The Box of Chocolates Thread (You never know what you're going to get!)
Welcome to the General Discussion thread. If you have a topic that doesn't warrant its own thread, post it here. Have a free form discussion going that no longer fits in the original thread? It may be moved here to give it a place to wander. Also, general chit chat is welcome!
I see what you mean maybe in 2200-2300 after enough generation now with this comment, but I thought we were talking the next couple of decades.
in the next couple of decades people will own houses mostly privately and their children will inherit them.
if only 5-10% of the population is occupied and that goes on for 50++ years then yes some major changes might happen even to that (house ownership).
we enter a realm of extreme uncertainty (also
How fast depends on lots.
People wont simply be able to afford their inherited home if they dont have jobs. Their wealth will dissipate fast unless ...
Did Canada ever colonize anyone? They did take over some native lands, but at least most of that was when they were still ruled by Britain.
they literally wiped out entire cultures and it continued into the 90s
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/canada-resi...
I think you need to ask yourself why your kneejerk reaction to anything is to defend the status quo. and why you refuse to do even the least bit of rudimentary research before arriving at your conclusion.
If the irish didn't stumble across the invention of whiskey through their perfume business to pick up women, they probably wouldn't have tried to colonize anyone.
they literally wiped out entire cultures and it continued into the 90s
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/canada-resi...
I think you need to ask yourself why your kneejerk reaction to anything is to defend the status quo. and why you refuse to do even the least bit of rudimentary research before arriving at your conclusion.
He wants the human race to no longer exist. Not exactly the status quo.
I can accept that. like, I can understand the Lucium idea that colonialism is good! I mean its depraved but the underlying facts arent really in dispute. I cant understand someone on a politics forum just being like, "no way Canada did colonialism! I just cant see it. I will confidently proclaim it. and no I wont look into it any deeper".
Maybe it's the term hard wired that Im questioning. That usually refers to a genetic basis. But there are lots of regions of the world where for thousands of years people never saw anyone who didnt look like them from a race perspective. I agree there is definitely an "in group/out group" dynamic in play where members of one tribe view another with fear, aggression, or both. Idk if that is considered a genetic or social constuct, but I thin
Yeah. I dont want to get too caught up in being married to 21st century American concepts of race. But given in-group/out-group biases seem inevitable (aka hardwired) and our reliance as a species on visual cues to organize the world, I would argue the concept of race in some form also seems inevitable, even if it is constructed. So I dont think we can just dismiss it because it is constructed, as Luckbox seems to imply we should.
Yeah. I dont want to get too caught up in being married to 21st century American concepts of race. But given in-group/out-group biases seem inevitable (aka hardwired) and our reliance as a species on visual cues to organize the world, I would argue the concept of race in some form also seems inevitable, even if it is constructed. So I dont think we can just dismiss it because it is constructed, as Luckbox seems to imply we should.
I agree. Almost everything that goes into ones development of self seems to be how they organize and process social constructs, and the expectations of how society has agreed people should act rather than just physical things.
upon further reflection, Churchill Goat ainec
I agree. Almost everything that goes into ones development of self seems to be how they organize and process social constructs, and the expectations of how society has agreed people should act rather than just physical things.
At the same time I dont think authorities can force constructs that society doesn't accept and/or dont seem to work very well, which seems to be part of what is going on with modern progressive gender ideology.
Tying gender to sex, with some wiggle room around the edges, seems to work for human societies, even if it leads towards a small minority of individuals being marginalized. It doesn't appear the attempt to mandate a divorce of gender from biological sex is going to work. But I could be wrong. I cant recall when, but I am sure I have been wrong before. 😀.
Lol to the bold but whatever.
The public doing something isn't socialism.
Socialism is socialism, a society with no private property rights to productive assets, where the totality of goods and services are produced by the state.
That society doesn't develop industrialization if capitalism hasn't developed it yet and everything that follows from it, including being able to have public physicians, because they can't afford that.
Socialism can a
This doesn't seem controversial to me. Even Marx said communism was supposed to come after capitalism.
And I used to hear that the reason it didn't work well in USSR and China was because they tried to skip capitalism.
Ive seen the studies that showed fear in babies to spiders and snakes. But also saw saw studies that concluded there was no fear.
But the question was specifically race, and the answer was tribes. But for thousands of years tribes were wary of and fought with other tribes of identical racial makeup. IOW they exhibited aggression or fear towards people who looked just like them racially.
I figured those people were more attuned to minor differences in appearance since everyone they saw would look very similar to us. But also didn't they mostly go out of their way to look different than other tribes in terms of their dress and other adornments?
they literally wiped out entire cultures and it continued into the 90s
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/canada-resi...
I think you need to ask yourself why your kneejerk reaction to anything is to defend the status quo. and why you refuse to do even the least bit of rudimentary research before arriving at your conclusion.
