26859

Reddit reviews: The best politics & social sciences books

We found 13,880 Reddit comments discussing the best politics & social sciences books. We ran sentiment analysis on each of these comments to determine how redditors feel about different products. We found 5,963 products and ranked them based on the amount of positive reactions they received. Here are the top 20.

Top Reddit comments about Politics & Social Sciences:

u/WildBilll33t · 8 pointsr/AskMen

There are a few core psychological drives that compel men to do what they do. In no particular order:

Sex, obviously. Sexual dimorphism results in males on average having stronger libidos than women of similar demographic. Year+ dry-spells often lead men to suicide ideation.

Female companionship Ties in closely with sex, but is moreso the emotional connection component. Sex alone isn't enough to satisfy men's psychological needs; a supportive and loving partner is necessary. But on the flipside, a supportive female companion but lack of sex is also insufficient for healthy psychological functioning. Case study: /r/deadbedrooms

Male companionship Men generally seek esteem and reputation among their peers. For reference, the feeling a man gets when his fellow men look to him for leadership or admire his skills is similarly emotionally pleasurable as sexual release or close romantic moments. It's a very different type of emotional gratification, but is on a similar level of pleasurable intensity. This is what fuels male competitiveness.

Competence Along with social gratification from other males, men need to convince themselves of their own competence. A man that does not believe in himself is not psychologically healthy, regardless of how others view him.

Independence For most men, there is no greater disgrace than being a burden to others. Case study: chronic unemployment or underemployment is strongly correlated to suicide.

Purpose Ties in a good bit with male companionship and independence. Men want a cause. I know that personally, I feel much more driven, dilligent, and psychologically healthy when I know people are counting on me. I'd postulate than a cultural "lack of feeling of purpose" has contributed to increasing suicide rates as well. I'd also postulate that desire for purpose leads many men to military service or radical social movements. (Case study: Disaffected European men joinging ISIS)

There's a comment I read a while back about the "male romantic fantasy" which is incredibly insightful into the male psyche. I'll see if I can dig it up.

EDIT: Found it! Incredibly insightful comment chain on "the male romantic fantasy" (The third comment down is the one I want to especially draw attention to. Quoted below)

> The Male Romantic Fantasy
I'd say that men usually feel most loved when this normal state of affairs is negated; when they are made to believe that a woman's love is not conditional in the cause-and-effect manner described in the parent post. Love is work for men, but it can be rewarding work when things are going smoothly and the woman is happy as a result. But the male romantic fantasy is to be shown that the woman feels the same way and stands by him when he's down on his luck, when the money's not there, or when he's not feeling confident. He wants to know that the love he believes he's earned will stay even when the actions that feed it wane (however temporarily). A good woman can often lift a man up in his times of need and desperation and weather the storm even when things aren't going well. The male romantic fantasy is an enduring and unconditional love that seems to defy this relationship of labor and reward. A man wants to be loved for who he is, not for what he does in order to be loved.

> An interesting way to examine this is to look at what women often call romantic entitlement. An entitled guy is a dude who maintains an unrealistic notion of men's typically active role in love. Before acknowledging reality, this boy uncompromisingly believes that he shouldn't have to do anything or change anything about himself to earn a woman's love; he wants to be loved for who he is, not what he does.

> All men secretly want this, but there comes a day when they eventually compromise out of necessity. After that day, they may spend years honing themselves, working, shaping themselves into the men they believe women want to be chosen by. A massive part of what causes boys to "grow up" is the realization that being loved requires hard work. This impetus begins a journey where a boy grows into a man by gaining strength, knowledge, resources, and wisdom. The harsh realities of the world might harden and change him into a person his boyhood self wouldn't recognize. He might adopt viewpoints he doesn't agree with, transgress his personal boundaries, or commit acts he previously thought himself incapable of. But ultimately, the goal is to feel as if his work is done.

> When he can finally let go of the crank he continually turns day after day in order to earn love and, even if only for a moment, it turns by itself to nourish him in return, that is when he will know he is loved.

If you're up for more in depth reading, I recommend, "The Way of Men" by Jack Donovan. (Disclaimer: towards the end of the book, the author espouses some rather radical personal philosophical views. His personal views in no way reflect my own, but I still see his book as a fantastic window into the baser male psyche)

u/Themoopanator123 · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

This is generally the answer I give to anyone who's unsure about specifically what they're interested in. You probably wanna spend a little while doing "general reading" so that you can find out what subjects interest you the most. Here are a few introductory books which are commonly recommended in no particular order:

  • Think by Simon Blackburn
  • A Little History of Philosophy by Nigel Warburton
  • An Introduction to Philosophy by Jon Nuttall

    These books all cast a very large net. The Warburton book (from what I remember) gives a more chronological account since it's concerned with the history of the ideas as well as the ideas themselves. Though, this was my first introduction to philosophy and worked just as well as any other.

    Given the authors you've mentioned, you might be particularly interested in the religious philosophy, ethics and political philosophy sections but you sound open to anything new. A tip: if you get your hands on one or two or these books, as you go through them, make notes on authors or particular ideas that you find interesting so that you can branch your reading out independently based on your preferences. These books will very much be discussing the classics of western philosophy like Hume, Descartes, Aquinas, Kant (maybe) etc at least a bit so I would also recommend searching out contemporary writers or 2nd hand sources if you're interested in the ideas of these historical figures. I say this because diving into their original works early on will be intimidating, exhausting and probably uninteresting. You may well find them difficult to interpret without knowing before hand what they're getting at. Having some idea of their historical context also helps. Contemporary writers are usually more approachable and sometimes more relevant.

    ​

    If you're also looking for good introductions to other topics like physics, I could help you out. In the spirit of this sub, I'll recommend you a couple writers that are philosophy literate. Philosophy has gotten a bad rap from popular science icons like Neil Degrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, recently. Lawrence Krauss probably dominates in terms of ignorance but hey that's just my opinion. Nye, on the other hand, has recently changed his tune. Don't let this put you off because there are popular science writers like Sean Carroll and Carlo Rovelli who know their philosophy and understand the historical and conceptual importance of philosophy to their science. Here are my recommendations:

  • The Big Picture by Sean Carroll
  • From Eternity to Here by Sean Carroll
  • Seven Brief Lessons on Physics by Carlo Rovelli
  • Reality Is Not What It Seems by Carlo Rovelli

    The Big Picture is Sean Carroll's "treatise" on his philosophy, essentially. It covers is views about knowledge, values and science all in one. (Scare quotes because the book is intended for a large audience and the word 'treatise' makes it sound a lot more dense than it really is). In it, he introduces Bayesian epistemology which is quite a popular idea in contemporary philosophy of science.

    From Eternity to Here essentially aims to answer quite metaphysical questions about our experience of time like where it "comes from" and in some parts he aims to resolve paradoxes relating to time travel all from the point of view of our best theories of physics. He also discusses big bang cosmology and, throughout, pays great respect to other philosophical views on the questions he's discussing.

    Seven Brief Lessons is basically what it says on the tin. It's a very short introduction and is probably the best place to start off reading popular physics (at least on this list).

    Reality Is Not What It Seems is a discussion of the history of physics essentially from the ancient greeks up until modern speculation on quantum gravity. Rovelli also pays great respects to the 'physicists of antiquity' by discussing ancient greek ideas about physics and metaphysics within the light of modern physics. He gives credit where credit is due and then some.

    Hope this was helpful.

    Oh, P.S. A few people have recommended the SEP but I'd be careful with it since plenty of the articles on there get pretty damn technical pretty quick and even sometimes they assume knowledge that you may not have. It's usually best used to accompany other reading and when you know what you're looking for (in terms of author, period, topic etc). Going on there and just blindly searching by topic probably isn't a good idea. A similar resource which presents topics in slightly less detail is the IEP.

    Here's a good youtube channel to check out too.
u/markth_wi · 2 pointsr/politics

I would say in so far as one considers the overall question of who's interests are being served in the greater middle east, while clearly up until the 1960's or so, there was a favorable attitude towards Israel as a strong proxy in resistance to Communism , it could be seen as a secondary.

A fascinating book on neoconservative political though, Leo Strauss' "Thoughts on Machiavelli", pointed out that among what we would today identify as neoconservatives, they should endeavor to gain and keep literary and ideological influence in the US political structure.

Strauss makes a second major (although very obscurant) observation that given the Western penchant for representative government, if one really wants to lead, the "best" form of representative democracy is in fact totalitarian democracy, whereby people elect a leadership, but that leadership effectively has absolute power, during it's tenure.

Even a cursory reading of constitutional writings makes it pretty abundantly clear, this vision is not exactly what the founders had envisioned, and in fact can be seen as highly incompatible with the original intent of US constitutional processes.

Neoconservatives, however, during the later years of the 1960's (and this is a FASCINATING observation made by many early neoconservatives), especially after the 1967 days war and the attack on the USS Liberty, it became increasingly clear to Irving Krystol and others that polemic influence was rapidly declining as the "left" in the United States became increasingly difficult to gain reliable outputs from the political process ;Representative "Scoop" Jackson was being investigated for espionage, the Viet Nam anti-war movement was in full swing, and it was unclear the "left" would long remain uncritical of Israeli political/military positions, indefinitely)

So the notion to "switch" political affiliation started ,and astutely re-ordered itself slowly becoming rhetorically reflective of and ultimately part and parcel of the conservative movement - which was seen as far more capable of being managed rhetorically.

More painful to read was that what neoconservatism should do, first and foremost is decide what is wanted, and disregard the practical considerations , or reasons one might not want to do such a thing; this is a tragic element of neoconservatism since it encourages the political class to disregard the well being of any host society and perform at some political 'id' level of functioning - effectively giving philosophical sanction to sociopathy - that makes Ayn Rand look positively generative by comparison.

In this way we can attribute the decline of "realpolitik" to the political maneuverings and ascent of neoconservatism within the Reagan administration, ultimately consigning that political tradition to the last holders of those political views in the 1990's , (Schultz, Bush Sr, Scowcroft even Kissinger were marginalized)

Today we see this in the preposterous ideological stances of some Israeli leaders (Avi Lieberman for example) proposes that non-loyal Jews (and of course all Arabs/Sephardi) be required to take loyalty tests or be "relocated", how one fails or passes a loyalty test and when the disloyal Israeli citizen is relocated is not mentioned. More perverse is the notion of racial purity gangs sprouting up, that are not actively discouraged. That said, I'm not Israeli, these days, if they want to setup racial purity laws, or ethnically houseclean, it's not my concern, although history clearly shows that ultimately it does become our concern eventually (honestly, who in the US, wants to end up on the wrong side of another Apartheid argument).

In US politics, you get the notion of constant warfare, I dislike the polemic of Chomsky on this point but do find that there is a very strong element of don't ask whether it's in the interests of the United States, but rather ask whether it is in the interests of these ideologues and then push hard for whatever it is.

This operates in concert with the overall feeling of some in the US oriented political class that military might is the signature element of US power, rather than taking the traditional / historical view (Paul Kennedy makes this case in his excellent book "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" , that military power is a direct consequence of economic power, and that confusing the two / or failure to reconcile the relation has repeatedly lead to the self-destruction of more than one economic power in the past.

So it is for that reason , pretty much alone, that the United States, does very well for itself by constraining it's military expeditions to those which are strictly necessary and similarly keeping military and other social support expenditures well below our means if we mean to persist as a functional nation-state.

Zbigniew Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard" makes a grand statement about US presence and influence in the US, but does so in a surprisingly insightful way, it's an excellent counterpoint to alot of the geopolitical views that hold sway today, covering many of the same problems, but with a more US centered focus.

In recent readings, I think one of my favorite books on the subject was a short and easy read by Donald Kagan "On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace", or , both of which basically lays out the notion (although he NEVER states as much for obvious reasons), that US military dominance implies a duty to preserve US interests in the Eurasian sphere of influence, limiting the ascent of China and dominance of Russia.

Most of these positions are entirely counter to the positions taken historically in the US, and more disturbingly they are directly counter to the actions and policies of all of the major developed nations (Japan, Germany, England, France) which 40 years ago, made coherent energy ,infrastructure and industrial policies that slowly moved their nation-states away from oil, and the geopolitical instability of the Middle East.

More damningly I think this political worldview, rather abruptly disrupted, our educational system, both at the liberal arts and especially the scientific level;

There is a peculiar animus towards scientists who can counter the political views of absolutism, one of the best examples of this was very early on when Richard Perle got shut-down, from his hard-line and openly discredited idea that the Soviet Union was "breaking" US / USSR arms treaty conditions, here a knowledgeable expert destroyed Perle in a public forum, especially as the 1980's continued.

It was possible to see the vast efficiencies of computers and later communications (ultimately leading to the internet in later years), but these innovations are the legacy of the R&D and generous funding of the late 1950's and 1960's, today rather than innovate and engineer around the economic & resource constraints in our economy, we shuffle money around and hope someone else clever comes up with ideas.

Ultimately, however the sad tale ends up in the actions that warranted the removal from office of most of the political operatives and strong ideological advocates of neoconservativsm in the United States military / civilian establishment, in 2003-4, when FBI (CIA and DIA conducted similar investigations internally) all started to determine independently, that US interests, were not just being poorly served, but in fact were undermined, forcing the Bush administration to remove or allow to retire almost all of the major players, although , the damage was done, the US had overthrown the Iraqi leadership by this time.

In the run-up to the war in Iraq, and less successfully against Iran by stove-piping questionable information to the US administration, and in some cases there was evidence of at the very least questionable and arguably treasonous actions undertaken by some elements of the political/military administration under the Bush administration.

Personally, I found the investigation and continued influence of these guys totally disheartening, and it has made me very apathetic to continued US involvement in the Middle East whatsoever.

It seems simply far more logical , and in concert with our longer term interests, to just load up on static energy production - solar, thermal, wind , "cleaner" coal, and just do whatever is possible to maintain a small footprint in the region, and re-establish our governmental educational/industrial/military trajectory from - what - a generation ago?

u/acantholysized · 1 pointr/altright

Could someone correct me in responding to the "Diversity and Ethnocentrism Hate Facts"?

------------------

(Detrimental) Effects of Multiculturalism

u/PeaceRequiresAnarchy · 3 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Thanks for the thoughtful comment. Here's why I disagree:

> Many people get their ethics through intuition; therefore, you're not going to be able to convince a leftist out of taxing for the sake of the poor by "proving" taxation is immoral.

The fact that people get their ethics from intuition doesn't mean that they can't be persuaded that taxation is immoral. Most people intuitively agree that theft is generally immoral, so the only task left is showing them that taxation is theft. In his book The Problem of Political Authority Michael Huemer does exactly this. He argues that taxation is immoral using "common sense" moral intuitions that nearly everyone agrees with, including leftists, as a basis for his argument. So I disagree. (EDIT: Note that people have political intuitions too, such as the intuition that having a government that imposes some taxes is good. Peoples moral intuitions and political intuitions often conflict. Michael Huemer provides three reasons in his book why people should trust their moral intuitions rather than their political intuitions. See the last paragraph of section 1.6 of Chapter 1, or just do a search of the webpage for "political intuitions" and read from there.)

Also note that in my own case, I had the same moral intuitions before I believed that taxation is theft as I do now. It wasn't my moral intuitions that changed, but rather was my understanding of the nature of taxation that changed. Before I didn't realize that there was a threat of punishment and no consent involved, but now I realize that that is the case, and understand that the nature of taxation is such that it fits the definition of theft.

> They're never going to agree with you on those terms. Where you might get their support is by showing that states only provide token support for the poor, but that a stateless society cares for its poor more and in a more functional way.

I agree that educating people about the consequences of various things can be an effective way to help change their political views. However, in my experience most people aren't willing to take the time and effort to learn about the likely outcomes of an anarcho-capitalist or free market system unless they feel they have a moral obligation to do so.

For example, someone commented:

> the problem is I have heard nothing that has made me think twice about anarchism. I don't want to have to read a book if there is not one single idea that you can boil down to a few sentences that would make me stop and think how certain I am about what I consider true.

To most statists, including the person quoted above and my former self, the claim that we would be better off in an anarchic society seems so absurd that merely hearing the claim and a brief argument for it won't be enough for them to find it worth the time and effort to learn about how an anarchist society might function to provide law and order, help the poor, etc.

Perhaps if you're only arguing against a single government policy then people will take the time to hear your arguments about the fact that the consequences of the policy are worse than the free market policy. But I find that any time I speak of eliminating a substantial government program (e.g. abolishing the government school system) people find the idea that the consequences would be better so absurd that they don't take the time to read about it and see if I'm right.

On the other hand, when one is motivated by the belief that there is a presumption against taxation (since taxation is extortion), then they feel obligated to either prove the consequences of not having the extortion are so bad that the extortion is justified. They then take the time and effort to learn about free market alternatives to current practices, find out that the consequences are not likely to be sufficiently bad (and perhaps learn that they are likely to better, as is often the case) to justify the extortion, and then stop supporting the tax-funded government program.

The above is the path I took to anarcho-capitalism. I didn't care about politics at all. Then I was presented with arguments that governments are immoral since taxation is theft, etc. At first I said taxation is not theft. Then I realized I was wrong. Then I attempted to find reasons to believe that it's okay for governments to commit theft, etc. The only reasonable possible reason I came up with was that it was justified in the name of consequences. Since I still didn't want to give up my support of governments, I thus made these arguments that a bunch of government programs were necessary due to the consequences. I was met with counterarguments, learned about them (learned about how a free market anarchist society could do a bunch of stuff), realized I was wrong, and acknowledged that I was now an anarchist libertarian. Note that when I first became an anarchist libertarian I was not yet convinced that the consequences of an anarcho-capitalist society would be better than our current society. Rather, I just realized that the consequences weren't likely to be so bad that extortion was justified.

I never would have taken the time to learn about economics and how things would be if we had a free market or an anarcho-capitalist society unless I was motivated by the the moral arguments against the state. The possibility that things might be better with a free market wasn't a sufficient reason for me to care to learn about free market economics.

Hence why the moral arguments are important.

One last point: It's important to make the moral arguments for the sake of being fully honest. I am not an anarcho-capitalist because I think the consequences of anarcho-capitalism are likely to be better than any government system. That is, even if I thought the consequences would likely be not quite as good as the current system of democratic representative government, I would still be an anarcho-capitalist due to the fact that governments are morally illegitimate. If I only try to persuade people to support free market policies by pointing out that the consequences of those policies are better then I imply to whomever I am talking with that I think they should change their minds to support free market policies because the consequences of those policies are better. But this is not true. In order to be fully honest, I must state the true reasons why I believe they should change their views and support free market policies: because the policies are immoral and it's immoral not to stop supporting them.

u/asthepenguinflies · 1 pointr/atheism

>You espouse nothing but poor reasoning

You can't espouse poor reasoning. You can however espouse an idea supported by poor reasoning. Assuming this is what you meant, I still haven't done it. You have no examples for how my arguments rely on poor reasoning, you just keep insisting that they do. This is due to your own reliance on specious reasoning.

>You're an apologist. You've chosen that position and it's an ugly one.

Sigh.... You know what an apologist is right? Lets use the term in a sentence... "The christian apologists tried to defend their beliefs using reason, thinking that belief in god could be found through logic." Hmm... Maybe a definition would still be useful.

Ya... I'm not an apologist. I'm not arguing in defense of a belief. I'm arguing against a belief in moral realism. You, my friend, function as the apologist in this debate. Please stop using words without knowing how to use them.

>My morals are quite measured and I do not follow them blindly, with faith. I quoted this because this is all you do. You make stupid and baseless attacks because you have no defense.

Watch this: "My belief in God is quite measured and I do not follow him blindly, with faith." Just because you use reason to justify things after the fact does not make the original assumption true, or any less "faithful."

You seem to have a complete lack of knowledge when it comes to moral theory and what is possible through moral theory. Sam Harris, while an interesting individual, and right about many things, is fundamentally wrong when it comes to what science can do with regard to morals. Not in the sense that his moral system is untenable, but rather in the sense that you can't get his moral system strictly through scientific study—which he claims we can. Assumptions must be made before you can even begin the study of well-being and suffering, and even more must be made in order to say that you should promote one and avoid the other.

A person's insistence on the existence of universal objective morals is best termed as a FAITH. There is no evidence of universal objective morals, and they are fundamentally unscientific entities in the same sense God is—even if we wanted to, we could never find evidence of them. At best they are commonly assumed entities—like God is for most people.

And I repeat, because you seem to think I am some sort of moral heathen, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT MORALS ARE USELESS OR THAT WE SHOULD LET PEOPLE DO WHATEVER THEY WANT BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OBJECTIVE MORALS. Your feelings about me being somehow deficient are the same feelings a religious fundamentalist would have toward both of us due to our lack of belief.

That you think a bit of pop-science is somehow "important" for me to read is laughable. If what you know of morals comes from that book, I feel sorry for you. I understand that many atheists will praise anything that comes from the "canon" writers on atheism like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, however, being a fan of someone does not make all of their work good, or even relevant. At best, Sam Harris is simply endorsing the naturalistic fallacy. At worst, he's willfully ignorant of what the naturalistic fallacy is, and simply wishes to push his view as a "counterpoint" to religious morality.

Since you so kindly left me a link to a book, allow me to do the same, by linking you to the most important books in moral theory for you to read, some of which argue directly against me, but at this point the idea is to get you educated, not to get you to agree with me:

Alisdair MacIntyre — After Virtue

Nietzsche — Beyond Good and Evil

Nietzsche — The Genealogy of Morals

Kant — Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals

Aristotle — Nicomachean Ethics

G.E. Moore — Principia Ethica

I've done my best to find the best editions of these books available (I myself usually default to the Cambridge editions of works in the history of philosophy). You may also want to check out some Peter Singer, along with Bentham and Mill, if only to know what it means to be a utilitarian. After that, read John Rawls, because he'll tell you one reason why utilitarianism is so controversial in ethical theory.

I hope to hear back from you about the results of your studies. I figure you can easily find pdfs of these books (though perhaps not the same editions I linked) somewhere online. Given about a month or two to read them all (I'm not sure how much free time you have... maybe more like three months) you should be up to speed. Hopefully I'll hear back from you after the new year. At that point, I don't expect you to agree with my view on ethics, but I at least expect you will understand it, and be able to argue your own position somewhat more effectively than you are at the moment. If nothing else, think of this as a way to learn how to "stick it" to people like me.

