Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[Sinekein]

But that also leads to the whole "only black people can talk about black people or it's racist" "only gay people can talk of gay people or it's homophobe" and so on mentality that is literally sucking the fun and the freedom of expression out of almost everything. Of course a neo-nazi making holocaust jokes would be pretty fucking tasteless, but that's a very very narrow and specific case to consider, not something that's particularly healthy to reason with in broad strokes.

I think proper, smart writers can tackle any subject, but that most writers are neither proper nor smart enough to do so when they try it, and it ends up ranging from facepalm-worthy to outright offensive.

But a simple counterpoint would be Cpt. Raymond Holt, black and gay, written by the white and straight Michael Schur. He's neither camp (the opposite) nor your average straight character with a sex swap in his spouse.

There's also the fantastic OSS117 movies by Michel Hazanavicius, which manages to throw in some amazingly racist (against Arabs, Jews, Asians...) and sexist jokes, but whose fun mostly comes from how clueless the main (racist, sexist) character is about these topics.

In both cases (B99 or OSS 117), the jokes are not meant to hurt anyone but bigots who would take them seriously.

[Sinekein]

Whatever makes you feel like God.

Whatever makes you feel like a human being worthy of attention.

[Sinekein]

Choose your poison:

the narcissistic manchild who conducts policy on a whim and interprets American democracy and himself as interchangeable - if you threaten one you threaten the other OR

the social justice commissar who believes that pretty much all of our institutions and founding principles are nothing but complex, overlapping systems of oppression that must be torn apart in order for New Foucauldian Man or whatever to emerge

There's the part about the former being so clueless about diplomacy that he can start international conflicts on a whim. I know that it's not purely about the US, but I think it has to count for something.

[Alienmorph]

I think proper, smart writers can tackle any subject, but that most writers are neither proper nor smart enough to do so when they try it, and it ends up ranging from facepalm-worthy to outright offensive.

But a simple counterpoint would be Cpt. Raymond Holt, black and gay, written by the white and straight Michael Schur. He's neither camp (the opposite) nor your average straight character with a sex swap in his spouse.

There's also the fantastic OSS117 movies by Michel Hazanavicius, which manages to throw in some amazingly racist (against Arabs, Jews, Asians...) and sexist jokes, but whose fun mostly comes from how clueless the main (racist, sexist) character is about these topics.

In both cases (B99 or OSS 117), the jokes are not meant to hurt anyone but bigots who would take them seriously.

Then I guess the problem is that we're chug-full of bad writers and of easily offended bigots unaware of what they are.

Yep. That checks out.

[Raga]

There's the part about the former being so clueless about diplomacy that he can start international conflicts on a whim. I know that it's not purely about the US, but I think it has to count for something.

Sure, there's a reason I just said "policy" and didn't specify. He does it with both foreign and domestic policy.

[Sinekein]

Then I guess the problem is that we're chug-full of bad writers and of easily offended bigots unaware of what they are.

Yep. That checks out.

And they feed each other. You got bad writers gaining prominence because they "own the libtards", and bad writers gaining prominence because they "enrage the cuckservatives". And you got bigots on both sides happily helping those bad writers to build their brand as "good because they make stupid people angry".

The issue being that all these people are becoming louder and louder, and at the epicenter of all discussions nowadays because there's barely a topic where you won't get offended. We're basically at a point where any AAA movie with a white male lead can be called "conservative propaganda" because they could have cast a woman/not white/not straight man instead, and any AAA movie with a non-white male lead can be called "liberal propaganda" because obviously not picking a white male lead is a political decision to get cookie points on the left.

Sure, there's a reason I just said "policy" and didn't specify. He does it with both foreign and domestic policy.

I honestly only answer as a non-American. Anyone coming from the Democratic party would look at worst like The Devil You Know from outside of the U.S. when it comes to international relationships. They are neither neocons like Bush nor unpredictable stupid like Trump.

[Alienmorph]

A fun example is the whole mess surrounding the Joker movie and the Harley Quinn... err... sorry the BIrds of Prey movie. You have one attempt at being a legitimately good film and not another cinecomic getting bashed by half the internet because "it tries to make a literally white-skinned sociopath into a sympathetic character!!!!" and the same crowd goes whild for BoD that literally looks like a shitty Netflix b-movie because it's about Harley Quinn and a bunch of angry chicks trolling Ewan McGregor for an hour and half or something, and that somehow means it's a film about how misoginy is bad.

And that of course works the other way around too tho. There were alot of people who just like the supremely dumb Aquaman movie because it wasn't woke, or that like crappy unfunny commedies because thei're full of edgy jokes that "get libs triggered".

It's almost like reasoning only for extremes, no matter what extreme you are on, is almost always a terrible idea, and people should try to be more reasonable and balanced. Gee... what a novel idea that I never mentioned before...

[Vol]

I don't know why unqualified satire is somehow sacrosanct where pretty much no other form of unqualified resistance is. Because it's a form of expression? I'm close to a free speech purist, but performance, which is what dressing up is, is crossing some line into freedom of assembly and other rights. It's not just an act of mockery. It's also usually an intentional act of physical disruption. There's handing out satirical pamphlets on the sidewalk and then there's crashing some gathering space and grinding it to a halt by demanding everybody pay attention to you, literally or by virtue of being shocking. Those are related but clearly different.

