It's my duty to battle the Left (split from War Games: Russia Takes Ukraine, China Takes Taiwan. US Response?}

[Phi for All]

53 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

Sorry, but the prediction I make is something kinda new, and in fact will never be allowed in any text books anyhow. 

But that's not because of censorship, or because you're speaking some kind of Truth we want hidden. It's because your predictions aren't based on anything you can explain. We gave you pages to explain yourself, but you mostly used that time to cry about censorship and how oppressed you are. We pointed out how many of your "observations" were incorrect, and we provided data that supported that. You didn't bother, so we assumed you had no evidence. We asked you many questions hoping to draw out more information about your ideas, and again you ignored those you couldn't answer. That's why your ideas won't make it into the textbooks. Accuracy is one of the hallmarks of science, and scientists are always going to be triple-checking for it.

[CharonY]

18 hours ago, Peterkin said:

In a status-ranked society, everyone is affected by status threat, because everyone's interest is intimately tied up in their status.

That is not necessarily true. Status threat in this context does not refer to a general fear of loss of status, but rather due to specific perceived threats (with emphasis on perceived). There is a bit more on racial status threat (related to immigration) than on gender-based status threat, I believe. For example, studies in Europe and US indicate that white folks (men and women) perceive visible minority immigrants as a higher threat to their status for a range of reasons. These include the assumption that immigration would harm the economy by being a drain, that they outcompete and are given unfair advantages over native workers.

I cannot clearly recall the papers, so I might be a bit off, but I think that a similar effect was also seen in male-dominated spaces (management but also e.g. engineering and IT) where women were not seen as a competition unless they rise up the ranks, at which point a similar attitudes were seen (e.g. unfair advantages, disruptiveness etc.) though I don't think it was framed as status threat per se (but looks fairly similar).

Edit: I should add that in either case status threat arises from a mismatch in imagined hierarchies (e.g. white men on top) with the actual situation (e.g. successful women). It should also be emphasized that these perceptions are not limited to white men, as we all are exposed to stereotypes (and colonial histories) which form our worldview.

[John Cuthber]

On 8/8/2022 at 7:51 AM, Greg A. said:

There's plenty of evidence I've just had no chance to present it. And even 'if' I get that chance people such as yourself will just back away into the darkness, avoiding what you can't refute. 

I won't- I promise.

[Peterkin]

38 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Status threat in this context does not refer to a general fear of loss of status, but rather due to specific perceived threats

I don't see how that contradicts what I said.  Everyone in a ranked society is affected by some form of threat - direct, indirect, imminent or illusory - by any structural change. Immigration is a structural change, as is the admission of women to professions previously exclusive to men, as is the elimination of a colour-bar or the institution of universal old age benefits.  

[CharonY]

14 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I don't see how that contradicts what I said.  Everyone in a ranked society is affected by some form of threat - direct, indirect, imminent or illusory - by any structural change.

I read your comment with an emphasis of the first part, that everyone is affected by status threat. The difference here is context, status threat is experienced due to a mismatch of how hierarchies should be in ones imagination and differences encountered by it. Not all perceived hierarchies are the same. Especially among younger folks the idea of diversity is getting more accepted, and while minority and women are more comfortable with a shift which puts them further ahead, which was not always the case, also white men are increasingly comfortable with a re-arrangement of hierarchies in certain areas.

So here the status threat would not apply as the mismatch does not occur. You are correct that structural changes, on average, do evoke status threat, or even by the perception of structural changes. However, it is not something that necessarily affects everyone.

 

[Peterkin]

17 minutes ago, CharonY said:

The difference here is context, status threat is experienced due to a mismatch of how hierarchies should be in ones imagination and differences encountered by it.

"Mismatch" is the term of which I'm failing to follow the significance.

In a stratified society, you either have a status - a recognized place in the hierarchy, accorded respect, worth, income, etc. - or you don't. I don't see how or why it becomes a question of matching perception to reality: an alteration to the structure either takes place or not. If it does, then the hierarchy changes in some way, and the actual position of some or many or all strata shift to some degree. Whether some people have illusions about their own status or not; whether they perceive a disproportionate shift in their own status or not, whether some strata have more or less horizontal expansion space than others, the threat does exist; they are or will be expected to make an adjustment.

