Suit yourself. I've had my say on that matter, and you're of course free to reach your own conclusions.

You've had a lot of erroneous say and failed to show how reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism. That's hardly surprising.

But that question doesn't bear on the fact that Skepticism is skeptical, and is skepticism itself, by that word's dictionary definition.

OK...but that sure doesn't show that reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, skepticism,..which makes sense, since it's not.

You're free, however to show how reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism any time.

Considering it's not, this should be a hoot.

Sorry, but reincarnation isn't part of, or assumed by, Skepticism.

All I said was that reincarnation is consistent with, or even implied by, Skepticism.

I never said reincarnation was part of or assumed by Skepticism. You really are reading poorly. I said reincarnation would rest upon assumptions, so your own definition of Skepticism wou'dnt allow it. And reincarnation isn't consistent with, or even implied by, Skepticism

So, the only one grasping at straws is you.

"My metaphysics is a perfect fit for your definition #1.

"A disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object"

--Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

No, it is not, because--as everyone can see--your definition is much narrower than number 1, since you limit it to "brute-facts." Definition #1 does not.

Incorrect. I don't limit "it" to brute-facts. I said, "assumptions and brute-facts".

Because it was obvious that you'd pounce on "brute-facts", because that term isn't found in the dictionary definition of skepticism, I clarified that brute-facts are assumptions, whose avoidance suits the dictionary definition of skepticism.

Then your metaphysics is no longer a perfect fit for definition #1, since reincarnation would rest upon assumptions.

With that argument answered, you have no argument against my statement that the metaphysics that I call Skepticism, is skeptical, and is skepticism itslef...as that word is defined in the dictionary.

See my last answer. It corrects you here, too.

Trump surely puts lying into a whole new dimension, basically that lying simply doesn't matter at all.

The usual way is just to pick the facts that help or advance your agenda and forget deny facts that are against your agenda. That's the typical way politicians work... to avoid straight out lying.

No, politicians straight-up lie all the time. They lie in campaign promises they know they will never keep, they lie about their opponents, they lie about the influence lobbyists and big donors have on their decisions. They also make straight up lies on policies with huge ramifications

George. W. Bush lied about Saddam Hussain having WMD's, leading to a disastrous Iraq War.

Obama straight-up lied about having the NSA unconstitutionally monitor our phones when he knew perfectly well they were absolutely doing so.

Reagan lied to the country about taking money from Iran weapons deals to finance the horrendous Contas. You have a bit of a naïve view of politicians, I'm sorry to say.

Then there are the lies that can hypothetically be true, like the lie before the Iraqi invasion that Saddam Hussein still had "a vast ongoing WMD program" even after Operation Desert Fox. You can get away with that kind of lie simply by saying "one didn't know back then". Blame "bad" intel.

No, these lies couldn't hypothetically be true, anymore than Trump's lies, since Bush and company knew damn well they weren't true, and he continued to send Americans to die and kill many Iraqis. The fact you see these lies as better than Trump's is pretty sad.

How Trump is different is that there isn't some agenda, some reason to twist truth, but everything is just rhetoric, objective facts don't exist. Lying doesn't matter as the rhetoric is much more about emotions and promoting an ideological view. Everything is subjective and basically a statement. With Trump, everything is about himself, the petulant, ignorant and mentally lazy narcissist. Someone who basically lacks the basic leadership skills that a President would need.

Oh, Trump has an agenda; it's to get Trump as rich as possible by the time he's done or is kicked out, which won't bum him out too much, since he clearly doesn't enjoy the work. But if you see this as inherently worse than having an agenda of destroying countries and bombing people for Oil and our weapons sales allies as Bush and Obama did, I'd like to hear that explanation. Obama and Bush have left hundreds of thousands (and millions in Bush' case) of bodies in their wake.

Because that kind of focus, just as checking if Trump lies, is in the post-truth World just playing into the hands of your enemies, the evil Obamas and Clintons of the World. Everything is just rhetoric that plays to one's emotions.

