Someone suggested how pivotal the 2014 and 2016 election were which betrays a myopic view of the conservative's legal movement to achieve political objectives; […] Regardless of how 2014 and 2016 turned out (had Hillary won in 2016 who knows how she would have fared in 2020), the conservative legal movement would be waiting by the wings. — Maw

We can go back farther than 50 years, in fact.

My point about ‘14 and ‘16 was specific to this slate of rulings. Had the Senate not been taken by the republicans in ‘14, Trump wouldn’t have gotten 3 anti-abortion appointments. I mention these years especially because many have argued that there was no point in voting since “both parties are the same.” But they’re not the same. The differences are minor, but they’re important, and Dobbs (and today’s EPA ruling) shows that very much indeed.

I’d argue if a philosopher isn’t thinking about politics, he’s hardly a philosopher at all. Here I echo (and agree with) Aristotle.

he must have known that his way of talking to people is hardly adequate, — Manuel

Yes— but couldn’t help himself.

He contributed to the forum, and it’s unfortunate.

On the other hand, how one conducts oneself is equally (if not more) important than knowledge or logical correctness, in my view. So for all the talk about how intelligent he was, he was far from wise.

Makes you ask: What good does all this reading and studying do when you’re constantly angry, hostile, demeaning, and vulgar?

I look at great teachers like Chomsky, Sagan, Zinn, etc. — their actions speak for themselves. Perhaps Street was like that in person — in which case he’s one more victim of the online disinhibition syndrome.

Heidegger: we cannot talk about objective things, because we are always immersed in the objectivity we talk about. — Angelo Cannata

This has little to do with anything Heidegger has written, ever. In fact he rejects the notion of subjective and objective— over and over again.

I wish you’d stop invoking Heidegger in your own musings if you can’t put the minimal amount of effort into representing him accurately.

Btw, Dems will retain control of Congress this fall and the White House in 2024. — 180 Proof

What makes you say this? Because of a potential reaction to Dobbs?

The Republicans have done a fine job making the country ungovernable —and here I mean especially moderate Republicans (viz., Democrats). Seems unlikely that anyone shows up in support.

No.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Cassidy Hutchinson Changes Everything

:rofl:

There’s almost no chance that Trump will be prosecuted for anything. “X changes everything” has been said for 7 years now.

Reasons-to-believe things are directives. Directives need a director. The director needs to be a person. — Bartricks

This is nonsense.

Evidently, there is an apparent "inside" (e.g. me), and an apparent "outside" (e.g. not me). — Relinquish

Nope. Already way too much baggage here.

What is meaningless about human existence?
— Harry Hindu

That it's all for nothing. — Tate

Which is an interpretation. If you want to interpret life that way, you’ll find plenty of evidence.

Just as if you interpret human beings are inherently selfish, sinful, and violent.

Or interpreting the glass as half empty.

It’s not that any of these interpretations are wrong— it’s simply that it’s not the whole story. What’s more interesting to me is the psychological aspects of why your mind emphasizes one aspect over another.

At that point we get into temperament, family dynamics, upbringing, culture, attitudes, habit, etc. These factors help explain one’s negative/nihilistic perceptions.

Who says we should take as a given that life is meaningless? Life isn’t meaningless.

What causes a turn from distraction to facing the meaninglessness of human existence? — Tate

Human existence isn’t meaningless, so there’s no need to deal with it.

Given what you know about robotics and machine learning, do you think that there are jobs that can't be automated? Are there one's that are going to be harder to automate than others? What are those jobs? — Josh Alfred

Anything that involves meaning and nuance and flexibility.

I hold the belief that there are limits to logic and mathematics in the sense that there are other aspects to being — intuition, awareness, sensation, emotion, skills, and importantly habituation; aspects of being that can’t be replicated in mathematics, logic, symbols, or “material.” I think attempting to do so is probably a fool’s errand — but I could be overlooking something.

In any case, if all human action is automated through machines then it’s centuries off.

When did I say there wasn't and Old Right ...or those who are against the New Deal? There are those even today — ssu

Yes, and that’s who I was and am talking about. Corporate America. Since about 1971, there was a collective, deliberate push against New Deal policies and towards a neoliberal agenda— an agenda which has dominated since, to the point of becoming the “Washington Consensus.”

And your interjection is: “Well it’s not ALL elites.” Just a fatuous comment, really.

With inflation, wage increases are usually viewed as the bad guy. — ssu

Right— and it’s complete nonsense. Anyone who buys into that really just hasn’t looked into the matter closely enough.

