@Shawn Please see your PMs with the invite for David. If you'd rather we contact him directly, maybe you can suggest the best way.

The cats have been herded and we would be delighted to have David on board. We are putting together a formal invitation and details of how we'll organize this.

I'll be maintaining my homeostasis at a level away from suffering on that score. Anyhow, if we do a formal invite and David gracefully accepts, just... trust us, everything will be fine.

Getting the mod team to make a collective decision is like trying to herd cats. Of course, folks have other lives outside of PF to deal with. Give us a day or two more.

If you're working for Putin, you probably better check your underwear, mate, because this ain't up to scratch.

Bumden — Bartricks

:lol:

I'm sure he has thicker skin than that and like the rest of us doesn't give a damn what Barprick thinks.

It hovers in an uncomfortable space between the shallow, the callous, and the ludicrous, and has probably already received more attention than it deserves.

It's a psychological malady but it sells advertising space on Breitbart, so someone's making mint at least.

All the evidence about Trump being a rapist and serial sexual abuser doesn't matter because it hasn't been proven in court but someone threw Hunter's gun in the trash and some anonymous source claims the secret service tried to cover it up. Scandal!!! You are one twisted mf if you think you can get away with that level of hypocrisy on a philosophy forum.

(And fucking hell if this is the best the muckrakers can come up with re Biden, give me the job. I've got a healthy imagination and zero qualms about taking out the rich and powerful on either side. This is bloody pathetic).

He does recognize facts... when they suit his political narrative, which is the only thing that ever matters to him.

And if this was the Trump family, you'd be telling us this was just 'gossip'. :yawn:

And what exactly am I advocating? — synthesis

My intepretation of your position is pretty much as @Hanover outlined it. If it's more nuanced than that, feel free to clarify.

Ok, so we reject expert opinion and learn it all ourselves. Who do you think we learn from if not experts? Who do you think write medical books and papers, for example, if not medical experts? (often the same ones guiding government policy). In order to cease our reliance on experts, we'd have to get into some fairly kinky experimentation on ourselves and others, and, in my experience, that is not always appreciated. In short, your position appears not just impractical, but essentially incoherent.

*Damn, Hanover said this already. Note to self: read Hanover's posts even though you don't want to.

a) It is not possible to be an expert in everything
b) "Taking care of yourself" does not offer you or others immunity from COVID.
c) The unchecked spread of COVID would have had devastating health, social, and economic consequences (don't believe me, educate yourself).

No-one's arguing against self-education in general. We're all for that. We are arguing though against maximalist scepticism of the naive and impractical species you're advocating*. It's precisely because I have educated myself on many areas including the way the virus works that I know your position is at best silly and at worst utterly nonsensical.

*What distinguishes your line of argument from that of anti-vaxxers and other anti-scientific kooks, for example?

Don't ever assume that anybody in this health care system is acting in your interests. — synthesis

It doesn't follow that they're actively trying to harm me. Or that I need to learn their job in order to analyze every bit of advice they give me. Scepticism isn't always justified or helpful and maximalism in the area is likely downright unhealthy if not practically impossible.

It never hurts to know everything you can. — synthesis

Good point. Right now, I'm researching PES (Pecker Ego Syndrome). An interesting condition that results in unabashed and unjustifiable levels of self-confidence.

It's not the 1950's anymore when the majority of people were pretty honest. — synthesis

My memories of pre-birth eras are pretty fuzzy. But there's another opportunity to learn from you, I guess.

I can tell. Educate yourself. Read about it. It's not that complicated — synthesis

Hanover is indeed a dummy. He totally misdiagnosed my STD. Although maybe he did that on purpose... Hm.

They don't have to be my friends any more than those who fix my car have to be friends. I'm smart enough to respect the limits of my knowledge. This also handily saves me from mastering every discipline in the world in search of some mythical level of self-sufficiency.

All the time people should be figuring things out for themselves — synthesis

Next time you go to the emergency room, I hope you get this response. You don't just "figure out" every health issue for yourself. If the powers that be get a pandemic wrong by listening to those whose egos considerably outweigh their intellect, the consequence is death and economic destruction on a far greater scale than we have now. So, maybe put your pecker back in your pocket and leave it to those who have a clue.

Me staying out of the conversation? :lol:

First prize for best title of an OP.

*ignores the shitposting* — Shawn

:up:

*then, just wallows* — Shawn

:down:

We are close to making a decision on this. Hang in there.

Because death is a more serious affliction than not being able to get a haircut maybe? Because most under 50s are not selfish rats? Because the chaos of letting COVID run riot would not be limited to one age group? Because the under 50s did not entirely give up their freedom and happines but merely mitigated it along with everyone else? Because watching their parents and grandparents die would not generally make young people happy anyway?

No, it was not optimal because of some twat who had a hissy fit because we edited his question. Anyway, we're still in discussions on the mod forum concerning a potential invite for David and all suggestions are welcome.

Anyway, I think we can close this. Thx for the memories, Joe.