After all, "post-truth" means after truth, which logically implies that lying or telling the truth doesn't matter.

We've always had a post-truth (or non-truth) world. Before the Civil Rights movement, people thought it was the truth that Blacks were inferior and deserved terrible treatment. Many still do. Even in this millennium, people calling themselves liberals thought it was the truth that Gays didn't have the right to marry or to be served in businesses held by religious people. And that's not even mentioning all the lies told by politicians and regular people. Trump is terribly dishonest, but you're acting like we were honest saints before; we weren't.

"I fully defined and described Skepticism."--Michael Ossipoff

No, you took the word "skepticism," which already has established definitions, and you arbitrarily attached your made-up definition to it.
— Thanatos Sand

No. You were saying that I didn't define the metaphysics that I call Skepticism. Here's what you said:

No, I was saying exactly what I was saying right above, Don't take my words and say I was saying something else. When you do that you are acting crazy.

No. You were saying that I didn't define the metaphysics that I call Skepticism. Here's what you said:

However, if one is to do this, it is best to give a complete definition of your use of the word. Things will still be confusing, but decidedly less so.
— Thanatos Sand

Now, you're dishonestly and deceptively leaving key parts out of my argument. That shows even you know you're wrong. Here's my full statement:

"I still don't get this. One can't just call their metaphysical concept the word that already has a specific meaning. It's like proposing a metaphysics asserting the existence of a mind outside the brain and calling it "Existentialism." Not only is one taking sovereignty over a word that has established meaning for many, but they are greatly confusing the discourse as there will be no shared meaning for the used word.

However, if one is to do this, it is best to give a complete definition of your use of the word. Things will still be confusing, but decidedly less so."

So, you lied when you said you didn't just define it. I said you were giving a false definition of the word "skepticism" while keeping the original word and its value. So, you're not only making false definitions of words now; you're lying in your erroneous arguments. Not impressive.

First, let me explain to you that, to fit a word's definition, a meaning doesn't have to fit all of a dictionary's definitions of that word. It only needs to fit one of them.

I know, and your definition doesn't fit any of them.

My metaphysics is a perfect fit for your definition #1.

"A disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object"

No, it is not, because--as everyone can see--your definition is much narrower than number 1, since you limit it to "brute-facts." Definition #1 does not.

And what does "incredulity" mean?

"The quality of being incredulous".

What does "incredulous" mean?

"Unwilling to accept what is offered as true. Not credulous."

What does "credulous" mean?

Oh, boy...there are dictionaries on-line.

Now, when I mention "brute-facts", you can pounce on that, as not mentioned in the definition of skepticism.

But a brute-fact is obviously someting offered to be true, something that people are asked to believe with no evidence whatsoever (look at the definition of "credulous").

That's irrelevant since brute-facts arent' the only things mentioned in that definition. So, you are wrong to limit it to them. So, I was right to pounce on it and show you were/are wrong.

"In Merriam Webster, the dictionary you quoted, an assumption is a taking for granted that something is true.

Houghton-Mifflin defines "assumption" as:

"Something taken to be true without proof or demonstration."

Obviously a "brute-fact" is well within the meaning of "assumption".

See my last paragraph to see why you are wrong here, as well.

In other words, my metaphysics is unwilling to accept what other metaphysicses offer as true without demonstration of proof. ...It is characterized by an unwillingness to believe without evidence.

And, as I have repeatedly shown, that is not enough to stand as one of the definitions for skepticism.

In other words, the metaphysics that i call "Skepticism" is skepticism, by that word's dictionary definition. ...as I said.

