My minor way of contributing to this rebellion is to cross out the label 'Gender' whenever it appears on a form I am asked to fill in, and write next to it 'Sex'. Yeah, call me a dangerous radical, but somebody's got to do it. — andrewk

hahaha. That's pretty great. Thank you for inspiring me. : D

In response to the opening poster. Gender is social constructed and therefore maliable. Biological sex is not. Once you know that then you'll truly realize how often people confused transsexual and transgender.
: /

Good points. Don't really have any contentions with what you said. But I would like to add that, the issue is that the prejudice against them is probably a good percent of the issues they have psychologically. If the counter movement weren't so malicious it would be much easier to get to core of everything. Like I said in a previous post, I think that making the issue about gender doesn't really change anything (like you said as well), and that I don't care for the idea of gender. Sexual dimorphism is different but the idea of gender and the expectations that come with identifying as a particular one is complete nonsense to me.

I have changed my opinion about transgenderism. I used to think it was real. In the last couple of years I started to doubt that it was real and began thinking it was probably delusional. I didn't decide that I wanted to change my opinion. What I decided was not to trust the testimony of transgendered people about their experiences. — Bitter Crank

It is definitely "real" in the sense that there are people that think they are not expressing their personalities through the gender they are currently. There is also enough evidence to suggest they are "born with it". I still don't know why it matters if they want to be a man if they were women. Gender is a social construct anyways. Sex is a different story all together.

Strange that it isn't consisered anorexia phobic when we tell an anorexic that they aren't fat. — Harry Hindu

How does a man even know what it is like to feel like a woman to say that they are actually a woman in a man's body, and vice versa? — Harry Hindu

I was always wondering how to approach this topic without being accused of being trans-phobic. I feel bad that people (including yourself) have to deal with these issues because it undermines any possible conversation to be had and squashes curiosity for fear of being labeled in a negative light. : ( I have a friend that admitted to me that they "have felt like a women" for most of their life. I wanted to ask: How do you know what that "feels like". How could I question someone's "feelings"? Is there a point in doing that? Most people I have known, "just know", whatever that means. The question of why always stops somewhere it seems. "I like this feature in a person, I like that type of candy, I love this color the best!"
"Why? Why? Why?" , I would ask. "I just do!", they respond. -______-/

It's about how you were raised most likely, as that can have serious consequences on your inner/subconscious or conscious desires to identify with a particular group. — Harry Hindu

I like this point. I can firmly say that I could care less what 'gender' I identify with, and that probably has to do with how I was raised. I was born as the male sex. Wouldn't change and don't care. I don't care if others do what they want either. I was never forced to be one gender or another, my parenting was a mixed bag as to not have "normal male/female" role models and they never said no when I exhibited behaviors that were male or female. I started to see these roles in school and never really cared for them. I feel that many people put way too much importance in these constructed "realities". "Realities" that are formed from the interplay between wanting to be respected for your feelings/actions and the lack of understanding from most of those around you. Thus, many are forced into picking a side in order to avoid alienation. In the case of trans individuals we are stuck stuck with either trying to get the world around them to understand them and see them as normal, or "helping them change their feelings" to better match the dichotomy we want them to see. Most trans individuals (at least implicitly) agree with the "idea of gender" and want to fit in to one of those groups, they just have ended up in a different body because of psychology reasons (formed by the environment, hormones, genetics, et cetera). When they are even judged for wanting to try and fit in to those genders, feelings of alienation develop. Alienation in humans usually leads to depression and suicidal tendencies, something the trans community has the most of any of the LGBTQ+ members.

The side of me that asks the question above is the side of me that is skeptical about the idea of gender as it is. Just like I want the society to accept trans people I also want trans people to care less about what they are with respect to the black and white way the society wants to seem them as . I don't care. I can act and do what I want. I can ask a guy for a "feminine" hug, I can play "manly" sports and enjoy brotherhood. Why are and why should these things be tied to identities? In my opinion, the answer lies in the fact that it is very very beneficial for us to have clear cut groups that simplify the world for us. Along those same lines, it is also easier to rationalize your feelings through changing yourself to fit in those groups (surgery or gender change), then to just not care about those groups in the first place.

It depends on whether one is a layperson or an expert in the field. As a layperson, would you drive across a bridge that 97% of structural engineers told you would collapse if you did? Most people wouldn't, but these same people often reject 97% of climate scientists. If you believe in science, and are not an expert in the field, then you have to go along with the scientific orthodox view. As a lay person you just lack the knowledge to justify a contrary opinion. — LD Saunders

I wise I could make this statement into a billboard. lol People are always so ready to discredit experts just because it fits their narrative. On all sides. They forget the blessing specialization has been to humanities progression. Experts will make mistakes, experts are human too, skepticism is fine, but most people just go too far, without enough ability to form their own peer reviewable claims. There is just too much out there to be an expert in everything.

Isn't "doubting the time" one of the main arguments from creationists? ;) Evolution doesn't have to take all that long. For the claimed effects on intelligence variance, you only need timespans similar to those for lactose tolerance and that kind of thing to develop (i.e. tens of thousands of years-ish). — gurugeorge

I see what you did there. :wink:

This would depend on whether there's such things as replicators in culture. I do like the idea of memes and memetic evolution as a cute idea in and of itself, but I'm not sure how much weight to put on it. At any rate, the convoluted avoidance so prevalent these days, of the slightest hint that genes might have an influence above the neckline strikes me as the modern-day equivalent of "epicycles." — gurugeorge

Yeah. Really interesting stuff to put it like lightly. And for the second part.... Fear can be a really powerful thing. Any evidence in that field could slightly shake the platform the left has. The right responds in the same way too. It's just a part of science unfortunately.

