Much of the concerned raised against such a practice comes from those deride it as eugenics. If that is the case, what is it that those people worship?

bang bang "I'm a philosopher btw"

Why doesn't Bentham simply shoot the mugger?

> If his critics were less emotional, if they were more stoic, if they understood Meditations, they they would agree.

This is the key point, not of just Aurelius, but of the majority of conversations/debates that take place in political discourse. Implicit within these debates is the notion that the opposing party lacks knowledge about a certain thing and they would change their mind (and political party/ideology) if only they were exposed to such knowledge. This is faulty thinking. As it has been mentioned recently on this subreddit, facts do actually care about your feelings, because feelings is what animates us into action and it is through these actions that political change occurs (for better or worse).

Likewise, learning/spreading knowledge is important, but it is the value-judgements that one has of the knowledge that they have which is more important. Value-judgements are buttressed by knowledge, but they do not create them/follow at 1-1 path. I could explain something quite well to someone, have more knowledge than them, impart it upon them, but that still not change their value-judgement. We all heard the quote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” but I would not go as far to say that someone "refuses to change" when presented with new information. Does he have an obligation to change? Is that information actually correct, pertinent to the conversation?

Someone could present to me several novel facts about a topic that are interesting and important, but it no way change my value-judgment on the topic. In fact, that person may be trying to dislodge me from pursuing my material interests surrounding a topic by leaning hard into moral/ethical (but not material) reasons why I should vacate pursuing my material interests. In this case my value-judgement isn't really at all predicated upon knowledge, but an understanding of the zero-sum game I find myself within the political framework and the struggles that I have with others who are likewise operating within the very same zero-sum game.

In short, I am not obligated to "change" my value-judgement when someone presents what he thinks is novel information to me. It is not a sin of my own that I didn't change. Perhaps the speaker was not sufficiently persuasive, and should dwell within his own lack of virtue in this regard.

"Unmentioned by Glass, though, is the 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬, especially in the US context. So often, it’s not just rich people moving in – it’s 𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞. When that happens, 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 inflects and compounds the power of capital."

This is the author's words that he wrote himself. He is placing emphasis on race himself. I am referencing the words that the author wrote.

You simply want it to not be an issue when the author brought it up as an issue. You say it is not even the important part of the article, despite the author repeatedly mentioning it. You are trying to convince me to not see the words in the article that the author wrote. You accuse me of attacking a strawman when I seek to discuss the author's exact words. Speaking of straws, I think you're grasping at them.

There is noting else that can be said on this topic.

You don't have to speak in hyperbole, no one is demanding that of you.

The author made some broad, sweeping statements that were easily shown to be false. If that is the case, what could be some other things that the author might have fudged for the sake of their argument?

Again, the author could have simply made the case for X or Y or Z policies on their own merit but they wanted to add some gusto behind the argument. This means including rectifying racial injustice as a part of their raison d'être. But getting some of the foundational aspects of your argument incorrect feels like the author was putting the cart before the horse.

Honestly articles like this are fairly boilerplate, dime a dozen. Academics love to churn this stuff out. A more interesting point of contention would be analyzing the intersection between the Big Tech, diverse workforces who work in Tech, the progressive ideology that these workers overwhelmingly endorse (such as being anti-gentrification), and actually gentrifying such places. Trying to manage and balance a diverse political coalition that is easily prone to in-fighting and whose material interests often come at the expense of other members in the group would be an interesting dynamic to analyze. But no one believes that they are the ones carrying out such societal ills, these workers probably think that they aren't gentrifying even though they are (maybe because they read articles like this and believe that its only gentrification when/if you're White).

"So often, it’s not just rich people moving in – it’s rich white people" is one of the 3 subheadings that is bold and in red. It stands out more than the text around it. This is done intentionally. Clearly the author places emphasis on this. I am treating their words with the same level of sincerity, seriousness, and thoroughness that they themselves are treating their own words. I quoted the author directly on their assertions and showed that the factual basis for their assertions were demonstrably false. Am I to ignore the words inside the article and instead criticize what the author was trying to say? How am I not being honest by contending directly with the words the author uses?

