US Politics: The sides have gotten… weird

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour 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.

That's one way to look at it.  Another is that it would increase the chance of avoiding a constitutional crisis having a legal decision before the election.  Even if Trump was never tried for anything we know that there's a dangerous blindspot in the system when no one is sure if a former (or current) President can be prosecuted.  

It's a pretty big oversight that we didn't do more for legal clarity on this since Ol' Tricky Dick

[kissdbyfire]

4 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

That's one way to look at it.  Another is that it would increase the chance of avoiding a constitutional crisis having a legal decision before the election.  Even if Trump was never tried for anything we know that there's a dangerous blindspot in the system when no one is sure if a former (or current) President can be prosecuted.  

It's a pretty big oversight that we didn't do more for legal clarity on this since Ol' Tricky Dick

Great points. There’s also the fact that it should be in everyone’s interest to know if someone running for president is a convicted felon.

[Kyoshi]

Hi all,

I tend to ghost the board/forum quite a bit so I don't always know where stuff goes. Very sorry about that. But where would  put/discuss the New York Times scandal about some of the atrocities Israel claimed happened on 7 October, like the mass r*pes, but have since been debunked?

Thanks in advance.

[Rippounet]

18 hours ago, Ran said:

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

Well played. I am forced to admit that either my radicalism blinded me to facts, or that I really applied my radicalism selectively, out of bias or fear, as I am accusing others of doing.
I am inclined to believe the latter, which means to admit that I was a coward - not morally but materially. The best way to end the Ukrainian war swiftly was to ignore the threat of Russian nukes and to advocate for full-blown NATO intervention from the start to ensure that the Russian forces were crushed and the war ended right away - obviously, it was a mistake to leave Putin a fighting chance.
So the lesson here is that you can only be a radical humanist if you are able to cast away the fears you have for your own life ; if one wants to defend the moral strength of positive radicalism, one must be prepared to actually put their life on the line.
This is useful, thank you.

[Bironic]

12 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Well played. I am forced to admit that either my radicalism blinded me to facts, or that I really applied my radicalism selectively, out of bias or fear, as I am accusing others of doing.
I am inclined to believe the latter, which means to admit that I was a coward - not morally but materially. The best way to end the Ukrainian war swiftly was to ignore the threat of Russian nukes and to advocate for full-blown NATO intervention from the start to ensure that the Russian forces were crushed and the war ended right away - obviously, it was a mistake to leave Putin a fighting chance.
So the lesson here is that you can only be a radical humanist if you are able to cast away the fears you have for your own life ; if one wants to defend the moral strength of positive radicalism, one must be prepared to actually put their life on the line.
This is useful, thank you.

This is one of the most impressive self reflexions I have read so far in my life. The ability to see past mistakes and is central.  Don't agree with the fullblown NATO intervention part, but otherwise: chapeau!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

49 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

Hi all,

I tend to ghost the board/forum quite a bit so I don't always know where stuff goes. Very sorry about that. But where would  put/discuss the New York Times scandal about some of the atrocities Israel claimed happened on 7 October, like the mass r*pes, but have since been debunked?

Thanks in advance.

There's no scandal. What a weird comment. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

26 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

There's no scandal. What a weird comment. 

You don't think it could be described as "legally or morally wrong causing public outrage"?

Ok.  Let's do our weekly fun with definitions exercise.  What's a scandal?

Edit: in the other thread there's a link to a common dreams article, shows a link to Erin Overbey's Twitter account (New Yorker archive editor) where she refers to it as a scandal.  I'd assume someone in the industry with a position like that using the word at least puts it normal usage.  Far from a "weird comment."

Edited March 1 by Larry of the Lawn

[mormont]

Let's not. Anybody who wants to read that article will have no problem finding it (I didn't): anyone who wants to discuss it has no shortage of other places to do so. 

ETA - I'm serious, people. I've had to delete two further comments. No more.

Edited March 1 by mormont

[Phylum of Alexandria]

5 hours ago, Rippounet said:

if one wants to defend the moral strength of positive radicalism, one must be prepared to actually put their life on the line.

Most of us here tend to preach things we never actually have to practice. Myself included, I'm sure. From the comfort of our bourgeois bubbles, we neither have to put up nor shut up.

It doesn't make what we say any more or less true per se, but it sure makes it easy for others to dismiss our words as mere lip service and moral grand standing. And, if we're so dismissed, we can't disprove the charge without real actions backing us up.

Myself, I think the disconnect is especially egregious for radical moral postures, particularly aggression, violence, or self-destructive behavior. This is because people who laud such behaviors without living them get to avoid all of the complexities, costs, and ambivalences that their strident rhetoric tends to flatten and obscure. How convenient for them!

