Why is that relevant just to men, out of interest? — Kenosha Kid

There seems to be an inordinate number of young men in their 20's doing little to nothing. Young women, OTOH, appear to have their act together more so, although (anecdotally) adolescence seems to be never-ending for many.

I know that whatever factors coalesced to retard the maturation of this last generation is of great interest to many of the social sciences.

JP is what he is, a guy with a lot of opinions. You people are brutal. Agree with what you like and disagree with what you don't but at least show some respect for the depth of his academic commitment.

One message I can appreciate is when he speaks to young men and tells them that it is the taking of responsibility that gives meaning to adult life. This is an incredibly powerful message and runs counter to corporate and other nonsensical memes concerning the pursuit of self- (fill in the blank) as the end-all and be-all that predominate our culture.

Perhaps it might temper the "win at any cost attitude." Maybe not.

I guess he came to same conclusion as most everybody else, nobody cares about such things anymore, so my question to him was more about why he thought people developed this apathy.

I know in Japanese baseball it's more about the team than the individual as players are quite loyal to the cities and fans for whom they play. As well, the fans do not boo or harass the visiting team. They also have ties if either team is not ahead after 12 innings.

Apparently, winning isn't everything in Japan (although working certainly seems to be).

Are you living in a parallel reality? — Echarmion

Of course I am (and so is everybody else), but that's a discussion for another day.... :)

Can you give me a list of all states taken over in the 21st century by right-wing and left-wing extremists respectively? Because all the examples I can think of are right-wing takeovers: Russia, Turkey, Hungary, Egypt (after the revolution, and now again after the coup). And all the really endangered democracies are endangered from the right as well: the US, Brasil, Poland. — Echarmion

I really didn't intend to make this a right-left thing (as that has been beaten to death over the past months), it's just a matter of extreme political behavior/policy.

I know that many people have an incredible hatred for Trump and have seen him as the second coming of Adolph Hitler, but I just wanted to stick with what's going on policy-wise within the government, and particularly with the progressive coalition that formed between business and government, so on and so forth.

I am sure the events of the 20th century will be debated for centuries to come, but I put this out there to draw a parallel to present day events and the resurfacing of extremism (this time from the left).

Western democracies seem to work best when there's a proper balance of progressive (liberal) voices speaking out for change in concert with conservative ones making the case that what institutions still work efficiently(and in the interests of the vast majority) should not be replaced for the sake of change alone.

When ideas become particularly extreme (despite the fact that change is essential), this is when civility breaks down and violence rears its ugly head.

Who knows what's going to happen tomorrow or over the next weeks, months, or years, but I thought it would make for a good discussion to look at what's taking place now in light of the extreme-ism (right and left) that defined a large part of the 20th century.

Once I was chatting with a very bright gentleman who happened to teach sports ethics for several decades at a local university and I posed a similar question to him, that is, why doesn't anybody care about telling the truth in competitive sports (especially when so many young people are observing).

He looked at me, shrugged his shoulders, and said he had no idea and that it was truly a great travesty.

I know that in a couple of Asian countries, honor still counts in sports, e.g., Japanese baseball.

Most people learn by kindergarten that it's dog eat dog world. — baker

Perhaps, but I think the average five-six year old is still interested in getting with the program.

Seems like you're unaware of your own cognitive dissonance here... — Garth

Aren't we all.

"Man can endure anything but Meaninglessness"

I would suggest that man can endure anything but Reality (which is why we have no access).

If man could truly understand (intellectually), he would go insane immediately.

Because it's not about sports, but about entertainment. Truth and honesty would spoil the entertainment. — baker

I get that and it's a great point, but it seems a bit in-your-face. Perhaps it's just that moral corruption is so deeply ingrained at this point that nobody really cares (similar to the political sphere where people expect the worst and that's exactly what they get).

