US Politics: Mueller Monday

[GAROVORKIN]

33 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

My apologies.

No worries 

[Rippounet]

52 minutes ago, Altherion said:

In fact, this was a key insight of Bannon et al: the impact of anti-white discrimination is just as difficult to quantify as the impact of any other discrimination and therefore it can safely be portrayed to be as large as necessary.

That's a very interesting perspective on it.

52 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I suspect that a large fraction of the rage the American left displays towards Trump, Bannon and their allies is due to the latter giving the former a taste of their own medicine. It was a really elegant move.

The problem is that you have it backward. Or rather, that you're lacking a fair bit of perspective here.
Positive discrimination was implemented in the wake of the civil rights movement, not long after the end of de jure segregation.
If someone got "a taste of their own medicine," it was whites all along. And that's why some people are so angry today.
On some level, both sides are angry because they perceive a form of injustice. It seems that some researchers believe that the sense of justice or themis (I think that's the word) is very strong in humans and has many social consequences.
The thing is, as far as numbers go, what little we have do not suggest whites being the primary victims of discrimination. Which is pretty much what you said yourself above.

52 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The argument regarding suppression of speech is different: the point there is that even one is too many and there are quite a few such stories with video evidence.

I don't see why.
I used to think that free speech should not be restricted. But then, I also used to think that because I believed the most just ideas always win in the end.
But I'm afraid that quite often the strongest ideas win. Or, to be more accurate, the ideas of the strongest. In the very long run, I think humanity will finally be able to put some of its worst instincts behind it. In the short run however, some ideas are too dangerous to be allowed to fester.

[IamMe90]

snip

So like, are you gonna tell me who's been executed for political reasons lately? Or did you just make that up?

 

[LongRider]

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

I want 3 eggs-a-fryin for my Monday A.M......Manafort, Flynn, and Kushner, SUNNYSIDE UP BABY! 

 

eta: Cuff and Frogwalk all 3 of them 

 

1 hour ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Why not add Donnie Jr. into the mix?

 

1 hour ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

Manafort and Flynn are going down baby

Monday's fun is predicted to be just the start of whole season of fun.  

Mueller;  looking at Manny, and you get a perp walk, Flynn; and you get a perp walk, Kushner; and you get a perp walk (don't worry though, you don't have to report this trip, but every media outlet and nearby cell phone will  )  and so many more possibles.....................

[karaddin]

2 hours ago, James Arryn said:

He's reasonably bright, though, so I'd have to assume he isn't looking too hard, but rather riding a wave of angry resentment about 1/2/3 past any uncomfortable moments of introspection. 

Sadly one thing that's becoming very clear to me is that intelligence is no buffer against holding abhorrent views. I have to assume in this case his eyes are wide open, he truly believes his logic has lead him to these reprehensible conclusions like it does to so many others. Intelligence often just reinforces your blind spots, since you think you've transcended them.

Unrelated to that point - If the Dems are consuming introspection like what is on display in Third Way then things are well and truly fucked. Deciding that actually everything will be fine and Americans just want to work together is a truly staggering level of self delusion after the talks that they engaged in, with some citing "other Americans are the problem with America". And its also ignoring the growing warning signs for major civil strife - you can sustain "its the Other that is the problem" where the Other is immigrants, or brown people or gays etc, but once just "other Americans" are the problem...that's not good.

[Altherion]

20 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

What solutions would you prefer then? Put your cards on the table. How do you want to achieve your goals, and what exactly are they in the first place?

The single most important goal is the reversal of the wealth redistribution towards the top that has been happening for the past four decades or so. This would imply, for example, the reduction of the standard work week from 40 hours to 30 or even 25 with commensurate reductions for the people who currently work more than 40 hours as well as well as an end to the concentration of decent jobs within a small number of metropolitan areas and an increase in the overall number of such jobs. Unfortunately, I have no idea how this can be achieved -- measures that might conceivably lead to this are simply not on the table as far as modern American politicians are concerned (even Sanders doesn't go this far).

From studying history, such improvements have generally come about when there is a strong and united working class which is working in concert with the middle class which leads to the second goal: an end to (or at least a drastic reduction of) divide-and-conquer politics wherein the division is based on immutable characteristics. This is difficult to do because while everybody would benefit from a united front, the individuals pushing this division and possibly also some of the groups demanding and getting privileges are better off under the status quo. One way to deal with it is, paradoxically, to make it so that everybody (including the majority) is playing this game in which case it becomes less profitable for everyone and a truce may be arranged. This is why I'm fine with Bannon's approach on this issue.

There's a bunch of other issues (e.g. a reduction of imperialistic tendencies), but these two are the most relevant to the recent discussion in these threads.

