Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

An alternate home for the community from the legacy Fourth Turning Forum
User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Re: Defining and Redefing a Discussion.

Post by Bob Butler »

Guest wrote:
Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:21 am
Bob Butler wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 6:30 pm
Guest wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:34 pm
I don't agree that the Euros are more advanced in all areas.

Consider "Attachment to their natural surroundings and natural life" or any other number of chosen categories that don't emphasize the values of Faustian Civilization.
There are certainly lots of ways to define 'advanced'. They certainly don't all agree with one another. The relevant definition to this conversation is whether racial genetic superiority or the factors mentioned in Guns, Germs and Steel (weapons, competition, longitudinal corridors and disease immunities) are more relevant. Other definitions may be pertinent to something, but don't relate to what we are discussing.
In making the previous two Guest posts, I bypassed this question because it is unequivocal in my mind that racial genetic superiority is more relevant to the conversation that you were having. Though I should say that I haven't read Diamond's arguments in detail because they seem silly on their face. If you'd like, I can read them in detail and comment on them. It would help if you could give me the pages in the book that I should read.

I would start with the introduction of course, though that alone would not be convincing.

The major points.

Europe was divided by mountain chains. China was a single country primarily through two large river valleys. As a result, China had one government and Emperor while Europe was divided into many competing nations. If an advance was made, at least one European country was apt to go with it, and the rest had to follow or be left behind.

The classic example was if Columbus's home country was not interested in exploration, he would find another country that was.

Another wrinkle on this was weapons development. China banned the creation of more effective gunpowder weapons. Not all European countries followed their example, and the others had to follow suit. As a result, the Europeans had superior weapons.

Another example was fleets. China developed a larger fleet sooner, but the emperor was In a position to quash progress. As a result, the Europeans passed China by default and got most of the profits from trade.

Disease Immunity was a different issue. The folk of the Americas did not have any resistance to smallpox and other diseases while the Europeans did. This resulted in a vastly reduced population among the American natives which gave the Europeans another advantage in gaining dominance.

The other factor was that crop and agricultural advantages spread along lines of longitude where similar climates encourage the spread of similar crops. Europe and Asia provide long longitude lines where agricultural ideas can be spread. The Americas run primarily north - south. An advance in agricultural breeding or methods could not spread as much.

The bulk of Guns, Germs and Steel is spent providing enough evidence to support these points. You are either willing to read the evidence or not.

Now this is to a great degree a cultural superiority due to geography. One group of cultures was superior in that the temptation to debase, oppress and use violence against other cultures was given a chance to manifest. Weapons superiority, disease immunity, shipping, and agricultural superiority became cultural advantages which could easily be viewed as a result of genetics. The mother countries became mother countries for good reason. It just isn't racists with big egos, supposing themselves superior and thus emphasizing prejudice, oppression and violence. It was just their guns, germs and steel, not their genes.

And prejudice, oppression and violence are flaws, not features. A culture is well advised to avoid these traits in an era when conflict is much less cost effective to the point of not being cost effective. Once, if you weren't being violently aggressive you would be crushed by those that were. Now, you avoid conflict that would destroy your infrastructure. Things change. Some people don't.

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Falsifying and Advancement

Post by Bob Butler »

Cool Breeze wrote:
Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:44 am
You have unfalsifiable/religious type thinking, which is the ultimate of ironies. I've encountered NPCs like you in real life. No matter what, you call people racist or tribal - and when asked what evidence would be acceptable to make you change your belief (this is the scientific method), you freeze because you are actually the tribal one, you just are so deluded you don't see it, or want to, because it would destroy your myth. No NPC has ever been able to respond with a criterion that would change their mind, so I know they are totally full of dookie. It's been 100% and you also show this behavior. All one needs to know is that people like you, the NPC, believe others are (insert pejorative in your mind) but the Fidel Castros of the world are "for the people." There is no hope for you sadly, since you neither employ logic, honesty, or any other virtue in your approach to the world. Just power struggles.
The theory that tribal thinking exists could be falsified if you could show most people didn't think themselves superior and implement prejudice, oppression and violence. Do you really think I need to prove that superiority, prejudice, oppression and violence exist? Really? This whole web site seems dedicated to the glory of tribal thinking, of celebrating superiority, prejudice, oppression and violence. It seems kind of redundant to prove it.

It also seems toughly in conflict with the teachings of Christ. Love thy neighbor while practicing superiority, prejudice, oppression and violence? How? I see much of supposedly Christian conservative thought as hypocritical.

