I think you can rightly be held to be racist on the basis of either commission or omission; the latter consisting in failing to recognize the plight of oppressed racial minorities and trying to rationalize the situation to exonerate the actively racist members of our society and excusing or denying the existent systemic racism which works to keep the oppressed oppressed.

Lol this guy is dumb as shit

Black Lives Matter were just applauded uncritically by the left wing media for killing around 40 people, causing hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage, for looting shops and burning businesses. ... I'm a philosopher. I seek fairness and impartiality in my reason.
— counterpunch

Fairness and impartiality are good. How about evidence? Can you post a link of any media outlet doing what you claim? — praxis

I could, I guess - but why should I? Because you demand it? Google the phrase 'mostly peaceful' - and I think you'll get my point.

I'm a philosopher. — counterpunch

:rofl:

Listen, Google "Breitbart Black Lives Matter" and you'll see why it's not so "peaceful" I'm a philosopher

Excuse me, I care deeply about the environment. But what if we start doing solar panels and the sun explodes? What if we put up windmills and the winds just stops forever? We'd invest all that money for nothing!

I could, I guess - but why should I? Because you demand it? — counterpunch

Nah, because philosophers support their claims and you’ve claimed to be a philosopher.

"I suggest that what we are facing in biblical terms is very much a Tower of Babel situation, not apocalypse or judgement day; it's a breakdown of communication. I think it is a psychological defence; communication has become too fast, too universal and ego becomes swamped, and takes refuge from the engulfing mass of others in a fantasy world. In this condition, the majority votes for there not being a problem, and that makes problems unresolvable." ~ unenlightened

Joking aside we need to engage more with people like @Brett @NOS4A2 and especially @counterpunch as they are a real deal philosopher! (Joking not completely aside, I guess)

I can show you evidence of Black Lies Matter riots, but I can't show you evidence of left wing media - not criticizing them, because - as surely, even the least philosophically educated should be aware, one cannot prove a negative. So, I ask you, of what do you demand evidence? The best advice I can offer is to Google the phrase "mostly peaceful" in relation to BLM; and compare it with the absolute condemnation of the capitol protestors, who - rightly or wrongly, sought to defend democracy. The capitol protestors won't be painting their names on 5th avenue in 10 foot high letters, or having fireworks displays in support of them, half way around the world, paid for by the British tax payer. Can you tell me, how many people BLM killed, or how much property damage they caused? No, and it was a lot. But we don't hear about it. It's left wing media hypocrisy.

One more for good measure.

Yes, politicians should get right behind destroying any semblance of democracy while worms like you sit on the sidelines smiling about it. — Baden

"I suggest that what we are facing in biblical terms is very much a Tower of Babel situation, not apocalypse or judgement day; it's a breakdown of communication. I think it is a psychological defence; communication has become too fast, too universal and ego becomes swamped, and takes refuge from the engulfing mass of others in a fantasy world. — The Opposite

Joking aside we need to engage more with people like Brett @NOS4A2 and especially @counterpunch — The Opposite

I do actually agree with this in principle. If I had unlimited time and energy I would love to spend it trying to reach common ground with ideological "opponents". Problem is that doing so properly is time-consuming and exhausting and I really don't have that time or energy to spare, so neither can I blame anyone else who doesn't want to make the effort either.

If I had unlimited time and energy I would love to spend it trying to reach common ground with ideological "opponents". Problem is that doing so properly is time-consuming and exhausting and I really don't have that time or energy to spare — Pfhorrest

@Tobias should be enlisted to do this

Excuse me, I care deeply about the environment. But what if we start doing solar panels and the sun explodes? What if we put up windmills and the winds just stops forever? We'd invest all that money for nothing! — Maw

East Anglia ONE, off the coast of the UK, has 102 windmills, took ten years to build at a cost of £2.5bn, and produces 714MW - enough to power 600,000 homes. The UK has around 30 million homes - so, just to meet domestic energy demand, we'd need over 6000 windmills, at a cost of £1500bn. They have a working life of 25 years, and after that - same again. If you claim wind-power is an adequate solution to climate change then you're either dishonest or crazy. But we're not done, because from 2030, the UK is phasing out petrol cars - adding the demand of 30 million or so, electric vehicles to the national grid. The sums don't add up - not even nearly. They're making promises that are obviously false, just to shut people up - until they can disappear over the political horizon.

