Was she a junkie criminal scumbag? — counterpunch

I have no idea if she was a junkie, it doesn't seem relevant. But, yes, she was a criminal scumbag. Which also isn't relevant.

and you think I didn't see past the appearance of skin colour? It's insulting. — counterpunch

Your racism is insulting.

I would be saying the same thing If George Floyd had been a white junkie criminal scumbag. — counterpunch

Yeah bullshit. White woman in a mob attacking police officers is fine.

a fawning FBI is purging them of anyone who may have ties to militia groups — NOS4A2

That's a good thing.

When someone kneels on the neck of a black man for 8 1/2 minutes until he's dead and you think an accurate description is:

he was restrained, and he died — counterpunch

one doesn't need to know jack shit about Marx to know you're a racist.

You seem to make the same vile, bullshit statements over and over, and yet seem surprised by the uniformity of the response. No one wants you to volunteer this inhumane crap. You can be a secret racist iyl. But if you insist on being an overt one, you're going to be called on it, and you're going to be despised by a lot of people.

The guy should get a job at McDonald's, he flips so frequently.

All this was inspired by the principle—which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
— Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X (1925)
(emphasis is mine) — 180 Proof

So...

So, what might the lessons of the 20th century be? — Bitter Crank

An empty set.

Apparently 3 in 4 Republicans approve of overturning the election results. It's not a danger: it's a reality.

Yeah, a general boastfulness would probably cover it.

It seems like Democratic Presidents are becoming increasingly hardline as Republican ones become increasingly moronic, as if they're filling the void for making "tough decisions" (spin for unpopular solutions to genuine problems).

The Greek answer to the question was to say that each thing has a function, and "good" merely means fulfilling this function. — Garth

That's fine for things that have one function. But a related question to "how ought I to behave?" is "what is the purpose of my existence?"

This is why, for me, morality is an existential matter. We are far from a situation in which we have well-defined functions, or where any given function "ought" to be adopted over another. We have a lot of freedom, which burdens us with a lot of decisions to make.

Biden was among its key architects, telling the Des Moines Register in January that “I’m the guy who put together Plan Colombia,” adding that it “straightened that government out for a long while.” — StreetlightX

I'm not saying this as any contradiction, but the thing that sticks out is how Biden keeps taking credit for stuff, and not good stuff. Usually an architect doesn't stop passersby outside a building, saying "You know, I actually built that."

Either he's surprisingly easy to shoulder out of his own work (worrying) or he seems addicted to taking credit for the work of others (also worrying).

Well, the Wikipedia article on homologous recombination describes enzymes as being recruited. So I guess this implies that each particular enzyme makes a free will choice as to whether or not to go into service. — Metaphysician Undercover

:rofl:

philosophy requires questioning of those things we take for granted as being obviously true. — Wayfarer

Something I am also keen on. First, there's ample scope for philosophy grounded in naturalism without having to subscribe to less explanatory ideas. Second, my post above was not a rebuttal; it was an invite to you to address what of subjectivity is left unexplained by naturalism and what you think explains it instead. It's a perfectly open-minded approach. That you did not suggest an answer is not indicative of my close-mindedness.

None of that has any bearing on the OP, as I agree that there's no need to invoke awareness as a factor in molecular biology. It's a broader comment on the role of naturalism in philosophy of mind. — Wayfarer

Agreed, it is rather off-topic.

And there are plenty of conservatives too that are critical of unconstrained capitalism, pro environment and pro equity, actually. At least here. — ssu

Yes, I think it's the peculiarity of the English-speaking right that social conservativism, social order theories, economic liberalism, traditionalism, some faux Christianity, post-truth, and short-termism inevitably coalesce.

Nobody can explain anything without it, nor would there be anything in need of explanation. — Wayfarer

True.

It would help you to see where your ingrained methodological naturalism morphs into a worldview. After all, this is a philosophy forum. — Wayfarer

That's not an argument for blind acceptance of anything. But, yes, *my* worldview is very much ingrained with my methodological naturalism, largely because it seems to explain a lot of the world.

I'm saying that when people are in disadvantaged positions, there is, to say the least, no incentive to change their minds or to overcome their cognitive biases.
Do you disagree? — baker

Yes, for all the above reasons. I mean, maybe there's some unfortunate maximally disadvantaged edge case, but generally, yes. Being economically disadvantaged, for instance, is no barrier to treating your neighbour better.

On the other hand, the emergence of living organisms also amounts to the emergence of subjectivity, or subject-hood. — Wayfarer

No, vegetable and microbial life could have gotten on just fine without us.

Same schema though:

1. What actually is it?
2. Can we explain what it supposedly does without it?

Well, yes it is. It's certainly not true that everyone is in every position of power all the time. That would be nonsensical.
— Kenosha Kid

When a person is not in a position of power, does it make sense or is it economical to retain biases that aren't to one's disadvantage? — baker

I don't think you can have read that right.

