Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
05-13-2022, 12:36 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-13-2022, 12:42 AM by Eric the Green.)
(05-12-2022, 05:22 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: (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 Russian 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.
That we live in a global society is irrefutable fact. 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. Races are and will be breaking down; people will be all of one race in a few generations. Some people have already discovered that there's only one religion. The new religions of recent decades and centuries are based on this idea. 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. 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.
Quote: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.
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. 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. 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. The Vietnam War and the Iraq War were examples. But I was opposed to these wars. Imposing on them what the people already want is not necessary, not effective, and is not ethical. Sending them weapons which they request is not the same as an invasion or bombing campaign, and doesn't necessarily lead to such.
Quote: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.
This situation is different, mainly because if the USA and NATO invade Ukraine and fight directly with Russian forces, the risk of nuclear war is too great. Sanctions put on countries don't necessarily lead to wars. Sanctions on South Africa led to the end of aparteid, for example.
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?
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(05-12-2022, 05:22 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: 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.
Simplistic at best. Here's a reading assignment: The WEIRDest People in the World, How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous by Joseph Henrich. A lot of what you praise is not really praiseworthy. This is not a trivial read, btw.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
(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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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: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.
Quote:The Vietnam War and the Iraq War were examples. But I was opposed to these wars. Imposing on them what the people already want is not necessary, not effective, and is not ethical.
this much we can agree on
Quote:Sending them weapons which they request is not the same as an invasion or bombing campaign, and doesn't necessarily lead to such.
it's not on the same magnitude, but it's still risky an expensive, especially in a country where most people lack basic access to public t
Quote:This situation is different, mainly because if the USA and NATO invade Ukraine and fight directly with Russian forces, the risk of nuclear war is too great. Sanctions put on countries don't necessarily lead to wars. Sanctions on South Africa led to the end of aparteid, for example.
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.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
05-13-2022, 08:50 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2022, 03:25 PM by 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.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
05-14-2022, 12:03 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2022, 12:19 AM by JasonBlack.)
I'll respond a bit more later, but briefly
1) At the risk of coming across like "millennials should just copy GIs" (I know I often appear that way), we should remember that America mostly stayed out of WWII. It wasn't until the Japanese bombed OUR people at Pearl Harbor that the GIs entered the war.
2) Nationalism may be a relic when the world manages to cooperate to do more than like 12 tasks in world history, and when nations run their own country well enough to export their policies to other nations. As it stands, we're trying to pluck the dust from our neighbor's eyes before trying to remove the log from our own.
3) Most people want "freedom" in some abstract capacity in that they want to do what they want and desire more power for whoever they consider their in-group to be. Trouble is, different nations (and even groups within the same nation), often have a radically different idea of what "freedom" really is (ex: the ensuing drama over the SCOTUS abortion case)
4) I have no problem selling (not giving, selling) arms to revolutionaries fighting just wars against oppressive states...but only insofar that said oppressive regime is too militarily insignificant to potentially threaten us back. Russia, and more specifically the growing Russia/China coalition, do not fit that last criteria.
5) What I see in red states is people actually making an attempt to look out for their own. Granted, I don't think we're doing a very good job (I will spare several points of contention I have with them on policy, as I'm sure you would agree), but socially....people in the South and the Midwest (I have lived in both) treat each other with respect in a way that northerners usually don't. Race relations in the south are a more mixed back than people realize. Yes, there are still enough crazy racists around to be concerned, and the police here are fucking Nazis, but for the other 90% of the population, I see a lot more...normal ass conversations between black and white people than I did in either the midwest or the North (I have lived for a time in Kansas, Chicago and South Carolina, so I've seen a fair amount of all three). There are reasons so many people want to move here. One of the reasons I moved specifically to upstate South Carolina is that they a good mix of being Deep South enough to care about manners and respect, but redneck enough to care about bluntness and honesty (both deep south and redneck cultures are ones I dislike in excess, but at times, they kinda cancel out the worst of each other when mixed together).
6) "But Democrats have cut down markedly in policies of invasions and bombing compared to Republicans." they really haven't. Maybe if you're comparing, say, Jimmy Carter to Bush Jr. but not if you compare Barack Obama to Donald Trump (whose foreign policy was...weirdly competent) or even Bush Sr. (also somewhat hawkish, but with about 100x more efficiency than anyone else. Overall, we've been about equal from the time of Reagan down to Biden.
7) Even if the world is gradually moving toward some liberal utopia (of which I am not optimistic), that is a process that has to evolve over generations upon generations, not one we can just push for and hope for the best.
