Jump to content

There goes the neighbourhood


Recommended Posts

It's often observed here that Americans 'wear their patriotism on their sleeves', we do it much less so here.

Maybe that's a good thing........

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fleetwood said:

It's often observed here that Americans 'wear their patriotism on their sleeves', we do it much less so here.

Maybe that's a good thing........

Fly the Australian flag other than on Australia Day or possibly an international Test sport day in your home city, and most people look at you a bit sideways. I know I do - it immediately causes me to think that there's someone I don't want to know.

On your boat in foreign waters is a different thing and of course I totally understand why citizens of the USA want to stitch the Canadian flag to their back packs etc.

The entire flag etiquette thing leaves me cold & bemused, same as wankers in yacht clubs thinking that titles, special burgees and fancy dress uniforms actually make them important.

FKT

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Fly the Australian flag other than on Australia Day or possibly an international Test sport day in your home city, and most people look at you a bit sideways

see it all the time , abet not on every house and don't give it a second thought .

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

The entire flag etiquette thing leaves me cold & bemused

and Australians died so that you are able to enjoy that privilege .

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 2airishuman said:

The close association between the stars and strips and Trump's supporters has made it difficult for me to feel as good about the routine act of flying the flag.  That he is no longer in office has helped somewhat, but people read what they will into symbols.  It is hard to project a nuanced, politically neutral patriotism.

This is a thing, for sure!  

By nature I'm not a joiner. Wasn't in a fraternity in school. Always thought the idea of locking into a political party was dumb (isn't it about the candidates and their policies and attributes?).  But I grew up saying the Pledge of Allegiance while facing the flag, in a public elementary school alongside kids whose parents were in all branches of military.  Patriotism was something we all shared.  Therefore, the idea that one party or subgroup can hijack the flag as their flag is deeply offensive to me.

On the positive side, I believe that a flag flown properly from a sailboat doesn't project a political message. And I have yet to see a political flag on a sailboat, or hear one blaring offensive rap or country music like so many powerboats do nowadays.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Israel Hands said:

On the positive side, I believe that a flag flown properly from a sailboat doesn't project a political message.

Oh , I think it does , abet a non offensive one , it identifies your Nationality  .

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 2airishuman said:

It pains me, Mr. City, to say that national politics have affected our sailing in several unfortunate ways.  While we do not encounter the more crass flags mentioned in the OP we routinely see various pro-Trump flags during the drive to the marina and on boats on the water, in most cases accompanied by the stars and stripes.  Mrs. 2air has difficulty containing her outrage when encountering these.  I have concluded that I really can no longer spend a day sailing with those of opposing political stripe as the subject of politics is increasingly hard to avoid.  It is not easy to be a good host in these times.

The close association between the stars and strips and Trump's supporters has made it difficult for me to feel as good about the routine act of flying the flag.  That he is no longer in office has helped somewhat, but people read what they will into symbols.  It is hard to project a nuanced, politically neutral patriotism.

 

This is sad. Fly it because Trump lost, fair and (overly)square. Fly it because truth prevailed. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mid said:

and Australians died so that you are able to enjoy that privilege .

I enjoy a lot of privileges, most of them the result of technological advances by scientists and engineers turning research into physical products. Flying a flag has little or nothing to do with them. I know who I am and what nationality I am, I don't need a flag to affirm anything.

The old USSR and currently China is real big on flying flags.

We're not going to agree on this so I'm not commenting further. Feel free to have the last word.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 2airishuman said:

It pains me, Mr. City, to say that...

Please call me Bull. I mistake "Mr. City" for my father. :)

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kris Cringle said:

Fly it because truth prevailed.

Well, that's debatable... as it should be.  The "Senator from Mastercard" has a long history of questionable policies, as many politicians do.  Policy should be the focus of our collective dialog and informed debate is healthy. 

Instead, we have a cult of personality that has captured 43% of the country who fervently support a liar and con man whose unethical behavior has been well known for decades (Trump, not McConnell).  Truth doesn't seem to matter, ends justify corrupt means and violence is encouraged.

I am not content to "agree to disagree" with these people.  They deserve no respect at all for such extremely poor judgement.  Anyone who ever supported Trump, and especially those who still do, are deluded fanatics, incapable of rational debate about policy.  Appeasing them is a mistake.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there goes the communal spirit. Nice try, Bull. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Israel Hands said:

the idea that one party or subgroup can hijack the flag as their flag is deeply offensive to me.

I agree with this. If we don't fly the flag because it's been co-opted by a group we don't agree with, then we have surrendered. This is not to say that we should all be flag-waving fanatics, but flying the flag while sailing, on national holidays, is for everyone and should remain that way.