But if you think inflation is just a conservative talking point, which I would correct it is when the conservatives aren't in power, then there is not much else for you to contribute in this thread. — ssu

No, I didn’t say inflation is a talking point— I said attributing inflation to raising wages and handing out stimulus checks is a talking point.

Oligopoly and profiteering are far more a problem then child tax credits.

After the bursting of a speculative housing bubble inflation won't pick up as the bubble bursting is highly deflationary. — ssu

This is a story. But the fact remains that it was predicted at the time, and it didn’t happen.

Furthermore— stimulus was given and QE was implemented. Interest rates were extremely low. Lots of money pumped into the economy. No inflation.

Scramble for excuses if you wish. Just proves it a dogma, not a serious theory.

Why do think so? — ssu

Because they’ve been screaming about debt and inflation for decades. A broken clock is right twice a day.

All this is, in the end, is a conservative talking point. It’s an excuse to ignore supply-side issues like line distributions, price gouging, profiteering, and oligopoly. Rather they want us to believe it’s because some poor people got $1200 bucks and wages increased by 4%. Give me a break.

Complete bullshit.

What I'm disputing is the idea that the Keynesians and those who pushed for the New Deal weren't part of the elite. — ssu

When did I claim otherwise?

Like in 1971 Nixon saying that he is now a Keynesian? When especially Keynesianism is one of the most successful economic schools of all time, the idea of Keynesianism/New Deal -thinkers vs. the elites just sounds a bit strange. — ssu

Then you really haven’t looked into this much. There was, for decades, a powerful network of people who despised the New Deal efforts. Google the “Old Right.” Right from the beginning, in fact. Plenty of intellectuals against it as well— Mont Pelerin, etc.

Ask Powell and the Chamber of Commerce why they needed a blueprint for action if you find it “strange.” It’s not my claim.

How long should you believe this "supply shock" argument? — ssu

How long are you going to believe the demand-side argument? Apparently it’s unfalsifiable.

Again— inflation was predicted after all the spending in 2009. Didn’t happen. But to save the theory, we make up excuses. 13 years later, inflation happens after an unprecedented global pandemic — inflation that’s occurring all over the world — and the same believers say “See? Told you so.” It’s simply nonsense.

Before it was Covid. Fine. But now? — ssu

Well interest rates have been raised— inflation persists. So how long are we going to believe this is the solution?

The point is: these things have lingering effects. Supply lines are still very much disturbed.

War in Ukraine? Really? — ssu

Yes, really. That’s had a huge impact. Also unprecedented and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Fed.

However, it seems that all those who blame inflationary pressures on commodities continue to ignore the massive price increases in housing, healthcare, and education, as well as in goods and services where there was evident overcapacity.

I’ve actually addressed all of that. They have different causes. Commodities effect homebuilding as well.

Nothing else has inflated more than energy. A quick look at the CPI shows this.

Yet history and economic history point the finger on government policies. — ssu

History points to multiple causes in multiple asset classes.

There simply aren’t easy answers to what’s happening. The evidence points to supply-side issues more than to demand in the current case.

not so much actual solidarity inside the class — ssu

There was a concerted effort from the owners of the country, and they banded together very well indeed. One outline is given by Powell in his early 70s memo, literally laying out the strategy. Think tanks, lobbying groups like the US chamber of commerce/Business Roundtable, judicial programs like the federalist society, etc. All part of a real, conscious push against the Keynesian / New Deal programs.

True, it wasn’t 100% solidarity. No kidding.

Some, but only partly. — ssu

This is saying very little.

What I mentioned has been fairly well studied. When concentrations of power feel threatened, you bet there will be some changes. See Harvey, Brown, Chang, Gerstle, etc.

Just "who" these people are is a genuine question as people just love the stereotypes they create of "the other" as the enemy. — ssu

I’m not stereotyping, nor do I consider the ruling class enemies.

Odd that this is your knee-jerk reaction.

Exactly. — ssu

Hence “back” in quotation marks. They believe they lost power during the New Deal era, and were under threat in the 60s. There’s some truth in that.

Since when have the elites not had the power? — ssu

Never.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Friday to strike down Roe v. Wade will help further create a single class of Texans able to terminate their pregnancies with little financial hardship: the wealthy.

Even before the ruling, a person living in Texas could expect to spend between $1,000 and $4,000 to cover the costs of obtaining a surgical abortion, shutting out all but the most financially secure residents and cutting off access to an already disadvantaged population of Texans.

