. After each census, reapportionment takes place. In order to achieve 1 man/1 vote, legislative districts have to be redrawn, and some states lose, or gain, congressional representation. The party that controls the legislature after the census is in a position to redraw legislative boundaries as it sees fit, except that egregious gerrymandering is liable to result in court challenges. — Bitter Crank

I was researching that topic and came across an interesting approach by Brian Olson, which applies a relatively simple geographical algorithm to census and topological data to automatically create voting districts. here is his blog and his Ted Talk:



It creates supposedly fair districts. There is some arbitrariness on the edges, where it has been suggested that people can trade districts along those edges in public.

Looking at the algorithm, there seemed to be some possible abuse by forcing people to move between districts to unbalance the election again. It seems enough to simply prevent people who get elected from being able to choose how votes will be distributed.

And how is a Trump presidency going to help stop abortion? The Supreme Court has already ruled that abortion is a constitutional right, and that's not something that the President can overrule. The best he can do is appoint a pro-life Justice to replace Scalia, hope that the Supreme Court agrees to consider the case again, hope that this new pro-life Justice disagrees with the previous decision (one can believe that abortion is immoral but still agree that it's allowed by the Constitution; as Scalia himself said "I think it is up to the judge to say what the Constitution provided, even if what it provided is not the best answer, even if you think it should be amended. If that's what it says, that's what it says."), and then hope that a majority of the other Justices think the same way. — Michael

Well, technically, Roe vs. Wade essentially ruled that laws prohibiting abortion would violate the "right to privacy" implied by the 4th Amendment of the Constitution, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". It was reasoned that the government couldn't arrest someone for an abortion unless they were able to constantly monitor medical procedures.

Also, technically, it is possible to amend and repeal any amendment, even in the bill of rights. That was demonstrated when prohibition was repealed by the 21st amendment, by simply saying "the 18th is repealed". Trump has been making a lot of vague promises, which seem to imply that he might be open to repeal parts of the constitution. I'm not sure how many of his followers are aware of this, or even counting on it.

Here is a partial list I've been making on things he has said:

1. Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.

• Wants to create a Christian lobby.
• Create a religious/patriotism test.
• Require people to say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays".
• Throw out libel laws and make the press accountable to government censorship.
• Regularly bans members of the press.
• Claims that people don't have the right to criticize him.

4. Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

• Track and id Muslims, close down mosques.
• Loves "stop and frisk".

5. Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.

• Supported government seizure of assets (Kelo v. City of new London)
• Wants to kill and torture family members of suspects.

6. Right of accused persons, e.g., right to speedy and public trial.

• Execution of deserters
• Imprisonment of political opponents
• Suspend rights of US citizens accused of terrorism.
• Advocates shooting suspects to "send a message".

8. Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punisments.

• Supports waterboarding and torture

14. Birthright citizenship

• Wants to repeal, converting millions of US citizens into illegal immigrants.

That's just a rough sampling. So to appeal an amendment, he would either have to get enough support in Congress to create the amendment and in the Senate to approve it. He might have to work on a complete overhaul of the US election system so politicians don't have to fear a public revolt. He could also potentially declare martial law and the suspension of rights.

However, I suspect he is mostly motivated by his own ego, so he might not do anything more than get a few executive actions, tax reliefs and pardons through for his and his friends assets, then just play golf for the rest of his term.

If they do not follow the teachings of the Bible, then they are not Christians - that much is self-evident, because we call someone a Christian who follows the Bible. — Agustino

Really?

Should you help the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? therefore is wrath upon you from before the Lord.” - 2 Chronicles 19:2

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people -- for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior…” - 1 Timothy 2:1-3

I would agree that if they do not follow the teachings of the Bible, they are not Christians, so I recently concluded that anyone supporting such an ungodly man like Trump is not a Christian. Christian authorities are pretty unanimous that God's law is a form of absolute morality, therefore these strange appeals to consequentialism, (the ends justify the means), ought to be rejected.

It's pretty much a sure thing at this point right? — VagabondSpectre

I don't know, there is still a glimmer of a chance. First, the public have mass attention-deficit disorder, people have mostly forgotten much bigger scandals that have also come out of Trump's mouth. Despite media reporting on this scandal 24-hours a day, some of the Republicans that abandoned Trump are coming back to him. Many Evangelical leaders, who have the ears of many, refuse to abandon him. On the other side, a lot on the left are saying the same thing, that Trump has no chance of winning, so now they aren't forced to vote for Hillary, so they could be thinking of voting 3rd party or write-in candidate, (apparently Vermont has a good chance of going to a write-in Bernie challenge). The state of Maine has been held up as how several left-leaning candidates spoiled their governor elections so they ended up with a huge racist, bigoted governor that most people want to get rid.

What is a bit more worrying is the occasional mentions of an attempt at voter suppression or even an outright revolt. Even showing up at voting boots wearing something like red shirts or Trump t-shirts is illegal in many states. There was the plot to blow up a mosque and kill the mostly-Somali worshippers on November 9th, (why does the media refuse to use the words "white nationalist radical"?).

Anyway, a Hillary presidency would probably be a "lame duck" presidency for the first few years. It looks like Republicans will dominate both houses and they will most likely try all the same stunts as before to prevent her from doing anything.

Trump's "victims" never came forward — Harry Hindu

Actually, that's not true. He has been involved in 3500 lawsuits to date. Even if he becomes president, he will still have to deal with accusations of raping a 13-year-old girl in 1994 with Jeffery Epstein, all the accusations of outright fraud from Trump University, and on and on. That doesn't include all the election laws he violated during this campaign funneling money between his companies and campaign donations, unlicensed non-profit organization, requesting donations from foreign officials and even state laws, like talking to voters waiting in line in Wisconsin.

The very idea that this "pussygate" scandal is what outrages people makes me think the whole thing is orchestrated to keep Trump running for some ulterior purpose. I can easily imagine Hillary going over the polling numbers, wondering how she can get elected despite being so universally unlikable -- then comes up with the genius idea of forcing people to vote for her by helping the "greater evil" get in place. I know many liberals who had to take back their "never vote for Hillary" stance solely because the threat of Trump's claims of how he is going to gut the constitution is a greater threat.

Oh, and before I forget, in the post before last, I said that conservatives have already lost the election -- but I have to admit that liberals have lost the election, too. We are probably going to end up with Clinton, who will probably never get around to liberal social or economic issues.

What is this, some quotes from Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power and other silly writings like that? Machiavelli's Prince? These things have no place in this world. — Agustino

No, that drivel is off the top of my head from personal experience dealing with narcissists, (for some reason, I attract narcissists like a magnet).

I know for certain that he cannot betray the social conservatives without ruining his presidency, probably even risking losing his seat due to Congress. He will satisfy social conservative agendas so long as he is permitted to satisfy his own agenda - which in this case is an economical one. Trump is a man who makes compromises - he's a man who is rational - you can strike a deal with him, even if he doesn't agree with you. — Agustino

Okay, I think I see the problem here. You seem to think a bunch of politicians in congress and the house are going to be able to get their way with Mr. "Art of the Deal", while I think he is a really smart negotiator who is going to run rings around politicians. I don't have many doubts that if Trump gets elected, he would repeatedly risk impeachment or government shutdowns for his agenda -- which is probably personal, (he even said he doesn't deal for money because he is already rich, he does it just to win).

You see Steve Jobs bully employees once he's rich and powerful. Why? Because for people to be willing to work for you and to do what you want (along general lines, because at micro-level they still need freedom, simply because you yourself will lack the expertise) they have to either be given sufficient freedom and status in the company, OR they have to think that you are great, a different sort of human being. The bullying helps prove that. But Steve Jobs didn't get there by bullying people - quite the contrary, he got there by being servile, and like Trump, a snake. — Agustino

Like I said, I got my information about narcissistic personalities from experience. I live near Silicon Valley. I worked in Larry Ellison's company for 15 years, even his biography retold a popular joke the difference between God and Larry Ellison. Yes, he micromanaged everything. I remember when he personally rejected the look of the icons for our software package because they were to "cartoony". His exploits were legendary. I was there when he drove 150 mph through residential areas, being chased by police, locked the windows and called his lawyers down from his building before even stepping out of this custom Maserati. Also when he got into a fight with the San Jose Airport over the right to land his personal Mig-20, (he used to buzz our buildings). I saw him in person twice that whole time, but both times he was surrounded by all his keepers and followers. He rose to become the second richest man in the world, but mostly through dirty tricks and surrounding himself by people who were either yes-men or were terrified of him. But he burned himself a few times, the short marriage and expensive divorce, and getting caught when salespeople manipulated the books at his command.

I never met Steve Jobs, Larry's next door neighbor, but had met a few people who worked on the original Mac. They told me they had to hide a Japanese engineer in the closet whenever he came around so he didn't find out that they went against him and were installing a 3 1/2" floppy instead of the more popular 5 1/4" floppy. A few friends went off to work on the NeXT computer. He was so obsessed over every little detail, he even oversaw the placement of the sprinklers in the landscaping. I don't watch those movies or read those books because I suspect they are either going to be overly positive or critical. Also, he seemed to have reformed quite a bit after he came back to Apple ... These days, I really wish someone would point out, in one of those debates, that Steve Jobs was a Syrian refugee. He was also the kind of guy that required fierce loyalty, (the phrase Apple employees use "bleed 5-color blood"), or at least fearful compliance.

I don't know anything first hand about Bill Gates, (that's in Washington state), but I'm supposed to go up and visit Jeff Bezos territory next week. I've heard he made micromanagement one of his "10 rules for leaders". His company is very competitive and the average length of employment is only 2 years.

Customers stick with you if they come to the expectation that you are the only real choice, (not unlike Trump and Hillary). Your outrageous aggressiveness attracts people looking for strength. Your employees don't leave because despite the abuse, the pay is good and the job experience will carry you to better jobs. People partner with them for their own credentials.

So it is possible to be somewhat successful in business while being a micromanaging jerk. Sometimes it is an advantage. There are stories that Trump's obsession over the railing on balconies at one construction uncovered a dangerous flaw. But that micromanagement can also lead to disaster, like Trump Air, which he micromanaged into the ground.

Look, Trump is a businessman. He got some very complex building projects completed without losing all his money - that's quite an achievement in itself - an achievement that is impossible if his narcissism was wholley unrestrained. This shows that he has intelligence, and he is able to collaborate with others to get things done. He is narcissistic, but not to the point where this would outright harm himself. You mistake pathological narcissism - which actually harms the one who is narcissistic - with Trump's narcissism, which doesn't harm him directly because he knows when he has to hold it back. He just knows how to work with others to get things done. One cannot easily flip-flop on deals without losing his reputation (and his money) in business. — Agustino

The game that narcissists play is to make themselves look great on the surface. If you dig past the surface and uncover failures and harm, they are quick to shift blame onto others. They don't need to restrain themselves up front, they thrive off the initial attention and admiration. It is only when you get into personal relationships that all the flaws come out. Then you are stuck -- it is either "my way or the highway". You either give into their demands or they will destroy you. It isn't too hard to tell if they are pathological up front. Do they blow up at the slightest negative comment and start coming out with threats of physical violence or legal threats? Does their comments of past failures and rivalries border on conspiracy theory? They manage to get through life because they are skilled at appealing to the narcissism in others.

Sure, he will play nice with conservatives, evangelicals and even white supremacists as long as they support him, while barely containing his brutal personal attacks on everyone else. Once the paper is signed, though, you have to keep playing the game or get run over. There have been dozens of reports from people that actually worked with Trump. He is obsessive, micro-managing every detail, and doesn't give an inch on anything. Nobody will be able to control him, not conservatives or Republicans. They have basically lost this election already.

But don't take my opinion. What about the Koch brothers? They usually spend billions on their conservative candidate. They have decided to sit this election out because they don't believe Trump or Clinton is going to do what they want -- and have instead focused on house and senate races. They join a long list of billionaires who won't have anything to do with Trump, even his friends.

This ignores that Trump isn't alone in this race. He needs an entire support network to do anything as President - a support network he must satisfy. That support network includes a lot of social conservatives, including the VP Mike Pence. He cannot betray the social conservative agenda without screwing himself up. Trump may be a narcissist liar, but he's not stupid. — Agustino

Unfortunately, I know from experience, that this is not the way narcissistic personalities work. The idea that he needs anyone probably never existed in his head. He probably doesn't even recognize that other people have needs or feelings. Everything is centered around his ego. You are either with him or against him. He would have the power of executive order and vetoes with him, and probably has no scruples about using it vindictively. It isn't stupidity, it is just the way he filters the world around him to protect his ego.

In fact, I noticed whenever he mentions the support of evangelicals, it always seemed to be with a mix of contempt, (because he doesn't like their values), and happy incredulity, (that they follow him at all is just evidence of his "greatness").

Hillary is just as big or bigger of a flopper though, and according to the recently leaked "wall street speeches" she has both a real and a private position because "if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.". — VagabondSpectre

It seems whenever someone criticizes Trump, they are automatically assumed to be voting for Hillary. No, I'm not "with her", and won't vote for her either. I live on the west coast in a deeply blue state. The odds of my state going to Hillary is over 90%. In fact, like many other elections, CNN and Fox News will be calling the results before I even get to a voting booth. That means I get to vote my conscience. I won't vote for Clinton because she is openly hawkish and will probably draw the country deeper into war. It will be pretty much business as usual, with all the corruption, broken promises -- but at least the economy and infrastructure will probably survive another 4 years. Trump is the worst of the two evils only because if he actually manages to carry through with his promises, we would effectively be without a Constitution. Actually, Clinton has said a few really racist and offensive things, too, but it usually gets ignored because she is about as interesting to watch as plywood. If we are lucky, we might get a 12th Amendment election, (that's where neither candidate gets 270 electoral votes, so the house decides and every state gets one vote among the top 3 candidates).

I don't want to change anyone's opinion. If you know all the facts and still think Trump is better, go ahead and vote for him. You will have to suffer the same consequences as everyone else. If you aren't concerned about the potential fallout on you, consider the future of your party or political alignment. If you want to vote for Hillary, even if you think you must because you live in a swing state, go ahead.

I gather that you really dislike trump and all, — VagabondSpectre

I don't think I feel anything toward Trump. He should probably be pitied for his psychological disorder. I feel a bit more for his supporters, who I think are mostly being misled by a lot of social pressures. I don't even care if he wins -- I will just think, "he may not be the powerless fascist dictator America needs, but he is the one they deserve". I just hope the blow isn't that bad on all the people who thought he was going to benefit them.

It's much more accurate to say that he got airtime for two reasons: 1, because he gets good ratings (they made money off of him. Period. It's their own damn greedy fault), and 2, because ridiculing Donald Trump fits well with the established agenda of the dems (the pubs get in on it too though it seems). — VagabondSpectre

He gets good ratings for the same reason that "reality TV" shows get good ratings. The people are willing to act like idiots to get on TV, and the show does everything to emphasize the drama without losing suspense over what happens next. A lot of what happens is faked or encouraged. It is kind of a co-dependent relationship. But I hope people consider what we get at the end of the reality show. The drama never pays off.

