Fuck unity

[Politesse]

I should say: I do not think that all Republicans are "bad people" who to a man want every one not like them to die or be reduced to menial servitude. But if they support politicians who do, what good do their fundamentally beautiful souls do for those of us who stand to be the targets of their regime?

A few things - Conservatism is not, in itself, always bad, and Liberalism is not in itself always good. No doubt conservatism tends toward the selfish side of the spectrum, and liberalism tends toward the giving side, but conservatism can be realistic and liberalism can be unrealistic. The reality is that we live in a world of real, material constraints, and some elements of conservatism help us stay within those constraints.

I'm friends with many bleeding heart NDP supporters on social media, and their heart is consistently in the right place, but few of them seem to be able to acknowledge the aforementioned reality - we can't just arbitrarily get everything we want, all the time. The issue they seem to have is that they look at hard-line Conservatives and see the diametric opposite issue - people who are selfish beyond repair.

In reality most people don't exist on the fringes, and even on the Conservative side there is a lot of variation among 47 million voters. And that's largely what I'm getting at - right now what's happening isn't working so someone has to do something different than they were doing before, and that someone certainly isn't going to be the conservative base, so that leaves the liberal side to try to turn the ship around. On some level you need to pull some Conservatives in the right direction, rather than creating more polarity and hatred.

So if liberals are going to do nothing but continue to characterize half of their country as evil and beyond repair then you're just going to get more of what's happening now - continued fracture, more entrenched conservatism, and more leaders like Trump. And unfortunately that's all I'm really seeing from the liberal side - constant vitriol, which ironically is similarly inhumane to the behaviour that comes from the right.

If all we're going to do is scream at each other and call each other morons, maybe the ship deserves to go down.

Again, rude behavior I can take. But that is not the worst thing that the Republican Party is plotting. I'm not going to concede that the building of concentration camps, restoration of apartheid, and the re-establishment of the propaganda office aren't "evil". Sorry, that's more than I'm willing to do in the name of "unity". What, exactly, do you want us all to do? Ask people out for drinks and say nothing when they start ranting about how they want us all to die? The idea that the Left is singlehandedly responsible for being mature and moral is both naive and hopeless. There's a word for non-reciprocal unity: oppression. I don't hate my Republican neighbors as people per se, but there are some political projects that must not be pandered to no matter how "nice" or "pleasant" the people promoting it might be. Both of our respective nations were built on a propagandistic and deceitful self-portrayal as a people justified in their actions by folksy innocence, even as genocidal orders were signed and human beings enslaved. That narrative and the violence it supports are never far below the surface, and they must be contradicted.

I do not see Liberalism as an unchallenged good. I don't see any political ideology, or any government, as an unchallenged good. Governments must never be trusted in that way. Throughout all of history we can see they are good only when they are forced to be by their citizens. Complacency always breeds corruption, often esclating with frightening rapidity.

 

[Jarhyn]

so hang on, the only thing you can think of that political conservatism has ever done for the benefit of the human species is "stop things from getting too liberal"?


wait, what?
by hook or by crook, a utopia that has eliminated resource scarcity should always be the eventual long term goal of civilization - anything else being the sought after eventual outcome is fucking stupid.
are you saying that progress is a vision of a human species that for the rest of its physical existence unto the heat death of the universe is wage slavery and resource inequality?

Progress is a country not declining into anarchy because of stupid policy on either wing. Yes I'll grant you that the U.S. is leaning too far to the right.

ah, i see the problem.
the word you're looking for is stability within the current technological era.
that isn't progress, that's not advancing the human condition - and, history has shown repeatedly, that kind of stability leads to the very factors which cause anarchy in the first place: wealth inequality, the amassing of resources to the few at the expense of the many, destruction of the environment for the sake of it being cheaper, etc etc.

technological and social advancement aren't just 'better', they are *mandatory* for the survival of the human race.

