Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
As fun and important as it is to dunk on socialism, I feel the need to clarify that this has nothing to do with socialism beyond serving as a stand-in for someone's fantasies.
I tend to find that the people doing actual work in terms of addressing overcorrections in the justice system and/or stereotype pervasiveness tend to also not be MRAs? MRAs are like... the guys who dislike the very concept of feminism, rather than people who can understand where feminism comes from, and possibly disagree with where it currently stands.
I think, as I said, there was a deep rift in the ideologies of the "We need to actually follow through with the tenets of equality" sort and "Aren't those womenfolk the worst?" weirdos. Therefore both may claim the title, but neither is really associated with the other, and obviously the insane ones win the news spotlight.
This sounds terrifyingly stupid.
I need to remember that incels and MGTOWs are different but in the exact same way as the MRA thing.
No worries - it's rather that the incel complaints I see tend to mirror tenets of socialism. Like, socialism makes a claim that there are inequities in society, and this is bad and should be remedied. Incels also claim there are inequities, but instead of economy, it's about access to sex. Instead of the bourge... bourgeuo... (fuck, however you spell that) *ahem* they direct their ire towards "Chads". Instead of seizing means of production, they want to seize, like you put it so well, the means of reproduction. Instead of the wretched of the earth, there are incels and betas, who need to be given the redpill/blackpill much like the masses need to be educated on the tenets of Marxism (it's quite ironic how the pill colours mirror the colours of radical left, innit?). They dream of revolution, calling it the beta uprising. They even have their own perceived class traitors, in form of "white knights".
(In addition, they hate Chads for having a better start and inborn advantages, something a free-market liberal or libertarian would just accept as part of the deal.)
And there's more to that. They not only use quasi-socialist rhetoric, but also good ole' plain socialist, too. They unashamedly describe the reasons for their sexual failure in terms of class and inherited privilege, apparently failing to see it's literally socialist rhetoric.
Heh, "lefty-oriented incels" sounds vaguely paradoxical to me. In my personal experience, most of the folks who frequent incel forums tend to be the alt-right folks. Or at least, spout alt-right and gamergater rhetoric often enough for me to not look for distinctions. So basically, what cracks me up the most is that these same folks suddenly clamor for revolutions and collectivisations the first moment they feel underprivileged.
Speaking of which, I've been meaning to link this at some point, the chad-normie-incel hierarchy explained by an incel to a normie in the context of a mass murder investigation:
Includes a bit of what you said at the end about revolution-cuz-I'm-underprivileged.
I've seen this described elsewhere from a whole different, much more sane, non-incel as Cuttlefish behavior, where guys who don't give a flying fish about what's being discussed will learn the Ways of Feminism/Intersectionality/etc in the hopes that it gets them a foot in the door.
Which I mean is a whole different view of the power structures of modern sexual politics but I think is a top down approach of the whole "white knight" concept (which is bottom rung upward).
Well, the language of the modern left, mired in it's discussions of "priviledge" and it's various opposites (I mean, were I to be more brutal, I'd say "victims", but... eh, it's just a bit much) encourages looking for solutions to problems outside one's self.
I mean, the left has always been concerned for those with less, but now it's more... somehow, to say "those born with less" but in an extremely dishonest way (this is never to do with class, for one).
So, actually, aside from the social context from which incel-ism springs from, I don't see why it couldn't be a leftist issue.
The main split here is a social one; Men are not seen as requiring help by the left, with men of men of certain skin tones being maligned more others, because they are seen as the oppressors.
On the other hand, these are "disadvantaged" men, a protection worthy subclass because of the way they were born. Of course eventually the language of these two groups with converge.
I mean, for a good example of where these interests do converge, there was a recent article about how men in Silicon Valley feel disadvantaged because of their age, and so they feel they need to undergo plastic surgery.
The tone of the article (in the Washington Post no less) is extremely sympathetic, not only because this is a space with a lot of men and so they can be disadvantaged over one another, but because it's something where you can easily say "Let's introduce some means of anti-discrimination!" without resorting to sexual slavery.
