What will be the outcome?

I’m guessing Biden caves.

True, societal collapse is bad enough. Whether climate change “alone” could cause extinction, I’m not sure what that means. Nuclear war “alone” may not wipe out human beings either.

There’s still the hothouse earth scenario, which is underreported and commonly downplayed so as not to appear “alarmist,” but it’s certainly possible. But apart from that, consider the related biodiversity collapse or threats to agriculture or consistent superstorms.

Anyway, the point stands: when you encounter people whose first reaction to the evidence of climate change is to compulsively say “It won’t wipe us out,” just ignore them. They’re irrelevant.

Listen to experts who study extinctions:

If I'm to say, what do I think is the biggest contributor to the potential for human extinction going towards the future? Then climate change, no doubt. — Luke Kemp

Or we can say “Not to worry — some guy on the internet says everything will be fine!” But I prefer not to do that.

There’s very good reason to believe this could cause human extinction, not just social breakdown. Tipping points could be breached, leading to hothouse earth scenarios. But beyond that, in combination with other threats we face, including nuclear war, it’s no wonder the Doomsday Clock is only a few seconds from midnight.

It’s simply time to tune out anyone who says things won’t be so bad— aka the Bjorn Lomburg school of denial. It’s the same crowd that feels, by some kind of compulsion, to point out that a few human beings may survive a global nuclear war — hence making it technically not “existential.”

Like I said, just tune them out.

Sleepwalking to extinction.

Imagine pretending to care about freedom and democracy while vehemently defending Donald Trump and corporate America?

To make it a bit easier to respond, here was the original post by Benj96:

Antinatalism preaches that we are all better off dead than alive because it avoids suffering.

However the dead cannot suffer. Nor have they any agency, choice, power, authority or intellect to subvert suffering. So the goal of antinatalism is one of irrelevance and impotence.

Secondly, life, albeit harmful and treacherous indeed at times, is also full of beneficial/benevolent phenomena like love, nurturing, support, care, joy, peace, prosperity, triumph, opportunity, optimism, kindness/generosity, control, choice and agency.

Antinatalism declares that life is the greatest of impositions. But to the living, and especially to those that enjoy life, antinatalism is the greatest of impositions. Not to mention that the state of livinghood was imposed on all by abiogenesis. The universe brought about life whether one likes it or not. This imposition applies to everyone, and yet not everyone feels "imposed" upon by that fact. Many indeed feel grateful instead. Myself included.

Who has more choice? The living or the dead? And thus who has the most authority and capacity to engage and diminish suffering; the living or the dead?

The dead do not impose, control nor have a say. The living do. And because the living are the only faction that can suffer, perhaps the decision to endure it or opt for an escape, is for the living not the dead.

The final statement, is that the living are the only faction that can be antinatalist. There are two things their views must be reconciled with: a). Why do they continue to live if their sole objective in argument is total mass anhilation?This seems hypocritical. You're living to tell people not to.

And secondly, how do they reconcile those that enjoy their lives, and wish to be benevolent, or contribute benefit to the living status, with their beliefs that everyone is better off dead, just in case any suffering should occur.

This gives little to know autonomy to those that accept a bit of suffering in their endeavours to improve and progress the condition of living towards a state of diminished harm.

Anti-natalism is pointless. It's not like mother earth wouldn't reestablish life if it was snuffed out, as it has many times before. Mass extinctions occur. But life as a whole, persists.

This discussion was merged into Antinatalism Arguments

Somewhere in between discussing individuals and groups — both of which exist just as much as the other — stop and ask yourself about the downstream political decisions.

If they lead to defending Donald Trump to the bitter end, denying anthropogenic climate change, cheering neoliberal policies, and generally aligning exactly with ruling class interests, then that tells you almost everything you need to know about how seriously to take them.

The brainwashing came first. The beliefs about “individuals” came later.

Summary: a two-bit criminal and lifetime con man rightfully getting some consequences.

So funny to watch his cult followers (naturally) throwing a tantrum. :rofl: Always brightens my day.

Possible answer: because the material conditions for US citizens are conducive to him getting a platform. If the USA didn't have so many poor, didn't have so many people one healthcare invoice away from being poor, then nobody would take Trump seriously. — Benkei

If economic issues were the concern then they'd be voting for Democrats.

It's clearly social issues (the "culture war") that elicit support for Trump and the Republicans. — Michael

Whether it’s more one than the other has been an interesting debate. I think it’s mostly material conditions. That makes people much more vulnerable to media bombardment, false answers, scapegoating, demonization, and wedge issues that exist. We see it on the left as well, to a different degree.

Remember that Trump always claim he’s in favor of working people. It’s not always about Mexicans and China and anti-wokeness. There is an economic message. Which is why he tried to imitate Bernie in 2016 to a certain degree. Anti-NAFTA, anti-TPP, “rigged system,” etc.

