Random political thought thread.

[The Cat]

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

From what I have seen, there has simply been a more tolerant attitude in the country when we have had a Democratic president. It is more noticeable what changed when Trump was in office. Racists, misogynists, and other bigots felt more empowered. They knew the national leadership looked kindly on their views, and likely suspected or at least hoped that any official response would be muted at best.

Witness the texts sent to young black people, many still in middle school, on the day after this recent election, telling them to report to buses that would take them to work on plantations in a throwback to slavery days. Biden is still in office, and those texts are being investigated as the hate-based harassment they are. What do you think Trump would say and do? "Surely you didn't think they meant it. It was just a joke - no harm done." Misogynistic statements on social media and elsewhere are also on the rise. Trump's attitude signals that this sort of thing, and worse, is OK.

I read about that. Disgusting.

Personally, what I noticed was an increase in jokes about Asian accents dating to at most a week before the election. I've definitely noticed a change in the conversation online, and not for the better.

I complained about it then, too. You weren't alone.

I'm glad to know that.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Virtual ghost]

Backlash builds as Elon Musk endorses Germany’s far right

Christian Lindner, the former finance minister and leader of the fiscally conservative Free Democratic Party (FDP), praised Musk’s ideas on cutting regulation and bureaucracy while warning against the AfD.

“Elon, I’ve initiated a policy debate inspired by ideas from you and Milei,” Lindner posted on X. “While migration control is crucial for Germany, the AfD stands against freedom, business – and it’s a far-right extremist party. Don’t rush to conclusions from afar.”

This basically proves that American minds can't naturally separate the term "right" from libertarian style ideas. While "the right" as a term has fairly different meaning in various parts of the world. Right means being loyal to the culture, but various cultures believe in different things.

 

[Red Herring]

Backlash builds as Elon Musk endorses Germany’s far right




This basically proves that American minds can't naturally separate the term "right" from libertarian style ideas. While "the right" as a term has fairly different meaning in various parts of the world. Right means being loyal to the culture, but various cultures believe in different things.

Some over here have been joking that he obviously hasn't read the party programm of the people he endorses since they are adamently against electric cars.

Also, members of the AfD have repeatedly publically expressed physical threats to their political opponents, basically not just saying they should be locked up but killed. This is not about freedom of speech and it never was. This is a war on liberal democracy and Musk - who is currently shopping around Europe for new governments to buy into now that he has a foot in the White House - had decided to throw his weight behind its enemies.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Europe’s far right seizes on Magdeburg attack to hammer migration, Islam

Italy: Salvini acquitted in refugee kidnapping trial


More of fresh info on the topic.

 

[Coriolis]

Some over here have been joking that he obviously hasn't read the party programm of the people he endorses since they are adamently against electric cars.

Also, members of the AfD have repeatedly publically expressed physical threats to their political opponents, basically not just saying they should be locked up but killed. This is not about freedom of speech and it never was. This is a war on liberal democracy and Musk - who is currently shopping around Europe for new governments to buy into now that he has a foot in the White House - had decided to throw his weight behind its enemies.

I suspect many of our Trump supporters - I can no longer call them real Republicans - don't read much at all, and think even less about what they do read. Willful ignorance at its best.

 

[Coriolis]

What would a non-white-male candidate need to be in order to not be “DEI”? Is there any situation where such a person could have any leadership job based on credentials or is it all “identity politics” by default of their race and gender?

Questions:
1. What specifically is missing from her credentials to make her position solely based on race and gender? What do all the white-male candidates have on their resume and experience that she doesn’t?

2. Would her credentials have to be significantly stronger than white-male counterparts to be considered a valid option? How good would she need to be for people to forget her race and gender?

3. What have white-male VP accomplished throughout U.S. history? What specifically did they accomplish that she did not? Define this bar with specific examples of policy credited to these VP.

It would be helpful for you to provide specific examples without using broad, abstract value statements.

These are great questions. It looks like anyone who is not a cisgender, heterosexual, Christian white male can readily be dismissed as a "DEI hire". That presumes no one outside that demographic has skills and experience comparable to those within it. They certainly do. Moreover, the fact that they have lived their lives outside that demographic gives them invaluable experience that cisgender, heterosexual, Christian white males, through no fault of their own, will never have. Our government is supposed to represent all of us. It cannot when most of its members come from the same minority.

 

[Virtual ghost]

What would a non-white-male candidate need to be in order to not be “DEI”? Is there any situation where such a person could have any leadership job based on credentials or is it all “identity politics” by default of their race and gender?

