OMG Politics, I'm over it already Mk III, The Search for Spock

[rickenvox]

The problem with your argument is that objective measures of vileness and non-stupidity are difficult to come by.

Not unlike a skipping record you are. Your statement above is false. Just because everyone is too wearied by the stupidity to continue to lay out on a daily basis the difference between fallacious and valid arguments doesn't mean they've all suddenly blending into one. You're using all of this confusion to push some personal political views that "you" hold being the good opportunist that you are.

 

[Peen Simmons]

Not unlike a skipping record you are. Your statement above is false. Just because everyone is too wearied by the stupidity to continue to lay out on a daily basis the difference between fallacious and valid arguments doesn't mean they've all suddenly blending into one. You're using all of this confusion to push some personal political views that "you" hold being the good opportunist that you are.

What objective standard are you using? What is it’s origin?

I am asking because I want people to define terms. Because it is all too easy to equate “my preferences” with “objectivity” and I believe that this is dangerous.

What standards are we/you assuming? Because conservatives have, by in large, established theirs. And liberal-ish people are really mushy headed about establishing standards beyond mere appeals to reason or “fact” or “science” without any meat on the bone. And a failure to be forthright and clear about what, if any, standards are being posited leads to dangerous, embarrassing political defeats with real world consequences.

But the Democrats and their ilk are overly fond of bland branding platitudes like “stronger together” or “unity” without any firm framework...which is how noxious insanity can take hold...because all that shit is at least an ethos...and American liberalish politicians aren’t offering a competing worldview...they’re offering blandly positive mush in an attempt to appeal to everyone and anyone.

Also, I’d love to know what opportunities I’m exploiting.

 

[Peen Simmons]

Yes, you've made this view clear. But I'm not really clear on whether you were old enough or interested in politics enough to remember what it was like before Obama. That's when the Republican party decided to not work together with their counterparts in Congress in an unprecedented fashion. That had never happened before, to that extent, in US history. You've grown up during an anomaly. If you don't remember William F. Buckley Jr. or Jean Kirkpatrick or Reagan (not from documentary films) then you don't really have a clear perspective.

This is ahistorical crazy shit. The Dixiecrats ruled the congress in the early to mid 20th century as racist obstructionists. Post New Deal there was all manner reactionary non-cooperating. Gingrich’s revolution. There are plenty of historical parallels for shitty cliques within the legislature.

Also, a strong case could be made for the post WWII/Cold War emergence of a consensus culture being an anomaly. Unprecedented US control of global wealth. The US in a newly minted position of world dominance. The emergence of a global enemy in the USSR to bolster national cohesion and override sectional differences.

Perhaps you grew up in the anomaly.

 

[335clone]

Sorry bout that. I didn’t have anything come up on my iPad when I originally saw the article.

Not your fault, just warning others. It loaded some mac cleaner that was invasive as hell. Ended up losing all my open tabs of work stuff that I had to got through my history to find. Annoying as hell, but I didn't lose anything.

 

[335clone]

Ok, point me to something that shows me how to do that as I clicked it too.

How to do what? Infect peoples macs? I'm not that kinda guy, Steve.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

How to do what? Infect peoples macs? I'm not that kinda guy, Steve.

No, I thought you said you spent time cleaning stuff off your mac after you clicked on that link. I do not seem to be having any issues, but wanted to know how to look for and clean stuff off, as I had clicked on that link Mark provided too. I am not the most technical tech user, I will admit.

 

[335clone]

No, I thought you said you spent time cleaning stuff off your mac after you clicked on that link. I do not seem to be having any issues, but wanted to know how to look for and clean stuff off, as I had clicked on that link Mark provided too. I am not the most technical tech user, I will admit.

I was able to delete it using finder. It wasn't exactly malware, in fact it was a mac cleaning software, but it kept opening pages and wouldn't go away. It even opened a chat session with a support person, who I immediately eviscerated until he gave up and gave me a command that stopped the spamming. Unfortunately it erased my history along the way, and deleted my open tabs of work stuff. So I only had to rebuild all the browser windows of spreadsheets and test documents I needed for work this morning.

 

[rickenvox]

What objective standard are you using? What is it’s origin?

I am asking because I want people to define terms. Because it is all too easy to equate “my preferences” with “objectivity” and I believe that this is dangerous.

