2020 Election Commentary

[Ghostmaker]

And just so we don't make this the 'Ghostmaker takes on all comers' thread, here's some more meat:

https://buffalochronicle.com/2020/11/14/exclusive-how-a-philly-mob-boss-stole-the-election-and-why-he-may-flip-on-joe-biden/

I have no idea if the Buffalo Chronicle is any good or is another Daily Mail, but holy shit, the brass balls on this son of a bitch if this is true.

[Pat]

Right now I can pull another dozen names -- and these aren't just Twatter nobodies, these are public figures with blue checkmarks who in some cases hold or have held public office -- who happily discuss how much they want to punish anyone who didn't want to vote for Joe Biden or for that matter, Hillary Clinton. This is the state of politics today in the U.S.

STOP FUCKING TELLING ME I'M IMAGINING IT.

Fuck this, I tried.

I never told you you imagined anything, BTW. I said you took a lot of things, combined them, and then attacked other people as if they were that thing.

[jhkim]

The reason it's gaslighting is because what "principled liberals" here react to, is someone to their right making a hyperbolic statement - but not someone to their left.

Jhkim and Mercurius will ask those to the right of them to moderate and to please not become overly partisan.  If hard leftists post similarly from farther to their left, that is directly replied to to a much lesser degree.

In recent times, I agreed with shuddemell in his link condemning extremist leftist threats. I pushed back correcting rawma when he claimed that Veritas hadn't posted their video. I agreed in calling Maduro a dictator.

I more often respond against right-wing talk - but on this forum, right-wing talk is much more common than left-wing talk. There's isn't anyone on the left here who is close to the prolificness and extreme language of SHARK's rants, or extreme claims to the level of RandyB or consolcwby citing over 30 million fraudulent votes. We have had some extreme left here in the past - Biscuitician was an extreme left-wing poster, for example. But in general, I'm responding to the frequency and extremism of posts.

In left-wing circles, I find I'm often considered a pain-in-the-ass and possibly a traitor for my positions.

[SHARK]

The reason it's gaslighting is because what "principled liberals" here react to, is someone to their right making a hyperbolic statement - but not someone to their left.

Jhkim and Mercurius will ask those to the right of them to moderate and to please not become overly partisan.  If hard leftists post similarly from farther to their left, that is directly replied to to a much lesser degree.  It is essentially accepted as a sunk outcome while they focus on convincing those right of them to always note all leftists aren't like that, and to not become likewise

This is gaslighting, because the root cause (those to their left) is not addressed.  It also is passive, refusing to ever define ahead of time the line beyond when those to their left have gone so far an immoderate approach is warranted. 

This is how scissors works.  It can't effect those left of them, and so concentrates on preventing those right of them from changing mindset with appeals to principles that are only effective when upheld by all, but which become Neville-variety appeasement (at best) when held unilaterally.

It's really, really important though that those to their right never respond to rock without stopping to spontaneously acknowledge how scissors is different than rock

Greetings!

EXACTLY, EOTB!

Communist morons like Elfdart can run their mouth with impunity, shrieking the most absolute nonsense--and Mercurious and Jhkim and HappyDaze have nothing to say about it. Oh, and you also don't see them critiquing a damned thing that Larsdangley or Rawma ever run their mouth about, either.

Oh, but goddamned, the ULTRA CONSERVATIVES like SHARK and Spinachcat and Ghostmaker are so terrible! REEEE! REEE! REEE!

The Libtards are so swarmy and *duplicitous* They love gurgling the pathetic, delusional milk that Biden is some kind of "Centrist". No, no, don't look at his website and campaign where he embraces AOC, Bernie Sanders--fucking Communists. No, no, don't look at how he has aligned himself with AOC "Green New Deal", Bernie "Medicare For ALL", Beto O' Rourke--"Damned right we're coming to take your guns!"--no, no, you must ignore all of that. Just get on your knees and open your mouth to more Communist delusion milk!

Just believe in the healing power of Biden!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Pat]

There's isn't anyone on the left here who is close to the prolificness and extreme language of SHARK's rants...

Elfdart start more recently, but is doing their damnedest to catch up. And SHARK is quite reasonable most of the time, it's just this election seems to bring out the cheerleaders. On that topic more than any other, the tone has changed from debate to team rallying cries.

[SHARK]

The reason it's gaslighting is because what "principled liberals" here react to, is someone to their right making a hyperbolic statement - but not someone to their left.

Jhkim and Mercurius will ask those to the right of them to moderate and to please not become overly partisan.  If hard leftists post similarly from farther to their left, that is directly replied to to a much lesser degree.

