The Refuge of the Toads

[gurugeorge]

In the long run my prediction is that most European and "Western" countries in general will get more and more nationalistic and muslims in the "west" will get the short end of the stick while the SJWs will crumble. The Nordic countries and maybe the UK and Germany might eventually be divided into civil wars between muslims and non-muslims, with the SJWs as useful idiots.

Optimistically the nationalism will be more inspired by civic principles than by ethnic principles, but I wouldn't bank on this happening in every country. It's likely that at least one (probably more) "western" country will go full Spencer/Steersman before the dust settles.

This sounds about right to me too.

And then there's Chai-neh :) The Asia/Far East situation seems to have several other potential messes brewing.

*sigh* Why can't we all just get along ...

[deLurch]

My 2 cents on the issue is that the absolute best way not to make a fool of yourself is to not rush to judgement. Wait for all the facts to come in. The videos help to get a general sense of what went on. But the videos are fuzzy enough that it is difficult for either side to make a firm assessment as to how justified the shooting was, or how just Josh D. was.

Best to let the cops assess it. See if more videos pop up. There are bound to be more. And the video the SPLC had was really good, but is missing the actual incident. So hopefully the cops get their hands on the full video.

As a side note, someone on the Seattle Times comment section stated that Josh D. has 16 court records including one restraining order. But to do a true apples to apples comparison, the same search would have to be done on Mr. Yellow Hat.

I tried a cursory attempt to search through the Seattle court records, but it is not exactly user friendly to find all court records on an individual. I may try later when I have more time to see if there is an easier way (or if I have to legally brute force it).

[deLurch]

My 2 cents on the issue is that the absolute best way not to make a fool of yourself is to not rush to judgement. Wait for all the facts to come in. The videos help to get a general sense of what went on. But the videos are fuzzy enough that it is difficult for either side to make a firm assessment as to how justified the shooting was, or how just Josh D. was.

Best to let the cops assess it. See if more videos pop up. There are bound to be more. And the video the SPLC had was really good, but is missing the actual incident. So hopefully the cops get their hands on the full video.

As a side note, someone on the Seattle Times comment section stated that Josh D. has 16 court records including one restraining order. But to do a true apples to apples comparison, the same search would have to be done on Mr. Yellow Hat.

I tried a cursory attempt to search through the Seattle court records, but it is not exactly user friendly to find all court records on an individual. I may try later when I have more time to see if there is an easier way (or if I have to legally brute force it).

[Kirbmarc]

*sigh* Why can't we all just get along ...

I know this a rhetorical question ( ;) ), but the answer is simple: we want different things.

An islamist values the triumph of islam over everything else, including in many cases their own life and everybody else's. A SJW values their feelings more than other people's rights. A far-right racial nationalism values the idea of keeping their race on top more than the rights of people who don't belong to their race. There's no way to correct these assumptions of value through evidence, because evidence tells us nothing about assumptions of value.

If an islamic terrorist is willing to blow themselves up in the name of islam no evidence of anything will ever stop them. If a SJW wants to cheer over a political enemy getting punched no evidence of anything will make them change their mind. If a far-right racial nationalist wants to banish all non-white people from politics in their country there's no evidence to prove them wrong.

A change in ideology or religion comes only from a change in what you value or from a personal process of disappointment and disillusionment, not from a debate. Debates may lay seeds of ideas to grow, but ultimately what you value is an assumption, a choice. People value different things for different reasons, and unlike when you correct a mistake of fact there's no way to prove someone wrong about their values.

If someone says "Paris is the capital of England" you can correct them. They might stubbornly decide not to change their mind, but others will be able to correct them, too, and the more stubborn they become and the easier it is to verify that Paris isn't the capital of England the nuttier they'll look to everyone else, and they might change their mind at least due to peer pressure, or be ostracized as a nutter by most.

But if someone says "Human lives means less than the triumph of my ideology" you can point out that their ideas aren't shared by many others, that this will lead to bad consequences for them, too, that their ideology is riddled with flaws, but not that they're wrong. They have an assumption which is ultimately just as arbitrary as "The triumph of your ideology means less than human lives".

Ignorance isn't the only source of trouble. Arbitrary assumptions can be "problematic", too.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

My 2 cents on the issue is that the absolute best way not to make a fool of yourself is to not rush to judgement. Wait for all the facts to come in. The videos help to get a general sense of what went on. But the videos are fuzzy enough that it is difficult for either side to make a firm assessment as to how justified the shooting was, or how just Josh D. was.

Best to let the cops assess it. See if more videos pop up. There are bound to be more. And the video the SPLC had was really good, but is missing the actual incident. So hopefully the cops get their hands on the full video.

As a side note, someone on the Seattle Times comment section stated that Josh D. has 16 court records including one restraining order. But to do a true apples to apples comparison, the same search would have to be done on Mr. Yellow Hat.

I tried a cursory attempt to search through the Seattle court records, but it is not exactly user friendly to find all court records on an individual. I may try later when I have more time to see if there is an easier way (or if I have to legally brute force it).

http://dw.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm?fa=ho ... lashform=0

[gurugeorge]

I find it to be a reasonable proposition to say that the widespread (nearly universal) presence of these memes in all cultures suggests there is something in them that humans are quite particular to, and they don't find these memes elsewhere.

In other words, if one take a 'spiritual' understanding of the world and deletes all of the stuff that contradicts both scientific knowledge and valid logic, one is left with a remnant meme that gives people a reason to live. I'm well aware this is a Neitszchian proposition.

There has to be something in this garbage that appeals to people in ways that aren't inherent to a sceptical mindset.

