Covid infection increases my risk of experiencing Long covid by 2%, and it goes away in a few weeks in basically all cases. Depends on the age group.
This is the best science we have on that right now.
> The extremists are the only ones who are giving functional solutions to a messed world. Why do you struggle against them?
Except they're not.
You might think this is a stupid example, but let's say you play a game of Factorio. Because initially, you will have no idea of what you are doing, (I didn't, and no one does) you will design probably the first half of your factory in a way that is really random, incoherent, messy, and inefficient. What you will also find, however, is that once you do have more experience and understanding, incrementally attempting to upgrade it from within is virtually impossible, and that even attempting to just delete it would probably take the same amount of (or more) energy than modifying it.
So neither of those options are feasible. Instead of trying to upgrade or destroy the old factory, the solution is to bypass it completely, and build something totally new somewhere else, while also gradually starving the old system of input. Once the old system has stopped functioning completely, then you can (very) gradually start salvaging materials from it over time; but initially, the replacement system has to be completely parallel to, and detached from, the old one. The two should have absolutely no connection to each other whatsoever.
Activists do not do that. The emphasis is always on the two methods which don't work, (incremental patching or deletion) and generally never on the one that does. (Seperate construction of a new system and bypassing)
Read The New Right by Michael Malice (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07RCL5H7K). He's an anarchist who interviews a number of right wing people to see what they're into.
And brand new from 2001 is probably too short a window for ideas. It can take a long time for something to bubble up, especially when you're not in control of the media and the universities.
Here is a book on how to commit suicide:
What do you think?
> To put it this way, would it not be plausible that the top 100 people on Twitter would obtain the most political power?
It certainly is. It is also plausible that the top 100 people could be from within the top 10% wisest people of society, especially if a system existed that supported (and maybe even enforced) the complexity and seriousness necessary for the issues being discussed, which would in turn make the population smarter over time.
> Speaking more generally, I feel the above system would be very susceptible to power grabs. Someone could launch a campaign to capture a sufficient number of votes and then use the ensuing political power to economically leverage it. This would counter existing corruption, yes, but also a sophisticated network of checks and balances that might keep other powerful interests in check.
Valid concern....a properly designed, dynamic system would protect from this risk and all others. It would strive for perfection, and improve over time. Our current "democracy" is hilariously simplistic and not just obviously corruptible, but obviously corrupt...and the public worships it.
A proper system would not ignore, cover up, make excuses for problems, it would encourage people to point them out and provide a mechanism for doing so.
It is utterly amazing that the elite tier of society continues to get away with this sham now that we have the technology to completely and ~easily get rid of it...improving the democratic system itself is not even on people's radar...they don't even consider it within the realm of possibilities, so convincing is the Reality Dome that we live in.
>civil discussion and promoting what we love is what T_D is about.
Promoting what you love, yes. promoting civil discussion? not so sure haha.
Btw, here’s a link to the issue Chapo had https://raddle.me/f/chapotraphouse/76889/for-those-wondering-what-s-happening-to-r-cth-a-full-chain Chapo people bitched about it and it was a whole thing but I don’t know how it ended.
Yes. And let's use otter.ai. It provides great transcription (free up to 600 minutes) and searchable / linked text.
I've created a group for IDW if anyone wants to PM me an email, I'll add you.
Here's something that might be of interest to people who want to get into this kind of conversation: https://otter.ai/s/bdfc60e0baed4a3eab238072b3203a9c
>All due to false images of Ancient Egypt that came out of Afrocentric “scholarship” that didn’t receive much academic pushback or other resistance from the cultural elite.
The book Not Out Of Africa: How "Afrocentrism" Became An Excuse To Teach Myth As History by Mary Lefkowitz dealt with this in 1996.
The Nazis were censored, and it didn’t work. For about a decade now, the trend has been to increase censorship and expand echo chambers. This started in universities in the early 2010s if not earlier. If anything, the lesson of the last few years is to be wary of censorship.
I am open to any data debunking my claim regarding a trend towards censorship. I know primarily through anecdote.
Supplementary Reading: https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Ideas-History-Censorship-Ancients/dp/0807055395/ref=asc_df_0807055395?tag=bingshoppinga-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=79852151821043&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=m&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=&am...
Hm. That's interesting. I don't really see your explanation as making much sense, but I can't deny that it's the same on other platforms.
It does explain a fair amount of the results. But all you have to do is look at the source page to see if that makes any sense.
This book: https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777 by Jon Haidt might answer many of your question about why people seem to choose different sides.
All of his books are really informative about this exact topic.
It really is a narrow gate, and one of the things that brings me the most grief is how many professing Christians miss it on both sides, either by being too much like the world or too much like the pharisee and his boastful prayer. The truth is, each of us must seek Christ, not Christians. That goes as much for me as for you. Do that, and you will find other Christians who seek Christ and will give you the love and respect you deserve.
This may be a bit further down the path that you're currently at, but I would suggest you check out Becket Cook, if you haven't yet. He is/was a gay man, who ran into a group of loving Christians and found Christ. I believe he's now celibate - I don't think he's tried to "un-gay" himself. He's theologically conservative and loving.
I think you've very sorely mistaken the economically conservative neo-liberals (which most D and R politicians are) for 'leftists'.
I mean this very sincerely, it would do you a lot of good to check out 'Elite Capture' if you want to understand this better: https://www.amazon.com/Elite-Capture-Powerful-Identity-Everything/dp/1642596884
I can assure you that the Marxist left is very much alive and well, we just aren't represented anywhere in the neo-liberal controlled MSM.
I agree with much of that. Here's the Reformed equivalent, with Scriptural reference to all its claims, and the devotional my family uses that's based on it.
This is something that's been going on in the church for over 100 years and is well documented. Please do research before commenting.
Reality isn't entirely socially constructed, but social reality is constructed.
The social implications of sex, gender, race, and even height, are largely constructed. I don't think this necessarily means "we can change it if we want," though. Social realities are often very resistant to change. But, naturally, we try, and do change them, constantly, over time.