Can you be a little more specific? How are you assuming the referee reacts? Because if the ref doesn't act on this information (and it is likely that he won't), there won't be a reaction from society at large. So I'll assume that the catch is then ruled incomplete. Furthermore I'll assume that we somehow hear or learn about this conversation.

We would largely regard that player's honesty as a bad play decision. Players are expected to fake things this way. It is not outside of the rules or outside of ethics, but a part of the game. — Garth

I am not assuming anything. I was just curious how this might play-out and what the reaction might be of all parties concerned...the player, the referee, his teammates, coaches, ownership, the media, and everybody else who would pile-on.

Seems to me that it's time for the entire country to go back to kindergarten and review some basic rules for carrying out a successful life.

Give me an example of something I should take as a "given" in your world.
— synthesis

That you'll not simply float away. Gravity — Isaac

If you believe that all time is taking place at the same time, then perhaps you should go to the closest window and there I am...simply floating by.

Number one, Dr. Skeptic understands that medical science (in many cases) will not only not get you to the correct diagnosis, but it will only serve to confuse the matter.
— synthesis

How does Dr. Skeptic know that? What methods does he have access to that medical science does not?

He knows through his experience, i.e., he has followed the SOC (standard of care) many, many times which has left him wanting.
— Echarmion

There's a very old saying in medicine that you might have heard before, "If you listen closely enough to the patient, s/he will tell you EXACTLY what is wrong."
— synthesis

But isn't that also what "standard" medicine does? Only that they do not just listen to you talk, but also "listen" to various other bodily functions?

Well, that's the theory (just like the theory is that politicians act in their constituency's best interests). But you have to really listen and this takes time and, as well, being able to tap into what the person is saying.

Most providers do not have the time nor are they particularly interested in tapping into anything other then getting what needs to be done in order to satisfy TPTB which exert draconian control over the process.
— Echarmion

I would contend that it is impossible to understand even the simplest of things (if for no other reason than each event is preceded by an infinite number of events determining such.
— synthesis

So, if you want to boil a pot of water, do you randomly do things to it until it boils? Pray to the gods to boil the water? Or do you use your understanding of physics to predict what course of events will make the water boil?

Boiling water has as much to do with understanding as does a dung beetle's need to understand in order to perform its vital duty.
— Echarmion

How you possibly understand the true nature of anything?
— synthesis

How did the "true nature" of anything get into this discussion? What's a "true nature"? Why does it matter?

True nature is sort of a non-intellectual idea (I know). I've always kind of thought of understand as follows...it's not what you can understand that's important, but what you cannot understand that means everything.
— Echarmion

Reality is not like the movie our brains convey.
— synthesis

How do you know? If you don't think we have access to reality, you cannot make claims about it.

I don't. I prefer to think of life as discrete moments (outside of time), albeit connected.

Again, Absolute Truth exists outside of the intellect. It is permanent and unchanging. Relative truth is impermanent (in constant flux). Although all knowledge is indeed relative, the left got it wrong (imagine that!) by refusing to acknowledge that although truth is relative, human beings still agree to live by it (a moral code) just the same.
— synthesis

How is this epistemological position either left or right? — Echarmion

It's not. It's wisdom passed down over the millennia.

You are very serious about these conversations, me, not so much. I am here to relax and enjoy other people's views.
— synthesis

Again, seriousness has little to do with it. Even if I considered these conversations to be the most trivial matters in the world, the opinions I express in them would still have causes, and where empirical, would relate to evidence from experience.

I can't see what is so 'friendly' about claiming that BLM doctored the mobile phone footage of an arrest to make it look like murder, which then suddenly becomes fusty and academic when the actual source of that claim is added. — Isaac

What I am saying might make more sense to you in ten or fifteen years. Maybe not. I know I come from a very different place, but isn't that good? Many people have a problem with those whose thinking is non-traditional.

Perhaps you can take solace in the idea that one of these days my thinking will be old hat, replaced by new ways to link letters and words and numbers to create realities much more interesting.

