Can you name a philosopher who was an avid chess player or who recommended chess as prerequisite to doing philosophy? — 180 Proof

I cannot.



Nah— just having fun.



Let’s do it. Chess.com is my preferred venue. I’ll set it up and get back to you…create a screen name on there in the meantime.

It just smacks of political invective. — Pantagruel

Yeah, no kidding.

Ultimately, I do feel it overstates the importance of what is only one aspect of a larger problem; — Pantagruel

Oh? And what’s the larger problem? Remember: I’m keeping to real policies and their well-documented (and easily seen) results. We can say “The REAL issue is spiritual decline” or an ignorant populace, or human nature, or the turning away from Christianity, etc. There may be some truth to all of that — but there’s far less evidence supporting it. Mostly it’s just fluff.

The SEC’s rule 10(b)-18 and its impacts on corporate behavior, and hence real wages and wealth distribution, and hence poverty, precariousness of work, general working conditions, etc., is much more compelling. Ditto policy changes to retirement plans — 401(k)s. Ditto anti-union legislation. Etc etc.

For any issue we can always call back on “it’s complex, there are no answers” stuff. Make everything appear mysterious and confusing and requiring a Ph.D in economics and political science. But this isn’t physics. Yes, the link between the general push for deregulation and, say, school shootings, is a few steps removed from the issue — but the connection is still there if one is willing to follow along.

This is not philosophy, this is propaganda politics. No one knows what you mean by this. Avoid such ill defined terms and write out some points. — Philosophim

This is fair. (Although I would object to “propaganda.”)

But you’re wrong in one aspect: clearly many people do indeed know what I mean by this.

Those who don’t, as I facetiously remarked, have failed the test. But as I mentioned earlier, for this group to see any connection (or even know what neoliberalism means), the onus is on me to sketch out the links and clarify my terms. And I think if you read further, that’s what I’ve done. The OP is deliberately short and provocative.

What specific aspects of neoliberalism ties the West to destruction? Why is it only neoliberalism, and not other political aspects of culture that drive us to this? — Philosophim

Good questions.

First, I treat neoliberalism as a set of policies and the “neoliberal era” as the time when such policies were implemented. So with you ask about aspects, I point you to policies: deregulation of industry (especially the financial sector), defunding social programs, the push for privatization (schools, healthcare, social security), free trade agreements, tax cuts (trickle down economics), destroying unions (“right to work” laws), etc.

Yes, there are ideological parts as well. That government should be smaller, that the free market should reign supreme, etc. — but that’s less important to me than the concrete actions, and their results.

Second, there could be other political aspects. But I’ve yet to see much compelling evidence that explains these issues, and since they don’t simply appear out of the blue, and because there’s very good evidence demonstrating the negative impacts of these policies (especially on rural America, the poor and working class, manufacturing, community engagement, wealth redistribution to the .1%, the growth of the financial industry, the concentration of corporate power, etc), I think the connection is a strong one and fairly obvious one.

Great. So then my task, for those who fail to make the connection (and who are worth engaging with), is to provide examples of how exceptionally bad these problems are (like school shootings— which the US is by far the leader in), what policies cause or exacerbate the problem, and how neoliberalism fits in.

But as I pointed out, these problems are also older than those policies.

As you say, the people who are responsible may not be neoliberals. — Pantagruel

True. But no one really identifies as neoliberal. Did Reagan say he was a neoliberal? No. He was a “conservative.” Did Clinton? Of course not. I would imagine most Americans haven’t got a clue as to what neoliberalism is.

I think you’re missing the point. It’s not about blaming a group of people we’ve labeled “the neoliberals” and demonizing them, it’s recognizing a set of very real policies that have been implemented over several decades, and the very real affects they’ve had on society.

That these policies have some basic philosophical assumptions is true, but who knows if the ruling class really believes them? For example: the government is the problem. Do the wealthy and privileged really believe this? Considering they need a strong state to subsidize them and bail them out, it’s unlikely. But whether they truly believe or if some of the tenets of neoliberalism are just useful covers for a series of policies that transfer more wealth to their class is not terribly important, in my view.

My problem with your post is, if your thesis is true, then what? What happens if I pass the test? The people who create and implement those policies are only a small subset of the people who empowered them, and those people are one step further removed from policy formation. — Pantagruel

Let’s be concrete by taking an example of what I would consider a neoliberal policy: NAFTA. Who was involved in crafting and selling this policy? Lots of people: lobbyists, corporate lawyers, congressmen, other government officials, the President, the chamber of commerce, etc.

