Can you even prove the Floyd murder was racially motivated? — Judaka

Prove as in 100%? Nope.

You shouldn't call someone racist because they say things you don't like - when they're not racist. — Judaka

Agreed. That's why I only call racists racists.

When the rioting started, I wanted to know what the facts were - and so I looked them up. From 2003-2012, there were on average 10 million arrests per year. There were around 1000 Arrest Related Deaths per year - 42% white, 32% black. That's a 0.1% failure rate in a country where people carry guns. The police are not murdering people. In fact they are incredibly professional. But how to explain the fact that black people are 13% of the population, yet make up 32% of deaths. For that we have to look at the crime stats - and they are fucking abysmal. Black people commit massively more crime than white people. Really, it's shocking. The black 13% of the population commit more murders than the white 76% of the population. Violent crime, drugs, theft - all way above average. Put simply, black people commit more crime.

...The problem is cultural - and it's never going to change until black people take personal responsibility, start to value education and aspire to a socially useful idea of success. — counterpunch

That's not just being wrong.

Do I think him a fascist? I wouldn't use that language. I do think his thinking is - as shown here and elsewhere - shall we say, eccentric...

I was attracted to the forum because I am the most significant philosophical thinker of this, or any other generation - and I'm duty bound to share my uniquely enlightened thoughts, and shepard(sic) humankind into a prosperous and sustainable future — counterpunch

If you have time, yes! — frank

I tried to find it again, couldn't. Sorry! I'll have another look another day.

So counterpunch really has no one in the government representing his interests? — frank

I don't think so? I'm assuming @counterpunch is one of those hereditary working class people who got educated (possibly when tuition was free!), then aged only to have the Labour party; traditionally worker-populist; betray 'em. But considering he's advocated here for a neoliberal (public-private partnership expanding) figurehead for Labour by my reckoning he's advocating for exactly the kind of Labour politics that destroyed their reputation in 2008 anyway - elites making unaccountable decisions.

And his sense of having been betrayed by the supposed left has left him more angry at leftists than the tories?

Seems that way? Why are you so angry with "the left" @counterpunch? Does the current activist+Corbynite left zeitgeist of anti-racist, pro-trans, anti-sexist class struggle rhetoric make you feel excluded? Like the left's no longer "for you" since you're white?

Eccentric? Haha, that's for sure. I don't take the "cultural" diagnosis well either but kenosha kid is nonetheless being theatrical.


And what makes him racist, can you quote it for me, please?

what makes him racist — Judaka

Odd... what did you make of his misuse of statistics, as quoted? Seeing violence as a cultural trait of black people isn't a wee bit racist?

Hmm, I do see that as being racist, okay, I am not sure if this is enough to warrant kenosha kid's theatrics about it but it is totally unacceptable to blame "black culture" and "black people" for "black crime". I admit page 14 is pretty damning, @Kenosha Kid I may not have called you out if I read this properly, you are not being so unreasonable as I had thought. The way he talks about "white people" and "black people" bothers me a lot. Maybe I'll just sit out for now and make up my mind about this later.

Cheers.

Why don’t you actually try and address Harry Hindu’s post. — Brett

Brett, KK has difficulties answering tough, direct questions. Dont expect any substantive answers from them.

Bret has joined the ranks of the dear departed.

It's a large quantity of wrong. I addressed the part I thought most amenable to progress. If I need advice about what to address from you, I'll give you a heads up but frankly it's well outside your jurisdiction. — Kenosha Kid

Its not wrong that if you question the existence of white privilege you get called a racist. That was the point of what you quoted. Your reply simply doesn't address what I said, but that is expected from you.

Why? Did he question the existence of white privilege?

...using racial slurs against another poster. — fdrake

Riiiight. So now you're affiliating me with Brett when I've never spoken to the guy before now? If you had been paying attention, you'd have noticed that I have said that racial slurs are ad hominems, just like calling people racist is. But you and your companions aren't interested in facts, only propaganda.

