I finally get it!!! The Leftists call anything and anyone who supports their nation over another as ...

govols comments on Jun 4, 2019:

The single issue of current times is globalism. It isn't left/right. The global left and global right frown on any ideas that tend toward local, national, regional, sectional...non-global thinking or attitudes. There is a collection of monists across the left/right spectrum that seeks to globalize ...

govols replies on Jun 4, 2019:

@FoundationSage So you think extreme Right is anarchy?

I finally get it!!! The Leftists call anything and anyone who supports their nation over another as ...

govols comments on Jun 4, 2019:

The single issue of current times is globalism. It isn't left/right. The global left and global right frown on any ideas that tend toward local, national, regional, sectional...non-global thinking or attitudes. There is a collection of monists across the left/right spectrum that seeks to globalize ...

govols replies on Jun 4, 2019:

@FoundationSage Right is just as susceptible to totalitarianism as Left. And both equally susceptible to big, BIG, government.

Some days you realize that Facebook status line from eight years ago could be used as a writing ...

Wordmage comments on Jun 2, 2019:

And then I apparently wrote afterward, "When the doctor told me I had hit my head and was concustard, I exclaimed, 'You're pudding me on! What did I do to dessert this?'" :D

govols replies on Jun 2, 2019:

No the hell you didn't!

Lena Dunham and sex

jwhitten comments on May 30, 2019:

Wow, just exactly the two topics I never ever really wanted to see together in a sentence.

govols replies on May 30, 2019:

I know, right?

[youtube.com]

tigercake comments on May 28, 2019:

There is actually 24 of them. I thought AOC would be among them.

govols replies on May 28, 2019:

AOC isn't old enough.

I ply or 2

Garsco comments on May 28, 2019:

Ha ha ha!!! I like memes but this one borders on TMI ! 🤣

govols replies on May 28, 2019:

The only things that make this socially acceptable are anonymity, alcohol, and truthiness.

How can we best do good? It must be better to strive to do good rather than bad ...

govols comments on May 24, 2019:

How can we best do good? Well, first you have to know good. Then you have to practice. Alternatively, you can know a whole lot about "not good" and practice NOT doing those sorts of things. It's all about practice, building the habits of doing and not doing as often and correctly as you can manage.

govols replies on May 25, 2019:

@RichardPD I just did, also. I advise not digging too deeply into those results. That's the sort of stuff that makes people scream at the sky. But, that's what we're (some of us) up against.

How can we best do good? It must be better to strive to do good rather than bad ...

govols comments on May 24, 2019:

How can we best do good? Well, first you have to know good. Then you have to practice. Alternatively, you can know a whole lot about "not good" and practice NOT doing those sorts of things. It's all about practice, building the habits of doing and not doing as often and correctly as you can manage.

govols replies on May 25, 2019:

@RichardPD Dear God, man! You didn't get any of it on you, did you? How did you find it? Well, it certainly answers how some suggest we should "do good."

How can we best do good? It must be better to strive to do good rather than bad ...

govols comments on May 24, 2019:

How can we best do good? Well, first you have to know good. Then you have to practice. Alternatively, you can know a whole lot about "not good" and practice NOT doing those sorts of things. It's all about practice, building the habits of doing and not doing as often and correctly as you can manage.

govols replies on May 24, 2019:

@RichardPD So far the consensus seems to be through deliberative and learned reason, devine (or not) revelation, or lately, just make shit up and call it emancipative critical theory.

Would anyone be interested in explanation into the "deep under belly" (as I have named it) of ...

govols comments on May 23, 2019:

Sure, lay it on us.

govols replies on May 23, 2019:

@Gerri4321 Yes, I have a better idea of where you're coming from. Thanks for giving some background.

Would anyone be interested in explanation into the "deep under belly" (as I have named it) of ...

govols comments on May 23, 2019:

Sure, lay it on us.

govols replies on May 23, 2019:

@Gerri4321 I like the coins. One day somebody is going to make that post that blows my brain apart, makes me laugh til I cry, feels like a visit from my now-passed Dad... It'll win them my loot and maybe let them gat that coffee cup they've had their eye on.

Would anyone be interested in explanation into the "deep under belly" (as I have named it) of ...

govols comments on May 23, 2019:

Sure, lay it on us.

govols replies on May 23, 2019:

@Gerri4321 Well, it's good that you feel membership is important enough to provide feedback like you do. I'm sure it can't hurt that you participate as you do.

Labour Knew about the Muslim Grooming Gangs - YouTube

govols comments on May 23, 2019:

infuriating.

govols replies on May 23, 2019:

Damn.

Would anyone want to do a mock interview with me ?

govols comments on May 23, 2019:

What do you mean by mock interview? Playing the other idiot trying to figure out how to accomplish the technical aspects of pulling it off?

govols replies on May 23, 2019:

@Ktpie Well, by what medium? Some prep would be required; what sort of topics. Would you want a pre-interview conversation to get a feel for the candidate? I mean, like, Joe Rogan can sit and shoot the shit with anybody for three hours but he's done it for thousands of hours. What's the practice interview plan look like?

Where is Ruth?

govols comments on May 23, 2019:

You've posted on this theme a few times. Have you seen reporting that she hasn't been attending arguments or something?

govols replies on May 23, 2019:

@Gerri4321 Okay, I must have been mistaken.

Kushner replied 'on it!' after Manafort sought post for banker

govols comments on May 23, 2019:

So, are you calling out nepotism? Here? In America? Say it ain't so!

govols replies on May 23, 2019:

@WilyRickWiles Yeah, I read the article. I was wondering what you were bringing from it associated with Kushner. I can come up with nepotism, maybe, but that's about all.

Anger permeates

An_Ominous comments on May 23, 2019:

The man speaks truth. Then again I think that a lot of people in Congress either don't care about accomplishing anything or actually don't want to accomplish anything. I think a lot them believe that their sole job is to be re-elected. If they actually solved a problem... then they'd have to go ...

govols replies on May 23, 2019:

I often wonder if abortion and gun control are two such issues both sides have agreed to ignore when in power so they both retain the issue.

With the metoo movement slowing down from its media peak, some new results of its reach are starting...

