Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

How to get back to normal?


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Omega

Omega

    Nous sommes tous Franšais

  • Moderator
  • 3,985 posts

Posted 05 March 2017 - 03:09 PM

It's been pointed out more than once that even if Trump had lost this election (you know, more than he actually did), we would still have to deal with Trump supporters. Who were they, and why did they make such an abysmal choice? And how do we keep them from doing it again?

The obvious answer is "have a better candidate than Hillary". But consider: the voters who voted for Trump did so because they felt like they'd been screwed for a very long time. Hillary got it right: half are a basket of deplorables, like white supremacists, who are unamerican trash and can f**ck right off. But others have legitimate concerns. Yes, we could just beat them, but far better to address their concerns, so those people can be brought back into believing in the American project!

Trump's voters tended to be older, white, middle-class conservative rural voters with limited education. On one hand, there's a generational problem that will eventually solve itself. But I prefer to focus on the "rural uneducated" part. I think if the Democratic Party wanted to get those voters back, they should put together a package expressly targeted at those voters. Any area that's been hit hard by free trade deals, automation, environmental regulations, natural disasters, or just bad luck. They get serious retraining, education, help finding jobs, moving expenses covered, whatever it takes to get those people back on their feet. In short, I think we need a rural New Deal. Which includes free college, so the Berninators should be happy.

Evangelicals also voted heavily for Trump. I'm not sure how to fix that one, except from within the evangelical community.

#2 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,862 posts

Posted 05 March 2017 - 04:13 PM

Well, I would start with educating everyone. Yes, I realize that it is considered that the poor rural people are uneducated (yeah, that bugs me just a tad since I know a lot of educated people here in this rural community), but perhaps the rural people simply got out and voted, while the poor people in the cities didn't bother. I feel that if we made sure that all of the people got a good education, that is what would help. Not afford a good education, simply guaranteed a good education.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#3 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 05 March 2017 - 04:18 PM

Omega, I'm not sure it is possible to return to normal. The foundation of the normalcy of years past has been eroded and corroded by the last two decade's advent of hyper-partisan political television and radio content, and even more recently the explosion of social media and the misinformation highway. The pervasiveness of agenda-driven propaganda, instantly accessible to millions of malleable minds, fertile ground for manipulation through prejudice and fear ensure that the partisan divide will endure.

I agree that any effort to counter this steady flow of opinion manipulation would be logically aimed at offering a new New Deal concept to the ignored and disaffected "rural uneducated", but over the (hopefully) short term course of this current administration and Republican Congress I think that the inevitable Screw Deal that  they will unveil, affecting health care, employment opportunity, and economic circumstance and security will do as much or more to wake rural America to realizing who's serving or cramping their lot in life.

But as long as you have a network as influential as Fox "News" and assorted righteous radio wingnuts both lying to sympathetic eager ears and enabling the lies, unhinged fantasies, and regressive agenda of a sociopath in the White House, the normalcy we crave to soothe and heal our souls will be illusory and out of reach. One thing you mentioned does hold out hope for the future. As the older generations of sclerotic thought processes hampered by prejudice follow nature's path into oblivion, the succeeding younger and more diverse generations will inexorably grind down the obstructing boulders and rocks of hatred and fear into dust. If an insane preening and prideful tweeter doesn't get us all blown up first, of course.

Edited by yadda yadda, 05 March 2017 - 04:20 PM.


#4 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,804 posts

Posted 05 March 2017 - 04:42 PM

Lets start with never normalizing the exposed darkness of the Trump movement. I couldn't believe the media fawning over his address to congress last tuesday, on Feb 28. Anyways, enough about Trump/media/etc. Your post is more to do with Trump supporters, just folks and citizens.

I did talk about the two main types of Trump's voters here. Basically it is not going to be an easy and quick thing to get people who support Trump to stop supporting him….  And the redder their area I imagine the longer they have been voting against their economic interests. Why do people do that? If they are not misinformed (which, lets not assume), either they are following some other value/goal they hold more highly (such as religious ones, or maybe rugged individualist paradigms about people pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps), and/or even when they share values/goals with democrats they they don't trust the democrats to actually keep their promises.

It is hard to blame people who feel other values are more important. It is a matter of priorities. They prioritize their economic well-being and their community and culture (and/or at least shoving it to the "elites" that ignore and belittle them).
I mean, did liberal voters really think that Clinton was going to fix our broken system? She was way to status-quo, too insider, too elite. Yes, she was qualified. Basically, some liberal voters vote for Clinton because they weren't willing to throw minorities under the bus. And some conservative voters voted for Trump because they feel like they have been thrown under the bus for 30+ years, and this was their way of getting attention to their needs, their agenda. I could tell them try it for 300+ years like Africans here have, or 500+ like Native Americans here have, but people don't like to hear that. They also have valid concerns that require attention and resources.

In some ways these people are conservative in the way they like to keep things the same, conserve the status-quo. If they were liberal and they had the means they probably would have moved to the city ;) They seems to think that the period from the 1960s to the 1980s represents an economic status-quo, when it was an anomaly in history, as far as I understand it. I don't blame them for wanting that, though as a millennial I don't think I will ever see that.