Anyways, the more right-wing/conservative position I see is what I saw in opposition not only to this Washington Post article, but other things in this same vein. They'll claim the traditionalist position of modern men being "soy boys" and needing to man up/improve themselves or just literally become somebody else entirely ie a ripped rugged lumberjack.
(As if the whole ripped rugged lumberjack thing isn't a super-gay fantasy, the real life lumberjacks I tend to see don't seem to be too concerned with achieving a Disney's Hercules body-type).
(Also I don't actually dislike the phrase "man up", it's used annoyingly a lot of the time*, but it's not a terrible way of phrasing things sometimes.)
(*I won't stop screaming at a spider just cause somebody thinks they're clever, for one.)
People usually claim "real life has become a parody!" in relation to politics but this is one of the few instances where I feel it's truly applicable.
(also since this is a long video I'll schedule to watch it later and respond accordingly)
What they mean: Are you honestly saying one entire Rand Paul isn't enough for you???
I get the distinct sense that it was a "fad" in terms of "nobody bought it even as they were doing it/claiming to do it".
Am I just hanging around really quiet conservatives then?
I mean, of course the Bannon side of things takes things pretty far, but I feel like people focus on the term "far-right" because "right" really just means "boring people who think things I think are dumb" and you can't get people worked up about that.
Of course, Donald Trump's leadership has shifted everybody to a position basically known as "Whatever Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell can agree on at any given moment" and Donald Trump frequently says insane things, but like... I see Republicans as a party in quiet turmoil, and I'd go as far as to say 80% of the people who belong to the Republican party (not "the right" or "the far right") are good decent people who obsess over policy in very minute ways that aren't directly meant to hurt anyone. It's just that they can't really rally any voices around that.
Not to mention, there was most certainly a cultural shift quite a while ago that's got them on the back foot on everything in public discourse.
Like, Marco Rubio came out with his Responsible Capitalism thing and then basically immediately bailed on trying to make it a thing.
This is, of course, in opposition to Mean Girls 3: Democratic Primaries, which is a whole other debacle.
I'd say "80% of the people who belong to the Republican party" are probably decent people who just typically vote Republican (particularly when they don't know the candidates) because of:
* personal/family/social tradition
* being more familiar with other people in the party, particularly friends and neighbors
* one or a handful of issues that are important to them and regarding which they agree with the perceived generic Republican platform more than the perceived generic Democratic platform about. These issues and their associated positions are often aspirational in nature, rather than detail-oriented. They're also often national-level opinions; local politics can sometimes be way different. So I would disagree that they're "obsessing in very minute ways".
There are ideological activist types, of course, the kinds of folks who will read up on a bunch of political ideology/philosphy writings (from blogposts to more formal literature); those are the type to "obsess in very minute ways", but they tend to simply overrepresent themselves in political activism circles, since they're basically the hardcore fanbase.
(And of course, all of these things can change, but they also tend to change slowly.)
I think that's true to some extent, though some of it is also a self-victimization, in the sense that they sorta felt a dissatisfaction with things and then -- through some combination of their own observations and/or the misunderstandings and things-blown-out-of-proportion from information sources they trust (be them their social peers or their media personalities) -- it gradually becomes a memetic position that they take up, that the world as a whole is changing in ways they're not comfortable with, and then everything they dislike becomes filtered through this lens, rather than understood in its own proper way.
And this sort of thinking includes conflating "the world is moving on without me, help me" and "the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and I'm/we're the only sane person(s) left".
I'm talking about the news sources I frequent, along with the
I meant the legislators.
I think this applies to everybody voting for any party. What "aspirations" are is what they disagree on.
There's so much stuff I want to go against here, but I wonder how relevant it would be.
Well, basically, let's start at the core, with something I've read elsewhere.
The point of a conservative, at the core, is to recognize the limits of human nature and behavior. Not only must you work within them, you must understand them and overcome them. Sometimes, you must question if something should be "overcome" at all, and prevent people from continuing to advance a position, whether it be through normal social convention or possibly through law.