Hybridsmoke comments on May 23, 2019:

It will eventually swing back the other way.

govols replies on May 23, 2019:

I keep thinking of myself as a kid trying to get the (swing-set) pendulum to go on over the top. I swear I think that's what the children today are trying to do.

Aloha Atheists of IDW.

govols comments on May 23, 2019:

We're in an audit today.

govols replies on May 23, 2019:

@Boardwine So far, quite painless for most of us. President is getting most of because the auditor doesn't like his leadership style.😊

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution was submitted 09/1789 and completed 12/1791, ...

Wtretired comments on May 23, 2019:

The 27th Amendment was ratified in 1992 but the rest of the Constitution did not change. There is an interesting book out called The Bill of Rights by a Yale Law Professor named Amar. Interesting in that originally he believes the 1st Amendment did not prohibit individual states from endorsing a ...

govols replies on May 23, 2019:

The BoR didn't apply to the States. I think all but three had state religions well into the 1800s.

Something different.

govols comments on May 23, 2019:

Hard to tell...Is that paper swans on a stick? Looks cool...

govols replies on May 23, 2019:

@Naomi So, I was technically correct in a poetically flawed sort of way... Cool! 😁

What is you farvote pet? I like all animals. Horses all at the the number 1 spot for me. 😂

AZWoman comments on May 22, 2019:

Dogs. I have a German Shepherd, a Besenji and a Tibetan Spaniel. The GSD is my Service Dog, she is 2 years old and weighs 100 pounds.

govols replies on May 22, 2019:

Is a service animal a pet?

First Amendment In the US we have the standard of “clear and present danger” in illegal ...

govols comments on May 22, 2019:

Ya know, most of this sort of thing is easier to deal with once one accepts that the constitutional powers of the legislature have been allowed by the courts to be delegated to the executive. The legislature has a constitutional power to issue letters of marque, the CIA is a quasi-private global ...

govols replies on May 22, 2019:

@Babou Lincoln didn't have constitutional authority to suspend habeas. That clause is in article 1; presidents get authorites in article 2.

Very interesting.....

govols comments on May 22, 2019:

I don't get it. I'm guessing they're playing with 50 millions cells in a fetus, trying to get people to realize how quickly a baby develops. Bad play. That suggests a clump of cells rather than a unified individual living and growing human, being.

govols replies on May 22, 2019:

@JobyOneKenobi I got it once it was made blunt enough to hit me in the head with. Cheers...

Very interesting.....

govols comments on May 22, 2019:

I don't get it. I'm guessing they're playing with 50 millions cells in a fetus, trying to get people to realize how quickly a baby develops. Bad play. That suggests a clump of cells rather than a unified individual living and growing human, being.

govols replies on May 22, 2019:

@JobyOneKenobi That's why I said I don't get it.

First Amendment In the US we have the standard of “clear and present danger” in illegal ...

govols comments on May 22, 2019:

Ya know, most of this sort of thing is easier to deal with once one accepts that the constitutional powers of the legislature have been allowed by the courts to be delegated to the executive. The legislature has a constitutional power to issue letters of marque, the CIA is a quasi-private global ...

govols replies on May 22, 2019:

@Babou Letters of marque and reprisal were invented specifically for times not at war, They were methods of reprisal short of declaring war. This is old stuff, well under way in the 20th century. The general government of the US had been pulling this kind of crap since at least Lincoln's imprisonments of journalists and newspaper editors. The great country you grew up in, the US of the 20th century, wasn't as clean as you remember.

What is your "Gangster Name"?

Naomi comments on May 21, 2019:

Mine is "Blue Tea" - doesn't sound like a gangster name, at all. :(

govols replies on May 21, 2019:

Burnt orange Irish whisky.

Is there any tool that allows one to see all recent comments and replies to comments?

Oxfret comments on May 21, 2019:

As far as I know you can only favorite a post with the golden star. Then you get notified about any updates.

govols replies on May 21, 2019:

That's helpful, thanks.

The Wave - YouTube

govols comments on May 21, 2019:

Okay, I'm 12 minutes in. This is messed up.

govols replies on May 21, 2019:

@Sarge45 That was a fine exploration of how far into the breech we'll follow our shadows. This is what's happening, always, in our world.

A question. Is there a distinctly American style of discussion?

FaithJones comments on May 18, 2019:

I can't answer the question but have an indirect comment to add. Often on this site you'll see US-only thinkers using phrases like "we built this country" or "our Congress has a duty" or "everybody will vote for X". They don't seem to cope with the idea that there are almost 200 countries in the ...

govols replies on May 18, 2019:

Americans are so generally Ameri-centric it amazes me that so many people went batshit over Trump saying he would attempt to put America first when doing policy.

Since coming to this community, have you been able to release yourself from fb Answer in comments

govols comments on May 17, 2019:

I don't understand the question.

govols replies on May 17, 2019:

@Sarge45 I'm not on Facebook. Boards like this are the extent of my interactive participation with social media. I consume youtube and podcasts but I don't play in the comments. This sort of format, leaving a thought to simmer, seems better that the instant reaction forms provided by other, more modern, social media.

What common ground do you think that the Left and Right still share?

RichardD comments on May 17, 2019:

Rule of Law? Democracy? Don't cause unnecessary suffering? Equality of opportunity? Justice?

govols replies on May 17, 2019:

@R_D_Russell The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP, just in case) is one of those ideas that seem to me self-evidently reasonable, but in the end are almost universally rejected as juvenile. Not nearly enough nuance for a foundational principle. The need for a State, an arbiter of Greater Good, seems to be almost universally conceded by both the left and the right. Personal sovereignty seems to be a non-starter for both the left and the right. General sovereignty--a will of the people--is fairly well agreed upon, the main question being "How may I violate you? Let the State count the ways." The NAP really has no place at the table where the topic is democracy, because democracy assumes that we're all subject to the requirements of the social contract. Our rights are never forfeited; our rights are violated by individuals with no regard, or by the State on behalf of the general will.The NAP requires a deep noble duty felt among the politi at large and within its foundational governing principles. Star Trek played on it once with Spock. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one." Under NAP, that phrase expresses only part of the philosophy, The NAP only works as a social foundation if the individuals within society have an ingrained regard for the duty of individuals to sacrifice for the community that rivaled only by the social commitment among the community to bring all of its resources to bear on behalf of the individual who chooses to decline to make the sacrifice. NAP isn't currently functional within society as it now exists.

