Planet of the Humans Controversial film among lefties - Page 21 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15094413
Julian658 wrote:
What is market supremacism?



You. You're market supremacism, thinking that the market is almighty. You're the religious one.


Julian658 wrote:
We cannot be hunter and gatherer again. Yes. socialism works great in tiny groups where there is kinship and a monoculture.



The fact that 'primitive communism' existed proves that your 'human nature' claim of biology and psychology is bunk.


Julian658 wrote:
Nope: It is learned, but there is a biological basis. This applies to most human behaviors. The biological impulse is neutralized by the frontal lobe if there is a desire to do so. IS not so much racism, the main issue is tribalism.



You're just describing *neuroanatomy*, which isn't necessarily *causative* -- we're *social* beings, so we need to look at *social* dynamics.


Julian658 wrote:
https://www.independent.com/2018/03/07/ ... tribalism/



This is still *learned*, *social* behavior, and it's *not* the *modern* world.


Julian658 wrote:
Leads to tribalism and then violence.



Nope, because in our *modern* society tribalism is *not* needed -- much under capitalism, for example, is *individualized*, and self-determination is an important political principle, and would be the *point* of a workers-of-the-world socialism, and then of a post-capitalist communism.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Nope, slavery has *not* always been part of human history -- it parallels the rise of *commodity production*, or modern capitalism, since slaves were effectively labor-personified-and-commodified:



Julian658 wrote:
We cannot be hunter and gatherer again.



You're off on a tangent again.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
No, the market reflects what people *with money* want, and the more money, the more wealth-oriented *production* there is, too, as with skyscrapers and luxury goods.



Julian658 wrote:
Actually a fair point. People with no money cannot directly create demand in the market.



And that's a political / social *problem*, because the economy should be producing for those who *need* the stuff from it, primarily.
#15094448
ckaihatsu wrote:You. You're market supremacism, thinking that the market is almighty. You're the religious one.


The market is more efficient than anything else. It may even respond to the plight of the poor if the state government decides to spend money on the poor. BTW, most poor in the West receive a stipend form the government for subsistence. Many spend the money on fancy clothing. The reason drugs exists is because there is a market for them. An economy driven by the market is a successful economy. A free market economy is a beautiful thing and creates prosperity.

The Perfect Free Market Economy
The country closest to a free market has been Hong Kong, which has been rated the first or second most “free” economy for more than two decades—per Heritage Foundation.2 Although no country is 100% unregulated, Hong Kong is as close as it comes.

Hong Kong has small government involvement and almost no tariffs. The people there are living long lives and seeing a consistent rise in wages—having a gross domestic product (GDP) per capita that’s among the highest in the world, which helps propagate economic freedoms. Hong Kong also has strong access to global trade and property rights.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answer ... system.asp





The fact that 'primitive communism' existed proves that your 'human nature' claim of biology and psychology is bunk.


Once the era of hunter and gatherers ended all we had was Empires:

Ancient Period (BC)

Egyptian Empire (3100BC to 30 BC)
Norte Chico Empire (3000-1800 BC)
Indus Valley: Empires: Harappa and Mohenjo-Darro (2550-1550 BC)
Akkadian Empire (2500-2000 BC)
Babylonian Empire (1792-1595 BC)
Ancient Chinese Empires: Shang (1751-1111 BC), Chou (1000-800 BC), etc.
Hittite Empire (1500-1200 BC)
Assyrian Empire (1244-612 BC)
Persian Empires (550 BC to 637 AD) including Achemenid Empire (550-330 BC), Sassanian Empire (224 BC-651 AD)
Carthaginian Empire (ca. 475-146 BC)
Athenian Empire (461-440 BC, 362-355 BC)
Macedonian Empire (359-323 BC)
Roman Empire (264 BC to 476 AD)
Parthian Empire (247 BC- 224 AD)

Pre-Modern Period (to 1500)

