Phi for All

While I can easily see alternatives to Christo-Fascism gaining in popularity as the white supremacists in the US are taking off their hoods, I do wonder how the recent rise in social media, YouTube video followings, and TikTok lifestyle livestreams have affected the numbers. Certainly it's much easier to count your following today than it was in 1990. How many of these new pagans have always been pagans, just uncounted or misnamed as "free spirits"?

! Moderator Note We don't review videos. If you want to discuss the rise of paganism, we can do it without padding the views on a YT video. Videos are notoriously difficult to discuss scientifically in a forum like this, and nobody has the time to watch and try to catch all the inconsistencies. If you're only here to support the video, I need to close this, but if you're truly interested in discussing the rise of paganism, you need to present your arguments here, and not require that folks watch a video in order to participate. Also, we'll do it civilly or we won't do it at all. We attack ideas here, not people.

OMG, this is a disgusting response to what I said. Fallacy much?? I won't insult your reading abilities the way MigL does with mine, but you can shove this strawman appropriately. I'll wait for a better thread, or start one myself. Thanks for engaging, FWIW.

I did NOT claim all black Americans need to be compensated for government sanctioned redlining practices. My claim is that all black Americans who were victims of government sanctioned redlining practices need to be compensated. YOU keep claiming that means we're only using skin color to determine who was victimized, and YOU keep ignoring that we have records of the cities where this type of discrimination was practiced. And YOU keep moving the goalposts on my argument to include the Civil War and other incidents where reparations are being discussed. Again, I wish we could have a focused discussion on JUST the issue of redlining, where I don't think your "you can't use skin color or it's racist" argument holds any water at all.

No. 21 pages in and it's still NO. If we somehow discovered we'd been systemically discriminating against people with albinism, those with almost no melanin, denying them the potential to prosper because of the way they look, what other factors do you want to consider besides those that make them albino? Seriously, this objection has NEVER made any sense to me. If a judge determines a thief who stole my money must pay that money back, is the judge practicing thievery by using money as a factor?

! Moderator Note We can't do anything about your rep count, other than what The Vat did. We saw your report but by that time enough people had disagreed with the negatives.

At this point, I still have major problems with the argument you and MigL have put forth, that any solution that involves using skin color as a factor is automatically going to be racist. I think this argument is not only wrong (and I've explained why several times), it's what is keeping you both from seeing the reasoning behind the solutions that have been proposed.

Demonstrably false. The representatives that drafted the laws that caused the problems are dead, but those laws were still operating even after they died, and some of the people affected by those laws are still alive. The US doesn't throw out laws (or our responsibility to follow them) just because those who drafted them have died.

Except in the cases highlighted most recently in this thread, the people who did something wrong were The People, as in We, The People of the United States of America. We're not dead, we're not gone, and there are more of us than ever. Btw, that's not what "An eye for an eye" means. If you run into someone's car and agree to pay for it, it's reparation or compensation. An eye for an eye would be more like, "You ran into my car, so I'm going to run into yours!"

This is especially important since many black families have had to flee the cities where this kind of oppression was at its worst, which then allows the wealthy to buy up the distressed properties and gentrify the areas, completing the cycle of discrimination. Cash right now would allow many to update their homes and neighborhoods so they can stay where they are, and take advantage of the improved home value.

Only in the way you keep dancing around with the goalposts. I truly thank you for letting us take your topic off on all kinds of tangents, but I think if I really want to talk to you about, say, reparations for victims of government redlining practices, it's going to have to be in a thread specifically about that. Otherwise, you're going to keep ignoring that the injustices we're talking about are based on race, and insisting that it's impossible for any solution to also be based that way.

Let's start out with a really key concept in science. "Theory" isn't a guess, it isn't even an educated guess. For something to be considered a theory, it starts as an hypothesis and goes through tons of observation, experimentation, analysis, prediction, and peer review. Then it has to stand up to every test it's put to, and when it can do that, we call it a theory. A theory is the strongest explanation science can offer. You don't just "come up with" a full-blown theory on your own. "Theoretically" means "according to the assumed facts", which doesn't describe most people's ideas. It can also mean "untested, on paper only", but most scientists don't use it that way. It's popular with popular science writers and television writers though, so the word often gets misused. And Bufofrog mentioned another key concept in science, falsifiability. In order for an hypothesis to progress, there must be a possibility that it's wrong, that it can be proven false in some way. Then we can test it to see if it consistently passes or if it fails even once. Anything involving infinities can't be falsified so we can't test it (we'll never have enough time or space or energy or density or whatever). So this idea is unscientific. We have no way to disprove or support it using current methodology.

