The Political & Philosophy Thread

[HamburgerBoy]

Can you touch inflation? Can you taste it? Can you draw me a picture of it? Ooh, ooh, can you express it in musical notes? Oh that's right, you need to show me a fucking graph.

abstract
adj.
Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
adj.
Not applied or practical; theoretical. See Synonyms at theoretical.
adj.
Difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems.

Inflation definitely falls under those last two definitions, and quite arguably the first one. In any case, nice deflection unless you want to explain how microeconomic forces are concrete by whatever retarded metric you're using. And thanks for the lack of an economic textbook, you illiterate.

Microeconomics deals in individual behavior. It's tactile, it's intimate, it describes people's actions in immediate economic scenarios. Macroeconomics describes the effects and dynamics that emerge on a complex level. That's what's known as abstraction. There, you learned a new word.

And there is an ideological division between them. It has to do with how one conceives of economics perspectivally--i.e. pertaining to an individual's behavior, or pertaining to the emergent effects of complex systems. Those views entail very different values.

lmfao. So individual demand for a given good isn't an abstract concept, but national demand for a given currency is? You're a total fucking moron. You've dropped far below the title of pseud to the rank of ignoramus.

There is no ideological division. No credible economist pretends only one of the two exists, just as no credible physicist pretends that only classical or nuclear physics exists. There is not a single notable conservative politician, not any sitting US senator or congressman, not any conservative appointee to an economic post, that you can name that holds such views. Prove me wrong. Even Ron Fucking Paul and all the Austrians in the world don't downplay the relevance of macroeconomics; just look at the Petrodollar theory, for one. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. This is the most profoundly ignorant statement I've ever seen on this forum. It'd be like saying there's an ideological divide between cognitivists and parents because parents believe in the intimacy of teaching their children. You cherry picked a couple words that happened to be shared between a couple of unrelated concepts (microeconomics and individualist politics) and then invented some kind of ideological divide. Absolutely fucking retarded.

They're not dictating the existence of free markets. This is kinda like playing whackamole.

So what are they doing?

Aw, you're cute with your little paraphrases. It's almost like you're not just a moderately evolved bot on the other side of a Turing Test.

I'm not going to keep telling you how you've misunderstood me, because you'll just keep accusing me of talking about theory; but that's what I'm trying to do. And if I'm trying to talk about theory and you keep refusing to do so, then we're not really having a discussion. It's just you whining because you're not getting your way.

You're not talking about theory. You're like a Marxist that thinks he's being clever when he informs the theory-ignorant capitalist on the theoretical difference between private property and personal property. You're playing word games, but unlike many Marxists, you don't even know the definitions of the words you use.

 

[Einherjar86]

Regulations may or may not sanction voluntary transaction. That doesn't render it null and void in the absence of regulation. I'd love to see you walk the dog on that line of thinking though.

In our current historical situation, regulation always sanctions voluntarism. There could hypothetically be situations in which people engage in voluntary exchanges with no regulation; but in those cases, it wouldn't make sense to talk about regulation anyway.

Mostly true, but that's a complete aside.

Not to me...

Deporting legal immigrants is a poor move, but a fraction of the total immigration issue. I can't really respond to the rest of it because it doesn't correspond to the language I've used whatsoever. There are select very valuable legal immigrants. There are however many illegal immigrants and legal immigrants who have little and/or varying value immigrants. Securing the southern border is stopping illegal immigration of low value illegal immigrants.

They're not of low value if they're being hired...

"Protections" are just another word for "rights", and rights are simply promises of the use of force towards certain ends. So what rights an illegal immigrant has in the US a simply a matter of US law.

Not true though, it's also a matter of international law.

Why should they move? You and many others support paying them to stay put and do nothing.

I support paying them to stay put? I've said before that one of the problems is that people aren't willing to move! I'd support poor American citizens if they wanted to move for work. But I also support doing what we can help them survive if they can't move.

Mostly a quibble but: Micro-economics may describe individual behavior, but it's still abstract, and inflation can occur on a micro-level.

I would argue that abstractions dominate, in fact; but my point is still that economics--especially macroeconomics--is largely abstract.

Data shows a surprising campus free speech problem: left-wingers being fired for their opinions.

10 people are on an island, 9 are left-wing, 1 is right-wing. 2 left-wingers are censored and 1 right-winger is censored. "The left are victims of censorship more than the right is."

I think the more important point is that faculty of both persuasions (left and right) are being targeted. And the article is correct that most "anti-right" demonstrations are typically directed at the same group of people.

You've dropped far below the title of pseud to the rank of ignoramus.

Just trying to find your level. You're bouncing around somewhere in the Unthinking Depths.

 

[CiG]

I think the more important point is that faculty of both persuasions (left and right) are being targeted.

Yes but most right-wingers and centrists that bang on about free speech all day long already know that this is the case. That left-wing people like Camille Paglia, Christine Hoff-Sommers, Germaine Greer, Julie Bindel etc get no-platformed/silenced.

