General politics thread (was: General U.S. politics thread)

glennmagusharvey

Yes, but you spoke of sustainability and it's really not in a modern context.

In a modern context, being able to live together as an extended family can save substantially on living costs and reduce other stressors, especially financial ones. It won't work for everyone, obviously, but it's a useful idea to consider, when possible.

I assumed that when you mentioned sustainability when it came to the environment, nuclear energy is one of the only ways I see clean, efficient energy being a thing, yet it's been widely denounced.

Solar energy has that potential too, and when properly harnessed it leaves less (and less nasty) waste.

All I am saying is that it is good to have sane conservatives around that you can articulate your positions against rather than driving them so far into the ground that every single idea they have is quickly maligned and tossed away.

Fair enough, yes, though I'd say the "purpose" of such wouldn't be to "articulate positions against" but rather to introduce a healthy (not excessive) amount of skepticism with the intent of the refinement of ideas for practical use -- not for the sake of the existence of opposition.

lrdgck

social conservatism doesn't have to be religious conservatism or traditionalist conservatism

So, what's the difference between social conservatism and "traditionalist conservatism"? 'Cause I'm getting lost. I'm willing to let religious conservatism aside, although if you wish you may want to address this as well. Like, whether you mean lack of changes in the doctrine, or religiously motivated lack of changes in society, because that's not quite clear.

fourteenwings

Traditionalist conservatism is the position where you'd more likely to embraced being called a reactionary. That is, a lot more weight is placed on never changing at all.

Social conservatism means living a certain way based on moral reasoning that informed by or borrowed from the values of previous generations (ie probably Judeo-Christian values), traditionalist conservatism means living the a certain way because that's just how it was always done.

but rather to introduce a healthy (not excessive) amount of skepticism with the intent of the refinement of ideas for practical use -- not for the sake of the existence of opposition.

Same difference?

can save substantially on living costs and reduce other stressors, especially financial ones.

It can also cause such issues. I'm not saying nuclear families don't result in problems, but I'm more willing to go to bat for that idea based on the stuff I've researched.

glennmagusharvey

Same difference?

Not exactly. It'd be the difference between "we need to be reasonably open to different ideas for the purpose of improvement" vs. "we need a diversity of ideas for the sake of having a diversity of ideas".

lrdgck

Traditionalist conservatism is the position where you'd more likely to embraced being called a reactionary. That is, a lot more weight is placed on never changing at all.

See, I could assume the opposite. Social conservatism meaning society must be preserved in its current form, while in "traditionalist conservatism" traditions must be preserved. Maypole dancing can be performed by a squad of gays all in civil gay marriage.

Social conservatism means living a certain way based on moral reasoning that informed by or borrowed from the values of previous generations (ie probably Judeo-Christian values), traditionalist conservatism means living the a certain way because that's just how it was always done.

By that definition, social conservatism is de Maistre's brand of conservatism, "traditionalist conservatism" is Burke's. Shall we say, I'm partial to the brand that says "let's not ruin everything by being too hasty with change", but hardly to the one that goes "this is the Perfect Society and you cannot stray from it".

glennmagusharvey

lrdgck wrote: »

Shall we say, I'm partial to the brand that says "let's not ruin everything by being too hasty with change", but hardly to the one that goes "this is the Perfect Society and you cannot stray from it".

I don't know the different philosophers well, but this is an interesting way of framing this distinction. And I'm basically in the same boat as you with regards to it.

The distinction between these two is that the first one is more focused on resisting/being skeptical of change, as a way to caution against counterproductive change and change-for-the-sake-of-change, while the latter is more norms-focused, prescribing certain values. The way you've stated it the latter feels a bit exaggerated, but the focus on prescribed norms is still clear.

And, like you, I'd say I prefer the former over the latter. Heck, I'd say the first is why I identify as a conservative.

fourteenwings

See, I could assume the opposite. Social conservatism meaning society must be preserved in its current form, while in "traditionalist conservatism" traditions must be preserved.

I think we've run into a semantics thing that I don't know how to solve.