Questions:
1. What specifically is missing from her credentials to make her position solely based on race and gender? What do all the white-male candidates have on their resume and experience that she doesn’t?

2. Would her credentials have to be significantly stronger than white-male counterparts to be considered a valid option? How good would she need to be for people to forget her race and gender?

3. What have white-male VP accomplished throughout U.S. history? What specifically did they accomplish that she did not? Define this bar with specific examples of policy credited to these VP.

It would be helpful for you to provide specific examples without using broad, abstract value statements.

Since a day has passed it is pretty sure that you wouldn't get your exact answers. Therefore I will jump in.
The thing about DEI is that in a way that is an insult, plus in a sense this remark is made so that you put political focus on certain peope that you don't like. However the problem is much more complicated than simple "hate of the person". The problem is cultural, can you really be represented by a person that has just about nothing to do with your own culture ? This is the problem for which I said years ago that will eventually tear apart US. Since in my mind you can't have endless diversity and expect that the sum of it will remain functional. In the peaceful times you can perhaps find some compromise. However when times get hard this combination will spin out of control. In my own country there are public festivals that would be considered "problematic" by the logic of inclusion. However this is exactly why the logic of diversity isn't taking deep roots and is starting to lose what little ground it has. Since genuine diversity by definition will requre cultural changes .... and pretty clear majority doesn't want that. Especially since for the last 3000 years in these parts it is normal that the complex cultural and ideologial disputes are settled by "swords". It can be argued that this is wrong but in some places this is just how it is.

What in the end means that liberal democracy can't trully represent genuine large scale diversity. That is simply the flaw of the system. You can't put 200 people of all shapes, sizes and cultures at the same table and expect that everyone will be perfectly happy (or happy at all). We can see that in US and we can see it in the collapse of globalization over the last couple of years. Which was the ultimate form of DEI.

 

[Virtual ghost]

One subtext I read in your insightful post is that everyone is expecting to be perfectly happy. Let go of that expectation, assume social discomfort as normative, and then diversity and tolerance is easier.

But that is the core of the problem, why play along with social dynamic if it wouldn't make you happy ? Especially if wouldn't make you even remotely happy ?

After all if one group will lose social comfort then the odds are that there will be domino effect across all remaining groups.
Human mind can or even wants to have some variety around itself. However when the equation becomes too complex for many there will eventually be a rebellion of some sort. Therefore If we simplify: if there are 4 groups in a society you should get your way 25% of the time. Plus there are odds that you can make good compromise with one or two other groups. So you are kinda 50:50 on the odds and things shouldn't get too far off the track. However when there are 20 groups you should get your way only 5% of the time (if we presume everyone is equal). Therefore even with compromises and everything you probably wouldn't get your way more than 20% of the time. What is a turn off to many since 20% just isn't enough. Especially because if you have 20 groups the odds are that everyone will have to make a compromise that they don't really like.

I mean this is fundamental flaw of liberal democracy. When things start to get too complicated the system is likely to start wobbling and that often doesn't end well.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Some of this statement sounds like there is no overlap between social needs and I suggest there is. This is why society needs clear division between public and private spaces, allowing the most freedom possible in the private spaces so diverse people can have a place to be close to 100% their way.

I think people are similar enough that they can all be accommodated to a certain degree. The idea of a private space you mention for the rest is interesting.

Public spaces need to have well defined boundaries and do require assumption of tolerance. We have traffic rules that apply to all levels of drivers with grey area that results in tolerance and rudeness- both of which are allowed within the outer bounds of the law. Traffic serves as an ideal metaphor for how all social spaces must function.

Could you explain more? It seems that a sizable majority of people don't follow traffic laws.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I see it as social and emotional maturity. The child shares his toys, is encouraged to give away a box of them to a poorer child, leaves the biggest piece of pie for grandma, tolerates the neighbors’ pink house, smiles politely to the smelly stranger sitting next to them in the bus, drinks some tea to fall asleep after canons are shot for the football teams’ victory in the night, etc. Having everything to please self is narcissism and by nature isolating and core misery.

In the same way our immune system needs to be stressed to be strong or our muscles worked to aching to grow, our social health requires irritants to function. The more one tolerates, the easier it becomes and the less annoyances overall.

I’ve known privileged normative people who experience stress and unhappiness at the slightest deviation from expectation and control. They have no social immune system and so are weakened.