African Empires: Ethiopian Empire (ca. 50-1974), Mali Empire (ca. 1210-1490), Songhai Empire (1468-1590), Fulani Empire (ca. 1800-1903)
Mesoamerican Empires esp. Maya Empire (ca. 300-900) Teotihuacan Empire (ca. 500-750), Aztec Empire (1325-ca. 1500)
Byzantine Empire (330-1453)
Andean Empires: Huari Empire (600-800); Inca Empire (1438-1525)
Chinese Pre-Modern Empires: including T'ang Dynasty (618-906), Sung Dynasty (906-1278)
Islamic Empires esp. Umayyid/Abbasid (661-1258), Almohad (1140-1250), Almoravid (1050-1140)
Carolingian Empire (ca. 700-810)
Bulgarian Empire (802-827, 1197-1241)
Southeast Asian Empires: Khmer Empire (877-1431), Burmese Empire (1057-1287)
Novogorod Empire (882-1054)
Medieval German Empire (962-1250)
Danish Empire (1014-1035)
Indian Empires, including Chola Empire (11th cent), Empire of Mahmud of Ghazni (998-1039 AD), Mughal Empire (1526-1805)
Mongol Empire (1206-1405)
Mamluk Empire (1250-1517)
Holy Roman Empire (1254-1835)
Habsburg Empire (1452-1806)
Ottoman Empire (1453-1923)

Modern Period (after 1500)

Portuguese Empire (ca. 1450-1975)
Spanish Empire (1492-1898)
Russian Empire/USSR (1552-1991)
Swedish Empire (1560-1660)
Dutch Empire (1660-1962)
British Empire (1607-ca. 1980)
French Empire (ca. 1611- ca. 1980)
Modern Chinese Empire: esp. Ch'ing Dynasty (1644-1911)
Austrian/Austro-Hungarian Empire (ca. 1700-1918) [see also Habsburg Empire]
US Empire (1776-present)
Brazilian Empire (1822-1889)
German Empire (1871-1918, 1939-1945)
Japanese Empire (1871-1945)
Italian Empire (1889-1942)

https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/ ... story.html

The Empires are universal and not only a Western thing.

You're just describing *neuroanatomy*, which isn't necessarily *causative* -- we're *social* beings, so we need to look at *social* dynamics.
This is still *learned*, *social* behavior, and it's *not* the *modern* world.


Sure, it is learned, but behaviors also have a biological root that should not be dismissed.
Image

Nope, because in our *modern* society tribalism is *not* needed -- much under capitalism, for example, is *individualized*, and self-determination is an important political principle, and would be the *point* of a workers-of-the-world socialism, and then of a post-capitalist communism.


Individualism solves the problem of racism and group discrimination. Not been judged according to group membership is is a blessing. individuals live in peace as they do not form groups to fight each other. All transactions are free of coercion as there are no special group interests.
#15094452
Julian658 wrote:The market is more efficient than anything else.


No, not really. Ecosystems are far more efficient.

But even if we limit the discussion to human affairs, market failure is still a thing.

Since the issue is climate change, the market is incredibly bad at dealing with climate change. This is because of externalities.


    In economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a third party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit.[1] Externalities often occur when the production or consumption of a product or service's private price equilibrium cannot reflect the true costs or benefits of that product or service for society as a whole.[2][3] This causes the externality competitive equilibrium to not be a Pareto optimality.

    Externalities can be either positive or negative. Governments and institutions often take actions to internalize externalities, thus market-priced transactions can incorporate all the benefits and costs associated with transactions between economic agents.[4][5] The most common way this is done is by imposing taxes on the producers of this externality. This is usually done similar to a quote where there is no tax imposed and then once the externality reaches a certain point there is a very high tax imposed. However, since regulators do not always have all the information on the externality it can be difficult to impose the right tax. Once the externality is internalized through imposing a tax the competitive equilibrium is now Pareto optimal.

    For example, manufacturing activities that cause air pollution impose health and clean-up costs on the whole society, whereas the neighbors of individuals who choose to fire-proof their homes may benefit from a reduced risk of a fire spreading to their own houses. If external costs exist, such as pollution, the producer may choose to produce more of the product than would be produced if the producer were required to pay all associated environmental costs. Because responsibility or consequence for self-directed action lies partly outside the self, an element of externalization is involved. If there are external benefits, such as in public safety, less of the good may be produced than would be the case if the producer were to receive payment for the external benefits to others. For the purpose of these statements, overall cost and benefit to society is defined as the sum of the imputed monetary value of benefits and costs to all parties involved.[6][7]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Pay particular attention to the final quoted paragraph.

I have noticed that in these debates, Marxists often have to explain capitalist economics to capitalists.

In the other direction, Marxists often have to explain socialist economics to capitalists.
#15094454
Julian658 wrote:
The market is more efficient than anything else. It may even respond to the plight of the poor if the state government decides to spend money on the poor.