Even if the change is ultimately to their own benefit, any change makes some people in a vertical structure uncomfortable. Those with more secure positions, or are most adaptable, have the least potential loss; those who are already precarious may be displaced altogether.  

Edited August 9, 2022 by Peterkin

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

"Mismatch" is the term of which I'm failing to follow the significance.

In a stratified society, you either have a status - a recognized place in the hierarchy, accorded respect, worth, income, etc. - or you don't. I don't see how or why it becomes a question of matching perception to reality: an alteration to the structure either takes place or not. If it does, then the hierarchy changes in some way, and the actual position of some or many or all strata shift to some degree. Whether some people have illusions about their own status or not; whether they perceive a disproportionate shift in their own status or not, whether some strata have more or less horizontal expansion space than others, the threat does exist; they are or will be expected to make an adjustment.

I think the confusion comes from a difference how literature uses the term "status threat" and your interpretation of the term. 

Status threat in the lit (see also e.g. https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/150/2/56/98322/Status-Threat-Moving-the-Right-Further-to-the) refers to a perceived threat to personal or group status. It does not matter as such whether hierarchies are changing or not or whether an actual threat exists.

The key here is that status threat can be enhanced by a number of factors. One of them is the observation of upward mobility of folks which, in a particular mindset, should not be moving up, which is then seen as evidence of a challenge to ones own status. Conversely, upward mobility of the in-group is much less likely seen as a status threat. Both effects are independent of the actual impact in a given hierarchy.

Or to put in a concrete example, a black woman moving in a white men dominated area is more likely to be seen as evidence for status threat than a white woman or a visible minority man (details can be very group-specific), whereas a white man would be seen as "normal" (i.e. no threat). Again, regardless on whether any of those hires would have a real impact on existing hierarchies or not.

A well studies aspect is for example a subset/variation called racial threat, in which the perceived threat (again, regardless of actual impact) by any given racial group can be increased by factors simply as being a bigger group or more prominent in everyday life. While the foundations are still valid, the overall attitude has changed a bit in some societies if you compare the studies from the 70s with more recent one for example.

 

Or to make it short: what I am referring is the perceived threat to status, not any actual economic or social impact.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

I think the confusion comes from a difference how literature uses the term "status threat" and your interpretation of the term. 

I see now. We were responding to two related arguments along different lines, each unaware that the other had a precedent elsewhere.

[MigL]

I would also like to add to CharonY's ( always ) excellent post, that the 'threat', or resentment, is perceived, and so must be examined from the PoV of the perceeiver.

If someone surpasses me for a promotion, or any status altering movement, and I know that they are the right person for the job, there is no perceved threat.

CharonY could be a wheelchair bound, Pakistani, lesbian woman for all I know, yet I don't resent, or feel threatened, by his ( her ? ) position as moderator, or his ( her ? ) title of Biology expert.

Now, if Peterkin was awarded the title of Physics expert ...

Edited August 9, 2022 by MigL

[Peterkin]

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

If someone surpasses me for a promotion, or any status altering movement, and I know that they are the right person for the job, there is no perceved threat.

Greg A apparently feels differently. He may not be unique.

 

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

Now, if Peterkin was awarded the title of Physics expert

Then... what? Since I do not make, and never have made any such claim, obviously, there is no actual threat to your position. And yet, your perception would be different? Why? 

Edited August 9, 2022 by Peterkin

[MigL]

You don't have much of a sense of humor, do you.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

You don't have much of a sense of humor, do you.

I've been told otherwise. But humour wasn't the point here. I was really curious about the difference in perception between status-threat form someone who is, in either fact or your own estimation, qualified to displace you (an actual threat), and from someone you do not consider a serious contender (not an actual threat). It seemed to me a kind of conceptual mismatch, and I wondered whether it bore any relation to the mismatch to which CharonY was referring. Which would be an interesting psychological phenomenon...

Otherwise, 🤣

[MigL]

I am not D Trump.
I know there are many people in the world more qualified, and suitable, of surpassing , or replacing me.
I used CharonY as an example of one such person, for the reasons specified; so there is no resentment and no threat to me from my PoV.

