As I've pointed out twice in this conversation, both things are possible: inequalities as a result of systemic imbalances and oppression, and inequalities as a result of different natural endowments. You are the one who's ignoring an important factor, I'm acknowledging both. — gurugeorge

And as I pointed out previously, the Left is interested in socially-made injustices. That's the focus of the conversation I'm trying to have with you, but since you are intellectually incapable of grasping that concept and since the lines between socially constructed inequalities and inequalities that are the result of "natural endowment" are blurred for you, you continually digress into sciamachy with strawman.

Well then it should be easy for you to knock down then, shouldn't it? — gurugeorge

It's simple: even given complete equal opportunity, the Left doesn't assume that outcomes will be equal, or that potentials are equal. No one believes that given equal opportunities, anyone can be a professional basketball player. Read Rawls, Sen, Nussbaum and spare me of your stupidity and your strawmen.

Yes there is, they were called "liberals" - and as I said, Hayek used the term "classical liberal" to distinguish that older strain of liberalism from the social democracy that had come to be called "liberalism" in the US — gurugeorge

You can repeat yourself until you're blue in the face, but as I pointed out it's mistaken to apply any umbrella term to a diverse range of thinkers that spans over 100 years.

To be honest, both the left and right have a habit of trying to rebrand themselves, find again their roots and try to sell their ideology to a new generation that is totally ignorant of the past. — ssu

Seems to occur more on the Right, who just re-package immoral positions for a modern age.

But that's what's yet to be demonstrated. If you simply pre-judge that every observed inequality of outcome is the result of "systemic oppression or structural imbalances," then all you've got is a pseudo-science, because you're denying empirically obvious and evident differences in endowment for the sake of a fantasy idea of what human beings are like.

IOW, you are effectively starting with the unexamined assumption that people have equal potential, therefore any observed difference in outcome must be the result of "systemic oppression or structural imbalances." — gurugeorge

Inequalities that have resulted from structured oppression, historically and up to the modern day, have been well studied and documented. Feel free to read The New Jim Crow, Stamped From The Beginning, The Color of Money, and more. You are simply more interested in pseudo-science which suggests that these inequalities are the result of inherent genetic dispositions of gender and ethnicity. Your pseudo-science also doesn't explain wealth inequality, worker oppression, LGBT oppression etc.

Your whole spiel about "equal potential" and that the Left wants "equal outcome" is a tired strawman that I would expect from a high school student.

Those thinkers did represent a "branch of political philosophy" - it used to be called "liberalism" until the term was hijacked by more socialist-influenced liberals (people who would have been called "social democrats" in Europe) who pushed the liberal faction in the US further to the Left in the course of the 20th century, so Friedrich Hayek (I believe it was, in the 1960s) coined the term "classical liberal" to denote the older form of liberalism. The term has been used that way among conservatives and libertarians since then, but it wasn't invented by them as some sort of grand cover-up plan, far less by the IDW people. — gurugeorge

Mill considered himself a socialist, Jefferson was influenced by Locke, but also by Paine, who was radically different from Locke. While Adam Smith strongly favored pro-worker regulation. My point is is that there is no 'umbrella' term with which to fit these diverse set of thinkers. To place them under a single political philosophy is ahistorical, and yet that's exactly what modern classic liberals attempt to do. Regardless, my main point is that classic liberalism today is just a right-wing marketing ploy.

Hey, blame the journo who invented it in an attempt to mock/smear them — gurugeorge

According to Bari Weiss, who is a fan of and has written about the IDW, the term was coined by Weinstein.

Faith in humanity restored (until I read the Gurugeorge's next post).

I think that some of those concerns are or may be noble and valid, but not as matters of any kind of justice. — gurugeorge

Curiously (but unsurprisingly), your examples of "injustice" are strawman that the aforementioned movements aren't targeted, but rather injustices that are the results from systemic oppression, or structural imbalances, e.g. black wealth inequality, worker 'unfreedom' and the resulting wealth inequality, reproductive rights and the opportunity for reproductive freedom. But since you believe in *cough*pseudoscientificgeneticdeterminism*cough*, I'm not surprised you think certain systemic inequalities cannot be eradicated or even mitigated.

