U.S. Politics: A City Upon A Hill Has Lost It's Shine.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The biggest one is the Haidt studies. There's a decent review of his book, and this article has a good graph on it. Basically, the more liberal you are in the US the more likely you are going to be strongly feeling about unfairness (which corresponds to the emotion anger) and care/harm (which corresponds to the emotion sadness). Conservatives feel roughly equivalent about those and ingroup (corresponding to joy), purity (corresponding to disgust) and authority (corresponding to fear). 

He's a really entertaining speaker (Haidt that is) and has given a fair number of talks on the subject if you prefer to injest your info in that form.

 

 

 

 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Conservatives feel roughly equivalent about those and ingroup (corresponding to joy), purity (corresponding to disgust) and authority (corresponding to fear). 

For a political science application of how divergent personalities affect divergent perspectives, see Hetherington and Weiler's (2009) Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics.  There's also this article on how the Big Five personality traits shape political attitudes.

[LongRider]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

Methinks in that case the donors will already be swinging from the same lamp posts.

{looks around}     hmmm, I'd say we need more lamp posts. 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Methinks in that case the donors will already be swinging from the same lamp posts.

Eh, I don't know. I would think many of those donors would either have flown the coop or hired their own private armies before that would happen.

[Altherion]

16 hours ago, Rippounet said:

America is a continent, and it doesn't care much about being "direspected."

Seriously though, the US is almost unique in the Western world with its insistance on patriotism, elevating respect for the national anthem and the flag to an almost religious point.

Indeed, American exceptionalism is a rather interesting phenomenon. They might not be an outright majority, but there's a significant fraction of people who think that the US is the greatest country in the world and, unfortunately for the NFL, I suspect this attitude is more common among their fans than among the general population.

16 hours ago, Rippounet said:

And seen from the outside the entire thing is bizarre. I just don't get what's so irrespectful about these players' attitude. They still pay their respects to the anthem with hand over heart, don't they? Bending one knee is a small gesture to make a point, it's hardly irrespectful.

Ordinarily not, but the guy who started it explained what it meant:

Quote

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color," Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game.

The issue is not that he is protesting against racism -- many people do that and nobody pays much attention to them unless they riot or block roads or something of the sort. The problem is that he thinks this is important enough to outweigh everything that is good about America to the extent that he refuses to show pride in our flag. For a lot of people, this attitude is completely unforgivable especially coming from somebody that rich.

16 hours ago, Rippounet said:

As to the fact that they're millionaires it shouldn't even be mentioned. So what? Most opinion-makers in the US are. Most congressmen are. The president is a billionaire. In the US you pretty much need to be successful to be allowed a voice. Pointing out the class divide when it comes to social justice is ironic. Because these guys are wealthy they shouldn't take a stand against racism? Then who will?

Again, to most people who are displeased by this, their stand on racism is a concern so secondary that it is more or less irrelevant. The important thing is that they're disrespecting the flag and the fact that they're gotten so much from this country exacerbates this. And while it is true that most politicians and other opinion-makers are quite wealthy, note that it is extremely rare for political or business types to attack the flag or otherwise question American exceptionalism directly. The only famous people who do it are actors and sports personalities and both draw a significant amount of hatred.

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Methinks in that case the donors will already be swinging from the same lamp posts.

Fear not, most donors of note have probably invested in means of avoiding this fate.

[Zorral]

Quote

. . .  important enough to outweigh everything that is good about America  . . . 

Just for fun, let's ennumerate and describe what is good about America?  Especially if one happens to be an African American citizen of America since, o, about 1617 (though it wasn't the US yet).  Or a Native American, for instance.  OTOH, for a lot of immigrants, once they got over their initial generations' antagonism, such as Irish and Italians and Jews, it did work out, eventually OK, that's for sure.  And for much later immigrants from India and a lot of other places it worked out very well -- particularly for Cubans seeking asylum from communism -- now, THEY made out like bandits (and many, having retired, have taken all their benefit$ and moved to Spain and Mexico, but never mind).  But for these fundamental layers of US populations, the Native Americans and the African Americans, just how good has America been for them?

