Random political thought thread.

[Kephalos]

Chinese Communist Party's 100th Anniversary: Nothing to celebrate.

 

[Kephalos]

What people think it's like working for the government: House of Cards, Scandal.

What working for the government is really like: Yes, Prime Minister and Parks and Recreation.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Reading a bit about the Federalist party because of a podcast I listened to, and this motivated me to click on this article:

American civil religion

Filial piety
Reverence to certain sacred texts and symbols such as the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the flag
The sanctity of American institutions
The belief in God or a deity
The idea that rights are divinely given
The notion that freedom comes from God through government
Governmental authority comes from God or a higher transcendent authority
The conviction that God can be known through the American experience
God is the supreme judge
God is sovereign
America's prosperity results from God's providence
America is a "city on a hill" or a beacon of hope and righteousness
The principle of sacrificial death and rebirth
America serves a higher purpose than self-interests

...there are no statistically significant differences in the amount of American civil religious language between Democrats and Republicans, incumbents and non-incumbents nor Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.

Ah, that explains quite a bit. That and the last one are probably the most pernicious.

 

[Kephalos]

You know, the notion that government should serve the general interest rather than individual interests or a coalition of individual interests is actually pretty important.

And not just for the United States, but for all governments everywhere.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

You know, the notion that government should serve the general interest rather than individual interests or a coalition of individual interests is actually pretty important.

And not just for the United States, but for all governments everywhere.

Fine, but who decides what the general interest is?

 

[Kephalos]

Fine, but who decides what the general interest is?

No one "decides". It just is.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Fine, but who decides what the general interest is?

Common sense.



(the only thing that really seems to be missing in all this)

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Common sense.



(the only thing that really seems to be missing in all this)

Meh, common sense isn't important. What is important is preserving the sanctity of institutions.

j/k

 

[Virtual ghost]

Meh, common sense isn't important. What is important is preserving the sanctity of institutions.

j/k

Good good luck with that without common sense.

 

[Virtual ghost]

But there is one thing that I don't really get and I probably asked/mentioned this before.
How some states that seem to vote fairly blue on federal level are actually pretty red on the state level ? A little red is understandable but quite red isn't really. I can perhaps even understand a governor since that is one person. But if state chambers are also like that this is kinda strange, if be consider the difference between the parties.




Who Represents Me?

When you get to the state houses the country is in the "red landslide" and even in blue states it often isn't even close.

 

[FemMecha]

It turns out I was right about the president being a "high priest". I said at most a year ago that all our elections are really about (which is not necessarily the same thing as what is at stake), by to the discourse most people use to talk about such things, is whether or not we get a high priest for our particular side of the culture war. That's a general "we" applying to every American, not one side or the other.

But if this is part of our civil religion, it's deeper than even I imagined. We are screwed as a nation; this idea of President of priest will persist. Trump's greatest sin for many people seemed to be that he performed profane actions while serving as high priest, now I think that's not so much people being held astray by opportunistic pundits but something people actually believe. The problem with that is the role of "finding a good high priest" will always take precedence over someone that is actually willing to fix problems.

But note that I'm not really saying "liberalism" is a religion, I'm saying that people across the political spectrum have absorbed these notions and hang on to them pretty tenaciously. I speak about the behavior of liberals because I know them better, but I can show you lots of ridiculous art showing Trump being surrounded by holy light with bald eagles and the American flag. That's also why the right won't renounce Trump; he was their high priest, and he was such a great high priest there's no way a sound majority of people could think that this wasn't the case, so it must have been rigged. It seems ridiculous but it seems to be the way they actually think. Hence, good like trying to come up with facts and data showing that it wasn't rigged.

I get people don't like me generalizing about these things, but it's not like the present ways of thinking have really been any good at getting us out of this mess, have they? (Not that my typing on the internet will do anything).

You are probably right that this thinking is happening, but it creeps me out so much. On this scale of society politicians are obviously celebrities, but you are right that it goes beyond that. The religion I grew up in had a lot of sympathies towards Trump and I saw the "Trump is like Jesus let's all get our guns" propaganda videos. I have also felt disappointed when Democrats get lovey dovey about their candidates. That goes way back, maybe forever, but I remember particularly disliking the crush everyone had on Bill Clinton and how they talked about him. Democrats as a generalized group can put too much trust in their leaders and the system. Like that guy in Canada is truly a Liberal but over the top. He doesn't sound that great. People can go too far extreme on either side and of all the people, politicians need to be continually questioned because their motives and public personae are overtly designed to gain public approval. The premise of their existence is not about authenticity. I feel great caution towards religions that celebrate their leaders too much and also sports culture where people idolize the players too much because it creates these political minions on any given side of an issue.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

You are probably right that this thinking is happening, but it creeps me out so much. On this scale of society politicians are obviously celebrities, but you are right that it goes beyond that. The religion I grew up in had a lot of sympathies towards Trump and I saw the "Trump is like Jesus let's all get our guns" propaganda videos. I have also felt disappointed when Democrats get lovey dovey about their candidates. That goes way back, maybe forever, but I remember particularly disliking the crush everyone had on Bill Clinton and how they talked about him. Democrats as a generalized group can put too much trust in their leaders and the system. Like that guy in Canada is truly a Liberal but over the top. He doesn't sound that great. People can go too far extreme on either side and of all the people, politicians need to be continually questioned because their motives and public personae are overtly designed to gain public approval. The premise of their existence is not about authenticity. I feel great caution towards religions that celebrate their leaders too much and also sports culture where people idolize the players too much because it creates these political minions on any given side of an issue.