"...the deleterious consequences of both for race- and class-oppression" is a line in the concluding paragraph. Race and Class are treated rather equally in the article: the word "class" appears 5 times, "White" appears 3 times, "race" appears 1 time. This 5-4 ratio shows that the mentioning of Whites/race isn't some errant tangent. This is what the author believes, this what the author wrote, and this is what I am criticizing.

The article states that "Since the 1960s, gentrification has become ubiquitous" and that "So often, it’s not just rich people moving in – it’s rich White people".

I looked up the historical demographic breakdown of San Francisco: in 1960, it was 72.7% White and in 2020 it is 39.1%. The historical demography of most American cities follow this same pattern. "Non-Hispanic Whites made up 59% of the residents of Chicago in 1970, falling to just 31.7% in 2010". In Atlanta, Whites made up 48.4% of the population in 1970, 31% in 1990, and has risen to only to 38.4% in 2010. A few examples among many.

The author stating that Gentrification started in 1960 leads the reader to believe that there was massive influx of rich White people moving into these historically non-white urban centers but the exact opposite happened in the 1960s and 70s. Of course, as we all know this as White Flight. The author would be correct in stating that "Since the 1960s, gentrification has become ubiquitous" if they were to include non-Whites moving into White areas, but it is quite obvious that they would not assert such a thing. That is not how we colloquially used the word Gentrification. But this means the original assertion is factually incorrect. So why would they say such a thing?

It is done so to make the history of these events appear to cohere seamlessly with ideological priors, to make it easier to digest, to imbue passion within the reader to call for change. But history is a messy, fractal thing. By limiting ourselves to only a portion of history as to cohere seamlessly with our ideological priors we limit our understanding of such things. We must expand our understanding of such things as to craft better policy. This is philosophy subreddit after all, we have a love of wisdom.

In particular situations, such as the expansion of the tech sector in San Francisco, you have settled communities experienced a sort of widescale economic eviction. A rising tide is supposed to lift all boats but these peoples find themselves drowning under the waters of high rent. But it would be dishonest and unhelpful to place the blame solely on "rich White people" - the tech industry is very diverse and full of different nationalities. These are the people who are moving into these communities. The same kind of historical argument used on White people in these regards to gentrification doesn't work against Indian or East Asian software developers. This is a point to ponder, that needs to be addressed.

One could advocate for the continued expansion of public housing, demanding cheaper rent, asking for more funding for better public transportation all on their own virtues without having to consult with "History". I support all of these policies. I understand, zoning laws and tax brackets are technical issues and don't drive political action quite like ethnic revanchism.

“You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war”

Nietzsche makes more sense if you start reading him as if his words were in dialogue with Socrates. He's writing in contrast to him. My readings of him went down smoother as soon as I used this rule of thumb.

It is funny/interesting/crazy how Stoicism is essentially the Serenity Prayer but some still try to strawman it. Then again people strawman Nietzscheanism into being a teenage rebellion and about becoming superman, so eh.

Serenity Prayer: God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

We are ourselves. Why would we not consider ourselves important?

Better put than I.

Not once did I object to the idea of reducing CO2 emissions. I support reducing CO2 emissions. I support it by supporting using nuclear power. But what does "having my support" even do in this matter?

Also, I don't have to pass Cicero's test. I am not beholden to Cicero. You do not have to be beholden to him either.

The circumstances that Germany found itself in 2011 would not extend for the foreseeable future: Pax Americana which allowed for historically low military spending would not extend, uninterrupted supply chain that is predicated upon this Pax Americana would be jeopardized, the severing of energy autonomy (and thus political autonomy) by shuttering nuclear energy makes Germany increasingly susceptible to foreign influence. The resurgence of Russian aggression (which is something both Romney and Trump would derided for highlighting) exposed how fragile these systems upon which such worldviews are predicated. Germany could have shored up its energy and political autonomy by expanding its reliance on nuclear energy.

edit: you have edited your reply 3 times now. I don't even know what I am responding to anymore.