Some of this statement sounds like there is no overlap between social needs and I suggest there is. This is why society needs clear division between public and private spaces, allowing the most freedom possible in the private spaces so diverse people can have a place to be close to 100% their way.

Public spaces need to have well defined boundaries and do require assumption of tolerance. We have traffic rules that apply to all levels of drivers with grey area that results in tolerance and rudeness- both of which are allowed within the outer bounds of the law. Traffic serves as an ideal metaphor for how all social spaces must function.

In ideal world you would be 100% correct, the only problem is that the world isn't ideal. What returns us to my line that you can perhaps make some sort of compromises with everyone if the times are good (or if everyone at the table is at least somewhat normal person). The real problem occurs when that is no longer the case (the situation people like you are getting increasingly familiar over the last couple of years). You can say that these people are immature or whatever but that evidently wouldn't do the trick. By your logic people should go through all kinds of horrors we see around the world lately just so that they are ready for "all challenges". What is evidently wrong logic. This is kinda like saying that you should go through every known disease to get all anti bodies in order to be always healthy. However if you live in generally controlled environment/country you don't have a sense of how diabolic things can get. What means that somewhere you have to draw the line and hold it.

However we can make this argument in milder way.
In other words in this part of Europe something like 95% of people thinks that we should keep our socialized healthcare system. That should require some extra public investments but people think this is absolutely worth it. What opens the question why should all these people compromise with the remaining 5% that have that position simply because they are likely to profit out of changes ? Plus more importantly how exactly should that compromise look like between the two groups ? This is rhetorical question but I really do think there is a point in it. Real life requires solid conclusions and many compromises just aren't workable conclusions on the long run.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Actually the logic isn’t so bad if you align it more consistently with the physical immune system. I don’t think the body should encounter deadliest viruses or be strained to the point of destruction. We don’t travel the world trying to get infected but it’s okay to get the flu and realize it’s part of life. If you consider the principle in a reasonable, balanced way it does make sense and holds up in reality.

When intolerance results in destructive behaviors I will tend to place a negative value judgement when I think there is some realistic way humans could do better.

Hyenas can’t do better and there are limits for humans. Even my cats have a range of social learning and tolerance. I recently adopted a new kitten that causes some annoyance to the older cats but they are now forming social bonds. It is healthy for them all to be presented with this social challenge that provides both frustrations and relational play and meaning.

But there are limits. Mammals naturally grow from social stimuli involving conflicts, annoyance, and even confusion, but it isn’t infinite. Humans have evolved limits and I don’t know where that line is, but as socially learning creatures in a world of global encounters with diversity, I’d support policies and education to stretch our capacity for social growth as far as our limits can enable. Let’s try.

In ideal world you would be correct ... but there is already mentioned evident problem with that.
In other words if you don't want to encounter the worst of viruses the odds are that someone has to remove those viruses out of the picture. In other words the foundation of that is intolerance. In other words it is easy to talk about pretty things in life when there is about a trillion Dollar worth of defense spending between you and Putin. In other words your entire lifestyle and environment are built on the premise of keeping him away as much as possible. This is why I claim that tolerance isn't always the best solution. In some topics you just have to draw the line. Otherwise the price could be simply too high.

 

[The Cat]

 

[The Cat]

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think we are mostly in agreement but you are speaking from a different assumed application. I’m not talking about an ideal world or even hoping for it.

I don’t think tolerance is always possible. My point is about tolerating different needs that don’t involve a threat to life. In the U.S. people are intolerant of others based on sensory, emotional, communication, and lifestyle differences. Proposing tolerance for people with diverse lifestyles and culture is all I’m talking about for a stable society that can value diversity.

I don’t tolerate dictators or serial killers. Their actions are without boundaries and cannot function in cooperative social space. If the intolerance you reference is based in fighting dictators then I support your position. Even if I live in a country with high defense spending - I have encountered significant dangers and cruelty from humans. As a result I have studied the psychology of psychopathy and narcissism extensively and understand that wiring is not salvageable internally but can sometimes be held at bay with external boundaries only. I agree there are limits.

I know we are generally in the agreement. It is just that in general I find that good chunk of people are taking kinda naive position when it comes to this topic. Especially the ones that never had to face "Mordor" and thus they think that bandits down the road and cheating bussineses are the worst thing in the world. In your words I see that you don't understand the connection how someones "lifestyle and believes" can lead into dictatorship. Even if they simply make power vacuum that someone "very determined" will eventually fill out.