Maypole dancing can be performed by a squad of gays all in civil gay marriage.

Only in committed two-person marriages rather than a squad marriage.

A squad marriage sounds like some sort of instagram thing.

Burke's

Edmund Burke?

"this is the Perfect Society and you cannot stray from it".

Shouldn't conservatism outright reject the idea of perfect societies, if only if we look to the Judeo-Christian roots of it being impossible to create heaven on Earth?

I identify as a conservative.

Yeah, you know, I take my apology back, I don't think you're a conservative. Caution doesn't make you a conservative, it just makes you rational.

as a way to caution against counterproductive change and change-for-the-sake-of-change, while the latter is more norms-focused, prescribing certain values

The only real difference between conservatives and liberals is the values they hold.

glennmagusharvey

Shouldn't conservatism outright reject the idea of perfect societies, if only if we look to the Judeo-Christian roots of it being impossible to create heaven on Earth?

Well, Judeo-Christian Abrahamic roots are not the only set of cultural values/roots that can be used as a reference. But conservatism ought question the idea of perfect societies anyway, even while being open to the possibility.

(Though, I wonder if my saying that might lead you to label me as a "liberal" for being open-minded (and perhaps also for not holding Judeo-Christian values as the one proper/true/best set of values), despite my doing so out of caution and humility.)

Yeah, you know, I take my apology back, I don't think you're a conservative. Caution doesn't make you a conservative, it just makes you rational.

I think you've already told me that before, though as for your apology I forget where that was anyway oh I found it. (Not sure how it's relevant though.)

I think @lrdgck's mention of "No true Scotsman" (though it was mentioned regarding something else) is rather applicable here, since you're basically saying "you're not a true conservative unless you do conservatism in such-and-such ways."

As for rationality, perfect rationality isn't practically possible, so what comes into play in decision-making under imperfect circumstances is related to one's beliefs about how the world works and how one should interact with it.

Also, see below.

The only real difference between conservatives and liberals is the values they hold.

Note that (1) there are different types of conservatives and liberals, with accordingly varying ideological values, and (2) they're not actually even necessarily opposites, despite what U.S. American political discourse makes it look like, in part by heavily perverting both words in strange ways.

But, one value where they do generally differ is the embrace of change and the new. A conservative ideology is more skeptical/cautious of change, while a liberal ideology is more open to/accepting of it. (And this replies to your previous quote as well.)

fourteenwings

no, nope, no

We're stopping now.

We can pick up some other time.

lrdgck

no, nope, no

We're stopping now.

We can pick up some other time.

Why so?

glennmagusharvey

I think the dispute between us was getting kinda heated, and ballooning.

fourteenwings

Why so?

The ballooning.

It's very hard when you're invested in proving something or refining a though that second to stop expanding the purview outwards because "Let's be brief" is nowhere near your primary focus.

In my experience, we'll come back to this (or something similar) eventually, possibly without meaning to.

So I'm just implementing stopgaps. Someone's gotta be the dad around here.

kinda heated

There was like, mild heat on the last page, but I'd say it ebbed on this one.

glennmagusharvey

Yeah, we're both kinda wordy as fuck.

fourteenwings

Let's talk about violence against women*.

In South Africa recently there's been more than a few high profile murders of women, either by intimate partners or the more usual/terrifying random crimes.

So of course, the usual suspects have released purple tea packages, pink strawberry yogurt, and ads about how you slimy dudes should all "do better".

Obviously, I'm not a fan of modern polite virtue signalling. Never have been (you can check), but this is even worse than normal. Not just because purple tea won't really do anything (I mean do you really need to raise awareness in any country on the planet that sometimes men beat women in such contexts?), but because there are obvious things they could do to deal with it.

South Africa has a myriad of tribes with tribal cultural practices, and almost all of them egregiously treat women like dirt. From the (widely applauded for unknown reason) bride price stuff (more accurately, the still booming woman-for-cows trade), to more culturally specific practices like women being bonded to their husbands even after death and having to be 'cleansed' (ie her family have to pony up even more cows) or the somehow even more gross practice of your husbands brother deciding it's totally cool to "ask" for your hand in marriage once the aforementioned husband is dead.