Maybe by then you'll have gotten beyond the whole "I'm taking my ball and going home" disposition you seem to have when confronted with someone who's better than you at debating ethics. I can only hope.

If you take ethics seriously at all, do this for yourself: study the shit out of ethical theory.

u/Phanes7 · 6 pointsr/CapitalismVSocialism

If I was going to provide someone with a list of books that best expressed my current thinking on the Political Economy these would be my top ones:

  1. The Law - While over a century old this books stands as the perfect intro to the ideas of Classical Liberalism. When you understand the core message of this book you understand why people oppose so many aspects of government action.
  2. Seeing Like A State - The idea that society can be rebuilt from the top down is well demolished in this dense but important read. The concept of Legibility was a game changer for my brain.
  3. Stubborn Attachments - This books presents a compelling philosophical argument for the importance of economic growth. It's hard to overstate how important getting the balance of economic growth vs other considerations actually is.
  4. The Breakdown of Nations - A classic text on why the trend toward "bigger" isn't a good thing. While various nits can be picked with this book I think its general thesis is holding up well in our increasingly bifurcated age.
  5. The Joy of Freedom - Lots of books, many objectively better, could have gone here but this book was my personal pivot point which sent me away from Socialism and towards capitalism. This introduction to "Libertarian Capitalism" is a bit dated now but it was powerful.

    There are, of course many more books that could go on this list. But the above list is a good sampling of my personal philosophy of political economy. It is not meant as a list of books to change your mind but simply as a list of books that are descriptive of my current belief that we should be orientated towards high (sustainable) economic growth & more decentralization.

    Some honorable mentions:

    As a self proclaimed "Libertarian Crunchy Con" I have to add The Quest for Community & Crunchy Cons

    The book The Fourth Economy fundamentally changed my professional direction in life.

    Anti-Fragile was another book full of mind blowing ideas and shifted my approach to many things.

    The End of Jobs is a great combination of The Fourth Economy & Anti-Fragile (among other concepts) into a more real-world useful set of ideas.

    Markets Not Capitalism is a powerful reminder that it is not Capitalism per se that is important but the transformational power of markets that need be unleashed.

    You will note that I left out pure economic books, this was on purpose. There are tons of good intro to econ type books and any non-trained economist should read a bunch from a bunch of different perspectives. With that said I am currently working my way through the book Choice and if it stays as good as it has started that will probably get added to my core list.

    So many more I could I list like The Left, The Right, & The State or The Problem of Political Authority and on it goes...
    I am still looking for a "manifesto" of sorts for the broad movement towards decentralization (I have a few possibilities on my 'to read list') so if you know of any that might fit that description let me know.
u/William_DuBane · 2 pointsr/conspiracy

Absolutely. Any time you want confirmation of a statement, just ask.

Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade long study how multiculturalism affects social trust. He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that–when the data were adjusted for class income and other factors–the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities “don’t trust the local mayor, they don't trust the local paper, they don't trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” writes Putnam. In the presence of such ethnic diversity, Putnam maintains that “…we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.

Even Halyard knows this is all a pile of “feel good” shit. Like a religion, it relies on persecuting those who don’t agree to keep itself mainstream thought.

After the study was released, Putnam was intimidated and harassed because he was accused of helping racists. He later came out and gave a very vague statement saying diversity “had problems but was worth it in the long run” to keep these morons appeased. This statement gives no indication of the “long run” and, in fact, is not quantified by anything.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

~:~

According to conflict theory, distrust between ethnic groups rises with diversity, but not within a group. Putnam describes people of all races and socioeconomic statuses, ages, and both sexes as “hunkering down,” avoiding engagement with their local community–both among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates–two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining interethnic group trust–more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.

u/UsernamesNeedMoreCha · 0 pointsr/conspiracy

CONTINUED.

A Harvard study done for ten years involving over 26,000 people.

Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade long study how multiculturalism affects social trust. He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that–when the data were adjusted for class income and other factors–the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities “don’t trust the local mayor, they don't trust the local paper, they don't trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” writes Putnam. In the presence of such ethnic diversity, Putnam maintains that “…we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.

Even Halyard knows this is all a pile of “feel good” shit. Like a religion, it relies on persecuting those who don’t agree to keep itself mainstream thought.

After the study was released, Putnam was intimidated and harassed because he was accused of helping racists. He later came out and gave a very vague statement saying diversity “had problems but was worth it in the long run” to keep these morons appeased. This statement gives no indication of the “long run” and, in fact, is not quantified by anything.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

~:~

According to conflict theory, distrust between ethnic groups rises with diversity, but not within a group. Putnam describes people of all races and socioeconomic statuses, ages, and both sexes as “hunkering down,” avoiding engagement with their local community–both among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates–two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining interethnic group trust–more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.

  1. Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:
  2. Lower confidence in local government, local leaders, and the local news media
  3. Lower political efficacy–that is, confidence in one’s own influence
  4. Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
  5. Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result
  6. Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g. voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage)
  7. Less likelihood of working on a community project
  8. Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering
  9. Fewer close friends and confidants
  10. Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life
  11. More time spent watching television and more agreement that “television is my most important form of entertainment”

    Putnam’s study was published in 2001. Genetic cluster analysis of the micro satellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3636 subjects, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622

    ~:~

    Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence

    Alex Rutherford, Dion Harmon, Justin Werfel, Shlomiya Bar-Yam, Alexander Gard-Murray, Andreas Gros, Yaneer Bar-Yam

    We consider the conditions of peace and violence among ethnic groups, testing a theory designed to predict the locations of violence and interventions that can promote peace. Characterizing the model’s success in predicting peace requires examples where peace prevails despite diversity. Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability, and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well-defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups. Mountains and lakes are an important part of the boundaries between sharply defined linguistic areas. Political canton and circle (sub-canton) boundaries often separate religious groups.

    Where such boundaries do not appear to be sufficient, we find that specific aspects of the population distribution either guarantee sufficient separation or sufficient mixing to inhibit intergroup violence according to the quantitative theory of conflict. In exactly one region, a porous mountain range does not adequately separate linguistic groups and violent conflict has led to the recent creation of the canton of Jura. Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence, existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but the peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world.

    Report #: NECSI 2011-10-01

    Cite as: arXiv:1110.1409v1

    More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.
    http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

    Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
    http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

    Diversity increases social adversity.
    http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

    A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
    http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

    Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

    Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

    Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
    http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

    Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

    Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.
    http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

    Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

    Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

    Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
    http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

    Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

    Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
    http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

    Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.
    https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

    Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
    https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

    Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation.
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

    Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.
    http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

    It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.
    http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

    Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.
    http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

    Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.
    http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

    States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.
    http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

    There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.
    http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n 2005-1.pdf

    >”Because I have posted fact, and you can't refute fact" - What cold hard facts were those again?

    They’re elsewhere in the thread, reposted here now.

    >My feelings definitely aren’t hurt by you in the least!

    Of course they are. That’s why you lash out at unquestionable fact.

    >I am actually over here sharing everything with my coworkers who think your freaking crazy!

    Then they’re as ignorant as you. Have them read the above and see if they’re still laughing.

    >How am I a coward again?

    You’re running away without substantiating your claims. You think that “NUH UH YOU RACIST I SAY SO LOL I WIN NOW” is an argument.

    FREE YOURSELF FROM YOUR MADNESS. Read what I have posted. Ask ANY questions you like. Give it to your coworkers; repost any of THEIR questions.

    You MUST see this. You will see it or you will be MADE to see it, and I don’t want you to be MADE to see it. You should come to it of your own volition.
u/mavnorman · 1 pointr/TrueAtheism

It depends. But I'm glad you asked, for the following suggestions might also be helpful to others.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that pointing out fallacies is an efficient way to "fight the good fight". At least, that's my impression. Please correct me when I'm wrong.

Unfortunately, almost all the evidence points to a different direction: It's usually not very effective, because those committing the fallacy usually don't care much about a logical analysis of the situation, anyway. This does also apply to non-believers. Assuming all humans process information in two ways (see Kahneman's System 1 and 2), even atheists often seem to ignore their own system 2, because it actually takes effort to use it.

However, if you're looking for resources about fallacies, any good book on logic will help. One of the best one, I've been told, is "Introduction to logic" by Gensler. You may only need the first 5 chapters, because it becomes quite technical after that. Maybe, Amazon can help find a less technical book.

If, however, you're looking to persuade people, that's a completely different story.

Here, a very common recommendation is Cialdini's "Influence". You can research its contents easily online, so there's no need to buy it. Cialdini emphasizes six common areas to get people to agree with you.

I've looked at your comment history, so here's a short overview what you may want to change to be more effective:

  • Liking: People say yes to people they like. Being offensive to believers is thus unlikely to help you make your point.
  • Scarcity: People often want they don't think is hard to get. It's thus okay to say that we as atheists may indeed by the exception. It might help to say, you understand if your opponent is unable to understand your position.
  • Authority: It helps to have bookmarks, or notes, from authorities who believers respect (typically other believers).
  • Social Proof: It helps to have notes and bookmarks about being a non-believer is on the rise, generally speaking.
  • Reciprocity: People tend to return a favor. This is hard to apply online, but it may help offline.
  • Commitment: If people commit, verbally or in writing, to an idea or goal, they are more likely to honor that commitment. It's thus worth trying to get your opponents to agree to a certain set of principles. For instance, the fight about gay marriage was won by appealing to one of the most common principles among Americans: Freedom. A simple change of words (from the "right to marry" to the "freedom to marry") made a big difference.

    Hope this helps.
u/executivesphere · 1 pointr/JordanPeterson

Straight up, you need to tell him you love him, you care about him, and that you’ll be there to support and accept him whatever he decides. You can’t control what he does, but your love and support will mean a lot to him. It’s important that you demonstrate that you’re truly willing to listen to him and understand him, rather than telling him what you think he needs to do without truly understanding what he’s going through.

A couple more things:
I noticed in one comment you doubted he could be trans because he had been sexually attracted to women in the past. This tells me you may not actually know much about the trans experience, as gender identity and sexual preference can be entirely separate from each other. (Plus, he’s still quite young and it’s possible that he hadn’t yet figured that part of himself out yet.)

If you haven’t already, you ought to read over the APA’s page on transgender people:

https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender


I also highly recommend you read one or both of these books to familiarize yourself better with trans issues and the trans experience.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199325359/
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0231157134/

(At the very least, download the free samples through the Kindle app and read through the first couple chapters.)

Also, resist the urge to make this about yourself. Im not sure why you gave details about your career, salary, and romantic life, but please don’t use those facts to guilt or shame your brother. It’s an unkind this to do and it won’t help your relationship with him. It’ll only make him feel worse.

Finally, try to understand how challenging and scary it would be to come out as trans. No one chooses to do this because it’s easy or fun. As cis straight guys, the world is kinda built for us; our experience is totally the norm. For trans people, not only are they different than 99% of the population, but they’re routinely stigmatized and ridiculed but large swathes of society. Imo, it’s pretty fucking brave to come out as trans.

Anyway, good luck, man. My little bro is also in his early 20s and struggling to figure things out. Just try be a good brother and help him move forward in a positive way 💪💪💪

u/s_all_goodman · 4 pointsr/exmormon

this is exactly what i do. don't know what i believe right now, but i do believe in tithing/some version of the law of consecration. could no longer bring myself to pay tithing to the church, but still wanted to donate to a real charity. GiveDirectly seems like about as good as it gets.

The best part is, I'm on the verge of convincing my amazing TBM spouse to agree with it. She and I read "The Life You Can Save" by Peter Singer, and it really opened her up to the idea. Really a great book, I'd encourage anyone to read it. Singer's Effective Altruism movement is essentially a secular form of the law of consecration.

Just in case anyone is in a remotely-similar situation, here are the points I made in our conversation after we had both read the book:

  • The church only donates $40 mil per year in humanitarian work, which is abysmal for a church that brings in at least $5-7 BIL in tithing

  • The Church has no measurement of the impact of their humanitarian work, it's all outputs (i.e you can't tell how much good your donations actually do)

  • They spend much of their money on malls, for profit businesses, and expensive real estate. We are vegetarians (sometimes vegans, but not always), and she was really sad to learn the church owns one of the largest cattle ranches in the US, as well as for-profit hunting preserves. Why spend our money on things we don't support?

  • They are not transparent in their use of tithing funds, which is contrary to the D&C's "common consent" requirement

  • Singer talks about considering "Room for Growth" when choosing where to donate, i.e. is this charity maxed out with donations, or could they still put them to good use? Even though my TBM wife believes that much of what the church does is helpful, i.e. printing and distributing BoMs, I argued that if they can afford to build mega malls with tithing money, they probably don't need our $ to print more BoMs. Therefore, our money would go farther with GiveDirectly than by donating to the church.
u/naraburns · 6 pointsr/TheMotte

Well, the all-caps titles here are panel titles, the names quoted are panelists and the stuff quoted after their names are generally presentations or, at best, working paper titles. A lot of it probably doesn't exist anymore, outside the pages of these programs. I don't know where you could find an archive of these programs outside of the personal files of people who attended these things, except perhaps in a special collections department somewhere or maybe the NWSA archives. University libraries are gold mines but finding out what they even have can be tricky, and getting access to it can, too.

The books are a bit easier, often they are available on Amazon. Marxism and the Oppression of Women is still in print, as is The Proper Lady and the Woman Writer. Patriarchal Precedents is not, and so you can guess that it shows up less in the gender studies curriculum today.

I personally would be very interested in minutes from the panel entitled "BUILDING FEMINIST THEORY," since it was a discussion including Sandra Harding (now at UCLA), Mary O'Brien (who founded the Feminist Party of Canada), and Nancy Hartsock (who authored a book subtitled Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism), and they were talking about

> how feminist theory should reconstitute progressive politics in general--not just "women's issues"--while also transcending the limitations of Marxism.

There's just so much to unpack there--obviously it's pretty silly to aim at "transcending the limits" of Marxism if one does not feel limited by it, and one would not feel limited by it were one not a somewhat conscientious adherent! And indeed feminist theory has in many ways reconstituted progressive politics in general since the 1980s. So it's very, very frustrating to me when people make these sweeping claims about what is or is not "influential" as if they have any real idea where ideological trends come from. Almost everything we think is the result of someone making a concerted effort to get lots of people to think that thing, but it is usually someone who has long since been forgotten (or memory-holed), and it is almost always an irrelevant academic before it is a politician who gets their name put into the books. Maybe it has always been thus; I sometimes wonder if we would be quite so cognizant of Aristotle, had there not been an Alexander the Great.

Anyway, I am rambling. If you have a particular thing you're looking for, pay a visit to a quality university library--state libraries might do in a pinch, but universities are the real repositories of knowledge. Inter-library loan is a researcher's best friend, second only to a good special collections librarian. Amazon is sometimes helpful also, though certain texts have gotten remarkable pricey over the years, I've found!

u/anon338 · 2 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Awesome, let me hook you up:

Murray N. Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty, the indepth treatise on liberty in a society without the State. And the audiobook.

Chaos Theory by Robert P. Murphy (Audio). Shorter work on the principles of liberty and expands on the economic aspects.

Anarcho-capitalism Primer videos playlist. There are about 4 or 5 shorter than 10 minutes for you to chill. And there are the in-depth, one-hour lectures for when you are in between the books.

Rothbard's For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. Rothbard poured a lifetime of research and all his intellectual energy to makes an overwhelming case on most matters of social concerns to explain society without the Nation-state (Audiobook).

The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (e-book) and (audiobook). Friedman uses economics and utilitarian concerns to discuss how society would improve with liberty and without the State.

The Market for Liberty by Morris and Linda Tannehill (audiobook.) Excellent and very argumentative, with many interesting illustrations and discussions on several topics of society and economics.

Huemer's Problem of Political Authority. It is a work on political and moral philosophy, with some treatment of psychology.

Leeson's Anarchy Unbound. Peter Leeson is a legal scholar and his work documents historical and contemporary legal practices and teachings and how they apply to a society of liberty.

Christopher Chase Rachels' A Spontaneous Order. Inspired by the work of Hans-Hermann Hoppe on argumentation ethics as an ultimate foundation for liberty. First five chapters available as audio.

For a more complete list see Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

When you read one of them, I suggest for you to write up a short post on your favourite subjects. It is a great way way to have productive discussions. Don't forget to tag me ( /u/anon338 ) so that I can enjoy it also.

u/phylogenik · 1 pointr/rational

My usual "recipe" for conversations is:

  1. start with observational humor on environmental banalities (weather, pop culture, interesting buildings/statues, recent festivals, etc.) and explore basic biographical details (where are you from, have you lived here long, etc.)

  2. eventually pivot to FORD (family, occupation, recreation, dreams), which can easily fill a few dozen hours

    2.5) actively listen to your conversation partner in addition to thinking about what to say next, e.g. split your attentions 65/25, respectively. Ask them questions about the stories they tell, but if your question is too much of a digression keep it in mind for later (earlier you mentioned X, I think Y, what do you think of Z?)

    2.75) have a bunch of relevant stories of your own in your back pocket that you can retrieve at a moment's notice, but beware one-upmanship; instead, seek to find or build common ground. Helpful to have explored lots of hobbies yourself here

  3. you mentioned grad school -- people usually study stuff they're interested in, so dredge up relevant memories of old articles you've read and questions you had while reading them, and have them clarify tricky concepts for you. If you're not quite right it's just all the more opportunity for them to swoop in and show off, and at least signals your interest in whatever subject they're studying

  4. another poster mentioned lists of questions -- I actually think these can be useful conversational aids! But don't, like, memorize the questions and completely break the flow of conversation asking one. Maybe during a quiet moment when all prior conversation threads have terminated you can pop in with a random "what's your favorite dinosaur" (and why?), but otherwise I've found these best for e.g. long drives together. Also, the linked questions maybe aren't the best -- I'd recommend getting one of these (personal faves have been Greg Stock's books, and I think I've tried most at this point; something like this also works). Each question has usually afforded around half an hour of conversation, though some took us a few hours and some a few minutes. Also, these are great for building a relationship off an existing foundation, which is to say that I've only ever tried the books of questions thing after I'd already talked to the person “organically” for 50-100 hours. But collectively they've probably given me many hundreds, if not thousands of hours of conversation, so I wouldn't be so quick to discount them!

  5. bring it back to local entertainment -- listen to a podcast or audiobook together or watch a movie or documentary and pause to discuss points
u/Transgender_AMA · 64 pointsr/science

Hello! Cei here. Thank you for your question and for your willingness to learn and grow for your community!
Question 1.a. If you are providing a space (a group, a confirmation class, a retreat, a bible study, a weekly potluck, a movie night, etc) for these young people to be themselves- to use they name they choose, to use the pronouns that fit for them, and to create norms where the other youth in the space must be respectful of these identities- then you are creating a safe space for the youth to go through the process of self-actualization in their identity. Ideally the church congregation would also be asked to affirm these youth in their identity. Depending on your comfort level, you could address the congregation and explain that you would like the church to be a sacred and safe space for all, and that in the interest of achieving this goal, you would ask them to respect names, pronouns, and gender expressions of all congregation members. b. One of the best ways to advocate for young people to their parents is to explain that the young person is happy, responding well, and thriving in environments where they are allowed to be themselves. If you have a young person who comes to your group/bible study/etc. who is using the name they choose, the pronouns that fit their identity, and is affirmed by the group around them and they are thriving, tell the young person's parents so. It may be that at home the parents see a kid who is struggling and sad and they are scared that being gender diverse will make things harder for their already unhappy child. To show that gender affirmation can radically improve a kid's quality of life is often the best motivator for parents to adopt affirming language.

2. Here are links to a few resources that we've found helpful over the years: Trans Bodies, Trans Selves, The Transgender Teen, The Genderquest Workbook, Confi's Article on Gender, Families In TRANSition.

I hope this helps, and thanks again for advocating for the gender diverse people at your church!

u/Scrivver · 1 pointr/Firearms

There are a lot of very simplistic points made for and against the positions presented by the libertarian/anarchistic intellectual traditions, and internet comments especially can devolve very quickly. Some people who've taken the time to research the arguments related their own questions or opinions about anarchy have sophisticated responses against steel-manned positions, but the majority are radically oversimplified and woefully short of awareness just like this. It's disheartening to spend so much effort to find out where exactly you stand in a political sense, and find that there appear to be legions of people continuously washing up against you who, though they might claim rationality, are perfectly content to drop an opinion as a decisive conclusion into a soundbyte space with no real argument. And this applies to the person you're speaking to above, not just you. It's just a really poor exchange. I'll see what I can do to help in this case, and maybe something interesting will happen.

To be very up-front, I would also describe myself as an anarchist. I came to that conclusion first by exposure to powerful moral arguments that required no acceptance of any special moral theories, but simply pitted my own morality against my belief in the political authority of the State and exposed total conflict. However, half the anarchists I've met didn't come by this approach, but by pragmatism instead. I would say that approach occupies most of the anarchist literature out there, being things like legal theory, game theory, economics, solutions to public goods problems, market failures, basically a consequentialist's playground. The reason for this is probably that a lot of folks demand quite a complete and detailed explanation for most facets of a theorized anarchist society where today they can only imagine coercive (State) solutions to the same problems. Since both of the above comments appear to be approaching from a pragmatic perspective, that's the kind of resource I'll be providing.

The claim in question is one of the most common refrains first uttered in response to the idea of a stateless society. "Without government, warlords would take over." Luckily for anyone interested in that claim here, it is also addressed in most places where people bother to ask about it. I'll present some of the shorter resources, and one or two longer ones, and then at the end I'll even contribute a tidbit of my own thoughts on the matter, which take a little bit of a different angle.

The most direct address is an article by Dr. Robert P. Murphy (economist) which you can find in written form here, or as a 12-minute narrated audio upload which someone has posted here. It doesn't take long to get through, and I don't need to reproduce its arguments here. I'm interested to hear what you think of it.

Edit: I also realize that in the article above, Murphy mentions some concepts which are common to discussions of polycentric (stateless) legal systems, but not common outside it. Things like private defense and arbitration agencies. While these too are discussed in the link below, to help provide context for anyone who feels a little confused with the above, there are some great youtube videos that give a quick introduction to these as well. The Machinery of Freedom: Illustrated Summary and Law Without Government. Hopefully this doesn't muddy the discussion, but provides some useful context if something was missed in the above article.