 

[Coriolis]

Since a day has passed it is pretty sure that you wouldn't get your exact answers. Therefore I will jump in.
The thing about DEI is that in a way that is an insult, plus in a sense this remark is made so that you put political focus on certain peope that you don't like. However the problem is much more complicated than simple "hate of the person". The problem is cultural, can you really be represented by a person that has just about nothing to do with your own culture ? This is the problem for which I said years ago that will eventually tear apart US. Since in my mind you can't have endless diversity and expect that the sum of it will remain functional. In the peaceful times you can perhaps find some compromise. However when times get hard this combination will spin out of control. In my own country there are public festivals that would be considered "problematic" by the logic of inclusion. However this is exactly why the logic of diversity isn't taking deep roots and is starting to lose what little ground it has. Since genuine diversity by definition will requre cultural changes .... and pretty clear majority doesn't want that. Especially since for the last 3000 years in these parts it is normal that the complex cultural and ideologial disputes are settled by "swords". It can be argued that this is wrong but in some places this is just how it is.

What in the end means that liberal democracy can't trully represent genuine large scale diversity. That is simply the flaw of the system. You can't put 200 people of all shapes, sizes and cultures at the same table and expect that everyone will be perfectly happy (or happy at all). We can see that in US and we can see it in the collapse of globalization over the last couple of years. Which was the ultimate form of DEI.

You can't put 200 people of the same culture, tribe, etc. at the same table and expect everyone will be happy. No demographic group is that monolithic, as our minority groups will often point out. Candidates trying to win, say, the Latino vote, learn quickly how diverse that vote can be, or they do poorly with that group. Businesses know that diversity builds sounder decisions and better strategies. They know this includes far more than a person's race, culture, gender, or religion. They know it includes how we learn, whether we are a theorist or hands-on, even to get back to the point of the forum, our personality features.

The fact of the matter is that people of diverse backgrounds have been working together since the US was founded. We may be more of a salad than a melting pot, which is as I think it should be, and it hasn't always been smooth sailing. Each new group goes through its period of mistrust, exclusion, even oppression. But those "dirty Irish with too many kids" who fled the potato famines came to hold some of the highest offices in the land. Those "shifty Chinese" who came to build the railroads have driven much of our academic and technological success. Even black people, mostly brought here against their will as property, now are found in every profession, at every level. Yes, there is still bias and bigotry. Human nature is alive and well even in the US. But there is something about rubbing elbows with people unlike yourself, as neighbors, coworkers, in-laws, classmates - that reveals our common humanity underlying all the more obvious differences. People like Donald Trump have to focus their campaign on lying about those differences to drum up fear. That's the only way they can keep us divided. Ultimately it is a losing battle. The only question is how long it will take the populace to tire of it, and how many people will be hurt in the meanwhile.

I see it as social and emotional maturity. The child shares his toys, is encouraged to give away a box of them to a poorer child, leaves the biggest piece of pie for grandma, tolerates the neighbors’ pink house, smiles politely to the smelly stranger sitting next to them in the bus, drinks some tea to fall asleep after canons are shot for the football teams’ victory in the night, etc. Having everything to please self is narcissism and by nature isolating and core misery.

In the same way our immune system needs to be stressed to be strong or our muscles worked to aching to grow, our social health requires irritants to function. The more one tolerates, the easier it becomes and the less annoyances overall.

I’ve known privileged normative people who experience stress and unhappiness at the slightest deviation from expectation and control. They have no social immune system and so are weakened.

Some of this statement sounds like there is no overlap between social needs and I suggest there is. This is why society needs clear division between public and private spaces, allowing the most freedom possible in the private spaces so diverse people can have a place to be close to 100% their way.

Public spaces need to have well defined boundaries and do require assumption of tolerance. We have traffic rules that apply to all levels of drivers with grey area that results in tolerance and rudeness- both of which are allowed within the outer bounds of the law. Traffic serves as an ideal metaphor for how all social spaces must function.

That public/private divide is at the heart of Tim Walz' call for everyone to "mind your own damn business". The fact that someone else is making different choices rarely impacts your ability to make your own choices. A key role of the government is to make sure each person's private choices remain as unconstrained as possible. That includes preventing any other entity - whether in business, education, or lower levels of government - from imposing limitations that are not needed to preserve the safety and freedom of others.

But there are limits. Mammals naturally grow from social stimuli involving conflicts, annoyance, and even confusion, but it isn’t infinite. Humans have evolved limits and I don’t know where that line is, but as socially learning creatures in a world of global encounters with diversity, I’d support policies and education to stretch our capacity for social growth as far as our limits can enable. Let’s try.

