Philosophical Vegan Forum

brimstoneSalad wrote:

EquALLity wrote: What does that mean exactly? On what stuff? And how would it impact his policy in a significant enough way to vote republican?

I think he made claims about institutionalized racism, didn't he? Hillary has been doing this with college "rape culture" too, citing (IIRC) the very slanted fear monger statistics of one in four (don't take my word for it, I've only seen these in passing and didn't look into it).

This isn't as big as nuclear power or GMO issues, but it is something. In particular, we may see that the regressive left hands Trump this election on a silver platter (if he's smart enough to call this out in the general, which I think he is -- it doesn't take a political genius).

I'm waiting for the general to learn more. As I said before, Hillary almost certainly has my support anyway. I know she has issues, but overall her policies are probably going to be better than Trump's protectionism.

He has, and I think Hillary has too.
Is that it?

You think making claims that institutional racism exists is significant enough to vote for a pro-war and anti-environment (etc.) party?

The republicans are wrong on pretty much everything. They might accidentally be right about a few things, but those things are nothing compared to what they are wrong on.

What policies do you think could come from ideas of institutional racism that are that significant?

EquALLity wrote: You think making claims that institutional racism exists is significant enough to vote for a pro-war and anti-environment (etc.) party?

It's harmful, and it harms minorities disproportionately and sews the seeds of social unrest, We can see it destroying the educational quality of many colleges now -- and that has even more major consequences. This is a more serious issue than it seems at face value.

If these ideas only kept minorities poor and encouraged behavior that continued the cycle of them being disproportionately imprisoned, that would be bad in itself.
But it's stepping on education too, which is the cornerstone of democracy and the foundation of our society. The effects will not be instantaneous, but they will be severe and pervasive. It's something to be concerned about.

EquALLity wrote:The republicans are wrong on pretty much everything. They might accidentally be right about a few things, but those things are nothing compared to what they are wrong on.

Democrats are mostly accidentally right on things too: they aren't following science where science leads (otherwise they wouldn't make these claims), they pick and choose what they like or what is politically useful just like the Republicans do.
Republicans say and advocate some harmful things, Democrats say and advocate some harmful things.

We just have to guess at which is the lesser of two evils: we don't and won't really know the consequences until after it happens.
My best guess is currently Hillary, and in terms of differences from Trump, it's mainly due to her advocacy of free trade (which may be "bad" for the U.S., but it's good for developing countries).

EquALLity wrote:What policies do you think could come from ideas of institutional racism that are that significant?

It's not so much about policy, as the establishment confirming these ideas and pouring fuel on the fire.

It's harmful, and it harms minorities disproportionately and sews the seeds of social unrest, We can see it destroying the educational quality of many colleges now -- and that has even more major consequences. This is a more serious issue than it seems at face value.

If these ideas only kept minorities poor and encouraged behavior that continued the cycle of them being disproportionately imprisoned, that would be bad in itself.
But it's stepping on education too, which is the cornerstone of democracy and the foundation of our society. The effects will not be instantaneous, but they will be severe and pervasive. It's something to be concerned about.

It is leading to college issues, but that is all you have evidence for. We do not have any evidence (that I am aware of) suggesting the idea of institutional racism is keeping people in poverty.

Also, you are apparently against democracy, so I don't see your point in bringing that up.

Do you really believe that this one issue is larger than pretty much all of the others?
The main reason why black people are in prison disproportionately is because of the way the justice system works in terms of drugs. I'm not saying it's institutional racism, but it's certainly not the fault of the people being arrested disproportionately.

Black people and white people use marijuana at basically the same rate, and yet black people are four times more likely to be arrested for it. That is not the fault of black people.

Democrats are mostly accidentally right on things too: they aren't following science where science leads (otherwise they wouldn't make these claims), they pick and choose what they like or what is politically useful just like the Republicans do.
Republicans say and advocate some harmful things, Democrats say and advocate some harmful things.

I agree, with many democrats- but they are more right than republicans.