Further resources that cover the "warlord" question, though with the greater context of a detailed surrounding system, would include the freely available 2nd edition or Amazon-purchasable 3rd edition of The Machinery of Freedom by economist David Friedman (Milton Friedman's son). I would consider his discussions of stability questions certainly related to that, though he presents things in terms of a Mafia-like setup, and the concerns given his particular premises are not exactly the same.

I think you'd also find Chase Rachels' chapters about Law & Order and Defense & Security from A Spontaneous Order relevant as well -- you might even skip the rather boring and rigorous argumentation ethics the book leads with to get to that spot.

And I think that's more than good for a starter. Now my own tidbit. Please read/listen to the first article I linked before moving on here.

Something I think all of these guys miss even in their own objections is the public's idea of the belief in political authority. Were we to assume that a given -- let's say "Western" -- society actually opted for a truly stateless existence (whether an existing one "transitioned" or a new one was created, like a seastead community), it stands to reason that the people comprising it would have given up any belief in the legitimacy of political authority. If they hadn't, there's no reason they would've gone anarchist in the first place instead of just replacing one government with another. And if they did actually go through all the trouble to rid themselves of a State, and they indeed did not tolerate claims of political authority on that scale, there's no reason to assume they will turn right around and tolerate it on the local scale either. "Warlords" here, like kings and barons, need people to actually believe they have a right to do what they do in order to maintain any kind of power base. It's unclear why a people who disbelieve in this right of rulership would listen to them in the first place, much less tolerate them when they would not tolerate a modern State. This is my same argument against another common question: "If you eliminated the state, wouldn't a new one simply rise in its place?" or "Wouldn't a corporation just turn into a state?", etc.

If you assume a simple disbelief in political authority, a necessary precursor, for a people who were not already degenerating into moral barbarism (in which case a state comprised of those people doesn't help anyway, as Somalia had before it ripped itself apart), then the re-emergence of States on any scale doesn't seem likely to me, including that of the local warlord.

u/Sherbert42 · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

As /u/FreeHumanity has pointed out below, it makes it easier for us to help you if we know what you're interested in.

However, these are a couple of books on my bookshelf that I find interesting and are mentioned on here quite often:

The Pig that Wants to be Eaten, by Julian Baggin. It's 100 ethics-related thought experiments, laid out in a very easy-to-read way. Amazon link here.

If you're interested in something a little more academic and a little more comprehensive, The History of Western Philosophy, by Bertrand Russell, is one of the best one-volume histories of philosophy around. You have to be a little bit careful with him, though--he tends to put his own ideas about the philosophers into his text :) Again, Amazon link here.

If you would like more specialised help, please do clarify what your interests are so that we can recommend books, youtube clips, or other things that are tailored to your interests :)

Hope that helps :)

u/George_Rockwell · 1 pointr/The_Donald

> We build section 8 homes and they simply produce more crime in good neighborhoods.

Much like how a nation is not created by its land or borders, but the people with a shared heritage and culture who inhabit it, it's not the section 8 homes: it's the people living in them.

And this is where I diverge with the rest of /r/the_donald, so please excuse me.

You'll also notice that the crime in Chicago, like anywhere else, heavily corresponds with race. I can't access sources right now, but if you removed non-whites from Chicago, something like 90% of murders would disappear overnight. Being a minority of the population, yet committing a super majority of violent crime, is damning to say the least.

Oh btw I actually did find some source material in my comment history you may find interesting:

Humans can be genetically categorized into five racial groups, corresponding to traditional races.
http://pritchardlab.stanford.edu/publications/pdfs/RosenbergEtAl02.pdf

Genetic analysis "supports the traditional racial groups classification."
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

"Human genetic variation is geographically structured" and corresponds with race.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15508000

Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622

Oral bacteria can be used to determine race.
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-oral-bacteria-fingerprint-mouth.html

Race can be determined via brain scans.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)00671-5

96-97% of whites have no African ancestry.
http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/02/how_mixed_are_african_americans.3.html

97% of Whites have no black ancestry whatsoever.
http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/

There was "minimal gene flow" between archaic Europeans and Asians.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html

Common-sense racial categories have biological meaning.
http://www.ln.edu.hk/philoso/staff/sesardic/Race2.pdf

Human intelligence is highly heritable.
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/abs/mp201185a.html

Scientific consensus is that IQ tests are not racially biased.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000305

Very poor Whites are comparably intelligent to very wealthy blacks.
http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

Privately, intelligence experts hold more hereditarian views than they express in public.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1994egalitarianfiction.pdf

Black children raised in White households have similar IQs to black children in black households.
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1977-07996-001

The average African IQ is estimated at 79.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912003741

The average African-American IQ is 85, compared to the average White IQ of 100.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf

The white-black gap in SAT scores, a proxy for IQ, is increasing.
http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

Genes for large brains, linked to high IQ, are common everywhere except Africa.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB115040765329081636

Intelligence has a 40-50% genetic basis.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/10/news/la-heb-genetic-study-intelligence-20110809

IQ scores are the best predictor of success in Western society.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

IQ is 75% heritable among Whites.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.
http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity increases social adversity.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.
https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.
http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n 2005-1.pdf

To be clear, this is a defense of ethnic homogeneity. Doesn't have to mean "100% this or that people", but striving for it shouldn't be a crime. In fact it's the natural state of things imo

edit: also it seems several of these are dead links. I apologize. I really need to update this list...

u/LegitCatholic · 24 pointsr/Catholicism

Some responses and questions for your thoughts here (thanks for being thorough, by the way):

You say:

> 1) The polarization of society shows that… moral standards are being strengthened rather than lowered.

> a) To say that [moral standards] are lower because they are not Catholic is to [claim that the] Church [is] right because it says it is right, not because it is [demonstrable.]

I say:

First, “polarization of society” does not equal a “strengthening” of Catholic moral standards. Just because two groups hold competing and increasingly hostile views does not mean that either of those groups hold to the fullness of any particular moral standard, let alone Catholic ones.

As an aside, I’d also be interested in what you mean by “polarization of society.” Which society? What kind of moral structure do these two polarities adhere to? Are there really only two dominant competing moral theories that exist?

Second, how would you suggest we demonstrate the superiority of a particular moral position in a way that is intelligible to those who lack the moral language or conceptual framework to grasp it? Alasdair MacIntyre writes about this problem in the important work After Virtue—one cannot simply “demonstrate” the superiority of a moral position because we do not have a common lexicon in which to understand these positions.

I mention this because saying something is “not Catholic, and therefore not right” seems to me a very valid way of expressing one’s moral perspective. It doesn’t “prove” anything, but it encapsulates a moral position succinctly and objectively, something more than most modes of modern moral theory can muster. (I had to keep my m’s going there.)

You say:

> 2) In the 50’s and 60’s Kinsey found that 50% of married men had cheated on their spouses. In 1990 Lauman discovered the number to be 25%, and another report by Treas in 200 showed the number of people who had cheated to be 11%, which shows a decline in infidelity over that period.

I say:

These statistics do not account for the rise of internet pornography, ease of access to said pornography, and certainly doesn’t reflect the actual state of affairs (excuse the pun) between men and women today versus 60 years ago.

As for the first point regarding pornography: “Infidelity” is an amorphous moral term, because it always references how we conceptualize “fidelity”. Does a man remain faithful to his wife if he doesn’t sleep with another woman, but masturbates to pornography in the confines of marriage? As the taboo against porn has waned, so has the increase of its consumption (an easily searchable statistic.) It has become easier and “safer” to satisfy extramarital sexual desire through the use of the internet, so it follows that the more “risky investment” of an affair would fall.

Finally, the statistics you mentioned, especially Kinsey, cannot account for the actual occurrence of infidelity. Most are already aware of Kinsey’s methodological problems, and of course the very nature of infidelity is one that is shrouded in deceit.

Therefore, it isn’t helpful to use statistics surrounding infidelity and illegitimacy when discussing morals unless: 1) there is an agreed upon understanding of what constitutes infidelity and 2) there are a number of more reports regarding infidelity with varying methodologies that might be compared.

You say:

> 3) …even though they are not married, [couples with children are] still performing the same roles as if they were married

I say

This isn’t relevant to the thesis that “love, marriage, sex and procreation are all things that belong together” for the simple reason that, even if marital “roles” are established, the sacrament of marriage, which is an essential component of a “right” moral structure (as it relates to the identity of the human person, which relates to the identity of God, which relates to the ultimate happiness of the human person) is deemed unnecessary. This deeming rejects a sacramental word-view, which in turns rejects the foundation of Catholic moral theory (again, as it pertains to human flourishing in relation to the Sacred/Divine).

You say

> 4) “…with the expansion of women’s rights we are… objectifying women less than when Humanae Vitae was written.”

I say

As you mentioned, this is your opinion, and one I can appreciate—but disagree with. I agree with you that this is a “touchy” subject primarily because we haven’t done a good job defining what it means to “objectify” the human person. I think it’s clear this kind of objectification has always been present in human history, but I also think it’s clear that it has grown worse in the 20th century moving forward. Simply look at the “adult entertainment” industry for proof of this: There is literally a multi-billion dollar industry that revolves around turning the bodies of men and women into consumable objects. Not to mention the sex-trafficking industry is operating at an all-time high and demand is ever-growing. These kinds of industries have always existed, to be sure, but never before on such a massive scale and with so much tacit support from the general population.

You say

> 5) “Government coercion in reproductive matters [seem] hardly tied to expansion [of] birth control…children are expensive and as society becomes more consumeristic… people would rather spend their money on more things rather than more children.”

I say

Two things: First, I agree that people would rather spend their money on things than children. This fact supports the thesis that birth control has a corrupting and constricting effect on the morality of a nation, not a liberating one. Orienting people’s desires towards products rather than people is a commonly mentioned moral transgression, in and outside of a Christian ethical schema.

Second, it’s hard to prove “government coercion” when it comes to the expansion of birth control. In fact, countries like Japan are now having to encourage that their citizens not use birth control because of the devastating effect of population decline on the economy. But when the aforementioned consumeristic ideology has taken root even in the minds of those who control government, it’s clear to see why dispensing contraceptives becomes a priority, even to the point of elevating them to the status of a “woman’s health product.”

Finally:

I think that your conclusion that “the prophecies of Humanae Vitae did not come true” is unsubstantiated and, perhaps more unfortunately, a misunderstanding of a component of the document’s argument. The idea that “increased birth control is an effect and not a cause of the shift in moral standards” glosses over the reality that moral standards are tied to material changes. The advent and widespread dissemination of artificial birth control was a catalyst, not an effect for the growth for the already-present disordered sexual ethos found natively in virtually every culture.

u/Mauss22 · 4 pointsr/askphilosophy

On my way out, but briefly.

One option is to just power through, mindful of the limits. It'll help to familiarize yourself with the notation, even if the details are difficult to follow. You'll be required to take some formal logic for your program. But if you're looking to get ahead of the game, there are some online resources that may be useful. I compile some of those resources here. Quoting that:

>Free, general logic resources: Stanford's Intro to logic and Mathematical Thinking- w/ Free online tools for completing exercises; Paul Teller's Modern formal logic primer - w/ free tools for completing exercises; Peter Smith’s Teach Yourself Logic and other materials, like his reading guide; Katarzyna Paprzycka Logic Self-Taught - w/ free workbook; J. Ehrlich's "Carnap Book" - w/ free exercises & tools; Open Logic Project - and List of other open/free sources.
>
>Not Free: Gensler's Introduction to Logic, Howard Pospesel's Introductions to Formal Logic (prop and pred). [Karen Howe's has her logic stuff online using Pospesel's books.]
>
>Common Symbols: here
>
>Lists of Rules of Inference: here, here, here, here

Routledge has a guide to the Tractatus that could be helpful. Anscombe's guide has a glossary with some of the common symbols. I haven't watched, but there's this lecture video on YouTube re logic in the T.. hope that helps

u/Khatinc · 3 pointsr/asktransgender

there's kinda two spectrums of beliefs on what is trans. some people adhere to social construction theories to explain trans stuff. some people adhere to peer-reviewed scientific research to explain things. i prefer the later, so i'd suggest searching this sub for research as well as reading the papers off pubmed. here's a nice overview of concepts from harvard: Between the (Gender) Lines: the Science of Transgender Identity. i also like the center of excellence for transgender health care as well as the world professional association for transgender health's standards of care document.. there's also an excellent book available called trans bodies, trans selves on amazon that covers a huge amount of information from the perspective of trans people. i really like this book a lot as it gives a very human touch to us as well as attempts to cover the vast diversity of the transgender experience. lots of people are given a voice in this book and it is very beautifully written. honestly, this is where i'd start with us.

the transgender community is incredibly diverse and it really is one of the best parts of being a part of the community.

u/Salivon · 4 pointsr/unpopularopinion

To quote someone else in this thread.
> Facts don't care about your feelings

I'm glad you agree.

> Who told you it was a lie...?

Reality, common sense, and mountains of data.
__
> More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.

>Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
____

>Diversity increases social adversity.

> A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
__
>Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
_
>Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
____
>Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
____

>Ethnic diversity harms health for Hispanics and Blacks.

>Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
____

>Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.

>Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
____
>Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.

> Ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
__

> In America, more diverse cities have more segregation.


>Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.


>States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.


>There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.


>Borders, not multiculturalism, reduce intergroup violence.


>Diversity reduces charity and volunteering.


>People who live in diverse communities rather than homogenous ones are poorer and less educated.


>Black people trust their neighbors less than do White people.


>Spanish speakers trust their neighbors less than do English speakers.


>Asians trust their neighbors less than do White people.


>Ethnically diverse workplaces have lower cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover.


>Ethnic diversity reduces social trust.


>Ethnic diversity among members of the same race reduces infrastructure quality, charity, and loan repayment.
__

>Diversity of any sort makes people more likely to defect in game theoretic scenarios.
__

>Homogeneous military units have less desertion than diverse units.


>Diversity correlates with low GDP.
____

>Ethnic homogeneity correlates with strong democracy.
__

>Genetic diversity causes societal conflict.
__

>Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion.


>Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.


>Babies demonstrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-Whites.
_

>Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
____

>Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.


>Ethnocentrism is biological in origin and a superior evolutionary strategy to altruism.
__

>Humans are more altruistic to individuals who they are more closely related to.


>People subconsciously prefer those who are genetically similar to them for biologically rational reasons.


>Kinship between members of an ethnic group is greater than expected.


>Social trust is negatively affected by ethnic diversity: Case study in Denmark from 1979 to the present.


>Ethnic homogeneity and Protestant traditions positively impact individual and societal levels of social trust.


>“In longitudinal perspective, [across European regions], an increase in immigration is related to a decrease in social trust.”


>Immigration undermines the moral imperative of those who most favor welfare benefits for the neediest.


>The negative effect of community diversity on social cohesion is likely causal.


>In Switzerland, social peace between diverse factions isn’t maintained by integrated coexistence, but rather by strong topographic and political borders that separate groups and allow them autonomy.


>Increasing social pluralism (diversity) is correlated with increased chance of collective violence.
____


>In Germany, residential diversity reduces natives’ trust in neighbors, while it also reduces immigrants’ trust but through a different pathway.
_


>“Ethnic heterogeneity [diversity] explains 55% of the variation in the scale of ethnic conflicts, and the results of regression analysis disclose that the same relationship applies to all 187 countries."
__

>Genetic Similarity Theory (GST) could help explain why diverse groups in close proximity increases ethnic conflict and ethnic nepotism.
__

>Genetic diversity has contributed significantly to frequency of ethnic civil conflict, intensity of social unrest, growth of unshared policy preferences, and economic inequality over the last half-century.


>Using social science data and computer modeling, researchers found that policies that attempt to create neighborhoods that are both integrated and socially cohesive are “a lost cause”.


>The numbers and the genetic distance matter. Minority groups that get above a certain critical mass, and that are culturally distant from the majority culture, begin to self-segregate from the majority, moving society toward division and away from cooperation.


>School integration (forced proximate diversity) will not close race achievement gaps.


>As diversity increases, politics becomes more tribalistic.
_

>Company diversity policies don’t help minorities or women, and they psychologically discriminate against White men.
__


>Greater classroom and neighborhood diversity is linked to stronger tendencies to choose same-ethnic rather than cross-ethnic friends.


u/mrzackbot · 19 pointsr/personalfinance

Adding to that, if you have utilitarian-leaning tendencies, you may want to consider researching effective altruism. In a nutshell, it suggests that when attempting to do good for the world that you should take an evidence-based approach. So rather than donating to a charity because it sounds nice and tugs at your heartstrings, you should figure which (possibly unsexy) organizations are doing the most good. It's very possible for a charity to have a high Charity Navigator rating because its administrative overhead is very low while the actual charity work it does is ineffective.

Relevant organizations/resources:

u/Abraamus · 9 pointsr/unpopularopinion

> Facts don't care about your feelings

I'm glad you agree.

> Who told you it was a lie...?

Reality, common sense, and mountains of data.
__
> More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.

>Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
____

>Diversity increases social adversity.

> A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
__
>Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
_
>Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
____
>Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
____

>Ethnic diversity harms health for Hispanics and Blacks.

>Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
____

>Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.

>Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
____
>Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.

> Ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
__

> In America, more diverse cities have more segregation.


>Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.


>States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.


>There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.


>Borders, not multiculturalism, reduce intergroup violence.


>Diversity reduces charity and volunteering.


>People who live in diverse communities rather than homogenous ones are poorer and less educated.


>Black people trust their neighbors less than do White people.


>Spanish speakers trust their neighbors less than do English speakers.


>Asians trust their neighbors less than do White people.


>Ethnically diverse workplaces have lower cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover.


>Ethnic diversity reduces social trust.


>Ethnic diversity among members of the same race reduces infrastructure quality, charity, and loan repayment.
__

>Diversity of any sort makes people more likely to defect in game theoretic scenarios.
__

>Homogeneous military units have less desertion than diverse units.


>Diversity correlates with low GDP.
____

>Ethnic homogeneity correlates with strong democracy.
__

>Genetic diversity causes societal conflict.
__

>Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion.


>Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.


>Babies demonstrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-Whites.
_

>Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
____

>Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.


>Ethnocentrism is biological in origin and a superior evolutionary strategy to altruism.
__

>Humans are more altruistic to individuals who they are more closely related to.


>People subconsciously prefer those who are genetically similar to them for biologically rational reasons.


>Kinship between members of an ethnic group is greater than expected.


>Social trust is negatively affected by ethnic diversity: Case study in Denmark from 1979 to the present.


>Ethnic homogeneity and Protestant traditions positively impact individual and societal levels of social trust.


>“In longitudinal perspective, [across European regions], an increase in immigration is related to a decrease in social trust.”


>Immigration undermines the moral imperative of those who most favor welfare benefits for the neediest.


>The negative effect of community diversity on social cohesion is likely causal.


>In Switzerland, social peace between diverse factions isn’t maintained by integrated coexistence, but rather by strong topographic and political borders that separate groups and allow them autonomy.


>Increasing social pluralism (diversity) is correlated with increased chance of collective violence.
____


>In Germany, residential diversity reduces natives’ trust in neighbors, while it also reduces immigrants’ trust but through a different pathway.
_


>“Ethnic heterogeneity [diversity] explains 55% of the variation in the scale of ethnic conflicts, and the results of regression analysis disclose that the same relationship applies to all 187 countries."
__

>Genetic Similarity Theory (GST) could help explain why diverse groups in close proximity increases ethnic conflict and ethnic nepotism.
__

>Genetic diversity has contributed significantly to frequency of ethnic civil conflict, intensity of social unrest, growth of unshared policy preferences, and economic inequality over the last half-century.


>Using social science data and computer modeling, researchers found that policies that attempt to create neighborhoods that are both integrated and socially cohesive are “a lost cause”.


>The numbers and the genetic distance matter. Minority groups that get above a certain critical mass, and that are culturally distant from the majority culture, begin to self-segregate from the majority, moving society toward division and away from cooperation.


>School integration (forced proximate diversity) will not close race achievement gaps.


>As diversity increases, politics becomes more tribalistic.
_

>Company diversity policies don’t help minorities or women, and they psychologically discriminate against White men.
__

>Greater classroom and neighborhood diversity is linked to stronger tendencies to choose same-ethnic rather than cross-ethnic friends.
_


There's even more where that came from, but you should probably just take the L and move on.

(edit:Fixed some dead links, will fix the rest later. There's already more than enough there to discredit the baseless "diversity is our strength" neomarxist dogma though.)

u/newfacer · 1 pointr/asktransgender

Essay time! This and this are kind of like the primer essays for 'so you're questioning, now what'. They answer a lot of questions about the experience of gender dysphoria and how it is through someone's life as well as help to reframe the situation in various ways, would strongly recommend.

Books wise, I know Whipping Girl gets recced around a lot - whether you're MtF or FtM, it has a lot to offer and is pretty good. Gender Outlaws is another great read that is pretty current / up to date in terms of what it offers and has a ton of perspectives on the situation that you might find handy. I would also highly recommend Trans Bodies, Trans Selves as a great resource to pursue.

Edit: Couple more! Check out The Genderbread Person for a quick handy look at the different ways to think about gender identity and what it means, and if that interests you then you might also be interested in the accompanying book, Guide to Gender.

u/SDBP · 6 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

I'd start by questioning the notion of political authority. There is a range of activities which the state does that we'd condemn a private agent or entity if they did those things. So the question is: what accounts of this authority are there, and do they actually justify our holding governments to different ethical standards as non-governmental entities? (These accounts will typically be appeals to things like social contracts and democracy.) The anarcho-capitalist answer is oftentimes: these accounts fail to justify political authority.

This alone doesn't get you to anarcho-capitalism. You'll need a couple more things. Firstly, you'll need some sort of account of how an anarcho-capitalist society will provide the services or features that seem necessary for any acceptably functioning society. These are typically things like settling disputes (courts?), including tricky disputes regarding certain kinds of externalities, rights protection (police? military?), and, if you are so inclined, perhaps some kind of social justice. Secondly, since anarcho-capitalism is capitalistic, then one will probably need some sort of defense of private property rights as well. (If you already accept private property, then this might not be necessary. But those who are suspicious of it will probably want some sort of account of it, probably for similar reasons that we desire an account of political authority from the state.)

