Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:29 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:To be more clear, here: Thesh, the problem with things like gentrification or the displacement of America's native peoples isn't *just* that they have no where else to go; even if they did, it would still be awful to displace people from the lands and homes they are familiar with -- the places that their ancestors came from. This is, in fact, a component of genocide; detaching people from the land to which they are connected -- removing their sense of history and belonging to their cultural and/or ancestral home. You can make their new house as nice and pretty as you want, and make sure all their friends are there -- but it still doesn't make this okay, or make their discontent any less credible.

You can argue that this isn't your point (I get that you're arguing these things happened not to address inequality, but to *enforce* it), but when you keep insisting that people can be happy regardless of where they are -- so long as their basic needs are met -- you start sounding a lot like the people who told Native American tribes they could be happy elsewhere. Especially since my example above with the ancestral home was based on that very idea.


Tyndmyr was arguing that people couldn't be happy unless they moved to a specific place, so therefore there is conflict. I'm saying that's bullshit, and that literally most people would prefer to stay where they are, and that just because you don't get to move to your #1 desired location doesn't mean that you can't be happy.

I'm literally saying the opposite of what you are suggesting.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1939
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:34 pm UTC

idonno wrote:To be fair, 9% (4 out of 44) of presidents been assassinated? It seems like the risk of threats being real is probably a lot higher for her than most people.

How often does it happen?
A national survey of Washingtonians between 2010-2012 found that 45% of women and 22% of men have experienced sexual violence during their lifetime.
In 2016, 17.7% of 10th graders in Washington reported that they had been made to engage in unwanted kissing, sexual touch or intercourse.
More than 33% of women in Washington State have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime.
Almost 20% of these women have been the victims of multiple assaults by different offenders.
National surveys of adults suggest that between 9-32% of women and 5-10% of men (link is external) report that they were victims of sexual abuse and/or assault during their childhood.
22% of victims were younger than age 12 when they were first raped, and 32% were between the ages of 12 and 17.
43% of lesbian and bisexual women, and 30% of gay and bisexual men, reported having experienced at least one form of sexual assault victimization during their lifetimes.
34% of Native American and Alaskan Native women reported experiencing an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime, compared with 19% of African American women, 18% of white women, and 7% of Asian American women.
Among adults who are developmentally disabled, as many as 83% of the females and 32% of the males are the victims of sexual assault.
Women with disabilities are raped and abused at a rate at least twice that of the general population of women.
Based on that, I'm going to have to agree that ...
ijuin wrote:... unless you are actually fearful that your harassers are going to attempt to kill or rape you or your loved ones, then you are nowhere near the most bullied in the world.

(With the obvious exception that i don't know how Tronald Dump treats her.)
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:57 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Tyndmyr was arguing that people couldn't be happy unless they moved to a specific place, so therefore there is conflict. I'm saying that's bullshit, and that literally most people would prefer to stay where they are, and that just because you don't get to move to your #1 desired location doesn't mean that you can't be happy.

I'm literally saying the opposite of what you are suggesting.


If two siblings want to live in the same house they grew up in, why of course there will be conflict. It's normal for people to want a specific thing, and sometimes more than one person wants the same specific thing.

I agree with Hippo. You seem to believe that everyone ought to want what you want, and if they don't, you literally don't care about what they want, and are happy to dismiss them as crazy. It's a pretty old refrain.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7213
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:06 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Tyndmyr was arguing that people couldn't be happy unless they moved to a specific place, so therefore there is conflict. I'm saying that's bullshit, and that literally most people would prefer to stay where they are, and that just because you don't get to move to your #1 desired location doesn't mean that you can't be happy.

I'm literally saying the opposite of what you are suggesting.
For the sake of my own emotional well-being, I don't read Tyndmyr's post (I find them oblivious and genuinely hurtful). I was only responding to what I saw you saying. I certainly disagree with the notion that people can't be happy unless they move to a specific place. I think most people can be happy just about anywhere.

I also don't think the desire for, say, a Native American to return to their ancestral home is the same as some random mook's desire to live out on the California coast. A crucial component of what I'm talking about is a history and cultural connection with a specific location. That's why I brought up the ancestral home thing -- the idea of someone being displaced from their homeland, then trying to return to it only to find someone else is now there. History is full of people displaced from their homes who want to return, only to find new people there who don't want to leave. This creates an extremely complicated problem.

I think I understand what you're saying, and I don't think I disagree with your premise at its most abstract, but some of the stuff you're saying in defense of it seems a bit out there. Like, my ancestral home example -- you said that the person who's happiness hinges on them occupying their ancestral home needs therapy. Obviously, you don't think this notion applies to Native Americans displaced from their homes -- but on its face, what you said could easily apply to Native Americans displaced from their homes.

I guess what I'm saying is that you might be burning down Rome just to demonstrate the danger of playing with matches.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:21 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
If two siblings want to live in the same house they grew up in, why of course there will be conflict. It's normal for people to want a specific thing, and sometimes more than one person wants the same specific thing.

