U.S. Politics: Death and Tax Cuts

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I disagree. Joseph Stalin killed 20 million, mostly of his own people, and he certainly believed (or at least purported to have believed) he was advancing liberal, secular philosophy. It's hard to piece out the actual philosophy of the Kim Dynasty from the propaganda on both sides of the Pacific, but it's most certainly very hostile to anything perceived as being Western, and that includes some religions.

I was reading about the last Chinese civil war recently, and one piece of information that really struck me was that when the Nationalists were falling back to Taiwan they would drape any artifacts that they couldn't pack up with slogans and pictures of Mao, because they knew that it was the only way the PLA wouldn't destroy them. Mao might not have been uniquely hostile to religion, but the philosophy he pushed had strong secular elements, and in the upper echelons of the party he was most certainly a rationalist. And if you read about the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, some truly batshit, Crusade-level stuff was done by Mao's followers, and later in his name.

You want to talk about population % @DMC, this is a man whose political philosophies are still enshrined in the laws and party that govern a billion and a half people. That is one out of every five members of our species.

LGK,

Was Stalin really pushing any philosophy other than more power to Stalin?  Same thing with the Kims?

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

LGK,

Was Stalin really pushing any philosophy other than more power to Stalin?  Same thing with the Kims?

That may have been where they wound up, but it wasn't where they started. Could you not say the same thing about almost any violent religious movement?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

That may have been where they wound up, but it wasn't where they started. Could you not say the same thing about almost any violent religious movement?

The Crusades were about conquest with a veneer of religious justification?  I can see that point of view.  The Thirty Years War that depopulated much of Central Europe, less so.

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

23 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The Crusades were about conquest with a veneer of religious justification?  I can see that point of view.  The Thirty Years War that depopulated much of Central Europe, less so.

Fair enough. But do you disagree with my central point? That the sort of hysterical frenzy often associated with religious fervor shows evidence of being more related to tribalism than any particular school of thought or philosophy, religious or secular. And that any social movement, however rational or well-intentioned, can be co-opted and turned violent by manipulative people who use the movement to gain power or sweep up their enemies.

[Fragile Bird]

6 hours ago, the Greenleif Stark said:

O so discussing "his record," whatever that implies, on this site and the outcome of that discussion on this site is what determines if a person is POS or not?.....and yes, basically, what you and most on here continue to say is that he's a POS because he's a republican

I didn't vote for McCain in 08, I wasn't a McCain fan but watch the news for 5min and you can see this guy(despite how he voted or the R next to his name) was not a POS

Go to any story about McCain on line and read the vicious comments Republicans are making about McCain. Not just any Republicans, of course, but Trump supporters. The viciousness of their comments make the people on this site look like lazy pikers.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Fair enough. But do you disagree my central point? That the sort of hysterical frenzy often associated with religious fervor shows evidence of being more related to tribalism than any particular school of thought or philosophy, religious or secular. And that any social movement, however rational or well-intentioned, can be co-opted and turned violent by manipulative people who use the movement to gain power or sweep up their enemies.

I can see that point of view.  Human groups, like other higher primates, defend their turf from the designated "other" group or create an "other" from within their own society to demonize and punish.  

[Kalbear]

16 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

 

How did that work out for Germany/Japan in the end? How did it work out for the Rwandans who decided overnight to massacre their former oppressors when the power balance shifted? How did it work out for the Boxers who banded together to cast the Westerners and the Japanese out of China?

 

Conversely, how did it work for the Native Americans in South, Central, and North America? How did it work for China for 100 years between 1800 and 1900? How did it work for African-American slaves in the US? How did it work out for the Crusades? 
 

The idea that prejudice and hatred doesn't work and is eventually self-defeating is obviously wrong on its face, and is akin to saying that the civil war in the US ended because the South hated black people. 

[Kalbear]

12 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

I dunno if that would make sense, since Al-Qaeda didn't exist for the entire 20th century.