In recent times, I agreed with shuddemell in his link condemning extremist leftist threats. I pushed back correcting rawma when he claimed that Veritas hadn't posted their video. I agreed in calling Maduro a dictator.

I more often respond against right-wing talk - but on this forum, right-wing talk is much more common than left-wing talk. There's isn't anyone on the left here who is close to the prolificness and extreme language of SHARK's rants, or extreme claims to the level of RandyB or consolcwby citing over 30 million fraudulent votes. We have had some extreme left here in the past - Biscuitician was an extreme left-wing poster, for example. But in general, I'm responding to the frequency and extremism of posts.

In left-wing circles, I find I'm often considered a pain-in-the-ass and possibly a traitor for my positions.

Greetings!

Jhkim, have you heard the expression of "Throwing the dog a bone"?

You periodically throw Conservatives a bone by occasional agreement, or defense, as the case may be--but your critiques against Left wingers is, to be honest, seems awfully tepid.

You know that's right!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Spike]

Thanks for bringing philosophical depth to the conversation - as well as tinges of humor interspersed throughout.

:hattip:

I think my main objection to your narrative is that it seems too dualistic, too simplistic. This is not to say that I think you are simplistic--clearly, you are not--but that there are many other factors involved, many roots that have grown the tree that we currently experience (or streams that feed the river), and you're singling out a specific root or stream (whichever metaphor you prefer), which leads to ignoring other roots and streams.

Not at all. To understand any large scale problem it is often necessary to break it down into components, and depending on the topic shrink or expand that part (I am thinking of how Plato's Republic was presented as an exercise in understanding Virtue) until you can grasp the problem.  Someone commented about how a significant portion of the Progressive Left, or SJWs or Biden Supporters (I don't recall exactly which group was being discusseed) seemed perfectly happy to ignore reality and make all their judgements off of Feels, which is why I broke down exactly why this particular type of thinking is so prevalent.  From the common 'Enlightenment' point of view the retreat to Feelings over Facts seems self evidently wrong, lacking in any sort of seriousness, hypocritical and more.... but when you realize that very serious thinkers put a lot of serious thought into rejecting reason, it might perhaps offer a better solution to our apparently intractable social bifurcation.  The first step in solving a problem is to CORRECTLY identify the problem.

As long as people keep focusing on the fight between team jerseys, between the Cheeto Furher vs Gropin' Joe, tehy aren't addressing the problem.


That said, absolutely I've ignored all the other roots and branches of the problem. Not because I deny their existance, validity or even importance, but simply because I am methodical. I only saw at one branch at a time. Preferrably the one I'm not standing on, but....

For instance, a major aspect of American politics centers around the question of American empire and the nature and use of power, and how that is spun. Some feel that America should be the dominant force in global politics, and should wield their military might to keep the order (while also protecting corporate interests), while others feel that we shouldn't be as involved in other nations and be more focused on domestic concerns and/or peace efforts globally. This isn't a right-left split, as progressives and libertarians come close to agreement on the latter, and are in opposition to the establishment narrative, whether left-leaning or right-leaning.

It's my lucky day! I was just thinking earlier that a great deal of the modern political divide, particularly on the matter of Immigration comes from a framework issue. Most Americans, the 'common man' crowd, tend to see America as a country, and they wonder why they can't keep their country for themselves.  However, almost everyone else, including the 'public elites', and especially foreigners, see America as an EMPIRE, which it unfortunately has become, and feel that it is only good and right (even Just) for members of the Empire to have the right to travel to the heartland of the Empire and participate in its governance... after all they have a stake in it, don't they?

I must reluctantly conceed that America is an Empire, but as a citizen of the Country of America, I have to agree that, as much as I like Korma, if I wanted to live in India, I'd move to Mumbai, just to pick one of the many possible provinces of Empire currently influencing our local politics.  The solution seems quite obvious to me: End the Empire.  Pull the warships back, close the foreign bases, and stop tossing MOABs around like they were fourth of july fireworks.  I do not care of the Hutus and Tutsis are slaughtering each other with machetes. I don't care which tribe rules Yemen, or if Iran or Turkey gets to play kingmaker in the Middle East. I don't care if China plants a flag on a god damn glorified sand bar in the South China Sea, or if Japan bombs Beijing because they are pissed that their flag isn't flying over said glorified Sandbar. Let them murder each other, or not.