This isn’t a subset of anything — this is simply the people who are in positions to make and influence decisions.

Statistics show that the death rate for all possible causes has declined in the US for the period 1916 to 2023. — Agent Smith

My source is my intuition — Agent Smith

So you’re just making things up.

How about next time you not waste my time?

but that's not what's important - what is is that you cited some statistical studies to back up your claims. :up: — Agent Smith

Are you so ignorant that you haven’t got a clue about how this looks?

Now the bad news - you haven't been able to identify neoliberalism as the cause of the social maladies you talk about in your OP. — Agent Smith

No, I have. It’s my “intuition.”

Still waiting for you to cite your source.

You'll have to make the case that these occur at higher rates than they did in the past. — Agent Smith

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Total_suicides_in_the_United_States_1981_2016.png

https://nida.nih.gov/sites/default/files/images/fig1od2020.jpg

https://www.statista.com/statistics/811487/number-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us/

Prepare for a tweet-length, grossly misunderstood synopsis of a book.

:yawn:

If the above connection isn’t being made, you’ve failed the test. — Mikie

no connection between “neoliberalism” and a single feeling of despair has been made, much less to any number of them—nor could it. — NOS4A2

Thanks for confirming what we already knew. Total fail.

Reread more Ayn Rand.

The materialistic and selfish quality of contemporary life is not inherent in the human condition. Much of what appears “natural” today dates from the 1980s: the obsession with wealth creation the cult of privatization and the private sector the growing disparities of rich and poor. And above all the rhetoric that accompanies these: uncritical admiration for unfettered markets disdain for the public sector the delusion of endless growth. — Tom Storm

:100:

But when you give stock options to compensate corporate leaders, there's a huge personal interest for these people to jack up the price of the stock whatever it takes. And to do that, stock buybacks are a perfect way. — ssu

Exactly, and when compensation consists mostly of stocks, it’s no wonder this influences the decision of CEOs.

I’m trying to find more information on the history of CEO compensation and changes in performance metrics. I think the shift started around 1990 or so.

I get upset a lot at comments, especially online. It’s irrational and counterproductive, and I try not to do so. I often fail, but I’ve gotten better over the years.

I think it’s something to do with anonymity. In real life, I’m actually a very nice guy— for example. I don’t think many people here would describe me that way, however.

The reason, in my view, is the nature of online discourse. It’s why social media has been such a disaster, in part.

Because it saps all of our precious bodily fluids. — Ciceronianus

Okay— I was trying not to laugh, but that’s funny.

All I can say is that I hope I don’t sound like Jack D Ripper.

f you are attempting to blame a specific set of people for a broad range of social ills then I would say the validity of your characterization speaks for itself. Let me guess, you are not a neo-liberal? — Pantagruel

Neoliberalism is the set of policies mentioned, enacted over the last 40 years, with predictable results.

The people in government and business carrying out these policies are indeed to blame— whether they identify as neoliberal or not.

cause of poverty, which is the mal-distribution of resources. — Pantagruel

Which has been exacerbated during the neoliberal era, to the tune of roughly 50 trillion dollars.

Poverty is a result of policies. It doesn’t come out of nowhere. It isn’t the uncaused cause.

No doubt there are policies that could be described as neo-liberal in character. That doesn't mean they are being controlled by some underlying neo-liberal agenda. — Pantagruel

Except that no one has argued that anyone is being "controlled" by an "underlying" agenda. Neoliberalism is an ideology in part, but it's also a set of policies. That's what I'm referring to. Whether the people who carry out these policies "really believe," or describe themselves as neoliberal, or are "controlled" by these beliefs, or are true Christians, or believe in the Easter bunny -- who cares.

The neoliberal era is characterized by the polices enacted -- not beliefs. Who knows what these people really believe.

Neoliberalism is, at best, an ideology. — Pantagruel

No, it's not only an ideology. It's a set of real policies enacted by real people that have real impacts. It's not only an abstract, ethereal "something" floating around out there. It's tax cuts. It's deregulation. It's privatization. It's "free trade" agreements.

All of which have real world consequences.

As for the specific statistic I mentioned, it's odd that you didn't ask the OP to verify his very statistical claim. — Agent Smith

What "very statistical claim" would that be? I'd be happy to supply you data.

So where is your source? You've been asked by several people. Do you have a source or did you make it up?

Statistics show that the death rate for all possible causes has declined in the US for the period 1916 to 2023. What have you to say about that. — Agent Smith

Cite your source and I'll take a look.