A few decades ago, I would have agreed that there's roughly equal blame on both sides, but these days the Left is much more to blame than the Right. (This shouldn't be such a surprise; the Left has had its time on the naughty step in the past.) Currently, the Left is chasing intersectional identity politics into the abyss, it's gone completely insane, and it's pulling the rest of society with it. It really has to stop. — gurugeorge

As I mentioned above, any research that attacks the notion of "equality between races" is going to be attacked by the left more and elicit a response. Yes, they are. : / I'm sure it will eventually simmer down... I think. : l

And yet you are hitting all the usual propaganda bullet-points. Historical claims and grievances are always brought up to justify wars and invasions. Crimea was not Russian land before it was absorbed by the Russian Empire (with help from Ukrainian Cossacks), and it was not majority Russian until Stalin's ethnic cleansings. We could go back and forth like this endlessly - but what's the point? None of this justifies Russian aggression in this particular instance. Taking advantage of the turmoil in a neighboring country to stealthily invade part of its territory with troops, special forces and civilian thugs, overthrow the local government, close down or take over non-compliant media, intimidate or kidnap dissidents, hastily stage a "referendum" with fabricated results - I say that is wrong, whatever else may have been the case historically or contemporaneously. — SophistiCat

Referendum 1991, 1994, 2014. Those hastily staged ones? You mean the other referendums that were tried for but were denied outright by the Ukrainian government? Do you have evidence for this fabrication? Or does that not fit your narrative? Russia has been the majority population for nearly 100 years. They were there since the late 18th century. But more importantly they now constitute a massive majority in that region.

What's the point? You're throwing propaganda at Russia for things it may or may not be a part of without acknowledging the greater narrative. Of course Russia should be punished for their wrongdoings, of course they have plenty of things they are guilty of. But this is not one of them. "invade", "thugs", "overthrow", "fabricate". All very strong words. I read what happened, see a majority population pass a referendum, that they have consistently tried to over the last 30 years or so and see that it finally passed after Russia stopped the government from outright stopping it. I disagree with you about that one point and you call me a propagandist. Even though I could care less about either sides, as they are both doing immoral things to "win the game". But for some reason you don't see it as that? You can't even concede on that point when it is pretty obvious what happened there. Just because Russia is sneaky doesn't mean they don't occasionally do the right thing for their citizens. I would understand if Russians were not the majority in Crimea, I would. But they have been majority Russian for a century now (after Stalin pushed out the Crimean Tatar). America did that as a minority and no one did a thing. Russia does that in a region that has consistently changed hands and that they are a majority population and everyone throws their hands up just because it's Russia. That's just being hypocritical.

You aren't going to progress the conversation at all by assuming everyone that disagrees with one point is a sympathizer of Russia.

It's such a demonstrably bad idea it's amazing millions think it was a good idea. The fact millions cannot even grasp the most basic economics tells us that direct democracy is doomed to failure. However, representative democracy is also doomed to failure when such a large percentage of the population adopts BS from politicians. Democracy only works when two things occur: 1. The population is educated, and 2. people are concerned about public well-being and not just their own personal well-being. In the western "democracies," we see our democracies imploding in a mob of ignorant selfish people. — LD Saunders

Robert Michels said that all democracies, no matter how complicated, eventually become oligarchies because they eventually control the means of information in that society. This is true now, as I believe we are very very close to an oligarchy if we aren't already. But of course the population doesn't seem to care. haha It's red vs blue guys! RED VS BLUE! PAY ATTENTION! I love humanity.

As an aside: How do you educate a populace enough without a democracy in the first place? It seems self defeating. I need educated people to run a democracy properly, but I also know that education won't happen without that democracy.

Yes. Unfortunately he does. He just really wants Russia back to prominence and sees NATO as the biggest threat to that.

Maybe because they are sick of America trying to rule over them, trying to enforce their systems and culture and military onto them. If I were living in Eastern Europe and I saw American troops there, of course I would react. It's an occupation disguised as a liberation. — René Descartes

True enough. I have been watching a lot of television over there recently and the one thing I noticed is the oversaturation of American culture (American movies and TV shows translated and shown) in not only Eastern Europe, but also Europe in general. : / Stacked on top of that is the fact that most of Europe's top music lists are stocked full with American songs. South Korea has more cultural relevance than the majority of the countries in the Europe(worldwide)! The only countries that I can point to having any type of distinct culture on the world stage (and internally) is Sweden, Norway, Germany and France. The rest is being inundated with English culture and this is partially because America has a strong military everywhere. Basically America is dominating the culture war.

