For me the immediate problem is the information apocalypse. If we don't get a handle on that, no shared narratives and therefore no social acceptance of any solution to whatever problems we agree exists. It's not the biggest but it's the first before you can effectively get to the rest.

*facepalm* What a fucking farce.

Again, I do not know what the motivations were, and nowhere did I claim it was or was not intended to be used. — NOS4A2

Funny how that never stops judges from imputing mens rea from people's behaviour.



I invite you to search NOS4A2's comments concerning Rittenhouse to see the full extent of the hypocrisy going on here.

That's an intuition I share but I don't think we can fairly assume this. A higher universe might operate under different universal constants making the availability of energy to do the calculations a minor problem.

Also, why assume an entire universe is generated instead of only what is observed? So in the simulation there would be no quantum universe except at the moment when you'd be looking for it. Rendering observations for 8 billion people and a bunch of equipment is less complex than an entire universe.

Guys, guys, I think we just have to conclude the USA is basically a fascist country regardless who you vote for.

Since we are physically different, we choose different careers. — 64bithuman

A ridiculous ahistorical statement. Women didn't get to choose and still often don't. And in the instances they do get to choose, they've been molded from when they've been born to fit around a certain gender stereotype by society and often even the parents. And while some of those expectations are detrimental to men as well, in no case have such stereotypes ever included subservience and obedience to the opposite sex as is the case for women. That undercurrent still exists even in traditionally progressive societies, women can choose their careers but God forbid they actually take the lead at home.

Feminists are correct to identify it and continue to argue against it.

What is a secular tyranny?

Based on what? I still see Republicans defending him or arguing that prosecuting him could lead to violence, which in bait-speak is saying people should riot if Trump is prosecuted.

Btw, I was interested in figuring out who kept breaking the ceasefire of the Minsk accords. I've searched for about an hour and I can't find it. You'd think the OCSE would document that too but unless it's only in the daily reports (which I'm not going to check one by one) I couldn't find it.

While searching for it, some interesting notes are that messaging has definitely shifted. Russia sent "saboteurs" while the West sent "military consultants".
But really, they were doing the same.

And Fiona Hill seems to have totally changed her tune. Here is her 2014 real politik analysis: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/mr-putin-and-the-art-of-the-offensive-defense-ukraine-and-its-meanings-part-three/

This was a pretty good read as well. https://www.beyondintractability.org/casestudy/grover-minsk-II-accords#_ftn43

Always "Slavs"?

That's not really relevant. I'm sure the average woman doesn't play chess either. Obviously chess playing women are devilish heathens.

Your reply was a blanket denial of the conclusion of the research. Of course anyone normal would assume you had read it. So I have you the benefit of the doubt and asked, because the answer was peculiar if you had. I didn't assume a thing at that point.

If you want to make a point of argument, then quote the referenced paper. — Janus

This is blame. I'm to follow your unpublished rules of engagement and I'm not allowed to expect you to read something that denies your claims. Silly me. Here I thought you'd be happily surprised people are willing to make sacrifices and you'd actually be interested. Guess that resolves that mystery: your opinion is more dear to you than actual facts. Nice.

Maybe next time just say you haven't read it, or better yet, don't reply as if you have, instead of this nonsense where you're now pretending it's my fault for you not having read it. The point I made was in the initial post and based on the linked science. Since you haven't read it, you'll accept it as gospel truth then. Great!

The point of the research is that a lot of policies that seem economically effective, like tradeable carbon credits, are hated because people consider them unfair. People have no problems with making sacrifices as long as everybody does. I was mentioning the specific ban because it suggests Janus hasn't read any of the papers I linked, I wasn't arguing the effectivity of that specific policy.

And yes, CM, people respond better to subsidies than taxes, no surprise there but there's still a majority for making sacrifices also in the form of taxes.

