Speaking generally, their only recourse is government; either government action, or government forbearance. They have forfeited the credible alternative.

At the risk of arguing for a "true Scotsman", equality is a conservative value. — Benkei

I don't know what a "true Scotsman" is. I've seen the reference twice today and have yet to look it up. Anyway, a conservative value is one that seeks to keep things the way the are. If equality is the way things are, then I reckon you're correct.

Do you have evidence of state, church or economic discrimination – which in the US is in principle illegal by statute – against whites by nonwhites or are you just mouth-breathing unfounded, white grievance propaganda?

Caveat: Prejudice alone is not racism; however, racism is enforced prejudice. — 180 Proof

:100:

My "even if" argument is that, were there to actually be some "woe is me" whites getting put-upon, they should understand the natural phenomena called "push back". People have to expect the the longer they burn someone, the higher the price they (or their children, and their children's children) will have to pay when the burning finally stops. Sons may very well have to pay for the sins of their fathers. Especially if those fathers handed down some ill-gotten gains to their sons.

The lesson to be learned here is either 1. Stop burning, and the sooner the better; or 2. Never stop burning. Liberals = #1; conservatives = #2.

I love that quote. Thanks for sharing.

(for we must not make people believe what is wrong) — Aristotle

Well there goes partisan political BS.

Unless you have wishes left over, you are clearly suggesting mass murder. — counterpunch

Yeah. :roll: You're an idiot. If someone with a brain wants to discuss it, I will. But it's been discussed before.

Edited to add:

I’m letting my frustration with stupidity get the better of me. I banned TMF because he was saying that what I said implied something that was not implied by what I said. I’m beginning to think that saying someone is implying something might be a common method of engagement. I might end up banning everyone from my engagement if I were to do that.

So, I got to thinking about a few things. Since people seem to be incapable of just asking (like you finally did in your last post; you could lead with that), and they would rather just say the other person must be saying something they did not say, maybe there was a teachable moment in each such case.

In reading the other thread on “A new theory of proof” and your own statement about either/or and wishes on the murder question, I thought I’d try a new angle:

Let’s see if you, counterpunch, have the intellectual horsepower, or imagination, to think of some other way to reduce population to, say, a million people, without having to engage in murder. Let’s see if you can make my best case for me. You know, without sounding like an idiot. Really put yourself in a position of advocacy for population reduction and see if you can’t come up with at least of a few of the many alternatives to murder that others have already posited and would result in population reduction. As I said, this has been discussed by many people before but I want to see if you are capable of thinking, and thinking beyond the simple-minded “either/or”. Go ahead, stretch your brain. See what you can do. Show us all you what you are capable of.

Or you can just stick with telling other people what it is that they must mean. Or you could just ask instead.

It's funny how hard people will try to understand a given point of view when they are getting paid big money to win on it and when the other side will make a fool of you if you don't know WTF you are talking about.

I thought you might be over my head (maybe you are) but my brain shut down reading your post. All I can say is homo sapiens is an animal and we share intraspecific traits with most animals I know. And, while mere anecdote, I've personally seen a lot of violence that was not sex/mating-related or, if it was, it went way beyond what was called for just to get laid or to take out another male's offspring. Some of it haunts me. After all, I thought Bambi was cool.

While it might be over-stating the case to say nature is nothing but red in tooth and claw, it is also overstating the case to say we are naturally a kumbha ya critter. In fact, I think our legal systems are largely designed just to exhaust the financial and emotional resources of the parties to the point where they give up on the idea of self-help and just bow their heads and crawl back in their caves. Otherwise, shit would be getting real, all the time.

I think it's great for the mind to stretch beyond it's prejudice and bias. Often there may not seem to be a clear answer once one has honestly and vigorously argue from both sides of a position. — Yohan

It also helps "get down to the nut" and dispense with all the noise, spin, distraction and irrelevant "distinctions without a difference." Once you are down to the nut, argument over that nut becomes WAY more productive.

In Libya? That was really recent though. I'm talking about tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago. — Kenosha Kid

I had amended my post after finding it: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35370374

It was about 10k ya and involved hunter-gathers. Kennewick man was about 9k and same.