Bold words are not radical when delivered from the comfort of an arm chair. I guess there's some role of normalizing abnormal behavior, so lip service can play some role for a larger radical movement. But that can bite you in the ass eventually.

Again, I think to the US anti-abortion movement. For years, conservative Christians told themselves that Pro-Life was the most moral position. For decades their radical position was allowed to thrive in a safe, abstract space. They used their bold lip service to foment an apocalyptic race throughout the nation to save the unborn babies.

And yet it didn't remain in abstract space. It culminated in the upending of abortion protections. In the wake of Dobbs, those ideas finally have real application on real lives. And now that actual laws forcing women to give birth to babies they don't want can be written and enforced, a significant portion of those same people are viewing the issue with new eyes. At long last, these people have to reckon with the consequences of their ideas, and some people are finally discovering some complexity in the issue of abortion.

Again, I understand the need not to lose one's sense of moral compass, to not fall into despair or relativistic nihilism. But it's also important not to fall for the seduction of moral certainty. It feels so right, and yet leads to so much dark folly. This is all a hard balance to have to strike, and on so many issues these days. I'm not trying to minimize people's frustrations. Just reiterating that humility and self-searching are vital components in this mix. Not the only components. But we ignore them at our peril.

Edited March 1 by Phylum of Alexandria

[Zorral]

On 2/29/2024 at 12:50 PM, 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. 

Thus the category of 'sins of omission.'

[Zorral]

20 hours ago, Makk said:

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.

So you recommend something far more radical? Or less radical? To keep the fascists from committimg prolonged, escalating violence committed w/out consequences for them, while the rest of us either kowtow to their murdering, executing, humiliating, degrading, raping -- yes, that too -- oppressing, censoring, destroying the economy, finishing off the health system by prohibiting the arts and sciences, technology, medications, vaccines, surgical procedures, aiding and abetting climate catastrophe -- and bringing in Putin to rule us all and with one ring bind us all, with or w/out him?  But you won't pay taxes and will sing praises to the deliverer in mandatory church services several times a week!

Very curious to learn how you thread that needle!

Edited March 1 by Zorral

[Phylum of Alexandria]

20 hours ago, Makk said:

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.

I am extremely critical of Merrick Garland's handling of Trump's Jan 6 criminal investigation. That said, he did thankfully put a lot of his focus on the lower levels of perpetrators. Hundreds of people have been indicted and sentenced for their actions at the Capitol, from the misdemeanor level to felony crimes for Seditious Conspiracy. Should Trump lose and he tries another strong-arming tactic, his followers are a lot less likely to engage in criminal behavior the next time around. That's not everyone, of course, and some violent nuts somewhere are a good bet. But Garland did decrease the risk of a violent response by demonstrating real consequences for people who break the law.

Of course, that's all null and void if Trump actually wins the election. And in that case, Garland's biggest failure will have proven tremendously fucking tragic for us all.

[The Anti-Targ]

7 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I am extremely critical of Merrick Garland's handling of Trump's Jan 6 criminal investigation. That said, he did thankfully put a lot of his focus on the lower levels of perpetrators. Hundreds of people have been indicted and sentenced for their actions at the Capitol, from the misdemeanor level to felony crimes for Seditious Conspiracy. Should Trump lose and he tries another strong-arming tactic, his followers are a lot less likely to engage in criminal behavior the next time around. That's not everyone, of course, and some violent nuts somewhere are a good bet. But Garland did decrease the risk of a violent response by demonstrating real consequences for people who break the law.

Of course, that's all null and void if Trump actually wins the election. And in that case, Garland's biggest failure will have proven tremendously fucking tragic for us all.

The various reflections on radicalism might suggest the J6 2021 prosecutions will have little or no deterrent effect at all, if the MAGAists are true believers in their cause. If you go to prison for what you believe to be a righteous act then you will see yourself as a political prisoner in a corrupt regime, not a criminal. And your comrades on the outside will believe the same and will be motivated by your sacrifice to carry on the good fight. Tyrants locking people up and executing them using the facade of kangaroo courts works for a time, but eventually the revolution comes. If that's how the MAGAist see J6, the prosecutions and the Biden regime we can expect more or worse in January 2025 if Biden wins, especially if it's once again narrowly and with sudden swings to Biden late in the reporting for a number of states.

If you look at all the political rhetoric around J6 and the various convictions that followed, the conclusion I come to is that in MAGA circles the struggle continues with even greater determination. At least that's what is being projected to the world at large. Behind closed doors it might be different.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

12 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If you go to prison for what you believe to be a righteous act then you will see yourself as a political prisoner in a corrupt regime, not a criminal.