I agree with Hippo. You seem to believe that everyone ought to want what you want, and if they don't, you literally don't care about what they want, and are happy to dismiss them as crazy. It's a pretty old refrain.



Again, and I don't know how many times I have to repeat it, I was never ever ever talking about those types of petty interpersonal conflicts - nobody, including you, care about those conflicts in society from a political standpoint. So please, stop trying to come up with hypothetical scenarios based entirely on individual personal preferences.

You are all fucking arguing with ucim's srtawman, where he interpreted my post in a way that didn't make sense just so they could distract from the point. I did not argue that under all circumstances people's preferences will not be in conflict, and I don't even believe you think that's the argument I made, so please stop it with this asinine bullshit. I can't believe how fucking petty you all are willing to get to find examples of conflict, even when it is completely unrelated to anything I wrote.


The Great Hippo wrote:I also don't think the desire for, say, a Native American to return to their ancestral home is the same as some random mook's desire to live out on the California coast. A crucial component of what I'm talking about is a history and cultural connection with a specific location. That's why I brought up the ancestral home thing -- the idea of someone being displaced from their homeland, then trying to return to it only to find someone else is now there. History is full of people displaced from their homes who want to return, only to find new people there who don't want to leave. This creates an extremely complicated problem.


When you say "home" are you talking about their house, or the specific lands their people are from? Because my understanding is you were talking about two people arguing over specific houses. If it's the latter, then I don't see where the conflict is. There is plenty of room for housing all over the world; the arguments I was responding to were ones that said that vast swaths of people were all going to move to one place due to personal preferences, and that there physically wouldn't be enough to go around because it can't support the population. That's just not the case. In reality, everyone could have the ability to move to the region they want without conflict; hell, you could hypothetically have an abundance of housing in every populated region of the world, so that at most your choice of location has a waiting list.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7213
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:28 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:When you say "home" are you talking about their house, or the specific lands their people are from? Because my understanding is you were talking about two people arguing over specific homes. If it's the latter, then I don't see where the conflict is. There is plenty of room for housing all over the world; the arguments I was responding to were ones that said that vast swaths of people were all going to move to one place due to personal preferences, and that there physically wouldn't be enough to go around because it can't support the population.
I mean, is it really hard to imagine that a home (singular) might include, say, a space that was once a graveyard -- one extremely relevant to you and your heritage? And that part of your happiness involves not having this space used as some oblivious outsider's driveway, makeshift basketball court, or hell -- outdoor septic tank? In fact, part of your happiness involves having that space be yours, so you can tend to it?

This is a specific conflict, however, and I know you're more interested in the broader conflicts of mass migration. That's part of why the house metaphor doesn't work so well. That being said, I don't think it's unimaginable that a landmass from which people were displaced would be limited in size.

I will say this: The problem I'm bringing up, while extremely complicated, is also extremely limited in scope. 95% of our problems in regard to living space are solvable by just handing out living spaces wherever. Nevertheless, that remaining 5% -- people who want to occupy the same spaces but for whatever reason cannot -- does exist.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:36 pm UTC

I'd suspect that most of those reasons, including ones of graveyards, are caused by social structures putting unrealistic expectations on people. It's not that they are in conflict over housing, but they put excessive importance on things like heritage, remains, etc. That is, it's still a social conflict that exists regardless of the property laws, not a conflict with the property laws.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7213
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:46 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:I'd suspect that most of those reasons, including ones of graveyards, are caused by social structures putting unrealistic expectations on people. It's not that they are in conflict over housing, but they put excessive importance on things like heritage, remains, etc. That is, it's still a social conflict that exists regardless of the property laws, not a conflict with the property laws.
I agree that the conflict exists regardless of property laws; the point of the example is to give a problem that transcends any solution property laws can provide. This is a case where conflict is an unavoidable consequence of two people wanting entirely irreconcilable things: They both want to live on the same property. No matter what we do, someone here will be unhappy.

Characterizing the person who wants to take care of the graveyard as putting 'excessive importance' on things like 'heritage, remains, etc' -- that seems very odd to me. Couldn't you make the same argument against the occupant? Isn't the person who wants to live in their home with their family and their community just putting 'excessive importance' on things like 'family, community, etc'? Why don't they move? What's so much better about what they see as important?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:53 pm UTC

It's excessive if it causes unrealistic expectations that deprive people of happiness. For example, everyone wanting to live in their ancestral home when the ancestors that lived there averaged > 1 child per generation.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1822
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby eran_rathan » Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:06 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:What if the only place where I can be happy is my ancestral home?