So these people want to stay in/near their communities, they want gainful employment, they want their kids to be able to be educated near-by, and to find gainful employment nearby themselves when they are ready. And they want the services and facilities to support their communities, such as accessible health care providers. These are all understandable things to want for one's community.

Though I understand the reluctance of people in their 40/50s to get retraining. My dad wouldn't do it in the 80s when he was not yet 30 and had 3 kids to support! My dad built railroads. He ended up on disability, and they wanted to do an aptitude test and put him into retraining (his disability was on their dime). He resisted the aptitude test, but eventually relented. He tested in the lowest 3 percentile IIRC. So he stayed on his employer disability. Now my dad died when I was 10, but from all reports he wasn't clinically retarded, as his score might suggest. I suspect that he had a learning disability, and that was not something schools tested for, much less provided supports for, back then. His other daughter has learning disabilities (also not diagnosed, wasn't something schools even looked at when I was in school). She worked very hard to get C+, whereas I didn't study, got stuff docked marks for being late, and still pulled off As & Bs easily (not bragging, gave me horrible study habits that did *not* help me in the long run).

So, yes, everyone should get an accessible education. But it won't help everyone, whether it is due to aptitude or attitude (or ingrained cultural beliefs…). That is a reason I support a living wage. If a company can't afford to pay their workers working 40 hours/week enough for the workers to live off, they shouldn't be in business.

I also think we apparently need a way to communicate why "the others" "the boogymen" etc, are not their enemies. Whether it is ethnic or religious or sexual/gender minorities. I would be happy to stop fighting about those issues (because there is no need, and people are being treated like people…), but conservative politicians love to use this red-meat to keep us fighting over those things. A great distraction for their base from how little they are getting done to actually help their base.

However, people don't respond to facts…. It has been proven. In fact people hold tighter to their closely held-beliefs when presented with contrary facts. Once one realizes that, where does one go from there? The only way I can think of it to discuss issues with them from their perspective. You think about how far we come on LGBT rights since DADT (1994) & DOMA (1996) were created, it is largely due to people who are LGBT coming out of the closet. What they did is show that near everyone has someone among their family/friends/colleagues who is LGBT and they are not what they are smeared as, they are just people. So many (not all of course) people had to fundamentally re-examine their closely held values (family values, religious/moral values, social values) and decide how the LGBT person they cared about fit into that.

Now how do you do that, or something similar, with the important issues facing us today? Make them realize how other platforms/positions/ideas would affect them positively, and fit into their value system? And more importantly, that these ideas would be implemented? That politicians (either party) would not fall back into the clutches of the lobbies and the corporations to such a degree that these ideas would be water down so much as to hardly matter?

Edited by sierraleone, 05 March 2017 - 05:06 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#5 Elara

Elara

    Feel the silence of the moonlight.

  • Watchdog
  • 2,862 posts

Posted 05 March 2017 - 05:40 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 05 March 2017 - 04:42 PM, said:

So, yes, everyone should get an accessible education. But it won't help everyone, whether it is due to aptitude or attitude (or ingrained cultural beliefs…). That is a reason I support a living wage. If a company can't afford to pay their workers working 40 hours/week enough for the workers to live off, they shouldn't be in business.

I am not just talking about higher education, far too many people graduated high school simply because someone wanted to move them on/not deal with the problem. I do feel that a basic education, one that was designed to teach the individual, would help a large majority. Far too many people are swept aside, people who would want an education, but because it's not there for them, they fall behind, and if they fall behind, they will vote for anyone who offers some hope, even if that hope isn't real.
As you noted, schools didn't take care to teach those who had learning issues. In my case, I tend to be a visual learner, which means that if I can't "see" how a math problem (my learning issue) is done, I can't learn how to do it myself. I have always had to find that trigger that helps me, and only one teacher ever understood that (an Algebra teacher). We need more like he was. So yes, I know that people have trouble with learning, but they can learn. And once we begin to make sure everyone has some education, we can then figure out their strengths and make sure that they go further in that area.

Of course, there is the flip side to schools helping with "learning" issues. When my son was little, after a year where he had chicken pox, then caught the flu, keeping him out of school for over 40 days, they decided that he had ADD. Not because they truly believed that he did, but they needed him to be for funding. This is another problem. Schools simply need to have the money that is needed, not forced to spend every dime to make sure that they can at least get the same amount the next year. (which is a problem all over government programs)
I just feel that we need to start there. Obviously that is not a simple answer and not the only thing that needs to be fixed, but it is a good start.
I do agree with the living wage.
El
~ blue crystal glows, the dark side unseen, sparkles in scant light, from sun to planet, to me in between ~


I want a job in HRC's "shadow" cabinet. Good pay, really easy hours, lots of time off. Can't go wrong.

"You have a fair and valid point here. I've pointed out, numerous times, that the Left's or Democrats always cry "Racist" whenever someone disagrees with them. I failed to realize that the Right or Republicans do the same thing with "Liberal"." ~ LotS

#6 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,804 posts

Posted 05 March 2017 - 05:59 PM

View PostElara, on 05 March 2017 - 05:40 PM, said:

View Postsierraleone, on 05 March 2017 - 04:42 PM, said:

So, yes, everyone should get an accessible education. But it won't help everyone, whether it is due to aptitude or attitude (or ingrained cultural beliefs…). That is a reason I support a living wage. If a company can't afford to pay their workers working 40 hours/week enough for the workers to live off, they shouldn't be in business.

