Philosophy Now Forum

Ya know I really doubt 'hate crimes' are occuring with a greater quantity than they always have. Instead, we're simply hearing more about them when they do occur, by Democrat media outlets. And this is for the purpose of expanding voter bases for Democrat politicians. A kind of populism, as it were.

But this is rather pointless because it fundamentally changes nothing about the structures of society and education that propagate such racism. For that, you'd need a sirius reconfiguration of western institutions and economy.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 4:58 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 2:05 am Do you believe that all things in life are interconnected or do you believe that each thing stands on its own, unaffected by anything else around it?

How about neither?

There are things that are connected to other things, and things that are more stand-alone. Some things, a person can do nothing about; in other things, the choices are all ours.

What's that old line from the famous "Serenity Prayer"?

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can -- and the wisdom to know the difference."

That's actually quite good.

So you believe that things are neither interconnected nor not interconnected. Do you really believe that or are you just being purposely disagreeable--essentially believing neither p nor ~p?

The problem is the word "interconnected." It sounds like what you have in mind is some sort of Determinism.

And, of course, some things are the products of nothing more than previous physical forces. For example, when a rock falls off a mountainside, it's not because the rock decided to fall. It's because of things like temperature, gravitation, tectonics, ice, and so on...nothing the rock "knows" anything about, obviously.

But what about the decision you made to write the last message? Did gravitation, or hydrodynamics, or cosmology, or any other physical force have anything to do with the "why" of why you did it? Or was it your own free decision that this message was worth writing?

You see the problem, I'm sure. Things aren't "interconnnected" in a deterministic way all the time. Only some things are. Some things are not.

Now, if by "interconnected," you meant something different from that, feel free to clarify. Maybe then I would answer differently. But no, I'm not being deliberately obstinate. I'm saying what I think is the case.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:53 pm Ya know I really doubt 'hate crimes' are occuring with a greater quantity than they always have. Instead, we're simply hearing more about them when they do occur, by Democrat media outlets. And this is for the purpose of expanding voter bases for Democrat politicians. A kind of populism, as it were.

I don't doubt that reporting of "hate crimes" is going up, if for no reason other than that it's a totally new category in public conversation, created by the Left. (For example, assault is a crime already; what's throwing in the allegation "hate" got to add to the information we need there?), or because the bar for a "hate crime" is constantly being lowered by the Left, until practically anything gets thrown into that category (as a "microaggression," for example). Inventing the category and dropping the bar will both produce an apparent plague of such incidents, of course.

But that's not the issue in the Smollett case. The guy faked the whole thing. And he spiced it up with "hatey" stuff like the noose, the MAGA hat nonsense, the dialogue, the light violence, the bleach, and so on. From start to finish, this was a theatrical gesture devoid of any racism at all, apart from the rubbish cooked up in Jussie Smollett's head.

So why did he have to do it? Why was he so short on evidence of racism and homophobia, let alone Trumpism and White Supremacy, that he had to concoct the whole thing from nothing? It seems a lot of work to have to do, given the alleged ubiquity of the phenomenon as claimed by the Left.

...the structures of society and education that propagate such racism...

Oh? You've found some?

Great! Point them out, and we'll fight them together.

Go ahead.

Well first we ain't gonna 'fight them together' because we're losers on a message board. Here we can be the revolutionary heroes we always wanted to be... but we'd never take it to the streets.

So the whole history of the integration of the negrosaurus into western culture has been fucked up from day one. And that's a history that we can't rewrite. What it's gonna come down to is this. Well hopefully. The mutual struggles and interests of the working classes in this late stage global capitalism- their 'class consciousness' - should transcend the trivial racial and cultural conflicts that are exacerbated by capitalism/consumerism.... at some point. Which is to say, in such increasing conflict against capital, the working classes of all races and countries find that they have more in common than they thought... and that those institutions responsible for dividing them by classifications such as race, ethnicity and nationality, are more artificial and hedged, than not.