Satire specifically because it transcends our draconian copyright laws and is commonly associated with mocking the powerful, but comedy in general, really. No group is so particularly distinguished from any other that it should be "verboten" to point out their foibles, failings, or quirks for laughs. Putting aside the principle of free speech, you're imposing intellectual and cultural regulations on who can speak about whom, think about what, when, where, and why, without the benefit of a philosophical and legal framework. Harsh and arbitrary, sourced from empathy into a better tool for gaining and displaying power than any minstrel show ever was. It is always better to have the people you don't like out in the open, bold with their message and visible, than bitter and hidden.

Indeed, but overall those targeting black people - and other nonwhite people - are more hurtful, more widely spread, and have more direct consequences. Which is why it is not an equal action to embrace all kinds of satire in the name of "freedom of speech".

Economic and cultural realities of peoples that have been broken by the powers of the state is more hurtful than any amount of minstrel shows or sombrero parties, and to shift the blame onto otherwise powerless individuals of the dominant group is to miss the forest for a pinecone. You can use the tools of the authoritarians to silence the laughter, and nothing is done about the fundamental issues. Instead, cover is given to the organizations that should be blamed for silently agreeing with the moral crusaders.

[Sinekein]

And that of course works the other way around too tho. There were alot of people who just like the supremely dumb Aquaman movie because it wasn't woke, or that like crappy unfunny commedies because thei're full of edgy jokes that "get libs triggered".

I mean, Aquaman was a rather obvious case of race lifting with Jason Momoa being pretty far removed from the blonde Arthur Curry from the comics. So wokeness also is in the eye of the beholder.

Economic and cultural realities of peoples that have been broken by the powers of the state is more hurtful than any amount of minstrel shows or sombrero parties, and to shift the blame onto otherwise powerless individuals of the dominant group is to miss the forest for a pinecone. You can use the tools of the authoritarians to silence the laughter, and nothing is done about the fundamental issues. Instead, cover is given to the organizations that should be blamed for silently agreeing with the moral crusaders.

That sounds to me like Fallacy of relative privation ("Children are Starving in Africa, why do you care about [any given problem]?"). It's also similar to the way some far-left supporters read absolutely everything through the lens of class struggle, and refuse to even acknowledge than any other cause is worth caring for because "if you solve class struggle you solve everything".

Doesn't mean that you have to ignore small malicious acts because there are worse things going on.

[Raga]

Satire specifically because it transcends our draconian copyright laws and is commonly associated with mocking the powerful, but comedy in general, really. No group is so particularly distinguished from any other that it should be "verboten" to point out their foibles, failings, or quirks for laughs. Putting aside the principle of free speech, you're imposing intellectual and cultural regulations on who can speak about whom, think about what, when, where, and why, without the benefit of a philosophical and legal framework. Harsh and arbitrary, sourced from empathy into a better tool for gaining and displaying power than any minstrel show ever was. It is always better to have the people you don't like out in the open, bold with their message and visible, than bitter and hidden.

Considering it's legal to fly Nazi flags, I don't seriously think that tacky sombreros are going to be outlawed any time soon. I'm talking at the level of social stigma and whether or not privately owned but highly publicly used institutions should or can outlaw such things or exert social pressure against them.

Social stigma is a tool and it's not going anywhere. It's one of the many forms of social glue that lets humans organize into society in the first place. I really have no qualms about its ire being directed at racist dress up so long as this doesn't become utterly puritanical. It's rather like the social stigma against rampant sexual promiscuity or treating animals like furniture. You can take those things out into puritanical destructive extremes which the modern morality police have done, but it doesn't mean the underlying impulse is completely illegitimate.

[Alienmorph]

I mean, Aquaman was a rather obvious case of race lifting with Jason Momoa being pretty far removed from the blonde Arthur Curry from the comics. So wokeness also is in the eye of the beholder.

True, but considering that people STILL bitched we shouldn't make movies about stereotypical macho-men anymore, or that there should have been some political commentary in the movie about global warming or polluted oceans...

Bah, it's so exaustingly stupid, whatever angle you look this stuff from.

[Sinekein]

I think that Aquaman worked because, as dumb a show as it was, the characters were properly written. Momoa's Aquaman was healthily manly. For a vast majority of viewers being bulky, or a party boy, is not the issue, it's when it is accompanied by "treating women like dirt", or making fun of any guy not meeting the same virility standards.

[Vol]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/opin ... &smtyp=cur

If you want more kids to become ironic Nazis, having their moms try police them to not be is a pretty effective way.

That sounds to me like Fallacy of relative privation ("Children are Starving in Africa, why do you care about [any given problem]?"). It's also similar to the way some far-left supporters read absolutely everything through the lens of class struggle, and refuse to even acknowledge than any other cause is worth caring for because "if you solve class struggle you solve everything".

Doesn't mean that you have to ignore small malicious acts because there are worse things going on.

If you cannot ignore a small malicious act, however, then the bigots have won, because all you have are reactionaries on your side.

Considering it's legal to fly Nazi flags, I don't seriously think that tacky sombreros are going to be outlawed any time soon. I'm talking at the level of social stigma and whether or not privately owned but highly publicly used institutions should or can outlaw such things or exert social pressure against them.

Social stigma is a tool and it's not going anywhere. It's one of the many forms of social glue that lets humans organize into society in the first place. I really have no qualms about its ire being directed at racist dress up so long as this doesn't become utterly puritanical. It's rather like the social stigma against rampant sexual promiscuity or treating animals like furniture. You can take those things out into puritanical destructive extremes which the modern morality police have done, but it doesn't mean the underlying impulse is completely illegitimate.