I think Sam Harris has it about right - there is a baby in the bathwater of religion, and it has to do with the quality of experience here and now, in relation to what we are pleased to think of as our "selves" (by which I mean the things we vaguely think we are, peeping out from behind our eyes, as opposed to "us" as total physical/biological entities with internal world-modelling and steering mechanisms).

There's a "spirituality" that could potentially be a fine partner to reason there, that could, in the future, unite everyone - because it's not about propositional knowledge, not about something about which there could be dispute, but rather more about what's best in the hippie message, that thing of "be here now", the art of appreciation of existence per se, of living through it in a way that heightens its "internal quality" so to speak. What many religious people get from religion is actually that, life has a magical quality for them that's missing for the rationalist - although the rationalist has the other compensation, of not being worried about not knowing, about it being ok not to know, as Feynman put it.

The closest one can come to describing it to someone who's not mucked about with that sort of thing before, is to recall holidays - recall the bright, sparkling quality of experience when you're on holiday and don't know what the shit you're seeing is, yet how fascinating and how alive it all seems. Or consider those occasions where you're very familiar with the aspect of a street junction from one angle, then you come across it from another angle and you get a small shock when it seems like a completely different place.

To understand what things are is perspectival - which is not the same as the "relative" of Pomo, Nietzsche was smarter than that. Things really are how they appear in terms of our all-too-human concerns (really hard, soft, green, etc.), but we're really seeing only a tiny slice of what they really, really are, which outruns our petty concerns. That sense of existence being bigger than the boxes we put it in for our convenience, is what's opened up by "spirituality" in the best sense. That "biggerness" is what people have called "God", but "God" is such a paltry term for it ...

At any rate, all the religions have this element, and it's the aspect in terms of which they can be ecumenically friendly to each other, once rationalism teaches them to let go of dogged, tribal-driven adherence to their propositional aspects. Making existence holy, self-sufficient unto itself, precious, bright, peaceful, is what it's all about.

[Soapy Stevens]

I'm not too familiar with Richard Spencer, so I have to ask - has it ever been established that he has physically assaulted someone not of the master race, or has openly agitated for violence against such folks?

Because if he hasn't, then a lot of people are celebrating the fact that someone got punched for not having the right kind of thoughts.

The main piece of evidence about Spencer's leanings is a video of him welcoming Trump's election ("Hail, Trump!) that has people in the crowd making Nazi salutes. It's pretty easy to paint him as a neo-Nazi in that context whatever his actual views. If you want to be taken seriously as a non-neo-Nazi you'd probably be a bit more assiduous about getting the crowd to not make the gestures.

[Soapy Stevens]

I've been reading a lot of blather circulating that justifies political violence (not just the stuff I posted here earlier) and they all have certain things in common
All of it conflates the existence of an idea with it somehow being in power, and frames political violence as self-protection in that complex. However I don't see how Mr Alt-Right really has any power, and I don't think "the system" is run by him.

I've seen arguments that use a passage from Mein Kampf as justifying slapping down fascists physically. It's weird seeing people take advice from Adolf on how to deal with facism given that a) he was hardly going to tell his enemies how to do it and b) when his (supposed) recipe for preventing facism is straight out of the facist-agitation playbook.

[DrokkIt]

Both these views are very interesting- I especially like the term 'rationalisation engine' and I'm going to use that from now on because it's less loaded than 'authoritarian doctrine' and also describes the process better.

I would add to this thread that I think there is something at the micro-scale going on as well. For some reason a large amount of people do not find anything in secularism that tells them what a 'good life' looks like. I'm going to call this a 'spiritual' aspect, even though I don't like any of that stuff myself I do recognise that materialism and positivism sans any other general philosophy doesn't contain the same memes as religion or even a strong political belief.

I find it to be a reasonable proposition to say that the widespread (nearly universal) presence of these memes in all cultures suggests there is something in them that humans are quite particular to, and they don't find these memes elsewhere.

In other words, if one take a 'spiritual' understanding of the world and deletes all of the stuff that contradicts both scientific knowledge and valid logic, one is left with a remnant meme that gives people a reason to live. I'm well aware this is a Neitszchian proposition.

There has to be something in this garbage that appeals to people in ways that aren't inherent to a sceptical mindset.

That's because secularism isn't intended to give people personal meaning in their lives but to act as a neutral source of restraint and punishment which prevents an idea from taking over a society. Secularism is about checks and balances, limits in public and a core of common shared values that prevent oppression, not about telling you what to do in your private life.

Secular liberal democracies are supposed to create empty canvas for people to fill in in without scribbling on those that don't belong to them, not to provide people with an idea for what they're going to paint. It's not the state's job to tell you what works best for you on a personal level, only to stop you from violating other people's rights and to give everyone the basic tools to interact peacefully with others.

Private expressions of religion and private support for political/social philosophies are compatible with secularism. The problem comes when the private ideas are turned into utopian projects to be implemented by any possible means.

By the way secularism is a philosophical assumption, not a scientific one. It's consequence of valuing human life more than the success of a belief, which is an assumption about values.

Skepticism and materialism can answer questions of fact, not questions of value. "Is thing X inherently better than thing Y?" is a question that cannot be answered by science: it depends on your personal assumptions.

Science can answer only circumstantial questions of value which are actually questions of fact, like "Is diet X better at keeping you, person P, healthy than diet Y?". It can't tell you that being healthy is inherently better than being non-healthy. From a scientific point of view there's nothing telling you that living is better than dying, or that rape and murder are wrong, or that you shouldn't punch people in the face for having awful ideas.

