Thoughts on BLM/Cops

[Grayman]

Anyways correlation is not causality. I'm aware of the environmental lead exposure theories about various poor people, especially blacks, being made stupid by it. "Crime is down" is not a subject I've studied up much. What I have started to study, are pockets of HIGH crime like Chicago and Milwaukee. I think when we're fed a line about "the average is down," we're missing an important part of the picture of what's going on. Things can be generally better in a lot of places, and much much worse in a smaller number of places.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5420a5.htm

I didn't know about the lead. Did you hear or read anything on why it effects black more and how it can be resolved?

 

[Analyzer]

The only way racism could end is by seeing people as individuals, all different. Although this will not happen, as the majority of people have bought into the the illusion of categorical identity. BLM by its very nature does the opposite of what it's suppose to do(which I presume is ending unjustified killings of black people).

 

[TBerg]

According to this, I would have had solidly gifted intelligence if I had not been exposed to lead for several years:

http://www.environmentalhealthnews....ts-childhood-lead-exposure-persist-in-adults/

Good thing I did not drop to the 80s, an IQ that is most likely to be prone to criminal activity.

 

[bvanevery]

I didn't know about the lead. Did you hear or read anything on why it effects black more

I think the topic is called "environmental justice". Poor neighborhoods got more toxic shit dumped on them than wealthier neighborhoods. I'm pretty sure I remember reading an article about black neighborhoods in Houston, for instance, that were particularly swimming in lead. Maybe still are. Maybe any cleanup or abatement of such neighborhoods took longer due to lack of resources and accountability in mostly white led governments.

This stuff has affected poor white people in various places as well. Erin Brockovich is a famous example that a movie got made out of, although that wasn't about lead. There are poor white folk with polluted environments in Appalachia, etc.

and how it can be resolved?

Well, unleaded gas was a big help. Soon followed by unleaded everything, especially paint. Heck there's even a movement for unleaded solder, which is really carrying things to extremes. Once you stop introducing new lead and get rid of old lead, later generations don't have the birth defects or other impairments due to a lead environment. I'm not an expert about all of this though. One for your internet research.

 

[bvanevery]

BLM by its very nature does the opposite of what it's suppose to do(which I presume is ending unjustified killings of black people).

People have to arrive at non-racist views by iteration. It doesn't happen by categorical elimination / suppression of discourse.

 

[Grayman]

Well, unleaded gas was a big help. Soon followed by unleaded everything, especially paint. Heck there's even a movement for unleaded solder, which is really carrying things to extremes. Once you stop introducing new lead and get rid of old lead, later generations don't have the birth defects or other impairments due to a lead environment. I'm not an expert about all of this though. One for your internet research.

I am assuming the solder is in reference to soldering copper pipes which are used to for house water lines.

Here there are strict regulations about businesses stripping or sand blasting paint off various constructs. The paint has to be tested prior and if it contains lead it has to be contained and dry stripped. If it isn't it would go into the water.

The whole process can be expensive. I can see poorer communities being unable to afford following such regulations and also being stuck with older homes where the paint still contains lead.

 

[bvanevery]

I am assuming the solder is in reference to soldering copper pipes which are used to for house water lines.

Hadn't thought of that but might be true as well. I was talking about electronics. The lead free stuff doesn't work as well as the regular solder.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Spoiler

Perhaps a product of different times. Back then, TV was in its infancy. Now, we have "reality TV" as the model of how people may conduct themselves. So much so, that even a Presidential candidate may successfully engage in such antics. Well, succeeding until it fails, we can hope. Worked fine for getting his party's nomination, is my point. I don't know what kind of discipline or learning curve the BLM leadership has managed so far, but it's pretty clear they don't have control over a lot of their rank-and-file participants. People just act out according to the way their shitty reality TV society models for them.

What we should be really asking is, within an aggrieved population, why should we be expecting so much self-discipline and control out of mere humans? All through human history, civilians have rioted when they got fed up enough. You have to believe there's some point to operating within a system of law and order to constrain your actions. If you don't believe any law or social contract serves you in any way, then why bother? Quid pro quo.

Oh dear. I don't think raucousness is part of BLM strategy nor are they using "reality tv" as a role model but that it's merely a response to a lack of legitimate and unbiased media coverage because broadcasting good behavior doesn't draw ratings. AKA "You think I'm X!?! I'll show you X!" Classic ego trap.

A quick glance at the polls shows it's not successful at all. Trump is behind 176-362 on the electoral map if the election were held today, losing in a landslide to an extraordinarily weak democratic candidate, only after overcoming a historically unprecedented divided GOP clown car of wannabe candidates amid a party so deeply divided that ballot splitting is being utilized.

We don't expect it. It's up to them to realize that they're playing into the hands of establishment social and political powers. Simply stating that people historically riot and operate within a system doesn't do justice to the power dynamics that determine which side leaves victorious. Actual leaders who practice true nonviolent resistance are frequently assassinated for a reason, because they're actually effective.

Otherwise, lol@ inundation of cherry-picked data and unsourced claims that is becoming the shitstorm ITT in general. What a clusterfuck.

Why are we placing non violent criminals in the same place violent criminals are becoming even more violent........its just a huge cluster fuck man

heh... *glances over posts* much interspecific mammalian love going on ITT. I never understood why we don't address the reasons people actually commit crimes. http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/01/26/0306624X09357772

Let's look at our theoretical options for preventing a school shooting, for example: 1) ban guns 2) post armed guards and eliminate privacy 3) teach students coping skills to deal with anger and stress, and don't piss off someone to the extent that they want to shoot up the place.