[The Anti-Targ]

8 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The single most important goal is the reversal of the wealth redistribution towards the top that has been happening for the past four decades or so. This would imply, for example, the reduction of the standard work week from 40 hours to 30 or even 25 with commensurate reductions for the people who currently work more than 40 hours as well as well as an end to the concentration of decent jobs within a small number of metropolitan areas and an increase in the overall number of such jobs. Unfortunately, I have no idea how this can be achieved -- measures that might conceivably lead to this are simply not on the table as far as modern American politicians are concerned (even Sanders doesn't go this far).

From studying history, such improvements have generally come about when there is a strong and united working class which is working in concert with the middle class which leads to the second goal: an end to (or at least a drastic reduction of) divide-and-conquer politics wherein the division is based on immutable characteristics. This is difficult to do because while everybody would benefit from a united front, the individuals pushing this division and possibly also some of the groups demanding and getting privileges are better off under the status quo. One way to deal with it is, paradoxically, to make it so that everybody (including the majority) is playing this game in which case it becomes less profitable for everyone and a truce may be arranged. This is why I'm fine with Bannon's approach on this issue.

There's a bunch of other issues (e.g. a reduction of imperialistic tendencies), but these two are the most relevant to the recent discussion in these threads.

But isn't Bannon's approach isolationist and nationalistic? This is a global problem and the USA can't solve its socio-economic problems by trying to retreat from the world and building literal and figurative walls. I'm surprised you are on broad with Bannon's approach which would be doomed to make things worse not better.

[Bonnot OG]

Bannon isn't about wealth redistribution lol. 

Neither is the alt right you stick up for and who's white nationalist white supremacist lines you parrot at people.

[OldGimletEye]

On 10/29/2017 at 8:55 PM, karaddin said:

Unrelated to that point - If the Dems are consuming introspection like what is on display in Third Way then things are well and truly fucked. Deciding that actually everything will be fine and Americans just want to work together is a truly staggering level of self delusion after the talks that they engaged in, with some citing "other Americans are the problem with America". And its also ignoring the growing warning signs for major civil strife - you can sustain "its the Other that is the problem" where the Other is immigrants, or brown people or gays etc, but once just "other Americans" are the problem...that's not good.

The kind of centrism that does: Takes both sides of the argument and then tries to split it down the middle, isn't going to work. This just gets to the idea of "both sides are equally bad" when in fact that is not true.

In the bigger picture of things, I think I'm rather centristy, well I'm certainly left of center compared to the larger American public. But, I didn't get to my left of centrism by middle splitting, as that's absurd.

To give an example:

Quote

Our tour of western wisconsin had begun two days earlier, at an imposing courthouse in the rural county seat of Ellsworth, the self-proclaimed “cheese curd capital of Wisconsin.” A farmer in the group told Third Way’s eager listeners he knew exactly what was wrong with America: his fellow Americans.

“You’ve got all these parasites making a living off the bureaucracy,” the farmer declared, “like leeches pulling you down, bleeding you dry.” We had been in the state for just a few hours, and already the researchers’ quest for mutual understanding seemed to be hitting a snag.

 

Quote

Others in the group, a bunch of proudly curmudgeonly older white men, identified other culprits. There were plenty of jobs, a local elected official and business owner said. But today’s young people were too lazy or drug-addled to do them.

Yes, yes, yes, all recent problems were caused by all those lazy young and brown people. Fuck it while were at it, lets just throw in gay people, women, and transgender people too.

But, seriously, just how in the fuck, does a reasonable person come to this conclusion, after we've just been through the worst crises since the Great Depression. And unemployment, is largely the result of idiotic conservative policies and to not push back on conservatives when they say shit like this is abusrd, and nobody should nod and say, "hmm, yes, I see your point." They should say, "No I don't see your point cause you don't have one."

And then there is this little gem;

Quote

One, a technical-skills instructor at the Chippewa Falls school, questioned whether women belonged in the workplace at all. “That idea of both family members working, it’s a social experiment that I don’t know if it quite works,” he said. “If everyone’s working, who is making sure the children are raised right?”

There is simply no compromising with these sorts of people. No middle splitting should be had. None.

Fact is that conservatism in the US has become sick. And nobody should be in the business of denying this.
This may not of course save the US, but in no way, should we give conservatives a pass, nor should we do the kind of centrism that says, "well lets just split it down the middle here" or allow "both sides" arguments to prevail.

This may not of course save the US, but in no way, should we give conservatives a pass, nor should we do the kind of centrism that says, "well lets just split it down the middle here" or allow "both sides" arguments to prevail. Maybe, fighting this kind of idiotic conservative nonsense won't save the US, but at least we won't go down without a fight.