What common ground do you think that the Left and Right still share?

RichardD comments on May 17, 2019:

Rule of Law? Democracy? Don't cause unnecessary suffering? Equality of opportunity? Justice?

govols replies on May 17, 2019:

@R_D_Russell On the topic, then, of democracy, neither left nor right really value it. Neither want majority rules, so the real concept is whether "of, by, and for" remains an acceptable format in the modern era. Trying not to speak globally, the current American system is not "constitutional." "Scientism" and rule by an expert class is the modern reality. I could do a few paragraphs trying to demonstrate the notion, but it's painfully obvious to most that our several hundred Representatives and Senators don't make up a body with authoritative control over our "legislative" functions. The President is, under no interpretation of reality, the office holder vested with the "executive POWER" of the United States. The vast majority of the legislative power is now functionally wielded by the administrative federal state and the president usually hasn't any real executive power to ensure that either the constitution or the laws are faithfully executed. The People of America have a "democratic" say over 536 elected office holders who, almost to a one, have no authority over the several million administrative experts who actually run our "democracy." For a conversation about democracy to take place between the left and right, among the People, I think we have to begin it again with what exactly the "social contract" looks like in a post-industrial information based culture. We're using 17th and 18th century ideas and terms to navigate 21st century cultural questions. For a dialogue to be undertaken today on the nature of democracy, we must revisit Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau; what is the common good, the will of the people, the relationship between individual liberty and collective duty, the role of science toward well-functioning government; what is, today, the meaning, intent, and proper forms of government of. by, and for, a people. Prior even to that is the question of what it means to be a People.

What common ground do you think that the Left and Right still share?

RichardD comments on May 17, 2019:

Rule of Law? Democracy? Don't cause unnecessary suffering? Equality of opportunity? Justice?

govols replies on May 17, 2019:

@R_D_Russell Okay, that clarifies the point of your OP. You're asking for ideas on where to begin in an effort toward broad consensus of meaning? Can the left and right agree on some broad themes from which to understand and define what democracy means in the current age? Maybe instead what democracy means for the various stages of cultural development among the various peoples around the globe? Can the left and right come to terms on the forms and purposes of rule making necessary for a culture to be functional given environmental and economic realities? You're asking where a serious dialogue might be had that could get left and right to begin again to learn how to reach consensus?

is anyone having problems trying to reply to comments within posts?

Boardwine comments on May 16, 2019:

Yes. It's driving me nuts!!

govols replies on May 16, 2019:

You too, @BooRadley.

is anyone having problems trying to reply to comments within posts?

Boardwine comments on May 16, 2019:

Yes. It's driving me nuts!!

govols replies on May 16, 2019:

Check below....

Can overthinking cause brain stress, clouded vision, or brain damage so say?

Gerri4321 comments on May 16, 2019:

@govols reply button still not working I don't overthink anyone thing but from time to time my brain does not stop think for a month or longer. I also can eat the same thing for weeks on end, touch something with left foot of hand have to do it with the other. I can control this yes because I'm ...

govols replies on May 16, 2019:

I never learned to type, so reading aloud is faster than I can type. I have a chunk of mind that I can usually ignore. I toss crap over into there when it won't leave me alone and let it stew in its own shit until it smells so bad I can't ignore it any longer. Or I drink Scotch.

is anyone having problems trying to reply to comments within posts?

george comments on May 16, 2019:

Reply button is bugged or something.

govols replies on May 16, 2019:

Try The trick below.

is anyone having problems trying to reply to comments within posts?

WilyRickWiles comments on May 16, 2019:

You might want to try doing a force-refresh to bypass your browser cache: CTRL-SHIFT-R. They're probably making changes to some of the JavaScript source code that makes the site run in your browser--and those get cached by your browser and generally don't get refreshed after changes if the ...

govols replies on May 16, 2019:

Well, that worked. Thanks!

The Left-leaning media like to create and champion underdog stories where an identity-based victim ...

jneedler comments on May 15, 2019:

Identity politics appeal to individuals who indulge in victim mentality, either for themselves or on behalf of others. Identity politics is predicated on the belief that some groups (blacks, females, Muslim, LGTBQ) have been collectively victimized. As such, it will increasingly appeal to those ...

govols replies on May 15, 2019:

No, identity politics doesn't rely on somebody being victimized. The entire fucking theory is that culture exists as a power structure. The victim story is a sub-story. The narrative is a dominance structure that we're all subjected to. Victimization is just an aspect, and the cause we must banner around. It's important to understand the foundation as they understand it. All of human history is a story of how the strong and powerful imposed the very norms of society upon the weaker classes over which rules might be made normative.

Do you think a State should be allowed to change what is on a Federal Election Ballot

govols comments on May 4, 2019:

There are no federal elections. Our elections are generally locally run affairs, overseen at state level, selecting district or statewide representatives to serve in federal offices. Even presidential elections aren't federal, and votes aren't cast for given candidates, but instead for electors to ...

govols replies on May 15, 2019:

@Sarge45 No doubt. The SCotUS has ruled on this, sort of. Back when term limits were being passed the Court ruled that where Constitutional requirements for office exist, neither the States nor the Congress can impose additional requirements. Seems straight enough to me.

I'm curious about atheism among former believers.

TommyB comments on May 13, 2019:

I think it's simply a result of the effort to replace God with man in western culture. Isn't the conversion a direct result of that? As far as history's concerned, Ben Shapiro adresses an aspect of it in this video: https://youtu.be/a9cyB9qY0Y0

govols replies on May 14, 2019:

@TommyB No, I haven't converted. I'm not sure what I am, really. I'm neither an atheist nor a believer, and don't trust the idea of agnostic.

I'm curious about atheism among former believers.

TommyB comments on May 13, 2019:

I think it's simply a result of the effort to replace God with man in western culture. Isn't the conversion a direct result of that? As far as history's concerned, Ben Shapiro adresses an aspect of it in this video: https://youtu.be/a9cyB9qY0Y0

govols replies on May 14, 2019:

@TommyB I'm not suggesting western civil has reached, but that it's in a process I wonder if maybe could be better understood by looking at how individuals reached the similar outcome.