Also, just for fun, how many of us are familiar with the Baader Meinhof Group and its objectives, which made quite a splash back in the 60's and 70's?

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Maybe showing those who think they're safe what is coming inevitably IF these people and their vile, evil propaganda and recruiting for genocide and exclusion isn't shut down?

Really, look at Europe in the 20's, 30's and then the 40's, coz it wasn't shut down and a large proportion of populaces, even in nations like Britain, even agreed with the whole agenda, until the day the nazi troops started invading  the homes of their their relatives in Europe and dropping bombs on the UK.  Before that they were all against anybody fighting back, yanno?

That remains so, whatever pun dits these days say about Chamberlain's brilliant strategy to give the nazis what they wanted and declare peach in our frime and the fireworks went off until the fireworks turned into bombs falling from the sky over London -- that strategy being that giving peace in our time bought the Brits time in their time to prepare for war and go begging for allies, as in the USA.  The jury still seems out on that one.

What you are talking about is appeasement vs pre-emptive violent opposition. Which is a straw man argument that no one advocating for non-violence is saying. You can oppose something without being pre-emptively violent. 

[LongRider]

53 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Quote

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color," Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game.

The issue is not that he is protesting against racism -- many people do that and nobody pays much attention to them unless they riot or block roads or something of the sort. The problem is that he thinks this is important enough to outweigh everything that is good about America to the extent that he refuses to show pride in our flag. For a lot of people, this attitude is completely unforgivable especially coming from somebody that rich.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag and to the United States of America.  And to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, cha cha cha, with Liberty and Justice for All."

See the bolded, italicized and underlined, methinks there's the beef.  Plus he's rich, so what.  Rich people don't know when Liberty and Justice for all ain't happening?  'Course they do, so Kaepernick decided to have a little say about that, and lookie, lookie it got noticed.  

 

[Martell Spy]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/25/obamacare-repeal-failure-republicans-react-243096

Collins’ opposition dooms latest Obamacare repeal effort
Three GOP senators have come out against the Graham-Cassidy bill, likely dealing a fatal blow to the plan.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

16 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/25/obamacare-repeal-failure-republicans-react-243096

Collins’ opposition dooms latest Obamacare repeal effort
Three GOP senators have come out against the Graham-Cassidy bill, likely dealing a fatal blow to the plan.

Good deal. Put this shit to bed. 

[SkynJay]

7 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well this anthem clip from the Pittsburgh Steelers is just about the most inspiring thing I have seen in quite some time. Only one player from the entire team emerged to stand for the anthem. He happens to be an army Ranger with three tours to Afghanistan and a Bronze Star behind his name.

Gooseflesh and tears while watching it, I'll be honest.

Some of us are wired that way, some aren't. To me, this man is a real hero.

1.  This is not a protest against the anthem and never was.  So there are very few who have a problem with someone standing for it.

2.  The player in question hates that you are championing him as a beacon of light in your percieved darkness.  https://sports.yahoo.com/alejandro-villanueva-threw-teammates-under-221524120.html

[Squab]

NFL broadcasting stocks slump. At least the press will be there to let everyone know if its still going on.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Squab said:

NFL broadcasting stocks slump. At least the press will be there to let everyone know if its still going on.

The notion that there's a causal link between the protests and the NFL's ratings dive does not have face validity to me.  Sorry, I've just heard it a lot in real world conversations, and the willful ignorance of so many (obvious) other factors is really starting to annoy me.

[Squab]

Just now, dmc515 said:

The notion that there's a causal link between the protests and the NFL's ratings dive does not have face validity to me.  Sorry, I've just heard it a lot in real world conversations, and the willful ignorance of so many (obvious) other factors is really starting to annoy me.

Yeah, won't have had an effect at all. In fact, these protests are the only thing keeping the NFL ratings up this much. We need to encourage all the players #takeaknee every time.

