POTF 40 - Vote

[Lord Thesaurian]

POTF Voting Rules

- Public or private messages asking for a vote for a candidate post are forbidden. Violators (and their posts) may not participate in the running contest.

-Users have one vote each, and may vote for their own post.

-Use of alt accounts in the voting round is forbidden.

-Users may not reveal who they voted for in this thread or elsewhere in the POTF forum

-While explicitly asking for votes is not allowed, advertising the competition is permitted and encouraged.

antaeus - Changing your mind...

Post 1

There's an adage... "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock". It's a hokey saying often attributed to Jefferson, although he didn't actually say it. It is a moralism that people use to justify intractability and reduce subjectiveness in discourse. I see the ability to reassess information and change a decision or opinion on a subject as a strength. To use the language of the above moralism, I don't draw a distinction between issues of style and matters of principle - I see both as largely subjective, and therefore as my life situation changes in time, my perspective on each is likely to change: either intentionally, or through accumulated experience. In my day to day interactions, I have deliberately sought to be flexible. I work in that career field where it is an asset to be able to separate your ego from your work. I justify my work through iterative and evidence based testing processes. This means I make a guess based on what I know, I test my guess, I iterate my guess based on feedback, and retest. The cycle is repeated until I reach a result that has broad acceptance. Many years ago I discovered through these processes that my gut isn't always correct, and that I am valued for my responsiveness to counter-evidence. However there are many contexts where flexibility can appear to be a weakness. Thanks to my history in competitive debating, I have also developed the ability to argue or debate a point separate to my own opinions. To Devil's advocate. This is a hallmark of the careers that follow from debating. Be it in politics, law, dispute resolution, etc, debaters are trained to take a position on a subject that is separate to their personal beliefs. Certainly, as a lawyer it is important to be able to argue a client's perspective - and the law demands that even the most abhorrent person out there must have fair legal representation. And politicians have to argue within the framework of the party that they have been chosen to represent. When I see a politician change their perspective, they are often castigated, either for their former perspective, or their latter. Where things get interesting for me is when we throw cognitive biases into the mix. While it is important to be intractable when arguing for other people's perspectives - as a lawyer or politician for example - It is harder to justify intractability of principle when debating subjectives from a personal perspective. Most of us here who debate online, become good enough at arguments that we become almost impossible to convince of wrongness. We become so effective at reframing evidence to suit our desired narrative that the use of evidence itself becomes secondary to our ability to reframe. Through this process and combined with the lack of accountability that the internet provides, we entrench our perspectives. I would go even further. I would suggest that through our debating culture we not only strengthen our cognitive biases, but we also we render our ability to change course in a discussion as weakness. This leads to forced binaries in our conversations about nuanced and potentially subjective topics for which there is not necessarily any wrong or right. It also leads to us debating ideas that we don't entirely agree with, simply because they are part of a broader set of perspectives that we are defending. I would argue that the most dangerous opinion, is that which is held by someone who is good enough at debating to convince themselves of their righteousness, but not introspective enough to see their own misjudgements. Most of us here would fit into this description - dangerously opinionated. When I look back through my posts over the years, I can see a hardening on some issues, and completely changed perspectives on others. Two questions: Do you see the ability to change your mind a personal strength or a weakness? and when you see others change their mind do you treat it as a strength or weakness in them?

