Scott Adams Thread (Garfield Cartoonist)

[freebeard]

You inserted yourself into a discussion on 'reparations for the victims of climate catastrophism' at #422, and asserted this at #424

Regarding reparations: Black people have been owed reparations for centuries.

Asserting an argument is technically not posing a question, I'll grant you that. You could have said 'no one' but that brings us back to my question: "Who does what to whom?"

The way you can change my mind on this is by sufficiently addressing the ~facts and principles I posted. Otherwise, the discussion hasn't gone anywhere.

A Civil War and Constitutional Amendment should have been enough, but the Democrats have been obstructionist ever since. There's your problem.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Straw_man
Straw man - Wikipedia
Steelmanning. A steel man argument (or steelmanning) is the opposite of a straw man argument. Steelmanning is the practice of addressing the strongest form of the other person's argument, even if it is not the one they presented. Creating the strongest form of the opponent's argument may involve

Allow me to give your side my best shot.

"The USofA is systemically racist and Wuhite Supermesist because...

The British outlawed the slave trade and possession from 1787. The USofA was perfected with the adaptation of it's Constitution in 1789, but didn't adopt the British attitude until after Bleeding Kansas.

Thomas Jefferson's insistence having a navy to suppress the Barbary Pirates was to stem the flow of White slaves, an obvious supremasist position.

QED."

________________

Back ontopic: Episode 2451 at 30:13: NPR, and Wikipedia (the same Wikipedia I just quoted), are captured.

He continues with a list of the current ills, until 46:30 where he proposes joining the enemy. This is exactly what I did working for Symantec for nine years. Sitting in a $900 Aeron chair, with good dental benefits, making a median income first and only time in my life; but I got to help a new person every 15 minutes with their problems that Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer had caused.

[sgtlethargic]

The sarcastic comments in #421 included "Maybe hold off for 200 years and then determine the millions per individual using a compounding interest framework?," which is obviously about current calls for reparations for chattel slavery.

[sgtlethargic]

Originally Posted by freebeard

A Civil War and Constitutional Amendment should have been enough ...

How is the Civil War and an amendment supposedly enough for reparations? One side was fighting to maintain chattel slavery. The amendment made chattel slavery illegal, but it didn't compensate. The few who were compensated were slave owners in Washington DC- for their loss of property.

... but the Democrats have been obstructionist ever since. There's your problem.

I'm trying to follow the rules for this website by not explicitly talking about politics. Feel free to message me with what you think they have been obstructing.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

The bottom line is that you two haven't engaged in honest discussion.

The bottom line is I made a joke, probably not that funny because of my dry, condemning style, and you took it seriously.

I'm not for climate catastrophism reparations for the reason I'm not for even more absurd notions of reparations (more absurd because I'm alive right now, and slaves in America are not).

You've caused me to explain an unfunny joke, which is the worst. How about this one. The tooth fairy is long overdue in payment for my last 3 teeth.

I will reply to anyone of goodwill (and assume it by default) on any subject whatsoever. That said, I'm only half the participants of 2 parties talking past each other.

Finally, I defined justice as those that are wronged being made whole by those who did the harming, and there has been no challenge to that definition. I can only assume that a non-challenge to that definition is defacto acceptance of it, and therefore any deviation from that is by definition injustice. I'm against injustice to the extent possible.

If the argument is that we should commit injustice, then I say no. If the dumb hoard insists we commit injustice, then I prefer to commit injustice as least harmingly to all individuals involved as possible. Some insist in maximum harm to all, and to them I have utter contempt.

[freebeard]

The few who were compensated were slave owners in Washington DC- for their loss of property.

[citation needed] on that one.

Keep in mind, "History isn't what happened, it's a story about what happened"

History Is A Weapon › indexsmall-html
And The Time To Resist Is Now. - History Is A Weapon
This web page offers a selection of readings from various authors and movements that challenge the dominant narratives and power structures of U.S. history and society. The texts cover topics such as slavery, imperialism, war, resistance, feminism, and socialism.

As I understand it, after the Civil War came Reconstruction, where Americans sought to reconcile their differences. It was more than putting up statues. There was a movement called '40 acres and a mule-.

