Everyone deserves his inheritance because that is the will of the bestower.

It is without doubt much more fair than the feudal system, which is why I'd prefer to be an honest capitalist than a communist. But all of this is still based on that original theft. People who inherent wealth believe they deserve it, but they don't. They are no more deserving of their inheritance than a trouserless scally playing in a gutter in a street, not entirely sure if its mother is home or not.

It's a simple matter of common sense for one familial generation to toil and acquire wealth in order to provide for the next generation, and so on. And they do deserve the wealth because it is often at great sacrifice such a feat is accomplished. Better yet, anyone, even the trouserless scally, can venture to begin such an enterprise, lest his children remain as impoverished as him.

This is the nature of family more than capitalism.

Fair enough. The thread was full of tripe anyway. Can’t even take a little opposition.

Mob mentality is a form of conformity, whether you laugh or not. Flagged, as they were, by the hashtags and virtue-signalling of corporate and political interests, and the censorship of dissenting views, it is not just conformity, but orthodoxy.

Who are the innocent?

Those who did not deserve the violence and vandalism—the vast majority of people. It’s why these riots are not about justice in general, and not about justice for Floyd in particular. The tearing down of statues, the firing of dissidents, the taking over of city blocks, the vandalism, the violence—this is a conformist putsch.

Who are the guilty?

Those who commit violence against the innocent. The rioting and vandalism is often aimed towards people and things that had nothing to do with George Floyd in particular, nor police violence in general. This is why the riots are unjust and unjustified. It is simply thuggery.

But racism is a belief. So without explicit racial policies, we can only search for it in the minds and expressions of a racist, not in the general outcomes of police interactions. That’s my block. For the purpose of this thread I will assume systemic racism does exist (and I believe it does in the form of “positive discrimination”), and I also believe it exists in the minds of some police officers, so perhaps to eliminate it minds must be changed instead of policies.

One unfortunate result of denying systemic racism in policing is it puts the blame solely on individual police officers rather than on processes over which most of them have little or no individual control, including training, police culture, policing of the police etc. This speaks to the perversity of the accusation that those who point to systemic racism do so with the intention of labeling all cops as racist. If you take the systemic racism out of the equation, all the racism we point to in the system must fall on the cops, making them more not less culpable.

The problem is we can make that accusation with any given statistical outcome. Most people who are shot by cops are men, therefor the system is systemically sexist against men. I don’t think we can make that claim without knowing whether the police in fact shoot men for sexist reasons, rather than for some other reason. So I believe we do have to find which police are racist and operate on racial motivations, or to tackle the actual reasons why such and such a group are overrepresented in this or that statistical outcome.

That much I agree with, save for the systemically racist part. Unfortunately I don’t think it is as simple as everyone is making it out to be. None of it takes into account the countless, unique interactions between police and citizens.

I expect it'd be because police admissions wouldn't allow it (Minneapolis police psychological testing actually dismisses a disproportionate number of minority applicants), not everyone is suited to it, there aren't anywhere near enough vacancies and... Oh yeah, they might not want to. I can't believe I even wasted the time answering such a stupid question.

It’s less stupid than suggesting violence and vandalism against the innocent, which isn’t only stupid and counterproductive, but perverse and dangerous.

They want others to do it. They cannot be bothered to do it themselves. This is the going rate of activists.

OK so peaceful protests don't work, political lobbying doesn't work, but they're not allowed to 'do evil' either. So the choice left to them is...

If every protestor concerned about police brutality joined the force, they can essentially trade current police behavior with their own. So why don’t they just do that? Because begging or threatening leadership is easier than becoming leadership. That’s a painful irony for these protesters. They are begging others for change, or committing violence against the innocent in order to threaten to change, but never do they become the change.

What about though of us who suffer from the residual effects of such policies?

Which effects of which policies?

Barr continuing his corrupt practice of protecting Trump and Trump allies. At least this guy is fighting back.

The Durham report is coming down the pipe, and all DOJ offices may be involved with the material under review, including the Southern District of New York, The Eastern District of New York, The Eastern District of Virginia, The Washington DC District, and probably even main justice. Hopefully we get to watch the swamp drain in real time. He will be fired, just like his predecessor.