If each of these notions hold up (1 - political authority doesn't exist; 2 - private institutions can provide the services and features required for an acceptably decent society; 3 - private property is just), then you have a pretty good general case for anarcho-capitalism.

As for suggested reading regarding each of these points...

  • The Problem of Political Authority, by Michael Huemer. This one attempts to debunk political authority and provides a rough account of how an anarcho-capitalist society might provide for things like dispute resolution and the defense of individual rights.
  • The Machinery of Freedom, by David Friedman. While this provides an account of private property, I think the real virtue of this book is its ability to showcase capitalistic solutions to what we typically consider the domain of government action. (Again, things like providing law -- resolving disputes --, providing defense, education, etc.)
  • Anarchy, State, and Utopia, by Robert Nozick. While Nozick is no anarchist, he is a libertarian, and he developed an account of property entitlement that has been fairly influential, called The Entitlement Theory. While I'm not a strict adherent of this theory, it does seem to capture and explain a very wide variety of basic ethical intuitions regarding property rights.

    On the other hand, a good argument against anarcho-capitalism will probably hit on the negations of these points. It will attempt to establish political authority, or show anarcho-capitalist solutions to be highly impractical and improbable, or debunk private property, or something of this sort. Hopefully that helps lay out a sort of structure with which to analyze anarcho-capitalism with.
u/TychoCelchuuu · 6 pointsr/askphilosophy

If money can buy you happiness, them presumably one is not choosing money rather than happiness. Instead, one is choosing more happiness over less happiness.

I can't think of any philosopher who has ever argued that it makes more sense to get money than to be happy, except for the ones who have argued that one has a duty to help others as much as possible, which entails earning lots of money and donating it to charity. See here and here for details. Apart from that though, the choice seems pretty easy: happiness, because money is only useful as a means to some other end, whereas happiness is an end in itself.

u/wordboyhere · 1 pointr/philosophy

>I am the first to say that libertarian authors have frequently relied upon controversial philosophical assumptions in deriving their political conclusions. Ayn Rand, for example, thought that capitalism could only be successfully defended by appeal to ethical egoism, the theory according to which the right action for anyone in any circumstance is always the most selfish action. Robert Nozick is widely read as basing his libertarianism on an absolutist conception of individual rights, according to which an individual's property rights and rights to be free from coercion can never be outweighed by any social consequences. Jan Narveson relies on a metaethical theory according to which the correct moral principles are determined by a hypothetical social contract. Because of the controversial nature of these ethical or metaethical theories, most readers find the libertarian arguments based on them easy to reject.

>It is important to observe, then, that I have appealed to nothing so controversial in my own reasoning. In fact, I reject all three of the foundations for libertarianism mentioned in the preceding paragraph. I reject egoism, since I believe that individuals have substantial obligations to take into account the interests of others. I reject ethical absolutism, since I believe an individual's rights may be overridden by sufficiently important needs of others. And I reject all forms of social contract theory, since I believe the social contract is a myth with no moral relevance for us...

~ Huemer from Problem of Political Authority. (The book argues in favor of anarcho-capitalism, but will also give you a strong foundation for minarchism)

His moral philosophy is intuitionism. I also highly suggest his other book Ethical Intuitionism - it's a great intro to metaethics and spurred my interest in philosophy to begin with.

If you can't afford either, he has some chapters over at his faculty page.

It asserts a moral realist position (objective moral facts) on the basis of our intuitions - essentially common sense morality (see: GE Moore, and WD Ross). It is a respectable academic philosophy (as opposed to Objectivism) and has recently seen a resurgence.

Here is a good summary of what Huemer's approach lends itself to

u/Rope_Dragon · 3 pointsr/samharris

>And I don't pretend that I have anything more than a populist's understanding of these topics. I'm surely just scraping the surface of most topics, misunderstanding things, and I would never think I can be part of an academic conversation because I listen to a couple podcasts.

And I respect you understanding your own ignorance in a topic, because that shows intelligence. Philosophy, interestingly, is the subject that most makes me feel more stupid the more I've studied it, so you're definitely not alone! That being said, many people from the new atheist / "skeptic" community act like this gem

>Yeah, I just say "this is interesting, I'd even like to talk about it with strangers", but I acknowledge the second part of your sentence and am OK realizing my understanding is often limited and quite possibly wrong.


And I think you should use that understanding as motivation to maybe go directly to the sources that these podcasts engage with :) Philosophy is a subject with so many fantastic, but extremely accurate introductory books and I go back to them every now and then to refresh myself on the basics. My favorite example is Prof Simon Blackburn's - Think and another really good piece which goes into a lot of informal logic as well as the jargon: The Philosopher's Toolkit

I find both of those to give an excellent simplification of some of the bigger elements of philosophy without overstretching and misrepresenting their subject matter! :)

u/AdmiralJackbar · 2 pointsr/philosophy

If you are interested in learning philosophy then, ostensibly, you already have some big questions floating around up there. Ask yourself what interests you. Language? Ethics? Epistemology? I would first familiarize myself with some basics here and here but then from there, you should just start digging in.

Now, some authors will be inaccessible if you don't have a firm grasp of the historical tradition of philosophy cough Heidegger cough but you can do just fine with others.

Plato is fine to start with but if you really want to be captivated and excited, you have to start with Nietzsche. He is implicitly answering philosophers like Plato and Descartes but again, as long as you have a rudimentary understanding of them, it's doable. You can do more detailed analysis later.

Nietzsche's writing is full of passion and sets out to undermine every assumption behind Western philosophy. He tackles morality, epistemology, language, aesthetics, and just about everything else. He'll motivate you to get into the rest of tradition so that you have a more contextual understanding of where is he writing from.

I recommend:

Kaufman's Nietzsche

and

Beyond Good and Evil

I don't where you can find it, but his essay, On Truth and Lies in a Non-moral Sense is fantastic, if not just for the first few paragraphs.

u/Simkin · 10 pointsr/philosophy

I'd actually recommend watching through the documentary in the link above as a halfway decent introduction to the main themes relevant to studying Nietzsche in an easily digestible format.

As far as books go, afaik most philosophy courses on Nietzsche start out with Beyond Good and Evil. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is his self-designated magnum opus, though I recommend having some background knowledge of its context before attempting to scale it. My personal favorite, Gay Science, is a wonderfully thought-provoking and entertaining read.

There are also plenty of good commentaries and biographies around. A classic would be Walter Kaufmann's Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. It's a bit old, but I wouldn't hold that against it. Kaufmann can of course be accused of revisionism, but his influence in presenting some of the first analyses encompassing Nietzsche's entire work as well as rehabilitating his academic respectability post-WW2 is seminal. Some others over here might have hints on more current biographies worth checking out. Also, most translations of Nietzsche's original works have decent commentaries with them, I'd look out for RJ Hollingdale's and Kaufmann's versions in particular.

Good luck with your pursuit of philosophy :)

Edit: typo (or two)

u/Georgy_K_Zhukov · 3 pointsr/AskHistorians

Its been some years since I studied Nietzsche with any real application, so I should be clear that I'm really just giving a quick summary of Kaufmann's work on Nietzsche, primarily from his annotations in the aforementioned volumes, as well as Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. Kaufmann was a very key part in rescuing Nietzsche's legacy from the Nazis, which was first tarnished by his sister, and then my editors like Alfred Bäumler, whose annotated edition was one of the most widely read in the interwar years, and also was an avowed Nazi. At Nuremberg, it was noted:

>[Nietzsche's] vision of the masses being governed without constraints by rules presaged the Nazi regime. Nietzsche believed in the supreme race and the primacy of Germany in which he saw a young soul and inexhaustible reserves.

And that was certainly the image cultivated about Nietzsche, which the Nazi party latched onto, but I would also point back to the unpublished line above, which is only one of many you can find where he has quite the opposite to say in regards to the German spirit.

Take what he had to say on the Slavs compared to the Germans:

>The Poles I consider the most gifted and gallant among the Slavic peoples; and the giftedness of the Slavs seems greater to me than that of the Germans.

Much of the discussion that Kaufmann covers in Nietzsche about this (the entire 10th chapter, "The Master Race", is devoted mostly to race and Nazism) comes down to perception of race in Nietzsche's writings, and specifically the concept of 'master race', which of course tied in well with the Nazi's own philosophical underpinnings (although it should be noted Nietzsche [seemed to] fit their philosophy, and was not the source of it). But, as Kaufmann points out, Nietzsche writes against nationalism, advocates the 'mixed race' marriages, and is generally quite praiseful of the Jews in this regards, "just as useful and desirable an ingredient as any other national remnant". He certainly had views on race that we would find troubling, but far from being the hateful, racial supremacy of Nazism, it was really more an advocacy of many different races, each with their various characteristics, coming together, intermingling, and leading to his hope of the "European Man" (So... yeah, he wasn't exactly not racist either, just not in anywhere near the same context as Nazism).

To quote Kaufmann, "It would be cumbersome and pointless to adduce endless examples from Nazi works on Nietzsche to refute them each time by referring to the context of Nietzsche's remarks", but nevertheless, Nazi scholars of Nietzsche, such as Max Oehler or Bäumler, often had to do some serious mental gymnastics to excuse or rationalize the anti-German, pro-Jewish, anti-Nationalist, anti-anti-Semitism (an 'obscenity' in Nietzsche's words), which were numerous, and generally done through taking them out of context, or else subtle editing.

So I hope that gives you a little glimpse, but if this is a topic that interests you, I really would recommend you track down a copy of Kaufmann's book, as just reading it will be much better than me trying to make out my indecipherable margin notes that are nearly a decade old! (Amazon has a "look inside", so see if you can get some samples of Chapter 10) The sum of it is that Nietzsche's philosophy often can be troubling, and there is plenty to his that simply can't be excused. He is controversial in his own right, even without the association with Nazism, but that association is very much an unfortunate one that shouldn't be taken as representative of his works, and post-WWII scholars have really worked hard to destroy.

Edit: Minor clean up

u/MrMagPi · 0 pointsr/politics

Eh.. I don't know about that. I mean, historically that has been the case, but ever since Citizen's United gerrymandering has taken on a whole new form. The republicans have mastered it and are now the king of ratfucking.

You would like this book.

https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467733922&sr=8-1&keywords=ratfucked

One of the reviews from amazon below

> - first, they provided funding to state congressional races in order to obtain veto-proof majorities in state legislatures. The republican party very strategically picked republican candidates in key states and provided them with almost unprecedented funding so that their campaigns and advertising budgets would overwhelm their opponents. The plan was spectacularly successful and resulted in republicans taking over large number of seats in a number of important state legislatures.
> - second, following the 2010 census, when the new census results mandated that state districts be re-evaluated, the republican controlled state legislatures used their power to very carefully re-draw the boundaries of enough districts in order to ensure that the voting from those districts would be strongly in favor of any future republican candidates.
> - third, in the following years when states elected their representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives, the newly constructed state districts performed as planned and brought significant numbers of new Republican faces to Washington D.C., bringing control of the House solidly into Republican hands.

u/WilliamKiely · 4 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Note: I'm not recommending that people donate to this, but am just sharing it because it's relevant.

Criticism of Rose's arguments:

Honestly I'd be somewhat embarrassed to ask a professor I knew to debate Larken on this due to the fact that I think Larken's arguments against political authority are rather weak / lacking in philosophical rigor. (Note: Huemer does much better at this.) I wouldn't expect Larken's arguments to change any professors minds and not because I think the professors are irrational, but rather because the arguments simply aren't good enough.

Larken's arguments against political authority wouldn't have convinced me before I was a libertarian. Before I finally accepted the view that governments shouldn't be granted political authority I spent hundreds of hours coming up with dozens of arguments to the contrary--far more than the handful that Huemer considers and rejects in the first half of The Problem of Political Authority.

And I was right to consider these arguments for political authority. I don't think that one should just go from (1) observing that they hold conflicting moral intuitions and political intuitions and (2) the moral intuitions seem stronger to (3) rejecting the political intuitions. Rather, one should consider all of the reasons why governments really should be given that special moral status, and should only conclude that they shouldn't be granted the special moral status if none of those reasons seems satisfactory.

As Huemer writes in Ch 1 section 1.6 A Comment on Methodolgy:

> Those who begin with an intuition that some states possess authority may be brought to give up that intuition if it turns out, as I aim to show, that the belief in political authority is incompatible with common sense moral beliefs. There are three reasons for preferring to adhere to common sense morality rather than common sense political philosophy: first, as I have suggested, common sense political philosophy is more controversial than common sense morality. Second, even those who accept orthodox political views are usually more strongly convinced of common sense morality than they are of common sense political philosophy. Third, even those who intuitively accept authority may at the same time have the sense that this authority is puzzling–that some explanation is required for why some people should have this special moral status–in a way that it is not puzzling, for example, that it should be wrong to attack others without provocation. The failure to find any satisfactory account of political authority may therefore lead one to give up the belief in authority, rather than to give up common sense moral beliefs.

When it was first pointed at to me by a friend in 2010 that taxation is like extortion, imprisonment for victimless crimes is like kidnapping, etc, my reaction was that there must be some good explanation for this. I came up with dozens of plausible explanations and it took a while for me to reject them.

I don't think it took me more than five minutes to reject lines of argument like "the citizens delegated the right to Taxpayer Bob's money to the government, therefore it's not extortion for the government to demand that he give them money." If Larken had made his traditional one-line arguments against political authority to me before I became a libertarian, he'd thus be attacking a straw-man.

The intellectual challenge is not (as Larken says) to recognize that if individuals own their money then there is no process by which a collective of others can gain the right to take that person's money from them against their will. This is a straw man. Very few people actually believe that the government has the right to tax because other people delegated them this right. Very few people say this, and most of those who do say this don't even actually believe it. Instead, what's motivating them to say it is that they have an intuition that the governments should be able to do most of what they do--that they have political authority.

The real challenge that held me back for weeks or months before I finally rejected political authority is to figure out if there is some good reason for governments to be granted the special moral status that is political authority. It wasn't an obvious no. There are lots of psychological factors motivating me to think the answer was yes. It took dozens of hours over the course of several weeks at least before I concluded that none of my explanations (for why government should have this special moral status) were satisfactory.

u/-Anteros- · 3 pointsr/TheRedPill

> MGTOW Doesn't Get The Respect It Deserves

Now why is that? We know that its not respectable for a man to quit, to run away from that which he finds appealing (all healthy young men find women appealing). Let alone walking away from a challenge, which women today are.

Lets set a definition. From our side bar glossary:

  • Men Going Their Own Way; the growing contingent of the male population who are saying “Fuck It All” to the Mating Dance.

    MGTOW are committing an act of self-betrayal. Especially the younger ones. They don't seem to realize an important fact: Eventually we all go MGTOW. Its called "Getting old".

    MGTOW just gives a feeling of validation to a generation of young men wasting their days on videogames and porn, completely hoodwinked into thinking that they are wasting nothing by doing so. There is no book, no art, no website that will teach a young man more than he would learn by going out and socializing. Particularly with women he is interested in.

    Yes, dating sucks. Yes, it has never been this hard. No, young men should not give up. They should change strategies and improve their socializing skill while they have the energy and availability to do so. Throwing their opportunity in the trash is self-betrayal even if they don't realize the mistake they are making.

    Even worse, by accepting the validation that MGTOW provides, they are taking on an identity that other people have made for them.


    > backlash from women because it is a direct threat to their sexual strategy

    Absolutely not. Read the sidebar. They will happily move on to the available men, particularly the top 20%.

    > Even those that are in happy relationships seem to understand why MGTOW makes sense and can come to a rational agreement and support the freedom that MGTOW gives men.

    Running away is not freedom. Freedom when one is able to do something one wants to do. This is granted via the right perspective, which is for a man to put himself first. MGTOW cannot lay claim to this perspective or any other self-improvement despite its attempts to redefine itself.

    > However it is not meant to be a lifetime commitment as it directly challenges our biological need to procreate and reproduce.

    This is somewhat correct but for the wrong reasons. The challenge from MGTOW is not to our biology but to our freedom, which is (indirectly) what MGTOW will do to a young man as he ages.

    From the MGTOW subreddit sidebar definition:

    "We are men going our own way by forging our own identities and paths to self-defined success; cutting through collective ideas of what a man is."

    > forging our own identities

    Admirable try. Identity is created by harsh experiences and reactions from others, as undesirable as that may be.
    Also, interpersonal identity is not as self defined as one would hope


    > paths to self-defined success

    Here is the problem: If one does not know what a successful life is or its potential, how would one know what success is or can be? I ask rhetorically because its clear that younger men do not personally know their potential . They have no business writing off the things they aspire to, this is essentially why MGTOW gets a bad rap, as it should.

    The men who experience high levels of success do everything they can to continue it and increase it. They do not check out because of the complaints that MGTOW espouse.

    > cutting through collective ideas of what a man is.

    Thanks to feminists and gender identity politics "A man" is a murky concept that everyone believes they have a valid opinion on. Young men are understandably unclear about it.

    Here is a part of one of my definitions:
    A man changes his environment to his will, as best he can.

    Here is a good book on the matter


    In conclusion, game (Socializing) is a skill and if every MGTOW built up that skill instead of rationalizing away his retreat there would be no such thing as MGTOW. I have empathy for these boys but they are making the wrong choice. We only live once.
u/bluecalx2 · 4 pointsr/LibertarianSocialism

The first one I read was Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda, which was a great introduction. It's short and very easy to get into. You can read it in an afternoon. It's actually from a speech he gave, so you can probably find the audio online for free and listen to it instead if you prefer.

But his best book, in my opinion, is Understanding Power. It's more of a collection of essays, speeches and interviews, but it really shaped my understanding of the world better than any other book I have read. I can't recommend this book enough.

If you're more interested in libertarian socialism, in addition to Understanding Power, read Chomsky on Anarchism. He presents the theories in very clear language, instead of being overly theoretical.

If you're more interested in his writings on US foreign policy, also read either Failed States or Hegemony or Survival.

Enjoy!

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

> I just see it as a distraction instead of addressing the specific points being made.

There are very real differences between the analytic and continental approaches to philosophy, as well as which thinkers are most seriously and most often discussed in their respective traditions. These trends are not accidental.

>so I'm suspicious that the author Rosen is using that "continental" label to obfuscate a text to lend itself to his own beliefs and principles.

The Mask of Enlightenment is not primarily political.

>so already I'm beginning to feel suspect on how honest the author is with his interpretation of the text.

There's really no better way to judge a text by singling out one Amazon reader review.

>I first recommend people to read any material for themselves and try to convey their own understanding as best they can.

This isn't good advice. Nietzsche is easy to read but it's tremendously difficult to get a holistic grasp on his ideas and their significance and implications. Once you read the primary material, you'll need a guiding hand to help make sense of the text -- trying to "convey your own understanding as best you can" isn't going to cut it.

Bias is ever present, but if one wants a good introductory text of Nietzsche that's admirably neutral, Kaufmann's Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist would make a fair compromise.

u/Nachstenliebe · 8 pointsr/europeannationalism

The Greatest Story Never Told

The Greatest Story Never Told- Youtube

Who controls your mind

Thanks Jews! A public service announcement

Oscar winners

A bit of a joke, but the point is still the same

Revisionism in 30 minutes

Long, but thorough articles on revisionism, lots of information and sources

____

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.

[Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.] (http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf)

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.

Ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that there are significant biological differences depending on one's race. If you can get a sample of someone's DNA, it is relatively easy to determine their race using principal component analysis. If you were to sample the DNA of numerous individuals, and then make a PCA chart, you'll see significant clustering consistent with biological races. Below is a chart from an extensive study of biological differences that arose from geographical separation. The further apart the colored dots appear, the more disparate the genetic differences are.


Chart

Link to official scientific study

As a bonus, here's another study done that analyzed the genetic data of 3,636 people. Similar results were found within the statistics. Link

Race is definitely not just a social construct. It exists within a person's genes and shows within their biology. If you give a skilled forensic anthropologist a skeleton, they are able to determine that person's race fairly easily. Even relatively loose racial associations, such as Hispanics can be determined with above average accuracy.

The biological differences extend further than just the skin or even just the skeletons and genetic makeup. Scientists have found significant differences within biological processes, such as the nervous system, between different races. In the chart I am about to show you, the races that there primarily studied were Africans, Europeans, East Asians. There was much variation that was found within their nervous systems.

Chart

Link to official scientific study

If we used the taxonomic standards that we use for animals, Homo Sapiens would have multiple subspecies. Regardless of whether or not humans can reproduce across racial boundaries, there subspecies of animals, such as different subspecies of lions and bears that can do such a thing to.

Source

Source

Now a common myth that you may have heard is that people have more differences within their own race than outside their own race. This is a common mistake that is known as Lewontin's Fallacy, also known as Lewontin's Paradox. Basically, such a statement is only accurate when you examine the frequency of different alleles at an individual locus, which gives one a very inaccurate picture of true differences between any sort of genetic populations. When scientists analyze different races while accounting for and analyzing many loci, the results are entirely different.

Chart

Link to official scientific study

Another frequently perpetuated myth is that IQ and crime can be better associated with social class than race. This is another common myth, understandably so. However, several studies across the decades, even some of the more recent ones still suggest that even when one accounts for economic factors, social factors, educational factors, parenting factors, etc. there are still is a gap that persists. There is quite a bit of scientific data to back it up, I will post additional charts and the studies that back them up.

Chart

Source

Chart

Chart

Source

Chart

Source


u/SibilantFricative · 1 pointr/linguistics

We Are Our Language: An Ethnography of Language Revitalization in a Northern Athabaskan Community by Barbra Meek

If anyone has any interest in language revitalization, I think this is a great read.

Wisdom Sits in Place: Landscape and Language Among the Western Apache by Keith Basso

A classic.

Trade of the Tricks: Inside the Magician's Craft by Graham Jones

Not nearly as heavy on the linguistics as the other two I mentioned (though he has a fair amount on language), but I thought it was a very entertaining and interesting read!

In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio by Philippe Bourgois

He constantly uses large chunks of quoted text from his informants, so there's really interesting code-switching and discussions of dialects and language ideologies happening, but it's not something that the author really focuses on or analyzes (his focus is on political economy). But I enjoyed it as an ethnography.

Writing Women's Worlds: Bedouin Stories by Lila Abu-Lughod

Fantastically written, really recommend this one, though it's not linguistic at all.

u/repmack · 4 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer. It's a book that looks at the validity of the government coercion. It's probably the best philosophical book in defense of libertarian Anarcho Capitalism out there.