The funny thing is that if Brett didn't use a racial slur but instead used terms like, "idiot", "moron", or even "shit-ass" or "fuck-face", he wouldn't have even given a second notice, because people think those names are OK to call people.

The fact is that not all blacks are offended by racial slurs, just like not everyone is offended by being called a "dumb-ass". So you are simply taking on yourself of speaking for others for which you dont know anything about, while at the same time generalizing all blacks as if they are all equally offended and interpret the word the same way.

If you had been paying attention, you'd have noticed that I have said that racial slurs are ad hominems, just like calling people racist is. But you and your companions aren't interested in facts, only propaganda. — Harry Hindu

Meh. Just not much interested in your posts.

I may not have called you out if I read this properly, you are not being so unreasonable as I had thought. The way he talks about "white people" and "black people" bothers me a lot. Maybe I'll just sit out for now and make up my mind about this later. — Judaka

Talking about race isn't necessarily racist in the context of other racial prejudice. If you believe racism is negligible, i.e. there is very little evidence to suggest that it exists, well, you're wrong, but at least in your view race arguably shouldn't be a topic. That is not counterpunch's reasoning. His version of racism is to deny that white-on-black racism is real when hundreds of thousands of black people have been enslaved, lynched, segregated, murdered, assaulted and marginalised by it, while on the other hand espousing alt-right propaganda that whites are being oppressed, along with males, straights and cis-gendered persons. The evidence for the existence of white-on-black racism is overwhelming. The evidence for white oppression is non-existent. In addition, he has characterised black people as intrinsically criminal, while bemoaning political parties for not exclusively representing white people.

Racism is very real and very solidly evidenced. It is also unambiguously evil. You say you hadn't read his many offending posts. Frankly I don't buy it. You completely misrepresented my argument from the start, while apparently insisting on a maximal evidential basis for pretty uncontroversial conclusions, a lower bar you cannot possibly insist on in any meaningful discussion.

You're defending someone who claimed that George Floyd cynically said "I can't breathe" because it was a BLM slogan and then you ask me for absolute proof that yet another white cop murdering a defenceless, handcuffed black man is evidence of racism. Sure, whoops, right?

Do I think him a fascist? I wouldn't use that language. — Banno

I do, based on:

Nevertheless, if the election was a fraud, those people did the right thing. They occupied the seat of power - and that's exactly what people should do if the system is corrupted. Afterall, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution both begin "We, the people...." It belongs to them. It's shameful that a police officer shot someone dead for trying to enter a building that they own.... The people who occupied THIER seat of power to prevent a fraudulent election have nothing to be ashamed of. — counterpunch

Legitimising a violent coup against a democratic government because his lot can't wrap their heads around why Trump was a turn-off is still legitimising a violent coup against a democratic government.

Can you even prove the Floyd murder was racially motivated? You shouldn't call someone racist because they say things you don't like - when they're not racist. Just because it's not racist - that doesn't make it okay, you can still be angry just, maybe stop diluting the meaning of important words for political benefit? — Judaka

This brings to mind a more general question: I have often felt that when discussing with people who appeared honestly have a different opinion on social issues that the main disagreement was about what could reasonably be concluded from events. What happened was not in doubt, but what it means was.

So, do you think people you characzerize as "left wing", or who are engaged in "social justice" movements often have bad epistemological standards?

That is do you feel they're overinterpreting events? See intent with insufficient evidence? Conclude systemic issues exist based on anecdotal evidence?

More generally, do you feel like the "left wing" tries to make the world more complicated than it is - that things are more often what they appear, and common sense works? Or is it the opposite? Neither?

I did not talk in-depth about what I thought counterpunch was saying nor my opinions on the matter, you're getting ahead of yourself. I do not have a problem with people talking about race but I do have a problem with saying "race x should do this or needs to stop doing this" for a number of reasons. Mainly, it is ridiculous to hold a race of people accountable, no matter the subject matter. If we allow that then racism becomes justified.