Only one of those is actually effective. Generally speaking, if you (not you specifically) have to lock someone up or execute them, you must not be very creative.

 

[Minute Squirrel]

Yeah....when i posted that stuff about lead my primary purpose was attempting to show TBerg that the graph he posted about prison rates and declining crime didn't really mean anything on its own. I was just using lead poisoning as an example of one of many different theories that people have about the declining rate of violent crime. I wasn't actually trying to assert that lead poisoning was one of the lead causes(or even a main cause)in the decrease.

I do think that the decrease in lead exposure had more to do with it than the growing number of people in prison(at least with what I've seen).

But of course I could be wrong. That is the fun of these things isn't it?

 

[Grayman]

Yeah....when i posted that stuff about lead my primary purpose was attempting to show TBerg that the graph he posted about prison rates and declining crime didn't really mean anything on its own. I was just using lead poisoning as an example of one of many different theories that people have about the declining rate of violent crime. I wasn't actually trying to assert that lead poisoning was one of the lead causes(or even a main cause)in the decrease.

I do think that the decrease in lead exposure had more to do with it than the growing number of people in prison(at least with what I've seen).

But of course I could be wrong. That is the fun of these things isn't it?

I dont know why people try so hard to find 'the' cause. All factors are factors and all factors should be addressed.

 

[TBerg]

If lead was such a socially significant cause of disparity, why hasn't the lead cleanup, credited with the decrease of crime, coincided with the increase of IQ among black Americans?

 

[Analyzer]

People have to arrive at non-racist views by iteration. It doesn't happen by categorical elimination / suppression of discourse.

I don't see how that's possible without race being delegated to the order of aesthetics. Most peoples view of identity is that we are born into some non-voluntary, accidental category depending which nation or race we are supposedly from. This goes against the fact that identity is a subjective interpretation based on each ones volition.

BLM is using the same premise which all racists do. Nothing will change until people view others by their many more various differences as individuals, instead of a given arbitrary racial/collective construct that doesn't say much besides generalizations about a person in reality.

 

[TBerg]

Another introduction to relevant information about this topic:

http://www.radixjournal.com/the-red-pill/2016/7/6/race

The only skepticism I have regards the amount of evidence for the lack of plasticity of intelligence. But the information about how higher-income blacks don't have higher IQs than underperforming whites seems fascinating.

 

[TBerg]

I don't see how that's possible without race being delegated to the order of aesthetics. Most peoples view of identity is that we are born into some non-voluntary, accidental category depending which nation or race we are supposedly from. This goes against the fact that identity is a subjective interpretation based on each ones volition.

BLM is using the same premise which all racists do. Nothing will change until people view others by their many more various differences as individuals, instead of a given arbitrary racial/collective construct that doesn't say much besides generalizations about a person in reality.

This is the promotional version of why race connects us spiritually more powerfully than other forms of social organization:

https://youtu.be/3rnRPhEwELo

And here is the more artistic version:

https://youtu.be/-qKcPzgsj9g

We could easily say that our lack of vivacity and strength is due to the lack of family ties that grow into community ties and grow into racial ties. Tradition would say we have an obligation to perpetuate and maintain our families, communities, and races.

I mean, shit, who among us who has grown up in familial, communal, and racial dysfunction DOESN'T know this to be true?

Basically, all our postmodern diversions are displacements of the fact of our destruction of this tripartite constellation of tradition.

 

[Grayman]

This is the promotional version of why race connects us spiritually more powerfully than other forms of social organization:

Race is not the same as culture and history. People can be of the same race had have different cultures and histories.

Using skin color instead of tradition and history to identify who you are shows a lack of intelligence and creativity.

 

[TBerg]

Race is much more than mere appearance, even though Europeans are capable of great beauty. Race is a genetic connection that begins with your family and extends to your community and beyond, encompassing many hundreds of millions. Race binds us by the mental and spiritual traits that predominate our group. Race means that Europeans had to adapt to a harsh environment and plan for the future, while other groups were able to live in momentary abundance while thinking never for the morrow, especially close to lush jungles. Race means that these far-sighted people who emerged from the wintry land were able to conceive of the numinous, the legal, and the technical, and turned these legacies to achieve superpower status in the history of humanity.

 

[Analyzer]

Race is much more than mere appearance, even though Europeans are capable of great beauty. Race is a genetic connection that begins with your family and extends to your community and beyond, encompassing many hundreds of millions. Race binds us by the mental and spiritual traits that predominate our group. Race means that Europeans had to adapt to a harsh environment and plan for the future, while other groups were able to live in momentary abundance while thinking never for the morrow, especially close to lush jungles. Race means that these far-sighted people who emerged from the wintry land were able to conceive of the numinous, the legal, and the technical, and turned these legacies to achieve superpower status in the history of humanity.

Race has no objective foundation linked to genetics. It's an arbitrarily category with arbitrary selected similarities. There is no pure European, Black, Asian race, or any for that matter. When you separate entities, you must be able to identify a real difference between entities and if not, you're just dealing with subjective interpretations which is the case here.

Surely you must be aware of the mixing of north Africans and Asians in Europe especially in the Iberian Peninsula? Perhaps you don't consider people with geographical lineage based in Portugal true Europeans? Not to mention, roughly half of the people in Brazil(many with background from Portugal) have mixed with African and Amerindians.

Like Grayman said, culture, tradition, determines differences of collectives and even then it's hard to differentiate accurately.

If your race was the only race on the earth, would you disappear into the sameness and cease to have an identity?

 

[TBerg]

So, because small differences exist in the periphery, that negates the things that bind the life of the main body?

