[Please post off-topic comments here and not in the main thread]
There’s a fascinating article in The Ringer about how Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah’s couch was one of the most important pop-culture events of the 21st century, and transformed the nature of media and celebrity in America. It goes down in history as the moment celebrities lost control of the narrative and the internet took over.
As I recall, Cruise was there to promote the movie War of the Wolds but the interview got side tracked because Cruise was so “in love” with Katie Holmes that he could hardly concentrate on Oprah’s questions and instead just jumped on her couch like a lovesick schoolboy.
I found the show entertaining, but when I checked the internet after, a storm was brewing. Many gay men were swarming gossip sites to say “TOM YOU ARE GAY!” and were furious that he went on Oprah acting fanatically hetero.
Many gay men are attracted to Tom Cruise and thus want to believe he is gay, and don’t like it when their most iconic “gays” deny their “gayness”.
We see a similar phenomenon in the black community. When Tiger Woods told Oprah he was “Cablinasian” (Caucasian + Black + Indian + Asian) many blacks stormed the media screaming “TIGER YOU ARE BLACK!!!”
Pumpkin Person 
Su has great start technique and acceleration while lacking finishing speed…His personal best of 6.42 in 60 m at 2018 IAAF World Indoor Championships ranks him the top 5 of all-time 60 metres record and the only Chinese sprinter among the all-time top 25.
non west africans can compete at 60m and at 200m and longer. in between not as much.
the 50m record had been held by an east german, manfred kokot, forever until broken by donovan bailey on a flyer. one reason is the 50m is run very seldom.
Non-West Africans are “built for” endurance, which can be seen in body type, fiber type, physiology etc.
for 200m+ but not for short sprints. in the short sprints short legs aren’t as big a disadvantage. upper body strength and coordination are more important than in longer sprints.
PP, do you still have my WISC and WAIS scores?
I posted them when you ask last time.
A simple way of looking at it is that intelligence is understanding relationships in space and time. That should cover everything. And apply to the widest scope of everyone’s diverse abilities.
At the mall today I saw graphic novels and comic books and thought, “How can people just draw like that so well”. There is lots of diversity.
typical wikipedia master.
TC doesn’t know how to talk and not look weird, so it’s quite clever to move like an acrobat (or monkey ?) on the coach . The way he has systematically harassed people talking about his alleged sexuality creates a big reasonable doubt. My guess is that Tom is as straight as Ronaldo.
I would also say that standing on a coach where a woman is sitting is sexually charged except if the person standing is not into women. It’s true that he sometimes kneeled to strike a balance but it’s inappropriate behaviour for a normal adult male.
When I look at Tiger Woods, I see a black guy. Maybe a black Indian but certainly a black. He doesn’t even look like a mulatto or sambo to me – like Obama – but full black. If black see the same, that should lower the chances of it being an opinion biased by my own race subjectivity.
Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise: best examples of how to destroy multi-million careers IN HISTORY.
Cruise failed to adapt to the growing power on the internet. Had that interview occurred 5 years earlier, his antics would have got gushing coverage from the mainstream media who would have portrayed it as a charming display of love, but with the internet empowering the cynics and skeptics, it was portrayed as desperate, fake and crazy. So it was a watershed moment in terms of shifting media power.
Neither of their careers were destroyed. WTF are you talking about. Cruise is on a string of hits as we speak.
Btw swank, you & RR might find hsu’s latest post on Arnold interesting, especially the part about reaction from women:
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2018/08/arnold-will-to-power.html?m=1
Wow, that was pretty fascinating (the Arnold post)…
if everyone followed arnold’s advice it wouldn’t work. it’s stupid that “success” is defined so often as winning a competition, thus most will be failures necessarily. working hard to beat other people is stupid. arnold’s friend franco was just as hard working in the gym i assume, because his results were just as good. but franco was short and swarthy while arnold looked like a nazi god. plus arnold has an interesting personality.
“Partly this was the result of my own changing attitude about myself. I was growing, getting bigger, gaining confidence.”
100 percent true.
Arnold slept 5.5 to 6 hours during competition prep. I get try to get around that much so I have at least 18 hours in the day to get things done
Of course it’s not for everyone.
Btw swank, you & RR might find hsu’s latest post on Arnold interesting, especially the part about reaction from women:
Lol….yeah, they were repelled by his size. That’s why he’d catch them ‘staring’ at him….
You can just tell he’s a funny guy by the way he writes. I don’t even think he believes any of them were actually repelled.
if everyone followed arnold’s advice it wouldn’t work
Arnold only really gave advice on how to build a great body. And it may not work for 100% of the male population, but it’s as good as it gets. I have yet to see any advice I would say is better.
but franco was short and swarthy while arnold looked like a nazi god. plus arnold has an interesting personality.
franco was 5’5″. sardinians are the shortest people in europe.
not gay just the reality that arnold had a look and a sound, german accent, which played off the nazi ideal. the fraction of white americans who are ambivalent toward the third reich is much larger than swank imagines.
No Dolph Lundgren was the Nazi ideal. Arnold was just a freak.
peepee hating on arnold is sad. she only says that because dolph is into black ladies.
dolph is a swede. arnold is an austrian like hitler. his dad was an actual member of the SS. sweden was neutral during the war.
His name was Schwarzenegger. He might’ve been part black. Schwarz is black in German, and negger sounds like n*gger. He even has a ruddy, swarthy complexion.
Dolph Lundgren is closer to the “Aryan” ideal.
Swank, do you think Phil Heath has a chance at being better than Arnold when all is said and done?
No. Never. Heath is such an obvious steroids/gh/insulin case it’s not even funny.
the old school bodybuilders looked like they worked hard. there is a difference between a bodybuilder who knows how to train + steroids versus someone who is pretty much all drugs.
https://youtu.be/F3G63eondm0
Good description of Tom Cruise in day-to-day life…
War of the Worlds was pretty good. Doesn’t top Hereditary though.