Morals are derived from concepts which cannot be proven, like "living is better than dying" or "human lives have value" or "doing something onto others which you wouldn't like if done onto you is wrong" or "answer words with words, not with violence".

You can have experiments on the consequences of not following a moral rule, for example on what happens if there's no widespread rule against theft (you're likely to get your things stolen, too) or if you physically attack others for bad ideas (they're likely to respond in kind). You can analyze psychological and sociological features which lead to certain behavior or are caused by other behaviors, but judgments of value are inherently non-scientific.

As David Hume said:

Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.

You can point out the consequences of the destruction of the whole world, and the consequences of the scratching your finger, and even say that the vast majority of human beings would prefer not scratching their finger and saving the world to scratching their finger and dooming the world, but you can't provide evidence that it's inherently better to save the world than to scratch your finger.

If a human being values their momentary release from minimal pain more than the entire world, you can't provide evidence that they're wrong, only that they're in a small minority and that they'd destroy themselves.

Yes of course and I'm in 100% agreement with all of that, but what I am observing is that for some reason people have tendency towards the kinds of memetic ideas that provide a meaning for life. And in the current epoch such memes are not provided by society anymore (for the reasons you very clearly laid out) so perhaps things like intersectionalism (which is by all measurements a secular religion) are providing this.
The question is what can we do about that, given that these ideologies are inherently corrosive to the secular democracy that is hosting them? Resisting them with mockery etc is fine, but it's perhaps not speaking to the cause of why these ideas have currency with people in the first place?

[Kirbmarc]

I think Sam Harris has it about right - there is a baby in the bathwater of religion, and it has to do with the quality of experience here and now, in relation to what we are pleased to think of as our "selves" (by which I mean the things we vaguely think we are, peeping out from behind our eyes, as opposed to "us" as total physical/biological entities with internal world-modelling and steering mechanisms).

There's a "spirituality" that could potentially be a fine partner to reason there, that could, in the future, unite everyone - because it's not about propositional knowledge, not about something about which there could be dispute, but rather more about what's best in the hippie message, that thing of "be here now", the art of appreciation of existence per se, of living through it in a way that heightens its "internal quality" so to speak. What many religious people get from religion is actually that, life has a magical quality for them that's missing for the rationalist - although the rationalist has the other compensation, of not being worried about not knowing, about it being ok not to know, as Feynman put it.

The closest one can come to describing it to someone who's not mucked about with that sort of thing before, is to recall holidays - recall the bright, sparkling quality of experience when you're on holiday and don't know what the shit you're seeing is, yet how fascinating and how alive it all seems. Or consider those occasions where you're very familiar with the aspect of a street junction from one angle, then you come across it from another angle and you get a small shock when it seems like a completely different place.

To understand what things are is perspectival - which is not the same as the "relative" of Pomo, Nietzsche was smarter than that. Things really are how they appear in terms of our all-too-human concerns (really hard, soft, green, etc.), but we're really seeing only a tiny slice of what they really, really are, which outruns our petty concerns. That sense of existence being bigger than the boxes we put it in for our convenience, is what's opened up by "spirituality" in the best sense. That "biggerness" is what people have called "God", but "God" is such a paltry term for it ...

At any rate, all the religions have this element, and it's the aspect in terms of which they can be ecumenically friendly to each other, once rationalism teaches them to let go of dogged, tribal-driven adherence to their propositional aspects. Making existence holy, self-sufficient unto itself, precious, bright, peaceful, is what it's all about.

I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. This feeling of unity and "biggerness" is far too vague and hard to communicate to really unite people. We are limited and flawed and we'll likely remain limited and flawed. We need to understand things, not just to experience them, in order to communicate with each other.

This feeling of existence being bigger than propositional aspects is likely not communicable, you can try but it's always just an approximation, a vague correlation which cannot be really shared. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Religions and ideologies have a huge social/cultural aspect which is never going away. The best we can do is to maintain institutions which set limits, checks and balances on the different religions/ideologies, like secular liberal democracy.

[DrokkIt]

I find it to be a reasonable proposition to say that the widespread (nearly universal) presence of these memes in all cultures suggests there is something in them that humans are quite particular to, and they don't find these memes elsewhere.

In other words, if one take a 'spiritual' understanding of the world and deletes all of the stuff that contradicts both scientific knowledge and valid logic, one is left with a remnant meme that gives people a reason to live. I'm well aware this is a Neitszchian proposition.

There has to be something in this garbage that appeals to people in ways that aren't inherent to a sceptical mindset.

I think Sam Harris has it about right - there is a baby in the bathwater of religion, and it has to do with the quality of experience here and now, in relation to what we are pleased to think of as our "selves" (by which I mean the things we vaguely think we are, peeping out from behind our eyes, as opposed to "us" as total physical/biological entities with internal world-modelling and steering mechanisms).

There's a "spirituality" that could potentially be a fine partner to reason there, that could, in the future, unite everyone - because it's not about propositional knowledge, not about something about which there could be dispute, but rather more about what's best in the hippie message, that thing of "be here now", the art of appreciation of existence per se, of living through it in a way that heightens its "internal quality" so to speak. What many religious people get from religion is actually that, life has a magical quality for them that's missing for the rationalist - although the rationalist has the other compensation, of not being worried about not knowing, about it being ok not to know, as Feynman put it.

The closest one can come to describing it to someone who's not mucked about with that sort of thing before, is to recall holidays - recall the bright, sparkling quality of experience when you're on holiday and don't know what the shit you're seeing is, yet how fascinating and how alive it all seems. Or consider those occasions where you're very familiar with the aspect of a street junction from one angle, then you come across it from another angle and you get a small shock when it seems like a completely different place.