5 hours ago, ProaSailor said:

Anyone who ever supported Trump, and especially those who still do, are deluded fanatics, incapable of rational debate about policy.  Appeasing them is a mistake.

The weird thing to me is that if you look at significant legislation and executive branch actions during Trump's term, it was a tax cut for corporations and the wealthy, the appointment of conservative judges, and not much else. Of course there was all of the Trump Drama, the trade war and the pandemic response, but not much else. Tax policy and judicial appointments are something that reasonable people can differ on. 

So, if you were to talk with some one who supports him, it would be interesting to find out what they think his policies are, and what they like about them. Surely we can't have 74 million completely irrational voters.

However, we seem to have millions voters who have grievances, feel threatened by change, and appear to have been duped. So do we get ready for a civil war or is there a way to get people on the same page fact-wise, and rational discussion?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2021 at 11:26 AM, WillyT123 said:

Bull, why don't you just give us your The Economist login info and we can cut out the middleman?;) I've been listening to their podcasts religiously for about the past year. I think their sober, informative, and balanced brand of journalism has kept me on a much more even keel mentally than if I kept up with some more, lets say, sensational news sources.

I find cutting and pasting to be very therapeutic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Bull City said:

 

The weird thing to me is that if you look at significant legislation and executive branch actions during Trump's term, it was a tax cut for corporations and the wealthy, the appointment of conservative judges, and not much else. Of course there was all of the Trump Drama, the trade war and the pandemic response, but not much else. Tax policy and judicial appointments are something that reasonable people can differ on. 

So, if you were to talk with some one who supports him, it would be interesting to find out what they think his policies are, and what they like about them. Surely we can't have 74 million completely irrational voters.

However, we seem to have millions voters who have grievances, feel threatened by change, and appear to have been duped. So do we get ready for a civil war or is there a way to get people on the same page fact-wise, and rational discussion?

You also need to look at the many executive orders that were signed during his term. Many of them were created out of cruelty, greed, and hatred. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Kolibri said:

You also need to look at the many executive orders that were signed during his term. Many of them were created out of cruelty, greed, and hatred. 

They probably were, but it's still important to find out what the other person thinks. As I said, I can't believe there are 74 million irrational, hate-filled lunatics out there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kinardly said:

Well, there goes the communal spirit. Nice try, Bull. 

Yeah. I guess my boat's been out of the water for too long.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Bull City said:

The weird thing to me is that if you look at significant legislation and executive branch actions during Trump's term, it was a tax cut for corporations and the wealthy, the appointment of conservative judges, and not much else. Of course there was all of the Trump Drama, the trade war and the pandemic response, but not much else. Tax policy and judicial appointments are something that reasonable people can differ on. 

I would not characterize the systematic and ongoing undermining of democratic institutions and the traditional limits of the office as mere "Drama."  You do not mention his changes to immigration policy and its enforcement and application.

53 minutes ago, Bull City said:

So, if you were to talk with some one who supports him, it would be interesting to find out what they think his policies are, and what they like about them. Surely we can't have 74 million completely irrational voters.

I have spoken with many of his supporters, some of whom are people I have known for decades.  Like you, I seek to understand.  These people fall neatly into two categories.  Some are longtime Republican voters who are intellectually conservative and who supported Trump because he's the Republican candidate and they didn't perceive his shortcomings to be serious enough for them to cross party lines.  Like you, many of these individuals point out that Trump's actual policy initiatives--the ones that had any real, lasting effect--were largely straight out of the Republican playbook or were simply good policy changes on their own merits whose time had come.  Few would find fault with drawing down the USA's involvement in foreign wars, for example, or with taking a harder line on trade with China.

The others perceive themselves to be in a culture war that puts their lifestyle and ability to live out their values at risk.  Generally these individuals have very traditional value sets that emphasize a nuclear family, a sense of American heritage and roots that extends back several generations, and a bellicose zero-sum world view.  Many of them draw a significant portion of their identity from activities such as hunting, motorsports, and firearms that would be subject to significant restrictions under planks in the Democratic party's platform.  Many of them, including women, see Trump's and Kavanaugh's past harassment of women as part of the normal relationship that should exist between the sexes and do not believe that government should have a role in regulating what they see as ordinary human courtship.  Surprisingly many are, well, bigoted, and applauded Trump's moves on immigration for that reason.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bull City said:

The weird thing to me is that if you look at significant legislation and executive branch actions during Trump's term, it was a tax cut for corporations and the wealthy, the appointment of conservative judges, and not much else. Of course there was all of the Trump Drama, the trade war and the pandemic response, but not much else.

