This is what you found objectionable in more detail; — raza

Yes I certainly find some of these (vague) planks objectionable, particularly given that they are from an Institute named after Barry Goldwater, which receives millions of dollars from Republican donors including the Mercer family, and the Kochs.

It is not against the 1st amendment for those institutions to control student behavior. — raza

It is when:

Republican-led state legislatures in Arizona, Georgia and North Carolina have imposed similar policies on public colleges and universities, and bills to establish campus speech guidelines are under consideration in at least seven other legislatures. These efforts, funded in part by big-money Republican donors, are part of a growing and well-organized campaign that has put academia squarely in the cross hairs of the American right.

"Uncivil" protesting (e.g. shouting down speakers) is protected under the First Amendment. It is a form of free speech, even if it may be considered "juvenile" by some (depends on the speaker, for me). But when Republican-backed legislation cracks down on protests through policies that include expulsion, then that is a literal infringement on freedom of speech, and is undeniably hypocritical.

I literally provided a link.

Also the policy of separating immigrant parents (illegal and legal alike) from their children is, to my mind, the worst US atrocity since the War in Iraq. Not really sure why I'm the only one commenting on it here.

Highly ironic that members here claim the Left is stifling the First Amendment when conservatives are doing that in the literal sense.

Indeed that's what a number of polls over the course of 2016 found, but I wonder how much of that was due to the overreaction of the email scandal.

According to the report Comey, "numerous times", used a personal email while conducting official FBI business, the content of which was "unclassified". This practice is "inconstant with Department policy", but nevertheless so not as egregious as Clinton's case, but still absurd.

The overarching issue is that using personal email can expose important, classified documents and yet despite being practiced by Comey, Trump, Trump's children, etc. Clinton was continually berated by the media, Trump, etc. over it, and was investigated by Comey. This played a huge role in outcome of the election.

Absolutely absurd how what is clearly a fairly common practice was used exclusively against Clinton as a decisive factor in determining the election.

then the three options have the same probability a priori of be true, due to by definition a higher intelligence system can occult its existence. — Belter

Huh?

Trump apologists, or those merely amused by his antics, wanna defend this?

It's worrying that many people take him seriously, and that he's considered a leading conservative intellectual today. Nothing but senseless raving.

lol what the fuck is this shit?

Link your lengthy posts explaining your position re: comparing Obama's Iran deal and Trump's N. Korea deal.

I'm continually impressed by your inability to justify anything you say.

To my mind, a likely scenario will be that the joint-statement "agreement" will collapse because it was nothing more than for short-term show. Bolton the War Hawk will then leverage this to argue that any diplomacy and negotiations are worthless, and press for stronger military action.

It's amazing how this is what passes for argumentation on a philosophy forum. Trump derangement syndrome. You can't see past your violent emotions. Compare with Obama's Iran deal, which the liberal media celebrated like crazy. — fishfry

Because the comparisons are beyond ludicrous, and if you can't comprehend that then you are clearly talking out of your ass. Trump and Kim's joint-statement is, as Baden noted, merely two-pages of vague, and therefore hollow "guarantees", created by two parties which are notoriously known for capriciously walking back on deals. We have nearly three decades of past statements from North Korea, using similarly vague language, which they've unsurprisingly reneged and ignored repeatedly. North Korea has not formally declared that they will begin nuclear disarmament, and they likely never well. It's their strongest leverage they have for any negotiations.

The irony of your accusation, by the way, is that you charge me of poor arguing, yet you've provided no justification for the Iran/Korea comparison, and have repeatedly ignored Baden's posts.

Holy shit you have no clue what you're talking about do you.

He just made peace with freaking North Korea. — fishfry

No he didn't.

It will have no effect.

Who cares? Especially given that Jeff Sessions today has barred a majority of abuse victims from asylum in the United States, which will have very serious if not outright deadly repercussions for these victims.

Although, despite having taken place the day prior, "Fuck You" is a pretty apt response.

The Trump Doctrine

The best distillation of the Trump Doctrine I heard, though, came from a senior White House official with direct access to the president and his thinking. I was talking to this person several weeks ago, and I said, by way of introduction, that I thought it might perhaps be too early to discern a definitive Trump Doctrine.

“No,” the official said. “There’s definitely a Trump Doctrine.”

“What is it?” I asked. Here is the answer I received:

“The Trump Doctrine is ‘We’re America, Bitch.’ That’s the Trump Doctrine.”

No I have not. — John Doe

Dude, I literally wrote:

I know of no one on the Far Left who would claim that 'the Democrats bear significant responsibility for his election', as if the Right is somehow absolved of agency.