This current election is unprecedented because a part of the American pubic :D has become so blasé and lackadaisical toward the election that the only rhetoric and content capable of stirring them must be in some ways "extreme". — VagabondSpectre

Americans have usually been relatively disinterested in voting. I used to be an election officer, and outside presidential races, you could work on your tan while waiting for people to show up for mid-term elections. Maybe it is a sign of my age, but it seems the quality of candidates is dropping. It is as if nobody wants to run anymore. Trump is the best that Republicans could come up with. It makes me wonder if they know something that we don't know, (that we are so screwed, only crazy people and criminals will even bother running).

Trump "asking" Russia to hack the DNC for instance... Alleging that the two are any way in-cahoots is certifiably insane, and yet as an extreme point of rhetoric I see it falling out of everyone's mouth with extremely persuasive prejudice. Maybe the Kremlin do want trump to win, but why? Could it perhaps be that Russia desires a "regime change" in America so that it could possibly have it's economic sanctions eliminated? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, it has been suggested that Russia are attracted to Trump's comment that he would recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea, but probably less for economic sanctions reasons, than the wedge it would drive between the EU and USA. Don't forget the comments Trump made about dismantlement NATO, (or making it a kind of "protection racket"). They probably don't mind the cold war negative association still in the government with anyone doing business with Russia. There is probably some other advantages, the US stock market would probably take a dive and China would dump all the US bonds they hold when their avowed enemy becomes president. Trump is probably seen by them as merely an unwitting ally.

That said, if and when Russia does release more evidence of some new Hillary scandal, will you literally blame it on trump because he once said "I hope Russia releases what they hacked"? After-all, Hillary is the victim in all this and trump is a misogynist... — VagabondSpectre

I don't blame Trump at all. They were probably going to hack anyway. It is just an embarrassing coincidence that he said it just before it was revealed that they were doing it anyway. For all I know, he probably found out it was happening and made the statement so he could later be associated with it, (he got debriefed on state secrets before that -- so I wonder if his real, unreported, crime is announcing it and forcing the federal government to admit it was taking place -- which only brings about a possibility of treason).

Yeah for a very simple reason that he says he will appoint conservative Judges, he will put tougher restrictions on abortion, he will end illegal immigration, etc. ... Social conservatives have a degree of control over Trump that they don't over Clinton. I don't really care if Trump himself will be immoral so long as he will be a useful tool for the social conservative agenda. It's a calculated sacrifice - lose a pawn, in order to win the game. — Agustino

But ...

But ...

Okay, so he has delivered a "short list" of 11 potential Supreme Court nominees. Currently, he can only fill in one position, as long as Obama doesn't beat him to it. What are the chances that list was made up to keep conservatives in the fold? Would he throw away his one chance to get his policies passed? Most of his promises are based on partially repealing the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional Amendments, so his biggest challenge is to get those laws past those judges who still care about constitutional rights.

But then again, when you factor in that 95% of TV advertisement spending leading up to the election is by Clinton, you've got to suspect 95% bias. — tom

But Trump has gotten an estimated $2 billion in free air time, and is the first candidate to go into a press "spin room" immediately after a debate to sell himself. But really, shouldn't all the people who donated to Trump's campaign be upset that he isn't making more or better ads to make up for all the times he gets his foot stuck in his mouth?

I am genuinely concerned that someone whose Presidential campaign is 20% funded by Saudi Arabia, whose personal charity received huge donations from Saudi, and who claims Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, becomes president. — tom

If that is the criteria that is important to you, what about these facts?

“Wealthy Muslims Helped Donald Trump Build His Empire,” Including Via Deals With Saudis And Qataris. A December 7 Quartz article detailed “some of the more prominent deals and partnerships with Muslim individuals, governments, and companies that have buoyed the Trump brand over the years.” These business ventures involve Qatar Airways, which has had a “‘corporate campus’ in the Trump Tower … since at least 2008;” two Saudi princes who live in Trump Tower; Saudi Prince Alwaleed, who took “majority control of New York’s Plaza hotel, [which gave] Trump ‘more breathing room with bank creditors’” and purchased Trump’s $18 million yacht; the Trump International Golf Club in Dubai; and Trump Home partnerships in “Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.” Quartz later reported that regional retailer Lifestyle stopped selling Trump Home products in its stores in Kuwait, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other countries following Trump’s anti-Muslim comments. — Quartz

“Donald Trump Sought Investment Partnerships With Muammar al-Qaddafi And The Libyan Regime.” A BuzzFeed investigation posted on June 7 found that “Donald Trump sought investment partnerships with Muammar al-Qaddafi and the Libyan regime,” revealing that Trump “rented his Westchester estate to the dictator, tried to set up a face-to-face meeting, and took the Libyan ambassador golfing.” BuzzFeed reported that Trump “saw possibilities in a partnership with the Libyan Investment Authority, which invests profits from Libya’s lucrative oil industry” and that he ultimately sought “to gain access to Qaddafi, who was in a position to release billions in investment capital.” — BuzzFeed

Also, don't forget that he asked Russians to hack Hillary's emails -- and they apparently complied, (why do the Russians want Trump to win?).

The latest exposé of Trump's vulgarity is a good thing because it will offend even more people even more deeply. Fine by me. The offended should vote for somebody else--like Hilary or Jill.

Sexually crude as Donald Trump might be, sexual crudeness shouldn't automatically or effectively disqualify him from being an effective president. — Bitter Crank

I think the media is desperately trying to diffuse the situation. "It isn't what he said he did, but saying it is bad". That uncovers a few problems. It seems like the media doesn't want Trump to be completely ruined so they can keep the drama going and their viewers watching. It seems to be a "reality TV"/"soap opera" technique, something shocking gets people talking, then diffuse it until the next thing comes along. If anything is so terrible that it can be spun away, they simply refuse to report on it. If the media really wanted to bring down Trump, wouldn't they be pursuing that lawsuit accusing Trump of raping a 13-year-old girl in 1994? Whether the charges are true or not, that kind of scandal he couldn't recover, and when he got impeached ... then nothing.

I think sexual behavior is very important for leaders. As a society, we tend to emulate our leaders. Look at mainstream women's fashions over the past few decades and see how closely they tend to emulate first ladies. The atmosphere of society reflects the attitudes of the leadership. Kennedy's optimism rubbed off on the 1960's. Nixons dark pessimism rubbed off on the 1970's. The arrogance and greed of the 1980's can be traced to Reagan. Even today's progressive liberalism can be traced to the Obamas. Back in 1996, I thought that Clinton was washed up, (his sexual scandal was already coming to light), but he got elected anyway.

That doesn't mean I have traditional values. I would rather have a gay, bisexual or even transgender president than one who cheats on their spouse. What makes it worse is that she was a recent immigrant, almost half his age and very pregnant at the time. Then he thinks it is valid material to brag about -- to the host of a celebrity gossip TV show?

I figured out that Trump is best described as a malignant narcissist. This personality has a close association with bigotry, since the self-aggrandizing statements can be diffused to pride in their group. For a while, I tried to make sense of his statements by adding "... for white people" at the end of his slogans. "Make America Great Again", makes no sense if you believe America is already great. "Make America Great Again for white people", makes more sense, (restoring white privilege and American exceptionalism). But I guess he really means "Make America Great Again for Trump". His campaign promises are only attractive to bigots. I've decided that if anyone still supports Trump, it is because they are a bigots, too, and still cling to the fantasy that he will make all their bigoted dreams come true.

I imagine that if he became President, he would probably publicly break every one of his promises, except a couple of things that would serve his own interests. I'm sure all the Republicans still supporting him will turn on him right after the election and Trump will be constantly whining about how Washington is rigged against him.

