The All Things Political Topic - Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you

[kanisatha]

8 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

There are a few questions here.

1) It is indeed true that it is not possible to talk constructively with some people, conspiracy theorists being an excellent example. Whatever you say to a paranoid person can and will be interpreted in such a way as to reinforce the paranoia. I don't know of any good solution to this.

2) From the fact that it's not possible to talk the other side, it does not follow that "into the sun they go". This kind of thinking is itself problematic and quite naive, too, in my opinion. Interestingly, this kind of either-or approach seems to be very common, but it's quite often just bad thinking.

3) When you think that you are perfectly in the right about a certain group of people, it is good to keep in mind that that group of people almost certainly thinks they are perfectly in the right about you or the world-view you represent. That's a bit of a problem, isn't it? Not much chance of things changing with that kind of thinking.

4) Martin Luther King's approach in the American South provides a good example of what can be done even in the direst of circumstances. And yes, I know how it ended with him. I am no orator nor much of a peace-maker, but there's an inspiring example of how to meet someone you regard as your enemy. Nelson Mandela might be another, simply in the sense that there have actually been people who have not resorted to vitriol and have consequently managed to accomplish some rather good things.

Well said.

[Lexx]

1 hour ago, kanisatha said:

LOL. Not so.

Your troubles with pronouns is not left wing extremism.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

8 hours ago, Gorth said:

Most of them are ageing German tourists anyway, aren't they (minus the odd Florida Man)?

That's as good reason as any to fire the sunshine state into the sun.

But if I'm being honest, England would be my first choice of a place to wipe off the map. Luckily they seem to be doing that to themselves.

8 hours ago, Sarex said:

Strange considering so much is happening right now.

Not really. Media leaves much to be desired.

[Lexx]

35 minutes ago, Mamoulian War said:

Of course shooting them into the Sun is meant as a rhetoric hyperbole.

Or is it?

 

I don't know about Blaha. Tried to google a bit, but not sure if I found the right stuff.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Lexx

[kanisatha]

5 hours ago, Lexx said:

Your troubles with pronouns is not left wing extremism.

Strawman much?

When have I ever said anything about pronouns? I was cool with people's preferred pronouns long, long before your totalitarian left decided to try and score political points with it and "cancel" people over it.

[BruceVC]

10 hours ago, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

That's as good reason as any to fire the sunshine state into the sun.

But if I'm being honest, England would be my first choice of a place to wipe off the map. Luckily they seem to be doing that to themselves

@Lexxand @xzar_monty

You see another example of  left-wing extremism, like I said in a previous post. KP will go on how  terrible the far-right is and bemoan the state of the US but he wants to wipe England out, if thats not left-wing extremism I dont know what is 

 

[BruceVC]

6 hours ago, kanisatha said:

Strawman much?

When have I ever said anything about pronouns? I was cool with people's preferred pronouns long, long before your totalitarian left decided to try and score political points with it and "cancel" people over it.

Have you ever been asked as a lecturer to call someone something  different to what they look or appear to look? I have  always wondered if this is something that is more a US\Canada reality

I dont think I have ever heard of a single case in SA where someone has been challenged or criticized over pronouns? So thankfully we dont have this issue in the mainstream media or universities.. yet 

For me I will call someone what they want to be called but I am  not going to guess or  try  to remember a long list of pronouns. Its a question of basic politeness and personally I dont have any issue referring to someone as whatever they want. But I have engaged and had LGBT  friends, mostly gay men,  since university from 1996 and  I have never had anyone ever get upset with how I refer to them so I always wonder how widespread this pronouns reality is outside the US\Canada?

[xzar_monty]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

@Lexxand @xzar_monty

You see another example of  left-wing extremism, like I said in a previous post. KP will go on how  terrible the far-right is and bemoan the state of the US but he wants to wipe England out, if thats not left-wing extremism I dont know what is 

I don't know why you tagged me, I haven't said anything about left-wing extremism. Extremism is not a particularly good term to throw around, and I would say that it tends to be thrown around way way way too much, because the meaning of the word "extreme" would dictate that not that many things can logically qualify as extreme.

Also, wanting to wipe England out doesn't have to have anything to do with left-wing thinking at all, although it might. It could be just intense anglophobia, for instance, or whatever. There was once this German guy who wanted to wipe England out but who, I think, was not a left-wing extremist...