I acknowledge systemic racism and I do not consider it to be negligible. I have talked about this topic many times in the past, you're free to read an example.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8482/does-systemic-racism-exist-in-the-us/p24

There's a lot on this site to show that I am neither soft on racism nor deny its existence.

If I misrepresent your argument and then immediately admit that I did and that I was wrong, why would you insist that I did it on purpose? What did I achieve besides showing that I sometimes misrepresent people, making me look bad and vindicating you immediately, what do I gain by doing that? Also, I just called the guy racist, not doing a very good job of defending him.

Honestly, I was biased against you due to previous posts, I thought I had read enough of this thread to know that you were being unreasonable. I admit I was wrong, his comments about the election fraud are also insane, I am surprised but I see now that your comments are way more justified than I had thought.

:up:

@frank

I couldn't find the original video with voter demographic breakdown, but I found one with Mark Blyth making largely the same point. (Edit: if you want a longer piece putting the UK's political disintegration and rise of the right alongside the US's, he's got lectures on that too).

This brings to mind a more general question: I have often felt that when discussing with people who appeared honestly have a different opinion on social issues that the main disagreement was about what could reasonably be concluded from events. What happened was not in doubt, but what it means was. — Echarmion

I don't know, I think the left and the right rarely agree on what happened or what is happening. Seeing agreement on anything but moral platitudes like "racism is wrong" but then all similarities ending is what I expect. The main reason for that is that the news media, politicians and so on can be highly manipulative and seeing a totally different understanding of the world based on whether a person watches fox or cnn is to be expected.

That is do you feel they're overinterpreting events? See intent with insufficient evidence? Conclude systemic issues exist based on anecdotal evidence? — Echarmion

I think that both the left and the right hold nuance in contempt and dislike it when things don't fit into their narratives. It's actually very difficult to know for instance, whether racism was involved in an act of police brutality but the left seems sure it's racism and the right are sure it's not racism. The further out you go, the more sure they are. Neither of them can actually prove anything and so it's a bit ridiculous.

More generally, do you feel like the "left wing" tries to make the world more complicated than it is - that things are more often what they appear, and common sense works? Or is it the opposite? Neither? — Echarmion

I think ideologies, whether left or right-wing, are generally about oversimplification rather than over-complication. They take a certain way of looking at the world and force it into every conceivable context.

I do have a problem with saying "race x should do this or needs to stop doing this" for a number of reasons. Mainly, it is ridiculous to hold a race of people accountable, no matter the subject matter. — Judaka

How is this relevant? Counterpunch is not a synecdoche for white people. Even the few people I've tussled with on here (Brett, BitcoinCarlos, NOS4A2) do not collectively constitute a synecdoche for white people. Speaking of which:

I was biased against you due to previous posts, I thought I had read enough of this thread to know that you were being unreasonable. — Judaka

I'm extremely consistent on this point, as are the likes of the above, the most common theme being that murdered black people somehow have it coming, the other being that black people are intrinsically criminal while criminal white people are exceptions, I.e. racist propaganda. So I'm wondering what you see is different about this one. Feel free to PM me if you think there's a point to be made here but don't want to drag it out here. I do take notes.

As for the rest, fine. I, at face value, take your post at face value.

Do I think him a fascist? I wouldn't use that language. — Banno

I do, based on: — Kenosha Kid

Nevertheless, if the election was a fraud, those people did the right thing. They occupied the seat of power - and that's exactly what people should do if the system is corrupted. Afterall, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution both begin "We, the people...." It belongs to them. It's shameful that a police officer shot someone dead for trying to enter a building that they own.... The people who occupied THIER seat of power to prevent a fraudulent election have nothing to be ashamed of. — counterpunch

Legitimising a violent coup against a democratic government because his lot can't wrap their heads around why Trump was a turn-off is still legitimising a violent coup against a democratic government. — Kenosha Kid

I don't think that above makes him a fascist. Note the "if". The question is that if elections would be fraudulent, naturally then the winner of the elections wouldn't be lawful. And of course if the elections aren't fraudulent, then this act of saying that they were is itself sedition, a thing that might be added there.

