You're not going to get to any entrenched incels with reason. — Echarmion

Oh yeah - I'm not expecting to. I was just saying since we're on a philosophy forum.... but yeah, in practical reality I'm not spending my time trying to convert any incels. I just thought this line of thought has some implications on bodily autonomy that some people might not initially recognize.

Fate here is genetics, and genetics has randomly given them the "never get loved" ticket in the genetic lottery. There was nothing they could have done (isn't that nice?) and there is no way out. — Echarmion

Gotta be tough to think this way when you do see burn victims and seriously disabled people still getting married and getting into relationships. Oh well, maybe they're just secret Chads, who knows. It's just those Chad genes.

By the way, I think the most interesting topic with ties to philosophy and incels is probably how online dating, or perhaps more accurately dating between people who are always online, is changing the way relationships form, develop and end. — Echarmion

This would be a worthy discussion topic. It would be fruitful than seeking to understand a worldview with a perpetual victim complex that divides the world into Chads, Staceys and incels and wallows in its own victimhood, because, you know, genetics.

They claim getting laid ( not by escorts but someone you love ) is a fundamental need of life, similar to getting food and having a shelter. Since their basic needs are not met, they tend to give up on life and don't see a purpose in developing their personhood. — Wittgenstein

Here's what you do, you ask them this simple question: Are you entitled to someone else's body? If they answer "yes" you just ignore them because they're insane. If they answer "no" you then ask them if fate has somehow pre-determined that they'll never get laid. If they again answer "no" it goes back to the individual in question. If they answer "yes" to the fate question you've got to wonder why fate has conspired to punish them in particular and what the story behind that is. It sounds like it would sure be an interesting story.

Those problems include looking ugly , mental disorder, terrible childhood or just bad luck ( being born as an ethnic in a dominant white culture, being born in a poor family etc.) — Wittgenstein

Yes because ugly men, men with mental disorders, bad childhoods or ethnic minorities or poor men can't get laid. It's obviously impossible. Only 6'4 Chads get laid.

My point here is that I suspect you find homelessness unacceptable period, regardless of whether the economy is capitalistic, which means your real argument is that no society should force the poor to go without shelter, regardless of whether their homelessness is caused by their own freely made poor decisions. — Hanover

Something to keep in mind that is that being homeless is not the same thing as being without shelter. Some homeless people live with friends/family and others live in shelters. I'd actually be interested to know what % of the homeless actually live out on the street. I don't know the numbers, but I would be inclined to say that the ones truly without shelter are only a small fraction of the homeless.

Ok, I feel like we're talking about 2 different things. I was more talking about homelessness in general, you're talking about COVID and homelessness. Personally with COVID, I'm fine giving aid and allowing more government intervention even in the form of stimulus checks to people. We're in a pandemic. We're in an extraordinary circumstance; this isn't capitalism's fault.

This to my understanding of current and impending problems a tangential consideration and peripheral problem. Not the less of a problem, just not the big one that's arriving as we write. — tim wood

Yeah Tim, you're right. Obviously mental illness and trauma have essentially no relation to the homeless problem faced in America today.

If only we could become a socialist nation we'd no longer have schizophrenia, PTSD, trauma, bipolarism, or widespread physical/sexual abuse among the homeless population. These are really only just problems under capitalism, because capitalism is so terrible and it drives people to commit these kind of abuses. It's just the system, obviously.

COVID didn't invent these problem, Tim. My comments are directed towards the issue of homelessness in America as a whole, even outside of COVID.

Could you go a little more into detail in terms of what you mean by authorities being irrational? Which authorities? Who are these exploiters and how do they exploit?

Citizens should not be "institutionalized" in an attempt to corral them with a stereotype if that's what you mean, institutions should be designed to empower them to overcome their addiction, mental illness or whatever it might be, giving them legitimized social standing so they can maximize involvement in the community. Supporting those who are vulnerable but with good enough motives is not a detriment to social welfare, but should be accompanied by opportunity. — Enrique

Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating for forcibly institutionalizing homeless people with mental problems. I do however think that for better or for worse the de-institutionalization that America went through in the 1960s likely contributed to the problem we have now.

In any case I just believe any serious discussion about homeless in America needs to involve mental health.

Very interesting documentary done by Vice a couple years ago on homelessness where they film a homeless shelter in Louisianna:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUfNbNBFwRI

TLDR: Any discussion about homelessness must take into account mental illness and drug addiction and the role it plays in facilitating it. We have homeless shelters here, but the fact is those homeless shelters have rules and standards that often don't mesh with the local homeless population. If I could remember correctly rates of mental issues or trauma or sexual trauma or something along those lines was around 85-90% in the homeless shelter. I think the "solution" if there is one could be forcibly institutionalizing some of these people, but of course this brings up significant human rights issues.

