(08-23-2016, 03:02 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 06:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-22-2016, 05:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good for you. But looking at those videos of Trump supporters being "vetted," and other videos these last few months of Trump rallies, I'd have to say the stereotype fits for them. Like attracts like, I guess.

Didn't your mother ever teach you the value of not judging a whole book simply by its cover? Do I go with the image you present to me or do I stick with the image of the bulk of them that I know?

One problem is that the images one group of partisans carry around in their head about opposing groups of partisans are often shallow stereotypes, often vile shallow stereotypes.  I have ever so often been told that I am a liberal, that all liberals think alike, therefore they will tell me what I think.  Many conservatives seem to perceive of themselves as greater experts on progressive thought than any progressive, well equipped to correct people on what their beliefs are.

And it works both ways.  Partisans don't seem to believe they need to listen to their opposites, as often they have a fixed notion of what they expect to be said.

What point is there to talk to you if you're not going to listen, if you are going to go by a cockeyed "image of the bulk of them" rather than by what is actually being said?

Not that they other guy won't have a similar reading comprehension problem.

(08-23-2016, 01:27 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Are you not a partisan? At what point did you stop being viewed as a partisan and stop associating with the same group of partisans? I've seen you try it and then I've seen you resort back to partisanship. What is partisan doing educating me and trying to advise on the negatives/dangers and general foolishness and unproductive results associated with partisanship?

(08-23-2016, 02:18 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(08-23-2016, 01:26 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-23-2016, 12:28 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The Civil War was the result of a political election. World War II was the result of failed diplomacy. The Revolutionary War was a result of a government that did not recognize the rights of Americans. Can history repeat itself, you better believe that it can.

From my perspective, prior the things going full out 4T military there is a period featuring escalating spirals of rhetoric and violence.  You have precursors such as the Boston Massacre, Bleeding Kansas and the Spanish Civil War.  In theory, the violence can be avoided through various means as you suggest above.  In practice, partisans get so focused in on manifesting their own values and world views that compromise is at best difficult, and is often given 20 20 hindsight viewed as impossible.  As a wise man once put it...

Second Inaugural of Abe Lincoln Wrote:On the occasion corresponding to this, four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war, seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

I'm much in that place.  I would depreciate war, but recognize that all too often war comes.

(08-23-2016, 02:20 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-23-2016, 01:27 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Are you not a partisan? At what point did you stop being viewed as a partisan and stop associating with the same group of partisans? I've seen you try it and then I've seen you resort back to partisanship. What is partisan doing educating me and trying to advise on the negatives/dangers and general foolishness and unproductive results associated with partisanship?

I see my values as being primarily scientific (with a strong dash of Newton), secondarily political (with a strong dash of Jefferson), with religion third (with a strong dash of Jesus).  While ideally someone claiming strong scientific values might strive to answer all questions with scientific methods and certitude, in practice some problems aren't suitable for the scientific method.  Thus, I'll reluctantly fall back on more subjective and emotionally laden systems of thought.

Most importantly, my personal value systems suggest that political systems of thought don't appear out of nowhere.  They have an historical base.  They came into existence for a reason, to solve certain problems.  If one takes the effort to use the methods of the soft sciences, one can to some degree come to understand how conflicting partisan world views came to exist and why those with conflicting world views continue cling to them.

But even if one is honestly striving to understand how two conflicting world views came into being and how different folks will intensely cling to different systems, one still ends up forming opinions on which of the systems would produce better results in this particular time and place.  Yes, most often I end up leaning blue.  This particular moment in the cycles seems to call for leaning blue.  Now is not always.  Even as I call to lean blue on some issues, I'll warn of a need to swing back red at another time.  Note that even now I'm not classically blue in all respects.  See the gun policy thread.

But I'll still get as frustrated by Eric's inability to comprehend and lack of interest in comprehending any point of view other than his own as I get with your similar talents.  To say that two competing systems of thought had valid reasons for coming into existence, and that many of these reasons can still seem valid today, is not the same as saying "My system is absolutely right, any system that conflicts with it is absolutely wrong, and any individual who believes in a system that conflicts with mine is stupid, evil, insane, bribed by the Koch brothers, and / or otherwise not a member in good standing in the Community of Man.  So mote it be, now and forever, in Saint Reagan's Name, amen." 

I will not say, as you recently suggested, that it is pointless to listen to the other guys because you have an idea in your head of what they really think.  What you think they think is more important to you than what they think?  And from what you do say about what you think they think, your twisted ideas of the other guys are selected with malice and ill intent.

We do look at things differently.  I'm not sure you can understand or are interested in understanding the difference.  This isn't the first time I've tried to explain it.  As you say, it is not your way to listen.

In the meanwhile, if you state political opinion on a political form, if you want to wear big boy pants, you've got to deal with what comes back.  

From my perspective, if someone has announced an unwillingness to listen, the situation would seem to call for a larger megaphone.  To some degree I may give in to the temptation.  I'd prefer clarity, however, to volume.

(08-23-2016, 03:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: BTW, I view Keynesian being OK as long as it's not be used incorrectly and no longer being used democratically by Democrats to obtain voters. We don't want another Civil War or American Revolution that results in the division of American wealth. Did cable or the internet as we know it exist before Ronald Reagan?

(08-23-2016, 03:23 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(08-23-2016, 02:26 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-23-2016, 02:18 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

Um....  X_4AD?

Those are my sentiments about Red - Blue bickering. Classic is one of our Red bickerers.

(08-23-2016, 04:49 PM)taramarie Wrote: Ugh tribalism. Americans tell me not all are like that. I hope for America's sake that is true.

web site Wrote:One of the most striking things about much of American culture is the simple meanness of it. The cruelty.
Most of this seems to come down to three feelings:

• My life sucks. I have to work a terrible job I hate in order to survive. I have to bow and scrape and do shit I don’t want to do. You should have to as well.
  
• Anyone who doesn’t make it must not be willing to suffer as I do, therefore anyone who doesn’t make it deserves to be homeless, go without food, and so on.
  
• Anybody who is against us needs to be hurt and humiliated, because that’s how I see my superiors deal with people who go against them.
  

“Life is shit, therefore your life should be shit.”
“What you’ve got is what you deserve.”
There is also a culture of punching down, as commenter Lisa has observed. America has a high-violence, high-bullying society. As Lisa noted you can have a high-violence society in which it is considered unacceptable to attack the weak (doing so is viewed as cowardice), but that’s not the case in America.
In American culture, the weak are the preferred target. Failure is punishable by homelessness, suffering, and death.  Sick people sure don’t deserve proper pain medication. Poor people are poor because they “don’t add value.” If you’re poor, you definitely shouldn’t have good healthcare, because if you don’t have money, you don’t deserve money, and that’s because you’re a waste of space.
This appears to be a result of something simple: At every stage of American life, it’s a zero or negative sum game, and who gets ahead is decided by authority figures. Need to get into a good university? You need good grades from adults, you need to have done the right extra-curricular activities, you need references from adults.
On the job, only a few people will be promoted, and the competition is fierce. But worse, in many fields, people are often let go, and the competition to avoid getting fired or laid off is severe.
Who decides? Your boss. You’d better get down on your knees and do whatever your boss wants, because if you’re fired or let go you may never work again, and if you do hang on at a bottom-wage job, well, your life will suck.
When dealing with police, the constant American attitude is OBEY. If you don’t obey, then whatever the police do to you is justified. The police are like bosses in a way. One cop can ruin your life, even if you aren’t killed, beaten, or raped by them. A criminal record means you will never have a good job again.
OBEY.  ACQUIESCE.
On your knees, citizen.

Quote:The entire process makes America a far more unpleasant place to live or visit than is necessary. The structure of dominance, meanness and cruelty is palpable to the visitor, and distressing; even as it warps the best inhabitant.

Quote:I find myself without a real conclusion. Obviously (I hope), this is BAD. Obviously it should change. But it’s hard to change something that people have taken and turned into a moral imperative: Be mean to the weak and poor, who deserve their fates. Kick down, kiss up, because a failure to pucker up can have you thrown out of the charmed circle, and obviously higher-ups want to see you acting like them, imitation being the most sincere form of flattery.

Quote:It’s all very depressing, all very unnecessary, and all very much in the interests of the people who run your society.  Meanness in the chattel means they can rarely get together to challenge the masters, because they hate each other more than they hate the masters.

Quote:Kindness is a revolutionary act.

(08-23-2016, 05:34 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(08-23-2016, 04:41 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-23-2016, 03:23 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(08-23-2016, 02:26 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(08-23-2016, 02:18 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

Um....  X_4AD?

Those are my sentiments about Red - Blue bickering. Classic is one of our Red bickerers.

Who's the red bickerer? I'm not the former Red bickerer who is now aligned with the Blue bickerers. Ah, that be you big guy.

If you fail to see the difference between people like me and Butler '54, versus, say, Eric, there is no hope for you.

(08-23-2016, 05:34 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: If you fail to see the difference between people like me and Butler '54, versus, say, Eric, there is no hope for you.

(08-23-2016, 01:27 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Are you not a partisan? At what point did you stop being viewed as a partisan and stop associating with the same group of partisans? I've seen you try it and then I've seen you resort back to partisanship. What is partisan doing educating me and trying to advise on the negatives/dangers and general foolishness and unproductive results associated with partisanship?

(08-23-2016, 12:28 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(08-23-2016, 06:46 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Bob, here is an example of a paradigm issue and one of values issue to illustrate the difference I see. I would also say I am using the word paradigm in the sense Thomas Kuhn popularized, as a model, theory, or worldview.  Are you familiar with the Structures of Scientific Revolutions?  it's a very famous work from more than half a century ago.  It bought the word into common use.

Paradigm: There are two fundamantal ways to view tyhe process of economic growth.  The neoclassical approach is that investment leads to increased worker productivity which leads to GDP growth.  The Keynesian approach is that (increased) demand leaders to GDP growth which leads to investment.  One can call the first "supply-side" and the latter "demand-side".

In principle this is an empirical question and can be resolved using the methods of science.  The facts are consistent with both models, however. Since no profits are made unless output is sold, demand and GDP rise in tandem. And it is an historical fact that rising GDP is highly correlated with rising capital over time.  So, scientifically, there is no clearcut correct answer.

Now folks who believe the supply-side model would favor removing impediments to investment as the means to improve the economy. Therefore they support cutting taxes on the rich (the investor class), reducing regulations (impediments to productive investment) and in general reducing the scales of economic distorations that can lead to malinvestment (shrinking the size of government). 

Conversely, demand-siders favor stimulating demand by (1) putting money into the hands of people who you know will spend it (jobs programs for the poor & working class) (2) actiively encouraging the development of new leadering sectors that create new categories of demand (industrial policy).

As you probably already have have seen, most folks in the first category fall into the red side while those in the second the blue.  This issue should, in principle, be resolvable using facts and logic by the methods of science.  It is not a values issue.

Values: There is a law currently being debated in California that would remove the religious exemption to anti-discrimination law.  This issue is certain Christian schools do not hire people who are not Christians or who do not adhere to a Christian lifestyle  (also not hired would be people actively committing serious sins like gay sex, although celebate gays would be welcome).  Whether or not this law should be passed is not is not a scientific question.  It cannot be resolved by appeals to facts and logic.  It is a values issue.  Such issues are resolved by force, either politically (e.g. elections/legislation, the courts) or through violence (e.g. US Civil War, ISIS).

The Civil War was the result of a political election. World War II was the result of failed diplomacy. The Revolutionary War was a result of a government that did not recognize the rights of Americans. Can history repeat itself, you better believe that it can.

(08-24-2016, 12:50 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Sadly, there is this whole WW2 denialist camp. In a way, there has been one since the 1930s - it started with the America Firsters. The typical tin foil theory goes something like this:

'We didn't need to get involved in WW2, doing so was doing the bidding of the grand Atlanticist cabal with no borders (e.g. Wall Street, Fleet Street and the Jews who "run" them). We should have let Hitler do his thing over there. Meanwhile, we ought to have embraced selective elements of Nazism without losing our democracy, most especially, doubling down on America Firstism, and, "rightfully" considering the Jews as suspect and perhaps Anti-American enemies. After all, everyone knows it was the Jews who created Marxist-Leninist Communism. Dividing up the world between an America First US (with our Monrovian sphere of the Americas) and the Axis, would have led to 1000 years of peace and prosperity.'

Sick stuff, I know. But as there were true believers mid last Century, there are also true believers now.

Wiki Wrote:The Eight-Action plan
The McCollum memo contained an eight-part plan to counter rising Japanese power over East Asia:

A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific, particularly Singapore
B. Make an arrangement with the Netherlands for the use of base facilities and acquisition of supplies in the Dutch East Indies
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek
D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient
F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific[,] in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions, particularly oil
H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo imposed by the British Empire

Likewise, in an analytical reading - using the structure and process model from Power and Interdependence, Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, 1977, p.18, should the U.S. fully implemented (which it did) all eight-actions-plan as outlined, and should Japan sense its increase vulnerabilities, then “it may use military force to attempt to redress that situation as Japan did in 1941; ...”[7] In a historical perspective, a more open (absence of prearranged agenda) reading of McCollum memo (Arthur H. McCollum), with a strong foreign pressure (at the time, and traditionally as a young nation, the general U.S. public sentiment was not to get involved in foreign wars) from its allies, would suggest that the United States administration needed a Pearl Harbour like attack at home to ... the war that was happening in Europe.

(08-23-2016, 03:44 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: How am I supposed to have a conversation with a man who represents scientific values? Do human values jive with scientific values? Are scientific values human in nature and similar to human values or are they more robotic in nature and machine oriented as far as values go? I need some clarity.

(08-23-2016, 03:44 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Also, why do you think this a time when we should be leaning blue economically?