Science (like all knowledge) changes constantly, correct? Why should I take anything postulated out there seriously if it is only going to be dis-proven?
— synthesis

Really? You're seriously asking that question?[/quote]

Give me an example of something I should take as a "given" in your world. And try to relax. It's Sunday :).

Isn't ceasing only relative to your exact Universal (coordinate) position? And doesn't that suggest that no thing can actually cease?
— synthesis

what do you mean by this?

Let's say you are ten feet away from somebody has has just died. Then let's say your friend who is on a spaceship heading through space but is watching you and this gentleman live (electronically) but is one light year away. For him, the man won't die for another year, right? So on and so forth, so your Universal position determines when something is going to happen or if it ever happens (if you keep moving away at near the speed of light).

Who is? And where is this plane?
— synthesis

i don’t think any person truly “is” but the concept of God definitely qualifies for it, the plane is what we would define as reality through our human lens, no? — Ignance

It is if it is for you. Everybody has their own reality, no? And how would God play into this?

You don't seem able to follow the argument, and engage in actual debate. Everything you say is mere contradiction. So, believe whatever you like. It doesn't matter anymore. Humankind is surely doomed - because, like you, they're wrong, and what is wrong cannot survive. It's cause and effect. — counterpunch

What I enjoy about these conversations is other interesting people sharing their points of view. It is not my intention to convince you of anything. I am simply providing another perspective, one that works really well for me because it is my reality (the sum total of my experience in intellectual form).

I have been going back and forth a bit between the intellectual and the non-intellectual and perhaps that's what has you a bit confused. I thought you would understand. Let's get back to your example of the man who is pounding the stake. Yes, the speed of light is faster than the speed of sound and you receive the visual image before the auditory signal but you contend that this doesn't change the reality of the situation. OK.

Now what happens if the same dynamic takes place infinitely? What is the effect then?

The idea is that as some things improve, others dis-improve, by definition (and proportionally).
— synthesis

I see. I guess, but I don't see things that way myself. It implies futility - like all we're doing is re-arranging the deck chairs. I think science is a path, and it leads somewhere; at the very least, a long term, prosperous and sustainable future for humankind. — counterpunch

Think of it this way...things are as good as they can be each and every moment.

Simply the fact that we cannot access the present (time-lag between event and perception thereof) certainly suggests that we are not experiencing reality (Absolute or relative).
— synthesis

I once watched a man driving in a stake. He was some distance away, across a railway line. I was on the other side. I watched him strike with the hammer, and heard the sound of him striking the stake after, out of sync with his movements. So, here are my questions: Was there a man? Was he driving in a stake? Did his blows make a sound? Did I hear the sound? If you answered yes to all these questions, what was not real about it? — counterpunch

Since Reality is something you experience outside of the intellect, there are no answers to your questions. OTOH, your (personal) reality was whatever your experience was, but keep in mind that it was considerably different than what was taking place (due to all kinds of filters).

Reality is not like the movie our brains convey. As a matter of fact (whatever that may be), nobody has a clue what vision is. So, what are you seeing?
— synthesis

Yes, it is. It could not be otherwise. The idea that the reality we experience is subjectively constructed is false. It's largely a product of western philosophy written in the wake of Galileo's trial for the heresy for proving the earth orbits the sun. His contemporary, Descartes - wrote Meditations on First Philosophy in terror of the Church, in which he doubted all that could be doubted, and found the only thing he knew for certain was cogito ergo sum - I think therefore I am. — counterpunch

How about if Reality is actually discrete moments, but somehow connected. Each moment, just as it should be, perfect in every way.

Subjectivism, and ultimately, post modernism follow from this root - and currently, there's a left wing academic interest in undermining the possibility of truth. But it's a falsehood. Descartes' doubt was skeptical doubt, not rational doubt. If he'd stuck his hand in front of the fire, rather than a ball of wax, he would soon have discovered the undeniable existence of an objective reality - prior to cogito!

