Random political thought thread.

[Virtual ghost]

That you would trust the country as a whole.

Honestly ?


If you try to recall I was basically the loudest voice here in saying that Harris is going to lose. I though that since that was quite visible if you read numbers between the lines. However that would not be the case if she wasn't terrible candidate on so many levels. Her strongest strength was simply that she isn't Trump. What is very very low bar when you take a look at the big picture.

Therefore I can't really blame people for making this choice. Especially since I am under impression that many did so just because they want to wreck the system completely, so that perhaps one day something meaningful grows out of the ruins. When you have constant decay the last thing you want is more of a status quo. What is evidently what Harris represented in these elections. Despite every post that I made against Trump at the end of day to me he is not as illogical choice as some here might think. Unlike others here I was born in a dictatorship and the only reason why that went away is because one day people decided that it is time to wreck the whole thing to the point that it can't recover. In a sense this is what I really see in all of this. People that just want out of the whole movie.

 

[The Cat]

Accelerationism kills.

 

[Coriolis]

The problem is that you seem to see minorities as something fundamentally good. What is the picture of the world I simply don't agree with. In my part of the world there is no such a thing as "flat earth society" since such claims are being smeared and actively disproved. After all the education system is placing the foundations so that such claims don't stick into any part of the society. Another example: Pedos, they are taking plenty of flak over what they do but that doesn't bother me, they fully deserved it. Right now Musk has some trials going on in Europe for openly spreading misinformation. So technically we can consider that he as a very rich man is a minority. However by my local laws that doesn't give you the right to openly mess with lives of people by spreading over and over misinformation and half truths that have practical implications. If you are making plenty of money on all of that this probably makes it even worse. I am not kidding when I say that Europe is on the edge of banning social media altogether. Since the concept as it is now isn't really compatible with our culture (some laws included).


In other words your country looks as it looks exactly because too many things are allowed. What usually damages someone sooner or later, perhaps even severely. There simply doesn't seem to be the balance between tolerance and common sense. The pandemic of poor mental health in US didn't came out of no where.

Again, you are mixing up existence and behavior. Diversity is part of reality. One might argue it brings some genetic benefit, but that doesn't matter much in the here and now. People are simply not all the same. Would it be better if we were? Over the centuries, people have often considered those who look or sound different from them, people with different genetic or physical makeup, to be lesser or outright undesirable. Perhaps it is because the US is a nation of immigrants, that on balance we have not held such qualities against people. Sure, there have been and there remain some glaring exceptions, but the ideal is that, as Martin Luther King said, we judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin or other factors unrelated to how they actually behave in the world around them.

I assume by pedos you mean pedophiles. Yes, they should get flak over what they DO, as should anyone who ACTS in destructive ways, regardless of their genetics, biology, origin, or anything else. To see the distinction, consider an alcoholic. I am no medical expert, but have read that there may be a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, perhaps related to how the body processes alcohol. Say this is true, and we can some day isolate a gene for alcoholism. Should possession of this gene justify refusing to hire such people, or perhaps to issue them drivers' licenses, because they will get drunk? Or do we impose these limitations only when they actually do give in to the predisposition and abuse alcohol? Someone with the "alcoholism gene" might respond by being a committed teetotaler, and never get drunk at all.

While I may agree with you that "too many things are allowed", I do not agree that "too many people are allowed". When Americans speak of diversity in the context of law or benefits, this is what we mean: that no one should be excluded or punished based on factors about themselves that they did not choose and over which they have no control.

 

[Virtual ghost]

While I may agree with you that "too many things are allowed", I do not agree that "too many people are allowed". When Americans speak of diversity in the context of law or benefits, this is what we mean: that no one should be excluded or punished based on factors about themselves that they did not choose and over which they have no control.

Ok , because I am talking about behavior since that is where the real problems are.
While if we go after background and genes of the people then we are going into the topic of racism. Where we are on the same page and there isn't that much to discuss.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Virtual ghost]

Donald Trump selects RFK Jr. to lead top US health agency


The prediction was spot on.

 

[The Cat]

Donald Trump selects RFK Jr. to lead top US health agency


The prediction was spot on.

Cassandra would be so proud of us.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Well, that's fun.

Yup, I gotta stay informed for a change.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

On the positive side

Honestly ?