It is not counterintuitive to me and I think it can be effectively summarised as "more attractive people tend to have more chances to get what they want in a mating setting", which for women is on average skewed towards long-term partnerships. The number comes probably from the fact that something undesirable happened in the long-term relationship that pushed the attractive woman to reconsider her partnership, rather than the desire for multiple partnerships (which is the case for short-term affairs for men). This, combined with the natural higher demand that her attractiveness confers to her.
This is explored (and neatly explained) by David Buss and David Schmitt in their seminal paper "Sexual Strategies Theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating".
If you like this sort of perspective you might enjoy the book I wrote where I got at length on this but with a focus on men and masculine behaviour.
Is not obvious that conservatives are using Marx as a boogie man to push people away from research into race and class inequality?
Adam Smith also discussed populations and inequality due to economic power structures. He sympathized with the working class. Unfortunately he did not foresee the power of land lords and wrote them off as harmless. Future economists discussed this and why markets are efficient, but not equitable. John Stuart Mill is my dude.
My point is that class has always been discussed for a long time. I feel like accepting the Marx critique of CRT would also require rejecting a lot of other research done by Economists that you would agree with.
Sources (from memory)
No, thankfully, but it did deter me from publishing my book on masculinity under my real name.
I'm presenting you with examples of treatment guidelines from major hospitals, countries and medical groups.
these influence how treatment goes and what the standards of care are and how the age has been lowered (you asked about this) these doctors are overstating the benefits and under representing the risks. that is due to politics and suppressing dissenting voices.
it's that simple.
I don't know how anyone can be strongly in favor of allowing children under 18 to go down a surgery and hormone path, based on info that is not correct, overstated and doesn't include psychological assessment or treatment and is coming from an advocacy perspective vs. an objective scientific approach.
I do believe there are rare cases of transgender people for sure. until recently that was 0.3% of the population. for the under 30 group, the numbers are WAY WAY higher and that is what is leading to all of this discussion.
if you actually want to learn more read Abigail shrieks book to understand how autistic girls are overrepresented in this discussion.
The turner diaries is sci-fi book literally about killing all the non-whites in America.
In Medication Madness, psychiatrist Peter R. Breggin, M.D., describes how people taking psychiatric medication can experience abnormal behavioral reactions, including suicide, violence, emotional breakdowns, and criminal acts. Dr. Breggin explains his concept of "medication spellbinding": individuals taking psychiatric drugs may have no idea whatsoever that their mental conditions are deteriorating and that their actions are no longer under control. He proves his argument by documenting dozens of cases from his practice and his consultations in legal cases.
>However, recent studies and tonnes of research are cohesively beginning
to align in the direction that most of the knowledge at hand indicates
that the greater current probability is that our consciousness is
(merely) a product of our brain and pretty much all of our life,
This is simply not true. Recent philosophical developments suggest the exact opposite. Materialist/functionalist theories of mind hit a high watermark between the 1950s and the 1980s, and are now under serious and sustained attack. Indeed, I'd say we are looking at the early stages of major paradigm shift which consigns metaphysical materialism to intellectual history.
so you dont think academia has post modernists incredibly overrepresented inside it?
do you think phenomena like this happen accidentally?
also you realize that most post modernists are unwilling to discuss the metaphysics that undergird their beliefs?
its a complete motte and Bailey
they arent talking shop in public and actually almost always deny the influence of the critical theorists, cultural marxists, Frankfurt school, post modernists etc
neuroscientist and sexologist Dr. Debra Soh uses a research-based
approach to address this hot-button topic, unmasking popular
misconceptions about the nature vs. nurture debate and exploring what it
means to be a woman or a man in today’s society. Both
scientific and objective, and drawing on original research and carefully
conducted interviews, Soh tackles a wide range of issues, such as
gender-neutral parenting, gender dysphoric children, and the
neuroscience of being transgender. She debates today’s accepted notion
that gender is a social construct and a spectrum, and challenges the
idea that there is no difference between how male and female brains
When anyone asks me what I think of paedophilia, my response is to tell them to read this.
I have a paternal uncle who is a convicted paedophile, and I will also never know how many women my father has slept with, both before and after he left my mother. Although it is not the only factor, (#MeToo and feminism have also had roles to play) my observation of the level of psychological damage that has been caused by the behaviour of those two men, is one of the main reasons why, at the age of 45 I have only had a single sexual partner, and am unlikely to seek others.
The debate over paedophilia, is just one more example of the unprecedented, truly lethal decadence of the Millennials and Generation Z, exemplified by their consistent pattern of advocating forms of behaviour which have previously been known as suicidal, for the entirety of our species' history.
I ask myself almost every day, and very often tearfully, what I must have done in a previous incarnation, to deserve simultaneous existence with the Millennials.
1.Liberating the slaves was not their intent, it was a positive externality, other places did get rid of slavery , but did it without needing a war 2 the interstates completely bypassed a lot of small towns, created sprawl and suburbs that wre completely bankrupt due to insufficient density, see " the strong towns" movement for details, the fact our cities are designed in such a car centric manner has also been completely horrible for Humans, see " not just bikes " on youtube, nevermind of how much we likely spent on the interstate system compared to how much cheaper it could have been.
maybe had government stayed out we would have gotten something better? https://rootsofprogress.org/where-is-my-flying-car
3 public education in the US was never meant to actually educate people,it was meant to make you compliant, it was modeled mostly after the Prussian system whos intent was to make people into more willing cannon fodder,and it has gotten progressively worse since it was initially implemented to the point where many schools in America do not have one kid reading at grade level,ntm sex assault,shootings,bullying,horrible lunches etc etc
>the one thing that stands out here as misinformation: they have 2 x chromosomes..? ok yeah that's the pop culture representation of 'woman' genotype. but in reality it's not the case - what's your background with regard to study of genetics, human bio/physiology? like up to what level (grade 12, post secondary?) have you engaged with
I am well aware of the science. Since you aren't, I suggest you read this book.
have you read this? Joseph Tainter - The Collapse of Complex Societies
He argues that complexity is the most important attribute, and scale is a just a result of it. Complexity is very expensive, in terms of energy and resources. At some point, the society reaches a point where the marginal benefit of maintaining that level of complexity is no longer worth the cost.
He doesn't distinguish between intentional or accidental collapse, but the "descent" from complexity to simplicity is the result either way.
> No they don't: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mindful-Universe-Mechanics-Participating-Collection/dp/3642180752/ref=asc_df_3642180752/
A URL isn't an interpretation. Use your words.
> Von-Neumann / Wigner / Stapp interpretation.
Go ahead, describe one of these interpretations and I'll prove how your conclusion is wrong.
> How many neurons do you think John Von Neumann had?
Von Neumann didn't say what you are saying.
>I don't need to, because all > interpretations lead to the same conclusion: free will is nonsense.
No they don't: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mindful-Universe-Mechanics-Participating-Collection/dp/3642180752/ref=asc_df_3642180752/
>No it doesn't. Tell me under what interpretation can you choose the outcome of wave collapses?
Von-Neumann / Wigner / Stapp interpretation.
>Anybody that has more than two neurons.
Arrogant wankers, you say?
I believe I could make a good argument that 99%+ of the internet economy consists either of people trying to create, participating in, or honing-optimizing-growing their own cult of personality business. (Although you'll never hear it called that!)
This explains, for instance, why so many companies have employees that are now striving to be well-renouned activists for something-or-another. It explains the hella time media companies are having with their reporters/editors online (and why it ends up being a death spiral). It explains the m
If all of life is now public performance art, who doesn't want to be Elvis? (Or Gandhi?)
Not to pick on any one person, but by way of providing an example, here's Seth Godin pretty much stating it explicitly. He was by no means the first to do so. https://www.amazon.com/Tribes-We-Need-You-Lead/dp/1491514736
The person who he is interviewing does present a very compelling argument. It's John McWhorter. You're probably better off just getting his book: Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America.
The periods I was referring to were before any significant specialization of labor, maybe 2000+ years prior to the cultures you mention (especially the pre-agricultural workload estimates, which were the lowest workload). I do wish I had more online materials to share (and to look into myself!) but in case you're interested I've heard these ideas expressed in this book, and this is the lecture I'm currently listening to.
>I see. Does that mean you will get/ have gotten the first dose?
Of course not. If you remember, the science is still out on that one, though if Myokarditis alone poses a high risk already, what happens when you consider all side effects?
>That's with restrictions though right?
Same risk in Sweden. Or most countries without restrictions.
>If you want normalcy, is there an alternative to getting ~90% vaccination? Norway has lifted practically all restrictions because of high level of vaccination. Also, what is the risk from getting the vaccine? And what is the risk of long covid?
Norway is 6% shy of my countries vaccination rate. The President of the United States recently announced you needed 97% for Herd Immunity in America.
Covid increases my risk of experiencing Long covid by 2%, and it goes away in basically all cases. https://nitter.net/profemilyoster/status/1438473253673111557?s=21 This is the best science we have on that right now.
I expect the vaccine risk to be heftily higher than advertised.
Holy. fucking. shit. Read the damn theory for yourself please.
Critical Race Theory (Third Edition): An Introduction (Critical America, 20) https://www.amazon.com/dp/147980276X/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_i_HA46BGSTJFY8STKC6JHM
A trans woman, I take it, is a biological man? I would have to see the studies, which I am hugely skeptical of as a starting point, because there is an obvious problem in the west of the institution of science having become dominated by socially progressive ideologues who use it to launder all manner of bogus truth claims.
A better way to understand transgenderism is as the crude beginnings of transhumanism, being the latest expression of a theology of perpetual liberation ultimately rooted in the gnostic heresies of Christendom. I don't think transgenderism or wokeism more broadly can be properly understood outside of this context.
The credibility of this study depends on a few different elements of it. The most blatant and, in my opinion, likely area that could result in either an inability to come to a conclusion and/or a place where journalists can use framing to portray a conclusion that the study might not necessarily even have is this: the area of the brain "that registers disgust."
I'd have to see the actual study, but even my layman's knowledge of the way that the brain works makes me skeptical that "the area of the brain that registers disgust is activated, therefore the person is certainly feeling disgust" is a conclusion that can be definitively made. The brain is extraordinarily complex and we are still extremely ignorant of how it functions, so I doubt that we know enough to say that "this area is indicative of disgust and NOTHING else," especially since emotions are tied to each other and difficult to isolate.
NOTE: I just looked it up, and the insula (the area that was activated in the study) is activated during a whole slew of emotions. So who knows how precise this assessment is.
It's also interesting to note that WaPo specifically states that the "disgust" area WASN'T activated when looking at black couples. Doesn't that kind of cast doubt on the whole "implicit bias" theory? Like how can bias against a race of people be supposedly extremely widespread but not discernible in this type of study?
ddg funds leftist orgs
it entered a consortium trying to get rid of 'hate speech' and 'fake news' with microsoft, google, facebook, reddit and github, led by tim berners lee.
twitter ceo and www foundation ceo are also involved
qwant.com is a good search engine
I genuinely don't understand your question. What do you mean by "work"?
I'm guessing that you're arguing that anarchism doesn't accomplish some goal or outcome that you'd like to see achieved. Is that correct? If so, is there a reason why you couldn't band together with other like-minded people and achieve the goal on your own? As long as you respect property rights and don't force anyone to participate in your project, I won't stand in your way.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that anarchism is some kind of magical wonderland. It's not. For example, fixing problems on a global scale, whether man made or natural, isn't easy. But it's not like the current system is doing a great job in this regard.
When thinking about anarchy, the proper comparison is to the status quo, not some utopian ideal. I hope you're with me on this point at least.
You might enjoy The Anarchist Handbook, which contains a series of essays covering the history and breadth of anarchism. The black flag comes in many colors.
This is true. Though accurately measuring the importance and priorities of everything is pretty damn hard to measure. You're essentially playing 4D chess with chaos. There are some serious issues that can arise when using common sense and heuristics. You might act on things that will do you more harm than good over the long-term without knowing it because it seems like a good/familiar idea on the surface.
The books Everything Is Obvious, and Outliers highlight the potential downfalls of shortcut reasoning over an extended period of time. We almost need to have some serious way to measure and organize problems using absolute opportunity cost to have any real discussion about the matters we face.
This is your definition of a pro Barr book?
>In Hatchet Man, former federal prosecutor Elie Honig uncovers Barr’s unprecedented abuse of power as Attorney General and the lasting structural damage done to the Justice Department. Honig uses his own experience as a prosecutor at DOJ to show how, as America’s top law enforcement official, Barr repeatedly violated the Department’s written rules, and those vital, unwritten norms and principles that comprise the “prosecutor’s code.”
>Barr was corrupt from the beginning. His first act as AG was to distort the findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, earning a public rebuke for his dishonesty from Mueller himself and, later, from a federal judge. Then, Barr tried to manipulate the law to squash a whistleblower’s complaint about Trump’s dealings with Ukraine—the report that eventually led to Trump’s first impeachment. Barr later intervened in an unprecedented manner to undermine his own DOJ prosecutors on the cases of Michael Flynn and Roger Stone, both political allies of the President. And then Barr fired the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York under false pretenses. Finally, Barr amplified baseless theories about massive mail-in ballot fraud, pouring gasoline on the dumpster fire battle over the 2020 election results and contributing to the January 6 insurrection that led to Trump’s second impeachment.
>In Hatchet Man, Honig proves that Barr trampled the two core virtues that have long defined the department and its mission: credibility and independence – ultimately in service of his own deeply-rooted, extremist legal and personal beliefs. Honig shows how Barr corrupted the Justice Department and explains what we must do to prevent this from ever happening again.
You might be interested in r/georgism it does a damn good job of solving the redistribution problem with a minimalist intervention from government. Basically it removes all taxes but one; the Land Value Tax. LVT is taxed on the assessed value of the property occupied, but not the structure or purpose built on top of it. So a parking lot in a large city would be taxed the same as a skyscraper immediately beside it (and is thus likely unprofitable and will be sold to a developer).
But in a rural town a massive manufacturing plant may hardly pay any tax at all because the demand for land there is low (essentially they are incentivized to create jobs in rural areas for tax purposes).
PDF: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/george-progress-and-poverty Audio Book: https://librivox.org/progress-and-poverty-by-henry-george/
Why not just ignore news media, primarily opinion-driven content as well as the more sensationalized media? I’m a fan of NPR, Science/Nature and the economist, for example. There’s also this website focused on data . Understand your own limitations and look to the professionals in their field to glean a robust understanding of the topic. What are the doctors in the middle of the crisis saying? Do you think that’s it’s worth listening more to a doctor on their third shift straight that’s dealing directly with the issue at hand or listening to a doctor with no COVID-19 patients when trying to understand the viruses implications?
Honestly, I learned a while back to avoid garbage media. It’s exceptionally easy to spot. To use FOX as an example, imagine a talking head discussing climate change and to discuss the topic they bring on a PhD. Their PhD disputes the science involved, but doesn’t engage with the issue using any data of their own. They don’t discuss any data or methodology, they simply hand-wave it away. This PhD’s primary field of study is American history as well, but that’s usually not explained to the viewer/listener. Another easy example is assigning intent in a ridiculously uncharitable way as opposed to having the intellectual honesty to simply ask “why?”. Ironically enough, you find examples like this, and many others, among talking heads who screech the most about biased media.
Yes I found it to be a solid Textbook. I know I got it from a recommendation via podcast either "Everything Hertz" or "Rationally speaking," I am fairly confident it was from "Everything Hertz"
Here we go, I got it from here:
Great point. Also, politics is not a great way to create community. Really great podcast on this exact subject: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/886-the-remnant-with-jonah-gol-28522741/episode/episode-89-alien-nation-30614499/
Hi, you might consider me competition, because I'm running a website archiving IDW videos and podcasts. However, I encourage you to keep doing it, especially since you're planning to offer features that I have no interest in implementing (e.g. chat, interactive web, encylopedia).
The "unsqashable free distribution platform" is something I'm also interested in. Are you considering IPFS?
I've been putting a lot of stuff together here. It goes back to when I first saw Osterholm on Rogan. I have week by week coverage in the following categories.
There's got to be at least 50 articles there. Some I'm sure you won't find anywhere else.
> These are averages compiled over the whole globe.
Yes, a +4°C warmer planet would see higher temperatures increases in land and lower temperature increases in ocean surface temperature.
> These people have no idea what's beyond adaptation.
Source has a good idea what's beyond adaptation. See this https://www.amazon.co.uk/Failing-States-Collapsing-Systems-SpringerBriefs-ebook/dp/B01MQQPKP8
>This is a silly overgeneralization
In your opinion.
>and relies on claiming to know a founding intent as if it is one clear and specific thing. Which, you know, it wasn't.
You're proving my point. RTFM
>Well my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.
Sometimes I forget how humor is dead to many these days.
Chomsky's Consequences of Capitalism was recently released so it even talks about covid.
I know some people are pissed about Chomsky's beliefs on the mandates but the book explores how covid relates to capitalism, not the social contract. Should still be worth reading for those individuals.
I can totally see how someone who is completely ignorant of social sciences would be lost while trying to follow what I've been saying.
You might also just want to brush up on your grammar in general.
It just so happens that me saying "the youth," is indicative of the fact that there is a definite article being referred to. Since the only possible definite article would be the theoretical subset of the population known as youths, we know that we are talking about the theoretical group as a whole. No other use of a definite article would make any sense here, so we know right off the bat.
Look, I get it, you're out of your league. I recommend focussing on your education instead of focussing on trying to correct people until you bone up a bit on a whole bunch of stuff.
I don't see hierarchy and egalitarianism as opposite and if you do, I'm assuming you are making capitalist vs socialist argument because it implies low wealth inequality.
https://www.powerthesaurus.org/hierarchy/antonyms Hierarchy antonyms are all about disorder, not egalitarianism. These concepts have little to do with one another.
>My point was that he's wrong about lobsters.
Only if you make reductio ad absurdum out of his lobster example. His point was that hierarchies are not arbitrarily socially constructed but fundamental to life for hundreds of millions of years. His argument ultimately doesn't depend on lobster example, anyway. You can remove lobster stuff from his speech on hierarchy and not lose anything
You what a link, sure https://www.4chan.org/pol/ Hang out there for a few hours. This where Qanon was "born". Its not as active or as extreme as it once was. But /pol/ is still /pol/. Just don't stare to deep in to that abyss, you really don't what that staring back at you.
>Rising costs of goods necessitates rising wages
Well they feedback into each other but this is not correct because it all depends on how the inflation presents itself and how much wages rise. The ideal wage growth comes from increases in productivity and labor receiving a portion of that.
>but in this case we know for sure that wages are being pulled by the rising cost of goods
I wasn't trying to compare the book to today. Just expressing a future case made for something.
But also... I'm not sure I agree necessarily. We have an extremely tight labor market, despite higher unemployment. Many employers can't find labor. I'd say that wage increases have been due to that more than due to inflation. The inflation has largely been due to lack of supply due to supply chain issues and some things like factory shut downs.
>What's it called?
The Great Demographic Reversal
>The irony of their statement, when it’s clear they’ve put no thought into the rationale of the APA or how we identify gender,
Read this book and educate yourself. You have been brainwashed.
>Is our gender something we're born with, or are we conditioned by society? In The End of Gender, neuroscientist and sexologist Dr. Debra Soh uses a research-based approach to address this hot-button topic, unmasking popular misconceptions about the nature vs. nurture debate and exploring what it means to be a woman or a man in today's society.
>Both scientific and objective, and drawing on original research and carefully conducted interviews, Soh tackles a wide range of issues, such as gender-neutral parenting, gender dysphoric children, and the neuroscience of being transgender. She debates today's accepted notion that gender is a social construct and a spectrum, and challenges the idea that there is no difference between how male and female brains operate.
> why are so many of us willingly joining up with them?
This will provide the explanation you are looking for.
>How do you imagine that words become offensive? Do you think that they arrive in our language pre-offensive, with a freshly minted dictionary definition that says "(offensive)"?
Funny you should ask, I've got this book next on my reading list. Just going by his interview, the offensiveness of particular words is fleeting and is based around current social stigma. For example, the word "healthy" is on track to be the next stigmatized offensive curse. Being offended doesn't give anyone any special rights, and nobody is obligated to protect someone else's fragile mindset becauseit isn't based in reality. That is, the problem with Rousseauian philosophies is that they are complacent; they bank on the ultimate benevolence of human emotion in order to function as desired. It's not that benevolence is undesirable, it's just an impractical worldview.
I don't fight culture change. Culture change is dandy. I resist radical leftists who maliciously attempt to attach a steering wheel to culture and artificially alter natural manifestations that they alone find offensive. I am a skeptic of well-meaning attempts to adjust large social systems on the basis of ideology.
Yeah. Interestingly, when "woke" ideology and critical race theory began gaining traction in law schools in the late 1990s, there was an initial backlash by some liberal Jews (in particular see "Beyond All Reason"), claiming that this ideology of proportionate representation was anti-Semitic (and also anti-Asian).
Of course, ultimately this backlash never amounted to anything and now the Left mostly considers Jews to be white and aligned with colonial oppression due to Palestine, whereas the (increasingly irrelevant) far-right/alt-right sees the Jews as hostile "non-white" conspirators working to destroy the white race and Western civilization.
But sadly, (to me at least), Jews played a formative role in many of the deconstructionist intellectual movements such as critical theory that have caused such degradation in academia, which provides further fuel for alt-right conspiracy insanity.
I wish the moderate left or center or whatever would stop being afraid of being branded an anti-Semite and just openly admit Jewish over-representation, and then weaponize this against current leftist "equity" ideology. Asians could also help. But I realize groups like the ADL often make it difficult for non-Jewish people to even talk about this.
Jewish people played a large role in the early history of Hollywood, since many of the major studios like MGM were founded by recent Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe or Germany. A large part of the reason for this is that many other industries simply excluded Jews at the time. Hollywood was basically one of the few industries where Jews were able to thrive without dealing with various social barriers.
Naturally, this fed into various pre-existing conspiracy theories about Jews controlling everything. Whether this LA Times article is satire or not, I have no clue, but it is true that historically Jews played a pretty significant role in the development of the movie industry. And outside of New York City, Los Angeles historically has had the largest community of Jews, so it's really not surprising to find Jews over-represented in the movie industry.
That being said, I'm Jewish, and so far I don't control the world, sadly.
Ah the ol' "fraudulent papers" spin. Are you going to mention that fact that many of these hoax papers (who's entire purpose was expressly to expose the kind of fake scholarship that critical theory is based upon), were not only accepted into the journals, but won awards for being top level "scholarship". I never thought I'd see the Grievance studies affair being spun and dismissed in this way by people in the IDW sub of all places.
He also co-authored a book on the topic of critical theory for what its worth: Cynical Theories.
Wow, you've got a lot of reading to do on epistemology, precensorship, free speech, and art, buddy.
States of Injury https://www.amazon.com/dp/069102989X/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_fabc_0N5FM5M7XC5DQWEA68MQ?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1
Start here to understand how important free speech is if you don't want to live under a totalitarian regime. (Beware, it's a full book).
> Yes, some people on the right do this too, but that doesn't mean people on the left don't do it. So it's not a strawman
If some people on the right do it, and some people on the right don't do it, and some people on the left do it, and some people on the right don't do it, then there is no difference between the left and right here. Your strawman was when you asserted that it was part of progressive politics to deny the truth in favor of ideology. This is a strawman. That is not an accurate representation of progressive politics, and it was an inaccurate representation which is easy for you to argue against and win. That is what a strawman is.
>It's you who needs to read more. Start here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/End-Gender-Debunking-Identity-Society/dp/1982132515
Anyone can cherry pick something that proves their point. Are you trying to tell me that it is your opinion that the consensus among sex researchers and the gender studies field generally is that sex and gender are the same concept?
>I am not interested in your delusional bullshit. Neither is anybody else on this sub.
I'm sorry you find my views too controversial to have a civil discussion in good faith about them. I would say it is you who doesn't fit in. This isn't a right wing sub, it is a sub for people to discuss controversial topics in good faith. If that isn't something you are interested in doing, this is not the space for you.
I don't think we can return to traditional religion once our eyes have been opened to rational thinking.
But, I think humans crave the experience of the numinous, and seek ways to have that experience. Unfortunately, that experience is almost always directly connected to religion.
As a secular group, atheists would do well to make available the experiences that induce those feelings without the baggage of religion.
One book that I found that attempts to delve into how this might be done is Religion for Atheists: A Non-believer's Guide to the Uses of Religion, by Alain de Botton.
I found many of his suggestions insightful, though a few were a step too far for my personal tastes.
One brief example was the construction of a hollow tower that one could walk inside. The only illumination would be from the hole at the top. Layered inside would be different mineral layers to represent millions or billions of years, starting with the beginning of time at the top and ending with a super fine gold line at the bottom, representing the evolutionary development of humans. The idea is to provide a visceral representation of our finite existence and give some perspective on our works.
That sort of thing seems like a good direction to explore.
> I personally think prenatal development and hormones influence both gender expression and the attraction to it.
I kind of agree with you in some way. You should look into a book called "Countdown", you might like it if you arent already familiar with it
its all about prenatal hormones and endocrine disruption.
They are life changing. Installed mine right before the pandemic and my butthole couldn't be happier. Even the cheap ones work well and can be attached to any standard toilet. https://www.amazon.com/Luxe-Bidet-Neo-120-Non-Electric/dp/B00A0RHSJO/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=bidet&qid=1631222328&sr=8-3
(Not a big bidet shill I swear)
There are plenty and I didn’t have one in mind in particular; A good one to illustrate the point would be this study by Yale Researcher Paul Bloom, who also wrote a book on the topic of morality in infants.
The TL;DR is that empathy is something we are born with at a basic level. The ability to feel the see that someone is in pain, and to desire to help, the desire for equal distribution and the desire to get ahead, etc. are all things that develops in young children before they can really absorb that information otherwise; it’s wired in. It simply becomes much more complex and distinctive as we age.
Should clarify, ironically enough, I bring this up for the conversation of fairness. But it’s worth noting that there are evolutionary biases rooted in culture, but none rooted in “race”/skin color. That’s all learned behavior, and I’m simply referring to the individual vs. group part in bringing it up.
"Doctoring Data" by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick goes into this topic at some length. Good read if you are interested in this kind of thing.
This is a book by Steve Koonin about climate change. He's an ex-obama official. I have not read it and only recently heard of it, but it seems like something relevant to your question. He's obviously not "right wing".
Charles Murray is very controversial because he has dared to even bring up these topics. In this way, finding "peers" is going to be tough. Even critics who disagree with some of his conclusions like McWhorter have said he's brilliant though.
You can read audience reviews here https://www.amazon.com/Human-Diversity-Biology-Gender-Class/dp/1538744015#aw-udpv3-customer-reviews_feature_div
Also he is compiling research mostly, not running experiments directly.
>Explain, if the Bolshevik revolution was a Gentile undertaking in notoriously anti-Semitic Russia, why the very first law passed by the Bolsheviks was to make anti-Semitism a capital offense
Don't know if you've given up on this conversation, but I'd love a source for this one. So far the most reliable source I've found is in a book written by a Flat Earther (!). All the others are just unhinged sounding forum (stormfront.org ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) or facebook posts.
It could be me. Sometimes things are just really complicated. Maybe try this: https://www.amazon.com/Reign-Quantity-Signs-Times/dp/0900588675/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=reign+of+quantity&qid=1625515912&sprefix=reign+of+qu&sr=8-1
Sometimes labels are useful. I suggest using this.
I know you know, so I don't know why you just bring up Aboriginals when talking racial discrimination disparities, since plenty other racial minorities have faced it and their outcomes can sometimes be pretty different and sometimes even better than "whites" as a whole. I really don't even know why we have to focus so damn much on race and gender when as I said matter so little at a professional and human level. I do believe we're going backwards in this department. But hell, as I said, there's plenty of differences in outcomes that are not explained by "historical discrimination".
And true, our societies can do with some discrimination, as we agreed on, but hardly anyone thinks it's sexism to have separated bathrooms and separated sport leagues, and we have like pretty damn good reasons for it. What would be the reason to have to discriminate based on race/gender on the workplace since race and gender mean so damn nothing to our ability to be all the stuff that I mentioned? And do we really want to have more discrimination for the sake of feel-good policies when we do know we're never going to have equality of outcome? I thought the idea was to get rid of as much discrimination as possible...
If you're interested in some issues of those policies that we think have positive outcomes and are morally good: https://www.amazon.com/Affirmative-Action-Around-World-Empirical/dp/0300107757
Undoing damage by doing things that many people already agreed needed to be made illegal due to the harm they can cause. Right.
Anyway, I'm done with this thread and you already made my point for me. And apparently you're the all-seeing eye in the "damage that policies can/can't make" department, so I don't think a mortal like me has a chance at proving you wrong.
A book for you from an actual economist: https://www.amazon.com/Affirmative-Action-Around-World-Empirical/dp/0300107757 but maybe you'll dismiss it since it doesn't come from the appropriate political aisle.
And you're ignorant of basic anthropological facts if you think the concept of "elites" is non-sense. Not to mention ignorant of most of written human history...
The way I understand it, this is how modern neo-fashism masks itself behind this "virtue signaling" and performs recruital. This is not my opinion, but ex-fashists. You can listen about it here https://samharris.org/subscriber-extras/121-white-power/ or I guess buy one of the book like this one https://www.amazon.com/White-American-Youth-Americas-Movement-ebook/dp/B076BW7LCT/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=White+American+Youth&qid=1610132136&sr=8-1
What I said is true. That lots of people guzzled conspiratorial Kool-Aid is beside the point. Russian election interference is beside the point. Reading comprehension is your friend.
Honestly, if you could theoretically get everyone to stare at objective facts long enough to agree on a truth, we'd still differ on values. But, both are dramatically conflated now.
I want to get back to where we only differ on values, and not truths. Much easier to deal with. With values, you can simply agree to disagree. "De gustibus non est disputandum." But believing fundamentally different truths... This is a huge problem.
Speaking of objectivity, someone recently recommended what they claimed was "the book" on it: https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/1890951781/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1 I'm going to have to read it soon
Religion indeed played an important role in shaping societies and imposing important rules that benefited those who followed it compared those who didn't. Darwin's Cathedral is a good read if you're interested in the topic. However nowadays, with the current levels of progress, the net benefits of blindly following a religion are not as important, and you could live a life as good as the one who follows the religion without having to follow it. Progress allows dissidence, and we should always uphold it because all systems are imperfect and are in need of constant revision.
That article basically has some complaints about how IQ has been used historically, but doesn’t really contain any critiques of the modern IQ concept. Or at least, not any critiques that actually make any sense if you know anything about the field.
You should know that within actual research psychology, the validity of IQ is not really controversial at all (of course its history is controversial, as is the hereditarian racial hypothesis— but not IQ itself).
I recommend this short book written by Stuart Richie (who is critical of the hereditarian hypothesis, but is a highly qualified researcher in the field): https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-That-Matters-Stuart-Ritchie/dp/1444791877
I highly recommend reading Rolf Dobelli's Stop Reading the News. You can read it for an entire day and the beginning chapters give you a good plan on how you should consume news that actually makes sense.
A suggestion he makes is going longform. That means books, podcasts, and longform articles and to have a specific time and plan in mind when you consume them. He details more plans for news consumption and the problem with news media in his book.
Your question is reasonable and, I suspect, quite common. Part of the challenge is that this topic area can cross and sometimes conflate several domains. To begin, I'd recommend looking at Debra Soh's new book The End of Gender. I have it in my stack but haven't read it yet. I heard her discuss the book in-depth on a podcast and it seems targeted toward bringing some objective clarity and ways of thinking about this contentious topic.
As an example of the differing domains, there's what is presently considered acceptable or polite within a given cultural context - which tends to vary and evolve over time and place as well as involve subjective interpretation and individual preference. At the other extreme domain-wise it can involve scientific questions about biology which can be quite technically detailed. In between these two lies a large swath of domains from psychology, physiology and sociology to semantics, philosophy and human sexuality.
I notice a fair number of conversations on these topics get bogged down due to differing definitions of the relevant domain(s), scope and terms. More fundamentally, individual perspectives on many of these domains can be rooted in cultural, social, political, philosophical and religious worldviews which are often deeply-held and challenging (if not socially perilous) to discuss. Alongside that, participants in these discussions can range from dispassionate interest in teasing out nuance to extreme intensity and emotion.
Gaining meaningful understanding and a coherent viewpoint can require delving all the way down to deciding whether there is an objective reality which stubbornly continues to exist in spite of our individual perspectives, opinions, feelings, hopes or fears about it. More broadly, postmodernist philosophy tends to be tightly linked with intersectional studies.
> I do not think that a book rated this high has much "blatant misinformation" can reach this high rating
I have not yet read every word from his six decade output, but I would say that the following link is a pretty good place to begin.
Kirk's essay archive at The Imaginative Conservative
He also wrote The Conservative Mind, which is an intellectual history of conservatism from Edmund Burke through what was for him at the time of its writing, the present.
Proof for such a claim needs no anglophile intellectual to give it voice. It has been lived and proven for 2000 years. Perhaps the best example, or at least the most widely recognizable, is that of St. Teresa of Calcutta, otherwise known as Mother Teresa. She never sought out power. She only sought to held the destitute on the streets of India. As a result, she was invited to audience with world leaders and oversaw a vast network of hospices, homeless shelters, and clinics. She received the Nobel Peace Prize, and never took a cent for herself despite having benefactors and personal friends begging her to capitalize on her success.
The impact she made on the world in her own life was immense, and it continues to bear fruit, the sort which will further pollinate and spread that seed of charity, Lord willing, until the end of time. All of that from her seeing a need in her neighborhood and meeting it in whatever little ways this poor nun from India was able.
Have a read of this book, it should bring you up to speed: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1593680198/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i3
>but I couldn't find anything on google that shows statistics that are not politically motivated or biased or just old
No surprise there. "Race and IQ" is one of many increasingly taboo research areas in science. This is because the powers that be want people to integrate (and drop religion while their at it too) to help slow population growth (endless growth simply being unsustainable). Wars aside, tribalism and religion promote in-group population growth and this exacerbates the problem for everyone in the modern world. Genetic engineering is also incredibly regulated and taboo in many cases because scientists are terrified of what people (e.g. other "less-renowned" scientists) might actually find and make public.
For instance, it could be that 99% or more of what we do/are is genetic . Yes, there are always "environmental factors" but how you respond to them depends on your genes. Modifying the environment to suit your genes usually also comes at an increased time/energy investment by society (and cost to others). So it's always preferable to be "born with the right stuff". The powers that be probably realized these things long ago so they have created a narrative (and with the help of tech companies like Google and "scientific experts" on board with their ideas) are shaping the kind of future and world they would like to see.
>Illiberalism seems to losely relate to authoritarianism and bigotry.
Intersectional feminism is authoritarian and bigoted. The whole of identity politics is.
> social sciences and movements that concern themselves with social justice seems like a huge stretch.
I don't have a problem with legitimate social sciences. "Movements that concern themselves with social justice" is another matter. It depends on how they go about their business. I have no problem with liberal feminism.
> Can you point me to where proponents of Critical Theory claim to invalidate the scientific method?
They don't claim to invalidate the scientific method. They claim that science is just another "metanarrative", with no legitimate epistemic privilege. That is how they end up believing sex and gender aren't binary.
> I'd like to read more about this.
> Are these value judgements on your behalf or actual claims made by proponents of CT?
they are actual claims made by the proponents of CT
>There are plenty of religious scientists, and religious people who are ok with science, and scientific people who are ok with religion - I don't know if we need a peace treaty where there is no war. Otoh, it's going to take a lot more than a new framework of consciousness to bring the religious fundamentalists and anti-theists to the table - these groups are fundamentally opposed to the middle ground.
There are also plenty on both sides who see it as a fight to the death. That's what the peace treaty is needed. Specifically, the ones who don't want the fight need a more technically accurate schema for explaining why the conflict is unnecessary. Stephen Jay Gould attempted this in a book called Rocks of Ages, but he got the implementation wrong. His peace treaty doesn't work.
> I definitely see the value in new or rejuvenated systems of meaning and morality, but I wonder if there's a danger in trying to anchor those things in an area which might see radical advances in the near future. Christianity attached itself to geocentrism and creationism, and that just made it more vulnerable - Galileo and Darwin killed God, because God made it easy for them. Otoh systems like philosophical Buddhism and Daoism are quite at home with any new discoveries, because they're not attached to a rigid worldview.
I don't believe what I am proposing is rigid at all. I think you are wrong about AI.
> It'd be a shame if something like the creation of a conscious AI killed an entire belief system
I'm really not worried about this at all. If we actually manage to create a conscious AI, then it will be because we've made some sort of fundamental new discovery about physics, not because existing computing technology got more powerful. And I am certain that any such new discovery will re-inforce my position, not undermine it.
"Born Red" is a first person account of the Cultural Revolution in China. Worth reading if you are interested in how these things can play out.
The most interesting part to me was how much COMMUNICATING they did. Pretty much everyone involved was full time publishing posters, having meetings, and shouting into microphones. It really reminded me a lot of twitter etc today.
I'm glad we're on the same page, although we might disagree on policy details (I'm not sure), I agree in the broadstoke with everything you said. although I dislike the strong democratic thrust of what you call the "organic left" and what I call the "old left". I prefer a mixed system, sort of like what America had before the 17th Amendment. Many leftist complaints about corporate power are about the unequal influence they have on the democratic process, especially since corporations have the legal standing of persons. I don't like much of what corporate America stands for, but I also don't think that French-style centralized mass democracy where things are decided by a raw "one man, one vote" total is the best way to run a country. I don't mind popular government, but I prefer it in a mixed, decentralized system.
This book had a great influence in my thinking on this matter.
I like that in the second part of the video, Doug advocates for free speech, asserting that Marx valued freedom of speech also.
I have to take issue with the first part of the video. It would be far too easy for a naive person to view it and come to the conclusion that people undergoing a process of "self-criticism" in the struggle sessions and concentration camps of cultural revolution-era China were simply coming to terms with their deeply held classist biases. The exact number is impossible to ascertain because for obvious reasons the CCP has never had any interest in the wider world's knowing it, but a minimum of 1 million people, and probably far more, were killed because of their political beliefs, suspected political beliefs, or to further the personal goals of party officials or Red Guards, all in the name of the cultural revolutions quest to rid china of the 4 olds: Old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas.
To choose not to contextualize the cultural revolution in an historically honest way in this video is a glaring omission, especially when there seems to be an implication along the lines of "yes, cancel culture is at least sort-of Marxist and that's a good thing." Perhaps Douglass will do so in the follow-up video he alluded to, I certainly hope so.
I cannot recommend highly enough the memoir "Red Scarf Girl" by Ji Li Jiang, a survivor of the cultural revolution. The parallels between the self-proclaimed anti-racist movement, its associated cancel culture, and the rhetoric against and expectations of people coming from what were deemed to be "wealthy" families in China at that time are striking.
These double-standards and the taboo about discussing them creates resentments that drive people into the arms of white nationalists and the alt-right. It is a threat to racial tolerance and integration. I find it rather concerning for the future of this country. I highly recommend Carol Swain's 2002 book The New White Nationalism for a detailed discussion of this. It covers this very issue.
While the racism of black people may not be as bad practically speaking (although it does harm race relations), morally, it is the same, and deserves to be condemned whether it is against Jews or whites in general.
Basic Economics https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465060730?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share
Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell really hits this idea home (intentions vs consequences)
I’m actually excited to see your post because this has been on my mind so much lately.
It’s crazy to me that so many of us, myself especially, are allowed to vote without having a solid understanding of economics and specifically the primary, secondary, etc. consequences of specific policies.
As Thomas mentioned, it benefits politicians to talk about intentions of a policy because it helps them get elected although in the long term it hurts society because we have to deal with consequences of that policy that are often not felt until long after that politicians is in office.
Here you go - something I first read in 2010, Listened to the audiobook a few times and refer back to regularly. Read this then circle back around and comment on your own post.
submission statement: " Fyodor Dostoevsky was defeated by history. A man who viciously attacked and satirized the ideologies of rationalism and communism and defended traditional religious and family structures, Dostoevsky died just decades before the Bolshevik revolution was carried out by the very people he satirized in his novel <em>Demons</em> (1871-2). Russia was possessed and the spirit of the age represented everything Dostoevsky opposed. "
Niall Ferguson gives an interview, does a lecturette, and takes questions from the audience. The common thread is Ferguson’s bestseller, <em>The Square and the Tower</em>.
Submission Statement: In this episode of the podcast, Sam Harris speaks with his wife, Annaka Harris, about her new book, <em>CONSCIOUS: A Brief Guide to the Fundamental Mystery of the Mind</em>. And yes they are adorable together.