The climate is always in a state of change and has been since it first appeared on this planet. — Varnaj42

Yes, you are right -- climate is always in a state of change. We have all sorts of evidence to support that idea. Nobody (in their right mind) denies this. However, nobody in their right mind thinks the current, very rapid climate change is normal.

China is reported to be building new coal fired power plants all the time but no complaint is ever aimed at China. Why not? — Varnaj42

Au contraire! China is very much recognized as the largest current contributor of CO2 from coal fired power plants and auto emissions. China has an all-round atrocious record of air and water pollution. On the other hand, they are also building out very large wind and solar systems. No industrial country--not the US, not the EU, not China, not anybody else--can convert from coal to solar, wind, nuclear, or hydro energy without expending huge amounts of energy constructing the new systems. Coal, oil, and gas have to be used in the interim for steel, cement, aluminum, glass, mining, and other heavy industrial processes.

The big CATCH 22 for us is that a lot of CO2 will be produced solving the CO2 problem. That's one reason why our situation is bleak.

Take electric cars for example. There are about 1 billion internal combustion automobiles on the roads around the world. They produce lot of CO2. "Oh, but once we are all driving electric cars, that won't be a problem any more. Electricity will be green." Hang on. How will we produce 1 billion electric cars without generating a lot of Co2? How will we mine, refine, and transport millions of tons of raw material for all these new cars without generating CO2? Who thinks we can have millions (billions) of solar panels and a few million windmills without heavy manufacturing in the near future?

The answer is that we will keep producing more CO2 for the foreseeable future as we attempt to change our economies from the bottom up.

Is there no way we can cut CO2 emissions quickly? Sure there is: We can all adopt a lifestyle based on 1890s technology. That would result in a very fast drop in the emissions of all green house gasses. Such a move would also involve the world's economies hitting a very thick brick wall at 80 mph. The only thing that would be as disruptive is probably a nuclear war or a world wide epidemic of the Black Plague without antibiotics.

In summation, then, we are totally screwed.

If this was an attempt a adolescent humor, it failed.

No, it IS CO2, methane, CFCs, and other gases. Greed has been a feature of human beings from the get go, but global warming has been a problem for a little over a century. It's industrialization and population growth. The world population reached one billion for the first time in 1804. It was another 123 years before it reached two billion in 1927; it took only 33 years to reach three billion in 1960. In the last 60 years, we've added 5 billion+, all using various pieces of the first and second industrial revolutions (which have depended heavily on fossil fuels, for which there are no great substitute).

It isn't human greed that's preventing us from dramatically and radically reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are no great substitutes for fossil fuels (no easily portable energy dense substances without serious manufacturing or toxicity problems). It's difficult to get 8 people to agree on what to order for lunch, never mind getting 8 billion people to act on climate change in a coordinated fashion.

We are making some, limited progress. I very much doubt whether we will succeed in avoiding disaster, but we are, sort of, trying. What are you doing to help?

It ain't going away because it's a pet peeve. — Tom Storm

What? My pet peeves don't rule? I'm aghast!!!

No one was "assigned" a sex (not talking about gender) at birth until that peculiar construction was pushed by the transgendered and their allies. Similarly, "people who are pregnant" is a very recently contrived usage. The only "man" who got pregnant was a woman transgender who had had nothing removed and decided to reverse her hormone therapy and have a child. It was reported in the popular press as some sort of "breakthrough". It was a breakthrough of stupidity into sensible discourse.

I do not abide by insulting people for their sexual or gender preferences. — Philosophim

I don't either, and have followed the trans person's world view, whether I thought it was sensible or not.

Accepting their world view for purposes of conducting social services is one thing; validating their world view in a philosophy discussion about transgenderism is altogether different. I have some doubts about aspects of gay men's worldviews, too -- legal marriage, fathering children with a surrogate, service in the military, and so on. That doesn't imply that I am hostile toward fellow gays who are married, have children, and are veterans.

I didn't have to provide social services to a MAGA Trump-type (I retired before Obama was elected) but had one walked into the office, I would have provided the services they were due.

While I'm on the topic of pet peeves... another irritation is the LGBTQ clump. I'd be happier if we went back to "gay and lesbian", "bisexual". and "transgender" as separate categories, not always mentioned in one phrase. Gay men and lesbian women like being the sex and gender they are. Bisexuals (a large, amorphous group) have quite separate experiences and issues apart from the other two groups.