A little outside the usual as far as political philosophy goes, but if you were ever to read a book written by a libertarian it is this one.

The book is expensive, so if you don't want to buy it these two books while not as good are a great replacement.

The Machinery of Freedom PDF by David D. Friedman, son of Milton Friedman.

For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray Rothbard.

I'd recommend Friedman over Rothbard in this case. It's shorter and I think better.

u/jez2718 · 3 pointsr/philosopherproblems

I think my favourite introductory book was Blackburn's Think, which was just a good all-round explanation of lots of areas of philosophy. Another excellent book was The Philosophy Book which goes through the history of philosophy and explains the (or one of the) 'big idea' of the major philosophers. One really nice thing they do is for each of these they do a flow chart of the philosopher's argument for their view, which I found a really useful thing for understanding. Other very good introductory books are the philosophy-related books in the Very Short Introductions series by OUP, for example they have ones on lots of the big philosophers, as well as on ethics, free will, philosophy of science, existentialism, metaphysics, logic, the meaning of life etc.

For non-book stuff, I highly recommend the Philosophy bites podcast. Basically these are reasonably short (10-20 min) highly accessible interviews with professional philosophers. There have been so many now that there's one for practically any topic you find interesting and they are all very high quality philosophy.

What might also be useful to you are the resources on the Routledge site for the UK Philosophy A-Level (i.e. in the last two years of our equivalent of high school we do 3-5 A-Level qualifications, and one of the ones you can choose from is Philosophy) which Routledge publishes a textbook for. There are lots of pdf documents on there written to help students understand the various topics which are worth looking at. N.B. AS refers to the 1st year of A-Level and A2 to the second year, so the AS resources will be simpler than the A2 ones.

u/psycho_trope_ic · 4 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Well, for starters I think we should discuss what it means to enforce justice. In whose eyes is justice determined? How is it that one comes to be a party to 'justice being served' on either side of the coin?

State justice systems are, as you indicated, built on something like the Rawlsian Leviathan whereby someone believes themselves aggrieved and transfers what would in prior systems have been their right of vengeance to the Leviathan to pursue. This is a method of breaking the cycle of revenge generated by handling this personally. It might also make the outcome more even-handed because the investigating and enforcing parties are presumed to be less personally invested in the outcome. These are good features of the system. They do not require that the Leviathan-entity be a monopoly (and in fact it is not a monopoly now unless you consider the US system to be the monopoly being enforced everywhere else to varying degrees of success).

There are a rather large number of books and articles on this subject, as libertarian dispute resolution is probably the most fleshed out portion of libertarian thinking. I would recommend The problem of Political Authority and For A New Liberty as good starting places which will allow you to self-guide to further sources.

What AnCaps are advocating for is that the services of the Leviathan can be provided by firms interacting through a market. In some ways this is what exists. A primary difference in what we want from what is available is that we think you ought to be free to choose the firm you go to. Now we (many of us) are advocating for a system based on restitution rather than the 'transferred right-of-vengence.'

So, since we are not advocating for any states, we are not advocating for anything like legislative law really but rather contractual terms and agreements negotiated either through something like an insurance company (the DROs mentioned elsewhere) or through communities of legal agreement, or probably any number of other methods we have not even dreamt of yet.

u/RaulChamgerlain · 3 pointsr/gifs

Sure, friend

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion. Source:http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences. Source:http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

Diversity increases social adversity. Source:http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health. Source:http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnic diversity harms health for Hispanics and Blacks. Source:http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group. Source:http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment. Source:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
Source:http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf#page=2

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities. Source:https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods are beneficial for health. Source: https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

In America, more diverse cities have more segregation. Source:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. Source:http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10464-013-9608-0

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality. Source:http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar. Source:http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n%202005-1.pdf

Borders, not multiculturalism, reduce intergroup violence. Source:http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409

Diversity reduces charity and volunteering. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

People who live in diverse communities rather than homogenous ones are poorer and less educated. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Black people trust their neighbors less than do White people. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Spanish speakers trust their neighbors less than do English speakers. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Asians trust their neighbors less than do White people. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Ethnically diverse workplaces have lower cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover. Source:http://jom.sagepub.com/content/23/3/239.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc

Ethnic diversity reduces social trust. Source:http://www.nber.org/papers/w5677

Ethnic diversity among members of the same race reduces infrastructure quality, charity, and loan repayment. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Diversity of any sort makes people more likely to defect in game theoretic scenarios. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Homogeneous military units have less desertion than diverse units. Source: http://www.nber.org/papers/w8627

Diversity correlates with low GDP. Source:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

Ethnic homogeneity correlates with strong democracy. Source:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

Genetic diversity causes societal conflict. Source:https://www.nber.org/papers/w21079

Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion. Source:http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/08/20/esr.jcv081.full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin. Source:http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Babies demonstrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-Whites. Source:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin. Source:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational. Source: http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

Ethnocentrism is biological in origin and a superior evolutionary strategy to altruism. Source:http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Humans are more altruistic to individuals who they are more closely related to. Source:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17456276

People subconsciously prefer those who are genetically similar to them for biologically rational reasons.
Source:http://www.psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Genetic%20Similarity%201989.pdf

Kinship between members of an ethnic group is greater than expected. Source: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.372.1009

u/ProbablyNotDave · 5 pointsr/mealtimevideos

Alain Badiou recently wrote this article on Hegel's master/slave dialectic, but did so asking the question as to it's relation to real slavery. It answers the question quite nicely while also providing an extremely clear reading of Hegel's argument.

Frederick Beiser also wrote a book on Hegel (there are ways to get the PDF version of this if you look in the right places) that is clear and does a good job dispelling the common misreadings of Hegel.

Peter Singer's Very Short Introduction to Hegel (again, available as a PDF in the right places) is also extremely clear and well written.

If you're serious about reading Hegel, pick yourself up a copy of Phenomenology of Spirit and read through it with Gregory Sadler's Lecture series. He goes through paragraph by paragraph explaining the whole text. He's extremely engaging and extremely insightful.

If you can't get enough Hegel and you want to go all in, I'd recommend The Hegel Variations by Fredric Jameson, Hegel: Three Studies by Theodore Adorno, and Less Than Nothing by some Slovenian guy.

Sorry if that's overkill, hope it helps!

u/callmebaiken · 1 pointr/politics

Right, but the principle is the same. Flynn visited Russia as a private citizen who was a fan of Putin. He consulted with Trump because they both see America's role in the world similarly. Manafort never worked for Putin but for a Putin-backed leader in Ukraine. He got the gig with Trump through mutual friend Roger Stone. Trump, Flynn, and Manafort probably all share a similar view on Russia, and had Trump never run for office and you asked all three in 2017 they probably all would share the same view, and it's the view I have as well. Putin is a strong man, he's a killer no doubt, but that's none of our business really in an "America First" oriented foreign policy. The opposite of this kind of non-interference is quite clearly seen in the meddling our country was involved in in Ukraine in 2014. Before that our relations with Russia were good publicly. We played games behind the scenes as part of a Grand Chessboard
Eurasian strategy and of course Putin fought back. He's not dumb, he knows what's going on just like we do. He knows we tried the same shenanigans in Syria after the Arab Spring (which likely was real). When he saw Obama wasn't going to go beyond proxy war there he stepped in and mopped up our little operation and that's when he became "a thug, a killer, a dictator" according to McCain and Rubio and Rachel Maddow and all the rest, when he never changed for 16 years and they couldn't care less the first 15 years.

So for whatever reason Flynn and Manafort are former Establishment types who left or were ousted from the inner circles but they know all the games going on against Russia. They let Putin know, look if Trump gets in office we're ending these spy games and proxy wars. We're going to stop pushing NATO into aggressive postures on your doorstep. We're going to take off sanctions. Rather than good vs bad, a more realistic view of foreign policy is to see different power groups vying for position. The sitiuation we have now is men in the white house who understand the real situation and the players and the games, but who are free agents. That's why the establishment has been so freaked out ever since it was clear Trump could win through to today. Because Flynn, Bannon, Trump, et al are really free agents who've somehow gained the controls of state and aren't interested in using America as a battering ram against the few rogue states still holding out from Anglo American domination, or using our military as a mercenary force on behalf of banks and multinationals, or completing a project of global domination. They want to discontinue all that and instead direct that energy towards making America Great Again for its own citizens. That is their great crime.

u/AncileBanish · 24 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

If you're willing to devote some serious time, Man, Economy and State is the most complete explanation that exists of the economics behind ancap ideas. It's also like 1100 pages or something so it might be more of a commitment than you're willing to make just for opposition research.

If you want to get into the philosophy behind the ideas, The Ethics of Liberty is probably the best thing you'll find. It attempts to give a step-by-step logical "proof" of libertarian philosophy.

The Problem of Political Authority is also an excellent book that takes nearly universally accepted moral premises and uses them to come to ancap conclusions in a thoroughly logical manner. I'd say if you're actually at all open to having your mind changed, it's the one most likely to do it.

If you just want a brief taste, The Law is extremely short (you can read it in an hour or two) and contains many of the important fundamental ideas. It was written like 200 years ago so doesn't really qualify as ancap, but it has the advantage of being easily digestible and also being (and I can't stress this enough) beautifully written. It's an absolute joy to read. You can also easily find it online with a simple Google search.

I know you asked for one book and I gave you four, but the four serve different purposes so pick one according to what it is you're specifically looking for.

u/dieyoufool3 · 1 pointr/geopolitics

It's one of their biases, though it's not anti-china as much as its not pushing to legitimize China's claims on the East Asian Sea/South China Sea. But save that comment for later this week, as I'll post a (hopefully on monthly or bi-monthly basis) discussion Friday regarding critical analysis of a certain publication/source's short-sight and biases. From there we would cycle through the most common publications posted, offering great opportunities to pool our communal perspectives (Fact-check, etc).

On on a more abstract level publication like "the Diplomat" do provide is an interesting case study of soft power projection from the broader American-lead consensus relating to foreign policy (aka current alliance orientations). Though using words like alliance may sound like 19th anachronism, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote the highly influencial book The Grand Chessboard. Terminology he puts forth is often used, particularly as a lens of analysis in the recent Crimean Crisis. Anyways, he describes Japan's role in the US grand strategy as a "vassal". So that might be a rough and ready reason for the publication's particular thematic choices.

u/wonder_er · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

This is the best argument I've read in support of taxation that acts as if the average an-cap isn't a lunatic.

Thank you for writing this up! You're raising the bar of discussion around here.

Since you wrote up on the idea of political authority, I wonder if you've read The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer.

I cannot summarize the whole thing here (the reviews on Amazon do it better) but I feel like he does a good line of reasoning on the topic, and it was this book that made me (reluctantly) give up the notion that a certain amount of government was required.

And I do mean "reluctantly". I'm already used to keeping my political views to myself, because even without being an an-cap, I am pretty fringe in my political views. This just pushed me even fringier.

(He specifically addresses Kant's arguments in support of political authority. It's really good reading!)

Thank you, again, for this awesome comment. You deserve far more than the six points upvotes you have right now.

u/OleToothless · 2 pointsr/geopolitics

Sure, although it really depends on which geopolitical facets you enjoy the most.

Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard. Heavily influences US foreign policy. http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462464442&sr=1-1&keywords=zbigniew+brzezinski

George Friedman's The Next 100 Years. This is the guy that started Stratfor and this book is a large part of why they started getting so much attention. I really like Friedman but I do find his actual prose can be pretty droll. http://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Forecast-Century/dp/0767923057/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1462464571&sr=1-3&keywords=george+friedman

Charles Lister's The Syrian Jihad. Good read. http://www.amazon.com/Syrian-Jihad-Al-Qaeda-Evolution-Insurgency/dp/0190462477?ie=UTF8&keywords=charles%20lister&qid=1462464907&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1


Any of Kissinger's books would probably be worth reading. Even if you don't like the guy, he's not dumb by any stretch, and he's still pretty influential.

If I think of more I'll post 'em.

u/KingTommenBaratheon · 1 pointr/changemyview

There's a few issues with Peterson's approach to philosophy. The foremost is the extent to which he pretends to be an expert in philosophical issues without actually having well-defended philosophical positions. His pragmatism, for instance, wouldn't pass muster in a graduate class on pragmatism -- and University of Toronto has some leading pragmatist scholars that he could talk to about the subject. This is unfortunately typical of Peterson's approach. His original commentary on Bill C-16 was ignorant and ultimately misled the public. His commentary on dominance hierarchies is also speculative, outside his ken, and misleading.

So while it's great to make philosophy more public there's plenty better people to do it and plenty better ways to do it. Simon Blackburn is a great example of a well-regarded philosopher who offers informed, accurate, work to the public in an accessible way. Dan Dennett is also stand-out example of a great philosopher who does great professional and public work. Or, also from the University of Toronto, there's Joseph Heath, who is now one of Canada's foremost public intellectuals on political and economic subjects.

Contrast that with Peterson's extremely polarizing and error-prone approach. I'd be glad to have fewer Petersons and more Heaths or Nussbaums.

u/sam_jacksons_dingus · 1 pointr/TwoXChromosomes

Some academics think that sounds pretty good. They are called anarcho-capitalists. There aren't very many of them, and some of them are very bad thinkers. But some are very good thinkers, and have ideas worth considering. Here are my two favorites:

  • The Machinery of Freedom, by David Friedman (You might be interested in chapter's like "Police, Courts, and Laws -- on the Market" and others relevant to the specific goods mentioned in your post.)
  • The Problem of Political Authority, by Michael Huemer (This is more of an ethical case against coercing people to pay for many of the goods you are concerned about.)

    In my own opinion, many public goods probably would be underproduced. But underproduced doesn't mean completely absent, and I think many of the functions you are worried about can be produced to some extent on the market (in some cases, probably with great success. Others, perhaps not.)
u/jmscwss · 2 pointsr/ChristianApologetics

I had a comment in here giving a reason for he post, though that's not an explanation.

> Note: may not be the best place to post, but I needed to post somewhere in order to link it in Dr. Feser's open thread today, which he only does a couple of times each year. I've been working through his books since early this year, and developing this concept map as I progress.

By way of explanation, this is a work in progress to visualize the relationships between the concepts brought to bear in the philosophical advances of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. Beginning for the fundamental argument for the necessary reality of the distinction between actuality and potentiality, the concept map walks through the conceptual divisions of act and potency. Notably, the divisions of act arrive at a core conception of God as Pure Actuality, Being Itself, utterly devoid of any potentiality or passivity. This is not a proof of God, but rather simply serves to define God's role as the First and Unmoved Mover and Sustainer of all things.

The divisions of act and potency expand to the right of the map, where you see how actuality and potentiality come together as Form and Matter to produce concrete, material things.

Branching off of from the soul (here defined as the substantial form of a living substance), there is a section which details the powers or capacities of the different levels of living substances, which are hierarchically related, with respect to the corporeal order.

For now, the section on the Four Causes is placed on its own, as I still haven't decided where best to tie it in, since many topics make use of this principle. Particularly, Final Causation (defined as the end, goal, purpose, directedness or teleology of a thing) is essential to understanding the concept of objective goodness, which carries into the section on ethics (which, in this view, amounts to an understanding of the directedness of the will).

Also included, but not yet connected as well as it could be, is a section on the divine attributes, along with a brief explanation of how we can know them.

There is much more that can be included. As mentioned elsewhere, this was posted here so that I could link to the WIP. I had hoped that I could catch Edward Feser's attention in the comments of his open thread, which he posted on his blog site yesterday, and which he does only a couple times per year. This concept map is the result of my learning from his books:

u/Pseudo-Plutarch · 8 pointsr/vegan

/r/ethical_living does have some interesting posts, but I'd also like more resources!

Free bonus: some other possible compassionate choices

u/airandfingers · 2 pointsr/BettermentBookClub

What kinds of deductive reasoning? I'd recommend practice and study of a specific application of deduction over reading about it in general.

I've played several games that require deduction:

  • Flow Free: Android iOS
  • Hashi: Android iOS
  • Slitherlink: Android iOS
  • Paint By Numbers/Hanjie: Web (can be printed for pencil and paper), Web
  • Electric Box: Web, requires Flash

    Other examples are Logic grids, Sudoku, and many others.

    I find that deduction is a skill that's easy to develop in a particular domain (like any of the above games), but hard to generalize. Playing the above games for fun, I've developed a better understanding of how to use proof by contradiction, but not much else.

    Those kinds of high-level ideas are probably best learned from a logic textbook like Introduction to Logic, but the abstract knowledge may not translate to practical skills without domain-specific practice and study.
u/jtoomim · 4 pointsr/Bitcoin

> effective blocksize increase

"Effective blocksize increase" isn't too bad. Presuming that "blocksize increase" is the same thing as "effective blocksize increase" is what I'm objecting to. Perhaps you were just misreading Bitcoinopoly, or perhaps you were just abruptly disagreeing with his terminology, I don't know.

> before you started proposing "capacity increase"

I'm just following Greg Maxwell's terminology on that. I think he was being very careful in how he worded things in order to avoid ambiguity and confusion, and I appreciate his effort.

> cut-through transactions like Lightning

Interesting term. That's an improvement, thanks.

> You seem remarkably paranoid and quick to jump to negative conclusions.

Sorry, it maybe comes from being American. Politics in the USA are full of calculated use of [language and framing in order to direct debates] (http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-The-Progressives/dp/1931498717). I took enough classes as an undergrad to know how important these kinds of effects can be, and my cognitive science background makes it hard for me to not notice when these kinds of effects are occurring and potentially becoming significant. In this case it was probably unintentional.

u/RogueZ1 · 4 pointsr/CFBOffTopic

How much time do you have? If you have enough time, I’d recommend this book. It’s a little older but it’s the only one by Lakoff that I’ve personally read. It’s a very quick read and great help. There’s a book on a essentially the same topic by Frank Luntz and the thought of my money going to Luntz kinda makes me wanna puke but there’s no denying he’s effective at messaging. At the end of the day (and also sadly) facts won’t effect influence unless you can effect emotion from your message. That’s what the book is about.

Edit 1: Best of luck buddy!

Edit 2: If you don’t have enough time, or if you want a second pair of eyes, feel free to send me what you’re planning to say and I’ll use my experience with this to help. Just PM and we can work out the deets

u/Johnny_B_GOODBOI · 7 pointsr/Political_Revolution

The two books i've read are The Political Mind and Don't Think of an Elephant. He is a congitive linguist who wrote a lot about metaphor and framing, and how the Right has effectively framed every major issue in their own terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff

His ideas aren't radical or world changing, but the Dems really shun him (i think over some personal spats... like, he disagreed with Rahm Emmanuel once (a plus in my book) and also with Steven Pinker (more plus), so they don't like him). Not that if they listened to him they'd win all elections, but maybe they'd do a little better?

I'm interested in him because, so far as i've read, his explanation for why Republicans voters vote for Republicans is the only one that makes sense. "Why do they vote against their interests" leaves out that they are voting for their values, even when those values are against their interests.

But, i dunno, maybe he's way off base and that's why no one listens to him. Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts.

u/easy_pie · 2 pointsr/ukpolitics

Well, here are a list of sources that talk about 'cultural marxism' from academics that have literally nothing to do with conspiracies, or nazis that I found while looking into it:

  1. Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

  2. Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

    Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg

  3. "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144

    Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".

  4. "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093

  5. "Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artefacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd

  6. The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

    Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.

  7. For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."

  8. You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.
u/plentyofrabbits · 1 pointr/changemyview

>I have not yet encountered this problem.

You mentioned computers before so I'll use them here as an example:

My computer, in front of me now, is meaningful in that it is meaningful to me. It's meaningful to you, too, in an abstract way because I'm using it to transmit this message. It allows me to access stores of information I could never have dreamed of.

Now, imagine a nuclear apocalypse. 95% of the world's human population dies. Most knowledge of the post-industrial and indeed industrial world is lost to history.

I live near DC so odds are my area will be pretty radioactive; it'll be hundreds of years, if not more, before the area is habitable and longer still before it is excavated.

Imagine, then, that the descendants of the survivors of this apocalypse, generations later, find my poor laptop. It will have no meaning for them, because they have no use for it. Similarly, were I to go back in time to, say, 1500, my computer would have no meaning for the people of that time, because they have no use for it.

My computer has meaning in that it has meaning to its user. Purely extrinsic value, there. Humans, however, we possess something innate. No one knows really what to call it - some say it's a soul, some would say it's consciousness, some would call it free will - whatever it is, we don't understand it at all. But we pretty much all agree that a human has innate value, period.

So, to say that I am to God like my computer is to me is demeaning to that innate whatever-it-is, don't you think?

NOTE: the above is a restructuring of a thought experiment presented in the introduction to Alaisdair MacIntyre's After Virtue which, if you haven't already, is a dense but phenomenal work and totally worth the effort.

>I see no problem with that.

Me either :)

>Can you come up with something that would?

I didn't today - ain't life fun like that? I don't think you need one meaning, all the time, forever. Meaning can change as we do. I'm not the same as I was before I met you, or before I turned 25, or before I turned 16, etc. You're not the same, either. Why should your "meaning" be so permanent when "you" are not?

>Why must it? Without God it seems that we are just chemical bonds.

I agree with you, it seems like we're chemical bonds. But I'm not a monist - there's something else there. We don't understand consciousness, not even a little bit. We don't know where it comes from, what it is, whether my dog is conscious in the same way I am and if not, then whether she is conscious at all. We just don't know.

On a personal level I still haven't decided whether the field of Noetics is doing really, really interesting scientific work or really, really interesting voodoo, but suffice to say it's really, really interesting (to me, at least). Check it out if you get a sec!

But what I said was, given that human life does have meaning and given that there is no God, then the meaning of human life cannot come from God, and must come from human life.

u/Arturos · 5 pointsr/askphilosophy

It depends on what you mean. In one sense, you don't really need a book to be able to have discussions about philosophical issues - just someone willing to engage in good faith discussion. But there are some resources that could help you express yourself more effectively.

Philosophers argue using the rules of logic, so one way to learn how to argue effectively is to learn about logic. There are a lot of great internet resources out there that help you learn to discern good reasoning from bad reasoning. But if you do want a book, I like this Critical Thinking textbook. Very readable and very funny.