Further, as I've already told you, the senses are evolved in creatures that had to make accurate life and death decisions about reality, generation after generation. If the senses were not accurate to reality, human being could not have evolved. — counterpunch

Consider the following...what we know, we know before our intellect kicks-in. For example, you are walking down the street and you see a young boy about to dash into the street chasing after his errant ball at the same time a car is approaching at a high speed. Without thinking (before thinking), you grab the youngster's arm and save his life.

Out thinking takes what we perceive (before thinking and therefore before our filters can engage) and creates our own reality based on a lifetime of experience. It becomes easy to conclude that we all see the same stimuli differently based on this reasoning (and that can apply to everything we perceive).

Perhaps this is why our first judgement (impression) seems to be the best in many cases?

Furthermore, if reality is subjectively constructed, how can there be art, or traffic lights. Try going into traffic court and saying, you may say the light was red, but subjectively, it was green! Go to an art gallery and listen to people speaking about the brushstrokes, and the lines and the colours. They are clearly seeing the same thing. Or do you suggest they are subjectively constructing the same unreality? — counterpunch

Who's to say that everybody doesn't see everything differently despite the fact that they recognize it by the same name? Differences in eye anatomy (clarity of the cornea, aqueous, lens, and vitreous) alone would insure that any wavelength would appear differently to each observer. And that's just optical clarity. How about the neurological/electrical complexity of the retina as well as the optic pathway all the way back to the occipital cortex? There are literally an infinite number of modifications that could take place to make our perceptions unique. And that's just scratching the surface. You really believe we see things the same?

And you know what, everything is just that way.

There is Absolute Truth and there is relative truth
— synthesis

No. These are thought experiment concepts of truth. With absolute truth - you place yourself outside reality, looking in at some imagined entirety of it - and condescend to the man trying to make sense of the world around him with his limited vision. By relative truth you mean subjective truth - and the post modernist implication from subjectivism, that all truths are relative. But subjectivism is false. Truth is in correspondence to an objective reality.[/quote]

Again, Absolute Truth exists outside of the intellect. It is permanent and unchanging. Relative truth is impermanent (in constant flux). Although all knowledge is indeed relative, the left got it wrong (imagine that!) by refusing to acknowledge that although truth is relative, human beings still agree to live by it (a moral code) just the same.

I don't understand the saying. It doesn't seem to make sense. Either it's a truism - meaning, "things are what they have been in every moment" - or it implies an eternal unchanging state, in that nothing ever improves or dis-improves. (Yes, dis-improves is a word - I looked it up!) — counterpunch

The idea is that as some things improve, others dis-improve, by definition (and proportionally).

As far as Reality (or reality) is concerned, the human mind is simply incapable of gaining access.
— synthesis

Untrue. Or rather, dependent on defining reality in inaccessible terms. Most basically, the sensory organs evolve in relation to reality, and are tested insofar as they allow for the survival of the organism. If a monkey, swinging through the trees saw branches further away, or nearer than they actually were - physics would ensure his extinction. The reality we experience is accurate to the objective reality that exists. — counterpunch

Simply the fact that we cannot access the present (time-lag between event and perception thereof) certainly suggests that we are not experiencing reality (Absolute or relative).

Perception may be limited to tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, but that doesn't mean what we see is not real. If you would define reality in terms of the entirety of the magnetic spectrum, or the fact atoms never touch each other, and so forth, then you can define reality beyond reach, but to my mind, science begins at our fingertips - not at the far end of the universe, and has discovered the range of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the space between atoms. — counterpunch

Reality is not like the movie our brains convey. As a matter of fact (whatever that may be), nobody has a clue what vision is. So, what are you seeing?