"That's unfortunate, but what does that have to do with the validity of anthropogenic climate change?"

It is not "unfortunate", it was clearly foreseeable circumstance given the both the goals and means which were taken to achieve the goal. This is my contention. I am not contending that climate change is not verifiably true, I am skeptical of the value-judgements made by those who claim to be making decisions with these things in mind.

You can find investigations into the topic, into any topic, from any point of view. There are many sources out there. The biggest issue in all of this is the glut of information that we have to process in order to make informed decisions. How much information do we need to imbibe in order to make our value-judgements educated, or seem educated? Educated to whom? Even having knowledge itself isn't enough to compel action, one cannot turn an Is into an Ought. Science is a tool of understanding reality, not for discerning which actions we should take. This depends on our values.

That is the implicit issue with talking about these topics, that these beliefs are bundled together with other beliefs and their corresponding action (or inaction). When we talk about affirming the validity of Climate Change, what does that even mean? To say aloud, "Climate Change is true", what does this change? What does it change to say the opposite?

Take a look at Germany and their mothballing of some of their nuclear power plants in favor of sustainable green energy initiatives. In light of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the tightening of oil supplies, Germany has had to burn more fossil fuels to make up for the lack of energy that would have been supplied by these nuclear reactors. I am sure there are other reasons as to why the nuclear reactors were shuttered, but climate change rhetoric was touted when decommissioning them. I would have much rather that energy come from nuclear power plants than from burning fossil fuels, because it is better for the environment and it loosens the grip that Russia has over continental Europe when making foreign policy decisions.

Would someone who affirms the validity of climate change want both the burning of more fossil fuels and a tighter Russian grip over Ukraine? Probably not. But such rhetoric has in part lead to such a thing, and such a thing should be investigated.

It is an inversion of which belief system is socially dominant. All of this is made more interesting considering that climate denial and anti-vax sentiments are both skeptical of their socially dominant counter parts. This is to say nothing of truthfulness or utility of such beliefs, I have not taste of debating the exact details of either case.

Should we be skeptical of that which claims to be skepticism? Most certainly, especially the claims which others posit have passed through the skepticism sniff-test. There seems to be this implicit game of Socratic chicken, in which both parties claim to be the proprietors of true Skepticism and that therefore their truth-claims of the world are factually correct. This easily ends in solipsism in which no claims on reality can be verified.

"There are consequences for ourselves and others if we accept things such as climate denial or ant-vax movements without properly assessing the foundations of those claims."

This quote is interesting considering that both belief in climate change and supporting vaccinations are components of the dominant metanarrative in the Western world, while the quote itself makes it seem that climate denial and anti-vax are the strains of regime approved thinking that need to be scrutinized. This is an odd-inversion of reality. Climate denial and anti-vax are beliefs that are scrutinized by default, as they stand in contrast to the institutionally-supported metanarrative. Are we to be skeptical only of those things that we are allowed to be skeptical of?

I appreciate your thought out response. I shall return when I have the energy to muster. Hopefully in the next few days.

I wouldn't say that I have an academic experience with these topics necessarily, I've just been interested in history, philosophy for a long time. Honestly what you have said of yourself is great and I think trying to provide these "simple life philosophies" with an intellectual veneer is unnecessary and detracts from the potency of such an outlook.

As for myself, one thing that I feel that I had happened upon during my readings and interactions with others is the notion that, bluntly put, sadness confers intelligence. It feels that many people heard the phrase "ignorance is bliss" and took the contrapositive to heart: "to be sad is to be smart". You can see this notion in alot of media (something like Wednesday the show comes to mind). Again this is my interpretation of the matter, but there seems to be this implicit notion floating around our societal ether that you are intelligent if you find reality to not be sufficient - if you are irritable, if you are morose, if you find life unsatisfying, if you yearn for true meaning yet cannot find it. This interpretation is always taken as meaning that life is inherently boring, full of suffering, meaningless, etc, and instead of these qualms with reality prompting a deeper introspection into one's outlook, investigating why they find aspects of life to be melancholic and valueless, they assign the insufficiency to the external world rather than asking themselves if the insufficiency is internal, in how we view ourselves, life, reality.