What standards are we/you assuming? Because conservatives have, by in large, established theirs. And liberal-ish people are really mushy headed about establishing standards beyond mere appeals to reason or “fact” or “science” without any meat on the bone. And a failure to be forthright and clear about what, if any, standards are being posited leads to dangerous, embarrassing political defeats with real world consequences.

But the Democrats and their ilk are overly fond of bland branding platitudes like “stronger together” or “unity” without any firm framework...which is how noxious insanity can take hold...because all that shit is at least an ethos...and American liberalish politicians aren’t offering a competing worldview...they’re offering blandly positive mush in an attempt to appeal to everyone and anyone.

Also, I’d love to know what opportunities I’m exploiting.

Are you already borrowing someone else's thesis that there are no American liberals represented by the Democrats? Unfortunately we don't live in a country whose government is so inconsequental that they can pay all of their artists and store their never to be seen art in warehouses (just to give one example of European liberalism).

You took logic right? There are no moral/ethical standards that determine whether an argument is valid or fallacious. Has nothing to do with perspective. Just because an entire side of an argument doesn't recognize that doesn't tip the scales and make it relative. And most of the Republicans in congress do recognize fallacious arguments, but they're knowingly playing games with pragmatics to keep power. The American public who are buying this propaganda are the same people talk show hosts have interviewed in the streets asking simple history questions they can't answer. Your argument assumes all Republicans in office are equally ignorant and unaware of tactful propaganda. They're not.

Anyway moral relativity was a fad in the 80s that has been abandoned in academia, only being kept alive by those who were educated at a certain time and no longer participate in academia.

 

[rickenvox]

This is ahistorical crazy shit. The Dixiecrats ruled the congress in the early to mid 20th century as racist obstructionists. Post New Deal there was all manner reactionary non-cooperating. Gingrich’s revolution. There are plenty of historical parallels for shitty cliques within the legislature.

Also, a strong case could be made for the post WWII/Cold War emergence of a consensus culture being an anomaly. Unprecedented US control of global wealth. The US in a newly minted position of world dominance. The emergence of a global enemy in the USSR to bolster national cohesion and override sectional differences.

Perhaps you grew up in the anomaly.

No one was arguing about racism historically in the Democratic party. We (you) were talking about both sides of the aisle never being able to work together. That's only happened to the extent it is now since Obama. Stay on point. You're all over the place with your thesis that the government is all bad (did I capture the profundity/deepness of your argument?), not what we were discussing.

By the way The New Deal had broad bipartisan support.

 

[Peen Simmons]

Are you already borrowing someone else's thesis that there are no American liberals represented by the Democrats? Unfortunately we don't live in a country whose government is so inconsequental that they can pay all of their artists and store their never to be seen art in warehouses (just to give one example of European liberalism).

You took logic right? There are no moral/ethical standards that determine whether an argument is valid or fallacious. Has nothing to do with perspective. Just because an entire side of an argument doesn't recognize that doesn't tip the scales and make it relative. And most of the Republicans in congress do recognize fallacious arguments, but they're knowingly playing games with pragmatics to keep power. The American public who are buying this propaganda are the same people talk show hosts have interviewed in the streets asking simple history questions they can't answer. Your argument assumes all Republicans in office are equally ignorant and unaware of tactful propaganda. They're not.

Anyway moral relativity was a fad in the 80s that has been abandoned in academia, only being kept alive by those who were educated at a certain time and no longer participate in academia.

I’m not certain what you’re responding to, but it’s not my argument. I’m not in favor of moral relativism, but I am assertining that conservatives of various icky stripes are using relativist tactics to create a smokescreen of moral certainty—either sincerely held or cynically deployed. And in the face of that sort of thing, one must seriously consider the proposed opposition to that worldview and come up with something more meaningful that the Boomerish aging hipster glurge the Democrats often settle on.

Logic—and logical proofs against fallacy—only work of the game is logic-based. I’d reckon that a lot of what the right (alt, Christian, and otherswise) is proposing is operating on post-logical rules.

So if the argument is “ditch this alogical madness and come with us” there needs to be a much clearer appeal than “this logical approach is our beloved tradition” or “doing things logically is good and right.”

