Random political thought thread.

[ceecee]

My mother asked me what my opinions were of Ani DiFranco and Rachel Maddow. She asked me if I liked them. I said I didn't hate them, but I didn't like them. I feel like that was seen as some kind of a political "sin" on my part (even though she doesn't even listen to Ani DiFranco.. it's more because they're opinionated women).

Truth is, I actually have way more respect for DiFranco than Maddow. After listening to her speak about criminal justice reform, it sounded like she actually wanted to help people. She was truly trying to educate people about an actual issue, rather than engage in overwrought theatrics about stupid partisan tribal bullshit. I still don't know anything about her music, though.

I am sorry, but I've never had Maddow say anything I found insightful. Her opinions always boil down to Democrats are good and Republicans are bad, and I've never seen her hold Democrats to the same standard as Republicans. I don't consider that a sign of intellectual brilliance; there's nothing unique or impressive about partisan loyalty. I've met women who impress me with their intellect way more than that who don't have cushy anchor jobs at cable news.

I really recommend this book because it's specifically about this topic.

Hate Inc.: Why Today's Media Makes Us Despise One Another by Matt Taibbi

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

When you say neo-liberals what and who do you mean?

My definition includes the sort of person who would vote for Biden, but against a referendum for a progressive income tax. There's often a snobbish cant to it based on a belief that we live in a meritocratic society (which is bogus). Think of a variant of social darwinism that doesn't have a problem with women and minorities. You'll often hear an undercurrent of the idea that "the elites are elite for a reason." (They usually have nothing to say when I bring up what's been going in Iraq over the past two [actually three now] decades, which was a project that all sorts of respectable "intellectuals" and "experts" endorsed. )

I don't think my parents are that bad, but I will point out that both of them supported the war in Iraq at first, probably in part because people like Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden did. I don't think either of them are for social darwinism, though. I think their primary error is overestimating the degree to which Joe Biden and most of the Democratic party cares about the same stuff they do. Yellow journalism helps with that, though. (It's ironic because my dad was a journalist. There is definitely a genetic component to his mental illness [his mom had issues as well and my sister appears to have gotten the worst of them, not me], but I truly wonder if it would have been as bad if he had entered another profession. He told me that he become a journalist because he thought he was providing a needed service to society and doing good. Given the state of journalism in this country, I'm not surprised there are a lot of mental health issues.)

I'd say my parents are influenced by neoliberal ideas but are probably not true believers(given that they voted for the tax), even though my Dad will always pick the anointed "electable" candidate in any primary. I think in college I knew people that were true believers. They were on the fast track to a Wall Street career and would probably respond to any pointing out of any shit position they had with "I voted for Obama."

 

[ceecee]

When you say neo-liberals what and who do you mean?

How Can We Revive Herd Immunity to Fascism? | The Nation

The onset of this far-right pandemic goes back to the 1980s and was powerfully boosted in the following decade, as the editors of a collective book, Fascism and Neofascism, acknowledged in 2004: “While a revival of extremist activity in Western Europe began during the 1980s, the collapse of Communism resulted in a surge of the extreme right all across the continent. During the 1990s, fascism, or something like it, was suddenly and unexpectedly resurgent.” Like the classical fascism of the three decades that followed the First World War, this “neofascism”—arguably the best designation, as it refers to both historical affinities and the renewal of forms in tune with our times—takes different shapes according to the countries in which it develops.

There is indeed a clear and undeniable correlation between the neoliberal onslaught that started in the 1980s, led by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan—an onslaught that made “deregulation” one of its main goals, along with privatization, reduction of social spending, and tax cuts for the rich—and the rise of phenomena such as neofascism and religious fundamentalism after decades of marginalization. Likewise, the Great Recession, triggered in 2007, gave a major boost to neofascist forces, as did the major wave of mostly Syrian refugees pouring into Europe in 2015. The facts resulting from both crises are still very much affecting our world, and the huge economic crisis that is presently gestating as a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic can only severely aggravate the anomic conditions globally (the far-right exploitation of anti-lockdown movements is an indication), unless it is countered by economic policies similar to those adopted after 1945.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

