Ah yes, of course! Many thanks, Professor Furaytoo!

Moose hat? No. — NOS4A2

Moose, no? Perhaps you're talking bull then? I fancy him an asshat. But I am too kind. :halo:

That was Joe in the moose hat? By Jove!

:lol:

If anyone else is confused, none of this is to say you can't criticize ideologies or religions.

@tim wood

Your feedback was deleted along with replies. It's not up for debate here not least because this is not feedback. Also, it's too obvious to be up for debate as far as I'm concerned, just as it would be if someone tried to speak of "Jewish bestiality" or "Black bestiality". There are no such things. And neither I nor any other mod is required to waste our time due to your inability to understand the very clear instructions you've been given or the rationale behind them. You will be banned if you repeat this kind of language. That will not change.

Of course, if you really feel the need to open a feedback thread, it's your right. My response will be to copy paste my previous instructions / explanation there so you can read it again.

7 Oct. 2023 simply made clear and explicit the bestiality of Arab intentions and practices. — tim wood

We've discussed this in the mod forum and we agree it is unacceptable and to put you on a ban warning. Goes for both sides. Everyone, please restrict your criticism to the organizations involved and not the ethnic groups they happen to be members of. Negative generalizations from events in this conflict to chracteristics of Jews or Arabs etc will not be tolerated.

How is this language, and the poster who posts it, even tolerated on the forum? — boethius

The language is not tolerated. The poster gets a chance to show he can restrain himself in future.

prurient — Jamal

Read it ten or more years ago. The only line I remember is when the guy says to the girl, "But no shit, ok."

Or maybe that was Cocaine Nights. * Shrug *

If some Houdini of a politician can join both leftist populist and right-wing populism, that's it. — ssu

Some Houdini would have to bridge the psychological divide between those spheres first. The cognitive linguist George Lakoff describes it in terms of use of metaphor. The dominant metaphor for liberals and leftists is authority as "nurturing parent" and for conservatives and rightists it's authority as "strict father" and social expectations from the micro to the macro get built up around that, so even when an obvious problem becomes a common source of antipathy the two generally can't get together because the frameworks differ so much.

We're basically in agreement except for the nomenclature I guess, but fwiw I see Bernie as a kind of extension of occupy, which was more clearly populist and I at least think it's worth recognising a spectrum of populism with what I call power populism and what you see as populism proper the most virulent form of the phenomenon.

I think it may be possible to distinguish between two basic types of populism: let's call them "cause populism" and "power populism". Cause populism gets behind an ostensibly moral cause, could be worker's rights, climate change, corporate reform, free speech, etc. Or it could be a combination of these. But essentially a cause populist should be driven by and be able to articulate an ideological goal that determines a coherent set of responsibilities that their leader is bound to carry out while in office (and be judged by his or her ability to do so). The social framework is situated in the idea of the building of a better society by removing special interests in the establishment that have heretofore prevented this from happening.

I think Bernie Sanders is a good example of a cause populist. I don't think cause populism leads to authoritarianism. The mandate of the leader is conditional not absolute and the conditions of success are pragmatically defined. You can ask a group of fellow cause populists about what policies they want implemented and get fairly consistent answers.

I see power populism on the other hand as resting on the promise of power without responsibility, of the resetting of power dynamics as an end in itself with the audience being those who believe that power has been wielded irresponsibly and unjustly against them. The social framework of the power populist is society not as a cooperative among interested parties but as an arena where one party must dominate (and whoever currently dominates is the elite). But the wish of the power populist is not really to rid society of elites, but to become their replacement (an elite by any other name). And the means are virtually irrelevant. Nor does the leader have any particular responsibilities except to wield power against those who his followers see as previously wielding it against them.