I simply don't buy the idea that universities are bastions of marxism, as some say. It's usually bullshit — ssu

It is bullshit. Marxism is basically dead outside of philosophy and economics. Never met a Marxist scientist in my life. Plenty critical of unconstrained capitalism though, as well as pro environmental action, pro equity, etc.

The data shows that of the 1000 deaths, that's 0.1% of all arrests, 32% were black and 42% were white. — counterpunch

Yes, you and others keep pushing this line, then you receive the obvious response -- that this isn't about deaths during arrests, this is about police shooting unsuspecting black men in the back or crushing the life out of them when they're already restrained and pose no danger --, you ignore it, then go back to regurgitating the same vomit. I know this counts for clever with the racist crowd, but it doesn't cut the mustard elsewhere. I don't think you'll find anyone here who'd hold it against a police officer for shooting in defence of self, a partner, or civilians. You might find many who dislike the police shooting to kill in order to catch a criminal, but that's about American culture generally, not it's racist culture specifically. Pretending the dialogue is about something else is not smart.

Let me ask you a question. Who invented the Covid vaccine, and who's going to pay for the rest of the world to get it if the WHO have their way? — counterpunch

I can well imagine you not getting your head around the idea that someone who invented a vaccine for a global pandemic wouldn't just keep it for their in-group.

Science is also international. Just because you learn it in the English-speaking west, doesn't mean it came from the English-speaking West. As hard as this will be for you to swallow, scientists typically believe that they do what they do for humanity, not for straight white English-speaking men. Crazy, huh?

Rioters stormed Trump’s inauguration. Imagine the optics had he employed American soldiers to maintain law and order in the nation’s capitol. — NOS4A2

We don't need to imagine anything in this case. It happened less than two weeks ago. Trump was apparently not under much threat since the crowd didn't try and lynch him. Biden is because the crowd did actually try and lynch the man who counted his votes. Different crowd. Trump protestors aren't a wild mob of homicidal maniacs. Trump supporters are.

Washington resembles East Germany. This is what our new government thinks of its subjects. — NOS4A2

That a bunch of violent Trump supporters will storm Congress to stop the inauguration of a democratically elected President? Where could they have got such an idea?

I didn't edit the video plastered all over social media, or tailor my description of events to make the suspect seem guiltless and helpless. — counterpunch

Accusing black people of faking evidence of race crimes against them with nothing but moronic conspiracy theories: racist.

Floyd was murdered lying face down with the cop's knee on his neck for 8 minutes. Cherry-picking the facts doesn't make you less racist: it makes you more.

those who share a mythology (or a meme) are not searching for the factual truth — StreetlightX

Got that right. That's why they're so often contradicted by it.

Oh, but you don't. — counterpunch

What is it with fascists always telling people that they didn't see what they saw? Same deal with the lynch mob at the Capitol.

Not eating animal products is the cheapest, but I take your point. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Not being able to eat them because of your finances is discriminatory. Not eating them irrespective of your finances, sure, that's your choice. No beef with vegetarians, if you'll pardon the pun.

You think you know, but you don't. — counterpunch

Oh, but I do.

You are not intelligent enough to understand that everyone deserves a fair trial - and that prejudging what happened, doesn't allow for a fair trial - particularly if you're a mainstream broadcaster like the BBC. — counterpunch

Everyone deserves a fair trial but that unfortunately for you includes video footage, eye witness testimony and coroner reports. These things you like to dismiss are called "facts" and those are used in court to assess culpability.

But the BBC is utterly in thrall to the same politically correct, lefty cultural paradigm that so demonstrably biases your thinking, and then broadcasts undue assumptions based on that politically correct bias. The BBC should know better! — counterpunch

The battle cry of the racist! If someone says it's not okay for the police to murder people in their custody, well duh! Oh, the person's black? Political correctness gone mad, right?

If George Floyd had been a white criminal, who resisted arrest by four police officers, while handcuffed, making it impossible to put him in the car - so they restrained him, and he died, possibly as a consequence of that restraint - I'd be saying the same thing. — counterpunch

Yah bullshit. A police officer shoots a white woman part of a violent mob calling for the murder of elected officials storming a government building and attacking police officers and your response is:

It's shameful that a police officer shot someone dead for trying to enter a building that they own. — counterpunch

A black man lies handcuffed, face down, gasping that he can't breathe for 8 minutes and your response is basically: probly deserved it.

Standard racist crap.

Maybe that's all that is needed, but where are the wellsprings of that, in modern technological culture? — Wayfarer

Actually you'll find plenty of it in modern technological culture. Schools being forced to end subjects that aren't vocational, people encouraged into wage slavery, "the American consumer"... You're either an owner of the means of production, a worker, or your life is meaningless or, worse, cancerous.