Drag queens, with whom the press has recently become fascinated (or obsessed--can't tell which), are not transgendered. They have been usually been heterosexual as often as (usually) gay and (sometimes) lesbian. Drag acts generally rely on exaggeration.

does not correspond with the sex they were assigned at birth — Tom Storm

One of my pet peeves. Newborns are identified as male or female, they aren't arbitrarily assigned a sex.

All this genderendering results in such peculiar constructions as "persons with a uterus" or "pregnant persons" in health care settings. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Women (females) have uteruses and women (females) get pregnant. A woman who has had a complete hysterectomy (such as for cancer) is still a woman, just as a man who has been castrated for testicular cancer is still a man.

I don't want to take anything away from your affection for Machiavelli. His advice to princes has stood the test of time, But so have the works of propagandists and public relations operators, who have found ways of guiding present tense princes without having to resort to "love me or fear me" alternatives. Better to get the public to obey without them knowing too much about how they are being led about, and who holds the leash,

The problem of our time is that the ruling elite have turned mass manipulation into an artform that would have made even Goebbels proud. — Tzeentch

Indeed.

Just for the record, the art of mass manipulation was brought to modern form by Edward Bernays (November 22, 1891 − March 9, 1995) considered a pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda, and referred to in his obituary as "the father of public relations". (Born in Austria the year Sigmund Freud published one of his earliest papers, Bernays was Freud's nephew twice over. His mother was Freud's sister Anna, and his father, Ely Bernays, was the brother of Freud's wife Martha.)

Walter Lippman was Bernays' unacknowledged American mentor and Lippman's work The Phantom Public greatly influenced the ideas expressed in Propaganda a year later.

OTOH, why assume all technologically advanced life-forms are like us? — Vera Mont

Because aliens that are all sweetness and light are not funny. Humor has an edge and a shadow, otherwise it's just knock-knock jokes for 5 year olds.

Plus, it would be nice if, when the aliens land and ask to be conducted to our leader, — Vera Mont

They won't ask, they will tell. Administrative centers will be reduced to ashes before they land, and the first words out of their sound producing orifices will be, "We bought this ball now we are boss. Get lost, feeble earthlings, and don't let the door hit your asses on your way out!"

Westboro may not be the only group of hateful bastards, but they are well ahead in the race to prove their preeminent status in the HB category.

Are secular humanists unable to be hateful bastards? No, they are able. But birds of a feather flock together, and hateful bastards find their way to organizations where hateful bastardy is welcome. The typical secular humanist meeting wouldn't be that place, and neither would the typical religious organization.

Well, for me Islamic State or Westboro Church might be seen as examples of more extreme instantiations. — Tom Storm

I loathe and abhor both the Islamic State and Westboro Baptist Church, but you know, I suppose, that WBC is basically a profoundly dysfunctional family.

The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is made up of its leader, Pastor Fred Waldron Phelps, nine of his 13 children (the other four are estranged), their children and spouses, and a small number of other families and individuals.

Not exactly representative of anything other than psychopathy.

@praxis

Dorothy Day — frank

I greatly admire Dorothy Day, and find her writings of great value, particularly: The Long Loneliness (autobiography), Loaves and Fishes (about the Catholic Worker Movement), The Duty of Delight: The Diaries of Dorothy Day, and All the Way to Heaven is Heaven: selected letters of Dorothy Day. She was a pretty tough woman. She will probably be sainted someday--over her dead body! "Don't make me a saint -- I don't want to be dismissed that easily."

She modeled what following Christ means in the 20th (21st) century.

If a majority decide to give all trans folks the exact same status as that same 'majority,' then that will become 'normal.' — universeness

They won't be normal, they will be as equal as the majority make it, within the legal framework. Complete equality, within the legal system or not, generally doesn't prevail. ("All are equal before the law" is good rhetoric, but all sorts of barriers arise that prevent "perfect equality".)

trans folks as full members of the human race and not a different species. — universeness

I haven't heard anybody (anywhere) deny their humanity or describe them as a different species.

Does it make a difference if a clerk, an administrator, a lawyer, a professor, etc. is trans? I don't think it matters. does it make a difference if a M to F trans athlete brings a male body's advantage to compete with women? Many women think that circumstance is unfair.