I count several types of religious thinking. The Bible is literally true. If one could follow Christ's two important commandments by loving God and your neighbor, all else falls into place. They have in common freezing one's worldview in place, in leaving no room for mankind to advance. They share a commitment to a principle or thing that is unchanging. This is quite different from a progressive point of view, that cultures are flawed and that they should be periodically updated to remove flaws. They lead to a more conservative position, that the flaws in a culture should remain in place.

It is easy to distinguish between Cuba and the United States? I can. Why can't you?

One of my hobbies is role playing. In such a context, a NPC is a non player character, a character run by the game master. I have a feeling you mean something else?

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post by Bob Butler »

Cool Breeze wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 1:48 pm
I've asked it before but we should return to the subject. How many more years have to pass before anyone here (whoever wants to answer) will be shocked that nothing HUGE (crisis war) has happened?
Of course, one answer is that nukes, proxy war and insurgent war have made war much less cost effective while non violent protest and legislative change have provided another path for a cultures to grow. This change is part of what makes the Industrial Age and Information Age different. Conservatives believe in the old ways and are unwilling to perceive and accept the change.

Guest

Re: Defining and Redefing a Discussion.

Post by Guest »

Bob Butler wrote:
Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:16 pm
Guest wrote:
Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:21 am
Bob Butler wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 6:30 pm


There are certainly lots of ways to define 'advanced'. They certainly don't all agree with one another. The relevant definition to this conversation is whether racial genetic superiority or the factors mentioned in Guns, Germs and Steel (weapons, competition, longitudinal corridors and disease immunities) are more relevant. Other definitions may be pertinent to something, but don't relate to what we are discussing.
In making the previous two Guest posts, I bypassed this question because it is unequivocal in my mind that racial genetic superiority is more relevant to the conversation that you were having. Though I should say that I haven't read Diamond's arguments in detail because they seem silly on their face. If you'd like, I can read them in detail and comment on them. It would help if you could give me the pages in the book that I should read.

I would start with the introduction of course, though that alone would not be convincing.

The major points.

Europe was divided by mountain chains. China was a single country primarily through two large river valleys. As a result, China had one government and Emperor while Europe was divided into many competing nations. If an advance was made, at least one European country was apt to go with it, and the rest had to follow or be left behind.

The classic example was if Columbus's home country was not interested in exploration, he would find another country that was.

Another wrinkle on this was weapons development. China banned the creation of more effective gunpowder weapons. Not all European countries followed their example, and the others had to follow suit. As a result, the Europeans had superior weapons.

Another example was fleets. China developed a larger fleet sooner, but the emperor was In a position to quash progress. As a result, the Europeans passed China by default and got most of the profits from trade.

Disease Immunity was a different issue. The folk of the Americas did not have any resistance to smallpox and other diseases while the Europeans did. This resulted in a vastly reduced population among the American natives which gave the Europeans another advantage in gaining dominance.

The other factor was that crop and agricultural advantages spread along lines of longitude where similar climates encourage the spread of similar crops. Europe and Asia provide long longitude lines where agricultural ideas can be spread. The Americas run primarily north - south. An advance in agricultural breeding or methods could not spread as much.

The bulk of Guns, Germs and Steel is spent providing enough evidence to support these points. You are either willing to read the evidence or not.

Now this is to a great degree a cultural superiority due to geography. One group of cultures was superior in that the temptation to debase, oppress and use violence against other cultures was given a chance to manifest. Weapons superiority, disease immunity, shipping, and agricultural superiority became cultural advantages which could easily be viewed as a result of genetics. The mother countries became mother countries for good reason. It just isn't racists with big egos, supposing themselves superior and thus emphasizing prejudice, oppression and violence. It was just their guns, germs and steel, not their genes.

And prejudice, oppression and violence are flaws, not features. A culture is well advised to avoid these traits in an era when conflict is much less cost effective to the point of not being cost effective. Once, if you weren't being violently aggressive you would be crushed by those that were. Now, you avoid conflict that would destroy your infrastructure. Things change. Some people don't.
Thank you for the effort, Bob. Rather than starting to make comments immediately, I will study the book and the summary you have made before making any comments.

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Guns, Germs and Steel Lost

Post by Bob Butler »

I would note too that while the advantages in weapons technology, competition, disease immunities and agriculture were very real in the Industrial Age, they are becoming much less pertinent today. Any culture can build or otherwise acquire an assault rifle. Any sizable country could build nukes if they are willing to pay the price. While there are some disease immunity remnants such as Native Americans being more subject to flu infections, the shock effect of large portion of a continent’s population dying has faded. Development of agriculture is much less dependent on longitude lines. Just put a few seeds on an airplane or publish a technique in a magazine, and the spread occurs regardless of geography.

The difference between the Industrial Age and the modern Information Age is real.