In other words, you have made up your own definition for "skepticism" as a way to free yourself from the demands of the definition, but usurp the benefits of the word's common meaning. That's cheating. I suggest you change your metaphysics name to Ossipoffism.

construct
verb
kənˈstrʌkt/Submit
1.
build or make (something, typically a building, road, or machine).
"a company that constructs oil rigs"
synonyms: build, erect, put up, set up, raise, establish, assemble, manufacture, fabricate, form, fashion, contrive, create, make
"the government has plans to construct a hydroelectric dam there"
noun
noun: construct; plural noun: constructs
ˈkɒnstrʌkt/Submit
1.
an idea or theory containing various conceptual elements, typically one considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence.
"history is largely an ideological construct"
— google

I'm not seeing any reference to sedimentary rocks or anything else produced by other than lifeforms.Where do you get your definition?

I'm not seeing any exclusion of sedimentary rocks. The real question is where are you getting your definition? And you said "productions of life forms" not "anything produced by life forms" in your original post. So, stop shifting your goal posts and try phrasing your points better.

Sure, but don't forget Obama let his banker buddies get off scott-free and even made verbal excuses for their horrid behavior. Trump is worse than Obama, but Obama-level corruption isn't good enough either.

think it is reasonable to limit 'construct' to the productions of life-forms. Thus a mountain is a formation, but an ant-hill is a construct. I can then use the same notion of life-forms to make the further distinction between a construct made of formations the ant-hill again, and a construct made of life forms, an ant colony.

It's not reasonable since constructions and constructs, by the English definition, are not limited to the productions of life forms. Also, Modern philosophy has well shown how "construct" can be used in the abstract, cultural, and societal, so such a restriction is anachronistic and in denial of discursive reality. So, all you're doing is artificially, and conveniently limiting a word to your personal definition.

Very well said.

I fully defined and described Skepticism.

No, you took the word "skepticism," which already has established definitions, and you arbitrarily attached your made-up definition to it.

But i welcome questions and objections. Specific ones only, please.

I've made specific and correct objections in this post and my two posts before it.

No, it isn't.

The word "skepticism" is defined in every dictionary.

Yes, but it's not defined by the very different, arbitrary definition you give the term.

My metaphysics rejects and avoids assumptions and brute-facts.

That's fine, but that's not what skepticism means.

Rejection and avoidance of assumptions and brute-factsis skepticism, by the usual dictionary definition.

No, it's not; It's your arbitrary made-up definition of it. Here are the standard definitions of skepticism and they are not the same as yours.

"1
:  an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2
a :  the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b :  the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3
:  doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)"

No, the ancient Greek philosophers didn't have a monopoly on that word. It's in every dictionary, and my metaphysics is skepticism, as that word is defined in dictionaries.

Nobody said anything about Greek philosophers, so that's irrelevant. And, as I showed, there already are standard definitions of skepticism. Neither you, nor anybody else, gets to make up new ones for the word.

People had to take those loans for it to work.

Sorry, you're shamelessly blaming the victims here when the banks and the loaning agents actively used predatory tactics by seeking out people they knew couldn't pay the loans and avoiding telling them of the great increase of rates in the coming years. So, save your scorn for those who deserve it.

I'm​ about to get kicked out of my apartment, I hear. Just moved in a few months ago. Not long after that we were all informed: new owner.

Instead of $550 per month for 1 BR it is going to be $810, I hear.

As far as I can tell, a few cosmetic changes and some new appliances will be the only difference.

Yet, those who can afford it will be camping outside the leasing office so they can be first in line to pay higher prices for the same product, apparently. The words "newly remodeled" in advertisements must be powerful.

None of this has anything to discuss what I've been discussing, go see my first paragraph for reference.

If nobody takes the fraudulent loans; if nobody rents the nondescript apartments for more than a mortgage payment; if nobody buys the same food at Whole Foods that they could get from a discount grocery store for much less; if nobody accepts the credit cards and spends money they don't have, it doesn't work.