I once heard an actual story about a woman whose ex-husband wouldn't leave her alone, claiming his "ancestors" insisted she was his "only" real wife even though he'd already married somebody else.

Speaking of; South Africa is also the land of happily getting plural married (for men only, obviously), a boon not only to those steeped in African culture, but a lot of Muslims in the Cape. The previous president has five six??? wives (and also did a lot of creepy stuff that may or may not have involved actual sexual assault).

As far as I'm concerned, there is no excusing these things, ever, and as long as men of any age not only get to watch this stuff happen, but participate in it, there'll basically be no movement. I mean, what I'm describing is stuff that women in cities deal with. Imagine living in rural areas where nobody even cares what your problems are (or worse, KZN*).

Instead, the virtue signalling and the programs that follow it tend to focus on metropolitan people and their Westernized sensibilities. However, as I mentioned, the majority of metropolitan dudes of African descent are all for this stuff, and trying to push against it will make family members very very mad (especially the rural "Uncles" who show up to negotiate how many cows you're exchanging their niece for).

So it's not only the usual shaming, it's also pointless, because nobody is willing to point to this stuff and say "No, this is bad, we should stop this".

I guess, at least, the money for shelters isn't pointless (I mean, if it ever gets there).

*I know this isn't the sort of term I'd usually throw out but there's no other way to describe it.
*this is only barely a joke

fourteenwings

Because I already wrote most of this up;

Anti-semitism is like, one of those things I believed was overblown (funnily enough when I was sticking to stuff like the BBC*, Vox, and CNN) but actually crosses the political spectrum and will not stop reappearing.

Plus, obviously left-wing anti-Israel groups like If Not Now are filled with Hamas apologists. They also spend time occupying Jewish temples to lionize Palestinians who die committing acts of terror, treating them as martyrs.

Indeed, Black Lives Matter as informally as it tries to make it's attempts in that direction is also pretty anti-Semitic. A lot of the British corporate class had to suddenly U-turn and drop support for the organization when BLM UK started posting a lot of anti-Israel, thinly veiled anti-Semitic stuff.

*For example, the BBC ran a lot of interference for Jeremy Corbyn's activities and general anti-semitism in the Labour Party when he ran it.

"conservatives/the right are being called racists, fascists, Nazis"

This isn't just a charge that is leveled against conservatives. It's their assumed position (they're not though). That's why, lately, everybody else is being accused of being these things.

Speaking of Legacy Media, Bari Weiss (ie Not A Conservative At All), in her resignation letter from the New York Times, talked about how she too was called a racist by colleagues;

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.”

Social Justice, as espoused by the far-left (which right now is dragging liberalism and general left-wing with it) is in it's Cultural Hegemony stage, where it need not accept any dissent (see also Christianity before the new millennium). Dissent, quite literally, is racism. Possibly in the form of White Fragility or White-Adjacent Fragility or Internalized Racism or whatever else it is this week.

lrdgck

BLM outside of USA is silly anyway. It's an American problem, so what are you going to do, cheer them from abroad? Kind of makes sense, offering moral support, but come on, you don't do it by pretending you're one and the same as the folks you support.

Also since you're here, I've been curious what's your story about attacks on white farmers in South Africa.

glennmagusharvey

Anti-semitism is like, one of those things I believed was overblown (funnily enough when I was sticking to stuff like the BBC*, Vox, and CNN) but actually crosses the political spectrum and will not stop reappearing.

Again, from what I surmise, you don't see the part where stuff happens, which isn't as high-profile, but you see the part where people make high-profile social statements reacting to it, hence the feeling that it's "overblown".