As far as I can tell, this is basically standard among immediate return groups: unless the shit hits the fan, go where you will in peace. — Kenosha Kid

I know you guys are talking generalities and eschewing anecdote (as well you should) but whenever I dream about roaming the continent hunting, and minding my own business, I think of Kennewick Man (arrowhead, 9k ya) and other signs of crushed skulls and broken bones. Like that slaughter house they found in North Africa a few years ago. A whole village wiped out. 10k ya. And, while we were fucking the occasional Neandertal (or vice versa) I have a feeling (I know, that's not evidence) that we weren't all chummy with them.

Edit: found it: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35370374

Maybe I'm not the first to propose this. I haven't heard of it before. The idea is challenging each other to steel man each other's position. — Yohan

If I understand what you are saying, this has been around forever in law schools. I've never heard the term "steel man" though.

One should always try to be a theoretical advocate for the opposition. Professors will often assign a student to a side, whether the student agrees with that side or not. The student must then put on zealous advocacy for that side. I've watched it change minds. I've also seen an opponent make a better case, and show a better understanding of his opposition than his opposition does. On this very forum I have, in the past, asked an opponent to please make my case for me just so I knew he understood what I was saying. He declined.

Certainly not news after the fiasco at Helsinki in 2018. Leak the kompromat, Vlad ... :smirk: — 180 Proof

:100: I'd like to see it, but I've also learned from this man that no new low is low enough to turn his sycophants away from him. If it was two (or more) consenting adults pissing all over each other, then that won't be enough. Now, if he was taped fucking little boys or what have you, then you'd think that might do it. But I don't know. I'm sure the shit that is stuck to his shoe would just say "It's all a deep fake tape and conspiracy against dear leader by the evil Jewish space laser cabal!"

yeah, there's nothing racist about it, it's just a response to being attacked. — Kenosha Kid

That's the way I see it. Encroachment on "my" hunting grounds, tit for tat, blood feuds, etc. Some was just dick-measuring raids/warfare. It's a real bummer to my fantasy world. I can handle wolves, bears, snakes, spiders and all the other things you'd have to look out for. But I hate the idea of having to look out for people too. They are just too sneaky and you need your own tribe for adequate defense and situational awareness.

:100: I did a quick overview with my buddy Wiki (on both Mondragon and Jackson). The only thing I see that would make race less of an issue in those communities is the pureness of the democracy/ownership.

Anything less than true democracy allows "representation" and the insinuation of personal agendas, creeping in via layers of people. Some of those agendas use race as a wedge. Pure democracy puts everything on the table and there is less room for palace intrigue, conspiracy, politics and conniving, or the use of the tools (race) that further those shenanigans.

I'm still up in the air on the economics. Pure capitalism (i.e. no cost externalization) would likewise not give a shit about race. It would be all supply and demand and all about the money; who cares what you look like.

I like the coop idea, and I don't like the cut-throat of capitalism, but, while not a race issue, I fear the former would have less tolerance for loners, misanthropes and others who don't want to participate. The scariest thing in the world to me is the idea that the community is going to show up at my door and make me come to the shindig, smile, dance and hang out with them.

Is racism natural? No, the fear of the unknown is. "Racism" is a construct invented by weak-minded people in order to explain that fear. — Christoffer

Sounds about right.

Mondragón Cooperative Corporation, Basque country, Spain (emulated in the US at Cooperation Jackson in Mississippi (of all places!)) — 180 Proof

Okay, well I asked for it. Now I have to follow up and look into it. Thanks.

America in 1491? — Kenosha Kid

I know there was lot's of warfare between different tribes but I don't know if it was race-based. I think there was so much capture, slavery and breeding going on that it probably was not based on skin color. I'd like to see an example from today that we could point to and say: "There, that way!" But maybe it is on America to lead the world on this. That arc of justice is really bending slow. I'd laugh but I don't think it's funny.

I hope this question isn't too much of a digression from the OP, but my wife and I were talking the other day about the racial issues in the U.S. and wondered: Is there a country (or even a place) anywhere in the world that the U.S. could use as an example of how things should be? If so, where is that and what allowed them to get it right?

You want to murder most of the population of earth and you call me unrealistic because I want to drill to harness magma energy? — counterpunch

I'm beginning to see why people think you are flakey. I didn't say anything about murder. I didn't say you were unrealistic. I don't want to engage with you any more.