Conservatism has built itself into a tricky meta-problem. It’s a spirited defense of YE OLD WESTERN VALUES” built out of the deconstructed leavings of those values. It’s impervious to critique in a lot of ways...because it rejects critique while using the old Marxist theory “critique the critique” ethos to atomize everything that might be a challenge to perpetual revolution.

It’s an investment banker’s counterculture.

 

[Peen Simmons]

No one was arguing about racism historically in the Democratic party. We (you) were talking about both sides of the aisle never being able to work together. That's only happened to the extent it is now since Obama. Stay on point. You're all over the place with your thesis that the government is all bad (did I capture the profundity/deepness of your argument?), not what we were discussing.

By the way The New Deal had broad bipartisan support.

You’re missing the point. You were saying NEVER BEFORE HAS THEIR BEEN OBSTRUCIONISM LIKE THIS. And, I was saying, O RLY? Because here are some examples of obstructionist blocs from American history.

We had a CIVIL WAR once upon a time. That’s probably the nadir of American government working as designed. This ONLY SINCE OBAMA trip you are on is bonkers. There have always been challenges and difficulties.

Since when is my argument that all government is bad? I think that everyone’s relationship status with the US gov’t should be “It’s complicated.” There’s no golden age. And there are some very clear examples of structural and institutional problems that have greatly harmed people to the benefit of wealthy, elite folks.

And the New Deal and the Roosevelt administration did encounter some rather virulent opposition.

 

[rickenvox]

I’m not in favor of moral relativism, but I am assertining that conservatives of various icky stripes are using relativist tactics to create a smokescreen of moral certainty—either sincerely held or cynically deployed.

This we're agreed on.

in the face of that sort of thing, one must seriously consider the proposed opposition to that worldview and come up with something more meaningful that the Boomerish aging hipster glurge the Democrats often settle on.

Well you need to be specific about what arguments you're referring to here. You're lumping all of the liberal (I use the term as a positive thing, since I am not characterizing the opposition as the "Democratic party" which is in a splintered state right now) arguments into a single entity.

I’d reckon that a lot of what the right (alt, Christian, and otherswise) is proposing is operating on post-logical rules.

no such thing, and again certainly not something abandoned (logic and rules) by the Republicans in Congress.

So if the argument is “ditch this alogical madness and come with us” there needs to be a much clearer appeal than “this logical approach is our beloved tradition” or “doing things logically is good and right.”

Pointing out things like the normalizing of Neo-Nazis as "some good people" isn't calling anyone to a side. Most people are saying that Republicans and Democrats alike do not hold these values. This short flurry of confusion about what conservativism is all about does nothing to erase it's own history. And your argument doesn't at all address what message people like John McCain are trying to put across. It's a common message of opposition, not one calling people to become Democrats.

Conservatism has built itself into a tricky meta-problem. It’s a spirited defense of YE OLD WESTERN VALUES” built out of the deconstructed leavings of those values. It’s impervious to critique in a lot of ways...because it rejects critique while using the old Marxist theory “critique the critique” ethos to atomize everything that might be a challenge to perpetual revolution.

It’s an investment banker’s counterculture.

This is why I brought up William F Buckley Jr and Reagan. Investment bankers are not Trump believers, they're just using the only available candidate that beat Hilary. They're all still steeped in the 80s conservatism of Buckley, The National Review, and Reagan. Investment bankers are not against abortion, if that clarifies the point.

 

[rickenvox]

We had a CIVIL WAR once upon a time. That’s probably the nadir of American government working as designed. This ONLY SINCE OBAMA trip you are on is bonkers. There have always been challenges and difficulties.

And the New Deal and the Roosevelt administration did encounter some rather virulent opposition.

Yes, the Civil War. The obvious only point you had.

The New Deal only came about because of bi-partisanship.

 

[mongooz]

The New Deal only came about because of bi-partisanship.

and it was being driven by the complete economic crash of 1929 and a clamor to jump start the country. they kind of had to come together on that one. imo.
anyway.....

 

[Peen Simmons]

RickyVo, I think you are mistaking my willingness to consider that conservatism has a clear (apocalyptic, zero sum, Satanic) world view with a belief in that world view. Similarly, I think you are mistaking the fact that I don’t see similar clarity on the part of the Democrats as some kind of betrayal on my part.