Anyhow I looked up Bari Weiss, and

Weiss has been described as conservative by Haaretz, The Times of Israel, The Daily Dot, and Business Insider.[50][51][52][53] In an interview with Joe Rogan, she described herself as a "left-leaning centrist".[54] According to The Washington Post, Weiss "portrays herself as a liberal uncomfortable with the excesses of left-wing culture,"[55] and has sought to "position herself as a reasonable liberal concerned that far-left critiques stifled free speech."[56] Vanity Fair has described Weiss as being "a provocateur".[2] The Jewish Telegraphic Agency said that her writing "doesn't lend itself easily to labels."[57]

Weiss has expressed support for Israel and Zionism in her columns. When writer Andrew Sullivan described her as an "unhinged Zionist", she responded saying she "happily plead[\s] guilty as charged."[58] In 2018, she said she believed the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, but questioned whether they should disqualify him from serving on the Supreme Court because he was 17 when he allegedly committed the assault against Christine Blasey Ford.[52] After backlash in the press, Weiss conceded that her sound bite was glib and simplistic, and said instead that Kavanaugh's rage-filled behavior before the Senate Judiciary Committee should have disqualified him.[2] Also in 2018, she criticized the #MeToo Movement.[59]

It seems she is mainly focused on "support for Israel and Zionism", along with various other miscellany (which is probably inevitable when one writes opinions for a living). That issue itself is not one that yet has neatly defined battle lines along the conservative/liberal or Republican/Democratic axis here in the U.S. -- though hardline "support for Israel" has recently become more of a thing in conservative circles, while liberal circles are somewhat more likely to be sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people. However, it's still very much a third rail that tends to ignite very heated discussions, even within camps.

Also I should note that "support for Israel" has multiple dimensions to it, and furthermore, anti-semitism (such as hate crimes and usage of slurs against Jewish people) in the United States is, while vaguely related, definitely not the same thing.

Meanwhile I keep debating with myself whether I should post in here. I could post more. And I probably would if I weren't so busy.

Edit: ugh lol formatting with strikethrough bbcode

glennmagusharvey

oh fuck it, might as well post

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/10/08/feds-thwart-militia-plot-kidnap-michigan-gov-gretchen-whitmer/5922301002/

This one's been making the rounds lately. Wingnuts in a conspiracy to kidnap the governor of Michigan, take hostages, etc..



This follows on the heels of the president's now-infamous refusal to denounce white supremacists at the first debate, where he instead told them to "stand back and stand by", a message that they gladly appreciated. It was a softball question he could have answered simply by saying that he condemns their crap, but who knows why he couldn't bring himself to do that.

Though that debate was rather unintentionally funny for other reasons. I didn't plan on watching it but someone switched it on while I was nearby, and I ended up watching it partly because it because Donald Trump arguing with moderator Chris Wallace turned out to be a running gag in the debate and I kept on laughing at it.

I mean, I was expecting a normal, boring debate. Like, y'know, politicians standing at podiums and spouting talking points about their agenda and talking points about why their opponent sucks, with occasional amounts of relevance to the question asked, and then shutting up every two or three minutes when asked by the moderator, while the question probably remains unanswered but the moderator moves on anyway. I think Biden and Wallace were both expecting that too, but instead they basically confronted verbal diarrhea, and the result was a mess. I mean, you can't argue with diarrhea.

I missed most of the vice-presidential debate that was on more recently, but from what I've heard, it was a far more sleepy (read: normal) affair, aside from the show getting stolen by a fly that landed on incumbent vice president Mike Pence's head and stayed there for an extended period of time.



Other stuff that's happened include the president refusing to make a coronavirus relief deal before the election and then doing a 180 on that and saying he wants a deal now. This is yet another example of why I say the guy's a serial shitposter and no one should be listening to him anyway.

lrdgck

Other stuff that's happened include the president refusing to make a coronavirus relief deal before the election and then doing a 180 on that and saying he wants a deal now.

At this point I'm curious if this shouldn't rather be worded "before he fell ill". About any other random American politician I might assume they know perfectly well they're rich enough to not have to care about any institutional support for their health, but this one is a bit too unpredictable for such simple assumptions. Tyson Zone, you see.

glennmagusharvey

As far as I know, he fell ill before he made that announcement, and has reversed course in short order just within this week. I did some quick Googling and here are articles confirming the timing:

This was on Friday, October 2: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-first-lady-test-positive-covid-19-n1241769

President Donald Trump is experiencing “mild symptoms” of Covid-19, after he and first lady Melania Trump announced on Friday they had tested positive for virus, triggering tumult in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.