If you try to recall I was basically the loudest voice here in saying that Harris is going to lose. I though that since that was quite visible if you read numbers between the lines. However that would not be the case if she wasn't terrible candidate on so many levels. Her strongest strength was simply that she isn't Trump. What is very very low bar when you take a look at the big picture.

Therefore I can't really blame people for making this choice. Especially since I am under impression that many did so just because they want to wreck the system completely, so that perhaps one day something meaningful grows out of the ruins. When you have constant decay the last thing you want is more of a status quo. What is evidently what Harris represented in these elections. Despite every post that I made against Trump at the end of day to me he is not as illogical choice as some here might think. Unlike others here I was born in a dictatorship and the only reason why that went away is because one day people decided that it is time to wreck the whole thing to the point that it can't recover. In a sense this is what I really see in all of this. People that just want out of the whole movie.

There are a few different things in play with regards to her loss. I find it hard to accept the concept of people as irredeemable; people are dynamic and they can change. I still don't trust people in the abstract; this isn't limited to Americans.

In wanting out, what they choose was someone who is likely to harm their fellow Americans. I don't feel great about that, it makes me angry. Yet, even so, I'm not personally on board with the concept of disengaging from them. Here's why:

1. I don't see how that helps. By doing this, it guarantees that no minds are changed.
2. Our politics has failed. This was apparent to me quite some time ago. If we had better politics, we wouldn't be facing this scenario. If there was a non-terrible option to actually change things, I think a large chunk of these people would go for it. It probably wouldn't get the evangelicals, but the other types...

On social trust, we can't have social trust if there's nothing stopping people from being awful to each other, unfortunately. It would be nice to have it, but at the moment it is besides the point. During the pandemic, wasn't the incoming president trying to deny supplies to states that didn't vote for him? Why is it my responsibility to behave in a manner that inspires trust? This stuff is going to be worse in his second term because of the assassination attempts and all.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I could live with moderate neoliberalism if the Democratic Party could keep scenarios like this at bay. As we've seen, they keep failing to do this. They had one job...

 

[Virtual ghost]

On the positive side

There are a few different things in play with regards to her loss. I find it hard to accept the concept of people as irredeemable; people are dynamic and they can change. I still don't trust people in the abstract; this isn't limited to Americans.

In wanting out, what they choose was someone who is likely to harm their fellow Americans. I don't feel great about that, it makes me angry. Yet, even so, I'm not personally on board with the concept of disengaging from them. Here's why:

1. I don't see how that helps. By doing this, it guarantees that no minds are changed.
2. Our politics has failed. This was apparent to me quite some time ago. If we had better politics, we wouldn't be facing this scenario. If there was a non-terrible option to actually change things, I think a large chunk of these people would go for it. It probably wouldn't get the evangelicals, but the other types...

On social trust, we can't have social trust if there's nothing stopping people from being awful to each other, unfortunately. It would be nice to have it, but at the moment it is besides the point. During the pandemic, wasn't the incoming president trying to deny supplies to states that didn't vote for him? Why is it my responsibility to behave in a manner that inspires trust? This stuff is going to be worse in his second term because of the assassination attempts and all.

I am afraid that you are thinking inside the box when it comes to "getting out". People choose someone who will burn down the house and though that they will get out. That is drastic move but sometimes even that has to be done. You never had to go through genuine system change and setting of completely new order. But trust me, there is certain logic in this.


Also you are making another mistake in my book, which is that you think that you have to "give" something to repair the social order. Or that you have to play along, what isn't true. I see that differently. You must be example so that just maybe someone will play along with you. Plus don't be afraid to challenge what is evidently wrong with strong argumentation. Being a doormat wouldn't do a thing in this situation.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I am afraid that you are thinking inside the box when it comes to "getting out". People choose someone who will burn down the house and though that they will get out. That is drastic move but sometimes even that has to be done. You never had to go through genuine system change and setting of completely new order. But trust me, there is certain logic in this.

There was another way, but of course it was deemed too risky and uncertain so we couldn't possibly do that.

Also you are making another mistake in my book, which is that you think that you have to "give" something to repair the social order. Or that you have to play along, what isn't true. I see that differently. You must be example so that just maybe someone will play along with you. Plus don't be afraid to challenge what is evidently wrong with strong argumentation. Being a doormat wouldn't do a thing in this situation.

