U.S. Politics: A Democracy In Decay

[OldGimletEye]

29 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That's fair. 

My counterargument is that when things become drastically unfair, violence is the only remaining solution people have left. This is entirely predictable and expected, and is even part of the system of the US (as stated so darkly by Rand Paul). When you have black people who do literally everything right, as they have been told again and again that they should do things, and they are killed AND their killer did not legally commit a crime - what does that tell the black community to do with respect to police? Why shouldn't they ignore police or shoot them? Why would they ever rely on police to deal with issues? Similarly, in Seattle, where you have a woman who called the police to report a burglary and then was killed - why would you ever rely on the police? 

Why would you ever tone it down? 

When congresspeople refuse to listen to their constituency and poll numbers and record calls and town halls, there is only so much people can do. When you tell them to trust the system or to calm down, it is simply not going to work. At that point you really have two options - you give in to at least some of their demands so that you can have some kind of pressure valve release, or things escalate. This is what happens with humans, period. 

As an example, when you hear people asking for democrat representatives to calm down or not go nuclear, you have many people saying that if they do that, we should vote them out. Them asking for calmness is simply not the right choice in that matter.

And my argument is make sure violence is the only option you have left. Because, once the shooting starts, it's kind of hard to call it off. It should be the last resort, when no other options are available. You don't get a "do-over" after there is a lot of dead people, many of them whom you probably didn't intend to die. So make sure, you've really thought this through, hard.

I get the impression, that you're convinced that violence can be "surgically targeted" or whatever to achieve particular political goals, without becoming a bloody cluster. I'm not too confident this is quite correct. And given what's at stake, I just wouldn't bet the farm on it, plus my good ol' plain old aversion to violence and killing.

You can say that history "proves" that violence is often effective, but I'd also say that violence has often spectacularly backfired, leaving nothing put a lot of carnage and dead people in it's wake.

I'm not a complete pacifist, but I'm extremely cautious about the employment of violence to achieve political goals both for practical and moral reasons. And it should only be employed in the most dire of circumstances.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

52 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think you missed his point, which is that you weren't calling for toning it down after innocents being killed or injustice happening or any number of other fairly catastrophic events - but now you're calling for toning it down after a politician gets shot. (and, amusingly, after a nazi gets punched). 

Why are you calling for toning it down only when one side gets violence? I'm not accusing you of anything here; it's simply an observation that is kind of interesting. My hypothesis is that you more identify with liberals, and you do not want your side to be the one that is perpetuating the violence because it offends you on an in-group basis, making it harder for you to have moral high ground. Whereas when the other side does it that is simply more proof that they're horrible. Again, just a hypothesis, and I don't hold any particular ill will towards you for thinking (or not thinking) that.

Just to jump in here, I've been calling for civil discussion for more than a decade.  I've always preferred civil discussion regardless of the topic or the side that is getting aggressive. Violence feeds violence.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

One might argue that escalation of violence is the only way to save said democratic experiment; autocracies don't tend to just go away on their own. Point of fact, there are almost no examples of peaceable transition from autocracy to democracy compared to the opposite, and even fewer stable transitions (IE, lasting for more than the lifetime of one of the main Democratic leaders). 

Are there good examples of a budding autocracy being stopped by de-escalation of conflict and tension?

Can't think of one off the top of my head, no. I get your point, and I think it's an important one, but I think even waiting until there is supposed to be a peaceful transfer of power would most likely improve the chances that our side would succeed. I don't know. I pray to the void that none of that comes to pass.

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Can't think of one off the top of my head, no. I get your point, and I think it's an important one, but I think even waiting until there is supposed to be a peaceful transfer of power would most likely improve the chances that our side would succeed. I don't know. I pray to the void that none of that comes to pass.e

Edit : nevermind I read that incorrectly

[OldGimletEye]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Just to jump in here, I've been calling for civil discussion for more than a decade.  I've always preferred civil discussion regardless of the topic or the side that is getting aggressive. Violence feeds violence.

I don't put an extremely high premium on "civility" as I just prefer people to not beat around the bush and make the points they want to make.

However, I get extremely uncomfortable when it's casually suggested that violence is a potential solution.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And my argument is make sure violence is the only option you have left. Because, once the shooting starts, it's kind of hard to call it off. It should be the last resort, when no other options are available. You don't get a "do-over" after there is a lot of dead people, many of them whom you probably didn't intend to die. So make sure, you've really thought this through, hard.