This was on Tuesday, October 6: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/06/covid-stimulus-update-trump-rejects-democratic-offer-eyes-election/3627003001/

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump abruptly put an end to months of negotiations over a COVID-19 relief package Tuesday, rejecting the Democrats' latest offer and saying he wanted to postpone negotiations until after the November election.

Afterwards, he reversed his stance, probably told by people that ending the talks was a bad idea. Here's an article with commentary in this regard, from 3 days ago (which would be Wednesday): https://www.foxnews.com/politics/the-hitchhikers-guide-to-what-the-suspension-of-coronavirus-talks-means

Here's an article from this morning: https://www.masslive.com/politics/2020/10/second-stimulus-check-update-trump-raises-his-opening-bid-and-calls-for-deal-on-a-coronavirus-aid-bill.html

President Donald Trump on Friday pushed for negotiations on a coronavirus stimulus bill to “go big” and agreed to spend another $200 billion, narrowing the gap between the White House and congressional Democrats.

also

There was no indication that both sides were any closer to a deal, though. They reportedly had been close to an agreement before Trump on Tuesday suddenly ended talks.

A few hours later, Trump tweeted out support for another round of $1,200 stimulus payments and aid for airlines threatening to lay off thousands of employees, and negotiations were back on again.

glennmagusharvey

In a topic that's hyper local and not controversial at all: my county's supervisor of elections website has finally clarified, explicitly, that vote-by-mail ballots can be dropped off at early voting sites.

fourteenwings

GMH, I cannot with you, and I really shouldn't.

But I should say;

the president's now-infamous refusal to denounce white supremacists

You can't be serious with this.

From the transcript.

President Donald J. Trump: (41:28)
I’ll send in the National Guard, it would be over. That’d be no problem. But I don’t want to accept the National Guard.

Chris Wallace: (41:33)
You have repeatedly criticized the vice president for not specifically calling out Antifa and other left wing extremist groups. But are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia group and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we’ve seen in Portland.

President Donald J. Trump: (41:57)
Sure, I’m will to do that.

Chris Wallace: (41:59)
Are you prepared specifically to do it.

President Donald J. Trump: (42:00)
I would say almost everything I see is from the left wing not from the right wing.

Chris Wallace: (42:04)
But what are you saying?

President Donald J. Trump: (42:06)
I’m willing to do anything. I want to see peace.

Chris Wallace: (42:08)
Well, do it, sir.

Vice President Joe Biden: (42:09)
Say it, do it say it.

President Donald J. Trump: (42:10)
What do you want to call them? Give me a name, give me a name, go ahead who do you want me to condemn.

Chris Wallace: (42:14)
White supremacist and right-wing militia.

Vice President Joe Biden: (42:14)
Proud Boys.

President Donald J. Trump: (42:18)
Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I’ll tell you what somebody’s got to do something about Antifa and the left because this is not a right wing problem this is a left wing…

Interview the next day;

"Yesterday I made a statement that was according to most, a perfect statement ... I've said it many times, let me be clear again, I condemn the KKK, I condemn all white supremacists, I condemn the Proud Boys ... [Biden] should condemn antifa" -- Trump pic.twitter.com/2b2vUCZaJW

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 2, 2020

You can watch Kayleign McEnnany field questions from the journalist Trump is referring to in that clip here.

where he instead told them to "stand back and stand by"

And for goodness sakes I don't want to sit around defending the Proud Boys (which is what Joe Biden specifically mentioned for him to denounce as shown in the transcript) but they are not racists or white supremacists. They are trigger fist-happy overly-patriotic chauvinists (who are also very pro LGB, and pull stunts with Milo -I should warn that the video contains quite crass language-). Their current leader is a Cuban American guy.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden gets a free pass calling Antifa "an idea" despite like, the autonomous zones and the attacks on Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler's apartment building * and the fact that he's currently being beaten in his own mayoral race by a woman who quite literally loves "the idea" of violent insurrection and etc;

"Peaceful protests, in my opinion, might not necessarily be moving the conversation forward."