If a word is a symbol holding meaning, and a molecule is a symbol holding meaning — Benj96

A molecule isn’t simply a symbol holding meaning. A molecule is a molecule. It’s true that nucleotides get assigned a name (“nucleotide”) and a letter (e.g., “T”), but that’s something humans do. We do that for everything — for rocks and trees and metabolism and soccer. Does that make everything “language”?

If it does, then you and I are using “language” very differently indeed.

I would see it as foolish to conceive that "language" is restricted to/ only the purview of humans. — Benj96

I wouldn’t. Since apparently we’re the only beings that have it.

But it’s not really a language. We give the molecules symbols and talk of “translation” and such, but that’s a projection.

E. Jean Carroll May Sue Trump a Third Time After ‘Vile’ Comments on CNN

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/11/nyregion/e-jean-carroll-trump-defamation.html

Good. :clap:

He’s too stupid to learn, but that’s no excuse.

Another inept Trumpian apologetic. Michels supported Mussolini, you support Trump. Same difference. One fascist autocrat or another. Rather than the rule of a few, the rule of one. — Fooloso4

:fire: :up:

Imagine defending Trump and corporations to the bitter end, then turning around and clucking about democracy. :lol:

Above came as a revelation to me from heaven. — Beena

This makes you sound irrational, in my view. I read something like this and it becomes that much easier to ignore it altogether.

Some friendly criticism. Welcome to TPF.

Innocent until proven guilty. Huge burden of proof needed. That’s justice.

Unless you’re Hunter Biden, of course. Then it’s just obvious.

Against the common view that philosophy is a two-thousand-year-old failing enterprise, a body of thought that has produced no knowledge, couldn’t we say that philosophy has in fact done pretty well in bringing dominant beliefs into question, revealing their incoherence or baselessness, or just submitting them to rational enquiry? — Jamal

Yes. The common view is mostly bogus, although I’m sympathetic to the backlash to modern “philosophy” in the same way as that of some modern art.

Questioning things is essential. Socrates/Plato set quite the tone, and fit very well in what you described — and that should be the legacy.

It's wishful thinking at best on your part, Mikie, to believe this lawsuit won't reach a verdict against Loser-1 by the end of this year. — 180 Proof

How? I wish the verdict were today. I'd be very happy to see it. I just have a feeling it'll be protracted, as these things always are.

More to comr, Mikie. Let the avalanche begin ... — 180 Proof

Again, I hope so. But so far every time it looks as though the Republicans are going to get away from Trump -- the apex being the week after January 6th -- he comes back, again and again. And it's obvious why: the voters.

Keep in mind, the voters only matter – get a say – once 'the establishment' (mega-donors, party leaders, politicians & pundits) has signed-off on the candidates. — 180 Proof

But he's beat the establishment, over and over again. The establishment never liked him. They've tolerated him because he still gives tax cuts, deregulates everything, etc. So they put up with almost anything else, as long as he continues to win and give them what they want. Only trouble is, now he's not really winning.

The voters will apparently follow him into a volcano. Take a look at the polls. It's absurd. You have well over half believing the election was "stolen," simply because he says so.

Yeah, I get it, they don't care about his past or pending civil, criminal & financial troubles but, all indications are, the GOP establishment cares about winning / regaining power in Washington DC and Loser-1 looks more and more to them like an obstacle to power. — 180 Proof

True. But again, they're in quite a dilemma, because the voters still love him and he refuses to pass the baton. He's destroying DeSantis before he's even declared himself a candidate. The establishment doesn't like this, of course, but they're stuck with him. The megadonars simply don't matter if he remains the frontrunner in the polls and has a massive campaign war chest largely funded through small donations from the faithful.

I'm not saying any of this is good for the Republican party -- it isn't, as was seen in 2020 and 2022. He is bleeding suburbia and independents. But even at that, it was still very close. In a sane world, all of them should have been blowouts. (Including 2018, which people forget was not a blue wave. Dozens won by shockingly few votes.) But the point stands: he's still the frontrunner, and very likely the Republican nominee.

Like taking candy from a baby. :yum: :up: — 180 Proof

All right then, you're on. I bet $10 at 5:1 odds. So $50 to you if you're right in either case. And yes, I'll be VERY happy to pay it, because I hope you're right on both counts.

[Edit: personal bets are probably looked down on here, so how about this instead: I'll donate $50 to TPF if you're right, and you donate $10 if I'm right. Deal?]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

So great.

You’ve laid out a good case. I think some of it is wishful thinking (like how soon there will be a verdict in the NY civil case, and the extent to which donors and senators abandon him), but it’s not out of the realm of possibility.

I don’t think it matters to his voters, who will double down as they always do, will send him millions of dollars, and will rally around him as a victim of left wing conspirators. They will also destroy any challenger, as we see already with DeSantis, who was supposed to be the shoo in.