I'm curious about atheism among former believers.

TommyB comments on May 13, 2019:

I think it's simply a result of the effort to replace God with man in western culture. Isn't the conversion a direct result of that? As far as history's concerned, Ben Shapiro adresses an aspect of it in this video: https://youtu.be/a9cyB9qY0Y0

govols replies on May 14, 2019:

@TommyB Roughly true. What I'm trying to dig at...If a traditional culture, all of which (as far as we know) had gods and religion and "cult" in the form of rituals and such, begets an individual and impart the traditional faith upon said individual, is the pathway by which that individual becomes atheist--without a belief in the traditional god(s)--similar to the process by which western civ managed to reach the similar conclusion. Is it possible to study the process among individual atheists and apply it to the culture itself as a manner of better understanding the present and possible futures.

I'm curious about atheism among former believers.

TommyB comments on May 13, 2019:

I think it's simply a result of the effort to replace God with man in western culture. Isn't the conversion a direct result of that? As far as history's concerned, Ben Shapiro adresses an aspect of it in this video: https://youtu.be/a9cyB9qY0Y0

govols replies on May 14, 2019:

@TommyB I watched the video yesterday and again today. I don't see the connection.

I'm curious about atheism among former believers.

JacintaL comments on May 13, 2019:

I don’t equate atheism with the recent upheaval and left activism in western culture. I believe societies needed a god or belief system in order to create cohesion and advancement, but I also believe our time of needing a deity for these purposes is coming to an end.

govols replies on May 14, 2019:

I'm absolutely NOT trying to equate atheism with leftism. I'm more wondering if the individual raised in faith and gradually losing it in favor of materialism, a requirement for empirical evidence without which no idea can be called knowledge, is sort of exactly what moved society at large away from traditional faith in metaphysical narratives and the gods who "created" the cultures who worship them.

I'm curious about atheism among former believers.

TommyB comments on May 13, 2019:

I think it's simply a result of the effort to replace God with man in western culture. Isn't the conversion a direct result of that? As far as history's concerned, Ben Shapiro adresses an aspect of it in this video: https://youtu.be/a9cyB9qY0Y0

govols replies on May 14, 2019:

I'm not sure what you mean. What I'm driving at isn't about an active effort to remove or replace God, but instead the process by which either a faith-filled individual or culture would first experience a decline toward loss of faith, and eventually toward a rejection of the very thing toward which previous faith had been directed. In society at large, it seems like the desire and ability to understand and explain the material world, empirically, has almost eliminated "the appeal to faith" as a basic mode of being. In individuals, I can picture a process of development that looks a lot like the development of society: I'm born in a "Cult"ure, I experience the culture, I'm indoctrinated to the culture, I gradually experience the external world and incorporate manners by which I come to know of how it actually is, I slowly shrug off my "cult" in favor of my observations and experiences, I lose faith in the necessity of traditions I'm still surrounded by, I finally come to reject even the validity of of tradition in favor of empiricism and reason, I come to have "faith" in the "appeal to authority" that stems from division of labor in the form of expertise in categories of knowledge and the evidence they can show me. I wonder if the acquisition of atheism among formerly faith-filled individuals follows a process that might very much reflect/follow the history of western civ.

Just listened to Ben's interview with William Lane Craig.

jnaatjes comments on May 13, 2019:

Disclaimer... I believe in God, am a religious Christian (LDS), and also believe in the importance of science, reason, and the enlightenment. Just finished listening to the interview as well, and I have some thoughts. I don't follow the ontological argument. I'd be happy if someone explained the ...

govols replies on May 14, 2019:

@jnaatjes Well, yeah, sure you can, but the "logic" remains sound. As a theoretical exercise it's a "valid argument."

[youtube.com] Dr. Jordan Peterson Explains the Meaning of Life for Men – Animation

govols comments on May 13, 2019:

Okay, this is so, so very wrong. The difference between men and women is that men saw the overlapping distribution of agreeableness at about 1:30 as ta-tas.

govols replies on May 13, 2019:

@iThink I shouldn't have even posted it. It was an adolescent thought. It involved boobs.

Just listened to Ben's interview with William Lane Craig.

jnaatjes comments on May 13, 2019:

Disclaimer... I believe in God, am a religious Christian (LDS), and also believe in the importance of science, reason, and the enlightenment. Just finished listening to the interview as well, and I have some thoughts. I don't follow the ontological argument. I'd be happy if someone explained the ...

govols replies on May 13, 2019:

@waynus If human conceptions of god are an evolutionary development stemming from language, every bit as much language is an evolutionary development stemming from consciousness. As near as we can tell every society came to know of god(s) and express the knowledge as best as their language could express it. None of us knew, but all of us had the idea.

Just listened to Ben's interview with William Lane Craig.

govols comments on May 13, 2019:

Play a mental game. Imagine a space, infinite or not--but just an empty space with no matter or energy or time, an empty space with no content whatsoever--just imagine a space. Now, imagine no space. Now, if you can pull that off, imagine something arising from that nothing.

govols replies on May 13, 2019:

@waynus Of course we don't know, but we can't help but play mental games. Those games are possibly the very nature of what we are. Humans freaking ponder shit. We troubleshoot. We ask why. Any of us that are even close to reaching our potential spend way too much time playing games with WTF.

Just listened to Ben's interview with William Lane Craig.

jnaatjes comments on May 13, 2019:

Disclaimer... I believe in God, am a religious Christian (LDS), and also believe in the importance of science, reason, and the enlightenment. Just finished listening to the interview as well, and I have some thoughts. I don't follow the ontological argument. I'd be happy if someone explained the ...

govols replies on May 13, 2019:

The main idea with the ontological argument is that the denier of god actually proves god by his own denial. The denial of god requires that the unbeliever comprehends the idea of god as that idea exists among those with whom he disagrees. In order for anyone to deny god, it is fundamentally necessary that he first know god. In the knowing, the nonbeliever admits that the concept exists. If the concept exists then the reality must exist. The reason is that god, as understood, is greater than the idea of god. If god is the greatest possible, and the idea is actually in existence, then the being itself must also exist because the being of something is greater than the idea of something.