I get the impression, that you're convinced that violence can be "surgically targeted" or whatever to achieve particular political goals, without becoming a bloody cluster. I'm not too confident this is quite correct. And given what's at stake, I just wouldn't bet the farm on it, plus my good ol' plain old aversion to violence and killing.

You can say that history "proves" that violence is often effective, but I'd also say that violence has often spectacularly backfired, leaving nothing put a lot of carnage and dead people in it's wake.

I'm not a complete pacifist, but I'm extremely cautious about the employment of violence to achieve political goals both for practical and moral reasons. And it should only be employed in the most dire of circumstances.

I agree with everything you just said.  Peter Capaldi as "the Doctor" also said it well:
 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I don't put an extremely high premium on "civility" as I just prefer people to not beat around the bush and make the points they want to make.

However, I get extremely uncomfortable when it's casually suggested that violence is a potential solution.

Fair enough.  I just fear the lack of civility leads, as tempers fray, to violence.

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Just to jump in here, I've been calling for civil discussion for more than a decade.  I've always preferred civil discussion regardless of the topic or the side that is getting aggressive. Violence feeds violence.

Sure, but like Manhole I suspect you do it only in certain circumstances. Before this gets your hair up, this is true for everyone. I'm simply curious when it is for some people. 

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Can't think of one off the top of my head, no. I get your point, and I think it's an important one, but I think even waiting until there is supposed to be a peaceful transfer of power would most likely improve the chances that our side would succeed. I don't know. I pray to the void that none of that comes to pass.

I'm genuinely curious now about it. There aren't a ton of failed democracies that have had the history of the US - really, none come to mind - as really, there haven't been that many democracies that have lasted over 100 years, period. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kalbear,

My hair up?  I'd need a lot of hairspray, even perhaps eggwhites, to pull that off.

[Cas Stark]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Fair enough.  I just fear the lack of civility leads, as tempers fray, to violence.

 

It does.  The first step to dehumanizing your opponent is the loss of civil discussion.  In my opinion.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm genuinely curious now about it. There aren't a ton of failed democracies that have had the history of the US - really, none come to mind - as really, there haven't been that many democracies that have lasted over 100 years, period. 

The only example that springs to mind is Rome, who endured numerous instances wherein they handed over supreme power to an emperor temporarily, usually in the face of an extreme military situation. I believe there were more than one example where these men turned over that power peacefully once the challenge had passed (and this was all done by design, it was all laid out in their laws and codification and what not), but of course this ultimately led to a man who took advantage of these rules and eventually perverted them.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I agree with everything you just said.  But Peter Capaldi as "the Doctor" also said it well:

Which is funny, as the Doctor was responsible for the single greatest act of genocide which also almost certainly made the galaxy far safer than any other solution. If you want to give me a sonic screwdriver and a device that can alter the time stream, I'll be sure to consider those options first. 

13 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I get the impression, that you're convinced that violence can be "surgically targeted" or whatever to achieve particular political goals, without becoming a bloody cluster. I'm not too confident this is quite correct. And given what's at stake, I just wouldn't bet the farm on it, plus my good ol' plain old aversion to violence and killing.

You can say that history "proves" that violence is often effective, but I'd also say that violence has often spectacularly backfired, leaving nothing put a lot of carnage and dead people in it's wake

Sure, I agree with all of this. I am not an advocate of 'surgical violence'; I think that violence tends to escalate as the mores around using violence are removed. At the same time, I consider when one side uses violence in the guise of the law and then people start advocating for the other side to 'tone it down' to be fundamentally wrong unless advocated for by the actual side being killed - and even then, it's pretty iffy. I'm quite happy to exhaust at least most options, but I'm not about to tell people whose lives just got personally harmed to tone it down a notch, especially when I happen to agree with them. 

I'll put it another way: governments fail when people lose their faith in the government's ability to mediate issues. Much of governmental power is a convenient illusion, and when you push too much on that illusion people go back to what their monkey brains tell them works (even if it doesn't). Regardless of whether I advocate for violence or not, violence will happen. And asking to tone it down will not help. 

[BloodRider]

11 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I don't put an extremely high premium on "civility" as I just prefer people to not beat around the bush and make the points they want to make.

However, I get extremely uncomfortable when it's casually suggested that violence is a potential solution.

I get extremely uncomfortable when its casually suggested that a family member is potentially an alcoholic.  But pursuant to the degree that it may be true, I defer to that comfortableness at my own peril, no?

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

It does.  The first step to dehumanizing your opponent is the loss of civil discussion.  In my opinion.

I think in many cases you've gone past that first step into something far worse, and are now trying to tell people who are being treated exceptionally inhumanely that they should be more civil. 

