US Politics: The sides have gotten… weird

[Rippounet]

3 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Hopefully, radicalism does not supplant humility, which teaches us that no matter how certain we may feel about this or that cause, we can always be wrong.

Radicalism, pretty much by definition, means that you are 100% convinced of what you believe in.

Extreme events will beget extreme beliefs, and vice-versa. Confronted with the unprecedented, is the radical crazier than the one arguing for relativism or moderation? I wouldn't be so sure...

[TrackerNeil]

42 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Extreme events will beget extreme beliefs, and vice-versa. Confronted with the unprecedented, is the radical crazier than the one arguing for relativism or moderation? I wouldn't be so sure...

I don't know how to answer that question, except to say that I have seen more harm done by those who were convinced they were righteous, than by those who know they are wicked.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I don't know how to answer that question, except to say that I have seen more harm done by those who were convinced they were righteous, than by those who know they are wicked.

Agreed… entirely.  All of us make mistakes.  

[Kalbear]

Seems like a ridiculous notion; who actually thinks 'hey, I'm fucking evil'. 

I also think you can be radical without being righteous or particularly even fully convinced that your cause is 100% just or that your action is 100% correct. Desperation also breeds this level of value. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

59 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Extreme events will beget extreme beliefs, and vice-versa. Confronted with the unprecedented, is the radical crazier than the one arguing for relativism or moderation? I wouldn't be so sure..

If you're conflating a call for humility with relativism, you may want to step back and consider what's pushing you to do so.

Moral clarity feels good, I get it. And yes, absolute relativism is its own sort of evil. But more often than not, you are simply blinding yourself to important truths about the world for the sake of the convenience of felt clarity.

I mean, the argument you have been making here is almost indistinguishable from the one my mom made in 2009 to justify the righteous execution of Dr. George Tiller, legal butcher of babies (i.e, a doctor who was murdered for providing abortions). Sure seemed heroic to her, given her beliefs and convictions.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

As I said before, everyone likely has a limit after which they become deranged into radical extremism. For most people, extreme stances are nothing more than bold statements made by comfortable people, doing little more than venting frustration through performative moral hipsterdom *cough cough*.

For those for whom it's real, I'm sympathetic to their plight, but no less disturbed for it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Oral arguments in Trump's immunity case were set for April 22nd? 
What a fucking joke.

Never forget, they're politicians. I can't believe people believed for so long judges at any level they were above it. They need term limits far more than the other two branches. 

Edited February 29 by Mr. Chatywin et al.

[The Anti-Targ]

6 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

I don't know how to answer that question, except to say that I have seen more harm done by those who were convinced they were righteous, than by those who know they are wicked.

That's because pretty much no one in history "know they are wicked". People who acknowledge they are flawed and know they will make bad choices are not "wicked" if their motivation is to do good in the world.

So the SC deciding to review the case indicates they think there is merit to Trump's argument, so it seems like while they might not give presidents blanket immunity for the rest of time they might provide some level of immunity beyond what perhaps is accepted right now, which may or may make some of the charges disappear.

Edited February 29 by The Anti-Targ

[ThinkerX]

36 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's because pretty much no one in history "know they are wicked". People who acknowledge they are flawed and know they will make bad choices are not "wicked" if their motivation is to do good in the world.

So the SC deciding to review the case indicates they think there is merit to Trump's argument, so it seems like while they might not give presidents blanket immunity for the rest of time they might provide some level of immunity beyond what perhaps is accepted right now, which may or may make some of the charges disappear.

Nope. This court will rule that Trump, and Trump alone has near near blanket immunity, 

[kissdbyfire]

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So the SC deciding to review the case indicates they think there is merit to Trump's argument,

I don’t think it means that at all. As Ty said above, they’re so political it’s not even funny. They’re also pathetic cowards, and some are very corrupt. They didn’t want to be seen as harming Trump’s chances so they will hear the case, even when all legal experts worth a damn said the right decision here would be not to since the court of appeals ruling was spot on. Even ultra conservative but apparently not corrupt judge Luttig shares that opinion. So they’ll hear it, but they will do it in a way that makes it impossible for the trial to happen before the election. If Trump wins the election the case goes away, and they didn’t have to rule against him.* It’s beyond fucking craven and disgusting. 