.However if I was surpassed or replaced by someone who is not more qualified than I am, I might perceive it as unfair, resent it, and see it as a threat.
Alternatively he/she could be a type that, either through lack of education, or lack of morals, considers people who are different ( skin color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc.) to be his inferiors, and wronged, or threatened, when those people surpass or replace him/her.

I don't see any mismatch.

[Peterkin]

8 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't see any mismatch.

Seeing no threat where a real and practical threat exits (i.e. you can be dismissed, replaced as leader or demoted) and seeing a threat where none actually exists (the unqualified person will fail in their assignment) sounded like a mismatch to me. But then my hearing is no better than my sense of humour. Thank you for explaining.

Edited August 10, 2022 by Peterkin

[Greg A.]

On 8/8/2022 at 3:20 AM, Phi for All said:

Gosh no, GregA. It's rich white men that have failed these People (as in We, the People). They've set up a vertical system that reaps them hoards of benefits at the expense of everybody else. They want us to compete like animals instead of cooperating like intelligent humans. The solutions we already know would be adequate if they weren't hobbled, manipulated, and leeched off of by wealthy white men.

Democracy gave you Donald Trump and now Joe Biden. 

On 8/8/2022 at 3:20 AM, Phi for All said:

And as swansont points out, your older brother was mistaken. The real problem here is that you're NOT going to admit that, or let it shift opinions you've held since the 80s, yet they're based on wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong that you'll just keep repeating because it fits with your mindset. A liberal mind would accept that they're mistaken and take another look at their worldview in hopes of improving it.

My older brother could have been wrong. But I think that's most unlikely. I mean he'd also pointed out to me, in only a few words (not immodestly like myself), that there could only be few melodies left to write, and this would have been in the late seventies. He'd also remarked that the Right would not be all too happy about this Global Warming thing, that's when it first came to public attention, which I'm guessing was in the early 90's. 

So point out what I've missed that says he is wrong. I mean I clearly remember back then that breast cancer was a real issue, and was aware of other cancers including prostate cancer. But no priorities there. And why else would anyone make such a remark then?

Even today breast cancer with it's near identical death rate as prostate cancer gets far more funding. So what a pile of crap it is you people are peddling. 

 

 

On 8/8/2022 at 3:20 AM, Phi for All said:

Your perception is that we ignore men dying in battle? I know that Trump was highly disparaging of the rank and file military, but since when does the USA not acknowledge its fallen soldiers? What source did this come from (hopefully not your older brother)?

No, we highlight the deaths of women and children. And, yes indirectly from my older brother. I can remember him questioning the emotion surrounding the Challenger disaster. Crista McAuliffe is the only name I still remember from that terrible accident. I wonder how many Americans died on that day in motor vehicle accidents however. Of course no one really cared about them apart from their family and friends. But the whole world was in tears when Challenger blew apart. Emotionalism vs rationalism. The emotionalist win because we are emotional creatures before we are rational creatures.  

On 8/8/2022 at 3:20 AM, Phi for All said:

If any of this is true, it sounds like the natural way to correct a problem. If my shower gets too cold, I favor turning up the hot water. What's your problem with this solution? It's used in all kinds of physical systems.

This problem can be seen using the following as an example. A hammer and a nail are two very 'dissimilar' things, yet are two mutually dependent things. A (claw) hammer has no other purpose in life than to bang in or remove nails. The nail has no other purpose than to be banged in, or eventually be removed and discarded.  These two will exist together forever. 

Whereas:

A male and a female are two very 'similar' things, but are not (any longer) mutually dependent. Some females are bigger and stronger than the average male for example and could do 'all' of the things a male can do. 

Consequently, and for only a few other reasons, males are being removed and discarded, replaced by females. 

On 8/8/2022 at 3:20 AM, Phi for All said:

You're really mixing up the goalposts here. Again, we don't have that kind of Left in the US. The right had to make up the name "Antifa" to make it seem like our leftist radicals were united, but being against fascism is about the only thing these groups totally agree on. 

On an arrogance scale of 0 to 5, I'd consider I rate as a two. I'm slightly presumptuous. Figures above that number of course would increase presumptuousness. And this is why so many don't bother to take in what someone like me is saying in my posts. They just skip over the points being made, while reading the words, still.

