Your favorite would hurt you in any way possible — tim wood

You obviously haven't been paying attention. Where on this forum have I ever said that Trump was my favorite?

And Biden "the manufacturer of systemic racism"? Care to prove that? And btw, if you're on about any efficacy in third-party voting, why did not you write in the name of your favorite candidate? — tim wood

I agree to an extent. Systemic racism is a myth. Like I told Michael, IF you want to whine about systemic racism, Biden is one of the primary manufacturers, thanks to his 50 year tenure, of how the US is systemically racist today.

So, I'm going to ask you to define systemic racism and then ask you to try to reconcile your definition with the fact that Biden has been in power over the last 50 years.

Cf. Emerson on consistency. Or for Harry's sake:
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. ” — tim wood

Thanks for informing us that you don't value consistency. I can now safely ignore your posts as they won't be containing any actual information.

It’s a sort of cultural imperialism, spreading through various Internet echo-chambers as quickly as the Washington press will allow it. I also don’t live in the US, but our press no less resorts to the same churnalism as other countries, and everything comes out reading like a CNN article. I fear there isn’t an original thought among them. — NOS4A2

Agreed, but then with all of these non-Americans' emotional investment in American politics as if it were their own country makes me wonder if these non-Americans are really more interested in pushing the United States into another civil war.

Walk me through what "abolishing political parties" would look like, and how it would differ from enshrining one party as the sole official not-actually-a-party-I-swear. — Pfhorrest

I don't get this logic. How would one party acquire power if there are no parties? I'm going to need you to walk me through that in order to properly answer your question.

It would be like "abolishing religion". What you end up with is a state-mandated view of what is or isn't correct to believe... a state religion, even if it doesn't feature God or other things characteristic of normal religions. — Pfhorrest

In a way, yes, it would be like abolishing religion. But people will still believe in a god or spirituality, even without a religion. So abolishing political parties isn't to say that we've eliminated the belief in what the right way for you to live is, just that you can't impose that on others.

I don't like religions, and I don't like political parties, but I don't see how you can mandate their abolition without in practice setting up one above all others, which would be even worse. — Pfhorrest

Yeah, I just don't get how a party can come to power if they are all abolished. Abolishing parties would force citizens to listen to the candidates rather than resorting to the lazy method of looking for the Ds and Rs next to candidates names.

This is a specific sub category of crimes so a different dataset. — Benkei

We were talking about corruption, so it isn't a different dataset. We should also add local and state officials to the mix and see what we get.

Edit: Michael this is interesting which suggests Democrats are more corrupt and both your statistics suck. http://memepoliceman.com/are-republicans-more-corrupt-than-democrats/ — Benkei

If you were paying attention, you'd know that the point I was not trying to make is that Dems are more corrupt than Republicans. Remember, I'm advocating for the abolition of ALL political parties.
My point was,
" Instead, what should be illuminating is to peruse those Wikipedia pages and see how many scandals and convictions there are on both sides. That should be enough to make one hesitant to become a cheerleader for either party."
http://memepoliceman.com/are-republicans-more-corrupt-than-democrats/

Are you suggesting that there were Democrat officials who were indicted/convicted but not counted and/or that there were Republican officials who were counted but not indicted/convicted? — Michael

What I am suggesting is that you are only providing one biased source for your "evidence". If I only provided one source that was biased, would you take it the same way, or would you be a hypocrite?

Looking at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_officials_convicted_of_corruption_offenses
There are more Democrats than Republicans.

No I'm not. I'm proving my point. The Republicans (including Trump) are more corrupt, as the number of indictments and convictions show. — Michael

The fact that you are only providing one biased source shows that you are only interested in "facts" that support your premise. You don't even question it. You believe whatever you read if it supports your premise. That's not the way it's suppose to work.

As I said, "The only realistic choices were Biden and Trump. They were the only two that could have won". — Michael

Only because people like you keep thinking that those are the only choices. Its like saying that the only realistic belief is one in which most people believe. There is such a thing as a mass delusion. If most people stopped believing that, then it wouldn't be a "realistic" choices. So it's not that there actually are only two choices, it's thatmost people have chosen to limit themselves to believing that there are only two choices because the two parties have indoctrinated them into thinking that the other is so evil that the only other option is them. Like Tulsi Gabbard said, it's all about getting wins for your party.

