White supremacy run amok

[Campitor]

Capitalism is useful in lifting up the standard of living through the industrial and technological revolutions. But is it still the most useful system? Is it still increasing the standard of living for the majority or is it now standing in the way and posing more harm than good through factors like pollution? What happens when we run out of nations of poor people with cheap labor to exploit to keep the whole thing running?

People who have maximum/minimum pay will still pollute but now they may even pollute more because everything is free including the inputs (gas/oil/carbon) that turn into smog, C02,etc.

People decide what they want to work on and work on it.

People already have the freedom to decide what they want to work on - Open Developer Mode wouldn't be providing anything new in this regard.

Perhaps something like worker-elected councils of peers could run the business. Or they could have business managers who run things, they just don't get paid disproportionately more for the work, because the work of managers doesn't contribute disproportionately more.

I've managed people - its a lot harder than it looks. I took a cut in pay because the headaches of management wasn't worth the increase in money. And others may take the job because of the power it gives them over people. Different system, same problems.

We're on an ERE forum, for crying out loud. Is payment the only motivation to do something? Look how much effort I'm putting forward in something I chose to put it into. Something meaningful to me. I assure you I'm not being paid for this...

And we're free to spam our ideas as much as we want because Jacob isn't charging us anything to do it - imagine if you had to pay a dollar per word - would you post as much? Now extrapolate that thought to finite resources and free money.

You seem to be arguing also that capitalism is more efficient in producing better products. I don't see how it is inherently so. OTOH, capitalism leads to tremendous waste in resources with two or more competing firms developing nearly identical products, oftentimes leading to one company going under and all their products filling a landmine anyway.

I'm not arguing that its the most efficient but rather the least inefficient. Of course there is waste because us humans are imperfect therefore we're incapable of being 100% efficient regardless the underlying economic system - capitalism just happens to be the best model AT THE MOMENT because of the inherent checks of the market. Two business can create the same product because there is a market for it otherwise it would never happen. The market (a.k.a. the people) decided that two business are needed because they are spending money on the product - it's democracy in action - exchanging your labor (a.k.a. money) on something you deem worthy.

What risk? Is that like the risk the Wall Street banks took in the 2008 crash? Or the risk the auto company execs took when they got bailed out? Or the risks Donald Trump took when all his businesses crashed and burned and he still walked away with billions?

Again, when you make the rules, you don't have risks.

Most business in the USA are small business and can hardly afford to buy politicians therefore they don't make the rules. So yes - most business are taking risks so they deserve a greater reward to incentivize them to start business so they can employ more people. As long as there is government (a necessary evil) there will always be those who benefit to a greater degree via quid-pro-quo deals to corrupt politicians. So the best solution, since Government has no competitors, is to limit the size of government to limit the amount of cronyism that can exist.

If only they all had the capital to do so.

Most businesses are started with borrowed money which requires someone with extra cash to hand it out (someone who has more money than he needs). The business owner put himself at risk by borrowing the money needed to start the business and he is on the hook to repay that money regardless of success or failure therefore he deserves to be compensated for this extra risk.

"Open Developer mode will be more of the same - some guys will rock on Open Developer mode and others wouldn't know what to do with it."

Certainly, but it would also be fair, and the ones who don't rock wouldn't necessarily have to starve.

People aren't starving now (at least in the USA with the 1.3 trillion spent on social welfare) but yet here we are listening to people rant about the white boogie-man and the unfair distribution of wealth. Do you really think that the lack-lust developer is going to be happy when he sees the other guy living a better life because he happens to be more skillful? Envy is the greatest evil on this planet and will not disappear just because we switch to "Open Developer Mode".

[BRUTE]

Capitalism is useful in lifting up the standard of living through the industrial and technological revolutions. But is it still the most useful system?

capitalism is merely allocating resources, time, and attention according to a market based, decentralized pricing system, as opposed to a central plan developed by {soviets,mandarins,the Fuhrer,god}.

if Spartan_Warrior comes up with a better system of allocating resources, there's a Nobel price with his name on it.

[BRUTE]

government (a necessary evil)

citation needed

People aren't starving now (at least in the USA with the 1.3 trillion spent on social welfare) but yet here we are listening to people rant about the white boogie-man and the unfair distribution of wealth.

brute has seen multiple homeless humans with better smartphones than brute owns.

[Spartan_Warrior]

@Campitor:

"People who have maximum/minimum pay will still pollute but now they may even pollute more because everything is free including the inputs (gas/oil/carbon) that turn into smog, C02,etc."

I didn't say everything was free, and don't see why it would be necessary to abolish currency as a store of value, at least not as any kind of immediate step. IMO, certain services like health care, education, internet and utilities, and other essential needs for public health and productivity should be free to individual use, but not necessarily every industrial commodity. Most pollution is from industry and agriculture AFAIK. Sorry, I'm writing in something of a hurry. There are many other ways than pollution that capitalism does harm and misallocates resources. And by pollution I meant more like "overproduction". It was just an example.

