International Thread 4

[DMC]

1 hour ago, RhaenysBee said:

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?

From a theoretical standpoint, polarization can elicit more direct representation.  The logic there is pretty intuitive.  If one side wins, their preferences should be reflected in the government's policymaking.  This is most readily done if each side is polarized, as polarization assumes ideological homogeneity within each side.  It's important to emphasize that this is not just the case in a two-party system like the US or even the UK.  Even coalitional governments under parliamentary/multiparty systems can and often are ideologically/politically polarized.  Such conditions reflect Rousseau's "general will," which is why I said there's nothing necessarily wrong with polarization.  Particularly if one side is intent on incessantly bending towards extremism and even violent fascism for a sustained period.

[RhaenysBee]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

From a theoretical standpoint, polarization can elicit more direct representation.  The logic there is pretty intuitive.  If one side wins, their preferences should be reflected in the government's policymaking.  This is most readily done if each side is polarized, as polarization assumes ideological homogeneity within each side.  It's important to emphasize that this is not just the case in a two-party system like the US or even the UK.  Even coalitional governments under parliamentary/multiparty systems can and often are ideologically/politically polarized.  Such conditions reflect Rousseau's "general will," which is why I said there's nothing necessarily wrong with polarization.  Particularly if one side is intent on incessantly bending towards extremism and even violent fascism for a sustained period.

I see. I think. The question that pops into my mind is, though, does ideological homogeneity serve assessing problems as thoroughly as possible and finding the best possible solutions to them? The same way likeminded people will evidently reinforce one another’s views and close group thinking to new or different ideas that may advance and enhance group output.

Certainly, from a political faction’s own perspective the more polarized thus homogenous a party and a government is the easier it is govern according to and representing the ideology of said faction. From a public perspective, however, I’m not sure I see how this serves the common interest. And end the end of the day, in my idealist opinion, the purpose of governments and thus whoever thrives to form a government is to bring about the common interest, which is hardly homogeneous. That makes me question whether a polarized and homogeneous minded governing party is the most efficient way achieve that. 

of course in practical reality all these are driven by the accumulation of individual  motives and goals, which largely distorts the ideal could-be, should-be model. And then there’s the impact of the tension between two opposing homogeneous views. I don’t know. I can see that it can be beneficial in certain situations from certain aspects, but on the whole, I would still prefer everything to be closing to the center and working to find common ground. 
 

 

[Toth]

This whole discussion so far has been really interesting and right up my alley as a history teacher, but didn't dare say anything because I didn't have the time to do so. Now... I didn't either, but before the thread closes, I thought I should hurry and add something because I feel that as thoughtful and elaborate your musings were, at times different concepts seemed slightly conflated and we should be careful in regards to that.

First: In the modern science of history there is indeed a concept of history as a construct. The idea is that the past by definition is gone and cannot be observed again, so our knowledge of history is indeed something that is constructed over and over and over again in each and everybody's mind, based on the knowledge we possess. That of course doesn't mean that all of history is a lie or something. There is truth. One we can come infinitely close to with the construct in our mind. There are unmovable facts propped up by archeological evidence and cross-referenced sources. But it also means that the less hard and less numerous our evidence is, the more we go back in time, our picture of history starts to blur a bit in that we can pinpoint general events, but have to constantly reexamine the details, question the validity of our sources and how it is influenced by its own need to construct a narrative counter the truth buried beneath, but also question our own preconceptions and expectations and how they might shape our view.

Second: I disagree with the notion that history is inevitable to get politicized. People use history of course. Consciously preaching their version of it to rationalize their actions and influence other people's world view. But I prefer to leave that to those who prefer to preach ideologies and instead teach my students how to spot them. Because in the end, every human should be able to think for themselves and question different views when presented with them, especially when they demand policy. That I see less and less people do that and opt to think whatever their internet bubble tells them is a more dreading prospect. And if Poland's government throws hissy fits whenever someone brings up that the Nazis found Polish collaborators for committing their mass murders or Turkey's government similarly throws hissy fits when the Armenian genocide under the Ottomans is brought up, the problem most certainly doesn't lie in a different construct of history, but instead entirely on present day policy that maybe they fear can't get defended if you acknowledge that this long past event has to be regarded as objectively bad.