It is merely a natural selection. — universeness

As Richard Feynman (nuclear physicist) said, "Nothing is mere". Natural selection has been at work from the getgo, about 3.7 billion years. You think we're ready to take over? I don't.

The human race has demonstrated ability to replace natural selection (or at least compete with it) and impose our own design, at a genetic level, like we have already done with domesticated animals and plants and with our continuous proliferation of technological inventions. — universeness

How successful our fiddling with the genetic level of our own species will be remains to be seen. It is waaaay too soon to assume success. Global warming and global pollution is one of the consequences of technological proliferation.

trans folks have the right to BE! — universeness

I entirely agree that trans people have the right to BE.

The evidence of hermaphrodite examples. within the human race, is some further evidence that a single biological sex is NOT some 'natural law,' that we are forced to ossify on. — universeness

Yes, there are exceptions illustrated by some species, but a rare deviation from the norm doesn't invalidate the norm. Sex (xx, xy) is nature's most effective way of maximizing evolutionary possibilities in multicellular organisms. If some species have developed other schemes, that doesn't apply to the scheme that most species exist within.

XX and XY is the law (norm) from which a very small number of mammal offspring will deviate. Deviating from the norm is no kind of offense at all -- but it also isn't "normal". From my perspective, it's OK to be "not normal". Lots of people are born with various "not normal" features. Some of the "not normal' features are in varying degrees problematic, and others are not problematic. I was born with defective eyeballs. Normal? No, Problematic? Yes. I was born gay, and belong to the 2% of men who are exclusively gay. Normal? No. Problematic? No. (Other than that if 10% of men are gay, who is getting my share?).

I don't count transgenderism as normal, but also don't count it as problematic. Again, there is such a thing a normal, but bring abnormal isn't automatically problematic. Being born with a very deficient brain is abnormal and problematic. Being born with a very effective really smart brain is also abnormal, but not problematic.

You're not a spokesperson for women on trans rights though, nor is anyone as unsurprisingly their opinions on this and other things vary. Which makes all of that rather patronising, no? — Baden

Are you qualified to judge what can be said about trans people or women, outside of your role in TPF?

If copperhead snakes are hermaphrodites and green turtles change sex, how much relevance does that have to us? There are species that can regenerate lost lost parts, but no matter how inspiring you find regrown tails, you won't be regrowing your foot or arm if it lost.

Likewise, it doesn't matter to me if some geese mate in homosexual pairs. Yes, it's fascinating that gay male geese may go so far as stealing an egg from another nest so they have something to hatch, but so what?

Despite my desires for this thread to cool off some. — Outlander

From the perspective of this elderly gay guy, it would be a good idea if the whole alt-gender movement cooled off.

I grew up in a time and place where homosexuality wasn't discussed (except as a very negative reference) and where sexuality was strictly procreative (and better be within the bonds of marriage). It's a different world today. While once what could not speak it's own name, or in the case of transgenders, didn't have a name, is now publicly discussed a lot, and (a small number of) children are making decisions about which gender they want to be.

At the same time, there is a high rate of attempted and successful suicide among young people dealing with these sexuality issues. It is possible that adolescent's psychological distress is, paradoxically, exaggerated by wide open public openness. A lot of public discourse just isn't very helpful.

Pre-Stonewall, many young people (and adults for that matter) (to use the term of those times) who were sexual deviants could hide in a closet (so to speak). Hiding one's sexuality wasn't healthy, but it gave persons time to slowly (and privately) prepare themselves to go public. In addition, there were sort of secret places one could be sexual. When a gay person did decide to go public, they tended to be older adolescents or adults, and had more personal resources to deal with negative public reaction.

Many children are dealing with their various sexual issues openly, and I think they are often doing so without the psychological development to deal with all the issues that they encounter. Social attitudes make life even more difficult. The result is perhaps enough stress that too many seek relief by killing themselves.

The 10 year old who wants to 'be' the opposite sex might be better off if they waited until they are older and have more personal resources available. Will a delay be frustrating? Sure, but it's a question of balancing risk. The risk of too much too soon and death, or delay and better success. There is a huge difference between the experience a 40 year old will have in deciding to publicly transition (even if it is a bumpy ride), and the stress a 14 year old deciding to publicly transition will experience.

being assigned male (or female) at birth

No one "assigns" a newborn's sex at birth -- they "recognize" sex at birth. The use of the verb "assign" is in support of the contention that sex (like gender) is ambiguous, fluid, changeable, etc.