It did; OBL bombed a ship of ours in the 90s. 

[DMC]

43 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What really does bother me is when people claim that religion is the prime motivation for human warfare ignoring the last 200 years of mass warfare for political philosophies that we endured as a species.

I prefer simply thinking of wars fought as a competition of resources.  There are variations and even counter-examples of course, but for the most part all the "isms" are just a mummer's farce.

40 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

You want to talk about population % @DMC, this is a man whose political philosophies are still enshrined in the laws and party that govern a billion and a half people, not unlike the way the philosophies and ideas of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson permeate American law and culture. A billion and a half people. That is one out of every five members of our species.

K.  I'm not arguing against the atrocities of Stalin nor Mao.  But Mao didn't kill those billion and a half people.  I don't recall exactly, but quick google check has the Great Leap Forward killing 45 million people.  That's still only 5% of the Chinese population - if the population was 900 million.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I prefer simply thinking of wars fought as a competition of resources.  There are variations and even counter-examples of course, but for the most part all the "isms" are just a mummer's farce.

 

I think claiming all wars are for resources is an oversimplification.  I don't believe Nazi Germany went to war in 1939 because it lacked resources.  I think it went to war to further Hitler's meglomania.  I don't think the Arab/Islamic Empire was created due to a lack of resources.  I think they were really attempting to spread the Koran.  That doesn't mean some wars aren't fought for resources, simply that not all of them are fought for such.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It did; OBL bombed a ship of ours in the 90s.

They also attacked the WTC in 1993.

[DMC]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think claiming all wars are for resources is an oversimplification.  I don't believe Nazi Germany went to war in 1939 because it lacked resources.  I think it went to war to further Hitler's meglomania.  I don't think the Arab/Islamic Empire was created due to a lack of resources.  I think they were really attempting to spread the Koran.  That doesn't mean some wars aren't fought for resources, simply that not all of them are fought for such.

Well, it depends on one's perspective.  The Nazi's most certainly went to war over resources - as in they wanted to dominate the world's resources.  Could you say that was especially motivated by their ideology?  Of course.  But just like the spread of the Koran, or Christianity, or Communism, or Democracy, the spread of the isms boils down to an in-group trying to dominate the resources of an out-group.

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

This isn't in relation to anything in particular, but one thing that really strikes me about fear mongering, whether it's through an immortal soul being threatened, a tyrannical state that disappears people, or a manipulative charlatan demonizing minorities, is that the people most susceptible to that kind of manipulation are always those with families and children. There's just something really nasty about the way that works.

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Conversely, how did it work for the Native Americans in South, Central, and North America? How did it work for China for 100 years between 1800 and 1900? How did it work for African-American slaves in the US? How did it work out for the Crusades? 
 

The idea that prejudice and hatred doesn't work and is eventually self-defeating is obviously wrong on its face, and is akin to saying that the civil war in the US ended because the South hated black people. 

I was more arguing against the idea of dehumanizing your enemy, even from a utilitarian point of view. I agree, the converse isn't necessarily true either. Though I think with Native Americans and African slaves the initial power imbalance between the conquers and conquered was a far greater hindrance to peace than the cyclical nature of violence that comes from dehumanizing your enemies. Disease was also a really big factor with Native Americans.

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

It did; OBL bombed a ship of ours in the 90s. 

I think he meant that it didn't exist for all of the twentieth century, not that it never existed at any point in the 20th century.

1 minute ago, DMC said:

K.  I'm not arguing against the atrocities of Stalin nor Mao.  But Mao didn't kill those billion and a half people.  I don't recall exactly, but quick google check has the Great Leap Forward killing 45 million people.  That's still only 5% of the Chinese population - if the population was 900 million.