ETA: * meaning they will be free to rule against the full immunity claim but in a manner that won't hurt Trump's chances in the election.

Edited February 29 by kissdbyfire

[Zorral]

18 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

That’s not what they were saying, before or after the primary. I had read (before the primary) that they were hoping to get 10%. But even after, there’s several articles on how they got much more than they were hoping for, like this one from NPR:

 

AND it happened in less than 3 weeks, of the Uncommitted Vote campaigne, funded by about $200,000, which is barely even chicken feed in comparison to what campaigns for anything -- issue or candidate -- at any level -- cost these days.

This is what Biden has to, and old pol that he is, must have taken notice.

The world is becoming ever more passionate in its spreading condemnation of Israel, even in just the last few days, I'm seeing.  A huge pro-Palestinian demo is going to take place in Cadiz while we're there.  Every member of our group is also pro-Palestine, and are happy to forgo our own planned activity due to blockade.  When this is older voters, at least half of them self-identified as Jewish -- from all over the US, who are paying $10,000 + transportation for this castle-in-Spain travel, one may well demand those enabling the Gazan, West Bank, Palestinian atrocity pay attention.

[TrackerNeil]

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's because pretty much no one in history "know they are wicked". People who acknowledge they are flawed and know they will make bad choices are not "wicked" if their motivation is to do good in the world.

I think you are overstraining the word "wicked"; I'm not talking about Snidely Whiplash here.

Let me restate my point in terms that I hope won't be overstrained: People who are 100% certain they are right do more damage than those who are less certain. 

Cue cries of "But you didn't say that!"

[Zorral]

9 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I think you are overstraining the word "wicked"; I'm not talking about Snidely Whiplash here.

Let me restate my point in terms that I hope won't be overstrained: People who are 100% certain they are right do more damage than those who are less certain. 

Cue cries of "But you didn't say that!"

You are neglecting the tremendous damage ditherers cause. People who are swayed in one direction and then another, etc. according to whomever they last talked with.  People who cannot make up their minds.  History is full of the damages that happened due to them.  Good people on both sidesism!

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just of curiosity, is it radical or extremist to wish that there was a candidate for US president who isn't going to continue funding the war in Gaza?  Is there some kind of toxic moral certainty involved in voting "uncommitted" in a democratic primary, or for telling the president you don't support genocide?  

I think it's ok to think about things carefully and determine that one thing is good and another is bad.  The existence of shitty opinions and ideological zealots doesn't eclipse the ability* of people to say "I'm pretty sure this a bad fucking idea".  

 

Edited February 29 by Larry of the Lawn
*or validity

[LongRider]

Good news!

WASHINGTON -- Democrat Tom Suozzi was sworn in as a congressman again Wednesday, representing Long Island and Queens' 3rd congressional district.

Suozzi brought his own local cheering section to Congress. About 100 people from Long Island were shouting his name as he called for a new era of harmony and working across the aisle.......As Suozzi posed for formal pictures with House Speaker Mike Johnson, there was no mention of the bitter special election with Mazi Pillip and certainly no mention of the man he replaced, former Congressman George Santos.

Democrat Tom Suozzi sworn back into Congress (yahoo.com)

 

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

I think it's ok to think about things carefully and determine that one thing is good and another is bad.  The existence of shitty opinions and ideological zealots doesn't eclipse the ability* of people to say "I'm pretty sure this a bad fucking idea".  

Sure, we all have to decide what we think is right and wrong, and act accordingly--I don't know anyone who denies that. I think we also need to be careful about becoming so certain of our judgments that we can no longer consider the possibility that we are wrong, which of course we always can be. In particular, I caution against taking extreme actions based on these judgments. If you vote for a bad candidate, you can always learn from your mistake and vote differently next time, right? If you kill an abortion doctor...well, no amount of learning and growing will fix that.

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

If you kill an abortion doctor...well, no amount of learning and growing will fix that.

Interesting. I wouldn't have thought that you would be on the side of absolutely no redemption or ability to change. Guess thats another person on the side of killing criminals.

[horangi]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Interesting. I wouldn't have thought that you would be on the side of absolutely no redemption or ability to change. Guess thats another person on the side of killing criminals.