This is the conceit of the philosopher, that only simple people can be happy with their station in life while they (Schopenhauer for example) have apprehended the true nature of reality and that reality is one of sorrow and suffering. But these are all metaphysical interpretations of reality, not reality itself. The language games that I refer to in my OP is that as soon as one puts words to reality, it becomes an interpretation and not an accurate description (metaphysics is unavoidable) and in these interpretations is the value judgement that these people would rather cultivate a sense of intelligence than cultivate joy (again, this is operating under the assumption that ignorance is bliss, sorrow smartness). You can be both intelligent and joyous!

There probably is something to the notion that intelligent people are more likely to suffer from some kind of mental illness, and that the more intelligent you are the increased likelihood of it occurring and the more profound its impact upon the person. But these might be just-so post hoc rationalizations, and even if they were immutably true we can still choose our outlook. We are bound by our biology in many ways, but we still have choices in the matter of outlook.

This is a long-winded way of saying that we can/probably have memed ourselves into melancholic dispositions. I did so myself at one point, as all young men are prone to do (Napoleon writes about this in his journals during his time at artillery school). I slowly realized that I didn't have to entertain such a disposition to be actually intelligent, well-read, educated. The Stoics are excellent on this, but their wisdom is lost on young men with few life experiences, as it was lost on me when I read it young and unappreciative.

"You dwell on the vastness of the Cosmos and think yourself small. I realize I am a part of the universe and think myself big. I am up in this bitch."

It was Nietzsche's thesis of Birth of Tragedy, not my own interpretation.

Np friend

Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy cribs from Schopenhauer the notion that life is inherently painful, tragic, full of suffering. This is a metaphysical view (as all views are) that I simply do not accept. The notion that life is valueless or meaningless (and from this meaningless arrives suffering) is itself a valuation. It's language games all the way down.

Nietzsche in the revisions of Birth of Tragedy writes about how he was still operating with the framework he learned from other philosophers and how he regrets this. Nietzsche's later work does preach about about having life-affirming values, which I agree with and support.

This is essentially Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy. Greek tragedy was the pinnacle of art because it addressed and accepted the pessimism of life for what it was instead of trying to cope or run away from the issue through dissimulation. I don't necessarily agree with this assessment, but I do find it compelling.

I appreciate your response.

I suppose that my main contention is the one that can be found amongst post-modernists and traditionalists alike, that Capitalism (Capital, TechnoCapital, etc.) is a corrosive force that destroys barriers, particularity, specificity. It deterritorializes and detemporalizes the human experience. I do not think these are good things, and should be combatted when possible.

I understand the impulse and reasoning as to why someone would want to cultivate a larger "We", to be more inclusive with our philosophical and political programs. I also agree that one shouldn't limit themselves to what they are (race, sex, religion) and should put effort into what they can be in regards to art, athletics, academics, etc.

However, this request can be a bit disconcerting. I am told to relinquish my particularities for the universal, this particular person's particular universal. I don't think there is a Universal that has been stripped of metaphysics, so these Universals will carry with it always the unexamined premises (or bias, or baggage, which ever word you prefer). We will be adopting someone's Universal, whether it is everyone speaking English as a second language, neoliberal American global military hegemony, or Technocapital reaching back in time to assemble itself. To, for what Universal should I relinquish my ethnicity, my language, my God?

I believe that the more particular and the more specific a phenomenon is (ethnic customs, religious practice, etc.) the more meaning and weight it carries with each person of that way of life. And since I believe this, it behooves me to search out and to create more particularity, more specificity in our world. It creates meaning, it creates a multiplicity of meanings. This impulse creates diversity in the fight in contrast to the homogenizing effects of Capitalism.