I asked how you plan to accomplish this mega-genocide, and you've got nothing. — counterpunch

I'm sorry, but I missed where you asked me that question. Cite?

Limitless clean energy from magma is a radical future; and one that offers hope. — counterpunch

If you are here on the internet telling us about it instead of getting out there and making it happen then it's just more noise. I don't know shit about magma and I've got no truck with it, like I said. But apparently others here who are smarter than me think you of full of it. I'm not taking sides on that. I'm just saying "go to work and good luck."

Cool, but if you break it down by country, you can see fertility rate vs CO2 footprint.

https://www.webmd.com/bipolar-disorder/guide/bipolar-disorder-lithium — frank

I'm seeing an article on bipolar disorder. Is my brain falling apart?

Interesting question. It brings to mind the people who charge others with appropriation. Whites charged with appropriating black culture, Indian culture, etc. I reckon a group of people of one physical/biological/birth sex could get all verklempt about the pronoun proponents horning in on their territory: "Hey, I'm a woman and I don't like you trying to identify as a woman! Typical man! Trying to take over everything!"

No, it's really not a thing. It's morally repugnant to consider people surplus; particularly given that, scientifically and technologically speaking, no-one need have a carbon footprint. Given a scientifically advised application of technology, starting with magma energy technology, to power carbon capture, desalination, irrigation and recycling, 10bn people can live well, and sustainably. — counterpunch

Over population is a real and horrible thing. It is morally repugnant and patently arrogant to think otherwise. All the clap-trap about what could be, but is not, is the proof of it. It's just more humanity spouting shit into the wind as part of an open conspiracy against the Earth and ourselves. We should really put up or shut up. Don't talk. Make it work, now.

"anyway i think an apt way to think about climate change is that there are 'no non-radical futures.' either we change everything or the earth changes everything for us. anyone selling you 'realistic' incremental change is performing the work of charlatans and denialists." roshan

As for me, what I want is already gone because our population is not and has not been sustainable. Over population and surplus people are the reason.

Over-population is not a thing. The misapplication of technology is a thing. If we applied the right technologies the world could easily sustain 8 billion people. We are 8 billion people. Thus, we need to apply the technologies necessary to sustain such numbers. Simple logic! — counterpunch

You are wrong. Over-population is a thing. We are already (and have been for a long, long time) way past sustainability. Simple logic: We can no longer sustain hunting or gathering. We can no longer go down to the local river and drink long and deep. We can no longer trek for miles across untracked wilderness without trespass. We can no longer breath pure air.

We have to pay for everything. The world has been clear-cut, strip-mined, subdivided, paved, fenced, dammed, domesticated and lit up like a god dam Christmas tree so most people have never seen the stars at night.

I remember about forty years ago some idiot said the entire population of the world would fit in the state of Texas at a population density of New York City. He said, ergo, we had plenty of room left. But people like this fail to account for the giant sucking sound of resources being ripped from the rest of the planet into Texas just to sustain that throbbing pustule; not to mention the untold waste generated therefrom. People like this think food comes from the grocery store and heat comes from the radiator.

These are the same idiots who drive for miles down roads lined with trees and think they see a forest, so all must be well. These people have never heard of "view sheds." When they drive through Iowa, or fly over the fly-over country, they see vast farm fields and think they are looking at wilderness because they don't know what the fuck they are talking about. They see a deer in somebody's yard and consider it wildlife. They've never seen a wolf, except on T.V. They don't know what diversity is.

People are so fucked up they actually think sustainability is the ability to sustain people. What an ignorant, arrogant, simple definition of sustainability. Sustainability has left the building. The base line was what we started with, not what have left. If we want sustainability then we can't squeeze more out the Earth for people; rather, we have to get rid of people and re-wild the Earth.

Simple logic. As a little boy I remember the Fish and Game guy coming to our school and explaining the food pyramid, apex predators, and how all that worked. And how to fuck it up. We now have an upside down pyramid with seven billion apex predators at the top, trying to figure out how to drain what's under them so they can put even more up there. We should put the pyramid back right side up and have about 500k to 1m people on the planet at the top, at our current rate of individual first world consumption. The planet *might* be able to sustain that.