I wouldn’t put it past him to run as an independent or Patriots Party or something like that, but there will be no need: the voters will vote him in as a Republican.

Also, when you say it won’t be Joe Biden as the nominee — care to bet on that too?

In both cases I wouldn’t mind losing money.

It’s all a massive left wing conspiracy.

A guy who brags about walking in on teenager girls’ dressing rooms and grabbing women’s genitalia because, as a star, you can get away with it — who has multiple accusers over the years…Yeah, no way this jury is correct. Has to be a conspiracy.

Doesn’t matter though, he’ll still be the nominee.

Okay boys, how much are we wagering?

I’m saying he’ll be the nominee, almost certainly. I’ll give you 5:1 odds.

Well, as we’ve now learned a million times, we live in bizarro world. Given this, I predict Trump’s chances of becoming president will only increase after this verdict.

Imagine feeling obliged to defend this degenerate. :lol:

Again, I really resent having to sound similar to a right-wing bigot. — Mikie

Also you need to explain to young girls why hormonal school boys should be given access to their changing rooms. — Andrew4Handel

:roll:

Case in point.

trans-sceptical position — Jamal

I wouldn’t describe myself that way really. Unless we’re talking about transcending biology, which it seems at least many trans people aren’t claiming. It’s a matter of terminology. If we want to re-define our words, fine— but I honestly think it’s a mistake.

I could be wrong, in the same way as I’m sure there were people in the homosexual community that were against taking over the word “gay.” Turns out that was a good political move. In the meantime, I find myself largely agreeing with the “right,” and it’s irritating.

That’s great. I want to say Marx, Nietzsche, Foucault. I can’t place it.

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. — BC

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. — BC

Yes. It’s ridiculous, and it’s detrimental to the trans movement/community.

Makes me feel like I’m living in the Twilight Zone when otherwise rational, intelligent people either subscribe to the former (meaning they believe sex is as ambiguous as gender) or else deliberately obfuscate so as not to concede any ground to potential bigotry — an example being that some people are born with both genitalia, etc.

Almost anything associated with gender I’m in favor of viewing much more broadly. Clothing, behavior, jobs, marriage roles, and so forth. But when it comes to things like pregnancy, must we all go along with the insanity in order to not be deemed transphobic? Again, I really resent having to sound similar to a right-wing bigot.

It’s also frustrating to even be discussing it— but that’s my own fault.

Where do the profits go? Why am I being exploited? This is unfair. It's already in the equation from the start- prior to even being a part of capitalism or any political economic system. — schopenhauer1

It doesn’t have to be.

Also, there are many forms of what we call capitalism. I’m not arguing about that. The answer to my question isn’t simply caked into the system. It’s a very specific and fairly recent way of transferring wealth to shareholders, and it’s worth understanding.

Instead, they are used to simply categorize individuals in a way analogous to the categories man and woman.

Fair enough.

I guess I’m just pissed off that bigoted assholes like Matt Walsh get to appear “sane” to the general public because of (what I see as) miscommunication. I felt similar feelings about “defund the police,” even though I was on their side. If it confuses me, I assume it confuses a lot of others who are not at all “anti-trans”, and that’s a shame.

I still think it’s a PR mistake, but I leave those decisions to the trans community ultimately.

The English language isn't some formal system where each symbol has just one meaning that applies in all contexts. — Michael

No one has claimed that.

In other contexts, e.g. when discussing biology, "female" typically means a human both with XX chromosomes, ovaries, a womb, etc. — Michael

I’m trying to figure out what else it means. Why choose male-to-female when one could simply using “man-to-woman.” Again, I think it’s a mistake to push language this far and then retreat by saying “well we don’t mean it in a biological sense.” In this semantic world, is there ANY word for biological sex?

1. Gender is a social construct and therefore is not a biological condition.
2. The scientific facts related to biological sex are irrelevant to trans issues. — universeness

I fully recognize (1). If (2) is true, as I believe is true too, then the trans community needs better PR.

Posting this here. Helps shed light on the real answer to where the profits go: right back into the pockets of the shareholders via stock buybacks.

https://stocks.apple.com/AjVpCcZ1LTbKD5qK2teiaIA

With top executives' compensation often linked to share price performance metrics, buybacks have emerged in the past decade as a relatively simple, quick means by which to raise a company's stock price, much simpler in many cases than it is to grow sales, expand operations, or increase profits.

Markets have also seen an increase in the practice of public companies issuing debt in order to buy back their own shares, a practice that some economists believe poses a threat to the long-term health of the U.S. economy.

Glad the SEC is making some minor changes to this blatant wealth transfer from the workers to the “owners.”

We generally understand what MTF and FTM mean in the context of transgenderism so this seems like a pointless argument. — Michael

“We” do? So male and female have also been redefined in some way? That’s fine— but wasn’t at all mentioned in the above conversation. What was mentioned was “trans women aren’t women.”