]Trans ideologues' distortion of language results in screwy messages like this -- instructions for patients at the U of M surgery center:

"Due to the risks of anesthesia, patients of childbearing age who have a uterus will be asked for a pregnancy urine specimen in pre-op, so we ask that you not empty your bladder while waiting in the lobby.

I do agree with the "no bladder emptying in the lobby" part. Another example is instructions that apply to "pregnant persons". It just isn't the case that any odd "person" will happen to be pregnant. It will always be a female.

According to the UCLA Williams Institute of Law, 1.3% of the population is trnasgender (depending on how the data is sliced and diced). What is strange is that terms like "women" are dropped to accommodate the very small portion of the population who were born with a penis and testicles (and don't have a uterus) but who now classify themselves as women.

The problem with high achievers is that they inevitably impose burdens on others. IF the high achiever is actually saving the world from destruction, we might excuse the temporary burdens placed on others. In fact, 99.9% of high achievers are not aiming to save the world. They are focused on accumulating wealth, fame, power, and so on for themselves. In extreme cases, they are as likely to threaten the world with destruction as save it.

No body is burdened by a single person who does yoga and meditates at home, alone, goes for an hour long run, or swims a half mile.

The problem is individuals (and groups) who exploit the many to achieve their ends. Adolph Hitler was the exploiter par excellence, but so are thousands of other, less crudely malignant politicians around the world. Capitalists from Andrew Carnegie to Mark Zuckerberg have ruthlessly exploited employees and customers alike to achieve immense business success.

We judge the costs, the downsides, the sacrifices of the many as entirely worthwhile IF it brings about success, even for a vanishingly small group of people.

What goes in business, politics, science, the arts, sports, criminal activity, etc. also exists in individual families. The parents establish very high expectations for their children to fulfill, whether the children really want those achievements or not. After the driven child becomes the famous surgeon, all may be forgiven. "My life totally sucked for the first 30 years, but look at me now!"

I'm not against self-motivated striving to achieve goals that are within one's own capacity to achieve.

The thread title can be taken three ways:
a) the ethics of imposing burdens on others for one's own personal growth
b) the ethics of imposing burdens on others for their personal growth
c) the ethics of imposing burdens on children by producing them in the first place

a) An example would be parents who set very high standards for their children's performance to enhance the reputation of the parents now and in the future. This is a "family investment" strategy. There may well be a substantial pay-off for the high-performing children, but like being born, the children likely had little say in the long years of pressure to perform (from dance classes for pre-school or very little league hockey practice, on up to graduate school and climbing the corporate ladder).

b) An example would be a social milieu where others are expected to visibly engage in personal growth activities. This is a "personal investment" strategy. Whether the performance is in meditation, difficult yoga positions, reading the right books, training for the next ultra marathon, ever deeper into Hegel, Schopenhauer, whoever....., most nouvelle cuisine, noisiest Ferrari, etc. There may be personal satisfactions in all this, but at least a substantial portion of reward is in social approval, bought at considerable expense in time, if not money.

A lot of us slobs have avoided being born into very highly motivated families and have not settled into urban/suburban milieus where a lot of competitive personal growth is going on. We don't achieve a whole lot and nobody is surprised.

Is all this packing of expectations onto the backs of others ethical? I propose a split decision 49/51 or 51/49, depending. Imposing high expectations on children, even "gifted" children who allegedly have unusually great potential, is worse than merely overlooking the child's wishes and native talents and interests -- it may actually crush their own desires. "Support" is different than "imposing". Mozart's father supported little Wolfgang's musical talents. Maybe young Wolfgang would have made a perfectly fine tailor, but he seemed to like music more.

Imposing very low expectations on others' personal growth is also detrimental, and is probably more common. Low expectations are at least, if not more, unethical.

But then, it's all a wash since being born is the ultimate imposition, according to the antinatalist view. It's even worse from the antifatalist view: being born brings the mixed and varied blessings of existence, but then we are expected to actually drop dead, sooner or later, either by somebody's deviant agency or just the ingravescent inimicalities of the cosmos.