To understand what things are is perspectival - which is not the same as the "relative" of Pomo, Nietzsche was smarter than that. Things really are how they appear in terms of our all-too-human concerns (really hard, soft, green, etc.), but we're really seeing only a tiny slice of what they really, really are, which outruns our petty concerns. That sense of existence being bigger than the boxes we put it in for our convenience, is what's opened up by "spirituality" in the best sense. That "biggerness" is what people have called "God", but "God" is such a paltry term for it ...

At any rate, all the religions have this element, and it's the aspect in terms of which they can be ecumenically friendly to each other, once rationalism teaches them to let go of dogged, tribal-driven adherence to their propositional aspects. Making existence holy, self-sufficient unto itself, precious, bright, peaceful, is what it's all about.

Also agree with this, but would extend it to say that the average person *seems* to have some need of being told what to do, to an extent.

[Lsuoma]

Rhodes Must Fall protester accepts Rhodes Scholarship:

[deLurch]

http://dw.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm?fa=ho ... lashform=0

Thanks. That was much easier. I see 17 records that could be anything from divorce to parking tickets. However I also see two different middle names. "James" and "Josh" Yes, it is possible he did a name change to cover up a bad history. But in my experience reviewing court records like this, they are typically different people.

4 of the records have to do with divorce, parenting plans, and yes it does mention a temporary restraining order which is almost a given for divorces in today's society. The most of the records don't show any details at all.

Thanks for the link. But unless that commenter had access to the full court records, that person does not have sufficient proof that Josh D. has a lengthy violent court record history. All he saw, is what I see myself. Bubkis.

[Kirbmarc]

Yes of course and I'm in 100% agreement with all of that, but what I am observing is that for some reason people have tendency towards the kinds of memetic ideas that provide a meaning for life. And in the current epoch such memes are not provided by society anymore (for the reasons you very clearly laid out) so perhaps things like intersectionalism (which is by all measurements a secular religion) are providing this.

Of course. Providing some kind of meaning to life helps people to find meaning in their actions and so to be motivated towards a goal (even if the goal is just to bitch and moan about themselves). Without any kind of meaning (personal or otherwise) life loses value.

But intersectionalism is more specific than that. It provides people with an easy target to blame for their personal failures (Patriarchy!) with a way to escape from responsibility (I'm oppressed!), with the pride of being better than others (check your privilege!/I'm an ally!) and with acceptance of one's flaws and prejudices (Don't be X-phobic!/Don't deny my lived experience!).

Insectionality externalizes the locus of control of people's lives, i.e. it attributes success or failure entirely to things that are beyond one's control (race/gender/sexuality/ethnicity) and part of one's identity. Under intersectionality you're never responsible for being fat or poor or unsuccessful or unhappy, and as long as you're "pious" enough you can and say whatever you want and get emotional support ("virtual hugs").

This isn't true of other religions: in christianity or islam you have duties and responsibilities, like charity or pilgrimage or fasting, which go beyond mere words. They're not just about praying and being pious. A christian or a muslim is expected to do something with their life, not simply to sit on their ass and wait for a miracle. God isn't a slot machine, insert prayers and get miracles, it's a being with its own plans, if your prayers aren't listened to it's not the god's fault.

In intersectionality, on the other hand, bitching and moaning and asking for things is supposed to change the world by shaming the "allies" into doing all the work to feel better about themselves.

The question is what can we do about that, given that these ideologies are inherently corrosive to the secular democracy that is hosting them? Resisting them with mockery etc is fine, but it's perhaps not speaking to the cause of why these ideas have currency with people in the first place?

There's no precise way to tell people how to live their lives.

A good counter to intersectionality specifically, however, is (IMHO) teaching personal responsibility and civic duty. Once you're no longer externalizing the locus of control of your life you're likely to abandon intersectionality. If you know you can improve your status or happiness by doing something there's no point in bitching and moaning about how unfair the universe is, there's no point in complaining about the Patriarchy. You're too busy improving yourself to care about censoring other people's speech because it hurts your feelings. You're becoming resilient and self-reliant and you no longer need virtual hugs.

TL;DR: Get the precious snowflakes to stand up and do some real work.

[deLurch]

Speaking of Facist asians, where was Lsuoma on the night of the Milo speaking event?

download/file.php?avatar=2_1480893924.png

[Tigzy]

I'm not too familiar with Richard Spencer, so I have to ask - has it ever been established that he has physically assaulted someone not of the master race, or has openly agitated for violence against such folks?

Because if he hasn't, then a lot of people are celebrating the fact that someone got punched for not having the right kind of thoughts.

The main piece of evidence about Spencer's leanings is a video of him welcoming Trump's election ("Hail, Trump!) that has people in the crowd making Nazi salutes. It's pretty easy to paint him as a neo-Nazi in that context whatever his actual views. If you want to be taken seriously as a non-neo-Nazi you'd probably be a bit more assiduous about getting the crowd to not make the gestures.

Depends if you think making a nazi salute in the company of like (small)minded individuals is the same thing as openly agitating for violence, I guess.

[DrokkIt]

TL;DR: Get the precious snowflakes to stand up and do some real work.

I can get behind that, big time, and I'm a soft lefty typical Labour voter.

I think it's just easier to blame an externalised other than realise you can do something about it- I grew up POOR and was basically taught that rich people actually hate you, i.e. it was personalised in a way that caused me a ton of problems in my 20s. And I wasted a lot of time being angry and blaming the wealthy for everything wrong in my life, when I should have taken the disadvantages as given and gotten on with the business of hard work towards goals.

[Kirbmarc]

Speaking of civil service and of shared civic values here's a very interesting article by Peter Turchin, The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America.

Robert Putnam points to such indicators as the participation rate in voluntary organizations (Masonic lodges, Parent-Teacher Associations, sports clubs and bowling leagues…). If between 1900 and 1960 the general trend for the mean membership rate was to increase, during the 1970s this trend reversed itself. Participation has been declining ever since.

You may think that political polarization is not so bad. What’s wrong with different political parties holding strong opinions about how this country should be governed? The problem is, the clash of ideas inevitably leads to the clash of personalities. As political positions become separated by a deep ideological gulf the capacity for compromise disappears and political leaders become increasingly intransigent. The end result is political gridlock, something that became abundantly clear in the last few years, but has been developing over the last few decades.

What we have then, is a ‘strange disappearance’ of cooperation at all levels within the American society: from the neighborhood bowling leagues to the national-level economic and political institutes.

It seems like the increased SJW polarization and the rise of Donnie Trump are also due to a fall in cooperation, in the idea of a civil society with a common goal. The extreme SJW partisanship and their habit of blaming everything on "cis het white males" is likely exasperating the problem. Echo chambers on the internet aren't helping, either.

Another interesting post, also by Peter Turchin (h/t AndrewV69) highlights the issue of Intra-Elite Competiton:

Why is intra-elite competition such an important driver of instability?

Elites are a small proportion of the population (on the order of 1 percent) who concentrate social power in their hands (see my previous post and especially its discussion in the comments that reveal the complex dimensions of this concept). In the United States, for example, they include (but are not limited to) elected politicians, top civil service bureaucrats, and the owners and managers of Fortune 500 companies (see Who Rules America?). As individual elites retire, they are replaced from the pool of elite aspirants. There are always more elite aspirants than positions for them to occupy. Intra-elite competition is the process that sorts aspirants into successful elites and aspirants whose ambition to enter the elite ranks is frustrated.

Excessive elite competition, on the other hand, results in increasing social and political instability. The supply of power positions in a society is relatively, or even absolutely, inelastic. For example, there are only 435 U.S. Representatives, 100 Senators, and one President. A great expansion in the numbers of elite aspirants means that increasingly large numbers of them are frustrated, and some of those, the more ambitious and ruthless ones, turn into counter-elites. In other words, masses of frustrated elite aspirants become breeding grounds for radical groups and revolutionary movements.

Intense intra-elite competition, however, leads to the rise of rival power networks, which increasingly subvert the rules of political engagement to get ahead of the opposition. Instead of competing on their own merits, or the merits of their political platforms, candidates increasingly rely on “dirty tricks” such as character assassination (and, in historical cases, literal assassination). As a result, excessive competition results in the unraveling of prosocial, cooperative norms (this is a general phenomenon that is not limited to political life).

There are two main “pumps” producing aspirants for elite positions in America: education and wealth. On the education side, of particular importance are the law degree (for a political career) and the MBA (to climb the corporate ladder). Over the past four decades, according to the American Bar Association, the number of lawyers tripled from 400,000 to 1.2 million. The number of MBAs conferred by business schools over the same period grew six-fold (details in Ages of Discord).

On the wealth side we see a similar expansion of numbers, driven by growing inequality of income and wealth over the last 40 years. The proverbial “1 percent” becomes “2 percent”, then “3 percent”… For example, today there are five times as many households with wealth exceeding $10 million (in 1995 dollars), compared to 1980. Some of these wealth-holders give money to candidates, but others choose to run for political office themselves.

(Both Donald Trump and Brianna Wu fit the mold)

Analysis of past societies indicates that, if intra-elite competition is allowed to escalate, it will increasingly take more violent forms. A typical outcome of this process is a massive outbreak of political violence, often ending in a state collapse, a revolution, or a civil war (or all of the above).

Ouch.

[Kirbmarc]

TL;DR: Get the precious snowflakes to stand up and do some real work.

I can get behind that, big time, and I'm a soft lefty typical Labour voter.

I think it's just easier to blame an externalised other than realise you can do something about it- I grew up POOR and was basically taught that rich people actually hate you, i.e. it was personalised in a way that caused me a ton of problems in my 20s. And I wasted a lot of time being angry and blaming the wealthy for everything wrong in my life, when I should have taken the disadvantages as given and gotten on with the business of hard work towards goals.

Yup. This is important. There is a certain degree of things that you can't control, like your facial features or your height or the family where you're born or your ethnicity/race, and they do play a role on how well you'll do. But an excessive, obsessive focus on what you can't control can make you blind to what you can control.

Not everybody can be a millionaire or a model or a casanova, and sure, sometimes life is unfair and some of that unfairness can be and should be addressed (for example a good student from a poor family deserves financial incentives, well-established public education and healthcare can free people from some undue burdens and some form of welfare can help you to get back on your feet) but blaming everything wrong in your life on something you can't control inhibits the ability to change and improve oneself.

There's always something you can do to change and improve. It might not be much, it might not be enough to fulfill all your dreams and aspirations, but it's better than nothing.

Some things are more within your power to change than others, too. If you're upset by mean comment on the internet you really don't need the nanny state to police social media for you, just learn how to get a thicker skin or leave the internet for a while. If Richard Dawkins can laugh at hate mail surely Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn could do the same. But then again in their case I don't think they're really upset but that they're milking all the trolling and hate mail for sympathy and money.

[DrokkIt]

TL;DR: Get the precious snowflakes to stand up and do some real work.

