Jump to content

US Politics: Sit Up Straight and Show Some Respect


Hereward

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Guy Kilmore said:

Yep, I was going to post this, it feels a bit like a water shed moment. 

Courts in general seem absolutely ellergic to statistics and mathematics. They even referred to gerrymandering as "hocus pocus" that's all a bit hard to understand.

They didn't take pleas from statisticians seriously that allowing gerrymandering means you might as well not actually bother with elections at all. At their most extreme, as data collection becomes better and better and easier and easier, you could ensure any given party will always win in perpetuity.

25 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Looks like we’re getting a new branch of the military: Space Force.

Does that mean I get to fly a X-Wing?

Given the history of the USA military for the past 40 years, you can probably expect that we'll find life on Mars with a democratic government. But it will vote against allowing free trade with American corporations and the Space Forces will invade to install a friendly dictator. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Eh, technology advances at a rapid pace. I'm still holding out hope that a viable mission to Mars will be capable by 2030.

We got to fight them! 

That's not impossible, but for there to be real space fleets you'd want more to shoot at than just Elon Musk's rockets. 

If we start sending the first manned expeditions to Mars by 2030 then it will probably be quite a bit longer until we start to actually colonize the solar system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

If we start sending the first manned expeditions to Mars by 2030 then it will probably be quite a bit longer until we start to actually colonize the solar system. 

It's probably no exaggeration to say that Antarctica is an oasis compared to Mars.

Which kind of shows the spirit of human ingenuity and determination. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Given the history of the USA military for the past 40 years, you can probably expect that we'll find life on Mars with a democratic government. But it will vote against allowing free trade with American corporations and the Space Forces will invade to install a friendly dictator. :P

Now that you mention it, Mars does look like it could use a heavy dose of freedom! 

12 minutes ago, Khaleesi did nothing wrong said:

That's not impossible, but for there to be real space fleets you'd want more to shoot at than just Elon Musk's rockets. 

If we start sending the first manned expeditions to Mars by 2030 then it will probably be quite a bit longer until we start to actually start to colonize the solar system. 

Probably, but I've also been of the opinion that the first exploration to Mars won't just be with one ship. 

#FleetingIt! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/17/2018 at 2:09 PM, Rippounet said:

Your analysis starts failing when you ascribe motives that come from conservative fears and worldview. Most progressives wouldn't care enough about the ethnic composition of a nation to have any plan about it. They would base any policy on ideals of socio-economic fairness. 

This explains how you reach fanciful conclusions. 

Shryke has already accused me of an obsession with domination, so I wouldn't want to dominate this thread through excessive posting, and had planned to limit my responses anyway. However, I think I will respond to you and to Yukle on this occasion.

Let’s take a moment to recall where we have come from in this argument thus far. It began by distinguishing two different versions of anti-racism, which are both, of course, dependent on two different ideas of racism.

My post in the old thread suggested that progressives believe racism is the expression of any preference for one’s own ethnic group if one’s ethnic group is the dominant (or ‘privileged’) group in the western world. The progressive may well think ethnic preference expressed by other non-white ethnic groups is small-minded, clannish and not very praiseworthy, but as we saw in the study by the University of Birkbeck, he doesn’t think it is racist in the sense that it is wicked.

My second post argued that the progressive holds this view because he sees the western world gripped by a system of privilege and oppression, to a substantial degree racial/ethnic, which results in economic and cultural oppression of certain groups. So, by fighting against this system he is aiming for socio-economic justice; his concern with ethnic privilege is a means, not an end. And I think a glance back through the previous thread, without appealing to any other sources, would show the progressive does care very strongly about the implications of ethnic privilege.

As regards immigration and ethnic change, it is this view of the western world as a system of privilege/oppression that leads the progressive to view with moral outrage what the conservative sees as relatively normal, if not always commendable, prejudice in favour of continuity and preference for the similar.

Now, there is a history behind this vision of the western world as a system of privilege and oppression and of this system being conceived in racial terms (although it is conceived in other ways too, e.g. genders). I have hinted that it can be traced in part to the failure of the Marxist prophecies, the relative decline of the working class and the rise of a more identity based politics among the left. 

So, consider the fundamentals of your argument noted and addressed.

As to whether the first paragraph you quoted is fanciful, well, the thread can judge. Certainly, there is no conspiracy behind mass immigration and the process began and reached the stage it is now at as much by accident as by anything else. And some of the sentiment behind open borders, especially where refugees are concerned, derives from nothing more complicated than concern for the suffering of others (and owes much to Catholic teaching).

