Will AIPAC similarly be charged?
125 karma · joined October 23, 2017
All humane social institutions rely on the ethical behavior of participants. On the public side, for example, you can only have a welfare state if your average citizen will only use it in an emergency.
As solidarity dissolves in the modern international and multi-cultural capitalist system, circles of social trust will shrink, so small things like this will continue to be optimized out of existence.
Rewrite the headline: "When did teaching become Harpytopia".
EDIT: removed link due to questions about author's truthfulness
http://www.unz.com/runz/the-myth-of-american-meritocracy/
Somewhat humorously, if you buy unz's numbers, non-jewish whites are actually the most underrepresented group in nearly all elite universities.
Meanwhile, of course, AIPAC continues to spend millions of dollars per year to directly influence US elections, drawing no such scrutiny.
I don't like the careless negativity about non-european people that you see on the alt-right, but I see much more casual negativity towards europeans on the left that goes uncommented on. Broadly I'm coming to agree with Greg Johnson: the best way for peoples to get along is for each people to have their own sovereign country, and I don't think that has to come from a place of viciousness. I view european people the same as I view the japanese, israelis or nigerians: they deserve their own countries and spaces to live the way they see fit.
We are very lucky to have Jordan Peterson, one of those very few people, to speak for free speech.
Peaceful separation is my hope. But it is a faint hope.
I no longer think it is possible to engage in dialog with people who think dialog is not possible. The punch-a-nazi meme, its acceptance across my social circles (including HN), the our-violence-is-speech-their-speech-is-violence talking points, etc. have pushed me to some very shocking and depressing conclusions.
“We also only tested these theories on adults, so more work is needed to understand whether a different effect is evident in children players.”
I would prefer that families provide these services (and, therefore, the state focus on the formation of strong families). The market is too brutal for most of this work and the state, in addition to general incompetence, lacks the moral authority to do so, especially when hard decisions must be made (e.g. when homelessness is driven by mental illness.)
Pay a stable, living wage to build strong families, allowing one person to stay at home and provide for the domestic economy in a sphere they have natural authority in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
It's also worth noting that there is a narrative (as with most historical narratives, difficult to prove or disprove) that the national socialists created an economic miracle in Germany by guaranteeing pay for any and all labor.
It seems more fair to me if I bear the burden of my moral framework, given the proposed determinism.
The idea of aborting a baby due to their likely sexuality is as horrifying to me as sex-selective abortion. I don't view this as a quandry whatsoever.
The danger is that people start to believe them.
And he doesn't discuss the way that wealth has been confiscated in America, financialization, because he and his friends benefit tremendously from it.
I'm with Peterson: clean up your own room first.
The cynic in me says this is because the financial elites are comfortable with either option.
Just right.
Genetics do matter. Adult intelligence appears to be somewhere between 50 and 80% determined by genetics. Thus we should expect over time in a meritocracy for smart kids to come from the same families. This is compounded by assortative mating by IQ, which has become far more widespread in the last forty years. So things are going to look nepotistic (and they always will be to some extent, see my second point below) when, in fact, this is a natural phenomena.
So, what? Just let the people who lose the genetic lottery rot? No. Instead, we might want to focus on having a more balanced economy where, rather than everyone striving to become part of the elite, a working class person can have a perfectly reasonable life. Jordan Peterson discusses this problem in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjs2gPa5sD0
Secondly, it is not immoral for parents to make large investments in their own children's lives. This behavior is no doubt somewhat driven by genetics (nearly everything appears to be at least 40% genetic) but it is also a learned behavior. Government programs that replace parental investment have been catastrophic for minorities in the united states: for example 73% of non-hispanic blacks are born out of wedlock. So delegating parental investment in children to the state, in the name of ending nepotism, may have some very detrimental effects that are difficult to predict.
All of this is to add context and suggest a different solution: making middle class non-elite life paths more attractive, not to deny that there is a problem.
I must admit that I have a more pastoral and conflict-adverse personality, so the idea of New York as an ideal is difficult for me to comprehend. I'm OK with that: there are obviously many people to whom this idea is obvious as well. My long term conclusion is we should allow these types of folks to separate and establish different political units that satisfy these needs: some of these could be relatively ethnically homogeneous, some less so. I would expect, but am willing to admit this is speculation, that you would find higher trust and cross-class identity in the more homogeneous political units.
I appreciate you taking the time to thoughtfully reply to my comments.