Thanks for your input! I'll see what I can find on Haldane, that seems like a good place to continue for me
You shouldn't reject parts of evolution because Malthus used them to justify his political theory
This is not what I said. I said that, according to David Harvey, Darwin based his theory of evolution on the writings of Malthus. I'm saying that I believe that this has flawed the theory, as it is based partially on a flawed premise. It doesn't make the theory completely unusable, a good, incomplete, flawed theory can still make correct predictions. but in certain circumstances the inherent logic, the way it handles certain questions, it will produce flawed conclusions. This is true for every system of formal logic, it is an inherent contradiction of all logical systems (epistemic crisis and incompleteness.) But to varying degrees, and to what extent, and how it produces these flawed conclusions is important to consider.
The best example I can think of while sitting in my car about to go unload groceries is gynecology. Does it effectively diagnose or treat disease and abnormalities? Yes. Do we have a good enough mastery of human reproduction to alter the likelihood of pregnancy? Also yes. The science is sound. But the practice of gynecology is often needlessly, senselessly painful, almost cruel, even when practiced by conscientious caring doctors. Why? It's because the founder of gynecology made his discoveries by torturing and experimenting on living slave women, without anesthetics, and many parts of that tradition persist. Because they haven't been readdressed or reconsidered. And maybe because it serves some other social purpose as well.
Science often fails as a form of critique and self discovery. So I'm just out here asking questions to improve my own understanding. I'm a little skeptical of your use of the term "scientifically sound." Especially coming from a fellow hexbear who should know about bourgeois scientism.
So is a crucial part of the theory no longer "survival of the fittest?" Because that's straight Malthus. I'm not a biologist, but I study and read and try to pay attention.
Yeah but the theory of evolution writ large needs shaking up. The whole theory reeks of Malthusianism, a disproved economic theory, since Darwin was influenced by Malthus. Many of the sick consequences of "Social Darwinism" are a result of the theory's flawed precursory logic.
That being said I tend to skew cynical. Still I'd like to see parts of a mostly-correct predictive model questioned and reevaluated
Blinken gaslights other countries for not believing flimsy justification condoning genocide
Sounds like "we have unlimited funding and resources but that only gets us our current loser military, we need a new super military which will cost double." I don't know shit but it sure sounds like an scheme to dump even more money into the military.
"Cut military funding? You don't want to lose to the Chinese, do you?? Have you heard what they did to the Uighurs?" Infinite gas lighting from the ghouls printing money at the money printer, while we choke and die on microplastics patiently waiting outside the hospital we can't afford
The idea that the proletarian revolution was just going to happen was Kautsky, attributing revisionism to Marx is a take
No luck, i tried that and https login and it still asks for a PW when I push
Uh how do i get GH cli to work on Linux? I tried pushing a project and it just asks for a password, and PW support is deprecated
I guess I don't totally agree with calling everyone that exists within that weird administrative class "cops," but it isn't a critical disagreement. I get what you mean though, thanks for the explainer
Sorry I still don't get it. Cops embody the violent coercion that is needed to enforce contracts and laws. Laws determine how contracts are made and what penalties for breaking them. Contracts are a legal confabulation that serve several functions, probably most relevant is they are the mechanisms that makes property ownership possible, such as land. Landlords have the personal property "rights" as outlined in property law and defined by the contract. Cops enforce the laws and contracts with violence.
Cops can only be landlords if they own property and collect rents. Landlords don't have the ability to use violence to enforce their property rights, they have to call the cops. They both occupy this weird class middle zone that is neither bourgeoisie nor worker: collecting rents doesn't necessarily make one a capitalist, land isn't really strictly capital; cops aren't proletarian workers though at one time they may have been working class with nothing to sell but their labor. Both are crucial to underwriting liberal private property relations which is the basis for capitalist exploitation and the class rule that emanates from it. But landlords have a completely different relation to production than cops, so they don't occupy the same class position.
I'm not debating and I'll read or watch anything recommended to me. I'm also mostly interested in specific and correct formulations of class, I study a lot and have high standards. If this is one of those things that is more agitational than strictly correct, I can live with that but if there is a critical formulation that I'm missing, or if this is a paradigm that other leftists are using to help formulate their views then I would very much like to understand
What's the theory justification for "landlords are cops?" Fuck cops and fuck landlords but what is the connection?
This is a discussion about an article, which is chock full of examples. What kind of evidence do you need? You don't need to be convinced, but you also don't need to jump to the defense of inflating housing and rent costs.
You also don't cite any resources to back up your claims, Translation anecdotal evidence is still evidence, especially when compared to your baseless skepticism. Have you ever wondered why such research might not exist, or that not everyone has access to most academic research? Why might researchers who depend on grants to do research, avoid doing research that implicates commercial and real estate developers? large colleges and hospitals often work hand-in-glove with developers, along with city councils. Turns out you don't always need evidence to infer a truth, we have this thing called abstraction that allows us to make predictions based on analytical methodology. Imagine if physicists required evidence with which to even begin a line of inquiry, we wouldn't have 1/10 of the knowledge we have now.
However, skepticism isn't critique. You can be as skeptical as you want, and I have a right to disagree with you even without evidence. I can find a mountain of evidence that supports just about any claim I might make. Its called an epistemological crisis, and it's fairly basic as far as logical contradictions go. Asking for evidence can be just as fallacious especially when it doesn't deal with anything in the article.
From your tone it sounds like you are insecure (or a landlord/real estate goon), Instead of trying to compete intellectually with strangers on the internet, show some humanity and solidarity with the vast majority of people who are stuck in awful situations, such as the ones described in the article.
I'm sorry to hear about your experience with abuse. I've experienced abuse and trauma, and some of the worst trauma came from the systems of punishment and neglect that "impartially" decide who in society receives the pain and privilege of living in it. So the tone you are picking up is related to the fact that you are defending an abusive system, for which the evidence is undeniable.
Definitely one of the takes of all time. Have you ever been divorced? I've watched my friends who were functionally separated from their partners but still live together slide into deep depression, drug abuse, alcoholism. I lived with my ex wife for a while after we separated and it was extremely confusing and traumatic. At the time I was "just trying to keep it together" but both me and my ex made terrible decisions while stuck together. We didn't even know how toxic our relationship had become, we didn't realize how much we were hurting each other. I've known a lot of people in a lot of situations and these separated but living together arrangements are just awful for everyone involved.
Life is complicated and everyone is different but i would never advise someone stay living with their ex. If people can't leave their partner (some of which may be stuck with an abuser or bully, or someone who just ignores them) because of financial reasons, that's a form of systematic abuse and trauma. Regardless of what people say or think, a very small percentage of couples would be okay with an arrangement like this. If you or anyone ever find yourself in a similar situation, get out of the house and sign the friggin papers ASAP. Don't do apologism for a broken ass system, help us fix it, or at least show some humanity ("correlative," jfc.)