There is indeed a clear and undeniable correlation between the neoliberal onslaught that started in the 1980s, led by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan—an onslaught that made “deregulation” one of its main goals, along with privatization, reduction of social spending, and tax cuts for the rich—and the rise of phenomena such as neofascism and religious fundamentalism after decades of marginalization. Likewise, the Great Recession, triggered in 2007, gave a major boost to neofascist forces, as did the major wave of mostly Syrian refugees pouring into Europe in 2015. The facts resulting from both crises are still very much affecting our world, and the huge economic crisis that is presently gestating as a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic can only severely aggravate the anomic conditions globally (the far-right exploitation of anti-lockdown movements is an indication), unless it is countered by economic policies similar to those adopted after

There are people that don't like Trump, but love those tax cuts for the rich (and Obama had some of those too; I remember him talking about corporate tax cuts in a State of the Union address). They're part of the problem. They hate the symptom of Trumpism, but not the cause. They're not willing to do anything about ameliorating the conditions that made Trumpism possible.

The article is using neoliberalism in a scholarly sense of the word (which I am indeed familiar with but confuses the hell out of people without the same knowledge base), but I'm differing in my definition somewhat to describe part of what it is about the Democratic party as a whole that I dislike. They attempt to paper over their attachment to Reagan era-paradigms by playing up cultural issues, which is starting to wear thin for many. There's also the post 9/11 tendencies of that particular segment of the party which aren't explicitly connected to the definition cited here but seem to accompany it; which are the things that have really shaped my political skepticism about American politics as a whole. In this way, neoliberalism is something I use somewhat similarly to neoconservatives (like the Lincoln project folks who "saved the Republic" after pushing for policies that caused this situation in the first place). It should be noted that neoliberals get along way better with neoconservatives than they do with folks that actually want to move away from Reaganist paradigms.

But the definition of neoliberalism as the Regaan/Thatcher paradigm applies to my definition, too, so there's overlap.

 

[Jaguar]

It was put to me recently during a lecture, after posing a question in which I used the word ‘Neoliberalism,’ that the term “is problematic because it is nothing more than a synonym for Capitalism and therefore only confuses the issue.” It goes without saying that I didn’t agree. Capitalism and Neoliberalism are in many respects similar economic ideologies, but as socio-political realities they are very different beasts. Even the way in which we speak of them indicates that there is something of a difference between the two. Over the past couple of weeks I have been attempting to pin down exactly what this difference is.

Capitalism, from its earliest expressions, has been a social and economic mode of living; born from the ideas of personal responsibility and the Protestant work ethic. While I do not consider myself to be either a Capitalist or a Neoliberalist, it is worth noting that in and of itself Capitalism is not necessarily a bad thing. To some degree people should be socially and economically free to pursue their own interests, even their commercial and financial interests. Essentially this is what Capitalism is all about, affording people the freedom to trade and accumulate wealth within the wider restrictions of a state wherein regulations limit the damage that can be done by Capitalistic ambition and greed.

Neoliberalism, on the other hand, as a political development of Capitalism, is a political and economic ideology that seeks to maximise the freedom of the market by removing all barriers to the private accumulation of wealth. In so doing it becomes a power over and above the state directed to the ends of profit without government interference. It is not so much the case that Neoliberalism is against regulation as it is against regulation over which it has no control. The ruling ethic of Capitalism is prudence which leads to wealth, whereas the ethic of Neoliberalism is the accumulation of wealth for its own sake which leads to political power.

Capitalism is socioeconomic way of life. Neoliberalism is an politico-economic means of social control.

What immediately came to mind are companies like PG&E and W.R. Grace, notorious cases of intentional toxic dumping into the waterways and the subsequent illness and death of humans and animals. Not only should the government interfere, they should do everything just short of putting a bullet through their brain. But of course a bullet would not be legal, so other remedies were pursued. Someone once commented that all neoliberals are capitalists but not all capitalists are neoliberals. I agree with that. Anyone who thinks I'm a neoliberal would have to be one of the stupidest individuals on the planet.

Why conservatives abandoned conservation

Summary
During the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, Donald Trump suggested that, if elected, he would roll back environmental regulations, open public lands up for natural resource extraction, and pull the United States out of the Paris Accord, calling global warming a "hoax."

In The Republican Reversal, James Turner and Andrew Isenberg focus on three characteristics of the Republican Party that changed over time: (i) a shift from viewing environmental issues as urgent to viewing them as alarmist and exaggerated; (ii) a shift from relying on scientific research and expertise to viewing these entities with suspicion; and (iii) a shift from embracing a central role of government in addressing environmental problems to viewing regulations as a threat to economic growth, individual freedom, and free enterprise.