"People already have the freedom to decide what they want to work on "

To some extent... although it seems most must choose what they do on the basis of its economic value. For endeavors like art and music, for instance, it's very difficult or impossible for workers of average skill in the field to make a living. But anyway, my point here was that it would be little different from now, actually.

"I've managed people - its a lot harder than it looks. I took a cut in pay because the headaches of management wasn't worth the increase in money. And others may take the job because of the power it gives them over people. Different system, same problems."

Managing people and leading organizations is indeed harder than it looks, but does that role contribute more to finished products than any other? How much more? Twice more? Three times more? 800 times more? Likewise, you avoided it for the headaches, but for the right kind of extrovert, management jobs are fun and rewarding in and of themselves and are what they'd prefer to do. And indeed, while some may take the job because it gives them power, if workplaces were more democratic systems, workers could fire or demote bosses who are only in it for control or otherwise fail miserably at the job. (As opposed to now, when the highest paid workers get golden parachutes when they screw up.)

"And we're free to spam our ideas as much as we want because Jacob isn't charging us anything to do it - imagine if you had to pay a dollar per word - would you post as much? Now extrapolate that thought to finite resources and free money."

Again, internet access should definitely be publicly run and free to all. A privatized internet with everyone paying a dollar per word sounds more like a libertarian thing to me...

"exchanging your labor (a.k.a. money) on something you deem worthy."

What happens as labor becomes increasingly worthless in light of automation and AI? Should the many continue to work harder for less and less, while the few enjoy more and more convenience? What happens as technology brings us to the point of eliminating the majority of jobs requiring human effort at all? Or do you think none of this is likely in the future?

"Most business in the USA are small business and can hardly afford to buy politicians therefore they don't make the rules."

Yes, many of them are skilled craftsman and trade laborers like plumbers and tree cutters and door installers. Instead of being able to collaborate, which is human nature, capitalism forces them into artificial competition against one another, and against huge conglomerates of concentrated capital like Home Depot, which is definitely more powerful than they are.

" So yes - most business are taking risks so they deserve a greater reward to incentivize them to start business so they can employ more people."

But in a system of equal ownership the workers would equally share the risks and liabilities of the business. There is no need to worry about the disproportionate risks of the noble capitalists compared to their workers. They would be one and the same.

"Most businesses are started with borrowed money which requires someone with extra cash to hand it out (someone who has more money than he needs)."

If the average person has to borrow capital from those who already have it, what makes that system preferential at all? I understand how the system of lending works; indeed, it's one of the major mechanisms by which capital reinforces itself and concentrates. We all know the power of compound interest. Lending and its risks by and large wouldn't be necessary if capital weren't distributed in such an undemocratic way in the first place such that "someone who has more money than he needs" is in the position to make even more money off someone who needs it.

"People aren't starving now (at least in the USA with the 1.3 trillion spent on social welfare)"

False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in ... ted_States

"Research from the USDA found that 14.9% of American households were food insecure during at least some of 2011, with 5.7% suffering from very low food security.[3] Journalists and charity workers have reported further increased demand for emergency food aid during 2012 and 2013. The United States produces far more food than it needs for domestic consumption - hunger within the U.S. is caused by some Americans having insufficient money to buy food for themselves or their families. Additional causes of hunger and food insecurity include neighborhood deprivation and agricultural policy"

Emphasis mine. About that "least inefficient distribution of resources" thing...

"Do you really think that the lack-lust developer is going to be happy when he sees the other guy living a better life because he happens to be more skillful? Envy is the greatest evil on this planet and will not disappear just because we switch to "Open Developer Mode"."

Okay, so what are we talking about, here? Back to the root of the thread, what's causing the rise in white supremacy? I thought we had moved toward concluding that it has something to do with white males feeling left behind in society economically. If everything's fine economically, what's the cause?

Is it really just as simple as envy? If so, what are white males envious of toward non-whites? Unless they're Chinese, it can't be their socioeconomic outcomes.

@Brute:

Either a Nobel prize, or suicide by two bullets to the back of the head.

"brute has seen multiple homeless humans with better smartphones than brute owns"

Hey C40, you homeless chap... you got a cell phone?

Smartphones seem pretty essential for connectivity especially without a house to place other belongings. They are also not even expensive. Is the implication that a homeless person should be able to afford a home or food if only they saved that $40/month?

[Campitor]

I didn't say everything was free, and don't see why it would be necessary to abolish currency as a store of value, at least not as any kind of immediate step. IMO, certain services like health care, education, internet and utilities, and other essential needs for public health and productivity should be free to individual use, but not necessarily every industrial commodity. Most pollution is from industry and agriculture AFAIK. Sorry, I'm writing in something of a hurry. There are many other ways than pollution that capitalism does harm and misallocates resources. And by pollution I meant more like "overproduction". It was just an example.

Overproduction is inherent in any system including Open Developer mode, the reason being that humans despite having access to the information needed, or because of lack of any information, will duplicate effort. Give people free money and they will be more likely to continue in duplication of effort because you will have removed the market feedback that would inform them that their labor or goods aren't needed or desired.