Whatever increase in despair there is, and I've not conceded it without first seeing the data, is probably quite complex and doesn't fit neatly into wherever our biases might lie (the economic system, civil rights violations, guns, drugs, single parent homes, poverty, bullying, etc), but is many of those for some, different from others, and who knows what else. — Hanover

Yes, but this itself is a bias. It takes something obvious and wants to hide behind "it's complex."

No, it's not that complex. On the level of each individual, we can argue. On a mass level, it's obvious. It's obvious with opioids. It's obvious with guns. It's obvious with suicides. These are outcomes of our particular culture. You compare to other countries and even other eras within our culture and it's even more obvious.

Sweeping government policies have sweeping impacts on society. They trickle down to towns and cities across the country. If you decide to cut federal spending on education, there's less available to distribute to states, which means less quality and higher property taxes. You cut regulations on drilling, you have more pollution and more respiratory deaths. You cut gun control measures, you have more mass shootings. You allow big pharma to do whatever they like, you get the opioid crisis.

None of this is complicated. There's been a campaign to make it all mysterious and confusing. It isn't.

Are you trying to explain that suicide or drug overdoses have as a common cause the failure of a economical system? — javi2541997

Yes.

opiates are more necessary than you think, they are helpful to people struggling with a lot of pain — javi2541997

They are necessary in some circumstances. They were overprescribed for years, and for a simple reason: profit. Plenty of scholarship on the pharmaceutical industry and the opioid crisis, as you know.

I am not agree with the fact that I am depressed or have suicidal risk because I live in a savage capitalist country. — javi2541997

There are many factors -- but given the policies of the neoliberal era, it's no coincidence to me that despair is rampant. Those policies have killed unions, destroyed education, kept wages low, increased debt, kept working conditions more stressful and precarious, and eroded social safety nets -- while transferring wealth to the top 0.1%. If you're failing to see how these conditions, played out over 40 years, will undoubtedly lead to despair -- then, as I mentioned in the OP, you've failed the test. So to speak.

Mental health is more complex. Neoliberalism could be a factor, as you explained. But not the main cause. I doubt (a lot) if removing such system the people would feel better. — javi2541997

There's an easy way to check. Look at the policies of the last 40 years, then compare them to different policies in different eras. Or look at other countries.

For example, take guns. Other countries have despair as well, and mental health issues -- no doubt. They don't have close to the mass shootings that we do. There's a simple reason: the number and accessibility of guns. Period. What does this have to do with neoliberalism? Easy: it encourages less regulation and favors the rights of corporations, including gun manufacturers. So it doesn't matter that kids are being killed every day -- just as it doesn't matter that the environment is being destroyed. What matters is making money and destroying everything about government that doesn't support corporate greed.

About stock buybacks:

Swimming in cash, Chevron plans a $75 billion slap in the face to drivers

Now, when you're a profitable company, you have a lot of options for what to do with those profits. You can reinvest in the business, upgrading your equipment or hiring more people. You can issue a dividend to shareholders, as a treat. Or, in America, you can do a buyback, in which you use the profit to purchase your own stock on the open market.

Buybacks are increasingly common, and controversial (in fact, they were flat-out illegal until 1982).

On one hand it's an easy way for a company to reward shareholders and signal confidence in its own value (after all, what moron would buy shares in a company whose stock is about to go down?). But critics say the practice artificially inflates the stock's value by creating fake demand. Conveniently, it also gooses executive compensation, the vast majority of which comes from stock options.

See here: Chevron, which is expected to report Friday that profits for 2022 doubled to more than $37 billion, is essentially balking at calls from investors and the White House to funnel its extra cash into more drilling capacity to help reduce prices for inflation-weary customers.

Instead, Chevron is buying $75 billion worth of its own shares, and jacking up its quarterly shareholder dividend. That decision prompted rebuke from the Biden administration.

Buybacks should be banned immediately.

More evidence of capitalism gone off the rails. Thanks, Reagan.

But it would be eye-opening to learn how others perceive and understand the origins of philosophy to be. — Bret Bernhoft

Philosophy is a name for a specific kind of thinking— a type of thinking distinguished by its questions; questions that are universal.

What is the question of questions? Answer, in my view: the question of being.

So when did philosophy begin? Well, the oldest extant writings tells us that’s more or less the early Indians and Greeks, who questioned being.

Nope. Only works in one direction.

There needs to be a crisis, an ideology, an enemy (anyone but the rich). All supplied and propagated dutifully by the very organisations who should have been holding the government to account. — Isaac

Sure. I’m not going to reread the entire article but I came away as though she understood this context. I don’t think she’s arguing that the rich got lucky or that it was accidental.

