Random political thought thread.

[Maou]

Example of how the media can harmfully influence the population.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

 

[Jaguar]

Mary Trump is a relentless troll. I have to give her an 'A' for effort.

 

[FemMecha]

Mary Trump is a relentless troll. I have to give her an 'A' for effort.

What do you mean? Her perspective is interesting - I recently posted an interview of her from August and she predicted exactly what Trump is doing right now with the elections. I'll try to find and repost it here. I'm not sure this is it. I think this one is after the election result.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Moderates and centrists will almost always wind up coming down on the side of right wingers. The desire for fairness and respect for free speech blinds them to the real nature of these people

It’s the great catch 22 of any society valuing free speech.

I support free speech, I just find it unfortunate that the intolerant and ignorant always seem to find a way to exploit the best intentions of centrists to their own ends, even when they themselves rarely value free speech and expression across the board. The second they hold any real power or sway, it’s back to the book burning and calls for censorship

 

[Maou]

This song isnt inherantly political, but at the same time, it is. If you can see why it is, feel free to reply.

 

[Maou]

Moderates and centrists will almost always wind up coming down on the side of right wingers. The desire for fairness and respect for free speech blinds them to the real nature of these people

It’s the great catch 22 of any society valuing free speech.

I support free speech, I just find it unfortunate that the intolerant and ignorant always seem to find a way to exploit the best intentions of centrists to their own ends, even when they themselves rarely value free speech and expression across the board. The second they hold any real power or sway, it’s back to the book burning and calls for censorship

If you recognize that moderates, and the right wing disagree with the left. Doesn't that signal that the Left has become unfounded and radical? Sane people, always flock to those who seem the least reactionary. If even the moderates avoid the Left, what does that say about them?

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

It’s also funny how the centrists always blame the left for their lackluster performances in elections. I mean, generally, the few left wing candidates to make it past the primaries did very well this year, while centrist dems fought for survival and saw their House majority shrink. But, you know, keep blaming the lefties and repeating your same losing strategy, you guys seem to have a real finger on the pulse of the working class.

When Centrists Lose, Corporate Media Blame the Left | Common Dreams Views

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

If you recognize that moderates, and the right wing disagree with the left. Doesn't that signal that the Left has become unfounded and radical? Sane people, always flock to those who seem the least reactionary. If even the moderates avoid the Left, what does that say about them?

 

[Maou]

Please explain, instead of being more inflammatory.

 

[Red Herring]

Please explain, instead of being more inflammatory.

I think what he meant was not that centrists give up on the left in favor of the right because they somehow consider them more attractive, as you seemed to imply, but that centrists tend to give the far right the benefit of the doubt too often, work across the aisle too often and thus invite desaster because the right (far or moderate) has no intention of returning the favor. Allowing far right free speech even when they use misinformation leads to he far right gaining traction which can lead to the far ight gaining power and then abolishing the freedoms tat enabled them to gain that power in the first place. There is a famous speech be Göbbels where he explicitely says: Yeah, you might have been tolerant towards us, but that doesn't mean we will tolerate you as soon as we are in power.

In the Weimar republic the center decided to cooperate with the nazis rather than with the left which ultimately made the Third Reich possible.

 

[Stigmata]

If you recognize that moderates, and the right wing disagree with the left. Doesn't that signal that the Left has become unfounded and radical? Sane people, always flock to those who seem the least reactionary. If even the moderates avoid the Left, what does that say about them?

Moderates disagree with the left because they're really center-right Republicans running as Democrats. If people really wanted or cared about moderate Democrats, why do moderate Democrats keep losing their seats either to Republicans or progressive candidates. Furthermore, If the progressive wing of the party really didn't best represent the desire of the respective constituencies, why do PROGRESSIVE Democrats keep winning while are slowly losing ground within the party? If the Democrat party leadership doesn't embrace a more progressive direction(which when polled, the majority of the country seems to favor their policies), it will continue to lose ground from both ends.

 

[Jaguar]

What do you mean?

She trolls Donald on Twitter. It's funny.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Please explain, instead of being more inflammatory.

Red Herring explained it well.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Moderates disagree with the left because they're really center-right Republicans running as Democrats. If people really wanted or cared about moderate Democrats, why do moderate Democrats keep losing their seats either to Republicans or progressive candidates. Furthermore, If the progressive wing of the party really didn't best represent the desire of the respective constituencies, why do PROGRESSIVE Democrats keep winning while are slowly losing ground within the party? If the Democrat party leadership doesn't embrace a more progressive direction(which when polled, the majority of the country seems to favor their policies), it will continue to lose ground from both ends.

This explains how some former Bernie supporters could flip for Trump in 2016. I myself went for Gary Johnson that year, not for his economic platform, but because just about every other position he took was more in alignment with a left libertarian platform than Hillary or Trump.

It’s good, because while the mainstream of American libertarianism is too economically right wing for me, it at least led me to look more into European/left strands of libertarianism and arrive to where I am now.

 

[Maou]

I think what he meant was not that centrists give up on the left in favor of the right because they somehow consider them more attractive, as you seemed to imply, but that centrists tend to give the far right the benefit of the doubt too often, work across the aisle too often and thus invite desaster because the right (far or moderate) has no intention of returning the favor. Allowing far right free speech even when they use misinformation leads to he far right gaining traction which can lead to the far ight gaining power and then abolishing the freedoms tat enabled them to gain that power in the first place. There is a famous speech be Göbbels where he explicitely says: Yeah, you might have been tolerant towards us, but that doesn't mean we will tolerate you as soon as we are in power.