[lokisnow]

The dude who wrote algorithms for Trumps campaign and the Brexit campaign has written a new algorithm called "gaydar" that identifies homosexuals based on facial recognition.

I'm sure he wouldn't possibly send it to Africa (or really any bigoted country like the evil Russians) where the software would be used to institute pograms and holocausts against those identified by the algorithm.

TLDR : sometimes science is really fucking evil and scientists do not give a fuck about the implications of their weaponry.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-25/-gaydar-shows-how-creepy-algorithms-can-get

 

[James Arryn]

8 hours ago, Zorral said:

Maybe showing those who think they're safe what is coming inevitably IF these people and their vile, evil propaganda and recruiting for genocide and exclusion isn't shut down?

Really, look at Europe in the 20's, 30's and then the 40's, coz it wasn't shut down and a large proportion of populaces, even in nations like Britain, even agreed with the whole agenda, until the day the nazi troops started invading  the homes of their their relatives in Europe and dropping bombs on the UK.  Before that they were all against anybody fighting back, yanno?

That remains so, whatever pun dits these days say about Chamberlain's brilliant strategy to give the nazis what they wanted and declare peach in our frime and the fireworks went off until the fireworks turned into bombs falling from the sky over London -- that strategy being that giving peace in our time bought the Brits time in their time to prepare for war and go begging for allies, as in the USA.  The jury still seems out on that one.

This is wrong in many ways, imo.

First, what alliances the U.S. had with Britain and France...treaties of mutual protection...already existed before Munich, and even before Chamberlain/Hitler. No others were ever added until the war was years old and Chamberlain long gone. The U.S. wanted no part of WWII, and though wildly revised history has FDR dragging the US in kicking and screaming, that's largely a myth. At the time of Munich he stated, repeatedly, that the US would under no circumstances take part in any 'anti-Hitler bloc'. Chamberlain did not see Munich as a means to beg the US to do anything. He was trying to form an alliance of Britain, France, Russia and Poland, but was forced to lock Russia out because Poland greatly feared Stalin. Thus, Munich. 

FDR was very devoted to breaking European Colonial power, and as such, though opposed in general to the rise of aggressive nations in Germany, Italy and Japan (principally Japan at this point) he also saw the advantages of a weakened Britain and France ( in fact he refused to even recognize Free France government until 1944, preferring to deal with Nazi sponsored Vichy!) and even when later addressing the threat of a rapidly expanding Hitler stated publically that Europe was the US's first line of defense and the US need not be overly concerned or involved unless that fell.

Now in fairness, FDR was facing a very strong and determined isolationist majority in the US, but still in both his public actions and private records the image of him as this long-sighted reluctant hawk determined to drag the US into the war is clearly false. He was very much a man working hard to avoid what commitments/entanglements he had and keep his options open. Over time there is an increasing realization that the 'first line of American defense' was going to fall much quicker than expected and therefore and increase in passive/non-binding support for Britain, but even that was seen and sold as a materially advantageous deal for the US. Historians consider the 'what if Hitler had not declared war on the US' as one of the great  questions of the war, because it's entirely possible that even a committed FDR...and he was phlegmatic...might well have never been able to sell the war to the American public; too soon had quickly been replaced by 'too late' as the isolationist catchphrase.

As for Appeasement, it's probably the most bankrupt political concept in modern times, and fuelled so many horrible foreign policy decisions, from the Long Telegram and Roll back to the invasion of Iraq. It's taking the lesson specific to one crisis and shoehorning it into all others, usually as a hawk pretext. How it applies here is difficult to see; unless you mean the Trump administration itself there is no fascist government in power, let alone making aggressive demands and building for war. If you mean the Trump administration Appeasement is still not viable, as you are calling for some kind of revolution rather than saying a line must be drawn in policy.

And, for the record, the first person to cite the oppression of a people as a cause for action leading up to WWII was none other than Adolph Hitler; it was the basis for his Sudetenland demands. So, that blade has no reliable handle. 