FOXP2 is a “gene for” language which was, supposedly, positively selected in humans. However there are new results that show it wasn’t positively selected for:
In conclusion, we do not find evidence that the FOXP2 locus or any previously implicated site within FOXP2 is associated with recent positive selection in humans. Specifically, we demonstrate that there is no evidence that the original two amino-acid substitutions were targeted by a recent sweep limited to modern humans <200 kya as suggested by Enard et al. (2002).It is possible that these two substitutions were the targets of an ancient selective sweep, though an examination of ancient selection on this region did not reach significance here. We also do not find consistent evidence to argue that the intronic SNP rs114972925, previously discussed in Maricic et al. (2013), is responsible for the selective sweep, as we do not see evidence for recent selection targeting this region, either. Rather, we find that the ancestral allele persists at high frequency in some modern African populations. This intronic ROI containing rs114972925 is unusual in having so many tightly constrained sites that are variable within humans compared to other species, which is suggestive of a loss of function. Any modified function of the ROI does not appear to be related to language, however, as modern southern African populations tolerate high minor allele frequencies with no apparent consequences to language faculty. We do not dispute the extensive functional evidence supporting FOXP2’s important role in the neurological processes related to language production (Lai et al., 2001, MacDermot et al., 2005, Torres-Ruiz et al., 2016). However, we show that recent natural selection in the ancestral Homo sapiens population cannot be attributed to the FOXP2 locus and thus Homo sapiens’ development of spoken language.We hypothesize that the ROI contains an enhancer element, which, although strongly conserved in other species, has recently experienced a loss of function in humans, consistent with low expression of the ROI in brain-related tissues.
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(18)30851-1
Wait for it…..
JustSoStories
So the two mutations in exon 7 of FOXP2 weren’t selected and are not responsible for human language. Most likely the accelerated rate is due to loss of function (LoF) (null allele).
So, again: just-so stories
It helps to use critical thinking skills when assessing genetic studies.
Null alleles still produce phenotypes so the presence of such mutations does not necessarily imply Drift as the reason of fixation. Im assuming you read the study so i shouldn’t have to be too specific:
1. Humans diverged at least 400-600 thousand years ago not 200k
2. Populations growth is usually associated with selective forces in great apes, so the studies explanatin becomes ad hoc. The entire organism is what’s selected so the reasoning they use to handwave the evidence in Eurasian populations is faulty. Why should only FOXP2 mutate?
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/7/1613
3. The farther back you look the weaker the selection signal will be be, furthermore a n of 10 is not fully representative of chimp populations(who are more diverse) nevermind the fact that they are just as genetically different from the LCA as we are, so using them as genetic evidence for no selection is stupid.
1. They said that.
2. All selectioninst explanations are ad hoc—that is, just-so stories. We’ll continue your “The entire organism is what’s selected” plea on my blog; what you’re saying about “The entire organism is what’s selected” is irrelevant; Fodor brings that up too. But you’ve not read the book so you wouldn’t know that.
3. There was no sweep on FOXP2 >200KYA.
Our tests do identify an intronic region that is enriched for highly conserved sites that are polymorphic among humans, compatible with a loss of function in humans. This region is lowly expressed in relevant tissue types that were tested via RNA-seq in human prefrontal cortex and RT-PCR in immortalized human brain cells. Our results represent a substantial revision to the adaptive history of FOXP2, a gene regarded as vital to human evolution.
High evolutionary constraint among taxa but variability within Homo sapiens is compatible with a modified functional role for this locus in humans, such as a recent loss of function.
Therefore, this SNP must not be necessary for language function as both alleles persist at high frequency in modern human populations. Though perhaps obvious, it is important to note that there is no evidence of differences in language ability across human populations.
” 1. They said that. There was no sweep on FOXP2 >200KYA.”
So then what sense does it make to search for one at the 200K mark? Humans are nearly twice as old. Did neanderthals not have language? Homo erectus? How could thals form such complex societies without such a construct? For a study on the selection history of Humans, they seem to be pretty ignorant of rudimentary information.
“All selectioninst explanations are ad hoc—that is, just-so stories.”
Yes, just like all new hypothesis’ that are formulated. Most scientists set up rigorous experiments and analysis to be peer reviewed replicated to vindicate these claims and relationships. Selectionist explanations are no different.
Either way I’m talking about her specific study. It’s normal for selection to follow population growth in Great apes, they try to special plead for drift by appealing to Richard dawkin’s selfish gene metaphor. Organisms are what is selected.
For Philo, I am watching Handmaid tale and there is a perfect instance of magic black character . The best neonatal doctor is a black lady serving as a cook in Gildas. She magically appears and save a white baby by her wonderful wisdom. Then she disappears without any benefit for her. It fits purely in the description of this recurring archetype.
“When Tiger Woods told Oprah he was “Cablinasian” (Caucasian + Black + Indian + Asian) many blacks stormed the media screaming “TIGER YOU ARE BLACK!!!””
This is where socialrace is a factor.
Tiger Woods is R1, R2 and R3. The minimalist concept doesn’t say what would happen in this situation, it is vague.
If both parents of an individual belong to one particular racial group R, that individual will belong to R.
What happens, however, if one parent belongs to R1 and the other parent belongs to R2. The minimalist concept of race does not say. Still less does it tell us what one’s race is if one’s grandparents belongs to an R1, another to R2, another to R3, and another to R4. This is a further respect in which the minimalist race concept is vague.
Particular conceptions of race (for example, the infamous “one-drop rule”) may specify the race of the individuals of “mixed” parentage, but the minimalist concept of race does not. The idea that a genune concept of race must specify the race of each individual is a hangover from the racialist race concept. Recall here that the minimalist racehood is not defined in terms of the characteristics of the individuals who belong to races. It is defined in terms of characteristics of groups. (Hardimon, 2017)
The question “how much admixture can one race take before it ceases to exist” is an interesting question. The answer is: however much admixture the race in question can take while still preserving its distinct phenotype which corresponds with geographic ancestry.
Cases like Tiger Woods invoke the one drop rule.
The one-drop rule stated that anyone with one black ancestor was classified as black (Pauker et al, 2009). That is, his position on the socialrace hierarchy (a hierarchy since it’s based on the false racialist race concept) is based on the fact that he has one black ancestor. Due to this, and other differing amounts of admixture in certain ethnic groups and other social groups taken to be races, people have—fallaciously—stated that races do not exist since the unions of two separate races “erases” one, or both, of the races in question.
This rule helped to ensure the maintenance of populationist races, since society frowned upon interracial marriage. This, obviously, was a social custom. The Jim Crow laws helped to ensure the maintenance of the physical characteristics of the races in question, though the laws were enacted to ensure the “racial purity” (whatever that is) of the European race, it helped to ensure lower amounts of admixture in black Americans. Thus, black Americans would be expected to self-identify as black (Liebler and Zacher, 2017).