To which you directly responded with:

Well, obviously you do, because you're conversing with members of the far left who make that claim. So it would seem that you are suggesting that we're not allowed to be members of the far left if we're brazen enough to actually wonder aloud why the left has so far been institutionally and intellectually weak in preventing the rise of authoritarianism.

You conveniently dropped off the part the continuation of my sentence, "or that the preponderance of fault lies in the Democratic party, or liberals ideas," which suggests offloading Republican responsibility.

There is nothing "baseless" about this accusation. Otherwise, you've done a terrible job of articulating your position in this matter, despite having written that I've been "conversing with members of the far left who make that claim".

Anthony Bourdain's Parts Unknown

I am largely sympathetic with your political beliefs, and am openly discussing my concerns with your position as best I can while trying to articulate my own position clearly. I have at no point directly insulted you. I'm genuinely surprised by you, and pretty disappointed that discourse on a philosophy forum is so terribly Reddit-like. — John Doe

Because you've essentially accepted that The Right is absolved of agency, or that the preponderance of fault lies in the Democratic party, or liberals ideas including, but not limited to: Black Lives Matter, Political Correctness, Social Justice, etc. I have not claimed that the Democratic Party bares no responsibility whatsoever (recall that I denounced Clinton's mosaic message). I have stated - multiple times - that suggesting that the bulk of responsibility lies with the Left in whatever myriad manifestations is stupid and dangerous. It is a frequent Right Wing talking point. Take for example Ben Shapiro an immensely popular and influential Right-Wing pundit who in March 2016 said

“No” is a useful tool. If conservatives don’t say “no” to Nelson Rockefeller in 1964, there is no Ronald Reagan. If conservatives don’t say “no” to Gerald Ford in 1976 and George H.W. Bush in 1980, there is no Ronald Reagan. And if we don’t say “no” to Donald Trump now, we will continue drifting ever further left, diluting conservatism into the vacillating, demagogic absurdity of Trumpism. Conservatism will become the crypto-racist, pseudo-strong, quasi-tyrannical, toxic brew leftists have always accused it of being.

And we will have been complicit in that.

And who now, two years later on Twitter, rants how it's now liberal movements, no matter how innocuous, that lead to Trump.

I dislike Reddit immensely, but I call a spade a spade, and this idea that the Right has no agency in the ascendancy of Trump is ahistorical, ignores his continued support among Republicans, and is over all immensely stupid and dangerous.

It's not conservative analysis. We as members of the far left are asking: How did we lose? What did we do wrong? Why were we on the left not capable of preventing the real threat of authoritarian from winning power? What can we do to make sure that in the future, when the next right-wing cabal with authoritarian intent and an actually smart figurehead attempts to take power, we're able to defeat them from the start? Your response appears to be to demean us as not *real* leftists by virtue of the fact that we ask these questions. — John Doe

First, no where did I say or suggest that asking such questions: how did we lose, where did we go wrong etc. are invalid or wrong questions to ask. Undoubtedly, those are vital questions, and have been asked since Sanders lost the nomination to Hillary Clinton, despite exceeding everyone's expectations. What my criticism is, however, is the asinine notion that the answer to the question: How did Trump become President? centers chiefly, or exclusively, around the Democratic party, or Black Lives Matter, or other liberal movements or concepts. Again, I don't know of many Far Left liberals who deny Republican culpability in Trump's election.

I know of no one on the Far Left who would claim that " the Democrats bear significant responsibility for his election", as if the Right is somehow absolved of agency. — Maw

Well, obviously you do, because you're conversing with members of the far left who make that claim. — John Doe

Then it's not that you are not a member of the Far Left. It's just that you are an idiot.

And Hillary was a dangerously bad woman — fishfry

I wonder. Would President Hillary have ridiculed our closest allies? Would she have passed a massive tax cut which overwhelmingly favors the rich and corporations over the poor and middle class? Would she have tried to destroy the ACA? Would she gut coverage for preexisting conditions as Trump and his administration are trying to do now? Would she implement a no-tolerance policy on illegal immigration, formally splitting families apart when they attempt to cross the border (illegally and legally)? Would she embolden ICE to detain immigrants who have lived in this country for years, if not decades, if not most of their lives? Would her election embolden white supremacists and Neo-Nazi's to conduct parades, or run for office in America and across the world? Would she elect a climate change denier to the EPA? Would she deny Russian involvement in the USA election? This list goes on, and I can "do this all day", because attempting to commensurate Hillary with Trump is simply wrong.