I’ve been studying postmodernism more in-depth since hearing more about it from many of ...

govols comments on May 6, 2019:

I've gotta jump in here, God help me. There is a misunderstanding among anti-Left detractors of postmodern"ism." I'm not saying that postmodernism isn't a real thing...er, well, yeah, I kinda am. If one really wishes to get into the heads of SJW and ____ studies types, an open mind is helpful. The ...

govols replies on May 13, 2019:

@DailyRasp I don't disagree with your assessment. My comment above was intended not to promote but to sort of explain it as I understand it.

The Pursuit of Happiness: Jefferson wasn't talking about Cheetos and free online porn.

TommyB comments on May 12, 2019:

"Local or Federal: Best Way to Fix Americas Ills Group" Yes & having to live half a lifetime to figure this stuff out just deepens the appreciation doesn't it? My father was a WWII vet & remembered learning civics in high school & the relationship of the individual & his rights, to the ...

govols replies on May 13, 2019:

I grow more and more livid with the public education system the older I get and the more I learn about things I was never even introduced to in school.

Im looking to find out if people would be interested in a group about how broken the medical system ...

govols comments on May 8, 2019:

I can't say I'm all that interested, but you hit a peeve of mine. GP's and "family doctors" are no longer up to the task that western health care most requires. What our modern western systems need most is a new position called "care coordinator." This position would be someone with "survey" ...

govols replies on May 8, 2019:

@Oxfret Yes, I can be drawn out a bit. I wouldn't participate much in a group dedicated to the madness of piss poor health care. Yes, I drop in, and comment rarely, but it wouldn't hold my interest very much or very often. The reason it's a peeve of mine is that almost everybody I've watched die of "other than" specific identifiable ailment died of chronic failure of numerous specialists failing to communicate and coordinate. The reason I mentioned AI is that it could be designed to toss flags; AI could be designed to keep track of a person's "chart" and call attention of a human coordinator to potential conflicts in treatments and to potential missed opportunities.I sort of picture a human with a "web page" for each client, a PHOTO to remind the human that the case they're working on is also a human with whom they've spent some time. The human coordinator would know the client, know the doctors, know the coverage, etc. The AI would be designed to reduce workload on the coordinator by screening for treatment conflicts and potential missed or mistaken diagnoses.

Well, can somebody tell me the "essential" groups for philosophy, politics policy, sociology, and ...

chuckpo comments on Apr 26, 2019:

Ummm, not sure I understand the question. Have you seen the groups list? It's a little chaotic. If they're going to stay with user-side groups in some form, they're going to have to create some sensible lanes, I think--whittle down from the number of existing groups into something manageable. ...

govols replies on Apr 26, 2019:

The groups list is too much to wade through. I understand trying to spread the moderation around by piping everyone into groups, but it just about made me walk away from the place. I guess I'm going to try to find 3 or 4 with topics of interest and see how it goes.

Classical Liberalism is what got us here. Can it still get us out?

jwhitten comments on Apr 24, 2019:

It may be that your initial premise is weak, or incorrect-- or in my view, incomplete. Why must it follow that liberalism / progressivism is the impetus for science and philosophical thinking?

govols replies on Apr 25, 2019:

@jwhitten Good God, you're prolific, and thank you for it. Wow. Maybe I can get back to you in a day or two. You had to read through a paragraph a few times to decide how to take it--what to make of it... Well, Damn. You toss back a not so brief essay. Again, thank you for your willingness to really engage. We'll see what comes of it, but please feel free to take me as willing to really consider what you offer up and to attempt to hold up my end of the conversation...though probably with far fewer words...I think a fair amount but I finger peck rather than type. I can't do much really long form on a keyboard and keep up a dialogue at the same time.

Classical Liberalism is what got us here. Can it still get us out?

jwhitten comments on Apr 24, 2019:

It may be that your initial premise is weak, or incorrect-- or in my view, incomplete. Why must it follow that liberalism / progressivism is the impetus for science and philosophical thinking?

govols replies on Apr 25, 2019:

@jwhitten Okay, I've gotta ask... "So, what you're saying is..." Part of what's going on with the fracturing and division is that because "historically marginalized" people exist within a society that's making survival of individuals easier, individuals within those groups have had the leisure, and have been afforded the opportunities, to ponder on their status within society itself. You also seem to think that the basic idea of society being a power and privilege system with both individual and group distributions is a fairly accurate description of reality. You're also touching on an idea that the class of people with the most power and the most privilege are the ones most in the position to afford privileges to lesser empowered classes, and that such decisions and grants might very well stem from self-preservation of station or other less than altruistic motives. Finally, you're suggesting that as we approach a level of technology that allows society to fulfill its obligations to its individuals with less and less contribution from each specific individual, we have no idea what the masses of humanity might eventually come up with in terms of their demands for privileges from power. Is that a fair representation of where you're coming from? Are we at a point of having to just wait and see? Is there room for, or reason to, speculate yet on "ought?" Or are we still in the midst of a shit-show that we'll have to trouble-shoot once it's fully filtered through the fan blades?

Classical Liberalism is what got us here. Can it still get us out?

jwhitten comments on Apr 24, 2019:

It may be that your initial premise is weak, or incorrect-- or in my view, incomplete. Why must it follow that liberalism / progressivism is the impetus for science and philosophical thinking?

govols replies on Apr 24, 2019:

@jwhitten I'm almost always polite. It was a great post and it'll take a while to digest it, much less think about whether I can make a thoughtful response. Given the changes they're making right now to the forums, I may or may not remain active so I did at least want to let you know I appreciated the post. Cheers.

Classical Liberalism is what got us here. Can it still get us out?

jwhitten comments on Apr 24, 2019:

It may be that your initial premise is weak, or incorrect-- or in my view, incomplete. Why must it follow that liberalism / progressivism is the impetus for science and philosophical thinking?

govols replies on Apr 24, 2019:

@jwhitten Thank you for a thoughtful and pretty thorough presentation. Much to think about.