In the Weimar republic the center decided to cooperate with the nazis rather than with the left which ultimately made the Third Reich possible.

I really don't think moderates join the right because they are more attractive. They do it because the Left went extreamist. What was left of center 40 years ago, is now considered right winged. I don't get how becoming a Left wing extremist is any better than becoming a right wing extremist. Republican views haven't really changed much, but Liberal veiws have changed pretty drastically in the last 50 years. This constant change alienates people. Its generally why as people age, they become more conservative.

 

[FemMecha]

Example of how the media can harmfully influence the population.

This is an important topic and people on the Left can go too far extreme with cancel culture. The underlying notion is to look deeper than the surface to the causes of violence and cultural imbalances, but there are a couple of problems with approaching it with cancel culture. Firstly, sometimes reading into things results in false assumptions because it relies on inferences, intuition, and assumptions about symbolic communication being interpreted the same way by everyone. You cannot establish high truth values with these inferences, although as an artist myself, I process a lot of information in this manner, but have to be disciplined to sort out speculative knowledge from facts. You analyze a range of symbolic interpretations and not a codified set of correlations.

This boycotting of entertainment to control the baser human motivations goes back thousands of years. Even Thomas Aquinas has an essay about music creating too intense a sensual/sensory experience. The pipe organ was originally banned from churches because of its associations with Rome. Jazz was boycotted for stirring up the base sexual passions, etc. The Beatles were boycotted, records burning was a big thing in the 70's. I grew up having the Religious Right be responsible for most cancel culture from Jerry Falwell outing Tinky Winky to boycotting Ellen Degenerus, of course multiple Marilyn Manson concerts. There was lots of hype about homosexuality and also Satanism. If either notion was read into a performer, they were boycotted.

Evangelicals perfected cancel culture. Now it’s coming for them.

Now I do see that it is on the Left. It is a mistake even in cases where entertainment could negatively effect culture. I think creativity and art tends to be more of an expression of existing culture, and creating certain feedback loops, but it doesn't determine behavior to the degree that cancel culture hypes.

The example in your video is a good one. The reality is that for every individual that watches "The Joker" you are going to have a somewhat unique interpretation of it. Shunning entertainers and creative works is dysfunctional and creates more sensation, actually. The example of the college professor speaking out against the movie could be turned into a healthy dynamic if she wanted to devote a class session to discussing it from different viewpoints, so that students could consider all the different ways a person could think about the movie.

I don't think canceling, deleting, removing creative works is the way to "fix" a culture. I think open discussions is the correct path. If there is a historical movie that is racist, it is more important for people to see it and discuss it. Hiding it is another form of revisionist history. It is like saying "this movie was never made". I think we need to admit it was created and talk about why society thought it was okay to portray certain demographics as such. Same is true for current works. If there are moral issues, talk about it. Let people say stupid things. Let them say insightful new ideas. Hear different viewpoints, so that we have more understanding about people and culture and not less understanding.

Edit: This is the generalized position, and there could be specific instances where I could agree with some censorship, if there wasn't a way to pair it with discussion. I would say some historical movies could be aired with an adjacently aired discussion. Child libraries require a little different consideration for developmental reasons. There are not absolutes in my mind about complex social dynamics.

 

[Totenkindly]

I know labels allow for easy shorthand when having discussions, but I am finding them more and more off-putting, especially if it's not clear we all agree on the definitions.

Like, dissing on the moderates. It's just getting old. Maybe my understanding of the moderate position is off and I align with more left issues (as far as American left goes) than I realized in the past, but typically I value the ability to listen to a variety of people, encourage communication, and try to come up with plans that satisfy the most needs among the community. In a time period when things were not polarized and people might have been more honest and less tribal, then this was a valuable thing.

I just know that through the last decade, I have found myself digging in a lot more because it became very clear to me that certain groups of people who benefit from that approach and try to claim a right to be heard through it have no actual inclination to honor those privileges for opposition and are not engaging to benefit community aside from their own positions. In other words, they are not engaging out of good faith. Then again, I think when that becomes clear ( that someone is more interested in their tribe rather than wanting to find broader solutions, and will take advantage of everyone for their own interests), then they should lose power in the broad community and the community should not cater to them.

Like I said, maybe I've switched groups without consciously realizing it, but it's still bugging me with all the labels. Speaking about the issues directly has more mileage, because people can then focus on whether they identify with those needs versus a tribal group.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I really don't think moderates join the right because they are more attractive. They do it because the Left went extreamist. What was left of center 40 years ago, is now considered right winged. I don't get how becoming a Left wing extremist is any better than becoming a right wing extremist. Republican views haven't really changed much, but Liberal veiws have changed pretty drastically in the last 50 years. This constant change alienates people. Its generally why as people age, they become more conservative.

To be clear, I wasn't saying that moderates leave moderatism or join the right, I was saying they often end up taking the side of the right, particularly when those on the right cry about their free speech being limited. If you think of moderates as a continuation of classical liberalism, it makes sense, as classical liberals highly value free speech. The far right exploits this to their own ends. Look at how Hitler's minority party was able to get popular support from political moderates and conservatives. The far right has always been very good at Trojan Horsing their way into the political mainstream by appealing to the majority's (who tend to be politically moderate or centrist) appreciation of free speech and open dialogue.

I am not saying free speech and open dialogue are bad, just pointing out how and why the right is able to play the system to their own ends.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

It's how we get Biden floating the idea of hiring republicans to his cabinet before we'd even heard the election called for him. Moderate centrists like Biden love to work across the aisle, I just hope he'll be savvy about who he hires and get people who are actually interested in reform and progress rather than more insiders interested in protecting the status quo and wall street.