I think you're misinterpreting and misrepresenting my viewpoint. Sure - I think if most people could flick a utopia switch and solve all of our problems they'd do it. I have no qualms with the concept of a utopia. My point is that this type of vision obscures the fragile reality that we're living in right now. Hopeful, progressive politicians will push hard to the left while ignoring the things they need to do right now to not completely fuck your country over. It's not about changing the U.S. overnight, it's about avoiding catastrophe - actual progress - which is my point.

And yes, political conservatism constraining liberalism is a strong benefit. The USSR serves as a pretty good example of what happens when this constraint isn't there.

The USSR never had a liberalism problem. They had a "Kleptocrat masquerading as liberal" problem. The people at the bottom wanted ownership, the people at the top said "we're going to make business public/communist and therefore you will own it through being the controllers of the government", sold it with just enough hand waving and obfuscation over how they would get more leverage over "the government" than they had over the prior setup, and then they ended up with an authoritarian government they had no control over taking everything from everyone and distributing power over those things to the current batch of oligarchs.

That isn't liberalism, it is authoritarian kleptocracy.

Conservatism wouldn't do jack or squat to block that. In fact as we can see, the result was a staunchly conservative government that refused to change anything on any basis of public outcry (and which persistently ground down any public protest).

You can be a conservative communist. You can be a conservative SOCIALIST. Russia is full of them. It doesn't make their conservatism make any more sense.

 

[ZiprHead]

Watch the reactions of the conservatives to the 2016 election compared to the democrats, then compare it to today.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/5pSmwq_13uE[/YOUTUBE]

Fuck unity.

 

[rousseau]

The idea that the Left is singlehandedly responsible for being mature and moral is both naive and hopeless.

You're probably right, although in theory people in leadership positions should be able to, at times, show actual leadership, and an adeptness for addressing real, immediate problems with real, effective solutions. I don't think the American population can likely do much, politicians have much more influence.

But yes history does seem to suggest disparate politicians acting in ways that benefit themselves in the short-term, rather than doing hard work, and solving hard problems that actually benefit your country as a unified whole.

 

[prideandfall]

You guys are inches away from voting in an actual, competent populist. This is likely a worthwhile, immediate goal to think about.

A. what? how is that related to the question posed?
B. how does that contradict the thing it's supposedly a retort to?

 

[rousseau]

You guys are inches away from voting in an actual, competent populist. This is likely a worthwhile, immediate goal to think about.

A. what? how is that related to the question posed?
B. how does that contradict the thing it's supposedly a retort to?

Unfortunately I have a job that apparently someone pays me to do - I can't spend all of my time and energy explaining things to people on a message board.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

well i suppose that depends on what you consider 'fragile reality' and what you consider 'obscuring'

can you think of an example?

You guys are inches away from voting in an actual, competent populist. This is likely a worthwhile, immediate goal to think about.

Voting in a populist isn't an end in and of itself, particularly if every move toward a progressive idea is blocked or not even taken up by a conservative congress. And ACA was a 'reasonable progressive measure' toward the 'extreme progressive ideas' of government provided healthcare, medicare for all, single payer health insurance, and even allowing for a government competitor to a private market. It was the reigned in version of all of these, and was summarily dismantled and/or challenged in court as soon as practicable by conservatives.

There is no balance to be struck between progressive and conservative. Entropy teaches us that the default position is always "no change" which will ultimately lead to greater randomness and disorder. And that it takes tremendous energy and effort to not only maintain the current order, but also to affect improvement. An apt metaphor to our current political state and also a concurrent rationale for why several might ask for examples of conservative politics ever improving a society.

aa

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Next contestant, Mrs. Sybil Fawlty from Torquay. Specialist subject - the bleeding obvious.

Saying Jahryn has never actually punched any "Nazis" probably is pretty bleeding obvious.

Not really; But then, you didn't say that.

"Saying you think it is good doesn't mean you have actually done it".

Facts exist. It's a fact that that is the thing you said to which I was responding. To pretend otherwise is insane, in the most literal sense.