*This isn't even a source favorable to my viewpoint because they only care about vandalism if you're business is minority-owned.

And he and Kamala Harris continuously get a pass on the "both sides" hoax and calling Kyle Rittenhouse a white supremacist in their commercials.

Kay, I'm done. I won't address anything more.

Well, actually;

a message that they gladly appreciated.

I want a source on this. Did Richard Spencer change his endorsement from Joe Biden then?

Also since you're here, I've been curious what's your story about attacks on white farmers in South Africa.

It is bad to attack people, and I don't blame the farmers for feeling that the attacks are racialized considering the guy who at this point is basically the spokesperson for communist-style Zimbabwe-inspired land-grabs speaks of everything in racialized terms.

However, because these sorts of things are always complicated, it seems that if your farm is big enough and you're a big enough economic target, you'll be attacked whatever your race is.

lrdgck

It is bad to attack people, and I don't blame the farmers for feeling that the attacks are racialized considering the guy who at this point is basically the spokesperson for communist-style Zimbabwe-inspired land-grabs speaks of everything in racialized terms.

However, because these sorts of things are always complicated, it seems that if your farm is big enough and you're a big enough economic target, you'll be attacked whatever your race is.

You know what, I'm a bit disappointed with this answer. Feels a bit too generic, like, I could ask anyone and receive this sort of reply. In particular, anyone who isn't styling himself as a proud social conservative. Like, you know, ask any leftie and of course they will say there is no racial component and probably there were no farm attacks anyway, unless they're the kind of leftie who says there were and it's all good since the kulaks were asking for it. So I figured, asking you will give me an answer that would be more nuanced. But I understand that with Glenn in this thread you might have not enough attention to spare, so I'll just leave the matter here and have it known I'd like to learn more of it.

glennmagusharvey

I'll try to keep this brief too.

fourteenwings wrote:

And for goodness sakes I don't want to sit around defending the Proud Boys (which is what Joe Biden specifically mentioned for him to denounce as shown in the transcript) but they are not racists or white supremacists.

The Proud Boys are a far-right,[1][2] neo-fascist[3] and male-only organization[4] that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada.[5][6][7][8][9] While the group officially rejects racism, several members have been affiliated with white supremacy and they have been described by US intelligence organisations as "a dangerous white supremacist group".[10][11][12][13]

Okay, fine, they are officially not white supremacists, at least on paper, at least according to on their own official papers.

wait

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has said that "[w]hile the group can be described as violent, nationalistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and misogynistic, its members represent a range of ethnic backgrounds, and its leaders vehemently protest any allegations of racism."[21] The group believes men and Western culture are under siege, their views having elements of the white genocide conspiracy theory.[22][23][24] Officially, the group rejects white supremacy, although it has ties with white supremacist groups.[1][2][12]

Wait, they are officially not white supremacist when people say they are, but they hang out with and/or are heavily infiltrated by white supremacists for some reason.

Frankly, I'm not sure I'd want to hang out with any of them, whether or not they explicitly say they're white supremacists.

Also, the goals of these various types of people are clearly aligned, hence their working together. Meanwhile, based on the conversations we've had earlier, alignment of goals is your justification for being hyper-critical of anything that smells vaguely liberal/progressive because it promotes the wrong direction of thinking of the world.

Their current leader is a Cuban American guy.

Quick reminder that it's possible to be racially discriminatory without being white oneself.

I want a source on this.

*throws "proud boys react to donald trump" into a search engine*

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/proud-boys-celebrate-after-trump-s-debate-call-out-n1241512
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-presidential-debate-proud-boys-us-election-hate-group-b716510.html
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-refuses-to-condemn-white-supremacists-says-this-is-not-a-right-wing-problem
https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch-proud-boys-founder-gavin-mcinnes-reacts-to-trump-stand-back-and-stand-by-order-live-in-real-time/

fourteenwings

*throws "proud boys react to donald trump"

My statement t was based on the Proud Boys not being white supremacists, which they're not. You can stick them with it if you want, but I think I've proven otherwise.