If anything, I’m mostly disappointed in the DNC for carrying water for the Wall Street and Eastern Establishment types who jumped over to the Democrats sometime around the Clinton administration. An effective, meaningful Democrat party would fully embrace Black Lives Matter, make diversity and full legal equality a central part of the message, shore up labor rights, push for a single-payer health care solution, rally around a social safety net free of means tests, work-fare provisions, and poverty-shaming, campaign on gradual demilitarization (at home and abroad), and push for meaningful student/worker/citizen protections in all sectors while stripping corporations of the rights of political personhood.

This is the beginning of a real platform that can get people excited. But it would horrify the donors and all the entrenched power structures that must be courted to mount national campaigns. Whereas “not as racist and tacky as Trump” is a low bar to clear and a lot easier why to organize a party that wants to accept big money from the financial sector and big oil and big healthcare.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

RickyVo, I think you are mistaking my willingness to consider that conservatism has a clear (apocalyptic, zero sum, Satanic) world view with a belief in that world view. Similarly, I think you are mistaking the fact that I don’t see similar clarity on the part of the Democrats as some kind of betrayal on my part.

If anything, I’m mostly disappointed in the DNC for carrying water for the Wall Street and Eastern Establishment types who jumped over to the Democrats sometime around the Clinton administration. An effective, meaningful Democrat party would fully embrace Black Lives Matter, make diversity and full legal equality a central part of the message, shore up labor rights, push for a single-payer health care solution, rally around a social safety net free of means tests, work-fare provisions, and poverty-shaming, campaign on gradual demilitarization (at home and abroad), and push for meaningful student/worker/citizen protections in all sectors while stripping corporations of the rights of political personhood.

This is the beginning of a real platform that can get people excited. But it would horrify the donors and all the entrenched power structures that must be courted to mount national campaigns. Whereas “not as racist and tacky as Trump” is a low bar to clear and a lot easier why to organize a party that wants to accept big money from the financial sector and big oil and big healthcare.

I can agree with pretty much all of your policy points for a better DNC. Serious question, how do you propose we (being citizens that agree or could join and agree if so informed and motivated) do to make it so?

 

[Peen Simmons]

I can agree with pretty much all of your policy points for a better DNC. Serious question, how do you propose we (being citizens that agree or could join and agree if so informed and motivated) do to make it so?

Local elections. A lot of the religious conservatives got their political starts in seemingly minor races for school boards and the like. For as big and unsolvable as contemporary Conservatism seems, there’s some real grass roots zeal that made it a thing back in the day—mostly around personal/domestic issues like schools, abortion, etc.

And don’t support the entrenched (D) candidates who don’t support these things in primaries.

Like-minded folks who care about poverty, labor, anti-violence, and similar issues should focus on those things close to home vs. hyperventilating about Trump’s nonsense on Twitter or making historical googly eyes at dead Wm. Buckley.

 

[OGG]

This is ahistorical crazy shit. The Dixiecrats ruled the congress in the early to mid 20th century as racist obstructionists. Post New Deal there was all manner reactionary non-cooperating. Gingrich’s revolution. There are plenty of historical parallels for shitty cliques within the legislature.

Also, a strong case could be made for the post WWII/Cold War emergence of a consensus culture being an anomaly. Unprecedented US control of global wealth. The US in a newly minted position of world dominance. The emergence of a global enemy in the USSR to bolster national cohesion and override sectional differences.

Perhaps you grew up in the anomaly.

Oi vey!

Seriously weak and barely if at all relevant argument.

The Gingrich thing was definitely unprecedented in that it openly advocated some level of obstructionism. Some level.

Of course the two parties have had periods of bipartisanship or the opposite to varying degrees throughout history, but even during the Reagan years, both sides at least made an effort to find some commonality.

None of that history even holds a candle to the well organized, premeditated, and boldly celebrated POLICY of absolute obstructionism in response to Obama's election. You had the speaker of the house and the Senate majority leader make a joint public announcement in which they promised to block Obama and the Democrats on any and every piece of legislation put forth, and to effectively hold everyone, including their own constituents as hostages to a Federal Government so divided that nothing was getting done.

It got to the point of the Republican party actually changing the rules in the House and Senate in order to cut the Democrats off at the knees. This was a transition well beyond partisanship and frighteningly deep into some Orwellian, Evangelical, and Dystopian Dictatorship territory that gained a huge amount of traction upon Trump being elected.