Liebler and Zacher (2017)‘s data “supports the notion that this “rule” has some power even today, as there are almost 30 times as many people reporting that they are racially black with American Indian ancestry (weighted N=522,607) as there are people reporting American Indian race with black ancestry (weighted N=16,226).” Bryc et al (2015) show that, despite the expectations of the one drop rule “individuals identify roughly with the majority of their genetic ancestry
…
“The infamous one-drop rule is peculiar to this country [America] but it is a feature of the American conception of race, not the minimalist concept of race.” (Hardimon, 2017: 56) The one-drop rule is a clear tell to how the socialrace concept acts. It is an essentialist concept, which means that it is necessarily racialist—since “one drop” of black blood makes one black—according to the rule.
swank is ultimately motivated by his belief that when judges usurp they always do good. this is obviously retarded.
the example contra swank is there is a good law, like RICO, and an italian american judge refuses to enforce it.
judge swank: al capone is a used furniture dealer. he’s being picked on because he’s italian.
the example contra swank is there is a good law, like RICO, and an italian american judge refuses to enforce it.
RICO is a ‘good law’ period in the same way the AUMF is a ‘good law,’ period….i.e. to retarded people.
RICO is good in a specific context, not unlike the AUMF. But without the exercise of discretion, it easily becomes a bad law.
so again, you give an example that reveals a lapse in understanding: the italian-american refusing to enforce it, without more, doesn’t say anything.
muggy’s political philosophy ignores original intent as stated by Madison: the ultimate downfall of any Republic is failure to protect the rights of the minority.
muggy believes that the legislature, which passes law via the whims of the majority, is the correct branch of government to protect the rights of the minority.
because he has ass chowder where a brain should be.
if all branches of the government are political, which any non-fool knows, then each branch must have a certain necessary political function.
the judiciary’s main political function is to uphold the appearance of fairness and protection of the rights of the minority against the majority. this is vital to sustaining the republic. it doesn’t get much more ‘original intent’ than that.
what is “ass chowder”? swank is now just making shit up.
if i’m not mistaken following the intent of the lawmakers, RICO would only be used against organized crime. how can that ever be a bad law?
which any non-fool knows
so hamilton was a fool? john marshall was a fool? hugo black, bork, meese, etc. all fools?
to uphold the appearance of fairness and protection of the rights of the minority against the majority
now swank just added the second part after saying forever only the first part mattered, even though the ONLY way judges can maintain the appearance of fairness is by NOT usurping.
translation from swank’s ass-chowder-ese: judges should usurp because they’re liberals like me swank. and anyone who disagrees is a nazi.
good thing you finally came out of the closet. pathetic.
I’ve stated the second part several times….
He asks “how can that ever be a bad thing?” regarding a law….thus revealing more ignorance of the law. Any law can become a bad law given the right circumstances.
Those people weren’t fools…you’re a fool for failing to understand the context of what they wrote….RHETORICAL pamphlets, etc. Justice Marshall was the original activist so you’re just way off there….but even opinions are meant to persuade, rather than provide positivist accounts.
Judges should always consider fairness when evaluating a case. The Constitution itself grants them that power.
Im seriously curious about this ass-chowder…
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=Ass%2bchowder&=true
you’re boring swank.
boring and dumb.
swank thinks sometimes organized crime is a good thing.
time to go back to italy.
The government itself is a cartel….so…..you continue reveal your ignorance of the world.
i wouldn’t be that surprised if trump does become the american pinochet. i would welcome it. one of the motivations for this should it come to pass is the usurpation of the appellate judiciary. it’s happened in almost every other new world country. why not in the US?
what if the supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional not to be married to someone of the same gender in a jewish ceremony?
If a citizen feels a law is unjust….he has every right to disobey it. That’s why legitimacy is important….any government needs to avoid a critical mass.
You starting to get it, yet?
write it in italian first then ask someone to translate it into english for you.
judicial legitimacy = not usurping.
No….it equals results that promote appearance of fairness, and part of that includes appeasing the other side which is why the results must be sufficiently justified.
they can’t be justified except by original intent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mbdi_NXweQ
The brain has a specific setup of connections.
That means the mechanism for intelligence is algorithmic.
That means it is duplicatable on a computer.
Mental manipulation and imagination.
Without getting tired or loss of mental energy.
Feels great to have mental energy.
peepee is furious at arnold for never dating a black lady.
Actually Arnold may have wanted sex from Oprah. Back in Baltimore in the 1970s Oprah befriended Maria Shriver and knocked on her door. Maria wasn’t home yet but Arnold answered the door wearing nothing but a towel. He invited Oprah to come in but Oprah wisely realizing that a few minutes of sex was not worth risking her new friendship with the powerful Kennedy family, insisted on waiting on the doorstep.
And even though it’s unlikely anything sexual would have happened, Oprah understood that just the appearance of impropriety (her being inside with a towel clad Arnold) could have forever ruined her friendship with Maria.
you’re forgeting oprah is hideously ugly.
You’re forgetting that you’re a flaming homosexual, so unless a woman is perfect, you can’t imagine men wanting to have sex with her. But straight men are much less picky, and even at her age 64, many men would do Oprah:
https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/nick-cannon-would-smash-oprah-and-her-best-friend-they-both-got-ss-news.55543.html
Oprah is lying. It was Oprah that knocked on arnolds door with just a towel on and Arnold who told Oprah to stay at the door.
Black women are rapacious. Its common for black women to actually hit on men rather than the other way around. This is why Oprah had no shame trying to break up Arnolds marriage. Well she got what she wanted in the end.
Actualy there is a legit theory that Michelle Obama was actually a man. Apparently theres a birth record of someone named Michael Robinson being born in Chicago on the same day as her.
Trump latest tweet about Don Lemon and Le Bron.
Hahahahaaha
Oh.
My favourite president anyway.
But today there is a marked shift in tone on the left – a reconciliation of the public sphere with private meaning, from social-justice-driven religion to non-religious, even atheist, humanism.
Places of worship have become sanctuaries for immigrants at risk of deportation; pro-LGBTQ clergy have stepped forward to combat hate within their denominations; a rogue group of feminist Catholics is ordaining and recognizing women as priests whether the Vatican excommunicates them or not.
An extreme climate is forcing politicians to invoke the concept of right and wrong. To describe government-sanctioned separation of families at the Mexican-American border, for instance, wonky policy language does not suffice.
Liberal leaders from Hillary Clinton to Van Jones to Elizabeth Warren have summoned an old-fashioned word more often associated with the right: this is, they’ve said, a moral crisis.
But if you ask them what constitutes being moral, these people literally have no answer. Theyre like robots programmed by psychopaths. They literally have no idea. They think whatever is good for minorities, is by definition moral. Which is circular since they are minorities.
