Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 84

On August 19 2018 19:42 Stroggoz wrote: One consequence of ancapitalism is omnicide, the destruction of most species on earth including humans. markets create externalities, that's a cost to a third party when two people make a market transaction, in an ancapitalist society there is nothing to protect against that. Pollution would stack up pretty quick and after a few hundred years everyone would probably be dead.

No, society's power is through purchase power, sadly we are trained to believe our power is through voting (lol), you can see many instances where people consciously pay extra or create a personal inconvenience for a social cause, for example, people refusing plastic bags (even when its legal), the same with plastic straws, people buy cruelty free or free range meat, people buy organic etc.

In a free society people are inbued with the actual power of collective choice, our future is in our hands not in the hands of a few corrupt representatives elected in a popularity contest that puts reality TV stars in the most powerful seat in the world.
they would be nowhere without the research and development the US military/government did in developing the internet, computers, and space shuttles that are later commercialized when it can be done.

And they would be nowhere withouth the research and development in science that the catholic church did centuries ago, but that doesn't mean science can't happen without the church, good thing we live in the times of SpaceX and others to irrefutably prove this point.

The billionaire libertarian Peter Thiel wrote in his book that a market society wouldn't work because of the lack of innovation. (in perfect competition you can't save up the money for R@D.)

That doesnt make sense for 2 reasons:

1 - under "perfect competition" brands wouldn't exist, marketing wouldn't exist since choice would be absolutely rational through quality/price, so thats an meaningless hypotetical, in this world brands and marketing are strong, companies like Apple dominate despose offering worse product/price than the competition, and R&D/innovation is vital in the weight of a brand.

2 - Even in such a ridiculous hypotetical, a company that breaks even and invest in R&D would release a superior product in a future capturing 100% of that perfect competition market, therefore the equilibrum would be set where companies spend X ammount of its income in R&D even in a perfect market.

On August 19 2018 21:44 Stroggoz wrote: The claim whether violence has gone down over time is an open question in anthropology, and depends on many assumptions like if structural violence counts or not. there are well researched people making arguments on both sides of the spectrum. If the nuclear bombs go off it will be a question with an easy answer.

yeah the debate between basic logic and frauds who want to redefine violence in pursuit of an agenda... primitive cultures clubbed each other to death all the time... but if we count cat calling as violence... then we are pretty close lol.


Hell even if the nuclear bombs go off its just an argument about how technology has improved, what do you think it would have happened if you gave the Huns a few nuclera bombs?

On August 20 2018 00:36 Stroggoz wrote: The practices baal points to like, cannibalism, brutal slavery, wars that lead to genocide, have all happened recently and still happen today. Cannibalism was quite prevalent in ww2, and in the 1966 indonesian massacres, and still happens in several African countries. all of this coming from modern state societies. brutal slavery, some of the worst i've ever read about is happening right now in places like west papua. as for racial or ethnic extermination, that's what the 20th century is known for.

What % of the population are slaves now compared to 2,000 years?

What % of the population commit cannibalism compared to 2,000 years?



So I say, mesoamerican civilizations had human sacrifice and cannibalism as core of their rituals and had a brutal cast society with slavery and your answer is: "oh but there is some slavery happening in Papua Guinea right now!, thats about 0.000000000001% of the population... so you know, its comprable.

On August 20 2018 07:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: Then there's regional bias. I can't picture Europe having had a less violent 50 year-period than we do now, in terms of percentage of the population being involved in or suffering from acts of violence. Then it depends on where you start your timeline. Periods of time of humanity where the population density was so sparse that groups wouldn't interact all that frequently or where the resources were plentiful are bound to be less violent.

Yes, perhaps disperese groups of people with no contact with foreigners lived long peaceful periods of time, but when these groups met with any foreign group it usually meant the extermination of one group, that would be a perfect example of dishonest mental gymnastics to paint the past as more peaceful.

On August 20 2018 19:38 Loco wrote: The problem obviously doesn't lie in the fact that a position is radical, but in the lack of a serious body of work to support the internal logic of the position. The anarchist literature is vast, multi-disciplinary, rigorous. has a long history, does not conflict with contemporary science, etc.; the right-libertarian positions do not, and they are markedly anti-science or at the very least ascientific.

reducing the size of the sate & keep current economical model = anti-science

eliminate the state completely, abolish property and currency (that in pevious attempts has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands) = rigorous, scientific and multisciplinary.


cool story bro.