And note that those that have accused others of a fraud have been the leadership of the US administration itself. So technically it isn't a coup as a coup is defined as the removal of an existing government. The correct term is a Self-coup or autocoup. This happens when:

A nation's leader, despite having come to power through legal means, dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assumes extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances. Other measures taken may include annulling the nation's constitution, suspending civil courts and having the head of government assume dictatorial powers.

How is this relevant? — Kenosha Kid

They are my views on what counterpunch has said, specifically on page 14. It is not a criticism directed towards you. As I said, I am not going to defend him and I have no interest in speaking on his behalf.

I'm assuming counterpunch is one of those hereditary working class people who got educated (possibly when tuition was free!), then aged only to have the Labour party; traditionally worker-populist; betray 'em. But considering he's advocated here for a neoliberal (public-private partnership expanding) figurehead for Labour by my reckoning he's advocating for exactly the kind of Labour politics that destroyed their reputation in 2008 — fdrake

It's strange how you can be so astute in some respects, and so purblind in others. I was raised in a working class household. I left school, worked in construction and demolition - and attended university as a mature student. I'm the first generation in my family to attend university. I studied sociology and politics. My major concerns upon graduating were not political or sociological - but philosophical and environmental.

Put simply, I discovered, humankind is headed for extinction - not because of capitalist greed, but because we have a mistaken relationship to science. Science is not just a tool; it's a means to establish valid knowledge of reality/Creation - and it's an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality. We are headed for extinction because we fail to understand this, and abuse science by applying it for ideological ends. That said, we cannot secure a sustainable future by tearing down the churches, banks and borders because "it's not true" - we have to get there from here!

Your left wing, anti-capitalist, pay more-have less, carbon tax this, stop that, windmills and solar panels idea of sustainability won't work. It's based on Malthusian pessimism - disproven by 200 years of improved living standards despite a growing population, and the lie of limits to growth. Resources, in fact, are a function of the energy available to create them - not some fixed quantity being used up, that might run out. To secure the future we need massive amounts of clean energy, sufficient to create the resources we need, by extracting carbon from the air and burying it, and desalinating water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation. We need improved living standards - not impoverishment imposed by left wing authoritarian government, not least because poor people tend to breed more.

The energy is available in the interior of the earth. Based on many years of practical construction/demolition experience - I believe it is possible to tap into that energy by drilling through hot volcanic rock, lining the bore hole with pipes and pumping water through, to produce steam to drive turbines, to produce massive, constant, clean, base load electricity. Given that energy, capitalism will be sustainable - and we can look forward to wealthy sustainable markets, and population levelling off at around 12bn people by the year 2100. Without that energy, we cannot secure the future.

It's for these reasons, as much as solidarity with my working class origins - that I point out the left's purblind insanities, Here we're talking about political correctness, but I'd rather be talking about sustainability. Biden's Green New Deal - Europe's Green New Deal, are based on appeasing the same brand of left wing emotional reasoning that informs political correctness. It's all "How dare you?" - and no regard for the facts. It's all self-righteous authoritarianism - and no physics.

Given that energy, capitalism will be sustainable — counterpunch

The cost of this energy is still unknown so how well it can sustain capitalism and increased human population is unknown.

What do you mean by cost? Price to the consumer? Development costs? Environmental cost? Or just 'cost' as a synonym for implications?

So is the solution to ban renting? Does that really make a lot of sense? You know that renting out part of the house can also make paying off a mortgage easier.

Wheels are round for a reason!