The core of the modern liberal, different from that of the classical liberal, is that all human beings are blank slates upon which culture and discourse are applied, and these have been used by others (read: cisnormative white men) in the past to oppress others, and to maintain their "privilege". I know you'll probably find fault with this definition, because it's been obscured under a lot of nonsense that has come to make up where we currently see the world from in the mainstream media.
The blank-slatism has been used as the basis for the "fluid" or "spectrum*" stuff when it comes to humans. Everybody's heard of at least those positions before, applied to lots of issues.
*I think it should be obvious that I don't mean autism, but I'll just clarify that here.
Another position that the modern liberal will take is that of cultural equality (well, except all those pesky native European cultures that are unquestionably oppression structures), so if you start from a position like that, of course all disparities of outcome are the result of oppression.
Conservatives, on the other hand, refuse to see all cultures as equal. They'll point to data (in the US, at least) that shows disparities between inner-city/(this is going to sound weird but go with it) native American black culture and late/recent immigrant black culture that lead to different outcomes, or strict codes of conduct implemented at inner-city schools in London that see them doing better than some private schools, and then somehow still be painted as racists for instituting "cultural supremacy".
So, uh, it's a very philosophical question, rather than one where the Republican party is somehow into authoritarian ultranationalism.
Also, nationalism isn't a bad thing, most especially if the position taken towards immigrants is that of consistent integration into said image of a nation, but literally all modern forms of information that rise to the mainstream paint it as such.
Anyways, what I actually meant to say was; watch a modern American TV show. That is, something made in 2019 or 2020, and then tell me if you can find a sympathetic:
Or like, just a character who is called out for ever saying something mean about "straight white men".
But also, I'd like to say, culture doesn't "move" one way.
One thing I realized very recently is that probably for as long as humans exist, every time we claim we've "got it" we've probably 100% not got it and are screwing up worse than when we thought otherwise. I personally think this is one of those times.
The core of conservatism is to question change and to favor stability, to avoid jumping to conclusions but rather to favor caution, to prefer adhering the status quo unless its path leads to a bad result. It's about respecting institutions and history and tradition, and being unwilling to abandon them merely for convenience, but being steadfast in one's principles. It's about why it can be good to be a stick-in-the-mud.
What you're describing is a sort of twisted version of conservatism filtered through a combination of (A) modern U.S. conservatives twisting the term to their political convenience and (B) recent culture-war hullabaloo regarding ideas of gender, it seems.
No.
The "classical liberal" in modern parlance is the libertarian, who pushes for freedom because freedom is the ideal that should be striven toward. (The libertarian sometimes hangs out with the conservative only because U.S. conservatives have a habit of making "freedom" a meme. The libertarian however becomes dismayed when U.S. conservatives do things that they perceive are against freedom.)
The "modern liberal", on the other hand, is a combination of advocating for personal freedom, enlightenment (by education and logical reasoning), altruism, and cooperation (and cooperative governance). For decisions affecting only oneself, one should have the freedom to decide them on one's own. For decisions that affect others, people should be well-educated in order to understand those impacts and to know to be compassionate to care about and accommodate others, and to cooperate to improve society.
(N.B. these three definitions are not diametric opposites of each other. It is not uncommon for them to agree on various things for different reasons.)
No. Let's say someone raises the question of whether the lyrics of gangsta rap encourage violence among inner-city black youth. A modern liberal might instinctively think the answer is "no", but (unless they're hypersensitive to issues relating to race) they'd at least be willing to have a scientific study done about it. A conservative on the other hand might instinctively answer "yes" and then say "it's obvious why" because that's the impression it gives them; if one proposes a scientific study of the question, they see it as unnecessary, or at best a way to appease and/or dig up dirt on the liberals.
With regards to the larger question of cultures: No, they're not "equal", they're simply not comparable in the sense of a single scale of "good" vs. "bad". And they're certainly not reason to downplay the individuality of people (including but not limited to the contributions of their personal experiences and "nurture") in order to jump to conclusions pigeonholing people into specific stereotypical traits.
"Nationalism" has (and has had) a variety of different dimensions with different policy outcomes. So let's look specifically at the United States.