But the left, buttressed by slanted articles like that one from Vox, dismiss the right when they bring up free speech by saying "it's just fascists who get censored anyway and AKTUALLEE the left are the true victims of censorship."

The right and centrists basically say: there's a general censorship problem.
The left basically says: there's a problem with censorship but one side deserve it so whatevs.

 

[Einherjar86]

The right and centrists basically say: there's a general censorship problem.
The left basically says: there's a problem with censorship but one side deserve it so whatevs.

Well, when it comes to certain venues, only some people do deserve a platform. Our culture has an unhealthy obsession with something like absolute free speech, and we've extended this to college campuses. So now clowns like Milo Y. can get a platform when he has no real substance to share or credentials.

It's too bad that people with real credentials and knowledge like Paglia, or Jordan Peterson for that matter, risk being shut down. But at the same time, these people reach much wider audiences via the internet. There isn't really a censorship problem, since in this day and age literally (almost) anyone can say anything by logging onto a forum, or publishing an op-ed in Breitbart or Salon.

I don't believe that people getting up in arms over speech is actually censorship, since (afaik) everyone knows what most of these people would say, or have to say, anyway. We live in an era of largely open and unregulated information, and it's great. Of course, it also means we run the risk of less privacy.

 

[CiG]

People on all sides of the political spectrum are clamoring to restrict the Internet and there's never been a time when free speech hasn't been at some kind of risk, so I don't really share your "meh there's no real problem to worry about mentality."

I posted some data just the other day that showed that around 70% and higher of all self-identifying Republicans would be okay with the POTUS having the power to shut down media organizations behaving badly, whatever that means. It's slightly confusing though because the same findings show that half of that 70+% wouldn't want Trump to shut down CNN and a few other companies that Trump targets the most, but still - there's never a moment IMO when it isn't under fire.

It's just that most on the left don't view "hate speech" laws and "don't say mean words" policies as an attack on free speech, let's be honest here. The days are basically over when free speech was a strong left-wing principle because gone are the days in the west when right-wing/religious morality was a threat to freedom of speech via blasphemy laws etc.

Also, saying "you're not being censored because you have these other platforms" is a basicbitch point to make and that's not really how censorship is defined. After all, if you're completely censored online you still have the printing press bruh.

 

[Einherjar86]

People on all sides of the political spectrum are clamoring to restrict the Internet and there's never been a time when free speech hasn't been at some kind of risk, so I don't really share your "meh there's no real problem to worry about mentality."

This is true, I acknowledge. I shouldn't have said there's no real problem; I only mean there's less of a problem than free speech enthusiasts claim.

As far as net neutrality goes, it's going to be censorship by corporate interests.

It's just that most on the left don't view "hate speech" laws and "don't say mean words" policies as an attack on free speech, let's be honest here. The days are basically over when free speech was a strong left-wing principle because gone are the days in the west when right-wing/religious morality was a threat to freedom of speech via blasphemy laws etc.

Well, we live in a moment when people are rightfully questioning the nuances and complexities of what "free speech" means. It's not black and white and it can lead to some fairly confusing scenarios. For instance, racial slurs arouse a greater degree of discomfort and suspicion (and those are euphemisms--they can arouse anxiety and real fear) in their targets, and it's completely rational for a person of color to be physically threatened in the presence of hate speech. It's worth considering what kinds of speech are socially acceptable and taking measures to regulate it.

Obviously, this leads to terrors in the other direction, i.e. that speech becomes severely, incommensurately limited. There needs to be a discourse about language, which is where we are now, despite legal actions being taken. Hopefully this is a perpetual state and not a short-lived period.

Also, saying "you're not being censored because you have these other platforms" is a basicbitch point to make and that's not really how censorship is defined. After all, if you're completely censored online you still have the printing press bruh.

Just like certain people are qualified or certified to perform particular tasks, so should speakers--especially on college campuses--have some kind of credentials. It shouldn't just be open to anyone who happens to garner an online following.

 

[CiG]

As far as net neutrality goes, it's going to be censorship by corporate interests.

Not necessarily, there have been many instances of corporations teaming with governments in order to restrict the Internet in different ways. But at the same time, as someone from a country without a written constitution which enshrines basic rights like free speech, I don't shrug off my worries because the corporations are doing it. That makes me worried just as much as state censorship in some cases. As Trump told us all, he knows how politicians operate because he has bribed his fair share of them throughout his career.

Larger U.S.-based social media organizations and their constant co-mingling with foreign governments is pretty fucking worrying alone.

Well, we live in a moment when people are rightfully questioning the nuances and complexities of what "free speech" means. It's not black and white and it can lead to some fairly confusing scenarios. For instance, racial slurs arouse a greater degree of discomfort and suspicion (and those are euphemisms--they can arouse anxiety and real fear) in their targets, and it's completely rational for a person of color to be physically threatened in the presence of hate speech. It's worth considering what kinds of speech are socially acceptable and taking measures to regulate it.

I was corrected here by someone, I forget who, when I once said that people are getting away with anti-white slurs in places where they have hate speech laws. There are basically just as many reports on anti-white hate speech as any other race, so hate speech laws aren't a speech restriction just for minorities to think about, unless they're okay with never saying anything about white people.