I have a solution, and I know it's right. I can prove it right down to the philosophical roots. I can explain where we've gone wrong and how to put it right in the same terms. I am a philosopher. My core subject is how to save the world. And I know how.

I can show you evidence of Black Lies Matter riots, but I can't show you evidence of left wing media - not criticizing them, because - as surely, even the least philosophically educated should be aware, one cannot prove a negative. — counterpunch

Damn! I’ve been outfoxed again by your philosophical prowess. But seriously, your claim was: “Black Lives Matter were just applauded uncritically by the left wing media for killing around 40 people, causing hundreds of millions of dollars of property damage....”

we don't hear about it [BLM riot destruction] — counterpunch

You seem to have heard about it.

I have a solution, and I know it's right. I can prove it right down to the philosophical roots. I can explain where we've gone wrong and how to put it right in the same terms. I am a philosopher. My core subject is how to save the world. And I know how. — counterpunch

So are you going to start a thread about that sometime?

I have a solution, and I know it's right. I can prove it right down to the philosophical roots. I can explain where we've gone wrong and how to put it right in the same terms. I am a philosopher. My core subject is how to save the world. And I know how.
— counterpunch

So are you going to start a thread about that sometime? — Pfhorrest

I don't know. It seems a bit immodest to start a thread to propound my own philosophy. It feels better to introduce my ideas by showing where others are faulty. The problem with left wing ideology on climate change is the 'limits to growth' hypothesis - based in turn on Malthusian pessimism. They want us to pay more and have less, and carbon tax this, and stop doing that, eat grass and cycle to work or whatever. They make people the problem, but in fact - resources are a function of the energy available to create them. Given enough clean energy we can extract carbon from the air and bury it, produce hydrogen fuel, desalinate water to irrigate land, recycle everything, farm fish, and so on - a high energy sustainable future with high living standards, in balance with nature. The left want anti capitalist, eco commie poverty, kept in place by left wing authoritarian government - presumably, forever. It's frankly, a horrifying prospect. We'd be better off sailing off the edge of the world in pursuit of the almighty dollar than letting the eco commies have their way. But I think we can secure a prosperous sustainable future through the application of the right technologies, and that ain't windmills. It's magma power. The heat energy of the earth itself.

Edit: correction, the forum is dominated by leftists. — Brett

The mods are the most devoted and strict inspectors of communist orthodoxy in the forum's OPs. Once you have escaped the "fair line", they ban you and make you a renegade, a non-person.

Communists censors everyone who is not in line with the Ingsoc's dogmas.

Joking aside we need to engage more with people like Brett @NOS4A2 and especially @counterpunch as they are a real deal philosopher! (Joking not completely aside, I guess) — The Opposite

Looks like I'll have to add resident neckbeard-posing-as-young-lady @Rafaella Leon to the list as well

left wing authoritarian government — counterpunch

I'm worried about the same thing as you, except a right wing version. I also worry about the CCP and I'm not even sure what wing they are; but they're authoritarian as fuck so I consider them Cunts.

For the record, I don't think biden et al are authoritarian - at all, but I do see trump as being so. Why do you think the democrats are authoritarian?

You don't think political correctness is authoritarian? Those who don't parrot the dogma get burned at the stake of cancel culture. Then, climate change - (do you mean IPCC?) The left want to stop people flying, eating meat, driving cars etc. Do you know what Liberty is? Freedom of speech, and freedom of choice are an anathema to the left. Their climate policies imply an increasingly authoritarian government and planned economy. Politically correct eco commies. Anti capitalist, anti free speech - anti western. They're the enemy within, a 5th column, reds under the bed!