And although it may seem reasonable to assume that the earth orbits the sun, etc., that's doing a great deal of assuming where I would contend that it is impossible to understand even the simplest of things (if for no other reason than each event is preceded by an infinite number of events determining such. How you possibly understand the true nature of anything?
— synthesis

It is not necessary to know the location and velocity of every sub-atomic particle in the universe in every moment to experience the real. I can close my eyes and run my finger across the keyboard and experience the reality of it. Truth isn't absolute truth. Reality isn't inaccessible. — counterpunch

There is Absolute Truth and there is relative truth (of course, there is really neither but these are the game we must play to communicate among our own species).

Absolute Truth exist outside of the intellect whereas relative truth your personal reality (created by your experience).

If Reality was accessible, do you believe people would be wasting their time doing things like this? :)

As far as Reality (or reality) is concerned, the human mind is simply incapable of gaining access.
— synthesis

Is that the Reality?

Looks self-refuting to me. — Banno

Absolutely.

Since the invention of the computer, science has really come together. The ability to process large amounts of data, and communicate ideas, was a game changer. Science does now constitute a highly valid and coherent understanding of the middle ground reality we inhabit, and should be taken seriously - as an understanding of reality. The earth does orbit the sun, human beings did evolve, heat does migrate from warmer to cooler bodies, etc! — counterpunch

I had a good friend who used to say that, "Things have never been any better or worse then they have ever been," and over time I believe I have come to the conclusion that he may be correct.

As far as Reality (or reality) is concerned, the human mind is simply incapable of gaining access.

And although it may seem reasonable to assume that the earth orbits the sun, etc., that's doing a great deal of assuming where I would contend that it is impossible to understand even the simplest of things (if for no other reason than each event is preceded by an infinite number of events determining such. How you possibly understand the true nature of anything?

Although I am scientifically trained, I only see it as a tool (and a rather primitive one at that).
— synthesis

Oh? Now I am interested. Is there a less primitive tool out there? — Echarmion

Temporally, absolutely, but, practically speaking, I think not.

There are many different directions we can take that so let me go in this one. Science (like all knowledge) changes constantly, correct? Why should I take anything postulated out there seriously if it is only going to be dis-proven?
— synthesis

I am not quite sure what you're saying here. Do you not believe that, say, atoms are made out of protons, neutrons and electrons, which are made out of quarks, because tomorrow someone might figure out more fundamental building blocks to reality? Do you not use Newtons laws in common cases because they have been superseded by Einstein?[/quote]

Yes, that's part of it. The rest of it concerns keeping the first part in mind. Let me give you an example...

A patient presents in your office with the complaint of chronic headache. Don't worry about not being in healthcare (if you're not). You take thorough medical, family, and social health history, do a full physical exam and order comprehensive blood work. You are able to rule out the most common headache etiologies and are left sitting on your exam stool wondering what to say tell this patient (other than, "I have no idea," but these are the steps we advise our patients to take in these cases, blah, blah, blah...").

If I was a (wo)man of science (as most health care providers are), the above would be the general way you would go about handling the above patient (give or take). Let's consider an alternative. Let's substitute our man of science for a man of someone who sees science only as a primitive tool.

The same patient with the same chronic headache symptoms presents. How might our skeptic approach this same patient? Number one, Dr. Skeptic understands that medical science (in many cases) will not only not get you to the correct diagnosis, but it will only serve to confuse the matter. So what he is going to do (before he does anything) is talk with his patient. There's a very old saying in medicine that you might have heard before, "If you listen closely enough to the patient, s/he will tell you EXACTLY what is wrong."

Now, I could go on about this but I'll stop here to see if you are with me.

I suppose, if you two are arguing, and don't feel that listing academic sources is any way to resolve the issue - you could each put your cases to a neutral third party and agree to accept the verdict. — counterpunch

Although I am sure you could probably find some academic sources to support just about any claim, my point was to keep this casual. I am interested in how my conversant partner thinks, not how some academic that might have their head up their ass (and is publishing for all the wrong reasons) thinks.

Secondly, this is not a 'chat down the pub'. We're not friends, I' not interested in your opinion for it's own sake - why on earth would I be? I'm interested in the stuff other people know, and the way they might frame it, but I can't see the interest in just knowing what version of events some random people have pinned their flag to without cause. — Isaac

Well, Issac, I would imagine if you spoke with every participant in this forum, you would get many different reasons why they are here. You are very serious about these conversations, me, not so much. I am here to relax and enjoy other people's views.

science is quite political and therefore subject to all the nonsense that goes on in that sphere. Many times when researchers discover better ways/problematic issues that do not serve the primary interests of TPTB, it becomes difficult to move forward.
— synthesis

I fail to see what that's got to do with failing to present any evidence. There's been not a single scientific revolution which was not accompanied by, motivated by, evidence. Scientists do not just randomly decide the status quo has got it wrong, they do so on the basis of evidence. — Isaac

There are many different directions we can take that so let me go in this one. Science (like all knowledge) changes constantly, correct? Why should I take anything postulated out there seriously if it is only going to be dis-proven? Although I am scientifically trained, I only see it as a tool (and a rather primitive one at that).

Now, Issac, if you are going to rant and rave at me, no need (as I already have a wife :). Let's just have a nice conversation and my POV might begin to make sense to you as the ideas unfold (or maybe not).

What is being? What is ceasing?
— synthesis

ceasing is when life is no longer “animate”

being is nothing but you “are” on this plane of existence — Ignance

Isn't ceasing only relative to your exact Universal (coordinate) position? And doesn't that suggest that no thing can actually cease?

Who is? And where is this plane?

Even if this was a scientific journal, any breakthrough requires taking accepted thought and jumping up and down on it until it is no longer recognized as truth.
— synthesis

No. No breakthrough requires that. Breakthroughs require careful and diligent hard work researching and checking, peer-reviewing, checking again, correcting mistakes, more checking... and then, finally maybe publishing. It pisses me off intently that after all that hard work someone claiming to be interested in the subject (whatever it is) can't even be bothered to type the question into a search engine to find out if anyone has done such painstaking work. — Isaac

You are missing my point.

There are two types of conversations you can have. One a friendly chat over a couple of beers type of chat and another where you are attempting to prove a point (for some academic or professional reason). I kind of approach this forum as a friendly chat. No need for the drama.

You also missed my point about breakthroughs, as well. As you may or may not know, science is quite political and therefore subject to all the nonsense that goes on in that sphere. Many times when researchers discover better ways/problematic issues that do not serve the primary interests of TPTB, it becomes difficult to move forward. History is replete with examples.

death is ceasing, meditation is being — Ignance

What is being? What is ceasing?

sounds very like meditation? — Ignance

It can be meditation. It can also be death.

I don’t distinguish between words and experience. Words are not ‘tools’ that represent thought. Language IS thought, and thought IS experiencing. So the ‘serious limitations’ of language are a reflection of the serious limitations of experiencing. — Joshs

Experience takes place then words attempt to capture the experience. The difficulty lies in the idea that the intellect is simply incapable of accessing reality, i.e., what takes place between the experience, the perception of the experience, the processing of the experience, and then transferring such information into language in order to express ideas or feelings creates multiple barriers and filters and opportunities to render the actual experience unrecognizable (and that's only one facet of the issue).

All communicating is mediate and interpretive. — Joshs

How do you know that?

.

How do such normative affectivities as 'unconditionally intrinsic goodness', 'spontaneous compassion', 'luminosity', 'blissfulness', ' a calm and peaceful life guided by the fundamental value of nonviolence' emerge as ultimate outcomes of a mindfulness philosophy of groundlessness? — Joshs

As a very serious Zen student for the past 30+ years, allow me quote the famous Tang dynasty master, Huang Po:

"Open your mouth and you have already lost it."

Words are used only to point in the direction where you can obtain direct experience. Once you understand, words lose their meaning.

