84% of black adults said that, in dealing with police, blacks are generally treated less fairly than whites; 63% of whites said the same. Similarly, 87% of blacks and 61% of whites said the U.S. criminal justice system treats black people less fairly.

Others might disagree with me on this subject, but I think change can happen peacefully this time on the matter. How this majority view is used to reform the system is the big question. — ssu

Majority view that there is systemic racism, is not the same as a will to do something about it, especially not if doing something about it will cost said white people something.... which I think it necessarily will since the problem is in part economic.

Okay, but that consensus about classic racism wasn't reached by merely talking to eachother. It was the result of a hard fought battle, and not only metaphorically.
— ChatteringMonkey
That's true, but those times are really far away. You don't have eugenics departments in the university anymore. — ssu

No, the problem is systemic racism now. And like with overt racism, I don't think a real solution to this problem will come from dialogue alone.... some pressure is needed for that it seems to me, in one form or another.

Seeking consensus doesn't mean inherently mean compromise. I think your view here is that if you make something in the democratic process and find a point that the majority can agree to do, usually it's some kind of compromise. What I referred here to "consensus" is something different. There is a consensus that openly racist views and classic racism, not just bigotry, isn't tolerated. Hundred years ago it really wasn't so. — ssu

Okay, but that consensus about classic racism wasn't reached by merely talking to eachother. It was the result of a hard fought battle, and not only metaphorically.

I think at some point dialogue doesn't do much, that is when your basic premisses are totally different... no amount of argument will change that, because those basic values are not a matter of rational argument or dialogue to begin with.
— ChatteringMonkey
We usually believe that our basic premises are totally different, and we believe our own strawmen depictions of the other. Some people want and have to see their fellow people as enemies. — ssu

Sure, but it's not merely a wish for antagonism. There are real differences, in temperament... and also in societal position. Seeking a consensus only works if interests and basic values at least align to some extend I think.

And even if we were to try to look for a consensus between two opposing sets of ideas, it's by no means clear that a compromise between those sets is always better than any of those sets separately. To give a dumb example maybe, would Apple sofware and Microsoft sofware be better operating systems if you were to mix them together as a compromise? I don't think so. In compromising maybe you avoid some tensions, and that can be a reason, but you probably also lose some of the integrity that a certain set of ideas has as a self-contained whole.

So if nobody does anything to change things, they won't change their mind... and consequently nothing changes.
— ChatteringMonkey
Why think that seeking a consensus is doing nothing? Why think it wouldn't mean trying to change views? — ssu

I think at some point dialogue doesn't do much, that is when your basic premisses are totally different... no amount of argument will change that, because those basic values are not a matter of rational argument or dialogue to begin with.

EDIT: If someone aligns his ideas on how the world is (say for example a conservative) he won't change his mind bases on ideas about how the world should be (otherwise he would be an idealist or progressive), he will change his views if the world changes.

You want real change? That happens when there's a general consensus on what ought to be, what is wrong or right, when all those annoying people who otherwise don't agree with you do agree on a certain issue. That's true change. — ssu

A good part of the population base their ideas of what ought to be on 'how things are'... which is the same as saying they will only change those ideas if they are confronted with changes in the world. So if nobody does anything to change things, they won't change their mind... and consequently nothing changes.

So far, it is too early to make any predictions. Some people noted that one of the tangible results of the ongoing protests is the intensification of political correctness. All in all, it could function as an efficient vehicle of symbolic violence. As a result, the establishment may successfully manipulate the public opinion and suppress any serious discussion and critical discourse necessary for resolving systemic problems. — Number2018

Sure, nobody can predict the future. But any systemic solution to the systemic problems would have to involve some kind economic rearrangement and redistribution... intensification of political correctness is just more cosmetics that don't go to the heart of the problem. And I just don't see them voluntarily going against their (economic) interest.

The question is if the media and the elite intent to deal with the problems, or 'they will turn their focus somewhere else'. — Number2018

I don't think so, well not really anyway, they will want to do just enough so the whole system doesn't crash. That's their interest, to keep a system going that disproportionally benefits them. In that sense, those who don't condemn the violence do have a point... only real threats to that system will prompt a real reaction.

↪ChatteringMonkey

Perhaps. If "my" kid was switched at birth.. well, you can see from that as I wouldn't know it's psychological more than anything. Yes?

