International Thread 4

[Paxter]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I voted no. I support decriminilisation not legalisation, and I think if the referendum had been on decriminilisation vs status quo the yes vote would have won. But the weed zealots would not countenance anything but full legalisation for the referendum. And then they played sour grapes when a small majority of NZ told them to piss off.

Anyway, can't crow too much on climate change either. Since the Paris accords NZ has performed poorly in GHG reduction targets, in fact we have negatively achieved progress on those targets. But this is the first time since the Paris accords that we have a govt entirely made up of parties really committed to dealing with climate change. So we'll see how things go from here.

While we're bashing NZ (a favourite sport for all Aussies), they are also pathetic when it comes to their refugee intake. Far be it for Australia to be throwing too many stones on this front...but I understand that NZ has taken a grand total 33,000 refugees since WWII. Australia did 24,000 just last year. 

ETA: Thought I better add: Australia's overall stance on refugees is vile and we are rightly denounced by the likes of the UNHCR and HR Watch on a regular basis. Plus the 24,000 figure is on a downward trend. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

Well the neo-liberals authoritarianism has of course sparked violence.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/violence-erupts-during-paris-protest-against-macron-s-security-law-n1250134

Which of course they’ll point to why further authoritarianism is needed.

You know to protect the very freedoms their attacking.

[The Anti-Targ]

5 hours ago, Paxter said:

While we're bashing NZ (a favourite sport for all Aussies), they are also pathetic when it comes to their refugee intake. Far be it for Australia to be throwing too many stones on this front...but I understand that NZ has taken a grand total 33,000 refugees since WWII. Australia did 24,000 just last year. 

ETA: Thought I better add: Australia's overall stance on refugees is vile and we are rightly denounced by the likes of the UNHCR and HR Watch on a regular basis. Plus the 24,000 figure is on a downward trend. 

It's 35,000 akshually

Yeah, pretty pathetic.

[kiko]

5 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's 35,000 akshually

Yeah, pretty pathetic.

Does that number include wealthy billionaires and Kim.com?

[The Anti-Targ]

4 hours ago, kiko said:

Does that number include wealthy billionaires and Kim.com?

Ah yes, I guess that would make it 35,666 then.

[broken one]

I have noticed an interesting effect of "promotion of patriotism" policy, coducted by Polish government in recent years. My views have not changed much since I rememember, I have always been central-left / liberal and considered myself a patriot, was proud of my country, put national flag on May 3rd etc. Now, after 5 years of intrusive propaganda, symbolic offensive, narration of "getting up from our knees" (this means: making enemy of everyone xept for trump and orban) and "leaving off education of shame" (whitewashing our history), seeing and hearing words "nation", "national", "sovereignity" everywhere (even quarentine is national).... I feel like throwing up when I see the flag. I feel shame when Im about to say I am a patriot (as If it was 'I am an alcoholic' or sth like that). I even want sanctions to be used against my coutry and I am not the only  one.

Congratulations, ladies and gentlemen of PiS

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 minute ago, broken one said:

I have noticed an interesting effect of "promotion of patriotism" policy, coducted by Polish government in recent years. My views have not changed much since I rememember, I have always been central-left / liberal and considered myself a patriot, was proud of my country, put national flag on May 3rd etc. Now, after 5 years of intrusive propaganda, symbolic offensive, narration of "getting up from our knees" (this means: making enemy of everyone xept for trump and orban) and "leaving off education of shame" (whitewashing our history), seeing and hearing words "nation", "national", "sovereignity" everywhere (even quarentine is national).... I feel like throwing up when I see the flag. I feel shame when Im about to say I am a patriot (as If it was 'I am an alcoholic' or sth like that). I even want sanctions to be used against my coutry and I am not the only  one.

Congratulations, ladies and gentlemen of PiS

That is a pretty necessary point in instilling the zealous nationalism.

If people know and recognize the horrible shit their country has done, it may make them less likely to see themselves as the automatic good guys in a conflict.

They are descendants of heroes, and thus as a part of their identity heroes themselves.

 

[broken one]

14 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

They are descendants of heroes, and thus as a part of their identity heroes themselves.

heroes / heroic victims

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 minutes ago, broken one said:

heroes / heroic victims

It is truly their burden to be so great.

[RhaenysBee]

Whoooooo, I’m going to regret this. 

Contrary to what one might believe on the first look, history is not objective. It has never been, it will never be. Never ever. Whatever was recorded as history throughout history had always been strongly biased by the scribe’s own views, political affiliations, financier’s request, overlord’s orders, etc. Whatever we choose to read, popularize, teach is equally biased by our own views, present political climates, education trends and methodologies. Much like with any other field of science there’s a counter study for nearly everything in history too. 