And Hilary doesn’t believe in social justice anymore than Trump does. Hilarys private views on minorities are said to be pretty bleak. But shes cynical.
If you questioned someone in the 1700s who wasn’t a criminal, was educated for the time and was a person in good standing he would literally have more extreme social views than me. But because of the 1960s, this person is now evil. And tim wise is now ‘morally enlightened’. Makes sense.
2000 years ago mentally ill people were burned alive in baskets. As a schizophrenic yourself, surely you believe we’ve made moral progress over time.
Have we?
Humans acquire more awareness and knowledge over time. This applies to technology, why wouldn’t it apply to morality? Stephen Pinker wrote a whole book about how society keeps getting more and more moral (all over the world, not America only), though because he’s Jewish you’ll dismiss this as propaganda without even listening to the arguments:
I do agree that Jews advanced black rights largely for their own reasons, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t morally justified in its own right.
“society” isn’t one thing. there are many societies and always have been. pinker claimed homicide is more common among savages. it is among some savages, not others.
plus pinker will slip in the explanation: less immoral behavior because more moral, when there is no reason to suppose this.
swank sounds exactly like jamal greene, columbia law prof.
coincidence?
https://www.law.columbia.edu/faculty/jamal-greene
Greene is a jewish surname. So he might have a bit of merchant in him. Why does columbia have a black law professor.
Answer: To show people that they are ‘moral’.
What is moral?
Answer: Whatever CNN says.
i agree with jamal that there is a temptation for federal appellate judges to usurp, and that this is an insuperable temptation for people of non northwestern european ancestry.
jamal is arguing that because his own people are incapable of not usurping then all peoples are incapable of not usurping. and anyone who disagrees is a nazi.
this is sad.
blut und boden = legitimacy.
Muggy has yet to correctly state my argument.
swank has yet to decide what his argument is.
I’ve stated it several times.
i should’ve said “irresistible temptation” of course, not insuperable. that was dumb.
You should resist the temptation to hate judges and overcome the sin of lacking faith in justice.
Any answer to free speech?
It’s here because the law was disobeyed and original intent NOT followed.
no matter how many times you say that it’s still false.
i don’t hate judges. i hate federal appellate judges. but they aren’t judges.
i agree with scalia that the amendment process should be amended.
there are two ways of “go along to get along”.
1. the chinese way. the ovine way. the brainwashed by psychopaths way. mindless conformity and striving to please master way.
2. the nw euro way. the way of a wolf pack. the way of recognizing that “you can’t always get what you want” but you are better off within the group than without. the way of tolerating differences in opinion, so far as they are genuine.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/trumps-tweet-about-lebron-is-pathetic-immature-but-not-unexpected/ar-BBLuwPV?li=BBnb7Kx
Heres a question these jewish journalists never answer.
If calling a black celebrity dumb is racism. (and trump has called many celebrities dumb). Then why do people assume its because its black and therefore hes dumb?
Answer: People think blacks are dumb despite lifetimes of brainwashing because its true.
Question: Are all stereotypes true?
Answer: Most of them. Something like 80% of them. The 20% maybe a little outdated.
ALL stereotypes are true in one sense. hardly any are true in the pejorative sense of applying traits of group to traits of an individual group member. it may be a high probability, but seldom will it be 100%. some black men have small penises, for example. but no chinamen have big penises, that’s true.
https://fair.org/extra/the-jewish-media-the-lie-that-wont-die/
This article could only have been written by a psychopath.
or a jew. they think lying is fine as long as it helps the jews. just the way swank thinks it’s fine for judges to do whatever it takes to stop blacks from rioting.
Those chateau heartiste guys have gone really tribal. Which is to be expected after you find out about the way the world really works. Once certain situations are resolved, they’ll go back to being less extreme. And in a few generations morons like Bill Gates will start talking about how we need to empower minorities once again, having forgotten.
And in a few generations morons like Bill Gates will start talking about how we need to empower minorities once again, having forgotten.
Ending diseases and helping the most suffering people on the planet achieve basic health standards is moronic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Paulson
I never understood why a gentile became goldman CEO. But I read Michael Lewis book and realised the CEO of these banks can often be just a kind of placeholder. I don’t think bank CEOs are as powerful as certain PE and hedge fund guys in terms of political power.
I doubt Jaime Dimon is telling Trumpy what to do. But I have no doubt, Trumpy does talk to Paul Singer, because he mentioned it once at a press conference in self defence to the jewish media.
He also talks to carl Icahn alot, But carl is a genuine friend. I actually like Carl myself and enjoy listening to him. Hes a lot more national socialist than you’d think.
paulson left GS with $800m iirc. more than a placeholder.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-03/warren-buffett-doesn-t-know-how-to-revive-newspapers
I sometimes criticise buffet, but he is a genuine business genius. I remember reading that biography and thinking you need to know a lot of random trivia to run a conglomerate or invest in really specialised industries.
But theres no doubt Buffet is autistic. Hes actually possibly the most functional savant I’ve ever seen.
The irony is that Charlie Munger is probably smarter in the more conventional sense, He sounds smarter anyway. But Buffets ability to read 1000s of ship manifests a night and remember it and analyse it in his head is more important in investing. Munger actually founded a blue chip law firm. So hes no slouch either.
Functional autistic is a contradiction. People are diagnosed with autism precisely because they CAN’T function, especially not in fields as social as running a business and predicting markets and consumer behavior. Now Buffet has certain autistic traits like obsessing over numbers while ignoring people, but he had the IQ to turn these traits to his advantage.
Theres another finance guy with these abilities named Steve Cohen. But i dont think hes actually autistic. I think jews have evolved to get some of these mental abilities without also getting the autism as much. Although, there are well known cases of jews with autism like Kripke or Zuckerberg.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3155503
This is an interesting idea. ‘Ordered leniency’ or lighter sentences if you self report your crime. Don’t laugh. Some whites or asians might do it out of guilt.
Even some jews would do it if they calculated the bribe to the judge was too much.
All joking aside, its an interesting idea.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/8/3/kavanaugh-letters/
So kavanaugh taught a course at harvard about ‘seperation of powers’. Obviously Swank would have turned up and told everyone that this course is redundant because everyone knows the supreme rabbinical council of America and the supreme court are the same thing.
My experience of lawyers is that theyre generally very smart people. But to do law, especially corporate type law you have to be really diligent. Being diligent and being brilliant intellectually are usually opposites in my experience. Unless the person is obsessive about a passion. Corporate law is nobodys passion.
