I'm from the North of England - and it was economically devastated by the closing of the coal mines and the end of heavy industry culminating in the early 1980's with Thatcher. Labour were ubiquitous where I came from. It wasn't a choice so much as a fact of life. Working people and Labour are synonyms. But even as the Tories destroyed, and then ignored the North for a generation, Labour retreated to North London, and leant heavily into a reverse form of identity politics pitched through culture; civil rights, feminism, gay rights - pushing past mere equality, past positive discrimination to forge the dictatorial dogma that is political correctness. And then they were shocked when the Labour vote collapsed in the North in 2019.

Philosophically, political correctness depends on various subjectivist traditions - in chronological order, subjectivism, existentialism, critical theory, neo-marxism and post modernism - and you're right, it's nonsensical, but then - it doesn't uphold the value of making sense. It's all about power. This manifests most obviously in the fact that political correctness deals constantly in stereotypes - while criminalising stereotyping. It sees everything in terms of race - but then decries others as racist. It draws its power from making it impossible for you to make sense of anything. You end up cheering as businesses are looted and burnt, because they're black - and curse white people protesting that an election was stolen by those who, four years before - claimed the election was stolen! With the impossibility of reason, all you can do is take sides, and submit. And if you don't, then they will impugn you, attack and harass you - destroy you, and care not.

I'm not sure what you mean by:

The only problem your idea of capturing energy from magma has is that the industry required for economic viability hasn't appeared. — Bitter Crank

The technology exists. Fossil fuel drilling technology is amazing - they can drill for miles and steer around corners. The rest is standard electricity generation technology - copper wire and magnets. Tapping into the heat energy of magma to produce electricity is a slam dunk technologically speaking.

Electrolysis to produce hydrogen - is a simple, well established technology. Delivering energy as hydrogen gas, or liquified fuel - much the same. Slight issue with embrittlement from hydrogen, but materials science has that covered. I'd start in the Pacific Rim, miles from anywhere - but I could have it up and running from off the shelf technologies in five years.

Relative to other renewable technologies, magma energy, I think - has the greatest potential to supply sufficient energy, reliably and at the lowest costs in terms of infrastructure. It doesn't imply the same left wing have less and pay more, carbon tax this, stop that approach - because it deals with supply, not consumption. You say:

My own experience is that I can consume less 'stuff' without the slightest reduction in my standard of living. Example: reading books and newspaper in digital form rather than paper. Drinking tap water instead of bottled water (which is often the same water one gets out of a tap). Not replacing clothing that is in very good condition. Keeping appliances until they fail. I use mass transit because I do not drive... — Bitter Crank

But what about the people who print newspapers, build cars, manufacture appliances, grow cotton and knit cardigans or whatever. You may be able to go without because you are already quite well off. But what about the jobs of people down the line. You can have less, and put them out of work, but poor people breed more. Only sufficient clean energy can balance the equation - support capitalist growth, sustainable development and continued improvement in living standards, such that population tops out around 10-12bn by 2100 according to the UN mid range projection.

You pick snippets from my argument you think you can digest in your own way, but leave behind my meaning.

I promote science as truth, I have an evolutionary conception of humankind - I think morality is a sense as opposed to a culturally specific set of laws, and I treat individuals as I find them, regardless of skin colour, gender, sexuality or whatever.

Stop trying to disgrace me, just because I don't drink the commie Kool aid. I don't drink anyone's kool aid. I'm a philosopher!

Was she a junkie criminal scumbag? No!

But okay, let's come at this from a different angle. I consider myself a philosopher. I didn't leap at the first easy I answer I was fed. I engaged in many years of soul searching, on everything - and you think I didn't see past the appearance of skin colour? It's insulting.

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

His skin colour ISN'T AN ISSUE FOR ME!

It's an issue for you though. What's up with that!

That's really fucking vicious. Why are you trying to disgrace me? How many times do I have to tell you, race isn't an issue for me?

I am actively seeking to save HUMANKIND from extinction - and you seek to tarnish me with accusations of racism and white supremacism in favour of a failed commie dogma, you won't even admit to?

Nihilist my arse! You neo marxist, post modernist, politically correct wretch! Take it back - and knock it the fuck off. It's not right to impugn people, over and over - just because they don't drink the commie kool aid.

On the face of it, absent of a highly charged political atmosphere, a man was arrested, he resisted arrest - fighting off four police officers, he was restrained, and he died. He was found to have a lethal quantity of narcotics in his system.