Legal, yes, but you will be punished by organizations that are in part publicly funded, to say nothing of the police state's love of rubber-stamping raid warrants. Sure, you lose your job, bank account is closed, refused service at stores, banned off the internet, and then you lose your house because you have to pay the state for the great privilege of owning land, but you technically could fly a Nazi flag and weren't arrested for it. It would be better if our government was compelled to actively propagandize the natural rights of the citizens in the many, many groups they help pay for, and in fact demand compliance as well. The concept of private organizations getting to take from the public coffer, in any way, but retain their independence is perverse.

That's the problem with what's happening, no one's worried the government itself will ban sombrero costumes or Nazi flags, it's the massively powerful groups that get handjobs from the government that are doing it, and punishing people in severe ways.

Which is far removed from social stigma as you describe it. That's people acting as people to make outcasts, fine and normal. But the means and groups available now to enforce "just don't be an asshole bro" Thought has grown to a destabilizing level. Would you prefer offensive racial comedy or allow the authoritarians among us to ruin people for it?

[Raga]

That's the problem with what's happening, no one's worried the government itself will ban sombrero costumes or Nazi flags, it's the massively powerful groups that get handjobs from the government that are doing it, and punishing people in severe ways.

Which is far removed from social stigma as you describe it. That's people acting as people to make outcasts, fine and normal. But the means and groups available now to enforce "just don't be an asshole bro" Thought has grown to a destabilizing level. Would you prefer offensive racial comedy or allow the authoritarians among us to ruin people for it?

McCarthyism is bad. And it takes a lot of court battles and a delicate cultural balance to arrive at something that wields censure in the form of stigma without crushing all opposition.

My answer won't satisfy anybody because I believe being able to punish and even coerce group consensus is an important part of tribal formation. I remember a study done a while back that showed that preventing people from punishing freeloaders in a group experiment actually diminished the incentives and desires of the group to cooperate with each other. Freeloaders are perhaps a little different from unruly dissenters but they are a first cousin.

I don't like the idea of people being ruined by wearing tacky costumes or merely being subversive in some mostly harmless way, but I'm skeptical that society will ever exist (or even *can* exist) without an impulse that stigmatizes somebody for some behavior or other to this extent.

It's better when it's directed at pedophiles and Nazis than any number of other groups I can think of.

One of the game changers we have today is the Internet which has made separating what you do in your life from your work or school next to impossible. I'm pretty Teddy Roosevelt about this. But that in itself is putting on the big stomping boots of potential authoritarianism. I also do think that institutions that take government money or are themselves government institutions really do need to be free speech purists.

Universities in particular are some of the most concerning. Legally speaking, free speech codes were mostly licked by the courts in the 1990s. The problem today isn't with codes but with the expansion of the college bureaucracy and administration. When you have more apparatchiks than instructors, which is now common at many schools, and they are answerable to no authority but themselves, they are going to cause problems by the sheer weight of their incessant investigations, mandatory inclusion and diversity instruction, and relentless propaganda sent out in emails, posters, and official announcements. All of that discourages anybody from speaking up with a contrary opinion for fear of bringing the weight of all that administrative bloat down on their head. It also puts gasoline on the fire of certain activist student groups who feel they have the backing of the college to do whatever they like in the name of social justice.

(I read a really excellent long form essay on that Oberlin College thing somewhere, but now I'm having a hard time finding an article that doesn't filter it through the "Oh dear, oh dear, we can't call anybody we want racists for whatever reason we want without the fear of repercussions! Think of the children!" angle. I just posted the Wikipedia article, but the gist is that some black students got thrown out of a bakery in a college town for shoplifting & trying to buy alcohol underage, and two of the students attacked and beat up a shop employee when he tried to physically stop the shoplifter. Afterwards, an unending stream of protesters began attacking the bakery with the explicit logistical assistance of the university. Oberlin college then got sued for damages to the tune of $11 million).

This is one place where the neoliberals are actually correct. Bureaucracies need occasional, aggressive culling to maintain their functionality. It's high time for a culling in both large corporations and in universities at least.

[Sinekein]

If you cannot ignore a small malicious act, however, then the bigots have won, because all you have are reactionaries on your side.

There is no such thing as an objective way to rule out what is important and what isn't. Concluding that everything should be allowed is just the laziest way to rule things out because it saves everyone - especially offenders - from having to think about the consequences of what they're saying.

Especially now with the internet having abolished the social filter that used to made fringe ideas way less widespread than they are now. The simpletons that used to be relatively decent people because they basically were only exposed to common representations now have access to the stupidest, most extreme ideas, and the thing with extreme ideas is that they are very easy to understand, making them rather enticing for idiots.

Everyone being allowed to say anything would make the situation gradually worse. It's never going to fix itself without some kind of moral authority saying what is right and what is not.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

The European mindset truly is terrifying.

[Mobius_118]

Turkish forces are bracketed a US SF group. No one was killed, luckily.

ISIS detainees are breaking free in the chaos caused by trump pulling out of Syria. So, trump basically remade ISIS and helped kill off our ally who was helping us take down ISIS.

You know, this is getting less "trump is balls-out stupid" and more "trump is getting blackmailed into undoing everything." No one is this willfully stupid.

The European mindset truly is terrifying.

I stand corrected.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

You remain the most catty bitch here Mobius. It's impressive.

The US reducing its presence in the Middle East is a good thing. Now if only we could do the same in Yemen.

[TTTX]

The European mindset truly is terrifying.

Well Shines is anyway.

never the less there will always be moral guardians and people to oppose them (as there have been way before the internet), which is probably for the best because if history has thought us anything going in either extreme would just be terrible.

[Mazder]

If you cannot ignore a small malicious act, however, then the bigots have won, because all you have are reactionaries on your side.

