Random political thought thread.

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

On civility

I have been increasingly annoyed by some comments here over the last few months, maybe even years. So let me try to explain my thoughts on this and get it off my chest. Maybe some of them are very German, I don't know.
.

Assuming you are referring to me, my recent posts against civility are actually a reaction to a video I watched on Discord recently. The thesis was that the left needed to relearn the value of civility and "be nice", and then they capped off the video by mocking Contrapoints who left YouTube exactly because people weren't nice. She also went after a podcaster who no longer hosts a podcast. And anyone who voted for Bernie Sanders in 2020.

She immediately violated her central thesis which really makes me distrust the central thesis. I've also seen some examples of "civillity" by the people she'd recommended. They're a group of people who care more about self-righteous than changing the world.

Content like this isn't being made anymore, and people on the "nice" left think that's awesome.

 

[Red Herring]

Since I am probably the author of some of those posts that annoyed you I will add a few things to your post. I think I never called for explicit violence but if you read between the lines I evidently did that (and I said that this is for the greater good). Therefore I am getting impression that here you basically talking about people like me (or at least similar to me for the most part). From what I understand you unlike me never had a direct contact with war or dictatorship, and therefore in my opinion you don't understand a few things in this story.


For me the obvious example of you having the wrong picture about the subject is that you seem to be putting death penalty and ethnic conflicts into the same pot. In my book these two are two pretty different things in the terms of logic and consequences. The main difference is the scale and that is very important. In the terms of death penalty you basically have individual case which you can let slide for the sake of higher principles. However when a dictator gathers half a million men, arms them and sends them over the border that is completely new level. Especially since stopping this will surely require spilling of tons and tons of blood. This is exactly why I said here a while ago "As long as calling 911 solves your problem you weren't really in danger". The real show starts then calling 911 doesn't do a dam thing, even if authorities are trying really hard to make something happen.


Therefore I don't really agree about your lines that people who want innocent blood on the concrete are actually pretty rare. Or that everything is just a misunderstanding. The good example of this is probably what we have today , Ukraine. Hundreds of thousands of troops are destroying cities in Ukraine for almost 2 years. What is evidently way too long that you can say "oops" or "I didn't really mean it like that !". The winter has started and now again they are targeting power grid and heating infrastructure in the middle of the winter. What is simply because they want to see as much death as possible. Since death makes their progress much more easy, since it removes people and it causes disintegration of the opposition (physical and emotional). Therefore this is where I think that in your best wishes you made a mistake. What is because you are presuming that everyone has as high moral standard as you. What simply isn't true. Something like a year ago EU foreign policy chief said something among the lines "EU is nicely organized garden and the most of the rest of the world is basically a jungle". What is the statement that was slammed all over the place as well as abroad. However the real question was is this really that wrong as a statement? For a hint take a look at my new global stability map in the cold war thread. Therefore by watching that you should quickly realize that country like yours is more of an exception than a rule (plus your entire part of the world is the most stable one). While the bulk of the world is almost nothing like the place you live and thus it doesn't share a bulk of your worldviews.



Also people who never experienced large scale violence are constantly repeating this idea that violence is coming out of dehumanizing. What is actually wrong assumption, since good chunk of the violence is based exactly on what the person is. The fact that you find this concept foreign or repulsive doesn't make it fundamentally wrong or untrue. In other words you can consider yourself to be lucky in the big picture, since you haven't been proven wrong in your daily life. However if someone were to use artillery against your home with your entire family inside I am pretty sure that you would change your mind. If things would get bad enough I am even sure that you would kill some of those people in order to save your daughters. However you wouldn't do it because you dehumanized them, you would do it exactly because of what they are. The same works for petty crimimals as well. Therefore if all of this is a little bit too abstract for you feel free to look some news from the wars that happening at this point (it isn't that aren't any around). In those places people have to make these kinds of decisions on daily basis. So to them this isn't some abstract debate. It is easy to moralize when no one is shooting at you.