Fuck! It's a raw deal, all round.

Chimps, OTOH do some really bad behaving. Do they know the difference between good and bad? Do they have a concept of evil? — Vera Mont

Seems like chimps would have to know what good and bad are before they can be accused of "really bad behaving". IF they don't have the concept of good and bad, then they are merely behaving. A cat doesn't catch mice because it is good (or bad), but because it's in their nature to catch mice.

Homo sapiens also exhibit a variety of behaviors which are our nature, not because they are good or bad. Having said that, setting up moral and ethical schemes seems to be one of our features, which we exhibit not because we are so very very good, but because it's in our nature (language, etc.) And we can also argue that we did NOT violate this or that moral code because X, Y, and/or Z. Dogs can't; we can.

the role of man as the apex of creation, knowledge and reason — invicta

Sort of Shakespearean.

What a piece of work is a man, How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, In form and moving how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel, In apprehension how like a god, The beauty of the world, The paragon of animals. — William Shakespeare - Hamlet

we still retain our animalistic side despite being higher on the evolutionary scale. — invicta

We don't have an "animalistic side" -- we are all animal--animals descended from animals.

True enough, "we have reason and intellect that accords us the ability to tell right from wrong or good from bad". But we also have reason and intellect assisting us in sometimes achieving our least attractive desires. We might possibly, perhaps, know right from wrong and good from bad, but these arms are at least somewhat flexible.

Our best selves may have flourished when we were wandering hunter-gatherers. Being civilized for several thousand years doesn't seem to have civilized us all that much.

For purposes of the OP, it seemed like a better bet to avoid the more equivocal issue of the Republican Party's dive off the deep end. It is too early to know how the far right wing politics will play out. As far as I can tell, they are still committed to the positions of The Business Party, even if some of them are stark raving mad.

Thanks for the video clip. The idea of a "virtual senate" protecting property interests globally is new to me, but the agile mobility of global capital is not.

As Norman Finkelstein put it...

Identity politics is an elite contrivance to divert attention from this class chasm. — Isaac

Absolutely.

It's also the case that the elite effectively throttles any meaningful move toward income redistribution through progressive (rather than regressive) taxation or UBI.

I'll stick with the idea that the US is a one-party state but I agree that the Republicans' behavior has been very destructive. To pick up a strand I touched on earlier, politicos respond to the electorate's opinions, just as the electorate is affected by party propaganda. It's reciprocal. So, some of the really nasty right-wing moves are received favorably by a really nasty portion of the electorate. There is a substantial population of hateful bastards out there. For example, protecting the unborn, as they claim, strikes me as an outright right-wing lie. Banning abortion is punitive.

There is a multi-generational stratum in American politics which never liked the passage of social security, unemployment insurance, a minimum wage law, medicare, medicaid, civil rights legislation, fair housing, 1973 Roe vs Wade, gay rights, and so on down the line. They are basically a selfish lot that fear and loathe the idea of the downtrodden getting any kind of help from the government.

Some of these twisted bastards have in the past been democrats (dixie-crats particularly). sometimes they have been republicans, and sometimes they have been something else.

there is a significant difference.
— Michael

No there isn't.

Great conversation... Really nailing this topic. I expect readers are riveted. — Isaac

more than :grin: but not quite :rofl:

Today the Republicans are the wicked ones. Some of us are old enough to remember when the Democrats were the party of segregation now and integration never. The southern wing of the Democratic Party forced rules into various areas of national policy that are on-going malignancies. The Republicans may be degrading voter access to the ballot, but they are following a well-trod path established by southern Democrats. Corrupt Republicans? What about the Democratic machine in Chicago and other cities?

The thing is, (to over-simplify) there are many Americans who have always disliked progressive politics, and have over time shifted to the more regressive party. Once it was the Democrats, now it is the Republicans. Yes, party propaganda has an effect on the electorate, but the electorate also has an effect on the parties.

It's also the case that the parties can be out of step with a diverse electorate.

How better to extend tyranny than to provide the illusion of freedom? — Tzeentch

Exactly.