There is no such thing as an objective way to rule out what is important and what isn't. Concluding that everything should be allowed is just the laziest way to rule things out because it saves everyone - especially offenders - from having to think about the consequences of what they're saying.

Especially now with the internet having abolished the social filter that used to made fringe ideas way less widespread than they are now. The simpletons that used to be relatively decent people because they basically were only exposed to common representations now have access to the stupidest, most extreme ideas, and the thing with extreme ideas is that they are very easy to understand, making them rather enticing for idiots.

Everyone being allowed to say anything would make the situation gradually worse. It's never going to fix itself without some kind of moral authority saying what is right and what is not.

The trouble with the concept of a moral authority saying what is right and wrong is that it is a subjective matter in some cases and a non-subjective matter in others.

Plus it's all dependant on said authority actually being moral.

I mean Christians would say the Catholic Church's influence would have been the moral compass and should be the authority on what morals are/should be some 200-300 years ago, despite the fact that there is a lot of shit in the Bible/Christian faith that are morally reprehensible to our standards today, and some of our current standards might just be reprehensible to those from 300 years in our future, we can not begin to know how our culture will or could grow.
Does that justify a committee/authority to try and direct it?

I would be more comfortable with someone not trying to tell people what to think, good or bad. As soon as you start doing that then it's on you to remain moral, but you're your own moral compass on the issue so what you'd say would go. How would that be fair if that were applied to everybody? And, isn't that the exact same premise that flawed religions do to keep their followers in line?
Taking an authoritarian approach to morals doesn't make it a more moral approach by virtue of what the authority deems to be good or bad being expunged.
Hell, China does this, or tries to do this, today. Would you say China is/has a moral government/background at present?

Yes, there is a risk of bad ideas having more access, but the inverse could be true if you begin to determine what is good and enforcing it as your path could remain rigid and unyielding to further developments.

The better solution would be to not let the bad ideas that are reactionary drive the media/influence of the world as a whole.
Outlets need to be held to a better standard than profit, and profit itself needs to be encouraged to be less important. This is not going to happen as soon as we think but the main focus should be holding a better standard.
This doesn't necessarily mean holding a more intelligent standard either. If it is true that those among the less intelligent or less patient are the perfect target for the reactionary then you need to make a counter to why they're drawn to the reactionary. If things need to be made simple then let's show things made simple.

I mean it's no solution but I feel we have a greater capacity to be good if we have a free ability to wonder if what is good and bad without an over-reaching influence.

[Mobius_118]

You remain the most catty bitch here Mobius. It's impressive.

The US reducing its presence in the Middle East is a good thing. Now if only we could do the same in Yemen.

You think being concerned about national security is being a catty bitch?

I dunno, man. Letting ISIS free, killing our allies through negligence, and sending troops to Saudi Arabia as "reducing our presence", I have a bridge to sell you.

It gets even better because trump is sending troops to Saudi Arabia, even though Saudi Arabia supplied 15 terrorists and funded 9/11. Ah but that 45th floor in Trump Towers bought out and paid for by the Saudi's...

Call me catty all you want. You're still an actual moron.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Mobius. You think the US is ruled by a fascist. You think that a significant portion of the US supports fascism because they disagree with you. You've gone so far to the fucking left that you can't even begin to see the world reasonably anymore. It's dismaying. You're going to break into even more pieces when he wins reelection. When yet ANOTHER Orange Man Bad narrative fails to accomplish anything.

[Sinekein]

I would be more comfortable with someone not trying to tell people what to think, good or bad.

I'd be more comfortable with a situation where everyone gets a shot at being educated enough to make its own opinion.

As it stands, millions of people get piss-poor levels of education and are nowhere near equipped enough to understand some extremely complex situations. And yet they are asked to decide on it, which leads to crap such as Brexit where the UK people were led to believe that staying in or leaving the EU was a binary, unconsequential question - an idea that has been torpedoed to oblivion in the last three years.

The only people who will profit from Brexit will be both very much educated and very wealthy, with the wealth to relocate their assets or dabble into disaster economics. The blue-collars from Northern England were just fed the crap from various shitrags such as The Sun or The Daily Mail and voted without being understanding much of what was at stakes. And the blue-collars are the ones who are going to suffer from the consequences too, not BoJo or JRM.

But then now, trying to force education on people is seen as a stinky leftist political move. Even though it's obvious some profit a lot from the overly simple world views of the poor and uneducated, and would much rather them stay that way so they can keep profiting from their votes in the future.

Sidenote: hearing about freedom of speech of thought being the best in a country where the president has to swear on the Bible to get the job never fails to make me laugh.

[Mobius_118]

Mobius. You think the US is ruled by a fascist. You think that a significant portion of the US supports fascism because they disagree with you. You've gone so far to the fucking left that you can't even begin to see the world reasonably anymore. It's dismaying. You're going to break into even more pieces when he wins reelection. When yet ANOTHER Orange Man Bad narrative fails to accomplish anything.

Sure.

He's left off the ballot in California, his support dwindles every day, and his presidential life span is measured in weeks. His mental state continues to deteriorate, and we've gone full fascist.

And I'm the crazy one?

Boy, you sure have gone full libertarian. No sense, no worth. All for the lulz and ultimately useless.

It's hilarious how I show what reality is, you spit on it, call me crazy/stupid/blah blah blah, and then later on what I said happens and you blow it off. Like I said when I got back, I hope you get buried like the rest of the conservatives. Literally, if possible. People like you have made this world a shittier place.