There are no historical precedents here. None. "By the people and for the people" has sadly become "by the gullible and for the special interests, religious fundamentalism, and corporations to whom we are beholden".

 

[rickenvox]

RickyVo, I think you are mistaking my willingness to consider that conservatism has a clear (apocalyptic, zero sum, Satanic) world view with a belief in that world view. Similarly, I think you are mistaking the fact that I don’t see similar clarity on the part of the Democrats as some kind of betrayal on my part.

If anything, I’m mostly disappointed in the DNC for carrying water for the Wall Street and Eastern Establishment types who jumped over to the Democrats sometime around the Clinton administration. An effective, meaningful Democrat party would fully embrace Black Lives Matter, make diversity and full legal equality a central part of the message, shore up labor rights, push for a single-payer health care solution, rally around a social safety net free of means tests, work-fare provisions, and poverty-shaming, campaign on gradual demilitarization (at home and abroad), and push for meaningful student/worker/citizen protections in all sectors while stripping corporations of the rights of political personhood.

This is the beginning of a real platform that can get people excited. But it would horrify the donors and all the entrenched power structures that must be courted to mount national campaigns. Whereas “not as racist and tacky as Trump” is a low bar to clear and a lot easier why to organize a party that wants to accept big money from the financial sector and big oil and big healthcare.

I think everyone looked the gift horse of Obama in the mouth (or as my Polish friend so clearly translated "do not closely inspect the mouth of a given horse). All liberals expected him to act unlike any president in history and enact all of their radical wishes. He did tons to further alternative energy, put regulations on the automotive industry in order to promote the production of clear air vehicles (which I know have their own waste issues), and curb the activities of financial institutions that led to our 2008 economic disaster. He didn't pull all of our troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan, which would have led to more quickly destabilizing that region (it was destabilized by removing Hussein in the first place). Yes, he used drone strikes - thus reducing risk to American troops but killing innocent civilians (which is precisely why terrorists hide in civilian populations). Obama helped many current Trump supporters by eliminating the pre-existing conditions restriction on health care policies and offering a form of affordable healthcare to those who would otherwise be an expense on hospitals required by law to treat uninsured people, or end up dead due to cost prohibitive diseases like cancer. Obama did not run to pardon Edward Snowden, who actually broke laws he signed agreements to not breaking (and I believe his cause was just, he just needed to accept the consequences as he did risk putting other people in intelligence at risk). Again, he acted like a president and not the radical leader for tech geeks and pacifists. Obama was Ted Kennedy's last project and an overwhelming success for the party. Unfortunately young Democrats didn't know there was such a thing as mid-term elections and let the racist population in this country stack the odds against the president by gaining the majority in both houses.

 

[Peen Simmons]

I think everyone looked the gift horse of Obama in the mouth (or as my Polish friend so clearly translated "do not closely inspect the mouth of a given horse). All liberals expected him to act unlike any president in history and enact all of their radical wishes. He did tons to further alternative energy, put regulations on the automotive industry in order to promote the production of clear air vehicles (which I know have their own waste issues), and curb the activities of financial institutions that led to our 2008 economic disaster. He didn't pull all of our troops out of Iraq/Afghanistan, which would have led to more quickly destabilizing that region (it was destabilized by removing Hussein in the first place). Yes, he used drone strikes - thus reducing risk to American troops but killing innocent civilians (which is precisely why terrorists hide in civilian populations). Obama helped many current Trump supporters by eliminating the pre-existing conditions restriction on health care policies and offering a form of affordable healthcare to those who would otherwise be an expense on hospitals required by law to treat uninsured people, or end up dead due to cost prohibitive diseases like cancer. Obama did not run to pardon Edward Snowden, who actually broke laws he signed agreements to not breaking (and I believe his cause was just, he just needed to accept the consequences as he did risk putting other people in intelligence at risk). Again, he acted like a president and not the radical leader for tech geeks and pacifists. Obama was Ted Kennedy's last project and an overwhelming success for the party. Unfortunately young Democrats didn't know there was such a thing as mid-term elections and let the racist population in this country stack the odds against the president by gaining the majority in both houses.

What’s all this about? A spontaneous case of blowhard’s dropsy?

Are you just looking to reassert that you are Barack’s #1 Internet boyfriend?