Matrix

There is only one certain take-away from the election in the US: The american people are incredibly stupid.

@YairElsner actions are constrained.

@YairElsner In terms of moral philosophy I deny the distinction between good and less bad as I have never found a good justification for it. One could construct something like counterfactual utility of existence, but that does not have moral implications to a utilitarian such as myself as

Reminder that the term is now over 100 years old. It's the name of a completely wrong prediction.

@YairElsner read blogs, listened to debates and had conversations with others on consumerism, financialization, globalization, socialism, capitalism, free trade and Marxism.

@YairElsner I am not principally opposed to to an idea based on its origin. I find Marxism interesting and even used to be a labor theory of value guy. I have not read a book on late stage capitalism if that is what you are asking. On the subject of late stage capitalism, I have generally

@YairElsner something which is self-defeating in construction. An example of the latter is someone who would want a perfectly equal income distribution, but the material wealth of the present, missing how the material wealth of the present is downstream of economic incentives.

@YairElsner critiquing an aspect of something, thus imagining the whole without its part. This is often justified, but my claim is that critiques in the line of late stage capitalism generally imagine something sufficiently underdefined to where it does not present an alternative or

@YairElsner I personally don't see why this prediction would hold any more water today. I also don't understand how it describes anything about the present. I believe it to mostly be a negatively coded word that is used to disparage the current system without a preferable alternative.

@MatrixTranspose That's again the predictive part. That might well be incorrect. There's also, and I'd say mainly, a descriptive part, about how capitalist society functions presently, as opposed to during Marx's time.

@YairElsner I don't see what point. I don't see why we would be at an ending phase rather than an early phase.

@MatrixTranspose Predictions might have been wrong, at least time expectancies, but as a description of present day society, I think it's many times quite to the point.

@YairElsner Man vill anklaga Rickard för att vara en bott, men så dålig läsförståelse har bara människor.

Jag rekommenderar att läsa tråden som slutar (åtminstone för min del) med detta meddelande. Den utgör ett typexempel på hur meningslösa många "debatter" faktiskt är, när motparten saknar både kapacitet och vilja att att förstå. Jag kastade förgäves pärlor åt svinen. Betänk -->

Why do people frame it as blue "winning"? If the majority vote blue there is no drawback in voting red anyway. The whole point of red is that you can't lose!

there is only a blue button. if you push it, you die, unless >=50% also push it. do you push it?

“Judea and Samaria” has been used for thousands of years, including by ancient empires, the British Mandate, and the 1947 UN Partition Plan. “West Bank” only emerged after Jordan seized the territory in 1948 and renamed it in relation to its own “East Bank.” So why do media outlets treat “West Bank” as neutral, while framing “Judea and Samaria” as political or biblical?

A necessary condition for peace is the end of antizionism. And a necessary condition for ending antizionism is recognizing that it exists. This goes far beyond 'Palestinian rejectionism.' It means acknowledging a global, transnational movement dedicated to the annihilation of Israel, the discrimination of Israelis and those marked as "Zionists," and sophisticated propaganda and disinformation campaigns — including the institutional capture of academia, media, and international organizations. It's seeing all of that as one thing, and giving it a name — making it an object, a thing. Seeing the apple. Knowing it is called antizionism. And saying no to it. That's the key to peace.

@jessespafford 2. This such an absurd discussion to begin with. You can define things however you want, but you tried to ridicule someone else not knowing math, but it is you who clearly did not grasp the topic. Also I teach mathematics at a university and have studied pedagogy myself :)

@jessespafford commutativity of multiplication! She clearly considers ratios numbers, but want to distinguish them in type from quantities in education as this can be confusing. Formally, however, a number is a number. Formally, we have units for these kinds of types.