They lost their Czech identity. — frank

Oh. When you said "German Czechs" I was thinking of Germans in Czechoslovakia, like German Americans, not Czech Germans. Either way, that sounds like a loss of cultural identity, not racial identity. Surely their "blood" or any physical characters continue?

German Czechs were subsumed. — frank

Does subsumed mean disapeared? Became totally Czech and no longer have a German identity?

Intolerance is cultural survival mechanism where there's a lot of competition. Cultures that lack intolerance will be subsumed.

Racism is a particularly materialistic manifestation of intolerance, and becomes problematic where the "inferior" race has genetically dominant genes. It's a recipe for a holocaust. — frank

You'd have to dumb that down for me. I'm not understanding what you mean. Particularly the "subsumed" aspect. A cultural analogy would be, has European Pagan practice been subsumed by Christianity, or has it found a way to live on? Or, like the Paul Rever and the Raiders song "Though I wear a shirt and tie I'm still part redman deep inside."

There are different species in nature, not different "races" except as bureucratic categories (castes). — 180 Proof

:100:

There are different species in nature, not different "races" except as bureucratic categories (castes). — 180 Proof

I read "race" is a human thing, and so I agree. But, while dogs are all the same species (canis lupus) and can interbreed, I think the many different breeds are akin to race. Funny how I don't see dogs discriminating against each other based on breed. Dogs will pack up, fight, fuck, party, any old way. I've never seen two of one breed look sideways at another dog of another breed. Must be a human thing.

Yeah, it's a fallacy. Call it out when you see it. But be leery of going on a crusade. I get called out as a boomer, an old white man, blah blah blah. My skin is thick. I don't give a shit and I try not to let it distract me from the merits of an argument. I think it's a distraction for me to get down in the weeds with someone every time they judge me, right or wrong.

In conclusion, if a fallacy is distracting from the merits of an argument, then it should be called out. But if calling out a fallacy itself creates a distraction, then calling it out is no better than the fallacy.

I think your concerns are genuine, but oft times people like to impress us with their knowledge of Latin. I'm not even sure if there is a name for this fallacy, but I'd call it "argumentum-ad-you-should-be-intimidated-by-my-genius-and-if-you-aren't-other-readers-might-think-I'm-pretty-wise-and-I'll-play-to-them-and-win-that-way."

It makes me a bit leary, but this is why, I think, there's often an unholy confluence of old school socialists and right-leaning Hoover style rugged-individualists... Neither make good consumers. — Isaac

:blush: :100:

There's a strong trend these days toward individualism and controlling one's identity in society is part of that, the Facebook page, the modified Instagram images....it's all toward creating a society of easily -defined individuals rather than of connections. — Isaac

I agree with you. It is strange, though, that a strong trend toward individualism is based upon making sure others perceive us as individuals. Back in the day, a strong trend toward individualism was manifest in not giving a shit what others thought of us. Either that, or standing out in some way, good or bad. Being perceived as an individual was earned, not demanded.

The pronouns under discussion are mostly used in the third person, or in other words, in conversations between others. I can understand the desire for others to refer to me in a manner of my choosing, but I cannot get past the notion of demanding others conform to my linguistic preferences. — NOS4A2

I agree with that sentiment, but I can't even understand the desire for others to refer to me in a manner of my choosing. How other's talk about me is none of my business. I think many, if not most people have always had that concern, but it is definitely more prevalent today, with social media and whatnot. For the life of me, I could never understand how on-line bullying was a real thing.

We judge people based not upon the objective act, but upon what we think lies in their heart when doing the act. Bugs, fish, whatever: Evil, sadistic asshole, mean, inconsiderate, absent minded, afraid, whatever. Sometimes the objective act can give us clues as to what we think lies in the heart.

"Sport" is, in my opinion, inconsiderate. Someone who is inconsiderate is not as culpable as someone who is mean, sadistic or evil. But they are more culpable than someone who is absent minded, afraid or spontaneously reacting without thought.

I try to think before I act. I take spiders outside because I'm considerate of their life, and because they perform life in their sphere. But I will kill an elk when I hunt. I do not hunt to kill, but I kill to have hunted (y Gasset). I do distinguish between hunting and sport. I am not a sportsman. Hunting is a spiritual lifeway for me and an honoring of genetic heritage. At worst, I could be judged as stupid or inconsiderate for killing elk. But I've considered it extensively, so I might, at worst, simply be stupid. But I don't do it for mean, sadistic or evil reasons.