Stop straw manning capitalism.

What Geo said to you isn't a straw man. He was just sharing his opinion. He wasn't reframing your argument in a ridiculous manner and responding to that.

If you were to say "capitalists believe that the profit motive is a universal and inherent to human nature" that would be a straw man. It would be ascribing an unrealistic assumption to capitalism and then debunking that and viewing that debunking as a blow to capitalist ideology.

If you just say "the game is illegitimate" and someone just shares an unrelated point with you that's not a straw man. Geo didn't try to defend every aspect of the current system.

This is such a ridiculous argument, can we go back to something a little more productive?

Within the context of this system, one may very well come to believe that the "profit incentive" is an essential feature of human nature. But this system, and that very belief itself, has a history. It's been beaten into our heads for generations, until it finally shows up in the warped worldview you represent. — Xtrix

I personally don't believe the profit motive is an essential feature of human nature. I do, however, believe that it's an essential feature of any modern, successful economy.

See? I don't even believe in the position that you're ascribing to me.

Everything you're seeing isn't intended to be an argument or a direct rebuttal to you. We're just making our position clear. Us expressing our position isn't a "straw man." If you agree that's great, if you don't we can talk about it.

Typically how a straw man works is you'll say something and then someone else will respond by reframing that point in a much weaker sense and then respond to that instead of addressing your point.

If we really are straw manning you or some point then please directly state 1) The original point 2) How we are misinterpreting it and instead only countering a weaker version of it.

You make references to "the game" or "the system" but you're not too clear about it exactly.

And what a profound point it is. Too bad those "leftists" can't understand your very stable genius. — Xtrix

Thank you! I knew we'd see eye to eye! /s

Why don't the two of you go have fun arguing against your straw men. When you're ready to join the real world, we'll be waiting. — Xtrix

What straw man are you talking about? No one is saying that only profit motivates people. We are saying that the profit motive is essential to growing the economy though and particularly investment, which makes up an enormous chunk of economic activity.

It is a fact that there are wide disparities in outcomes of wealth/income. It doesn't follow from this that some groups have been victimized by others. In most cases the best explanation is that some people have simply outproduced others. There is nothing morally superior about those who accumulate wealth, just as there is nothing morally superior about those who don't. — geospiza

Finally someone speaking some sense.

I'll agree with this like 99% with the possible caveat that if someone is capable of accumulating wealth, but instead blows it it reflects very poorly on them. Despite what some of the other commentators are saying, saving and particularly investment are absolutely essential to civilization. Leftists do not understand this point. The profit motive is absolutely central to the concept of investment, i.e. delaying gratification to reap benefits later.

Without profit on investment you are effectively losing money, even if you break even. I make this point frequently and leftists never quite seem to understand it.

You should perhaps look at those people that man the various administrations: there is a small group of people (let's remember that the US has 330 million people) that get a position in the administration after their party has gotten into power again. Or how many of them are multimillionaires (when it came to the Trump administration). — ssu

Could you give me examples? I agree that they exist, I'm honestly just curious as to how many there are and whether they all have the same goals. Typically when I think of "class" I'm thinking of like tens of millions of people, maybe at the very least a million. Anything smaller - especially if its only in the hundreds, would just be a group of people. Additionally, I'd like to know how much power these people have in the grand scheme of things. Virtually every remotely big figure in politics or business or the intersection of the two is a multi-millionaire (defined as net worth at least $3-4mm) so this label doesn't mean much to me.

Sorry to bombard you with all of these questions. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm actually curious as to the extent of this.

My conclusion is that ruling elite in the US wants the country to be divided.

And the elite is extremely successful in this.

Many people go along with this, thinking that they can simply win the other side as they are right and the others are wrong.

Hence nothing changes and the elite prevails. — ssu

It's interesting you say that. When I think "ruling elite" the group that comes to mind would be people like Bezos, Musk, Gates, Buffet, the Waltons... I keep a loose attention to these people but unless I'm missing something I don't see them as having one common interest in keeping the country divided, but who knows I may be missing something. I view them more as unique individuals with their own plans and goals.

The Chinese govt does that with political prisoners. After they claimed they'd stopped, watchdog groups say the number of transplants taking place indicates theyre still doing it. I don't think it reflects communism, though. Does it? — frank

The practice of harvesting organs from sometimes living prisoners is just a reflection of the genocidal, sociopathic nature of the Chinese leadership today. As much as I hate communism, I don't specifically blame communism for the organ harvesting happening today in China. I don't blame capitalism either. I blame the leadership.