The crowds where people wear the flag on their head (figuratively but also sometimes literally) and paint gratuitous stars and stripes and bald eagles busts on their vehicles just so happens to also be the crowd frequented by people who
* advocate rudeness and inconsiderateness (and possibly even violence) toward people who simply look like they're associated with anything (e.g. an ethnic/racial group, a religion, a foreign country, a domestic culture, etc.) perceived as un-American.
* largely agree with the current POTUS's view of treating international relations as zero-sum games where screwing over other countries is a good thing because it allows expressing dominance.
* seem to think that there's some sort of divine status (conferred by religion and/or by ideology) that makes the United States "the greatest county on Earth", and are particularly sensitive about other people questioning this notion.
* desire to enforce displays of patriotism (or religious belief) in ways that they deem acceptable, and get very worked up when people don't play along with this desire.
I'd be surprised to see a character who was any of these OR any of their diametric opposites, solely because making a point of this (unless it was some trivia thing about the character) sorta make the show/movie about pushing an ideological point, which is usually not the intention of the entertainment.
I haven't watched U.S. TV shows released in 2019-2020, but my bet is that it's quite common that situations where such issues even become relevant simply don't appear much at all.
When I talk about the "limits of human nature and behaviour", I'm referring to things like the propensity for violence, or to do good or evil, to have empathy or to view a situation in terms of one's own needs instead, etc.
Essentially, I'm talking about;
I mean, why would we consider any of this if we weren't discussing human nature? There's rarely a system that isn't influenced by it.
I know I've harped about the gender stuff a couple of times, but I don't sit around wringing my hands about it all day.
So conservatives are effectively anti-intellectual unless said intelligence is in their favor?
I mean, as it stands on climate change, this is a position they'll frequently retreat to, but the majority aren't beating a drum claiming the factual data is lies.
Honestly, I don't want to argue too hard on this point, because I'm approaching it from a vaguely obtuse way and your definition is much better put. In all honesty, I'm not too willing to put too much effort into fine-tuning it, so I probably shouldn't have tried to argue it anyways.
I guess I meant the textbook definition, rather than how people choose to exercise it. Obviously, sane displays of patriotism might annoy the heck out of me, but they aren't bad.
I guess if I were to draw a parallel, wasn't the New York Time's 1619 Project a sort of antithesis to this? I mean, if I were to frame this in the form of modern American culture, I'd say these groups have pretty much been pushed out of the cultural square when a major newspaper can do such a thing and not get considerable pushback from subscribers.
I mean, I hope it's obvious I'm not advocating for this. I just feel like applying the term "nationalists" (without qualifiers) to these people is playing semantics.
Of course I do, that's sort of thing I cut my political teeth on.
But it's also a context I understand very well. Storytelling is linked to the way people think, and sometimes it's used to show how they wish the world was.
Also, I hope it's clear that I'm merely trying to use it as a barometer as to determine what's acceptable in culture is. I don't want less of anything, or censorship, I just want more pushback when things do appear, even if it's slight, where it adds to a story.
For example; below here I use an example from Law & Order SVU, but I have to admit that I think Law & Order SVU is still to this day compelling storytelling.
I mean, if you're having a gay marriage on your show (which happens quite a bit), you definitely have a position on gay marriage then and there. If nobody who knows the character's getting married has any objections, then you're at another point.
I mean, imagine a twin brother and sister. The sister looked forward to getting married for years, imagined it in her head, and eventually does get married to the man of her dreams, rendering her intensely happy.
She has a brother, who didn't seem too interested in settling down, but suddenly he's come back from some vacation and has found himself a dream husband. His sister feels intense resentment towards him, not just for the usual reasons, but because he couldn't even get married to a man until very recently and she feels this somehow cheapens her own marriage.
Nobody has to agree for this to be a compelling story. However, you won't get any sympathy for this sort of sister on TV. I mean, of course she's being selfish, that's one thing, but she's also (unquestionably, apparently) a bigot.
Or, I guess, you could take the character who is waiting until marriage. I mean, you don't have to take all the sexual tension out of a situation (because TV thrives on that sort of thing) but you can have them state why they won't go past a certain point, or why this sort of thing is important to them. I mean, honestly, it's most probably religion, but it doesn't have to be. It can be compelling.