The day Hillary stood up on the floor of the US Senate and spoke passionately in favor of the Iraq war; the day Pelosi was briefed on torture and signed off; those are the datapoints on the road to Trump. — fishfry

Ah, so nearly 16 years ago Hillary gave a speech in favor of the Iraq War, and fatalistically, this has lead to Trump winning the presidency. This is vacuous, and coddles the Republicans by refusing to provide them with an iota of agency.

And "face" what? I was twelve when Hillary gave that speech. Am I complicit in something the Democratic party did six years before I could vote?

The only point I'm attacking is the only point that was explicitly offered:the hypoxic conservative analysis that we "Got Trump" because of liberals, whether it's due through the Democratic Party, or the concept of "Social Justice Warriors", or left-wing intellectual elitism, etc. Insofar as this is, roughly, @fishfry's claim ("The corruption of the Democrats made Trump inevitable"), this is an absurdity that requires - demands - countering and correcting. And it is unequivocally not a critique in harmony with the Far Left. I know of no one on the Far Left who would claim that " the Democrats bear significant responsibility for his election", as if the Right is somehow absolved of agency.

I agree that the Democratic Party is in need of stronger, better articulated policies (although Bernie Sanders, undeniably, had an unambiguous popular message, and was far closer to winning the nomination than your critique of the Democratic Party accepts). Clinton's message was amorphous, her policies a convoluted mosaic. But liberal self-flagellation will only embolden the Republican Party even more. Not only is it a mistaken interpretation, but it is dangerous.

"Soul-Searching" is fine, but the hesitation that comes with it should not be prioritized over the very real damage and degradation that Trump, his administration, his party, and his acolytes commit on a quotidian basis.

This is the second time in two days that Maw did the same thing — fishfry

Last time I responded to you was actually five days ago, not two, and you provided the asinine claim that the Left are destroying free speech and the first amendment. Multiple members, not just me, asked you to provide examples of this and you didn't. As far as I'm aware, these are the only times I've engaged your posts on this forum. Twice now you simply refuse to reply to me when I take you to task.

Democrats bear significant responsibility for his election — fishfry

I love how the party of "personal responsibility" will point fingers at nearly everyone but themselves as the reason for "How We Got Trump". Conservatives vigorously accuse 'Social Justice Warriors', the 'miasma' of Political Correctness, or the wild idea that labeling someone a Nazi or Fascist or Racist, will transform them into a Nazi/Fascist/Racist. As a far left progressive, I'm not a big proponent of the centrists Democrats or Hillary Clinton, but I'd greatly prefer them to the Republicans, whose 40+ years modus operandi have, much more than the Democrats, is responsible for the nomination of Trump, his Presidential win, and the incomprehensible fact that he enjoys a 85%+ approval rating by self-described Republicans.

I adore Lovecraft, outside of his casual racism that's thrown into his work. The Color Out of Space is my favorite.

I hope posters will get back on topic now. — Baden

To answer the OP: casual sex is not immoral. Unless the act produces a vehement racist :wink:

Stamped From The Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America by Ibram X. Kendi
The Trial by Kafka
The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads by Tim Wu

Per Webster:

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

No I think @gurugeorge, who has fervently claimed that there are "7 to 9 sub-species" of humans in addition to "three main races" in which Asians are the "most well-behaved" and "less promiscuous", while Blacks are "the least well-behaved" and "most sexually promiscuous"; has stated that the increase of (non-Caucasian, non-Asian) immigration and decrease of the white population leads to the increase of crime; and who additionally believes that women are essentially reducible to their "reproductive function" is, apodictically, a deprived, stupid, deplorable bigot and racist and sexist. And if I were a moderator I would have banned him.

Roger Daltrey's new album which I'm finding enjoyable.

It's a more or less Aristotelian position — gurugeorge

I'm well aware of Aristotle's theory of ethics, but there is nothing convincing about tying the mere act of sexual reproduction to enhancing one's moral character. You state that human are "rational animals"; I would argue that our rationality enables us to be unbounded by the shackles of blind instinct, including the drive to reproduction. That an anti-natalist, one who chooses not to have children, or someone who is infertile, one who - regardless of choice - cannot have children, are less of a "person" or less moral - or outright immoral, than a person who does, is outright nonsense.

I take your point re. lack of citations, but I'm not out to "demonstrate" anything — gurugeorge

When you attempt to make factual claims about the world, but fail to provide any citations, why should I believe what you are saying? Fortunately, for me, I'm well read enough to know that most of what you said was flat out wrong.

we are divisible into sub-species by means of both plain observation and more recondite scientific investigations — gurugeorge

And there it is! Blatant racism dressed up esoteric science and casual observation.