Right, because it is Russia's birthright to dominate and subjugate and occasionally dismember its smaller neighbors, which the West should respect (or else!) It needs that security blanket of dependent states to insulate it from the West. Never mind that no one forced the former Communist nations to join NATO; they were clamoring to join as soon as Russia loosened its grip - and boy are they now glad they did! Montenegro couldn't get in fast enough. But who cares about them? Only nuclear superpowers are entitled to carve up the world as they see fit, right? — SophistiCat

You do understand that was Russian land right before Ukraine absorbed it, right? You are attributing me a propaganda group of the Russian side, when I made it clear that I was not for either side. They are both playing the game. I am not sympathizing with Russia I am explaining how NATO approaching them is bad for their goals. If I was a sympathizer I wouldn't have called him an issue either. The majority population has been RUSSIAN people and more than 80% of the people identify SPEAK RUSSIAN, not Ukrainian. They voted, after repeated attempts, and are part of Russia now. I tried to explain their aggression to the same end that I feel America's alliances with former Warsaw Pact members is a threat to them. America would reply and has replied in kind when it has seen it's soft power threatened. (See Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, et cetera)

To say that the West is truly hostile towards Russia is nonsense. The West is surely is truly arrogant and ignorant when it comes to Russia, but it's not out to get Russia. Not a lot of people with similar ideas as Napoleon or Hitler in the West today. — ssu

From a Russian perspective they see America as an adversary. (as they should) The Warsaw pact fell apart and NATO has reached all the way around Russia. They can no longer pass the Mediterranean easily with their boats (Turkey is NATO and so is every country that was historically always a part of the Eastern Bloc) and America has anti-nuclear defenses in Poland. They have seen their influence pushed back and they are responding with a leader that knows exactly what he is doing.

Let's just remember that those economic sanctions were put into place because Russia attacked it's neighbour, annexed part of it and still is supporting an ongoing low-intensity conflict. — ssu

Crimea is 70% Russian and Ukrainians are barely the second most populace minority, (Crimean Tatars are at about 11% of the population). In fact they've never been the majority (dating back to the late 1800's. They passed a referendum to be annexed into Russia with overwhelming support. This referendum was attempted by the Crimean parliament several times before but was blocked by the Ukrainian government. Several polls earlier than 2014 were done, all with support of integration into Russia.

With that said, I still believe they are an issue. Putin is way too aggressive as a leader. He is trying to return Russia to prominence and will do anything to get to the ends. Especially after Russia just escaped deep financial struggles, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. I definitely believe it is salvageable but that begins with both sides being honest about their power plays. Not by ignoring each others complaints.

Well for example you'll get a different average attitude to deferred gratification, planning ahead, etc., where you have an environment that rewards it. That's one hypothesis why you might relatively more intelligent races (Asians, Whites) across the northern "band" of regions, which alternated between temperate and cold to temperate over hundreds of thousands of years. — gurugeorge

I moreso doubted the time it would be necessary to create differences and that there were some form of mixing even in relatively isolated regions. But everything else you mentioned is on point. I remember seeing a study and graph that compared GDP to Distance from the Equator. It's very interesting. Basically that the lower temperatures in the colder regions necessitated invention compared to the more temperate regions. I think cultural values may be disconnected from the genes. They could have evolved separate from the genetic side. Some cultures just value education more and some languages involve more rote memorization, which could affect the way that same culture forms it's educational systems. Basically I don't think they influence each other directly, it's more of a combination of factors at each stage ( as you mentioned).

You're actually more likely to get eugenics from the Left (which is historically where you mainly got it from in the past) because they're much more concerned with remaking man into a more ideologically satisfactory being. — gurugeorge

Yes, but only slightly. Both sides have a flair for authoritarianism at the edges. And both sides would have their reasons to fight any form of "playing God".

The last part of your response is interesting. I think that is where the concern is. Many feel like any possible research in the field of genetics along these lines could lead to minority groups being classified and possibly "demoted" as humans. This confusion is probably because no one can listen apparently and it's not like there are any real discussions. All sides just assume the worst. : /

If you've seen Murray and Harris talk you'll see that there is a difference between bringing up the findings he found and being racist. I think the original poster does overexaggerate the findings and I don't agree when it comes to that, but there is a possibility that genetics has a role (albeit a tiny one, imo). I see no reason to take Murray's 40-80% correlation of heritability seriously, but I do see the research as important nonetheless.

As someone that went to a prominently black high school (~95%), I can tell you that there are no differences between the friends I had in my AP courses and my future university (more white) friends. The biggest commonality between them all was valuing education, which is a cultural thing, something I doubt has anything to do with genetics. Similarly, the friends I had in the AP courses did well on the SAT/ACT (we all scored well well above average) while the school in general struggled (not surprising as the school was in a lower income area), again pointing to cultural and socio-economic issues, not genetic.

Thank you for your comment though. : )

Feel for the switch? I didn't say it ruled out the effects of nurture, in fact, I think it is still the most important part of determining intelligence. I just wouldn't be surprised to find some genetic influences. It still doesn't matter imo. It's just a useless way to divide humans.

Edit : reading more, scientists that discovered this last May say the effect of those 52 is minuscule and intelligence is ultimately genetically influenced by thousands of genes. — Benkei

Yeah. I would agree but that still means there maybe a genetic influence, even if it's minute.

Thank you for the link to the study. I thought it was just an article about the studies to be done, not that actual studies have been done already. Next time just link the study directly. : ) I think I missed it while reading the first link. XD This is all fairly new research and it's nice seeing work actually moving forward in this area.