On August 20 2018 07:54 Liquid`Drone wrote: I can't picture Europe having had a less violent 50 year-period than we do now, in t

It's a historical fact that we've been living in the longest EVER peace in Europe. I mean there was Kosovo and Yugoslavia, but it's still the most peaceful period ever.

On August 20 2018 21:45 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On August 19 2018 21:44 Stroggoz wrote: The claim whether violence has gone down over time is an open question in anthropology, and depends on many assumptions like if structural violence counts or not. there are well researched people making arguments on both sides of the spectrum. If the nuclear bombs go off it will be a question with an easy answer. yeah the debate between basic logic and frauds who want to redefine violence in pursuit of an agenda... primitive cultures clubbed each other to death all the time... but if we count cat calling as violence... then we are pretty close lol. Hell even if the nuclear bombs go off its just an argument about how technology has improved, what do you think it would have happened if you gave the Huns a few nuclera bombs?

who are the frauds? Like the ones i mentioned? got any examples and what their fraud is? Judging by the many false claims you just made I'm going to conclude you are making this up until you present otherwise...

The irrational frauds who can't see basic logic are the people who study and teach this stuff for a living, since they've all been corrupted by the university to serve the interests of those nasty feminists and non-binary degenerates (who are Marxists to boot). Their thinking wouldn't be so irrational if they spent more time gambling and racing cars instead of reading shit.

I guess the real question is, how does someone whose rational ability eclipses that of 99.9% of people not become a top poker player after over a decade of play? It's all just simple laws after all, and just like being an entrepreneur in a mostly free society it should have rewarded you according to your ability. I mean, I guess you could say you just don't enjoy it enough, but seeing how you said fairly recently that it's an "amazing" job, I'm a little at a loss. It's especially puzzling when we also consider your astute insights into human nature/psychology, I would really expect you to be one of the most feared players around.

On August 20 2018 23:09 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On August 20 2018 19:38 Loco wrote: The problem obviously doesn't lie in the fact that a position is radical, but in the lack of a serious body of work to support the internal logic of the position. The anarchist literature is vast, multi-disciplinary, rigorous. has a long history, does not conflict with contemporary science, etc.; the right-libertarian positions do not, and they are markedly anti-science or at the very least ascientific. reducing the size of the sate & keep current economical model = anti-science

It's not like I provided evidence that this claim is true just one page ago when someone said he trusted PragerU, i.e. the most influential right-libertarian think-tank active on social media.

On August 21 2018 00:03 Stroggoz wrote: who are the frauds? Like the ones i mentioned? got any examples and what their fraud is? Judging by the many false claims you just made I'm going to conclude you are making this up until you present otherwise...

Anybody who redefines the word "violence" to fit their narrative, how is this not clear when I mentioned "cat calling".

The kind of people who redefine "rape" to claim that the majority of women in the west have experienced rape or to make the stupid claim that the US is among the 10 most dangerous countries in the world for women lol source:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wo...mid-metoo-campaign-poll-idUSKBN1JM02G

On August 21 2018 00:43 Loco wrote: The irrational frauds who can't see basic logic are the people who study and teach this stuff for a living, since they've all been corrupted by the university to serve the interests of those nasty feminists and non-binary degenerates (who are Marxists to boot). T

Nice strawman there

Their thinking wouldn't be so irrational if they spent more time gambling and racing cars instead of reading shit. I guess the real question is, how does someone whose rational ability eclipses that of 99.9% of people not become a top poker player after over a decade of play? It's all just simple laws after all, and just like being an entrepreneur in a mostly free society it should have rewarded you according to your ability. I mean, I guess you could say you just don't enjoy it enough, but seeing how you said fairly recently that it's an "amazing" job, I'm a little at a loss. It's especially puzzling when we also consider your astute insights into human nature/psychology, I would really expect you to be one of the most feared players around.

Nice ad-hominems.

"Hey baal if you are right then how come you race silly cars and aren't the best poker player in the world hur!"... these attempts to get personal are pathetic, you have become a little man

I'd say you can't talk about crime rates without looking at the standard of living and advancement of technology. Those three are directly tied together, plus the standard of living throughout the ages is defined by the progression of technology and the accessibility to it. Crimes are mostly committed out of last resort measures by people living in poor conditions(not in absolute value but in relative to the times they live in).