I'm more pointing out the potential for danger. Mao's ideas were responsible for some shit that is just as crazy and irrational as a Crusade, and are now part of the governing philosophy of a party that is unapologetically authoritarian, non-democratic by design, and one that does not exactly prioritize human rights. They also have nuclear autonomy, were responsible for the most egregious act of nuclear proliferation maybe ever when they sold plans to Pakistan, and are rapidly catching up to the United States in terms of Soft Power. So yeah, secular extremists scare me just as much as Muslim or Christian extremists. Maybe more so in an existential kind of way.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I was more arguing against the idea of dehumanizing your enemy, even from a utilitarian point of view.

Well, not only does it work, it's a natural inclination of people when they need to do bad things to other humans. It's almost a requirement to do it depending on what you're doing. It is a natural defense against empathy. Most people can't fathom killing another human with their bare hands, but when you ask them what they picture a 'human' looking like, well, that's where things go bad. 

It's absolutely massively dangerous to do, but the idea that it is self-defeating or somehow harmful to those who practice it really seems to be off-base. 

[Martell Spy]

15 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

This isn't in relation to anything in particular, but one thing that really strikes me about fear mongering, whether it's through an immortal soul being threatened, a tyrannical state that disappears people, or a manipulative charlatan demonizing minorities, is that the people most susceptible to that kind of manipulation are always those with families and children. There's just something really nasty about the way that works.

I was more arguing against the idea of dehumanizing your enemy, even from a utilitarian point of view. I agree, the converse isn't necessarily true either. Though I think with Native Americans and African slaves the initial power imbalance between the conquers and conquered was a far greater hindrance to peace than the cyclical nature of violence that comes from dehumanizing your enemies. Disease was also a really big factor with Native Americans.

I think he meant that it didn't exist for all of the twentieth century, not that it never existed at any point in the 20th century.

I'm more pointing out the potential for danger. Mao's ideas were responsible for some shit that is just as crazy and irrational as a Crusade, and are now part of the governing philosophy of a party that is unapologetically authoritarian, non-democratic by design, and one that does not exactly prioritize human rights. They also have nuclear autonomy, were responsible for the most egregious act of nuclear proliferation maybe ever when they sold plans to Pakistan, and are rapidly catching up to the United States in terms of Soft Power. So yeah, secular extremists scare me just as much as Muslim or Christian extremists. Maybe more so in an existential kind of way.

What country are you in though? China is unlikely to dictate how to live to Americans any time soon. Christian extemists very well might.

[Gone and Quite Forgotten]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, not only does it work, it's a natural inclination of people when they need to do bad things to other humans. It's almost a requirement to do it depending on what you're doing. It is a natural defense against empathy. Most people can't fathom killing another human with their bare hands, but when you ask them what they picture a 'human' looking like, well, that's where things go bad. 

It's absolutely massively dangerous to do, but the idea that it is self-defeating or somehow harmful to those who practice it really seems to be off-base. 

It works in the short term, yeah. But I think if you look at the big picture, more often than not it just feeds into a cycle of bloodshed that comes around and around and around. Not always, but it happens enough that it's probably best to avoid deliberately dehumanizing anyone beyond whatever level of wrong they actually are.

1 minute ago, Martell Spy said:

What country are you in though? China is unlikely to dictate how to live to Americans any time soon. Christian extemists very well might.

I'm moving to Beijing in January. But honestly that's beside the point. If you're looking at this from American/Western Euro-centric eyes, you're being short-sighted. What happens in China affects what happens everywhere in the world, and that's a trend that's only going to increase over the next few decades.

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

It works in the short term, yeah. But I think if you look at the big picture, more often than not it just feeds into a cycle of bloodshed that comes around and around and around. Not always, but it happens enough that it's probably best to avoid deliberately dehumanizing anyone beyond whatever level of wrong they actually are.

Can you give an example of a situation where one side didn't dehumanize the other that it actually broke the cycle? Because there's a simple observation that regardless of prior history, humans will dehumanize each other eventually one way or another, and will also humanize each other depending on what they get out of it. 