It feels like a wise idea to point out that I do not agree with or support over-exaggerated communication (at either end of the political spectrum) including the style of communication we tend to see from right wing Eastern European governments, such as Poland’s or our own. 

But I also think it is important that we do not forget that a skewed or biased view of history isn’t exclusively the negative quality of conservative nationalism. It’s actually something that’s always been and always be and appears in everybody’s politics. 

 

[broken one]

8 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

Whoooooo, I’m going to regret this. 

Contrary to what one might believe on the first look, history is not objective. It has never been, it will never be. Never ever. Whatever was recorded as history throughout history had always been strongly biased by the scribe’s own views, political affiliations, financier’s request, overlord’s orders, etc. Whatever we choose to read, popularize, teach is equally biased by our own views, present political climates, education trends and methodologies. Much like with any other field of science there’s a counter study for nearly everything in history too. 

It feels like a wise idea to point out that I do not agree with or support over-exaggerated communication (at either end of the political spectrum) including the style of communication we tend to see from right wing Eastern European governments, such as Poland’s or our own. 

But I also think it is important that we do not forget that a skewed or biased view of history isn’t exclusively the negative quality of conservative nationalism. It’s actually something that’s always been and always be and appears in everybody’s politics. 

 

I understand that it is hard, at some level, to tell how things really were from how people percieved them. But let's not exaggerate. I am talking of policy of deliberately hiding/reducing scale of "awkward facts" and highlighting/enlarging things we want to believe are true. Everyone makes historical policy, but it has to be held within reasonable limits. Skeletons of murdered people are there, below the soil, no matter if we believe it or not. truth is where it is, not in the middle or anywhere else.

Tucidides knew whats history for. Definitely not to make ignorants and snotty boys feel better.

[RhaenysBee]

9 minutes ago, broken one said:

I understand that it is hard, at some level, to tell how things really were from how people percieved them. But let's not exaggerate. I am talking of policy of deliberately hiding/reducing scale of "awkward facts" and highlighting/enlarging things we want to believe are true. Everyone makes historical policy, but it has to be held within reasonable limits. Skeletons of murdered people are there, below the soil, no matter if we believe it or not. truth is where it is, not in the middle or anywhere else.

Tucidides knew whats history for. Definitely not to make ignorants and snotty boys feel better.

Most definitely, only there’s nobody to tell/know/judge where that actually is. 

Again, I am not saying that deliberately manipulating anything is agreeable or should be supported. I’m just trying to underline that nothing, including history as well as its perception, is black and white - this is something we find easier and easier to forget these days. And just because certain factions are becoming polarized in their perceptions, it doesn’t mean anybody with the opposite view should do the same, as it only results in more polarization. 

[broken one]

4 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

Most definitely, only there’s nobody to tell/know/judge where that actually is. 

 

depends what we are talking about. location of some truths is well known. Nationalists believe unpleasant facts should be hidden, picture of nation idealised. Such hsitory is useless if one believs it should teach how to avoid repeating mistakes. Frankly I cannot see what Polish left wants to hide today. Nobody serious here claims CCCP was cool.

Where are you from if I may ask?

[RhaenysBee]

3 hours ago, broken one said:

depends what we are talking about. location of some truths is well known. Nationalists believe unpleasant facts should be hidden, picture of nation idealised. Such hsitory is useless if one believs it should teach how to avoid repeating mistakes. Frankly I cannot see what Polish left wants to hide today. Nobody serious here claims CCCP was cool.

Where are you from if I may ask?

Yes, history should be used to learn from it and viewed as wholly as possible, within its own context and never to back a political agenda. Some of which are about hiding, others about enhancing. Nobody’s a saint, even if we like to present it otherwise in the media, social or mainstream. What the right needs is moderation and finding their ways back to the center. Villainizing them will only ever yield the opposite and polarize the left as well. And, as skewed as it is, history still doesn’t fail to teach us that no good ever came out of such intense polarization we are witnessing today. 

It’s funny you’d mention that, here quite a few people actually miss it. These are mainly the elderly of course, and who wouldn’t remember their youth with fondness and nostalgia. It shouldn’t be glossed over, per se, that we had a relatively easy and pleasant USSR experience from the 60s on, probably easier than in other countries of the Soviet block. Still I am actually glad that it’s usually a discussion what was good and bad about the communist regime. Again, nobody questions that the bad outweighs the good, but again, not everything is black and white and there were actually positive elements and values in that period, as there were in every period of history. 

I am from Hungary. *awkward silence* 

[DMC]

41 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

Yes, history should be used to learn from it and viewed as wholly as possible, within its own context and never to back a political agenda.