 

[Minute Squirrel]

Race is much more than mere appearance, even though Europeans are capable of great beauty. Race is a genetic connection that begins with your family and extends to your community and beyond, encompassing many hundreds of millions. Race binds us by the mental and spiritual traits that predominate our group. Race means that Europeans had to adapt to a harsh environment and plan for the future, while other groups were able to live in momentary abundance while thinking never for the morrow, especially close to lush jungles. Race means that these far-sighted people who emerged from the wintry land were able to conceive of the numinous, the legal, and the technical, and turned these legacies to achieve superpower status in the history of humanity.

That's just silly......

I don't deny racial differences in temperament or intelligence, but come on. First off what about black people who have great grand parents who are white but their children decided to breed with blacks. Should that black person relate more to the 3 generations of blackness in them? Even though before that his ancestors where all white. Also what about blacks who have more "Caucasian" ways of thinking and doesn't act like the stereotypical negro. Should he hate his race? Should he place special importance on trying to help his race rather than the human condition in general?

Also if you believe that, and think blacks should be anything less than subjugated to whites or Asians then you are an irresponsible white person. If as a population blacks are practically irreversibly retarded, overly aggressive, and overly impulsive. Then why should they be given equal rights in white countries? Why should they be allowed free reign over Africa, when there are people of YOUR race who could use that land better than the Africans could in hundreds of years? And I'm not saying this as some slippery slope shit either. If you honestly believe those things and don't believe that blacks should be controlled by whites in some major respect then you are a race traitor in your own mind.

Reminds me of a bible verse where god says he'll spit out the likewarm. Be hot or cold dammit, don't bullshit yourself.

 

[TBerg]

A lot of those questions are loaded. You can do better than assuming a whole lot of "white supremacist" stereotypes on my part. I am working out my role in the world right now, but what I wrote, without you assuming a whole lot of things about it, seems to ring true, and I am slowly working out all of the implications and backing for it.

I am willing to defend my words and the things I post, but I don't really want to sort through a mass of insinuations.

 

[Analyzer]

So, because small differences exist in the periphery, that negates the things that bind the life of the main body?

Yes. Identity is based on the differentiation principle. "The life of the main body" is a presupposed premise which holds that a unit is only the sum of it's parts. There is no such thing as a society without individuals. Ever been to a ghost town? It's called that for a reason. Each individual has volition that allows them to choose who they are as a person. This can't be differentiated further. Negating this fact is basing your understanding on the illusion of categorical identity.

 

[Minute Squirrel]

A lot of those questions are loaded. You can do better than assuming a whole lot of "white supremacist" stereotypes on my part. I am working out my role in the world right now, but what I wrote, without you assuming a whole lot of things about it, seems to ring true, and I am slowly working out all of the implications and backing for it.

I am willing to defend my words and the things I post, but I don't really want to sort through a mass of insinuations.

That's the thing. I don't think you're a white supremacist. I'm saying that if you honestly place that much importance on race, and you believe in such practically irriversable hardwired characteristics, you should be.

Granted you did say "The only skepticism I have regards the amount of evidence for the lack of plasticity of intelligence." But still given that IQ is your only skepticism with how much importance you seem to attribute to race it's an irresponsible mindset to not be a white supremacist.

 

[TBerg]

It used to be that your identity was always handed down to your from your parents and the lord that they served. That reality meant strong social bonds that were able to maintain a strong society. It has also been dissipating through the years of modernity and postmodernity, but those bonds are still there if we take our eyes away from the television and begin to think about our families and the people who laid the groundwork for everything that sustained our families. Some of those trailblazers were philosophers, others were fine craftsmen, and still others were heroic warriors. It they are there to inspire us to be as bold as they were and to be firm in our desire to bring our greater family closer together rather than fragmented and confused.

 

[TBerg]

I know that I enjoy the fruits of diversity in an epicurean and inquisitive way, but I think that a lot of the social problems we have today are caused by my own personal proclivities. I often say that I personally like diversity, but I politically oppose diversity.

Hell, my best friend is on the periphery of European genetics, something that has come up in the conversation, and so I am especially attuned to the contradictions that can arise when considering the implications of what I am saying, but I cannot let my personal life keep me from acknowledging what I think is the truth.

 

[Grayman]

So, because small differences exist in the periphery, that negates the things that bind the life of the main body?

Here is a good history on race.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_2.htm

I question why you don't just use the word ethnicity to describe your attachment to your cultural, social, and ancestral heritage. I feel it would more accurately identify with what you value.

 

[Minute Squirrel]

I know that I enjoy the fruits of diversity in an epicurean and inquisitive way, but I think that a lot of the social problems we have today are caused by my own personal proclivities. I often say that I personally like diversity, but I politically oppose diversity.

Hell, my best friend is on the periphery of European genetics, something that has come up in the conversation, and so I am especially attuned to the contradictions that can arise when considering the implications of what I am saying, but I cannot let my personal life keep me from acknowledging what I think is the truth.

Well how extremely selfish of you.
But really, I still have to stand by what I said. The importance you put on race is silly.

What Grayman asked, about ethnicity, I would like to know that as well. It seems far more sensible to me.

 

[TBerg]

Grayman, I plan to read that material on racial thinking. I would encourage you to read and watch some of the material I posted.

Minute Squirrel, I find it interesting that you admitted on the outset to have some of the same suspicions as me, and yet you keep making insinuations at me. Why not direct the same insinuations at yourself?

 

[Grayman]

Another introduction to relevant information about this topic:

http://www.radixjournal.com/the-red-pill/2016/7/6/race

First I have to point out that US defines race by black and white. This deviates strongly from the original and scientific distinction of what race is.