At that point it's no longer the *market*, then -- it's government *social services*, administered by a bureaucratic elite, and not dissimilar to Stalinism.

Are you pro-Stalinism or are you pro-capitalism? You keep flip-flopping.


Julian658 wrote:
BTW, most poor in the West receive a stipend form the government for subsistence. Many spend the money on fancy clothing.



Okay, moralist.

No, really, *are* you a baby-boomer? You sound like one. (I'm Gen-X myself. *Boo-yah*.)


Julian658 wrote:
The reason drugs exists is because there is a market for them. An economy driven by the market is a successful economy. A free market economy is a beautiful thing and creates prosperity.



Or it's people, young and old, scrounging in garbage dumps in Mexico.


Living in a Mexico City Garbage Dump - The Road to Juan's House - Mexican Poverty




Julian658 wrote:
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answer ... system.asp



*Yawn* -- so why don't you *live* there?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
The fact that 'primitive communism' existed proves that your 'human nature' claim of biology and psychology is bunk.



Julian658 wrote:
Once the era of hunter and gatherers ended all we had was Empires:

Ancient Period (BC)

Egyptian Empire (3100BC to 30 BC)
Norte Chico Empire (3000-1800 BC)
Indus Valley: Empires: Harappa and Mohenjo-Darro (2550-1550 BC)
Akkadian Empire (2500-2000 BC)
Babylonian Empire (1792-1595 BC)
Ancient Chinese Empires: Shang (1751-1111 BC), Chou (1000-800 BC), etc.
Hittite Empire (1500-1200 BC)
Assyrian Empire (1244-612 BC)
Persian Empires (550 BC to 637 AD) including Achemenid Empire (550-330 BC), Sassanian Empire (224 BC-651 AD)
Carthaginian Empire (ca. 475-146 BC)
Athenian Empire (461-440 BC, 362-355 BC)
Macedonian Empire (359-323 BC)
Roman Empire (264 BC to 476 AD)
Parthian Empire (247 BC- 224 AD)

Pre-Modern Period (to 1500)

African Empires: Ethiopian Empire (ca. 50-1974), Mali Empire (ca. 1210-1490), Songhai Empire (1468-1590), Fulani Empire (ca. 1800-1903)
Mesoamerican Empires esp. Maya Empire (ca. 300-900) Teotihuacan Empire (ca. 500-750), Aztec Empire (1325-ca. 1500)
Byzantine Empire (330-1453)
Andean Empires: Huari Empire (600-800); Inca Empire (1438-1525)
Chinese Pre-Modern Empires: including T'ang Dynasty (618-906), Sung Dynasty (906-1278)
Islamic Empires esp. Umayyid/Abbasid (661-1258), Almohad (1140-1250), Almoravid (1050-1140)
Carolingian Empire (ca. 700-810)
Bulgarian Empire (802-827, 1197-1241)
Southeast Asian Empires: Khmer Empire (877-1431), Burmese Empire (1057-1287)
Novogorod Empire (882-1054)
Medieval German Empire (962-1250)
Danish Empire (1014-1035)
Indian Empires, including Chola Empire (11th cent), Empire of Mahmud of Ghazni (998-1039 AD), Mughal Empire (1526-1805)
Mongol Empire (1206-1405)
Mamluk Empire (1250-1517)
Holy Roman Empire (1254-1835)
Habsburg Empire (1452-1806)
Ottoman Empire (1453-1923)

Modern Period (after 1500)

Portuguese Empire (ca. 1450-1975)
Spanish Empire (1492-1898)
Russian Empire/USSR (1552-1991)
Swedish Empire (1560-1660)
Dutch Empire (1660-1962)
British Empire (1607-ca. 1980)
French Empire (ca. 1611- ca. 1980)
Modern Chinese Empire: esp. Ch'ing Dynasty (1644-1911)
Austrian/Austro-Hungarian Empire (ca. 1700-1918) [see also Habsburg Empire]
US Empire (1776-present)
Brazilian Empire (1822-1889)
German Empire (1871-1918, 1939-1945)
Japanese Empire (1871-1945)
Italian Empire (1889-1942)

https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/ ... story.html

The Empires are universal and not only a Western thing.



Living your tangential textbook fantasy, huh?


Julian658 wrote:
Sure, it is learned, but behaviors also have a biological root that should not be dismissed.
[img]https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51CjTBRdzpL.jpg[img]



No, they don't.

