Profile

Cover photo
Eric Smith
130 followers|200,555 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideos

Stream

Eric Smith

Discussion  - 
 
Does anyone know the victory conditions of Critical Race Theory (white privelege/supremacy/etc)? That is, how do you know if you have moved the needle? I asked a black doctor, who subscribes to CRT, whether having been granted a full scholarship at a prestigious university and fast tracked into medical school by a wealthy minority advocacy group was evidence that things were improving. She told me that it was actually the dominant culture rewarding her (and her cohort) for intelligence and obedience, so it isn't real social justice. How then, do we measure improvement?

To me, if there is no way of measuring improvement, that means that the theory is just fostering racial discord in service of a broader agenda (e.g. cultural Marxism, or some other movement).

Considerate responses, please. I will not indulge racist crap or political mudslinging.
2
Theodore Minick's profile photoJim Thomas's profile photoEric Smith's profile photoWilliam Beaulieu's profile photo
4 comments
 
As my research librarian friends would suggest, wicapedia is as good a place as any to start, just don't stop there; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

If you are really interested in where such developments are developing, you might also seek to look into South Africa's amnesty trials available broadly on the Internet.

Though if that doesn't satisfy your curiosity, I will caution you to prepare yourself for a rather disterbing world journey, because this subject leads to the foundations of race and class theory.

So if you really want to go there, I will suggest that you start with Charles Darwin and his half cousin Francis Galton, both of whom were fellows at the royal college of science in Britain around the end of the 1800's.
This is one of those places where scientific data and social philosophy collide to form potentially unexpected results. Namely the concept of white superiority, which was never a part of the origional concept. By far Eugenics and it's near cousin Social Darwinism were only ever ment to support the power of British elitists, namely the crown and it's nearest supporters at that time. Yet while the basic premise was to supplement a transfer of ideology from one of religious superiority to one of scientific superiority, the result almost became one of German superiority and ultimately becomes one of transnational corporate superiority.
While I know this sounds like the beginning to a conspiracy theory, I would suggest that anyone reading this consider that as science kills religion, so too will more dominating philosophies seek to dominate science towards further gain.
Rather than believing me out of hand consider the psudo-legal expansions of European companies under the guise of monarchies into the southern hemisphere and the Far East. Had WWII not demonstrated the fallacies of the Eugenic ideology when it did, we might be having a rather different discussion about these matters today.

Hopefully this helps a little, I'd rather enjoy hearing where this search takes you next.
Add a comment...

Eric Smith

Discussion  - 
 
Does anyone remember the name of that crowdsourced security app? Our police response time is just barely fast enough to find your body before it gets eaten by rats. Thanks!
4
Theodore Minick's profile photoEric Smith's profile photoKenneth Cochran's profile photoChristopher Bouvatte's profile photo
7 comments
 
LOL!
Add a comment...

Eric Smith

Discussion  - 
 
I remember an article about a religious group (Mennonites, maybe?) building its own roads to increase traffic flow to its businesses, but I can't find it.  Does anyone have a credible link?  Thanks!
5
Kenneth Cochran's profile photoPhil Tubb's profile photoTheodore Minick's profile photoEric Smith's profile photo
8 comments
 
+Theodore Minick Yeah.  I don't see any problem, philosophically, about making the nodes pay to connect to the network (as long as they want to).  
Add a comment...
 
"But what about firefighters?" This article shows what happens when risks are viewed through utilitarian eyes. I can't help but think that residents would have been much better off with private fire protection (i.e. not having their protection pulled to save wine country). Four towns burned. Over 1000 homes lost. Note: They are still being charged a special tax assessment to pay for the failed firefighting effort.

http://us10.campaign-archive2.com/?u=60e426adb2e84f5dc75fb4357&id=9fb6cc85fc&e=96e6b0ccf8&utm_content=buffer1f452&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

2
Add a comment...

Eric Smith

Discussion  - 
5
Vėjas Plevėsavičius's profile photoSasquatchBean's profile photoA State of Mind's profile photoEric Smith's profile photo
10 comments
 
+SasquatchBean 43% of eligible voters.  This doesn't include people who are not eligible.

There was a really interesting book by Huntington, Crozier, and Watanuki, called "The Crisis of Democracy".  They concluded that trying to extend democracy past a few basic issues, into creating "positive rights" for special interests, was creating gridlock.  Nobody gets what they want and everyone feels meddled with. This is a crisis because the authors were worried that the gridlock would lead to people endorsing charismatic, authoritarian leaders who effect change extra-democratically.  They were right on with this analysis.  Unfortunately, their recommendation was to control media channels to narrow peoples' preferences to fit the State...And this is what we have seen happen.

The point is that it's not a problem of government not doing a tractable job.  The problem is that they are given an intractable job and this yields poor results.