Another way of looking at this is I understand completely what it is you are saying, but you barely get 10% of what it is I'm saying. 

I've said Left wing dictatorships have been disproportionately responsible for loss of life and I've also said democracy is a soft (Left) form of government. Yet you haven't come to the realization that 'democracy' has by far the worst record of bloodshed out of the competing systems of government. 

 

On 8/8/2022 at 3:20 AM, Phi for All said:

The US Civil War was about destroying white males? GregA, that argument is the stupidest I've ever heard. Let's be clear about this: I don't think YOU are stupid! In my opinion, this argument you wrote here, on this site, for all to see, is stupid because it ignores historical reality, attempts to paint white men as real victims in a situation involving kidnap and enslavement, and because it takes a kind of delusional mental gymnastics to unpack, which makes me believe you're just repeating someone else's Bannonized shit-flood of misinformation. 

It is underlying 'influences' that have been responsible for the outcome. The need to pity and the need to blame. 

1. The compassion shown was for non-whites.

2. The fatalities were mostly white. 

3. The fatalities were mostly male. 

Now, if you say this result has influenced my appraisal of the event, then you are wrong. That's because I had already pointed to white males as being the target previously. And only now in retrospect do I see the correlation in this part of history. 

 

 

Edited August 10, 2022 by Greg A.

[Phi for All]

11 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

It is underlying 'influences' that have been responsible for the outcome. The need to pity and the need to blame. 

1. The compassion shown was for non-whites.

2. The fatalities were mostly white. 

3. The fatalities were mostly male. 

Now, if you say this result has influenced my appraisal of the event, then you are wrong. That's because I had already pointed to white males as being the target previously. And only now in retrospect do I see the correlation in this part of history. 

So, by that same reasoning, WWII was more about killing animals than anything else? The fatalities were mostly horses and dogs. In modern times, the US lost less than 3000 troops in Afghanistan, but but wiped out half the total livestock population. Was the underlying influence of that war to kill goats?

[Peterkin]

9 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

He'd also remarked that the Right would not be all too happy about this Global Warming thing, that's when it first came to public attention, which I'm guessing was in the early 90's. 

1912 https://qz.com/817354/scientists-have-been-forecasting-that-burning-fossil-fuels-will-cause-climate-change-as-early-as-1882/

Quote

It wasn’t, however, the first article to suggest that our love for coal was wreaking destruction on our environment that would lead to climate change. The theory—now widely accepted as scientific reality—was mentioned in the news media as early as 1883, and was discussed in scientific circles much earlier than that.

Like the economic recessions, who coulda seen it coming - right, Right?

16 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

But no priorities there. And why else would anyone make such a remark then?

Ignorance?

20 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

A male and a female are two very 'similar' things, but are not (any longer) mutually dependent. Some females are bigger and stronger than the average male for example and could do 'all' of the things a male can do. 

Consequently, and for only a few other reasons, males are being removed and discarded, replaced by females. 

Ah! So it's the quality control? Fair enough.

[Greg A.]

On 8/8/2022 at 9:53 PM, Bufofrog said:

Huh?

What?

What are you some kind of liberal socialist or something?

 

 

On 8/9/2022 at 4:46 AM, swansont said:

But they do use more resources. They almost always have vices of some sort. Big houses with pools and lawns that need watering. Some buy yachts, other buy lots of cars, some have private jets. Some do all of it. If wealth is such an illusion why don't the rich share it freely?

They mostly 'don't' have these vices. But even if they do the wages and salaries paid out exceed the cost of building materials be these for big houses, yachts or private jets. Wealth is an illusion because it represents a share of an enterprise, selling that share requires a buyer/s with the exact same amount of money, that needs to come from somewhere creating a vacuum which only becomes a problem when money is dispensed for spending, that's rather than being left in a bank. 

On 8/9/2022 at 4:46 AM, swansont said:

They literally do have structures full of commodities. Perhaps not warehouses, because they're ugly, but to argue essentially that rich people don't own more stuff is just something I can't take seriously. 

They don't have Scrooge McDuck's money bins and that's because that money would lose on inflation. And they probably own no more houses, cars etc, than anybody else, not that it would matter.