[DMC]

32 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Mao's ideas were responsible for some shit that is just as crazy and irrational as a Crusade, and are now part of the governing philosophy of a party that is unapologetically authoritarian, non-democratic by design, and one that does not exactly prioritize human rights. They also have nuclear autonomy, were responsible for the most egregious act of nuclear proliferation maybe ever when they sold plans to Pakistan, and are rapidly catching up to the United States in terms of Soft Power. So yeah, secular extremists scare me just as much as Muslim or Christian extremists. Maybe more so in an existential kind of way.

I'm not sure you can attribute contemporary China to Maoist ideology any more than you can attribute contemporary Russia to Leninist ideology.  They both have evolved quite substantially since the Cold War (and, well, in the latter case Stalin).

32 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I was more arguing against the idea of dehumanizing your enemy, even from a utilitarian point of view.

Agreed whole heartedly.

25 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, not only does it work, it's a natural inclination of people when they need to do bad things to other humans. It's almost a requirement to do it depending on what you're doing. It is a natural defense against empathy. Most people can't fathom killing another human with their bare hands, but when you ask them what they picture a 'human' looking like, well, that's where things go bad. 

Of course this is the case.  The Milgram experiments began to demonstrate that proximity is a key factor in an individual's willingness to harm others.  I know it's been expanded upon since but I forget by whom.  Anyway, dehumanization is simply another conduit to the guy dropping the bomb not caring as much about killing thousands than if he had to kill one with his bare hands.  Also, I'm lost on why all of this matters.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

 

Of course this is the case.  The Milgram experiments began to demonstrate that proximity is a key factor in an individual's willingness to harm others. 

You do know that those have since been shown to be complete bullshit too, right?

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I know it's been expanded upon since but I forget by whom.  Anyway, dehumanization is simply another conduit to the guy dropping the bomb not caring as much about killing thousands than if he had to kill ne with his bare hands.  Also, I'm lost on why all of this matters.

I think it's criticizing Jace for dehumanizing the enemy and showing her how it leads to a path of badness, when so far as I can tell it leads to a path of success quite often. 

[Bonnot OG]

7 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

I'm going to jump in here. My dad was in Vietnam and Cambodia from 1965-1968. He would get drunk and start talking calmly about slitting the throats of women and children. The things our soldiers did to the Vietnamese, and they to our troops, are unspeakable. He referred to the Vietnamese as gooks to the day he died. One of my uncles would literally RUN if he saw a Vietnamese child--they were used as suicide bombers and 30 years later he still saw them as nothing more than the enemy. 

Add to that the risk of Agent Orange. Look up Operation Ranch Hand. Our own government was experimenting on our soldiers. They came back with all kinds of skin cancers and lung disorders, leukemia, malaria, parasites, the list goes on. My aunt was an army nurse, and she developed a skin cancer that is so rare, the only known cause is Agent Orange. 

McCain was a POW for 5.5 years and if you think that didn't affect him psychologically, think again. Most normal people who see combat are affected by it for the rest of their lives. And don't forget, they were just supposed to suck it up and deal with it--PTSD hadn't yet entered the lexicon and we're still really bad at treating it. You were supposed to be a proud soldier and tougher than that. Ditto for every war since the beginning of time. My dad drank...a LOT. I don't ever remember a time where he was normal. And he was just a rank and file soldier. Imagine being tortured for going on 6 years. You think he hated the Vietnamese? I'm sure he did. 

No it isn't. Empathy is never a bad thing. From there comes forgiveness. And McCain was instrumental in normalizing relationships with the Vietnamese.

Add: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-mccain-vietnam-tributes-us-embassy-hanoi-memorial-pow-north-vietnamese/

 

 

You're justifying McCains racism. That's pathetic.

Liberals gonna lib. 

White liberal empathy certainly is terrible. It white washing scumbags like John McCain. Fuck em.