I didn't vote. I'm not American. Whether or not you're consistent is irrelevant (and I don't even know what you mean by this). Trump and his administration are a danger, and so anyone who recognizes that should have voted for the only person who could beat him: Biden. If enough of these people waste their vote on a third party then Trump would have won and people and the country would suffer more because of it. Your "principles" aren't more important than people's lives. — Michael

Strange. You seem to have more to say about American politics, when you don't even live here, than about the politics in your own country. Is the right-wing in your country also more corrupt than the left-wing?

Being consistent is everything, or else why speak at all? Being inconsistent is equivalent to not saying anything at all, or just making scribbles on the screen.

No, that's only the cry that the two-party system feeds the people and has successfully brainwashed many Americans to think (and hence stay loyal to their corrupt two-party system, whatever happens).

I think that a multiparty system would be an improvement to the US. If parties have to make coalition administrations, that has a positive diminishing effect on the polarization that is rampant today. The parties simply have to work together unlike now. Besides, now you don't know what you get when voting for a party. A good start would be if both of the two parties would break up into two. — ssu

Well there's the final nail in the coffin of the idea that a third party is necessary. What you are actually saying is that we need four parties and then for the Dems and Reps to split at the same time which isn't likely at all.

The primary reason to abolish political parties is because it a form of group-think. Political parties are no different than a religion.

:shade: Couldn't have found a more legit source?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/rantt-media/amp/

All you are doing is proving my point.

It's not manipulation. It's a fact. — Michael

Its not a fact. Do you even pay attention to who is on the ballot, or do you just look for all the Ds on the ballot and fill in the circle next to them.

Reality doesn't care about your feelings. If you prefer Trump to Biden then a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump wasted and if you prefer Biden to Trump then a vote for a third party is a vote for Biden wasted. Either Trump or Biden was going to win, and their win would have a very real and major effect on people's lives. If you believe (rightly) that Trump is incompetent, criminal, harmful, and otherwise unfit for office, then you should vote for Biden. Preventing people and the country from suffering under a Trump administration is more important than you being principled and taking the moral high ground by wasting a vote on some "better" third party. — Michael

I'd prefer Trump over Biden, but there were others i preferred over Trump, and is who I voted for. At least I'm consistent, unlike you who voted for the manufacturer of systemic racism. You do realize that there were non-racists on the ballot, right?

Thanks - much appreciated. The objection I have to qualia is quite specific: if they are private, then they can't be the subject of conversation. But love - we can talk about that. So it's not a qual. — Banno

If it didn't have some degree of privacy we could never lie.

The only realistic choices were Biden and Trump. They were the only two that could have won. And Biden is by far the better choice than Trump. — Michael

Its not realistic when people have been manipulated into thinking that they are the only two choices. Again, thinking that your one vote is going to decide the election between two parties is what is delusional. You feel better voting your conscious, not voting for something because someone has scared you from voting for the other.

No, they were voting for less racism and corruption in voting for Biden. Trump and the Republicans are far more racist and corrupt than Biden and the Democrats. — Michael

:lol: evidence? Remember Biden has been in power for nearly 50 years where he had the ability to funnel his racism into legislation. If you want to whine about systemic racism, Biden is one of the primary manufacturers, thanks to his 50 year tenure, of how the US is systemically racist today.

You're just voting for more racism and corruption in voting for Biden. The evidence was all there, but the mainstream media swept it under the rug. Biden was not the best choice on the ballot. There were many others. To think that Biden was the best when he has many of the same character flaws as Trump is insane.

I remember some polling done in 2016 that found that Trump would have lost against any other candidate than Hillary. Against Hillary he had a chance. And obviously he was successful...then. — ssu

And we all know how accurate polling in 2016 was.

Biden won 81,268,924 votes. Hillary won 65,853,514 votes. You're delusional if you think that 15,415,410+ votes for Biden were fraudulent. — Michael

I already explained what I meant by "fraudulent". Would you consider voters misinformed by the left-wing/right-wing mass media and celebrities as fraudulent? This is why political parties need to be abolished because indivuduals only get information about the two parties which typically consists of the other party labeling the other with derogatory names.

To think that you need to vote for one because the other is soo bad is what is delusional. They are both bad, keeping either one in power and maintaining the status quo is what is bad. To think that your vote has the power to change the election is what delusional. Its best to vote for what truly represents you, not be influenced into believing that there are only two choices and one has to win because the other is so bad. In this sense, votes are fraudulent in that most people have been manipulated into taking a side that doesnt really represent them thanks to the media.