What if it's "My grandmother had to go to a crappy school, live in a sub-par home in a polluted neighborhood, and was denied loans based on where she lived because of discriminatory government sanctioned redlining practices"? That gives us a basis to start calculating average earnings that were lost. We already know the differences between what white families in the same cities earned on average as opposed to those who were victims of redlining.

If YOU were the victim of a discriminatory government policy that kept you from prospering on a par with others who weren't discriminated against, would anything other than cash be appropriate for all those concerned? If the .gov instead offered free college courses, interest-free loans, contracts for .gov work and other opportunities, would that be able to cover all the victims? Or would you prefer cash so everyone can apply the reparation in a way that best suits their circumstances?

I can consolidate my arguments on this subject. We can discuss politics, because we can disagree on how much to spend on national defense or fixing the highways. Those are political issues. We can't discuss racism, child abuse, and discrimination in the same way, because these are moral issues. They're just wrong, and it's very frustrating that some folks here are trying to make it seem less wrong.

Why did Amazon ignore you when you asked THEM this question? Is the customer service as bad as they say?

Give me a break! EVERYONE here arguing for reparation has given the reasons for it, and nobody ever implied that it would be based on anything other than discrimination. It just so happens that the folks discriminated against also have black skin, so your argument here is obfuscation by semantics.

And Noah famously turned away the pair of sasquatch who showed up at the ark riding unicorns, so they never survived the flood.

! Moderator Note This approach to your subject isn't working. Our Speculations section is for listening to your explanation of your idea, and you reject too much of mainstream physics for any discussion about this to be meaningful. You can't explain it in a way that anyone else can understand, and you reject the explanations others have studied and find very useful. We're on page 6 now, so either come up with something that helps us understand your concepts or I'll have to close the thread, and you won't be able to mention it again, since you couldn't support it. More rigor, please.

What state do you live in?

They serve as crucial habitats for specific species of birds, insects, or other wildlife.

No matter how you respond, I take the words you've given me and apply them to the arguments the thread is based on. I'm twisting NOTHING, since your words are there for all to see, untouched in any way by me. If I've misinterpreted them, please correct me but don't accuse me of subterfuge or insincerity or manipulation. I'm trying to PERSUADE you with an alternative argument that I had hoped would resonate. I've held most of the stances I've seen you espouse here. I thought not recognizing color was a fine response to racism. Then I heard other arguments, and realized not only how impossible that would be, but it's also insulting to many POC who finally have a chance to proclaim some pride regarding their heritage, which includes the color of their skin. So we probably can't or shouldn't ignore our differences. Perhaps we can figure out a way to celebrate them with each other? Instead of pretending they don't exist, maybe we can acknowledge that they don't matter? I'm really sorry you feel so antagonized over this. Not the intention.

I agree, and Happy Juneteenth. Color blindness wrt race is supposed to be free of bad intent, I get that part, but how is it interpreted by people who are finally getting a voice about the color of their skin? White people used skin color against them in the past, so POC learned to keep quiet about it. Now they want to be proud of their heritage and ethnicity, but the white people who say they support that want to pretend they can't see it?! "I'm your ally and I want what's best for you, but since skin is all one color then there is no problem." This is what I hear when I hear someone claim to be color-blind to race.

I said, "They... fail to understand just how big their state government would have to be to keep their heads above water". Many of the red states in the US that are shouting about secession or cutting ties with the Federal government are dependent on the Federal government, receiving more federal aid than the state takes in with taxes: https://smartadvisormatch.com/data/states-most-dependent-on-the-federal-government-2019-edition As a globalist, I don't share this view. If you fix this problem we've always had between people with resources and people with the skills to turn resources into work, then higher numbers actually favor us. We're a fraction of the size of some countries that have a LOT more national identity, so I'd blame our culture rather than our size. We're trying to get to total capitalism, thinking that must be better than total communism or total socialism. Give us a better mix of economics, give us ranked-choice voting, give us more representation than two mega-parties, and figure out a way to better inform and educate The People so they can feel their efforts at being a citizen are worthwwhile.

I wasn't trying to mark a difference. I don't see your point. Name another big country that split up into 50 smaller countries. You're going to have to explain the correlation to the topic for me, sorry. I can agree with the "poor example" part, but I don't think the size has as much to do with it as the systems that oppress the majority of citizens. A LOT of money has been spent keeping people from forming communities, in the sense of common people coming together for a cause. "The Right" in the USA is hardly a cohesive unit. Like "the Left", it's difficult to put every American in one of only two boxes. I honestly think the "Ignorant Right" is the group that thinks we should be separate states.