The sinister side of telling people their lives must have meaning is that, when they fail to discover it for themselves, there's plenty of people ready to answer it for them, not for the benefit of the asker but for the answerer.

It seems like a wrong-headed question to me. Better: you are privileged to be alive this short while Inna fascinating universe. What will you do with your time?

Bunch of yankers.

. 'Killing' presumes to know what Floyd died of. — counterpunch

Which, of course, we do. Twice. Just seems to be something that racists like to pretend is shrouded in a mystery that isn't there.

"Killing", btw, doesn't mean murder. You can be killed by cancer, for instance. Or by a racist cop kneeling on your neck for 8 minutes.

The killing of George Floyd...

Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this? — counterpunch

The _____ of George Floyd! — counterpunch

Are you now trying to suggest he's not even dead?!?

Then it's not true that "Everyone's in a position of power all the time." — baker

Well, yes it is. It's certainly not true that everyone is in every position of power all the time. That would be nonsensical.

Clearly, this doesn't seem to be the case with his girlfriends when they were alone and accosted by men.

Unless KK actually thinks they were in a position of power when they were alone and accosted by men. — baker

In the dynamic of sexual predator/target, they do not occupy the position of power. That does not make them powerless in every conceivable dynamic. If you can do something about something, that is a position of power.

More typically is that the response if someone brings up ideas of some thinker or philosopher is quite different depending on the political side. — ssu

Disagreeing with right wing members has so quickly and consistently seen me named as a communist, or an identity politician, or some such that I don't even bother to disagree. From my point of view, there's usually nothing meaningful to discuss.

I've always appreciated your pro-capitalist contributions though, even though they're entirely incorrect of course ;)

If you want to start building a background then Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy would be my suggestion. — Pantagruel

This completely sidesteps existentialism. Russell didn't consider it important.

As an intro, the primary sources can be pretty hard going, but Norton have a book of selected key primarytexts that's useful. It's a bit unkind to Nietzsche, focussing more on his philological justifications of racism than his will to power, but then I don't think Nietzsche is the best place to start with existentialism anyway.

I think he’s asking if they were in a position of power then. — Pfhorrest

I'm reading it as:

Were your girlfriends (who were accosted by men when they were) alone? — Kenosha Kid

Without punctuation it reads as gibberish to me.

I didn't mean to exclude "centrist" out of any bias toward it (I consider myself a kind of "centrist" in the proper political spectrum, even if I'm "far left" by common standards). Rather, I meant "both" and "neither" to differentiate different possible kinds of "centrists". I think you're probably right that people who are equally "anti-woke" and "anti-MAGA" see themselves as "neither". — Pfhorrest

I think that was apt. There's a big difference between being on the centre-ground of most things and being leftist on some, right on the others. Some of my views are considered conservative or authoritarian (I am pro DNA databases, for instance); I am probably centre on nothing, and extreme on very little.

- "an equal balance of change and stasis" was to mean that you find the status quo about halfway acceptable, a lot of things need to change but also a lot needs to stay the same, and we should be only as quick to make those changes as possible without compromising our due caution to protect what's already good. — Pfhorrest

Thanks. Sorry for the badly worded question.

I think the real topic is if the leftist bias hinders open discussion. — ssu

It should hinder e.g. racism, which tends to live on the right. But not always (e.g. anti-Semitism in the British Labour party.) It doesn't matter where it comes from, it should not be tolerated imo.

Were your girlfriends who were accosted by men when they were alone? — baker

Ah. Yes, always.

I go to collect chestnuts, I know where the trees are, but when I'm first there, I don't notice the chestnuts on the ground. I really have to look to begin seeing them, and then I continue seeing them. — baker

Ah okay. Yes, same thing. Not the same thing as confirmation bias, though.

Were your girlfriends who were accosted by men when they were alone? — baker

Wut?

What exactly are we talking about? Do you think I'm a right-winger? — baker

No, nor do I think I *was* a right-winger. Nonetheless examining our biases to avoid misleading or, in this case, failing to protect others is important.

Then there's a bias there as well, one of jumping to conclusions where, if one is looking for X, one is more likely to see it, and also interpret Y and Z as X. — baker

That's true, but in my example the difference was qualitative (no spiders --> many spiders) rather than quantitative (some spiders --> many spiders). Let's not forget, he was *always* looking for spiders; the difference came when he changed how he looked at the world around him.

I'm also intrigued by that, and would be interested to hear from not only them — Pfhorrest

I'd particularly like to know if this is independent of where in the hierarchy they'd end up.

anyone who voted one of the last two options of the first three questions ("somewhat" or "maximal" authority, hierarchy, or stasis). — Pfhorrest

I confess the stasis option is the only one that made no sense to me. I kind of read this as 'gradual progress' but I didn't answer 'maximal change' as 'instanaeous transformation to what I currently think of as the perfect society'.