We just have to guess at which is the lesser of two evils: we don't and won't really know the consequences until after it happens.
My best guess is currently Hillary, and in terms of differences from Trump, it's mainly due to her advocacy of free trade (which may be "bad" for the U.S., but it's good for developing countries).

I can't conceive of a reasonable argument that Trump would be better than Hillary. It isn't really a guess.

It's not so much about policy, as the establishment confirming these ideas and pouring fuel on the fire.

Ok, so when republicans like Trump say climate change is a hoax, that is far worse.

EquALLity wrote: It is leading to college issues, but that is all you have evidence for.

This alone would be damning: you know how important education is.

EquALLity wrote:We do not have any evidence (that I am aware of) suggesting the idea of institutional racism is keeping people in poverty.

The idea is that there may be elements of what is commonly called a "culture of poverty", and these ideas reinforce that 'culture', thus perpetuating the poverty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_poverty

It's not a popular idea in the social sciences, since they're dominated by the "regressive left" at the moment; which is very unfortunate, since it's an idea worth exploring, because it may inform how to fix the issue of poverty by changing mindsets.

In some very important senses, there's not much evidence because nobody has been 'allowed' to study it; this is a problem with the social sciences being dominated by a single ideology. It's something that deserves more research and criticism. We need to consider this problem from many angles (particularly since the intersectionalist angle is nothing more than an unfalsifiable ad hoc hypothesis "conspiracy theory").

EquALLity wrote:Also, you are apparently against democracy, so I don't see your point in bringing that up.

Where did you get that idea?

I said it's the best system we have right now (specifically, a representative democracy in the form of a republic, with various competing forces -- not a pure democracy, which doesn't seem to work).
It's also not going anywhere, so it's essential that we make the best of what we have, and making democracy work as well as possible relies on good education.

EquALLity wrote:Do you really believe that this one issue is larger than pretty much all of the others?

Why do you ask that? I said I was guessing on Hillary being the lesser of evils here despite this issue. Clearly I do not. That doesn't mean we should ignore it, though, because it may be. It's not clear how serious it is yet, or if it will self correct with the reaction against it.

One potential concern I mentioned, among others, is that even in the short term this may give the election to Trump.

EquALLity wrote:The main reason why black people are in prison disproportionately is because of the way the justice system works in terms of drugs. I'm not saying it's institutional racism, but it's certainly not the fault of the people being arrested disproportionately.

That's not quite true. Look into behavior and attitudes toward police. It's a vicious circle, perpetuated by ideas of victimhood and injustice, and mistrust of authority.

EquALLity wrote:Black people and white people use marijuana at basically the same rate, and yet black people are four times more likely to be arrested for it. That is not the fault of black people.

Most of it comes down to the neighborhoods they live in; densely populated areas of poverty. Some may also come down to behavior to police. Some of it just comes down to the way people dress. If you dress like a "thug", you'll be profiled as such and treated accordingly by police.
If you dress in a certain way, and act aggressive, shifty, or adversarial, you'll get frisked: and if you have drugs, you'll get caught. White or black, people dressed normally, who don't act shifty in front of police and are polite when questioned are much less likely to be frisked.

EquALLity wrote: I agree, with many democrats- but they are more right than republicans.

How do you objectively put a number to each of the positions, and add them up to mathematically prove that they are more right?
This is a guess. It's fine to guess, but we should recognize guesses for what they are. We haven't objectively demonstrated this, so a certain measure of uncertainty and humility is needed (and respect for people who come to the opposite conclusion on the same grounds).

If everybody could admit that they're just guessing on most political issues, the hostility would go way down.

EquALLity wrote:I can't conceive of a reasonable argument that Trump would be better than Hillary. It isn't really a guess.

Just because you can't conceive of one right now doesn't mean there isn't one. How is it not a guess?

EquALLity wrote:Ok, so when republicans like Trump say climate change is a hoax, that is far worse.

This is also bad, but how do you measure it to determine that it's worse?
Also, remember, he backed down off that and admitted some climate change is man made.

brimstoneSalad wrote:This alone would be damning: you know how important education is.