Miniscule differences are what get weeded out by evolution. A fraction of a second's poor physics calculation avoiding a predator can mean the difference between life and death. A tiny error in abstract thinking can make the difference between winning a Nobel prize and cleaning the halls like a schlub. Repeat that across a relatively isolated populations coping with particular types of environment in given geographical regions, and you get average spreads of traits across races, which then get amplified in the cultures those races create. — gurugeorge

I wouldn't go as far as the second example but I would agree about the way populations would evolve over time. I just don't see where the particular selection and isolation comes from. Not many populations have been so separated as to create the conditions for population evolution (not individual evolution). I stand corrected with the idea of genes not being located. I wasn't really in the right mindset while writing my response. Sorry for that. I agree that there are probably genes that influence it but I don't think they are drastic enough to matter in the future. Globalization will do that. I don't see how it will stay relevant to be honest. Even if we find that half of your intelligence is linked to genetics or more. I also probably wouldn't support a future that focused that much on the genetic differences. Mainly because of the implications of eugenics and also partially for discrimination. I don't know, we'll see.

Again, sorry for the errors and thanks for the studies. I'll have to look them over tonight when I have more time. : )

I mean to say that it doesn't matter in the end. That these slightly difference between individuals is not significant enough to attribute to one race or another. In an ever connected world it serves no purpose but to divide us. The differences are not significant enough or important enough to discuss. I can take an Asian and put him in the ghetto, they will probably score less on average on the IQ. I can adopt a white person from that same ghetto and increase his "racial IQ" by putting him in an affluent environment. That is the only evidence we really have at this point and everything else is just speculation and hard to separate from those factors. There probably is a minute difference but I don't think it matters. Jamaicans have more muscle twitch fibers than the average person. This helps them in athletics. But even with that help they only finish slightly faster than other populations of runners. That's how small of the difference there might be. All of it changeable by environment.

What on earth are you talking about? — gurugeorge

I'm talking about that fact that there are no differences between the races. When I studied neuroscience I didn't have a section labeled "black brains", "white" brains, "asian" brains. Any minuscule differences do not matter as only populations evolve. Individuals do not. So if it was the case there would be something to see. There isn't.

There are no genes identified at this point that contribute to intelligence. I've already given you links as to why genetic hertibility does not prove anything. The fact that you are still waiting for evidence of a genetic basis for intelligence should say enough. I'm linking peer reviewed studies to back up my claims. Where is your evidence? I am completely open to changing my mind given enough evidence. I do concede that there is most likely a genetic implication to intelligence but it is nowhere near enough to explain the IQ differences.

The world isn't "globalized" in any meaningful sense genetically - there's a bit of miscegenation at the fringes due to globalization obviously, but there always was mixing at the edges to some extent (cross-border. cross-race trade and mixing isn't something new), and indeed that's what keeps the larger racial/ethnic gene pools healthy. — gurugeorge

It isn't? Could have fooled me! How do you explain the identical brains then? Speciation does not occur if boundaries are not significant. Did they trade or not? Did they have boundaries or not? Globalization just makes it even more impossible to maintain purity. Not to mention that the same humans that left Africa are the ones that made it Europe, Asia, and the Americas. We have genetic evidence that backs this up and nowhere enough time to see intelligence differentiate.

Take care. : )

The consensus seems to be that variance has varying degrees of genetic vs. environmental causes - for example with political preferences, the variance is around 40-50% heritable, with intelligence something like 60-70% heritable. The usual source for these kinds of claims are twin studies and other types of behavioural genetics studies. Obviously environmental factors like nutrition and parental encouragement are extremely important, that's factored in to these kinds of studies. — gurugeorge

How does that make any sense? How would a brain that is anatomically no different and still classified as modern human be any less or more intelligent genetically? Hunt, Earl (2010). Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press, and Mackintosh, N. J. (2011). IQ and Human Intelligence (second ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press both agreed that there are no genes identified with general intelligence, mainly socio-economic aspects. Also a heitability of 1 would not mean that it is 100% heritable as this picture illustrates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#/media/File:Heritability_plants.jpeg

I'm mainly against it because it makes no sense over that short of a time. Humans are physically different but they have maintained similar brain structures. That should tell you all you need to know about the heritability vs environment argument. This doesn't mean that IQ is 100% environmental, which means we may find genes but the differences don't see to be that significant. (as many peer reviewed studies are have articulated)

Races come from longish periods of relative isolation (usually by geography) - they were mostly formed in a span anywhere from tens of thousands of years to a few hundred thousands of years. — gurugeorge

Yes. I am aware. First of all, the timetables don't seem to be large enough to explain the IQ differences for genotypic variation. Second, those barriers have been broken and are obsolete at this point. People are mating from all walks of life and races, so any genetic "differences" (if they exist) will be irrelevant in this globalized world.

But all that goes out the window if it's simply a fact that (to take the racial angle) Jews are on average smarter than Asians, who are on average smarter than Whites, who are on average smarter than Browns, who are on average smarter than Blacks, and if these groups on average have strongly-genetically-influenced inclinations to different kinds of social interaction, different reproductive strategies, different political preferences, different preferences for how they spend their time, different capacities for deferred gratification, different proclivities in relation to violence, etc., etc. — gurugeorge

So, I'm not going to directly deny any of this because I think it is technically true. BUT, and this is a big caveat in the reading of any of this research, how can you say a difference in IQ isn't entirely an environment creation. Humans have not had the time nor show any anatomical differences in their brain to back up any of these supposed changes genetically. As far as I can tell the 5 human races show slight differences in outward appearance but would not have had the time to undergo speciation. My point is, Homo sapiens sapiens, is the classification humans have as a species. How are any of those differences relevant in a interconnected and constantly mixing world? It would be like observing North Koreans are on average shorter than South Koreans. Then concluding that there is something genetic that makes it so without looking at the evidence of the environment ( in this case malnutrition as children ).