People run for office, but without any party label. — Mikie

If we elected an entirely new House, Senate, and President with no party affiliation it would not be long before some sort pf parties formed. Why? Because elected office holders, and the people they represent (assuming this was a system of representation) have interests that are not compatible with everyone else's interests. Eventually the several competing interests would clump together to better gain advantage. Before long, there would be parties.

How do we get around the problem of "interests" which are quite legitimate?

A one party state isn't of necessity repressive. For one thing, the two wingéd Party of Business is under no internal threat. Neither is the US at risk of attack--we are more threatening than threatened, well, except for nuclear weapons. The golden goose of the US economy is consumption by citizens who are free to consume as they wish. If you want to spend $5,000 on a hideous tattoo, fine. If you buy an absurdly oversized car, great. If you buy tickets to art films and art museums, super. If you want to pay a printer to publish a communist rag, no problem. Free enterprise provides a pretty large stage on which to play one's chosen role. After all, the theater is selling tickets and buying goods and services, so go ahead and proclaim. "You say you want a revolution / Well, you know / We all want to change the world..."

How does Noam Chomsky get away with saying all those dangerous things? He may deplore the system, but he does not make suggestions about how to blow it up, so to speak. (After a talk he gave I asked him why he did not propose actions that people could take? He said, quite firmly, that that was not his role.)

Opposition to the government of the United States is tolerable as long as one is not organizing its actual overthrow. My opposition to the flag and the republic for which it stands is causing no loss of sleep in Washington. But if I had organized the January 6 attack on Congress, I'd be in solitary confinement in a federal prison. Trump, being the president at the time, has been able to escape a similar fate, so far.

A lot of activities of which particular Republicans and Democrats may personally disapprove are perfectly compatible with business. Somebody's weird lifestyle may be objectionable, but hey -- they're working, paying taxes, paying rent, buying gas, groceries, sex change surgery, hormones, etc. All contributing to the grand bottom line

Then don’t bother voting since whoever gets into office is the same guy :lol: — invicta

A lot of people don't vote -- and my guess is that there is no barrier preventing them for doing so, EXCEPT they don't see any point to choosing between the party of Tweedledum and Tweedledee (go ask Alice).

otherwise we’d be dealing in conspiracy — invicta

Which we seem to be doing, anyway.

Presumably political parties exist because portions of the electorate -- society --have opposing as well as allied interests which a political party can pursue. If the Business Party is unconcerned or opposed to the interests of the working class, where does that class turn?

How would a 'no party' system work? Say more about that.

Professor Chomsky: Is there such a thing as "artificial intelligence" residing in a server farm? Are the AI programs "intelligent" or are they merely mimicking human communication? IS "AI" wishful thinking on the part of corporate executives?

You have lived under the republican/democrat two party nation in the USA. I have lived under the tory/labour two party nation in the UK. Party politics has failed in my opinion. — universeness

You might want to focus your question a bit more. Chomsky has long described American politics as a one-party state. Dems and Reps form two wings of pro-business policy. There are no third party contenders of even remote significance.

A question I would ask you (Universeness) is whether you think the Tories and Labour are essentially the same thing.

Do you think we need a new politics? Do you think it would be progressive to remove all political parties from politics and governance? Do you think 'Vote for a person, not a party,' should become the loudest political clarion call? — universeness

Can we get a "new politics" with the same economic structure we have now?

it's easier for like-minded to come together to form a small commune (where people can come and go), — jorndoe

Granted that setting up a commune is comparatively easy. It's also the case that communes often fall apart. I don't know what the history of kibbutzim are. Perhaps there was historical precedence that members shared; perhaps there was institutional support. I don't know how long any particular kibbutz has been operating, I'm pretty sure the kibbutz were not the same as the 1960s communes that came and went pretty swiftly.

Any society that gravitates too much towards either side will collapse. — Christoffer

All societies eventually collapse, don't they, given time?

A given cultural region--pre-Columbian North America, Europe, E. Asia, South Asia, etc--may maintain consistent features over long stretches of time, but social structures within the cultural region collapse and re-form continuously. It seems like an organic process, different than when a society is crushed by outside forces of various kinds.

The soviet system collapsed, but not merely from internal flaws. There was the German invasion of 1941 which was immensely costly. Then there was the Cold War, which drained the resources of the soviet system. (The Cold War drained capitalist resources too, but the drain was proportionately more tolerable.)