Third: Polarization... huh... what does that mean, exactly? Does that mean that parties need to have clearly defined policy programs that aren't all the same in order to prevent voter dissatisfaction and lowered turn out? If yes, I agree. Does that mean increasingly hostile parties that focus entirely on ideology and refuse to work towards the furthering of the country's needs if it goes against their creed? Why would that ever be a good thing? Here I am here agreeing with RhaenysBee, I don't think increasing polarization in the way we see it now is a sign of a healthy democracy. I think the world would be a better place if parties focus more on actual policies instead of ideologies. Because ideologies, by their very definition, rely on the belief that one policy approach will be best, observed evidence be damned. Which is especially dangerous when there are corporate interests involved and huge amounts of money are being spent so that ideologies are modified to align with these interests. Modern democracies are vulnerable enough as they are to becoming oligarchies, no need to invite people who openly advocate against common sense to further their goals. And yes, I'm not even speaking about anything like totalitarian fascist takeovers, authoritarian dictatorships are bad enough.

... and I already wrote far too much again...

[RhaenysBee]

17 minutes ago, Toth said:

This whole discussion so far has been really interesting and right up my alley as a history teacher, but didn't dare say anything because I didn't have the time to do so. Now... I didn't either, but before the thread closes, I thought I should hurry and add something because I feel that as thoughtful and elaborate your musings were, at times different concepts seemed slightly conflated and we should be careful in regards to that.

First: In the modern science of history there is indeed a concept of history as a construct. The idea is that the past by definition is gone and cannot be observed again, so our knowledge of history is indeed something that is constructed over and over and over again in each and everybody's mind, based on the knowledge we possess. That of course doesn't mean that all of history is a lie or something. There is truth. One we can come infinitely close to with the construct in our mind. There are unmovable facts propped up by archeological evidence and cross-referenced sources. But it also means that the less hard and less numerous our evidence is, the more we go back in time, our picture of history starts to blur a bit in that we can pinpoint general events, but have to constantly reexamine the details, question the validity of our sources and how it is influenced by its own need to construct a narrative counter the truth buried beneath, but also question our own preconceptions and expectations and how they might shape our view.

Second: I disagree with the notion that history is inevitable to get politicized. People use history of course. Consciously preaching their version of it to rationalize their actions and influence other people's world view. But I prefer to leave that to those who prefer to preach ideologies and instead teach my students how to spot them. Because in the end, every human should be able to think for themselves and question different views when presented with them, especially when they demand policy. That I see less and less people do that and opt to think whatever their internet bubble tells them is a more dreading prospect. And if Poland's government throws hissy fits whenever someone brings up that the Nazis found Polish collaborators for committing their mass murders or Turkey's government similarly throws hissy fits when the Armenian genocide under the Ottomans is brought up, the problem most certainly doesn't lie in a different construct of history, but instead entirely on present day policy that maybe they fear can't get defended if you acknowledge that this long past event has to be regarded as objectively bad.

Third: Polarization... huh... what does that mean, exactly? Does that mean that parties need to have clearly defined policy programs that aren't all the same in order to prevent voter dissatisfaction and lowered turn out? If yes, I agree. Does that mean increasingly hostile parties that focus entirely on ideology and refuse to work towards the furthering of the country's needs if it goes against their creed? Why would that ever be a good thing? Here I am here agreeing with RhaenysBee, I don't think increasing polarization in the way we see it now is a sign of a healthy democracy. I think the world would be a better place if parties focus more on actual policies instead of ideologies. Because ideologies, by their very definition, rely on the belief that one policy approach will be best, observed evidence be damned. Which is especially dangerous when there are corporate interests involved and huge amounts of money are being spent so that ideologies are modified to align with these interests. Modern democracies are vulnerable enough as they are to becoming oligarchies, no need to invite people who openly advocate against common sense to further their goals. And yes, I'm not even speaking about anything like totalitarian fascist takeovers, authoritarian dictatorships are bad enough.

... and I already wrote far too much again...

I love this post, thank you so so much for adding your points. It’s great to have the perspective of someone who actually studied and works in the field of history and isn’t just an overeager enthusiast like myself. 