I think Trump is a good example of a power populist. His mandate is considered absolute and the conditions of his success are not clearly defined. In fact, they are almost anything he or his followers (but mostly him) decide them to be in the moment because the power is itself the success. People get confused why nothing Trump does dents his popularity. The solution to the conundrum lies in recognizing that he was always popular with those for whom he is an almost pure projection of a need for power. To criticize him would be an almost performative contradiction as long as he appears confident (powerful) in what he is doing. Which he does. It's obvious then how power populism is married to authoritarianism. And it's predictable that asking a group of power populists about policy matters and expecting consistent answers on substance (rather than e.g. slogans) is futile.

I'm glad you clarified actually. One less evil philosopher to be concerned with.

And on that note...

I prefer @Hanover's version.

I have a particular disgust for child beaters so I will never like Wittgenstein as a character (even though he may have reformed). Anyway, yes, not the place for this and we have already had the personal faults of Descartes and Heidegger (among others probably) dissected on the site.

He also beat up the little girls and boys in his classes as a school teacher (even to the point of knocking one of them unconscious).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haidbauer_incident

I approve this message. :up:

I didn't think about the fact this would constitute solicitation. — Relativist

It was pretty clear from the context it didn't. However, we don't really need the link to get the point anyhow.

If there are certain principles we believe are inherently good and worth committing ourselves to in a way that is not dependent on their monetary value, convenience, practicality or other contingencies; if there are values we hold that transcend our social norms and practices, that it may not in a sense even "make sense" to hold; if there is discernible to us a certain magic in an act, a creation, a word, a look that can't be reproduced without the right spirit, that is sublime, inexplicable, and unnameable; and if we can't hold our heads up unless we have protected and cherished all of this, then what of what we call it?

i.e. What @un said. But I felt like writing something. :halo:

I don't think that there is a Valentine's day is the problem. It's that like other cultural days it's commercialized close to the point of meaninglessness. The message is not "On Valentine's day celebrate your bond with your lover", or take notice of it, or do something meaningful that reflects it, it's "buy some trash that pretends to do something meaningful so you don't have to."

My mistake. However, I do think javi's point about climate change is perspicacious and should not be overlooked. :nerd:

And some time make the time to drive out west
Into County Clare, along the Flaggy Shore, — Jamal

Nice, javi. And I know the drive he means. I did it last year. It's the burren coast where you're between the ocean and the rocky landscape he describes.

So, yes he was referring to The Troubles... — javi2541997

:up:

Honestly, I gave up long ago following every mad thing he says. The stupider and more offensive the better for him it seems. But, yes, judging on domestic policy, he probably would be a nightmare. On foreign policy, it's more polarised: he could be far better than Biden or he could do something absolutely crazy and start a world war.

I don’t like Biden, but Trump is still worse — Mikie

OK, well, I suppose I'm not going to continue to argue over which is better, shit or puke. But anyhow, your position is understandable from a practical point of view.

We had a similar disagreement the last time. Hopefully, you've realised by now that arguing with a crazy person is a waste of time. I know I have. :flower:

I said "at gunpoint" as a hypothetical to make a point. As things stand, were I American, I would vote for neither. If that's your definition of insanity, then, yes, I am insane.

And I don't think that Trump will ever top the level of opportunism, cynicism, and moral emptiness of Biden, who paid for Israel to do what it is doing and refused to support a ceasefire so he could help counteract his image as a weak president, and only now, realising the deep unpopularity of this war among important sectors of his potential voters, is loudly criticising the Israeli response as "over the top". You gave them 17 Billion to do it, Joe. You don't get to walk away with clean hands now, mate. Own it.

If I had to, at gunpoint, vote, I would choose the guy who probably would have done the same thing but actually didn't over the guy who actually did. That would be Trump.

It's a hard choice - between a narcissist con man and a supporter and facilitator of genocide and ethnic cleansing. I think I prefer the nut-job myself, but it's your call, America. — unenlightened

:up:

You've convinced me. It's Jack Melon I really like. Always have. Never even heard of Bob Dope.

Muchísimas gracias chicos. — javi2541997

:cheer:

Fuck Bob Hope though. — Hanover

I'm not letting you, or @Jamal, away with this.