[Raga]

Sidenote: hearing about freedom of speech of thought being the best in a country where the president has to swear on the Bible to get the job never fails to make me laugh.

This is not a requirement. In fact, some have sworn on something else.

[Mazder]

I'd be more comfortable with a situation where everyone gets a shot at being educated enough to make its own opinion.

As it stands, millions of people get piss-poor levels of education and are nowhere near equipped enough to understand some extremely complex situations. And yet they are asked to decide on it, which leads to crap such as Brexit where the UK people were led to believe that staying in or leaving the EU was a binary, unconsequential question - an idea that has been torpedoed to oblivion in the last three years.

The only people who will profit from Brexit will be both very much educated and very wealthy, with the wealth to relocate their assets or dabble into disaster economics. The blue-collars from Northern England were just fed the crap from various shitrags such as The Sun or The Daily Mail and voted without being understanding much of what was at stakes. And the blue-collars are the ones who are going to suffer from the consequences too, not BoJo or JRM.

But then now, trying to force education on people is seen as a stinky leftist political move. Even though it's obvious some profit a lot from the overly simple world views of the poor and uneducated, and would much rather them stay that way so they can keep profiting from their votes in the future.

Sidenote: hearing about freedom of speech of thought being the best in a country where the president has to swear on the Bible to get the job never fails to make me laugh.

I agree, in the best possible world there would be better education to give people the ability to think freely and the telltale signs of uneducated stances would slowly erase. I personally feel that it slowly happening and as each generation exists we step one more step towards that goal.
I also do not think that education should necessarily be the same or from the same opinion source as the only way the debate can happen is by well educated people's.
Yes, the Brexit issue is a glaring example of how easily a population can be swayed due to the lack of reasoned thinking on many issues and still to this day is supported more on emotion than rational thinking. I also feel that if given the opportunity to allow a scenario to be assumed that everyone involved was of higher education that some might still walk the same path due to other aspects in their sphere of morality.

Forcing education sometimes just straight up doesn't work.
I've learned more from TV and documentaries and my own experimentation than I ever did in a science classroom with their rigid education styles, for example.
The method must be as nuanced as the people. Standardised education is currently failing.

And, yeah I also am quite tickled that the USA has to have it's leaders swear on a piece of fiction to prove his morality and capabilities for the job.
If that were ever me I'd swear on a joke book!

Sidenote: hearing about freedom of speech of thought being the best in a country where the president has to swear on the Bible to get the job never fails to make me laugh.

This is not a requirement. In fact, some have sworn on something else.

It isn't?
Definitely doing the joke book then!

[Sinekein]

Sidenote: hearing about freedom of speech of thought being the best in a country where the president has to swear on the Bible to get the job never fails to make me laugh.

This is not a requirement. In fact, some have sworn on something else.

Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath in 1901.[24] Both John Quincy Adams and Franklin Pierce[25] swore on a book of law, with the intention that they were swearing on the constitution.[26] Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Roman Catholic missal on Air Force One.[27] Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump each swore the oath on two Bibles.[24]

So three of them haven't in 1825, 1853 and 1901. There also might have been two (including Teddy Roosevelt, again) who did not say "help me God".

Sorry, it's not law, it just has been done by 93% of POTUSes, including 100% of them in the last 100 years.

It also reinforced my opinion that Teddy Roosevelt easily was the best President the US ever had.

[Sinekein]

I agree, in the best possible world there would be better education to give people the ability to think freely and the telltale signs of uneducated stances would slowly erase. I personally feel that it slowly happening and as each generation exists we step one more step towards that goal.
I also do not think that education should necessarily be the same or from the same opinion source as the only way the debate can happen is by well educated people's.
Yes, the Brexit issue is a glaring example of how easily a population can be swayed due to the lack of reasoned thinking on many issues and still to this day is supported more on emotion than rational thinking. I also feel that if given the opportunity to allow a scenario to be assumed that everyone involved was of higher education that some might still walk the same path due to other aspects in their sphere of morality.

Forcing education sometimes just straight up doesn't work.
I've learned more from TV and documentaries and my own experimentation than I ever did in a science classroom with their rigid education styles, for example.
The method must be as nuanced as the people. Standardised education is currently failing.

I wouldn't be that optimistic. People have access to more knowledge, but they definitely do not get the tools on how to process that knowledge, which is among other things why defiance towards, say, science is at an all-time high. Not everything is lost however, as for example the younger generations seem to be way more conscious on average of how important it is not to behave like morons re: the planet, but that is an observation that is done mostly in Western European countries.

And education is evolving (in several countries at least), but not as fast as the insidious stupidity the internet can offer. It is very hard to keep up because the ability of the internet to create bullshit some people will swallow hook, line and sinker is unmatched.

Now I know that saying that "not everyone should vote" sounds like crap, it sounds like crap to me too, because even I realize that it can only be followed by the intent of educating everyone to give them a chance to make informed choices. But there is a vicious circle of uneducated people electing people who make sure they remain uneducated, and I don't really know how you can break it. I understand where the feeling of "us vs the elites" comes from, but among other things it clearly has created some kind of pride of being uneducated, which is mind-boggling to me.

[Mobius_118]

With all of the positive reinforcement of bad practices, the availability of extremist ideologies, and the open nature of the internet, we're seeing a unique and disheartening display of human fallibility towards stupidity. You see it more often in boomers who post shit like vaccines' cause autism or something political like President Obama was born in Kenya. Younger folk trend more towards skepticism and are probably going to eat the rest of us.