Seems to me like terms are being re-defined to the point of absurdity, quite frankly. I think it’s an enormous mistake.



I’d love to have a conversation, sure. If there’s something I’m missing, I’m happy to be corrected. But I have yet to see that.

If it’s about gender identity, and loosely using “woman” to include this, I understand. If we’re expecting people to believe you can change your biological sex, I think that’s a mistake. Biological males cannot get pregnant, for example. That’s pretty basic. To ask the public to go along with believing they can is absurd, and gives bigots even more material to use to justify themselves.

"trans women are not female," — Mikie

“trans women are not biologically female” — Jamal

Fair enough. I almost always consider “female” to refer to sex, and hence biology— but I suppose that’s not always the case for others.

But if one wants to distinguish between trans women and non-trans-women, we already have a term that’s better than “men”, which is … “trans women”. — Jamal

Also fair, but this implies to me that “trans women” is distinguishing from something else…What would that something else be, though? If “trans women are women,” as is often said, then aren’t we simply in a confused state?

Trans women are women, but not biological females. So then “woman” doesn’t necessarily mean an adult (biological) female, as is often meant— and that leaves many, including myself, rather annoyed at the semantics.

I think “woman” when referring to a trans woman is fine. No need to be technical. But if people are trying to convince others that there’s no difference whatever between a trans woman and a biologically female adult, I think that’s at least a blunder politically for the trans movement (which I otherwise wholeheartedly support).

Anyway— any more discussion on this I’ll move to the transgender thread. My posts, I mean.

mtf literally stands for male to female. So no, its just arguing in a circle. — Forgottenticket

“Mtf” wasn’t used above.

But you can’t go from male to female, or vice versa, unless we radically redefine “male” and “female”. I think there’s a lot of resistance to that, and for good reason. Strikes me as insane.

Intersex and those without gametes are exceedingly rare. People can be born with six fingers too — but I don’t think it’s bigoted or discriminatory to say human beings have five fingers on their hands.

In any case, I’m moving this response to this thread so as not to derail the “motte-bailey” thread.

A good example. :up:

The gun debate is egregiously bad.

A: Trans women are not women. [bailey]

B: That's a transparently bigoted comment, functioning as it does to directly negate the gender identities of trans people and thereby deny their claims to equal treatment. — Jamal

I know it's just an example, and I don't want to go off about transgenderism, but just so I'm clear: The more correct statement would be that "trans women are not female," yes? Since "woman" (and "girl") can often relate to gender identity.

It's true that people making statements like (A) are probably bigoted. But in the cases where a person is meaning to express the corrected statement, it may just be an honest mistake. I would put myself in this camp, although I see no reason to make either statement.

To the posters that are saying it's similar, I'm not seeing where the strawman fallacy comes into play here. What would be considered the strawman in this scenario? Person A's initial (bailey) argument?

Anyway, I see the motte-bailey used a lot. One look at the Wall Street Journal editorial page is a goldmine of it. Take climate change, which usually goes something like this:

Bailey: We can't do a, b, c because of x, y, z. No carbon tax because that's the government picking winners and losers. No banning of oil drilling because people are gonna need oil for years to come. EVs are "losers." It's gonna be way too expensive. Climate is always changing. Etc.

Interlocutor: It'll require drastic changes to keep CO2 levels (and warming) under dangerous levels. You're arguing we can't do anything, essentially. Do you even believe this is an emergency?

Motte: The climate is changing. Something should be done. We're not climate change deniers!

A good example is Bjorn Lomborg - a monument to this fallacy.

The republicans are no longer a political party. Here I agree with Chomsky.

But what they’ve left behind is hardly admirable— the “intellectual” republicans are still neoliberals through and through. All their talk of small government always was a pretext for vicious class warfare and their complete obedience to corporate power. Even more savage than the Wall Street democrats, who at least throw a few crumbs to the 80-90% of the population struggling to keep up once in a while, and believe in things like climate change.

Unfortunately there’s no choice anymore for anyone thinking rationally about the world. The Democratic Party is currently the place to push for changes. We’ve seen that in the old bones of Biden, who doesn’t have the foggiest idea of what’s going on, but who has been far more progressive than Obama or Clinton, largely due to activist pressures and the strength of the Sanders campaign in ‘16 and especially ‘20. His advisors know that many voting blocks simply won’t accept the policies of his predecessors whole hog.

But that’s national stuff, where we don’t have much impact other than in how we vote. What matters more isn’t really any party, but what we do locally and how we organize— i.e., how we increase our power. There’s a great book on this called Politics is For Power, by Eitan Hirsch. I think this is where our focus should be; the choice for who to vote for in ‘24, in contrast, should take 5 minutes of brain power.

The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market

Naomi Oreskes