Trump is small government, low tax and low regulation. He refused to appoint people to half of government agencies. That's non authoritarian - his personal style aside, less government equals more freedom. Dishwashers that get the dishes clean because there isn't some government agency making laws about how much water or electricity they can use. Fine by me. I want freedom - but to afford it we need limitless clean energy from magma.

That was adopted in 1870. Read in relation to the rest of the Constitution, that guarantees legal equality, it's quite difficult to understand how "economic racism" has been effected. Poverty is not proof of racism. But it is very difficult to escape. — counterpunch

It was easy because the constitution and laws were just ignored, not just by private parties, but by the US Government and the States. Prime Example: in the mid-1930s, a large program was created to improve the nation's deteriorating housing stock. The plan was to help finance new housing--hell, new city-suburbs. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) helped millions of people obtain mortgages for good quality new housing in new communities. Thanks to pressure from southern senators, the program explicitly barred blacks, Jews, and other minorities from the mortgage program. (Unconstitutional? Of course it was.)

For urban blacks, the FHA built new rental housing--large high-rise complexes. The rules went so far as to say that a mortgage for housing in urban cores could not be granted to a white family if there was so few as one black family on the block, and blacks were altogether ineligible for urban-core loans.

The financial value of the millions of new properties located in thriving suburbs, coast to coast, appreciated handsomely. This allowed millions of white home owners to accumulate significant equity, which could be used to further the families upward mobility. It was an all-around good deal. for whites.

Eventually the courts and congress eliminated racial barriers in FHA programs. It was, however, too late to undo the long term damage. The millions of homes in white suburbs were now too expensive for any but well-off blacks to buy. Plus, the all-white suburbs mostly wanted to--and have--stayed white.

So, the FHA program doesn't account for black poverty entirely. Employment discrimination has to be factored in, as do poor education programs, poor community health care, and so on and so forth.

I'm in the UK, and I'm Blairite still. It was after the fall of Communism in Russia and China, Blair sought a Third Way - re-rooting socialist values in a compromise with capitalist economics. It was very popular. — counterpunch

The US (and I assume the UK and EU countries) have at times reined in the excesses of capitalism through tax law. Higher taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations reduces disparities, and funds the government at a high enough level to effectively serve the common good. Low taxes puts us where we are now -- a starved public service sector and a bloated wealthy class -- the 1%, or 1/10 of 1%ers.

The closer you look, the worse it gets.

we'd need over 6000 windmills, at a cost of £1500bn. They have a working life of 25 years, and after that - same again. — counterpunch

I doubt if the entire windmill has to be replaced every 25 years; it's probably the generator at the top, driven by the blades, that has to be replaced. Well, nuclear plants don't last indefinitely; neither do coal fired generators, or hydro-electric.

Clearly we can not merely power the present wasteful energy-use regime with solar or wind power. We have to cease and desist. There are presently over 1 billion cars in the world, almost all of them powered by fossil fuel. The solution is not to build many millions of windmills to power billions of cars; the solution is to get rid of cars, and replace them with other methods of transportation.

Well, the debate has moved many pages from this, but I'll reply.

Seems to me that 21st century society is facing 19th century problems while using antiquated 20th century economics as a solution. — Maw

Yeah, you can say that, yet society isn't transforming from a feudal society as it was in the 19th Century. Modern middle class is a bit different from the classes of 19th Century. Above all, history of the 19th and 20th Century has also answered many issues, if we just want to look at our history. Yet one part where economics is now truly lost is in monetary economics, that I agree with. It doesn't make any sense of the insanity now upon us (with the economy in recession and asset inflation making the stock market going into all time highs and the central banks printing a lot of money).