The answer isn't a third party because people then worry that one party will siphon votes from another guaranteeing that the other will win. Abolish all parties and that eliminates that problem.

I think Rousseau has the germ of a good point here - objectivity as the view not from nowhere, but from anywhere. — Banno

Or a view from everywhere.

The thing about objectivity is that it does not include information about location relative to the body. A view does. So objectivity really isn't a view, rather it is an explanation that leaves out the irrelevant information about location relative to a specific body.

its the type of vote you would have cast if you lived in the US.

Well, what are the differences between objectivity and intersubjectivity? — TheMadFool

The difference between objectivity and subjectivity is that information about location relative to the body is absent in an objective view (ie. a view from nowhere vs. a view from somewhere).

Intersubjectivity would include information about location relative to several bodies at once and their relative location to each other.

The issue with subjectivity, though, is that it is often difficult to distinguish between talking about yourself and talking about objects independent of yourself.

"The apple is good." appears to be talking about the apple, but we know that apples are not objectivity good. It is the sensation of eating an apple that is good. What is objectively good is your feelings when eating an apple, but it might not be the same for me. I might think apples are disgusting.

So if we were to talk about apples and we come to a disagreement about the good and disgusting nature of apples, we would actually be talking past each other, not actually talking about apples, rather our own experience when eating them. In that sense there is no difference between objectivity and intersubjectivity because mental states are objective features of the world that we can talk about, just like apple states.

So the ultimate question is what is it that we are actually talking about and is information about location relative to the body useful in addressing the discussion currently in play.

More people did vote for Hillary than Trump (2,868,686 more), but Presidents aren't chosen by the popular vote. — Michael

The point was that more people should have voted for Hillary when it was Hillary vs. Trump compared to Biden vs. Trump. Hillary should have won by a larger margin than Biden did. If you want to actually believe that Biden received more votes than Hillary when he came in last place in the primary against her, then I guess you'll believe almost anything.

However, if you can admit that Biden did receive more votes, but they were misinformed votes, based on the unchecked character assassination of Trump over 4 years, that hadn't happen when he ran against Hillary, then we can probably agree on something.

Because Biden was competing against Trump, not Hillary or Obama. Democratic voters prefer Obama to Hillary, Hillary to Biden, and Biden to Trump. It's not rocket science. — Michael

Using this logic, Hillary should have beat Trump. So it appears that at least one election was rigged - the 2016 or the 2020? We already know the Dems were rigging their own primary in 2016.

Because Biden was competing against Trump, not Hillary or Obama. Democratic voters prefer Obama to Hillary, Hillary to Biden, and Biden to Trump. It's not rocket science. — Michael

So it was more for a hate for Trump than a like for Biden. That is no wonder considering the assault on the man's character throughout his tenure. Just imagine if you or I became president looking to change the way things are done in DC. Those in power are going to hit back hard if you try to put a halt to their gravy train. The system is rigged against an outsider trying to come in and change things.

In this case, it was the voters that were rigged, not the actual votes.

To be consistent, if it's possible for people to be influenced to do things that they normally wouldn't do - like engaging in violence and theft, given that they were told that they were being oppressed in some way, then it is just as likely that people can be influenced to vote a certain way given the barrage of negativity that the media has generated over the last four years.

This is nonsense Harry. The Dems never contested the results of the 2016 election, nor were there accusations of theft. There was accusations of illegal foreign interference, which were investigated and proven as true accusations. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do I have to think independently for you, MU? This was just the tip of the iceburg.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/no-trump-electoral-college-challenge-233294

The Dems did not steal the primary from Bernie. What could that even mean? It's the primary of the Democrats, how could they steal it from themselves? — Metaphysician Undercover

The foreign interference showed that the Dems were rigging elections to ensure their guy was the one that made it to the top. To think that the Dems were the only ones engaged in such activity would be just as blind as one who thinks the Dems possess a monopoly on morality.

Right. So, please tell me why Biden got more votes than Hillary when he came in last place in the primary against her and Obama? And Kamala came in last place in the 2020 primary. It seems to me that the elitists are determining who leads the party, not the actual voters.

You're fooling yourself if you think that there were 15,353,129+ illegitimate votes. — Michael

I didn't say that. How do you reconcile what I actually said with what you just said?

That's not true at all. All of Trump's actions following the election, especially his incessant claims that the election was "stolen", ought to be considered as evidence. The event of January 6th was planned long in advance, so it is not just a matter of looking at what happened on that particular date.

If the election wasn't really stolen from him, then the inciting of his followers to protest, is a matter of fraudulent behaviour. And wherever there is fraud there is the intent of wrongful gain. Therefore we need to ask what did Trump intend to gain by inciting his followers to protest at that particular place, on that particular date. — Metaphysician Undercover

This type of response it what is expected of someone that is indoctrinated with group-think.

The Dems were incessantly claiming that Trump stole the 2016 election. The Dems DID steal the 2016 Primary from Bernie and did it again in 2020. The Dems failed to call back their violent constituents and even encouraged them and people died and property was destroyed.

So please don't try to pass yourself and the Dems off as holier-then-thou because they pull the same shit as the Reps.

If you think that Biden, who came in last place in the 2012 primary, got more votes than Hillary and Obama in the 2020 general election, then you're fooling yourself.

The reason why the Reps aren't fighting the results is because they rig elections too and any investigations would likely expose them too.

Just listen to Tulsi Gabbard who said that after new representatives finish their orientation the Reps and Dems go their different directions and each work separately to get wins for the party. In DC, political party comes first and the needs of the citizens are a distant last.

If you were watching any of the impeachment trial you would see that proof.

If you are listening to both democrats and the republicans which are saying different things how do you reconcile what they are saying? Is one side lying in the other side telling the truth? How do you know which one is lying in which one is telling the truth - that they have a D or an R next to their name? Are they both lying?

If you look at the evidence without being politically swayed by one side or the other, it is obvious that the accusers are hypocrites and trial is a farce.

The only evidence needed is Trump's speech on January 6th. Specifically, what part of it was inciting violence?

So it isn’t 1) that change implies time, but 2) that time implies change. But, as Rovelli points out, this doesn’t mean time is an illusion. — Possibility

I never said it was. I did say that time is a measurement which means that believing that time exists independently of your mind would be an illusion. Change is more fundamental than time. Time is a type of change.

What is the value of a human life for you? — Manuel

Depends on the human. Some non-human lives are more valuable than some human lives.

Change implies time: Makes sense. Whenever change occurs, time elapses. Is there any change that occurs without the passage of time? The simple fact that change can be numerically ordered as, for example, 1st the apple was green and 2nd it became red would mean that the order must occur in some context and that context, to my reckoning, is time. — TheMadFool

There is change and then the measurement of change, which is time. How long did it take for the apple to turn from green to red? Seven spins of the Earth on it's axis. Time is using change to measure change.

That's surely false. If the rule says no running or diving, this applies to the life guard as well, unless it's stipulated that there are exceptions. If the lifeguard runs and dives, then clearly the rule has been broken by that action if there are no stipulated exceptions.

And if your argument is that rules are just guidelines, and meant to be broken, then we're not talking about following rules anymore. We're talking about looking at suggestions for action, or something like that, not following rules. — Metaphysician Undercover

The exception is a given because lifeguards are there to save lives. Just as there are various contexts in which to use some word, there are various contexts in which to apply some rule.

What you don't seem to realize is that I am agreeing with you and you are contradicting yourself. If words can be used without rules, then why are you bending over backwards in trying to apply strict and rigid rules for how you use the word, "rule"?

It might be similar to how we reason, but it isn't reasoning, because it's dome habitually without recalling memories. We know which words to use in a particular situation without recalling similar situations in the past, to figure out which words to use. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think that your appeal to "similar situations" is the answer. So many of the situations I find myself in are completely new, not really similar to anything I've already experienced at all, but this doesn't leave me at a loss for words. So i don't think my choice of words comes from recalling similar situations. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is patently absurd.

What you are saying is that you can speak any language without knowing the rules. Can you speak Swahili fluently, MU? Why or why not?

You are also saying that you have no reason for why you use the scribble, "I" to refer to yourself rather than some other scribble, like, "you".

Conscious memory is learning memory. Once you learn something well enough, whether it be walking, riding a bike, driving or a language, it can become automatic. The steps, or rules, are no longer routed through conscious memory. That isn't to say that they aren't still there. If you thought real hard, I'm sure you can remember going to grade school and learning how words are spelled and the basic rules of grammar.

A rule is not "an action". It is a generalization which may apply to numerous actions. If you say that a particular action should be carried out in a specified set of circumstances, then to justify the "should" you might refer to a rule. — Metaphysician Undercover

A rule is a generalization of actions that should be taken in a particular instance, or circumstance based on prior observations of those actions working in similar instances or circumstances.

"No running at the pool" is a generalization of actions to be taken in a particular circumstance. That isn't to say that the lifeguard can't run to the pool and dive in (even though there is also a rule stating that there is no diving) to save a drowning person. The rules at the pool are meant to be a guideline for being safe at the pool. That doesn't mean that following the rules will keep you safe in all circumstances, or that running at the pool is prohibitive in all circumstances.

You'd have to go back and read the thread, but I don't argue that there's no guidance, I argued that in the majority of instances of natural language use, we do not refer to any such rules. So I argued that rules are not fundamental to language use, they exist as part of specialized language use like math, logic, and writing. Therefore it's wrong to characterize language as a rule following activity. I discussed with Josh at one point, what type of guidance is employed at the fundamental level of language use, since it ought not be called a form of rule following. But this was just speculation, there is no real understanding here. What we can say though, is that it's not a matter of rule following. — Metaphysician Undercover

What you are actually talking about here is simply reasoning. Applying knowledge of prior actions taken in prior situations similar to situations in the present moment is how we reason. Judges have the power to interpret law/rules. Not every rule is applicable to every situation. They are only meant to be a guide. I think we are talking about the same thing here and it's just a disagreement on terms.

I avert it because I see it as an oversimplification which is simply wrong. And using such words which create "a picture", model, or representation, which is actually wrong, is misunderstanding. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't understand this part.

Actually, the misconception is in thinking that such a situation can be described as rule following. If rules are not being rigidly applied, say they exist there to be consulted, and the person looks at the rules and decides whether or not to follow them at each individual instance of judgement, then we cannot say that rules are being followed, because the person often decides not to follow. We cannot even say that such a rule would serve as "a guide", because when the person decides not to follow, it provides no guidance.

What is glaringly obvious, is that there are no such rules which we consult during natural language use. When we speak in most ordinary circumstances, we speak the words which rapidly come to our minds, designed for the particularities of the circumstances, without consulting general rules. So this whole conception, that language use is based in some sort of rule following activity is a misconception.. — Metaphysician Undercover

Rules are only followed if they are enforced in some way, either by gunpoint, or by recalling what action worked in similar situations. Reasoning is the act of providing reasons, or rules, for your actions. Knowledge itself is a set of rules for interpretting sensory data. The rules can change, but there will always be some rule (reason) for why you acted some way in some situation.

. IF physicalism is true THEN p-zombies are impossible. — TheMadFool

This is assuming that consciousness isnt physical, hence begging the question.

Do you know enough about consciouness to assert that it is physical or not? What does it even mean for something to be physical or not?

The point is that in the majority of instances when we use language, when we speak, the circumstances are very particular and unique. The combinations of words chosen are therefore specific to the particular circumstances, chosen specifically for that particular, unique situation. And in the majority of cases there is no evidence of any general rules or protocols being referred to for guidance. — Metaphysician Undercover

What is a rule if not an action that should be performed given a particular set of circumstances? The rule, "Dont run around the pool" only applies in a particular circumstance of moving around a pool.

To say that there is no guidance, when we have books on proper grammar and spelling, tests for measuring ones skill and professors that teach you the rules, is just absurd. I really dont get your aversion to using the term, "rule" when using language. Rules of logic must also be applied. Rules are not set in stone. Rules can be broken and adapted. Thinking that rules are always rigidly applied is a misconception if rules. Rules can also be like a guide and not necessarily a dictator.

If p-zombies are like humans in every way except that they dont posses consciousness, then how do p-zombies know that they know anything? What form would knowledge take in p-zombies head?

One simply needs to point to blind-sight patients as evidence that lacking conscious visual experiences has a noticable impact on a human's behavior.

P-zombies are simpler than normal humans for they're missing consciousness. That should mean that since humans are not only possible but also real, p-zombies should also be possible. — TheMadFool

We do have something simpler than humans that we can probably say doesn't have consciousness - bacteria and viruses - but none of these are humans. So are you saying that newborn infants are p-zombies and we eventually develop compexity through our lives that then becomes consciousness, or what? How does that happen? I really don't get what you are trying to show here.