Yet, the progressive always praises ‘diversity’ as an unalloyed good, and this always means the introduction of other cultures into the western world, and never works the other way round: no progressive cares whether Argentina, Egypt or China gets more diverse. And what is good you presumably want more of, especially if it will weaken the oppressive structure you are already waging war against, as we have said. Finally, on a practical level, it can’t have failed to come to the attention of the left-wing parties who attract the most votes from ethnic minorities that importing more voters might advance their aims.

So I am unconvinced that paragraph was anywhere near as fanciful as you think.

I will address Yukle's point about the universities later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Looks like we’re getting a new branch of the military: Space Force.

Does that mean I get to fly a X-Wing?

So are the orange's people re-instating Reagan's Star Wars program?

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/president-reagan-calls-for-launching-star-wars-initiative-march-23-1983-236259

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Yukle said:

But it will vote against allowing free trade with American corporations and the Space Forces will invade to install a friendly dictator. :P

And enslave the Martians!  After all, they aren't white people, they're green!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Tie Fighter.

That massed produced crap? I don't think the base version even comes with deflector shields. 

Besides, I don't think the Empire is selling those to us anymore. Not since we imposed those Durasteel tariffs on them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So last week trump did 50 B in tariffs and China responded with 50 B in tariffs stating they would tit for tat no problem.

today trump announced 200 B in tariffs because China responded to his last round. China probably has 200B in retaliation tariffs to announce soon, probably more of the booze and beans tariffs that are so fun for trumps supporters.  I bet the market will love this. Or the market will be nonplussed because they aren’t impinging pretend economy pretend people financial transactions that make up 99.99999% of Wall Street shenanigans, China is only targeting real Americans and real commodities, so although this might cause dire financial strife to millions of actual humans, it might not even be a blip Wall Street can measure, or would even bother to measure. ;-)

in totally unrelated news (amiright) Trader Joe’s suddenly has new brand names in stock of good American booze for reasonable to me prices, I just got 750ml  sazerac rye for 29.99, make America drunk again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen to Children Who’ve Just Been Separated From Their Parents at the Border

ProPublica has obtained audio from inside a U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility, in which children can be heard wailing as an agent jokes, “We have an orchestra here.”

https://www.propublica.org/article/children-separated-from-parents-border-patrol-cbp-trump-immigration-policy

Quote

The desperate sobbing of 10 Central American children, separated from their parents one day last week by immigration authorities at the border, makes for excruciating listening. Many of them sound like they’re crying so hard, they can barely breathe. They scream “Mami” and “Papá” over and over again, as if those are the only words they know.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Shryke has already accused me of an obsession with domination, so I wouldn't want to dominate this thread through excessive posting, and had planned to limit my responses anyway. However, I think I will respond to you and to Yukle on this occasion.

Let’s take a moment to recall where we have come from in this argument thus far. It began by distinguishing two different versions of anti-racism, which are both, of course, dependent on two different ideas of racism.

My post in the old thread suggested that progressives believe racism is the expression of any preference for one’s own ethnic group if one’s ethnic group is the dominant (or ‘privileged’) group in the western world. The progressive may well think ethnic preference expressed by other non-white ethnic groups is small-minded, clannish and not very praiseworthy, but as we saw in the study by the University of Birkbeck, he doesn’t think it is racist in the sense that it is wicked.

My second post argued that the progressive holds this view because he sees the western world gripped by a system of privilege and oppression, to a substantial degree racial/ethnic, which results in economic and cultural oppression of certain groups. So, by fighting against this system he is aiming for socio-economic justice; his concern with ethnic privilege is a means, not an end. And I think a glance back through the previous thread, without appealing to any other sources, would show the progressive does care very strongly about the implications of ethnic privilege.

As regards immigration and ethnic change, it is this view of the western world as a system of privilege/oppression that leads the progressive to view with moral outrage what the conservative sees as relatively normal, if not always commendable, prejudice in favour of continuity and preference for the similar.

Now, there is a history behind this vision of the western world as a system of privilege and oppression and of this system being conceived in racial terms (although it is conceived in other ways too, e.g. genders). I have hinted that it can be traced in part to the failure of the Marxist prophecies, the relative decline of the working class and the rise of a more identity based politics among the left. 

So, consider the fundamentals of your argument noted and addressed.

As to whether the first paragraph you quoted is fanciful, well, the thread can judge. Certainly, there is no conspiracy behind mass immigration and the process began and reached the stage it is now at as much by accident as by anything else. And some of the sentiment behind open borders, especially where refugees are concerned, derives from nothing more complicated than concern for the suffering of others (and owes much to Catholic teaching).

Yet, the progressive always praises ‘diversity’ as an unalloyed good, and this always means the introduction of other cultures into the western world, and never works the other round: no progressive cares whether Argentina, Egypt or China gets more diverse. And what is good you presumably want more of, especially if it will weaken the oppressive structure you are already waging war against, as we have said. Finally, on a practical level, it can’t have failed to come to the attention of the left-wing parties who attract the most votes from ethnic minorities that importing more voters might advance their aims.

