|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 21 2019 02:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 02:04 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 01:49 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 01:24 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:21 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 00:19 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:13 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse.
I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. Okay but this is a completely different argument from the one you made earlier, and one that contradicts the earlier argument, since now things are possible but risky while earlier they were impossible because of human nature. Now we're at "things are going well enough for me right now, I don't need change", which is an argument that GH understands very well and that is at the core of why he thinks a revolution is the only solution. Getting a system that doesn't suffer from exploitation that is going to get worse as time goes on is, imo, impossible. Getting something that is better then what we have now is possible but risky and, based on recent history, unlikely. I don't think I'm understanding you here, sorry. Could you rephrase and maybe expand a little bit? I think any system run by people is eventually going to suffer from groups being marginalised and exploited for the benefit of others and that as time goes on that divide will get bigger and bigger. We might come up with a new system to replace capitalism that is 'better' for a while but as time goes on and greedy/selfish people get into places where they can enrich themselves and their friends the same problems will inevitably crop up and grow bigger over time. A long term solution where this doesn't happen is, imo, impossible because we will always have greedy/selfish/powerhungry people. Well the idea isn't that we change the system and then everything is fine. The idea is that we change the system and then we keep fighting. I think it's okay. I'm fine with a good fight. What I'm not getting from you is the connexion between "people will still try and exploit people in another system" and "therefore this system entirely based on exploitation isn't worth changing". To IgnE's point from a while back we might benefit from having a different word for the exploitation of minorities specifically, as it's important not to lose sight of the fact that every single worker is exploited under capitalism. Capitalism indeed exploits everyone but I think its undeniable that at the same time capitalism has done more to improve the standard of living for everyone then any other system. Despite the many flaws of capitalism I haven't heard of a practical system that works better. (Note that I do believe the government should be heavily involved to keep the excesses of capitalism under control, to pre-empt talk of socialism) Do you think the specific thing that would change from capitalism to socialism is responsible for the improvement that you speak of? Are you talking about government intervention? Its a part of it for sure, as seen by the generally higher standard of living in more socialist countries but the underlying bases for the economy and the prosperity that goes with it is still capitalism. You can take the socialism out of Europe and you get the US. You can take the capitalism out of Europe and you get China from several decades ago. To paint a very very rough picture. But, imo, you don't need a revolution to increase socialism in America. Nope I'm talking about workers owning the means of production instead of the capitalist class. You can have more or less government intervention under both economic systems. Sorry I'm not entirely following you.
As far as I know there aren't really any successful countries where workers own the means of production.
Does that mean it can't work? No, but it suffers from the same problems of greed and selfishness.
Didn't General Motors in part go bankrupt because of their union forcing high employee benefits/bonuses despite falling sales which leads to a failure of cutting costs and eventual bankruptcy?
Just because workers own the business doesn't mean they make good decisions for the company. On the contrary, as a factory line worker likely doesn't have extensive knowledge on large scale business economics.
|
On July 21 2019 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:15 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem is human nature so its not something we are going to fix long term until we get rid of the problem.
I for one look forward to our AI overlord.
When we do research looking for the traits people claim to be "human nature" we discover time and again it's mostly learned behavior that can be changed by changing the circumstances/learning. A new set of studies provides compelling data allowing us to analyze human nature not through a philosopher’s kaleidoscope or a TV producer’s camera, but through the clear lens of science. These studies were carried out by a diverse group of researchers from Harvard and Yale—a developmental psychologist with a background in evolutionary game theory, a moral philosopher-turned-psychologist, and a biologist-cum-mathematician—interested in the same essential question: whether our automatic impulse—our first instinct—is to act selfishly or cooperatively. + Show Spoiler +This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought—identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action. With this dual process framework in mind, we can boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior—selfishness or cooperation—is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with rational self-interest?
To answer this question, the researchers first took advantage of a reliable difference between intuition and reflection: intuitive processes operate quickly, whereas reflective processes operate relatively slowly. Whichever behavioral tendency—selfishness or cooperation—predominates when people act quickly is likely to be the intuitive response; it is the response most likely to be aligned with basic human nature.
The experimenters first examined potential links between processing speed, selfishness, and cooperation by using 2 experimental paradigms (the “prisoner’s dilemma” and a “public goods game”), 5 studies, and a tot al of 834 participants gathered from both undergraduate campuses and a nationwide sample. Each paradigm consisted of group-based financial decision-making tasks and required participants to choose between acting selfishly—opting to maximize individual benefits at the cost of the group—or cooperatively—opting to maximize group benefits at the cost of the individual. The results were striking: in every single study, faster—that is, more intuitive—decisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation, whereas slower—that is, more reflective—decisions were associated with higher levels of selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate—that Augustine and Hobbes were wrong, and that we are fundamentally “good” creatures after all. What do you think is more likely? All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. Depends on how literally you mean that? "all of humanity" isn't going to do anything except maybe go extinct, A selfish/corrupt society doesn't develop an AI that isn't also "selfish" and corrupt. Banking on AI seems completely irrational from every angle to me, whereas "all of humanity stops being selfish" isn't happening under any system and capitalism has failed miserably to mitigate that selfishness as we have a handful of people with the majority of the worlds resources leading us straight into catastrophe that threatens the species (granted we're stubborn survivors) so they can be a bit wealthier tomorrow than they were today. So the objection "but there's still selfishness" doesn't make sense to me as damning. My point is that the system you come up with after your revolution is going to suffer from the same problem, that of selfish people exploiting it for themselves at the cost of everyone else. Because its going to be a system run by people and its only a matter of time until those people will be selfish and greedy ones. (and that time is likely going to be immediately). Capitalism has a lot of big flaws and I would love to change it into something better but what reason do I have to stand with you on the barricades to bring it toppling down when the replacement is going to be the same or worse?
If society is going to roll the dice I would want more assurances then a shrug that its going to do something. And in my opinion the answer to that is Artificial Intelligence, less chance of greed, selfishness and corruption (if done properly and with an advanced enough AI, which we don't have yet) That's the issue right there. It's easy to imagine your situation being the same or better under an omniscient AI (that's completely imaginary and practically impossible [you still have your selfish people planning to exploit it from before the day it's first line of code is written]) than it is to imagine your situation the same or better without white club. That's part of the rub, some people will have less material comforts in the short term as a result of no longer being in a non-existent white club and the exploitation and horrific violence it inflicts to maintain itself. Those people have to make a moral/ethical (or at least long term "plant trees you won't sit in the shade of") decisions about which side they are on. Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:40 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:15 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem is human nature so its not something we are going to fix long term until we get rid of the problem.
I for one look forward to our AI overlord.
When we do research looking for the traits people claim to be "human nature" we discover time and again it's mostly learned behavior that can be changed by changing the circumstances/learning. A new set of studies provides compelling data allowing us to analyze human nature not through a philosopher’s kaleidoscope or a TV producer’s camera, but through the clear lens of science. These studies were carried out by a diverse group of researchers from Harvard and Yale—a developmental psychologist with a background in evolutionary game theory, a moral philosopher-turned-psychologist, and a biologist-cum-mathematician—interested in the same essential question: whether our automatic impulse—our first instinct—is to act selfishly or cooperatively. + Show Spoiler +This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought—identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action. With this dual process framework in mind, we can boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior—selfishness or cooperation—is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with rational self-interest?
To answer this question, the researchers first took advantage of a reliable difference between intuition and reflection: intuitive processes operate quickly, whereas reflective processes operate relatively slowly. Whichever behavioral tendency—selfishness or cooperation—predominates when people act quickly is likely to be the intuitive response; it is the response most likely to be aligned with basic human nature.
The experimenters first examined potential links between processing speed, selfishness, and cooperation by using 2 experimental paradigms (the “prisoner’s dilemma” and a “public goods game”), 5 studies, and a tot al of 834 participants gathered from both undergraduate campuses and a nationwide sample. Each paradigm consisted of group-based financial decision-making tasks and required participants to choose between acting selfishly—opting to maximize individual benefits at the cost of the group—or cooperatively—opting to maximize group benefits at the cost of the individual. The results were striking: in every single study, faster—that is, more intuitive—decisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation, whereas slower—that is, more reflective—decisions were associated with higher levels of selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate—that Augustine and Hobbes were wrong, and that we are fundamentally “good” creatures after all. What do you think is more likely? All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. I don't understand why you think we need to remove selfishness Because its only a matter of time until those who want to abuse a system get into a position where they can abuse that system for themselves at the cost of others. But... that's mostly okay. And the few ways that aren't okay can simply be illegal. But that is pretty much where we are now. And apparently things are not ok. I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system. Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse.