On the podcast that prompted this investigation into civil religion, it was said that the writers of the constitution screwed up royally by not having a head of government and a head of state. Conceiving it in these terms, where identification with these leaders has become a large part of the partisan game (the writers of the constitution recognized that the thing wouldn't work if there were factions, which naturally ended up developing almost immediately), I'd be inclined to agree.

I don't remember that level of affection for Clinton (mostly I just remember Monica Lewinsky jokes), but I definitely remember it about Obama. I generally don't care for how much of mainstream politics is about these personalities, and how little of it is about policy. Oh, and I do know that people unironically called Clinton "the first Black president" and when I think about that, I'm just like "wut"?

 

[Kephalos]

Here's an article on J.D. Vance's (of "Hillbilly Elegy" infamy) remarks on who has a stake in the future:

Ohio Senate candidate JD Vance blames America’s woes on ‘the childless left’ | Republicans | The Guardian

I don't know if it's just me, but I find these remarks to be beyond incendiary.

The notion that the only source of future orientation or altruistic concern with future generations is biological -- not even that, familial -- is beyond atavistic -- it's alarming and disturbing rhetoric. It's not even racist (which it is, by extension) or nationalistic or tribalistic: it reduces one's loyalties to one's own direct descendants. Extremely narrow-minded.

Not to mention that it's nonsensical on its face. Take Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has adopted climate change and the urgency to do something about it as one of her causes. I cannot think of many problems more concerned with the future or more concerned with humanity as a whole than climate change. But J.D. Vance gets to make his outrageous claims while defending the narrow interests of people working in the coal industry.

 

[ceecee]

Here's an article on J.D. Vance's (of "Hillbilly Elegy" infamy) remarks on who has a stake in the future:

Ohio Senate candidate JD Vance blames America’s woes on ‘the childless left’ | Republicans | The Guardian

I don't know if it's just me, but I find these remarks to be beyond incendiary.

The notion that the only source of future orientation or altruistic concern with future generations is biological -- not even that, familial -- is beyond atavistic -- it's alarming and disturbing rhetoric. It's not even racist (which it is, by extension) or nationalistic or tribalistic: it reduces one's loyalties to one's own direct descendants. Extremely narrow-minded.

Not to mention that it's nonsensical on its face. Take Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has adopted climate change and the urgency to do something about it as one of her causes. I cannot think of many problems more concerned with the future or more concerned with humanity as a whole than climate change. But J.D. Vance gets to make his outrageous claims while defending the narrow interests of people working in the coal industry.

This tweet is all anyone needs if they wonder about this chud. There is no reason to entertain this dumbfuckery at all.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

This tweet is all anyone needs if they wonder about this chud. There is no reason to entertain this dumbfuckery at all.

Weren't these fuckers all bitching about single moms 30 years ago?

 

[ceecee]

Weren't these fuckers all bitching about single moms 30 years ago?

Uhh-huh. They also use to bitch about teen sex/pregnancy as I recall. Now they wonder why 12-14 year olds aren't fucking anymore.

I realize the age of consent is more of a right wing libertarian thing but JD Vance also claims to adhere to that particular strain of pudding brained-ism.

 

[ceecee]

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Lots of LeopardsAteMyFace about this.

I'm currently trying to convince one of my cousins that Coronvavirus isn't just an op to turn the US communist. I normally don't argue with these things with those folks, but I wouldn't want them to die from something preventable, so I just posted one of those stories about how unvaccinated people in hospitals wish they had the vaccine. He'll probably call it propaganda but it might give him enough doubt to make him think about it more.

Surprisingly, the other cousin who I knew was into Alex Jones and RT does seem to think the virus is real and doesn't seem to be unvaccinated by choice as much as not really knowing how to go about it. But then he strikes me as a guy who is pretty intelligent who also happens to be a college dropout. I'm trying to turn him on to CTH.

 

[Kephalos]

Misinformation, disinformation and hoaxes: What’s the difference?

Language is important:

Misinformation is perhaps the most innocent of the terms – it’s misleading information created or shared without the intent to manipulate people. An example would be sharing a rumor that a celebrity died, before finding out it’s false.

Disinformation, by contrast, refers to deliberate attempts to confuse or manipulate people with dishonest information. These campaigns, at times orchestrated by groups outside the U.S., such as the Internet Research Agency, a well-known Russian troll factory, can be coordinated across multiple social media accounts and may also use automated systems, called bots, to post and share information online. Disinformation can turn into misinformation when spread by unwitting readers who believe the material.

 

[Kephalos]

I like the idea of using an earth as a unit of measurement of sustainability:

One way to quantify environmental impacts is by estimating how many Earths would be needed to sustain the global population if everyone lived a particular lifestyle. One study estimates it would take 5 Earths to support the human population if everyone’s consumption patterns were similar to the average American.

U.S. Environmental Footprint Factsheet | Center for Sustainable Systems