To some extent... although it seems most must choose what they do on the basis of its economic value. For endeavors like art and music, for instance, it's very difficult or impossible for workers of average skill in the field to make a living. But anyway, my point here was that it would be little different from now, actually.

Not sure but I think we are in agreement? Regardless the economic system, there will be people who will seek to optimize the benefits and returns allowed. This optimization will lead to disparity. Capitalism provides incentives for those who have optimized resources to share them in exchange for something of value.

Managing people and leading organizations is indeed harder than it looks, but does that role contribute more to finished products than any other? How much more? Twice more? Three times more? 800 times more? Likewise, you avoided it for the headaches, but for the right kind of extrovert, management jobs are fun and rewarding in and of themselves and are what they'd prefer to do. And indeed, while some may take the job because it gives them power, if workplaces were more democratic systems, workers could fire or demote bosses who are only in it for control or otherwise fail miserably at the job. (As opposed to now, when the highest paid workers get golden parachutes when they screw up.)

Managers are a finite resource and in a system of minimum/maximum wages, there would be very little incentives to take the needed but very difficult management roles required to run a very complex society. Your proposed system would leave many rudderless because humans behave very inefficiently and OFTEN want someone of leadership to take over because they lack the desire or ability to do so. My employers have tried to entice me back into management but I refused because the money I would earn wasn't equal to the difficulty of the task. And the difficulty increases as you move up in management. The most difficult and sensitive of management jobs get golden parachutes because the fallout for failure is high - only by offering golden parachutes will people take these types of jobs.

Again, internet access should definitely be publicly run and free to all. A privatized internet with everyone paying a dollar per word sounds more like a libertarian thing to me...

The internet isn't free nor will it ever be because its energy needs and its infrastructure are vast. And you missed the point - my comment wasn't about having a free internet but rather how a service or good that is provided for free will be over utilized because there are no incentives to stop its overuse.

What happens as labor becomes increasingly worthless in light of automation and AI? Should the many continue to work harder for less and less, while the few enjoy more and more convenience? What happens as technology brings us to the point of eliminating the majority of jobs requiring human effort at all? Or do you think none of this is likely in the future?

Do you think that in Open Developer mode that there will not be people trying to invent newer and better automation? Automatiion isn't an effort isolated to Capitalism only. Humans have been trying to automate for centuries, windmills, water wheels, etc. Despite automation, there will be people who will take advantage of automation to enhance their lives, invent newer things, or use automation in ways unforeseen by most of society. Envy will rear its evil head with people hating these creative people and complaining that they should derive benefits from these creative people's effort without having to pay for it or work for it.

Yes, many of them are skilled craftsman and trade laborers like plumbers and tree cutters and door installers. Instead of being able to collaborate, which is human nature, capitalism forces them into artificial competition against one another, and against huge conglomerates of concentrated capital like Home Depot, which is definitely more powerful than they are.

" So yes - most business are taking risks so they deserve a greater reward to incentivize them to start business so they can employ more people."

But in a system of equal ownership the workers would equally share the risks and liabilities of the business. There is no need to worry about the disproportionate risks of the noble capitalists compared to their workers. They would be one and the same.

Capitalism doesn't force them into competition - they chose to compete for the potential to keep most of the profit generated by their activity. Human cooperation is difficult because we all don't agree how things should be done or where efforts need to be expended. Many do collaborate and form corporations or limited partnerships in order to enjoy the benefits of shared labor and capital - employees take advantage of this by offering their labor in exchange for money - employees are still free to leave and start their own business but many don't want to take the risk.

If the average person has to borrow capital from those who already have it, what makes that system preferential at all? I understand how the system of lending works; indeed, it's one of the major mechanisms by which capital reinforces itself and concentrates. We all know the power of compound interest. Lending and its risks by and large wouldn't be necessary if capital weren't distributed in such an undemocratic way in the first place such that "someone who has more money than he needs" is in the position to make even more money off someone who needs it.

Capital needs to concentrate because there are required ventures so complex and so large that only a large amount of available capital can seed its creation. And what makes the system of borrowing capital preferential is it allows people to start business quicker who would otherwise need to wait decades to save the required amount of money.

False. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in ... ted_States

"Research from the USDA found that 14.9% of American households were food insecure during at least some of 2011, with 5.7% suffering from very low food security.[3] Journalists and charity workers have reported further increased demand for emergency food aid during 2012 and 2013. The United States produces far more food than it needs for domestic consumption - hunger within the U.S. is caused by some Americans having insufficient money to buy food for themselves or their families. Additional causes of hunger and food insecurity include neighborhood deprivation and agricultural policy"

Emphasis mine. About that "least inefficient distribution of resources" thing...

I can't comment on this until I've read the underlying sources used in this wiki and the methodology used.

Okay, so what are we talking about, here? Back to the root of the thread, what's causing the rise in white supremacy? I thought we had moved toward concluding that it has something to do with white males feeling left behind in society economically. If everything's fine economically, what's the cause?