I am not just talking about higher education, far too many people graduated high school simply because someone wanted to move them on/not deal with the problem. I do feel that a basic education, one that was designed to teach the individual, would help a large majority. Far too many people are swept aside, people who would want an education, but because it's not there for them, they fall behind, and if they fall behind, they will vote for anyone who offers some hope, even if that hope isn't real.

Even the high school graduation rate is abysmal in many places. So I mean at least just high school for some kids. I think my dad graduated though I am not sure. Neither of my brothers graduated, though both are smart enough (they just hated school). Both my sisters, who both have learning disabilities, worked hard and graduated. But certainly we should be support trade and vocational schools a lot more, but college and university should be accessible also.

Quote

I just feel that we need to start there. Obviously that is not a simple answer and not the only thing that needs to be fixed, but it is a good start.
I do agree with the living wage.

It makes me so mad when people suggest or imply if only the working poor worked harder. Yeah, they shouldn't be able to support themselves on minimum income unless they work 80 hours, because that sounds right. And then we wonder why, on average, they don't cook healthy home-made meals or exercise, or why they have more shaky relationships (less marriage, and more divorce) and have latch-key kids. Really? And we want to blame them for being disadvantaged and being born into a broken system? That is also why I don't mind education spending time on things people think parents should be doing, like sex-ed (including related topics like consent), home-economics, physical/mental/emotional health etc. Maybe if people didn't have to worry every month about keeping a roof over their heads and lights on, or every day about keeping food on the table, they could have more functional relationships, and do more quality parenting.

Edited by sierraleone, 06 March 2017 - 03:01 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#7 RJDiogenes

RJDiogenes

    Idealistic Cynic

  • Demigod
  • 11,281 posts

Posted 06 March 2017 - 06:59 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 05 March 2017 - 04:42 PM, said:

Once one realizes that, where does one go from there? The only way I can think of it to discuss issues with them from their perspective.
You're on the right track with this. There's a reason that the world was changed more than it ever had been before back in the Civil Right Era, and there's a reason that much of that progress has been eroded in the past ten to twenty years. Back then, the Left Wing promoted liberal values that changed people's minds-- now they promote divisive and hateful paradigms that alienate people and provide ammunition for the Right Wing. Being hateful and divisive just exacerbates problems. Hatred breeds hatred. The only way to heal the world is through love.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where people are trained to express their beliefs theatrically on social media. They aren't judged by what they actually contribute to society but by how outrageously they perform on the Internet. This is the Age of Extremism.

Cracked.com has never been very funny, but they're getting better with insight. (Or maybe this one is more appropriate.)  Hopefully the election of President The Donald will finally teach people that they have to make some sacrifices to make the world a better place-- and the first sacrifice has to be their ego.
Please visit The RJDiogenes Store. Posted Image   And my Gallery. Posted Image And my YouTube Page. Posted Image And read Trunkards. Posted Image  And then there's my Heroes Essays.  Posted Image

#8 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,804 posts

Posted 07 March 2017 - 08:39 PM

View PostRJDiogenes, on 06 March 2017 - 06:59 PM, said:

View Postsierraleone, on 05 March 2017 - 04:42 PM, said:

Once one realizes that, where does one go from there? The only way I can think of it to discuss issues with them from their perspective.

You're on the right track with this. There's a reason that the world was changed more than it ever had been before back in the Civil Right Era, and there's a reason that much of that progress has been eroded in the past ten to twenty years. Back then, the Left Wing promoted liberal values that changed people's minds-- now they promote divisive and hateful paradigms that alienate people and provide ammunition for the Right Wing. Being hateful and divisive just exacerbates problems. Hatred breeds hatred. The only way to heal the world is through love.
...
Cracked.com has never been very funny, but they're getting better with insight. (Or maybe this one is more appropriate.)  Hopefully the election of President The Donald will finally teach people that they have to make some sacrifices to make the world a better place-- and the first sacrifice has to be their ego.

Thanks for the Cracked articles, I like John Cheese, though I don't read Cracked very often.


As for the rest… It occurred to me there is a very very large problem with both sides meeting. I was thinking about Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (recently in Canada, 20 years ago in South Africa) and remember hearing/reading someone say about it, that you can't have real reconciliation until you have truth. Truth has to come first, and then reconciliation can follow. It can't happen the other way around, because then the reconciliation is based on falsehoods (either in false understanding of the problem and/or a non-reality based solutions that is an ineffective mirage hoping it will make people move on).


Which means there needs to be a agreed-reality to both sides for there to be discussion. It is one thing to suggest to someone, try to think about it from their perspective, when there is agreed-facts and a shared reality as a starting point. It is another to suggest to someone start from something they don't recognize as reality and move even further from it to understand another's perspective.