They're not "Right," most of them are ex-Leftists who have become classical liberals (e.g. David Rubin), and some of them still consider themselves on the Left (e.g. Bret Weinstein)- but of course I understand that everyone to the right of Mao is now a "Nazi" these days :) That was a name given to them by a journalist, but it's amusing so they ran with it. — gurugeorge

"Classical Liberalism" is merely a re-brand for those of a libertarian-conservative persuasion, who don't want to use their terms because of the toxicity often associated with them. Libertarian is often considered too radical, and conservative too geriatric to be considered as an attractive, "reasonable" political position. Further, the term "Classical Liberal" is erroneously considered to be a branch of political philosophy under which, (per Rubin) John Locke, Adam Smith, and JS Mill, Jefferson, et. al. in the pitiful attempt to give it an air of intellectualism. Make no mistake, classical liberalism, as espoused by the "Intellectual Dark Web", is just a re-branding of conservatism. Brett Weinstein can call himself whatever he wants, but he's certainly not a Leftist. There's nothing "amusing" about the name, it's just cringingly stupid.

From the New York Times: A long-awaited analysis of Hurricane Maria’s deadly sweep through Puerto Rico prompted the government on Tuesday to sharply increase the official death toll. The government now estimates that 2,975 people died as a result of the disaster and its effects, which unfolded over months

Never forget that the Mayor of San Juan repeatedly begged Trump for additional help and resources in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, and Trump lashed out and her. He called Maria, "not a real catastrophe" and infamously threw paper towels to Puerto Ricans. He praised relief efforts for doing a wonderful job, and told a Puerto Rican family who showed him their damaged house to "have a good time".

In the second place, "social justice" is an Orwellian oxymoron. "Social justice," like many other Left-wing buzzwords, actually reverses the meaning of a commonly-understood term - IOW, it means, precisely injustice. — gurugeorge

I sincerely doubt that Orwell, a left-anarchist who fought Fascists, would consider 'social justice' "Orwellian". The fact that movements for LGBT rights, worker rights, minority rights, women's rights, etc. were, and continue to be, fought for under the placard of justice, demonstrates how daft your opinion is.

And you wonder why we laugh. — gurugeorge

The reigning intellectual movement of the modern right calls themselves, in earnest, the "Intellectual Dark Web".

Some people are obviously ethically oblivious.

If you've actually ever taken an IQ test, you'd probably be aware that they are an exceptionally selective, insufficient measurement of "intelligence", and as such, determines very little outside the tautology of how you performed on an IQ test. As a matter of fact, those with higher education tend to lean more liberal. Personally, I would say, libertarianism is one of the dumbest contemporary political philosophies out there.

I didn't read this thread beyond the opening post, but I don't understand how it has lasted 4 pages when the answer is obvious.

It's fascinating to me that people use the term 'Social Justice Warrior' as a derogatory appellation, because it assumes that caring about social justice, whether through talking about it and the ways in which to secure it, and/or securing it through direct action, is somehow meaningless, or misplaced, as if obtaining social justice was impossible or futile or unnecessary etc., when, historically (and presently), that stance is wrong and misguided.

The only mitigating circumstance I can think is that was a reaction to the communist terror. — Andrew4Handel

The irony is, is that Ayn Rand actually personally benefited from Bolshevik rule. She attended University for free (and as a Jewish woman she wouldn't have been able to attend at all). She was also able to attend subsidized Russian operettas, which influenced her play-writing and appreciation for theater.

I don't appreciate being demonized by people who are so all-fired sure of their position that they prejudicially view anyone who disagrees with them as evil, stupid, deplorable, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic - you name it — gurugeorge

......