8) Getting rid of nationalism will just create a void, not a solution. Just because we trade openly with many neighbors (which I think is a good thing. As a capitalist, I'm well aware of how much nicer different parties are when they trade with each other and conduct voluntary business), does not mean we have the means of organization to replace the structure of the state, the culture of nationalism or, most fundamentally at all, the human propensity for in-group bias. We have succeeded in the past in changing the expression of that in-group bias to directions that made a little more sense (ie, people with similar political and religious views rather than people with similar melanin in the skin), but we haven't succeeded in making it go away, any more than we can succeed in making hunger, thirst, drowsiness or horniness go away.
9) Educated intellectuals have always had greater group solidarity among each other than with their respective countries. Hell, this is even true of me, but while national origin is not the primary determinant of whom I bond with, values are, and they vary tremendously across cultures. Imo, what you're going to see more of is not people homogenizing around a kumbaya-style campfire, but people dividing along the lines of values, interests and IQ (if you don't like IQ, you may substitute whatever measure of general intelligence you prefer, but it's extremely important either way).
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
05-14-2022, 03:14 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2022, 03:22 PM by Eric the Green.)
"As it stands, we're trying to pluck the dust from our neighbor's eyes before trying to remove the log from our own." Not necessarily. That applies to the Bush regimes, not as much to Carter, Clinton, Obama and Biden. The regimes are not equal at all. And Trump was only restrained from being an insane interventionist by his own staff. Sending requested aid to those fighting for their freedom is entirely right and proper. We have enough eyesight to know what we're doing. You can say we don't; I and 100 senators disagree.
There is no variation in the idea of "freedom", and freedom has nothing to do with any in-group. Human rights is not "utopia," it is a minimum requirement. Specific ways national governments are organized vary. I'm glad you are not opposed to selling at least arms to those fighting oppression. I also support giving them arms. I understand the reluctance to sell to those fighting a major power, but this also is more dangerous than NOT selling/giving them arms, because this enables the tyrant to expand and to threaten our allies. Putin may well feel he can attack a NATO country if he conquers Ukraine.
I have very little respect for "southern manners". I don't agree that people in blue states are disrespectful to different ethnic groups. We have no alternative but to deal with them every day. If people in blue states have worse manners, that's because blue places are more crowded and depersonalized. That is a problem, but it is not a racial problem. In blue cities and in much of blue states, we already live in one global society, and with one humanity. It is just that this is difficult for red state and red county people to adjust to, that's all. Destiny takes time to unfold among humans, and that's all there is to this problem.
Our destiny is to become one humanity, not to continue to separate ourselves as much as in the past. Separation will be increasingly impossible. I do think there's a proper place for nations and different cultures; we don't want uniformity or destruction of heritage. What will emerge is a world federation, and in a federation more-local powers exist within the whole, just like in the USA. So there will always be friction between these polarities, and not utopia. But the direction of history is clear-- toward a federation of nations and peoples living in peace and with human rights together, just like many people in the West do today. Differences between people can add to richness, not just to conflict. Differences are no excuse for violation of universal basic rights. And they can't turn back the three Revolutions either. They will proceed as long as civilization persists (which is now in doubt).
As for people moving to the South, that depends on the state, and it's mostly happening because living in blue states is so much more desirable and lucrative. That makes them too expensive, because real estate speculators take advantage of peoples' desire and wealth there and raise housing costs unfairly and extremely. Many people can no longer afford to live in blue states, so they move. Things might even out in all these respects over the coming decades.
But today, normal conversations have little to do with how white people vote in the South, which is to support the neoliberal, corporate Republican Party because it appeals to the prejudices these white people in red states all still have. So regardless of normal conversations, racism is determining how they vote, and therefore determining the fortunes and lives of those states and of the nation. The effect of this is to maintain gross inequality, unfair wages, and racial bigotry and other stupid ideas that white people in red states are so subject to, and all these have been imposed on the entire USA for decades now by these white people in red states. It is a gross tragedy and a violation of all our welfare and all our true values. Red states are imposing their severely-backward conditions on the rest of us. I don't think this regime will last, but the problem now is that it may cause destruction that can't be reversed.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
I have to laugh at how classically Civic vs Idealist (or perhaps Reactive vs Idealist) this conversation is. Guess it's better I start practicing in advance before the "new boomers" start giving me a hard time in the 2T.
Anyway, I've been thinking for some time now that the difference between your "liberal" and my "liberal" (indeed, I think both of us are variations of liberal at the end of the day) is that you view liberalism as a mechanism to tear down boundaries. I view it as a means of building them up, giving people the opportunity for maximum privacy, maximum freedom of association. If I had to describe an "ideal world", it would be one comprised of several smaller civilizations, connected by networks of trade, non-aggression treaties and perhaps some anti-pollution agreements for good measure, but otherwise catering to largely different cultures. People would not associate based off of race or ethnicity, so much as cognitive style, values, character and other more fundamental factors to human nature. My brain is increasingly attracted to concepts like order, institutions, cooperation, etc, but at the end of the day....more as a means to an end.