Another relevant stream is the twin ideals of liberty and equality, and how that has played out in American history. In a very crude way, conservatism focused more on liberty, leftism more on equality. The American experiment has a lot to do with this dialectic, but unfortunately we end up with a clash between the two, rather than an integration, finding a synthesis (to touch upon Hegel). So we find ourselves in a situation where many feel that the two are opposed, and it becomes exacerbated by dualistic thinking on both sides. People on the right say, "individual responsibility - and if you can't hack it in our system, it's your fault." People on the left say, "it is the system that oppresses and is not your fault." So we're left with two very partial, damaging, and ultimately erroneous underlying assumptions.

False.  The difference between, as you put it, Conservativism vs Leftism, regarding Equality is over the DEFINITION of Equality, and much less so over where it stands in a hierarchy of ideals.

As is commonly stated, the conflict is between the Equality of Opportunity (the Right and even classic Liberal, take on Equality) vs the Equality of Outcomes favored by the left.   I can support your misguided statement by suggesting that Opportunity is a matter of freedom, of liberty, while Outcomes requires a stern authoritarian hand to implement, taking from those who have earned 'more than their share' to give to those who have not attained their own, so you can make the argument you did... but only by obscuring the matter at hand.  Both the Left and Right are interested in Equality, it is how they are measuring Equality that differs, and so very much. 

There's also the question of priorities: where we, as a culture, put our priorities, and how we view "the good life." The left, or at least elements of the left, is basically an objection to the idea that our priorities are focused on economics, on personal gain, on the profit motive - and yes, on individual wealth accumulation, at least when it is at the expense of others (e.g. Jeff Bezos' 200 billion, while his employees work in an untenable environment, with poor pay and benefits). Progressive platforms such as the Green New Deal, UBI, MfA, etc, aren't intended as means to control individual liberty, but increasing quality of life - so that more people (equality) can live "the good life." And perhaps more importantly, that the "good life" should not be defined by finances, but by health, happiness, human relationships, creative fulfillment, etc.

You seem to be suggesting that Jeff Bezos is a man of the Right, that it isn't a fact that the billionaires are supporting the modern left and all their initiatives (Green New Deal) that you are saying are all about 'quality of life'.

No. Those initiatives are about power, about control, particularly of the 'common man', since the wealthy and polticially connected elites will not be subjected to the various rules and regulations, just as we see all these deeply concerned environmentalist celebrities and politicans flying all over the world to exotic locations to have their various confabs about how to reduce carbon footprints.

The Green New Deal will absolutely NOT improve anyone's quality of life. Obamacare did not improve the medical coverage for the vast majority of Americans... it made it worse.  The expansion of regulations, of intrusive power, of 'one size fits all' solutions from a top down system of government and beaurocracy is never the answer.   

I agree regarding magical thinking, and connected to that, most people vote more affectively - who they like, connect with, feel like is "one of them." Most people also vote for self-interest.

Way back in 2007, I realized The West was doomed when I began reading articles discussing John Edwards vs Hillary Clinton in the local rag, focused almost entirely on which candidate was the 'woman's candidate', as if the task of running the Empire was something utterly irrelevant to what we were voting on, and instead which candidate was best for some nearly arbitrary identity political niche. 

Then again: Athens won the Peloponnessian War at least three times before they hung all their generals for winning a major naval battle and basically handed the war to Sparta. Democracy truly is a wonderful system of government.

[SHARK]

There's isn't anyone on the left here who is close to the prolificness and extreme language of SHARK's rants...

Elfdart start more recently, but is doing their damnedest to catch up. And SHARK is quite reasonable most of the time, it's just this election seems to bring out the cheerleaders. On that topic more than any other, the tone has changed from debate to team rallying cries.

Greetings!

Thank you, Pat. I do try to be reasonable most of the time!

Sometimes, though, I read or watch videos on the Interwebs and come here, and read stuff here, and well, it can get me all excited where I get in the mood to breathe fire and rant.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[EOTB]

The reason it's gaslighting is because what "principled liberals" here react to, is someone to their right making a hyperbolic statement - but not someone to their left.

Jhkim and Mercurius will ask those to the right of them to moderate and to please not become overly partisan.  If hard leftists post similarly from farther to their left, that is directly replied to to a much lesser degree.

In recent times, I agreed with shuddemell in his link condemning extremist leftist threats. I pushed back correcting rawma when he claimed that Veritas hadn't posted their video. I agreed in calling Maduro a dictator.