Things can be "enforced" as social habits. — gurugeorge

As I pointed out in my previous post, monogamy is very much the norm in today's society, and alternatives, e.g. polygamy, are widely disproved of by the general population. So what precisely does "enforced" mean here when it's overwhelmingly approved of? You don't actually outline details in your previous post, but when you say things like "women are a protected class" within the realm of sexuality, then that hints at something more nefarious than simple "social disapproval".

I can't even bother to respond to the remainder of your sexist, racist, and alt-right garbage post. No point in wasting my time with a bigot.

What you wrote is eye-gouging claptrap all the way down. Nowhere do you connect why a teleological function of an organ is tethered to morality, or why disregarding said teleology is immoral, or why using the sexual organs for pleasure (e.g. masturbation, casual sex) isn't a valid alternative use. Last I checked, Mother Nature did not hand down Ten Commandments mandating how we must to use our bodies, and our sexual organs in particular.

As is typical of you, there are no citations, studies, articles, etc. demonstrating a causal relationship between the sexual revolution and societal issues, or how "non-conformity with the telos of sexuality" directly results in "psychological dissatisfaction". And how precisely did the Sexual Revolution "hit" Blacks first? The idea of Black hyper-sexuality is a racist idea that has stubbornly persisted since the 17th century as a cover for white promiscuity. Can we really ignore social media addiction and self-presentation perfectionism, work dissatisfaction and increased work hours, market volatility, blue-collar job flight, increasing economic inequality, stagnate wages,cumbersome debt, racial disparities, etc. as contributing factors to crime, suicide, unhappiness and other societal ills etc.?,..Can we honestly deny that they have a larger impact is societal dysfunction than...supposedly loosened sexual mores? I don't think we can, particularly when recent studies show that younger generations today have fewer sexual partners on average, and overall have less sex than older generations.

You state that we, as a society, should "actively discourage" casual sex and polyamory, but it's not clear what that would look like in practice, and I think it's fair to say - based on historical precedent - that this would be overwhelmingly focused on women. Jordan Peterson recently entertained the idea of "enforced monogomy", an explosive phrase he typically lobs in order to garner shock and attention (but vague enough to walk back from the otherwise obvious meaning). However, contrary to yours and Peterson's concerns, monogamous relationships are overwhelmingly viewed positively, while, according to a Gallup Poll from 2013, shows that Americans strongly disprove of affairs (91%), and polygamy (83%). Divorce rates are also at 40 year low, as of 2015.

So yeah...I'm not quite sure how relevant the Sexual Revolution of the 60's has been in the last 50 years to our current "societal dysfunction", when "hookup culture" is more of fantasy played out in movies, TV shows, and in the imaginative minds of conservatives, than what exists in reality.

Finally, crime has also steadily decreased since the early 90's. It has not increased, as you said. And your idea of that women have a "sexual market value" is blatantly sexist.

It's very much worth noting, as others have pointed out, that Charles Murray has been a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute since 1990, a think tank (which as David Koch as a member of its National Council, and who, along with his older brother Charles, have donated considerably to the organization), which is dedicated to research pertaining to scaling back Government and promoting laissez-faire ideas. Part of Charles Murray's broader argument is that IQ disparity is biologically fixed among races, therefore, it is a financial waste for Government to spend money to support Black Americans to mitigate or eradicate inequality, because it's fixed biologically. There is absolutely a nefarious political agenda.

There is also a market for selling IQ tests (Jordan Peterson does it), so there is, for a some, a business incentive to sell it to suckers.

You really seem to be wildly extrapolating things I didn't say. — fishfry

What did I accuse you of through "wild extrapolation"? What I said was, despite charging the left with attacking the First Amendment (you've yet to produce examples, despite multiple members asking you) you never mentioned instances where Trump or his administration did exactly that. I merely asked you to explain that inconsistency. So what "wild extrapolation"? It is curious to note that you say the Left threatens free speech, Trump is merely a "jerk" when he does it.

You can't limit the free expression of ideas and think you're going to keep a free society. — fishfry

Then somehow, the thread turned to free speech, with someone suggesting that there are categories of people who shouldn't have it. — fishfry

I very clearly didn't say or suggest that Government limit free speech, and I explicitly stated so in my previous post when you failed to comprehend it the first time. You say that freedom of speech (i.e., the First Amendment) is under attack by the Left. When the Government is controlled by the Republicans, how is that possible? I notice you don't bother touching upon Trump's views on the NFL kneeling, or his calls to get Samantha Bee fired. Explain. Because otherwise you're just pontificating banal pecksniffery.