Most of the racism stuff if either glaring pseudo-science, or real science that is so insignificant as to warrant no real attention.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 5:22 pm Well first we ain't gonna 'fight them together' because we're losers on a message board. Here we can be the revolutionary heroes we always wanted to be... but we'd never take it to the streets.

I don't know what you'd do. You don't know what I would do. But we won't do anything if we can't find the thing we're supposed to fight.

So help me out here: where can I start in order to fight this "systemic racism" thing? Where's the first instance of it?

What it's gonna come down to is this. Well hopefully. The mutual struggles and interests of the working classes in this late stage global capitalism- their 'class consciousness' - should transcend the trivial racial and cultural conflicts that are exacerbated by capitalism/consumerism.... at some point. Which is to say, in such increasing conflict against capital, the working classes of all races and countries find that they have more in common than they thought... and that those institutions responsible for dividing them by classifications such as race, ethnicity and nationality, are more artificial and hedged, than not.

What you're really suggesting there, P., is that we should turn to classical Marxism (with its primary category of "working class") in order to overcome the failings of Neo-Marxism (with its artificial categories of "race oppression," "gender oppression" and "heter-normativity," etc.). But I think both are prolematic. Marxism was never able to locate a stable working class, even in Industrial England -- how much less likely on a global scale? Moreover, postmodern Neo-Marxism is ultimately so "intersectional" that nobody is actually in the same "class" as anybody else...except by arbitrary fiat of the SJW's themselves. So again, there's no "class" to mobilize. In both cases, it turns out that the whole concept "class" is simply too fluid.

Add to that the problem that Neo-Marxism has so much trouble finding its enemy that it has to firstly claim that it's "systemic," (so eternally unlocatable and impossible to fix), and secondly it has to do things like inventing fake incidents (like Jussie Smollett did) in order to generate credibility. It's clear that Neo-Marxism is no more intelligent than old-school Marxism, and is far more fractious and vague than Marx ever was.

And God help us all if Neo-Marxism turns out to be anywhere near as disastrous as old-school Marxism has already proved to be.

"So help me out here: where can I start in order to fight this "systemic racism" thing? Where's the first instance of it?"

Obviously the first instance of it had to be when some prehistoric group of peeps saw another group of peeps that didn't look like them, crossing over the hill and coming toward them... and then wuz like 'yo who the fuck is that?! Sure as shit don't look like us. Let's get em, boys!'

But today, racism exists in two dubious forms. Intrinsic racism draws attention to minor superficial genetic differences... things like the 'bell curve' theory, for example. Okay so what. Some race is on average three points on IQ tests, below some other race. But how important are those three points? What proponents of such nonsense fail to consider is that intelligence is qualifiable only where it matters in successfully navigating an environment. So, if you have an advanced modern civilization where you won't die if you aren't an Einstein, those three points don't mean shit. Intelligence differences are negligible here. Now if we're talking about a fifty point average difference, then yeah, we have a problem, and reason to call this race inferior in at least one way.

Next up, extrinsic racism. This theory is that while a race isn't inherently inferior in intelligence, it may be statistically lower in intelligence due to some reason not genetic. Like environment. But here the gig is up, because if you change the environment, those numbers would change. Now it gets good. The particular environments in western society since the abolition of slavery, haven't been especially conducive to creating intelligent and socially mobile negrosauruses. Shirley we all know and can directly observe this. Take a trip to Detroit.

On the other hand, I can show you places in West Virginia where the white people have worse manners than the most brutish and unruly of cavemen. It's all about environment.

Okay about the Marxism and neo Marxism and neo neo Marxism and metamarxism and all that crap. Keep your eye on the ball and don't let all the politics distract you. Marxism proceeds from one very basic premise that, unless fulfilled, simply isn't happening. And that is the collective and democratically owned means of all production and public utilities. If that ain't happening, you ain't got a Marxism. Okay here's prolly the best source of interactive material you can find on the internet about this stuff. Homegirl is like a kung-fu master in logic and philosophy, but specializes in all things Marxist. These are the big guns, bro. She eats 'philosophers' for breakfast. Like this chick can't even be bothered with philosophy forums anymore.