Classical Liberalism is what got us here. Can it still get us out?

jwhitten comments on Apr 24, 2019:

It may be that your initial premise is weak, or incorrect-- or in my view, incomplete. Why must it follow that liberalism / progressivism is the impetus for science and philosophical thinking?

govols replies on Apr 24, 2019:

Oh, I am no doubt wrong or incomplete; I'm at the ragged edge of what I think I know. Let me grab my shovel and I'll dig my hole a bit deeper. I'm not saying that liberalism is the impetus for science and/or philosophy, but more that Greek philosophy, especially once stirred into the Roman Republic and later into the Christian Roman Empire, led in a long series of criticisms and re-evaluations of scholarship and social governance almost directly to the Magna Carta, the Protestant Revolution, the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, the industrial revolution, the Blank Slate, the ideas of commoditization and alienation of labor, secular humanism, post-modern idealization "Global Man" and "Great Societies," to what we enjoy today as identity politics. Classical Liberalism got us here because it almost deified individualism, but also paved the way toward free market capitalism and then onward toward the sort of global mercantilism that makes for dysfunctional governance by elite ruling classes of ideologues who are trying to shape individuals into cogs in the social justice machine. It gave us "modernity" and it gave us criticism. Classical Liberalism lifted the soul of the individual, gifted them with modernity, and taught us how to criticize tradition and authority to the point that we've broken them into power structures and our peoples into oppression identities. Classical Liberalism was a natural "follow" from the history of western philosophy, and what we have today looks--to me--to have stemmed from a natural series of further follows from Classical Liberalism. What I'm wondering about is whether what's to come is somehow going to incorporate and integrate traditionalism that many of us still desire, modernity which is just the fact of how things are, post-modernism and its goal of identifying avenues of oppression and delivering "emancipation" for under-privileged tribes of identity groups, globalism and nationalism... Is the path that Classical Liberalism led us upon a path that leads toward a society that most of us can look forward to--a path that leads toward a greater good and general welfare--or do we need to backtrack and figure out what it got wrong that wound up leading us to the shattered societies we presently witness around the West?

Who feels like a pretender?

govols comments on Apr 22, 2019:

I sorta loathe the word. The idea, even. The definition aside, the notion of "other with brainlyness" or "other not so nearly well minded" is just Fu@king offensive. We have among us individuals who are poking at the edges of their own understanding and people who are making a living and doing the ...

govols replies on Apr 23, 2019:

@chuckpo I don't get to run the world, either, but it's a comfort to have at least some understanding with those who do: (God help me for saying it) "Intellectuals."

Who feels like a pretender?

govols comments on Apr 22, 2019:

I sorta loathe the word. The idea, even. The definition aside, the notion of "other with brainlyness" or "other not so nearly well minded" is just Fu@king offensive. We have among us individuals who are poking at the edges of their own understanding and people who are making a living and doing the ...

govols replies on Apr 23, 2019:

@chuckpo Okay, I have to admit to a bias that's coming out. I think of the word intellectual and it comes out intelligentsia; my mind makes a slur of it before I ever have a chance to think about it. My mind goes to the chattering class who've spent years talking down about the poorly educated, among whom I'm generally counted. I've had some college but very little beyond comp and algebra. So, smart eh? Well, I suppose it depends. I won't call out an IQ or percentile because I know some mid-wits who are very damned good--effective--at the things they decide to and set about to do. Still, I get where you're coming from; it would probably do all of us some good if we decided to be intellectuals--if we decided to more vigorously pursue the areas of knowledge that really stimulate our curiosities. Me? As far as my ability to learn, I haven't yet found any limit beyond my willingness to do the work. I'm here because I like to talk with people, and because I'm still working on the question that popped into my head--yet again--a few years ago: "What the F is wrong with these people?" I'm still working on it....

Best languages for thinking?

Rushie comments on Apr 21, 2019:

I was raised in an American-Armenian home, so I grew up speaking several languages all at the same time; Western (Constantinople) Armenian, Turkish, Arabic, Farsi, Kurmanji, Aramaic, French, Hamshenetzi, Zazaki and English... and I grew up with Eastern Armenian speakers, so can speak and understand...

govols replies on Apr 22, 2019:

Somewhere in here is about where I was going. Um, America and many other countries are being almost compelled into multiculturalism, but then, no, not so much. Migration is introducing into more and more cultures a discontinuity that is disruptive but not near as contributory as might be the case. I mean, I don't like the idea of imposing multiculture on a people's children, but if it's going to be imposed on the society as a whole the society ought to get something from it. American household speak how many languages at home? Who know, but dozens or hundreds. With those languages come differing cultural viewpoints. Differing cultural viewpoint bring differing perspectives from which to view the world.. A child who has incorporated multiple perspectives, and a multi-lingual manner of expressing ideas, might be greatly advantaged as a problem solving contributor to their society. I'm pondering how multiculture might be improved if it's going to be a fact of life.

This is a great video about that shooting over in New Zealand.

cRaZyTMG comments on Apr 21, 2019:

I watched both video's... and I started to write a comment that started with "Bullshit..." Because of my IDW level I was offered a opportunity to approve or disapprove the 2nd video. I almost did disapprove it. Then I realized that I had just watched a masterful presentation. The best example of...

govols replies on Apr 22, 2019:

@criminey359 The problem to me is that he's presenting social theory in declarative sentences as though they're "True," when in fact much of his chain of thought relies on speculations within the social justice movement that are both unverified and unfalsifiable. This exactly the sort of stuff that's fueling "alt-right" movement in the first place. In his second part, his whole argument about horizontal and secondary control structures intended to deplatform ideas and those who speak them is the major reason IDW even exists. Control of language in order to control thought is classic SJW tactics, and his video is damned near a flawless execution of the emancipation doctrine espoused among the SJW intelligencia.

Feminists Celebrate Sexually Transmitted Diseases! - YouTube

RobBlair comments on Apr 18, 2019:

"If a young woman comes to you and says she is depressed because her boyfriend has left her, explain to her that she is a victim of oppressive patriarchal constructs meant to make her believe that women can only be completed in relationship and recommend that she begin to dress like a hag, sleep ...

govols replies on Apr 18, 2019:

Ouch!