Under normal circumstances, I suspect it would be found that there wasn't a case to answer. Under the highly politicised circumstances created by BLM - it was impossible to find that there wasn't a case to answer.

Thus, one could argue, what you call "expert opinion on the cause of death" - is a somewhat forced conclusion; and consequently, using the term 'killing' - rather than the more neutral term 'death' - is cementing a forced conclusion, a first victory in a left wing crusade to make it impossible for police to do their job.

Thanks Raul, that's good of you to say so. You may be interested to read my plans for how to secure a prosperous and sustainable future, elsewhere on this site. Thanks again, and please feel free to share.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/489834

There are two great lessons of the 20th century, and we didn't learn either. The first is that Communism doesn't work. The collapse of Communism in Russia and China, should have put an end to this flawed form of political economy. And yet, for want of any better ideas, it continues - likes some ghost at the feast - to inform the positions of one half of Western democracies.

The second lesson we didn't learn is that science works. From 1900 to 2000, scientific and technological progress was extraordinary; a truly world changing century all thanks to science, and yet science remains, without recognition as a valid understanding of reality - used as a tool, but ignored as a rule for the conduct of human affairs.

I don't know how one would go about creating a political spectrum that ranges from ideological traditionalist to scientific rationalist, but this would have been the natural consequence of learning from the century gone by; laying Communism to rest, and seating science at the table in its place.

Instead, we have a bunch of idiot kids, misled by wicked old men - trying to undermine the only system of political economy that works, to resurrect Communism's ghost - as if that were the answer to a sustainable future. As a consequence, there's a chance there won't be anyone left alive to look back on this century and ask what we learned from it. But "nothing" is the answer. We haven't learnt anything since we didn't learn from Galileo in the 17th century.

Nah. Nihilist to the bones. — frank

Oh, you are? Then get your entertainment elsewhere. If you don't care about any of this all you're doing is amusing yourself at my expense, and I resent it.

What do you think my dishonest position is? — frank

Are not you better placed to tell me, than I am to tell you - to what degree you identify with the ideas I've criticised? You haven't explained, but you have acted defensively and offensively - in response to these criticisms. You're displaying classic signs of left wing fragility!

I understand why you want to obscure it. You guys are a dying breed. Back in the day there was nothing odd about it. These days you have to choose your words carefully. is that frustrating? — frank

I'm not going to rise to your provocation. I've spoken honestly, and explained my position eloquently. Your repeated assertions of racism are because you can't deny what I've said or defend your own dishonest position. Think about this - anti biotics alone have saved more lives that were lost in all the wars - ever! Thank you Sir Alexander Fleming FRS FRSE FRCS. And hurrah for western medicine and science in general.

There you go with the stereotyping. It's okay when you do it, huh? I do believe in climate change, and I'm not white supremacist. But I am pro-Western. We got a lot right. Our societies are prosperous and relatively just. We invented almost everything - scientific and industrial revolutions, through to modern democracy and capitalism. Medical science, the internal combustion engine, the computer, the internet.

I blame much on the weather - it's cold a lot of the time, and so we pursue indoor sports like reading books. And there's the relative proximity of England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain etc, and the competition of ideas, art, commerce, philosophy, music - and so on, that occurred between them over hundreds of years.

It's not racist to be proud of the contributions of western civilisation to the world; nor expect that, if there's a viable future, it will be the West that makes it happen. So yes, I object to post modernist, politically correct, white guilt ridden, craven left twits - attacking our civilisation, in their typically myopic, post truth, falsely self righteous manner.

You have an infinite supply of chips on your shoulder. — baker

Oh, suffer. Poor you.
If God is with you, who can be against you?! — baker

When Patrick Jane or Gregory House do that, it's fun to watch and they solve cases and figure out the right diagnosis. But when real people do it, it just means they're jerks. And nothing good comes out of it. — baker

Just thought I'd collect all your posts in one place that I can take them in. Were I a critic I should say that they lack wit, lack insight, and lack explanatory power. It would be as good, or better had they never been written.

So you're not trying to convert people. You're just spitting out the same blerbs over and over, unable to wake up from it. Still, it's more fun to talk to you than your counterparts, I will say that. — frank

I have no counterparts. I am fiercely intellectually independent. Western capitalism invented the Covid vaccine. I'm not sure what skin colour the actual scientists had. Western societies are multi-cultural societies, and science itself has a somewhat global outlook, so they could have been any skin colour. It's not a race thing. But it is a Western civilisation thing.