Click here to release the Kraken.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 7:38 pm "So help me out here: where can I start in order to fight this "systemic racism" thing? Where's the first instance of it?"

Obviously the first instance of it had to be when some prehistoric group...

No, the first today. The biggest today. The most obvious one. The greatest problem. "First" in line. The one we want to tackle, if anybody's going to tackle this alleged problem.

Intrisic-Extrinsic

Not "systemic"?

Marxism proceeds from one very basic premise that, unless fulfilled, simply isn't happening. And that is the collective and democratically owned means of all production and public utilities.

No, it proceeds from much more than that. You're only talking there about nationalization, specifically nationalization of industry and utilities. All Socialisms have that idea...even National Socialism (Nazism).

Marxism is quite a comprehensive set of beliefs, about all kinds of things. It has its own proposed anthropology, it's own version of history and teleology, its own analysis of social ills, its own global aims, and its own presuppositions, all of which are essential if the total package is to be plausible at all.

Maybe you're just going with an idea of what you have tended to think of yourself when you hear the term. But it's certainly much more than you say above. Fortunately, I've got The Communist Manifesto right here on my desk if you wish to question anything from it.

I'll get back to you on Rosa the Red.

Meanwhile see if you can find me even one example of that "systemic racism" stuff, will you? (Why should it be so hard to get you to point one out? Aren't they supposed to be everywhere?)

It's like a trick question almost. I don't see any 'systemic' racism because I see no existing laws or constitutional rights that do or don't apply to any specific race.

The problem is - especially in the free market system - that the personal prejudices of such people as business owners, landlords, police, courts and politicians, can directly interfere with the privileges and opportunities of a specific race... making the 'systemic' element indirect and somewhat concealed. So it amounts to the same thing, more or less. We all know that discrimination still happens in subtle but effective ways, regardless of any laws against it.

"No, it proceeds from much more than that."

I'm talking about the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions for a Marxism to exist (that bit about democratic ownership). And of course you are right; historical materialism is an all encompassing science in itself.

Imma tell you the only real problem facing a Marxist system. This problem is not epistemological, or metaphysical, or ontological, or ethical, or sociological, or political... or even philosophical. The problem is economic; how to design and manage a controlled market.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 8:59 pm It's like a trick question almost. I don't see any 'systemic' racism because I see no existing laws or constitutional rights that do or don't apply to any specific race.

It's not MY trick, of course. Some other people, the proponents of CRT and Leftism, have started crying "systemic racism." I did not either invent the term, nor can I find a single instance of what they claim. I can find some residue of old-style "racism," perhaps, like your West Virginians, perhaps; but I can't find any cases of the "systemic" stuff.

So if it's a trick, it has to be their trick, not mine, obviously.

And the public has bought in, because the public is mostly non-racist and knows racism is bad. But the public also does not know what the "systemic" means, so they are accidentally agreeing with an idea they actually don't understand. They don't know where the "systemic" stuff is, either. All they know is that they have been trained to grit their teeth and grrrrr whenever somebody says "racism"; so they're afraid to get left behind on that.

It's a bit Pavlovian, really.

The problem is - especially in the free market system - that the personal prejudices of such people as business owners, landlords, police, courts and politicians, can directly interfere with the privileges and opportunities of a specific race... making the 'systemic' element indirect and somewhat concealed. So it amounts to the same thing, more or less. We all know that discrimination still happens in subtle but effective ways, regardless of any laws against it.

Well, "personal prejudices" are actually not "systemic": the literature of the Critical Theorists and all is quite clear on that.

Personal racism is one thing, and "systemic" racism is said to be much, much worse, because more hidden and indirect, and harder to fight, they say. "Systemic" is supposed to mean "in the system." That is, no particular person even needs to harbour a racist attitude at all; rather, racism is somehow "encoded" in how things are being done, and it's the job of the Critical Theorist to ferret it out for you. Like the illuminati of an esoteric religion, only they have received the "enlightenment" that can identify systemic racist "structures."