Human beings are (rational) animals, and like other species, we are divisible into sub-species by means of both plain observation and more recondite scientific investigations (into relative genetic closeness or distance). For humans, there are 3 broad and about 7 or 9 more refined sub-species, or "races," — gurugeorge

It turns out that of the three main races, Asians tend to be the least promiscuous, Blacks the most, with Whites inbetween — gurugeorge

The breakdown of the Black family and the atomization of the Black middle class in the 1960s, and the connection of that breakdown to crime is well documented — gurugeorge

The sexual behaviour of both males and females is "enforced" extra-legally in traditional societies, but in different ways (and in different ways in different cultures - again, this is the result of both biological and memetic evolution). The focus on females is just an artifact of the difference in the relative abundance of the two sexes' gametes, and the balance, or division of reproductive labour between the sexes in our markedly sexually dimorphic species. Females have to be much more careful about reproduction because they have less potential shots at it, so they bear more risk than males, and there's more pressure on them to get it right, e.g. to take care to choose a good mate, who'll both provide good genetic material and stick around to help them raise the child (especially during the period of greater vulnerability during pregnancy and their children's early development). — gurugeorge

The whole foofaraw about trans stuff is beneath contempt, it's just another attempt by the PC cult to silence ideas it doesn't like and gain institutional power. It's a mind-virus. — gurugeorge

Yeah dude, totally not racist, sexist, transphobic...

Corey Robin, in his fantastic work The Reactionary Mind, writes, "Saint Petersburg in revolt gave us Vladimir Nabokov, Isaiah Berlin, and Ayn Rand. The first was a novelist, the second a philosopher. The third was neither but she thought she was both."

Was Ayn Rand a philosopher? If she was, she was a terrible one, and the work she produced was no more unique or profound than what can be found on a typical internet forum.

Ultimately it seems like you will never agree with any tactic or idea the Left has, unless it moves to the Right. So it's just circular nonsense.

I'm also on my phone, so it was simply an autocorrect mistake, but whatever helps you feel better about yourself

what are you talking about? You said the Left lacks critical self-defense, despite the introspection and self-critique the Left went through after Trump' s election

The Right elected Donald-fucking-Trump, the physical embodiment of the white, male Id, and yet some how it's the Left that are an "intellectual laughingstock". :ok:

the fundamental problem with the Left at the moment is that having had cultural hegemony for so long, they've forgotten the basic principle of civil discourse: the capacity for self-reflection and self-criticism, the capacity to reflect on the possibility that for all one's certainty and moral conviction about one's analysis of the situation, one may yet be wrong, and the other fellow right.

When one forgets that, one starts to pre-judge everything that comes out of one's interlocutor's mouth, one ceases to listen, one ceases to learn. The Right has certainly been guilty of that in that past, in times when it was ascendant; now it's very much the Left's turn at making this fundamental error. — gurugeorge

It's extremely curious to me that you think lack of self-reflection and self-criticism is, currently, an exclusive issue for the Left, particularly after the self-flagellation that occurred immediately after Trump's election, and the outright moral hypocrisy stemming from the Right.

It's extremely curious that you consider the Left a "laughing stock" and "intellectual slapstick" when prominent so-called "intellectuals" on the Right are mere grifters, such as Ben Shapiro who sells gold and brain pills. If academia is primarily left-wing, it's because the ideas of the right have become untenable garbage, which can only exist on Youtube and self-serving podcasts.

Mostly dislike Country, but I do love John Prine. I think @ArguingWAristotleTiff would like it

Maw, you can work the numbers all you want but your "statistics" do not include nor will it ever include the true number of illegal immigrants because they do NOT report. Why is that such a hard concept to understand? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

We are talking about homicides committed by convicted undocumented immigrants divided by total undocumented immigrants who have been charged with a crime. If we replace the number of undocumented immigrants who have been charged with criminal activity with the "true" yet unreported number of undocumented immigrants, then the percentage of undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of homicide becomes even more minuscule, thus further demonstrating how statistically improbable it is for someone to be killed by an undocumented immigrant. Congrats, you've proven my point.