[Zorral]

I have just returned from dinner with a brilliant, highly regarded internationally Mexican anthropologist.

She was giving a keynote lecture at the University of Texas in Austin the day after the election last year.  Her specialty is African culture in Mexico.  In the days before her speech white Texas supremacist, openly carrying all over campus marched and howled to kill her for race mixing.  They put up posters all over the campus calling for her rape torture and death.  They marched on the auditorium where she was giving the lecture.  She had to come and go under armed escort -- hired by the university because the local police wouldn't do it -- only a few punks they said, so who cares -- even though they were carrying military weaponry.  She was terrified.  She gave her lecture and carried on with the conference anyway, but was terrified.  She's never coming back to the US.  Thank you, assholes.

By the way, some of those heil hitler assholes who felt so empowered the day of her lecture, which was the day after the election, got arrested they got so out of hand. But guess what they got tried for? destruction of property.  Because of the kind of glue they used on their posters which showed this distinguished person mutilated and tortured and naked.  The glue wouldn't come off the walls and mirrors where they were put up all over campus. They got a fine.

Notice how the entire strategy to save the cronies who collaborated with the Russians in the election is to go back to howling for HRC to be arrested?

 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, IamMe90 said:

So like, are you gonna tell me who's been executed for political reasons lately? Or did you just make that up?

 

Read the post again and you will see again who is demanding it.  People on this forum read too well to fall for such simple-minded gotchas.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

And its also ignoring the growing warning signs for major civil strife - you can sustain "its the Other that is the problem" where the Other is immigrants, or brown people or gays etc, but once just "other Americans" are the problem...that's not good.

Agreed, and I think we're already at that point honestly. 

[Rippounet]

38 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

Bannon isn't about wealth redistribution lol.

I highly doubt that as well. I wouldn't be surprised if some form of it was part of his ideas on some level (he seems to be well-read), but I'm not aware that he ever mentioned anything concrete likely to achieve that. It seems to be very very low on his list of priorities.

43 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Fact is that conservatism in the US has become sick.

I'm tempted to think it has often been, everywhere, throughout time.
Conservatism by definition is about preserving the existing socio-economic structure, and sometimes even attempting to revert to previous ones. Thus it often finds itself opposing social progress.
Soon enough conservatism will find an actual purpose though.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

15 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Read the post again and you will see again who is demanding it.  People on this forum read too well to fall for such simple-minded gotchas.

No dude, you're going to have to clarify that one. Who's calling for executions? Seriously.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

The problem is that you have it backward. Or rather, that you're lacking a fair bit of perspective here.
Positive discrimination was implemented in the wake of the civil rights movement, not long after the end of de jure segregation.
If someone got "a taste of their own medicine," it was whites all along. And that's why some people are so angry today.

This was true half a century ago and if you look at the politics of that day, these policies were popular -- the associated laws passed Congress by overwhelming majorities. Sure, some people were angry, but they were an irrelevant minority (especially since life was getting better for everyone at the time). This is not the case today.

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

On some level, both sides are angry because they perceive a form of injustice. It seems that some researchers believe that the sense of justice or themis (I think that's the word) is very strong in humans and has many social consequences.
The thing is, as far as numbers go, what little we have do not suggest whites being the primary victims of discrimination. Which is pretty much what you said yourself above.

Sure, but the numbers we do have suggest mainly that the people who are making quantitative arguments in these fields either don't understand the idea of uncertainty due to sources other than simple statistics or they're politically motivated. There are no "numbers" to support any action, but this hasn't stopped a variety of groups from pushing for advantages and I don't see a reason why it should stop other groups.

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I don't see why.
I used to think that free speech should not be restricted. But then, I also used to think that because I believed the most just ideas always win in the end.
But I'm afraid that quite often the strongest ideas win. Or, to be more accurate, the ideas of the strongest. In the very long run, I think humanity will finally be able to put some of its worst instincts behind it. In the short run however, some ideas are too dangerous to be allowed to fester.

First, it is not at all obvious which ideas are the best -- if you consider either individual cultures through history or cultures worldwide today, there's a considerable variety of ideas and it's not clear that we will ever converge on a single, eternal set. However, even leaving that can of worms unopened, silencing ideas rather than debating them only works if you actually manage to silence them everywhere. What the people on college campuses are doing are silencing ideas that they don't like locally and giving them a much wider audience nationwide. It would be a rather counterproductive thing to do even if the very act did not people angry in and of itself.

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But isn't Bannon's approach isolationist and nationalistic? This is a global problem and the USA can't solve its socio-economic problems by trying to retreat from the world and building literal and figurative walls. I'm surprised you are on broad with Bannon's approach which would be doomed to make things worse not better.