Electoral College and Second Amendment

An_Ominous comments on Apr 18, 2019:

Well it probably started with statements like "the constitution is a living breathing document" that can be interpreted rather than read from an Originalist perspective. Then it went to a certain someone known for his "soaring rhetoric" who claimed that "the constitution is a flawed document." ...

govols replies on Apr 18, 2019:

I think it was Woodrow Wilson who said that the constitution is overly constrictive; government needs to follow not the laws of Newton, but of Darwin. Human societies aren't mechanical but organic, and government needs flexibility. Then came the later "thinkers" who developed the "Theory of Literature" that suggests that all texts have both unlimited meanings and no meanings at all.

In the 16 and 1700s, philosophy, political "science," and economics were trying to wrap their heads ...

Marta-Amance comments on Apr 18, 2019:

How a man thinks determines his actions. Those actions may be moderated by the three general structures; culture, religion or belief system, and law. But these aren't mechanical structures but behavioral ones shaped by instruction and experience as humans go from birth to death. The essential ...

govols replies on Apr 18, 2019:

A lot of our misconceptions are known but not widely disseminated. The blank slate is a good example to go along with the noble savage. It seems like in many cases we're doing the top down thing, trying to re-shape society so that society can then form up better individuals. We need to really think about what we've learned about human nature and adjust society toward a more realistic ambition.

In the 16 and 1700s, philosophy, political "science," and economics were trying to wrap their heads ...

CodeNameZebra comments on Apr 18, 2019:

A lot of these systems have already been revamped, and we have already largely changed course from the original conceptions of the original idea. This rework of the economy isn't anything new The Great Awaking happened in the 1730s. The arguement rarely is the improvement, but rather the ...

govols replies on Apr 18, 2019:

Yes, a lot of revamping has occurred, but also a lot of layered patches that just keep piling on. Seems like we could peel back some layers and try again at for new solutions that are aimed at the roots instead of the by-products.

In the 16 and 1700s, philosophy, political "science," and economics were trying to wrap their heads ...

ephiroll comments on Apr 18, 2019:

I think people very wrongly assume that we're somehow more 'advanced' mentally than people before us. We really just have more toys. The psychological makeup and how we look at the world is roughly the same. But we like think that a few hundred years makes a difference in that. It doesn't. If humans...

govols replies on Apr 18, 2019:

I'm not at all suggesting we're better now than prior generations; I'm really more the other way around, if anything. The thing is, we do now have a lot of information about human personality traits, individual and group behavior, and history. We know a lot of today's structures are bandaids put over past screw ups without actually having undone the mistakes. I don't know, it just seems like we ought to be able to look at some of the problems and evaluate instead of for how to fix them but what we screwed up to cause them.

Medicare for all in the US (single-payer system): Yay or Nay?

govols comments on Apr 17, 2019:

If one considers that "progress" is just a fact of life, we WILL enjoy government health care eventually. Maybe we should be looking for ways to make it work rather than ways to obstruct it. The fact is there will be a public program eventually. Insurance is a non-provider and has become basically a...

govols replies on Apr 17, 2019:

@CRBG I'm opposed to the idea, in general, but the insurance industry consumes something like 20% of "care" dollars and provides nothing. The system we have is disjointed and broken. I don't want a federal program but I'm well aware it's coming. We might as well attempt to make sure it's functional.

Summer 2019 California Visitors Bureau posters just released:

govols comments on Apr 17, 2019:

I'll take "Shithole Counties" for the win, Alex.

govols replies on Apr 17, 2019:

@Penrodster It was more fecist than anything.

PRESIDENT TRUMP With his hands being tied at every turn has done a great job for the country.

govols comments on Apr 17, 2019:

Um, you're not suggesting that illegal migrants are a danger to the citizenry, are you? Diversity is our greatest strength, after all....

govols replies on Apr 17, 2019:

@Gerri4321 Well, you said people are going to get hurt and die because illegal migrants are maybe going to be transported to sanctuary cities....

In your opinion what makes something a "right"

govols comments on Apr 16, 2019:

What make something a right is nature. Children get the notion instinctively, as in "mine,"and "No! You can't make me." It takes years of socialization to beat it out of them, and then years more of education to put it back in, with the caveat that, "and he does, too."

govols replies on Apr 16, 2019:

@KebblerFox I'm not sure..... No. I don't understand your comment.

In your opinion what makes something a "right"

govols comments on Apr 16, 2019:

What make something a right is nature. Children get the notion instinctively, as in "mine,"and "No! You can't make me." It takes years of socialization to beat it out of them, and then years more of education to put it back in, with the caveat that, "and he does, too."

govols replies on Apr 16, 2019:

@JanePrice I think so, yes.It seems to be true.

Does having formal education cause cognitive dissonance?

SpearCypher comments on Apr 16, 2019:

very interesting answers in this post. new question. does anybody think that formal education (or atleast indoctrinating practices within education) should be up for evaluation and the "chopping block"?

govols replies on Apr 16, 2019:

I think "Critical Theory" is looking for an ash heap to hurl itself upon.

Why are you guys here ?is it really what you expected it to be?

govols comments on Apr 12, 2019:

Mostly I stopped in to see if maybe a place existed that wasn't a shit-show. I don't do any of the "social media," except forums like these, and all of my old favorites have turned into war zones with no thoughtful conversation.

govols replies on Apr 12, 2019:

@Julien974 well, it didn't start with Trump stunning the left with a win, but from then discussion was reduced on all sides to criticism and "yeah, but..."

Why are you guys here ?is it really what you expected it to be?

FaithJones comments on Apr 12, 2019:

I think the governance system I am under will consistently fail the population henceforward, so I'm interested in the design of a new society and a little passive resistance to dinosaur hierarchies. It can leave behind left and right or who owns the means of production as those were categories to ...

govols replies on Apr 12, 2019:

They weren't so much imposed without consent as negotiated among those with the influence to call for and cause war.

Tell me - Is it OK to talk about socialism and communisms like synonyms?

govols comments on Apr 10, 2019:

The thing is, both are economic models based on ownership of the means of production, and really consider each individual and his labor potential to be the means of production. Under socialism it is owned by the State; under communisim it is owned by the collection of economic units. Neither are ...

govols replies on Apr 11, 2019:

@Naomi I don't see how that could be possible. Even a very small, very defined, very limited government exists for the very purpose of setting limits on some interactions and commanding others.

Has philosophy stalled?