Edited March 8, 2023 by xzar_monty

[Gorth]

26 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

I don't know why you tagged me, I haven't said anything about left-wing extremism. Extremism is not a particularly good term to throw around, and I would say that it tends to be thrown around way way way too much, because the meaning of the word "extreme" would dictate that not that many things can logically qualify as extreme.

Also, wanting to wipe England out doesn't have to have anything to do with left-wing thinking at all, although it might. It could be just intense anglophobia, for instance, or whatever.

Why wipe out England? They do a great job themselves. No need for Van der Leyen to start any "cancel UK" campaigns... as for left wing extremism, they are not an urban legend, Europe had those. Germany's "RAF" and "Baader-Meinhoff", Italy's "Brigate Rosse", Northern Ireland's "IRA", France's "Action Directe", Judea's "Peoples Front of Judea", the Basque "ETA" etc.

Most of these were very active in the 70's, some survived into the 80's. Today's threat to democracy comes from various extreme right wing and nationalist organizations (way too many to list and several of them are actually represented in their respective national parliaments).

Most young people don't understand why The Northern Ireland peace agreement is a big deal still today, because they didn't live through some very bloody years in the UK (3000 dead and close to 50000 wounded). It's something that simmers just underneath the surface and is kept in check by improved living standards. I.e. paper thin and may fall apart if facing a crisis.

I think there is a decent reason for European countries being reluctant to get dragged into wars, because once they get started, they get very enthusiastic about it.

As for pronouns, I'm sure You ****ing **** is a perfectly valid pronoun...

I learned a lot about the LGBT community after moving back to Australia in 2016, as my best and closet friends now are lesbian girls (and a single transgender woman). It makes for some interesting company and they sometimes joke about it when we go somewhere (restaurants, theater, whatever) that I'm the odd one out in the group. Not for being a guy, but for being straight

[Lexx]

8 hours ago, kanisatha said:

Strawman much?

More like joke much, since I always have to laugh when anyone suggests the USA have an actual left wing that has any saying at all.

[xzar_monty]

37 minutes ago, Gorth said:

as for left wing extremism, they are not an urban legend, Europe had those.

No question! I remember the IRA years very well, and the years of the Basque separatists, etc.

I still stand by what I said in that the term left-wing extremism gets thrown around too much. For instance, regarding some pronounists as left-wing extremists sounds maybe a bit far-fetched, given the various extremist left-wing groups you just mentioned. I mean, it's not as if they're even in the same ballpark.

@Lexx, I suppose the US hasn't had a left worth considering since... maybe the 1950s? Worth considering, here, means that it has a say in anything at all.

Edited March 8, 2023 by xzar_monty

[BruceVC]

19 minutes ago, Lexx said:

More like joke much, since I always have to laugh when anyone suggests the USA have an actual left wing that has any saying at all.

Lexx you have raised this before  and there is something you misunderstanding,  the radical left or left wing extremism is not necessarily Communism\Socialists

The term  " radical left " covers several ideological views and not everyone who believes in the left should be considered radical left. In fact most lefties IMO shouldn't  be called radical left.  So we use it  to describe a certain type of left wing thinking and policies

But the  "radical left " is real and absolutely exists in most countries and manifests there ideological views in different way. In the US the progressive Democrats have several members who espouse  radical left policies. That doesnt mean they all  extremists. And like the MAGA movement in the GOP  it means there are different political views within the Dems. And this is just a normal and organic way that US politics works, not all politicians in a party have the same views 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-the-progressive-left-fits-so-uncomfortably-within-the-democratic-party/

But what should concern all of us around insidious and harmful radical left policies include things like 

• defund the police 
• less managed or controlled borders 
• revisionist and selective history, like the US was founded on racism and inequality
• all problems in the world   like inequality is because of Capitalism and white people are responsible for this or similar things. The truth about the worst examples of poverty exist in countries with failed governments, lack of governance and corruption. Not Capitalism 

 

 

 

 

[Lexx]

I don't want to get too deep into this anymore, so I'll try to keep it short. (edit: I failed)

Defund the police does not mean abolishment of the police. It's meant to stop militarizing them. They don't need assault rifles and tanks (ok, maybe in the US they do, since everyone and their dog owns an AR-15), that's usually where a smaller group of special police forces exist. Defunding the police means reallocating funds to public serves that actively work on preventing issues from happening in the first place, such as better healthcare, etc. etc. Usually it is cheaper to try to prevent a catastrophe from happening than trying to fix it once it already happened. Look at stuff like Uvalde, where the police budget was like 70% (I actually don't remember the number right now, just know it was very high) of the whole towns resources, and when it came to little kids getting shot to mincemeat, it didn't help anything at all. I don't see how this can be considered a radical left ideology.

