Controversial Political Opinions

[Eric the Green]

(05-13-2022, 03:23 PM)JasonBlack Wrote:

(05-13-2022, 12:36 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: That we live in a global society is irrefutable fact.

It actually isn't. If we look at the definition of "society" according to Merriam Webster
"1: companionship or association with one's fellows : friendly or intimate intercourse : COMPANY
2: a voluntary association of individuals for common ends
especially : an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession
3a: an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another
b: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests
4a: a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct : a social circle or a group of social circles having a clearly marked identity
literary society
b: a part of the community that sets itself apart as a leisure class and that regards itself as the arbiter of fashion and manners"
.....none of them fit. Not even close.

Parsing the world "society" is irrelevant.

Quote:

Quote:National borders have not kept out other nations; the flow of goods has become global, and so has communication and transportation. Problems like pandemics, climate change/pollution, economic crashes can only be properly managed globally. We have entered a new era.

"you interact with people from other countries" does not equal "you are part of the same society". Society is defined by common interests, traditions and relationships, not just international trade. There is also nothing "entering a new era" with regards to international trade, which has been a thing since the dawn of civilization, and arguably before that.

The technological means to increase world trade can't be argued with. We all have the same "interests, traditions and relationships" now. Perhaps living in a red state obscures this fact, but people like me living in blue cities can't escape it.

Quote:

Quote:Races are and will be breaking down; people will be all of one race in a few generations.

This isn't something that interests me one way or another, but either way, it's going to take more than "a few generations". Even a single country like India has dozens of ethnic groups which have remained distinct in spite of being in constant contact with each other for thousands of years. Maybe this will happen in closer to 2-3 thousand years, not in less than 100.

Maybe 200-300, but the process is speeding up.

Quote:

Quote:Some people have already discovered that there's only one religion.

You're right...plenty of Muslim, Christian and Communist terrorists come to mind immediately.

Quote:The new religions of recent decades and centuries are based on this idea.

such as? (I'm not sure what you're referring to here)

Bahai Faith, New Thought religions and New Age culture. I am a Universalist, which I think is also a relatively new religion which merged with Unitarian in 1961. Sikhism, founded in the 1470s, proclaims this.

In fact, pretty much all religions have a universal common core. If some resort to terrorism, that is just another example that some people are caught up in outdated ways, like nationalists and racists are. That is their own fault, and does not reflect reality. Delusions are powerful, if not permanent, but they aren't realities.

Quote:

Quote:Humanity is already all on the same side, with one history available and belonging to all, but old habits do die hard, and the new ways and new paradigm take time to unfold.

This is backed by nothing, and contradicts itself. If "old habits die hard", that implies that we are, in fact, not yet on the same side.

Quote:Folks like you will be dragged along kicking and screaming, shouting "build the wall" and "keep the aliens out", but they can't be kept out.

For example, if I did support a border wall (I don't), that would be a prime case for how we aren't on the same side.

Whether people refuse to see the new reality or not does not change it.

Nationalism is a relic.

Quote:

Quote:Well I guess I more or less fit into your picture. The leaders of many countries don't want liberal governments-- meaning governments respectful of human rights, because they are thugs who enjoy the power their out-of-date systems give them. But the people all want to be free. Younger people don't want the religious wars like the Islamic State and the Taliban and the Christian Right-wing want.

I have talked to many young people in many countries. It's true that most of them want freedom, but not all of them desire the necessary revolution and bloodshed to bring about more freedom with no guarantee of said regime lasting to the next decade.

You make my point. Are you aware of how many countries have seen uprisings of people power in the last decade+? And how repressive the regime is seems to make no difference in who rises up.

Quote:

Quote:A lot of people of my age in the USA, including myself, refused in various ways to go to this illegal, immoral war in Vietnam. Liberal governments don't need to go to war to impose liberal values on the people. The people want them. It is just a matter of overturning the monopoly of weapons held by the thugs.

This is the one thing both the democrats and the republicans have been trying to accomplish since the end of WWII...and we have not succeeded. I'd argue we've regressed significantly.

Quote:[quote]And that's all these rulers are: thugs and criminals. It's true, in the past some liberal governments have tried to impose liberal government on others.

Oh morally I agree 100%. Unfortunately, how I feel about them has little to do with the question of how to deal with them from a strategic standpoint.

It's been a mix of policies. Sometimes invasion or bombing, sometimes financial or material help. But Democrats have cut down markedly in policies of invasions and bombing compared to Republicans. But if we invade, that is not the same as helping people rising up to get weapons that they ask for. Very few (perhaps only the Libyans, and the Syrians-- too little and too late) of these people power movements have received such aid.

Quote:

Quote:Again, we are not aggravating Putin; Putin is aggravating us. If you don't understand that, you are laboring under delusion. Right now, Ukraine and NATO very much WANT us to help them. Putin has unified NATO, and it is not the world police, but it is defending its interests by helping Ukrainians defend their country against this genocidal monster war-criminal tyrant. And if Americans want us to step down from helping Ukraine, why do all the senators and almost all the representatives they elected support this help? From the far left to the far right and all in between?

it doesn't matter who started it. it matters whether or not we give him an excuse (however unjustified) to retaliate.

Putin started it. That matters totally. We gave him no excuse. NATO expanded in the 1990s because nations asked to join. Putin was only a KGB agent then. It is his fault if he climbed to power and started a policy to reclaim the Russian Empire. Russia was a partner for peace. It could have chosen continued liberalisation, but it did not.

If it had chosen this path, then NATO would be no threat to it. It isn't a threat anyway, but Putin thinks it is. As it is, like all peoples, most Ukrainians want to go the western way. Putin sees this as a threat, and that is entirely his own fault, and of his few powerful backers. OF COURSE Ukrainians want to lean to the west. ALL the world's peoples do! Because human rights are universal rights, as all nations agreed to that founded the UN in 1945.