I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. For you because of your comfort and acceptance of the violence it takes to maintain. Some people see concentration camps and starving children in Yemen and think new iPhone's every year just isn't worth it. Or you know, it's them/their children being caged, starved, and bombed. They plead to you, and you respond: "often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case for me now. Things can get a lot worse"
Concentration camps and starving children in Yemen aren't actually necessary for the continuation of capitalism. It's also not the case that "the situation is the best it's ever been and likely only to get worse" is necessarily a selfish position. It might be a disinterested utilitarian position that says poverty has decreased in the last 20 years at the fastest rate in world history. If you can't grapple seriously with the best liberal pro-capitalist arguments you aren't going to be taken seriously.
|
On July 21 2019 02:30 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 02:07 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 02:04 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 01:49 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 01:24 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:21 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 00:19 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:13 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Okay but this is a completely different argument from the one you made earlier, and one that contradicts the earlier argument, since now things are possible but risky while earlier they were impossible because of human nature. Now we're at "things are going well enough for me right now, I don't need change", which is an argument that GH understands very well and that is at the core of why he thinks a revolution is the only solution. Getting a system that doesn't suffer from exploitation that is going to get worse as time goes on is, imo, impossible. Getting something that is better then what we have now is possible but risky and, based on recent history, unlikely. I don't think I'm understanding you here, sorry. Could you rephrase and maybe expand a little bit? I think any system run by people is eventually going to suffer from groups being marginalised and exploited for the benefit of others and that as time goes on that divide will get bigger and bigger. We might come up with a new system to replace capitalism that is 'better' for a while but as time goes on and greedy/selfish people get into places where they can enrich themselves and their friends the same problems will inevitably crop up and grow bigger over time. A long term solution where this doesn't happen is, imo, impossible because we will always have greedy/selfish/powerhungry people. Well the idea isn't that we change the system and then everything is fine. The idea is that we change the system and then we keep fighting. I think it's okay. I'm fine with a good fight. What I'm not getting from you is the connexion between "people will still try and exploit people in another system" and "therefore this system entirely based on exploitation isn't worth changing". To IgnE's point from a while back we might benefit from having a different word for the exploitation of minorities specifically, as it's important not to lose sight of the fact that every single worker is exploited under capitalism. Capitalism indeed exploits everyone but I think its undeniable that at the same time capitalism has done more to improve the standard of living for everyone then any other system. Despite the many flaws of capitalism I haven't heard of a practical system that works better. (Note that I do believe the government should be heavily involved to keep the excesses of capitalism under control, to pre-empt talk of socialism) Do you think the specific thing that would change from capitalism to socialism is responsible for the improvement that you speak of? Are you talking about government intervention? Its a part of it for sure, as seen by the generally higher standard of living in more socialist countries but the underlying bases for the economy and the prosperity that goes with it is still capitalism. You can take the socialism out of Europe and you get the US. You can take the capitalism out of Europe and you get China from several decades ago. To paint a very very rough picture. But, imo, you don't need a revolution to increase socialism in America. Nope I'm talking about workers owning the means of production instead of the capitalist class. You can have more or less government intervention under both economic systems. Sorry I'm not entirely following you. As far as I know there aren't really any successful countries where workers own the means of production. Does that mean it can't work? No, but it suffers from the same problems of greed and selfishness. Didn't General Motors in part go bankrupt because of their union forcing high employee benefits/bonuses despite falling sales which leads to a failure of cutting costs and eventual bankruptcy? Just because workers own the business doesn't mean they make good decisions for the company. On the contrary, as a factory line worker likely doesn't have extensive knowledge on large scale business economics.
Yes, sometimes things would go wrong for some specific companies under socialism, that is correct.
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 20 2019 20:44 Nebuchad wrote:
I understand that it's a break from tradition, it's just one that I find utterly logical, and one that I would expect to happen given the principles of capitalism. It's on a really basic level; we give the main share of power to a group of people, and after a while, theories of economics that favor this group of people even more start appearing and gaining prominence (as they are backed by some of the people who have the most influence and the most power). That makes a lot of intuitive sense to me regardless of what Smith thought.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with capitalism as much as general group dynamics. The same thing happened to Christianity, the role of the CEO within corporations, the Fujiwara clan during the first few centuries of the Heian court, etc.
You're using ex post rationalization by generalizing to the point of meaninglessness. No one 'gave' the lion's share of power to corporations. Their evolution was the result of pecuniary and manufacturing consolidation (as aggregate economies become broader and more complex, wealth gets increasingly stratified), a development fought against for decades by various parties. Antitrust sentiment was very strong when neoliberalism was first being formulated, so MPS supporters were loathe to articulate their creed publicly.
Correspondingly, there was no way to anticipate an economic theory supporting corporations would take on this permutation; it could've have been neo-Keynesian instead if Polanyi and Hayek switched sides. Sure, neoliberalism is a byproduct of capitalist + liberal thought but the same can be said of Marx.
On July 20 2019 20:44 Nebuchad wrote:
You can find the ancestor of trickle-down economics before the 1927 crisis. It wasn't full neoliberalism as there was no aspect of globalization but that makes sense as well given how nations operated then and how they operate now.
I suppose so, but trickle-down economics was never a coherent theory as much as a facetious policy.
On July 20 2019 20:44 Nebuchad wrote:
Also I would definitely agree that there is a tension between democracy and liberalism.
There's a difference between tension and incompatibility. Whether equilibrium can be maintained - an especially pertinent question now - depends on whether one philosophy is willing to sacrifice some of its statutes. Neoliberalism accepts demoting democracy without exception.
|
On July 21 2019 02:41 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2019 20:44 Nebuchad wrote:
I understand that it's a break from tradition, it's just one that I find utterly logical, and one that I would expect to happen given the principles of capitalism. It's on a really basic level; we give the main share of power to a group of people, and after a while, theories of economics that favor this group of people even more start appearing and gaining prominence (as they are backed by some of the people who have the most influence and the most power). That makes a lot of intuitive sense to me regardless of what Smith thought. Yes, but that has nothing to do with capitalism as much as general group dynamics. The same thing happened to Christianity, the role of the CEO within corporations, the Fujiwara clan during the first few centuries of the Heian court, etc. You're using ex post rationalization by generalizing to the point of meaninglessness. No one 'gave' the lion's share of power to corporations. Their evolution was the result of pecuniary and manufacturing consolidation (as aggregate economies become broader and more complex, wealth gets increasingly stratified), a development fought against for decades by various parties. Antitrust sentiment was very strong when neoliberalism was first being formulated, so MPS supporters were loathe to articulate their creed publicly. Correspondingly, there was no way to anticipate an economic theory supporting corporations would take on this permutation; it could've have been neo-Keynesian instead if Polanyi and Hayek switched sides. Sure, neoliberalism is a byproduct of capitalist + liberal thought but the same can be said of Marx. Show nested quote +On July 20 2019 20:44 Nebuchad wrote:
You can find the ancestor of trickle-down economics before the 1927 crisis. It wasn't full neoliberalism as there was no aspect of globalization but that makes sense as well given how nations operated then and how they operate now. I suppose so, but trickle-down economics was never a coherent theory as much as a facetious policy. Show nested quote +On July 20 2019 20:44 Nebuchad wrote:
Also I would definitely agree that there is a tension between democracy and liberalism. There's a difference between tension and incompatibility. Whether equilibrium can be maintained - an especially pertinent question now - depends on whether one philosophy is willing to sacrifice some of its statutes. Neoliberalism accepts demoting democracy without exception.
No one directly gave the lion's share of power to corporations, but capitalism establishes a capitalist class that has more power than the rest, and says that they should seek to maximize their profit. Corporations are very profitable, especially as they get closer to establishing monopolies. It's true that I am connecting some dots myself but again, I don't think I'm doing so unfairly - as you said I'm using very general group dynamics.
I can certainly see a bunch of ways that capitalism could have had a different evolution if we change some historical details. Some are worse than what we have today. Most, if not all, go in the same general direction though.