First, we were specifically discussing the default loans of 08, so don't try to muddy the water with other irrelevant issues. Secondly, you're again shamelessly blaming the victims while showing no scorn for the victimizers. Nice. I suggest you talk to some of the victims who've got deceived. You clearly have no compassion for them at all. Again, go you need to read my first paragraph on this post.

But for some reason household consumers never seem to be anywhere on the radar of people looking to indict and convict economic and political actors in the court of public opinion.

You actually want to indict people who lose their home but not the banks who screwed them over? I hate to say it, but you make Trump look compassionate.

But the metaphysics that i propose, which i call "Skepticism" makes no assumptions, and posits no brute-facts.

I still don't get this. One can't just call their metaphysical concept the word that already has a specific meaning. It's like proposing a metaphysics asserting the existence of a mind outside the brain and calling it "Existentialism." Not only is one taking sovereignty over a word that has established meaning for many, but they are greatly confusing the discourse as there will be no shared meaning for the used word.

However, if one is to do this, it is best to give a complete definition of your use of the word. Things will still be confusing, but decidedly less so.

While always imagine the bank system as kind of shady, I never thought that they actually rig the system in a way that it is a given that they will 'win' no matter what happens. — dclements

Of course they do. Just look at the 08 crash. They made a killing on fraudulent default loans and other extremely risky investments, and then when millions lost their homes on savings, they got all their money back (even their bonuses) and just went on to rip off investors again. And they keep all the politicians greased--from Obama to Clinton to Trump--to make sure nothing illegal they do is prosecuted and all regulations are weak and unenforced.

I think some of the aforementioned philosophers etc are too abstract and technical to make a quick impact.

You're welcome, and my pleasure.

I think I've pretty much shown they're not too abstract at all and are very well steeped in the classical philosophical tradition, and they have already made a huge impact in the Feminist, post-colonial, and LBGT movements as they have greatly used their ideas in their modes of challenging the power structures oppressing them and labelling them "deviant" or inferior."

To me philosophy should be focused around logic so that any position can be attacked for it's logical coherency. That way there shouldn't be a dogmatic philosophy but a constant scrutiny of claims.]

I hope you realize your own predilection for what philosophy should be can't be what it should actually be. That would be a bit solipsistic. Philosophy from the Pre-Socratics to the Post-Structuralists--and both those groups have a lot in common with each other as well as with Medieval Theologianx--has done much more than just attacking logical coherency, and that is a concept that needs unpacking an analysic in itself. If you limit it to that, you cut off philosophy's expansive and artistic potential, something great philosophers from St. Augustine to Kierkegaard to Walter Benjamin embraced and never excluded.

But if you want a philosopher who breaks down logical consistencies in current structures, you won't fine one better at doing that than Jacques Derrida.

Cont'd

Judith Butler--A traditional philosopher and Hegel and Kant scholar, Butler was one of the first to use Lacan and Derrida's ideas to show the constructed notions of gender and to break down the notion that sexuality was purely biological and gender was purely cultural, showing how each are both. She also emphasized how out gender's and sexualities always involve performance and performativity. The former being a conscious expression, such as "I'm a man, I better not cry," the latter being a man's unconscious decision not to cry because his culture and other external surroundings have shaped him not to do so. Butler is extremely politically active in LBGT movements and has been a recent proponent of the Trans communities and movements, as not only idiot conservatives like Trump discriminate against Trans people, so do some people who consider themselves "liberal" or 'enlightened.

Edward Said--A classically trained pianist and classically trained Palestinian literary scholar who was involved in the Palestinian and other POC-oriented movements and even formed a Palestinian-Israeli orchestra with the renowned Israeli conductor Daniel Berenboim. Said's main concept and book Orientalism showed how Western literature/culture, and particularly Victorian literature/culture (his specialty), not only shaped its characters on the exoticizing and dehumanizing of non-White/non Western people, but very often depended on such activity. He ran through diverse texts as The Merchant of Venice, Titus Andronicus, The Narrative of A. Gordon Pym, and Jane Austen's Persuasion. This book pretty much started the Post-Colonial discipline in the Humanities.

