US Politics: The sides have gotten… weird

[TrackerNeil]

10 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

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:

I don't know what went on in the Ukranian thread, so I will decline to address that. However, if you are in general arguing in favor of a more morally arrogant approach to life, and less humility, there we have to disagree. I don't think the main or even a major problem with the world is that people are too humble. If only.

Edited February 29 by TrackerNeil

[Kalbear]

16 minutes ago, horangi said:

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.

I guess? My point is that there are a lot of ways to make things better regardless of the action. The action is not undoable, but very few things are. 

And as others pointed out there is a difference between being decisive and having radical views. 

[Ran]

7 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I don't know what went on in the Ukranian thread, so I will decline to address that.

The bottom of this page and discussion that follows is useful reading. 

 

 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I don't know what went on in the Ukranian thread, so I will decline to address that. However, if you are in general arguing in favor of a more morally arrogant approach to life, and less humility, there we have to disagree. I don't think the main or even a major problem with the world is that people are too humble. If only.

There is a certain level of this being not the case; the best example I can think of is the paradox of tolerance. Choosing to be too tolerant of certain viewpoints and not being decisive may result in the end of that tolerance.

For Ukraine, one can argue that being indecisive and careful means prolonging the war, causing more damage to the civilians, more cost in destruction, etc. There's a good joke from the Good Place about the 'good' people dithering, discussing and having a long process that has zero actual results. 

Or to bring it back to Star Wars, Amidala had a similar point:

 

[TrackerNeil]

25 minutes ago, horangi said:

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.

I didn't see the original comment to which you responded, but, yes, you have the right of it. I am not arguing against forgiveness.

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I didn't see the original comment to which you responded, but, yes, you have the right of it. I am not arguing against forgiveness.

It's not just about forgiveness. It's about restitution as well. My point, simply, is that if you have to dither every time you are concerned about doing anything that cannot be easily undone you will almost never take actual action. Doing nothing is also not a great choice. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

28 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's not just about forgiveness. It's about restitution as well. My point, simply, is that if you have to dither every time you are concerned about doing anything that cannot be easily undone you will almost never take actual action. Doing nothing is also not a great choice. 

Can we agree that there needs to be a balance between thoughtfulness and decisiveness?  Either in isolation can lead to poor outcomes.  Each should ideally be tempered by the other.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Can we agree that there needs to be a balance between thoughtfulness and decisiveness?  Either in isolation can lead to poor outcomes.  Each should ideally be tempered by the other.

Sure! What I'm not willing to say is that decisiveness is horrible all the time, and a whole lot of harm has been caused by people waiting to act until it was far too late.

Like Merrick Garland, for instance, who could have put to SCOTUS if Trump was eligible to be prosecuted years ago instead of waiting until months before the next election. 

[TrackerNeil]

I've never before heard humility compared to "dithering", so that's new.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I've never before heard humility compared to "dithering", so that's new.

I've never heard decisiveness and action compared to wickedness, so we are all experiencing new things.

[horangi]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

And as others pointed out there is a difference between being decisive and having radical views. 

I totally agree with this point.  My contention is really with zealotry and the moral or intellectual certitude of those that have become radicalized.  I personally have a very low estimation of martyrs regardless of the cause, but I can support people taking transactional moves that can be of high personal risk, particularly when the cost of inaction is direct and readily apparent.  (e.g. pushing your kid out of the way of a car with a high risk of getting hit yourself.)  Similarly decisiveness vs dithering isnt really an issue of moral (or other) certitude.  A good leader can be decisive while still recognizing that their beliefs and assumptions could be flawed.  There is a huge difference between a decisive leader taking bold action while recognizing the inherent fallibility of their assessment and even overall goals and a 'true believer' taking radical action, chief among them the ability to reverse course when it seems things are not turning out the way you expected. 

Edited February 29 by horangi
typo

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

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.

I don't like to speak ill of the dead, but your statement is an extremely charitable interpretation of his actions. There is some confusion here because that method of suicide is indeed sometimes an effective way of sending a message. However, it is usually effective because it draws attention to something that is either not known by the general population or is not discussed in polite society. In this specific case, neither of these is true: the situation in Gaza is by far the single most publicized conflict in recent years with every minor incident reported and every medium-sized development on the front page of multiple news sources around the world.

The problems with that conflict do not include a lack of attention; it's mainly intractable because the principals really hate each other, but each is limited in their ability to destroy the other and because there is a large number of interested parties pulling in opposite directions. Nothing about that is changed by that kind of stunt; it's not a sacrifice for the sake of others, it's just a sad way to make a scene.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Illinois has joined with the other states banning Trump the insurrectionist from their ballots.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-illinois-2024-election-b2504403.html

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

58 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sure! What I'm not willing to say is that decisiveness is horrible all the time, and a whole lot of harm has been caused by people waiting to act until it was far too late.

Like Merrick Garland, for instance, who could have put to SCOTUS if Trump was eligible to be prosecuted years ago instead of waiting until months before the next election. 

I didn’t say “decisiveness is horrible all the time.”  And I can disagree with Garland’s methodical approach to prosecution of politically difficult cases without thinking Garland was entirely wrong to take a go it slow approach.  

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I didn’t say “decisiveness is horrible all the time.”

No, @TrackerNeil implied it. 

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 And I can disagree with Garland’s methodical approach to prosecution of politically difficult cases without thinking Garland was entirely wrong to take a go it slow approach.  

I think in this case it was clearly wrong, or at least it was wrong if your goal was to get an actual decision done before the next election. In particular the question of whether or not a former president is prosecutable is 100% foreseeable and would need to be decided sooner rather than later, so why not push for it earlier? Same thing with his approach to go for the lower-level folks and then build a case from that. That's certainly a choice, but ultimately you have less than 4 years to be able to build a case. 

And as pointed out this gives Trump a whole lot of incentive to win the presidency at all costs - because it just goes away if he becomes POTUS again.

I get the adage that Trump isn't going to be solved via judicial systems, it's a political issue - but doing it this way basically guaranteed it was going to fail. 

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Can we agree that there needs to be a balance between thoughtfulness and decisiveness?  Either in isolation can lead to poor outcomes.  Each should ideally be tempered by the other.

And neither one excludes humility! 

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

If you vote for a bad candidate, you can always learn from your mistake and vote differently next time, right? 

I also think this is a pretty funny example given what we're talking about; the answer may well be 'no, actually'. 

And if it is not the case - that this may be the last time you get to vote meaningfully - does that change your actions and viewpoints on radicalism? Because that's something about radicalism too - that you may not be 100% assured that you are right, but the risks of not acting means you must do something more extreme. That is also considered being radical. 

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I think in this case it was clearly wrong, or at least it was wrong if your goal was to get an actual decision done before the next election.

I don't think that was the goal -- and this is a good thing because if it was the goal, then it would have been effectively using executive control of the prosecutors to influence a future election which is one of the hallmarks of states that claim to be democracies, but are actually autocratic.

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I don't think that was the goal -- and this is a good thing because if it was the goal, then it would have been effectively using executive control of the prosecutors to influence a future election which is one of the hallmarks of states that claim to be democracies, but are actually autocratic.

Then you're accepting the possibility that the next candidate will do the same thing by cancelling the investigation. Ultimately you're right, and you're willing to accept the end of democracy to avoid breaching democratic principles.

[Makk]

I think that for the future good, Trump has to be defeated at the election. It's a question of what happens to the entire MAGA crowd and if he is taken down via the courts its going to make that crowd even bigger, nuttier and much easier for someone else to harness if they have a pariah moment.