Pride in ignorance has been slowly dwindling in the young as well, at least in the blue states. I see a lot more young soldiers and police officers with degrees and an actual understanding of the world more often, and it's a good thing. We're getting away from closed in outlooks on life. Those few outliers who maintain that prideful ignorance are either boomer age and dying off or coming to the realization that it's no longer viable to live under a rock.

Those that vehemently defend their ignorance are getting shoved to the side. Rightly so, since they just want to shit on everything.

[Raga]

I understand where the feeling of "us vs the elites" comes from, but among other things it clearly has created some kind of pride of being uneducated, which is mind-boggling to me.

It's defensive to a degree because it's only in the last half century or so in which education has become more or less synonymous with social worth. There has always been an educated elite pretty much since education has been a thing, but it's only in the last few decades that you must get an education (beyond basic literacy and arithmetic) or face social and economic irrelevance. Know-Nothingism is stupid, but there is something to be said for the idea that you shouldn't need an alphabet soup of degrees after your name to have a shot at a decent standard of living and a decent amount of respect given to you by society. There's also the ugly truth that a huge percentage of people (probably a solid 1/3 to 1/2) are temperamentally unsuited for "critical thinking" style education. This is not to say that they are stupid, but they are not suited to big picture or abstracted thinking.

My father is one of these. He can build anything. He can analyze the crap out of any kind of mechanical system and come up with ways to improve it or fix it. But he has no understanding of social nuance and dyslexia which makes reading painful and torturous for him. He's the kind of guy that is at risk of being replaced by machine learning and cheaper immigrant labor. I get the stubborn pride he has in what he knows, which took every bit as much skill and patience to acquire as a formal education. It's an economic death knell for any number of people like him, but I get it.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Mobius. You think the US is ruled by a fascist. You think that a significant portion of the US supports fascism because they disagree with you. You've gone so far to the fucking left that you can't even begin to see the world reasonably anymore. It's dismaying. You're going to break into even more pieces when he wins reelection. When yet ANOTHER Orange Man Bad narrative fails to accomplish anything.

Sure.

He's left off the ballot in California, his support dwindles every day, and his presidential life span is measured in weeks. His mental state continues to deteriorate, and we've gone full fascist.

And I'm the crazy one?

Boy, you sure have gone full libertarian. No sense, no worth. All for the lulz and ultimately useless.

It's hilarious how I show what reality is, you spit on it, call me crazy/stupid/blah blah blah, and then later on what I said happens and you blow it off. Like I said when I got back, I hope you get buried like the rest of the conservatives. Literally, if possible. People like you have made this world a shittier place.

Mobius. Darling. You've been saying that he has weeks left for the last three years. You've been ABSOLUTELY certain that EVERY SINGLE Media nothingburger would be the one to finally take him down. Now that the Democrats are desperately grasping at impeachment it just proves what any sane observer has known for months. They don't have a chance in 2020 with the crop of candidates they have. But you are entirely too partisan. Too blinkered and bigoted to see it. That's why the election is going to break your brain. You genuinely. Sincerely need help for your TDS.

[TTTX]

With all of the positive reinforcement of bad practices, the availability of extremist ideologies, and the open nature of the internet, we're seeing a unique and disheartening display of human fallibility towards stupidity. You see it more often in boomers who post shit like vaccines' cause autism or something political like President Obama was born in Kenya. Younger folk trend more towards skepticism and are probably going to eat the rest of us.

Pride in ignorance has been slowly dwindling in the young as well, at least in the blue states. I see a lot more young soldiers and police officers with degrees and an actual understanding of the world more often, and it's a good thing. We're getting away from closed in outlooks on life. Those few outliers who maintain that prideful ignorance are either boomer age and dying off or coming to the realization that it's no longer viable to live under a rock.

Those that vehemently defend their ignorance are getting shoved to the side. Rightly so, since they just want to shit on everything.

If history and RL have thought me anything it's not going to as simple as you describe it.

[Mobius_118]

Oh look, gas-lighting and lies. Is that all you have left, shitbag?

If history and RL have thought me anything it's not going to as simple as you describe it.

Eh, maybe. We'll have to see.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

No that's all true. You have been deepthroating every media narrative about how Trump is TOTALLY DONE FOR. Hell you can look back on your own posts to see that.

Every time the Media has cooked up an anti-Trump narrative you've eagerly swallowed it down. You are a prime example of Trump Derangement Syndrome in action. You are insanely partisan about this. To the point that you think ANYONE on the other side of the isle is evil. That the very idea of limited government is EVIL.

You are another sad example of what the progressive cult does to people.

[Mobius_118]

...Sure.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Ignore the truth, embrace your wild fantasies. I'm sure it'll help you when trump is sent to prison along with the rest of his staff.

[Mazder]

I wouldn't be that optimistic. People have access to more knowledge, but they definitely do not get the tools on how to process that knowledge, which is among other things why defiance towards, say, science is at an all-time high. Not everything is lost however, as for example the younger generations seem to be way more conscious on average of how important it is not to behave like morons re: the planet, but that is an observation that is done mostly in Western European countries.

And education is evolving (in several countries at least), but not as fast as the insidious stupidity the internet can offer. It is very hard to keep up because the ability of the internet to create bullshit some people will swallow hook, line and sinker is unmatched.

Now I know that saying that "not everyone should vote" sounds like crap, it sounds like crap to me too, because even I realize that it can only be followed by the intent of educating everyone to give them a chance to make informed choices. But there is a vicious circle of uneducated people electing people who make sure they remain uneducated, and I don't really know how you can break it. I understand where the feeling of "us vs the elites" comes from, but among other things it clearly has created some kind of pride of being uneducated, which is mind-boggling to me.