Not super familiar with the minute-to-minute details of american politics, but I'm almost sure they do not want to have less controlled borders, but stopping stuff that effectively has no impact on anything at all, such as Trumps great wall, which doesn't work and is nothing but a money sink. Again, I don't see how this can be considered a radical left ideology. We have people here in germany who want to have 100% open borders. Those people are idiots, and luckily their voices have no power at all, so again.. they aren't a threat to us right now in 2023.

I don't know if the US was founded on racism, but they sure lived it out for 200 years (and still do if you consider prisoners working for cents as pretty much slavery with extra steps). Is it really a radical left ideology to not want to enslave people?

Personally I love my capitalism. I like to have money (I'm not poor hurr durr), however, I absolutely hate when unchecked capitalism rolls over innocent people and ruins their lives, such as when penny pinching industries turn the environment into toxic wastelands.

 

I'm not saying we never had left wing terror issues. The RAF in germany was terrible and it was a real crappy time, but it's long gone and not a todays-issue anymore. Now we have to deal with stuff like secret right wing terror groups supported by the local police, who are getting away with murdering people for 20 years and for mysterious reasons it seems to be impossible to get everyone involved into jail.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Lexx

[xzar_monty]

39 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But what should concern all of us around insidious and harmful radical left policies include things like

By what and whose definition do the things you mention exemplify radical left? I'm seriously asking this. What I'm getting at is that the term itself is meant as a derogatory epithet intended to dismiss, at least to an extent, the problems raised.

Edited March 8, 2023 by xzar_monty

[xzar_monty]

23 minutes ago, Lexx said:

Now we have to deal with stuff like secret right wing terror groups supported by the local police, who are getting away with murdering people for 20 years and for mysterious reasons it seems to be impossible to get everyone involved into jail.

The problem has at least something to do with the fact that it concerns a phenomenon whose historical entrenchment in the so-called system is too deep. The same goes for the hideous problems with the Catholic church in Germany. It's extremely unfortunate that societal constructs have no reset button.

[Gorth]

56 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

revisionist and selective history, like the US was founded on racism and inequality

Are you saying it wasn't?

Last time I checked, such basics as a constitution that protects all people living in your country and give them a vote (this includes women btw) is part of a society based on equality. Institutional slavery as part of the economy and the lack of civil rights for the female half of the population in my book justifies saying it was in part (because absolutes are bad) based on racism and inequality. And in before the expected "but slaves weren't citizens, of course they shouldn't vote", the slaves weren't in the country voluntarily. But they weren't offered a choice of leaving until 186...something when Lincoln made a proclamation on the subject). Not allowed to leave, not allowed to vote, no constitutional protection, I call that inequality (which was in place when the country got founded). Wyoming was the first state to allow women to vote in 1869, a few followed soon after. The majority of the country didn't allow the female half of the population to vote until the early 1900's. That isn't "founded on equality". They got better since, sure, but from a historical perspective, no.

[BruceVC]

41 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

By what and whose definition do the things you mention exemplify radical left? I'm seriously asking this. What I'm getting at is that the term itself is meant as a derogatory epithet intended to dismiss, at least to an extent, the problems raised.

Well it depends on how you personally respond to the outcome  of policies  like defund the police. If a policy is well meaning but the implementation of it means it makes the problem worse or doesnt change anything then that policy is a  failure or needs to be reviewed. That  doesnt mean you dismissing the reason the policy was created.

Its well documented that in most  cities or states in the US that  have tried to implemented defund the police crime has increased. Irrespective of its intention its not been a success

Also the  majority of black people in the US  never supported defunding the police in the sense they want reforms but they want more police on the streets and continued funding, not less. So you need to look at each example of how its been implemented in the US. 

https://www.vox.com/2020/6/17/21292046/black-people-abolish-defund-dismantle-police-george-floyd-breonna-taylor-black-lives-matter-protest

Another example of this is how many black mayors in the US also dont support defunding the police including Eric Adams from NY

https://nypost.com/2023/01/22/eric-adams-joins-other-black-mayors-to-decry-defund-the-police-white-house-handling-of-border/

And as far as your question about who says defund the police is a radical left policy, thats just how people see it because not all the Dems support  it  and none of the GOP do. But it is considered a progressive left policy. Maybe thats unfair but we have to describe things in some way? 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by BruceVC

[xzar_monty]

23 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Last time I checked, such basics as a constitution that protects all people living in your country and give them a vote

Interestingly, btw, the US constitution still doesn't guarantee women equality.