So to warp this up: I fully understand and even support your idea that there should be some higher goals and principles. However in the same fashion you must understand that sometimes that simply can't be maintained. In other words it takes two to have peace. So if there is no consensus on that there will be no peace. What means that you have to be ready that things may not go by the rules and that you have to act accordingly. In other words people that are pushing peace at all cost in the end are only creating power vacuum that someone will exploit. Since there are people out there that aren't interested in peace at all. This is exactly why German defense spending is such a controversy for years. The gang of half a million people is killing innocent people every day just a few hundred miles eastward and most of western Europe acts as if international law will protect them in all scenarios. What is nonsense because if that law is truly worth something this wouldn't be happening in the first place. In other words the law is basically USA, therefore if USA finds that it has something smarter to do than stablity of Europe we should be ready for some very unpretty scenarios. In other words rule of law is basically 1th world invention, while in good chunk of the world this isn't how things works. Therefore it is important to realize that moralism has it's limits and that in some situations you just have to adapt to the situation no matter how gross it is. Because if you don't there are good odds that you wouldn't make it through them. What in a way will be the end of your values. Which is excactly why some think that violence is the ultimate solution to their problems.

I get the strong impression that you did not really understand the point I was trying to make. Also, I didn't really have you in mind but rather several folks from the American left here and on other websites. I appreciate the time and effort invested in explaining your position though.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I get the strong impression that you did not really understand the point I was trying to make. Also, I didn't really have you in mind but rather several folks from the American left here and on other websites. I appreciate the time and effort invested in explaining your position though.

Your words were broad and kinda unclear in having specific point, but I guess I just had to add my part of the story on it. Since there is really deeper level in all this. However most people don't realize it until they actually find themselves in one of those pretty bad situations.


But yes, what US is doing to itself through this cultural civil war is just stupid. Especially since a good chunk of the people think that civil war is something romantic. When I read stuff on this forum it is almost as people don't realize that this means that planes will smash states capitols and cause chaos. That there will be mass shooting all over the country, that the Dollar would implode, that various pandemics would emerge out of the mess, that enemies of USA could do their share of grab around the world .... etc. Civil war with modern weapons is anything but a romantic wargame from the history books. This is why I also told them a number of time to slow down with this stuff. Because if this avalanche activates the lives they had are literally over.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Why do people think Ameticans are no longer being civil with one another?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Why do people think Ameticans are no longer being civil with one another?

For that you don't need to look further than this forum. Which is still pretty decent place next to various comment sections out there.

Plus the civil war as a topic is all over the place for years.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

For that you don't need to look further than this forum. Which is still pretty decent place next to various comment sections out there.

Plus the civil war as a topic is all over the place for years.

I can't account for the right wing. I can account for the left, I think.

I think 2015 - 2016 are really key.

I have often showed rough edges (perhaps taking things too far on occasion) when discussing politics. But in 2015 I really was ready to hang it up; I'd just had exhaustion and I'd felt like I'd no longer identified with my side either. I just wanted to ride off into the sunset, so to speak.

2015 marked the beginning of the emergence of a candidate so rude, so lacking in dignity and decorum, lacking any manners or dignity, that he would never win the presidency. I think the failure of these prophecies has something to do with emergence of the "dirtbag left", or a general group of people in the left less interested in being "civil". I know many people love Michelle Obama, but maybe there was a certain pushback against the idea "When they go low, we go high"? That always felt to me like the kind of terrible advice on dealing with bullies you might get from a middle school guidance counselor. "Oh sure, they keep trying to shove you into lockers, but next time, be the better man?"

 

[SensEye]

One reason the death penalty is morally wrong and politically unwise is because by killing a killer the state sends the message that killing is actually okay under certain circumstances and that human life is only sacred under certain circumstances. That the value of human life is conditional and relative.

I don't agree with your premise on this issue (the reasons why are a whole different discussion), but that is not really why I am responding. If you had prefixed this with "One reason why I feel the death penalty is morally wrong..." I would just have let it go.

Now I realize you are probably thinking, "well I wrote it, it's obviously my opinion" but by framing it the way you did, it's like you are stating it as an established fact. Sermonizing if you will. For someone with a completely different view, it comes across as condescending, and can incite an uncivil response.

I see a lot of this in the widespread divisiveness of today. Both sides state their positions as the correct view, and just talk past each other. It certainly doesn't help that social media leads to echo chambers and the mainstream media panders to either the left or right, depending on whose eyeball count will increase views and ad revenue the most. Actual intelligent discussion, realizing that both sides usually have some valid points, does not play into anything any more. Journalistic integrity has been tossed out the window due to unprofitability.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I can't account for the right wing. I can account for the left, I think.