Adam Smith institute? Well, what I meant is that apart from Economics 1.1 lessons, economists don't refer typically to Smith as Marxist economists to what Marx has written.

I've notice fiscal conservatism (a good thing) generally isn't shot down but Christians as opposed to other religions are not allowed to preach. Other religions are allowed to preach all the time. How do you define preaching? Judgement is a spectrum and most People judge others on some level. The new testament actually does not say not to make judgements on others. Judgement is a spectrum. Do you need me to explain why?

The difference is that it's acceptable to be black but not acceptable to be a racist, and so therefore it's acceptable to say bad things about racists being racists but not acceptable to say bad things about black people being black. — Michael

Acceptable by who? You only get to speak for yourself. Look who gets to define what is acceptable and label others actions as racists when they are simply disagreeing with you, and not being racist. Demonizing others and calling them racists just because the don't believe in the "white privilege" myth isn't acceptable either.

My point was, is it wrong to verbally abuse anyone at all? You seem to think blacks and homosexuals are free to say what they want without being challenged, because to challenge them means that the challenger is a racist or homophobe. This is the left's political discourse in a nutshell.

No one was talking about fraud in 2016. Some believed that Russian interference (which did take place) had an influence on the election results, and that Trump colluded with Russia in this purpose (with some good reason to believe this). I did not believe either of that myself, but that’s what was said.

Compare this to the claims that hundreds of thousands of votes are fraudulent. Voter fraud is extremely rare, and anyone with a brain cell knew that trump would make something up if he lost — he said it explicitly.

That’s happened, predictably, and you people take it seriously enough to be “agnostic” about it? No, sorry — experts (remember them?) say the opposite, in fact: that the election was the most secure in history. And it’s not opinion — there’s overwhelming evidence to back it up. Partly it was due, ironically, to Trump’s screaming about fraud.

People who want to believe a fiction WILL believe a fiction. But this election was free, fair, and secure. There is no evidence to the contrary, which is why Trump has lost every court case. Because you can’t win in court with delusions.

When did John Oliver claim that there were fraudulent votes and that Hillary actually was rightful winner of the election?

Seems like false equivalency to me.

There is certainly bias against conservatives in academia to some extent; although it varies significantly by field. Francis Fukayama (my personal favorite political theorist), is a conservative associated with the Bush I years and is highly respected in his field. "Conservatives," seem more set upon than they are, because Trumpists have decided that people like Fukayama, who live in a world of nuance and complexity, are degenerate RINO scum, particularly since they won't sing Trump's praises. Hell, Mitt Romney, a successful and popular Republican governor in the unfavorable landscape of Massachusetts, who was Republican voters' choice for President in 2012, and almost unseated a Obama, is now considered a RINO, deep state liberal. Hell, half the people Trump himself picked for main cabinet positions, Mattis, Tillerson, Sessions, etc. flipped to being craven closet liberals and morons as soon as the cult of personality began taking criticism.

Point being, people don't have near as much a problem with conservatism as they do Trumpism. The reason is that Trumpism mostly relies on ignoring nuance and enforcing a worldview of Manichean struggle through a steady stream of abject lies. Conservatives who have the audacity to criticize Trump are apparently no longer conservative in this context. No one is going to debate anyone who just restates lies.

"Dems called the 2016 election fraudulent," for instance, is a Rush Limbaugh tier comparison for the reasons I listed above. You can't say "I don't have one single example of Democrats saying the vote count was wrong or that Hillary really won and should take office," and then claim the two cases are parallel. At best you can argue that the complaints over foreign intervention and the FBI's actions were overblown and eroded norms, but those norms were later ripped to shreds Trump himself.

Same goes on every other issue. Trumpists will swear up and down he curbed migration before COVID, despite the fact that illegal border crossings demonstrably hit a 13 year high under his leadership and that his party had control of both chambers of Congress, the Court, and the White House for 24 months and did not hold one (1) vote on migration, not even token changes to make enforcement slightly easier. If Trumpists go with "alternative facts," and people call them assholes and a morons, I don't blame them. There is no point in arguing with people who refuse to accept reality.