Then you need therapy; it's not the rules over housing that's the problem, it's you. You are talking about two people being in dispute over something specific; no, not everyone will get their way all the time. I'm talking about the right to restrict people from their homes not being in conflict with others in general, not who has to move out after a breakup. Again, when people have their spaces, there is no conflict; this is only over people finding spaces, which is really not that big of a deal - sure, some people won't be happy but that's a personal issue not a political one. Either way, personal disputes are not the kinds of conflicts I'm interested in.


...you realize he was talking about Israel/Palestine Turkey/Kurdistan/Iraq Hutus/Tutsis England/Aquitaine/France Ulster/Ireland Native Americans/American settlers Romans/Gauls/Goths/Britons right?
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:24 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
Thesh wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:What if the only place where I can be happy is my ancestral home?


Then you need therapy; it's not the rules over housing that's the problem, it's you. You are talking about two people being in dispute over something specific; no, not everyone will get their way all the time. I'm talking about the right to restrict people from their homes not being in conflict with others in general, not who has to move out after a breakup. Again, when people have their spaces, there is no conflict; this is only over people finding spaces, which is really not that big of a deal - sure, some people won't be happy but that's a personal issue not a political one. Either way, personal disputes are not the kinds of conflicts I'm interested in.


...you realize he was talking about Israel/Palestine Turkey/Kurdistan/Iraq Hutus/Tutsis England/Aquitaine/France Ulster/Ireland Native Americans/American settlers Romans/Gauls/Goths/Britons right?


The argument was about conflict over specific houses, not entire regions. Now you are talking about specific regions of the world, ones with major political conflicts that have nothing to do with whether there is enough to go around. If the happiness of entire groups of people hinges on living in one specific place where there is not enough for everyone, then the group needs to make a change so that it is no longer the case.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7213
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:44 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:If the happiness of entire groups of people hinges on living in one specific place where there is not enough for everyone, then the group needs to make a change so that it is no longer the case.
Which group?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:56 pm UTC

Any group for which that's the case; so pretty much nobody.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5008
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:24 am UTC

I think Hippo means, to put it bluntly: who's in the wrong, Israelis for wanting to move back to their ancestral home, or Palestinians for not wanting to move away from their ancestral home? (Said ancestral homes being the same place, of course).
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10273
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:30 am UTC

But isn't that reversed now? Sort of?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:40 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I think Hippo means, to put it bluntly: who's in the wrong, Israelis for wanting to move back to their ancestral home, or Palestinians for not wanting to move away from their ancestral home? (Said ancestral homes being the same place, of course).


Neither are in the wrong for wanting to live there; the problems have nothing to do with availability of land itself. But their societies are structured in a way that is incompatible, and those societies have to change if they are to live together. Every single culture in the world needs to make changes in order to eliminate the conflict in their societies, to be honest.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1822
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:05 am UTC

Thesh wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:I think Hippo means, to put it bluntly: who's in the wrong, Israelis for wanting to move back to their ancestral home, or Palestinians for not wanting to move away from their ancestral home? (Said ancestral homes being the same place, of course).


Neither are in the wrong for wanting to live there; the problems have nothing to do with availability of land itself. But their societies are structured in a way that is incompatible, and those societies have to change if they are to live together. Every single culture in the world needs to make changes in order to eliminate the conflict in their societies, to be honest.


In other words, the problem would go away if people would just stop being people.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:17 am UTC

I'm not sure exactly how you got that; are you arguing that ethnic groups are incompatible and society should seek to create homogeneous groups of people with strictly enforced borders? Because that doesn't seem to be the case everywhere.

It's not the individual people, it's a handful of very specific problems that are directly caused by the political and religious systems, and exasperated by the economic inequality. People, for the most part, do not have to change at all, but the governments and religions do. Most people are conflict-averse; it's the power structures, and the perverse incentives of wealth accumulation that encourage conflict at the expense of the public.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7213
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:25 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I think Hippo means, to put it bluntly: who's in the wrong, Israelis for wanting to move back to their ancestral home, or Palestinians for not wanting to move away from their ancestral home? (Said ancestral homes being the same place, of course).
Right.

(I know the Israel/Palestine issue is way more complex than that, but at its core, that's what I'm getting at)
Thesh wrote:Neither are in the wrong for wanting to live there; the problems have nothing to do with availability of land itself. But their societies are structured in a way that is incompatible, and those societies have to change if they are to live together. Every single culture in the world needs to make changes in order to eliminate the conflict in their societies, to be honest.
You are correct that this is not a problem of scarcity, which is the problem I think you are concerned with (and in regards to that particular problem, we agree; genuine scarcity is not actually a problem. There's enough for everyone).

My issue is that in discussing how you think genuine scarcity isn't a real problem, you treat other problems as if they aren't real problems (or aren't as complex as they look). For example, you decide that the person who puts emphasis on the importance of inhabiting ancestral lands is valuing the wrong things, because...
Thesh wrote:It's excessive if it causes unrealistic expectations that deprive people of happiness. For example, everyone wanting to live in their ancestral home when the ancestors that lived there averaged > 1 child per generation.
...their values are not viable in the larger picture; they naturally lead to conflict simply by being unsustainable.