McConnell was more responsible than Trump for the big tax cut and judicial appointments (which may bedevil us for decades).  Trump isn't that sophisticated but he does deserve full credit for the disgraceful attack on the U.S. Capitol, the border wall fiascos and many other incitements of hatred.  Plus his ongoing claims that he won the 2020 election, which too many people take seriously.  Remember, he lost the 2016 popular vote to Hillary by 2.8 million votes!

2 hours ago, Bull City said:

So, if you were to talk with some one who supports him, it would be interesting to find out what they think his policies are, and what they like about them. Surely we can't have 74 million completely irrational voters.

But we do!  I wasn't in the military (can you tell?) so never developed the habit of silently taking orders from anyone I don't respect.  My mother's effort to instill politeness was overridden by my father's (and his father's) propensity for vehement argument.  So I have a very hard time listening for long to anyone's nonsense.  I can respond with rebuttal or walk away but I don't nod in tacit agreement to complete bullshit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bull City said:

The weird thing to me is that if you look at significant legislation and executive branch actions during Trump's term, it was a tax cut for corporations and the wealthy, the appointment of conservative judges, and not much else. Of course there was all of the Trump Drama, the trade war and the pandemic response, but not much else. Tax policy and judicial appointments are something that reasonable people can differ on. 

So, if you were to talk with some one who supports him, it would be interesting to find out what they think his policies are, and what they like about them. Surely we can't have 74 million completely irrational voters.

  Do not forget rewriting NAFTA, wiping the floor with Canada in the process, opening the Cheese Curtain kimono.  The only world leader not beholden to China, and bringing back how many $Bil in trade deficit?  Steel & aluminum smelters that had been practically mothballed opened up again.  Trade unions backing a Republican Trump was not because they were pickup driving illiterates from fly-over states.  

  Now the East Coast of The Socialist Police State Of Canuckistan is a different beast entirely.  There is family money, more oil than Saudi Arabia, and zero chance of breaking class barriers.  Either you are born to generations of money, or your on the 'pogy'.  With something like a 24% sales tax, on top of hidden taxes, and gawd forbid you drive to another province once a quarter to load up on cheaper beer, Dudley Doo-Right will be there waiting for his cut.

  Nevermind Newfoundland, those on The Rock are, as my Scottish mum would say, 'shifty lookin'

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Dilligaf0220 said:

  Do not forget rewriting NAFTA, wiping the floor with Canada in the process, opening the Cheese Curtain kimono.  The only world leader not beholden to China, and bringing back how many $Bil in trade deficit?  Steel & aluminum smelters that had been practically mothballed opened up again.  Trade unions backing a Republican Trump was not because they were pickup driving illiterates from fly-over states.  

  Now the East Coast of The Socialist Police State Of Canuckistan is a different beast entirely.  There is family money, more oil than Saudi Arabia, and zero chance of breaking class barriers.  Either you are born to generations of money, or your on the 'pogy'.  With something like a 24% sales tax, on top of hidden taxes, and gawd forbid you drive to another province once a quarter to load up on cheaper beer, Dudley Doo-Right will be there waiting for his cut.

  Nevermind Newfoundland, those on The Rock are, as my Scottish mum would say, 'shifty lookin'

 

What the hell are you on about man???  The re-write of NAFTA didn't have any real impact on us, all the bullshit opening negotiating points magically evaporated.  China trade deficit?  Imposing duties doesn't hurt China, it hurt American consumers.    And your east coast Canada rant comes across (to someone who lives and works happily in east coast canada) as a batshit crazy stream of nonsense.  Go take your meds and come back later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

But we do!  I wasn't in the military (can you tell?) so never developed the habit of silently taking orders from anyone I don't respect.  My mother's effort to instill politeness was overridden by my father's (and his father's) propensity for vehement argument.  So I have a very hard time listening for long to anyone's nonsense.  I can respond with rebuttal or walk away but I don't nod in tacit agreement to complete bullshit.

"But we do!" I'm sorry, but cannot accept that there are 74 million lunatics at large. Read this again, please. There are a lot of nuances.

1 hour ago, 2airishuman said:

I have spoken with many of his supporters, some of whom are people I have known for decades.  Like you, I seek to understand.  These people fall neatly into two categories.  Some are longtime Republican voters who are intellectually conservative and who supported Trump because he's the Republican candidate and they didn't perceive his shortcomings to be serious enough for them to cross party lines.  Like you, many of these individuals point out that Trump's actual policy initiatives--the ones that had any real, lasting effect--were largely straight out of the Republican playbook or were simply good policy changes on their own merits whose time had come.  Few would find fault with drawing down the USA's involvement in foreign wars, for example, or with taking a harder line on trade with China.

