beedeebeedee

> I advocate concerning yourself with the things you can control, which do not include this forum’s idiosyncratic moderation style.

I can control my comments, which are a part of this forum's moderation style, and I can advocate in those comments for people to act in good faith, and appeal for help in figuring out how to make it more common.

If we can't discuss important topics in good faith on a nerd website, what hope do we have of discussing them elsewhere? It's not hyperbole anymore to say that if we don't come to some consensus we are going to end up in authoritarianism or war.

It shouldn't be the case that people acting in bad faith can disrupt meaningful discussion between people acting in good faith. I am at a loss to suggest a better forum. Town halls, protests, talking to people on the street, Congress, etc, are not able to have these discussions either.

Maybe this is not the forum, but then what is? A philosophy class you took ten years ago?

> There are no useful discussion to be had on such topics

I think there are useful discussions to be had on these topics, and in fact, we must have those discussions. The issue is that, if we want to do so productively and a comment section is the only venue for us to speak to each other, then we must be extremely patient with others and ourselves and reflect on what they say and what we say (i.e., discuss in good faith).

That burden may be too high for most people, but collectively, we don't have a better forum anymore, and we need to have these discussions and come to consensus before the world is engulfed in authoritarianism or war (which is not hyperbole).

The trump administration is labeling people against fascism as domestic terrorists. Please don’t make this website Reddit with your idiotic views about ‘snowflakes’

> But the time for revolution has long since passed

Oh?

These companies have no decency. Putting ads on a fridge! They’ve already invaded our phones and computers, and almost everywhere else. This needs to stop

It’s not the level of computing we might hope for, but there has been some progress in developing memristors :)

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

Ehhh- if these men really wanted companionship, they could find it. It only takes a little social courage, and accepting others (as they wish to be accepted). They are not being canceled because they don’t play by women’s rules.

The fact is, these men are deeply confused and push away as they pull in.

My suggestion would be to lean into monasticism and not just use the term ‘monk’ as a euphemism for not having female relationships. I don’t think anyone should be a monk long-term, but use it as a transitional period to examine and explore why they are so confused and come to terms with it.

Blaming women for their problems just makes it intractable because their problem is within themselves

Nietzsche is brilliant and the best thing he did was to inspire other people to their own thoughts. That is what was needed then and needed now, and at all times. The article didn't share much insight but glad to see him talked about, if only because it gives us permission to talk about deep things. Everybody should embrace their role as philosopher, take it seriously, and develop themselves- and through that, prompt others to do so as well.

Yes, but it does not provide health care, it provides a subsidy to the health insurance companies (I.e., throwing even more money at lucrative companies that profit by denying coverage). It is sad that it is the best our government can do for us.

Jesus, Socrates, et al, are extreme examples that clearly debunk the comment made above. There are much more mild versions of that everywhere and everyday. Being ‘good’ in no way guarantees you will be loved. In fact, if you have integrity you will probably end up butting heads with people who are ‘not good’, and those folks will likely not hesitate to do underhanded and manipulative things to make you hated by others and not just them. Thankfully that is not everyone, but it is childish to believe that somehow being ‘good’ will make you beloved. If that were the case, being ‘good’ would be the easy choice that everyone makes. It is not.

Yes, and that is one of the reasons our culture has made practices like these taboo- it can give the veneer of respectability to despicable acts

> There’s very little chance that you will be hated by being good

Jesus, Socrates, anyone who stands up against an immoral hierarchy. Rethink your thought

> The kids don't think camping is cool--at all.

That's a sad indictment of the state of our culture. Canping is cool. Being an outdoorsman (or outdoorswoman, etc) is one of the greatest things a human can do.

Essence of dystopia

Hi, all causation can be doubted- that's a key aspect of skepticism, and in general, is important for philosophical development. In this case, it's clear that it is not a substantive objection to these papers or others. It is clear that you have set out this discussion with prior belief and are trying to reject that wealth disparity drives crime. You're not acting in the spirit of skepticism (and only are applying skepticism selectively here, because you think it sounds smart).

Read the papers. Apply your logic evenhandedly. Follow the leads and research on your own. It may be scary- you may discover things that force you to change your life (or you may learn something about yourself you dislike).

Ha, they're creating an explanatory model for why income inequality drives crimes.

That was literally the first article that came up on Google, and you clearly did not read it or go through its references, so here is the second article that came up: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/073401689301800...