But. . . I mean, I just don't agree I guess. Socialism is an economic system where workplaces are publicly owned rather than privately owned. So just because you didn't have to buy something at work that doesn't mean that it's socialist. The workplace is a privately owned entity, where the rules are written and enforced by those who own it (or delegate that out to managers, as is often the case). — Moliere

I'm not saying that they are literally socialist, but if you converted some generic large corporation into a "nation", we would probably consider the economic system of that country to be essentially socialist. Workers have free access to the "means of production" and get benefits and central organization of a "state". Try to imagine you are setting up a company and tried to set it up as a mini-capitalist system. Employees can own office equipment and charge others for their use. You don't even mind if one employee owns all the equipment and a large number of employees sit around doing nothing because they can't afford to pay the other employees. Your company basically makes money by charging a fee to all your employees just for being employees of your company, based on how much they make, (taxes). (Actually it sounds more like Uber and AirBnB now). But the majority of companies consider consolidating company resources and not making employees compete with each other as the standard.

Caring is important, I wouldn't disagree. But the household is more of a benevolent dictatorship -- which some believe is how socialism must run, but I don't think that's true. It doesn't seem to me to be set in stone. — Moliere

I think there is a unwarranted tendency to mix up political and economic systems. You can have a socialist democracy, (Scandinavian countries), or socialist dictatorship, (former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia). There are also capitalist democracies, (Western Europe), and capitalist dictatorships, (Azerbaijan). The only difference is in who controls the distribution of resources. Either there is a "glorious leader", or people vote on it or assign representatives. It can be a benevolent dictatorship and a socialist system.

Just look at how hard-core capitalist emphasize competition and individual merit. If socialism is the "opposite" of capitalism, then it is because it emphasizes cooperation and relative equality within the community as a whole. Just the kind of morality usually associated with families and inside corporations between employees.

So though we might choose to share, and not turn a profit with every individual action we take, or view school (and push for schools) which are more than jobs training, I don't see any of that as taking away from the capitalist project where there are owners who write the rules, and workers who follow them. — Moliere

Just talk to a hard-core capitalist or (small-L) libertarian and they will paint a picture of how they wish there was less government interference, taxes and public support, then complain bitterly about how the trend is generally in the opposite direction. In US politics, this is the first time someone could run for a major party as a "socialist". A few decades ago, it would be unthinkable. If you look long-term over history, from feudal organization to the present, the trend is always further away from capitalism and more toward socialism. By definition, whatever the "conservatives" believe in is the past that is disappearing and "liberals" believe in the future that is gradually arriving. If the trend was toward greater capitalism and competition, conservatives would be against it and liberals would be its defenders.

From what I recall, Jefferson made comments against private banks and was warning on the dangers of not having a federal regulating bank like other countries. So he would probably have been partially relieved if he had seen the Federal Reserve, but maybe thought it was still too private. By definition, he would probably have no problem with fiat currency. Instead, he would probably have more concerns about many things taken for granted these days, like usury, or charging interest instead of a flat fee for loans. At the time, it was considered immoral.

Also, I disagree that the household is socialist, or that capitalism is shrinking. — Moliere

I hate to derail the original discussion from Nick Srnicek's book. But I was doing some re-evaluating some things, growing my own food on my apartment balcony. I amused myself by how socialists the whole process the system seemed. Sunlight, rain and soil were essentially being distributed to everyone for free and without any claim of ownership. I would show up to work with a bucket full of chilies to distribute to friends at work. Some people, from 3rd world countries complained that they didn't have places to buy seeds. I told them how to break open the chilies and plant the seeds in their own garden and now they have them. No copyright or intellectual property claims.

I realized that families are internally socialist. If you heard of a family that withheld shelter, food, medical care or needs, you would probably consider them monsters. Things get distributed "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability". Schools and things brought from outside the family seem to be the only concern for the capitalist system on the outside. I even noticed it at work, (at the center of a capitalist entity), was internally socialist. I didn't have to pay for my work computer, rent my office space buy other office supplies, or consider competition for my phone system. They usually don't need to compete with each other for survival.

In the technology and financial sector, it certainly seems like capitalism is getting weaker. Most people who made digital maps started panicking when Google and Bing Maps came out. Nobody would buy their systems or satellite maps if they could view them for free. (I managed to take advantage of the system and sell some systems and applications on top of public domain maps. Google and the general trend toward open source technology has revolutionized the industry. What tech companies remain are trying desperately to still maintain value while leveraging all these essentially "free" technologies. The financial sectors are going through a major revolution as well. With so many services online, on phones and even watches, brick-and-mortar branches are shutting down and trying hard to remain relevant. Everyone is living under the cloud of Bitcoin, or one of its descendants, is going to make traditional banks irrelevant.

But what if there are problems and people do not see those problems? I believe this is why he begins -- because people don't see it as a problem, so they have no reason to look at the solution. So he's making the case, here, for why the rest of his argument should be paid attention to. — Moliere

While many problems could be valid, there are just as many movements, scams and pseudo-science that start out that way too. First thing to be suspicious of is why people don't see it as a problem. Was it really such a big problem? Maybe people were more concerned about bigger problems until then. Unfortunately, there are a lot of movements out there that start out with "X is broken", then claim to fix it. If you try to debate their solution, they turn it around to complaining about the problem instead of looking at the solution. It is an old distraction. You can see it in a lot of arguments from transhumanists, or the Venus Project, or anything. Some really good movements get stuck into this bad habit.

I don't think it's quite hand-waving. It's not just "well, technology will take care of it" -- but automation has already had a large effect on the economy, and automation is already something which companies are pushing for. Automation is here, and it cuts into the number of jobs that are available (has already cut into jobs that are available). (He goes over this at minute 21 of the video -- still listening, but he starts to cover the topic there) — Moliere

If you added up all the positive and negative effects, do you end up with a net positive outcome? If so, was that positive outcome based on some other economic pressure? I have found in other movements, if you get past the problem and focus on the solution, you end up trying to figure out how is it going to pay for itself. I found one group pushing similar solutions who eventually turned out to be fans of pseudo-scientific theories and wishful thinking to cover those mundane details. I've engaged in a few debates where people thought robots and computers could do everything for us and we would be left to a life on perpetual leisure. But any questions of such an environment would be dismissed as the results of a lifetime programmed for the "old way of thinking". In a way it is just a variation on the old arguments about heaven and hell.

Could you spell this out? I don't know what you're getting at here. — Moliere

I'm looking at the problem as an engineer. There is a kind of conservation of motion even at economic and social levels. There are liberals because there are conservatives, they balance each other out. Automation has to balance with the opposite of automation, which would probably be alienation and dehumanization. It has happened many times through human history, and there is always some pressure to reclaim what was lost.

Not in a post-capitalist society, but a demand that makes sense right now in our concrete conditions. Is a post-capitalist society even possible? I don't know, but I know that what we have isn't working, and that our relationship to work is a part of that. — Moliere

I took some personal time off to address this kind of question. I realized that not only is post-capitalist society possible, (every society was pre-capitalist at some point), but we spend a minority of our time being capitalists. If you remove the time at work or shopping, you spend a lot of time in what is essentially a socialist household. The "state" provides services, works and nothing depends on real exchange of money. Capitalism is already shrinking. More services and social interchange are becoming less capitalist every year. Take a look at this TED Talk for a comparison.

Just the description of the book was raising some alarm bells. Not wanting to pay $10 for the cheapest version, I found this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ8TUAVpUXo where he talks about the subject of the book "in layman terms". But it just kept raising those same alarm bells -- and I think I'm as corporate, (I work for a bank), technological, (in the IT department), and lefty, (just over the hill from Berkeley, CA), as you can get.

First, I am a bit put off when someone starts out talking about problems. It is like the late-night infomercial who reminds you of all the problems you have with eggs sticking to the frying pan just before they introduce their frying pan lubricant. The more time you have to explain the problem, the more I think it wasn't really such a big problem except that the solution doesn't seem worth the money. Neoliberalism and Occupy Wall Street have lots of flaws, but the problems they are trying to solve are very real and probably a lot worse. If it was such a great solution, you should just jump to that part. I think there is a human bias which allows us to easily shift focus and satisfy ourselves with whatever solution solves that newly uncovered problem than worrying about long term more catastrophic effects, (just look at global warming).

Second, I'm wary of someone who falls back to hand-waving or vague pronouncements about how there is some technological solution to the problem. Every technology has trade-offs. That frying pan lubricant makes your eggs smell a bit like motor oil. Was the solution really worth it? There are many cycles throughout history where people realize that a lot of the problems they have were caused by technology in the first place and that there are some low tech solutions there all this time. There is a human bias which focus on positive and ignore the negative.

Third, currently, technology, economy and society are all tightly integrated. You change one parameter and it changes all the rest. Maybe the "problem" we have are partly the result of the some other party of society. I have to work at a job so I have a car, I need a car so I can get a job. If I don't need a job, I actually don't need a car. Then I don't need to live near a city with jobs. Society would look so different, the problems in that society would seem misplaced by today's standards. The real solution probably requires projecting ourselves into that place to figure out what solutions we really need.

In capitalist economies, money has become objectified values, so technology is our need/desires objectified. If we ever managed to automate everything, then we would no longer be relevant to the economic equation. Even political spectrum, "conservative" and "liberal" are balance each other, simplifying the negative and positive emotions of the population.

Reduction of work week. Well, that is a minor economic tool to fine-tune consumerism and capitalism at the lower levels. Is it even relevant in a "post-capitalist" society? There is an assumption that we will still work and won't like it. In such a big economic and social shift, that assumption may no longer be true.

Basic income is nice, but it is another capitalist adjustment, and it has an obligatory part of inflation which keeps invalidating what is considered "basic". So you need to put a bunch of other controls in place, like price fixing for essential assets or forced restriction on what is considered a "need". If you need to do that, then start with that.

Only that now they have overtaken the Academia — Agustino

Check out this chart:


What should immediately come to critical thinkers is the question, "does correlation imply causation"? Are atheists deliberately taking over "academia", getting jobs as professors while preventing religious people from getting in? Or maybe there is a stronger correlation between non-religious types and the wealth and intelligence required to get into school, get the higher degree and take up teaching as an occupation.

There have been many debates over whether the apparent correlation between atheism and intelligence was due to "higher intelligence leads to atheism", or "atheism leads to higher intelligence", or "those environmental constraints that lead to atheism also lead to better education ... and respect for intellectual, scientific and academic pursuits".

I've found that a significant number of my professors were religious, and even got into philosophy because it fit in with their general interest in religious traditions and reasoning. I remember I had a class which was studying the role and contribution of African Americans, (easy elective class), who kept inviting the class to her Pentecostal church. I found it interesting the contrast with the subject we were studying and the history of how Christians, up until recently, defended slavery and segregation. I figure it wasn't wise to kill the messenger for the content of the message, but wondered how people reconcile such extremes of the same ideology. Also, I've found that the students in universities tend to think fairly independently from professors and parents. If a kid goes to college and becomes and atheist, do you think it is because of the morality of their professors, their friends or the fault of their parents -- or is it just the natural tendency for youth to reject and reinvent themselves, at least until they become parents too.

I saw some sociological/psychological studies, (but you can't trust them -- look at the chart), which say that extreme religious piety is often used as a cover or counter-balance for immorality, and nonreligious people need to counter-balance their social role with an exaggerated moral stance. It is a huge thread on its own -- but you should be able to apply this model to societies around the world. Societies or countries which are the least religious should be the most moral, and the least religious the least moral, but this doesn't seem to work out that way:



If that were true, then you want to live in safety and morality, you should move to Africa or some countries in the Middle East, and steer clear of Western Europe. My guess is that the correlation is more complicated, and probably a side-effect of the influence about how a society associates morality with religion.

I think Nihilism is very liberating. How can something that frees you be negative? Maybe it appears negative from the default standpoint to hold values as objective, absolute or a standard to base all other logical conclusions. It is the realization that all moral values are human social constructs and you are now free to re-evaluate and re-examine your assumptions). If they start doing that, though, they are existentialists, (the old saying, "nobody is Nihilist for long"). But people have managed to stay and refuse to define or accept human or moral values, or to assume it is all relative and contextual.

I don't have immense background in this hypothetical. You said that most people wouldn't flip the switch (I assume because then they'd feel responsible for killing one person, rather than creditable for saving a bunch). Does the situation suggest that flipping the switch is morally correct, and merely very difficult and emotionally tolling, or that, by general consensus, one should not use the switch? My intuition seems to reach for the prior, although I don't have any logical arrivals at it. — David

(click for Wikipedia)

In philosophy, you shouldn't just say "morally correct", without addressing a theory. A rule-based ethical system, (do not murder anyone, except under well-defined exceptions), would probably not have covered this scenario. Consequence-based ethical systems, like utilitarianism would find flipping the switch to be the best choice in most formulations. In general, though, people would agree that flipping the switch is the right thing to do. But what Phillipa Foot found was that most people would not flip the switch themselves. It isn't clear why people feel that way, but most people seem to fear they would be blamed by society for killing someone deliberately even if it saved many other lives, and perhaps projecting that attitude toward others. There are many alternate scenarios -- like pushing someone onto the tracks instead of throwing a switch, or one where you have to kill someone in order to escape a cave.

It also illustrates that people think/feel more deeply about issues than would fit in a nice logical argument. They also tend to reduce complex general situations get overly simplified, (the pregnant woman getting an abortion so she doesn't miss her skiing trip, the store owner defending himself from robbers, torturing a suspect for information about a ticking time bomb -- all extremely rare compared to the more common situations, used to justify more clear-cut imagined support for positions).

I wish to interject here that I am pro-life, but not virulently pro-gun, if only to confirm that such individuals do exist, despite your having implied that they might. I would not be much distraught if all guns were banned tomorrow. On the other hand, I am persuaded as to their effectiveness as a means of self-defense in certain limited circumstances, so long as one is threatened to the extent that a gun is the most prudent means of said defense. I also believe that there are just wars, on account of the same principle of self-defense. But I am not in favor of guns per se or of hunting and the culture surrounding the ownership of guns. — Thorongil

If you were to take what meager gun usage statistics were available, and reword it as a medical procedure, there would be a call for banning it from every persuasion. In the US, (an unusual example), humans killed by guns are more often for suicide, followed homicide and accidental shooting before even getting down into clearly justified self-defense. If there were some new medical procedure that the majority of people were abusing to kill themselves and others, or would end up getting them killed, (self-defense scenarios often favor the attacker) -- someone even marginally pro-life ought to oppose it as the harm clearly outweighs the costs. The analogy to abortion would continue to say that if you need a gun to defend yourself, it is better to move to a safer neighborhood, so it is your own fault if you get shot. The abortion debate often gets pushed into some equally rare situations to justify wholesale banning of the practice.

These things are vague enough to be open to dispute. It was a clever attempt at inserting your political opinions on these matters by assuming them, though. — Thorongil

I'm hoping to be politically neutral here. I think both sides are trying to achieve the same goals, but only differ on some of the details. I'm would like to encourage some introspection. If someone is truly pro-life, then they have to defend the life of the fetus by making sure the mother gets adequate healthcare and is either able to provide for the child or the state would. I think people avoid this contradiction by deferring authority. If abortion were banned again, then the fetus dies anyway because the mother can't afford healthcare, then why aren't the people who refused to support healthcare collectively guilty of the same murder? I think the same would go for pro-choice. If a woman has a right to defend her body from an unwanted pregnancy, then they ought to be more sympathetic to guns and wars on the same basis. But I think this debate can't be objectively rationalized because of the "trolley problem", and the assignment of authority. We, (Americans), can justify the slaughter of thousands of innocent people every year as long as we have deferred our authority, (in a democratic society), to someone else. Even then, accepting personal responsibility for all life and death decisions, seems like something as yet unthinkable or unacceptable, (I don't think the "trolley problem" has any satisfactory universal solution).

