So complaining about American black genocide is fine, but then comparing it to white genocide (and rejecting the term) is bannable?
I seem to have been banned simply for mentioning the concept of white genocide even though I concluded against it.
Look at all the question marks in my post. Read the conclusion. This is the opposite of ideological warfare. It's an attempt at furthering discussion of a difficult issue.
If you changed the group identity words in my post it would be acceptable.
Put simply, you're biased and you're harming discussion here. This ban should be reversed.
Otherwise, explicitly write a list of what political ideas are not allowed to be discussed.
>it suggested (at least to me) very unnatural about how incomes were being allocated
I feel like the word "unnatural" is doing a lot of work here... can you explain what you mean? Do you believe economies "naturally" generate equal income distributions?
At first glace it's as natural as any economic phenomenon: it emerges from the uncoordinated actions of many different individuals.
My sense is that you actually meant "unfair" or "undesirable" or "evil", but it seems worth clarifying.
It should be noted - this definition as genocide as destruction of a culture (instead of physical murder of a people) also supports the idea of "white genocide":
A targeted effort by people with power to liquidate white peoples' group identity ("abolish whiteness") and to marginalize and obscure their traditional cultural touchstones ("don't teach books by dead white men" and related efforts to avoid teaching Shakespeare, the Bible, old white philosophers, etc), efforts to bring in many immigrants to make whites minorities in areas where they were previously a majority (and gleeful anticipation of this outcome), etc.
This definition does seem to mean something. E.g. I'd say Uighurs and Tibetans are undergoing genocide by China, even though China isn't running death camps. China has the intent of erasing these groups as groups and is systematically working towards that goal.
And it has been used this way extensively. People talk about "genocide" of trans people in America. Or the "genocide" of Native Americans, who, although they were almost wiped out by disease, and were then abused in horrid ways, were never the target of a campaign of physical total murder. Reservations are terrible, but they're not Treblinka.
On the other hand, the definition seems incoherent. Is it possible for blacks and whites to both be undergoing genocide right now? I suppose so; maybe it's a war with each tribe trying to dissolve the other.
I suppose you could look at intent as the difference as well: Are people trying to abolish blacks as a group? Is this the goal, or a side-effect? Are people trying to abolish whites as a group?
Does it require a chance of success? Is the intent to liquidate white culture enough to call it genocidal, or does it actually need to be actualized with a strong chance of success? How much chance?
Or does it only require an effect? Is the effect of liquidating black culture enough to call it genocidal, even if it's just an incidental side-effect, or does it need to be an intent? When we bring modern music and food to an isolated tribe, thus displacing their traditional music and cuisine, is that genocide? Because we just destroyed their culture forever.
Things get fuzzier because the academics in power at the moment - all leftists - want to be able to use this word to describe actions against people they like, but not against those they dislike. Hence the bobbing and weaving between definitions: When it's against whites, genocide means gas chambers only. When it's against blacks, it means a lot of young criminals spending time in prison.
I think it would be better to narrow the usage of this word. If people are trying to liquidate another culture, let's figure out another word for that (and please not "cultural genocide").
Work doesn't define humanity, but the fruits of work are what enable humans to exist.
Also, work is the only means by which we do things that can benefit others. It's all very good to be concerned with your own experience, but if you want to be helpful to a partner, a family, or a community, you have to work.
This is why work has such meaning. It makes benefits that are not purely selfish. Benefiting other people strikes me as more meaningful than simply attending to one's self, trying to make the days until death more pleasant. This selfishness is what has always troubled me about the popular hedonistic conception of meaning that's taken hold in recent decades.
>incel, red-pill, and proud boy ideas that you must refrain from "spilling your seed"—that your reproductive emissions contain some of your essential energy
What you're describing is called NoFap; this community is based on the /r/nofap subreddit and is pretty much entirely separate from the culturally-Othered groups you seem to be trying to "weirdify".
Incel have no interest in NoFap.
To the degree that redpill and Proud Boy-like communities belive in NoFap, it's simply based on the repeatable observation that not masturbating increases energy and motivation - especially sexual motivation. Any man who can go two weeks without ejaculating will observe this easily for himself. The difference can be staggering - you feel like a different person.
It has nothing to do with some strange mysticism. Redpillers, especially, are entirely about rejecting traditional mystical beliefs ("soul mates", "love conquers all", "meant for each other", etc) in exchange for repeatable results-yielding methodologies. Nofap is such a methodology.
Not sure where you got this meme, but let's let it die here now because it's as disconnected from reality as most of what mainstreamers say about marginalized male sexual communities.
Is it a "structural" issue? Or is it just the fact that, statistically, poor people are really unlikely to pay back loans, so loaning to them profitably means charging really high interest? Or is that a "structural" issue?
>the desire to preserve the inferior status of blacks has motivated policies against all members of the low-wage sector.
So your belief is, the dominant economic-political movement in America regards "preserving the inferior status of blacks" as an end goal in and of itself? Or is this an instrumental goal that somehow serves some other purpose?
Another mode of travel doesn't seem to be accounted for: Travel for pleasure.
Not to score social points. Not for meaning. Just to relax and feel good for a week.
Weather can be a big factor. In the middle of five months of winter, daily snow, not seeing the sun in weeks, and working hard in an office every day, a week relaxing in the sun somewhere warm can be very beneficial - and not just in a trite or self-indulgent way. Seasonal mood disorders and work-related stress are real problems and time far away is a real solution.
Plus, if we're here to enjoy life, then self-indulgence is also one ingredient of a good life (accompanied by others). You don't have to be seeking "meaning" every moment of every day like a Terminator seeking his target.
Grandparent didn't imply it was a triumph of foresight, but rather a failure of foresight.
I think that's what he's saying - a general point that people's understanding of climate (and thus predictions about it) are poorer than commonly believed.
In about a billion years the sun will exhaust enough nuclear fuel to cool and expand, boiling the oceans, blowing off our atmosphere, and turning Earth back into a sterile rock.
It's predicted by astronomers and physicists who study stellar evolution.
Or maybe - and call me crazy here - men and women are different, and want different things, and therefore, as we reduce discrimination, nearly every job and hobby will end up with a huge gender imbalance as individuals sort themselves into groups doing what they truly, freely want to do.
Then your conviction that every job must be exactly 50% of each gender no matter how much power must be wielded to make it happen would be a massively misguided recipe for tyranny, harming both men and women.
Isn't that just the same Friedman approach with a longer time horizon?
Imagine a farmer who farms to exhaust the soil. He earns money but in 30 years, the farmland is rendered useless. He becomes poor in the end.
Another farmer farms slower, leaving fallow years, sustainably. He earns less money but 30 years later the farm is productive. He remains wealthy in the end.
Going from farmer 1 to farmer 2's strategy is not a change in ethics. The second farmer didn't care about the land as an end in itself. He just thought longer into the future, and knew how to measure assets that weren't obvious (in his case, land quality; in real life, loyalty, image, healthy communities to embed in).
Go out in frigid weather with a T-shirt on. You'll soon shiver - your body is recruiting muscles to generate heat. But also, your "brown fat" cells will start pumping out heat as well.
I seem to have been banned simply for mentioning the concept of white genocide even though I concluded against it.
Look at all the question marks in my post. Read the conclusion. This is the opposite of ideological warfare. It's an attempt at furthering discussion of a difficult issue.
If you changed the group identity words in my post it would be acceptable.
Put simply, you're biased and you're harming discussion here. This ban should be reversed.
Otherwise, explicitly write a list of what political ideas are not allowed to be discussed.