Right, obviously every human being inherently brings their own biases into anything they're trying to analyze/portray/whatever.  The difference between such rightwing nationalist or whitewashing and more "mainstream" depictions of history is the latter is actually trying to present an unbiased and evidence-based depiction.  From an academic standpoint, it's actually fairly easy to identify clear bias and/or analyses that do not reach certain standards - whether it's coming from right, left, or otherwise - and instead is rather clearly propaganda whose motives are indeed advancing a specific agenda.  I don't know much about the specifics of this particular Polish case, but this has been an issue here in the states for quite a while.

[The Anti-Targ]

9 hours ago, RhaenysBee said:

Whoooooo, I’m going to regret this. 

Contrary to what one might believe on the first look, history is not objective. It has never been, it will never be. Never ever. Whatever was recorded as history throughout history had always been strongly biased by the scribe’s own views, political affiliations, financier’s request, overlord’s orders, etc. Whatever we choose to read, popularize, teach is equally biased by our own views, present political climates, education trends and methodologies. Much like with any other field of science there’s a counter study for nearly everything in history too. 

It feels like a wise idea to point out that I do not agree with or support over-exaggerated communication (at either end of the political spectrum) including the style of communication we tend to see from right wing Eastern European governments, such as Poland’s or our own. 

But I also think it is important that we do not forget that a skewed or biased view of history isn’t exclusively the negative quality of conservative nationalism. It’s actually something that’s always been and always be and appears in everybody’s politics. 

 

Well, as long as you are not trying to suggest things like Holocaust denial are a legitimate subjective reading of history depending on how you look at and emphasise the available information. Or you could just go completely matrixy and say, we don't even know if yesterday truly existed or even 1 hour ago, because everything we are not experiencing in the present may all be false implanted memories and books of fictional world building that we have false memories of reading.

I guess also a minor point: history is objective (if it ever existed - see above). It's the historical record that is not. The Rwandan genocide happened, a lot of the detail is lost, mis-represented, and maybe even a matter of perspective on some aspects. The lost generation (Australia) happened. The dawn raids (New Zealand) happened. Apartheid happened. Live Aid happened. Jesse Owens pwning Hitler happened.

[TheLastWolf]

India's farmer protests. Poor farmers are labelled anti national by zealouts, religiously fanatical jingoists and the Centre. 

[RhaenysBee]

10 hours ago, DMC said:

Right, obviously every human being inherently brings their own biases into anything they're trying to analyze/portray/whatever.  The difference between such rightwing nationalist or whitewashing and more "mainstream" depictions of history is the latter is actually trying to present an unbiased and evidence-based depiction.  From an academic standpoint, it's actually fairly easy to identify clear bias and/or analyses that do not reach certain standards - whether it's coming from right, left, or otherwise - and instead is rather clearly propaganda whose motives are indeed advancing a specific agenda.  I don't know much about the specifics of this particular Polish case, but this has been an issue here in the states for quite a while.

Of course there’s a difference between intended distortion and subconscious bias. And of course science on the large is trying to present as close to objectivity as possible  (though even then, scientists career aspirations and financiers of research projects often wittingly or unwittingly influence the outcome). I don’t claim that intendedly manipulative presentation of  past or current events for political gain is good or should be supported. 

I’m just saying that lack of truthful/objective/whatever we want to call it view in order to advance specific agendas isn’t exclusively the bad practice of one political faction. It’s really just psychology that’s as old as humankind (which doesn’t make it morally impeccable or excusable of course). Facts, events, trends, statistics are always handpicked and carefully selected to support whatever point somebody wants to get across. If you want to prove/support/further a particular point, you can and will find the data/sources to do so. This happens in courtrooms, media, marketing campaigns or at Christmas when a kid tries to convince their parents that getting a pet is a good idea. (And no, I am in no way comparing a kid to nationalist politicians, I am in fact trying to distance this whole topic from politics because politics shouldn’t be the alpha and omega of everything, even though we are getting to the point where it actually is). The scientific approach is, as you said too, different from this exactly because it goes into research without a particular point to get across, at best it has a hypothesis to explore. 

The only political side of my argument is what I already said: the right is wandering dangerously far from the center and the continuous villanization is only pushing it further thus only pushing everybody deeper into the polarization spiral. Everything else, namely what I argue about bias and objectivity, is very much unrelated to politics, although it is entirely my shortcoming that I’d drop my social-psychological musing into a political context.  
 

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Well, as long as you are not trying to suggest things like Holocaust denial are a legitimate subjective reading of history depending on how you look at and emphasise the available information. Or you could just go completely matrixy and say, we don't even know if yesterday truly existed or even 1 hour ago, because everything we are not experiencing in the present may all be false implanted memories and books of fictional world building that we have false memories of reading.