I'd say its safe to say that the standard of living is much higher than any time in history at the moment, on a global scale, thus there is little reason to believe that historically we're experiencing the lowest crime rates on a global levelt. Even including the technology advancement with the median of the standard of life, it's MUCH higher than 100 years ago for example. Human rights have never been so strongly protected - obviously slavery still exists and it's being completely ignored by countries in power e.g. West Europe ignoring the slavery in Qatar and continuing with the preparation of WC 2022 there, however things are still much better. Totalitarian (North Korea) or totalitarian-like (Turkey) regimes are almost non-existent. Poverty isn't at the lowest rates ever if I recall correctly, but it's not much higher either. Wars don't aim for total obliteration but control of areas thus totalitarian wars are something forgotten.

I'm all for finding the problems and fixing them, however, this seems like a witch hunt to me.


@Baal you can't simply disregard the whole #metoo movement just because there is one hypocrite that rode the wave. It's a public secret how Hollywood works, it was about time all of the sickos got exposed and their "standard" actions were condemned. Never try to prove a point by confirming it with a single example, it's a counterproductive action..... The things are probably much worse than we even think, considering we only know of the people that came out and said they were victims, now imagine the amount of people that avoided being victims, realizing where things would be going and calling it right there. Obviously, the second point would be hard to obtain data of.

I think Loco needs a person to talk shit towards Baal and I have been kinda inactive here so.. Seems like you are second on his list here.

why are celebrities victims?

these people's entire career is superficial vacuousness and selling teasing and marketing their inaccessibility

I mean for example some poor singer worth tens of millions decides to fuck a record giant to get her foot in the door ahead of all the other people who want to be divas? Why should we care about any of these people's lives? All cutthroat sociopaths but because some of the people playing the game are women then feminism can ironically manipulate you to create a biological response triggering you to feel sympathy like they're victims which you'd never feel for men

On August 21 2018 04:18 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On August 21 2018 00:43 Loco wrote: The irrational frauds who can't see basic logic are the people who study and teach this stuff for a living, since they've all been corrupted by the university to serve the interests of those nasty feminists and non-binary degenerates (who are Marxists to boot). T Nice strawman there   Their thinking wouldn't be so irrational if they spent more time gambling and racing cars instead of reading shit. I guess the real question is, how does someone whose rational ability eclipses that of 99.9% of people not become a top poker player after over a decade of play? It's all just simple laws after all, and just like being an entrepreneur in a mostly free society it should have rewarded you according to your ability. I mean, I guess you could say you just don't enjoy it enough, but seeing how you said fairly recently that it's an "amazing" job, I'm a little at a loss. It's especially puzzling when we also consider your astute insights into human nature/psychology, I would really expect you to be one of the most feared players around. Nice ad-hominems. "Hey baal if you are right then how come you race silly cars and aren't the best poker player in the world hur!"... these attempts to get personal are pathetic, you have become a little man

For someone who is so beyond academics, claiming that they don't understand basic logic, you have a lot of difficulty identifying logical fallacies. That stuff is pretty basic too. Can someone other than me perhaps explain to Baal what a strawman and an ad hominem is? Obviously he won't listen to me, he even bolds his responses to show how superior he is to me. Stroggoz, you have a formal philosophical education, maybe you can explain to him why my post didn't include either of those fallacies. Then again, I think he has a legit learning disability if he hasn't learned it on his own at this point.

In case no one does: I wasn't arguing with you, you hadn't even constructed an argument for me to argue with in the first place. My "strawman" were sarcastic jabs at you because you were self-aggrandizing (another obvious example of it is when you bold your text to give yourself more importance). It's evident that you're in no position to judge other people's scholarship, just as those people are in no position to tell you how to race and how to gamble.This is not up for debate. And if you were as rational and perspicacious as you obviously think you are, it's not crazy at all to think you'd be far more successful at a game that rewards those very things.

The irony of course is that you legitimately strawmaned me and trivialized Stroggoz's follow up post. The claim (which I made in passing with sarcasm, and have no interest in debating any longer) was that violence, inequality and [human-caused] illness is worse than it was throughout most cultures in human history. You responded by reframing the discussion around "frauds who see cat calling as violence". First, you've already assumed that the other side is wrong before even engaging in argument because it's such a ridiculous claim to you (i.e. it conflicts with your belief system; secondly you resort to name calling ("frauds'') and then you built the strawman by claiming my position could only be held if it's things like cat calling that are added to the list to skew the data.