And conversely there are pundits out there spouting ending ICE and having a nation without borders but I am not suggesting that is what your ultimate solution is for bettering our immigration laws. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

ICE was formed in 2003, and we didn't have open or chaotic borders prior to that. ICE ought to be ended; it has become an arm of a white nationalist administration.

I think that it is a HUGE, unfair leap, to suggest that by having better control over our nations borders implies that illegal immigrants "are here to merely steal from us". — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I was referring exclusively to undocumented immigrants. And it was YOU, Tiff, that brought up locking doors at night as a defensive analogy for the border wall. What was the analogy supposed to refer to, then, if not stealing or murdering? Why else would someone lock their door? Do they expect a criminal to walk in, sit on their couch and watch TV, maybe cook up some pasta and use their fine silverware?

If it is far less statistically likely for an undocumented immigrant to commit homicide, relative to an American citizen, then it follows that the paroxysm over immigration including profiling, deportation, and building a dumbass border wall is, undeniably, a racist response. And yes, one can easily find responses more radical than merely "bettering current immigration laws" on white nationalist media such as Fox News, Breitbart, and other vapid Right-Wing publications.

By the way, Tiff, the locking doors analogy implies that immigrants (from South America in particular) are merely here to "steal" from us, which is racist.

A woman is far more likely to be murdered by a citizen, in particular a SO, rather than an undocumented immigrant. Obviously, it isn't possible to determine the number of undocumented immigrants living in the USA, but Texas does have a strong data set of criminal activities committed by undocumented immigrants. In seven years (2011-2018) of "175,000 illegal aliens" there were "225 homicide convictions".

The focus on the fact that Mollie Tibbets was killed by an undocumented immigrant, and the calls for expanded deportation, profiling, etc. is unabashed racism, pure and simple.

wow what a good day

I used to, as a simple comment search will show, but since you mainly post unphilosophical bullshit, then yeah, I'll treat you like a bull.

The thing is, mocking those who have been historically mocked, discriminated against, exploited etc. just isn't that funny. And I don't see much evidence that younger generations are more conservative, outside a vocal minority of young alt-right groups who distribute ideas via memes.

Check out Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum's work on the Capability Approach. Specifically, Sen's Development as Freedom and The Idea of Justice, and Nussbaum's Creating Capabilities.

Yeah like those damned totalitarian Norwegian states.

They just chug along, not having to deal with the competing sides — yatagarasu

You know what the CPC does with "competing sides", right?

Yeah that would make it easier

Oh I see now

is that a site feature here?

That's an understandable point, but finding say, the shout box or the Donald Trump thread, etc. via mobile is fairly torturous

She is very proactive with the media - who didn't pay much attention to her before she won a primary two months ago and are now demanding they attend every single event she is part of. She did have some unfortunate gaffs, and she needs to burnish some talking points, but Gary Johnson was running for President - somewhat of a different realm. Either way, politicians make gaffs all the time. After all, you voted for the greatest gaff-maker in modern Presidential history!

Death penalty is idiotic.

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning behind "hiding" certain threads from the main page of the site.

The media is criticizing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for excluding them from two otherwise public town-hall meetings during which immigrants, victims of domestic abuse, and people with medical concerns will speak about their perspectives and concerns. I wonder how often they criticize politicians who hold private, media-excluded events with big donors? Jesus Christ, the inane vitriol against her is absurd.

Of course. But that doesn't mean that everything children say about how they feel amounts to good diagnosis. — Bitter Crank

Sure. But it's a better starting point than assuming the claim is made under parental influence.

I find it quite unsatisfactory when young people, children in elementary school, early adolescents just starting puberty, 18 year olds... make the same announcement. This strikes me, frankly, as a social infection.

I suspect that these claims are made under parental influence (in the case of very young children) or because it seems like a solution to "the difficult matter of one's persona -- who the hell am I?" — Bitter Crank

Adults should listen to the concerns children have about themselves, including depression, gender identity, etc.

Where did the Donald Trump thread go?

The crisis was a result of derivatives. No American president had anything to do with that. — frank

Derivatives amplified the effects, but they certainly were not the sole cause of the financial crisis.