And its the workers that drive the gas guzzling V8 trucks rather than the wealthy.  

On 8/9/2022 at 4:46 AM, swansont said:

I'm sure the working class eat more, owing to the fact that there are more of them. The thing about the 1% is that they comprise just 1% of the population. (funny how the math works out on that) but it's a matter of whether they consume more in proportion to their numbers. And of course this is all a distraction from the original point, which was your claim that "An expanding economy increases employment redistributing wealth in a non-inflationary way" and my rebuttal (with a cited source) that wealth equality is worse and now we get this tap-dancing about consumption.

World economies have been expanding for hundreds of years and we are all getting wealthier. 

[dimreepr]

This seems an equitable time to stop feeding the troll/monster...

3 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

World economies have been expanding for hundreds of years and we are all getting wealthier. 

 

[Greg A.]

On 8/9/2022 at 2:34 AM, zapatos said:

Can you please provide a link to the source of your quote?

I didn't bother doing that because only someone completely ignorant would be unaware that breast cancer is the most publicized form of cancer there is. 

[Peterkin]

Quote

There’s a new bar for wealth in America: Nine homes and 19 cars.

https://fortune.com/2016/12/02/aig-study-billionaires-wealth-gap/

The picture is worth visiting.

12 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

And its the workers that drive the gas guzzling V8 trucks rather than the wealthy.  

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/transport-emissions/road-transport-reducing-co2-emissions-vehicles/co2-emission-performance-standards-cars-and-vans_en

 

https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2231434-eu-draft-exempts-private-jets-cargo-from-jet-fuel-tax

[Greg A.]

On 8/8/2022 at 9:53 PM, Bufofrog said:

Huh?

What?

What are you some kind of liberal socialist or something?

 

If the 'wealthy' were to try and cash in their shares the share markets would collapse. 

That's because the money going out of an economy that way could not be matched by that going in. 

I'm a rationalist. Which means I'm also a conservative. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Greg A. said:

If the 'wealthy' were to try and cash in their shares the share markets would collapse. 

That's because the money going out of an economy that way could not be matched by that going in. 

I'm a rationalist. Which means I'm also a conservative. 

What would happen if you couldn't spend your money on the bread that you need? Who would you blame? 

[Greg A.]

On 8/8/2022 at 10:51 PM, swansont said:

That wasn't the point. I was rebutting the second half of the claim

"funding for breast cancer was a priority while that for prostate cancer was pretty much ignored"

If prostate cancer is overfunded relative to its impact, it cannot be the case that it is ignored.

This isn't the 1980's. It was being ignored back then. Breast cancer is the best known of all cancers because it effects women. 

On 8/8/2022 at 10:51 PM, swansont said:

But since you won't actually cite any statistics, what you're left with is changing the argument instead of admitting that the claim isn't true.

You made several comments about white males being discriminated against, Phi called you out on it ("So you think white males are discriminated against under the law?!"), and the prostate funding bit was your response. It's all there.

It is society that discriminates against white males mostly. Society is being shifted to the left as a result of soft living, a left-shift process that it could be argued has been going on for 10 thousand  years. 

On 8/8/2022 at 10:51 PM, swansont said:

So if this isn't supposed to be about white males, then your response to Phi was irrelevant, a red herring. You're just throwing things out there. Trolling.

The law discriminates against males in particular relating to the break up of marriages. 

[MigL]

1 hour ago, Greg A. said:

I've said Left wing dictatorships have been disproportionately responsible for loss of life and I've also said democracy is a soft (Left) form of government. Yet you haven't come to the realization that 'democracy' has by far the worst record of bloodshed out of the competing systems of government. 

While I can agree with the first statement about left wing dictatorships being responsible for a lot of deaths, I have to question the second statement, that democracy is a soft, and left, form of government.
Your first statement mentions the many left wing dictatorships that are NOT democracies, does it not ?

The third statement does not follow at all, and is completely wrong.
In the first you mention how left wing DICTATORSHIPS have been disproportionately responsible for loss of life, yet the conclusion you draw is that democracy has "the worst record of bloodshed out of the competing systems of government".

You seem to be confused ... and incel.