It's bad, but it's not enough to outweigh all the bad of republicans. And it's not like it's destroying education; it's leading to teachers being unfairly fired etc., but it's not nearly enough to be that significant.

brimstoneSalad wrote:The idea is that there may be elements of what is commonly called a "culture of poverty", and these ideas reinforce that 'culture', thus perpetuating the poverty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_poverty

It's not a popular idea in the social sciences, since they're dominated by the "regressive left" at the moment; which is very unfortunate, since it's an idea worth exploring, because it may inform how to fix the issue of poverty by changing mindsets.

In some very important senses, there's not much evidence because nobody has been 'allowed' to study it; this is a problem with the social sciences being dominated by a single ideology. It's something that deserves more research and criticism. We need to consider this problem from many angles (particularly since the intersectionalist angle is nothing more than an unfalsifiable ad hoc hypothesis "conspiracy theory").

So, we don't have any evidence at the moment.
What we do have evidence for is that republican policies promote a cycle of poverty.

I don't support intersectionalism, but how is it a conspiracy theory? What?

brimstoneSalad wrote:Where did you get that idea?

I said it's the best system we have right now (specifically, a representative democracy in the form of a republic, with various competing forces -- not a pure democracy, which doesn't seem to work).
It's also not going anywhere, so it's essential that we make the best of what we have, and making democracy work as well as possible relies on good education.

When I said that we should get money out of politics, you said:

"I appreciate that he wants to get money out of politics, but even if he does, I'm not sure that's very useful. All that does is give the people more of a voice, and the people are... well, just stupid -- the people want organic meat and oppose nuclear power, which are probably the most destructive things they could advocate, and he seems to be lockstep with them on these issues."

brimstoneSalad wrote:Why do you ask that? I said I was guessing on Hillary being the lesser of evils here despite this issue. Clearly I do not. That doesn't mean we should ignore it, though, because it may be. It's not clear how serious it is yet, or if it will self correct with the reaction against it.

One potential concern I mentioned, among others, is that even in the short term this may give the election to Trump.

It's not much of a guess when all the evidence we have suggests Trump is far worse. He'd totally unpredictable and has said a lot of crazy things, while Hillary is just going to be more of what we've had the past two terms of Obama.

What may give the election to Trump? Political correctness?
Maybe, but that doesn't mean that Trump/the republicans have a good chance of being the better option.

brimstoneSalad wrote:That's not quite true. Look into behavior and attitudes toward police. It's a vicious circle, perpetuated by ideas of victimhood and injustice, and mistrust of authority.

Do you have evidence? A study?

brimstoneSalad wrote:Most of it comes down to the neighborhoods they live in; densely populated areas of poverty. Some may also come down to behavior to police. Some of it just comes down to the way people dress. If you dress like a "thug", you'll be profiled as such and treated accordingly by police. If you dress in a certain way, and act aggressive, shifty, or adversarial, you'll get frisked: and if you have drugs, you'll get caught. White or black, people dressed normally, who don't act shifty in front of police and are polite when questioned are much less likely to be frisked.

So you're saying that it's an issue with the culture in impoverished areas (that black people are in disproportionately)?
Maybe that plays a role, but this just seems to be speculation.

brimstoneSalad wrote:How do you objectively put a number to each of the positions, and add them up to mathematically prove that they are more right?
This is a guess. It's fine to guess, but we should recognize guesses for what they are. We haven't objectively demonstrated this, so a certain measure of uncertainty and humility is needed (and respect for people who come to the opposite conclusion on the same grounds).

If everybody could admit that they're just guessing on most political issues, the hostility would go way down.

Democrats are right on almost everything, while conservatives are accidentally right on barely anything.

This isn't a guess. Democrats are better on educational issues (funding), immigration, foreign policy, drug issues, regulation of corporations, social isses, etc. etc..

Republicans are right on... That we don't have evidence for Institutional racism, and possibly a few economic issues.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Just because you can't conceive of one right now doesn't mean there isn't one. How is it not a guess?