But when you ask them to help you locate some of the "systemic" stuff, they either try to shame you for not already knowing where it is (as if they do) and for not already being outraged (though you can't even see what they're talking about), or they claim it's LIKE personal racism, but not it, but that you should still take personal racism as all the evidence you need for systemic racism.

It's hard, therefore, not to conclude that they are simply bluffing. How can personal racism be both evidence for systemic racism but NOT itself be what is being meant by "systemic racism"?

A "trick" it most definitely is. Unfortunately, it's one that seems to work on the general public.

But back to the elephant in the room: assuming we grant them that "systemic racism" is everywhere in America, why would anybody even think to fake a hate crime? If you live in a swamp, you don't have to fake any mud, right?

I can't agree more and frankly, all this obnoxious, exaggerated vying for attention and sympathy, disgusts me as much as it does the hardest of right-wingers. All the BLM woke culture crap nauseates me.... but never forget this fact: these attitudes and movements are results of the political and social environments in which they are fostered and developed... not environments that do not exist. Ergo; capitalism/consumerism is facilitating such phenomena because of the conflicts it creates... and these idiots have nothing to do with Marxism or socialism.

Now see the grand irony? Conservatives blame such phenomena on leftism, when in fact it is their ideological structures and institutions that produce such a circus. Where else does it come from? Where else CAN it come from? I mean durrrr!! Fuckin right wing retards. Shut up and sit the fuck down already.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:59 pm ...never forget this fact: these attitudes and movements are results of the political and social environments in which they are fostered and developed... not environments that do not exist.

Right. Capitalism does bear some fault here. For one thing, it made Westerners too rich, too spoiled, to self-indulgent. Not that that doesn't happen in the rest of the world, too; but in the West, it's a particular problem, because people have so much luxury time for such recreation, speculation and indulgence. It detaches people from reality.

And what environment is it that produces things like BLM, CRT and fake hate crimes? It's one in which objective truth is not accepted, and the idea of truth has been politicized, turned into a tool of liars. It's also one in which people are too rich, too privileged, and given too little responsibility in life.

...these idiots have nothing to do with Marxism or socialism.

Well, sort of.

The "idiots" that produce the present problems are spoiled young people from an affluent society that has not taught them any personal responsibility. The marches in Portland or Kenosha may incorporate black folks, but really are fortified with an abundance of rich, white kids from the 'burbs. You can see them, if you watch the footage -- teens, twenties and maybe early thirties white kids are all over those demonstrations.

But to them, "government freebies" (i.e. Socialism, Marxism) can look like a good idea...they're used to getting things for free, and they like it, and think that there's no limit to what can be done by the government, if only they whine and rage long enough, like toddlers throwing tantrums. And having no historical memory, because history was deliberately downgraded when they were in school, they can be fooled into thinking Marxism can be a good thing. They have no memory of the Cold War, let alone the Stalinist Purges or Pol Pot's killing fields, or the "re-education" camps of China.

They're so ridiculously naive, they'll tell you that every other Marxism the world has ever known is "not real Marxism," as if the only thing holding back Marxism from becoming wonderful was the lack of them, of spoiled rich kids from the suburbs to run the show. Imagine.

Now, the people they cannot fool about that are the people who've lived under Marxism. It's not by accident that ex-pats from places like Cuba and Venezuela, or escapees from the former Soviet bloc are the most anti-Marxist people there are. They've seen it. They've lived with it. It destroyed their economies, starved their children, and got their friends shot. So they are not dupes for the CRTers and Leftists in the West. They're street-smart about Marxism.

Jussie Smollett has far more in common with the rich, white kids than he has with any poor kid from a Democrat-run ghetto. He had a profligate lifestyle, a role on a major show, a history of success in Hollywood, friends in high places...But it was all never enough for him, even having a role on a major show, and having all the attention in the world. He wanted more.

And here's where the fake hate crimes come in. A guy like Smollett knows that these lies play very well with the idiots; and he clearly calculated that he would be unlikely to be checked and called on it. And he was almost right, it seems. The media at first jumped to his aid, all kinds of famous people lept up on the podium and cried out "solidarity" in his name, and even when his story started to crack, his "friends" worked to smother any investigation and charges.