The others perceive themselves to be in a culture war that puts their lifestyle and ability to live out their values at risk.  Generally these individuals have very traditional value sets that emphasize a nuclear family, a sense of American heritage and roots that extends back several generations, and a bellicose zero-sum world view.  Many of them draw a significant portion of their identity from activities such as hunting, motorsports, and firearms that would be subject to significant restrictions under planks in the Democratic party's platform.  Many of them, including women, see Trump's and Kavanaugh's past harassment of women as part of the normal relationship that should exist between the sexes and do not believe that government should have a role in regulating what they see as ordinary human courtship.  Surprisingly many are, well, bigoted, and applauded Trump's moves on immigration for that reason.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, sculpin said:

What the hell are you on about man???  The re-write of NAFTA didn't have any real impact on us, all the bullshit opening negotiating points magically evaporated.  China trade deficit?  Imposing duties doesn't hurt China, it hurt American consumers.    And your east coast Canada rant comes across (to someone who lives and works happily in east coast canada) as a batshit crazy stream of nonsense.  Go take your meds and come back later.

Do you think you could state your disagreement and reasons without an ad hominem attack? You're giving eastern Canada a bad name. Really!

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bull City said:

Read this again, please. There are a lot of nuances.

I read it the first time and upvoted that post by @2airishuman, it's very good.

Here's a question I'd like to ask the "74 million lunatics at large": Do you (they) believe Trump and McConnell are honorable men?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bull City said:

Do you think you could state your disagreement and reasons without an ad hominem attack? You're giving eastern Canada a bad name. Really!

Yes, and the post I was responding to was a well reasoned and rational piece of work.  (to be clear, that is sarcasm, I will sleep well tonight.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bull City said:

They probably were, but it's still important to find out what the other person thinks. As I said, I can't believe there are 74 million irrational, hate-filled lunatics out there.

No idea on the 74 million. I can only comment on my two former brothers and a few former aunts and uncles. Every one of them has demonstrated that they either lack empathy or have limited empathy for others. Some of them have always been somewhat to extremely selfish individuals. A few of them have had more than the average number of challenges in life and those few are definitely looking for someone else to blame for those challenges. 

On the people who stormed the capital...I will defer to the lawyer for the guy known as "QAnon Shaman" for his take on that crowd. Here's his take on the insurrectionist (I do agree with his take on the propaganda. Eliminating the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcast news was the beginning of this shit storm that we are currently enduring.): 

 

The attorney for alleged insurrectionist and “QAnon Shaman” Jacob Chansley says that his client and other accused Capitol rioters were uniquely vulnerable to being misled by former President Trump’s lies. “A lot of these defendants… they’re all fucking short-bus people,” Albert Watkins told Talking Points Memo. “These are people with brain damage, they’re fucking retarded... But they’re our brothers, our sisters, our neighbors, our coworkers—they’re part of our country. These aren’t bad people, they don’t have prior criminal history. Fuck, they were subjected to four-plus years of goddamn propaganda the likes of which the world has not seen since fucking Hitler.”

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately mankind is as responsive to herd mentality as other animals. Every cattleman knows that you can move a huge number of animals by maintaining influence over just a small number, who then spread the movement. Someone mentioned drinking the Koolaid. That's actually a great analogy. When Jim Jones gave the order to drink the poison, it only took a few acolytes calmly following his bidding to convince almost all of the herd to follow suit.  In half a decade we have witnessed a small number of people, aided by a pseudo-news channel and the internet, influence masses of people.

My brother, a retired physician, is more terse about the situation today than me. His analogy is that if we are back in grade school, then it's as if the really stupid people and the unruly 'discipline problems' have taken over the class. Stupidity - rejection of science - is being celebrated. Those of us who are studious and polite are sitting in our seats, dumbfounded. Today we are sitting on our hands while Congress blatantly moves to restrict people's right to vote. I should note that my brother is also politically unaffiliated.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject."

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Fleetwood said:

"Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject."

Attribution: John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St. Andrews, Feb. 1st 1867

Here's another:

"When the doctrine of allegiance to party can utterly up-end a man's moral constitution and make a temporary fool of him besides, what excuse are you going to offer for preaching it, teaching it, extending it, perpetuating it? Shall you say, the best good of the country demands allegiance to party? Shall you also say it demands that a man kick his truth and his conscience into the gutter, and become a mouthing lunatic, besides?"
-- Samuel Clemens, "Consistency", paper read at the Hartford Monday Evening Club on 5 December 1887. The Complete Essays of Mark Twain

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people's assertions about what is going on in government are blatantly false.  Both sides.  I've spent a lot of time in D.C. as a lawyer and am not an insider of any sort any more, but I have to read a lot of primary source information for work - legislation, policy papers, GAO reports - and I cringe all the time and try to avoid getting into arguments with people who aren't in the technocracy.   I'm right-leaning.  I've worked for both right and left politicians.  90% of what they actually do almost all the time is just keep the engine turning over, but retail politics is a jungle of gaslighting centered on generating rage to drive donations and votes.  Political leadership in both parties know this, as do many in the mass media leadership.  