If we're being objective, we can see that you chose the most banal form of harassment that there exists to trivialize issues centered around structural violence and bigotry and misrepresented my views. Not only that, but you initially implied that no one who isn't some uneducated hippie could possibly share my beliefs, which I have refuted. Let's all note that this how you chose to potentially start a debate: you did it right off the bat put people on your side by painting me in the worst possible light so they're less likely to pay attention to what I might say in the future. I provided evidence that the contrary is true, saying one of the most respected academics shares my views. Does that stop you from still believing that my positions are absolutely ridiculous and only uneducated idiots share them? Of course not. You'll just gloss over that inconvenient fact as you always do, and off of the back of this denial, you'll still make insulting claims, acting as though you were initially right, and I'm the immature one who is poorly informed. Again, you are here to entertain yourself, it's no surprise that you act this way.

There's a lot that could be said about forums and sarcasm and the way it leads to completely unproductive discussions. And it's obvious that I'm at fault here by even engaging in it. The thing is, I've made plenty of efforts in the past to stick to the topics and not make things personal and it didn't change anything, you are simply not interested in productive discussions. You don't take these subjects seriously because you frankly don't care. Your idea of things being better is idealized and abstracted. For me it's all about well-being first, my own and that of those that I love, as well as innocent beings that I wish were spared the suffering that they experience on a daily basis. Abstract theory is by far the least important thing to me, theory is only useful if I can take from it that I should pursue or encourage XYZ in my own life.

I explained to you before that I bold things for readability, when I use that quote // reply // quote (I tried it without it, I didnt like how it looked)



I bolded you there... does that mean, I think you are superior to me?

could you be any more insecure?

Its a Strawman because you are talking about that "cultural marxist" theory that drives you crazy, I especulate that you discuss that shit adnaseum in reddit and you get stuck in it.

its adhominem because you target the subject, not the argument, you try to mask it as if its an argument that how come if im that smart im not king of the world but its ultimately just an adhominem mixed with argumentum ad verecundiam (In before: oh its I'm not apearling to authority because its a concensus lol)


"cat calling" was an hyperbole, I was clearly arguing that changing the definition of violence to fit a narrative is dishonest, actually not long ago you were complaining that the World Bank changed the parameters of poverty to skew the poverty graph didn't you?, but somehow that shit is fine if it suits your, that

On August 21 2018 19:21 Loco wrote: which I have refuted.

Chomsky is simply wrong and dishonest in there, the gret wars of the XX century were proportinally in realtion to population way smaller than many historical conflicts, its dishonest to say we are more violent because there are more murders today than in 1200 AD for example, because obviously what matters is the % not the total. also better weapons isn't a reflection of a more violent society but a better technology.

As I said before, what do you think it would have happened if you gave the Huns and the vikings nuclear weapons?

On August 21 2018 09:19 Spitfiree wrote: @Baal you can't simply disregard the whole #metoo movement just because there is one hypocrite that rode the wave. It's a public secret how Hollywood works, it was about time all of the sickos got exposed and their "standard" actions were condemned. Never try to prove a point by confirming it with a single example, it's a counterproductive action..... The things are probably much worse than we even think, considering we only know of the people that came out and said they were victims, now imagine the amount of people that avoided being victims, realizing where things would be going and calling it right there. Obviously, the second point would be hard to obtain data of.

lol why are we talking about "me too" now?

I agree with everything you said, I dont disregard it for one that took it too far but many things that are wrong with it, for example the "believe the victims" which is core of the movement, that is plain wrong and in general how many sexual assault accusations are handled, like in campuses, everybody should be innocent until proven guilty, sadly these things are hard to prove an many guilty people get off, but thats how it has to be.

On August 21 2018 21:00 Baalim wrote: I explained to you before that I bold things for readability, when I use that quote // reply // quote (I tried it without it, I didnt like how it looked) I bolded you there... does that mean, I think you are superior to me? could you be any more insecure? Its a Strawman because you are talking about that "cultural marxist" theory that drives you crazy, I especulate that you discuss that shit adnaseum in reddit and you get stuck in it. its adhominem because you target the subject, not the argument, you try to mask it as if its an argument that how come if im that smart im not king of the world but its ultimately just an adhominem mixed with argumentum ad verecundiam (In before: oh its I'm not apearling to authority because its a concensus lol) "cat calling" was an hyperbole, I was clearly arguing that changing the definition of violence to fit a narrative is dishonest, actually not long ago you were complaining that the World Bank changed the parameters of poverty to skew the poverty graph didn't you?, but somehow that shit is fine if it suits your, that Show nested quote + On August 21 2018 19:21 Loco wrote: which I have refuted. Chomsky is simply wrong and dishonest in there, the gret wars of the XX century were proportinally in realtion to population way smaller than many historical conflicts, its dishonest to say we are more violent because there are more murders today than in 1200 AD for example, because obviously what matters is the % not the total. also better weapons isn't a reflection of a more violent society but a better technology. As I said before, what do you think it would have happened if you gave the Huns and the vikings nuclear weapons?