Well right now I am trying to force positivity and optimism, given the way my country is going, lol.

I still do not understand fully how people can see someone they've hated for years because they're a part of the elite but as soon as they're pandered to they're all on board.

- - - - - - -

As far as Trump goes I still do not believe he is a good overall influence.
Some small things he might have made some small grounds but in other he's taken a huge back flip in my opinion.

I do agree that the Democrats do need to up their game and stop giving him free ratings by banging on about him so much.
I mean any impeachment efforts right now should honestly be spent on winning the next election. A united front would go a long, long way to winning rather than the fractured state they're currently in.

Mind you I also think the Republican Party is going to have to have a bit of catching up to do once Trump is done as if he is able to get another term than once i'ts done they're going to have to find a replacement. So far no-one stands out IMO, mind you I also don't really pay much attention to it at all TBH so maybe it's just lack of knowledge from me.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

...Sure.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Ignore the truth, embrace your wild fantasies. I'm sure it'll help you when trump is sent to prison along with the rest of his staff.

Do I really need to start quoting your old posts back at you so you'll admit the truth you liar?

And fucking kek "When trump is sent to prison along with the rest of his staff" How fucking delusional can you be? How past the point of reason can you be. How is it possible that someone can be this braindead partisan.

[Vol]

Watching the debate, they're pitching way left. Warren's the frontrunner tho, she's getting the attacks. I have no idea how well informed the average voter is on issues, but I have to think the moderates would be put off by, "40% of company boards of directors should be elected by the workers!" and "mandatory gun buybacks!" can't be popular in the center.

[Mobius_118]

...Sure.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Ignore the truth, embrace your wild fantasies. I'm sure it'll help you when trump is sent to prison along with the rest of his staff.

Do I really need to start quoting your old posts back at you so you'll admit the truth you liar?

And fucking kek "When trump is sent to prison along with the rest of his staff" How fucking delusional can you be? How past the point of reason can you be. How is it possible that someone can be this braindead partisan.

What truth, that I've been more right on this than you?

How can anyone listen to you? You think Nazi's were socialists.

News flash, dumbfuck, they killed all the socialists. And if I have to explain the difference between socialism and Democratic Socialism, the current and very American policy that is in place today to you one more time, then your belligerence is intentional and indicative of your obviously fragile mind.

You cannot stand the fact that I've been accurate in how this farce of an administration has been crashing and burning. You're covering it with your bullshit, and you are upset.

Your jimmies are rustled. Fuck your feelings.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Mobius. I've been having a great time the last three years. This Presidency is just about everything I hoped it would be. You and your confederates have been insane since 2016. Before that in your case. You STILL think he's going to be removed from office. You still believe EVERY CNN narrative. You are beyond delusional. You are beyond any fucking hope of seeing the world for what it is. You are a basket case that has decided that America is fascist because the guy you don't like won and that the US is Socialist for having fucking infrastructure. You are demented. I enjoy every post you make here because it provides me with INCREDIBLE fodder for my other internet buddies. All I have to do is dig up one of your posts and I have them in fucking stitches.

You are insane, indoctrinated, and hostile to anyone who tries to expose you to the truth.

[Mobius_118]

Yeah that's why you flip out every time I show up. Because I'm the angry one.

You're so triggered it's plain to everyone here. You espouse law breaking for trump and trump only, which indicates that you're just another piece of garbage who thinks the rules don't apply.

And it's making you piss your pants that I keep pointing that out. Either in fear or anger, I don't care.

Oh, and thanks for ignoring the fact that you still get all pissy when I factually state that Nazi's weren't socialist. I can dredge up your comments about that and make you eat your words. Meanwhile you have nothing.

[Mobius_118]

1000 US troops are between two armies as they try to extract from Syria. Basically they're cut off with no real viable way to ex-filtrate.

So we allowed ISIS to reconstitute, gave Russia exactly what they wanted, gave Turkey what they wanted, abandoned one of our best allies in the region, and we could lose a Battalion's worth of Service members because trump is a lil' bitch.

[Sinekein]

This Presidency is just about everything I hoped it would be.

You mean destroying the reputation of the country all over the world?

Because that's what he has been doing for the last three years. Whoever gets elected next, him or anyone else, is going to realize that now pretty much every foreign country will treat the U.S. as untrustworthy or hostile as default.

Honestly, it could have been a sacrifice worth doing if he had managed to reduce Chinese or Russian influence - that would create a more balanced world - but on the contrary, he has miserably failed to strongarm China (the "easy-to-win" trade wars so far only have screwed U.S. farmers over), and has actively improved Russia's power with his mind-boggingly stupid diplomatic decisions.

You mention that Mobius swallows all of CNN news, but you seem to swallow in an equally partisan way everything coming out of Trump's Twitter feed, which is sometimes so contradictory that it falls square into doublethink territory.

[Raga]

The Eye-Popping Costs of Medicare for All

I'm actually pro singlepayer in theory, but reality's reality.

[Sinekein]

Well yeah it's expensive, that's been proven in about every country that has a similar system. It also has to be financed by some kind of taxes, which makes sense since like infrastructure or education it is a way for citizens to fund some fundamental services that benefit the entirety of the community.

Obviously there is no "perfect" system, but I highly doubt any country that enjoys a similar system has a majority of people wanting to remove it, unless you cherry-pick the wealthiest 10% who can afford medical care no matter what (and even then I'm not even sure a majority would be opposed to it).