The standard narrative is (1) WHAT THE OTHER SIDE IS DOING IS AWWWFFFUL!!!!!!!!  (2) GET ENGAGED NOW TO STOP THEM OR IT"S THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!  (3) Send checks here. See you at the polls in October.

The only difference between partisan mass media and politicians is that the media, and social media, is more about views and ad revenue.  The only purpose of a Brian Stelter or a Tucker Carlson is to whip up the red meat base, and to some extent, to draw hate watchers too ("Did you see what that wanker said last night on the Daily Screamed Opinion Show?").  Doesn't matter how you get there, clicks and viewers are good for ad revenue, and good revenue encourages the development of more shout shows and panel discussions with 8 people looking at all the ways Trump or Biden sux.  The rage-for-profit becomes self-perpetuating.  The internet media operates on the same model, pissed off people hit the clickbait, retweet both what made them angry and what reinforces their beliefs, and generally drive up site views.  The angrier you get, the more you click on stuff that makes you angry, and you get angrier still and click more.  The social media ad revenue model is a really transparent version of this model - it's one strange trick to get money and power, click here, you won't believe what Republicans/Dems etc. are doing... And if you click they feed you more outrage-generating clickbait. 

I've come to view the most motivated, alarmed and angry people more as victims of bastards operating a long con than as knowledgeable political actors.  Sure, they're knowledgeable... but it's being knowledgeable of their own side's cherry Kool Aid mostly.  Sure, there's enough facts sprinkled in but the overall posture of Kool Aid isn't cherry, it's ersatz cherry.  I can't help the Kool Aid drinkers, mostly don't even try any more.  I was a Kool Aid drinker but eventually woke up, as happens to people close to the Men Behind The Curtain(TM). This recently happened to a Dem pollster friend of mine and now he's writing white papers on how we need a party that's about governance and not built primarily for fundraising organized around a few hot button topics, which is how he views both parties at the moment.  A Saul on the road to Tarsus experience for him... he's a highly partisan internal pollster and he knows it's horseshit.   It's gotten bad enough that both parties have their own really obnoxious insurgencies that they have no idea how to handle.  If you think the DNC wants the Antifa/BLM revolutionary faction in the tent, you're nuts; as nutty as people who think the RNC actually wants Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Green (or Elise Stefanik (who believe with all their heart and soul in The One True President(TM) )  - in Republican leadership. The problem with rage-based politics is it relies on these golem-like rage-stoking monsters that eventually grow too big to manage, even for their creators.    

I can't fix the big picture, and I can't help anybody out of the Kool Aid-intoxicated mindset who doesn't have a sense they need to think about things differently.   But I can be friends with them, at least the people who aren't spluttering with rage at all times, and that's what I'm trying to do.  So I don't post in PA. Ain't nobody convincing anybody of anything over there.  I believe in what Orwell pointed out, that common decency in how we treat others is more important than all the smelly little orthodoxies. If more people thought that way the politicians would be forced to respond to that viewpoint.  Many of us though are caught in a cycle of ever increasing rage.  Not me, thanks.  If you treat me decently despite my politics (whatever our views are) and I'll treat you decently. Shit, I'll treat you decently until you decide to treat me badly.  

Them's my rules.  Unlike my views about the issues (which may be wrong from time to time, in my experience), I know I'm right about it and I'm stickin' to them.  And somewhere, a push-pollster is crying about that, which makes me happy. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Lex Teredo said:

Most people's assertions about what is going on in government are blatantly false.  Both sides.  I've spent a lot of time in D.C. as a lawyer and am not an insider of any sort any more, but I have to read a lot of primary source information for work - legislation, policy papers, GAO reports - and I cringe all the time and try to avoid getting into arguments with people who aren't in the technocracy.   I'm right-leaning.  I've worked for both right and left politicians.  90% of what they actually do almost all the time is just keep the engine turning over, but retail politics is a jungle of gaslighting centered on generating rage to drive donations and votes.  Political leadership in both parties know this, as do many in the mass media leadership.  