Is it really just as simple as envy? If so, what are white males envious of toward non-whites? Unless they're Chinese, it can't be their socioeconomic outcomes.

Envy and fear is the root cause for extremism. The white devil narrative exists because white people in the USA happen to be the biggest group here and are statistically present in most jobs including those at the top. But don't worry - us Hispanics are the fastest growing segment of the US population and pretty soon we will be discussing the Hispanic Devil being the root of socioeconomic imbalance. I believe some have already gotten a head start on this.

Either a Nobel prize, or suicide by two bullets to the back of the head.

Agreed - humans behave suboptimally even when presented with a better choice - this is the root of wars, poverty, envy, and fear.

"brute has seen multiple homeless humans with better smartphones than brute owns"

Hey C40, you homeless chap... you got a cell phone?

Smartphones seem pretty essential for connectivity especially without a house to place other belongings. They are also not even expensive. Is the implication that a homeless person should be able to afford a home or food if only they saved that $40/month?

The implication is that they value a $40 dollar a month device over spending it on something that could help their homelessness (food, clothes, books). Smart phones may be cheap but dumb phones are even cheaper by a large degree - those $40/month could be $10/month. What other suboptimal choices are they making that could be robbing them of the potential to improve their lives incrementally? Thank goodness for the generosity of America and its rich people:

• Americans are world's most charitable, top 1% provide 1/3rd of all donations
• How much do the ultra-rich give to charity?
• Millionaires Give Nine Percent of Income to Charity

[GandK]

Still finding it hilariously ironic how intent everyone here seems to be on bullying me into silence.

But free speech for Nazis, yeah.

Oh, and how dare you oppress me with your political correct demands that I not say anything that make you uncomfortable.

You had that big beautiful post with all your ideas, which was awesome, and then followed it with this.

Asking you what your goal is (I did) and asking you to shut up (I most certainly didn't) are in no way the same thing. And conflating the two, and making accusations like this, does not help dialogue.

The hatred here is nauseating.

[C40]

I second GandK. Messages on internet forums are tricky things. Most of us write more aggressively than we would speak in real life, and then we interpret others' writings as being even more aggressive than they probably meant it or than it reads.

As for the so rude declaration that I'm homeless (Actually, I know you were joking), yesterday I did the following inside my van:
- Cooked two meals using a steamer, fresh vegetables, chicken, butter, oil, and various spices
- Masturbated while watching streaming porn on a laptop
- Make a pret-ty darn nice Latte.

A freakin' latte, man. That's a home.

I do have a nice smartphone, but it was only $60, plus $5 per month for unlimited data (which definitely helps with the porn)

[7Wannabe5]

@C40: ROTFLMAO. Pattern of creation of the hearth. Pattern of creation of the mating sanctuary. Yup, just about covers it.

[Riggerjack]

"Research from the USDA found that 14.9% of American households were food insecure during at least some of 2011, with 5.7% suffering from very low food security.[3] Journalists and charity workers have reported further increased demand for emergency food aid during 2012 and 2013. The United States produces far more food than it needs for domestic consumption - hunger within the U.S. is caused by some Americans having insufficient money to buy food for themselves or their families. Additional causes of hunger and food insecurity include neighborhood deprivation and agricultural policy"

Sounds bad. But, since we have history that includes both socialism, and capitalism, we could check to see how this works in reality.

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

1933 pretty much sucked for everyone. Here in the US, we had soup lines, and 1 out of 4 was unemployed. People were hurting and hungry, so we celebrated by employing new deal policies like destroying crops and prosecuting farmers for growing grain to feed their livestock. Not a good time.

But the Soviets were intentionally starving millions of Ukrainian peasants, to crush any political resistance. Let me say that again. Millions dead. Now this number is disputed. Some say 10 million, others say 2 million, but by any measure, millions of dead. Now, when the bodies of the starving are so common people don't slow down to look, that pretty much mean the many millions more, who lived thru this, were starving too. Just not enough to die from it.

This is the key point: 1932-33 weren't even years of drought, unlike the Soviet famine of 1921-22. It wasn't that this new government hadn't faced this before, starving millions was the goal, not some "unintended consequence".

When Ukrainian Americans gathered to protest in Chicago, American socialists gathered to beat them into submission. These would be the same fine folks who thought Hitler should be on the cover of time magazine, and nominated him for a Nobel Peace prize, up until he turned on Stalin, when these pacifists started screaming for blood. The new York times had a reporter on the scene, who happily wrote lies to deny the famine, he was so besotted with socialism.

I don't understand how anyone can be so in love with an idea that they can blind themselves to the spectacular failures each and ever time it is applied, to the point of wanting to try it again. But socialism seems to have that kind of draw for some people.

So, just a few terms, for your own research, should you be interested in how socialism works in reality:
National socialist party- oddly relevant to this thread.
Cambodia- killing fields- camon rouge
Maoism
Stalinism
Starvation this is a classic. Look at who starved when, and what form of government was currently impressing them.