For something that applies to philosophy more directly, there's the Philosopher's Toolkit. It explains a bunch of concepts and argument forms you're likely to see when doing philosophy.

Beyond that, there are all kinds of primers on the main branches of philosophy and on specific philosophical questions. You can get a feel for the territory by reading introductory texts or Stanford Encyclopedia articles.

Hope this was helpful.

u/NinesRS · 1 pointr/intj

Honestly, the hardest part of him is where to start. Ask five people and you'll get six answers.

But as a general recommendation, stick primarily to Walter Kaufmann's books, and you can't go wrong. He was one of the leading scholars on the school of his thought, and I find his translations of Nietzsche to capture the dramatic emphasis of his prose the best.

For a brief introduction I'd start with his Biography by Kaufmann, this is useful for understanding the time in which he lived, the philosophical climate, and debunking myths about him, followed by Basic Writings, and then The Portable Nietzsche which contains his more complex works, Twilight and Zarathustra. Each of these contain complete texts, as well as discussion and expositions to give them more context, and are extremely helpful in understanding the work.

Also, If you're a materialist already, an Atheist or an agnostic, start with The Antichrist and you'll fall in love with him in the first pages. Its a summary of his view on Christian morality, and it doesn't hold back at all, a quick read at about a hundred or so pages. If you want an appetizer, peruse The Will To Power, his book of aphorisms, to whet your palate (this is also where most of the romance quotes live). These were my introductions, and I never looked back.

u/anon36 · 5 pointsr/gaming

This is the usual place to start: 1953 Iranian coup d'état

> The 1953 Iranian coup d'état occurred on August 19, 1953. Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown by forces loyal to the Shah, and coordinated by British and American intelligence services.

Tip of the iceberg, really. WWI also had an oil & middle east component, but that was more Great Britain than America per se.

The current situation is best described by Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard, IMO.

u/Coltorl- · 7 pointsr/askphilosophy

This book, The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten, is a very easy read. Others can vouch for its readability (I know /u/TychoCelchuuu has mentioned this book in the past) alongside me, but in regards to me recommending something like this to you: I've been a native speaker for all my life so I may not be the best in determining how well a non-native reader can understand a foreign text. Hope someone can come along to recommend you some reading from a place of similar experience, good luck!

u/the_real_jones · 2 pointsr/Christianity

hmmm, it depends, do you have any background in philosophy? If so I would recommend some more academic theological work like Kathryn Tanner, Leonardo Boff, Borden Bowne, Edgar Brightman, Jurgen Moltmann, Wolfhart Pannenberg, Karl Barth, etc... if not I would recommend a book like this to help you understand the philosophical framework most theologians use.

As for Biblical studies, Michael Coogan has a really good intro to the Hebrew Bible and Mark Powell has a great intro to the New Testament you can supplement those readings with work focused on the historical context like Richard Horsely's work Jesus and Empire I haven't found a good book that offers a comprehensive overview of the context of the Hebrew Bible, mostly because that covers a large span of history. From there you can go on to read people like E.P. Sanders, William Herzog, Richard Bauckham, Jon Levenson, John Collins, Adela Collins, Carol Meyers, etc.

There is a ton of great academic work out there, unfortunately many seem to shy away from it because its 1) intimidating or 2) challenges embedded theological assumptions or 3) they buy into the myth that learning about theology and biblical studies only causes people to lose faith.

u/trilateral1 · 0 pointsr/worldnews

You're in over your head. You've been mislead.

Am I right in assuming that you also believe "Cultural Marxism" is fake news, a fabrication by the "alt right"?

Let's look at some literature:

  • Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

  • Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

    Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg

  • "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144

    Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".

  • "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093
    "Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that

    "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. https://www.readings.com.au/products/6300010/cultural-marxism

  • The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

    Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.

    For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/index/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", described as "long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."

    You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.

    I hope that this brief survey amply demonstrates that Cultural Marxism is a term created and actively used by progressive scholars to describe the school of thought that first developed at Frankfurt and Birmingham to apply Marxism to cultural studies
u/DeismAccountant · 1 pointr/Naruto

My comment was an attempt to answer your question, but I admit I didn't make that part very clear. Of course you can't just rely on people's goodness, because people are neither inherently good or evil. They follow incentives, and in a society where people move on from rulers, there would be natural incentives for people to try and get along even if they didn't like each other, as These guys explain as their solution.

Power and authority positions, on the other hand, are inherently defined by being able to do harm and damage to one group for the benefit of another without the threat of consequence, as this video explains. This is the kind of action that the Cycle of Hatred is based upon, and is why any real discussion of peace must question the structures of power that are involved. In contrast, a action of trade that happens between two people only occurs if both people see it as benefiting them, so the things and rules that occur are only what people agree on.

People have written whole novels about these concepts, and there are a lot to choose from, like this one, but feel free to look around.

u/LordRusk · 1 pointr/Anarcho_Capitalism

If you have doubts about why the state is so bad, and want to understand more what the state is Anatomy of the State by Murray Tothbard is a great read, got me into libertarianism in general

If you are looking for more current anarcho-capitalist theory and it’s logistics, a great read is The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman.

Anatomy of the state is a great introduction of about ~50 or so pages while The Machinery of freedom goes into a lot more detail, ~350 pages and is the book I would choose.

Hope this helps!

u/jahouse · -4 pointsr/Anarchism

For introductory purposes, it's best to read surveys of the literature and tradition, simply because there are many anarchist schools of thought and people often direct you to read books from the school to which they are sympathetic.

I recommend starting off with [Peter Kropotkin's 1909 essay for Encyclopedia Britannica on Anarchism] (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html).

Next, I'd recommend [Men Against the State] (http://www.amazon.com/Men-Against-State-Expositors-Individualist/dp/0879260068), a historical overview of the American Anarchist traditions, which were a kind of anarchist melting pot but admittedly skewed individualist (you could probably find a free pdf of this quickly).

These books should provide good introductions to various schools. After that, just pick up the books in whatever school suits your fancy and enjoy.

My biased recommendations are Wolff's In Defense of Anarchism and Huemer's The Problem of Political Authority. They are both works done by conteporary academic philosophers but written simply and without jargon.

edit: It would be wonderful if whoever downvoted my comment could explain why.

u/Justathrowawayoh · 9 pointsr/MGTOW

It was you who claimed theft is a necessary evil. It's cute you think it's my responsibility to disprove your unproved positive claim, but I have no interest not playing that game. If you're actually interested in this discussion, I would recommend you read this book. You can find it online if you like.

Good luck

u/ardamass · 1 pointr/trans

The best book ever I think for trans is "Trans bodies trans selves" http://www.amazon.com/Trans-Bodies-Selves-Transgender-Community/dp/0199325359
Its kind of like the bible of transition.

If you think he is still suicidal there is the Trevor line http://www.thetrevorproject.org/section/donate?gclid=COKv-OPRxsQCFdcSgQod5mkAdA
There number is 1-866-488-7386 and you can call text or chat with them.

The following sub reddits are good r/ftm r/asktransgender r/transeducate and r/TransCommunity

For his parents http://transparenthood.net/

Sorry I don't have more for you. I know he's family to you and Im sure you would never consider otherwise but thank you for helping him. Thank you for taking the time out to prepare. The next year is going to be really hard, probably the hardest in his life and he's going to need every bit of support from everywhere he can get it.
While I'm not FTM I am MTF and if you or he want to talk or need some general pointers Im happy to help just shoot me a pm.

u/Cialis_In_Wonderland · 6 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

I have many gay friends, so when I first shifted from an ideological libertinism to traditional value set, I was having trouble reconciling my views. Isn't the right supposed to hate gays? I am against cultural degeneracy, and homosexuality seems degenerate, so what does one make of it? Furthermore, the science clearly shows that homosexuality, whether an aesthetic preference or
"sexual orientation," is generally not a choice (though there is nuance).

Reading The Way of Men by Jack Donavan, who is gay, helped to clear this up for me. He argues that what we need to fight is not homosexuality, but the men who work to upend and destroy traditional masculine values (strength, honor, courage, mastery). The two heavily overlap, especially in urban circles, which leads to the association, but this still leaves a quite significant percentage of honorable gay men.

Interestingly, a counterculture is emerging among male homosexuals to distance themselves from their peers. They've been coopted by the Left, willingly, in exchange for sinecures like gay "marriage." This is what happens when you sell your soul; you no longer get to determine how it is used, and they are now open to blowback. The risk is that the public will take back all of their gains and then some, which the gays with foresight recognize in leaving L-BT behind.

u/Underthepun · 13 pointsr/Catholicism

You're welcome! Another piece of advice I have is that while I firmly believe conversion is a result of grace, breaking down intellectual barriers to belief is absolutely critical for many atheists. I found I had a lot of baggage and bad history/bad philosophy in my overall worldview previously. I didn't know what I didn't know or believe in. To me, God was a silly, antiquated idea used for control and comfort. Things like classical theism, divine simplicity, act/potency, essentialism, forms, four causes...were either completely foreign to me or unintelligible.

The first part of getting past that was classical philosophy, as I previously mentioned. I don't just mean Catholic thinkers like Aquinas either (though he's the mastermind!). It was studying the metaphysics of Aristotle, the forms of Plato, Ockam's pre-nominalistic, how enlightenment philosophers shifted the thinking towards epistemology and metaphysics; that I think really broke those barriers for me. It turned out that the materialism, reductionism, naturalism, and empiricism that I took for granted...were not on the strong ground I thought they were. Indeed, philosophers like Ed Feser, David Oderberg, Peter Kreeft, GEM Anscombe, Roger Scruton, Bernard Lonergan, James Ross, and even Thomas Nagel (himself an atheist!) have been articulating strong arguments against those things for years. I never knew the power of logic, deductive reasoning, and philosophy. I took the view of scientism as the default truth without ever challenging it. But just knowing how strong the intellectual arguments are against atheism/materialism are, and for theism; has helped immensely in growing in God's grace. And that is to say nothing for my moral realism, courtesy of Alasdair MacIntyre and C.S. Lewis, that was the initial crack in my previous worldview.

For those of us who are more head than heart, like I suspect you and your wife are, this kind of deep dive into philosophy is a crucial aspect of conversion. If you can articulate the strength of theism and weaknesses of atheism from just a purely intellectual standpoint, you may at least get her to be more understanding of your shift in thinking. I think reading this book is a good start and that this one is slightly more thorough. Feser isn't the world's greatest philosopher but he is very articulate. This book of his helped me greatly in beginning to solidify and defend my own epistemology and metaphysics.

u/dodo_byrd · 61 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Cultural Marxism is not an invention of the paranoid right. It's a school of thought developed by left-wing Marxists and named by them as such because it describes the application of their own theory to culture rather than economics. Whether you agree with the movement or disagree with the movement, saying that it's not a movement, or that William Lind created a fictitious movement in 1998, is absurd. You are either misinformed or lying. Below is a list of sources drawn exclusively from professors and scholars practicing cultural Marxism in which they use the term to describe the Frankfurt- and Birmingham-descended schools of thought.

  1. Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450
  2. Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014 Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC, near my house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg
  3. "Culutral Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144 Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".
  4. "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093
  5. "Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd

    The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

    -Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.

  6. For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."

  7. You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology. I hope that this brief survey amply demonstrates that Cultural Marxism is a term created and actively used by progressive scholars to describe the school of thought that first developed at Frankfurt and Birmingham to apply Marxism to cultural studies

    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4
u/Joss_Muex · 1 pointr/AgainstGamerGate

> Cultural marxism in my experience is a most definitely right-wing term.

No it isn't. Below is a quote from this twitlonger http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4

**
Cultural Marxism is not an invention of the paranoid right. It's a school of thought developed by left-wing Marxists and named by them as such because it describes the application of their own theory to culture rather than economics. Whether you agree with the movement or disagree with the movement, saying that it's not a movement, or that William Lind created a fictitious movement in 1998, is absurd. You are either misinformed or lying.

Below is a list of sources drawn exclusively from professors and scholars practicing cultural Marxism in which they use the term to describe the Frankfurt- and Birmingham-descended schools of thought.

)1. Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

)2. Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC, near my house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg

)3. "Culutral Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144

)4. "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093

Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".

)5. "Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd

The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.

)6. For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."

)7. You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.

I hope that this brief survey amply demonstrates that Cultural Marxism is a term created and actively used by progressive scholars to describe the school of thought that first developed at Frankfurt and Birmingham to apply Marxism to cultural studies.

***

Cultural Marxism is a real academic term, Orwellian efforts of Wikipedia admins to redefine it notwithstanding.

u/TheUtilitaria · 7 pointsr/slatestarcodex

If you mean the original Hegelian idea, not Marxism, then good luck; it's bizarre and baffling. The clearest book I ever read on it was Peter Singer's Hegel, A Very Short Introduction. Singer does as good a job as anyone could. For Marx's version, Singer's Marx, A Very Short Introduction is the best introduction too.

Before diving in, Scott does a very good job of explaining why its worth paying at least a bit of attention to Hegel even given his horrible reputation among analytic philosophers

I'm amazed at how little philosophy the ""philosophers"" that write for these magazines seem to know. I've read just two books on Hegel and the very first thing that pops out is how utterly divergent he is from the enlightenment ideal of progress through incremental problem-solving. Hegel's version of progress is Mind/Spirit resolving contradictions through a dialectical struggle, then reaching a new understanding of itself, as part of a historical process with the goal of obtaining absolute knowledge. That's not a kind of progress that Kant or Mill or the American founding fathers would recognize.

u/Desay · 3 pointsr/starterpacks

>Liberals are more intellectually enlightened and realize that race and ethnicity are social constructs

“It is inaccurate to state that race is biologically meaningless.” Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Race is biologically real and represents “genetic clusters” of variation. Source: http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.abstract


Genetic analysis “supports the traditional racial groups classification.” Source: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/PPPL1.pdf

“Human genetic variation is geographically structured” and corresponds with race. Source: http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1435.html

Race can be determined via genetics with certainty for >99.8% of individuals. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin. Source: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Babies demonstrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-Whites. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin. Source: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational. Source: http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

Ethnocentrism is biological in origin and a superior evolutionary strategy to altruism. Source: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

People subconsciously prefer those who are genetically similar to them for biologically rational reasons. Source: http://www.psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Genetic%20Similarity%201989.pdf

The rest, blah blah, Trump voters are le stupid and Clinton voters enlightened, as posted in liberal rags. Neat. I wonder why Clinton won handily with illiterates and Trump with higher income groups? I guess because obviously getting a bunch of useless degrees means you're smarter and so much better than the people actually making money.

Also what's interesting is all these sooper smart college kids who say the right things about race are secretly as racist as anyone else:

https://m.phys.org/news/2016-08-bias-disgust-mixed-race-couples.html

u/Hugh_Jadong · 1 pointr/politics

>Promoting diversity if only for the sake of promoting diversity is recognized objectively as an inherent good. Being exposed to a diversity of people and ideas helps widen your own perspective and in general be a more aware and thoughtful citizen.



u/VanSlyck · 2 pointsr/suggestmeabook

In Search of Respect is often used in modern cultural anthropology classes as a first hand look at the culture and life of drug dealers and associated characters. It's a bit dry in some points, but it's pretty detailed. The author depicts things sort of 'from the ground up', as he slowly gains the trust of the neighborhood, and access to more influential figures in the trade.

u/DeathCampForLeftie · -5 pointsr/bulgaria

Cultural Marxism is not an invention of the paranoid right. It's a school of thought developed by left-wing Marxists and named by them as such because it describes the application of their own theory to culture rather than economics. Whether you agree with the movement or disagree with the movement, saying that it's not a movement, or that William Lind created a fictitious movement in 1998, is absurd. You are either misinformed or lying.

Below is a list of sources drawn exclusively from professors and scholars practicing cultural Marxism in which they use the term to describe the Frankfurt- and Birmingham-descended schools of thought.

  1. Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

  2. Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

    Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC, near my house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg

  3. "Culutral Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144

  4. "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093

    Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".

  5. "Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd

    The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

    Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.

  6. For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."

  7. You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.

    I hope that this brief survey amply demonstrates that Cultural Marxism is a term created and actively used by progressive scholars to describe the school of thought that first developed at Frankfurt and Birmingham to apply Marxism to cultural studies.
u/veritas96 · 2 pointsr/todayilearned

my phone auto put the umlauts...
firstly, i am interpreting the words ubermensch & untermensch in the nietzsche- en ideal, so i if am off then my bad.
anyway, i describe Bean as an untermensch because, like you said, he was not a leader. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Zarathustra specifically states "I love the untermensch who built the home of the ubermensch.. etc" (something like that, i do not have the book in front of me) implying that the untermensch is the follower of the uber, even if he has a larger intellectual faculty.
furthermore, in walter Kaufman's Portrait of Nietzsche, he elaborates that the niezsche- en ubermensche is one who is completely in control of his emotions (Julius Caesar was listed as an example)

basically, i am insinuating that Bean is not an ubermensch because he is distincly not in control of his passions (which NIetzsche lists as a chief quality of the over human) and is under ender, primarily because ender

> combined humanities desire for power (Peter) and empathy (Valentine) together, and therefore represented all of us



Also, you Bean doesnt have followers because he is too ubermenschen, its because he is not in control of he passions and emotion, and has too much to weigh in.



(If i am totally off then feel free to point it out, i am but a high schooler)

feel free to point out any of my mistakes or any misinterpretations

Walter Kaufman was renowned as a scholar and translator of Nietzsche. He was a German-American philosopher, translator, and poet.


Thanks

u/uscmissinglink · 1 pointr/changemyview

This is pretty much the "strict father" version of conservatism that George Lakoff lays out in "Don't Think of an Elephant." It's contrasted by a "nurturing parents" metaphor for the left.

I think it's a useful metaphor for some conservative ideologues - particularly what I call the 'big government' conservatives who see a moral role for government. Here you'll find many on the religious right as well as the neo-cons who supported Bush's freedom-by-force foreign policy.

But there is a significant faction of the conservative movement that is more interested in restraining the size and power of government to protect individual liberty. These are what might be called classical liberals or conservative libertarians. For these conservatives, it's not as much about "everyone getting what they deserve," since that result seems to beg for a strong authority figure to enforce it.

Instead and here's the CMV payload it's about preventing the creation of an authority that would enforce equal consequences. The philosophical justification is that an authority strong enough to enforce justice is also strong enough to enforce injustice. Therefore, this branch of conservatism opposes efforts to protect people from the consequences of their actions which may seem like they are hoping people get what they deserve... but that's only a byproduct of their actual intent.

u/Blackblade_ · 9 pointsr/TheRedPill

For Nietzsche, or for life in general?

I'll assume the first one. Read these in the order given:

Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist, Walter Kaufman.

Thus Spake Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzsche

On the Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche

Beyond Good & Evil, Friedrich Nietzsche

I would highly recommend getting the Kaufman translations. Thus Spake Zarathustra is collected in The Portable Nietzsche and Genealogy of Morals is collected together with Ecce Homo. Once you've read the ones I've listed, you'll already have his other important books if you want to read them. I'd read the Kaufman book first for two reasons: Understanding Nietzsche life and times helps to contextualize his philosophy, and Kaufman is terrific biographer, plus Kaufman gives a thorough overview of Nietzsche's ideas. And sometime it really helps to have a map of the territory before you plunge into the abyss. Nietzsche can be very challenging, especially to the 21st century reader.

u/sciencebzzt · 7 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

David Friedman's new, 3rd edition of The Machinery of Freedom just came out. That seems like the perfect gift to me. Not only is it the best book on anarcho-capitalism ever written... it's the new updated edition. Perfect timing.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1507785607/

u/alexandertwentytwo · 1 pointr/SandersForPresident

I'm being down-voted, but seriously. This isn't just once in a lifetime. We can repeat this. We have to. Electing Bernie once won't do much this first point . We need to sustain. We need a new generation of politicians like Bernie. That is the only way the liberal vision will survive.

George Lakoff has some great ideas on liberal language that people should read! Language is important! I'll post some links to his works. Incorporate them into your daily life. PM me and I might buy you the books. We need an awaking of liberal frames.

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Think-Elephant-Debate-The-Progressives/dp/1931498717

http://www.amazon.com/The-Little-Blue-Book-Democratic-ebook/dp/B007WT31BM

Little blue book annotations:

http://www.nowforourturn.org/Reframing/The%20Little%20Blue%20Book.pdf

Seriously. The language of the debate is important. I'll be releasing a paper on language of Bernie vs Hillary soon. I'm not respected or good at writing, but I think it has a good few points on the language we use. It's more important that people think.

u/make_fascists_afraid · 1 pointr/SandersForPresident

No doubt about it, I'm in a niche ideology.

As far as "selling" it to the masses, that's been the focus of my thoughts for a while now. I don't feel that libertarian socialism is as radical an ideology as it might appear at first, especially in the context of the United States' political traditions.

The broad concepts aren't particularly complex, and they can be easily understood even by children. In the late 19th and early 20th century when leftist ideologies were more common, their ideas were spread through town hall assemblies, discussions in union meetings, popular songs, and, perhaps most importantly, a robust, widely-available working class press.

I don't want to harp on Chomsky too much, but the Propaganda Model presented in Manufacturing Consent goes a long way toward explaining why leftist ideologies have fallen by the wayside in the last 150 years or so. There's a great summary of this in Understanding Power, but I don't have my copy handy and google searches aren't turning anything up (as an aside, I'd highly recommend giving Understanding Power a read as it offers a great example of just how accessible and easy-to-understand anarchism can be)

So to me, it's not really a question of whether or not these ideologies are comprehensible to the average Joe. In fact, I'd argue that the current neoliberal capitalist paradigm demands much more complex and illogical reconciliations (2+2=5) from non-elite adherents.

To sum it up, in my mind there are two primary hurdles that need to be overcome in order for the idea to gain traction: (1) our perspective on private property (income-producing property; i.e. the 'means of production'--not your toothbrush), and (2) our understanding of "human nature"

Happy to go into more depth on those points, but I want to keep my comment brief(ish).

As far as coming up with a workable, realistic path, my personal opinion is that the specifics of Marxist and Syndicalist approaches to organizing are largely irrelevant in today's context (but the broad ideas are still on point).

Economically, I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to abandon the idea of markets as a way of allocating resources, so a solid first step would be embracing a Mutualist approach that democratizes workplace control but retains a market. However, my long-term view is that markets are corrupting and should eventually be phased out.