The standard narrative is (1) WHAT THE OTHER SIDE IS DOING IS AWWWFFFUL!!!!!!!!  (2) GET ENGAGED NOW TO STOP THEM OR IT"S THE END OF THE WORLD!!!!  (3) Send checks here. See you at the polls in October.

The only difference between partisan mass media and politicians is that the media, and social media, is more about views and ad revenue.  The only purpose of a Brian Stelter or a Tucker Carlson is to whip up the red meat base, and to some extent, to draw hate watchers too ("Did you see what that wanker said last night on the Daily Screamed Opinion Show?").  Doesn't matter how you get there, clicks and viewers are good for ad revenue, and good revenue encourages the development of more shout shows and panel discussions with 8 people looking at all the ways Trump or Biden sux.  The rage-for-profit becomes self-perpetuating.  The internet media operates on the same model, pissed off people hit the clickbait, retweet both what made them angry and what reinforces their beliefs, and generally drive up site views.  The angrier you get, the more you click on stuff that makes you angry, and you get angrier still and click more.  The social media ad revenue model is a really transparent version of this model - it's one strange trick to get money and power, click here, you won't believe what Republicans/Dems etc. are doing... And if you click they feed you more outrage-generating clickbait. 

I've come to view the most motivated, alarmed and angry people more as victims of bastards operating a long con than as knowledgeable political actors.  Sure, they're knowledgeable... but it's being knowledgeable of their own side's cherry Kool Aid mostly.  Sure, there's enough facts sprinkled in but the overall posture of Kool Aid isn't cherry, it's ersatz cherry.  I can't help the Kool Aid drinkers, mostly don't even try any more.  I was a Kool Aid drinker but eventually woke up, as happens to people close to the Men Behind The Curtain(TM). This recently happened to a Dem pollster friend of mine and now he's writing white papers on how we need a party that's about governance and not built primarily for fundraising organized around a few hot button topics, which is how he views both parties at the moment.  A Saul on the road to Tarsus experience for him... he's a highly partisan internal pollster and he knows it's horseshit.   It's gotten bad enough that both parties have their own really obnoxious insurgencies that they have no idea how to handle.  If you think the DNC wants the Antifa/BLM revolutionary faction in the tent, you're nuts; as nutty as people who think the RNC actually wants Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Green (or Elise Stefanik (who believe with all their heart and soul in The One True President(TM) )  - in Republican leadership. The problem with rage-based politics is it relies on these golem-like rage-stoking monsters that eventually grow too big to manage, even for their creators.    

I can't fix the big picture, and I can't help anybody out of the Kool Aid-intoxicated mindset who doesn't have a sense they need to think about things differently.   But I can be friends with them, at least the people who aren't spluttering with rage at all times, and that's what I'm trying to do.  So I don't post in PA. Ain't nobody convincing anybody of anything over there.  I believe in what Orwell pointed out, that common decency in how we treat others is more important than all the smelly little orthodoxies. If more people thought that way the politicians would be forced to respond to that viewpoint.  Many of us though are caught in a cycle of ever increasing rage.  Not me, thanks.  If you treat me decently despite my politics (whatever our views are) and I'll treat you decently. Shit, I'll treat you decently until you decide to treat me badly.  

Them's my rules.  Unlike my views about the issues (which may be wrong from time to time, in my experience), I know I'm right about it and I'm stickin' to them.  And somewhere, a push-pollster is crying about that, which makes me happy. 

Lex, I share a lot of your concerns, and agree with your “do unto others” philosophy.

I happen to be left-leaning, and probably get 20 or more rage-stoking fundraising emails per day.

I ignore them, but that doesn’t mean that I am apolitical: simply Worn out by the barrage of emails telling me the world is going to end if I don’t give $25.

Re your Biblical reference, Saul of Tarsus was on the road to Damascus when he had his epiphany.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, accnick said:

telling me the world is going to end if I don’t give $25.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lex Teredo I agree with you that the financing of political parties is done through hard sales techniques (not only a US thing), nevertheless some politicians have no moral compass and should be judged on that whatever the colours they fly. It happens in many places, for instance I think that in 30 years time historians will judge very harshly Boris Johnson for taking his country out of Europe mostly for his political gain rather than the general interest of British people.  I could be wrong but I suspect that it is true...

As for Trump I don't know, we were laughing a lot at his poor vocabulary and his idiotic remarks but the guy is so out of tune with the kind of people I meet in real life that I can't understand his thinking and his motivations. We didn't like G.W. Bush for the mess he was creating in the middle East but at least we could understand where he came from. For Trump I will have to call it an impossible to breach cultural gap (or valley, or canyon!).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lex Teredo said:

If you treat me decently despite my politics (whatever our views are) and I'll treat you decently. Shit, I'll treat you decently until you decide to treat me badly.  

