Were your neighbors Slavic? Slavs seem to get hot under the collar (it's an expression, not a diagnosis of localized neck fever) over fairly casual slights. Unlike the rest of humanity who are always extremely thoughtful about what they get angry about. — Bitter Crank

Yes, partly so. Everyone from the Balkans tends to get hot under the collar over casual stuff :rofl:

So, what did your fellow Rotarians do about this example of atrocious behavior (on the part of their fellow Rotarian?) — Bitter Crank

Hmm, I'm not a member of that club.

As for the people present, nobody did anything, you can't really tell another person how to run his business. What would you have done?

Are you claiming there could be a concept of unity without an apprehension of diversity? — Janus

What happened, did you suddenly wake up after one year and a half to continue the convo? :snicker:

where is this? when you refer to the east where are you referring to exactly? like the entire east side of the world map? Igor Just where you happen to be? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

I am from Eastern Europe btw. — Agustino

I’ve seen female bosses talk like crap to their employees, i’ve seen male bosses talk like crap to their employees. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Yes, but there usually are some limits in many Western countries.

And I don’t see how education has anything to do with it (if you’re referring to intellectual education) I think it’s more about being taught good etiquette, which is something available regardless of how educated you are. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

It absolutely does, if you're not educated in the sense that I'm talking about (which is moral education), then you will almost inevitably behave like a brute.

I’ve witnessed some of the poorest places (and least educated) to be some of the most respectful and courteous places i’ve visited. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Yes, towards visitors, since visitors have money, and they have what to take.

I find most children/teenagers from poor countries to be unquantifiably more polite than western pupils in school getting a full education. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Hmmm - like you mean going to punch the teacher, or throwing stuff while they lecture at the board, etc.? Is that "more polite"? How about going to exams where people literarily talk to each other and give each other the answers, while the instructors repeat "no talking" while doing nothing to actually stop the cheating?

Most people from the less developed countries tend to treat Americans, British, etc. like gods - why? Because they were taught since childhood to bow the head.

The problem is also that the life in a society (or what's left of the society really) is often portrayed as a constant competition going to the point of an almost violent conflict of interests and ideologies. I find that everyone has a right for an opinion only if they keep it to themselves. If anyone decides to voice their opinion and use it publicly, they should take responsibility and bear the consequences. To take it further - the problem is not when someone says something, but when they propagandise it and try to sway public opinion on the other side. — Coldlight

Yes, "public opinion" seems to have become a way to arbitrate between what is right and wrong, and what is true and false in the West. If you watch students working together (for example), you'll see that the moment they reach an impasse, they will say "let's vote", instead of "let's try to think more clearly about what the truth is". And then the result of the vote is taken as truth, and the opposition is silenced. In the West, the opinion of the masses is the standard of truth. And this bastardization of truth seems to come part and parcel with democracy.

It is the fact that some men (there's probably no formed group) retaliate by using the same rhetoric. So, they try to strike back with "No, actually, you discriminate against me!" This means they get converted to a superficially created way of confrontation. — Coldlight

Yes, I would agree. Some respond to ressentiment in the same spirit that they were attacked, and hence, paradoxically, propagate the same spirit further.

It depends as what your setting as the goal post for disrespect. If your morals are quite conservative, (like mine are) then the majority of youths (any many who are not so youthful) these days (male and female) contribute to the disrespect of the opposite gender (and their own) all the time. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Well, I am also a conservative.

In what way? I’d would disagree that they are inherently disrespectful just because they organise their Societies in a different way. I think they put more emphasis on respect than the West. That doesn’t mean people can’t be disrespectful, but it’s certainly, from my opinion, much more respect focused. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

The more educated people put more emphasis on respect than in the West. I am from Eastern Europe btw.

However, the masses of quite frankly stupid and uneducated people don't. Women are frequently treated like a piece of meat, are expected to be subservient to men in the workforce, etc. For example, I was at a notary last week, and he started swearing (with everyone there) at his secretary, then threatened to fire her, reminded her she has a child and is responsible for him, etc. That's definitely not decent treatment, and if it was a man instead of a woman he wouldn't have dared to do that.

And there are worse things than that. Back when I lived at the countryside, one of the neighbours there cut his wife with the sword because she refused to have sex with him, so my family had to call the police and then help her get out of that relationship. There's lots of stuff like that, including physical violence here.

Women though are also different and adapted to this. Which is why you get many women who end up trying to use the man for his money, and will leave him when they find someone who is better off. Happens in the poorest and the richest classes equally. There is a lot of conflict between the sexes I would say.