I took Trackerneil's statement more to mean that no amount of redemption or change will resurrect the dead doctor.  i.e. The more consequential the action, the less zealously/supremely confident one should be willing to take it.

Edited February 29 by horangi

[Rippounet]

15 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Moral clarity feels good, I get it. And yes, absolute relativism is its own sort of evil. But more often than not, you are simply blinding yourself to important truths about the world for the sake of the convenience of felt clarity.

And yet, in this case as in many others, the ones who "blind [themselves] to important truths" are not the radicals ; the radicals are the ones using hard facts wheras the "others" (the moderates and the cynics) mainly spend their time disputing or downplaying  them.

We've had... (checks) 16 threads of that, and now (oddly enough) there are no more... So who is blinding themselves here?

15 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

I don't know how to answer that question, except to say that I have seen more harm done by those who were convinced they were righteous, than by those who know they are wicked.

And yet, in this case as in many others, the "radical" harmed no one but himself in the defense of his cause ; he literally sacrificed his life for the sake of others who are suffering. But apparently that's... "violent ?
The fallacy here is to equate radical thought with extremist action, when the two are so obviously different. Extremist activists are often course almost aways radicals ; pretending that the reverse is true, i.e. that radical action is extremist by nature, is absolute bollocks.

When the facts don't match the theory, then the theory must be wrong. And the big idea that humility or moderation are so good and great, wheras radicalism is so dangerous and inefficient does not match reality. It fact, it arguably doesn't match the historical record either, since the heroes of today were almost all considered radical in the past.

The hard truth is that moderation and cynicism are two sides of the same coin, whereas "humility" ends up in false equivalency, apathy, and stagation at best - slow degradation most of the time.
What's so great about "humility" when human lives are at stake? I've seen little "humility" in the Ukrainian thread, and yet there's this curious idea that if we switch the topic, radicalism is suddenly evil, and "humility" is in order.

The selective outrage is ridiculous, the hypocrisy astounding. Or to sum up:

15 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

I have seen more harm done by those who were convinced they were righteous, than by those who know they are wicked.

This can only be true is the status quo is -morally or materially- sustainable ; if it isn't, then those who would do as little as possible are the ones doing harm, and radicals the ones who might improve things and save lives.

And in the near future, I'm pretty certain that we're going to need a lot more radicalism than most people here can stomach.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

And yet, in this case as in many others, the ones who "blind [themselves] to important truths" are not the radicals ; the radicals are the ones using hard facts wheras the "others" (the moderates and the cynics) mainly spend their time disputing or downplaying  them.

We've had... (checks) 16 threads of that, and now (oddly enough) there are no more... So who is blinding themselves here?

And yet, in this case as in many others, the "radical" harmed no one but himself in the defense of his cause ; he literally sacrificed his life for the sake of others who are suffering. But apparently that's... "violent ?
The fallacy here is to equate radical thought with extremist action, when the two are so obviously different. Extremist activists are often course almost aways radicals ; pretending that the reverse is true, i.e. that radical action is extremist by nature, is absolute bollocks.

When the facts don't match the theory, then the theory must be wrong. And the big idea that humility or moderation are so good and great, wheras radicalism is so dangerous and inefficient does not match reality. It fact, it arguably doesn't match the historical record either, since the heroes of today were almost all considered radical in the past.

The hard truth is that moderation and cynicism are two sides of the same coin, whereas "humility" ends up in false equivalency, apathy, and stagation at best - slow degradation most of the time.
What's so great about "humility" when human lives are at stake? I've seen little "humility" in the Ukrainian thread, and yet there's this curious idea that if we switch the topic, radicalism is suddenly evil, and "humility" is in order.

The selective outrage is ridiculous, the hypocrisy astounding. Or to sum up:

This can only be true is the status quo is -morally or materially- sustainable ; if it isn't, then those who would do as little as possible are the ones doing harm, and radicals the ones who might improve things and save lives.

And in the near future, I'm pretty certain that we're going to need a lot more radicalism than most people here can stomach.

“The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity”.

I’ve been wrong many times in my life.  I constantly second guess myself.  Passion untempered by compassion is dangerous.  Always has been.  We are all, every one of us, flawed and fallible. 

Edited February 29 by Ser Scot A Ellison