2024 ELECTION THREAD

Voting for trump on the grocery thing is throwing gas on a fire lol. Hope I'm wrong fwiw.

You don't have to be a theocrat to be a YEC though. You can just idly believe the literal account of creation of the bible, that's the only criterion for being a YEC.

If republicans cut welfare for poor people and deport illegals that's deflationary for groceries.

Tariffs clearly aren't which is why there is still the glimmer of hope Trump finds some way to pretend to implement widespread tariffs and claim he kept his promises without actually doing it at least for stuff people consume frequently

Lol dude. Pretty much all of them. All the ones I've read, anyway.

This analysis is very poor because it is ignoring that Israel and the US are both already engaged in wars with Iran and allied Islamists. And the Islamist are the ones who have started these wars and refuse to make peace, no matter how poorly it is going. And have shown shocking disregard for the lives of their citizens.

So the real question is will Trump be able to bring peace, and will it come by defeating the Islamists who refuse to make peace and are dedicated to never ending Holy Jihad no matter the cost.

I repeat, a worldview that completely ignores the actions of Islamists and assigns them no agency does not map reality very well, and one should expect no useful insights from engaging persons with such a worldview.

What's the causal link? Don't illegals make (at least some) groceries cheaper to produce?

How can it be close when Trump has about the same number of votes as in 2020 and the only states still left to count, according to you, are blue states? The only thing ridiculous is your spelling, brah.

I mean if you’re willing to bite the bullet on “I would rape a woman daily if it was good for my well-being” (I didn’t expect you to fwiw) then I’m pretty sure we just reduced your morality to absurdity. You lecturing anyone on moral right or wrong is just like the crazy homeless man on the street yelling about the end of the world. No one ought to listen to you that has any sense of morality.

By the way I agree that morality is mind-dependent if that’s what you mean, but that kind of undermines your “inherently moral or immoral” point since I just take mind-dependent to mean it’s propositional and turns on the preferences of individuals. That’s metaethics, not normative, so it shouldn’t tell us anything about not giving sentient beings moral consideration.

lol yeah undocumented make up a large percentage of farm workers. That might be the dumbest possible example to pick.

It hasn't been framed like that in the media so it most likely hasn't occurred to them.

No i am willing to imagine a world where humans are so different from today biologically where that would be the norm , because that's what you are asking me to do.

I mean if drinking human blood did make you immortal, it would be moral for you to do so in my model of morality, not sure if this clarifies things better. Nothing is moral in a vacuum, morality only exists in the sense of what is good FOR HUMAN BEINGS, if you change what being a human being is about (= DNA) you change what is moral.

Which, btw, is something science fiction writers do (for humans and animals), or at least explore as an option. Remember the dna-modified cow that is made to be eaten in hitchhiker guide to the galaxy? Stross explores how communism can actually be achieved, which is by extensive DNA modification of all members of society (iirc that's in neptune brood, an underwater communist species).

In the "culture" series I A Banks explores what happens to human nature with extensive modifications (and supply of beneficial drugs to balance mood and so on and on at will).

There is no "absurdity", just a complete acceptance that nothing in morality is "eternal" or "good just because it's good" at all and it wouldn't make sense if it was. It is just about what works for the well being of humans. We can have some discussion about individual vs group vs entire species, or present vs future sure, which is why it's not always obvious what is moral or what is not, but what we can be certain of is that the alpha and omega of morality are human beings so if you change what human beings are (=change their DNA functionally) what is moral changes.

I mean can't you see that if oranges were toxic for us, feeding them would be immoral? is that hard to imagine? well that works for anything, if you change the DNA enough. Any action you now consider super-immoral could become very moral and viceversa. There is no "intrinsic" moral act if you allow DNA to change.

I’m not sure you understand what morals means, or you are basically proving my point about the problem with the evolutionary argument. And this is all separate from the fact that you still have an epistemic burden in that you haven’t shown it to be the case that if our ancestors did x then to not do x is going to lead to less well-being. I just granted you that for the sake of argument, despite that I don’t believe your argument that because we did big game hunting in the past that means buying shrink-wrapped meat from the store is some fulfillment of some time honored birthright.

I also think that you are digging yourself more into a hole when it comes to bringing up DNA. Are you saying someone with the exact properties intellectually and physically as a human but that evolved on another planet would get no moral consideration because they don’t have our DNA? That we would be justified in performing infinite genocides on them? I mean you want to talk about scifi, most scifi authors would repudiate that position, as we see how the cultures that affirm that position are portrayed and rightfully so. Your ideology is the villain in a lot of scifi lol

I am saying that you can't have biological life on this planet with the exact properties intellctually ahd physically of a human unless it has identical DNA.