So I am unconvinced that paragraph was anywhere near as fanciful as you think.

I will address Yukle's point about the universities later.

Where fall in this extraordinarily thin theoreticism the facts of hundreds of years of colonialism, extraction of resources for the good of a limited number, genocides and slavery, and now climate change due to the massive extractions of carbon resources and releasing them into the atmosphere by the smaller groups of people that you so kindly refer to as the dominants?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

That massed produced crap? I don't think the base version even comes with deflector shields. 

Besides, I don't think the Empire is selling those to us anymore. Not since we imposed those Durasteel tariffs on them. 

Yeah no, we ARE the empire, that was my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Yeah no, we ARE the empire, that was my point.

You know this is true because Trump Force Chokes his chicken everytime he meets a dictator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Shryke has already accused me of an obsession with domination, so I wouldn't want to dominate this thread through excessive posting, and had planned to limit my responses anyway.

I can only speak for myself, but I think the US politics thread has been dominated by far worse debates in the past, and I find such exchanges very interesting. Trying to understand conservatives has been an objective of mine for years, if not decades. And it hasn't been easy.

The problem is, we're starting from such different perspectives that even the facts we use are at odds, which makes an actual discussion very difficult.

To make a -relatively- short list of the fundamental points we disagree on:

- Marx's failures. Eh... Certainly the "dictatorship of the proletariat" didn't happen. I could try to give my thoughts on the why it didn't happen, but I doubt we'd completely agree on that. Let's just say that he hadn't foreseen the rise of the middle-class...
But even though what you call Marx's "prophecies" may have failed, his analysis of the capitalist system is still considered very relevant today, more than ever perhaps.
A few months ago, economist Patrick Artus ruffled a few feathers by writing that some of Marx's analyses were in fact completely accurate. Which is funny because Artus works for a bank (Natixis) and is considered to be part of the liberal school of economics, i.e. definitely not a Marxist or even a Keynesian.
https://www.humanite.fr/capitalisme-marx-avait-raison-lavertissement-dun-economiste-liberal-649955 (sorry, it's in French)
Now Artus's article isn't great (from what I understand) and seems to suffer from a number of huge analytical flaws, but it's just the most recent article I've read that points to Marx not being that far off the mark.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/opinion/karl-marx-at-200-influence.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-14764357
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/marx-was-right-five-surprising-ways-karl-marx-predicted-2014-20140130
And if you don't like the "MSM" you can easily find comparable analyses elsewhere:
https://mises.org/wire/marx-was-right-about-capitalism
So while you're not wrong to say that progressives are haunted by Marx's failures, it's essentially that they (or we, or I... ) are haunted by the failure of working alternatives to capitalism as a global economic system. The negative consequences of unfettered capitalism are obvious however, that is to say, the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a very small elite at the expense of most people, including the currently dying middle-class. The problem is how to fix it, and nobody seems to agree on that.
- The "left" being responsible for the rise of identity politics.
Dat's a big one. First, it's completely wrong in France, where identity politics has been a staple of the right for decades, if not more. Even affirmative action was proposed by Sarkozy, one of the most right-wing presidents the country has ever had. The French left is generally content to defend secularism (laïcité) and anti-discrimination laws. Things have evolved a bit in recent times, with some on the left pushing for a different approach to laïcité, but as far as I can tell that's still pretty much at the margins. The very obvious reason for this is that the French left is still -on paper at least- basing policies on socio-economic realities rather than ethnic ones (and committed to some very light versions of socialism). In fact, the official position of French institutions is still, to this day, that "races" are concepts that should not be used at all in government policies or political debates (I was taught in middle school that "races" do not exist).
Then there's the US where admittedly the left pushed for identity politics since the sixties at least. Except, as anyone knows, this was a reaction to untolerable racial inequalities that were inherited from slavery and segregation and threatened American society as a whole. And the Democrats didn't exactly embrace the Civil Rights movement as eagerly as you make it sound. JFK was rather lukewarm about it (unlike his brother Robert), and even Johnson had his doubts. In the end both JFK and Johnson made political choices that were far more pragmatic than you seem to believe.
Anyway, this is a long-winded way of saying that, from my perspective, identity politics were always a creation of the right, with the left mainly reacting to the most untolerable injustices.
- The left pushing for immigration and diversity.
This is the crux of your argument: that the left wants diversity and immigration to destroy entranched systems of ethnic privilege.
Now this is where you manage to be both completely wrong and completely right at the same time. Yes, the "left" tends to push for immigration and diversity.
However, once again I tend to see this as a reaction more than anything else. Yes, the left does praise diversity. But I see it more as a reaction to the consequences of immigration (economic inequalities) and a way to fight ethno-nationalism.
To say that the left is responsible for immigration in the first place is a very dubious proposition. Both right-wing and left-wing governments have been known to go in one direction or the other. For example in the US, immigration quotas were raised significantly under George H.W. Bush and discussions to limit immigration were started under Bill Clinton.
In France, immigration peaked between 1945 and 1975. Mitterrand (a socialist) then favored it in the 80s (he could be accused of playing identity politics for electoral reasons, but that would merit an entire thread of experts), but it's also a socialist (Rocard) who became famous for wanting to limit it in 1989 and 1990 (he later backtracked a bit, but only because he'd gone a bit too far).
Your problem here is a tendency to conflate discourse with policy. Because the left as a whole tends to have discourses favorable to immigration you assume that the policies necessarily follow (or precede). The reality is considerably more complex than that. For instance, in France, one of the most vocal opponents to immigration today (Gérard Colomb, minister of the interior) was a socialist until very recently.
- The "liberal" bias in academia.
That one's a tricky one. I've already addressed it by answering Altherion some weeks or months ago. Long story short one should not confuse liberal activism with actual research. While there is a liberal bias in academia in the humanities, the research itself is far more neutral and fact-based. And academia as a whole in far less biased than conservatives make it out to be anyway. On a personal note, I teach in law school, and as a progressive, I'm in a very small minority at work.