Your fear of social history makes you retreat, over and over again, to your biological determinism line, but you never *explain* how you get from 'Point A' to 'Point B' with that kind of reasoning.

Just give it up. Leave the 'splaining to people who *can* deal with social topics from history.


Julian658 wrote:
Individualism solves the problem of racism and group discrimination. Not been judged according to group membership is is a blessing. individuals live in peace as they do not form groups to fight each other. All transactions are free of coercion as there are no special group interests.



Oooooo, you *almost* got a decent statement in there, but then you had to fuck it all up by using the term 'special group interests', which, again, is *ignorant* of social history.

'Special group interests' means *the oppressed*, and your market fundamentalism would rather not have to deal with such 'messiness', like the social ripple-effects of past slavery.

Sure, we'd *like* to have purely individualistic self-determination, but that's *impossible* while still under capitalism, because capitalism keeps racist practices, like *redlining*, alive, while consigning real living people to *ghettos* *with* those racist redlining practices.

You only acknowledge limited social ills when you're *forced* to, by me, and you obviously won't incorporate the existence of such social ills into your biological-determinist framework.

Oh, well, I tried.
#15094616
ckaihatsu wrote:At that point it's no longer the *market*, then -- it's government *social services*, administered by a bureaucratic elite, and not dissimilar to Stalinism.

Are you pro-Stalinism or are you pro-capitalism? You keep flip-flopping.



As of now I have to be a capitalist. I will change when something better comes our way. Stalin killed too many, more than Hitler. This sort of violence seems justified for tribalists.



No, really, *are* you a baby-boomer? You sound like one. (I'm Gen-X myself. *Boo-yah*.)


Yes, baby boomer. Second best generation behind the great generation.

Or it's people, young and old, scrounging in garbage dumps in Mexico.

Capitalism is highly imperfect.


Your fear of social history makes you retreat, over and over again, to your biological determinism line, but you never *explain* how you get from 'Point A' to 'Point B' with that kind of reasoning.


It is biology plus the environment. I cannot be a social constructionist to explain human biology.

Can you explain why people from all parts of the globe tried to have empires?


'Special group interests' means *the oppressed*, and your market fundamentalism would rather not have to deal with such 'messiness', like the social ripple-effects of past slavery.


These two black men say that it is foolish for the black community to put their fate on the hands of white people. BTW, I love these two guys and watch them regularly.




Sure, we'd *like* to have purely individualistic self-determination, but that's *impossible* while still under capitalism, because capitalism keeps racist practices, like *redlining*, alive, while consigning real living people to *ghettos* *with* those racist redlining practices.


A question for you:

Who gains more from poverty in America? The Dems or the Reps? I would say the Dems have a whole lot more to gain from poverty and oppression. These two issues give the Dems a reason to exist as a party

You only acknowledge limited social ills when you're *forced* to, by me, and you obviously won't incorporate the existence of such social ills into your biological-determinist framework.

Oh, well, I tried.


Some people are destined to the gutter. You cannot change human nature.
#15094619
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, not really. Ecosystems are far more efficient.

But even if we limit the discussion to human affairs, market failure is still a thing.

Since the issue is climate change, the market is incredibly bad at dealing with climate change. This is because of externalities.


    In economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a third party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit.[1] Externalities often occur when the production or consumption of a product or service's private price equilibrium cannot reflect the true costs or benefits of that product or service for society as a whole.[2][3] This causes the externality competitive equilibrium to not be a Pareto optimality.

    Externalities can be either positive or negative. Governments and institutions often take actions to internalize externalities, thus market-priced transactions can incorporate all the benefits and costs associated with transactions between economic agents.[4][5] The most common way this is done is by imposing taxes on the producers of this externality. This is usually done similar to a quote where there is no tax imposed and then once the externality reaches a certain point there is a very high tax imposed. However, since regulators do not always have all the information on the externality it can be difficult to impose the right tax. Once the externality is internalized through imposing a tax the competitive equilibrium is now Pareto optimal.

    For example, manufacturing activities that cause air pollution impose health and clean-up costs on the whole society, whereas the neighbors of individuals who choose to fire-proof their homes may benefit from a reduced risk of a fire spreading to their own houses. If external costs exist, such as pollution, the producer may choose to produce more of the product than would be produced if the producer were required to pay all associated environmental costs. Because responsibility or consequence for self-directed action lies partly outside the self, an element of externalization is involved. If there are external benefits, such as in public safety, less of the good may be produced than would be the case if the producer were to receive payment for the external benefits to others. For the purpose of these statements, overall cost and benefit to society is defined as the sum of the imputed monetary value of benefits and costs to all parties involved.[6][7]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Pay particular attention to the final quoted paragraph.