Telling Philando Castile's mother that she should be more civil is probably not particularly useful or relevant, as an example. 

[OldGimletEye]

2 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

I get extremely uncomfortable when its casually suggested that a family member is potentially an alcoholic.  But pursuant to the degree that it may be true, I defer to that comfortableness at my own peril, no?

Except given the cost of violence, you had better really thought out the implications. In other words, don't be like Dubya's neocons or Ted Nugent. It's a serious business.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Which is funny, as the Doctor was responsible for the single greatest act of genocide which also almost certainly made the galaxy far safer than any other solution. If you want to give me a sonic screwdriver and a device that can alter the time stream, I'll be sure to consider those options first.  

Kalbear,

Are you talking about the destruction of Gallifrey... you know that didn't happen, right?

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think in many cases you've gone past that first step into something far worse, and are now trying to tell people who are being treated exceptionally inhumanely that they should be more civil. 

Telling Philando Castile's mother that she should be more civil is probably not particularly useful or relevant, as an example. 

And useless.  A person who is in the depth of that kind of emotional turmoil isn't going to be civil and I wouldn't expect them to be civil.  That doesn't mean, as a general rule, civility should be abandoned.

[OldGimletEye]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sure, I agree with all of this. I am not an advocate of 'surgical violence'; I think that violence tends to escalate as the mores around using violence are removed. At the same time, I consider when one side uses violence in the guise of the law and then people start advocating for the other side to 'tone it down' to be fundamentally wrong unless advocated for by the actual side being killed - and even then, it's pretty iffy. I'm quite happy to exhaust at least most options, but I'm not about to tell people whose lives just got personally harmed to tone it down a notch, especially when I happen to agree with them. 

I'll put it another way: governments fail when people lose their faith in the government's ability to mediate issues. Much of governmental power is a convenient illusion, and when you push too much on that illusion people go back to what their monkey brains tell them works (even if it doesn't). Regardless of whether I advocate for violence or not, violence will happen. And asking to tone it down will not help. 

Well first, this all depends on what we mean by "tone it down". I have no problem with people raising all sorts of hell about the injustices or unfairness they face.

But, when we get into causal suggestions that violence is "just another option" on the table as opposed to being the last resort and I mean the last resort to a situation, then yeah I have a problem with that.

And when you suggest that violence is an option, that can be casually used offensively, as opposed to defensively in a dire situation, I have a bit of problem with that.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well first, this all depends on what we mean by "tone it down". I have no problem with people raising all sorts of hell about the injustices or unfairness they face.

But, when we get into causal suggestions that violence is "just another option" on the table as opposed to being the last resort and I mean the last resort to a situation, then yeah I have a problem with that.

Why? It is certainly another option on the table, and it will be used if things aren't solved.

And calling on the victims to tone it down is especially galling to me. 

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

And when you suggest that violence is an option, that can be casually used offensively, as opposed to defensively in a dire situation, I have a bit of problem with that.

Again, happy to ask - why? If you have a problem because violence is inherently dangerous, okay, but if you're objecting because violence doesn't solve problems? That's objectively untrue. 

[BloodRider]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

Except given the cost of violence, you had better really thought out the implications. In other words, don't be like Dubya's neocons or Ted Nugent. It's a serious business.

I hear you.  But you are preaching to the choir to me.  I am far too old and comfortable to want violence.  But what I and I think Kal is telling you is we are not the ones making the choices about violence.  I'm gonna have to fall pretty far to resort to that.  

But there are huge swaths of people out there for whom the system not only offers them nothing, it also blames them for its failings, the failings of other marginally less oppressed people, and perpetuates itself on the backs of their labor and very lives.  Then it makes a sham of pretending that they have equal access, but instead strips them of more resources, and then mocks them when they protest.

That center just isn't gonna hold.  I am amazed it has held so long.  This is not some classist or racist indictment either - Because, understand that the introduction of violence is a massive prisoner's dilemma.  It's doesn't take a massive uprising to get the ball rolling anymore.  Violence is the temporarily optimal lowest common denominator solution that we all may have to face.

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Why? It is certainly another option on the table, and it will be used if things aren't solved.

A very dangerous one. Just be sure you know what you are doing. Don't be a neocon.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And calling on the victims to tone it down is especially galling to me. 

I thought I addressed this. Depends on what we mean by "toning it down". I don't expect people to not complain.

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, happy to ask - why? If you have a problem because violence is inherently dangerous, okay, but if you're objecting because violence doesn't solve problems? That's objectively untrue. 

It's also objectively true that it can become a flamin' disaster with great cost.