None of this has happened by accident, according to Peter Goodman, the author of Davos Man: How the Billionaires Devoured the World. “It’s not an accident,” he tells me, “that our economies have concentrated greater wealth in fewer hands. Quite simply, wealthy people have used their wealth to purchase democracy, to warp democracy in their own interests. They’ve done that through a global template that involves lowering taxes, privatising formerly public attempts to deal with common problems, liquidating the spending that went into things like social services, and then putting that money into their own pockets.” The main power of the billionaire class, Goodman says, is in their creation of values, not value, that maintain a friendly political climate. Davos, he says, is “a prophylactic against change, an elaborate reinforcement of the status quo served up as the pursuit of human progress”.

What are your opinions of whether pornography is problematic? — Shawn

I think it is. Like any other dopamine-increasing activity, it becomes addictive and, most importantly, creates unrealistic expectations.

The porn when I was a kid was tame in comparison to today. Playboys, Cinemax, etc. Now there’s no mystery— it’s like anatomy class. It’s also degrading and gross.

I feel for younger generations exposed to this shit early. It’s a much more rampant issue than I thought.

Don’t be a Menace to South Central while Drinking Your Juice in the Hood — Pinprick

Wtf?

Being John Malkovich — Andrew4Handel

Charlie Kaufman is brilliant and this one is a masterpiece. Thanks for reminding.

Yeah, that’s sarcastic. She goes on to talk about it in more detail. It’s not an accident.

How about:
Inherit the wind
Mississippi Burning
Hoffa
Malcolm X — universeness

I haven’t seen any of those. I saw a few minutes of Malcolm X and maybe a few moments from Mississippi Burning (Gene Hackman, yes?).

Falling Down — Vera Mont

A funny movie. I always thought it was a satire of conservative ideology and middle aged male fantasy.

Thin Red Line — ssu

Just barely missed my top ten. As I get older the impact has diminished a bit, but still an excellent film.

You mentioned Michael Mann and Heat. Good movie. His best, however— in my opinion is The Insider, which continually rises a few notches higher as I rewatch over the years. In my 20s I liked it but now I feel I actually understand it.

The breakdown of these figures exposes how on a global basis, extreme wealth is accumulated not by innovating or increasing production, but by taking advantage of rising prices and exploiting labour. In this effort, wealthy people are enabled by lack of regulation and taxation. The result is a bonanza of plunder with no sheriff in town.

This has been happening for a while, but the pandemic accelerated the trend. Rich people benefited from everything – every positive intervention from the state and negative impact of the crisis somehow still ended up increasing their wealth. They benefited from rising costs by using them as an alibi to charge higher-than-inflation prices, then distributing the rewards as dividends instead of higher wages. Food and energy corporations made a killing, making $306bn in windfall profits in 2022, then distributing 84% to shareholders.

https://apple.news/AabXb9PPQSoC0Ne-qu75mVQ

No Country For Old Men
— Bradskii
Hated the book so much I wouldn't watch the movie. — T Clark

Oh no! See the movie anyway. I implore you. I had to see it 3 times in the theater— a modern masterpiece on all levels.

? I didn't cringe once. Now I'm curious. — Vera Mont

Some of it is just too silly I guess.

Good luck finding some of these on streaming services. Jesus…

The grapes of Wrath — universeness

Here’s another unpopular opinion of mine. I’ll have to watch it again, but I remember hating this one. I think it’s because I had just read the book.

Forrest Gump. — Vera Mont

Another great one. Even despite the cringey parts.

Unforgiven — Bradskii

That’s been mentioned a few times. I like that movie, but I’ve never understood exactly why so many people think it’s so great. I feel I’m missing something.

What exactly did Trump do? — Merkwurdichliebe

Made America Great Again.

I’d like to exhume this one, given its new relevance. Maybe there’ll be more traction this time.

Yellen says minting a trillion dollar coin is off the table. I wonder if republicans are crazy enough to see this to the end.

I’m glad at least a few people are including fun ones like Star Wars and Men in Black. I love those. I still love Disney movies too, frankly. Some of Don Bluths were great.

I’m surprised no one threw in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. That movie was my world as a child.

American Beauty — Hanover

Conrad Hall’s cinematography alone puts it up there. Another one I forgot.

Aaaargh! I keep being reminded of ones I should have put on my list. — T Clark

Me too…should have done the top 25. Just too many good ones.

The Little Thief of Baghdad (1940) — tim wood

Never even heard of this one. :up:

Braveheart — universeness

Glad someone mentioned that one. I forgot but I still think it’s great, no matter what anyone says.