No. Seems like a reasonable thing to ask the developers for though. They've implemented a few of the things we asked for before.

It obviously lets me post, but not sign in or sign up. — noAxioms

You wouldn't be able to post if you weren't signed in, so I'm still confused about what your problem is.

To sign out you click on "Sign out". It's down below the left hand category menu.

The thought that some people are still using IE6 keeps me awake at night, so I try to ignore it.

Whether it's the computer or the local network, I wouldn't know, but my first thought is that it's a browser issue. Is it an old browser?

Either way there's probably nothing I can do about it.

It seems we have MathJax integration now, although as far as I can see it doesn't kick in till you refresh the page after posting.

$$x = {-b \pm \sqrt{b^2-4ac} \over 2a}.$$

Cool. Trying to rustle up some enthusiasm first. The more people the better. And after scanning the Anscombe I've kind of gone off it. I'd like to do something by MacIntyre but all I know of are his longer works. A reading group for After Virtue would be great, if anyone is interested. With all the ethics on this forum and the old PF, I'm surprised he hasn't come up more often.

Anyway, in the meanwhile I'd like to see a few more essay/paper suggestions.

I'm having a hard time interpreting your comment, nA. Are you saying you can't log in from one of the computers or devices that you normally use? I've never heard of this problem before. I don't know what you mean by "entering London" and "the do-it button".

It's about time we had a reading. I've looked through this discussion and chosen three that appeal to me and which I haven't read:

Peter Sloterdijk - Rules for the Human Zoo
https://rekveld.home.xs4all.nl/tech/Sloterdijk_RulesForTheHumanZoo.pdf

Michael Thompson, Apprehending Human Form
http://cas.uchicago.edu/workshops/wittgenstein/files/2007/10/ThompsonApprehending.pdf

GEM Anscombe - Modern Moral Philosophy
http://www.pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/mmp.pdf

Anyone up for it? Any more suggestions?

(Y) :B (Y)

You're not addicted. You're just always surprised that you don't stop having new things to say. 8-)

I largely concur, but I seem to recollect that the radicalisation of Islam was nourished and promoted by Laurence of Arabia, back in the day, and thereafter supported by the West as part of the cold war in Afghanistan and elsewhere. — unenlightened

Yes, but all the same, radical Islam is a genuinely reactionary theory of history and politics, and interpretation of Islam, that has been developed over many decades by Muslim thinkers. It is genuinely misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic, sectarian and violent, and while it is certainly not embraced by most Muslims, it stands substantially unopposed in the Islamic public sphere, and opposition to it in the West has tragically been left to the Right, who use it to victimize Muslims and immigrants in general. It's tempting for Westerners on the Left to portray it as merely a desperate lashing out, which is a view that helps nobody.

Of course the dominant economic and military power (formerly my country, currently yours) bears the dominant responsibility for the consequences of its interventions in foreign parts. No power, no responsibility. That's not hard to understand is it? I'm not saying that the US is entirely or solely responsible for anything or everything. Nevertheless the greater responsibility in general lies with the greater power. — unenlightened

It is a matter of the purest pragmatism and not requiring my lily-livered morality to observe that a man with nothing left to lose is the most dangerous of men. And therefore, as a matter of pragmatic, hard-headed policy, both domestic and foreign, it makes sense to ensure that everyone has something more than their mere existence to lose. — unenlightened

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Allied Powers were primarily responsible for the conditions in Germany that led to the rise of the Nazis. We still hold Rudolf Höss more responsible for killing a million people at Auschwitz than the Allied Powers, no matter how much we might say that the punishment of Germany, and imperialism and nationalism in general, were causes. And although we might think that nationalism and imperialism and British misdeeds must be resisted and exposed, we also see that Nazi ideas are to be resisted and exposed, whether or not people fell for them owing to financial insecurity or humiliation traceable to Allied actions.

If you think Rudolf Höss is too privileged or empowered for the analogy, we could pick any number of formerly impoverished lumpenproletariat Freikorps, SA, and SS men, brutalized veterans of the First World War, who committed smaller atrocities throughout the 20s, 30s and 40s.

But the Germans are white and can be held responsible for their own actions, whereas the Muslims are brown and oppressed and can hardly be expected not to become genocidal murderers.

It’s what I call the racism of low expectations: to lower those standards when looking at a brown person if a brown person happens to express a level of misogyny, chauvinism, bigotry, or anti-Semitism, and yet hold other white people to universal liberal standards. The real victim of that double standard are the minority communities themselves because by doing so we limit their horizons; we limit their own ceiling and expectations as to what they aspire to be; we’re judging them as somehow that their culture is inherently less civilized; and, of course, we are tolerating bigotry within communities, and the first victims of that bigotry happen to be those who are weakest from among those communities. — Maajid Nawaz

I think one can oppose Western militarism and oppose Islamism and Jihadism at the same time (and incidentally I don't think the latter are a reaction to the former). One can seek to ensure that people have something to lose without at the same time treating Jihadist or Jihadist-inspired murders as inevitable, and without indulging the ideas of self-appointed conservative representatives of Muslim communities.

With a few exceptions, the Guardian is a fairly establishment publication, supporting the liberal managerial left that changed the political scene from 1997 onwards. Here's an editorial from January 2003, a lovely example of hand-wringing militarism:

"War with Iraq may yet not come, but, conscious of the potentially terrifying responsibility resting with the British Government, we find ourselves supporting the current commitment to a possible use of force. That is not because we have not agonised, as have so many of our readers and those who demonstrated across the country yesterday, about what is right. It is because we believe that, if Saddam does not yield, military action may eventually be the least awful necessity for Iraq, for the Middle East and for the world."

Lefties, it's time to accept that the liberal left is as much a part of the establishment now as Murdoch et al (perhaps more so?).

By the way, I'm not especially enamoured of Corbyn's politics myself, but I think he's pretty good for British politics in general and infinitely preferable to his opponents in the Labour Party.

Indeed. And I don't think the post-vote bitterness about Britain as a "rainy fascist island" is doing anything to help immigrants. On the contrary, it is whipping up fear and hatred. But I don't think the intention is to help anyway; often it seems to be just more virtue-signalling and the new snobbery--the need to mark oneself as a progressive, opposed to the culture of the white working class.

On the other hand, some Remainers are helping, by marching in solidarity with immigrants and so on. And I'm glad to see that some of the Remain-supporting commentators, such as Paul Mason and Owen Jones, are denying the narrative of resurgent racism and arguing for a positive Brexit now that the people have spoken, but I fear they may be in a minority.

Talking of agendas, there's this in Foreign Policy:

It's Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses

The headline is in earnest.

:D Just what I was thinking.

unanimously — Michael

What?

The issue of staying in or leaving the EU is far too important an issue to be put to a national referendum and voted on by the uninformed and those who might be motivated by emotions or bigotry. That's why we elect a small group of people to make these decisions for us. They can then actually discuss the issue in depth and seek expert advice before coming to a reasoned decision. — Michael

This is a laughable fantasy.

Good article: https://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/beyond-the-brexit-debate/

Would you really be OK with a democratic decision that favoured slavery? — Michael

I guess this is the argument for a written constitution--putting human rights beyond debate and alteration--that can't be democratically over-ruled, i.e., over-ruled by Parliament. But anything consistent with such a constitution would be ultimately decided democratically.

I don't like stepping on toes, but I couldn't help myself.

It's not about what you ought to want or not want. The question is if you're willing to accept a democratic decision you don't like and go on to support democratic campaigns to change that policy in the future; or if you'd prefer to disallow or over-rule democratic processes on an issue you're certain about.

It shows that experts are often wrong--that there are more important things at stake.

Is it facist to favour the right decision over the popular decision? If the democratic vote favoured slavery, patriarchy, and homophobia, am I a fascist for hoping that those in charge ignore the vote and instead push for equality? — Michael

You might want to check out the contemporary expert consensus regarding the economic consequences of the abolition of slavery.

Indeed.

The accusation of fascism is rhetorically useful for emphasizing just how bad such an anti-democratic position is. It's definitely hyperbole though. The EU itself behaves in just the kind of way that Michael favours, and it's definitely not fascist. Unknowingly arguing from certain mainstream prejudices and ideologies, Michael thinks politics is, or should be, merely the expert technical management of a given state of affairs; his politics, as far as he has any, seems to consist mostly of appeals to authority, so he won't see it as a matter of enforcing his own personal opinions.

I doubt he thinks politics is merely the vehicle to realize a belligerent reactionary corporatist totalitarian state.

It's likely that attitudes such as his enable the growth of various anti-democratic -isms, but it's a bit unfair to label someone who is basically apolitical as a fascist. Don't get me wrong though: I think his attitude to politics is appalling.

First the sea 'opens up' into the harbor. — csalisbury

Wow, I hadn't even noticed that. Not reading closely enough. Surely it couldn't just be a mistake could it? Or just a wee trick to emphasize how big the harbour is? And after that comes the narrowing. But yeah, your wider point--"elegant evocation of elegance and evocation"--looks right.

a taste of the distant sea that, urged by the moon's pull up the deep yielding estuary, salted his face vised between his knees — Baden

:D I don't think this is an improvement.

I was a bit suspicious of great harbor of New York/Hudson/that deep yielding estuary, which I thought was elegant variation at first, but I think it actually works fine. Generally I quite like the writing style, though it takes a second to get into its rhythm. I'm not sure about the wind-journey-ending-against-his-face-as-a-hint-of-salt-in-the-air thing. It looks like he worked on that for a long time, and although it's quite clever in the way it introduces a man possibly in despair, and evocative in the way it sets the scene, it's maybe a bit portentous for my taste.

EDIT: Also, is it just me or isn't it pretty much impossible to get your face viced between your knees unless you're a child?