But we're not talking about everyone wanting to live in ancestral lands; we're talking about one specific case. The importance of my values shouldn't be weighted on the basis of whether or not they're sustainable as a policy, or what would happen if everyone adopted them. They should be weighted on the basis of their application here and now, in these specific circumstances.

This might just be an issue where you're approaching values as Kantian-style ethics ("Values are only good when we can imagine a just world resulting from everyone practicing those values"), whereas I am a utilitarian ("Values are just another part of being human, and satisfying them is just another thing we need to account for to make our fellow humans happy").

If that's the case, then our perspective on this is probably irreconcilable. Which is fine; I'm just pointing it out because it would explain why we can't see eye to eye here.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:37 am UTC

I'm not saying they aren't big problems. I'm saying that people are capable of all having a space of their own without it being in conflict. That our societies are not structured to facilitate that is irrelevant to that point, and I really don't see why it's so difficult to understand that.

I really don't have a clue what point you are arguing with the ancestral home, or how it is relevant.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7213
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:55 am UTC

Thesh wrote:I'm not saying they aren't big problems. I'm saying that people are capable of all having a space of their own without it being in conflict. That our societies are not structured to facilitate that is irrelevant to that point, and I really don't see why it's so difficult to understand that.
I don't think it's difficult to understand; my issue is that you're implying we ought to structure society so that people don't end up with values that can lead to these sorts of conflicts (IE, we ought to structure society so people don't make things like their heritage or how they treat their ancestors' remains a central component to their happiness).

And I think that's... kind of a condescending position? I'm an atheist with zero attachment to moldy corpses and absolutely no concern regarding my heritage -- but even I feel deeply uncomfortable telling people who value these things that they shouldn't value them. I don't think these values themselves should be treated as a problem, even if they're the cause of the conflict; I also don't think these sorts of values are going to disappear just because we address inequality.

Anyway, as you've pointed out, none of this is related to the bogus argument people bring up against open borders (that there's a scarcity of resources we need to preserve for ourselves). I just think that in clarifying how that argument is bogus, you've end up in some weird spaces that imply some weird things. It's simple enough to say that scarcity of living space wasn't, isn't, and likely never will be an actual issue in the United States.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:13 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I don't think it's difficult to understand; my issue is that you're implying we ought to structure society so that people don't end up with values that can lead to these sorts of conflicts (IE, we ought to structure society so people don't make things like their heritage or how they treat their ancestors' remains a central component to their happiness).


If it is preventing them from being happy, then yes. Heritage does not justify use of violence, and specific cultures are not sacred, especially if they conflict with the lives of others. Literally, this unhappiness was forced on them and if they don't change then they will force it on their children. I'm sorry that not every want can be accommodated, but you can't claim "heritage" to force someone out of their home. Cultures are always changing, and they need to change to adapt to the world around them, not expect the world to accommodate them where their beliefs are in conflict.

The Great Hippo wrote:And I think that's... kind of a condescending position? I'm an atheist with zero attachment to moldy corpses and absolutely no concern regarding my heritage -- but even I feel deeply uncomfortable telling people who value these things that they shouldn't value them. I don't think these values themselves should be treated as a problem, even if they're the cause of the conflict; I also don't think these sorts of values are going to disappear just because we address inequality.


To me, you seem to be making the type of arguments that lead to things like the prime directive "we can't interfere with other cultures, even if people are being harmed, because that would be elitism." Also, I never stated all conflicts would disappear if inequality went away, although they are a major source.

Also, you need to consider the long term consequences, not just the people today. If you keep making concessions to cultures that are in conflict with society, then those conflicts will never get resolved. if people stop making ancestry so important, the conflicts disappear and everyone is better off. Cultures die. Let them.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7213
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:00 am UTC

Thesh wrote:If it is preventing them from being happy, then yes. Heritage does not justify use of violence, and specific cultures are not sacred, especially if they conflict with the lives of others. Literally, this unhappiness was forced on them and if they don't change then they will force it on their children. I'm sorry that not every want can be accommodated, but you can't claim "heritage" to force someone out of their home. Cultures are always changing, and they need to change to adapt to the world around them, not expect the world to accommodate them where their beliefs are in conflict.
Wanting a thing and taking action to achieve that thing are two entirely separate issues. I believe we should address the second. But the first? That's trickier.
Thesh wrote:To me, you seem to be making the type of arguments that lead to things like the prime directive "we can't interfere with other cultures, even if people are being harmed, because that would be elitism." Also, I never stated all conflicts would disappear if inequality went away, although they are a major source.
Pardon, yes -- I pointed that out pre-emptively because I thought it might be an argument you'd make (that inequality was the root of all conflict).