I can get behind that, big time, and I'm a soft lefty typical Labour voter.

I think it's just easier to blame an externalised other than realise you can do something about it- I grew up POOR and was basically taught that rich people actually hate you, i.e. it was personalised in a way that caused me a ton of problems in my 20s. And I wasted a lot of time being angry and blaming the wealthy for everything wrong in my life, when I should have taken the disadvantages as given and gotten on with the business of hard work towards goals.

Yup. This is important. There is a certain degree of things that you can't control, like your facial features or your height or the family where you're born or your ethnicity/race, and they do play a role on how well you'll do. But an excessive, obsessive focus on what you can't control can make you blind to what you can control.

Not everybody can be a millionaire or a model or a casanova, and sure, sometimes life is unfair and some of that unfairness can be and should be addressed (for example a good student from a poor family deserves financial incentives, well-established public education and healthcare can free people from some undue burdens and some form of welfare can help you to get back on your feet) but blaming everything wrong in your life on something you can't control inhibits the ability to change and improve oneself.

There's always something you can do to change and improve. It might not be much, it might not be enough to fulfill all your dreams and aspirations, but it's better than nothing.

Some things are more within your power to change than others, too. If you're upset by mean comment on the internet you really don't need the nanny state to police social media for you, just learn how to get a thicker skin or leave the internet for a while. If Richard Dawkins can laugh at hate mail surely Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn could do the same. But then again in their case I don't think they're really upset but that they're milking all the trolling and hate mail for sympathy and money.

This is very UK-specific, but I was part of Tony Blair's "everyone into higher education" incentive of the late 90s.
Obviously access to education is paramount and all attendant arguments, however a specific problem arose from this: my generation of graduates (mid 20s - mid 30s now) all graduated into a jobs market where suddenly everyone had a degree of some kind.
Half the people on my course were only interested in the vocational aspects of it, and many didn't have the level of literacy to handle the theory aspect.

The point of all this is, lots of us working class kids were the first of our families to go to uni. The weight of expectation with that has weighed very heavily on us post graduation (combined with all the crap resultant of the economic collapse) so looking back I can see exactly where I got my sense of resentment from and wasn't prepared to deal with it.

Uni is way more expensive now, and career are barely a thing anymore, so maybe this factors into the typical SJW graduate... who has done a degree in something pretty much worthless to begin with, and is now in a society where just having a degree is no longer particularly valuable.

[Kirbmarc]

This is very UK-specific, but I was part of Tony Blair's "everyone into higher education" incentive of the late 90s.
Obviously access to education is paramount and all attendant arguments, however a specific problem arose from this: my generation of graduates (mid 20s - mid 30s now) all graduated into a jobs market where suddenly everyone had a degree of some kind.
Half the people on my course were only interested in the vocational aspects of it, and many didn't have the level of literacy to handle the theory aspect.

Ha. Yes, that's an issue, higher education was over-hyped and detached from the job market. It'd have been better to create vocational careers oriented towards giving people skills valued on the market rather than get them degrees which weren't so highly valued, but big government programs are often far too detached from reality.

The point of all this is, lots of us working class kids were the first of our families to go to uni. The weight of expectation with that has weighed very heavily on us post graduation (combined with all the crap resultant of the economic collapse) so looking back I can see exactly where I got my sense of resentment from and wasn't prepared to deal with it.

I can relate. I'm the first in my family to ever get a PhD, so I can understand that kind of pressure. I was lucky enough to get a more than decent job in the education system of my country, though.

Uni is way more expensive now, and career are barely a thing anymore, so maybe this factors into the typical SJW graduate... who has done a degree in something pretty much worthless to begin with, and is now in a society where just having a degree is no longer particularly valuable.

Yep. That's a social issue. I think that states need some kind of civic duty to give people skills that can be valued in today's job market. Assistance to the elderly and the disabled, for example, is a field where you can still find jobs, and a year of civic duty as a caretaker could also be used as a qualification.

[Kirbmarc]

It's probably better to train locals as caretakers than to hire foreigners. Today in Switzerland most caretakers are from abroad, usually Eastern Europe, while there are some young people who are chronically under-employed in "McJobs". Is the same thing true in the UK?

[Jack Wooster]

It's probably better to train locals as caretakers than to hire foreigners. Today in Switzerland most caretakers are from abroad, usually Eastern Europe, while there are some young people who are chronically under-employed in "McJobs". Is the same thing true in the UK?

This is exactly the case in the UK.

[free thoughtpolice]

Wouldn't normally post Gazis on consecutive days but this is sort of topical as he is critical of the Woman's March too.
[youtube][/youtube]
I would be in favor of white people invading Africa to steal all their shea butter just to see Gazis head explode. :drool:

[Shatterface]

New Oxford Rhodes scholar: I don’t support Rhodes (or need the scholarship)

...Like Qwabe, Joshua Nott has decided to accept a £40,000 scholarship from the Rhodes Trust despite being actively involved in the Rhodes Must Fall movement, which campaigned to have a statue of Cecil Rhodes — the British mining magnate — removed from Cape Town University on the grounds that it symbolised racism and colonialism...

If an underprivileged person could effect as much change,… I would easily renounce it but I firmly believe in myself as someone who can effect immense macro change.’

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/ne ... holarship/

[BoxNDox]

Hope Im not ninjed, Wu is the gift nobody asked for, but it keeps on giving,

http://i.imgur.com/j8PLqGz.png

Depiction of Wu's debating opponent at the forthcoming election debates:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-avf8hn6UmuI/U ... s+005a.jpg

Bets for the winner of this debate are now open.