Physiological, perhaps. Characteristics of both without being exclusively one or the other — Outlander

Yes sure it's mainly psychological, but that doesn't mean that it is that easily changed. Like, I don't really believe in the Peter Singers of this world that say that proximity should play no role in moral considerations. The affects we develop for people we know in person play a role in motivating us to be moral in the first place. I don't think you can just do away with that without losing something that is essential to it.

I'll look at it, thanks for the reference.

It's hard to see how you would solve this though, I don't see people voluntarily choosing not to try to give their kids a head start in life....
— ChatteringMonkey

People and their freaking kids. There should be, simply because there is, nothing special about their own child compared to a neighbors or even some kid halfway across the world for that matter. It's the cancerous, parasitic atheist mindset that when you die you cease to exist in any and all forms. So they desperately try to prolong any idea of themselves through reproduction. They push not only all their failed dreams, pursuits, and expectations on them but all their regrets, fears, and mental complexes on them as well. It is abuse in its purest form. Those who seek to be first, shall be last. And even that is only because I don't have a proper say yet. — Outlander

You think people favoring their kids is a consequence of atheism... or of any sort of ideology even? You don't think there's some biological component to it, so that trying to change that behavior will be an up-hill battle?

Oh the irony in liberal leftists being a cause of rather then the solution to systemic racism.
— ChatteringMonkey

There's no irony friend. You're just uneducated on the distinction between liberals and leftists.

The article is helpful in providing some concrete tips for praxis. — StreetlightX

Ok the article spoke of left-leaning, which is mostly liberal in your mind I presume... and not the true left.

The tips could probably make a difference, yes. The problem is that I don't see people voluntarily choosing to do so because there is a real cost to it. The article states that it is sort of a collective action problem, and I think that is a good way of looking at it... which makes me think that you needs some government intervention probably, or some incentive to change those behaviors.

Oh the irony in liberal leftists being a cause of rather then the solution to systemic racism.

"Alternatively, consider schooling: New York City swings decisively “blue” yet has one of the most racially-segregated school systems in the entire country (Harris & Fessenden 2017). There is a widespread perception among elites that education deficits are the primary driver of inequality – rather than the relationship working the other way around (Hanauer 2019); there is also widespread support, in principle, for public schools. Yet few relatively well-off whites in New York City send their own children to their zoned public school (Douglas 2017). Many send their kids to private schools that charge tuition of tens-of-thousands per year but nonetheless market themselves as social-justice oriented institutions
(Robin 2015). Others send their children to elite public schools, often outside their residential zone. These parents tend to vigorously oppose attempts by the city to increase students of color at these schools – be it through reserving places for low-income and/or minority students (Hylton 2018), including
considerations of race or income in admissions, or reducing importance of standardized tests in admission decisions (Ali & Chin 2018). Granted, this opposition is not usually grounded in antipathy towards blacks or Hispanics, but out of a drive to see their own children succeed (albeit, even at others’ expense). Yet this is, fundamentally, how systemic racism operates."

I found this to be especially revealing and also very recognizable. A lot of systemic inequality probably flows from this alone... social networks that are build up in schools are probably one of the key factors that determine professional succes later on.

It's hard to see how you would solve this though, I don't see people voluntarily choosing not to try to give their kids a head start in life....

Erasmus?

Spinoza?

However it is still only a model: we can seek another without recourse to undetectable fields that yields the same predictions, and if we find it apply Occam's razor without new empirical evidence. Does not finding such a model make undetectable fields more real to us, or is it simpler to assume we don't have the best model? — Kenosha Kid

Well I guess that depends on how you would define simplicity. Some would probably say a less complex mathematical model is more simple, while others might say less empirically unverifiable stuff is more simple. This doesn't seem like a question there is definite answer to.

such that no one of the above can be removed and the model stand, and if we then empirically verify the unknown material field (in, say, a particle accelerator), would that justify some credence in the immaterial one? I'm inclined to think it does. — Kenosha Kid

Is it possible to think of a model that would rely on an immaterial field that cannot be removed for the model to hold? Per definition the immaterial field doesn't effect anything material, so how could it then be necessary for the model if it doesn't effect anything?

The obvious observation to make is that their scientific understanding of the world was not nearly as sophisticated as our current scientific understanding. So a lot of what they said, is probably invalidated simply because they lacked that understanding. That doesn't mean that looking at ancient philosophy can't have any value at all though, just that one needs to keep in mind that a lot of it is dated.

One way in which it might be of value is as a source of ideas. Sometimes it's hard to be able to look at things in a radically new way, because we are always to some extend embedded in and determined by the cultural climate of our day. And so because they are so distant and different, some of their ideas might inspire us to entertain different perspectives outside of our cultural biases that we might otherwise take for granted.

An example that maybe could be relevant today is free will, and how that idea still underpins a lot of our current ideas in political philosophy and moral philosophy. Because it is an idea that only took hold afterwards, their tradition isn't 'tainted' by it... and so some of the ways they thought about morality and the social and political in the absence of that idea, might give us some insight in how to go about philosophizing about these issues now, free from that particular idea.

Aren't human beings the epitome of flexibility, inhabiting diverse dynamic environments, possessing a brain that capable of plasticity? — Wheatley

Yes, and that is why those categories do tell us something about a person, they are some of the forces that end up solidifying human plasticity into a particular form.

Trying to think this through to the end...

Is there any way to solve the problem of systemic racism without overthrowing the whole system?

And If there is not, then you are racist, or at least culpable to it, if you are not a revolutionary?

It has to be considered the same object to meet the definition "is defined for more than one time". — Luke

However, in Presentism it is considered to be the same object that changes temporal location from t1 to t2. — Luke

Yes but it is not the same object, even in presentism. And as I said in previous posts what is considered 'the same object' is something we decide and somewhat arbitrary.

Language and logic is not the world itself. So you seem to be merely making a point about the language we use, and not about the nature of reality.

Why would you think that lines that are arbitrarily drawn by us humans, that the language we choose to use, would have consequences for the nature of reality? — ChatteringMonkey

To borrow Kenosha Kid's definition, to change temporal location means "is defined for more than one time". This makes sense in Presentism where the same 3D object moves through time from t1 to t2. It does not make sense in Eternalism where different 3D parts exist at t1 and t2. — Luke

Why not though? My position is, from the beginning, that existing at t1 and t2 and moving through time is the same, except for existing only in the preferred moment and the direction. It don't think 'temporal passage' really adds something fundamentally in relation to movement, hence my repeated questions about it.

Edit: You say 'different parts' exist at different times, but in presentism what will exist in the future is also not identical to what exist now. The different 3d parts at different times in eternalism are just as different as some object will be compared to the future object in presentism.

To consider it the same object is a Presentist notion. — Luke

Nothing stays the same from one moment to the next, as in identical... the law of identity X=X. Even in presentism X is not X anymore a moment in the future, so technically there is in fact no X that can be said to have changed position.

The law of identity and logic is a useful convention, so we can abstract away from the world and try to infer things from that, but it should not be confused with the world itself.

Yes, that's precisely what I've been saying all along: any definition of motion that requires a passing 'now' differs from the standard kinematic definition of motion. I assume this integral-like definition yields the same actual velocities as kinematics, but mechanically relies on a 'now' moving from time A to time B, i.e. it is some kind of propagator. — Kenosha Kid

Agreed, this is also what I've been saying a couple of pages back... in less scientifically accurate terms anyway.

I would strongly disagree. If you take eternalism seriously, then take it seriously with both feet and think about things like motion and change in eternalistic terms. The idea that no motion cannot occur because there is nothing moving along the time axis or moving along the worldline or moving within the block is in itself a presentist notion. — Kenosha Kid

I agree with this too I think, and I've also been saying that you need to think about motion and change in eternalist terms if you want to apply them in that frame. I guess my point was that the confusion comes from thinking about things "existing", which kind of implies an "already', or in other words 'at the same time'... and so it's hard to make sense of something changing position then. But the point is that they exist at different times in eternalism.

:up: Yes, totally. In this case a problem appears to be with the word "change", which is why I suggested a more precise terminology. Motion in eternalism depends on geometry: differences between coordinates at different points on the object. It's totally understandable that subjective, everyday, presentist-like experience would affect one's language when talking about time, motion, change, etc. I've just been working in 4D for so long that the habit has largely been superseded. — Kenosha Kid

Agreed, it's useful in physics to think in those terms, maybe not so much in everyday life... not as long as we don't start venturing into space at relativistic speeds anyway.