Now SW likes to point out problems with capitalism. You can judge those for yourself, they aren't hidden anywhere, but let me address his solutions a bit.

In China, 84 percent of the current elite are direct descendants of the pre 1949 elite. http://blog.lareviewofbooks.org/chinabl ... ncorrect/

Class anxiety is rife, since class mobility is surprisingly limited with many of the traditional routes to advancement, such as education, now shut down. Research by the University of Sydney’s David Goodman has found that around 84% of today’s elite are direct descendants of the elite from pre-1949. This suggests that six decades of Communism may not have a dramatic impact upon the elites, who have the advantage of decades of capital accumulation — including economic, cultural and social capital — which have apparently continued to benefit them under the party-state system.

Wow. I wonder what the relationship between our current elite is to the pre1949 elite would be? I don't know. But I haven't heard of a prominent Roosevelt, Carnegie, or Rockefeller in a long time.

Maybe that's just a Chinese thing? Nope:

Access is mostly about cultural capital.

There were times and places where communists waged war on the educated, because the educated were by definition bourgeois. In China during the cultural revolution, or in places like Poland and East Germany after WWII, admission to higher education was effectively restricted to the children of “politically reliable classes”, meaning workers and peasants (if you wondered why urban Chinese parents are so OK with the punishing gaokao system, it’s because however insane and sadistic it seems, it’s better than what came before it).

But in the postwar Soviet Union, things were very different. Because of the purges of the 1930s, a whole class of replacement white-collar functionaries had emerged, loyal to Stalin, and he wanted to reward them. This he did by going entirely the opposite direction to his east European satellite regimes and making access to higher education purely about academic “merit” as measured by exams and the like. The result? By 1952, in a regime with free tuition and universal stipends for students, roughly 80% of students had social origin in the professional classes (i.e. party employees, engineers, scientists, teachers and doctors). The children of workers and farmers, who made up the overwhelming majority of the country’s population, had to make do with just the other 20%.

http://higheredstrategy.com/lessons-fro ... education/

Now you may think I have some kinda commie hatred thing going on, but I actually like and support communism, at the small, family scale, where social pressure can keep it functional. But it doesn't scale. It is a disaster above that scale. Look to the history of intentional communities to verify this. Even dedicated, peaceful, loving people can't make this work for long at the small community scale. And at a national scale, well history has that answer.

Maybe European socialism is the answer? Well, Jacob knows all about this, and has spoken about it. I don't know much directly, and the really negative things I have read didn't seem very balanced, and my goal isn't to spread misinformation. But looking at the way Scandinavian governments have suppressed stories of crime and immigration should tell you something of the values they bring.

Now, I'm a bit nervous about that last paragraph, because this is a white supremacist thread, and earlier I did say some over the top things that may make people think I have a problem with immigrants. Or Islamic immigrants. I don't. My only immigration issue is that it is so goddamn difficult to get here, legally.

I was shocked to find no legal path for me to help someone who was doing work for me to get a green card. I was more shocked to find that my immigration qualifications were limited to being born here, and having family here. If I were born and raised elsewhere, there is no path to legal immigration open to me or people like me. That is my immigration issue.

Now, please, resume where we left off. I've said all i need to about socialism.

[Spartan_Warrior]

@Campitor:

Re: automation

No no, you misunderstand. Automation of labor is good--wonderful! It's also IMO a permanent and accelerating trend, as I believe history shows. I have no interest in and no belief in the possibility of reversing it. The question, then, is how to deal with its effects. So my questions to you were: what happens as automation increases to the point that labor is no longer valued? Right now the bulk of mankind trades labor for money which is used for goods. What happens when the transaction rate between "labor" and "money" approaches 0?

I believe this trend is more causal in what we're seeing playing out than anything else. To get to the TL;DR, the overall actionable goal I would suggest in response to it is democratizing the functions of the workplace and the distribution of corporate profits, with the end goal of creating more equity in who holds the world's capital rather than 5 old white guys having all of it. This would neatly undercut the trends that are actually holding down all people alike and bypass all this identity politics and cross-identity politics bullshit.

A $40/month phone IS something that could help their homelessness. It's one of the single most useful multi-tools for it, actually. I mean, it would be nice if they could carry around a laptop to apply to jobs, look for housing, and communicate with a world insistent on kicking them when they're down, but I can only imagine the gall a laptop would get. And where do they put it?

My point with @C40 was more along the lines of who gets to judge who is homeless? We think it's cool to live in a van down by the river but for most that's synonymous with "homeless". Also what if their phone was also $60 to buy and $5/mo? (Mine was about $120 and $11/mo through Republic Wireless, that's pretty good, C40.) What if they already had a phone before they fell on hard times? Most importantly, who even cares and how does it affect you?

Coincidentally, on this note, didn't C40 say something earlier about white supremacists disproportionately targeting the homeless? Why is that?

"What other suboptimal choices are they making that could be robbing them of the potential to improve their lives incrementally?"

Why do we need to punish people for wanting nice things that everyone else has?