I think it gives a good lesson in the disrespect for women felt and expressed by some members of this forum — T Clark

I don't see any of the comments there from me as disrespectful to women. And I also don't think women are disrespected in (Western) society at large. Though in the Eastern countries, they probably are disrespected (still).

I think what this reveals is that it has become a norm, at least in Western countries, to think that everyone has to have an opinion, and that everyone should seek to have their problems resolved by blaming someone else - institutions, education, economic system etc. Therefore hardly anyone feels responsible for anything. "If I have a problem, it's certainly because they discriminate against me." That's the line of lazy, irresponsible thinking that sadly dominates Western society. — Coldlight

Yes, I agree.

Secondly, there is very little if any real authority. That is a general problem of democracy. All of a sudden everyone is an expert on politics, and able to judge what the president is doing. It's not that their concerns are not justified, it's that again, in a democratic regime, the leader has no reason to take as much responsibility, it's just a few years, after all. — Coldlight

I also agree here. Democracies also have another problem - those in charge of the community (the leaders) are more worried about holding onto power, than taking care of administrative duties. Indeed, holding on to power becomes the primary concern, and sometimes the only one.

Still very similar percentage points, 9% vs 13%.

Nevertheless, I did think that data may be for Africa, but I'm actually not sure. NSW Minerals Council is an Australian organisation, dealing mostly with mining in Australia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSW_Minerals_Council

Rockefeller's "cooperation" was achieved through a web of deception, devious transactions, and crude power. — Bitter Crank

No, very likely this wasn't the case, despite Ida Tarbell's account, which was more vilification than truth. Ron Chernow's biography is more accurate.

How do we know this? Because a lot of the producers who sold out to Rockefeller remained in the business working for Standard Oil, and many of them became very rich, millionaires. So going from starving oil producer to millionaire is quite an improvement I would think, no?

They, as anyone else - this goes for all people - follow their own self interest. — Coldlight

What is the relationship between self interest and social interest?

It is my view that there can be a difference between self interest and social interest only in societies which are internally divided. In truth, they are not even societies, but rather conglomerates of different societies. The society of men, the society of women, the society of rich, the society of poor, etc. They are only under the illusion of being a society, because in truth, they aren't a unity but a multiplicity.

But if the society is a unity, then each individual part feels the sadness & the happiness of the others as if it were its own. Much like if your toe is hurting, then your whole body is hurting and your whole body is concerned about your toe and will fight for it to do something about the pain. That's because you are a unity.

So in a similar manner, the state of our society only reflects our lack of unity & harmony. Imagine, for example, that you owned a company that controlled 100% of all the world's economy - there were no other companies. What would you do then, because everything is already yours, there is nothing more that you can take? Well, clearly, your interest would be to maintain harmony and ensure that everyone is kept happy - that's what makes things the simplest for you and keeps you in power. So you'd structure production to achieve this goal - that would be your interest. Your interest only becomes twisted if, for example, you depend on a handful of people to maintain power, so you form a unity together with them, against everyone else.

So our current social system and mode of economic organisation can only exist on the background of an external enemy. But this is not a strong society. Neither are companies organised along these competitive lines strong companies.

John D. Rockefeller who was one of the richest men historically ran away from competition like from the devil - for him, it was all about cooperation. He became the richest man, and Standard Oil owned 90% of the oil market (until the government broke him up - for no reason really), precisely because he co-opted everyone else who was in the oil business and organised them to work together - prior to Rockefeller, the oil industry was cut-throat competition, and everyone was struggling to make any money in it. Then they all started making money, and because of efficiencies in production due to economies of scale, oil actually became cheaper than ever.

And it's not just Rockefeller, pretty much every smart businessman realised this. Even Peter Thiel talks about it in Zero to One - (aiming for your business to be a monopoly - which is really the same as saying a community).

I don't think we tested, but we have a few active female members.

Let's say TPF has 50 or so very active members. Out of those, probably 10 or so are women. So that would be like 20%. That would be my guess. But it's mostly men on philosophy forums generally.

There's actually quite a high percentage of female coal miners — Buxtebuddha

https://www.miningreview.com/infographic-women-in-the-mining-industry-what-the-stats-say/

Only 9% of workers in the mining industry are women.

No, obviously they couldn't be put merely down to societal rules.

The interesting thing that many postmodernist thinkers don't take into account is to ask themselves why gendered roles were distributed as they were distributed in society to begin with? They always start at a later point, once the structure is already in place, and then proceed to identify that the structure is (now) socially enforced. The interesting question is why did this particular social structure become socially enforced in the first place? The answer must be something that predates the social structure and hence social organisation in the first place, hence the answer must be in some potentialities allowed by biology.