I have noticed that in these debates, Marxists often have to explain capitalist economics to capitalists.

In the other direction, Marxists often have to explain socialist economics to capitalists.

One of your best posts POD. I cannot disagree.
#15094631
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Julian658

So you agree that capitalism is not good at solving many problems and is not the most efficient system.

Then why do you support a capitalist non-solution to the problem of climate change?


Capitalism is not perfect POD. However, when there is market demand for other forms of energy the system will take care of this much more efficiently than government.

We must also keep immigration from 3rd world countries to the West at a minimum level. Every time a new migrant comes to the West they massively increase their carbon footprint.

The government needs to continue to promote electric cars. When I purchased my electric vehicle I received a 10k tax credit.

We must promote reduced fertility rates in 3rd world countries. So far the only people with low fertility rates live in the West.

Every single new home should be built with solar panels.
#15094634
Julian658 wrote:Capitalism is not perfect POD. However, when there is market demand for other forms of energy the system will take care of this much more efficiently than government.

We must also keep immigration from 3rd world countries to the West at a minimum level. Every time a new migrant comes to the West they massively increase their carbon footprint.

The government needs to continue to promote electric cars. When I purchased my electric vehicle I received a 10k tax credit.

We must promote reduced fertility rates in 3rd world countries. So far the only people with low fertility rates live in the West.

Every single new home should be built with solar panels.


You do this thing where you pretend to agree with me, then write the same incorrect things that you were shown were wrong.

Now, let us examine your wish to stop people of colour from having babies.

Why do you support such a racist solution? Considering your previous replies, the logical assumption would be that you want other people to do the work so that you do not have to change anything.
#15094646
Pants-of-dog wrote:You do this thing where you pretend to agree with me, then write the same incorrect things that you were shown were wrong.

Now, let us examine your wish to stop people of colour from having babies.

Why do you support such a racist solution? Considering your previous replies, the logical assumption would be that you want other people to do the work so that you do not have to change anything.


POD:

To save the planet we must reduce the fertility rate. This has nothing to do with skin color. We must also reduce the personal carbon footprint. For example my wife and I drive electric cars and I have solar panels.

If you allow the 3rd world to have high fertility rates we will not save the planet. BTW, I have some positive news. India has a much lower fertility rate than the in 1960s. Africa and the Muslim world remain high. The Japanese and Westerners are doing a great job in that regard.
#15094648
Julian658 wrote:Capitalism is not perfect POD. However, when there is market demand for other forms of energy the system will take care of this much more efficiently than government.

The film shows us the "valuable" work the market has had on the environmental protection movement. It destroyed all the "environmental protection" in favor of "green marketing" of the same environmental poisons.

If you really believe that "the market decides best," why don't you try to survive on what you can scrape up in an abandoned Walmart warehouse. Perhaps eat all the rolls of pricing tape and signage.
#15094656
Julian658 wrote:POD:

To save the planet we must reduce the fertility rate. This has nothing to do with skin color.

If you allow the 3rd world to have high fertility rates we will not save the planet.


Thank you for explaining why people of colour in the global south should have their reproductive rights taken away. You can pretend this is not about skin colour, but you are specifically excluding white people from this coercive birth control program.

We must also reduce the personal carbon footprint.


Yes, capitalism sure has a lot of products that you can buy that cause slightly less harm than the one you bought last time. This is not a viable and sustainable solution.

We do not gave to “reduce” our carbon footprint. We have to get rid of it. And we also have to clean up the carbon footprint of Europe and North America from the last 150 or so years. And we have to help the global south get a higher standard of living while simultaneously not creating any carbon footprint.

And at the end, we need to have a whole planet with an industrial capability better than the existing with no carbon footprint at all.

That is sustainable.
#15094664
Pants-of-dog wrote:Thank you for explaining why people of colour in the global south should have their reproductive rights taken away. You can pretend this is not about skin colour, but you are specifically excluding white people from this coercive birth control program.


When I was growing up saying people of color was a derogatory term. I do not like the term POD; I find it offensive. Perhaps you need a history lesson on how they use that term to segregate black people.

People in the West of all skin colors already have a low fertility rate. We must reduce the fertility rate in the 3rd world.