Jahryn wrote about Jahryn allegedly punching Nazis, and I was responding to Jahryn when I wrote about how talking about punching and actually punching are different - implying that I seriously doubt any claims of Jahryn punching anyone, let alone Nazis. You called that bleeding obvious, so it was contextually obvious you were also talking about Jahryn allegedly punching Nazis. Not a theoretical someone somewhere perhaps punching a Nazi. This should be obvious, why don't you understand?

 

[Szuchow]

so hang on, the only thing you can think of that political conservatism has ever done for the benefit of the human species is "stop things from getting too liberal"?


wait, what?
by hook or by crook, a utopia that has eliminated resource scarcity should always be the eventual long term goal of civilization - anything else being the sought after eventual outcome is fucking stupid.
are you saying that progress is a vision of a human species that for the rest of its physical existence unto the heat death of the universe is wage slavery and resource inequality?

Progress is a country not declining into anarchy because of stupid policy on either wing. Yes I'll grant you that the U.S. is leaning too far to the right.

ah, i see the problem.
the word you're looking for is stability within the current technological era.
that isn't progress, that's not advancing the human condition - and, history has shown repeatedly, that kind of stability leads to the very factors which cause anarchy in the first place: wealth inequality, the amassing of resources to the few at the expense of the many, destruction of the environment for the sake of it being cheaper, etc etc.

technological and social advancement aren't just 'better', they are *mandatory* for the survival of the human race.

I think you're misinterpreting and misrepresenting my viewpoint. Sure - I think if most people could flick a utopia switch and solve all of our problems they'd do it. I have no qualms with the concept of a utopia. My point is that this type of vision obscures the fragile reality that we're living in right now. Hopeful, progressive politicians will push hard to the left while ignoring the things they need to do right now to not completely fuck your country over. It's not about changing the U.S. overnight, it's about avoiding catastrophe - actual progress - which is my point.

And yes, political conservatism constraining liberalism is a strong benefit. The USSR serves as a pretty good example of what happens when this constraint isn't there.

USSR did have problem with totalitarianism, terror, starvation, forced industrialization and being theocracy*. It had numerous other problems as well but in no way it can be showed as country where liberalism was allowed to run freely. I mean Soviet citizens weren't exactly free to live as they wish, nor were institutions of SU liberal.

*If you know Polish then I recommend Rafał Imos Faith of the Soviet Man. The Soviet's Institutionalized Myth which shows that marxism-leninism was nothing else but religion. If you don't then you might be interested in Yuri Slezkine The House of Government: A Saga of the Russian Revolution which depicts bolsheviks as sect that failed to transform into universal church. Lastly if you prefer shorter formats then You might find value in Totalitarianism and Political Religions, volume II edited by Hans Maier. Most relevant info can be found in chapter 6 of which part I will quote below:

[...]The Marxist-Leninist currents of faith represented religions of innerworldy salvation. They took from the sacral Marxist stock the certainty that their revolutionary efforts were in harmony with the scientific regularities that Marx had supposedly discovered. The scientific certainty that the laws the salvation doctrine that was also present in Marx’s work: the doctrine of liberating a humanity that suffers under capitalistic alienation and of leading it into a communistic paradise on earth through revolutionary deeds.
Scientific certainty and mandate for salvation were executed by the successful organisation of a ‘monks’ army’ (S. Frank) of career revolutionaries. The amalgamation of scientific certainty, mandate for salvation and revolutionary virtuosity produced an inner-worldly political religion[...]

 

[rousseau]

well i suppose that depends on what you consider 'fragile reality' and what you consider 'obscuring'

can you think of an example?

You guys are inches away from voting in an actual, competent populist. This is likely a worthwhile, immediate goal to think about.

Voting in a populist isn't an end in and of itself, particularly if every move toward a progressive idea is blocked or not even taken up by a conservative congress. And ACA was a 'reasonable progressive measure' toward the 'extreme progressive ideas' of government provided healthcare, medicare for all, single payer health insurance, and even allowing for a government competitor to a private market. It was the reigned in version of all of these, and was summarily dismantled and/or challenged in court as soon as practicable by conservatives.