The passage of time is whatever makes motion possible and what doesn't exist in B-theory eternalism. — Kenosha Kid

Fixed the definition!

But in Luke's defense, if we take eternalism seriously as a metaphysical theory of time, and not merely as a description, then there does seem to be somewhat of a tension between change in temporal position and saying things already exist at all moments of time. Even the word 'already' is awkward in that sentence...

Where I seem to come down on all of this, is that word 'what exist' or what is 'real' is in some way tied to our experience, and therefor presentism.... and rather then denoting something about metaphysical reality, it usually is used to differentiate between things that can have a direct effect on us. Or put in another way, we invented those words because they has some utility to us. And so the problem is ultimately with the word 'real' or 'exist' really. Saying that something in the distant future and distant past exists doesn't seem very useful to us... whatever the metaphysical reality may be.

Maybe I'll just add this one point, I don't think populist votes are the result of a lack of quality in political debate, I think rather it's the result of a lack of true committent to the biases politicians supposed to have. All ideologies have become to much empty window-dressing to sell themselves to the public so that they can remain in or get into power, and so in that sense they are all more or less interchangeable... and nothing really changes either way. That's what's breeding the apathy in politics.

Yes, they differ, but the key point of the politician is unbiased praxis. What I'm aiming at is that even though politicians come from different ideologies, they need to rationally argue their proposals in parliament without biases. Right now we have no actual fact-checking and no actual focus on quality of arguments in any parliament. We could argue that media has the role of fact-checking, but since media tends to focus on drama rather than the quality of truth, their role has somewhat diminished as a "reviewer" of power. All while people's apathy towards both politics and truth in media makes room for populism to grow easier. — Christoffer

I don't know if it really possible to use ideology and unbiased in the same sentence. That's maybe a bit hyperbolic, but isn't politics and ideology essentially viewing the world through the lens of a certain group or values associated with particular groups. So a certain bias seems part and parcel of the politician. If you want them to act more like scientists or philosophers, that will be an uphill battle it seems to me.

In Sweden, you get paid to go to higher education. If you need more than the base sum, you take a low-interest loan specifically aimed at education that is paid back through the job you get later on. There are ways to battle the problems with enabling this education for anyone, but since it is a fundamental part of the democracy where it is applied, it might need to have special rules of funding in order to maintain that equality. You should be able to get this education even if you come from absolutely nothing (of course normal education is needed as a foundation, but that is true even for how politics is today).

This might even be an incentive to poor people to get out of poor conditions and wouldn't that be an interesting way to increase diversity in politics and get other voices than the privileged in power? I mean, even if you aren't directly working within parliament, getting the education and a license has a weight towards working in other parts of a party constellation. — Christoffer

Okay, maybe there is a way to make it less unequal, don't really want to push that point... that way seems a long way for a lot of countries though, maybe not for a country like Sweden, because they'll have to reform their entire education system. Only financing this one education seems like a bad idea because you will get a giant influx of students only in that one education then, just because it's the only one that is financed.

Anyway, I think I said most of what I had to say on the topic, and I don't think I will entirely agree with the proposal... but still, it was a good discussion.

No solution is a final solution to all problems. I'm behind those ideas as well, but still thinks a baseline knowledge for the praxis of parliamentary politicians would help get rid of much of the post-truth populism we see today. — Christoffer

I doubt it, post-truth populism is a much wider phenomenon than parliament, then politics even.

The average joes can't all become doctors either, even if they want to. I think the idea basically has to do with how we view the work of politicians. I see it as having a tremendous responsibility over the people and therefore I see it as equally important to have a license in order to practice it without harm towards the people. — Christoffer

There's a big difference though, doctors aren't supposed to be elected democratically, and there are more tangible ways to objectively evaluate the skills of a doctor than those of a politician.

Not if it's free. — Christoffer

It's never totally "free", in the sense that even if you don't have to pay for the education itself, there are costs of living and the opportunity cost of not having an income while you get the education. I live in a country with free education and there is still a class divide in those that get an education and those that do not. Poor people need to earn money to pay for the costs of living. And even aside from the money issues, there would be class differences just because of the values and skills one gets from their parents.

Yes, yes, excessive idealism risks turning into cynicism and nihilism.

We create meaning, and it's a bit arbitrary where we want to draw lines. Some say nothing has meaning because nothing is permanent... and some find meaning in being kind to a random person they meet. This just to say there's no absolute reason for you to decide to only find meaning in grand things like saving the entire world. But you did... and now you are disappointed for not being able to achieve that meaning, which is a normal emotional response given you previous aspirations.

I'd suggest you give yourself some time to deal with that and then start looking for some more concrete constructive things that you can achieve... and eventually you will probably will be able to find meaning in that. It's either that, or slowly fading out the rest of your days in cynicism and nihilism.

It might be the case that lobbyist and politics behind the curtains make some of the representatives decide before being in parliament pressing the buttons, but it's still happening there and there are many cases where party members go against their own members if they think their own party has it wrong. The debates taking place in parliament is there in order to discuss proposals, to recruit votes within the parliament. So if those debates had a much higher level of quality, the expert input from the staff of each party can be debated at a higher level of quality. — Christoffer

Sure, I'm not saying it wouldn't matter at all, I'm just saying there might be better ways of achieving the goal. Things like diminishing power of political parties, better accountability through review of representatives, better press reporting through regulation of the media, etc etc... might be more effective.

I still think that raising the bar for debate quality and having a fact-checker present who can stop politicians with bad arguments, demanding them to improve them before continuing, would lead to that and be easier to accomplish than educating the entire people.

The basic question I'm asking is why politicians who can make decisions of life and death for the people, aren't demanded to have a license, just like any other job with such risks? The first thing to counter-argue would be to ask why not having such licenses is better than having them. — Christoffer

I certainly can think of some reasons.... By licensing a profession you create an additional barrier of entry into the profession, which does fly a bit into the face of the principle of democracy. It's hard as it is now to get into politics as an average Joe, and then you are only making it harder.

Licensing through education also typically favours those with the means to finance the education, so there is also the risk you skew political representation in favour of certain classes. And then there is the risk that it ends up in a sort of closed club of people favouring eachother in the licensing proces. I don't think it would be evident at all to keep the whole proces fair and free from corruption, especially since so much is at stake.

A typical alternative for licensing, and less restrictive, is quality labels. The goal is the same, namely increasing quality in the profession, but the difference is that you do not legally restrict entry into the profession, but you grant labels based on objective reviews, and let the customer decide if they want to buy product from someone who doesn't get the label. That's basically what i'd propose instead, because it seems to jive better with the principle of democracy and you also avoid some of the risks that come with licenses.

Which is the change to parliament I also propose here. The debates taking place is there to reach a voting conclusion. So increasing their quality would increase the quality of those votes.

Essentially I want to move away from experts who give their expertise to amateurs who then debate and decide. I want to have experts who give expertise to dialectic experts who decide closer to facts than popularity. — Christoffer

I don't think you fully understood the ramifications of what I'm saying. It's not the representatives who decide. Or they decide only 'technically', the decisions are determined beforehand. So what gets decided beforehand determines the quality of the votes, not the parliamentary proces.

If you change the praxis of debate, if you demand unbiased arguments without fallacies and factual errors, there's no need for mud throws. You can argue for the people who voted on you, but in a much higher quality than just populistic rants. — Christoffer

The need is determined by the incentive, which remains unchanged. If you want a higher level of rethoric in parliament, what would really help I think is if people would expect a higher level of debate... if they would punish representatives electorally for poor rethoric. And maybe you could accomplish that by educating or informing the people... not necessarily the politicians.

I'm trying to focus parliamentary politics into philosophical praxis so that the incompetent mud throwing that can be witnessed in many parliaments today disappears in favor of better dialectic scrutiny. — Christoffer

Okay, even if we would try to bracket the corruption and nepotism question, I still think this misses the mark to some extend. The mud throwing is not a consequence of incompetence primary, but of ruling-party/opposition-party dynamics. They see parlement as an arena wherein they fight for the favour of the crowd... and election cycles and the principle of democracy gives them the incentive to see it that way. And so I think if you don't change that incentive, that dynamic won't really go away.