When truly with your lover, do you look deeply into their eyes so they can realize the magnitude of your caring or would you present them with a dissertation on the theory of language and meaning as it applies to love?

Words/ideas are extremely important tools, but they have serious limitations.

Now fiction aside, can we imagine a place without time? — TiredThinker

Thinking is time.

Therefore imagining is time. If you wish to do without time, do without thinking.

What do you think you have argued here - that Amazon and Apple should not respond to their customer's concerns? That there ought be some control on Apple and Amazon, so that folk can have free speech? But I thought there was this "invisible hand" that you said would make things work... after all, presumably Parler can get someone else to host it, if it is a decent player in the free market... — Banno

I think nearly everybody has a tendency to have an extremely short-term outlook these days (for lots of obvious reasons), but the so-called "invisible hand" could be considered karmic in nature. In any case, everything works out in the end one way or another.

It's hard to imagine the West would go from a several hundred year philosophical history of tolerance in nearly all things (particularly speech) to an intolerant fascist (corporatist) one almost overnight. The right to free speech was taught as the foundation of freedom as we know it in the U.S. .

I believe what the tech monopolies have done is furthered along the conversation for regulation because there must be enough people in power who understand that the pendulum doth swingest back, and when it does, retribution will most likely be the first order of the day.

There is no doubt that this came from the left and this will be its undoing.

Question: How many Marxists do you think there are? (Marxist = have read at least his shorter writings and understand them; apply at least some Marxist principles like class conflict, surplus value... to contemporary problems.) — Bitter Crank

Point well taken. There are very few serious "anythings" out there.

People should take the time to read his work. Truly a brilliant economist.

Substituting identity conflict for class conflict is not, in my humble opinion, proper Marxist practice. — Bitter Crank

No doubt. Identity politics is a dead-end if ever there was one.

I just wonder why you'd be against helping them? Like we can disagree on the right approach, but certainly there is something that can be done. — Echarmion

There's a book written by a black gentleman titled, "Stop Helping Us," or something to that effect. He can explain it better than I, but the gist is that the "helping" needs to be in the providing of opportunity, not handouts. Each person has to do the work themselves. Didn't you? The support must come from their parents and their communities, or it won't work.

Black individuals will have success the same as any other group once they fix their families and communities and make success a priority. It's that simple.

Black people are great and I don't know anybody who thinks differently. Really.

After all, the number of white people out there who buy into this self-hatred thing must be waning fast.
— synthesis

I never encourage collective guilt feelings or collective self-hatred. It's tedious; it's unproductive; sometimes it is pretentiously faked. Individuals ought to feel guilt for acts they have committed with malice and forethought. I don't feel guilty when white police kill blacks. It might have been just plain murder, and if so the officer should be punished. Or it might have been accidental; inadvertent; not intended. Investigations can sort it out. Consequences should follow.

We can, we should, we must understand how our history unfolded. Not just our personal history; but our national history. From at least a general understanding we should see some large trends that have been at work for a long time. No one should feel guilty about the epidemics which resulted from Columbus's search for a westward route to Asia. No one should feel guilty about British colonialism. No one should feel guilty about slavery. Or the industrial revolution. Or the millions of Native Americans' deaths caused by American westward expansion. We were not there.

I recommend reading about the urban history of the US, not so that people can find more reasons for self hatred or collective guilt, but for an understanding of how it unfolded, how we got to where we are. Once understanding is obtained, one will see how difficult it will be to undo the past.

If an individual is working to harm other people, they have reason to feel guilty, and they should stop doing it. There are plenty of crooks out there, some on street corners, some in elegant office suites. — Bitter Crank

We've been through all this in this country. People who went to school (when you actually learned something, say, people over 50) know the history. We were all taught and understand. Many of us saw what happened during the civil rights era and get it. And things have changed drastically.