Some arguments springs from things that have no common-ground, and suddenly there is no discernible North/East/South/West anymore. And they think the same way about our position. A lot of these things seem to spring from religious-religious conflicts, religious-secular conflicts, conflict of economic ideologies. And they feed from the well-spring of tribalism that remains a deep part of the human condition. Even if I would be willing to say, you know, you completely should really be allowed to think or say whatever un-factual thing you want to think or say, but hell, you can't tell other people how to live based on that…. and that isn't good enough….. Where do we go from there?

And without common-ground, or a common-reality, there is no basis for trust, and trust is the cornerstone of all healthy human relationships and/or interactions. We are arguing about each others made up reality, which is why so many of our arguments are moor-less.

I remember thinking recently of what my political/social philosophy boiled down to in the most concise way possible. I decided it was "people first".

There is no factual reason to think that people should come first, the universe hardly cares one way or the other. That is my philosophy though because it seems like it would produce a functional society that I could be happy to live and experience. And to me "people first" means recognizing that people need healthy eco-systems to sustain them, not the other way around (that is factual). All of our different government systems/models, all of our economic systems/models, even different family/relationships systems/models (I was recently reading about something called "walking marriages" by a minority matriarchal cultural in China), are largely arbitrary imaginary things humans made up, and, at this point, are born into.

What our society philosophy seems to me? Money first. We organize around money first, and people second.

I recognize the utility of money, as a way of moving resources readily. There was only one highly structured culture/society that has been thought to have no monetary system, or even market system, as we would recognize it. The Incas. I am not holding them up as some utopia, just further showing how we organize society, and resources, is arbitrary.


Anyways, I am getting a little off track. It seems like the left and the right have lost any common-ground they used to have. I am not sure I can pin-point exactly why that is. While I just can't see most people on the left arguing against helping the Rust-Belt, I can imagine a lot of people arguing against moving towards any sense of full equality of all people, or social justice, much less a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the U.S.

Edited by sierraleone, 07 March 2017 - 10:47 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#9 RJDiogenes

RJDiogenes

    Idealistic Cynic

  • Demigod
  • 11,281 posts

Posted 08 March 2017 - 06:54 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 07 March 2017 - 08:39 PM, said:

Thanks for the Cracked articles, I like John Cheese, though I don't read Cracked very often.  
Neither do I, but I think that guy is worth reading.

Quote

Which means there needs to be a agreed-reality to both sides for there to be discussion. It is one thing to suggest to someone, try to think about it from their perspective, when there is agreed-facts and a shared reality as a starting point. It is another to suggest to someone start from something they don't recognize as reality and move even further from it to understand another's perspective.  
Well, not necessarily, because it's not really about reaching compromise. It's about change. You don't really have to understand someone's perspective to understand that they have a perspective that is valid to them and very likely vital to their self image. You're not going to change that perspective by attacking it. As John Cheese said, he was able to change because he was lucky enough to meet people who were civilized enough and caring enough to cultivate that change-- if they had attacked him, he would have just dug in his heels. It's all about hearts and minds. That's what Liberals understood fifty years ago and what the nuLeft fails at miserably.

Quote

And they feed from the well-spring of tribalism that remains a deep part of the human condition.  
This is another important insight.  Contemporary Left-Wing ideology seeks to divide and alienate people by placing blame for things like racism or sexism, without understanding that these things have existed since the beginning of mankind and are as instinctual as the fight-or-flight impulse. Xenophobia was a survival trait in the wild, and women have always been the ones to make babies. Finger pointing and self-righteous preaching may be good for the illusion of self esteem, but it solves nothing. Rational people don't deal with their fight-or-flight impulse by punching somebody or hiding under the bed (although irrational people do).

Quote

Even if I would be willing to say, you know, you completely should really be allowed to think or say whatever un-factual thing you want to think or say, but hell, you can't tell other people how to live based on that…. and that isn't good enough….. Where do we go from there?  
You have to change people's minds.

Quote

There is no factual reason to think that people should come first, the universe hardly cares one way or the other.  
I disagree.  The human race arose from the same matter, energy, and physical laws as everything else in the universe. That means the human mind and human society and human feelings are just as factual as gravity and photons. There's no reason to assign them lesser importance.

Quote

Anyways, I am getting a little off track. It seems like the left and the right have lost any common-ground they used to have.
Well, one thing they have in common is that they're both bad for the country.  I'm not sure if either would consider that common ground, though.  :lol:
Please visit The RJDiogenes Store. Posted Image   And my Gallery. Posted Image And my YouTube Page. Posted Image And read Trunkards. Posted Image  And then there's my Heroes Essays.  Posted Image

#10 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,804 posts

Posted 09 March 2017 - 06:20 PM

:unsure: Not sure you are quite making sense to me yet RJDiogenes. Not that I have a right to, have you explain yourself until you make sense to me to my satisfaction. Just sharing :D Maybe I am missing the forest for the trees, I do have that tendency ;)

View PostRJDiogenes, on 08 March 2017 - 06:54 PM, said:

View Postsierraleone, on 07 March 2017 - 08:39 PM, said:

Which means there needs to be a agreed-reality to both sides for there to be discussion. It is one thing to suggest to someone, try to think about it from their perspective, when there is agreed-facts and a shared reality as a starting point. It is another to suggest to someone start from something they don't recognize as reality and move even further from it to understand another's perspective.  
Well, not necessarily, because it's not really about reaching compromise. It's about change. You don't really have to understand someone's perspective to understand that they have a perspective that is valid to them and very likely vital to their self image. You're not going to change that perspective by attacking it. As John Cheese said, he was able to change because he was lucky enough to meet people who were civilized enough and caring enough to cultivate that change-- if they had attacked him, he would have just dug in his heels. It's all about hearts and minds. That's what Liberals understood fifty years ago and what the nuLeft fails at miserably.

