What's new
  • This thread contains opinions and information that likely IS NOT ACCURATE. Do your own research on such an important topic on a site other than JazzFanz.com, please.

Joe Rogan's Podcast


gandalfe

Well-Known Member
Our bet is whether OSHA will come up with a method of enforcement that is Constitutional according to SCOTUS. No slippery slope, no tyranny involved.
What if no case goes to SCOTUS, or doesn't reach it until it's dismissed because it's over?
 


One Brow

Well-Known Member
It is about an intrinsic feature of capitalism being colonialism.
No one took that position, so why are you arguing against it? Now, I would say that exploitation is an intrinsic feature of modern, corporate capitalism, but exploitation can take other, non-colonialism forms.

What I said was, "If they are so distantly connected, perhaps you could point to the strong, capitalistic economies that were not buoyed by colonial expansion, nor by close trade ties to colonial powers?" So far, there seem to be none.

Capitalism without exploitation doesn't lift economies to any significant degree. It does make people feel better about their lives psychologically.
 

NAOS

Well-Known Member
The question isn't if you are able to run around the field moving the goalposts or if you can throw mud. It is about an intrinsic feature of capitalism being colonialism. Not a single thing you just wrote speaks to that.
There are at least two different paths for analyses here. One is on the qualitative nature of capital (and it’s various transformations over the last 500 years or so), and the other is on the qualitative nature of capital (and the force it can exert on a given economy).

Philosophically/theoretically speaking, if we’re analyzing the qualitative nature of capital, then there’s no reason to identity colonialism as an intrinsic feature of it.

But if you’re saying anything about the quantitative nature of capital—and you must in any historically grounded discussion—then you have to say something about colonialism. The build-up of capital has left a very clear material record.
 

Al-O-Meter

Well-Known Member
Claiming that the history of the build-up of capital doesn’t matter to the discussion of capital (in any given location) is ****ing ridic. Obvi.
My stance is the exact opposite. I have no issue with an honest discussion of history which is why I criticize the apparent crutch of editing out the last 70 years to maintain an alternate construct that doesn’t reflect our world.

if you’re saying anything about the quantitative nature of capital—and you must in any historically grounded discussion—then you have to say something about colonialism. The build-up of capital has left a very clear material record.
There has been more wealth created in the past 70 years than in all of the rest of human history combined thanks to the wide adoption of capitalistic economic principles. Quantitatively speaking, the Pax Americana era is the most capitalistic era in history by a wide margin. People are living longer, freer lives and global trade has replaced global conquest. As I pointed out earlier, there hasn’t been a recent boom in colonialism. The whole narrative of capitalism and colonialism going hand-in-hand qualitatively or quantitatively is monumentally stupid. It can’t stand up to even cursory examination, and the deeper you look the worse the idea is shown to be.
 

NAOS

Well-Known Member
My stance is the exact opposite. I have no issue with an honest discussion of history which is why I criticize the apparent crutch of editing out the last 70 years to maintain an alternate construct that doesn’t reflect our world.

There has been more wealth created in the past 70 years than in all of the rest of human history combined thanks to the wide adoption of capitalistic economic principles. Quantitatively speaking, the Pax Americana era is the most capitalistic era in history by a wide margin. People are living longer, freer lives and global trade has replaced global conquest. As I pointed out earlier, there hasn’t been a recent boom in colonialism. The whole narrative of capitalism and colonialism going hand-in-hand qualitatively or quantitatively is monumentally stupid. It can’t stand up to even cursory examination, and the deeper you look the worse the idea is shown to be.
What’s been determining which points of mine you’ll step up and make a rebuttal against, and which ones you’ll ignore?

Maybe if we understood this facet of the discussion we could gain some insights into why the rebuttals you’re giving aren’t adequate. The “crutch” you’re seeing is a figment of your imagination.


Also.... do you feel how you’ve rounded back into a telling of history that requires climate to be included? Or is your denial so strong you don’t feel it?
 

Al-O-Meter

Well-Known Member
do you feel how you’ve rounded back into a telling of history that requires climate to be included? Or is your denial so strong you don’t feel it?
I don’t run from discussions of climate but as familiar as I am with the published literature, I also know this is another sticky trap socialists like to employ. Instead of cherry-picked history used to craft a nonsense correlation between capitalism and colonialism, the climate argument ventures into a supposed future where imagination is argued as fact.

I’m not saying global warming and its anthropogenic causes are imagination but rather the supposed post-apocalyptic world straight out of The Road Warrior that will accompany that warming. I’ve already shown how life has become better for those of us here on Earth while at the exact same time atmospheric carbon has also been increasing.

The amount of carbon being emitted by China has been rising like a rocket and so has the standard of living for the Chinese people. The same twin rise of carbon and standard of living can be seen in India. There is a well documented worldwide rise in the standard of living. I don’t find any frustration in discussing the real world observations of the past 70 years. Is that what you want to see included or is more along the lines of the future pictured in your imagination that you had in mind?
 

LogGrad98

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
For the record, the panic-mongering has been my biggest problem with climate change disciples. Will we see changes, absolutely. Will they absolutely be species-destroying events? I remain highly skeptical of those outcomes.


