especially before the 1400s. To compare the cultural change in the roman empire with the modern US is all kinds of silly. The Roman empire didn't change as much in all of its life as the US did in just 60 years and that's true of 1900 to 1960 or 1960 to 2020.

It's important to remember that even very different cultures to ours like those from Asia are still similar enough that we "get" it, right? Even today, many Westerners watch k-dramas, anime or tv series from China. I have too and I don't struggle to relate to characters whatsoever, I can usually pick up on some cultural difference without becoming lost. I called 1960s culture alien to that of 2020 but I didn't mean it as literally as you may have taken it, just meant to say, the changes are dramatic and there's no end of evidence to support that.

I do not think attachments are the source of the problem, I think instead it's interpretation. You can be attached to something worth your emotional investment and that may or may not cause you suffering based on how you react to, essentially, change or things not going your way. If we think of a professional athlete who is accustomed to giving a good performance, gets frustrated after poor play, it's more about how to handle that frustration. If being frustrated means throwing a tempter tantrum, behaving disgracefully and lashing out at people then that's clearly going to be damaging for that person. If instead that frustration is converted into motivation and determination to give a better performance next time, then I'd say that might be even better than having an attitude of acceptance. We need to evaluate the intricacies of the emotions being evoked.

As for "what makes us human", we could change that to "what makes you, you" if it's easier. I just mean that we're not in total control of what kind of person we are and we're forced to live with what we have no ability to change. Just like it'd be easy to get over PTSD if a person could just decide to forget about that trauma but the whole issue is that they can't. Our ability to manipulate our psychology is limited and sometimes it can be exhausting to even try. That's why I believe in only trying to fix problems rather than trying to practice total non-attachment.

You talked about cultural decay but you give examples of people just totally converting to a new culture or genocide. I think that language is at the heart of your understanding regardless of what anyone else says. To avoid a cultural collapse in Australia we've got to
1. Call ourselves Australians
2. Speak English
3. Be mostly white? If we become 90% ethnically Asian does that still count?
4. Not let Australia be destroyed or something

Is that about right?