I think 2015 - 2016 are really key.

I have often showed rough edges (perhaps taking things too far on occasion) when discussing politics. But in 2015 I really was ready to hang it up; I'd just had exhaustion and I'd felt like I'd no longer identified with my side either. I just wanted to ride off into the sunset, so to speak.

2015 marked the beginning of the emergence of a candidate so rude, so lacking in dignity and decorum, lacking any manners or dignity, that he would never win the presidency. I think the failure of these prophecies has something to do with emergence of the "dirtbag left", or a general group of people in the left less interested in being "civil". I know many people love Michelle Obama, but maybe there was a certain pushback against the idea "When they go low, we go high"? That always felt to me like the kind of terrible advice on dealing with bullies you might get from a middle school guidance counselor. "Oh sure, they keep trying to shove you into lockers, but next time, be the better man?"

The problem is that all of this is lasting to long that US is rising the whole generations that don't know how "truly normal" looks like (and the trend is spreading globally). What is then pushing things further and further down the hole. I really wonder what will happen when older generations disappear with time. Since "new normal" isn't exactly too promising.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The problem is that all of this is lasting to long that US is rising the whole generations that don't know how "truly normal" looks like (and the trend is spreading globally). What is then pushing things further and further down the hole. I really wonder what will happen when older generations disappear with time. Since "new normal" isn't exactly too promising.

The older generations are as caught up with this as anyone. They're the ones into cable news, usually.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I don't agree with your premise on this issue (the reasons why are a whole different discussion), but that is not really why I am responding. If you had prefixed this with "One reason why I feel the death penalty is morally wrong..." I would just have let it go.

Now I realize you are probably thinking, "well I wrote it, it's obviously my opinion" but by framing it the way you did, it's like you are stating it as an established fact. Sermonizing if you will. For someone with a completely different view, it comes across as condescending, and can incite an uncivil response.

I see a lot of this in the widespread divisiveness of today. Both sides state their positions as the correct view, and just talk past each other. It certainly doesn't help that social media leads to echo chambers and the mainstream media panders to either the left or right, depending on whose eyeball count will increase views and ad revenue the most. Actual intelligent discussion, realizing that both sides usually have some valid points, does not play into anything any more. Journalistic integrity has been tossed out the window due to unprofitability.

The question of death penalty is in the end pretty simple. If people don't the have right to kill another person then why would a government have one ? After all government is just a sum of people (and people tend to make mistakes or miss data).

 

[Virtual ghost]

The older generations are as caught up with this as anyone. Most people watch cable news of one affiliation or the other.

I know but in my book younger generations in most cases lack some of the practical skills that olders don't. Plus social media isn't what defined them in their early days. This is something that goes far beyond left-right divisions. Despite being a fairly young person I am not sure that my or younger generations will be able to keep things together. In my view the mindset for that just doesn't seem to be there. Everything is just so: blablabla :insert meme: blablabla.

 

[ygolo]

Recommendation systems, and algorithms that customize content on media platforms are made specially to maximize time on platform and clicks and other things companies can monitize.

Civility doesn't usually lead to that, unless you specifically like old lectures, and real educational content-or go out of your way to subscribe to content from opposing and diverse views.

I'm fairly certain, ads, political or otherwise, work out psychographics to ridiculous detail. Digital marketers even have "personas" or "avatars" for whomever they think their ideal customers are.

If you don't want to be a stereotype in these "avatars" subscribe to things that will break the stereotype. Do it in TV shows, music, movies, news, influencers, etc. Then they can't figure you out (they should'nt be able to) and you can enjoy a richer environment of targeted media for you.

 

[SensEye]

The question of death penalty is in the end pretty simple. If people don't the have right to kill another person then why would a government have one ?

Seems simple to me too. People don't have the right to kill someone. So when someone does kill a person, they lose their own right not to be killed in return (after due process).

 

[Tomb1]

The question of death penalty is in the end pretty simple. If people don't the have right to kill another person then why would a government have one ? After all government is just a sum of people (and people tend to make mistakes or miss data).