This reminds me of a Fox News article I saw making light of American poverty by saying 90% (or whatever) of houses at the poverty line have refrigerators. Like, wow. How dare they. Now granted of course that's better than some third world countries--some of whom are third world because they're exploited for ridiculously low wages by imperialism and capitalist enterprise--but so what? Is that the best comparison we can make?

Is what really galls privileged people the sight of seeing the less privileged recover ground or have anything at all? I'm starting to think it must be part of it if not the essential crux of it. Crabs in bucket mentality.


@GandK:

I don't know that I "hate", but I'm definitely "angry". Not only with the stupid kids waving their swastikas and invading towns with terrorist-levels of activity, but with those who provide subtle cover for their extremism and/or validation to their faulty views.

As a determinist I recognize their actions as being essentially determined due to causal factors outside their control. That doesn't mean I can absolve them of the equally causally necessary consequences of their own actions, including my own rational need for self-defense. Ignorance and pitifulness simply do not absolve them of the consequences of espousing genocide as a solution to their loserdom and taking to the streets in armed militias to rally for it. Sorry, threatened people will respond in kind.

It seems like a subtle form of gas-lighting and victim-blaming to suggest that this justified response is morally and functionally equivalent to the irrational hatred of the very same white supremacists and fascists advocating for my death. It equates the hurt and anger at injustices that marginalized people face to the bigotry and abuse of their oppressors. It is in some ways the equivalent of blaming a rape victim for her rape. "What's she angry about? It's her own fault. She wanted to dress that way."

I apologize if I read into your and others' intent, but the subtext I read in, "What is the point of this thread?" is: "We don't want to hear about this. This is unworthy of discussion here. Stay in your lane."

Marginalized people have never heard that before! And in a context in which others are defending the rights of actual Nazis to free speech, yeah, I think I'm well within my rights in pointing out that is a little ironic, and a little hypocritical.

It is indeed all fun and games and pleasantries when we're sitting here debating about libertarianism versus socialism, but the original topic is serious and pressing business to many of us. So I do become indignant when I read subtext like that. Again, I apologize if that's all on me and I misread the intent. I did ask Olaz to clarify what he meant.

Libertarianism versus socialism isn't even relevant to the discussion except to the extent that I think socialist economic solutions could do a great deal to create more equity for all, ameliorating the real structural problems affecting the white people most prone to go to fascism.

But frankly, you shouldn't have to be a "radical leftist" or a "socialist" in order to vehemently oppose actual Nazis and recognize a difference between opposing them and being them. You just have to be left of Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, John McCain, and pretty much every neoconservative and libertarian-style Republican. If you're further right than that, where does that put you? Welcome to the alt-right at a minimum.

My great grandfather wasn't a socialist, either, as far as I know. Most would call him an American patriot and war hero. He didn't punch Nazis, he shot them.

You don't have to go out and fight Nazis or get beaten by cops to be "on our side". You just have to stop covering for them! Enough with the "both sides" bullshit and the "hate is hate" gas-lighting of rational anger in self-defense to actual threats. Enough with the justifying of dangerously false persecution complexes because some liberal "SJW" made you uncomfortable (90% of "political correctness" complaints). It is not the same.

This article and the video/interview are good takes on the subject: http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/what-i ... index.html

I find the gas-lighting very frustrating. The "accuse your enemy of that which you are guilty of" tactic.

As a result of society becoming more socially progressive, white males have lost some tiny amounts of their old privilege, among which included the ability to get away with being douchebags to non-white males without social consequences resulting in hurt feelings and stigma. ("What do you mean I can't say that? Damn liberals and their political correctness!")

Political correctness or "anti-white male bias" does not significantly contribute to any systemic oppression of white males. It is economic factors holding down the young Sad Pepes. They are not being held down by tiny gains in social rights by non-white males, including political correctness.

But who cares? They can just say in all seriousness, "It doesn't matter if this persecution that's being used to justify genocide is even real or not. You pointing out the facts of the matter just drives us further to the right because they're facts we don't like and we feel persecuted damn it. In fact it's your fault we're going off the deep end into crazy genocide over here. Oh, and you're defending yourselves from that genocide? And with violence? Man, you're the real fascists, huh?"

What the hell kind of post-factual bullshit even is this? The "victim mentality" at play is truly astounding in its hypocrisy.

And trying to talk it through doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. Again, how can I reason with a world where facts and reality don't matter and anyone "yelling" about them is the singular factor driving fascists toward fascism?

It all seems as circular as going down a drain. Besides, there's one of me and all of you. I'm exhausted.

[BRUTE]

that seems a bit like a false dichotomy. brute will try to back up a bit:

1)brute agrees that it's mostly not the fault of systemic oppression that young pepes are sad
2)brute does believe that blanket-targeting and blaming white males will lead these sad pepes to seek refuge in white identity etc.
3)brute does NOT believe that means they're morally justified

if this were a fire, and Spartan_Warrior tried to put it out with gasoline, brute would say "hey, that's a bad idea maybe". that doesn't mean brute likes the fire, believes the fire is morally justified, and wants it to win. just that the strategy of pouring gas on it is making it worse. now brute doesn't have a super amazing and detailed plan for fighting the fire, but he has the vague feeling that stopping to pour gasoline on it might be a good start.