I don't see how compromise and change are necessarily exclusive.

Sure, people carry all sorts of narrative baggage that has nothing to do with reality, but more to do with their sense of reality (and how things should optimally be), and their sense of self (and pride and self-esteem), and other related things.

There is attacking, defending, or just chilling. Life is always one of those three, to varying degrees of intensity. Conflict is part of daily life, whether little, big, or epic. I really hate my alarm clock and have a conflict with it every morning… (/random alert).


We really don't know enough about John Cleese evolution (for lack of a better world) over time on LGBT people. He says he talked to people. We don't know much more than that there were some people willing to talk to him when he was still holding untrue and unhealthy view of people who are LGBT. That is a lot of work, for both sides, a lot of emotional labour, time and energy. Must have a lot of strength and hope and optimism, and not have reason to be afraid. Which, when someone is marginalizing and dehumanizing you, or someone you are an ally are, it is hard to feel safe, and to trust that that person is being of good faith/intention. And as I said before, trust is central to all healthy human relationships).

View PostRJDiogenes, on 08 March 2017 - 06:54 PM, said:

View Postsierraleone, on 07 March 2017 - 08:39 PM, said:

And they feed from the well-spring of tribalism that remains a deep part of the human condition.
This is another important insight.  Contemporary Left-Wing ideology seeks to divide and alienate people by placing blame for things like racism or sexism, without understanding that these things have existed since the beginning of mankind and are as instinctual as the fight-or-flight impulse. Xenophobia was a survival trait in the wild, and women have always been the ones to make babies. Finger pointing and self-righteous preaching may be good for the illusion of self esteem, but it solves nothing. Rational people don't deal with their fight-or-flight impulse by punching somebody or hiding under the bed (although irrational people do).

I think this is the part I am having the most confusion at. What are you getting at?

- left-wing ideology is more divisive than right-wing ideology?
- left-wingers should be more understanding of right-wingers because both sides are tribal?
- left-wing ideology creates division where there wasn't divisions and/or problems before?
- pointing out xenophobia/misogyny doesn't solve anything and just creates more division?

Yes, racism and misogyny have always existed, to various degrees (though there are some interesting cultures where women are/were afforded much more respect than the cultures which co-developed with abrahamic religions). Just because something has always been a problem doesn't mean it is not worth pointing out, either institutionally/systematically, culturally, or individually. I can't at all imagine that what you are saying is that people should be quiet about these things. Some conservatives make it out that pointing out problems (and making them uncomfortable) is worse than the actual problems.

I remember remarking to my sister a while back, people complain about sh*t-disturbers, but don't complain about the actual sh*t - that would still be there if the sh*t-disturbers didn't say, look, there is sh*t! Lets deal with it and clean it up!

I saw someone on-line remark about International Women's Day yesterday remark that those protesting/boycotting/withdrawing from paid/unpaid labour that day were not real feminists. The real feminist did their work "with quiet dignity and never uttered a word of complaint".

Things do NOT change if people do not speak up. We got labour laws due to protests and picket lines and people complaining and organizing, and yes, inconveniencing people. Same with suffrage and other women's rights. Same with civil rights. Being quiet good girls and boys doesn't work for changing the world. It keeps it running smoothly, and their work is invaluable. But so is the work of those who agitate for change to improve the world.

As for fight/flight -
I'd say the vast majority of people are not rational when their fight/flight/freeze/appease/tend/befriend impulses are triggered. They are just trying to survive. Evolutionary adaption favoured those who do not act rationally but act on instinct when they don't feel safe. It doesn't always work (what does, besides physics?), but it has worked enough to ensure the survival (till reproducing the next generation) of all the direct ancestors of every animal currently alive.

I am sure this plays into xenophobia. Evolutionarily adaptive is also kindness. We have to be one of the most co-operative species in the world. Co-operative and competitive at the same time, which is probably why we are likely the most machiavellian species.


Quote

Quote

There is no factual reason to think that people should come first, the universe hardly cares one way or the other.
I disagree.  The human race arose from the same matter, energy, and physical laws as everything else in the universe. That means the human mind and human society and human feelings are just as factual as gravity and photons. There's no reason to assign them lesser importance.

Of course human mind, human society, and human feelings matter, to humans. What does the universe care one way or the other? Can the universe care, or care not?  The universe isn't loosing any molecules or having physics broken when humans are alive or dead. At least until we get time travel and dimension hopping figured out ;)
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#11 RJDiogenes

RJDiogenes

    Idealistic Cynic

  • Demigod
  • 11,281 posts

Posted 09 March 2017 - 07:30 PM

View Postsierraleone, on 09 March 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

I don't see how compromise and change are necessarily exclusive.  
They're not. But sometimes compromise is neither desirable nor possible. How do you compromise with people who think the Earth was created 6000 years ago?  You don't.  You can only hope to educate them. And you can't educate them by threatening them or alienating them.