I'm much more open to the concept of being an example. Sometimes I get the impression in various environments online and off that I act as a catalyst, for good or ill. I don't know why that would be. Perhaps it's related to my status as a perpetual outsider. Maybe me being "outside" of things means I cast a more powerful influence on them as something anomalous.

 

[Virtual ghost]

There was another way, but of course it was deemed too risky and uncertain so we couldn't possibly do that.

Of course that there was another way, it can be argued that there was a number of them. However at this point less and less people see gentle exit out of this circle as a realistic options.

I'm much more open to the concept of being an example. Sometimes I get the impression in various environments online and off that I act as a catalyst, for good or ill. I don't know why that would be. Perhaps it's related to my status as a perpetual outsider.

Outsider that knows what he is doing is quite likely to pull people to follow the example.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I could live with moderate neoliberalism if the Democratic Party could keep scenarios like this at bay. As we've seen, they keep failing to do this. They had one job...

 

[Lexicon]

Oh joy. RFK Jr has been picked as Trump's health secretary. This was one of my highest concerns.

Not only will we have a mass murderer/sexual predator/felon/narcissist in cognitive decline for president again, we'll have this abject lunatic with no health credentials who espouses antivax beliefs and spreads a myriad of health misinformation like a fucking cancer across the internet - even without wielding any real "power" beyond his voice.



If a major public health crisis occurs in the next 4 years, people should refer to this:

All of the times President Trump said Covid-19 will disappear

Since February, the president has declared at least 38 times that Covid-19 is either going to vanish or is currently vanishing.

www.cnn.com

That's the "leader" so many voted for.

...twice

 

[Coriolis]

Ok , because I am talking about behavior since that is where the real problems are.
While if we go after background and genes of the people then we are going into the topic of racism. Where we are on the same page and there isn't that much to discuss.

I am glad you recognize this distinction. It is one we need to keep making in the US. Yes, excluding people because of genetic factors is indeed racism, or the equivalent. Even our baser political players seem to recognize that getting Americans to hate each other just because of how we look or sound, in short for who we are, is an increasingly tough sell. They therefore bend over backwards trying to link various subgroups to bad behavior, since that is a legitimate reason to dislike and sanction someone. Perhaps you have heard of the Republican claims that (legal) immigrants in the Springfield Ohio area have been eating their neighbors' pets? Republican city and state officials have been quick to deny the claims. As in most cases, the immigrant population of Springfield is hardworking and law-abiding. Statistics show that immigrants, legal or undocumented, commit far fewer crimes than natural-born US citizens. Americans are not easily swayed by the facts, however. I don't know how many really believe that Haitian immigrants are eating pets, or that gay people are child molesters, or that Blacks are stupid and lazy. Pushing these behavioral stereotypes is an easy way to get generally decent people to be distrustful of their neighbors for no good reason. A main antidote is personal knowledge of someone in the vilified group.

Donald Trump selects RFK Jr. to lead top US health agency


The prediction was spot on.

If Trump followers are the only casualty of his idiotic policies, I would say that's just karma, if not Darwin's Law. Unfortunately the rest of us will likely be harmed as well.

On the positive side

There are a few different things in play with regards to her loss. I find it hard to accept the concept of people as irredeemable; people are dynamic and they can change. I still don't trust people in the abstract; this isn't limited to Americans.

In wanting out, what they choose was someone who is likely to harm their fellow Americans. I don't feel great about that, it makes me angry. Yet, even so, I'm not personally on board with the concept of disengaging from them. Here's why:

1. I don't see how that helps. By doing this, it guarantees that no minds are changed.
2. Our politics has failed. This was apparent to me quite some time ago. If we had better politics, we wouldn't be facing this scenario. If there was a non-terrible option to actually change things, I think a large chunk of these people would go for it. It probably wouldn't get the evangelicals, but the other types...

On social trust, we can't have social trust if there's nothing stopping people from being awful to each other, unfortunately. It would be nice to have it, but at the moment it is besides the point. During the pandemic, wasn't the incoming president trying to deny supplies to states that didn't vote for him? Why is it my responsibility to behave in a manner that inspires trust? This stuff is going to be worse in his second term because of the assassination attempts and all.