I always thought the Prime Directive was just a stupid excuse to not take action in the face of an obvious evil. But consider: There's a big difference between preventing someone from carrying out a wrong and trying to change their values so that the wrong never even occurs to them. Mind you, I'm not opposed to working with people to change their values. There are such things as shitty values, after all! I just don't think our yardstick for measuring shittiness ought to be whether or not those values have the potential to produce irreconcilable conflicts.
Thesh wrote:Also, you need to consider the long term consequences, not just the people today. If you keep making concessions to cultures that are in conflict with society, then those conflicts will never get resolved. if people stop making ancestry so important, the conflicts disappear and everyone is better off. Cultures die. Let them.
Cultures are society. The only way a culture can conflict with society is if you've mistaken your culture for the entirety of society. Look, if you're talking about reprehensible shit like the mutilation of female genitalia, then yeah, sure; I'm with you. No concessions can be made on an issue like that. But something like ancestry? You don't think we should make concessions for that?

The less willing you are to make compromises with these cultures, the more intense they'll become. Nothing radicalizes a culture faster than the perception (real or imagined) of persecution. If you honestly want them to go quietly into that good night, you have to give them concessions; you have to make compromises that permit them to retain their relevance. Try to work with them so that they can co-exist with your culture. Either they'll survive or they won't. If they do, okay. If they don't? Also okay.

No, you don't let them do terrible things, but you also have to make concessions where you can. You have to give them room to flourish within the constraints of your own morality. If you don't do that, you just become part of the very problem you're opposing -- another source of needless conflict on the basis of irreconcilable values.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:21 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Wanting a thing and taking action to achieve that thing are two entirely separate issues. I believe we should address the second. But the first? That's trickier.


What we should address is why not having access to one specific want leads to unhappiness. We aren't talking a huge amount of change, or even getting rid of the idea of heritage, just making it so that ancestry isn't so important that they can't be happy without the possessions of their ancestors. Personally, I don't think this problem really exists to a degree that warrants discussion.

The Great Hippo wrote:I always thought the Prime Directive was just a stupid excuse to not take action in the face of an obvious evil. But consider: There's a big difference between preventing someone from carrying out a wrong and trying to change their values so that the wrong never even occurs to them. Mind you, I'm not opposed to working with people to change their values.


It's not even about right and wrong here, though, it's about trying to reclaim a lost past.

The Great Hippo wrote:Cultures are society. The only way a culture can conflict with society is if you've mistaken your culture for the entirety of society. Look, if you're talking about reprehensible shit like the mutilation of female genitalia, then yeah, sure; I'm with you. No concessions can be made on an issue like that.


Society includes people of many different cultures. When I say cultures are conflicting with society, what I mean is that one culture is conflicting with everyone else. If you can use ancestry to throw people out of their homes, then that's going to invite a lot of conflict.

The Great Hippo wrote:But something like ancestry? You don't think we should make concessions for that?


Let's be clear, we are talking about sending people with weapons to remove someone from their home. Explain to me why ancestry is more important than occupation.

The Great Hippo wrote:The less willing you are to make compromises with these cultures, the more intense they'll become. Nothing radicalizes a culture faster than the perception (real or imagined) of persecution. If you honestly want them to go quietly into that good night, you have to work with them; you have to make compromises that permit them to retain their relevance. Try to work with them so that they can co-exist with your culture. Either they'll survive or they won't. If they do, okay. If they don't? Also okay.


To be clear, we are talking about someone who wants to live in their ancestral home, but can't because other people live there. It's a much smaller concession for the person to just not live in their ancestral home, then it is for the state to remove someone from their home.

The Great Hippo wrote:No, you don't let them do terrible things, but you also have to make concessions where you can. You have to give them room to flourish within the constraints of your own morality. If you don't do that, you just become part of the very problem you're opposing -- another source of needless conflict on the basis of irreconcilable values.


You don't need to make concessions where you can, you need to make concessions where that is the least worst option. Maybe if we were arguing something other than some piece of property, I might agree that the concession was a good thing; I'm just not sure where there is another equivalent example.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6595
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:18 am UTC

Thesh wrote:What we should address is why not having access to one specific want leads to unhappiness.
We can start with addressing why not having access to the specific want of equality leads to unhappiness. You may not care about heritage, but you do seem to care about inequality. I'm not interested in the actual discussion, but I bring it up as an example of where somebody else gets to decide which "wants" are "unimportant". You want "equality" and I (for purposes of argument and using your own words) claim that we don't need to address inequality, but rather, need to address the issue that your wanting equality leads to your unhappiness.

Now change "equality" for any other point of conflict.

Thesh wrote:Let's be clear, we are talking about sending people with weapons to remove someone from their home. Explain to me why ancestry is more important than occupation.
[...]
To be clear, we are talking about someone who wants to live in their ancestral home, but can't because other people live there. It's a much smaller concession for the person to just not live in their ancestral home, then it is for the state to remove someone from their home.
This sounds a lot like "I've got mine, fuck you." It's different on the other side, isn't it.