I’m glad to see that you don’t think history is inevitable to get politicized because what I see today is that everything seems to be inevitable to get politicized and (even though I’ve been in this political discussion for several posts now) there are few things I dislike more than that. Nice to know that as a professional you see it otherwise. Beyond that I agree with roughly everything you brought up, but that’s really quite marginal, as I don’t think that coming to an agreement or a consensus on these issues should be a primary goal. The discussion itself is important to have and that it can take place in an intelligent and respectful manner, which seems to be the case in this particular instance (and I cannot tell you all how infinitely happy that makes me).  
 

[TheLastWolf]

11 hours ago, TheLastWolf said:

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

Ok. Something else raging. If free and interested, i too am 

[Zorral]

I would appreciate examples of historical works that are without politics and / or ideology.  I'd like to see a policy that isn't connected to either ideology or politics.

As an historian the only examples I can give are those that are pure statistics, such as those great and invaluable works tracing the African slave trade such as Eltis and Richardson's transatlantic slave trade databases:

https://hutchinscenter.fas.harvard.edu/trans-atlantic-slave-trade-database

https://www.slavevoyages.org/

Yet, of course, even the existence of this work is labeled 'ideological' and 'pushing and agenda' by white supremacist historians.

One of the first and greatest works of US History is Henry Adams's 9 volume history of the Jefferson and Madison administrations.  Yet to Henry Adams, slavery only mattered glancingly in his history, as a matter of politics and economics.  The enslaved, for instance, matter not at all to him.  US history has changed focus enormously in these matters in the last 40 years, to the outrage of older historians, particularly when younger historians point out how important owning slaves was to the Founding Fathers personally and economically, from living off their uncompensated labor, as was the case for both Jefferson and Madison (and many other presidents who followed them), to possessing an enslaved mistress on whom, Jefferson, for instance, fathered an entire other 'black' family.  But to research this with finding and conclusions is considered by others to be purely ideological and political, particularly if the historian is Black.

 

 

[Toth]

4 hours ago, RhaenysBee said:

I’m glad to see that you don’t think history is inevitable to get politicized because what I see today is that everything seems to be inevitable to get politicized and (even though I’ve been in this political discussion for several posts now) there are few things I dislike more than that.

Ah, I just wanted to point out, just if I failed to put the point across, that history itself is as it is, or at least the truth that you are seeking is, but everyone who searches for that truth needs to be careful about their own biases.

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

I would appreciate examples of historical works that are without politics and / or ideology.  I'd like to see a policy that isn't connected to either ideology or politics.

Well, good luck finding policies free of politics or am I understanding your meaning wrong?

But... I... do understand your jaded view about how fucked up just about everything in the US is and will hardly be able to convince you that the search for truth can work differently, but huh... who cares what white supremacists say? Just because they don't like the search for certain truths, doesn't make the scientific debate among the historians themselves any less fruitful. Let me just say this: Any historian who is worth their salt won't give policy recommendations. At all. We are only supposed to debate which of our constructs is closer to the truth.

I can give a personal anecdote about how seriously a proper university takes this: When I wrote my Master Thesis, I wanted to write about Roman integration policy during the great migration times. Firstly because I'm a sucker for Roman history, but secondly because it was the middle of the refugee crisis and I saw the far right keep comparing Europe today to the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, so I thought it nice to educate them a bit. The professor overseeing my efforts took me to the side right at the beginning and very sharply noted that I had to excise every single thought from my mind that I'm going to connect any of my findings with the modern day and that I should search solely for the truth for the circumstances back then. This actually interlinks with one of the core tenets of the discipline of modern history: We cannot learn from history. Yes, that's a pretty stark statement and makes you (or at least me) wonder 'Why bother then?', but the idea is that due to history never repeating itself with the exact same circumstances, a historian shall never attempt to make any projections or policy recommendations because all the new factors influencing modern day humans will inevitably screw our projections over. I'm myself not a fan of that idea too much and think that we should at least be able to single out some factors of human behavior to work with, but I understand why this policy is necessary. Historians are supposed to stay out of politics and should let others make their own conclusions from our findings.

My Master thesis was still a pretty fun adventure, given that I focused somewhat on redeeming a history treatise that was written by a veteran of the Napoleonic Wars whose ideas were considered the absolute truth about how the Romans settled 'barbarians' for about a hundred years until someone noticed that he has very broadly generalizing the way they treated one small people, so it got dismissed entirely. I took his findings stripped them down to everything that is based on the sources he used and compared that to the vastly differing circumstances of all the other peoples the Romans were dealing with to boil down whether any kind of uniform policy was even possible.