The thing I care most about is a sustainable future for humankind, and I don't believe that can be achieved - other than by capitalism. Capitalism has the knowledge, the skills, the technology, the human resources, the industrial capacity and so on, to do what needs to be done. Further, it has commerce, as a basis to negotiate these matters between people's. If there's any chance of a sustainable future - it will be western capitalism that does it, like it was western capitalism that invented the vaccine and is expected to pay for the rest of the world to receive it.

So the left's multi-pronged assault on objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, science, language, and social progress - in terms of race, gender, law and order, free speech a fair trial and on and on and on, all pitched against western civilisation does indeed invoke:

the Ghost of Doom lurking on the horizon. — frank

No I encounter bad faith arguments, and...

What could you possibly expect in return?? — baker

How depressing that you immediately see things in terms of skin colour. Do you consider yourself racist?

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?

You attack the very foundations of our civilisation, free speech, a fair trial, law and order, capitalism, gender, sexuality, race - a constant multi-pronged assault, and it's true - nothing does last forever. A dripping tap will cut through a mountain given enough time. So keep chipping away, and when it all comes tumbling down around your ears, do you honestly think things will be better?

I'm worried about the left wing, post modernist, politically correct, anti-capitalist assault on western civilisation.

No. If I'm mistaken, please show me in what way. I'd be happy to learn because frankly, I'm worried.

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

Look at the statistics on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website. I did when the BLM rioting, burning and looting started because I wanted to know the facts.

There are around 10 million arrests per year, and around 1000 Arrest Related Deaths. That's based on an average of data from 2003-2012, before Obama shut down collection of data on the race of arrest related deaths, the year before Black Lies Matter was formed in 2013.

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

Given that a lot more crimes are committed by black people than by white people, that's not disproportionate. More crimes of violence are committed by black people in general - suggesting perhaps, a greater propensity to resist arrest. For example, more murders are committed by the black, 13% of the US population, than the 76% white population.

If there's a conspiracy here, it's the false narrative created by BLM with carefully edited cell phone footage, to suggest police are engaged in a racist genocide and incite black people to riots. Perhaps that was to spike the US Presidential election. Perhaps that was post modernist neo-marxists seeking to undermine law and order, like they are trying to undermine all western values.

"Common targets of postmodern criticism include universalist ideas of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, science, language, and social progress."

You really are the enemy within.

The defence say he wasn't killed. The defence say he overdosed. The autopsies are evidence - the value of which is yet to be determined by the jury. Saying he was killed is therefore, to assume guilt, and to broadcast an assumption of guilt may prejudice the trial.

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. I'm not cherry picking anything. I know why the police needed to restrain him. I didn't omit that - you did.

They were waiting for a van because Floyd fought like a mad dog, making it impossible to put him into the car. If he had got into the car, he wouldn't be dead. Floyd put himself face down in the road with a policeman pinning him down. He created that situation. It was a dangerous situation. Restraining people is inherently dangerous, and potentially fatal.

If the police fear they may end up charged with murder for restraining people, it's going to make it impossible for them to do their job.

You should have viewed the police bodycam footage. It shows Floyd, handcuffed, fighting four police officers - making it impossible to put him in the car. And he's yelling "I can't breathe" - that BLM slogan, while fighting four police officers. You say he was face down, handcuffed - but that's only because he needed to be restrained. Floyd created that need. And BLM bullshit undermined the credibility of any subsequent complaint that he couldn't breathe. Did the woman need to be shot dead to prevent her entering a building? I don't think so. Do you care about her death? No. She was white!

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

Oh, but I do. — Kenosha Kid

Oh, but you don't.

Did you read your own reference? The two autopsies are contradictory. And there's a toxicology report at issue. Which is exactly what I said. So don't tell me to "do the bare minimum" like I don't know what I'm talking about.

Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of the sweeping assumptions I make about people here - but those people are quite free to refute those accusations, and explain what they really believe, which is my purpose in doing so. I'm being deliberately provocative with people being insufficiently honest.

Is Kenosha Kid the Medical Examiner in the Floyd case? I had no idea! I should have done my research. I've only been able to determine that there are two contradictory autopsies, and a pending toxicology result. But as the Medical Examiner in the case is here - well, I'll have to defer to his professional expertise!