There is no balance to be struck between progressive and conservative. Entropy teaches us that the default position is always "no change" which will ultimately lead to greater randomness and disorder. And that it takes tremendous energy and effort to not only maintain the current order, but also to affect improvement. An apt metaphor to our current political state and also a concurrent rationale for why several might ask for examples of conservative politics ever improving a society.

aa

Fair, but I think we can also agree that there should be an optimal rate of change, and a certain measure of responsibility and precision before undertaking change. Activity doesn't equal progress, and often the left wants to make unmeasured change, which is balanced by a group of people saying maybe this isn't such a good idea.

Toward your point - your system is far too regressive, but in Canada this type of restraint works well. When our NDPs manage to attain power they're forced to move toward the centre because they realize they can't fundamentally deconstruct society to fulfill their ideals.

 

[Emily Lake]

i mean aggressively pro-corporate, anti-liberal, anti-society, fuck-you-i-got-mine, anti-government but also extremely authoritarian, cultural-bigotry conservatism... is there a single identifiable thing it has ever produced in the history of the human race of any even vaguely definable value?

This is rather like asking "can anyone post any incident where a wolf has lead to a positive outcome in the deer population? I mean, I'm talking about the rabid, aggressive, completely psychotic wolves that kill any living thing that gets in their path"

If your definition is one of unremitting evil, you've boxed that answer in. Reality, however, doesn't conform to your definition. "Conservative" doesn't mean what you have attempted to cast it as.

 

[Emily Lake]

by hook or by crook, a utopia that has eliminated resource scarcity should always be the eventual long term goal of civilization - anything else being the sought after eventual outcome is fucking stupid.

I have a bit of a problem with the ultimate goal being something that is irrational, unrealistic, unattainable, and above all counter to human nature, and nature itself.

Insisting that this miracle goal is the only acceptable goal and that all else is stupid is... well... fucking stupid.

 

[Emily Lake]

Again, rude behavior I can take. But that is not the worst thing that the Republican Party is plotting. I'm not going to concede that the building of concentration camps, restoration of apartheid, and the re-establishment of the propaganda office aren't "evil".

Wait, what? What are you even talking about?

 

[Politesse]

Again, rude behavior I can take. But that is not the worst thing that the Republican Party is plotting. I'm not going to concede that the building of concentration camps, restoration of apartheid, and the re-establishment of the propaganda office aren't "evil".

Wait, what? What are you even talking about?

This

This

and

This

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

i mean aggressively pro-corporate, anti-liberal, anti-society, fuck-you-i-got-mine, anti-government but also extremely authoritarian, cultural-bigotry conservatism... is there a single identifiable thing it has ever produced in the history of the human race of any even vaguely definable value?

This is rather like asking "can anyone post any incident where a wolf has lead to a positive outcome in the deer population? I mean, I'm talking about the rabid, aggressive, completely psychotic wolves that kill any living thing that gets in their path"

If your definition is one of unremitting evil, you've boxed that answer in. Reality, however, doesn't conform to your definition. "Conservative" doesn't mean what you have attempted to cast it as.

The GOP stopped being conservative 25 years ago.

 

[Jarhyn]

Again, rude behavior I can take. But that is not the worst thing that the Republican Party is plotting. I'm not going to concede that the building of concentration camps, restoration of apartheid, and the re-establishment of the propaganda office aren't "evil".

Wait, what? What are you even talking about?

So, it is not untoward to think that the myriad things republicans have actually supported en masse, or stood complicit to without using your vote to say something effective to the contrary, are evil: concentration camps; lawsuits to gut the civil rights act without even making a play of wanting to consider replacing it with something, even something toothless, first; questioning the legitimacy of the election.

He is talking about reasons to actually reject the hand of anyone who would call for unity after that shitshow without a goddamn apology and a really good initial effort of walking away from what they had been while continuing to own their past.