Why not instead simply acknowledge that you're in favor of democratizing the workplace? (As anyone who professes to care about democracy should.) And if you're not in favor of it, then be brave enough to say so. — Xtrix

I've already explained my position on this one, Xtrix.

All I believe is that businesses should be free to structure themselves however they like, with co-op included. In the US you're already free to do this, although things change when you want to bring your company public because you're now issuing securities and you're playing with the SEC.

As long as there's personal choice in this matter people are going to have different governance structures and I guess I "support" the ones that best fit the business.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Then why did you ask me to actually engage what you said initially? Was it just to waste the time of the right-wing enemy?

Are you even interested in any sort of honest political/philosophical conversation with me? We've had this conversation before - in the absence of genuine political/philosophical conversation it makes sense to comment on other features of a post, such as the types of language/the use of certain terms like "parasite."

What point do you even want me to address? Your initial reply to me was literally just an insult, as usual. Unfortunately, insults don't really leave you much to respond to.

No, it was an invitation to address what I said. — StreetlightX

Ok, this is what you said:

Wealth is an indicator, a symptom. What matters more are both the means of production and the social and political systems which constrain and enable the use of wealth. Quality, not quantity. — StreetlightX

That sounds like an invitation to a full-on discussion about political or philosophical systems.

Address what you're saying? Is that an invitation to a genuine political/philosophical discussion about our differences? How far do we get on that one, I wonder. If we're going to do that I'd be down to hear some of your core beliefs and maybe we can go from there, but right now I'm not even aware of what exactly you're advocating for.

I do give a shit about my previous point though about the language. I think it's an important one.

I was putting on my leftist hat in this instance when talking with Streetlight. Sometimes when you engage your political opposition it can help to try to step into their world a little bit and navigate those straits together - see what makes sense when you change your starting assumptions. That's actually one of my favorite methods of engaging people who are politically different from me.

I don't think the analogy is lazy. I think it brings up an important point about how two supposedly very different groups use similar dehumanizing and inflammatory language towards certain segments of society and then get defensive after getting called out about it.

So how much wealth should individuals or families be allowed to have at any given time? How do we decide that limit? What happens if they exceed that limit? Do we arrest them? Does everyone just start with the same amount?

Nice, do I get one of those green caps with the red star?

In any case, I wonder if you'd extend the same line of thinking to organs: Plenty of people need organs, for example a kidney, and you don't need two kidneys to live. Could we forcibly harvest them from people if we can't find volunteers?

And if you're counting the US only, Bernie's not 1% although definitely in the top 10%. — StreetlightX

Top 1% starts at around $10mm-$11mm net worth, of which Bernie is a part of. But doesn't $10mm seem excessive? Why should anyone be allowed to have $10MM? Maybe 5 or even 1mm is excessive when you have homeless people living on the streets.

Wealth, defined as having above and beyond what is for all intents and purposes needed, is by its very nature "excessive."

What is "extreme wealth?" What do you think about Bernie Sanders, he's a 1% last time I checked. Where is the cut off point in wealth where it becomes "excessive."

Well in all fairness you weren't exactly my target audience here. I wouldn't have expected you to be entertained.

The 1% are parasites. — StreetlightX

I had kind of a funny thought today: What if you were to make one of those overlapping pie charts with "nazi" on one end and "radical far left" on the other: Don't you think calling certain segments of the population "parasites" would go in the overlapping middle portion? What else would go in that portion? Maybe dressing in all black? Wishing death and suffering upon those whom you disagree with politically? Assaulting journalists? In any case, labeling certain segments of the population "parasites" would certain fit the bill. At this point you might as well just move on to referring to them as "life undeserving of life."

I believe the point is that the present system is forcing the people who actually run the companies -- the workers -- to accept the management preferences of a small group of people who may or may not actually be doing any of the work of running the company. — Pfhorrest

The board of directors are voted on by the shareholders, who certainly have a stake in the success of the company because they're funding it. There could also be workers on the board itself. The composition of the board will vary from company to company with some certainly better run than others. Ideally there'd be both workers and investors who can work cooperatively to make the company run well. Even if a worker isn't an in official high position they can still often be influential in how the company is run.

Are the owners of a local maintenance company not "on the hook" for bankruptcy? What happened to those "on the hook" for bankruptcy over at GM in 2009? Would the result had made much of a difference if it were worker-owned? Why not first ask that question. — Xtrix

The reason I brought this issue up is because I'm trying to save the workers, especially the low level workers, in the case that a bankruptcy occurs. During a bankruptcy you can have your personal property/assets seized. There absolutely are advantages in certain cases to not being the owner, not the least of which is that you aren't responsible to attend board meetings or attend to administrative work.