[Zorral]

First -- there is no such thing as THE TRUTH when it comes to history.  There are true facts, true information, but there is not Truth.  Anyone who goes looking for that anywhere, including the Christian Bible or the Quaran is out of luck.  Socrates could lead his students in long, on-going, serial debates on the question, but it was never answered.

But please, provide a title or four or 2000 of a work of history that is without bias -- that isn't statistical in nature.

As Henry Adams, again a Founding Father of United States History, when history was only beginning to be academic discipline -- it never was in Europe, and the US, until late in the 19th century -- stated flatly that "History is the most aristocratic of disciplines. Only someone who is rich can write history."  Henry Adams, whose great-grandfather and grandfather both were Presidents, himself was rich. He calculated the cost of researching and writing his 9 volume Histories of the Jefferson and Madison Administrations came out to the equivalent of 2.5 million dollars in our money -- and it was his personal money he spent, not a grant from a university or even a university salary. 

These didn't exist then -- and for a very long time when such resources became available they were available again only to members of the aristocratic class, in one form or another -- again depending on where one studies, and where one is employed, and what gets published depends on where one is employed. This is still true, and the resources for historical work and outlets for publishing and teaching are shrinking rapidly.  This is political censorship too, by another means / name.

People research and study and read history for many, many reasons.  Which is why it matters for so many reasons.  And if we were not able to see shadow plays in the past of what we experience now, we would be neither human, nor would there be such a thing as history. 

BTW it is true that Rome's refusal to grant citizenship even to others who had lived in the peninsula as long, or longer, than they had, then coupled with the exclusionary drive of the Roman Church when it took domination of the political structure, as well as its determination to have everyone think and believe and practice as it determined, did weaken the empire over the centuries to ever greater degree.  It wasn't the only negative force in play, but when 'ethnic' exclusion is wedded to religious exclusion, that creates inevitable conflict and, ultimately, disaster.  There's a reason they are called religious wars.  There are lessons here.  Some learn them.  Others refuse to, with the inevitable consequence of, ya, war and catastrophe.

 

 

[Toth]

11 minutes ago, Zorral said:

First -- there is no such thing as THE TRUTH when it comes to history.  There are true facts, true information, but there is not Truth.  Anyone who goes looking for that anywhere, including the Christian Bible or the Quaran is out of luck.  Socrates could lead his students in long, on-going, serial debates on the question, but it was never answered.

I think we have decidedly different ideas what we mean with truth. When I said truth I meant "the events that happened" and didn't mean anything philosophical about that aside a basic understanding why people act like they do. But yes, you can and go search for reasons why these events happened, though that will inevitably be answered by a barrage of opposing interpretations that will challenge yours. That's just how the discipline works. And it is like it is because the truth of what happened is unobservable by virtue of how time works, which is the idea I wanted to convey with my above rambling.

24 minutes ago, Zorral said:

But please, provide a title or four or 2000 of a work of history that is without bias -- that isn't statistical in nature.

I shouldn't even be writing this, I have still three classes full of exams to correct, so I absolutely won't look up 2000 history treatises for you to show that historians aren't just making shit up. But at the top of my head of things I have been working with: Anything in the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. The entire point of that organization is tracking down copies of medieval documents, cross-referencing them and figure out how they looked like originally (and often how they had been tampered with). Aside from that, if you spend just a few minutes scouring through academic magazines in a university library or looking through the peer reviews of your sources and end up reading a back and forth of historians bickering about the meaning of differing beard styles of Germanic rulers on Ostrogoth coins, you'd see that those historians have other priorities than politics! XD

39 minutes ago, Zorral said:

As Henry Adams, again a Founding Father of United States History, when history was only beginning to be academic discipline

... yeah, and? What the fuck is it with you and Henry Adams? Did he piss on your lawn or something? I get it, US history and the people interpreting it suck. And? I really have no idea what your point is.

[RhaenysBee]

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

I would appreciate examples of historical works that are without politics and / or ideology.  I'd like to see a policy that isn't connected to either ideology or politics.

 

I sure won’t be able to give you such and that is mainly because I’m no expert, just a random person with an overeager interest in these topics. But my assumption, too, is that history (as well as any other field) is often called upon to support whatever policy/politics/ideology someone happens to need to back. 