Quote

We really don't know enough about John Cleese evolution (for lack of a better world) over time on LGBT people. He says he talked to people. We don't know much more than that there were some people willing to talk to him when he was still holding untrue and unhealthy view of people who are LGBT. That is a lot of work, for both sides, a lot of emotional labour, time and energy. Must have a lot of strength and hope and optimism, and not have reason to be afraid. Which, when someone is marginalizing and dehumanizing you, or someone you are an ally are, it is hard to feel safe, and to trust that that person is being of good faith/intention. And as I said before, trust is central to all healthy human relationships).  
We know enough:  It happened. And it happened through kindness, not hate-mongering. And, yup, strength, hope, optimism, trust, are all important. Lots of hard work. Hatred is the easy way out. Liberalism is hard. But it's the only way.

Quote

- left-wing ideology is more divisive than right-wing ideology?  
About the same, these days.

Quote

- left-wingers should be more understanding of right-wingers because both sides are tribal?  
Left-Wingers were once more capable of understanding. They need to get back to that.  Understanding is not a part of Right-Wing ideology.

Quote

- left-wing ideology creates division where there wasn't divisions and/or problems before?  
Mainly it just exacerbates existing problems, but they're trying.

Quote

- pointing out xenophobia/misogyny doesn't solve anything and just creates more division?  
Uh, no.

Quote

I can't at all imagine that what you are saying is that people should be quiet about these things. Some conservatives make it out that pointing out problems (and making them uncomfortable) is worse than the actual problems.  
Yeah, I pretty much said the opposite of that.  :D

Quote

I saw someone on-line remark about International Women's Day yesterday remark that those protesting/boycotting/withdrawing from paid/unpaid labour that day were not real feminists. The real feminist did their work "with quiet dignity and never uttered a word of complaint".  
They're both wrong, of course. Part of the crash and burn of the Left Wing has been turning Feminism into a joke.

Quote

I'd say the vast majority of people are not rational when their fight/flight/freeze/appease/tend/befriend impulses are triggered.  
Exactly. Instincts are automatic. Rationalism takes work.

Quote

I am sure this plays into xenophobia. Evolutionarily adaptive is also kindness. We have to be one of the most co-operative species in the world. Co-operative and competitive at the same time, which is probably why we are likely the most machiavellian species.  
Yes, compassion, empathy, and cooperation are also all mammalian traits-- which is what makes a solution possible.

Quote

Of course human mind, human society, and human feelings matter, to humans. What does the universe care one way or the other? Can the universe care, or care not?  The universe isn't loosing any molecules or having physics broken when humans are alive or dead. At least until we get time travel and dimension hopping figured out ;)
The point is that we are intrinsically part of the universe, therefore human feelings matter as much as anything else-- in fact, since we are the part of the universe that does care, human feelings matter more than anything else. Without humans, or other intelligent life forms, the universe would just be a miasma of forces and particles.
Please visit The RJDiogenes Store. Posted Image   And my Gallery. Posted Image And my YouTube Page. Posted Image And read Trunkards. Posted Image  And then there's my Heroes Essays.  Posted Image

#12 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,804 posts

Posted 11 March 2017 - 08:56 PM

View PostRJDiogenes, on 09 March 2017 - 07:30 PM, said:

View Postsierraleone, on 09 March 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

I don't see how compromise and change are necessarily exclusive.  
They're not. But sometimes compromise is neither desirable nor possible. How do you compromise with people who think the Earth was created 6000 years ago?  You don't.  You can only hope to educate them. And you can't educate them by threatening them or alienating them.

Depends on whether you are trying to do things the slow way (changing cultural paradigms), or the fast way (changing rules/law). Using your example, say creationism is being taught in science class. You can either try to convince parents that creationism isn't true and/or you use/change the institutional rules (educational, legal, etc.) to take creationism out of science class. There is more than one way to bring about change, and while they both have their pros and cons, movements (whether co-ordinated or not) can utilize both simultaneously, and/or pursue whichever of these path they like or find fruitful.  

Look at anti-miscegenation laws and polls on acceptance of interracial marriage… It was definitely not accepted until long after it became legally accepted nation-wide (though results vary by state). Sometimes the law has to change first.

Quote

Quote

That is a lot of work, for both sides, a lot of emotional labour, time and energy. Must have a lot of strength and hope and optimism, and not have reason to be afraid. Which, when someone is marginalizing and dehumanizing you, or someone you are an ally are, it is hard to feel safe, and to trust that that person is being of good faith/intention. And as I said before, trust is central to all healthy human relationships).  
We know enough:  It happened. And it happened through kindness, not hate-mongering. And, yup, strength, hope, optimism, trust, are all important. Lots of hard work. Hatred is the easy way out. Liberalism is hard. But it's the only way.

Maybe we are talking about different things here. Are you only talking about one-on-one interactions? Because there are plenty of people who malign liberal movements and would not use the word "kind" to describe them at all, even the protest/demonstration/civil disobedience are without violence.