Politically, I'm drawn to Bookchin's Libertarian Municipalism as a workable framework that doesn't require immediate and total revolution (though the expectation would be that eventually there would be a confrontation with the state)

I'm rambling at this point, so I'll shut up now. But I hope that all makes sense and answers your question(s).

u/haplesstaco · 2 pointsr/IAmA

About culture? Anthropology may be the area you want to check out. It's a very complex topic, but has loads of interesting reports on marginalized cultures within America. The Navajo probably have had a few ethnographies already done for them.

One of my favorite that you may find interesting is In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. Oddly, it really reminded me of where I grew up.

u/Chris_Pacia · 5 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

@ninja Definitely read Michael Huemer, The Problem of Political Authority. It is one of the best books you will ever read. http://www.amazon.com/The-Problem-Political-Authority-Examination/dp/1137281650

> how a free market could actually work, how justice could be dealt in a stateless society etc.

The entire second half of the book describes a stateless society with probably 10x more clarity than you will find anywhere else.

> that address common objections like who will build the roads

I've made my little contribution to this here:

http://chrispacia.wordpress.com/2013/10/07/who-will-build-the-roads-part-1-the-problems-with-government-roads/
http://chrispacia.wordpress.com/2013/10/12/who-will-build-the-roads-part-2-how-private-roads-would-work/

u/pig_department · 12 pointsr/europe

Here's the explanation of Alexander Macris (@archon on twitter) on why that's bullshit:


Cultural Marxism is not an invention of the paranoid right. It's a school of thought developed by left-wing Marxists and named by them as such because it describes the application of their own theory to culture rather than economics. Whether you agree with the movement or disagree with the movement, saying that it's not a movement, or that William Lind created a fictitious movement in 1998, is absurd. You are either misinformed or lying.

Below is a list of sources drawn exclusively from professors and scholars practicing cultural Marxism in which they use the term to describe the Frankfurt- and Birmingham-descended schools of thought.

  1. Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

  2. Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

    Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC, near my house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg

  3. "Culutral Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144

  4. "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093

    Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".

  5. "Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd

    The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

    Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.

  6. For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."

  7. You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.

    I hope that this brief survey amply demonstrates that Cultural Marxism is a term created and actively used by progressive scholars to describe the school of thought that first developed at Frankfurt and Birmingham to apply Marxism to cultural studies.



    credit: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4
u/ricebake333 · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

> like Chomsky but I caught him in an outright lie in a video the other day.

Focus on the facts, everything else is irrelevant, people are not perfect. If we demanded perfection from ourselves we'd see we are just flawed as anyone else. Right now the rich and corporations have basically undermined the rule of law and are afraid of people waking up and challenging their power, I know you don't like Chomsky, so a word from super capitalist empire man himself. Zbignew brezisnki:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY

His wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski

A good book he wrote to help you understand world affairs:

https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

u/MelissaClick · 5 pointsr/freebsd

Source: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4

----

Sorry, But Cultural Marxism is Not an Invention of Right Wing Paranoids.


Cultural Marxism is not an invention of the paranoid right. It's a school of thought developed by left-wing Marxists and named by them as such because it describes the application of their own theory to culture rather than economics. Whether you agree with the movement or disagree with the movement, saying that it's not a movement, or that William Lind created a fictitious movement in 1998, is absurd. You are either misinformed or lying.

Below is a list of sources drawn exclusively from professors and scholars practicing cultural Marxism in which they use the term to describe the Frankfurt- and Birmingham-descended schools of thought.

  1. Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

  2. Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

    Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC, near my house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg

  3. "Culutral Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144

  4. "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093

    Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".

  5. "Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd

    The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

    Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.

  6. For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."

  7. You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.

    I hope that this brief survey amply demonstrates that Cultural Marxism is a term created and actively used by progressive scholars to describe the school of thought that first developed at Frankfurt and Birmingham to apply Marxism to cultural studies.
u/Prishmael · 3 pointsr/askphilosophy

Well, obviously you should give Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics a thorough read.

A modern philosopher well known for his attempts at reviving virtue ethics is Alasdair MacIntyre - his seminal book on the subject is After Virtue.

Also, another philosopher, with virtue ethics in the baggage, who's more politically oriented would be Martha Nussbaum. She's noted for going on about her 'capabilities approach' for many years, and some people regard this as an equally viable political option to utilitarian/liberal minimal states or Rawlsian social democracies. The literature on the approach is rather massive, so I'd go give the SEF page on the subject a go for starters, as she also makes very compelling arguments strengthened by interdisciplinary research with experts from other fields.

Also, I highly recommend [this book](http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Political-Philosophy-Will-Kymlicka/dp/0198782748/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1414771070&sr=1- 1&keywords=contemporary+political+philosophy), as it has great chapters on communitarianism and citizenship theory, which draws heavily on the Aristotelian legacy - the citizenship theory chapter being especially great, since Kymlicka there points out how difficult it turns out to be trying to cultivate civil virtues in modern societies.

EDIT: grammar.

u/captainNematode · 2 pointsr/rational

Referring to them as "Friend 1", "Friend 2", and so on seems a bit dehumanizing/clinical, no?

I any case, I think lists of questions are great under the right circumstances -- I've made ample use of them on long road trips and hiking trips on occasion, and they've provided a springboard for plenty of 10-15 hour long conversations. I think one issue with the ones you're using is that a lot of them are really boring and don't really provide fertile ground for followup discussion. I've probably most enjoyed going through Greg Stock's books (e.g. 1, 2, 3, which you can pick up used for a few bucks each), as well as the "If..." series and books of thought experiments. Each question usually provides 5-120 minutes of conversation, with median time being, I dunno, 15ish minutes.

And I'll second recommendations on getting out and doing other things while conversing with people in person. It doesn't have to be too active -- a walk will do.

u/generalonlinepersona · 2 pointsr/triangle

Thanks for sharing this!

In a similar vein, this book talks specifically about the Republican plan to control all state legislatures through systematic redistricting starting in 2008. They've been immensely successful in their plan, called REDMAP. (yes - REDMAP - Redistricting Majority Project)

The Amazon excerpts of the introduction give a good sense of the book, then a state by state breakdown of their actions starting in 2008. Wake County libraries have this book - I'd recommend it.

https://www.amazon.com/Ratf-ked-Behind-Americas-Democracy/dp/1631491628

u/h1ppophagist · 2 pointsr/CanadaPolitics

This is a very general question, but let me try to point you to what you might be looking for.

If you're looking for people's attitudes on Harper, you can check out this thread from a little while back.

If you're looking for people's ideas on any particular policy, you can either do a search of this subreddit, or ask that question yourself!

If you're looking for people's philosophies, as dmcg12 said, those will be evident if you keep an eye on frequent posters; the more you see them write, the more coherent your picture of their ideas will be. If you're looking at philosophies rather than policies, though, there are philosophers who have produced better arguments than any of us here are likely to be able to articulate in support of their own stances (or at least, they've articulated them in greater detail than I think any of us have done). Some of the best books I've ever read are this (by a Canadian liberal egalitarian/social democrat), this (by a libertarian), and this (by an ex-Marxist Catholic conservative-in-a-way-that's-different-from-most-people-who-call-themselves-conservative). Of those three, I'd start with the Kymlicka, and read at least the chapters on Utilitarianism, Liberal Egalitarianism, and Libertarianism before deciding whether to put down the book. If, however, you take a look at Kymlicka or either of those other books and are intimidated, this does a fabulous job of explaining in accessible language what sort of things people might disagree on, without very strongly coming down on one side or another of such disagreements; it also has outstanding suggestions for further reading. All these books should be in any university library.

u/Zenmachine83 · 25 pointsr/PoliticalDiscussion

Attempting to blame democrat migration for the state of gerrymandered districts is weak tea and intellectually dishonest. While gerrymandering has always existed in our country, it has never been conducted on the scale which the GOP engaged in gerrymandering after the 2010 census and tea party rise to power. All of this is well documented in this book which shows a coordinated effort by the GOP and their donors to subvert democracy through gerrymandering of congressional districts. We are not only talking about red states here either but also blue and purple states where the majority of voters are dem but are represented primarily by republicans since 2010.

Fortunately gerrymandering is fairly easy to prove in court and we have seen a number of successful legal challenges to the practice over the last year. If this continues, dems may not have such a steep road to re-taking the house, especially when one considers the recent results in special elections...

u/bulksalty · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

An-caps don't believe the government should run the military either (or the justice system).

If you want to get familiar with their ideal proposed system, you probably want to read something like The Machinery of Freedom which lays out how a non-state could work, including justice systems and defense.

Less extreme libertarians frequently leave the government in charge of providing public goods (problems that markets can't usually solve because you can't exclude people from the service once it's provided) and wish to keep it out of everything that isn't a public good.

u/UltimatePhilosopher · 1 pointr/politics

>>So having a political leaning makes one biased as to what facts to focus on and report?

>It very well can. More importantly why suggest a left wing pundit when there's going to be hundreds of other reports on the documents from other sources that aren't biased?

I don't see an answer to my question here. That it "very well can" doesn't show that Maddow in particular is biased just because she has obvious political leanings. (It's actually the obviousness of the political leanings that would incentivize her to be as unbiased as she can - you know, for credibility's sake, which you preemptively deny to her for no good reason.) As to "why Maddow," it's because she notably spends a lot of her shows being on Mitt Romney's case, trapping him with facts and his own statements, that's why.

>And why the mention of chompskey? Do you even understand his views? He spoke out against mainstream media regularly so I don't think he would be suggesting we listen to a cable news reporter either. More importantly chompskey holds very different views from a modern liberal like Maddow. Chompskey is heavily influenced by classicaly liberal philosophy which is completely different from modern liberalism. If anything chompskey would be a sort of neo libertarian. Do you know who noam chompskey is?

First off, it's spelled Chomsky. I've read his book Understanding Power and numerous columns of his at tomdispatch.com. So yeah, I know a thing or two about the guy. Even had a short e-mail exchange with him a couple weeks back. And I know how he's influenced by classical liberal philosophy and calls himself a libertarian socialist, the socialism (and, e.g., his stated support for the OWS movement) being what places him quite prominently on today's political left. And he's very clued into factors that generate bias in the media, and he inspires his more adept readers to identify and combat any biases in their own cognitive endeavors. Which brings me to my original question which you really haven't answered.

u/twice-as-cheerful · 1 pointr/SubredditDrama

Interesting question. Off the top of my head, I would say that makes you not so much 'a feminist' as 'a person whose viewpoint has been influenced by feminism'. Personally, I don't think you can really call yourself a feminist if you don't believe in patriarchy, as in the idea that women are historically oppressed as a class, but that is a big discussion and not one I intend to get into here.

By the way, you say you 'really don't believe in a contemporary patriarchy' - what about the likes of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan? Is patriarchy not expressed through the machismo of certain Latin American culture and households? If it was considered relatively normal for Latino men to beat their wives and have control over the household finances, (that's a big 'if', I know), would that not be considered a form of patriarchy? You might like to take a look at In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio, which could be said to portray a patriarchal society, in terms of the social norms and household arrangements of the subjects. Obviously, it depends a bit on what you mean by 'patriarchal', but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to refer to these families in that way.

u/dry_zooplankton · 2 pointsr/ftm

I think what you posted is a really good start if it's specific to your area. For additional resources, this website has a lot of info for providers on prescribing T (http://transhealth.ucsf.edu/trans?page=guidelines-masculinizing-therapy) & the WPATH Standards of Care would be a good one (https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc), but I know there's some disagreement about some of its recommendations. The book Trans Bodies, Trans Selves (https://www.amazon.com/Trans-Bodies-Selves-Transgender-Community/dp/0199325359) is a really good comprehensive overview & would be a great place for a psychiatrist who wants to learn more to start. It's basically a textbook but costs around $30 on Amazon, they keep the price low to make it as accessible as possible.

u/somewhathungry333 · 3 pointsr/pcmasterrace

> Thanks for the links, there is some that I couldn't say I know about so will take a look.

Basically the rich are worried the average everyday joe will wake up to the fact governments never worked for the people, aka they don't work for us, hence the spying. They are afraid that one day the average person might get a clue politically.

See here former national security advisor of the united states:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY


The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives

https://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261/

The man in the video wrote the above book, once you read it you'll understand that it is the citizens they are worried about, which is why all states are secretly going into lockdown/military alert status and the rule of law is effectively over.

See here on the american militaries assesment of our future dystopia:

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/13/pentagon-video-warns-of-unavoidable-dystopian-future-for-worlds-biggest-cities/

More reading:

https://williamblum.org/

u/gnurdette · 1 pointr/asktransgender

How old is she?

I haven't read it, but this looks interesting: Trans Bodies, Trans Selves

Or, if you want to go for clothing, opaque black tights are easy to fit, go with everything, have a place in all but the butchest wardrobes, and nobody ever has too many.

You're awesome.

u/andrew_richmo · 2 pointsr/philosophy

For those new to philosophy, I'd recommend The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten: 100 Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher, as well as Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar. I'm not all the way through the second one but it seems interesting. These are fairly simple but interesting introductory books that teach you some of the issues philosophers deal with.

Hope this helps!

u/fiskiligr · 2 pointsr/cscareerquestions

> Not beyond philosophy of science and picking up the occasional book (Singer, Nieztche, some Eastern oriented stuff) and a decent amount of political philosophy.

Ah, OK. You should maybe consider reading Think, an introduction to philosophy by Simon Blackburn. It's a good read, but more importantly, it's short and accessible.
If you want something more focused on ethics, I suggest Blackburn again with Being Good. Also short and accessible.

> The claim that 2 + 2 = 4 seems much more concrete than the claim that 'killing is bad.'

I would agree ("2 + 2 = 4" is a priori, the other is most likely a posteriori), but I am not arguing that killing is bad, I was just demonstrating that something relatively uncontroversial, like "killing is wrong", cannot be applied in a world where ethics is just subjective.

> Can one choose to just not care about right/wrong?

Sure - what one does is separate from the discussion of theory. One could believe 2 + 2 = 60 even! :D

> instead choosing to focus on the result of such behavior and how it ultimately harms oneself.

Sounds a lot like utilitarianism :-) You should read up on ethical theory - I think you would enjoy it.

u/CatoFromFark · 1 pointr/Christianity

We cannot. It is impossible. That ship has sailed. We have to live with the reality that, as long as the current system lasts, morality and justice will continue to decay and decline into corruption.

The reason is simple: this world is now totally in the hands of a political system, democracy, that is optimized not for morality and justice, but for giving the people what they want. And while people may say they want morality and justice, the reality is that, with the universal reality of Original Sin, what they really mean by that is: they want everyone else to do what they themselves say, and give them what they themselves want.

The entire concept of "morality" is predicated on the paradigm that who I am and who I ought to be are different. There is a gap, and morality is what defines and bridges that gap. It means what we ought to do is not what we want to do. That it requires us to sacrifice want for ought. In our current system, such a self-sacrifice has to be voluntarily chosen. And while that may happen on a limited basis in a limited way, it will never be widespread when it doesn't have to be.

Genesis 6:5 says: "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." That is reality. Democracy is based on the Enlightenment fiction that man is perfect and perfectable.

To make it worse, we not only live in a system where morality is impossible, we have lived in it for so long, we can no longer even use the language of morality in a coherent and rational way. And justice, being a moral virtue, is included in that.

u/Bman0921 · 1 pointr/worldpolitics

[Understanding Power] (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Power-The-Indispensible-Chomsky/dp/1565847032#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1450851636683) USA good one. I linked to it in Amazon just so you can read the description. Just a heads up, Chomsky is widely considered to be one of the greatest modern thinkers, but because of that, he can be pretty formidable and at times difficult to follow, but if you can you will definitely be smarter because of it.

u/idioma · 1 pointr/technology

I could offer you a reading list to elucidate my points about Russia and the negatives of imperialism within burgeoning industrialist society. Right now however, I'm actually very stretched thin. I'm on a business trip that looks like will now be extended. I'm working just under 100 hours per week now that I've inherited two more projects that were supposed to be assigned to others. It's kind of a cop-out to not further expand on my earlier statements. But since I don't perceive you as being particularly close-minded (if anything you seem appropriately honest about what you do and do not know) it might actually be beneficial to simply provide you with the data as it was presented to me, and then let you draw your own conclusions.

For starters I'd recommend reading about the history:

http://www.amazon.com/Russia-Russians-History-Geoffrey-Hosking/dp/0674011147

This book gives a very wide-angle approach to Russia, Russians, and their governments.

http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Forever-Until-More-Formation/dp/0691121176/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c

This book offers a bit more of an intimate perspective about perhaps the most relevant generation of Post-Soviet influence.

http://www.amazon.com/Blowback-Second-Consequences-American-Empire/dp/0805075593

This book offers some insight into America's foreign policy during the 20th century. In particular the negative impact of crafting foreign policy through an aggressive campaign of global occupation. The latter chapters talk about China and the former Soviet Union and draws many disturbing parallels with the United States defense spending habits in the last decade.

http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-1492-Present/dp/B004HZ6XWS/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300861749&sr=1-2

This book will perhaps be the most controversial read out of the list. It deals with the very unfortunate relationship between corporatism and American politics as well as the various stages of civil rights and labor movements. There is also a great deal of additional facts about imperialism in America which expands many of the points made by Chalmers Johnson.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Means-Libertarian-Charles-Murray/dp/0767900391/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300861920&sr=1-1

There are several areas of agreement in this book between the views expressed by Chalmers Johnson and Howard Zinn. While the principles certainly come from different places, there is a well-reasoned, and thoughtful common ground. It is challenging from any perspective to completely agree or disagree with these narratives, but the contrast is most refreshing.

http://www.amazon.com/Pig-That-Wants-Eaten-Experiments/dp/0452287448/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300862132&sr=1-1

This book is basically a breath mint. The subjects being tackled in the rest of these books can often be somewhat troubling. This book will offer you short thought experiments that will prove entertaining as well as provocative. They will also help provide some lightheartedness to the mix.

u/bames53 · 2 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

> So most an-caps would agree that the societies would be run with natural rights as the rule of the land, how though does one prove that humans even have rights?

Not all an-caps derive their beliefs from natural rights, and there are different understandings of the term 'natural rights.' In any case, here are what I think are some good resources:

u/gilles_trilleuze · 1 pointr/askphilosophy

Hegel's really a fan of protestantism....which will shortly become apparent to you. He's also really interested in the french revolution...so that might give you some ideas. If you have any specific questions I can probably help. I found Peter Singer's introduction to Hegel pretty helpful and concise. You can probably find a pdf floating around somewhere on the internet.

u/horse_killer · 1 pointr/financialindependence

Peter Singer's arguments concerning extreme poverty convinced me to donate a portion of my income to highly effective charities a long time ago, long before I started pursuing FI. And while I view FIRE as a goal worth striving for, I view donating to charity as a moral imperative. That's my reason for continuing to donate to charity. It's just more important to me.

If you'd like to learn more, check out this TED Talk by William MacAskill.

u/double-happiness · 2 pointsr/Documentaries

> I am male, and to cut a long story short, yes i am 'particularly masculine' by the usual metrics.

Ah right, well this is all very easy for you to say then, isn't it? Strikes me you are talking from a position of privilege in that respect.

> Can you answer the part about who your favourite articles were to teach on? I'm quite curious!

I have no idea why that would be. What possible difference could it make to you? It sounds to me like you are testing me.

Anyway, if you really want to read some sociology, here are a few suggestions...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Intimacy-Personal-Relationships-Modern-Societies/dp/0745615740

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Managed-Heart-Commercialization-Human-Feeling/dp/0520272943

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonaldization

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Search-Respect-Structural-Analysis-Sciences/dp/0521017114

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish

I will try and add some more if I think of anything, but TBH I think you are just trying to test me anyway. For some reason redditors often seem to be incredulous that someone could actually do a sociology degree and a post-grad, and go on to work in teaching, though it is actually a pretty humble accomplishment AFAIAC.

Edit: one of my favourite sociology books when I was an undergrad was Scotland the Brand.

u/Metathinker · 4 pointsr/aww

Yeah. My ethics doesn't exclude eating meat now, but if lab meat becomes a thing I will absolutely support that to eliminate the ethical grey all together. By chance, have you read The Pig That Wants To Be Eaten?

u/ComeUpon · 2 pointsr/philosophy

If you could provide us with a bit more information about the course, it might be easier for us to make recommendations. For example, is the course you're planning on taking an intro course or an upper level course?

Regardless of the content of the course, however, I think that something like The Philosopher's Toolkit would be a great pickup. Probably much more useful than any single historical work that you might think to pick up. You can also readily find PDF versions of it online, if you know where to look.

u/RunForWord · 1 pointr/Catholicism

Hey, sorry I never replied to this! Aquinas is who I read, primarily. And the philosophers in his tradition who come after him. I think he probably presents the strongest arguments, but to consider them for what they actually are, you have to have a basic understanding of Aristotelian metaphysics. You're probably not looking for this, but I would recommend these books, in this order:

The Last Superstition

Aquinas (A "Beginner's" [quotes mine; not all that beginner-ish imo] Guide)

Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction

The first one is a polemic, so beware. But it lays out a pretty decent modern cultural context for Scholastic metaphysics. That last one is especially good if you're interested in how science plays out in Thomism. The second one (and the bulk of the last one) though is kinda meaty technical stuff. But I think that series prepares you to understand the arguments of all different sorts of metaphysicians quite well.

It is a lot of work though. I won't deny that. It sort of pissed me off at first, but truth doesn't necessarily have to be easy to comprehend. Of course that's not to say that the difficulty of all this is meritorious or anything in itself.

u/ottoseesotto · 19 pointsr/JordanPeterson

Eh, Marx was inevitable. He took the ideas of a genius, Hegel, and the idea of the historical dialectic and inverted it.

Marx made a good observation about a way of interpreting the driving forces behind human history. He was ultimately wrong (historical materialism is too simplistic), but that idea was going to happen one way or the other.

We ought to blame Marx as much as Stalin and Mao as well as everyone else who behaved like a total fuckwad when it wasn’t necessary to behave like a total fuckwad.

I recommend everyone to listen to Peter Singer summarize Hegel

https://www.amazon.com/Hegel-Short-Introduction-Peter-Singer/dp/019280197X

And Marx

https://www.amazon.com/Marx-Short-Introduction-Peter-Singer/dp/0192854054

Edit: Lots of overlap between Peterson and Hegel btw. Though Hagel was highly critical of the Classical Liberal notion of freedom.