No one is saying "higher level" employees aren't workers. They are. And they have their own set of responsibilities based on their capacities, interests, talent, etc. Just as every state has state representatives and state senators that the people vote to send to the capital, the employees should vote for their leadership -- from the CEO on down. Their compensation should be appropriately adjusted, with certain limits (at Mondragon, I think it's no more than 8 or 10X higher than the lowest compensation). There are plenty of good supervisors, administrators, etc. Why should they be chosen based on a handful of major shareholders rather than the people who actually produce for and (essentially) run the company? — Xtrix

If that's just your preference in terms of a corporate governance model that's fine. We all have our own preferences for how things ought to be ran. I personally don't believe in any one, universal perfect corporate governance model and in any case we're free to discuss the pluses and minuses of various models. As long as no one is forcing people to structure their companies this way then I'm fine with you having this preference.

The "owners" (if you want to call them that) are the workers themselves. — Xtrix

Back to my original question then: Wouldn't all workers then be on the hook for debts in the case of bankruptcy then? Also, lets say there's 10 workers and 7 of them vote to take out a loan, do the other 3 have to chip in?

The workers are the businesses. — Xtrix

Sure, and the CEO just sits up in his gold suite all day with his top hat and goes swimming in piles of gold coins while the workers do all the hard work. Apparently higher level employees like the founders and CFO or CTO just don't do anything all day.

I am talking about all employees, yes. All employees run the company. How they choose to structure it, who they assign various responsibilities or leadership roles to, etc., are their business. Votes are conducted for various positions, and everything is decided democratically. — Xtrix

Ok, I think I understand you better now. I'll say if an owner wants to structure his corporation like that I don't have any problem with that, it's the owner's choice. I believe the socialist vision involves actual ownership by the proletariat, so all you seem to be doing here is recommending a certain corporate governance model, right? That's fine by me, when you have your own company you're free to tell your employees that they can vote whoever they want to be in charge.

Chapter 11 bankruptcy is a long and expensive process and all debts still need to be paid. You aren't off the hook for the debts just by declaring chapter 11. Even in an LLC owners can still be responsible for paying debts depending on specific actions that they take. An LLC doesn't 100% absolve the owners from any personal debts.

Who said anything about "new, inexperienced employees"? The fact that your mind goes immediately to a scenario like this, where "workers control the business" equates somehow to "inexperienced employees" is very revealing, and pretty standard. — Xtrix

Ok, I might have misunderstood you. When you say something like 'all workers should have ownership in the company' then yeah, obviously my mind goes to all the employees having that privilege. If that's not what you're saying then feel free to clarify.

I don't have anything against co-ops either. If a company wants to do that, that's fine. If you were to force every company to be structured like that that's where I'd take issue.

What are you talking about? It's not some "skin in the game," it's a business that the workers control outright. Businesses make profits and declare bankruptcy all the time, regardless of who's running it. What's the difference? — Xtrix

When they declare bankruptcy the owners are on the hook for that. New, inexperienced employees could be permanently damaging their financial future.

One needs to look no further than the structure and operation of corporations to see how undemocratic and exploitative it is. This is the nature of the game. A few people (the major shareholders, the board of directors, and the CEO/executives) are the people making the decisions about what to produce, how to produce it, where to produce it, and what to do with the profits from all of this work. — Xtrix

Yep, and these guys make $$$ when business goes well. If only the everyday employee could get some skin in the game.

But what happens when things go poorly? You don't just lose your pay and get fired; the company collapses and you could be on the hook for insane amounts of money - those debts don't just disappear into thin air when the company declares bankruptcy. Now you've got 18 year old employees dealing with bankruptcy lawyers.

That is to say your pessimism will only make me and the rest of the world a better place, as it will inform all who may stumble upon you of the misery that befalls the pessimist and they will therefore adopt a more optimistic outlook. — Hanover

:100:

I am 100% a more optimistic person since engaging with Schop and pessimistic philosophy.

I've talked with schopenhauer1 about this topic a bit, and I think his position is more accurately categorized as one that is anti-being than anti-suffering. I remember I asked schopenhauer if he'd still be a pessimist even if the world was basically perfect, and he said that he would be. Even in a perfect world you'd have to deal with the deaths of your grandparents or parents - otherwise you're the tragedy. If life inevitably involves some tragedy, which it always will to some degree or another, then according to schopenhauer we should do away with it. Even if the vast majority of one's life is amazing, no one can consent pre-birth to being born into a world where tragedy inevitably lives.

For the record I don't agree with schop. I just wanted to sketch out the position here.