 


Them's my rules.  Unlike my views about the issues (which may be wrong from time to time, in my experience), I know I'm right about it and I'm stickin' to them.  And somewhere, a push-pollster is crying about that, which makes me happy. 

This. It's been my attitude for decades. After studying Games Theory as part of a postgrad degree I even had some sound theoretical basis for it.

I do regard continually lying to me especially after being given factual rebuttal as treating me badly, though. That's assuming that I'm an idiot which is insulting.

FKT

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lex Teredo said:

Most people's assertions about what is going on in government are blatantly false.  Both sides.

I understand and agree with most of what you said about fund raising... but that statement is a broad brush.  The phrase "both sides" distorts real differences, especially with regard to the truth.  I can see faults with Democrats too, but Republicans have seriously lost their way and can hardly say anything anymore without bald face lying and bad faith positions that serve a small portion of citizens, primarily the ultra rich and conservative evangelicals.

Listen to this typical bullshit from McConnell at 0:26 compared to what Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) says in response.  Night and day differences on multiple levels!  Saying "both sides do it" muddies the water when some of the policy issues really are critical to how we live and govern ourselves.  The "both sides" fallacy has been a large part of how U.S. media has utterly failed to report important distinctions clearly.

Despite the video title, this clip has nothing to do with "New Details About Jan. 6th Capitol Riot".  

 

P.S.  I haven't watched this whole video yet but this screen grab got my attention, at 1:16.  Hah!

sedaris.thumb.jpg.3614d83ec87249c7629f1972bdce1528.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Bull intended this thread to be an apolitical exploration of neighborliness and decent manners (or lack thereof), but the inexorable pull of partisan politics seems to triumph...

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jim in Halifax said:

I think Bull intended this thread to be an apolitical exploration of neighborliness and decent manners (or lack thereof), but the inexorable pull of partisan politics seems to triumph...

Yeah, well, in the first sentence of the first post in this thread, Bull said "(it's about politics)".  They are the root cause of friction between neighbors discussed in the article he referred to.

  • Is the neighborhood a better place when the subject of politics is rigorously avoided?
     
  • Do those here who insist on "take it to PA" (and STFU) believe that the only way to discuss politics "across the aisle", so to speak, is screaming personal insults at each other?

Neither of those options has worked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Jim in Halifax said:

I think Bull intended this thread to be an apolitical exploration of neighborliness and decent manners (or lack thereof), but the inexorable pull of partisan politics seems to triumph...

Jim,

As I stated in my first post...it's not about politics. It's about morals. 

Here's a great example. I used to rent a beach house in Dewey Beach, DE with a bunch of people from both sides of the aisle. Many of them worked on the Hill. Some worked in high tech like me. A few were med students or doctors. Ari Fleischer was one of people on the lease. He was a great friend even though we had very different political views. We often had great discussions in that beach house. There was a ton of mutual respect and it was an awesome group of friends. When the former guy came along a few of the people jumped on his band wagon, including Ari. Even the conservatives who did not jump on that bandwagon will no longer refer to Ari as a friend. 

Cheers,

Phil 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kolibri said:

As I stated in my first post...it's not about politics. It's about morals. 

I understand your intent but the word "morals" has a pseudo religious, judgmental quality to it.  Everyone doesn't agree on the morality of many common aspects of life like sexual orientation, abortion, drug and alcohol use and war, to name a few examples.  More objective words might be "ethics" and "honesty"?

However, I don't consider "politics" to be a bad word.  I met a woman, long ago, who had a "POLITICS IS RAPE" bumper sticker on her car.  When we got around to discussing it, I said I thought politics was about negotiating compromise, the opposite of rape.  She removed the bumper sticker a day or two later.

When one side refuses to negotiate and compromise, to acknowledge some validity in the other's concerns, the game is over.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

I understand your intent but the word "morals" has a pseudo religious, judgmental quality to it.  Everyone doesn't agree on the morality of many common aspects of life like sexual orientation, abortion, drug and alcohol use and war, to name a few examples.  More objective words might be "ethics" and "honesty"?

However, I don't consider "politics" to be a bad word.  I met a woman, long ago, who had a "POLITICS IS RAPE" bumper sticker on her car.  When we got around to discussing it, I said I thought politics was about negotiating compromise, the opposite of rape.  She removed the bumper sticker a day or two later.

When one side refuses to negotiate and compromise, to acknowledge some validity in the other's concerns, the game is over.