A common statement is that "abortion is murder". But technically, "murder" is "killing outside of legal/officially sanctioned means". If abortion is legal and performed by a physician, it is not "murder" in the legal sense.

Of course there are societally pragmatic definitions for morals as those things which can bring about positive effects upon the whole of society. For example, murder is deigned inappropriate because it is harmful to society as a whole. — David

Maybe it would be useful to look at the (in)famous "trolley problem". A runaway trolley is headed toward a group of people. You just happen to be standing next to a switch, (in one variation), that would redirect the trolley away from one group of people and toward another person killing them. From a utilitarian point of view, you are obligated to throw the switch to save more people at the expense of the innocent person. But most people presented with this description would still refuse to throw the switch, even when it causes more harm. Perhaps that's a more analogous drive for those who oppose abortions. It is deliberate harm to an individual, which is "wrong", regardless of the benefits. On the other hand, I think a large proportion of those same people don't have any problem with killing people, (Hitler or Stalin, enemy armies or criminals), if it benefits society as long as they or some individual they haven't authorized is directly responsible.

I even see a kind of paradox that many people who are "pro-life" don't see any problem with being virulently "pro-gun". While those on the other side might protect "pro-choice" as a right, but oppose owning guns as a kind of right. If we took the arguments of "pro-life" to extremes, then we should ban anything that might unnaturally end human life, like guns, wars or pollution, and unequivocally support anything that helps preserve human life, like free health care or wealth redistribution to end poverty. I think the paradox is resolved when you look at who is ending life, whether it was intentional/deliberate/provoked. Pollution appears to be mostly unintentional. "Responsible" gun owners don't appear to be intentionally going out and killing people. Even when discussions are brought up about alternatives to abortion, (such as adoption), there doesn't seem to be much motivation on either side to create the costly infrastructure.

I was thinking about this after a historian's video was discussion the moral implications of dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. The usual argument is that it saved more lives than it cost, but acknowledged that it was more in line with an extreme "trolley" problem, of whether it is right to kill innocent people to save an even greater number of lives. I suppose there are even parallels with another subject touched upon in the OP: that of euthanasia of someone who is brain dead or in a permanent vegetative state. The same people who reject abortion seem to also reject euthanasia, and I tend to think it would be on the same grounds as the "trolley problem" -- that it is a deliberate, intentional, and one-side decision -- regardless of the benefit to society, or the individuals involved.

Also, I always have to point out that the real problem is unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, which both sides actually do support, but that the arguments tend to polarize around the responses to the problem.

The standard disclaimer is that paradise is beyond description, so the (often vague and contradictory) descriptions given are mostly analogy.

There are some hadith which describe the first who enter paradise will bathe in a river and come out with their skin as "white as paper". I think this can be an analogy about sin/darkness is washed away. I don't think there is much mention of people as being "white" as a race as is used today. People were described by their origins, they were Bedouin or Ethiopian or some tribe of Arab. Compare that to some other hadith which say that people in the flames of hell would also be given skin as "white as paper", whenever their skin burns away just so they can re-experience that pain.

By "maidens in paradise" you are probably referring to "houris". There is very little reliable information about what they are supposed to be. Some Victorian era orientalists translated the names to "virgins", which fit in with some popular, but discredited descriptions, that they were supernatural humanoid female-like creatures. Some widely discredited hadith, (but still popular anyway), even say they have transparent flesh so you can see down to the bone marrow. In Shia circles, I've heard a theory that the only description, "they look like scattered pearls", meant that they were simply servants who appeared like balls of light, and relate it to the Persian word for "grapes". Others had theories that "scattered pearls" were description of eyes or teeth who were white because of purity, (regardless of other racial characteristics).

Watch "The Englishman Who Went up a Hill but Came down a Mountain", a partly fictional tale about a period when several survey standards still considered a "mountain" anything that was 1000 feet or 300 meter above the surrounding terrain. That standard now has several more criteria to distinguish it more clearly for survey standards. That doesn't prevent you from calling something a mountain that doesn't meet the definition. Also, it is possible that many places lost or gained "mountain" status. They were "mountains" under the old system, not "mountains" under newer systems and nobody can stop you from declaring something out of tradition.

Pluto is a "dwarf planet", which would make it sound like a kind of planet. The characteristics of Pluto make it unlike most other planets. Its orbit is elongated so it often comes closer to the sun than Neptune. It's the only solid surface planet outside of gas giants. It is more like distant objects in the Oort cloud than anything in inner rings. But it is smaller than most moons, including our own. It may sound like an arbitrary distinction, (you must be this tall to ride the roller coaster), but based on properties and characteristics important to astronomy.

It was once a "planet" under the old system. Probably partly because it was discovered at a time when astronomers were looking for a planet and did some publicity about discovering and naming it. They originally thought it was larger than Earth and they were looking for a "9th planet". Around the time Pluto was demoted to "dwarf planet", was when hundreds of new bodies in other solar system was being discovered and the question of what defines a planet was raised.

Assuming western culture, no I don't think you could get away with saying you are a girl without adapting to some appearance and behavior norms. Currently, the norms, and what they represent, are more important than what you say. You hit a lot of taboos even if you decided to change your appearance and behavior without claiming to be that gender. But behavior and appearance is a very complicated contextual mess.

Yes, it does create a lot of problems in feminism. You have to remember there are a lot of different forms of feminism, the one you appear to refer to who believe "gender roles need to be smashed", are probably quite disappointed with transgenderism. You can read a lot more here. But there is a lot more acceptance these days. I think there is paradox between wanting to overturn a deeply entrenched system, and having the freedom to define your own role. The transgendered may not be so much the victims of the system, but the tools to break down long-held assumptions.

Sex, in nature, isn't binary. It bimodal, with individuals spread out along a continuous line with just some peaks along arbitrary secondary sexual characteristics. This evolved over time out of the consequence of a selection process. Society tends to evolve along a similar bimodal selection process. It is constructed from taboos and mores about appearance and behavior partially determined by sexual roles and partially arbitrary. You get into some complicated dynamics between dominant and submissive group alignments. But nearly everyone grew up in similar societies, so we take our special rules as universal. Look out further, and you can easily find societies where western rules are reversed. Where the men put on heavy make-up and perform dances in beauty contests to be selected by women. There are cultures where men where "skirts" and men wear "pants". Sometimes there are explanations for variation, why, in one group, the women are the leaders and own all property and in another group, women are considered of lower value than livestock.

For example, to be a "man" in my society, means to be dominant and to avoid submissive roles and appearance. To avoid overt self-beautification or self-objectification. Make-up, feminine dress, complicated accessories are to be avoided. To be a woman is to be submissive and objectified, valued only her utility to men. That's the standard, but it is constantly being challenged and overturned over time, and maybe that's an evolved behavior too. Nature throws us a few "bugs" to keep the system from being less able to adapt.

Probably, the relationship between biology and social gender roles are about 50-50, just like nature vs. nurture. We can't reconcile social gender entirely by biology. How could we accuse someone who is one sex from taking on behavior and attributes of the other gender, unless we had the concept of something being "wrong". If gender were 100% biological, we wouldn't recognize any socially constructed rules. If gender were 100% social, we wouldn't recognize biological gender. We insist that the two must be correlated because we assume they are correlated. As society changes over time, we easily adapt to the new alignment. One of my favorite examples of this in history is that of high heel shoes in European culture. It was originally adapted from Persian archers, where the heels were used to help hold the feet in stirrups. It was then adopted by French nobility and was seen as exclusively masculine for a while. Women wearing high heel shoes were seen as straying outside social norms. Then they fell out of style and got adopted for different reasons.