There's nothing that improves readability about bolding in those situations. It has very minimal use in itself (in a quote it's fine, but also generally useless, you can just quote that part separately instead if you're specifically addressing it). You've previously even bolded an entire post, which can't possibly have anything to do with readability? Maybe you're the one who's insecure if you don't like the way normal text looks, I don't know.

It couldn't possibly be a strawman because we weren't involved in an argument. I certainly wasn't going to offer an argument to your initial knee-jerk strawman of my claim, so I indulged in that sassy mockery of neo-reactionary views which I believe is mostly aligned with your views & concerns. You have been very reactionary on this forum with all of the low fruit attacks and never offered a remotely serious critique of the people you oppose, as Stroggoz has pointed it out to you several times. But I'm very well aware that I'm not representing your views accurately with that post and it should be obvious that I am not trying to do that, that is the difference.

The only thing that was clear in your non-argument/caricaturing of my position was how much disdain you have for the idea that violence can be more than what you think of it now. You didn't show any evidence of what people are doing to "redefine violence" beyond that "hyperbole" nor did you explain why only major wars and murders should be considered the only type of violence worthy of moral consideration. You were asked to provide evidence that people who believe as I do are frauds and you didn't provide it. If you think that structural violence is just one big joke, why don't you do the rational thing to do and head over to the wikipedia page on it and delete it? You will have a response from Wikipedia users and you can let them know exactly why it's not a real thing and it's been defined by frauds. See how much your knowledge is worth when faced with real world challenges instead of social media nonsense. (Note that this is the exact same dismissal you gave to the discipline of Women's Studies, which I told you to do the exact same thing: go modify the Wiki with your critiques if it's an entirely bankrupt field as you previously claimed...)

Now you're distracting from the issue at hand to point to a previous argument we had about the poverty line. Again, you are acting as if this issue has been solved in the past, as though you've refuted it, and how it's ridiculous. You've done no such thing. I posted several comprehensive critiques of the World Bank's methods/the poverty line, which you never addressed. That was the end of that.

First, let's take note that you're still not acknowledging my point that you associated this position with out of touch hippies rather than academics to paint me in a poor light. Secondly, that's not what Chomsky is talking about and calling him dishonest is lame. He's specifically talking about the research behind Steven Pinker's book on the decline of violence. He is saying the claims he is making in that book are almost all wrong and based on shoddy research. And this is true according to most people working in those fields (Pinker doesn't work in them). The central claim that Chomsky is responding to here (not to be mistaken with Rousseau's views) is whether or not we have the best chances at a happy, non-violent life if we live in the current era or if we were hunter gatherers. If you think the answer is obviously living now, then it's clear you haven't even begun to think about the question appropriately, let alone researched it. The claims in the book exaggerate how violent pre-industrial cultures were and embellish our own culture's peacefulness with the aid of special Pinker rose-colored glasses. Chomsky isn't wrong, it's people's intuitions about this that are simply wrong, much like the intuitions of people who see a flat earth from where they are standing and assume that they have all the knowledge required to infer from this that the Earth itself is flat.

The question you're asking is not really relevant to the issue of violence as it is discussed in this context. We're mostly talking about the structure of a socio-culture's influence on people being violent, not just violence in a vacuum, and not merely the destructiveness of technology. Obviously, nuclear weapons are technological advancements of societies that have been market-based (which are rooted in systemic violence), and giving such weapons to older cultures would allow them to be feared just as they are now. The question of whether they would use them or not depends on the tribes and the situations. The less property people have, the less likely they were to be violent, unless others are initiating the violence first. This question is not dissimilar to saying "what would you do if you had all sorts super powers and you couldn't be killed?" It deals with human morality and the destructive thirst we have for power. Having immense power over others allows one to accumulate more things (and have more people at your service to gratify your basic needs) and it's something that almost anyone would be corrupted by, whether they were to live now or in pre-industrial societies.