Either way, I'm opposed 100% to any kind of hate speech law, including Holocaust denialism. It's fucking retarded and hiding behind the "oh but what about the minorities" line is so spineless and pathetic. The exact kind of leftist white guilt I despise with every bone in my body.

Just like certain people are qualified or certified to perform particular tasks, so should speakers--especially on college campuses--have some kind of credentials. It shouldn't just be open to anyone who happens to garner an online following.

I'm honestly less worried about campuses and higher education. I just can't make myself care about that whole world. There's a good reason most stand-up comics refuse to work campuses anymore, as far as I'm concerned it's largely a write off.

That said, I disagree that technocracy should dictate who gets to visit a campus and speak, it IMO should be a balance of experts and whoever students decide to invite with no official restrictions on either.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm fine with students inviting speakers and organizing events, as long as they're billed as such. But colleges do have an intellectual responsibility to students, and there need to be measures that guarantee some degree of substance or content that isn't merely provocateurish entertainment.

At any rate, I have to cut out for the day. Actual work to do.

 

[CiG]

and there need to be measures that guarantee some degree of substance or content that isn't merely provocateurish entertainment.

This is idiocy. Even the most base provocateur has some substance or content. Even Milo has something to say beyond fueling the outrage machine.

 

[Einherjar86]

Intellectual substance, I should specify.

And even if that's true (which I don't think it is), he definitely doesn't have enough substance to command a lectern for an hour. There's no significant reward to granting him a slot on a specifically academic platform that can't be achieved by other means, through other venues. Not just anyone should be given access to such events, just like not just anyone can make it into the NFL or captain a space shuttle. These roles should be reserved for those who've put in the work.

If a student body wants to organize an event and invite MY, then let them. But I don't think specifically academic events have some obligation to make room for every person with an opinion.

 

[Dak]

Milo's verbal ability is phenomenal. Unfortunately he's limited himself to mostly being a shockartist. That said, the fact that "elite" universities have plenty of non-rightish absurd events (like sex weeks) lacking intellectual substance which attract no similar derision makes outrage based on "intellectual substance" appear hollow.

 

[Einherjar86]

Milo's verbal ability is phenomenal. Unfortunately he's limited himself to mostly being a shockartist. That said, the fact that "elite" universities have plenty of non-rightish absurd events (like sex weeks) lacking intellectual substance which attract no similar derision makes outrage based on "intellectual substance" appear hollow.

You do know that Sex Week isn't just some seven-day rumpus during which students have orgies, right? Also, it was originally organized by students, but now is a university-led initiative on sexual health.

 

[CiG]

When it comes down to it it's really about whether they say the right things, not whether they have intellectual substance and expertise. You can see this by who gets protested and shut down, often with the involvement of complicit teachers. Horowitz, Shapiro, Hoff-Sommers, Saad, Coulter etc - these are all people who whether you like them or not command a degree of factual analysis and intellectual substance.

 

[Einherjar86]

When it comes down to it it's really about whether they say the right things, not whether they have intellectual substance and expertise.

Right, there's no means of qualifying anything, it's all just language, facts don't matter at all.

I can't convince you otherwise b/c you're resigned to this belief I think, but it's really sad to see people actually think this.

 

[CiG]

If Beyoncé spoke at a campus about anything other than maybe pop music, who would bother to protest her?

It seems blatantly clear that it's about who is liked more generally by the campus culture, not whether they bring facts and intellectual substance.

And even if that's true (which I don't think it is), he definitely doesn't have enough substance to command a lectern for an hour.

You don't think Milo has any intellectual substance. Spare me your condescension.

Edit: fyi you can convince me otherwise, you just simply haven't yet

 

[Einherjar86]

I really don't.

If Beyonce was invited to speak at a commencement, that's great. If she was invited to speak on a roundtable about the impact of gentrification on the shifting demographics of racial disparity, then she's not qualified (and she wouldn't be invited to speak on such a panel).

 

[CiG]

What comparison are you making? Has Milo been invited to roundtables on climate science? These people who in your view lack any intellectual substance tend to stick to their pet topics.

 

[CiG]

http://sexweekut.org/

This is pretty cringe and funny. There's an event called "Butt Stuff" lmao.

 

[Dak]

Srs academic stuff.

You do know that Sex Week isn't just some seven-day rumpus during which students have orgies, right? Also, it was originally organized by students, but now is a university-led initiative on sexual health.

If it were based on student sexual activities every week would be Sex Week, at least for some. And aren't student organizations inviting Shapiro and pals to the university? I haven't heard of a university inviting Milo.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not sure, maybe they are. I'm just saying I don't think universities have an obligation to host them for academic events.

What comparison are you making? Has Milo been invited to roundtables on climate science? These people who in your view lack any intellectual substance tend to stick to their pet topics.

I have no idea what Milo's pet topic would be. Ragging on academic culture, I presume. That's not a specialty, it's just masturbation.