Thesh wrote:You don't need to make concessions where you can, you need to make concessions where that is the least worst option.
Who gets to decide which is "least worst"? If Thesh thinks something is least worst, and ucim things something else is least worst, do we give it to The Great Hippo to sort it out for us? And what happens if one of us disagrees with The Great Hippo? Send it to Tyndmyr?

Conflict doesn't go away just because one person thinks it should.

Thesh wrote:Gentrification is caused by economic inequality. It has nothing to do with whether or not everyone can have their own space without coming into conflict with others.
But it has everything to do with whether or not everyone can have this (highly desirable) space without coming into conflict with others. How do you propose sorting that out? Whatever method you use, you can then substitute for the word "economic" in your very own quote, without changing the issue that that same conflict still exists.

Thesh wrote:The entire point I was making is that the analogy between countries and houses fails because everyone can have a place where they can live, and live the lifestyle they want...
...and I am saying that this is false. They can live the lifestyle that you think they should be happy with, but that's a different thing entirely.

You want to fundamentally change people. I get that. But you can't.

The rise of Trump is proof.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:48 am UTC

ucim wrote:
Thesh wrote:What we should address is why not having access to one specific want leads to unhappiness.
We can start with addressing why not having access to the specific want of equality leads to unhappiness. You may not care about heritage, but you do seem to care about inequality. I'm not interested in the actual discussion, but I bring it up as an example of where somebody else gets to decide which "wants" are "unimportant". You want "equality" and I (for purposes of argument and using your own words) claim that we don't need to address inequality, but rather, need to address the issue that your wanting equality leads to your unhappiness.


You are obviously trolling here. I mean, do I even need to respond? Everyone, including you know why this is absolutely stupid, and know what a false equivalency is. I stopped reading here, since you are obviously not going to say anything that is worth a moment of anyone's time. Seriously, go away. You are not clever.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6595
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Fri Oct 12, 2018 5:08 am UTC

The point is, you don't get to decide for others which "wants" are important.

And also, disagreeing with Thesh is not the same as trolling.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5008
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Oct 12, 2018 6:26 am UTC

Seriously Jose, I tuned out of that post at the same time Thesh did.

"Wanting equality" is a higher-order issue than something like "wanting heritage", because it's not a first-order want for some specific thing, it's about the satisfaction of different people's wants. "Equality" is not something Thesh desires as an end in itself for himself, like some people's desire to live in their ancestral home might be; it's a principle about resolving people in general's desires in general.

What you're saying is a hair away from the "diversity of opinion is the most important kind of diversity" mantra trotted out whenever the relevant "diverse" opinion being excluded from the discussion is "diversity doesn't matter".

See also: the paradox of tolerance.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Fri Oct 12, 2018 8:43 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Thesh wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:What if the only place where I can be happy is my ancestral home?


Then you need therapy; it's not the rules over housing that's the problem, it's you.


This view is very deeply mired in specific cultural assumptions. In particular it assumes that a state of being disconnected from your land and its history is healthy and normal (note that I'm talking about land, not nations :- rocks and soil, rivers and mountains, forests and lakes); and that a state of deep connection with the land is pathological.

I would counter that such disconnection is a phenomenon that is barely two centuries old for most people, and in my view is deeply tied up with our current willingness to cause massive environmental destruction for short term gain.

I feel that there probably is a way to retain deep connections with land while not being deeply rooted in a particular land, but that would require a serious cultural shift to sustain that. For now, pathologizing anyone who is deeply rooted in their land is at best mistaken and at worst culturally imperialistic. I would recommend David Abrams' book The Spell of the Sensuous for an exploration of the importance of land to the human psyche (ignore the slightly anti-science tirade in chapter 2: I do wish certain humanities authors would stop doing stuff like that... It always makes me slightly embarrassed to recommend their work).

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7519
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zamfir » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:33 am UTC


This view is very deeply mired in specific cultural assumptions. In particular it assumes that a state of being disconnected from your land and its history is healthy and normal (note that I'm talking about land, not nations :- rocks and soil, rivers and mountains, forests and lakes); and that a state of deep connection with the land is pathological.

I would counter that such disconnection is a phenomenon that is barely two centuries old for most people, and in my view is deeply tied up with our current willingness to cause massive environmental destruction for short term gain.

I dont disagree with your first point, but I am less sure about the historical part. It has always been easy to get people to move to new land, if it was fertile and abundant. It's just that abundant fertile land was usually not on offer. At that point, a connection to physical land might not be much different than a modern connection to a reliable job.

In a similar vein, I am not convinced that people are currently unusually willing to cause environmental destruction, instead of just more capable. For example, these maps show deforestation in Europe over the millenia:
Spoiler:
Image
These forests are the not-quite-renewable energy of the pre-industrial period, and their overconsumption goes back a long way. Some other parts of the globe (especially in east Asia) were even further down that path, before fossil fuels provided relief. Quite some traditional connection to forests is exactly of that exploitative nature . People loved some copses of forest around - to cut down for timber and firewood. The next generation would love their forests, even if they were a tad further away.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1763
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:12 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:

This view is very deeply mired in specific cultural assumptions. In particular it assumes that a state of being disconnected from your land and its history is healthy and normal (note that I'm talking about land, not nations :- rocks and soil, rivers and mountains, forests and lakes); and that a state of deep connection with the land is pathological.

I would counter that such disconnection is a phenomenon that is barely two centuries old for most people, and in my view is deeply tied up with our current willingness to cause massive environmental destruction for short term gain.

I dont disagree with your first point, but I am less sure about the historical part. It has always been easy to get people to move to new land, if it was fertile and abundant. It's just that abundant fertile land was usually not on offer. At that point, a connection to physical land might not be much different than a modern connection to a reliable job.

In a similar vein, I am not convinced that people are currently unusually willing to cause environmental destruction, instead of just more capable. For example, these maps show deforestation in Europe over the millenia:
Spoiler:
Image
These forests are the not-quite-renewable energy of the pre-industrial period, and their overconsumption goes back a long way. Some other parts of the globe (especially in east Asia) were even further down that path, before fossil fuels provided relief. Quite some traditional connection to forests is exactly of that exploitative nature . People loved some copses of forest around - to cut down for timber and firewood. The next generation would love their forests, even if they were a tad further away.


Oh crap, I'm romanticising again. You're right. I'm annoyingly prone to doing that. Thanks for pointing it out. The worst but is that I knew most of the facts you brought up, but I got angry and *poof* they disappeared from my head.

I maintain that connection to nature is good, but historically connection to a specific bit of nature was probably more practical than anything, as you say, and then developed into more of a religious/cultural connection as time went on.

That said, if a people already have a deep connection to the land where they live, and they are removed from it by force or coercion, that's pretty obviously going to have a long-lasting negative effect. That's often where the point "people can be happy wherever they live" ends up, hence my quite visceral reaction. Not an excuse, just some context.

Sorry Thesh - I was unreasonably harsh in my previous post. I still don't think it's as simple as you make out - people do have deep and genuine connections to specific places, and that seems more "human nature" than "pathology". I do think that's a complicating factor in your proposals, but yeah, I shouldn't have snapped at you like that.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7519
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zamfir » Fri Oct 12, 2018 1:02 pm UTC

It s interesting, in this context, to think about gentrification of urban neighbourhoods. That's not so different from attachment to the land or the soil. People in general have a connection with their physical surroundings that goes beyond simple utility, that's not restricted to scottish highlanders dreaming about the fog over the loch in autumn.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:07 pm UTC

In the case of gentrification, that's a direct personal connection that is being lost today to people with no connection, and we absolutely should do something to stop it and ensure people don't get kicked out, and can afford to live there. In the case of ancestral property, you are arguing about removing someone with a direct personal connection in favor of someone with a familial connection.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6595
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:15 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:"Wanting equality" is a higher-order issue than something like "wanting heritage"
[...]
See also: the paradox of tolerance.
Fair point.

But it's still a want, and it's of the same order as (for example) wanting salvation. People may want eternal salvation for themselves (as a first order issue), but wars are caused by people wanting (their brand of) salvation for everyone else, purging the world of evil. The environmental movement can be seen in the same light.

And that is a major cause of conflict.

If all those {religious nuts | tree huggers | commies | whatever } would just stay where they are and leave us alone... but they don't. They cross boundaries. They try to make people that are otherwise happily living one way, live another way.

But perhaps it's getting all too abstract.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 677
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SDK » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:21 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Let's be clear, we are talking about sending people with weapons to remove someone from their home. Explain to me why ancestry is more important than occupation.

Occupation may be more important than ancestry, but do only future examples count?

Israelis are living on land that used to be the Palestinians. Israelis are the occupiers. Europeans are living on land that used to be the Native Americans. Europeans are the occupiers. I'm simplifying here, but in both cases this was done by force, where "people with weapons removed someone from their home".

It sounds like you're game to stop people from occupying others' homes, and if someone does occupy someone else's home by force, we as a society should reverse it (by force if necessary). I think you agree with that, but does that include recent historical examples (say, events that took place in the last 100 years) or are we only talking about what takes place from this point forward?
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:24 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
If two siblings want to live in the same house they grew up in, why of course there will be conflict. It's normal for people to want a specific thing, and sometimes more than one person wants the same specific thing.

I agree with Hippo. You seem to believe that everyone ought to want what you want, and if they don't, you literally don't care about what they want, and are happy to dismiss them as crazy. It's a pretty old refrain.



Again, and I don't know how many times I have to repeat it, I was never ever ever talking about those types of petty interpersonal conflicts - nobody, including you, care about those conflicts in society from a political standpoint. So please, stop trying to come up with hypothetical scenarios based entirely on individual personal preferences.