I'm not sure I'd want to hang out with any of them, whether or not they explicitly say they're white supremacists

I'm not asking you to, and in fact I'm not particularly inclined to defend them.

the goals of these various types of people are clearly aligned, hence their working together

My goals are frankly also clearly aligned with those of people who would describe themselves as white supremacists if you color outside the lines enough.

Quick reminder that it's possible to be racially discriminatory without being white oneself.

Not when you're officially charging them with white supremacy. I'm pretty sure the last leader, the guy who went to jail over some riot, was a guy in an interracial marriage.

The Proud Boys gladly accept members of all races, as long as they approve of being street-thug chauvinists, that's what I know about them.

I will not blame people who hung out at the Women's March for Linda Sarsour, but if they explicitly praise her after that then I certainly will mark them as identifying with her.

Anyways, all I am saying is if Donald Trump believes what I believe about the Proud Boys, then there's still no need for him to denounce them as white supremacists (but he did denounce them later anyways).

Plus, he said to let law enforcement do it's thing in his debate answer. I don't know how this was his magical secret call to action to them anyways.

ask any leftie and of course they will say there is no racial component and probably there were no farm attacks anyway

I want to be very nuanced about this but like, yeah, time. I will say that I think the main racialized component of these cases came after the attacks happened and since the groups that started watching the EFF came after they became afraid for their lives due to their race, there isn't much to go on beforehand since the group doesn't contain any investigative journalists I can piggyback on.

Of course South Africa and a lot of African countries have politicians who thrive on openly anti-white and anti-South Asian rhetoric (and like, anti-people from other parts of Africa rhetoric), but these cases didn't line up with when the land grab stuff was really big (when the EFF was formed in like... 2013?), they were around the same time as when Jacob Zuma was being investigated (not for the time he probably assaulted a girl, but boring normal corruption).

Plus, this is a case that came before a lot of major stuff that's more fresh in my memory and has taken a downturn recently. The EFF has moved on to destroying beauty storefronts anyways (which it then magically transformed into third-third-party endorsement deal that probably breaks a lot of laws in terms of funding political parties with private money). I could talk about that but the whole thing was so painfully dumb it hurt.

And to clarify;

denies stores were vandalised by its members

They were all literally wearing the red communist shirts in every piece of footage I saw and Julius Malema went around threatening promising violence in the days before it happened.

Plus, the advert that caused this was so massively edited when it was passed along on social media that by the time this became a story and Clicks had taken it down, nobody really knew how it looked.

glennmagusharvey

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/10/us/trump-properties-swamp.html

a TL;DR of my thoughts (not a summary of the article):

Some folks like to say that the government should be run like a business.

Well, here you go. Government run like a business: backroom deals and corruption out the wazoo. You have money? You have influence? You get premium perks. You give us a good deal, we give you a good deal. You don't? Well, too bad, you suck.

inb4 fourteenwings goes "but these other politicians who are Democrats or otherwise oppose Trump are also corrupt"

fourteenwings

Do I really need to inb4 anything when you know it's true? Donald Trump didn't bring lobbyists to Washington, man. He didn't single-handedly decide Buckly v. Valeo or Citizens United.

And, frankly, I don't have the time or energy to try and fix whatever was broken at the NYT long before I even noticed. That is; I will not be extensively fact-checking this article or even drawing parallels to other politicians, or providing the many instances where the Trump administration fought for the little guy.

Well, here you go. Government run like a business:

Except the part where the gearing/leverage makes any sense. At this point with debt it's much more a bad streaming service (where the infinite cycle of money subsidizes subscriptions till they run out of money) than a profitable company that pays zero taxes. Though this is not Trump's fault, the ronabucks really didn't help.

Also you are seriously saying "Government run like a business" like it's a bad thing? Even if you think there are drawbacks that sure is a view to take.

glennmagusharvey

Do I really need to inb4 anything when you know it's true? Donald Trump didn't bring lobbyists to Washington, man. He didn't single-handedly decide Buckly v. Valeo or Citizens United.