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Forty_acres_and_a_mule
Forty acres and a mule - Wikipedia
Forty acres and a mule was part of Special Field Orders No. 15, a wartime order proclaimed by Union General William Tecumseh Sherman on January 16, 1865, during the American Civil War, to allot land to some freed families, in plots of land no larger than 40 acres (16 ha). Sherman later ordered the army to lend mules for the agrarian reform effort.

https://www.history.com › news › 40-acres-mule-promise
The Short-Lived Promise of '40 Acres and a Mule' - HISTORY
Nov 9, 2022After the Civil War, freed Black people were promised land by Union generals, but President Johnson reversed the decision. Learn how this reparations plan could have changed the course of racial history in America.

https://www.pbs.org › wnet › african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross › history › the-truth-behind-40-acres-and-a-mule
The Truth Behind '40 Acres and a Mule' - PBS
Learn how black leaders in Savannah, Ga., proposed the radical idea of land redistribution to former slaves after the Civil War. Discover the origins, implications and legacy of the "40 acres and a mule" promise.

Note that Andrew Johnson was a Democrat. I've already mentioned Liberia.

I only use PMs for housekeeping; the lurkers can't see into there.

Let me steel-man again. Gavin Christopher Newsom has figured the dilemma out, any free black in California in 1900's living descendents get $1.2 million each from California tax payers. See how easy that is?

Edit: One minute delta.

[freebeard]

You've caused me to explain an unfunny joke, which is the worst.

See also:

onlineslangdictionary.com › meaning-definition-of › sarchasm
Definition of sarchasm - The Online Slang Dictionary
sarchasm: [noun - uncountable] the difference in meaning between the literal interpretation of a sarcastic statement and the intended meaning. See more words with the same meaning: contractions (list of) .

I got no credit for trying to help.

[redpoint5]

Scott's theme today was about "identity", and how that frames our behavior (and seems to be the same as tribalism). He goes on to ask why political group a. was not susceptible to the false propaganda of political group b., and folks responded "better sources of news", "better thinking", "better BS detector", "more of one type of gender"...

People of identity group a. will not be susceptible to the things associated with identity group b., either good or bad.

This is why I'm always advocating that people seek their own identity to the extent possible. It's true that a personal identity is not as influential as a tribal identity, which is why people are more comfortable joining a team at the expense of personal identity... but this is precisely why the proper level of analysis and concern should be the individual, the most minor among all of the minority groups, and the most in need of protection.

[freebeard]

I remember a simultaneous sip, but not that. Coffee makes me sleepy.

I've been thinking about what distinguishes Left and Right. It used to be anti-war and free speech vs lawn odor; but those qualifiers have been reversed. So I think it comes down to collective vs sovereign.

So you have authoritarian-Left (naught-seas), authoritarian Right (your Pinochets), libertarian-Right (d*mned hippies) and the ever elusive libertarian-Left.

So then I wonder what the third-order axis is. Pro- or anti-war? G-g-g-gender?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

I've been thinking about what distinguishes Left and Right. It used to be anti-war and free speech vs lawn odor; but those qualifiers have been reversed. So I think it comes down to collective vs sovereign.

So far as I can tell, it's victims (mentality) vs overcomers (mentality), which is essentially the emotional states of the categories you present. Those who feel more helpless against external circumstance are more inclined to sacrifice liberty to gain the protection of the collective. Those who feel that personal action is more deterministic of outcome aren't willing to surrender liberty in exchange for a faulty collective.

This largely explains why the left is over-represented by females, and the right by males. Women are more constrained and affected by external forces than men, in general. Men's outcomes are more determined by their effort, and can't as readily fall back on appearances to make it. That said, the current political atmosphere is also congruent with falling testosterone in men. Politics is becoming feminized, which is the natural outcome of abundance and safety.

This is the fundamental difference, and many of the other political topics are more arbitrary by nature. For example, should we be more industrially isolationist, doesn't seem to have a clear male/female polarity. Of course, in the increasingly polarized political climate, every topic will tend to become polarized. That's the entire point of political parties; to get the pawns to uncritically accept the party position.