Yes, capitalism sure has a lot of products that you can buy that cause slightly less harm than the one you bought last time. This is not a viable and sustainable solution.


It will get done. no worries. I know you guys want to use climate change to impose socialism. I got your number POD!

We do not gave to “reduce” our carbon footprint. We have to get rid of it. And we also have to clean up the carbon footprint of Europe and North America from the last 150 or so years. And we have to help the global south get a higher standard of living while simultaneously not creating any carbon footprint.

And at the end, we need to have a whole planet with an industrial capability better than the existing with no carbon footprint at all.

That is sustainable.


We will not go back to the Hunter/Gatherer era POD. I know quite well communists have a fetish with that era because the Hunters were supposedly communists. That era is long gone POD.
#15094679
Julian658 wrote:
As of now I have to be a capitalist. I will change when something better comes our way. Stalin killed too many, more than Hitler. This sort of violence seems justified for tribalists.



By being 'centrist' (okay with the status-quo) and indifferent you're actually *glossing over* the politics itself. You sound like you have *personal* commitments of some kind, which makes you personally *vested* in the status quo.

Stalin and the USSR wasn't 'tribalist' -- it was trying to *industrialize*, which it did rather well, and quickly, but at great *human* cost, which is why workers-of-the-world socialism should *not* be constrained to any given nation-state.


Julian658 wrote:
Yes, baby boomer. Second best generation behind the great generation.



*Gaaaaaaaaaaagggggg* / feeling of nausea and wanting to vomit.

Here's why:


Auschwitz bombing debate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_bombing_debate


---



Capitalism is highly imperfect.



I only mean to point out that your usual triumphalism is *misplaced*. You have to take the bad with the good, so to avoid *bias*. You might mention the poor foraging in garbage dumps along with the glittering skyscrapers, as both being instances of capitalism.


Julian658 wrote:
It is biology plus the environment. I cannot be a social constructionist to explain human biology.

Can you explain why people from all parts of the globe tried to have empires?



What's a 'social constructionist', and what do they say about biology?

Empire is a *class* dynamic -- those in the ruling class, in whatever society / era, want to keep *enriching* themselves, endlessly, so as to justify their privileged existence to everyone else.


Julian658 wrote:
These two black men say that it is foolish for the black community to put their fate on the hands of white people. BTW, I love these two guys and watch them regularly.

Xym3kFuBX3Y



I'll get to it -- meanwhile, tell blacks not to vote for Bloomberg:


Black Democrats endorse Bloomberg after release of racist boasts on “stop-and-frisk”

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/0 ... o-f14.html


---


I know about the 1619 thing through the World Socialist Web Site:


The 1619 Project and the falsification of history: An analysis of the New York Times’ reply to five historians

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/1 ... r-d28.html


And:



Historian Leslie M. Harris, who was consulted by the New York Times during development of the 1619 Project, wrote in Politico that she warned of the historical inaccuracy of the idea that the 13 colonies went to war to protect slavery, but "Despite my advice, the Times published the incorrect statement about the American Revolution anyway".[46] However, she argued more forcefully against critiques which she viewed as implying that the existence of those inaccuracies is enough to discredit the project's central aims.[46]



Correction in response to criticism

On March 11, 2020, Silverstein authored an "update" in the form of a "clarification" on The New York Times website, correcting part of Hannah-Jones' essay to state "that protecting slavery was a primary motivation for some of the colonists", when the original version had stated it was “one primary reason the colonists fought the American Revolution”.[52]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project




The spirit of the Declaration of Independence led to laws ending slavery in all the Northern states and the Northwest Territory, with New Jersey the last in 1804. States such as New Jersey and New York adopted gradual emancipation, which kept some people as slaves for more than two decades longer.[201]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... l_colonies



---


Julian658 wrote:
A question for you:

Who gains more from poverty in America? The Dems or the Reps? I would say the Dems have a whole lot more to gain from poverty and oppression. These two issues give the Dems a reason to exist as a party



It's ultimately a *two-party* system -- the Democrats and Republicans *support each other*, because they're two sides of the same *bourgeois ruling class*.


Julian658 wrote:
Some people are destined to the gutter. You cannot change human nature.



This is a racist, eugenicist-type statement. This is exactly the kind of conclusion one winds up at if one is a biological determinist, and eschews the far more relevant *social* and *class* dynamics.
#15094683
Julian658 wrote:When I was growing up saying people of color was a derogatory term. I do not like the term POD; I find it offensive. Perhaps you need a history lesson on how they use that term to segregate black people.