But quants genuinely do love doing math and would do math at home or in any other capacity. So thats a big difference in personality youll find in financial centres.
If I had the attention span, I might have been a great lawyer. As I don’t I live in a basement and play video games all day 24/7. This shows that having an attention span is important as well as not having crippling neurosis.
My mother has a very weird habit. Shes like me but worse so when she watches a tv programme she’ll keep fast forwarding the programme to the ‘exciting bits’. I don’t think this is common at all. Quite amusing. And she leans forward on the couch to watch tv like a child.
Sometimes my mother will start talking to me when Im on the phone talking to someone. Hahaha.
Of course Swanky graduated law school, so the bar for law is really really low. I might have sailed through harvard law repeating certain phrases like ‘diversity is our strength’ and ‘white man is the devil!’ in my responses to exam questions.
you’d also want to leave fried chicken and watermelon stains on your paper to make sure you were given an A.
Just another one of those things most people who haven’t and couldn’t do who would be able to do easily, I guess….
I knew a former Australian colleague that was qualified in law and accountancy. Then I heard from my black friend, she came onto him once. Made me lose all respect for her secretly. Very sad. Just goes to show diligence is not correlated to self respect either.
black men think every woman comes onto them.
Nothing wrong with that. As long as she doesn’t just flirt with only black guys, or act like she has some fetish for them.
On the outside nobody knows my views. Except once I had to listen to a gay guy in the office bang on about how bad trump was and how brilliant hilary was and I lost my composure and said “Hilary is a psychopath, its pretty obvious”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMCcJo-gDw8
This is really bad logic from Peterson. Really bad. This is his autism coming through. Very bad.
This is really bad logic from Peterson.
Which part?
Do you understand his point that a small percentage of people produce most of the value?
living on a desert island no one can create much of anything.
production is social.
economists claim marginal product may be assigned to individuals, but in fact they have no way of measuring it.
the CEO and the mail room temp are part of an organization. the CEO is paid more but isn’t much more difficult to replace. the CEO is paid for the role he plays not for the value he creates. those who have the gold make the rules.
You’re missing the point. If I were on a deserted island and you were on a different deserted island, I would get fat and you would die of starvation because my higher IQ would allow me to exploit the environment so much more efficiently that I could consume a hundred times as many calories as you could, while burning one hundred times less. Intelligence is NOT normally distributed so even small differences in IQ cause orders or magnitude more productivity. Now a particular economic system can exaggerate or minimize these differences, but it’s natural law.
Indeed I’ve long felt the IQ scale should be radically changed to reflect the true differences in intelligence. An IQ of 140 is not twice as smart as an IQ of 70, but rather THOUSANDS of times smarter.
jobs paying more than heart surgeon are positional goods. the pay is for the position not the value created. an all star baseball player doesn’t create more value than a bush leaguer. he’s just holds one of a very limited number of spots.
A heart surgeon may create a hundred times more value than Oprah per person, but because technology allowed Oprah to reach tens of millions of people a day, the small value she provided for each one gets multiplied by orders of magnitude. By contrast no technology allows a heart surgeon to operate on 20 million people a day so it’s impossible for him to create anywhere near as much value as Oprah.
Now you might say Oprah didn’t create that value, the people who invented the technology did, but they’re long dead, and new value is always created from preexisting value.
And yes I realize Oprah got money from advertisers not viewers, but she only was valuable to advertisers because of her value to viewers.
oprah didn’t create 100x more value than the worst daytime talk show host. she was just at the top of that disgusting profession.
Pederson view here is quite balanced even if it’s not articulated.
One thing is the Pareto distribution wich has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with succession of random trades based on chance.
The other one is a productivity guesstimates.
So there are two inherent source of inequality that he is identifying and they come from different sources : unequal distribution of talent and markets dynamics.
Peterson is a bit rough because he gather information here and there but he doesn’t integrate them when it doesn’t fit his narrative module. He is a scientific story teller (not in RR just so meaningless criticism but in litteral sense). I love listening to Peterson like I love listening to Trump. It’s the compulsion of the same sentences and memes being repeated like a priest like person. Like electro music.
Then another legistimate critic of Pareto rules model is that it applies differently when some people coalesce or even if some people are able to get the rules changes into their favour. But that’s another thing. Pareto rules apply mutatis mutandis and it’s always good to simplify to see all the dimensions of the problem.
And Peterson may have been influenced by the fact that the distribution of Pareto (20/80) is a specific instance of the statistical law of Pareto. But the grounds of the two models are different as he explains it himself (cumulative luck versus ability)
even in the case of heart surgeon people want “the best” even if someone else can do the job nearly as well. so a surgeon who makes $3m may do so, because he’s succeeded at marketing himself.
but whatever. when someone says, “i did this all by myself” he’s delusional. millions of people living and dead have made his accomplishments possible, so they aren’t wholly his at all.
and peterson is wrong. the wealth distribution is more extreme than the distribution of scientific accomplishment for example.
A heart surgeon who bills only the wealthy is marketing himself as a positional good. The extra $$$ will come from other attributes associated with social status, not competence.
a heart surgeon can make $3m per year with nothing but poor clients, if they’re insured. but that used to be the top for MDs. trial lawyers can become billionaires.
penisson says 1% of employees do > 50% of the work. that’s autism. if they can’t do whatever it is they do without the remaining 99% then in what sense do they do > 50% of the work. why not fire the 99%? idiot!
He’s correct in highly g loaded occupations. A good computer programmer can solve problems in 5 minutes that the average programmer takes 4 hours to solve. A Promethean once estimated that because the human mind works in parallel, complex learning and problem solving speed double every 5 or 10 IQ points.
Peterson has tried to train to someone with an 80 IQ to do work and he took tens of hours to master tasks that a typical U of T student would master in 10 minutes.
There’s no science to back that up.
Maybe the other person just wasn’t competent enough with several cultural concepts that the other person dealt with and practiced daily….i.e. family matters, but not in the way and HBDer thinks.
You’re such a fucking clown LOL
after the 9/11 attacks the US was looking for people fluent in dirka-dirka. if someone happens to be fluent in pashto and he gets a job as a translator for the CIA in what sense is the value he creates his? he’s just lucky that his parents were shitholers?
why are the shittiest jobs also the worst paying?
at least penisson must agree that value created and remuneration are not very closely related. how does a garbage man create less value than tim cook? all apple creates is garbage.
value is a function of supply and demand. There’s a huge demand for both cooks and garbage collectors, but a much smaller supply of cooks
how does a coal miner create less value than swank?
libertarianism is a form of autism.