Note: I did not actually find "The Bell Curve" to be racist. It is an observation, but that doesn't mean anything without context. The same way the height of Koreans only makes sense in context. Whites in Rural Areas have a lower IQ than Whites in Suburban Areas (taking into account the Flynn Effect). Why do you think that is? Would you say Rural Whites are less intelligent than Suburban Whites? Or is that environment? If yes, why isn't that also the case for all the other races?

This is all based on the idea that we even have a democracy in the first place. We used to have a representative democracy and now we have representative oligarchy. Any system based on representation will most likely lead to an oligarchy. That is the danger. The slow corruption and striping of values to the point where people become indifferent or accustomed to their lack of rights, mainly through the degradation of the standard of living, education and the concentration of capital. The size of the federal government and the control it holds over our lives makes democratic institutions a formality at a certain point. Until of course those checks and balances become overwhelmed by the need to “represent the oligarchs”. The fact that we have a 2 party system is testimony to the fears the founding fathers had about pure democracy, the fact that we don’t have a % based electoral distribution is also another reason to be skeptical about this supposed “democracy”. My worries stem from the fact that we are in the second form government you are talking about, the slow but steady manipulation of consent through acceptance, and that we are about to lose the only source of power we might have. The fact that humans are starting to forget where we came from is exactly their power. Humans have always held arms, not because they don’t want to talk and hold diplomacy but because it helps assure equal talking grounds. There is no better way to stop people from cheating you then to have a gun pointing at their back. If the population doesn’t have their guns they don’t really have much guarantee of anything and are at the whims of a corruptible checks and balances system and a corruptible leadership. The brutality and desperation of human need for power does not disappear just because we want it to or because “we agreed to it” implicitly via a social contract. It would be nice if that were the case, but like I said earlier, all of hopes of diplomacy and “talking it out” are held together by the fear of mutual understanding of violence by both sides, if anyone side tries to pull something. Unfortunately, the government has gotten way too big and powerful on the military front to beat at this point, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have some ability to force their hand in the end. Diplomacy will always be first and should be the way we try and fix our issues, but I see it as an insurance policy (albeit a weak one). I agree that they do get more credit than they deserve but they still put together one of the best documents in human history. Based on humans had acted throughout history it’s really remarkable that anyone would go so far to try and form a secular state. I’m sorry if it went on and I repeated myself. I’m feeling a bit tired. Take care.

Yeah. It's strange. People just have those built in biases or contradictions. What can you do? : / (shrugs)

Good question. I was mainly hoping to avoid that type of world but if it were like that I would feel it would be best to have those guns against that government. I guess, “give me liberty, or give me death” type of thing. It would be better to have guns and be that world then to not in my honest opinion.

Yeah. That is probably the biggest point against it. Again, I feel like it would be better than nothing and the government might as well be shooting themselves in the foot. They will be hard pressed to try and maintain any form of civility while also claiming a higher ground. They would be actively killing members of their own state. The very people they need for the society to function properly. Killing is a lot less tolerable than just imprisoning then, at least in the eyes of the people. They would have to respond with violence because they people have a way to shoot at them. Without weapons of any sort they could basically squash any resistance without having to kill that many people. With guns, I would find that very difficult. They would have to switch to a fully totalitarian regime, which would not bode well for them or the people. I don’t know what they would say if they knew about current technology. They might agree with me or you, I’m not really sure. Maybe they would arm the citizens even more? I don’t know honestly.

Very good point, although I didn’t say that it was the exclusive reason. I meant it was the primary reason I would accept in reference to guns vs lives. In so far as I thought protecting the citizens from a future regime might possibly be worth the lives lost. I wouldn’t say about hunting or just collecting guns, as I don’t believe those are even slightly worth considering in regard to the shootings. Even still, you make a great point in context of what I know about that time period and the writers of those documents. Thanks for bringing that up, I honestly hadn’t considered it as a reason. I’ve seen similar fears to those that the southerners had, in Korea namely ( right around the time of the second king of Joseon, King Taejong). The generals of the region were hesitant about giving up their local militias, but eventually were forced into it, centralizing the military to strengthen the Monarchy. It’s a common theme by those in power to destroy competitors, in this case other militia. Like I said to Bitter Crank above… Apologizes on the late response. xD

That’s good to hear! : D My apologizes on the later response. I’ve been a bit busy the last few days. I’ve been fairing ok, albeit feeling a bit cold with this weather. >__>/ My family is doing very well! : )

I’m not sure if it’s a personality trait or not but I’ve had these feelings for a while now. Probably since I was a teenager. The recent events have just intensified those feelings, to the point where I feel as if just not caring at all would be the best course. I’ve tried this actually before, to little effect. Maybe practicing mindfulness would help me. Reading some more books? I don’t know. Haha

$3 dollars a pint???? O__O wow… (stares at my somewhat moldy blueberries, mumbles to self) haha Moments like this make you wonder why you would buy blueberries only to forget about them… I guess I wouldn’t feel as bad if they were only $3 though. : D I can’t believe they got it to that price and it came from Chile.