The original intention of race distinctions was scientific so there was a basis for it. Eventually even those methods to define race were debunked by newer methods and those methods showed that although we may have originally evolved in isolated groups after migrating from Africa we eventually expanded enough and migrated enough to make full isolation impossible. Consequently we could not be arguably classified as different subspecies/race.

Now the human mind is really good at identifying facial features and separating people based on those features. Consider the disease Prosopagnosia; it provides comparison to show that we are designed to be sensitive to differences of such features, it is not that the differences are great but that we are sensitive to small differences.

Arguably the Finch suffered the same fate from Darwins mishap http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...volution-darwin-finches-beaks-genome-science/. Just because we have varying traits does not mean that we have different genetic structures. Your genes can carry genetic material that isn't necessarily dominant or active but the potential for certain traits still exists.

Now there may be reason to 'redefine' race since the social meaning of race is entirely inaccurate but scientists have not found a good way to divide define our varying subspecies because there is no obvious and dividing line between our genetic codes.

 

[TBerg]

I will respond to you when I have the time, but I really think that you are not refuting the basic message of the article, Grayman. I see statistical commonality within at least three racial groups.

It should be noted that some of the progress of African Americans can be attributed to their partial European heritage. Notice the complexion of many black intellectuals. Thus we see some of the basis for the Talented Tenth.

 

[Analyzer]

It should be noted that some of the progress of African Americans can be attributed to their partial European heritage. Notice the complexion of many black intellectuals. Thus we see some of the basis for the Talented Tenth.

Who determines what is progress? These ideas you have about race and its statistical characteristics are purely subjective. They have no objective footing.

 

[TBerg]

I guess having jobs and having murderers put in jail isn't a form of progress?

 

[Analyzer]

I guess having jobs and having murderers put in jail isn't a form of progress?

Maybe. But I could just say the costs are high degree of theft(taxes), war, and exploitation. So it's a subjective determimation. Unless you base your views outside of yourself, onto some collectivist notion like nationhood or race.

 

[bvanevery]

Basically, all our postmodern diversions are displacements of the fact of our destruction of this tripartite constellation of tradition.

Er, why shouldn't I marry someone of a race that I find palatable and have some familiarity with, that isn't my own? I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and spent a lot of years also in Seattle, which are cities firmly attached to Asian Pacific Rim culture. My martial arts training exposed me to a fair amount of Asian stuff, although I did end up preferring Russian fighting in the end. I had a Japanese American girlfriend once, who frankly didn't have much Japanese in her other than appearance. She was a weird bird, sort of a hippie Hindu wicca raver chick. Didn't last. But hey I never thought there would be anything remotely weird about dating an Asian woman, and there have been times I've wondered what a little "Brandon Lee" sort of offspring would look like. Maybe it's as simple as, I had some Korean neighbor friends growing up, and their Dad was white, so there's just no reason whatsoever for me to think anything's wrong with this picture.

Whereas, I have a mild case of "inverse racism". I am made a little bit nervous by places that are ALL white, that have no brown etc. bodies among them. Of course I "pass for white" just fine, long as I keep my mouth shut about atheism and liberal world views.

I have a great deal of difficulty doing that marriage thought experiment for black people though, usually. That has a lot to do with 'new' racial experiences upon moving to the South when I was 11. It's taken a lot of years to get over some of those, that some cut-up in school isn't indicative of all blacks. Just some knucklehead I happened to be in school with.

I have a white cousin in Madison, Wisconsin, a fairly liberal town as those things go, who married a black woman. I seem to recall it may have caused some consternation in my Dad's family, but not that much and may not have been a big deal to him personally. Times were a-changin'.

Other races, I don't have any particular attitudes about. Hispanic, Native American...? "Well she's hot" would probably have a lot to do with it. I don't perceive them as having cultural baggate that I'd find difficult to deal with. Whereas the black cultural baggage, honestly that seems like a lot to take on. Never say never, who knows who the right woman is, but I'd be rather surprised if I ended up marrying a black woman.

 

[TBerg]

bvan, both you and I are displaced. While I grew up in definitely white environments, I have had pleasant experiences with other races my entire life. My favorite actor at the Rennaissance Faire where my parents sold their candles and jewelry and where I grew up much of my life, was black and I held him in pretty high esteem. He was warmhearted and fun to be around.

When I started working in DC, I enjoyed partying with black people there, although I will admit that that lifestyle was more degenerate than some of my behavior now. And I don't mean degenerate merely because of the diversity either.

When I went to China and stayed there for a year and a half, I too got martial arts training. I was astonished by how well I was treated there. Young women there were attracted to me in many times just because I was a foreigner. I wish I could have stayed there, actually, but I was not very good at teaching school classes and I got sick there for weeks and months sometimes without hope of ending.

These experiences were positive in many respects, but they are part of a dispersal of loyalty that entails being loyal to so many people that I am not loyal to anyone in particular, which is a manifestation of my fundamental point about what happens when we travel far from home and never have a sense of loyalty to the group of which we are a part inculcated into us.

Both you and I are past the point when most people have historically produced progeny. It is no surprise that this smorgasbord of humanity and culture has resulted in more paralysis of decisions. Both you and my experiences reinforce rather than detract from my suggested analysis.

Again, I see racial feelings intricately connected to familial feelings, as procreating race traitors is harder to do than procreating children who represent a long line of heroic people. Why would you have children of your race when your race has been shamed over and over again for producing Nazis and Confederates? Indeed, why would you have children if they would ineluctably be part of an oppressor class? Why would you have offspring whose only purpose is to defy their ancestors? Doesn't that in and of itself show a breakdown in the meaning of familial bonding?