In fact, in many ways I'm a stereotypical example of what you're talking about. "My people" include Europeans from several countries, a refugee from India, a few black people from both the United States and Africa, and childhoods ranging from the streets of Detroit to the son of a wealthy CEO. When I'm making friends, I give zero fucks about borders, skin color, socioeconomic status, etc. What we all share in common is a fierce commitment to individualism, intellectual and artistic expression, autonomy and creating a high quality of life for those we care about.
The reason I care about the United States is twofold
1) I happen to have been born in the one country in the world where valuing such things as fiercely as I do is respected.
2) Looking out for your own is...just more practical. The smaller the sphere you wish to influence, the more efficient you can be.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(05-14-2022, 10:25 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: ...I've been thinking for some time now that the difference between your "liberal" and my "liberal" (indeed, I think both of us are variations of liberal at the end of the day) is that you view liberalism as a mechanism to tear down boundaries. I view it as a means of building them up, giving people the opportunity for maximum privacy, maximum freedom of association. If I had to describe an "ideal world", it would be one comprised of several smaller civilizations, connected by networks of trade, non-aggression treaties and perhaps some anti-pollution agreements for good measure, but otherwise catering to largely different cultures. People would not associate based off of race or ethnicity, so much as cognitive style, values, character and other more fundamental factors to human nature. My brain is increasingly attracted to concepts like order, institutions, cooperation, etc, but at the end of the day....more as a means to an end.
I would put my view as not "a mechanism to tear down boundaries," but willingness to recognize that the boundaries are already down.
But my view is not radically different from what you say. Different cultures and smaller civilizations are fine, as long as these differences don't lead to conflict between them, or to assertions that one group is superior and endowed with the right to rule others, and as long as we understand that many concerns require people to all act together and to recognize we are all one humanity on one living Earth, and that all are entitled to basic rights.
And in my view, these rights need someday to be entitled to enforcement by the world power, against rogue, greedy, cruel, corrupt, criminal, outlaw tyrants-- of which Mad Vlad is a contemporary example. This may not be possible today, or in this century, but a lot of things (including individual freedoms in a USA) exist today that did not exist hundreds or thousands of years ago.
Quote:In fact, in many ways I'm a stereotypical example of what you're talking about. "My people" include Europeans from several countries, a refugee from India, a few black people from both the United States and Africa, and childhoods ranging from the streets of Detroit to the son of a wealthy CEO. When I'm making friends, I give zero fucks about borders, skin color, socioeconomic status, etc. What we all share in common is a fierce commitment to individualism, intellectual and artistic expression, autonomy and creating a high quality of life for those we care about.
That's fine, although there are no individuals without others, no autonomy without cooperation. And it works both ways. Interdependence is the model and the ideal going forward.
Quote:The reason I care about the United States is twofold
1) I happen to have been born in the one country in the world where valuing such things as fiercely as I do is respected.
2) Looking out for your own is...just more practical. The smaller the sphere you wish to influence, the more efficient you can be.
The overemphasis on these individualist values is the reason, however, why we are falling rapidly behind other nations on every scale you can mention. This over-emphasis (especially in economics and business) has taken hold again more and more since Reagan and neoliberalism took over. The previous Keynesian model was superior, and still allowed the place for those older US values too. We need to adopt a new Green Keynesianism if we want to get back on the road to recovery and progress and end our tremendous backward slide and stagnation and our gross inability to deal with our concerns on issue after issue.
The United States is not entitled to impose its values on the world by force or arms. At the same time, though, there's no reason to suppose that people of the United States are alone in having or seeking individual rights. It shouldn't be necessary, and from 1990-2020 it seemed more and more unnecessary, to think you have to be a citizen of the USA to enjoy such human rights. They are universal, not American.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
People want "freedom" for themselves in some capacity, and most would prefer a democracy where they have a voice to an oppressive autocracy where they don't. Where things fall apart in terms of assuming this kind of broader liberal order is possible is that none of this implies that people are inclined to care nearly as much about other people's freedom. Even in the United States, where freedom is cherished more than anywhere else in the world, only around 50% of people approved of interracial marriage, and in took until around 2011 for that many to approve of same-sex marriage.
Imo, the best thing we can do is focus on policies that draw in the best people. People who really do value the freedom of others, believe in personal accountability, work hard and possess exceptional talents. At the end of the day, most societies tend to get what they deserve. Granted, with this can only ever be true in the most general, aggregated sense, as people in any country very widely in terms of what they deserve, but the older I get, one simple truth becomes obvious: the easiest way to become happier and more successful is to surround yourself with good people and keep yourself away from bad people.
Is it as easy to do this on the level of a nation as it is to do so on an individual level? Unfortunately not, but what we can look at is the incentives created by both our immigration policy and the overall manner in which our country is run. To an extent, I would argue America is already doing better than most. For example, if you look at immigration vs crime, the percentage of immigrants in the French prison system is about 3x higher than their percentage in the general population. Meanwhile, immigrants to the United States are under-represented in our justice system, because America has a culture and policies which have drawn in the most hardworking and entrepreneurial members of other societies for hundreds of years, and imo, there is no reason why we can't zero in on this trend and optimize it for even better results.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
(05-16-2022, 07:09 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: People want "freedom" for themselves in some capacity, and most would prefer a democracy where they have a voice to an oppressive autocracy where they don't. Where things fall apart in terms of assuming this kind of broader liberal order is possible is that none of this implies that people are inclined to care nearly as much about other people's freedom. Even in the United States, where freedom is cherished more than anywhere else in the world, only around 50% of people approved of interracial marriage, and in took until around 2011 for that many to approve of same-sex marriage.
After roughly 40 years of me-me-me, I'm surprised that YOU are surprised. It's been a long time since the idea of following a cooperative model has been the default. The competitive model, on the other hand, has always been a strong option, even during the more communal periods. But today is not one of those. It's full-on zero-sum game! Of course it's brutal. To be honest, I haven't the slightest idea how to break-out of this mindset.
Case in point: we just had a guy drive 200 miles to kill a bunch of people he didn't know and who had done him no harm, yet the condemnation of this heinous act seems oddly one sided. Until that huge phalange of self-focused people can be reached by their own humanity, I don't see anything changing.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
05-16-2022, 02:38 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2022, 11:00 AM by Eric the Green.)
(05-16-2022, 07:09 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: People want "freedom" for themselves in some capacity, and most would prefer a democracy where they have a voice to an oppressive autocracy where they don't. Where things fall apart in terms of assuming this kind of broader liberal order is possible is that none of this implies that people are inclined to care nearly as much about other people's freedom. Even in the United States, where freedom is cherished more than anywhere else in the world, only around 50% of people approved of interracial marriage, and in took until around 2011 for that many to approve of same-sex marriage.
To prefer and/or demand democracy automatically means to prefer, support or help create democracy for everyone; that's the nature of democracy and human rights. That doesn't mean a "liberal order" is perfect from the start. Obviously that has not been true in the USA. Gradually greater freedom and voting rights have been attained though, first for non-property owners, then for slaves, then for women, then for people of color, and then for gays; and yet still poor people and middle class people are taken advantage of and exploited in the name of free enterprise, and democracy and other rights are still threatened by the Republican Party, so the movements continue.
Quote:Imo, the best thing we can do is focus on policies that draw in the best people. People who really do value the freedom of others, believe in personal accountability, work hard and possess exceptional talents. At the end of the day, most societies tend to get what they deserve. Granted, with this can only ever be true in the most general, aggregated sense, as people in any country very widely in terms of what they deserve, but the older I get, one simple truth becomes obvious: the easiest way to become happier and more successful is to surround yourself with good people and keep yourself away from bad people.
It's not easy to know which are which though, in my experience. And good and bad are not monolithic terms.
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(05-16-2022, 07:09 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: People want "freedom" for themselves in some capacity, and most would prefer a democracy where they have a voice to an oppressive autocracy where they don't. Where things fall apart in terms of assuming this kind of broader liberal order is possible is that none of this implies that people are inclined to care nearly as much about other people's freedom. Even in the United States, where freedom is cherished more than anywhere else in the world, only around 50% of people approved of interracial marriage, and in took until around 2011 for that many to approve of same-sex marriage.
The disappearance of freedom for some is the harbinger of similar losses for others. The last thing that any tyrant wants is for everyone to turn against him at once.
Many people want freedom from what they find disgusting, which could be two men or two women acting like a married couple, a 'mixed' couple, or some member of a minority group not showing deference. We need be careful about the expression of disgust, saving such for truly harmful things for others.
Quote:Imo, the best thing we can do is focus on policies that draw in the best people. People who really do value the freedom of others, believe in personal accountability, work hard and possess exceptional talents. At the end of the day, most societies tend to get what they deserve. Granted, with this can only ever be true in the most general, aggregated sense, as people in any country very widely in terms of what they deserve, but the older I get, one simple truth becomes obvious: the easiest way to become happier and more successful is to surround yourself with good people and keep yourself away from bad people.
So where do the not-so-good people go if they have no means of improving themselves?
Quote:Is it as easy to do this on the level of a nation as it is to do so on an individual level? Unfortunately not, but what we can look at is the incentives created by both our immigration policy and the overall manner in which our country is run. To an extent, I would argue America is already doing better than most. For example, if you look at immigration vs crime, the percentage of immigrants in the French prison system is about 3x higher than their percentage in the general population. Meanwhile, immigrants to the United States are under-represented in our justice system, because America has a culture and policies which have drawn in the most hardworking and entrepreneurial members of other societies for hundreds of years, and imo, there is no reason why we can't zero in on this trend and optimize it for even better results.
Maybe this reflects what immigrants a country gets. If they have similar values (let us say Caribbean blacks in the UK) they can more easily adapt to such changes as are necessary. Latin-American immigrants? We already have a large Hispanic middle class that can set norms.
Deport offenders, of course.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
(05-16-2022, 05:58 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: The disappearance of freedom for some is the harbinger of similar losses for others. The last thing that any tyrant wants is for everyone to turn against him at once.
I agree. My point is that it's not realistic to expect the entire world to care about freedom, much less agree on a definition of it.
Quote:Many people want freedom from what they find disgusting, which could be two men or two women acting like a married couple, a 'mixed' couple, or some member of a minority group not showing deference. We need be careful about the expression of disgust, saving such for truly harmful things for others.
precisely
Quote:So where do the not-so-good people go if they have no means of improving themselves?
If they're criminals: to jail. If not, I'd argue that if they have any strong desire to improve themselves, they qualify as good people.
Quote:Maybe this reflects what immigrants a country gets. If they have similar values (let us say Caribbean blacks in the UK) they can more easily adapt to such changes as are necessary. Latin-American immigrants? We already have a large Hispanic middle class that can set norms.
Deport offenders, of course.
Exactly.
Side note: Liberal whites often fail to realize that....white people are just about the most liberal demographic in the United States. The Hispanic and Asian communities have a strong preference for more pragmatic (rather than overtly religious or spiritually motivated) social conservatism. For the most part, most Hispanics and various Asian-American communities have little desire to imitate the broken family structure of typical WASP Americans. I've said it for years now: the predominant middle class in 10-20 years is going to be Asian people, because white culture can't stop tripping over itself with a combination of guilt, celebrating self-destructive romantic habits and grappling with its identity (there is both a left and a right component to this). The PoC conservatives are all over here like "who cares? I'm just trying to make more money and support my family. Oh look! These foolish white people are all dropping out of the competition."
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 10,465
Threads: 197
Joined: May 2016
(05-17-2022, 12:41 PM)JasonBlack Wrote: Side note: Liberal whites often fail to realize that....white people are just about the most liberal demographic in the United States. The Hispanic and Asian communities have a strong preference for more pragmatic (rather than overtly religious or spiritually motivated) social conservatism. For the most part, most Hispanics and various Asian-American communities have little desire to imitate the broken family structure of typical WASP Americans. I've said it for years now: the predominant middle class in 10-20 years is going to be Asian people, because white culture can't stop tripping over itself with a combination of guilt, celebrating self-destructive romantic habits and grappling with its identity (there is both a left and a right component to this). The PoC conservatives are all over here like "who cares? I'm just trying to make more money and support my family. Oh look! These foolish white people are all dropping out of the competition."
Not so much liberal as permissive. The MAGA crowd is almost lily-white, and I would call MAGA many things, but none of them 'liberal'.
I was doing some searching of the recently-released 1950 US Census, and I got plenty of side information that I was not searching. I was looking mostly in farming areas and in "hours worked" in the week including April 1, 1950, I typically saw '70' or so for farmers. Sure, it was planting season, and that number might have been lower had the Census been taken based on February 1, 1950. Early April is planting season, and there are fields to plow in the North (let us say northern Indiana) and fields to sow farther south (Arkansas). Well, farming has never been a good way of making a living if one is lazy and a hard way to make a living if one is industrious.
People permissive about educational failure, promiscuity, drugs and drunkenness, and criminality get horrible results for their kids. So make sure that the TV, video games, and recreational 'computing' are off before the homework and household chores are done. Such may have been the norm among farm families due solely to the lack of such technology before 1950 due to the absence of technology, which made it easy for farm families to instil a work ethic.. and later due to the economic realities of farming. Of course America used to be much more rural than it once was. Obviously a teenage farm boy knew that he was not going to do any dating, movie-watching, or tooling around in cars during planting or harvest season; on a dairy farm, the milking of cows determined daily life. Schooling was comparative recreation.
I'm tempted to believe that much of the growth of the suburban middle class was farm kids deciding after World War II that they had better things to do with their work ethic than farming; the work ethic traveled with them to the new post-WWII economy. Sure, there were people suddenly getting recognition that they were no longer a permanent underclass as were Italian- and Polish-Americans before the War. That is part, but employers had impressed the need for putting profit above fun.
I doubt that liberal WASP types are permissive about educational slacking, promiscuity, toying with criminality, or simple laziness. Not only is such not middle-class; it is all a course into poverty. Hard work has never been a sure escape from poverty, but its absence practically damns one.
The most reliable exit from poverty was factory work. Such was so obvious that over a century ago Booker T. Washington reorganized education for smart black kids of college age so that vocational training would be an essential part of the curriculum. There just weren't enough middle-class jobs dependent upon the support of poor black people to create such opportunity. Hard toil in a factory in which skin color mattered little because one's productivity could easily be measured was more likely to get a paying job not as a teacher or preacher. The alternatives were back to the farm or to domestic service, both of which paid abysmally. Pragmatism and realism do not get perfect results, but anything less may damn one to poverty.
The problem in the current economy is that the factory work, the usual default for people whose high-school learning wasn't so great or whose parents could not aid them in financial support in college, is far harder to get. Retail? Sears and K-Mart are all but dead, and those two used to be big players. Construction work is as seasonal as it can be. Food service? Fast-food companies love to show where a fast-food job can lead, but the desired jobs are well outside of the fast-food business.
The MAGA crowd acts, so far as I can tell, as if white privilege (the few black and Hispanic tokens excluded) as if the necessity is to Make (White) America Great Again, if necessary at the expense of others. MAGA is tribal, and white people have shown that they can achieve tribal ends only by hurting everyone else.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
Sometimes experience is hard to quantify, but tbh, I think a lot of boomers don't quite understand millennial conservatives, because they haven't seen how common it is for millennial women to be downright abusive and get away with impunity. The Amber Heard case is a good example. It took someone being rich AND blatant footage where she claimed no one would believe him because he's a man AND the victim being as universally loved as Johnny Depp for society to even begin to pay attention. My contempt for feminism goes far deeper than just disdain for valley girl accents, women in the workforce or movies with chicks kicking ass (in fact, my favorite movie happens to be Kill Bill). The truth is I grew up with girls like Amber Heard my whole life. They act exactly the same and feel like they can get away with anything...because they can, and they are encouraged to. Sure, abuse on the level of cutting off a finger is not the norm, but lower thresholds of abuse are all too common. Hitting, withholding sex as a means of control, disrespecting their man in public, threatening with weapons, I see it at least monthly, often weekly, and no one bats an eye.
It's not like this in other countries. It wasn't that way in the UK, it wasn't that way in France, Japan, Italy or Spain, so I know it's not just some genetic destiny for women to behave that way, but frankly....it is the majority of American women, especially millennials and homelanders. The reason why that "I'm not like the other girls" meme is a thing is because you really do need to set yourself apart for any self-respecting man to trust you in a relationship. There is a reason why the Civic generation is generally the generation that helps rebalance the state of affairs in favor of the masculine. We have never known a time where it was held in anything but contempt.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
05-19-2022, 11:24 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-19-2022, 11:26 PM by Eric the Green.)
Perhaps you can accept feminism and equality in the abstract or in law, as deserving equal pay, or equal opportunity and promotion, or not being abused, or having the rights to own property, vote and go to school, etc., and still not approve or still disdain the way that some millennial women behave today in the USA. I understand your experience, Jason, although it may not be everyone's. Not being in contact with many such women, I can neither confirm or deny. I don't care about today's celebrities so I am not informed about them, although I know who Johnny Depp is.
Myself, I resent the way old rural white guys vote, and their attitudes and some of their behavior these days. But I still think they and everyone deserve equal rights. I am very wary of forming political opinions based on bad personal experiences.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
(05-19-2022, 11:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Perhaps you can accept feminism and equality in the abstract or in law, as deserving equal pay, or equal opportunity and promotion, or not being abused, or having the rights to own property, vote and go to school, etc., and still not approve or still disdain the way that some millennial women behave today in the USA. I understand your experience, Jason, although it may not be everyone's. Not being in contact with many such women, I can neither confirm or deny. I don't care about today's celebrities so I am not informed about them, although I know who Johnny Depp is.
Myself, I resent the way old rural white guys vote, and their attitudes and some of their behavior these days. But I still think they and everyone deserve equal rights. I am very wary of forming political opinions based on bad personal experiences.
Indeed, but while it is important to make the distinction between political policies and the behaviors and culture of those who champion them. In practice, the latter is what generally people vote for. ie, votes for a certain policy give more power to a regime or coalition who favor them, and this often needs to be considered on top of the implications of the individual policies themselves.
If not consciously, liberals usually still understand this on an intuitive level. "It doesn't matter if Trump enacts ____ policy. He's pushing a racist agenda and needs to be stopped". Whether or not this is actually true, it illustrates the point that you have to pay attention to the actual character of interest groups and political factions, not just any particular action they want to take.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
05-20-2022, 01:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-20-2022, 01:58 PM by Eric the Green.)
(05-20-2022, 12:21 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: (05-19-2022, 11:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Perhaps you can accept feminism and equality in the abstract or in law, as deserving equal pay, or equal opportunity and promotion, or not being abused, or having the rights to own property, vote and go to school, etc., and still not approve or still disdain the way that some millennial women behave today in the USA. I understand your experience, Jason, although it may not be everyone's. Not being in contact with many such women, I can neither confirm or deny. I don't care about today's celebrities so I am not informed about them, although I know who Johnny Depp is.
Myself, I resent the way old rural white guys vote, and their attitudes and some of their behavior these days. But I still think they and everyone deserve equal rights. I am very wary of forming political opinions based on bad personal experiences.
Indeed, but while it is important to make the distinction between political policies and the behaviors and culture of those who champion them. In practice, the latter is what generally people vote for. ie, votes for a certain policy give more power to a regime or coalition who favor them, and this often needs to be considered on top of the implications of the individual policies themselves.
If not consciously, liberals usually still understand this on an intuitive level. "It doesn't matter if Trump enacts ____ policy. He's pushing a racist agenda and needs to be stopped". Whether or not this is actually true, it illustrates the point that you have to pay attention to the actual character of interest groups and political factions, not just any particular action they want to take.
I don't see it that way. Liberals oppose Trump's policies, almost all of them, because he is wrong on almost all of his policies.
I know though that the Republicans do this, in a sense. McConnell opposed all of Obama's policies just because he wanted to defeat the Democrats. He admitted as such. But this wasn't because he disapproved of the character of Obama and the Democrats.
It was political strategy, and it frequently works. People tend to blame the president if his opponents block his agenda. That is what is happening to Biden now.
I don't think you can lump all millennials feminists with those whose behavior you disagree with.
The particular action advocated is what counts. Not whether or not we like those advocating them.
But, if your point is that people often don't do the right thing, and base their votes on their liking or not for those who advocate them, I agree that does happen. Especially among conservatives, since they seem to be more emotionally and reaction-based.
And sometimes they project this onto liberals, if my own experience is any indication. People said that people like me were against Bush because we didn't like him and his style. But that was not true. He is a pretty nice guy in person. His policies, however, were horrific. And conservatives don't want to face up to this, so they say we were against Bush because we hated Bush. Now you seem to be saying the same thing about liberals and Trump, and it's not true about liberals and Trump either. At the very least, Trump is entertaining. He connects well with his audience. But his policies, too, are horrific. And not just his racism; all of them.
Posts: 683
Threads: 41
Joined: May 2016
(05-20-2022, 01:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: (05-20-2022, 12:21 AM)JasonBlack Wrote: (05-19-2022, 11:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Perhaps you can accept feminism and equality in the abstract or in law, as deserving equal pay, or equal opportunity and promotion, or not being abused, or having the rights to own property, vote and go to school, etc., and still not approve or still disdain the way that some millennial women behave today in the USA. I understand your experience, Jason, although it may not be everyone's. Not being in contact with many such women, I can neither confirm or deny. I don't care about today's celebrities so I am not informed about them, although I know who Johnny Depp is.
Myself, I resent the way old rural white guys vote, and their attitudes and some of their behavior these days. But I still think they and everyone deserve equal rights. I am very wary of forming political opinions based on bad personal experiences.
Indeed, but while it is important to make the distinction between political policies and the behaviors and culture of those who champion them. In practice, the latter is what generally people vote for. ie, votes for a certain policy give more power to a regime or coalition who favor them, and this often needs to be considered on top of the implications of the individual policies themselves.
If not consciously, liberals usually still understand this on an intuitive level. "It doesn't matter if Trump enacts ____ policy. He's pushing a racist agenda and needs to be stopped". Whether or not this is actually true, it illustrates the point that you have to pay attention to the actual character of interest groups and political factions, not just any particular action they want to take.
I don't see it that way. Liberals oppose Trump's policies, almost all of them, because he is wrong on almost all of his policies.
I know though that the Republicans do this, in a sense. McConnell opposed all of Obama's policies just because he wanted to defeat the Democrats. He admitted as such. But this wasn't because he disapproved of the character of Obama and the Democrats.
It was political strategy, and it frequently works. People tend to blame the president if his opponents block his agenda. That is what is happening to Biden now.
I don't think you can lump all millennials feminists with those whose behavior you disagree with.
The particular action advocated is what counts. Not whether or not we like those advocating them.
But, if your point is that people often don't do the right thing, and base their votes on their liking or not for those who advocate them, I agree that does happen. Especially among conservatives, since they seem to be more emotionally and reaction-based.
And sometimes they project this onto liberals, if my own experience is any indication. People said that people like me were against Bush because we didn't like him and his style. But that was not true. He is a pretty nice guy in person. His policies, however, were horrific. And conservatives don't want to face up to this, so they say we were against Bush because we hated Bush. Now you seem to be saying the same thing about liberals and Trump, and it's not true about liberals and Trump either. At the very least, Trump is entertaining. He connects well with his audience. But his policies, too, are horrific. And not just his racism; all of them.
While going over the thought for the day in this publication I follow, there was an interesting passage. Started by saying that there could be a desire to break out of a normal routine. Could be fun to meet new people from various social circles, and hear different points of view. You can expand your vision by stepping back to see the big picture and may receive some interesting insights.
Sound familiar? This much is true: it really should because that was mainly the Boomer philosophy back in the heady days of their youth. They tended to eschew the 9 to 5 Monday to Friday work routine to the greatest extent they could. They also at the time eschewed social status that they felt many of their elders were obsessed with. The Monkees hit song "Pleasant Valley Sunday" dealt with this topic. They were also the first generation to denounced overt racism, which in turn lead it to become more clandestine and did sexism and ageism. Where the latter is concerned a lot of times when companies invoked layoffs they often tended to cut out the longest tenured, highest paid folks as much as possible. This for sure smacks of ageism but they get away with it because it is very hard to prove that this is what was behind the layoffs of John and Jane So and So.
The fact remains that on the whole in their youthful chapter Boomers were more open to expanding their vision by stepping back to see the big picture; much more so than in midlife and now elderhood. A significant number became the very curmudgeons they so vehemently criticized during their youth. And they tend to brand the younger generations in much the same way even though this was many of them in their "free love" stage.
Concerning the previous poster's final paragraph, many actually felt that Bush II was just as dangerous as Trump was, and there was actually an online crusade titled "World Can't Wait", which focused vigorously and driving out the Bush regime. But then again Lincoln was well hated in his time as well.
Posts: 505
Threads: 52
Joined: Feb 2022
(05-20-2022, 01:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't see it that way. Liberals oppose Trump's policies, almost all of them, because he is wrong on almost all of his policies.
you mean like pulling out of areas of the middle east (you know....the right way, without leaving thousands of US citizens to die and trail of millions of dollars in weapons?)
Quote:I know though that the Republicans do this, in a sense. McConnell opposed all of Obama's policies just because he wanted to defeat the Democrats. He admitted as such. But this wasn't because he disapproved of the character of Obama and the Democrats.
It was political strategy, and it frequently works. People tend to blame the president if his opponents block his agenda. That is what is happening to Biden now.
The last part I can agree with, but you still seem to insinuate democrats don't do this. an obvious example is Hillary's "love Trump's hate" campaign slogan (ie: "vote for me because I'm not Trump", not "vote for me because of my policies"....which she barely said anything about. Say what you will about Trump, he actually attempted to get shit done, and he made blocking his initiatives a the full time job for his opponents it was supposed to be)
counter example: Pelosi clapped when Trump claimed "we will never be a socialist country!" and later shushed the house as they were cheering during the impeachment hearing. I can't speak to her motives, but I can appreciate at least maintaining the pretense of civility.
Quote:I don't think you can lump all millennials feminists with those whose behavior you disagree with.
The particular action advocated is what counts. Not whether or not we like those advocating them.
Character isn't just how likeable someone is. It's what they do, especially insofar that it effects others. If you haven't seen many millennial women in this light, keep in mind you aren't in as close proximity to them as I am, and, perhaps more importantly, those who are dating them.
Quote:But, if your point is that people often don't do the right thing, and base their votes on their liking or not for those who advocate them, I agree that does happen. Especially among conservatives, since they seem to be more emotionally and reaction-based.
I'll take agreements where I can find them
Quote:And sometimes they project this onto liberals, if my own experience is any indication. People said that people like me were against Bush because we didn't like him and his style. But that was not true. He is a pretty nice guy in person. His policies, however, were horrific. And conservatives don't want to face up to this, so they say we were against Bush because we hated Bush. Now you seem to be saying the same thing about liberals and Trump, and it's not true about liberals and Trump either. At the very least, Trump is entertaining. He connects well with his audience. But his policies, too, are horrific. And not just his racism; all of them.
Bush Jr. was a neocon redneck who tripled the size of the federal government and may as well have done the same to the debt. You will find no love for him here.
ammosexual
reluctant millennial
|