I have read 1984! Excellent book! I only brought up Brave New World because I think it was a more likely outcome for our world. I guess I would agree with Huxley that humans are more easily manipulated through preying on their pleasure circuits, then their fears. I’ll have to read those ones he wrote, along with the other suggestions you had! : D Thanks a bunch by the way! Always looking for new books to read! Also… On the kitchens in Paris… ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Hahaha Couldn’t really think of anything to say on that, except that humans are weird sometimes. Very strange indeed.

If you’ve ever heard about the video game series, Fallout, it is about a world where humanity never developed computing technology as it is now and instead used nuclear energy. They eventually run out of oil and China invades America for their reserves, triggering a nuclear war. In that series you play as a character living out the post nuclear fallout world in different parts of the Americas. I’ve been into that type of fiction (and hopefully it stays fiction : /) for a long time.

Quick question: In The Dispossessed. What type of anarchist model is used for the society? It is a form of anarcho-syndicalism/capitalism/communism or is it something else entirely? Thanks again! Look forward to your response and seeing you around these forums!

Thank you for your response. I really appreciate it and don't mind it's length at all. : )

With that said. I liked the examples you gave of the government. In the same way corporations aren't all bad and they do bring quite a bit to the table. I've been on the positive side of government as a child and I can say that without it I'm not sure my parents could have survived in a new country, not knowing the language. It was just enough to help us make it by until I was able to attend university and help them.
And overall I feel more negatively towards the corporation but I just find it strange that most don't seem to have any worries when it comes to the government. It continues to grow even as it takes on more and more debt. It has involved itself in so many proxy wars over the years that it's hard to remember whose side they are even on anymore... And for me I've seen a trend towards removing anti-trust legislation and taxes have dropped dramatically on those corporations since right after the Great Depression. Thank goodness for the checks and balances but my biggest issue is the money slipping into the government. It is effectively undermining the vote of the citizens as those same citizens argue who is at fault, just as the talking heads want.

In my other post I responded to the idea that technological advancements would crush any resistance. I agree that it would be impossible to deal with a military that is so expansive and powerful but I wonder if this would be worth it from the point of the view of that government. Social media would be huge nowadays and would at the very least alert the rest of the world to what the American government is doing. The force applied to government would be in a last case scenario regardless. I never meant as something like, "I'm upset my taxes are this way. REVOLUTION". It's more like, Brave New World is coming and they have systematically (through bureaucracy and the like), taken away the basic rights we have for their benefit, and there is no option but to fight. Then it would be really nice to have guns, whether or not they are effective is another story. I was just asking if those lives lost now are worth the possible ability to prevent that Brave New World. I am very concerned about the inevitability of that world in the future. If corporations are kept in check via completion (competition that seems to be fading day by day), and the government is held in check by it's establishments (3 branches). What happens when the citizens are too much of weight or no longer viable means of income. A world where AI has replaced a good % of humans. We know what happens in 3rd world countries when the GDP does not derive from it's citizens. It is absolute hell for those citizens and they are effectively useless to those in power.

Maybe it's a mute point. Maybe not having guns would lead to the same results. Then I would truly feel horrible for the future victims of shootings. But in the off chance it gives the citizens a chance to combat a authoritative government those ~13,000 lives yearly from gun violence will look minuscule in comparison... That is a risk I'm not sure of but that I'm willing to take. Which is terrible to say but nonetheless feel would lead to a more utilitarian end. We should try and reduce the chance of the incidents of course, through other means. More mental health facilities, security, lessen the stigma on mental disease, and increase the standard of living for the citizens but we probably aren't fixing the issue completely.

Finally, I wanted to thank you again for the history you injected into your post and the observations about the reason many dislike those large scale institutions, as well as the thoughtfulness of your post. Everything you said was spot on. It would probably take months to even get a pencil if you asked the government to do it. : / Trying to find the community you mentioned is really important and it has eluded me for most of my life. Even at university or work. As I look at the world now it feels even more apparent that the nihilism is creeping up on me. It just feels like humanity is headed down the wrong path and I am lost in that thought. Anyways, I've went on long enough. >_> Hope you are well!

I would be very worried about a culture and society that feels the need to defend itself against its democratically elected government through the use of guns. Primitive collective paranoia seems at play here. I'd like to think we have evolved from the cave-man mentality to know that logic, debate, laws, democratic voting system etc have more power than violence. — CuddlyHedgehog

I just see it as the reality. I would love a world where logic, debate, laws, democratic voting system dominates but we haven't evolved that much. The fact we still have wars is testimony to that. Like I said in my initial post, the sword is still probably the only true power we have when everything comes down to it.

"The government coming to get us" has been a leitmotif of a deranged (paranoid) subset somewhere out on the far right wing for a good share of our history. It isn't clear to me exactly what happens to people that they think this way. Harsh toilet training? Siblings snatching their toys away from them? Brain infections? Worms? — Bitter Crank

It should be a part of everyone's inner monologue when it comes to trusting a government this big with every facet of our lives. I really enjoy your comments by the way and I agree with you at least 99% of the time. I just can not understand why you are ok with trusting a government growing this big but you can't stand the control corporations have over our lives and the respective effects they've had on wages in America and opportunity. I have studied and lived through enough at only 25 to know that neither of those entities should be trusted. Which one is worse with power is questionable to me. But in America it isn't. If you are on the left it is the Corporation, on the right the government. Like they aren't literally the same thing in different attire. At the end of the day they are humans and they want security and power. So no, I'm not being provocative, I am asking as a person. Why do you trust the government so much to not have any way to protect the people from said government?