What society decided to do is move on from the past and make a better future. It is only younger people taught by Marxist holdouts in universities that seem to want to go back and dredge all this up again. The past is past. It's time to resume the moving on and making a better future.

Calling people who had nothing to do with what went on over the last four hundred years, racists, is just plain wrong. I believe that the majority of black people agree with this outlook. Should the Germans still be paying for the atrocities of WWII or the Russians, or every other groups that's behaved poorly?

The lesson in life that people must learn is that you ALWAYS keeping moving forward. Attaching to the past is what suffering is.

You increase fairness by expanding access and opportunity. Redistribution does not work. People have to do it (succeed) themselves in order for it to be sustainable.
— synthesis

But noone succeeds all by themselves, do they? They all rely on good parenting, education, opportunity afforded by outside sources.

People can make more or less out of what they're given, but no-one is an island. — Echarmion

Of course, that's why it soooo important to have a family and community (education) supporting you. The number one predictor of success is successful parents. The black community is amazing so when they do figure out what needs to be done, I believe they will leave the white and Asian folks in the dust.

You must instill the necessity to be focused and work hard in order to succeed, i.e., to have meaningful success (as opposed to being, say, a trust-fund individual). There is a significant percentage of the black community that are already there, so it's just a matter of time before the rest are pulled-up, but it is the black community that will do the pulling.

Yet I remember Hillary Clinton accepting the outcome. — ssu

Despite conceding the election, she spent the next four years saying that he was not the legitimate president.

Bottom-line...it's politics, they all (99.9% of them 99.9% of the time) lie.

Everybody is on their own as the political system is not going to save anyone. It is and has always been a system designed by the few for the benefit of the few. Make your own way the best you can by seizing what opportunities exist. And help those to see what they must do the best you can.

Redistribution does not work. People have to do it (succeed) themselves in order for it to be sustainable.
— synthesis — fdrake

Despite your animation, redistribution is a temporary solution (at best, and a poor one at that).

BLM leaders made the strategic decision to focus on black deaths at the hands of the police, who are agents of civil power. — Bitter Crank

This would be like having an organisation fight against heart disease by pointing out the few times that cardiac surgeons made mistakes doing complex procedures. Yes, its a small part of the problem (patients dying from cardiac disease) but its nothing compared to all the other factors (plus its only going to enrage the vast majority of cardiologists that are busting their asses to save lives).

Obviously there are problems everywhere and you could probably find some among the very best in any human endeavor, but does it make sense to alienate the very people who can fix the problems you seems so concerned about? I suppose their intention was to get a lot of attention, but I am not sure they could have done anything more to marginalize their own case. After all, the number of white people out there who buy into this self-hatred thing must be waning fast.

This entire racist thing was a political scam like it always is.
— synthesis

I think you are right. There will be white Democrats using the issue as leverage.

Do you think the BLM black supporters are part of that scam? Or do they think they have a real grievance? — Banno

BLM seems to be a Marxist political group with their own agenda and they have every right to that. Hey, Marx was a brilliant economist (but he unleashed one of the great social horrors in history). I have no problem with that until they start advocating violence and believe that terrorizing people is an acceptable MO.

Here's more good news: The gap between the number of blacks and whites in prison is shrinking

But this: Countries with the largest number of prisoners per 100,000 of the national population, as of June 2020
What's that about? Look at your competition, man! — Banno

That's old news and is a completely different subject. The U.S. is basically a police-state in many ways. These are complex problems with many layers and you just can't say, "Look at that problem, obviously everybody is racist."

In order for the black community to move on, they are going to have to take responsibility for a lot of it. And so will the politicians who thought that creating a welfare state would do anything but end-up as it always does, creating massive dependency (three generations now).

There are ways to fix these problems but its going to take a lot of effort from all involved. The Democratic politicians (on the whole) that have been presiding over these ravaged areas could care less. Go visit the slums of Chicago or Baltimore or Philadelphia and see for yourself.