Honestly, I think that socialism or "Neo-Marxism" don't exist in the U.S. at all, either ever existed. — javi2541997

It's hard to agree with that when we can clearly see neomarxist philosophy underlying many of the positions Biden holds or has shown support for (eg crt in systemic racism, queer theory in lgbtq activism, critical pedagogy in the department of Education). These philosophies all have neomarxist roots and are the driving ideas behind their respective movements/institutions. How are we not to think Biden is greatly sympatico with communism?

That's how a real communist should act . . . I think this is impossible to be in Biden's mind. — javi2541997

Communism is looked at very suspiciously by Americans, given the experience of the cold war, and it general historical track record of producing overwhelming death amongst its own citizens. It would probably be ill advised for Biden to come out as a real communist.

Additionally, I do not think consciousness can be "simulated." Only living things can be conscious, not computer programs or anything contained in computer programs. — NotAristotle

Then you would definitely reject hylozoism and pan-psychism.

woman...that is some advanced scientific lexicon

that's democracy for you, don't like it, you are free to oppose it. At least the playing field is levelled in the financial domain where most of the corruption lies.

I think perhaps Biden is more pro-communist than some of you but is still far from being a communist for real communists. — Hailey

I totally agree.

I think the problems of American democracy can be solve simply through campaign finance reform.

I also am compelled to point out that lennenist democracy is very different than the American version. The former is direct democracy, the latter is constitutional republic.

Yes, there is some common ground between communism and democracy.

Both systems are based on the idea of equality. In communism, this is achieved through the abolition of private property and the means of production being owned by the state. In democracy, this is achieved through the principle of one person, one vote. — Hailey

That's a lot of stuff. You posted there.

To be clear, I am not arguing about communism and its various applications, I am arguing that Biden supports neomarxism/communism in many ways which could make him appear communist.

There is a Lenninist theory on democracy that elaborates on what you are speaking about here.

didn't see the addendum, allow me to read and respond

Should you also analyze aspects of him that is anti-communism, then compare both the pro- and anti-communism part of Biden before drawing the conclusion that he is a communist? Don't we all believe in things that belong to different ideologies? — Hailey

Too many of his positions are touched by neomarxist philosophy for it to be a coincidence.

It is hard to think the president of the United States would be ignorant of noemarxist philosophies that directly underly the very positions he supports. Perhaps I am wrong. However, I would think ignorance of that sort would make a person incaple of adequately fulfilling the role of potus.

There is also the possibility that he is being manipulated, unwittingly, which case, it would make a person incaple of adequately fulfilling the role of potus.

If he is aware of the philosophies underlying his political positions and decisions, then there is no harm in admitting it . US is a democracy after all, the people will ultimately decide what they want.

Perhaps we all believe in things that belong to different ideologies, but we all are not potus either, and I hold that person to a higher standard than you and I, for good reason.

Speaking of your examples, what is wrong for critical pedagogy? If he is against critical pedagogy, would it make him more pro-communism? Isn't critiacl thinking at the root of the prosperity of America? Critical thinking is something Chinese really look up to and emulate that is so advanced in American education. Do we really disagree on such fundamental issues or am I missing something here? — Hailey

Maybe missing something, no offense meant.

Nothing is wrong with critical pedagogy as a pure philosophy. But when Biden appoints Miguel Cardona to secretary of education, it insinuates that Biden most likely supports critical pedagogy. And since critical pedagogy is based in Marxist philosophy, what else can we assume. If accidental, it is unacceptable. If purposeful, no harm, let the people decide.

Critical thinking in the classic academic sense is one thing. Critical theory is another thing, and that is what critical pedagogy belongs to. Critical theory was originated by max Horkheimer, a founding neomarxist. Friere was directly influenced by his ideas.

Don't worry, medical science is trying to reduce discrimination against men by allowing them to have a womb transplant. This further complicates the issue of abortion. — Agree-to-Disagree

Interesting. I see no reason why men with transplanted wombs would be exempt from abortion procedures. I wonder, would there be a natural way to impregnate men without any external medical assistance

Abortion is always wrong. It's not complicated. — NotAristotle

I agree, it is discriminatory against men. Medical science has discriminated against men in multiple ways including its failure to offer any options for abortion procedures on the reproductive capacity of men. Also, look at the disparity in contraceptive options. It's ludicrous.