Just because you can't conceive right now that Jesus is 'God' doesn't mean he isn't. How are you not guessing in regards to your atheism?

brimstoneSalad wrote:This is also bad, but how do you measure it to determine that it's worse?

Climate change is a far more pressing issue than trigger warnings.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Also, remember, he backed down off that and admitted some climate change is man made.

No he didn't. He said that "some is probably man-made", which implies that the evidence isn't in. He's still a climate-denier.

EquALLity wrote: It's bad, but it's not enough to outweigh all the bad of republicans. And it's not like it's destroying education; it's leading to teachers being unfairly fired etc., but it's not nearly enough to be that significant.

It's not about teachers being fired, it's about them dumbing down their lessons and removing the most important part of education -- critical thinking.
I don't care so much about the teachers as the quality of education.

Having lessons dumbed down is something I have experienced.

EquALLity wrote: So, we don't have any evidence at the moment.
What we do have evidence for is that republican policies promote a cycle of poverty.

How do Republican policies support such a cycle? There's no evidence of what policy works or doesn't, because we can't compare them with controls.

EquALLity wrote: I don't support intersectionalism, but how is it a conspiracy theory? What?

If you criticize it, you're part of the patriarchy, and therefore your criticism is invalid (basically saying anybody who disagrees is lying and involved in a conspiracy).

EquALLity wrote: Do you have evidence? A study?

I don't need it; there are many possible causes. The claim that it's some form of institutional oppression and that there are no other causes is where the burden of proof lies.

We need to do more studies on these things, but the regressive left inhibits this because such studies are politically incorrect (blocked from funding, criticized, ostracised by peers, etc.).

EquALLity wrote: So you're saying that it's an issue with the culture in impoverished areas (that black people are in disproportionately)?
Maybe that plays a role, but this just seems to be speculation.

Everybody is just speculating. When you claim to have a solution, you can't do it on speculation. If it's true that there's a culture of poverty, then the policies of Democrats may be largely a waste of money.

EquALLity wrote: Democrats are right on almost everything, while conservatives are accidentally right on barely anything.

This isn't a guess. Democrats are better on educational issues (funding), immigration, foreign policy, drug issues, regulation of corporations, social isses, etc. etc..

Republicans are right on... That we don't have evidence for Institutional racism, and possibly a few economic issues.

You can't just count things on each side, and say one is right on more things. You have to consider the weight of each issue, and you have to put a number to it.

If Republicans are right on fewer things, what if those things weigh more than the things the Democrats are right on?

EquALLity wrote: Just because you can't conceive right now that Jesus is 'God' doesn't mean he isn't. How are you not guessing in regards to your atheism?

Most atheists are guessing on atheism. I'm not, because I'm familiar with the logical issues, and the relevant science.
Politics on those matters are empirical issues, and without solid evidence you're just guessing.

Anybody who says global warming is false is wrong. That's not a guess, that's science.

But when combining many issues, unless we know the truth value of every single one and its weight relative to others, we can't objectively compare Democrats and Republicans. It's a guess which one is better/worse.

EquALLity wrote:Climate change is a far more pressing issue than trigger warnings.

I don't think it is. Trigger warnings destroy critical thinking in education, and critical thinking in our system is needed to overcome the world's problems. The better the voter base is at being rational, the better the chance we can solve these issues.

EquALLity wrote:No he didn't. He said that "some is probably man-made", which implies that the evidence isn't in. He's still a climate-denier.

What he said is technically correct. He left out the fact that "probably" is overwhelming, like 99.999% certainty. That's still probably, though: everything in science is about probability.
And not all greenhouse cases are from man: volcanoes are a serious contributor too, along with methane leaking from the ground, and produced in swamps. Those gases also break down and are absorbed naturally as part of the equilibrium.
The thing is we can't do much about those: what we can change is our behavior, and that's what's shifting the equilibrium and causing global warming to accelerate.

He probably had somebody who understood the science craft that statement to be as vague yet accurate as possible.