Thus we are competing with China, the Middle East and elsewhere on a much closer footing. They take our technology freely, or it is given to them by companies attracted by cheap labor.

Colonial dominance is an Industrial Age thing. It required guns, gems, steel and transportation advantages to work. About when the US said they would forgive Lend Lease loans if all ports were open, colonialism died. Mother countries largely disappeared after World War II.

And instead of treating foreign cultures as inferior, we fear them. Once we profited by walking all over China. Now they have nukes and can build assault rifles. Is anyone really eager to start a land war in Asia? How well did Bush 43 neo colonization work? Proxy and insurgent conflict instead turned the whole Middle East into a land where men with guns hiding among the people made it a headache for one culture to try to dominate another. It is really hard to set up a profitable colony when nuclear, proxy and insurgent war are viable.

So when considering the advantages discussed in Guns, Germs and Steel, consider if the advantages exist in the modern age and how relationships between cultures change when they don’t. Are a feeling of superiority, prejudice, oppression and violence cost effective when dealing with near equals? Are you more apt to fear another culture than exploit it if you have no advantages?

Prejudice, oppression and violence are bugs today, not features. The problem is that some autocratic cultures haven’t fully figured out the change. Containment thus remains necessary. Whether it will be sufficient is TBD.

John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

Post by John »

** 19-Nov-2021 World View: Rittenhouse acquittal

Today a Chinese tennis star, Peng Shuai, has been forced to disappear
because she accused an official of having raped her. There will be no
judicial process for her. There will be no fair trial for her, and
probably no trial at all, except a kangaroo court. I don't know what
motivated her to make those charges, knowing how the violent, despotic
Chinese system treats people who step out of line, but she is now
paying the consequences. She will probably be thrown into a pit,
hanged by her thumbs, and forgotten.

Today Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted on five counts of murder, because
he had been merely defending himself from violent criminals trying to
kill him. He had been called a White Supremacist by the ahole racist
President Biden, even though there were no blacks involved. He had
been called a "vigilante," and "active shooter," a "domestic
terrorist" and other names by CNN, MSNBC, and other mainstream media.

If it had been up to president Biden or the left-wing commentators,
then Rittenhouse would have been convicted and locked up in an
instant, with no trial, just like Peng Shuai. That's how Democrats
think, and anyone who disagrees is a "tribal thinker."

The reason that the ahole Democrats hate the American judicial system
is that they can't just declare someone guilty. The system requires a
trial, based on very specific rules.

The reason that you say that all of us here are "tribal thinkers" is
because Americans like us don't let ahole Democrats get away with the
things that the violent, despotic Chinese system allows. The
brilliance of the American political and judicial system is that
people like you don't get away with the crimes that Biden and other
Democrats attempted, crimes that are common in China.

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Liar John

Post by Bob Butler »

I am not invested in defending autocratic justice systems. I have not been particularly following the Rittenhouse case, so I won’t comment on it, just that the jury seemed to be taking their job seriously.

I am not aware of Democrats looking to change or disliking the justice system. References? Voting rights, sure, but not changing the justice system.

You are mischaracterizing my understanding of tribal thinking. I do not favor elites getting a privileged place in the justice system. I do not get away with crimes as I do not commit them. It is your policy rather than to respond to facts and logic but instead to engage in slander and lies. Your post above is an example. It by no means has any relationship to my understanding of how things work. It is full of your own upside down understandings. It belongs in your own thread. However, the rules and principle you apply to others you do not apply to your own behavior.

I consider tribal thinking is finding a reason to think one’s self superior and justify prejudice, oppression and violence. Practitioners are generally trying to profit from violence, and usually fail. The Nazi of WW II are a classic example. In this age of nukes, proxy war and insurgent war, it is hard to get away with Industrial Age behavior.

Some people don’t understand and agree with it.

John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Liar Democrat Tribal Thinkers

Post by John »

** 19-Nov-2021 World View: Baghdad Bob Butler and Liar Democrat Tribal Thinkers

Mayor Bill de Blasio: "This verdict is disgusting and it sends a
horrible message to this country. Where is the justice in this? We
can't let this go. We need stronger laws to stop violent extremism
from within our own nation. Now is the time."

Joy Reid, MSNBC: We knew, but it’s sometimes helpful to remind
ourselves how America was designed to work. It continues to work as
designed. We have learned again what is considered legal for *some*
people to do in America. It’s helpful to know where you stand in your
country. Be safe out there.

Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes: "Over the last few weeks, many
dreaded the outcome we just witnessed. The presumption of innocence
until proven guilty is what we should expect from our judicial system,
but that standard is not always applied equally. We have seen so many
black and brown youth killed, only to be put on trial posthumously,
while the innocence of Kyle Rittenhouse was virtually demanded by the
judge."