On August 21 2018 22:02 Loco wrote: There's nothing that improves readability about bolding in those situations. It has very minimal use in itself (in a quote it's fine, but also generally useless, you can just quote that part separately instead if you're specifically addressing it). You've previously even bolded an entire post, which can't possibly have anything to do with readability? Maybe you're the one who's insecure if you don't like the way normal text looks, I don't know. It couldn't possibly be a strawman because we weren't involved in an argument. I certainly wasn't going to offer an argument to your initial knee-jerk strawman of my claim, so I indulged in that sassy mockery of neo-reactionary views which I believe is mostly aligned with your views & concerns. You have been very reactionary on this forum with all of the low fruit attacks and never offered a remotely serious critique of the people you oppose, as Stroggoz has pointed it out to you several times. But I'm very well aware that I'm not representing your views accurately with that post and it should be obvious that I am not trying to do that, that is the difference. The only thing that was clear in your non-argument/caricaturing of my position was how much disdain you have for the idea that violence can be more than what you think of it now. You didn't show any evidence of what people are doing to "redefine violence" beyond that "hyperbole" nor did you explain why only major wars and murders should be considered the only type of violence worthy of moral consideration. You were asked to provide evidence that people who believe as I do are frauds and you didn't provide it. If you think that structural violence is just one big joke, why don't you do the rational thing to do and head over to the wikipedia page on it and delete it? You will have a response from Wikipedia users and you can let them know exactly why it's not a real thing and it's been defined by frauds. See how much your knowledge is worth when faced with real world challenges instead of social media nonsense. Now you're distracting from the issue at hand to point to a previous argument we had about the poverty line. Again, you are acting as if this issue has been solved in the past, as though you've refuted it, and how it's ridiculous. You've done no such thing. I posted several comprehensive critiques of the World Bank's methods/the poverty line, which you never addressed. That was the end of that. That's not what Chomsky is talking about and calling him dishonest is lame. He's specifically talking about the research behind Steven Pinker's book on the decline of violence. He is saying the claims he is making in that book are almost all wrong and based on shoddy research. And this is true according to most people working in those fields (Pinker doesn't work in them). The central claim that Chomsky is responding to here (not to be mistaken with Rousseau's views) is whether or not we have the best chances at a happy, non-violent life if we live in the current era or if we were hunter gatherers. If you think the answer is obviously living now, then it's clear you haven't even begun to think about the question appropriately, let alone researched it. Chomsky isn't wrong, it's people's intuitions about this that are simply wrong, much like the intuitions of people who see a flat earth from where they are standing and assume that they have all the knowledge required to infer from this that the Earth itself is flat. The question you're asking is not really relevant to the issue of violence as it is discussed in this context. We're mostly talking about the structure of a socio-culture's influence on people being violent, not just violence in a vacuum, and not merely the destructiveness of technology. Obviously, nuclear weapons are technological advancements of societies that have been market-based (which are rooted in systemic violence), and giving such weapons to older cultures would allow them to be feared just as they are now. The question of whether they would use them or not depends on the tribes and the situations. The less property people have, the less likely they were to be violent, unless others are initiating the violence first.

I think it does in that quote // response // quote format, I dont know how many times you want me to say this, you think it doesn't, I think it does.

When I bold a sentence its for enphasis, I dont know why you are puzzled by these things and why they bother you that much, but if it makes you happy sure I bold because Its an expression of how much better I am than you -_-... moving on.

I did provide evidence of dishonest definitoin shifting, I gave a link to a Reuters article (it was published in almost all major media platforms) about how the US ranked 10th in danger to women, , the word "rape" has also being redefined many time by feminists to fit the "rape culture" narrative (do you want me to give links for this too?). and I mentioned it becaue Stroggoz said that Ghandi thought post-colonialist poverty was a form of violence, well Ghandi also thought that debate was a form of violence, so I guess since we are debating we are evening the score right now the Roman's had gladiators, we have debate clubs.