But again...why did he find it necessary to fake a hate crime?

Maybe because sufficient "hatred" wasn't really there for him to access. And if that's true, then what is the use of the CRT nonsense? If they have to fake their own opposition, just to get credibility, how much credibility do they deserve?

Just wanna toss this in here real quick. Marxism is not a welfare system, and all are obligated to work.

What you speak of is social democracy and welfare capitalism.

Some other right-wing propaganda involves the myth that marxism is a kind of utopianism and that all are equal. In fact, Marx argued directly against such nonsense.

Bro I wasn't kidding, nor was Rosa the Red, when I/she said most people haven't a clue what Marxism is. Note Henry's claim that marxists are 'slave drivers'. Par for the course.

Fact is, anti-marxist propaganda has permeated western culture since WW2, and for good reason. The wealthy ruling class wants to make sure the working classes never come around and realize what's happening to them. I mean this is some matrix level shit, Haus. Red pill blue pill stuff.

Oh and there hasn't ever existed a true, by-the-book Marxist system anywhere on erf. Russia lost any semblance to Marxism after Lenin died, and all other countries mentioned, including stalinist russia, were state capitalisms and dictatorships (not the proletarian kind).

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 11:52 pm Just wanna toss this in here real quick. Marxism is not a welfare system, and all are obligated to work.

Under Marxism, everybody "has" to work for the State. They are not allowed to work for themselves. And the consequences are predictable, and very easily noticeable in Marxist places: people tend to work no more than they have to, and to feel entitled to everything anyone else has. Ingenuity, entrepreneurship, innovation, market expansion, development...all get cut off, except for the things the government arranges to have done, and they are not done very well. It's dangerous, in a Marxist system, to do anything that raises your own head above the masses: it's the quickest way to get it cut off.

Some other right-wing propaganda involves the myth that marxism is a kind of utopianism and that all are equal.

That's actually more what the Left wing claims is supposed to be true. The right tends to point out that the only way to make people equal is by way of authoritarian intervention...which is exactly what Socialist regimes do in order to produce it...or their version of it, anyway.

...most people haven't a clue what Marxism is...

I do. I wasn't kidding when I said I have the Communist Manifesto right here on my desk. Anytime you want to swap facts, I'm ready.

Fact is, anti-marxist propaganda has permeated western culture since WW2, and for good reason.

The "good reason" is actually that Marxism has always, in every case, managed to destroy economies and to kill sizeable portions of the populace and to install a dictatorship by a politburo or "strong man". It's never failed to mean an end to human rights, freedom and prosperity. In fact, you can't point to one successful Marxist regime in the history of the world.

So yes, Marxism had a real "black eye" after WW 2 and the Cold War. And it was thoroughly earned.

...there hasn't ever existed a true, by-the-book Marxist system anywhere on erf....

People say that, and it never fails to take my breath away how arrogant they are when they say it. What they are asking you to believe is that Russia, China, Cuba, Bulgaria, Albania, Zimbabwe, Cambodia, Venezuela...and on and on...and all the people who lived in all those places were "not real Marxists." They failed to be "genuinely Marxist," they'll tell you.

And then they'll go on to tell you that THEY themselves know what "real Marxism" would take, and that it would be much better if THEY ran the show, and then you'd see "real Marxism," and it we would all want it.

Really? All the people in Russia, China, Lithuania, North Korea, Vietnam, etc. were so stupid they just couldn't get Marxism right; and some brat from the suburbs of New York or Portland could do a better job of it?

They seriously say stuff like that. It's beyond belief. And they act like the countless millions killed by people like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, or the people Mugabe dispossessed and Che Guevara shot into a ditch just never mattered...and had nothing to do with the fact that all the most homicidal maniacs of the 20th Century were Socialists.

Unbelievable.

But back to the point: why the fake hate crimes? Why not real ones, if they happen all the time?