[…]

Traveling out of the state or country to obtain abortion services will simply be beyond the reach of many Texans. That includes people who will find it difficult or impossible to leave the state on short notice, if at all; those working in wage-based jobs with no paid time off; those with no access to child care; those living in rural areas with no airports and few options for public transportation; teenagers with little or no parental support; and those without enough in their savings accounts to cover expenses.

Reflects what I mentioned above. Further evidence.

https://apple.news/A5WfqI89ZRU2GyhQmpDHSOg

A core of conservatives have never reconciled themselves with New Deal programs — Bitter Crank

This is what it’s all about.

Behind the culture war “issues,” guns, abortion, the environment, and even Christian beliefs — lies the absolute contempt for the “stupid and ignorant” masses. It’s a commitment to taking power “back” from the New Deal era, returning it to its proper place: to the elites.

It’s really that simple, in my view. This is all about power, and always has been. It’s not about the constitution, or consistently applied principles, or “both sides,” or the love of freedom. It’s about one group of people wanting to keep/increase their power.

Dobbs is one symptom of this, and an important one with devastating consequences. Allowing guns to proliferate so that a few manufacturers can profit off the death of children (Heller; Bruen), allowing corporations to buy elections (Citizens United), preventing any governmental action on climate change (coming soon in West Virginia v. EPA), restricting unions from collecting dues (Janus), etc etc. — all perfectly predictable if one views things from the assumption above.

it's purely political and caters only to a relatively small group of people living in the USA. — Benkei

Indeed. Although I wouldn’t say it’s a small group of people.

One doesn’t have to read the text— as I have. It’s plainly obvious what would happen, given the selection of justices. It’s not that they’re not sincere — they are, and that’s why they were selected to begin with.

The rest is just a great example of motivated reasoning. We dislike big government— so abortions must go back to the states. But gun restrictions? No— apparently states can’t restrict them. Why? Dozens of pages of legal mumbo jumbo— all of which was predictable. All you have to do is figure out who appointed the justices, and do the math.

There will be plenty of 6-3 absurdities to come. All with very “principled” and complex reasoning to justify a philosophy of life that the 6 individuals have adopted— a Christian-neoliberal one. The rest follows from that.

Two questions.

How was the court able to overturn Roe VS Wade? Can they do it unilaterally without a new case reaching the court to make the decision based upon? Or a law written by a lower court that the Supreme Court ultimately agrees with?

Secondly, is the prochoice stance about sentient life versus any life? Therefore the start of life on its own is basically irrelevant?

@TiredThinker

This discussion was merged into The Death of Roe v Wade? The birth of a new Liberalism?

mention these things just to call attention to the hidden dimension of CO² emissions: the wildly extravagant lives we lead, thinking all the while that this is just average. — Tate

Yes, the United States is the leader of emissions and is absurd on waste. They’re also the most powerful force against climate action.

Ridiculously stupid— but that’s the state of the world.

that may change the next time they come into power. — Mr Bee

If anything happens it’ll be because real people are organizing on the ground and building structures there. This may be yet another catalyst, but I wouldn’t put money on it.

blame young people. — RogueAI

I don’t necessarily blame anybody. But the DNC deliberately beating back Sanders is certainly more blameworthy than young people not showing up.

In any case, it’s meaningless now. Roe is officially dunzo— We have plenty more judicial dismantling to look forward to for the next 30/40 years.

West Virginia v. EPA is going to kill a lot of the kids that Dobbs will force to be born.

This isn’t meant to be witty— it’s just clearly true. Goes to show how important the 2014 and 2016 elections really were. We’ll be living with the consequences for the next 30 years.

COVID and War and climate change effect supply, which drives up prices. That’s not monetary policy. That’s my point.

naturally this means that prices go up because of the shortages. But note that this case isn't inflation: do notice that prices simply going up don't mean inflation. — ssu

That’s exactly what it means. Purchasing power will decrease, so it’s related.

I’m not denying that pumping a lot of money into the economy has no role to play; it certainly does. But when looking at the current situation it seems that supply issues are playing a bigger role.

You're an avid reader. Read for yourself. It's not too long. Very plainly stated. — creativesoul

You’re referring to the constitution, yes?

It is indeed worth reading. It’s also worth reading about the context of the framing. I recommend Michael Klarman’s excellent book The Framer’s Coup.

You genuinely think that there isn't the link in the central bank money printing and fiscal policies? — ssu

Of course there is.

Fiscal and monetary policy are also very different things.