Because there are far fewer lawyers than coal miners and scarce resources are more valuable, though that’s also a case where the government artificially creates scarcity by saying only those with a licence can practice law, and making it really hard and expensive to get one.
they aren’t more valuable fucktard. they have a higher price.
most lawyers make less than garbage men.
that isn’t true, muggy.
“According to the BLS, garbage collectors earned a median salary of $35,270 in 2016”
https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/garbage-collector/salary
$119,250 per year is the median pay for lawyers.
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/legal/lawyers.htm
$119,250 per year is the median pay for lawyers
my dad “made” $400k per year.
expenses!
motherfucker!
the median wage of a manhattan garbage man who is tight with the 5 families is > $75k.
Without lawyers there would be no coal mine….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positional_good
If we didn’t have intellectual property rights, most of these winner take all people would see their fortunes vanish. Is that what Ayn Rand meant when she blamed all monopolies on government?
steeply progressive taxes on passive income combined with depreciation expense taken on an accumulating balance combined with steeply progressive taxes wages for the winners in winner take all competitions solves lots of capitalism’s current issues.
that is these solve:
1. expropriation of surplus value, property is theft, etc. that is, profits which aren’t plowed back into the company are taxed very progressively.
2. human behavior which resembles gambling but involves much more effort on the part of winners and losers alike.
“human” in “human behavior” is redundant and retarded.
i apologize for my retardation.
that is, marx was wrong.
BUT partially right.
profits are justified if they are invested in capital goods/increased and improved production. they are also justified if they are the entrepreneur’s/capitalist’s wages. but the work of the entrepreneur/capitalist is rewarded too much. in the economy today he collects rent. he’s like the nba coach who makes 10x more than any of his players. doesn’t exist in the nba.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent
the hard core commie is like the doctor who cures a headache with a guillotine.
this is why i say genuine democracy works. the hoi polloi know that ownership can be a real job for which some are better fitted than others.
but genuine democracy can only exist in a small homogeneous country, like norway.
multi-ethnic democracy is a contradiction in terms.
lee kwan yew understood this.
the tipping point has been reached in america. white americans are no longer a “super majority”. therefore, they will vote according to their race.
genuine democracy is a stupid idea, which is why we don’t live in one.
i know that you are NOT…
1. italian,
2. a lawyer,
3. a heterosexual male.
you’re discovered!
give up!
as usual, you’re bluffing and jealous that I’m all the things you could never be.
swank has no idea.
my mother is mad that my brother and i aren’t Michael Franzese.
Pumpkin can you estimate Ben Shaprio’s IQ?
Definitely! I’ve been meaning to do it for years but I’ll do it this week.
I am starting to read on the beach the last book of Dennett ‘From bacteria to Bach and back’ . In page 3 of introduction, he gives one of his favourite puzzle with retrospectively obvious solution hard to find. I didn’t see the restospectivley as I found it in 30 seconds. So I gave it to my girlfriend who is an anaethesiologist physician (very spatial) and it took her 60 minutes I thought. Then she confessed she cheated and found the anwer on Wikipedia. She said the problem was retrospectively very easy and she doesn’t understand why she didn’t find it. I estimate her IQ around 135 (verbal 125, numerical 135, spatial above 140).
Those pbs, and some real life ones, give her a conflicting view of me because she considers me as a monkey when I try to help myself in the house.
So my point is this one : most current activities, like going to make a coffee, require an extraordinary level of intelligence that almost everyone possess because they relate to sine qua non survival issues. It’s even more the case to maintain ones hear or liver.
Then there are logical abilities like being able to know that if there are 3 bears in a cave and 2 goes out , there is still one inside. Intelligence as measured by IQ deals only with this part. So it shouldn’t be factored in general adaptability wich is too wide a purpose. Else, a criminal who has genocidal trait, should have his IQ raised because it fits survival. Or someone who is able to have 10 kids from different wives and made them give away to him social benefits because he is cocky and good looking.
I remember seeing an asian women in a hotel in Paris being presented with a Rubik cube – when people didn’t know any algorithm to solve it – and I was interested to see how’ fast she find the solution without even trying. Her brain was doing that as we would make a coffee. She was just wired with an extraordinary (probably above 165) spatial IQ.
It’s the same for math with perfect scorers in math Olympiad. There just able to be novel prize level reaseacher (fields) because their brain is hardwired that way. Society should look for them because this kind of aptitude won’t be necessary well used because it does relate to a very narrow segment of adaptability. The extreme complicated cave problems 😉
The problem is this one :
4 people have to cross a narrow bridge wich can handle only two people at once. It’s night and they need using the only torch they have for every crossing. They travel at the smallest speed of each person ie 1, 2, 5 and 8 minutes per crossing. Can they all get across the bridge in 15 minutes or less ?
yes
As a network, the brain being “hardwired” means the links and nodes determine where information flows. White and gray matter.
IQ uses statistical sampling, not exactly a perfect mapping to the brain network.
Overall network performance and subnetwork performance (statical by IQ subtests).
Its a fucking dumb analogy because mononpoly is a board game with specific non changeable rules and society isn’t. This is pure autism to say the economy is a board game.
If Peterson wants to talk about natural law, he never mentions how [redacted by pp, aug 5, 2018]
He’s using the board game analogy to show that even in competitions where there is no corruption or oppression, we still see massive inequality so it’s too simplistic to assume the rich stole their wealth though that’s obviously true in many cases
Yes….in those cases the unfairness results from the game’s rules being exploited in one way or another.
I wonder who you’d call to change those rules…..
a legislator. not a lawyer. only in the US are most legislators lawyers.
Yup because the legislature is the guardian of minority rights.
no. the constitution is.
the constitution is a piece of paper you retard.
who checks the legislature to ensure the protections?
the judiciary…that’s the entire purpose of judicial review.
case closed.
muggy’s position on Heller proves that he doesn’t believe in original intent. first he trotted out the argument about how the presence of a standing army negated the amendment, and then trotted out an argument about technological change negating the amendment.
both arguments are directly against original intent.
muggy cannot seem to understand this.
this is textbook ideology.
muggy does not care about original intent or whatever else. he, like every other citizen, cares mostly about what seems fair.
he cannot bring himself to admit this.
muggy’s position on heller is the only possible position of one who DOES believe in original intent.
swank believes that so far as original intent can be determined judges SHOULD ignore it and make decisions INCONSISTENT with it.
this is the DEFINITION of usurpation.
he has given ZERO arguments for this. he’s just been very emotional and talked with his hands. typical of his people.
scalia AGREED with “muggy”, but he made a POLITICAL decision to IGNORE original intent.
he said so HIMSELF.