Even the über-free-market supporters in the current pro-Brexit UK government keep repeating that NHS is off the table of any deal with the US, because they know that allowing the US private sector in NHS' management would spell their political doom. Not to say that they won't allow it anyway, but at least until the next election they aren't touching that subject.

But if Warren or Sanders cannot say "yes, taxes will be raised to finance Medicare for All", then they're either in denial or trying their hand at doublethink (recent history showed that you could be elected president in spite of that). In Europe, left-wing parties tend to be open about their plans to raise taxes, but in the U.S. somehow it seems to be considered a big no-no to even mention a tax raise, even for those who support a more influential federal government. It's perplexing.

[Vol]

My answer won't satisfy anybody because I believe being able to punish and even coerce group consensus is an important part of tribal formation. I remember a study done a while back that showed that preventing people from punishing freeloaders in a group experiment actually diminished the incentives and desires of the group to cooperate with each other. Freeloaders are perhaps a little different from unruly dissenters but they are a first cousin.

It's also that I, and it's fair to assume a good many others, believe secular humanism to be hollow and arbitrary. So the forced acceptance of it, socially and in parts legally by peoples that are not parts of any groups we are, is inherently repulsive. Different from the natural changing of the mores, any Millennial who's paid attention has seen the rapid change in society in their lifetime.

Obama ran on traditional marriage for fuck's sake, now you're a "sinner" who can lose their kids if you don't help sterilize them because a public official decided they're trans. In my parent's lifetime, we went from women raised by housewives to women that are domestically useless, from having at least 2 kids to freezing their ovum so they can use them later, because having a career is suddenly a grand aspiration. In my grandmother's lifetime, we went from a "melting pot" of nearly entirely Europeans and Christians to a nation where the former is rapidly approaching being a minority and the latter is barely a political or social factor.

So the use of social stigma during this kind of incredible, unnatural change is not nearly as useful as when a community shunned a guy for being crude around the womenfolk and drinking too much, and he was compelled to pick up and go. There is no group consensus on the morality we're expected to espouse now, and be punished for if we do not, because it did not come from "us," we did not agree on it, vote, or have any say whatsoever. Whether or not specific points are in fact good ones that should be followed is irrelevant because of that. If the people cannot be allowed to come to the desired conclusions themselves in due time, then we can skip the idea of being able to have different beliefs and go right to having secular priests and mandatory masses.

[Sinekein]

we went from women raised by housewives to women that are domestically useless, from having at least 2 kids to freezing their ovum so they can use them later, because having a career is suddenly a grand aspiration.

We also went from men who were domestically useless, to men who actually know how to cook, clean, wash dishes, and take care of living places or kids.

Also, having a career is less of "a grand aspiration" than "an active improvement over the boring, mortifying life of a housewife".

It's really hard to see those points and think "yeah, conservatism rocks, screw progress". And I can say that without even having a pair of ovaries of my own, just as an informed citizen with many ♀ friends who are enjoying to the fullest the opportunities of modern society.

In my grandmother's lifetime, we went from a "melting pot" of nearly entirely Europeans and Christians to a nation where the former is rapidly approaching being a minority and the latter is barely a political or social factor.

In your great-great-great-grandmother's lifetime or something, you went from a "melting pot" of nearly entirely Native Americans with a huge religious diversity to a nation where Native Americans are a minority that is barely socially relevant and where only one religion crushes all others when it comes to influence and power.

That just happens.

[Raga]

It's also that I, and it's fair to assume a good many others, believe secular humanism to be hollow and arbitrary.

I'd argue that what we're currently facing isn't secular humanism. Secular humanism is rational and still fits safely within the traditional liberal position of arguing on the basis of reason and empirical evidence and letting the best interpretations win. Modern militant leftism of the "woke" variety is much more like a religious impulse, which is why it's so impervious to calls to reason. It rejects reasoning and objectivity themselves as part of the blasphemies and sacrileges it is trying to purge from society. The only appropriate response to such attempts at argument from its position is "Get behind me, Satan!"

There is no group consensus on the morality we're expected to espouse now, and be punished for if we do not, because it did not come from "us," we did not agree on it, vote, or have any say whatsoever.

I'm somewhat dubious that we had no say in it whatsoever. But even so, how else is a consensus supposed to emerge out of a moral morass of disagreement? At some point something has to be crushed because the very technology that created the unprecedented changes in the first place will allow little pockets of discontent to not only continue to exist and fester but to wield outsize influence and disruptive potential far beyond their actual appeal or strength.

If the problem is that crushing is intrinsically unseemly and that the only recourse is to aggressively protect the marketplace of ideas that might allow an actual organic consensus to emerge (a sentiment I largely share), how is the McWhorter stance on cosplay not an example of something like this? Something that looks at two sides with purist positions and attempts to find a solution someplace in the muddy middle? That tries to wield stigma in a way that's actually half-assedly worthwhile and *not* just about blindly crushing everything that steps a single toe past propriety?

In any event, artificially preventing anybody from getting the upper hand in the norm setting department is certainly not a way to develop a consensus. The only set of standards that would enshrine is pure nihilism.

@Sinekein

I don't think the point is that change is always bad. It's that extremely fast or dramatic change is very disruptive and it grinds a lot of people up in its gears as it's happening. The fact that such things changing from a cosmological perspective are inevitable doesn't mean that humans should just surrender all of our still considerable power to slow down or mitigate change when it's good to do so.

[TTTX]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7Gx_44kQdg

I'm starting to wonder if we are ever going to hit rock bottom with this stupidity.

[Alienmorph]

Eventually. But I fear we're still not even close to it.