I was only a child when my parents were forced to relocate to the states because of the Bosnian war. I know have volatile and pointless it is to fight against those in control. Fight or don't eat, they told my father. That is what humans do. They have done it throughout history in every part of life. From the American revolutions, to France, across the Mediterranean in Egypt, all the way to early Korea during the times of the Joseon/Ming Dynasties (China). Governments that just did what they wanted, conscription at the hands of select few, controlling the citizens lives. It's sickening. So what happened to "us"? History happened. Only in America could the question of which one is trying to control you be a reality. Everywhere else in the world it's always been both. No wonder they are so cozy with each other in American politics. They have and will always be best of friends. Very nice couch by the way. :^)

To add to this: if you're that concerned about the government taking away citizens' rights, then don't vote for people who want to take away your rights. You live in a democracy after all, so don't elect authoritarians. — Michael

I agree but you are really underestimating their ability to manipulate the narrative, and the law to control their voters. Gerrymandering, excessive lobbying, control of media and narrative through ownership of monopolies. This takes time and doesn't happen overnight, and now guns are being threatened? The only reasonable way to stand a chance against an ever growing federal government? We don't live in a democracy. I would call it a plutocracy. The fact someone like Donald Trump can get into office should tell you the state of the media and how money has corrupted any form of representative democracy we ever had.

How would one realistically overthrow an oppressive government in the 21st century? Is the modern United States government really scared of a few people with firearms, given the immense power and scope of their military might? Why are we ignoring both the technological advances made with guns and the advances within the security of society from militias to modern police and emergency services? Then can we say the same about guns? No private ownership.
— Chany

I would assume by using force? What other way is there? Currently a quarter of Americans own guns, approximately 81 million people. The American military stands at about 1.5 million so even a tenth of those people protesting at different times around the country would be pretty alarming. The success of their revolution isn't really important, it's the causalities involved. Would the government be able to imprison or kill such a large amount of people to maintain power? How would that look to the rest of the world? What about those that aren't fighting? Wouldn't they scream out in horror making the oppressive governments control of power even harder to maintain? In this world of social media and cameras? No doubt they would probably lose the war. But at the very least America would have the people and enough guns to force the hand of their government. No other country could come close and would be easy to control in our current climate.

How many countries feel the need to have laws protecting guns in order to protect the population from the government? — Chany

Not many. That is why the founders of America were so ahead of the curve. Making sure those values stand the test of time and the test of authoritarian leaders is something they payed close attention to. Something other countries completely missed out on, either for not seeing the importance of it, or because they are corrupt. Lets be real, what government would want to make sure it's quest for power could be threatened by their citizens by establishing those laws? lol

If group ownership of a nuke is sufficient then why isn't group ownership of guns sufficient? Store the guns in whatever secret place it is you store your nuke. Then, if there's a credible threat, the people can collect their guns (and threaten to use the nuke). — Michael

Fair points. So would it be a fund where we add guns to it in support of protecting ourselves from the government? I just don't know how it would be organized and if you could trust those in charge from betraying the citizens. It seems much more feasible just to give private ownership and to organize it like that then to trust you could hide or trust anyone to keep those guns just in case you need them. But yes, I stand corrected, if that were possible I would be ok with doing that as an alternative ( no private ownership and just a collective fund ).

It sounds really bad but if there were a way to get the government to fear its citizens it would be that. haha (stares intensely)

OK, so then the same can be said about nukes.

You're not being very consistent. — Michael

Really? You are going to compare widespread gun ownership to GROUP ownership of nuclear warheads? Can you not see that they are worlds apart in scale and not fungible? Every person can own a gun and it be a group force. A group can own a nuclear warhead and have the same threat but no individual would own it. For guns to be effective they have to be owned individually because they do not operate like nuclear weapons do.

They simply can't be compared so there is no point of inserting them into a debate vs guns. And most importantly they are completely impractical as I said above.

Then can we say the same about guns? No private ownership. — Michael

That would be nice but the threat in the militia comes from the anonymity and presence in the population. If it exists as a public "resource" the government would never allow it and if it did it would be much easier to eliminate and manipulate by the vary government it would try and oppose.

Then you just get someone like today's mass shooters who decides to detonate a nuke for whatever awful reasons they have for doing what they do.

You're not thinking this through at all. — Michael

I mentioned it would be a group threat just as a militia is and not something that is under private ownership, so that would be a non issue.

Thank you for your research and numbers! : ) That is roughly what I have. I don't know how you could estimate the amount of people saved. I'm sure there are some numbers out there but I would be hard pressed to verify them. I would say my points and questions still stand as is. Even on the high end and with everything totaled in it is still much less than even the low end estimates of alcohol or tobacco, not to mention other causes annually.

So should we allow citizens to possess nuclear weapons to ensure they cannot be oppressed by their nuclear-armed governments? If not, why not? — Pseudonym

Huh. Well, first of all that would be very unrealistic. haha But if it were possible I would be definitely be for it. It would be the ultimate threat towards an oppressive regime. The biggest point of having guns is to have some semblance of force to oppose the governments as well as the uncertainty by having those guns available and of unknown amounts within the population. The same would be true of nuclear weapons but to an even greater degree. They would be a collective threat and would not be owned by individuals, just as the military is a group threat, so is the nuclear threat.