Why I like Bob Hope

I like Bob Hope because he has a big chin. Who wouldn’t like that? I like Bob Hope because, well, look at that cheeky smile! After all, he entertained the troops. I like Bob Hope because his relation to vegetative matter was always pure and innocent.

Bob Hope smells of trees and waterfalls.

Did you know that Bob Hope retained the majority of his hair follicles until middle age? That’s hard to criticize. I like Bob Hope’s taste. Nothing tastes like Bob Hope. Don’t knock it until you try it! I mean, have you ever sat through a full Bob Hope movie? Ha! I knew it!

Many people confuse Bob Hope with Jack Melon and even Gary Lewis. This is possibly the reason for irrational animosity towards Bob Hope. After all, he entertained the troops! Did Mr. Melon step up to such plates? Walter Mathews? Ha!

Bob Hope’s chin is two standard deviations larger than the average man’s chin. What’s not to like? Bob Hope never had sex with anything apart from a human being. Bob Hope was almost certainly a human being. I was once within touching distance of Bob Hope’s shoe. I was too young to appreciate it. I have many faults.

Some people dislike Bob Hope for purely subjective reasons. A division of Bob Hope into his respective elements could eliminate such problems. There is no logical reason not to like Bob Hope. Did you know he entertained the troops?!

I hope you will change your mind about Bob Hope. I once met someone who touched Bob Hope’s hat. He told me it was a religious experience. That man is now a priest. Bob Hope’s chin is just… I never said Bob Hope was God. Or Jesus. Or the Buddha. Or the best combination of all of the above! …The man ENTERTAINED THE TROOPS! ...SING IT!

There are many people who are incapable of appreciation. Such people should not be entertained. A chin that big is a sight to behold. I don’t know anything about Bob Hope. But really… Are you saying you don’t like Bob Hope??? :brow:

*

I like @javi2541997 too.

I think people think of me as the Bob Hope of the forum. Which is great, as everyone loves Bob.

Instead of listening to the OP's attempts to clarify, you all keep focusing on the Ubermensch bit and taking the mickey. I'm closing this.

Why is this not in the lounge? — Banno

Because I just now saw it.

This discussion was merged into Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)

if I had the steely self-restraint of a @Michael or @ssu I might frequent the pol threads more often. It's not from lack of interest but I usually can't last more than a few days before exhaustion sets in. Should we push them off the front page? I don't think so. But some of us should probably accept on certain issues engaging with them is just emotionally destructive.

English is more Arabic even than Spanish. — Lionino

Where is your evidence for this? And was the mechanism by which the language mixing occurred?

The case for the Arabic influence on Spanish is set out in the following wiki article. (There is no dedicated page for its influence on English.)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language_influence_on_the_Spanish_language

In fact, in the small section devoted to the subject on this page:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_of_Arabic_on_other_languages

There is this:

"Like other European languages, English contains many words derived from Arabic, often through other European languages, especially Spanish. "

Which suggests Spanish was not only more influenced by Arabic than English but was a major conduit for the influence of Arabic on English.

I don't know that it's necessarily better to have more words — Baden

E.g. There are (supposedly) 645 distinct meanings of the word "run". Would English be a better language if we had a separate word for all of them? I doubt it.

To a degree it depends on how you measure things. If you include all possible combinations in agglutinative languages where words are made up of multiple affixes specifying case, tense, person, possession, plurality, etc then you can claim massive numbers of distinct words. English is on the analytic side of the spectrum here, meaning the number of affixes is relatively limited, so we tend to need to use relatively more words to describe things (and thus have less individual combinatory words). Chinese is super analytic with hardly any prefixes or affixes at all. I think Vietnamese has literally none, so you won't find that at the top of any vocabulary list.

I don't know that it's necessarily better to have more words, but before anyone gets into an argument about it, try to compare like with like at least.

Thanks for the vids. :up:

but that's because all other language is gibberish to me — Hanover

:lol: