Controversial Political Opinions

[David Horn]

(04-20-2022, 08:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: And we especially need it this year. Share please.

What I have experienced these last 41 years has been depressing. We have lived in a declining society, with declining confidence in our society and its institutions. And as I diagnose this, it comes down to one fact. Once a Democratic president is elected, at the next midterm too many people withdraw for him. Then a Republican is installed by the Supreme Court and/or the electoral college. So we have years and years at a time without any progress. From 1994 to 2008, we had no progress, and from 2010 to 2020, again, no progress. At all other times, the country regressed. All progress was blocked.

There are other things besides politics and government that affect our nation. But it is a critical factor. Without it, the rich and powerful rule without restraint, and prejudice of various kinds grows.

So now, we seem about to rinse and repeat. Once again we seem on the verge of not supporting a Democratic president once elected, and allowing the powerful few to block all initiatives to help our society be available and open to others besides the rich and powerful and the prejudiced.

Obama's speech is a lesson in civics, and we need it. Just criticizing the messenger is a neat way to avoid the lesson.

I can't argue with one word of this.  That said, we're in an odd spot here.  Advocacy is assumed to be self-serving, and the more strenuous it is the less any message is received in the intended manner.  I try to keep my message to anyone tied to their life experience, to the extent I'm able to know it.  Am I making gains?  Are any of us?  I guess we'll see in a few months.

[Eric the Green]

(04-22-2022, 06:28 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-20-2022, 08:33 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: And we especially need it this year. Share please.

What I have experienced these last 41 years has been depressing. We have lived in a declining society, with declining confidence in our society and its institutions. And as I diagnose this, it comes down to one fact. Once a Democratic president is elected, at the next midterm too many people withdraw for him. Then a Republican is installed by the Supreme Court and/or the electoral college. So we have years and years at a time without any progress. From 1994 to 2008, we had no progress, and from 2010 to 2020, again, no progress. At all other times, the country regressed. All progress was blocked.

There are other things besides politics and government that affect our nation. But it is a critical factor. Without it, the rich and powerful rule without restraint, and prejudice of various kinds grows.

So now, we seem about to rinse and repeat. Once again we seem on the verge of not supporting a Democratic president once elected, and allowing the powerful few to block all initiatives to help our society be available and open to others besides the rich and powerful and the prejudiced.

Obama's speech is a lesson in civics, and we need it. Just criticizing the messenger is a neat way to avoid the lesson.

I can't argue with one word of this.  That said, we're in an odd spot here.  Advocacy is assumed to be self-serving, and the more strenuous it is the less any message is received in the intended manner.  I try to keep my message to anyone tied to their life experience, to the extent I'm able to know it.  Am I making gains?  Are any of us?  I guess we'll see in a few months.

You are right. Communication is an important key, and maybe some politicians or some people like me are too strenuous and impersonal. Whatever Obama's failings as president, largely because he was not given support, he knows what to say and how to say it. But even he fails too often to get his message through. What we've got here is, failure to communicate, and we're gonna get it. Obama gave another speech yesterday which I want to find and post.

[JasonBlack]

(04-22-2022, 06:28 AM)David Horn Wrote: I can't argue with one word of this.  That said, we're in an odd spot here.  Advocacy is assumed to be self-serving, and the more strenuous it is the less any message is received in the intended manner.  I try to keep my message to anyone tied to their life experience, to the extent I'm able to know it.  Am I making gains?  Are any of us?  I guess we'll see in a few months.

It's assumed to be self-serving because it usually IS self-serving. The people most likely to engage in advocacy work tend to be intellectually and moralistically arrogant, preferring to talk at, rather than with people. Not only do they fail to understand their intended audience, they often don't even understand the very people they claim to advocate for, because they don't actually listen to anyone. All 95% of them have managed to do is contribute to a metastasizing cultural tone of disrespect, accusation and outrage over mutual respect, understanding and self-regulation. Even this assumes the opposition is even their target audience in the first place. Most of the time, they'd rather just parrot cliches back and forth with people who already agree with them, taking no real risks, but congratulating each other like they just got back from active combat duty.

None of this should suggest there aren't causes out there worth fighting for, but frankly, most of today's "activists" deserve the hate they get, and if they want to start making any real progress, they need to take their attitude down about 5 pegs.

[David Horn]

(05-06-2022, 05:33 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(04-22-2022, 06:28 AM)David Horn Wrote: I can't argue with one word of this.  That said, we're in an odd spot here.  Advocacy is assumed to be self-serving, and the more strenuous it is the less any message is received in the intended manner.  I try to keep my message to anyone tied to their life experience, to the extent I'm able to know it.  Am I making gains?  Are any of us?  I guess we'll see in a few months.

It's assumed to be self-serving because it usually IS self-serving. The people most likely to engage in advocacy work tend to be intellectually and moralistically arrogant, preferring to talk at, rather than with people. Not only do they fail to understand their intended audience, they often don't even understand the very people they claim to advocate for, because they don't actually listen to anyone. All 95% of them have managed to do is contribute to a metastasizing cultural tone of disrespect, accusation and outrage over mutual respect, understanding and self-regulation.  Even this assumes the opposition is even their target audience in the first place. Most of the time, they'd rather just parrot cliches back and forth with people who already agree with them, taking no real risks, but congratulating each other like they just got back from active combat duty.

None of this should suggest there aren't causes out there worth fighting for, but frankly, most of today's "activists" deserve the hate they get, and if they want to start making any real progress, they need to take their attitude down about 5 pegs.

Are the Dems preachy?  Yes they are.  Are the Reps dangerous reprobates?  Also yes.  So which is the greater concern, the Republican Snowflake arsonists or the Democrats on their soapboxes?

The question answers itself.

[JasonBlack]

(05-06-2022, 07:01 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-06-2022, 05:33 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(04-22-2022, 06:28 AM)David Horn Wrote: I can't argue with one word of this.  That said, we're in an odd spot here.  Advocacy is assumed to be self-serving, and the more strenuous it is the less any message is received in the intended manner.  I try to keep my message to anyone tied to their life experience, to the extent I'm able to know it.  Am I making gains?  Are any of us?  I guess we'll see in a few months.

It's assumed to be self-serving because it usually IS self-serving. The people most likely to engage in advocacy work tend to be intellectually and moralistically arrogant, preferring to talk at, rather than with people. Not only do they fail to understand their intended audience, they often don't even understand the very people they claim to advocate for, because they don't actually listen to anyone. All 95% of them have managed to do is contribute to a metastasizing cultural tone of disrespect, accusation and outrage over mutual respect, understanding and self-regulation.  Even this assumes the opposition is even their target audience in the first place. Most of the time, they'd rather just parrot cliches back and forth with people who already agree with them, taking no real risks, but congratulating each other like they just got back from active combat duty.

None of this should suggest there aren't causes out there worth fighting for, but frankly, most of today's "activists" deserve the hate they get, and if they want to start making any real progress, they need to take their attitude down about 5 pegs.

Are the Dems preachy?  Yes they are.  Are the Reps dangerous reprobates?  Also yes.  So which is the greater concern, the Republican Snowflake arsonists or the Democrats on their soapboxes?

The question answers itself.

If you insist on playing whataboutism, you forgot the Democrat inner city gangs and Democrat sexually predatory Hollywood elites. Keep in mind that 90% of what Democrats thought was so dangerous about Trump was based on nothing but offensive tweets and comments, so I think deep down, they know that social behavior has just as much risk of leading to tangible violence as more overt crime.

[David Horn]

(05-06-2022, 08:24 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(05-06-2022, 07:01 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-06-2022, 05:33 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(04-22-2022, 06:28 AM)David Horn Wrote: I can't argue with one word of this.  That said, we're in an odd spot here.  Advocacy is assumed to be self-serving, and the more strenuous it is the less any message is received in the intended manner.  I try to keep my message to anyone tied to their life experience, to the extent I'm able to know it.  Am I making gains?  Are any of us?  I guess we'll see in a few months.

It's assumed to be self-serving because it usually IS self-serving. The people most likely to engage in advocacy work tend to be intellectually and moralistically arrogant, preferring to talk at, rather than with people. Not only do they fail to understand their intended audience, they often don't even understand the very people they claim to advocate for, because they don't actually listen to anyone. All 95% of them have managed to do is contribute to a metastasizing cultural tone of disrespect, accusation and outrage over mutual respect, understanding and self-regulation.  Even this assumes the opposition is even their target audience in the first place. Most of the time, they'd rather just parrot cliches back and forth with people who already agree with them, taking no real risks, but congratulating each other like they just got back from active combat duty.

None of this should suggest there aren't causes out there worth fighting for, but frankly, most of today's "activists" deserve the hate they get, and if they want to start making any real progress, they need to take their attitude down about 5 pegs.

Are the Dems preachy?  Yes they are.  Are the Reps dangerous reprobates?  Also yes.  So which is the greater concern, the Republican Snowflake arsonists or the Democrats on their soapboxes?

The question answers itself.

If you insist on playing whataboutism, you forgot the Democrat inner city gangs and Democrat sexually predatory Hollywood elites. Keep in mind that 90% of what Democrats thought was so dangerous about Trump was based on nothing but offensive tweets and comments, so I think deep down, they know that social behavior has just as much risk of leading to tangible violence as more overt crime.

What makes inner city gangs Democrats?  Or the Hollywood predator crowd either, for that matter?  That some affiliate with Democrats is not defining.  Many also affiliate with Republicans -- our most famous predators among them.  Worry about the actual politicians.  At the moment, the Republicans are, to quote Joe Scarborough quoting Aristotle: crazy as shithouse rats.  No one in the Democratic Party is half as nuts as Marjory Taylor Greene or Madison Cawthorn or Paul Gosar or Lauren Bobert or ... I can't sit here long enough to finish this list.  Even the semi-sane ones are nuts.  It's scary.

[pbrower2a]

(05-06-2022, 09:42 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-06-2022, 08:24 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(05-06-2022, 07:01 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(05-06-2022, 05:33 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(04-22-2022, 06:28 AM)David Horn Wrote: I can't argue with one word of this.  That said, we're in an odd spot here.  Advocacy is assumed to be self-serving, and the more strenuous it is the less any message is received in the intended manner.  I try to keep my message to anyone tied to their life experience, to the extent I'm able to know it.  Am I making gains?  Are any of us?  I guess we'll see in a few months.

It's assumed to be self-serving because it usually IS self-serving. The people most likely to engage in advocacy work tend to be intellectually and moralistically arrogant, preferring to talk at, rather than with people. Not only do they fail to understand their intended audience, they often don't even understand the very people they claim to advocate for, because they don't actually listen to anyone. All 95% of them have managed to do is contribute to a metastasizing cultural tone of disrespect, accusation and outrage over mutual respect, understanding and self-regulation.  Even this assumes the opposition is even their target audience in the first place. Most of the time, they'd rather just parrot cliches back and forth with people who already agree with them, taking no real risks, but congratulating each other like they just got back from active combat duty.

None of this should suggest there aren't causes out there worth fighting for, but frankly, most of today's "activists" deserve the hate they get, and if they want to start making any real progress, they need to take their attitude down about 5 pegs.

Are the Dems preachy?  Yes they are.  Are the Reps dangerous reprobates?  Also yes.  So which is the greater concern, the Republican Snowflake arsonists or the Democrats on their soapboxes?

The question answers itself.

If you insist on playing whataboutism, you forgot the Democrat inner city gangs and Democrat sexually predatory Hollywood elites. Keep in mind that 90% of what Democrats thought was so dangerous about Trump was based on nothing but offensive tweets and comments, so I think deep down, they know that social behavior has just as much risk of leading to tangible violence as more overt crime.

What makes inner city gangs Democrats?  Or the Hollywood predator crowd either, for that matter?  That some affiliate with Democrats is not defining.  Many also affiliate with Republicans -- our most famous predators among them.  Worry about the actual politicians.  At the moment, the Republicans are, to quote Joe Scarborough quoting Aristotle: crazy as shithouse rats.  No one in the Democratic Party is half as nuts as Marjory Taylor Greene or Madison Cawthorn or Paul Gosar or Lauren Bobert or ... I can't sit here long enough to finish this list.  Even the semi-sane ones are nuts.  It's scary.

I see nothing that the big-city Democrats have to offer urban criminals except prison. Most of the elected big-city DA's are Democrats... and that is one of the sources of many of our current US Senators from the Democratic Party.  So the DA is a liberal on everything but crime and has a Spanish surname like yours. That DA hates MS-13 as does most in his or her community and will show no solidarity with you on ethnic grounds.  

Racists take note: 

1. There are plenty of white crooks, too.
2. There are plenty of good people in the ghettos and barrios. They recognize criminals as menaces. 
3. The old bleeding-heart stance that people become criminals because of oppression and poverty is just not true. People largely -- and this is true of liberals -- recognize criminality as a personal choice reflecting one's character. Most criminals are either one-time thrill-seekers who stop after seeing such as more trouble than it is worth, or one-person crime waves. 
4. Repeat-offenders are mostly sociopaths and psychopaths.

Of course it is a moral imperative to reduce poverty, make education more rigorous, and widen the access to jobs. If you want the low crime rate of Japan, then you will need to do two things:

1. make education more rigorous, and
2. introduce thought reform into criminal prisons. Japan treats criminal offenders much like China treats political prisoners. Freeing someone from the attitude that other people are prey is very different from destroying beliefs that arise from conscience and thought.

[JasonBlack]

(05-06-2022, 09:42 AM)David Horn Wrote: What makes inner city gangs Democrats?

voting Democrat....

Quote:Or the Hollywood predator crowd either, for that matter?

 same as above....and donating to democrats 
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/g...s-1151392/

Quote:That some affiliate with Democrats is not defining.  Many also affiliate with Republicans -- our most famous predators among them.  Worry about the actual politicians.

I worry about those making the campaign contributions (ie, the ones who really have the most power), not just the puppets enacting the laws.

Quote:At the moment, the Republicans are, to quote Joe Scarborough quoting Aristotle: crazy as shithouse rats.  No one in the Democratic Party is half as nuts as Marjory Taylor Greene or Madison Cawthorn or Paul Gosar or Lauren Bobert or ... I can't sit here long enough to finish this list.  Even the semi-sane ones are nuts.  It's scary.

Biden pushing us into war with China certainly qualifies as "nuts".






Anyway, I'm falling into the whataboutism trap. The point isn't who is worse. I will return to the original premise: your questions I was answering:

Quote:That said, we're in an odd spot here.  

Quote:Advocacy is assumed to be self-serving, and the more strenuous it is the less any message is received in the intended manner.  I try to keep my message to anyone tied to their life experience, to the extent I'm able to know it.  Am I making gains?  Are any of us?  I guess we'll see in a few months.

Yes, they are assumed to be self-serving. No, none of them are making any gains precisely for the reasons I mentioned, which you have already more-or-less admitted here. 

Quote:Are the Dems preachy?  Yes they are.  Are the Reps dangerous reprobates?  Also yes.  So which is the greater concern, the Republican Snowflake arsonists or the Democrats on their soapboxes?
The question answers itself.

ie...you don't believe that most of what they're doing is working, but you think they are justified in being both ineffective and extremely disrespectful because the Republicans are worse.

[Eric the Green]

What Democrats propose works, and has worked, and is necessary for our society to work again; but has mostly been blocked and not put into effect. What the Republicans propose is destruction.

[Eric the Green]

(05-06-2022, 05:33 AM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(04-22-2022, 06:28 AM)David Horn Wrote: I can't argue with one word of this.  That said, we're in an odd spot here.  Advocacy is assumed to be self-serving, and the more strenuous it is the less any message is received in the intended manner.  I try to keep my message to anyone tied to their life experience, to the extent I'm able to know it.  Am I making gains?  Are any of us?  I guess we'll see in a few months.

It's assumed to be self-serving because it usually IS self-serving. The people most likely to engage in advocacy work tend to be intellectually and moralistically arrogant, preferring to talk at, rather than with people. Not only do they fail to understand their intended audience, they often don't even understand the very people they claim to advocate for, because they don't actually listen to anyone. All 95% of them have managed to do is contribute to a metastasizing cultural tone of disrespect, accusation and outrage over mutual respect, understanding and self-regulation.  Even this assumes the opposition is even their target audience in the first place. Most of the time, they'd rather just parrot cliches back and forth with people who already agree with them, taking no real risks, but congratulating each other like they just got back from active combat duty.

None of this should suggest there aren't causes out there worth fighting for, but frankly, most of today's "activists" deserve the hate they get, and if they want to start making any real progress, they need to take their attitude down about 5 pegs.

So, how do they substitute the "bravado" you advocate for their current attitude? While advocating the same things?
You seem to know what to do, so tell us.

Obviously "from my cold dead hands" is no better.

[David Horn]

(05-06-2022, 03:03 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(05-06-2022, 09:42 AM)David Horn Wrote: What makes inner city gangs Democrats?

voting Democrat....

Members of inner-city gangs are not known for voting for anyone.  

JasonBlack Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:Or the Hollywood predator crowd either, for that matter?

same as above....and donating to democrats 
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/g...s-1151392/

And why would Hollywood execs give to Republicans, who are antagonistic to their business?  Note: execs with fossil fuel related companies overwhelmingly give to Republicans, not Democrats.  Same logic here.  BTW, the predators, like Harvey Weinstein, suffered at the hands of Democrats.

JasonBlack Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:That some affiliate with Democrats is not defining.  Many also affiliate with Republicans -- our most famous predators among them.  Worry about the actual politicians.

I worry about those making the campaign contributions (ie, the ones who really have the most power), not just the puppets enacting the laws.

Please follow the money.  That Democrats are not virtuous is certainly true, but the GOP has made favor-granting to the rich and powerful a centerpiece of party strategy.

JasonBlack Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:At the moment, the Republicans are, to quote Joe Scarborough quoting Aristotle: crazy as shithouse rats.  No one in the Democratic Party is half as nuts as Marjory Taylor Greene or Madison Cawthorn or Paul Gosar or Lauren Bobert or ... I can't sit here long enough to finish this list.  Even the semi-sane ones are nuts.  It's scary.

Biden pushing us into war with China certainly qualifies as "nuts".





Anyway, I'm falling into the whataboutism trap. The point isn't who is worse. I will return to the original premise: your questions I was answering:

There is no indication that Biden is pushing us into war with the Chinese.  On the contrary, he has, through diplomatic means, gotten the Chinese to stand down on support for Putin.  We don't know how that will play in the long run, but let's not pillory success as failure.

JasonBlack Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:Advocacy is assumed to be self-serving, and the more strenuous it is the less any message is received in the intended manner.  I try to keep my message to anyone tied to their life experience, to the extent I'm able to know it.  Am I making gains?  Are any of us?  I guess we'll see in a few months.

Yes, they are assumed to be self-serving. No, none of them are making any gains precisely for the reasons I mentioned, which you have already more-or-less admitted here. 

Then why are the Republicans able to make gains, when they are approaching the treason wall?  No Democrat is even close to that standard.  Even more to the point, how are average people able to support a party that spends 99% of its energy helping the rich and corporations at their direct expense?  I understand the Democrats not being loved but give me a break here!

JasonBlack Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:Are the Dems preachy?  Yes they are.  Are the Reps dangerous reprobates?  Also yes.  So which is the greater concern, the Republican Snowflake arsonists or the Democrats on their soapboxes?

The question answers itself.

ie...you don't believe that most of what they're doing is working, but you think they are justified in being both ineffective and extremely disrespectful because the Republicans are worse.

No.  I do give them a bit of leeway for not having the headcount in Congree to be effective, but I'm all over them for being preachy and obtuse ... even moreso for not fighting the good fight.  It's odd that the three countries that seem to have this problem in spades are all Rupert Murdock media foci: the UK, US and Australia.  That can't be coincidental.

[pbrower2a]

(05-06-2022, 03:03 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(05-06-2022, 09:42 AM)David Horn Wrote: What makes inner city gangs Democrats?

voting Democrat....

The people who live in the neighborhoods that those inner-city gangs bedevil vote heavily Democratic. Democratic pols in such places are interested in improving the lives of their constituents. The GOP has little to offer the urban poor, at least for now, which may be parallel to the situation in the Mountain South (Ozarks and Appalachia) in which the Democrats can't reach the consciousness of the people therein. The inner-city gangs are generally apathetic to politics, and what passes for an Establishment in those inner-city communities wants nothing to do with them. 

The only role that I could see those gangs doing in politics is in being paid enforcers of economic elites hostile to to non-white, non-Anglo, and poor people. Those gangs would do the dirty work, but those economic elites have good cause to not trust those gangs with which they have even less in common in culture than their usual victims.  Our economic elites are extremely cruel to poor people, but getting people to do dirty work such as intimidating voters in electoral campaigns every two years or so is less lucrative to those gangs than their usual crimes.
 

Quote:

Quote:Or the Hollywood predator crowd either, for that matter?

 
same as above....and donating to democrats 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/g...s-1151392/

[/url]
(David Horn well addresses that Democrats who could have done so did nothing to keep Harvey Weinstein, once a highly-successful movie mogul, from going to prison for likely the rest of his life after exposure of his predatory sexuality in which he exploited actresses on his "casting couch").

Democrats, as non-authoritarian types, have shown themselves more willing to sacrifice their rogues than is so with the Republicans, now largely authoritarian to the point that one can hardly trust them with human rights or civil liberties. 

Maybe this reflects that many high-profile Democrats are Jews. Contrary to claims in the Protocols of the (Learned) Elders (of Zion) and to many who have used that as gospel truth about Jewish behavior (it is a ludicrous forgery purporting to be minutes of a Jewish plot to degrade Gentiles and dominate the world, Jews do not defend their rogues; indeed, they are likely to warn gentiles of the rogues that they cast out for showing tendencies to do bad stuff to Jews. I am reminded of one Talmudic question-and-answer on one issue:

Q: Is it better for me, as a Jew, to cheat gentiles instead of Jews because I at least will not be hurting Jews?
A: It is even worse to cheat gentiles because such creates a bad image of us that invites retribution against us. The commandment Thou Shalt Not Steal applies to the whole of Humanity to preclude stealing by anyone against anyone else.

I need not be Jewish to love that answer. 

This website

https://theauthoritarians.org/

offers a non-technical paper that explains  much about American politics, especially one component: the right-wing aggressor (RWA) types that Bob Altmeyer exposes as consummately dangerous to democracy and Humanity itself. Their politics are obviously objectionable to people who want reproductive freedom even to do tender and loving things, to choose or choose against giving birth, to seek amelioration of dangerous trends in the environment (including resource depletion and deterioration of the environment -- especially global warming), to seek fair pay and humane working conditions, to reduce social enmity, and to avoid having to be stooges of the Hard Right in educational settings. The bad guys are the most aggressive RWA types; they cleave to the most rapacious of plutocrats and seek the most reckless, ruthless, and cruel responses to perceived dangers and insults by intensifying the rhetoric and making the responses more severe and with greater risk of apocalypse. 

In his paper Altmeyer shows that a game simulation of international crises had the aggressive RWA types choosing such courses as nuclear blackmail, which is how Joachim on Ribbentrop (without question he like his boss Hitler would have been an unambiguous RWA) would have done things had his infernal regime had nukes at his disposal. Simulations involving others, including less-aggressive right-wing types not allowing things to spiral into apocalypse. Whether the aggressive RWA's played "USA" or "India" they were as likely to initiate thermonuclear war against each other. Such need not make sense, but much that the Nazis (the definitive RWA's) did makes no rational sense. People not among the aggressive RWA's (they might be right-wing  

The not-so-aggressive RWA's generally needed guidance from others, and it mattered greatly in World War II whether they followed a reasonably-decent leader (FDR or Churchill) or, well, you know who.   

.  

---

Quote:That some affiliate with Democrats is not defining.  Many also affiliate with Republicans -- our most famous predators among them.  Worry about the actual politicians.

I worry about those making the campaign contributions (ie, the ones who really have the most power), not just the puppets enacting the laws.

Quote:At the moment, the Republicans are, [url=https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2022/05/watch-morning-joe-rips-radical-gop-freaks-in-epic-takedown-what-lies-ahead-if-trumpists-keep-winning/?msclkid=3c9699a0cd4a11ec88006ced2d57bc8f]to quote Joe Scarborough quoting Aristotle: crazy as shithouse rats.  No one in the Democratic Party is half as nuts as Marjory Taylor Greene or Madison Cawthorn or Paul Gosar or Lauren Boebert or ... I can't sit here long enough to finish this list.  Even the semi-sane ones are nuts.  It's scary.

In 1950 Theodore Adorno and others published a work called The Authoritarian Personality  which tried to explain why seeming salt-of-the-Earth types could give political support to Nazis in Germany and under similar stress do much the same in any other troubled democracy, disseminate hateful propaganda, acquiesce with the degradation of harmless people as the State acts with absurd injustice, and finally participate in brutal deeds against helpless people such as Jews and Roma in concentration camps. Such people were not the leaders, but they became accomplices. The more submissive authoritarian who acquiesces with the aggressive authoritarian needs the aggressive authoritarian to bring out the worst. 

Authoritarian types seem to lack the intellectual equivalent of checks and balances in their decision-making. They do not fact-check. They do not scrutinize outrageous statements for their logical validity. They put immediate power (it is now or never!) against the tricky process of building consensus  whose absence might indicate a damning flaw in the proposal. 
........

Quote:

Quote:Advocacy is assumed to be self-serving, and the more strenuous it is the less any message is received in the intended manner.  I try to keep my message to anyone tied to their life experience, to the extent I'm able to know it.  Am I making gains?  Are any of us?  I guess we'll see in a few months.

Yes, they are assumed to be self-serving. No, none of them are making any gains precisely for the reasons I mentioned, which you have already more-or-less admitted here. 

Self-interest is a reasonable assumption in most discourse. Even I admit that I became a militant supporter of LGBT rights once I was gay-bashed. I have an interest in not being maimed or killed by some hateful person who gives me no chance to make a reasoned statement that I am not gay. In any event the problem is not that someone perceives me as a homosexual (I have received gay passes, especially when I was young and much 'prettier' -- I had a figure, and I had the sort of natural hair frosting that women go to great cost to achieve) I could always say NO to a gay pass without bad consequences. I'm practically a lesbian trapped in a male body -- and I well understand the attitude "Men -- yuck!". Another hint -- gay porn is a complete turn-off to me because it does not excite me. I admit to finding lesbian porn as exciting as straight porn when I was involved on occasion as a grazer. Well, that is very straight. 

Whatever makes the bulk of LGBT people safer makes me safer. This said, I consider religious bigotry dangerous because it has maimed and killed. I need not be Jewish to fit several well-known Jewish stereotypes starting with a German-sounding surname that "can be Jewish". (It's really Dutch, and there are no longer many Jews with Dutch surnames, for which I do not fault the Dutch. There used to be, though).      

Quote:Are the Dems preachy?  Yes they are.  Are the Reps dangerous reprobates?  Also yes.  So which is the greater concern, the Republican Snowflake arsonists or the Democrats on their soapboxes?
The question answers itself.

Well, sometimes one must be preachy, especially about the consequences of very bad behavior such as drunkenness, drug use, dishonest business, and sexual debauchery. It might make one feel less guilty, and on occasion it works to improve people. Maybe not often enough, though. 

---

[/quote]

[JasonBlack]

Quote:Well, sometimes one must be preachy, especially about the consequences of very bad behavior such as drunkenness, drug use, dishonest business, and sexual debauchery. It might make one feel less guilty, and on occasion it works to improve people. Maybe not often enough, though.

The reason I'm blaming the left on this rather than the right is that all the right wingers I know are practical bending over backwards to say "we already agree with you on that", but they keep moving the goalposts to piss people off with more and more extreme opinions. ex
- most of the right already has no problem with gay people
- most of the right is already against racism
- most of the right already agrees with the basic principles feminism was supposed to be about (tbh, I am increasingly not one of them, but most right winger's views on feminism are much closer to a liberal position than the kind of 1950s-style gender roles people act like most of them want to go back to)
- most right wingers aren't against policies to curb global warming. we're against the anti-natalist misanthropy and Malthusianism that generally go along with it

When you actually want to solve problems, digging into more and more extreme positions and moving the line further and further away is not what you do, but people don't want to do that. They're so obsessed with preaching from a pulpit of moral high ground that, if there are no urgent issues around to spearhead, they will create their own in order to validate their self-image as a crusader, liberator, rescuer, etc.

[Eric the Green]

"- most of the right already has no problem with gay people
- most of the right is already against racism
- most of the right already agrees with the basic principles feminism was supposed to be about"

That is definitely not true. Politicians like DeSantis, Abbott, Boebert, Greene, Gaetz, Jordan, etc., and even Trump, double down in their anti gay, anti LGBTQ, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-feminist stands in order to out-flank Trump or get his support, and they are even passing laws penalizing doctors and nurses for giving care to trans people, as well as banning books that explain past racial injustice in this country, which is vast and long-standing, and banning discussion of gays in school, not to mention the attacks on women's rights by the supreme court and in 26 states.

The right has moved the line further and further right, making any attempt to move past the culture wars and deal with real issues next to impossible. I believe this is being done to elect Republicans who will double down on the neoliberal policies of lower taxes for the rich, on giveaways to corporations and "job creaters," on ending regulations especially on climate and environment so fossil fool barons and other corporate lords can continue to amass wealth, on deliberately increasing inequality, and other neoliberal policies. The culture war gets certain people to vote Republican, and all Republicans are neoliberals. And neoliberal policies are presented in terms of fear of immigrants, opposition to taxes given for welfare and people who don't work who may explicitly be stated as or merely implied as being people of color, etc., to further appeal to uninformed, uneducated, prejudiced, religious right, rural and ex-urban conservatives, who have an advantage in the Senate and electoral college.

[JasonBlack]

Reparations should be paid to survivors of Jim Crow. Basically, if you can
1) prove your ancestry is at least 30% African American
2) verify that you lived in the US for at least 2 years before 1964

You get $1000 per year you were alive before 1964. Ie, someone born in 1961 gets $3000, someone born in 1941 gets $13,000, someone born in 1931 gets $23,000, etc. Imo, this is a good compromise between the right's position of "we shouldn't give reparations to people based on what happened to their ancestors" and the liberal position of "victims of persecution deserve restitution".

[JasonBlack]

(05-11-2022, 01:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: "- most of the right already has no problem with gay people
- most of the right is already against racism
- most of the right already agrees with the basic principles feminism was supposed to be about"

That is definitely not true. Politicians like DeSantis, Abbott, Boebert, Greene, Gaetz, Jordan, etc., and even Trump, double down in their anti gay, anti LGBTQ, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-feminist stands in order to out-flank Trump or get his support, and they are even passing laws penalizing doctors and nurses for giving care to trans people, as well as banning books that explain past racial injustice in this country, which is vast and long-standing, and banning discussion of gays in school, not to mention the attacks on women's rights by the supreme court and in 26 states.

The right has moved the line further and further right, making any attempt to move past the culture wars and deal with real issues next to impossible. I believe this is being done to elect Republicans who will double down on the neoliberal policies of lower taxes for the rich, on giveaways to corporations and "job creaters," on ending regulations especially on climate and environment so fossil fool barons and other corporate lords can continue to amass wealth, on deliberately increasing inequality, and other neoliberal policies. The culture war gets certain people to vote Republican, and all Republicans are neoliberals. And neoliberal policies are presented in terms of fear of immigrants, opposition to taxes given for welfare and people who don't work who may explicitly be stated as or merely implied as being people of color, etc., to further appeal to uninformed, uneducated, prejudiced, religious right, rural and ex-urban conservatives, who have an advantage in the Senate and electoral college.

I will partially blame the RNC for this, because their policies are generally much more socially conservative than most of their base (like, I live in South Carolina. It's pretty fucking conservative here, and even then most people really don't care about most of these things as long as you leave them alone.

With that said, you're wrong about DeSantis. A bill prohibiting teaching sex education to 2nd graders is not transphobic or homophobic. I
t's about not exposing kids to sexuality in general. Regardless of whether or not you agree, those are not remotely equivalent.

[JasonBlack]

1) The concept of "liberal hegemony" needs to die. Geopolitics is, has been, and always will be, anarchistic, and must be looked at, first and foremost, through the lends of realism. The US should not be "promoting Democracy", supporting coups or revolutions or otherwise meddling in the affairs of other countries unless it is for the purpose of fostering trade relations or monitoring/extinguishing a significant threat. 
2) Similarly, putting the interests of another country's people above your own is not just a difference of political opinion, it is treason. In this case, that is how I would describe our current response to the Russia sanctions and further provoking Putin. Just because the Ukrainians are (arguably at least) "the good guys", doesn't mean that we should be making significant sacrifices on their behalf unless the American people have something significant to gain from it. It is not the job of one country's soldiers to make sacrifices solely for the sake of "justice" or helping out the populace of a country in dire need.

[Eric the Green]

(05-11-2022, 09:00 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(05-11-2022, 01:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: "- most of the right already has no problem with gay people
- most of the right is already against racism
- most of the right already agrees with the basic principles feminism was supposed to be about"

That is definitely not true. Politicians like DeSantis, Abbott, Boebert, Greene, Gaetz, Jordan, etc., and even Trump, double down in their anti gay, anti LGBTQ, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-feminist stands in order to out-flank Trump or get his support, and they are even passing laws penalizing doctors and nurses for giving care to trans people, as well as banning books that explain past racial injustice in this country, which is vast and long-standing, and banning discussion of gays in school, not to mention the attacks on women's rights by the supreme court and in 26 states.

The right has moved the line further and further right, making any attempt to move past the culture wars and deal with real issues next to impossible. I believe this is being done to elect Republicans who will double down on the neoliberal policies of lower taxes for the rich, on giveaways to corporations and "job creaters," on ending regulations especially on climate and environment so fossil fool barons and other corporate lords can continue to amass wealth, on deliberately increasing inequality, and other neoliberal policies. The culture war gets certain people to vote Republican, and all Republicans are neoliberals. And neoliberal policies are presented in terms of fear of immigrants, opposition to taxes given for welfare and people who don't work who may explicitly be stated as or merely implied as being people of color, etc., to further appeal to uninformed, uneducated, prejudiced, religious right, rural and ex-urban conservatives, who have an advantage in the Senate and electoral college.

I will partially blame the RNC for this, because their policies are generally much more socially conservative than most of their base (like, I live in South Carolina. It's pretty fucking conservative here, and even then most people really don't care about most of these things as long as you leave them alone.

With that said, you're wrong about DeSantis. A bill prohibiting teaching sex education to 2nd graders is not transphobic or homophobic. It's about not exposing kids to sexuality in general. Regardless of whether or not you agree, those are not remotely equivalent.

I'm talking about the don't say gay bill. That is specifically homophobic.

I am not able to say myself about whether children learn about sex in school, or at what age. But that specific question is up to local school boards, or should be. And it should not be homophobic as DeSantis' law specifically is. Young people should be able to learn about gender multiplicity and sexual preferences, and should be educated not to bully those who are different in their gender and sex identities. My opinion!

[Eric the Green]

(05-12-2022, 12:21 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: 1) The concept of "liberal hegemony" needs to die. Geopolitics is, has been, and always will be, anarchistic, and must be looked at, first and foremost, through the lends of realism. The US should not be "promoting Democracy", supporting coups or revolutions or otherwise meddling in the affairs of other countries unless it is for the purpose of fostering trade relations or monitoring/extinguishing a significant threat. 
2) Similarly, putting the interests of another country's people above your own is not just a difference of political opinion, it is treason. In this case, that is how I would describe our current response to the Russia sanctions and further provoking Putin. Just because the Ukrainians are (arguably at least) "the good guys", doesn't mean that we should be making significant sacrifices on their behalf unless the American people have something significant to gain from it. It is not the job of one country's soldiers to make sacrifices solely for the sake of "justice" or helping out the populace of a country in dire need.

1) I understand the concern. Non-intervention can be a good approach. I don't think I agree, though. We are all one people on one planet, and are members of a global society. The destiny of our times, which began at the turn of the 20th century, is how to organize this new global society in a way that meets people's needs and respects their rights. That means law, and not anarchy. The universal declaration of human rights was promulgated by Eleanor Roosevelt and the new United Nations in 1945, I believe. That should be the standard, and ideally this should be enforced by the world power. But this will probably be more-perfected during the 2160s, when the next "world order" conjunction of Uranus and Neptune happens in Aquarius, in situations much like those under the same type of conjunction in circa 1990, 1815 and 1648, or like the situation of 1945. We won't see that time, but our reincarnated selves or our descendants may well see it.

I think the "liberal hegemony" is simply human rights, and are universal, not cultural or relative, and will be increasingly upheld if progress continues. There is no guarantee that such progress will continue; that is true. It just seems to me to be our destiny. People everywhere just want to be free, and will demand it over and over again. Right now, my opinion is that thug military rulers should not have a monopoly on the weapons within a state. They have lost all legitimacy. So if the people rising up ask for help, perhaps we should give it, without the USA itself invading or bombing their lands.

2) So I entirely disagree with your evaluation of the Ukraine situation. They have pointedly asked for help from the USA and NATO and any others willing, and we have responded. The Russian invasion was unprovoked. It is of benefit to us to restrain Putin, because otherwise our allies will be threatened and we will be required to defend them militarily. The USA is not sending its soldiers to defend Ukraine; so I don't know why you mention "one country's soldiers to make sacrifices solely for the sake of "justice" ". Severe sanctions against Russiam fossil fuels are a chance to eliminate this portion of this out-of-date industry, doing which is of immediate necessity everywhere. I agree the USA is doing the right thing by not invading Ukraine or defending it ourselves with our soldiers, and Ukraine has not asked for this.

[JasonBlack]

(05-12-2022, 12:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-12-2022, 12:21 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: 1) The concept of "liberal hegemony" needs to die. Geopolitics is, has been, and always will be, anarchistic, and must be looked at, first and foremost, through the lends of realism. The US should not be "promoting Democracy", supporting coups or revolutions or otherwise meddling in the affairs of other countries unless it is for the purpose of fostering trade relations or monitoring/extinguishing a significant threat. 
2) Similarly, putting the interests of another country's people above your own is not just a difference of political opinion, it is treason. In this case, that is how I would describe our current response to the Russia sanctions and further provoking Putin. Just because the Ukrainians are (arguably at least) "the good guys", doesn't mean that we should be making significant sacrifices on their behalf unless the American people have something significant to gain from it. It is not the job of one country's soldiers to make sacrifices solely for the sake of "justice" or helping out the populace of a country in dire need.

1) I understand the concern. Non-intervention can be a good approach. I don't think I agree, though. We are all one people on one planet, and are members of a global society. The destiny of our times, which began at the turn of the 20th century, is how to organize this new global society in a way that meets people's needs and respects their rights. That means law, and not anarchy. The universal declaration of human rights was promulgated by Eleanor Roosevelt and the new United Nations in 1945, I believe. That should be the standard, and ideally this should be enforced by the world power. But this will probably be more-perfected during the 2160s, when the next "world order" conjunction of Uranus and Neptune happens in Aquarius, in situations much like those under the same type of conjunction in circa 1990, 1815 and 1648, or like the situation of 1945. We won't see that time, but our reincarnated selves or our descendants may well see it.

I think the "liberal hegemony" is simply human rights, and are universal, not cultural or relative, and will be increasingly upheld if progress continues. There is no guarantee that such progress will continue; that is true. It just seems to me to be our destiny. People everywhere just want to be free, and will demand it over and over again. Right now, my opinion is that thug military rulers should not have a monopoly on the weapons within a state. They have lost all legitimacy. So if the people rising up ask for help, perhaps we should give it, without the USA itself invading or bombing their lands.

2) So I entirely disagree with your evaluation of the Ukraine situation. They have pointedly asked for help from the USA and NATO and any others willing, and we have responded. The Russian invasion was unprovoked. It is of benefit to us to restrain Putin, because otherwise our allies will be threatened and we will be required to defend them militarily. The USA is not sending its soldiers to defend Ukraine; so I don't know why you mention "one country's soldiers to make sacrifices solely for the sake of "justice" ". Severe sanctions against Russiam fossil fuels are a chance to eliminate this portion of this out-of-date industry, doing which is of immediate necessity everywhere. I agree the USA is doing the right thing by not invading Ukraine or defending it ourselves with our soldiers, and Ukraine has not asked for this.

The burden is on you to prove that this is capable of being anything but a fantasy. The international sphere has been anarchistic since the dawn of civilization, and that shows no sides of abating any time soon. What people don't understand about this topic is that diversity can never create social bonds. Social bonds are formed by finding ways we are similar: similar beliefs, similar religion, similar history, similar experiences, etc. Unfortunately, this can take the form of...similar skin color, but while this particular avenue of kinship should not be encouraged, the fact remains that we have never successfully gotten all of humanity on the same side because humans will always form in groups and out groups and look out for their own more than they do outsiders.

In practice, the people who tend to push for this kind of universalism are generally also the people least likely to listen. More likely to demand that other accept their paradigm, rather than being respectful of the fact that countries all over the world don't all want liberal governments. The mindset behind this kind of universalism is little different than the idealistic warfare between Muslim and Christian crusaders, the benevolent mercantilism of the British Empire, the Manifest Destiny of the United States. Come to think of it, you would have been of draftable age during the Vietnam War. The mindset isn't all that different from that.

Sure, we haven't sent troops....yet, but trade wars are usually followed by actual wars, including the Opium Wars in China, the Meiji Revolution in Japan, countless tribal and dictatorial wars in Africa and, arguably, the American Revolution. The fact is: we have nothing to gain from aggravating Putin, and it's time for America to step down from its role as global policemen. No one wants us doing so, including most of our own citizens.