I was referring to Breitbart's encouragement of recognition for anti-white discrimination. As I said, I don't agree with all of his policies.

[IamMe90]

57 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Read the post again and you will see again who is demanding it.  People on this forum read too well to fall for such simple-minded gotchas.

I read your post. You didn't mention any specific people. The gist of your post, from what I can tell (because it was vaguely worded and sort of confusing), was that if the US government is willing neglect millions of people in Puerto Rico, it would be willing to execute political enemies? Or maybe you're saying that the neglect of Puerto Ricans constitutes political execution? I honestly can't tell. Feel free to clarify if you like. Otherwise, I will continue to assume that you're just making shit up. 

[ThinkerX]

13 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The problem is that you have it backward. Or rather, that you're lacking a fair bit of perspective here.
Positive discrimination was implemented in the wake of the civil rights movement, not long after the end of de jure segregation.

Yes, the quote is from another poster, but I'll steal it anyhow.  What I am reminded here of is a sort of civil service test I took several decades ago.  I found most of it easy.  However, the scoring made me raise an eyebrow.  Veterans got ten points added to their score right off the bat.  As it was a security type job, that didn't bother me.  Women also had ten points added to their score, as did minorities.  And these percentages were cumulative.  Hence, a female native veteran who scored, say, 75 points on the actual questions, would be scored 105 points overall. Best a white guy without military experience could hope for was 100 points.  Hence, to me, it looked like a mediocre minority person stood a far better chance of getting the relevant job than a white person. 

I didn't get the job, but I wasn't especially keen on it anyhow.  Still, when these debates come up, I always remember that test and bizarre (to me, anyhow) scoring system.

[karaddin]

59 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Agreed, and I think we're already at that point honestly. 

I think its not yet inevitable but its fast approaching the point where the only question left will be who fired the first shot. I think the most likely spark is Trump dying in office and his supporters deciding it was an assassination by <insert scape goat> regardless of whether it was or not. I'm very very pessimistic about the odds of him actually losing in 2020 and I think the odds of him dying in office over the next 8 years are reasonably high, so this is not an unlikely scenario to need to deal with.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I think its not yet inevitable but its fast approaching the point where the only question left will be who fired the first shot. I think the most likely spark is Trump dying in office and his supporters deciding it was an assassination by <insert scape goat> regardless of whether it was or not. I'm very very pessimistic about the odds of him actually losing in 2020 and I think the odds of him dying in office over the next 8 years are reasonably high, so this is not an unlikely scenario to need to deal with.

Yeah, something centering around Trump could certainly be a flashpoint. I'm thinking it's much more likely that we have another mass shooting wherein the shooter is politically motivated. 

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Quote

One, a technical-skills instructor at the Chippewa Falls school, questioned whether women belonged in the workplace at all. “That idea of both family members working, it’s a social experiment that I don’t know if it quite works,” he said. “If everyone’s working, who is making sure the children are raised right?”

There is simply no compromising with these sorts of people. No middle splitting should be had. None.

Fact is that conservatism in the US has become sick. And nobody should be in the business of denying this.
This may not of course save the US, but in no way, should we give conservatives a pass, nor should we do the kind of centrism that says, "well lets just split it down the middle here" or allow "both sides" arguments to prevail.

This may not of course save the US, but in no way, should we give conservatives a pass, nor should we do the kind of centrism that says, "well lets just split it down the middle here" or allow "both sides" arguments to prevail. Maybe, fighting this kind of idiotic conservative nonsense won't save the US, but at least we won't go down without a fight.

Perhaps he wasn't meaning "correctly" in this context, but rather politically Right.

Where does this idea come from that centrists are all about splitting things down the middle. IMO centrists are mostly about applying evidence based solutions rather than ideologically based solutions. To me the evidence shows that when there is an attempt to impose one ideology onto a society it ends up going wrong, and the further left or right the ideology the quicker and worse it ends up going wrong. So in that context I do say both hard right and hard left are wrong. But they are wrong in different ways and often with different severities in  consequences.

But also hard right and hard left both often end up in similar places in terms of intolerance (I guess ideology sits more on a circle rather than line, go far enough left and you end up right, go far enough right and you end up left). A recent Contrapoints video showed that the communist propaganda was about as anti-gay as any conservative Christian or fascist propaganda. And we know communist Russia was about as anti-Semite in attitude as Nazi Germany (modern day fascists) albeit substantially less genocidal in the realisation of it's anti-Semitism. I am also reminded of the convergence of some of the left and some of the right around the Rothschild meme.