I brought this one up mainly because Deacon on S.W.A.T. is a Catholic family man, and when he's confronted by his bisexual workmate who is in a polyamorous relationship, he doesn't refuse to pass judgement on her relationship, but instead affirms it, which feels inconsistent with the values he displays for the rest of the show.
I recently caught the back half of the 12th season finale of Law & Order: SVU. In it, a girl whose mother has been murdered buys a gun of a New York street and manages to get it into a police station, where she proceeds to shoot the three parties involved in her mother's murder.
Her last words, ever, are "I bought it off the street. It was so easy."
If that's not trying to influence one's position on gun control I don't know what is.
EDIT:
By the way, GMH, I feel like I'm making concessions here about whether or not I understand modern liberals, but I've noticed that:
I'm not bringing these points up to change your mind on any of them, I just want you to know i disagree with all these premises. In fact, I think a lot of this is kind of disrespectful to people whose ideas diverge from your own. As I said earlier;
Anyways;
Is this, in terms of patriotism (and honestly, post Second World War reality) a bad thing? Of course it's an odd premise, but it's hard to argue that the U.S. didn't basically become kingmaker (and destroyer). Of course people will make up mystical reasons for it, that's just how the human thought collective is, and I can't explain why.
It's not bad to believe in something bigger than yourself, however you arrive at that. It can give life purpose. Again, that's just how people are, and I'm not sure why, so why not let them have it?
Anyway,...
Actually, the modern US conservative's typical position on climate change is a mixture of "it's not happening", "it's not severe", and/or "it's not something we can do anything about", so it's a little more complicated than simply claiming that factual data are lies, though that's part of it. (The fact that the three positions I mentioned are incompatible, yet sometimes argued by the same person, suggest that the actual position is "stop bothering me about it".) But this goes beyond climate change; conservative/Republican politicians in the US have a track record that includes this plus arguing that information mentioned the Bible (or an idea directly derived from it) should be taught as equivalent to, or in replacement of, scientific theory regarding evolution, as well as decrying scientific studies as a waste of attention and therefore a waste of government funds, often by using intentionally-uncharitable and dismissive descriptions of it (e.g. "a study to see what monkeys are like when they're high on weed"). And closely related to this is the idea that concern regarding the environment is nice but is a luxury that ought to take a back seat to economic development and resource exploitation, and anyone claiming otherwise is a "tree-hugger" or cares way too much about oh-so-distant-and-irrelevant polar bears, for example.
But perhaps most importantly, underlying all of this, is (at least some) conservatives' position that education itself is liberal brainwashing, and that science itself should not be trusted due to interpreting scientific ideas as merely liberal political opinions.
To be fair, there are some anti-science or patently not-based-in-science ideas on the other side too, such as anti-vaxxers, or more broadly, some neo-shamanistic ideas regarding nature. But the liberal side does not outright reject science, scientific thought processes, or education.
I tried to focus on the personally-held broad beliefs of modern U.S. conservatives and liberals -- what they see themselves as and what they feel they're espousing, particularly at the "core" (since that was your tack).
I just didn't mention how those beliefs translate to specific policy positions (e.g. laissez-faire economics, etc.), but those positions can be traced back to those beliefs. Furthermore, sometimes the same policy position can be traced back to different beliefs depending on the person (for example, environmentally-minded liberals like distributed solar power because it avoids GHG emissions during power generation, while tea-partier conservatives like it because it's a way to become independent of the jurisdiction of governments).
I actually had a long paragraph describing how nationalism could be defined in a variety of ways, but scrapped that. It went something like this:
* nationalism could mean caring about one's country and thereby doing charitable work assisting military veterans, or it could mean rejecting cultural elements perceived as different or foreign to the point of advocating their removal as well as harassment and even violence against them
* nationalism could mean exhibiting pride in one's identifying with one's homeland, or it could mean attempting to enforce such displays of pride on others
* nationalism could mean loyal support for the government during times of international conflict, or it could mean disparaging people who are deemed "traitors" due to their non-support of such
* nationalism could mean prioritizing domestic industries, or it could mean treating world economics as a zero sum game where forcing other countries to lose is perceived as beneficial
* nationalism could mean enforcing territorial integrity by politically opposing, or even fighting militarily, against separatists. (Not really relevant to the U.S. in recent history, though I should point out the irony of conservatives criticizing liberals for disloyalty to the country and to history while themselves displaying an elongated Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, which is neither loyal to the union nor historically accurate (on multiple counts).)