Laws have been doing that for centuries and decades in the United States which is why there is an economic gap between whites and blacks. For example, the only reason why certain minority groups that migrate to the United States and are successful is because of the civil rights campaign. So not only minorities were fighting for equality they were still left behind and even after amendments and equitable provisions have passed, black Americans still found themselves behind.

This is ultimately why affirmative action existed to at least in part tried to close the gap by providing equitable opportunities that wasn’t fairly provided before..

Racist policies, whether “positive” or “negative”, are wrong and for the same reason. They discriminate on the grounds of race.

I think it could be argued that individuals who suffered through systemic racism (by that I mean racial policy) may deserve some recompense, even if it is in the form of better opportunity. But that cannot be argued for those who never suffered through such policy, and I do not think it can be shown that everyone of that skin-color suffered through such policy.

Have you studied why such things are in place? I mean I know why affirmative action in the beginning was in place?

It seems to me that any law or provision that favors some races to the exclusion of others is both racist and systemic.

Anyone can acquire property through a fair and willing exchange, like Branson. A community can also do this, perhaps forming a community garden or farm or park. One can also purchase property and donate it to any community he sees fit. But if it is not property, and is instead anyone’s land, willing exchange and fair use are thrown out the window. Anyone mighty enough can come along and say you’re not allowed to go there anymore, and you’d have little recourse save for violence.

It sounds like a Noocracy, and it would be difficult to call it Democracy because it excludes people from the political process and denies them power based on their education and certification. Politics would becomes a debate between elites, none of which would be representative of the general polity.

Personally I’d much rather vote for someone picked randomly from the phone book than to be led by some over-educated, certified politician.

I am. The taxonomy is a false one. I repudiate it and I do not think it should be used as a lens through which to view the species. That is not to say that people are and have been unjustly “racialized”, thrown into such categories and treated in accordance with them.

Recently there was the student who petitioned Merriam-Webster to change their definition of “racism”. It is no longer just racial prejudice and discrimination, but racial prejudice and discrimination combined with social and institutional power.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/merriam-webster-racism-definition-revise-kennedy-mitchum

That sounds absurd to me.

I think we should just go back to a simpler definition: racism is the belief that the species can be subdivided into “races”. Race-ism.

I wrote it a while back. Racial discrimination is a form of discrimination. The ability to discriminate is essential to staying alive - and this is just trivial. Racial discrimination, then, means at first cut that I, we all, are equipped with some metrics for telling differences between individuals. Insofar as we do, we're racists.

I don’t know if that definition works. By assuming all members of a race to be the same the racist proves himself to be indiscriminate. He can discriminate against groups, but that’s where his discrimination powers end. He is unable to discriminate between individuals.

At most, the phenotypes of a person hints at what his parents look like. Nothing else, I think, can be derived from it.

From what I’ve seen it’s pretty vacuous in terms of politics. It reminds me of the Occupy protests. I wager everyone will just walk away when they realize they cannot operate society as a music festival for an extended period of time.

Humiliating Trump in effigy is the consolation prize for those who cannot do it in reality. All they can do is preach to the choir with their little crafts.

I don’t think these people have a just bone in their body. Either way, systemic wokeness is becoming a fearful reality.

Strange times. Here’s Katai’s pandering apology:

"I strongly condemn white supremacy, racism and violence towards people of color. Black lives matter. This is a mistake from my family and I take full responsibility."

"I will ensure that my family and I take the necessary actions to learn, understand, listen and support the black community."

I would love to see his wife’s full quotes, because I suspect that they are being portrayed as more than they are.

If you find an instance of me firing someone because their spouse made comments I didn’t like you can rightfully call me a hypocrite. Until then bringing up irrelevant info about unrelated events doesn’t convince me that I’m being unreasonable or inconsistent.

I guess they should expect some blowback.

Oh Trump. That didn’t take long.

People punished for the crimes of their family. That’s something you find in tyrannical societies.

That's not some form of organised suppression of dissent though, and the conclusion that the ideas supposedly "protected" by the suppression is weak simply doesn't follow, as my initial example illustrates.

I never said nor implied the suppression is organized. In fact I think it’s capricious. But the sheer volume of people being coerced into silence and conformity is frightening. If dissent isn’t suppressed to protect the orthodoxy, why is it suppressed?

You can always tell when a bad idea has entered the discourse by the amount of censorship its dogmatists resort to in order to suppress any dissent. People are losing jobs and being ostracized for doubting this or any comparable narrative.