 

[420MuNkEy]

My biggest problem with BLM (apart from the assaults, looting, murder, arson, etc done in its name) is that its entire premise is false. There is no evidence whatsoever to support a racial bias in police action. People will argue that black people are killed more often by police (relative to the demographic size), but this is to be expected when black people perpetrate more violent crime (again, relative to the demographic size) at a rate that's very similar to the disparity in fatal police shootings. For whites, roughly 11,227 violent crimes perpetrated (by whites) per million (whites) and 1.74 fatal police shootings (of whites) per million (whites), for blacks, 34,506 violent crimes perpetrated per million and 4.46 fatal police shootings per million. Yeah you can still eek out about a 13% difference in those numbers if you want to, but given the data that seems within the margin of error and also does not indicate racism more than other factors.

The end result of BLM is black cities in flames, innocent white people assaulted for having the wrong skin color, and (likely) innocent cops being outright murdered. The movement itself has grown into far more of a problem than what they claim to be fighting.

Is police militarization a problem? Yes, absolutely. Is it more of a problem for black people? No, I don't think it is. I guess I'm just a racist

Maybe abolish guns? I guess then the police would never have a real reason to ever shoot. They can never say they were afraid or did it in self defense.

This is not a practical solution. There are more guns in the US than there are people, and a decent chunk of the owners would rather start a civil war than acquiesce and simply lay them down. Beyond this, we have a large tradition of personal manufacturing, so even if you banned all new guns and somehow managed to magic away the hundreds of millions of existing guns, new guns will still be produced. Gun control is an issue that simply can't be won by those who want it. We're well past the point of no return.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

race genetics

Listen, race and genetics are factors and all, but we know there are far more obvious and important ones at play like say, personality. "But personality is determined by genetics!" No, not entirely, probably not even mostly given environmental influence.

I'm honestly not sure I can manage further posting in this thread because of the sheer volume of assumptions to overcome, bullshit to wade through, and the effort required to do so. Fair warning.

I guess having jobs and having murderers put in jail isn't a form of progress?

No, actually. They're false indicators. A society of happy people who don't murder is closer to true progress.

Spoiler

My biggest problem with BLM (apart from the assaults, looting, murder, arson, etc done in its name) is that its entire premise is false. There is no evidence whatsoever to support a racial bias in police action. People will argue that black people are killed more often by police (relative to the demographic size), but this is to be expected when black people perpetrate more violent crime (again, relative to the demographic size) at a rate that's very similar to the disparity in fatal police shootings. For whites, roughly 11,227 violent crimes perpetrated (by whites) per million (whites) and 1.74 fatal police shootings (of whites) per million (whites), for blacks, 34,506 violent crimes perpetrated per million and 4.46 fatal police shootings per million. Yeah you can still eek out about a 13% difference in those numbers if you want to, but given the data that seems within the margin of error and also does not indicate racism more than other factors.

The end result of BLM is black cities in flames, innocent white people assaulted for having the wrong skin color, and (likely) innocent cops being outright murdered. The movement itself has grown into far more of a problem than what they claim to be fighting.

Is police militarization a problem? Yes, absolutely. Is it more of a problem for black people? No, I don't think it is. I guess I'm just a racist


This is not a practical solution. There are more guns in the US than there are people, and a decent chunk of the owners would rather start a civil war than acquiesce and simply lay them down. Beyond this, we have a large tradition of personal manufacturing, so even if you banned all new guns and somehow managed to magic away the hundreds of millions of existing guns, new guns will still be produced. Gun control is an issue that simply can't be won by those who want it. We're well past the point of no return.

Moar mammalian love.

 

[420MuNkEy]

No, actually. They're false indicators. A society of happy people who don't murder is closer to true progress.

"Progress" is relative to the goal, acceptable losses, and procedural preferences. I, for one, would gladly sacrifice the average "happiness" of a society for several decades en route to a future some would find a utopia and others would find a dystopia (a full virtualization of humanity in which our only interaction with the "real" world is via drone).

My point is, it's a stupid thing to argue given the immense variability in worldviews, visions for humanity, and preferences.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

"Progress" is relative to the goal, acceptable losses, and procedural preferences. I, for one, would gladly sacrifice the average "happiness" of a society for several decades en route to a future some would find a utopia and others would find a dystopia (a full virtualization of humanity in which our only interaction with the "real" world is via drone).

My point is, it's a stupid thing to argue given the immense variability in worldviews, visions for humanity, and preferences.

You should consider that what I consider to be progress is the successful integration of all of those worldviews et al. Anything sub-meta that's applied as one size fits all will fail, drones be damned.

Societies go through developmental stages, just like people. Some folks like Ken Wilber and allies have attempted to describe this (badly, imho, but hey....).

But yeah, I know it's a difficult perspective to reach. Almost everyone wants to impose their own thing in a way that suppresses another's. Hurried and inefficient. Lacking forethought. But who can blame them? They know they're mortal.

 

[420MuNkEy]

You should consider that what I consider to be progress is the successful integration of all of those worldviews et al. Anything sub-meta that's applied as one size fits all will fail, drones be damned.

Societies go through developmental stages, just like people. Some folks like Ken Wilber and allies have attempted to describe this (badly, imho, but hey....).

But yeah, I know it's a difficult perspective to reach. Almost everyone wants to impose their own thing in a way that suppresses another's. Hurried and inefficient. Lacking forethought. But who can blame them? They know they're mortal.

We're firmly in uncharted territory with our society right now. We simply don't know what the fuck is going to happen. No society before us had computers, the internet, instant global communication, access to (essentially) the sum of human knowledge at any given time in any given place, etc. Sure, you can take a look at the past and try to extrapolate, but the fact remains that we're so insanely different now than ever before that it's a bit foolish to put much stock in those extrapolations.