US democracy isn't intended to define a set of rules for how 300 million people are allowed to live.  This is impossible because people are different.  It is intended to let people best decide how to protect their own ability to decide how they want to live.  It was an interesting experiment, and it appears not to have worked.  So, you're left with two major options.  1) Force people to live according to how the most vocal special interests want them to live and deal with the ensuing conflict, or 2) Let people self-segregate into communities which have sovereign decision-making authority.  Judging from how well countries with greater subsidiarity (e.g. Switzerland) are doing relative to how countries with greater centralization are doing (e.g. US, China, Russia), the latter seems preferable.
Add a comment...

Eric Smith

Discussion  - 
 
What key technological advances do you think would make socialism easier to pull off? What tech would make libertarianism easier?
1
Eric Smith's profile photoAlan Robinson-Orr's profile photoVėjas Plevėsavičius's profile photoHerwin Torres's profile photo
11 comments
 
Energy independence via massive investments in clean/renewable energy tech, infrastructure, & energy efficiency. 
Add a comment...

Eric Smith

Discussion  - 
 
I'm curious what the different flavors in this community think about the recent Oregon militia occupation. I have very little firsthand information about it, and the mediated information is pretty convoluted. What's your take and why? 
1
Brian Boring's profile photoHells Barr's profile photoGary McGath's profile photoEric Smith's profile photo
7 comments
 
+Gary McGath Totally. Armed peaceful protest is still peaceful protest.
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
130 people
Tiffany Lewinsky's profile photo
Mary Tran's profile photo
Jeff Rakestraw's profile photo
Ustad Kona's profile photo
Michael Rock's profile photo
Chem Equal's profile photo
Mai-Khanh Bui-Duy's profile photo
Can's profile photo
The Mind Voyager's profile photo

Eric Smith

Discussion  - 
 
I have a question for anyone who knows a lot about Brehon Law. Often, statists use the argument, "If you don't like the laws, then you can leave." But, anarchists sometimes point to the voluntary nature of the tuath as the reason why ancient Irish society was free, since if you didn't like your tuath you could move to a different tuath. Since these tuaths were geographically based, isn't this just the same game on a different scale? A hierarchy that you can leave if you want, but only if you abandon your individual property rights?
2
Christian Gruber's profile photoTheodore Minick's profile photo
14 comments
 
Like the absence of chattel slavery, for instance.
Add a comment...
 
I thought that, surely, this was satire...
American currency has long held claim to being the only thing found in bars that boasts the phrase "E Pluribus Unum." This summer, Budweiser wants to change that by rebranding itself as "America" and peppering its packaging with that very phrase, alongside some others like "Liberty and Justice for All" and "Indivisible Since 1776."
2
Will Henry's profile photoDrew Jensen's profile photoSean Brown's profile photoTravis Dorsey's profile photo
7 comments
 
I blame the illuminati
Add a comment...

Eric Smith

Memes & Quotes  - 
22
2
Herbie Hancock's profile photoAngie J's profile photoThomas Hines's profile photoEric Smith's profile photo
5 comments
 
+Thomas Hines You can still have your wars.
Add a comment...

Eric Smith

Discussion  - 
 
In your opinion, can something be gmo and organic? 
1
Add a comment...

Eric Smith

Discussion  - 
 
What key technological advances do you think would make libertarianism easier to pull off? Socialism?
1
Jeffrey Hueseman's profile photoJan Bruun Andersen's profile photoPeter Jaszkowiak's profile photoYamiShadow Kitty's profile photo
26 comments
 
+Peter Jaszkowiak Actually, that's not the only theory of post-scarcity. Another one, which I subscribe to, is that there's nearly limitless resources in the universe and that our problems are productivity, accessibility, and the time it takes to access and produce what we need from them (energy included). By the time we have access to the stars of the universe and the planets surrounding them in some capacity, we'll have so many resources at our disposal that the notion of scarcity will seem silly. Scarcity will only be a real issue once we're so populous that we literally dominate the universe and are suffering from overpopulation, and before then we may well find something that maps onto your post-scarcity theory which would be pretty awesome.

Though still, until the time described, the issue isn't scarcity itself but rather productivity, accessibility and the time needed for both. This is why we're more prosperous in freer societies. People tend to be more productive and the access of resources is less impeded by political bodies, not to mention that the time it takes to produce is reduced when you don't have to jump through regulatory hoops. If we're worried that free-reign capitalism will exhaust our resources before we can access the rest of the universe, all I can really point out is that our options are either stifling ourselves and not making it out there anyways, or running the free market risk since only there will productivity be high enough for us to get there. SpaceX is a very good example of exactly this, all the way down to the having to jump through bureaucratic hoops to get into and retain a place in the space travel market in the first place. And yet, for all these restrictions, it's already made some amazing innovations and reduced the cost of space travel drastically.
Add a comment...
People
Have him in circles
130 people
Tiffany Lewinsky's profile photo
Mary Tran's profile photo
Jeff Rakestraw's profile photo
Ustad Kona's profile photo
Michael Rock's profile photo
Chem Equal's profile photo
Mai-Khanh Bui-Duy's profile photo
Can's profile photo
The Mind Voyager's profile photo
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Links
YouTube