Marta-Amance comments on Apr 10, 2019:

Not to be a wet blanket, but "PHILOSOPHY" as a discipline that includes a great many schools of philosophical thought is still working. Philosophers are still debating metaphysics and many other lines of inquirerery. As a species, humans have not exhausted the discourses on meaning of life, ...

govols replies on Apr 10, 2019:

I just don't find much compelling after the adaptation of Marx from Capital/Labor to Oppressor/Oppressed made by the Critical Theorists and their application Literary Theory to everything from History to Law. Morals, Ethics, Meaning took a back seat to "emancipation" for over a hundred years. Somebody among the 20th century theorists summed it up with, "If we haven't found answers after 3000 year, the correct way to look at it is 'I don't care.'" It's just in the last decades that anybody really started caring again, but so far the substance is thin. I don't know. I'll keep at it.....

Has philosophy stalled?

Demere comments on Apr 10, 2019:

Might be that we are in a philosophical renaissance. Peterson, Shapiro, Haidt, Pinker and so many others. This site. Technology is making philosophy/ psychology etc readily available to so many people it's incredible. There appears to be a huge apatite for it.

govols replies on Apr 10, 2019:

Maybe this is a beginning, but if it is we're at the criticism stage of turning back Critical Theory. Okay, it's a dead end because it is only deconstructive; it breaks things and then makes up "theory," dreams up all manner of oppression. It's hooked on power and it's corrupted. Right now philosophy seems to be all about what's wrong, and little about what might be made right.

North America does not have the same history with "ethnic nationalism" that Europe and the rest of ...

govols comments on Apr 10, 2019:

I have problems with civic nationalism but not with nationalism as the best way to think about anti-globalism. Civ-nat seems too friendly with globalism and open borders, the idea being that "multi-culturalism" can work within a civic framework and even given geopolitical and geocommercial ...

govols replies on Apr 10, 2019:

@CRBG I'm not certain "ethnic-nationalism" is required for "civic-nationalism" to have a foil or to be one; I do have an idea that a common identity might require an ethnic majority to be its cornerstone. I'm not sure American identity will persevere with a majority minority population.

Tell me - Is it OK to talk about socialism and communisms like synonyms?

govols comments on Apr 10, 2019:

The thing is, both are economic models based on ownership of the means of production, and really consider each individual and his labor potential to be the means of production. Under socialism it is owned by the State; under communisim it is owned by the collection of economic units. Neither are ...

govols replies on Apr 10, 2019:

The result being, individuals become slaves to incompetence, either way.

Coming from Australia, the terms "left" or "right wing" are not thrown around nearly as much as say,...

govols comments on Apr 8, 2019:

Dog. Cat. Book. Table. Me/we. Us/them. It's how we assimilate society and it assimilates us. We think in labels and without them we don't think at all. We can't ponder ideas until we have know what "ponder" and "ideas" mean. One of the reasons the anonymity of the internet makes for such crazy talk ...

govols replies on Apr 10, 2019:

@jwhitten No. I don't think one can think without words--I can't--but I'm open to the idea that we can begin to recognize relationships prior to acquiring language. Is recognition of relationships "thinking," or something "not quite, yet?"

North America does not have the same history with "ethnic nationalism" that Europe and the rest of ...

iThink comments on Apr 10, 2019:

It is very telling how the left has taken the word "nationalism" as an overt reference to Nazism in order to impugn the motivations of their political rivals. Telling in how they latch on to the word Nationalist yet they somehow omit its object "socialist" as in the following: The full name of the...

govols replies on Apr 10, 2019:

The left is all about language and rhetoric. That's part of why they can't be reasoned with. They take any argument, run it through a fallacy generator, deconstruct the newly minted rhetoric, and smugly declare victory.

Coming from Australia, the terms "left" or "right wing" are not thrown around nearly as much as say,...

govols comments on Apr 8, 2019:

Dog. Cat. Book. Table. Me/we. Us/them. It's how we assimilate society and it assimilates us. We think in labels and without them we don't think at all. We can't ponder ideas until we have know what "ponder" and "ideas" mean. One of the reasons the anonymity of the internet makes for such crazy talk ...

govols replies on Apr 10, 2019:

@jwhitten I can't. It's part of a complex system. Maybe you're right. Maybe we don't need words until after we start noticing relationships. Still, as soon as we start making relationships we seem to start naming the parts and acquiring the words to express how they relate. You're also probably right about "me, not-me." Hmm. I wonder how many a child has already integrated before he figures out the one between pointing at things and the demand, "THAT?" and starts demanding names for everything.

Coming from Australia, the terms "left" or "right wing" are not thrown around nearly as much as say,...

govols comments on Apr 8, 2019:

Dog. Cat. Book. Table. Me/we. Us/them. It's how we assimilate society and it assimilates us. We think in labels and without them we don't think at all. We can't ponder ideas until we have know what "ponder" and "ideas" mean. One of the reasons the anonymity of the internet makes for such crazy talk ...

govols replies on Apr 9, 2019:

@jwhitten Our ability to abstract, to make connections, is how we interpret the world; we interpret with language. Like, chair. This a chair, that's a chair, and that over their is a chair. Until we identify a few things as each being chairs, we can't abstract a concrete block or a tree stump as also being chairs if what we're wanting is just to sit a minute and take a load off. We learn about the world as tool users, and by seeing things within the context of how things are, but also how they might be used. We make up the meaning as we go along, depending on what's around us, but all of it seems to be a running dialogue in our minds that wouldn't be possible without language in the first place. Or, well, that's how I perceive it. We know the screw. We know the screwdriver. We abstract the butter knife as screw turning tool. We make chairs of stumps. Pry bars out of screwdrivers. Our own ambitions out of the manipulation of others. The world is a toolbox that we ponder up out of word thoughts.

Meet the Godfather of Cultural Marxism - Foundation for Economic Education

10thGeneration comments on Apr 8, 2019:

Sadly the Global Capitalist Elites have hijacked the socialist long march and all we will get is a billionaires club masking as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat on cheap tee shirts worn by idiot indoctrinated sheep!

govols replies on Apr 8, 2019:

Organizations tend to grow, and corporations and governments are organizations. What seems to have happened with "the movement" is that it invented propaganda, and in turn begot marketing. The globocracy turns slogans, every movement, into products--cheap t-shirts.