Striving just for pushing forward or sustaining human "happiness" is as short sighted as stopping work because you're happier when you're not working. When you're starving and being evicted because you ran out of money, you're not going to be so happy any more. If you wait until this state of unhappiness arises before you seek out work, you'll be cyclically unemployed and probably homeless.

Now you're probably thinking (though I could be wrong) something like "that's ridiculous, of course short periods of less than optimal happiness would be tolerated to sustain average happiness" - but that's my point. You define what "short term" is and how much you value increasing the levels, and at what cost. You seem to think you've conveyed your view for what humanity should be, but you really haven't. It exists only in your mind and without an extensively verbose description approaching that of a manifesto it's not going to be clear to anyone but you.

 

[Minute Squirrel]

Minute Squirrel, I find it interesting that you admitted on the outset to have some of the same suspicions as me, and yet you keep making insinuations at me. Why not direct the same insinuations at yourself?

What do you mean, same suspicions? That races of people have different qualities as a population? Believing that is not the same as believing that those differences are practically irreversible as you seem to believe. Also you seem to place significant importance on race, believing it's like a "spiritual connection", that I don't hold. Also what insinuations? I've talked about you NOT being a white supremacist and you being selfish, the latter of which was just me being facetious.

No, actually. They're false indicators. A society of happy people who don't murder is closer to true progress.

.....that's a bit idealiatic isn't it? Aren't we a bit ahead of ourselves? So there's no progress in a society until it's almost a utopia? I mean......I dream of a future where humans have colonized other planets and are arguing wether or not it's destructive to our society for earthlings to be marrying Venusian humans. But you take your ideaiskm to a whole other level.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

.....that's a bit idealiatic isn't it? Aren't we a bit ahead of ourselves? So there's no progress in a society until it's almost a utopia? I mean......I dream of a future where humans have colonized other planets and are arguing wether or not it's destructive to our society for earthlings to be marrying Venusian humans. But you take your ideaiskm to a whole other level.

"closer" You need examples of what not to do to remind others of what their values are and why they have them. If you've never known pain, or haven't felt it in a while, you don't value or notice pleasure. It dulls. No gratitude. No joy. You become inanimate. I'd argue that there's no progress without struggle/pain/suffering, and that progress is the result of changes in perspective more than anything else.

My twist on this relies on integration. Actions are circumstantial, and people change. Many people are punished because their victims or others in society can't manage to forgive them, not because they're incapable of change or being perfectly functional in the right circumstances. Obviously integration is difficult to achieve. Key components might be things like increased support and recovery for victims in addition to offender rehab. Then again, it might not be something to micromanage. Australia seems to have turned out pretty well tbh.

Now obviously if people are fubar, then hey, I personally favor gladiatorial combat. But repair needs to be attempted first, and their "negative" contributions need to be valued experientially in some way regardless.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

We've always been in uncharted territory, wherein lies a hidden benefit in that we have history and methods to triangulate it (like no other species known), and we should probably direct more computer power at the historical records that remain before they disappear.

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/82s3p5hj

The Nature czars want to charge for the original "Arise Cliodynamics." Hopefully there are ways around that.

There are plenty of societal variables consistent through time, whereas interpolation doesn't get you anywhere through that time stuff. Accuracy is increasingly lost when one 1) looks too closely/specifically 2) looks too far ahead.

Striving just for pushing forward or sustaining human "happiness" is as short sighted as stopping work because you're happier when you're not working.

If you think that's what I'm advocating, then you're shortsighted. I think most of those two paragraphs are irrelevant given that happiness depends on perspective, but I will take some of it to make another point: Why work when there are robots? Sure, there's still work to be done, but at some point the value of leisure needs to be recognized and the worker bee structure shed like the hollow shell that it is.

It exists only in your mind and without an extensively verbose description approaching that of a manifesto it's not going to be clear to anyone but you.

You don't think I'm aware of that? Some things just can't be explained. They have to be experienced. Also, the timing is terrible. We have a robot apocalypse to go through first.

 

[bvanevery]

bvan, both you and I are displaced.

This is true. Although, a lot of people have "moved around" or "done different stuff", so I'm not so sure how many non-displaced people there are. Some of the small town folks, never venturing far from where they were born, maybe those count. I don't envy their average political views of the world. I'll take London, Seattle, and Asheville.

These experiences were positive in many respects, but they are part of a dispersal of loyalty that entails being loyal to so many people that I am not loyal to anyone in particular, which is a manifestation of my fundamental point about what happens when we travel far from home and never have a sense of loyalty to the group of which we are a part inculcated into us.

I didn't like the complete destruction of networks of friends that happened to me when I got moved around. It isn't easy for me to make friends in person, so once I landed in Seattle, I became strongly resistant to leaving there. I stayed for 11 years, which was probably 5..6 years too long in hindsight. It really wasn't working out. I tried to make it work, tried to find some neighborhood in Seattle I felt like I belonged in, but it never happened. I'd go to some other part of town in the evenings or on weekends to sort of "borrow" it, to try to spend time there. But it seemed like one could never really fit unless one was actually local, actually walking around the corner to the pub or whatever.

And even then, it was told to me that the people who have lots of friends around the tables at the pubs, are easygoing. And that isn't me. I like to debate. This eventually pisses someone off, and lots of people aren't comfortable with debate in the 1st place.

I am loyal to my own ideals and do not need external validation from some group or ethnic identity to have that loyalty. Maybe this is a key difference between us. How much of this "fall of Western civilization" stuff you go on about, is a form of external validation? I am Existentialist. I know I'm making choices and that I'm responsible for them. Culture means what I make it mean, no more, no less.

I've also been "between" social groups most of my life, often not belonging to any of the cliques per se. It is stressful, to not have a sense of belonging, but when you are quite experienced at it for many years, it is an identity that one can certainly manage.

Both you and I are past the point when most people have historically produced progeny. It is no surprise that this smorgasbord of humanity and culture has resulted in more paralysis of decisions. Both you and my experiences reinforce rather than detract from my suggested analysis.

It has occurred to me that in previous eras, due to lack of birth control and different cultural norms, I would have long since knocked some woman up, subsequently had a wife, and would have had a family. It is only because in the modern era we can completely turn off those biological and cultural consequences, that I'm single.

Although another way to look at it is, I avoided being trapped by natural phenomena. So then there's the question of making piles of money in an industrial materialist culture. Didn't do it, so most women aren't interested. Certainly had the potential to do it, may yet do it, as there's gazonkers money in programming. But I don't value making money, I value other things. I have lacked a viable intersection with women who value similar things. I suspect they are few in number and difficult to locate. The modern world has given me enormous choice, and I have been fairly fearless. So fearless, that I have walked to a place that many others won't go. In many ways I've walked out of society.

Again, I see racial feelings intricately connected to familial feelings, as procreating race traitors is harder to do than procreating children who represent a long line of heroic people.

I hope you are passingly familiar with myth making in the various world cultures. There aren't any long lines of heroic people. There are long myths about people having been heroic. They seldom are. The myths are needed by the culture to propagate and legitimize the values of the culture. It is all brainwashing. Media literacy and cultural literacy are the arts of understanding how human beings make up all this guff, so that you are not ruled by them. Once you understand, then it's up to you to decide whether you want to rule others with them. "For good or for ill", as it were.

Why would you have children of your race when your race has been shamed over and over again for producing Nazis and Confederates?

This kind of grandstanding for a "public wound" is not something I can relate to.

I'm not a Nazi, and far more white people fought the Nazis than were Nazis. Even many of the Germans weren't Nazis, as it was happening. There's no logic in white = Nazi, so unless someone with that crazy view is a terrorist, why am I supposed to care? Someone's always got some fringe cockamany idea in the public discourse.

"Confederate" is a little more complicated. However I know enough about the history, to know what is and isn't true about that. But again only an idiot says white = Confederate, so why am I supposed to care? I wasn't even born in the South, I just live there.

Indeed, why would you have children if they would ineluctably be part of an oppressor class? Why would you have offspring whose only purpose is to defy their ancestors? Doesn't that in and of itself show a breakdown in the meaning of familial bonding?

You're not talking about family bonding. Your FAMILY is the woman you find hot and the various children you spew out. Heck my family is my dog. I will kill to protect my family, make no mistake about it.

You're talking about ethnic identity. Am I going to kill for matters of racial or national pride? Nope. I'm not stupid and gullible like that. In fact, genetically I figure I'm part of the intellectual propagandists, who make up all kinds of stuff for stupid gullible people to believe in. I've just grown up in a time period with enough resources that I can be "nice".

I almost got nationalistic after 9/11. Glad I didn't get sucked into that. I thought about what I should do, just after it happened. I decided, I'm not professional military. Let's see what our volunteer professional military manages to do in Afghanistan first, before I consider going. Well, many years and clusterfucks later, including Iraq....

 

[420MuNkEy]

I think most of those two paragraphs are irrelevant given that happiness depends on perspective

This is exactly the point I was making. It's a stupid thing to argue because of the variability. Even the variables have their own variables. It's like two blind people arguing about whether or not blue is the "best" color.

 

[bvanevery]

When you're starving and being evicted because you ran out of money, you're not going to be so happy any more. If you wait until this state of unhappiness arises before you seek out work, you'll be cyclically unemployed and probably homeless.

Aren't you forgetting credit? Access to credit totally changes the realities of this. Technically, when you're in the red you're broke. In practice, you can keep acquiring goods and services as long as someone keeps handing you new credit cards. Been there, done that, before the dot.com bust.

At that time, I dodged homelessness because of a sympathetic relationship with my landlord. He was a good guy, Polish, a Holocaust survivor. Often his station wagon was full of bread, that he got from outlet stores. Often some of it was getting moldy. I asked him one day, why so much bread? When he was interned by both the Nazis and the Soviets, he had wished for bread. "Now, I have bread."

Also, everyone was broke in Seattle, whaddya gonna do? There's a dynamic of "since it's happening to everybody" that changes things some. I did some work exchange for them. I think they cooked the books and claimed the value of my work exchange was far more than it was, as a tax writeoff or something. Yeah, bending laws. There's a way to avoid the day of financial reckoning!

Oh, and of course eventual filing for bankruptcy.

These experiences taught me that money is virtual. Also the fear of running out of money. When the credit card companies finally cut me off and I started freaking out, six months later I found I was still very much alive. Things were tough but the sky hadn't fallen.

I'm strictly "cash basis" now. Learned my lesson. However I don't seek work because I don't pay rent to a landlord. Housing is way too expensive for what it provides. I learned how to fix my car when I actually had money, which is a variation of what you say, planning ahead. No way I could keep up my car based lifestyle without mechanic skills, as paying a mechanic to keep the car running would kill me.

Although even then, there are ways. I have some homeless friends who have lived in the Harris Teeter parking lot for many months, not going anywhere with their vehicles. They ran out of money to pay for vehicle registration. Yeah, they did eventually take jobs to rectify that. I guess they are examples of what you say, but it's not as bad as you seem to say.

People used to just build huts when they wanted shelter. That is my perspective. The amount of cost that society puts into withstanding the elements is pretty ridiculous.

Oh, almost forgot "starving". In the USA it doesn't happen. People can be malnourished, but that's usually do to lack of making the choices they should be making. Like GTFO of a place where there's no free food, go somewhere where there is. That's assuming you can't get food stamps, which is predicated on other choices. Like I think felons lose their food stamps for instance. Anyways food is not that hard to get when you're homeless, I found that out.

 

[420MuNkEy]

Aren't you forgetting credit?

No. Credit runs out. Same thing with the good will of others (like your landlord in the example you used). The situation I presented is identical with credit except there's slightly more of a delay between joblessness and poverty (which was already a variable to begin with given the existence of varying levels of savings).

Oh, almost forgot "starving". In the USA it doesn't happen. People can be malnourished, but that's usually do to lack of making the choices they should be making.

Yeah, it does - usually to crazy people who make no attempt to seek help (and no one knows or cares to offer it) and can't function in reality well enough to gather food. The hypothetical situation I presented was exactly to demonstrate how that behavior, taken to its absolute is crazy. Even applying for foodstamps is outside the scope of the hypothetical situation I proposed.

Ultimately, you're missing the entire point of my post by taking a hypothetical used to demonstrate the extreme spectrum of possibility left open with the necessary ambiguity of trying to simply state what is and is not "progress" without defining it.

 

[bvanevery]

No. Credit runs out.

Eventually yes, but it can take a surprisingly long time. When the housing bubble burst, I already understood the dynamics of a "bubble" because of all those credit card offers handed to me in the dot.com boom. Banks obviously didn't care! I was a programmer in the dot.com boom, they were obviously willing to believe my $100K "earning potential" as I stated it on the forms. Yeah many times I probably could have gone out and made that money, before the collapse. But I didn't get around to it. My point is, it's all Monopoly money. When the banks don't care then people get piles of credit, it rolls and rolls and rolls. Until it doesn't.

My main failing was not having any concept of a recession. I entered the workforce during a boom, and there hadn't been a crash in tech for a very long time. Not within my life experience, so I had no idea there was something to fear. After the bust, I found a book in the library about likely boom-bust cycles in tech.

Same thing with the good will of others (like your landlord in the example you used).

Maintaining the goodwill of others is a form of work. Something that some people will go to some lengths to assess and cultivate, and thereby gain advantages. Others won't be arsed and then suffer for it. It's much easier for a landlord to keep around someone they like, a long term tenant who's almost pseudo-family, than some prick.

There are more ways to do "work" than just for money. If one had land, one could grow crops. I have a car, so I fix it. Some people "work" other people and get everything in life that way.

Yeah, it does - usually to crazy people who make no attempt to seek help (and no one knows or cares to offer it) and can't function in reality well enough to gather food.

News to me, and sounds like quite the corner case. I doubt it has happened to anyone in Asheville NC, which is a a food rich city. But on the mean streets of LA in some food desert, maybe it has happened. I think it says more about severe mental illness than food availability though. If one is not severely mentally ill, one is not going to starve in the USA.

Ultimately, you're missing the entire point of my post by taking a hypothetical used to demonstrate the extreme spectrum of possibility left open with the necessary ambiguity of trying to simply state what is and is not "progress" without defining it.

What if I'm just making my own points, with some of yours as a springboard? If I have a point of my own, it's that I've been there and know what is or isn't dire about such situations. I also forgot to mention that one may discover industries that have quicker cash flow.

 

[420MuNkEy]

What if I'm just making my own points, with some of yours as a springboard?

If this is what you're doing, which I'm going to assume from the peculiarity of this question, then your delivery for these "points" is profoundly misleading (given that you've addressed seemingly non-rhetorical questions directly to me in your response, excluding this one) and ill-advised, given that you're trying to lend credence to your point on the back of a deliberately ridiculous hypothetical edge-case that you've taken out of context.

By all means, go ahead and say whatever you want to say, but it has no practical relevance to what I posted whatsoever (or even the thread in general) and is certainly not a refutation of any kind (which is certainly the tone I got from it).

 

[bvanevery]

I don't suppose it has occurred to you, that not everyone's thought, or energy level in a day, or attention spans to posts, entirely revolves around what you personally are seeking to get out of the interchange? I mean, I'm sitting outside a library in mildly cold conditions, because of unexpected weather, and thinking about the imminent need to grill hot dogs at a park around the corner.

I think I'd be more interested in your own concrete examples of living through homelessness or joblessness, if you have any, rather than abstract pronouncements about it. As I've said, I've been there. Have you? Maybe I'll re-read your posts again if the mood suits me later, but right now, I'm suited to LUNCH.

 

[420MuNkEy]

I don't suppose it has occurred to you, that not everyone's thought, or energy level in a day, or attention spans to posts, entirely revolves around what you personally are seeking to get out of the interchange? I mean, I'm sitting outside a library in mildly cold conditions, because of unexpected weather, and thinking about the imminent need to grill hot dogs at a park around the corner.

Threads are quite explicitly gated to topics. You're derailing and passive aggressively expressing displeasure at the fact I'm calling you out for derailing and not engaging in a derail with you.

I think I'd be more interested in your own concrete examples of living through homelessness or joblessness, if you have any, rather than abstract pronouncements about it. As I've said, I've been there. Have you? Maybe I'll re-read your posts again if the mood suits me later, but right now, I'm suited to LUNCH.

Then go make a thread and if I feel like discussing it I'll go there.