Does it matter that trickle-down isn't a coherent theory? I'm not sure why it matters.
|
|
|
On July 21 2019 04:12 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 02:27 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 02:19 JimmiC wrote:On July 21 2019 02:07 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 02:04 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 01:49 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 01:24 Nebuchad wrote:On July 21 2019 01:07 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:21 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I don't think I'm understanding you here, sorry. Could you rephrase and maybe expand a little bit? I think any system run by people is eventually going to suffer from groups being marginalised and exploited for the benefit of others and that as time goes on that divide will get bigger and bigger. We might come up with a new system to replace capitalism that is 'better' for a while but as time goes on and greedy/selfish people get into places where they can enrich themselves and their friends the same problems will inevitably crop up and grow bigger over time. A long term solution where this doesn't happen is, imo, impossible because we will always have greedy/selfish/powerhungry people. Well the idea isn't that we change the system and then everything is fine. The idea is that we change the system and then we keep fighting. I think it's okay. I'm fine with a good fight. What I'm not getting from you is the connexion between "people will still try and exploit people in another system" and "therefore this system entirely based on exploitation isn't worth changing". To IgnE's point from a while back we might benefit from having a different word for the exploitation of minorities specifically, as it's important not to lose sight of the fact that every single worker is exploited under capitalism. Capitalism indeed exploits everyone but I think its undeniable that at the same time capitalism has done more to improve the standard of living for everyone then any other system. Despite the many flaws of capitalism I haven't heard of a practical system that works better. (Note that I do believe the government should be heavily involved to keep the excesses of capitalism under control, to pre-empt talk of socialism) Do you think the specific thing that would change from capitalism to socialism is responsible for the improvement that you speak of? Are you talking about government intervention? Its a part of it for sure, as seen by the generally higher standard of living in more socialist countries but the underlying bases for the economy and the prosperity that goes with it is still capitalism. You can take the socialism out of Europe and you get the US. You can take the capitalism out of Europe and you get China from several decades ago. To paint a very very rough picture. But, imo, you don't need a revolution to increase socialism in America. Nope I'm talking about workers owning the means of production instead of the capitalist class. You can have more or less government intervention under both economic systems. Does workers owning the means of production create equality? How do you keep the successful workers of the production not becoming the new capitalist class? No it doesn't create equality, nor is it designed to; it stops exploitation from being the core principle at the center of the economic system, which has several direct consequences in terms of equality and inequality (specifically equality of opportunity), but it doesn't "create equality" in the strictest sense. How can you become the new capitalist class if there's no capitalist class? It's a meaningless objection. Sure they would have a different title than capitalist class but they would still be the elite who hold all the power. I'm not sure how it is better.
Well, you can vote them out, that's one.
|
|
|
On July 20 2019 14:32 Nyovne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2019 08:21 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 13:26 Wegandi wrote:On July 19 2019 04:02 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 02:35 IgnE wrote:On July 19 2019 01:45 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 19 2019 00:05 IgnE wrote:On July 18 2019 15:29 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 18 2019 13:46 IgnE wrote:On July 18 2019 13:20 ShambhalaWar wrote:
[quote]
I would say the first step, and probably the most important is simply acknowledging that I have privilege, and giving up my ignorance about my privilege.
The nature of privilege is ignorance, the privileged people don't have to consider the problems other people do. So in regard to racial privilege, in acknowledging it I would think there comes some degree of commitment in calling it out when I see rather than just letting it slide because, "I'm white and it doesn't affect me."
If I'm playing a game a CSGO and I hear the N word (happens all the time), rather than just be ok with that, I can at the very least confront them on it, and report the account. There are many different versions of that... for example is I see a nazi symbol written on a wall, I can get a pen and mark over it.
Donate to a charity organization that combats racial inequality, march for black lives matter. I haven't done these latter two things, but for a lot of my black friends growing up I apologized for not believe them when we were kids, and tell them I believe them now.
Small steps, but if all privileged people did that, the world would change. I thought there was more to privilege than that. You don't sound like someone who's given much of any thought to the subject. What's the point of your post? Are you actually curious about my experience or just want something to rail against? The post GH made that I quoted, you sound exactly like the type of person that post describes. Equality feels like oppression for you, that true for you or you just never even gave it a thought? No, I'm actually just surprised at how little privilege you actually had to relinquish. It's almost like you didn't have much power in the first place. You really stretched there, too, with the suggestion to donate to BLM. Giving away money counts as giving away power I guess. But maybe the metaphorical language doesn't really work? Why do you think this idea that giving up privilege feels like oppression resonates with you so much when your examples of giving up privilege are so lame? I can think of something else that might better describe the experience of 1) conversion to a cause, 2) spreading the good news to blasphemers, and 3) tithing — but "relinquishing power" isn't it. I'll ask again... What is the point of your post? Does Equality feel like oppression for you? And if you don't think money is power, you are incredibly naive. I am trying to decide why this “relinquish (white) power” articulation seems so off to me. Who are the kind of people you imagine when you imagine indignant whites for whom giving up privilege feels like oppression? Are they people who can actually give up “power”? What kind of power do they have and don’t have, now, in 2019? And what kind of power do you gain as a “woke” white who can preach to others? I feel obliged to point out that 1) I acknowledged that giving money might be some kind of “relinquishing power” although such language feels overwrought — I’m not sure why that would be different in kind from other charitable giving or why it would feel oppressive and 2) you said you haven’t actually given money to BLM so it seems fairly moot. As for my personal opinion, no, equality doesn’t feel like oppression to me, hence my line of questioning. Personally, I am inclined more towards the idea of “recognition.” edit: given that someone posted a Nazi talking about “race-recognition” while I was typing this post, I have to now clarify that I meant “recognition” in the sense of Hegel or Levinas: recognition of the subject. Not some scientistic recognition of race, which we want to deconstruct anyway right? You speak like someone who really doesn't understand the concept of privilege, which is really the nature of it privilege... you don't have to worry about it because it doesn't directly affect you. If you are are white, there are a host of difficulties in life you don't have to worry about... In other words, day to day, you don't have to give these difficulties a second of thought, but minorities do, because they are affected by the difficulties. For example, as a white person, when you are pulled over by the police in America, you don't have to worry about being killed in the same way an African-American does. When you get pulled over you expect to pay a speeding ticket. When an African-American gets pulled over they have to worry they might die. The privileged person doesn't have to give a seconds thought to the latter problem, that is their privilege... To walk through life worrying about other things and thinking about things other than being killed by a cop. Let's use your word... recognition. If you "recognize" your privilege, that is the first step, Yay! After you recognize it, you can do other things to be allies for minority groups, and there are varying degrees of time and effort you can put toward that. But... by virtue of "recognizing" your privilege, you are in a sense giving up some degree of your power, because you can no longer just pretend minority groups aren't being persecuted. And it's also not enough to simply now "recognize" your privilege, you have to speak out against it... or be the person who knows and does nothing. Those scenario's are flatly untrue. While yes, an African-American has a higher likelihood of violent incident with the police based on their percentage of the general populace (13%>25%), that's not to say that whites don't also have to worry about those things (who do you think are the majority of folks killed by police...it's white people). To actually believe that the police mostly only kill or violate the rights of blacks is patently false (and easily disproven with publicly available data). The police fuck everyone, some more than others, but they fuck everyone (unless you're politically connected that is). You do your argument a disservice by its extreme hyperbole (and also alienating a lot of white people who you could pretty easily convince to join the side of police reform). https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/(WaPo has a decent resource as well) These are great sources, I'll use them both. In the WaPo article I'm guessing you just read the one sentence in the post article, "most people killed by police were white" (the rest of the article didn't impact/interest you?). The problem with that is percentages do matter... that's why people use them in statistics. So for some reason you don't think percentages matter?