3 hours ago, Zorral said:

But to research this with finding and conclusions is considered by others to be purely ideological and political, particularly if the historian is Black.

I think it is possible to politicize anything. I can take a person who produces apples and reason why there is political subtext in  their producing apples. This doesn’t make producing apples political, in my opinion. 
 

1 hour ago, Toth said:

Ah, I just wanted to point out, just if I failed to put the point across, that history itself is as it is, or at least the truth that you are seeking is, but everyone who searches for that truth needs to be careful about their own biases.

Yes, I do agree that events went down in one certain way, but I don’t necessarily think there’s one right way to interpret them. Past events don’t have a tangible physical reality like a tree. I can’t say there isn’t a tree in front of me when there is because I can touch it and it exists outside of my perception. Just as I can’t say that the colosseum didn’t exist, because I can travel to Rome and it’s right there. But I can only ever perceive how it was build and never realize it. I can gather facts, tangible writings, dna from the stones, whatever archeology can round up, but it’s till up to my biased mind to shape that data and information into knowledge. 

1 hour ago, Toth said:

We cannot learn from history. Yes, that's a pretty stark statement and makes you (or at least me) wonder 'Why bother then?', but the idea is that due to history never repeating itself with the exact same circumstances, a historian shall never attempt to make any projections or policy recommendations because all the new factors influencing modern day humans will inevitably screw our projections over.

Love this section, such an interesting idea. I do believe that in this sense of what you describe, we cannot learn from history indeed. As in, we cannot predict the future of prevent present or future mistakes based on studying past ones, as the world is an ever changing, interconnected web and there are simply far too many factors to consider. But I also agree with Zorral’s implication that there are lessons to learn from history in the sense that conclusions and morals can be generalized. And these generalized ideas may help us understand problems and questions of our own time and navigate them. Not necessarily in a successful manner for reasons discussed above, but they can certainly influence us and have potential to be helpful. 
 

1 hour ago, Toth said:

We are only supposed to debate which of our constructs is closer to the truth

I very much agree with this as what should be. 

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

This is still true, and the resources for historical work and outlets for publishing and teaching are shrinking rapidly.  This is political censorship too, by another means / name.

But I also agree that this is the practical reality. 

31 minutes ago, Toth said:

think we have decidedly different ideas what we mean with truth.

Yes it does appear to me as well that you guys are actually talking about the same thing just label it with a different word. 

33 minutes ago, Toth said:

historians have other priorities than politics! XD

I don’t think it’s been argued that historians have deliberate bias or that politics is a priority of theirs. From what I understand, its influence (in part conscious and noticeable, such as financing, in part subconscious such as your own initiative to prove current affair politics wrong with a historical parallel in your thesis) has been argued. This is something I agree with too. 

38 minutes ago, Toth said:

yeah, and? What the fuck is it with you and Henry Adams? Did he piss on your lawn or something? I get it, US history and the people interpreting it suck. And? I really have no idea what your point is.

Oh now, please let’s not turn this beautiful conversation into vulgarities directed at someone’s person and taking it out on one another. It’d break my heart. I’m so glad you took the time to share your thoughts while being busy. Because this is what it has been, sharing thoughts, rather than a debate or a brawl. It is perfectly okay to agree to disagree or even to not understand the other’s point. So can we all please keep it respectful and civil? 
 

On an entirely different note the EU economy aid package passed, thank goodness. 

[Toth]

47 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

On an entirely different note the EU economy aid package passed, thank goodness.

I don't think I like the compromises very much. That the EU Supreme Court has to judge the application of the rule of law paragraph is fine I guess, but the idea that it now can only be enforced when the violations against the rule of law happen to involve EU money seems cripplingly narrow to me.

[broken one]

23 hours ago, DMC said:

I don't know much about the specifics of this particular Polish case.