Our prime example of communism was begun in an only slightly industrialized country (Russia) with a very long history of despotic rule. Despotism was a handy model to follow, and people like Stalin had little compunction about exercising murderous power. Communism was started in the wrong place at the wrong time by the wrong people.

Whether a "socialist" system is viewed as the equivalent to "communism" is an important question, I prefer the term socialism,

Neither communism nor socialism has a snowball's chance in hell of getting anything other than a very hostile reception from the Establishment and us running dog lackeys. Whatever flag they fly under, the revolutionaries intend to take the wealth away from the bourgeoisie (all of it, pretty much). Not a popular idea in bourgeois circles! Distributing their wealth to the people is anathema to the rich, of course.

The USSR operated as State Capitalism. The State was the company for which everybody worked, and the company looked after its own interests. That wasn't what communism was supposed to be.

I am very familiar with the viewpoint discussed in the article and I reject it as being, well, just plain stupid. It falls into the same category as saying "pregnant people" rather than pregnant women. Last I checked, women were the only people getting pregnant--no exceptions.

Here's another example: Niggardly. No doubt the literalists would look at this and deem it racist! Niggardly means stingy, ungenerous, and meager. The word comes from Old Norse and Old English and has absolutely nothing to do with the offensive word 'nigger' it resembles. Nonetheless, I used niggardly once and a politically correct adult nearly fainted.

Why don't we just ban the word "black" altogether?

We don't do that because even a slightly clever child will understand that if you are talking about a "black hole" in physics, or putting "black dirt" on the garden, or having a "black eye" these words have nothing to do with race. Similarly, there is nothing racist about white chalk and a black board, or publishing a white paper on the economy, or keeping favorite telephone numbers in a little black book, or for women, buying that 'little black dress'.

A whole series of words have been applied to Americans who originated in Africa : niggers, negroes, colored(s), colored people, African Americans, blacks, people of color, and are now included in BIPOC. I'm sure more will be added.

There is a big debate on the word "blackmail", because apart from being a negative action, it has racist connotations. — javi2541997

Dearest Javi, please don't go there! Blackmail doesn't have racist denotations or connotations any more than "black hole", "black board", "black top", or "black beans" have.

What @Baden had to say is on the mark.

I would like to add a general principle for Jamal, myself, and numerous others: Exercise at least a little generosity in interpreting the words that other people write (or say). Granted, anyone might have said something more lucidly, more graciously, more precisely, more.. whatever -- but just because you can imagine the word being misunderstood, doesn't mean the use was deficient.

hen I was growing up, "gay" was a common insult, but now it isn't, or at least I'm pretty sure it isn't. — Judaka

Gay? Queer? Homosexual? Faggot? Gender expansive? Gender Fluid? Celibate non-binary polyamorist? I'm not quite sure what constitutes an insult in this department these days, When I was coming out, "homosexual" as a legitimate self-descriptive term was shifting to "gay". 20 years later (1990, say) "gay" was shifting to "queer". "Faggot" or "Fag" was somewhat positive for a while, but now seems to have taken on more negative connotations again.

So this is a good example of where generosity should be applied. If someone says, "Homosexuals deserve equal rights." no one needs to pounce on them for using the wrong word. The sentence could have used gays or queers, but the intent (affirming equal rights) seems obvious enough.

Yes, that's basically my point. If we want children to develop critical thinking skills then absolutely the worst thing we can do to bring that about is further impose on their freedom by force-feeding them lessons on it before making regurgitate it for grades like show ponies doing tricks.. — Isaac

So, millions of people who are very accomplished, creative, admired thinkers, creators, performers, etc. have gone through various school systems over the last 300 years. Granted millions went through modern education mills and did not come out as accomplished anything. But then, in the long history of civilization, most people are not brilliantly accomplished, Most people have maintained their societies by keeping their noses to the grindstone till they dropped dead.

The leisure that could be enjoyed by the masses today is, I suspect, viewed as more a problem than an opportunity by the powers that rule society. Hence, keep the masses busy -- in school as long as possible, then busy working, and after work busy mowing the lawn, and 1001 other things. "Idle hands are the devil's playground," Well, sort of true. People who have time to learn and think along their own lines, may very well conclude that there is something defective and oppressive about the ruling class. The ruling class has found that it's nicer to keep us proles busy than having to suppress riots all the time.