Legio_Italica - USA elections 2020

Post 2

Do I detect a hint of 'Minority Report' or is it just wishful thinking? "should have been condemned from the beginning" Just as well that practice isn't exactly supported by the current law - unless they come up with another creative addendum to the patriot act. No one is suggesting BLM is a terrorist group. Again, Cullors herself has been candid about her extremism, including how she was mentored and trained for years by a convicted domestic terrorist leader, Eric Mann. Her organization should be condemned, not given power and influence by the political and corporate establishments. Public support for BLM didn’t enter net positive territory until 2018 amid sustained support from Democrat mega donors and proliferation of false narratives promoted by the group. I respect and to a certain extent share your point of view but it's kinda irrelevant to your claim that I was originally responding to: "The false narratives peddled by BLM incited killers to act according to the FBI." It does however seem to be based pretty much on the same approach (fallacious [claim to authority] narrative and propagation) you mention in your above comment, so there is a connection after all. I am not sure if the discussion about this specific claim (and the claim itself) actually has a place in this thread as it would require a 'three degrees of Francis Bacon' approach to link the FBI file comment to the US election. But then the thread is nearing 3000 posts and I suppose even four degrees will eventually be fine. It wasn’t a claim, but rather an accurate description of the FBI’s findings, one which, again, was referenced by the killers themselves as to their mindset and motivations (BLM and the false narratives about a vast police conspiracy against blacks, a central tenet of the group’s mantra. See Long’s confession that BLM, in his view, did not go far enough to combat this conspiracy, so he took matters into his own hands; Johnson that he was upset by BLM and the narrative of police targeting blacks, wanted to kill white people). Again, the Democrat Party has backed the group since 2015-16, and as BLM’s power and influence grew, it’s not surprising that Biden endorsed them and Cullors is demanding private meetings with him and the VP. No degrees of Kevin Bacon needed. Again. As per. BLM is a reactionary movement. The key premise it responds to, is the perception that to police, black lives don't matter as much as others. There are enough people who agree with the movement's key premise that it has mainstream political legitimacy whether you like it or not. Also, this means there is distinct political advantage to be made from responding to the movement's key premise. Because the movement's key premise is so widely agreed upon, even if the actions of a tiny minority of protesters are not, it is no longer extremist, but as the polls show, mainstream. You saying it is extremist reflects how far you are, or have moved from the mainstream reality of politics. There has been a great polarising separation, and you have found yourself staring from a great distance towards something that has gained more traction than you'd like... judging the concerns of the many by the actions of the few. Attempting to delegitimise something which is actually a relatively moderate demand. Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention. Support for BLM sat at 27% in 2016, and was net negative until 2018. Perhaps the public has a short memory. Perhaps the Democrat Party and sympathetic publicity has succeeded in whitewashing the group’s image. Perhaps both. Just because extremism has been gradually laundered into mainstream public discourse over the last 4-5 years, that doesn’t make it less extreme. According to the group’s website: Our intention from the very beginning was to connect Black people from all over the world who have a shared desire for justice to act together in their communities. The impetus for that commitment was, and still is, the rampant and deliberate violence inflicted on us by the state. https://web.archive.org/web/20200917...at-we-believe/ This narrative of “rampant and deliberate violence inflicted on us by the state” is not only false, it also motivated violence and murder, as per the FBI. Ferguson helped to catalyze a movement to which we’ve all helped give life. Organizers who call this network home have ousted anti-Black politicians, won critical legislation to benefit Black lives, and changed the terms of the debate on Blackness around the world. Through movement and relationship building, we have also helped catalyze other movements and shifted culture with an eye toward the dangerous impacts of anti-Blackness. The “Hands up, don’t shoot” narrative was debunked. An organization inspired and catalyzed by divisive false narratives is problematic as it is. Far from being “moderate,” the group’s demands, according to sponsored legislation, include: “Dramatically” reduce military spending/DoD budget Use federal grants to push state and local governments to close prisons and defund police End life (prison) sentences Decriminalize illegal border crossings Close all federal prisons Fund race based reparations These demands are extreme by their own description and sit well outside the political mainstream: The Biden campaign publicly rejected most or all of these measures and they are unpopular with the public. Nevertheless, Democrat Party mega donors have been bankrolling BLM as a useful political tool for several years now.

Himster - Changing your mind...

Post 3

Do you see the ability to change your mind a personal strength or a weakness? Neither. Either way, one necessarily has sufficient cause so to do. Otherwise, one could not have done so. and when you see others change their mind do you treat it as a strength or weakness in them? Instinctively: Weakness. Rationally: Strength. But there is a kernel of rationality in instinct and all schema of rationality must necessarily lay upon an a-priori of a swirling mass of incomprehensibility. We become so effective at reframing evidence to suit our desired narrative that the use of evidence itself becomes secondary to our ability to reframe. Through this process and combined with the lack of accountability that the internet provides, we entrench our perspectives. True. But it's not like having entrenched opinions is new. It is human nature to tribalize, with signifiers such as opinions/dress/rituals/etc., it always has been so, it's not remarkable. What is remarkable is that in the latter 19th and 20th centuries significant pockets of discourse emerged that genuinely valued a rare concept called "truth", rendered in new and exciting ways coupled with "good-faith". Periods of de-entrenchment are rare and fleeting. I believe such events happen periodically, but pass relatively unnoticed (assuming that it is part of the Hegelian dialectical progression of future-history) and we continue as if we are genuinely furthering those values, which you point out - generally, we do not. Something that is pretty neat is that now we seem very aware of this fact. So there's that in which we may take solace. Adding to your point about how the internet plays a role in this: I don't think anonymity plays as much of a major role as we often assume, almost the opposite in fact: we develop conjoined identities within which our ego grows upon itself like a metastasized tumour, amplifying all of the ill-effects of the ego and the id. I think the lack of accountability only plays a minor role (if any at all). And subjectivity: there really is only one perspective and that is the subjective perspective, the only centre of the observable universe is the eye of the observer. The "objective" is merely the combination of several subjective perspectives, the combination of which is yet again subjective, aligning to a schematic purported to be "objective," but, of course, was developed by an individual. There is no escape from our subjectivity. I don't know where I'm going with this, so I'll stop here before I end up posting a wall of text again.

Ludicus - Does systemic racism exist in the US?