There's been an attempt to change this: the Equal Rights Amendment of 1923. Quite a large number of states have ratified it, but not enough, as of yet.

Edited March 8, 2023 by xzar_monty

[Gorth]

8 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

Interestingly, btw, the US constitution still doesn't guarantee women equality.

There's been an attempt to change this: the Equal Rights Amendment of 1923. Quite a large number of states have ratified it, but not enough, as of yet.

Oh, I know. I always wondered about this old story about the constitution only being for white, male land owners. Well, it is based a bit on a true story, even if not written explicitly in the constitution. It just turned out to be a convenient tool to enforce that (i.e. only white, male land owners could vote)

From The Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-vote/the-founders-and-the-vote/

 

Eventually, the framers of the Constitution left details of voting to the states. In Article I Section 4, the Constitution says:

    The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.

Unfortunately, leaving election control to individual states led to unfair voting practices in the U.S. At first, white men with property were the only Americans routinely permitted to vote. President Andrew Jackson, champion of frontiersmen, helped advance the political rights of those who did not own property. By about 1860, most white men without property were enfranchised. But African Americans, women, Native Americans, non-English speakers, and citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 had to fight for the right to vote in this country.

 

I.e. I still think it was a country founded on  in part racism (slave based agricultural economy in parts of it) and in part lack of equality (very narrow and unequal selection of citizens who had a say in the running of the country).

[xzar_monty]

The US is an extremely interesting societal experiment in so many ways, and there's an awful lot to study there.

Just one small example: the early white settlers were certainly not a random selection of people -- many of them were particularly stress-resistant and outgoing folks with a definite do-or-die attitude; just consider what an effort it was at that time to cross the Atlantic and travel into the fairly unknown, think of the Europeans who made a choice about that and which of them chose to do it or not do it. Now, to what extent has this selection temperamentally and genetically influenced the American work ethic, particularly that side of it which is demanding, unforgiving, extremely competitive? I am not saying we know the answers or that we necessarily even have the tools to find them, because these are complex questions, but the historical selection of those who became today's Americans produces questions like this which are, in my view, interesting indeed.

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, Gorth said:

Oh, I know. I always wondered about this old story about the constitution only being for white, male land owners. Well, it is based a bit on a true story, even if not written explicitly in the constitution. It just turned out to be a convenient tool to enforce that (i.e. only white, male land owners could vote)

From The Library of Congress: https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/elections/right-to-vote/the-founders-and-the-vote/

 

Eventually, the framers of the Constitution left details of voting to the states. In Article I Section 4, the Constitution says:

    The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.

Unfortunately, leaving election control to individual states led to unfair voting practices in the U.S. At first, white men with property were the only Americans routinely permitted to vote. President Andrew Jackson, champion of frontiersmen, helped advance the political rights of those who did not own property. By about 1860, most white men without property were enfranchised. But African Americans, women, Native Americans, non-English speakers, and citizens between the ages of 18 and 21 had to fight for the right to vote in this country.

 

I.e. I still think it was a country founded on  in part racism (slave based agricultural economy in parts of it) and in part lack of equality (very narrow and unequal selection of citizens who had a say in the running of the country).

You make some valid and accurate observations here. 

I  have often said its inaccurate to say the " US was founded on racism and inequality " but I  havent really tried, or been asked, to explain what I mean by that. I found a new  word a couple of months ago that summarizes my view on this. Its called presentism and this link describes my view better than I can. Please take 5 minutes to read this and I would encourage others to do the same 

https://www.voicesandimages.com/presentism-dont-judge-ancestors-actions-by-todays-standards/

But in summary, we shouldnt judge  events in the past that were considered normal in the world at that time  and how that represents the modern reality. That doesnt mean the same reality exists today and that includes things like slavery and how women were denied the right to vote.  But we dont deny injustice that existed in the past To quote the article

"Studying Women’s rights is a good example. The rights of women have changed dramatically over the past 100 years. During the nineteenth century women could not vote and by today’s standards were considered second-class citizens. Slowly they received more and more respect — they could vote and own property. What did the founding fathers really intend? It has been debated for decades, but if historians try to apply their current values and beliefs, arguments and disagreements are all that result. Just accept your ancestors with all of their beliefs and value their accomplishments."

"Presentism is also a factor in the problematic question of history and moral judgments. Among historians, the orthodox view may be that reading modern notions of morality into the past is to commit the error of presentism. To avoid this, historians restrict themselves to describing what happened and attempt to refrain from using language that passes judgment. For example, when writing history about slavery in an era when the practice was widely accepted, letting that fact influence judgment about a group or individual would be presentistism and thus should be avoided"

Here is more humorous take on it by Bill Maher, really funny

https://www.tmz.com/2022/09/17/bill-maher-presentism-slavery-r-kelly/

And then outside this article the other issue I have is where people generalize about the modern reality of the US. The US is not a racist or white supremacist country. It has some  people who are racist and white supremacist. These are different, important and distinct  ways of framing what  the US is . Another example of this point is you can say with complete veracity that Germany during WW2 was a Nazi country. But Germany nowadays is not a Nazi country but it does have some politicians and citizens who are Nazis. 

Thats what I mean by " the US is not a racist country" 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by BruceVC

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

Interestingly, btw, the US constitution still doesn't guarantee women equality.

There's been an attempt to change this: the Equal Rights Amendment of 1923. Quite a large number of states have ratified it, but not enough, as of yet.

is complicated. women are not minorities and they have the right to vote. from a Court pov, women do not fulfill the the suspect class factors for achieving strict scrutiny when applying equal protection or substantive due process analysis. says landed white men, the Constitution don't have explicit protections for landed white men and such is not needed 'cause men got the right to vote and always has. however, women has not always had the right to vote, so a grey area is created and the Court, in a decision written by J. O'Connor, determined women should enjoy quasi-suspect class protection and receive intermediate scrutiny when there is a gender-based question before the Court. is perhaps ironic but the most significant legal obstacle to women receiving equal rights under the current Constitution is the fact women voters is the majority.

...

the thing is, as should be obvious by now following the death of roe, reliance on SCOTUS opinions to preserve fundamental rights is a strategy requiring the continued good will o' nine (at the moment) individuals who were not themselves democratic elected and who owe no allegiance to the People.

logical, creation o' an amendment guaranteeing the equal rights for women when women is representing majority in the democratic republic which is the US should be unnecessary and is arguable self serving.  'course is one o' those situations when logic is gonna trip you up. in CA, there has been at least one female US senator since the early 90s. adam schiff is seeking to replace dianne feinstein and he is facing substantial democrat opposition in the liberal state in large part because he ain't a minority or a woman. is hard to imagine any time soon when tommy tuberville would face a gender or race obstacle in alabama but like it or not, is many women voters in alabama who make tommy tuberville possible just as is women who is gonna decide whether or not adam schiff satisfies identity politics prerequisites.

in our opinion there should be an amendment protecting women's rights, but Gromnir's opinion is almost complete immaterial. a new amendment requires 2/3 o' states or a Constitutional Convention to be happening. given the current degree of polarization in the US, is difficult to imagine any meaningful amendments being passed. 

a fair number o' states have equal rights baked into their Constitutions. California is an example o' a state which historical protected women's rights and is not 'cause CA has always been liberal. CA had community property and women's rights from early days 'cause o' the most practical reason: california needed women. more specific, CA wanted women with money to come to CA and/or not leave CA. the california gold rush brought a whole lotta impoverished men to CA, but not so many women.  

regardless, this issue o' the era is perhaps more complex than it first seems.

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

6 hours ago, BruceVC said:

• all problems in the world   like inequality is because of Capitalism and white people are responsible for this or similar things. The truth about the worst examples of poverty exist in countries with failed governments, lack of governance and corruption. Not Capitalism

You do agree colonialism did leave a mark on a lot of places, yes ?

[BruceVC]

7 minutes ago, Malcador said:

You do agree colonialism did leave a mark on a lot of places, yes ?

Colonialism was a  time of history and both good things and bad things happened during that time. For example the first and second industrial revolution occurred during Colonialism. But yes terrible things also happened during Colonialism like the Atlantic Slave trade  

[majestic]

6 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

By what and whose definition do the things you mention exemplify radical left? I'm seriously asking this. What I'm getting at is that the term itself is meant as a derogatory epithet intended to dismiss, at least to an extent, the problems raised.

Some context, with helpful links, that might explain - in part, at least - a certain poster's attitude.

Edited March 8, 2023 by majestic