Started by PickelledEggs, December 06, 2016, 02:16:31 PM
Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 11, 2016, 02:47:50 PMyes. There is already neutral words like "they". That is fine. And in all seriousness, if someone wants to use "ze", they have their right to say it. The issue isn't the words; it's the forcing and legislated fines if you don't.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 07, 2016, 08:38:13 PMdeath of the first amendment
Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 07, 2016, 05:24:30 PM to say "xe" or "xir", some made up pronoun
Quote from: Poison Tree on December 11, 2016, 03:08:06 PMOk, I'm confused. So wanting to be called "they" is fine? Receiving a settlement for harassment like smearing Vaseline, yelling insults and being prevented from using the bathroom is fine? But the two together is the ? While you are clearing things up for me, does Canada's Bill C-16 actually punish people for refusing or not? Do you actually care about the veracity of these claims or do you just want a cudgel to use against SJWs?
Quote from: Baruch on December 11, 2016, 08:18:18 PMWe could declare that all English words are equally offensive to the N word ... and so everyone can be made to STFU. Snowflakes ;-(
Quote from: Baruch on December 11, 2016, 02:38:27 PMOff topic, but important in the larger picture ..."The world will be changed and overhauled many many times over and over again." ... of course, it matters who's baklava is being stomped on ;-)There is a wide spread theory that one of the reason why the Roman Empire failed in the West, was thru corruption and mismanagement. The East was much better managed, less corrupt and had the advantage of the Egyptian grain supply (which ended with Islam, and pretty much doomed the Byzantines, though they could partly compensate by ramping up grain imports from the Ukraine, though that was eventually disrupted too). It took awhile for W Roman Empire to fail, about 250 years .. things changed more slowly back then). The barbarians were merely taking advantage of a regional systemic collapse, something they couldn't do until after 391 CE.So the West must fail, because reality will spank people who are delusional, who are not fact based, not reality based. This can be kept at bay, for awhile, thanks to injections of fake liquidity (as happened in Rome from 200 CE onward). Eventually people are forced back to barter, like what is happening in Greece and India right now. But that liquidity is necessary for civilization higher than agricultural subsistence. Thus the Roman cities of the West were gradually abandoned, even Rome itself. Right now in the US, about 90% of us are urban ... when we have to cycle back to Dark Ages subsistence, we will have to lose about 90% of our population, since they will be useless mouths to feed. This of course works in Turkey too, and has happened many times before (Ephesus, Smyrna etc). Are you "close" to subsistence fishing or farming? If not, your future is bleak, as the inevitable cycle of history repeats.It wasn't until 19th century London, that any city in the West became what Rome was at its peak in the 2nd century CE. ... that is how long the "depression" lasted ... 1700 years.
Quote from: Baruch on December 12, 2016, 06:41:20 AMIf I don't believe in teleology, Manifest Destiny nor progress ... in what way am I positing anything other than random change? It isn't two steps forward and one step back even ... but one step forward, two steps back, two steps forward, one step back ... basically fatalism denies human agency, and I can never accept that. So that is one good reason why I can't accept Marx (not that means of production isn't important).
QuoteHowever there are phase transitions ... the Roman Empire arising and falling wasn't, in the long term, just one more day pretty much like the last otherwise Smyrna 1920 wouldn't have happened, and you would be more likely speaking Greek or Armenian.
QuoteHeraclitus, from nearly Ephesus, would deny the existence of continuity too. Would you be less secure if this were 1920, and the Greeks pushed the Turks out of W Anatolia and into E Anatolia? It is easy to speak, if history happened to run your way..
QuoteI knew you vacationed opposite Chios, but didn't know that was your home area.
QuoteWe have only had regional collapse in history before, not worldwide ... except for Mt Tambora. The various megadroughts since then have nearly killed off humanity too. I have been thru many earthquakes of smaller size (thanks to fracking) ... most recently 5.0 scale. Made you realize people are just nits? That may comfort you.
QuoteToday ... given the importance of the West as consumers ... Chinese and Indian laborers will be severely impacted, because their states can't survive on domestic consumption alone. This is aside from the cultural loss (and yes, I don't consider Indian or Chinese culture, both socialist today, as at all equivalent. I am much less chauvinist than others here, because I am an "outsider" on the inside.
Quote from: Baruch on December 12, 2016, 12:56:32 PMLove your anthropology. So Turks were still purely tribal all the way into the 20th century? I didn't realize that the Sublime Porte was so ... fragmented.
QuoteYes, the idea of civilization is ideological. You have to have ideology to unify people enough to create a civilization, or to control the narrative to keep it going. And all ideology is bullshit. So yes, no such thing as Western, Eastern or Civilization. But you are too meta still, you pretend that ideology isn't real, when it is very real to the extent that people believe it.
QuoteI am not saying that a collapse of industry in E and S Asia would leave the US unaffected ... the opposite .. that a collapse of Europe and the US and Japan ... would have a negative impact on E and S Asia. The very connectedness of economies is what brings them down. If they stay at subsistence level, without cities, they are very stable (see ancient Egypt). The Egyptians had palace/temple economies, but no cities. The palace and the temple acted as the oligopoly corporations (same as in Babylonia). But cities were unnecessary, to provide luxury goods ... only for the palace and temple. Also technology was simple enough, the agriculture didn't depend on city technology (as it does today).