Edit: Fixed spelling for all anal retentives

u/scrackin · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

It depends on if you want to learn about "philosophy" as in the ideas that philosophers have put down and discussed, or if you want "philosophy" as a method of working with those (or any) ideas. Personally, I've always been more interested in philosophy as a method, so if you'd like to eventually be able to have meaningful discourse on philosophical subjects, something like The Philosopher's Toolkit would be a worthwhile read.

u/cuntdishuns · 1 pointr/altright

Here are some examples of how diversity lowers quality of life for everyone. "Diversity is a strength" is a lie and an empty platitude that's been pushed on the country for the last couple decades and people now regurgitate it mindlessly because they've heard it so many times. In reality, homogeneity is strength, diversity is a weakening agent.

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity increases social adversity. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust. http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities. https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health. https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational. http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you. http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57


u/elemenohpee · 1 pointr/explainlikeimfive

Understanding Power is a collection of lectures and Q&A sessions, and as such it is in a conversational style that is much easier to digest than his more scholarly works. I would definitely recommend this over books like Manufacturing Consent as an introduction to Chomsky's ideas. Manufacturing Consent was made into a documentary which does a good job of outlining his critique of the mass media.

u/jmk816 · 2 pointsr/politics

Hmm ok I'm glad you clarified. I can see where you are coming from, but I just see it differently in that, American culture tends to put too much emphasis on the individual without considering the strutural. Since I studied social science (if you couldn't tell!) I changed a lot of my views, about the value of work (in regards of "skilled" and "unskilled labor), about oppertunity in America and about how larger structual issues creates a direct impact on people's lives and how we aren't willing to even look at those options to change (God forbid if we do anything against the mighty capitalism!).

A book that really stuck with me, because of the quality of writing, research and the insights it has, was In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio. Also people will give you funny looks for reading it!

http://www.amazon.com/In-Search-Respect-Structural-Analysis/dp/0521017114

u/happinessmachine · 4 pointsr/Physical_Removal

Post a pasta, recieve a pasta, shill. Educate yourself:

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4
Cultural Marxism is not an invention of the paranoid right. It's a school of thought developed by left-wing Marxists and named by them as such because it describes the application of their own theory to culture rather than economics. Whether you agree with the movement or disagree with the movement, saying that it's not a movement, or that William Lind created a fictitious movement in 1998, is absurd. You are either misinformed or lying.

Below is a list of sources drawn exclusively from professors and scholars practicing cultural Marxism in which they use the term to describe the Frankfurt- and Birmingham-descended schools of thought.
Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450
Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC, near my house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg
"Culutral Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144
"Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093

Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".
"Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd
The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf
Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.

For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."

You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.
I hope that this brief survey amply demonstrates that Cultural Marxism is a term created and actively used by progressive scholars to describe the school of thought that first developed at Frankfurt and Birmingham to apply Marxism to cultural studies.

Frankfurt School Cultural Marxism is Based in Jewish Mysticism
https://murderbymedia2.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/1417900885468.png

The Frankfurt School and Its Legacy
http://www.morveninstituteoffreedom.com/FrankfurtSchool.pdf

Critical Theory (Cultural Marxism) and Jewish Thought
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/theology/events/2013/critical-theory-and-jewish-thought.aspx

Satan's Secret Agents: the Frankfurt School and Their Evil Agenda
http://www.darkmoon.me/2013/satants-secret-agents-the-frankfurt-school-and-their-evil-agenda/

Fallen Jews, Critical Theory, and Cultural Marxism
https://originsofleftism.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/notes-fallen-jews-critical-theory-and-cultural-marxism/

Bill Whittle on the Narrative: Political Correctness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrt6msZmU7Y

The Spread of Cultural Marxism to Latin America
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7Reb9wvTzg

The Triumph of Cultural Marxism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk9CWm0W4Q4

Cultural Marxism
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism

Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M

Erich Fromm, Judaism and the Frankfurt School
http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina%20Folder/kell24.htm

Freud, The Frankfurt School, and the Kabbalah
http://www.conspiracyschool.com/blog/holiness-sin-freud-frankfurt-school-and-kabbalah#.VGsgXIeRk7B

Frankfurt School
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

Frankfurt School of Social Research
http://jettandjahn.com/2010/10/frankfurt-school-of-social-research/

The Frankfurt School & Cultural Marxism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghx3d1GiAc0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkcy7256tBM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG6TcYfpQOg

The Frankfurt School of Social Research and the Pathologization of Gentile Group Allegiances
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/chap5.pdf

Frankfurt School - Satanic Judaism in Action
http://www.henrymakow.com/frankfurt-school-satanic-judaism-in-action.html

The History of Political Correctness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acjIw7cVc2k

How a Handfull of Marxist Jews Turned Western and U.S. Culture Upside Down
http://davidduke.com/how-a-handfull-of-marxist-jews-turned-western-and-us-culture-upside-down/

The Jewish Frankfurt School and the End of Western Civilization
http://www.dailystormer.com/the-jewish-frankfurt-school-and-the-end-of-western-civilization/

The New Dark Age: The Frankfurt School and "Political Correctness"
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/921_frankfurt.html

Who Stole Our Culture?
http://www.wnd.com/2007/05/41737/

Sabbatean-Frankist Roots of the Frankfurt School
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBfT0pi0cMs

u/mrfurious · 6 pointsr/askphilosophy

You're welcome! I think one of the best resources out there for these distinctions and other important preliminaries to philosophy is The Philosopher's Toolkit. Chapter 4 does a good job on many of the distinctions.

u/kitten888 · 2 pointsr/GoldandBlack

The best book for debating with statists is The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey by Michael Huemer. He recommends to ask questions and put the burden of proof on your interlocutor. Would it be fine if I taxed you for leaving on your property? Why then the IRS allowed to do so? The conversation goes like that:

  • Why obey?

  • Because social contract.

  • How to exit?

  • Leave it or love it.

  • Why they can claim land?

  • Because social contract. (oops. logic circuit. Somebody tries to justify the implicit application of the social contract in certain land by the contract itself)
u/NewW0rld · 3 pointsr/philosophy

There have been many threads asking the same question; you should search or you haven't searched well. Anyway, I popular recommendation in another post was Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy by Blackburn. I downloaded it and it's pretty lay (compared to the Kant and Nietzsche I tried to read xD), but still pretty interesting.

u/bunker_man · 5 pointsr/askphilosophy

https://smile.amazon.com/Life-You-Can-Save-Poverty/dp/0812981561/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1473030892&sr=8-1&keywords=the+life+you+can+save

This book is about applied ethics rather than normative ethics. But its still tied to one of the most important concepts in ethics. Namely that most people think of ethics as day to day niceness, but in reality certain things they can do simply dwarf others in terms of importance. So those are the better ones to focus on.

u/monkeybreath · 10 pointsr/politics

That is an excellent question. I think it requires diligence, pointing out the lie each and every time you hear it, and being fearless in doing so. The liar will profess instant indignation and threaten legal action, so courage is required.

Being careful of what is being said is also important. "Tax relief", for example, is a loaded term, making taxes sound like a sort of punishment, when in reality they are the necessary fees that keep society running, like the membership fees of a gym. You pay your fees, you get something useful in return, like a stable society.

George Lakoff called this "framing the debate" and wrote an interesting book called Don't Think of an Elephant! about this.

u/freedompolis · 3 pointsr/IRstudies

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives

by Zbigniew Brzezinski

Zbigniew Brzezinski tackles the United States grand strategy on maintaining American preeminence in the twenty-first century.

> Central to his analysis is the exercise of power on the Eurasian landmass, which is home to the greatest part of the globe's population, natural resources, and economic activity. Stretching from Portugal to the Bering Strait, from Lapland to Malaysia, Eurasia is the ”grand chessboard” on which America's supremacy will be ratified and challenged in the years to come. The task facing the United States, he argues, is to manage the conflicts and relationships in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East so that no rival superpower arises to threaten our interests or our well-being.The heart of The Grand Chessboard is Brzezinski's analysis of the four critical regions of Eurasia and of the stakes for America in each arena—Europe, Russia, Central Asia, and East Asia. The crucial fault lines may seem familiar, but the implosion of the Soviet Union has created new rivalries and new relationships, and Brzezinski maps out the strategic ramifications of the new geopolitical realities. He explains, for example: Why France and Germany will play pivotal geostrategic roles, whereas Britain and Japan will not. Why NATO expansion offers Russia the chance to undo the mistakes of the past, and why Russia cannot afford to toss this opportunity aside. Why the fate of Ukraine and Azerbaijan are so important to America. Why viewing China as a menace is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why America is not only the first truly global superpower but also the last—and what the implications are for America's legacy.

u/FrischeVollmilch · 6 pointsr/edefreiheit

> Außerhalb der Rechten Argumentation hat dieser Begriff keine Verwendung

Weshalb die Linken den Begriff so sehr fürchten, dass sie ihn mit allen Quellen aus Wikipedia gelöscht haben und nun auf einen Artikel der sich mit Verschwörungstheorien befasst verweisen.

Kultureller Marxismus ist real.

Dazu ein Text aus dem Anfang der GamerGate Zeit. 26 Sept 2014 https://twitter.com/archon/status/515729906521890817

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sc1pi4

> # Sorry, But Cultural Marxism is Not an Invention of Right Wing Paranoids.

> Cultural Marxism is not an invention of the paranoid right. It's a school of thought developed by left-wing Marxists and named by them as such because it describes the application of their own theory to culture rather than economics. Whether you agree with the movement or disagree with the movement, saying that it's not a movement, or that William Lind created a fictitious movement in 1998, is absurd. You are either misinformed or lying.

> Below is a list of sources drawn exclusively from professors and scholars practicing cultural Marxism in which they use the term to describe the Frankfurt- and Birmingham-descended schools of thought.

> 1. Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

> 2. Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

> Note that the left-wing and progressive Professor Grossberg is a world-renowned professor who is the Chair of Cultural Studies at UNC, near my house. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Grossberg

> 3. "Culutral Marxism in Postwar Britain", by Dennis Dworkin, is described by Amazon as "an intellectual history of British cultural Marxism" that "explores one of the most influential bodies of contemporary thought" that represents "an explicit theoretical effort to resolve the crisis of the postwar Left". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Postwar-Britain-Post-Contemporary/dp/0822319144

> 4. "Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093

> Note that Dennis Dworkin is a progressive professor at the University of Nevada, where his most recent book, "Class Struggles", extends the themes of "Cultural Marxism in Postwar Britain".

> 5. "Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society. The phrase refers to any critique of culture that has been informed by Marxist thought. Although scholars around the globe have employed various types of Marxist critique to analyze cultural artifacts, the two most influential have been the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany (the Frankfurt School) and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, UK. The latter has been at the center of a resurgent interest in the broader category of Cultural Studies." You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd

> The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... There are, however, many traditions and models of cultural studies, ranging from neo-Marxist models developed by Lukàcs, Gramsci, Bloch, and the Frankfurt school in the 1930s to feminist and psychoanalytic cultural studies to semiotic and post-structuralist perspectives (see Durham and Kellner 2001)." The essay is available here: http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

> Note that Professor Kellner is a progressive professor, an expert in Herbert Marcuse, and critic of the culture of masculinity for school shootings.

> 6. For another reference, see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies". Note that the website Cultural Politics is a progressive site devoted to "critical analysis" of the "arena where social, economic, and political values and meanings are created and contested."

> 7. You could also check out "Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.

> I hope that this brief survey amply demonstrates that Cultural Marxism is a term created and actively used by progressive scholars to describe the school of thought that first developed at Frankfurt and Birmingham to apply Marxism to cultural studies.

u/MyShitsFuckedDown2 · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

Do you have a specific interest? Otherwise a general introduction like Think, Problems of Philosophy, or Justice are all well regarded. Though, all have their strengths and weaknesses. There are tons of accessible introductions though and depending on your interests it might be better to use one rather than another. All of those are fairly general

u/logicalutilizor · 6 pointsr/politics

I think it's a hybrid on both what Israel and the US wants. Multinational western corporations has a huge interest in protecting the availability and resources in competition with e.g. China. A few years back I read Zbigniew Brzezinski's (Obama's dad) book "The Grand Chessboard", there he makes the case for a crucial economical, geopolitical interests (for US-EU) that is dependent on a strong Israel as a stronghold towards the new far east trading blocks.

Every American should read this book.

u/wizkid123 · 2 pointsr/philosophy

The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten: 100 Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher is a fantastic book for a beginning philosopher. It explores some really deep topics in a very accessible way. Even if you don't understand all the explanations, the stories will really make you think (and you can mess with your friends by asking them what they would do). Good luck!

u/aginorfled · 6 pointsr/books

I'm surprised no one's mentioned this one:

Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky

It's pretty comprehensive in terms of covering the essentials of his positions on most major issues, but the editors did a fantastic job of presenting all of it as a question/answer type of format. Another cool thing, the footnotes/citations were so voluminous they made it a .pdf online because it would've probably doubled the size of the book:

The Footnotes to Understanding Power

u/fnv245 · 2 pointsr/askphilosophy

I don't think classical metaphysics is that popular today in philosophy at least in analytic philosophy as far as I can tell. I think for the most part this is true because most people don't know what Aquinas said. However, that really shouldn't by itself that classical metaphysics (at least the one that Aquinas argues for) is false. You basically gotta look at the arguments for classical metaphysics written by defenders in the past and today. One good book is called "Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction" by Feser (http://www.amazon.com/Scholastic-Metaphysics-Contemporary-Introduction-Scholasticae/dp/3868385444/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463600373&sr=8-1&keywords=scholastic+metaphysics). Also the title is a bit misleading and should honestly be renamed Thomistic metaphyics. Not all Scholastics are Thomists and Scholastics in general have a lot of diversity in their views like Scotists, Ockamists, etc.

I finished reading the book, but I plan to go back to it relatively soon and take notes on and really digest it. Honestly I think his arguments are pretty good. He really fleshes out the details and defends many of the background stuff.

A big point about the stuff I read from the book, is that the metaphysics it is arguing for is true primarily because of the existence of change. I'm painting with a very broad brush and ignoring many important details, but basically its 1) Change exists 2) Change can only exist if potentiality and actuality are truly distinct otherwise change would not exist (insert argument by Parmenides for the non-existence of change) 3) the distinction between potentiality and actuality imply much of classical metaphysics like teleology, substance metaphysics, and some other stuff. So basically Feser is saying that classical metaphysics is necessarily true as long as change exists (and I'm not talking about the argument from motion about God).

Edit #1: Also I think most people don't know about Aquinas and other Scholastics, primarily because they just don't read their stuff. Its not that people have rejected classical metaphysics because they investigated. Its like how I have not tasted a meal from certain restaurants. I can't tell the meal is bad because I haven't tasted it. And I in a way "reject" the restaurant because I just ignore or just don't even know it exists.

I should also add that by most people I mean philosophers today.

u/AbandoningAll · 49 pointsr/MensLib

I've seen a handful of people say that this sort of academic content is only produced (or acceptable to produce) about white men. I'd like to note that cultural, anthropological and historical studies of specific demographics, especially groups of alienated men, are actually pretty common. Take this classic study about Kashmiri Jihadists, or this one about drug dealers in East Harlem or hell, this study of the changing mores and social expectations in samurai culture. In other words, studying the identity of a group of men who are finding their social status threatened, uncertain or rapidly changing is actually quite a common academic pursuit.

In academic contexts like this there are clear epistemological and ethical considerations to keep in mind. The first is that any study of a group of people, whoever they are, needs to engage with the voices, experiences and worldviews of those people in good faith. This doesn't mean agree with, or even have an overall positive view of them or their beliefs - see the studies about Kashmiri Jihadists or drug dealers above - but it does mean that the purpose should be to reach a kind of understanding of the way these people think and feel about their world. A course that talks about the experiences of white men, with an aim at looking at processes of anger or radicalisation, would almost certainly be approaching the issue from this angle. I don't see anything to indicate that this won't be the case.

From the responses I've seen, a lot of people imagine this course to basically be a semester long dunk-session on white dudes without any nuance. From where I stand it seems pretty clear this course is intended to deconstruct, understand and talk about the experiences and alienation of certain white men in the US and UK in the last 70 years.

I think, in 2019, most Westerners with eyeballs have realised that young white men are a demographic that is noticeably prone to radicalisation, extremism and alienation. I think it's inevitable that this will be a phenomenon that is increasingly discussed and researched in academic and public circles.

u/digifork · 4 pointsr/Catholicism

Reddit doesn't like Amazon links with a bunch of options because it assumes they are associate links (links where the referrer get a cut of the sale). So when linking Amazon books on Reddit it best to use bare links such as:

u/QuietlyLearning · 6 pointsr/TheRedPill

I've heard good things about Vox Day. I haven't read much but there were a few good posts along our lines.

The book "The Way of Men" by Jack Donovan is a strong read for anyone.

u/platochronic · 3 pointsr/philosophy

I have a great book that discusses formal logic in general. It covers a lot of different types of formal logic, such as syllogistic, propositional, quantificational, and modal.. It not only explains the ideas simply, but also extremely well for beginners. It's called Introduction to Logic. I found it via torrent a couple months back.

The best thing about the book, at least from a philosophy perspective, is that it covers many of the important arguments used by philosophers throughout history and how their arguments are structured while simulataneously teaching you how to do the types of logic they're using in the arguments. It's pretty cool.

u/CopperFox3c · 22 pointsr/TheRedPill

> female feminist here in good faith to learn and add new perspective for the sake of the evolutionary and ecological principles of diversity

What? That sentence doesn't mean anything. I have a PhD lady, big words don't impress me, only meaning does.

Men have a gang mentality, always have, always will. Go read Jack Donovan's book "The Way of Men". That has nothing to do with individual agency. Individuals acting in concert still maintain their autonomy. It is only when others want to tell/shame them into behaving in particular ways (as feminists/SJWs/progressives like to do), that they become hypo-agents.

Actually, you make a great argument against feminism, ironically enough.

u/FrogShepherd · 6 pointsr/altright

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion.
http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity increases social adversity.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes.
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin.
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks.
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust.
http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities.
https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health.
https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you.
http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies.
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality.
http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n2005-1.pdf

u/rapefugees_must_go · -1 pointsr/CringeAnarchy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTROCGb5qj8

u/Mr_Biophile · 21 pointsr/altright

.

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion. http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/

Diversity increases psychotic experiences. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity increases social adversity. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin. http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust. http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities. https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health. https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational. http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you. http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality. http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

u/SiegHeil_ · 1 pointr/WhiteRights

More diverse neighborhoods have lower social cohesion: http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/11/paradox-diverse-communities/7614/


Diversity increases psychotic experiences: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc


Diversity increases social adversity: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc


A 10% increase in diversity doubles the chance of psychotic episodes: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Ethnic diversity reduces happiness and quality of life: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=279C92A7EB0946BBA63D62937FC832A9.f04t03

Diversity reduces trust, civic participation, and civic health: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

Ethnocentrism is rational, biological, and genetic in origin: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/4/1262.abstract

Ethnic diversity harms health for hispanics and blacks: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300787

Babies demostrate ethnocentrism before exposure to non-whites: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01138.x/full

Ethnocentrism is universal and likely evolved in origin: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~axe/research/AxHamm_Ethno.pdf

Diversity primarily hurts the dominant ethnic group: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

Ethnic diversity reduces concern for the environment: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10640-012-9619-6

Ethnic diversity within 80 meters of a person reduces social trust: http://curis.ku.dk/ws/files/130251172/Dinesen_S_nderskov_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Forthcoming_ASR.pdf

Ethnic diversity directly reduces strong communities: https://www.msu.edu/~zpneal/publications/neal-diversitysoc.pdf

Ethnically homogenous neighborhoods are beneficial for health: https://www.mailman.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/living-ethnically-homogenous-area-boosts-health-minority-seniors

Diversity in American cities correlates with segregation: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/

Races are extended families. Ethnocentrism is genetically rational: http://www.amazon.com/The-Ethnic-Phenomenon-Pierre-Berghe/dp/0275927091

It is evolutionary rational to be friends with someone genetically similar to you: http://www.livescience.com/46791-friends-share-genes.html

Racism and nationalism are rational and evolutionary advantageous strategies: http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

States with little diversity have more democracy, less corruption, and less inequality: http://www.theindependentaustralian.com.au/node/57

There is extensive evidence people prefer others who are genetically similar: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n2005-1.pdf

u/meshoome · 3 pointsr/Philo4begginersclub

There is a book that I recently bought.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Philosophers-Toolkit-Compendium-Philosophical/dp/1405190183

It is the best resource I could find on philosophical arguments and terms for a beginner.

I started reading philosophy 2 months back and have made some progress thanks to this book. So I wanted to share and hear your views on it if anyone else has given the book a shot.

u/subTropicOffTopic · 1 pointr/DecidingToBeBetter

Books I would add to balance this list out:

Anthropology

Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches by Marvin Harris. Unlike Germs, Guns, and Steel, this book is written by an actual anthropologist (sorry Mr. Diamond) and is a really easy read--it covers topics from the sacredness of cows to cargo cults. It's fun, too, as Harris is an entertaining and engaging writer, and it's a slim book.

Bonus Level Challenge Anthropology Read:

In Search of Respect: Selling Crack in El Barrio by Phillipe Bourgois. This is another monograph written by an actual anthropologist. This book is more challenging subject matter, and I should put a big Trigger Warning on it for violence against women.

Economics

Wages, Price, and Profit by Karl Marx. It's a shame more people don't read Marx beyond the Manifesto, which he wrote fairly early on in his academic life. W,P and P is a preparatory work for Capital and outlines one of the arguments Marx makes in the much denser and more complete work that was to follow. It's short, and one of Marx's more approachable writings, dealing with something we are all familiar with: how much we get paid, and why.

Bonus Level Challenge Economics Read:

Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V. I. Lenin. This book contains much drier material, as Lenin draws upon common economic sources (I hope you like talking about tons of iron) to illustrate phenomenon like World War 1--which he saw as a competition of imperialist powers to redivide the Middle East and Africa--and even the Iraq Invasion that would come almost 100 years later.