No malarky, Jack. Racial Justice™ ideology has regressed precipitously since the heady days of MLK Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” vision of a society that judges people based on merit rather than whatever fashionable or unfashionable identity group they belong to.
Baseball bats, machetes and pitch forks in those once White, meritocratic Nations that foolishly abrogated the right to bear arms. And, we know what must be done, eventually, here. The Left metastasizes. They analyze every NON-RESPONSE, and conclude they can go from burning cities because a Fentanyl addict resisted arrest, to wholesale murder of aging and young Whites whenever they please. I do fully realize our gaslighting, is yet another psyop to induce a civil war based upon race and ideology. But, I think that Civil War when it flames out, will see a few million of us prying the elites out of their permafrost bunkers in Antarctica, and Tower Bridge will once again find itself lined with the heads of the wicked. Hail Victory. Hail WAR.
From wiki: “Social anthropology studies patterns of behavior, while cultural anthropology studies cultural meaning, including norms and values”
Nowhere there do I see anything about colonialism. And of course they’re going to study different races creeds colours - that’s what the word means. Any proper research wouldn’t be biased based on who’s writing it.
So if a human decides to study and publish research about squirrels, he needs to make a “positionality statement” because he’s not a squirrel and the findings might be biased? 🤦♀️
I remember that guy really well. My point is that the lesson to be drawn from this dispute about the nature of reality (which IS very complex) and by implication the search for absolutes as in TRUTH is that no one really has a lock on it. Even our current secular religious belief in the veracity of science is predicated on replicability.
All our scientific large scale pronouncements are presented as theory. True scientists recognize the provisional nature of their theories and do not object to the ongoing testing and validating of their theories in the interest of finding more permanent truths.
... all stage theories are inherently defective; all reciprocity based societies inevitably collapse. Hallmark characteristic of a free market economy: currency divisibility (e.g., the 10-spot in your pocket is valued no differently than the 10 dollar bill, in mine). Hallmark characteristic of a free-society, equal rights under the law (e.g., my accountability for my own actions is weighted and balanced, no less or more, than yours or anyone else's). Start weighting the mean? Tilting the scale? Cutting slack, on account of George Floyd? Slavery reparation? Looking the other way, on account of white "supremacy"? Different laws for different people? Different currencies, for different people? Teetering at the precipice of collapse, you no longer live in a free society. It is inevitable you crash 'n burn. Whole lot of people are going to die - asj.
I love your writing, which no doubt comes from an irreverent, critical mind and agree with most of the conclusions you draw from its process. My question is about your first principles which assume there is immutable truth.
Even a cursory reading of the history of beliefs of humans (The Golden Bough. James G. Frazer) will show that people have believed in the most bizarre, outrageous and frightening things as the TRUTH. And of course, have been wrong.
"Reality" is a consensus project. People will agree or disagree about everything including the meaning and purpose of what it means to be alive. Hence the problems.
It seems to me that we need to approach our problems based on the assumption that we need to get "buy in" from all the members. That recognition has resulted in the realization that you can get others to do what you want in only two basic ways; love or fear. Those two extremes seem to me our only tools available to build a consensus reality that we all want to live in. Telling others they are wrong, ungodlike, evil, less than human, stupid or worthless will usually get you killed in the long run.
reality is a complicated thing to define, if it actually exists at all. from a functional perspective, though, the consensus approach is definitely the way to go if society is to work in any way. but it's worth noting that the consensus has been wrong just as individual perception has. i seem to recall some guy getting locked up for saying the earth wasn't the center of the universe
Baseball bats, machetes and pitch forks in those once White, meritocratic Nations that foolishly abrogated the right to bear arms. And, we know what must be done, eventually, here. The Left metastasizes. They analyze every NON-RESPONSE, and conclude they can go from burning cities because a Fentanyl addict resisted arrest, to wholesale murder of aging and young Whites whenever they please. I do fully realize our gaslighting, is yet another psyop to induce a civil war based upon race and ideology. But, I think that Civil War when it flames out, will see a few million of us prying the elites out of their permafrost bunkers in Antarctica, and Tower Bridge will once again find itself lined with the heads of the wicked. Hail Victory. Hail WAR.
From wiki: “Social anthropology studies patterns of behavior, while cultural anthropology studies cultural meaning, including norms and values”
Nowhere there do I see anything about colonialism. And of course they’re going to study different races creeds colours - that’s what the word means. Any proper research wouldn’t be biased based on who’s writing it.
So if a human decides to study and publish research about squirrels, he needs to make a “positionality statement” because he’s not a squirrel and the findings might be biased? 🤦♀️
Oh Ben you sure find the good ones!
Or…I might have missed the whole point and am totally out in left field. Which happens a lot.
In which case, I apologize. Just ignore the freeq in the corner.
the freeq in the corner is always welcome at AP
I remember that guy really well. My point is that the lesson to be drawn from this dispute about the nature of reality (which IS very complex) and by implication the search for absolutes as in TRUTH is that no one really has a lock on it. Even our current secular religious belief in the veracity of science is predicated on replicability.
All our scientific large scale pronouncements are presented as theory. True scientists recognize the provisional nature of their theories and do not object to the ongoing testing and validating of their theories in the interest of finding more permanent truths.
... all stage theories are inherently defective; all reciprocity based societies inevitably collapse. Hallmark characteristic of a free market economy: currency divisibility (e.g., the 10-spot in your pocket is valued no differently than the 10 dollar bill, in mine). Hallmark characteristic of a free-society, equal rights under the law (e.g., my accountability for my own actions is weighted and balanced, no less or more, than yours or anyone else's). Start weighting the mean? Tilting the scale? Cutting slack, on account of George Floyd? Slavery reparation? Looking the other way, on account of white "supremacy"? Different laws for different people? Different currencies, for different people? Teetering at the precipice of collapse, you no longer live in a free society. It is inevitable you crash 'n burn. Whole lot of people are going to die - asj.
I love your writing, which no doubt comes from an irreverent, critical mind and agree with most of the conclusions you draw from its process. My question is about your first principles which assume there is immutable truth.
Even a cursory reading of the history of beliefs of humans (The Golden Bough. James G. Frazer) will show that people have believed in the most bizarre, outrageous and frightening things as the TRUTH. And of course, have been wrong.
"Reality" is a consensus project. People will agree or disagree about everything including the meaning and purpose of what it means to be alive. Hence the problems.
It seems to me that we need to approach our problems based on the assumption that we need to get "buy in" from all the members. That recognition has resulted in the realization that you can get others to do what you want in only two basic ways; love or fear. Those two extremes seem to me our only tools available to build a consensus reality that we all want to live in. Telling others they are wrong, ungodlike, evil, less than human, stupid or worthless will usually get you killed in the long run.
reality is a complicated thing to define, if it actually exists at all. from a functional perspective, though, the consensus approach is definitely the way to go if society is to work in any way. but it's worth noting that the consensus has been wrong just as individual perception has. i seem to recall some guy getting locked up for saying the earth wasn't the center of the universe
My whole creed is that
anyone is only the product of what they actually do,
and nothing more than that.
"Identity" is earned by deeds and nothing else.
People who use circumstantial attributes to define anyone
are carrying a massive red flag that says " let's fight now".
They and all their ilk can go to the arena and
start without me
while i go get my beer and nachos ready.
There is only One Law - it defines everyone solely by what they do to others.
It's an unwitting contest to see who generates the most absurd of grotesqueries.