Another point I want to make is that you maybe underestimate the 'dialectic scrutiny' that happens behind the scenes. A politician is no isolated island that relies solely on his or her abilities. Usually they have a personal staff of various experts they can rely on, and more importantly they are part of parties that certainly have teams of experts in every domain. My point being here that I don't think they are really incapable of having a good discussion of the issues in parliament to begin with... it's just that that is not what is expected of them. Positions on issues are usually well scrutinized and determined beforehand along partylines, and what happens then in parliament is not a matter of dialectics anymore, but of rethorics.

A government can be fair, anti-nepotic, and still incompetent through sheer ignorance. This seems like a separable problem. — Kenosha Kid

Yeah but competence is irrelevant if they are not fair, anti-nepotic etc... so it seems like something you'd want to tackle first.

Can't say I really like it, because it's a bit elitist only allowing certain diploma's. And licenses are also always reviewed by people who can be corrupted... which means you're probably just shifting the problem, while creating additional red tape.

But the most fundamental issue I have with it is that I think your diagnosis is wrong. The biggest problem is not education of the politicians IMO, but corruption and nepotism. Solving that is not a question of better education, but of will, or of giving the right incentives.

So what could work to reduce corruption and nepotism?

- financing: make it so that politicians are independent from financing from industry and other powerful lobby groups
- election campaigns: restrict election campaigns to shorter periods so that money becomes less of a factor
- accountability: maybe the biggest problem is that politician aren't held accountable for the things they do. In theory accountability happens through elections, but people hardly know what politicians actually did because of party propaganda, biased media reporting and general complexity of political issues etc.... Not sure how you would solved this, but maybe some kind of fact-based independent review system could be devised that can give the public reliable information of what politicians have done in their term. If you want democracy to work the public needs to be educated, not the politicans.
- political parties: something needs to be done to reduce power of parties, because any parliament of 'representatives' is kind of a joke if parties have that much power, because they invariably end up representing their party and not the people who they are supposed to represent. Maybe make it so that party-leadership are not the ones to decide who gets to be on the elections-list etc etc... to begin with.
- shorter political careers: maybe a maximum duration should be imposed for people to be active at higher political levels, to minimize the potential of politicians building up nepotistic networks.
- media : as the 'third pillar' of democracy a good functioning media is vital to inform the public. Regulate the profession like some other professions, so that they have to uphold certain standards of journalism... or force them to self-regulate, whatever works best. Probably something needs to be done to cut ties with politics also.

These are some of the things that maybe could have some impact on making a less corrupt political system, but I wouldn't count on it... if I learned anything, it's that I never should be surprised by the ingenuity of people to bypass regulation.

Like, what is the height of a 2D square in a flat 2D universe? The answer is not 0... the answer is that height doesn't apply because there is no dimension wherein you can measure it.

You "need another concept of movement" for what? — Luke

Yeah that was worded badly maybe, I was just getting off the train and had to hurry. You need to adjust the concept of motion to the 4D frame, because...

Put simply, 3D objects move; 4D objects don't. — Luke

... saying a 4D object doesn't move, doesn't make sense because there is no 5th dimension in relation to which it could move. The term movement just doesn't apply, because motion is change in position over time. There is no 'over time' for a 4D object as a whole.

But at this point i'm starting to repeat myself again.

So 3D parts of the 4D object change position over time, despite the fact that the 4d object as a whole does not change position over time. Isn't this just smuggling in Presentism and/or the A-theory? — Luke

No I don't thinks so, you need another concept of movement, like I said earlier.

In eternalism, I see no need to differentiate between them. To what end? — Luke

To our ends of course, as human beings. Even if eternalism is true, we would only experience part of it, and things existing over multiple positions over time presumably would be still of interest to us.

I'm not really concerned with it. I'm interested in the logical implications of the concepts. — Luke

Ok then, are you a rationalist maybe?

In eternalism, what word would you use to differentiate between a 4d object that only exists at one place and a 4d object that exists over multiple positions?

Ok, I think I understand how you view it now.

An 'object' is not something that is set in metaphysical stone. A table is an object, but you can just as well describe it by its parts, or by the atoms it is made out of... it's a convention, or a decision where we draw the lines of an object. And so yes why not split a 4d object up into 3d objects...

So what moves? Whatever part of the 4d object that changes position over time.

Why would you think that lines that are arbitrarily drawn by us humans, that the language we choose to use, would have consequences for the nature of reality?

You seem to assume that existence at all points is the same as moving from one point to another. — Luke

It is the same, because they don't exist at all points at the same time.