Well, I sympathize, since I really appreciate humanizing fictional characters, to the point where you probably think I do this too much for anime characters.
(Speaking of anime, there's an anime cliché in the above.)
Actually, this notion -- that guns are really easy for (so to speak) bad people (particularly in the (mental image of) crime-ridden inner cities) to get -- is something that pro-gun activists cite as why the good people should have guns.
I can see how one could interpret an anti-gun angle in that line, but it works in more than one way.
Furthermore, I should note that Law & Order SVU and/or its parent series have also played interesting legal gambits with arguing that abortion IS murder in order to get perps prosecuted more harshly.
Also, Stabler is a Catholic, and his religious/moral objections to certain things are sometimes rather relevant in some episodes. And he's very much portrayed as a sympathetic character, given his leading role. (I haven't watched SVU episodes made in 2019-2020 so I can't say whether this has happened in specifically this timeframe, but this has definitely happened before in past episodes.) In fact, it's not uncommon for the detectives and prosecutors to disagree among themselves about the moral/ethical details of a case.
(Also, Tutuola is a Republican. And so was DA Arthur Branch.)
reply to the rest in another post because good gosh this takes a while and is long
I simply pointed out that ultranationalism is a current fad in the Republican Party.
Let me paste what I wrote, again, minus the specific statistic because I don't actually know the exact percentage but it is simply my observation that this applies to the vast majority of people in such category. And now I'll flip a few words: I think both of these are reasonably accurate assessments of how political affiliations happen here in the United States. The mechanics of this description are not specific to the Republican Party.
Anyhow, never did I "claim that people mainly voted for Republicans for ideals they don't actually hold dear" (I can kinda find corner-case ways of reading what I wrote to get this interpretation, but I'd ask you to elaborate instead), nor "that they should know better" (I don't know how you got this idea at all).
(On the other hand, you seem like you're perceiving my words here through a lens of apologism for the Republican Party, and thus seeing implications that I'm not making.)
As for Republican legislators, which you said your original comment was referring to, I see them as fellow human beings, who probably got into public service for noble reasons (like many people who do), but who are imperfect and may sometimes make ethically questionable judgements particularly in response to institutional pressures such as from their party organization. (Again, note that this description is not unique to the Republican Party.)
The same could be said of your description of them. =P
I'm not defining it for them (nor am I seriously arguing that you are either); I'm simply observing what they believe and boiling it down to fundamental principles, as opposed to dealing in specific political positions.
Heck, I agree with some of these fundamental principles. (There's a reason I consider myself a conservative.)
Conservatism is not the same as nationalism nor other political ideologies; they simply happen to coincide on some issue positions at certain times in history.
If you read carefully, you'd notice that I said "the crowd of people who [display a profusion of U.S. nationalistic symbology here in the U.S. lately] just so happens to also be the crowd frequented by people who [do a variety of unacceptable behaviors]." They're not necessarily the same people; just that their viewpoints are compatible enough that they're at least somewhat willing to hang out together and perceive each other as having common goals (and in turn influence each other). And there are of course a subset of people who do personally overlap these various ideas.
I never called anyone a racist in that description, but if you want to get technical, then it's indeed possible for such an opinion to manifest as disparaging or disadvantaging someone based on their racial appearance, which would be racist. Race/racism isn't the sole dimension on which this exists though -- I was actually thinking less about race and more about specific cultural (including but not limited to religious) traditions -- so we're talking behaviors like mocking people for wearing headscarves, or begrudging people for saying "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas".