Feel free.

People in the West of all skin colors already have a low fertility rate. We must reduce the fertility rate in the 3rd world.


Yes, you keep explaining why you feel you should take away the reproductive rights of Africans, Latinos, and Asians.

It will get done. no worries. I know you guys want to use climate change to impose socialism. I got your number POD!


What will “get done”?

Your claims are getting more and more vague.

We will not go back to the Hunter/Gatherer era POD. I know quite well communists have a fetish with that era because the Hunters were supposedly communists. That era is long gone POD.


You misread. Since this is a strawman, this criticism is getting ignored.

You also ignored my point about how we need to create an industrialised society with no carbon footprint.
#15094687
Pants-of-dog wrote:Feel free.


I find the term colored to be offensive POD/ Maybe you are naive and young and do not remember this:
Image


Yes, you keep explaining why you feel you should take away the reproductive rights of Africans, Latinos, and Asians.


POD, the entire world has to decrease the fertility rate. Why do you think it should only be done by Westerners? What kind of twisted logic is that? Why do you see racism where there is none. The biggest favor we can do for poverty in the 3rd worlds is to provide contraception.



You misread. Since this is a strawman, this criticism is getting ignored.


POD: This is a strawman, the real deal.
Yes, you keep explaining why you feel you should take away the reproductive rights of Africans, Latinos, and Asians.



You also ignored my point about how we need to create an industrialised society with no carbon footprint.


You need capitalists for industrialization. Socialists are very poor at that job. And they pollute more than anyone else.
#15094691
Julian658 wrote:I find the term colored to be offensive POD/ Maybe you are naive and young and do not remember this:
Image


I never said “colored”.

I said “people of colour”.

Colour me pedantic, but I think the two are different.

POD, the entire world has to decrease the fertility rate. Why do you think it should only be done by Westerners? What kind of twisted logic is that? Why do you see racism where there is none. The biggest favor we can do for poverty in the 3rd worlds is to provide contraception.


You again misread.

You are the one who said the third world needs to cut birthrates. This is you deliberately excluding white people from forced sterilization.

And I never said anything about white people (or anyone else) reducing their birthrates.

So, still no argument. Just you getting confused and offended.

POD: This is a strawman, the real deal.
Yes, you keep explaining why you feel you should take away the reproductive rights of Africans, Latinos, and Asians.

You claimed that we need to reduce the birthrate of the developing world. I then repeat3d your claim back to you using different words.

And you still have no argument as to why non-whites need to stop breeding.



The USSR went from an agrarian society to putting a person in space in less than fifty years. Cuba has the best healthcare in the developing world. Vietnam beat the USA in a war.

Provide evidence for the claim about pollution.
#15094709
Pants-of-dog wrote:I never said “colored”.

I said “people of colour”.

Colour me pedantic, but I think the two are different.


Don't try to BS POD, itis not your style. American English uses color and British English uses colour. It is a shame that the left wing people with a fetish to identity politics uses this nasty term to describe people. Nasty stuff!


You again misread.

You are the one who said the third world needs to cut birthrates. This is you deliberately excluding white people from forced sterilization.

And I never said anything about white people (or anyone else) reducing their birthrates.

So, still no argument. Just you getting confused and offended.


POD, the world population needs to go down to save the planet, more so in the 3rd world. Stop looking for racism where there is none.

The USSR went from an agrarian society to putting a person in space in less than fifty years. Cuba has the best healthcare in the developing world.

Stop BSing POD. Anyone that studied history knows the Soviets learned from the German Scientists after WWI!. This is well known, they got the rocket technology from the Germans.

Provide evidence for the claim about pollution.


Background
After World War II, the Soviet Union put in place five-year plans in the East European countries imitating their own five-year plans in order to recover from the war. The Soviets believed that the economic policies that helped them recover would similarly help the Eastern European counties recoup. Countries in the Eastern Bloc were instructed to build up the industries present in the Soviet Union – regardless of whether or not they had the natural resources to support those industries – or to concentrate on developing pre-existing industries which could benefit the Soviet Union. In the case of Czechoslovakia, the state was told to concentrate on heavy industry. This concentration on heavy industry depleted the country's natural resources at an extraordinarily fast rate and produced an excessive amount of pollution.