Post 4

It's a false believe that racial disparities in social mobility are always economic inequalities in disguise. Nope.Although class disparities are important in their own right, they don't explain the majority of the racial disparities. ------ 26 charts that show how systemic racism is in the US 26 simple charts to show friends and family who aren't convinced racism is still a problem in America. These 26 charts show the extent of racial disparities in America, in areas like employment, wealth, education, home ownership, healthcare, and incarceration. The employment-population ratio measures the share of a demographic group that has a job, and it's been lower for Black people for years Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  The unemployment rate has also spiked for all racial groups in the US during the coronavirus pandemic, and is especially high for Black Americans. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  Black Americans are underrepresented in high-paying jobs Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  One Harvard University study found that when Blacks and Asians "whitened" their resumes — for example, used "American" or "white"-sounding names — they got more callbacks for corporate interviews Twenty-five percent of Black candidates received callbacks from their whitened resumes, while only 10% got calls when they left ethnic details on their resume. ------- People of color, and especially Black Americans, are severely underrepresented at the top of the corporate hierarchy. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  Black Americans have historically been underrepresented in the highest echelons of government, as well. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  Black workers have historically earned far less than white workers. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  There's a similar disparity at the household level. Lower incomes mean that the poverty rate for Black families is over twice that of white families. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  The aggregate wealth white households have held has historically far outstripped that held by the Black community. And while it has increased for white people since the 1980s, it's remained stagnant for Black people. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  One of the contributing factors to the household wealth disparity is student loans. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  The wage gap between races also interacts with the gender wage gap between men and women. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  One common way to illustrate the gender and race wage gaps is through looking at "equal pay days" for different groups. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  A key part of the "American Dream" is leaving your children in a better economic position than you were in, but that dream is less attainable for Black Americans. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  Educational opportunities remain starkly split by race. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  The share of both white and Black Americans with college degrees has increased dramatically over the last half-century, but there's still a gap. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  As with income, intergenerational educational mobility varies widely between racial groups. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  When they tried to get financing from banks, Black mortgage applicants were more likely to be denied loans than aspiring homeowners of other races. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  Thus, the share of Black households that own their own homes is lower than other racial groups. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  The coronavirus crisis has only exacerbated an already wide disparity in access to healthcare. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  The current coronavirus pandemic has had a disparate impact on people of color. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  Black prisoners are overrepresented in the US prison population compared to their share of the total US population. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  Black men are roughly five times more likely to be imprisoned than their white counterparts — and nearly 13 times as likely in the 18-19 age group. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  Marijuana usage rates are similar between white and Black Americans, yet Black Americans are 3.64 times more likely to get arrested on marijuana possession charges. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  The racial disparity in marijuana arrests has actually gotten worse in recent years, even though more states are legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  Black people are overwhelmingly more likely than white people to be under parole supervision — and they're more likely to be sent back to prison for minor infractions. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:  Roughly half of those fatally shot by police are white, but Black Americans are fatally shot at a disproportionate rate compared to their representation in the US population. Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Common Soldier - Late roman soldiers without armor??

Post 5

Vegetius says nothing about the ethnic make up of the army, so I do not think it is justified to say he was complaining about them the way some do about modern immigrants. In fact, if that were the case Vegetius would have been complain on native Romans were refusing to fight and armies had to depend on foreigners, but that does not seem the case. I think he just misunderstood the reasons srmor was not being worn. Late Roman armies were not as professional and were larger than earlier imperial legions. Earlier legions we're composed of long term (20 years) professionals, so it made sense to equip them as well as practical. The late Roman armies don't seem to be long term professionals, so there was less incentive to equip them as well, plus it would have cost a lot more, since there were more troops to equip. Also, it was probably more difficult to impose the tighter discipline of the earlier empire. A Roman legionnaire had a pension to look forward to, and deserting meant forfeiting a substantial amount of money. Late Roman troops had less to lose, there doesn't seem any kind of pension as there was in the earlier empire. Wearing armor is uncomfortable, and if you don't fight a lot of battles, you might leave off wearing the armor if you can. Unlike the legions of the earlier empire, where you could expect a lot of fighting, and being sent to trouble spots as required, late Roman armies were more local, and it is possible any given troop might not see a lot of action for periods of time. If most of the time you are not fighting, you might leave off.wearing armor, unless you have your officers and centurions on your back to wear it. Unlike earlier Roman inperial legionnaires, who definitely could count on seeing combat, perhaps any give late Roman soldier might only rarely see combat. Part of the reason the number of troops were expanded was so that you didn't have to move legions around to face a threat, but would have troops on hand to meet dangers. Spread around, any particular group of soldiers might occassionally face combat, and against foes who did not use a bow, a shield was good enough. Many Germans were not using the bow, Goths might have been an exception. I believe modern sargeants often have to force their inexperience charges to wear their helmet and body armor, left to themselves the enlisted might not wear it if they don't percieved a threat.

[Flinn]

Voted!