Post Reply I (want to) find all the hysterics hysterical
27265 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 14 days ago , edited 13 days ago
http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/21/heres-progressives-lose-minds-lose-elections/


If you believe that men are equal in that they are all imperfect and powerless to rule others well, it follows that politics is difficult and the aims of government should be limited. If you accept that the aim of government is a limited justice that people are capable of attaining—namely, ordered liberty—then you probably think human happiness is something government cannot impart but is found elsewhere, such as in religion, virtue, or good old-fashioned wealth. If this is the case, you probably accept that people should be allowed to, and will, disagree. This means you probably enjoy conversation, reason, and graciousness toward others when you disagree.

If you believe, however, that men are basically good and have progressed (either through evolution or history) to where they can live together in peace while also enjoying radical liberty (i.e., license to do whatever one wants according to one’s will and apart from any constraints of nature or convention), you have a problem. For one, if men can achieve a higher form of justice beyond mere freedom from the unjust rule of men, they should, and most likely will, pursue it in their politics.

To someone on the Right, of course, this is a rather utopian view of government. The Left is saying, in essence, that government is around to establish perfect social justice in every aspect of life. In raising, or returning, the aims of government to the heights of perfect justice while simultaneously promoting the radical embrace of human passion within every individual, political correctness follows.

If politics is about everything good, then there must be bad things people cannot talk about in politics. The higher the form of justice, the more harmony is required. Like a finely tuned, complex machine, a society striving for perfect justice becomes highly sensitive to any defects, no matter how small, and it demands complete conformity.


laffo.

I've been wanting to find all the hysterics in the streets, in the press, and EVERYWHERE to be hysterically funny, but it ends up to be all too retarded to even worth half a laugh.

tldr; It's not that I've been leaning either left or right as much as that the left has become so ABSO-RIDONCULOUS that I've no choice BUT to lean right by contrast alone
31139 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 14 days ago , edited 14 days ago
Clowns to the left of me.. Jokers to the right.. Here I am... stuck in the middle with you.

But yes, I've noticed some elements of the Left have been getting progressively crazier. That's not to say the right has been sounding any saner lately, if anything they're getting crazier as well. I think it's because of all these social media, etc. echo chambers everyone can find online these days. It isn't just terrorists who can self-radicalize.

Edit: Fixed a typo, because I'm OCD like that.
33367 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Socal
Online
Posted 14 days ago

iriomote wrote:

Clowns to the left of me.. Joker's to the right.. Here I am... stuck in the middle with you.

But yes, I've noticed some elements of the Left have been getting progressively crazier. That's not to say the right hasn't been sounding any saner lately, if anything they're getting crazier as well. I think it's because of all these social media, etc. echo chambers everyone can find online these days. It isn't just terrorists who can self-radicalize.


As a center guy, I agree
1019 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere Drinking
Offline
Posted 14 days ago
We've come full circle how very nice.
945 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Sweden
Offline
Posted 14 days ago
I'm pretty liberal but extremes in one direction or the other isn't good. And the hysteria won't help.. I wonder when it will calm down.
97968 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
68 / M / Columbia, MO
Offline
Posted 13 days ago
Pulled from The Daily Wire, written by Ben Shapiro.....


On Monday, President-Elect Trump held a meeting at Trump Tower with top members of the media. The New York Post reported:

Donald Trump scolded media big shots during an off-the-record Trump Tower sitdown on Monday, sources told The Post. “It was like a f–ing firing squad,” one source said of the encounter. “Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said ‘I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,’ ” the source said. “The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing down,” the source added.

According to the Post, attendees included NBC’s Lester Holt and Chuck Todd, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, David Muir, and Martha Raddatz, Fox News’ Bill Shine, MSNBC’s Phil Griffin, and CNN’s Jeff Zucker and Erin Burnett.

Here, in no particular order, are some random thoughts.

1. The Media Deserve This. The media destroyed Mitt Romney in 2012 by turning him from an honorable family man and excellent businessperson into the scourge of the earth, searching far and wide for gay kids so he could practice his haircutting skills, hunting down dogs to strap to his car. The media then decided to treat Barack Obama with kid gloves for eight years, soft-pedalling his lies on everything from Obamacare to Benghazi. Then, finally, the media built up Donald Trump in the primaries, then attempted to tear him down in the general. They’ve earned every bit of scorn Trump can level at them.

2. Trump’s Going To Start Every Firefight He Can. The media didn’t leak this story to The Post. Trump’s people did. The Post was one of the friendliest publications in the country to Trump. And this bolsters Trump’s favorite case – that he’s a powerful godking willing to face down the scurrilous media and hammer them into the ground. Trump relishes this sort of fisticuffs. It’s why he singled out reporters during the campaign. It’s why he went to war with Hamilton and Saturday Night Live over the weekend. Trump understands that most of his voters are sick of watching the media monopoly, and they’re more than willing to countenance a president blasting away at the media if it means destroying that monopoly.

3. The Media Will Seek Revenge By Turning Up The Volume. The media don’t know how to handle a Republican who doesn’t seem to care about their adoration. Their solution thus far: turning up the volume to 11. But that’s not working. They’re treating every Trump tweet as apocalyptic, every Trump outrage as plumbing new depths of Dante’s Inferno. That only succeeds in making Trump look justified in slapping them with both hands, then poking them in the eyes like a member of the Three Stooges. The only way for the media to cover Trump properly would be to understate their case rather than trotting out Howard Dean to label Trump cabinet appointees “Nazis,” or covering Richard Spencer’s alt-right hatefest as an extension of Trumpworld.

4. This Isn’t Great News For Americans. Despite the delicious schadenfreude, this isn’t good news. Americans are best served when press of every stripe have access to information about our executive branch. Closing off access for political gain was bad when Obama did it, and it isn’t any better when Trump does it. Many conservatives can’t see past their chortling over the media shamefacedly shuffling from Trump Tower, tails between their legs. That’s understandable. But the presidency is still a government office, requiring more daylight, not less.

Tags
Donald Trump
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 13 days ago , edited 13 days ago

If you believe that men are equal in that they are all imperfect and powerless to rule others well, it follows that politics is difficult and the aims of government should be limited. If you accept that the aim of government is a limited justice that people are capable of attaining—namely, ordered liberty—then you probably think human happiness is something government cannot impart but is found elsewhere, such as in religion, virtue, or good old-fashioned wealth. If this is the case, you probably accept that people should be allowed to, and will, disagree. This means you probably enjoy conversation, reason, and graciousness toward others when you disagree.


Of course, once you set up and maintain a system of "ordered liberty" however the author wishes to define it (something the author stresses people are capable of) you are effectively ruling others well according to the author's standards, so I feel comfortable rejecting the premise that people are necessarily powerless to rule others well. The author cannot simultaneously suppose that we are so incapable and that "ordered liberty" is achievable.

It is also supposed that governments are incapable of imparting happiness, and that because of this people ought to pursue happiness elsewhere. The problem is that governments are capable of imparting happiness, just not necessarily mutually and simultaneously among all people, on all occasions, and under any circumstances. What's more, the author's very first example of an alternative source of happiness (religious institutions) bear the same weakness and have been documented to be just as capable of sowing unhappiness, imposing undue authority, and inflicting material harm as governments. As such, there's no particular reason to hold governments accountable for every slight they may inflict and ignoring every positive impact they've ever had by declaring them incapable of imparting happiness. Likewise, there's no particular reason religion ought to be lauded for its every benefit and enjoy the protection of a thick layer of cosmetics over its every blemish so that it may be declared, unlike governments, a legitimate source of happiness. No reason, of course, except to satisfy the author's personal biases against government and for religion. This is an impulse of certain segments of the political right wing that I find profoundly frustrating, because it simultaneously deprives credit where it is due and gives credit where it is not due.

Finally, the author's attack against those who argue governments are capable of imparting happiness by suggesting that those who accept the premise that governments are not so capable are, because of this, more likely to value conversation, reason, and graciousness toward others is demonstrably untrue. Those in the United States who advance arguments that happiness is to be found not in government but in religious institutions have, in a considerable number of cases (enough to significantly impact elections and legislation at all levels), proven themselves perfectly willing to use the levers of government to impose their religious beliefs upon others in the name of promoting and protecting "Christian values" and/or "Western culture", and their actions have included media censorship campaigns and attempts to prevent accurate, current information from being taught in public schools.


If you believe, however, that men are basically good and have progressed (either through evolution or history) to where they can live together in peace while also enjoying radical liberty (i.e., license to do whatever one wants according to one’s will and apart from any constraints of nature or convention), you have a problem. For one, if men can achieve a higher form of justice beyond mere freedom from the unjust rule of men, they should, and most likely will, pursue it in their politics.

To someone on the Right, of course, this is a rather utopian view of government. The Left is saying, in essence, that government is around to establish perfect social justice in every aspect of life. In raising, or returning, the aims of government to the heights of perfect justice while simultaneously promoting the radical embrace of human passion within every individual, political correctness follows.

If politics is about everything good, then there must be bad things people cannot talk about in politics. The higher the form of justice, the more harmony is required. Like a finely tuned, complex machine, a society striving for perfect justice becomes highly sensitive to any defects, no matter how small, and it demands complete conformity.


I suppose a nuanced analysis of the political left's composition, motivations, objectives, and actions was too much to ask of the author. It's not like there are disagreements on the left about what peoples' political objectives and methods for attaining them ought to be (including objections to people preventing alternative viewpoints from being expressed), and it's not like there are people on the political right engaging in their own variety of political correctness and promoting authoritarian worldviews and policy proposals.

*ahem*

14755 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 13 days ago , edited 13 days ago

bemused_Bohemian wrote:

Pulled from The Daily Wire, written by Ben Shapiro.....
On Monday, President-Elect Trump held a meeting at Trump Tower with top members of the media. The New York Post reported:

Donald Trump scolded media big shots during an off-the-record Trump Tower sitdown on Monday, sources told The Post. “It was like a f–ing firing squad,” one source said of the encounter. “Trump started with [CNN chief] Jeff Zucker and said ‘I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed,’ ” the source said. “The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing down,” the source added.


Ah, the smell of Burning Bridges in November...Anyone got any marshmallows? We've already got one big weinie.


:1. The Media Deserve This. The media destroyed Mitt Romney in 2012 by turning him from an honorable family man and excellent businessperson into the scourge of the earth, searching far and wide for gay kids so he could practice his haircutting skills, hunting down dogs to strap to his car. The media then decided to treat Barack Obama with kid gloves for eight years, soft-pedalling his lies on everything from Obamacare to Benghazi. Then, finally, the media built up Donald Trump in the primaries, then attempted to tear him down in the general. They’ve earned every bit of scorn Trump can level at them.


Romney was a clueless party-parrot tagalong dip, and "his state" (snicker!) of Massachusetts was the FIRST to know it--The other 49 just had to find out later, the hard way. Sure took 'em long enough.
He introduced "Double-down" into our political vocabulary (before Trump made it a trademark), and started the new "Don't talk about that!!" Republican strategy of criticizing the press for repeating something the candidate actually said in public.

(But of course, now that he lost an election to a Democrat, he's now a "wronged martyr"...
So what, the Republicans LIKE him now, now that Lil' Billy-Tagalong's not on the Paul Ryan Anti-Trump train anymore and jumped on the Trump Meeting club car at the last minute?)
5962 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 13 days ago , edited 13 days ago
It was pretty funny to watch all those people protesting at the time. Did any of them bother to vote?

Unfortunately, all these neo-Nazis seem to keep popping up in connection to Trump and the entire situation is not as funny anymore. Now I'm hoping the electoral college will revolt come December.
42887 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 13 days ago
Does anyone else find the name "the federalist" to be ironic? I mean, I know it's probably referring to "the federalist papers"( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers ), but still, federalism is usually the exact opposite of what "the federalist" site argues.

Federalism is, or at least was, the belief that a strong federal government is necessary, like what the US Constitution set up( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution ), as opposed to a confederation, like the articles of confederation set up ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation )
14755 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 13 days ago , edited 13 days ago

Hehaho1830 wrote:
Federalism is, or at least was, the belief that a strong federal government is necessary, like what the US Constitution set up( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution ), as opposed to a confederation, like the articles of confederation set up ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation )


And was co-founded by Hamilton, no less.

Back when the first two-parties consisted of one central platform idea each, Federalism was based on the idea that the AoC needed a central federal Constitution--along with national currency, army, chief executive and seat of government--rather than let the states mind their own isolationist business, as Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans did.
Along the way in the 80's, "Federalist" became revisionist-associated with "Money-grubbing conservative Republican", even though all the "2nd Amendment supporters" in the 1780's were the ones terrified of a central Constitution.
602 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / The Ivory Tower
Offline
Posted 13 days ago

Hehaho1830 wrote:

Does anyone else find the name "the federalist" to be ironic? I mean, I know it's probably referring to "the federalist papers"( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers ), but still, federalism is usually the exact opposite of what "the federalist" site argues.

Federalism is, or at least was, the belief that a strong federal government is necessary, like what the US Constitution set up( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution ), as opposed to a confederation, like the articles of confederation set up ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation )


Federalism refers to the division of government between a central authority and smaller local authorities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism. It does not necessarily imply a strong central government - though the Anti-Federalists certainly thought so, and in the U.S. that's what we have now. So it depends on what you meany by strong.

602 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / The Ivory Tower
Offline
Posted 13 days ago
You remember the beginning of the final battle in the second season of Code Geass, where Schneizel and Lelouch are maneuvering their fleets, and someone says something like the battle is already incredibly intense and no one has fired a shot - even though that's obvious to everyone who's watched the last 47 episodes? That show is so dramatic.

Moving into position


If you believe that men are equal in that they are all imperfect and powerless to rule others well, it follows that politics is difficult and the aims of government should be limited. If you accept that the aim of government is a limited justice that people are capable of attaining—namely, ordered liberty—then you probably think human happiness is something government cannot impart but is found elsewhere, such as in religion, virtue, or good old-fashioned wealth. If this is the case, you probably accept that people should be allowed to, and will, disagree. This means you probably enjoy conversation, reason, and graciousness toward others when you disagree.


The author (David Danford) is apparently a military instructor and has an MA in Politics (whatever that means) from Hillsdale (a conservative liberal arts college - again, whatever that means). He talks like he knows what he's talking about, given his argument is almost entirely ideological, but from this paragraph we can clearly see that he's sloppy. Danford's first statement about equality and limited governance at least makes sense; the second, about limited government and happiness, doesn't really follow - and is entirely unnecessary. He could easily remove the few references he makes to happiness and have nearly his whole argument intact. What tips me off to what's going on, though, is that Danford never refers to any political thinkers or philosophers. His whole piece is very bare-bones. But bones I can get behind.

First skirmish


BlueOni wrote:

It is also supposed that governments are incapable of imparting happiness, and that because of this people ought to pursue happiness elsewhere. The problem is that governments are capable of imparting happiness, just not necessarily mutually and simultaneously among all people, on all occasions, and under any circumstances. What's more, the author's very first example of an alternative source of happiness (religious institutions) bear the same weakness and have been documented to be just as capable of sowing unhappiness, imposing undue authority, and inflicting material harm as governments. As such, there's no particular reason to hold governments accountable for every slight they may inflict and ignoring every positive impact they've ever had by declaring them incapable of imparting happiness. Likewise, there's no particular reason religion ought to be lauded for its every benefit and enjoy the protection of a thick layer of cosmetics over its every blemish so that it may be declared, unlike governments, a legitimate source of happiness. No reason, of course, except to satisfy the author's personal biases against government and for religion. This is an impulse of certain segments of the political right wing that I find profoundly frustrating, because it simultaneously deprives credit where it is due and gives credit where it is not due.


The few references to happiness don't really matter to the argument. Danford is indeed likely biased favorably towards religion, and he didn't even have to list it as a possible source of happiness for us to realize that. That you decided to belabor the point - to the point of including a prodigious list of religious people who are clearly against the "limited" government Danford would claim he's espousing - is interesting. You're correct that there exists a progression from what Danford is saying to what these people - who we can rightly call wackos - are saying, and it is a point relevant to the general issue Danford is bringing up. It's just not relevant to his actual argument. Yes, his inclusion of money and virtue with religion was likely a cover, but a lot of things can fall under the two. His major point is that government cannot do whatever that is for everyone, because people are too flawed to be able to make a perfect government. Government can indeed provide happiness to people, and does good things; I doubt Danford would dispute this. "[Every] slight they may inflict and ignoring every positive impact they've ever had" is a fairly rosy picture of government, and saying that "(religious institutions) bear the same weakness" affirms Danford's argument that government has that weakness and means we ought to hold it just as accountable as religion. The difference - wackos aside, and I think we have to agree that wackos can be put aside - is that if we want to talk reasonably, we have to assume that government has to be different from religion, money, virtue, and such. We can do without religion (narrowly defined), if not money and (some abstract form of) virtue, but we cannot do without government. Yet should we invest our hope in government? I think it is reasonable to give Danford this more favorable construction of the question, and I too would answer no.

Major offensive


BlueOni wrote:

Of course, once you set up and maintain a system of "ordered liberty" however the author wishes to define it (something the author stresses people are capable of) you are effectively ruling others well according to the author's standards, so I feel comfortable rejecting the premise that people are necessarily powerless to rule others well. The author cannot simultaneously suppose that we are so incapable and that "ordered liberty" is achievable.


Danford wants to make the distinction between "ordered liberty" and "perfect justice", and you have ignored this distinction. Danford argues that there are people on the left - and, he also says, on the right - who seek what he would call "perfect justice", and that this leads in certain cases to the behavior he describes. I myself would go farther than Danford and mention that those people on the right are the ones in your list; there seem to be more of those than there are "compassionate conservatives" (whatever those are).

When we discussed Foucault, my political theory professor compared power to an omnipresent force field that penetrates everything. Power gradients always exist, and "government" is only a hard-to-define subset of all existing power - a way we channel power. To the extent we can channel power at all, how much is it wise to give to government? Is there a difference between, say, stateless communism and theocracy on the one hand, and democratic socialism and watered-down libertarianism on the other? Would you call the latter systems "ruling well"? Is there an association between utopianism and the belief that humanity, with the right rules and upbringing, can somehow be made good? How many people are under the sway of the idea that everything can be fixed with the right rules, and as a result stressing out for something impossible? At the risk of being uncool, the answers are: absolutely not all the power; yes, the first two seek perfection, and the latter two stasis; definitely not; yes, this is almost a tautology; and seemingly a lot, given the widespread desire for revolution on the one side and making America great at authoritarianism on the other.

As always, it all boils down to the realism-idealism debate, and until the eschaton at time infinity, realism wins. And if the difference in goals exists, so does the distinction between "ordered liberty" and "perfect justice" that Danford makes. It's too bad he didn't lump Trump into the "perfect justice" crowd - though admittedly saying that sounds very wrong. It seems that this is Danford's first contribution to The Federalist, which explains why it isn't up to the par David Marcus and James Poulos have set.

Dank meme barrage


BlueOni wrote:

I suppose a nuanced analysis of the political left's composition, motivations, objectives, and actions was too much to ask of the author. It's not like there are disagreements on the left about what peoples' political objectives and methods for attaining them ought to be (including objections to people preventing alternative viewpoints from being expressed), and it's not like there are people on the political right engaging in their own variety of political correctness and promoting authoritarian worldviews and policy proposals.


You gave us a giant list of people on the right making your point, and didn't say anything about the disagreements on the left about political objectives (though I imagine it'd be easy for you to give that list as well). And you didn't even mention the question of whether the left thinks people can be made good or are fundamentally flawed, which is the crucial issue if you want to counter Danford's argument.

Also, I think it's okay for Danford to bring up his point without giving the detailed theory. Few people are learned enough to do that; the rest, like us, have to settle for the kiddie versions.


BlueOni wrote:

No reason, of course, except to satisfy the author's personal biases against government and for religion. This is an impulse of certain segments of the political right wing that I find profoundly frustrating, because it simultaneously deprives credit where it is due and gives credit where it is not due.


I find profoundly frustrating the prominence of new-atheist-type hacks like Neil deGrasse Tyson who talk scientism like it's legitimate philosophy, bash legitimate philosophy like it's religion, and go so far as to revise history to bash religion, because it simultaneously encourages everyone smart to have fun calling out the dumb religious people who the smart people know not to listen to and discourages questioning the overreaching academics who smart people don't know not to listen to. You can tell what society needs to hear by who it makes angry.


BlueOni wrote:

Finally, the author's attack against those who argue governments are capable of imparting happiness by suggesting that those who accept the premise that governments are not so capable are, because of this, more likely to value conversation, reason, and graciousness toward others is demonstrably untrue.


I'm not in the humanities, so I don't get to talk to the people who actually understand their own ideologies, but I do live in some of the best grad student cubicles in the Ivory Tower's science wing. So the least-informed person is pretty freaking smart, and almost everybody is liberal. Ask a few probing questions, and you'll find that even the most perceptive and contemplative of the bunch are fundamentally unable to empathize with bad people: Can a brutal rapist reform and become a good member of society? Impossible; this doesn't compute, and even the thought of it is repulsive. Could you befriend a murderer? No, how could I even relate to someone who did something so horrible; I could never murder someone. But ask any Christian aware enough to understand what their religion teaches, and they'll easily answer yes to both. And this is because the idealist believes there are good people and bad people, but the realist believes we're all bad. Being a realist is definitely more fun: instead of just pissing off half the world, you get to piss off the whole world - including yourself.


BlueOni wrote:
Penny Nance said the Englightenment [sic] and reason led to Hitler


Technically you could make that case...

Anyway, I hope it's clear that I'm not trying to be mean (except maybe that [sic] there). I am indeed acting full of myself, but that's because here I don't have to take myself seriously. I post here because there are people like you who make me think. Feel free to pick my motives apart, too, since I kinda did so for yours - and my impression is that you're capable enough that you can do it. I imagine you'll find the hints I didn't clean up, too; it's funny how our wordings betray our feelings. Of course, you don't have to respond. You don't have to do anything; the forum is created by its users. Though if you do do something, it'd make GD a lot less boring.
You must be logged in to post.