That mindset will be found among some people in the MAGA movement, to be sure. But MAGA isn't a full-blown cult, it's more of a makeshift one. A big part of its appeal is its entertainment value. Sure, it's centered around a fear-soaked apocalypse narrative, but it's also centered around a certified star and entertainer, with rallies and community events and silly costumes.

And most of the ideas that these people rally around don't actually affect them (I don't know if my dad has ever even seen a Mexican immigrant, but he talks about them all the time!). That's part of the appeal. Most of them live cozy lives, and don't want that to change. 

The people joining paramilitary groups and militias are obviously the ones to worry about. And any lone wolfs with mental health issues.

[JGP]

7 hours ago, Rippounet said:

So the lesson here is that you can only be a radical humanist if you are able to cast away the fears you have for your own life ; if one wants to defend the moral strength of positive radicalism, one must be prepared to actually put their life on the line.
This is useful, thank you.

Not sure what the lesson is, if not that, and I was amongst the very few boarders advocating direct intervention in Ukraine almost from go. Though there were few scolds re: my position, I felt the chill. 

Back when the whole no-fly zone discussion was big up in the public consciousness, I vividly recall throwing my remote and yelling *Pussy at Lawrence O'Donnell when he upbraided his audience about Russia's nuclear threats vs no-fly.

 

* apologies for the misogynistic language, I can regress when I'm angry

[The Anti-Targ]

I am a supporter of the pile on doctrine: anyone invades another country without a UN mandate, everyone else piles on to kick them back out. Whether that needs to be a military pile on or something less killy would depend on circumstance. In the Ukraine/Russia case Russia really had no support countries that would be willing to commit bodies to the fight. Ukraine should have had allies willing to commit bodies to the fight. But even without formally committing bodies a hardware blank cheque could have done the job.

[Jace, Extat]

23 minutes ago, JGP said:

 

 

* apologies for the misogynistic language, I can regress when I'm angry

Apologies are for apologists. We'll see you convicted and hanged for this outrage! 

All rise for Presiding Judge Jace, whose authority and magnanimity go without question... 

For the prosecution I appoint @Ser Scot A Ellison

For the defense, I appoint myself and hereby waive all rights of the accused and submit to sentencing on the mercy of the court. 

 

Sentence: Death!

[Jace, Extat]

8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Well played. I am forced to admit that either my radicalism blinded me to facts, or that I really applied my radicalism selectively, out of bias or fear, as I am accusing others of doing.
I am inclined to believe the latter, which means to admit that I was a coward - not morally but materially. The best way to end the Ukrainian war swiftly was to ignore the threat of Russian nukes and to advocate for full-blown NATO intervention from the start to ensure that the Russian forces were crushed and the war ended right away - obviously, it was a mistake to leave Putin a fighting chance.
So the lesson here is that you can only be a radical humanist if you are able to cast away the fears you have for your own life ; if one wants to defend the moral strength of positive radicalism, one must be prepared to actually put their life on the line.
This is useful, thank you.

So correct me if I'm wrong here, but...

You progressed from a reasonable concern about money and investment in defeating Russia via proxy to --

Blithe disregard of the dangers to every soul and structure on earth for the sake of radical humanism? Specifically, for the sake of the radical part? Risk losing all lives rather than acknowledge impotence to save some lives? 

Am I misunderstanding or is that just batshit crazy?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

27 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I am a supporter of the pile on doctrine: anyone invades another country without a UN mandate, everyone else piles on to kick them back out. Whether that needs to be a military pile on or something less killy would depend on circumstance. In the Ukraine/Russia case Russia really had no support countries that would be willing to commit bodies to the fight. Ukraine should have had allies willing to commit bodies to the fight. But even without formally committing bodies a hardware blank cheque could have done the job.

A varient on “the Great Convention” about the use of “Atomics” im Frank Herbert’s “Dune” Universe?

[karaddin]

6 hours ago, Jace, Extat said:

So correct me if I'm wrong here, but...

You progressed from a reasonable concern about money and investment in defeating Russia via proxy to --

Blithe disregard of the dangers to every soul and structure on earth for the sake of radical humanism? Specifically, for the sake of the radical part? Risk losing all lives rather than acknowledge impotence to save some lives? 

Am I misunderstanding or is that just batshit crazy?

Pretty sure Rip went from "appeasement via conceding territory is the fastest way to end the war and avert the risk of nuclear war" to "Putin is not acting the way he thought, appeasement via limited territorial gains is not possible but he's not at the point of ending the world over a conventional conflict in Ukraine. Therefore the fastest way to end the war, and with it the risk of uncontrolled escalation leading to nuclear war, would have been immediately bringing the initial conflict to an end via overwhelming international force".

It's still motivated by avoiding nuclear war.