wh313

Perhaps review "Dialectics of the Concrete," which if read carefully, might ameliorate your smug demeanor.

By the way, you failed to address his main point that the US is taking a turn towards authoritarianism, and instead chose to critique a secondary part of his claim. Why is that?

Unlocked article: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/11/science/mushroom-hunters-...

I'm confused about how the article minimizes the suicide rate in boys. It even has multiple paragraphs analyzing why this gap exists.

It seems like you're framing gender dynamics as a zero-sum game, where improving the situation of one results in stepbacks the other. I agree that men do face significant struggles in today's society [1], but there are ways to move forward in ways that benefit everyone [2].

[1] Perry, Grayson. The Descent of Man. United Kingdom: Penguin Publishing Group, 2017.

[2] hooks, bell. Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. United Kingdom: Pluto Press, 2000.

I was answering a question asking for a link between xenophobia and democracy. This article establishes the link through an analysis of right-wing supremacy in the United States. Could you explain how your reply applies that that context?

However, you do touch on an interesting point regarding the link between Nationalism and democracy. This review paper [1] might be of interest to you. The underpinning question seems to be the moral implications of this relationship in regards to climate change, and I'd love to hear you thoughts on it.

[1] https://ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/c...

This brings up the question, why should that be the metric to measure the effects of climate change with, as compared to the other metrics we go by?

How much does this greening offset the other effects of climate change, such as increased severe weather, ecosystem loss, and water scarcity, among other things [1] ?

[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...

I find your point extremely interesting, though I think I'm missing one of your core assumptions. When you highlight the term "democratic," it seems to me as though you implicitly switched away from the ethical perspective of nequo's comment based on the assumption that universal human rights should be respected no matter what. Instead, you seem to be working from a legal perspective based on American law and ethical theory surrounding it. Do you mind expanding on this?

From the paper "Right-wing extremism/radicalism: reconstructing the concept" [1]:

> Although nationalism, racism and xenophobia are all discrete concepts, policies of exclusionary nationalism and cultural homogeneity often go hand-in-hand with racism and/or xenophobia. Homogeneity is usually advocated on the grounds that there are irreconcilable natural differences between groups of people and that these groups should not mix – i.e. according to a racist doctrine.

> It is the values inherent in liberal and pluralist democracy and the procedures and institutions that sustain these values that particularly stick in the craw of right-wing extremists/radicals. Indeed, Carter defines right-wing extremism by reference to two elements: ‘a rejection of the fundamental values, procedures and institutions of the democratic constitutional state’, and ‘a rejection of the principle of fundamental human equality’.

[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13569317.2018.1...

The highest stipend I've been offered by a CS PhD program has been 50k. In NYC. Most other offers I had were around the 30k-40k region.

The median household income in 2020 was $67,521 [1]

[1]: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2021/demo/p60-27...

Thanks for the link, I actually haven't seen that. Here's an interesting preprint tackling this issue as well: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/rw4es

I'm also curious as to why you thought that this was "very well known," however. Could you elaborate on how you determine which set of facts can be selected to be well known, and which set cannot?