I'm the first generation in my family to attend university. I studied sociology and politics. My major concerns upon graduating were not political or sociological - but philosophical and environmental. — counterpunch

Same, but I went into STEM for statistics in the hope of becoming more employable. Not as a mature student though. When you grow up in a place where people leave a state school expecting to be "on the dole" because there's no jobs anywhere nearby, you wanna get the fuck out if you at all can. The choices looked like "join the army and go to Afghanistan or Iraq" or be a student.

It's strange how you can be so astute in some respects, and so purblind in others. — counterpunch

Thanks!

Your left wing, anti-capitalist, pay more-have less, carbon tax this, stop that, windmills and solar panels idea of sustainability won't work. It's based on Malthusian pessimism - disproven by 200 years of improved living standards despite a growing population, and the lie of limits to growth. Resources, in fact, are a function of the energy available to create them - not some fixed quantity being used up, that might run out. — counterpunch

I think you're right to say that there are better technologies to use to provide green increases in living standards, interpreting it literally you're very wrong though; oil and its derivatives are finite. That's a major problem.

We need improved living standards - not impoverishment imposed by left wing authoritarian government, not least because poor people tend to breed more.

I really wish you'd voted for Corbyn. From their 2019 Manifesto:

That’s why Labour will kick-start a Green Industrial Revolution that will create one million jobs in the UK to transform our industry, energy, transport, agriculture and our buildings, while restoring nature. Our Green New Deal aims to achieve the substantial majority of our emissions reductions by 2030 in a way that is evidence-based, just and that delivers an economy that serves the interests of the many, not the few.

Just as the original Industrial Revolution brought industry, jobs and pride to our towns, Labour’s world-leading Green Industrial Revolution will rebuild them, with more rewarding, well-paid jobs, lower energy bills and whole new industries to revive parts of our country that have been neglected for too long. For some, industrial transition has become a byword for devastation, because successive Conservative governments were content to sit back and leave the fate of whole industries and communities at the mercy of market forces. A Labour government will never let that happen.

We will work in partnership with the workforce and their trade unions in every sector of our economy, so that they lead the transition in their industries, creating new, good-quality jobs and making sure that their extensive skills are passed on to the next generation of workers.

We will show the world how prioritising sustainability will not only deliver immediate improvements to everyone’s lives but also offer humanity a pathway to a more equitable and enlightened economy: one that protects our environment, reins in corporate power, revitalises democracy, unites our communities, builds international solidarity and promises a better quality of life for all. The scale of the challenge requires nothing less.

Tackling the destruction of our planet is a question of justice – for the communities at home and abroad who are most affected by it and for our children who will bear the consequences if we don’t. Social justice will define Labour’s approach. We will make sure that the costs of the green transition fall fairly and are mostly borne by the wealthy and those most responsible for the problem

And Bernie Sanders; another figurehead of the trend you're criticising; promised a similar but more restricted program.

The facts of the matter are green energy transitions are huge coordination problems and costly, government involvement is required to address both those things. Why are you so filled with vitriol against a trend which wants the same things as you - green democratising reform?

We all want much the same things. The question is how we bring that about. Do you really believe that de-platforming straight white males is a way to bring about greater tolerance and understanding? Do you really believe we can eek out our existence by wearing second hand clothes, not eating meat, and sailing across the Atlantic? Do you really believe we can have a Green Industrial Revolution while simultaneously disenfranchising business?

What Corbyn's Labour party (within a Party) fail to realise is that the Invisible Hand at the heart of capitalism is a miracle that affords personal and political freedom - while producing and distributing the goods and services people want and need, without authoritarian government deciding what is produced, and who gets what and when.

Without that magical coordination of the self interested economic decisions of people in a free market, all decision making is invested in government, and one aged, charismatic leader you worship like a God, or get de-platformed - often, quite literally. There's a reason Communism so often runs to genocide. There's a reason Communism always fails to produce the idealist, equalitarian plenty it aspires to at its birth. It's not what you want. We want much the same things. It's how you would aim to bring it about. Corbyn's left of Clause IV rhetoric gives me chills. Political correctness gives me chills. I see gulags in your future.