Jean Francois Lyotard--Lyotard was a pretty private person, and I have no idea of any of his political activity, but he was a huge thinker in Postmodern philosophy and Humanities, as he focused on Postmodernism reflecting the inevitable human rejection of the constructed Meta-narratives--huge narratives encompassing many others--such as the Enlightenment, Hegelian Marxism, Christian Eschatology, Manifest Destiny, or the American Dream.

Louis Althusser. Again, I know little of Althusser's political activity, but his ideas had great political impact on politically-oriented Marxist thinkers, as it freed Marxism from its substantial threads of extreme materialism and neo-religious notions of Hegelian eschatology and dialectics of Spirit. Althusser rejected the late Marx' Manichean binary of the material Real and false Ideology--so prevalent in The Matrix--replacing it with an ideology model that depicts ideology as our ideological engagement with ideology's engagement with it's non-binary opposition, the material. Thus, as in Derrida's deconstruction, which this notion greatly influenced, we are always in a field of partially-constructed, partially real elements of ideology and material that are meant to be worked through, not solved.

Another key idea of his was, building on Lacan's structure of the Symbolic, that ideology wasn't just top down, but was filtered in a dispersal mode so it could be--in an individual moment--spread in areas of little power and by people of little power, just as it could by areas or people of great power. This idea had a huge influence on Foucault's Power theories.

I thought Sartre was someone who was seen more with the public living amongst the issues.

Sartre was someone who made sure he was seen among the public living among the issues. His actual societal contributions were less impressive as he spent an extended period of time with his female students and is believed to have taken a job many others refused because it was vacated by a fired (and likely camped) Jewish professor during Vichy France.

You have just given a list of names can you give some indication of what they were saying and doing? I think academic philosophers have a cosy Job and salary and can be provocative but without really campaigning for change.

Academic philosophers hardly have a cosy job or salary. Most of them, like most humanities professors, greatly live paycheck-to-paycheck and fight hard for tenure that is more easily denied them out of bias than science or math professors.

As to the philosophers I mentioned:

Jacques Derrida--During his life he was always politically active, working with anti-Apartheid movements in France and South Africa and helped publish a Leftist magazine, Tel Quel. His Post-Marxist, Post-Freudian, Post-Nietzschean philosophies emphasized that our ethical, aesthetic, ideological and power structures were--in connection with and mitigating material reality--constructed around a myriad of binaries both buttressing and drawing from strong central beliefs such as God, America, Manifest Destiny, or Laissez-Faire Capitalism, and these binaries and central beliefs continually deconstruct and reformulate and deconstruct and reformulate throughout history.

Gilles Deleuze--I'm not sure of Deleuze's political activity, but his and the psychoanalyst Felix Guattari's Anti-Oedipus did a landmark job of splicing Marx and Freud into their "code-deciphering schizo" model seeing humans in Capitalist societies as seeing a myriad of interrelated value codes--not too dissimilar from Wittgenstein's Language Games--that continually fetishize or de-fetishize objects, values, and ideologies in our systems. The "schizo" who can process the most codes effectively succeeds as opposed to the good, well-informed person of the enlightenment. This is not political activity, but a very strong analysis and indictment of the de-emphasis of legitimate ethics in the Capitalist world.

Michel Foucault--Again, I have little knowledge of Foucault's political activity, except he was greatly involved in Gay rights movements and a de-vilification of BDSM movements and activities, and he was a participant in both. As most people know, Foucault's most significant theory was his one of Power as a synchronous and diachronous matrix that is/was predominantly top-down in directions but also moves in multiple fractal-like directions like Derrida's deconstruction. This is similar to Gramsci's Hegemony, but is less regimented in a Marxist manner, so the Marxist model it more takes from is Althusser's ideology.