NY Governor Kathy Hochul: "Kyle Rittenhouse used an assault weapon to
kill two people. This is not justice. If there was any question about
why we need strong gun safety laws, this is your answer. This should
never have been allowed to happen in the first place. We have a lot of
work to do."

Reverend Al Sharpton: "These continue to be dark days for black people
killed at the hands of people that believe our lives do not
matter. This verdict was not only outrageous and dangerous, it was
also an obvious signal that encourages and notifies "vigilantes" that
they can continue to use violence to assert their power, and more
importantly that they are above the criminal justice system when they
do. While it is disheartening that we take one step forward, then
several steps back, let this be a reminder that our activism cannot
take a backseat"

Eric Adams, NYC Mayor-elect: "This decision is an indictment of
irresponsible laws that make our society far more violent and unsafe
under the guise of personal freedom and so called self-defense. It
also sends an extremely dangerous message to those in our country who
seek agendas of anarchy - often born in prejudice and ignorance - to
wreak havoc in their communities and potentially murder their
neighbors. We should not be shocked. We should be focused on swift and
righteous action."

Jumaane Williams, NYC Public Advocate: "This trial and the verdict it
produced are clear and devastating representations of the way our
country and our legal system view innocence and guilt, vigilantes and
villains, race and the fight against racial injustice. A white
seventeen year old killing protesters with a weapon of war is
celebrated and acquitted. A black seventeen year old walking the
community with a bag of Skittles is criminalized and murdered.

Rep. Jerry Nadler: "This heartbreaking verdict is a miscarriage of
justice and sets a dangerous precedent which justifies federal review
by DOJ. Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines
looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected
protest."

Nikole Hannah-Jones, NY Times: "In this country, you can even kill
white people and get away with it if those white people are fighting
for Black lives. This is the legacy of 1619."

George Takei, former Star Trek actor: "Justice denied is a body blow
to our national psyche. On trial was not only a killer, but a system
that continues to kill. Today that system defeated true justice, once
again. But mark these words: We will never stop fighting for what is
right and just."

-- Reaction to the verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, found not
https://abc7ny.com/kyle-rittenhouse-ver ... /11254232/
(ABC News, 19-Nov-2021)

-- 'Absolutely no words': Gabrielle Union, Megyn Kelly, more celebs
react to Kyle Rittenhouse verdict
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertai ... 685481002/
(USAToday, 19-Nov-2021)

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

The Rittenhouse Case and Tribal Thinking

Post by Bob Butler »

In this country, inside and outside the justice system, minorities have been long prejudiced against. If one must apply tribal thinking to it, it would be that some people feel superior to others, and feel free to act with prejudice, oppression and violence. If that were the case here, there would be a feeling that the privileged shooter has a right to kill. The jury would share this feeling and allow it to effect the verdict.

Most of the Democratic commenters feel this sort of tribal thinking is taking place, and is reprehensible. In a nation where all men are equal under law, justice should have nothing to do with race and prejudice.

My instinct would be that it did matter. If the shooter in this case wanted to avoid conflict he could have. But that is an instinct, a guess, not to be applied in a courtroom.

I personally have not seen all the evidence. It is possible that if one examined all the evidence in detail, which seemed to be the case with respect to the jury in the last few days, the motive could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

But that does not mean folks have not oppressed others and that murderers should not face justice. We do have a problem with the feeling of superiority, prejudice, oppression and violence, a problem with unequal justice, a problem with tribal thinking.

What to do about it? How to change the laws or the justice system to disallow the modern variants on lynching? How when there is anger do you keep murder illegal? As you listed, a number of people have spoken out. I’m not yet seeing many proposed specific changes. It is hard to be for or against a change that has not been proposed yet. As I generally acknowledge the Second Amendment, I am generally against weapons limitations, one of the few issues where I will speak to the conservative position.

I just feel that superiority, prejudice, oppression and violence are flaws best removed. Not attempting to purge the echoes of lynching would be a mistake.

Regardless, this issue is yours, not mine. It belongs on your thread, not here.

John
Posts: 11478
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: The Rittenhouse Case and Tribal Thinking

Post by John »

** 19-Nov-2021 World View: superiority, prejudice, oppression and violence
Bob Butler wrote:
Fri Nov 19, 2021 9:49 pm
> We do have a problem with the feeling of superiority, prejudice,
> oppression and violence, a problem with unequal justice, a problem
> with tribal thinking.
All the Democrats I quoted, and many others, are guilty of all your
accusations. It's the Democrats who are guilty of tribal thinking,
which is obvious today, while the Republicans are not.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests