US Elections: Apocalypse Now

[ummester]

12 minutes ago, mormont said:

Didn't the East Germans have the right to control emigration?

It must be complicated when countries have borders on land (as I guess most do). My countries an island, so it's not really an issue.

But, you would think each country reserves the right to control it's immigration and emigration, as it sees fit - when countries that share a land border differ on their opinions regarding this, how is it fairly resolved?

I mean surely any country reserves the right to go - 'we're full. We're at human capacity, sorry, try again in a decade.' But if people are determined to get into that country, how is it resolved?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Mr Fixit said:

My point about self-serving narrative has nothing to do with the Baltic countries being in NATO. I was saying that, much like with Saddam's WMDs, the whole conjured up idea of Russia invading the Baltic countries is a self-serving narrative aimed at assuring that the US stays the principal hegemonic player in the Eurasian arena. Always gotta be sure to have a steady supply of ready-to-go enemies! 

1. The people that sold and largely bought the WMD story were Republicans. They were also the same people that wanted US interference into the Ukraine and the Crimea. So let's not act like all Americans are in agreement about foreign policy. 

2. Either the Baltic states want Nato and the US in their regions or they don't. Are you claiming they don't? Because if they don't, then I and probably many other Americans have no interest in being there. That kind of potential commitment is costly for us. I'd rather spend the resources on schools and roads.

3. I think I've acknowledge that military invasion by Putin is highly unlikely. So, I am not sure why you keep bringing it up. That said, a direct military invasion by Putin isn't the only option available to him. If Putin has no desire to intervene in the Baltic States, then a clear commitment by NATO to preserve the sovereignty of those regions shouldn't be a problem. On the other hand maybe Putin does want to meddle in their affairs and the only thing stopping are the signals he is getting from NATO and the US, which he believes to be credible. Assume he does think it's credible. Then clearly, you can see, there is a problem here when Trump suggest that Nato commitments might be negotiable.

[Mr Fixit]

24 minutes ago, Tempra said:

There is another thread on the BDS movement at US universities from a few weeks ago where this discussion is more appropriate.  In short, the pro-BDS crowd has harassed Jewish students, limited academic freedom of pro-Israeli or Israeli-born speakers, and attempted to delegitimize the very existence of Israel.  BDS is simply the extension of centuries old hatred of Jewish people under the veneer of legitimate dissent.  The practices of its adherents reveal its true purpose.

Deplorable if so. I'd be wary of labeling it all under "old hatred of Jewish people" though. Israel is subjecting its Palestinian population to horrific acts of violence and humiliation. That doesn't excuse any harassment or violence among the BDS people, but generalizations are ultimately unhealthy. There are quite a few big European companies that support BDS measures and I find it unlikely they all do it because of anti-semitism.

[The guy from the Vale]

18 minutes ago, ummester said:

Yea, I guess - but even if we got rid of all the carbon producing machinery, there are still too many humans breathing C02 into the air and too much deforestation has already occurred. It makes logical sense to try, I guess, but I'm not hopeful it will change anything - the only thing that will really help is mass human extinction.

I'm not quite as negative on this - we've in many ways reduced, not increased, the number of CO2-producing animals. I'm with you on the deforestation being a bad starting point, but even that is reversible in the medium run (we're still talking centuries here, but it's at least possible in human timescales). The real problem is the use and release of Carbon that has been out of our atmosphere for millions of years. 

I also think mass human extinction goes one step too far - but yes, we absolutely should encourage the use of contraceptives all over the world to at least not further exacerbate the problem.

All that being said, I'm also cynical about our willingness to do what's necessary, but I think that's no reason not to try. Just because the success of some initiative is unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible - or not worth it, considering what is actually at stake.

[Mr Fixit]

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

2. Either the Baltic states want Nato and the US in their regions or they don't. Are you claiming they don't? 

Sigh.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Mr Fixit said:

Sigh.

Sigh right back at you.

[The guy from the Vale]

9 minutes ago, ummester said:

It must be complicated when countries have borders on land (as I guess most do). My countries an island, so it's not really an issue.

But, you would think each country reserves the right to control it's immigration and emigration, as it sees fit - when countries that share a land border differ on their opinions regarding this, how is it fairly resolved?

I mean surely any country reserves the right to go - 'we're full. We're at human capacity, sorry, try again in a decade.' But if people are determined to get into that country, how is it resolved?

Eh... any country may reserve that right, but really, most of the time it's just a smokescreen for bigotry. Or do you really think the European nations thought accepting Jewish refugees in the 30es was impossible due to the numbers? And were they justified in refusing them, considering what fate they were facing?

[ummester]

1 minute ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

I'm not quite as negative on this - we've in many ways reduced, not increased, the number of CO2-producing animals. I'm with you on the deforestation being a bad starting point, but even that is reversible in the medium run (we're still talking centuries here, but it's at least possible in human timescales). The real problem is the use and release of Carbon that has been out of our atmosphere for millions of years. 

I also think mass human extinction goes one step too far - but yes, we absolutely should encourage the use of contraceptives all over the world to at least not further exacerbate the problem.

All that being said, I'm also cynical about our willingness to do what's necessary, but I think that's no reason not to try. Just because the success of some initiative is unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible - or not worth it, considering what is actually at stake.

Yea, perhaps I'm too cynical - but it seems to me it's all connected. Mass deforestation has only occurred to support such high numbers of humans, we moved beyond our maximum safe carrying number in the 50s or something.

And, then you have the problem that humans can't really share. Look at Trumps election - to me it's perfectly understandable, globalisation has made the working class feel ripped off so they voted in a protectionist. But they still have a much higher standard of living than the Indians, or the Chinese, who are now larger carbon producers - but is it fair to hold them back when we in the West have already benefited?

I think the simple truth is that there would easily be enough to go around, if there were about half as many of us.

[ummester]

5 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Eh... any country may reserve that right, but really, most of the time it's just a smokescreen for bigotry. Or do you really think the European nations thought accepting Jewish refugees in the 30es was impossible due to the numbers? And were they justified in refusing them, considering what fate they were facing?

Well, see above - I think the basic issue is there are too many humans on the planet. It's almost impossible for a human to get away from other humans now.

There were less than half as many people on the planet in the 30s, our cities weren't all overcrowded. Everything still had room to expand. It's very different now.

I'm not sure it's bigotry if you just refuse entry to all, without bias.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

38 minutes ago, mormont said:

Because even if we accept the premise that this isn't working or is making things worse - and I firmly do *not* accept that - that doesn't forestall the possibility that doing the opposite would make the situation even worse yet and be even less effective.

Being afraid to call out prejudice in case you offend people is not, in the end, going to progress the struggle to defeat it. It's that simple. You don't need to be a dick about it, but 95% of the time (at least) that people are offended it is not because the person pointing out the prejudice is being a dick about it. It's because the person who's having their prejudice pointed out believes (as most of us do) that they're good people, and they also believe that prejudiced people are bad people*, and the idea that they might be showing some prejudice therefore causes them to experience unpleasant cognitive dissonance. 

*though in Trump's America, who know if this belief will still be as common?

Didn't the East Germans have the right to control emigration?

Okay, in no way am I saying people shouldn't be called out for bigotry.  They should be called out.  The question I'm cogetating is whether there is a better way to call people out.  Shouldn't the goal be more than just "calling out bigotry" shouldn't we be trying to convince those who engage in bigotry that bigotry is wrong?  

If that's not the goal, if we are just writting off 20-40% of the US population do we not have much more serious issues?  If 20-40% cannot be convinced that bigotry is wrong... what follows?

[LongRider]

3 minutes ago, ummester said:

Look at Trumps election - to me it's perfectly understandable, globalisation has made the working class feel ripped off so they voted in a protectionist.

His election was less about globalism and more about racism.  There is a lot more that this working in the election.  Racism first, it has to be acknowledged, he started out with his 'Mexican rapist' crap when he announced and never stopped the racist rhetoric.  The GOP however, had paved the way for this with years of divide and conquer tactics that pitted the poor whites against the poor blacks and all kinds of immigrants and feminists.  Racist dog whistles and whining about 'PC' speech also had it's effects. 

GOP's economic policies that created poverty, took working peoples rights away and suppressed the votes were visible to everyone but not everyone realized it wasn't for the advancement of the working class like they were promised.  Don't discount Fox news and other powerful right wing propaganda.

And then Obama got elected and for the last eight years the racists lost their minds and now, with Trump, they are getting their 'revenge.'  It will backfire of course, but hey, in the meantime, let's grab some pussy and terrify some brown people.

[Castel]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Okay, in no way am I saying people shouldn't be called out for bigotry.  They should be called out.  The question I'm cogetating is whether there is a better way to call people out.  Shouldn't the goal be more than just "calling out bigotry" shouldn't we be trying to convince those who engage in bigotry that bigotry is wrong?  

If that's not the goal, if we are just writting off 20-40% of the US population do we not have much more serious issues?  If 20-40% cannot be convinced that bigotry is wrong... what follows?

It's not a binary Scot. You do try to show why it's wrong. The idea that any movement succeeds without doing this is silly.

But, at a certain point and with a certain level of success, there are things that people try not to litigate again in an exhaustive manner. 

Are people going to relitigate say...miscegenation? Or is the current response, which is less concerned with exhaustively explaining why someone is wrong, more appropriate? Or will every reactionary and asshole get to drag you back to whether black and white people should be allowed to have kids, or concern troll if you refuse to be drawn?

As for writing off some people:sometimes time heals wounds best. 

[mormont]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Okay, in no way am I saying people shouldn't be called out for bigotry.  They should be called out.  The question I'm cogetating is whether there is a better way to call people out.  Shouldn't the goal be more than just "calling out bigotry" shouldn't we be trying to convince those who engage in bigotry that bigotry is wrong?  

If that's not the goal, if we are just writting off 20-40% of the US population do we not have much more serious issues?  If 20-40% cannot be convinced that bigotry is wrong... what follows?

Scot, I'm saying that you have misdiagnosed the problem. The problem is not how (or whether) we call people out for bigotry. The problem is the cognitive dissonance that people experience when their bigotry is pointed out, and the natural human tendency to reflect that unpleasant feeling back on the proximate cause (the incident of being called out) rather than the real cause (conflicting perceptions).

Most of those people already do believe that bigotry is wrong, by the way. That's why they find it so unpleasant to contemplate that they might have done something bigoted.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Castel said:

It's not a binary Scot. You do try to show why it's wrong. The idea that any movement succeeds without doing this is silly.

But, at a certain point and with a certain level of success, there are things that people try not to litigate again in an exhaustive manner. 

Are people going to relitigate say...miscegenation? Or is the current response, which is less concerned with exhaustively explaining why someone is wrong, more appropriate? Or will every reactionary and asshole get to drag you back to whether black and white people should be allowed to have kids, or concern troll if you refuse to be drawn?

 

Castel,

I don't know but you are correct that this isn't binary.  There is no one simple methodology for engaging bigotry.  Perhaps part of the problem is what gets attention, focus, and press coverage is confrontation.  Those working quitely to change minds one at a time aren't as "sexy" as those chanting and protesting.  

 

[Castel]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Castel,

I don't know but you are correct that this isn't binary.  There is no one simple methodology for engaging bigotry.  Perhaps part of the problem is what gets attention, focus, and press coverage is confrontation.  Those working quitely to change minds one at a time aren't as "sexy" as those chanting and protesting.  

 

This actually begs an interesting question: looking at the Democratic leadership...what have been their most confrontational moments on bigotry? I mean, besides the "deplorables" comment everyone points to. 

Like, what's Obama's real life "anger translator" moment? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

Newt Gingrich wants to create a "House of Un-American Activities" which is essentially McCarthyism but for Muslims. 

Oh, that will go well.

[Jaxom 1974]

9 hours ago, mormont said:

 

As for Trump's grumbling on Twitter about the protests, if he thought the campaign was bad he's about to find out how much scrutiny you get as an actual President. I don't think he'll enjoy it one bit.

Does this matter? Any criticism by the media or the press that Trump cones to face will be dismissed and derided by his supporters as liberal propaganda, especially when it needs be taken seriously.  These people, these supporters, do not see places like CNN, the Washington Post, the NYT, NBC, et al. as anything other than spewing liberal garbage.  Where does the accountability come from when no one wants to believe that there might be fire beneath the smoke...

[Mexal]

Just now, Jaxom 1974 said:

Does this matter? Any criticism by the media or the press that Trump cones to face will be dismissed and derided by his supporters as liberal propaganda, especially when it needs be taken seriously.  These people, these supporters, do not see places like CNN, the Washington Post, the NYT, NBC, et al. as anything other than spewing liberal garbage.  Where does the accountability come from when no one wants to believe that there might be fire beneath the smoke...

It will until everything he has promised them won't happen. Then they'll criticize him too. That's how politics works.

[Commodore]

I'm ideologically biased, but doubling down on Oliver/Bee/Myers style sneering doesn't seem like the path back to electoral success. 

You might argue that cult of personality trumps everything and it's just a matter of finding that person, but my suspicion is a lot of Trump voters did it holding their nose (all my relatives did).

 Much of this is trying to fight the last war. All it takes is a few variables (like choice of candidate) to change and the outcome could be different. That's the nature of a 47-47 baseline electorate.