Julia Kristeva--A psychoanalyst and philosopher, Kristeva was greatly involved in feminism, but kept a skeptical distance from feminist "movements" as she had a general Foucauldian distrust of all power-centered organizations. She was one of the main editors of Tel Quel with Derrida as well. Kristeva's greatest theory was the post-Lacanian "Semiotic." Lacan had moved Oedipal Freudianism out of the bedroom and into language and culture by saying that people's growth wasn't dictated by their parents, but by how they were able to fit into language and culture and how the dominant ideas and linguistic structures--the Symbolic--allowed them to do so. Kristeva believed this structure opened up the un-recognized and even vilified spaces usually occupied by the artist, the marginalized, and the ones who think "outside the box" in their realm--The Semiotic. This idea was a huge one to understanding the value of Modernist Art and how the marginalized or misfits could assert their value, or even superiority

Not a problem, hey?

I never said Trump was no problem...but straw-man away.

Sure, but we also need politicians like Obama to do more when they become president and for attorney generals to act more like Bobby Kennedy and less like Eric Holder. Lord knows the Trumps of the world aren't going to do anything when they're president except make it worse.

Would you say that blacks and other minorities are being treated better today than say 70 years ago.

.

In some ways yes. In many ways, no. Unarmed blacks are getting gunned down by police in alarming number and with alarming alacrity and the police are almost always found innocent...even if the victims were running in the opposite direction.

I don't see it happening as, so far, he's proven to be much less of a hawk then Dubya, and less of one than the elitist hawks Obama and Hillary Clinton. He's not tied to the oil industry like Bush and seems far more interested in making as many corrupt bucks as he can than pushing an imperialist policy.

In fact, it's mostly centrist Democrats and War-hawk new sites like CNN, MSNBC, WaPO and NYT who have been pushing for more war against Assad and more disastrous training of "rebels' who have greatly turned out to be ISIS or Al-Qaeda. They are also the ones pushing for brinksmanship with Russia with Democratic congressmen even being so reckless as calling the supposed hacking of the election an act of war. So, Trump, as awful as he is has not been the one pushing for brinkmanship this last year.

I'll agree with degree, because Trump is so stupid he doesn't even know how to lie or not to lie for his own long-term benefit. But I won't degree in kind since, as bad as Trump is, he hasn't gotten Americans and over a million others killed in a war that cost this country trillions, like Dubya--still the worst American president ever--did.

Thanks for the response.

But blacks and whites in poverty are in the same boat, because once you reach poverty, the chances of economic recovery are poor -- for anyone. It's just very hard to rebuild a life after you have been ratcheted down. For instance, well educated people who commit crimes and go to prison, usually have a very difficult time gaining employment (any job, not just the kind of job they used to have) once they leave prison. Felony convictions and prison are the kiss of economic death.

Blacks and Whites may be suffering some of the same economic inequities and anti-poor government policies, but they are not in the same boat. Rice wasn't just killed because of poor police strategy; he was also killed because he was a black child whose death would never cause the same local and national uproar as that of a slain white child. That's because Black poor have to suffer police racism and institutional racism that white poor do not have to endure. Also, whites still have an easier time getting hired than blacks at all levels, including fast food restaurants and other lower end jobs. And when they get the jobs, blacks are much less considered for management and higher positions than white poor.

So, no, black poor and white poor are not in the "same boat." The white poor are in a terrible "boat;" the black poor are in an even worse one.

What happened? How did it implode?

Thank you.

The fundamental fact for a majority of colored people in white societies is that they are poor, have very low status, and continue to be the object of discrimination, abuse, scorn, and so on -- and they don't have many resources to draw upon to improve their situations.

Poor white people (white trash) are in the same boat. They are scorned and discriminated against, have low status, are abused, and so on -- and they don't have a lot of resources to draw upon to improve their situations, either.