For example, the asymmetrical distribution of physical strength between men and women has allowed, at certain times in the past, oppression to occur. Clearly, the stronger party can always oppress the weaker one if it so decides. We organise our societies in such a way that we try to prevent the stronger party from using its superior power to oppress the weaker. One of the reasons why we organise ourselves in societies is to protect the weaker. But just because we do that, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be aware that there are some foundational differences.

By the way, relating to what @StreetlightX was saying, neither men nor women are encouraged to be coal mine workers - our culture doesn't do that. So why is it then that mostly men end up being coal mine workers? I would say the difference in physical strength, which is to a certain extent biological, certainly plays a role. In addition to that there could be the culturally mediated attitude which discourages women from taking risks in terms of their health - though it's not only cultural, it's also biological, since the mother must keep the children she caries in her womb safe, if she dies, the children die too - but if the man dies, the children can still survive.

It's a problem for 90% of CEOs to be men, but it's not a problem for 90% of coal mine workers to be men :rofl:

Actually, that's true! :O Where are the 50-50% female coal miners? :rofl:

Another worrying aspect is the spread of one-party political authoritarianism in Eastern Europe once again. The political system, in-itself, isn't a problem, but the fact that those who wield power are absolutely uneducated retards, with the brain of squirrels, who (some of them) cannot even sign their names, some have never opened a book in their lives - that is indeed a very serious problem.

At this point, many of the Eastern European countries are on the precipice of falling under Russian influence once again, which would be dreadful for anyone capable in these countries. Part of the reason why this "renessaince" of the old communist forces was possible is because capitalism only uplifted the cities and the big industrial areas, which have been sucking all the wealth. Therefore, the countrysides are all poorer than ever, and this asymmetrical development has provided the needed leverage for the "old guard" to make a comeback by banking on this growing resentment. Weak institutions have also made this comeback possible by allowing corruption & permitting legislation to be easily changed, including election rules.

In many countries, new fiscal legislation is already being passed, with increased taxes on businesses and higher wages (sometimes 50%+ in addition to special pensions) given to all state employees to fuel a "consumption-driven" economy (to be able to claim "results"), and buy votes.

I think the EU is nearing a point of crisis. At some point @unenlightened, I might need to join you and be a refugee :rofl:

I remember stories from 1960s or 1970s Italy that I've heard - it was common to get 6-8% year over year growth. Everyone was enthusiastic about the economy, everyone was starting a business of some kind, the taxi drivers, etc. The legislation was much simpler too. It was easy to get loans - very simple. And it was possible to make a lot of money very quickly, and a lot of people did, and a lot of people also lost the same money just as fast. It was "fun" to play the game - because there were opportunities that anyone could access and try their hand at. It was easy for one to both gain and lose money. Now, things have changed. Now it's difficult to lose money, and difficult to gain money. People are scared. The taxi drivers are all depressed today - they reminiscence the good old days. The energy of the West is gone.

Have you ever read the book "Who Moved My Cheese?" — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No, never read it, though I've heard about it.

We are adapting to Trumps new route of finding the cheese, definitely a road less traveled then the one chosen by Obama. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yeah, though I'm starting to doubt whether Trump will actually be able to stop the decline of the West. He is definitely patching it if you ask me - a great improvement over what Obama et al. were doing who were basically blind to the problems. But even Trump is not capable of tackling the root of the problem, which is moral in nature - something is amiss at the core of Western civilisation, with our self-understanding, with our values. People are the engine of the economy, and if people are rotten, then the economy cannot fail to reflect that. There is this lack of energy - I don't know how else to call it - in people, pretty much in the entire Western world. A great uncertainty about what should be done, a lack of confidence in the future.

he doesn't want his cars posted on a forum. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You know, recently I became aware that many people on this forum don't understand this privacy issue with regards to business. Some seem to be entirely convinced that if you have a business, then you ought to just put your stuff everywhere, as that is advertisement :s

Almost all of what I know in philosophy or elsewhere is what I've cobbled together from others, and I certainly don't have the hubris to even try and pass it off as my own. — StreetlightX

Well, Noble Dust, some people are smart bookworms, and others are wise. There is a difference there, since wisdom cannot be gained merely by the accumulation of 'knowledge'. It's also something to be skeptical of that reading alone can produce knowledge.

outstanding one, Obama. — T Clark

Why was Obama outstanding? He left the US in tatters. Even to this day, Americans are still asking - where is the American dream?

Am I correct in assuming you will not be one of the ones who deserve to be visited? — T Clark

I don't live in a country with goon squads anymore :P

My friend from Spain certainly thought he wouldn't be. — T Clark

Well, your friend from Spain was a young guy. You know how young guys usually are - overconfident.