 

[Politesse]

Again, rude behavior I can take. But that is not the worst thing that the Republican Party is plotting. I'm not going to concede that the building of concentration camps, restoration of apartheid, and the re-establishment of the propaganda office aren't "evil".

Wait, what? What are you even talking about?

So, it is not untoward to think that the myriad things republicans have actually supported en masse, or stood complicit to without using your vote to say something effective to the contrary, are evil: concentration camps; lawsuits to gut the civil rights act without even making a play of wanting to consider replacing it with something, even something toothless, first; questioning the legitimacy of the election.

He is talking about reasons to actually reject the hand of anyone who would call for unity after that shitshow without a goddamn apology and a really good initial effort of walking away from what they had been while continuing to own their past.

Honestly I wouldn't reject a hand if offered, but I would prefer my politicians stop offering them to recalcitrant criminals. As near as I can see, no hands are reaching back. It's just those of us who've been living in fear for the last four years who are now being lectured for admitting ill will to those who created it, and who regret nothing.

 

[bilby]

Not really; But then, you didn't say that.

"Saying you think it is good doesn't mean you have actually done it".

Facts exist. It's a fact that that is the thing you said to which I was responding. To pretend otherwise is insane, in the most literal sense.

Jahryn wrote about Jahryn allegedly punching Nazis, and I was responding to Jahryn when I wrote about how talking about punching and actually punching are different - implying that I seriously doubt any claims of Jahryn punching anyone, let alone Nazis. You called that bleeding obvious, so it was contextually obvious you were also talking about Jahryn allegedly punching Nazis. Not a theoretical someone somewhere perhaps punching a Nazi. This should be obvious, why don't you understand?

Why the fuck would I care about the conversation you were having with someone else? In OUR conversation, I pointed out that you had said something mind blowingly obvious; And you responded by saying that something completely different was "pretty bleeding obvious". I don't agree, and I won't allow you to get away with implying that I do.

You can take your schoolyard sophistry, and shove it so far up your arse that you can taste it on the back of your tongue.

Either say something substantive, or don't. But don't you fucking DARE imply that I agree with something you have every reason to understand that I don't agree with. This isn't a high school debating society, and you don't get points for trying to be clever - particularly when you fail spectacularly at it.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, it is not untoward to think that the myriad things republicans have actually supported en masse, or stood complicit to without using your vote to say something effective to the contrary, are evil: concentration camps; lawsuits to gut the civil rights act without even making a play of wanting to consider replacing it with something, even something toothless, first; questioning the legitimacy of the election.

He is talking about reasons to actually reject the hand of anyone who would call for unity after that shitshow without a goddamn apology and a really good initial effort of walking away from what they had been while continuing to own their past.

Honestly I wouldn't reject a hand if offered, but I would prefer my politicians stop offering them to recalcitrant criminals. As near as I can see, no hands are reaching back. It's just those of us who've been living in fear for the last four years who are now being lectured for admitting ill will to those who created it, and who regret nothing.

That's why the clause about apology, and walking away from evil through deed, not word.

 

[prideandfall]

i mean aggressively pro-corporate, anti-liberal, anti-society, fuck-you-i-got-mine, anti-government but also extremely authoritarian, cultural-bigotry conservatism... is there a single identifiable thing it has ever produced in the history of the human race of any even vaguely definable value?

This is rather like asking "can anyone post any incident where a wolf has lead to a positive outcome in the deer population? I mean, I'm talking about the rabid, aggressive, completely psychotic wolves that kill any living thing that gets in their path"

If your definition is one of unremitting evil, you've boxed that answer in. Reality, however, doesn't conform to your definition. "Conservative" doesn't mean what you have attempted to cast it as.

fine, fair point - then define it another way, but in a way that actually matches the reality of the current US conservative political ideology. not the claims it makes about its intentions, not the goals it supposedly wants but never attains, the actual conservative political movement in the US... name one single thing that it has ever done that benefited mankind or moved civilization forward.