He is a master debater! — counterpunch

:lol:

Never heard of him. Perhaps an investigation is called for? We would hate to lose someone of your obvious calibre.

So... Irish nationalists = drunks and tramps? Correction, we all are. :lol:

I haven't intended to make a positive case for nationalism, only to point to some moral distinctions I see. Which is why I'd happily shake Nicola Sturgeon's hand, whereas even a tramp racist wouldn't get the time of day from me.

Having said that, your line concerning identities I am largely onboard with even though I don't see a realistic way out of that any more than I do of violence itself.

And some aren't, e.g. the "nationalist" community in N.Ireland is composed of those who have historically opposed British colonialism and oppression. Are they the moral equivalent of racists? Those who marched for their civil rights and were mown down by the British army for doing so? No. Your analysis, at best, lacks nuance.

(Also, I'd like to hear your take on the Scottish and Welsh nationalists.)

Well, first of all, there are different forms of nationalism, some of which are as morally undesirable as racism. — Baden

Sounds like an interesting guy. I'll raise this in the mod forum.

Well, first of all, there are different forms of nationalism, some of which are as morally undesirable as racism. What all forms of nationalism have in common though is self-subjugation (to varying degrees) to the "big" other on the basis of a quasi-familial identity. Country is mother/father; we are children and like good children must sacrifice our individual interests for the greater (national) good etc. The nation as supreme moral guardian in return imbues its flock with a sacred and distinct essence that places it above and outside other nations and their flocks. Though racism shares the idea of a distinct essence, its orientation is not self-subjugatory but subjugatory from the get-go. If we could distil the purely aggressive aspect of nationalism and give individuals ownership of it in an absolute sense, we'd have something akin to racism (on the latter point, note that a nationalist has to earn their salt as part of the nation [through self-subjugation], and those who do not are internal enemies that can be entirely alien regardless of their citizenship, whereas whiteness and inclusion in the race is a fait accompli from birth).

So, yes, while in practical terms things are not black and white (no pun intended!), racism is in essence more pernicious than nationalism in that as a category it's (theoretically):

1) hard (immutable from birth); and therefore 2) exclusionary (in an absolute sense); 3) necessarily subjugatory, with its victims being immediately identifiable (in theory).

Am I right in thinking that the major distinction you're drawing between national identity and race is that, ultimately, national identity is a contingent property of a person and race is a necessary one? — fdrake

That's part of it, but I agree with this too:

I think that holds when hewing close to the categories as they're theorised, or on their own terms, but in terms of their observed function - precisely who counts as Aryan, white, black, depends on the political weather. The essentialist ontology of race is time varying in practice. — fdrake

And I also agree with this:

In practice, of course, race, ethnicity, religion and nationality are often entangled in a messy way. — SophistiCat

but, as mentioned, I think racism is more aggressive, more absolutely exclusionary and necessarily subjugatory (there's no escaping the logic that the superior race should dominate the inferior one). That's not even to mention the inherent denial of full human diginity to the other at the most fundamental level.

Anyhow, to me the question isn't really why MAGA is more acceptable to us than the KKK. The fact that it is is just a social phenomenon. It's a lot easier to be a nationalist (now) than a racist; there's a million reasons for that and it may change. And even from a purely moral point of view, this is true:

What unites these identification categories is that belonging is, by and large, not up to you. It cannot be credited to or blamed on your character or your decisions. We are born into these categories, and changing them is difficult, if not impossible. — SophistiCat

But given all that, racism is still the deeper moral insult imo in part for the reasons I've outlined above.

Because "races" are notionally physical demarcations, racism involves an an instant process of stigmatization and potential dehumanization based on arbitrary and immutable characteristics in a way that nationalism doesn't. A nationalist can concede that someone like you of a different nation could be part of their nation but happens not to be, whereas a racist does not recognize you of a different race as "someone" in the way they recognize themself as such, so the question of inclusion doesn't even arise. So, sure there's the common denominator of the 'us v them' dynamic but that dynamic is not fully explanatory of the underlying phenomenon. Nationalists can express mutual, if grudging, respect. The other can be another like me. A racist can't do that. Racism transforms 'us v them' necessarily into 'us v (inferior) them' and with great efficiency. Not saying here that nationalists can't or don't sometimes view those of other countries in a similar way to how racists view other races, but there is no necessary overlap in the most morally pernicious form of prejudice there.

But it is more a challenge to the Neo-Marxist, Postmodern destroyers of freedom that run this site. (Yes, Baden this means you.) Turns out they are all bourgeois lickspittles of capitalism after all. — unenlightened

This is true (speaking for myself).

Some of the allegations in the latest interview are important. If the royal establishment is so fucked-up racist that the shade of a baby's skin sends them into paroxyms of angst, they need to be ended right now.

I am sure that this has nothing to do with my philosophical skills and everything to do with being a significant personage at TPF. — jamalrob

That.

29, apparently. Helping to prove the spuriousness of the proposed connection, I guess. :lol:

I call it tomato, you call it whatever you call it in Finland. :wink: Don't disagree but the hypocrisy of the Dems pisses me off.