Oh, I see. People who deserved visits from the goon squads. — T Clark

Yeeeeees, exactly.

Capitalism leads to consumerism; which leads to increases in the standard of living; — T Clark

Does it? I would say capitalism only leads to increased standards of living up to a point - and after that, it doesn't anymore. Today we are pretty much in a crisis globally precisely because capitalism does not work anymore.

Today, less and less people have access to private property (including owning homes) except by taking massive loans which basically enslave them for a large portion of their lives. This isn't an increased standard of living at all. In fact, if a rational person had to choose a time to be born, it would probably be around when you were born - that was indeed a golden period for mankind (comparing to other historical times) - the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s.

corporatism — T Clark

Yes, unfortunately corporatism has been growing, which isn't a good sign either.

Willingness to resort to physical force rather than reason to address problems. — Baden

Okay I see. Some religious countries are like that, mostly Islamic ones from what I see. The Vatican is also a country, and it is not "brutish" I don't think, for the most part.

Yes, he said that makes us brutes. — Baden

Depends what you mean by that, because you can certainly be an atheist who values religious heritage, even though he does not believe in the dogmas. And I don't agree that that makes you a brute btw, as I said, I only agree with some of the things he said there.

the most religious societies today are the most brutish — Baden

What do you mean by brutish in this context?

Some atheists are brutish, not in the way you say Putin is, but intellectually - like Lawrence Krauss.

What part of the video were you referring us to then? — Baden

The part where he describes problems with the West ideologically:
• Abandonment of tradition
• Abandonment of the importance of our religious heritage
• Political correctness
• Trying to enforce our system of government over everyone
• Relativisation of morality

Just tell me how more brutish I, and other atheists, are because we're not good Christians like Putin, and help educate me the Vladimir way on how I can become a better person. — Baden

:s I don't understand your point. I never said you or your atheist friends are brutish.

As with all who blithely support totalitarian regimes, he didn't have to worry about the goon squads coming at midnight. — T Clark

The common people generally never had to worry about the knock at midnight. That was more for the middle to higher level people who were involved in administration, whether directly in government or otherwise as bosses and managers in factories - or were professors. Professors were also dangerous if they did not promote the party line.

Well, you've said nothing new, I already am aware of all this. Russia is ruthless, always has been. But so is the West, maybe not as openly though. Has the West not installed puppet dictators and starved and exploited hundreds of millions of people?!

And I have not fallen for it - I know that's what politics is about, I wouldn't expect anyone in politics to be "gentle". I separate the politics of it from the cultural critique though.

Surprised you'd fall for such a transparent piece of propaganda that's really aimed at the least thoughtful and intelligent sectors of the population. — Baden

Putin is respected in Russia because he stabilised the country. After the era of Yeltsin who was too busy getting drunk and chasing girls, Putin actually put an end to the chaos, and introduced some order. Right after the collapse of the Soviet Union things were very chaotic - businessmen would get shot in the middle of street, etc. These areas were like a jungle. No doubt that Putin has set himself and his friends to set the rules of the game, and to control everything that happens - but at least there is a degree of order now.

It's good you understand this actually - many people buy in the propaganda of their own countries, and refuse to have an honest look at the facts.

It does not mean Russia isn't a bad country, it just means the West is also very bad. — René Descartes

Of course, I agree with this. It's just politics.

For example, I think Putin is right in some of the things he says here:

Also, I don't necessarily find all these protests "admirable". That would mean that I blindly buy into the Western narrative, that all places ought to be liberal democracies, which I think is just dominative and exploitative in-itself.

This is a disservice to the many Chinese and Russian men and women who openly advocate for political change in their respective countries, and risk their lives doing so. — Maw

Minorities, which are under the influence of the West. Irrelevant. If the West wasn't a liberal democracy, and if the West didn't have global hegemony, unlikely that these people would advocate for political change. And I'm talking about just the vast majority, not the 10-20% or so that protest, etc.

Having said that, both Russia and China have systems of government where the rulers are above the Constitution (or part of it lol) - which I don't think is great, since it cannot prevent abuses of power very well. I do think the idea of one ruler for life is good - but that ruler must still be under the constitution, without being able to abuse his power - like in constitutional monarchies.

Yeah, no doubt he will try that, but China's system will not work in many other countries, which lack China's history and people. China has, pretty much for its entire history, been ruled by dynasties. This is normal for China - liberal democracy would be almost unthinkable for the Chinese.

It's similar with Russia. The Russian people are used to have a Fatherly figure - they don't want to have it any other way.

But sure, if you want me to play that silly game, I can come up with lots of rationalisations why it happened. The declining influence of religion played an important role. As did democracies combined with the secularisation of society.