Yes, people are indeed dynamic and not irredeemable. What this means is that they are able to be manipulated. Democracy fails when people are ignorant enough to be easily duped. Antidotes include robust public education that raises children to be skeptical and to think critically; and one-on-one interactions that give the lie to unsupported claims, and build in interpersonal trust. The first is a long term answer that eludes us for the present. We will have to see how far the second gets us.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Also, I don't care about why Bob Dylan is on X. Dylan is an old boomer. I don't have any expectations about his politics. Nothing would really change the way I feel about his music.

 

[The Cat]

Mark it well. You're about to see how much the republican party REALLY supports State's Rights.​

 

[Stigmata]

I could live with moderate neoliberalism if the Democratic Party could keep scenarios like this at bay. As we've seen, they keep failing to do this. They had one job...

Remember when everyone's biggest political gripe was that Biden wasn't doing enough Student Loan Debt forgiveness? We were such sweet summer children back then...

I don't understand how that wasn't more popular -- That was New Deal levels of change that did materially benefit regular people. I know enough people didn't get it and the Republicans did everything they could to block it, but there were some people that did receive it and that is huge.

I just don't understand this phenomenon of how Republicans can very publicly be against any and everything that actually benefits regular people, yet evade any sense of electoral repudiation for it. It's baffling, really.

It's this strange dichotomy where voters say "either you give us radical economic change right now, today, or we'll vote for the Republicans who offer none of it whatsoever!" and even if you do give us some change, we still may vote for team Red because Red is just a cooler color.

I just don't see how the $25k down payment assistance for first time home buyers, $6,000 child tax credit and $50,000 small business tax credits don't resonate more -- I saw a video a few days ago of some young woman who looked to be in her mid twenties, saying she voted for Trump because she wants to buy a house one day. I just don't get it.

 

[Lark]

Things are headed "my way" and have been for quite some time. These changes don't happen overnight, though, and we often take some steps backward, as we are doing now, after going forward for awhile. I am curious as to why you think ensuring minorities are treated fairly will alienate the majority. Are you assuming most people care only about themselves, in a very short-sighted way? Are you assuming that fairness is a zero sum game, in which extending it to some means reducing it for others? Neither of these is true. Sure, if you remove barriers, members of the majority might be competing against more people when it comes to jobs, for instance, but then employers have a broader pool from which to select the best candidate, and previously marginalized people have the opportunity to develop and use their talents.

As for preferences and religion, our religion is actually more of a preference than innate characteristics like race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. Plenty of people convert, but it's pretty hard to turn white if you are tired of being black. In any case, none of these are justifications for denying people fair access to things like housing, education, employment, or justice under the law. Bottom line is to treat everyone fairly. Since unfair practices often target people by demographic group, the remedies often have focused on the affected group.

I don't even know what you are talking about here. That "poisoning of the well" often takes the shape of scapegoating minorities. Here I am talking about minority demographic groups, not destructive behaviors or opinions.

I heard that liberal anti-religious trope before, discounting it compared to your own favourite traits and topes is fine, whatever gets you through I guess. I dont think its more fundamental or tangible, or for that matter valuable, utilitarian or valid.

The thing about all the arguments for equality of minorities is that its seldom the case, I'm absolutely fine with equality as I believe most people are, however, that's not what I see, the fierce female erasure enacted to placate toxic male transexuality for instance, there's nothing equal there, the pariah status ascribed to Rowling, a champion of homosexual rights who made a number of her characters homosexual and encouraged her fans not to think it was an issue, there's nothing equal there.

Now, if your aim is to promote particular groups, ascribe special status to them as "canaries in the mine", which they never had before, increase their visibility and demand public attention is focused in on them, that's fine, its not equality though.

Its not even proportionate, and to be clear, its not what a lot of members of the same niche communities themselves may want, did they ask for the hyper visibility? Is it any different a democrat weaponizing your private life, preferences and choices or a republican?

I'm not assuming any of the things you so readily attirbute to me, though nothing new about that, same old same old there, but I'd have hoped with a wee bit of time you'd maybe see how that type of script and sticking so fast to it does nothing but harm your cause and the constituency who're meant to represented by it. There was that election result lately and all. Those kind of results will have an impact far beyond the minorities you reckon are and should be the focus for the future.