Would you call the Chinese Weger camps slavery? Or the Cobalt mining in Africa in the Congo I do believe slavery?

Your takes aren't super unexpected but I don't think starring into ones phone and watching TV gives the sort of insight into humanity that you seem to think it does.

Ah yes, a drastic cut of 10.9 million from a budget of 384M, don't know how you guys will stop Edmonton from descending into chaos in the face of these extreme 3% cuts.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...dget-1.6287629

I suspect both are but have not read enough independent of headline type stuff to know.


My distinction is exploitation (however you define it) alone is not slavery. Your freedom to come and go and operate must be OWNED by another person or State for it to be called slavery when it comes to labour.

Some make the more esoteric argument that low wage jobs, when no other exist in an area is coercion, as what other choice does the person really have and that is what i am addressing as NOT slavery. There is a coercion in a lack of choices and that exists in a scale in all countries from 1st world to 3rd. People feel coerced to take a job due to lack of options that does not meet the pay they want. Yes it is far more extreme in the 3rd world but that is not slavery. That is a function of risk, costs and options.

It's elitism and virtue signally about how everyone in the past was so racist and about how much progress we're making.

fyp


I personally believe that if every book ever written by a psychologist was replaced by the Old Testament book of Proverbs, the world would be a far better place.

I highly recommend the book Psychobabble: The Failure of Modern Psychology and the Biblical Alternative by Richard Ganz.

is it?

I read it as push back on the idea of there being a level of wisdom and clarity in the past that is lost today much the way the GOP and SC point at the Founders as if infallible in thought and logic and not to be questioned or revised and others push back on that.

That world existed. It sucked.

Mostly it's just masturbatory and trying to make everything about race.

Not claiming the past was perfect, far from it. But so is the present. And obviously past people and especially past "cultural elites" had a fine grasp of human nature-- which is the whole basis of this discussion.

I find the whole exercise of arbitrarily and selectively viewing the past through today's moral lens an exercise in cynicism and dishonesty, that is a major impediment towards and productive endeavor. The fact that our cultural elites wield this tool so heavy handedly is definitely a sign of the times IMO, and not a good one.

I do wonder if in 300 years moral outrage culture in the future would be appalled the whole world more or less decided it was a good idea to build a bunch of soccer stadiums using horribly exploitive and deadly labor (if not outright slavery) merely for 4 weeks of entertainment, with nary a peep of protest. Maybe there will even be some statues they will tear down in righteous indignation.

Since I personally consider statues to be a forum of idolatry, I'm fine with every statue being torn down. (But by agreement by way of due process, not by an angry mob.)

When exactly was this magical Era?

Portland, where I live, decreased their police budget and did not hire new officers after a lot of the resigned. The mayor now has a plan to increase the budget and hire more officers, after a large increase in crime.

Sure, it was not a huge reduction in budget but it was enough to have negative consequences.

Maybe they did think women could contribute to human progress, just not enough to allow them to vote, or own property.

This is a complete dumpster fire of an argument.

Firstly the idea we cant analyse the past and make judgements because we are not perfect now is of course ridiculous, also comparing a sporting event that happens every four years with the systematic, endemic and totally institutionalised racism and misogyny of 200 hundred years ago is again totally absurd and is is indeed the laziest form of whataboutism.

Of course people in 300 hundred years will have something to say about actions in the present, though I think they will be more to do with how we kept nom nom noming on the earths eco system than concerns about one sporting event.

Which by the way there was plenty said about. Maybe just not in your echo chamber.

This does not mean we are presently hypocrites to makes moral judgements about slavery etc.

Also stop sqwaking on about elites, this is me and you discussing this issue, the reach for elites is pure handwaving.

Its the exact opposite.

Your position is the one born of elitism.

You are just completely hand waving away how intellectual ideas and culture of elites with power 200 years ago, about human nature were used to subjugate huge swathes of humanity.

I wonder if you just simply naïve to the history of political thought and how it was exactly theses on human nature that were used to justify the most egregious oppressions of that period.

You are trying to white wash the behaviour and actions of elites of that period.