When/if other DNA-analogous appears (here or elsewhere) , ie a transferable set of instructions on which a biological machine is built upon and that determines many of it's characteristics etc etc, then we can discuss that, but afaik for now there is none.

But when in the past very similar species to ours happened to exist on this very planet of course we were morally justified to genocide them in case of local resource scarcity, how is that even a question? anything that improves our survival chance is moral and nothing that has to do with someone which isn't us ever enters the picture of morality, the only moral position is human supremacy, not even humanity "first", but "humanity ONLY".

I mean you would ask not to genocide local neanderthals even if that meant less game was available for your tribe, and expect that to be found moral by other human beings? and why would you expect reciprocity at all even?

Everything else that exists , we can use as we see fit for our own benefit. And that's what is moral definitionally in my model.

I used science fiction as an example of being able to abstract the topic we are discussing. I am well aware that leftist writers end up trying to tell you leftist moral is appropriate even in those settings. That's a different point though from being able to at least explore those settings.

I am on team "genocide all the borgs" and every species that threaten ours however slightly before they get a change to do the same.

And the "3 world problem" author is on the same team, that's the theme explored in the books actually (not going to spoiler if you haven't read the books on which they will base the following series".

/

Btw "what moral means"... moral comes from behavior, and the connotation became "appropriate behavior". To define appropriate you need external identification, and i find it in the well being of the subject discussing moral. At the individual level what benefits me is moral. At the family level what benefits my family is moral. And so on.

Some problems can arise in trade off cases ofc but it's usually easy anyway, you go from the particular to the general in order of priority. And the general stops at the human species. Why? because i want it so, it's all arbitrary anyway at the end.

Addressed many times over. It was dumb to say Harris is "far" more likely to go to war with Iran. But a large part of American politicians are in bed with MIC, and have a heavy bias to war, demonstrated many times. Harris says she is in that camp. Trump says he is not. Maybe one, or even both were lying.

If someone wants to argue, Islamism is good, I'll disagree. I have compared them to elements like the KKK. More charitably, the IRA and similar.

The KKK was once a major force, terrorizing people who, unlike Isreal, had no defence. Now it's a pimple. You can deal with these problems without annihilating the communities where they exist.

Israel has also committed many crimes, documented by a dozen different agencies. Even including physical, psychological and sexual abuse of children. And they shouldn't be annihilated either.

We don't have to have a full blown war with every country that we come into conflict with.

Some Jordan Peterson drivel about "The West" and waiving away all objective reporting from the area as antisemitic is not much of an argument for always engaging in total war as long as some bad people exist. Hopefully nobody ever nukes the US because of Iraq war supporters.

Count me out of team “genocide all other species” lol

*alien intelligent species that have the potential of genociding us.

Anyway, we should discuss this stuff in other threads

That seems reasonable but the point still remains that he isn't gaining whites he's losing them but he is gaining minorities-- which goes against everything we're told about him and the maga movement.

I just read through a bunch of that conversation. Luciom, Victor, Luckbox and rickroll had no problem understanding what craig was saying, and some of the people who were criticizing his language generally understood him but asked for more clarification. When you get into topics like "moral truth" there are going to be differences of opinion on how we arrive there (if it's possible at all), but that's what conversations are for. It could have been an interesting discussion, but a few people decided to attack him instead and others thought his post opened the door to justifying white supremacy because "national identity" automatically makes them think of race instead of culture and shared values.

He is gaining white men under30 en masse, that can be MAGA. But anyway MAGA is nativist, not white supremacist.

Always has been. Democrats and "experts" lied incessantly about it but it is so self evidently nativist and not white supremacist, that at some point normies realize that, and nativism is actually a proposition that sells well.

When they say america first they actually, credibly, transparently mean that. They don't mean "white america first". They mean america first. And Biden knew that, that's why he tried what was possible to be nativist as well. "Buy american" is nativism.

people realized Dems are at least just as racist and dont like being lectured on race by racists

I’m actually more racist than republicans.

The entire country is becoming more polarized along education and geography (at the local level more than state level) and less polarized on race. Coastal, educated whites have shifted Democrat as part of this trend.

Given that Trump flipped like 9 or 10 counties in California and made gains in every state except Washington, I'm not sure how geography would factor into the polarization.

i think he means urban v rural