But it is important that you also point out that Chinese society doesn't see Biden that way because some media and Trump supporters consider Biden a communist as well as Pol Pot.
— javi2541997

It seemed odd to me because why would he be? Is there evidence or is that most things people spread nowadays misinformation? — Hailey

There are a few reasons Biden might be considered a communist or neomarxist. He supports queer theory, which was heavily developed in the ideas of Judith Butler, who was herself, heavily influenced by marxist philosophers such as Foucault, Lacan, and Gramsci. He also advocates and pushes for critical pedagogy in k-12, which was an educational program invented by Paulo Freire, an avowed communist.

The real question is, given his position on many issues, how can it be shown that Biden isn't highly sympathic towards communism/neomarxism.

You don't have to do it alone, there are the billion car owners to help. Each has to replace just one. — unenlightened

That's the ticket. Its so simple.. We can all be nice to each other and all war will end ... and everyone will be happy. Then we can all grow flowers, and everyone will play with puppies, and everything will be sunshine and rainbows forever

Indeed, democracy is a bad system when most of the population is insane. — unenlightened

I tend to agree with Plato...democracy is the best system for a tyrannical state, but the worst system for a just state. Whatever the case, Nietzsche was right in calling democracy a slave morality.

Why would you say that humanity's contemptibility is the same as it ever was, and then say its stupidity has increased dramatically? Do you not see this as blatant contradiction, or is stupidity not contemptible? If the stupidity you are talking about is an innocent naivety then perhaps the latter would be possible, but you position it in relation to technology. — Metaphysician Undercover

First, remember that my opinion on humanity is quite inconsequential. So, I was speaking off the cuff, let's see what it means...

Stupidity can be contemptible. But i am speaking of stupidity as an enabling factor that gives humanity the greatest excuse in the world to blunder with impunity, despite it's technological ability. Is it the indicator of contemptibility? I would say it is one amongst others, like cowardice or greed.

So...without stupidity I would still find humanity contemptible, in fact, it might be more contemptible, being more clever in succeeding with its treachery (assisted by technology).

Whatever the case, it is fun to point out the dialectic of stupidity and technology.

But the human world, is a living, changing, and evolving world, as are human beings. And these old principles which were established way back when humanity wasn't the same thing which it is today, really need to be revisited. — Metaphysician Undercover

Humanity is the same in some aspects, and different in others. For instance, its contemptibility is the same as it has always been, however, its technology and stupidity has increased dramatically and in direct correlation.

To what extent can we attribute the progress of todays world to tradition?

Wow! What are they? — frank

Nothing special. Somewhere in there it involves philosophy, that's probably why I like TPF. I might be able to start a new thread calling for TPF members to detail the metaphysical and existential loads they carry in life. What do you think?

That's a heavy load to carry. — frank

Do not worry my friend, I carry it very lightly. I have chosen much heavier metaphysical and existential loads for myself which dwarf the notion of "humanity" into absolute insignificance.

In some situations you have to look at the person within the body and hold off on judgement. Then the body just becomes part of the human potential, and what you think of it reflects how you see humanity in general. — frank

Absolutely, much of life is situational. In fact, merit and character should always trump body shape when judging an individual.

How I view humanity is very inconsequential, however I must say I hold it in the greatest of contempt and have little hope for it as a whole, and although it will continue getting stupider, ironically, it will survive.

Do fatbodies have societal-wide ramifications? — Moliere

Only the disgusting ones, especially when they are naked. On the other hand, some fatbodies are very aesthetically pleasing. But, for the record, I believe it would be preferential if the laws against public nudity be applied equally to all, whether fat, skinny or in between.

What does your disgust of fatbodies do for you? — Moliere

I'm not disgusted by all fatbodies, forgive me for speaking so generally. But, for the ones that do disgust me, it gives me something interesting to draw.

Shaming people for the body they have is not only unkind, it's unnecessary. — Moliere

I disagree. I like shame, it keeps me honest with myself. And I think it does the same for many others. Unfortunately in the present day, people are soft, brittle and full of excuses for why they cannot adequately handle their shame...and they have blamed shame, and shamed shame in order to escape what would otherwise be their own shame. It is a shame.

You may think that, but I think that clothes enable the disgust. — unenlightened

Then we agree, I think. Clothes enable the disgust by creating a taboo around nudity. And, this is counter-effective in desensitizating people to the regular sight of a disgusting naked body. I would argue that such desensitization towards such a shameful thing as a disgusting fatbody is neither good nor healthy for society.

If you go to life drawing class, you will see naked men and women of all kinds, fat and thin, hairy and smooth, young and old, light and dark, whole and deformed or scarred or mutilated. All just something to sketch or paint. — unenlightened

I'm an artist and I've attended 100's of life drawing classes. I would say at least 9 out of 10 models (if not greater ratio) were in decent to great shape, all without evident mutilations. I think this is the case because they are trying to teach anatomy, particularly the superficial muscles, and once this facet of life drawing is advanced it is quite easy to extrapolate fat on any person. Whereas the reverse is very difficult for the advanced student.

Whatever the case, the classes all had a very professional and sterile atmosphere, similar to the medical field.

Disgust is a limitation to be overcome. One may not like blue cheese, but to be disgusted by it is never to find out. — unenlightened

To be overcome in some cases, and not in others. In many cases, similar to fear and anxiety, it helps us stay healthy and alive.

Disgust with blue cheese doesn't necessarily mean that the thing is alien to the disgusted person. It often comes from a too intimate experience with the thing. In one case, it is unwarranted disgust based in ignorance, and should be overcome...but in the case of having familiarity (say with rancid dairy products), blue cheese is likely to have something genuinely and objectively disgusting about it, and for good reason.

The fact that disgust with blue cheese can be overcome, theoretically means disgust is possible to overcome in any given case (say with poop). But this doesn't mean we should seek to overcome everything we find disgusting. Afterall some things, like poop, or disgusting fatbodies, have much father reaching ramifications in society than blue cheese.

Quite possible though people originally started wearing clothes for other reasons, e. g. warmth, protection etc. and this, following Un's logic, is what sexualised nudity and brought the taboo into being. — Baden

The question is, what was the taboo effect of clothing once it became normalized? Did it cause people to notice how sexually enticing a human body could be...or did it cause people to notice just how disgusting most human bodies actually are?

Indeed I have already cited evidence from the Naturist movement that breaking the nudity taboo does desexualise nakedness and does not in the least lead to public sex.[...] One disadvantage of this is that it leads to body shame or modesty you prefer, — unenlightened

I believe the public nudity taboo is in place, not because of the potential of sexualized nudity, but because 99% of people are in disgusting shape and look gross naked. More people should be ashamed of their body - clothes simply enable people to be disgusting.

Trump is the only living president who isn’t a descendant of someone who enslaved Americans. — NOS4A2

Very interesting, I had always heard that all the whites were descendents of slave owners, and ispo facto, all racists. :chin:

I did posit a sane society in which everyone can participate in in recreational sports in a league of their own weight-class and skill level. I forgot to add: with non-bigoted coaches. — Vera Mont

Sane society in the present day? Nonexistent.

I reside in the insane USA, and here anyone can participate in recreational sports, with both bigoted and nonbigoted coaches. But recreational games are a non-issue. When it comes to competitive sports, gender differences in skill and physical attributes are undeniable and reaffirmed in every actual example that has taken place in reality.

There are few issues with recreational sports that seek equity through equality:

How would you determine each participant's skill level? And what about those who could not find equals in skill and/or physical attribute, will they be left out completely?

Hypothetically, if we actually could assemble a large enough group of players that were unequivocally determined to be equal in skill and physiological attributes, wouldn't that set the stage for every match to be a draw?

Then I supposed we can abolish scorekeeping since every match ends in a draw. But...that begs the question of why we are measuring skill and physiological attributes to play games that always amount to the same thing in every case. Why not just include everybody, regardless of skill and attributes? After all, it is only play, and none of it matters in the end.

But then some would dominate others, inevitably introducing a heirachical stratification in what is intended to be equal in all aspects...that is the reason all included must be equal. Yet, this brings us back to the first problem that excludes those so-called "perpetually unequal folk" that can't fit in.



With coaches, how would we determine which coaches are genuinely bigoted, and which are genuinely trying to win at all costs? And if a player in a recreational athletic league did not like the coach, they could simply change teams without issue since it is recreational and does not matter.

Well put.

So we need to ask the question of why would men create games to be played by men, for the purpose of displaying their manliness. Or is it the case that women created these sports so that men could show off their abilities, and the women could use this to judge them. Understanding the intent behind this type of sports is crucial to understanding this proposed inequality between men and women. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think it's crucial to understanding "this proposed inequality", but it can probably shed some light on the issue.

I remember reading somewhere that the novelty of competetive sports evolved as a nonlethal alternative to lethal combat. And, its cultural prevalence can be correlated to the advances in war technology, as the distance between combatants increased, so did the interest in and necessity of competetive sports.

If this scenario is the case, then i can conjecture: competitive sports are merely a way that men sort out their rank amongst their peers without having to risk death. Now, why would a man want to achieve glory, and stand out from his peers? As it turns out, men who are successful in competetive sports are likely to command special attention from a wider selection of ladies, and all without the risk of death. A possible reason. It is hard to deny that women have encouraged competetive sports amongst men (wittingly or not), so men have continued doing it because it gave them all the glory, all without the risk of death.

So, given all this conjecture, if men originally endeavored in competetive sports for honor and pussy, can we contrast it with the original reason women began to endeavor in competetive sports? I can't think of a reason women first endeavored in competetive sports. My instinct tells me it was imposed on them by the patriarchy - to demonstrate woman's inherent subordination to men by manipulating them into immitating man's activity. I could be wrong.

Consider, that if men created these sports for the purpose of demonstrating to women that they cannot compete with men, and that they are therefore unequal to men, then this is nothing more than systematic sexism. Furthermore, if this is the case, then the men would not even actually be competing, they'd be cooperating in this system, by participating in these sports. Then, that this is competition is really what is an illusion, because the design of the game is not based in competition, it is based in the difference between men and women. So the players would be nothing but actors in a sexist form of entertainment. — Metaphysician Undercover

A bit far fetched, I'd say.

isn't this another example of addressing the wrong issue? It's not being trans that is wrong here, but being a rapist.

Let's address the actual problem. — Banno

You are right, but, the actual problem he is addressing is one of rapists pretending to be trans. You know, to easily infiltrate safe spaces that harbor "easy" targets.

No more, in fact, than making up a league of peers for any given sport. — Vera Mont

Peers as a selection process for a roster are perfectly fine when sports are non-competitive and pointless.

But in competitive sports, all that matters is "winning!". Even within the confines of a roster there is competition amongst teammates in the winning of a position - to effectively stand out from one's peers. There is no denying that in comptetive sports, there is a necessary dynamic that separates the superior from the inferior...from what would otherwise be peers (more or less).

But, where I push back is in deleting prior designations when they continue to have application in particular contexts. — Hanover

I have a radical solution: we designate all restrooms to cis-men, and everyone else has to go out in public.

And why is sport such a fetish? — Banno

That question would require its own thread

Have you actually met any people of any sex, or are you just going by magazine models? — Vera Mont

I have met people, but I don't see sex in people because it is a tool of patriarchal oppression and I'm not sexist (sometimes).

What do magazine models have to do with making a roster?

How would this thread be different if it were entitled "What is a real man?" — Banno

It would be shit. Women are intriguing, nobody cares about men

There is. You are left without a team, which is where women will be left if forced to compete with men.
— Hanover

Hey, some of us are okay playing with the men who chose the alternate gate. We'll make a fine, convivial team and have more fun than the rah-rah-rah elite ones. — Vera Mont

The fun won't last long when every woman is cut, that is, when all the coaches realize that the only way to compete is by filling the roster with men.

It is my prediction (given that this trend continues), that diversity requirements will be introduced into competitive female sports (and eventually men's sports). It will begin with mandating the roster to meet a quota for cis-women. Down the road we will likely see race and disability added to the list of diversity requirements. In the end, the goal of sports will be no longer be "winning", but "diversity". From competitive sports to pointless activities, they will have lost all entertainment value (not that they had much to begin with). But not to worry, as long as sports gambling continues to increase in popularity, women's athletics will survive.

The monotheistic ones do, anyway - without any need for self-denial. All you need is for a god to give people permission to behave as badly as they secretly wish. So does political zealotry. — Vera Mont

Nevertheless, they do in fact provide the most efficient and effective moral framework upon which a sustainable civilization can be structured...historically speaking. It's not perfect, however there has never been such widespread global prosperity and possibility than in the present. I love existence with air conditioning and plumbing... and little threat of an invading hoarde.

Embarrassment — Isaac

Who's embarrassed?

really, crickets from you, the flamboyant one?

President Trump’s staggering record of uncharged criminal misconduct

An uncharged crime is not a crime.

Trump should he serving time already for his uncountable crimes. — Mikie

What were those crimes?

But what he did isn’t close to what Trump did. — Mikie

What exactly did Trump do?