@Samuel Lacrampe

As such, we ought to treat gods as gods and objects as objects, and ought not to treat gods as objects nor objects as gods. It also follows that, should there be a situation where the choice is to benefit a being and harm another or vice versa, we ought to pick the choice that benefits the being with the greatest value, so as to obtain a net gain. We also deduce the Golden Rule: Do unto others (humans) as you would have them do unto you (also human). Now, can we demonstrate this GCB hierarchy to be true? In an attempt to show that we all have an innate knowledge of it (much like the laws of logic and math) please do the following thought experiment with me, and let me know your answer.

A house is on fire. You are a rescuer whose goal is to save the beings stuck inside. There is one human, one animal (say a dog), one plant, and one object (with no monetary value but destroyable). All else is equal. You can only rescue one at a time. Who would/should you rescue first, second, third, and fourth? — Samuel Lacrampe

All of those can mean different things to different people. It may be a picture of someone that you love that you value over a human, animal, or plant. It could be a valuable plant that you think may be the cure to a terrible illness. Same thing with the human or animal. That thought experiment doesn't prove anything about the validity of that hierarchy. I think the lines between "living" and "non-living" are put there by humans, like many other divisions, to allow ourselves to justify our needs and meaning we place on those needs. When enough people agree on common definitions and common values we call those ideas morals. Different definitions/values lead to different morals. I feel like humanity should be more focused on the definitions and values and why we hold them. It's there where we find our commonalities. Asking about who I would rescue would be about the what and who, not about the more important question of why. :^)

@Mr Bee

I wasn't really referring to our livelihood, but the type of government that a country would have over time. Speaking of livelihood though, you say that it can change depending upon the leader, but of course, with totalitarian governments that's the one thing that rarely changes. If a leader is corrupt and selfish, then they will use any opportunity to better themselves at the expense of their people and unless they have a sudden change of heart (which sounds very unlikely) than the people will continue to suffer under their rule. — Mr Bee

What do you mean by "type of government"? It is either a democracy or dictatorship in this case. You mentioned the party changing but that is hardly a real change because it is still a democracy. My point was that livelihood can change over night in a totalitarian regime, that is not the case in a democracy. All corruption is slowed in a democracy and you usually don't see the worst parts of corruption, like you said. There have been times in history where a leader has been truly benevolent and changed the lives of his citizens within years. The vast majority did just better themselves but that's not really point, it's more about how stable the systems are. Democracy doesn't let that happen as quickly so they are more stable (in terms of positive livelihood for their citizens)

For the second part I guess I will agree that the worst of corruption is not very likely to occur but it is still there. It just doesn't affect the average citizen immediately because of the way democracy slows everything down. This slow "rotting" can be even worse in some ways, but still is preferable to immediate and volatile change. And because of that democracy>totalitarianism. But I wouldn't at all agree that it is good at avoiding corruption. No system is, and democracy can be just as bad. But like I said, you don't notice the affects as easily.

I think it's the opposite really. Democratic systems tend to change their ruling party from time to time (for instance just look at the U.S. where they went from Obama to Trump). In contrast, totalitarian countries usually have the same ruling party (and in a lot of cases the same person) as the head of government for decades. Democracy, if anything, is good at avoiding corruption, which is unfortunately something that most totalitarian governments fall victim to.

No it's not. We haven't had drastic changes in our livelihood over short periods of time. If it were a totalitarian regime it could fluctuate based on the leader. Since the Obama to Trump transfer of power there has been no huge change, the constitution still applies and all changes that happen in future will be slow. A totalitarian regime can change over night based on the absolute rulings of their leaders. That was my point, of course there could be stability like you mentioned in a totalitarian regime, but the democracy is overall more stable.

Corruption is just as bad in both systems, you just see its impact more readily in totalitarian regimes. Money in politics, division of the lower class by elites over "ideology" all are signs of corruption (propaganda). Bribery happens secretly but in broad daylight through "campaign contributions", which in most 3rd world countries is just called bribing. Democracy biggest achievement is its ability to slow down corruptions impact on the system as a whole (and it's population).

Gotcha. So if the population of a country decides that they want to vote out democracy, there is no democratic way to constrain them?

I found that funny but interesting. Why exactly would a population of people vote away their power? Democracy's weakness and strength is the stability it gives. With totalitarianism you can actually have really good times if your leader is benevolent and knows what he is doing. (Example: See Singapore/Lee Kuan Yew, or Korea/Sejong the Great). But unfortunately most of history has been the exact opposite. Democracy avoids this but makes actually fixing issues a slow and sometimes impossible task. But at least the decay is slow! What other alternative system could actually work? Maybe a sentient AI that never dies as a leader. (ergo "The Eternal Benevolent Leader") haha

Dice are probabilistic and random. Random doesn’t mean that all outcomes are equally probable.

Why are they probabilistic and random? The statistical definition of random is that they are equally probable. In my opinion there is no such thing as random. I think random is used to explain situations in which humans can't evaluate the probabilities of something. I believe that everything in the known universe exists only as a probabilities. Our choices and thoughts. The coin that is flipped in a bet. No choices or randomness. Just probabilities playing out based on original configurations. Not our choice, or the universes "determinism". Just probabilities. Interested to see what everyone thinks. Take care all!