I guess also a minor point: history is objective (if it ever existed - see above). It's the historical record that is not. The Rwandan genocide happened, a lot of the detail is lost, mis-represented, and maybe even a matter of perspective on some aspects. The lost generation (Australia) happened. The dawn raids (New Zealand) happened. Apartheid happened. Live Aid happened. Jesse Owens pwning Hitler happened.

I mean you do need exceptionally low IQ to question that something as large as the Holocaust or the Roman Empire or the French Revolution or the murder of the Romanovs took place. The bias is in the details, the context and the perception. And yes, that’s the real beauty of it (going full matrix). Though I get way more enthusiastic about history and social psychology than such wild branches of philosophy. Ah, all of this makes me miss university, and regret the business major... what lost opportunity. 

Anyway, thank you for highlighting the difference between history and record (bolded for truth and appreciation), it is such a vital differentiation and yet I neglected to put it down when I got myself into this whole discussion. 

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

The only political side of my argument is what I already said: the right is wandering dangerously far from the center and the continuous villanization is only pushing it further thus only pushing everybody deeper into the polarization spiral. Everything else, namely what I argue about bias and objectivity is very much unrelated to politics, although it is entirely my shortcoming that I’d drop my social-psychological musing into a political context.

To be clear, I don't really disagree with anything you've said before the quoted above, and certainly wasn't trying to be argumentative.  Just putting my two cents in on your point. 

But yes, you are not only wading into politics here, the contention that "the continuous villainization is only pushing" polarization further is very much a political argument.  As is, for that matter, the assertion that political polarization is inherently a bad thing.  I don't think it is necessarily, but I agree the current perpetually increasing status in the US and Europe is clearly toxic, so let's move on. 

Considering the context, I'm not sure what you mean by "villainizing."  It's not villainizing to point out propagating whitewashing or nationalistic dogma should not be taught as legitimate history.  At the university level and certainly not to children.  It's not villainizing to observe there are concerted rightwing efforts to impose this type of "education" in even the industrialized west over the past few decades.  And it's certainly not villainizing to combat such efforts.  Is the left perfectly capable and susceptible of pushing their own propaganda, and conceivably trying to do so via public education like these rightwing attempts?  Of course.  But that's not what's happening right now.

[RhaenysBee]

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

To be clear, I don't really disagree with anything you've said before the quoted above, and certainly wasn't trying to be argumentative.  Just putting my two cents in on your point. 

But yes, you are not only wading into politics here, the contention that "the continuous villainization is only pushing" polarization further is very much a political argument.  As is, for that matter, the assertion that political polarization is inherently a bad thing.  I don't think it is necessarily, but I agree the current perpetually increasing status in the US and Europe is clearly toxic, so let's move on. 

Considering the context, I'm not sure what you mean by "villainizing."  It's not villainizing to point out propagating whitewashing or nationalistic dogma should not be taught as legitimate history.  At the university level and certainly not to children.  It's not villainizing to observe there are concerted rightwing efforts to impose this type of "education" in even the industrialized west over the past few decades.  And it's certainly not villainizing to combat such efforts.  Is the left perfectly capable and susceptible of pushing their own propaganda, and conceivably trying to do so via public education like these rightwing attempts?  Of course.  But that's not what's happening right now.

sure, I’m no way seeing this as a tug of war, I am too just sharing what’s on my mind and trying to do so in a careful manner so that the intent is less likely to be misunderstood. and thanks for engaging I do enjoy this conversation actually.

Yes that part is admittedly a political argument indeed, but not in direct response to the Polish push to alter educational materials in a specific direction. (I think we have a similar initiative as well to some extent, something like a 2/3 focus on national history against world history? I’m not sure. This is something I found highly disagreeable, as I considered most of national history topics a bore as a student, whereas world history, simply via its extent, seemed far more interesting and is far better suited to shape holistic thinking and system approach)

counter arguments and initiatives are not by any means villainizing, in fact they are necessary when done and communicated in a way you just did, for instance. But there’s a certain rhetoric (not in this discussion) but on the media and in social media in general that I think is going into unhealthy territories on both sides. I admittedly have naive and idealistic views about what politics should and should not be (mostly I’m a perfectionist and I think it shouldn’t be if it can’t be the very best version of itself, which at this point, it is not) and the reality show it is turning into locally and globally is something I find very sad and disappointing to witness. I don’t want to and won’t go into specific examples but I find the manner in which left and right communicate with and about each other truly repulsive, that is what I mean by villainizing (and I don’t think it’s a quality of either side, both ends of the political spectrum are guilty of this in different ways, from what I see). I do think this should change and quickly, on both sides equally, to bring back moderation, respect, respectability and intelligence into the driving force of the world. 

I do find your statement that polarization isn’t necessarily bad quite interesting (not in a sarcastic sense, it’s genuine curiosity, in case it’s difficult to tell apart in writing). Would you care to go into a bit more detail?