There is a huge wealth of research on this topic, even if you want to reject it. Do you need a third, fourth, hundredth paper? Try reading past the abstract (and comprehending it)

There are too many articles on inequality driving crime. Here's the first that popped up on google: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-80897-8

Even just applying basic logic to it suggests it is true. You arguing against it is absurd

Wealth disparity drives crime

I've been beaten, pistol-whipped by a group and had to go to the hospital, had a kid try to knock me out from behind (remember the knock out craze fifteen years ago?), seen people beaten and shot, and had the cops draw their guns on me and threaten to blow my head off on more than one occasion in New Haven (and if you're curious, I'm not a criminal, but was just an adventurous kid who tried to defy the segregation in the city).

As someone like you who has also been the victim of violent crime, I definitely do not want the military patroling any city. I hate violent crime, but that is not the way to solve it, period. It takes community policing and the slow process of raising people out of poverty, desperation and hopelessness, by undoing the damage that has been done to them through decades of economic oppression.

They have a disproportionate amount of influence on public policy. That leads to diverse systemic problems in society, so yes, this impacts low income workers and the overall cost of living in a city, state and country.

Both can be true. Dogmatic legislators get voted into office along party lines, but they are not representative of the actual beliefs of most Texans (they appeal to what a lot of Texans think they should believe, but don't actually when it comes to lived reality). On this issue, the governor is aware that a lot of Texans would be in an uproar if they can no longer buy THC legally. This includes veterans and business owners who are considered special classes by the governor. I deeply dislike Abbott, but on this occasion, I think he did the right thing.

You and the commenter I was responding to are correct that the conditions were disorienting, and he should not have been flying without an instrument rating, but I bristled at the cheap shot.

That's a little too dismissive. Flying in those conditions is deeply disorienting, and you have to have instrument training (and discipline) to safely accomplish it. My dad (also air force pilot, F-104, and later, bush pilot) was flying near Block Island at the same time, and despite his training and experience said it was difficult and disorienting. You need to be rated for instruments and have developed trust in them, despite your senses.

Almost all flight during this stage of development was reckless. It took a long time for us to collectively learn the lessons as pilots, mechanics, engineers, logistics, etc, to make it safe. A great source of reckless piloting stories are from the Alaska bush in the 1920's. People like Eielson and Wilkins managed to land on drift ice and fly from Alaska across the Arctic Ocean to Europe in 1928. A great book to read about this is The Flying North by Jean Potter (1946), which chronicles the Alaska bush pilots from the 1900s to 1940s, when she was stationed in Alaska during WWII.

Hi, you are a long way off from your initial comment that there were no workers revolts in the US in the 19th century. That claim is easily disproven unless you then claim strikes are not workers revolts (which makes discussion with you unproductive if you redefine terms instead of accepting reality-based nuance). Strikes are worker revolts, even if they were not always trying to overturn the whole economy. They could become incredibly violent, especially in the 19th century, when the authorities repressed them. Regardless, these strikes improved the lives and working conditions of countless people and we owe all of their participants gratitude for what they did for us.

Likewise, your claim that China's economy is practically synonomous with free markets is laughable. Yes, they have capital markets and allow entrepeneurship, but it is still one of the most heavily planned economies with the most government intervention in the world.

Drop the "free market" sloganeering and you might touch on reality.

That is not accurate again. Not only did North America have much more available and abundant natural resources than Central America and South America, the immigration to North America was much higher, so there was a more able labor force to cultivate and exploit the land. Your reductionist stance about free markets is misleading. A free market is only one component of why these places prospered, and may be the least important. Civil liberties and political stability, in addition to the natural abundance already mentioned, were probably much more responsible for the prosperity of North America. Likewise, with post-war Asia you miss the mark. For example, you overlook Japan's pre-war industrial development as well as their embrace of defeat after the war to development their economy and civil society. I'm not arguing for planned economies (quite the opposite), but the lack of nuance in your argument means that you miss the mark.

> Unionizing and voting for Saturdays off and the politics of the underdog hardly counts as "warfare".

Yes, the workers' demands were reasonable, but they were met with warfare by the upper class who did not want to accept reasonable demands. The most extreme example is the Battle of Blair Mountain, but there are countless records of strike breakers beating and killing workers for striking and unionizing.

That is not accurate. There were many strikes in the industrial part of the US during the 1800's. That's how working conditions were improved in the mills. The free market would have crushed the working people had they not banded together and revolted to improve safety, reduce working hours, and increase pay.

Wikipedia has articles on the larger actions like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1835_Philadelphia_general_stri...

The rest of the US was primarily agricultural, and did not have major strikes until later, but the improvement in the lives of those people who lived there was not because of free markets. Their lives improved because of the immense natural resources that were literally being given away free to people to cultivate and exploit, after the Native Americans were subjugated and removed.

The previous submission was flagged, despite this article being of great importance for this community. The actions that it reports are being taken by government and corporate interests will affect all industries, markets and citizens.