Just because other people did it too doesn't mean he should. And he certainly shouldn't bring more.

And of course Donald Trump isn't the first to enable this sort of shenanigans. The now-infamous Citizens United decision predates him for example. But we -- and he, especially, in the capacity of his position -- should be working to fix that -- not to further enable it.

Also you are seriously saying "Government run like a business" like it's a bad thing? Even if you think there are drawbacks that sure is a view to take.

Yes.

Because, fundamentally, a government needs to (or at least ought to) serve all the people, while a business gets to choose what clientele they serve, typically based on profitability. A government should not be choosing who to serve based on profitability (or personal relationships or transactional relationships). The services a government provides, in reality, aren't perfect, but this is the goal they should be aiming for.

"Government should be run like a business" in only limited similarities, such as efficiency/streamlining of operations, and ensuring that customer -- or rather, constituent -- services ought to be accessible with reasonably easy-to-use interfaces (rather than arcane legalese or other hard-to-use stuff).

fourteenwings

You're mistaken.

A profit-seeking operation can be a business, but so can a trust or country club.

There are lots of institutions that don't focus on maximizing turning profits but also aren't state-owned. They use surplus/deficit accounting.

As far as I know, government should try to emulate those institutions as much as possible, which means basically offering services to those who need them based on what has been paid in (rather than by amassing intense amounts of debt).

with reasonably easy-to-use interfaces (rather than arcane legalese

Oh yes, let's try to explain and calculate taxes at an elementary school level, that sure won't create more misunderstandings and errors than it solves!

It's best to assume your fellow citizens are competent, I mean. Plus, there'll always be private charities that run advocacy for those who well and truly need it.

Basically, the government isn't for everything.

And another thing; there should be things the government throws at you (in terms of competence) because that can certainly create further efficiencies (simplification on a broad scale will do the opposite), and so it's your duty to help things along. Though those who genuinely need help figuring it out (and aren't just lazy) will certainly get it.

ask any leftie and of course they will say there is no racial component

@lrdgck: By the way I think I understand what you mean here, but the reason a left-leaning individual would say this is because they'd be attempting to run cover*, whereas I want to look at the genuine evidence and in this case the racial component was mostly post-facto (because crime in South Africa is sky-high anyways and you certainly won't avoid it when you're a rich guy in the middle of your very own nowhere).

*If the races were reversed they'd be all over it.

glennmagusharvey

As far as I know, government should try to emulate those institutions as much as possible, which means basically offering services to those who need them based on what has been paid in (rather than by amassing intense amounts of debt).

This doesn't address the problem of such an entity gearing its operation toward functions that serve only a specialized group of people, rather than all the people. Nor does it address the mismatch where such an entity need not exist in any particular form or exist at all, but a government, even if it is dissolved due to overwhelming debt, can still end up existing de facto, because, even if you cut off all trade to everyone else and ignore the outside economy, people will still find a way to self-organize into some sort of governance system.

Fundamentally, the budgetary constraints you describe are but a convenient proxy for resource constraints, not anything that anywhere near guarantees good governance.

Oh yes, let's try to explain and calculate taxes at an elementary school level, that sure won't create more misunderstandings and errors than it solves!

With regards to taxes, frankly speaking, the IRS has been kept from streamlining the tax filing process thanks to tax preparation companies lobbying to keep themselves a niche for their business.

Also, I've actually done taxes by hand before, and I can tell you that they could improve it if only they displayed things in terms of algebra, rather than tunnel-vision-inducing individual calculation steps. The math involved in doing taxes is high-school level math. It's just presented in a very obtuse way.

And that's not to mention the parts that the IRS could streamline simply by pre-printing the numbers that the IRS already knows, rather than having people re-fill them in themselves.

It's best to assume your fellow citizens are competent, I mean. Plus, there'll always be private charities that run advocacy for those who well and truly need it.

And it'll be even better to educate citizens to competence in the first place.