Your post presumes that for Europeans to be united is for them to remain in the EU, that to leave the EU is to "get away from Europe". This is a misunderstanding of the EU (although it's a common one even in the UK). Europe under the EU is not "solidly united".

The stay campaign seems to have done a better job of presenting their case than the leave campaign, in my opinion, and I think it's mainly because they--the remainers--have the vast bulk of the political and economic establishment behind them. The interesting thing is that, looking at some of the polls, the electorate might be becoming immune to the establishment's propaganda: a recent article in the Guardian described the popularity of Brexit as a working-class revolt. I'm on their side.

I'd be up for a reading group too, but like csalisbury I'm not so sure about going back to Kant, just yet. But if you started one I could probably be persuaded.

You remind me of Banno sometimes.

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be a thorough engagement with your whole post. Just a spanner in the works to see what sparks fly.

A typically Western response, of course. The moment people, wherever they are, get a chance to get out of subsistence farming and get washing machines and escape from the social tyranny of village life, they tend to take it. That's what makes these measures not simply a measure of Westernization: they are not about what is particularly Western.

This makes me think of one of Hans Rosling's TED talks from a few years ago, in which he says:

Africa has not done bad. In 50 years they've gone from a pre-Medieval situation to a very decent 100-year-ago Europe, with a functioning nation and state. I would say that sub-Saharan Africa has done best in the world during the last 50 years. Because we don't consider where they came from. It's this stupid concept of developing countries that puts us, Argentina and Mozambique together 50 years ago, and says that Mozambique did worse.

Source

I think we also need to consider the huge differences between the many countries in sub-Saharan Africa. But I'll leave it there for now.

Right... you have the NHS LOL! :D Have you ever been seriously sick and had to be taken care of by... the NHS? I think you haven't... then you would certainly not be wearing the NHS with pride. — Agustino

As you're appealing to anecdotal evidence I thought I'd butt in to say that several of my friends and family in the UK have been seriously ill, including very serious malignant cancers. They were all treated extremely well by the NHS, with the latest technologies and techniques, and by some of the best doctors in the field, and they got better. My experiences with the NHS have all been good.

I think I may have made my mind up. I will vote to stay. Although the EU could do with some reform, I think that it is better to remain a part of it. For me, it has to do with things like this: http://www.theguardian.com/money/work-blog/2013/jan/24/europe-legacy-uk-workplaces — Sapientia

Is a good king better than a bad Parliament? See Tony Benn on democracy and the EU.

War is not an inconvenience to capital. — unenlightened

It's the concerns of the people who engineered the European Union that I was referring to, not capital in the abstract. My point was that they wanted to ensure the expansion of national capitalist economies without the kind of national competition that would lead to war. This was quite a good thing, but it doesn't follow that the EU is in any way opposed to capitalism, even if it is opposed to outright war. And right now, the EU is not doing a good job of ensuring unity.

Simply, the EU is not a bulwark against capitalism, and strengthening the European bureaucracy makes it more difficult for national electorates to opt for anti-capitalist policies, not less.*

*I wouldn't at this time count myself as anti-capitalist except in my utopian mode, so for me it's not an argument for leaving the EU that it's pro-capitalist (it's the kind of destructive, financialized, stagnant capitalism they foster and enforce that I have a problem with). But the wider point is about the ability of people to decide on the policies that govern them, for which I think national parliaments need strengthening.

As for Yanis Varoufakis and Owen Jones, they both have good arguments against the EU and very little positive to say about it, and Varoufakis's campaign to hold the EU together is a mainly negative one: he fears what would happen if it broke apart and thinks it needs to be completely reformed on a new basis.

I'll be voting 'in' on the basis that the hated bureaucrats need strengthening against the hated capitalists, multinationals being larger than nations and corporate capitalism ruling the world almost unchecked. — unenlightened

But the EU is a capitalist club (originally designed to allow the expansion of member states' capitalist operations without the tedious inconvenience of another war). It is no enemy of the multinationals. The idea that bureaucracy is essentially opposed to capitalism is an enduring myth (enduring on both the Left and Right).

But at the margin, the EU is more democratic than Megashite Industries ltd, and Dodgy Dave's bullingdon bullies. — unenlightened

In what way is the EU more democratic than the Conservative government?

And as you may have noticed, what David Cameron has done to Britain is nothing compared to what the EU has done to Greece (and others). The country has been brought to its knees, the policies on which Syriza was elected have been overruled by an outside power, and the desires of the Greek people expressed in the bailout referendum have been ignored. How anyone can think that socialist politics or democracy can benefit from the EU is beyond me.

Ok, but that's also pretty obvious. — Sapientia

First, it doesn't seem obvious to people like the SWP and other far left groups, who often talk as if the revolution is around the corner and as if there were still a militant revolutionary socialist proletariat, in Marx's sense, preparing to grab the reins of power.

Second, the point was meant to support my view that the SWP's focus on a particularly anti-capitalist campaign for exit is misjudged. And that was meant to support my view that the issue is best seen as neither left nor right.