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Your position is that something beyond the amendment process formally outlined in the constitution can modify the constitution’s meaning, which is necessarily the opposite of the original intent behind the constitution. So, your own position proves you wrong — original intent is not the only jurisprudence. Furthermore, it’s not even the only jurisprudence YOU believe is valid.
Scalia (unlike you) understood this, which is why he said: “But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Scalia = understands the law. you = no clue.
Why do you prefer this result in Heller? Because it seems correct and fair to you.
Plain and simple.
Case closed.
he has given ZERO arguments for this
Beyond demonstrating that you don’t even believe what you say you believe…
Free speech.
The trial of John Peter Zenger in 1735 was a seditious libel prosecution for Zenger’s publication of criticisms of the Governor of New York, William Cosby. Andrew Hamilton represented Zenger and argued that truth should be a defense to the crime of seditious libel, but the court rejected this argument. Hamilton persuaded the jury, however, to disregard the law and to acquit Zenger. The case is considered a victory for freedom of speech as well as a prime example of jury nullification. The case marked the beginning of a trend of greater acceptance and tolerance of free speech.
As a result of the jurisprudence of the Warren Court in the mid-to-late 20th century, the Court has moved towards a baseline default rule under which freedom of speech is generally presumed to be protected, unless a specific exception applies.
but he made a POLITICAL decision to IGNORE original intent.
You have it backwards. He respected “original intent” and decided to ignore political concerns.
You (like most of the populous) are just so lost in the model that you really can’t apply it to reality.
You seem incapable of seeing how you have contradicted yourself here.
swank believes that so far as original intent can be determined judges SHOULD ignore it and make decisions INCONSISTENT with it.
That is not what I believe.
I believe that a judge’s first concern should be with securing a result that preserves legitimacy, and the proper role for the judiciary in preserving legitimacy is producing results that appear fair.
Sometimes original intent may be the way to do this…sometimes it may not be.
As far as an individual justice is concerned, the best jurisprudence is a consistent jurisprudence.
Am I allowed criticise your theories at all anymore?
On your point about a small percentage creating most of the value….kind of true in some domains. But most of the richest people on the forbes list like Carlos Slim or the richest people in Russia or my country got there through pure corruption and taking state assets at knock off prices.
There is also a sizeable amount of people in finance that basically make money gambling. Nobody says the guy that bet on horses and won is ‘creating value’. So why hedge fund managers? Its ridiculous.
There are certain domains like sport or celebrity or science or computer programming where what you are saying is true. To my knowledge good athletes and tech ceos are adequately rewarded.
In any case, capital gains and passive income is taxed lower than working in most western countries if at all, if its offshore, so the system allows people living on capital to get richer a lot quicker – read Thomas Piketty.
On your point about a small percentage creating most of the value….kind of true in some domains. But most of the richest people on the forbes list like Carlos Slim or the richest people in Russia or my country got there through pure corruption and taking state assets at knock off prices.
There is also a sizeable amount of people in finance that basically make money gambling. Nobody says the guy that bet on horses and won is ‘creating value’. So why hedge fund managers? Its ridiculous.
But even without all those people, the richest people would still be orders of magnitude richer than most people because that’s just the nature of human differences.
Even in caveman days, the caveman who was smart enough to make the bow & arrow could hunt a thousand times more calories as the average caveman who was still using thrusting spears
while it’s true that chance or skill may create huge imbalances in one’s ability to create value via supply/demand dynamics….the preservation of this inequity is completely artificial.
intellectual property rights and various other artificial regulations that raise barriers to entry preserve inequity.
in caveman days, the bow and arrow wielding caveman wouldn’t have held his advantage for long because other people would just copy the invention.
But because people were so spread out in caveman days, it would have taken up to thousands of years for the advance to spread to even 50% of our species, so for centuries you would have had a small group of people each capable of acquiring thousands of times more wealth than most people. Kind of like today.
But because people were so spread out in caveman days, it would have taken up to thousands of years for the advance to spread to even 50% of our species, so for centuries you would have had a small group of people capable of acquiring a thousand times more wealth than most people.
Okay, are you talking about intra-group dynamics or dynamics where the inequity is imaginary or not felt at all?
(1) A genius in tribe X who invents the bow and arrow won’t maintain his personal hunting advantage for long.
That’s the inequity we’re talking about — within a group.
(2) And if Tribe X comes into contact with Tribe Y, Tribe Y will either be conquered, in which case it will become part of Tribe X and (1) applies, or Tribe Y will successfully resist and the tech will likely spread anyway to Tribe Y.
(3) Tribe X enjoys a hypothetical advantage but no other group ever feels or experiences the effects, which means it’s not really inequity.
I’m simply comparing the wealth inequality for the entire species today with the potential wealth inequality of the entire species during the paleolithic, to show that extreme obscene inequality in our species is kind of a “natural law” if that’s the right term, and not merely the result of the laws and economic systems we create, or sociopathy on the part of the rich (though these latter factors can greatly magnify it)
Sure, a natural law between people or groups who haven’t come into contact with each other.
But persistent, felt inequity is unnatural.
Most people living in poverty today have never come into contact with Bill Gates. They just hear about extreme wealth from the media, if they even have access to it. Even in paleolithic times there must have been stories that spread about the great resources conquered by more “advanced” tribes in lands far away, centuries before the technology itself spread. So even felt inequality is probably natural.
Most people living in poverty today have never come into contact with Bill Gates. They just hear about extreme wealth from the media,
That’s contact. Words and images create social reality. That’s why media is effective at expanding a tribe…
Even in paleolithic times there must have been stories that spread about the great resources conquered by more “advanced” tribes in lands far away, centuries before the technology itself spread
That’s nice. Any evidence?
So even felt inequality is probably natural.
persistent inequity is not.
The egalitarianism typical of human hunters and gatherers is never total, but is striking when viewed in an evolutionary context. One of humanity’s two closest primate relatives, chimpanzees, are anything but egalitarian, forming themselves into hierarchies that are often dominated by an alpha male. So great is the contrast with human hunter-gatherers that it is widely argued by palaeoanthropologists that resistance to being dominated was a key factor driving the evolutionary emergence of human consciousness, language, kinship and social organization.
So my point was that a minority of humans have always enjoyed orders of magnitude more wealth generating ability than most humans and your rebuttal is that it was not “persistent” (a relative term you leave unspecified) or that if it was persistent, it wasn’t real inequality unless others felt the effects?