And where did you get the idea Donald was a conservative? That's on you. As for the rest? I never changed viewing environmental issues as urgent. I never stopped relying on scientific research. And I never stopped embracing a central role of government in addressing environmental problems. But then, I'm not a Republican anymore.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

It's "sensible moderate pragmatic centrism supported by 'experts '" (rather than loons that yell too much like people from Vermont, some of whom aren't even Democrats) that destabilized the Middle East and created the largest refugee crisis since WWII. A refugee crisis, by the way, that is sowing the seeds of neo-fascism as a reaction if you haven't noticed.

It doesn't have a great record of achieving good in the world.

Notice that we're still bombing Syria even though "freedom was on the march."

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Do I have to have an opinion about Mr. Potato Head now? Please kill me. This world is way too dumb.

 

[Stigmata]

Do I have to have an opinion about Mr. Potato Head now? Please kill me.

Have we reached the point of too woke yet? This has got to be getting close at least. I heard originally that story was just about them rebranding the toys, yet it has.morphed into this.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Have we reached the point of too woke yet? This has got to be getting close at least. I heard originally that story was just about them rebranding the toys, yet it has.morphed into this.

People are blowing up about it in Facebook, and I do not want to talk about it at all. I'm guessing though it's going to be mandatory for me to talk about it to prove that I "care about issues."

I used to not be in favor of euthanasia (as someone who has suffered from feeling suicidal, I do not think I should have had the government approved option to act on it), but this is changing my mind. End this suffering now.

 

[Stigmata]

People are blowing up about it in Facebook, and I do not want to talk about it at all. I'm guessing though it's going to be mandatory for me to talk about it to prove that I "care about issues."

I used to not be in favor of euthanasia (as someone who has suffered from feeling suicidal, I do not think I should have had the government approved option to act on it), but this is changing my mind. End this suffering now.

The opposite cultural reaction from all this is going to be frightening.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The opposite cultural reaction from all this is going to be frightening.

I'm mostly reading people against it. This will probably be what propels people to re-elect Donald Trump, because naturally it would be about changing a children's toy from the way things used to be in the magic age of American Greatness.

Why the hell can't we have adults in the room?

 

[Jaguar]

.

 

[Stigmata]

I'm mostly reading people against it. This will probably be what propels people to re-elect Donald Trump, and it would be fitting, too.

You have to admit it is causing an opposite reaction of pushing people politically towards the right.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

You have to admit it is causing an opposite reaction of pushing people politically towards the right.

Well, this is what we have to do to "show how much we care" because we can't get $15 minimum wage because it's too hard and Republicans are mean. I'm afraid were in for four years of this bullshit, and then what comes after...

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

More people should be wearing giant diapers.

 

[Jaguar]

.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

My brain just kind of shuts down at the mere possibility of needing to have a serious conversation about Mr Potato Head. I can't even go to look at the details of this and see if it's overblown or not.... my brain just won't accept it. I can't bring myself to read about Mr. Potato Head to be part of a serious cultural conversation.

The most I know about Mr. Potato that originally they just sold the accessories and you used an actual potato, but this was unsanitary so they changed it. I don't want to know more than that, damnit!

 

[ceecee]

Do I have to have an opinion about Mr. Potato Head now? Please kill me. This world is way too dumb.

This is hilarious since Mr. Potato Head already was a non gendered toy to begin with.

Mr. Potato Head - Wikipedia

The toy was originally produced as separate plastic parts with pushpins that could be stuck into a real potato or other vegetable. However, due to complaints regarding rotting vegetables and new government safety regulations, Hasbro began including a plastic potato body within the toy set in 1964.

 

[Stigmata]

Well, this is what we have to do to "show how much we care" because we can't get $15 minimum wage because it's too hard and Republicans are mean. I'm afraid were in for four years of this bullshit, and then what comes after...

Apparently Kamala Harris as President of the Senate can technically overrule the Senste Parliamentary's decision to strike it from the bill. There is actually a precident for this scenario in history. The question is, will she? Failing to pass that will be a gigantic amount of egg on the face of the party as the midterm elections approach, ironically enough favoring the party which chose to give the American people the proverbial middle finger, numerous times.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Apparently Kamala Harris as President of the Senate can technically overrule the Senste Parliamentary's decision to strike it from the bill. There is actually a precident for this scenario in history. The question is, will she? Failing to pass that will be a gigantic amount of egg on the face of the party as the midterm elections approach.

I know what I'd place money on.