Also, not everyone who says they disagree with (for example) kneeling for the national anthem (as opposed to the usual standing) is intent on forcing people to conform with standard displays of patriotism. However, some clearly are -- or else they wouldn't do things like advocating for punitive measures such as firing the offending persons.
I do. It's just that I think the sentiment's a little silly.
The US did indeed come out the lucky beneficiary of the outcome and the geography of of the Second World War. However, interpreting this as a divine blessing of the destiny of US dominance of the world is rather lacking in humility (which, incidentally, the Lord Jesus Christ is much more fond of), and using it to brag is even more so.
(Also I was unfamiliar with the "1619 Project", but upon Googling it a bit I noticed that it got notable pushback from historians.)
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind/534231/
Too long for me to really give a detailed reply to everything, but with regards to the question of truth and facts, and how they themselves seem to be in question as people are able to construct (and then be supported at) fantasies about how the world works...
I've always wondered whether we as humans are poorly-equipped -- or, at least, poorly-trained -- to deal with the sheer volume of information of the entire world (or large sections of it, even an entire country) on a fully rational basis.
Obviously, we cannot personally verify all the information that comes to us. We have to build a network of understanding with regards to what information and what sources are trustworthy, but such a network can be built haphazardly and with components that are themselves untrustworthy.
Personally I think it's useful to have an understanding that truth value of information actually has not one but two dimensions --
* true vs. false
* certainty
Thus, it is possible to accept a piece of information as true (or false) but only tentatively. Furthermore, there is no way to refine certainty other than by getting more information on it, and in this imperfect world it's sometimes necessary to make decisions based on uncertain information. But it's still useful to maintain a healthy skepticism toward information -- including the information one already has accepted. Meanwhile, skepticism should not be misunderstood as disbelief either -- nor should the term be misused to describe disbelief.
Yeah, I vaguely remember reading that about 100,000 thinkpieces ago.
I agree on this, and for a long time I believed that we were okay because government would fix things, completely ignoring that government is run by humans who are easily influenced by other humans, whether through ideology, money or (most importantly) popularity.
So, like, the trawl to the truth is slow, and I doubt we'll come to it within anything approaching "soon".
However, the 1619 Project was one of the major undertakings of the modern liberal sphere in 2019. It got pushback from historians because, as was admitted at the very start of it, it was a "framing" project that claimed America was a nation uniquely tainted by slavery (forgetting like... literally everybody else on the planet at the time, I guess?).
I mean, when you start with that premise, do you really care about history or you're more concerned with advancing a position?
Similarly, when Hallmark was embroiled over if family values could include gay marriage, Salon, which is a (vaguely?) respected outlet by somebody surely, put out an article about how movies about two straight white people getting married are literally fascist.
I'm not talking out of a crystal ball, GMH, these things are happening out there. I'm majorly confused about what modern liberal America even is. Is it what you describe, which sounds sane, or is it whatever food group Saira Rao or Robin DiAngelo has decided is white supremacy that morning on twitter?
Mostly because I'm no longer willing to even read most of these things with a straight face. At this point I'm inclined to give conservatives (and others, but libertarians are somehow too stringent and yet too hippy for me) the benefit of the doubt more often than not.
Stabler left SVU after S12. Liv went through lots of partners until S18 just had her go solo, which is how it is now. I think you should understand that after #MeToo, there was no way the show would ever be the same, but I don't think it's veered off any deep ends either.
There's no way Tutuola is still a Republican.
I tossed around bed for like an hour last night thinking about what you'd said in regards to "Zero Sum Games" but then I get up and realize you'd written about international relations generally rather than economics and I'm just entirely deflated.
Anyways, let's try to move this to an end, rather than write 2,000 words at each other every other post.
Oh, 100%, but I don't see that changing anytime soon. It's probably my primary form of entertainment after anime and music. I mean, when I stopped playing video games I had to fill the time with something.
Maybe I should just take up LEGO again.
Of course?
However, it's probably not wise to immediately assume this doesn't bleed into real life.
At this point, I'm only watching like four live-action American shows at all? I used to devour the stuff, that's true, but I guess it was a fad for me.
The main thing I've learned from the internet is that if you are loudly berating something, you are especially immune from it.