You said that your argument shows that p-zombies are possible. Well, where are they? Who is a p-zombie - newborn infants?

The conclusion indicates that we cannot make the generalized claim that conventions are rules which are followed. In other words, we cannot truthfully assert "conventions are rules". Therefore we ought not describe conventions as rules which we follow because this would be a faulty description. In no way does this imply "conventions are never followed". Furthermore, following that conclusion, I explicitly stated "there are some conventions which serve as rules that we follow". — Metaphysician Undercover

I think, "protocol" would be a more apt term to use when explaining how communication works.

It seems nit-picking to me. We all use reasons for our actions and thoughts. Arguing over whether or not we use the terms, "rule" or "convention" or "protocol" when these terms represent the reason we use some word rather than another, is trivial.

How do you learn a rule as opposed to how you learn a convention or protocol, and is any of that really different than, say, how you learn to play soccer?

If you have followed any of my posts on this forum, you know that I assume the position others are making and then integrate it with the rest of what we know. When it doesn't fit with the rest of what we know, I ask a question to try and reconcile the discrepancy. If you find it difficult to answer the question then maybe we should re-think what was said. Some people simply assert things without integrating the assertion with the rest of what they know.

Strangely enough, a bird has to learn from other birds how to be a bird.

If it doesn't do that in a narrow window in childhood, it will never learn.

Mammals are different. They can learn throughout their lives. — frank

Yes, that is very strange to consider. You seem to be forgeting about instincts.

So if a woodpecker was raised by a penguin, then the woodpecker would waddle around and dive into the water and swim like penguins? :chin:

I don’t know Jack, I think we can say that since houses are social constructed, marriage is socially constructed, and economics are socially constructed, it’s hardly logical to suppose our maneuvering of those things in genetic. — Uglydelicious

Are birds nests and bird mating rituals the result of the birds genes or upbringing?

how do you do that if you cant determine whether or not some way of behaving is the result of genes or upbringing?

I think that people are entitled to be whoever they choose to be. I think women shouldn't have to be housewives because of a social norm, but if they wish to be that should not be a problem either Also, I think that men should be entitled to wear dresses too. I am not in favour of restrictions based on ideas of gender norms at all. — Jack Cummins

Right. So how do you determine whether or not some behavior is the result of a social norm or the individuals own choice? If a large group of women decide to be house-wives how do you know that is the result of social norm and not just an inclination many women have? In other words, how can you determine if some way of behaving is the result of genes or upbringing?

Most people don't think any longer that men should be the breadwinners and women as housewives. However, there are some who think that way, mainly those from a generation who were taught this value. — Jack Cummins

So if any woman chooses to be a housewife, then that can only be because she was brought up in a such a way to be ignorant if anything else? The same could be said of any person. We are all products of our genes and upbringing. A woman that works away from home and chooses to never marry or have kids is as much a product of her genes and upbringing as a housewife. Who gets to tell either of these women what is best for them?

In asserting that someone that shares some quality with you, like skin color or sex parts, must then act like you and approve of the things that you approve of, is the essence of bigotry. A woman choosing to be a housewife isnt a threat to some other woman's liberty, just as a man choosing to wear a dress isnt a threat to every man's masculinity.

:up:

Nobody's against men being as masculine as they want, so long as it's a healthy positive conception of "masculinity" that they're going after. — Pfhorrest

In other words, you can be as masculine as you want as long as your version of masculinity conforms to someone elses version if masculinity. :roll:

Should we also consider extreme feminism as a problem? What about when opposing extreme feminism is deemed extreme masculinity? This is what is happening: opposing extremism is now considered extremist.

Elsewise, looks a bit like folk noticing their previous privilege and not liking a bit of equity. — Banno

What does "equity" mean - an equal number of each race and sex which isn't representative of the local population or an unequal number of each race and sex that is representative of the local population?

The former will allocate unequal power to each individual, and the latter allocates power evenly to each individual. It seems like we are headed for the former-where certain groups are over-represented, while others are under-represented. I thought that was what we were trying get away from. It seems that people like you really aren't interested in equity at all, just more of the same of one group oppressing others. You are essentially fighting racism with racism.

The problem is in thinking that groups have more rights than individuals.

Thats not what I asked or implied.

Your "meaning is use" is either too trivial or too vague. Either way, it isn't useful.