In the UK a radio host was suspended when he questioned his white privilege. A former Canadian cabinet minister was forced to resign from 3 positions for denying systemic racism exists in Canada. A chief reporter from the Western Mail was axed for opposing the protests. NYT Op-Ed editor James Bennett resigned due to the outcry over publishing an opposing opinion. A top Philadelphia Inquirer editor was forced to resign for daring to write the headline “Buildings Matter, Too”. Alexander Katai was dropped from the LA Galaxy because his wife made unpopular comments.

The irony of the corporate world becoming the propaganda wing of an arguably anti-capitalist movement isn’t lost on me. But the suppression of any dissent also hints at the weakness of the ideas being put forward. Truth does not require protection from the withering powers of criticism.

I was complaining about corporate censorship, not leftists. But sorry I thought this was the low quality one. My mistake.

But it’s all one-sided, aimed only at those who express dissent from the current orthodoxy and is guided by the whims of emotion. It’s a testament to both the weakness of the orthodoxy, and the inability of its proponents to support it.

[deleted]

I like your thinking and writing.

The previous chain of cause/effects inexorably determined where I ended up. So to is it with what we do. We do what we do because all the relevant preceding cause/effect events inexorably led up to that very act and no other. We HAD to do what we did.

This is a fundamental point you’re making. But I think it’s an argument for free will rather than against it, because isn’t the cause to each one of your actions, within each anterior state, yourself?

If so it follows that you are the cause of your own actions. If you are both cause and effect, what other than yourself can determine your actions?

Yes I absolutely get that. And to stand next to him, but not imitate him. When Democrats go down on at knee in the Capital then you know the gesture has been stolen.

The hashtags, kneeling and placard-waving protests are the bona fides. They are the means with which to signal ones conformity. Beyond that I do not think they serve any function. People were repeating the hashtag #defundthepolice, for instance, before they even understood what it entailed. When a protester asked the mayor of Minneapolis if he would “defund the police”, he tried to confirm if that meant abolishing the police. Upon finding out that #defundthepolice in fact meant abolish the police, he said he disagreed and was booed out of the area.

These expressions resemble the “duckspeak” of Orwell‘s 1984: “pure orthodoxy, pure Ingsoc”. “It was not the man's brain that was speaking, it was his larynx. The stuff that was coming out of him consisted of words, but it was not speech in the true sense: it was a noise uttered in unconsciousness, like the quacking of a duck”.

The “defund the police” movement was a fringe idea two weeks ago. Now it is the rallying cry du jour. So it’s no wonder that, according to a YouGov poll, close to two-thirds of Americans oppose cutting funding to police—and of those who do support such measures, those who make $100k a year are over represented. So while some over-educated, trusty-fundy types are working to make their dreams become a reality, most Americans are wary of such proposals.

This is utterly false.

Sweden has 465 deaths per 1 million where Denmark has only 102 as of now.

I think you have to check your stats.

You’re right. I was looking at the rate for today, and not the entirety. Thanks.

What is concerning is that we based these policies on insufficient evidence. What was true yesterday is untrue today.

Sweden faired better than other lockdown countries in Europe and elsewhere, so I’m not sure why we’d limit the comparison to Norway, Finland and Denmark. What about the UK, Ireland, Belgium. And Denmark is at 0.34 deaths per million while Sweden is at 0.3.

I wager there would be no such recession had everyone went the Swedish route.

Now the WHO is saying that the spread of covid-19 through asymptomatic patients is very rare.

“From the data we have, it still seems to be rare that an asymptomatic person actually transmits onward to a secondary individual,” Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit.

“We have a number of reports from countries who are doing very detailed contact tracing,” she said. “They’re following asymptomatic cases. They’re following contacts. And they’re not finding secondary transmission onward. It’s very rare.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/08/asymptomatic-coronavirus-patients-arent-spreading-new-infections-who-says.html

All that social distancing....for what?

Recently the Shaw Memorial in Boston was defaced in the BLM protests. The Shaw Memorial was the first civic monument to pay homage to the heroism of black soldiers during the civil war. They also vandalized a Gandhi statue in Washington. These aren't newly liberated peoples striking back at their former dictators; these are mobs as entitled and certain as they are stupid.