Then again I'm a bit of a nihilist so...
 

NAOS

Well-Known Member
I don’t run from discussions of climate but as familiar as I am with the published literature, I also know this is another sticky trap socialists like to employ. Instead of cherry-picked history used to craft a nonsense correlation between capitalism and colonialism, the climate argument ventures into a supposed future where imagination is argued as fact.

I’m not saying global warming and its anthropogenic causes are imagination but rather the supposed post-apocalyptic world straight out of The Road Warrior that will accompany that warming. I’ve already shown how life has become better for those of us here on Earth while at the exact same time atmospheric carbon has also been increasing.

The amount of carbon being emitted by China has been rising like a rocket and so has the standard of living for the Chinese people. The same twin rise of carbon and standard of living can be seen in India. There is a well documented worldwide rise in the standard of living. I don’t find any frustration in discussing the real world observations of the past 70 years. Is that what you want to see included or is more along the lines of the future pictured in your imagination that you had in mind?
70 years is a totally inadequate amount of time to understand almost anything. But especially inadequate if you want to understand climate. And capitalism, too, of course.

The biggest “trap” is short-term thinking. But I’m guessing you feel as though you haven’t been trapped.
 

NAOS

Well-Known Member
For the record, the panic-mongering has been my biggest problem with climate change disciples. Will we see changes, absolutely. Will they absolutely be species-destroying events? I remain highly skeptical of those outcomes.


Then again I'm a bit of a nihilist so...
You’re smart enough to find your way to good sources of information on this. And smart enough to avoid the overly sensational.

We’re already in the midst of species losses welllllllll beyond background extinction rates for several different families of organisms. Biodiversity losses are real and serious.
 

NAOS

Well-Known Member
I’m a socialist setting traps.... lmfao. You can see who is willing to assume and disparage with labels here.
 

Red

Well-Known Member
How do you square that with the small percentage of Neanderthal DNA found in the genetics of people today? Would you consider the Neanderthal to have been replaced by a genetically different people?
Sorry for the delayed reply.
I had a long reply, wrote it, brought in the other species of Homo that also co-existed at the same time as sapiens and Neanderthal, and then thought, what am I doing, and discarded it.

Because, more to the point, I read the paper you cited, and found a good summary as well:


I’m not used to thinking of Clovis in South America. I knew true Clovis points had been found there, although no further south than Venezuela. I don’t dispute the findings in the study in Cell. I’ll just point out why this statement by you puzzled me at the time. I better understand your point now:

“… the Clovis people being wiped out by a genetically different people 9,000 years ago”…

Confusion #1: Clovis, in its narrow description, refers to a technology and a stone tool kit, more than to a people. It cannot be said with certainty who developed it, only that it was developed in North America. It spread throughout the continent, and as you noted, as far south as South America. And lasted only 300 years. It can be time constrained from 13,200-12,900 years ago. It’s distinctive tool was the Clovis point, with its basal thinning channel to facilitate hafting. I may have said 500 years earlier, but it’s 300, and it’s end is coincident with the start of the cold snap, known as the Younger Dryas, and which may, or may not, have been triggered by a meteorite impact in Greenland at about 12,900 years ago. Because post-Clovis fluted points are so similar, and obviously descended from Clovis, it’s still a mystery to me why the technology was altered at all. Perhaps changing game fauna was behind it, but I’m skeptical of that as a reason.

Confusion #2. Because Clovis, as a technology for producing fluted points, and an associated tool kit, is very time constrained, I had trouble understanding how we could still speak of “Clovis people” 9000 years ago, roughly 4000 years after the end of Clovis. Archaeologists, at least, do not think in terms of “Clovis people” existing 9000 years ago. Archaeologists think of Clovis ending 12,900 years ago. Since the immediate post-Clovis projectile points were also fluted, and obviously descended from Clovis, but not its exact method of fluting, it’s fair to assume it’s the same people, but archaeology, at least, no longer applies the term Clovis to the people producing those points. When they speak of “Clovis culture”, they speak of that brief 300 year period.


In other words, it seems like the geneticists who authored the study in Cell are applying the term “Clovis people” to people living long after Clovis technology ended, simply because their genetics is related to the genetics of people who made Clovis points. Although, as far as I know, the Anzick child Clovis burial is the only Clovis burial known to date. The only place we’ve obtained DNA of an individual associated with Clovis. But, my point would be, and one source of my confusion, is that Paleo archaeologists, unlike apparently some geneticists, don’t speak of “Clovis people” existing post 12,900 years ago. “Fluted point hunters” is a more general term, and covers all the bands that used both Clovis and post-Clovis fluted projectile points. I’ve not seen “Clovis people” used to describe post-Clovis culture before. And 9000 years ago is not even the Paleolithic era in North America. It’s the Early Archaic by that date.

Thanks for re familiarizing myself with Paleolithic studies in South America. I’m not a professional, but there has always been a disconnect among Paleo archaeologists working in the two continents. I vaguely do recall the study, but genetics will never be my strong point. One thing I can say with certainty is we are only at the beginning of understanding the peopling of the Americas. The fossil footprint discovery opens up all the early dates like no new discovery to date.
 

Top