The definition of "gender" means the state of being male or female according to social or cultural assumptions. So gender is not defined by traditional gender roles, but whatever is the current set of cultural taboos. Someone might claim that cooking is feminine, but has to make traditional allowances for men who cook as an occupation, as a hobby, cooks for themselves or cooks out of necessity. There is no taboo in that case, so there is no gender to that behavior. Maybe a stronger taboo exists based on appearance. Some clothes, make-up and hair styles are considered strictly feminine and generally rejected for male styles, but the lines there are not strictly defined and not universal. I think it is important that we understand that gender is a social construct to see how poorly defined and flexible those assignments really are.

I used to study military strategy in my youth, (despite being a pacifist, I thought it was useful for life in general).

The core strategy is nothing new. It is just guerrilla warfare in an age of global communication. Maybe the bigger problem for those at the state and military level is recognizing it, and remembering why it was so successful before. Look at the Huns, or the American revolution, the Spanish against Napolean or even the Vietnamese against the Americans. The people getting attacked usually considered the enemy "terrorists", brainwashed by some fanatical ideas. Now imagine if any of those had the ability to broadcast their message around the world and get all the major news networks to show it on constant repeat for days without interruption. You would focus your efforts on acts that got the most attention, rather than those with any real military gains.

If they can't get military goals, what does "terrorism", that is, instilling terror gain them? They know they can never instill enough fear that they will convince the people they are attacking to change their minds and accept them. It will only harden their resistance and encourage more attacks. I think the plan is more simplistic and consistent. What they care about is recruitment. When they called themselves "Islamic State", it was meant to attract those Muslims who dreamed of returning to the days of the original Caliphate. But that move was probably their biggest failure. Almost nobody bought it, and saw them for the extremists they were. In the Middle East, you might hear them referred to as "Daesh". Some Western politicians claim it removes power by refusing to use the word "Islamic" and "State", but actually that is a myth -- it is the proper Arabic abbreviation for "Islamic State". But in Arabic, the word "Daesh" sounds like a common word, "to crush", and it has a very negative connotation. They apparently hate that name, and it now is used to refer to "an oppressive bigot".

To me, the plan is pretty simple:

• Do something really destructive and newsworthy.
• Wait for the "enemy" to strike out randomly and oppress members of the group.
• Wait for the newly oppressed recruits to join in with support.
• Wait for the really crazy recruits to do something even more destructive and claim credit for it.

Even with what has been done so far, they are actually losing this game. Their numbers are diminishing quickly. They really rely on strong-armed responses and drawing the "enemy" into their own areas. If you cut out that second part, I think they would probably dry up and disappear quickly. That's when they get their most desperate. With the current information model, they thrive the more people talk about a literal "war on Islam", or how much they are going to oppress Muslims.

They, and some of their previous strategists, made no secret of their intentions. I still remember back in 2004, when Osama bin Laden still made videos, plainly said that his goal was to draw the US and its allies into a war which would ultimately bankrupt those countries. It is basically an international "rope-a-dope".

After one such attack, my father, who is a libertarian Trump supporter, sent me some email about not to get "radicalized" as a Muslim. I had to stop and think about what a "radical" was. I asked my fiance, who has been a Muslim her whole life and she thought it meant "someone who kills innocent people". But I have heard about "radical feminists" and the "radicals" of the 1960's, who don't seem interested in killing anyone. It seems that the more mainstream definition is just someone who wants to change society. In that sense, I would say I'm a "radical Muslim", because I want to change society to make it more peaceful, egalitarian and liberal. I've found support for the idea that Martin Luther King Jr. is a "radical", and so is Gandhi. Maybe even religious figures like Jesus and Buddha were "radicals" since they weren't arguing for things to stay the way they are. They were just radicals who opposed direct use of violence.

Watching "Selma" last night, (recommended for anyone confused about "Black Lives Matter"), there is one point where President Johnson is portrayed as only supporting Martin Luther King Jr, because it was better to support a non-violent protester than violent militants. The contrast with today's politics and media is stark. With hundreds of protests around the country, the national media makes no mention of them, only some local coverage, but a "terrorist attack" is the one that gets the attention. Now I'm thinking about a philosophy having to do with voices and being heard. It is an evolutionary process. If the only way someone can be heard is through violence, violence is encouraged. If you deal with violence quietly and spend all your time broadcasting the voice of those who are peaceful, you get more peaceful speakers.

I think there should be some middle ground between blame and responsibility, though. I think everything is balanced and somewhat circular. I was watching a video about the evolution of a peacock's tail. Most of the time I hear it explained, it sounds like the peacock decided to grow his tail larger than the others to get the most females. But one video described it differently and mentions something that should be obvious, (and not so sexist), the peacock has no control over tail feather size. It is really the peahens that had the choice and controlled the size through instinctive selective breeding. That opened up to me the idea that a lot of what we think are direct actions in response to something are false, and we need to balance it with what choices were made in the environment. When I hear the news, they are often desperately trying to find a reason for some violent action. It usually ends up being some easy explanation for the action. But I think that is a dangerous path. Why can't we say these people are just crazy, which means they didn't have any reasonable explanation for what they did. Instead of blaming one group or another, just start recruiting their target audience against them. The most powerful weapon you can use against a so-called "Islamic State" are the members of the group they are trying to exploit. Then we (Americans and Muslims) become the smart ones -- surrounding and outnumbering them. As long as we draw up sides and divide or mistrust people, we end up voluntarily handing over our power anyway.

Is Trump really a Republican? If so, the party doesn't seem to be supporting him as one, (and most supporters keep saying he is an "outsider"). If not, then the Republican party might actually be sitting this election out and we are looking at essentially a no-contest election, (which is usually considered a sign of dictatorship in other countries). That means the Right is dead, and the "Left" has simply taken up the "center".

I agree that the media is making a big mistake by considering all of Trump's followers as racists, or as CNN keeps claiming that they "angry". But it even though the article points out that the number of followers are too complex to stereotype, The best you can pin down is that there are a lot of different dreams that people think Trump is going to bring about. I've heard from Evangelicals who think he is going to bring about a Christian theocracy where the Constitution is overthrown in favor of the 10 Commandments, (even Pat Robertson has declared him an true born-again Christian). Those people in the article think he will get rid of immigrants, but his policy is impossible to pin down or seems to be possible to implement without declaring martial law and suspending civil rights. I don't think people are sad or angry, but frustrated by a lot of confused emotions -- and probably a lot of "projection" of those feelings onto some objectification of that confusion.

I think it is amusing when you compare the almost concurrent call for "ban on Muslims" ... even though a small minority might be a threat, "just until we understand the problem better" -- with the call for a ban on the sale of AR-15 rifles, to people on terrorist watch list, because a small minority might be innocent. Somehow Muslims are more dangerous than people on terrorist watch list. I had reservations about the terrorist watch list and smaller "no-fly-list". When it was implemented under Bush, many people said it was unconstitutional, and there were lots of errors. The name matching algorithm flagged names like "David Anderson". (I knew some of the people who worked on that algorithm -- it was not designed for flagging guilty people, but by matching names that might have been misfiled). I realized the "liberal" side of the push is actually being quite accommodating by allowing the use of those tools of the Bush era for partial gun control -- and only then do the "conservative" fear the list might be a mistake.

I've been thinking of some possible super-compromises. As a Muslim, I wouldn't have any problem with a ban on all gun sales to Muslims. I think it would be interesting to see the conflicting emotions between doing anything to single out Muslims, and their desire to maximize gun sales.