View PostRJDiogenes, on 09 March 2017 - 07:30 PM, said:

View Postsierraleone, on 09 March 2017 - 06:20 PM, said:

- left-wingers should be more understanding of right-wingers because both sides are tribal?
Left-Wingers were once more capable of understanding. They need to get back to that.  Understanding is not a part of Right-Wing ideology.

Quote

- left-wing ideology creates division where there wasn't divisions and/or problems before?  
Mainly it just exacerbates existing problems, but they're trying.

Quote

I can't at all imagine that what you are saying is that people should be quiet about these things. Some conservatives make it out that pointing out problems (and making them uncomfortable) is worse than the actual problems.  
Yeah, I pretty much said the opposite of that.  :D

Quote

I saw someone on-line remark about International Women's Day yesterday remark that those protesting/boycotting/withdrawing from paid/unpaid labour that day were not real feminists. The real feminist did their work "with quiet dignity and never uttered a word of complaint".  
They're both wrong, of course. Part of the crash and burn of the Left Wing has been turning Feminism into a joke.

Understanding what? Again, talking about movements. I think we look back at movements in retrospect with rose-coloured glasses. They won, they were right. And forget how much they pissed off others. So what did liberals understand better? That they'd piss people off and they had to be ginger and careful with the opposition?

There is not a perfect way to protest/demonstrate. They are a cry/plea to bring attention and help to a problem in society. They are meant to be public inconveniences, that are supposed to agitate people, whether it makes people late or disrupts their normal day in other ways.  This is supposed to especially people to whom the problem may be invisible to, who are not generally inconvenienced by these problems existing. How people react to peaceful protests/demonstrations is on them, not on the peaceful protestors/demonstrators.

The problems demonstrators are trying to bring attention to inconvenience those affected by the problem.   Those not affected by those problems aren't going to know about it unless people affected, and their allies, speak up. Speaking up is inconvenience to others, no matter how it is looked at. It takes time/attention/resources away from other matters and other paradigms.

One way I am understanding is I know we all only have 24 hours in a day, and only have so much cognitive load one can take. Though people who are marginalized have an increased cognitive load dealing with their marginalization by society. And we put more cognitive load on them making them responsible for gingerly dealing with the feelings of people who either marginalize or don't understand them? It may be necessary work, but one would hope that one understands what is being done here, basically placing a disproportionate amount of work on marginalized people to fix the problems that people either created or perpetuate (knowingly or not) against marginalized people. Which is why allies are so important.

Edited by sierraleone, 11 March 2017 - 09:05 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#13 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,804 posts

Posted 27 May 2017 - 11:58 AM

Well on this front the thoughts expressed in this article are depressing:

Wake up liberals: There will be no 2018 "blue wave", no Democratic majority and no impeachment.

It starts off with talking about the results of the Montana election, and then moves on to the more broad happenings in U.S. democracy.

Quote

Despite their abundant differences, Barack Obama and Donald Trump were both semiotic candidates, who appeared to represent specific worldviews or dispositions (the espresso cosmopolitan; the shameless vulgarian) but presented themselves as a disruption to “normal” politics and were difficult to nail down in left-right ideological terms.

My position is that Donald Trump is a symptom of the fundamental brokenness of American politics, not the cause. Electing a Democratic House majority (which is 95 percent unlikely to happen) and impeaching Trump (which is 100 percent not going to happen) might feel good in the moment, but wouldn’t actually fix what is broken.

(Let’s throw in the caveat that there are plausible universes in which the Republicans ultimately decide to force Trump out of office for their own reasons. Entirely different scenario.)

If you don’t want to believe me now, I get it. But take a good hard look at Rep.-elect Greg Gianforte, and go through all the excuses you have made to yourself about how and why that happened, and we’ll talk.

It’s worth making two salient structural points that I think are beyond dispute, and then a larger, more contentious one. ... the extreme and ingenious gerrymandering of congressional districts locked in by Republican state legislators after the 2010 census virtually guarantees a GOP House majority until the next census and at least the 2022 midterms. ...  But the number of genuine “swing” districts is vanishingly small, and it would require a Democratic wave of truly historic dimensions to overcome the baked-in GOP advantage.

As for the Senate — well, Democratic campaign strategists will mumble and look away if you bring that up, because the Senate majority is completely out of reach.
​…
​Those disadvantages could be overcome if we were looking at a major electoral shift … That brings us to the final and largest point: Exactly who is kidding themselves that the Democratic Party, in its 2017 state of disarray and dysfunction, is remotely capable of pulling off a history-shaping victory on that scale?
​…
That sounds like a prescription for a major renaissance — but not for a party that is so listless, divided and ideologically adrift. Democrats have been virtually wiped out at the state and local level in non-coastal, non-metropolitan areas of the country.
​….
In the face of a national emergency, maybe Democrats will find some medium-term way to bridge the gulf between pro-business liberal coalition politics and a social-democratic vision of major structural reform and economic justice. Whoever the hell they nominate for president in 2020 will have to pretend to do that, at any rate.