I'm not saying institutional violence doens't exist, I'm saying its ridiculous and dihonest to try to measure violence levels against ancient cultures that way, you are fare less likely to die violently or recieve bodily harm than in almost any other period of time in history... "oh but were the leggionaries racially profiling the Gauls in roadblocks at the same rate than the LAPD do to POC?" gtfo

On August 21 2018 22:02 Loco wrote: First, let's take note that you're still not acknowledging my point that you associated this position with out of touch hippies rather than academics to paint me in a poor light. Secondly, that's not what Chomsky is talking about and calling him dishonest is lame. He's specifically talking about the research behind Steven Pinker's book on the decline of violence. He is saying the claims he is making in that book are almost all wrong and based on shoddy research. And this is true according to most people working in those fields (Pinker doesn't work in them). The central claim that Chomsky is responding to here (not to be mistaken with Rousseau's views) is whether or not we have the best chances at a happy, non-violent life if we live in the current era or if we were hunter gatherers. If you think the answer is obviously living now, then it's clear you haven't even begun to think about the question appropriately, let alone researched it. The claims in the book exaggerate how violent pre-industrial cultures were and embellish our own culture's peacefulness with the aid of special Pinker rose-colored glasses. Chomsky isn't wrong, it's people's intuitions about this that are simply wrong, much like the intuitions of people who see a flat earth from where they are standing and assume that they have all the knowledge required to infer from this that the Earth itself is flat. The question you're asking is not really relevant to the issue of violence as it is discussed in this context. We're mostly talking about the structure of a socio-culture's influence on people being violent, not just violence in a vacuum, and not merely the destructiveness of technology. Obviously, nuclear weapons are technological advancements of societies that have been market-based (which are rooted in systemic violence), and giving such weapons to older cultures would allow them to be feared just as they are now. The question of whether they would use them or not depends on the tribes and the situations. The less property people have, the less likely they were to be violent, unless others are initiating the violence first. This question is not dissimilar to saying "what would you do if you had all sorts super powers and you couldn't be killed?" It deals with human morality and the destructive thirst we have for power. Having immense power over others allows one to accumulate more things (and have more people at your service to gratify your basic needs) and it's something that almost anyone would be corrupted by, whether they were to live now or in pre-industrial societies.

You claim that my views can't even exist, are only held by internet nerds or shills, so dont ask for what you can't give.

In that video there wasn't any context of hapiness, on that specific claim Its impossible to say who his/was happier with any confidence, in vid he was supporting Russeau's claim about modern times being more violent which is under any reasonably measurable way untrue, we have different opinions on what is a rasonable measurement of violence.

The less property people have, the less likely they were to be violent, unless others are initiating the violence first.

Not property, but unequal property, inequality seems to be a cause for violence, no argument there.

"what would you do if you had all sorts super powers and you couldn't be killed?" It deals with human morality and the destructive thirst we have for power. Having immense power over others allows one to accumulate more things (and have more people at your service to gratify your basic needs) and it's something that almost anyone would be corrupted by, whether they were to live now or in pre-industrial societies

Agreed, and that is why I dont want any form of government, because it is the closes thing to "superpowers and you couldn't be killed" that I can think of.

I've just read your link and there isn't really anything about the anthropological/archeological data or redefining violence... the topic seems to be about people's media-influenced perceptions of the degree of danger that women face in the US and how expert polls don't necessarily reflect reality. I'm not very informed on this topic so I don't have much to say. It seems like a lot of it has to do with the CDC figures too, are those not reliable because of feminists exaggerating what rape truly consists of?

Dying violently seems to be the ultimate measure for you. I'd much rather have a dignified and meaningful life that's pretty short and die a violent death than the other way around... am I the only one? And bodily harm?There's an immense amount of stress affecting most people across the globe, fueling a chronic illness epidemic, do you count that in? It sure is physical harm after all. What about the poor who can't afford medication all the while they can only afford to eat subsidized junk food that keeps them obese and sick, are they luckier than most cultures that were egalitarian and had robust health just because they happen to have a microwave and a TV? What about the violence towards other species? Has that gone down too in your opinion?

As for the numbers, personally, I think that it's ridiculous to be glad that billions of people today -- far more than there were even people a century or so ago-- live undignified and impoverished lives because there's been a per capita decrease in violence and poverty. If the world has gone from 90% of a 10 million population struggling to a 80% of a 7 billion population struggling, and 50% of the people are in total destitution, that's not consolation to anyone aside from rich capitalist conscience, and in the end it's just significantly more people suffering only for the sake of maintaining that system. And what exactly is the end goal of this system? What are we purchasing with all this suffering? What's it most likely going to be like in 50-80 years if things just keep going as they are with the infinite growth model?