I more often respond against right-wing talk - but on this forum, right-wing talk is much more common than left-wing talk. There's isn't anyone on the left here who is close to the prolificness and extreme language of SHARK's rants, or extreme claims to the level of RandyB or consolcwby citing over 30 million fraudulent votes. We have had some extreme left here in the past - Biscuitician was an extreme left-wing poster, for example. But in general, I'm responding to the frequency and extremism of posts.

In left-wing circles, I find I'm often considered a pain-in-the-ass and possibly a traitor for my positions.

Yes, you'll "point of order" left wing posters.  No disagreement there.  My post is about the subtle use of persuasion on individual posters, not data-concurrence.  Even when agreeing with shuddermel the reflex was to create an equivalency (that did not exist) - "both sides do it and are wrong for doing it".  That's a persuasion to cool down, righty.  Are you doing similarly to Elfdart and Rawma's hyperbole?  (As opposed to their facts)

I have no doubt people to the left of you react as you say in their communities.  As I said, your methods aren't effective persuading that mindset.  Rock beats scissors.  Here among paper the approach receives more traction and less derision.  Neville was more successful in persuading the British than the Germans...because he pointed toward what the British wished to come to pass. 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

I didn't want to quote the long nested commentary, but your commentary is very cool, Spike!

You made me fucking laugh with the "Cheetoh Fuhrer" comment, too. *Hilarious*!

Yes, Athens did fuck up and lose terribly! *Laughing* And Democracy was crushed, thanks to stupidity and ineptitude.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Pat]

Jhkim, have you heard the expression of "Throwing the dog a bone"?

You periodically throw Conservatives a bone by occasional agreement, or defense, as the case may be--but your critiques against Left wingers is, to be honest, seems awfully tepid.

You know that's right!

SHARK, how often do you hotly critique right wingers? Kim is clearly on the left wing (thought not to an extreme), so I wouldn't expect equally balanced treatment of both sides, any more than I would from you.

Plus, at least from my perspective, criticizing left wing posters on this site often feels like dogpiling, because every post they make often gets a half a dozen impassioned replies. In that case, ducking out isn't tacit agreement, it's just politeness because they're already being hammered.

Though that's shifted a bit in the last couple of days, with rants by Elfdart, drive-by sniping by Happy Daze, and the more reasoned approaches from Mercurious and JHKim. But they're still a minority.

[EOTB]

"I am a centrist" (or "principled liberal) is a condition that either confronts both extremes or is false.

I don't give Rawma any guff; he wears the colors of the opposition openly.  Same with Elfdart.  (Elfdart-types carrying the opposition's flag publicly is optics I can live with)

My point isn't to get anyone to change.  Everyone is who they are. 

[HappyDaze]

And just so we don't make this the 'Ghostmaker takes on all comers' thread, here's some more meat:

https://buffalochronicle.com/2020/11/14/exclusive-how-a-philly-mob-boss-stole-the-election-and-why-he-may-flip-on-joe-biden/

I have no idea if the Buffalo Chronicle is any good or is another Daily Mail, but holy shit, the brass balls on this son of a bitch if this is true.

If you want to know the answer: "Overall, we rate The Buffalo Chronicle Questionable based on far-right-wing bias, a complete lack of transparency, promotion of propaganda/conspiracy theories, and several failed fact checks." https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-buffalo-chronicle/

[HappyDaze]

Jhkim, have you heard the expression of "Throwing the dog a bone"?

You periodically throw Conservatives a bone by occasional agreement, or defense, as the case may be--but your critiques against Left wingers is, to be honest, seems awfully tepid.

You know that's right!

SHARK, how often do you hotly critique right wingers? Kim is clearly on the left wing (thought not to an extreme), so I wouldn't expect equally balanced treatment of both sides, any more than I would from you.

Plus, at least from my perspective, criticizing left wing posters on this site often feels like dogpiling, because every post they make often gets a half a dozen impassioned replies. In that case, ducking out isn't tacit agreement, it's just politeness because they're already being hammered.

Though that's shifted a bit in the last couple of days, with rants by Elfdart, drive-by sniping by Happy Daze, and the more reasoned approaches from Mercurious and JHKim. But they're still a minority.

If you look closely, I snipe at anyone that encourages violence and escalation, whether they're on the left or right.

[Ratman_tf]

Plus, at least from my perspective, criticizing left wing posters on this site often feels like dogpiling, because every post they make often gets a half a dozen impassioned replies. In that case, ducking out isn't tacit agreement, it's just politeness because they're already being hammered.

I think we're lucky to have the few voices of opposition we have, excepting the ones who just do it to troll. If someone's going to argue a point effectively, they need to be able to address criticism. Some posters are better at this than others.