I'm talking about giving up the SUVs and driving tiny cars, or taking public transport, or using bicycles, giving up the international and domestic air travel and reducing general consumption to a minimum. Of course all these thing would in turn be very bad for the economies, leading to further drops in general prosperity. Whether the majority of people would be willing to do all these things I don't know, since I can't ask the majority of people on account of there are way too many of them, and I'm not sure I could trust what people say in answer to a hypothetical question anyway, but I sure as hell don't believe the politicians will be asking them to make such sacrifices. — Janus

Did you look at the research I shared? Your reaction seems to indicate you haven't. A ban on combustion engines is an actual proposed climate policy in the survey of the top most research paper. So people are prepared to do this, provided rich people are under the same ban.

Not sure if this is true but your tax comment reminded me of this clip a friend shared: https://www.instagram.com/reel/ChfCepjP-sN/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

This is actually not true. A majority of people are fine with making sacrifices if they apply to everyone and you can't just buy your way out (rich buying co2 credits, for instance). See: https://www.stefanie-stantcheva.com/research/

Worse for whom? In any case, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because other former Presidents were terrible too, isn't an argument not to do something about this specific one.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543213

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/543238

Before we get into prejudice, racism and oppression semantic discussions, please read the above two comments and perhaps we can at least agree on shared terminology.

Some short thoughts from me:
Oppressed people can be racist.
Not all racism leads to oppression.

Both oppression and racism are bad.
Personal racist opinions usually don't cause harm or are too particular to solve through political means.
Personal racism alone doesn't lead to oppression.
Oppression is "cumulative" personal racism borne out by social groups or (in)directly caused by the operation of systems.
Oppression is a social injustice.
Social injustice requires political (e.g. "group") solutions.

We don't police people's thoughts so we can't do much against personal racism other than education. If it directly causes damage courts are open for claims.

Oppression is a social injustice which requires political action beyond the ability to file claims and state "we're all equal". Why? Because culture eats rules before breakfast. Or in other words, it's not enough to punish behaviour, you need to take steps to change culture/system to end oppression.

She needs to take advantage of this 15 minutes of fame. — Hanover

I wasn't aware your attention span was that long. You're improving. :kiss:

Correct. She can always become a background dancer for Beyonce.

Agree with most of the points you made. Don't forget social work is generally a degree level discipline. When I recruit social workers for my organisation, they frequently have 4 years of university behind them. Sometimes several degrees. But yes, experience and aptitude is more important. When I hire someone with a lived experience of substance misuse, they still need a degree. Lots of terrible mistakes made by people who don't have some foundational education - professional boundaries, case formulation and planning, unconditional positive regard. — Tom Storm

:up:

They're still going to have to agree if they want to pass laws but at least we'll have decent representation instead of power coopted by political parties when negotiating the coalition. About 8 people decide what will happen for the next 4 years. I'll take needing 75 random people agreeing on a way forward any time over what we have now.

Very little, I'm sure. But when given a choice between a booksmart goody two shoes and someone with life experience, I will go with the latter. In fact, I'm all in favour of just pulling lots to decide who gets into parliament. Let's fully randomise it.

Life experience beyond the gilded cage most politicians grow up in seems to me essential to even conceptualise what's going on in society. Truss still thinks the poor are poor because they don't work hard enough. The US is a bunch of millionaires. The Netherlands has their own brand of white, male, straight, not openly religious, upper middle class ruling class that are largely blind to the problems people are actually dealing with. Marin's dance, while she probably had a relatively sheltered life, at least demonstrates not a total disconnect with what people typically do at 36.

People arguing for a type of politician are arguing for elitism and a disconnect between politics and citizens. The worst kind of democracy. These are the typical politicians that are really good at telling regular people what they're doing wrong, while stacking the deck against those very people.

Pretty much. I'd trust a social worker with an actual drug history more to solve drug issues than someone that read it in a book. There's no replacement for experience where it concerns social issues. One of the reasons poverty is such a pernicious problem.

I hadn't put it in such a context but that's certainly a fascinating take. I assume you have a background in Islamic or Middle Eastern studies?

I personally think is not funny at all. There are a lot of young people who die because of overdose every year... — javi2541997

There's millions of people who do drugs and never die. There's millions of people who don't drown when swimming. There's billions of people who don't crash their car. All this reflects is a bias for negative deviation of the norm.