I beg to differ. "religion" isn't mentioned in the first 4 definitions on Dictionary.com. Regardless, the former guy is an amoral POS. Also, I am definitely not a religious person. 12 years of Catholic school pretty much beat that out of me...literally:

 

moral

[ mawr-uhl, mor- ]
adjective
1.  of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:moral attitudes.
2.  expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work.
3.  founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom:moral obligations.
4.  capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct:a moral being.
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kolibri said:

I beg to differ. "religion" isn't mentioned in the first 4 definitions on Dictionary.com.

I looked it up too, before I posted.  Even so, morals are more fluid than ethics or honesty.

"in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, while in practice there is"
 -- Benjamin Brewster, “The Yale Literary Magazine” of February 1882 (source)

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ProaSailor said:

I looked it up too, before I posted.  Even so, morals are more fluid than ethics or honesty.

 

Put whatever semantic twist you want on it. The divide is over morals, ethics, honesty.....not politics.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kolibri said:

The divide is over morals, ethics, honesty.....not politics. 

The role of government (or any large organization, actually) in forming rules and policies is about negotiation and compromise.   That's politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned a conversation I had with an old friend. We talked about a few issues of the day: healthcare for all, and free college tuition. He was very anti-Bernie, because he was concerned about how we could pay for such things, but not on the desirability of both things. Morals or values weren't an issue. 

Many people and politicians don't seem to see those things as desirable or important. I say that because they they either never introduce legislation to accomplish it, or they sabotage what is in place, like the Affordable Care Act.

I think a lot of it gets down to who we care about. Outside of ourselves, do we care about the future of our children and grandchildren? The children down the street? Those across town? What are we willing to do to help those in need? Some folks government at any level as the enemy; some see it as the community trying to solve problems.

So I agree with @Kolibri.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bull City said:

I mentioned a conversation I had with an old friend. We talked about a few issues of the day: healthcare for all, and free college tuition. He was very anti-Bernie, because he was concerned about how we could pay for such things, but not on the desirability of both things. Morals or values weren't an issue. 

Many people and politicians don't seem to see those things as desirable or important. I say that because they they either never introduce legislation to accomplish it, or they sabotage what is in place, like the Affordable Care Act.

I think a lot of it gets down to who we care about. Outside of ourselves, do we care about the future of our children and grandchildren? The children down the street? Those across town? What are we willing to do to help those in need? Some folks (see) government at any level as the enemy; some see it as the community trying to solve problems.

So I agree with @Kolibri.

The folks who see the gov't as the enemy are kinda like the people who see the police as the enemy

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The folks who see the gov't as the enemy are kinda like the people who see the police as the enemy

Do you mean that both groups are black?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:
49 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

The folks who see the gov't as the enemy are kinda like the people who see the police as the enemy

Do you mean that both groups are black?

I don't think most black people see police as "the enemy," they just want to not be brutalized/killed by them

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I don't think most black people see police as "the enemy," they just want to not be brutalized/killed by them

As a general principle I'd say that the gap between the categories of "enemy" and "people who brutalise and kill us and systematically criminalise us but almost never get punished" is more terminological than substantive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

As a general principle I'd say that the gap between the categories of "enemy" and "people who brutalise and kill us and systematically criminalise us but almost never get punished" is more terminological than substantive.

Black people still call the police when they have a crime problem..... of course, there's always the issue of not having any other options

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Black people still call the police when they have a crime problem..... of course, there's always the issue of not having any other options

Indeed, there aren't many other options, esp when everything else has been defunded.  But the black Americans I know don't call the police in the same way that white Americans do.  The black people have a whole extra layer of calculations to make before taking that risk.

1624075919_Americancopswhentheyfindouttheresablacksea.jpg.b34fda09af222d6e9a1646429327723c.jpg

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

Indeed, there aren't many other options, esp when everything else has been defunded.  But the black Americans I know don't call the police in the same way that white Americans do.  The black people have a whole extra layer of calculations to make before taking that risk.

A very meaningful distinction. This is trivial compared to what many Black Americans have suffered at the hands of police, but I do remember an automobile trip from New York to Miami in 1959. My parents rented a house in upstate NY for a month vacation. While there, our car died and my father bought a new one (a Studebaker), When vacation was over, we (Dad, Mom and three children) piled into the car for the three day trip home to Miami.

Some where in Georgia, the New York plates attracted the attention of the deputy manning one of the the many speed traps, and he pulled us over. The deputy was a pig. He said that my father would have to get in the back of his car and go to the station with him, and my mother would have to follow in our car. My mother said she couldn't drive (she could) because she was scared shitless for my father if he were to be separated from us. 

The deputy hemmed and hawed and eventually accepted payment of the fine in cash. That was bad enough for White folks; it is easy to believe the abuse that Black Americans have experienced over the years.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...