No because the discussion is still ultimately about "cultural elites" and their understanding of human nature. Trying to make the discussion about racism and/or whatever other abuses is existed in the past is absolutely everything I said it is.

If you are going to make judgements on the past (while simultaneously handwaving away your complicit acceptance of todays pathologies) at least try to get the timeline right. Slavery, mysogyny, racism etc. etc. etc. were around a long time before the Enlightenment, and still exist in various forms today (in their most pernicious forms in the non Western world I might add).

The Enlightenment thinkers were certainly people of their time, but at the same time had insights into humanity (both its dark side and its promise) which allowed them to develop robust, effective institutions that exist today, and which have been able to address some of these pathologies that have been the hallmark of most of human existence.

In my opinion, the cultural elites of today with their cynical deconstructionist ethos show no such insights, and I predict as a consequence nothing effective or durable will ever come about as long as they are steering the ship in the direction they are. I am taking a position and making a prediction on it, and if I am wrong than I am wrong.


As far as progressivism goes, nothing wrong with trying to achieve progress to improve the human condition. But maybe along the way check yourself and audit whether this is actually what is going on.

And it should be mentioned how awful the state of knowledge and learning actually was during the Enlightenment. Like Issac Newton was in his early 20s at Cambridge and was chided for not knowing geometry. So he literally went and studied Elements which was nearly 2000 years old at the time. It wasn't until well after the enlightenment that it was understood that everyone should learn it.

Racism was not a mere abuse in the past it was one of the core organising principles of economy and society, which was justified by the intellectual output of cultural elites of the time and their arguments about human nature.

The very cultural elites you are putting on a pedestal.

You still seem unable to grasp that the "understanding" of human nature by CE's two hundred years ago was the intellectual justification of an economic and social system that was systematically dependent on racism, misogyny and violent conquest/oppression to function.

This is a blatant and clear bad faith and misrepresentation of my position. Please stop.

No where have I complicity accepted todays pathologies, as I have pointed out several times, Qatar was more criticised than you argue it is.

Also no where have I got remotely close to arguing that slavery etc are unique qualities of two hundred years ago/ the enlightenment.

Slavery existed before the Enlightenment, no **** sherlock, got any more amazing revelations?

All I have done is correctly point out that it is an apples and oranges comparison to compare the pathologies of Qatar with the pathologies of a entire social and economic system that depended on 24/7 racism, misogyny and exploitation as core organising principles.

Every second of every day was a Qatar in the time period you are putting on a pedestal.

I haven't put anyone but Tolstoy on a pedestal. Mostly you've chosen to completely misrepresent the discussion.

Nope, another swing and miss from you, because you have used cultural elites in a general way, so I have spoken about CE from the period in a general way.

See here:

When you specifically referenced Tolstoy. I spoke specifically about Tolstoy:

Its not my fault that you make general references to CE's from hundred of years ago but perhaps want to reference a very specific tiny minority of CE's from hundreds of years ago.

You have referred to CE's from hundreds of years ago in broad brush terms and in the aggregate more times than you have specifically referenced Tolstoy.

In the aggregate CE's from hundreds of years ago created intellectual output using the rubrik of "understanding" human nature to create justifications for an economic system and social system predicated on racism etc.

I have replied to what you have actually said, if you meant to say something else, communicate better.

Ultimately, even if cultural elites used their extreme understanding of human nature to enslave everyone, it wouldn't diminish the fact that they had such an understanding.

Ultimately your position is a giant non-sequitor.

Ahh silly contemporary elites who by not understanding human nature let all the slaves go free.

Also you are now backtracking on Tolstoy understanding human nature because he was opposed to the CE's you are now praising for their ability to enslave everyone.

Luckbox freedom fighter applauding CE's from 200 years ago on how their brilliant understanding of human nature allowed them to enslave/exploit other races.


They didnt use their understanding of human nature to enslave anyone, they simply shilled for that enslavement.

Guys is it ok that we force these other guys to work to death etc???

Guys is it ok if my wife cant own property or vote?

Guys is it ok if I just kill all the indigenous people?

CE's two hundred years ago: Yes.

A small minority of CE's: No.