White people make up over 60% of the population, so yes... the number of white people killed will be larger, but if you were born black you have a higher chance of being killed by police, at least 200% more (whatever 3x comes out to). Just by virtue of being born that color. Is this the washington post article? The literal conclusion of the article is exactly the same as my point. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/08/29/we-gathered-data-on-every-confirmed-line-of-duty-police-killing-of-a-civilian-in-2014-and-2015-heres-what-we-found/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f600d762c567If it is... this washington post article literally says, "Most people killed by police were white. In 2014 and 2015, white people made up about 62 percent of the U.S. population and are underrepresented in this group. Meanwhile, blacks made up 17.9 percent of the country and are dramatically overrepresented. In other words, African Americans are disproportionately more likely to be killed by police than white people. Latinos also are overrepresented in data on killings by police, making up 17.6 percent of the population but 19.3 percent of these deaths." Apparently WaPo love hyperbole as much as I do. I also LOVE that the article you linked me, literally opens with this graphic... ![[image loading]](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ecf211e4b0ed744420c5b6/t/594ea218d482e9221abf6674/1498325585644/policearemostlikelytokillblackpeople.png?format=1000w) ![[image loading]](https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ecf211e4b0ed744420c5b6/t/569534449cadb69b288bedee/1452618828280/2015policekillingsunarmed.jpeg?format=750w) So I'm genuinely fucking curious... Do you just not read any of your sources, or do you read them and them magically make up your own alternative reality where you pretend these facts mean something different than what they literally say?I mean both your sources explicitly say... if you are black you have a much higher chance of being killed by police... or be profiled, or harassed, or etc... It's as though you read my statements and think I said, "A white person has never been killed by a police officer ever... (and then you say) THAT'S A LIE! SUCH HYPERBOLE!" And then you proceed to link me information backing my point (while simultaneously missing the entire fucking point of the website, which is that black people are disproportionally affected)... and claiming, "look white people get killed too!" I don't think I can help you man... You are like the people in the gun thread that think dems want to take all their guns... Nothing I can say to them or you. But definitely, you don't understand your privilege. You have a massive blindspot for that, and in my humble opinion it behooves all of us as white people to understand our privilege, otherwise things will never change. Just to make a quick jump into this, you throw statistics and then blame priviledge while ignoring the influence of culture. Disclosure up front, the term priviledge alone makes my skin crawl so you'll take anything I write with a few grains of salt probably and I am of the opinion that nature abhors equality. Black and latino culture in large parts of the US are a major influence on active crime rates and have been throughout the entire 20th and 21st century so far. The higher rates of crime in certain communities are directly responsible for a higher exposure to lawenforcement and the way subjects are approached by them. And looking at statistics on crime in certain areas and police injury and fatality it appears not entirely unjustifiably so. I mean what is the follow up here otherwise, the overrepresentation of americans of non european descent is due to alot of them being wrongfully convicted and innocent while in prison? Sounds ludicrous to me, especially with regards to the overrepresentation of violent crime amongst those cultures. The more I hear of this and read on it the more I see a historical base for post slavery hard conditions sculpting a preexisting cultural base for american minorities that leads to tribalism and extraordinary rates of crime. This has been boosted during certain parts of the last century due to the cultural economic base in those communities leaving them extremely vulnerable to drug related issues. It appears to be a cultural problem that needs to be dealt with, but seeing how the above mentioned things are still glorified in today's rap culture especially I am sceptical of this with regards to the short term at least. This is all not to detract from the fact that any death is a tragedy, especially at the hands of those whom we entrust with our safety in the form of any law enforcement officer. There might be a reasonable base for the mentioned statistics but that should not mean it is desireable or acceptable in any way and deserves to be monitored and acted upon whenever possible. But I think it is unreasonable and undesireable to ignore the facts and circumstances that give rise to the cited statistics in your post. So I fail to see how priviledge has anything to do with solving this cultural disaster except for boosting victim culture and feeding more into the current intersectional bullshitstorm. Taking personal responsibility for yourself, your family and your community seems to be the only way this actually goes somewhere in the relevant communities. So like I stated earlier, I fully agree with you that this is not an acceptable place to be and that these incidents are all horrible horrible things to happen as they leave families devastated but I am of the opinion that there is an underlying cause that is largely being ignored due to current victim culture and the apparant lack of responsibility and that it is not racism. (But obviously racism exists and contributes to this but I think it's influences are overstated and not the main root cause.)
Here the main point I've been conveying in all my posts... The privileged portion of the population gets to pretend that the issue really isn't an issue, or that the problem has already been solved.
For a problem to be solved, all parties involved have to agree it's actually a problem. Statistically (at this point... just like climate change) it is an undeniable fact, minorities are treated worse in American culture.
And by the way, those where his statistics he quoted me to try an prove his point... bizarrely they favored my argument much more than his.
Is this a cultural problem in the US? Absolutely!
It also blows my mind you would single out latino and black culture as significant contributors to crime, while at the same time ignoring the united state persecution of both those cultures... slavery being the prime example. Culture and privilege are absolutely tied together.
*How easy do you think it is for a culture to come out of slavery (having literally nothing, and being given literally nothing) and then be "equal" in society. Our culture said, "you are equal now" but then we just left them to live in impoverished ghettos... while white culture had an easier time thriving because it was already well established.
Poverty is a contributor to crime, NOT race. There is a weird paradox in your words where you are coming at me talking about culture, but at the same time ignoring the influence of the persecution of African Americans throughout literally ALL of American history. There hasn't been a time white American culture hasn't done shady harmful shit to African Americans. Period.
Most of white America was (delusionally) running under the assumption that we did away with slavery during the civil war, and any last remnants of it would definitely taken care of in the 60's... Clearly that isn't fucking true as trump has shown how many people still hold those beliefs, and the fact that we aren't policing the northern boarder, just Mexico's.
To my main point, if you are born black in America there are a host this problems you will have just by virtue of being born that color of skin.
For that to change everyone has to believe it is a problem (the same way people have to believe climate change is a problem). White America needs to actually wake up more, because many white people still just "don't see what the problem is."
But if they had been born African American, they would get it because it would be directly affecting their lives every day. They would feel hurt when the culture did hurtful shit to them.
PS. You do a nice job of victim blaming in your post, I don't think there is any real difference between how white, brown, or black people glorify violence and crime... that's more of a human thing.
|
Norway28558 Posts
Because it's up to all the workers.. If the workers are happy with the direction the company is taking then the leaders stay in power, otherwise they don't. This is not the case in non-worker owned companies, where leaders can instead fire workers. What it boils down to is increased democratization; you give the workers the power to fire the leaders, rather than power to the leaders to fire the workers. I certainly think this is a much better organizational structure for society as a whole, and don't understand the opposition to it in a workplace environment. (I mean I obviously understand that the capitalist class opposes it as it strips them of both wealth and power, but not others. )
|
There's a lot of corporations that pursue idiotic policies and take losses while rewarding the CEO with a 40 million bonus the same year. God forbid a company's financial health ever suffers from paying for labor.
|
|
|
On July 21 2019 00:58 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:15 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem is human nature so its not something we are going to fix long term until we get rid of the problem.
I for one look forward to our AI overlord.
When we do research looking for the traits people claim to be "human nature" we discover time and again it's mostly learned behavior that can be changed by changing the circumstances/learning. A new set of studies provides compelling data allowing us to analyze human nature not through a philosopher’s kaleidoscope or a TV producer’s camera, but through the clear lens of science. These studies were carried out by a diverse group of researchers from Harvard and Yale—a developmental psychologist with a background in evolutionary game theory, a moral philosopher-turned-psychologist, and a biologist-cum-mathematician—interested in the same essential question: whether our automatic impulse—our first instinct—is to act selfishly or cooperatively. + Show Spoiler +This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought—identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action. With this dual process framework in mind, we can boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior—selfishness or cooperation—is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with rational self-interest?
To answer this question, the researchers first took advantage of a reliable difference between intuition and reflection: intuitive processes operate quickly, whereas reflective processes operate relatively slowly. Whichever behavioral tendency—selfishness or cooperation—predominates when people act quickly is likely to be the intuitive response; it is the response most likely to be aligned with basic human nature.
The experimenters first examined potential links between processing speed, selfishness, and cooperation by using 2 experimental paradigms (the “prisoner’s dilemma” and a “public goods game”), 5 studies, and a tot al of 834 participants gathered from both undergraduate campuses and a nationwide sample. Each paradigm consisted of group-based financial decision-making tasks and required participants to choose between acting selfishly—opting to maximize individual benefits at the cost of the group—or cooperatively—opting to maximize group benefits at the cost of the individual. The results were striking: in every single study, faster—that is, more intuitive—decisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation, whereas slower—that is, more reflective—decisions were associated with higher levels of selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate—that Augustine and Hobbes were wrong, and that we are fundamentally “good” creatures after all. What do you think is more likely? All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. Depends on how literally you mean that? "all of humanity" isn't going to do anything except maybe go extinct, A selfish/corrupt society doesn't develop an AI that isn't also "selfish" and corrupt. Banking on AI seems completely irrational from every angle to me, whereas "all of humanity stops being selfish" isn't happening under any system and capitalism has failed miserably to mitigate that selfishness as we have a handful of people with the majority of the worlds resources leading us straight into catastrophe that threatens the species (granted we're stubborn survivors) so they can be a bit wealthier tomorrow than they were today. So the objection "but there's still selfishness" doesn't make sense to me as damning. My point is that the system you come up with after your revolution is going to suffer from the same problem, that of selfish people exploiting it for themselves at the cost of everyone else. Because its going to be a system run by people and its only a matter of time until those people will be selfish and greedy ones. (and that time is likely going to be immediately). Capitalism has a lot of big flaws and I would love to change it into something better but what reason do I have to stand with you on the barricades to bring it toppling down when the replacement is going to be the same or worse?
If society is going to roll the dice I would want more assurances then a shrug that its going to do something. And in my opinion the answer to that is Artificial Intelligence, less chance of greed, selfishness and corruption (if done properly and with an advanced enough AI, which we don't have yet) That's the issue right there. It's easy to imagine your situation being the same or better under an omniscient AI (that's completely imaginary and practically impossible [you still have your selfish people planning to exploit it from before the day it's first line of code is written]) than it is to imagine your situation the same or better without white club. That's part of the rub, some people will have less material comforts in the short term as a result of no longer being in a non-existent white club and the exploitation and horrific violence it inflicts to maintain itself. Those people have to make a moral/ethical (or at least long term "plant trees you won't sit in the shade of") decisions about which side they are on. On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:40 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:38 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand why you think we need to remove selfishness Because its only a matter of time until those who want to abuse a system get into a position where they can abuse that system for themselves at the cost of others. But... that's mostly okay. And the few ways that aren't okay can simply be illegal. But that is pretty much where we are now. And apparently things are not ok. I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system. Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse.
I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. For you because of your comfort and acceptance of the violence it takes to maintain. Some people see concentration camps and starving children in Yemen and think new iPhone's every year just isn't worth it. Or you know, it's them/their children being caged, starved, and bombed. They plead to you, and you respond: "often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case for me now. Things can get a lot worse" For one i'm not so well off that I would lose a lot 'white club' goes away, nor do I have a problem with having less as a result of greater equality. I have a problem with ending up like the USSR, to name a 'fake communist' example, which ends up being worse for Everyone. You think things are terrible and I can understand that but take a look around and see that shit can get a LOT worse. Rather then a high risk of fucking up everything for everyone in a blind revolution I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. No one is arguing for a blind revolution? I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. Band-aids on bullet wounds. Literally leading to existential catastrophe but keeps you comfortable enough (like the parable of the frog in warming water). The incremental line worked before the scientists let the cat out of the bag that your increments are too small and going to get us killed. We're not risking a working system that could use some tweaking, we're "risking" a system that promises catastrophe on a global scale and threatens our very species (and risking your moderately comfortable position within it). Did I miss the conversation where you expanded on how your revolution would work and what systems would be put in place afterwards that lead to a better future? Entirely possible, I don't read everything. Last I saw it was still 'We need to have a revolution, we'll worry about the finer details afterwards', which is, imo, a recipe for disaster. And not just for 'white club'.
I don't understand how this confuses people.
Once we agree we need a revolution, you stop asking me "how does this work and how do I stay comfortable during it" and start saying "I think the revolution would be aided by" and we exchange and discuss ideas and so forth towards our common goal of liberation.
It's not you agree we need a revolution and the next day we blindly rush the closest government building or something?
|
|
|
United States15275 Posts
On July 21 2019 03:36 Nebuchad wrote:
No one directly gave the lion's share of power to corporations, but capitalism establishes a capitalist class that has more power than the rest, and says that they should seek to maximize their profit.
1) There's no such thing as a capitalist class within the market unless you mean the bourgeoisie, which suffers from a fragmented identity in the modern-day economy. The old Marxist distinction no longer holds weight due to how technological advancement has changed dissemination and affordability of the means of production.
2) The idea individuals or corporations ought to maximize profit as the foremost goal within a capitalist system became the norm recently. Unsurprisingly both were justified by the first wave of neoliberal theorists. Homo economicus as the darling of rational choice theory gained steam in the late 40's while shareholder theory was pushed by Friedman starting in 1970.
On July 21 2019 03:36 Nebuchad wrote:
Corporations are very profitable, especially as they get closer to establishing monopolies. It's true that I am connecting some dots myself but again, I don't think I'm doing so unfairly - as you said I'm using very general group dynamics.
My point was the distinction between logical and inevitable. For hundreds of years, intellectuals who debated and expounded on the topic didn't entertain the radical notions that define neoliberalism. Such audacity would have violated the adjacent liberal beliefs they also held dear; capitalism had to come with numerous compromises. It took the deterioration of those beliefs (e.g. faith in human reason) to even entertain the idea of constructing a perfect market state. Progressivism became the flip-side of that decay.
On July 21 2019 03:36 Nebuchad wrote:
I can certainly see a bunch of ways that capitalism could have had a different evolution if we change some historical details. Some are worse than what we have today. Most, if not all, go in the same general direction though.
If you read the standard history books, sure. Most of those suffer from 'Whig history' interpretations of the past, positive or negative.
On July 21 2019 03:36 Nebuchad wrote:
Does it matter that trickle-down isn't a coherent theory? I'm not sure why it matters.
Yes. Analogues are not equivalents. It's easy to draw parallels between vague concepts that sound similar, harder with defined belief systems that are specific in their priors and axioms.
For instance, "horse and sparrow" is commonly cited as the precursor to trickle-down economics. Yet besides Galbraith's insistence it was a popular term in the 1890s I can find no elaboration on what the expression specifically meant, how it translated to economic policy, the extent it was public opinion, and when it.was enacted within known administrations. Every reference to it turns out to be a worthless ouroborus dripping with sanctimony as if the association is a fact. There's little evidence supporting a historical tie over a narrative fallacy.
On July 21 2019 05:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Because it's up to all the workers.. If the workers are happy with the direction the company is taking then the leaders stay in power, otherwise they don't. This is not the case in non-worker owned companies, where leaders can instead fire workers. What it boils down to is increased democratization; you give the workers the power to fire the leaders, rather than power to the leaders to fire the workers. I certainly think this is a much better organizational structure for society as a whole, and don't understand the opposition to it in a workplace environment. (I mean I obviously understand that the capitalist class opposes it as it strips them of both wealth and power, but not others. )
The main oversight in your logic is that you assume the worker conglomerate will maintain solidarity indefinitely. Unless they are completely homogeneous in both belief and culture, divisions will arise as groups coalesce according to different values and desires (strata within the groups is guaranteed). It is natural for humans to do this.
|
United States41988 Posts
On July 21 2019 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 00:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:15 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem is human nature so its not something we are going to fix long term until we get rid of the problem.
I for one look forward to our AI overlord.
When we do research looking for the traits people claim to be "human nature" we discover time and again it's mostly learned behavior that can be changed by changing the circumstances/learning. A new set of studies provides compelling data allowing us to analyze human nature not through a philosopher’s kaleidoscope or a TV producer’s camera, but through the clear lens of science. These studies were carried out by a diverse group of researchers from Harvard and Yale—a developmental psychologist with a background in evolutionary game theory, a moral philosopher-turned-psychologist, and a biologist-cum-mathematician—interested in the same essential question: whether our automatic impulse—our first instinct—is to act selfishly or cooperatively. + Show Spoiler +This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought—identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action. With this dual process framework in mind, we can boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior—selfishness or cooperation—is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with rational self-interest?
To answer this question, the researchers first took advantage of a reliable difference between intuition and reflection: intuitive processes operate quickly, whereas reflective processes operate relatively slowly. Whichever behavioral tendency—selfishness or cooperation—predominates when people act quickly is likely to be the intuitive response; it is the response most likely to be aligned with basic human nature.
The experimenters first examined potential links between processing speed, selfishness, and cooperation by using 2 experimental paradigms (the “prisoner’s dilemma” and a “public goods game”), 5 studies, and a tot al of 834 participants gathered from both undergraduate campuses and a nationwide sample. Each paradigm consisted of group-based financial decision-making tasks and required participants to choose between acting selfishly—opting to maximize individual benefits at the cost of the group—or cooperatively—opting to maximize group benefits at the cost of the individual. The results were striking: in every single study, faster—that is, more intuitive—decisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation, whereas slower—that is, more reflective—decisions were associated with higher levels of selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate—that Augustine and Hobbes were wrong, and that we are fundamentally “good” creatures after all. What do you think is more likely? All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. Depends on how literally you mean that? "all of humanity" isn't going to do anything except maybe go extinct, A selfish/corrupt society doesn't develop an AI that isn't also "selfish" and corrupt. Banking on AI seems completely irrational from every angle to me, whereas "all of humanity stops being selfish" isn't happening under any system and capitalism has failed miserably to mitigate that selfishness as we have a handful of people with the majority of the worlds resources leading us straight into catastrophe that threatens the species (granted we're stubborn survivors) so they can be a bit wealthier tomorrow than they were today. So the objection "but there's still selfishness" doesn't make sense to me as damning. My point is that the system you come up with after your revolution is going to suffer from the same problem, that of selfish people exploiting it for themselves at the cost of everyone else. Because its going to be a system run by people and its only a matter of time until those people will be selfish and greedy ones. (and that time is likely going to be immediately). Capitalism has a lot of big flaws and I would love to change it into something better but what reason do I have to stand with you on the barricades to bring it toppling down when the replacement is going to be the same or worse?
If society is going to roll the dice I would want more assurances then a shrug that its going to do something. And in my opinion the answer to that is Artificial Intelligence, less chance of greed, selfishness and corruption (if done properly and with an advanced enough AI, which we don't have yet) That's the issue right there. It's easy to imagine your situation being the same or better under an omniscient AI (that's completely imaginary and practically impossible [you still have your selfish people planning to exploit it from before the day it's first line of code is written]) than it is to imagine your situation the same or better without white club. That's part of the rub, some people will have less material comforts in the short term as a result of no longer being in a non-existent white club and the exploitation and horrific violence it inflicts to maintain itself. Those people have to make a moral/ethical (or at least long term "plant trees you won't sit in the shade of") decisions about which side they are on. On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:40 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Because its only a matter of time until those who want to abuse a system get into a position where they can abuse that system for themselves at the cost of others.
But... that's mostly okay. And the few ways that aren't okay can simply be illegal. But that is pretty much where we are now. And apparently things are not ok. I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system. Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse.
I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. For you because of your comfort and acceptance of the violence it takes to maintain. Some people see concentration camps and starving children in Yemen and think new iPhone's every year just isn't worth it. Or you know, it's them/their children being caged, starved, and bombed. They plead to you, and you respond: "often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case for me now. Things can get a lot worse" For one i'm not so well off that I would lose a lot 'white club' goes away, nor do I have a problem with having less as a result of greater equality. I have a problem with ending up like the USSR, to name a 'fake communist' example, which ends up being worse for Everyone. You think things are terrible and I can understand that but take a look around and see that shit can get a LOT worse. Rather then a high risk of fucking up everything for everyone in a blind revolution I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. No one is arguing for a blind revolution? I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. Band-aids on bullet wounds. Literally leading to existential catastrophe but keeps you comfortable enough (like the parable of the frog in warming water). The incremental line worked before the scientists let the cat out of the bag that your increments are too small and going to get us killed. We're not risking a working system that could use some tweaking, we're "risking" a system that promises catastrophe on a global scale and threatens our very species (and risking your moderately comfortable position within it). Did I miss the conversation where you expanded on how your revolution would work and what systems would be put in place afterwards that lead to a better future? Entirely possible, I don't read everything. Last I saw it was still 'We need to have a revolution, we'll worry about the finer details afterwards', which is, imo, a recipe for disaster. And not just for 'white club'. I don't understand how this confuses people. Once we agree we need a revolution, you stop asking me "how does this work and how do I stay comfortable during it" and start saying "I think the revolution would be aided by" and we exchange and discuss ideas and so forth towards our common goal of liberation. It's not you agree we need a revolution and the next day we blindly rush the closest government building or something?
Honestly I feel like we've pretty much reached the end of the possible discussion here. The problems within the status quo have been agreed upon. The negative peace is preferable to many than the revolutionary unknown. I agree that it's not reasonable to expect you to mastermind the revolutionary unknown and project the most likely outcome, complete with the significant policies, their implementation, and how they impact the population. At the same time it's not reasonable for others to sign up for the revolutionary unknown without any idea what it'll look like.
We all agree that the default sucks. None of us know what the alternative looks like. The choice between the default and the mystery box is meaningless at this point.
|
The main oversight in your logic is that you assume the worker conglomerate will maintain solidarity indefinitely. Unless they are completely homogeneous in both belief and culture, divisions will arise as groups coalesce according to different values and desires (strata within the groups is guaranteed). It is natural for humans to do this.
The issue isn't that it happens but that we don't have adequate defense mechanisms (from what I gather from your argument). You argued capitalism had them (at least in spirit) and they failed. I think what folks like Drone and myself are arguing is that we can develop stronger/more effective ones under a socialist system as opposed to a society oriented by a capitalism.
On July 21 2019 06:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] When we do research looking for the traits people claim to be "human nature" we discover time and again it's mostly learned behavior that can be changed by changing the circumstances/learning. [quote] www.scientificamerican.com What do you think is more likely? All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. Depends on how literally you mean that? "all of humanity" isn't going to do anything except maybe go extinct, A selfish/corrupt society doesn't develop an AI that isn't also "selfish" and corrupt. Banking on AI seems completely irrational from every angle to me, whereas "all of humanity stops being selfish" isn't happening under any system and capitalism has failed miserably to mitigate that selfishness as we have a handful of people with the majority of the worlds resources leading us straight into catastrophe that threatens the species (granted we're stubborn survivors) so they can be a bit wealthier tomorrow than they were today. So the objection "but there's still selfishness" doesn't make sense to me as damning. My point is that the system you come up with after your revolution is going to suffer from the same problem, that of selfish people exploiting it for themselves at the cost of everyone else. Because its going to be a system run by people and its only a matter of time until those people will be selfish and greedy ones. (and that time is likely going to be immediately). Capitalism has a lot of big flaws and I would love to change it into something better but what reason do I have to stand with you on the barricades to bring it toppling down when the replacement is going to be the same or worse?
If society is going to roll the dice I would want more assurances then a shrug that its going to do something. And in my opinion the answer to that is Artificial Intelligence, less chance of greed, selfishness and corruption (if done properly and with an advanced enough AI, which we don't have yet) That's the issue right there. It's easy to imagine your situation being the same or better under an omniscient AI (that's completely imaginary and practically impossible [you still have your selfish people planning to exploit it from before the day it's first line of code is written]) than it is to imagine your situation the same or better without white club. That's part of the rub, some people will have less material comforts in the short term as a result of no longer being in a non-existent white club and the exploitation and horrific violence it inflicts to maintain itself. Those people have to make a moral/ethical (or at least long term "plant trees you won't sit in the shade of") decisions about which side they are on. On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
But... that's mostly okay. And the few ways that aren't okay can simply be illegal. But that is pretty much where we are now. And apparently things are not ok. I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system. Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse.
I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. For you because of your comfort and acceptance of the violence it takes to maintain. Some people see concentration camps and starving children in Yemen and think new iPhone's every year just isn't worth it. Or you know, it's them/their children being caged, starved, and bombed. They plead to you, and you respond: "often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case for me now. Things can get a lot worse" For one i'm not so well off that I would lose a lot 'white club' goes away, nor do I have a problem with having less as a result of greater equality. I have a problem with ending up like the USSR, to name a 'fake communist' example, which ends up being worse for Everyone. You think things are terrible and I can understand that but take a look around and see that shit can get a LOT worse. Rather then a high risk of fucking up everything for everyone in a blind revolution I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. No one is arguing for a blind revolution? I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. Band-aids on bullet wounds. Literally leading to existential catastrophe but keeps you comfortable enough (like the parable of the frog in warming water). The incremental line worked before the scientists let the cat out of the bag that your increments are too small and going to get us killed. We're not risking a working system that could use some tweaking, we're "risking" a system that promises catastrophe on a global scale and threatens our very species (and risking your moderately comfortable position within it). Did I miss the conversation where you expanded on how your revolution would work and what systems would be put in place afterwards that lead to a better future? Entirely possible, I don't read everything. Last I saw it was still 'We need to have a revolution, we'll worry about the finer details afterwards', which is, imo, a recipe for disaster. And not just for 'white club'. I don't understand how this confuses people. Once we agree we need a revolution, you stop asking me "how does this work and how do I stay comfortable during it" and start saying "I think the revolution would be aided by" and we exchange and discuss ideas and so forth towards our common goal of liberation. It's not you agree we need a revolution and the next day we blindly rush the closest government building or something? Honestly I feel like we've pretty much reached the end of the possible discussion here. The problems within the status quo have been agreed upon. The negative peace is preferable to many than the revolutionary unknown. I agree that it's not reasonable to expect you to mastermind the revolutionary unknown and project the most likely outcome, complete with the significant policies, their implementation, and how they impact the population. At the same time it's not reasonable for others to sign up for the revolutionary unknown without any idea what it'll look like. We all agree that the default sucks. None of us know what the alternative looks like. The choice between the default and the mystery box is meaningless at this point.
The fundamental difference is the acceptance of the status quo.
It doesn't have to be a "mystery box", learning about socialist theory defogs some of the mystery as well as articulating your own ideas. I understand the position "it's not my problem, I'm comfortable under this exploitative system and have figured out how to suppress my emotional response to the horrific violence perpetrated to maintain my comfort".
I'm saying "Here's how I'd like the revolution to look" is a better position from every angle.
There's plenty to talk about if it's "how do we make this revolution work?" there's not much to discuss if the position is "revolution is stupid". But that just means we're going to disagree whenever an argument is built on the respective position.
|
On July 21 2019 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 00:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:15 Gorsameth wrote:
The problem is human nature so its not something we are going to fix long term until we get rid of the problem.
I for one look forward to our AI overlord.
When we do research looking for the traits people claim to be "human nature" we discover time and again it's mostly learned behavior that can be changed by changing the circumstances/learning. A new set of studies provides compelling data allowing us to analyze human nature not through a philosopher’s kaleidoscope or a TV producer’s camera, but through the clear lens of science. These studies were carried out by a diverse group of researchers from Harvard and Yale—a developmental psychologist with a background in evolutionary game theory, a moral philosopher-turned-psychologist, and a biologist-cum-mathematician—interested in the same essential question: whether our automatic impulse—our first instinct—is to act selfishly or cooperatively. + Show Spoiler +This focus on first instincts stems from the dual process framework of decision-making, which explains decisions (and behavior) in terms of two mechanisms: intuition and reflection. Intuition is often automatic and effortless, leading to actions that occur without insight into the reasons behind them. Reflection, on the other hand, is all about conscious thought—identifying possible behaviors, weighing the costs and benefits of likely outcomes, and rationally deciding on a course of action. With this dual process framework in mind, we can boil the complexities of basic human nature down to a simple question: which behavior—selfishness or cooperation—is intuitive, and which is the product of rational reflection? In other words, do we cooperate when we overcome our intuitive selfishness with rational self-control, or do we act selfishly when we override our intuitive cooperative impulses with rational self-interest?
To answer this question, the researchers first took advantage of a reliable difference between intuition and reflection: intuitive processes operate quickly, whereas reflective processes operate relatively slowly. Whichever behavioral tendency—selfishness or cooperation—predominates when people act quickly is likely to be the intuitive response; it is the response most likely to be aligned with basic human nature.
The experimenters first examined potential links between processing speed, selfishness, and cooperation by using 2 experimental paradigms (the “prisoner’s dilemma” and a “public goods game”), 5 studies, and a tot al of 834 participants gathered from both undergraduate campuses and a nationwide sample. Each paradigm consisted of group-based financial decision-making tasks and required participants to choose between acting selfishly—opting to maximize individual benefits at the cost of the group—or cooperatively—opting to maximize group benefits at the cost of the individual. The results were striking: in every single study, faster—that is, more intuitive—decisions were associated with higher levels of cooperation, whereas slower—that is, more reflective—decisions were associated with higher levels of selfishness. These results suggest that our first impulse is to cooperate—that Augustine and Hobbes were wrong, and that we are fundamentally “good” creatures after all. What do you think is more likely? All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. Depends on how literally you mean that? "all of humanity" isn't going to do anything except maybe go extinct, A selfish/corrupt society doesn't develop an AI that isn't also "selfish" and corrupt. Banking on AI seems completely irrational from every angle to me, whereas "all of humanity stops being selfish" isn't happening under any system and capitalism has failed miserably to mitigate that selfishness as we have a handful of people with the majority of the worlds resources leading us straight into catastrophe that threatens the species (granted we're stubborn survivors) so they can be a bit wealthier tomorrow than they were today. So the objection "but there's still selfishness" doesn't make sense to me as damning. My point is that the system you come up with after your revolution is going to suffer from the same problem, that of selfish people exploiting it for themselves at the cost of everyone else. Because its going to be a system run by people and its only a matter of time until those people will be selfish and greedy ones. (and that time is likely going to be immediately). Capitalism has a lot of big flaws and I would love to change it into something better but what reason do I have to stand with you on the barricades to bring it toppling down when the replacement is going to be the same or worse?
If society is going to roll the dice I would want more assurances then a shrug that its going to do something. And in my opinion the answer to that is Artificial Intelligence, less chance of greed, selfishness and corruption (if done properly and with an advanced enough AI, which we don't have yet) That's the issue right there. It's easy to imagine your situation being the same or better under an omniscient AI (that's completely imaginary and practically impossible [you still have your selfish people planning to exploit it from before the day it's first line of code is written]) than it is to imagine your situation the same or better without white club. That's part of the rub, some people will have less material comforts in the short term as a result of no longer being in a non-existent white club and the exploitation and horrific violence it inflicts to maintain itself. Those people have to make a moral/ethical (or at least long term "plant trees you won't sit in the shade of") decisions about which side they are on. On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:40 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Because its only a matter of time until those who want to abuse a system get into a position where they can abuse that system for themselves at the cost of others.
But... that's mostly okay. And the few ways that aren't okay can simply be illegal. But that is pretty much where we are now. And apparently things are not ok. I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system. Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse.
I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. For you because of your comfort and acceptance of the violence it takes to maintain. Some people see concentration camps and starving children in Yemen and think new iPhone's every year just isn't worth it. Or you know, it's them/their children being caged, starved, and bombed. They plead to you, and you respond: "often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case for me now. Things can get a lot worse" For one i'm not so well off that I would lose a lot 'white club' goes away, nor do I have a problem with having less as a result of greater equality. I have a problem with ending up like the USSR, to name a 'fake communist' example, which ends up being worse for Everyone. You think things are terrible and I can understand that but take a look around and see that shit can get a LOT worse. Rather then a high risk of fucking up everything for everyone in a blind revolution I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. No one is arguing for a blind revolution? I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. Band-aids on bullet wounds. Literally leading to existential catastrophe but keeps you comfortable enough (like the parable of the frog in warming water). The incremental line worked before the scientists let the cat out of the bag that your increments are too small and going to get us killed. We're not risking a working system that could use some tweaking, we're "risking" a system that promises catastrophe on a global scale and threatens our very species (and risking your moderately comfortable position within it). Did I miss the conversation where you expanded on how your revolution would work and what systems would be put in place afterwards that lead to a better future? Entirely possible, I don't read everything. Last I saw it was still 'We need to have a revolution, we'll worry about the finer details afterwards', which is, imo, a recipe for disaster. And not just for 'white club'. I don't understand how this confuses people. Once we agree we need a revolution, you stop asking me "how does this work and how do I stay comfortable during it" and start saying "I think the revolution would be aided by" and we exchange and discuss ideas and so forth towards our common goal of liberation. It's not you agree we need a revolution and the next day we blindly rush the closest government building or something? But that's the whole thing. We only stop asking "how does this work and how do I stay confortable during it" once we are beyond all hope.
And most, even poor black people, are not in that desperate of a situation. If they were we would be seeing a lot more riots and protests.
Have you ever talked about this in real life? Because I would be shocked if you discussed such things with poor black people in America and they don't ask you "Why should I risk what I have?".
|
On July 21 2019 06:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:27 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] When we do research looking for the traits people claim to be "human nature" we discover time and again it's mostly learned behavior that can be changed by changing the circumstances/learning. [quote] www.scientificamerican.com What do you think is more likely? All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. Depends on how literally you mean that? "all of humanity" isn't going to do anything except maybe go extinct, A selfish/corrupt society doesn't develop an AI that isn't also "selfish" and corrupt. Banking on AI seems completely irrational from every angle to me, whereas "all of humanity stops being selfish" isn't happening under any system and capitalism has failed miserably to mitigate that selfishness as we have a handful of people with the majority of the worlds resources leading us straight into catastrophe that threatens the species (granted we're stubborn survivors) so they can be a bit wealthier tomorrow than they were today. So the objection "but there's still selfishness" doesn't make sense to me as damning. My point is that the system you come up with after your revolution is going to suffer from the same problem, that of selfish people exploiting it for themselves at the cost of everyone else. Because its going to be a system run by people and its only a matter of time until those people will be selfish and greedy ones. (and that time is likely going to be immediately). Capitalism has a lot of big flaws and I would love to change it into something better but what reason do I have to stand with you on the barricades to bring it toppling down when the replacement is going to be the same or worse?
If society is going to roll the dice I would want more assurances then a shrug that its going to do something. And in my opinion the answer to that is Artificial Intelligence, less chance of greed, selfishness and corruption (if done properly and with an advanced enough AI, which we don't have yet) That's the issue right there. It's easy to imagine your situation being the same or better under an omniscient AI (that's completely imaginary and practically impossible [you still have your selfish people planning to exploit it from before the day it's first line of code is written]) than it is to imagine your situation the same or better without white club. That's part of the rub, some people will have less material comforts in the short term as a result of no longer being in a non-existent white club and the exploitation and horrific violence it inflicts to maintain itself. Those people have to make a moral/ethical (or at least long term "plant trees you won't sit in the shade of") decisions about which side they are on. On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
But... that's mostly okay. And the few ways that aren't okay can simply be illegal. But that is pretty much where we are now. And apparently things are not ok. I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system. Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse.
I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. For you because of your comfort and acceptance of the violence it takes to maintain. Some people see concentration camps and starving children in Yemen and think new iPhone's every year just isn't worth it. Or you know, it's them/their children being caged, starved, and bombed. They plead to you, and you respond: "often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case for me now. Things can get a lot worse" For one i'm not so well off that I would lose a lot 'white club' goes away, nor do I have a problem with having less as a result of greater equality. I have a problem with ending up like the USSR, to name a 'fake communist' example, which ends up being worse for Everyone. You think things are terrible and I can understand that but take a look around and see that shit can get a LOT worse. Rather then a high risk of fucking up everything for everyone in a blind revolution I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. No one is arguing for a blind revolution? I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. Band-aids on bullet wounds. Literally leading to existential catastrophe but keeps you comfortable enough (like the parable of the frog in warming water). The incremental line worked before the scientists let the cat out of the bag that your increments are too small and going to get us killed. We're not risking a working system that could use some tweaking, we're "risking" a system that promises catastrophe on a global scale and threatens our very species (and risking your moderately comfortable position within it). Did I miss the conversation where you expanded on how your revolution would work and what systems would be put in place afterwards that lead to a better future? Entirely possible, I don't read everything. Last I saw it was still 'We need to have a revolution, we'll worry about the finer details afterwards', which is, imo, a recipe for disaster. And not just for 'white club'. I don't understand how this confuses people. Once we agree we need a revolution, you stop asking me "how does this work and how do I stay comfortable during it" and start saying "I think the revolution would be aided by" and we exchange and discuss ideas and so forth towards our common goal of liberation. It's not you agree we need a revolution and the next day we blindly rush the closest government building or something? But that's the whole thing. We only stop asking "how does this work and how do I stay confortable during it" once we are beyond all hope. And most, even poor black people, are not in that desperate of a situation. If they were we would be seeing a lot more riots and protests. Have you ever talked about this in real life? Because I would be shocked if you discussed such things with poor black people in America and they don't ask you "Why should I risk what I have?".
First, that's bullshit. The founding fathers were not beyond all hope nor were many of the residents of the American colony. It wasn't slaves (the people actually in that desperate position) that demanded an end to the monarchy's rule over them lol.
You're suggesting a blind revolution must start before we plan?
Yes, and yes I've dealt with that question with others and I obviously had to answer it for myself as well.
|
On July 21 2019 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The main oversight in your logic is that you assume the worker conglomerate will maintain solidarity indefinitely. Unless they are completely homogeneous in both belief and culture, divisions will arise as groups coalesce according to different values and desires (strata within the groups is guaranteed). It is natural for humans to do this. The issue isn't that it happens but that we don't have adequate defense mechanisms (from what I gather from your argument). You argued capitalism had them (at least in spirit) and they failed. I think what folks like Drone and myself are arguing is that we can develop stronger/more effective ones under a socialist system as opposed to a society oriented by a capitalism. Show nested quote +On July 21 2019 06:12 KwarK wrote:On July 21 2019 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:58 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:On July 21 2019 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 21 2019 00:01 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 20 2019 23:34 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]What do you think is more likely?
All of humanity stops being selfish, or we develop an AI advanced enough to govern for us. Depends on how literally you mean that? "all of humanity" isn't going to do anything except maybe go extinct, A selfish/corrupt society doesn't develop an AI that isn't also "selfish" and corrupt. Banking on AI seems completely irrational from every angle to me, whereas "all of humanity stops being selfish" isn't happening under any system and capitalism has failed miserably to mitigate that selfishness as we have a handful of people with the majority of the worlds resources leading us straight into catastrophe that threatens the species (granted we're stubborn survivors) so they can be a bit wealthier tomorrow than they were today. So the objection "but there's still selfishness" doesn't make sense to me as damning. My point is that the system you come up with after your revolution is going to suffer from the same problem, that of selfish people exploiting it for themselves at the cost of everyone else. Because its going to be a system run by people and its only a matter of time until those people will be selfish and greedy ones. (and that time is likely going to be immediately). Capitalism has a lot of big flaws and I would love to change it into something better but what reason do I have to stand with you on the barricades to bring it toppling down when the replacement is going to be the same or worse?
If society is going to roll the dice I would want more assurances then a shrug that its going to do something. And in my opinion the answer to that is Artificial Intelligence, less chance of greed, selfishness and corruption (if done properly and with an advanced enough AI, which we don't have yet) That's the issue right there. It's easy to imagine your situation being the same or better under an omniscient AI (that's completely imaginary and practically impossible [you still have your selfish people planning to exploit it from before the day it's first line of code is written]) than it is to imagine your situation the same or better without white club. That's part of the rub, some people will have less material comforts in the short term as a result of no longer being in a non-existent white club and the exploitation and horrific violence it inflicts to maintain itself. Those people have to make a moral/ethical (or at least long term "plant trees you won't sit in the shade of") decisions about which side they are on. On July 21 2019 00:06 Gorsameth wrote:On July 20 2019 23:56 Nebuchad wrote:On July 20 2019 23:48 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]But that is pretty much where we are now.
And apparently things are not ok.
I perceive your objection to be similar to saying that in order to move from an authoritarian system of government to a democratic system of government (representative democracy), we need to get rid of power hunger in human nature. Otherwise people who are power hungry will try to game the representative system. Like... yeah, it's true, they will, and they have. But we can still establish a representative system without eliminating power hunger, and that's still an improvement over an authoritarian system. Sure but its a risk every time, and often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse.
I don't feel like that is the case now. Things can get a lot worse, and the last few decades have plenty of examples of it, and for most people it's simply not worth taking that risk at the moment. For you because of your comfort and acceptance of the violence it takes to maintain. Some people see concentration camps and starving children in Yemen and think new iPhone's every year just isn't worth it. Or you know, it's them/their children being caged, starved, and bombed. They plead to you, and you respond: "often in the past the situation for people was bad enough that they were willing to take that risk because it couldn't get worse. I don't feel like that is the case for me now. Things can get a lot worse" For one i'm not so well off that I would lose a lot 'white club' goes away, nor do I have a problem with having less as a result of greater equality. I have a problem with ending up like the USSR, to name a 'fake communist' example, which ends up being worse for Everyone. You think things are terrible and I can understand that but take a look around and see that shit can get a LOT worse. Rather then a high risk of fucking up everything for everyone in a blind revolution I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. No one is arguing for a blind revolution? I would much rather work on smaller incremental changes to improve people's lives. Band-aids on bullet wounds. Literally leading to existential catastrophe but keeps you comfortable enough (like the parable of the frog in warming water). The incremental line worked before the scientists let the cat out of the bag that your increments are too small and going to get us killed. We're not risking a working system that could use some tweaking, we're "risking" a system that promises catastrophe on a global scale and threatens our very species (and risking your moderately comfortable position within it). Did I miss the conversation where you expanded on how your revolution would work and what systems would be put in place afterwards that lead to a better future? Entirely possible, I don't read everything. Last I saw it was still 'We need to have a revolution, we'll worry about the finer details afterwards', which is, imo, a recipe for disaster. And not just for 'white club'. I don't understand how this confuses people. Once we agree we need a revolution, you stop asking me "how does this work and how do I stay comfortable during it" and start saying "I think the revolution would be aided by" and we exchange and discuss ideas and so forth towards our common goal of liberation. It's not you agree we need a revolution and the next day we blindly rush the closest government building or something? Honestly I feel like we've pretty much reached the end of the possible discussion here. The problems within the status quo have been agreed upon. The negative peace is preferable to many than the revolutionary unknown. I agree that it's not reasonable to expect you to mastermind the revolutionary unknown and project the most likely outcome, complete with the significant policies, their implementation, and how they impact the population. At the same time it's not reasonable for others to sign up for the revolutionary unknown without any idea what it'll look like. We all agree that the default sucks. None of us know what the alternative looks like. The choice between the default and the mystery box is meaningless at this point. The fundamental difference is the acceptance of the status quo. It doesn't have to be a "mystery box", learning about socialist theory defogs some of the mystery as well as articulating your own ideas. I understand the position "it's not my problem, I'm comfortable under this exploitative system and have figured out how to suppress my emotional response to the horrific violence perpetrated to maintain my comfort". I'm saying "Here's how I'd like the revolution to look" is a better position from every angle. There's plenty to talk about if it's "how do we make this revolution work?" there's not much to discuss if the position is "revolution is stupid". But that just means we're going to disagree whenever an argument is built on the respective position. But socialist theory does nothing to defog the box because there is no reason to believe the box will even be looked at, touched or opened.
Revolution leaves power vacuums, something inevitably fills that vacuum and unless carefully controlled the wrong thing fills that vacuum.
Look at Egypt. Look what happened when well meaning people, probably not unlike yourself, seek to create a better world for themselves without a plan. The wrong people fill the vacuum and it doesn't get better, it gets worse.
How do you look at an America that elected Trump and feel confident that revolution leads to a more socialist society and not a Republican totalitarian state? (my apologies to Republicans, its unfair but an easy picture to paint).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