I have a solution, and I know it's right. I can prove it right down to the philosophical roots. I can explain where we've gone wrong and how to put it right in the same terms. I am a philosopher. My core subject is how to save the world. And I know how. — counterpunch

What do you think the problems and the solutions are?

Acceptable by who? You only get to speak for yourself. Look who gets to define what is acceptable... — Harry Hindu

Nobody gets to define what is acceptable, but everyone gets to judge what is acceptable. But people who judge racism or sexism or homophobia to be acceptable are wrong, because they aren't acceptable, and people who judge them to be unacceptable are right, because they are unacceptable.

You seem to think blacks and homosexuals are free to say what they want without being challenged, because to challenge them means that the challenger is a racist or homophobe. — Harry Hindu

No I don't. I think that it's acceptable to criticize people for being racist or sexist or homophobic but not acceptable to criticize people for being black or a woman or gay.

One doesn't need to do very much reading on the HRA to realise that your explanation of the issues, conflates effect with cause. It may indeed, have had the effect of relative disadvantage for blacks, but there wasn't specific race based discrimination as far as I can tell. Apparently, 2% of FHA mortgages did go to blacks.

Redlining - was based on economic geography, not skin colour per se. It was was an active policy for around 30 years - 1935-1968; that banks refused mortgage applications from people living in certain areas. That approach has not gone away. I know people today, who can't get home or car insurance because of where they live - because there's high crime and low employment. It's just how banks work.

The problem here is that one person's success, is viewed as another's failure. That's a vice; not a virtue. Do not covet thy neighbour ass. I'm glad I live in a society where people are able to succeed. Inequality is good. People become rich by creating things, and then use the money to buy stuff, pay tax and employ people.

The responsibility is with the individual - to develop their talents and sell them into the market; and so serve society by buying stuff, employing people and paying tax. You would place the responsibility for individuals economic well being on society. You require banks to make economically risky decisions, and where did that lead to in 2008? To a mortgage crisis, based on bad debt - and an economic recession that wiped out economies around the world. In short, you're looking at all this down the wrong end of the telescope.

On windmills, it doesn't really matter if the whole thing needs replacing every 25 years. Or if the tower can be re-used. They still won't produce enough energy to meet our needs. Further, because wind is intermittent - it either requires storage facilities be built, or fossil fuel back up; so twice the energy infrastructure. They really are - not a good idea. And nor is ...."cease and desist." You've just been weeping buckets of blood over poor black people, and now you want to impose poverty on everyone, forever after? Explain this to me. Is it that you think poverty is fine - just so long as it's not racist poverty? You would pull down the ceiling - make everyone equally poor, and then congratulate yourself that you've achieved equality? That's insane!

In my view, we need to apply the technology to draw limitless amounts of energy from the earth's molten interior - by drilling through hot volcanic rock, lining the bore holes with pipes and pumping water through, to produce super-heated steam, to drive turbines to produce massive base load electricity.

This energy can then be used to produce hydrogen fuel, that can be piped and shipped around the world, and burnt in traditional power stations - thus utilizing the larger part of the existing energy infrastructure. Waste heat can be used to extract carbon from the air and bury it, and desalinate water to irrigate land - for agriculture and habitation. In this way we can protect forest and natural water sources, resist desertification - while maintaining productivity and high living standards.

And think about this; it may take hundreds of years, but - because resources are a consequence of the energy available to produce them, eventually, based on limitless clean energy, capitalism would ultimately achieve post materiality - and that's a form of equality I can live with. If I were an eco-commie, I'd be demanding capitalism live up to its own premises - from Hardin's tragedy of the Commons, that says "any freely available resource will be exploited to extinction." Well there it is - more energy than you can shake a fistfull of dollars at. Have at it!