[Spartan_Warrior]

See, you can claim violent reactions aren't the best course, and there may be validity to that. It's the implications from the likes of Trump, libertarian "Sargon of Akkad", and seemingly many here, that "both sides" are morally equivalent and that both want violence--these are the claims that are galling, spurious and strawman-like. It also slides far too easily into the meme that anti-fascists are actually the cause for the rise of fascists, which is backward on the face of it, never mind the contradictions I've described in such a belief.

It strikes me as the same kind of eagerness to displace culpability that I see when people blame everyone but Trump voters for Trump.

@7Wannabe5 definitely may have been onto something about "authority versus responsibility." These people seem to have a thing for shedding responsibility.

Incidentally, the mostly decentralized, bottom-up, workplace-focused socialist solutions I suggested would seem to lend toward giving them (and everyone else in the 99%) both more authority over their lives and less responsibility when it comes to securing their economic outcomes.

[GandK]

@7Wannabe5 definitely may have been onto something about "authority versus responsibility." These people seem to have a thing for shedding responsibility.

That's endemic lately, on both sides.

If one believes Neil Howe, then this [desire for a central authority to Fix It, whatever It is] is normal Fourth Turning stuff.

[Jean]

Sw, you ask why white are asking for rights. That because of dicourses like yours innundating our society. Being constantly guilted for thing you haven't done, never profited from, and maybe even suffered from. Being called a kkk or nazi every day when you aren't. It just makes you want to become one. Your ideology is responsible for millions of death, and thanks to the free speech you enjoy, more people are seeing this and organizing against it.

[bryan]

As for the so rude declaration that I'm homeless (Actually, I know you were joking), yesterday I did the following inside my van:
...
- Masturbated while watching streaming porn on a laptop
...
I do have a nice smartphone, but it was only $60, plus $5 per month for unlimited data (which definitely helps with the porn)

Man.. that's living! lol. I didn't have an unlimited plan, so I started getting into erotic fiction..

Now you may think I have some kinda commie hatred thing going on, but I actually like and support communism, at the small, family scale, where social pressure can keep it functional. But it doesn't scale. It is a disaster above that scale. Look to the history of intentional communities to verify this. Even dedicated, peaceful, loving people can't make this work for long at the small community scale. And at a national scale, well history has that answer.

Maybe European socialism is the answer? Well, Jacob knows all about this, and has spoken about it. I don't know much directly, and the really negative things I have read didn't seem very balanced, and my goal isn't to spread misinformation. But looking at the way Scandinavian governments have suppressed stories of crime and immigration should tell you something of the values they bring.

The one thing I wonder about in regards to scaling.. we have some great technology now! If an organization wanted to, they could create some scheme like direct democracy voting (with people not voting being able to allow some proxy to vote for them or losing their vote to some entity determined by some policy) with some additional checks and balances (maybe this direct voting replaces the Senate?). Worth exploring..

From travelling in Europe, I got the perception that the American way of life and system is preferable, for the most part. Most Europeans I spoke to agree (except for healthcare, guns). I know this is a pretty worthless observation to share.. but it's mine, fwiw.

Being called a kkk or nazi every day when you aren't. It just makes you want to become one.

Really though? I would agree that it causes divisiveness, resentment, etc e.g. you had some pretty reasonable people become activated against the harassive SJWs by way of meme wars or social media comments or hyperbolic comments elsewhere (e.g. 4chan), etc. I would be surprised if they actually became kkk/nazi (more likely they just became anti-PC, which one could argue is the wrong general direction to be pushed).

See, you can claim violent reactions aren't the best course, and there may be validity to that. It's the implications from the likes of Trump, libertarian "Sargon of Akkad", and seemingly many here, that "both sides" are morally equivalent and that both want violence--these are the claims that are galling, spurious and strawman-like.

There is truth to it.. For instance it seems like Antifa/Anarchists generally want to overthrow American society or the powers that be; kind of like how BRUTE wouldn't mind the whole system burning (regardless of the pain that would be suffered by millions of humans). Trump coming to power has been an opportunity for both sides to get their ends. I wouldn't be surprised to see some "Antifa" getting into the alt-right and causing some shit (e.g. throwing a grenade at peaceful anti-nazi protesters) to further their cause; just like I wouldn't be surprised if the Antifa that have caused some violence in the past were actually alt-right persons in disguise.

[Campitor]

So my questions to you were: what happens as automation increases to the point that labor is no longer valued? Right now the bulk of mankind trades labor for money which is used for goods. What happens when the transaction rate between "labor" and "money" approaches 0?

Intellectual capital will replace labor for money. The talented and creative will use the automation and the resulting min/max salary to optimize their lifestyle beyond what other people are willing or able to do. They will use this automation to create new automation that will be desired by others. At this point others will either try to buy this new benefit or barter for it - since not everyone will be able to buy it or barter for it, this will give rise to a new set of "elites" that most will vilify as greedy all because these creative people had the intelligence to use existing inputs to their advantage.