Actually, I'm surprised nobody has suggested that we take the list of people who voted against those gun control bills and put them on the terrorist watch list. If they are so bent on enabling terrorist to buy automatic weapons, maybe they are one of those secret terrorists who have infiltrated all levels of the government I hear so much about. Like the right wing talking heads say, just put them under investigation until we understand what is going on better.

Don't forget, this is Florida you are talking about. I spent some of my teenage years there, and my best friend at the time was closeted gay, (disowned by his family for a long time after he came out in college). There is a huge contrast even between neighborhoods. My friend's family were the types who prayed in King James Bible English, (just like Jesus did!), but got really drunk every weekend playing poker where all the family feuds were rekindled and christened with flying home appliances. The cities were pretty progressive. I remember driving past Coconut Grove outside Miami a few times, which was popular with everyone for the amount of vice available around there. You drive 10 miles out of town and you are surrounded by the Anita Bryant types. So I don't think it is "fitful", as much as there are stark contrasts between those struggling or refusing to adapt. I haven't been back in decades, but I've heard that many down there have embraced that whole "your lifestyle infringes on my religious beliefs" excuse. From my experience, it is more testosterone than dogma, and I suspect the bad motivations are more just attempts to "fit in".

I just got back from an interview in the Mid-West. Got an offer for 6-digit income, bonuses and stock options in a really hot startup. When I got home though, I saw the news outlets doing their re-enactment of the Monty Python sketch, "I'm not dead yet", with Bernie Sanders.



Now, I've pretty much decided not to accept the new job. If it is Hillary vs. Donald, then it looks like it is the end of America as we knew it. War is probably inevitable, along with bankruptcy. There is now a very real chance I'll need to abandon the country, again, after I save up enough to survive -- but there will probably be no escape even then as the rest of the developed world starts breaking up along with all those trade partnerships and the corporate rats flee the sinking ship. But I don't think it is the candidate's direct fault, it is a reflection of the deep fractures of a society based on cognitive dissonance.

Serial Killers, and rapists of the like I mentioned above aren't most people. Most people would also regret killing someone and the like. Serial killers don't. What makes you think they'll act like most people? Scientifically you CANNOT draw this conclusion, there's not enough evidence, nor theory to support such a hypothesis. — Agustino

Those people getting tortured weren't necessarily normal. People who torture innocent people usually don't publish studies, so the studies are from intelligence and military situations. Serial killers have been studied extensively. But even ignoring that, you ought to be able reason out that serial killers must have some level of intelligence and are well practiced at deception. They have to be able play sane well enough not to be put into an institution before they kill, and they have to be smart enough to avoid capture to get the title of "serial". But even ignoring that -- if there is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion, then what justification is there to claim that torture is effective at reforming them over other methods?

Actually, torturing crazy people sounds a lot like the unfortunate abuse of ECT or "shock therapy" in the 1930's. When it was first introduced, it ended up getting abused by many people as a form of punishment, (think "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest").. Although it apparently has some valid uses as voluntary therapy, when forced on patients found the same thing -- patients simply learned to hide their compulsions, fears and delusions rather than overcome them. (Now think "A Clockwork Orange" -- the ending of the movie is ambiguous, what was he "cured" from?).

Studies have shown that most people, when tortured, just say whatever they think you want to hear. So I'm guessing those people facing torture would say they repent and feel sorry even before you laid a finger on them. Then you let them go and there would be an even greater chance that they would do it again -- especially since they can get off with another "heartfelt repentance" -- and make sure it is a worse crime unless it is too minor and he ends up getting stuck in prison for a long time. It didn't work for the Inquisition, (and you will end up looking just as evil), why do you think it will work now?

Well, I picked Louis C.K. because of the general point he was making, not technical accuracy. My first guess is that if Louis C.K. showed up in 2nd century Rome, he would be assumed to be a rogue barbarian, due to the red hair, fair skin and Germanic accent. They might have been confused by the short hair, (a sign of Roman wealth to be able to hire barbers). If you really want to be technical, just how far back in American history could a Mexican-Hungarian-Irish-Jew go without any discrimination? But maybe it illustrates a common bias of privileged classes to assume things have always been that way.

The trouble with “white privilege” is the same as “blackness” — it is a condition which one can do nothing to obtain, and can do nothing to get rid of. I can not confer privilege on a black man, nor can he confer upon me the benefits of his heritage. — Bitter Crank

How much has changed since we were kids? I remember my family going on a trip in West Germany, passing a sign showing the road to Berlin, and thinking that was a place I could never go. When I lived in the American Southwest, I saw the border with Mexico -- it looked like just a fence in the vast desert. But looking at the history, culture and place names, it was clear that where I was sitting was once on the other side of that fence. But as an American, I grew up feeling like borders and nations were static, (just like that privileged class). But if you think about it, a lot of social issues have changed, some gradually, some pretty quickly. The Berlin wall fell, then all those Soviet satellites declared independence, "black" president, Arab spring and gay marriage. A lot of changes can happen with the stroke of a few pens. Back in the days of the American "Founding Fathers", German's weren't "white". Around a century ago, Italians and Irish weren't privileged. To me, it looks like the border is always moving and we just need to work on pushing it in the right direction.

A quote I heard today: "It always seems impossible until it's done." -- Nelson Mandela

Racism won’t go away if we all just stop thinking about it, obviously, and it isn’t going to go away as a result of endless harping on it, either. What will help is more voluntary, friendly and casual interaction among whites and blacks, coupled with openness to mutual acceptance. I don’t know how to engineer that happy process. We’ve tried lots of different schemes and some work some of the time with some of the people. Some have backfired. — Bitter Crank

I was watching this video yesterday. Apparently access to social media by social scientists are starting to reveal how large group dynamics work, (and it turned out it wasn't the same as the way individuals interact extended to the group). Imagine if Marx or Adam Smith had access to that data.

I think it isn't as important to find a perfect solution, (that's the "nirvana fallacy"), but probably more like an addiction, (or maybe just a bad habit), first admit that there is a problem, and we are all part of it, then keep looking for ways to change it. If the problem is simply one of borders, we don't need to remove the borders, but minimize the assumption that they are profound and permanent.

Wondering if you "suffer" from "white privilege"? Know the signs! (Just a random, not well thought out list):

• Police don't bother you or even look at you suspiciously. You can trust them to protect you.
• Security doesn't follow you around in stores.
• Teachers and other authorities at school usually assumed you had a bright future ahead of you.
• People in your neighborhood implicitly trust you at first sight.
• All you remember about history at school was told primarily from the perspective of your ancestors.
• Most children's books and ads show people that look and sound like you.
• When the news shows a pictures of criminals, people that look like you are shown smiling and well dressed: (see below)
• You do a Google image search on positive terms like "beauty", "wealth" or "handsome" and see mostly people who look like you.
• No matter how many people who look like you do bad things, it isn't a problem with your people.
• You can't recall being treated badly by strangers because of how you look.
• Nobody is surprised if you are intelligent, articulate or have a good job.
• You are never called on as a representative of your people to comment on an issue.
• You don't notice any such thing as "white privilege" and society doesn't have such a bias.
• You have never felt pressure to hide or alter any physical attributes to fit in.
• You don't feel you need to change the way you speak to fit in.
• You can raise your voice in mixed company and expect to be listened to.
• You have never talked to kids about race.
• If you get arrested, you can be pretty certain of a fair trial.
• If a complete stranger is rude or hostile to you, you wonder what you did.
• If someone tells you that "white privilege" is a real problem, you think they are being racist toward whites.

I don't think it is just a western thing, I've seen a lot of the same behavior all over the world.
Also, I realize it isn't a problem that is easy to fix. But I think it is important to at least acknowledge it and attempt to work on it, rather than just dismiss it.