But right now the Democratic Party has no clear sense of mission and no coherent national message, except that it is not the party of Donald Trump. I can understand the appeal of that message, the longing for a return to normalcy, calm and order that it embodies. What we learned in Montana this week — and will likely learn in Georgia, and learn again in the 2018 midterms — is that that’s not enough. There is no “normal” state we can return to.

Edited by sierraleone, 27 May 2017 - 12:02 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#14 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,804 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 09:25 AM

Reading a WaPo article Americans are burning down the house about a recent poll.

The poll asked: For each of the following rights do you think we have gone too far in expanding the right, gone too far in restricting the right, or things are okay the way they are?

% saying 'gone too far in expanding the right',

The right to vote:
Democrats: 5%
Republicans: 25%

Freedom of the Press:
Democrats: 11%
Republicans: 42%

The right to protest or criticize the government:
Democrats: 7%
Republicans: 41%

What. The. Hell.
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#15 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,772 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 10:24 AM

I think it's fair to say that the Republican party is now a party of authoritarians.  That said, it's not too hard to see why Russia is now the model the GOP favors.  I'd ask how the party of Lincoln and small government became the party of authoritarians and less freedom, but we're all living this nightmare and can see for ourselves how it happened.  It didn't happen overnight.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#16 yadda yadda

yadda yadda
  • Islander
  • 1,447 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 11:29 AM

^  Just off the top of my head, consider how much the GOP panders to, if only sometimes paying lip service, their staunch supporters in the Religious Right. I believe that there is no general grouping more susceptible to and in step with authoritarian precepts than the hyper religious.

#17 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,804 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 01:34 PM

View PostCait, on 11 July 2017 - 10:24 AM, said:

I think it's fair to say that the Republican party is now a party of authoritarians.  That said, it's not too hard to see why Russia is now the model the GOP favors.  I'd ask how the party of Lincoln and small government became the party of authoritarians and less freedom, but we're all living this nightmare and can see for ourselves how it happened.  It didn't happen overnight.

To be fair, if I add in the other two columns that were not in the article (but in the poll)

% saying gone too far in
expanding the right / restricting the right / or okay the way they are

for the right to vote:
Democrats: 5% / 44% / 49%
Republicans: 25% / 6% / 66%

for freedom of the Press:
Democrats: 11% / 32% / 54%
Republicans: 42% / 9% / 46%

for the right to protest or criticize the government:
Democrats: 7% / 31% / 57%
Republicans: 41% / 6% / 48%


So, the later two, for republicans, they are, as a group, a little more okay with the way things are than they are with how far we have expanded these rights. Numbering over 2/5ths in each group with a small slice in the middle thinking these rights are too restricted. So, largely (but not entirely) split between authoritarians and likely enablers/appeasers. There has been talk that democrats need to reach out to republicans and independents…. It is hard to imagine enough of a shared world-view with those with authoritarian bents as these…. Maybe the 'moderate' half of the republican party could stop ignoring/enabling/appeasing them and wake up and convince them these rights are traditional republican democratic values….

Edited by sierraleone, 11 July 2017 - 01:54 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#18 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,804 posts

Posted 13 July 2017 - 07:52 PM

There has also been a recent poll that a majority (58%) of Republicans say colleges and universities have a negative effect on the way things are going in this country…. Verses 36% who say positive effect.
Democrats positive 72%, Democrats Negative 10%.

I suppose I *could* read that question as their effect is more X than it was X years ago, and they think it has slide downward in it's contribution to society.
However, how I naturally want to read the question is that colleges and universities have a X net effect on the way things are going in this country.
As in, if one where to put it on a scale and balance all their plus and minuses, could their effect be neutral, positive, or negative?
Do they really think post-secondary is more safe-spaces and protests and fraternities and drunken parties than education going on?
Or is it the education they have a problem with?
What. The. Hell.

Edited by sierraleone, 13 July 2017 - 07:53 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html

#19 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,829 posts

Posted 14 July 2017 - 12:01 AM

The body of knowledge to which "normal" belongs is sociology. See: "social norms".

"Normal" isn't a constant: it changes over time. It varies depending upon which strata of the social phenomenon you occupy. It has a finite lifespan. It entails trends over time, and those trends are constantly in flux. "Normal" is partly generational, partly due to social conditions, partly due to perception, it is partly controlled while being largely random. It entails huge variation, from social strata to person to person. It appears to have constants, but those constants tend to melt away under scrutiny, and the greater the scrutiny, the less stable the phenomenon of "normal" becomes.

You can never get back to "normal" because what was once normal is never repeated, and can't be controlled because there are far too many variables at work.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#20 sierraleone

sierraleone

    All things Great and Mischievous

  • Islander
  • 8,804 posts

Posted 18 July 2017 - 05:33 PM

I was listening to a program recently where the host was saying it will likely be very difficult to convince and sway Trump supporters to vote against Conservatives, so he suggest that if you want to make a difference in the next elections (beyond your own vote) cast your efforts towards those who vote third party, or the much larger group of people who did not vote at all.

Looks like, at least for the time being, that isn't a resolutely sound strategy either….. At least, not if the voted for Obama previously...

These Obama voters snubbed Hillary Clinton - and 'they don't regret what they did'
Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
Source: http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users