There will be some people who will buy the Sexatron-2000 and sit around having robot sex all day and there will be others who will buy the Energon-2000 to create batteries which they will chain together to collect solar energy which will allow them to enjoy "free" energy and maybe have some left over to sell to their neighbors. Now Mr Sexatron will wonder how Mr Energon can afford to buy more stuff with his min/max salary and start to envy his neighbor's increased efficiency and better utilization of resources - then he will mistakenly believe that somehow Mr Energon has stolen wealth or accumulated it immorally.

[Jean]

Not becomming one, but laughing at being called one and stop listening to the people who called you one and don't minding being associated with them. Sw decided that those people were all nazis. This shouldn't be believed without proof.
And yes, advocating the use of violence to silence people, should be a fringe position. It is per definition not protected by free speech, and it is as bad as nazism.

[Spartan_Warrior]

https://medium.com/@harterhealing/how-a ... fb68da7e97

Uh-oh, more PC run amok, advocating confronting racists on their racism. Guess they'll all have to become Nazis now. The poor snowflakes.

[BRUTE]

brute doesn't think that PC makes The Deplorables into actual nazis or klansmen. at least not very many. but it can move the Overton window (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window), and shift averages in more vaguely defined groups, e.g. alt-right.

there was a long discussion about what the alt-right even is on this forum, a few months back. it might've been in the Trump thread. brute, never having investigated it much, had previously been under the belief that alt-right were just 4chan trolls that spewed frog memes and yelled right-wing stuff because it got attention. a few links posted back then showed that some of the (apparent) founders of the alt-right were explicit nazis and white nationalists, and, to brute's surprise, also overt anti-semites.

not sure if this happens as part of some humans' explicit plans or just accidentally, but it seems that about 95% of the alt-right are angry trolls that like attention, pepe memes, and are angry at SJWs. 5% of the alt-right are actual white supremacists.

all players of this game profit from the confusion:
- the white supremacists can boast that they now have millions of followers instead of hundreds or thousands
- the trolls and anti-SJWs have the ultimate triggering and troll topic, nazi symbolism
- the SJWs have their imaginary enemy white supremacy uprising, which enables them to be triggered & outraged 24/7
- media loves spectacles and conflict anyway

in reality, though, brute suspects that the trolly/anti-PC humans are very different from the actual nazi/KKK humans.

what excessive PC does is shove the average of humans from the "reasonable/centrist" position into the 95% of "troll-right".

one PC tactic is also to move the Overton window to their side. Spartan_Warrior uses this tactic a lot on here - anything but his position is "nazi sympathizer". (for fairness, some on the right use the same tactic: anyone on the left is now antifa).

the whole thing has the effect of both polarizing humans, and also making them appear even more polarized than they actually are.

the terrible beliefs held by <5% and terrible deeds done by <0.1% of one group {alt-right,"the Left(tm)"} are now attributed to the entire vague group.

[edit]

re-reading his post, brute realized this strategy is used to the letter by The Right (tm) with muslims. 11 muslims flew a plane into a building? 1.5 billion muslims must want to do it.

just as excessive PC probably mostly moves the average, and pushes a few individuals over at the margin, the same is likely happening with US foreign policy and terrorist blowback.

[Riggerjack]

Well, first, the way in which we speak, disagree, and call each other on our individual BS here, is not the norm in society or the internet. As a group of rationals, for the most part, life here really is different.

I want to thank you all.

I would also like to apologize to anyone offended by by earlier posts.

And now back to the less sensitive commentary you have come to expect from me...

I just reread this whole thread, looking for the contentious bs that had riled me up, previously. Um... I turns out it wasn't there. It wasn't what was said that got to me, but rather what I read into it that was the problem. So thank you for putting up with my over the top posting, I will try to do better in the future. In particular, thanks to C40 for his efforts to ensure a modicum of respect was maintained.

The one thing I wonder about in regards to scaling.. we have some great technology now! If an organization wanted to, they could create some scheme like direct democracy voting (with people not voting being able to allow some proxy to vote for them or losing their vote to some entity determined by some policy) with some additional checks and balances (maybe this direct voting replaces the Senate?). Worth exploring.

Well, honestly, I doubt direct democracy would change much. The average voter today, doesn't vote. And the more people i come to know, the less I trust their judgement collectively. I mean, look who we voted into the WH FFS.

If I were going for a big structural change in government, it would be to go more toward the Swiss model of local power and authority, and strip the central power from the federal government. I know that life is different in Kentucky than California, I don't mind the government reflecting this. If you want something different, move to another state. We all have different values and ideals, more variety in government would allow a closer fit for each of us. Plus, enacting change when you are dissatisfied with the current system is easier at a smaller level.
This leads to less of an empire kind of outlook, and more of a local confederacy kind of outlook. I believe this is the Swiss secret to not having these recreational wars we seem to be always in, or on the cusp of...