Now the funny thing is that we almost both end up blaming the "other side" for what we view as problems. As a socialist I'm deeply distrustful of free market capitalism, including globalization and open borders. I view the current situation as the product of neo-liberal policies that come from -you guessed it- the right, and suspect that immigration has been a powerful weapon for large corporations to control the labor force (thus preventing some of Marx's prophecies from being fulfilled, there I said it).
As a progressive I believe in racially-blind socio-economic policies (i.e. welfare) ; such policies would affect minorities anyway, because they tend to be poorer on average. I tend to view the preoccupation with race in itself as dangerous as it fuels the far-right.
In France, both right-wing and left-wing governments have severely tightened immigration policies since the 1990s as a reaction to the rise of the National Front. But it hasn't been enough: ethno-nationalism is a demon that never quits and a Le Pen might yet win the presidency in the near future. In the US, Obama was very careful not to act as a "black" president. But that didn't prevent the rise of Trump.

The main problem here is what you (and many conservatives) describe as "continuity and preference for the similar." Having explained that the left isn't particularly to blame for immigration in the first place, it seems to me that you're really defending existing inequalities favoring white people in Western countries. A "liberal" way to put it is that you think perpetuating the existing structure of economic and cultural oppression is perfectly fine, because it's perfectly normal for Western nations to favor white people, the historically dominant ethnic group that composes them.
I'll refrain from assuming this is your position without an answer, but the hilarious thing is that if we were discussing policies to be actually implemented, you'd be the one talking about ethnicity, race and "identity politics," not me. I'd be arguing for progressive taxation, decent funding for education and welfare, reining in finance and lobbies, limiting tax evasion... etc.
But I wouldn't mention race at all. As far as government policies go, I don't give a fuck about race.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Guy Kilmore said:

The fear I have is that the court is going to figure out how to duck this issue on technicalities until something signals a significant change outside of the court.

 

8 hours ago, Shryke said:

I think they are fishing for a test case that Kennedy likes.

So.  Glad no one freaked out about this.  Phew!  That was a concern.  Do I know what happened?  No, but neither does anyone else.  Best one could tell from conjecture is Roberts convinced most everybody they were either going to rule against or kick it back down anyway.  Which is indicated by the liberals getting on his side.  So...let's see what happens in the future, heh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So democrats need to commit to a policy of Detrumpification that if they are ever so lucky to win an election again they can systematically and thoroughly de trumpify all systems of government and purge his corruption from everywhere. Like as benign as disbanding trumps space force but afundamentally focused in the many much more serious damages and evil he’s wrought everywhere he’s touched.

Let nothing he has been done be declared good or allowed to endure. Totally eradicate everything he has implemented, it all could be infected.

When policies as profoundly evil as the family separations are enthusiastically supported by members of team Republican because they are Trump policies and evil is okay if Trump is for it, then those republicans are endorsing evil as completely as the members of the nazi party did in their support of that regime.

Germany went through a whole denazification process, we need to be ready to implement detrumpification because nothing else is adequate anymore in the face of this evil.

oh and trials and convictions for crimes against humanity. No more obama era amnesty for the republican war criminals, we are going to have to finally do something about the evil doers on the other side of the political aisle, for the Good of humanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...