You forgot about the third party candidate:
https://goguiltypleasures.files.wordpre ... k-hair.jpg

[sp0tlight]

Wouldn't normally post Gazis on consecutive days but this is sort of topical as he is critical of the Woman's March too.
[youtube][/youtube]
I would be in favor of white people invading Africa to steal all their shea butter just to see Gazis head explode. :drool:

Man, he's so unlikeable. The badly acted snark. They should try for A+ team.

[Kirbmarc]

New Oxford Rhodes scholar: I don’t support Rhodes (or need the scholarship)

...Like Qwabe, Joshua Nott has decided to accept a £40,000 scholarship from the Rhodes Trust despite being actively involved in the Rhodes Must Fall movement, which campaigned to have a statue of Cecil Rhodes — the British mining magnate — removed from Cape Town University on the grounds that it symbolised racism and colonialism...

If an underprivileged person could effect as much change,… I would easily renounce it but I firmly believe in myself as someone who can effect immense macro change.’

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/ne ... holarship/

The real question is why the fuck did the Rhodes Trust give him a £40,000 scholarship. He apparently doesn't need it.

[sp0tlight]

I've made a mistake of clicking further,

[youtube][/youtube]

[DrokkIt]

Yep. That's a social issue. I think that states need some kind of civic duty to give people skills that can be valued in today's job market. Assistance to the elderly and the disabled, for example, is a field where you can still find jobs, and a year of civic duty as a caretaker could also be used as a qualification.

Yeah I agree with this, as I think a huge amount of the SJW problem is due to what I am going to call 'millennial entitlement culture'.
There is also the issue of pay regarding those jobs and they are seen as very low-status, and it's more attractive to start an activism youtube and pretend this is going to earn money for 18 months.
Intersectionalist ponzi-schemes.

[Kirbmarc]

Yeah I agree with this, as I think a huge amount of the SJW problem is due to what I am going to call 'millennial entitlement culture'.
There is also the issue of pay regarding those jobs and they are seen as very low-status, and it's more attractive to start an activism youtube and pretend this is going to earn money for 18 months.
Intersectionalist ponzi-schemes.

I'd say that millennials were severely screwed over. They were promised great things while there was no real chance of all of them getting them. This breeds resentment and it's understandable, not entitlement. Some are entitled but it's silver spoon children like Brianna Wu (she was given 200,000 to create games, now that's a huge privilege!) or the cunt who started the Mizzou protests over the shit swastika and chanted "we have nothing to lose but our chains", Jonathan Butler (son of a millionaire, very privileged indeed).

Most low-level SJWs aren't this privileged and entitled. SJ activism isn't the solution to their problems, though.

[Kirbmarc]

True privilege is economic privilege. If your parents can give you 200,000 dollars or are millionaires you're extremely privileged, any claim of oppression is laughably ridiculous. At worst people can call you names but your parents can probably afford to sue them if you get witnesses. Or you get mean comments on the internet, oh the horror.

Brianna Wu or Jonathan Butler are privileged people who love to roleplay as oppressed victims just because they're not white males (well, no longer in Wu's case).

[sp0tlight]

True privilege is economic privilege. If your parents can give you 200,000 dollars or are millionaires you're extremely privileged, any claim of oppression is laughably ridiculous.

And the identify politics fans have a cute nickname for people who don't think economic issues should be first on the list of left issues, brogressives. You know, just add "bro", bro.

TW (((Rational))) Wiki, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Brogressive

[DrokkIt]

Yeah I agree with this, as I think a huge amount of the SJW problem is due to what I am going to call 'millennial entitlement culture'.
There is also the issue of pay regarding those jobs and they are seen as very low-status, and it's more attractive to start an activism youtube and pretend this is going to earn money for 18 months.
Intersectionalist ponzi-schemes.

I'd say that millennials were severely screwed over. They were promised great things while there was no real chance of all of them getting them. This breeds resentment and it's understandable, not entitlement. Some are entitled but it's silver spoon children like Brianna Wu (she was given 200,000 to create games, now that's a huge privilege!) or the cunt who started the Mizzou protests over the shit swastika and chanted "we have nothing to lose but our chains", Jonathan Butler (son of a millionaire, very privileged indeed).

Most low-level SJWs aren't this privileged and entitled. SJ activism isn't the solution to their problems, though.

I get what you are saying, but speaking from my experience nearly 100% of people I have personally met who mention any of the SJW buzzwords (privilege, patriarchy, punching up) have been educated middle-class white people. I think there is a kind of entitlement to that where they feel like THEY are important and presume to speak on behalf of groups they aren't part of.

Certainly agree that they were sold on something not delivered, but then again so was my generation (not sure what to call it, immediately after gen x) and we generally didn't go in for this kind of ideology- it's crept up after us and worked it's way in from the the younger crowd.

[Brive1987]

Is US $2100-$2500 per month a lot for a 1 bedder ? Say a late 1960s era low rise (Industrial SF bayview)

Are body corporates normally pretty good about dogs in unit-rentals?

Asking for a friend.

[BoxNDox]

I'll just leave this here.

[youtube][/youtube]

[Brive1987]

Sued or sent meaningless letters?

[Malky]

It's probably better to train locals as caretakers than to hire foreigners. Today in Switzerland most caretakers are from abroad, usually Eastern Europe, while there are some young people who are chronically under-employed in "McJobs". Is the same thing true in the UK?

This is exactly the case in the UK.

I agree - they also continually complain about immigrants "taking jobs". What I can never get an answer on is why they hadn't taken the job first so that "the immigrants" had no job to come to. An awful lot of the complaint against "immigrants" is basically people looking for someone to blame for their shitty situation and not have to do anything about it. It dosen't help that immigrants work harder and are much more reliable from an employers perspective.