Effects
The pollution produced by heavy industry seriously degraded air quality. The air contained high concentrations of sulfur dioxide because the energy production was largely based on combustion of fuel high in sulfur. As a result, 50 percent of the forests were either dead or dying.[citation needed] Cases of bronchitis and asthma in children almost doubled with the increase in the use of sulfur dioxide.[citation needed] The water, too, was affected by the excessive pollution, both from industrial fertilizers and oil spills. The lack of water waste treatment meant that a large portion of the water was undrinkable for the population, and some of the water was so bad that it was even unusable by the industry. Conditions were worst in Northern Bohemia, which was a part of the so-called ‘triangle of death’[citation needed] that also included South-East East Germany and South-West Poland, but the effects were also felt beyond the region in which the pollution originated. The Danube River carried much of the pollution to other areas of the state and other countries, and acid rain brought the pollution directly to the cities, where it could eat away at the buildings and statues.[1]


WIKI
#15094737
Julian658 wrote:Don't try to BS POD, itis not your style. American English uses color and British English uses colour. It is a shame that the left wing people with a fetish to identity politics uses this nasty term to describe people. Nasty stuff!


You are getting offended because you incorrectly think I used one term when I used another.

I am ignoring this from now on.

POD, the world population needs to go down to save the planet, more so in the 3rd world. Stop looking for racism where there is none.


You are ignoring the inherent racism of your argument. You also want me to ignore it.

Let us do some math. The average Canadian uses 20.94 tons of GHG per year. So a family of three would produce 62.82 tons per year.

The average Cuban uses 4.08 tons. So a Cuban family would need to have more than 15 people in it to produce as much damage as a Canadian family. Is the idea that these mythical families of 15 are more responsible for global warming than all the small Canadian families that actually exist?

Stop BSing POD. Anyone that studied history knows the Soviets learned from the German Scientists after WWI!. This is well known, they got the rocket technology from the Germans.



Background
After World War II, the Soviet Union put in place five-year plans in the East European countries imitating their own five-year plans in order to recover from the war. The Soviets believed that the economic policies that helped them recover would similarly help the Eastern European counties recoup. Countries in the Eastern Bloc were instructed to build up the industries present in the Soviet Union – regardless of whether or not they had the natural resources to support those industries – or to concentrate on developing pre-existing industries which could benefit the Soviet Union. In the case of Czechoslovakia, the state was told to concentrate on heavy industry. This concentration on heavy industry depleted the country's natural resources at an extraordinarily fast rate and produced an excessive amount of pollution.

Effects
The pollution produced by heavy industry seriously degraded air quality. The air contained high concentrations of sulfur dioxide because the energy production was largely based on combustion of fuel high in sulfur. As a result, 50 percent of the forests were either dead or dying.[citation needed] Cases of bronchitis and asthma in children almost doubled with the increase in the use of sulfur dioxide.[citation needed] The water, too, was affected by the excessive pollution, both from industrial fertilizers and oil spills. The lack of water waste treatment meant that a large portion of the water was undrinkable for the population, and some of the water was so bad that it was even unusable by the industry. Conditions were worst in Northern Bohemia, which was a part of the so-called ‘triangle of death’[citation needed] that also included South-East East Germany and South-West Poland, but the effects were also felt beyond the region in which the pollution originated. The Danube River carried much of the pollution to other areas of the state and other countries, and acid rain brought the pollution directly to the cities, where it could eat away at the buildings and statues.[1]


WIKI[/quote]

And capitalism made even more pollution.
#15094751
Pants-of-dog wrote:You are getting offended because you incorrectly think I used one term when I used another.

I am ignoring this from now on.


Fine, but I ask you not to describe and classify people according to skin color. I find that highly offensive.


You are ignoring the inherent racism of your argument. You also want me to ignore it.


How could it be racist to be offended by the term color (or colour) when describing black people?

Let us do some math. The average Canadian uses 20.94 tons of GHG per year. So a family of three would produce 62.82 tons per year.

The average Cuban uses 4.08 tons. So a Cuban family would need to have more than 15 people in it to produce as much damage as a Canadian family. Is the idea that these mythical families of 15 are more responsible for global warming than all the small Canadian families that actually exist?


The carbon footprint of people in the 3rd world is a blessing.
  • 1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 27

How about Russia uses a battle field nuclear we[…]

@Tainari88 , @Godstud @Rich , @Verv , @Po[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 29, Friday Mackenzie King wins Canadian el[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]