Yes, I've heard of that. I don't consider making children go to public schools to be genocide.
Also it's pretty silly to say I confidently proclaimed anything when I literally asked the question.
And yes, I realize that I could have done my own research, but I'm here to interact with other people not with Google.
Btw, you'd have a better chance at actually changing the minds of others in the areas you're very passionate about if your first move wasn't always to insult those who might not be as well informed as you. Every time you answer a post in that way it just makes me want to believe the opposite of you, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Yes, I've heard of that. I don't consider making children go to public schools to be genocide.
Well, you should probably progress a bit beyond having heard about it before summarizing it that terribly. First of all, no one here referred to it as a genocide, and the article simply referred to the 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission's naming of it as a "cultural genocide", which is a pretty clear and important distinction from a genocide. And I'd suggest that's pretty accurate from what I already understood, and what is described in the very first paragraph of the article:
Starting in the 1880's and for much of the 20th century, more than 150,000 children from hundreds of indigenous communities across Canada were forcibly taken from their parents by the government and sent to what were called Residential Schools. Funded by the state and run by churches, they were designed to assimilate and Christianize indigenous children by ripping them from their parents, their culture, and their community.
And what that passage should also make very clear is that "making children go to public schools" is a truly terrible way to describe it, and this:
The children were often referred to as savages and forbidden from speaking their languages or practicing their traditions. Many were physically and sexually abused, and thousands of children never made it home.
I wouldn't expect you to have in-depth knowledge of this dark portion of Canadian history, but when that's the case, it's best not to try to simplify it down to six words.
Paradoxical, but true?
I have the King and Queen on my money, believe me I get IT. IT isn't lost on me.
But when the mustached white walker took Europe, we were like House Mormont, we were on it. Because you heed the call!
I'm not entirely sure which house you guys were. Not Bolton or anything, that's too far. Maybe house Arryn? Kind of show up right at the end when the tides turn? And then can be like "We helped!"
And then secretly you hat
No it isn't true as empires are anti freedom
If the irish didn't stumble across the invention of whiskey through their perfume business to pick up women, they probably wouldn't have tried to colonize anyone.
We never did try to colonise anyone or invade anyone or enslave anyone.
We did admittedly screw up by inventing whisky though.
capitalism and freedom isn't about "monetarism" much, it's more about a wide plethora of topic including one of my favorites, which is the strong need to abolish all requirements to join associations, pass special exams and so on to be able to work in various professions.
As for which ideas, models i use to understand inflation and the role of central banking, i subscribe to the fiscal theory of the price level , in particular to Sims (Nobel in 2011) takes on it.
Very roughly and to simplify the most, idea is deficits matter a lot for inflation so it's not only central bank rates, and the same rate in the same economic state has different effects on inflation depending on the level of current deficit (or surplus).
Meanwhile i believe the rough keynesian model of inflation being linked to slack (or lack thereof) is broadly correct as well, so coupling the 2 i tend to be fairly mainstream; when slack is abudant you can do deficit and/or low rates and that's not inflative (or it is very little), and viceversa.
Ex post that explains both the lowflation years pre covid and the insane inflation following it.
But anyway , i am not sure what your question was
Yeah. I dont want to get too caught up in being married to 21st century American concepts of race. But given in-group/out-group biases seem inevitable (aka hardwired) and our reliance as a species on visual cues to organize the world, I would argue the concept of race in some form also seems inevitable, even if it is constructed. So I dont think we can just dismiss it because it is constructed, as Luckbox seems to imply we should.
Not sure about this, the concept of in-group / out-group is inevitable but race doesn't necessarily have any role to play in it. Human groups hated each others with great intensity even without race in the mix; sometimes it was religion, or language, or in general simply any excuse which allowed to frame "the others" as deserving death and destruction, in general so that your group could take their stuff.
For race in particular the end game is miscigenation (which is why actual true racists fought harder against it than against almost anything else), at the end you blend into a new mix where previous racial differences are very hard to find even visually.
See italy where in the same classroom, even when everyone was "white" (up until say the late 90s), you had phenotypes which were , in other times and areas, easily divided into different racial groups but that never happened here. The very hairy white skin, dark hair eastern mediterranean look couple with what americans now would call "latino" (olive skin) people coupled with danish looking ones and so on.
No one discriminated others because of visible signs of norman blood vs eastern mediterranean blood afaik, while the discrimination in northern italy existed and was about having parents from southern italy (we had a strong internal migration in the previous generations).
Basically every group manages to find ways to subdivide into different interest groups based on some identity, in switzerland they decided to use language for that for example.
Race is salient today because it is in the USA and they shape western culture but we should avoid taking this current salience of race as the identity item used to divide into subgroups as the "necessary" one in all human groups
You named one book you've been influenced by, and it was a Monetarist publication by Friedman.