Anyway, if I were you (which I am not, of course), I would ask myself why I am about to kick that ant pile? I would not worry about why some people don't like me kicking ant piles while turning a blind eye to fishermen. People are going to judge you regardless. I would concern myself with what lies in my heart, and if I am good with that.

Sunlight is spread over a large area, and we cannot physically gather energy from the entire surface of the earth. — counterpunch

We should not gather it all up when nature is doing it for us for free. She's been doing exactly that for millions of years. All that sun gathered up for photosynthesis, converted to protein steaks so we can sit around, burp, fart, fuck, craft, laugh, dance, science, innovate, and generally enjoy a garden Eden paradise. We have the technology now to make everyone live like kings, without all the negatives of tooth and claw that our forefathers had to deal with. The problem is, too many of us. That's on us. Everything we want is there for the asking. We are not as bright as we think we are when we think that we must continue to do what got us where we are because it worked so far.

Edjumacations is what we need. Fewer, smarter, wiser people.

Society is changing, not collapsing. Man is a social beast (except me) and will always be, even if he's wandering a post-apocalyptical nuclear waste land. Mad Max had a society going on there. But I tend to hope for something along the lines of the movie "Tomorrowland."

But people always think they are so fucking important that the shit is going to change during their watch. LOL! Dumb fuckers. Christians aren't the only ones, by any stretch of the imagination, but they do make a good example. So many think Jesus is coming during their life. LOL!

Face it, we just aren't that important.

as what the polluter is paying are real costs — boethius

:100: Ten ring!

Every time I hear someone whining about the price of a gallon of gas I think about how shocked they'd be if true cost were charged. We are all subsidized by the Earth, future generations, people with asthma, and the list goes on and on.

Even if we all agree to this open conspiracy so we can drive, etc. you'd think the purveyors wouldn't balk at paying a modicum of taxes on their gargantuan profits so we could offset a fraction of the costs they socialize onto the backs of innocent third parties and the Earth. But no. They instead lobby for and receive additional subsidy from Uncle Sugar.

I attended an anti/counter-terrorist quick reaction crisis mission course at the FBI Academy back in the 70s. World experts at the time could never give me a satisfactory definition of the term “terrorism.” Over the intervening years, I still have yet to see a definition that distinguishes “us” from “them.”

“Rules of War” is an oxymoron and a luxury of a winner. Here’s the proof of that: Next time a combatant champions the notion of “rules” in a war, see if they will provide their opposition with a level playing field: give their enemy the same weaponry, training and numbers.

Wait, what? They won’t do that? You mean they like to use F-16s, drones, and fire-and-forget missiles to bomb the shit out people with rifles and grenade launchers? And then they want to take a moral high ground and act all indignant when someone blows up some of their civilians? That’s rich.

Some would argue that military superiority itself is proof of the righteousness of the winner. After all, the winner's "system" generated the largess; and money = right, even if might does not, right?

BS.

This brings us to genocide. There may or may not be a line between genocide on the one hand, and destroying the enemy's will to fight on the other hand. But I tell you this: A failure to utterly destroy the enemy's will to fight will leave a lingering, low-intensity, simmering evil and hatred that will last for eternity. If genocide is the answer to that, then it might best be left on the table.

These are universal truths:

“War is hell.” Bill Sherman

"“The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war.” John Lyly

Edited to add another universal truth: "In war, everyone is a combatant whether anyone likes it or not." Me.

Good. This time I managed to bite my tongue long enough and you came to the rescue.

I just read a headline about "Moon Wobble", to occur in 2030. This will be the new punching bag for the deniers: "Ocean levels aren't rising due to hoax global warming; it's the result of perfectly natural "moon wobble. Calm down! I can continue to pump poison into the air. It's all good, you Chicken Littles."

Not at all, only that you don't identify with the gender. It would be like me saying that I'm not an Australian National Party Supporter, this doesn't mean I hate Australian National Party Supporters, merely that I don't identify with the group — Bradaction

But if you are flying their flag, don't blame someone for figuring you are one of them, even if you have told them you are not. Likewise, don't go looking like a man unless you plan on getting treated like one.