[sp0tlight]

Sued or sent meaningless letters?

Oh, Mykeru is alive? He didn't a video in ages. Or maybe I unsubscribed?

[Brive1987]

No, he has been running in stealth since about October. Just popped back into this world January. Didn't stop him from just tweeting his phone number though, which was odd.

[sp0tlight]

Didn't stop him from just tweeting his phone number though, which was odd.

What, on purpose?

[Brive1987]

Yes, he was reaching out to Joe Rogan in the clear. He has either given up the shit or is crushed enough that he has nothing to lose.

Hope he is ok.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

No, he has been running in stealth since about October. Just popped back into this world January. Didn't stop him from just tweeting his phone number though, which was odd.

Looking for a call from Joe Rogan. Might get more than he bargained for.

[free thoughtpolice]

Is US $2100-$2500 per month a lot for a 1 bedder ? Say a late 1960s era low rise (Industrial SF bayview)

Are body corporates normally pretty good about dogs in unit-rentals?

Asking for a friend.

A friend? That sounds about right. I gather she's not in SF proper, but most of these listings don't specify a view and studios I would guess are pretty small.
https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/sfc/apa

[Malky]

Via Jerry Coyne - https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.co ... louisiana/

It seems the Police and the establishment are now realising that they can make use of the "hate crime" meme. This is why only actual crimes should be illegal and not "feelings" crimes.

[sp0tlight]

Looking for a call from Joe Rogan. Might get more than he bargained for.

Jesus, it's double embarrassing, don't know how to Internet, want to buddy buddy with Rogan.

[Brive1987]

Is US $2100-$2500 per month a lot for a 1 bedder ? Say a late 1960s era low rise (Industrial SF bayview)

Are body corporates normally pretty good about dogs in unit-rentals?

Asking for a friend.

A friend? That sounds about right. I gather she's not in SF proper, but most of these listings don't specify a view and studios I would guess are pretty small.
https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/sfc/apa

I thought it sounded reasonable. 1 br in say Manly (ie ferry ride to CBD) with a view are in the 500s per week here.

[free thoughtpolice]

Brive wrote:

I thought it sounded reasonable. 1 br in say Manly (ie ferry ride to CBD) with a view are in the 500s per week here.

In Vancouver you can get a luxury apartment in desirable neighborhood for that. Out of town like where I live on Vancouver Island you can get a decent apartment for half that. The drawback of living here is that about 1/2 the community commutes up to 800 to 1000 miles to work.

[Keating]

Supremacy isn't about what you believe, it's about what you want, i.e. a country where your ethnicity or race or religion is politically superior to any other. You could call Zionism a jewish supremacist movement (both ethnic and religious) and you wouldn't be too wrong.

Ah-ha. We have different interpretations of what "supremacy" means, but otherwise aren't that far apart.

[Keating]

Speaking of civil service and of shared civic values here's a very interesting article by Peter Turchin, The Strange Disappearance of Cooperation in America.

Robert Putnam points to such indicators as the participation rate in voluntary organizations (Masonic lodges, Parent-Teacher Associations, sports clubs and bowling leagues…). If between 1900 and 1960 the general trend for the mean membership rate was to increase, during the 1970s this trend reversed itself. Participation has been declining ever since.

Ironically, this links back to the other discussion. One of the factors for the decline in social capital is almost certainly high immigration and diversity. The less people have in common with their neighbours, the more they are inclined to turtle and not give back to the community. High immigration does artificially prop up the GPD though, solving one problem governments the costs can be deferred into the future.

[dogen]

Speaking of Facist asians, where was Lsuoma on the night of the Milo speaking event?

download/file.php?avatar=2_1480893924.png

Are you suggesting the shot was fired from one of those Machine-Gun Jubblies?

[deLurch]

Yup, from the grassy knoll.

[Lsuoma]

Yup, from the grassy knoll.

Texas Boob Repository.

[deLurch]

At least one other person has identified the shooter and named him on a blog. At this point it is a matter of time until is spreads.

[CommanderTuvok]

The main piece of evidence about Spencer's leanings is a video of him welcoming Trump's election ("Hail, Trump!) that has people in the crowd making Nazi salutes. It's pretty easy to paint him as a neo-Nazi in that context whatever his actual views. If you want to be taken seriously as a non-neo-Nazi you'd probably be a bit more assiduous about getting the crowd to not make the gestures.

http://i.imgur.com/Pk0ZE4c.jpg

Long time, no see, for Greg Laden.... :lol:

[Lsuoma]

At least one other person has identified the shooter and named him on a blog. At this point it is a matter of time until is spreads.

What's his name? Mr I Can't Believe It's Not Hitler?

[CommanderTuvok]

At least one other person has identified the shooter and named him on a blog. At this point it is a matter of time until is spreads.

What people are desperately waiting for is.....is the shooter a SJW/anti-Trump anarchist, or a Nazi/MRA/alt-righter. People have their narratives written up and ready to go.

[Lsuoma]

Oh, and Milo's talk was fucking TERRIBLE.

[Shatterface]

At least one other person has identified the shooter and named him on a blog. At this point it is a matter of time until is spreads.

What people are desperately waiting for is.....is the shooter a SJW/anti-Trump anarchist, or a Nazi/MRA/alt-righter. People have their narratives written up and ready to go.

Schrodinger's Assassin

[Keating]

Yup, from the grassy knoll.

Texas Boob Repository.

Am I being gaslit, or were the nipples originally covered?