To be clear:

Monetary policy and fiscal policy play a large role in the economy. That’s obvious. When it comes to explaining inflation, there are also other important factors to consider outside of these policies — like COVID and its effects; climate change and its effects; and geopolitical problems (war).

I can only reiterate what I said before. It looks to me like many economists are attributing the bulk of inflation to too much money, when that’s only one factor and by no means the biggest.

Or take used and new cars. Plenty of inflation there— which also helps drive up the CPI. Is that due to an abundance of money, a shortage of chips, or profiteering? Well, all three of course. But what if you take one factor out — like supply shortage? Well, again look at the CPI data. Control for supply problems: the cost all items, less energy and food, is 6%. But even that is misleading. Why? Because that number is driven up by used and new cars, which is included, and transportation — also affected by both cars and energy (gasoline, oil).

Not including those, and you’re looking at about 4%. “Normal” inflation is around 2%. So theoretically, without supply disruptions, we’re seeing some inflation — but nothing terrible.

Does extra money even explain all of that inflation? No, I don’t think so. You still have issues of corporations (many monopolies, like meat producers) price gouging, passing on extra labor costs (and then some) to consumers, a shift in demand for services over goods after lockdowns, etc.

Inflation due to extra money in the economy is a nice story — and there’s clearly some truth in it — but it’s simply not sufficient to explain what’s happening and, in my view, doesn’t account for more than perhaps a few hundred basis points of the inflation we’re seeing. — Xtrix

This is not only a demand issue. It’s also largely a supply issue. To minimize the supply-side of this situation is ideologically motivated.

Xtrix has left the thread for good for the tenth time, — Olivier5

I’ve never once said I was leaving the thread. Not once.

Supporting Putin is bad for karma, I guess. — Olivier5

I never once said I supported Putin. In fact I’ve said the opposite.

Please try to read more carefully.

Without agreeing on (conforming to) the PNC, ​the principle of explosion reduces discursive reason (e.g. your question) to glossolalia — 180 Proof

I think people get along just fine without these logical principles, and far too much power has been given to them. It’s like arguing that we speak correctly only because we’ve absorbed the rules of grammar. I don’t really subscribe to that point of view, but I know it’s influential.

“Logic is an invention of schoolteachers, not of philosophers.”

We cannot agree on 'what there is' because any determination – ontological commitment – reflects our interests/biases or some domain with which we're engaged. Thus, the history of incommensurable, divergent, metaphysics. I've pursued, therefore, an inquiry based on what we must agree on rationally — 180 Proof

I don't "give up on" anything. — 180 Proof

Fine. We “can’t agree” about being, but supposedly we “must agree on” PNC? Why?

It’s still simply moving the same problem to another topic, regardless of whether “giving up” is accurate or not. That is, determining what’s “impossible.”

There’s also the question of why we should care about agreement.

I responded in that thread.

We cannot agree on 'what there is' because any determination – ontological commitment – reflects our interests/biases — 180 Proof

We don’t have to agree on it. There will be all kinds of interpretations and answers to the question “What is being?” Many will be incompatible.

But we don’t have to agree on the concept of life either. Yet we’re alive. We don’t have to figure out the ultimate meaning of life (or agree on it), yet we’re all living our lives in some way or other.

I've pursued, therefore, an inquiry based on what we must agree on rationally: the Principle of Non-contradiction. (NB: Even dialetheism or paraconsistent logic implicitly accept the PNC axiom in so far as such systems deny it.) From there I'm working through, or working out, an apophatic modal-metaphysics (or negative ontology à la "negative theology"); and once 'what necessarily is not there' (i.e. the impossibles) is determined as a principle? — 180 Proof

“Must” we agree? What’s so great about absolute, universal agreement anyway?

If you can determine what is “necessarily” not there, then why do you give up on determining what is?

Either way, we’re back in the same conundrum: what we determine as the “impossibles” is a matter of interpretation too. If you’re using agreement as a criterion, you’ve only shifted the subject from something (being, existence, thereness) to nothing (non-being, absence, emptiness). Lack of agreement, value and interest-laden interpretation, and biases sweep in here as well.

What’s interesting to me is the question itself and how its been answered, tacitly or explicitly, for thousands of years. Yes, this is the history of philosophy but also (insofar as thought/beliefs/attitudes/outlook shape actions) a history of human behavior— political, religious, scientific, technological, economic, artistic.

I’m not so interested in settling on a necessary, concrete answer or definition — for exactly the reasons you mention. But even if we want such an answer, or want to formulate a new one, wrestling with the current and past evolution of the question (and its answers) will be key.