Just read - anything, everything. Make up your own damn mind. The books you've cited all lead to a very left wing, subjectivist, metaphysical understanding. To be fair - it's the majority of philosophy. But there are exceptions. Read Atlas Shrugged - see what you make of that. Read - Rawls: A Theory of Justice, but then read Nozick: Anarchy, State and Utopia. I hate metaphysics in general, and existentialism in particular, but read it anyway. Just read.

My question was more whether the action of buying factory farmed animal products was ethical as opposed to the intent of the person purchasing it. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I know, I read it. I think it's the wrong question, because, as I explained, the consumer cannot be expected to bear the cognitive burden of knowing how everything they consume is produced. That's what's wrong with the current approach to sustainability - mainly coming from the left. It assumes consumer sovereignty is the answer to sustainability - and it's really not. It should be about ethical and sustainable production - not expecting the consumer to stand in the supermarket reading between the lines of the fine print on the back of a horsemeat lasagne!

Kant is very difficult to read. It's probably better to get a book about Kant than a book by him. Schopenhauer was a terrible person who wrote terrible philosophy.
Kierkegaard is at least entertaining.
Heidegger is too heavy with the jargon. In order to understand Heidegger, you have to accept Heidegger. All that 'being in the world' bollocks drove me nuts.
But all in all, a finer collection of subjectivists, metaphysical nutjobs and sexual deviants has never been assembled! What's missing is epistemologists. Locke, Moore, Ayer, Bohm - and Hume.
I'd read chronologically, to understand the development of philosophy - and where further reading can be placed in that order.

Read about it and then, go with your gut. Trust that you have an inbuilt moral sense that will enable you to determine right from wrong, on the basis of the facts. I'll admit outright, I don't know enough about it to give you an answer. And honestly, I think it's a bit rich telling people they have to stop eating meat because... climate change, and then keeping a pet. I'd get rid of all the cats before I'd get rid of cows. Cows are useful. Cows don't have a trillion videos uploaded to youtube everyday. Dogs can be useful too, and they're a long term companion animal we are responsible for domesticating. So there's some leeway for dogs, but cats? Cats have to go before cows, and before dogs. Sorry, what was the question? Oh yeah - balls, I don't know!

Generally, I start on page 1 and go from there!

Seriously though, chronologically - by year of publication!

No. You think you know, but you don't. You think you know because that's what you want to believe, and are not intelligent enough to understand that wanting to believe something is not what makes it true.

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.

I mean, you personally - who gives a shit what you think, right? 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!

Here's the difference between us. 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. I'd be saying Floyd created the situation that led to his death, and the benefit of the doubt is with the police. You wouldn't. In fact, if George Floyd were a white criminal we'd never have heard of him. Floyd's skin colour changes things for you. That's what makes you a racist.

No. He's dead. "Death" would be a perfectly appropriate word to use in the sentence

The ______ of George Floyd.

The term 'death' is accurate, and it's neutral. As opposed to 'killing' or worse, 'murder' - or worse yet, "racist murder". Those are not neutral terms. 'Killing' presumes to know what Floyd died of. 'Murder' presumes know what he died of, and that there was intent to kill. "Racist murder" - the term you used, presumes to know what Floyd died of, that there was intent to kill, and what motivated that intent. These are biased terms that should not be used by the media prior to a verdict.

Correct answer. Doesn't fit in the space provided, but yes, you get the point. Here's the thing. What does a refusal to answer signify? Do they know they're being biased - and won't answer because it would reveal that bias? Or do they not know? And it's right across left wing mainstream media. How can there be a fair trial when there's all this subconscious bias being pumped out in the media?

I'll make my point when you complete the sentence:

The _____ of George Floyd!

Just say the first thing that pops into your otherwise empty head!

Is it that it assumes racism isn't fictional? — frank

No. It's in relation to my earlier comment.

Complete the sentence:

The _______ of George Floyd! — counterpunch

You're supposed to be philosophers. You should be able to get this.

This is from the BBC:

"Racism in education: How 'truth pages' helped students fight back

The killing of George Floyd was a catalyst moment for social justice movements across the world. But after the coronavirus pandemic worsened some of those movements were pushed aside."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-55655640

Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this?

I was speaking to a telemarketer when you so rudely interrupted me with this nothing of a comment!

Wrong answer! But good to know where your head is at!