Now you are sounding Libertarian. You'd be in favor of scrapping income tax....since people can't tax eachother's paychecks?!

 

[Virtual ghost]

Now you are sounding Libertarian. You'd be in favor of scrapping income tax....since people can't tax eachother's paychecks?!

I am not sounding like libertarian. I am simply sounding as typical European.
Since on death penalty comes expansion of various taxes to allow genuine welfare state, large expansion of workers rights and complete gun ban. What is anything but libertarian.

Where I live people can tax each other's paychecks by voting for parties that are for expansion of taxes and stronger redistribution of money towards those in need (what are just about all of them, the differences are in the amounts). Therefore once you do this you will have so little of the worst types of crime that you can just ban death penalty. What is in order to ease stress from the population that there could be some kind of a "misunderstanding" .

 

[Virtual ghost]

Seems simple to me too. People don't have the right to kill someone. So when someone does kill a person, they lose their own right not to be killed in return (after due process).

When you look at things at individual level this logic stands. However when you take a look at the bigger picture and intermix the problem with other factors then the topic is no longer as clear (as explained in my last post). As far as I know you can't join the EU as a country unless you ban death penalty completely. Since that is considered to be primitive practice that only 3rd world dictatorships and banana republics do. Therefore in desires to have stable none violent society death penalty is removed. This is cultural argument to make but I basically agree with this. Since it really lowers the stress over idea that someone close to you will do something stupid and thus "removed". While stress is exactly what is the most likely to make people do stupid things. Therefore this is a circle that can be broken for the most part.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Elon Musk’s new enemy: Nordic workers

It is almost funny how people from US think that they can do business in Europe in a way how they are doing it in US.

 

[Tomb1]

I am not sounding like libertarian. I am simply sounding as typical European.
Since on death penalty comes expansion of various taxes to allow genuine welfare state, large expansion of workers rights and complete gun ban. What is anything but libertarian.

Where I live people can tax each other's paychecks by voting for parties that are for expansion of taxes and stronger redistribution of money towards those in need (what are just about all of them, the differences are in the amounts). Therefore once you do this you will have so little of the worst types of crime that you can just ban death penalty. What is in order to ease stress from the population that there could be some kind of a "misunderstanding" .

I was referring to the sine qua non of your argument, not your policy position. You argued that "If people don't the have right to kill another person then why would a government have one ?" If you adhere to that general principle that governments don't have the right to do anything that people don't have the right to do, that would also require you to take a position opposing a government income tax (since people don't have the right to tax eachother -- when they do its called extortion). Since libertarians oppose income tax, the sine qua non of your argument struck me as sounding libertarian.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I was referring to the sine qua non of your argument, not your policy position. You argued that "If people don't the have right to kill another person then why would a government have one ?" If you adhere to that general principle that governments don't have the right to do anything that people don't have the right to do, that would also require you to take a position opposing a government income tax (since people don't have the right to tax eachother -- when they do its called extortion). Since libertarians oppose income tax, the sine qua non of your argument struck me as sounding libertarian.

Ok, but in my book those two are two separate issues. One can exists without the other.
After all there are other worldviews other than Libertarianism where death penalty isn't positively looked upon. But ok, under US political logic this was kinda Libertarian point to make since government powers are at the center of your political logic.


However this is exactly why I find US politics frustrating. Since in it argument always has to be expanded on everything instead that it is concentrated where it gives the desired effect. The logic doesn't have to add up always. In my part of the world this is simply called "thinking things through".

 

[SensEye]

Therefore in desires to have stable none violent society death penalty is removed. This is cultural argument to make but I basically agree with this. Since it really lowers the stress over idea that someone close to you will do something stupid and thus "removed".

I don't think that argument holds any water. However, you are entitled to hold it.

My main goal here was to point out there are pros and cons to the death penalty. It's not cut and dried. I think the contention that killing is morally wrong is flawed in that it equates the life of a murderer who has killed innocent people to that of the innocents. I contend the life of murderer, who has committed the ultimate moral wrong, is not equivalent to the innocent victim, and if that individual is executed by the state after due process, the state is not committing an immoral act.

The whole 'life is sacred' argument is shallow and one dimensional, and takes little to no account of the lives of the victim(s).