I understand that you are telling me what I care about.

I disagree.

I'm reasonably confident I know more about what I care about than you do.

Property law and solving conflicts over who gets to use what are connected. The purpose of property laws is to determine who has power over a property. This particular aspect does scale upward. If my ancestors lived somewhere, I might wish to live there as well. History being messy, plenty of situations exist in which more than one group of people would like to live in a place, and would very much like if the other group did not. How you determine which group gets their way matters a great deal. This literally is politics. If you took power and conflict out of politics, you wouldn't have much left.

If your answer to every conflict is telling everyone that their values do not matter, and they ought to adopt your values instead, well...I am very glad that you do not have power.

Thesh wrote:You are obviously trolling here. I mean, do I even need to respond? Everyone, including you know why this is absolutely stupid, and know what a false equivalency is. I stopped reading here, since you are obviously not going to say anything that is worth a moment of anyone's time. Seriously, go away. You are not clever.


Just about everyone is disagreeing with you here, Thesh. They may not be disagreeing in exactly the same ways, but your insults are getting a bit far fetched.

The idea that you know, better than all of us, what our own thoughts are is bordering on lunacy.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:32 pm UTC

SDK wrote:Israelis are living on land that used to be the Palestinians. Israelis are the occupiers. Europeans are living on land that used to be the Native Americans. Europeans are the occupiers. I'm simplifying here, but in both cases this was done by force, where "people with weapons removed someone from their home".


My position is that no one had the right to keep anyone out or throw anyone out an entire nation. I'm only talking about one, specific house, that one, specific person has claimed as part of their ancestry.
SDK wrote:It sounds like you're game to stop people from occupying others' homes, and if someone does occupy someone else's home by force, we as a society should reverse it (by force if necessary). I think you agree with that, but does that include recent historical examples (say, events that took place in the last 100 years) or are we only talking about what takes place from this point forward?

If that person never lived in that house, I don't think they have a strong enough claim to justify forcing out someone who lives there. If the person living there is profiting off of recent genocide, that's obviously different.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1822
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby eran_rathan » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:37 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:In the case of gentrification, that's a direct personal connection that is being lost today to people with no connection, and we absolutely should do something to stop it and ensure people don't get kicked out, and can afford to live there. In the case of ancestral property, you are arguing about removing someone with a direct personal connection in favor of someone with a familial connection.


so you mean that all Americans that aren't Native (in some form of fashion) should go back to Europe, right?

yes, it is ad absurdum, but that's what you're asking for.

I mean, I'm a land surveyor. Property disputes are literally what I handle for a living. If you've never seen how two suburban soccer moms can be arguing over a 1-foot wide strip of land, to the point that they will actually come to blows over it... let me tell you, your theory will not work. Period.

Specific example time!

recent case (3-ish years ago) - Bar Harbor, ME. Get hired to do a boundary survey for a couple who think their neighbor is encroaching on their property and want to put up a fence. Do the survey, find all the boundary evidence, talk to both the clients and the neighbor. Survey shows the client's building is what actually encroaches on the neighbor, and the neighbor is encroaching on the other end of the property (because they both thought the line was more slanted than it was in relation to the road). I suggest both sides come to an agreement whereby they swap land equitably to resolve both issues, for a minimum of cost (since I had already done the survey) - but both decided they would rather spend $30000 or more each litigating to 'prove the other guy wrong.'

Now tell me, if you can't get people like to agree to something obviously mutually beneficial, how do you solve something like Israel/Palestine, or Kurdistan/Turkey, where there is no clear-cut right answer?
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6333
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:48 pm UTC

No, there is absolutely no way to interpret anything I have written as saying that people should be forcibly removed from their country to return it to the native people.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 677
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SDK » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:55 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:recent

And maybe that's really the crux of the issue here - what counts as recent? Not too sure about the laws in the United States, but 200 years ago there were laws in Canada where the government would pay for Native American scalps. Some of those laws were still on the books at the turn of this century (though hadn't actually been used for a time before that). Yes, we have since built houses on that land... but I don't think it's really good enough to just say, "Okay, sorry, but we're using that land now. You can have this other land over here instead. It's more or less the same, so just be happy with that, okay?" I'm not saying that we should tear down those houses and give the land back, but more needs to be done to resolve that conflict.

The Israel/Palestine conflict is even more recent. The creation of Israel back in 1948 was a pretty muddled affair in the first place, but taking the West Bank and Gaza strip in 1967 is a much more clear-cut example of occupation. That's 50 years ago, so there are almost certainly people who previously lived in those homes who are still alive, yet cannot go back for fear of persecution. They have homes now. Why can't they just be happy there? This is a super complex issue that deserves a much more nuanced view than you're presenting. Even looking to the future, it seems like you're suggesting these sorts of conflicts just won't happen. I don't know how you can say that when looking at our past human behavior.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dauric, speising and 20 guests