In period of post war chaos many partisans loyal (or not) to Polish government in exile opposed soviet domination and did not want to put their weapons down. Some expected USA will attack Soviet Russia (it was common belief in Poland for some time) and wanted to take part - as far as I know this was an option for US government and there were plans to use Polish underground in potential conflict. Some were just afraid - Soviets promised amnesty(!) but many of those who surrendered finished with bullet in a head.  There was also another group -  pre-war nationalists and fascists, some of whom did not obey government in London, fought other Polish underground formations and found that the chaos (war and post war) was a good time to do some ethnical cleansing on Jews, Slovaks and Belarussians. Today they all are merged as so called "cursed soldiers".  Murderers and bandits are put on pedestal and created as role models for youth, together with those who deserve respect and commemoration. "Those Belarussian village people had communist likings (well, 20% of them anyway) you see, so they got what they deserved"

Another  thing is scale of collaboration with Germans (no Nazis from outer space, sorry). In fact there was no substantial political or military form of collaboration in Poland, mostly because Germans did not want any auxiliary Polish formations (with exeption of Świętokrzyska Brigade at the end of the war), Hitler did not want to repeat Ludendorf's mistake. Polish fascists who proposed such collaboration were scarse and ended up in jail instantly. But there were spontaneus massacres on Jews in eastern Poland under German occupation, Jewish inhabitants of several small towns and villages "misteriously" dissappeared and out of the sudden their neighbours found themselves in possession of their goods. The things were dragged to the light in recent years but now clatter arises whenever anybody wants to tamper with it. The scale of individual collaboration is deminished, and numbers do not support the claim, that "good guys" made the overwhelming majority of society. When people are treated like cattle they turn into cattle, sure (Intelligenzaktion and constant German terror in occupied Poland),  but facts should be faced.

It is hard to get all of it without knowing the shape of actual propaganda, driven by public media. In comparison to this communist propaganda of late 80's seems subtle. They try to make  idiots of us for our own money. Minister Czarnek (pre war fascists ONR admirer) promised to get "communist influence" out of school books as if ploughing of recent years was not enough. Bravissimo, just cannot wait.

There are also many other things, too much assesable/ subjective to mention

 

[broken one]

"We cannot learn from history. Yes, that's a pretty stark statement and makes you (or at least me) wonder 'Why bother then?', but the idea is that due to history never repeating itself with the exact same circumstances, a historian shall never attempt to make any projections or policy recommendations because all the new factors influencing modern day humans will inevitably screw our projections over. "

This is funny, young nationalists in Poland think that maybe whe should give up European integration, so we will be free, at least  to jump at each other's throats. We will be truly free! "Germans failed to subjugate the continent by force, but now they gain domination with economy and sweet words". As if it was possible for Poland to win war. 80 years have passed and people forget - I swear I have not made this up, this is opinion I have encoutered. On the other hand there are opinions of leftist kids who think that weakness of communism is just capitalist lie. 30 years have passed and knowledge of the grey sticky shit is lost too. So maybe there is some worth in history as a teacher, but the education system is lame?

Oce I've watched a nice discussion on Peloponnesian War and Melian Dialogue in particular. Few historians and politologists disputed on what military weak states like Poland may learn from it and if politicians should read it . Coclusion was "Yes", but you know... these people have to say such things to appear useful

Even if history cannot help us predict future maybe it can help teach critical thinking.

12 hours ago, Toth said:

I don't think I like the compromises very much. That the EU Supreme Court has to judge the application of the rule of law paragraph is fine I guess, but the idea that it now can only be enforced when the violations against the rule of law happen to involve EU money seems cripplingly narrow to me.

I thik it was supposed to be like this from the start (July 2020?). It could only harm Orban and his fraud system, the more stupid it seems to me that Poland got involved in this shit. We are really easy to play with for everyone (in fact it was inner game - who is bigger "patriot" within PiS, the prime minister or the minister of unjustice)

[DMC]

14 hours ago, RhaenysBee said:

That makes me question whether a polarized and homogeneous minded governing party is the most efficient way achieve that. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it is from a normative perspective either.  My point was just simply to pushback a bit on the contention that polarization is inherently a bad thing.  There are circumstances were it can and has led to outcomes I at least view as favorable.  But that certainly doesn't mean it's a status I'd recommend or contend was ideal.

3 hours ago, broken one said:

There are also many other things, too much assesable/ subjective to mention

Thanks for the detailed account, much appreciated.

[RhaenysBee]

3 hours ago, DMC said:

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it is from a normative perspective either.  My point was just simply to pushback a bit on the contention that polarization is inherently a bad thing.  There are circumstances were it can and has led to outcomes I at least view as favorable.  But that certainly doesn't mean it's a status I'd recommend or contend was ideal.