I actually don’t know the answer. I would tend towards policies that support majority but considers also that options for freedom are maximized. I’m not an expert on public health policy so can only suggest a principle of meeting as many needs as possible, maximizing freedom to self-determine and realize perfection is an abstract ideal so social policy will always be messy and in progress.

Perhaps the 5% could opt out or offer their services for a fee even if the context is against them? This discomfort I describe applies to them as well. I tend towards increasing freedom for the minority. Even in the recent case of pronouns for gender - I’m inclined to allow employers and teachers right to use a pronoun different from an individual, but to also allow the “freedom of response”. In the same way a young man doesn’t need to acknowledge communication directed at him when called “Nancy”, I’d say no employee or student is legally responsible for communication not directed at them using their chosen name and designations. If you call me “Harriet” I’m not legally required to respond or acknowledge communication has occurred. Freedom at the individual level.

One-sidedness is a big problem with many right-wing freedom-based arguments. Freedom of religion is OK, unless you aren't a Christian and want Quran study in school, or a Menorah on the town square. Freedom to call someone by names or pronouns other than their preference is OK, until someone does it to you. Freedom of speech - which, by the way refers to government interference, not private rules - does not come with freedom from the consequences of what you say. Some people seem to think they have the right not to be offended. They don't. Offense is as much in the eye of the beholder as in the giver. This is where common courtesy and even empathy come into play.

 

[Virtual ghost]

You can't put 200 people of the same culture, tribe, etc. at the same table and expect everyone will be happy. No demographic group is that monolithic, as our minority groups will often point out. Candidates trying to win, say, the Latino vote, learn quickly how diverse that vote can be, or they do poorly with that group. Businesses know that diversity builds sounder decisions and better strategies. They know this includes far more than a person's race, culture, gender, or religion. They know it includes how we learn, whether we are a theorist or hands-on, even to get back to the point of the forum, our personality features.

The fact of the matter is that people of diverse backgrounds have been working together since the US was founded. We may be more of a salad than a melting pot, which is as I think it should be, and it hasn't always been smooth sailing. Each new group goes through its period of mistrust, exclusion, even oppression. But those "dirty Irish with too many kids" who fled the potato famines came to hold some of the highest offices in the land. Those "shifty Chinese" who came to build the railroads have driven much of our academic and technological success. Even black people, mostly brought here against their will as property, now are found in every profession, at every level. Yes, there is still bias and bigotry. Human nature is alive and well even in the US. But there is something about rubbing elbows with people unlike yourself, as neighbors, coworkers, in-laws, classmates - that reveals our common humanity underlying all the more obvious differences. People like Donald Trump have to focus their campaign on lying about those differences to drum up fear. That's the only way they can keep us divided. Ultimately it is a losing battle. The only question is how long it will take the populace to tire of it, and how many people will be hurt in the meanwhile.

I am afraid that you totally missed into what I was getting at and you kinda used too academic interpretation of my words. In other words I also treat gangs as one culture, junkies as a culture, UFO cultists as one, conspiracy theorists as one, gun nuts as one .... etc. I was not talking about ethnic background. I was saying that your cumulative deeds don't really add up and that is very serious problem for the stability of the whole society. Plus in my book you aren't getting any kind of unification as a country in my book. As things stand the debt clock says that you seem to have pilled about 103 trillion $ debt across the whole society. Therefore you are going for the great rapture and "free for all" if something isn't done.

I got into this conversation simply because I can't believe that the country of this size can just walk off the cliff for no defined reason. Impulse control ... pretty much zero (and in my book that is a form of culture).

 

[Virtual ghost]

.................

Yes, that is all true. However the point that you have kinda missed is that Putin gave your country a kiss of death. Both through internet and through global shenanigans. Therefore since I already went through one war against the lovers of USSR and won I dare to say that I know what is needed to win this. In other words the mess you are describing evidently wouldn't do the trick. In other words the more rotten is your "house" the easier is to drive a tank through it. If anything this is simply because rotten structure can't maintain decent defensive posture.


The only thing that can really save you from the doom defined in your post is the mentality that your country had during WW2. Therefore this era has to come back or it will be impossible to hold the ground against incoming storm. Therefore this is the time for gathering, not hiding. In other words this mentality of hiding is exactly why I am rambling against "excessive individualism" lately. You can't win a game of Basketball if in your team everyone plays for himself.

 

[The Cat]