Moreover, in specifics, it should be noted that calling for civilian violent resistance to a corrosive and oppressive domestic ideology gaining ground through dangerous rhetoric that 'ought not be allowed' is literally how the fascists in Italy, Germany and Spain made their bones and rose to power; fighting 'back' against Communist rhetoric with fascist fists and clubs. 

I completely agree that fascism is again on the rise in the world in general and the US in particular...in fact I have been 'annoyingly' stating as much in here for years now. I agree that the Trump administration has some chilling echoes of former evils. I agree that it must be fought. I disagree with using fascist tactics to fight fascism. Fight rhetoric with better rhetoric, or define calls to violence as illegal...but again that must cut both ways. Don't rubber stamp 'preemptive' violence against dangerous rhetoric because that already cuts both ways. In fact many of the tools at Trump's disposal right now were created post 9-11 to satisfy different fears by targeting ideology with action. Even more are Cold War leftovers. The powers we create to fight our demons remain long after those demons are gone; often in the hands of new demons. 

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

TLDR : sometimes science is really fucking evil and scientists do not give a fuck about the implications of their weaponry.

I dunno, seems from the linked article the Stanford guy gave quite the fucks about the implications of such algorithms.  This is like blaming Einstein and Oppenheimer for the bomb.  Big Data and subsequent applications are not going away, better it is spearheaded by conscientious creators than simply them "stop building" - as the author implores - which would undoubtedly lead to a vacuum filled by less ethical and capable practitioners. 

[James Arryn]

4 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I dunno, seems from the linked article the Stanford guy gave quite the fucks about the implications of such algorithms.  This is like blaming Einstein and Oppenheimer for the bomb.  Big Data and subsequent applications are not going away, better it is spearheaded by conscientious creators than simply them "stop building" - as the author implores - which would undoubtedly lead to a vacuum filled by less ethical and capable practitioners. 

Moreover, most of the scientist involved in the bomb actually strongly opposed it's use on civilian targets...staged a kind of secret protest campaign and were horrified at the callous enthusiasm of the generals and politicians anxious to use their new toy.

[DMC]

23 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

FDR was very devoted to breaking European Colonial power, and as such, though opposed in general to the rise of aggressive nations in Germany, Italy and Japan (principally Japan at this point) he also saw the advantages of a weakened Britain and France ( in fact he refused to even recognize Free France government until 1944, preferring to deal with Nazi sponsored Vichy!) and even when later addressing the threat of a rapidly expanding Hitler stated publically that Europe was the US's first line of defense and the US need not be overly concerned or involved unless that fell.

Now in fairness, FDR was facing a very strong and determined isolationist majority in the US, but still in both his public actions and private records the image of him as this long-sighted reluctant hawk determined to drag the US into the war is clearly false. He was very much a man working hard to avoid what commitments/entanglements he had and keep his options open. Over time there is an increasing realization that the 'first line of American defense' was going to fall much quicker than expected and therefore and increase in passive/non-binding support for Britain, but even that was seen and sold as a materially advantageous deal for the US.

While I very much appreciate this post overall, I disagree some on this depiction of FDR and his aims.  First and foremost, while he may have been interested in breaking European colonial power in general, with the rise of the axis powers he was decidedly on the side Britain and France and was not at the time designing to weaken either.  His relationship with Vichy France had much more to do with his distaste of de Gaulle and efforts to weaken/undermine their collaboration with the Nazis.

Second, it's not accurate to suggest he was attempting to "keep his options open," or at least the implications some may take from that.  Did he promise to keep us out of the war during the 1940 election?  Sure, he was a politician running for an unprecedented third term.  But his aid to Britain - and any allied powers including the Soviets - was prompt and reliable, as were his efforts to mobilize and muster the war effort to come by early 1939.  Did he hope to avoid troop involvement?  Yeah probably, but I strongly disagree with the suggestion it was ever unclear which side he was on - let alone the statement his support of Britain was passive and not binding.