Here is we disagree and it is fine. We have totally different concepts of life. What I wanted to say in your thread is the fact that we should expect more righteousness from a public representative. If she loves to be a young lady (despite she is already 36 years old) is ok but please do not be a politician then. — javi2541997

I know how it is to use and not use drugs because I used some drugs at some point in life. As a result I have experiential knowledge in understanding drug use and to a lesser extent addiction. I know for instance that Oxycontin is far more addictive than most commonly available drugs and that's after a single use dosis against pain. If you don't understand drug use and addiction, you can't regulate it in a manner that makes sense.

What we should expect from our representatives is to manage political problems, manage a country, solve socio-economic issues and possibly have a vision about where we should go to. Nothing about dancing influences this and it certainly says nothing about their "righteousness". That's all about you projecting a boat load of assumptions on a dance.

Personally, I'd be worried if a 36 year old woman couldn't dance like that, didn't drink and didn't do drugs. It would mean she has no idea about life, no experience interacting with others and therefore totally unqualified to rule because she has no idea about what actual people get up to. I'm a bit disappointed the drug test turned out negative to be honest.

I love the word "racy". Jugdmental much? What are you? A fossil? Obviously I raised "worse" behaviour from men that was never used against them. Eg. a double standard.

I'm saddened about the fact that pretty smart people have the moral intuitions of medieval peasantry.

You're not answering the question. Why is it unprofessional to dance?That you don't think she has a right to a private life (which I think is nonsense, everybody has that right, just not when acting in an official capacity) still doesn't answer why it's unprofessional.

What's unprofessional about dancing at a private party exactly?

Not what I said. And let's not pretend you actually now how Sharia works. You raising straw men every post is tiresome so I'm done here.

Not my problem you don't understand the harm principle. I'm not deciding anything, I'm explaining you're not applying the principle correctly and that it was never considered by the ayatollah. Not even avant la lettre.

Ah, I see your mistake where you confuse legal accountability with moral accountability.

That's demonstrably false. Just look at most governments. :razz:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/19/salaman-rushdie-attack-was-unjustifiable-says-pakistans-imran-khan

The anger is "understandable". Is it really though? It's understandable in the sense people are emotional and half of the time act like sheep and do act irrational. Other than that, not so much understanding here for many reasons. The most important one that Rhusdie's representation of that time is exactly what Muslim scholars talked about until the 800s. So Islamic religious truth in this case is a joke and if Khomeini was worth his salt as a scholar, he would know this. So we can rest assured this was entirely political.

I can but making shit up as if those ayatollahs considered the harm principle has nothing to do with seeing a different perspective.

you don't need to ask him to tone it down because those were reasonable replies in the umpteenth anti-natalism thread offered as one of the options for anti-lifers but baker likes to selectively quote.

Rushdie and those who defend him are implying that it's okay to reinvent history. You see no problem with that? — baker

Rhusdie's account is historically more accurate than what is now considered truth among Muslims.

"Offending the Prophet" is how they apply what you call the "harm principle". — baker

The prophet is dead, he can't be harmed.

Respect for religious authority. — baker

Respect for people sure, respect for things not so much. Respect for people means respect for life, that always comes before authority.

As if ridicule would be a civilizational accomplishment. — baker

Most certainly. George Carlin is a prime example of how to marry ridicule with intelligent commentary. I'm obviously not as funny but I'm several hundred steps above promoting people to kill someone. I confidently and comfortably claim the higher moral ground there.

You're so confident. Wait until you apply for US citizenship or want something else from the US. — baker

I wouldn't want anything from the USA even when it was the last government on Earth. It's only marginally better than most dictatorships.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/13/iran-lebanon-reaction-to-salman-rushdie-attack

Interestingly, the "denouncements" in Iran focus on the detrimental consequences to Iran but not the immorality of the act itself.

https://www.firstpost.com/world/attack-on-salman-rushdie-shows-divisions-among-lebanese-shia-11072441.html

There are vocal Lebanese that denounce it but they in turn receive death threats.