No, poor white people are not in the same boat. There are not nearly as many incidents of police gunning down unarmed white men and boys as there are of police gunning down unarmed black men and boys. A microcosm of this inequity is 12 year old Black Tamir Rice was gunned down in an empty gazebo with a toy gun; White Dylan Roof--who gunned down 9 blacks in a church--was taken alive and taken to Burger King.

That being said, I agree with what you said about what the poor need.

No, it's not, but nice try.

Here is the difference with Trump; despite his comments being shown to be false, they are repeated and acted on. Truth no longer plays a part in the dialogue, nor in the actions they entail.

Again, that's not a significant difference from other presidents. Joseph Wilson has shown that Saddam had no access to uranium or WMDs but George W. Bush's lies about them were acted on and 4000 Americans died, as well as more than a half a million Iraqis died.

Obama told us that he wasn't having the NSA/CIA monitor our phones, so we all proceeded with our phone calls as if they weren't, and it turned out they were.

Bill Clinton over-exaggerated the threat of gang violence in black neighborhood, leading to the enactment of a racist crime bill sending hundreds of thousands of young black men to jail for non-violent drug offenses.

Trump is scum, but to present him as this mendacious, toxic counter to the honest presidents causing no damage with their dishonesty before him is inaccurate.

Minorities are selectively oppressed as part of the general suppression of the working class--which is populated by people who retired from wage work, work for a living now, or would work if they could get a job. If you depend on a wage for your sustenance, then you are working class.

You wrote some good stuff, including in the paragraph above. But minorities/POC aren't just oppressed as part of the general suppression of the working class; they are also oppressed for the color of their skin and their ethnicity.

Blacks are still inordinately made victims of police brutality and murder, even when they are unarmed and/or running from the police.

Blacks are still profiled when driving, and that includes upper-middle and upper class Blacks who are often just pulled over for being Black and driving a nice car.

Sentences, including death penalty ones, are still racistly unfair, with white rapists often given month long sentences, if anything at all, while Blacks and Latinos are often given sentences in years for non-violent drug offenses.

No, I have been the only one really talking, and you have failed to address anything I said.

Let's just leave it at that.

Well said.

I gave you a list of radical academic philosophers. Some of them are still alive.

Concepts become something that is, by definition really, imposed on reality.

No, concepts are something that arise out of and reflect reality, if not perfectly or always successfully.

↪Thanatos Sand It's what I assumed you are based on your last comment. Could be direct realist I guess.

Considering the difficulty you had defining "indirect realist,' I'm not sure you know the definitions yourself. But nothing I said in my post pointed to such simplistic two-word phrases.

So what are you..indirect realist?

What is that?

Power needs to be decentralized and given back to local communities.

Do you agree or disagree?

You didn't address anything I said in my post I quoted. When you do so, I will answer your question.

I am talking about a system that is global in scope. Neo-liberalism affects everybody. I simply used Ferguson, MO as one small illustration.

And I showed you it why it needs to be addressed specifically and at the national level. You have yet to respond to what I said.

If you are not looking at it from the perspective of neo-liberalism and globalization you are not talking about the same thing as me.

I am talking about the same thing as you, I just showed you why keeping things restricted to just hitting neo-liberalism and globalization won't suffice. Again, you failed to counter what I said.

I have no reason to believe that a "progressive" in office who does not recognize and consciously oppose neo-liberalism is going to make any difference.

I don't care what you believe. I've shown you why your belief is wrong and you've failed to counter that, too.

Or the oppression of African-Americans in the Jim Crow South was simply transferred to other people such as those employed in Third World sweatshops.

No, it wasn't since there already was third world racial oppression before American segregation and there is still anti-Black racism in our American police system.

If you think that you can convince me that it is not a zero-sum game I will listen.

I don't waste time trying to convince people away from their delusions. But if you really believed it was a zero-sum game, you wouldn't advocate doing things as you've been doing.

But I am convinced that the change the OP seeks will only be realized by ending the game.

That's fine, and it has nothing to do with anything I said.