This distinction you make between inequality and real inequality seems kind of vague and arbitrary.
Think of how the first metal items were made.
The first sword, the first gold coin.
Was it a tribe that did this?
Or a village?
Short run v. long run. Hope that clears it up.
that if it was persistent, it wasn’t real inequality unless others felt the effects?
You must have a point of comparison for inequality to exist. It’s a non-sequitur to talk of inequality, in any meaningful sense, between A and B, if B never ever meets or knows about A.
The problem with inequality is that others are forced to experience it. That is what causes the ill effects that have been documented in several studies.
But I’m not arguing that extreme inequality has always had ill effects, only that it’s always existed.
Okay, so you’re talking about it in a sense that no one else cares about when they talk about inequality.
My counter-point was that inequality on the scale we see in the US can only persist within a human society via coercion.
People do not naturally tolerate being in the presence of inequality.
Same page, now?
never said people naturally tolerate it, just that it naturally occurs
perhaps you’re right that VISIBLE extreme inequality does not naturally occur PERSISTENTLY, although it may have occurred when the resource rich modern humans out-competed the neanderthals over thousands of years.
and people can feel the effects of invisible inequality. if my tribe eats most of the mammoth in africa, few will migrate to your cave in eurasia and you starve, whether you know we got fat or not. And conversely visible inequality can have little effect on the have-nots, if new visible wealth was created rather than just transferred.
No. No one cares how the inequality came to be. Created or transferred makes little difference, that’s just ideology speaking. A poor man in a rich neighborhood suffers from the inequality alone.
And if they feel the effects but aren’t in contact with the cause, it’s still not inequality in the sense most mean.
Every ideology justifies inequality for a reason….
And sure it naturally occurs, but not for a meaningful amount of time. It’s more like a person hitting the lotto and being back where they started n a fairly short amount of time.
And if they feel the effects but aren’t in contact with the cause, it’s still not inequality in the sense most mean.
so if the rich just avoided contact with everyone else, leftists would be okay with them hording their billions?
so if the rich just avoided contact with everyone else, leftists would be okay with them hording their billions?
In an age of mass media and governments that span huge swaths of territory, complete ignorance is impossible. Further, if leftists know about these people enough to take a policy position, then they know about these people.
But, if people did not know about these other people at all in any way and had no idea that they had access to a lifestyle that was much different than theirs, sure….
…it just won’t happen as long as those people live within the same society.
So my argument was obscene inequality is natural because some cavemen created thousands of times more value than the average caveman (i.e. inventing the bow and arrow)
Your argument is that VISIBLE inequality is not natural for long because the created value (as Lion would say) would have been shared with those who didn’t create it (i.e. copying the bow and arrow)
But you’re not denying that some people create thousands of times more value than others, so shouldn’t you agree that obscene inequality is justified up to a point?
If you create a thousand times more value than me, shouldn’t you have the right to have a thousand times more money? Aren’t the intellectual property rights your profession has given us a step forward and a sign of our progress since caveman days?
here’s my first response:
while it’s true that chance or skill may create huge imbalances in one’s ability to create value via supply/demand dynamics….the preservation of this inequity is completely artificial.
The issue is that it really is like winning the lotto. There is no one who has ever constantly given society inventions on the level of ‘bow and arrow.’
It’s justified to the extent that it can’t be replicated by others. However long it takes for other people to figure out how to reverse engineer X or Y is exactly how long the ‘edge’ and ‘inequality’ is justified for.
So, if it takes 3 or 4 years (a really really long time — very generous) for something to be reverse engineered and “competition” to occur…how much ‘wealth’ can the original person accumulate?
How does he even accumulate ‘a thousand times’ more wealth?
The inequality must be preserved for the wealth disparities we see in the United States to exist, because fortunes take time to grow to those levels.
Aren’t the intellectual property rights your profession has given us a step forward and a sign of our progress since caveman days?
The freedom to contract for intellectual property rights is fine. But not when the monopoly is forced on everyone.
For thousands of years the richest people were basically hereditary land owners. In most of the world thats still the case. The people that got rich creating value were usually merchants. And then you had moneylender jews like the Rothschilds basically living in parasitism that got very very rich.
Its not a simple thing at all to say the rich are rich because they all created value. Anyone that says that is paid to say it or has severe autism or is brainwashed after doing an econ degree in college.
Its not a simple thing at all to say the rich are rich because they all created value.
It’s also not as simple as saying all the rich are rich because they “stole” the value. Some of them did, but others largely created it or were especially brilliant at business or were fantastically lucky
it’s pretty much as simple as saying that anyone who stayed rich for any appreciable time utilized immoral methods to do so.
and “brilliant at business” is shorthand for “sociopath.”
Or skill at protecting yourself from sociopaths.
People with autism never read history books. Its like they they think people never existed before they existed. And if they did, its irrelevant.
Thats very wrong. Autsits tend to read history and make history fit their models.
By the same basis they’d realise that anyone born before the 1960s and indeed still today in most non western countries has attitudes that are not ‘evil’. But this isn’t a relativist argument on morality so much as a beckoning to see that what is considered ‘moral’ changes. Just like the arguments supreme court justices made in favour of segregation suddenly turn to arguments against. But that does not mean that there are not some things which should always be considered moral or not moral.
NOT ALL CHANGES ARE BY DEFINITION PROGRESSIVE.
In Ancient Greece, paedophilia was open. Socrates talks a lot about it in his writings. He’s at a feast with other notable citizens and they talk about their boys and how their attributes are wonderful.
Then you went through a long period were sodomy was considered reprehensible in most places.
Now its suddenly the flavour of the month again.
You are right that people used to think mad people were demonically possessed. The treatment is a lot more humane but is not much different to how physical medicine improved. Back in the days any infection was amputated and people took poisons to ‘cure’ cancer.
I don’t know for sure about this assertion – but I imagine most people in most civilised societies did treat the crippled, elderly and animals relatively well. I think its always been considered immoral to torture or take advantage of these groups. Theft also seems to be universally derided.
brown vs board was the first time the supremes asked the lawyers to bring them arguments as to original intent. so it wasn’t the usurpation that pill thinks it is. and it only affected education. so plessy was never overturned, it was legislated away with the civil rights bill.
no they didn’t.
the entire legal community agrees that there is no original intent/originalist justification for Brown.
and it wasn’t usurpation because the court has equitable power under the Constitution.
however muggy is correct that Plessy was not overturned.
then “the entire legal community” is WRONG.
or…
…your ‘ought’ is just WRONG.