Tangent: I've actually been wondering whether a post-scarcity society will just end up having people finding something new to fight over -- rather than having people mostly content due to lack of scarcity.
On one hand, we already sate these impulses with sports, games, and other competitive activities. On the other hand, however, people do have different opinions on what the world is or should be like, and so once more basic needs are satisfied, they now have the time to fight over more "advanced" things, particularly ones that are seen as heavily consequential for things like business or policymaking.
TL;DR some days I wonder whether Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is actually Maslow's Hierarchy of Shit to Start Shit Over
Sarcasm. I even used italics!
You find that political pundits or, basically, anybody 100% active on twitter, aren't playing sports or video games or anything of this sort.
Plus, discussing politics is seen as "important" and a "smart thing to do" despite it basically tossing ideas and opinions into the abyss. I mean, we're not Aristotle or anything.
However, I do think pushing back against the people who believe they are Aristotle is vitally important. You don't overcome (to borrow some of Bridget Phetasy's words) "default setting" opinions you find to be a problem by staying quiet about them. That's basically what conservatives did once gay marriage became legal (though, somehow, it didn't happen to abortion, going by the intensity of this year's March for Life).
Tangent to Your Tangent: There's a growing number of the MRA/MGTOW/some conservatives/some liberals who believe that adult men who satiate themselves with video games are not only wasting their lives, but making life for everyone else worse (especially women whose potential dating pool is reduced or spoiled).
Expanding on this, there's a study of some sort that insists when a new big video game comes out, grades drop, and as the video game player ratio is like 3 boys for every girl, boys are being especially indoctrinated into hikkikomori attitudes earlier and earlier. Which, I guess, goes back to the argument I made about how America and other Western countries don't have this sort of culture. I mean, one could wonder if they're developing it, or a variation of it.
Mainly though I've dismissed this as daft moralizing over nothing.
Edit: oh uh... to answer your actual question. Human beings are most definitely in need of meaning, and meaning leads to conflict. Combined with our natural tribalistic tendencies (which, in a way, are kind of a beautiful thing, since anybody on the planet can be "your tribe" as the intersectionalists have very deftly shown us) this... will never, ever be pretty.
If we can fight about something, we will do it. The best thing would be to be aware of these impulses and fight them but... like... do you see that happening anytime soon (especially this of all years)? I don't.
Edit 2: However, I do wonder if I, specifically, should be concerned about these things. Putting things in perspective like this, irrespective of the voice in my head that says "Confront the SJWs and dissent right in their faces for their own good!", like... I have stuff I want to do. I have books I want to read, anime I want to watch. Things I want to practice and learn for my own professional good.
Instead, I've put a slate of political books in my future, "for my own good", so that I may become cultured and seaworthy as a ship in the ocean of arguments. But... do I really care? Honestly?
Edit 3: Well, at times like this, I have to look to the Fountain of Knowledge, that is; Aikatsu Stars! lyrics.
STARDOM! says: "Don't look at only what's beautiful, embrace everything"
MUSIC of DREAM!!! says: "The things I love, the things I hate, they're all a part of the real me" and "To the people who believe in a new me, one that I've yet to see, I want to deliver this melody to them"
I'll... I'll have a long think on this.
You know, I didn't used to be this sentimental about things, and always found people who were odd.
> You don't overcome opinions you find to be a problem by staying quiet about them.
This more general statement explains basically every flamewar on the internet, heh.
Well, yeah, I care a lot! However, I'll stick to reading thinkpieces. Probably invest in some digital publication subscriptions again rather than stick with books. Even the four books I'd earmarked for this year seem like way too many, and I read all of Savage Island in about a day and a half.
The Church of Scientology is as evil as the meme suggests it is.
Just a lot less funny.
TL;DR the Scientologists are basically in a massive conspiracy to buy out everything in Clearwater, FL, gradually pushing out anyone who isn't one of them, until they basically run the entire place. And they are entirely willing to ruin the city in order to do this, by doing stuff like leaving vacant properties everywhere.
thread in /r/FloridaMan: "Scientologists are trying to take over Florida Man's town"