No, of course not. I get it and I’m glad we got this perspective on the table. Because once again I’m a sucker for the nothing’s black and white principle. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

23 hours ago, RhaenysBee said:

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. 

You seem to talk about “moderation” and the “center” as if deviating from that in it itself is troubling.

Abolishing slavery, giving women the right to vote, child labor laws, these were all and many places are things that a society would be viewed totally extreme.

And to get those things the use of civility and politeness often didn’t go far enough.

Maintaining a status quo by itself is not the best thing. 
 

Also there’d been attempts to try to treat the far right as normal.

It hasn’t typically brought them closer to the center.

Its brought the center closer to them.

Or made people more lax in the horrors they’d face one they’d actually get in power.

There were people who tried to frame Hitler as not truly being that extreme or villainous despite everything he was advocating for.

https://www.vox.com/2015/2/11/8016017/ny-times-hitler

[Filippa Eilhart]

10 hours ago, broken one said:

I thik it was supposed to be like this from the start (July 2020?). It could only harm Orban and his fraud system, the more stupid it seems to me that Poland got involved in this shit. We are really easy to play with for everyone (in fact it was inner game - who is bigger "patriot" within PiS, the prime minister or the minister of unjustice)

Yeah, the whole point is that the Polish veto was always a stupid idea because Poland was never at risk from this particular measure.

[RhaenysBee]

1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

You seem to talk about “moderation” and the “center” as if deviating from that in it itself is troubling.

Abolishing slavery, giving women the right to vote, child labor laws, these were all and many places are things that a society would be viewed totally extreme.

And to get those things the use of civility and politeness often didn’t go far enough.

Maintaining a status quo by itself is not the best thing. 
 

Also there’d been attempts to try to treat the far right as normal.

It hasn’t typically brought them closer to the center.

Its brought the center closer to them.

Or made people more lax in the horrors they’d face one they’d actually get in power.

No, I do not mean that at all. It is true that I am by character someone who values peace and its preservation, respects authority and avoids conflict like nobody’s business. So I have never been and will never be the person who goes out onto the streets to change the world. Does that mean I don’t see that changing the world took and takes radicalism? Does that mean I don’t see the value that may lie in radicalism? Of course not. I am just by nature not a radical. I value moderation and respect and understanding for one another and intelligent discussion and that’s what will show in my ideas. We can call that cowardice (it is, in a way, I’m not arguing that) or conservatism (it is, in a way, though I don’t consider myself aligned to either side,I’m left leaning in certain questions, right leaning in others) or naivety (it is, in a way, because I’m consciously trying to see the good in everything among the piles of shit). 

But at the end of the day, the world would be a curious place if we were all radicals. As much as there’s need for and value in change, there’s need for and value in stability and status quo, otherwise the balance of the world would be lost. So moderation and center isn’t inherently bad either. Both have their time and place in the grand scheme of the world. And I would never claim that I have the slightest idea whether it’s time for one or the other in a particular issue in the day we live in. Maybe one day I’ll achieve the intellectual maturity where in spite of my natural instinct to preserve, I will know to drive change. Maybe not. Either is okay. I don’t want to change the world, I’d be happy to merely understand it as best as my abilities allow, and appreciate what there is to appreciate. 

Drawing those lines  - far, right, normal, not normal - is not something I’d want to venture into, most definitely not on the internet. But yes, I do agree with the sentiment that there’s a line somewhere beyond which there’s no room for support, understanding or amiability. The question is, who can/should/will determine where that line is. 

 

[The Anti-Targ]

On 12/10/2020 at 9:43 PM, 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.

It is inherently a bad thing, or at least a system that foments is, because it invariably leads to what we're seeing in the USA. It's not that different perspectives, even polar opposite perspectives, is bad. It's the partisan, combative, competitive framework that continues to drive the wedge and leads to the demonising of each side. What we are seeing is end stage partisan politics.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It is inherently a bad thing, or at least a system that foments is, because it invariably leads to what we're seeing in the USA.

No, it doesn't "invariably" lead to the type of negative partisanship currently seen in the US, that's simply inaccurate.  In addition, theoretically the notion of polarization engendering responsible party government makes sense, and that's definitely not necessarily a bad thing from a representational standpoint.